Glossary/Concepts

Anthropocene

Anthropocentrism

Corporate personhood

Ecocentrism/biocentrism

Ecological footprint

Legal personhood

Ontology

Political question doctrine

Preemption

Standing

Tragedy of the commons

***AFFIRMATIVE***
1AC
 1AC---Sustainability
The advantage is sustainability:

Current environmental law is anthropocentric because it views ecosystems as the property

of humanity---that locks in endless, unsustainable growth with no regard for biophysical
limits
David R. Boyd 17, associate professor of law, policy, and sustainability at the University of British Columbia,
2017, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World, unpaginated ebook edition
Humans today have a deeply troubled relationship with other animals and species, and with the ecosystems upon
which all life on Earth depends . We purport to love animals but regularly inflict pain and suffering upon them. Every year, according
to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization, humans kill over 100 billion animals—fish, chickens, ducks, pigs, rabbits, turkeys,
geese, sheep, goats, cattle, dogs, whales, wolves, elephants, lions, dolphins, and more. Scientists are in agreement that human actions
are causing the sixth mass extinction in the 4.5-billion-year history of the planet. Species are being declared extinct every
year, and we are pushing thousands more to the brink of oblivion. Humans are damaging, destroying, or eliminating entire
ecosystems, including native forests, grasslands, coral reefs, and wetlands. Ancient, complex, and vital planetary systems
—the climate, water, and nitrogen cycles—are being disrupted by our actions.
Homo sapiens emerged from Africa less than 200,000 years ago. Thanks to their fertility, adaptability, and ability to use technology, our
ancestors colonized the entire Earth around 12,000 years ago, including the continents we now call Europe, Asia, Australia, North America, and
South America. Over the course of the past two centuries, our population has exploded, growing from one billion in 1800 to 7.5 billion today.
While birth rates are falling the world over, the latest UN estimates indicate that increased longevity and improved health are
pushing us toward a population of ten billion people by 2050.
To meet the needs and desires of this booming population, the global economy has also exploded , from a worldwide GDP of
about one trillion dollars a century ago to more than 100 trillion dollars today. Much of this economic growth has been driven by
ever-increasing human appropriation of land, forests, water, wildlife, and other “natural resources .”
Our environmental impact has grown exponentially because of population and economic growth. Humanity’s
collective ecological footprint is estimated to be 1.6 Earths , meaning we are using natural goods and services 1.6 times
faster than they are being replenished. This is largely the result of high levels of consumption in wealthy nations. Geologists, a group
hardly known for hyperbole, have named this geological era the Anthropocene because of the scope and scale of human impacts on the Earth.
Our ongoing use and misuse of other animals, species, and nature is rooted in three entrenched and related ideas . The first
is anthropocentrism — the widespread human belief that we are separate from, and superior to, the rest of the natural
world. Through this superiority complex, humans see ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution. The second is that everything in nature,
animate and inanimate, constitutes our property , which we have the right to use as we see fit. The third idea is that we can
and should pursue limitless economic growth as the paramount objective of modern society. Anthropocentrism and property
“rights” provide the foundations of contemporary industrial society, underpinning everything from law and economics to
education and religion. Economic growth is the principal objective for governments and businesses, and it consistently trumps
concerns about the environment.
These ideas have a long history. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that animals lacked souls and reason and therefore, as inferior
creatures, were appropriately used as resources by man. As he wrote in Politics, “Plants exist for the sake of animals, and animals for the sake of
man—domestic animals for his use and food, wild ones for food and other accessories of life, such as clothing and various tools. Since nature
makes nothing purposeless or in vain, it is undeniably true that she has made all animals for the sake of man.” Aristotle also worked with Plato to
develop the concept of a hierarchical ladder of existence that ranked animals and plants. Later Christian philosophers built upon this, devising the
Great Chain of Being that placed humans near the top of the ladder, just below God and the angels. Non-human animals languished below us,
while snakes, insects, and creatures incapable of movement occupied even lower rungs. The chain imposed a strict hierarchy on all life forms.
Genesis, the Christian creation story, states that God made humans in his image and granted us “dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Humans were given clear
instructions: “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it.” Not all Christians viewed the rest of creation as subject to human
dominion. St. Francis of Assisi advocated for the equality of all creatures, referring to the sun, the Earth, the water, and the wind as his brothers
and sisters. St. Francis, however, was an outlier.
During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, some of history’s most influential thinkers reinforced the anthropocentric perspective, and the
place of animals in human society took a turn for the worse. Non-human animals were deemed unable to speak, reason, or even feel. French
philosopher René Descartes forcefully expressed the idea that “animals are mere machines” and wrote, “The reason animals do not speak as we
do is not that they lack the organs, but that they have no thoughts.” Descartes concluded, “Man stands alone.” Similarly, German philosopher
Immanuel Kant wrote, “Animals are not self-conscious and are merely a means to an end. That end is man . . . our duties toward animals are
merely indirect duties toward humanity.”
A contrary and more progressive attitude toward animals was suggested by nineteenth-century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. He
concluded that the critical moral question for how we should treat animals “is not Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” In
his view, some animals could indeed feel pain, and therefore had the right not to be harmed. Bentham’s ideas did not prevail in his own time, but
they eventually influenced Peter Singer, author of the 1975 best-seller Animal Liberation that kickstarted the modern animal rights movement.
Anthropocentric ideas are still in vogue today. In his 2004 book, Putting Humans First: Why We Are Nature’s Favorite, libertarian philosopher
Tibor R. Machan wrote, “Humans are more important, even better, than other animals, and we deserve the benefits that exploiting animals can
provide.” Because humans are the most important species, Machan continued, “it is right to exploit nature to promote our own lives and
happiness.”
The notion of human superiority is even entrenched in landmark international environmental agreements. The first global eco-summit, held in
Sweden in 1972, produced the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (more commonly known as the
Stockholm Declaration). It proclaimed, “Of all things in the world, people are the most precious.” The 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil resulted in
the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, which stated, “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development.”
The notion that humans are distinct from, and superior to, other animals permeates Western legal systems, producing
outcomes that are at odds with reality. For example, any biologist will tell you that humans are animals. But the law disagrees. Black’s
Law Dictionary, the most widely used law dictionary in Canada and the United States, still defines an animal as “any animate being which is
endowed with the power of voluntary motion. In the language of the law the term includes all living creatures not human” (emphasis added).
Other legal definitions of “animal” are even more absurd. In the U.S., the Animal Welfare Act includes a definition of animal that explicitly
excludes rats, mice, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and farm animals. Why? To ensure that even the limited protections offered by that law are not
available to animals used in agriculture or research or caught in fisheries.
Property
The idea that nature is merely a collection of things intended for human use is one of the most universal and unquestioned concepts in
contemporary society. Hundreds of years ago, influential legal scholar William Blackstone, author of the authoritative Commentaries on the Law
of England, wrote, “The Earth, and all things herein, are the general property of mankind, exclusive of other beings, from the immediate gift of
the creator.”
It is remarkable to reflect on the fact that although there are millions of species on Earth, a single species of hyperintelligent primates—Homo
sapiens—has laid claim, through the assertion of legal ownership, to almost every square metre of the 148 million square kilometres of land on
the planet. There is virtually no more terra nullius, or “nobody’s land,” as the famous explorers described land uninhabited by their kind of
people. In today’s world, land is either private property or state-owned property.
Private or public, it’s all owned by humans.
Among the planet’s few exceptions to the universal assertion of human ownership are a pair of places, linked by their remoteness and utter
inhospitality to humans. One is a desolate and uninhabited area of the Antarctic known as Marie Byrd Land. It’s protected from future human
ownership claims through an international treaty. Another chunk of land where until recently humans did not claim ownership is Bir Tawil, an
2,072square-kilometre stretch of mountains, sand, and rock in the desert between Egypt and the Sudan. A longstanding boundary dispute between
the two African nations resulted in both asserting jurisdiction over a larger parcel of productive land, known as Hala’ib, and renouncing their
ownership of Bir Tawil. In 2014, American Jeremiah Heaton journeyed to Bir Tawil and staked an ownership claim. Heaton had promised to
make his daughter, Emily, a real princess and was seeking to keep his word. He made up a flag for what he calls the Kingdom of North Sudan
and planted it in Bir Tawil on Emily’s seventh birthday. As the self-proclaimed king, Heaton was able to fulfill his promise. He even claims to
have opened a European embassy in Copenhagen. Unbeknownst to Heaton, British journalist Jack Shenker had made the same journey four years
earlier, planting his flag and asserting sovereignty over and ownership of Bir Tawil.
The high seas—the open ocean beyond any country’s jurisdiction—are another refuge from humanity’s sweeping assertion of ownership. Yet,
while not “owned,” the high seas are treated as a global commons for human exploitation, a shared resource where massive factory fishing
trawler nets vacuum up life from the seas and renegade whaling nations still hunt whales under the guise of scientific harvests. Deep-sea mining,
previously unthinkable, is now becoming a reality.
In addition to owning all the land, humans claim ownership of the species that live upon that land: Animals are
regarded as property, things, or objects, no different in the eyes of the law than shoes, tables, or trinkets. This includes both domestic and
wild animals. From a legal perspective, ownership of an animal includes the rights to possess, use, transfer, dispose of, and exclude others from
taking it. Wildlife, even on privately owned land, is owned by state and provincial governments. For example, under New York’s Environmental
Conservation Law, “The State of New York owns all fish, game, wildlife, shellfish, and protected insects in the state.” Legislation in Oregon is
more concise: “Wildlife is the property of the state.” Courts have reinforced these rules of ownership. In a prosecution of a man for illegally
hunting deer, a court held that poachers “have no respect whatsoever for the State of Mississippi’s sovereign ownership of such magnificent God-
given creatures of the wild, entrusted to mankind for his consumption and/or enjoyment.” Animals that are sold are considered “goods” under the
U.S. Uniform Commercial Code, just like televisions, trucks, or toys.
In Canada, the law is the same. Wildlife and fish belong to the government until they are lawfully captured or killed, at which point they become
private property. Section 2 of the BC Wildlife Act is called Property in Wildlife and states, “Ownership in all wildlife in British Columbia is
vested in the government. . . . A person who lawfully kills wildlife and complies with all applicable provisions of this Act and the regulations
acquires the right of property in that wildlife.” Manitoba’s Fisheries Act states, “The property in all wild fish, including wild fish that have been
unlawfully caught, is vested in the Crown, and no person may acquire any right or property in such fish other than in accordance with this Act.”
The Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that “the fisheries resource includes the animals that inhabit the seas.” No matter where wildlife
lives, it belongs to humans.
When you stop to think about it, our arrogance is breathtaking. We’ve divided the diversity of life on Earth into two categories—
people and things. Us and them. We’re the only species with rights to the land, water, wildlife, and ecosystems of
the planet. Old-growth forests, rainforests, cloud forests, rivers, lakes, soil—these natural wonders are all considered
natural resources, and thus property owned by humans . To say we share this planet with millions of other species is
ecologically incontrovertible, but legally incorrect. If we are the only species with rights , we are the only species
that really matters .
While property rights are deeply rooted in Western legal systems, the concept of property responsibilities is largely
absent. In one-third of a second, Google produced 31,700,000 hits for the phrase “property rights,” but only 19,000 hits for “property
responsibilities.” Similarly, Google found 154,000,000 results for “human rights,” but only 41,000 for “human responsibilities.”
Indigenous Worldviews
There are exceptions to the widespread beliefs of human superiority, property rights, and the primacy of economic
growth. A contrasting perspective asserting that non-human entities have rights, and that humans have
corresponding responsibilities, has deep roots in cultures around the world . More than 1,000 years ago, a Sufi scholar wrote a
book called The Animals’ Lawsuit Against Humanity, in which all members of the animal kingdom—domestic and wild, from bees and mules to
frogs and lions— asserted that their rights were being systematically violated by humans. Adherents of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism
endorse, to varying degrees, the doctrine of ahimsa, which advocates reverence for all life and non-injury to all living things.
Indigenous cultures across the world cultivate complex understandings of human responsibilities toward the natural
world. Despite centuries of Western colonial thought , many still perceive human beings as interdependent—part of,
rather than separate from and superior to the rest of the natural world. A key element of the legal systems of many Indigenous
cultures is a set of reciprocal rights and responsibilities between humans and other species, as well as between humans and non-living elements of
the environment. Luther Standing Bear described the beliefs of his people, the Lakota: “The animals had rights—the right of a man’s protection,
the right to live, the right to multiply, the right to freedom, and the right of man’s indebtedness—and in recognition of these rights the Lakota
never enslaved the animal, and spared all life that was not needed for food and clothing.” In an essay called “The Right of Animal Nations to
Survive,” Haudenosaunee scholar John Mohawk wrote, “The Indian cultures accept the legitimacy of the animals, celebrate their presence,
propose that they are ‘peoples’ in the sense that they have an equal share in this planet and, like peoples, have the right to a continued existence.
Animals have the right to live as animals. If all of the above are true, humans have no right to destroy animal habitat, or hunt or fish them to
extinction.” Dr. Gregory Cajete of the University of New Mexico, a Tewa Indian, wrote, “Among Native people animals have always had rights,
and were equal to human beings in terms of their right to their lives and to the perpetuation of their species.”
Haida lawyer and artist Terri-Lynn Williams-Davidson wrote, “In the Haida worldview, the cedar tree is known as ‘every woman’s sister,’
providing for and sustaining our existence. This ancient sister lies at the root of Haida culture. She permeates every facet of Haida life, beginning
in the cradle and continuing to the grave and, finally, ending at the memorial potlatch and raising of memorial totem poles to commemorate and
celebrate one’s life and contributions to the community.” There is no doubt that seeing cedar trees as sisters instead of natural resources
dramatically changes human attitudes toward, and use of, forests.
In an Earth Covenant drafted by Williams-Davidson, responsibilities to the Earth come first, before rights. These responsibilities include
recognizing and respecting that we’re all part of an interconnected world, conserving and restoring the Earth and the species and cultures she
nurtures, managing our use of the Earth in ways that maintain her cycles and interrelationships and do not exceed planetary limits, and respecting
future generations. Once these responsibilities have been fulfilled, then people have concomitant rights and privileges to live in a healthy
environment and to benefit from the Earth and other species.
In 2003, the Navajo Tribal Council amended the Navajo Nation Code to recognize certain “fundamental laws,” including the rights of nature.
Title 1 of the Code declares and teaches that “all creation, from Mother Earth and Father Sky to the animals, those who live in the water, those
who fly and plant life have their own laws, and rights and freedom to exist.”
In 2015, the Ho-Chunk Nation, an Indigenous people based in Wisconsin, added a clause acknowledging the rights of nature to the bill of rights
portion of its constitution. They are the first tribal nation in the U.S. to do so. The amendment states, “Ecosystems and natural communities
within the Ho-Chunk territory possess an inherent, fundamental, and inalienable right to exist and thrive.” Fossil-fuel extraction is identified as a
violation of the rights of nature. Juliee de la Terre of Viterbo University, who assisted the Ho-Chunk, said to Wisconsin Public Radio that the
amendment intends “for nature to be protected by giving a voice through a human intervenor like a lawyer that can talk on behalf of the oak trees
and the water systems and everything else.” Jon Greendeer, the executive director of Heritage Preservation with the Ho-Chunk Nation, told
Rolling Stone, “What the rights of nature does is translate our beliefs from an indigenous perspective into modern legislation.”
Rights
Rights have a long and convoluted backstory. Moral rights are claims about what constitutes ethical behaviour, but are not necessarily recognized
by governments. For example, most people agree that Blacks in South Africa had moral rights, but these were not recognized by law and were
systematically violated under the apartheid regime. Legal rights, in contrast, are enshrined in law and are thus enforceable through societal
institutions. Human rights expert Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law School professor, argues that rights emerge from wrongs,
transgressions of what we believe to be ethical behaviour. Thus the horrors of World War II were the impetus for the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights.
New wrongs can and do emerge as our perceptions of what constitutes ethical behaviour evolve. There was a time when slavery and the
ownership of other human beings was not seen as wrong by the majority of people. But beginning with a handful of
individuals, a movement emerged denouncing slavery as a brutal and barbaric practice. Defenders of the status quo argued that slaves
were less than human, and therefore not worthy of moral consideration. As pressure mounted, defenders of slavery offered to
improve standards of treatment. Abolitionists were not impressed. Eventually, the beliefs of the majority shifted from acceptance
of slavery to abhorrence. Today, the right not to be enslaved is a basic human right. Rights are symbolically and
politically powerful, as the history of the civil rights, women’s rights, Indigenous rights, and gay rights movements
demonstrates. They are not a magic wand that can be waved to solve problems instantly, but they are a proven
means of securing progress in the way society embraces previously mistreated communities.
Changing Values, Changing Cultures, Changing Laws
Evolution—of ideas, law, technology, even life itself—is not a smooth or gradual process. Instead it happens in fits and
starts, in what scientists call punctuated equilibrium . Think of a geological fault line, where two of the Earth’s tectonic plates overlap. The
plates are in constant motion, as they have been since all the continents were united in one large land mass. The plates move slowly, just a few
centimetres every year. They would move faster or further but cannot because other plates are in the way. Pressure builds over decades, centuries,
or even millennia. Then the pressure reaches a breaking point, the plates slide, and the earth quakes.
That same process happens with science, culture, and laws. Ideas push against the status quo . Activists ramp up the pressure,
using every lawful means and sometimes even breaking the law. They are chastised, ridiculed, imprisoned, and killed. But
eventually, opinions, values, and paradigms shift.
Science can play a central role in these transformations. For eons, humans believed that Earth was the centre of the solar system, and that the sun
revolved around us. Those who challenged this worldview were ostracized, excommunicated, even burned at the stake. But eventually, the
heliocentric model was proven, and people came to accept that the Earth, in fact, travelled around the sun.
Over the past fifty years, scientists have produced remarkable discoveries about the intelligence, emotions, and cultures of other species of
animals, as well as the interconnectedness of ecosystems and the human impacts on those systems. Scientists who specialize in classifying
species recently changed our place in the taxonomy of nature. These specialists now place all the great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, and
orangutans) in the family Hominidae, previously reserved for humans alone.
Our beliefs and values about other animals, other species, and the Earth are undergoing a sea change. Most people today are horrified by stories
of cruelty to individual animals or the extinction of endangered species. We’ve all seen the images of Earth from outer space, a tiny blue dot in an
immense universe of stars, planets, black holes, and dark matter. There is a growing sense that something is amiss in our
relationship with the unique planet that we call home. Yet our laws and our actions have not yet changed to keep
pace with the evolution of our values.
Protecting the environment is impossible if we continue to assert human superiority and universal ownership of all
land and wildlife to pursue endless economic growth . Today’s dominant culture and the legal system that supports it
are self-destructive. We need a new approach rooted in ecology and ethics. Humans are but one species among millions, as
biologically dependent as any other on the ecosystems that produce water, air, food, and a stable climate. We are part of nature: not
independent, but interdependent. As conservationist and writer Aldo Leopold wrote, “Conservation is getting nowhere because it is
incompatible with our Abrahamic concept of land. We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us. When we see land as a
community to which we belong, we may begin to use it with love and respect.” Similarly, American philosopher Thomas Berry wrote about an
“Earth community,” referring to all life forms, human and “other than human.” From the radical perspective of Leopold and Berry, other species
and ecosystems are not merely for our enjoyment and exploitation.
The legal revolution described in this book has the potential to achieve three vital outcomes:
reducing the harm suffered by sentient animals, stopping human-caused species extinction , and protecting the
planet’s life-support systems .
To achieve these objectives, we urgently need to establish and enforce a new set of rights and responsibilities . The
rights belong to non-human animals, other species, and ecosystems. The responsibilities rest with humans. Science
and values have evolved—now our laws, institutions, cultures, economies, and behaviours need to do the same .

That structurally tilts environmental law toward human interests which guarantees
destruction of water resources and the broader environment---only conferring rights
directly to river ecosystems can systemically prioritize protection over unsustainable
growth
Linda Sheehan 19, Advisor, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature; Linda Sheehan Consulting, 2019,
“IMPLEMENTING NATURE’S RIGHTS THROUGH REGULATORY STANDARDS,” Vermont Journal of
Environmental Law, http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload926.pdf
The stated purpose of many current environmental laws and their implementing regulations is to achieve “healthy”
systems.17 For example, the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) states that the primary objective of marine mammal management
“should be to maintain the health and stability of the marine ecosystem.” 18 Similarly, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
“recognizes that each person should enjoy a healthful environment” 19 and “encourage[s] productive and enjoyable harmony” with the
environment. 20 It further encourages each person to exercise their “responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the
environment.”21 Similar language is found at the state level .22 For example, the California Coastal Act states that “[u]ses of the
marine environment shall…maintain healthy populations of all species of marine organisms.”23
The desired “healthy” environment, however, has failed to materialize because, as written, the laws cannot
structurally achieve these goals . 24 Environmental laws have addressed some acute issues, such as large sewage and
industrial pollution releases, but have failed to prevent longterm, devastating harm, such as climate change and species
extinctions.25 Lack of funding, political backtracking, understaffing, weak enforcement, and other challenges
certainly have created obstacles for success.26 A lack of understanding of systems science when the laws were
adopted exacerbates such struggles. 27 Our single-stressor laws simply did not envision systemic shifts such as pollution-caused,
runaway climate change.
However, fully implementing existing environmental laws and associated regulations would still fail to ensure a thriving
planet because the laws themselves are fundamentally flawed. 28 Rather than recognize that nature and humans are
interconnected, these laws assume that we can isolate and control elements of the natural world as we choose. Most
federal U.S. environmental laws were developed over 45 years ago as reactions to human-caused tragedies such as long-
term DDT contamination, dead Great Lakes, and regular river fires.29 The shared intent of these laws was to set goals that would
sustainably protect ecosystems and species and hold users of the environment to those goals. 30 Despite this benevolent intent, however, the
structure of these laws reflects a societal perspective that the natural world is in essence a resource to be manipulated
for profit and other human desires. The ideology behind these laws, in other words, is not far detached from the
ideology that generated the environmental harm the laws were designed to prevent.
Consistent with a frame of nature as economic resource , our environmental laws legalize and externalize the
impacts of pollution, rather than more generally apply bans. 31 The laws further place the burden of proof on those impacted
to show pollution is harmful, rather than on pollution dischargers to show it is not.32 They fail to include provisions to pay
back our collective debt to nature through affirmative, sweeping restoration activities or broad establishment of habitat reserves. 33 An
economic system that treats nature as capital pushes back on such approaches, which are inconsistent with natural
systems’ perceived role as primarily an economic good.
The U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a prime example. Often viewed as the closest approximation to a rights of nature statute, the ESA
operates from a basic premise that species as a whole have some right to exist, independent of their direct benefit to people.34 However, the “God
Squad” loophole35 and species-targeted attacks on the Act36 demonstrate the law’s limits in protecting the most fundamental of nature’s rights
when faced with conflicting human economic desires.37 Indeed, even the basic premise of the Act—to intervene only when species are poised to
vanish— demonstrates the law’s adherence to the current, primarily economic understanding of nature. 38 A law that recognized species’ own,
inherent rights to exist, thrive, and evolve might be called the “Healthy Species Act,” rather than the “Endangered Species Act.”39
Other examples include:
The U.S. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which allows public environmental review of projects subject to government approval, but
fails to require that negative environmental impacts be avoided or mitigated to insignificance. 40 It further fails to effectively consider cumulative
impacts, opening the door to environmental “death by a thousand cuts.”41
The U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), which places a “[m]oratorium on the taking and importation of marine mammals and marine
mammal products,” but fails to maintain the Act’s intent by issuing permits when economic interests arise. 42 For example, marine mammal
“take” permits were issued to aging California coastal power plants, which kill and injure marine mammals on seawater intake pipes.43
Unpermitted takings further occur regularly through destruction of habitats critical to threatened and endangered marine mammals; for example,
in California, the disappearance of once-abundant Chinook salmon and steelhead resulting from drained rivers endangers the existence of their
marine predators, including the mighty Southern Resident killer whale.44
The U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) calls in Section 101 for the “elimination by 1985” of the “discharge of pollutants,” but has clearly not achieved
that objective well over two decades later.45 The Act’s regulations in fact allow continued pollutant discharges through permits, notably limiting
the discharges only if they have a “reasonable potential” to violate individual standards.46 In other words, the “no pollution” in effect has been
interpreted as “no pollution that violates negotiated water quality standards” – a far weaker mandate that often not met.47
Our system of law is nested within a larger context of societal attitudes and assumptions that impact both the law’s
development and implementation.48 There is a critical ideological bias with regard to natural systems , which
“treat[s] the human will and its wants as the center around which” implementation of environmental laws must
revolve.49 Faced with this bias, the environment will lose —and, since we are connected, so will we .
Because our societal and economic framework treats the natural world as a resource for humans first and foremost ,
our environmental laws and the regulations implementing them fall short of achieving the “healthy” result they state they seek. 50 In practice,
they pursue at best an environmental status of “not too degraded,” and at worst, not irreversibly so .51
What, then, would science-based environmental laws and regulations that implement the inherent rights of nature
look like? How would we define an end result that respects nature’s rights? And how do we engage scientists in defining “healthy ecosystems
and species,” towards protecting nature’s own right to flourish?
Science has already guided the development of regulatory standards under current environmental laws . 52 These
standards helped clean up serious pollution and rescue near-extinct species. 53 Lessons learned from the development of these standards can
guide the development of a new system of regulatory standards that recognizes nature’s inherent rights to exist,
thrive, and evolve.
III. CLEAN WATER ACT REGULATIONS VS. REGULATIONS THAT PROTECT WATERWAYS’ INHERENT RIGHTS
To understand more deeply the concept of nature’s rights-based regulations, we will deconstruct key assumptions in CWA regulatory standards
and illustrate how those assumptions perpetuate harm. We will then demonstrate how to build standards that advance nature’s inherent rights.
The CWA establishes a national objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” 54
Regulations, including water quality standards, set goals for our relationship with a water body consistent with the overarching statutory
framework. 55 They further drive management action, including setting boundaries for enforcement.56
The CWA’s water quality standards contain three basic elements: the designated uses of each water body or its portion, water quality criteria to
protect designated uses, and anti-degradation policies and implementation procedures, which maintain and protect existing uses and higher
quality waters. 57 Examining the assumptions behind each of these elements, and their integration into overall water quality standards, uncovers
opportunities to better protect waterways through a rights-based approach.
A. Laundry List of “Designated Uses” vs. Prioritization of Water System Integrity
The first element of CWA water quality standards is the “designated uses” of the protected waterways. 58 A waterbody’s “designated uses”
include a laundry list of extractive and discharge activities, including industrial, municipal, and agricultural uses. 59 The list also includes
protection of the waterway for fish and other species. 60 The list itself generally fails to prioritize certain uses over others, though some states do
prioritize designated uses by statute. 61 Importantly, these lists legalize continued contamination and extraction of the waters of the United States
and exempt key sources of pollution,62 despite mounting harm from exempt sources63 and the CWA’s lofty goals.64 By failing to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants 25 years past the original deadline, the CWA prioritizes existing human
waterway uses over the well-being of waterways and nature’s needs.65 Human pressure will increasingly
marginalize waterways’ needs .
By contrast, a
nature’s rights-based approach to regulation would recognize that we must protect the well-being of
waterways, both from a moral and a utilitarian perspective . The “moral test of government, and the measure of its strength, is how
it treats its most vulnerable members—particularly with respect to meeting their most basic needs.” 66 From a utilitarian perspective as well,
sound waterways are critical not only to human health, but to life itself .67
Rather than formulating a laundry list of individual designated uses that focus on human extraction, a rights-based
regulatory approach would prioritize protection of natural water systems systemically and for basic needs first ,
through strategies such as significantly enhanced pollution controls, mandatory groundwater use regulations, flow
assurances, and restoration projects. Prioritization of a rights-based approach for waterways’ basic needs extends as
well to protection of the human right to water for basic needs , such as drinking, personal sanitation, and cooking –
again, above the use of water simply for profit. 68 Only by ensuring the integrity of water systems for fundamental environmental and
human needs can we ensure that human use beyond such needs is healthy.
B. Criteria to Support “Designated Uses” vs. Criteria to Protect Rights
The second element the CWA water quality standards is science-based water quality criteria to support the specific designated uses of each water
body. 69 Criteria can be defined as either numeric limits or narrative statements.70 The U.S. EPA publishes recommended science-based criteria
for particular uses, but states and tribes can adopt more stringent criteria.71 These criteria are intended to regulate waterway uses, such as the
amount and type of contamination that can be released, thereby ostensibly protecting the “chemical, physical, and biological integrity” of the
water body.72
The CWA’s outdated, reductionist system of isolating scientific analysis by species and media, rather than engaging in
modern, systems-based science, inhibits the effectiveness of its standards .73 More broadly, water law and science
should consider all sources of pollution in all bodies of water, including groundwater, as well as other elements of
waterway integrity, such as flow and native species and habitats. As applied today, CWA science assesses natural systems as an
aggregation of elements, rather than a system of inter-relationships. 74 Modern science articulates these interconnected systems,
and the regulatory standards must change to reflect this in order to advance the rights of natural systems to well-being.75
C. “Antidegradation” v. Restoration
The third leg of the CWA standards stool, the “antidegradation policy,” protects existing uses of waterways and exceptionally
healthy waterways.76 In practice, however, the policy is implemented sporadically and inadequately .77 This practice reinforces
the concept that prioritizes human economic use over waterway integrity.78
A rights-based approach would set a higher bar not only for minimally protecting, but also for continuously improving,
waterway health and wellbeing . Existing environmental laws, including the CWA, generally ignore a broad duty to
continually improve existing waterway health. 79 Future, rights-based environmental laws and regulations, however,
could effectively recognize this duty. For example, new laws and regulations could require restoration of natural
systems that go beyond making the ecosystem whole, remediating increasingly more of the long-term,
anthropogenic damage done. Standards assessing and measuring ecosystem health would increase accountability in such efforts to repair
anthropogenic damage to the natural world.80
IV. DEVELOPING REGULATORY STANDARDS CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHTS OF NATURE
As various Symposium speakers emphasized, individuals cannot assert fundamental human rights in isolation.81 “The natural world on the planet
Earth gets its rights from the same source that humans get their rights, from the universe that brought them into being.” 82 The rights of
nature framework is essential to understanding and implementing individuals’ fundamental duties to one another and
the natural environment. Similarly, elements of the natural world can exercise their rights only if they are healthy .
A growing number of statutes, constitutional provisions, and court decisions worldwide recognize the inherent rights of ecosystems and species to
exist, thrive, and evolve.83 Within this expanding rights of nature framework, how could U.S. laws and regulations accurately
capture standards of “healthy” ecosystems and species populations?84 One approach is to describe “healthy” systems as
essentially pristine, or unaffected by humans. This approach could be useful for comparison purposes and arguably could act as a policy goal.
However, this approach is not broadly applicable as a management tool. Moreover, the definition of the term “pristine” today is elusive85 and
prevents options for respectful human-nature interactions.
Examining the human right to health is another approach for defining “healthy” ecosystems. The World Health Organization emphasizes that
“health” is not simply the “absence of disease or infirmity.” 86 Unfortunately, “absence of disease or infirmity” is how “healthy”
ecosystems are often defined. 87 For example, the CWA’s backstop provision to protect waterways triggers when waterway
pollution violates standards or is just about to violate standards . 88 Waterways above the threshold standards are
deemed “clean.”89 Most U.S. environmental laws and regulations, such as the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 90 and the Outstanding National
Resource Waters protections 91 presume that flourishing ecosystems occur only in special circumstances. The overwhelming default in
U.S. environmental laws allows for degradation up to a certain point . This approach injures both environmental and
human health.92
Since the enactment of U.S. environmental laws in the early 1970s, major advances in disciplines, such as systems science, modeling,
and machine learning, have allowed scientists to approach definitions of natural system health , 93 beyond the mere
“absence of disease or infirmity.”94 For example, some marine scientists have proposed that a “healthy ecosystem” is one that
evolves and perpetuates itself within the context of its expected natural lifespan in the face of external stress .95
Scientists thus can look for variations in the expected natural rate of change , such as acceleration or deceleration of
extinction rates, as indicators of health. 96 This “healthy ecosystem” definition recognizes not only that every natural
system will continually flourish, but that healthy natural systems will change .97
New research has deconstructed “natural systems” into measurable elements. 98 Each of these elements, both
individually and combined, are important indicators of ecosystem health . 99 For example, new studies propose that a healthy
ecosystem is one that maintains its structure (organization )100 and function (vigor) 101 over time, in the face of
external stress (resilience). 102 Such scientific advancements are critical for U.S. environmental regulatory standards to
transition and reflect nature’s right to health.
Finally, a successful regulatory system includes not only substance but also procedure. That is, waterways themselves should have a
voice in policy deliberations . For example, a nation or state could appoint independent expert “guardians” to speak for
the natural systems and represent their interests during the regulatory process and public comment . 103 This would
improve regulations to meet natural systems’ needs , despite prevailing economic biases and forces.104
CONCLUSION
Ethical considerations always underlie law and policy decisions. 105 Ignoring the role of ethics and values does not necessarily make
policymaking objective, scientifically or otherwise. 106 On the contrary, decision-making which ignores ethical considerations
simply reflects dominant ethics and values, whether held consciously or unconsciously.107
Careful examination of values and goals creates clear policy messages that foster the science needed to achieve
desired results, such as healthy ecosystems and species populations. Today, the dominant–often unexamined–societal
goal is infinite economic growth , fueled in large part by consuming nature as an economic “resource.”108 Given that
the earth is finite, this economic goal will continue to degrade natural systems , which is simply “ not sustainable .”
109 However, current environmental laws implicitly accept this goal, 110 and so at best can only slow degradation,
rather than achieve healthy ecosystems .111
Implementing the ethics and values of “nature as a rights-holder,” rather than “nature as property,” will yield new
results. For example, a water allocation system that recognizes both inherent human and nature rights will first allocate
water to sustain the fundamental needs of ecological and human populations, and only then serve privatization and
profit with the remainder .
Realizing “nature as a rights-holder” in law and policy requires a new narrative , one that seeks for us a goal of becoming
a “mutually-enhancing human presence” that gives back more than we take. 112 Faced with decisions, we can ask whether an
“action enhances the integrity, health, and functioning of the whole Earth Community.”113 When we critically examine our choices in
this way and continually act to improve, we and the earth benefit.

The anthropocentric ‘property’ view of nature is an inherent logic that must be challenged
directly---the plan allows a managed way out of the infinite growth mindset
Mark Hawkins 21, MSc in Environment, Politics and Development from the University of London, January
2021, “Imagining a Post-Development Future: What can the Degrowth and Rights of Nature Debates Offer Each
Other,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348785651_Imagining_a_Post-
Development_Future_What_can_the_Degrowth_and_Rights_of_Nature_Debates_Offer_Each_Other
Sustainable Development as a guiding ideology has proven to be unsustainable . The recently published Global
Biodiversity Outlook 5 analysing the progress made on the 2010 targets agreed upon in Aichi, Japan, rather optimistically details key
successes thus far in reaching targets for the prevention of biodiversity loss. However, the authors cannot help but note that of 60 specific
elements set out only 7 have been achieved, with 38 showing some progress (largely in terms of establishing systems for data
gathering and other such preliminary activities) and 13 show no progress, or show a drift away from targets (SCBD 2020). More soberly the
2020 Living Planet Report (LPR) notes a 68 per cent decline in monitored global vertebrate populations since 1970, with
a high of 94 per cent in South America and the Caribbean and a low of 24 per cent in Europe and Central Asia (WWF 2020). The Mauna Loa
Observatory notes parts per million of CO2 for September 2020 are at 412 up from 408 last year, and from the early 300s in the
1950s (co2.earth [online]), while artic sea ice is melting at far higher rates than predicted (Jansen 2020). This is, of course, only the tip of the
iceberg. It is becoming increasingly apparent that paying lip service to environmental topics while continuing with the same
economic growth centred, globalised socio-environmental system is not enough .
In this context this essay has two interrelated aims, to be achieved by using a comparative approach. A number of more radical strategies to
deal more robustly with the rapidly accelerating crisis have been put forward and this essay seeks to analyse two of
them together in an effort to move towards creating an “ ontological plurality ” of separate yet supporting ways of
addressing the contradictions that are moving us so quickly towards a precipice (Nightingale et al. 2020 p.345). Secondly, I
seek to reiterate the importance of moving beyond current paradigms towards a “ great transformation ” (Beling et al. 2018
p.304).
To do this I first set out the key concepts to be addressed. Firstly, by looking at the key concepts I will be using, then by looking at
degrowth and the rights of nature (RoN) movements, their origins and how they are linked to ideas of hegemony and the frontiers of
economic extraction. I then go on to look at some
key weaknesses of the two movements. For degrowth this is largely
theoretical as it has not been adopted to any meaningful degree anywhere, despite gaining traction among environmental
groups, academics and increasingly appearing in news sources. For the RoN, I will focus on some key examples of its adoption, with a particular
focus on Bolivia and Ecuador where these rights have been adopted as integral parts of the new constitutions of those countries.
I find that degrowth is particularly weak when it comes to analysing the frontiers of extraction, tending to focus on
productive activities and modes of organization in industrial core countries , especially Europe. This is despite the fact that, in
terms of social justice , the worst effects of growth can be seen at these frontiers, where accumulation by
dispossession is rampant and dispossessed groups, especially Indigenous peoples, bear the brunt of resource
extractions negative externalities, while benefits are accrued elsewhere. This resource extraction represents the bedrock of
global economic growth . Degrowths lack of adoption is a further weakness of the movement and speaks to the
difficulty of challenging the hegemonic character of growth, with its ubiquitous nature in modern imaginings of progress and
development, and its fundamental usefulness to a wide array of actors. In this context the RoN's connection to Indigenous
worldviews and its wide and relatively rapid spread means it merits a place in the degrowth playbook .
For the RoN I find, through an analysis of Bolivian and Ecuador, that despite some moderate success in specific cases, the lofty goal of achieving
a more holistic, less anthropocentric national outlook in the context of a long history of extraction-caused devastation through their adoption has
faced a major road block in the form of growth. Growth, in this context, takes the form of a neo-extractivist economics whereby
increasing material flow out of the country forms the primary strategy for development and poverty alleviation . The
end result of the revolutionary Morales and Correa administrations has been further encroachment on Indigenous land and increasing threats to
the last bastions of biodiversity in these two nations, indicating a general failure in terms of the RoNs goals. Here degrowth could serve
both as a counterhegemonic discursive tool as well as a source of policies through which to achieve the good life
without environmental destruction or the dispossession of Indigenous groups .
Finally, I look at these two collective theories in the context of modernity itself, looked at as a set of inherent logics. By ‘inherent logic’ I
mean those values that exist, often below the surface of the collective conscious, that mould and limit the scope of
action and thought. These logics exist partly in human minds, and more completely in public discourse, policy
construction, governance arrangements and so on. I find that these two movements are mutually supporting in that they
target two of the greatest logics at the centre of modernity and the current crisis, the need to grow economic activity
and material throughput in order to prosper and anthropocentrism founded on the concept of the human-nature
duality. Degrowth offers space to imagine a way to organise society to achieve prosperity without constantly
increasing economic activity and material throughput. The RoN , both through laws inherent connection to culture
and due to the ideas regarding natures inherent value beyond the human at the core of this movement, challenges
anthropocentrism as a central logic withing society . Challenging such core tenants of modernity will likely be
necessary should we wish to build a better world in the ruins of modernity .

Rivers are key---they’re the lifeblood of the earth and river rights set a strong foundation
for broad recognition of nature’s rights
Monti Aguirre 20, Latin America coordinator of International Rivers; and Grant Wilson, executive director of the
Earth Law Center, 11/11/20, “Opinion: Time to recognise and respect rivers’ legal rights,”
https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/climate/opinion-time-to-recognise-and-respect-rivers-legal-rights/
Our new report, produced in collaboration with the Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, finds that courts, legislatures and
indigenous authorities are increasingly recognising such natural rights, with a growing emphasis on rivers. Important
judicial and legislative developments took place in 2019 and 2020 in Bangladesh, Colombia, Uganda, Brazil and the United States, among other
jurisdictions. In September, environmental groups called on Ecuador’s highest court to enforce constitutional rights of nature to protect an
incredibly biodiverse freshwater ecosystem from mining. In the U nited S tates, several indigenous groups have recognised the
rights of rivers, including the Yurok with respect to the Klamath river and the Nez Perce general council on the Snake river.
In South Asia, earlier this year Bangladesh’s highest court affirmed that all rivers in the country are “living entities” and appointed a government
agency to act as their guardian. In India, in March 2020, the Punjab and Haryana High Court passed an order declaring Sukhna lake in
Chandigarh city a living entity, with similar rights as a person. These decisions followed a remarkable ruling in 2017 by the Uttarakhand High
Court in India recognising the legal personhood of the Ganga and Yamuna rivers; a ruling later stayed by the Supreme Court of India.
Our legal systems are failing
Released on the heels of a United Nations summit focused on the alarming loss of global biodiversity, our report offers insight into how
emerging legal precedent on the rights of nature can offer significant remedy. And that remedy can’t come soon
enough.
Rivers are the lifeblood of the planet . We rely on them for drinking water, fishing, agriculture and recreation. Many
rivers are also considered sacred. Rivers flow not only with water but with life, nurturing a magnificent array of fish, birds and other species,
from the headwaters to the ocean. As the Uttarakhand High Court declared in its 2017 ruling, rivers “are breathing, living, and sustaining the
communities from mountain to sea”.
But we are killing our rivers . Pollution, dams and the climate crisis have left waterways in a perilous state . According
to the World Wildlife Fund, two out of every three people experience a freshwater shortage for at least one month every
year, and populations of freshwater animals have declined by more than 80% since 1970. Clearly, our existing legal
frameworks to protect rivers are failing .
Unfortunately, the precipitous decline of rivers is entirely predictable. Most legal systems treat rivers as mere human
property, with no rights of their own. Our current economic system in many respects incentivises the wanton
exploitation of rivers – including their water, species and ecosystem functions – in order to maximise profits. Environmental laws
offer some protections, but they fail to challenge this paradigm or address the root causes .
Treat rivers and forests as ‘legal persons’
Instead of seeing water and rivers as commodities to be owned and exploited, a r ights o f n ature framework
acknowledges that nature has its own interests which must be respected by humans. Importantly, it allows legal actions
to be brought directly on behalf of rivers themselves, not merely as entities owned by human beings. By recognising
rights of nature, courts and legislatures can help preserve natural ecosystems for future generations and for everyone who
relies on them.
Although they may seem novel, the rights of nature fit comfortably in modern legal systems. The law has always
recognised the existence of non-human legal “persons”. If corporations and ships can be legal persons , there is no
reason why a river or forest cannot. We can also create new categories of rights-holders altogether.
Like corporations, ships or children, rivers can have designated guardians to represent their interests . As far back as 1972,
William Douglas, a United States Supreme Court justice, suggested that “those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water —
whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger” could be recognised as representatives of a river.
Today, that suggestion has become a reality. Courts and legislatures around the world have recognised or created bodies that
can speak on a river’s behalf. Te Awa Tupua is represented by a group of guardians appointed by the government and local Māori. In
Colombia, the Constitutional Court has created a comprehensive governance structure for the Atrato river, which is charged with conservation,
maintenance and restoration. And in Bhutan, the Royal Court of Justice recently devised new rules allowing environmental cases to be brought by
individuals acting as “trustees of nature”. Our research shows that all over the world, rights of nature are not just an idea: they are a concrete
reality.
The rights of nature movement is being led by a vibrant coalition of lawyers, activists and scientists. Indigenous
groups and concepts have been crucial to its development. Te Awa Tupua was created as part of a treaty settlement negotiated by
Māori people, and the Atrato river case was driven by the indigenous and Afro-descendant communities that have relied on the river for hundreds
of years. Western legal systems could learn much from indigenous legal systems . Concepts such as Māori kaitiakitanga
(stewardship) and Andean sumak kawsay (living well) reflect a worldview in which humans owe obligations to their natural environment. By
enshrining these principles in formal and customary law, indigenous systems have long recognised our shared
dependence on nature. Rights of nature offer an opportunity for other legal systems to learn from this insight .
As rights of nature laws and policies proliferate, a coalition of leading environmental organisations, scientists, politicians, indigenous leaders and
others are advancing a Universal Declaration of the Rights of Rivers, which describes the basic rights all rivers should be
entitled to. It will serve as a legislative starting point for governments that wish to pursue legal recognition of the
rights of rivers. Already, Jorge Octavio Villacaña Jiménez, a politician in Oaxaca, Mexico, is proposing state-wide rights of rivers legislation
inspired by the declaration, and many are soon to follow.
Rights of nature are no panacea. Restoring our long-neglected rivers will require extensive and immediate measures by
governments, courts, companies and civil society. But r ights o f n ature provide a framework for radical action .
They translate our ethical and spiritual obligations into legal systems and establish far-reaching enforceable rights
and duties . Recognising nature’s legal personality is something we owe to future generations and to the environment.

An economic system that prioritizes corporate rights over rights of nature guarantees
unsustainable growth and collapse---techno-fixes can’t solve, only re-drawing the
boundaries of the economy within biophysical limits can stave off extinction
Shannon Biggs 17, co-founder and Executive Director of Movement Rights and co-founder of the Global Alliance
for the Rights of Nature, et al., November 2017, “Rights of Nature & Mother Earth: Rights-Based Law for Systemic
Change,” https://www.ienearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/RONME-RightsBasedLaw-final-1.pdf
As humanity fast-tracks towards the collapse of our planetary systems , we sought to articulate a shared vision
toward a new economy based on living in balance with natural systems; where the rights of humans do not extend
to the domination of nature. We questioned the viability of a global economy whose jurisprudence places property
rights above all; recognizes corporate rights as the most sacred of property rights; subordinates human rights and the
collective rights of Indigenous Peoples to corporate rights; and where Nature is not recognized as having any intrinsic
rights at all .
We discussed the power and possibility of an emerging body of law— recognizing legal rights for ecosystems to exist ,
flourish and regenerate their vital cycles—as a necessary part of placing our human laws in alignment with Nature’s
laws, and our human actions and economy in an appropriate relationship with the natural order of which we are part. Major
points of discussion included the following:
• Living within the carrying capacity
of the planet we call home requires that we adhere to the natural laws governing all
life and does not extend human authority over them.
• In these respects, we recognize that ancient and living Indigenous cultures that live in connection with land, and have knowledge of its care,
have much to teach us about this world.
• Indigenous traditions tell us that all economic activity must be rooted in an understanding and respect of our sacred relationships with Mother
Earth, and that our continued wellbeing depends upon it.
• Science and common sense tell us that endless growth and the plundering of a finite planet is an impossibility, and an
absurdity.
• We must avoid techno-utopianism , the illusionary idea that technological innovation will provide a “fix” to the
inherent limits of a finite Earth. All technology must be subject to full life-cycle analyses , from sources to wastes to
interactive stimulations to development.
• The subordination of the web of life to the chains of the markets and growth of the corporate led system erodes the
primary means of existence on this planet , which is rooted in the diversity of life itself
• The current dominant economy fails to sustain and regenerate life because it is built on flawed foundations including:
» The endless industrial extraction and pollution of natural systems and functions;
» The privatization, commodification and legalized enslavement of nature as human and corporate property , which
places a price on nature and creates new derivative markets that increase inequality and expedite the destruction of ecosystems;
» A prevailing world-view that places humans above nature, and with dominion over nature (anthropocentrism);
» A worldview and economic system that demands expansion, consumption, profit and economic growth above all other values, without
recognition of carrying capacities of the planet and its ecosystems.
» Legal systems that ennoble private property at the expense of community, ecology and equity, and that directly serve the concentration of
extreme wealth in few hands.
» Militarism and endless war as a primary means of acquisition of governance over peoples and land, and a primary
expression of corporate growth models .
Changing the dominant legal and economic paradigms will require more than individual commitments to conservation
and “greener” shopping. It will require fundamental changes in law , especially the rules of the global economy. Law is
how we use power to make real the dominant values in a society . Over time most societies have cultivated the notion
that nature is a “thing” separate and apart from humans, and that understanding has been codified in law. The ownership of
ecosystems and other aspects of the natural world is promoted and protected by current law, upholding the control and dominance of humans over
nature.
Current law “sees” nature as human owned property. Prevailing law and world-views express and confirm human authority
over all of nature and do not provide the natural world with any legal standing in a court of law. From the tar sands of
Alberta to mountaintop removal for coal extraction, to fracking and deep ocean oil drilling , to the destruction of vast
tropical rainforests, to the massive continuing privatization of whole ecosystems, we have witnessed the horrifying
damage that has been done with the full blessing of the law. This cannot be sustained .
We seek a world where all human activity takes place in balance with the Earth’s offerings, and with reciprocity, dignity and respect for nature.
If we are to succeed as a species, we will need to redefine “wealth” away from financial accumulation towards
“sufficiency” and wellbeing. This will require a new body of human law to codify and enforce these values. We
therefore declare an imperative for the development and adoption of economic frameworks rooted in the inherent
legal Rights of Nature.
The Change to Come: Rights of Nature
The terms Rights of Nature or Rights of Mother Earth are interchangeable, though Indigenous preference for the use of Mother Earth better
describes our connection and relationship. Rights of Nature or Rights of Mother Earth seek to define equal legal rights for ecosystems to “exist,
flourish, and regenerate their natural capacities.” Recognizing these rights places obligations on humans to live within, not above, the natural
world, of which we are only one part, and to protect and replenish the ecosystems upon which our mutual wellbeing depends. In essence, it is
necessary to transform our human relationship with nature from property-based to a legal rights-bearing entity .
We are pointing to the need for a wholly different framework that recognizes that Earth’s living systems are not the
enslaved property of humans . Just as it is wrong for men to consider women property or one race to consider another race as property, it is
wrong for humans to see nature as property over which we have dominion. All
rights, including humans’, depend on the health and
vitality of Earth’s living systems. All other rights are derivative of these rights. This requires an essential paradigm
shift from a jurisprudence and legal system designed to secure and consolidate the power of a ruling oligarchy and a ruling
species, and to substitute a jurisprudence and legal system designed to serve all of the living Earth community .
In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to recognize Rights of Nature in their constitution. Bolivia has also passed national laws recognizing
the inherent rights of ecosystems. Nepal, and India and other countries are also putting forward similar national laws. Dozens of communities
across the US and around the world have taken similar action to place the rights of natural communities (including humans) above corporate
interests. The natural world is of a higher order of good that we dare not undercut. In that sense, it is sacred.
Call to Action
All must speak out for the needs of nature and our Mother Earth as a whole. It is our responsibility to live within the natural order that is sacred to
all life on earth. Wemust redraw the boundaries of the economy to bring them into line with ecological limits and the
common sense science of planetary boundaries. Nature’s needs are also our own and must be elevated and protected by
legal rights , and maintained through life-sustaining systems of exchange and reciprocity .
We therefore must initiate a process of re-educating societies, dispelling the dominant anthropocentric belief that the earth
belongs to humans. This will require fundamentally aligning global, regional, and local economic and legal structures
to exist within natural systems. Social movements must create the space for the shift that is necessary to protect against
the tide of corporate-led globalization.
The Rights of Nature demand regenerative, mature, and dynamic economic relations in which:
• The interdependence of humans and nature is primary; the laws of nature supersede rights to property; and vital natural cycles of life must be
protected for the good of all. Recognize that there is no separation between how we treat nature and how we treat ourselves;
• Nature is seen as the foundation of life itself; it is not seen as an inventory of goods and services for human beings, a dumping ground for
pollution and waste, or as capital;
• The rejection of all market-based mechanisms that allow the quantification and commodification of Earth’s natural processes, rebranded as
‘ecosystem services’;
• Indigenous Peoples are empowered by legal and cultural norms as partners or caretakers of the lands and territories in which they live;
• All communities must become true caretakers of the places in which they live, including writing new laws that recognize the rights of local
ecosystems to maintain their vital cycles and eliminate harmful projects in their midst;
• Whether one is Indigenous or not, we all must live in a responsible and natural way.

Ecosystem survival is a prerequisite to human survival and every other impact---any

framework that evaluates nature through human needs guarantees destruction
Stacy Jane Schaefer 18, Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 4/18/18, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,”
https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/
The fact that human health depends very much on the health of nature cannot justify the subjugation of nature . Again
putting aside the moral considerations with respect to our relationship with nature, under even the strictest utilitarian view we
must recognize that in order to protect human health and survival , humans must be willing to put nature–in its natural
functioning state– first to evaluate human impact on nature. This requires us to accept that while humans are part of
nature, humans do not define it.[119] In the process of recognizing a DNE as a “legal person,” we cannot define or
measure the DNE entity in terms of human needs or actions . The simple reason is that even catastrophic harm to an
ecosystem has been justified when cast in terms of short-term economic needs.
For example, approval of an unsustainable timber harvest in a National Forest can be–and has been–rationalized by the recognition that:
The Forest Service does not manage ecosystems just for the sake of managing them or for some notion on intrinsic ecosystem values . . . For the
Forest Service, ecosystem management means to produce desired resource values, uses, products or services in ways that also sustain the
diversity and productivity of ecosystems.[120]
Notably, nature comes last in that analysis.[121] Likewise, under the Endangered Species Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”)
does not designate “critical habitat” for an Endangered Species until it takes “into consideration the probable economic and other impacts of the
designation.”[122] In fact, according to USFWS, “an area may be excluded from critical habitat designation based on any of the following:
economic impact, impact on national security,” or “any other relevant impact, if the Service determine[s] that the benefits of excluding it
outweigh the benefits of including it, unless failure to designate the area a critical habitat may lead to extinction of the species.”[123]
The destructive practice of mining coal by clearing Appalachian forests, blasting off ancient mountain tops
containing globally significant levels of biodiversity and filling in the mountain valley streams is economically justifiable
even when human mortality and morbidity is linked to these practices .[124] Another current example is the death of the Great
Barrier Reef. In human terms, advocates in favor of protection of the Reef might argue that if the Reef dies, $6 billion in tourist revenue and the
ability of future generations to enjoy the Reef would be lost.[125] However, as André Dao points out, “such arguments invite the rebuttals that
have in fact been used: the value of the coal that is to be transported through the reef, the need to provide power to countries around the world
and, above all, the importance of unending economic growth.” [126]
If we see nature as valuable only through the lens of its “usefulness” to humanity, the cost of nature’s destruction
will almost always be justifiable .[127]
Independently, strong rights of nature spill over internationally to bolster global water
cooperation, preventing water conflicts
Mariana Chilton 20, Professor in the Dornsife School of Public Health at Drexel University; and Sonya Jones,
Associate Professor and Director, Center for Research in Nutrition and Health Disparities, University of South
Carolina, April 2020, “The Rights of Nature and the Future of Public Health,” American Journal of Public Health,
Vol. 110, No. 4, p. 459-460
We are in the midst of a worldwide public health emergency . In October 2019, 11,000 scientists from more than 150
countries declared that human consumption and corporate overreach were degrading ecosystems and driving more
than a million species to extinction, including humans .1 The collective impact of dysregulated climate; disruption of
the water, phosphorous, and nitrogen cycles; and the collapse of food chains causes widespread trauma , which
fosters social and ecological violence . The World Health Organization estimates that avoidable environmental risk factors
cause 12 .6 million deaths each year around the globe.2 Our current crisis is undoing 50 years of gains in public health.3 Such
ecological devastation is associated with increased suicide, depression, isolation, and addiction .4 Those who suffer
most from these ecological threats are least responsible : indigenous peoples, people who are poor, and communities
of color.
Public health is faced with a choice at this critical moment. Do we continue with business as usual, addressing the diseases of modernity, such as
heart disease, without questioning the values underlying modernity? Or do we do what we in public health are best suited to do: transform the
paradigm of health to be more inclusive and better encompass our current challenges?
Through growing attention to social determinants of health, we now recognize that the zip code is a stronger determinant of health than our
genetic code.5 But we need to keep pushing. In every zip code, a type of soil matrix based on a previously rich ecosystem of forests, savannahs,
and waterways exists. In every zip code, there are animals and plants that are endangered. In every zip code, there is a water cycle dependent on
seas, lakes, and forests that is threatened. In short, we humans are embedded in endangered ecosystems whether or not we are
aware of it. In the privileged global north, many of us experience our embeddedness as an economic exchange:
buying food, paying for water, and putting filters on indoor air systems. A simple walk in the woods, inhaling the cancer-protective,
immune-boosting, and aromatic chemicals that trees exhale, reminds us that a richer relationship with our ecosystem is possible. What if we
characterized human health as a process of being in healthy relationship with our ecosystems?
RIGHTS OF NATURE
Human rights are those freedoms meant to ensure that all people can live a life of security, dignity, and well-being. Human rights are primarily
between individuals, communities, and states, without regard to ecosystems and the biosphere. Conversely, rights of nature laws focus on
the rights of ecosystems to exist, persist, and regenerate without consideration of human benefit or corporate profit .6
Nature is defined broadly as ecosystems, rivers, streams, lakes, oceans, mountains, and even individual trees. Many
governments treat nature’s systems as private property and allow owners to set terms of their relationships with their
land and water. As private property, 95% of old growth forest in the United States has been logged, soils are running off into oceans,
and water and air are filled with byproducts of industrial production . The dangers of such exploitation can be
catastrophic to human health and well-being.
Without rights-based laws , communities such as those in Appalachia trying to protect their mountains and streams
and the Oceti Sakowin (the Dakota, Nakota, and Lakota nations) who sought to resist the Dakota Access Pipeline
while trying to protect their water and sovereignty have only weak legal tools of public comment periods to assess
business permits and regulations based on “maximum acceptable harms.” A r ights o f n ature framework helps to
move our attention from anthropocentrism to biocentrism , which more fully encompasses the processes by which we can ensure
healthy conditions for people and the environment.
RIGHTS OF NATURE ORDINANCES
The rights of nature framework creates new avenues for widespread public health protections. The expansiveness of
nature’s interconnected species, waterways, and weather patterns can promote international cooperation . For instance,
the Guaraní Aquifer is the second largest freshwater aquifer in the world. It transcends political boundaries as it spans underneath Paraguay,
Uruguay, Argentina, and Brazil. The United Nations predicts that there
will be a 40% shortfall in water availability by 2030 ,
creating even greater urgency to solidify international cooperation to protect this water source. R ights o f n ature laws
may help prevent future political disputes .
Supplying 20% of the earth’s oxygen, the Amazon rainforest is under threat as a result of fires set by multinational corporations supported by the
Brazilian government. The plight of indigenous peoples of the Amazon is intricately tied to this ecological devastation, yet they have little
political recourse or human rights protections. Indigenous communities have sought to defend their rights to land, water, and air from colonial
and corporate encroachment for hundreds of years. Aside from the United Nations International Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
the rights of nature have become another avenue for protection. Ecuador and Bolivia have enshrined rights of nature in their constitutions. In New
Zealand, the Te Urewera forest and the Whanganui River now have personhood, and members of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe in the United
States passed a law formally recognizing the rights of Manoomin, their wild rice, to provide a legal basis to protect their rice and fresh water
resources for future generations.
Rights of nature can be used to protect all people in many types of environments. After the deaths of two boys (11 and 17 years
of age) from staph infections caused by exposure to toxic sludge, the people of Tamaqua Borough in Pennsylvania used the rights of nature to
protect their lands from sludge dumping. Since then, more than 20 communities around the United States have espoused rights of nature to
protect water, soil, mountains, and streams. Lake Erie was recently granted rights after a three-day shutdown of the entire city of Toledo in
summer 2014 due to contaminated drinking water. These ordinances allow humans to use legal avenues to protect the natural
world around them .

Water conflicts wreck global stability and go nuclear

Dahr Jamail 19, Truthout contributing writer, Board of Advisers member and former staff reporter, has won the
Izzy Award and the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, 2/11/19, “The World Is on the Brink of
Widespread Water Wars,” https://truthout.org/articles/the-world-is-on-the-brink-of-widespread-water-wars/
The most recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned of increasingly intense droughts and mass water
shortages around large swaths of the globe.
But even more conservative organizations have been sounding the alarm. “Water
insecurity could multiply the risk of conflict ,”
warns one of the World Bank’s reports on the issue. “Food price spikes caused by droughts can inflame latent conflicts
and drive migration. Where economic growth is impacted by rainfall, episodes of droughts and floods have generated waves of migration
and spikes in violence within countries.”
Meanwhile, a study published in the journal Global Environmental Change, looked at how “ hydro-political issues ” — including
tensions and potential conflicts — could play out in countries expected to experience water shortages coupled with
high populations and pre-existing geopolitical tensions.
The study warned that these factors could combine to increase the likelihood of water-related tensions — potentially
escalating into armed conflict in cross-boundary river basins in places around the world by 74.9 to 95 percent . This
means that in some places conflict is practically guaranteed .
These areas include regions situated around primary rivers in Asia and North Africa . Noted rivers include the Tigris and Euphrates, the
Indus, the Nile, and the Ganges-Brahmaputra.
Consider the fact that 11 countries share the Nile River basin: Egypt, Burundi, Kenya, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan, South Sudan,
Tanzania and the Democratic Republic of Congo. All told, more than 300 million people already live in these countries, — a number that is
projected to double in the coming decades, while the amount of available water will continue to shrink due to climate change.
For those in the US thinking these potential conflicts will only occur in distant lands — think again. The study also warned of a very high
chance of these “hydro-political interactions” in portions of the southwestern US and northern Mexico , around the
Colorado River.
India and Pakistan
Potential tensions
are particularly worrisome in India and Pakistan , which are already rivals when it comes to water
resources. For now, these two countries have an agreement, albeit a strained one, over the Indus River and the sharing of its water, by way of
the 1960 Indus Water Treaty.
However, water claims have been central to their ongoing, burning dispute over the Kashmir region, a flashpoint area there for
more than 60 years and counting.
The aforementioned treaty is now more strained than ever, as Pakistan accuses India of limiting its water supply and violating the treaty by
placing dams over various rivers that flow from Kashmir into Pakistan.
In fact, a 2018 report from the International Monetary Fund ranked Pakistan third among countries facing severe water shortages, This is largely
due to the rapid melting of glaciers in the Himalaya that are the source of much of the water for the Indus.
To provide an idea of how quickly water resources are diminishing in both countries, statistics from Pakistan’s Islamabad Chamber of Commerce
and Industry from 2018 show that water availability (per capita in cubic meters per year) shrank from 5,260 in 1951, to 940 in 2015, and are
projected to shrink to 860 by just 2025.
In India, the crisis is hardly better. According to that country’s Ministry of Statistics (2016) and the Indian Ministry of Water Resources (2010),
the per capita available water in cubic meters per year was 5,177 in 1951, and 1,474 in 2015, and is projected to shrink to 1,341 in 2025.
Both of these countries are nuclear powers. Given the dire projections of water availability as climate change progresses, nightmare
scenarios of water wars that could spark nuclear exchanges are now becoming possible.
As if to underscore all of this, even the US military recently warned that climate change is a worldwide threat. The military’s Worldwide Threat
Assessment report warned that climate change and other types of environmental degradation threatened global stability because
they are “likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond.”
Strong rights for nature revolutionize international law toward ecocentrism---that resolves
systemic slow violence against marginalized populations and sets a cap on global conflict
that precludes nuclear war
Sara De Vido 20, Associate Professor in the Department of Economics, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia, Italy,
11/11/20, “A Quest for an Eco-centric Approach to International Law: the COVID-19 Pandemic as Game Changer,”
Jus Cogens, doi:10.1007/s42439-020-00031-0
The pandemic that spread around the world in 2020 has affected human rights and raised human security issues. It represents, above all,
a major environmental issue . International law, as all fields of law, is facing enormous challenges. How relevant is
international environmental law in the debate? Are states, along with international organizations, capable of providing appropriate answers? This
Reflection does not aim to suggest possible ways of surviving (legally speaking) this global pandemic or to determine the responsibility for the
i nternational law, which
spread of the coronavirus. It rather starts from the pandemic as unprecedented occasio1 to reflect on the approach to
—it is contended—isanthropocentric , and its inadequacy to respond to current challenges. In the first part, the Reflection argues that there
is, more than ever, an undeferrable need for a change of approach to international law toward ecocentrism , which
puts the environment at the center and conceives the environment as “us,” including humans, non-human beings,
and natural objects. If eco-centric moves have been encouraged in environmental law, scholarship has not taken a step further to include eco-
centric considerations in all fields of international law. To encourage the incorporation of ecocentrism in the entire discipline, the Reflection will
rely on some insight of ecofeminism, whose potential has not been fully investigated in international legal scholarship. The aim is not to illustrate
or to critically discuss ecofeminist theories but to use some of their pivotal arguments to unravel the anthropocentric nature of international law.
In a second part, the Reflection illustrates what an eco-centric i nternational law would mean, imagining three possible applications:
first, what I have called “ environmental
global health ,”2 which is connected to the current pandemic and puts into question the proposals
dealing with global health that completely miss the theorization of the environment as a whole; second, how actors of international law
would change according to an eco-centric perspective; and, third, how the rules prohibiting the use of force might be
reconceptualized . The analysis contained in these pages cannot itself exhaust all the possible nuances of the legal reasoning, but it is aimed at
being a provocative starting point for a change in the mindset and approach of international legal scholarship. It is an argument in process to
provoke a debate in legal scholarship and identify possible areas of future research.
Ecocentrism and International Environmental Law
Ecocentrism is not new to international law. Over the past decades, there have been some eco-centric moves in international environmental law,
which disrupted its initial anthropocentric biases based on the idea of protecting the environment “not for its own sake, but because of its value to
humans – its importance for human health, economics, recreation, and so forth.”3 Starting from the World Charter on Nature of 1982, the UN GA
has adopted a series of Harmony with Nature resolutions, stressing the coexistence of humankind in harmony with nature.4 A quite peculiar
treaty, also in terms of the subjects that negotiated and signed it, is represented by the 2017 Whanganui Agreement in New Zealand,
which has included the perspective of the river as a holistic system.5 This eco-centric move contributes to disrupting
patterns of oppression within human beings and in the relationship of humanity with nature because it grants
participation to the indigenous communities and is guided by the rights —and not by the human property interests
that lay upon —of this natural object . Moving to the regional level, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in a landmark advisory
opinion of 2017 and the contentious case decided in February 2020, derived an autonomous right to a healthy environment from Article 26 of the
American Convention of Human Rights.6 In the court’s view, the human right to a healthy environment protects nature, even absent evidence of
possible risks for human beings, because of its importance for the rest of living beings.7 This constitutes an unprecedented move in regional
jurisprudence: appreciating how the right to a healthy environment clearly serves the humans, in an anthropocentric way, but it also goes beyond
that to conceive the environment as the balanced relationship among natural objects and the humans.8 Another eco-centric development
is represented by the advent of the rights of nature , incorporated in the so-called environmental constitutionalism, represented by
countries such as Ecuador which inserted a chapter on Pachamama as part of the 2008 constitutional revision.9 These developments should
not be underestimated, because they have emphasized the centrality of nature in the legal reasoning. They challenged laws that have
been created to protect the environment for the benefit of human beings without considering two key aspects: first, that
human beings are themselves part of the nature, and second, that the existence of nature per se, independently from human
beings, matters . However, nature is neglected in other fields of international law.
What if we consider international law in its entirety as anthropocentric and blind to the dynamics of powers and domination
that are present in the international community, within human communities and between the humans and the environment? Patterns of
discrimination and oppression characterized by both intra-species and inter-species hierarchies are entrenched in
international law and can be appreciated by developing some ecofeminist concerns and arguments.
Patterns of Domination and Oppression in International Law: an Ecofeminist Perspective
International feminist legal scholarship has already pointed out the patriarchal structure of international law as we know it today, characterized by
the marginalization of women in the international legal system. As Chinkin and Charlesworth wrote in The Boundaries of International Law, the
exclusion of women is “an integral part of the structure of the international legal order, a critical element of its stability,” and the silences of the
discipline are “as important as its positive rules and rhetorical structures.”10 International legal discourse has been informed by
dichotomies, including the culture/nature one.11 Dianne Otto, using a queer feminist analysis, has stressed the limits of human rights
law, which has not questioned the understanding of sex/gender as dualistic (m/f),12 and “the gendered, raced, imperial, heteronormative,
privileged, autonomous and ableist assumptions implicit in this ‘universal’ subject – the human who is able to fully enjoy human rights and
fundamental freedoms.”13
Patterns of oppression and domination are however not only intra-species but also inter-species, in the relation
between humans and the nature. The human/nature dichotomy has been used to determine patterns of oppression
and discrimination beyond humans , including non-human animals and “natural objects.”14 The law, as the earth
Jurisprudence has pointed out,15 has been theorized in a specific association human/nature, where the former dominates the latter.16
Ecological disasters and pandemics are the tip of the iceberg of a long process of destruction . This process has been
called “ slow violence ,” meaning “a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction
that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all.”17 What
we experience now has been the product of decades of environmental exploitation and domination of human beings,
the “privileged” one,18 on the natural environment. The concepts we use in international law inevitably incorporate
“traces of power and domination,”19 and this acknowledgement allows us to reflect on possible non-dominant
changes . As argued by the Special Rapporteur on the right to a healthy environment, David Boyd, “today’s dominant culture and the
legal system that supports it are self-destructive . We need a new approach rooted in ecology and ethics […] We are
part of nature: not independent, but interdependent.”20
Ecofeminism has played a pivotal role in denouncing the patterns of oppression within humans and of a part of humanity on nature, despite
presenting different streams of thought. As acknowledged by the philosopher Plumwood, “ecological feminists differ on how and even whether
women are connected to nature, on whether such connection is in principle sharable by men, on how to treat the exclusion of women from
culture, and on how the revaluing of the connection with nature.”21 Even though the description of ecofeminism is beyond the scope of this
article, it is worth recollecting that the word was coined by Françoise d’Eaubonne in a work of 1974, “Le féminisme ou la mort,” where she
highlighted the environmental costs of development and argued that overpopulation of the planet was caused by the patriarchal refusal of
women’s self-determination on their bodies.22 Sheila Collins contended, in the same year, that patriarchy rested on “racism, sexism, class
exploitation, and ecological destruction”23 and soon after Rosemary Radford Ruether encouraged the union between the demands of the
women’s movement and the ecological one.24 Seeds of ecofeminism can be found well before 1970s in Rachel Carson, who was a pioneer in
unravelling the disconnections between human beings and the environment and paved the way for the work of ecofeminism worldwide.25
Ecofeminism has also confronted the issue of non-human animals’ suffering and incorporated it into a larger critique of the ill treatment of the
natural world.26
Ecofeminism does not simply mean to combine environmental and feminist issues. As Puleo argued, it is “an attempt to outline a new utopian
horizon, addressing the environmental issue from the categories of patriarchy, androcentrism, care, sexism and gender.”27 She also stressed how
environmentalism is not always feminist and how, in turn, feminism does not necessarily demonstrate “great ecological sensitivity.”28 The
dialogue between feminism and environmentalism is pivotal to stress the impact of environmental degradation on gender and the contribution of
women to put at the center of any (including legal) reasoning the nature.29 The founding trait of ecofeminism, namely, oppression and
domination, is particularly interesting for the scope of this Reflection to denounce, on one hand, the weaknesses of the international legal system,
and, on the other hand, to propose valuable alternatives. Why has ecofeminism been overlooked from an international legal point of view?
Malone illustrated the very few contributions in international law dealing with ecofeminism and found a possible reason of this attitude in the
specialization of international law into sub-issues, which miss the complete picture of the analysis.30 At the same time, however, to play the
devil’s advocate, it should also be acknowledged that neither ecofeminism nor environmental humanities have seriously taken into account the
legal discipline.31 Resting on the insight of ecofeminism, the Reflection will now propose an eco-centric change of perspective which should
embrace all fields of international law.
What an Eco-centric International Law Would Look like
The eco-centric approach to the international law that is encouraged in these pages could be informed by some of the main
findings of ecofeminism, most importantly the need for a disruption of patterns of oppression and of the dichotomy
human/nature or culture/nature, and the emphasis placed on the intersections of grounds of oppression.32 Issues such as climate
change and global health —as the pandemic has been ruthlessly telling us— should consider these intersections and
should put the environment at the very center of any legal discussion. Two authors talked about “locating nature” in international
law, going beyond the understanding of nature as serving limited interests and as a matter of international environmental law only.33 They
argued that the natural environment is not incidental to international law and that nature is “a fundamental driver of disciplinary
evolution, shaping legal concepts in seminal ways.”34 This Reflection uses the concept of “environment” rather than of “nature,” which includes
natural objects and human and non-human beings, where humans are not the dominant factor but rather a part of a holistic whole. The idea of
the environment as “us” was introduced by Christopher Stone in his pioneering article and book almost fifty years ago:
“because the health and well-being of [human]kind depend upon the health of the environment, these goals will
often be so mutually supportive that one can avoid deciding whether our rationale is to advance ‘us’ or a new ‘us’
that includes the environment.”35 Ecocentrism is considered the encompassing idea that disrupts the human/nature
divide and considers the relationships between organisms and the healthy interaction of all components of
ecosystems, including human beings. The adjective “healthy” stresses that ecocentrism does not mean a complete absence
of interference with nature or that humanity cannot defend itself from lethal viruses .36 It considers the inherent
value of nature and recognizes the holistic and mutual relationship of humanity with it.37 It also purports to disrupt,
in line with ecofeminist theories, the patterns of domination and oppression which lead to the exploitation of nature by a
part of the humanity. Ecocentrism is not the mere opposite of anthropocentrism , with the risk of proposing a new
dichotomy in place of the disrupted one; it rather seeks to reconceive the relationship among the different elements of the
environment. This relationship would lead to a refreshing, and probably provocative, look at the most traditional concepts of international law.
An Eco-centric Approach to International Law in Practice
A change of approach in international law cannot be thoroughly explained in few pages. This paragraph will sketch some possible trajectories
which will constitute a solid starting point for future research. It starts from what I have called “environmental global health,” before moving to
two selected, and admittedly limited, issues of international law, namely, actors of international law and the prohibition of the use of force.
Environmental Global Health
The current framework of global health law, mainly based on World Health Organization (WHO) law, seems inadequate to
respond to current challenges , because it does not appreciate the importance of taking into consideration the
environment as “us.”38 The environment has always been at the margin of legal reasoning in health issues, either not considered (as in the
WHO International Health Regulations) or diminished to the role of determinant of the right to health. The alternative proposed in these pages
is the concept of “environmental global health,”39 defined as the system of actors, including non-human animals and natural objects,
and legal instruments, measures, and policies, aimed at the prevention, protection, and response to transboundary health and environmental
issues, taking into consideration social and economic disparities, and going beyond the humans to address imbalances of natural ecosystems.40
An eco-centric approach appreciates the connections between global health, the human right to health, and the
environment.41 More than a human right to a healthy environment , what is needed is the recognition of every
human, non-human being, and ecosystem’s right to be part of a healthy environment, where prevention is
fundamental, and where all actions are taken in light of their impact on the environment.
An environmental global health governance should focus on prevention , ensuring campaigns to raise awareness, for example, of
how wet markets represent ticking bombs for the environment, but also of how increasing emissions, plastics, disruption of
ecosystems, land grabbing, water grabbing, weak public health systems characterized by inequalities and lack of
participation, fuel the spread of pandemics and/or the effects of them . As the reality has ruthlessly shown us, the prevention
of pandemics cannot be merely based on the WHO law. What we need is the sharing of responsibilities and liabilities for a plurality
of actors42: not only states but also international organizations, transnational corporations, and even individuals. It is time to consider that the
prevention and response to pandemics cannot be realized by states, as traditionally conceived in international law, only.43 In pragmatic terms,
this would mean, for example, that the achievement of the cut of emissions of CO2 is a treaty obligation to counter
climate change and an obligation that states and non-state actors must abide by to guarantee the individual human
right to health and environmental global health. One might contend that the notion of environmental global health is itself
anthropocentric. However, even though more rigorous understandings of ecocentrism might sound ideal, they do not grasp the existing patterns of
oppression within human society, and the role a part of humanity has played in the destruction of ecosystems. Ecofeminism has been able to
capture the essence of oppression, which should lead to the reconceptualization of well-known categories of international law.44
Actors of International Law
States represent anthropocentrism in their reproduction of rooted schemes of subordination. Scholarship has emphasized the male nature of the
state as traditionally conceived and identified the elements of oppression, including the principle of territorial integrity.45 Judge Cançado
Trindade argued that the end of “the monopoly of international personality by states and the expansion of such personality at international level is
a guarantee against the abuses of the past, reducing at international level the scope for oppression or tyranny.”46 International institutions have
marginalized women, minorities, indigenous, and LGBT groups. In an eco-centric perspective, inspired by ecofeminist arguments, states are no
longer the main subjects of international law. The approach this Reflection proposes decenters states to include several actors that contribute to
the existence of the environment as “us.” The aforementioned Whanganui Agreement of 2017, for example, demonstrates that eco-centric
considerations are not impossible to grasp from a legal point of view and that they should be pursued.47 Cases have been brought in front of
national courts on behalf of rivers and other elements of nature,48 and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has elaborated a concept of
right to a healthy environment which is eco-centric because it looks at the equilibrium of the nature irrespective of the effects of its degradation
on human beings.49 A further step forward was undertaken in a transitional justice setting. The Colombia’s peace jurisdiction, Jurisdicción
Especial para la Paz, has recently decided that the Katsa Su and Cxhab Wala Kile territories, belonging to the indigenous Awá and Nasa peoples,
have been victims of the Colombia civil war.50 The jurisdiction has the mandate to investigate some relevant cases of the conflict that lasted 50
years. Among the seven cases chosen by the jurisdiction, case 2 concerned the complaints put forward by Awá people, Afro-descendent
communities, and mestizo rural communities, who stressed “that [their territory] has identity and dignity that constitute it as a subject of
rights.”51 The Colombian jurisdiction has specifically acknowledged the connection between the people and the territory, by contending in its
resolution that “for some indigenous peoples, the experiences of the war are not defined only by the damage caused to people, as the
consequences are written as well into the vision of beings that live […] in the same natural environment.”52 This decision leads to a
reconsideration not only of actors of international law but also of reparations and the rules on (states’) responsibility. To what extent is a state
responsible for the damages to the environment, when the latter is conceived as composed not only of human beings, but also of non-humans and
natural objects? How will reparations be defined as a consequence of the affirmation of state responsibility? The preservation or restoration of
biodiversity, for example, can be considered a form of reparations, irrespective of whether human interests have been affected. Habitat restoration
projects can also support the protection of non-human animals, on whose rights the debate has been quite controversial.53 It is worth
acknowledging that in the 1970s, Peter Singer, in his famous Animal Liberation, argued that discrimination of living beings “solely on account of
their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is immoral and
indefensible.”54 Singer compared specism to racism, and feminists identified the connections between specism and sexism. In that respect, the
radical feminist Catherine MacKinnon denounced how “women have been animalized, animals feminized, often at the same time.”55 To disrupt
the binary category human (or better, some humans)/nature, with the dominance of the former on the latter, a legal revolution is needed. Boyd
argued that “the progress in scientific understanding and the concomitant evolution of societal values seem to compel movement in this
direction,” as demonstrated by the legal recognition that “animals deserve significantly stronger rights than they have been granted in the past.”56
The real nature of animals is one of complex individuals, “living in elaborate social networks, relationships, and communities,”57 and the law
needs to catch up with the science, spurring societal change. Anne Peters elaborated a concept of global animal law to promote animal rights,
invoking five main reasons, the main one being “the advantage of having rights as opposed to being merely beneficiaries of standards of conduct
[…]. The recognition of rights carries with it a powerful message of prima facie inviolability.”58 In other words, “animal rights would […]
preclude the current routine sacrifice of fundamental animal interests in favor of trite human interests.”59
Decentering states and the humans does not simply mean to re-center the legal debate on nature, most importantly because states and (a part of)
human beings have been the cause of the ongoing environmental disasters and ecological imbalances. An eco-centric approach would rather
entail that human policies and perspectives are reoriented toward a common end, with the guarantee of the integrity of the environment, to which
humans constitute an integral, though no longer dominant, part. It would also stress the importance of non-governmental organizations and
environmental (and not only human) rights defenders in the disruption of the predominance of states in the international realm.
The Prohibition of the Use of Force
An eco-centric reading of the prohibition of the use of force can follow two (at least initial) directions .60 The first one
rests on the marginalization of the environment in the provisions of UN Security Council resolutions . Hence, for
example, in a recent resolution on peacekeeping,61 the UN body only recognized that “possible adverse effects of environmental deterioration
may, in the long run, aggravate certain existing threats to the stability of some host states,” but did not consider that the action of peacekeepers
must respect the environment, considered as a broad concept encompassing human and non-human animals, along with natural objects, as
contended in this article. Another example is the UN Security Council Resolution No. 2379 of 2017, establishing the investigative team to
support domestic efforts to hold ISIL accountable by collecting, preserving, and storing evidence in Iraq of acts that may amount to international
crimes committed by the ISIL, which does not mention the environment at all. The Security Council condemned “the commission of acts by ISIL
(Da’esh) involving murder, kidnapping, hostage-taking, suicide bombings, enslavement, sale into or otherwise forced marriage, trafficking in
persons, rape, sexual slavery and other forms of sexual violence, recruitment and use of children, attacks on critical infrastructure, as well as its
destruction of cultural heritage, including archaeological sites, and trafficking of cultural property,” but not the impact of the group’s actions on
the environment.62
It is also the main argument of this paragraph that when authorizing the use of force, the UN Security Council should include
the respect for the environment, especially due to air and soil contamination caused by military strikes that affects
the ecosystems and the human beings as part of them. It would be even possible to say, evoking the call for disarmament
and peace of the International Congress of Women of 1915, that if we consider the environment as a whole, the quest for peace
manifests itself as expression of ecocentrism .
The second direction concerns the use of weapons. In this sector, the eco-centric approach to international law can be appreciated at its best,
suggesting an eco-centric, inspired by ecofeminism, rewriting of the highly criticized Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of
nuclear weapons of 1996.63 It is well-known that in a split 7-7 decision, with the President casting the final vote, the court on one hand
recognized that the threat or use of nuclear weapons “would generally be contrary to the rules of international law
applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law” and, on the other hand, could not
conclude definitively “whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme
circumstance of self-defense.” The environment was mentioned by the court in a key paragraph, in which it pointed out that “the
environment is under daily threat and that the use of nuclear weapons could constitute a catastrophe for the environment” and
that “the environment […] the living space, the quality of life and the very health of human beings.” The
environment is however more than the living space of human beings ; it is the place of all the elements conceived as a
whole. A partial rewriting of the opinion in an eco-centric perspective will consider the applicable rules on the
environment as combined with international human rights law, arguing that the use of nuclear weapons—
potentially all weapons—have an impact on the right to a healthy environment , which is no longer a simple
“human” right, but it is the right of all the species and ecosystems that live in it . Arguing that the use or threat of the use of
nuclear weapons had to be judged illegal under all circumstances, Judge Weeramantry in his dissenting opinion came close to an eco-centric
view, pointing out that these weapons not only contradicts human dignity but also “ endanger s the human environment in
a manner which threatens the entirety of life on the planet.”64
Concluding Remarks
We did not need the pandemic to highlight the weaknesses of the global health governance and international law more generally as we conceive
them today. New ways of framing international law have been advocated for a long time. The pandemic represents however the game changer,
which unveils existing problems and pushes for a change. The interconnection between global health and the environment must be appreciated in
all ideas of reform of the WHO system as a starting point, but this does not seem enough. There is an urgent need of new creative
approaches to international law to grasp the complexity of the environment, which includes human beings as part of
a holistic whole. This argument does not only lead to the adoption of new rules of international law but also to apply and interpret existing
ones in an eco-centric way. This Reflection has provided a few examples of existing practice in the described direction. Its invitation to endorse
an eco-centric approach to international law, which is critical of existing patterns of discrimination and oppression, is not devoid of risks,
including the resistance states could show to new rules informed by eco-centric concerns. Nonetheless, as international lawyers, we should
respond to the crisis and demonstrate that i nternational law, starting from its basic concepts, can evolve and embrace the
environment , which is, in the end, nothing less than a pivotal issue to work on in all the fields of the discipline.
 1AC---Plan
The United States federal government should designate rivers as legal persons,
implemented through a comanagement framework.
 1AC---Solvency
Congress should establish legal personhood for rivers, with a framework allowing federal,
state and tribal representation for rivers’ interests---that’s key to sustainability and only
possible through federal action
Meredith N. Healy 19, J.D. Candidate, University of Colorado Law School, 2019, “Fluid Standing: Incorporating
the Indigenous Rights of Nature Concept into Collaborative Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem,”
Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review,
https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attached-files/healy_web_edition_pdf.pdf
Across the globe, what was once unthinkable is now coming into practice: national governments have acquiesced to
their indigenous peoples’ beliefs that natural resources such as trees and rivers deserve the same rights generally
reserved for humans. These governments are starting to recognize the rights of nature by bestowing legal
personhood . Black’s Law Dictionary defines a legal person as “a being, real or imaginary, who for the purpose of
legal reasoning is treated more or less as a human being.” The rights that flow from legal personhood form a basis
for judicial activism by conferring certain rights and recognition normally reserved for humans and legal fictions
such as corporations.
In the U nited S tates, individuals who would like to represent natural resources such as rivers may only sue on a
case-by-case basis as next friends because the judicial system affords no specific legal guardianship for natural
resources. These next friends operate as third parties advocating on behalf of an injured party. In general, there is no
way for these third parties to represent the interests of a river absent an injury to the third party. For example, both
states and tribes are currently limited to claims for economic injuries rather than direct environmental injuries to
rivers. This lack of recourse is written into the National Environmental Policy Act (“ NEPA ”), which requires
preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) whenever a proposed major federal action will
significantly affect the quality of the human environment.8 Notably, NEPA only requires an EIS when the human
environment might be significantly affected, not only when the particular ecosystem itself.
If the U nited States were to recognize the rights of nature, such rights might grant an entity recognition for
purposes of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. This would remove the need to ask courts to stretch
their imagination to consider roots and rivulets citizens for purposes of the Privileges and Immunities Clauses in
Article IV Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Recognizing the legal rights
of nature might provide a more direct way for environmental advocates to represent the interests of rivers and other
natural resources without having to claim third-party injury.
This Note will begin with an introduction to the recent global development of the rights of nature. From South
America to Oceania, national judiciaries and legislatures have reached back to their indigenous roots to recognize
how the rights of nature can be used to protect natural resources from wanton degradation. In Part II, this Note will
review how the U nited S tates has developed environmental policies apart from any recognition of the rights of
nature aside from the human environment, and how Justices Douglas’ and Blackmun’s dissenting views in the
landmark environmental standing case, Sierra Club v. Morton, lay dormant until recent years when grassroot
movements revived independent protection for natural resources through legislative and judicial advocacy. Part III
will discuss local government attempts to recognize the rights of nature in the face of corporate resistance, and the
ill-fated recent attempt to obtain judicial recognition of the rights of nature in The Colorado River Ecosystem, et al.
v. State of Colorado. Part IV will explore a comanagement framework that would allow a currently resistant
American culture to blend our own indigenous knowledge with the existing environmental advocacy mechanisms in
the case of the Colorado River Ecosystem. This Note recommends that Congress consider establishing a strategic
Colorado River Ecosystem guardianship group that incorporates federal, state, and tribal representation , as well as a
non-governmental, appointed citizen representative for the Colorado River Ecosystem. This approach could ensure
sustainability of multiple interests in the river and the river itself without rocking the boat.
Rights for rivers spill over to protections for other ecosystems, and get modeled
internationally
Mara Tignino 18, Reader of International Law at the Faculty of Law and the Institute for Environmental Sciences
of the University of Geneva; and Laura E. Turley, PhD Candidate and Teaching Assistant at the Institute for
Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva,
Last year, four rivers were granted legal rights: the Whanganui in New Zealand, Rio Atrato in Colombia, and the Ganga and
Yamuna rivers in India. These four cases present powerful examples of the increasing relevance of rights-centered environmental protection.
Like corporations, which have legal rights in many jurisdictions, these rivers are rights-bearing entities whose rights can be enforced by local
communities and individuals in court. But unlike corporations, these rights are not yet recognized in international treaties . Which
raises the question: what are the implications of rights for nature for international environmental law?
Granting Rights to a River: Enhancing a Right-Based Approach
In international law, legal standing is principally employed to distinguish between those entities that are relevant to the
international legal system and those excluded from it. Current international law conventions do not give legal
standing to water resources. Instead, international conventions — such as the Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of
International Watercourses — mainly address water management from the perspective of the participating states . Similarly,
European legislation on freshwater resources, such as the Water Framework Directive, recognizes the importance of protecting water resources,
but views them entirely as natural resources belonging to states.
In contrast to international law, some countries have granted rights to the nature, and specifically to rivers, in their national
laws. In 2008, Ecuador recognized the constitutional right of Mother Earth and, in 2010, Bolivia adopted the Laws on the Rights of Mother
Earth, which gives legal standing to nature and establishes an ombudsman for the protection of its rights. And in May 2017, Colombia’s
Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River as a legal person.
More recently, the Parliament of New Zealand granted the country’s third-longest river, the Whanganui, the legal rights of a person, after a 140-
year campaign by the Whanganui Iwi tribe. In addition to compensating the Whanganui Iwi for grievances, the move seeks to preserve the river
for future generations of Whanganui Iwi and all New Zealanders. As such, the river gains its legal personality not from an abstract legal entity,
but from the people that are connected with the river.
India’s Ganges River and one of its main tributaries, the Yamuna River were granted these same rights. The high court in the northern state of
Uttarakhand — not the national government, as in New Zealand, Ecuador, and Bolivia—issued the order, citing the case of the Whanganui in
establishing that that the Ganges and the Yamuna should be accorded the status of living human entities.
These rivers now have the right to representation in the form of “guardians” or “allies” in legal proceedings against
threats to their wellbeing, such as degradation. Like a charitable trust or society, these rivers can have “trustees” looking out for their best
interests. Like people, these rivers have the right to sue others, seeking to force communities to take better care of the river, or face penalties.
Critics argue that these rulings could set precedents for granting rights to other natural entities such as forests,
mountains, and deserts, inviting lawsuits to protect resources from degradation. Some critics have even pointed to extreme
spin-offs in which stones and pebbles could eventually sue people for stepping on them. Defenders reject this view, and say the point is to
protect the ecosystems human life depends on.
The practical implications of these legal innovations are not clear yet, but the stage is being set for an interesting comparative study: How does
legal representation for rivers play out in different social, ecological, and economic contexts?
The Whanganui River is a relatively pristine ecosystem — especially in contrast to the heavily polluted Yamuna and Ganges rivers. Each day, 1.5
billion liters of untreated sewage enters the Ganges River, and many attempts to clean up the river have failed over the years. Will the river’s
legal status improve this situation?
The governance challenge in India is significant: the limitations of a state court’s control over an environmental resource — which is by its very
nature inter-jurisdictional — become clear. Furthermore, there are no financial resources to support the implementation. In New Zealand,
however, financial redress of NZ$80 million was included in the settlement, as well as an additional NZ$1 million contribution towards
establishing the river’s legal framework.
Are Transboundary Rivers People, Too?
The international treaties that govern transboundary rivers focus on the participating countries’ rights and
entitlements, to ensure that one riparian country’s use or management of the river does not negatively affect the rights of another riparian.
These international agreements rarely grant rights to individuals and local communities —and if they do, they usually only
address access to information, public participation in decision-making processes, and access to justice.
In the transboundary context, the concept of trusteeship might be useful. According to the public trust doctrine, a
nation has a legal duty to protect its natural resources for the public interest and for the common benefit of present and future
generations. International rivers could come under the protection of the public trust , and local communities would be
both owners and beneficiaries of the trust’s interests. In 1998, for example, Melanne Andromecca Civic proposed that the United
Nations Trusteeship Council should be charged with the management of the Jordan River.
It is not clear whether these are the first steps towards a new international norm in the coming years. It is however clear
that an anthropocentric view of the environment is, in some circumstances, being replaced by an eco-centric
perspective — at least in some countries.
Rivers are a key starting point for ecosystem legal personhood---they’re distinct enough to
be defined, and vital enough to shift the law toward ecocentrism overall
Cristy Clark 18, Lecturer in Law, School of Law & Justice, Southern Cross University, Australia, et al., 2018,
“ARTICLE: Can You Hear the Rivers Sing? Legal Personhood, Ontology, and the Nitty-Gritty of Governance,”
Ecology Law Quarterly, 45 Ecology L.Q. 787
A nuanced analysis of this emerging jurisprudence is necessary to avoid the risk of "occupy[ing an] indeterminate terrain, …
one already inscribed by humanist precepts of what "rights' and "nature' might consist of." 25 More importantly for the
present Article, it is also readily apparent that, in the words of Christopher Stone, Nature makes for a "shifty client," 26 or, paraphrasing
Kate Soper, a "promiscuous subject." 27 Nature, the environment, or even single complex ecosystems are seldom easily
quantifiable as bounded entities with geographically clear borders. Within the complex spectrum of establishing where a legal
subject ends and another begins, however, rivers are somewhat more easily identifiable , their very being premised on
historicized boundaries that measure their watery ambit from riverbed to riverbank. And yet, rivers still elude a final,
clearly defined, and uncontroversial description. As a result, rivers inhabit a liminal space, one that is at the same time
somewhat geographically bounded and yet metaphorically transcendent, physically shifting, and culturally porous.
It is thus deeply emblematic that rivers constitute a particularly promising medium for the ontological shift mentioned
above. Rivers and life share a profound bond, one that Justice Douglas already articulated in 1972: [*792]
The river, … is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all
other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for
the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it be a
fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with
destruction. 28
Fast-forward again forty-five years, and the sentiment remains identical, albeit the scale of destruction has intensified. "Rivers are the
arteries of the earth , and lifelines for humanity and millions of other animals and plants. It's no wonder they have been venerated,
considered as ancestors or mothers, and held up as sacred symbols." 29 Paradoxically, and tragically, "we have also desecrated
them in every conceivable way." 30
This Article thus focuses on rivers - in South and North America, India, and the Antipodean South - to tell a story of rights of
Nature, of the emergence (or not) of legal personhood, and of the paradigmatic change that re-orients the law away from
anthropocentrism to something else. Our river case stories are told in a relatively diachronic order. We start in Part I with the
Vilcabamba River in Ecuador, a relatively short, although internationally well-known judgment that interprets the extent of the early
constitutional guarantees afforded Nature, centering on an environmentally degraded river system. In Part II, the focus shifts to the intimately
contextual and cultural narrative of the Whanganui River in New Zealand, a river song heard with astonishing clarity by that country's Parliament
- with its passage of a statute that sings the soaring rhetoric of ontological change yet prescribes the necessary nitty-gritty detail of governance.
Part III returns to South America, and the more voluminous, ontologically sophisticated judgment of the Atrato River. 31 In this case, the
Colombian Constitution was successfully interpreted by the Colombian Constitutional Court to vindicate the Atrato's standing as a subject of
legal rights. Part IV explores the yet-to-be-enforced decisions of the High Court of the Indian State of Uttarakhand, which sought to protect two
of India's most iconic and sacred rivers - the Ganges and the Yamuna - from the ongoing onslaught of pollution and degradation. These two
judgments underline that judicial ambition needs to be matched by a commensurate political willingness to enact
paradigmatic change. In Part V, the unsuccessful attempt to protect the Colorado River through [*793] a "first-in-the-nation" 32 rights of
Nature lawsuit sings the sad song of an iconic yet diminished U.S. river - now more an "industrial project" 33 than a natural waterway, a river
long stripped of its wildness and freedom. Part VI ends our river case studies with the Yarra River/Birrarung in the Australian state of Victoria. In
an Australian first, the Victorian state government legislated an Act that gives voice to the river as "one living and integrated natural entity," 34
yet curiously denies it its legal standing. Part VII concludes with a discursive review of these many river cases - and their legal, social, and
cultural implications.
As implied by the above structure, this Article employs a comparative methodology. Contrary to Henry Lawson's famous assertion that
comparative law is "bound to be superficial," 35 this paper will instead follow Pierre Legrand's recognition that law is profoundly and
inextricably inscribed in culture, 36 aware that "it is never possible to carry out a wholly "meaningful' transplant of law from one culture
to another, because law is never limited to rules," as Gary Watt writes in articulating Legrand's position. 37 Although we do not share Legrand's
somewhat pessimistic view in relation to the almost titanic complexity of contextualizing different legal formants 38 within distinct cultural
milieus, 39 we also, at the same time, wish to resist the uncontrolled urge toward harmonization and transnational convergence of rules through
apparent, and inevitably superficial, similarities. As Watt suggests:
our understanding of law will remain superficial so long as we fail to appreciate that law is neither a doctrinal
science that will produce predictable outcomes as laboratory experiments might, nor merely an empirically
quantifiable sociological fact or an economic construct, but that it comprises arts of imaginative reading , persuasive
speech, creative writing and practical performance engaged in as living arts by living people. 40
The effort to navigate the difficult waters of a legal comparison of seemingly similar and yet culturally unique river cases is guided by the use of
a specific metaphor, that of the song of each river. We are inspired, in doing so, by Peter Goodrich's insightful suggestion that "the comparative
takes hold in the [*794] precise moment of the dissipation of the juridical, in the instance of non-law," 41 and thus the analysis of both statutory
provisions and judicial decisions will be balanced against a host of cultural expressions, narratives, and apparently non-legal imagery. Of course,
to focus on rivers is to highlight what these geographically and culturally distinct watery bodies share in common .
However, in doing so, we need also to be mindful of difference , that each and every river sings its own unique song. We
should not ignore the grounded facts, the nuanced and not so nuanced contexts - geographic, cultural, social,
historical, and legal - that shape each river's course. What we ultimately explore in this Article are the multiple songs of many rivers
- some share converging melodies, others perhaps are discordant. This attention to the cultural context will emphasize the focus on
both the ontic and epistemic dimensions of the cases analyzed. This approach is taken in order to properly inscribe
their comparative appraisal within the shift toward an Ecological Jurisprudence introduced above.

Scaling up rights of nature at the federal level is key to reorient environmental regulation
away from prioritizing corporate interests
Kai Huschke 20, the Northwest and Hawaii Organizer for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund;
and Simon Davis-Cohen, research and communications associate for the Community Environmental Legal Defense
Fund, 4/16/20, “The EPA Has Abandoned Its Duty To Protect the Environment. ‘Rights of Nature’ Laws Can Fill
the Void,” https://inthesetimes.com/article/trump-epa-covid-19-environmental-law-rights-of-nature-air-water-
pollution
Authoritarian governments often prepare laws they wish to pass and have them “ready to go” when opportunity strikes. That’s what Fionnuala Ni
Aolain, a United Nations Special Rapporteur on Counterterrorism and Human Rights, recently told the New York Times.
“They draft laws in advance and wait ‘for the opportunity of the crisis to be presented,’” Ni Aolain explained.
It’s clear to us that greed-fueled bad actors are taking this pandemic as just such an opportunity. Corporate lobbies have quietly pushed
through laws criminalizing fossil fuel protests . Congress approved an unprecedented and unnecessary handout to
corporate America. Pipeline companies want to classify new pipelines as “essential,” including TC Energy, which got the
green light and began constructing the infamous Keystone XL pipeline. The federal government appears to be mulling a bailout for the fossil fuel
industry. And, last but not least, the Trump administration ordered the
E nvironmental P rotection A gency to stop enforcing anti-
pollution laws in some cases, removing what anemic oversight the EPA once held over corporate polluters, effectively suspending the agency
while taking action to roll back some environmental protections permanently .
The EPA’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic ― effectively ceasing enforcement of federal environmental laws ― will, regardless of the
motivations for this unprecedented decision, negatively impact peoples’ lives. This means that many communities, and the life-giving ecosystems
they depend upon, are on their own.
In this moment, many people are in shock, and for good reason. For others, however, this pandemic has not caused system failure but merely
exposed it. Innumerable communities across the U.S. know from first-hand experience that federal and state “regulations” do not
safeguard water, public health, and the ecosystems they rely on. Critically, they also understand the system of pollution “permits”
are a tool for the repression of democracy.
State and federal environmental laws have failed to avoid mass species die offs , cancers, public health catastrophes,
pervasive pollution, and the climate emergency.
Legalized Harm
Under this system of law, communities are forced to accept activities that are “permitted” by “environmental” law. The
democratic powers of such communities to govern corporations are superseded by federal and state regulations and
judge-made laws, like corporate “personhood,” that function to both legalize things that harm people and the
environment and prevent communities from protecting themselves.
Native nations, as well, have been assaulted by “environmental” laws that “permit” and “regulate” pipelines through
sacred land. For decades, such permits have always superseded the self-determining authority of these nations, often enshrined in treaties, to
say “no.”
Part of the problem is that old environmental laws treat ecosystems as property and function to legalize the status quo.
They offer polluters a shield of legal protection through the “permit” process.
Rights of Nature
For years, many communities
who have experienced this system firsthand have felt abandoned by their federal and
state “environmental” regulators . Many have taken their destiny into their own hands and stepped outside the modern paradigm of
environmental law. We must follow their lead.
In the past decade, multiple
Native nations and dozens of U nited S tates municipalities have passed enforceable Rights of
Nature laws. Arguably, 2019 was the movement’s biggest year in United States history. Here’s a rundown of what happened this past year:
The residents of Toledo, Ohio adopted the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, the first law in the U.S. to secure legal rights for a specific ecosystem.
Residents of Exeter and Nottingham, New Hampshire enacted laws elevating the rights of ecosystems above the rights of corporate polluters.
The Yurok tribe in the U.S. recognized legal rights of the Klamath River.
The High Court in Bangladesh recognized legal rights of rivers.
The National Lawyers Guild amended its constitution to include the rights of ecosystems.
A New York assemblyman proposed a law to recognize the rights of Lake Erie.
The Youth Climate Strike included Rights of Nature (and respect for indigenous sovereignty) in their list of demands.
Rights of Nature bills were introduced in Australia and the Philippines.
In Colombia, the Plata River was recognized as a “subject of rights.”
Quietly, 2020 is shaping up to be another historic year.
Just ahead of the EPA announcement, for the first time in U.S. history, a community successfully pressured a state to enforce a local Rights of
Nature law.
After seven years of community activism, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) revoked a permit for a frack waste
injection well in Grant Township, Pennsylvania. DEP officials cited Grant Township’s Home Rule Charter, which banned injection wells as a
violation of the Rights of Nature, as grounds for their reversal.
“Grant Township’s Home Rule Charter bans the injection of oil and gas waste fluids,” the DEP wrote. “Therefore, the operation of the [waste
injection] well as an oil and gas waste fluid injection well would violate that applicable law.”
Our colleague Chad Nicholson worked with Grant residents on the measure.
“This decision,” he said in a statement, “does not validate the actions of the DEP, but rather vindicates the resistance that communities like Grant
have engaged in to force governmental agencies into doing the right thing.”
Time to Scale Up
We live in a moment when multiple and radically different futures are possible . Some believe the pandemic is a
once-in-a-generation opportunity to remake society and build a more just and sustainable future . Meanwhile,
authoritarians and corporations are taking advantage of the moment to concentrate power and secure their future
profits .
In conjunction with new enforceable human rights to water, Rights of Nature is a “ready to go” peoples’ paradigm
shift. It is time to scale it up — crucially  — such that those rights nullify the property rights of corporations when
there is a conflict .
We are talking about a course correction whereby the authority of human communities to govern the purpose and
behavior of corporations is recognized and enforced. It means changing the very purpose of the law that binds us
together. It means thinking about what is really “essential,” and driving that life-centered ethic into the law .
Communities across the country have already begun to rethink how human law treats the ecosystems our societies depend on. This new paradigm
is long overdue.
Sustainability Advantage
Internal Link
 IL---AT: U.S. Not Key to Global Action (Houck 17)
Houck concludes current global action’s precarious and reversible---makes the aff key
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
All of this progress noted, one would be remiss not to recognize that the situation today is precarious . No country
on earth has done a more dramatic turnabout on environmental protection than the U nited S tates, whose relevant
agencies are now both led and staffed by individuals who have spent their professional lives opposing them ,
137even their right to [*25] exist. 138 Protective regulations are falling like ten-pins, and this is only the beginning.
139Nowhere in the world can one be confident that nature as we know it today, even in its diminished state, can
endure. All of which has fostered proposals to recognize nature's own rights more directly and raised legal questions
in turn that we can no longer ignore.
 IL---Degrowth---Global Spillover/Modeling
Strong rights of nature get modeled globally due to judicial borrowing---that’s key to
overcome growth economics worldwide
Mark Hawkins 21, MSc in Environment, Politics and Development from the University of London, January
2021, “Imagining a Post-Development Future: What can the Degrowth and Rights of Nature Debates Offer Each
Other,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348785651_Imagining_a_Post-
Development_Future_What_can_the_Degrowth_and_Rights_of_Nature_Debates_Offer_Each_Other
The RoN, unlike degrowth, have real world examples of its implementation, most notably in the constitutions of Ecuador and
Bolivia. Its greatest strength is that it addresses a key weakness in modern environmental law : it is difficult to show
one's rights have been damaged by the destruction or spoiling of a natural biome. One of the first mentions of the RoN was
put forward in the 1972 Supreme Court case on the issue of legal standing, in which the court rejected the Sierra Club, an environmental
organization, seeking to block the development of a ski resort in the Sierra Nevada mountains. Justice William O. Douglas, in a dissenting
opinion, advised that environmental objects should be granted legal personhood to make them legible before the law (Ogden 2018). In this vein in
Article 71 of the Ecuadorian constitution and Article 34 of the Bolivian constitution it is stipulated that any member of the
public may bring RoN cases before the courts, thus theoretically making it possible for anyone to intervene on the side
of the natural environment (Ecuador 7.71, Bolivia V.I.34.). Another strength of the RoN is its connection to Indigenous
thought. Kauffman & Martin (2018) argue in the case of the Wanganui river in New Zealand that RoN represents a compromise
between the modern state and Indigenous worldviews. This gives RoN great promise , representing a way to move
beyond the man nature duality, one of the pillars of modernity which is often absent from Indigenous thought
(Gudynas 2010). Furthermore, legal concepts are particularly mobile in the modern hyperconnected world thanks to
judicial borrowing . Affolder (2019) calls this “ contagious law-making ”, thus capturing both the spread of ideas from host
to host and the mutating of these ideas as they spread around the globe. The contagious nature of legal innovations,
especially in the case of environmental law , gives legal principles a malleability and manoeuvrability quite above
regular policy proposals. Yet law is often underrepresented in post-developmental arguments, in the case of degrowth this is
particularly true.
And so, we can see the context of these two schools of thought from the forefront of the post-development, where anthropocentric
development-through-growth has come against biophysical limits and an increasingly organised and broad coalition of critics.
The core of this idea, with its utility to continued accumulation, is the framing of continued growth as a ‘tide to raise
all boats’, paid for by a nature imagined as external, distant and limitless . Having introduced the key concepts, we will now
look at some blind spots in the two movements.
 IL---Degrowth---Broad/General
Rights of nature are vital to put hard limits on growth that mandate sustainability---that
prompts a shift from focusing on GDP towards net positive impact as the metric for growth
Linda Sheehan 17, Executive Director, Planet Pledge, 4/21/17, “The Role of Nature’s Rights in Achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals,” http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload651.pdf
First, how does nature’s rights help us understand what “sustainable” behavior looks like? “Sustainability” as a concept should guide us
to improve the health of the biosphere and our relationship with it, rather than prop up current, harmful
consumption and production practices . The Expert Report on Earth Jurisprudence submitted to you describes “sustainable” behavior as
being “reconnect[ed] … with Nature’s processes.” The Report emphasizes that nature can no longer be treated as a commodity – it
is our relation, and we must evolve law and policy to reflect that fact.
The concept of rights helps us understand this point more clearly. The 2030 SDG Agenda seeks to “realize the human rights of
all,” and adds that the SDGs are “grounded in” the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is important, but we also must ground the SDGs
in nature’s rights if we are to protect human rights in practice.
For example, the U.N. has acknowledged that the human right to water is “a prerequisite for the realization of other human
rights .”1 But how can we say we have a right to something, like a waterway, if it does not itself have a right to exist
and thrive? The Earth Jurisprudence Report recommends that we fix this gap by recognizing nature’s rights in law
and practice , just as we recognize human rights and the rights of indigenous peoples.
Governments around the world are already taking up this charge. Just in the last few weeks, we have seen legislation passed at the national level
in New Zealand and two court decisions in India, which have recognized the legal personhood and rights of ecosystems and species. In addition,
the IUCN’s World Commission on Environmental Law recently concluded that recognition of nature’s inherent right to “exist, thrive, and
evolve” is essential to ensure ecologically sustainable development.
Just as law and policy grounded in human rights sets a higher standard for action, so too does law and policy grounded in nature’s
rights better protect the well‐being of ecosystems and species. Defining “sustainability” in terms of nature’s right to
thrive is significantly different from what we do now. We treat nature as a commodity for our economic system
first, with only limited safeguards to slow nature’s degradation. This approach is failing , as species and habitats
rapidly disappear and the global temperature continues to warm.
We must set our sights higher. The 2030 Agenda makes room for nature’s rights, calling for a “healthy environment” and declaring a
vision of a world “where all life can thrive.” The structure of our laws, policies, and scientific inquiry must support this core vision
of sustainability. This brings us to the second question: how does nature’s rights inform the meaning of “sustainable
development,” and how do we achieve such development in practice? Putting profit before people and nature is
unsustainable development . We must redefine what we expect sustainable business and finance to look like, and move
away from a primary profit objective and toward expanding benefits for Earth society, which includes all life.
What does this mean in practice? One conclusion is that we need to replace g ross d omestic p roduct as
a desirable measure of
sustainable progress. The Earth Jurisprudence Report observes that “blind adherence to economic growth as a measure of well–
being has resulted in increasing harm to the planet and to all of us.” GDP growth does not translate to sustainable
development ; it includes all development, both good and tragic. Earlier this year, the World Economic Forum itself criticized
such economic growth as failing to address the needs of the political economy.
Sustainable development calls on us to choose our actions in light of their broader impacts, rather than continue to
focus on short‐term profit . Fortunately, this economic evolution is already beginning. More businesses are measuring success not just by
profits and economic growth, but also by the measureable social and ecological benefits they generate. More investors are demanding investment
products that offer both financial returns and strong social and ecological returns. This expanded focus allows for improved consideration and
management of risk, and so can result in better financial performances over time than conventional instruments.
One such example is the increasing number of investments related to mitigating climate change, to help the world stay below the 2oC threshold.
The social and ecological impacts of climate change are potentially catastrophic and irreversible . Financial
investments that recognize and mitigate such risks, such as investments in the low carbon economy, will ensure sustainability
far more effectively than those that merely increase GDP. It is with climate change in mind that the World Economic Forum also
identified an “urgent” need for “long‐term thinking” in our economic system. To be sustainable in fact, development must be conceived and
implemented in light of the magnitude of the long‐term risks of climate change and other global stressors.
Our sustainable development objective, however, is not merely occasional success. We must create instead a self‐perpetuating
system, designed to generate development and investment behavior that regularly advances net positive impacts for
human and ecological communities. We need to think beyond current investment and economic practices to do this .
For instance, we should consistently place higher costs on economic behaviors that cause injury, such as fossil fuels ,
and reward with higher returns those economic choices that measurably benefit people and planet . Tying our
economic, business, and finance priorities to progress in safeguarding nature’s rights and human rights will help us
measure our success and keep us on track.
We also must evolve our characterization of nature as an economic commodity. Our relationship with nature is fundamentally familial and local.
As the Earth Jurisprudence Report recommend, development must reconnect with and respect nature’s processes, rather than
destroy those processes in the name of profit.
This brings us to our third question: how do we adjust our actions to best achieve our core sustainable development goal as
soon as possible? We have little time to course‐correct before the impacts of climate change, species extinctions,
and habitat destruction create tipping points that irreversibly injure all life .
The key is to focus on the 2030 Agenda’s core goal: “a world…where all life can thrive.” This includes the natural world, as we are inseparable
from it.
Our core goal for 2030 is not sustainable development. Our goal instead is a thriving world; sustainable development is just a tool. Nature’s
rights provides a necessary foundation from which our governance systems can build truly sustainable development
practices that will help us achieve our goal, including finance and business systems designed to seek out and
maximize ecological and social gains.
The distinguished members of this Assembly can take action now in this direction , by advancing nature’s rights laws
locally, as numerous communities and nations have done already, and by supporting a Declaration on the Rights of Nature.

Nature rights are vital to put boundaries on growth that make it sustainable
David R. Boyd 17, associate professor of law, policy, and sustainability at the University of British Columbia,
2017, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World, unpaginated ebook edition
Rights for nature impose responsibilities on humans to modify our behaviour in ways that will re-establish a
mutually beneficial relationship. Recognizing and respecting nature’s rights does not put an end to all human activities,
but requires eliminating or modifying those which inflict suffering on animals, threaten the survival of species, or undermine the
ecological systems that all life depends on . The precise meaning and effects of recognizing the rights of nature will
be worked out through community conversations, scholarly dialogue, public and political debates, negotiation, and, where
necessary, litigation, just as all novel legal concepts evolve.
It should be obvious that nature’s rights cannot be reconciled with endless economic growth, consumerism,
unconstrained globalization, or laissez-faire capitalism. We cannot continue to prioritize property rights and
corporate rights, burn fossil fuels at current rates , or perpetuate today’s linear economy that treats nature as a
commodity rather than a community. Actions needed to respect, protect, and fulfill nature’s rights include treating all
animals (human and non-human) with greater empathy and respect; rapidly shifting to 100 percent renewable energy ; protecting
vital natural cycles of life, such as water , carbon, and nitrogen; focusing on local production and consumption; and
redesigning the economy to acknowledge ecological limits and emulate nature’s circular approach . In a circular
economy, all inputs, outputs, and byproducts must be non-toxic, reusable, recyclable, or compostable. By redesigning products, processes, and
supply chains, we could create a restorative economy that benefits both people and the planet.
Perhaps the most critical missing piece of the puzzle is an informed public willing and able to close the gap between their actions and their
professed love of animals, endangered species, and nature. We need to place ecological literacy on par with reading, writing, and arithmetic as
foundational learning in our education systems. People need to speak out about the rights of nature and elect politicians who are willing to do the
same. People need to rethink their own priorities so as to leave a lighter footprint on the Earth and cause less suffering to animals, using
renewable energy, eating less meat and dairy (and shifting to ethical sources), reducing consumption, and shifting purchases toward services and
cradle-to-cradle products.
Many questions remain regarding the impact of recognizing nature’s rights. Yet there is a widespread and growing sense that treating nature
as a mere warehouse of resources for our use, and a repository for our pollution and garbage, is fundamentally
wrong. Cormac Cullinan believes that “the day will come when the failure of our laws to recognize the right of a river to
flow, to prohibit acts that destabilize Earth’s climate, or to impose a duty to respect the intrinsic value and right to exist of all life
will be as reprehensible as allowing people to be bought and sold.” Propelled by the global environmental crisis, the rights of
nature movement has the potential to create a world where people live in genuine harmony with nature . It forces us to
reflect upon the fact that we live on the only planet in the universe known to support life. Our evolution, and the evolution of the millions of other
species both different from and similar to humans, have combined to form an interdependent fabric that makes this planet a natural miracle, a
one-in-a-billion long shot.
 IL---Degrowth---Extractive Industries
Rights of nature are the core of a material degrowth agenda---they directly limit the
extractive industries that fuel endless consumption and marginalize Indigenous populations
Mark Hawkins 21, MSc in Environment, Politics and Development from the University of London, January
2021, “Imagining a Post-Development Future: What can the Degrowth and Rights of Nature Debates Offer Each
Other,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348785651_Imagining_a_Post-
Development_Future_What_can_the_Degrowth_and_Rights_of_Nature_Debates_Offer_Each_Other
In terms of degrowth the RoN offer a vanguard policy . Firstly, they are contagious , and have the ability to spread
beyond sluggish governments all too often in the thrall of powerful economic interests. Secondly the RoN are of
particular relevance to Indigenous people both directly in that they offer another tool in Indigenous groups and their
allies arsenals in resisting extraction and dispossession and indirectly in that they contribute to moving towards
pluralistic legal systems more responsive to Indigenous customs and world views. Indigenous groups that are
currently not adequately defended in degrowth, especially given they are historically and currently the greatest
victims of growth and accumulation . Thirdly as we have seen in the Columbia case, and will see in the cases of
Ecuador and Bolivia below it is extractive industries that are the targets of RoN laws, and it is in response to these
industries that such laws often surface. It is these sights of extraction that growth originates , by the creation of the
conditions that allow for the cheap natural resources to be obtained to fuel industry and consumption; materials
obtained from the land of the marginalised .
 IL---Degrowth---Transition
Transition would work---balancing growth policies during the transition and practical
lifestyle changes will gain public support
Claudio Cattaneo 17, researcher at the Barcelona Institute of Regional and Metropolitan Studies of Autonomous
University (IERMB-UAB) on energy and landscape analysis, Ph.D. in Ecological Economics from Universitat
Autònoma de Barcelona, July 2017, “Degrowth – Taking Stock and Reviewing an Emerging Academic Paradigm,”
Ecological Economics, Vol. 137, p. 8
Moreover, growth policies may not necessarily be abandoned on a finite planet earth. Instead, such policies may allow
making maximum use of available resources (be it through expanded resource extraction, technological innovation, or increased
commodification of society) in the short term, while in parallel enabling the development of means to cope with
environmental limits in the long term. Drought in California arguably forced residential water consumption to
decrease in 2014 by some 30% (Reese, 2015) without causing major social disruptions. Such a decrease may not have been
achievable by appealing to voluntary frugality nor may have water-saving policies obtained sufficient public support
by pointing out unsustainable water consumption. The observed water savings might be temporary but show the capacity of humans to adapt in
face of acute resource shortage. The case also points to the importance of technology as a catalyst for factor substitution in production and
consumption in response to environmental constraints.
To be successful, degrowth has to identify a concrete and inclusive development perspective (see Schwartzman, 2012) for
the affluent and powerful elites and the marginalized poor. Direct benefits of degrowth might be experienced by
consumers in areas where further growth has obviously become undesirable, such as in the health care industry as illustrated
by Missoni (2015), in the food, nutrition and the agricultural sector, or in urban transportation. Degrowth
could address psychological
stress related to over consumption, long working hours, and the commodification of social relations and highlight
the benefits of a simplified life style away from positional competition and towards more collaborative community development.
Addressing life quality around resonant human interactions (Rosa, 2015) in face of increasing competition and
individuation may be a viable angle to highlight the benefits of degrowth . Decreasing working time can mitigate
environmental degradation (Knight et al., 2013, Fitzgerald et al., 2015) and provide a leverage point for virtually all other
degrowth proposals. In fact, we would regard a decrease in working time as the single silver bullet through which
degrowth can yield personal welfare gains, increase environmental sustainability , enhance democracy, and thus
obtain the support of larger parts of the population . Yet, to be a fulfilling choice, reduced working time, and degrowth in more
general, may hinge on a wider cultural recognition (see, e.g., Skidelsky and Skidelsky, 2012) that still appears to be hampered under the present
societal conditions.
Kallis (2013) argues that societies have the capacity to steer social processes towards degrowth, thereby opposing the view of
Sorman and Giampietro (2013) who consider that societies are destined to grow, crash, and adapt. We see a larger and more
differentiated space of development to which the degrowth discourse contributes visions for both social and
economic adaptation and the mitigation of environmental impacts. In a resource-constraint world, degrowth may
occur as a gradual and locally-specific transition (Buch-Hansen, 2014). We argue with Ott (2012) in favor of political prudence
through addressing specific problems with specific policies and against the pursuit of grand new utopias that often come with unintended
consequences.
Impact---Degrowth
 Impact---Degrowth---AT: Turns---Top
Environmental destruction makes economic growth terminally unsustainable---river rights
are vital to avert catastrophic collapse
Brandon Rosenbach 19, Earth Law Center, 2/12/19, “Earth Law Makes Economic Sense,”
https://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2019/2/earth-law-makes-economic-sense
The Guardian puts it most succinctly:
Natural capital is everything nature provides us for free. It is what our economy is built upon . We add man-made capital
in the shape of houses, factories, offices and physical infrastructure, and human capital with our skills, ideas and science.
Natural capital should, therefore, be at the heart of economics and economic policy – but it isn’t. As a consequence we
abuse nature, drive species to extinction , and destroy ecosystems and habitats without much thought to the
consequences. The damage won’t go away; as we wipe out perhaps half the species on the planet this century and induce
significant climate change, the economic growth we take for granted will be seriously impaired . Put simply, our disregard for
natural capital is unsustainable – it will not be sustained.
Since the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970, politicians and citizens alike have expected increased
environmental protection to result in a decrease in economic efficiency. One of the most common arguments against
increased environmental regulations claims that small businesses, the energy sector, and job growth will be stifled by
increased protections.
Logically, people assume that more protection will means businesses will need to spend more money to comply with new laws, but is it
necessarily true that strengthening environmental laws stifles business and the economy? No , in fact, many of the EPA’s
policies—such as acts promoting clean air and water—have resulted in a net economic benefit for the U nited S tates and
countless local communities.
Earth Law Center is one organization that works towards the same end – ensuring the long-term health of natural ecosystems and fellow species.
Earth Law Center helps local partners enact laws to protect coral reefs, rivers, and oceans across the US and around the world, areas that could
also provide economic benefits to local communities.
THE EPA AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT
To combat a rising trend of air quality issues resulting in both illness and death of human citizens, the EPA passed the Clean Air Act in 1970.
This required the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), effectively defining pollution standards for industrial and
automobile businesses. Predictably, companies and politicians argued the new laws would hinder business and the economy; opponents across
auto, steel and electrical utility industries combined forces to unsuccessfully delay the implementation timetable. In fact, opposition to strict clean
air standards has continued despite data, from 1970 until now, indicating significant improvements in air quality along with new growth sectors.
From 1972 to 2014, the six major pollutants outlined by the Clean Air Act have been reduced by 69%. There are no longer rampant smog alerts,
and it is uncommon in most cities for particulate emissions to obscure skylines. The health benefits resulting from the legislation have been
astounding, as cleaner air means fewer respiratory issues—including acute bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma—and a reduction in heart attacks.
The increased health of the general public in the United States equates to overall economic savings. In 2010 alone, an avoidance of 160,000
premature deaths from respiratory illness and 130,000 heart attacks can be attributed to cleaner air standards. These health benefits, which have
resulted in 13 million lost work days avoided, have brought about $22 trillion in cost savings compared to only $.5 trillion in costs related to the
bill. In the same time period, from 1972–2014, coal production, oil refineries, and the overall economy have all increased in production and
efficiency.
The Clean Energy Sector is a prime example of a new growth sector spurred by regulation changes. This year, the renewable energy surged to
18% of the U.S. power mix, signifying the success of the growing industry. At the same time, both greenhouse gas emissions from power
generation and consumer spending have declined. The wind and solar projects, which make up 62% of new power construction, are creating jobs
faster than the rest of the economy. Pioneers in the clean energy field are continuously developing new technologies improving our ability to
harness and save energy. The sector’s unprecedented growth stems from diverse support from local and state governments , corporations, and
organizations dedicated to a cleaner future, and with continued government support, the renewable energy sector will continue growing.
BUSINESSES NEED THE ENVIRONMENT TO SURVIVE
The Guardian notes that…the survival of society needs a supportive natural environment, not one ravaged by climate change. But
neither will happen unless we manage scarce resources at our disposal more successfully in both financial and
environmental terms.
Businesses are " sawing off the branch on which they stand " by failing to account for the natural capital impacts of
their operations, a senior member of WWF-UK has said. The charity's director of advocacy Trevor Hutchings, who is speaking about natural
capital at this week’s Sustainability Leaders Forum in London, believes businesses that treat natural resources such as water, forests,
and metals as 'infinite' are guilty of “extreme short-termism”.
Progressive business thinkers have already started to change their behavior. Hundreds of investors from around the world, who manage $24
trillion in assets, supported the UN climate deal in Paris 2015. The board of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the heirs to the world’s first great oil
fortune, divested from fossil fuels in their portfolio several years ago.
A ground-breaking new study, co-authored by almost 50 scientists, including Rainforest Alliance Chief Program Officer Nigel Sizer, charts an
ambitious yet achievable plan to halt mass extinction through a strategy of protecting half the Earth by 2050. The plan, linked to a policy
initiative called the Global Deal for Nature (GDN), is being proposed as a companion pact to the Paris Climate Agreement.
SAVING THE REMAINING HALF OF THE WORLD’S CORAL REEFS
Earth Law Center has joined with partners to save half of the coral reefs we still have left. With half of the world’s coral reefs already destroyed,
we have a unique opportunity to act now. Nonetheless, reefs face the problem that so many environmental resources face, the tragedy of the
commons. Individuals use the resource how it best suits themselves, without thinking about the consequences of
everyone using the resource just as they are. Reefs, being very close to shore, are particularly susceptible to damage from human
activity. In some instances, locals near reefs have banded together to protect reefs and establish new rules and regulations. In some circumstances,
environmental rules and regulations have failed because local people whose livelihoods are connected to the reefs will not accept lessening their
use of a reef in the present to ensure it can still support life in the future.
Globally, coral reefs and their ecosystems have an estimated value of $2.7 trillion dollars per year, providing economic goods and services worth
$375 billion each year. Reefs provide significant food sources for people around the world. A large problem in protecting coral reefs is
overfishing, and fishermen, who rely on reefs to survive, resist new regulations. Reefs also help protect coastlines by acting as natural
breakwaters, minimizing the impact of waves, flooding, and coastline erosion. The global net benefit of reefs acting as natural breakwaters is $9
billion per year. It is estimated that 63 million people live less than 33 feet above sea level and less than two miles from a coral reef. If waves
enter these areas without being blocked by reefs, they could cause loss of life or property.
Reefs, which provide habitat for a quarter of known marine species, are a key driver of tourism. In southeast Florida alone, reefs support 70,400
full and part-time jobs, related to fishing, scuba diving, and snorkeling tourism. Reefs are the backbone of many local economies around the
world, and many local governments have begun to protect these resources that cannot be replaced.
Belize is home to one of the most spectacular and biodiverse reefs on the globe, but in 2009, the reef was put on UNESCO’s “danger” list. In
response, the Belizean government has enacted new laws and procedures to restore the reef, which is the country’s most popular tourist attraction.
The Belize Government became the first country in the world to put a temporary ban on all offshore drilling and exploration. The government has
also banned single-use styrofoam cups and tripled the size of “no-take” zones to ensure ocean development. Economics help drive reef protection
in Belize. 200,000 Belizeans rely on the reef’s survival, and 15% of the country’s GDP comes from the reef. The reef also provides coastline
protection worth $350 million per year. Without the reef, many of the local businesses and people would struggle. The Belizean government’s
dedication towards protecting the reef has resulted in measurable benefits to ocean biodiversity, and it is imperative to the local economy that the
government continues in its efforts. Reefs, which account for 2.2% of all global ecosystem service values per year, are not only an important
environmental resource but a valuable economic resource as well.
Manta ray tourism is worth an estimated USD15 million in Indonesia. Raja Ampat, in the Papua region of Indonesia, has become a shining
example of marine eco-tourism, with manta rays serving as a conservation icon for this regency. Although their populations have been severely
depleted elsewhere in the region, manta rays are still abundant in the waters of Raja Ampat, largely due to progressive conservation measures
enacted by the local government. In November 2010, the head regent of Raja Ampat made a historic declaration, designating the entire 46,000
square kilometers (17,760 square miles) of Raja Ampat a sanctuary for sharks, manta rays, mobula rays, dugongs and turtles.
LET’S RESTORE AND PROTECT THE WORLD’S RIVERS
Earth Law Center drafted the Universal Declaration of Rights of Rivers and with partners, is seeking legal rights for
rivers around the globe. Rivers face threats from pollution, reduced flows, dam construction, energy production, and
more. Some 80% of the world’s wastewater is dumped—largely untreated—back into the environment, polluting rivers,
lakes, and oceans. Once a river is polluted, it is both expensive and difficult to restore clean ecosystems. Akin to
maintaining air free of pollutants, clean rivers are vital to healthy populations in our country and across the world .
The economic value of rivers cannot be taken for granted. The Colorado River, which runs through seven states, supports over
16 million jobs, accounts for $1.4 trillion in yearly economic activity, and plays a crucial role in the economy of the southwest
U nited S tates. A study commissioned by Arizona State University states that 87% of Nevada’s Gross State Product relies on Colorado River
water. The river is currently facing droughts and dropping water flow, and despite aggressive conservation efforts, there is a chance
the river will never again return to its previous healthy state.
The Ganges River, which runs through India and Bangladesh, is a holy body of water for Hindus who view it as a purification tool. Burying ashes
in the river ensures a break from the cycle of rebirth, and many Indians travel to the river to ceremonially spread the ashes of their loved ones.
The river’s holy status means people constantly use it to bath, swim and drink, resulting in an extremely polluted body of water. In 1985, the
Indian government raised $250 million to restore the river with limited efforts. Recently, government officials raised $3 billion dollars to clean
the holy river, but the initiative is struggling and behind schedule despite support from the prime minister.
When a local a river is polluted, countless local businesses are negatively affected . Roger Zalneraitis, executive director of
La Plata County Economic Development alliance, stressed the range of economic impacts a waste spill in the Animas River has had in
surrounding areas. Businesses directly associated with the river, such as rafting and fishing operations, were forced to temporarily closed. Other
business—like farms, nurseries, real estate agents, and photographers—have lost revenues from the river pollution.
HOW EARTH LAW CAN HELP
Earth Law Center is building an international movement from the ground up, one that gives better grounding to the idea that humans have a
responsibility for how we impact the world around us. The belief that nature - the species and ecosystems that comprise our
world - has inherent rights has proven to be a galvanizing idea, and we work with local communities to help them organize around
the rights of nature to protect their environment from the threats that they see. The heart of the ELC approach is to seek legal
personhood for ecosystems and species, a designation similar to that given to corporations in U.S. law, and one that if done
well will imply both rights for the entities so designated and responsibilities on the part of human beings and societies
to respect those rights.
Empowering nature empowers communities: when advocates see themselves as rights defenders rather than responsible
stewards of nature for human ends, the stakes are raised, and the relationships between people and the environment
is transformed. Part of this transformation involves rethinking how we determine value , as well as what we value.
EVERYONE BENEFITS FROM HEALTHY NATURE, THE ECONOMY INCLUDED
Despite the common opinion and rhetoric that environmental protection results in economic loss, many areas of
environmental protection will help rather than hurt the economy . Since the inception of the EPA, politicians have tried to
undermine environmental protection claiming to be pro-business.
Environmental resources, however, play a key role in maintaining human health, and in areas around the world, people
and local economies rely on these resources for their livelihoods.
When assessing the impact of new regulations and stricter laws, it is imperative to look beyond immediate business
procedures that may need to change to find the true net benefit of protecting a natural resource .

Bio-d loss causes extinction and ruins economies

Jeremey Hance 18, wildlife blogger for the Guardian and a journalist with Mongabay focusing on forests,
indigenous people, and climate change, 6/28/18, “Biodiversity is the 'infrastructure that supports all life',”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/radical-conservation/2018/jun/28/biodiversity-is-the-infrastructure-that-
supports-all-life
In my view, we need to ensure that the entire planet is used sustainably . That is, 100% of the Earth, the “Whole Earth”, has
to be managed in a way that will allow continuous healthy functioning of the ecological systems that support life on
Earth, including human life .
We can think of bio logical d iversity as the “infrastructure” that supports all life on the planet. When we lose species
through extinction the web of life is destroyed and this in turn affects the resilience of the ecosystems and nature’s
capacity to provide the services that humans benefit from – ensuring our food , the air we breath, the water we
drink, or the moments of peace and serenity we enjoy in nature.
Conservation and protection of nature, ecosystems, and species is one essential pillar of any strategy to ensure fully
functional natural systems in the long term . Ecological restoration of degraded lands through natural means should be another key
component. Ultimately, the paradigm shift that perhaps is necessary is the wide-understanding that the Earth is one
system of interconnected elements, and that humans’ social and economic systems are embedded in the larger nature’s
system, and not the other way around.
A transformation of the way we produce, consume , and generally, interact with nature should therefore be another
pillar of a long-term sustainable approach to ensure nature’s health, which is an essential condition for our survival
and well-being on the planet. Ambitious, science-based targets are needed to guide the way in conserving and restoring
the Earth.
 2AC---Econ Defense
Recessions don’t make war more likely, but they do make them smaller
Jianan Liao 19, Shenzhen Nanshan Foreign Language School, February 2019, “Business Cycle and War: A
Literature and Evaluation,” https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/ssmi-18.2019.37
Through the comparison of the two views, it can be found that both sides are too vague in the description of the concept of business cycle.
According to economists such as Joseph Schumpeter, the business cycle is divided into four phases: expansion , crisis ,
recession , recovery . [12] Although there are discords in the division and naming of business cycle, it is certain that they are not simply
divided into two stages of rise and recession. However, as mentioned above, scholars who discussed the relationship between
business cycle and war often failed to divide the business cycle into four stages in detail to analyze the relationship.
First, war can occur at any stage of expansion, crisis, recession, recovery, so it is unrealistic to assume that wars
occur at any particular stage of the business cycle. On the one hand, although the domestic economic problems in the
crisis/recession/depression period break out and become prominent in a short time , in fact, such challenge exists at all
stages of the business cycle. When countries cannot manage to solve these problems through conventional
approaches, including fiscal and monetary policies, they may resort to military expansion to achieve their goals, a theory known
as Lateral Pressure. [13] Under such circumstances, even countries in the period of economic expansion are facing
downward pressure on the economy and may try to solve the problem through expansion . On the other hand, although
the resources required for foreign wars are huge for countries in economic depression, the decision to wage wars
depends largely on the consideration of the gain and loss of wars. Even during depression, governments can raise funding for war
by issuing bonds. Argentina, for example, was mired in economic stagflation before the war on the Malvinas islands (also known as the Falkland
islands in the UK). In fact, many governments would dramatically increase their expenditure to stimulate the economy during the recession, and
economically war is the same as these policies, so the claim that a depressed economy cannot support a war is unfounded. In addition, during the
crisis period of the business cycle, which is the early stage of the economic downturn, despite the economic crisis and potential depression, the
country still retains the ability to start wars based on its economic and military power. Based on the above understanding, war has the
conditions and reasons for its outbreak in all stages of the business cycle.
Second, the economic origin for the outbreak of war is downward pressure on the economy rather than optimism or
competition for monopoly capital, which may exist during economic recession or economic prosperity. This is due to a fact that during
economic prosperity, people are also worried about a potential economic recession . Blainey pointed out that wars often
occur in the economic upturn , which is caused by the optimism in people's mind [14], that is, the confidence to prevail. This
interpretation linking optimism and war ignores the strength contrast between the warring parties. Not all wars are equally comprehensive, and
there have always been wars of unequal strength. In such a war, one of the parties tends to have an absolute advantage, so the expectation of the
outcome of the war is not directly related to the economic situation of the country. Optimism is not a major factor leading to war, but may
somewhat serve as stimulation. In addition, Lenin attributed the war to competition between monopoly capital. This theory may seem plausible,
but its scope of application is obviously too narrow. Lenin's theory of imperialism is only applicable to developed capitalist countries in the late
stage of the development capitalism, but in reality, many wars take place among developing countries whose economies are
still at their beginning stages . Therefore, the theory centered on competition among monopoly capital cannot explain most foreign wars.
Moreover, even wars that occur during periods of economic expansion are likely to result from the potential expectation of economic recession,
the "limits of growth" [15] faced during prosperity -- a potential deficiency of market demand. So the downward pressure on the economy is the
cause of war.
Third, the business cycle may be related with the intensity, instead of the outbreak, of the war . Scholars who supported the
first two views did not pay attention to the underlying relationship between business cycle and the intensity of war. Some scholars, such as
Nikolai Kondratieff and Joshua Goldstein, believes that the business cycle is not directly related to the outbreak of war, but the outbreak of war
during the economic upswing appears to be more intense and persistent. In their analysis of the business cycle and war, Kondratieff and Goldstein
discovered that the most dramatic and deadly wars occurred during periods of economic upswing. This finding may provide
some clues on the relationship between war and the business cycle. Although the relationship between the outbreak of war and the
business cycle is unclear, the scale of the war is likely to be influenced by the exact phase of the business cycle in
which the belligerents are engaged. Such a phenomenon might make sense, since countries in economic upturn have better
fiscal capacity , making them more likely to wage large-scale wars . Moreover, such relationship may also stem from the
optimism pointed out by Blainey. While optimism may not directly lead to wars, it may have an impact on the choice of
rivals. This is because optimism about national strength and the outcome of the war may drive countries to choose
stronger rivals . The resulting war is likely to be far more massive and bloody . Nevertheless, more research is needed to
specifically reveal this relationship.
 1AR---Econ Defense
Recessions don’t make war more likely---conflict can start at any point in the business
cycle---their claims rest of theoretical support that is unproven by empirics---the largest
wars happen in periods of growth because leaders are more confident and pick larger
rivals---that’s Liao.

Economic downturn doesn’t cause war

Diversionary and ‘military Keynesianism’ theories are both wrong---no country in the world today would act on
either
Stephen M. Walt 20, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University,
5/13/20, “Will a Global Depression Trigger Another World War?,”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-pandemic-depression-economy-world-war/
For these reasons, the pandemic itself may be conducive to peace. But what about the relationship between broader economic
conditions and the likelihood of war? Might a few leaders still convince themselves that provoking a crisis and going to war could still
advance either long-term national interests or their own political fortunes? Are the other paths by which a deep and sustained economic downturn
might make serious global conflict more likely?
One familiar argument is the so-called diversionary (or “scapegoat”) theory of war. It suggests that leaders who are worried about
their popularity at home will try to divert attention from their failures by provoking a crisis with a foreign power and maybe even using force
against it. Drawing on this logic, some Americans now worry that President Donald Trump will decide to attack a country like Iran or Venezuela
in the run-up to the presidential election and especially if he thinks he’s likely to lose.
This outcome strikes me as unlikely, even if one ignores the logical and empirical flaws in the theory itself. War is
always a gamble, and should things go badly— even a little bit —it would hammer the last nail in the coffin of
Trump’s declining fortunes. Moreover, none of the countries Trump might consider going after pose an imminent threat to U.S. security,
and even his staunchest supporters may wonder why he is wasting time and money going after Iran or Venezuela at a moment when thousands of
Americans are dying preventable deaths at home. Even a successful military action won’t put Americans back to work, create
the sort of testing-and-tracing regime that competent governments around the world have been able to implement already, or hasten the
development of a vaccine. Thesame logic is likely to guide the decisions of other world leaders too .
Another familiar folk theory is “military Keynesianism.” War generates a lot of economic demand, and it can sometimes
lift depressed economies out of the doldrums and back toward prosperity and full employment. The obvious case in point here
is World War II, which did help the U.S economy finally escape the quicksand of the Great Depression. Those who are convinced that great
powers go to war primarily to keep Big Business (or the arms industry) happy are naturally drawn to this sort of argument, and they might worry
that governments looking at bleak economic forecasts will try to restart their economies through some sort of military adventure.
I doubt it . It takes a really big war to generate a significant stimulus, and it is hard to imagine any country launching
a large-scale war—with all its attendant risks—at a moment when debt levels are already soaring. More importantly, there are
lots of easier and more direct ways to stimulate the economy—infrastructure spending, unemployment insurance, even “helicopter
payments”—and launching a war has to be one of the least efficient methods available . The threat of war usually spooks
investors too, which any politician with their eye on the stock market would be loath to do.
Economic downturns can encourage war in some special circumstances , especially when a war would enable a country facing
severe hardships to capture something of immediate and significant value. Saddam Hussein’s decision to seize Kuwait in 1990 fits
this model perfectly: The Iraqi economy was in terrible shape after its long war with Iran; unemployment was threatening Saddam’s
domestic position; Kuwait’s vast oil riches were a considerable prize; and seizing the lightly armed emirate was exceedingly easy to do. Iraq also
owed Kuwait a lot of money, and a hostile takeover by Baghdad would wipe those debts off the books overnight. In this case, Iraq’s parlous
economic condition clearly made war more likely.
Yet I cannot think of any country in similar circumstances today. Now is hardly the time for Russia to try to grab
more of Ukraine—if it even wanted to—or for China to make a play for Taiwan, because the costs of doing so would
clearly outweigh the economic benefits . Even conquering an oil-rich country—the sort of greedy acquisitiveness that Trump
occasionally hints at—doesn’t look attractive when there’s a vast glut on the market. I might be worried if some weak and defenseless country
somehow came to possess the entire global stock of a successful coronavirus vaccine, but that scenario is not even remotely possible.

Even massive, long-term econ decline has minimal effects on the probability of war
Stephen M. Walt 20, the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University,
5/13/20, “Will a Global Depression Trigger Another World War?,”
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/13/coronavirus-pandemic-depression-economy-world-war/
If one takes a longer-term perspective, however, a sustained economic depression could make war more likely by
strengthening fascist or xenophobic political movements, fueling protectionism and hypernationalism, and making it more
difficult for countries to reach mutually acceptable bargains with each other. The history of the 1930s shows where such trends can
lead, although the economic effects of the Depression are hardly the only reason world politics took such a deadly turn in the 1930s. Nationalism,
xenophobia, and authoritarian rule were making a comeback well before COVID-19 struck, but the economic misery now occurring in every
corner of the world could intensify these trends and leave us in a more war-prone condition when fear of the virus has diminished.
On balance , however, I do not think that even the extraordinary economic conditions we are witnessing today are
going to have much impact on the likelihood of war. Why? First of all, if depressions were a powerful cause of war,
there would be a lot more of the latter . To take one example, the U nited S tates has suffered 40 or more recessions since the
country was founded, yet it has fought perhaps 20 interstate wars, most of them unrelated to the state of the economy. To
paraphrase the economist Paul Samuelson’s famous quip about the stock market, if recessions were a powerful cause of war, they would have
predicted “nine out of the last five (or fewer).”
Second, states do not start wars unless they believe they will win a quick and relatively cheap victory . As John
Mearsheimer showed in his classic book Conventional Deterrence, national leaders avoid war when they are convinced it will be
long, bloody, costly, and uncertain. To choose war, political leaders have to convince themselves they can either win a quick, cheap, and
decisive victory or achieve some limited objective at low cost. Europe went to war in 1914 with each side believing it would win a rapid and easy
victory, and Nazi Germany developed the strategy of blitzkrieg in order to subdue its foes as quickly and cheaply as possible. Iraq attacked Iran in
1980 because Saddam believed the Islamic Republic was in disarray and would be easy to defeat, and George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003
convinced the war would be short, successful, and pay for itself.
The fact that each of these leaders miscalculated badly does not alter the main point: No matter what a country’s
economic condition might be, its leaders will not go to war unless they think they can do so quickly, cheaply, and
with a reasonable probability of success.
Third, and most important, the primary motivation for most wars is the desire for security, not economic gain. For this
reason, the odds of war increase when states believe the long-term balance of power may be shifting against them, when they are convinced that
adversaries are unalterably hostile and cannot be accommodated, and when they are confident they can reverse the unfavorable trends and
establish a secure position if they act now. The historian A.J.P. Taylor once observed that “every war between Great Powers [between 1848 and
1918] … started as a preventive war, not as a war of conquest,” and that remains true of most wars fought since then.
The bottom line: Economic conditions (i.e., a depression) may affect the broader political environment in which
decisions for war or peace are made, but they are only one factor among many and rarely the most significant . Even
if the COVID-19 pandemic has large, lasting, and negative effects on the world economy —as seems quite likely—it is
not likely to affect the probability of war very much, especially in the short term.
 2AC---Primacy Defense
Primacy’s not key to peace
Christopher Preble 16, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, 8/31/16, “NO
MORE OF THE SAME: THE PROBLEM WITH PRIMACY,” https://warontherocks.com/2016/08/no-more-of-the-
same-the-problem-with-primacy/
Such expenditures might still be justified if they were instrumental in keeping Americans safe. But, in fact, primacy is based on a number of
faulty premises , including: (a) that the United States is subjected to more urgent and prevalent threats than ever before; (b)
that U.S. security guarantees reassure nervous allies and thus contribute to global peace and stability; and (c) that a large and
active U.S. military is essential to the health of the international economy.
Primacists hold that the United States cannot adopt a wait-and-see attitude with respect to distant trouble spots. They believe that the
security of all states are bound together and that threats to others are actually threats to the United States. Primacists believe
that instability and crises abroad will adversely affect American interests if they are allowed to fester. “The alternative to Pax Americana—the
only alternative—is global disorder,” writes the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens, with emphasis. Because any problem, in any part of the
world, could eventually threaten U.S. security or U.S. interests, primacy aims to stop all problems before they occur .
This assumption is based on a very selective reading of world history, grossly exaggerates the United States’ ability to control
outcomes, and underplays its costs. It also miscasts the nature of the threats that are facing us.
Tech nology has not evaporated the seas , allowing large land armies to march across the ocean floor. Meanwhile,
potential challengers like China face more urgent problems that will diminish their desire and ability to project power
outside of their neighborhood. They can cause trouble in the South China Sea, but that does not mean they can or will in the South Pacific or the
Caribbean. China’s economic troubles and rising popular unrest, for example, could constrain Chinese military spending increases and focus
Beijing’s attention at home. Causing problems abroad would threaten critical trading relations that are essential to the health of
the Chinese economy.
Primacists argue that we cannot rely on oceans to halt nuclear missiles that fly over them or cyberattacks in the virtual realm.
And terrorists could infiltrate by land, sea, or air, or they could be grown right here at home. But our own nuclear weapons provide a
powerful deterrent against state actors with return addresses, and a massive, forward-deployed military is not the best tool
for dealing with terrorists and hackers. The hard part is finding them and stopping them before they act. That is a job for the intelligence
and law enforcement communities, respectively. And small-footprint military units like special operations forces can help as needed.
There have always been dangers in the world, and there always will be. To the extent that we can identify myriad threats that our
ancestors could not fathom, primacy compounds the problem . By calling on the United States to deal with so many threats, to so many
people, in so many places, primacy ensures that even distant problems become our own.
Primacy’s other key problem is that, contrary to the claims of its advocates, it inadvertently increases the risk of conflict.
Allies are more willing to confront powerful rivals because they are confident that the United States will rescue them
if the confrontation turns ugly, a classic case of moral hazard, or what MIT’s Barry Posen calls “reckless driving.”
Restraining our impulse to intervene militarily or diplomatically when our safety and vital national interests are not threatened
would reduce the likelihood that our friends and allies will engage in such reckless behavior in the first place. Plus, a more
restrained foreign policy would encourage others to assume the burden of defending themselves.
Such a move on the part of our allies could prove essential, given that primacy has not stopped our rivals from
challenging U.S. power . Russia and China, for example, have resisted the U.S. government’s efforts to expand its influence in Europe and
Asia. Indeed, by provoking security fears, primacy exacerbates the very sorts of problems that it claims to prevent,
including nuclear proliferation. U.S. efforts at regime change and talk of an “axis of evil” that needed to be eliminated certainly provided
additional incentives for states to develop nuclear weapons to deter U.S. actions (e.g., North Korea).
Meanwhile, efforts intended to smother security competition or hostile ideologies have destabilized vast regions, undermined
our counterterrorism efforts, and even harmed those we were ostensibly trying to help. After U.S. forces deposed the tyrant Saddam Hussein in
2003, Iraq descended into chaos and has never recovered. The civil war in Syria, and the problem of the Islamic State in particular, is inextricable
from the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. The situation in Libya is not much better — the United States helped overthrow Muammar al-
Qaddafi in 2011, but violence still rages. The Islamic State, which originated in Iraq, has now established a presence in Libya as well, provoking
still more U.S. military action there. It is clear that those interventions were counterproductive and have failed to make
America safer and more secure, yet primacists call for more of the same .
Lastly, primacists contend that U.S. military power is essential to the functioning of the global economy. “U.S. security
commitments,” explain leading primacists Stephen G. Brooks, G. John Ikenberry, and William C. Wohlforth, “help maintain an open world
economy and give Washington leverage in economic negotiations.” The United States sets the rules of the game and punishes those who disobey
them. If the United States were less inclined to intervene in other people’s disputes, the primacists say, the risk of war would
grow, roiling skittish markets. But such claims exaggerate the role that U.S. ground forces play in facilitating global
trade, especially given the resiliency and flexibility of global markets in the face of regional instability. Moreover,
primacists ignore the extent to which past U.S. military activism has actually undermined market stability and upset vital regions. Smart
alternatives to primacy feature a significant role for the U.S. Navy and Air Force in providing security in the global
commons while avoiding the downsides of onshore activism.
In conclusion, America’s default foreign policy is unnecessarily costly and unnecessarily risky . Its defenders
misconstrue the extent to which U.S. military power has contributed to a relatively peaceful international system , and
they overestimate our ability to sustain an active global military posture indefinitely .
The United States needs an alternative foreign policy, one that focuses on preserving America’s strength and advancing its security, and that
expects other countries to take primary responsibility for protecting their security and preserving their interests. America’s leaders should restrain
their impulse to use the U.S. military when our vital interests are not directly threatened while avoiding being drawn into distant conflicts that sap
our strength and undermine our safety and values.
 2AC---AT: Degrowth Bad/Innovation
Err neg---planetary boundaries are already being crossed and decoupling is impossible
Riccardo Mastini 18, PhD student in ecological economics and political ecology in the Institute of Environmental
Science and Technology at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, 6/1/18, “Work in a World Without Growth,”
https://www.greeneuropeanjournal.eu/work-in-a-world-without-growth/
A fixation with growth in economics has seen GDP increase in proportion to environmental damage . As planetary
limits draw ever closer and are even being surpassed, such a model cannot be sustained . Riccardo Mastini explains how a
job guarantee could open up the way to a sustainable economic model.
Since the dawn of capitalism, market economies have placed a high emphasis on labour productivity. Continuous
improvements in technology geared towards productivity increases lead to more output being produced for a given
amount of labour. But crucially these advances also mean that fewer people are needed to produce the same amount of goods and services
each year. As long as the economy expands fast enough to offset increases in labour productivity there is no problem. But if the economy does
not grow, people lose their jobs.
Economic growth has been necessary within this system just to prevent mass unemployment. Communities and the politicians that represent
them celebrate the construction of a new factory not so much for the increase in supply of some needed product, but because of the jobs it creates.
In advanced economies, the shortage of employment has become more pressing than the shortage of products. Basically, we produce goods and
services mostly to keep people employed rather than to cater for their needs.
But what if economic growth were to slow down and, eventually, come to a halt in the near future? More than half a
century of ‘growth propaganda’ supporting the dogma that pursuing never-ending growth is plausible and desirable
may make this new prospect shocking for some. However, there is now overwhelming evidence that decoupling
GDP growth from increases in natural resource and energy use is impossible . And our plundering of Earth’s bounty
has already reached unsustainable levels with the overshot of several planetary boundaries.
It is, therefore, time for a bold public debate about whether it is desirable to continue our relentless pursuit of
economic growth, with the associated dire consequences for the health of the planet, simply to keep people employed.
Adopting an economic policy proposal known as the job guarantee could ensure full employment while our society transitions towards an
economy that no longer grows. All this, without sacrificing the goods and services needed for just and sustainable prosperity.
The need for planned economic degrowth
The idea of ‘degrowth’ takes aim at the irreconcilable contradiction between the growth imperative of capitalism and
sustainability on a finite planet. Degrowth is defined as an equitable downscaling of production and consumption
that will reduce society’s extraction of energy and raw materials and generation of waste . More broadly, degrowth
means the abolition of economic growth as a social objective . Instead, degrowth implies a new direction for society, one in which
we live and work differently from today by giving priority to a sustainable level of wellbeing for all citizens rather than to maximising wealth.
Transition now is better---diminishing tech returns mean society has already entered
“involuntary degrowth”
Mauro Bonaiuti 18, professor of ecological economics at the University of Turin, October 2018, “Are we
entering the age of involuntary degrowth? Promethean technologies and declining returns of innovation,” Journal of
Cleaner production, Volume 197, Part 2, p. 1807-1808
In the last few years the economic slowdown has been noted even by standard economists who have started to speak
openly of “ secular stagnation ”20. The basic idea is that, after the financial crisis, despite years of zero interest rate there
are no signs of a satisfying recovery of the global economy. Recognising, as did Larry Summers, 2014, Summers, 2015 and Paul
Krugman (2014), that what we are experiencing is something quite different from an ordinary crisis , it is an important
step that in some way legitimize the debate on post-growth society. However, the discussion on secular stagnation is rooted in
standard macroeconomic theory. Even if from different perspectives, all these authors21 advocate economic interventions aimed at stimulating a
return to growth. Above all these analyses do not offer any indication of the length or magnitude of future cycles of
innovation. As Georgescu-Roegen has already pointed out (Georgescu-Roegen, 1971, Georgescu-Roegen, 2011) standard economics
lacks an evolutionary theory and, consequently does not even take into consideration the possible irreversible
changes in the system (as degrowth supporters do). From this perspective the bioeconomic approach seems more
promising: it does not only ascertain the slowing down of innovation processes, but offers an explanation of it,
making it part of a more general hypothesis on the evolutionary trend of the system (the Great Wave), open to various
possible future scenarios.
7. Conclusions
The concept of Promethean Technologies is one of Georgescu-Roegen’s fundamental contributions to bioeconomic theory. It reveals how the
process of innovation is not only the outcome of small incremental variations but is also the result of discontinuous,
epoch-making innovation. Since greater complexity requires more accessible energy , Promethean technologies are the
only ones capable of producing a leap in the scale of complexity of human societies.
Tainter’s principle of Diminishing Marginal Returns, on the other hand, offers a basic understanding of societal dynamics as a consequence of
increasing complexity. Increasing complexity leads, in fact, to diminishing returns . By integrating G-R’s bio-economic view with
Tainter’s principle of diminishing returns, the author has formulated the hypothesis that, after the Promethean/Industrial Revolution returns on
investment in complexity follow a “Great Wave” trend.
The second part of the paper offers an initial enquiry into the Great Wave hypothesis, using Total Factor Productivity as an indicator of returns
on innovation. The analysis of data shows that the period after the Industrial Revolution can be divided into three large cycles (IR1, IR2, IR3),
and that each cycle presents a S-shaped trend, albeit of a different magnitude and duration.
In the US the application of coal/steam-engine/telegraph technology stimulated a rapid increase in productivity, reaching a peak between 1869
and 1892 (at almost 2%). Yet it was to be the great innovations of the second industrial revolution (the electric engine and the internal
combustion engine) with their momentous potential both for manufacturing and domestic consumption (electric light, indoor plumbing) that took
TFP values to their peak (2.78%) and, more than that, kept them high (at around 2%) for at least another 25 years, thanks in particular to
innovations in the transport system. However, after the peak in the 1930s productivity decreased until it reached a modest 0.34% in the period
1973–95. Although the use of computers and ICT has led to a significant revival of productivity, both the empirical
evidence and theoretical reasons lead one to conclude that the innovations introduced by IR3 are not powerful
enough to compensate for the declining returns of IR2.
This of course does not exclude the possibility that a new expansive cycle may follow the decline of IR3. What the Great Wave hypothesis
suggests, however, is that - without the intervention of a new Promethean technology - it is likely to be less influential, and briefer, than the
previous one: a conclusion that it would be impossible to draw by applying the instruments of standard macroeconomic theory (Summers, 2014,
Summers, 2015, Krugman, 2014; but also Gordon, 2015). This is the reason for emphasis having been placed here on a few bio-economic
concepts and on complex system theory.
In short, an analysis of TFP data for the three cycles after the Industrial Revolution seems to be consistent with the hypothesis of a Great Wave.
This means that the U.S. economy seems to have reached its first threshold of mutation - and hence entered a phase
of diminishing returns on innovation -in the thirties. This conclusion, moreover, thus appears to be consistent with evidence from
research in other fields, i.e. energy (Hall et al., 2008), mineral resources (Bardi, 2014), agriculture (Coelli and Prasada Rao, 2005), health,
education and scientific research, (Tainter, 2006, Strumsky et al., 2010), demonstrating that advanced capitalist societies (the U.S., Europe
and Japan) have
entered a phase of declining marginal returns or involuntary degrowth in many key sectors (Bonaiuti,
2014), with
possible major detrimental effects on the system’s capacity to maintain its present institutional
framework.

Even if growth solves some crises, innovation creates new ones---better to transition
Giorgos Kallis 17, ICREA Research Professor at Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, environmental scientist
working on ecological economics and political ecology, formerly Marie Curie International Fellow at the Energy
and Resources Group of the University of California at Berkeley, PhD in Environmental Policy and Planning from
the University of the Aegean in Greece, 4/10/17, “Economics Without Growth,” in Another Economy is Possible:
Culture and Economy in a Time of Crisis, no page #
The economy is material (Georgescu-Roegen 1971)
Economic activity – production, exchange, or consumption – does
not take place in a vacuum. It extracts and transforms
inputs – energy and raw materials – and it produces undesirable outputs, such as waste or air emissions. Each society,
like each organism, has a “metabolism,” a pattern of material and energy throughput (Fischer-Kowalski 1997; Giampietro 2003). There is nothing
immaterial in information services, such as a social networking site like Facebook. These embed vast quantities of materials and energy [what
Odum (2002) called “emergy,” embodied energy]: raw materials used for computers; energy used to power servers; or food, materials, and
energy used to raise, educate, and move around the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. The “immaterial” economy embodies a very material economy.
The economic process increases entropy as it converts high order matter and energy into low order energy
(Georgescu-Roegen 1971). For Georgescu-Roegen, the entropic death of life on the planet is the ultimate physical limit ; a
transition from exhaustive fossil fuels, which once used are turned into high-entropy energy irreversibly, to “renewable” solar
power, which will slow down the pace toward this entropic end . However, the presence or not of ultimate entropic limits has
been disputed; and even if there are such limits, they probably operate in time horizons of millions of years, making them
irrelevant for current generations. Nonetheless, specific stocks, such as oil or phosphorus upon which modern industry
or agriculture depend, may be exhausted. This is a matter of specific, not ultimate limits .
A preferable conceptualization of the relationship between society and resources is that of co-evolution. Resources such as fossil fuels, or
ecosystems such as the atmosphere, condition what societies can or cannot do in any given moment. Societies refashion such “limits”;
industrialized agriculture overcame the limits of land productivity and oil substituted coal. In the process new limits
and conditions were produced, such as soil pollution , erosion, exhaustion of phosphorus for fertilizers, or climate
change . The “responses” to such limits, such as the development of nuclear power, tar sands, or GMOs, may increase the
wellbeing of some (typically a few) at the expense of many others. It is more apt to think of the economy and social activity not as
ultimately limited in an absolute sense by a surrounding planetary ecosystem (Daly 1997), but in a constant co-evolutionary relationship, whereby
societies transform ecosystems, for better or for worse, and then have to adapt to their own transformations (Benton 1992; Kallis and Norgaard
2010).
Georgescu-Roegen’s insight remains important insofar as the economic process creates negentropic order in some places, by increasing entropy
elsewhere. Climate change is the result of the entropic shift of carbon emissions to the atmosphere. Increasing carbon
emissions and concentrations in the atmosphere destabilize the climate with disastrous consequences , which will
strongly determine future co-evolution. If all currently available fossil fuels were to be extracted, temperature on the planet
would increase by 15 °C. To stay within what scientists claim as the safe operating zone of 2 ° C change, by 2050
the global economy would have to become 130 times more efficient in its use of carbon if it were to grow at the
same pace; in comparison from 1980 to 2007, efficiency improved by a mere 23 percent (Jackson 2011). Rich countries
should start cutting their emissions by 8– 10 percent per year (Anderson and Bows-Larkin 2013), when the best they have
achieved are 1 percent reductions, and this during recessions. A reduction of economic activity, in Georgescu-Roegen’s
terms a slowing down of the entropic economic process, seems unavoidable , either voluntarily by planned degrowth or involuntarily by a
disastrous change of the climate.
Another important insight of the material, or metabolic view, is that the production of energy and resources uses energy and
resources itself. To drill oil, one spends energy; to extract uranium and silicon, and build and operate nuclear or solar
power plants, also. The period of high growth has been associated with high energy productivity (or high energy surpluses) from oil and coal.
It is not clear how cleaner renewable energies, with lower e nergy r eturn o n energy i nvestment, will sustain high
growth rates or an economy of the present scale. While a short-term Keynesian perspective can suggest that public investment in
green infrastructures and renewable energy can be expansionary, in the long term this is unlikely to be the case, since one in effect is substituting
energy sources of high productivity for sources with low productivity. Labor can substitute energy, but this is the inverse of the growth process.
In conclusion, it is unlikely to have a “green growth.”
 2AC---Sustainabilty/AT: Renewables
Degrowth is key---only way to avoid total societal collapse
Federico Demaria 18, Ph.D. in Environmental Science and Technology from Autonomous University of
Barcelona, researcher in ecological economics at the Autonomous University of Barcelona, 2/22/18, “Why
economic growth is not compatible with environmental sustainability,” https://theecologist.org/2018/feb/22/why-
economic-growth-not-compatible-environmental-sustainability
'Growth for the sake of growth' remains the credo of all governments and international institutions, including the European Commission.
Economic growth is presented as the panacea that can solve any of the world's problems: poverty, inequality,
sustainability, you name it. Left-wing and right-wing policies only differ on how to achieve it.
However, there is an uncomfortable scientific truth that has to be faced: economic growth is environmentally
unsustainable . Moreover, beyond a certain threshold already surpassed by EU countries, socially it isn't necessary. The central
question then becomes: how can we manage an economy without growth?
Enough is enough
Kenneth Boulding, the economist, famously said that: “Anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a
finite world is either a madman or an economist”.
Ecological economists argue that the economy is physical, while mainstream economists seem to believe it is
metaphysical.
Social metabolism is the study of material and energy flows within the economy. On the input side of the economy, key material resources
are limited, and many are peaking including oil and phosphorus. On the output side, humanity is trespassing planetary
boundaries .
Climate change is the evidence of the limited assimilative capacity of ecosystems . It is the planet saying: 'Enough is
enough!'.
Mainstream economists - finally convinced by the existence of biophysical limits - have started to argue that economic growth
can be decoupled from the consumption of energy and materials.
Trade off
Historical data series demonstrates that this - up to now - has not happened. At most, there is relative decoupling - a
decrease in resource use per unit of GDP. But, there is no absolute decoupling which is what matters for sustainability : an
absolute decrease of environmental resources consumption.
The only periods of absolute dematerialisation coincide with economic recession . Trade should also be taken into
account, to avoid externalisation of pollution intensive activities outside the EU.
The current economy cannot be circular. The main reason being that energy cannot be recycled , and materials only up to
a point. The global economy recycles less than 10 percent of materials; about 50 percent of processed materials are used to
provide energy and are thus not available for recycling. It is simple: economic growth is not compatible with environmental
sustainability.
The list of nice oxymorons is long - from sustainable development to its reincarnations like green economy or green
growth - but wishful thinking does not solve real problems . Increase in GDP leads to increase in material and energy
use, and therefore to environmental unsustainability.
No magic bullet
Technology and market based solutions are not magic bullets . Faith in technology has become religious: scientific
evidence shows that, based on past trends in technological improvement, these are coming way too slowly to avoid
irreversible climate change .
For instance, efficiency improvements lead to rebound effects , in the context of economic growth (the more efficient
you are, the more you consume; e.g. cars and consumption of gasoline). Renewable energy produces less net energy ,
because it has a lower EROI (Energy Return on Investement) than fossil fuels. For this, and other reasons, it cannot satisfy
current levels of energy consumption , which therefore needs to be reduced.
Most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves must be left in the ground, unburned, to keep a global temperature rise to no
more than 2°C. In fact, fossil fuels should be called unburnable fuels.
Science sometimes brings bad news. An article recently published in Nature Sustainability argues that: “No country in the world meets the basic
needs of its citizens at a globally sustainable level of resource use.” The question then is: How can the conditions for a good life for all within
planetary boundaries be generated?
The uncomfortable truth to be faced by policy makers is the following: Economic growth is ecologically
unsustainable. The total consumption of materials and energy needs to be reduced, starting with developed countries.
De-growth strategy
Economic growth might also not be socially desirable. Inequalities are on the rise, poverty has not been eliminated
and life satisfaction is stagnant.
Economic growth is fueled by debt , which corresponds to a colonization of the future. This debt cannot be paid, and
the financial system is prone to instability .
For instance, scientifically it is not clear how the European Union will achieve a low-carbon economy in the context of economic growth, since it
implies a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.
In fact, climatologists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows have argued convincingly that: “ [F]or a reasonable probability of avoiding the
2°C characterization of dangerous climate change , the wealthier nations need, temporarily, to adopt a de-growth
strategy.”
Obviously, a transition from a growth society to a degrowth one poses several challenges. However, the emerging field of ecological
macroeconomics is starting to address them convincingly.
Happiness factor
Happiness and economics literature shows that GDP growth is not needed for well-being, because there are other
important determinants. High life expectancy is compatible with low carbon emissions , but high incomes are not.
Moreover, lack of growth may increase inequalities unless there is redistribution.
In any case, the issue is not whether we shall abandon economic growth. The question is how . Scientific debates around it
are on the rise, but I am afraid policy making is behind.
There are good signs: critiques of GDP as an indicator of well-being are common, there are policy proposals and degrowth is entering into the
parliaments. This is not new. For example, in 1972 Sicco Mansholt, a Dutch social-democrat who was then EU Commissioner for agriculture,
wrote a letter to the President of the EU Commission Franco Maria Malfatti, urging him to seriously take into account limits to growth in EU
economic policy.
Mansholt himself became President of the European Commission after only two months, but for too short a term to push a zero growth agenda.
The time is ripe not only for a scientific degrowth research agenda, but also for a political one. As ecological economists Tim Jackson and Peter
Victor argued in The New York Times: “Imagining a world without growth is among the most vital and urgent tasks for
society to engage in.”
 AT: Resources Infinite
<All the sustainability cards answer this>
Returns on investment are declining across industries---that causes irreversible shortages
in fuels, ores, ammonia, steel, and more
Samuel Alexander 18, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, Melbourne School of Design, University of
Melbourne, “A Critique of the Australian National Outlook Decoupling Strategy: A ‘Limits to Growth’
Perspective,” Ecological Economics, Volume 145, 2018, pp. 10-17
There are several reasons why efficiency gains, in the real world, are likely to be far less than the factor-five literature suggests.
First, optimistic claims tend to overlook the implications of ongoing depletion of non-renewable resources . As the most
easily accessible resource deposits are produced first, later deposits tend to require increasing time, energy and money to
discover and extract. With respect to fossil fuels, this trend is reflected in the declining energy return on energy invested
(EROI). Between 1995 and 2006 the global average EROI for oil and gas declined from an estimated 30:1 to 18:1 (Hall et al., 2014), with
average EROI of US oil production falling to 11:1 (Murphy, 2013). Further decline in EROI is expected in coming decades, given
the increasing reliance of the global economy on non-conventional, lower EROI, sources of oil and gas supply (Hall et
al., 2014).12 The impact of depletion is also evident in the mining sector with declining mineral ore grades and
increasing mining waste rock and tailings evident, both in Australia and globally, resulting in higher energy, water and
emission costs for mining and ore separation (Mudd, 2009; Diederen, 2009).13 This means that even if there are efficiency gains in, say,
manufacturing processes, to some extent they will be counteracted by efficiency declines in resource extraction. This
situation evokes the challenge faced by the Red Queen in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass, who has to run faster and faster simply to
stay in the same place (Likvern, 2012).
Second, enthusiastic efficiency claims about technology often attend only to the gross reductions, not the net
reductions, which are often far less . Von Weizsacker et al. (2009) cite a case study claiming factor-five reductions in the ecological
footprint of an Australian house, but it is not clear that embodied energy in both building and heating and cooling materials
has been adequately accounted for. A recent Australian study using hybrid life cycle assessment for estimating embodied energy found
that the additional materials required for heating and cooling often ‘require more embodied energy than the operational costs they save’
(Crawford et al., 2016: 449). Another example pertinent to Stretch is CCS
technology which has potentially very large fuel and
capital costs making it a potentially large source of future inefficiency (Supekar and Skerlos, 2015).
Third, optimistic efficiency projections sometimes fail to factor in the likelihood of diminishing returns over time. Ayres
and Warr (2009) note that for many decades there have been plateaus for the production efficiency of electricity and
fuels , electric motors , ammonia , iron and steel . While large increases are no doubt possible in certain areas, this does not imply that
rapid, large and continuous technical gains can easily be made across all sectors of the economy.
Consumption increases and resource depletions are occurring across the globe---true for all
economies and all materials
Giorgos Kallis 17, ICREA Professor, ICTA, Autonomous University of Barcelona, “Radical dematerialization and
degrowth,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, Volume 375, Issue 2095, June 13, 2017, 20160383
Some authors see signs of a forthcoming dematerialization. Recent data show stagnation of material consumption in some Western
economies such as the UK [28]. Could this be a point of ‘peak stuff’, a natural peaking of material consumption as economies reach a
mature stage, after which material use declines? ([29], see also [30]). If that were the case, growth and dematerialization would be compatible, at
least in the long-run after developing countries had developed sufficiently to reach their ‘peak-stuff’.
As Gutowski et al. [30], however note, data on domestic material consumption does not account for the material embedded
in imported consumer goods . The true material use of a national economy does not include only the raw materials that it
extracts, imports or consumes within its borders. It includes also the materials embedded in the finished goods or services that it
imports. The material footprint of developed nations, that is the total amount of materials used to produce the goods and services that
they consume, increases hand in hand with the size of their economies (figure 2). There is no sign of peak-stuff if one
looks at material footprint instead of domestic material consumption (the actual materials consumed, plus imports minis
exports). Despite substantial deindustrialization and de-agrarianization, the material demands of the so-called ‘service economies’
continue to grow .
Take California: the information sector accounts for 8% of the total state product, 21% together with business and professional services that
include computer systems and design [31]. Agriculture's share of the economy is down to 2%. Yet, the state's water footprint grew almost 40%
from 1992 to 2010 [21].
Research on individual metals confirms a similar story to that of aggregated material flows. The Jevons' paradox is
confirmed for 57 different materials for all of which there is no evidence of dematerialization. Increases in consumption
and production outpace savings from technological improvements [32]. And at the sites where metals are extracted, conflicts intensify because of
the negative environmental and social consequences of extraction [33].
The separation in the trends of domestic material consumption and material footprint in high-income economies is not evidence that they are
doing something better. It is a by-product of the globalization of the economy. Industrializing economies produce the consumer goods of service
economies [30]. (The idea that one day all economies could graduate to be service economies with saturated material consumption raises the
question who would produce then their industrial goods?) This is a systemic pattern, revealed at the global scale , the only
appropriate scale to study a globalized economy with a global division of labour. At this scale, the prediction of EE is confirmed: material
extraction and consumption grow as the economy grows.
Cross-country comparisons confirm the same picture. A GDP growth (degrowth) of 1% leads to a 0.6% growth (degrowth) of material footprint
[22]. Same for carbon: a 1% increase (decrease) in GDP leads to about 0.5–0.7% increase (decrease) in carbon emissions [34]. These are
strong, statistically significant effects, as significant as one can hope to find in econometrics. One may well claim that the
causal relationship between GDP and resource use will finally change in the future with structural changes in the economy, or the advent of new
materials and technologies. But on this basis, no econometric study could ever be a basis for policy since we can always hope that with sufficient
will we can change established causal relations.
 AT: Tech---Renewables
Renewables can’t replace fossil fuels and consumption will always outstrip them
Harold Wilhite 16, Research Director at the University of Oslo’s Centre for Development and Environment and
Academic Director of a program entitled Environmental Change and Sustainable Energy, The Political Economy of
Low Carbon Transformation: Breaking the habits of capitalism, 2016, no page numbers
'Green energy' programmes in the rich and 'emerging' countries of the world conform largely to the principles of green
economy and ecological modernization. They base themselves on a two-pronged strategy for reducing energy consumption
and decarbonizing energy production: 1) a transformation of production from fossil fuel-based to renewable-based energy
sources and 2) a reduction in the energy intensity of the economy through increased economic and technical efficiency. More weight
has been given to the development of renewable energies in part because a change in energy production can be seamlessly incorporated into an
economic growth strategy. This has been understood very well by China. It has made massive investments in developing, producing and
marketing both solar energy and wind energy (Knutsen and Ou 2015). However, early predictions about falling prices for solar
energy production have proven overly optimistic (see Guardian 2015), and high costs as well as other issues such as the
pollution associated with battery and solar cell production , as well as difficulties with energy storage and producing
electricity at scale are slowing the transition to solar. Recent reports of the International Energy Agency (IEA, an arm of the OECD)
have predicted a slow integration of renewable energies into production portfolios over the next century and that renewable substitution
will not make a significant difference to the aggregate global carbon emissions over the next half century. As I write in
Wilhite (2012: 85), another major hindrance to the development of renewable energies is 'competition with coal-based energy production: coal
production technologies are mature, coal reserves are plentiful and production is cheap compared to the alternatives'.
Furthermore, the coal industry is provided with heavy government subsidies. According to Mason (2015), USD 544 billion are spent each year on
fossil fuel subsidies. Referring to the IEA (2013) report on the progress towards reducing C02 emissions, Geels (2014: 36) writes that 'Despite
climate change debates and policies, coal's relative contribution to electricity generation expanded from 39 per cent in 2000
to 42 per cent in 2010. Renewable electricity sources have so far been mainly additional (original emphasis) to fossil fuels
with no (or limited) substitution effects'. Adding reserves of oil and gas to those of coal, it is estimated that there are 2.8 trillion tons of carbon
reserves globally and both exploration for new reserves and production of oil from tar sands, fracking and deep sea oil deposits continues at a
high tempo. In 2011, global investments in fossil fuel exploration and development was USD 674 billion (Mason 2015).
If one accounts for the slow transition to renewable energy production over the next century, as well as the post-
Fukushima scepticism to nuclear energy , the implication is that a rapid reduction in carbon emissions will not happen
without an absolute reduction in energy consumption in all sectors of the economy , including the residential sector, which
continues to be the fastest growing energy-using sector globally. This is where the theories that inform green policy are at their weakest,
ignoring the high energy habits that have formed in transport, heating, cooling, cleaning, food and other household
practices. The policy emphasis remains rigidly tied to reducing energy use through the promotion of technical and economic efficiency. The
theory that efficiency alone can reduce energy in a growth economy is, in the words of Wilhite and Norgard (2004) a 'delusion'
in energy policy, or as formulated by Bluhdorn (2007: 80), an exercise in 'energy metaphysics' . Energy use is the product of intensity
(the inverse of efficiency) and volume, but the latter is ignored in green energy policy. The delusion is evident in the historical record
of efforts to reduce (or conserve) energy in the OECD countries. Over the 40 years from the birth of energy conservation, economic
growth has outstripped energy efficiency, the result being small decreases in energy use for the OECD as a whole from very high
starting points relative to the remainder of the world.
 AT: CCS---General
CCS can’t be scaled up and exaggerates warming
Samuel Alexander 18, Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, Melbourne School of Design, University of
Melbourne, “A Critique of the Australian National Outlook Decoupling Strategy: A ‘Limits to Growth’
Perspective,” Ecological Economics, Volume 145, 2018, pp. 10-17
The ANO Report also places great faith in carbon capture and storage technology (CCS) as a means of extensively reducing carbon
emissions. The technology is obviously attractive, in theory, because it holds out the hope of prolonging the consumption of coal
and gas in power stations – while capturing most of the emissions – and therefore delaying the need for a transition to 100% renewable
energy. There is, however, no discussion of the many unresolved problems with the technology. And even if it proves
technically feasible at scale, future CCS costs are subject to such great uncertainty that it is impossible , at this stage, to
assess economic feasibility in any definitive way .
The report does acknowledge that despite two decades of research and pilot projects, CCS has ‘not yet been demonstrated at
commercial scale’11 (Hatfield-Dodds et al., 2015b: 50). This is not just with respect to the capturing of carbon from power
plants, but also transportation via pipelines and storage in permanently safe geological sites (Scott et al., 2015; Hamilton,
2016). To date, most storage pilot projects have been abandoned because they ran into technical problems and cost
blowouts (Hamilton, 2016). And yet, despite the lack of progress to date, the Stretch scenario assumes CCS compatible coal and gas provides
50% of both Australian and global electricity by 2050. At the global level this requires about 2500 GW of CCS electricity generation, which
seems highly optimistic (Hatfield-Dodds et al., 2015b: 54). By comparison, the IEA's's (2008) most ambitious CCS implementation target, known
as the BLUE map scenario, assumes about 1500 GW of CCS compatible power generation by 2050 (IEA, 2008: 69).
In addition, heavy reliance on CCS could still result in a significant release of C02 emissions, exacerbating global
warming . Lenzen (2011) reviews estimates of life-cycle carbon emissions for CCS applied to coal and gas power plants and finds a realistic
capture rate of 80% emissions across all CCS applications (i.e. capture, transport, injection etc.). He points out that these estimates
have
typically not factored in the possible contribution of carbon leakage from geological storage sites. He shows that to safely
capture 1500 GtCO2 – which is close to the estimated global storage capacity – requires a CO2 leakage rate no higher than 0.01% per year. Such
a low leakage rate, however, is far from certain. He notes (Lenzen, 2011: 2171) that several studies (i.e. Pehnt and Henkel, 2009) have
‘emphasised the lack of knowledge and experience of underground storage and have concluded that there is no
guarantee for the low leakage rate .’ If the rate of leakage turns out to be significantly higher – i.e. between 0.1% and 1% per annum –
the additional long-term warming effect from CCS alone would be between 0.15 °C and 0.5 °C.
Sequestering carbon fails---can’t be scaled up fast enough
Dr Colin Pritchard 14, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Engineering at the University of Edinburgh, Dr
Aidong Yang, Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Science at Oxford, P. Holmes, M. Wilkinson,
25 June 2014, “Thermodynamics, economics and systems thinking: What role for air capture of CO2?” Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, ScienceDirect
As a means of reducing absolute atmospheric CO2 levels, each 1 ppm reduction requires the removal of ca. 7 Gt CO2 (neglecting any continuing
accumulation of emissions). At 400 ppm concentration, this requires processing at the very least 12,000 Gt of air. Fugitive CO2 emissions equate to about 55% of total emissions or about 18
Gt/year. Of this, about 4 Gt/year is from transport ( IEA, 2012). Targeting transport emissions alone via DAC requires processing almost 6500 Gt/year of air. Capture of these
emissions would have to be done continuously and would require an infrastructure which is likely to be 300 times
larger than that to treat current global annual point source emissions, if the size of the infrastructure is proportional to the volume of the processed air/gas.
In practice the required scales of operation may need to be much higher , because the later we start, the higher will be the peak and the more CO2
will have to be removed to stabilise at a particular target atmospheric concentration (discounting climate tipping points which may have been reached in the meantime). At projected

rates of growth in emissions, reductions of 20–30 Gt/year have been forecast to be necessary beyond 2030, and these are far above the
capacity which could be conceived as practical for air capture . This timescale for development and deployment also
appears to be unrealistically short : comparable to the most optimistic estimates for deployment of point source CCS – a mature technology – at scale.
In a wide-ranging discussion of NETs, McGlashan et al. (2012) point out that “ The scale of development for these (emissions-reduction) technologies

required for them to have material impacts on atmospheric levels of CO2 to be significant would, in many cases, result in the
need for the development of supply chains in less than 20 years from an extremely low level or from scratch , to the scale of
many of the largest industries in existence today which have developed over centuries . This strongly implies that mitigation must still
remain the main near-term effort in terms of addressing climate change. Negative emissions technologies can be seen as an economically rational tool to augment mitigation

efforts and prevent emissions trajectories overshoot within a portfolio of emissions measures, but they should not be used as an excuse for delaying effective

global mitigation efforts.” (italics ours).

Even if capturing carbon can reverse CO2 increases it can’t reverse temperature-based
tipping points---and it trades off with emission reduction---accelerates warming
Dr Colin Pritchard 14, Senior Research Fellow in the School of Engineering at the University of Edinburgh, Dr
Aidong Yang, Associate Professor in the Department of Engineering Science at Oxford, P. Holmes, M. Wilkinson,
25 June 2014, “Thermodynamics, economics and systems thinking: What role for air capture of CO2?” Process
Safety and Environmental Protection, ScienceDirect
Following the air capture path will lead to higher peak (and gross) CO2 emissions than taking more immediate measures. Keith et al. (2005) acknowledge that “The

expectation that air capture or similar technologies can be achieved reduces the incentive to invest in mitigation. Yet, while air
capture removes irreversibility in the increases in atmospheric CO2 concentration, it does not protect against
irreversibilities in the climate system's response to forcing.” They also demonstrate that “It is optimal to pollute more when it is possible to cleanup afterward than when it is
not.”
The suggestion that low emission countries be involved in mitigation assumes that, with a world-wide carbon trading system in place, countries could earn credits by absorbing other countries’ carbon emissions via air capture. This
would only make economic sense if all of the cheaper methods for carbon capture had already been deployed in the emitting countries!

The ideathat DAC can provide an excuse for delaying more direct mitigation efforts is particularly corrosive ; and this paper finds no evidence to justify
could further lead to an irrecoverable situation as we approach “irreversibilities in the climate system's response to
such a stance, which

forcing”.
From a public perspective, there is a danger that championing of air capture (if conducted without informing the public of the techno-economic issues such as those outlined in this paper), may lead to a

perception that “the climate problem is sorted“, and thereby diminish the incentive to take ( much) more realistic
measures such as energy efficiency/conservation, and CCS, and bioenergy with CCS (BECCS), and decarbonisation of electricity supply, and even the decarbonisation of transport. This is of course a danger faced by all
technological approaches to CO2 reduction.

CCS tech takes so much energy that it offsets its own climate benefits
Jennie C. Stephens 14, is the Blittersdorf Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy at the University of
Vermont's Rubenstein School of Environment. March 2014, “Time to stop investing in carbon capture and storage
and reduce government subsidies of fossil-fuels” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.266/pdf
The amount of energy required to capture and store CO2 is often not adequately recognized in optimistic perceptions
of the potential of CCS. This so-called energy penalty has been estimated to be about 30% with a range from 11 to 40%.20 This
means roughly that for every three coal-fired power plants utilizing CCS an additional power plant would be
required simply to supply the energy needed to capture and store the CO2. The magnitude of this energy penalty
(including even the lower estimates) is so high that it is difficult to imagine a future scenario in which consuming
this much additional energy to enable CCS would actually make sense.
Storage is not economically feasible
Kevin Bullis 13, Senior Editor for Energy @ MIT Technology Review, June 17 2013, “What Carbon Capture
Can’t Do,” http://www.technologyreview.com/view/516166/what-carbon-capture-cant-do/
I’ve recently reported on a handful of ways that researchers are trying to lower the cost of capturing carbon dioxide, with the view to storing it

underground or using it for something useful (see “Cheaper Ways to Capture Carbon Dioxide,” “Grasping for Ways to Capture Carbon Dioxide on the Cheap,” and “Fuel Cells Could Offer Cheap Carbon
Dioxide Storage”).

shouldn’t obscure the fact that the potential of carbon capture is limited. Carbon capture and storage
All of these improvements

will never be able to accommodate all of the carbon dioxide we emit now. And quite frankly, carbon capture would have trouble just
keeping up with the increase in coal consumption (see “The Enduring Technology of Coal”).
Capturing and storing carbon dioxide will always make electricity more expensive. It will always be cheaper just to let the carbon dioxide escape into the
atmosphere.

Even if costs are made far lower than they are today, the impact of carbon capture will be limited by the sheer scale of
infrastructure needed to store carbon dioxide. During combustion, each carbon atom from coal combines with two atoms of oxygen from the air, and this creates a huge amount of stuff.
Even once the gas has been compressed into a liquid that can be piped to storage sites, the volume is immense .
Vaclav Smil, a professor at University of Manitoba and master of sobering energy-related numbers, calculates that if we were to bury just one-fifth of the global carbon dioxide emissions,

we would need to build an industry capable of handling twice the volume of stuff as the entire oil industry , an industry that took 100 years to
develop, driven by a large and mostly expanding market.
Impact---Environment/Biodiversity
 IL---CBD Update Conference
River rights are key to catalyze global action on environmental protection at the
Convention on Biodiversity update conference
Alessandra Korap Munduruku 21, a Munduruku Indigenous woman leader, won the Robert F. Kennedy Human
Rights Award for her work defending the culture, livelihoods and rights of Indigenous peoples in Brazil; Darryl
Knudsen, the executive director of International Rivers; and Irikefe V. Dafe, lead organizer of the First National
Dialogue on Rights of Nature in Nigeria, founder and CEO of River Ethiope Trust Foundation and an expert
member of the UN Harmony with Nature Initiative, 5/21/21, “Rivers Are Key to Restoring the World’s
Biodiversity,” https://independentmediainstitute.org/rivers-are-key-to-restoring-the-worlds-biodiversity/
In October 2021, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) will meet in China to adopt a new post-2020 global
biodiversity framework to reverse biodiversity loss and its impacts on ecosystems, species and people . The conference
is being held during a moment of great urgency: According to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we now have less
than 10 years to halve our greenhouse gas emissions to stave off catastrophic climate change . At the same time, climate
change is exacerbating the accelerating biodiversity crisis. Half of the planet’s species may face extinction by the
end of this century.
And tragically, according to a UN report, “the world has failed to meet a single target to stem the destruction of wildlife and
life-sustaining ecosystems in the last decade.”
It’s time to end that legacy of failure and seize the opportunities before us to correct the past mistakes, manage the present
challenges and meet the future challenges that the environment is likely to face. But if we’re going to protect
biodiversity and simultaneously tackle the climate crisis, we must protect rivers and freshwater ecosystems . And we
must defend the rights of communities whose livelihoods depend on them, and who serve as their stewards and defenders. By doing so, we will
improve food security for the hundreds of millions of people who rely on freshwater ecosystems for sustenance and
livelihoods—and give the world’s estimated 140,000 freshwater species a fighting chance at survival.
Rivers Are Heroes of Biodiversity
At the upcoming CBD, countries are expected to reach an agreement to protect 30 percent of the world’s oceans and
land by 2030. But which land is protected , as part of this agreement, matters immensely . We cannot protect just any
swath of land and consider our work done. Member countries must prioritize protecting regions where biodiversity is
highest, or where restoration will bring the greatest net benefits. Rivers , which support an extraordinary number of species,
must be a priority zone for protection and restoration .
Rivers are unsung heroes of biodiversity: Though freshwater covers less than 1 percent of all the water on the planet’s surface, it
provides habitats for an astonishing number of species. Rivers are vital for conserving and sustaining wetlands,
which house or provide breeding grounds for around 40 percent of Earth’s species . That is a staggering amount of life in a very small
geographic area—and those figures don’t account for all the adjacent forests and other ecosystems, as well as people’s livelihoods that rely on
rivers.
Reversing the Decline of Rivers and Freshwater Ecosystems
Freshwater ecosystems have suffered from some of the most rapid declines in the last four decades . A global study
conducted by the World Wildlife Fund, “Living Planet Report 2020,” states that populations of global freshwater species have
declined by 84 percent, “equivalent to 4 percent per year since 1970.”
That is, by any measure, a catastrophe . Yet mainstream development models, water management policies and conservation and
protected area policies continue to ignore the integrity of freshwater ecosystems and the livelihoods of communities that
depend on them.
As a result of these misguided policies, fisheries that sustain millions of people are collapsing. Freshwater is increasingly
becoming degraded, and riverbank farming is suffering as a result of this. Additionally, we’re seeing Indigenous peoples,
who have long been careful and successful stewards of their lands and waters, face increasing threats to their autonomy and well-
being. The loss of biodiversity, and the attendant degradation of precious freshwater, directly impacts food and water
security and livelihoods.
But thiscatastrophe also suggests that by prioritizing river protection as part of that 30 percent goal , the global
community could slow down and begin to reverse some of the most egregious losses of biodiversity. We have an
incredible opportunity to swiftly reverse significant environmental degradation and support the rebound of myriad
species while bolstering food security for millions of people. But to do that successfully, COP countries must prioritize
rivers and river communities .
Here are a few things countries can do immediately to halt the destruction of biodiversity:
1. Immediately Halt Dam-Building in Protected Areas
Dams remain one of the great threats to a river’s health, and particularly to protected areas. More than 500 dams are currently being planned in
protected areas around the globe, states Yale Environment 360, while referring to a study published in Conservation Letters. In one of the most
egregious examples, Tanzania is moving ahead with plans to construct the Stiegler’s Gorge dam in the Selous Game Reserve—which has been a
UNESCO World Heritage site since 1982 and an iconic refuge for wildlife. In terms of protecting biodiversity, canceling dams like these is low-
hanging fruit if the idea of a “protected area” is to have any meaning at all.
2. Create Development ‘No-Go’ Zones on the World’s Most Biodiverse Rivers
Freshwater ecosystems face myriad threats from extractive industries like mining and petroleum as well as agribusiness and cattle ranching,
overfishing, industrialization of waterways and urban industrial pollution. Investors, financiers, governments and CBD signatories must put an
immediate halt to destructive development in biodiversity hotspots, legally protect the most biodiverse rivers from development, and
decommission the planet’s most lethal dams.
3. Pass Strong Water Protection Policies
Most policymakers and decision-makers—and even some conservation organizations—don’t fully understand how freshwater
ecosystems and the hydrological cycle function, and how intimately tied they are to the health of the terrestrial
ecosystems they want to protect. Rivers and freshwater ecosystems urgently need robust protections, including policies
that permanently protect freshwater and the rights of communities that depend on them. In some places, this may go as
far as granting rivers the rights of personhood . A growing global Rights of Nature and Rights of Rivers movement
is beginning to tackle just this.
4. Respect the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and Other Traditional Communities
Indigenous peoples protect “about 80 percent of the global biodiversity,” according to an article by National Geographic, even though they make
up just 5 percent of the world’s population. These are the world’s frontline defenders of water and biodiversity; we owe them an enormous debt.
More importantly, they deserve protection. It’s imperative governments respect Indigenous people’s territorial rights, as well as their right to self-
determination and free, prior and informed consent regarding projects that affect their waters and livelihoods.
Many Indigenous communities like the Munduruku in the Amazon are fighting to defend their territories, rivers and culture. Threats to fishing
and livelihoods from destructive dams, gold mining pollution and industrial facilities can be constant in the Tapajós River Basin in the Amazon
and many other Indigenous territories.
5. Elevate Women Leaders
In many cultures, women are traditionally the stewards of freshwater, but they are excluded from the decision-making processes. In response,
they have become leaders in movements to protect rivers and freshwater ecosystems around the globe. From the Teesta River in India to the
Brazilian Amazon, women are leading a burgeoning river rights movement. A demand to include women’s voices in policy, governments and
localities will ensure better decisions in governing shared waters.
The pursuit of perpetual unchecked economic growth with little regard for human rights or ecosystem health has led
our planet to a state of crisis . Floods, wildfires, climate refugees and biodiversity collapse are no longer hallmarks
of a distant future: They are here. In this new era, we must abandon rampant economic growth as a metric of success
and instead prioritize equity and well-being.
Free-flowing rivers are a critical safety net that supports our existence . To reverse the biodiversity crisis, we must
follow the lead of Indigenous groups, elevate women’s leadership, grant rights to rivers , radically reduce dam-
building and address other key threats to freshwater. What we agree to do over the next decade will determine our
and the next generations’ fate . We are the natural world. Its destruction is our destruction . The power to halt this destruction lies
in our hands; we only have to use it.

Successful CBD update’s key to global climate momentum and environmental protection
broadly
Tiffany Challe 21, Communications Associate at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Columbia Law
School; MA in Sustainability Science and Education from the Graduate Center at CUNY, 4/22/21, “THE RIGHTS
OF NATURE — CAN AN ECOSYSTEM BEAR LEGAL RIGHTS?,”
http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2021/04/22/the-rights-of-nature-can-an-ecosystem-bear-legal-rights/
The “Rights of Nature” movement is fundamentally rethinking humanity’s relationship with nature, and it is gaining
momentum. It is led by activists advocating for ecosystems such as rivers, lakes, and mountains to bear legal rights in the
same, or at least a similar, manner as human beings. This movement is striving for a paradigm shift in which nature
is placed at the center and humans are connected to it in an interdependent way, rather than a dominant one. How
would such a legal system work, and could giving rights to nature help in the legal battle against climate change? A few case studies offer some
insight.
What are the “Rights of Nature”?
According to the “Rights of Nature” doctrine, an ecosystem is entitled to legal personhood status and as such, has the right to
defend itself in a court of law against harms, including environmental degradation caused by a specific development
project or even by climate change. The R ights o f N ature law recognizes that an ecosystem has the right to exist,
flourish, regenerate its vital cycles, and naturally evolve without human-caused disruption. Furthermore, when an
ecosystem is declared a “subject of rights,” it has the right to legal representation by a guardian — much like a
charitable trust designates a trustee — who will act on their behalf and in their best interest . This guardian is
typically an individual or a group of individuals well versed in the care and management of said ecosystem.
The goal of conferring rights to nature is to secure the highest level of environmental protection under which an ecosystem
can thrive and whose rights are not violated. These nature rights are very often associated with human rights, especially the right to a
clean and healthy environment.
What countries have declared rights of nature?
Over the last decade, courts, legislatures and various bodies of government in countries around the world have sought and won ecosystem
protection through nature rights.
In 2008, Ecuador became the first country in the world to formally recognize and implement the Rights of Nature, which Ecuadorians refer to as
the Rights of Pachamama (Mother Earth). The constitutional provisions regarding the Rights of Pachamama state: “Nature, or Pachamama, where
life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles,
structure, functions and evolutionary processes. All persons, communities, peoples, and nations can call upon public authorities to enforce the
Rights of Nature.”
In 2011, the first lawsuit using the Rights of Nature provision was filed by the Global Alliance for Rights of Nature (GARN) and others against a
construction company for building a road across Ecuador’s Vilcabamba River and dumping rubble into the river. The Provincial Justice Court of
Loja ruled in favor of the river. However, the construction company did not comply with the ruling and the GARN reportedly could not afford to
bring a second suit.
In 2017, four rivers sought and in some instances won legal rights: the Whanganui River in New Zealand, the Rio Altrato in Colombia, and the
Ganga and Yamuna rivers in India. The New Zealand case is fundamentally unique because the Parliament finalized The Te Awa Tupua Act,
appointing two guardians of the river: one representative of the Maori Indigenous people and one representative of the government — the Crown
— arguably reconciling two different worldviews.
In the United States, several cities have asked for an ecosystem to bear legal rights. In 2010, the City Council of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
unanimously passed an ordinance recognizing the Rights of Nature as part of a ban on shale gas drilling and fracking. In 2019, the city of Toledo,
Ohio adopted the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, a municipal law that gave the lake rights of its own. A farmer represented by Drewes Farms
Partnership filed a federal lawsuit claiming the ordinance made his farm vulnerable to “massive liability” when fertilizing its fields “because it
can never guarantee that all runoff will be prevented from entering the Lake Erie watershed.” Soon after, the state of Ohio joined the lawsuit,
arguing it (and not the residents) had the legal responsibility for environmental regulatory programs. In 2020, a federal judge ruled that the Lake
Erie Bill of Rights is “invalid in its entirety” based on the premise that the law itself was “unconstitutionally vague” and exceeded municipal
powers. The plaintiffs are currently trying to keep the Lake Erie Bill of Rights alive in state court.
Most recently, in February 2021, the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit and the Minganie Regional County Municipality recognized the Canadian
Magpie River’s legal rights of personhood through the adoption of twin resolutions — one resolution by the Innu and another resolution by the
municipality. The river bears nine rights and can be legally represented by guardians responsible for ensuring that these rights are respected.
Climate litigation using the rights of nature
Only a few rights of nature cases explicitly relate to climate change, according to the Global Climate Litigation Report: 2020 Status Review by
the United Nations Environment Programme with support from Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. Here are five
climate lawsuits from around the world that do implicate the rights of nature and that can be found in the climate change litigation databases
maintained by the Sabin Center and the law firm Arnold Porter Kaye Scholer LLP. The latest case in Pakistan was decided a few days ago, on
April 15.
United States: Colorado River Ecosystem v. State of Colorado. In 2017, an environmental organization filed a lawsuit against the State of
Colorado as “next friends” for and guardians of the Colorado River Ecosystem, seeking declaration that the river is a “person” possessing “rights
to exist, flourish, regenerate, be restored, and naturally evolve,” and that actions of the State of Colorado violated those rights. The complaint
refers to the landmark environmental case, Sierra Club v. Morton (1972), in which a dissenting opinion argued that “environmental objects”
should have standing to sue. The complaint also alleges that climate change is one of the threats faced by the river. The federal district court for
the District of Colorado dismissed the case.
Colombia: Future Generations v. Ministry of the Environment. In 2018, a group of young plaintiffs filed a special constitutional claim called
tutela alleging that their fundamental rights to a healthy environment, life, health, food, and water were threatened by climate change and the
government’s failure to reduce deforestation in the Amazon. The Supreme Court of Colombia recognized that “fundamental rights of life, health,
the minimum subsistence, freedom, and human dignity are substantially linked and determined by the environment and the ecosystem,” and
ordered the government to develop and implement action plans to halt deforestation. It also recognized the Colombian Amazon as a “subject of
rights” in the same manner that the Constitutional Court recognized the Atrato River in Choco, Colombia. The Supreme Court declared that the
Colombia Amazon accordingly was entitled to protection, conservation, maintenance and restoration. The court ordered the government to
develop and implement action plans to address deforestation.
Argentina: Asociación Civil por la Justicia Ambiental v. Province of Entre Ríos, et al. In 2020, the groups Asociación Civil por la Justicia
Ambiental and Foto Ecologista de Paraná, and a class of children, filed a class action suit in the Argentinian Supreme Court against the
governments of the Province of Entre Ríos and the Municipality of Victoria City for their alleged failure to protect environmentally sensitive
wetlands. The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the Paraná Delta a “subject of rights” and an essential ecosystem for mitigating and adapting to
climate change, and to designate a “guardian” of the rights of the Paraná Delta who will be responsible for controlling the conservation and
sustainable use of the wetlands. The complaint references nature rights laws passed in other countries, including Bolivia, New Zealand,
Colombia, Ecuador and India. The case is pending a decision.
Peru: Alvarez et al v. Peru. In 2019, a group of Peruvian youths filed a suit against Peru, alleging that the government has not taken sufficient
action to address climate change. The complaint seeks to order the president, Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation,
the Ministry of Finance, and regional governments to develop action plans to reduce net deforestation in the Peruvian Amazon to zero by 2025.
The complaint also seeks the recognition of the Peruvian Amazon as an entity subject to the rights of protection, conservation, maintenance and
restoration, referencing other nature rights cases in Ecuador, Colombia and New Zealand; and a declaration that the situation of environmental
degradation in the Peruvian Amazon is unconstitutional. The case is pending a decision.
Pakistan: G. Khan Cement Company v. Government of Pakistan. On April 15, 2021, the Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld a decision by the
Provincial Government of Punjab that barred the construction of new or expanded cement plants in environmentally fragile zones. The Supreme
Court recognized that these cement plants could cause further depletion of groundwater, among other harmful environmental impacts. As part of
its consideration, the court emphasized the need for the government to uphold the precautionary principle of protecting the rights to life,
sustainability, and dignity of communities surrounding the project areas. In addition, the court recognized the need to protect the rights of nature
stating that “the environment needs to be protected in its own right” and that “[m]an and his environment each need to compromise for the better
of both and this peaceful co-existence requires that the law treats environmental objects as holders of legal rights.”
How successful are these rights of nature lawsuits?
Granting nature legal standing might arm it against injury under the law, but how does that translate into reality? Legal personhood attributed to
ecosystems has so far been mostly symbolic and it remains unclear how successful these lawsuits can be in gaining adequate, long-term
protection of ecosystems. Outcomes can vary based on how a case is framed and on what the interests of the claimants are. Questions surrounding
these potential outcomes continually arise: What exactly is the party seeking on behalf of the injured entity? Does the party seek to compel an
authority figure to pay for damages incurred? How are these damages measured? Who can be held responsible for these damages? Could the
appointed guardian be held responsible if a river floods and causes damages? Who has a say over a trans-boundary river, such as is the case in
India where the Ganges and Yamuna rivers extend beyond the border of Uttarakhand? If a complaint alleges that climate change is a threat, how
much liability does a specific industry’s activities bear in that respect? (This topic draws on the field of attribution science — see the Climate
Attribution Database, a joint project between the Sabin Center and Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory.)
However, a growing number of lawsuits involving the r ights o f n ature might set a precedent for national and local
governments to act on biodiversity conservation by opposing extractive projects that might prove destructive to a
particular ecosystem. The lawsuits also draw attention to environmental justice issues faced by marginalized
communities , particularly Indigenous communities, who are stewards of these vital natural ecosystems and whose
livelihoods and cultural and spiritual practices depend on them.
How do the rights of nature fit in the climate crisis?
Within the context of the climate crisis , the “Rights of Nature” represents one legal theory that can help elevate the
urgency of protecting biodiversity in the fight against climate change .
This year, countries are set to negotiate a global agreement to protect nature under the United Nations C onvention
on B iological D iversity in Kunming, China. A coalition of more than 50 countries, known as the High Ambition Coalition
for Nature and for People, has committed to protecting 30% of the Earth’s land and waters by 2030 in order to curb
biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions — the 30 X 30 target. Can we reach this goal? That remains to be seen.
What is clear is that it’s going to take an array of tools to tackle climate change , and that most certainly includes
conserving our planet’s most biodiverse ecosystems .
 Impact---Water---Global Sustainability
Water’s key to all environmental and social resilience---breakdown risks extinction
Johan Rockström 14, professor in environmental science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm
University, et al., October 2014, “The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based
perspective on water for global sustainability,” Ecohydrology, Vol. 7, No. 5, p. 1249-1261
Now that Earth has entered the Anthropocene era (Crutzen, 2002; Steffen et al., 2007), in which humanity constitutes a
force of change at the planetary scale, the world faces a new, global level of water concern (Vörösmarty et al., 2013). The
empirical evidence is the exponential growth in global environmental impacts since the mid-1950s, referred to as the great
acceleration (Steffen et al., 2004). We risk pushing the Earth System away from the stable environmental conditions , which
have characterized the Earth during the Holocene period, the interglacial epoch of the past 10 000 years (Oppenheimer, 2004). This epoch is,
as far as we know, the only stable state of the planet that can support the modern world (Steffen et al., 2011b). The
Anthropocene era includes the challenge of providing freshwater for human development (health, food, energy, etc.) to the
more than nine billion people anticipated to be living on the planet in less than 40 years (UN, 2013). Managing this new situation , in
which abrupt, large-scale changes in the biophysical system can no longer be excluded, requires a strong focus on
water for resilience to shocks and increasing stresses, and on the role of water in the functioning and stability of
biophysical, social and economic systems. Resilience refers to the capacity to persist with changing conditions, to have the
ability to continue to develop in the face of change (Folke et al., 2010)
Water is critical to the resilience of landscapes and communities. It is connected to fundamental aspects of the
future survival and prosperity of humankind . All living organisms in the biosphere and the ability of landscapes to
provide ecosystem services depend on the freshwater, both in terms of ‘green’ evapotranspiration water for plant growth and
‘blue’ environmental water flows to sustain ecological habitats. In recent years, the realization that water is the bloodstream of the
biosphere has been an important eye-opener (Ripl, 2003). Water is a prerequisite for human health, food production and the
generation of all other ecosystem services, from biodiversity to temperature regulation .
In response to the deepening understanding of water's fundamental roles in the life-support systems of our planet, water resource thinking has
stepwise broadened in the last few decades (Figure 1) from blue (liquid) water only to green water (infiltrated rain) and finally to a much broader
focus on land–water ecosystem and cross-scale interactions. We argue that the evidence of rising water-related shocks and interactions in the
Anthropocene requires the emergence of a deeper social-ecological resilience-based approach to integrated land and water-resource management,
if we are truly to confront the water challenges facing humanity (Figure 1).
Ecosystem processes modify the hydrological cycle and alterations to the hydrological cycle affect ecosystem processes. These interactions affect
the ability of the biosphere to deliver human wellbeing as well as its capacity to buffer stress and shocks. Interacting changes can cause rapid
shifts between alternative ecosystem regimes, through which many of the ecosystem services generated can unintentionally be lost. Once a
threshold to a new stable state is crossed, it is difficult, if not impossible , to restore the original system functions
(Scheffer et al., 2001).
It is now crucial to develop a better understanding, especially of the role played by water in sustaining the resilience of
the biosphere in support of human development. The need for a new focus on hydrological systems as a changing interface between
environment and society has recently been recognized by the hydrological science community (Montanari et al., 2013). This implies a deeper
insight into the fundamental role played by water in sustaining the resilience of the biosphere and the socio-economic and human systems that
form an integral part of it. This paper brings together a set of unsettled ecohydrological and water governance challenges in the Anthropocene.

We’re on the brink of global water tipping points that risk catastrophic impacts
Johan Rockström 14, professor in environmental science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm
University, et al., October 2014, “The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based
perspective on water for global sustainability,” Ecohydrology, Vol. 7, No. 5, p. 1249-1261
Indications show that humanity may be pushing exploitation of finite natural resources and the use of the living
biosphere too far , putting at risk the future stability of the Earth system (Steffen et al., 2011a, 2011b), which is tightly
coupled to the regional and global use of freshwater (Meybeck, 2003; Vörösmarty et al., 2004). This may trigger water-
related tipping points with potentially disastrous and long-term implications for human civilization .
To address the new human predicament in the Anthropocene (Steffen et al., 2011a), science has advanced the planetary boundary
framework, which aims at defining the dynamic boundaries for critical Earth System processes beyond which
humanity is at high risk of crossing major tipping points, or fundamentally changing the environmental
preconditions for social and economic development (Rockström et al., 2009c; Rockström et al., 2009b). This provides
humanity with a ‘ safe operating space ’ within which the risk of large-scale abrupt changes is deemed very low. Water use has been
identified as one of the nine planetary boundaries. The Freshwater Boundary is defined as the maximum additional consumptive blue
water use in the world beyond the preindustrial situation, and set at 4000–6000 km3 year−1. Global consumptive use of blue water has been
estimated at 2600 km3 year−1 (Shiklomanov and Rodda, 2003). Several regions already suffer from the widespread impacts of the overuse of
blue water, and global projections indicate an increase in blue water use to a level approaching the global boundary by
2050 (Liu et al., 2009; Rockström et al., 2009a; Gerten et al., 2011).
The global water boundary is defined on the basis of the evidence of the role water plays in providing resilience
through wetness of landscapes, providing water for ecological functions and services, and preventing water scarcity
(Rockström et al., 2014). For example, evidence shows that river basins, with withdrawals exceeding more than 40–60% of available water
resources, experience severe water scarcity (Oki and Kanae, 2006; Grafton et al., 2012). Ongoing research aims at downscaling the
global planetary boundary for water to the local and regional scale, e.g. river basins and watersheds, by applying an
environmental water flow approach (Pastor et al., 2013), where thresholds are defined on the basis of the amount of freshwater that needs to be
maintained in rivers in order to maintain their stability and capacity to deliver key ecological functions. Applying this ‘bottom-up’ approach to
estimate a global water boundary based on local environmental water flow requirements results in a boundary estimate of an average maximum
allowed blue water withdrawal of 2800 km3 year−1, with a large uncertainty range of 1100–4500 km3 year−1 (Gerten et al., 2013).

Water key to global sustainability

Johan Rockström 14, professor in environmental science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm
University, et al., October 2014, “The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based
perspective on water for global sustainability,” Ecohydrology, Vol. 7, No. 5, p. 1249-1261
Water is at the heart of transition to global sustainability
This paper brings to the fore the increasing scientific evidence for a rapidly changing global water resources agenda,
shifting from a general focus on water-resource efficiency under assumptions of stability and predictability, to a
focus on water resilience in a world of instability and surprise (Rockström et al., 2014). In the increasingly turbulent
world of the Anthropocene, water is not only a victim of social-ecological change. It is a key regulator of stable
landscapes, biomes and Earth system (what we define as water resilience). Furthermore, even though the great
acceleration of anthropogenic global change started already in the mid 1950s, we may only now be at the beginning
of truly rapid and large changes . The reason? Because it is only now that ‘two giants are colliding’. The first is the
risk that increasing human pressures on the Earth's life-support systems may result in abrupt, irreversible and large-
scale changes , undermining the ability of the biosphere to support human development. Water plays a central role
in this context. The second is the increasing social momentum in a world that has only recently started to ‘move to
scale’ in terms of human demands for natural capital, including water, as the number of poor rapidly reduces and the
proportion of ‘middle class citizens’ rises from a few billion to the majority of a world's projected nine billion
population by 2050. If left unmanaged, the potential implications for global freshwater resources are staggering .
Even without the former, i.e. assuming a totally stable planet with no changes to the global hydrological cycle, we
face a period until 2050 of massively increasing pressure on water supply. Add to this the global environmental
changes confronting humanity, and the world faces a new social-ecological complexity and challenges of
unprecedented proportions.
These new features of a rapidly emerging water agenda in the Anthropocene challenge old ways of steady state
thinking and incremental change, and call for a shift to strategies that can deal with complexity, uncertainty and
surprise (Scheffer et al., 2009). The new water dynamics facing the world will require sea changes in governance in
order to sustain and develop human wellbeing within scientifically defined global sustainability criteria such as the
planetary boundaries framework. Water is at the heart of such a transition to global sustainability as it constitutes
the bloodstream of the biosphere .
Securing a sustainable life-support system
 Impact---Water---Turns Food Security
Water sustainability’s key to global food security
Johan Rockström 14, professor in environmental science at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm
University, et al., October 2014, “The unfolding water drama in the Anthropocene: towards a resilience-based
perspective on water for global sustainability,” Ecohydrology, Vol. 7, No. 5, p. 1249-1261
To meet growing food demand to satisfy the needs of an extra two billion people by 2050 as well as meet changes in
consumption patterns, food production may need to increase by 50–70% (McIntyre et al., 2009). Figure 3 shows the
water scarcity-induced food–water security dilemma by 2050, based on green water availability on current croplands
and accessibility of blue water. There will be an estimated global fresh water deficit of approximately 2400 km3 
year−1 that will need to be compensated for by trade in food or other mechanism (Falkenmark and Lannerstad,
2010; Rockström et al., 2011). Improved water productivity would reduce the water required for an adequate diet
from 1300 to 1000 m3 capita−1 year−1. More countries would therefore be able to meet their national food needs,
although large regional differences would remain (Rockström et al., 2011; Gerten, 2013). With two thirds of the
world population for food security depending on food import to compensate the effect of country water deficit, a fair
and efficient system of global trade will be crucial for reducing inequalities in the capacity to sustain local and
regional food self-sufficiency (Costanza et al., 1995; Fader et al., 2013).
Worldwide, there are, however, considerable losses in the food supply chain between the field and final
consumption (Kummu et al., 2012). This means placing an enormous load on the environment for zero benefit. An
estimated one billion people could be fed by halving these losses . The key to resolving the water–food dilemma is a
focus on having more nutritional value per drop of water consumed in agriculture. Inevitably, this will involve
shrinking dietary water footprints at the wealthier end so that those at the lower end can sustainably reach healthier
levels.
 Impact---Environment---Turns Geopolitics
Environmental decline accesses every geopolitical impact
Giulio Boccaletti 17, Chief Strategy Officer & Global Managing Director, Water, The Nature Conservancy,
March 2017, “The Geopolitics of Environmental Challenges,” https://global.nature.org/content/the-geopolitics-of-
environmental-challenges
Much of the world seems to be on edge . The West’s relationship with Russia, the future of NATO, the Syrian civil war
and refugees, rising right-wing populism, the impact of automation, and the United Kingdom’s impending departure from the European Union:
all of these topics— and more—have roiled public debate worldwide. But one issue —one might say the most significant of them all
—is being ignored or pushed aside: the environment .
That was the case at this year’s annual meeting of the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland. Beyond a mention of the Paris climate
agreement by Chinese President Xi Jinping, topics like climate change and sustainable development didn’t even make it to the main stage.
Instead, they were relegated to side meetings that rarely seemed to intersect with current political and economic events.
Allowing environmental issues to fall by the wayside at this time of geopolitical and social instability is a mistake, and
not just because this happens to be a critical moment in the fight to manage climate change. Environmental degradation and natural-
resource insecurity are undermining our ability to tackle some of the biggest global issues we face.
Environmental insecurity is a major , though often underestimated , contributor to global instability . The UN High
Commission on Refugees reports that natural disasters have displaced more than 26 million people per year since 2008—almost a third of the
total number of forcibly displaced people in this time period.
Even the current refugee crisis has an environmental element. In the years leading up to the war, Syria experienced its most extreme drought in
recorded history. That drought, together with unsustainable agricultural practices and poor resource management, contributed to the internal
displacement of 1.5 million Syrians and catalyzed political unrest ahead of the 2011 uprising.
The link between environmental and agricultural pressures extends far beyond Syria. Over-reliance on specific geographies for agriculture means
that food production can exacerbate environmental problems, or even create new ones. This can pit global consumer interests against local citizen
interests, as it has along the Mississippi River, where fertilizer runoff from one of the world’s breadbaskets is contributing to concerns about
water quality.
The connection goes both ways, with environmental
conditions also shap ing ag ricultural production—and, in turn, the prices
of agricultural commodities, which represent about 10% of traded goods worldwide. For example, rising temperatures and altered
precipitation patterns are already driving up the price of coffee. With the global land area suitable for growing coffee set to contract by up to half
by 2050, price pressures will only intensify.
A sudden shift toward trade protectionism could drive up agricultural commodity prices further. Such an increase would affect farm-level
household income, favoring some farmers while harming others. End consumers, particularly the poor and vulnerable, would also suffer.
Another reason why the environment should be at the center of economic debates is its role as the world’s single largest employer. Almost a
billion people, just under 20% of the world’s labor force, are formally employed in agriculture. Another billion or so are engaged in subsistence
farming, and therefore don’t register in formal wage statistics.
Any initiatives to support economic development must support this population’s transition toward higher-productivity activities. This is
particularly important at a time when increasingly sophisticated and integrated technology threatens to leapfrog an entire generation of workers in
some countries. Efforts to benefit this huge population must focus not only on training and education, but also on new models that allow countries
to capitalize on their natural capital—the landscapes, watersheds and seascapes—without depleting it.
Just as natural-resource insecurity can cause displacement and vulnerability, effective natural-resource management can support
conflict resolution and sustainable economic development. On this front, efforts to achieve environmental remediation,
to boost the resilience of rural communities, to advance sustainable agricultural production, and to support community-based environmental
stewardship have all shown promising results.
Consider the Northern Rangelands Trust, an organization focused on creating community conservancies to enable sustainable and equitable land
use in Kenya. NRT has helped pastoralist communities establish effective governance mechanisms for the environment on which they depend,
reducing conflict over grazing rights, especially in times of drought.
For many communities, members’ relationship with the landscape in which they live is an integral part of their identity. With effective
governance and planning, open dialogue, resource-sharing frameworks and sufficient investment, including in skills training, these communities
can translate this relationship into effective environmental stewardship—and build healthier and more secure societies.
The crises engulfing the modern world are complex. But one thing is clear: the environment is connected to all of them .
Solutions will mean little without a healthy world in which to implement them .
 Solvency---Public Trust Spillover
Granting personhood to rivers spills over broadly to strengthen the environmental public
trust doctrine---spurs adoption of follow-on laws that bolster environmental protection
broadly
Jim Olson 20, Founder, President, and Legal Advisor at For Love of Water, 8/31/20, “The Marriage of the Rights
of Nature and the Public Trust Doctrine,” https://forloveofwater.org/the-marriage-of-the-rights-of-nature-and-the-
public-trust-doctrine/
Like the movement to shift our perception that in the 1970s resulted in the rights of citizens to bring lawsuits to protect the air, water, and
environment, Ruffalo’s film dramatizes the declaration of the rights of nature itself, concluding that nature, its rivers, lakes, and biotic
systems must be protected by government as living beings. Indeed, if government fails to fulfill its duty to protect nature as it
would any person, then, in the same way people can bring lawsuits to protect themselves and the environment, natural living ecosystems, such as
Lake Erie, under some type of guardianship can, too.
The recognition of rights of nature or a body of water attracts more and more support worldwide because it is something ordinary
people and communities facing serious threats to water from climate change and government indifference can
understand and support. It establishes a scaffolding for humans to shift the way we see nature in the first place —a
shift from a “property” or physical orientation to one that embraces relationship to a tree, lake, or a river. This is not
new for many indigenous people around the world who see nature as not apart, but beings in relation to themselves. But it is new to those
more accustomed to seeing everything autonomously, each object bouncing back and forth as separate, unrelated
pith balls in a Newtonian world.
Yet while a change like the Lake Erie Bill of Rights calls for more humility and fundamental respect toward nature, from a purely legal or legal
policy standpoint, it doesn’t change the basic reality that if government fails to protect nature as a “person” or “natural object,”
a person has to step in as an appointed guardian to speak for this new “person.” In most countries, and all of the states or
provinces in North America, the only way to do this is for people to march to the state or provincial capitol or file lawsuits on behalf of nature in
the courts.
In the 1970s, the states and federal government passed laws giving citizens the legal “standing” to file lawsuits to protect their use and
dependence on the environment. The rights of nature movement, if enacted as in New Zealand and attempted for Lake Erie, whether by
constitutional amendment or a new law, would grant legal “standing” to the lake, river, forest, or watershed itself . But if this
happens, and it should, does it change the fact that citizens, that is human beings, must still insist on that protection by
filing lawsuits based on legal standing as they have done since the 1970s?
Toledo’s Lake Erie Bill of Rights clearly created the right, or standing, for citizens to go after the state, but it didn’t establish a remedy. The court
ruled the city didn’t have the power to pass a law to protect Lake Erie because it is the state that holds Lake Erie for the benefit of citizens, and
only it could pass laws to protect it. Clearly, then, legal standing is not enough.
I suppose a state can pass a new law that grants legal rights to a lake or river, and that because of this, a person could file a lawsuit, perhaps as
appointed guardian, in the name of a natural living feature like Lake Erie. And, I suppose, too, that a court would be compelled to grant standing
to the lake or river that has been or is threatened with harm, and protect the water and ecosystem that is part of this “person,” as authorized by the
new law. Is this different from what people do now? People have been filing lawsuits to protect nature for the last 50 years. But
here we are in 2020, facing the cataclysmic demise of the earth and its water —the fading blue planet we’ve seen from outer
space during this same 50 years—despite being armed with laws and the right to sue when government and corporations
pollute, impair, or destroy anatural systems.
However, this does not mean from a cultural, educational, and advocacy viewpoint, the rights of nature are not
important. I think they are. Here’s why.
The Importance of the Rights of Nature and Its Link to the Public Trust Doctrine
First, with the recognition of rights of nature, as noted above, people experience a relationship between themselves and
nature , both connected and worthy of protection as “beings” or a life form. When this happens, people are more likely to protect that
relationship when it is harmed or threatened with harm, and expect the law to recognize it as the status quo of a viable
and sustainable being . Courts or legislatures are more likely to be receptive and understand this, too, and therefore
articulate new laws or pass constitutional provisions that declare rights, protection, and enforcement of the violation
of the duty to protect or sustain these rights of nature. Perhaps equally important, if not more so, people will become more
likely to see nature, ontologically speaking, as beingness. In this way, people can bring civil actions to insist that those
new “rights of nature” by a local initiative or law are protected, and the burden is shifted to those who threaten or or
alter these rights of nature or being to prove that there is no likely harm to water and nature..
Second, as people search our existing laws, particularly the common law associated with common property of a special character like
oceans, rivers, lakes, streams, and their tributary groundwater, they will discover there already exists a legal
protection of our relationship to nature as if nature is a being. It’s called the public trust doctrine . The doctrine applies to
watersheds and the waters that flow through and define them. Under the public trust doctrine, government has a high, solemn, and perpetual
duty to protect these special commons and the public’s use of them from impairment, subordination, or alienation for private
control. This trust establishes a legal relationship, just like a trust created with a bank as trustee, among the trustee,
beneficiaries, and the commons in nature like water, which establishes a three-way relationship. If the government breaches
or fails its duty as trustee to protect the rights or beingness of nature, citizens as legal beneficiaries have a legal right,
standing, and claim or civil action against government as trustee to protect both the commons, the natural beingness, and the people
and species who depend on it.
Like “rights of nature,” the public trust doctrine calls for respect of the beingness or personhood of nature, and at the same time protects a
citizen’s right to bring an action to protect this personhood and the essential protected use of water or ecosystems, such as fishing, drinking water,
sustenance, and health.
Citizens have successfully protected water and other special natural commons through numerous public trust cases
for more than 100 years. The most visible examples are the beachwalking cases, e.g. National Audubon v Los Angeles Superior Court
(“Mono Lake” case), Illinois Central Railroad v Illinois (the Great Lakes are held in public trust), and Glass v Goeckle in Michigan or the
Gunderson v Indiana cases (the right of the public to beach access to navigable waters). The children’s trust and other public trust cases , like
Juliana v U.S., also seek to address the systemic effects of human behavior, like the diversion of a river, the conversion
of a lake to a private industrial complex, or the ruin of a rainforest , and the massive, myriad irreparable harms and disease caused
by climate change to the public trust in our waters and the ecosystems, watersheds, and people who depend on them.
Michigan a Forerunner with the MEPA
In Michigan, for example, the Legislature in 1970 established the right of citizens to bring claims against those who pollute, impair, or destroy the
air, water, and natural resources or the public trust in those resources. (To trace Michigan’s related history, see The MEPA Turns 50). So, there is
the right, standing, and the claim by statute, and as described above, under the common law of public trust. Because these claims already exist,
the declaration of the rights of Lake Erie or nature are an inspiration and aspiration, the public trust doctrine or statutes like the Michigan
Environmental Protection Act (“MEPA”) provide the standing, claim, and remedy for damages or court orders to stop the conduct causing or
contributing to the harm. The Environmental Law and Policy Center filed suit under the Clean Water Act and forced the U.S. EPA and State of
Ohio to declare the open waters and shore waters of Lake Erie “impaired.” As a complement to an often long process to establish enforceable
phosphorus limits, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), the public trust doctrine and the MEPA provide immediate claim for
impairment of Lake Erie based on these findings that Lake Erie is impaired.
If the connection between the rights and respect toward nature and the public trust in water underlying nature is
recognized, and if they are married to each other, viewed as inseparable, then the rights of nature and the public trust
doctrine become the umbrella, the backstop, the overarching framework to protect nature and humans as persons or
beingness , as a whole. Under public trust law, people and natural beings don’t have to wait for a state or nation to enact a constitutional
amendment or new law declaring “rights of nature,” people and nature’s commons don’t have to wait another 4 or 5 years for governments to
adopt a phosphorous standard to end the destruction of western Lake Erie. They can bring a lawsuit, and ask the court to protect Lake Erie as a
being or body of the trust, and the rights that they enjoy and depend on for drinking water, fish, economy, and sustenance of life.
In short, the rights of nature or rights of Lake Erie are the flags to rally around, and the public trust doctrine is the legal
framework and set of principles to halt the undisputed impairment from toxic algal blooms of Lake Erie to protect the rights of
nature. People and nature don’t have to suffer the continuing destruction of Lake Erie, they, as persons, have a right and remedy that saves Lake
Erie:
 Solvency---Water Resources Management
River rights set legal precedents for a revolution in water resources management that stops
degradation
Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and
India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1
New sets of environmental pressures, unprecedented in their complexity , are confronting people around the world
(OECD 2012, World Economic Forum 2015). The emerging problems involve interconnected ecological and social systems ,
and include ecological degradation, the under representation of indigenous peoples in decision making, declining
resource availability, and climate change (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Steffen et al. 2007, Haines-Young and Potschin
2010). The management of freshwater resources to maintain ecosystem health and well-being, as well as supporting local
communities (see Bignall et al. 2016), is a particularly pressing and difficult problem (Arthington 2012, Hall et al. 2014, Horne et al.
2017a).
These problems require the development of innovative institutional arrangements that incentivize a change in the
behavior of organizations and individuals (Head and Alford 2013). One such recent development has been the granting of
legal personhood to nature . This involves recognizing nature—either as a whole, or a specific part, such as a river—as
a legal person. In law, this means that nature has a basic set of legal rights that grants it certain rights, duties, and
responsibilities (Naffine 2003). Although referred to as a legal “person,” these legal rights are not the same as human rights, which include
civil and political rights. Instead legal rights comprise three elements: legal standing (the right to sue and be sued in court), the
right to enter and enforce legal contracts, and the right to own property (Naffine 2009, O’Donnell and Talbot-Jones 2017).
The concept of granting legal rights to nonhuman entities is not new (Salmond 1947, Stone 1972), but it has only recently begun to
be implemented for nature. In 2008, Ecuador granted legal rights to nature in its constitution (Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador 2008,
articles 71–74), explicitly recognizing the rights of nature, and empowering “all persons, communities, peoples and nations [to] call upon public
agencies to enforce the rights of nature” (art 71). Similarly, in 2010, Bolivia created broad legal rights for nature when it passed “Ley de
Derechos de la Madre Tierra” (the “Law of Mother Earth”). At the other end of the social scale, there are a growing number of local laws that
create and protect the rights of nature. In the USA, local grassroots movements have worked to embed rights for nature within local constitutions,
including the right for nature to exist and flourish (Burdon 2010, Troutman 2014).
More recently, the approach has been applied to specific natural features, namely rivers . In March 2017, three rivers, the
Whanganui River in New Zealand, and the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in India, were given the legal status of persons, while in 2011 a hybrid
form of the legal rights for nature concept was used to protect the rivers of the state of Victoria, Australia. These river ecosystems provide a range
of services to human users, including basic water supply, hydropower, irrigation, navigation, and pollution control (Ross and Connell 2016).
They are also of great significance to indigenous peoples and local communities (Alley 2010, Department of Environment, Land, Water and
Planning 2016, Sachdeva 2016).
These cases offer the first examples of legal rights being applied to a specific, identifiable, bounded natural feature (a
river and its catchment). Thedevelopment has the potential to create new legal precedent in environmental law , and
opens a fresh pathway for water resources management . In doing so it also presents a series of complex challenges for both law and
management. For instance, a river’s legal rights are only likely to be effective if they can be given force and effect . To
possess a right implies that someone else has a commensurate duty to observe this right, in both law, and practice (Schlager and Ostrom 1992).
In the context of water resources management, the efficacy of legal rights for rivers depends on both the river, and
the other users of the resource, recognizing their joint rights, duties, and responsibilities .
 Solvency---Tragedy of the Commons
Only legal personhood protects water resources from destruction through the tragedy of
the commons
Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of Water
Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197
The tragedy of the commons simply means that a resource has been overused to the point of destruction. 109 If a water
body has a right to personhood, then the guardian may sue to protect against total destruction, and thus preserve the
water body for the long [*209] haul. 110 As more and more people gain access to water systems , the lakes, rivers,
streams, and aquifers succumb to overuse . 111
The tragedy of the commons finds root in equilibrium. 112 Similarly, personhood rights could evaluate injury from a stability
standpoint. 113 Theoretically, guardians could calculate what the rate of recharge is and the rate of water use to
determine the threshold for injury. 114 In this way, water bodies, under the correct supervision of a guardian, will be
protected from the tragedy of the commons . 115 Strong rights in personhood will protect rivers, streams, lakes, and
aquifers from immediate overuse and obliteration . 116
 Solvency---Rights Balancing
Rights are key to balance nature’s interests against exploitive human activities
Guillaume Chapron 19, et al., 1Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 3/29/19,
“A rights revolution for nature,” Science, Vol. 363, No. 6434, DOI: 10.1126/science.aav5601
Another central issue will be how conflicts between rights of nature and corporate or human rights and interests will
be adjudicated. This weighing will determine whether r ights o f n ature will be effective. Although r ights o f n ature
do not aim to halt all human activities , they do aim to render the most environmentally destructive human activities
illegitimate. For example, if koala populations have rights to their habitat, courts could hold the massive bulldozing
of koala habitat to be illegal even if not explicitly prohibited by existing environmental laws.
Adjudicating conflicts between rights of nature and human activities will be controversial, but no more so than
conflicts between, for example, human rights to free expression and nondiscrimination. Conflicts between nature
and human activities happen on a massive and systematic scale . When people and corporations have rights and
nature does not, nature frequently loses , as evidenced by the continuing deterioration of the environment. Rights of
nature may help to prevent this one-sided outcome.
 AT: Property Rights Args
Property rights can be accommodated---the aff’s about balancing property rights with
ecosystems
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Vocal opposition comes as well from those who see a threat to private property and freedom itself, one advocate
declaring that "there would be nothing left of human society if we treated animals not as [our] property but
independent holders of rights." 192Granting the utility of property rights - and overlooking the fact that the same
was said of rights for blacks and women - nothing in the rights of nature demands that private ownership be
abridged any more than it is by zoning regulations , pollution controls , and other measures that we accept routinely
for the common weal. Indeed, in many settings these measures tend to enhance [*35] the values of private property,
as does the protection of nature itself, a local park, a stand of trees. Property interests, can be accommodated through
such time-tested devices as development credits, impact fees, tax relief, land swaps, and mitigation banks that allow
activities to go forward while maintaining the base. Rights in nature do not end property as we know it . They
simply ask it to meet the rest of the world half-way .
Solvency
Mechanics/Agents
 Solvency---Congress
Legislatively creating rights for rivers sets up a strong, flexible framework for water
governance that addresses economic and environmental stressors on water resources
Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and
India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1
In analyzing the case studies from Australia, New Zealand, and India we have reached three key conclusions about the
granting of legal rights to rivers. First, legal rights for nature can be created within a range of legal and institutional
settings to address a number of complex socio-environmental and economic problems. One of the most unexpected findings
from this analysis was that the legal rights for rivers approach can be used to address problems motivated by economic,
cultural, or environmental factors as in the case of Australia, New Zealand, and India, respectively. In addition, it can be used to
complement legislative frameworks ranging from state ownership models through to water markets, highlighting the
broad potential applicability of the approach.
Second, it is possible to create legal rights through both judicial and legislative channels . This makes legal rights a
flexible water governance tool with its own set of opportunities and limitations. Achieving change through legislative channels,
as occurred in Australia and New Zealand, can be slow, but effective. In contrast, the Indian case showed that legal rights for rivers
can be granted rapidly through the judicial process, but can be equally rapidly undermined by further rulings. Although the High
Court of Uttarakhand created some very broad legal rights for the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, the rulings lack the institutional depth of the
legislated examples in Australia and New Zealand. In India, the absence of broader government engagement raises questions about the Ganges
and Yamuna rivers’ guardians’ likely ability to act, given the absence of financial support, institutional capacity, and statutory independence. The
recent appeal to the Supreme Court of India is demonstrative of the type of uncertainty that could be created by granting legal rights to rivers
through the judicial system.
Third, this analysis suggests that granting rights to nature no longer sits on the fringes of environmental law . These three cases
represent a development in environmental law and demonstrate a new way in which nature can be granted legal standing. Where nature has
been given legal rights previously, namely in Ecuador and Bolivia, a distinct limitation of the approach has been the
inability to give the rights force and effect. This analysis shows that the approaches taken in Australia and New Zealand
could overcome some of the challenges experienced in the earlier cases and deliver outcomes to the benefit of the
environment and society .
The cases evaluated here shine light on how legal rights for rivers can be used to address a range of issues commonly observed
in water resources management. As pressures on freshwater systems continue to increase, understanding the opportunities
and limitations provided by this new legal approach will allow decision makers to make more informed choices when
considering ways of addressing their context-specific socio-environmental and economic pressures .
 Solvency---Federal/Standing
Federal law shapes state and tribal enforcement authority, and fails without conferring
standing directly to rivers
Meredith N. Healy 19, J.D. Candidate, University of Colorado Law School, 2019, “Fluid Standing: Incorporating
the Indigenous Rights of Nature Concept into Collaborative Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem,”
Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review,
https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attached-files/healy_web_edition_pdf.pdf
The 1970s could be considered the heyday of American Environmental Law. At the beginning of the decade, the National Environmental Policy
Act (“NEPA”) heralded a new era in which the federal government was first required to consider the environmental
effects of their proposed actions prior to making decisions on agency actions such as resource extraction permit applications,
adopting federal land management actions, and constructing publicly-owned facilities. The Act was conceived as a broad national framework for
protecting the environment, with the specific goal of encouraging “productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment,”
“promot[ing] efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man” and
“enrich[ing] the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation.”46 Over time, however, NEPA was
reduced to a procedural safeguard rather than substantive protection of the environment.
Just two years later, Congressamended the Water Pollution Control Act of 1948, renamed and now commonly known as the C lean W ater
A ct, to give the Environmental Protection Agency (“ EPA ”) the authority to regulate pollutant discharge in the waters of the
U nited S tates as well as maintain existing requirements to set water quality standards . The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) was
subsequently modified to streamline the municipal construction grants process, build EPA-state partnerships to address water quality needs and
funding, and reduce toxic pollutants. While the CWA does provide for financial assistance to states to establish and administer
programs for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of water pollution, that help only extends to tribes if they are
federally recognized , have a governing body carrying out substantial governmental duties and powers, have legal
authority and jurisdiction over tribal lands, and have the capacity to comply with the CWA. Despite funding tribes,
as well as providing for states to implement enforcement of the CWA , the EPA itself acknowledges widespread
violations and uneven enforcement.
In 1973, Congress enacted the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) to provide a way to protect ecosystems that host endangered and threatened
species. Administered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”), the
ESA prohibits the taking—defined as harassing, harming, pursuing, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to
engage in any such conduct—of endangered and threatened species.53 Designation of habitat critical to the survival of such species to “the
maximum extent prudent and determinable,” is tempered with broad carve-outs for economic considerations, national security and “other relevant
impact[s].” Because the ESA only provides protection for potentially narrow slices of ecosystems that host specific, listed species, it is not
substantively sufficient to completely protect entire river ecosystems.
B. Sierra Club v. Morton
During the same decade that Congress passed NEPA, the CWA, and the ESA, the Supreme Court handed down the long-lasting
opinion that would limit environmental advocacy to claims of injury to humans . As a result of Sierra Club v.
Morton, successful environmental litigation now depends on a duly-injured advocate with access to the courts —often
termed “next friend”—claiming injurious impact on a human .
Sierra Club v. Morton is the closest that the United States federal government has come to granting personhood to natural resources.57 In
that case, a conservation group brought suit for declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the United States Forest Service from
approving a ski development proposed by Walt Disney Productions near the Sequoia National Forest. The Sierra Club alleged no personal injury
to any specific member, but argued that the ski development would adversely affect the forest. Justice Stewart held that although the
Sierra Club amply demonstrated their affinity for the forest and environmental expertise, absent concrete “injury in
fact” to Sierra Club’s members , the club had no standing to sue on behalf of the forest. Because the Sierra Club’s members
did not allege facts showing that they would be personally adversely affected by the ski development, the Court determined that the club did not
“have a direct stake in the outcome,” and it would undermine the goal of the Administrative Procedure Act to “authorize judicial review at the
behest of organization or individuals who seek to do no more than vindicate their own value preferences through the judicial process.”61
C. The Douglas Dissent
In his famous dissent, Justice Douglas asserted that perhaps injury to the forest itself would be concern enough for the Court to consider.
Douglas opined that environmental issues might be better litigated in the name of the natural resource that would potentially be injured.63
The Court at the time already considered inanimate objects such as ships and corporations as parties in litigation , and
Douglas offered an extension of that consideration. Douglas reasoned that rivers have even more at stake in litigation because they
are an entire ecological unit that is not only living but support s and sustains both other wildlife and human life. He
highlighted the irony of judicial protection of fictional entities at the expense of protection for actual, natural entities:
The corporation sole—a creature of ecclesiastical law—is an acceptable adversary and large fortunes ride on its cases. The ordinary corporation
is a ‘person’ for purposes of the adjudicatory processes, whether it represents proprietary, spiritual, aesthetic, or charitable causes. So, it should be
as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves or trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive
pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes—fish, aquatic
insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its
sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it .
Douglas suggested that “contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium should lead to the
conferral of standing upon environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.” He urged citizens to speak on behalf of
the natural resources that form “the very core of America’s beauty.”68 Instead of relying on federal agencies notorious for aligning with private
interests that are at odds with such beliefs, or transferring the responsibility to environmental groups who may be swayed by Zeitgeist, Douglas
recommended that the “people who have so frequented the place as to know its values and wonders . . . speak for the entire ecological
community. ”69 Douglas concluded with Aldo Leopold’s land ethic, which urges an understanding of community to include “soils, waters,
plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.”
D. The Blackmun Dissent
Justice Douglas was not alone in his concern about the danger of narrowing environmental advocacy to redress for human injury. His colleague,
Justice Blackmun, warned that Sierra Club v. Morton “poses— if only we choose to acknowledge and reach them—significant aspects of a wide,
growing, and disturbing problem, that is, the Nation’s and the world’s deteriorating environment with its resulting ecological disturbances.”
Justice Blackmun’s concern foreshadowed the danger of a judicial system tied to the legal fictions it creates when he asked, “Must our law be so
rigid and our procedural concepts so inflexible that we render ourselves helpless when the existing methods and the traditional concepts do not
quite fit and do not prove to be entirely adequate for new issues?” While the majority set a new standard for bringing cases on
behalf of natural resources , Justice Blackmun, seconded by Justice Brennan, urged the court to consider the dangers of
limiting judicial review to human injuries .

Standing plus a framework of stakeholder representatives advocating for the interests of

rivers is a seismic change in water resource protection
Doesn’t link to federalism because incorporates state interests
Meredith N. Healy 19, J.D. Candidate, University of Colorado Law School, 2019, “Fluid Standing: Incorporating
the Indigenous Rights of Nature Concept into Collaborative Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem,”
Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review,
https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attached-files/healy_web_edition_pdf.pdf
Federal recognition of the rights of nature would (1) ameliorate standing doctrine without requiring wholesale
overhaul of the environmental advocacy scheme, (2) provide a moral victory for tribes that already recognize the
legal rights of nature, (3) set a necessary framework for protecting natural resources within the U.S. legal system,
and (4) allow for an implementation of a system of guardians for major natural resources . This proposed recognition
comes at a time when it is becoming more apparent that the federal government might not reasonably be relied upon to
advocate successfully for natural resources’ best interests. As renowned Western water legal scholar Charles Wilkinson remarked,
“the water laws that . . . arose for good reason in a particular historical and societal context, the westward expansion of the
nineteenth century . . . simply do not square with the economic trends, knowledge, and social values of the modern West .”
A. Acknowledging the Rights of Nature Would Further
American Environmental Goals
While federal laws such as NEPA, the ESA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act, and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act mandate that federal land management agencies consider certain
indigenous cultural resources on and near the lands they manage, natural resource conservation goals may be more
effectively met if land managers consider traditional ethnic knowledge to complement Western views. Rather than a
blanket application of federal laws aimed at an amalgam of initiatives, local incorporation of the indigenous rights
of nature tailored specifically to the resource to be managed would fill the gaps between the variety of procedural
and substantive environmental laws.
B. Indigenous Background
While recognition of the rights of nature may seem to be a foreign concept in the United States, it has roots in some indigenous American
cultures. In his exploration of the sharp division between American federal government and American Indian views of nature, American Indian
scholar Walter Echo-hawk stated that “tribal religions cannot be considered in a vacuum, but must be understood within the
context of the primal world, for tribes in their aboriginal places are embedded in their indigenous habitats so solidly
that the line between nature and the tribe is not easy to establish.” In describing tribal views of nature, Echo-hawk quoted Black
Elk (Lakota), “[T]he Great Spirit . . . is within all things; the trees, the grasses, the rivers, the mountains, and the four-legged animals, and the
winged peoples.” Incorporating such indigenous viewpoints in the U nited S tates federal courts has been inconsistent to
date.
Inconsistent federal recognition of such views may reflect the differing values of the more than 500 federally-recognized tribes within United
States borders .146 Some tribes have introduced indigenous viewpoints of natural resources into federal litigation, but
judicial responses have not appeared consistent. In 2001, a federal district court recognized the Klamath and Yurok tribes’ culture
and tradition when weighing tribal and non-tribal reliance on the Bureau of Reclamation’s regulation of the Klamath River during a severe
drought. The Klamath River ecosystem hosted three fish species listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. Indirectly supporting
indigenous views, the court ruled for the tribes based on the plain language of the ESA, stating that the Bureau of Reclamation had a
responsibility under the ESA that overrode the rights of non-tribal irrigators.
In 2016, the Blackfeet Nation in Montana succeeded in protecting sacred lands from oil development. The United States Department of the
Interior cited deference to sacred tribal lands when it cancelled drilling leases in the Badger-Two Medicine area. However, that success was
short-lived. In September 2018, the District Court for the District of Columbia held that the decision to cancel one of the oil and gas leases was
arbitrary and capricious. Judge Richard J. Leon’s decision made no reference to sacred tribal lands.
Perhaps one of the strongest federal recognitions of indigenous views came via the permanent protection of the Taos Pueblo Nation’s “most
sacred shrine:” the Blue Lake in northern New Mexico. The Taos Pueblo Nation believed that the lake was a living entity, and that if the lake
ceased to exist, the tribe itself would cease to exist. Even though the Taos Pueblo Nation persuaded the federal government to protect the Pueblo
Nation’s sacred waters from recreational overuse, this victory— and that of the temporary reprieve at Badger-Two Medicine—remains rare. In
Idaho v. Coeur d’Alene Tribe of Idaho, the Court affirmed state control of waterbeds seemingly without concern for location or import to native
tribes. The federal courts’ reasoning did not appear to rely on indigenous peoples’ views of natural resources, even in those cases the tribes won.
However, non-indigenous environmental groups continue to challenge the Western utilitarian view that natural resources are to be used and not
heard.
C. Proposed Guardianship Framework
The United States is likely not yet ready to incorporate indigenous beliefs into of the rights of nature, but if
the government assigned
nongovernmental coalitions of guardians —a kind of guardian ad litem for natural resources—to major rivers,
environmental advocates would be permitted to: (1) proffer a guardian who can focus exclusively on the longterm
representation of one river; and then (2) delegate funding to protect other resources adequately. Further financial support
from federal or state governmental agencies could be considered as well, but the reduction in plaintiffs bringing suits on behalf of the river would
perhaps balance the costs of permanent guardianship.
This framework would ensure legal representation of the natural resource’s long-term interests . For example, legally-
appointed river guardians might advise federal and state agencies on permit applications for multiple nearby mining
operations. The guardians would have a stronger, more sustained case for the river because their advocacy would not
be limited to case-by-case scenarios. Because the Colorado River Ecosystem would have permanently appointed guardianship, advocacy
for the ecosystem would be broader than just ad hoc participation in notice and comment rulemaking every time there was a perceived threat to
the ecosystem. In litigation, the Ecosystem would be a named party rather than property, developing reliance for opposing parties whose interests
in the river may be currently subject to litigation by multiple adversaries. In that way, guardians for the Ecosystem could develop a co-
management plan that focused on long-term health of the river.
Additionally, appropriating water rights would be considered not only by seniority but with consideration of the effects
of the appropriator’s use on the river. This seismic shift in water law would effectively establish the most senior
water right as that of the river itself . Although this would upend Colorado’s water doctrine of prior appropriation,
challenges to the “first in time, first in right” doctrine are not without precedent .
An exception to the prior appropriation doctrine in Colorado was realized in 2009 when the Colorado legislature recognized the acequia water
management system. The acequia water management system does not appropriate water in order of seniority but instead recognizes a pre-
American system that apportions the water equally among property owners along a communal ditch.161 Because Colorado recognizes one
exception to the prior appropriation doctrine, it is feasible that the state might also consider excepting river-ecosystem guardianship.
Like the legislative establishment of guardians for the Whanganui River, Congress could be the instrument for creating
guardianship of the Colorado River Ecosystem. By establishing the guardianship through the legislature and not the
judiciary, the State’s constitutional claims would be countered by providing a private right of action . Additionally,
rather than two guardians as seen in New Zealand, or one special master as recommended by Deep Green Resistance, a strategy group of
parties from federal and state governments, private environmental non-profits, and tribal representation would best
represent the diversified needs of those citizens who value and depend on the Colorado River Ecosystem. This
legislatively established panel could balance the divergent needs of each entity in relation to the river .
1. Federal Representation
The guardianship of the Colorado River Ecosystem would include a federal representative . Obvious choices would include
a nominee from an agency already entrusted with representing administration’s principles, such as the EPA, NMFS, or USFWS. This
would
capitalize on expert knowledge at the federal level and acknowledge federal interests in protecting natural resources.
As administrations change and their policies on natural resources fluctuate, this federal representation might be tempered by the viewpoints of the
other members of the strategy group. Even though some federal agencies like those listed above were conceived as guardians for public lands,
the Colorado River Ecosystem would also need representation outside of the government because the river flows
past—and is appropriated by owners of—private and locally-held lands. Additionally, federal agencies may have directives for
natural resource use that conflict with those of the proposed strategy group.
The challenge with a federal representative is how and whether to appoint or elect the representative. If
the federal representative were
appointed by the executive branch, the Colorado River Ecosystem might fall prey to political whims . Further, if this
representative’s term was tied to who is in office, continuity would be a concern. One solution would be to internally
elect or appoint a career staffer from within the executive branch, perhaps from the Department of the Interior, and establish
five- to ten-year terms that may exceed a single administration.
2. Non-government Citizen Representation
Just as with the Whanganui, the
Colorado River Ecosystem should include representation by individuals not specifically
directed by the federal government, state government, or tribal interests . Appointing a non-governmental citizen as
guardian for the Colorado River Ecosystem would relieve environmental groups of the burden of showing human injury for
every case. These groups could still advocate for the river but would need only show injury to the river and not to
themselves. Several water-resources groups are already in place and could nominate an advocate to speak for
private environmental interests.
The challenge with selecting a non-government citizen representative is twofold. First, the interested parties could run the gamut from non-profit
environmentalists to corporate natural-resource extractors. Second, a mechanism for electing or appointing this guardian would need to be
created. An election might empower the local citizenry, but lobbying could result in representation by the wealthiest entity rather than the one
most committed to the river ecosystem’s health and integrity. Alternatively, appointment by any state party to existing river management
agreements could either result in representation by an individual committed to the river ecosystem’s health and integrity or a political favor by
whichever political party is in power at the time.
3. Tribal Representation
The Colorado River Ecosystem is fortunate to already have a coalition of tribal and state representatives that share ideas and perspectives about
the use and management of the river. The Ten Tribes Partnership has navigated “the Law of the River”—the intricate network of state and
federal statutes, regulations and judicial decrees, interstate compacts, and treaties that affect water management decisions in the Colorado River
Ecosystem—for more than two decades. Such longterm, large scale tribal coordination to protect natural resources reflects a trend of increased
tribal collaboration in the West. Recently, the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition brought together the Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, and Ute Indian Tribe with the goal of restoring the Bears Ears National Monument in southern Utah. These
intertribal coalitions show promise for future intertribal coordination and collaboration with external governments
and agencies aligned to protect natural resources.
Native American tribes in the Colorado River Ecosystem recognized water as a centerpiece of life well before our
current legal system placed restrictions on its use. Redress for injury to a tribe’s water rights has generally been
limited to interference with court-defined beneficial uses rather than intrinsic value or sacred use.
Tribal co-management could turn the tide on litigation based on protecting for rivers for their sacred value . In 2016,
the Navajo Nation sued the EPA in response to the Animas River spill.171 Following the release of nearly three million gallons of toxins into the
Animas River, the Navajo Nation sued the EPA for economic injuries to the Nation and its people, noting that the EPA “incredibly did not inform
the [Navajo] Nation that a toxic plume was advancing toward their sacred [San Juan] River for nearly two days.”172 The Nation claimed that the
river held sacred importance to their people, embodying their principle of “hozho,” or beauty, order, and harmony in the Navajo universe.173
Disrupting hozho would disrupt the entire Navajo way of life.174
The district court first consolidated the Navajo Nation’s case with that of the State of New Mexico.175 Because the State of Utah and plaintiffs
with property interests adjacent to the river also brought suit for damages to the Animas River in other jurisdictions, the court consulted a
Multidistrict Litigation Panel.176 The Tenth Circuit, sua sponte, consolidated Navajo Nation v. EPA with New Mexico v. EPA.177 This case has
now been in litigation for over two years without ever getting to the opening brief stage because plaintiffs cross multiple jurisdictions. The case is
now pending further consolidation with non-tribal interests, potentially diluting the impact of tribal views.
In the Whanganui River Report, the New Zealand Crown Government recognized the importance of tribal authority and ownership of the
Whanganui River aside from the common law conception of river ownership.178 In this way indigenous peoples along the Colorado River, like
the Maori indigenous people, might be able to reclaim management of lands lost in settlement. Ironically, it was the civil rights movement in the
United States that led the Maori to begin their fight for recognition of tribal authority and ownership of the Whanganui; it is only fitting that the
Maori now lead indigenous peoples on the other side of the globe in their quest for repatriation of natural resource control.
The counterargument to tribal representation on the Colorado River Ecosystem is that, unlike the one Whanganui iwi tribe, multiple tribes hold an
interest in the Colorado River. Electing just one tribal guardian might be efficient but surely not representative of all tribal interests.
4. State Representation
Because of the competing interests of state and federal governments, state representatives would be needed to
address state concerns as the Colorado River passes through their territories. This could lead to multiple state appointees
because the Colorado River crosses state boundaries. Multiple state representatives would allow for competing upstream and
downstream interests to have equal voices. Because of the number of state representatives interested in ensuring the health and use of
the river within their boundaries, bureaucratic bloat could be a concern.
Framework for interstate collaboration is already in place . In December 2017, the Bureau of Reclamation asked representatives
from the seven Colorado River Basin States—Colorado, Wyoming, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, California, and Utah—to draft Drought
Contingency Plans. These plans mark the most recent cooperative effort in a long history of multistate cooperation resulting from the binding
and obligatory compact signed by those states in 1922. While states may resist ceding control over what was traditionally well within their
sphere of influence, states’ histories of considering economic development over other public interests makes it necessary
to have a heterogeneous strategy group.
CONCLUSION
Co-management guardianship of the Colorado River Ecosystem could provide the meaningful protection necessary for the
long-term survival of the River and the communities that depend on it. Because legal personhood based on the inherent rights of
nature may still be a long way off, this guardianship framework could provide a model for the protection of other river ecosystems across the
United States.
To ensure that these limited rights of nature are protected effectively in the case of the Colorado River Ecosystem, a
guardianship council like the one used to represent the interests of the Whanganui River could be appointed, perhaps
as a result of negotiations localized to the river ecosystem. To provide for a variety of viewpoints on the best representation of
the natural resource, this council should include federal, state, local non-governmental, and tribal representatives as
necessary. While formation of this council may initially appear unwieldly or politically charged, over time this type of guardianship
may mature into a legally-recognized device capable of replication across the U nited S tates. Weaving natural
resources guardianship into the federal government’s current interpretation of Article III standing might invite
traditional ethnic knowledge into American federal jurisprudence so that moral rights of nature, now absent among
American legal fictions, once “made visible can no longer be denied.”
 Solvency---Agent Options
Any branch of the federal government could do the aff independently
Linda Sheehan 19, Advisor, Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature; Linda Sheehan Consulting, 2019,
“IMPLEMENTING NATURE’S RIGHTS THROUGH REGULATORY STANDARDS,” Vermont Journal of
Environmental Law, http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload926.pdf
Enforcing nature’s rights laws through court action is one strategy to engender specific, meaningful change. Court
action can help recognize nature’s rights, define the parameters of a nature’s rights law, and provide specific guidance
to decision makers and stakeholders. Among other approaches, judicial education can advance judicial action. The International Union
for Conservation of Nature’s [IUCN] World Commission on Environmental Law has prioritized judicial education.3 The IUCN further has
recognized nature’s inherent right to exist, thrive, and evolve in its Declaration on an Environmental Rule of Law. 4 Through education, judges
worldwide are becoming more aware of rights of nature and broader environmental justice concepts.5 Academic discussions, such as the VLS
Symposium and materials following, contribute to this global legal scholarship and may assume a noteworthy role in court decisions.6
A second strategy to impact meaningful change is to adopt follow-up laws that advance specific elements of
broader, rights-based legislation . One example of this strategy recently occurred in Santa Monica, California. In 2013, the Santa Monica
City Council adopted the Santa Monica Sustainability Rights Ordinance. 7 This ordinance recognizes the “fundamental and inalienable rights” of
“natural communities and ecosystems” in the City to “exist and flourish.”8 The Sustainability Rights Ordinance specifically defines “natural
communities and ecosystems” to include “groundwater aquifers, atmospheric systems, marine waters, and native species.” 9 As with rights of
nature laws generally, 10 the Sustainability Rights Ordinance’s impact is proceeding relatively slowly as local decision makers consider how to
best translate the Sustainability Rights Ordinance’s language into practice.
The Santa Monica City Council had its first implementation success in August 2018, when it adopted the Santa Monica Sustainable Groundwater
Management Ordinance. This Ordinance addresses the local aquifer–the source of most of the City’s water supply–and its inherent rights. 11 The
Ordinance bans construction of new, private water wells and expansion of existing wells, citing the city aquifer’s inherent right to flourish. 12
This Ordinance is significantly more protective than existing California groundwater management law. 13 Santa Monica is currently developing a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan that may allow private wells in the future, but only if the private wells do not disturb the aquifer’s right to
flourish.14 A variety of factors will help shape the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and will include, among other things: studies assessing
different models of projected aquifer use; scientific and rights-grounded policies supportive of a “flourishing” system over a degraded one; and
subsequent controls regulating aquifer usage.15
A third strategy to implement rights of nature law is through administrative law . This strategy involves developing and
adopting reg ulation s that recognize nature’s rights. Regulations help resolve legal gaps, imprecision, and
inconsistencies. 16 By developing rights-based regulations, society further defines nature’s rights.

Either Congress or the Courts could establish river rights

Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
A more technical objection contends that nothing in U.S. law permits nature standing, and this is currently true.
Nothing supporting it is found in the Constitution nor the Administrative Procedure Act, which restricts rights to sue
to "persons" adversely affected. 161On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution precludes it either , and the
limitation of federal jurisdiction to "cases and controversies " simply requires that [*29] there be a genuine contest
here, not a hypothetical. 162No one can deny that the Mineral King litigation involved real and competing interests.
As courts have pointed out, while denying standing (reluctantly) for primates and whales, nothing prevents
Congress (or even the courts , when one considers what they have done to enfranchise corporations) from allowing
nature, like Disney, to seek redress for its own injuries, in its own name. 163We are bounded more by our
perceptions than by law .
 Solvency---DNE Mechanism
Rights of nature can be established using the delineated natural ecosystem designation for
legal persons---key to avoid extinction from global environmental degradation
Stacy Jane Schaefer 18, Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 4/18/18, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,”
https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/
Our attitude
Rachel Carson made this observation more than fifty years ago, and the intervening decades have borne out her conclusion.
toward nature, and the refusal of the legal system to acknowledge nature’s legal standing , have resulted in legally
authorized environmental destruction that has accumulated and accelerated to such an extent that it presents an
existential threat to nature and therefore humanity .
Our laws support corporate rights to exist and thrive economically. That seems logical in capitalist societies, as large fortunes
can ride on corporate well-being. Corporations, however, are not connected to the natural world in the way humans are.
Humans breathe air, drink water and need food to survive. In the face of modern society’s attempt to use science to detach itself
from nature, science has repeatedly shown that we are inextricably connected to the environment just like any other living
thing.[2]
U nited S tates jurisprudence does not yet reflect this connection; there is no legal analog to corporate rights that
establishes nature’s right to exist, thrive and defend itself from harm. A lawyer cannot directly represent nature to
protect it. Although the Supreme Court’s standing doctrine recognizes a corporation as a “juristic person,” [3] it does not recognize nature in
the same way. In fact, injury to the environment is not relevant in determining whether a person seeking to protect the
environment has standing in an environmental protection case.[4]
“Why shouldn’t nature have the same legal standing as the companies seeking to exploit it?”[5]
This question is not new.[6] The concept of nature having rights has its roots in indigenous cultures[7] and has gained traction
in some legal systems.[8] There remains a perception however, that recognizing nature as a “juristic person” is bridge too
far in the context of the U.S. legal system.[9]
This Article submits that such recognition is entirely manageable and offers a mechanism through which recognition
of nature’s legal personhood can conform to established legal doctrines without offending notions of judicial
economy or the p olitical q uestion d octrine. [10] Identification and delineation of a natural ecosystem facing harm–
a Delineated Natural Ecosystem (“DNE”)–offers a scientifically-based distinct and definable “juristic person” proxy
for nature that is comparable to the juristic person construct of a corporation. Of course, a natural ecosystem exists in nature
and not the courtroom. But the construct of a DNE–scientists and attorneys using verifiable scientific methodologies and
modern technology to establish the DNE by virtue of the location and the effects of the underlying allegations of injury–is fit for the
courtroom.
A corporation achieves “legal personhood” via legal forms and registration fees.[11] Nature, on a case-by-case basis, can achieve
“legal personhood” via the identification of the DNE plaintiff using science-based methods and data . This same
science can identify the injury or threatened injury and the proximate cause of such injury. As such, the DNE proxy is a
construct that creates a juristic person with functional structure that is both scientifically verifiable and judicially
manageable .[12] The DNE proxy will be created and exist, like a corporation, “in contemplation of the law.”[13]
Use of a DNE proxy for nature will align jurisprudence with modern science and provide a mechanism to bring
balance to the adversarial judicial process . The DNE tool is tailored to the Supreme Court’s standing doctrine
because it allows the party with a “direct stake in the outcome”[14] to stand before the court and defend itself from
those who seek to harm it. From a broader perspective, this mechanism may enable realization of “productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment.”[15]
Although using the DNE mechanism to recognize nature’s “legal personhood” requires only a short analytical step, it also
requires a willingness to acknowledge our fundamental connection to and responsibility for our natural world . Put
another way, it will require us–as Rachel Carson recognized over 50 years ago–to “prove our maturity and our mastery, not of nature, but of
ourselves.”[16]

Rivers should be given legal personhood as delineated natural ecosystems---it’s the best
way to create distinct legal persons to represent natural systems
Stacy Jane Schaefer 18, Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 4/18/18, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,”
https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/
This is a moving passage that, at the time, could not offer a workable mechanism to identify a proxy for nature’s legal personhood. As Professor
Jonathan Cannon observes in his book, Environment in the Balance, there could be many issues associated with recognizing nature’s ability to
have standing in its own right: “Which things in nature would be represented? Why the River [as in Justice Douglas’ dissent in
Sierra Club] and not the watershed or the ecosystem of which the river is a part? And is the River the exclusive voice of
the ‘ecological unit of life’ that is a part of it, or does each unit have potential standing in its own right?” [60] And as
Professor Hope Babcock points out, “nature lacks any functional structure remotely similar to a corporation.”[61]
This Article’s proposal of the DNE proxy offers a mechanism to produce a nameable and distinct legal entity with
“functional structure” comparable to a corporation. Nature’s DNE proxy in each case is established by virtue of the
location and the effects of the underlying injury; use of science-based classification systems and “operational”
ecosystem definitions enable us to name, delineate and describe a DNE proxy and the injury it faces or has sustained.
Geographic Information System (GIS) technology can then demonstrate, on a single map, a polygon of a DNE proxy
with different layers of information collected from a variety of sources , including remote sensing imagery, cartographic data, as
well as data collected from previous research and surveys, on site assessments, drones, and photographs.[62]
A natural ecosystem is an organization that includes living organisms in a geographic area as well as the physical
environment–all functioning together as a unit . [63] Use of the DNE proxy therefore provides a site-specific
“umbrella” to cover the physical environment, interconnected biodiversity, natural habitats and natural processes
such as water filtration, air purification and soil retention. As such, the DNE proxy inherently represents nature’s
interest in existing, persisting, and maintaining and regenerating its vital cycles in a threatened or injured
geographic area. It is an entity in nature that–through science-based human delineation–becomes nature’s legal person proxy
that fits within the Court’s standing doctrine framework .
 Solvency---DNE Mechanism---Feasibility
The DNE proxy mechanism would work just like any other case where lawyers represent
the interests of nonhuman legal constructions
Stacy Jane Schaefer 18, Associate Director of Land Conservation at the Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, 4/18/18, “The Standing of Nature: The Delineated Natural Ecosystem Proxy,”
https://gwjeel.com/2018/04/18/the-standing-of-nature-the-delineated-natural-ecosystem-proxy/
But who files the suit and how will this work in an actual case?
Just as litigation attorneys regularly are hired to represent other juristic persons such as corporations, litigation
attorneys would be hired to represent the DNE proxy . The attorneys need not be scientists themselves because, as
in other litigation contexts, the lawyers can work with one or more qualified expert witnesses. [102] For instance,
an attorney representing an injured person in a medical malpractice case works with one or more qualified medical
expert witnesses to conduct the necessary physical examinations, submit reports to the court, and testify when
necessary.[103] Similarly, the attorney retained to challenge the permits issued to convert a natural forest ecosystem
to a ski resort and highway, as in Sierra Club v. Morton, would work with qualified expert witnesses, such as
biologists and ecologists, to identify and delineate the DNE proxy/proxies and to describe the concrete and
particularized injury facing the DNE(s) that would be proximately caused by the permitted recreational
“development” of the DNE(s)’ forests.[104]
In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,[105] the Supreme Court established a non-exclusive checklist for
trial courts to use in assessing the reliability of scientific expert testimony. The key factors include the following:
whether the expert’s technique or theory can be or has been tested—that is, whether the expert’s theory can be
challenged in some objective sense, or whether it is instead simply a subjective, conclusory approach that cannot
reasonably be assessed for reliability;
whether the technique or theory has been subject to peer review and publication; the known or potential rate of error
of the technique or theory when applied; the existence and maintenance of standards and controls; and
whether the technique or theory has been generally accepted in the scientific community.[106]
The use of a DNE proxy to establish nature’s legal personhood and right to exist and defend itself would be novel.
The underlying information, methods , technology, standards and frameworks, however, are not ;–this work is the
subject of objective, verifiable peer-reviewed publications , and studies and projects that adhere to rigorous
standards and controls .[107] The “novelty” is limited to the context in which this work now could be applied.[108]
Thus, a DNE proxy, seeking to protect itself from direct and imminent injury, could oppose the agency that issued
the permit, as well as the company or companies seeking to build the resort and highway. This action “preserves the
vitality of the adversarial process by assuring both that the parties before the court have an actual, as opposed to
professed, stake in the outcome, and that the legal questions presented . . . will be resolved, not in the rarified
atmosphere of a debating society , but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the
consequences of judicial action.”[109] In this instance, Nature’s DNE proxy is fighting for its continued existence
against the permitting government agency and the development company that seek to end the DNE’s existence.
 Solvency---Broad Feasibility
Rights for nature are feasible---they require avoiding harm and remedying prior damage---
it’s a filter for all agency decisionmaking on resource use---the full framework’s key to
avoid extinction from environmental decline
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
A final concern is perhaps the most obvious, and seemingly the most challenging to answer even for those most open-minded to nature's claim.
How, in practice, would legal rights in nature be articulated, and what would they entail? 201We might sensibly start
by examining what has already taken place. While some see nature rights as Mission Impossible, others have been making it happen.
The first stab at the architecture of legal rights came in 1984 with the U.N. World Charter for Nature, earlier mentioned. 202A process of
legislation that spanned nine years, three drafts, and the comments of over fifty countries produced a final document announcing bold principles
(number one: "nature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired"), followed by over thirty "functions" and steps for
implementation. 203Perhaps the most relevant of these were that (1) actions causing "irreversible" damage be avoided; (2) those posing
"significant risk" not proceed until impacts were "fully [*37] understood"; (3) that damaged areas be "restored"; and (4) that nonrenewable
resources (e.g., minerals, the principal source of conflict) be developed compatibly with "the functioning of natural systems" … a nature bottom
line. 204
To be sure, as a Declaration none of this language was enforceable, but its level of detail, its use of the word "shall," and the supporting
statements of its drafters indicates the expectation that at least some of the signing members would, as with the U.N. Declaration on Human
Rights, convert these principles into law. Twenty-five years later, two of them did.
Ecuador rising largely from Andean roots led the way. The impacts of mining and oil exploration had brought massive
protests, some of them violent, from indigenous communities across the region. 205Nature rights were inextricably
entwined with their daily lives, a symbiosis captured in the word "Pachamama," not simply a belief but a way of relating to everything
else around them. 206Upon his election in 2007, President Correa - a Ph.D. economist (University of Illinois) and former Minister of the
Economy - made two overtures that startled the world. 207
The first was an offer to forego oil development in Yasuni National Park, a World Heritage Site and one of the most
biologically important environments on earth, at the sacrifice of billions of dollars in revenues … if nations of the
world reimburse 50% of these losses in compensation. 208Supervised by an international trust, much of the monies
would be used to protect and improve the lot of indigenous peoples in the region. Although Ecuador itself, minerals-
dependent and by no means a wealthy country, would be absorbing 50% of the hit, the world turned him down . No U.S. official even
acknowledged it. In 2013 [*38] Correa announced defeat and opened a small area of the Yasuni Park to oil exploration. 209Saving Pachamama
in one large coup was not going to work.
The other initiative moved from the ground up. Also in 2007, Correa called a constitutional convention, which the following
year produced three new articles conferring rights on nature itself. 210Promoted strongly by a coalition of indigenous groups
called the Pachamama Alliance (in turn supported by scientists, state legislatures, and several international NGOs), 211the articles were at first
blush breathtaking, even unimaginable … and they remain so in some quarters today.
Article: 71 announced the "right of Pachamama to be respected," including "the maintenance and regeneration of its vital cycles, structure,
functions and evolutionary processes," and the right of standing for every "individual, community, people, or nationality" to demand that public
authorities comply. 212Article: 72 added a right to restoration, over and above indemnification for damages under other laws. 213Article: 73
[*39] provided special protections for endangered species and ecosystems. 214As written, these obligations are absolute. 215 They were yet
reinforced by a later amendment inverting the burden of proof in cases of real or potential damage to nature. 216Until
recently only one exception to them, for the Yasuni exploration, had been made. 217
In 2017, nine years after enactment, Ecuador's articles were reexamined in a legislative process leading to a rights of nature
code. The first draft of the code contained little language on them and met considerable opposition. 218After debate, a second draft reinserted
the rights of nature, but with few specifics. 219After more debate, a final bill went to the President with each of the above articles restored, and
some yet strengthened. 220At last count, fourteen judicial decisions have cited these rights with approval . 221
Pausing to reflect on the Ecuador experience, three aspects are particularly instructive. The first is that they
include each element of the
ethical framework : existence, perpetuation, and restoration. The second is their orientation, which, aside from safeguards for
endangered species, is explicitly ecosystem-focused . To be sure, wildlife and other species are protected within ecosystem function, but
as with the U.N. Declaration earlier, Ecuador kept its eye on the larger prize. The third is that Ecuador was not alone.
[*40] Bolivia followed closely and went on to up the ante. In 2015, driven by the same impulses as its neighbor (it is also part of
the Andean universe) and after elections, it came under the direction of Latin America's first indigenous President, Evo Morales. 222In April
2010, on the heels of a failed climate change convention in Copenhagen, Bolivia hosted a World People's Conference on Climate Change and the
Rights of Mother Earth, which, with more than 32,000 participants from fifty-four countries, produced a Declaration of its own, presented to the
G-7 nations and the U.N. Secretary General later that year. 223Importantly, it was also presented to the national legislature, which then adopted
ten principles, the most relevant of which were the right of nature to its own existence, to its diversity in a natural state, and to restoration.
224Environmental ethics anno dominium 2000 made law.
In 2012, Bolivia enacted a more detailed version, Framework Law of the Mother Earth and Integral Development for Living Well, which
affirmed the legal rights of Pachamama and rejected material production and consumption as national goals. 225In addition to specific
prescriptions for, inter alia, renewable energy, organic agriculture, and corporate conduct, 226the legislature created a new Ministry of Mother
Earth and an ombudsman to receive and respond to citizen complaints. 227Citizens and organizations were, as in Ecuador, given standing to
defend nature's rights wherever they might arise. 228On paper, at least, Bolivia too was going to make it happen.
From these roots, legal principles of nature rights emerge: (1) to avoid disruption of basic ecosystem functions; (2) to
avoid harm to all natural areas where alternatives are available; (3) to avoid critical areas [*41] altogether; (4) to
mitigate prospective damage fully and in kind; and (5) to restore damage already incurred. None of these principles
are rocket-science; several are found in existing (if limited in scope) national programs. More detailed prescriptions are contained
in the earlier referenced Draft European Directive, 229with structures for implementation and enforcement (including
criminal law, a daunting provision). 230A similar structure was presented to the Ecuadorian Assembly in 2008, complete with decision-making
matrix and flow chart, but has not yet been adopted. 231With which, thirty-five years after its adoption, the U.N. Declaration of 1982 has born its
first offspring, more mature, more considered, and ready for take-off. What remains is to let it go forward and evolve. 232
This evolution will demand respect for existing environmental programs that have their own , often more-targeted
missions and some significant accomplishments to their name. They also have significant handicaps, however, some
shackled by their authorizing statutes, 233more still by the lack of budget and personnel (nowhere abundant), and nearly
all by political challenges that may leave them vulnerable, where functioning at all. Which is where rights of nature,
properly perceived, kick in .
Properly viewed, rights of nature need not be a separate regulatory system , raising obvious difficulties with redundancy
and conflicts. It [*42] need not be a system at all, but rather a pulse-check in the nature of due process that ensures decisions from
line agencies also meet standards fundamental to the earth as a whole. This has been the approach of several U.S.
states and many courts abroad in the interpretation of similarly broad mandates. 234 Most resource development does
not put species of ecosystems at serious risk , but for those that do, nature rights can be a significant partner to
existing programs , reinforcing them against the same pressures that led to their creation in the first place. Their next best
friend.
There are some of course who would argue that nature rights cannot, and should not, play so fundamental a role. We have met several arguments
earlier in this Article: . 235Taking them singly or in concert, it is hard not to conclude that, whatever science and ethics tell us about humans and
the natural world, these people simply do not want them to be fundamental. According to a recent contributor to the National Review:
I keep writing about [nature rights] because - like cancer, early detection and eradication surgery is the key to stopping this madness… . [A]
malevolently malignant attack on human thriving that, if allowed to take hold, presents an existential threat to human exceptionalism and the
moral values of Western civilization. 236
[*43] Whether humanity can loosen the shackles of this view sufficiently to appreciate, and accept, the exceptionalism of other life may be the
ultimate question of this field.
There are some who have done just this, including the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Hilario Davide. 237In a case
of first impression invalidating large sales of virgin timber previously authorized by the government, Davide wrote:
As a matter of fact these basic rights [preserving the rhythm and harmony of nature] need not even be written in the Constitution
for they are assumed to exist from the inception of humankind. If they are now explicitly mentioned … it is because
of the well-founded fear of its framers that unless the rights to a balanced and healthful ecology are mandated … the
day would not be too far when all else would be lost not only for the present generation but for also for those to
come - generations which stand to inherit nothing but parched earth incapable of sustaining life . 238
 Solvency---Legal Personhood Feasibility
Legal personhood for nature’s totally feasible---corporate rights prove the law can easily
accommodate the interests of non-human entities
Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and
India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1
Protecting the environment through judicial process is one of the lasting legacies of the rapid expansion of environmental law that occurred
through the 1960s and 1970s (Plater 1994, Gunningham 2009). Over this period, environmental law emerged as a distinct discipline and a range
of legal tools were established to protect the environment from the impact of human activities (Sax 1971, Grinlinton 1990, Preston 2007, Fisher
2010). Since then, most environmental law has focused on either protecting particular special or iconic features, or by
placing sustainable limits on development and use of resources (Doremus 2002, Stallworthy 2008, Fisher 2010, Godden and Peel
2010). However, these approaches have often obscured the particular interests of “nature ” behind the effects of
environmental degradation on human interests (Carlson 1998, Bertagna 2006, Sands 2012). For example, the public trust doctrine
(Sax 1970) places emphasis on the public use of natural resources (Preston 2005) rather than the protection of nature itself. Addressing this
obscurity has become one of the core challenges in environmental law.
The key question has become how to best represent the environment in court, and how to frame the legal challenges
to deliver “judicial protection of nature for the sake of nature itself” (Daly 2012:63). Stone (1972) proposed a method to
recognize the rights of nature in his seminal paper Should Trees Have Standing?, which showed how nature could be personified
in law, so that it could seek legal redress on its own behalf. Stone combined a philosophical argument with key practical steps to
enable the environment to become a legal subject. He identified three legal criteria that “go toward making a thing count
jurally”: (1) “that the thing can institute legal actions at its behest”; (2) “that in determining the granting of legal relief, the
court must take injury to it into account ”; and (3) “that relief must run to the benefit ” of it (Stone 1972:458 [emphasis in the
original]). The essence of these legal criteria is to create the possibility for nature to take action in court to protect its
own interests: to give nature itself legal standing .
Although Stone’s proposal has remained on the fringes of mainstream environmental law (Naffine 2012, Warnock 2012), it is premised on a
concept widely accepted in law: that legal rights can be conferred on nonhuman entities. The creation of “legal
fictions” is a long-standing mechanism to create legal personality for a range of nonhuman entities, including, most
notably, for-profit corporations (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2003, Truitt 2006, Farrar 2007). The advantage of this legal approach is
that it creates a new, identifiable, legal entity (the legal person), which includes all the necessary legal rights
(standing, contract, and property) for granting the nonhuman entity its own personality. Although there are limited examples
of using the legal person in the environmental context, it has been used for many purposes throughout history, including
businesses, not-for-profit charities, and religious organizations (Micklethwait and Wooldridge 2003), as well as Hindu
deities.[1]

Rights of nature are legally feasible---the law’s evolved to recognize rights of non-human
legal entities and expanded to grant rights to previously-excluded classes of people---
environment’s no different
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Stone's treatise, unsurpassed in the grace of its expression, rested on three legs. He noted, first, that standing and
other personal rights had been accorded to corporations , trusts , marine vessels , and a great range of institutions,
none of them even biologically alive. 149He went on to point out that law had evolved to recognize rights in slaves,
Jews, women, Native Americans, and others hitherto regarded legally as "objects," if regarded at all, each one over
fierce resistance entrenched in the past. 150He added, last, that the alternative to recognizing these rights placed
environmental interests in a conceptual hole, 151having to defend natural areas like Mineral King against highly
lucrative developments because a lone hiker some weekend would dislike seeing it on the horizon. Not a very
compelling posture. Perceived as a conflict between two (often-imbalanced) human interests, the most fundamental
interest is missing.
Time has solidified Stone's thesis. The range of rights accorded to U.S. corporations and similar business interests
now include, inter alia, speech, religion, freedom from government searches, and unlimited [*27] campaign
contributions as "persons" under the law. 152Indeed, the very characterization of these artificial entities as "persons"
paves the way for the privileges. At the same time, however, rights-holding has been extended in U.S. law to the
mentally disabled, immigrants, and lesbian, gay, and transgender individuals 153who, in recent centuries, were
persecuted for these same proclivities and remain so in many countries today. "The arc of the moral universe is
long," Martin Luther King once famously predicted, "but it bends towards justice." 154Assuming this to be true, or
at least that we want it to be true, and given our increased understanding of the interconnection of all life on earth , it
would not seem difficult to allow this life, too, its day in court. The threshold barrier is its standing, and it elicits a
chorus of criticism that, in the interest of fairness, deserves its moment in the sun.
 Solvency---Representation/Speaking for Nature
Lawyers represent the interests of nonhuman entities all the time
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Mineral King is the name of the mountain valley that was threatened by development in the Sierra Club v
Morton case
Perhaps the most primitive reaction is that trees cannot talk, they can't even be brought to court, so they will need a
human after all, which leads us back to homocentric litigation. Actually , it leads us instead to the conflation of
lawyer and client . Lawyers represent ships, estates, and other non-people every day. As they could, just as easily,
Mineral King. For these purposes trees don't need tongues , or an IQ of one, for that matter.

Guardianship would be implemented through organizational standing, where qualified

organizations represent natural systems in court
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Which brings us to a final question: if nature has standing, then who may speak for it and will carry its case in court? Perhaps
the best answer is to leave this decision to the countries involved. Whoever has standing in an environmental case of any kind, be
it the government or a private party, would be eligible to represent nature as well. U.S. litigants would [*30] have to
meet at least the "adversely affected" standard. Stone and Douglas both suggested instead the appointment of
guardians with a demonstrated track record in the subject , in effect the "organizational" standing rejected by the
Sierra v. Morton majority. The notion makes sense: one would want an entity capable of representing native's interests in
full, and seeing it through. 167Italy follows this model, with eligible organizations certified by longevity, expertise,
and geography. 168England does the same on a more ad hoc basis, 169and even China is moving to recognize environmental litigation by at
least a few state-approved NGOs. 170Brazil and other countries have independent prosecutors who already undertake environmental litigation
against government actions and could assume this portfolio as well. 171At the far end of the spectrum are those nations that have abandoned
standing requirements altogether. 172Here is a matter in which diversity can be the laboratory for evolution. It seems clear, however, that the
"who represents" question is no more an insuperable obstacle than the others. It can be done .

That avoids the downsides of court-appointed guardians

Hope M. Babcock 16, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2016, “A Brook with Legal Rights:
The Rights of Nature in Court,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127508?ln=en
Beyond the theoretical, nature's appearance in court raises practical concerns as well, some of which Stone anticipated. For example,
since nature is speechless, it needs someone to speak on its behalf. Stone's solution was to have a court appoint a
guardian - an environmental organization or a government agency - to represent nature. 306 While this Article agrees
with Stone that humans must at some level be interlocutors for nature to give it a voice in court, it moves away from his
reliance on court-appointed guardians to represent nature in court, as that will take time and impose administrative costs
on the plaintiff. Instead, the Article suggests that having nature represented by a properly qualified lawyer with
sufficient expertise, resources, and commitment to make arguments on nature's behalf or with a special connection
to the resource under threat is all the representation nature needs in court. Qualified lawyers could be from nationally
or regionally recognized environmental organizations or even from local ones who can make the necessary showings noted above if
challenged. 307 While this approach has roots in Stone's proposal, it eliminates the need for a court to appoint a guardian and the
reliance on a human plaintiff to complain about nature's injuries. 308 Similarly, figuring out what is in nature's best
interest, given nature's silence, is not difficult . As Stone says "natural objects can communicate their wants (needs) to
us, and in ways that are not terribly ambiguous" 309 like the disappearance of a species from an area because of a
lack of suitable habitat. Indeed, Stone says nature can do this more clearly than a director of a corporation can declare
that the corporation wants dividends declared, noting that the interests of "others" like corporations "are far less verifiable, and even
more metaphysical in conception, than the wants of rivers, trees, and land." 310
Stone acknowledged that one of the problems with his guardianship proposal arises from the fact that, frequently, the injuries and interests
of discrete segments of the environment are different and sometimes conflict . For example, a community's focus on the
injury to a small segment of a larger watershed might lead it to ignore the health of the larger watershed (or vice
versa), while the protection of a small section of forest because of its importance to a local community might undermine management measures
important to the larger system (again, the reverse might be true). In these [*50] situations, Stone might ask, should
divisible segments of
natural systems have individual rights? If the representatives of those divisible systems cannot agree on a holistic
solution then the answer is probably yes; an answer that is no different than when an individual member of a larger
group seeks separate relief from what the group wants so long as the individual can meet the requisite standing showings.
 Solvency---AT: Current Law Sufficient
Rights of nature provide an advance requirement to consider environmental impact before
development decisions---that’s key to avoid extinction
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Skeptics also pose what they believe to be a clinching question: given that nearly every nation on earth has environmental
laws by now, what difference would rights of nature make? Implying, of course, no difference. The record to date is
otherwise. For one, they reinforce and expand the interpretation of those same laws, adding restoration requirements
to some, enforcement to others. 193They also provide a safety net where existing programs have been overwhelmed
by other interests, or because they fail to address the injury at all. 194More proactively, they provide a seat at the
table, in advance of development decisions , for nature rights to appear through the lens of its own needs and not
simply the cacophony of competing human interests. 195As proactively, they provide a vantage point to demand
restoration for past injury and to insist on compensation going forward. 196Lastly, and perhaps most enduringly, they
catalyze a new awareness of our relationship with the natural world , which, in turn, could play a larger role in human
survival than many now admit . 197Whether these advantages are realized is still conjectural, we are in the early stages of the game. Their
potential, however, seems well worth the try. 198

Existing mechanisms for lawsuits consign nature to second-class status---only rights

recognition creates durable mindset change
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
A second objection is that trees do not need standing either, at least after Sierra v. Morton. How difficult, one might ask, can it
be to find a person "adversely affected" by an assault on nature who is eligible to sue? It turns out that on occasion it can be
quite difficult , 155and these occasions can be consequential. The Supreme Court split almost evenly on standing in the seminal
climate change case of Massachusetts v. EPA, largely over how "affected" the plaintiff must be, how "imminent" the
impact must be, and whether the judgment can "redress" the harm. 156These mini-wars are waged almost daily, in U.S.
courtrooms, and lead to inherently subjective judgments ; the judges who reject environmentalist [*28] standing are
almost invariably the ones who reject their cases on the merits as well. 157While it must be acknowledged that, with careful
pleading and (often) hard argument nature usually does get in the door, but as the ward of a group that has managed to dig
up a member sufficiently "affected." Second-class all the way .
This leads to a related argument that Mineral King-as-plaintiff doesn't add anything. In practice, of course, such a right would provide this
ecosystem automatic standing to challenge activities degrading it, bypassing the obstacles just discussed. But it matters
for another reason as well. Sierra v. Morton was about the very existence of a high mountain valley that even the majority characterized as
"pristine." 158What legal recognition also adds is honesty. Yes, weekend hikers may be offended, but this is the real injured party -
long after the hikers have gone - this special place and its many interlocking components. Much litigation of this type is driven
at bottom by the desire to protect a resource for its own sake , its own right to be. When the Sierra Club brought two later suits on
behalf of the Palila and the Northern Spotted Owl (two endangered birds), it placed them first on the plaintiff list and brought stuffed specimens
to counsel table, every day. 159Coincidently, it won both cases. With recognition, minds begin to change . 160

Lack of standing for nature means other legal and legislative avenues fail
Hope M. Babcock 16, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2016, “A Brook with Legal Rights:
The Rights of Nature in Court,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127508?ln=en
Reflecting on the intervention petition of Little Mahoning Creek, the time seems ripe to revisit Stone‘s proposal.7 If
there was a moral and practical imperative to giving nature an independent voice in court in 1972, it is even truer
today . The current trend in the Supreme Court is to increase the barriers facing surrogate litigants who seek to
protect some feature of the environment from harm, particularly the barrier presented by Article III standing . Why
these cases increasingly fail—despite the ingenuity of the lawyers—is the attenuated, almost fictive connection
between the interested or injured party and the threatened resource. The lack of success in prosecuting these cases
forces the resolution of natural resource conflicts into the political branches , which evince no capacity to act . But, if
the natural resource could appear in its own right to complain of threats to its continued existence, the injury prong
of Article III standing should cease to be a problem .8
AT: Neg Arguments
 AT: Conservative Backlash
No conservative backlash---support for RoN transcends political boundaries and wins over
skeptics
Robin R. Milam 12, Administrative Director for the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature, 2012, “RIVERS
AND NATURAL ECOSYSTEMS AS RIGHTS BEARING SUBJECTS,” https://www.therightsofnature.org/rivers-
and-natural-ecosystems-as-rights-bearing-subjects/
In a historic preliminary agreement announced in August 2012, the Whanganui River of New Zealand is being granted legal personhood rights.
The River is a major commercial route on the North Island and is sacred to the Whanganui iwi ─ Maori. Negotiations have taken decades to get
this far. The proposed framework agreement assigns shared guardian responsibilities for the river to Iwi and officials representing the Crown.
This landmark move is a first for New Zealand but not for the world. (http://www.therightsofnature.org/rights-of-nature-laws/whanganui-river-
given-rights-as-a-legal-identity/)
Across the Pacific, the Vilcabamba River of Ecuador has also been recognized as a rights bearing subject of the law. In 2008 Ecuador became
the first country in the world to include Rights of Nature in its Constitution. The Constitution states that Nature … has the right to exist, persist,
maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes. Furthermore, the people of Ecuador have the legal
authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of ecosystems including rivers. In 2011, a major development project impacted the
flow of the Vilcabamba River. Local residents filed a suit against the developer on behalf of the river. At the conclusion of a court trial, the river
won. The judge awarded damages to the river and restoration is currently in process. (http://www.therightsofnature.org/first-ron-case-ecuador/)
Granting legal standing to natural ecosystems is not isolated to these two cases. Recognizing rights of nature and natural ecosystems
is the focus of a global grassroots movement . In 2010 in Cochabamba, Bolivia over 35,000 people came together at a Peoples
Conference to acclaim the Universal Declaration for Rights of Mother Earth.( http://www.therightsofnature.org/universal-declaration/) A copy of
the declaration with 120,000 signatures was presented to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon at the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June 20126.
(http://www.rightsofmotherearth.com/signatures-delivered-rio20/) Also in 2010, the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature1 was formed to
provide a global hub for empowering the movement.
Although the idea has been advanced for decades, the pivotal legal reframing of nature as a rights bearing subject actually took root in 2006 in the
small rural community of Tamaqua Borough, Pennsylvania, USA. (http://www.celdf.org/article.php?id=440) In less than a decade almost three
dozen communities in the United States have passed local ordinances which recognize Rights of Nature. In November 2012, more ordinance
proposals will be on local ballots. In addition to the United States and Ecuador, Rights of Nature laws are being implemented in Bolivia and
proposed in other countries.
The story of Tamaqua Borough (http://www.celdf.org/section.php?id=198) is an example of one of the ways communities from Maine to
Washington State and California are uniting to implement similar ordinances. Coal has provided the economic base for the Borough of Tamaqua
for much of the last century. As coal mining in the region declined, mining companies began to look for other sources of profit by using their
abandoned mine pits as toxic waste dumpsites. Industrial and wastewater sludge or “biosolids” were being dumped into the large unlined pits. In
time, toxic waste began to leach into the surrounding rivers and aquifers. When residents learned the coal companies also planned to fill the pits
with fly ash, the poisonous dust residue from coal mining, they rallied together. Attempting to protect their community, the Borough Council had
an abrupt awakening as they began to understand that the environmental regulatory systems did not provide protection they so desperately wanted
and needed. Because the rivers and aquifers had no standing in the law and the contaminating pits were owned by the mining corporations, the
community had no recourse for protecting themselves or their local ecosystems under the current laws and regulatory system. The permit process
permitted the contamination rather than provided protection of their local ecosystems.
With the assistance of Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF http://celdf.org), Tamaqua Borough passed a rights based
ordinance which recognized the rights of the natural ecosystems that were being polluted and the rights of the community to decide on issues
effecting them. The ordinance declares that “It shall be unlawful for any corporation…to interfere with the existence of natural communities or
ecosystems or to cause damage…Ecosystems shall be considered to be ‘person’ for the purpose of enforcement.” The Borough of Tamaqua and
its residents are granted standing to represent natural communities and ecosystems.3
Other communities are driven by a variety of galvanizing issues. The City of Pittsburgh, PA (http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-
power/pittsburg-bans-natural-gas-drilling) has passed a local ordinance recognizing the rights of the local ecosystems and natural communities
while limiting corporate personhood rights to prevent fracking within the City. For Santa Monica, CA a resolution including recognition of the
Rights of Nature is part of the City’s overall Sustainability Plan. In Shapleigh, Maine, the City Council moved to protect the city’s ground water
resources from corporate extraction and exploitation by companies such as Nestle to produce bottled water. Food sovereignty, the Tar Sands pipe
line, threat of toxic contamination, and other emerging issues are uniting communities to stand for the rights of both their human and natural
communities.
The move is a fundamental change from the current position of most modern legal systems which treat nature as
property to be bought, sold, and consumed often under commerce laws. The underlying r ights o f n ature premise
recognizes our human interdependence on the natural ecosystems of which humans are apart and which sustain all
life . These interrelated values are integral to ancient indigenous wisdom around the world but are ignored by
today’s anthropologic framework for modern law.
It is a movement that transcends political values and ideologies . If you are inclined to assume the movement is the work of a
bunch of left winged progressive, tree huggers, think again. Many of the cities and townships in the US who have embraced R ights
o f N ature are conservative, right wing communities. Citizens across diverging political ideologies are emboldened
to take a stand once they fully understand that the US Constitution and/or current environment protection laws do
not protect the natural communities which sustain healthy, human life or do not recognize our rights as community to make the
quality of life choices that are ours to make.
The time has come to recognize that We the People are an integral part of the natural communities that sustain us and
to recognize the rights of our natural ecosystems not only to exist, but to sustain their natural, healthy balance for the
benefit of all life.
 AT: Rights Inherently Anthropocentric
Rights aren’t inherently anthropocentric---human recognition doesn’t devalue nature
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
A more conceptual objection is that nature rights cannot exist because humans would have to declare them , making
them anthropocentric from the start, confusing process with substance. Of course, humans would have to recognize
them (or recognize them as natural law) but this makes them no less real, nor does it make them perforce human-
centered . If we acknowledge that other living things have rights to be, to continue to be, then it is simply false to
claim to say that these rights as ours; they are theirs and focused on their needs, which is the definition of
ecocentricity . In many instances, of course, anthropomorphic and ecocentric interests marry - a healthy river curves
to mind - but this is a far cry from contending that only one is valid. Neither logic nor law renders us incapable of
recognizing, and dealing with, the other.
 AT: Impossible to Know Nature’s Interests
Nature self-evidently has interests in continued existence and restoration---no
interpretation required
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Another objection to ecocentricity, although it is hard to take seriously, is that offered by the philosopher Mark
Sagoff: how does any human "purport to know the interests of a voiceless object?" 184It may be, he goes on,
Mineral King valley wants a Disney resort. The question, although in one sense facetious, can be met by simple
observation. All living things on earth struggle against dying and to reproduce their own , which if nothing else
demonstrates a primordial urge to exist and continue existing. And, as evidenced by green shoots poking up through
the sidewalk each spring, an urge to restore itself when it can. These are basic tenets of environmental ethics anno
dominium 2000. Anomalously, almost every child knows them. 185It is the adults who have the problem.
 AT: Anthropocene Means No Natural Baseline
Even if there’s no objective natural baseline, we should still have protections against
ecocide, obviously
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
Others reject nature rights because, in their view, nature no longer exists . We are in the Anthropocene, human
impacts are everywhere, and there is no natural baseline. 186This claim is echoed by those who insist [*34] that
humans, too, are part of nature and thus whatever humans do is, by definition, natural as well. 187America's national
parks, one skeptic claims, are "as much human constructions as Disneyland." 188One might respond, as to Sagoff,
that one visit to Disneyland should suffice to show the difference. More particularly, though, while undoubtedly
altered and massively threatened by climate change, nature and natural systems are all around us, struggling, even
morphing, but surviving. Humans, like all other living elements of nature, will die too someday , but we still have
laws against homicide . Rights of nature are simply laws against ecocide as well.
 AT: Nature Would Be A Defendant
Nature wouldn’t be a defendant or liable for environmental harm
Hope M. Babcock 16, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2016, “A Brook with Legal Rights:
The Rights of Nature in Court,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127508?ln=en
Another question Stone raises is that if nature is granted rights, like the ability to appear in court as a plaintiff, why
should liability not attach to it for the harms it causes like wildfires, floods, landslides, and droughts? 311 In other
words, why should nature not also be required to appear as a defendant? Stone actually agrees that nature should pay
for the harm it causes and proposes that judgments against nature should be paid from trust funds established for
court ordered damages to the environment. 312 However, this would be a mistake . The complexity and
improbability of attributing harm to nature and ruling out any causative human factors like global warming, building
in flood prone and/or landslide vulnerable areas, or careless camping, makes this a much more complicated and
resource intensive effort than identifying a specific human cause for nature's harm and should not be entertained by
the courts . The last question, also raised by Stone, is the matter of determining appropriate remedies for injuries to
nature. 313 Although still a complex and difficult process, doing this has become more routine under laws like the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 314 and the Oil Pollution
Act. 315
Counterplan Answers
Human Right to Nature CP
 2AC---Human Right to Nature CP---Top Deficit
Rights of nature are better than human rights to nature---the CP institutionalizes
environmental destruction
Susana Borràs 16, lecturer of Public international law and International Relations in the Department of Public
International Law and International Relations in the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV, Tarragona-Spain), 2016,
“New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature,” Transnational Environmental
Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 113-143
The recognition and protection of ‘rights of nature’ represents a new approach in the field of environmental law.
Traditionally, legal systems have considered nature as ‘property’ and have promoted laws to guarantee the property
rights of individuals, corporations and other legal entities. The consequence has been that environmental laws and
regulations, despite their preventive approach, have developed so as to legalize and legitimate environmental harm .
Certainly, the recognition of individual rights in relation to the environment has had a significant influence at the supranational level. However,
the recognition of a human right to an adequate environment has not been without controversy . Firstly, the protection
of the environment through a human right to an adequate environment, rather than through protective rules, has had
no discernible positive impact on the conservation of natural resources. Secondly, protection of the environment is not
really an individual right but an unenforceable programmatic norm.
A new approach is emerging, however: the recognition of the rights of nature, which implies a holistic approach to all life and
all ecosystems . In recent years, a series of normative precedents have surfaced, which recognize that nature has certain rights as a legal
subject and holder of rights. These precedents potentially contribute not merely a greater sensitivity to the environment, but a thorough
reorientation about how to protect the Earth as the centre of life.
From this perspective, known as ‘ biocentrism ’, nature is not an object of protection but a subject with fundamental rights ,
such as the rights to exist, to survive, and to persist and regenerate vital cycles. The implication of this recognition is that human
beings have the legal authority and responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of nature in that rights of nature
become an essential element for the sustainability and the survivability of human societies . This concept is based on the
recognition that humans, as but one part of life on earth, must live within their ecological limits rather than see themselves as
the purpose of environmental protection, as the ‘anthropocentric’ approach proposes. Humans are trustees of the
Earth rather than being mere stewards . The idea is based on the proposition that ecosystems of air, water, land, and atmosphere are a
public trust and should be preserved and protected as habitat for all natural beings and natural communities .
Recognizing rights of nature, Ecuador, Bolivia and a growing number of communities in the United States (US) are developing their
environmental protection policies on the premise that nature has inalienable rights. This is a radical move away from the assumption
that nature is property – an assumption which has fostered climate change , the disappearance of natural areas,
indiscriminate surface felling of trees, desertification of new territories, dumping of toxic substances, oil slicks, and
endless other actions that cause environmental damage . This article tracks the change from the anthropocentric to the biocentric
perspective and its implementation, including the recent trend in attributing a greater role to human responsibility for environmental protection.
The article also discusses new regulatory precedents which mark an evolution in environmental law, both nationally and internationally, aimed at
achieving an environmental policy that is more consistent with the conservation of natural resources. Finally, the article explores the questions of
who is able to claim the rights of nature and how legal systems can best defend them.

Rights of nature are the only durable, irreversible approach to environmental protection---
reliance on human interests fails
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
One need not be a Cassandra to note that the forests of the world are rapidly vanishing, as are wetlands to development,
mangroves to fish farms, and grasslands to desert; small continents of plastics now rotate in all five oceans , growing larger
each year, fragments leaching into the stomachs of pelagic turtles, fish, and birds; heavy toxins now contaminate the Arctic and do
not degrade; glaciers from the Andes to the Himalayas are melting, as are the ice sheets of the North and South Poles; Australia's
Great Barrier Reef is bleached white and disintegrating, and with it some of the most astonishing life forms on earth; fresh water
amphibians are plummeting, as are avian migrations, pollinators, and butterflies ; two thirds of the breeding birds of Britain, a
country noted for its attention to them, are in decline, some species already extinct; the tiger, the orangutan, and mega-vertebrates on every
continent are living on borrowed time and may find their final refuge in zoos; forms of life that developed over eons, entire
complexes of life, are winking out like birthday candles, up to three species an hour , an estimated 15% to 40% [*46] of
all species by 2050, not to malice, not necessarily by design, but all by human hands. 248
At the same time, national programs designed to arrest these declines, have at best slowed them instead. Those intending
to "eliminate" discharges end up authorizing them at lower levels; 249others [*47] managed under "multiple use" yield
to the highest bidders, 250yet others prescribe but do not require, 251or mitigate but do not avoid, 252or mitigate only
part of the harm and declare victory. 253On the natural resources side, landscape-level issues are rarely addressed, 254and recent
attempts to do so are now up for repeal. 255Recovery plans for endangered species - nature most at risk - lie unenforceable
and unimplemented, more aspirational than the term "plan" would imply. 256 Even the most ironclad statutes yield to the
unceasing demands of politicians, lobbyists, and litigation that may stall them for decades, 257leading to a kind of
stasis in [*48] which nature is simply lucky to hang on . At this pivotal juncture, America, long a world leader in
environmental protection , has gone into a freefall with no end in sight. 258All of which has prompted searches for new
approaches, a countervailing right of its own .
Nature rights are not the only response on the table. Fusing environmental rights with human rights has gained considerable traction
in countries with significant indigenous populations, opening their own front on natural resource preservation. 259The U.S. public trust doctrine
has experienced a revival of its own, 260and a recent trust case in Oregon (by and on behalf of children) has dared to challenge climate change
head on. 261The broadest of these approaches yet, launched in the early l970s, has been to incorporate environmental provisions (e.g., "each
person has the right to a healthy environment") into half the constitutions of the world, 262building their own precedent, leading to surprisingly
[*49] favorable judicial decisions on every continent 263and to such related initiatives as France's right of non-regression (an idea of genius).
264Given the success of these patently open-ended doctrines, one is tempted to simply declare "rights of nature" as well and let the courts figure
them out … as they have with such basic concepts as "due process," "privacy," and "equal protection" in other areas of law. To an extent this has
already begun, but considerable work has also been done on standards as well. There is room for both processes to move forward, which is the
way evolution works. And succeeds.
Each of these approaches seeks a redline for human development while there is still time . Each remains, however,
essentially anthropocentric , our entitlement to nature for our use and enjoyment, and this approach has its attractions not only
for its reliance on tangible benefits but also its
comforting notion that the environment is "ours" to begin with. Their
drawback is that they are also "ours" to end with , and what humans claim for themselves they can also unclaim ,
often quite easily . Programs disappear. Entire institutions disappear. Protections that depend on humans staying the
course are inherently fragile , and when lost can be lost forever. It is the terrible dynamic of this field.
Which takes us back to rights in nature. Their very ecocentricity , anathema to their critics, is their first value-added , an
extrinsic trigger new to the game. 265The decision is no longer simply mano-a-mano among competing human
preferences , and its measuring sticks are more objective than those found in other schemes : risks to living things we can
calculate, avoid, and restore. They are the missing party with its own bottom line. These rights may take decades to mature (what rights do not?),
but as rights, they will be difficult to remove . In the meantime, they open the door. More than that, they open the mind.
A second value-added by nature rights is deeply rooted in the human genome. We grew up together, producing linkages that E.O. Wilson calls
"biophilia," 266and they are all around us, found in the [*50] simplest things: in nursery rhymes, stuffed bears, and trips to the zoo, in
birdfeeders, whale watches and animal rescue leagues, in fishing rods, hunting licenses and the (astonishing) popularity of the National Park
System, in the Eagle Bar, the Chicago Bears and the Year of the Snake and the Rabbit, in corporate logos, real estate prices and the names of
SUVs, in the place we seek out for honeymoons, vacations or the briefest moment to exhale … a still pond, the shade of a tree, the sight of a
white bird rising, with gratitude for their being out there, for the simple fact of their being.
Rights of nature tap into a place that anthropomorphism and its pragmatism , for all their importance, cannot touch : a powerful link
to the human heart. They
provide a baseline not easy for humans to manipulate, backed by this undeniable bond. Their
contribution to the world at large could be yet greater , not limited to changing outcomes in particular cases, nor to empowering local
communities, nor to creating new protected areas and restoring old ones before they too disappear, nor even to finding a place in corporate
sustainability codes, gross domestic product, and other instruments of the prevailing economic order. Through each of these means and more, in
framing a new way to perceive the world, an old way really, a world we will continue to dominate but may come to
acknowledge as entitled to life, liberty, and a pursuit of happiness all its own.
A great deal may ride on this happening.

The CP can’t contain growth within biophysical limits, by definition

Susana Borràs 16, lecturer of Public international law and International Relations in the Department of Public
International Law and International Relations in the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV, Tarragona-Spain), 2016,
“New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature,” Transnational Environmental
Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 113-143
The ‘biocentric approach’ offers a novel perspective on environmental law. Legal systems have traditionally regarded
nature as ‘property’ which can be exploited and degraded, rather than as an integral ecological partner with its own
rights to exist and thrive. The consequence is that domestic laws and regulations on environmental protection
effectively legalize environmental damage by regulating how much pollution or natural destruction of nature may
lawfully occur. Within this paradigm, the recognition of a human right to the environment cannot be sufficient to
ensure the protection of the environment. In the opinion of Bosselmann:
[I]n the long term the existence of an environmental human right could be seen as self-contradictory . A better option is the
development of all human rights in a manner which demonstrates that humanity is an integral part of the biosphere,
that nature has an intrinsic value and that humanity has obligations toward nature . In short, ecological limitations ,
together with corollary obligations, should be part of the rights discourse.
The recognition of a right of nature represents an integrated, holistic view of all life and all ecosystems . From this
perspective, nature becomes not the object of protection but a legal subject: all forms of life have the right to exist, persist, maintain and
regenerate their vital cycles. In parallel with this recognition is another: that humans have the legal authority and
responsibility to enforce these rights on behalf of nature.
The ‘biocentric’ view is definitely a reaction to the severity of environmental conditions and the many threats to natural
ecosystems . It is based on the idea that humans are part of nature and that the conservation of nature is, above all, a duty
of human beings. According to this argument, any form of life is important for the balance of nature. In recognition of the rights of nature,
the Ecuadorian constitution, Bolivian legislation, and a growing number of communities in the US are orienting their environmental protection
systems around the premise that nature has inalienable rights, as do humans. This is a radical idea and is certainly not without its critics and
detractors. Yet this article argues that it is a reasonable
response to the subordination of environmental protection to human
interests and the large-scale environmental devastation that this subordination fosters.
 Human Right CP---Deficit---Consciousness/Follow-On
Rights for nature catalyze a shift in consciousness around the environment, spurring
follow-on protections---the counterplan’s human-centric approach replicates the status quo
Hope M. Babcock 16, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2016, “A Brook with Legal Rights:
The Rights of Nature in Court,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127508?ln=en
It is important to give nature the independent legal right to go to court to protect itself from harm because the current
system will not allow others to intervene on nature‘s behalf. As discussed above, third parties face nearly insurmountable
barriers when they advocate for nature in court. The executive branch is perpetually hampered by limited resources,
and occasionally a lack of will, when it comes to protecting nature from harm.98 Congressional paralysis (or worse), in
matters affecting the environment has made that branch of government the least effective of all.99 The existing situation has real
consequences for the environment—‖ hundreds of thousands of species on the brink of extinction , and only a tiny
fraction will ever find activists in or out of the government to defend them .‖100
Granting something rights has real importance 101: ―[p]rocedural determinations about which parties and persons can
come into the courtroom create substantive outcomes and entail social ramifications. These substantive implications have a
constitutive role in determining who does or does not belong within a community of legal subjects.‖102 However, ―rights exist in competition
with other rights,‖ which means, for example, that granting animals rights interferes with humans‘ right to treat them like personal property.103
This makes expanding the circle of rights-holders controversial.
Granting something rights also has more than symbolic effect .104 Justice Blackmun saw
the legal recognition of environmental injuries as more than a mechanism for saving national forests; it was a means through
which environmentalism could evolve into an integral element of the ills addressed by law, permeating the federal
constitution , laissez faire economics, nonpartisan politics, and even our cultural sense of morality.105
Stone believed that a society that spoke of the ―legal rights of the environment‖ would be inclined to enact more laws
protecting the environment .106 Identifying something as a right invests the underlying activity with ―meaning ,‖
vague but still ―forceful,‖ in everyday language.107 When the concept of a right is infused into our thinking, it intuitively
becomes ―part of the context against which the ‗legal language‘ of our contemporary ‗legal rules‘ is interpreted .‖108
Calling something a right can also subtly shift ―the rhetoric of explanations available to judges,‖ leading to the exploration of ―new ways of
thinking‖ and ―new insights.‖109 These new insights might encourage judges to ―develop a viable body of law,‖ which, in turn, might
―contribute to popular notions,‖ thus changing how the new rights-holder is viewed.110
Granting something rights also has rhetorical importance. Naming a nonhuman, like an animal, as a party in a lawsuit
tends to symbolically give the animal and its cause ―greater significance .‖111 This might cause people to stop
thinking of animals as mere property, because property cannot sue.112 Current constitutional and prudential standing
requirements have made ― ineffective ‖ most efforts to enforce the Animal Welfare Act under its own provisions or under
the Administrative Procedure Act.113 But ―designating animals as something more than property, and allowing animals and people with
interests in animals greater access to standing, will advance the progression of animal rights so that they more accurately depict the significance
animals hold in our current world and give them the protections they deserve.‖114 As Professor Taimie L. Bryant notes,
[l]egal standing for animals could be considered simply as a pragmatic means of increasing humans‘ compliance with human-made laws to
protect animals by way of a procedural mechanism that does the least conceptual violence to traditional standing principles. . . . In seeking to
address the harm to an animal, it makes more procedural sense for a lawyer to say, ―I am here representing a particular animal plaintiff who has
been harmed by a particular human‘s failure to provide food and water‖ than to say, ―I am here representing a human plaintiff who has been
harmed by another human‘s failure to provide food and water to an animal.‖115
But granting something a right is of symbolic importance only until a court is willing to review actions that are inconsistent with that right.116 To
―count jurally,‖ what Stone describes as having ―legally recognized worth and dignity in its own right,‖ the rights-holder must be able
to ―institute legal actions at its behest,‖ and a court must consider injury to the thing when it determines legal relief,
which, in turn must benefit the rights-holder.117 The purpose of granting nature standing, then, is to protect other rights
nature possessed and to ensure that whatever harm to the environment occurs will be mitigated or repaired .118 In the
words of Justice Douglas, granting
nature access to court is the only way ―[t]here will be assurances that all of the forms
of life which [nature] represents will stand before the court—the pileated woodpecker as well as the coyote and bear, the lemming
as well as the trout in the streams.‖119
Stone concurred for reasons of morality and self-interest. Stone believed that ―the strongest case can be made from the perspective
of human advantage for conferring rights on the environment.‖120 He advocated that steps be taken away from a human need to
dominate things, ―to objectify them, to make them ours, to manipulate them, to keep them at a psychic distance.‖121 Stone believed that the
gap between humans and the natural environment needed to lessen.122 One way to help integrate humans into the
natural environment was to encourage the popular consciousness to relinquish its ― psychic investment in our sense
of separateness and specialness in the universe .‖123 Stone found evidence that a new ―sort of consciousness‖ was
developing ―for the betterment of the planet and us.‖124
 Human Right CP---Deficit---Devaluation
Remedies based on harm to human interests devalue nature and fail to adequately protect
ecosystems
Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and
India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1
Not everyone thinks legal standing (the right to sue or be sued in court) for nature is a good idea, however. Several
commentators have argued that legal standing for nature is an unnecessary complication of standing law, which is
based on the notion that only directly affected individuals can bring actions in a court of law (Rolston 1993,
Warnock 2012). Others have argued that the recent relaxation in environmental law of the definition of “harm” to
humans has sufficiently lowered the hurdle to achieving legal standing (Sunstein 1992, Bertagna 2006, Preston
2006, Vanhala 2012). They argue that this relaxation makes it much easier for human plaintiffs to demonstrate the
necessary harm, and seek redress for it, without requiring the creation of legal rights (Stone 2012).
However, the counter to this argument is that these other advances in environmental law actually provide two
powerful reasons for extending legal rights to nature . First, from a philosophical perspective continuing to prosecute
environmental cases on the basis of ever-more attenuated “harm” to humans relies on an increasingly convoluted
and anthropocentric argument, which obscures the needs of nature (O’Riordan 1981, 1991). For example, there are
many elements of nature that are not captured by existing anthropocentric paradigms such as natural capital or
ecosystem services (see Salzmann 1997), and identifying environmental impacts outside of these conceptions is
crucial for effective protection of the environment in law (Ruhl and Ruhl 2001). Although the advances in
environmental law have enabled more environmental cases to be brought to court, the outcome has often been the
conflation of the harm experienced by the natural object with the harm to human interests. This can ultimately
devalue the natural environment , and continues to reinforce the anthropocentric position that nature only has value
in terms of its benefit to humans (Bertagna 2006).

The CP is explicitly anthropocentric

Susana Borràs 16, lecturer of Public international law and International Relations in the Department of Public
International Law and International Relations in the Universitat Rovira i Virgili (URV, Tarragona-Spain), 2016,
“New Transitions from Human Rights to the Environment to the Rights of Nature,” Transnational Environmental
Law, Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 113-143
The scope and utility of the right to a healthy environment remain the subject of ongoing debate. The existing international consensus is
to protect the environment for the benefit of humans . This is because the idea of rights is built around property rights,
which implies a relationship of superiority between humans and non-humans, as well as an appropriation of nature.
This in turn allows the deployment of capitalist social metabolism, as a way in which human societies organize their
increasing exchanges of energy and materials with the environment, which is arguably the ultimate cause of the
current ecological crisis . The consequence of this ethos is that environmental goods and values are protected not
because they have their own intrinsic value , but because of their role in satisfying human needs. Humans should therefore
decide upon the degree of protection required. This formulation is the logical consequence of the traditional human rights concept.
In general, legal systems have an inherent anthropocentricity and most of them ignore the current social impulse which advocates the protection
of a healthy environment on its own terms. Consequently, and despite the fact that the human right to the environment has
become a social vindication, its relationship with other rights and environmental protection is still not guaranteed
for either the current or future generations.
In the view of many, the very existence of environmental human rights reinforces the idea that the environment and
natural resources exist only for the benefit of humans and have no intrinsic worth . Anthropocentric approaches to
environmental protection are seen as perpetuating the values and attitudes that are at the root of environmental
degradation . The environment is protected only to the extent needed to protect human well-being. An environmental right thus
subjugates all other needs, interests and values of nature to those of humanity. This ordering is criticized by proponents of
deep ecology and earth jurisprudence on the basis that it effectively denies recognition of animals, plants, species, and ecosystems as rights
holders.
 Human Right CP---Deficit---Rights Conflicts
Protecting nature through the framework of human rights means humanity wins whenever
they’re in conflict
Guillaume Chapron 19, et al., 1Department of Ecology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 3/29/19,
“A rights revolution for nature,” Science, Vol. 363, No. 6434, DOI: 10.1126/science.aav5601
Whether nature has moral rights is likely to remain debated, but nature clearly can have legal rights—and does so in
jurisdictions that have recognized, granted, or enacted them. Legally recognized rights of nature have stemmed from
sources including constitutions, laws, and court decisions (2).
The granting of legal rights to nonhumans is not in itself revolutionary or even unusual . Although moral
considerations often influence the development of legal rights (and vice versa), legal rights need not have a moral
basis. The law can give rights to all kinds of entities if it finds reason to do so. Corporations, trade unions, and states
are all nonhuman entities that have rights and duties under the law. They have rights to litigate if they are injured
and duties not to violate the rights of others. The legal system has no difficulty adjudicating nonhuman rights .
Rights of nature may offer benefits lacking in other types of legal protection for the environment. For example,
human rights to a healthy environment would not protect species whose existence may conflict with human
activities. Conservation laws such as the Endangered Species Act can protect species but do not give them a right to
exist. This protection can therefore be removed at the whim of the legislature (10). If instead species rights were
recognized, species or their representatives could seek restitution when harmed even when they are not explicitly
protected by regulations and when their needs conflict with human needs. This may be interpreted as an attempt by
one interest group to impose its will on others; however, as with other types of rights, nature rights can lead to a
remedy when regulations fail to correct injustices.

The CP misses the vast majority of harm to ecosystems that don’t intersect with human
interests
Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and
India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1
Second, the argument for the use of legal personality for protecting nature is one of efficiency and cost
effectiveness . If the injuries to the environment (as opposed to the human users of, or participants in, that
environment) are ignored, then a significant proportion of the total injuries are not accounted for. For example, the
cost of poor water quality to users is calculated in terms of the costs of treatment necessary to improve the water
quality to the required standard. However, this treatment may fail to address the broader issues associated with the
river’s ecosystem health and well-being. If the injuries to the river are not recognized in court, then they cannot be
compensated for , which means that the true costs of environmental impacts may be underestimated . Further,
without giving due consideration to the injuries imposed on the river, the damages to other potential plaintiffs may
be insufficient to cover the costs of litigation. In some cases this may result in the litigation not proceeding.
States CP
 2AC---States CP
Solvency deficits:

a) Preemption---state-level rights of nature get struck down and preempted by federal

courts---at most states can grant human rights to nature which fail---impact’s extinction
Devon Alexandra Berman 19, Joint J.D. Candidate, American University Washington College of Law and
University of Ottawa, Common Law Section, Fall 2019, “COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES
TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE: LAKE ERIE BILL OF RIGHTS GETS THE AX: IS LEGAL
PERSONHOOD FOR NATURE DEAD IN THE WATER?,” Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 20
Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y 15
On February 26, 2019, the citizens of Toledo voted to amend the city's charter to grant the Lake Erie ecosystem the legally
enforceable "right to exist, flourish and naturally evolve," establishing the Lake Erie Bill of Rights (LEBOR). 2 Seeking to
protect the watershed from further degradation, the LEBOR gave citizens standing to sue polluters on its behalf. 3 The LEBOR deemed
invalid any existing or future permit issued to a corporation by any federal or state entity that would violate Lake
Erie's rights. 4 The LEBOR is just one example of the developing trend of communities taking a rights-based approach to protect local
resources. 5
Less than twenty-four hours after the citizens of Toledo voted to adopt LEBOR, a
local farm partnership filed a complaint in the North
District Court of Ohio claiming that LEBOR's enactment exceeded the city's authority and was preempted by state and
federal law . 6 The case was ultimately rendered moot in July 2019, when Governor Mike DeWine delivered a fatal blow to LEBOR by
signing into law a provision stating that an ecosystem does not have standing in Ohio court. 7
The legislature's swift preemption of LEBOR illustrates the inherent shortcomings of a municipal approach. 8 This Article surveys the
legal barriers to extending personhood to nature in the U nited S tates and concludes that they are likely insurmountable .
The Supreme Court's narrow interp retation of constitutional standing requirements precludes citizens from bringing
an action alleging direct injury to an ecosystem itself, irrespective of citizen suit language like that contained in LEBOR
and other environmental legislation . 9 These institutional barriers support arguments for a state-level approach to environmental
protection.
BACKGROUND: GRANTING RIGHTS TO NATURE HAS INTERNATIONAL PRECEDENT
There is a growing trend of countries adopting rights of nature legislation. 10 In 2008, Ecuador became the first country to pass a constitutional
amendment enabling any "natural or legal person" to bring an action seeking for the government to comply with its duty to "respect and
actualize" nature's right to "legal restoration." 11 When the provincial government widened a road without conducting an impact study, resulting
in flooding, two landowners successfully invoked constitutional rights of nature and sued on behalf of the river, and the government was ordered
to "restore the riparian ecosystems." 12 In 2015, the Constitutional Court of Columbia upheld standing for plaintiffs opposing mining operations
in their communities on the grounds that "standing existed in terms of legitimate representation," and that the right to a healthy environment
permeated all other constitutional rights. 13
LEGAL STANDING FOR NATURE IN THE U.S. IS FRUSTRATED BY CONSTITUTIONAL STANDING REQUIREMENTS
Article III, § 2 of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power" of the federal courts of the United States only
extends to specified "cases" and "controversies." 14 The Article III standing doctrine limits the category of litigants
empowered to sue in federal court to seek redress for a legal wrong. The Supreme Court has held the "irreducible
constitutional minimum of standing" requires the plaintiff to "allege personal injury fairly traceable to defendant's
allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief." 15 In environmental enforcement
actions, general grievances based on harm to the environment do not meet standing requirements unless the plaintiff
can establish a concrete, personal injury that will likely be redressed by a court remedy. 16 For example, environmental groups in
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife claimed that the government's funding of overseas projects threatened the plaintiffs'
ability to observe endangered species. The court rejected the "ecosystem nexus" argument, precluding generalized adverse
environmental effects as a basis for standing to challenge the activity. 17 As a result, citizen suit provisions of environmental statutes empower
people to seek enforcement of environmental laws, but they cannot be used to circumvent Article III requirements. Based on the narrow
interpretation of standing requirements , it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will recognize standing for injuries
alleged on nature's behalf. 18
SECURING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AT THE STATE LEVEL
Several states are taking a rights-based approach to preventing environmental degradation by amending their
constitutions to include a right to a healthy environment. 19 By framing environmental degradation as a violation of
citizens' rights , these amendments require governments to prioritize environmental protection when regulating industrial
activity. In [*16] 1972, Pennsylvanians voted to amend the state constitution and became the first state to enshrine environmental rights to clean
air and water through the Environmental Rights Amendment (ERA). 20 The amendment states that the Commonwealth is the trustee of the state's
natural resources, "common property of all people, including generations yet to come." 21 In 2013, the ERA was successfully invoked to defeat
key provisions of a bill that would have afforded the fracking industry broad powers and exemptions. 22 The Court held that the provisions
violated the ERA by preempting local regulation of oil and gas activities and precluding local governments from fulfilling their trustee
obligations. 23
This landmark Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling demonstrated the legal potency of enshrining citizens' right to a healthy environment in state
constitutions. In 2017, a landmark case was brought under the ERA against the legislature for allegedly misappropriating environmental
protection funds for other uses. 24 In ruling against the legislature, the Court expanded its interpretation of the ERA and held that laws are
unconstitutional if they "unreasonably impair" a citizen's ability to exercise their constitutional rights to "clean air, pure water and environmental
preservation." 25 The Court reaffirmed that the ERA commits the government to two duties: (1) to prohibit state or private action that results in
the depletion of public natural resources; and (2) to take affirmative legislative action towards environmental concerns. 26
Drawing on Pennsylvania's experience, a constitutional amendment to the Ohio Constitution that secures its citizens' right to clean water is a
more practical approach for protecting Lake Erie than attempting to confer legal standing through municipal legislation that has limited
enforceability. 27
CONCLUSION
Extreme environmental degradation presents a n unprecedented threat to human existence . 28 Environmental policy
rollbacks under the Trump Administration have decreased environmental regulation and stripped clean water protections .
29 The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania's interpretation of the ERA compels the state government to take positive legislative to prioritize
society needs to undergo a radical shift in values in
environmental protection. In the meantime, it is becoming increasingly clear that
order to effectively mitigate the human impact on the environment.

b) Federal lands---they’re key to the overall environment and only protected by federal
standing for nature
Michael Shank 21, the communications director at the Carbon Neutral Cities Alliance and adjunct faculty at New
York University’s Center for Global Affairs, 3/19/21, “Protecting federal lands should be a no-brainer,”
https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/544049-protecting-federal-lands-should-be-a-no-brainer
Undoing former President Donald Trump’s legacy of environmental damage and degradation — and his administration’s many
regulatory rollbacks — has been high on President Joe Biden’s 100 days to-do list. The impressive lineup of environmental leaders
appointed across energy, transportation, environment and interior departments and agencies indicates the seriousness of Biden’s green agenda.
Many in the environmental movement are, rightly, hopeful.
There’s one area in particular , however, where the Biden administration could go further and maximize its
environmental impact across agencies; it builds on Biden’s executive order to halt fossil fuel leasing on public lands
and water. It sits within the Department of Interior (DOI), now headed by the historic confirmation of America’s first Native American
secretary, Deb Haaland. It would start with federal lands and set an important legal rights-based precedent for how we
approach and utilize these taxpayer-owned lands.
Here’s the proposal. Federal lands — also referred to as public lands — should be safe for the public and should not threaten or
undermine public safety. That seems like a no-brainer. Further, anyone that compromises the public's safety — and the public's
“right to be let alone,” which U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted were “the most comprehensive of rights" in his dissent in
Olmstead v. United States — should be held accountable under the law.
This also seems like a no-brainer. Public lands should, indeed, be safe for the public. And yet they’re not. Public lands are some of the
most exploited, extracted and unsafe lands in America — a reality made worse by the Trump administration. But it’s a legacy of
heavy extraction that started long before Trump. A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that many of the nearly 900
mining operations on federal lands aren’t subject to royalties — meaning that companies are not paying taxpayers for the benefits of drilling on
public lands — nor are they required to produce data for the government to review.
This lack of transparency and accountability allows these mining operators — again, on public lands — to pollute and
discharge excessive damaging effluents into “ 12,000 miles of American rivers and streams and 180,000 acres of
lakes and reservoirs , destroying drinking-water supplies and crucial wildlife habitat .”
These private companies are operating freely within mining laws that haven’t been updated since the 1870s and extracting public resources on
taxpayer-owned land. Not only are they not paying royalties for access to public resources, but they’re also polluting these public resources
without paying cleanup costs.
For all these reasons and more, a lawsuit was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon — and it’s
currently being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — that aims to establish legal protections for
Americans when using publicly owned land, whether they're doing scientific research, recreating socially or observing nature and its inhabitants.
It’s long past time that we update the old laws from the 1800s. This lawsuit, which aims to do that and set a new benchmark for treatment of
public lands, was brought against the Trump administration’s DOI, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (DOA), the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and their secretaries.
It will now carry forward and apply to Biden’s administration. Filed by the Animal Legal Defense Fund and others, the lawsuit applies a
rights-based framing and reaffirms what rightly should be perceived as citizens' rights — and , by extension, the rights
of nature and its inhabitants .
This latest effort to protect public lands isn’t new. President Theodore Roosevelt, an ardent protector of public lands, tried to set a standard for the
right use of public lands, encouraging the preservation and right use of forests and the right use of waters. Roosevelt would be horrified with the
exploitation, extraction and exhaustion of our public lands and with Trump’s last-minute selling off of oil drilling rights in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, just one example of how easily public lands can be exploited for private profit.
Biden’s administration has an opportunity to lead here and return the rights of
That’s why the lawsuit is so important and why
federally owned lands to the public. Biden put a freeze on new leases on public lands, but what about the old leases? What would it look
like in practice if the lawsuit moves forward and successfully secures the right to be “let-alone” on public lands?
It would give Americans freedom from harm on those lands — including the harm from air pollution, water pollution,
mining pollution, drilling pollution and more — and the right to clean air and clean water. Again, this seems like a no-brainer. And we have a
history of rights-based advocacy on which this lawsuit builds: the right to vote, the right to bear arms, the right to marriage, the right to choose
and the right to own property.
The freedoms won in the last century were pitched, packaged and positioned as rights owed to deserving and/or underserved communities. It's an
effective proposition, as Americans are fond of the Founders and their rights-based framing. The history of rights-based wins in court is arguably
the most compelling story of progress in America.
Now it's time to add to those rights: The right for humans to be let alone and the right of nature — and its inhabitants — to be let
alone , too. That is why the ALDF v. U.S. lawsuit is so important. Now, more than ever, we need legal protections — and rights —
to ensure that nature is left alone. Until we have a stronger legal foundation for the protection of the public and the
natural environment , both will continue to be put in harm's way.
It’s time for the Biden administration to strengthen the right to be let alone, in order to lock in environmental protection . This
one move might be Biden’s most effective environmental play this term. We've made much progress in the past century. Now it's
time to make more.

c) Enforcement---only federal legal personhood makes it broad and strong---key to the

whole aff
Hailey A. Walley 19, BA in Philosophy, Anthropology and Environmental Studies, University of Mississippi,
May 2019, “TWO ARGUMENTS FOR EXTENDING LEGAL PERSONHOOD TO NATURE,”
http://thesis.honors.olemiss.edu/1565/3/Walley%20Thesis.pdf
Following the establishment of the Global Alliance for the Rights of Nature (GARN) in 2010, Pittsburgh, PA became the first major U.S.
city to recognize the Rights of Nature and ban shale gas drilling and fracking as a way to “elevate the rights of people, the
community and nature over corporate rights.” 35 Following this momentum, one of the founders of GARN began working with Santa
Monica, CA to establish a Sustainability Rights Ordinance. Unlike the Tamaqua Borough ordinance, Santa Monica’s was not in response to an
immediate threat to the community, but was rather an extension to a Santa Monica Sustainable City Plan that was established in 1994. In this
sense, the Santa Monica case is unique in that it takes a proactive approach in ensuring future sustainable development rather than acting
retroactively. But this just shows that extending rights to nature as a tactic for allowing people to protect their rights has some precedent.
Finally, in 2013 and 2014, the Highland and Grant townships of Pennsylvania passed Community Bill of Rights
ordinances. Highland Township was the first to do so, and it was spearheaded by Highland’s Water Authority with the help of CELDF in
granted
response to the growing concern that fracking would contaminate the region’s water supply.36 It expanded community rights,
ecosystems in the county the right to exist and flourish , and banned all activities of natural gas and fossil fuel
extraction and waste water injection. A year later, Grant Township followed suit in instating a Community Bill of Rights ordinance in
response to Pennsylvania Gas and Electric’s filing for a permit to inject waste water into one of the unused wells in the township.37 Considering
this township relies entirely on private wells and springs for their drinking water, the residents became concerned that the injected water waste
would leak into their drinking-water sources. Thus, they established their own Community Bill of Rights ordinance that prohibited depositing oil
and gas waste materials in the township.
In all of these cases, Kauffman and Martin found that they conceptualize Nature on the ecosystem level, rather than
individual flora or fauna, and the ecosystems are sets of “natural communities” whose welfare is necessary for the
wellbeing of human communities. He found that most of these cases were retroactive approaches to immediate threats, but showed how
Santa Monica’s ordinance functions as a precautionary principle to prevent damage in the future. The main issue he found was in their
legal standing, considering they are merely community ordinances, which are superseded by State and Federal laws . In fact,
the Grant and Highland Townships’ ordinances were contested in court by energy companies, and the court ruled in favor of the
corporation by saying that the municipality was overstepping its authority. In response, the residents in both townships developed a new legal
structure, the Home Rule Charter, in hopes of enforcing the Rights of Nature in the U.S. federal system. In summary, Kauffman and Martin
concluded that, in the U.S., “Rights of Nature is linked to the concept of community rights and is seen as a tool for communities to protect
themselves against the vagaries of corporate property rights.”38
IV.5 Applying Kauffman and Martin’s Argument to the Autonomy Argument
I believe that these cases of U.S. counties and cities establishing Rights of Nature provide a great deal of support for my claim that granting such
rights can and will act as a tool for protecting individuals from exploitation by corporations and a tyrannical government. The point for which I’m
arguing isn’t just a theoretical suggestion: as Kauffman and Martin show, it is building on actual examples that have already been tried in the
United States. My own argument, however, extends beyond these examples in two ways. First, I think these examples show that Rights
of Nature need to be implemented on a state, and eventually federal, level if they are to be truly enforceable . The fact
that these ordinances were contested in court, and the communities ultimately lost , only exemplifies the nature of our
government to put the interest of corporations and economic concerns over the well-being of its citizens , which is why
it will be important for us promote the extension of legal personhood to Nature on a broader level where it will have to
be enforced .
Second, I believe these existing laws could be strengthened by emphasizing how extending rights to Nature protects autonomy. Were the Rights
of Nature laws to be based on this concept of personal autonomy, it would help ensure that the individual’s protection and wishes were
considered on an equal basis to the economic considerations. The issue now is that corporations are worth much more than nearly any damage
they can cause. This makes it difficult for any individual citizen to successfully contest a corporation in court, which is why it is imperative we
alter the argument to place focus on the encroachment of an individual’s autonomy rights. Thus, by extending legal personhood to
Nature under the caveat of securing personal autonomy rights, it would grant citizens an alternate and broader route to legally
contest the exploitative actions by corporations and the government .
 1AR---States CP---Preemption Deficit
Corporations will lobby and win because their rights are ensured by Supreme Court
precedent
David R. Boyd 17, associate professor of law, policy, and sustainability at the University of British Columbia,
2017, The Rights of Nature: A Legal Revolution That Could Save the World, unpaginated ebook edition
As communities across the U.S. assert that the rights of people, communities, and nature ought to take priority over corporate
and property rights, they are provoking a massive legal response from big business . In addition to the cases already
highlighted, there are similar lawsuits underway in California, Ohio, Colorado, and New York . When the California city of
Compton enacted an ordinance banning fracking within city limits, the Western States Petroleum Association sued. Faced with the might of the
oil and gas industry, Compton withdrew its ban. An attempt to put forward a ballot initiative in the state of Washington that would have
recognized the rights of the Spokane River was struck down by the Washington Supreme Court on the grounds that water rights are governed by
existing state law and can’t be overridden by local governments.
Industry lawsuits against community bills of rights in Broadview Heights, Ohio, and Blaine Township, Pennsylvania, have been
successful. Judge Michael K. Astrab said state law gives the Ohio Department of Natural Resources “sole and exclusive authority” to regulate
oil and gas wells, overturning Broadview Heights’ voter-approved ban on future wells. Judge Donetta W. Ambrose wiped out large parts of
Blaine Township’s ordinances, finding that Blaine “does not have the legal authority to annul constitutional rights conferred
upon corporations by the U nited S tates Supreme Court .” She also ruled that the township’s drilling restrictions ran afoul of the
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act.
Courts are striking down community rights of nature ordinances because they are inconsistent with state and/or
federal law . To Thomas Linzey, this reinforces his most fundamental point: today’s laws and institutions are antithetical to the
rights of natural ecosystems and local communities. Linzey concluded in a CELDF press release, “Communities are recognizing the
rights of nature in law as part of a growing understanding that a fundamental change in the relationship between humankind and nature is
necessary.” Gus Speth, co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the former dean of the Yale School of Forestry, agrees, and said
to Earth Island Journal, “I am very excited about the move to a rights-based environmentalism. Lord knows we need some new and stronger
approaches. And endowing the natural world with rights is a big part of that.”

Federal courts will strike down the CP for violating the supremacy clause
Meredith N. Healy 19, J.D. Candidate, University of Colorado Law School, 2019, “Fluid Standing: Incorporating
the Indigenous Rights of Nature Concept into Collaborative Management of the Colorado River Ecosystem,”
Colorado Natural Resources, Energy & Environmental Law Review,
https://www.colorado.edu/law/sites/default/files/attached-files/healy_web_edition_pdf.pdf
Following Sierra Club v. Morton, environmental advocacy was limited to a duly-injured advocate with access to the
courts claiming injurious impact on a human. Over the past decade, however, American legal and social scholars have
begun to question whether this third-party advocacy is the best way to advocate for the environment .74
A. Grassroots Rights of Nature Legislative Campaigns Take on Well-Funded Oil and Gas Industry
From their Mid-Atlantic base, the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (“CELDF”) has promoted the rights of nature by providing
legislative language to communities around the country.75 In 1995, CELDF began a dual mission to promote local self-government and the rights
of nature.76 Since then, over 200 communities have adopted CELDF-drafted local legislation.77
In New Mexico in 2013, the Mora County Board of Commissioners passed a CELDF-drafted ordinance “protecting the
rights of human communities, nature, and natural water.”78 The main thrust of the ordinance was the county’s desire that
“corporations may not drill, extract, or contract for any oil and gas development.”79 An energy exploration firm filed suit against
both the county and its board of commissioners, seeking an injunction to prohibit the defendants from enforcing the
ordinance proscribing extractive uses within the county.80 In a 138-page opinion, the United States District Court for the District
of New Mexico struck down the ordinance , holding, as pertinent here, that the ordinance violated the Supremacy Clause
and was impermissibly overbroad, in violation of the First Amendment.81 Nevertheless, local extractive use industry publications warned that
“[w]hile industry, the media and the public might ignore all the commotion created about the hydraulic fracturing discussion, this issue is the
beginning of a social movement that is greater than just the oil and gas industry, it is a potential game changer for all of corporate America.”82
In that same year, sixty percent of voters in the town of Lafayette, Colorado, approved the CELDF-drafted “Lafayette Community Rights Act.”
Supported by the League of Women Voters and a local grassroots group, East Boulder County United, this measure targeted the hydraulic
fracturing oil extraction technique (“fracking”) and proposed “certain rights for city residents and ecosystems as part of the city charter such as
clean water, air and freedom from certain chemicals and oil and gas industry by-products.” Less than a year later, the Boulder District Court
ruled in favor of the ballot measure’s opponent, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association. Finding the regulation of oil and gas to be a matter of
mixed state and local concern, Boulder County District Judge D. D. Mallard held that Lafayette did not have the authority to prohibit practices
authorized and permitted by the state.
Similar legislative and judicial attempts by CELDF to codify the rights of nature continue to meet resistance in federal
court . In perhaps the organization’s most publicized anti-fracking and rights of nature case, CELDF’s opponent, Pennsylvania General Energy,
filed a Motion for Sanctions for $52,000 in attorneys’ fees following the utility’s successful yet prolonged litigation in district and circuit courts.
The court reluctantly fined CELDF’s lawyers the full $52,000 for the “continued pursuit of frivolous claims and defenses.”
Space CP
 2AC---Perms
Perm do both---durably fiating both means mining for the colonization program is
explicitly exempt from challenge by river rights

Perm do the plan and the United States federal government should substantially increase
outer-space colonization. Neither functionally nor textually intrinsic because investing in outer
space colonization is part of the counterplan. The perm doesn’t mine coal, but other material
sources can fill-in or the government can find workarounds
 2AC---Colonization Fails
Colonization fails and we can’t get past mars
Ann Leckie et al. 16, Hugo- and Nebula-award-winning author, 02/16/16, “THE 12 GREATEST
CHALLENGES FOR SPACE EXPLORATION,” http://www.wired.com/2016/02/space-is-cold-vast-and-deadly-
humans-will-explore-it-anyway/
problem: takeoff
Gravity's a Drag
Getting off Earth is a little like getting divorced: You want to do it quickly, with as little baggage as possible. But powerful forces conspire
against you—specifically, gravity. If an object on Earth’s surface wants to fly free, it needs to shoot up and out at speeds exceeding 25,000 mph.
That takes serious oomph—read: dollars. It cost nearly $200 million just to launch the Mars Curiosity rover, about a tenth of the mission’s
budget, and any crewed mission would be weighed down by the stuff needed to sustain life. Composite materials like exotic-metal alloys and
fibered sheets could reduce the weight; combine that with more efficient, more powerful fuel mixtures and you get a bigger bang for your
booster.
But the ultimate money saver will be reusability. “As the number of flights increases, economies of scale kick in,” says Les Johnson, a technical
assistant at NASA’s Advanced Concepts Office. “That’s the key to getting the cost to drop dramatically.” SpaceX’s Falcon 9, for example, was
designed to relaunch time and again. The more you go to space, the cheaper it gets. —Nick Stockton
problem: propulsion
Our Ships Are Way Too Slow
Hurtling through space is easy. It’s a vacuum, after all; nothing to slow you down. But getting
started? That’s a bear. The larger an
object’s mass, the more force it takes to move it—and rockets are kind of massive. Chemical propellants are great
for an initial push, but your precious kerosene will burn up in a matter of minutes. After that, expect to reach the
moons of Jupiter in, oh, five to seven years. That’s a heck of a lot of in-flight movies. Propulsion needs a radical new method .
Here’s a look at what rocket scientists now have, or are working on, or wish they had. —Nick Stockton
problem: space junk
It's a Minefield Up There
Congratulations! You’ve successfully launched a rocket into orbit. But before you break into outer space, a
rogue bit of broke-ass satellite
comes from out of nowhere and caps your second-stage fuel tank. No more rocket.
This is the problem of space debris, and it’s very real. The US Space Surveillance Network has eyes on 17,000 objects—each at
least the size of a softball—hurtling around Earth at speeds of more than 17,500 mph; if you count pieces under 10 centimeters, it’s closer to
500,000 objects. Launch adapters, lens covers, even a fleck of paint can punch a crater in critical systems.
Whipple shields—layers of metal and Kevlar—can protect against the bitsy pieces, but nothing can save you from a whole satellite. Some 4,000
orbit Earth, most dead in the air. Mission control avoids dangerous paths, but tracking isn’t perfect.
Pulling the sats out of orbit isn’t realistic—it would take a whole mission to capture just one. So starting now, all satellites will have to fall out of
orbit on their own. They’ll jettison extra fuel, then use rocket boosters or solar sails to angle down and burn up on reentry. Put decommissioning
programs in 90 percent of new launches or you’ll get the Kessler syndrome: One collision leads to more collisions until there’s so much crap up
there, no one can fly at all. That might be a century hence—or a lot sooner if space war breaks out. If someone (like China?) starts blowing up
enemy satellites, “it would be a disaster,” says Holger Krag, head of the Space Debris Office at the European Space Agency. Essential to
the future of space travel: world peace. —Jason Kehe
problem: navigation
There's No GPS for Space
The Deep Space Network, a collection of antenna arrays in California, Australia, and Spain, is the only navigation tool for space.
Everything from student-project satellites to the New Horizons probe meandering through the Kuiper Belt depends on it to stay oriented. An
ultraprecise atomic clock on Earth times how long it takes for a signal to get from the network to a spacecraft and back, and navigators use that to
determine the craft’s position.
But as more and more missions take flight, the network is getting congested. The switchboard is often busy. So in the near term,
NASA is working to lighten the load. Atomic clocks on the crafts themselves will cut transmission time in half, allowing distance calculations
with a single downlink. And higher-bandwidth lasers will handle big data packages, like photos or video messages.
The farther rockets go from Earth, however, the less reliable this method becomes. Sure, radio waves travel at light speed, but transmissions to
deep space still take hours. And the stars can tell you where to go, but they’re too distant to tell you where you are. For future missions, deep-
space navigation expert Joseph Guinn wants to design an autonomous system that would collect images of targets and nearby objects and use
their relative location to triangulate a spaceship’s coordinates—no ground control required. “It’ll be like GPS on Earth,” Guinn says. “You put a
GPS receiver on your car and problem solved.” He calls it a deep-space positioning system—DPS for short. —Katie M. Palmer
problem: radiation
Space Turns You Into a Bag of Cancer
Outside the safe cocoon of Earth’s atmosphere and magnetic field, subatomic
particles zip around at close to the speed of light.
This is space radiation, and it’s deadly. Aside from cancer, it can also cause cataracts and possibly Alzheimer’s.
When these particles knock into the atoms of aluminum that make up a spacecraft hull, their nuclei blow up,
emitting yet more superfast particles called secondary radiation. “You’re actually making the problem worse,” says
Nasser Barghouty, a physicist at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center.
A better solution? One word: plastics. They’re light and strong, and they’re full of hydrogen atoms, whose small nuclei don’t produce much
secondary radiation. NASA is testing plastics that can mitigate radiation in spaceships or space suits.
Or how about this word: magnets. Scientists on the Space Radiation Superconducting Shield project are working on a magnesium diboride
superconductor that would deflect charged particles away from a ship. It works at –263 degrees Celsius, which is balmy for superconductors, but
it helps that space is already so damn cold. —Sarah Zhang
problem: food and water
Mars Has No Supermarkets
Lettuce got to be a hero last August. That’s when astronauts on the ISS ate a few leaves they’d grown in space for the first time. But large-
scale gardening in zero g is tricky. Water wants to float around in bubbles instead of trickling through soil, so engineers
have devised ceramic tubes that wick it down to the plants’ roots. “It’s like a Chia pet,” says Raymond Wheeler, a botanist at Kennedy Space
Center. Also, existing vehicles are cramped. Some veggies are already pretty space-efficient (ha!), but scientists are working on a genetically
modified dwarf plum tree that’s just 2 feet tall. Proteins, fats, and carbs could come from a more diverse harvest—like potatoes and peanuts.
All that’s for naught, though, if you run out of water. (On the ISS, the pee-and-water recycling system needs periodic fixing, and
interplanetary crews won’t be able to rely on a resupply of new parts.) GMOs could help here too. Michael Flynn, an engineer at NASA Ames
Research Center, is working on a water filter made of genetically modified bacteria. He likens it to how your small intestine recycles what you
drink. “Basically you are a water recycling system,” he says. “with a useful life of 75 or 80 years.” This filter would continually replenish itself,
just like your innards do. —Sarah Zhang
problem: bone and muscle wasting
Zero Gravity Will Transform You into Mush
Weightlessness wrecks the body : It makes certain immune cells unable to do their jobs, and red blood cells explode.
It gives you kidney stones and makes your heart lazy. Astronauts on the ISS exercise to combat muscle wasting and bone loss, but
they still lose bone mass in space, and those zero-g spin cycles don’t help the other problems. Artificial gravity would fix all that.
In his lab at MIT, former astronaut Laurence Young is testing a human centrifuge: Victims lie on their side on a platform and pedal a stationary
wheel as the whole contraption spins around. The resulting force tugs their feet—just like gravity, but awkward.
Young’s machine is too cramped to use for more than an hour or two a day, though, so for 24/7 gravity, the whole spacecraft will have to become
a centrifuge. A spinning spaceship could be shaped like a dumbbell, with two chambers connected by a truss. As it gets easier to send more mass
into space, designers could become more ambitious—but they don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Remember the station in 2001: A Space
Odyssey? The design has been around since 1903. —Sarah Zhang
problem: mental health
Interplanetary Voyages Are a Direct Flight to Space Madness
When physicians treat stroke or heart attack, they sometimes bring the patient’s temperature way down, slowing their metabolism to reduce the
damage from lack of oxygen. It’s a trick that might work for astronauts too. Which is good, because to sign up for interplanetary travel is to sign
up for a year (at least) of living in a cramped spacecraft with bad food and zero privacy—a recipe for space madness. That’s why John Bradford
says we should sleep through it. President of the engineering firm SpaceWorks and coauthor of a report for NASA on long missions, Bradford
says cold storage would be a twofer: It cuts down on the amount of food, water, and air a crew would need and keeps them sane. “If we’re going
to become a multiplanet species,” he says, “we’ll need a capability like human stasis.” Sleep tight, voyagers. —Sarah Zhang
problem: touchdown
Crashing Is Not an Option
Planet, ho! You’ve been in space for months. Years, maybe. Now a formerly distant world is finally filling up your viewport. All you have to do
is land. But you’re careening through frictionless space at, oh, call it 200,000 mph (assuming you’ve cracked fusion). Oh yeah, and there’s the
planet’s gravity to worry about. If you don’t want your touchdown to be remembered as one small leap for a human and one giant splat for
humankind, follow these simple steps. —Nick Stockton
problem: resources
You Can't Take a Mountain of Aluminum Ore With You
When space caravans embark from Earth, they’ll leave full of supplies. But you can’t take everything with you. Seeds, oxygen generators, maybe
a few machines for building infrastructure. But settlers will have to harvest or make everything else.
Luckily, space is far from barren. “Every planet has every chemical element in it,” says Ian Crawford, a planetary scientist at Birbeck, University
of London, though concentrations differ. The moon has lots of aluminum. Mars has silica and iron oxide. Nearby asteroids are a great source of
carbon and platinum ores—and water, once pioneers figure out how to mine the stuff. If blasters and drillers are too heavy to ship, they’ll have to
extract those riches with gentler techniques: melting, magnets, or metal-digesting microbes. And NASA is looking into a process that can 3-D-
print whole buildings—no need to import special equipment.
In the end, a destination’s resources will shape settlements, which makes surveying the drop zone critical. Just think of the moon’s far side. “It’s
been pummeled by asteroids for billions of years,” says Anita Gale, a space shuttle engineer. “Whole new materials could be out there.” Before
humanity books a one-way ticket to Kepler-438b, it’ll have to study up. —Chelsea Leu
problem: EXPLORATION
We Can't Do Everything By Ourselves
Dogs helped humans colonize Earth, but they’d survive on Mars about as well as we would. To spread out on a new world, we’ll need a new best
friend: a robot.
See, settling takes a lot of grunt work, and robots can dig all day without having to eat or breathe. Theoretically, at least. Current prototypes—
bulky, bipedal bots that mimic human physiognomy—can barely walk on Earth. So automatons will have to be everything we aren’t—like, say, a
lightweight tracked bot with backhoe claws for arms. That’s the shape of one NASA machine designed to dig for ice on Mars: Its two appendages
spin in opposite directions, keeping it from flipping over as it works.
Still, humans have a big leg up when it comes to fingers. If a job requires dexterity and precision, you want people doing it—provided they have
the right duds. Today’s space suit is designed for weightlessness, not hiking on exoplanets. NASA’s prototype Z-2 model has flexible joints and a
helmet that gives a clear view of whatever delicate wiring needs fixing. When the job’s done, just hop on an autonomous transporter to get home.
Attaboy, Rover. —Matt Simon
problem: space is big
Warp Drives Don't Exist ... Yet
The fastest thing humans have ever built is a probe called Helios 2. It’s dead now, but if sound traveled in space, you’d hear it screaming as it
whips around the sun at speeds of more than 157,000 miles per hour. That’s almost 100 times faster than a bullet, but even at that velocity it
would take some 19,000 years to reach Earth’s first stellar neighbor, Alpha Centauri. It’d be a multigenerational ship, and nobody dreams of
going to space because it’s a nice place to die of old age.
To beat the clock, you need power—and lots of it. Maybe you could mine Jupiter for enough helium-3 to fuel nuclear fusion—after
you’ve figured out fusion engines. Matter-antimatter annihilation is more scalable, but smashing those pugilistic particles together is dangerous.
“You’d never want to do that on Earth,” says Les Johnson, technical assistant for NASA’s Advanced Concepts Office, which works on crazy
starship ideas. “You do that in deep space, so if you have an accident, you don’t destroy a continent.” Too intense? How about solar power? All
you’d need is a sail the size of Texas.
Far more elegant would be hacking the universe’s source code—with physics. The theoretical Alcubierre drive would compress space in front of
your craft and expand space behind it so the stuff in between—where your ship is—effectively moves faster than light. Tweaking the Alcubierre
equations gets you a Krasnikov tube, an interstellar subway that shortens your return trip.
All aboard? Not quite. Humanity will need a few more Einsteins working at places like the Large Hadron Collider to untangle all the theoretical
knots. “It’s entirely possible that we’ll make some discovery that changes everything,” Johnson says. “But you can’t count on that breakthrough
to save the day.” If you want eureka moments, you need to budget for them. That means more cash for NASA— and the particle physicists. Until
then, Earth’s space ambitions will look a lot like Helios 2: stuck in a futile race around the same old star . —Nick
Stockton
problem: THERE’S ONLY ONE EARTH
Let's Not Boldly Go—Let's Boldly Stay
A couple decades back, sci-fi author Kim Stanley Robinson sketched out a future utopia on Mars built by scientists from an overpopulated,
overextended Earth. His Mars trilogy made a forceful case for colonization of the solar system. But, really, other than science, why should we go
to space?
The need to explore is built into our souls, goes one argument—the pioneer spirit and manifest destiny. But scientists don’t talk about pioneers
anymore. “You did hear that frontier language 20, 30 years ago,” says Heidi Hammel, who helps set exploration priorities at NASA. But since the
New Horizons probe passed by Pluto last July, “we’ve explored every type of environment in the solar system at least once,” she says. Humans
could still go dig in the dirt to study distant geology—but when robots can do it, well, maybe not.
As for manifest destiny? Historians know better. Western expansion was a vicious land grab, and the great explorers were
mostly in it for resources or treasure. Human wanderlust expresses itself only in the service of political or economic
will.
Of course, Earth’s impending destruction could provide some incentive. Deplete the planet’s resources and asteroid-belt mining
suddenly seems reasonable. Change the climate and space provides room for humanity (and everything else).
But that’s a dangerous line of thinking. “ It creates a moral hazard ,” Robinson says. “People think if we fuck up here on
Earth we can always go to Mars or the stars. It’s pernicious.” His latest book, Aurora, again makes a forceful case about settlement
beyond the solar system: You probably can’t. As far as anyone knows, Earth is the only habitable place in the universe. If we’re going
to leave this planet, let’s go because we want to—not because we have to. —Adam Rogers
 2AC---Extinction Not Inevitable
Earth is habitable---no need to get off the rock
Alex Berezow 17, Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science, 5/4/17, “No, Stephen Hawking, We Won't Have To
Abandon Earth In 100 Years”, https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/04/no-stephen-hawking-we-wont-have-abandon-
earth-100-years-11231
So, it shouldn't come as a complete surprise that Dr. Hawking has a dire pronouncement for humanity. In an upcoming documentary, he says
that humans will need to find a new planet on which to dwell within 100 years if we want to survive. Why? According
to International Business Times, humans must abandon Earth "to survive situations like climate change , asteroid strikes ,
epidemics and overpopulation ."¶ He's wrong on every single count.¶ Climate change . There isn't a single worst-case
scenario in which our planet becomes too hot for humans to inhabit. Earth is not about to become Venus... or
Waterworld.¶ Asteroid strikes . The astrophysicist Ethan Siegel once commented, "It is very, very likely that we will
have no major asteroid impacts on Earth over the next 1,000 years, let alone the next 100. It is very likely that there
will be no species-threatening impacts over the next 10 million years. [Original emphasis]" ¶ Epidemics . Because of
economic development and advances in public health, infectious diseases will decline, not increase. We have
already eradicated smallpox, and polio may go extinct, too. Emerging infectious diseases, like Ebola, can be scary
but will come nowhere near threatening the existence of humanity. The biggest threats are from pandemic influenza
and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but neither represents a threat to the survival of mankind. (Even the Black Death
only managed to kill 1/3 of Europe.)¶ Overpopulation . Demographers believe that the human population will hit
approximately 11 billion in the year 2100. However, because population growth is slowing (and has been for
decades), it is likely that the human population will peak and then decline sometime thereafter. In other words,
humans are not cockroaches; we will not keep reproducing until we're out of food.
 --AT: AI
No AI extinction
Jennifer O’Brien 18, writer for CIO, citing Toby Walsh, Scientia Professor of Artificial Intelligence at UNSW,
leader of the Algorithmic Decision Theory group at Data61, Australia's Centre of Excellence for ICT Research,
Guest Professor at TU Berlin, fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, 8/22/18, “‘Don’t worry about
existential threat AI might pose’: futurist,” https://www.cio.com.au/article/645581/don-t-worry-about-existential-
threat-ai-might-pose-futurist/
CIOs need to put aside the Hollywood-induced fear that machines will take over the world and that humanity’s days
are numbered, according to AI expert Toby Walsh.
“We’re a long way from building machines that match human brains,” said Walsh, UNSW professor and research group leader
at Data61 (CSIRO), during his keynote address at the CIO Summit in Sydney.
“We can build machines that do narrow focused tasks - and they can do those tasks often at super-human level - but it’s yet to
be (maybe 50 or 100 years, or ever ) before we can build machines that match the full capabilities of humans . And we
certainly don’t build machines that have any consciousness, sentience, or desires of their own.
“ They do exactly what we tell them to do . That’s the problem in fact,” he said, explaining computers are frustratingly literal
devices.
“There are far more pressing problems facing the planet, like climate change, that we really need to deal with before we have
to worry about the existential threat that a rtificial i ntelligence might pose.”
That said, Walsh said he’s thrilled the topic is now on the radar of the CIO community and starting to show up in strategic business plans.
“AI is everyone’s favourite subject these days. It was pretty much my favourite subject since I was a young boy. I was reading too much science
fiction and dreaming about a future full of intelligent computers and robots.
“And that future seems to be arriving rather rapidly, so it’s great the rest of you are catching up to that dream I had as a young boy reading
people like Arthur C. Clarke and Isaac Asimov.”
Walsh said there are a number of reasons why AI is making progress today and happening at this point in history.
“AI is starting to invade our lives in some way, sometimes good and sometimes bad,” he said. “So why is it happening at this point in history?
Not ten years ago and not ten years in the future.”
He said the answer lies with four exponential trends. The first exponential trend is Moore’s Law, which is officially dead because of
technical issues like physical quantum limits.
“Intel has declared they are not going to double transistor count every two years going forward," he said.
“I’m not worried that’s going to hold back the field. Chip designers have been pretty lazy over the last 20 years. They have mostly been just
shrinking the 806 architecture.
"There has not been so much innovation in the design of chips and we’re starting to see that with DPUs. We’re going to see a lot more interesting
things in specialised hardware to do particular tasks like machine learning, which will give us more compute with the same transistor count.”
“Whilst Moore’s Law is technically dead, there’s enough innovation that’s going to happen that will give us ever-increasing compute power.”
The second exponential is the ever-escalating amount of data. “Corporations are discovering one of the most vital things they have in their
business is the data they have, about their operations, about their customers.
“The data that’s available has been doubling and that’s very useful for artificial intelligence because a lot of what we do these days, particularly
machine learning, is training on data,” he said.
But there’s one limitation worth pointing out about AI today, he noted, explaining machines are incredibly slow learners .
“Unlike humans, you can all learn from a single example. Machines and state-of-the-art machine learning still needs
hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions of examples to learn from," he said.
"But the good news is that that data is often being collected and we’re often having datasets that we can do that number from.”
The third exponential trend is the progress being made on the algorithmic front. “In the last few years, with things like deep learning, we’ve been
seeing in some cases exponential improvements in the performance of those algorithms.”
The fourth exponential trend is the amount of money flowing into the field, he noted.
“With this you can measure the amount of venture capital flowing into the field. You can see the activity, the amount of people, the number of
companies and the number of startups - all of these sorts of things have been doubling again every two years or so,” he said.
“Put those four things in a pot together and that is the recipe, largely speaking, for making significant progress.”
But while progress is being made, Walsh cautioned there’s still a long way to go before the industry can build machines
that can perform a broad set of tasks that humans can do.
“We can build narrow-focused tasks. We can teach them to do narrow-focused things like play Go, read x-rays, diagnose eye disease. So there’s
a lot we can do, but there’s a lot still we can’t do and a number of challenges.”
Given the ongoing limitations, he said AI today can do tasks that require a ‘moment’s thought.’
“You can recognise faces with a moment’s thought and that’s what we can teach computers to do. We can teach
computers to do it, but we should be very careful that when we do so, they may very well have the same biases that we have,” he said.
Rogue AI won’t cause extinction
Andrew J. Lohn 18, Ph.D. in electrical engineering, University of California Santa Cruz, engineer at the RAND
Corporation and a professor of public policy at the Pardee RAND Graduate School, et al., 4/30/18, “Will artificial
intelligence undermine nuclear stability?” https://thebulletin.org/2018/04/will-artificial-intelligence-undermine-
nuclear-stability/
A rtificial i ntelligence and nuclear war have been fiction clichés for decades. Today’s AI is impressive to be sure, but
specialized, and remains a far cry from computers that become self-aware and turn against their creators . At the same
time, popular culture does not do justice to the threats that modern AI indeed presents, such as its potential to make nuclear war more likely even
if it never exerts direct control over nuclear weapons.
Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized the military significance of AI when he declared in September that the
country that leads in a rtificial i ntelligence will eventually rule the world. He may be the only leader to have put it so bluntly,
but other world powers appear to be thinking similarly. Both China and the U nited S tates have announced ambitious efforts to
harness AI for military applications, stoking fears of an incipient arms race.
In the same September speech, Putin said that AI comes with “colossal opportunities” as well as “threats that are difficult to predict.” The gravest
of those threats may involve nuclear stability—as we describe in a new RAND publication that outlines a few of the ways in which stability could
be strained.
Strategic stability exists when governments aren’t tempted to use nuclear threats or coercion against their
adversaries. It involves more than just maintaining a credible ability to retaliate after an enemy attack. In addition to that deterrent, nuclear
stability requires assurance and reassurance. When a nation extends a nuclear security guarantee to allies, the allies must be assured
that nukes will be launched in their defense even if the nation extending the guarantee must put its own cities at risk. Adversaries need to be
reassured that forces built up for deterrence and to protect allies will not be used without provocation. Deterrence, assurance, and reassurance are
often at odds with each other, making nuclear stability difficult to maintain even when governments have no interest in attacking each other.
In a world where increasing numbers of rival states are nuclear-armed, the situation becomes almost unmanageable. In the 1970s, four of the five
declared nuclear powers primarily targeted their weapons on the fifth, the Soviet Union (Beijing, after its 1969 border clashes with the Soviet
Union, feared Moscow much more than Washington). It was a relatively simple bilateral stand-off between the Bolsheviks and their many
adversaries. Today, nine nuclear powers are entangled in overlapping strategic rivalries—including Israel, which has not declared the nuclear
arsenal that it is widely believed to possess. While the United States, the United Kingdom, and France still worry about Russia, they also fret
about an increasingly potent China. Beijing’s rivals include not just the United States and Russia but India as well. India fears China too, but
primarily frets about Pakistan. And everyone is worried about North Korea.
In such a complex and dynamic environment, teams of strategists are required to navigate conflict situations—to
identify options and understand their ramifications. Could AI make this job easier? With AI now beating human professionals in the ancient
Chinese strategy game Go, as well as in games of bluffing such as poker, countries may be tempted to build machines that could
“sit” at the table amid nuclear conflicts and act as strategists.
A rtificially i ntelligent machines may prove to be less error-prone than humans in many contexts. But for tasks such
as navigating conflict situations, that moment is still far off in the future. Much effort must be expended before machines can
—or should—be relied on for consistent performance of the extraordinary task of helping the world avoid nuclear war. Recent research
suggests that it is surprisingly simple to trick an AI system into reaching incorrect conclusions when an adversary
gets to control some of the inputs, such as how a vehicle is painted before it is photographed.
 1AR---AT: Impact Framing
Colonization isn’t a solution to extinction
Konrad Szocik 19, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Information Technology and
Management in Rzeszow, January 2019, “Should and could humans go to Mars? Yes, but not now and not in the
near future,” Futures, Vol. 105 p. 8-15
4. No rationale based on using space as a refuge
I argue, following other authors (Baum, 2009; Baum, Denkenberger, & Haqq-Misra, 2015;Jebari, 2015; Sandberg, Matheny, &Ćirković, 2008;
Turchin & Green, 2017) that human space settlement is not able to reduce and/or to exclude the risk of human extinction . For
it
this reason, it should not be perceived in terms of space refuge. In terms of both short-term and long-term perspectivesof risk assessment,
would be better to protect humans on Earth .5I reject the supportive role which could be played by human spacesettlement after a
catastrophe on Earth, i.e., a recovery coordination mission. Due to so-called the paradox of technological progress discussed in the
last section, further putative progress in space technology will be counterbalanced by increasing anthropogenic
risksincluding, among others, overpopulation and limited resources (these anthropogenic threats are unavoidable in near future, incontrast to
other risks that are only more or less probable but not unavoidable). Permanent lack of strong rationale for human missionto Mars–both now and
in the near future–leads to paradoxical situation. Even if in some point in the future the minimum level of advancement in human
deep-space technologies will be achieved, social, political, and economic contexts will gradually decrease the chances for
real preparation of this mission. Another paradox, let’s call it the risk dynamics paradox, is that the most probable threatsin the near future
are, asBostrom and Cirkovic (2008)argue, anthropogenic threats caused by civilizational and technologicalprogress. The paradox lies in the fact
that humans are not able to run from these kinds of risks that are rooted in their way of thinking, style of life, and
population dynamics, risks implied by Malthus’ law. The human species can try to protect against natural disaster
but not against deleterious effects of its own technological progress. In regard to possible future existential risks, I assume that
theirdeleterious power is a little bit exaggerated, and, in any event, human space settlement is not a right way to cope with
them.However, in any case, it is hard to speculate if any human space settlement must repeat the same path of human expansion as it wasthe
case on Earth. It is unclear if human technological expansion and exploration must always lead to deleterious and self-destructiveeffects. In this
paper, I do not discuss ethical and moral concerns which are traditionally considered when discussing the human place in space. They include
such topics as the human right to explore space (it means both right to intervene in any extraterrestrial object,and human duty and rationale for
space expansionism, mostly in the context of the idea of space refuge and possible catastrophicscenarios on Earth), or the value of human life and
space objects.
4.1. The philosophy of space refuge
Philosophers and space ethicists discuss the intrinsic value of Mars, and the human right to explore and to terraform Mars (Szociket al., in press
c). I take for granted following AndreasLosch (2019)that survival of the human species is high intrinsic value whichjustifies space exploration
and exploitation of space including terraforming and other activities expected to increase the survival ofhuman spaces. AsBaum et al.
(2015)argues, it is worth doing this to protect human civilization. This rationale of advocates of humanspace missions is counterbalanced by the
fact that real the existential risks are rather long-term. Earth still remains the unique humanhomeland, we are not multi-planetary species and this
is still well beyond our capacities. Any effort to settle lifeless space mustcompete with care for Earth (Reiman, 2009, p. 83). Treating human
space mission as a rescue mission sounds like a science-fictionstory given the limited technological capacities and the risk of this venture. Human
space settlement could work as space refugedesigned to support recovery of post-catastrophe Earth population. At best, space settlement would
be only a backup copy of primaryEarth civilization (Baum et al., 2015).
In addition to an evacuation scenario, there is a second scenario that partially overlaps with“evacuation”scenario but exploresthe concept of
humans as multi-planetary species. Humans should settle new place in space even if in fact future risks (epidemics,nuclear war, overpopulation,
limited resources, and/or environmental pollution)6are lethal only for some part of population.
The idea of space refuge is a vicious circle. Investing in space refuge involves time and effort needed for coping with
terrestrial risks. Public opinion may protest against space settlement program. Possible way to run away from the public opinion pressure is
atop-secret status of space refuge, which is whyBaum et al. (2015)discusses the importance of secrecy of this project. It seemsdoubtful that
human base on Mars could be kept in secret. A self-sustainable base in space requires afinancial effort that is in-comparable with previous space
activities including the ISS, human missions to the Moon, or current robotic missions. Inhabitants ofself-sustainable space refuge may be not
interested in taking a risk of reconstruction of post-catastrophe Earth which would beexpensive, dangerous, and inhibiting for the development of
the space refuge. The space refuge may be designed to become newhuman homeland or to be“only”additional human base with limited progress.
In both cases, crew of space refuge cannot be obligedneither forced to support Earth. In post-catastrophic Earth landscape, space refuge may be
better place to live. Reaction of itsinhabitants is not clear.
TonyMilligan (2011), p. 193) considers space resettlements as possible solution for demographic or climate problems. Milliganargues that space
settlement program should get priority as a program oriented in saving human species. Space settlement is not ableto solve anthropogenic
problems because space settlers will bring these problems to other planet. Even if Mars population will notreproduce (or will reproduce to low
extent needed for generational succession), overpopulation on Earth will not be inhibited bybuilding Mars settlement.
The concept of human species as endangered species is not in the center of scientific interests, asSandberg et al. (2008). This isinteresting social
fact mostly in regard to social sciences and humanities. In contrast to life scientists, philosophers do not needlaboratories neither extra funds to
think about future threats for human species. Despite this fact, a few philosophers and humanisticscholars consider this challenge. This tendency
is seen in small numbers of institutes such as The Future of Humanity Institute atUniversity of Oxford and academic journals asFuturesorBulletin
of the Atomic Scientistsdevoted to discuss these issues. Philosophersin general not only are not interested in future studies but they are focused
mostly on history of philosophy. This tendency is strongerin Europe than in the US. Despite historians, philosophers seem to be one of the
biggest groups which is focused on history. This lowinterest of scholars in future studies, mostly in sub-disciplines studying risks for humanity, is
at least partially affected by lack or lowawareness of dangers for human survival. Humans can be aware of existential risks for other animal
species but refer this tothemselves less often.Sandberg et al. (2008)note that, despite the fact that the probability of one extinction-level cataclysm
in-cluding asteroid impact or eruption of super volcano is very low, its lethal potential for humanity justifies anti-risk prevention policy.
4.2. Anthropogenic and exogenous risks
Possible risks include nuclear winter affected by nuclear wars, asteroid impact, eruption of super volcano (the former three riskshave the same
effect: inhibiting the sun light, decreasing temperature, and reducing or inhibiting food production),7epidemics,geoengineering failure,8biological
weapon, systemic failure (global electronic, internet, and satellite connection of the world andpossible global blackout), nanotechnology, and AI
catastrophes (Baum et al., 2015; see also: the list of the leading existential risks inFarquhar et al., 2017). This list should be extended to include
extensivefires which may be considered as a part of climate changerisk. Note that twofires in Portugal in 2017 emitted total heating 68 and 142
times bigger than nuclear bomb in Hiroshima (Ribau &Hernandez, 2018). The probabilities for these threats vary in regard to their short-term or
long-term perspectives, their reliability andfrequency. Some are based on the unpredictability of humans, as nuclear and biological weapons
attack. Other threats are un-predictable due to the current state of art, e.g. nanotechnology, AI, or bioengineering. Overpopulation and limited
resources arepredictable and unavoidable threats. To date, the most dangerous natural threat for survival of human species was the eruption
ofsuper volcano Toba around 75,000 years ago. There were 4000 survivors, including around 500 women in reproductive age(Rampino, 2008).
Similar deleterious effects of nuclear winter and global cooling of temperature might be caused by asteroid impact.The next natural catastrophe
on Earth may be fatally challenging due to human dependence on technology in food, water and energyresources.
Finally, if global technology collapses, human survival will be threatened even if relatively high number of individuals initiallysurvive. Economic
and social collapse may be greater than deleterious direct effects of natural disaster.
4.3. Demographic and biological challenges for human refuge in space
Baum et al. (2015)are concerned with capacity of crew refuge to deal with expected tasks–with their skills, psychological andphysiological well-
being after some catastrophe. The number of people designed to live in refuge matters genetically (founder effectand the risk of mutation in
small, isolated population). The number of astronauts planned forfirst human missions to Mars is small,very small. Mission planners do not treat
this mission in terms of long-term, space refuge-like mission, so they do not calculate thechallenge of human reproduction in space. Constraints
on human reproduction in space due to physiological deprivation are dis-cussed elsewhere (Szocik, Elias Marques et al., 2018).
Estimated minimal number of individuals needed for generational sequence and mission success in a hypothetical interplanetary6300 year
journey from Earth to Proxima Centauri b is calculated as 98 persons (Marin & Beluffi, 2018). But the“sufficient founderpopulation”will still
remain as a population challenge (Baum et al., 2015). According to Chris Impey, minimum viable population isestimated at 500 individuals
needed to avoid inbreeding, and 5000 to avoid extinction in long-term period (Impey, 2019).
Mission planners should also take into account genetic mutation risk. This challenge can be solved by relatively high number ofcrew or by
migrations and interactions between inhabitants of refuge and Earth. Mission planners may design the space mission toMars as a rescue mission
for Earth where there is a geneflow maintained between space refuge and Earth.
Sufficient biological variation may decline due to post-catastrophic deprivation of Earth population. Dependently on the kind ofcatastrophe, Earth
survivors are supposed to be modified in more or less extent due to nuclear explosion or other threats that affecthuman physiology. Social
engineering and rigorous sexual policy should be introduced to separate crew refuge from Earth popu-lation.
Mission planners may design another variant in which space base includes human reproduction. In this case (this is the casediscussed by Impey
but not by Baum et al.), minimum viable population is more important than in the case of reconstruction ofhuman population on post-catastrophe
Earth. In both scenarios, another important factor is at work.
Because discussed scenarios require advanced technology for space refuge and effective interplanetary transport, we may expectapplication of
substantial human enhancement practiced for interplanetary journeys (Zehr, 2018). The idea of human enhancementin Mars missions
may be used not only to cope with space environmental challenges including mostly altered gravity or cosmic raybut
also to improve physiological and psychological capacities of deep-space astronauts and, consequently, their
performance andeffectiveness of mission (Szocik, Campa, Rappaport, & Corbally, in press a; Szocik, Wójtowicz, Rappaport, &
Corbally, in press b).Consequently, it is possible that the current state of biological knowledge will not be (or will be only
partially) applied to enhanced humans living in space. CRISPR-Cas9 methods of genetic editing are just applied on Earth, and rapid
progress in applied geneticsconnected with progress in human moral thinking may open space for human enhancement in space refuge. Less
probable scenario ofdivergent evolution of humans living in space refuge and on Earth also should be considered, with all possible results
includingbiological (physical and biological supremacy of primary enhanced space settlers; however, living in space is deleterious for
phy-siology including, among others, immune system), cognitive, behavioral, or ethical effectsof divergent evolution within multi-planetary
human species.
4.4. Humans cannot survive by space missions
The“species-survival”argument for space exploration fails when cosmic threats are considered. When the Sun gets too
warm forlife on Earth, neither Earth nor Mars will be safe. Mars and Earth are both exposed to Cosmic Ray Bursts
emitted by neutron stars.Such emission could be responsible for mass extinction on Earth 570 mya (Dar, Laor, & Shaviv, 1998).
Asteroid impact rather does not have potential to destroy immediately the entire life on Earth but such impact initiates long-termdeleterious
perturbations in atmosphere (Napier, 2006;2015) including large scale biomass-burning (Wolbach et al., 2018). Greater risk is caused by
centaurs moving in the solar system from the trans-Neptunian regions. Humanity should focus its attention on moredistant
regions of the solar system (Ćirković& Vukotić, 2016;Napier, Asher, Bailey, & Steel, 2015).
Risk of asteroid impact is higher on Mars than on Earth. Unless humans are not able to travel beyond the solar
system, the betteranti-asteroid strategy is protection on Earth (Stoner, 2017, p. 340).K. SzocikFutures 105 (2019) 54–6659
4.5. There is no risk on Earth sufficient to justify the expense of a space refuge
Space refuge is justified only when there is at least one kind of catastrophe on Earth which will lead to extinction of the entirehuman
species.Baum (2015)and Baum et al. (2015)do not believe that space settlement offers advantage over terrestrial refuge. If terrestrial refuge
(aquatic and/or subterranean) is able to protect against the strongest catastrophes including asteroid impact, th eunique
serious rationale accepted by public opinion for space human mission fails. AsTurchin and Green (2017)show, aquatic
refuges based on adaptation of nuclear submarines may effectively play their role . They may be surface
independent, which is the basic criterion of any refuge (Baum et al., 2015). They are cheaper and easier in engineering
terms when compared with Mars settlement.
A space refuge would not be able to cope with currently-occurring risks, e.g. overpopulation and climate change.
Human overpopulation can be limited only on Earth by terrestrial policy and, if this can be done, no space base is
necessary. If it is not possible, then no space base can solve this problem. For example, space settlement is not able to
alleviate global warming, againstMilligan’s suggestion. The unique way to do that on Earth is to reduce methane emission
and/or to cool Earth by turning sunlight into space, as Solar Radiation Management proposes (Farquhar et al., 2017). There is only
indirect, not direct applicability of spaceexploration. For instance, space technology might be applied to cope with asteroid impact
or increasing the Sun temperature(Crawford). But these exogenous catastrophes caused by cosmic events are unlikely in
lifespan of current and future generations(Tegmark & Bostrom, 2005, p. 754), and for this reason they offer poor incentive
for human space program.
The unique rationale for space refuge mission could be future development of the Sun which will be getting more
and morewarmer in next billions years. But this threat does not justify human space settlement due to its high risk
and high costliness (Jebari,2015).
Nick Beckstead speculates on possible disasters on Earth deleterious also for humans living in shelters, e.g. scenarios that includeinvasion of
aliens, runaway AI, or ecophagy caused by nanotechnology (Beckstead, 2015).9Beckstead rightly adds that the bigchallenge is not only rate of
survival immediately after catastrophe but also chances for survival in long-term scale including collapsein food production and supply chain, and
associated social and political collapse. It is hard to imagine catastrophe which kills the entire Earth population excluding
people living in refuge. In this case, rationale for refuge fails.
 2AC---Space Col Bad
Space colonization destroys the universe---war, government failure, super weapons, and
suicide cults
Phil Torres 18, director of the Project for Human Flourishing and the author of Morality, Foresight, and Human
Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks, 5/23/18, “Why We Should Think Twice About Colonizing
Space”, http://nautil.us/blog/why-we-should-think-twice-about-colonizing-space
To be sure, humanity will eventually need to escape Earth to survive, since the sun will make the planet uninhabitable in about 1 billion years.
But for many “space expansionists,” escaping Earth is about much more than dodging the bullet of extinction: it’s about realizing
astronomical amounts of value by exploiting the universe’s vast resources to create something resembling utopia. For example, the
astrobiologist Milan Cirkovic calculates that some 1046 people per century could come into existence if we were to colonize our Local
Supercluster, Virgo. This leads Nick Bostrom to argue that failing to colonize space would be tragic because it would
mean that these potential “worthwhile lives” would never exist, and this would be morally bad.
But would these trillions of lives actually be worthwhile? Or would colonization of space lead to a dystopia?
In a recent article in Futures, which was inspired by political scientist Daniel Deudney’s forthcoming book Dark Skies, I decided to take a closer look at this question.
My conclusion is that in a colonized universe the probability of the annihilation of the human race could actually rise rather than
fall .
The argument is based on ideas from evolutionary biology and i nternational r elations theory, and it assumes that
there aren’t any other technologically advanced lifeforms capable of colonizing the universe (as a recent study suggests is
the case).
Consider what is likely to happen as humanity hops from Earth to Mars, and from Mars to relatively nearby, potentially
habitable exoplanets like Epsilon Eridani b, Gliese 674 b, and Gliese 581 d. Each of these planets has its own unique
environments that will drive Darwinian evolution , resulting in the emergence of novel species over time, just as species
that migrate to a new island will evolve different traits than their parent species. The same applies to the artificial environments of
spacecraft like “O’Neill Cylinders,” which are large cylindrical structures that rotate to produce artificial gravity. Insofar as future beings
satisfy the basic conditions of evolution by natural selection—such as differential reproduction, heritability, and variation of traits across the
population—then evolutionary pressures will yield new forms of life.
But the process of “cyborgization” —that is, of using technology to modify and enhance our bodies and brains—is much more likely
to influence the evolutionary trajectories of future populations living on exoplanets or in spacecraft. The result could
be beings with completely novel cognitive architectures (or mental abilities), emotional repertoires, physical capabilities, lifespans,
and so on.
In other words, naturalselection and cyborgization as humanity spreads throughout the cosmos will result in species
diversification . At the same time, expanding across space will also result in ideological diversification. Space-hopping
populations will create their own cultures, languages, governments, political institutions, religions, technologies, rituals, norms, worldviews, and
so on. As a result, different species will find it increasingly difficult over time to understand each other’s motivations ,
intentions , behaviors , decisions , and so on. It could even make communication between species with alien
languages almost impossible. Furthermore, some species might begin to wonder whether the proverbial “Other” is conscious. This matters
because if a species Y cannot consciously experience pain, then another species X might not feel morally obligated to care about Y. After all, we
don’t worry about kicking stones down the street because we don’t believe that rocks can feel pain. Thus, as I write in the paper, phylogenetic
and ideological diversification will engender a situation in which many species will be “not merely aliens to each
other but, more significantly, alienated from each other.”
But this yields some problems. First, extreme differences like those just listed will undercut trust between species. If you
don’t trust that your neighbor isn’t going to steal from, harm, or kill you, then you’re going to be suspicious of your neighbor. And if you’re
suspicious of your neighbor, you might want an effective defense strategy to stop an attack—just in case one were to happen. But your neighbor
might reason the same way: she’s not entirely sure that you won’t kill her, so she establishes a defense as well. The problem is that, since you
don’t fully trust her, you wonder whether her defense is actually part of an attack plan. So you start carrying a knife around with you, which she
interprets as a threat to her, thus leading her to buy a gun, and so on. Within the field of international relations, this is called the
“security
dilemma,” and it results in a spiral of militarization that can significantly increase the probability of conflict , even in
cases where all actors have genuinely peaceful intentions.
So, how can actors extricate themselves from the security dilemma if they can’t fully trust each other? On the level of individuals, one solution has involved what Thomas Hobbes’ calls the
“Leviathan.” The key idea is that people get together and say, “Look, since we can’t fully trust each other, let’s establish an independent governing system—a referee of sorts—that has a
monopoly on the legitimate use of force. By replacing anarchy with hierarchy, we can also replace the constant threat of harm with law and order.” Hobbes didn’t believe that this happened
historically, only that this predicament is what justifies the existence of the state. According to Steven Pinker, the Leviathan is a major reason that violence has declined in recent centuries.
The point is that if individuals—you and I—can overcome the constant threat of harm posed by our neighbors by establishing a governing
system, then maybe future species could get together and create some sort of cosmic governing system that could similarly guarantee peace
by replacing anarchy with hierarchy. Unfortunately, this looks unpromising within the “cosmopolitical” realm. One reason is that
for states to maintain law and order among their citizens, their various appendages—e.g., law enforcement, courts—need to be properly
coordinated. If you call the police about a robbery and they don’t show up for three weeks, then what’s the point of living in that society? You’d
be just as well off on your own! The question is, then, whether the appendages of a cosmic governing system could be sufficiently well-
coordinated to respond to conflicts and make top-down decisions about how to respond to particular situations. To put it differently: If conflict
were to break out in some region of the universe, could the relevant governing authorities respond soon enough for it to matter, for it to make a
difference?
Probably not, because of the immense vastness of space. For example, consider again Epsilon Eridani b, Gliese 674 b, and Gliese 581 d. These are, respectively, 10.5, 14.8, and 20.4 light-years
from Earth. This means that a signal sent as of this writing, in 2018, wouldn’t reach Gliese 581 d until 2038. A spaceship traveling at one-quarter the cosmic speed limit wouldn’t arrive until
2098, and a message to simply affirm that it had arrived safely wouldn’t return to Earth until 2118. And Gliese 581 is relatively close as far as exoplanets go. Just consider that he Andromeda
Galaxy is some 2.5 million light-years from Earth and the Triangulum Galaxy about 3 million light-years away. What’s more, there are some 54 galaxies in our Local Group, which is about 10
million light-years wide, within a universe that stretches some 93 billion light-years across.
These factsmake it look hopeless for a governing system to effectively coordinate law enforcement activities, judicial
decisions, and so on, across cosmic distances . The universe is simply too big for a government to establish law and order in a
top-down fashion.
But there is another strategy for achieving peace: Future civilizations could use a policy of deterrence to prevent other civilizations from launching first strikes. A policy of this sort, which must
be credible to work, says: “I won’t attack you first, but if you attack me first, I have the capabilities to destroy you in retaliation.” This was the predicament of the US and Soviet Union during the
Cold War, known as “mutually-assured destruction” (MAD).
But could this work in the cosmopolitical realm of space? It seems unlikely. First, consider how many future species there could be: upwards of
many billions. While some of these species would be too far away to pose a threat to each other—although see the qualification below—there
will nonetheless exist a huge number within one’s galactic backyard. The point is that the sheer number would make it incredibly hard to
determine who initiated a first strike, if one is attacked. And without a method for identifying instigators with high reliability, one’s
policy of deterrence won’t be credible. And if one’s policy of deterrence isn’t credible, then one has no such policy!
Second, ponder the sorts of weapons that could become available to future spacefaring civilizations. Redirected asteroids (a.k.a., “ planetoid
bombs ”), “rods from God,” sun guns , laser weapons , and no doubt an array of exceptionally powerful super-weapons that
we can’t currently imagine. It has even been speculated that the universe might exist in a “metastable” state and that a high-powered
particle accelerator could tip the universe into a more stable state. This would create a bubble of total annihilation that spreads in all
directions at the speed of light—which opens up the possibility that a suicidal cult , or whatever, weaponizes a particle
accelerator to destroy the universe.
The question, then, is whether defensive technologies could effectively neutralize such risks. There’s a lot to say here, but for the present
purposes just note that, historically speaking, defensive measures have very often lagged behind offensive measures, thus
resulting in periods of heightened vulnerability. This is an important point because when it comes to existentially dangerous
super-weapons, one only needs to be vulnerable for a short period to risk annihilation.
So far as I can tell, this seriously undercuts the credibility of policies of deterrence. Again, if species A cannot convince species B that if B strikes
it, A will launch an effective and devastating counter strike, then B may take a chance at attacking A. In fact, B does not need to be malicious to
do this: it only needs to worry that A might, at some point in the near- or long-term future, attack B, thus making it rational for B to launch a
preemptive strike (to eliminate the potential danger). Thinking about this predicament in the radically multi-polar conditions of space, it seems
fairly obvious that conflict will be extremely difficult to avoid.
 1AR---War!---Planetoid bombs
Combatants will utilize asteroids---causes extinction
Clifford Singer 1, Professor of nuclear engineering and director of the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament,
and International Security at the University of Illinois at Urbana—Champaign. Spring 2001. “Swords and
Ploughshares.” http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/homepage_docs/pubs_docs/S&P_docs/S&P_XIII/Singer.htm
However the technology to build isolated extraterrestrial settlements naturally brings along with it another potentially
powerful technology–the ability to move sizeable asteroids . Back in 1979 it was shown that this is not as difficult as one might at first
think. The requisite technique is to land a spacecraft on one asteroid, dig up material and throw it the path of another
asteroid that will approach nearby, and perturb the orbit of that asteroid until it passes nearby another large object.
Once an asteroid or comet makes a controlled approach near any planet but Mercury or Pluto, then it can easily be
directed near or at the earth at enormous velocity. Fortunately for our hypothetical descendants here destroying all
human life on earth by asteroid impact would likely require moving objects with a diameter in excess of ten
kilometers. While there are many of these , the required orbit perturbation would require a lot of lead-time and work and could be very
difficult to motivate and conceal. Nevertheless with contributions from this technology a dispute between the earth and a
handful of its fragile far-flung offspring in space that is carried to the extreme could conceivably lead to human
extinction . Only when settlements in space are sufficiently numerous or far flung would such a possibility effectively be ruled out, primarily
by physical considerations.
 1AR---War!---Space Col bad
War is likely regardless of actor motivations
Phil Torres 18, director of the Project for Human Flourishing and the author of Morality, Foresight, and Human
Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks, 3/31/18, “Should Humanity Colonize Space?”,
https://medium.com/@philosophytorres/should-humanity-colonize-space-181ca78905fd
There are also biological and nanotech agents that civilizations could launch across the galaxy at each other, martial
von Newman probes that are aided by metamaterial invisibility cloaks , “heliobeams” that concentrate large amounts
of solar radiation on targets, and maybe even “gravity weapons” that use gravitational waves to create black holes
(a speculative idea that appears to fall within the realm of physical possibility). Even more, the universe is teaming with asteroids and
comets that could be catapulted toward planets or spaceships, with more destructive consequences than a swarm of
hydrogen bombs. Some have called these “planetoid bombs,” since asteroids and comets are “planetoids.”
We also shouldn’t overlook the possibility that future civilizations devise entirely novel “weapons of total destruction”
( WTDs ). Just as our Paleolithic ancestors would be dumbstruck by the extraordinary mechanisms of mass death
available to modern humans , so too might we be horrified by the weapons that our spacefaring children invent — say,
WTDs that move at close to lightspeed and wreak galactic- or cosmic-scale hazards.
The cherry on the cake is that even a perfectly peaceable civilization might
have strong incentives to obliterate its
neighbors. For example, imagine two civilizations with radically different political , cultural , and religious traditions .
They can’t even communicate very well because they speak entirely different languages and have evolved, through natural selection and
cyborgization, divergent emotional repertoires and mental categories. They have different internal models of the world, distinct
perceptual and phenomenological experiences, and incompatible “normative” worldviews.
Consequently, neither is able to trust the other. The result is that it would be rational for each to annihilate the other
merely to ensure that the other doesn’t annihilate one first. Worse, if a civilization X believes that a civilization Y is
rational, then X will believe that Y believes that it should annihilate X so that X doesn’t annihilate Y, since X
annihilating Y would be the rational thing to do. (Whew!) This line of reasoning provides X an even stronger reason to annihilate Y,
and therefore Y an even stronger reason to annihilate X — thus yielding a “spiral” of escalating tensions that ultimately
culminates in war , despite both X and Y wishing for peace. Scholars know this as the “Hobbesian trap.”
But civilizations may have an equally strong incentive to destroy their neighbors even if they believe that those
neighbors are irrational (rather than rational). For example, consider a civilization A that is full of irresponsible particle
physicists. Civilization A has no bad intentions, yet it conducts physics experiments that could inadvertently end the
universe. Another civilization B might try to reason with A not to conduct these experiments, but let’s imagine that
A ultimately resists. In order to save A from annihilating the universe by accident, B may thus opt to launch a
preemptive attack against A to avert a cosmic disaster.
Generalizing this case, since any given civilization will have some probability of accidentally destroying the universe , it
would be in every civilization’s self-interest to destroy everyone else merely to obviate accidental cosmic
calamities . This may be especially true if evolutionary adaptive radiation produces numerous species unable to fully
grasp each others’ intentions , cognitive abilities , or moral values . The possibilities for miscommunication here are
immense — and this should worry rather than reassure us.
Colonization cements collective identity problems---increases propensity for conflict
Marko Kovic 18, Social scientist (PhD in political communication, University of Zurich), co-founder and CEO of
the consulting firm ars cognitionis, co-founder and president of the thinktank ZIPAR, the Zurich Institute of Public
Affairs Research, 06/12/18, “Political, moral, and security challenges of space colonization.” ZIPAR.
https://zipar.org/discussion-paper/political-moral-security-challenges-space-colonization/
4.1 Inter-colonial war¶ Violence and war have been decreasing over the course of our civilization’s history45 46 47. The decrease in violent
armed conflict has coincided with an increase in cultural, political, and economic interconnectedness. Even though major armed conflicts are not
yet a thing of the past48, humankind will probably continue on its current trajectory of peace. With space colonization , however, the
trend of growing closer together might reverse because of increasing fragmentation , and with that reversal, peaceful
cooperation might again give way to armed conflict.
Some amount of human fragmentation due to space colonization is almost inevitable . One of the strongest biases we
humans have is the intergroup bias49: We tend to separate people into ingroups and outgroups , and we generally
favor our own ingroup over any outgroup. Our ingroup favoritism is often the source of collective identity : We
identify with our home city and think it is better than other cities; we identify with our favorite football team and think it is better than other
teams; we identify with our country of origin and think it is better than other countries. In a future in which humans have successfully mastered
type I colonization (colonization within our Solar System) and perhaps even type II colonization (intersolar colonization), belonging to one
habitat rather than another will almost certainly also be a source of collective identity . Humans born and raised on Venus
would probably have more positive general attitudes towards Venus than towards Earth. That is not a problem in and of itself, but it can become a
problem: If humankind is very successful at space colonization and manages to establish colonies across the galaxy, the ingroup dynamics within
the perceived benefits of armed conflict increase, and the perceived
colonies and regions of colonies might grow so much that
costs decrease. In part, this might be due to the infrahumanization (or dehumanization) bias50: Our intergroup bias
can have the effect of perceiving members of the outgroup as less human than members of our own ingroup.
The problem of intergroup bias and armed conflict could be compounded by real biological differences in the long-term
future . In the long term, different colonies of humans might adopt different stances on human enhancement technology
and embrace different kinds of enhancement technologies. These differential paths of human enhancement might
result in technology-induced quasi-speciation , whereby different strands of humans have increasingly distinct
biological traits . The ultimate result of such a development might be a strong fragmentation of humankind and an
increasing arms race in order to defend against the outgroup of all the (former) humans that are different from the
ingroup (former) humans51.
Space colonization causes war---social identity theory verifies the Torres argument
Martin Verloop 19, master of science at the University of Amsterdam, 6/19/19, “Space Colonization: The answer
to everything?”, https://www.spiegeloog.amsterdam/space-colonization-the-answer-to-everything/
Thus, a compelling argument can be made for venturing into the skies. Several private corporations, such as SpaceX for example, are looking into
setting up shop on Mars in the next few decades to ‘save humanity.’ Russia aims to establish a lunar outpost by 2030 (The Week, 2018). People
like Elon Musk appear to be in a rush to colonize space and he is not alone in arguing that there is a real urgency to do so. It is striking, however,
that we look for answers in the skies to save humanity instead of taking the time to self-reflect. In fact, Torres (2018a), a scholar specializing in
existential risk, argues that the chances of our species’ survival will fall rather than rise if we colonize space.
According to Torres, we
live in a Darwinian world in which ‘the mechanism of natural selection is constantly tweaking
the genomes of organisms to ensure a satisfactorily good “fit” between the “features” of organisms and the “factors”
of their environments’ (Torres, 2018b). Species that migrate to a new island will evolve into a novel species ( Torres,
2018a). Inhabitable planets are essentially islands in the sky that could potentially result in the evolution of species different from the parent
human species. Additionally, the possibilities that come with eventual future advances in bioengineering may speed up the
evolution process. Different modifications may be made to our bodies and brains across planets depending on what
enhancements are needed to adapt to the environment.
Although private corporations like SpaceX are already trying to establish human settlements on Mars, Cozmuta (2015) estimates that it will take
two to three hundred years before we are able to set up fully fledged colonies outside the bounds of Earth. According to anthropologist Cameron
Smith, it will take another two to three hundred years before we start to see ideological diversification (The Week, 2018). Due to isolation,
space colonies may develop vastly different cultures and languages. Even digital communication would prove to be
difficult with signals potentially taking years, if not decades, to arrive (Torres, 2018a). Thus, not only would colonizing space
result in the diversification of our species, difficulties arising from problems in communication could lead to ideological diversification as well.
Ideological diversification includes the emergence of ‘cultures, languages, governments, political institutions, religions, technologies, rituals,
norms, worldviews’ that may be unique to certain space colonies (Torres, 2018a). Prior to that, however, it is also interesting to think that already,
over the course of some generations, space colonies may want to sever their connections to Earth because they have different interests than Earth
does. A potential conflict of interests could even concern relatively minor matters like disagreements on taxes. We’ve already seen a
similar situation happen here on Earth when the United States, previously a colony of Great Britain, declared
independence because they wanted more economic independence and rejected the idea of ‘taxation without
representation’ (Phillips Erb, 2017).
Decolonization of space colonies could result in highly competitive interplanetary relations . It would be virtually
impossible to set up an interplanetary agency like the United Federation of Planets in Star Trek. The enormity of space would make
effective coordination of law enforcement activities incredibly hard (Torres, 2018a). It would also be difficult to
establish law and order by adopting a m utually a ssured d estruction policy . Such a policy might be successful if there were only a
few colonized planets. Essentially, we’d be looking at an an interplanetary Cold War here, which is ironic if you consider the fact the Space Race
started in an Earth-based Cold War. However, given the immensely high number of potential species, a mutually assured destruction policy may
not work either, because it would be extremely hard to detect who instigated an attack.
Torres (2018a, 2018b) bases his argument on evolutionary biology and international relations theory, but another argument can
potentially be drawn from psychological theory . Think of social identity theory , for example. According to this theory, in-
group members often differentiate themselves by using relevant out-groups as a means for evaluating the in-group as
positively different (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). It is interesting to speculate whether the theory would also generalize to interspecies relations. It
is conceivable that it would. In the case of highly competitive intergroup relations, individuals are likely to devaluate the
out-group. We might even see dehumanization , although that term specifically seems a bit odd to use in the case of the emergence of
novel species. Potentially,
the inability to understand the ‘Other’ due to species diversification may even amplify
‘dehumanization’ of the out-group. Then, what those who dared to dream have optimistically called the ‘final
frontier,’ may just turn into another frontier for war.
 2AC---Aliens Turn
Colonization leads to the discovery of aliens---extinction!
Marko Kovic 18, Social scientist (PhD in political communication, University of Zurich), co-founder and CEO of
the consulting firm ars cognitionis, co-founder and president of the thinktank ZIPAR, the Zurich Institute of Public
Affairs Research, 06/12/18, “Political, moral, and security challenges of space colonization.” ZIPAR.
https://zipar.org/discussion-paper/political-moral-security-challenges-space-colonization/
4.2 Extraterrestrial (existential) risks¶ Space colonization will increase the probability of discovering and coming into contact
with extraterrestrial intelligence , either biological or artificial (in the sense of hypothetical advanced artificial general
intelligence52). That prospect poses some moral challenges, as argued in subsection 3.3. However, it might also pose a security
challenge if an extraterrestrial intelligence more technologically advanced than humankind has goals and
preferences that go against the goals and preferences of humankind.
In general, there are three categories of attitudes an extraterrestrial intelligence can have towards humankind53. First, an extraterrestrial
intelligence can be benevolent. A benevolent extraterrestrial intelligence is one that would change its goals and preferences upon learning of
humankind. Humankind is a benevolent intelligence: If we, for example, came into contact with an extraterrestrial civilization, we would
obviously take the goals and preferences of that civilization into account and update our own goals and preferences, since we are morally
advanced enough to do so.
Second, an extraterrestrial intelligence can be apathetic. An apathetic extraterrestrial intelligence is one that does not at all change its goals and
preferences upon learning of humankind. An apathetic intelligence would neither try to accommodate humankind, nor would it react in some non-
friendly way. It would not care at all. The attitude of an apathetic intelligence is similar to the attitude we humans have when it comes to some
random microbial life form on Earth: We might understand that that life form exists, but we do not care either way.
Third, an extraterrestrial intelligence can be hostile. Hostility in a general sense means that an intelligence reacts to
learning of humankind by regarding its own goals and preferences as categorically more important than
humankind’s. A hostile extraterrestrial intelligence is not necessarily a security threat to humankind; hostility in this context does not mean
hostility in the Hollywood kind but hostility in the sense of active disregard of humankind’s goals and preferences. That, however, might still
represent a tremendous security risk. For example, a hostile intelligence might prefer humankind not to exist because
our mere existence is perceived as a slight discomfort to the extraterrestrial intelligence. Hostile extraterrestrial
intelligence thus represents a form of existential risk.
 1AR---Aliens---Timeframe
Outweighs on timeframe---the plan’s resource allocation causes contact in 20 years
Matthew John O'Dowd 15, associate professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Lehman College
of the City University of New York and staff scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, 11/5/15, “Why
Haven't We Found Alien Life? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=cJONS7sqi0o
We don't have a telescope to find them yet, but we could soon. These planets will have atmospheres driven by
biotic processes . If we could analyze light passing through these atmospheres, we would see signatures of oxygen ,
ozone , methane , nitrous oxide at concentrations impossible without a biosphere. Properly fund NASA and its
terrestrial planet finder and we could find extraterrestrial life within 20 years . So it's entirely possible that we'll soon
discover that the galaxy is filled with life. But this just makes it weirder that the Milky Way isn't swarming with ancient alien
civilizations. There is a filter, but it's not the genesis of life. The clue might be that the Earth stayed a slimeball for nearly three billion years.
 AT: No Aliens
Alien life exists---carbon dating and Earth’s own history prove
Matthew John O'Dowd 15, associate professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the Lehman College
of the City University of New York and staff scientist at the American Museum of Natural History, 11/5/15, “Why
Haven't We Found Alien Life? | Space Time | PBS Digital Studios”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=cJONS7sqi0o
Are we alone? Recent amazing discoveries have given us more hope than ever that our universe is full of life. So why
don't we see it? Why don't we see alien civilizations? We've asked this question before here on "Space Time," and if you haven't seen that
episode you should check it out. But today we'd like to go deeper because it really does seem like there should be aliens. The
Kepler Space Observatory has told us there are a couple of hundred billion nice, watery planets in the Milky Way
and probably billions of them are Earth-sized planets around sun-like stars. Many of them have been around long
enough to produce a civilization that could have easily colonized the entire galaxy by now. So why is the Milky Way so
un "Star Warsy?" This genuine oddity is referred to as the Fermi paradox and the resolution for it has to be that there's
some sort of great filter that either makes intelligent life extremely rare in the first place or that wipes out, essentially, all
advanced civilizations before they get to the galactic empire stage, whether by a nuclear war, environmental catastrophe, accidentally making a
black hole that swallows the planet, et cetera. Personally, I'm not buying it . I just don't think that there's an inevitable great filter
still ahead of us. As we saw in a previous episode, we're
not so far from building starships ourselves. Surely, some civilizations
must make it through these growing pains and manage to reach the stars. So where are they? Well, there's another deeply
sad and deeply inspiring possibility. Humanity may be one of the very first interstellar species in the history of the galaxy. But before we get all
emo, let's science this right. We know of exactly one instance of intelligent life happening, the case of Earth. And as if it wasn't hard enough to do
statistics with a sample size of one, we also have to deal with a massive selection bias. Of course we're going to observe at least one instance of
intelligent life happening because we are that one instance. In a way, it doesn't matter how improbable sentience is. As long as it happens once, it
will be there to observe itself. Here we're touching on the anthropic principle, which states that an observer will always observe a universe that
can make observers or a planet that can. We'll talk about the cosmic implications of this more in another episode, but for now we need to
acknowledge that this selection bias allows that life could be extremely rare, or even unique. Given that, can we even begin to assess the
likelihood of life out there? Yeah, we can science anything. So let's dig into whether we should really expect to see a Salarian Empire. Let's take
the knowns. Now, Earth certainly required a number of very special conditions to build life and it's hard to know how essential
each of these was or how frequently these conditions are met through the galaxy. I'm going to avoid details of the biology here because we can
say a lot just based on how much time it took to get through each step on the path to building technological life. We can crudely summarize
the big leaps that lead up to intelligent life as one, assembly of self replicating RNA from organic molecules; two,
RNA based proto-cells ; three, DNA and the first actual cell -- this is the moment of a biogenesis , life from not
life ; four, increasingly complex single cells; five, the first multicellular organisms so plants, animals, et cetera; and six,
the first intelligent life form capable of counting to six on You Tube. Now, the crazy thing, the thing that I find the least intuitive, is that
the first three steps in that chain combined-- the appearance of true cellular life-- happened faster than any of those later steps. so
fast, in fact, that it seems hard to believe. And in fact, so fast that our galaxy probably should be brimming with at least simple
life . Let me explain. See, around four billion years ago, pretty much just after the Earth had first cooled down from being a giant hellish magma
bowl, we think that it totally got pounded by a meteor storm that lasted a couple of hundred million years. This is the late heavy bombardment,
and it probably obliterated the surface. We think we know this because we flew to the moon and found evidence of it. Up until recently, the
earliest known evidence of life dated to roughly 3.5 billion years ago , fossilized blue green algae beds--
stromatolites -- found in Western Australia. The place was covered in this greenish-purple slime that reeked of rotten eggs. Yeah, the
beach was horrible back then. Basically, Earth was once a giant slimeball planet. And it looks like Earth went from magma ball to
slimeball in less than 300 million years . What? That seems crazy fast. But it also suggests that this first step, the genesis of
life , is not the great filter . But wait, the abiogenesis thing gets even weirder. See, nature has provided us with a perfect time
capsule for studying the very early Earth, zircons -- super hard silicate crystals whose formation can be dated precisely by
the ratio of decaying uranium versus lead decay product locked inside. And get this, just recently a zircon was found
containing the possible signature of life and dated at 4.1 billion years ago , from before the late heavy bombardment.
That little crystal contains what looks like biogenic carbon . That's a fancy way of saying there's too little carbon 13 compared to
carbon 12. See, photosynthetic finds C12 a bit yummier, and so it absorbs more of that than the heavier C13. Pretty much all carbon enters the
biosphere from the photosynthesizing bottom of the food chain. Any carbon that's been through living systems will have the same C13 light
isotopic ratio that we see in this zircon. Now, there are other nonbiogenic explanations, but this is extremely suggestive that life was
abundant on Earth remarkably soon after it first coalesced from stardust and that life either survived the late heavy
bombardment or formed again after that or the late heavy bombardment never happened. That's actually a possibility, too.
But either way, it looks like Earth became a slimeball teeming with life in a crazy short amount of time. How on earth did this happen?
Two options. One, given the right conditions the genesis of life happens like that, and two, it didn't happen on Earth--
life was seeded from space, an idea called panspermia . Look, there's no question that lots of rock gets ejected into space after
meteor impacts and can move between planets. We've found plenty of meteorites originally from Mars. A lot of the ejecta from Earth is going to
be swarming in bugs. Could similar bacterial astronauts have once survived an interstellar journey to Earth? Some
bacteria are certainly hardy enough to survive launch and landing. This has been tested. If these bacteria were
frozen solid, they could plausibly survive a very, very long journey and you only need one out of billions to make it .
Maybe the solar wind pushes infested material into interstellar space so that tens of thousands, even millions, of
years later a single bug winds up on a brand new planet and boom, instant slimeball. Questionable, but it would mean
that life only needs to evolve once from scratch in any given galaxy. Now, this should be very testable. Earth was infested fast,
so that means this stuff should be out there. Mars must have been hit when it had water. Did it go slimeball? There should be something like
stromatolite fossils on its ancient surface. We haven't seen them yet, but they'd be hard to spot. These cosmic cooties should be findable in space,
too. So either fast abiogenesis or panspermia , one of them must be true. However, both suggest that the galaxy should be
teeming with slimeball planets filled with life . Now, that's exciting. We don't have a telescope to find them yet, but we could soon. These
planets will have atmospheres driven by biotic processes. If we could analyze light passing through these atmospheres, we would see signatures
of oxygen, ozone, methane, nitrous oxide at concentrations impossible without a biosphere. Properly fund NASA and its terrestrial planet finder
and we could find extraterrestrial life within 20 years. So it's entirely possible that we'll soon discover that the galaxy is filled with life. But this
just makes it weirder that the Milky Way isn't swarming with ancient alien civilizations. There is a filter, but it's not the genesis of life. The clue
might be that the Earth stayed a slimeball for nearly three billion years. The first multicellular organism turned up only 600 to 800
million years ago and life as we know it quickly exploded after that. Was this a random lucky event that we just had to wait for?
No , multicellular life evolved independently dozens of times . It just took a really long time for those single cells to become
complex enough to form large collaborative structures capable of collective reproduction, i.e. plants, animals, a species capable of making the
Kerbal Space Program. And speaking of space programs, technological life took a little while longer, but not really so long on the overall scale
once we had complex life. After the Cambrian Explosion, it was only around half a billion years to go from jellyfish to moon landing. Of course,
maybe the emergence of intelligence is a random and unlikely event, and this one is the hardest to assess. However, it's
worth noting that we do have other species on Earth that seem to be moving down the same big brain path
independently of humans.
We haven’t found aliens because we haven’t looked for them
Dave Mosher 18, senior correspondent for business insider, 10/9/18, “Smart aliens might live within 33,000 light-
years of Earth. A new study explains why we haven't found them yet.”, https://www.businessinsider.com/alien-
signals-search-for-extraterrestrial-intelligence-study-2018-10
The cosmos almost screams with the possibility of intelligent alien life. ¶ Hundreds of billions of galaxies drift through
the visible universe , each one harboring hundreds of billions of stars , and each of those stars in turn shelters roughly
a handful of planets. Even if the trillion-or-so planets in every galaxy aren't habitable , countless water-rich moons
orbiting these lifeless worlds might be.¶ And yet, in spite of these numbers, humans have yet to identify any signals
from intelligent aliens. The prescient question that the physicist Enrico Fermi posed in 1950 — "Where is
everybody?" — remains unanswered.¶ However, a study in The Astronomical Journal, which we learned about from MIT
Technology Review, suggests humanity has barely sampled the skies and thus has no grounds to be cynical .¶ According to
the paper, all searches for extraterrestrial intelligence, or SETI, have examined barely a swimming pool's worth of
water from a figurative ocean of signal space. ¶ "We haven't really looked much," Shubham Kanodia, a graduate student in astronomy
who cowrote the study, said during a NASA "technosignatures" workshop in Houston on September 26.¶ The study suggests that
somewhere in that ocean of space — right now, within the Milky Way galaxy— intelligent aliens may be saying,
"Hello, we are here."¶ But we'd have no way of knowing, at least not yet.¶ Defining a 'cosmic haystack' in the search for aliens¶
Over the past 60 years, multiple SETI projects have looked and continue to look for alien signals. Some scan large swaths of the sky for powerful
signals, while others target individual star systems for weaker signals.¶ Yet aside from a few anomaly signals that never repeated (like the
"Wow!" detection of 1977), these searches have turned up empty-handed.¶ Kanodia and his colleagues at Penn State University
wanted to know how much of the figurative "cosmic haystack" SETI projects had covered and to what extent they
could improve the hunt for the alien "needle."¶ The group agrees with the well-known SETI astronomer Jill Tarter, who said in 2010
that it was silly to conclude intelligent aliens do not exist nearby just because we haven't yet found their beacons.
Even if such signals exist and are aimed right at Earth, her thinking goes, we've scanned so little of the sky and may
not be looking for the right type of signal, or for long enough, to find them.¶ "Suppose I tell you there's a cool thing
happening in Houston right now," Kanodia said during his NASA talk. "I do not tell you where it is. I do not tell you
when it is happening. I do not tell you what it is. Is it in a bookstore? Is it a music concert? I give you absolutely no
priors. It would be a difficult thing to try and find it."¶ He added: "Houston, we have a problem. We do not know what we're looking
for ... and we don't know where to start."¶ In their study, Kanodia and his colleagues built a mathematical model of what
they considered a reasonable-size cosmic haystack.¶ Their haystack is a sphere of space nearly 33,000 light-years in
diameter, centered on Earth. This region captures part of Milky Way's bustling core as well as some giant globular
clusters of stars above and below our home galaxy.¶ They also picked eight dimensions of a search for aliens —
factors like signal transmission frequency , bandwidth , power , location , repetition , polarization , and modulation
(i.e., complexity) — and defined reasonable limits for each one.¶ "This leads to a total 8D haystack volume of 6.4 × 10 116 m 5 Hz 2
s/W," the authors wrote.¶ That is 6.4 followed by 115 zeros — as MIT Technology Review described it, "a space of truly gargantuan
proportions."¶ How much of this haystack have we searched?¶ Kanodia and his colleagues then examined the past 60 years' worth of
SETI projects and reconciled them against their haystack.¶ The researchers determined that humanity's collective search for

extraterrestrials added up to about 0.00000000000000058% of the haystack's volume.¶ "This is about a

bathtub of water in all of Earth's oceans," Kanodia said. "Or about a five-centimeter-by-five-centimeter patch of land
on all of Earth's surface area."¶ Those numbers make humanity's search efforts seem feeble. But Kanodia views it as an
opportunity — especially because modern telescopes are getting better at scanning more objects with greater sensitivity and speed. For example,
he said, a 150-minute search this year by the Murchison Widefield Array covered a larger percentage of the haystack than any other SETI project
in history.¶ "That's the purpose of this haystack ... to help better inform future search strategies," Kanodia said. ¶ He also noted that the team's
calculations assumed there was only one alien civilization within range of Earth. But more than one may exist relatively nearby. ¶ "In the ocean
analogy, we do not have to drain the entire ocean to find a fish," he said. "In the Houston analogy, if there were two cool things, you wouldn't
have to look as hard."¶ Still, there's no guarantee that a figurative fish or needle or cool thing is out there at all. ¶ Another group of
scientists, this one at Oxford University, recently took a different approach to the question of aliens. Instead of
focusing on the likelihood of finding technosignatures that could be detected, they examined the likelihood that
intelligent alien life existed at all.¶ The Oxford researchers examined dozens of authoritative studies about variables
in the Drake equation. The team then analyzed the results and calculated a bleak 2-in-5 chance that humans may be
entirely alone in the Milky Way galaxy.
Recent discoveries demonstrate alien life
Jessica Orwig 15, Master of Science in science and technology journalism from Texas A&M University and a
Bachelor of Science in astronomy and physics from The Ohio State University, 9/26/15, “The 12 most compelling
scientific findings that suggest aliens are real”, https://www.businessinsider.com/evidence-for-life-on-other-planets-
2015-9
What's more, a number of recent discoveries also strongly suggest that alien life exists, either in our own solar system
or beyond.¶ The ultimate question is no longer "Is there life beyond Earth?" but rather "Will we ever find it?" ¶ Here's
what we know:¶ Earlier this year, a team of scientists estimated that about 4.5 billion years ago at least one-fifth of Mars
was covered in an ocean more than 450 feet deep. Any signs of life that swam in these waters could therefore be
hidden in the Martian soil.¶ But water isn't enough. You also need time. As it happens, a study last August discovered that water
had existed on Mars for 200 million years longer than previously thought. What's more, there was life on Earth the
same time as some of the last lakes on Mars.¶ Asteroids and comets are key to the formation of life on Earth, scientists
think. In particular, comet impacts, according to a report last August, likely caused amino acids to combine and form the
building blocks of life. From what we know about solar-system formation, there are other comets in other planetary systems
that could be doing the same thing right now.¶ Jupiter's tiny moon Europa is scarred with brown veins that are
suspected to show where warmer , dirtier liquid water in the moon's mantle seeped through its crust . Europa could
harbor more water than Earth, which is why both America and Europe are investing hundreds of millions of dollars
into designs for future missions that would search for life beneath its surface. ¶ Beyond Europa is Saturn's moon
Enceladus, which scientists confirmed this month houses a giant, global ocean beneath its icy outer shell. Like
Europa, Enceladus' ocean is an ideal place where life beyond Earth could live.¶ Even more convincing evidence for life on
Enceladus was included in two papers published earlier this year. They strongly suggest that hydrothermal vents — the same kind that
may have spawned life on Earth — seem to be lining the moon's ocean floors.¶ In addition to those on Europa and
Enceladus, vast subsurface oceans could exist on at least a dozen objects in our solar system, planetary scientists
suspect. The problem with detecting life on any of these is reaching the watery mantle that exists hundreds of miles
underground.¶ Besides Earth, Saturn's largest moon Titan is the only body in the solar system with lakes on its surface.
These lakes would not spawn similar life to Earth because they are made of liquid methane, not water. However,
earlier this year a group at Cornell showed how methane-based, oxygen-free living cells could exist on Titan.¶ It's
possible that life can only form and thrive on Earth-like planets , which would mean our only chance of detecting
aliens is on planets beyond our solar system. Last July, scientists detected an Earth-like planet 1,400 light-years away .
Its size, orbit, sun, and age provide the "opportunity for life to arise somewhere on the surface ... should all the
necessary ingredients and conditions for life on this planet [exist]," one scientist said. ¶ The famous Drake equation
allows us to estimate how many alien civilizations might exist in the Milky Way. It looks like this: N=R*(fp)(ne)(fl)(fi)(fc)L, with each variable
defined below. With basic statistics, this equation suggests there are potentially thousands, even millions, of alien civilizations
out there.¶ If there are millions of intelligent alien civilizations out there, many ask, then why haven't we heard from them? It could be that our
home galaxy, the Milky Way, is not an entirely hospitable galaxy for life, according to a scientific report last month that suggests other galaxies
in the universe could host 10,000x more habitable planets than the Milky Way.¶ We're all made of heavy atoms forged in the
explosions of supermassive stars. This not only connects us to the universe, but highlights the possibility of alien
life , explains famed astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium, Neil deGrasse Tyson: "These ingredients become part of gas clouds
that condense, collapse, form the next generation of solar systems — stars with orbiting planets. And those planets now have the ingredients for
life itself."
Leftovers
Sustainability Advantage
 Impact---Morality
Morality
Hope M. Babcock 16, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, 2016, “A Brook with Legal Rights:
The Rights of Nature in Court,” Ecology Law Quarterly, Vol. 43, https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127508?ln=en
Stone also recognized that the moral imperatives involved required the Court to take action. He called on the Court
to summon up ―from the human spirit the kindest and most generous and worthy ideas that abound there, giving
them shape and reality and legitimacy.‖129 He referenced the school desegregation cases, which ―awakened us to
moral needs which, when made visible, could not be denied.‖130 He asked the Court to do the same thing by
awarding rights to the environment ―in a way that will contribute to a change in popular consciousness .‖131 In
words that Stone might have used, Professor Jedediah Purdy calls on law to provide ―a forum in which we give
increasingly definite shape to shared questions that, however regrettably, we are not yet prepared to resolve.‖132
Subsequent animal rights and environmental theoreticians took up Stone‘s belief that morals play an important role
in granting nonhumans legal rights,133 arguing that at least at a minimum, they are important in analyzing the
appropriateness of a legal rule.134 Professor Purdy maintains that ―the legitimacy of a legal rule must be tested by,
among other factors, generally shared moral precepts.‖135 And, while a ―[m]oral theory is not determinative of the
proper legal rule,‖ it ―is an element in a broader analysis of the legitimacy of a rule.‖136 For example, ―[e]ven
though laws regulating the use of animals have always been minimally protective of nonhumans, ethically proper
conduct often demands more than the law commands.‖137 Some even argue that ―the community has the duty, as
well as the right, to preserve and to defend the environment.‖138
Solvency
 Solvency---Rivers
This is a meh card about ontological shifts and rivers
Cristy Clark 18, Lecturer in Law, School of Law & Justice, Southern Cross University, Australia, et al., 2018,
“ARTICLE: Can You Hear the Rivers Sing? Legal Personhood, Ontology, and the Nitty-Gritty of Governance,”
Ecology Law Quarterly, 45 Ecology L.Q. 787
One of the most interesting reactions to this sense of environmental urgency has been, as this Article states at its beginning, the
emergence of an Ecological Jurisprudence over the past two decades. Nature as a legal subject has been seen as a
powerful legal narrative to counterbalance the fear of cultural and environmental collapse . 307 The question inevitably
emerges as to why rivers appear to occupy such a special place within this narrative. These river songs, naturally, do not provide a complete
overview of current ecological jurisprudential pursuits, not even in relation to rivers. In 2013, for example, Earthjustice, acting as legal counsel
for Po?ai Wai Ola/West Kaua?i Watershed Alliance, petitioned the State of Hawai?i Commission on Water Resource Management to increase
flow standards for the Waimea River system. 308 The [*830] dispute was resolved in mediation when, in 2017, the Commission agreed to
amend the current interim instream flow standards of the Waimea River. 309 Meanwhile, during the demonstrations at the Oceti Sakowin Camp
against the proposed construction of an oil pipeline partly crossing under Lake Oahe, near the Standing Rock Indian Reservation in North Dakota,
protesters adopted the slogan Mni Wiconi - meaning "water is life" in Lakota - to denote how the proposed development affected the most basic
of human needs. 310 Examples such as these abound. However, the cases selected in this Article for discussion are arguably the most significant
in terms of legal outcomes, allowing us to provide a relatively comprehensive comparative legal analysis, to focus on the a cappella chorus of
distinct river voices flowing into a single comparative legal song.
Part VII reflects on this confluence, and the special place of rivers in this narrative. It begins, logically, at the source, with an exploration of two
foundational questions: who is the river, and who speaks on its behalf? Such threshold notions - those of legal
personhood and agency - require critical re-appraisal in the context of the profound ontological shifts this Article maps.
Paradigm change, however, does not escape an obligation for the law to keep its house in order - to understand the
nature and extent of a river's rights, duties, and liabilities - the corollary of a river's juristic personhood. The discussion
then identifies the fertile sediments created by the convergence of distinct and distant legalities around these rivers, while also cautioning against
the risks that under-theorization poses to divert (and subvert) the law's flow. The relational nature of river and place, the murky bonds that
emplace the river and us form the subject of this Part's penultimate discussion, before it concludes with the significance of the metaphor of song,
and the ways in which song connects the ethereal to the lived world. Indeed, Part VII is its own river-story, a journey from the juridical to the
ethereal, one made clearer by the songs of comparison this Article explores.
A. Who is the River? The Subjects and Objects of Legal Relations
In common law orthodoxy, as exemplified by the jural analyses of Wesley Hohfeld, 311 natural features, such as rivers, are the
objects of legal relations [*831] between juristic persons. In the common law, a river is at best peripheral to the propertied equation,
simply a thing capable of being exploited, even owned. 312 To make the river a legal subject is thus unthinkable in the
traditional paradigm. Yet this perceived legal reality is perverse when we consider many of the river songs this Article has heard
so far, the grounded stories of formal constitutional recognition, Indigenous worldviews, Hindu goddesses, or indeed, the occasionally
implausible turn to narrative of the common law. These songs sing to the centrality of rivers, as entities far removed from the conceit of human
object-ness. Yet, where the river's song could not be heard, as in the Colorado River case discussed in Part V, claims of legal personality were
impugned as vexatious, a conclusion the law all too readily accepted as inevitable. 313
In arguing the shift from object to subject, advocates for rivers sometimes draw on the powerful yet arguably superficial
analogy of corporate personhood, a legal state of affairs where an abstraction metamorphizes into a robust subject capable of suing and
being sued. As the Colorado case study shows, however, the analogy of the corporation is not always helpful. 314 Perhaps, more fundamentally,
the analogy is inapt, in that it muddies the river's waters. After all, the corporation is both a human construct and a fictionalized
human person. By contrast, rivers are natural features that exist independently of human construction and
imagination .
Edward Mussawir and Connal Parsley submit that modern doctrine around legal personhood is "in thrall to a naturalized image of the human in
whose service it curtails its own potential operations." 315 Mussawir and Parsley seek inspiration, rather, in the "juridical art" of Roman
jurisprudence, where the legal person was:
not simply an entity, a norm, a pre-existing individual, a subject that the law simply recognises - if not as a totality "in itself," then at least with
this or that condition or attribute which qualifies it or doubles it - but rather a distinct legal operation with a definite juristic function. 316
Legal persons in Roman jurisprudence were thus untainted by notions of problematized human identity or self, but were in essence, cruder
juridical outlines that often served "pragmatic transactional purposes." 317 The authors give the example of an abandoned monastery, where the
death of the last surviving members of the monastic order risked the building reverting to [*832] Rome. 318 Instead, canon lawyers constructed
a non-human person based on the "very walls of the monastery," 319 which enabled the building to pass to a new order, and avoided what
common lawyers call a gap in seisin. By contrast, Mussawir and Parsley argue that modern legal decision makers prefer a mode of reasoning
"that tends to naturalize the person … ahead of one that might hold instead to the jurisprudential register." 320 By confusing and conflating the
flesh and bones of a human with the abstract mask of the legal person, legal rigor seems to diminish.
While this debate may seem esoteric, in practice it has nitty-gritty consequences for rivers in their implementation of governance rules and
schemes. Taking the "wrecking-ball" to the "strict juridical conception of the person" has deprived us of what Mussawir and Parsley call the
"technical terrain" around legal persons. 321 This loss of "the full range of tools and techniques at hand for "working' on the person" 322
represents not only a procedural impoverishment, but also a "deep crisis or lack of faith in the law itself and its power." 323 In New Zealand,
there is no apparent loss of faith in the law, or in its technical capabilities. There, legislation crafted a legal personhood for Te Awa Tupua that is
a blend of the sacred and the prosaic, an ancestral entity faithful to Maori values, yet given a human face - not to confuse the legal person with its
flesh and blood - but to present a recognizable facade capable of dealing with the pragmatic world of state agencies and private law. 324 In
Ecuador, the Vilcabamba avoids the trap of the humanized legal person by being constitutionally divined as part of Nature, not a person. 325 In
India, courts premised the moral duty to protect the Ganges and Yamuna on the basis of their divine status, as Hindu goddesses "sacred and
revered … central to the existence of half of Indian population [sic] [.]" 326 Justice Sharma was expansive in the language he used, variously
quoting other justices or describing the rivers as "juristic entities," 327 "juridical persons," 328 "juristic person," 329 "legal [*833]
persons/living persons," 330 and, "juristic/legal persons/living entities having the status of a legal person with all corresponding rights, duties and
liabilities of a living person[.]" 331
Although the latter descriptions are potentially problematic on Mussawir and Parsley's analysis, conflating the legal with the "living person," it is
worth noting the pragmatic transactional purpose evident in a number of the above cases, such as the Indian and Colombian judgments. In the
Glaciers case, for example, the court expanded on this designation of the rivers by incorporating the surrounding natural environment within their
protective ambit, finding: "polluting and damaging the rivers, forests, lakes, water bodies, air and glaciers will be legally equivalent to harming,
hurting and causing injury to person… . The rivers are not just water bodies. These are scientifically and biologically living." 332 The hubris of
equating the living with the merely human would simplify the historically informed and culturally rich approach of Justice Sharma.
Meanwhile in the Colorado, a deeply Green, yet intrinsically atheist claim by the River's Ecosystem failed to reach first base. There is a
curious interplay between the rational and the otherworldly in the legal personhood of rivers, one best undistracted
by needless human conflation or imitation. An irrational faith coupled with the law's juridical artifices seems a
strangely effective combination - to facilitate both ontological change and to give rivers the legal tools necessary
to sort their nitty-gritty . The latter is seen, for example, in the time and effort expended in constructing Te Awa Tupua's functional, multi-
layered toolbox. 333 The former manifests in lawmakers' references to the otherworldly (as in India or New Zealand) that shifts the paradigm
from object to subject and beyond, such that a relational one-ness transcends, where "[we are] the River and the River is [us]." 334 Where this
leaves the nascent legal concept of the Yarra River/Birrarung, as a "living and integrated natural entity" 335 consciously deprived of legal
personhood, remains to be seen. It is interesting to note that the shift from legal personhood to living entity was considered by some to be a
controversial element in the Indian river cases. 336 In contrast, the Victorian government was quite comfortable with defining the Yarra
River/Birrarung as a living entity, but hesitated in taking the dive into full legal personhood - seeing this as a step to be negotiated later. 337
Perhaps to [*834] confer on a river the status of legal personhood, or to describe it merely as a living, integrated entity, may be a moot
conundrum whilst ever we lack what Mussawir and Parsley term the requisite "juridical art." 338
If we are unclear as to who is the legal person, then logically, the river's agent is likewise open for re-
conceptualization. Indeed, as the preceding discussion posits, is the technical intervention of principal and agent apt, a humanized go-
between that merely treads water? In both the Ganges and Yamuna and Glaciers cases, the court relied on the doctrine of parens patriae to
intervene on behalf of the rivers and to declare the Chief Secretary of the State of Uttarakhand, along with a number of other officials, the persons
in loco parentis. 339 However, this issue of agency proved problematic, as the State of Uttarakhand was unwilling to accept the responsibilities
associated with the role and appealed the judgment in the Supreme Court of India. 340 Even if the decision is ultimately upheld, this lack of
political will raises serious questions about the sustainability and enforceability of the judgment.
The Vilcabamba case, which opened this Article, is eerily silent in regard to the issue of agency on behalf of the river. The general constitutional
provision contained in article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution states that "all persons, communities, peoples and nations can call upon public
authorities to enforce the rights of nature." 341 When the action was advanced by two private individuals, their claim to agency was not
problematized, either by the defendant or the court. Nor were issues raised about potential conflicts of interest on the part of the plaintiff, not
necessarily in this particular case, but more in general where agency on behalf of Nature is vested upon any undescribed agent. This was not lost
to some international commentators, such as David Suzuki, who observed that the constitutional provision enabled the actions of the American
couple, describing it as the "kind of [] tool" available to citizens that makes it "incumbent on the developers to consider the ecological impact of
what they're doing[]." 342
Several years later, the legal discourse evolved: both the Constitutional Court of Colombia, in the Atrato case, and the New Zealand legislature
presented a more nuanced approach, with the development of specific agency to determine the future of rivers vested in corporate bodies,
comprised both of State and Indigenous representatives, in equal numbers. 343
Finally, the Yarra Act makes it clear that agency and representation are not commensurable - just because a river is recognized as a "living being"
does not [*835] necessarily mean that a river has legal rights. By stopping short of recognizing the Yarra River/Birrarung as a legal person, the
Act does not require that agency be issued on the river's behalf. The establishment of a new independent statutory body, the Birrarung Council -
to advise the responsible Minister, advocate for the Yarra River/Birrarung, and act as a "voice for the river" 344 - raises interesting questions
about who speaks for the river and under what authority. Furthermore, speaking for the river implies a particular type of
relationship that infers a listening to the river, otherwise, representatives may likely be speaking for themselves . If
"[we] are the River and the River is [us]," 345 then where does the river's presumed agent belong?
CP Answers
 Human Right to Nature---Perm
Permutation
Mara Tignino 18, Reader of International Law at the Faculty of Law and the Institute for Environmental Sciences
of the University of Geneva; and Laura E. Turley, PhD Candidate and Teaching Assistant at the Institute for
Environmental Sciences, University of Geneva,
The anthropocentric and eco-centric perspectives can go hand-in-hand . For example, in 2018, the Inter-American
Court of Human Rights recognized, for the first time in international law, an autonomous right to a healthy
environment under the American Convention. Moreover, the Global Pact for the Environment, an initiative launched
by France during the 2017 UN General Assembly, affirms this right in its first article.
This double movement — on the one hand, recognizing the human right to a healthy environment, and on the other,
the rights of nature — are both means to enhancing the legal protection of the environment and to “humanize” it.
Granting legal personality to transboundary rivers may reinforce their environmental protections and strengthen the
rights of riparian communities. National laws and jurisprudence could pave the way for new features in international
legal frameworks that will take into account the granting of rights to shared water resources.
 States---Preemption
Meh preemption card
Nicole Pallotta 21, Senior Policy Program Manager at the Animal Legal Defense Fund, 3/29/21, “Legal Rights
Recognized for Rivers in Florida and Quebec,” https://aldf.org/article/legal-rights-recognized-for-rivers-in-florida-
and-quebec/
Besides New Zealand, efforts to formally recognize rights of nature have been successful in countries like Bolivia, India, Ecuador, and
increasingly, the U.S. In 2019, the Klamath River in northern California was granted legal personhood by a Native
American tribe, making it the first U.S. river to receive this status. Though it was overturned by a federal judge in
2020 , the Lake Erie Bill of Rights — approved by voters in Toledo, Ohio in 2019 — was the first law in the U.S. to give
rights to a specific ecosystem.
The movement to recognize rights or legal personhood for features of the natural world has roots in both philosophy and practical concerns about
environmental degradation. In light of the failure of governments and existing environmental laws and regulations to
provide adequate safeguards against pollution and other harms, formal recognition of rights of nature is a relatively
new pathway to ensure protection for the environment — and the humans and nonhumans who live there.
The philosophical underpinnings of rights of nature can be traced to indigenous worldviews that view humans in relationship with, rather than
separate from, the natural world. This focus on interconnectedness and interdependence stands in contrast to the anthropocentric worldview that
conceives of humanity apart from, and in dominion over, nature and animals. A column in the National Review criticizing Orange County,
Florida’s ordinance (discussed below) derisively but correctly notes that it — and similar legislation — “dilutes human exceptionalism.”
Rights of nature laws are also grounded in an emerging paradigm shift away from viewing the environment and the
animals who live there as economic resources to be exploited by private interests and toward one of stewardship and
respect.
A WUFT special report notes the indigenous roots of the movement:
While it’s new to see these ideas debated in local-government chambers and at the state capitol , concepts of rights or
personhood for nature are not new. Rights of Nature have been adopted into Native American tribal treaties since at
least the mid-19th century. The philosophical foundations stretch much farther back to native traditions that understand
nature not as property or a resource but as an entity imbued with an innate right to exist and flourish. This ancient understanding has
taken on a new urgency in recent decades amid the ruin of major rivers and unprecedented rates of deforestation,
glacial melt and species extinctions.
While there has been a movement to protect the environment for decades — with the origin of the legal arm often traced to Christopher Stone’s
influential 1972 law review article, “Should Tress Have Standing?” 3 — the rights of nature approach has gained momentum in
recent years as a new tool to stave off environmental degradation where other approaches have failed .
Specific rights accorded to features of the environment typically center on freedom from pollution and other
ecological harms, as well as basic rights to exist, flourish, and, in the case of rivers, flow.
Just as the ideas underpinning the rights of nature movement are not new, neither is the concept that entities other than humans can have legal
personhood. Our legal system currently recognizes corporations, ships, and municipalities as persons under the law.
Quebec’s Magpie River
In February 2021, the 120-mile Magpie River (or Muteshekau-shipu in Innu) — renowned for whitewater rafting and site of a hydroelectric plant
— became the first natural feature to be granted legal rights in Canada. These rights came via twin resolutions by the local municipality of
Minganie and the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit, which granted the river legal personhood and nine distinct rights.
As reported in Canadian Lawyer:
The alliance to protect the Magpie river, in accordance with Innu customs and practices, granted the river the following rights: 1) the right to
flow; 2) the right to respect for its cycles; 3) the right for its natural evolution to be protected and preserved; 4) the right to maintain its natural
biodiversity; 5) the right to fulfil its essential functions within its ecosystem; 6) the right to maintain its integrity; 7) the right to be safe from
pollution; 8) the right to regenerate and be restored; and finally, 9) the right to sue.
The last right is an important one. Without a specific provision authorizing the river itself or citizens to sue to enforce these rights, standing
requirements can render both environmental and animal protection laws relatively toothless. 4
Legal standing, which requires that a party bringing a lawsuit show they have been personally harmed, can be a difficult and convoluted
procedural hurdle in the context of animal and environmental protection laws, leaving many underenforced. Granting entities of nature and
animals — or their advocates — legal standing is important to achieving just outcomes, as laws are only effective if they are enforced.
Therefore, most rights of nature laws include a provision granting legal standing to the natural feature itself, which can sue through a guardian or
other steward, or to citizens to enforce their own nature-related rights (for example, the right to clean drinking water, as in the Orange County
charter discussed below).
As mentioned above, indigenous communities have been leaders in the movement for legal recognition of rights of nature. Indeed a similar
success spearheaded by the Maori in New Zealand — the first of its kind in the world — was a source of inspiration for the Magpie River
resolutions. As reported by Canada’s National Observer:
Jean-Charles Piétacho, chief of the Innu Council of Ekuanitshit, said he was partially inspired after visiting the Whanganui River, which is sacred
to New Zealand’s Indigenous Maori. Hearing of their decades-long fight to have the river legally recognized by the New Zealand government
gave him hope that Canadians might do the same.
“We are not the owners of the river,” Piétacho said. “The Innu of Ekuanitshit have always been the protectors of the Nitassinan (ancestral
territory) and will continue to be so through the recognition of the rights of the Muteshekau-shipu River.”
The elevation of protection over ownership is key to both nature rights and animal rights legislation. A major concern driving the resolutions
recognizing the Magpie River as a legal person was the possibility of hydroelectric dams being built on the river in the future. Although public
utility Hydro-Quebec — which constructed a power plant on the Magpie River in 2007 — abandoned its initial plans to build six hydroelectric
dams on the river, advocates for the river are understandably wary of promises not codified into law. Development plans may change and again
threaten the river. The hope is that formal recognition of the river’s legal rights will ensure its protection into the future. 5
Florida’s Wekiva River and Econlockhatchee River
In November 2020, voters in Orange County, Florida, overwhelmingly approved a charter amendment recognizing natural rights for the Wekiva
River, Econlockhatchee River, and all waterways in the county. Spurred by concerns about deteriorating water quality, the charter grants all
county waterways the right to exist, to flow, to be protected against pollution, and to maintain a healthy ecosystem. 6
In addition to rights for the waters themselves, the Right to Clean Water Charter Amendment — also known as the Wekiva River and
Econlockhatchee River Bill of Rights (or WEBOR) — grants all citizens in the county a right to clean water. Importantly, it also empowers them
to ensure the law is upheld, by creating a “private right of action and standing for citizens of Orange County to enforce these rights and injunctive
remedies.” As discussed above, standing provisions like this are a crucial component of rights of nature legislation.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund formally endorsed the WEBOR, worked directly with Speak Up Wekiva, the Florida-based environmental
organization that ran the campaign, and sent out action alerts to Orange County voters. 7
Potential Challenges
It is uncertain how each of these developments will play out. But what is clear is that they are part of a larger — and growing — movement.
Writing about Quebec’s Magpie River, Canada’s National Observer notes:
It is unclear how this will affect attempts to build developments on the river, including dams, moving forward, as legal personhood for nature
doesn’t exist in Canadian law and could be challenged in court. Minganie, Innu council and several environmental groups — collectively called
the Alliance — hope international precedents set in New Zealand, Ecuador and several other countries will help pressure the Quebec government
to formally protect the river.
Florida’s ordinance may face a more direct challenge. Despite it being approved by nearly 90% of voters across the political spectrum, the
WEBOR faces potential preemption by the Clean Waterways Act, a state law passed in July 2020 — during the campaign to get the WEBOR on
the ballot — that contains a provision “prohibiting local governments from recognizing or granting certain legal rights to the natural
environment.”
Speak Up Wekiva, which spearheaded the ballot initiative, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state law on constitutional grounds. 8 The group
withdrew its lawsuit after the initiative passed, as director Chuck O’Neal explained to WMFE:
We filed this lawsuit during the summer to prevent anyone stepping forward and challenging, to throw the charter amendment off the ballot. Now
that it’s passed, we dismissed that lawsuit and are pursuing having other communities around the state pass similar ordinances that do not violate
the preemption clause. Our hope is that there is a groundswell of communities passing these right-to-clean-water ordinances and finally will
culminate in a statewide amendment that allows unequivocally communities to protect their waters, to establish rights-of-nature ordinances and
charter amendments.
It is unclear whether the state will challenge the WEBOR, but for now it is on the books and will remain so unless it is overturned in court.
Meanwhile, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is supporting a state-level bill that would remove the provision in the Clean Waterways Act that
prohibits local governments from enacting rights of nature ordinances.
According to the Tampa Bay Times, Speak Up Wekiva’s O’Neal said, “either way it will serve as a test case — of what could be or what could
have been. ‘The other 66 counties in the state can watch and see what happens here.’”
Conclusion
The movement to recognize rights of nature parallels efforts to elevate animals’ legal status beyond mere property. Both are responses to the
substantive and procedural inadequacies in existing environmental and animal protection laws, and to the flawed conception of nature and
animals as property or resources, whose value is determined only by their worth to humans. A more just legal and social construction perceives
nature and animals as entities with inherent value and their own rights to exist and flourish.
Rights of nature laws also help animals on a practical level. Securing legal protections via tangible and enforceable rights for features of the
environment, such as rivers and forests, protects the animals who depend on these complex ecosystems to survive as well as thrive.
In addition to supporting rights of nature efforts, the Animal Legal Defense Fund uses a wide variety of legislation and litigation to protect the
environment and the animals who live there. As one example, in 2018, we filed a groundbreaking lawsuit targeting government inaction on
climate change, employing the novel legal argument that as U.S. society becomes increasingly urbanized, the only place where
the constitutionally protected right to liberty truly exists is in our public lands. This legal theory highlights the
interconnectedness of certain human rights and animal rights. If the federal government is compelled to preserve
natural spaces via a human right to solitude, the habitats of wild animals will also be safeguarded .
***NEGATIVE***
Offcase
Advantage CP
 1NC---Advantage CP
Text: The United States federal government should:
 implement the Green New Deal, and;
 establish a human right to nature.

Green New Deal solves climate change better than degrowth AND boosts the economy---
mutually exclusive with degrowth
Robert Pollin 18, Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at
the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 2018, “DE-GROWTH VS A GREEN NEW DEAL,” New Left Review,
https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii112/articles/robert-pollin-de-growth-vs-a-green-new-deal
Job creation and a just transition
Countries at all levels of development will experience significant gains in job creation through clean-energy
investments relative to maintaining their existing fossil-fuel infrastructure . Our research at the Political Economy Research
Institute, cited below, has found this relationship to hold in Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Puerto Rico, South Africa, South Korea,
Spain and the United States. For a given level of spending, the percentage increases in job creation range from about 75 per cent in Brazil to 350
per cent in Indonesia. For India, as a specific example, we found that increasing clean-energy investments by 1.5 per cent of
gdp every year for twenty years will generate a net increase of about 10 million jobs per year. This is after factoring in job
losses resulting from retrenchments in the country’s fossil-fuel industries. There is no guarantee that the jobs being generated through clean-
energy investments will provide decent compensation to workers. Nor will they necessarily deliver improved workplace conditions, stronger
union representation or reduced employment discrimination against women, minorities or other under-represented groups. But the fact that new
investments will be occurring will create increased leverage for political mobilization across the board—for improving job quality, expanded
union coverage and more jobs for under-represented groups.
At the same time, workers and communities throughout the world whose livelihoods depend on oil, coal and natural
gas will lose out in the clean-energy transition. In order for the global clean energy project to succeed, it must
provide adequate transitional support for these workers and communities. Brian Callaci and I have developed a ‘just
transition’ policy framework in some detail for the us economy; and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Jeannette Wicks-Lim and I have developed
more detailed approaches around these issues for the us states of New York and Washington.footnote19 Considering the us as a whole, Callaci
and I estimate that a rough high-end cost for such a programme is a relatively modest $600 million per year, which is
less than 0.2 per cent of the 2018 us Federal budget. This level of funding would provide strong support in three
areas: income , retraining and relocation support for workers facing retrenchments; guaranteeing the pensions for
workers in the affected industries; and mounting effective transition programmes for what are now fossil-fuel
dependent communities. Comparable programmes will need to be implemented in other country settings.
Industrial policies and ownership forms
Increasing clean-energy investment by 1.5 per cent of global gdp will not happen without strong industrial policies . Even though, for
example, energy-efficiency investments generally pay for themselves over three to five years, and the average costs of producing renewable
energy are at rough parity with fossil fuels, it is still the case that some entities—public enterprises, private firms or a combination of both—will
have to advance the initial capital and bear the project risk. Depending on specific conditions within each country, industrial policies will be
needed to promote technical innovation and, more broadly, adaptations of existing clean-energy tech nology. Governments will
need to deploy a combination of policy instruments, including r esearch a n d d evelopment support, preferential tax
treatment for clean-energy investments and stable long-term market arrangements through government-procurement
contracts. Clean-energy industrial policies also need to include emission standards for utilities and transport, and
price regulation for both fossil fuel and clean energy. The widely discussed tool of pricing carbon emissions through
either a carbon tax or a cap on permissible emissions certainly needs to be a major component of the overall
industrial-policy mix. A carbon tax in particular can raise large amounts of revenue that can then be used to help finance clean-
energy investments as well as redistributing funds to lower-income households. Germany’s experience of financing is
valuable here, since it has been the most successful advanced economy in developing its clean-energy economy. According to the International
Energy Agency, a major factor in Germany’s success is that its state-owned development bank, kfw, ‘plays a crucial role by providing loans and
subsidies for investment in energy efficiency measures in buildings and industry, which have leveraged significant private funds.’footnote20 This
Germany development banking approach could be adapted throughout the world.
Another critical measure in supporting clean-energy investments at 1.5 per cent of annual global gdp will be to lower the profitability
requirements for these investments. This in turn raises the issue of ownership of newly created energy enterprises and assets. Specifically: how
might alternative ownership forms—including public ownership, community ownership and small-scale private companies—play a role in
advancing the clean-energy investment agenda? Throughout the world, the energy sector has long operated under a variety of ownership
structures, including public or municipal ownership, and forms of private cooperative ownership as well as private corporations. Indeed, in the oil
and natural-gas industry, publicly owned national companies control approximately 90 per cent of the world’s reserves and 75 per cent of
production, as well as many of the oil and gas infrastructure systems. These national corporations include Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, China
National Petroleum Corporation, the National Iranian Oil Company, Petroleos de Venezuela, Petrobras in Brazil and Petronas in Malaysia. There
is no evidence to suggest that these publicly owned companies are likely to be more supportive of a clean-energy transition than the private
corporations. National development projects, lucrative careers and political power all depend on continuing the flow of fossil-fuel revenues. In
and of itself, public ownership is not a solution.
Clean-energy investments will nevertheless create major new opportunities for alternative ownership forms, including various combinations of
smaller-scale public, private and cooperative ownership. For example, community-based wind farms have been highly successful for nearly two
decades in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the uk. A major reason for their success is that they operate with lower profit requirements than
large-scale private corporations. On this point, my Green New Deal perspective converges with positions supported by degrowth proponents. For
example, Juliet Schor describes in True Wealth (2011) what she calls ‘a prima facie case that the emerging green sector will be powered by small
and medium-size firms, with their agility, dynamism and entrepreneurial determination’. Over time, Schor writes, ‘these entities can become a
sizeable sector of low-impact enterprises, which form the basis of animated local communities and provide livelihood on a wide scale.’footnote
It is one thing to conclude that all countries—or at least those countries with either large gdps or populations—should invest about 1.5 per cent of
gdp per year in energy efficiency and clean renewable investments. But it is another matter to determine what standard of fairness should be
applied in allocating the costs of such investments among the various people, countries and regions of the globe. What would be a fair procedure?
If the global clean-energy investment project sketched here is successful, average per capita co2 emissions will fall within twenty years from its
current level of 4.6 tons to 2.3 tons. This corresponds to a fall in total emissions from 32 to 20 billion tons. Still, at the end of this 20-year
investment cycle, average us emissions will be 5.8 tons per capita, nearly three times the averages for China and the world as a whole, and five
times the average for India. At a basic level, this is unfair—particularly given that, over the past century of the fossil-fuel era, us emissions have
exceeded those in India and China combined by around 400 per cent. As a standard of fairness, one could, with good reason, insist that the United
States and other rich countries be required to bring down per capita co2 emissions to the same level as low-income countries. We could also insist
that high-income people—regardless of their countries of residence—be permitted to produce no more co2 emissions than anyone else.
There is a solid ethical case for such measures. But there is absolutely no chance that they will be implemented. Given the climate-stabilization
imperative facing the global economy, we do not have the luxury to waste time on huge global efforts fighting for unattainable goals. Consider
the us case: on grounds of both ethics and realism, it will be much more constructive to require that, in addition to bringing its own emissions
down to about 6 tons per capita within twenty years, the
us should also provide large-scale assistance to other countries in
financing and bringing to scale their own transformative clean-energy projects.
Problems with degrowth
As I emphasized at the outset, degrowth proponents have made valuable contributions in addressing many of the untenable features of economic
growth. But
on the specific issue of climate change, degrowth does not provide anything like a viable stabilization
framework . Consider some very simple arithmetic. Following the ipcc, we know that global co2 emissions need to fall from their current level
of 32 billion tons to 20 billion tons within twenty years. If we assume that, following a degrowth agenda, global gdp contracts by 10 per cent over
the next two decades, that would entail a reduction of global gdp four times greater than during the 2007–09 financial crisis and Great Recession.
In terms of co2 emissions, the net effect of this 10 per cent gdp contraction, considered on its own, would be to push emissions down by precisely
10 per cent—that is, from 32 to 29 billion tons. It would not come close to bringing emissions down to 20 billion tons by 2040.
Clearly then, even under a degrowth scenario, the overwhelming factor pushing emissions down will not be a
contraction of overall gdp but massive growth in energy efficiency and clean renewable-energy investments—
which, for accounting purposes, will contribute towards increasing gdp —along with similarly dramatic cuts in fossil-fuel production
and consumption, which will register as reducing gdp. Moreover, the immediate effect of any global gdp contraction would be
huge job losses and declining living standards for working people and the poor. During the Great Recession, global
unemployment rose by over 30 million. I have not seen a convincing argument from a degrowth advocate as to how we could avoid a severe rise
in mass unemployment if gdp were to fall by twice as much.
These fundamental problems with degrowth are illustrated by the case of Japan, which has been a slow-growing economy for a generation now,
even while maintaining high per capita incomes. Herman Daly himself describes Japan as being ‘halfway to becoming a steady-state economy
already, whether they call it that or not.’footnote22 Daly is referring to the fact that, between 1996 and 2015, gdp growth in Japan averaged an
anemic 0.7 per cent per year. This compares with an average Japanese growth rate of 4.8 per cent per year for the 30-year period 1966 to 1995.
Nevertheless, as of 2017, Japan remained in the ranks of the large, upper-income economies, with average gdp per capita at about $40,000. Yet
despite the fact that Japan has been close to a no-growth economy for twenty years, its co2 emissions remain among the highest in the world, at
9.5 tons per capita. This is 40 per cent below the figure for the United States, but it is four times higher than the average global level of 2.5 tons
per capita that must be achieved if global emissions are to drop by 40 per cent by 2040. Moreover, Japan’s per capita emissions have not fallen at
all since the mid-1990s. The reason is straightforward: as of 2015, 92 per cent of Japan’s total energy consumption comes
from burning oil, coal and natural gas.
Thus, despite ‘being halfway to becoming a steady-state economy’, Japan has accomplished virtually nothing in
advancing a viable climate-stabilization path. The only way it will make progress is to replace its existing, predominantly fossil-fuel
energy system with a clean-energy infrastructure. At present, hydro power supplies 5 per cent of Japan’s total energy needs, and other renewable
sources only 3 per cent. Overall then, like all large economies—whether they are growing rapidly or not at all—Japan needs to embrace the
Green New Deal.
A green great depression?
The majority of degrowth proponents pay almost no attention to emission levels. Thus the introduction to a special issue of Ecological Economics
focused on degrowth, edited by leading contemporary degrowthers Giorgos Kallis, Christian Kerschner and Joan Martinez-Alier, devoted
precisely one paragraph to the issue. This described a proposal for ‘cap-and-share’ which, the authors explained, would involve placing ‘a
declining annual global cap on the tonnage of co2 emitted by fossil fuels’ and ‘allocating a large part of each year’s tonnage to everyone in the
world on an equal per capita basis’.footnote23 Kallis, Kerschner and Martinez-Alier recognize that the political economy of such a proposal
would be highly complex; but they do not take it upon themselves to examine any of these complexities. In the same issue of Ecological
Economics Peter Victor, author of Managing without Growth (2008), did develop a series of models for evaluating the relationship between
economic growth and co2 emissions for the Canadian economy. Under Victor’s baseline scenario, Canadian gdp would grow by an average of 2.3
per cent between 2005 and 2035, resulting in a doubling of per capita gdp, while co2 emissions would rise by 77 per cent. Victor then presented
both low-growth and degrowth scenarios for the same period. He reports that, under degrowth, greenhouse-gas emissions would fall by 88 per
cent, relative to the 2035 ‘business-as-usual’ growth scenario. But he also concludes that Canada’s per capita gdp under degrowth would fall to
26 per cent of the business-as-usual scenario by 2035.footnote
Victor does not flesh out his results with actual data on the Canadian economy, but it is illuminating to do so. In 2005, Canada’s per capita gdp
was $53,336 (expressed in 2018 Canadian dollars). Thus, under the business-as-usual scenario, per capita gdp rises to about $107,000 as of 2035.
Alternatively, under the degrowth scenario, Canada’s per capita gdp in 2035 would plummet to $28,000. This per capita gdp level for 2035 is
48 per cent below Canada’s actual per capita gdp for 2005. In other words, under Victor’s degrowth scenario, the emissions reduction achieved
over a 30-year period would be only modestly greater than what would be achieved under a clean-energy investment programme at 1.5 per cent
of annual gdp, but with this fundamental difference: under the clean-energy investment project, average incomes would roughly double, while
under degrowth, average incomes would experience a historically unprecedented collapse. Victor doesn’t ask whether an economic depression of
this magnitude under degrowth, in Canada or elsewhere, is either economically or politically viable. He doesn’t examine what impact this loss
of gdp would have in funding for health care, education or, for that matter, environmental protection . Nor does he
explain what policy tools would be deployed to force Canada’s gdp to halve within thirty years. Victor’s article is further remarkable in that, in an
analysis focused on the relationship between economic growth and climate change, it includes only one brief mention of renewable energy and no
reference whatsoever to energy efficiency.
Perhaps the most influential contemporary discussion on the economics of climate change and degrowth is Tim Jackson’s Prosperity without
Growth.footnote25 Jackson begins by emphasizing that a viable climate-stabilization path requires absolute decoupling between growth and
emissions on a global scale, not merely relative decoupling. This point is indisputable. Jackson then reviews data for 1965–2015, showing that
absolute decoupling has not occurred either at a global level or among, respectively, low-, middle- or high-income countries. Again, there is no
disputing this evidence—although, as noted above, several individual countries did achieve absolute decoupling between gdp growth and co2
emissions for 2000–14. In fact, there are only two major issues to debate with Jackson. The first is whether absolute decoupling is a realistic
possibility, moving forward. Jackson is dubious, writing that ‘the evidence that decoupling offers a coherent escape from the dilemma of growth
is, ultimately, far from convincing. The speed at which resource and emissions efficiencies have to improve if we are going to meet carbon targets
are at best heroic, if the economy is growing relentlessly.’footnote26
But is it really the case that absolute decoupling requires ‘heroic’ advances in building a clean-energy economy? It is true that absolute
decoupling on a global scale is a highly challenging project. But we can be fairly precise in measuring the
magnitude of the challenge. As discussed above, it will require an investment level in clean renewables and energy
efficiency at about 1.5–2 per cent of global gdp annually. This amounts to about $1 trillion at today’s global
economy level and $1.5 trillion average over the next twenty years. These are large but realistic investment goals
which could be embraced by economies at all levels of development , in every region of the globe. One reason why this is
a realistic project is that it would support rising average living standards and expanding job opportunities, in low-
income countries in particular. For nearly forty years now, the gains from economic growth have persistently favoured the rich.
Nevertheless, the prospects for reversing inequality in all countries will be far greater when the overall economy is growing than when the rich
are fighting everyone else for shares of a shrinking pie. How sanguine, for example, would we expect affluent Canadians to be over the prospect
of their incomes being cut by half or more in absolute dollars over the next thirty years? In political terms , the attempt to implement a
degrowth agenda would render the global clean-energy project utterly unrealistic .
The second issue to raise with Jackson is still more to the point: does degrowth offer a viable alternative to absolute decoupling
as a climate-stabilization project? As we have seen, the answer is ‘No.’ Jackson himself provides no substantive discussion to
demonstrate otherwise. Indeed, on the issue of climate stabilization, Jackson offers no basis for disputing Herman Daly’s charactization of
degrowth as a slogan in search of a programme. Overall, then, if the left is serious about mounting a viable, global, climate-
stabilization project, it should not be losing time seeking to build an all-purpose, broad-brush degrowth movement—
which, for the reasons outlined, cannot succeed in actually stabilizing the climate . This is even more emphatically
the case when a fair and workable approach to climate stabilization lies right before us, by way of the Green
New Deal .

A Human rights framework protects the environment without rampant economic

destruction
Wesley J. Smith 18, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, 8/6/18, “The
return of nature worship,” https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-28-number-3/return-nature-worship
Anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism provide the movement’s propellant. Nature rights would make us trustees, rather
than owners, of property. And here the truth begins to shine. The rights of nature is a Marxist concept, intended to destroy free markets ,
thwart capitalistic enterprise , shrink economies , reduce wealth and depress living standards while elevating the
natural world to moral equivalence with human beings.
Why not “nature rights”?
Which brings us to the core reasons why granting
rights to nature would be not only profoundly subversive of Western values but also
highly destructive to human thriving.
Nature rights violates human exceptionalism :
Human exceptionalism, the essential insight undergirding Western civilization, has come under direct assault by the nature rights movement. But
what does that term mean? First, human beings have equal and inherent moral value simply and merely because we are human – a worth that
exceeds that of all other life forms – a concept known as the sanctity of life ethic.
But that description doesn’t tell the whole story. Human exceptionalism also appeals to our exclusive capacity for moral
agency. Only human beings have duties – to ourselves, each other and our posterity – to be responsible stewards of
the environment and to leave a verdant world to those who come after us. Recognizing our exceptional inherent
nature, we understand that the world is not ours to turn into a cesspool. Or to put it another way, if being human – in
and of itself – isn’t what imposes the obligation on us to be environmentally responsible, what does?
Nature rights activists see it differently. To them, the traditional hierarchy of life is a destructive concept. In their
view, we are no more important than any other species or life form and, it increasingly seems, even non-animate
features of the natural world. Or, to put it more colloquially, nature rights ideology seeks to demote us from the
exceptional species to just another animal in the forest .
Nature rights devalues the vibrancy of rights:
University of Michigan professor of philosophy Carl Cohen writes: “A right … is a valid claim, or potential claim, that may be made by a moral
agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim” (emphasis added). This means that for nature to possess rights, it
must also be capable of assuming concomitant duties or responsibilities toward others, a farcical notion.
Beyond that, granting rights to nature means that everything is potentially a rights-bearer. If everything has rights, one could say that nothing
really does. At best, nature rights would devalue the concept in much the same way that wild inflation destroys the worth of currency. Indeed, if a
squirrel or mushroom and all other earthly entities somehow possess rights, the vibrancy of rights withers.
Nature rights would cause profound harm to human thriving :
Granting rights to nature would bring economic growth to a screeching halt by empowering the most committed and
radical environmentalists – granted legal standing to act on “nature’s” behalf – to impose their extreme views of
proper environmental stewardship through the buzz saw of unending litigation. Backed by well-funded
environmentalist organizations and their lawyers, any and all large-scale economic or development projects – from
oil drilling, to housing developments, to mining, to farming, to renewable energy projects, such as electricity-
generating windmills that kill countless birds – could face years of harassing lawsuits and extorted financial
settlements. At the very least, liability insurance for such endeavors would become prohibitively costly – indeed, if underwriters permitted
policies to be issued for such projects at all. Of course, that is the whole point.
Nature rights would be incapable of nuanced enforcement :
Christian and Jewish dogma hold that God assigned us the responsibility to be good stewards of his earth. But we are also commanded to thrive
off the bounties of nature. Such a view allows the natural world to be harnessed for human benefit mediated by our responsibilities to engage in
proper environmental policies and practices.
Granting rights to nature would shatter this nuanced approach to environmental husbandry . Take as one quick example,
the Endangered Species Act. The law provides that if an identified species becomes endangered, threatening human activity will be prevented.
But that doesn’t end the matter. Once populations of the endangered species return to healthy levels – the point of the law – its designation will be
changed, alleviating or removing the prior restraints on human activity.
In contrast, nature
rights would have all the nuance of handcuffs that could never be unlocked . Under such a regime,
nuanced husbandry practices would yield to the “right” of “nature” to “exist and persist.” The human benefit from
our use of the natural world would, at most, receive mere equal consideration to the impacted aspect of nature’s
rights – and this would be true no matter how dynamic and otherwise thriving the potentially impacted aspects of
nature might be.
Nature rights is unnecessary to proper environmental protection:
We can provide robust safeguards for the environment without the subversion of granting rights outside the human
realm. Yellowstone National Park, for example, is one of the great wonders of the world. It has been splendidly protected since 1872, when
made a national park, and in a manner that has both protected its pristine beauty and allowed people to enjoy its incredible marvels – without
declaring Old Faithful geyser a “person” entitled to enforceable rights.
Enough. When we dig to the intellectual core of the movement, we find that the controversy isn’t about “rights” at all. Rather, we are having an
epochal debate about the scope, nature and extent of our responsibilities toward the natural world. These obligations, it is important to add, are
predicated solely on our being human. In this sense, the nature rights controversy and the desire of some to maximally sacrifice our own welfare
to “save the planet” is ironic proof of the very human exceptionalism that nature rights environmentalists reject.
It’s time to splash some icy river water on our faces: The threat of nature rights can’t be ignored any longer. Unless we act to ensure that
only
human beings and our associations and enterprises are the proper subjects of rights and legal standing in courts of
law, we face a darker and less prosperous human future .
 2NC---S/NB---Integration
Only the counterplan solves the environment:

The aff’s blunt legal paradigm decimates nuanced environmental husbandry

Wesley J. Smith 18, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, 8/6/18, “The
return of nature worship,” https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-28-number-3/return-nature-worship
Nature rights would be incapable of nuanced enforcement :
Christian and Jewish dogma hold that God assigned us the responsibility to be good stewards of his earth. But we are also commanded to thrive
off the bounties of nature. Such a view allows the natural world to be harnessed for human benefit mediated by our responsibilities to engage in
proper environmental policies and practices.
Granting rights to nature would shatter this nuanced approach to environmental husbandry . Take as one quick example,
the Endangered Species Act. The law provides that if an identified species becomes endangered, threatening human activity will be prevented.
But that doesn’t end the matter. Once populations of the endangered species return to healthy levels – the point of the law – its designation will be
changed, alleviating or removing the prior restraints on human activity.
In contrast, nature
rights would have all the nuance of handcuffs that could never be unlocked . Under such a regime,
nuanced husbandry practices would yield to the “right” of “nature” to “exist and persist.” The human benefit from
our use of the natural world would, at most , receive mere equal consideration to the impacted aspect of nature’s
rights – and this would be true no matter how dynamic and otherwise thriving the potentially impacted aspects of
nature might be.

Nuanced integration of nature into human spaces is key to environmental

protection---“pristine nature” can’t be preserved
Michelle Marvier 12, professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa Clara
University, et al., 2/1/12, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-
2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene
Ironically, conservation is losing the war to protect nature despite winning one of its hardest fought battles -- the fight to create parks, game
preserves, and wilderness areas. Even
as we are losing species and wild places at an accelerating rate , the worldwide
number of protected areas has risen dramatically , from under 10,000 in 1950 to over 100,000 by 2009.4 Around the world, nations
have set aside beautiful, biodiverse areas where human development is restricted. By some estimates, 13 percent of the
world's land mass is protected, an area larger than all of South America.5
But while conservation has historically been locally driven -- focused on saving specific places such as Yosemite National Park and the Grand
Canyon, or on managing very limited ecological systems like watersheds and forests -- its more recent ambitions have become almost fantastical.
For example, is halting deforestation in the Amazon, an area nearly the size of the continental U nited S tates, feasible? Is
it even necessary? Putting a boundary around Yosemite Valley is not the same as attempting to do so around the Amazon. Just as the United
States was dammed, logged, and crisscrossed by roads, it is likely that much of the Amazon will be as well.
Only with the rapid transformation of the developing world -- from rural or pastoral cultures to urban and industrial nations -- and the
unmistakable domestication of our planet that has resulted has the paradox at the heart of contemporary conservation become apparent. We
may protect places of particular beauty or those places with large numbers of species , but even as we do, the pace of
destruction will likely continue to accelerate . Whether or not the developing world sets aside a large percentage of its landscapes as
parks or wilderness over the next hundred years, what is clear is that those protected areas will remain islands of "pristine nature"
in a sea of profound human transformations to the landscape through logging, agriculture, mining, damming, and
urbanization.
In the face of these realities, 21st century conservation is changing. Conservationists have taken steps to become more "people friendly" and to
attend more seriously to working landscapes. Conservation will likely continue to create parks and wilderness areas, but that will be just one part
of the field's larger goals. The bigger questions for 21st century conservation regard what we will do with the rest of it -- the
working landscapes , the urban ecosystems , the fisheries and tree plantations , the vast swaths of agricultural monocultures, and
the growing expanses of marginal agricultural lands and second growth forests that, as agriculture and forestry become more
productive and intensive, are already returning to something that may not be wilderness, but is of conservation value, nonetheless.
In answering these questions, conservation cannot promise a return to pristine, prehuman landscapes. Humankind has
already profoundly transformed the planet and will continue to do so.6 What conservation could promise instead is a
new vision of a planet in which nature -- forests, wetlands, diverse species, and other ancient ecosystems -- exists amid a wide
variety of modern, human landscapes. For this to happen, conservationists will have to jettison their idealized notions of
nature , parks, and wilderness -- ideas that have never been supported by good conservation science -- and forge a more optimistic,
human-friendly vision .
 2NC---S---R2N
Human right to nature solves better and avoids job loss
Elia Apostolopoulou 19, Lecturer, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, 4/23/19, “The “right to
nature” in the Anthropocene: A response to Chapron, Epstein and López-Bao,” Science, Vol. 363, No. 6434, DOI:
10.1126/science.aav5601
Chapron, Epstein, and López-Bao in their insight entitled “a rights revolution for nature” argue for the attribution of legal rights to
nature. On the question of how nature may claim its rights, they propose that “guardians with appropriate expertise”
could be appointed as nature’s representatives. The authors also argue that natural entities could become rights holders based on
“ecologically informed criteria”. They do not , however, specify who and how will decide who are the appropriate
guardian(s) of nature, who will define the proper criteria , and who will ensure that these guardians actually defend
the rights of nature.
Although we welcome Chapron’s et al. call for a radical rethinking of nature-society relationships, we believe that their approach runs the
risk of reproducing the exact same conundrums that a rights-based approach to nature wishes to address. We base this
claim on our belief that as long as the crucial issue of agency – i.e. who should defend and speak for nature- remains
unaddressed it is highly unlikely to reverse the root causes of environmental degradation.
In response to this, we put forward the concept of the “right to nature” (1), as people’s right to command and control
human-environment relations based on social needs. Several communities across the globe currently experience the
economic, social, public health and cultural impacts of environmental degradation (2) but have been unable to defend
their rights because existing laws and policies that may protect particular species or habitats, do not protect people’s
relationships to non-human nature. The right to nature, as a new human right for the Anthropocene, is an
environmental justice approach that can refocus the discussion on who are the agents of the current destruction of
nature , while empowering the most vulnerable to live, work , enjoy, and conserve their surrounding environment.
 2NC---S---Waterways
Green new deal preserves waterways
Marc Yaggi 19, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance, the largest and fastest-growing nonprofit solely
focused on clean water, 3/7/19, “The Green New Deal: What Does it Mean for Water?”
https://waterkeeper.org/news/green-new-deal-water/
The GND is modeled after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression and bring
economic stability back to Americans. The proposed 10-year plan aims to achieve “ net-zero greenhouse gas emissions ” by
moving America to 100 percent clean and renewable energy while creating jobs and “economic prosperity for all.”
The GND resolution’s goals would be achieved by a number of projects such as building climate change-resilient
infrastructure; meeting 100 percent of our energy needs from clean, renewable power ; building a smart grid; overhauling our
food systems ; expanding electric vehicle manufacturing; building high-speed rail systems; increasing forested areas ; and
more . The 14 aspiring infrastructure and industrial projects identified in the resolution would, in turn, create a plethora of green jobs.
So, what does this all mean for the world’s waters?
Aside from the fact that clean water is included in the GND’s goals, the answer to this question is simple when you realize that
climate change and water are interconnected . Climate change is altering the chemistry of our oceans, the character
of our coastlines, and the timing and intensity of rain and snow , wreaking havoc across the planet. The impacts can be
understood by hearing from the Waterkeepers we work with both in the United States and around the world:
Our Waterkeepers in Louisiana have seen the government remove more than 40 names from places on maps because those places no longer exist,
except for in the memories of coastal residents who saw the land disappear.
In Ladakh, India, our Himalayan Glacier Waterkeeper will tell you that over the past decade things have turned upside down. It snows when it
shouldn’t and it doesn’t rain when it should. Some communities have relocated due to drought while others are forced to rebuild after devastating
floods.
In Mongolia, our Tuul River Waterkeeper reports how drought is forcing more and more people to migrate from the countryside into cities that
aren’t equipped to handle the population growth.
Puget Soundkeeper in Seattle sees ocean acidification threatening a $270 million year shellfish industry.
Our Waterkeepers in the Bahamas know there is a real risk that they will lose a majority of their land to sea level rise this century. They worry for
the security of their culture, their heritage, and their existence.
Those are just a few examples of many that demonstrate how climate change and water are intertwined. The GND reflects that access to and
availability of clean water is waning as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, whether it be through climate change or waterways polluted by
fossil fuels, and that low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous communities are disproportionately affected. The resolution
would protect public lands , waters , and oceans and ensure “eminent domain is not abused,” while restoring
waterways and expanding sustainable farming and soil practices on agricultural land.
The framework for the G reen N ew D eal is ambitious; it is a gigantic step toward combating climate change. While the current proposal is
a non-binding resolution, it sends a powerful message that the United States needs to take bold, decisive action now to mitigate the climate crisis
and create a better future for all. And at the end of the day, a Green New Deal also is a Blue New Deal for our waters.
 2NC---S---International Emissions
Green new deal spreads cheap renewable energy globally---solves warming
Jason Bordoff 21, co-founding dean of the Columbia Climate School, the founding director of the Center on
Global Energy Policy at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affair, 3/15/21, “The Time for a
Green Industrial Policy Is Now,” https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/03/15/biden-climate-energy-transition-green-new-
deal-industrial-policy/
Furman’s view is correct if the goal is to cut emissions in the United States as fast as possible. But what if the goal is to decarbonize the
entire world’s emissions as fast as possible? What if the goal is to show climate leadership by helping all nations
achieve net-zero emissions? In that case, the measure of U.S. climate policy should be less about how fast it brings
down domestic emissions, only 15 percent of the world’s annual total, than about how fast it brings down the cost
of clean technologies needed for the rest of the world to decarbonize .
Some clean energy technologies, such as solar and wind power or electric vehicles, are fairly cost competitive today relative to their carbon-
intensive counterparts. Yet as Bill Gates explained in his new book, the cost difference between carbon-emitting and carbon-free production—
what he calls the “green premium”—remains exceptionally high for many sectors and technologies, such as cement and steel, air travel and
shipping, long-duration energy storage to cope with the intermittency of renewable energy, and steady sources of electricity like nuclear power or
natural gas with carbon capture and storage. These technologies may not be needed to make a large dent in emissions by 2030, but they will
absolutely be needed to achieve net-zero emissions by mid-21st century. Consider that the largest source of global greenhouse gas
emissions comes from what Gates calls “making things,” such as the production of cement, steel, and plastics—
sectors that will almost certainly need nascent technologies to decarbonize.
To promote domestic industries developing technologies for such hard-to-decarbonize sectors, policies should boost demand for such products,
spur their deployment, and lower production costs. As first U.S. Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton famously explained: “In matters of
industry, human enterprise ought, doubtless, to be left free in the main, not fettered by too much regulation; but practical politicians know that it
may be beneficially stimulated by prudent aids and encouragements on the part of the Government.”
What might such a clean energy industrial policy look like? Dramatically increasing clean energy research and development funding can
accelerate needed innovation. Subsidies can lower the cost of clean energy technologies, and a carbon price can
increase the cost of carbon-intensive alternatives. The government can use its procurement power to create more
demand or reduce risk for developers by signing long-term energy purchase agreements or guaranteeing them a
certain price by paying the difference to prevailing market prices (the “contract for difference” model used in the
United Kingdom). Low-cost loans and loan guarantees can support projects by lowering the cost of capital and the barriers to accessing
private capital because of perceived technological risk. Infrastructure investment and streamlined permitting can boost demand and overcome
chicken-and-egg problems. For example, there may be little incentive to develop zero-carbon hydrogen or install carbon-capture technology on
power plants if there are no pipelines to transport fuel or carbon dioxide—but firms will not build the infrastructure until the new technology is
commercialized. Trade and economic policy can align U.S. competitiveness with a global clean energy transition, such as through export finance
to help clean energy companies compete with Chinese and other competitors in emerging markets. Some argue industrial policy should also
protect U.S. firms through import tariffs or “Buy America” provisions, but such protectionist tools risk backfiring if retaliatory measures by other
countries close export markets to these new domestic industries.
There are three reasons a U.S. clean energy industrial policy makes particular sense today. First, the technologies needed for sectors
that are hard to decarbonize also offer many of the biggest economic opportunities for growth . According to the
International Energy Agency, almost half of the cumulative emission reductions needed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 come from
technologies that are not yet commercially available. China already dominates the market for solar panels and batteries, a result of government
decisions taken more than a decade ago, so it would be very difficult for the United States to displace China in these technologies, which China
already produces very cheaply. By contrast, the United States is well-positioned to build a strong industrial base to produce and export zero-
carbon energy in the form of hydrogen and ammonia, fuel cells to produce zero-carbon electricity, or carbon-capture and removal technologies.
Second, these technologies will be needed to decarbonize globally, and by bringing the cost of these technologies down
through government investments, Washington can help accelerate their deployment outside the United States as well.
In this way, a U.S. industrial policy to promote clean energy can serve not as protectionism but as one of the country’s greatest contributions to
global efforts to combat climate change. In the future, roughly 95 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions will come from outside the United
States. Yet developing market countries, which are poorer and use much less energy per capita than developed
countries do, will not adopt low-carbon solutions unless they are affordable.
 2NC---AT: PDB/Links to NB
Human rights framework is necessary to environmentally sustainable growth---the plan is
a blunt instrument
Micheline Ishay 20, Distinguished Professor of International Studies and Human Rights at the Josef Korbel
School of International Studies and University of Denver, April 2020, “Micheline Ishay Comments,” American
Journal of Public Health, Vol. 110, No. 4, p. 460-461
In their editorial, Chilton and Jones (p. 459) alert us to a worldwide public health emergency associated with a degrading
ecosystem that fosters violence and undermines the less privileged . Their clarion call is warranted but not always heard.
How do we get out of this situation? Chilton and Jones recommend elevating the rights of nature as a more viable
framework than human rights for addressing the crisis of public health on the basis of the claim that human rights
fail to include concerns for ecosystems and the biosphere. In addition, beyond legal ordinances, they call for a worldwide
collaboration and the reclamation of all that is public to promote a broader public health agenda.
Chilton and Jones's environmental concerns are real, as public health demands environmental protection. Their understanding of human rights,
however, is narrow with respect to ecological issues. Replaying an old debate between biocentric (viewed as rights of nature)
and anthropocentric (understood as human rights) approaches, they pledge allegiance to the former at the expense of
the latter. Between these two stylized poles, they overlook that the human rights movement and legal instruments
have long incorporated competing yet inalienable rights, including the right to health, the right to work, and the right
to cleaner and sustainable environments.
Indeed, the language of human rights remained for decades a rationale for critical global environmental efforts
responsive to the crisis of international public health. Revised international labor standards such as the 1989 Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention focused on the specific social, cultural, economic, and environmental conditions of indigenous workers. From the 1992
environmental conference held in Rio and the 1997 Kyoto agreement to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, a human rights framework
was reaffirmed to promote the rights of people disproportionately affected by climate change.
Chilton and Jones insist on rights of nature as more inclusive than human rights. But wouldn't extending rights to nature also
threaten human rights? Hasn't historical progress toward human rights depended in part on constraining the threats
posed by nature—from predation by other species to controlling floods, a spectrum of dangers to which the wretched
of the earth remain exposed? Should nature be entrusted with an unconditional right, sui generis, unregulated by a human rights compass?
In 1948, the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights understood rights as universal, inalienable, and indivisible. That principle
leads directly to affirming that the human right to health is universal, inalienable, and indivisibly connected with the right to a clean and
sustainable environment. In that sense, the specific rights accorded to nature (sustainable ecosystems, clean air and water) are derived from their
necessity for sustaining universal human rights to life and health.
True, the consequences of heedless human interference with nature have been neglected at great cost to human rights. "Let us not flatter ourselves
overmuch on account of our human conquests over nature," warned Frederick Engels prophetically close to two centuries ago. "For each such
conquest takes its revenge on us."[ 1](pp179–180) But one could add, if nature was accorded inalienable rights, should a
whimsical nature have the last word? Would it be guided by the sword? Providence? The invisible hand? Or should
it be regulated by strengthened national and international institutions? Legal codifications may not be sufficient, Chilton and
Jones correctly remind us, but they remain an important moral barometer for political action. The public has a role, as they point out. But the
public, one should add, can be confused if misinformed and disorganized.
Chilton and Jones are correct that the health hazards stemming from environmental degradation and human-caused
climate change need immediate response. Yet political support for that effort will emerge from wider support for
universal human rights to life, health, and sustainable economic development , as well as civil rights, rather than
from some transcendent right belonging to nature itself. It is only on this basis that we can distinguish assaults on
the natural world that endanger our basic rights from constraints on nature that advance those rights.
States CP
 1NC---States CP
The fifty United States should designate rivers as legal persons, implemented through a co-
management framework.

Solves and spills up

ELC 20 – Earth Law Center, collaboration with; The Cyrus R. Vance Center for International Justice, and
International Rivers; 2020, “Rights of Rivers,” https://3waryu2g9363hdvii1ci666p-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/86/2020/09/Right-of-Rivers-Report-V3-Digital-compressed.pdf
Thus far , R ights o f N ature provisions in the U nited S tates—normally framed as rights of standing—have had little impact. No
body of nature has successfully asserted its right to sue. However , it should be noted that rights are gaining traction in Native American law,
and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has not completely ruled out the future assertion of rights in federal court. Because Native American law
has greater sovereignty than local government ordinances, Native American statutes may have a stronger chance of withstanding lawsuits by
extraction corporations. Furthermore, the example of Nottingham, New Hampshire suggests that Rights of Nature may have
moral and political force as part of a wider campaign. Weaker Rights of Nature laws, such as Santa Monica’s sustainability
ordinance, are also important: They contain fewer environmental protections, but are more likely to withstand
lawsuits and could drive changes in legal culture over time. Finally , state constitutions protecting environmental
rights other than Rights of Nature appear to have been more effective.283
{Footnote 283 Begins} See e.g. Robinson Twp. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 623 Pa. 564 (2013) concerning environmental rights
contained in the State Constitution of Pennsylvania. For further discussion of the rights of nature in Pennsylvania , see Erin West, Could
the Ohio River have rights? A moment to grant rights to the environment tests the power of local control, Environment Health News (Feb. 4,
2020). https://www.ehn.org/ohio-river-naturerights-2645014867.html?rebelltitem=4#rebelltitem4 {Footnote 283 Ends}
 2NC---S---OV
The counterplan establishes the same right at the state-level---no aff evidence assumes how
massive the counterplan’s legal revolution is.
Spills up---it’s a moral and political force that permeates legal culture---that’s ELC

Policy leadership and bargaining guarantee federal entrenchment

Barry G. Rabe 08, Professor of Public Policy, Professor of Environmental Policy, Professor of Political Science,
Professor of the Environment, and Director of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of
Michigan. “States on steroids: the intergovernmental odyssey of American climate policy” The Review of Policy
Research. Gale Academic One File.
The recent trend toward state-driven policy is not unprecedented in American federalism. In many instances , early state policy
engagement has provided models that were ultimately embraced as national policy by the federal government. This
has been evident in a range of social policy domains, including health care and education, and can either result in federal preemption that
obliterates earlier state roles or a more collaborative system of shared governance (Manna, 2006; Teske, 2004). In some instances, states
have
taken the lead and essentially sustained policy leadership through multistate collaboration and the absence of federal
engagement. Such policy arenas as occupational licensure and regulation and oversight of organ donations have remained largely state-
dominated, despite occasional federal exploration of legislation or regulation. To date, American climate policy is following the latter pattern,
with prolonged federal inability to construct policy, leaving substantial opportunity for state engagement and innovation. At the same time,
Congress continues to weigh a variety of policy options, many of which could ultimately encourage, constrain, or preempt existing state policies.
However, the institutional impediments to any federal action remain significant, suggesting that there may well be
continued state latitude to play a lead role for some time to come. In turn, this could ultimately give a number of
states a strong bargaining role in any future federal policy formation or implementation, given their sunk
institutional and policy investments. Many states now possess a considerable body of climate policy expertise that
may well rival or surpass federal institutions (Rabe, 2004, 2007b).
 2NC---S---International Model
States solve leadership and modelling
Vicki Arroyo 16, is the Executive Director of the Georgetown Climate Center at Georgetown Law where she also
serves as the Assistant Dean of Centers and Institutes, the Director of the Environmental Law Program. With
Kathryn A. Zyla, Gabe Pacyniak, and Melissa Deas. 2016. “State Innovation on Climate Change: Reducing
Emissions from Key Sectors While Preparing for a “New Normal”http://harvardlpr.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/06/10.2_5_ArroyoZylaPacyniakDeas.pdf
States have also engaged on the international front —working with other provinces and states to share best practices ,
link programs with other states and provinces, and support a global agreement . Often, state leaders attend international
negotiations and share their positive experiences in transforming their energy sector while pointing to the severe
climate change related impacts they are already facing: impacts they cannot avoid without concerted global action.19
In December 2015, Governors Jerry Brown (CA), Jay Inslee (WA), and Peter Shumlin (VT) and many mayors participated in the
international climate negotiations in Paris (COP21) urging action.20
 2NC---AT: Federal Preemption
Changing state constitutions and passing legislation granting rights to rivers is
unprecedented---it’s not assumed by preemption evidence about localities acting------States
have significantly more constitutional room to maneuver---Pennsylvania proves---that’s
ELC

Parallel legal doctrines succeeded at the State-level

Dinah Shelton 15, Professor Emeritus of International Law, George Washington University Law School, 2015,
“Nature as a Legal Person,” https://journals.openedition.org/vertigo/16188?lang=en
Public Trust : A Move towards Legal Personality?
The doctrine of public trust in Roman law held that navigable waters, the sea, and the land along the seashore constituted a
common asset open for use by all.10 From Roman law antecedents, early English common law distinguished between private property
which could be owned by individuals and certain common resources which the monarch held in inalienable trust for present and future
generations. Many common law courts have adopted and applied this law, conferring trusteeship or guardianship on the government,
with an initial focus on fishing rights, access to the shore, and navigable waters and the lands beneath them.11 The domain of common property
cannot be destroyed or alienated by the legislature or the executive.12 After the 1970 publication of an influential law review article by Joe
Sax,13 courts in the United States (US) began to expand the doctrine and apply it to other resources, including wildlife and public lands.14
15 States in the U.S. have the power to provide their citizens with rights additional to those contain (...)
16 For a listing of all environmental provisions in state constitutions, see Bret Adams et al., Enviro (...)
17 See Ala. Const. art. VIII; Cal. Const. art. X, § 2; Fla. Const. art. II, § 7; Haw. Const. art. XI; (...)
8US state constitutions revised or amended from 1970 to the present have incorporated p ubic t rust d octrine to provide greater
protection to the environment .15 In fact, every state constitution drafted after 1959 explicitly addresses conservation of nature and
environmental protection.16 One group among these constitutions calls for the acquisition and regulation of natural resources as part of the public
trust. Another set of constitutional provisions expressly recognizes the right of citizens to a safe, clean or healthy environment, in a manner that
also implies a stewardship over natural resources.17
The first constitutional recognition of environmental rights in the U.S. appeared in Pennsylvania in connection with the first Earth Day.18 The
author of the proposal said he intended to “give our natural environment the same kind of constitutional protection that [is] given our political
rights.”19 The proposed amendment was approved overwhelmingly by voters in the state, on May, 18, 1971.20 The provision, now Article I,
section 27 of the state constitution, sets forth (emphasis added):
Section 27. Natural resources and the public estate
The people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and aesthetic values of the environment.
Pennsylvania’s public natural resources are the common property of all the people, including generations yet to come. As trustee of these
resources, the Commonwealth shall conserve and maintain them for the benefit of all the people.
10There are several evident features about this text. First, it declares the “people’s” right to environmental amenities with a directive to the state
to act as a trustee for the “public natural resources” of the state. The resources mentioned are declared to be common property and held for future
as well as present generations.
Many state constitutional provisions, like the Pennsylvania provision quoted above, refer to long-established doctrines of public trust.21
Pennsylvania courts have interpreted the state constitutional provision to mandate the management of public natural resources of the state.22 A
three-part test has emerged for judging the legality of state action under the constitutional provision,23 but it must be noted that an overriding
aspect of the test is its deference to decisions made by the government.24
25 Haw. Const. art. XI, § 1.
12Hawaii's constitution goes further than that of Pennsylvania , creating a public trust over all of the state's natural resources: For
the benefit of present and future generations, the
State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and
all natural resources , including land, water , air, minerals and energy sources , and shall promote the development and utilization of
these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State. All public natural resources
are held in trust by the State for the benefit of the people.

Trends prove---States are increasingly winning protection for non-human entities

ALDF 17 – Animal Legal Defense Fund, “Animals’ Legal Status,” https://aldf.org/issue/animals-legal-status/
There are already non-human persons under the law. For example, corporations and ships are defined as persons for limited legal purposes.
There is also a growing “environmental personhood” movement in which entities of nature, such as rivers, have been
granted legal personhood to provide a means of protection from exploitation.[2] In a couple of rulings outside the U.S.,
individual great apes have been declared persons in a limited context
Legal personhood is not a “one size fits all” designation and does not necessarily convey all the legal rights granted to human persons under the
law. Rather, it simply elevates an entity’s status under the law and confers legally recognizable interests, which are specific to the needs and
nature of that entity. So, for example, recognizing a dog as a legal person would not give her the right to vote. However, it might give her the
right to not be used in a painful experiment or the right to have a court appoint a guardian to protect her legal rights.
Nonhuman animals are not the only living beings that historically have been characterized as property under the law. Slaves, women, and
children were all at one time defined as property. As society progressed, these groups were reclassified from legal things to legal persons.
Legal Status as a Continuum
While replacing animals’ property status with legal personhood represents one ideal, property and personhood are not necessarily mutually
exclusive categories. Being defined as property does not preclude also being a legal person, as in the above example of ships and corporations.
Therefore, property and personhood can be considered points on a continuum rather than binary categories.
Animals can have a hybrid status where they are recognized as both property and persons under the law. However, as long as they are still
classified as property they will not be “full persons” – one end of the property/personhood continuum that grants the strongest legal recognition of
interests. Because “animals” are a diverse group, with varied capacities, and different societal uses, legal personhood would look different for
different species of animals, based on what they need to thrive.
Sometimes More than Property: Distinctions and Evolution in the Law
Although classified as property, the legal system treats animals distinctly in some cases. For example, unlike all other forms of property, animals
are protected by criminal cruelty laws. As of 2017 , animals can be the beneficiaries of legally enforceable trusts in all 50
states , and a majority of states allow them to be included in domestic violence protection orders
Similarly, some courts have held that non-economic damages are available when people suffer emotional harm as a result of tortious misconduct
aimed at their animal companion. And federal and state laws have evolved over the past decade to address the needs of those with companion
animals during natural disasters and emergency evacuations.
Recently, some states have enacted legislation requiring courts to consider the interests of companion animals in divorce and dissolution
proceedings, in contrast to the strict property analysis that has long been the standard in determining ownership (or custody) of an animal. The
traditional property analysis treats companion animals like furniture or other material assets to be equitably divided, but these new laws mention
the “well-being” or “care” of the animal, thereby recognizing that animals have interests of their own that should be considered.
Additionally, some state legislatures have addressed animal sentience . For example, as a result of legislation that the Animal Legal
Defense Fund helped draft and pass in 2013, Oregon law recognizes that “animals are sentient beings capable of experiencing pain, stress and
fear.” Importantly, it also states that “animals should be cared for in ways that minimize pain, stress, fear and suffering.”
Another promising development is that animals are increasingly achieving crime victim status, particularly as it relates to which victims “count”
federal and state courts have recognized that each individual animal who suffered as a result of a
at sentencing. Both
crime is a crime victim for sentencing purposes . In one state, Connecticut, special advocates can speak directly on
behalf of animal victims throughout the entirety of a criminal animal cruelty case, and more states are currently
considering enacting this Courtroom Animal Advocate Program model.
No preemption if all fifty act
Barry G. Rabe 11, Professor of Public Policy, Professor of Environmental Policy, Professor of Political Science,
Professor of the Environment, and Director of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of
Michigan. “Contested Federalism and American Climate Policy” The Journal of Federalism volume 41 number 3.
http://closup.umich.edu/people/barry-rabe/publications/Publius-Contested_Federalism.pdf
One option for federal governments that move into a state-dominated policy arena is complete takeover, eviscerating
any state role and imposing federal domination in the process. Congress has frequently used its delegated powers to enact ‘‘preemption statutes’’
that can eliminate or restrict any prior state regulatory policy in a particular area. In some instances, preemption reflects a federal effort
to eliminate state-by-state variation or set a federal standard well below that of the most aggressive states. Between 1995 and
2004, for example, a Republican Congress enacted seventy-five preemption statutes, many of which reflected ‘‘pressure from
business interest groups for the establishment of harmonious regulatory policies’’ across state boundaries
(Zimmerman 2005, 361). Preemption can also be used in instances where Congress deems states unable or unwilling to establish a needed
regulatory presence, perhaps in instances in which state policy processes are deemed ‘‘captured’’ by business and industry. In recent decades,
preemption has been applied to a wide range of economic functions, from restricting state oversight of mutual funds to establishing uniform
nutritional labeling on food items (Teske 2005). Any number of preemption options could be applied in the climate arena, including
carbon cap-and-trade, and is most likely in instances when the total number of active states is more limited or their policy
implementation remains in early stages. This approach was clearly on the agenda of the 111th Congress, building on some earlier policy
proposals when enactment seemed highly unlikely.
That’s especially true in court battles
Barry G. Rabe 08, Professor of Public Policy, Professor of Environmental Policy, Professor of Political Science,
Professor of the Environment, and Director of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at the University of
Michigan. “States on steroids: the intergovernmental odyssey of American climate policy” The Review of Policy
Research. Gale Academic One File.
Many scholars scoffed at the very possibility of "bottom-up" American climate policy during the previous decade, but several factors have
converged to place states in increasingly central roles. First, many states have framed early steps that would have the effect of reducing
greenhouse gases as being in their economic self-interest. This helps explain the expanding state government interest in developing a set of
technologies and skills to promote renewable energy, energy conservation, and expertise to foster a low-carbon economy. Indeed, virtually every
governor has now embraced the notion of developing "home grown" energy sources, at least in part, in order to foster long-term economic
development. This has resulted in an active exploration of various policy tools that might achieve these goals alongside reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions. Second, a growing number of states are beginning to experience significant impacts that may be attributable to climate change,
whether through violent storms, forest fires, species migration, prolonged droughts, or changing vectors of disease transmission. Some of these
are having the classic effect of "triggering events" that create an impetus for a policy response, however modest the climate impact that any
unilateral state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be (Repetto, 2006). Third, some states have consciously chosen to be "first
movers," often taking bold steps with the explicit intent of trying to take national leadership roles on climate policy. In some instances, such as
California's legislation to restrict carbon emissions from vehicles and New York's efforts in the northeast to establish a regional carbon emissions
trading zone, states are also trying to establish models that will influence their neighbors to join them and possibly position themselves to
influence any future federal policy. In this regard, states are similar to corporations; some seek an early and active role, sensing potential strategic
advantages over their more recalcitrant competitors (Hoffman, 2006; Kamieniecki, 2006). Fourth, state capitals have proven very fertile areas for
the development of epistemic communities and policy networks advocating climate policy. In many instances, earlier state efforts reflected
leadership from higher levels of state agencies working in environmental protection, energy, or other areas relevant to climate (Montpetit, 2003;
Rabe, 2004). These policy entrepreneurs continue to operate but increasingly partner with other forces, such as legislators and advocacy groups,
to form policy networks that build support for policy strategies that are particularly appealing to an individual state (Selin & VanDeveer, 2007).
Fifth, states also provide venues for alternative approaches to policy formation, including direct democracy and litigation that confronts federal
institutions. Ballot propositions are proving an increasingly popular way to advance climate initiatives in cases where representative institutions
stall. At the same time, the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court verdict in Massachusetts et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency indicates that a collective of states can wage and ultimately win an intergovernmental court battle that may
serve to force a reluctant federal agency to designate carbon dioxide as an air pollutant . The decision in this case is
already triggering additional multistate efforts to use the federal courts as a venue to challenge other decisions by the
private sector or federal agencies.
 2NC---AT: State Preemption
States preempt local laws---the counterplan removes that barrier by having State
legislators take action
Nicole Pallotta 21, Senior Policy Program Manager, Animal Legal Defense Fund, 3/29/21, “Legal Rights
Recognized for Rivers in Florida and Quebec,” https://aldf.org/article/legal-rights-recognized-for-rivers-in-florida-
and-quebec/
In November 2020, voters in Orange County , Florida , overwhelmingly approved a charter amendment recognizing
natural rights for the Wekiva River, Econlockhatchee River, and all waterways in the county. Spurred by concerns about deteriorating
water quality, the charter grants all county waterways the right to exist, to flow, to be protected against pollution, and to maintain a healthy
ecosystem. 6
In addition to rights for the waters themselves, the Right to Clean Water Charter Amendment — also known as the Wekiva River and
Econlockhatchee River Bill of Rights (or WEBOR) — grants all citizens in the county a right to clean water. Importantly, it also empowers them
to ensure the law is upheld, by creating a “private right of action and standing for citizens of Orange County to enforce these rights and injunctive
remedies.” As discussed above, standing provisions like this are a crucial component of rights of nature legislation.
The Animal Legal Defense Fund formally endorsed the WEBOR, worked directly with Speak Up Wekiva, the Florida-based environmental
organization that ran the campaign, and sent out action alerts to Orange County voters.
Potential Challenges
It is uncertain how each of these developments will play out. But what is clear is that they are part of a larger — and growing — movement.
Writing about Quebec’s Magpie River, Canada’s National Observer notes:
It is unclear how this will affect attempts to build developments on the river, including dams, moving forward, as legal personhood for nature
doesn’t exist in Canadian law and could be challenged in court. Minganie, Innu council and several environmental groups — collectively called
the Alliance — hope international precedents set in New Zealand, Ecuador and several other countries will help pressure the Quebec government
to formally protect the river.
Florida’s ordinance may face a more direct challenge. Despite it being approved by nearly 90% of voters across the political
spectrum, the WEBOR faces potentialpreemption by the Clean Waterways Act , a state law passed in July 2020 — during the
campaign to get the WEBOR on the ballot — that contains a provision “prohibiting local governments from recognizing or
granting certain legal rights to the natural environment.”
Speak Up Wekiva, which spearheaded the ballot initiative, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state law on constitutional grounds. 8 The group
withdrew its lawsuit after the initiative passed, as director Chuck O’Neal explained to WMFE:
We filed this lawsuit during the summer to prevent anyone stepping forward and challenging, to throw the charter amendment off the ballot. Now
that it’s passed, we dismissed that lawsuit and are pursuing having other communities around the state pass similar ordinances that do not violate
the preemption clause. Our hope is that there is a groundswell of communities passing these right-to-clean-water ordinances and finally will
culminate in a statewide amendment that allows unequivocally communities to protect their waters, to establish rights-of-
nature ordinances and charter amendments.
It is unclear whether the state will challenge the WEBOR, but for now it is on the books and will remain so unless it is overturned in court.
Meanwhile, the Animal Legal Defense Fund is supporting a state-level bill that would remove the provision in the Clean
Waterways Act that prohibits local governments from enacting rights of nature ordinances.
 2NC---PTX NB
Only the counterplan avoids politics:
1. All links are to federal action---state-level policies don’t drain PC
2. Low visibility prevents partisanship
Monica Prasad 12, Sociology Prof at Northwestern University, June 2012, “State-level renewable
electricity policies and reductions in carbon emissions,” Energy Policy Volume 45.
Despite the hesitant pace of environmental policy at the national level, there is a proliferation of environmental policy at the state level, where
‘‘an almost stealth-like process of policy development’’ has been underway for over two decades (Rabe, 2004:11). Many state governments have
determined that envir- onmental policy is necessary and feasible, and have experimented with several different policy approaches, particularly on
the question of facilitating alternative energy. These state policies are surprising in many ways. For example, they are often driven by
bipartisan coalitions, and, perhaps because of their lower visibility , they seem to have escaped the partisan wrangling that
has limited national-level policy. Both George W. Bush and Christine Todd Whitman were pioneers of alternative energy policy at the
state level, as governors of Texas and New Jersey respectively, before they went on to obstruct environmental policy at the federal level as
president and head of the EPA (Rabe, 2004: 1). Texas, a state that produces reliably conservative and anti-environmental contingents at the
national level, is a leader in wind energy (Rabe, 2004: 50). Environmental policy-making at the state level is pragmatic and catholic, with many
different approaches being tried. Because electricity generation accounts for 41% of all CO2 emissions and is the largest single source of CO2
emissions (EPA, 2011:ES-8; Carley, 2011), many states have focused their efforts on the electric power sector. One of the main sites of policy
innovation has been the attempt to increase the generation of electricity from renewable sources.
 2NC---Fifty-State Theory
1. Fifty State Fiat is Good:

A. Neg Ground---the rez allows infinite protection mech’s for any possible water
source---States is a necessary check on small, unbeatable affs

B. Topic Education AND Germaneness---it’s a core issue of lit---generic theory

objections arbitrarily punish the neg
Andrea Gerlak 6, research professor at the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at the University of Arizona,
2006, “Federalism and U.S. Water Policy: Lessons for the Twenty-First Century,” Publius, Vol. 36, No. 2
This article traces five historical streams of water policy in the U nited S tates, revealing the strain and stresses of
intergovernmental relations pertaining to water resource management. It finds that water policy is increasingly
characterized by pragmatic federalism emphasizing collaborative partnerships, adaptable management strategies, and problem and
process orientation . The evolving nature of federal-state relations, characterized by expanding federal authorities and increased state
capacity, coupled with a rise of local watershed groups and greater ecological concern, calls for improved coordination. Yet challenges resulting
from policy fragmentation and ecosystem complexity remain. Continued calls for greater integration will likely be heard as federal-state
relations continue to evolve.
Water policy is increasingly complex today, with multiple decision forums, institutional arrangements, policy tools
-- and an ever-increasing number of stakeholders. There is no real national water policy in the United States but rather fragmented,
incremental crisis-driven policy. The federal-state relationship is at the heart of this conflict. A struggle between national
supremacy and local autonomy pervades water management.

2. Defense:
A. Reciprocal---the federal government is an assemblage of branches and actors---no
one actor controls it
B. Predictable---test’s “it’s” in the resolution
C. Federalism advantages solve aff ground
Space CP
 1NC---Space CP
CP Text: The United States federal government should substantially increase mining of
coal for use in outer-space exploration.

Mutually exclusive---The aff outlaws coal mining

Sara Bellan 19, Earth Law Center, 6/12/19, “Earth Law Strengthens Move Towards Smarter Energy Choices,”
https://www.earthlawcenter.org/blog-entries/2019/6/earth-law-strengthens-move-towards-smarter-energy-choices
Coal , oil, and gas development threaten the health of waterways and aquifers. Coal mining operations contaminate
streams, rivers and lakes with the dumping of unwanted rock and soil, and acid runoff. Oil spills and leaks during extraction
or transport pollute drinking water sources, killing entire freshwater or ocean ecosystems. Fracking and its toxic fluids have also been found to
contaminate drinking water.
Greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels, trap heat and make the planet warmer. Since the Industrial Revolution, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased 100 times faster than the increase when the last
ice age ended, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA). Burning fossil fuels, combined with deforestation, have contributed to the significant rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Carbon
dioxide is one of the key greenhouse gases.
Methane is a key greenhouse gas with an impact 34 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period, according to the latest IPCC Assessment Report. Methane is a key by-product of natural gas extraction and processing of
natural gas as well as livestock plus landfills (which emit it as waste decomposes).
Fossil fuels still account for 80 percent of global energy consumption and 75 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
PROVEN, SCALEABLE SOLUTIONS FOR MOVING AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS
Examples of several different approaches show that moving away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy can be done.
Price fossil fuels to reflect actual costs
Improve energy efficiency with more investment
Decarbonize the power sector by phasing out coal
Expand access to electricity and clean cooking
Figure 2 Carbon tax icon. Tommaso.sansone91 [CC0]
Figure 2 Carbon tax icon. Tommaso.sansone91 [CC0]
Price fossil fuels to reflect actual costs
Carbon pricing taxes the polluters by having them pay for the costs not currently considered – like crop damage from extreme weather, health expenses due to heatwaves, and storm damage to properties. A price on carbon helps shift
the burden for the damage back to those who are responsible for it, and to those who can reduce it. Instead of dictating who should reduce emissions where and how, a carbon price allows polluters to choose to discontinue their
polluting activity, reduce emissions, or continue polluting and pay for it.
Carbon tax puts a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil.
Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with
cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.
Evidence from the 70 national and subnational economies that have put a price on carbon shows it does not slow economic growth, but provides a clear and steady signal for business, industry and consumers to shift course. In 2017,
carbon pricing programs raised $33 billion in government revenues globally. The New Climate Economy finds that fossil fuel subsidy reforms and carbon pricing could generate $2.8 trillion—more than India’s GDP today—in
government revenues in 2030.
Where carbon pricing seeks to reduce hydrocarbon consumption, fossil fuel subsidies do the opposite and seeks to increase fossil fuel consumption. Fossil fuel subsidies are programs where government actions lower the cost of fossil
fuel energy production, raises the price received by energy producers, or lowers the price paid by energy consumers.
Although they’re politically popular, fossil fuel subsidies encourage overconsumption and inefficient use of carbon-intensive energy while diverting funds away from public spending in health, education, and social protection.
Internationally, governments provide at least $775 billion to $1 trillion annually in subsidies.
Improve energy efficiency with more investment
Global investment in energy efficiency has continued to grow, increasing by 9% to $231 billion in 2016. The rate of growth was strongest in China at 24%, though Europe is still responsible for the largest share of global investment.
This translates into more jobs, too. AltEnergyStocks finds 5.3 jobs per $1 million for fossil fuel investments but over three times this, 16.7 jobs per $1 million for clean energy (energy efficiency and renewable energy). The analysis
also notes the substantially higher quality and higher pay nature of clean energy jobs relative to fossil fuel employment.
Decarbonize the power sector
Decarbonization refers to the reduction or removal of carbon dioxide from energy sources. For example: The European Union's leading power companies have set themselves the goal of making their electricity carbon free by 2050.
That means energy from 100% renewable sources.
Renewable energy, often referred to as clean energy, comes from natural sources or processes that are constantly replenished. For example, sunlight or wind keep shining and blowing, even if their availability depends on time and
weather. Total demand for renewable energy sources—including hydropower, wind, solar, biofuels, marine, geothermal—is expected to increase about 81% by 2040, at which time they will account for 20% of overall energy demand.
Costa Rica has operated with only renewable energy for 6 months. The heavy rains in the region have allowed the country to completely renounce fossil fuels, and to feed almost entirely on the electricity generated from 4
hydroelectric plants – with a little extra help from geothermal, solar green energy and wind projects.
In 2016, Portland was the first city in the United States to ban fossil fuels. Portland unanimously decided to ban the creation of new infrastructures using Fossil Fuels as energy. The transportation and storing of coal, natural gas and
oil is no longer allowed within the city, preventing expansion of fossil fuel facilities. California aims to phase out completely the use of fossil fuels for electricity by 2045 as well as generate 60% of California's energy from renewable
energy sources by 2030. Similarly, Seattle, Washington, plans to have 100% renewable electric power by 2045.
Tracking SDG7: The Energy Progress Report notes how critical it will be to connect the poorest and hardest to reach households. Off-grid solutions include solar lighting, solar home systems, and increasingly mini grids. Globally, at
least 34 million people in 2017 gained access to basic electricity services through off-grid technologies. Over the past five years, renewables (mainly hydro and geothermal) have been the source of over one-third of new connections,
and decentralized renewables are the source of 6% of new electricity access.
Why clean cooking? Today, 3 billion people still rely on traditional, inefficient cooking stoves which burn wood, charcoal, coal, animal dung or crop waste. The estimated health, environmental and economic cost of this continued use
of solid fuels is a staggering $123 billion annually. Women and children are disproportionally affected by the health impacts, and bear much of the burden of collecting firewood or other traditional fuels. Greenhouse gas emissions
from nonrenewable wood fuels alone amount to a gigaton of carbon dioxide per year – about 2 percent of global emissions.
According to the Clean Cooking Alliance, an estimated 37 million stoves and fuels were distributed in 2016, of which 30.8 million (83%) were clean and/or efficient. Cumulatively, an estimated 116 million stoves and fuels, including
80.9 million clean and/or efficient, have been distributed from 2010 to 2016.

HOW EARTH LAW STRENGTHENS THE MOVE AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS
Extractive industries have treated nature as limitless property and resource. Only now we are finding out that there are limits,
both to what we can extract as well as what natural ecosystems will bear. Earth Law is the idea that ecosystems have the right to
exist , thrive, and evolve—and that Nature should be able to defend its rights in court, just like people can.
Earth Law gives ecosystems the same rights as people and corporations . This means that people can defend an
ecosystem’s rights in court without having to prove that their own human rights were violated. Under Earth Law, courts
assess monetary awards by looking at the cost of restoring ecosystems to their undamaged natural state. This allows for the defense of Nature in
the courts—not only for the benefit of people, but also for the sake of Nature itself.
As countries and people begin more and more to pursue decarbonization, Earth Law can strengthen and connect people and organizations
working to create a healthier environment. Through Earth Law, people could better hold their governments and companies in
society accountable for their use of fossil fuels, and could urge them to decarbonize and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through banning fossil fuels. Earth Law can be a framework for countries, businesses and people as they work toward a ban on
the burning and extraction of fossil fuels.

Counterplan is key to space colonization

James Conca 13, scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in
geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, radiobiology and shielding
for space colonies. Trustee of the Herbert M. Parker Foundation and consult on strategic planning for the DOE,
EPA/State environmental agencies. 7/14/13, “Coal Doesn't Have To Die - We Can Make Furniture Out Of It”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/07/14/coal-doesnt-have-to-die-we-can-make-furniture-out-of-
it/#7aa7353d7584
Such carbon products could be used in space exploration and human habitation off-world to protect astronauts and
colonists from many forms of radiation and from high energy particles using especially dense and strong forms of
carbon materials and fibers . Such new carbon technology would also offer ultra-strong carbon-fiber belts for use in
the space-elevator (Beyond Earths Atmosphere).
The U nited S tates has the largest coal resources in the world, currently destined for burning to generate electricity, putting huge
quantities of particulates, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, mercury and other contaminants into the atmosphere.
This is not science fiction . Carbon fiber and carbon nanotubes are presently used in reinforced plastics, heat-
resistant composites, cell phone components, fishing rods, golf club shafts, bicycle frames, sports car bodies, the
fuselage of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, pool cue sticks and to reinforce concrete and grey cast iron.
The magic of this material comes from the atomic structure of graphene, a one-atom-thick sheet of densely packed carbon atoms arranged in a
honeycomb lattice, basically an atomic-scale chicken wire made of carbon atoms and their covalent bonds. Graphite is just one natural material
made out of graphene sheets stacked together. It turns out that graphene is:
- the strongest material in nature (200 times stronger than steel by weight)
- able to be mixed with other materials like plastics and cements
- highly flexible
- the thinnest useable material in the world (100,000,000 stacked sheets is less than an inch)
- a better heat and electricity conductor than copper
- a material that can replace silicon in semi-conductors
- a material that revolutionizes solar-power collection, and
- a material that dramatically improves the performance of lithium-ion batteries.
Carbon can also be can be formed into nanotubes and buckyballs for even more amazing technological properties
(Gizmag).
The race is now on to commercialize graphene (Grafoid's Graphene; Graphene Energy; Ohio Carbon; Cabot Corp; Nokia - wpcentral).
Universities, corporations (IBM and others) and governments in Asia, Europe and North America are leading the effort. And coal will be
the source material that fuels this future without having to be burned.
I only ever thought of “clean coal” as an oxymoron, but this is the way to make it a reality.
However, stopping coal as a power source changes our previous optimal sustainable energy mix (Wright and Conca, 2007). So, we need a new
energy mix: to eliminate our dependence on any foreign oil, to reduce carbon emissions to 1960 levels (2.9 billion tons/yr down from our present
5.4 billion tons/yr), and to provide economic and reliable energy on demand.
This mix is very achievable in the U.S. by 2040:
- phase out coal as an energy source completely, phase in coal as a common super-material
- ramp up natural gas, including biogas, to 45% of electricity production (2.4 trillion kWhrs/yr)
- ramp up new GenIII nuclear to 35% (1.9 trillion kWhrs/yr)
- ramp up renewables to 20% (1.1 trillion kWhrs/yr)
- increase CAFE standards for gas and diesel vehicles to over 50 mpg
- ramp up fully electric vehicles to 40% of the fleet (100 million units)
- ramp up natural gas vehicles to 10% of the fleet (25 million units)
- implement the energy conservation and efficiency goals in building construction, lighting and heating, urban development, smart grids, co-
generation and process heat utilization that we know work and which would save over 1 trillion kWhrs/yr.
These can be done - some are already being done - with existing technologies, strategies, and manufacturing
capabilities. We need only a few new ones that are well on the way, like better battery technologies and building designs. A nice side
effect of this energy mix is the saving of almost 2 million lives over this time period from the cleaner air and water
that would result from not burning coal.
Other countries also have huge coal deposits that could fuel their new solid carbon economies. If the world likes
what they see and follows suit, then CO2 in the atmosphere could level at less than 350 ppm . But we don’t have an awful
lot of time to get on this train.
So there is a real future where coal is not burned but the coal industry and coal jobs are not destroyed either. And
we wouldn’t be shipping coal around the world to be burned, we would be shipping raw materials and finished
products to change the way we live. If China also sees the merit of not burning coal, then we can achieve this future
in time.
Humans are really good at this outside-the-box thinking.
We just need to do it.
Space colonization is key to ensure human survival – pursuing it as soon as possible is
crucial
Marko Kovic 18, co-founder and president of the thinktank ZIPAR, the Zurich Institute of Public Affairs
Research. He is also co-founder and CEO of the consulting firm ars cognitionis,. He has a PhD in political
communication, University of Zurich.)(“Why space colonization is so important”, Nov 10, 2018,
https://medium.com/@marko_kovic/space-colonization-why-nothing-else-matters-a877723f77d4
Should humankind exist in the future? Should the future existence of humankind be as good as possible in as many ways as possible?
If your answer to these two questions is Yes, then there is a topic that you should care about a lot: Space colonization.
Why, you might wonder, does space colonization matter, possibly more than anything else, as the title of this article claims? Because the future
of humankind directly and completely dependent on whether and how we manage to colonize space.
Space colonization is a double-edged sword. On one hand, the creation of permanent and self-sustainable human habitats
beyond Earth is unavoidable if humankind is to exist in the long-term future. On the other hand, however, space colonization
could bring about a catastrophically bad future if we colonize space in a bad way. That future that might be worse than one in which humankind
does not exist.
Space or bust: Why we must reach for the stars
Why should we pursue space colonization in the first place? Don’t we have more pressing problems today, on Earth?
Yes, we do have many problems on Earth today, and we should try to solve them. But space colonization is just that:
A strategy for dealing with certain problems. An the problems that space colonization would be dealing with are,
arguably, among the greatest problems of them all: Existential risks ; risks that might lead to the extinction of
humankind [1]. Currently, all of our proverbial existential eggs are in the same basket. If a natural existential risk
strikes ( for example, a large asteroid colliding with Earth) or if a man-made existential risk results in a catastrophic
outcome (for example, runaway global warming [2, 3]), all of humankind is at risk because humankind is currently
limited to planet Earth. If, however, there are self-sustainable human habitats beyond Earth, then the probability of
an irreversibly catastrophic outcome for all of humankind is drastically reduced.
Investing in space colonization today could therefore have immense future benefits. Using resources today in order to make space colonization possible in the
medium-term future is not a waste, but a very profitable investment. If
humankind stays limited to Earth and if we go extinct as a
consequence of doing so, then we will all the billions of life years and billions of humans who might have come to
exist — and who would have experienced happiness and contributed to humankind’s continued epistemic and moral
progress.
Taking space colonization more seriously today does not, of course, mean that we should only pursue space colonization and ignore everything
else that is bad in the world. We should continue dealing with current global problems and, at the same time, invest greater resources into space
colonization. At this point in our history and our technological development, even modest amounts of resources directed at space colonization
would go a long way, such as public funding of basic research. Additionally, it is very likely that technological advances in the
domain of space colonization would improve our lives in other ways as well thanks to technology transfer [4] —
investing in space colonization today would probably be a win-win situation.
So the situation seems clear: We must pursue space colonization and try to spread beyond Earth as fast as possible .
Unfortunately, there is a catch: Yes, we must colonize space if humankind is to survive, but space colonization itself is very risky. So much so
that bad outcomes of space colonization might be even worse for humankind than “merely” going extinct.
 2NC---Space Col IL
It’s the only way to make deep-space exploration feasible---coal has unique properties
unavailable in any other material
Rick Lucas 10, Robert C Byrd Institute for Advanced Manufacturing. Spring 2010, “Innovative New Uses for
Coal Offer a World of Possibilities” http://www.rcbi.org/index.php/viewarticle/119-capacity-magazine/spring-
2010/articles/596-innovative-new-uses-for-coal-offer-a-world-of-possibilities
Advanced composite materials have been making steady inroads into military systems for the last 50 years. The
demand in the aerospace industry for lighter, stronger materials has facilitated the acceptance of carbon composites
for airframe construction. The marine industry finds itself in a similar situation needing better cost-effective material solutions. The push
for higher performance for wind energy is pushing toward a move to carbon fiber reinforced composites. NASA’s future missions and
deep space exploration require better carbon ablative and nonablative protection systems. High strength and weight
remain the winning combination that propels these carbon composite materials into these new arenas .
The transition of these high performance materials into our everyday lives has been somewhat limited because of cost. The most obvious area of
interest in these materials is in sporting equipment such as golf clubs, tennis rackets, fishing poles and others. The cost is primarily driven by the
fact that the carbon materials are produced from petroleum. Anyone putting gasoline into a car these days can understand this point. Touchstone
the long-term cost solution is coal . Researchers have historically stayed away from coal because of the
believes
contaminants and cleaning costs associated with coal. These problems, however, can be overcome with the advances
in technology for the purification and treatment of coal.
A small woman-owned business in Triadelphia near Wheeling, is developing high-value products from coal. CEO Elizabeth Kraftician and Brian
Joseph, COO and president, are proud of the progress that the engineers and scientists have made related to coal-based products. Touchstone
continues to deliver results that demonstrate our success at the national level. Touchstone has invented a way to convert coal into carbon foam
and high density carbons. These new materials are trade-named CFOAM® and CSTONE®. These revolutionary materials are taking
the composites industry by storm. The excitement is being generated by unique properties not found in other
materials . Potential applications abound and range from composite tooling for aircraft and ships to lightweight
insulation for exhaust stacks to thermal protection systems for space vehicles.
These materials offer good acoustical absorption, electrical shielding, low thermal conductivity, fire protection, low
coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and others and are also being considered by designers in these new products. The development of
these types of new products is being driven by more demanding system requirements for multifunctional materials. The applications have
focused on bringing high-volume, low-cost carbon into the competitive marketplace as improvements and
replacements for current state-of-the-art materials.
Touchstone and other companies are looking into cost-effective methods to produce carbon fibers from coal. Coal can be used to extract pitch
(coal tar pitch) which is an excellent precursor to produce carbon/graphite fibers. Coal tar pitch has the potential to be much more economical
than petroleum base precursors to produce fibers. These carbon/graphite fibers from coal tar pitch are equivalent to commercial fibers produced
from petroleum. The coal-based fiber process is projected to have a fiber price half or less than petroleum-based fibers. The low-cost, coal-
based fibers could reduce fuel consumption up to 40 percent . These coal-based materials could substantially reduce the requirement
for petroleum imports.
Although Touchstone has a long history of being a materials company, it has quickly been evolving into a products
company that can take basic materials, such as coal, and turn them into high-performance products. In the near
future, we will see new companies being created that will take these coal based materials and turn them into
products we need and can use in our homes. This will create new jobs using a material that we usually burn to power or heat our
homes. It is expected that the coal-based product businesses and related technologies will generate hundreds of jobs for Touchstone and our
suppliers. We are seeing a tremendous amount of interest from almost every aerospace prime contractor here in the United States and abroad. In
fact, these companies are investing time and money to qualify these coal-based related products.
Coal is key to low cost nano-tubes
Colin Jeffrey 16, Electronics engineer, journalist, degree in anthropology. Citing MIT research. 4/20/16, “Coal-
based electronics: A potential usurper to silicon's throne?” http://newatlas.com/nanomaterial-coal-carbon-
electronics-mit/42905/
Graphene may be the poster child of thin film electronics, and silicon the current king of materials for semiconductors, but if scientists from MIT
get their way, graphene's humble cousin, coal, could soon be giving them both a run for their money. For the first time,
electronic devices have been created from thin films of coal and the research points to a range of uses that this cheap
and abundant material could have in electronic devices, solar panels, and batteries .
Coal comes in four different types, all characterized by their composition, age, and the degree of compression applied to them over the millennia.
Specifically, they range from lignite, a soft brown combustible sedimentary rock formed from naturally compressed peat, through to sub-
bituminous, bituminous and lastly to anthracite, a compacted variety with a high carbon content and fewer impurities than the other types. In
developing their application, the MIT researchers analyzed the chemical, electrical, and optical properties of thin films of all four different types
of coal, and decided on anthracite as the most suitable for the devices constructed in their experiments.
To prepare the coal for the research, the scientists developed a process to crush the anthracite to a powder, suspend it in solution, and deposit it in
thin uniform films on a substrate, similar to the way it is done in fabricating other electronic devices from graphene or silicon. However, unlike
silicon that must be refined to a purity of over 99 percent, coal can simply be used in its crushed form without further refining.
Thin-film coal can withstand temperatures far in excess of materials ordinarily used in electronic devices
Despite coal being one of the most abundant substances used by humans, the vast bulk of it has simply been used as a fuel for burning, with
almost all of its electrical and optical properties rarely studied for use in electronic devices.
"The material has never been approached this way before, to find out what the properties are, what unique features there might be." said MIT
doctoral student Brent Keller.
As an initial proof of concept for what the team sees as a wide range of possible uses, the researchers built an electrical heating device that could
see duty in anything from being part of a part of a biomedical implant, to helping defrost car windows or aircraft wings. Along with the
properties of this device, the researchers also found that by altering the temperature used to process the coal, a large
range of the optical and electrical properties of the material could be exactly tailored to meet specified values.
But even this new found capability for coal is just the beginning of its potential, according to the researchers. Given that the four main varieties of
coal selected have many other subsets all with differing compositions, the team believes that there could as yet be strikingly useful differences
that could be exploited in other kinds of electronic devices.
"When you look at coal as a material, and not just as something to burn, the chemistry is extremely rich," said Professor Jeffrey Grossman, from
the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT.
According to Professor Grossman, the major advantage of the new material is its low cost to produce from an incredibly
cheap base material, allied with an uncomplicated solution procedure that allows exceptionally low fabrication costs .
Compared to silicon or graphene for use in electronic semiconductors, coal thin film is far and away the simplest to produce because it doesn't
require such high levels of purification.
Silicon and graphene may also be relatively abundant, but the purified form of silicon, for example, is vastly more expensive than coal by
comparison. It is also easily and readily tunable across conductive and resistive paths, and is very robust in nature with a naturally high thermal
stability.
"[A] very extensive and informative study to facilitate the understanding of unrefined coal's potential for practical significance." said Shenqiang
Ren, an associate professor of mechanical engineering at Temple University who was not involved in this research, but studied the results. " This
is a significant step (probably the first) to utilize nanocarbon materials , directly from unrefined coal, with controllable
electronic properties and excellent stability and scalability."
The results of this research were published in the journal Nano Letters.
That’s key to spaceships
NASA 02, The space agency. 9/16/02, “Feature”
https://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/gettingtospace/16sep_rightstuff.html
"What I'm really looking for," you say to the salesman, "is a car that goes at least 10,000 miles between fill-ups, repairs itself
automatically, cruises at 500 mph, and weighs only a few hundred pounds ."
As he stands there wide-eyed, you add, "Oh yeah, and I can only spend about a quarter of what these other cars cost."
A request like this is sure to get you laughed off the new-car lot. But in many ways, this dream car is a metaphor
for the space
vehicles we'll need to expand our exploration of the solar system in the decades to come. These new spacecraft will need
to be faster, lighter, cheaper, more reliable, more durable, and more versatile, all at the same time.
Impossible? Before you answer, consider how a rancher from 200 years ago might have reacted if a man had asked to buy a horse that could run
100 mph for hours on end, carry his entire family and all their luggage, and sing his favorite songs to him all the while! Today we call them
minivans.
Revolutions in technology -- like the Industrial Revolution that replaced horses with cars -- can make what seems impossible today commonplace
tomorrow.
Such a revolution is happening right now. Three of the fastest-growing sciences of our day--biotech, nanotech, and information technology -- are
converging to give scientists unprecedented control of matter on the molecular scale. Emerging from this intellectual gold-rush is a new class of
materials with astounding properties that sound more at home in a science fiction novel than on the laboratory workbench.
Imagine, for example, a substance with 100 times the strength of steel, yet only 1/6 the weight; materials that instantly heal themselves when
punctured; surfaces that can "feel" the forces pressing on them; wires and electronics as tiny as molecules; structural materials that also generate
and store electricity; and liquids that can instantly switch to solid and back again at will. All of these materials exist today ... and more are on the
way.
With such mind-boggling materials at hand, building the better spacecraft starts to look not so far fetched after all.
Weight Equals Money
The challenge of the next-generation spacecraft hinges on a few primary issues. First and foremost, of course, is
cost.
"Even if all the technical obstacles were solved today, exploring our solar system still needs to be affordable to be
practical," says Dr. Neville Marzwell, manager of Revolutionary Aerospace Technology for NASA's Next Decadal
Planning Team.
Lowering the cost of space flight primarily means reducing weight . Each pound trimmed is a pound that won't need
propulsion to escape from Earth's gravity. Lighter spaceships can have smaller, more efficient engines and less fuel.
This, in turn, saves more weight, thus creating a beneficial spiral of weight savings and cost reduction.
The challenge is to trim weight while increasing safety, reliability, and functionality. Just leaving parts out won't do.
Scientists are exploring a range of new technologies that could help spacecraft slim down. For example, gossamer materials -- which are ultra-
thin films--might be used for antennas or photovoltaic panels in place of the bulkier components used today, or even for vast solar sails that
provide propulsion while massing only 4 to 6 grams per square meter.
Composite materials, like those used in carbon-fiber tennis rackets and golf clubs, have already done much to help bring weight
down in aerospace designs without compromising strength. But a new form of carbon called a "carbon nanotube" holds the promise of
a dramatic improvement over composites: The best composites have 3 or 4 times the strength of steel by weight--for
nanotubes, it's 600 times!
"This phenomenal strength comes from the molecular structure of nanotubes," explains Dennis Bushnell, a chief scientist at
Langley Research Center (LaRC), NASA's Center of Excellence for Structures and Materials. They look a bit like chicken-wire rolled into a
cylinder with carbon atoms sitting at each of the hexagons' corners.
Typically nanotubes are about 1.2 to 1.4 nanometers across (a nanometer is one-billionth of a meter), which is only about 10 times the radius of
the carbon atoms themselves.
Makes space col possible---shielding
Michael D. Campbell 14, consultant and lecturer in hydrogeology, mining, and associated environmental and
geotechnical fields. “Coal, Just not for Burning” AIPG Journal: The Professional Geologist, 2014, pp. 21-25
http://i2massociates.com/downloads/CampbellJustNotforBurning-July19-2014Col.pdf
Even as we move off-world in the coming decades , carbon products of high density and strength will likely become
more useful in exploration activities to protect human habitation and electronics from radiation and from various
types of inherent stresses in orbit or encountered in building structures on or under the surface of the Moon,
asteroids, and even Mars. 8 Some form of carbon material will also be needed to make the 28,000 miles of carbon-
fiber belts required in building the first space elevator, see Figure 2. 5, page 201
 2NC---Link/AT: PDB

Increasing coal mining is mutually exclusive with the plan---River rights require banning
coal mining because it heavily pollutes waterways---that’s Bellan
{Smith 18, Econ link also says this}

Numerous aspects of coal mining conflict with river rights

UCS 17 – Union of Concerned Scientists, 12/6/17, “Coal and Water Pollution,”
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/coal-and-water-pollution
Coal mining
Mining operations can negatively impact water supplies, often with long-lasting effects. The fundamental issue involves
contamination of nearby rivers, lakes, and aquifers by what comes out of a coal mine—usually highly acidic water
containing heavy metals like arsenic, copper, and lead. The process is known as acid mine drainage. It happens
when certain substances (typically iron sulfide, FeS2, or fool’s gold) is oxidized after being exposed to air and water.
Runoff can change the pH of nearby streams to the same level as vinegar.
Another form of coal mining, conducted mostly in Central Appalachia, is called mountain top removal , a highly
destructive process of flattening entire mountains to uncover thin coal seams that are not accessible by traditional
underground methods. After clearcutting forests and removing vegetation, explosives are used to blast away the tops of mountains,
sometimes destroying as much as 600 feet or more of elevation. The resulting debris is typically dumped into the valleys below.
To date, the practice has buried more than 2,000 miles of headwater streams and polluted many more.
Finally, after coal is mined, it is typically washed with water and chemicals to remove impurities before it’s burned. The resulting coal slurry
must then be stored, often with coal ash (see below) or in improvised ponds that can leak, spill, or fail. In 2000, the bottom of a Kentucky coal
slurry impoundment gave way, contaminating more than a hundred miles of rivers and streams with more than 300,000,000 gallons of thick black
sludge—30 times larger than the Exxon-Valdez oil spill.
Coal ash
When coal is burned it leaves behind a grey powder-like substance known as coal ash. Although the exact chemical composition depends on the
type of coal burned, all coal ash contains concentrated amounts of toxic elements, including arsenic, lead, and mercury.
More than 100 million tons of coal ash and other waste products are produced by coal-fired power plants in the United States every year (see a
map here). About a third of that waste is reused in some way (often in concrete); the rest is stored in landfills, abandoned mines, and hazardous,
highly toxic ponds.
Most coal ash is stored in unlined ponds or pits. Over time, heavy metals in the ash can escape into nearby waterways and contaminate drinking
water.
Exposure to coal ash is linked with a heightened risk for cancer as well as heart damage, reproductive problems, neurological disorders, and other
serious health conditions.
In 2014, 39,000 tons of coal ash spilled into the Dan River in North Carolina. Six years earlier, more than 5 million cubic yards of coal ash spilled
into Tennessee’s Emory River—one of the country’s largest environmental disasters ever.
Water use
All coal plants rely on water . They function by heating water to create steam, which then turns turbines, generating electricity.
But the water must come from somewhere—typically a nearby river or lake.
“Once-through” coal plants pump the water directly from a water source, heat it up, then discharge it back. The waste
water is typically hotter (by up to 20-25° F) than the water that receives it, creating "thermal pollution" that can
decrease fertility and increase heart rates in fish. A typical once-through system withdraws and discharges between
70 and 180 billion gallons of water per year.
 2NC---Space Col !
Extinction is inevitable---Space is the only escape
Arjun Kharpal 17, Journalist, citing Stephen Hawking, 5/5/17, “Stephen Hawking says humans must colonize
another planet in 100 years or face extinction,” https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/05/stephen-hawking-human-
extinction-colonize-planet.html
Humans need to colonize another planet within 100 years or face the threat of extinction , high-profile physicist
Stephen Hawking has warned.
In a new BBC documentary called “Stephen Hawking: Expedition New Earth” set to air later this year, the professor will “present his predictions
that the human race only has 100 years before we need to colonize another planet,” a press release from earlier this week said.
“With climate change , overdue asteroid strikes , epidemics and population growth , our own planet is increasingly
precarious .”
Previously, Hawking theorized that humanity probably has around 1,000 years left before it becomes extinct. His timeline appears now to have
shortened. The famous physicist has issued a number of warnings about the future over the past few years.
At the start of 2016, Hawking warned about the dangers from nuclear war , global warming, g enetically- e ngineered viruses and
artificial intelligence ( AI ).
“Although the chance of a disaster to planet Earth in a given year may be quite low, it adds up over time, and becomes a near certainty in
the next thousand or ten thousand years,” Hawking told the BBC in an interview at the time.
“By that time we should have spread out into space , and to other stars, so a disaster on Earth would not mean the end of the
human race,” he added. “However, we will not establish self-sustaining colonies in space for at least the next hundred years, so we have to be
very careful in this period.”
 2NC---T/environment
Space access resolves every global environmental problem, including warming
Collins & Autino 9 – Patrick Collins, professor of economics at Azabu University in Japan, and Adriano
Autino, member of the International Astronautic Federation and Chairman of the Greater Earth Initiative, June 11,
2009, “What the Growth of a Space Tourism Industry Could Contribute to Employment, Economic Growth,
Environmental Protection, Education, Culture and World Peace,”
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could_contribute_to_employ
ment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_culture_and_world_peace.shtml
Economic development in space based on low launch costs could contribute greatly, even definitively , to solving world
environmental problems . As a first step, substantially reducing the cost of space travel will reduce the cost of
environment-monitoring satellites, thereby improving climate research and environmental policy-making .
4.1. Space-based solar power supply
A second possibility, which has been researched for several decades but has not yet received funding to enable testing in orbit, is the
delivery of continuous solargenerated power from space to Earth. Researchers believe that such space-based solar power ( SSP) could
supply clean, low-cost energy on a large scale, which is a prerequisite for economic development of poorer countries, while avoiding damaging
pollution. However, realisation of SSP requires much lower launch costs, which apparently only the development of a passenger space travel
industry could achieve. Hence the development of orbital tourism could provide the key to realising SSP economically [14].
4.2. Carbon-neutral space travel
Clean energy produced by SSP could eliminate the environmental impact of space travel, and even make it "carbon neutral" if this is considered
desirable [25]. Moreover, SSP has a much shorter energy pay-back time than terrestrial solar energy, due to the almost continuous supply of
power which it can generate, rather than only in day-time during clear weather. Some critics claim that space travel will become a significant
environmental burden [26]. However, while superficially correct in the short term, this is the opposite of the truth over the longer term. It would
be a dangerous error to prevent the growth of space tourism in order to avoid its initial, minor environmental impact, since this would prevent a
range of major benefits in the future, including the supply of lowcost, carbon-neutral SSP, and other space-based industry.
4.3. Space-based industry
If orbital travel grows to a scale of millions of passengers/year -- as it could by the 2030s, with vigorous investment -- it will stimulate the
spontaneous growth of numerous businesses in space. These will grow progressively from simple activities such as maintenance of orbiting
hotels, to in-space manufacturing using asteroidal minerals. For example, the development of SSPwould enable a range of industrial processes
using the advantages of space, including high vacuum, weightlessness, low-cost electricity and sources of both minerals and volatile chemicals in
shallow gravitational wells.
If SSP grows to supply a significant share of the terrestrial energy market, more and more industry would operate outside the
Earth's ecological system. While most industries cause growing damage to the Earth's environment as they grow in scale, industrial
activities which are outside the Earth's ecosystem need not cause any such damage. Hence the growth of space-based industry to large
scale offers the longer-term possibility of decoupling economic growth from the limits of the terrestrial environment .
only the use of space resources, including especially SSP, offers the possibility of
Indeed, it has been convincingly argued that
protecting the Earth's environment while enabling sufficient economic growth to preserve civilised society [22,27].
4.4. Severe weather amelioration and climate stabilisation
The use of solar power satellites for reducing the severity of hurricanes and typhoons, and/or ameliorating severe snow conditions has been
discussed for some years. In the extreme case this application of SSP might even include a role in the stabilisation of climate . Earth's
climate system is extremely complex, and is the subject of a great deal of ongoing scientific research, including collection of an ever-wider range
of data, and ever-more detailed analysis of climate change in the past.
A positive-feedback cycle causing sudden onset of the cooling phase of the long-term cycle of "ice ages" has been hypothesized, whereby a
winter with unusually low temperatures and/or unusually widespread and/or longlasting snow cover would increase the probability of the
following winter being even more severe [28,29]. The beginning of such a trend would be similar to the sharply more severe winters seen over
the two last years in North America (as well as the unusually cool 2009 summer).
Consequently, although such a possibility may seem remote, and although there are thorny legal problems concerning deliberate weather
modification, it is nevertheless noteworthy that satellite power stations may be the only practical means of selectively melting snow over areas of
thousands of square kilometres, possibly sufficient to prevent such a vicious circle, even in the event of terrestrial energy shortages.
4.5. Ethical consumption
Passenger space travel and its numerous spinoff activities have the important potential to escape the limitations of the
"consumerism" which governments in the rich countries have encouraged in recent decades in order to stimulate economic growth, defined as
GDP.
Researchers now understand that this is resulting in "excess consumption" which causes unnecessary environmental damage [30], while reducing
rather than increasing popular satisfaction [31]. That is, "first world" citizens are increasingly trapped in a culturally impoverished "consumer"
lifestyle which reduces social capital, social cohesion and happiness, while damaging the environment. By contrast, expenditure on the
unique experience of space travel promises to play a more positive role in the economy and society, enriching
customers culturally without requiring mass production of consumer goods and corresponding pollution. As such it could be
a harbinger of a future " open world" economy [27].
 2NC---AT: Space War
Multiple aspects of existence in space prevent war and conflict
Al Globus 20, worked at NASA Ames on space settlement, asteroid mining, Hubble, space stations, X-37, Earth
observation, TDRSS, cubesats, lunar teleoperation, spaceflight effects on bone, molecular nanotechnology, scientific
visualization, and space solar power, publishing dozens of papers on these and other topics, 7/13/20, “Not so dark
skies,” https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3985/1
War (Geopolitical Malefic)
Argument : Space settlement creates an endless frontier extending for millions of light-years into the cosmos. Frontiers tend to
be violent places, creating wars not only at the frontier but between the polities that support the expansion. The vast
size of the cosmos means that settlers are widely separated for much of the time, perhaps even evolving new species. When they come close
enough to interact there may be little fellow feeling and little reluctance for the stronger to exterminate the weaker.
Counter-argument: With space settlement development there are a number of factors inhibiting violence and
warfare. For one, the vast energy and materials resources available will tend to make resource wars obsolete. The
fragility of space settlements, particularly free-space settlements in orbit, mandates that settlers avoid pointless
provocations and chest-beating exercises. The enormous size of the space inhabited, up to and including the entire
galaxy, makes it extremely unlikely that war will consume more than a small fraction of the population and
resources available. It is difficult, if not impossible, to predict whether space settlement will lead to an increase or decrease in the odds that
any given individual or group is involved in warfare or not. Preventing space settlement may be more or less dangerous than allowing it to
proceed; it’s impossible to say.
Comparison with no space settlement: It is reassuring that since World War II warfare has decreased substantially and
rarely involves the great powers directly killing each other’s citizens. That is left to proxies . However, not all wars are
intentional. Consider World War I and the Cuban Missile Crisis. These suggest that there is a possibility—some would say probability—of an
accidental humanity-ending nuclear war.
Space settlement or not, we would be fools indeed not to find, track, and deflect asteroids headed towards Earth.
Space settlement could reduce this probability a bit by exposing large numbers of people to the Overview Effect created by the view of Earth
from space, where some astronauts have come to value Earth and the unity of Earth’s people much more than before. More substantively, a
sufficiently developed space settlement society surviving a war can repopulate Earth and restock other species if prevention fails. Thus the chance
of a humanity-ending nuclear war is much lower with a sufficiently advanced space settlement society.
Deliberate asteroid attack (Natural Threat Amplification)
Argument: a sufficiently large asteroid impacting Earth can exterminate homo sapiens; indeed many species have been destroyed this way. It is
possible to build a surveillance system to track dangerous asteroids and develop means to deflect them. However, this very system could be used
to deliberately target Earth and this may be a more extensive threat than untampered asteroids.
Counter-arguments and counter-counter arguments:
Without intervention, multiple major Earth strikes by large asteroids are certain, although the timing is unknown. Space settlement or no, we must
find and monitor existing asteroids and develop deflection technology sufficient to make asteroids miss Earth.
Targeting Earth is much more difficult than making an asteroid miss Earth. Hitting Earth requires a much greater ability to manipulate and predict
trajectories accurately. Missing Earth given an on-target asteroid only requires the asteroid to be delayed or advanced by a few minutes. Hitting
Earth requires accurate prediction of thrust added to the asteroid, which is dependent on composition, and understanding the non-Newtonian
effects (e.g., light pressure) for the time between thrust and collision.
However, given time and a vigorous asteroid mining industry that deliberately deflects asteroids routinely, targeting asteroids will someday be
practical.
It is likely that the mining will be done by a factory that goes to the asteroid, and only refined products sent to Earth or elsewhere. Thus, the
ability to accurately retarget asteroids will likely not get a boost from mining.
Any reasonable program to protect Earth from asteroids will track and predict the future motion of all the large asteroids, and many of the smaller
ones, coming near Earth’s orbit. Thus, tampering with the natural trajectory of a dangerous asteroid will likely be detected long before it is an
imminent threat, providing time for deflection.
A trusted but rogue element (i.e., a spy) inside the tracking organization may be able to cover up the new trajectory and true location of the
asteroid until it is too late.
A potential solution is multiple redundant tracking operations such that penetration of all of them by rogue elements is extremely unlikely.
Asteroids are inferior weapons.
Aiming at the desired target at any particular time is often impossible. Asteroids travel in predictable orbits and are only a threat to settlements
near that trajectory. There may not be an opportunity to hit a particular target with a large asteroid for hundreds of years or more.
Time constraints make a coordinated attack by multiple asteroids all but impossible to design much less execute.
Aiming to hit something as small as Earth is difficult, much harder than trying to miss Earth. Small perturbations can cause an asteroid to miss
Earth entirely, whereas small perturbations do not matter much when trying to miss Earth.
Changing the trajectory of large asteroids is difficult. The velocities and masses are huge. Trajectory change must often be done years or even
decades in advance to hit the target.
When attacking orbital settlements the target can, at least in principle, maneuver, making the difficult task of hitting the target much harder.
Nuclear weapons are smaller, easier to precisely maneuver, and much easier to hide than asteroids. Consider that, unlike asteroids, nuclear
weapon locations won’t be in a solar-system-wide database. Nuclear weapons are far easier to use for surgical attacks that are not intended to
exterminate humanity. They are also suitable for whole-planet destruction by designing the attack to create a nuclear winter. Given the superiority
of nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that a deliberate asteroid attack will be attempted much less be successful.
Comparison with no space settlement: Space settlement or not, we would be fools indeed not to find, track, and deflect asteroids headed towards
Earth. However, without settlement it will be more difficult to accomplish this. Without space settlement, our in-space industrial capabilities will
be less advanced, and removing the threat entirely by dismantling the appropriately asteroids and selling the materials will not be an option. The
asteroid threat will continue more or less forever and vigilance will be easier to maintain if settlements dot the solar system. Finally, once a large
number of space settlements are independent of Earth, a successful asteroid attack on Earth would not exterminate humanity.
Weakening of treaty obligations (Restraint Reversal)
Argument: Nuclear-tipped ICBMs are a well documented existential threat at least to civilization and possibly humanity. Also, there are other
technological developments, such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, and artificial superintelligence, that have the potential to create very serious
problems. A series of treaties inhibits the further development of nuclear weapons and, at least in principle, it might be desirable to have similar
constraints on other fields. Military pressure on Earth by cislunar space settlements has the potential to loosen treaty obligations and create a
greater threat than would otherwise be the case. Space settlement changes the environment and may make restraining ICBMs and other dangerous
technology more difficult and therefore less likely to succeed.
Counter-argument: It is possible that there may be military tensions between Earth and cislunar space. It may be that these tensions prevent
successful treaty development. Other factors might instead play a dominant role in treaty development. It’s also possible that treaty development
is counter-productive if one or both sides cheat. It is extremely difficult to know centuries in advance how well treaty development will fare. To
give up the survivability of a space-settlement-based society on the highly uncertain and possibly unimportant improvements in the environment
for treaty negotiations predicted by geopolitics does not appear to be wise.
So far, civilian space development has been a huge boon to humanity in Earth observation, communications, geolocation, treaty monitoring, and
more, and there is every reason to believe this will continue.
Comparison with no space settlement: Nuclear-tipped ICBMs are here and it is many decades before the first space settlement will be built. The
main comparison is that in the space settlement case the use of large numbers of nuclear weapons will not wipe humanity out. Also, hundreds,
thousands, or even millions of kilometers of vacuum will separate settlements from Earth and each other, making a barrier to proliferation that
even advanced artificial superintelligence may have difficulty penetrating.
Totalitarian world government (Hierarchy Enablement)
Argument: According to Deudney, “The further large-scale expansion of human activity into solar space is likely to
facilitate the emergence of a highly hierarchical world government on… Earth that could then be prone to become totalitarian”
due to military pressure on Earth.
Counter-argument: The hypothesized facilitation of highly hierarchical world government is due to the hypothesized threat of attack specifically:
Bombardment by asteroids. But as we have seen, asteroids make inferior weapons.
Attack from low Earth orbit. In this scenario one entity controls Earth and another controls the orbital space near Earth, which can then be used to
launch attacks. However, if a single entity controls both, this threat becomes moot.
With regard to turning totalitarian, it should be noted that none of the classic totalitarian states (Soviet Union, Germany,
Italy, North Korea, and China) were
subject to significantly more threat than other countries which did not turn totalitarian
(e.g., the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland, etc.), suggesting that
external pressure is not necessarily the driver towards
totalitarianism. Indeed, South and North Korea shows that very similar countries in similar circumstance can be
driven to either totalitarianism or democracy.
Living in space will make us more ethical, social beings
Jovan Milivojević 17, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kragujevac, with; Tijana Cvetić, Ivan Savović,
Nebojša Nikolić, Miloš Petronijević; June 2017, “QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE FOLLOWING CENTURIES,”
http://cqm.rs/2017/cd1/pdf/papers/focus_1/53.pdf
b) Social dimension
This dimension will not be able to follow the development that takes place on Earth. Here in the harsh conditions of
survival people must be leaning on each other, and the fellowship must be dominant in relation to the selfishness
of individuals and groups. The idea of globalism here melts like snow under the July sun. Here all are important as the different philosophy
leads the fragile human community to the collapse and it takes a long time to it to start up a strong development that leads to the development of s
new human civilization.
c) Environmental dimension
Environmental dimension suffers radical changes, because we talk about very harsh living conditions that have to be adapted with the help of the
latest knowledge and technologies. So, virtually there is no atmosphere on the Moon, gravity is six times smaller, one side of the Moon is
extremely hot, and the other is extremely cold and the entire Moon is a huge stone desert. There is no running water, nor is it possible to produce
food in the open. And a number of other parameters of the Moon indicate a totally inhospitable celestial body. Knowledge of terraforming the
Moon are absolutely at the beginning and are related to the huge energy regardless of the process (the development of the atmosphere, clouds and
rain, the development of vegetation and wildlife, etc.). Even in the 22nd century, it will be a problem and a huge scientific endeavour which
should be solved with the enormous and concerted efforts.
d) Science and Technology dimension
This dimension of quality of life in cosmic conditions becomes dominant. It needs to find effective solutions for
high-quality adaptation of man as a biological system to new radically altered environmental conditions, as well as
an efficient and sustainable growth and development of human communities, which should enable the development of new
cosmic civilizations. Of course, it also means an effectively terraforming of celestial bodies, for example, Mars and the Moon. To begin with, the
scientific and technological development of new human communities and / or civilizations must rely on the capacities of the parent planet, but
eventually the development of own scientific capacities will create conditions for a normal and decent life of people
in cosmic environment.
e) Value system dimension
This dimension of quality of life will also experience important changes. Philosophical
views on life, the basic value systems,
cultures and beliefs will assume many new forms . On the other hand, the new environmental conditions (gravity, brightness,
atmospheric pressure, etc.) will significantly change the man's physical appearance, and the absence of earthly paradise (rivers, seas, lakes, flora
and fauna, atmospheric phenomena, etc.) will significantly change the psyche of people. This will affect the development of the significantly
changed system of values and views on quality of life and enjoyment of happiness.
 2NC---AT: Universe Destruction
There’s no chance that anything we do could possibly destroy the Universe
Dr. Tom Head 14, PhD from Edith Cowan University, M.A. in Humanities from California State University,
Dominguez Hills, M.Th. Student in Practical Theology, University of South Africa, expected 2022, Author of
Conversations with Carl Sagan, Author of World History 101, BA from Excelsior College, Author or Coauthor of
29 Nonfiction Books, Columnist, Scriptwriter, Research Paralegal, “Why We Can’t Accidentally Destroy the
Universe”, Mysterious Universe, 9-15, https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/09/why-we-cant-accidentally-destroy-
the-universe/
Stephen Hawking’s recent remarks regarding the possibility that our descendants might one day destroy the universe
by disrupting the Higgs field with a larger-than-Earth supercollider has gotten people thinking: is there anything we
could do now that would destroy the universe?
The answer to that question is, by all appearances, a pretty clear no . Here are two good reasons why:
1. The universe is really, really durable .
Last April, astronomers witnessed gamma-ray burst (GRB) 130427A and, short of being bigger than other gamma
ray bursts they’d observed, it wasn’t particularly remarkable: just a star 20 to 30 times the Sun’s mass collapsing and
exploding in a way we can’t fully understand, creating a black hole and outshining local objects from millions of
light years away. This sort of thing happens fairly regularly all over the universe, and was presumably more
common for most of the universe’s history.
Although these gamma-ray bursts occur on a scale and with a power that exponentially exceeds anything humanity
can produce ( and anything humanity is likely to produce for a very long time ), they don’t appear
to do any tangible harm to the structure of the universe itself.
2. We don’t have the technology to do anything the natural world isn’t already doing.
If we can’t endanger the universe with raw explosive power, can we can endanger it by tinkering with the natural
order of things? Maybe, if we ever figure out how, but everything humanity has ever done so far has fallen well
within the parameters of the natural order of things.
Even nuclear fission, the go-to example of humanity harnessing the power of the gods, is nothing new; it occurred
naturally in 17 underground sites in West Africa two billion years ago, no Manhattan Project needed. And the L arge
H adron Collider, wonderful though it is, just stimulates weak, observable versions of processes that naturally occur
in local space on a regular basis. There is, in the words of Ecclesiastes, nothing new under the Sun. All we’re
ultimately doing is rearranging our environment, much like other nestmaking animals do; we have yet to create
anything that is, in a cosmic sense, out of the ordinary. And as the universe is unlikely to be destroyed by
something that it ordinarily produces on its own, it should be safe from us for a long time to come .
 --AT: Lasers
Super lasers can’t break the quantum vacuum---they’re way too weak and it’ll respond,
not rip
Dr. Ethan Siegel 18, Professor at Lewis & Clark College, PhD in Theoretical Physics from the University of
Florida, Senior Contributor at Forbes Magazine, “Ask Ethan: Can A Laser Really Rip Apart Empty Space?”, Forbes,
2-3, https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/03/ask-ethan-can-a-laser-really-rip-apart-empty-
space/#335e5f2af4b0
Empty space, as it turns out, isn't so empty. The fluctuations in the vacuum of space itself mean that even if you take all the matter and radiation
out of a region of space, there's still a finite amount of energy there, inherent to space itself. If you fire a powerful enough laser at it,
can you, as a Science magazine story called it, break the vacuum and rip apart empty space? That's what our Patreon supporter
Malcolm Schongalla wants to know, as he asks:
Science Magazine recently reported that Chinese physicists will start building a 100-petawatt(!!!) laser this year.
Can you please explain how they plan to achieve this, and what unique phenomenon this will help physicists explore? Such as, what
exactly is "breaking the vacuum?"
The story is real, verified, and a little bit exaggerated in terms of claims that it can break the vacuum, as though such a
thing were possible . Let's dive into the real science to find out what's really happening.
A set of Q-line laser pointers showcase the diverse colors and compact size that now are commonplace for lasers. The continuously-operating
lasers shown here are very low power, measuring just watts or fractions of watts, while the record is in petawatts.
The very idea of a laser itself is still relatively novel, despite how widespread they are. Originally an acronym standing for Light Amplification
by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, lasers are a bit of a misnomer. In truth, nothing is really being amplified. You know that, in normal matter,
you have an atomic nucleus and various energy levels for an electron; in molecules, crystals, and other bound structures, the particular separations
between an electron's energy levels dictate which transitions are allow. In a laser, the electrons oscillate between two allowable states, emitting a
photon of a very particular energy when they drop from the higher-energy state to the lower one. These oscillations are what produce the light,
but for some reason, no one wanted the acronym Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
By 'pumping' electrons into an excited state and stimulating them with a photon of the desired wavelength, you can cause the emission of another
photon of exactly the same energy and wavelength. This action is how the light for a laser is first created.
If you can produce either multiple atoms-or-molecules in the same excited state and stimulate their spontaneous jump to the ground state, they’ll
emit the same energy photon. These transitions are extremely fast (but not infinitely so), and so there is a theoretical limit to how quickly you can
make a single atom-or-molecule hop up to the excited state and spontaneously emit a photon. Normally, some type of gas, molecular compound
or crystal is used inside a resonant-or-reflective cavity to create a laser, but you can also make one out of free electrons, semiconductors, optical
fibers, and, in theory, even positronium.
The amount of energy that comes out of a laser is limited by the amount you put in, so the only way to achieve extremely high power in your
laser is to shorten the timescale of the emitted laser pulse. You might hear the term petawatt, which is 1015 W, and think this is a
tremendous amount of energy. But "petawatts" aren't energy , but power, which is an energy over a time. A petawatt
laser could either be a laser that emits 1015 J of energy (the amount released by about 200 kilotons of TNT) every second, or could just be a laser
that emits one joule of energy (the amount released by burning 60 micrograms of sugar) over femtosecond (10-15 second) timescales. In terms of
energy, these two scenarios are vastly different, even though their power is the same.
The 100 petawatt laser in question hasn't been built yet, but is rather the next enormous threshold that researchers plan
to cross in the 2020s. The hypothesized project is known as the Station of Extreme Light, and is set to be constructed at the
Shanghai Superintense Ultrafast Laser Facility in China. An external pump, which is usually light from a different wavelength, excites the
electrons in the lasing material, causing the characteristic transition that creates the laser light. The photons then all emege in a tightly packed
stream, or a pulse, at a very narrow set of wavelengths. To the surprise of many, the 1 petawatt threshold was crossed way back in
19 96 ; it's taken nearly two decades to cross the 10 petawatt mark.
The preamplifiers of the National Ignition Facility are the first step in increasing the energy of laser beams as they make their way toward the
target chamber. In 2012, NIF achieved a 0.5 petawatt shot, reaching a peak of 1,000 times more power than the United States uses at any instant
in time.
The National Ignition Facility in the United States may be what we first think of when we envision high-powered lasers, but this is a bit of a red
herring. This array of 192 lasers, focusing on a single point to compress a hydrogen pellet and ignite nuclear fusion, hovers right around the 1 PW
mark, but isn't the most powerful one around. It has a high amount of energy at over a million joules, but its pulses are, comparatively, very long-
duration. To set the power record, you need to deliver the greatest amount of energy in the shortest amount of time.
The current record-holder, instead, uses a sapphire crystal doped with titanium, pumps hundreds of joules of energy into it, bounces the light
back-and-forth until destructive interference cancels out most of the pulse length, and the output is compressed into a single pulse just tens of
femtoseconds long. That's how we can reach output powers in the ballpark of 10 PW.
In order to go higher — to reach that next order-of-magnitude milestone — we'll have to either increase the energy we input into the laser, from
hundreds of joules to thousands, or decrease the pulse time. The first one is problematic for the materials we presently use. Small titanium-
sapphire crystals won't hold up to that kind of energy, while larger ones tend to emit light in the wrong direction: at right angles to the desired
pathway. The three main approaches, therefore, that researchers are considering at the present time are:
To take the original, 10 PW pulse, stretch it out over a grating, and combine it into an artificial crystal, where you can pump it again, raising its
power.
To combine multiple pulses from a series of different high-powered lasers to create the right level of overlap: a challenge for pulses just tens of
femtoseconds (3-15 microns) long that move at the speed of light.
Or, to add a second round of pulse compression, squeezing them to as little as a couple of femtoseconds.
Bending light and focusing it to a point, regardless of wavelength or where it's incident on your surface, is one key step towards maximizing the
intensity of your light at a single location in space.
The pulses must then be brought to a tight focus, raising not just the power, but the intensity, or the power concentrated at a single point. As the
Science article states:
If a 100-PW pulse can be focused to a spot measuring just 3 micrometers across [...] the intensity in that tiny area will be an astonishing
1024 watts per square centimeter (W/cm2)—some 25 orders of magnitude, or 10 trillion trillion times, more intense than the sunlight striking
Earth.
This opens the door to a long-sought-after opportunity to create particle-antiparticle pairs where there were none
before, but it's hardly "breaking the quantum vacuum."
According to the theory of quantum electrodynamics, the zero-point energy of empty space isn't zero, but some positive, finite value. Although
we visualize it as particles and antiparticles popping in-and-out of existence, a better depiction is to recognize that, with enough energy,
you can — through physics — use these electromagnetic properties of empty space to generate real
particle/antiparticle pairs. This is based on the simple Einsteinian physics of E = mc2, but requires a strong enough electric field to build
those particles: around 1016 volts per meter. Light, since it's an electromagnetic wave, carries with it both electric and magnetic fields, and will
reach that critical threshold with a laser intensity of 1029 W/cm2.
Zetawatt lasers, reaching an intensity of 10^29 W/cm^2, should be sufficient to create real electron/positron pairs from the
quantum vacuum itself. This will require additional energy, shorter pulses, and/or increased focusing over what we even envision for the
future.
You ought to notice, right away, that even the dream scenario of the science article gives intensities that are still
100,000 times too small to reach this threshold, and whenever you're below that threshold, your ability to
produce particle/antiparticle pairs is exponentially suppressed . The mechanism at play is quite different than simply the reverse of
pair production, where instead of an electron and positron annihilating to create two photons, two photons interact to produce an electron/positron
pair. (That process was first experimentally demonstrated way back in 1997.) In the laser setup, no individual photons have enough energy to
produce new particles, but rather their combined effects on the vacuum of space causes particle/antiparticle pairs to pop into existence with a
particular probability. Unless, however, those intensities approach that critical 1029 W/cm2 threshold, that probability
might as well be zero .
The ability to generate matter/antimatter pairs of particles from empty space alone will be an important test of quantum electrodynamics, and will
also be a remarkable demonstration of the power of lasers and our ability to control them. It may not take reaching that critical threshold to
generate the first particle/antiparticle pairs from this mechanism, but you'll have to either get close, get lucky, or have some sort of mechanism to
any case, the quantum vacuum never breaks , but rather does
enhance your production over what you naively expect. In
exactly what you expect of it: responds to matter and energy in accordance with the laws of physics. It might not be
intuitive, but it's something even more powerful: it's predictable. The art of doing that prediction and doing the experiments to verify or refute
them is what science is all about! We may not be there yet, but every leap upwards in power and intensity is another step closer to this "holy
grail" in laser physics.

It won’t destroy the Universe---their author is a quack with no qualifications---the warrant

is vacuum decay, which won’t happen
Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder 17, Research Fellow at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Ph.D. in
Theoretical Physics from J. W. Goethe Universitat Frankfurt, MS in Physics from J. W. Goethe Universitat
Frankfurt, “Dear Dr B: What Are The Chances Of The Universe Ending Out Of Nowhere Due To Vacuum Decay?”,
Back Reaction, 6-7, http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/06/dear-dr-b-what-are-chances-of-universe.html
[grammar edit]
This meta-stable vacuum has, however, a ridiculously long lifetime of about 10600 times the current age of the
universe, take or give a few billion billion billion years. This means that the vacuum will almost certainly not decay until all
stars have burnt out.
However, this extrapolation of the potential assumes that there aren’t any unknown particles at energies higher than
what we have probed, and no other changes to physics as we know it either. And there is simply no telling whether
this assumption is correct .
The analysis of vacuum stability is not merely an extrapolation of the presently known laws into the future – which would be justified – it
is also an extrapolation of the presently known laws into an untested energy regime – which is not justified . This
stability debate is therefore little more than a mathematical exercise , a funny way to quantify what we already know about the
Higgs’ potential.
Besides, from all the ways I can think of humanity going extinct, this one worries me least : It would happen without
warning, it would happen quickly, and nobody would be left behind to mourn. I worry much more about events that may cause much suffering,
like asteroid impacts, global epidemics, nuclear war – and my worry-list goes on.
Not all worries can be cured by rational thought, but since I double-checked you want facts and not comfort, fact is that current data indicates our
vacuum is meta-stable. But its decay is an unreliable prediction based [on] the unfounded assumption that there
either are no changes to physics at energies beyond the ones we have tested, or that such changes don’t matter. And
even if you buy this, the vacuum almost certainly wouldn’t decay as long as the universe is hospitable for life.
Particle physics is good for many things, but generating potent worries isn’t one of them. The biggest killer in physics is
still the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It will get us all, eventually. But keep in mind that the only reason we play the prediction game is to get the
best out of the limited time that we have.
 2NC---AT: Aliens
Aliens don’t exist
Michael J. Coren 18, Reporter at Quartz, Founder at Publet, Writer for Fast Company, Foreign Policy, and The
Economist, “We May Have Answered The Fermi Paradox: We Are Alone In The Universe”, Quartz, 6-25,
https://qz.com/1314111/we-may-have-answered-the-fermi-paradox-we-are-alone-in-the-universe/
[Paper internally cited is by Anders Sandberg, Ph.D. in Computational Neuroscience from Stockholm University,
Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute, et al.]
Alien life should be everywhere. The sheer abundance of stars in the universe (the number far outstrips the total number of
grains of sand on every beach on Earth) suggests that, somewhere, an intelligent lifeform should be warming itself on a
distant planet. Even if life evolves rarely, ET should be phoning.
Yet, by all appearances, humanity seems to be flying solo in our galaxy, and perhaps the universe. Many solutions have
been proposed to solve this riddle, known as the Fermi Paradox. The aliens are hiding. They’ve entered suspended animation until more
propitious conditions arise. A Great Filter makes the leap from “life “to “intelligent life” improbable, if not impossible .
They’ve blown themselves up.
Researchers of Oxford University’s Future of Humanity Institute have another answer. It’s likely intelligent life doesn’t exist at all ,
outside of Earth.
In a paper submitted to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (it appeared online this month on the pre-publication site arXiv), the
researchers write that there is “a substantial ex ante probability of there being no other intelligent life in our observable
universe,” and we shouldn’t be surprised if we fail to detect any signs of it. In other words, there is no need to speculate
about the fate of aliens. It’s likely they’ve never existed, they assert in the paper, titled “Dissolving the Fermi Paradox.”
The Fermi Paradox derives from a question reportedly posed by physicist Enrico Fermi during a 1950 lunch in the Los Alamos National
Laboratory in the state of New Mexico. According to Scientific American, a group of scientists were discussing a New Yorker cartoon showing
aliens emerging a spaceship, onto the streets of New York City. ”Where is everyone?” Fermi asked. While he was likely questioning the
possibility of interstellar travel, later accounts suggested he was casting doubt on the existence of extraterrestrials themselves, the magazine
reports.
Scientists have been trying to answer Fermi’s question ever since. Many of the most rigorous attempts have built on a postulation known as the
Drake equation. There are plenty of unknowns, but the equation suggests it’s plausible thousands of detectable alien civilizations could be
roaming the Milky Way based on the probability of seven factors. The equation:

N: total detectable alien civilizations in the Milky Way

R∗: rate of star formation per year
fp: fraction of stars with planets
ne: Earth-like (or otherwise habitable) planets per system with planets
fl: fraction of such planets with life
fi: fraction with life that develop intelligence
fc: fraction of intelligent civilizations that are detectable/contactable
L: average longevity of such detectable civilizations
Previous estimates of the Drake equation have assigned a single number to those variables. The recent study sought
to make a more informed guess. It relies on our latest knowledge of biology, chemistry, and cosmology, and
uses a distribution of probabilities (a range) to capture the most likely scenarios , rather than assign a single
value.
When they did, the researchers found that the possibility we’re alone in the galaxy is far higher than presumed
given the truly gargantuan number of possible home planets. The authors assert that the chance humanity stands alone
among intelligent civilizations in our galaxy is 53%–99.6%, and across the observable universe is 39%– 85% .
Since the Fermi “paradox” exists only if we are confident alien civilizations are out there, this uncertainty suggests we may just be the
lucky ones—thus, there is no such paradox. ”We should not actually be all that surprised to see an empty galaxy,” the authors
write. But don’t give up entirely. The Drake equation, at best, merely gives us a way to formalize what is still unknowable. It’s a big universe.
Modeling with the most accurate biological and cosmological data and realistic probability
distributions strongly disproves aliens
Stephen Johnson 18, St. Louis-based Writer Whose Work Has Appeared in U.S. News & World Report, The
Huffington Post, Eleven Magazine, Cheapism, Vox Magazine, The Missourian and Other Publications, “Are We
Alone In The Universe? New Drake Equation Suggests Yes”, Big Think, 6-25, https://bigthink.com/stephen-
johnson/are-we-the-only-intelligent-life-in-the-universe-updated-drake-equation-suggests-yes [language modified]
At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in 1950, physicist Enrico Fermi famously posed to his colleagues a simple question borne of
complex math: ‘Where are they?’
He was asking about aliens—intelligent ones, specifically. The Italian-American scientist was puzzled
as to why [hu]mankind hasn’t
detected any signs of intelligent life beyond our planet. He reasoned that even if life is extremely rare, you’d still expect there to be
many alien civilizations given the sheer size of the universe. After all, some estimates indicate that there is one septillion, or
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, stars in the universe, some of which are surrounded by planets that could probably support life.
So, where are they, and why aren’t they talking to us?
This is known as the Fermi paradox . It’s based on mathematical ideas like the Drake equation, which was devised to estimate the
number of detectable civilizations in the Milky Way. Scientists use the equation by multiplying seven variables, as Elizabeth Howell outlined for
Space:
N = R* • fp • ne • fl • fi • fc • L
N = The number of civilizations in the Milky Way Galaxy whose electromagnetic emissions are detectable.
R* = The rate of formation of stars suitable for the development of intelligent life.
fp = The fraction of those stars with planetary systems.
ne = The number of planets, per solar system, with an environment suitable for life.
fl = The fraction of suitable planets on which life actually appears.
fi = The fraction of life bearing planets on which intelligent life emerges.
fc = The fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space.
L = The length of time such civilizations release detectable signals into space.
The Drake equation is incredibly speculative, or, as astronomer Jill Tarter once said, it’s “a wonderful way to organize our ignorance.” It remains
a puzzling problem.
However, a new paper from scientists at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University provides an updated Drake equation,
one thatincorporates “realistic distributions of uncertainty” and “models of chemical and genetic transitions on
paths to the origin of life.” By doing so, the researchers say they dissolve the Fermi paradox and provide even more
reason to think we’re alone in the universe .
The updated equation effectively takes each variable and combines many historical estimates that scientists have
used to create an uncertainty range, one that highlights just how much scientists still don’t know , as study author Anders
Sandberg told Universe Today:
“Many parameters are very uncertain given current knowledge. While we have learned a lot more about the astrophysical ones since Drake and
Sagan in the 1960s, we are still very uncertain about the probability of life and intelligence. When people discuss the equation it is not uncommon
to hear them say something like: 'this parameter is uncertain, but let’s make a guess and remember that it is a guess', finally reaching a result that
they admit is based on guesses.
"But this result will be stated as single number, and that anchors us to an *apparently* exact estimate—when it should have a proper uncertainty
range. This often leads to overconfidence, and worse, the Drake equation is very sensitive to bias: if you are hopeful a small
nudge upwards in several uncertain estimates will give a hopeful result, and if you are a pessimist you can easily get a low result.”
After Sandberg and his colleagues combined these uncertainties, the results showed a distribution pattern of the likelihood that
humanity is alone in space.
“We found that even using the guesstimates in the literature (we took them and randomly combined the parameter estimates) one can
have a situation where the mean number of civilizations in the galaxy might be fairly high—say, a hundred—and yet
the probability that we are alone in the galaxy is 30%! The reason is that there is a very skew distribution of likelihood.
“If we instead try to review the scientific knowledge , things get even more extreme . This is because the probability of
getting life and intelligence on a planet has an *extreme* uncertainty given what we know—we cannot rule out that it
happens nearly everywhere there is the right conditions, but we cannot rule out that it is astronomically rare .
This leads to an even stronger uncertainty about the number of civilizations, drawing us to conclude that there is a
fairly high likelihood that we are alone . However, we *also* conclude that we shouldn’t be too surprised if we find
intelligence!”

Huge barriers prevent life, even in Earth-like conditions. It’s most likely we’re alone.
Dr. Ethan Siegel 19, Professor at Lewis & Clark College, Ph.D. in Theoretical Physics from the University of
Florida, Post-Doc at the University of Arizona, Senior Contributor at Forbes Magazine, Columnist for NASA’s ‘The
Space Place’, “What If It's Just Us?”, Forbes, 4-3, https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/04/03/what-
if-its-just-us/#147a88f37d3c
A substantial fraction of stars out there (around 20%) are either K-, G-, or F-class stars, too: Sun-like in mass, luminosity, and lifetime. Putting all
these numbers together, there are around 10^22 potentially Earth-like planets out there in the Universe, with the right
conditions for life on them. In our Milky Way alone, there may be billions of planets with Earth-like chances for life.
Most of the planets we know of that are comparable to Earth in size have been found around cooler, smaller stars than the Sun. This makes sense
with the limits of our instruments; these systems have larger planet-to-star size ratios than our Earth does with respect to the Sun.
But knowing there's a bird in the bush is not the same as having one in your hand. Similarly, having a planet with the
raw ingredients for life and similar conditions to what we had in the early days of Earth doesn't necessarily
guarantee that life will arise on such a planet. Even if life does arise, what are the odds that it will persist , thrive,
and become complex and differentiated? And beyond that, how often does it become intelligent and then
technologically advanced ?
Given all the events and circumstances that have transpired over the past 4.5 billion years — including the evolutionary twists and turns that
occurred as the result of seemingly random processes — it's safe to say that the exact way life unfolded on Earth is cosmologically
unique . But what about life, complex life, or technologically advanced life at all?
The crashed X-Files' alien spaceship, used as a promo for season 10 of the show, represents our hopes and fears concerning making contact with
an intelligent alien species. But we have no evidence for their existence, thus far, anywhere in the galaxy or Universe.
If we demand that we be scientifically honest and scrupulous, and look at the evidence without judgment in either optimistic or
pessimistic directions, this is truly the limit of what we can say as far as the odds of life elsewhere are concerned. Our hopes and fears
about the existence of aliens, of being cosmically alone, or any other point on the spectrum of possibilities have no decisive evidence to support
or refute them.
While it may be exciting to speculate about thousands of spacefaring civilizations in the Milky Way right now, or intelligent aliens
modifying their cosmic backyard or deliberately hiding from Earth, there is simply no evidence for this. Hypothesizing a slew of
possibilities that haven't been ruled out might be a clever exercise that will someday lead to greater knowledge, but we can say nothing definitive
about them today.
Atoms can link up to form molecules, including organic molecules and biological processes, in interstellar space as well as on planets. If the
ingredients for life are everywhere, then life may be ubiquitous, too. It was all seeded by prior generations of stars.
All we know is that, if
a planet was formed similar to Earth in the distant past, there are three big steps that must have
occurred in order to get a recognizably advanced civilization like our own.
1. Life must have somehow arisen from non-life. This is the problem of abiogenesis, or the origin of life from nonliving
precursor molecules. To go from the raw ingredients associated with organic processes to something that's classified as life, which means it has a
metabolism, responds to external stimuli, grows, adapts, evolves, and reproduces, is the first big step.
It occurred at least once, more than 4 billion years ago, on our world. Has it occurred elsewhere in our Solar System? In our galaxy? In
the Universe? We have no idea how frequently, out of the multibillion planetary candidates in our galaxy or out of the 10^22
candidates in the visible Universe, this may have occurred.
Both reflected sunlight on a planet and absorbed sunlight filtered through an atmosphere are two techniques humanity is presently developing to
measure the atmospheric content and surface properties of distant worlds. In the future, this could include the search for organic signatures as
well, and might potentially reveal a surefire sign of an inhabited planet.
2. Life must have thrived and evolved to become multicellular, complex, and differentiated. For billions of years , life
on Earth was single-celled and relatively simple, with copying errors from one generation to the next providing the overwhelming amount
of variation in organisms. Wherever resources abound, the simplest organisms to first make use of them fill that ecological niche. Under most
circumstances, they find a way to persist.
It's only when something changes, such as resource availability, the survivability of the environment, or from competition, that extinctions occur,
leaving open the possibility for a new organism to rise to prominence. Extinction events and selection pressures gave rise to many critical
evolutionary steps on Earth: DNA absorption, eukaryotic organisms, multicellularity, and sexual reproduction, among others. This could be
an inevitable occurrence on a planet with life, or it could be an ultra-rare event that happened to take place many times on Earth. We don't
know.
Alan Chinchar's 1991 rendition of the proposed Space Station Freedom in orbit. Any civilization that creates something like this would definitely
count as scientifically/technologically advanced, but inferring their existence is no more than wishful thinking at this point.
3. Intelligent life must have evolved , with the right traits to also become a technologically advanced civilization.
This may be the step with the greatest uncertainty of all. It's been over 500 million years since the Cambrian
explosion, and it's only over the past few hundred years that life on Earth has achieved the technologically advanced
state that an extraterrestrial observer would recognize as a sign of intelligent life.
We can broadcast our presence to the Universe; we can reach out beyond our home world with space probes and crewed space programs; we can
look and listen for other forms of intelligence in the Universe. But we have no known instances of success on this front in our Universe beyond
our own planet. Life like us could be common, or we
could be the only example within the limits of our observable Universe.
The Drake equation is one way to arrive at an estimate of the number of spacefaring, technologically advanced civilizations in the
galaxy or Universe today. But until we know how to estimate these parameters, we're just guessing at the possible answers.
The notion that we can quantify the odds that a form of intelligent life arises in our Universe based on the scientific knowledge we have today is
old: it goes back to the mid-20th century at least. Enrico Fermi, whom the famous Fermi Paradox is named after, posited that such estimates
led to the notion that intelligent life in the Universe should be common, so, then, where is everyone?
The Drake equation was a famous way to parameterize our ignorance, but we still remain ignorant about the presence of alien life and alien
intelligence. Hypothesized solutions have included:
that they're there, but we aren't listening properly,
that intelligent life self-destructs too quickly to maintain a technologically advanced state for very long,
that intelligent life is common but usually chooses isolation,
that Earth is purposely excluded,
that interstellar transmission or travel is too hard,
or that aliens are already here, but choose to remain hidden from us.
These proposed solutions usually leave out the most obvious option: that one or more of the three big steps is hard, and that when it
comes to intelligent life in all the Universe, it's just us .
Intelligent aliens, if they exist in the galaxy or the Universe, might be detectable from a variety of signals: electromagnetic, from planet
modification, or because they're spacefaring. But we haven't found any evidence for an inhabited alien planet so far. We may
truly be alone in the Universe, but the honest answer is we don't know enough about the relevant probability to say so.
Our scientific discoveries have led us to a remarkable point in the quest for knowledge about our Universe. We know how big the Universe is,
how many stars and galaxies are in it, and what fraction of stars are Sun-like, possess Earth-sized planets, and have planets in orbits that are
potentially habitable. We know the ingredients for life are everywhere, and we know how life evolved, thrived, and gave rise to us here on Earth.
But how did life arise to begin with, and how likely is a planet to develop life from non-life? If life does arise, how likely is it to become
complex, differentiated, and intelligent? And if life achieves all of those milestones, how likely is it that it becomes spacefaring or otherwise
technologically advanced, and how long does such life survive if it arises? The answers may be out there, but we must remember the most
conservative possibility of all. In all the Universe, until we have evidence to the contrary , the only example of life might
be us.
Nuke War Impact
Yes Extinction
 1NC/2NC---Nuclear Winter
Yes extinction from nuke winter---smoke blots out the sun for years---best science proves
Alan Robock 19, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University,
7/23/19, "Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole
Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE", Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334648599_Nuclear_Winter_Responses_to_Nuclear_War_Between_the_
United_States_and_Russia_in_the_Whole_Atmosphere_Community_Climate_Model_Version_4_and_the_Goddard
_Institute_for_Space_Studies_ModelE
*Tg = Teragram, this study says 150 Tg = US-Russia nuclear war
Since the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the twentieth century, considerable attention has been paid to the impact of a nuc lear war
on society and the environment. Crutzen and Birks (1982), following previous ideas by Lewis (1979), suggested that massive forest fires
ignited by nuclear weapons would rage for weeks after a war, producing a tropospheric pall of smoke that would obscure the Sun and reduce
sunlight at the surface for the duration of the fires. Turco et al. (1983) conducted the first climate modeling using a radiative ‐convective climate
model, showing that a
nuc lear winter could occur from this smoke. In a war where nuclear weapons would be used,
military and industrial centers located in urban areas would be targeted, which contain fuel loading much higher
than forests, thus creating an enormous amount of smoke when burned. Turco et al. (1983) found that urban fires
injecting smoke into the upper troposphere could produce severe climate changes and that urban firestorms could
inject smoke into the stratosphere, leading to rapid interhemispheric transport and a long‐lasting smoke pall , which
has since been affirmed by coupled global climate models (Mills et al., 2008; Mills et al., 2014; Pausata et al., 2016; Robock,
Oman, & Stenchikov, 2007; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007). Aleksandrov and Stenchikov (1983) conducted the first three‐
dimensional climate modeling for the injection scenarios of Turco et al. (1983) showing that continental temperature reductions would
be large despite moderation by the oceans . Malone et al. (1985) conducted the first three‐dimensional simulations including smoke
solar heating could cause smoke in the troposphere to rise into the
transport and removal by precipitation, showing that
stratosphere before precipitation removal, greatly prolonging the lifetime of the smoke. The effect of this smoke
entering Earth's upper atmosphere would be to block out sunlight for months to years , decreasing temperatures. In
1986, The Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment of the International Council of Scientific Unions published a report describing
the immense biological, ecological, and human impacts of a nuclear war based on the literature at the time (Pittock et al., 1986). The first
simulation with a modern, comprehensive coupled atmosphere‐ocean climate model by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) showed that
solar heating would loft smoke deep into the stratosphere . Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007) confirmed that a nuclear
winter would result from the amount of soot that could be produced by a nuclear war between Russia and the United
States with current arsenals (Toon et al., 2008). Later agricultural modeling of a regional nuclear war showed an
increased likelihood of crop failures and global famine due to the climate effects of smoke (Xia & Robock, 2013; Xia et
al., 2015). But climate models have improved since 2007 in terms of horizontal resolution, vertical resolution, and
vertical extent, which is essential for an accurate simulation of smoke lofting . We employ the much higher
resolution WACCM4 model used by Mills et al. (2014) to repeat the nuclear war scenario from Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov
(2007). We incorporate a more sophisticated treatment of stratospheric chemistry compared to Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
ModelE, and aerosol treatment is updated from Mills et al. (2014) by treating the aerosols as fractal particles whose optical
properties evolve over time. Only Pausata et al. (2016) has used a model to study the climate effect of nuclear war, using
a much smaller injection than here, that allowed for the growth of aerosols in the stratosphere, but their model had a limited vertical
resolution and extent (26 levels with a 3‐hPa model top), potentially limiting vertical lofting. Mixing together varying ratios of organic
and black carbon, Pausata et al. (2016) found a shorter stratospheric residence time of the aerosols due to particle growth. The use of a model
with a higher model top and higher vertical resolution here should help to more accurately model the lifetime of
fractal smoke particles generated from mass fires, a key uncertainty in this field of study.
Nuclear winter is scientifically accurate, and the risk is too great to gamble
Rachel Becker 19, Science reporter citing the classic robok and lundquist, 2/8/19, “Nuclear winter is still a hot
topic as a new arms race heats up”, https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/8/18212021/nuclear-war-winter-climate-
changes-russia-north-korea-tactical-nuke-inf-treaty
It’s a subject worth talking about says Richard Turco, a professor emeritus at UCLA and one of the authors of the
1983 scientific paper that first proposed the idea. “Although there is a relatively low probability of nuclear winter
happening, the potential consequences would be catastrophic — namely the destruction of human civilization,”
Turco says in an email to The Verge. 
The idea is that a global nuclear war might set entire cities on fire,  as Alex Ward describes for Vox. The soot from
the conflagration could waft all the way into a part of the upper atmosphere called the stratosphere. There, the theory
goes, the soot will shade the Earth from the sun — dropping temperatures , destroying crops , drying up the rain ,
and damaging the ozone layer . “It wouldn’t take very long for people to starve to death,” says Alan Robock, a
professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University who has been studying nuclear winter since the 1980s. 
It’s a dark prediction for a post-apocalyptic world, and scientists are still figuring out just how bad it could get. After
all, no one has dropped a nuke on a city since the US bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That means there’s little
real-world data for researchers like Robock to go on. “This theory is not one we want to actually test outdoors,” he
says. 
So scientists rely on simulations and events like forest fires and volcanic eruptions to validate their models.
Different models disagree — although Robock doesn’t like to characterize the discrepancies as a debate, calling
them instead an area of active research. For example, Robock and his colleagues estimate that if India and Pakistan
began nuking each other, the conflict could churn out enough soot to make global temperatures plummet. But
another study published in 2018 by scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory argues that not enough soot would
make it into the upper atmosphere to cause major shifts in the climate. (The study’s corresponding author did not
respond to multiple requests for comment.)
“Now we come to the scientific issue that’s at the heart of the controversy,” says Kerry Emanuel, a professor of
atmospheric science at MIT who wrote about the concept of a nuclear winter in the 1980s. “Are the fires hot enough,
or big enough to get material up into the stratosphere?” 
Robock and Julie Lundquist, an associate professor in the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences at the
University of Colorado Boulder, are trying to find out. We know that smoke can get into the stratosphere, Lundquist
says. Researchers studying the 2017 wildfires in British Columbia, for example, discovered that storm clouds that
formed because of the smoke, called pyrocumulonimbus clouds, helped deliver soot particles into the stratosphere.
That’s where soot would need to go if it were going to cause long-term climate changes: soot in the lower
atmosphere settles out of the air quickly, often falling to the ground with rain.  
But Lundquist and her colleagues don’t know how often those pyrocumulonimbus clouds or their younger siblings,
pyrocumulus clouds, are likely to form over a nuked and burning city. The conditions need to be just right, with
calm winds and enough humidity. Then there’s the amount of smoke likely to rise from a nuked city, which would
vary from city to city depending on the available fuel. That’s another major source of uncertainty: most fire-
modeling studies have focused on wildland fires rather than major urban areas. 
That’s something Lundquist is trying to change with her new models. She expects cities to produce more smoke
than, say, a forest fire because of the sheer density of things that can burn. “Think about the carpets, think about
papers, think about books, think about the furniture,” she says. “There’s more combustible stuff per square unit area
in a city or in a suburban area.”
 --AT: Rainout
No rainout---smoke gets lifted to the stratosphere---cooling won’t go away
Alan Robock 19, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University,
7/23/19, "Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole
Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE", Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334648599_Nuclear_Winter_Responses_to_Nuclear_War_Between_the_
United_States_and_Russia_in_the_Whole_Atmosphere_Community_Climate_Model_Version_4_and_the_Goddard
_Institute_for_Space_Studies_ModelE
4. Conclusions
WACCM4, a state‐of‐the‐art climate model, and GISS ModelE, an older climate model, were used more than a decade apart to simulate the
environmental aftermath of a full nuclear conflict, a near worst case scenario. The models have significant differences in particle microphysics
and spatial resolution, as well as different algorithms for radiative transfer, dynamics, and other modeling approaches. Despite this, the models
agree that a nuclear winter would follow a large‐scale nuclear war between the United States and Russia , a result
previously found by a large number of diverse but much less sophisticated models in the 1980s. Despite differences in sensitivity to shortwave
radiative anomalies, both models exhibit a peak temperature drop of near 9 K below climatological values . The massive size
of the forcing explains many of the similarities in globally averaged values initially, and differences emerge as the aerosols are removed at
different rates. The new model agrees not just in global averages but in spatial patterns for temperature, and
precipitation changes and other climate parameters. Both models highlight the risk of a crash in global surface
temp eratures, but WACCM4 points to a collapse in the summer monsoon , a dramatic shift in El Niño variability,
drastic changes to the Northern Hemisphere winter time circulation, and a climate state that is 0.5 to 1 K below
climatological temperatures from before the war with no sign of further warming. The WACCM4 model finds that the
lifetime of the smoke is greatly enhanced over 1980s models, because it extends to much higher altitudes where the
smoke is more isolated from tropospheric rainfall , a result first found in ModelE by Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007).
However, compared to GISS ModelE, the lifetime of soot in the WACCM4 run is shorter due to the inclusion of particle
coagulation and fractal optics, despite the higher vertical resolution and model top, alleviating the duration of the most extreme climate
effects. Despite this , the cooling for the first few years is more extreme in WACCM4 and temperatures at the end of
the simulation suggest a new colder climate state . The inclusion of additional particle removal processes addresses a long‐standing
uncertainty about the black carbon aerosols released following a nuclear war and allows us to further constrain their e‐folding lifetime. While we
did not consider the effect of organic coatings on top of pure black carbon particles, future work should incorporate more direct calculations of
smoke generation using high‐resolution fuel loading databases and high‐resolution fire modeling of urban landscapes to determine the
distribution, type, and amount of material emitted from nuclear fires. Future work will build upon the results of Yu et al. (2019) to quantify the
role of organic carbon in smoke from pyroCbs and the sensitivity tests of different ratios of organic carbon and black carbon by Pausata et al.
(2016) for a regional nuclear war. Addressing the uncertainty of aerosol composition would further quantify the lifetime of these aerosols and
their effects on chemistry in the stratosphere. The research conducted here supports the results of Turco et al. (1983), Sagan (1984), Pittock et al.
(1986), Robock, Oman, and Stenchikov (2007), Mills et al. (2008), Robock and Toon (2012), and Mills et al. (2014) that a full‐scale nuclear
attack would be suicidal for the country that decides to carry out such an attack. The use of nuclear weapons in this
manner by the United States and Russia would have disastrous consequences globally. To completely remove the
possibility of an environmental catastrophe as a result of a full‐scale nuclear war, decision makers must have a full
understanding of the grave climatic consequences of nuclear war and act accordingly. Ultimately, the reduction of nuclear
arsenals and the eventual disarmament of all nuclear capable parties are needed.
 --AT: Islands/Survivors
Nuclear war triggers dozens of indirect extinction scenarios and threatens future-
reproduction
Seth Baum 19, executive director of the Global Catastrophic Risk Institute, a think tank focused on existential
risk, 4/9/19, “A global disaster such as a nuclear war, a pandemic or runaway AI could have much graver
consequences for humanity’s future than we realise, says catastrophic risk expert Seth Baum.”,
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190408-how-catastrophes-can-change-the-path-of-humanity
To better understand how a catastrophe could shape humanity’s future , let’s consider one example: an all-out nuclear
war that involved all of the world’s nuclear-armed countries: China, France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom
and the US. Only the most expansive war would manage to draw in all of these countries. A more probable scenario would only involve Russia
and the US, which together hold over 90% of the global nuclear arsenal. But for the sake of discussion, let’s consider the worst-case nuclear war.
Even in the worst case, much of the world would presumably be spared from immediate destruction . Africa and Latin
America in particular are full of countries that are neither close allies nor adversaries of any of the nuclear-armed countries. Residents of
these countries would presumably survive the initial nuclear explosions, as would people who live in the targeted countries but
away from the cities and military sites that get bombed.
The harm from nuclear war would spread far beyond the bombed areas
The survivors’ world would instantly be changed. In addition to the social and political turmoil, they would also lose
many important nodes in the global economy. Many global supply chains are designed to be highly efficient under
normal conditions but are fragile to even small disruptions – and this disruption would not be small at all. Within weeks
or even days, communities all over the world could face shortages of consumer goods, replacement parts for critical
industrial infrastructure, and other basics .
Soon after, the global environmental effects would start to kick in. Nuclear explosions are so powerful that they can
send the dust and ash from burning cities all the way into the stratosphere, which is the second layer of the atmosphere, located
7km (4 miles) above the surface at the poles and 20km (12 miles) at the equator. The stratosphere is above the clouds, so anything that gets up
there doesn’t wash out in the rain. Instead, it spreads around the world within a few months and stays aloft for a few years. While aloft, it blocks
incoming sunlight, cooling the surface and reducing precipitation, all of which is bad news for agriculture. (Find out more about how prepared we
are for the impact of nuclear war).
The famine from a worst-case nuclear war would kill many people all around the world, possibly more than would die from the war itself. But it
might not kill everyone. There are some food stockpiles that could keep some people alive until the skies clear. Additional food could be grown
from artificial light or other sources, assuming supplies for that were intact.
The combination of global famine plus the destruction of the war itself would severely strain our modern global
civilisation . It is possible that the survivors could keep life as we know it more or less intact. But with all the pressures they face, it would
be understandable if our civilisation collapsed, just as previous civilisations from Egypt to Easter Island once did (see
“Are we headed for civilisation collapse?”).
People often ask me which risks are the biggest, but this is the wrong way to look at it
What the intersection of famine and destruction following a nuclear war tells us is that catastrophes are often
interconnected . The consequences – and vulnerability – a single catastrophe creates can linger from many years after the
event. A nuclear war isn’t just a nuclear war: it is also an economic recession and an agriculture failure . How well
civilisation endures it may depend a lot on how much it has already been weakened by global warming and other environmental degradation.
The effects of the nuclear war could precipitate additional catastrophes, such as a pandemic (due to weakened public
health infrastructure) or a catastrophic failure of geoengineering (leading to accelerated climate change). This is a
scenario my colleagues and I have called a “double catastrophe”.
Because of all these interconnections, it is important to study catastrophes all together, instead of in isolation . People often
ask me which risks are the biggest, but this is the wrong way to look at it. We face an interconnected system of
catastrophic risk, not a collection of isolated risks. My colleagues and I have developed the concept of “integrated
assessment” of catastrophic risks to study the interconnected risk and develop the best ways of addressing it.
Regardless of what all the catastrophe entails, it raises the question of what happens next. If humanity goes extinct, this question is of course easy
to answer: we’re all dead. But if some people survive, the answer is a subtler matter.
If civilisation ceased functioning, survivors would be largely on their own to keep themselves alive and healthy. Today, most people live in urban
areas and may struggle to grow their food. (Ask yourself: would you know how to survive without civilisation providing you your basic needs?)
Ironically, some of the most well-off people in the post-catastrophe world could be the subsistence farmers who are today considered to be among
the world’s poorest. (Read more about what happens, and how people react, in a food crisis).
One critical task would be reproduction. Survivor populations would need to be large enough and close enough
together in order to produce new generations of humans. Otherwise, the population would die out. Scientists have proposed that as
few as 150 or as many as 40,000 people could be needed to sustain a genetically viable population. The more favourable the conditions, the fewer
people are needed, and the more likely a population is to succeed.

Society would be screwed---even if there are survivors, they’ll die out instead of rebuilding
Seth D. Baum and Anthony M. Barrett, 18. Global Catastrophic Risk Institute. 4/3/18, Global Catastrophic Risk
Institute Working Paper 18-2 “A Model for the Impacts of Nuclear War” p. 17
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3155983 Accessed 10/27/19 *content warning for mention of suicide
Finally, there are the effects of human perceptions of ionizing radiation . These are numerous, complex, and in
many cases difficult to predict. A simple effect is the evacuation of populations located in areas perceived to be
exposed to harmful doses of ionizing radiation. Evacuations are a standard procedure for such exposures, as seen
most recently in the evacuation of the Fukushima region following the 2011 nuclear power plant accident.
Evacuations are likely to occur following nuclear detonations to the extent that they are feasible. Depending on the
details of the nuclear war scenario, evacuation could be rendered difficult , for example because of the death or
incapacitation of people or damage to transportation systems .
Evacuations can lessen the harms caused by ionizing radiation by reducing a population’s exposure. However,
evacuations can also cause harms . One potential harm is by depriving populations of hormesis benefits, if there are
any. Another harm comes from the evacuation itself. This was seen in the Fukushima evacuation, which caused an
estimated 1,100 deaths, due mainly to fatigue and in part also due to collapsed medical infrastructure (Saji
2013). Suffice to say, evacuation during or after nuclear war would face considerably different circumstances.
Evacuated territory could be abandoned for an extended duration or even in perpetuity . While Hiroshima and
Nagasaki have been repopulated, the Chernobyl area remains largely abandoned due to concerns about ionizing
radiation. Abandoning territory has both economic and ecological effects. The economic effects derive from the loss
of whatever geographic resources the abandoned territory offered and are thus site-specific. The ecological effects
are generally positive, such as the ecological flourishing now found in the abandoned Chernobyl area (Mulvey
2006).
Perceptions of ionizing radiation can have a strong impact on the mental health of nuclear detonation survivors .
Fear of ionizing radiation can lead to survivors being socially stigmatized (Peters et al. 2004) and can also lead to
survivors having negative attitudes about themselves (e.g., low self-esteem). One recent study of Nagasaki
survivors found poor mental health 50 years after the bombing, due mainly to fears xabout radiation (Kim et al.
2011). There are even some indicators of a radiation exposure causing an increase in suicide rates (Loganovsky
2007). There are some positives to speak of for nuclear detonation survivors. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors
—the hibakusha—have acquired a certain social status. This is seen in them being offered prominent speaking roles
in major events about nuclear weapons (e.g., Thurlow 2014). Comparable opportunities are less available for other
WWII survivors. However, the overall effect from perceptions of ionizing radiation appears to be a significant
negative .
Perceptions of ionizing radiation also impact norms . These impacts are discussed in the shifted norms module.
 --AT Small/Limited Nuke War
A limited nuclear war is enough to trigger our impacts
Adam J. Liska 17, associate professor and the George Dempster Smith Chair of Industrial Ecology in the
Departments of Biological Systems Engineering and Agronomy and Horticulture at the University of Nebraska,
7/6/17, “Nuclear Weapons in a Changing Climate: Probability, Increasing Risks, and Perception,”
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00139157.2017.1325300
Nuclear Drought: Minimum Thresholds for Nuclear Weapons Use and Carbon Sources
Many currently deployed nuclear weapons, such as air-launched cruise missiles (ALCM), submarine-launched
ballistic missiles (SLBM), intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), air-dropped bombs, and land-based missiles,
have explosive yields of 90 KT to 5 megatons (MT), which are 6 to 330 times more powerful than those employed
in previous atmospheric model simulations that primarily assumed multiple 15-KT explosions (Table 2). The use of
only one 5-MT land-based missile deployed by China could burn an area similar in size to that of one hundred 15-
KT explosions. Alternatively, if the U nited States dropped only three 1.2-MT bombs, or used two Trident D5
SLBM (each with four 475-KT warheads), the size of the explosions would exceed the land area required to produce
similar climate impacts. Use of only four 800-KT Russian ICBMs or ten 300-KT French gravity bombs would also
have similar climate impacts. Thus, use of as few as 1 to 10 deployed nuclear weapons, and fewer than 25 of these
prevalent types, from the five official nuclear weapons countries could produce a nuclear drought ; many of the most
prevalent types of strategic nuclear weapons deployed by these countries are shown (Table 2). For these five
countries in total, there are roughly 1,682 warheads deployed that have yields between 100 and 300 KT; ~697
warheads with yields between >300 and 800 KT; and ~41 warheads with yields between 1 and 5 MT. Furthermore,
the use of smaller bombs by any actor could easily escalate into the use of larger weapons, such as any of the major
types that are deployed and shown here, although new U.S. policy suggests the response to any adversarial use of
nuclear weapons would elicit a “proportional” nuclear response by the United S tates.31 Nuclear drought events
could also occur by regional nuclear exchanges between Pakistan and India (~6.6 Tg C), North Korea or Russia
and the United S tates, or Israel and Iran, among many other possible increasing numbers of combinations.32
Vegetation is not required to produce significant climate impacts. Even in the desert Middle East, a single high-
temperature nuclear explosion (e.g., 3,000–7,700°C) could ignite above-ground oil reserves, infrastructures , and
wellheads , and produce significant stratospheric particle dispersion.33 A nuclear explosion could create greater
climate impacts than the Kuwaiti oil field fires of 1991 due to higher altitude smoke dispersion into the stratosphere
and more wellheads potentially being ignited. During the Gulf War in 1991, Kuwaiti oil wells were set on fire in
January and some burned until November, when they were actively extinguished. At a rate of ~3,400 metric tons of
soot emitted per day for approximately 6 months, ~0.6 Tg of black carbon was dispersed into the troposphere from
610 ignited wells.34
A limited nuclear war would destroy strategic stability and deterrence causing World War
III
Norman Friedman 19, PhD, Theoretical Physics, Columbia University, former Deputy Director for National
Security Affairs at the Hudson Institute, former consultant to the US Secretary of the Navy, Sept 2019,
"STRATEGIC SUBMARINES AND STRATEGIC STABILITY : LOOKING TOWARDS THE 2030s", Indo-
Pacific Strategy Series,Undersea Deterrence Project, Australian National University,
https://nsc.crawford.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publication/nsc_crawford_anu_edu_au/2019-
09/publish_nsc_publication_strategic_submarines_2019_1.pdf
In theory, the basis of strategic stability - of averting World War III - is absolute confidence on the part of all parties that they
cannot destroy their enemies’ strategic weapons in a first strike. The associated assumption is that the effects of a nuc lear or
thermonuclear strike would be so horrific as to be utterly unacceptable ; they would collapse the victims’ entire society.
Fortunately this belief has never been tested but it is worth pointing out that at times rulers have questioned it. In the Cold War, the
Soviet Union made serious attempts to convince people that they could survive strategic attack by various civil defence measures. These attempts
failed, not least because decades of Communist rule had engendered a high degree of cynicism in the Soviet population. Similarly, claims by the
United States about the efficacy of civil defence - for negating the deterrent effect of strategic weapons - often fell completely flat. The present
Russian regime is reportedly again trying to convince its population that nuclear war is winnable and it may be enjoying greater success than
during the Cold War.
It is widely believed that the basis of current strategic stability is that strategic nuclear submarines (SSBNs) are inherently invulnerable. During
much of the Cold War, however, that was obviously untrue. Although it appears that the Soviets were unable to track US SSBNs until the late
1970s, the US Navy could certainly track their Soviet counterparts using long-range acoustic systems. The Soviets also had other strategic
weapons, mainly land-based missiles, and the US lacked any defence against them. Early in the Cold War the US government actually did have a
first-strike capability in which it believed because for a time the Soviets stored their warheads separately from their weapons - for reasons of
internal security.
If the belief in the absolute destructiveness of nuclear and thermonuclear weapons is the basis for strategic stability, it
seems reasonable to argue that reality cannot quite match what governments believe. It would seem to follow that the single most
revolutionary possible experience of the next three or four decades would be a limited nuc lear war which did not live up
to its advertising. An example might be an India-Pakistan war in which nuclear weapons were used only against army formations. The
impact of any nuclear exchange which did not kill millions of people would do more to kill strategic stability (to the extent
that it is based on deterrence ) than any advance in strategic ASW or in ballistic missile defence.
External Mods/Turns Case
 1NC/2NC---Amazon Forest !
Nuclear blast burns down the Amazon and destroy the environment
Michael Mills 14, PhD, NCAR Earth System Laboratory, 2014, “Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented
ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict,”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000205
Similarly, the 6% global average drop in precipitation that persists through years 2–6 (Figure 3d) translates into
more significant regional drying (Figure 11). The most evident feature is over the Asian monsoon region, including
the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia. Broad precipitation reductions of 0.5–1.5 mm/day
would reduce annual rainfall by 20%–80%. Similarly, large relative reductions in rainfall would occur in the
Amazon region of South America, and southern Africa. The American Southwest and Western Australia would be
20%–60% drier. Robock et al. [2007b] predict a broadly wetter Sahel region as a result of a weaker Hadley
circulation. Stenke et al. [2013] do not find such increased precipitation, and nor do we, despite some increase in
precipitation near Morocco.
Following Robock et al. [2007b], we have calculated the change in the frost‐free growing season, defined as the
number of consecutive days in a 1 year period with minimum temperatures above 0°C (Figure 12). Because our
globally averaged surface temperatures continue to cool until year 6, we show the average change in the growing
season over years 2–6. The length of the average growing season is reduced by up to 40 days throughout the world's
agricultural zones over these 5 years. This is similar to the results that Robock et al. [2007b] report for their first
year, with significant regional differences. We find more significant decreases in Russia , North Africa , the Middle
East , and the Himalayas than the previous study, and somewhat smaller effects in the American Midwest and
South America.
The land component in CESM1(WACCM) is CLM4CN, a comprehensive land carbon cycle model [Lawrence et al.,
2011]. CLM4CN is prognostic with respect to carbon and nitrogen state variables in vegetation, litter, and soil
organic matter. Vegetation carbon is affected by temperature, precipitation, solar radiation (and its partitioning into
direct and diffuse radiation), humidity, soil moisture, and nitrogen availability, among other factors. We calculate an
average loss of 11 Pg C from vegetation (2% of the total), which equates to an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about
5 ppmv (5 × 10−6 molec/molec air). We also note a significant (42%–46%) increase in C loss from fires in the
Amazon over the first 8 years in two of our three 50 nm experiment ensemble. The third run showed Amazon fire
loss 13% higher than the control average, but within the variability of the control ensemble. Our runs do not account
for the atmospheric effects of CO2 or smoke emissions from the land component, but the smoke from the Amazon‐
kindled fires would be a positive feedback that would enhance the cooling we have found.
Burning down the amazon causes extinction
Nicole Karlis 19, news writer at Salon, covers health, science, tech and gender politics, 8/22/19, “Can humanity
survive without the Amazon rainforest?”, https://www.salon.com/2019/08/22/can-humanity-survive-without-the-
amazon-rainforest-maybe-not-experts-say/
Massive fires in the Amazon rainforest, a result of far-right policies, call humanity's survival into question
No use worrying about whether you're achieving a Hot Girl Summer . This summer is uncannily hot all
around the world, but especially in the Amazon.
The Amazon rainforest is the world’s largest tropical rainforest and covers much of northwestern Brazil, functioning
as Earth’s "air conditioner," as it helps regulate the planet’s global temperature . This week, a Brazilian research
center called the National Institute for Space Research (INPE) reported that the Amazon rainforest has experienced a
77 percent increase in wildfires in the Amazon from the same period in 2018. Multiple news outlets report that more
than 9,000 of those fires have been spotted in the past week. The blazes and smoke, as NASA pointed out, are large
enough to be seen from space.
Unlike in California, where wildfires have mostly been caused by atmospheric conditions and an increase in dead
tree fuel, many of the Amazon’s wildfires have been human-induced. As explained by Amazon Watch, a non-profit
advocating for indigenous rights in the Amazon, the farmers who have started the fires were encouraged by Brazil’s
right-wing president Jair Bolsonaro, a climate skeptic.
In July alone, the Amazon lost 519 square miles of rainforest, an area more than twice the size of Tokyo, due to
deforestation.
“This devastation is directly related to President Bolsonaro's anti-environmental rhetoric, which erroneously frames
forest protections and human rights as impediments to Brazil's economic growth,” Christian Poirier, Amazon
Watch's Program Director, said in a statement. “Farmers and ranchers understand the president's message as a
license to commit arson with wanton impunity, in order to aggressively expand their operations into the rainforest."
These unprecedented fires are not an isolated issue for South America. The fires happening this summer could
contribute to climate change in an irreversible way, partly because the Amazon rainforest is the only tropical
rainforest we have left.
Scientists say that global warming must be maintained at a maximum of 1.5°C warming in order to prevent the
dangerous effects of climate change. The Paris Climate Agreement pledges to keep temperature increases between
1.5°C and 2°C, but as climate scientists have warned, that half degree could make a big difference in terms of
destruction — which is why conserving a massive rainforest like the Amazon is critical.
Human activity, via burning fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has pumped massive amounts of carbon into the
air, contributing to Earth’s temperature rising. Of course, trees are a natural way for the planet to filter and
reprocessing the world’s harmful carbon dioxide output.
In the natural process of photosynthesis , trees and plants remove carbon from the air, absorb it, and release oxygen
back into the air. In total, the world’s forests suck up 2.4 billion metric tons of carbon each year. The Amazon
absorbs a quarter of that total.
Romulo Batista, a Forest Campaigner for Greenpeace in Brazil, explained to Salon that every single tree in the
Amazon helps “control the humidity and how the heat is exchanging in different parts of the world.”
“It is the air conditioning of the world,” he said.
However over the last few decades, scientists have warned that the Amazon rainforest is losing its ability to soak up
carbon due to tree loss. According to a 2015 report, through analyzing data through 2011, the rate of tree growth in
the Amazon forest has remained static in the last several years, but a number of trees dying each year is increasing.
The trees of the Amazon rainforest also release water vapor into the air which creates a process known as “flying
rivers” in the atmosphere. These flying rivers help circulate water and weather patterns around the world.
As explained by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, flying rivers are a result of the
process of evapotranspiration, which is when forests replenish the supply of water vapor in the atmosphere.
“As much as 70 percent of the atmospheric moisture generated over land areas comes from plants, which has
important impacts on water availability across landscapes,” the United Nations asserts. “Atmospheric moisture
generated by forests not only affects water availability in the local catchment, it is also transported into other regions
or even continents by prevailing winds.”
When the Amazon rainforest functions as it should, it creates a positive feedback loop. Unfortunately, the reverse is
happening currently, which is bringing the rainforest toward an irreversible tipping point, one that scientists can’t
predict.
“The biggest problem is once we have more of this change of climate in the Amazon, it gets harder , drier , more
fires , and that becomes a cycle that can achieve the tipping point ,” Batista told Salon.
 -- T/Warming
Amazon key to prevent broad climate change
Morgan McFall-Johnsen 19, science editorial fellow at Business Insider and INSIDER, Bachelor of Science in
Journalism at Northwestern University, 8/24/19, “Earth is a spaceship, and the Amazon is a crucial part of our life-
support system, creating up to 20% of our oxygen. Here's why we need the world's largest rainforest.”,
https://www.businessinsider.com/why-amazon-rainforest-is-important-life-support-is-burning-2019-8
David Sirota, a political commentator who writes speeches for Bernie Sanders , put the problem like this in a
tweet: "We're all on a spaceship hurtling through a vacuum. The Amazon rainforest is our spaceship's life support
system . Our spaceship's life support system is on fire ."
It's a fitting analogy, since the Amazon plays a major role in many of the processes that make our planet habitable:
water cycles , weather patterns , and the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide . The rainforest is also home to
more than 30 million people and over 10% of the world's biodiversity . Scientists see potential for new medicines in
unstudied Amazon plants.
The more than 2.5 million square miles of Amazon rainforest are also one of our greatest buffers against the
climate crisis , since the trees absorb carbon dioxide, thereby keeping it out of the atmosphere.
But deforestation threatens all of that. Humans have cut down nearly 20% of the Amazon in the last 50 years,
according to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). If another 20% of the Amazon disappears, that could trigger a
"dieback" scenario in which the forest would dry out and become a savannah . That process would release billions
of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and raise global temperatures .
Here is what's at risk if we lose the Amazon.
The 'lungs of the planet'
The Amazon helps keep the atmosphere's carbon-dioxide levels in check.
Plants and trees take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen back into the air through the process of photosynthesis .
This is why the Amazon is often referred to as the "lungs of the planet" : It produces between 6% and 20% of the
oxygen in Earth's atmosphere. (Estimates vary — climate scientists Michael Mann and Jonathan Foley calculated
the 6% figure, while a report from the nonprofit Amazon Watch estimated it's closer to 20%.)
Researchers have calculated that the Amazon holds up to 140 billion tons of carbon dioxide — the equivalent of 14
decades' worth of human emissions.
"The Amazon is a major bank of carbon," Ruth DeFries, an ecology professor at Columbia University, told Vice.
"When trees gets burned and carbon is released into the atmosphere, that exacerbates our global warming ."
 1NC/2NC---Ozone/Water Cycle!
Even a small nuclear war destroys the ozone and water cycling
Alan Robock 19, Distinguished Professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University,
7/23/19, "Nuclear Winter Responses to Nuclear War Between the United States and Russia in the Whole
Atmosphere Community Climate Model Version 4 and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies ModelE", Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 124,
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334648599_Nuclear_Winter_Responses_to_Nuclear_War_Between_the_
United_States_and_Russia_in_the_Whole_Atmosphere_Community_Climate_Model_Version_4_and_the_Goddard
_Institute_for_Space_Studies_ModelE
*Tg = Teragram, this study says 150 Tg = US-Russia nuclear war
Volcanic eruption clouds provide a well‐observed analog for particle lifetimes and climate effects. Sulfate aerosols generated from gases injected
into the stratosphere by volcanic eruptions cause global cooling due to the reflection of incoming solar radiation back to space, which has been
observed numerous times and modeled successfully (Robock, 2000). Simulations of volcanic clouds including particle growth show that large
volcanic eruptions, such as that of Mt. Pinatubo with 35 Tg of sulfate aerosols, produce clouds with lifetimes of about 1 year, as observed (Barnes
& Hoffman, 1997; Deshler, 2008). However, numerical simulations suggest that larger eruptions, which are not well observed, will produce large
particles with shorter lifetimes (English et al., 2013; Pinto et al., 1989). Volcanic aerosols are not transported as high as black carbon aerosols as
they are only weakly absorptive and do not self‐loft significantly (Robock, Oman, & Stenchikov, 2007). Wildfires pale in comparison to the Mt.
Pinatubo cloud mass, but their aerosols can heat the air enough to be lofted 8 km vertically (Yu et al., 2019). An injection of 150 Tg of black
carbon would be a far greater aerosol loading than wildfire contributions or any volcanic eruptions from the past 100 years (when masses can be
reliably determined) but would be orders of magnitude smaller than injections of black carbon into the atmosphere 66 million years ago when an
asteroid impact caused much of the biomass on Earth's surface to burn, resulting in a mass extinction event (Bardeen et al., 2017; Toon et al.,
2016). Volcanic eruptions and mass fires are both effective methods of injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, but the
black carbon produced by nuclear mass fires , like what is simulated here, results in far more extreme climate
effects per unit mass.
Cooling at the surface is only one of many phenomena that would occur if abundant black carbon aerosols are
injected into the stratosphere. Several modeling studies have shown that stratospheric temperatures would increase
by more than 50 K and stratospheric ozone would undergo global destruction , even for a scenario where 5 Tg of
soot is injected into the stratosphere (Mills et al., 2014; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007; Toon et al., 2007). The global
hydrologic cycle would become far less active, with a reduction in summer monsoon precipitation and a
significantly reduced growing season (Robock, Oman, & Stenchikov, 2007; Robock, Oman, Stenchikov, Toon, et al., 2007). The
impacts on human society would be devastating due to ag ricultural losses alone , even from the 5‐Tg scenario (Xia
& Robock, 2013; Xia et al., 2015). Research on the climate impacts of volcanic eruptions has found similar, although usually less severe,
consequences as a result of global cooling due to smaller stratospheric aerosol loadings (Robock, 2000).

Ozone collapse means extinction

Laurie L. Dove 15, president of Dove Media Group Inc., currently a graduate student in the Creative Writing and
Literature program at Harvard University, has been awarded the Kansas Health Foundation's Excellence in Public
Health Reporting Award, former mayor of Valley Center, Kansas, April 17 2015, "What if the ozone layer
disappeared?", HowStuffWorks, https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/what-if/what-if-ozone-layer-
disappeared.htm
This natural sunscreen, known as Earth's ozone layer, absorbs and blocks the majority of the sun's UV radiation .
Without this barrier in place, all of the radiation would reach Earth, damaging the DNA of plants and animals, like
us humans. Skin cancer rates would soar, but we might not even live long enough to experience that cause of death
[source: Carlowicz].
Within days of the ozone layer's disappearance, many plants would die . The intensity of the sun's radiation would
make photosynthesis — a process by which plants convert light energy into chemical energy to fuel their growth — an impossibility
for all but the largest and slowest-growing florae. And even these holdouts, primarily massive trees, would
eventually die, too. Without plants, the food chain would collapse. Herbivores would starve. Omnivores and carnivores
could feed off their bodies for a time, but their food supply would dwindle and cause widespread extinction [source: Vermaas].

Water cycling collapses means extinction

Global Change 17, an instructional program at the University of Michigan, 11/27/17, "The Global Water Cycle
and Climate Change", https://globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/water_cycle/water_cycle.html
"The fore most critical natural resource issue facing humanity is freshwater . ... No more fresh water will exist on
Earth than there was 2,000 years ago when the population was 3% of its current size."
(R. Robarts & R. Wetzel, SIL News V. 29, Jan 2000)
Global Water Cycle
The water cycle contains the largest chemical flux on Earth. Water distributes heat around the globe and thus
creates climate, and water is the single most important factor regulating land-plant productivity worldwide.
Without water, life would not exist (perhaps on ANY planet), and despite the fact that 70% of the Earth's surface is
covered with water, over 97% of that water is salty and can't be used for drinking, agriculture, or industry. Only about 0.014% of the
water at Earth's surface is useable by plants, humans, and other animals.
 --XT: Ozone IL
Even small nuke wars trigger Ozone impacts
Chris Schneidmiller 11, Global Security Newswire, 2/24/11, “Limited Nuclear War Could Deplete Ozone
Layer, Increasing Radiation,” https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/limited-nuclear-war-could-deplete-ozone-layer-
increasing-radiation/
WASHINGTON -- A nuclear conflict involving as few as 100 weapons could produce long-term damage to the
ozone layer, enabling higher than "extreme" levels of ultraviolet radiation to reach the Earth's surface, new research
indicates (see GSN, March 16, 2010).
Increased levels of UV radiation from the sun could persist for years, possibly with a drastic impact on humans and
the environment, even thousands of miles from the area of the nuclear conflict .
Nuclear war erodes Ozone
Michael Mills 14, PhD, NCAR Earth System Laboratory, 2014, “Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented
ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict,”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2013EF000205
As in Mills et al. [2008], we calculate massive ozone loss as a consequence of these extreme stratospheric
temperatures (Figure 8). Consistent with that work, we calculate a global average column ozone loss of 20%–25%
persisting from the second through the fifth year after the nuclear war , and recovering to 8% column loss at the end
of 10 years. Throughout the first 5 years, column ozone is reduced by 30%–40% at midlatitudes and by 50%–60% at
northern high latitudes.
As Mills et al. [2008] discussed, this ozone loss results primarily from two temperature‐sensitive catalytic loss
cycles involving odd oxygen and odd nitrogen , which accelerate at high temperatures . In addition, analysis of our
current results shows that heating of the tropical tropopause allows up to 4.3 times as much water vapor to enter the
lower stratosphere. The enhanced water vapor has a twofold effect on depleting ozone . Photolysis of water vapor
produces both odd hydrogen and excited‐state atomic oxygen , O(1D), depending on the wavelength of dissociating
sunlight. O(1D) is responsible for the production of odd nitrogen in the stratosphere via reaction with N2O. Odd
hydrogen has its own catalytic cycle destroying ozone. We calculate that odd hydrogen in the tropical lower
stratosphere is enhanced by factors of 3–5.5 over the first 2 years after the nuclear war. Similarly, O(1D) is enhanced
in the same region by factors of 4–7.6. O(1D) is not the major loss mechanism for N2O in the stratosphere, however,
and N2O levels are initially slightly elevated in the tropical stratosphere, likely due to uplift by the initial rise of the
plume, as described by Mills et al. [2008]. Subsequent slowing of the stratospheric circulation produces reduced
N2O levels, as increased age of air results in increased chemical loss.
Ozone production rates are highest in the Tropics , where losses are dominated by transport of ozone to higher
latitudes. As air is transported poleward, the chemical losses accumulate , leading to higher column losses at higher
latitudes. At southern high latitudes, ozone losses are mitigated by the elimination of the seasonal Antarctic ozone
hole, which normally results from heterogeneous chemistry occurring on polar stratospheric clouds ( PSCs ) only at
the extreme low temperatures present in the Antarctic stratosphere. We do not include effects of heterogeneous
chemistry on BC aerosol, which is less understood than chemistry on sulfates and PSCs.
 --XT: Ozone !
Ozone depletion causes extinction---spreads pandemics and kills food security
Susan Hunt, 9/3/19. MA. 9/3/19, “What Will Happen to Life on Earth if Ozone Depletion Continues?”
http://www.ozonedepletion.co.uk/what-will-happen-life-earth-if-ozone-depletion-continues.html Accessed 10/18/19
Most scientists are agreed that without the earth’s ozone layer , we would all cease to exist .
That’s one of the main reasons that global ozone levels are now constantly monitored and worldwide research is
taking place into ozone depletion.
Land and Water Life Would Suffer
Without the ozone layer’s protection from the sun, people, animals and plant life would be destroyed . Even
underwater life would not be safe since UV rays can penetrate clear water to a certain depth before being absorbed.
Of course, the actual effect on mankind of less ozone depends on the extent to which it is depleted. Experts believe
that for every 1% drop in ozone protection, there is an increase of around 2% in UV-B rays which get through to the
planet’s surface.
Good News
However, research carried out for the United Nations Environmental Programme showed that ozone levels had not
fallen further between 2002 and 2005, thanks to initiatives such as the Montreal Protocol.
One of the greatest problems with ozone is that we need the “right” amount to maintain life as we know it today.
Too little and life on earth could be wiped out – but too much and we won’t receive the amount of sunlight that we
need. (Some scientists are now concerned that global warming will lead to much higher levels of ozone which could
block out too much sun).
It is widely known that rates of skin cancer are linked to UV-B exposure – which is one of the reasons that it’s so
important to use suncream and to make sure that children are protected from the sun. (Latest research suggests that
you are more at risk from just two or three instances of extreme sunburn than from prolonged but limited exposure
such as sunbathing.)
Increase in Disease
However, increased exposure to the sun’s radiation can also cause blindness and cataracts and, alarmingly, some
experts now believe that the amount of protection we receive from vaccinations (for diseases such as measles)
could be reduced in people exposed to higher levels of UV-B rays.
Depending on the level of exposure to the sun, effects can range from premature ageing to certain kinds of skin
cancer . Over the past decade there has been a large increase in the number of people developing skin cancer but this
could be attributed to the rise in the popularity of sunbathing over the past quarter-of-a-century rather than simply to
reduced ozone levels.
Our Food Chain
Many biological systems are damaged by exposure to UV-B and research has shown that its effects are
proportional to the time and intensity of exposure and of course, small and delicate organisms are much more
vulnerable to damage than larger species, such as humans.
Exposure to higher levels of UV-B can stunt the growth and photosynthesis of a variety of crops such as maize, rye
and sunflowers and can also affect the reproductive capacity of aquatic life . Many are already under UV-B stress ,
and if their exposure is further increased then we could see disruption of some food chains .
Turns environment impacts
Chris Schneidmiller 11, Global Security Newswire, 2/24/11, “Limited Nuclear War Could Deplete Ozone
Layer, Increasing Radiation,” https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/limited-nuclear-war-could-deplete-ozone-layer-
increasing-radiation/
The ozone gas layer limits exposure to UV radiation that at elevated levels has been linked to vision impairment and
skin cancer in humans. That radiation can also produce “ far-reaching impacts ” on plant and animal life, along with
the ag ricultural and marine sectors , the release states.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the National Weather Service established a measurement system that
ranks ultraviolet levels from zero to 11, with no radiation at the low end of the scale and extreme levels at the top.
Higher levels require increasing levels of protection against exposure, including staying inside during the hottest
afternoon hours.
Computer simulations indicate that following an attack 100 times the size of the Hiroshima bomb, the United States
and nations near its latitude would experience UV levels between 15 and 20 on completely sunny days in June. The
ozone loss would produce a similar phenomenon for Southern Hemisphere nations in December.
The estimate is based on a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan, a possibility raised in previous research on
the climatic effect of nuclear war, Mills said.
The level of ultraviolet radiation exposure would be “unprecedented,” the National Center for Atmospheric
Research said. Today, 15-level ultraviolet is found only in high-altitude nations at the equator when the sun is
straight overhead.
" These UV levels are literally off the charts ," NCAR scientist Julia Lee-Taylor said in the release.
Past research has identified a number of repercussions from significant ozone loss and heightened ultraviolet
radiation exposure, according to Mills’s presentation at the conference. These include “plant height reduction,
decreased shoot mass, and reduction in foliage area” and long-term genetic instability to plants . Another risk is
depletion of phytoplankton that feed sea life, which are in turn a crucial protein source for humans.
“It would be very difficult for us to grow the type of crops we grow today,” Mills said. “In addition to ecological
damage, there would be a global nuclear famine.”
The scientist said he hopes the continued ozone research makes clear to decision-makers the danger of even a
“regional” nuclear war. Progress made in the recently enacted U.S.-Russian New START nuclear arms control
treaty is worth building on with future additional cuts around the world, he said.
“We still have many, many more than are needed to destroy the world many times over,” Mills said. “How many do
you need to deter an enemy? Just 100 would produce an ecological catastrophe .”
 1NC/2NC---T/Warming
Nuclear exchange turns warming---it’d emit net more than one hundred years of nuclear
power would save in emissions
Mark Z. Jacobson 19, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University and Director of
its Atmosphere/Energy Program, July 23, 2019, Evaluation of Nuclear Power as a Proposed Solution to Global
Warming, Air Pollution, and Energy Security, 100% Clean, Renewable Energy and Storage for Everything,
Cambridge University Press
If a country were to develop a weapon as a result of its acquisition of one or more nuclear energy facilities , the risk
that it would use the weapons is not zero . Here, the emissions associated with a limited nuclear exchange are
quantified.
The explosion of fifty 15-kilotonne nuclear devices (a total of 1.5 megatonne, or 0.1 percent of the yield of
a full-scale nuclear war) during a limited nuclear exchange in a megacity would kill 2.6 to 16.7 million people from
the explosion and burn 63 to 313 Tg of city infrastructure, adding 1 to 5 Tg of warming and cooling aerosol
particles to the atmosphere , including much of it to the stratosphere (Jacobson, 2009). The particle emissions would
cause significant short- and medium-term regional temperature changes. The CO2 emissions would cause long-
term warming . The CO2 emissions from such a conflict are projected to be 92 to 690 Tg-CO2 .
The annual electricity production due to nuclear energy in 2017 was 2,506 TWh/y. If that doubled to 5,000 TWh/y
and if one nuclear exchange, as described above, resulted during a 100 year period, the net carbon emissions due to
nuclear weapons proliferation caused by the expansion of nuclear energy worldwide would be 0.2 to 1.4 g-
CO2/kWh. This calculation assumes that the total energy generation is 5,000 TWh/y multiplied by 100 years. The
resulting emission rate depends on the probability of a nuclear exchange over a given period and the strengths of
nuclear devices used. The probability is bounded between 0 and 1 exchange over 100 years to give the range of
possible emissions for one such event as 0 to 1.4 gCO2e/kWh , which is the emission rate used in Table 3.5.
Case
Econ Turn
 1NC---Econ Turn
The aff causes quick economic collapse
Wesley J. Smith 18, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, 8/6/18, “The
return of nature worship,” https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-28-number-3/return-nature-worship
Nature rights would cause profound harm to human thriving :
Granting rights to nature would bring economic growth to a screeching halt by empowering the most committed
and radical environmentalists – granted legal standing to act on “nature’s” behalf – to impose their extreme views of
proper environmental stewardship through the buzz saw of unending litigation . Backed by well-funded environmentalist
organizations and their lawyers, any and all large-scale economic or development projects – from oil drilling , to housing
developments, to mining, to farming, to renewable energy projects, such as electricity-generating windmills that kill
countless birds – could face years of harassing lawsuits and extorted financial settlements. At the very least, liability
insurance for such endeavors would become prohibitively costly – indeed, if underwriters permitted policies to be
issued for such projects at all. Of course, that is the whole point.
Economic decline causes World War III
Jomo K. Sundaram 19, Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, former economics professor at Yale and
Harvard, United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development, Vladamir Popov, Research
Director at the Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute in Berlin, 2/12/19, “Economic Crisis Can Trigger World
War,” http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/02/economic-crisis-can-trigger-world-war/
Economic recovery efforts since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis have mainly depended on unconventional
monetary policies . As fears rise of yet another international financial crisis, there are growing concerns about the increased possibility of
large-scale military conflict.
More worryingly, in
the current political landscape, prolonged economic crisis , combined with rising economic
inequality , chauvinistic ethno- populism as well as aggressive jingoist rhetoric , including threats , could easily spin
out of control and ‘morph’ into military conflict, and worse, world war .
Crisis responses limited
The 2008-2009 global financial crisis almost ‘bankrupted’ governments and caused systemic collapse . Policymakers
managed to pull the world economy from the brink, but soon switched from counter-cyclical fiscal efforts to
unconventional monetary measures, primarily ‘quantitative easing’ and very low, if not negative real interest rates .
But while these monetary interventions averted realization of the worst fears at the time by turning the US economy
around, they did little to address underlying economic weaknesses , largely due to the ascendance of finance in
recent decades at the expense of the real economy. Since then, despite promising to do so, policymakers have not
seriously pursued, let alone achieved, such needed reforms.
Instead, ostensible structural reformers have taken advantage of the crisis to pursue largely irrelevant efforts to further
‘casualize’ labour markets. This lack of structural reform has meant that the unprecedented liquidity central banks
injected into economies has not been well allocated to stimulate resurgence of the real economy.
From bust to bubble
Instead, easy credit raised asset prices to levels even higher than those prevailing before 2008. US house prices are now 8%
more than at the peak of the property bubble in 2006, while its price-to-earnings ratio in late 2018 was even higher than in 2008 and in 1929,
when the Wall Street Crash precipitated the Great Depression.
As monetary tightening checks asset price bubbles, another economic crisis — possibly more severe than the last, as the economy has become
less responsive to such blunt monetary interventions — is considered likely. A decade of such unconventional monetary policies, with very low
interest rates, has greatly depleted their ability to revive the economy.
The implications beyond the economy of such developments and policy responses are already being seen. Prolonged economic distress
has worsened public antipathy towards the culturally alien — not only abroad, but also within. Thus, another round of
economic stress is deemed likely to foment unrest, conflict, even war as it is blamed on the foreign .
International trade shrank by two-thirds within half a decade after the US passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, at the start of the Great
Depression, ostensibly to protect American workers and farmers from foreign competition!
Liberalization’s discontents
Rising economic insecurity, inequalities and deprivation are expected to strengthen ethno-populist and jingoistic
nationalist sentiments , and increase social tensions and turmoil , especially among the growing precariat and others who feel
vulnerable or threatened.
Thus, ethno-populist inspired chauvinistic nationalism may exacerbate tensions, leading to conflicts and tensions
among countries, as in the 1930s. Opportunistic leaders have been blaming such misfortunes on outsiders and may seek
to reverse policies associated with the perceived causes, such as ‘globalist’ economic liberalization.
Policies which successfully check such problems may reduce social tensions, as well as the likelihood of social turmoil and
conflict, including among countries. However, these may also inadvertently exacerbate problems. The recent spread of anti-
globalization sentiment appears correlated to slow, if not negative per capita income growth and increased economic inequality.
To be sure, globalization and liberalization are statistically associated with growing economic inequality and rising ethno-populism. Declining
real incomes and growing economic insecurity have apparently strengthened ethno-populism and nationalistic chauvinism, threatening economic
liberalization itself, both within and among countries.
Insecurity, populism, conflict
Thomas Piketty has argued that a sudden increase in income inequality is often followed by a great crisis. Although causality is
difficult to prove, with wealth and income inequality now at historical highs, this should give cause for concern.
Of course, other factors also contribute to or exacerbate civil and international tensions, with some due to policies intended for other purposes.
Nevertheless, even if unintended, such developments could inadvertently catalyse future crises and conflicts.
Publics often have good reason to be restless, if not angry, but the emotional appeals of ethno-populism and jingoistic nationalism are leading to
chauvinistic policy measures which only make things worse.
At the international level, despite the world’s unprecedented and still growing interconnectedness, multilateralism is
increasingly being eschewed as the US increasingly resorts to unilateral, sovereigntist policies without bothering to
even build coalitions with its usual allies.
Avoiding Thucydides’ iceberg
Thus, protracted
economic distress, economic conflicts or another financial crisis could lead to military confrontation
by the protagonists, even if unintended . Less than a decade after the Great Depression started, the Second World
War had begun as the Axis powers challenged the earlier entrenched colonial powers.
 2NC – Econ Link

The aff ends development

Wesley J. Smith 14, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, “The “Nature
Rights” War on Humans,” https://www.nationalreview.com/human-exceptionalism/nature-rights-war-humans-
wesley-j-smith/
Scream it from the rooftops! Copy the column I will quote below and send it far and wide. Tweet. Facebook. Tell your mother. The Nature
Rights Movement wants to destroy human prosperity .
I have been feeling very lonely in my years of warning about nature rights. Most people just roll their eyes.
Not Suzanne Webel, at least not any longer. She lives in the Boulder area, which, as she points out, has very strong environmental protections
already in place. But some environmentalists want a rights of nature law passed, and she was appointed to a task force for to see if the request
could be accommodated.
Webel found the experience a real eye-opener. She lists the nature rightists’ demands in her column, “Just Say No to the Rights of Nature,”
published in the Daily Camera:
1) “Eliminate the authority of a property owner to destroy, or cause substantial harm to, natural communities and
ecosystems.”
Me: Nature rights is Marxist in its intentions. This would essentially destroy the rights of private property.
2) Accord “inherent, inalienable, and fundamental rights of Nature to all Natural Beings” including humans and “all living species of plants,
animals, and algae”
Me: Humans are just another virus in the forest.
3) Include a Statement of Law that “All Natural beings, Natural Communities and Ecosystems possess the
inalienable right to exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve”
Me: A right to life for nature would stop human enterprise and resource development in its tracks .
4) Declare that “The Precautionary Principle Is Needed To Protect These Rights”
Me: The PP assumes that if something even has the slightest, hypothetical chance of going wrong, it must not be
done. Another way to stop humans from engaging in enterprises and resource development.
5) Find that “It shall be unlawful for any person, government entity, corporation (etc) to intentionally or recklessly
violate the rights of Natural Beings, Natural Communities or Ecosystems
Me: This comes close to a law of ecocide that would criminalize development.
6) Enforce “Damages” measured by the cost of restoring the Natural Community or Ecosystem to its [original] state before the injury.
Notice that there need be no pollution. Requiring any user of nature to restore it to its original condition is intended to chill any uses of nature
Webel nails the war on humans these environmentalists are waging:
The proposed “ Rights of Nature Ordinance” would have enormous detrimental implications for all public and
private lands, ag riculture, medicine , backyard gardens, animal ownership, public land access and trail use, property
rights and many other existing rights of Boulder County residents. It would create unimaginable social and legal nightmares for
all of us.

Litigation wrecks small business and government budgets

Caroline McDonough 19, J.D. Candidate, Villanova Charles Widger School of Law, 2019, “COMMENT: WILL
THE RIVER EVER GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK? STANDING UP FOR THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF NATURE,”
Villanova Environmental Law Journal, 31 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 143
Among the most sympathetic opponents of the legal rights of nature movement are individuals and small businesses who
claim they will be susceptible to copious lawsuits threatening their livelihood. 151In Toledo, Ohio, owners of farms
surrounding Lake Erie argue lawsuits brought on behalf of the Lake to stop agricultural runoff could put the farms
out of business . 152 These small businesses [*161] are backed by the Ohio Farm Bureau, who contend agricultural runoff
problems must be solved scientifically and with the help of those experienced in best farming practices . 153The Farm
Bureau argues that this bill will have the power to change farming practices based on public votes and may subject businesses who
abide by all current laws to expense-draining lawsuits . 154Public officials have also found themselves in a difficult position, torn
between the desire to support environmental change and the practical realities of a potentially massive increase in legislation. 155Officials in
Toledo worry that public opposition to the bill will make them "appear to support polluting the lake." 156These officials share the same concerns
that the passage of this bill may cost the city thousands in legal fees and "would most likely drain city finances ." 157
Wrecks the economy
COC 10 Chamber of Commerce of the United States, “Brief Amicus Curiae of the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States in Support of Petitioners,” American Electric Power Company Inc., et al. v. State of Connecticut, et
al., available online at the Oyez Project
Second, the court of appeals erred in failing to appreciate that the global nature of climate change and the necessity in any bid

for redress to balance an enormously vast array of interrelated interests are ill-suited to the ad hoc and piecemeal
nature of litigation. The p olitical q uestion d octrine prohibits courts from acting where, as here, there are no judicially
manageable standards and any adjudication would inevitably require initial policy decisions reserved to the political
Branches on matters (to name only a few) such as the appropriate level of global emissions, the parties that should bear the costs of limiting
emissions, and foreign policy and economic ramifications of attempting to address global climate change. Indeed, as the United States has explained, “plaintiffs’ common-law nuisance suits
present serious concerns regarding the role of an Article III court under the Constitution’s separation of powers—especially in light of the representative Branches’ ongoing efforts to combat
climate change by formulating and implementing domestic policy and participating in international negotiations.” TVA Br. 13. These matters are not just exceptionally complex or difficult—they
have no “right” jurisprudential answers. Under our Constitution and this Court’s precedents, such matters are reserved for the political Branches.¶ Third, the court of appeals erred in finding that
plaintiffs have Article III standing to maintain this action. That defect provides a threshold basis for dismissing this action. The likelihood of redressability in this suit against a finite and arbitrary
set of carbon-emitting entities is so remote and so speculative that the ruling here would permit literally anyone alleging climate-change based damages to sue any entity or natural person in the
world—an absurd result that highlights once again just how inapt the judicial forum is for addressing such inherently global concerns. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), does not
dictate a contrary conclusion. The principles animating that decision—which focused on the ability of Congress to relax the Article III inquiry in the context of a statutory provision for
challenging agency action—are inapplicable in this common-law context. Finding standing in this case would require a significant expansion of Massachusetts and (given the absence of the
congressional action on which this Court relied in Massachusetts to find standing) put the courts well ahead of the democratic process in this area. It would also require the Court to disregard the
prudential limits that the Court itself has imposed on judicial review of “‘generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches.’” Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v.
Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984)). ¶ The astounding practical implications of the decision below underscore the separation-of-powers problems
an emerging category of litigation over greenhouse-gas
with allowing this unprecedented common law action to proceed. Especially since Massachusetts,
emissions has developed implicating countless plaintiffs and defendants. If the decision of the Second Circuit is affirmed, this suit—and
the countless others that inevitably follow—will destabilize our economy , undermine our democratic process, and impact sensitive
foreign policy considerations. The debate over the appropriate response to climate change affects every business
concern and implicates virtually every facet of daily life . This complex political dialogue belongs in the political
arena, not the courthouse— much less in scores if not hundreds of different courthouses across America as suits like plaintiffs’ proliferate. Only the
elected Branches are authorized and equipped to develop our nation’s response to climate change and undertake any necessary reforms.
 2NC---Econ Impact
Economic decline causes war--- their defense assumes a set of moderating mechanisms
which don’t exist post-economic decline and unconventional monetary policy means this
time is different---feeds great power war even if by accident, especially during periods of
diplomatic tension---that’s Sundaram.

Causes war with China, Russia, Iran, collapses alliances, turns climate change and
democracy
Fitch 19 – Fitch Solutions Macro Research, an affiliate of Fitch Ratings, global leader in financial information
services with operations in more than 30 countries, one of the ‘big three’ credit rating agencies, 8/5/19, “Recession
Risks: The Political And Geopolitical Consequences,” https://www.fitchsolutions.com/country-risk-
sovereigns/recession-risks-political-and-geopolitical-consequences-05-08-2019
A global recession could accelerate the current trend towards de-globalisation and regionalisation, although the extent to which this plays
out would be uneven (see ‘Three Scenarios For Globalisation: 2017-2030, November 29, 2016). ‘Globalist’-minded leaders and organisations would blame US
President Donald Trump’s trade protectionism either for triggering or exacerbating the global recession, and argue that further protectionist measures would only do
the world economy more harm. However, given that populism and nationalism are likely to rise amid a future recession , and given that
the world’s major powers are increasingly acting in their self-interests, coordinated multilateral actions by governments
to ‘save the world economy’ are unlikely to be forthcoming (see ‘Liberal International Order’ To Face Growing Strains, With Or Without US’,
March 21, 2019). At the height of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, the world’s leading economies (G20) appeared to coordinate a
loosening of monetary policy and eschewed trade protectionism, seemingly recognising the dangers of a return to 1930s-style tariffs. By
contrast, in 2019, the notion of globalisation as positive and irreversible is no longer the prevailing wisdom. Therefore, any coordination
is more likely to come from central banks rather than governments. ‘ Great power’ relations have also deteriorated sharply since 2009, with
China increasing its military presence in the S outh C hina S ea, Russia annexing Crimea, and the US raising tariffs against
China while also withdrawing from both the Iran nuclear deal and Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Relations have also
worsened between second-tier powers such as Japan, India, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia and some of their neighbours. All these
developments will reduce the appetite for cooperation between G20 states.
Although many of the world’s major economies are still seeking to boost trade ties through new arrangements such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement
for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), Pacific Alliance, Mercosur, Africa Free Trade Area, and EU-Mercosur pact, progress would likely be uneven and subject to
delays, as domestic considerations and employment are prioritised over trade liberalisation by participating countries.
Greater Political Fragmentation, Policy Paralysis, And Social Unrest
In a number of countries, a new recession would almost certainly lead to greater political fragmentation, as populist parties on the left
and right draw support away from traditional or mainstream parties anchored to the centre. For example, in recent years, Spain’s traditional two-party system has
become a four-party one. The overall result is that it would be harder for a single party or well-established two-party coalition to win a simple majority in elections.
This implies that weaker governments could emerge, with their policy-making abilities significantly constrained by
parliamentary mathematics, leading to frustrations that governments ‘aren’t getting anything done’. Meanwhile, this dynamic could prompt greater street protests, of
the kind experienced in France by the ‘Yellow Vests’ since late 2018.
United States Of America
President Donald Trump would become more vulnerable to losing the November 2020 election, as his approval rating is much lower than his predecessors at this stage
in his term and has struggled to break above the 45-50% range. American voters have often punished the incumbent president or ruling party in elections held at times
of recession or severe economic pain, as was the case with presidents Jimmy Carter in 1980 and George H.W. Bush in 1992, and Republican candidate John McCain
in 2008. Trump
would likely seek to blame China and the Federal Reserve for the downturn, thus diverting culpability away from himself, and
drumming up a nationalistic discourse at home. Regardless of a recession, Trump will re-emphasise that he is ‘the first president to stand up to
China on trade’, and that his defeat would benefit China. Indeed, he may even seek to accuse China of interfering in the election against him. Overall, we would
anticipate a worsening of Sino-US relations ahead of the US election, as well as further political polarisation in the US.
A new recession would also affect the opposition Democratic Party’s presidential campaign, for it could boost the appeal of the more leftist-populist candidates, or
steer a hitherto centrist figure in that direction. For example, the strong appeal of self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders in the Democrats’ 2016
candidate selection process prompted the eventual nominee Hillary Clinton to oppose the planned Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade pact. Against this backdrop,
should a Democratic president be elected in 2020, then he or she would likely maintain a high degree of trade protectionism towards China. In addition, there would
likely be more appetite to increase funding towards healthcare, education, and basic services, while potentially raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy. This
would further exacerbate political tensions and raise the prospects of fiscal concerns in financial markets.
Europe
A new recession would almost certainly provide a further boost to populism in countries that have hitherto been dominated by establishment parties – although
whether right-wing or left-wing populism prevails would depend on the specifics of the country. Detractors of populism would likely warn that the advent of a
populist government in Italy failed to solve that country’s problems, but this is unlikely to deter disgruntled voters in the hardest-hit countries, who may not
necessarily be aware of or care about Italy’s example, and who are frustrated and looking for change from the establishment that has thus far failed to produce strong
growth and gains for the middle classes.
Italy’s already weak economy would worsen, potentially causing the LN-M5S populist coalition to collapse, and trigger fresh elections, which polls suggest would be
won by LN rather than M5S (the largest party after the 2018 election). However, even if LN were to emerge in a stronger position, it would still struggle to tackle
Italy’s structural economic challenges, which include a heavy debt load, ageing demographics, and weak banking sector.
France’s President Emmanuel Macron would see his popularity wane further, exposing him to more ‘yellow vest’-style protests, and leaving him more vulnerable to a
successful far-right challenge in the April 2022 presidential election – although it is also possible that a far-left candidate could make it to the second round. Either
way, a recession would raise the prospect of Macron becoming France’s third consecutive one-term president after an era in which France had two consecutive two-
term presidents (1981-2007). Importantly, the far right, with its rebranded image and slightly more moderate stance on certain issues could take advantage of rising
dissatisfaction and social tensions to appeal to those disappointed by the establishment and also from Macron’s failure to deliver change.
Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel could face pressure to step down early, well before the autumn 2021 general elections. A recession would likely further reduce
support for both Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and its Social Democratic Party (SPD) coalition partner, benefiting the right-wing Alternative for
Germany (AfD) and the Greens. A more fragmented Bundestag would further complicate policy-making and governance in Germany. The weakened German
leadership in Berlin could also lead to a political vacuum in the EU, given that Germany, along with France, have long been at the core of the bloc.
The United Kingdom’s first post-Brexit government could also lose support, as many voters would blame Brexit for exacerbating the downturn. Indeed, should the
UK leave the EU without a deal on October 31, 2019, and subsequently suffer from a global recession, then opponents of Brexit would be galvanised to lobby for
closer relations with the EU. Meanwhile, the left-wing main opposition Labour Party could gain further support, if unemployment rose substantially and the
Conservative government was perceived to have mismanaged Brexit and the economy. However, with the UK divided over Brexit and a host of other social issues,
there would be no guarantee that a strong government would emerge from an early election (the next election is officially scheduled for June 2022).
The eurozone’s stability could once again be tested by a recession, raising questions similar to during the 2011-2012 crisis about its long-term
survival. At that time, speculation was rife that Greece, and possibly Italy could leave the eurozone, leading to economic havoc in southern Europe. As many countries
would be forced to focus on domestic challenges, this could lead to a stalling of reform momentum as well as a loss of clout for the eurozone, enabling more countries
to openly criticise the institution and potentially exit the bloc.
China
A global recession would expose President Xi Jinping to greater domestic criticism , given that he has assumed more responsibility for the
economy in recent years from Premier Li Keqiang. Indeed, Xi has also taken charge of trade policy towards the US. However, Xi
would almost certainly seek to
deflect any criticism by blaming Donald Trump’s protectionism for the downturn. Consequently, Xi would adopt a more
nationalistic stance , for example by augment ing China’s military presence in the S outh C hina S ea, or step ping up
pressure against Taiwan , especially if the latter’s anti-mainland president, Tsai Ing-wen, is re-elected in January 2020. Overall, the scene would be
set for greater antagonism between Beijing and Washington , rather than co-ordinated measures to boost global economic growth.
The Greatest Game?
Indo-Pacific Region – Geopolitical Alignments
Despite Xi’s likely promotion of Chinese nationalism, some Communist Party of China (CPC)
officials could use the recession to reduce Xi’s
influence, if not oust him entirely , although the latter outcome is unlikely. Their room for manoeuvre would depend on the severity of the recession and
the level of public unrest. China saw only very limited unrest at the time of the 2008-2009 global financial crisis, and the government was able to mitigate the impact
of the recession with a huge fiscal stimulus package and massive credit expansion. However, the government has much less leeway to enact large-scale stimulus now,
given that China has accumulated considerable debts over the past decade.
Meanwhile, the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) could be subject to more delays, as there would be less financing available from Beijing. The BRI has already been
delayed by changes of governments in countries along the routes, and growing public scrutiny of the projects’ financing and implementation. A prolonged economic
downturn in China could substantially slow the BRI, but overall we would expect the project to continue at a later date, as increased connectivity across Eurasia
appears to be a megatrend that transcends economic cycles.
Grand Vision Could Temporarily Lose Momentum
Participating Countries In The BRI
Petro-States
The resulting drop in oil prices would hurt oil exporting economies and governments’ ability to ‘buy’ stability through public spending. Countries with relatively large
populations or ones which are suffering from below trend economic growth are most at risk and include Iran, Nigeria, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.
Indirectly, Egypt could suffer from reduced financial assistance from Gulf states (although progress with its IMF programme leaves it in better shape that a few years
ago).
Rising economic pressure in Iran could increase anti-government protests, potentially forcing the Iranian regime to seek a new nuclear
deal with the US Trump administration so that sanctions can be eased. Trump is keen for a summit with his Iranian counterpart, but Tehran has rejected this on the
basis that the US’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal in 2018 proves that it cannot be trusted. However, economic circumstances could steer it towards fresh
talks. Alternatively, economic
pressures could steer the regime towards a more anti-US stance , raising the risk of a
regional conflict .
In Russia, economic weakness could also hurt President Vladimir Putin’s position further, although Russia has thus far successfully weathered
oil price-induced economic downturns in 2008 and 2014. An economic downturn could also have a bearing on whether Putin decides to seek a further six-year term as
president in 2024. He could certainly blame global conditions for the recession and make the case that his strong leadership is necessary to keep Russia stable.
However, his critics could also make the case that fresh leadership is needed. Meanwhile, a recession in Russia could also lead to an exodus of guest workers from the
poorer ex-Soviet republics, and thus reduced remittances, thereby increasing unemployment in the countries of origin of the guest workers. Tajikistan is one such
example, with remittances making up around 30% of GDP, while in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan, the figure is around 33% (these proportions are among the highest in
the world). Both countries could experience greater instability, especially Tajikistan, which has become increasingly illiberal in recent years. Indeed, a renewed civil
war in Tajikistan cannot be ruled out, although memories of the 1992-1997 conflict will act as a constraint.
In Venezuela, President Nicolas Maduro’s regime could finally give way to a coup or renewed uprising, as a result of reduced revenues from lower oil prices, or
reduced support from a weaker Russia. However, even if a new government comes to power, the political and economic outlook in Venezuela would remain dire for
many years to come, given the gradual erosion of the country’s public infrastructure as well as lack of investment in oil capacity, which has caused output to decline
sharply in recent years.
Possible Escalation Of Global Military Tensions
Adverse domestic economic conditions could prompt individual leaders to shore up their support by focusing public
anger against an external adversary or rival. In some cases, this would lead to an increase in military tensions . As noted, US
President Donald Trump could blame China for the recession and step up support for Taiwan or increase the US naval presence
in the S outh C hina S ea, prompting Beijing to respond accordingly. Iran , too, would remain a focus of US geopolitical
pressure. Although none of the leaderships of these three countries favours conflict , there is a risk that this could happen
by miscalc ulation and by policy misstep. Indeed, a mood of rising nationalism could make it harder for self-portrayed ‘tough’
leaders such as Trump, Xi, and Ayatollah Khamenei to back down from a military standoff. Russian President Vladimir Putin ,
too, could resort to more sabre-rattling, if he senses that the West is weakening due to a global recession , although Russia
itself would also be weaker. Although Putin is unlikely to seek to destabilise the Baltic states, owing to their membership of NATO, he could undertake ‘probing’
measures in their vicinity. The Kremlin could also raise pressure on Georgia in order to dissuade it from seeking to join NATO (although this is likely to backfire) and
step up its support for Republika Srpska, the ethnically Serb and pro-Russian entity of Bosnia-Hercegovina that favours secession.
A World Of Worries
Potential Flashpoints For 'Great Power' Conflicts
Global Climate Change Mitigation Efforts Could Ease Temporarily
A global recession could also put on hold efforts to tackle global climate change , as voters turned their attention to more
immediate ‘bread and butter’ concerns. Climate change was a big international issue during the 2000s, but faded somewhat from the public agenda during
the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, before returning to the fore by the mid-2010s. However, in a more de-globalised world system, climate change may be tackled
more on a regional than global basis.
Longer-Term Political Consequences Of The Next Recession
The longer-term political consequences of the next recession would be determined by its severity and the speed of recovery (see part 3, ‘Recession Risks: What Could
The Next Recession Look Like?’, July 29, 2019), but could have the following consequences:
the US
The world would likely become more de-globalised or ‘regionalised’ as a result of greater economic protectionism and geopolitical self-interest. For its part,
would be unlikely to abandon its commitments to NATO and core allies such as Japan and South Korea, but would continue to
pressure them to raise defence spending accordingly, so that they are less reliant on Washington. If they fail to do so, Washington could
reduce its military presence there in retaliation. The US may meanwhile lose interest in more ‘peripheral’ countries it previously prioritised, such
as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. In Europe, the EU could become more decentralised, or bifurcated between a highly integrated core centred on France and Germany,
and a peripheral zone that has opted out of many integrationist initiatives. Consequently, there could be more tensions between the two ‘tiers’ of the EU.
China’s ability to organise itself as a regional or global leader will depend on how it fares during the next recession. A China that experiences a prolonged period of
considerably slower growth and political instability would be ill-positioned to take the initiative in creating new trade blocs such as the Regional Cooperative
Economic Partnership (RCEP) in Asia or a military alliance system based on countries heavily involved in the Belt And Road. Even so, Japan would also be ill-
positioned to take the regional lead, because its own economy would suffer greatly from a global recession and a Chinese slowdown. Meanwhile, it is unlikely that
India can emerge as a regional economic anchor any time soon, due to the relatively small size of its economy and domestic challenges. If on the other hand China
emerges from the next recession relatively unscathed, as was the case after the 2008-2009 global recession (although very unlikely), then Beijing would have the
confidence to position itself as the champion of a new regional order, and of globalisation more broadly. China could also continue to develop a politico-economic
presence in regions far from its shores, such as the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe, most probably under the auspices of Belt And Road.
A Robust China Could Take A Lead In Regional Trade
Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership Signatories
There are likely to be growing calls for universal basic income (UBI) in developed states. Rising public anger at growing inequalities, and concerns about future job
losses as a result of many sectors being automated through technological change, could lead to many governments experimenting with minimum guaranteed income
schemes. There could conceivably be backlashes against automation in some countries, but technological advancements are generally difficult to reverse, absent a
revolution by an extreme group such as Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge in 1975 or the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan in 1996.
More developed states could feel compelled to emulate the ‘Nordic model’ of a stronger welfare state and a greater balance between capitalism and socialism, in order
to mitigate social instability risks. Even the traditionally most neo-liberal economies in the developed world, such as the US and UK, could feel pressured to adopt the
‘Scandinavian model’, perhaps to forestall a larger anti-systemic political shift at a later date. This would entail a higher tax burden on the wealthy, and on big
business, which could also have the long-term effect of stifling competitiveness somewhat.
Inter-generational tensions could become more pronounced in several developed states. The increasingly elderly demographic cohort could generate resentment from
the younger generation, because taxes will rise for the working-age population to support the retirees. The latter would meanwhile be perceived as a ‘lucky generation’
that benefited from considerable wealth accumulation over a much more economically benign era. These schisms could increasingly play out in the political realm;
indeed, there are already generational gaps evident in support for President Trump in the US and Brexit in the UK, with both phenomena drawing greater popularity
among older voters.
Support for liberal democracy could increasingly wane in the developed world, if liberalism is perceived to have ‘failed’ .
While developed states will remain formally democratic, an initial period of political fragmentation described earlier in this article could be followed by public
demands or desires for stronger leadership. Already, US President Donald Trump, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini,
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe are all examples of leaders of developed countries portraying themselves as strong
leaders capable of dealing with ‘unprecedented’ national challenges. Rising
support for ‘strong leaders’ could result in the erosion of
democratic institutions , while economic nationalism could result in less support for internationalist organisations . Other
similar leaders in emerging markets include Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince
Mohammad bin Salman, and Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. Moreover, many
voters in developed states may conclude that they need
strong leaders for the purposes of taking a tougher stance towards Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin
in particular, who are increasingly strengthening bilateral ties to challenge the liberal international order. That said, we do not expect to see a uniform pattern in
political developments in developed and emerging economies. The fortunes of individual leaders will still be determined by their internal dynamics.

Economic crisis causes global war

Qian Liu 18, Managing Director of Greater China for The Economist Group, previously director of the global
economics unit and director of Access China for the Economist Intelligence Unit, PhD in economics from Uppsala
University, Sweden, 11/13/18, “The next economic crisis could cause a global conflict. Here's why,”
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/11/the-next-economic-crisis-could-cause-a-global-conflict-heres-why/
The response to the 20 08 economic crisis has relied far too much on monetary stimulus, in the form of quantitative easing and
near-zero (or even negative) interest rates, and included far too little structural reform . This means that the next crisis could
come soon – and pave the way for a large-scale military conflict .
The next economic crisis is closer than you think. But what you should really worry about is what comes after: in the current social,
political, and technological landscape, a prolonged economic crisis, combined with rising income inequality, could well
escalate into a major global military conflict .
The 20 08 -09 global financial crisis almost bankrupted governments and caused
systemic collapse. Policymakers managed to
pull the global economy back from the brink, using massive monetary stimulus, including quantitative easing and near-zero
(or even negative) interest rates.
But monetary stimulus is like an adrenaline shot to jump-start an arrested heart; it can revive the patient, but it does nothing to cure the disease.
Treating a sick economy requires structural reforms, which can cover everything from financial and labor markets to tax systems, fertility
patterns, and education policies.
Policymakers have utterly failed to pursue such reforms, despite promising to do so. Instead, they have remained preoccupied with politics. From
Italy to Germany, forming and sustaining governments now seems to take more time than actual governing. And Greece, for example, has relied
on money from international creditors to keep its head (barely) above water, rather than genuinely reforming its pension system or improving its
business environment.
The lack of structural reform has meant that the unprecedented excess liquidity that central banks injected into their economies
was not allocated to its most efficient uses. Instead, it raised global asset prices to levels even higher than those
prevailing before 2008.
In the United States, housing prices are now 8% higher than they were at the peak of the property bubble in 2006, according to the property
website Zillow. The price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio, which measures whether stock-market prices are within a reasonable range, is now higher
than it was both in 2008 and at the start of the Great Depression in 1929.
As monetary tightening reveals the vulnerabilities in the real economy, the collapse of asset-price bubbles will trigger another economic
crisis – one that could be even more severe than the last, because we have built up a tolerance to our strongest
macroeconomic medications. A decade of regular adrenaline shots, in the form of ultra-low interest rates and unconventional
monetary policies, has severely depleted their power to stabilize and stimulate the economy .
If history is any guide, the consequences of this mistake could extend far beyond the economy. According to Harvard’s Benjamin
Friedman, prolonged periods of economic distress have been characterized also by public antipathy toward minority groups or
foreign countries – attitudes that can help to fuel unrest, terrorism, or even war .
For example, during the Great Depression, US President Herbert Hoover signed the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, intended to protect American
workers and farmers from foreign competition. In the subsequent five years, global trade shrank by two-thirds. Within a decade, World War II
had begun.
To be sure, WWII, like World War I, was caused by a multitude of factors; there is no standard path to war. But there is reason to
believe that high levels of inequality can play a significant role in stoking conflict.
According to research by the economist Thomas Piketty, a spike in income inequality is often followed by a great crisis. Income inequality then
declines for a while, before rising again, until a new peak – and a new disaster. Though causality has yet to be proven, given the
limited number of data points, this correlation should not be taken lightly , especially with wealth and income inequality at
historically high levels.
This is allthe more worrying in view of the numerous other factors stoking social unrest and diplomatic tension ,
including technological disruption, a record-breaking migration crisis, anxiety over globalization, political polarization,
and rising nationalism. All are symptoms of failed policies that could turn out to be trigger points for a future crisis .
Voters have good reason to be frustrated, but the emotionally appealing populists to whom they are increasingly giving their support are offering
ill-advised solutions that will only make matters worse. For example, despite the world’s unprecedented interconnectedness, multilateralism
is increasingly being eschewed, as countries – most notably, Donald Trump’s US – pursue unilateral, isolationist policies.
Meanwhile, proxy wars are raging in Syria and Yemen.
Against this background, we must take seriously the possibility that the next economic crisis could lead to a large-scale
military confrontation . By the logic of the political scientist Samuel Huntington , considering such a scenario could help us avoid it,
because it would force us to take action. In this case, the key will be for policymakers to pursue the structural reforms that they have long
promised, while replacing finger-pointing and antagonism with a sensible and respectful global dialogue. The alternative may well be global
conflagration .

It goes nuclear---decline removes checks

Stein Tønnesson 15, Research Professor, Peace Research Institute Oslo; Leader of East Asia Peace program,
Uppsala University, 2015, “Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace,” International Area Studies Review,
Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 297-311
Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how
and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk
of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that
interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but
asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade
wars among interdependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014).
The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015);
second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party
countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in
Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of
trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people,
who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in
order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If
leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame
this on external dependence , appeal to anti-foreign sentiments , contemplate the use of force to gain respect or
credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of
socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly , i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party –
or against a third party.
Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013)
says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The
greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy
alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious . If China and the US fail to rebalance their
financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social
distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear
deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could
lose its credibility : one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited
war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.
 2NC---Econ Strength ! (Henricksen)
Maintaining economic and military primacy’s key to prevent global nuclear war
Thomas H. Henricksen 17, emeritus senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, 3/23/17, “Post-American World
Order,” http://www.hoover.org/research/post-american-world-order
The tensions stoked by the assertive regimes in the Kremlin or Tiananmen Square could spark a political or military incident
that might set off a chain reaction leading to a large-scale war . Historically, powerful rivalries nearly always lead to at least
skirmishes, if not a full-blown war. The anomalous Cold War era spared the United States and Soviet Russia a direct conflict, largely
from concerns that one would trigger a nuclear exchange destroying both states and much of the world . Such a repetition might
reoccur in the unfolding three-cornered geopolitical world. It seems safe to acknowledge that an ascendant China and a resurgent
Russia will persist in their geo-strategic ambitions.
What Is To Be Done?
The first marching order is to dodge any kind of perpetual war of the sort that George Orwell outlined in “1984,” which engulfed the three super
states of Eastasia, Eurasia, and Oceania, and made possible the totalitarian Big Brother regime. A long-running Cold War-type confrontation
would almost certainly take another form than the one that ran from 1945 until the downfall of the Soviet Union.
by staying militarily and
What prescriptions can be offered in the face of the escalating competition among the three global powers? First,
economically strong , the United States will have the resources to deter its peers’ hawkish behavior that might
otherwise trigger a major conflict . Judging by the history of the Cold War, the coming strategic chess match with Russia and
China will prove tense and demanding—since all the countries boast nuclear arms and long-range ballistic missiles. Next,
the United States should widen and sustain willing coalitions of partners , something at which America excels, and at which China
and Russia fail conspicuously.
There can be little room for error in fraught crises among nuclear-weaponized and hostile powers . Short- and long-term
standoffs are likely, as they were during the Cold War. Thus, the playbook, in part, involves a waiting game in which each power
looks to its rivals to suffer grievous internal problems which could entail a collapse, as happened to the Soviet Union.
 2NC---Econ Strength ! (Brands)
Economic strength contains conflict and solves Russia war
Hal Brands 17, Assistant Professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University, 6/21/17, “America
and the Geopolitics of Upheaval,” https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-the-geopolitics-upheaval-21258?
page=0%2C1
During Donald Trump’s presidency and after, U.S. foreign policy is likely to be wracked by crises. The instability and violence
along a resurgent Russia’s periphery , the growing frictions with an increasingly assertive China, the provocations of a rapidly
nuclearizing North Korea and the profound chaos at work throughout the Middle East : these and other challenges have recently tested
U.S. officials and are likely to do so for the foreseeable future. The world now seems less stable and more dangerous than at any
time since the Cold War; the number and severity of global crises are increasing.
Yet crises do not occur in a vacuum; they are symptomatic of deeper changes in the international order. Accordingly, America’s responses will be
ill-informed and astrategic unless Washington first forms a deeper conception of the current moment.
The geopolitical changes underway are often framed in terms of “polarity”—the debate on whether America’s “unipolar moment” is over and a
multipolar world has emerged. But this debate is misleading. On the one hand, discussions of polarity frequently exaggerate American decline,
obscuring the fact that even though Washington’s international superiority has diminished, its global lead over any single challenger remains
quite impressive. On the other hand, the polarity debate actually obscures both the degree and breadth of the ongoing changes in the international
system, and of the challenges facing American officials.
The fundamental fact of international politics today is that the post–Cold War era has ended. The defining features of that period were
uncontested U.S. and Western primacy, marked declines in ideological struggle and great-power conflict, and remarkable global cooperation in
addressing key international-security challenges. Now, however, the world has returned to a more normal—which is to say, more dangerous and
unsettled—state.
The core characteristics of the emerging era are the gradual erosion of U.S. and Western primacy, revived great-power competition across all
three key regions of Eurasia, renewed global ideological struggle, and empowerment of the agents of international strife and disorder. What
makes the present period so tumultuous is that these forces often compound one another’s destabilizing effects; moreover, their collective impact
is magnified by a growing uncertainty about whether America and other traditional defenders of the international system will continue playing
that role in the future. American primacy is not dead, in other words, and true multipolarity is still a long ways off. But
U.S. primacy is far more contested than at any time in a quarter-century, and the friendly contours of the post–Cold War system
have given way to a darker and more challenging environment.
THE BEST way to understand the present era is to compare it to the previous one. The post–Cold War era was defined by four phenomena that
made it historically favorable to American interests.
The first was uncontested U.S. primacy. America emerged from the Cold War with clear economic dominance , possessing nearly 25
percent of global GDP in 1994. It controlled nearly 40 percent of world defense outlays, along with utterly unrivaled advantages in global power-
projection capabilities. Crucially, these capabilities not only gave Washington an enormous lead over any geopolitical competitor; they also
provided the ability—as Saddam Hussein discovered in 1991—to marshal decisive military might in virtually all the key
strategic regions around the world. In the nineteenth century, the British ship of the line symbolized London’s global primacy; in the late
twentieth century, the American carrier strike group symbolized an even more imposing preeminence.
Nor was American dominance purely unilateral, because it was powerfully accentuated by the strengths of the broader Western coalition. In
1994, America’s treaty allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific accounted for 47 percent of global GDP and 35 percent of global military spending,
giving Washington and its closest friends upward of 70 percent of global economic power and military spending. Throughout the post–Cold War
era, allied involvement thus lent added force to U.S. diplomacy on key issues of international order; from the Gulf War to the war in Afghanistan,
allied contributions reinforced America’s ability to project military power overseas. This was no balance of power; it was one of the most
pronounced imbalances the world had ever seen.
U.S. dominance was also evident in a second phenomenon—the decline of international ideological competition. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of
history” thesis has been much derided, but it captured three indisputable facts about the post–Cold War era: that democracy and markets were
spreading more widely than ever before; that there was no credible global competitor to the liberal-capitalist model; and that even former U.S.
enemies, such as Russia, and authoritarian states, such as China, were making unprecedented efforts to integrate into the liberal order either
economically, politically or both. To be clear, Western concepts of human rights and political democracy were far from fully accepted in these
countries, and Russian and Chinese leaders—among others—sooner or later came to see liberal proselytism as a grave threat. But the intense
ideological struggles of the twentieth century were clearly over, and the liberal model seemed incontestably ascendant.
These first two phenomena related to a third—the remarkable great-power comity of the post–Cold War era. The end of the Cold War did not, as
was widely expected, see a fragmenting of America’s alliances, or a resurgence of Japanese and German revisionism. Rather, the major Western
powers remained tied to America, largely because Washington continued to provide crucial global public goods such as security and leadership of
an open global economy. Moreover, the sheer geopolitical dominance of the Western coalition meant that it was dangerous if not
impossible for countries like Russia and China to mount serious great-power challenges of their own. Admittedly, there
remained sometimes-serious disagreements between the United States and these countries, over issues from NATO enlargement to Taiwan, and
those disagreements would grow more pronounced with time. But the danger of great-power war was nonetheless historically low during the
1990s, and great-power rivalries were more muted than at any time since the Concert of Europe.
All of these characteristics fed into a final post–Cold War phenomenon: remarkable multilateral cooperation in addressing the relatively mild
international disorder of the day. With great-power conflict dormant, U.S. foreign policy and the international community
focused largely on combating lesser geopolitical “ spoilers ,” from ethnic cleansing to mass-casualty terrorism to the
actions of aggressive regional powers such as Iraq or North Korea . These efforts, in turn, were greatly aided by the relatively
tranquil state of international politics. The absence of great-power conflict made it far easier to organize broad coalitions to confront malevolent
actors, whether Saddam Hussein in 1990–91 or Al Qaeda after 9/11. In the same vein, great-power peace allowed America and its allies to devote
increasing attention to other forms of post–Cold War disorder. The fact that NATO could focus on “out of area” interventions for roughly two
decades after the Soviet collapse, for instance, was directly related to the paucity of more traditional geopolitical threats.
It would be a mistake, of course, to exaggerate how benign or pliable the post–Cold War environment really was. The “global disorder” of the
period hardly seemed mild for the victims of catastrophic terrorism or ethnic cleansing; U.S. primacy was not omnipotence, as Washington’s
travails in places from Mogadishu to Srebrenica to Helmand amply demonstrated. But by any meaningful historical comparison, the structure of
international politics was uniquely conducive to the promotion of U.S. interests and ideals—a fact that is now the source of some nostalgia as the
global system changes in five significant ways.
THE FIRST key structural shift underway is the erosion of U.S. and Western primacy. It is incorrect to see this change as a transition from
unipolarity to multipolarity, for true multipolarity will not arrive anytime soon. The United States still possesses substantial economic advantages
over its closest competitor, China, namely an $18 trillion GDP that (as of 2015) was more than $7 trillion larger than China’s, and a per-capita
GDP roughly four times that of China. U.S. defense spending also remains around three times that of China, and Washington maintains enormous
advantages in the power-projection capabilities—aircraft carriers, advanced tactical aircraft, nuclear-powered submarines and others—that allow
it to command the global commons and exert disproportionate influence around the world.
What has happened over the past fifteen years, however, is that the extent of U.S. and Western primacy has diminished. The U.S.
shares of global wealth and military spending have declined from 25 percent and 42 percent, respectively, in 2004, to around 22 and 34
percent in 2015. The drop-off among America’s allies has been more severe. U.S. allies in Europe and the Asia-Pacific commanded 47 percent of
global GDP and 35 percent of global military spending in 1994; those shares had fallen to 39 and 25 percent, respectively, by 2015. Moreover,
many of America’s most powerful allies—particularly in Europe—have undergone severe military decline. The British Royal Navy once ruled
the waves, but now struggles to rule even the waters around the home islands; the German army faces equipment shortfalls so severe that its
troops have had to exercise with broomsticks in place of machine guns. Western overmatch remains impressive by historical standards, but the
global playing field is slanted much less dramatically than before.
Meanwhile , the relative positions of America’s principal competitors have improved significantly. Russian economic power
remains unimpressive, but an aggressive military modernization program has roughly doubled defense spending over a decade while also
developing the capabilities needed to compete with the West—airborne assault units, special-operations forces, ballistic and other missile
systems, and anti-access/area-denial capabilities, among others. China, meanwhile, has expanded its share of global wealth more than threefold,
from 3.3 to 11.8 percent, between 1994 and 2015, and its share of world military spending more than fivefold, from 2.2 to 12.2 percent. As in
Russia’s case, China’s military buildup has featured the tools—ballistic and cruise missiles, diesel-electric and nuclear submarines, advanced air
defenses, and fourth-generation fighters—needed to offset longstanding U.S. advantages in the Asia-Pacific, as well as capabilities, such as
aircraft carriers, needed to project Chinese power even further afield. The uncontested U.S. primacy of the 1990s has become the highly contested
primacy of today.
Extinction
Hans Binnendijk 16, Senior Fellow at the Center for Transatlantic Relations at the Johns Hopkins University
Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, January 2016, “Friends, Foes, and Future Directions: U.S.
Partnerships in a Turbulent World,”
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1200/RR1210/RAND_RR1210.pdf
Today, the most important external challenge faced by the United States is the reemergence of potential confrontation
between great powers and with rogue states. The United States now faces a risk of conflict with several potential
adversaries: Four are nation-states with nuclear weapons or nuclear ambitions (Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran) and
one is a diverse group of Salafi jihadists. Currently, the United States is engaged in military action against a wannabe state, the Islamic State of
Iraq and Syria (ISIS).1 Most of these potential adversaries also cooperate with at least one other hostile nation, compounding the challenge for the
United States.
This is a fundamental change from the previous decade, when the focus of U.S. national security policy was on two
stability operations in the greater Middle East, nonstate actors, and transnational threats . Those threats still exist, but a
new set of challenges from nuclear states and nuclear aspirants is of greater concern .
There are dramatic differences among these potential adversaries in terms of their ability to threaten vital U.S. interests and the extent to which
their goals overlap with Washington’s. As a result, the United States must design a set of flexible and differentiated policies to deal with each
potential foe. The overall goal should be to reduce these threats and the prospect of close cooperation among adversaries to challenge U.S.
interests. To do this, the United States needs to quickly defeat ISIS, deter North Korea, dissuade Russia, constrain Iran, and engage China.
These potential adversaries have created situations in which a large number of U.S. allies and partner nations are more vulnerable today than they
were a decade ago. Many U.S. friends are in more danger than the United States is itself, and if the United States should be drawn into
conflict with any of these adversaries (as it has already been drawn into conflict with ISIS), it will probably be to defend its partners
more than itself. The
principal risk to the United States is that conflicts with any of these adversaries could escalate.
Involvement by the three nuclear powers (Russia, China, or—to a lesser degree— North Korea) could pose existential
risks .
Degrowth Bad/Sustainability
 1NC---Degrowth Core
Planned de-growth is a catastrophe---destroys innovative capacity to solve global problems
like warming AND can’t go global or be sustained long-term---empirics are
overwhelmingly neg
Corbin K. Barthold 20, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation, 4/29/20, “(Still) Against
Degrowth,” https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2020/04/29/still-against-degrowth/?sh=4120bf0d5228
A common and persistent fear, among leading thinkers, is that civilization will soon suffer tremendously from the
byproducts of all this success. When the biologist Paul Ehrlich looked at the global drop in infant mortality fifty
years ago , he saw not a blessing but an impending cataclysm . “Each year food production in [poor] countries falls a
bit further behind burgeoning population growth,” Ehrlich wrote in 1968, “and people go to bed a little bit hungrier.”
In those countries, he predicted, hundreds of millions would die of starvation in the 1970s; and those deaths would
be a mere prelude, he believed, to the deaths of billions of people , including at least 65 million Americans, from
starvation in the final decades of the twentieth century .
This, surely, must count as one of the most errant sets of predictions ever made by a serious scientist . The rate of
famine has dropped sharply since 1968, even as the world’s population has doubled. What’s more, modern famines
are a result not of an inability to grow enough food, but of political turmoil. The calories available per person has
increased dramatically since Ehrlich offered his predictions. Even activists acknowledge that there’s plenty of food.
Ehrlich engaged in deeply static thinking . He did not account for innovation . He failed to foresee that scientists would find
ways to increase plant resilience, improve pest control, and bolster crop yields. Over the last seven decades, in fact, as population growth
remained steady, farmland growth tapered off almost completely. The land devoted to grazing peaked around twenty years ago, and is now
shrinking.
But Ehrlich remains as pessimistic as ever, and he is far from alone. “We’ve had an amazing run since the end of World War II,” the
environmentalist Bill McKibben acknowledges in his recent book Falter: Has The Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?, “with crop yields
growing fast enough to keep ahead of a fast-rising population.” In other words, Ehrlich’s predictions were rubbish. But now, McKibben says,
crop growth “seems to be running into the brute facts of heat and drought.”
It would be a mistake to dismiss warnings about climate change out of hand . The grounds for concern are real .
McKibben adeptly summarizes the terrible harm humans are inflicting on the biosphere. The fire season in the American West is more than two
months longer than it was in 1970. Many glaciers in the Himalayas are hundreds of feet shorter than they were when George Mallory trekked
among them in 1924. The ocean is becoming more acidic, endangering the planet’s oxygen-producing phytoplankton. The reckless Ehrlich may
be a menace to his own cause; and he may be spiteful (his critics, he says, are just greedy and stupid; even Harvard scientist Steven Pinker he
dismisses as “not too bright”); and he was certainly wrong yesterday. But none of this proves that he is wrong today. The well-fed turkey thinks
life is roses until Thanksgiving morning. Every prophecy of doom is wrong except the last one.
At the heart of the matter is whether we can keep growing indefinitely . “Economic growth is [a] disease,” Ehrlich
declares . “Perpetual growth,” he warns, “is the creed of the cancer cell.” Putting it this way invites yet more static
thinking , because it treats growth as nothing more than more of the same : ever more people using ever more stuff.
In reality, growth includes problem solving — innovation that remedies the side effects of innovation . Growth
often means less stuff . In 1959 a typical soda can contained 85 grams of aluminum. Today it contains around 13 grams. Such
examples abound.
Still , a more nuanced framing does not resolve the dilemma. At the very least, it’s unsettling to expect that as yet unperfected, or
even unimagined, inventions are going to fix immediate, palpable problems. Taken too far, such a belief becomes
lazy and heedless. The smog in Delhi has given 2.2 million children irreversible lung damage. Noting that the air quality in Los Angeles has
improved will not help the children of Delhi. Chanting the words “human progress” will not do the trick either. Maybe the next generation of
young Delhites will get a better deal—but maybe they won’t. The city’s poisonous air is a stubborn presence. The problem is not going to fix
itself.
Consider too the difficulty of generating an endless series of solutions. A constant rate of growth requires an exponential amount of growth. “To
sustain continuous growth,” the physicist Geoffrey West explains, “the time between successive innovations has to get shorter and shorter.” We
are running, West says, on an accelerating treadmill.
So just as no one can promise that without degrowth, billions of people will die miserable deaths, no one can promise that with growth, things
will, slowly but surely, simply work themselves out. The future is unwritten. Uncertainty is ineradicable. What, then, are we to do?
Past progress does not guarantee future progress. Those who want to halt growth are well within their rights to point
this out. But the pro-growth optimists have something the anti-growth pessimists emphatically lack —a solid
track record . McKibben praises the year 1978, when “the top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of the nation’s wealth fall to 23 percent.”
Aside, perhaps, from its being a better time for someone bitten by envy, what’s so admirable about 1978? Was an American with cancer more
likely to survive then, or now? Conditions have improved not just in America, but almost everywhere. Global poverty has plummeted, at the
fastest rate ever, since 1978. The number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen by more than half, even as the total number of people on
earth has doubled.
And the dastardly neoliberal system doesn’t just save lives; it makes life better. McKibben is free to opine that “a man with a phone more or less
permanently affixed to his palm is partway a robot already.” Much modern progressive thought stands on supposedly sophisticated people’s fear
of change. Normal people are not obliged to share such fears, and generally they don’t. Actually, change can be rather agreeable. Remember
when laptops and cell phones were “toys for the rich”?
Nor will normal people find much to like about life in a degrowth world. Aaron Timms recently reported in The
New Republic on his three-week stay at a French degrowth “summer school.” The “students” there lived in a
commune without refrigeration, air conditioning, or Wi-Fi. They subsisted on leaves, legumes, grains, and bread.
They entertained themselves by talking “long into the night about capitalism and interspecies extinction.” At a
seminar a Dutch man presented a vision of the degrowth lifestyle . He lavished praise on the Amish and said that “it
would be great to have more darkness.” Listeners from the Global South were not impressed . A woman from Chile
upbraided the speaker for idealizing the primitiveness of the past. “People in the developing world are living in that
past,” she said; “it’s called poverty.” “I’ve heard all my life about the need for personal limits and personal
sacrifice,” an Indian Ph.D. student added; “it feels like a regression to go back to that world.” The school’s only Chinese
attendee told Timms that no one in China would accept the school’s living conditions. “Everyone in the country wants to move to the city,” he
said, “and everyone in the city wants to copy the West.”
The Chinese would know ; they have tried degrowth on for size. Although capitalism has yet to produce the kind of
ruin Paul Ehrlich is always picturing, the Great Leap Forward , China’s sharp departure from capitalism , did so to the last
degree. Communal farming and rural industrialization—deindustrialization, really—created the worst famine there has been.
Equally tragic was the Khmer Rouge ’s attempt to turn Cambodia into an autarkic socialist agrarian utopia. This is not to
say that every rigid environmentalist is an eco-fascist. (McKibben, for his part, is laudably clear-eyed about the failures of Soviet autocracy and
central planning.) It is simply to note that, on the few occasions it has been implemented, abrupt , widespread, top-down
degrowth has been a disaster .
The world is too complex for centrally imposed formulas. Planned degrowth would limit our options . It would
purposely restrict our energy supply, cutting our capacity to solve problems by literally reducing our output of
ideas . (“It is naïve,” West writes, “to dissociate ideas from energy—one cannot flourish without the other.”) Unplanned growth , by
contrast, is a gigantic problem-solving machine . Such growth is diversity itself. As Matt Ridley explains in The Evolution of
Everything: How New Ideas Emerge, innovation is the product of dispersed experimentation; the process is “gradual, incremental, undirected,
emergent and driven by natural selection among competing ideas.” Give humans energy and freedom, and they will do the rest.
Innovators must, in Ridley’s words, stay “one step ahead of the naysayers and the nihilists and the protestors.” Maintaining a one-step advantage
will be that much harder amid the fear and distrust, the suffering and disorder, that accompany a modern plague. COVID-19 is spreading death
and poverty. It may in time call forth political reactions and ideological zealotries of every sort. And already there are those who see our closed
shops and empty roads not as a calamity, but as something very like a triumph. They believe their hour is come. Although the full significance of
the coronavirus as an agent of change cannot yet be known, we may be sure the antimoderns will gladly ride this catastrophe as far as it will carry
them. Our duress is, in their view, a grand opportunity for deep and lasting reversals. But it is no such thing. Growth, Walter Russell Mead
reminds us, is why we are not as helpless now “as our ancestors were in the times of the Black Death”; and it is likewise “going to be more
important than ever as the world recovers from the pandemic.”
There is cause for hope . The great enrichment has been going for more than two centuries. It has outpaced
economic panics , global wars , and, indeed, other pandemics . Some aspects of the rise have persisted even in the thick of such
setbacks. Technological change, Ridley points out, was remarkably steady throughout the twentieth century, the Great Depression included.
Although this or that nation might for a time cast itself into the dark, as China and Cambodia once did, and as some would
have us now do, Ridley suspects that, overall and in the long run , we “ could not stop the march of technology even if we
wanted to .” It is “a far more spontaneous phenomenon than we realize .”
 2NC---OOO/Solvency Turn
Only our offense---developing economies want to model Western living standards---they
won’t accept the endless poverty of degrowth or model the plan AND political backlash
against degrowth means politicians in America will desperately seek to restart the economy
which causes worse environmental destruction---that means the aff is an immediate shock
to the economy that causes war and limits innovative capacity to address environmental
harm BUT it can’t create long-term sustained degrowth globally which zeros solvency---
that’s Barthold

Making the economy sustainable requires growth in the short term, but the aff causes an
immediate global jobs crisis that makes energy transformation impossible---de-growth isn’t
fast enough to solve climate change AND desperate attempts to re-start the economy wreck
the environment
Lola Seaton 20, Assistant Editor at New Left Review, 4/24/20, “In the midst of an economic crisis, can 'degrowth'
provide an answer?” https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/economic-crisis-degrowth-green-
new-deal
Yet there is one important criticism of degrowth that has been decisively bolstered by the sharp reversal in global
economic fortunes resulting from the coronavirus lockdowns : the consequences for jobs . GDP is a notoriously crude and
partial measure of a society’s wellbeing, failing to account for a whole host of indicative factors including equality, access to energy, the quality
of healthcare, education and social support systems. But when GDP falls or slows because workers cannot produce goods or
offer services, unemployment surges . Coronavirus has brought that reality dramatically home.
As the economist and energy adviser Robert Pollin has written: “the immediate effect of any global GDP contraction would be
huge job losses and declining living standards for working people and the poor. During the Great Recession, global
unemployment rose by over 30 million. I have not seen a convincing argument from a degrowth advocate as to how
we could avoid a severe rise in mass unemployment if GDP were to fall by twice as much .”
The twin crises besetting us – the public health emergency and the unfolding economic trauma triggered by the measures to contain it – have laid
bare much about the configuration of our world that we already knew but rarely fully apprehend: its interconnectedness, its fragility, its stark
inequalities. But these crises have also brought into visceral relief the fact that employment is the heart and soul of the economy. As the British
economist James Meadway has argued, the economic depression now upon us threatens “the most fundamental institution of all in capitalism: the
labor market itself”.
Since we have so little time left in which to stabilize the climate, we must be ruthlessly pragmatic in assessing the
limitations of green strategies. Degrowth is no exception. The scale and speed of investment required to completely
renovate the energy and transportation sectors does not seem conceivable without growth continuing, at least for the
time being . Politically , as long as a steadily rising GDP remains an electoral necessity , it is difficult to imagine a recovery
that doesn’t involve desperate efforts to restore growth – and not necessarily through greener means – by politicians
anxious to revive flagging ratings.
 2NC---XT: Innovation
Capitalism saves the environment and the aff destroys it.
Ted Nordhaus 2020, executive director of the Breakthrough Institute, “Must Growth Doom the Planet?” The
New Atlantis, No. 61 (Winter 2020), pp. 76-86
For this reason, degrowth offers no guarantee that environmental impacts will decline. This is all the more so as calls for
degrowth are frequently coupled with demands for a return to simpler, less technological, and non-synthetic systems for the provision of food and
energy and for production of material goods and services. Less affluent economies more dependent upon production systems
that use less technology would substantially increase the resource demands associated with consumption , and would
erode or even entirely offset the benefits of lower levels of consumption .
Indeed, all over the world, poor populations dependent on lowproductivity technologies often require surprisingly
large per capita resource footprints to sustain their meager consumption. One 2012 study in PNAS, for instance, found that the
average West African requires the same amount of land as the average Northern European to support a diet that is
much poorer calorically and offers much less dietary protein.
By contrast , over the last two centuries, a virtuous cycle of rising energy and resource productivity has allowed for
unprecedented levels of human wellbeing . With that has come a growing population—not because people are having more children
but because life expectancies are much higher. Greater prosperity has brought rising material consumption—not mainly because of conspicuous
consumption in the wealthiest societies, but rather the agrarian, energy, and demographic transitions that have allowed much of the global
population to escape rural poverty and achieve something approaching modern living standards.
Growing demand for material goods and services by a growing and increasingly affluent global population has
increased the pressure on natural resources . But it has also led to innovation that has raised resource productivity . In
this way, rising resource productivity has allowed for both continuing economic growth and the increasing
environmental efficiency of the global economy.
Reversing those dynamics will not necessarily result in lower resource usage , or lower environmental impacts .
Lowering demand for resources could as easily result in less-productive resource use as in reduced pressure on
resources. The combination of large post-growth human populations, economic stagnation, and increasingly abundant natural resources might
drive human societies toward less-productive technological systems. The end of growth, in this way, may do more harm to the
planet than good .
 2NC---Sustainability
No limits to growth---solar energy and the knowledge economy enable clean growth and
solve climate change better than degrowth
Michael Liebreich 18, Visiting Professor at Imperial College’s Energy Future Lab, “The Secret of Eternal
Growth,” 10/29/18,
http://ifreetrade.org/article/the_secret_of_eternal_growth_the_physics_behind_pro_growth_environmentalism
The earth, however, is not an isolated system . It may be nearly closed, exchanging limited matter across the planetary boundary, but it is
far from isolated, as it receives a huge daily flux of energy from the sun and radiates almost as much away to space. In his book,
Georgescu-Roegen even acknowledged the existence of huge solar energy fluxes, but that didn’t stop him from basing his seminal work on a
scientific error. Later in his career, after ruefully acknowledging his mistake, he invented a Fourth Law of Thermodynamics, claiming that
“material entropy” would forever prevent materials from being perfectly recycled. Pure fake science.
Around the same time as Georgescu-Roegen was making up thermodynamic laws, a group of concerned environmentalists calling themselves the
Club of Rome invited one of the doyens of the new field of computer modelling, Jay Forrester, to create a simulation of the world economy and
its interaction with the environment. In 1972 his marvellous black box produced another best-seller, Limits to Growth (iv), which purported
to prove that almost every combination of economic parameters ended up not just with growth slowing, but with an overshoot and collapse. This
finding, so congenial to the model’s commissioners, stemmed entirely from errors in its structure , as pointed out by a then fresh-faced
young economics professor at Yale, William Nordhaus.
A third foundational work in the degrowth canon is Steady State Economics (v) by Herman Daly, later Senior Economist in the Environment
Department of the World Bank. In it he explains that “the economy is an open subsystem of a finite and nongrowing ecosystem. Any subsystem
of a finite nongrowing system must itself at some point also become nongrowing.” It’s a repeat of Georgescu-Roegen’s error. Daly must have
known it too, since he noted that six days’ worth of radiation from the sun contained more useful energy (or exergy, to give it
its correct name) than that embodied in all the fossil fuel reserves known at the time .
The point here is not that solar power is the key to endless growth, though it could well be - nuclear fission and fusion are other strong
contenders. The point is that when you scratch the surface of any of the seminal tracts of the degrowth movement, you find they are based on the
same fake science, right through to the present day.
Jeremy Rifkin’s 1980 Entropy: a New World View (vi) states that “here on earth material entropy is continually increasing and must ultimately
reach a maximum”. In 2009, Professor Tim Jackson , the favourite anti-capitalist of the TED generation, published Prosperity Without
Growth (vii). In it he pays homage to Daly’s “pioneering case for a ‘steady state economy’” and cheerfully recommends it to students
hungering for alternative wisdom – either not understanding or not caring that it is based on a fallacy .
This matters because, for all that the neo-liberal world economy has delivered extraordinary improvements in living standards – in life
span, levels of education, infant survival, maternal health, poverty reduction, leisure, and so on (viii) – it is currently failing to address
severe, systemic environmental challenges, first and foremost among them climate change . Unless the free-trade, pro-
growth, pro-trade right offers a coherent plan, it is ceding the argument to the degrowth, anti-capitalist, anti-trade left.
Climate change is real, serious, and urgent. That recent IPCC 1.5°C report is based on rigorous research. Of course climate change is
being co-opted by the “Academic Grievance Studies” brigade (ix), but that doesn’t make the underlying physical science less real. As the world
continues to burn through its remaining carbon budget, as temperatures continue to rise, as the ‘signal’ of climate damage becomes clearer against
the background ‘noise’ of weather, the demand for dramatic action will only increase.
Limiting the impact of climate change will require the application of technology , both new and yet-to-be-developed, on a
heroic scale. Destroying the ability of the world economy to deliver these solutions is the very opposite of what we
should be doing. And that is where Nordhaus and Romer come in.
Romer’s great contribution was to identify the contribution of knowledge to economic growth. Before his Endogenous
Growth Theory, no one could explain differences in growth rates of as much as 10 percent between countries at a similar stage of development.
Romer’s work is the perfect riposte to those who think that economic growth is the same thing as ever-increasing
physical material use and pollution; it is also the perfect riposte to those who believe that extractive industries can ever deliver long-term
wealth and those who believe the same of agricultural subsidies and import tariffs.
Nordhaus, for his part, was the creator of the first Integrated Assessment Models, bringing together the physics of climate change, its economic
impact, and the functioning of the economy. He was also the first person to suggest that attaching a cost to emissions – low at first but rising –
would squeeze greenhouse gases out of the economy. Nordhaus is no climate fundamentalist, famously diverging from the view propounded in
the Stern Review, that the world needs super-high carbon taxes immediately. Nordhaus accepted that environmental challenges and climate
change will act as a drag on the economy but, unlike others before him, he quantified the drag and showed that it is highly unlikely to reverse
economic growth.
Nordhaus and Romer are not the only Nobel Prize-winners whose work suggests that an open, liberal, trade-friendly economy – though
one pricing in externalities – will do a better job of addressing climate change and other environmental problems than
stalling or reversing economic growth.
Simon Kuznets, who won the 1971 Nobel Prize for Economics (x), described how a variable can get worse in the early phases of a country’s
development, and then improve as growth continues. He focused mainly on inequality, but the Environmental Kuznets Curves has been shown to
govern most forms of local pollution.
Ilya Prigogine won the 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research into non-equilibrium “dissipative” structures – how a
flow of energy
across closed system can drive the creation of “order out of chaos ” (xi). This is a real scientific expert on entropy proving that
the economy can grow for as long as there is still a sun in the sky (which would give us about another five billion years).

Growth sustainable---technology removes dependence on nature and solves resource

scarcity
John Asafu-Adjaye 15, associate professor of economics at the University of Queensland, et al., April 2015, “An
Ecomodernist Manifesto,” http://www.ecomodernism.org/s/An-Ecomodernist-Manifesto.pdf
At the same time, human flourishing has taken a serious toll on natural, nonhuman environments and wildlife. Humans
use about half of the planet’s ice-free land, mostly for pasture, crops, and production forestry. Of the land once
covered by forests, 20 percent has been converted to human use. Populations of many mammals, amphibians, and birds have
declined by more than 50 percent in the past 40 years alone. More than 100 species from those groups went extinct in the 20th century, and about
785 since 1500. As we write, only four northern white rhinos are confirmed to exist. ¶ Given that humans are completely dependent on the living
biosphere, how is it possible that people are doing so much damage to natural systems without doing more harm to
themselves?¶ The role that technology plays in reducing humanity’s dependence on nature explains this paradox .
Human technologies, from those that first enabled agriculture to replace hunting and gathering, to those that drive today’s globalized
economy, have made humans less reliant upon the many ecosystems that once provided their only sustenance, even as
those same ecosystems have often been left deeply damaged.¶ Despite frequent assertions starting in the 1970s of
fundamental “limits to growth,” there is still remarkably little evidence that human population and economic
expansion will outstrip the capacity to grow food or procure critical material resources in the foreseeable future.¶ To the
degree to which there are fixed physical boundaries to human consumption, they are so theoretical as to be
functionally irrelevant . The amount of solar radiation that hits the Earth, for instance, is ultimately finite but represents no meaningful
constraint upon human endeavors. Human civilization can flourish for centuries and millennia on energy delivered from a closed uranium or
thorium fuel cycle, or from hydrogen-deuterium fusion. With proper management, humans are at no risk of lacking sufficient
agricultural land for food. Given plentiful land and unlimited energy, substitutes for other material inputs to human well-
being can easily be found if those inputs become scarce or expensive.¶ There remain, however, serious long-term
environmental threats to human well-being, such as anthropogenic climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, and ocean
acidification. While these risks are difficult to quantify, the evidence is clear today that they could cause significant risk of
catastrophic impacts on societies and ecosystems. Even gradual, non-catastrophic outcomes associated with these threats are likely to
result in significant human and economic costs as well as rising ecological losses.¶ Much of the world’s population still suffers from
more-immediate local environmental health risks. Indoor and outdoor air pollution continue to bring premature death
and illness to millions annually. Water pollution and water-borne illness due to pollution and degradation of
watersheds cause similar suffering. ¶ 2¶ Even as human environmental impacts continue to grow in the aggregate, a
range of long-term trends are today driving significant decoupling of human well-being from environmental
impacts.¶ Decoupling occurs in both relative and absolute terms. Relative decoupling means that human
environmental impacts rise at a slower rate than overall economic growth. Thus, for each unit of economic output,
less environmental impact (e.g., deforestation, defaunation, pollution) results. Overall impacts may still increase, just at a slower rate than
would otherwise be the case. Absolute decoupling occurs when total environmental impacts — impacts in the aggregate — peak
and begin to decline, even as the economy continues to grow.¶ Decoupling can be driven by both technological and
demographic trends and usually results from a combination of the two.¶ The growth rate of the human population has already
peaked . Today’s population growth rate is one percent per year, down from its high point of 2.1 percent in the 1970s.
Fertility rates in countries containing more than half of the global population are now below replacement level.
Population growth today is primarily driven by longer life spans and lower infant mortality, not by rising fertility rates.
Given current trends, it is very possible that the size of the human population will peak this century and then start to
decline.¶ Trends in population are inextricably linked to other demographic and economic dynamics. For the first time in
human history, over half the global population lives in cities. By 2050, 70 percent are expected to dwell in cities, a number that could rise to 80
percent or more by the century’s end. Cities are characterized by both dense populations and low fertility rates. ¶ Cities
occupy just one to three percent of the Earth’s surface and yet are home to nearly four billion people . As such, cities
both drive and symbolize the decoupling of humanity from nature, performing far better than rural economies in
providing efficiently for material needs while reducing environmental impacts.¶ The growth of cities along with the economic
and ecological benefits that come with them are inseparable from improvements in agricultural productivity. As agriculture has become
more land and labor efficient, rural populations have left the countryside for the cities. Roughly half the US
population worked the land in 1880. Today, less than 2 percent does.¶ As human lives have been liberated from hard
agricultural labor, enormous human resources have been freed up for other endeavors . Cities, as people know them today,
could not exist without radical changes in farming. In contrast, modernization is not possible in a subsistence agrarian economy. ¶ These
improvements have resulted not only in lower labor requirements per unit of agricultural output but also in lower land requirements. This is not a
new trend: rising harvest yields have for millennia reduced the amount of land required to feed the average person. The average per-capita use of
land today is vastly lower than it was 5,000 years ago, despite the fact that modern people enjoy a far richer diet. Thanks
to technological
improvements in agriculture, during the half-century starting in the mid-1960s, the amount of land required for
growing crops and animal feed for the average person declined by one-half.¶ Agricultural intensification, along with
the move away from the use of wood as fuel, has allowed many parts of the world to experience net reforestation .
About 80 percent of New England is today forested, compared with about 50 percent at the end of the 19th century. Over the past 20 years, the
amount of land dedicated to production forest worldwide declined by 50 million hectares, an area the size of France. the “forest transition” from
net deforestation to net reforestation seems to be as resilient a feature of development as the demographic transition that reduces human birth
rates as poverty declines.¶ Human
use of many other resources is similarly peaking. The amount of water needed for the
average diet has declined by nearly 25 percent over the past half-century. Nitrogen pollution continues to cause eutrophication
and large dead zones in places like the Gulf of Mexico. While the total amount of nitrogen pollution is rising, the amount used per unit of
production has declined significantly in developed nations.¶ Indeed, in contradiction to the often-expressed fear of infinite growth
colliding with a finite planet, demand for many material goods may be saturating as societies grow wealthier . Meat
consumption, for instance, has peaked in many wealthy nations and has shifted away from beef toward protein sources that are less land
intensive.¶ As demand for material goods is met, developed economies see higher levels of spending directed to
materially less-intensive service and knowledge sectors, which account for an increasing share of economic activity.
This dynamic might be even more pronounced in today’s developing economies, which may benefit from being late
adopters of resource-efficient technologies.¶ Taken together, these trends mean that the total human impact on the
environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century . By
understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth — even
as developing countries achieve modern living standards, and material poverty ends.
Increasing innovation solves resource scarcity---history proves
Marian L. Tupy 18, senior policy analyst at the Cato Institute and editor of HumanProgress.org, 12/7/18, “The
Counter-Intuitive Truth About the World's Resources”, https://humanprogress.org/article.php?p=1612
Are we running out of resources? That’s been a hotly debated question since the publication of Paul Ehrlich’s The
Population Bomb in 1968. The Stanford University biologist warned that population growth would result in the
exhaustion of resources and a global catastrophe . According to Ehrlich, “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s
hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a
substantial increase in the world death rate”.
The University of Maryland economist Julian Simon rejected Ehrlich’s thesis. In his 1981 book The Ultimate Resource, he argued that
humans were intelligent beings , capable of innovating their way out of shortages through greater efficiency ,
increased supply , or development of substitutes . He wrote: “There is no physical or economic reason why human
resourcefulness and enterprise cannot forever continue to respond to impending shortages and existing problems
with new expedients that, after an adjustment period, leave us better off than before the problem arose.”
A just-released paper, which I co-authored with Brigham Young University economics professor Gale Pooley, revisits the Ehrlich-Simon debate.
In The Simon Abundance Index: A New Way to Measure Availability of Resources, we look at prices of 50 foundational commodities covering
energy, food, materials and metals. Our findings confirm Simon’s thesis. Between 1980 and 2017, the world’s population increased
from 4.46 to 7.55 billion or 69 per cent. Yet resources have become substantially more abundant.
To arrive at our conclusion, we introduce four new ways of measuring abundance of resources. Ehrlich and Simon looked at inflation
adjusted prices of commodities. By our count, those fell by 36 per cent. Taking that analysis a step further, we have come up with a
“time-price” of commodities, which allows us to cost resources in terms of human labour. We find that relative to the average global
hourly income, commodity prices fell by 64.7 per cent between 1980 and 2017.
Second, the price elasticity of population (PEP) allows us to measure sensitivity of resource availability to population
growth. We find that the time-price of commodities declined by 0.934 per cent for every 1 per cent increase in the
world’s population. Put differently, over the last 37 years, every additional human being born on our planet appears to have
made resources proportionately more plentiful for the rest of us.
Third, we develop the Simon Abundance Framework, which uses the PEP values to distinguish between different degrees of resource abundance,
from decreasing abundance at the one end to super abundance at the other end. Considering that the time-price of commodities decreased at a
faster proportional rate than population increased, we find that humanity is experiencing super abundance.
Finally, we create the Simon Abundance Index (SAI), which uses the time-price of commodities and change in global population to estimate
overall resource abundance. The SAI represents the ratio of the change in population over the change in the time-price, times 100. It has a base
year of 1980 and a base value of 100. Between 1980 and 2017, resource availability increased at a compounded annual
growth rate of 4.32 percent. That means that the Earth was 379.6 percent more plentiful in 2017 than it was in 1980.
Based on our analysis of the relationship between resource availability and population growth, we forecast that the time-price of
commodities could fall by a further 29 per cent over the next 37 years. Of course, much will depend on policies and institutions
that nations pursue. For time-price of commodities to decline and resource abundance to increase, it is necessary for market incentives and price
mechanism to endure. For it is when prices of commodities temporarily increase that people have an incentive to use resources more efficiently,
increase their supply and develop cheaper substitutes.
 1NC---Negative Emissions
Growth is key to negative emissions---that avoids dangerous warming better than degrowth
Emily McGlynn 18, Ph.D. candidate in agricultural and resource economics at University of California, Davis,
“Negative Emissions and Land-Based Carbon Sequestration: Implications for Climate and Energy Scenarios,” 2018,
https://www.rmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/RMI_Negative_Emissions_Scenarios_Report_2018.pdf
To avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change , the global community agreed to hold “the increase in the
global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and [pursue] efforts to limit the temperature increase to
1.5°C.”4 To achieve this, the world will need to not only rapidly decarbonize the power, industrial, buildings, and transportation
sectors, but also deploy negative emissions or carbon dioxide removal strategies, to actively remove CO2 from the
atmosphere.xi Rocky Mountain Institute’s (RMI’s) Positive Disruption report describes in detail how rapid decarbonization can occur
across industrial sectors, driven by existing market forces and increasing rates of innovation , including through
negative emissions.5 Negative emissions will be needed, hand in hand with rapid energy sector decarbonization, for three reasons:
• To offset hard-to-eliminate emissions from sectors such as agriculture, aviation, and heavy-duty transportation
• To counteract the “overshoot” of dangerous CO2 levels that is likely to occur even with best efforts
• To keep overall costs of climate mitigation low
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report estimates that staying well below 2 C° will require
10–20 Gt CO2 removal globally per year by 2100, cumulatively reaching 400–800 Gt CO2. 6 This would be equivalent to removing
It will be a monumental task , and requires getting to work immediately.
25–50 percent of today’s global fossil fuel emissions every year.
The IPCC indicates that globally land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) could support between 15 and 40 percent
of cumulative mitigation by 2100, or approximately 7–10 Gt CO2e sequestered annually by 2030.7 At the same time, IPCC scenarios have
engineered solutions such as BECCS contributing upward of 12 Gt CO2 removal globally per year. 8 Similarly, the United States Mid-Century
Strategy for Deep Decarbonization indicates US landscapes could sequester up to half of economy-wide emissions by 2050.9
More recent updates indicate responsible
land use and management strategies globally could contribute 23.8 Gt CO2 of
sequestration and avoided emissions annually, accounting for 37 percent of global mitigation required through 2030.10 These
estimates reflect a range of assumptions about the technical and economic potential of proposed solutions, which remain highly uncertain and
should be interpreted carefully. They are described here to provide an overall sense of scale and scope.
Natural climate solutions include forest expansion, enhanced forest management, agroforestry, agricultural soil improvement, biomass for
carbon-beneficial bioenergy, and opportunities for offsetting fossil fuel emissions such as long-lived wood products. Estimates of the scale of
potential for each opportunity vary widely.
Today global land use and land management are the source of one-quarter of total anthropogenic CO2 emissions.11 Shifting global
landscapes from a net emissions source to a (massive) net sink will require a suite of investments in new technologies
and ambitious policy . Key strategies for increasing natural carbon sequestration will also be needed. All of these issues
will be discussed further below. Perhaps most importantly, governments need to create large-scale revenue streams for
financing natural climate solution activities such as forest expansion, enhanced forest management, and soil carbon
storage in cropland, grazing land, and forests, as well as biomass for carbon-negative bioenergy. Whereas CO2-emitting facilities such as coal
plants will be incentivized to avoid a carbon price, many carbon-sequestering activities will require a carbon payment to incentivize action.
 2NC---Negative Emissions---Sequestration Key
Negative emissions are the only way to reduce CO2 fast enough to get to 2 degrees
David Roberts 17, climate writer for Vox, “It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions,”
8/18/17, https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions
The world’s nations have agreed, almost unanimously, to try to limit the rise of global average temperature to 2 degrees
Celsius or less over preindustrial levels.
Is that still possible? Climate campaigners, scientists, and politicians frequently insist it is. All we need, they say, is political will.
But that’s not all we need. There’s something else, something we talk about much less.
You see, in order to have a reasonable chance of hitting the 2C target, modeling shows that humanity must go carbon
negative in the mid- to late 21st century. Here are two scenarios developed by Oil Change International, one that offers a 66 percent
chance of hitting 2 degrees, one that shows a 50 percent chance of hitting 1.5 degrees:
As you can see, for a likely chance of hitting 2C, emissions have to go below zero in 2065. Going below zero means removing more
carbon from the atmosphere than we are emitting, by capturing it and burying it beneath the earth’s surface.
If we do not allow negative emissions into the models, they show that to hit our target, emissions have to decline at an
absolutely ludicrous rate :
Absent a meteor wiping out advanced civilization , that’s not going to happen. So, negative emissions it is!
That means we must start burying and sequestering carbon (in some models as early as 2020) and rapidly scale up until we
are burying more than we’re emitting. That is a truly daunting undertaking — some models show us burying 10 to 20 gigatons a year by
2100, which is 25 to 50 percent of today’s total emissions.
Lots of natural processes sequester carbon (see Paul Hawken’s book Drawdown for more on how these processes could be enhanced),
but to sequester the amounts needed in the time available, we have to accelerate things. That will require manually burying carbon in large
underground reservoirs and aquifers.
 2NC---Negative Emissions---AT: Generally Not Feasible
<Ignore their evidence about removal of CO2 from the air or on top of coal plants---our
McGwynn evidence is about natural sequestration through forests and croplands that can
be enhanced through reforestation and better land management>
Independently, carbon capture tech is feasible
Stephen Pacala 18, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, interviewed by science
writer Elizabeth Kolbert, “Climate Solutions: Is It Feasible to Remove Enough CO2 from the Air?” 11/15/18,
https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air
What else happened during the same time? Natural gas, 15 years ago, had an uncertain supply and we didn’t know how to do carbon capture and
storage, really. We had done the tiniest bit of it. Since that time, the whole fracking and unconventional gas thing happened. Whether or not you
like that, the fact of the matter is that fuel is now super-abundant and would last centuries. Carbon capture and storage has gone from,
“Well, maybe it’s possible to do,” to a big business . Sixty-one million tons of CO2 are going into reservoirs and staying
there this year in the Lower 48 [U.S. states] alone. That’s a big number.
e360: Your panel looked at techniques like afforestation and better land use, you also looked at enhanced weathering of rock. And you looked at
the holy grail, I suppose, which is direct air capture of CO2, where we suck it out of the air and bury it or mineralize it. Where do you see the
potential for big breakthroughs here?
Pacala: I think that afforestation , reforestation , changes in forest management , rebuilding the carbon backbone that maintains the
fertility in our agricultural soils, and
biomass energy with carbon capture and storage using waste biomass can supply material
gains.
With the direct air capture technologies, 10 years ago you would have said that’s just like a fairy tale. But because of
diligent activity by a small number of technical people, there’s been very rapid progress , so much so that knowledgeable people who are
not starry-eyed, but just hard-headed, believe that there is a very high probability that a research effort within 10 years would produce
direct air capture at less than a dollar a gallon of gasoline . That’s $100 a ton [of captured CO2].
Imagine a scenario where you fly over to Germany and burn aviation gas on the way over, but we have a direct air capture machine that for $100
a ton takes CO2 out of the atmosphere and puts it in the ground to compensate. And the question is, how much did that cleansing of the
atmosphere cost in terms of the fuel? The answer is an extra dollar a gallon. So it’s going from say, $2.50 to $3.50 a gallon. Now, aviation biogas,
which is the alternative, costs way more than that, and it takes land away from other uses that we need. If you could get [the carbon capture price]
down to 50 cents a gallon to solve the carbon and climate problem, how great is that? Our panel thinks direct air capture could be
brought into the marketplace in a heavy way within 10 years’ time.
 2NC---Negative Emissions---AT: No Storage Capacity
There’s tons of storage capacity we didn’t know about before
Stephen Pacala 18, professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Princeton University, interviewed by science
writer Elizabeth Kolbert, “Climate Solutions: Is It Feasible to Remove Enough CO2 from the Air?” 11/15/18,
https://e360.yale.edu/features/negative-emissions-is-it-feasible-to-remove-co2-from-the-air
e360: One of your other challenges was looking at CO2 storage capacity. If we actually put in place a lot of bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage, a lot of fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage, and a lot of direct air capture, the CO2 has to go somewhere. Do we have
storage problems?
Pacala: It looks like it’s not a problem . I would have bet a large amount of money 20 years ago, when I first started directing
a group that works on this problem at Princeton, that there wouldn’t have been enough storage capacity, but now I think there
is . It just turns out that there’s a lot, like injection of CO2 into saline aquifers, which is a kind of formation of salty water
deep down under the ground. It’s where you get oil and gas from. Now there are some pretty strong indications that CO2 inside the
salt reacts and turns into rocks really quickly . One of the things the report calls for is large-scale injection into the salt.
Solvency/IL
 1NC---RoN Solvency
No Solvency:
A. Recreates every problem of modern environmental law
Jan DARPÖ 21, emeritus professor in environmental law at Faculty of Law, Uppsala Universitet, March 2021,
“CAN NATURE GET IT RIGHT?,”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/689328/IPOL_STU(2021)689328_EN.pdf
By now, the reader of this study is aware that I concur with those legal scholars who do not share the view that RoN entails a shift
of paradigm in law that has the capacity to save the environment from the challenges we face today. Many of the
deficits that this movement criticises modern environmental law for having are general problems that have been
discussed for years and which will not be remedied by introducing new labels in a system that still must be handled
by humans . The dichotomy between RoN and modern European environmental law is therefore partly artificial, a symbolic construct.
Environmental law remains an instrument handled by individuals and – as the history of RoN shows – any
alternative discourse of thoughts faces the same challenges as the old schools, most importantly ; lofty legislation
not adapted to the nature and development of the environment, deferral to economic growth in decision-making,
weak enforcement , and lack of funding for environmental interests . When deconstructing the RoN concept, no
radical new instruments come to light compared with what we have today.
Even so, the RoN school of thought contains fresh insights in its critique of Western society and presents ideas that can be developed within our
conventional legal notions. At the heart of the concept lies the notion that law must adapt to ecological and scientific reality in order to addressthe
main challenges of today, such as climate change and large-scale losses of biodiversity. The
limiting factor for achieving this is not,
however,that nature does not have rights, or other basic flaws in our legal system, but the lack of public support for
a radical change , and the necessary political will. I cannot think of any reform that lies beyond the present institutional or legal scope
of the EU. Environmental and social reforms require decisions through political process, and until the necessary shifts in public attitudes or
values occur, the fundamental direction of society will not change .

B. “Substantial Injury” requirements

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of Water
Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197
The main purpose of granting personhood rights to a river or lake is to protect against injury. 103 From a conservation
perspective, if injury means any non-natural depletion, this legal theory is a brilliant idea for water conservation . 104
However, if courts interpret injury to require a substantial injury , then personhood rights might not be very helpful. 105
Regardless of the injury standard, the guardian of a personhood right will ensure continued observation of a water body and planning for its
sustainable future. 106 This guardianship sets personhood rights miles ahead of not only the riparian and prior appropriation doctrines, but also
ahead of the public trust doctrine in terms of water conservation because of the much stricter standard of guardianship and the eradication of any
property rights. 107 Guardians can rigorously oversee how water bodies are used and can sue for potential injury whenever they deem it
appropriate. 108
 2NC---S---Enforcement
RoN is not a paradigm shift---it just recreates the problems of modern environmental law
but with new labels---RoN will be underenforced and underfunded AND society will stay
committed to growth AND lofty legislation will not be crafted with the nuance necessary to
address environmental harm---that’s Darpo

Ecuador and Bolivia prove

Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at the
Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New Zealand, and
India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1
Further, legal rights are only worth having if they can be enforced . To enforce legal rights for a river, several practical
factors must be accounted for. First, an individual or organization must be appointed to act on a river’s behalf, to uphold the
rights of, and speak for nature (Croley 1998, Stone 2010). Second, capacity in the forms of time, money, and expertise may need
to be made available so that the rights of the river can be upheld in court. And third, river representatives and funding
sources are likely to need some form of independence from state and national governments , as well as sufficient real-
world power to take action , particularly if such action is politically controversial (O’Donnell 2012).
Historically , these factors have been absent in cases where legal rights have been granted to nature and, as a result,
legal rights for nature have been difficult to enforce (Whittemore 2011). For instance, in the examples of Ecuador and Bolivia,
few cases have been successfully upheld and even when the rights have been recognized in court, local actors
responsible for enforcement have lacked capacity to translate the legal decision into effective outcomes on the
ground (Daly 2012).
It’s indifferentiable from status quo environmental law
Julien Bétaille 19, Associate Professor of Public Law, University of Toulouse Capitole, 3/27/2019, “Rights of
Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World,” Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, Vol. 16,
No. 1, https://brill.com/view/journals/jeep/16/1/article-p35_35.xml#affiliation0
*RoN = Rights of Nature
The main thesis of this paper is that RoN will not do away with the main shortcoming of modern environmental law, being
the lack of proper enforcement . It is opined that merely acknowledging nature’s rights into legislation will in itself
not lead to a better protection of the eu’s endangered nature if not complemented with a clear commitment for more
strict enforcement. The added value of RoN needs to be measured against the three main assumptions upon which it is based. In this respect,
it is important to underline that a revision of modern environmental law could, in itself, come forward to many of the prevailing criticism upon
which RoN are based. In this article, it is substantiated that modern environmental law is able to recognize the intrinsic value of Nature (1),
second, that acknowledging RoN is not necessarily to be equated to a “legal revolution” (2) and, third, that RoN might not live to its
promise regarding saving the world (3).
Environmental Law Revisited: Reinforcing the Intrinsic Value of Nature?
The first assumption underlying the RoN’s theory is that environmental law is too anthropocentric to take into
account the intrinsic value of nature , whereas RoN would be more suitable to carry out the task of reasserting this
intrinsic value. In other words, RoN is founded upon the assumption that even modern environmental law is not equipped to fully protect the
intrinsic value of nature. This is a poignant point of departure . Often, RoN advocates submit that modern environmental law is the result
of Cartesian philosophy, reproducing the renowned Nature/Culture dualism. Accordingly, environmental law would explicitly acknowledge that
mankind is to be framed as the “master” of nature. For instance, pursuant to current property law nature is to be treated an object. In contrast,
however, RoN is often linked to ecocentric philosophy and therefore is more inclined to approach nature as a subject of rights. However, this
dichotomy, while attractive from a philosophical point of view, renders an objective legal critique of RoN
challenging at best.
In my view, RoN supporters attach too much weight the above-depicted distinction. Indeed, it is possible to argue that modern
environmental law is less anthropocentric than it used to be (2.1), that property rights can be limited in light of environmental
interests (2.2) and that modern environmental law protects the intrinsic value of Nature (2.3), which recently has led to the
recognition of “pure” ecological harm in several legal instruments (2.4). Moreover, on the procedural ground, access to justice
has been broadened in environmental cases (2.5) and the burden of proof is no longer an insurmountable hurdle in legal cases
(2.6).
Empirics---conflicting laws and underenforcement make RoN ineffective
Julien Bétaille 19, Associate Professor of Public Law, University of Toulouse Capitole, 3/27/2019, “Rights of
Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World,” Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, Vol. 16,
No. 1, https://brill.com/view/journals/jeep/16/1/article-p35_35.xml#affiliation0
4.2 Effectiveness, or a Lack Thereof, after All?
Whereas it remains relatively easy to posit that modern environmental law is failing to reach its objective, the track-
record of RoN is not much better. The first empirical studies regarding the effectiveness of RoN in countries, such as
Ecuador and Bolivia, clearly reveal the myriad of limitations to be faced in this respect. For example, some authors have
concluded that “Ecuador’s (RoN) amendments are more likely to have an impact if Ecuador implements structural and
procedural changes”.76 This should come as no surprise. Simply granting legal personhood to nature will not make
a big difference when it is not supplemented with structural changes. For one, even when everybody can act as a
guardian when nature’s rights are encroached upon, nature will still disappear if no-one is effectively willing to take
manifest violations before court. Even when nature’s rights are explicitly protected in a constitution, other
provisions in the same constitution might still prioritize economic development and lead to ongoing environmental
destruction. In fact, most of it is linked to what Herbert Hart named “secondary norms”.77
Whereas primary norms prescribe human beings to perform or abstain from certain behaviors, secondary norms ensure that new primary rules are
enforced whenever cases of non-compliance arise. In other words, simply endowing substantive rights upon nature might matter little if not
accompanied by strict enforcement commitments. Of course, one might admit that whenever RoN are included in the primary norms, this might
ultimately also influence the legislator when enacting secondary norms. In other words, implementing RoN in primary norms might ultimately
also trickle down in the body of secondary norms, which might be more centered on ensuring a better enforcement of the existing rights.
Be that as it may, we always end up with the “effectiveness challenge” when contemplating new environmental norms. Even if all countries
would immediately decide to implement RoN into their legislation, there exists no guarantee that the environmental
decline would be cured. One might submit that ensuring effectiveness has little to do with the legal nature of the obligation towards nature.
To put it bluntly: opting for a RoN approach might inflict additional harm the environment if not properly enforced ,
especially when measured up against modern environmental statutes which are properly applied in the field. It is well-known that both legal and
extra-legal factors are to be addressed in order to ensure proper compliance with environmental norms. And thus, if RoN advocates are really
serious about “saving the world”, they ought to invest all their time and efforts in finding solutions for the multitude of challenges when it comes
to compliance. In this regard, the focus should be on the following items: coherent legislation, strict sanctions, tackling corruption, impartiality of
public authorities and judges, administrative inertia, regulators’ capture, access to justice, judges’ interpretation, execution of judicial decisions,
etc.78
 2NC---S---“Substantial Injury”
Court interpretation to require “substantial inury” dilutes the legal power of river rights---
that’s Blake. Trump stacked courts with conservative justices who have clear interests in
limiting the scope of the plan.

Fiat doesn’t solve---courts develop balancing tests

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of Water
Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197
Since giving personhood rights to natural resources is unprecedented , the repercussions of this unique legal theory
are difficult to predict . 117 The main issue is how to define injury for a body of water. 118 From humans to river deltas,
nearly everything needs water to survive so the policy choices guiding what amounts to an injury would present
interesting questions, especially for drought-stricken states . 119 Would injury be based on a quantity of extracted
water or reduced flow volume? 120 Would injury depend on the current size of the river? 121 If legislatures do not
particularly and quantitatively define injury, the courts would likely need to formulate a balancing test to identify when a
body of water is injured. 122 Although balancing tests for injury exist in today's water law, a new test could pose a
difficult challenge for courts.
That makes the plan the squo with added court costs
Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of Water
Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197
The riparian water rights doctrine allocates water among landowners who possess land abutting, or touching, a natural
watercourse and bases itself in absolute ownership. 30 In a riparian system, a landowner generally is allowed to withdraw as
much water as he wants, as long as it's not malicious or wasteful , for use on his riparian property. 31 Further, under the modified reasonable use
theory, the withdrawal of water cannot injure a riparian's other riparian neighbors. 32 Most states in the eastern half of the
U nited S tates adhere to the riparian school of thought. 33
The riparian doctrine works really well in states without water shortage issues because it calls for unrestricted,
correlative, or reasonable water use rather than a quantified amount. 34 It generally requires much less state administration and
government [*201] involvement than the prior appropriation doctrine, and also encourages user freedom while enhancing private property rights associated with the
riparian parcel. 35 In turn, this reduces overall administrative costs. 36 On the other hand, the riparian doctrine causes confusion and conflict during times of drought
or water shortage because the court must undergo a balancing test to determine reasonable use or injury to other users. 37 As water becomes scarcer over time, the
riparian doctrine shrivels up when paralleled to other effective legal theories. 38
Compared to rights of personhood, the riparian doctrine does not effectively conserve water because there is no
quantified limit on use of water under the riparian doctrine. 39 Rights to personhood , on the other hand, may give a guardian more
control over consumption and use of a water supply based on injury to a water body. 40 However , until a state's
legislature clearly defines the term "injury," to include a quantitative amount, courts will still need to undergo a
balancing analysis , especially in times of drought. 41 For now, the term is left open to interpretation, so like riparian
rights, this might not be as helpful of an allocation theory as originally anticipated . 42 Courts could quite possibly
treat the right to personhood similar to riparian rights by requiring only that the water use simply be reasonable to
avoid liability for injury and would, therefore, undergo a judicial balancing test. 43 This, in turn, could result in increased
litigation costs, time, and effort and have the same result as the riparian doctrine : uncertainty and water
management inefficiency in drought-ridden environments .

Or, it causes tragedy of the anticommons which exacerbates shortages

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of Water
Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197
The tragedy of the anticommons is exactly what it sounds like - the exact opposite of the tragedy of the commons. 126 In essence,
it means that a resource goes underutilized to the point of inefficiency and waste . 127 When there are too many
owners of a finite resource, each having a claim of right, a failure to cooperate means " nobody can use the resource "
and "everybody loses in a hidden tragedy of the anticommons." 128 Accordingly, "while private ownership usually
increases wealth, too much ownership has the opposite effect: it wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives ." 129
The California Supreme Court has said that, as a matter of practical reality, sometimes water use must be allowed even where it
results in harm . 130 If courts construe injury to mean any unnatural water depletion, then societies would soon face
the tragedy of the anticommons because no one could access the water resource . 131 This would cause populations
to face water shortages much faster than anticipated , and communities to fade away. 132 Therefore, [*211] states
should avoid polarizing water rights between unrestricted access and no access at all. 133 Because this is a possible
evolution of personhood rights in water bodies , such a system could render water property rights too binary for
effective water management and conservation . 134
 2NC---S---Guardianship
Human guardianship fails
Julien Bétaille 19, Associate Professor of Public Law, University of Toulouse Capitole, 3/27/2019, “Rights of
Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World,” Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, Vol. 16,
No. 1, https://brill.com/view/journals/jeep/16/1/article-p35_35.xml#affiliation0
Against this backdrop, one should be more cautious before speaking about a legal “revolution” when discussing RoN.
As Dinah Shelton held:
“Environmentalists may be concerned that inevitably the legal personhood of nature will have to be defended by
humans. If these humans are appointed by the government, environmental concerns may not always be paramount . Any
guardians will have responsibility for developing a management plan and deciding on what particular activities
should be permitted. In theory , environmental agencies already undertake these responsibilities in respect to public
lands and protected areas”.61
However, the critique goes deeper. One might even submit that the substantive norms put forward by RoN do not differ
substantially from the protection schemes set out by modern environmental law.
 2NC---S---Courts
Their solvency argument is a shame--- Courts do not have the expertise, legitimacy, or
willpower to resolve complex environmental issues
Richard J. Lazarus 15, Howard J. & Katherine W. Aibel Professor of Law, Harvard Law School. Fall 2015.
ESSAY: JUDICIAL MISSTEPS, LEGISLATIVE DYSFUNCTION, AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE:
CAN TWO WRONGS MAKE IT RIGHT? Environmental Law Journal.
Courts can, as in Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,[80] properly cajole and push executive branch agency recalcitrance in
the face of statutory commands. Butthe courts possess neither the competency nor the legitimacy necessary to play a far
greater role and should avoid substituting their policy judgment regarding the proper level of environmental
protection for that of the legislature or executive branch agencies acting pursuant to legislative charges of such
lawmaking responsibility. For this reason, I think it is a strategic mistake to delude oneself—let alone the law students we teach—by
suggesting otherwise. Far better to accept the true difficulty of the lawmaking challenge we face, and to undertake the
necessary hard work at the national—and no less important at the retail—level, than to pretend that the courts can
provide quick fixes to rescue us from ourselves.
Fortunately, many determined attorneys worried about the nation’s environmental future are doing just that necessary hard work, trying to
influence actors ranging from federal lawmakers to local public utility commissions. There are attorneys in the national environmental groups
who are increasingly mastering the complexity of energy technology and regulation. There are attorneys in local and regional organizations who
are doing the same, encouraging state regulators to lift existing regulatory obstacles to cleaner energy technologies. The same is true throughout
both federal and state environmental and energy regulatory agencies. These are the attorneys who are doing the creative and heavy lifting most
needed right now. In the world of environmental law, they are performing the most important and the most challenging work.
The good news is that massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions should be achievable based on existing and
future technological innovation if we can adjust the necessary statutes and regulations. But it will not come easily, as should already be
obvious. It will not be easy to reform the nation’s electricity grid. It will not be easy to transition from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy.
There are powerful economic and political forces that will naturally resist any such shift, including both the enactment of the necessary law
reforms in the first instance and then their strict implementation over time.[81] More than federal legislation and rulemakings will be needed.
Success will require law reform state by state, local government by local government, often in tandem with business
leaders.
To overcome those obstacles will require the best of lawyering.[82] Advocates must push for reforms that address the specifics in a manner that
converges energy and environmental law. The Clean Water Act[83] can proudly announce a goal to eliminate all discharges of pollutants into
navigable waters,[84] but then administrators must apply their expertise to come up with a regulatory system that reflects
all the very real complexities presented both by the workings of our natural environment and our social and
economic activities. That complexity cannot be ignored, which makes working out all those precise details
fundamentally and unavoidably hard. There is a reason for environmental law’s complexity—one rooted in the
complexity of both the ecosystem itself and those human activities that affect it.[85]
To overcome those obstacles will also require the best of lawyering to address the huge challenges presented by such a profound social and
economic transformation in the way electricity is produced, distributed, and used. The necessary transition will be hard, and the very real needs
of those who will be adversely affected must be considered and fairly addressed. That too requires great precision and nuance in how our laws are
fashioned and administered. And that, too, is the stuff of creative lawyering.
President Obama’s final C lean P ower P lan is a wonderful example of what can be achieved by applying such expertise
with careful attention to the need for transition and cost-effectiveness, as well as to our own nation’s institutional
design for lawmaking.[86] Spanning over 300 printed pages, the Plan is extraordinarily complex and ambitious.[87] It establishes
carbon dioxide emission performance rates representing the best system of emission reduction for existing fossil
fuel-fired electric generating units; state-specific goals reflecting carbon dioxide emission performance rates; and
guidelines for developing, submitting, and implementing state plans capable of meeting carbon dioxide emission
performance rates.[88] The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) simultaneously published a proposed Federal Plan to implement
greenhouse gas emission guidelines for the existing fossil fuel-fired power plants, which offers two alternatives for states and other jurisdictions
that do not submit an approvable plan to EPA.[89] The proposed Federal Plan, which includes a “Model Trading Rule” for states that would like
to adopt a cap–and–trade program, is more than 750 pages in length.[90]
The entire Clean Power Plan represents a massive regulatory undertaking, rich in both its technical detail and its innovation. It is simultaneously
attentive to the need to account for the real, short-term economic costs of transitioning to a new energy mix, to maximize cost effectiveness, and
to respect the expertise of state and local governments.[91] The Plan is also creatively responsive to those in the business community who
appreciate the seriousness of climate change and the need to reform fundamentally the way electricity is produced and consumed in the United
States.[92] The Plan necessarily covers hundreds of pages of detail, supported by an abundance of lengthy technical documents and data analysis.
[93] But that is the kind of lawyering and technical detail that is required to have a meaningful chance to move the
law as needed. Environmental lawyers will have to follow up by delving into the functional equivalent of the trenches: working in individual
states and before public utility regulators. That is what will be ultimately needed to break down the legal obstacles that currently impede the shift
to an energy mix responsive to climate change and to replace those obstacles with incentives that more fairly reflect their true social value.
There are no legal shortcuts.
To be sure, I understand the natural appeal of the notion that a handful of lawyers will replicate through the courts the environmental equivalent
of the accomplishments of Charles Hamilton Houston and his young protégée, Thurgood Marshall, who together crafted a brilliant litigation
strategy culminating in Brown v. Board of Education.[94] And I similarly appreciate the obvious parallels between civil rights law and
environmental law, especially in the context of climate change.[95] Not unlike racial minorities who served as the plaintiffs in pathbreaking civil
rights litigation in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s,[96] future generations are hard pressed to find effective champions of their environmental
interests in legislatures. The origins of each group’s lack of legislative influence are quite different—slavery and raw racial animus excluded
racial minorities from the political process, while future generations’ interests are overlooked because of the outsized influence of industry and
the natural tendency of current generations to emphasize their own wellbeing. The much-celebrated Judge Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, however, understood in the 1970s the clear relationship between civil rights law and environmental law, and was
one of the rare jurists who served as a judicial champion of both while serving on the federal bench.[97]
But there remain profound differences between environmental law and civil rights law. At the threshold, unlike the equal protection requirements
for which Houston and Marshall sought judicial support in their historic litigation, environmental protection requirements are not
constitutional in character.[98] They are exclusively the product of the common law and statutory law.[99] There is
no constitutional analogue and therefore far less force to the premise that courts can legitimately supplant the
lawmaking prerogatives of the legislative and executive branches.
The courts’ inability to fashion appropriate remedies on their own to address climate change also throws a lot of
cold water on the venture. Not that remedial relief in Brown itself proved easy. The courts have struggled for more
than sixty years to implement Brown’s holding with “all deliberate speed.”[100]
But imagine what would be required for climate change in light of its extraordinary temporal and spatial scope of
cause and effect, and the corresponding complexity of the technological, economic, and social judgments that must
be made in determining how to address the climate issue. The courts would be asked to embrace a judicial role that
assigns them the primary responsibility of deciding the appropriate levels of greenhouse gas emissions in the United
States. They would be asked to set legal rules governing how those emissions should then be allocated and when different levels would need to
be achieved. The courts would have to develop the equivalent of the President’s proposed Clean Power Plan.
As evidenced by the plan itself, consider the sweep of activities that would be affected over both time and space. Consider, too, the
fundamental social and economic policy judgments that courts would have to make. The courts do not remotely
possess the necessary competence or lawmaking legitimacy to answer those kinds of questions. And they will decline
to do so, especially in the absence of any kind of clear constitutional command. Conservative judges would not
favor it . And one would be hard pressed to find many liberal judges who would, no matter how much they agreed climate change was an
enormous problem.[101] And, even if one finds an isolated judge or two so exceedingly frustrated by the lack of governmental action to address
climate change, the half-life of their ruling will likely be limited upon further view. The bottom line is that this is just not how we
make laws of this nature under our constitutional framework.
That is why, although I greatly admire the motives and overarching goals of those who are trying to address climate change through lawsuits
based on the legal theory that there is an “atmospheric trust” that courts can enforce against government and industry,[102] I believe those
lawsuits are best understood as part of an overall political strategy rather than as a viable, standalone litigation strategy. The filing of such
lawsuits can serve a useful political purpose: they provide an opportunity for potentially effective political organizing and publicity with the
ultimate goal of prompting legislatures to enact the laws we need. Those lawsuits are not destined to yield significant judicial
remedies based on the atmospheric trust doctrine itself. Fortunately, many of those who are championing the atmospheric trust
litigation are very much focused on the positive political potential of their efforts in terms of influencing law- and policy-makers in both the
legislative and administrative arenas, and wisely do not focus exclusively on litigation.[103]
 1NC---No Degrowth
No degrowth
Mark Hawkins 21, MSc in Environment, Politics and Development from the University of London, January
2021, “Imagining a Post-Development Future: What can the Degrowth and Rights of Nature Debates Offer Each
Other,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348785651_Imagining_a_Post-
Development_Future_What_can_the_Degrowth_and_Rights_of_Nature_Debates_Offer_Each_Other
One of the RoN s envisaged goals, that of reducing the negative effects of extraction, is severely hampered in the
cases of both Bolivia and Ecuador from the outset. This is because in both constitutions the role of the RoN is
curtailed vis a vis the need for national development through economic growth . In Ecuador the RoN are imagined as a key
pathway to Sumak Kawsay, yet this Indigenous philosophy is subtly, yet potently , reinterpreted. In its original form it
fundamentally counters development, and is envisaged in opposition to “modernization, development and economic
growth” (Chují Gualinga 2009 p.150, my own translation). Yet in the constitution of Ecuador (see title VI) Sumak Kawsay is
incorporated into traditional ideas of development , wherein for its exercise, growth-through-extraction is argued to
be necessary. Similarly, in Bolivia the 2012 law supplementing the constitutional provisions for RoN is titled “framework law of the mother
earth and development integral for the buen vivir” , with natural resource extraction and industrialisation representing priorities of the state, with
the benefits to be redistributed (Lalander 2014). We
can therefore see that in both countries the hegemony of growth is not
superseded, and that Buen Vivir and the RoN are reinterpreted to function as something of a progressive mask on
continued extractive systems , which largely preserve their extractive character (Sánchez Parga 2011). The Janus-faced nature
of these constitutions is reflected in some national court decisions. Take the Condor-Mirador case in Ecuador as an example. In this case the
mining group in question found in their own EIA that they would violate the RoN, yet the judge held the Indigenous group that had bought the
case before the tribunal were defending private rights as opposed to the mining group and government that were instead defending a public
interest (Ogden 2014, Garn(b) [online]). That a mining groups actions, and not those of the local Indigenous people, can be considered of public
interest requires growth thinking, under which growth through extraction is a public interest and a requirement to achieve a better society, instead
of a tool for continued accumulation of capital and expansion of production elsewhere.
 2NC---No Degrowth
No degrowth---RoN is a progressive mask on continued societal commitment to growth and
extraction---Bolivia and Ecuador reinterpreted the indigenous philosophy of RoN to allow
traditional development---thinking that the US, the heart of global capitalism, will behave
differently is naïve---that’s Hawkins

No mindset shift
Freya Matthews 17, Adjunct Professor of Environmental Philosophy at La Trobe University, 5/26/17, “Nature as
the Law Within Us,” https://www.humansandnature.org/nature-as-the-law-within-us
So it seems we are, as environmentalists, inevitably driven towards a definition of “nature” as the rest of life on Earth—the realm of other-
than-human components of the biosphere. It is other-than-human species, beings, communities—trees and grasses, fungi, animals, wetlands,
forests, and so on—that we are seeking to protect.
But to understand nature in this sense and then to declare that we are morally required to acknowledge its entitlement to its own
existence—generally on the grounds that we are not superior to it, inasmuch as it actually shares the mental
properties that dualists attribute exclusively to humans—may be asking too much . For it suggests that as humans we
should assume a minimalist , hands-off position with respect to trees, grasses, ecosystems, etc., leaving them as far
as possible to their own devices. Were we genuinely to embrace such an ethic, we would surely be obliged to cut back our human
population by orders of magnitude and minimize our cultural and technological agency, restricting ourselves to something like
the lifestyle of our primitive hominid ancestors. Whatever the moral merits of such a minimalist conclusion, it has
no hope whatsoever of being accepted by contemporary modern societies .
Degrowth solvency is aspirational, not causal
Mark Hawkins 21, MSc in Environment, Politics and Development from the University of London, January
2021, “Imagining a Post-Development Future: What can the Degrowth and Rights of Nature Debates Offer Each
Other,” https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348785651_Imagining_a_Post-
Development_Future_What_can_the_Degrowth_and_Rights_of_Nature_Debates_Offer_Each_Other
A justified question can be now raised: why is there a need for degrowth here ? It is certainly true that there are already strong
post-development ideologies that are closely linked to the RoN in, especially, Latin America. In Bolivia and Ecuador,
the RoN are envisaged as a key way of achieving the aims of Sumak Kawsay (in Kichwa, used in Ecuador's constitution
(Preamble)), Suma Qamaña (in Aymara, used in Bolivia’s constitution (II.7)), both sometimes translated as Buen Vivir (the good
life, or good living in Spanish). In many ways these are similar to degrowth in their aim of moving away from a planet
destroying eco-social system based on constant growth to one based on sufficiency. However , Sumak Kawsay, Suma
Qamaña and Buen Vivir do not constitute a frontal assault on growth and can (and have been) appropriated as
justifications for other political projects reliant on extraction, destructive of the environment and local communities
and aiming at growth. In the same vein the RoN are not themselves sufficient in the long run as a limiter to
environmental woes, the appropriation of land, the dispossession of the vulnerable and so on. A strong challenge to growth itself
thus compliments the RoN in its aims and is arguably necessary for a truly secure transition from forms of
economic and social organization that are ultimately destructive. This becomes evident when we look at some early
challenges faced by the RoN in Bolivia and Ecuador.
 1NC---AT: International Leadership
The U.S. isn’t key internationally
Caroline McDonough 19, J.D. Candidate, Villanova Charles Widger School of Law, 2019, “COMMENT: WILL
THE RIVER EVER GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK? STANDING UP FOR THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF NATURE,”
Villanova Environmental Law Journal, 31 Vill. Envtl. L.J. 143
Support for this legal " rights of nature " movement gained an impressive foothold in foreign countries and
continues to make small strides in the U nited S tates as well. 6The movement seeks to confer legal rights, or "legal personhood,"
onto nature in order to bring a claim against governments or individuals who harm the environment. 7Around the world, ecosystem organizations
most commonly [*144] attempt to secure legal rights for rivers and other bodies of water. 8
The highest-profile domestic attempt to secure legal rights for the environment was filed on behalf of the Colorado River in 2017. 9Although this
litigation was stopped in its tracks, the case is emblematic of more successful litigation and regulations that secured legal rights for nature around
the country, albeit on a smaller scale. 10State and town governments in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire have previously contemplated,
or are currently contemplating, enacting laws that would grant legal rights to local ecosystems. 11
While the movement in the United States has progressed slowly, it has enjoyed markedly more success
internationally . 12Almost fifteen years ago, Ecuador drafted a new national constitution explicitly providing legal rights for nature, or
"Pachamama." 13Permitting "all persons, communities, peoples and nations [to] call upon public authorities to enforce the rights of nature,"
Ecuador's constitutional provision has been incorporated into the country's criminal and environmental codes to protect the right of nature. 14
In another noteworthy case, the New Zealand government granted legal rights to the Whanganui River in order to resolve a long-standing
property dispute with the Maori Tribe. 15New Zealand's recognition of the river as a living entity explicitly articulated the rights it possessed.
16Despite the progress in both Ecuador and [*145] New Zealand functioning as a model for countries around the
world who seek to accomplish the same goals, headway in the United States has failed to rise above the grassroots
level and remains an open-ended question in the courts. 17
 2NC---AT: International Leadership
Other countries generate momentum and US substantive actions short of legal
transformation solve
Oliver A. Houck 17, Professor of Law, Tulane University, Winter 2017, “ARTICLE: Noah's Second Voyage: The
Rights of Nature As Law,” Tulane Environmental Law Journal, 31 Tul. Envtl. L.J. 1
All of this said, one may fairly conclude from this that the U nited S tates, nevertheless, is farther along toward legal rights in nature
that it knows. Without mentioning the name, it already recognizes and enforces the entitlement of all living things to exist
and has pioneered significant instruments toward this end including impact assessment , citizen suits , and judicial
review . In the meantime, it has also launched major restoration projects for mid-western prairies, southern pine forests,
and ecosystems as large as the Everglades, Gulf Coast wetlands, and the Chesapeake Bay. 125These are all elements
of the rights of nature and in a [*23] bottom-up fashion , by deed if not in word, the U nited S tates is coming on board.
Other countries are following suit, indeed have led the way . As early as 1917 the Russian Federation began the
creation of zapavedniki, nature preserves in which humans themselves are not allowed to enter save as scientific
purposes, creating in effect the largest and most protective wilderness system in the world. 126For its part, Brazil, hosting
one of the largest inventories of rare species on earth, has pledged that all of them will be under conservation
management by 2020, and 20% on their way to recovery. 127Taking a different tack, Germany's constitution has made protection
of "the foundations of nature and animals" a national priority, applicable to government agencies, the legislature and the judiciary
alike. 128In so doing, it eschewed language focused on the foundations of "human" life in favor of "nature and animals,"
an explicit embrace of the ecocentric point of view . 129This provision has been cited in over 700 cases (including one
protecting a rare plant from a major dredging project on the River Elbe), 130which of course does not include the more numerous acts of
compliance that drew no litigation at all.
The E uropean U nion, spurred forward by its Wild Birds and Habitat Directives, 131has approached the same task yet more
comprehensively with Natura 2000. 132Despite the differences of its twenty-eight member countries and the relative paucity of public
lands, a network of more than [*24] 200 protected areas spanning eighty-four "bio-regions" has emerged. 133They are
not wilderness. For the most part they are dotted with towns, roads, and a range of compatible development but managed by member
states with a single bottom line: the viability of species and the habitats on which they and humans alike depend.
134Decisions of the European Court of Justice on challenges to Natura 2000 have been broadly supportive, some obviously written to boost it
forward. 135In a recently completed, two-year "fitness check" (prompted by development interests), the European Commission wound up
endorsing the program as well, perhaps influenced by overwhelming support from the public at large (more than 550,000 comments in favor).
136The pulses of nature in Europe, too, find strong receptors in the human mind.

Global momentum is strong without US action

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of Water
Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197
The U nited S tates is trailing other countries in recognizing environmental personhood rights. 135 Ecuador was the first
nation to grant legal rights not only to rivers, but also to mountains and land. 136 The country rewrote its constitution to include the
"rights of nature," which ultimately resulted in a judge deciding in favor of a river in a local dispute. 137 Interestingly, a Pennsylvania-based
organization helped Ecuador to make the change. 138 The group also helped communities in the Eastern United States and Italy to find new ways
to breathe life into existing environmental legal theories. 139 Additionally, Bolivia has begun to rework its constitution to integrate
"the Law of Mother Earth," which "establishes a new relationship between man and nature." 140 This change is based, in part, on an
indigenous spiritual resurgence, which places the environment and the earth deity "Pachamama" at the center of all life, while making all entities,
including humans, equal. 141
Personhood rights are more popular globally than in the U nited S tates, and whether this legal doctrine will expand to
the U nited S tates is an open question. 142 Currently, [*212] the Grant Township of Indiana County, Pennsylvania, is the only recorded
community in the United States that almost embraces personhood rights in the environment. 143 In 2014, the community adopted an ordinance
with the purpose of protecting not only human residents' rights to local self-government, but also the rights of the natural communities and
ecosystems within the Township, "including but not limited to, rivers, streams, and aquifers, and their rights to exist, flourish and evolve
naturally." 144 The ordinance also prohibits any corporation or government from polluting without the proper permission and makes clear that
the township will only adopt state legislature and agency rules to the extent that they do not violate the ordinance. 145 Further, section four of the
bill allows any resident to bring enforcement causes of action, and actions shall also be brought in the name of the ecosystem or natural
community. 146 Nevertheless, the ordinance itself does not explicitly recognize environmental personhood - just existence of environmental
rights. 147 However, in October 2015, the Western District of Pennsylvania [*213] invalidated the ordinance, holding the ordinance was beyond
the scope of the Township's legislative authority. 148
Impact Defense
 1NC---Bio-D Defense
Biodiversity loss won’t cause extinction
Peter Kareiva 18, Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of
the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment & Sustainability at
UCLA, et al., September 2018, “Existential risk due to ecosystem collapse: Nature strikes back,” Futures, Vol. 102,
p. 39-50
The interesting question is whether any of the planetary thresholds other than CO2 could also portend existential risks. Here the answer is not
clear. One boundary often mentioned as a concern for the fate of global civilization is biodiversity (Ehrlich & Ehrlich,
2012), with the proposed safety threshold being a loss of greater than 0.001% per year (Rockström et al., 2009). There is little evidence
that this particular 0.001% annual loss is a threshold—and it is hard to imagine any data that would allow one to
identify where the threshold was (Brook, Ellis, Perring, Mackay, & Blomqvist, 2013; Lenton & Williams, 2013). A better question is
whether one can imagine any scenario by which the loss of too many species leads to the collapse of societies and environmental disasters, even
though one cannot know the absolute number of extinctions that would be required to create this dystopia.
While there are data that relate local reductions in species richness to altered ecosystem function, these results do
not point to substantial existential risks . The data are small-scale experiments in which plant productivity, or nutrient
retention is reduced as species numbers decline locally (Vellend, 2017), or are local observations of increased variability in fisheries
yield when stock diversity is lost (Schindler et al., 2010). Those are not existential risks . To make the link even more tenuous,
there is little evidence that biodiversity is even declining at local scales (Vellend et al., 2013, Vellend et al., 2017). Total
planetary biodiversity may be in decline, but local and regional biodiversity is often staying the same because
species from elsewhere replace local losses, albeit homogenizing the world in the process. Although the majority of conservation
scientists are likely to flinch at this conclusion, there is growing skepticism regarding the strength of evidence linking trends
in biodiversity loss to an existential risk for humans (Maier, 2012; Vellend, 2014). Obviously if all biodiversity
disappeared civilization would end—but no one is forecasting the loss of all species . It seems plausible that the loss of 90%
of the world’s species could also be apocalyptic, but not one is predicting that degree of biodiversity loss either. Tragic, but plausible is the
possibility of our planet suffering a loss of as many as half of its species. If global biodiversity were halved, but at the same time
locally the number of species stayed relatively stable, what would be the mechanism for an end-of-civilization or
even end of human prosperity scenario? Extinctions and biodiversity loss are ethical and spiritual losses, but perhaps
not an existential risk .
 2NC---Bio-D Defense
No tipping points---damage stays localized
Barry Brook 13, Professor at the University of Adelaide, leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert
Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and is also Director of
Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute, author of 3 books and over 250 scholarly
articles, Corey Bradshaw is an Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide and a joint appointee at the South
Australian Research and Development Institute, Brave New Climate, March 4, 2013, "Worrying about global
tipping points distracts from real planetary threats", http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/04/ecological-tipping-
points/
We argue that at the global-scale, ecological “tipping points” and threshold-like “planetary boundaries” are
improbable. Instead, shifts in the Earth’s biosphere follow a gradual, smooth pattern . This means that it might be impossible
to define scientifically specific, critical levels of biodiversity loss or land-use change. This has important consequences for both science and
policy.
Humans are causing changes in ecosystems across Earth to such a degree that there is now broad agreement that we live in an epoch of our own
making: the Anthropocene. But the question of just how these changes will play out — and especially whether we might be approaching a
planetary tipping point with abrupt, global-scale consequences — has remained unsettled.
A tipping point occurs when an ecosystem attribute, such as species abundance or carbon sequestration, responds abruptly and possibly
irreversibly to a human pressure, such as land-use or climate change. Many local- and regional-level ecosystems, such as lakes,forests and
grasslands, behave this way. Recently however, there have been several efforts to define ecological tipping points at the
global scale.
At a local scale, there are definitely warning signs that an ecosystem is about to “tip”. For the terrestrial biosphere, tipping
points might be expected if ecosystems across Earth respond in similar ways to human pressures and these pressures are uniform, or if there are
strong connections between continents that allow for rapid diffusion of impacts across the planet.
These criteria are, however, unlikely to be met in the real world.
First, ecosystems on different continents are not strongly connected . Organisms are limited in their movement by
oceans and mountain ranges, as well as by climatic factors, and while ecosystem change in one region can affect the global
circulation of, for example, greenhouse gases, this signal is likely to be weak in comparison with inputs from fossil fuel
combustion and deforestation.
Second, the responses of ecosystems to human pressures like climate change or land-use change depend on local
circumstances and will therefore differ between locations. From a planetary perspective, this diversity in ecosystem
responses creates an essentially gradual pattern of change, without any identifiable tipping points .
This puts into question attempts to define critical levels of land-use change or biodiversity loss scientifically.
Why does this matter? Well, one concern we have is that an undue focus on planetary tipping points may distract from the vast
ecological transformations that have already occurred .
After all, as much as four-fifths of the biosphere is today characterised by ecosystems that locally, over the span of centuries and millennia, have
undergone human-driven regime shifts of one or more kinds.
Recognising this reality and seeking appropriate conservation efforts at local and regional levels might be a more fruitful way forward for
ecology and global change science.
Corey Bradshaw
Let’s not get too distracted by the title of the this article – Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? – or the potential for a
false controversy. It’s important to be clear that the planet is indeed ill, and it’s largely due to us. Species are going extinct faster than they would
have otherwise. The planet’s climate system is being severely disrupted; so is the carbon cycle. Ecosystem services are on the decline.
But – and it’s a big “but” – we have to be wary of claiming the end of the world as we know it, or people will shut down and continue blindly
with their growth and consumption obsession. We as scientists also have to be extremely careful not to pull concepts and numbers out of thin air
without empirical support.
Specifically, I’m referring to the latest “craze” in environmental science writing – the idea of “planetary tipping points”
and the related “planetary boundaries”.
It’s really the stuff of Hollywood disaster blockbusters – the world suddenly shifts into a new “state” where some major aspect of
how the world functions does an immediate about-face.
Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of localised examples of such tipping points, often characterised by something we call “hysteresis”. Brook
defines hysterisis as:
a situation where the current state of an ecosystem is dependent not only on its environment but also on its history, with the return path to the
original state being very different from the original development that led to the altered state. Also, at some range of the driver, there can exist two
or more alternative states
and “tipping point” as:
the critical point at which strong nonlinearities appear in the relationship between ecosystem attributes and drivers; once a tipping point threshold
is crossed, the change to a new state is typically rapid and might be irreversible or exhibit hysteresis.
Some of these examples include state shifts that have happened (or mostly likely will) to the cryosphere, ocean thermohaline circulation,
atmospheric circulation, and marine ecosystems, and there are many other fine-scale examples of ecological systems shifting to new (apparently)
stable states.
However, claiming that we are approaching a major planetary boundary for our ecosystems (including human society),
is simply not upheld by evidence .
where we witness such transitions simultaneously across the globe,
Regional tipping points are unlikely to translate into planet-wide state shifts. The main reason is that our
ecosystems aren’t that connected at global scales .
The paper provides a framework against which one can test the existence or probability of a planetary tipping point for any particular ecosystem
function or state. To date, the application of the idea has floundered because of a lack of specified criteria that would allow the terrestrial
biosphere to “tip”. From a more sociological viewpoint, the claim of imminent shift to some worse state also risks alienating people from
addressing the real problems (foxes), or as Brook and colleagues summarise:
framing global change in the dichotomous terms implied by the notion of a global tipping point could lead to complacency on the “safe” side of
the point and fatalism about catastrophic or irrevocable effects on the other.
In other words, let’s be empirical about these sorts of politically charged statements instead of crying “Wolf!” while the hordes of foxes steal
most of the flock.

Species are resilient

Peter Kareiva 12, Ph.D. in ecology and applied mathematics from Cornell University, director of the Institute of
the Environment and Sustainability at UCLA, Pritzker Distinguished Professor in Environment & Sustainability at
UCLA, et al., 2012, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,” http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/past-
issues/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene/
2. As conservation became a global enterprise in the 1970s and 1980s, the movement's justification for saving nature
shifted from spiritual and aesthetic values to focus on biodiversity. Nature was described as primeval, fragile, and at
risk of collapse from too much human use and abuse. And indeed, there are consequences when humans convert
landscapes for mining, logging, intensive agriculture, and urban development and when key species or ecosystems
are lost.
But ecologists and conservationists have grossly overstated the fragility of nature, frequently arguing that once an ecosystem
is altered, it is gone forever. Some ecologists suggest that if a single species is lost, a whole ecosystem will be in danger of
collapse, and that if too much biodiversity is lost, spaceship Earth will start to come apart. Everything, from the
expansion of agriculture to rainforest destruction to changing waterways, has been painted as a threat to the delicate
inner-workings of our planetary ecosystem.
The fragility trope dates back, at least, to Rachel Carson, who wrote plaintively in Silent Spring of the delicate web of
life and warned that perturbing the intricate balance of nature could have disastrous consequences .22 Al Gore made a
similar argument in his 1992 book, Earth in the Balance.23 And the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment warned darkly that, while the
expansion of agriculture and other forms of development have been overwhelmingly positive for the world's poor, ecosystem degradation was
simultaneously putting systems in jeopardy of collapse.24
The trouble for conservation is that the data simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. Ecologists
now know that the disappearance of one species does not necessarily lead to the extinction of any others, much less all
others in the same ecosystem. In many circumstances, the demise of formerly abundant species can be inconsequential to
ecosystem function. The American chestnut, once a dominant tree in eastern North America, has been extinguished
by a foreign disease, yet the forest ecosystem is surprisingly unaffected. The passenger pigeon, once so abundant that its
flocks darkened the sky, went extinct, along with countless other species from the Steller's sea cow to the dodo, with no
catastrophic or even measurable effects .
These stories of resilience are not isolated examples -- a thorough review of the scientific literature identified 240
studies of ecosystems following major disturbances such as deforestation, mining, oil spills, and other types of
pollution. The abundance of plant and animal species as well as other measures of ecosystem function recovered, at
least partially, in 173 (72 percent) of these studies .25
While global forest cover is continuing to decline, it is rising in the Northern Hemisphere, where "nature" is
returning to former agricultural lands.26 Something similar is likely to occur in the Southern Hemisphere, after poor countries achieve a
similar level of economic development. A 2010 report concluded that rainforests that have grown back over abandoned
agricultural land had 40 to 70 percent of the species of the original forests.27 Even Indonesian orangutans, which were widely
thought to be able to survive only in pristine forests, have been found in surprising numbers in oil palm plantations and degraded lands.28
Nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances. Around the
Chernobyl nuclear facility, which melted down in 1986, wildlife is thriving, despite the high levels of radiation .29 In the
Bikini Atoll, the site of multiple nuclear bomb tests, including the 1954 hydrogen bomb test that boiled the water in the area, the
number of coral species has actually increased relative to before the explosions.30 More recently, the massive 2010 oil
spill in the Gulf of Mexico was degraded and consumed by bacteria at a remarkably fast rate.31
 Today, coyotes roam downtown Chicago, and peregrine falcons astonish San Franciscans as they sweep down skyscraper
canyons to pick off pigeons for their next meal. As we destroy habitats, we create new ones: in the southwestern
United States a rare and federally listed salamander species seems specialized to live in cattle tanks -- to date, it has been
found in no other habitat.32 Books have been written about the collapse of cod in the Georges Bank, yet recent trawl data
show the biomass of cod has recovered to precollapse levels.33 It's doubtful that books will be written about this cod
recovery since it does not play well to an audience somehow addicted to stories of collapse and environmental
apocalypse.
Even that classic symbol of fragility -- the polar bear , seemingly stranded on a melting ice block -- may have a good chance
of surviving global warming if the changing environment continues to increase the populations and northern ranges
of harbor seals and harp seals. Polar bears evolved from brown bears 200,000 years ago during a cooling period in
Earth's history, developing a highly specialized carnivorous diet focused on seals. Thus, the fate of polar bears depends on two opposing
trends -- the decline of sea ice and the potential increase of energy-rich prey. The history of life on Earth is of species evolving to
take advantage of new environments only to be at risk when the environment changes again.
The wilderness ideal presupposes that there are parts of the world untouched by humankind, but today it is
impossible to find a place on Earth that is unmarked by human activity. The truth is humans have been impacting
their natural environment for centuries . The wilderness so beloved by conservationists -- places "untrammeled by man"34 -- never
existed, at least not in the last thousand years, and arguably even longer.
 --AT: Sixth Mass Extinction
No mass extinction---statistically wrong
Stewart Brand 15, environmentalist and founder of the Long Now Foundation and the Revive and Restore project,
“Rethinking extinction,” 4/21/15, https://aeon.co/essays/we-are-not-edging-up-to-a-mass-extinction
[Italics in original]
Medicine is about health. So is conservation. And as with medicine, the trends for conservation in this century are looking bright .
We are re-enriching some ecosystems we once depleted and slowing the depletion of others. Before I explain how we are
doing that, let me spell out how exaggerated the focus on extinction has become and how it distorts the public perception of
conservation.
Many now assume that we are in the midst of a human-caused ‘Sixth Mass Extinction’ to rival the one that killed off the
dinosaurs 66 million years ago. But we’re not . The five historic mass extinctions eliminated 70 per cent or more of all species
in a relatively short time. That is not going on now . ‘If all currently threatened species were to go extinct in a few
centuries and that rate continued,’ began a recent Nature magazine introduction to a survey of wildlife losses, ‘the sixth mass
extinction could come in a couple of centuries or a few millennia .’
The range of dates in that statement reflects profound uncertainty about the current rate of extinction. Estimates vary a
hundred-fold – from 0.01 per cent to 1 per cent of species being lost per decade. The phrase ‘all currently threatened species’
comes from the indispensable IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), which maintains the Red List of endangered
species. Its most recent report shows that of the 1.5 million identified species, and 76,199 studied by IUCN scientists, some 23,214 are deemed
threatened with extinction. So, if all of those went extinct in the next few centuries, and the rate of extinction that killed
them kept right on for hundreds or thousands of years more, then we might be at the beginning of a human-caused
Sixth Mass Extinction.
An all-too-standard case of extinction mislabeling occurred this January on the front page of The New York Times Magazine. ‘Ocean Life Faces
Mass Extinction, Broad Study Shows,’ read the headline. But the article by Carl Zimmer described no such thing. Instead it was a relatively
good-news piece pointing out that while much of sea life is in trouble, it is far less so than continental wildlife, and there is time to avoid the
mistakes made on land. The article noted that, in the centuries since 1500, some 514 species have gone extinct on land but
only 15 in the oceans, and none at all in the past 50 years. The Science paper on which Zimmer was reporting was titled ‘Marine
Defaunation: Animal Loss in the Global Ocean’ by Douglas McCauley, an ecologist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and
colleagues. It stated: ‘Though humans have caused few global marine extinctions, we have profoundly affected marine wildlife, altering the
functioning and provisioning of services in every ocean,’ and it went on to chronicle the causes of ‘the proliferation of ‘empty reefs’, ‘empty
estuaries’, and ‘empty bays’, with an overall decline of marine fishes by 38 per cent.
Extinction is not a helpful way to think about threats to ocean animals because few go extinct there. The animals are
highly mobile in a totally connected vast environment where there is almost always somewhere to hide , even from
industrial-scale hunting. Atlantic cod used to be one of the world’s great fisheries before it collapsed in 1992 from decades of overfishing.
According to Jesse Ausubel, one of the organisers of the recent international Census of Marine Life: ‘The total estimated kilos of cod off Cape
Cod today probably weigh only about 3 per cent of all the cod in 1815.’ (Across the Atlantic in the North Sea, however, cod fishery is recovering,
thanks to effective regulation.) No one really expects cod to go extinct, and yet the Red List describes them as threatened
with extinction.
 1NC---Resource Wars Defense
No resource wars impact---data proves
Agha Bayramov 18, PhD candidate and lecturer at the department of International Relations and International
Organization of the University of Groningen, “Review: Dubious nexus between natural resources and conflict.”
Journal of Eurasian Studies 9(1): 72-81.
The arguments of scarcity adherents have been challenged by a number of scholars in terms of qualitative and
quantitative findings. According to Stern (2016) the assumptions underpinning the scarcity notion are illogical due to the exaggeration of
threats arising from oil ownership from misperceptions of market information. Furthermore, Koubi et al. (2013) explain that despite their strong
empirical explanations, scarcity scholars have weak quantitative research results ones that fail to prove the link between
resource scarcity and intrastate or interstate conflict. The reason for this is that some large-N findings contradict early
results, which illustrate that the scarcity-conflict nexus is more complicated than scarcity scholars would have us
believe. Dinar (2011), meanwhile, argues that natural resource scarcity may in fact be an important force for cooperation
between states. However, scholars of natural resource scarcity have hitherto ignored the ways in which scarcity can
spur cooperation (Deudney, 1999).
Considering these findings, three conclusions can be drawn from this section. First, scarcity is a complex term and it should not be equated with
only natural resources. As it is explained by Kester (2016) some countries may suffer from scarcity of technical, knowledge and human capacity
rather than natural resources. In light of this, without a proper capacity it is also possible to have scarcity within abundancy of resources. While
supporting the scarcity argument, Andrews-Speed (2015) offer an alternative explanation that natural resources are not physically scarce but there
are indeed economic, political, environmental and equity barriers that can lead to a scarcity of natural resources. Due
to the strong rule of
law , decent neighbourly relations and existence of strong norms for compromise and of multilateral institutions , the
North Atlantic countries are highly unlikely to utilize force against or declare war to each other. However, these dimensions
and buffers are currently lacking in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. As such, the U.S and Europe should work closely with these regions to
prevent any resource disputes erupting (Andrews-Speed 15). Similarly, Gleditsch (1998) explains that some highly developed countries have
population density, clean water, and land degradation problems but they still do not suffer from environmental violence. Thus the main issue
might be that poor economic development, rather than environmental scarcity , leads to conflict. Kester (2016) names this
situation as “second-order-scarcity” which refers to a lack of technology, economic capacity, and knowledge to stop resource scarcity. In this
regard, it may be scarcity, itself, rather than natural resources that leads to conflict.
Second, conflict can be defined differently based on different dimensions. However, the common consensus is that conflict consists of multiple
dimensions (political, economic, environmental, historical, cultural, and geographical etc.) rather than single factor. In this regard, scarcity of
natural resources is not strong enough, by itself , to induce either interstate or intrastate conflict. It needs in fact to
interact with other variables. Finally, related to the previous reasons, scarcity of natural resources might be a contributing or
marginal reason for rather than the root cause of a given conflict. In other words, it needs to interact with non-resource factors in
order to cause violence.
 1NC---Water Wars Defense
No chance of water wars
Giorgos Kallis 14, environmental scientist working on ecological economics and political ecology, and Professor,
Department of Geography and Institute of Environmental Science & Technology, Autonomous University of
Barcelona, “Hydro-climatic change, conflict and security,” Climatic Change, Volume 123, 2014, pp. 69-82
This field examines relations between hydro-climatic factors, conflict and adaptation at the national scale (Table 1). Findings suggest that
cooperation trumps violent conflict by far , and that acute disputes involving violence are very limited with the only
evidence for a genuinely water war pointing to an event 4,500 year ago (Wolf 2007). Countries sharing rivers engage
more in disputes (Gleditsch et al. 2006) but when separating the effects of shared border and shared water the
significance of the latter is reduced (Toset et al. 2000). Drought has no influence on disputes but the size of the basin does, suggesting
that water abundance and related economic opportunities (e.g. hydropower) may be causing conflict (Gleditsch et al. 2006).
What accounts for this relative lack of hydro-scarcity conflict? Institutional arrangements seem to mitigate the risk of conflict (Tir
and Stinnett 2012) depending on the design and efficacy of international water treaties. Countries with larger shared basins and larger
GDP and population differences are more likely to enter a treaty agreement (Song and Whittington 2004). Compensations and side-
In a climate
payments are a common treaty mechanism in water quality agreements, but not in water quantity ones (Dombrowsky 2007).
change context , resilient treaties adopt portfolio approaches that spread uncertainty risks by including diverse
management arrangements simultaneously in open-ended strategies rather than rigid, codified rules (Drieschova et al. 2011).
Also, transboundary water management institutions that are unable to absorb and effectively manage change—which points to the importance of
time given to absorb change – as well as large or rapid changes in a basin’s physical (e.g. dam construction) or political (e.g. breakup of a nation)
setting can be two key conflict-likelihood increasing factors (Wolf 2009).
However, a more critical perspective on institutions and cooperation questions binary distinctions between cooperation and conflict and
problematizes institutional ‘solutions’. The term hydro-hegemony refers to the covert use of power by a State to perpetuate water-sharing
arrangements that while on the surface appear cooperative are in practice inequitable and unreasonable, yet tolerated and stable as they are not
readily challenged (Woodhouse and Zeitoun 2008). Selby (2003) holds that Israelis and their neighbours do not fight over water; rather the Israeli
Administration uses control of scarce water as a tool for subjugating Palestinians.
If water wars are unlikely, then why the media and policy hype? First, water may not be a cause of war yet but may become in the future
due to climate change (De Stefano et al. 2012). Second, wars may not be fought over water, but caused by consequences of its scarcity, e.g. rising
food prices or scarce arable land (Serageldin 2009). Possible wars related to land-grabs are a case in point. Finally, although unfounded,
statements about water wars may persist because some key actors —policymakers, academics, journalists, and NGO activists—
have incentives to exaggerate their probability (Katz 2011).
3.2 Climate, water and armed conflict
This field uses large-N datasets of countries or regions to examine correlations between hydroclimatic variability and
civil conflict, controlling for socio-economic and political factors. Although under certain social conditions they might aggravate the risk of
conflict, scarcity and climate change are overall not found to have an important association with armed conflict,
especially if compared to poverty and dysfunctional institutions (Gleditsch 2012).
Lower rainfall levels and negative rainfall shocks are more associated to increased conflict risk in sub-Saharan Africa (Miguel et al. 2004),
though the specification of rainfall intervals of the study has been criticised, and the result is not robust to different specifications (Ciccone 2011).
In a similar study, Burke et al. 2009 find that global warming, could increase probabilities of armed conflict incidence in Africa by 54 % until
2030, but due to temperature increases, not rainfall changes. These results too are sensitive to the time period and severity threshold used and are
not reproducible with alternative specifications (Buhaug 2010). Other studies conclude that climate variability is a poor predictor of armed
Political exclusion of ethnic groups rather than a drought-conflict nexus drives conflict,
conflict (Hendrix and Glaser 2007).
and this is not influenced by drought occurrence, suggesting that water may not even be a threat multiplier (Theisen et al.
2011).
 2NC---Water Wars Defense
No water wars---Kallis cites large-N datasets on water and conflict that shows a long
history of water cooperation and treaty formation---the last water war happened 4,500
years ago, and when you control for the effects of unrelated border conflicts and political
exclusion, the correlation between water and conflict disappears

Another meta-analysis of statistical studies on water wars shows a tiny risk of conflict and
a much higher risk of cooperation
P. Michael Link 16, Research Group on Climate Change and Security, Institute of Geography, and Research Unit
on Sustainability and Global Change, Center for Earth System Analysis and Sustainability, University of Hamburg,
“Conflict and cooperation in the water-security nexus: a global comparative analysis of river basins under climate
change,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, Volume 3, Issue 4, July/August 2016, pp. 495-515
In this paper, we give the reader a comprehensive overview of the current state of research and provide an up-to-date
review of statistical studies on conflict and cooperation around transboundary river basins. Extending previous work, we
conduct a systematic assessment and open the debate for the subsequent presentation of an integrative conceptual framework of the water-
security-conflict nexus, which is exemplarily applied to the cases of the Nile River Basin and the Syr Darya and Amu Darya river systems.
Cross-case studies exploring historical trends in transboundary water conflicts find that conflictive interactions are
rare .4,27,28 Since 1948, supposedly 37 violent conflicts occurred, in which water played a major role. Thirty of these conflicts alone were
fought between Israel and its neighbors. On the other hand, there were 1831 ‘water-related incidents’ in the past 50 years in
TFDD, of which more than two thirds were of a cooperative nature .19 The IRCC database even lists 4797 events in the same time
period but also concludes that most of the recorded events are cooperative .23 De Stefano and others27 find that between 1948 and
1999 and from 2000 until 2008, there have been moves toward less cooperative interactions between some countries. However, most negative
events were rather moderate expressions of discord and hostility with little evidence of violent conflict.
Table 1 summarizes the large-N literature on water and transboundary conflict. Similar to the assessment of Johnson and others,26 we found
strong dissent in this literature. Few studies investigate the links between reduced precipitation or hydropower development and violent intrastate
conflict, and the results are quite ambiguous. By contrast, there is agreement among the four studies conducted that low water availability
increases the risk for interstate disputes, especially between neighboring states. However, when exploring the relationship between adjacent
countries with shared rivers, only five studies claim that a shared river increases the risk for violent conflicts between states, while 12 studies find
robust treaties and institutions can mitigate water-related conflict and facilitate
no support for such a link. Furthermore,
cooperation even under hydrological stress.45,48,49
Despite evidence that water-related interactions are more often cooperative than conflictive, there has been a strong bias in water research on
conflictive events. However, there are studies that find that signing of a
water treaty positively influences future cooperation
between the treaty partners e.g.,50 that water scarcity has a significant and positive relationship with the existence of
river treaties,51 and that water scarcity enhances the incentives for riparians to cooperate.42 When considering nonlinear
relationships, certain studies found a curvilinear relationship between the likelihood of cooperation and water scarcity.52–54 This suggests that
transboundary water cooperation is most likely if water is neither extraordinarily scarce nor abundant. The projected amplification of hydro-
climates55 thus has the potential to reduce international water cooperation.
In sum, research largely indicates that there is little evidence that shared rivers per se increase the risk of violent conflict between riparians. Water
scarcity, by contrast, seems to make violent interactions between states, including those sharing river basins, more likely. However, this
effect can be mitigated via well-designed institutions.56More importantly, water scarcity is empirically more likely to
produce treaties and other forms of cooperation, while water-related interactions in general are more often
cooperative than conflictive . There is no convergence on the conditions and pathways leading to either conflict or cooperation.

Water conflicts are either battles in pre-existing wars or tiny village disputes
Patricia Wouters 13, University of Dundee Center for Water Law, Policy, and Science, “Reframing the Water
Security Dialogue,” 11/25/13, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2359854
Water stress is real. The question is how serious is the future risk of large-scale water-driven violence? To date, the lessons of history are that the
risk is not great, but this is not a definitive answer. There are documented instances of violence connected to water disputes,
but most of this, especially related to water shortage,30 is localised and short-lived ,31 as demonstrated in the Water Conflict
Chronology maintained by the Pacific Institute.32 The latest version of this work starts with the Sumerian account of a flood to punish the sinful
abuse of the earth and ends with a Hezbollah attack on an Israeli wastewater treatment plant. However, most of the modern serious
incidents involve either the targeting of water facilities during a war ,33 or occur in small village disputes in Asia,
Africa and Latin America. While it might be tempting to analogise water to the two natural resources which have sparked
violent conflicts and regional tensions, (and certainly sensationalises the issue ), we argue that the current concept of water
stress as a source of armed conflict and regional unrest is too broad to draw serious policy conclusions, and, might
prove an unhelpful distraction that diverts from focussing instead on exploring more fully the range of options available to countries to address
water stress.34 The concept of military security is, in its essence, a zero sum game; water resources management (including water law), by
comparison, offers a range of opportunities for balancing interests to meet security needs related to such core issues as availability, access and
addressing conflicts-of-use.35
`Blue gold' or the next oil analogy is problematic conceptually, with several key shortcomings. First, unlike oil (or gold), water is universally,
albeit unequally, distributed throughout the world. Secondly, in contrast to oil, it is not always economically efficient to move water long
distances. The demand for small quantities may not justify the infrastructure. Thirdly, water has economic value, but it does not trade in world
markets. Raw water, running free or stored or diverted, is most likely not a `good' under the GATT.36 The question of who is entitled to secure
access to water, and what the flow should be, within or beyond national boundaries raises issues well beyond the blue gold/next oil context. In
fact, despite serious water stress in some regions , disputes have been avoided in large part , with a burgeoning
number of international agreements setting forth plans for joint management regimes.37 Is this not a more relevant line of
enquiry ± exploring the relevance and role of water law in addressing water security issues and inviting innovative thinking within and beyond
the discipline?

There have been 1,800 interactions on transboundary basins, and only seven have led to
violence---and climate change will cause even more cooperation
Magdalena Mis 15, writer for Reuters, citing Therese Sjomander Magnusson of the Stockholm International Water
Institute, “'Water wars are a myth': expert says many governments eager to cooperate,” 8/24/15,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-water-war-idUSKCN0QT0R120150824
STOCKHOLM (Thomson Reuters Foundation) - The doom and gloom predictions of increasing battles around the world over
water are a myth , with only a handful of disagreements over shared waters leading to armed conflict, an expert said.
Competition over water has often been cited as having a potential for turning into conflicts between countries fighting
to secure the limited resource.
While water is fundamental to development and national security and can contribute to hostile situations, " very
few" disagreements have
led to conflict , said Therese Sjomander Magnusson of the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI).
" It is a myth that water leads to war," Sjomander Magnusson, SIWI's director of transboundary water management, told the Thomson
Reuters Foundation late on Sunday on the sidelines of a global water conference in Stockholm.
She said that over the last 50 years, there have been more than 1,800 interactions on transboundary basins - including both
conflict and cooperation.
"Only seven disputes have involved violence," she said. "During the same time, more than 200 agreements and treaties on
transboundary waters have been signed."
According to a United Nations report published in March, the world faces a 40 percent shortfall in water supplies in 15 years due to urbanization,
population growth and increasing demand for water for food production, energy and industry. [ID: nL5N0WC2ZD]
Even though population growth and climate change have led to disagreements over water , conflicts were more
common on national levels – such as between pastoralists and farmers - than between countries, Sjomander Magnusson said.
In fact, she said, many governments are looking into dialogue and cooperation when it comes to water, rather than sending
armies against each other.
"In an insecure world that we are facing right now, with many unstable situations, what we've seen over and over again is
how governments are eager to position themselves as a stable countries open to cooperation," Sjomander Magnusson said.
One unlikely example in which water issues have led to cooperation is discussions between Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian
Territories over the Jordan River, which runs along their borders, she said.
" This is the only platform where these countries have met for the past couple of years."
 1NC----I-Law Defense
I-law is redundant and irrelevant
David Glazier 9, Professor of Law at the Loyola Law School Los Angeles, December 2009, "PLAYING BY
THE RULES: COMBATING AL QAEDA WITHIN THE LAW OF WAR" William and Mary Law Review, Lexis
But even the most cursory study of the law of war quickly reveals the fallacy of this view. Virtually every society
that has left a written record has documented legal constraints on the conduct of hostilities. n133 The law of war
constitutes a major portion of eighteenth- and nineteenth-century international law treatises. n134 The explosive
growth of i nternational law in the twentieth century, including the proliferation of multinational organizations and
international courts, as well as the development of such new fields as international environmental and human rights
law, relegated the law of war to relative obscurity . Today, it typically occupies just a single chapter in an
international law text. n135 This is ironic given the equally expansive development of the law of war during this
same era n136 but may explain why expertise on this subject seems so limited among policymakers.
 2NC---I-Law Defense
Violations are inevitable in the U.S. and globally, but there’s no impact because i-
law’s toothless
Luke Hiken 12, JD, Attorney Who Has Engaged in the Practice of Criminal, Military, Immigration, and
Appellate Law, and Marti Hiken, Former Associate Director of the Institute for Public Accuracy and Former Chair
of the National Lawyers Guild Military Law Task Force, “The Impotence of International Law”, Foreign Policy in
Focus, 7/17/2012, https://fpif.org/the_impotence_of_international_law/
Whenever a lawyer or historian describes how a particular action “violates international law” many people stop
listening or reading further. It is a bit alienating to hear the words “this action constitutes a violation of international
law” time and time again – and especially at the end of a debate when a speaker has no other arguments available.
The statement is inevitably followed by: “…and it is a war crime and it denies people their human rights.” A
plethora of international law violations are perpetrated by every major power in the world each day , and thus, the
empty invocation of i nternational law does nothing but reinforce our own sense of impotence and helplessness in
the face of international lawlessness.
The U nited S tates, alone, and on a daily basis violates every principle of international law ever
envisioned : unprovoked wars of aggression ; unmanned drone attacks ; tortures and renditions ; assassinations of
our alleged “enemies”; sales of nuclear weapons ; destabilization of unfriendly governments ; creating the largest
prison population in the world – the list is virtually endless .
Obviously one would wish that there existed a body of international law that could put an end to these abuses, but
such laws exist in theory , not in practice . Each time a legal scholar points out the particular treaties being ignored
by the superpowers (and everyone else) the only appropriate response is “so what!” or “they always say that.” If
there is no enforcement mechanism to prevent the violations, and no military force with the power to intervene on
behalf of those victimized by the violations, what possible good does it do to invoke principles of “truth and justice”
that border on fantasy ?
The assumption is that by invoking human rights principles, legal scholars hope to reinforce the importance of and
need for such a body of law. Yet, in reality, the invocation means nothing at the present time, and goes nowhere . In
the real world, it would be nice to focus on suggestions that are enforceable, and have some potential to prevent the
atrocities taking place around the globe. Scholars who invoke international law principles would do well to add to
their analysis, some form of action or conduct at the present time that might prevent such violations from happening.
Alternatively, praying for rain sounds as effective and rational as citing international legal principles to a
lawless president , and his ruthless military .
 2NC---LOAC Fails
LOAC can’t solve and there’s no impact – enforcing regulations on tech is
impossible, but there’s not a breakout prolif threat
Kenneth Anderson 12, and Matthew Waxman 11-26-2012 Kenneth Anderson is professor of law at
Washington College of Law, American University Matthew Waxman is a law professor at Columbia Law School,
“Human Rights Watch Report on Killer Robots, and Our Critique” http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/11/human-
rights-watch-report-on-killer-robots-and-our-critique/
At a more fundamental level than any of these specific differences, though, our view is that autonomy in weapons systems will
develop very incrementally. Instead of some determinate, ascertainable break-point between the human-controlled system
and the machine-controlled one, it is far more likely that the evolution of weapons technology will be gradual, slowly and
indistinctly eroding the role of the human in the firing loop. As to a preemptive prohibition on developing such
systems (distinct from deploying them), even if it were desirable, the technologies at the heart of such weapons are
fundamentally the same as at the heart of a wide variety of civilian or non-weapons military systems, and weapons
systems will frequently be so interwoven into the machine system as a whole that disentangling what’s prohibited and
what’s not, and at what point in the path of weapons development, will not be feasible .