Advantages

Econ
 1ac — econ advantage

US-China cooperation is critical to global economic growth 

The Atlantic Council 13 (September, a joint US-China Work Group @the Brent
Scowcroft Center on International Security, http://cusef.org.hk/wp-
content/uploads/2014/05/05_eng.pdf, “China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global
Future”, pg. 13-14)
The global future is likely to be increasingly volatile and uncertain. The rate of change is
increasing,driven by the accelerating pace of technological development, unprecedented urbanization
and growth of the global middle class, and a wide range of challenges beyond the control of any one
country but potentially affecting the prosperity and security of all countries. Disruptive change in one
geographic or functional area will spread quickly. No country, and certainly not those with the largest
populations and largest economies, will be immune. Global challenges like climate change, food and
water shortages, and resource scarcities will shape the strategic context for all nations and require
reconsideration of traditional national concerns such as sovereignty and maximizing the ability of
national leaders to control their country’s destiny . What China and the U nited  S tates  do , individually
and together,  will have a major impact on the  future of the  global system . As importantly, our
individual fates will be inextricably linked to how that future plays out. The three illustrative scenarios
sketched out below underscore how critical the future of the US-China relationship is to each country
and to the world. •Global Drift and Erosion (the present world trajectory): In a world in which
nations fail to resolve global problems and strengthen mechanisms of global
cooperation, governments gradually turn inward. Each nation seeks to protect and advance its own
narrow national interests or to preserve an unsustainable status quo that is rapidly changing in ways
that erode the international order. The international community’s lack of ability to cooperate to meet
global challenges leads to international crises and instability. • Zero-Sum World: Unsustainable drift
leads to a world of predominantly zero-sum competition and conflict in the face of severe resource
constraints. The result is  economic crises  and  internal instability  as well as  interstate
confrontation . There is risk of military conflict between major powers, which increases global mistrust
and uncertainty and fosters an “each nation for itself” mentality that further undermines the ability of
states to cooperate in the face of growing common challenges. • Global Revitalization and
Cooperation: To escape the perils of drift or zero-sum competition, leaders in countries with the most
to lose work together to manage and take advantage of global challenges and
megatrends. Cooperation makes it possible to achieve win-win outcomes that avoid or mitigate
negative consequences of increased demand for resources and the impact of climate change as well
as to harness new technologies to improve living conditions through sustainable
development. Cooperation creates and utilizes new transnational institutions to prevent conflict and
enhance security for all. China and the United States become more prosperous as we work together.
The possible futures sketched out above (and developed at greater length below) are intended to
stimulate thinking about how current trends and uncertainties could lead to very different global and
national outcomes. For many reasons, the United States and China will have greater ability and
incentives than other countries to cooperate in determining and shaping developments over the next
two decades. Indeed, it is very difficult to imagine a pathway to “global revitalization and
cooperation” in which China and the United States do not cooperate and provide critical
international leadership. Many factors will shape the future, some of which are beyond the control of
any nation state, but China and the United States—and the character of the US-China relationship
—will be critical. The mutual dependence on each other’s economic performance  and the success
of the global economy as a whole  was demonstrated during the 2008 financial crisis that began in
the United States but quickly spread around the world. US and Chinese leaders recognized that they
were in the “same boat” strategically and engaged in a closely coordinated response to the
crisis, which played a key—if not decisive—role in preventing the situation from becoming much
worse. The need for joint and coordinated responses to economic crises and to mounting economic
challenges and threats is certain to increase as globalization continues and interdependence deepens .
 uniq

World econ is seriously hurting- stats prove.

World Tribune, 5-20-2016, "Except for south Asia, the global economy is stalling as
government spending soars," World Tribune: Window on the Real World,
http://www.worldtribune.com/except-for-south-asia-the-global-economy-is-stalling-as-
government-spending-soars/
The UN survey cautions that weak global growth “continues to linger,” posing a serious
challenge for governments and economies.
World gross domestic product is only expected to grow by 2.4 percent in 2016. The tepid
expansion reflects what the survey calls “low investment, low commodity prices and
financial market turbulence.” It adds “bleak prospects have been compounded by severe
weather related shocks, political challenge and large capital outflows in many developing
regions.”
Hardly a sunny forecast, as the world economy is facing severe drought-related
agricultural losses from the cyclical El-Nino weather effect as well as major setbacks in
commodity prices.
Econ But besides bad weather we see that in the developed economies “the momentum
of growth has slowed significantly.” In the United States GDP growth is expected to reach
only 2.2 percent in 2016 but remains fragile. The survey states, “The revival of business
investment in the United States lost momentum last year culminating in a sharp drop in
the final quarter of 2015.”
Japan still experiences tepid economic conditions with GDP growth a mere 0.5 percent.
Despite its lackluster performance last year, Japan’s economy grew impressively at 1.7
percent in the first quarter of this year. The report warns that should the government
increase a consumption tax from 8 to 10 percent, “Japan could fall back again into
recession in 2017.
European Union economies are expected to expand by 1.9 percent this year and 2
percent next year, but here again growth varies widely among the 28 member states with
Germany’s economy still the EU locomotive at 1.5 percent growth.
East Asia again gets among the best marks with regional growth pegged at 5.5 percent
this year. Mainland China’s economic deceleration has taken its toll; Beijing’s once
dizzying growth rates have tempered to 7.3 in 2014 and 6.4 percent expected this year.
Not only has China’s economy precipitously slowed but the knock on effect has been felt
especially among commodity exporters in Africa and Latin America.
Given Taiwan’s growing dependence on the Chinese market for exports, a slowing
Mainland economy has hampered Taiwan’s growth which has been lowered to 1.8
percent for 2016.
Yet, Mainland China’s trade with the U.S. continues to surge with a $366 billion trade
deficit favoring Beijing last year alone!
South Asia gets good economic grades with the region expected to reach 6.6 percent
growth this year. India’s economy is showing robust expansion with 7.3 percent expected
this year.
The African continent is slipping and the survey advises “economic growth in Africa
continues to lose momentum.” Shortfalls in commodity prices and lessening demand
from China has put a damper on overall growth only expected to reach 2.8 percent this
year, a steep drop from the average 6 percent per annum a decade ago. Besides the slide
in commodity prices, the effects of El Nino weather patterns have seen severe drought
sweep regions in East Africa.
Significantly in per capita income terms, the slowdown in GDP growth in many
developing regions is particularly stark. In Africa, per capita growth is expected to
average just 0.4 per cent during 2015-2017.
“The economic prospects for Latin America and the Caribbean have deteriorated notably
over the past six months as the region felt the impact of lower commodity prices,” the
World Economic Situation states. Brazil, a regional powerhouse is mired in both a deep
recession and a widening political corruption crisis causing growth to fall from minus 3.8
percent last year to minus 3.4 percent this year. Argentina, on the other hand, has seen
the return of pro-business government which will hopefully reverse the shortfalls of the
previous socialist administration.
Russia continues to stagnate due to the fall in petroleum prices as well as Western
economic sanctions slapped on Moscow over Ukraine. Russia’s growth in 2015 recorded
a minus 3.7 while this year a minus 1.9 is expected. Ukraine’s economy is equally
projected to suffer this year.
The enthusiasm over what many economists call the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China,
South Africa) seems to have dampened as the once vaunted group has weathered notable
economic setbacks which have knocked down many of the BRICS.
The report stresses that persistent weakness in demand in developed economies remains
a drag on global growth. Equally the massive debt levels accumulated by government
spending in the USA and much of Europe has served as an deadweight to hinder a robust
economic recovery.
The U.S. must revive its economy through entrepreneurism, not more government
spending.

The US and global economies are going to crash

Stockman 16- Register To, 3-17-2016, "David Stockman: Economic Collapse Is
Imminent," Newsmax, http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/David-
Stockman-Federal-Reserve-economy-policy/2016/03/16/id/719432/
David Alan Stockman is a former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a
Republican U.S. Representative from the state of Michigan and as the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
Newsmax Finance Insider and former U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director
David Stockman claims that the Federal Reserve is "lost" and needs to resign because the
central bank has pushed the nation to the brink of economic collapse.
“What they’ve essentially done is create another huge bubble and they’re about ready to
be repudiated because the bubble’s gonna collapse at the very time that we’re heading
into the next recession,” he recently told Bloomberg television.
“I think the Fed is completely lost,” he told Bloomberg television. “You can’t have seven
years of zero-cost money without creating huge distortions in the financial market,” he
said.
“The world economy is deflating and shrinking,” the Newsmax Finance Insider said.
“Look at all the numbers: business sales are down five percent from their peak;
inventories relative to sales are at recession levels; and capex orders are down 10% from
a year and a half ago,” he said. “Everywhere you look in the U.S. economy, there is
weakness, except for the phony numbers put out by the BOS [Bureau of Statistics],” he
alleged.
Stockman said he believes that the world economy is being driven by “a cabal” of central
banks that are “wrecking the financial system and driving the whole world economy to a
huge crisis.”
For its part, the Federal Reserve is keeping a key interest rate unchanged in light of
global pressures that risk slowing the U.S. economy, the AP reported.
As a result, Fed officials are forecasting that they will raise rates more gradually this year
than they had envisioned in December. The officials now foresee two, rather than four,
modest increases in their benchmark short-term rate during 2016.
The Fed said Wednesday that the economy has continued to grow at a moderate pace but
that the global economy and financial markets still pose risks. Offsetting the threats, the
Fed said in a statement after a policy meeting that it foresees a further strengthening in
the U.S. job market. It also expects inflation, which has stayed persistently low, to reach
the Fed's 2 percent target in two to three years.
"Our first take on this is that it probably leans slightly more dovish, relative to
expectations," Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at RBC Capital Markets in New York,
told Reuters.
“Economic activity in the world economy remains lackluster, with little prospect for a
turnaround in 2016,” cites the gloomy prognosis by the World Economic Situation and
Prospects Update for 2016.

World econ on brink of collapse many reasons

Hutton 15- Will Hutton, 10-10-2015, "The world economic order is collapsing and this
time there seems no way out," Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/world-order-collapse-
refugees-emerging-economies-china-slowdown-recession
William Nicolas Hutton is a British political economist, writer, weekly newspaper
columnist and former editor-in-chief for The Observer.
Europe has seen nothing like this for 70 years – the visible expression of a world where
order is collapsing. The millions of refugees fleeing from ceaseless Middle Eastern war
and barbarism are voting with their feet, despairing of their futures. The catalyst for their
despair – the shredding of state structures and grip of Islamic fundamentalism on young
Muslim minds – shows no sign of disappearing.
Yet there is a parallel collapse in the economic order that is less conspicuous: the
hundreds of billions of dollars fleeing emerging economies, from Brazil to China, don’t
come with images of women and children on capsizing boats. Nor do banks that have
lent trillions that will never be repaid post gruesome videos. However, this collapse
threatens our liberal universe as much as certain responses to the refugees. Capital flight
and bank fragility are profound dysfunctions in the way the global economy is now
organised that will surface as real-world economic dislocation.
The IMF is profoundly concerned, warning at last week’s annual meeting in Peru of $3tn
(£1.95tn) of excess credit globally and weakening global economic growth. But while it
knows there needs to be an international co-ordinated response, no progress is likely.
The grip of libertarian, anti-state philosophies on the dominant Anglo-Saxon political
right in the US and UK makes such intervention as probable as a Middle East settlement.
Order is crumbling all around and the forces that might save it are politically weak and
intellectually ineffective.
The heart of the economic disorder is a world financial system that has gone rogue.
Global banks now make profits to a extraordinary degree from doing business with each
other. As a result, banking’s power to create money out of nothing has been taken to a
whole new level. That banks create credit is nothing new; the system depends on the
truth that not all depositors will want their money back simultaneously. So there is a
tendency for some of the cash banks lend in one month to be redeposited by borrowers
the following month: a part of this cash can be re-lent, again, in a third month – on top
of existing lending capacity. Each lending cycle creates more credit, which is why lending
has always been carefully regulated by national central banks to ensure loans will, in
general, be repaid and sufficient capital reserves are held.
The emergence of a global banking system means central banks are much less able to
monitor and control what is going on. And because few countries now limit capital flows,
in part because they want access to potential credit, cash generated out of nothing can be
lent in countries where the economic prospects look superficially good. This provokes
floods of credit, rather like the movements of refugees.
The false boom that follows seems to justify the lending. Property prices rise. Companies
and households grow overconfident about their prospects and borrow freely. Economies
surge well above their trend growth rates and all seems well until something – a collapse
in property or commodity prices – unravels the whole process. The money floods out as
quickly as it flooded in, leaving bust banks and governments desperately picking up the
pieces.
Andy Haldane, Bank of England chief economist, describes the unfolding pattern of
events as a three-part crisis. Act one was in 2007-08 in Britain and the US. Buoyed for
the previous decade by absurdly high inflows of globally generated credit that created
false booms, they suddenly found their overconfident banks had wildly lent too much.
Collateral behind newfangled derivatives was worthless. Money flooded out, leaving
Britain’s banking system bust, to be bailed out by more than £1tn of liquidity and special
injections of public capital.
Now act three is beginning, but in countries much less able to devise measures to stop
financial contagion and whose banks are more precarious. For global finance next
flooded the so-called emerging market economies (EMEs), countries such as Turkey,
Brazil, Malaysia, China, all riding high on sky-high commodity prices as the China boom,
itself fuelled by wild lending, seemed never-ending. China manufactured more cement
from 2010-13 than the US had produced over the entire 20th century. It could not last
and so it is proving.
China’s banks are, in effect, bust: few of the vast loans they have made can ever be
repaid, so they cannot now lend at the rate needed to sustain China’s once super-high
but illusory growth rates. China’s real growth is now below that of the Mao years: the
economic crisis will spawn a crisis of legitimacy for the deeply corrupt communist party.
Commodity prices have crashed.
Money is flooding out of the EMEs, leaving overborrowed companies, indebted
households and stricken banks, but EMEs do not have institutions such as the Federal
Reserve or European Central Bank to knock up rescue packages. Yet these nations now
account for more than half of global GDP. Small wonder the IMF is worried.
The world needs inventive responses. It needs a bigger, reinvigorated IMF whose
constitution should reflect the global balance of economic power and that can rescue the
EMEs. It needs proper surveillance of global finance. It needs western governments to
launch massive economic stimuli, centred on infrastructure spending. It needs new
smart monetary policies that allow negative interest rates.
None of that is in prospect, vetoed by an ideological right and not properly championed
by the left. If there is no will to deal, collectively, with the refugee crisis, there is even less
to reorder the global economy. We may muddle through, but don’t bet on it.
On virtually every alternative news site you visit these days—and many mainstream sites
as well—you will find predictions of economic collapse and coming calamity. The bizarre
thing is not that these articles exist, but rather that we have somehow adapted to them
and taken them in stride. In this essay, I have set out to determine how this came about—
how did one of the most developed and educated civilizations in history come so close to
the economic brink?
I was especially curious to determine if the core mechanics of demand and supply, the
stuff you learn in the first 10 minutes of your very first lecture in Economics 101, were
still functioning as they should be…

World Economy on the brink of collapse, credit crisis proves.

Ficenec 15 John Ficenec is Editor of the Questor column at Telegraph Media Group
working across the Daily and Sunday titles and online. He is a qualified accountant who
trained at KPMG before moving into asset management and the private equity industry.
He has worked in financial journalism since 2011 and joined the Telegraph in 2013. He
won 'Article of the Year' in the 2013 CFA Society of UK awards.

John Ficenec6, 2-9-2015, "The global financial system stands on the brink of second
credit crisis," Telegraph.co.uk,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11398175/The-global-financial-system-
stands-on-the-brink-of-second-credit-crisis.html
The world economy stands on the brink of a second credit crisis as the vital transmission
systems for lending between banks begin to seize up and the debt markets fall over. The
latest round of quantitative easing from the European Central Bank will buy some time
but it looks like too little too late.
It was the collapse of US house prices back in 2007 that resulted in the seizure of the
credit markets and banking crisis of 2008. And it would be easy to lay the blame for the
2008 financial crisis at the doorstep of American home owners, easy but wrong. The
collapse of the US housing market was not the cause of the crisis, it was merely a
symptom of the more insidious ills of cheap credit, low risk and the promise of another
bailout round the corner.
The Keynesian pump priming that has taken place on a colossal scale across the world is
failing. The Chinese economy was growing at 12pc in 2010, but that slowed to 7.7pc in
2013 and 7.4pc last year — its weakest in 24 years. Economists expect Chinese growth to
slow to 7pc this year. It is the once booming property sector that has turned into a bust,
and is now dragging down the wider economy as the bubble deflates.
The second global credit crisis is now already unfolding in China some 6,800 miles away
from the epicentre of the first in the US. The bonds of Chinese real estate companies are
now falling like dominoes. Kaisa, a Shenzhen-based, Hong Kong-listed developer that
raised $2.5bn on international markets had to be bailed out by rival group Sunac last
week after it defaulted onits debts. The bonds of other Chinese real estate groups such as
Glorious Property and Fantasia have also sold off heavily as the contagion spreads.
Chinese authorities have responded to try and contain the situation. The People’s Bank
of China introduced a surprise 50-point cut in the Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR)
from 20pc to 19.5pc. But this misses the point, the credit system in China is completely
unsustainable unless new money is printed every year to refinance the old, simply
tinkering to ease liquidity won’t cut it.
The strain in its banking system is highlighted by the elevated levels of the Shanghai
Interbank Offered Rate (SHIBOR), which shows Chinese banks are worried about
lending to each other.
There is no schadenfreude in watching China unravel. The idea that this is an isolated
incident is laughable, remember the very same was said of US subprime. The problem is
that banks such as Standard Chartered and HSBC have both rapidly increased their
lending operations in Asia since 2008.
Loans are very easy to make, it is getting the money back that is tricky. If loans go bad in
Asia they will ultimately have to be recognised on the very same group balance sheet
from which finance is extended here in the UK. So, the contagion can quickly spread
from the Chinese property market to a poorly funded UK bank that has never set foot in
Asia. That is because UK banks borrow billions in short term funding from each other.
Loan losses in China can very quickly become a UK problem.
The London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a guide to how worried UK banks are
about lending to each other, has been steadily rising during the past nine months. Part of
this process is all a healthy return to normal pricing of risk after six years of
extraordinary monetary stimulus. However, as the essential transmission systems of
lending between banks begin to take the strain it is quite possible that six years of
reliance on central banks for funds has left the credit system unable to cope.
It seems nothing has been learned. The response to the underlying causes of the first
global financial collapse, namely cheap debt, low risk and bailouts, has simply been a
heroic effort to create cheaper credit, lower risk and even larger bailouts. It hasn’t
worked.
A new study reveals the staggering scale of the problem as global debt has ballooned by
$57 trillion since 2007 to reach about $200 trillion, according to McKinsey & Co. The
main culprits of monetary expansion has been China, which launched a 4 trillion yuan
(£386bn) stimulus package, the US Federal Reserve has launched three rounds of QE
adding $3.7 trillion worth of assets to its holdings, the Bank of England has spent about
£375bn and Japan has increased its asset buying programme to 80 trillion yen (£454bn)
a year, up from the previous rate of 60-70 trillion yen.
The money has flowed the path of least resistance into the assets that provide the
greatest return. Equities have soared and the stock markets in the UK and US are just
shy off record highs. Taking a look across the companies who’s shares have benefitted it
is the new technology stocks that have risen the fastest and sit on the highest valuations.
Like every stock market mania, the most overpriced assets are the ones furthest divorced
from any sound valuation. Eye watering prices are paid for companies with less than 50
employees using a “this time it’s different” formula based on clicks, eyes, views, or active
members to persuade investors to part with their savings.
Some truly bizarre asset classes have sprung up like mushrooms in the fetid ground of
quantitative easing. The crypto-currency of Bitcoin is perhaps the greatest example.
Bitcoin has no central bank and only exists online as a virtual currency. It is seen as a
rival to traditional state controlled money and payment systems, but in reality they are
two sides of the same coin. Bitcoin flourished as quantitative easing was expanded,
soaring in value by more than 700pc in 2013. Now quantitative easing has ended Bitcoin
has collapsed.
The fledgling crypto-currency hasn’t been alone in retracing its central bank funded
gains. All asset classes are now crumbling. The oil price has collapsed from $115 per
barrel in June last year to about $52 at the end of last week, iron ore has slumped from
$140 per tonne in January last year to $62 per tonne at the end of last week.
It is not only asset classes that that are wavering, the key indicators of international
economic activity are also flashing red. The Baltic Dry Index which is seen as a leading
indicator for world economic growth tumbled to a 29-year low at 559 points last week.
The second credit crisis is already unfolding in China and the latest round of European
money will struggle to halt the contagion in credit markets.
 relations solve

US China relations are necessary for the improvement of global economy

Novelli 16’ --- U.S. diplomat and the current Under Secretary of State for Economic
Growth, Energy, and the Environment at the U.S. Department of State (5/31/16,
Catherine A. Novelli, “Previewing the Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China,”
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/05/257847.htm// ML)
ASSISTANT SECRETARY RUSSEL: Thank you, John. Thank you, Cathy. I’ll try to provide a little context on what will be our eighth Strategic and
Economic Dialogue taking place in Beijing, June 5th through 7th. The Strategic Track, again, will be led by Secretary Kerry. The Economic Track will be
led by Secretary of the Treasury Jack Lew. Also, say a word or two about some of the associated dialogues, the Strategic Security Dialogue and also the
Consultation on People-to-People Exchange, and then Under Secretary Novelli will cover the economic and the environmental parts of the equation. So
the S&ED really is the flagship dialogue or annual mechanism for connecting the work of our two governments, and over the last eight years we’ve used
it to do two things: one, to set the goals and the direction of the relationship; but secondly, to help us work through and absorb some of the shocks to the
system by allowing our teams to talk through, to think through, and to work through real problem areas. The S&ED is one of the instruments that’s
helped us put a floor under the U.S.-China relationship capable of absorbing stress, but also serving as a foundation for practical progress. It also –
because it’s an annual high-level meeting – serves as a kind of action forcer in terms – or a deadline to galvanize our bureaucracies to reach agreement on
things that they’ve been discussing. It’s helped to germinate some new areas of collaboration and to tee up accomplishments that can be brought across
the finish line when our two presidents meet. There is, in my view, huge value in this institutional mechanism. It brings together on a regular basis,
predictable basis, not only two cabinet secretaries from the U.S. side, but representatives of multiple agencies, leading staffers covering a broad spectrum
of our interests. Specifically, the Strategic Track of the S&ED, I think, has demonstrably contributed to real accomplishments in the U.S.-China
relationship over the last eight years, one of the most visible examples of that being on climate change. I think it helped foster the cooperation that in the
P5+6[1] led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran. It is certainly an element behind the cooperation that’s culminated in the toughest-ever
sanctions on North Korea. It’s helped us build a improved and stable military-to-military relationship with China; led to cooperation in fighting infectious
diseases and pandemics like Ebola; in expanding Chinese support for peacekeeping; and for our cooperation in Afghanistan and other global hotspots. At
the same time, it’s served as a venue that allows us to discuss and in some cases to narrow our differences, and that includes our concerns with Chinese
behavior in the South China Sea; our concerns with things like the NGO management law and other forms of restrictions on human rights; our concerns
about anti-business discriminatory regulations and the use of cyber to disadvantage our companies. These are all difficult issues. They’re important issues
that we address in the S&ED and important parts of our effort to manage, if not resolve, problem areas. Now, one of the adjunct meetings that go hand in
hand with the Strategic Track is what we call the Strategic Security Dialogue, the SSD, which is headed on our side by Deputy Secretary of State Tony
Blinken. And it includes representatives from the militaries on both sides, so it’s a civilian-military session. This gives us that integrated venue for
communication on some of the thorniest strategic issues that we have to contend with. And as in the past, we expect the SSD will engage candidly,
constructively, on issues like maritime behavior, like cyber, like North Korea, and so on. Concurrent with the S&ED but separate is an important meeting
in its own right, the Consultation on People-to-People Exchanges, the CPE. That’s led on our side also by Secretary Kerry. And we have developed
programs, we’ve expanded programs through the CPE that directly impact our two countries and our two people. More than 30,000 Chinese, for example,
studied here in the United States last year. That’s – I’m sorry, I misspoke – 300,000 Chinese students were in the U.S. and that’s a threefold increase
since President Obama took office and constitutes something on the order of a third of all of our international students. The 1 Million Strong Initiative
aims at getting a million Americans to learn Mandarin Chinese, and there’s a variety of other exchanges between young scientists, athletes, artists, and so
So you
on. So the CPE is a major driver of our people-to-people ties, which, after all, are a huge investment in the U.S.-China relationship.

don’t need me to tell you how important the U.S.-China relationship is both
to addressing global challenges, but also to the welfare and the economic
interests of the United States , but I will turn the floor now over to Cathy, Under Secretary Novelli. UNDER
SECRETARY NOVELLI: Thanks, Danny. And just as Danny has said, the S&ED has actually been a very productive and
important bilateral forum for a number of the issues that are the economic , the environment issues. And so
we have really been able to use these meetings to come together and, in places where we
disagree, to try to have frank discussions and resolve those things and also figure out how we can
work together. And so I thought I would just take a few minutes to talk about some of the things that maybe aren’t quite always on the front page
but are very important in terms of issues that we’re going to discuss. And the first one is clean energy. The S&ED has a real important opportunity for us
to build off of the progress that was made in Paris last December at the COP21 because we’re the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide, but we
also accounted for more than half of the record $329 billion in global investment in clean energy in 2015. And so we’re going to actually sit down and
talk about how U.S. and Chinese experiences can support China’s power sector reforms. And the reason why this is important is because it’s going to
open the way for more market-oriented strategies to increase renewable energy integration into China. We’re also going to talk about a number of key
issues impacting the environment, and those are going to range from wildlife trafficking and combatting that to ocean conservation and also to supporting
Chinese and American innovators in trying to address a wide array of innovation challenges, including how innovation can help in these areas like
wildlife trafficking and ocean conservation. And you may know that the last S&ED in Washington set in motion President Obama and President Xi’s
historic announcement of their commitments mutually to implement near-complete bans on ivory imports, exports, and domestic and commercial trade.
And this was widely recognized at the time as a game-changing event in the worldwide effort to stop elephant poaching, and in fact, the price of ivory in
China has decreased by half since that announcement. So what we’re planning to do in the S&ED is to talk about how this is going to actually get
implemented. The U.S. is getting ready to roll out its regulations that are going to actually put this ban into effect, and we’re going to talk with the
Chinese about how they’re progressing and doing their own regulations as well as talk about how we can work together with third countries who are
facing problems of poaching. We’re also going to talk to them about how we can jointly address the urgent threats our ocean faces from manmade
pressures and how we can work together to find solutions to threats like plastic pollution and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing. We had a great
first session on oceans at our last S&ED, and so we’re going to build on that for this one. And we’re also hoping that we can entice the Chinese to play a
more prominent role in the Our Ocean conference that we’re going to be hosting here in September, on September 14th – or 15th and 16th, because that is
a very, very important conference in bringing the world together to combat illegal fishing, to combat pollution of the ocean. And we want China to
participate since they are a big ocean state. Another way that we see an opening for greater collaboration is a new dialogue that we’re just starting up,
which is going to be on aviation-related issues. And there we’re going to have representatives from seven U.S. agencies who have aviation
responsibilities, including ourselves at the State Department, to meet with our Chinese counterparts and their interagency to talk about how we can adapt
our national aviation systems to meet the needs of the 21st century. And we have – obviously, in the U.S. we have experiences from the growth of our
own commercial aviation system, and we think that talking with Chinese that we can convey what our experiences have been, it can benefit China as it
expands its own aviation system. And so we’re hoping that we’ll be able to have some very tangible results of that on a going-forward basis. Lastly,
we’re also going to talk about how we can work to support the science and technology innovations across the board that can provide jobs and improve the
quality of life for both of our countries. So we are going to be introducing some of the newest members of our EcoPartnerships program, which is a
fantastic program that supports local and state actors in China and the United States who work together to find technical solutions to environmental
challenges. This has been going on for several years, and we have a whole new set of EcoPartners that we’ll be announcing. So we’re
going to
cover a lot of important ground on energy, environment, and of course, the economic realm .
And I think that it speaks to the large relationship that we have. It’s a very large and diverse relationship, and we’re trying to work together where we can
agree, because when we agree, we can have great results and be very constructive. So I thank you very much and I think we are going to take some
questions.
 War
Economic collapse leads to war
Orlov 16 (Dmitry: BS in Computer Engineering an MA in Applied Linguistics, and
writes frequently about the US economy. January 12, 2016.
http://cluborlov.blogspot.mx/2016/01/financial-collapse-leads-to-war.html#more)
The US acts militarily to defend the status of the US dollar as the global reserve currency.
But the US dollar is slowly but surely losing its attractiveness as a reserve currency, as
witnessed by China and Russia acting as swiftly as they can to unload their US dollar
reserves, and to stockpile gold instead. Numerous other nations have entered into
arrangements with each other to stop using the US dollar in international trade. The fact
of the matter is, it doesn't take a huge military to flush one's national currency down the
toilet, so, once again; something else must be going on.

There are many other explanations on offer as well, but none of them explain the fact
that the goal of all this militarism seems to be to achieve failure.

Perhaps a simpler explanation would suffice? How about this one:

The US has surrendered its sovereignty to a clique of financial oligarchs. Having nobody
at all to answer to, this American (and to some extent international) oligarchy has been
ruining the financial condition of the country, running up staggering levels of debt,
destroying savings and retirements, debasing the currency and so on. The inevitable end-
game is that the Federal Reserve (along with the central banks of other “developed
economies”) will end up buying up all the sovereign debt issuance with money they print
for that purpose, and in the end this inevitably leads to hyperinflation and national
bankruptcy. A very special set of conditions has prevented these two events from taking
place thus far, but that doesn't mean that they won't, because that's what always
happens, sooner or later.

Now, let's suppose a financial oligarchy has seized control of the country, and, since it
can't control its own appetites, is running it into the ground. Then it would make sense
for it to have some sort of back-up plan for when the whole financial house of cards falls
apart. Ideally, this plan would effectively put down any chance of revolt of the
downtrodden masses, and allow the oligarchy to maintain security and hold onto its
wealth. Peacetime is fine for as long as it can placate the populace with bread and
circuses, but when a financial calamity causes the economy to crater and bread and
circuses turn scarce, a handy fallback is war.

Econ decline kills support for warming reform

Richard N. Haass, 11-8-2008, "What the Recession Means for Foreign Policy," WSJ,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122611110847810599
Mr. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
It now is highly likely that the United States will face several quarters of negative growth
to be followed by several years of low growth. Less and less are we hearing of V- or U-
shaped economic recoveries. The immediate future looks like an L: sharp contraction
followed by not much in the way of a quick rebound.
Most of the current conversation is about the economic consequences of such a future,
and what can and should be done domestically and internationally to soften the blows
and speed recovery. But the world is not a series of silos. What happens in the economic
realm will spill over into the political and strategic ones. Some of what results will add to
the challenges confronting President Barack Obama.
Pressures to rein in federal spending are sure to grow. There is little that is easy to cut
given the need to meet entitlement obligations, pay interest on the $10 trillion debt, and
bail out states and cities unable to balance their budgets. What's more, there is an
emerging consensus on the need for yet another stimulus package. Down the road,
ballooning deficits will bring inflation and cause problems for the dollar. It is highly
likely then that Congress will want to cut the defense and foreign-aid budgets simply
because there are so few other targets available to reduce federal spending. This will limit
the availability of tools central to asserting U.S. power and influence abroad.
There will be other policy consequences of recession. It will be more difficult to
negotiate an accord on climate change as countries such as China and India will
resist anything that could be an impediment to growth. High unemployment will make it
even tougher to build a majority here at home for immigration reform. We will likely see
new outbreaks of resistance to the ability of foreigners to buy U.S. assets despite a clear
need for their dollars.
The recession is sure to strengthen trade protectionism. This is a big setback, as trade
offers the ideal noninflationary stimulus. It is also a boon to developing countries, and
one way to link countries in a web of dependencies that restrains nationalist impulses.
The combination of recession and no global trade accord will reduce U.S. imports, which
in turn will slow growth around the world, increasing poverty and straining political
stability in many countries. Many countries are already suffering from slower growth,
much lower stock values, scarce credit and reduced exports. Others are reeling from
lower commodity prices. We should not be surprised when governments fail and
societies suffer from violence.
One other adverse consequence merits mention. The appeal of free markets is much
diminished. The ability of U.S. officials to preach persuasively on the virtues of market
reform is all but gone. The backlash against markets will almost certainly go too far, with
adverse results for economic recovery and democracy around the world.
We are already seeing increased anti-Americanism, the result of perceptions that the
global economic slowdown had its roots in the U.S. mortgage market. Globalization itself
is further tarnished. What we can expect is heightened state intervention, protectionism
and mercantilism as governments look to enter into arrangements that guarantee
preferential outcomes.
Still, most clouds have silver linings, and this one is no exception. Recession has caused a
major decline in the world price of oil, to roughly $70 a barrel from over $140. This is
bad news for Iran, Venezuela and Russia -- the so-called axis of diesel.
The most encouraging consequence of this change involves Iran. Iran has been closing in
on the ability to enrich uranium on a large scale. The last thing the new administration
wants is to choose between living with a nuclear Iran and attacking Iran so it does not
reach that point. Either path promises to be extraordinarily costly.
Up to now, diplomacy has produced little. The question is whether this could change.
The reason it might is economic pressure. Financial sanctions, relatively easy for the
mullahs to shrug off when oil was $140 per barrel, are having real effect now that oil is
only half that price. Adding to the pressure is an Iranian budget that is based on oil
fetching some $90-$95 per barrel. Inflation, unemployment and deficits are rising as
dollar reserves are falling.
All of this could well make the Iranians more open to diplomacy that would limit or
better yet end their independent uranium enrichment effort in exchange for economic
relief. It might even lead the Iranians to examine some of their expensive support for
Hamas, Hezbollah and Shiite militias in Iraq.
The slowdown also may bring good news closer to home. Venezuela under Hugo Chávez
has been carrying out an imperial foreign policy, supporting governments such as
Cuba's, Bolivia's and Nicaragua's. Mr. Chávez has also been systematically subverting
Venezuelan democracy. But like Iran, Venezuela will have to scale back. A $4 billion oil
refinery for Nicaragua is on hold. Given an inflation rate of 35%, mounting debt and
declining financial reserves, the question is whether Mr. Chávez will be able to keep his
hold on power if the price of oil remains where it now is for several years.
Developments in Russia may constitute another silver lining. A Russia resentful over its
loss of status and territory has become a resurgent power. Oil and gas have become a
source of wealth and influence. But Russia is feeling the pain -- not just of falling energy
prices but of a plummeting stock market that has come down two-thirds from its high
and was closed by authorities more than a dozen times. Many Russians see what has
happened as the result of the world's negative reaction to their actions in Georgia. This
has the potential to make Russia's leaders think twice before intervening in Ukraine on
behalf of ethnic Russians living in the Crimea.
Falling energy prices have one other benefit: They reduce the burden to importers
everywhere, from the U.S. (by reducing some pressure on the dollar) to poor countries
that did not have the good luck to find oil or gas in their territory. It would be
unfortunate, though, if the reduction in energy prices took the wind out of the sails (so to
speak) of the effort to reduce American energy consumption. Current levels of use leave
the U.S. vulnerable to supply interruptions and price hikes, fuel the economies of some
of the world's least savory regimes, and add to climate change. The temporary respite
provided by lower energy prices should not be squandered so that we continue policies
and behaviors that made us vulnerable in the first place.
This all raises a larger point. To say there will be a recession followed by years of
depressed growth leaves vague the questions of how deep and how prolonged. Little is
inevitable. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve have demonstrated that the U.S. is not
Japan; policy innovation is part of our political culture. The new president and Congress
will have the opportunity to shape the dimensions of the "L" and to both offset and
exploit its strategic consequences. Let's hope they use it wisely.

Econ Collapse is terrible for the Environment- 4 reasons

Michael Graham Richard (@Michael_gr), 2-6-2008, "Counter-Point: 4 Reasons Why
Recession is BAD for the Environment," TreeHugger,
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/counter-point-4-reasons-why-
recession-is-bad-for-the-environment.html
Michael was a full-time journalist/blogger, starting at TreeHugger in May 2005. Between
March 2006 and January 2008, he was editor-in-chief, and beginning in February 2008,
he’s been editor of the Science & Technology and of the Cars & Transportation sections,
giving him more time for his first love, doing research and writing. In August 2007,
Discovery Communications bought TreeHugger, and in 2013, MNN did. He was in
charge of Discovery Green for a time on the Discovery Channel’s website.

His mother would like you to know that he has been interviewed, published, or cited by,
among others, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Andrew Sullivan,
Forbes, BoingBoing, the Independent, the LA Times, Wired, Rolling Stone, Harvard
Business Publishing, Discovery News, Metro International, etc.
As a counter-point to Lloyd's tongue-in-cheek post about 10 Ways the Recession Can
Help the Environment, here are some eco-reasons why we should wish a speedy recovery
(we won't get into non-green reasons here): Firstly, when squeezed, companies will
reduce their investments into research & development and green programs. These are
usually not short-term profit centers, so that is what's axed first. Some progress has been
made in the past few years, it would be sad to lose ground now. Secondly, average
people, when money is tight, will look for less expensive products (duh). Right now, that
usually means that greener products won't make it. Maybe someday if we start taxing
"bads" instead of "goods" (pollution, carbon, toxins instead of labor, income, capital
gains) the least expensive products will also be the greenest, but right now that's not the
case. Thirdly, there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder
to get, which means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough
green technologies of tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt,
especially if their clients or backers decide to make cuts. Fourthly, during economic
crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing something about the economy
(even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds
of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment. Massive
corn subsidies anyone? Don't even think about progress on global warming...
Climate Change
 1ac — climate change advantage

Global Warming is real and rise is human induced

NASA, June 17th 2016 (NASA, Climate change: How do we know?, NASA,
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, Alexis Officer/AO)
The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there
have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice
age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of
human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations
in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely
human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1
Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see
the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its
climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals
of a changing climate.
The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the
mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the
atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no
question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in
response.
Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that
the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in
the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in
tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

Expanding US China cooperation on climate change key to global emissions

reductions
Hongzhou 15 (Mr Zhang Hongzhou, Associate Research Fellow with the China
Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang
Technological University, Singapore. http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-us-
climate-change-cooperation-beyond-energy/. “China-US Climate Change Cooperation:
Beyond Energy”) //VN
The Paris Summit in December 2015 is being seen as the “last chance” to save the world
from the worst ravages of climate change, yet whether the international community can
reach a new climate change agreement remains to be seen. The United States and China,
the two biggest economies and largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, hold
the key to the success of not only the Paris Summit but also long-term global efforts to
combat climate change.

Thankfully, unlike most aspects of Sino-U.S. relations where tensions are rising, bilateral
cooperation on climate change has made remarkable progress, highlighted by the
historic climate change agreement signed by the two countries in November 2014.
During Xi Jinping’s first state visit to the United States last month, the two sides
announced a new set of policies to combat climate change, including a national cap-and-
trade program in China and a $3 billion fund from China to help developing countries
curb global warming.

Energy Cooperation: The Key Success Factor

The remarkable success in Sino-U.S. climate change cooperation can be attributed to a

wide arrange of factors, including growing domestic pressures, stable and flourishing
non-official exchanges, and a change of attitude towards some of the key climate issues,
to name but a few. Nonetheless, the solid foundation which has been laid on bilateral
energy cooperation, clean energy in particular, is the key driving factor. However, relying
on the energy sector alone is risky, and efforts in the energy sector might not be
sufficient to sustain Sino-US climate change cooperation and curb global warming.

The two countries’ commitment on clean energy should not be taken for granted. In the
U.S., the Obama administration certainly has put curbing fossil fuels top of its policy
agenda and has made very real efforts to enact policies and regulations to achieve these
goals. However, whether those measures can survive political opposition remains
uncertain. The 2016 presidential election could be a critical moment in the trajectory of
U.S. climate policy. Moreover, the shale gas revolution not only enables the U.S. to
achieve energy self-sufficiency, it may also make America the world’s top exporter of
fossil energies. This means energy security concerns might no longer be the top policy
issue for the United States, which could then weaken the government’s commitment
towards developing clean energies.

In the case of China, the current economic slowdown, if it persists, could force the
country to rethink its ambitious plans for carbon emission reduction. For years, the
bottom line for China on climate change mitigation has been to strike a balance between
economic development and climate concerns. While in recent years, amid rapidly
worsening pollution, China has been more willing to take decisive action such as
breaking away from cheap coal and closing down energy intensive factories to curb
domestic greenhouse gas emission at the expense of economic growth. However, it does
not mean that climate change concerns will prevail over economic development. With
hundreds of millions of people still living in poverty and per-capita incomes lagging far
behind those of the developed countries, China’s development needs are immense and
the government’s top priority is to maintain stable growth. Therefore, if the economic
situation in China worsens, it will be no surprise if the Chinese government retreats from
efforts to curb emissions in favor of stabilizing economic growth.

Agriculture and Food Systems

In seeking potential areas to expand Sino-U.S. climate change cooperation, agriculture

offers great potential. For starters, agriculture is both a major contributor to and victim
of climate change. On the one hand, while the exact contribution of the agricultural and
related sectors to total greenhouse gas emission remains debatable, studies show that
emissions generated by agricultural and related sector activities could be much higher
than the public perceives: The overall food system could contribute 25-50 percent of
global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, reducing agriculture’s GHG emission should
be central to limiting climate change. On the other hand, agricultural production and the
food system are highly vulnerable to climate change. Certainly, global warming is not
uniformly problematic – it could lead to improved productivity in certain tropical
regions and extend the cropping period or allow multiple harvests in temperate zones.
For the world as whole, however, climate change poses a dire threat to agricultural
production and global food security, an assertion widely supported by findings from
numerous studies. Climate change will trigger or exacerbate global food insecurity,
which might eventually lead to hunger, famine, social unrest, the rise of terrorism, and
refugees.

Next, as the biggest agricultural producers and traders, the U.S. and China are also
among the world’s top agricultural emitters. This highlights the critical role the two
countries have in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the farm sector. Moreover,
unlike Canada and Russia, where agriculture may well benefit from global warming, the
impacts of climate change on the agricultural sectors of both China and the United States
are negative. Extreme weather brings uncertainty to future food production and
threatens food security.

China and United States are already deeply locked in the food-climate nexus, given their
strong agricultural ties. Those close ties bring both opportunities and challenges to the
efforts of the two countries to deal with climate change. On the one hand, given that
China’s farm sector is heavily reliant on fertilizers, pesticides, and other chemical inputs
and is dominated small household farming, importing soybeans, corn, and other
agricultural products from the United States, apart from contributing to China’s food
security, allows China to implement its afforestation and land restoration plans, which
are important steps in reducing greenhouse emissions in China. On the other hand, close
agricultural ties also mean that the climate impacts in one country will have
repercussions for the other. To take a somewhat more obscure agricultural product,
alfalfa, as an example, the United States, the largest alfalfa producer in the world,
accounted for nearly 95 percent of China’s total alfalfa imports in 2012. As alfalfa
requires substantial volumes of water, the Sino-U.S. alfalfa trade has come in for
criticism amid a historic drought in Californian the largest alfalfa producing region in the
United States.

The potential climate impact of the evolving Sino-U.S. agricultural ties would not be
limited to those two countries alone; rather, the whole word could be affected. The
United States has long been the biggest supplier of agricultural products to China.
Increasingly, however, there are concerns in China that an over reliance on U.S. for food
will jeopardize China’s food security and even its national security. Thus, China has been
pursuing a diversification strategy. This is especially the case with soybeans. In the late
1990s, China imported more than 80 percent of its soybeans from the United States;
now, it is importing more soybeans from Latin American countries, particularly Brazil
and Argentina. In 2014, the U.S. share of China’s total soybean imports declined to about
40 percent. While diversifying imports away from the U.S. is beneficial to China’s food
security, it has negative repercussions for global climate change mitigation because
China’s soaring soybean imports from Latin America are contributing to deforestation in
the Amazon, considered to be the biggest carbon sink in the world. As deforestation
progresses, it releases carbon, with a direct impact on the entire world, helping to drive
climate change.

The U.S. and China should prioritize agricultural and food security in their bilateral
efforts to combat climate change. The two countries could play a major role in shifting
agriculture from being part of the problem to being part of the solution to climate
change, by expanding bilateral agricultural trade and investment cooperation, stepping
up efforts in agricultural research and technology, and strengthening global food
systems.

Climate change causes human extinction

McPherson 14
Guy McPherson is Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and Ecology & Evolutionary Biology at the University of
Arizona. He is the author of Ecology and Management of North American Savannas (1997) Applied Ecology and Natural
Resource Management (2003) Changing Precipitation Regimes and Terrestrial Ecosystems: A North American
Perspective (2003) Killing the Natives: Has the American Dream Become a Nightmare? (2005) Letters to a young
academic: seeking teachable moments (2006) Living with Fire: Fire Ecology and Policy for the Twenty-first Century (2008)
The Planner’s Guide to Natural Resource Conservation: The Science of Land Development Beyond the Metropolitan
Fringe (2009) Walking Away from Empire: A Personal Journey (2011) Going Dark (2013)
Janaia Donaldson: Hi, Welcome to Peak Moment. I’m Janaia Donaldson. Late in 2012 we watched a video by Guy McPherson about climate
chaos. I was stunned. I immediately called Guy to see if he could talk with us and I’m glad he’s here today. Thanks for joining us. Guy is the
Professor Emeritus of Natural Resources and the Environment at the University of Arizona for twenty years, a conservation biologist and an
author of thirteen books including Walking Away from Empire and Going Dark. [turning to Guy] And your blog is Nature Bats Last. We’ll
catch up on those things…So thank you, thank you for being here. Guy McPherson: It’s my pleasure. JD: I see you as an independent
scientist at this point, not being beholden to a university, to an organization, to money, to government. You've taken on a rather daunting,
Paul Revere-like calling to bring together the data on climate chaos that we aren’t seeing or that’s hidden away from the mainstream. Tell us
what most of us don’t get to see. GM: Well, I was twenty years in active service at the University of Arizona. I left about five years ago. And
subsequently that has liberated me to pursue information in ways in which I didn't have time or cultural incentive to pursue when I was in
active service. There’s a lot of self-censorship that goes on in this society and it happens in universities too—imagine that! Of course, I didn’t
have time, interest, or inclination to pursue the kinds of information I’ve been pursuing since then. It was in 2002 that I was editing a book
with a colleague on climate change, and I reached the conclusion that we were headed for human extinction by 2030 or so. There was no
good reason for that. We certainly didn’t have the data, the models or information. I suppose it was largely intuitive, I guess. Then a year or
so later I discovered the concept of global peak oil and I realized that it's a Hail Mary pass. This set of living arrangements might go away in
time to prevent our own demise in the near term. Well, that was a long time ago. Civilization not been terminated, has not ended. It keeps
going, and going and going. Now we've triggered 30 self-reinforcing feedback loops, positive feedbacks. Informed analysis of one of those
indicates that we're looking at a 4°C rise above the beginning of industrial revolution by 2030, and 10°C by 2040. That's just one – that’s
methane from the Arctic Ocean. There are 29 others. And you multiply those together – and they're multiplicative, not additive – and it
looks like we might indeed not have long as a species on this planet. JD: That's what stunned me. Near-term human, and not just human
extinction. It’s inconceivable. It’s unthinkable. And we’ll later talk about how does one respond with that from the inside. You do long
presentations and you also have an evergreen document where you’re keeping track of studies and data. I noticed that a year ago you had 15
or 16 [feedback loops] on that list. And just in this one year there are more factors, so that it seems to be going exponential with more and
more data coming in. GM: That’s right. The first self-reinforcing feedback loop reported in the mainstream scientific community was
methane leaking out of the Arctic Ocean in March 2010 as reported in Science. That was the only self-reinforcing feedback reported in 2010.
In 2011 there were 4 more. 2012, there were 6 more. 2013, 16 more. So far here on February 23, 2014, we know about one additional one
and we know a lot more about those earlier ones. Science is starting to catch up with reality. We're starting to accrue evidence about each
one of those self-reinforcing feedback loops. You're right, a year ago there were a dozen or so. I delivered a presentation outside of
Amsterdam in early August of last year, less than 6 months ago, we were at 19. Now we're at 30. JD: Which is inconceivable! GM:
Geologically things are playing out in real time at this point. JD: Can you give our viewers some highlights of what you're presenting so that
they can get a sense of the data? GM:
We know it is 40 years from cause to effect – 40 years from
greenhouse gas emissions until temperature rise. So that the temperature rise we're
seeing today is a result of emissions in 1974. There are a couple things that are important
about that. We are not going to slow down this train. The emissions from the last 40 years have not caught up to us. In fact, we've
emitted more greenhouse gas emissions in the last 29 years than in the previous 236
years combined. Those 29 years aren't even baked in yet – they’re baked into the cake, but they are unaccounted for at the level of
temperature. Another facet is that emissions from 40 years ago are being exhibited with temperature rise today. I don't know about you, but
I don't feel particularly guilty for things I was doing 40 years ago when I was 13 years old. I didn't know, and almost no individuals in this
society knew, where we were headed 40 years ago and thought relevant action would have something to do with terminating industrial
civilization. JD: I think there's also a lot of unintended consequences. We don’t know. We're clever apes and like to experiment and so that
oozing black stuff that came out of the ground, what might it do? And here we are! GM: Yeah it's incredibly attractive. Going after the
technology, burning all those fossil fuels, makes life wonderful in the short term, for us individuals. JD: So we've got the temperature lag
going to accumulate and hit us increasingly every year and there are other feedback loops as well. What I think you said here is that we are
on course to be at a higher number of degrees C warming planetarily even by 2030 or 2040. GM: Yes, based on a single feedback – that of
methane release from the Arctic. And methane is coming out of the Antarctic. It's being released from the permafrost, or the permamelt as
we should properly call it. Just that one source, methane from the Arctic, from the sea floor in the Arctic, leads us to 4°C, a temperature
beyond which humans have never existed on the planet. By 2030. JD: 4°C doesn't sound like a lot. It’s the difference between Alaska and
L.A. But humans have never existed on that hot a planet? GM: We haven't existed above 3.5°C above baseline (the beginning of the
industrial revolution). Why? Because all sorts of weird things start happening when you heat up the temperature to a certain amount. When
we came out of the ice age, out of the Pleistocene into the Holocene, the temperature warmed a couple degrees C. That temperature rise,
which subsequently stabilized, probably accounts for our ability to develop civilizations. Civilizations arose several places around the globe
at around the same time, a few thousand years ago, probably because the temperature became stable and warm enough to grow grains.
That’s a hallmark of civilization, the ability to grow grains and to store them. Therefore to control the food and get you through the hard
winters and so on. So if civilization was locked in – and I’m not sure it was but it’s been locked in now for a few thousand years – then
industrial civilization was just one step further, one more step towards that convenience of having stuff we like. So, here we are, sort of
unwilling participants in this system that takes us to the abyss. And almost nobody knows we're even headed for the abyss. JD: I want to go
back to your saying that a lot of things can happen if we get beyond 3.5°C, like… GM: We're already seeing it. At 0.85°C above baseline
temperature, w e’re already seeing the polar vortex. The UN advisory group on greenhouse gases warned us about exceeding 1°C in 1990.
They said that’s truly dire and catastrophic. James Hansen has joined that party just within the last couple of weeks. He switched from 2°C
being truly catastrophic to 1°C as going to do serious damage. I think we're already done. If 1°C was the target, then 0.85°C is close enough
that it's taken us over the cliff. What kinds of things do we see from that? We see high temperatures locally that are sufficient to cause
proteins to denature and therefore kill plants. JD: There goes agriculture. GM: Yes, bingo! In addition, you see temperature swings that are
so severe. Here’s an example: I lived in Tucson for more than 24 years. Two of the last four winters have been so cold that 80- to 100-
yearold citrus trees died in Tucson, Arizona. Because the jet stream is meandering far greater than it used to be because the temperature
gradient has broken down between the Arctic and the Amazon, the equator. So now the jet stream that used to blow across Canada and the
northern United States with these cold fronts, and they'd sweep across the country in four or five days and be done with it. Now
we
have the jet stream meandering, this huge amplitude and dragging cold, cold
temperatures down from the Arctic to Mexico City and destroying all the vegetable
production for winter vegetables as far south as Mexico City. So those are the kinds of
things that are going to lead to our extinction as a species: these extreme temperature
events including high temperatures that denature proteins, and temperature extremes
including cold temperatures that kill land plants. In addition we're acidifying the ocean
to such an extent that we're killing the phytoplankton. Phytoplankton are the base of the
marine food web. Without phytoplankton, without significant numbers of
phytoplankton, we don't get any food from the ocean. We might have jellyfish, a few. JD: So what I hear you
saying is that what's going to lead to the extinction of humans primarily is the destabilization of environmental factors for food growing.
GM: That's going to be a really, really big one. Now
where I live in the Southwestern interior of a large
continent in the Northern Hemisphere, the most rapid place to warm up, probably what
will happen is that temperatures will rise to 130° or 135° Fahrenheit one of these days.
Not that great a difference over the historical record. That will denature the proteins in
all the plants. So all the plants will die. Then the winds will start blowing and we'll have
the Dust Bowl that never ends. So me and my neighbors, everybody who lives there, will
literally choke to death. If they don't die from the food, they'll die from the inability to
breathe. There were thousands of people who died in the Dust Bowl of the '30s because they were breathing in more solid matter than
air. JD: Is there anything else on the story of the factors leading towards extinction that you want to share here? GM: There are a couple of
things that I think are pretty important. There’s this contrarian view that the temperature has stabilized within last 15, now 16, years. That
1998 was the hottest global temperature year. That’s based on land surface records. But as it turns out a paper from about a year ago points
out in Geophysical Research that heat actually accelerated but has just been hidden in the oceans. The oceans account for over two-thirds of
the surface area of the planet. We just have our thermometers on land so we've missed this. JD: So the oceans are soaking it up. Getting
more acidified. And, who knows what else. GM: And getting a lot hotter in addition to being more acidified. That releases methane, for
example, from the Arctic Ocean. A couple weeks ago we could see methane concentrations in the atmosphere concentrated in the Northern
Hemisphere [shows diagram on computer]. This a lot of methane. At the beginning of the industrial revolution we experienced about 700
parts per billion methane in the atmosphere. We're now routinely at over 2000 parts per billion. That’s global average. A couple days ago we
were at about 2400 parts per billion in some recording stations. JD: Is that about changing the atmospheric composition, or is it just about
the heating, or...? GM: That’s a result of heating, releasing methane into the atmosphere. Methane is more than 100 times more powerful a
greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide in the short term, in less than twenty years. So every part per billion of methane is a really big deal.
That leads to acceleration. These selfreinforcing feedback loops – they self-reinforce! It’s warmer, the more the methane emerges. The more
the methane emerges, it gets warmer. It gets warmer, the more methane comes out. JD: Runaway, and non-linear. It’s a complex system
with all kinds of things tying together, but it's on runaway. GM: That's right. This runaway event is the sort of thing that James Hansen
worried about in his book, Storms of My Grandchildren, and didn't think it would happen in the near term. But that book came out long
before we knew about these 30 self-reinforcing feedback loops and we had evidence that we'd triggered them. The acceleration is
astonishing. JD: I've been keeping an eye on this since 1990 and McKibben's The End of Nature, and in the last two to three years it feels
exponential to me. GM: I update regularly an essay on my website, Nature Bats Last, the "Climate Update and Summary" essay. I updated it
again this morning. I have to update it every few days because the information keeps pouring in. I ran across two more journal articles in
the last few days. And it’s never any good news. JD: Tell us about this piece. [shows chart on computer] GM: Planetary scientists for a long
time assumed and reported that the Earth was in the middle of the habitable zone for a star the size of our sun. It turns out (a paper in
Astrophysical Journal last year in March) points out actually the Earth is on the inner edge of the habitable zone. Which indicates that if we
change the atmosphere ever so slightly, we could push ourselves out of that habitable zone towards Venus. It turns out that we have not
changed our atmosphere a little bit, we've changed it a lot! We're barely, we're within 1% of being uninhabitable. We've now altered the
atmosphere to such an extent that I can't even imagine that we have not triggered runaway as a result of that large change in atmospheric
chemistry in a planet so close to the edge anyway. JD: Some say, civilization will go down, humans may go down, but the Earth will survive.
What you're saying is “not necessarily: Life may not continue.” GM: That's right. As we know, Venus went Venus. If we look at an analysis
done by Malcolm Light in December of last year [2013] where he actually applies an exponential function to methane release in the Arctic
and consequent temperature rise. He takes us to temperatures similar to Venus in 2096. That’s this century. So we’re not going to do well.
JD: That’s staggering. When you first had that intuition and you began gathering the data that validated what your intuition was…how did
you take this? How did you respond inside to this? GM: Horrified. I was much younger then. I mourned for our species. It was strange
because people couldn't understand that. It’s such an abstract concept. I'm a conservation biologist, and extinction is not merely an abstract
concept to me, because I've been documenting the demise of other species for a long time. So it’s not just abstract. But people couldn't
understand why I would have so little empathy for their dying 85-year-old grandmother who had a full and rich life and seven children, but
I was mourning this other thing that they couldn't even wrap their minds around. That was not the first thing that made me a social outcast,
but it was another indicator that I was thinking a little differently than other people. So I mourned for months, and nobody even noticed I
was grieving. I didn't know what to call it. In fact, it was only recently a little over a month ago that I went to a grief recovery workshop, and
learned that in fact what I was experiencing was grief. In this culture, we assume grief comes from two things: death of somebody close to
us, and divorce/separation. Well, there are more than 40 sources of grief, and... JD: …And you added a new one here. GM: Right. ANd it
wasn't my favorite thing. JD: I hear you. When we read Lovelock with a similar prognosis, even without the data — for months I was
grieving for the loss of beauty, and life, and the variety and diversity. GM: It took me a really, really long time to deal with that. In part
because I didn't seek therapy for it. Probably no therapist would've understood what I was going through. Then a lama in Winnipeg , Lama
Jerry, saw a four-minute film clip shot by Pauline Schneider, who is making a movie about my efforts. In those four minutes, he said it
became obvious that I had reached a point of acceptance. That up until that point I'd been angry, confused, lashing out, frustrated. I was
experiencing all these emotions. Then he said “in October of 2013 you finally let go and you became a much more centered human being.”.
He said, “I saw that,” and his response was, “I have to get him up here, we need to talk.” JD: Does that match your experience of yourself?
What he named there? GM: Yes, I didn't have any identifier or tag or moniker to put on it. I just knew I was a different human being than I
was. Part of that was because I realized that it's not my fault. As a lifelong teacher, I assumed that it was my job to teach everybody in the
world what they need to do. And of course I was the teacher, so of course they'd listen to me and do what I told them. JD: [laughs] That it’s
not your fault that the IPCC and all the governments of the world and all the people of the world don’t hear this and get it? GM: Right. It
took a long time. I had to walk away from teaching and spend nearly five years away from it, to realize that I can't change the world. It's all I
can do to change myself, and not necessarily in a good way. So I need to let go of this notion that I can, with a pair of tights and a cape, save
the world! And I can’t. I don't even have the tights or the cape. That made me feel more relaxed about it. Also the 40-year lag between cause
and consequence was also another piece that says, “It’s not your fault. Forty years ago we didn't know. So we're trapped. So let go or be
dragged.” So finally I did. Interestingly this lama, his teacher had all of his students, as one of their final lessons, watch a body decompose.
He told me that and he said "You've been watching the body decompose, watching the body decay for a long time. So finally you've reached
this understanding of impermanence." An awesome analogy. I learned so much when I spent a few days with him in his dharma center
group. JD: When you present this information to audiences, and I'm sure that people are also rocked and deeply moved by this possibility
that it's happening on our watch. That we’re looking at the end story on our watch, likely, and that the young people of today… what kind of
future are they going to be? There’s already uncertainty, and it’s even more uncertain. What kinds of advice or perspectives do you give
people about how do we live through this? GM: I frequently point out the line from Edward Abbey, the iconoclastic writer from Tucson:
“Action is the antidote to despair.” So yes, I expect people to despair. It's horrifying. It’s horrible. Dealing with our own death is difficult
enough in this death-denying culture. But to deal with everybody's death? That's a heavy load. JD: And every animal you know, and every
bird you know, and every fish there is. Everything. GM: Yes. We're just destroying every aspect of this living planet. That's horrifying. And
grief-inducing if you care, if you have any empathy at all. What to do about that? We could crawl in a corner and do nothing. Or just
continue with business as usual. That's what most people do. Their takeaway from my message is, well we're all going down anyway, so I'm
gonna keep doing what I’ve been doing, even if it is a job I hate, because I feel I need to earn some money and save for a retirement that'll
never come. And all that. So the advice that I give is to let go. That action is the antidote to despair. So let's do something! If you're damned
if you do and damned if you don't, then do. In fact I think this is incredibly liberating. If this is the end, then why don't you not do what
culture screams at you to do? Why don't you do something different instead? Why don't you take your last dollar and throw yourself into the
arms of strangers, into the arms of humanity, and say, "Listen I'm doing this weird thing, and I don't have any money, so can I sleep in your
barn?" Or whatever! I think it's incredibly liberating because we don't have to be bound to culture anymore. If we're the last human beings
to occupy the planet, and I strongly suspect we are, then why don't we exhibit some humanity for a change? JD: And maybe an exalted kind
of humanity, if you will, at our best. Giving the kind of compassion, the random acts of kindness, liberate a stream, find what we love, or
where we love or who we love, and serve that. Share it. GM: Yes. When I see and read about people in hospice — and I think we're all in
hospice now — when I see the actions of those people, I don't see money-grubbing. I don't see people accumulating shoes. I see people
giving things away. I see people acting with kindness and compassion, for which humans are renowned! And which we respect in human
beings. So I think that's great. These are people who are accepting their own deaths and integrating them fully. How do they act? They don't
act like the banksters on Wall Street. They pursue love. They do what they love. They pursue lives of excellence. Let's do that. I don't know
what that means for you, but I know what a life of excellence means for me. It means pursuing the kinds of questions Socrates pursued,
until they killed him for it. That's what it means for me, asking questions of this culture. I spend a lot of time traveling because I'm still a
teacher at heart. I'm trying, still, to have questions answered that are rattling around in my brain. For me that's what a life of excellence is.
For you, if it's accumulating as much gold as is humanly possible, well maybe I'm not as big a fan of that form of excellence as I am with
others. But I think there are many things we can do, many of them outside the shackles of this culture. Let's do that for a change. JD: You
actually talk about that we're here at an incredible moment. The Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times", which are both a
challenge and blessing, opportunity and danger. And it appears that we're here at a rather unique time. GM: Yes, there are three Chinese
curses. The third most dire is "May you live in interesting times." It's a curse, the third most dire. The second most dire is "May you attract
the attention of the government." Given the surveillance security state in which we're embedded. And the most dire one of all is "May you
find what you are looking for." I'm not there yet. JD: "May you find what you are looking for." I love your notion that we at this time are
getting to watch something none of our predecessors did, like watching a movie. Tell us your analogy there. GM:
We're at the end.
We get to see the end. I can't imagine a situation where we're not among the last of our
species on the planet. Already five million people a year die early deaths because of
climate change. That's up from 400,000 a year two years ago. I suspect we get to see the
end of this movie. Nobody else in human history gets to see the end of the movie. They
walked out, they left, the power went out, whatever. They didn't get to see the end. We
get to see the end. We get to see how humans act in the face of their own demise. What could
be more exciting than that? What could be more humane than that? JD: What a call to the best in all of us. Thank you. That's what a Peak
Moment is.
 Climate change real

Global Warming Evidence Increasing and Trend is Higher than ever

NASA, June 17th 2016 (NASA, Climate change: How do we know?, NASA,
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, Alexis Officer/AO)
The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the
last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4Image: Republic of
Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise
Global temperature rise
All three major global surface temperature reconstructions show that Earth has warmed
since 1880.5 Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest
years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the
past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an
unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to
increase.7
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about
2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8
Shrinking ice sheets
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's
Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost 150 to 250 cubic
kilometers (36 to 60 cubic miles) of ice per year between 2002 and 2006, while
Antarctica lost about 152 cubic kilometers (36 cubic miles) of ice between 2002 and
2005.Image: Flowing meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several
decades.9Image: Visualization of the 2007 Arctic sea ice minimum
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps,
Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.10 Image: The disappearing snowcap of
Mount Kilimanjaro, from space.
Extreme events
Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has
increased by about 30 percent.12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The
amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by
about 2 billion tons per year.14,15
Decreased snow cover
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern
Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting
earlier.16
 Relations solve

US-China cooperation is key to resolving warming

Office of the Spokesperson, 6/8/16 (Office of the Spokesperson.
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/06/258178.htm. “Climate Change and Clean
Energy at the 2016 U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue”) //VN
Climate change is a pillar of the U.S.-China bilateral relationship. Over the past few
years, expanded dialogue and cooperation have heralded a new era of climate leadership
by the world’s two largest economies and greenhouse gas emitters. President Obama and
President Xi have issued a series of joint statements on climate change, including most
recently in March 2016 on the two countries’ respective intentions to sign the Paris
Agreement and join as early as possible this year. U.S.-China climate leadership, a major
contributor to the success of the December 2015 Paris Agreement, is catalyzing action to
help the world transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient future and is an enduring
legacy of the U.S.-China partnership.

Underscoring this Presidential leadership is a strong commitment to bilateral

engagement and cooperation on climate. As in years past, the 2016 Strategic and
Economic Dialogue (S&ED) cemented this commitment through dozens of agreed
outcomes reflecting ongoing progress and expanded cooperation on climate change and
clean energy. The United States and China are working closely together – sharing
regulatory experience, jointly developing and demonstrating technologies, engaging
leading sub-national, private sector, and civil society actors, and more – to accelerate
solutions that support meeting or exceeding their respective domestic climate targets.

Climate change and clean energy highlights of this year’s S&ED outcomes include:

Commitments to progress through the Montreal Protocol, the International Civil

Aviation Organization, and the G-20: The two countries agreed to work together and
with others to achieve successful climate outcomes this year through key climate fora
that complement the Paris Agreement. Regarding the Montreal Protocol, they reaffirmed
their support for adopting an ambitious HFC phasedown amendment this year that
could prevent up to half a degree Celsius of warming. In the International Civil Aviation
Organization, they committed to supporting the adoption of a global market-based
measure this fall, to address CO2 emissions from international aviation. In the G-20,
they agreed to work together to drive strong outcomes on climate change and clean
energy, including on heavy-duty vehicles.
Expansion of sub-national climate cooperation and leadership: The second U.S.-China
Climate-Smart / Low-Carbon Cities Summit was held in Beijing in early June on the
margins of the S&ED. Building on the success and momentum from last fall’s inaugural
summit in Los Angeles, the event featured participation by leaders from 47 Chinese cities
and provinces and 17 U.S. cities, counties, and states interacting across three plenary
sessions and 17 sectoral breakout sessions. 66 cities from both countries endorsed the
U.S.-China Climate Leaders Declaration, bringing the total number of signatories to77.
Signatories declared their intention to establish ambitious climate targets, regularly
report on greenhouse gas emissions, establish climate action plans, and expand bilateral
cooperation. In parallel, the number of cities in China’s “Alliance of Peaking Pioneer
Cities” (APPC) – cities committing to peak CO2 emissions early – doubled from the
founding 11 members in September 2015 to 22 members today. The City of Boston was
announced as the host of the third U.S.-China Climate-Smart / Low-Carbon Cities
Summit in 2017.
Launch of new cooperation on Power Consumption, Demand, and Competition: To
complement and enhance their existing cooperation on reducing the climate impacts of
the electricity grid, the two sides have launched a new cooperative effort under the
Climate Change Working Group on Power Consumption, Demand, and Competition. The
cooperation is designed to support increasing utilization and integration of renewable
energy in China. An inaugural meeting was held at the 2016 S&ED where the two sides
exchanged best practices on institutional innovations and policy actions for promoting
power systems that support low-carbon, climate-resilient, and sustainable development.
Progress towards reducing the energy and environmental impacts of heavy-duty
vehicles: The U.S. and China continue to work closely together to share experiences and
best practices to reduce the energy and environmental impacts of motor vehicles,
especially trucks and buses responsible for disproportionate climate and air quality
impacts.
The two countries formally launched the “Race to Zero Emissions” program to support
increased deployment of electric and other zero-emission urban buses
(https://www.transportation.gov/R2ZE).
The two sides pledged to work together and with other countries to secure agreement
among G20 countries to improve fuel quality and the energy efficiency and emissions
performance of heavy-duty vehicles this year.
China has accelerated its timeline for finalizing the world-class “China 6/VI” emissions
standards for light- and heavy-duty vehicles, and announced, for the first time, its
intention to implement them nationwide by 2020.
Strong accounting and transparency for China’s national ETS: Through technical
exchanges under the CCWG, the United States will assist China’s efforts to develop a
robust national GHG reporting program, particularly as it rolls out its emissions trading
systems. China is poised to collect national greenhouse gas emissions data for the first
time in the summer of 2016. Through the CCWG, China and the U.S. are also working
together to improve MRV capacity for forests, which will support not only the ETS but
also national-level GHG estimation and reporting.
Private Sector Engagement: Recognizing the important role of the private sector in
combatting climate change, the two sides continued to cooperate with industry to
implement climate change policy goals. The U.S. Trade & Development Agency (USTDA)
organized four study tours and two workshops that introduced Chinese delegations to
U.S. technologies related to green infrastructure, smart grid, air quality improvement,
green airport construction, energy performance contracting, and introducing new energy
sources into the greater Beijing region. In support of the U.S.-China Energy Cooperation
Program (ECP) and China’s efforts to mitigate the environmental effects of coal-fired
power, USTDA also plans to partner with Chinese entities and ECP member companies
to conduct pilot projects demonstrating technologies related to distributed energy
combined heat & power.
Ongoing collaboration through the CCWG: The U.S.-China Climate Change Working
Group (CCWG), now in its fourth year, continues to support two regular bilateral
dialogue series – the Enhanced Policy Dialogue and the Domestic Policy Dialogue – and
has grown to encompass nine concrete action initiatives targeting a diverse set of sectors
and gases looking at both the short and long-term. The CCWG released its annual report
documenting progress and next steps across all elements, including the action initiatives
Heavy-Duty and Other Vehicles; Electric Power Systems; Carbon Capture, Utilization,
and Storage; Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry; Collecting and Managing
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data; Climate Change and Forests; Climate-Smart / Low-
Carbon Cities; Industrial Boilers Efficiency and Fuel Switching; and Green Ports and
Vessels.

More US China relations helps warming

Lieberthal, 2009. (Kenneth G. Lieberthal, senior fellow in Foreign Policy and Global
Economy and Development at Brookings. From 2009 to 2012, Lieberthal served as the
director of the John L. Thornton China Center. Lieberthal was a professor at the
University of Michigan from 1983 to 2009. He has authored 24 books and monographs
and over 70 articles, mostly dealing with China. He also served as special assistant to the
president for national security affairs and senior director for Asia on the National
Security Council from August 1998 to October 2000. His government responsibilities
encompassed U.S. policy toward Northeast, East, and Southeast Asia. Most recently, he
co-edited the book "China's Political Development: Chinese and American Perspectives"
(with Cheng Li and Yu Keping), which was published by Brookings Institution Press in
June 2014. http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2009/01/climate-change-
lieberthal-sandalow. “Overcoming Obstacles to U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate
Change”) //VN
Opportunities for collaboration in fighting climate change are plentiful, but moving
forward at the scale needed will require high-level political support in two very different
societies, each with considerable suspicion of the other. This report recommends ways to
win such support and sustain it for the long term.

Chapter 1 of the report provides a primer on two topics: climate change and U.S.-China
relations. It describes the climate change threat, concluding that every year of delay in
responding to it puts both countries—and the planet—at greater risk. Because the United
States and China are the world’s top two greenhouse gas emitters, together accounting
for more than 40% of annual emissions, any solution requires both countries to
transition to low-carbon economies. U.S.-China cooperation on climate change would
have not only bilateral but global benefits.

In this connection, U.S.-China relations have evolved and grown enormously since the
Nixon visit to Beijing in 1972. But despite this progress, underlying mutual distrust over
long-term intentions has grown and can over time make mutual antagonism a self-
fulfilling prophecy. U.S.-China relations should now advance to a new stage that has the
two countries consult and cooperate to address the most critical global issues of the 21st
century. Climate change and clean energy, along with the global economic crisis, offer
turning points. Cooperation on climate change can help move U.S.-China relations to a
new stage; failure to cooperate can introduce significant new tensions.

Chapter 2 describes the climate change policies and politics in each country. It explains
that, in the United States, attention to climate change has exploded in the past five years.
Many state and local governments, as well as U.S. companies, have taken significant
action to address this issue. President Obama identifies energy policy and climate change
as top priorities. Significant action by the federal government on climate change is likely
in the years ahead.

In China, energy efficiency has received serious attention, with significant national goals
reflected in the current Five-Year Plan as well as various laws and regulations. Growth in
renewable energy is also an important objective of national leaders. These and other
policies, taken mainly to promote economic growth, energy security and clean air in
China’s cities, have significant benefits when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas
emissions.

Chapter 3 offers nine recommendations to U.S. and Chinese leaders on ways to

cooperatively fight climate change. The recommendations embody the principle that
cooperation must serve the interests of both sides.

Recommendation #1: Acknowledge legitimacy of each other’s perspectives

The U.S. and China bring very different perspectives to the climate issue, reflecting their
different histories and circumstances
Neither side is likely to abandon its perspective, but each can recognize the legitimacy of
the other’s viewpoint and avoid making these differences barriers to pragmatic
cooperation
Handling different perspectives well bilaterally can help promote the success of
multilateral climate change negotiations
Recommendation #2: Build a clean energy framework for cooperation

“Clean energy”—a key component of addressing climate change—provides a more

politically attractive framework for U.S.-China bilateral cooperation than does climate
change per se
Clean energy evokes fewer ideological differences and nests cooperation in better-
established policy and bureaucratic communities
A focus on clean energy can help highlight benefits in related areas, from economic
growth and recovery to local air pollution reduction to national security
Recommendation #3: Highlight one or two major headline initiatives

When it comes to cooperation on climate change, the U.S. and China should think big
and aim high
It is important to capture the public’s imagination
Candidates for headline programs include efforts to electrify vehicle fleets, maximize the
energy efficiency of buildings, launch pilot projects in carbon capture and storage,
and/or bring together millions of volunteers from each country to work in a new “Clean
Energy Corps”
Recommendation #4: Emphasize co-development of technology

The U.S. and China have complementary strengths in technology development

The U.S. and China should announce one or more major technology co-development
projects
Each side will need to help meet the concerns of the other on difficult issues including
intellectual property protection, enforcement of contracts and concessional financing
Recommendation #5: Promote local-to-local cooperation

Local initiatives in both countries are numerous, dynamic and creative

National-level cooperation should include as a high priority specific measures to enhance
the capacities for local programs in the two countries to link up
Recommendation #6: Promote capacity building

The United States has technical capabilities in areas such as standards setting, regulation
and law drafting, large-scale database management, and instrumentation that can
contribute significantly to Beijing’s capacities to monitor and evaluate energy policy
outcomes
Currently, insufficient capacity in these areas is a serious impediment to achieving the
desired outcomes from China’s national government initiatives
Washington should assist in enhancing Beijing’s capacity to monitor and evaluate its
energy policy outcomes
Recommendation #7: Seek common ground on the nature of future commitments

This is one of the most challenging issues in multilateral climate change negotiations,
typically dividing developing countries from industrialized countries
U.S.-China bilateral discussions cannot resolve this issue, but agreement on approaches
could help significantly to shape broader multilateral agreements to fight global warming
U.S.-China dialogue on the nature of future greenhouse gas emissions commitments can
thus help promote agreement on this topic in multilateral negotiations
Recommendation #8: Use and improve existing structures for cooperation

Build on existing agreements and programs

Create a new dialogue on climate change and clean energy to parallel the existing
Strategic Economic Dialogue
Form a “U.S.-China Clean Energy Partnership”
Recommendation #9: Highlight clean energy in a U.S.-China summit

Hold a U.S.-China summit meeting as soon as it can be fully prepared

Make cooperation on climate change and clean energy a key pillar of this summit
Agreement between the senior leaderships is a critical step toward serious U.S.-China
climate change and clean energy cooperation
Have the declaration of a clean energy partnership and affirmation of shared deep
concern about climate change mark the inauguration of a new stage in U.S.-China
relations, one that promotes the capacity of both countries to consult and cooperate on
the most critical issues on the changing global agenda of the 21st century
Chapter 4 summarizes much of the foregoing in the form of a memo to the presidents of
both countries, highlighting the key points in the report as a whole. The memo identifies
four principal obstacles to successful cooperation between the U.S. and China on climate
change and clean energy:

mutual distrust
different expectations on technology
different expectations on finance
common expectations of high costs
The memo recommends six guiding principles to shape activities of senior leaders on
these topics:

Respect and work with each other’s concerns

Think big
Select several flagship projects
Build for the long-term
Do not start with efforts that require substantial new budgetary appropriations
Focus on economic opportunity
Together, the U.S. and China can make important progress in fighting global warming by
cooperatively promoting clean energy. This can become an important foundation for the
U.S.-China bilateral relationship in the years ahead. Wise leaders working together can
produce great benefits for their own countries and the world.

China is Eager to Participate in Climate Negotiations With The US

Li 6/7- Jin, Winner of CDL Environmental Journalist of the Year “Xie Zhenhua’s
comments come as two sides’ top officials meet in Beijing to discuss range of issues,
including tensions over China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea”
(http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1967010/climate-
change-efforts-show-how-china-us-can-resolve , 6/21)
China and the United States’ cooperation in tackling climate change is
an example of how they can work together to resolve their differences,
Beijing’s top climate change negotiator said on Monday.

The way the two had cooperated on the issue was a model example of
the new type of relationship sought by President Xi Jinping, said Xie
Zhenhua.

Xie was speaking on the sidelines of the annual Strategic and Economic
Dialogue between top US and Chinese leaders, which is under way in
Beijing.

The two sides are discussing issues including rising tensions between
Beijing and Washington over China’s territorial claims in the South
China Sea.

“[As long as we can] increase mutual understanding, build mutual trust

and respect each other’s core interests and major concerns, we can
always find solutions to our differences,” Xie said.

The climate deal negotiator dedicated much of his 30-minute briefing to

lauding how leaders had worked together on the issue.

Their cooperation included three joint statements by Xi and Barack

Obama since 2014 that laid some of the foundations for a climate deal
in Paris last year.

Ensuring the Paris agreement went into force as soon as possible would
be a major task for China and the US this year, Xie said.
“ Cooperation on climate change between the two countries is a highlight
in the new type of major power relations , as well as an exemplar of a new
global governance system ,” he said.

The countriesdecided to bury the hatchet and stop challenging and

blaming each other during climate talks after the failure of the 2009
Copenhagen summit to reach a global deal.

Since Xi took office three years ago he has called for a “new type of
major power relations”, based on cooperation and respect, to govern
China-US ties. Washington’s response has been lukewarm.

Xie said China would encourage more countries’ initiatives on new

energy, energy efficiency and carbon emission reduction when it hosted
the G20 meeting of major economies later this year.

US Treasury Secretary Jake Lew said the US would work with China on
new green finance initiatives that China would launch during its G20
presidency.

“We can only reach the unprecedented levels of funding needed for
climate financing by using a variety of channels, including development
finance institutions, direct bilateral assistance, the multilateral
development banks and new funds, such as the Green Climate Fund
and China’s South-South Climate Cooperation Fund,” he said.

US China Relations are Key to Solving Climate Change, Will Save US China
relations
FlorCruz 15- Michelle, World News Reporter and content producer for IBT media
“Solving Climate Change Problem Rests on U.S.-China Cooperation”(
http://asiasociety.org/blog/asia/solving-climate-change-problem-rests-us-china-
cooperation, 6/21)

On the heels of the UN Climate Summit in Paris, Kevin Rudd, president of the Asia
Society Policy Institute (ASPI), and Orville Schell, the Arthur Ross Director of Asia
Society’s Center on U.S.-China Relations, discuss the pivotal role American and Chinese
cooperation will play in addressing global climate change.
“The climate change problem will not be solved if the U.S. and China don’t get together,”
Schell said during the panel event at Asia Society Northern California on December 18,
2015, which was moderated by Bruce Pickering, vice president of Global Programs at
Asia Society. “Doesn’t matter what the Europeans do, the Japanese … what matters is the
U.S. and China.”
Though cooperation between the two countries may not be easy when it comes to other
topics, Schell says that climate change is one topic that the two economic giants can see
eye-to-eye on.
“We’re not going to find common interest in the South China Sea, the East China Sea,
Tibet, human rights, probably in trade, a thousand things where we’re going to disagree,”
Schell said, adding that “climate change may end up being the kind of the great savior of
the U.S.-China relationship.”
“What has brought these two massive emitters together is I think, an American
recognition that you can’t just walk away from this problem, despite the problems of the
U.S. Senate,” Rudd said. “Secondly, Chinese self-interest at home because of carbon
pollution and air pollution within cities — having a huge impact on mortality by the way
— and then in addition to that, China’s international reputational stakes.”
Rudd says that while the work at the Climate Summit was of global interest, it is not a
coincidence that China has stepped into the role as a leader in the fight against climate
change as the nation solidifies its position as a global powerhouse.
“China doesn’t want to be seen internationally as the global pariah state when it comes to
climate change,” Rudd said. “China deciding that its global reputation, under Xi Jinping’s
leadership, is such that you can’t just stand out there and allow it to be trashed is one
factor in why China has acted.”

US China cooperation through AIIB solves warming

Innes-Ker 15 (Duncan Innes-Ker, responsible for the Economist Intelligence Unit's
flagship China product, the China Country Report, and for producing the EIU's economic
forecasts for the country. He has contributed in-depth studies on issues such as China's
labour market and environmental policies, and has also been involved in forecasting
market sizing and development for Chinese sectors such as automotives and agriculture.
Besides covering China, Duncan is responsible for providing analysis and economic
forecasts on a number of Asian economies, including Hong Kong, Macau and Mongolia.
http://www.eiumedia.com/index.php/component/comprofiler/userprofile/DuncanInne
s-Ker. “How to Improve U.S.-China Relations”) //VN

Second, as the world’s leading sources of foreign direct investment, the United States
and China, along with the European Union and Japan, should develop a shared financing
and investment framework that complies with best climate practices. Given the
developing world’s enormous infrastructure needs, adopting strategies and technologies
that would limit the impact of development on climate change is essential. The Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank—despite the lack of formal participation by the United
States—could lead the way.

Third, and most important, both United States and China must ensure that they fulfill
their own climate commitments. As China’s economy slows, some climate benefits such
as falling coal consumption will likely follow. It is also possible, however, that there will
be pressure to relax rather than tighten environmental regulations. In the United States,
President Obama continues to fight an uphill battle with Congress over his efforts to
strengthen the U.S. climate commitment. In his remaining year in office, he needs to
institutionalize his policies. If Presidents Obama and Xi cannot deliver at home, they will
not be able to deliver abroad.
 Impact- extinction

Climate Change is a major threat to global biodiversity and causes species

extinction
Cahill et al 16 (Abigail E. Cahill† , Matthew E. Aiello-Lammens† , M. Caitlin Fisher-
Reid, Xia Hua, Caitlin J. Karanewsky, Hae Yeong Ryu, Gena C. Sbeglia, Fabrizio
Spagnolo, John B. Waldron, Omar Warsi and John J. Wiens)
Anthropogenic climate change is recognized as a major threat to global biodiversity, one
that may lead to the extinction of thousands of species over the next 100 years [1 –7].
Climate change is an especially pernicious threat, as it may be difficult to protect species from its effects, even within reserves [8,9].
Furthermore, climate change may have important interactions with other anthropogenic impacts (e.g. habitat loss [2,6]). Given this,
understanding the responses of species to modern climate change is one of the most pressing issues facing biologists today. But what do we
actually know about how climate change causes extinction? It might seem that limited physiological tolerances to high temperatures should
be the major factor that causes climate change to threaten the persistence of populations and species, and many studies have justifiably
focused on these tolerances [10–13]. However, there may be many other proximate causes of extinction, even when anthropogenic climate
change is the ultimate cause. These proximate factors include negative impacts of heat-avoidance behaviour [14], the climate-related loss of
host and pollinator species [15,16] and positive impacts of climate change on pathogens and competitors [17,18], among others. The relative
importance of these factors is unclear and has not, to our knowledge, previously been reviewed, despite increasing interest in mechanisms
underlying the impacts of climate change [19]. Identifying these proximate causes may be critical for many reasons. For example, different
proximate factors may call for different conservation strategies to ameliorate their effects [20]. These different proximate factors may also
influence the accuracy with which the impacts of climate change are predicted and may drive populations to extinction at different rates. In
this paper, we address three topics related to how anthropogenic climate change causes extinction. First, we briefly review and categorize
the many proposed factors that potentially lead to extinction from climate change. Second, we argue that there is already abundant evidence
for current local extinctions as a result of climate change, based on the widespread pattern of range contractions at the warm edges of
species’ ranges (low latitude and low elevation). Third, and most importantly, we perform to the best of our knowledge, the first large-scale
review of empirical studies that have addressed the proximate causes of local extinctions related to climate change. This review reveals some
unexpected results. We find that despite intensive research on the impacts of climate change, only a handful of studies have demonstrated a
proximate cause of local extinctions. Further, among those studies that have identified a proximate cause, very few implicate limited
physiological tolerance to high temperatures as the main, direct cause. Instead, a diverse set of factors are supported, with species
interactions being particularly important. Finally, we outline some of the research approaches that can be used to examine the proximate
factors causing extinction from climate change. 2. Proximate factors causing extinction from climate change We briefly review and
categorize the diverse proximate factors that may cause extinctions due to climate change. We organize these factors by distinguishing
between abiotic and biotic factors (following the literature on species range limits [21]). However, all factors are ultimately related to abiotic
climate change. We make several caveats about this classification. First, we emphasize broad categories of factors, so some specific factors
may not be included. Second, some factors are presently hypothetical and have not yet been demonstrated as causes of extinction. Third, we
recognize that these factors are not mutually exclusive and may act synergistically to drive extinction. They may also interact with other,
nonclimatic factors (e.g. habitat modification [2,6]) and many different ecological and demographic factors may come into play as
populations approach extinction [22]. Finally, we do not address factors that impede climate-induced dispersal. (a) Abiotic factors (i)
Temperature ( physiological tolerances) Many effects of anthropogenic climate change follow from an increase in temperature. The
most obvious proximate factor causing extinction is temperatures that exceed the
physiological tolerance of the species [10,12]. This factor may be most important in sessile organisms and those with
limited thermoregulatory ability, and in regions and time scales in which temperature increase is greatest. The impacts of
temperature may also be more indirect, but still related to physiological tolerances. For
example, in spiny lizards (Sceloporus), local extinctions seem to occur because higher temperatures restrict surface activity during the
spring breeding season to a daily time window that is overly short [23]. Similarly, increased air temperatures may both decrease activity
time and increase energy maintenance costs, leading organisms to die from starvation rather than from overheating [14]. In aquatic
organisms, increased water temperatures may lead to increased metabolic demand for oxygen while reducing the oxygen content of the
water [24]. Variability in temperature may also be an important proximate cause of extinction [25], including both extreme events and large
differences over the course of a year. In temperate and polar latitudes, a mismatch between photoperiod cues and temperature may be
important, with fixed photoperiod responses leading to activity patterns that are inappropriate for the changed climate [26]. Here, both low
and high temperatures could increase mortality rates and lead to population extinction. (ii) Precipitation ( physiological tolerances)
Anthropogenic changes are also modifying precipitation patterns [27], and these changes may drive extinction in a variety of ways. For
example, decreasing precipitation may lead directly to water stress, death and local extinction for terrestrial species [28], and loss of habitat
for freshwater species or life stages [29,30]. There may also be synergistic effects between heat and drought stress (e.g. in trees [31]).
Changing precipitation may be more important to some species than changing
temperature, sometimes leading to range shifts in the direction opposite to those
predicted by rising temperatures [32]. (iii) Other abiotic factors Other abiotic, non-climatic factors
may drive extinctions that are ultimately caused by climate change. For example, climate
change can increase fire frequency, and these fires may be proximate causes of extinction
(e.g. in South African plants [33]). Similarly, increases in temperature lead to melting icecaps and rising
sea levels [27], which may eliminate coastal habitats and modify the salinity of
freshwater habitats [34].
 Impact- laundry list
Climate Change has many impacts: human health concerns, water shortage,
damage to personal property, and impacts to plants and animals
European Union 02/06/2016-
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences/index_en.htm
Climate change affects all regions around the world. Polar ice shields are melting and the
sea is rising. In some regions extreme weather events and rainfall are becoming more
common while others are experiencing more extreme heat waves and droughts. These
impacts are expected to intensify in the coming decades. Melting ice and rising seas When water
warms up it expands. At the same time global warming causes polar ice sheets and
glaciers to melt. The combination of these changes is causing sea levels to rise, resulting
in flooding and erosion of coastal and low lying areas. Extreme weather, shifting rainfall
Heavy rain and other extreme weather events are becoming more frequent. This can lead
to floods and decreasing water quality, but also decreasing availability of water resources
in some regions. Consequences for Europe Southern and central Europe are seeing more frequent heat waves, forest
fires and droughts. The Mediterranean area is becoming drier, making it even more vulnerable to drought and wildfires.
Northern Europe is getting significantly wetter, and winter floods could become common. Urban areas, where 4 out of 5
Europeans now live, are exposed to heat waves, flooding or rising sea levels, but are often ill-equipped for adapting to
climate change. Consequences for developing countries Many poor developing countries are among
the most affected. People living there often depend heavily on their natural environment
and they have the least resources to cope with the changing climate. Risks for human health
Climate change is already having an impact on health: There has been an increase in the
number of heat-related deaths in some regions and a decrease in cold-related deaths in
others. We are already seeing changes in the distribution of some water-borne illnesses
and disease vectors. Costs for society and economy Damage to property and infrastructure and to
human health imposes heavy costs on society and the economy. Between 1980 and 2011 floods
affected more than 5.5 million people and caused direct economic losses of more than €90 billion. Sectors that rely
strongly on certain temperatures and precipitation levels such as agriculture, forestry,
energy and tourism are particularly affected. Risks for wildlife Climate change is happening
so fast that many plants and animal species are struggling to cope. Many terrestrial,
freshwater and marine species have already moved to new locations. Some plant and
animal species will be at increased risk of extinction if global average temperatures
continue to rise unchecked.

There are many impacts to climate change

EPA Apr 11, 2016- www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/health.html
As a society, we have structured our day-to-day lives around historical and current climate
conditions. We are accustomed to a normal range of conditions and may be sensitive to
extremes that fall outside of this range. Climate change could affect our society through
impacts on a number of different social, cultural, and natural resources. For example,
climate change could affect human health, infrastructure, and transportation systems, as
well as energy, food, and water supplies. Number of days likely to exceed 100°F by the
end of this century - in low and high emissions scenarios. Source: USGCRP (2009) Some groups of people will
likely face greater challenges than others. Climate change may especially impact people who live in
areas that are vulnerable to coastal storms, drought, and sea level rise or people who are
poor. Similarly, some types of professions and industries may face considerable challenges
from climate change. Professions that are closely linked to weather and climate, such as
outdoor tourism and agriculture, will likely be especially affected. Impacts on Vulnerability and Equity
Projected climate change will affect certain groups of people more than others, depending on where they live and their
ability to cope with different climate hazards. In some cases, the impacts of climate change would worsen
existing vulnerabilities. Where people live influences their vulnerability to climate change. Over the past
four decades, population has grown rapidly in coastal areas and in the southern and
western regions of the United States. These areas are most sensitive to coastal storms,
drought, air pollution, and heat waves. [1] Populations in the Mountain West will likely
face water shortages and increased wildfires in the future. [1] Arctic populations will likely
experience problems with melting permafrost and reduced sea ice. [1] Along the coasts and across the
western United States, both increasing population and changes in climate place growing
demands on transportation, water, and energy infrastructure. [1] [2] Elderly people are particularly
prone to heat stress. Ability to Cope Different groups have different abilities to cope with climate change impacts.
People who live in poverty may have a difficult time coping with changes. These people
have limited financial resources to cope with heat, relocate or evacuate or respond to
increases in the cost of food. [1] [2] Older adults may be among the least able to cope with impacts of climate
change. Older residents make up a larger share of the population in warmer areas of the United States. These areas will
likely experience higher temperatures, tropical storms, or extended droughts in the future. [1] Young children are
another sensitive age group, since their immune system and other bodily systems are still
developing and they rely on others to care for them in disaster situations. [2] To find out more
about climate change and health, please visit the Health Impacts page. Native Americans Native Americans
are particularly vulnerable to projected changes in climate for a number of reasons. Their
communities are closely tied to specific reservation boundaries that restrict their ability
to relocate to avoid climate change impacts. Their opportunity to change their livelihoods may be limited,
and they may have difficulty coping with impacts, including those on water resources, agriculture and ecosystems. For
example, tribes located in the Southwest are projected to experience changes in water quality and water availability on
their lands. [1] Furthermore, climate change may significantly affect cultural traditions practiced by tribes. For example,
certain Alaskan Natives have cultural ties with animals, such as seals and caribou, which will experience changes to their
habitats. [1] Urban Populations City residents and urban infrastructure have distinct
sensitivities to climate change impacts. [1] For example, heat waves may be amplified in
cities because cities absorb more heat during the day than suburban and rural areas.
Cities are more densely populated than suburban or rural areas. In fact, more than 80% of
the U.S. population lives in urban areas. As a result, increases in heat waves, drought, or
violent storms in cities would affect a larger number of people than in suburban or rural
areas. [1] Higher temperatures and more extreme events will likely affect the cost of
energy air and water quality, and human comfort and health in cities. City dwellers may
also be particularly susceptible to vulnerabilities in aging infrastructure. This includes drainage
and sewer systems, flood and storm protection assets, transportation systems, and power supply during periods of peak
demand, which typically occur during summer heat waves. Federal crop and flood insurance, and non-
weather-related losses represent about 10% of the total each. Privately insured weather-
related events represent roughly 70% of the losses. In the 1980s losses fluctuated around two to five
billion dollars. In 1992 and 2001 there are small peaks at about 30 billion dollars. In 2004 and 2005 losses reached about
75 billion dollars. View enlarged image Weather-related and non-weather-related insurance losses over time. Smaller-
scale losses (many of which are weather-related) are not shown since they are not comprehensively reported by the U.S.
insurance industry. Impacts on Economic Activities and Services Certain areas of the United
States benefit from being located close to natural resources that support the local
economy. Climate change could threaten these resources, as well as the goods and
services they produce and the jobs and livelihoods of those who depend upon them. [1] For
example, climate change will likely affect farming communities, tourism and recreation,
and the insurance industry. Communities that developed around the production of different agricultural crops,
such as corn, wheat, or cotton, depend on the climate to support their way of life. Climate change will likely
cause the ideal climate for these crops to shift northward. Combined with decreasing
rural populations, as in the Great Plains, a changing climate may fundamentally change
many of these communities. Certain agricultural products, such as maple syrup and
cranberries in the Northeast, may disappear entirely from the United States. These crops
would then have to be imported. [1] Climate change will also likely affect tourism and recreational activities.
A warming climate and changes in precipitation patterns will likely decrease the number
of days when recreational snow activities such as skiing and snowmobiling can take
place. In the Southwest and Mountain West, an increasing number of wildfires could affect hiking and recreation in
parks. Beaches could suffer erosion due to sea level rise and storm surge. Changes in the migration patterns
of fish and animals would affect fishing and hunting. Communities that support
themselves through these recreational activities would feel economic impacts as tourism
patterns begin to change. [1] Climate change may make it harder and more expensive for many people to insure
their homes, businesses, or other valuable assets in risk-prone areas. Insurance is one of the primary
mechanisms used to protect people against weather-related disasters. [1] We rely on insurance
to protect investments in real estate, agriculture, transportation, and utility infrastructure by distributing costs across
society. Climate change is projected to increase the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as heat waves,
droughts, and floods. These changes are likely to increase losses to property and cause costly
disruptions to society. Escalating losses have already affected the availability and
affordability of insurance. More frequent losses, increased variability in the type and
location of impacts, and increases in widespread losses that occur at the same time
would increase the risks to insurers and their customers. [1]
 Impact- econ
Climate change has a huge impact on the economy
Time 2015 http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-impact/
Temperature change will leave the average income around the world 23% lower in 2100
than it would be without climate change. Temperature rise due to climate change may
radically damage the global economy and slow growth in the coming decades if nothing
is done to slow the pace of warming, according to new research. The researchers behind
the study, published in the journal Nature, found that temperature change due to
unmitigated global warming will leave global GDP per capita 23% lower in 2100 than it
would be without any warming. “We’re basically throwing away money by not addressing
the issue,” said Marshall Burke, an assistant professor at Stanford University. “We see our study as providing an
estimate of the benefits of reducing emissions.” The economic effects of climate change may be even
worse than this study makes them sounds. The research relies on historical data from
countries around the world on how temperature increase has affected productivity. This
means the study does not account for the economic impact of sea level rise, storms or
any of the other expected effects of climate change beyond simple warming. “Sea level
rise, increased storm intensity…if you think those things are going to worsen the effects
of climate change, then our estimates would be an underestimate of the potential
impacts, which is sort of terrifying,” said Burke. This study is far from the first to suggest that climate change
will slow economic growth. Big business has been especially keen on highlighting the potential damage. A Citigroup
report released last month found that minimizing temperature rises to 2.7ºF (1.5ºC)
could minimize global GDP loss by $50 trillion compared to a rise of 8.1ºF (4.5ºC) in the
coming decades. The study breaks down productivity into agricultural and non-
agricultural fields. The effect of agricultural productive is easy to explain: crops grow
most productively within a certain temperature range. (The effects of warming on crop productivity
have been well documented.) But research still don’t know why warm weather decreases productivity for workers in other
fields. The anticipated spike in temperatures will not affect the world evenly, according to the study. Productivity
peaks when temperatures in a given region average 55ºF (13ºC), meaning warming may
actually increase productivity in cold northern countries while devastating the tropics.
That means climate change could also worsen global inequality—northern countries are
in general already better off than tropical ones. The study comes just weeks before negotiators from
around the world are scheduled to meet at a United Nations conference on climate change in Paris later this year.
University of Gothenburg Professor Thomas Sterner, who wrote an editorial to accompany the study, said he hopes
the new evidence of the economic effects will encourage leaders of developing countries
to agree to strong action to address climate change. “The situation is pretty bleak,” said
Sterner. “This is really a call to action.”
North Korea
 2ac — North Korea addon

US-China cooperation key to check North Korean aggression

Gady 16- Franz, a Senior Fellow with the EastWest Institute, “Sino-US Cooperation
Over North Korea Is Now More Important Than Ever”
(http://thediplomat.com/2016/03/sino-us-cooperation-over-north-korea-is-now-more-
important-than-ever/, 6/22/16, JD)
China and the United States share the same short-term interests on the Korean
Peninsula, perhaps best summarized in Beijing’s long-standing policy vis-à-vis North Korea of “no war, no instability, no nukes.” (不
战、不乱、无核) Neither side is interested in a military solution to ongoing tensions between North and South Korea. Neither party, despite
US rhetoric to the contrary, wants to topple the Kim Jong-un regime and see the North descend into chaos amid a succession or unification
crisis. And neither
Beijing nor Washington desire a nuclear-armed North Korea further
fueling tensions in an already volatile region of Asia. China and the United States
continue to disagree on the right tactical approach to achieving these three objectives—the
former preferring quiet diplomacy and continuous engagement with Pyongyang, the latter favoring publicly pressuring the regime with
sanctions to change its behavior— and both countries also pursue markedly different long-term strategic goals on the Korean Peninsula.
However, the Obama administration’s policy of “strategic patience” (putting pressure on the regime while calling for North Korea to return
to the Six-Party Talks) is a de facto acceptance of the unlikelihood of the reunification of North and South Korea in the near future. As a
consequence, there will be no way around Kim Jong-un in the years ahead, and Beijingand Washington will have to
find a way to deal with the regime, no matter how distasteful. Apart from this apparent confluence of
Chinese and US interests, there are three reasons why both countries need to cooperate more tightly than
ever on managing the ongoing crisis on the Korean Peninsula. First, given the Republic of Korea (ROK)
government’s uncompromising stance with respect to North Korean provocations, there will be an increased chance of
more severe inter-Korean crises occurring over the next two years. (There will be little chance of a
Korean-led détente initiative until the end of the presidency of Park Geun-hye in 2018, given the government’s current policies.) Second,
notwithstanding repeated calls for putting a “military option” back on the table, a large-scale joint US-ROK military operation against North
Korea is increasingly becoming less realistic. Third, ongoing tensions on the Korean Peninsula have the potential to undermine trust and
increase military competition between China and the United States, a development that is set to detrimentally affect overall Sino-US
relations and cannot be in the interest of either party. Seoul, under the government of Park Geun-hye and after repeated provocations from
the North, has abandoned engagement and stepped up its bellicose rhetoric and uncompromising stance against North Korea. Over the last
decades, both sides have mastered the game of bringing tensions to the precipice and then pulling back. However, as tensions rise, there is
less and less flexibility in this perennial brinkmanship with both sides in danger of losing control during a future confrontation as martial
propaganda and provocations will reach unprecedented heights. In addition, there is little understanding how much control Kim Jong-un
genuinely exercises over the military and the party and whether they would stand down in the face of South Korean provocations when
given the order by the supreme leader. Certain South Korean policies have also helped to further fuel tensions. For example, ever since
2010, South Korea has implemented a “disproportional response” theory of deterrence. As John Delury, a professor at Yonsei University,
explained in an interview with The Diplomat: “Seoul has proclaimed that for every one shot fired by the North, the South will hit back with 3
to 5 times greater force. That principle for deterring the North along the contested maritime border seems to apply to the DMZ
[Demilitarized Zone] as well.” This concept of deterrence increases the chance of an escalating spiral of attacks and counter-attacks that
could eventually lead to full-scale war. A military confrontation on the Korean Peninsula has the potential to once more draw in both the
United States and China. Beijing is committed to the defense of the North under the 1961 Sino-North Korean Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, whereas the United States and South Korea have kept a mutual defense treaty since 1953. However,
China has repeatedly said that in a conflict provoked by the North, it would not uphold its treaty obligations. (Indeed, according to a US
scholar, China has tried to have the clause requiring it to defend North Korea revoked.) Any type of large-scale military operation on the
Korean Peninsula will almost certainly involve large-scale destruction of human life and property. As the commander of US forces in South
Korea, General Curtis Scaparrotti recently testified: “Given the size of the forces and the weaponry involved, this would be more akin to the
Korean War and World War II–very complex, probably high casualty.” North Korean artillery could shell Seoul with thousands of rounds
within the first hour of a full-scale war. Yet, certain weapon systems could make a confrontation even worse than the Korean War. Next to
an arsenal of approximately 700 (potentially nuclear-armed) Soviet-designed short-range ballistic missiles (and an unknown number of
intermediate-range and long-range missiles), North Korea also has one of the world’s largest chemical weapons stockpiles including
mustard, phosgene, and sarin gas. According to a RAND study cited by the Congressional Research Service, “One ton of the chemical
weapon sarin could cause tens of thousands of fatalities.” Pyongyang has also made substantial investments in special operations forces,
cyber weapons, and unmanned aerial vehicles to offset the South’s conventional military advantage. Even short of full-scale war, the
tensions on the Korean Peninsula have the potential to derail the Sino-US relationship. For example, China vehemently is opposing the
deployment of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) to South Korea. Yet, Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile tests over the last
couple of weeks, finally convinced Seoul to move forward with plans to station the US missile defense system in the South. China sees the
deployment of THAAD as an outright provocation not only designed to thwart North Korea’s missiles but also its own military power. “We
are firmly opposed to the deployment of the THAAD system on the Korean Peninsula and urge relevant parties to act cautiously. No harm
shall be done to China’s strategic security interests,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in March 2016. While Washington and
Seoul could have used the potential deployment of THAAD merely as a threat to obtain China’s cooperation on imposing tougher UN
sanctions on North Korea (something US diplomats have denied), the diplomatic consequences of stationing THAAD in South Korea could
hobble the Sino-US strategic relationship and cause China to retaliate in other areas, for example in the South China Sea or in cyberspace,
where it feels threatened by US military power. This could further fuel the ongoing US-China arms race in the Asia-Pacific region.
Consequently, given
ongoing inter-Korean political dynamics, the disastrous consequences of
full-scale war on the Korean Peninsula, and the potential of ongoing inter-Korean crises
to disrupt and damage the China-US relationship, it is of vital interest to both Beijing
and Washington to craft a more constructive approach towards North Korea, centered
around dialogue and persistent diplomatic initiatives and despite a new set of UN
sanctions. As John Delury noted in an email exchange with The Diplomat: “Sanctions work best when
implemented and more important lifted in the context of negotiation, and a robust
diplomatic process backed by political will on both [all] sides.” This does not necessarily mean the
resumption of Six-Party Talks, but rather quiet backdoor channel diplomacy laying the groundwork for future negotiations. A diplomatic
deal with the United States and South Korea might be useful for Kim Jong-un at this juncture given that it would cement his legitimacy in
the upcoming Seventh Korean Workers Party Congress in May 2016. “We should stop fighting the idea of his [Kim Jong-un’s] existence, and
instead use our leverage inherent in helping him deepen his legitimacy to get things we want,” according to Delury. One sign that the United
States would be open to such a dialogue, presumably spearheaded by China, is that US Secretary of State John Kerry on February 23rd
did not outright dismiss the suggestion of Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi “to pursue
in parallel tracks the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the replacement of
the Korean armistice with a peace agreement.” For the time being and no matter how
unpleasant, Beijing and Washington have a vested interest in stable relations with
Pyongyang and the timing might just be right for a concerted Sino-US diplomatic effort.
Indeed, it is a political necessity.

That’s a bigger internal link to Japanese prolif

F. Michael Maloof 13 “NORTH KOREA NOW THREATENING JAPAN” 04/11/2013 at
3:19 PM www.wnd.com/2013/04/north-korea-now-threatening-japan/#! // JS
North Korea today expanded its saber-rattling, which earlier included threats against South Korea and
the United States, to target Japan, which the renegade nation is claiming is conspiring
with the U.S. to pose a military threat. Specifically, the North Koreans took aim at the
prospect that the U.S. intends to use Japan to deploy Global Hawk drones. It claims the U.S.
intends to use a base there to launch the flights to keep a closer eye on the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. This
military nexus is bound to entail unpredictable consequences as it is a dangerous action
of escalating the regional tension,” a North Korean statement said. The U.S. had indicated that it
would begin to send pilotless drones over the DPRK as a form of Indications and Warning, or I&W, to determine its
preparedness in moving troops and especially missiles. “We once again warn Japan against blindly
toeing the U.S. policy,” the North Korean ruling party newspaper, Rodong Sinmun, said. “It will have to
pay a dear price for its imprudent behavior.” Japan’s concerns over North Korea’s threat to launch
missiles with nuclear weapons have prompted the Japanese government to
consider developing its own nuclear weapons as a deterrent. In turn, such a
major policy change by Japan will get the attention of China, which remains leery of Tokyo since the
end of World War II. However, Beijing may have more concern over the possession of nuclear weapons and delivery
systems by North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, over whom Beijing has discovered it has little influence. Indeed, China’s
inability to prevent North Korea from undertaking recent missile and nuclear tests prompted Beijing to vote in favor of
sanctions against North Korea in the United Nations Security Council. North Korea has threatened to
launch missiles, possibly on the occasion of the 101st anniversary of the birth of the founder of North Korea, Kim Il-
sung, on April 15. The rogue nation also recently threatened to strike U.S. military
bases in Japan , some of which are located among the 33 million residents of the
Tokyo region. Japan has been vocal in threatening to shoot down any North Korean
missiles that use a flight path over Japan, using some of the Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems the U.S.
delivered to Japan. In addition to Aegis systems, Japan also has deployed Patriot anti-missile batteries
in and around Tokyo as a second line of defense, with the Aegis systems being positioned closer to North
Korea itself between the Korean peninsula and Japan. The U.S. military also has its own Patriot batteries which are
located on bases in Okinawa, the Japanese island that has some 50,000 members of the U.S. military. There are
increasing indications that the North Koreans are readying their Musudan medium-range missile, which would be capable
of reaching not only Japan but also Guam where the U.S. has a considerable military presence. U.S. satellites have been
able to pinpoint at least two sites in recent days where North Korean missiles could be launched. Both are located on the
east coast of the DPRK. However, the trajectory for the missiles remains unknown. The new leadership in Japan, however,
promises a more militant approach to North Korean threats. Japan’s recently elected prime minister, Shinzo Abe, is
more hawkish and is pushing for Japan to revise its constitution and develop more of an
offensive military capability . Given the threats to Japan from North Korea, this
could include the development of nuclear weapons . Japan certainly has the
industrial capacity to do so. Already, what is regarded as a “third force” in Japanese party politics is being
led by Shintaro Ishihara, who recently was the governor of Tokyo. He is regarded as even more hawkish than Abe and not
only has called for revision of the Japanese constitution but to develop nuclear weapons.
 Uniq

North Korea has the capability to launch a long-range missile that could
deliver a nuke to the continental US
Heinrichs 16 - (Rebeccah L., her work has appeared in major newspapers such as The
Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, The Washington Times, and Investor’s
Business Daily as well as political journals such as Politico and The Hill, served as an
adviser to Rep. Franks (R-AZ), a member of the House Armed Services Committee, and
helped launch the bi-partisan Missile Defense Caucus, holds a Master of Arts degree in
national security and strategic policy from the U.S. Naval War College, March 30,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/30/north-korea-nuclear-threat-
more-us-defensive-measu/ “More U.S. defensive measures wise response”)
Does the brutal, provocative and nuclear-armed North Korean regime actually pose a
threat to the United States? In recent weeks, Pyongyang has increased the seriousness of
its threats to include preemptively attacking with nuclear weapons both the United
States and South Korea during the allies’ annual joint military exercises. This comes on
the heels of North Korea’s fourth underground nuclear explosion and yet another long-
range missile test in the form of a satellite launch. Perhaps its most concerning
missile is the mobile KN-08, which Admiral William Gortney, the commander of
Northern Command, recently testified before Congress could deliver a nuclear
weapon to much of the continental United States. Although the regime leader is in
the habit of making empty threats, the United States cannot afford to bank on the hope
Kim Jong-un is crying wolf. Analysts who view international relations with a rosier, more
idealist outlook remain skeptical. They try to tamp down such ominous threat analyses
like that of Admiral Gortney’s, and are quick to point out that the regime has yet to
actually prove it has mastered the ability to deliver a long-range missile. It is true North
Korea has yet to demonstrate a technically challenging part of a missile launch — when
the reentry vehicle reenters the atmosphere as it descends upon the desired target — or
that it can accomplish this feat with a weighty nuclear payload atop. But it has
demonstrated enough technical prowess to give the Pentagon confidence
that it likely could do it, however imprecise its targeting may be. Of course, precision
is less demanding when the intended target is a landmass the size of the United States.
Even with poor accuracy, a long-range missile, especially one armed with a nuclear
weapon, enables the North Koreans to credibly threaten and blackmail the United States.
But! the skeptics insist, even if North Korea were to achieve the ability to attack the
United States with a nuclear weapon, it simply would not, because doing so would be
irrational and counter to its national goals, chief among them “regime survival.”
However, the reality of a regime like North Korea — one of the most repressive
countries in the world, in which its people face murder, torture, enslavement, rape, labor
camps, and forced abortions at the hands of their own government — must cause
analysts to admit their own limitations in predicting with certainty what the
regime leader is or is not willing to do.

Korea is capable and of reaching all of Japan, South Korea, and Guam—it’s
arsenal and capabilities are rapidly expanding.
Klinger 6/22 – (Bruce, a senior research fellow for Northeast Asia at the Asian Studies
Center, http://dailysignal.com/2016/06/22/north-korea-advances-missile-threat-
capabilities/, “North Korea Advances Missile Threat Capabilities”)
After a series of previous failures, Pyongyang achieved partial success with the most
recent launches of its Musudan intermediate-range ballistic missile. On June 21, the two
Musudan missiles traveled 150 and 400 kilometers—far short of a fully successful test
but indicating incremental progress toward eventually achieving its estimated range of
3,500 kilometers. North Korea’s four previous Musudan test flights in April and May
2016 had all exploded shortly after launch. Pyongyang achieved similar partial progress
this year with its submarine-launch ballistic missile (SLBM) traveling 30 kilometers after
several previous explosions immediately after launch. The Musudan missile is assessed
to be North Korea’s means to threaten U.S. bases in Guam, a critical node in allied plans
for defending South Korea. Earlier this month, North Korea’s National Defense
Commission warned that “The Korean People’s Army has long put into the range of its
precision strike the U.S. bases and logistic bases for invading the DPRK [Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea], including the Anderson Air Force Base on Guam where B-
52Hs are deployed and naval bases for nuclear submarines.” Pyongyang’s willingness to
repeatedly test fire the Musudan and submarine-launch ballistic missiles so quickly after
failures is unusual and reflects North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s commitment to
rapidly augmenting his missile and nuclear arsenal. In addition to the Musudan and
submarine launches this year, Kim has tested a nuclear weapon, an intercontinental
ballistic missile, reentry vehicle technology, a new solid-fuel rocket engine, and an
improved liquid-fuel ICBM engine. While North Korea continues development of the
Musudan and submarine-launch ballistic missile systems, the regime has made greater
progress on other missiles. Adm. Bill Gortney, commander of North American
Aerospace Defense Command, assessed that North Korea is capable of putting a
nuclear warhead on the No Dong medium-range ballistic missile that can
reach all of South Korea and Japan. In April 2015, Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, then-
commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified that North Korea “have stated that
they had had intercontinental missiles and they had a nuclear capability,
and they paraded it. As a commander, I think, we must assume that they
have that capability.” Other experts assess Pyongyang will have an ICBM
capability in one to two years. The accelerated pace of North Korean nuclear
and missile tests reflect Kim’s intent to deploy a spectrum of missiles
systems of complementary ranges to threaten the U.S. and its allies with
nuclear weapons. Kim affirmed at the National Party Congress in May—the first held
in 36 years—that North Korea will never negotiate away its nuclear weapons .

North Korea threat is real- missile test confirms

Lonzo Cook and Jason Hanna '16 “North Korea claims missile test” June 23, 2016
successwww.cnn.com/2016/06/22/asia/north-korea-missile/ // JS
North Korea claimed on Thursday to have conducted a successful test-firing of an
intermediate-range missile -- an apparent reference to a missile that the South Korean
military said was fired into the sea one day earlier. The military state's government-run
news agency reported that the country fired a Hwasong-10 -- also known as a Musudan -- and that
it landed accurately in waters about 400 kilometers (249 miles) down range. The statement was
reiterated by a North Korean Foreign Ministry official at its embassy in Beijing. "We are very happy. The
Hwasong-10 means our transportation method has clearly succeeded. This means we
can now confidently deal with whatever nuclear war the U.S. force s ," Choe
Sonhui, the General of the Department of U.S. Affairs of North Korea Foreign Ministry said
at a news conference. "What we are doing is trying to cope with the current situation where the
United States is trying to threaten the DPRK with nuclear weapons , so we are
trying to strengthen our nuclear capabilities in order to cope with threats
that are imposed on the DPRK," she added, using an acronym for the country typically used by
government officials. However, South Korean and U.S. officials previously said that North Korea had fired two Musudan
intermediate-range missiles from its eastern coast on Wednesday morning, including one that traveled 400 kilometers
before it fell into the Sea of Japan. The other flew 150 kilometers (93 miles) and is considered a failed launch, according to
a South Korean military official. The South Korean military's assessment of North Korea is that it
has "significantly improved their Musudan missile's engine technology," according to a statement
from the spokesperson of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff. The spokesperson added that it was too early to call the
second North Korea launch Wednesday a success. Cmdr. Dave Benham, spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command, said
this week that both missiles were believed to have fallen into the Sea of Japan, also known as the East Sea. North
Korea's latest test of the Musudan missile was a "partial success" which has "finally demonstrated the full
performance of the missile's propulsion system," according to analysis from 38 North, a North Korea
monitoring project based in Washington, DC. The report says that although the Musudan is "not a reliable weapon," the
launch "increases the likelihood" that North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) "will reach operational
status early in the next decade."
 China key
China key to North Korean prolif
The Indian Express, 6/22- “Pakistan’s sale of nuclear materials to N Korea hushed
up by China” (http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/pakistan-china-nsg-
north-korea-nuclear-materials-2869252/, 6/23/16, JD)

Pakistan is continuing to sell nuclear materials to North Korea, while at the same time
urging the international community to accept its membership to the Nuclear Suppliers
Group (NSG), according to highly placed US sources who are involved with the tracking
of nuclear commerce.
In making this dramatic revelation, the sources said that entities of the Pakistan Energy
Commission (PAEC) have been continuing to supply restricted Items such as ‘ Monel ‘
and ‘ Inconel ‘ material to North Korea in violation of UN sanctions.
The sources said that nuclear materials supplied to the PAEC by Chinese entities have
also found their way to North Korea, with the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA)
recently receiving a written complaint that supplies of a Chinese company, Beijing
Suntech Technology Company Limited, to Pakistan were being diverted to North Korea
by the Pakistani authorities.
The Chinese Government hushed up the matter as it could have consequences for
Beijing’s bid to support Pakistan at the NSG. But this information leaked out of North
Korea and came to the knowledge Of Western Governments who are members of the
NSG.
NSG entry: 'Any exemption to India must also apply to Pakistan'China pushes ahead
with Pak nuclear plant expansionStanding up to North KoreaPak woos China energy
investmentIndia's N-ambition runs up into China'sUS seeks more info from China on its
N-deal with PakNSG entry: 'Any exemption to India must also apply to Pakistan'China
pushes ahead with Pak nuclear plant expansionStanding up to North KoreaPak woos
China energy investmentIndia's N-ambition runs up into China'sUS seeks more info
from China on its N-deal with PakNSG entry: 'Any exemption to India must also apply to
Pakistan'China pushes ahead with Pak nuclear plant expansionStanding up to North
KoreaPak woos China energy investmentIndia's N-ambition runs up into China'sUS
seeks more info from China on its N-deal with Pak
In another alarming revelation, informed sources said Pakistan has been giving North
Korea equipment which has a direct bearing on producing nuclear weapons. Sources said
the Beijing Suntech Technology Company Limited manufactures Vacuum Induction
Melting (VIM) furnaces which find application in refining hard metals such as uranium
and plutonium, which are used in making nuclear warhead cores. Pakistan is known to
have procured these items from China and has passed them along to North Korea.
When asked if this evidence of Pakistan’s illicit nuclear trade with North Korea has been
brought to the notice of NSG nations, US sources said all proof and evidence which
confirms the violation of sanctions against North Korea and more so the ongoing
dangerous nuclear trade has been brought to the notice of “those who need to be
informed at the NSG level.”
Behind the scenes Pakistan is aware that it’s nuclear trade with North Korea has been
uncovered, but is counting on China to keep the global pressure at bay, said sources.
 Relations solves

China & North Korea relations are worsening, China U.S. engagement
Solves relations and North Korea problem

Bandow 15, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute “China Should Propose Discussions with
America to Solve the North Korean Crisis” (http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-
policy/china-should-propose-discussions-with-america-to-solve-the-north-korean-
crisis/, 6/22/16,JD)
Many U.S. policymakers see China as the answer to North Korean proliferation. If
Beijing would just tell the North’s Kim Jong-un to behave, East Asia’s biggest problem
would disappear.

China-US-North Korea

Of course, it’s not that simple. To be sure, the People’s Republic of China has influence in
Pyongyang, but the latter always has jealously guarding its independence. Kim is no
more likely than his father to let reason get in the way of his rule.

Still, the current regime does not appear to be as stable as its predecessors. The boy
leader has executed some 400 officials since taking over from his father four years ago.
The list is topped by his uncle, then the North’s most important interlocutor with the
PRC. Powerful Chinese pressure, if backed by economic sanctions, might encourage now
incipient opposition.

The China-North Korea relationship goes back to the Korean War. However, no one on
either side of the Yalu views the two nations as close as teeth and lips, as once was said.
Today, relations appear worse than at any time over the last five decades. Beijing does
little to hide its dissatisfaction. But the PRC has not yet proved willing to abandon its
sole ally. Its reluctance is understandable. Violent conflict within the Democratic
People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), mass refugee flows across the Yalu, loss of Chinese
investments, and a united Korea hosting U.S. troops are all possibilities no PRC
government desires. China’s interest is almost purely negative, avoiding what the DPRK
could become.

Yet, China also recognizes that the status quo is not just uncomfortable, but untenable.
Despite the PRC’s commitment to nonproliferation, the North continues to move
forward with its nuclear program. Kim almost certainly does not want war, which his
country would lose, but the newbie dictator may not know how to stop as well as how to
provoke conflict. Unpredictable and insubordinate, the DPRK has even proved to be a
dubious economic investment.

In fact, Beijing no longer bothers to hide its dissatisfaction with the North. President Xi
Jinping has met six times with South Korean President Park Geun-hye but has not met
once with Kim. In September, Geun-gye enjoyed a place of honor next to Xi at China’s
military parade, while the DPRK representative, Choe Ryong-hae, was barely seen.
Chinese academics and analysts, as well as advocates on social media, routinely criticize
the DPRK. The People’s Liberation Army still values its relationship with the North—
China’s only ally in the region—but a small buffer state matters little in a world of
nuclear-tipped nuclear missiles.

This leaves just enough room for the possibility of a modus vivendi between the U.S. and
China.

Neither country wins with today’s DPRK. The latter’s hallmarks are proliferation, brutal
repression, instability, and war threats. Pyongyang recently declared that it was
strengthening its nuclear arsenal and denounced the call from other nations, read the
PRC, for “restraint.” Some experts believe the North could construct dozens of nuclear
weapons by 2020. Both Washington and Beijing would benefit from a “new” North of
some sort, whether independent or reunited with the South.

However, a deal will require the PRC to take the lead. Unfortunately, U.S. officials are
inclined to lecture Beijing over each action the country should take. China must tell
Washington that cooperation is possible, but that Beijing requires guarantees before
taking tougher action against the North.

The big issues would be process and endpoint. China should indicate its willingness to go
along with the U.S. to change the North’s behavior, and government, if necessary—if the
PRC is protected from the consequences. Only Beijing could decide on the necessary
conditions, but several obvious issues include financial support for refugees,
acquiescence to Chinese military intervention post regime collapse, guarantees for
existing economic deals, and U.S. troop withdrawal from a united Korea.

South Korea also would have to be brought into any discussions, but the ROK’s warming
relationship with Beijing suggests that Seoul would be receptive to a deal. The U.S. still
would be likely to resist, since it would have to yield its pretensions of regional
dominance, acknowledging that it no longer could dictate relations in Northeast Asia.

It won’t be easy to win such a concession, especially from uber-hawks who imagine that
Washington need only threaten other nations to get its way. However, North Korea has
become one of America’s losing battles. Despite presidents having insisted for at least
two decades that Pyongyang cannot be allowed to become a nuclear state, it has done so.
Despite having no great strategic interests post-Cold War in a peninsula nestled among
several major Asian powers, the U.S. maintains an expensive garrison in the South and
remains a constant rhetorical target of a bizarre, unstable hereditary communist regime
in the North. Despite urging China to deal with the problem, Beijing has shown no
interest in removing the DPRK from America’s hands.

But it would be worth much to the U.S. if the PRC did so. The U.S. could drop North
Korea from its enemies list, turn South Korea’s defense over to the South Koreans,
reduce overall military commitments and spending, ease tensions with Beijing, and
improve East Asian security without pervasive American military involvement. In fact,
this should be Washington’s objective in a world in which populous, prosperous nations
like South Korea should long ago have graduated from America’s defense dole. America
could even avoid the stigma of being a supplicant if Beijing proposed talks.

North Korea is a challenge for both the U.S. and China. While there is no obvious or easy
answer, U.S.-Chinese cooperation offers the best hope for maintaining peace on the
Korean peninsula. Washington has pressed for action without acknowledging the need to
negotiate. Beijing should respond favorably but insist on negotiation. Then the world’s
two greatest powers would have an opportunity to cooperate.

U.S China relations help solve North Korea proliferation

Bachman 16. (Henry M. Jackson Professor of International Studies University of
Washington, Seattle. March 2016. Balancing Cooperation and Competition: A New Era
In U.S.-China Relations Task Force Report. Pages 7-8.
https://digital.lib.washington.edu/researchworks/bitstream/handle/1773/36217/TaskF
orceAReport-2016-Bachman.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)

Recent history has indicated that a positive bilateral relationship between the U.S. and
China based on mutual respect and recognition of benefits is possible. Over the past
decades the U.S. and China have developed ever-closer trade and investment ties as
China has embraced free-market economic behavior, leading to profound economic
interdependence between the two nations. In an increasingly globalized world, China’s
integration into multilateral systems of financial governance such as the World Trade
Organization (WTO) have demonstrated China’s willingness to conform to international
norms and standards. In the security sphere, China’s evolving policy towards North
Korea and nuclear proliferation have made positive strides despite recent setbacks.
Despite the victory of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in Taiwan’s January 2016
elections, both the U.S. and China have taken a pragmatic approach to maintaining
current political and diplomatic arrangements. Bilateral cooperation on environmental
policy, highlighted by a series of agreements culminating in last year’s 21st Conference of
the Parties (COP21) Paris Agreement, is another collaborative opportunity for both
countries, as is increasing cooperation in emergent policy fields such as intellectual
property (IP) and cybersecurity.

Despite this recent progress, U.S.-China relations continue to face challenges. The
increasing capabilities of China’s military, which have expanded rapidly in recent years,
have manifested themselves in a number of territorial disputes and other confrontations
with neighbors in the South China Sea over territorial and resource objectives. The
technological superiority of U.S. forces in the region, on whom regional powers like
Japan and the Republic of Korea (ROK) depend for many of their security arrangements,
has narrowed as China arrays increasingly sophisticated naval, air, and missile
capabilities opposite U.S. and other forces in the region. Security issues, and the
uncertainty of how far China is willing to pursue its security objectives, were at the heart
of America’s recent “pivot to Asia.” Despite their close economic linkages serious
disagreements between the U.S. and China remain in some areas, especially regarding
foreign direct investment (FDI) regulations and access to the Chinese market, theft of
intellectual property, and cyber crime. Additionally, a host of macroeconomic questions,
such as whether China will win or lose big by creating a parallel set of financial
institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), whether its
erratic fiscal and currency policies will finally catch up to it, and whether China’s slowing
growth and market volatility will have global repercussions, remain unanswered.
Although not a major policy agenda item, the cause of China’s poor human rights record
has been taken up by activists throughout the U.S. and elsewhere, pitting global civil
society actors and international laws and norms against a Chinese desire for national
unity, security, and order. These issues present no easy avenue for resolution, which
means that compromise between the U.S., China, and other parties will be essential if
progress is to be made in these areas
 Impacts

NoKo’s millisles threaten Japanese security, causes rush to arms race

Kim, Park and Starr 06/22/16
Jung-eun Kim, Madison Park and Barbara Starr ‘s “North Korea fires two missiles, South
Korea says” www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/asia/north-korea-missile/ June 22, 2016 // JS
North Korea fired two missiles Wednesday morning from its eastern coast, according to South Korean
and U.S. officials. Both are believed to be Musudan intermediate-range missiles, fired from the North Korean port city of
Wonsan, said Cmdr. Dave Benham, spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command. "According to the U.N. Security
Council resolution, any launches that involve ballistic missile technology are a violation of
the treaty and we think this is clearly a provocation towards us," South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon Hee said
at a regularly-scheduled press briefing. The first missile flew 93 miles (150 kilometers), and is considered a failed launch, according to a
South Korean military official. The second missile traveled 249 miles (400 kilometers) and the data is still being analyzed by the South
Korean military, the official told CNN. North
Korea has made at least four previous attempts this year
to test this type of missile. Both missiles were tracked over the Sea of Japan, also known as the
East Sea, "where initial indications are they fell," Benham said. Benham said the missile launches did not pose a threat to North America.
Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that his country could "never forgive" the test,
which he stressed was in violation of U.N. resolutions. "We can never forgive this and lodged a
firm protest," he told reporters from Kumamoto, southern Japan. "We would like to continue taking a close coordination with the
U.S. and South Korea and working on North Korea (at) the United Nations, so that North Korea would not conduct
such an action again." Japan's Defense Minister Gen Nakatani told reporters that the first
missile launch did not affect the country's security, but he also called for immediate
meetings to take all possible measures to protect Japan . He made the comments before the
second missile launch. The first missile launch occurred at 5:58 a.m. local time and the South Korean military presumed that one had been
a failure, according to a spokesperson from the country's Joint Chiefs of Staff. About two hours later, North Korea fired the
second missile at 8:05 a.m. local time, according to the spokesperson. He said further analysis is being conducted. The
U.S. State Department condemned the recent missile tests in a statement: "We are aware of
reports that the DPRK fired two ballistic missiles. We are monitoring and continuing to assess the situation
in close coordination with our regional allies and partners." The United States advised
North Korea to stop its ballistic missile tests and said it only strengthened the international community's resolve to
press forward with U.N. sanctions. The United States said it would also defend its allies, South Korea and Japan, and called its commitment
to them "ironclad." "We remain prepared to defend ourselves and our allies from any attack or provocation," according to U.S. State
Department spokesperson John Kirby.
Solvency
 AT: No China rise

Chinese Internal Problems Causes External Lashout

Armitage & Nye 12- Armitage is president of Armitage International, a trustee of CSIS,
Former United States Deputy Secretary of State. Nye is dean emeritus of the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University, trustee of CSIS, director of the Center for
International Affairs, Dillon Professor of International Affairs, deputy to the U.S. under
secretary of state for security assistance, science, and technology, and chaired the
National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the
National Intelligence Council. “The US-Japan Alliance: Anchoring Stability in Asia”, p.
9 // J.T.
A China that stumbles badly could present the alliance with challenges that are not
neces- sarily smaller—just different. We all have much to gain from a peaceful and
prosperous China. Alternatively, Chinese leaders confronting severe internal pressures
could take refuge in national- ism, perhaps exploiting an external threat, real or
imagined, to re-forge unity. To sustain order, the leadership could turn to ever more
draconian measures, exacerbating existing human rights violations, alienating some
foreign partners, and undermining the political consensus that has driven
Western engagement with China since the Nixon opening 40 years ago.
 Say yes

China wants US to join AIIB

Larouche Pac, 7-1-2014, "China Invites U.S., Europe To Join The Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, Have South Korea And Australia Already Joined?," Lyndon LaRouche
PAC, http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31184
China has again emphasized the importance of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
with a new statement by a top economic official that expressly invites the participation of
the United States and Europe
According to a China Daily report
"Wei Jianguo, vice-chairman and secretary-general of the China Center for International
Economic Exchange, said on the sidelines of the Boao Forum for Asia that the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) plans to start with $50 billion from governments
and at least another $50 billion from financial institutions and private capital."
"Wei said the multilateral bank aimed to attract more than 30 nations [earlier reports
mentioned only 22]. He emphasized that the AIIB is an open and inclusive platform that
welcomes not just nations from Asia but others as well, including the United States and
European countries.
"Members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations plus South Korea and Australia
are slated to join the platform, while Japan has not yet decided, he said."
China Daily quotes Jin Liqun, former finance vice-minister and head of the Working
Group for Establishment of the AIIB, saying at the meeting that China has held three
rounds of talks with interested Asian countries, and an intergovernmental memorandum
of understanding on setting up the bank is due to be signed this autumn.
Responding to attacks from the West that China doesn't have Green conditions on their
investments, Jin said: "We have confidence that we can build a bank to high
international standards, and we will do our best in project evaluation, environment
protection, local culture conservation, promoting continuous economic growth and
improving people's livelihood."
Zhou Wenzhong, secretary-general of the Boao Forum for Asia, said the problem now is
not the scarcity of funds but the lack of a "tangible financing platform and a viable
business model" to convert a massive fund in and out of Asia into infrastructure
spending.
Chinese officials and scholars have dismissed the notion that the new institution is
intended to be a rival project with other lenders such as the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank, stressing that the AIIB complements other agencies because it will
focus on infrastructure, China Daily said. Other Chinese reports positioned the AIIB as a
direct response to the inadequacies of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Bank Choice Is Major Alliance Issue For South Korea In Face Of U.S. Threat
With Chinese President Xi Jinping arriving in Seoul July 3 bearing an invitation for
South Korea to join as a founding member of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
(AIIB), the choice before the South Korea government is clearly presented in the major
media.
The Joongang Daily reported that Caroline Atkinson, the U.S. deputy national security
adviser for international economics, expressed U.S. concerns about Korea being part of
the AIIB project, in a meeting with a senior Korean government official from the
Ministry of Strategy and Finance in the United States earlier this month.
JoongAng reported on June 27 that Washington expressed its concerns about Korea
joining the AIIB through the U.S. Embassy in Seoul early this month. The paper added
that Seoul's joining the AIIB "will test Korea's adroitness in engaging deeply with the two
superpowers without estranging either."
Another major journal, the Korea Herald, presents China's increasing role in
development of Asia: "In the broader context of international politics, China experts
noted that Xi's visit to Seoul comes at an important juncture, with the rising Asian power
seeking to expand its regional influence based on its economic and military clout. China
has recently called for a new Asian security structure excluding the U.S., revealed a new
'Silk Road' vision to expand its cultural and economic reach in the region and beyond,
and sought to establish the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a scheme analysts say
is intended to establish a China-led regional financial order. Amid all these moves, the
summit between South Korea and China will take place. This is the reason why the world
is closely watching what kind of agreement will come out of the summit."
South Korea has time and time again insisted that it is not interested in joining Obama's
anti-missile defense that is targeted against China, and has kept out of the TPP for
similar reasons.

China still wants US to join AIIB

Global Trade Review (GTR), 09-23-2015, "Xi Xinping invites US to join AIIB,"
http://www.gtreview.com/news/asia/xi-jinping-reiterates-us-invitation-to-aiib/
Chinese President Xi Jinping has confirmed his government’s position that the US is
welcome to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).
In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, published on the eve of Xi’s state visit to
America, he wrote, in emailed answers: “In addition to Asian countries, countries outside
Asia such as Germany, France and the UK have also joined the AIIB. China welcomes the
US to join the AIIB. This has been our position from the very outset.”
The development of the AIIB has led many to conclude that it is a response to China’s
relative isolation from the Bretton Woods architecture which has dominated global
development and trade for the past half century. Along with the One Belt One Road
programme, it is viewed as part of China’s efforts to create a development lending
platform in its own image.
The US’ failure to join some of its key western allies as a founder member was criticised
by analysts at home and abroad. Niels Marquardt, the CEO of the US Chamber of
Commerce in Australia, described it to GTR as a “case of how not to advance the national
interest in diplomatic terms” adding that it “didn’t work, so we ended up looking silly”.
However Xi denied claims that China’s new US$100bn development bank was designed
to replace or rival the existing US-backed institutions such as the World Bank and IMF,
saying that “such reform is not about dismantling the existing system and creating a new
one to replace it. Rather, it aims to improve the global governance system in an
innovative way”.
He cited the Asian Development Bank (ADB) statistics, which show that from 2010 to
2020, the annual shortfall in funding for Asian infrastructural development is around
US$800bn.
Xi wrote: “The AIIB serves as a new option to meet this shortfall, and it is therefore
welcomed by both Asian countries and the wider international community. But as the
funding shortage is huge, it is clear that the AIIB alone cannot possibly meet such
demand. As an open and inclusive multilateral development agency, the AIIB will
complement other multilateral development banks.”
“There is a potential economic part. There is money to be made if you can increase the
infrastructure, in both delivering and using said infrastructure,” Deborah Elms, Asia
Trade Centre
While the glaring infrastructural gap is undeniable and the need for additional funding is
acknowledged by virtually everyone involved in trade in Asia, others are more realistic
about the potential political aims of the AIIB.
“I think with the AIIB, there is a potential economic part. There is money to be made if
you can increase the infrastructure, in both delivering and using said infrastructure. But
there is a political part of this, saying: we want to show that we can play a role since
we’ve been so cut out of leadership positions in things like the ADB, World Bank, IMF,
we will just make our own thank you very much,” Deborah Elms, chair of the Asia Trade
Centre, tells GTR.
Overall, Xi’s words had a conciliatory tone: “China and the United States account for one
third of the world economy, one fourth of the global population, and one fifth of global
trade. If two big countries like ours do not co-operate with each other, just imagine what
will happen to the world.”
The co-operative stance was outlined further this week, when AIIB President elect Liqun
Jin met ADB President Takehiko Nakao in Beijing, with the pair renewing their
“commitment to working together for the development of Asia, and agreed to start the
process to identify ADB’s future projects that AIIB may be able to co-finance,” according
to a statement.
Meanwhile, speaking at a conference in Singapore on Saturday, Jin claimed that the AIIB
has been approached by 20 additional countries, which hope to become future members.
He denied that the AIIB would be a “China bank”, favouring Chinese companies, instead
saying that it would act in the regional interest.
The bank already has 57 member states and is expected to start lending to projects in
2016.
Neg Answers
Uniq
 No China Rise

No China Rise, Internal Problems Check

Armitage & Nye 12- Armitage is president of Armitage International, a trustee of CSIS,
Former United States Deputy Secretary of State. Nye is dean emeritus of the Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University, trustee of CSIS, director of the Center for
International Affairs, Dillon Professor of International Affairs, deputy to the U.S. under
secretary of state for security assistance, science, and technology, and chaired the
National Security Council Group on Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the
National Intelligence Council. “The US-Japan Alliance: Anchoring Stability in Asia”, p.
9 //J.T.
The alliance’s strategy toward China has been a blend of engagement and hedging,
befitting the uncertainties about how China might choose to use its rapidly growing
comprehensive nation- al power. But most aspects of the allied hedge against China’s
growing military power and political assertiveness—the gradual expansion in the
geographic scope of alliance activities, joint work on missile defense technologies,
heightened attention to interoperability and to missions related to sustaining sea lines of
communication, e orts to strengthen regional institutions such as the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), renewed focus on freedom of navigation, and the
launch in December 2011 of a new trilateral U.S.-Japan-India strategic dialogue—have
been based on the assumption that China will continue along a path of high economic
growth, making possible comparable increases in defense spending and capabilities.
That assumption is no longer assured. As China moves into its fourth decade since the
launch of “reform and opening up” by Deng Xiao-ping in 1979, there are many
indications that growth is slowing . Questions exist about the ability of China to move
from an export-led to internal- consumption-driven economy. In the years ahead,
China’s leaders will have to tackle at least six demons: energy constraints,
calamitous environmental degradation, daunting demographic realities,
widening income inequality among people and provinces, restive ethnic
minorities in Xinjing and Tibet, and endemic social corruption. Economic
success adds to this list the uncertainty of coping with the “middle income trap,”
whereby a growing middle income cohort puts exceptional pressure on the Chinese
political structure to meet rising expectations. Any one of these challenges could
derail China’s economic growth path and threaten social stability. The
Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is aware of these daunting challenges, which is one
reason its leaders boosted spending on internal security to more than $120 billion for
2012, roughly comparable to the defense budget. The PLA remains focused on
developing the wherewithal to deal with external threats, including deterring Taiwan
from moves toward de jure independence. But, the CCP is equally concerned
about internal threats.
Climate change
 Relations can’t solve

No amount of U.S – China relations can solve for climate change, we are
past the breaking point
Tayag 16’ (3/7/16, Yasmin Tayag, “When It Comes to Climate Change, It’s Too Late
Now to Say Sorry,” https://www.inverse.com/article/12516-when-it-comes-to-climate-
change-it-s-too-late-now-to-say-sorry// ML)
Any discussion of climate change inevitably boils down to a single phrase: two degrees
Celsius.
The somewhat arbitrary number represents the hard limit to the amount of global
warming we can permit before we hit the point of no return.
Last year, experts at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contended that
while the window to slow down carbon emissions was closing, there was still time to slow
down the Earth’s irreversible demise by increasing the share of renewable energy to 80
percent up from 30 percent. But a new report from meteorologist Eric Holthaus
in Slate makes it clear that the northern hemisphere has breached that two-degree mark
over normal, pre-Industrial temperatures. We have, it seems, already failed.
He explains that February was somewhere between 1.15 and 1.4 degrees Celsius above
the long-term average, making it “the most above-average month ever measured.” While
the “official” temperature data sets haven’t been released yet — data from NOAA’s
MLOST, NASA’s GISTEMP, and the UK’s HadCRUT are the most highly cited —
Holthaus argues that it really doesn’t matter because the recent numbers are so high that
tiny fluctuations wouldn’t make much of a difference.
Emphasizing that temperatures are not only rising but that the rate at which they’re
increasing is speeding up, he writes:
Keep in mind that it took from the dawn of the industrial age until October 2015 to reach
the first 1.0°C rise. That means we have come as much as an extra 0.4°C further in just
the last five months.
We already know 2015 was the hottest year on record, with the effect of our flagging
efforts at curbing emissions exacerbated by the crazy-strong El Niñoeffect.
If Holthaus is right — that it’s too late to turn back — it signals a need to switch the focus
of our climate change plans from prevention to contingency. Scientists like Stanford
University’s Rob Jackson, Ph.D., already skeptical of the efficacy of the two-degree limit,
have suggested chasing options such as “negative-emission energy,” which will allow us
to retract the emissions we’ve already dumped into the atmosphere. That technology
doesn’t exist yet, but it’s clear that it’s going to have to happen much sooner rather than
later.
“This is a milestone moment for our species,” Holthaus writes. “Climate change deserves
our greatest possible attention.”
 Not anthro

The Earth has been decreasing in Tmperature longer than it has been
increasing
Jack Kelley, Pittsburg Post Galette, March 29th 2014, http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-
caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275
The first five months of 2014 have been the coldest since the National Weather Service
began keeping records in 1888. If “climate change” alarmists got out more, they might
have noticed.
Between 1979 — when weather satellites started measuring temperatures in the lower
troposphere — and 1997, they rose about 1.1 degrees Celsius (1.98 degrees Fahrenheit).
Temperatures stopped rising then, have fallen since 2012. The “pause” in warming (212
months) is now longer than the warming trend was (211 months).
The earth has warmed about 16 degrees F since the last ice age. The net increase since
1979 — 0.19 degrees C (0.34 F) — is well within the range of natural fluctuation.

The 97% argument is flawed and inaccurate

Jack Kelley, Pittsburg Post Galette, March 29th 2014, http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-
caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275
So why, as President Barack Obama says so often, do 97 percent of scientists agree
climate change is “real, man-made, and dangerous?”
They don’t. This bogus stat is derived from two questions University of Illinois
researchers asked in a survey of earth scientists in 2008:
1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures
have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean
global temperatures?”
The researchers culled from 3,146 responses those of 79 climate scientists who’d been
published in peer reviewed journals. Seventy-six answered “risen” to the first question;
75 “yes” to the second.
Temperatures have risen since the Little Ice Age ended around 1870, skeptics agree.
Most think the activities of humans have some effect on them.

Greenhouse Gas isn’t enough Even if it is human produced

Jack Kelley, Pittsburg Post Galette, March 29th 2014, http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-
caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275
The key question is whether that effect is big enough to do harm, but that’s not what the
scientists were asked.
John Cook, climate communication fellow (a publicist, not a climate scientist) at the
University of Queensland in Australia and eight colleagues examined abstracts of 11,944
articles on climate published between 1991 and 2011.
“Among abstracts expressing a position . . . 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position
that humans are causing global warming,” they concluded in a paper last May.
Which is as meaningless as the “consensus” in the two-question survey, for the same
reason.
Skeptics agree humans cause some warming. Mr. Cook et. al. included papers by
prominent skeptics Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nocola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel
Morner and Alan Carlin in their 97.1 percent “consensus.”
Only 41 papers (0.3 percent) explicitly state support for Mr. Cook’s assertion that
humans have caused most of the warming since 1950, former Delaware state
climatologist David Legates and three colleagues found in a peer reviewed study last
September.
“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 9 percent
climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below
1 percent,” Mr. Legates said.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 285 parts per million 250
years ago to about 380 ppm today. CO2 is a “greenhouse” gas -- it holds heat in the
atmosphere -- so if humans are generating more, it should have a warming effect.

Greenhouse Gases Aren’t enough of the atmosphere to have a huge effect

Jack Kelley, Pittsburg Post Galette, March 29th 2014, http://www.post-
gazette.com/opinion/jack-kelly/2014/05/29/The-facts-don-t-add-up-for-human-
caused-global-warming/stories/201405290275
But probably not much of one. Greenhouse gases comprise less than 1 percent of the
earth’s atmosphere; carbon dioxide is less than 4 percent of greenhouse gases; 96
percent of CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by Mother Nature.
Compared to variations in solar radiation and other natural forces, the effect of
greenhouse gases on climate is trivial.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide,
methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,”
says a petition signed by more than 31,000 American scientists in climate-related
disciplines.
That’s rather more than 79 or 41. There is no scientific consensus on human-caused
global warming, and there shouldn’t be.
“If it’s science, it isn’t consensus,” said Mr. Soon, a solar expert at the Harvard-
Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. “If it’s consensus, it isn’t science.”
Scientists search for truth by observation and experimentation, not by taking polls.
Consensus is a political concept.
The skeptics are true to the scientific method. The abusers of science are those who
politicize it.
Econ
 Econ high

US economy overall is good and will continue to grow

Perryman 6/22/16 (M. Ray Perryman is president and chief executive officer of The
Perryman Group. He also serves as Institute Distinguished Professor of Economic
Theory and Method at the International Institute for Advanced Studies.
https://riograndeguardian.com/perryman-the-long-term-outlook-for-the-
u-s-economy-2/. “PERRYMAN: THE LONG-TERM OUTLOOK FOR THE U.S.
ECONOMY” //VN
The U.S. economy is on fairly solid ground, and our latest forecast calls for moderate
growth over the long-term horizon. There are several areas of concern and business
cycles are inevitable, but on balance, I expect improvement in the years to come.

Unemployment rates continue to trend downward, though the pace of hiring has slowed
to some extent in recent months and the economy is at or near levels traditionally
designated as “full employment.” Even so, long-term unemployment (defined as persons
jobless for 27 weeks or more) remains stubbornly high, as does the number of workers
employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-
time workers). However, through 2040, employment is forecast to grow at a pace faster
than population expansion, leading to tighter labor markets (and, potentially, higher
wages) in the future.

On the domestic front, the Federal Reserve is expected to slowly raise target interest
rates in response to growth in the U.S. economy. However, if conditions deteriorate, the
normalization of monetary conditions will take longer. It is important that the Federal
Reserve proceed with caution in raising rates, as too much too fast could stifle future
growth. At the same time, there is a need to move toward normalcy to improve the
Federal Reserve’s balance sheet and ensure inflation remains under control. It is a
delicate balancing act which will affect long-term economic performance.

The aging of the U.S. workforce will be an ongoing trend, as the large baby boom
generation continues to retire. Skills gaps in some professions and trades are likely to
emerge which could impair future growth, although this risk may be overcome by
technological advances.

In addition, labor force participation will be a persistent problem, and, over time, the
situation could affect standards of living. Currently, almost 95 million Americans over
the age of 16 are neither working nor looking for a job. The labor force participation rate
(the proportion of the civilian labor force either employed or unemployed, but looking)
has been falling for years and currently stands at 62.6 percent, according to June 2016
data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). With a large and growing percentage
of the population not working, pressure will increase for those who do have jobs to
generate output, income, and tax receipts.

Wage stagnation and the larger issues of income inequality and wealth concentration will
also cause future problems if not addressed. However, incentivizing corporations to
invest in employees is challenging, and forcing the issue could make the problem worse.
From an international perspective, economies around the world are struggling with
sluggish growth. Recent projections from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) indicate very slow expansion through the near term for
industrialized nations and only slightly better performance for emerging markets. The
large Chinese economy continues to slow, though the pattern has stabilized to some
extent. Recessions are affecting Russia and Brazil.

In addition to sluggish economic performance, tensions remain high in several areas,

with terrorist attacks and other incidents increasing uncertainty. Middle Eastern
economies are working to adjust to the current low oil price environment, which is
causing some dislocations. The stability of the European Union is another source of
downside risk, as debt, deficits, a refugee crisis, and unrest among key member nations
weigh on the region and, hence, its major trading partners (including the U.S.).

Looking out through 2040, my latest projections indicate that US economic output will
more than double from the current level. Long-term growth in real gross product is
forecast to be about 3.08% per year, which would generate expansion of some $18.6
trillion and a 2040 level of $34.9 trillion.

I am estimating that employment will grow by 1.46 percent per year over the period. This
projected rate would result in expansion in U.S. wage and salary employment from 141.9
million to 204.0 million, a gain of about 62.1 million net new jobs by 2040.

It looks like consumer prices will increase slightly, but inflation will remain under
control. Interest rates will likely trend upward (due in part to Federal Reserve policy
normalization, as noted above). Real personal incomes are projected to grow by about
2.57 percent per annum over the long term.

Although I see significant risks from both domestic and international issues, I feel better
about growth prospects than in the not-so-distant past. For one thing, we are finally
working through some of the fallout from the Great Recession and the housing market
problems. In addition, the economy has shown notable stability in the face of significant
upheaval both in the U.S. and across the globe. All in all, my latest forecast leaves me
cautiously optimistic, with the hope that reductions in uncertainty can improve ultimate
performance.

Despite Brexit, the US economy will continue to grow

Lawder 6/22/16 (David Lawder, Reuters global economy, trade, IMF correspondent.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-imf-idUSKCN0Z81JZ. “IMF sees
U.S. economy in 'good shape', too many in poverty” //VN
The International Monetary Fund said on Wednesday the U.S. economy was "overall in
good shape," with growth set to regain momentum despite an overvalued dollar, but it
warned that too many Americans were dropping out of the workforce or living in
poverty.

The IMF expects U.S. economic growth of 2.2 percent in 2016, a downgrade from 2.4
percent it forecast in April. But the Fund maintained its outlook for growth to recover to
2.5 percent in 2017, with inflation rising slowly toward the Federal Reserve's goal of two
percent, it said in a statement at the conclusion of its annual review of U.S. economic
policies.
 Brexit thumps

Brexit collapses world economy

Economist 6/24 – (http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-
economics/21701292-uncertainty-abounds-expect-global-chilling-effect-investment-
why-brexit; June 24, 2016)
The collapsing pound will drive up inflation up, crimpling real incomes . Some jobs will go.
Hours worked and wage growth will fall. And Britain is big enough for a recession there
to have a meaningful effect on Europe’s economy. As a rule of thumb, whatever the reduction
in Britain’s GDP growth, Europe’s economy will suffer a drop of about half as much.

Brexit will hurt the world economy in other ways. A big concern is the extent to which a
retreat from financial risk will disturb the existing fault lines in the world economy , notably in
China and southern Europe. Italy has a referendum of its own (on constitutional
change) in October. Matteo Renzi, Italy’s reform-minded prime minister, says he
will resign if the result goes against him. The Brexit vote scarcely helps his
chances. A widening of bond spreads in southern Europe seems likely in the run-
up to the poll. The European Central Bank can intervene to swamp the
symptoms of anxiety by buying bonds, but it can’t do much more to cure the
underlying problem of weak growth.

It is trickier to draw a line from Brexit to China. A weaker European economy will
certainly hurt Chinese exports. Perhaps a bigger risk is a renewed bout of dollar strength,
as Europe’s currencies weaken, which might in turn put renewed downward pressure on the yuan.

Even if some investors have short horizons, tumbling stockmarkets reflect some long-
term worries. If Britain, long a champion of free trade, can vote to revoke a regional trade deal,
how much faith can businesses worldwide put in other international economic agreements? An
EU shorn of Britain’s deregulating influence is a troubling portent for the liberal
world order. Nationalist, populist and protectionist forces in other countries will be greatly
encouraged by Brexit. The WTO recently gave warning that protectionist trade measures in the
G20 are multiplying at their fastest rate since 2008 . In such circumstances, it would be
surprising if the Brexit vote did not have some chilling effect on investment worldwide. It
makes curbs on migration of workers a little more likely, which will be costly for
businesses. And if Europe exports some of its misery to Asia and America through weaker
currencies, it may increase pressure for restrictions on capital flows, too .

A lot depends on the kind of trade deal Britain can negotiate with the EU and how
quickly. If Britain gets a quick deal with no big reductions in its access to the single market, the
grimmer scenarios for the world economy may not come to pass. But markets do not seem to be
counting on it.
 US-China not key

Economic stability and improvement INDEPENDENT of U.S involvement in

the AIIB (can replace AIIB)
IMF 16’ -- (3/10/16, International Monetary Fund, “How the IMF Promotes Global
Economic Security,” https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/facts/globstab.htm// ML)
Why is global economic stability important?
Promoting economic stability is partly a matter of avoiding economic and financial
crises, large swings in economic activity, high inflation, and excessive volatility in foreign
exchange and financial markets. Instability can increase uncertainty, discourage
investment, impede economic growth, and hurt living standards. A dynamic market
economy necessarily involves some degree of volatility, as well as gradual structural
change. The challenge for policymakers is to minimize instability in their own country
and abroad without reducing the economy’s ability to improve living standards through
rising productivity, employment, and sustainable growth.
Economic and financial stability is both a national and a multilateral concern. As recent
financial crises have shown, economies have become more interconnected.
Vulnerabilities can spread more easily across sectors and national borders.
How does the IMF help?
The IMF helps countries implement sound and appropriate policies through its key
functions of surveillance, technical assistance, and lending.
Surveillance: Every country that joins the IMF accepts the obligation to subject its
economic and financial policies to the scrutiny of the international community. The
IMF’s mandate is to oversee the international monetary system and monitor economic
and financial developments in and the policies of its 189 member countries. This process,
known as surveillance, takes place at the global level and in individual countries and
regions. The IMF assesses whether domestic policies promote countries’ own stability by
examining risks they might pose to domestic and balance of payments stability and
advises on needed policy adjustments. It also proposes alternatives when countries’
policies promote domestic stability but could adversely affect global stability.
A. Consulting with member states
The IMF monitors members’ economies through regular—usually annual—consultations
with each member country. During these consultations, IMF staff discusses economic
and financial developments and policies with national policymakers, and often with
representatives of the private sector, labor and trade unions, academia, and civil society.
Staff assesses risks and vulnerabilities, and considers the impact of fiscal, monetary,
financial, and exchange rate policies on the member’s domestic and balance of payments
stability and assesses implications for global stability. The IMF offers advice on policies
to promote each country’s macroeconomic, financial, and balance of payments stability,
drawing on experience from across its membership.
The framework for these consultations is set forth in the IMF Articles of Agreement and,
more recently, in the Integrated Surveillance Decision. The consultations are also
informed by membership-wide initiatives, including
work to systematically assess countries' vulnerabilities to crises;
the Financial Sector Assessment Program, which assesses countries’ financial sectors
and helps formulate policy responses to risks and vulnerabilities; and
the Standards and Codes Initiative in which the IMF, along with the World Bank and
other bodies, assesses countries’ observance of internationally recognized standards and
codes of good practice in a dozen policy areas.
B. Overseeing the bigger picture
The IMF also closely monitors global and regional trends.
The IMF’s periodic reports, the World Economic Outlook, its regional overviews,
the Fiscal Monitor, and the Global Financial Stability Report, analyze global and regional
macroeconomic and financial developments. The IMF’s broad membership makes it
uniquely well suited to facilitate multilateral discussions on issues of common concern to
groups of member countries, and to advance a shared understanding of policies needed
to promote stability. In this context, the Fund has been working with the Group of 20
advanced and emerging economies to assess the consistency of those countries’ policy
frameworks with balanced and sustained growth for the global economy.
The Fund has reviewed its surveillance mandate in light of the global crisis. It has
introduced a number of reforms to improve financial sector surveillance within member
countries and across borders, to enhance understanding of interlinkages between
macroeconomic and financial developments (e.g. through a Spillover Report), and
promote debate on these matters.
Data: In response to the financial crisis, the IMF is working with members, the Financial
Stability Board, and other organizations to fill data gaps important for global stability.
Technical assistance: The IMF helps countries strengthen their capacity to design and
implement sound economic policies. It provides advice and training in areas of core
expertise—including fiscal, monetary, and exchange rate policies; the regulation and
supervision of financial systems; statistics; and legal frameworks.
Lending: Even the best economic policies cannot completely eradicate instability or avert
crises. If a member country faces a balance of payment crisis, the IMF can provide
financial assistance to support policy programs that will correct underlying
macroeconomic problems, limit disruption to both the domestic and the global economy,
and help restore confidence, stability, and growth. The IMF also offers precautionary
credit lines for countries with sound economic fundamentals for crisis prevention.
North Korea
 AT: Japan prolif

Status quo resolves concerns over North Korean prolif

Kim, Park and Starr ‘16
Jung-eun Kim, Madison Park and Barbara Starr ‘s “North Korea fires two missiles, South
Korea says” www.cnn.com/2016/06/21/asia/north-korea-missile/ June 22, 2016 // JS
North Korea fired two missiles Wednesday morning from its eastern coast, according to South
Korean and U.S. officials. Both are believed to be Musudan intermediate-range missiles, fired from the North
Korean port city of Wonsan, said Cmdr. Dave Benham, spokesman for the U.S. Pacific Command. "According to the U.N.
Security Council resolution, any launches that involve ballistic missile technology are a violation of the treaty and we think
this is clearly a provocation towards us," South Korea's Unification Ministry spokesman Jeong Joon Hee said at a
regularly-scheduled press briefing. The first missile flew 93 miles (150 kilometers), and is considered a failed launch,
according to a South Korean military official. The second missile traveled 249 miles (400 kilometers) and the data is still
being analyzed by the South Korean military, the official told CNN. North Korea has made at least four previous attempts
this year to test this type of missile. Both missiles were tracked over the Sea of Japan, also known as the
East Sea, "where initial indications are they fell," Benham said. Benham said the missile launches did not pose a threat to
North America. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that his country could "never forgive" the test,
which he stressed was in violation of U.N. resolutions. "We can never forgive this and lodged a firm protest,"
he told reporters from Kumamoto, southern Japan. "We would like to continue taking a close coordination with the U.S.
and South Korea and working on North Korea (at) the United Nations, so that North Korea would not conduct such an
action again." Japan's Defense Minister Gen Nakatani told reporters that the first missile
launch did not affect the country's security, but he also called for immediate meetings to take all possible
measures to protect Japan. He made the comments before the second missile launch. The first missile launch occurred at
5:58 a.m. local time and the South Korean military presumed that one had been a failure, according to a spokesperson
from the country's Joint Chiefs of Staff. About two hours later, North Korea fired the second missile at 8:05 a.m. local
time, according to the spokesperson. He said further analysis is being conducted. The U.S. State
Department condemned the recent missile tests in a statement: "We are aware of reports
that the DPRK fired two ballistic missiles. We are monitoring and continuing to assess
the situation in close coordination with our regional allies and partners ."
The United States advised North Korea to stop its ballistic missile tests and said it only
strengthened the international community's resolve to press forward with
U.N. sanctions . The United States said it would also defend its allies, South Korea and
Japan, and called its commitment to them "ironclad." "We remain prepared to defend ourselves and
our allies from any attack or provocation," according to U.S. State Department spokesperson
John Kirby.
 Not a threat

North Korea is not a threat—recent missile launches are a warning for

future intervention.
Daily World News – (http://visitwinchestervirginia.com/deputy-paint-rocket-launch-
north-korea-is-not-a-threat-but-a-warning/, “Deputy paint: rocket launch North Korea
is not a threat but a warning”, Daily World News)
MOSCOW, 22 Aug — RIA Novosti. “Launch of a ballistic missile North Korea is
not a threat, but a warning that the country will defend its statehood in any
hostile acts,” said the first Deputy Chairman of the Duma Committee on
defense Andrei Krasov (“United Russia”). The DPRK on Wednesday morning carried
out launches of two missiles and medium-range missiles, presumably, the “Musudan”,
on the East coast near Wonsan city. The first rocket exploded, flying about 150
kilometers, the second was able to reach a height of 1000 meters. At the same time, the
Korean military appreciated the range of its flight of 400 km. Experts believe that most
likely both cases were tested new medium-range missile “Musudan”, the range of which
is from 2,5 to 4 thousand kilometers. This allows it to reach the coast of the island of
GUAM or Alaska. Since April, North Korea conducted four unsuccessful launch
of a ballistic missile, presumably, also the “Musudan”. RIA Novosti. Alex
Babeskirret in fotobank urged not to aggravate the situation on the Korean Peninsula In
total, including the firing on 22 June, Pyongyang tested ballistic missiles, six medium
range, contrary to UN security Council resolutions. “It is in any case not a threat,
but a warning that they are their state, their territory will defend no matter what
country tries to attack them or make their country any unfriendly acts,” said Krasov RIA
Novosti. In his opinion, North Korea did not aim to threaten somebody, and
just demonstrates your capacities in weapons and military equipment, and
warns that “it is not necessary to attack”.

North Korean military capability is low—series of unsuccessful tests proves,

misguided leadership,
Sang-Hun 6/21 – (Choe, 2000 Pulitzer Prize and reporter at the The International
New York Times, http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/nation-world-news/north-korean-
missile-test-fails-south-korea-says, “North Korean missile test fails, South Korea says”,
West Hawaii Today)
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea launched an intermediate-range ballistic missile off
its east coast Wednesday, but the test ended in a failure, the South Korean military
said. It was the fifth consecutive such failure in the North’s attempt to
demonstrate a capacity to launch a ballistic missile that would extend its
striking range. The Musudan missile was launched from a site near Wonsan, a port
city east of Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, at 5:58 a.m. local time Wednesday, the
South’s Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a statement. It said the South Korean
military considered the test to have been a failure, but it provided no further details. At
8:05 a.m., North Korea launched another Musudan, the office said, without confirming
whether that test also failed. North Korea has test-fired the Musudan six times since
mid-April. But at least five of those tests have failed, with some of the projectiles
crashing into the sea or exploding in midair shortly after liftoff, according to U.S. and
South Korean officials. North Korea’s missiles have seldom worked on the first
try, but a string of five successive failures is unusual even by the North’s checkered
standards. Analysts have attributed the failures to the North’s leader, Kim Jong
Un. In his rush to demonstrate an ability to strike U.S. military bases in Guam with
nuclear and chemical weapons, Kim was giving his engineers hardly enough time to fix
the problems before testing the Musudan again, the analysts said. The North has
successfully tested its short-range Scud and midrange Rodong missiles. The Rodong can
reach all of South Korea and most of Japan. The Musudan — a road-mobile missile with
a range of more than 2,000 miles, long enough to reach Guam — was first tested April
15. The failed Musudan tests followed Kim’s repeated calls to his military to conduct
more nuclear and missile tests despite international sanctions. The Musudan, unveiled
during a military parade in Pyongyang in 2010, is a modified version of a submarine-
launched missile from the Soviet military and was designed to carry nuclear warheads,
South Korean officials said. North Korea has repeatedly threatened nuclear strikes
against the United States, claiming that it has built nuclear weapons small enough to be
mounted on its various ballistic missiles. It conducted its fourth nuclear test in January
and has recently claimed success in a series of missile firings and tests related to nuclear
weapons. But the country has never carried out a successful test flight of a
long-range missile . Officials and analysts in the region doubt that the North
has built a reliable intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the
U.S. mainland . The North’s state-run media has never mentioned its Musudan
failures.