Food insecurity

Food insecurity
Food insecurity happening now and leads to warproven by Ukraine, Venezuela,
Thailand, Bosnia, Syria, Egypt, and Arab Spring
Meijer 14 (Ral Ilargi, owner of The Automatic Earth, Nicole Foss: Finance and Food Insecurity, The
Automatic Earth, April 3, 2014, accessed July 31, 2014, http://www.theautomaticearth.com/nicole-foss-
finance-and-food-insecurity/)
Food insecurity has become a major global issue in recent years, underlying many of the instances of
social upheaval around the world. This is both a reflection of the short-term fluctuations in an over-
financialized commodity sector and also of the longer-term limits to growth scenario. As an ever greater
number of limits are approached, a confluence of factors capable of compounding each others impact is
created, and this can rapidly reach boiling point. The commodity food price index has risen relentlessly,
for a decade, peaking in periods of increasing fear and financial uncertainty. As we are rapidly
approaching another such juncture, we can expect the issue to reassert itself with even greater force.
Considering that the index demonstrates increasing food prices in nominal terms only, and does not
reflect the additional factor of worsening affordability in real terms, it represents a substantial
underestimate of the actual situation. The UN FAO maintains its own food price index, which acts as a
predictor of unrest. When it reaches 210, it represents a major red warning flag of a dangerously
unstable condition: Its happening in Ukraine, Venezuela, Thailand, Bosnia, Syria, and beyond.
Revolutions, unrest, and riots are sweeping the globe. The near-simultaneous eruption of violent protest
can seem random and chaotic; inevitable symptoms of an unstable world. But theres at least one
common thread between the disparate nations, cultures, and people in conflict, one element that has
demonstrably proven to make these uprisings more likely: high global food prices. Modern agri-business
has a very long list of dependencies on factors which are increasingly under threat, and as these obvious
and predictable risks manifest, food insecurity will become a more ever-present condition globally. It is
essential that we look to transforming food production, moving away from large scale industrial
processes producing pseudo-food in an exceptionally destructive manner. Smaller scale and far saner
practices, with far fewer unrealistic dependencies, need to be encouraged, and rapidly, if we are to
avoid an extensive food supply crunch in the uncomfortably near future. There is almost nothing
capable of having a comparably destructive effect on the fabric of society: We now know that the
fundamental triggers for the Arab spring were unprecedented food price rises. The first sign things were
unravelling hit in 2008, when a global rice shortage coincided with dramatic increases in staple food
prices, triggering food riots across the middle east, north Africa and south Asia. A month before the fall
of the Egyptian and Tunisian regimes, the UNs Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) reported record
high food prices for dairy, meat, sugar and cereals. Since 2008, global food prices have been consistently
higher than in preceding decades, despite wild fluctuations.food price volatility is only a symptom of
deeper systemic problems namely, that the global industrial food system is increasingly
unsustainable.The link between intensifying inequality, debt, climate change, fossil fuel dependency
and the global food crisis is now undeniable. As population and industrial growth continue, the food
crisis will only get worse..The Arab spring is merely a taste of things to come.
AT: food insecurity
Rise of food prices inevitabletoo many causesrising world population, natural
disasters, restrictions on production
Odland 12 (Steve, commenting on business and economy, Why are Food Prices so High?, Forbes,
March 15, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveodland/2012/03/15/why-are-food-prices-so-high/)
Food prices have skyrocketed over the past couple years. While overall U.S. food prices rose about 5%
last year, earlier in the year food inflation was the highest recorded in 36 years. The USDA sees food
prices rising 2.5%-3.5% in 2012 but many believe that inflation could be much higher. This is concerning
since the economy is not rocketing and interest rates are near zero. Why are food prices so high?
Historically, food was a local issue as supply chains were short. Food supply and demand were largely
functions of local crop conditions impacted by weather, growing conditions, pests, etc. Over the past
century, supply chains and preservation have improved so that the food trade has become international.
Commodities, crops, and finished goods are traded globally. This trade has stabilized prices when local
weather or growing conditions are impacted. But rising populations, largely in Asia, have created
demand for crops and finished good from other parts of the world, and have impacted prices. As every
student of economics knows, price is a function of supply and demand. When demand for a commodity
rises on constant supply, prices usually rise. Conversely, when demand falls at constant supply, prices
usually fall. The same thing works with supply. Rising supply on constant demand causes a fall in prices
while falling supply on constant demand causes prices to increase. So one could conclude that rising
food prices have been caused by falling supply or increased demand. This is true, but there is a lot going
on behind the scenes causing this. Whats going on? 1) China and India have the largest and fastest
growing populations creating demand for food from around the world. So one impact on prices has
been rising demand from these countries, especially China. 2) The Japanese tsunami and earthquake
last year drove up seafood prices by nearly 6%. 3) Vegetable prices rose 50% in the past month. Crop
damage in Australia, Russia, and South America are to blame. 4) Government subsidized and mandated
ethanol use has increased the demand for corn and reduced acreage dedicated to food thereby
pushing food prices up. A Congressional Budget Office report concluded that the increased use of
ethanol accounts for 10-15% of the increase in food prices. 5) Changes in government subsidies for
crops other than corn for ethanol impact food prices. 6) Regulations restricting use of herbicides,
pesticides, fertilizers, etc., while positive on some fronts, may result in poorer crop yields. 7) Increased
oil prices drive up costs for transportation, fertilizer, plastic packaging and inks used to print packaging.
8) In some areas of the U.S., the government is paying farmers not to plant to save water. This reduces
food supply. 9) Drier and hotter weather trends in farming areas generally reduce crop yield and drive
prices higher. 10) Import tariffs and export taxes distort supply and demand, and hence food prices
around the world.
Impacts of food insecurity overstatedpeople exaggerating concerns about poverty
VerBruggen 13 (Robert, editor of RealClearPolicy, What Food Insecurity Means, The Markup,
September 4, 2013, accessed July 31, 2014,
http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2013/09/04/what_food_insecurity_means_637.html)
The USDA is out with a new report on "food insecurity" in the U.S. (hat tip to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities). Though there have been few changes since last year, it's sure to renew the controversy
over the term "food insecurity" itself. Many advocates treat it as synonymous with "hunger," but some
conservative commentators claim it's just a way of exaggerating concerns about poverty. A household's
"food security" is defined based on answers to various survey questions. "Low food security" means that
the household had trouble obtaining enough food at some point over the course of a year, and "very
low food security" indicates that eating patterns were actually disrupted -- though even in these cases
children are "usually shielded," according to the new report.

Indo-Pak War
Indo-Pak War
Indo-Pak nuclear war makes food insecurity and extinction inevitabledeath of crops
and damage of the atmosphere leads to world famine
Ghosh 13 (Palash, business journalist for 21 years in NY, INTERNAL QUALIFICATIONS: Ira Helfand is co-
president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, India-Pakistan Nuclear war would Kill 2 Billion People,
End civilization: Report, International Business Times, December 10, 2013, accessed July 31, 2014,
http://www.ibtimes.com/india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-kill-2-billion-people-end-civilization-report-
1503604)
A nuclear war between South Asian rivals India and Pakistan would trigger a global famine that would
immediately kill 2 billion people around the world and spell the end of human civilization, according to a
study by an anti-nuclear group. The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and Physicians for
Social Responsibility (PSR) also warned that even a limited nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would
destroy crop yields, damage the atmosphere and throw global food markets into chaos. China, the
worlds most populous country, would face a catastrophic food shortage that would lead to enormous social
convulsions. ADVERTISEMENT A billion people dead in the developing world is obviously a catastrophe
unparalleled in human history, said Ira Helfand, co-president of PSR and the study's lead author. But
then if you add to that the possibility of another 1.3 billion people in China being at risk, we are entering
something that is clearly the end of civilization. Helfand explained that Chinas destruction would be caused by
longstanding tensions between its neighbors, India and Pakistan, two enemies that have already fought three wars since 1947.
Moreover, given the apocalyptic power of contemporary nuclear weapons which are far more powerful
than the atomic bombs dropped on Japan in 1945 the impact of an India-Pakistan war would be felt
across the globe. With a large war between the United States and Russia, we are talking about the possible, not certain, but possible,
extinction of the human race, Helfand said, according to Agence France Presse. In this kind of war, biologically there are going to
be people surviving somewhere on the planet, but the chaos that would result from this [South Asian nuclear
war] will dwarf anything we've ever seen. Specifically, the study noted, a nuclear war in South Asia would release
black carbon aerosol particles that would cut U.S. corn and soybean production by 10 percent over a
decade. Those particles would also reduce Chinese rice production by an average of 21 percent over a
four-year period and by another 10 percent over the subsequent six years. Even more devastating, Chinas
wheat crop would drop by 50 percent in just the first year after the hypothetical Indo-Pak nuclear war.
Indo-Pak nuclear war more likely than US-Russia warsuperpowers check themselves
Ghosh 13 (Palash, business journalist for 21 years in NY, INTERNAL QUALIFICATIONS: Ira Helfand is co-
president of Physicians for Social Responsibility, India-Pakistan Nuclear war would Kill 2 Billion People,
End civilization: Report, International Business Times, December 10, 2013, accessed July 31, 2014,
http://www.ibtimes.com/india-pakistan-nuclear-war-would-kill-2-billion-people-end-civilization-report-
1503604)
CNN reported that there are at least 17,000 nuclear warheads (other reports suggest that there are perhaps as many as 20,000)
around the world, which present a far greater threat than the current obsession with Irans nascent atomic program. Most of these
warheads are currently owned by the United States and Russia, while India and Pakistan are believed to
have only about 100 warheads each. But given the state of endless enmity between India and
Pakistan, they are more likely to launch a nuclear war than the superpowers who possess far more and
far deadlier nuclear weapons. Helfand told CNN that in an India-Pakistan nuclear war scenario, more than
20 million people would be dead within one week from the explosions, firestorms and immediate effects
of radiation. But the global consequences would be far worse, he said. Indeed, the firestorms produced by
this imaginary South Asian war would loft 5 million tons of soot high into the atmosphere, blocking out
sunlight and dropping temperatures across the planet. This climate disruption would cause a sharp,
worldwide decline in food production. The subsequent global famine would place the lives of 870 million people in the
developing world at immediate risk of starvation.
Indo-Pak war will escalate through miscalculationboth countries accuse each other
of breaking the truce over Kashmir
Overdorf 13 (Jason, he previously covered India for GlobalPost, and spent about 15 years living and
working in Asia, where he was a frequent contributor at Newsweek International and the Far Eastern
Economic Review. He is a former recipient of a reporting fellowship from the South Asian Journalist
Association and has been honored with awards from the Society of American Business Editors and
Writers, the World Health Organization and the Society of American Travel Writers, Analysis: Are India
and Pakistan Headed for War?, Global Post, August 15, 2013, accessed July 31, 2014,
http://www.globalpost.com/bio/jason-overdorf)
The situation is scary, experts say. Kashmir a divided territory that both India and Pakistan claim as
their own was the cause of two of the three wars the two countries have fought since they attained
independence from Britain in 1947. Now both New Delhi and Islamabad control numerous nukes; Pakistan has the worlds fastest growing
arsenal. As the tit-for-tat bombardment continues, the shelling already marks the heaviest exchange since the ceasefire
began in 2003, raising fears that the repeated violations will result in a complete breakdown of the truce.
Signaling their concern about further escalation, both Washington and the UN have appealed for calm. But which side is responsible for starting
the fire? What is the endgame? And how far will the flames spread before cooler heads prevail? Indian analysts
remain convinced that Pakistan uses such shelling to provide cover for jihadi militants crossing the
border to attack installations in India-administered Kashmir. By India's tally, there have already been 42 such ceasefire
violations in 2013, compared with 28 in 2012, according to India Today. Meanwhile, this year 40 members of India's security
forces in the area have been killed, compared with 17 the year before. For Indians looking to explain who broke the truce
this time, that's a smoking gun. If you just take the common sensical point of view, India has no interest
[in breaking the ceasefire], because we are not sending in infiltrators under cover of fire, said former
Indian foreign secretary Kanwal Sibal. We have no reason to fire unilaterally because what do we then hope to achieve? We
don't score any points either bilaterally or internationally. Pakistan-watchers, however, argue that its army no longer
provides such support for jihadi groups, and hint that the ambush story may have been a ploy by India, or
a local Indian commander, to trigger hostilities. Admitting that Pakistani generals may have helped jihadis cross into India in the past,
for instance, Pakistan-born Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council, said that policy was ended under
former president General Pervez Musharraf, and it would be surprising if it is being activated again. Nawaz also questioned why India
first called the alleged ambush an attack by persons dressed in Pakistani uniforms only later
referring to it as an army assault and why top military officials allowed tempers to flare for two days
before activating a hotline intended to defuse these situations. What is surprising is that the Director General Military
Operations did not activate the hotline till two days [after the alleged ambush]. Why? said Nawaz.
AT Indo-Pak War
India wont attack Pakistanwants to protect its economy
Bin 14 (Rafay, working on MBA aka Masters for Business Administration, India does not want to
invade Pakistan and the US is not our enemy!, The Express Tribune, February 23, 2014, accessed July
31, 2014, http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/20987/india-does-not-want-to-invade-us-and-the-us-is-not-
our-enemy/)
Rationally speaking, whatever interest India may have had in the past to invade Pakistan is probably now lost.
Now India is a lucrative business destination for many, including the US, and has repositioned itself as a
competitor on a global level. With Indians stationed at key places globally, Indian leaders have re-imagined the world where the
epicentre of power (economically at least) is India. This dream may be far off but is certainly not far-fetched. Subsequently, it is not in
Indias strategic interests to continue to apportion defence budgets to fight a war with Pakistan in the
hopes of an invasion more so when Pakistan is in the midst of the worst crisis inflicted by rapid radicalisation of society. In the same way,
Pakistan must reduce the combatant engagement reserved for a war with India because it serves no other purpose but to satisfy inflated egos.
National sovereignty is vital, yes, but it is important to realise that India has upped the ante and has no
strategic advantage by conquering Pakistan as many would have us believe. The money spent fighting India
could be spent elsewhere more productive; besides that, a peaceful South Asia is in everybodys interest. It would be great and
to the benefit of both the nations, if India and Pakistan were to reach a trade agreement like the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and opened borders for tourism and trade. If Pakistan has an enemy it is not India it is the wretched forces of extremism
that have wreaked havoc on a typical Pakistanis lifestyle.
India and Pakistan relations are improvingthey work together to fight terrorism
normalizing trade, culture and politics
Gul 13 (Ayaz, Pakistani journalist, India-Pakistan Clash Unlikely to Affect Long-Term Relations, Voice
of America, January 6, 2013, accessed July 31, 2014, http://www.voanews.com/content/pakistan-
india/1578505.html)
India and Pakistan have accused each other of several violations of a cease-fire in Kashmir announced in 2003.
But the two nuclear-armed neighbors have taken significant steps in recent months toward normalizing
trade, cultural, sports and political ties. Last month, India and Pakistan signed a landmark deal to relax
some visa restrictions to facilitate cross-border travel. Pakistan and India have fought three wars and the Pakistani military
has trained and equipped itself to be ready for another conflict. But the military is reported to have redefined that doctrine recently
because it has been engaged in fighting domestic and foreign terrorist networks like al-Qaida and the
Pakistani Taliban, which are entrenched in the northwestern tribal region bordering Afghanistan. Speaking to VOA, Pakistani
Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira says improved ties with India have reduced the external threat
to his country. "Yes, we had a very difficult time with India. We have [fought] three wars," he said. "Our forces were
determined and they were cautious of the Indian threat. That threat is not over. Of course still it is there. But now the
internal threat has taken over. It is a greater threat of course now. Pakistan is the biggest victim of this
terrorism or extremism." Pakistan is an ally of the United States in its war on terrorism and Pakistani
officials say their country has suffered unprecedented losses during the past decade in that fight.

Oil Spills
Oil Spills
1)An Oil Spill is super likely-- destruction of biodiversity would begin 4 days post-spill
Burnside 12 [Jeff, Investigative reporter for KOMO 4 News, Embargo Could Prevent Spill Containment If Cuban Oil Spill Goes Wrong,
NBC Miami, Apr 12 2012, http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/Embargo-Makes-Cuban-Oil-Drilling-a-Dangerous-Proposition-for-Florida-
130174948.html, AW]

A Chinese-built semisubmersible oil rig leased by Repsol, a Spanish oil company, arrived in Cuban waters
in January 2012 to drill Cuba's first exploratory offshore oil well. Early estimates suggest that Cuban offshore oil and natural gas
reserves are substantialsomewhere between five billion and twenty billion barrels of oil and upward of eight billion cubic feet of natural gas. Although the United
States typically welcomes greater volumes of crude oil coming from countries that are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), a
surge in Cuban oil production would complicate the United States' decades-old effort to economically
isolate the Castro regime. Deepwater drilling off the Cuban coast also poses a threat to the United
States. The exploratory well is seventy miles off the Florida coast and lies at a depth of 5,800 feet. The failed Macondo well that triggered
the calamitous Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 had broadly similar features, situated forty-eight
miles from shore and approximately five thousand feet below sea level. A spill off Florida's coast could
ravage the state's $57 billion per year tourism industry. Washington cannot count on the technical
know-how of Cuba's unseasoned oil industry to address a spill on its own. Oil industry experts doubt
that it has a strong understanding of how to prevent an offshore oil spill or stem a deep-water well
blowout. Moreover, the site where the first wells will be drilled is a tough one for even seasoned
response teams to operate in. Unlike the calm Gulf of Mexico, the surface currents in the area where
Repsol will be drilling move at a brisk three to four knots, which would bring oil from Cuba's offshore
wells to the Florida coast within six to ten days. Skimming or burning the oil may not be feasible in such
fast-moving water. The most, and possibly only, effective method to respond to a spill would be surface
and subsurface dispersants. If dispersants are not applied close to the source within four days after a
spill, uncontained oil cannot be dispersed, burnt, or skimmed, which would render standard response
technologies like containment booms ineffective. Repsol has been forthcoming in disclosing its spill response plans to U.S. authorities
and allowing them to inspect the drilling rig, but the Russian and Chinese companies that are already negotiating with Cuba to lease acreage might not be as
cooperative. Had Repsol not volunteered to have the Cuba-bound drilling rig examined by the U.S. Coast Guard and Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement to certify that it met international standards, Washington would have had little legal recourse.
2)Oil Spills Destroy Biodiversity
Leifert 10 [Harvey, contributing editor to environmentalresearchweb, Oil spill affects both land and sea, Institute of Physics, Jun 15
2010, http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/42922, AW]

The briefing, organized by SeaWeb and the US National Press Club in Washington, focused on the long-term implications of the spill, both on
and off shore. Out in the deep waters of the Gulf, the still-spewing oil is a threat to biodiversity, said Thomas
Shirley, a specialist in Gulf of Mexico studies at Texas A&M University (TAMU). The quadrant of the Gulf that includes the BP
well is home to the highest number of animal and plant species at depths of 1000 to 3000 metres. Citing
a survey conducted by the university just last year, Shirley described the area as "the biodiversity hotspot for the deep
Gulf". TAMU catalogued fishes, molluscs, mammals, crustaceans, turtles and more 1,728 animal species in all at those
depths, of which 135 are unique to the area and 74 were listed as endangered or threatened before the
spill. Oil, being a complex mixture of hundreds of compounds, affects living organisms in various ways,
Shirley said. Physically, oil can block air passageways, causing suffocation, can inhibit feeding, and can
destroy the insulating properties of feathers and fur. Oil is, of course, toxic if ingested, and it can also
damage skin. It can reduce fecundity, which might not be observed until years after the immediate crisis
ends. Other indirect effects may include starvation higher up the food web if smaller prey species are
decimated. Dispersants used on an unprecedented scale in the BP spill may themselves cause damage
but no data are available concerning their effect on wildlife, he said. "Ecological fears and uncertainty are rampant," Shirley concluded, "and
these concerns are justified." On land the situation is also worrying. "This region has been under siege for four decades," said Robert Twilley of
Louisiana State University, because of conflicting approaches of the federal and state governments to managing the Mississippi River and the
delta it created where it reaches the Gulf of Mexico.
AT: Oil spills
AT: They say Oil Spills Bad
1)Precautions after the BP oil spill have considerably decreased oil drilling.
Cleveland 12 (Cutler J. Cleveland- Writer for Encyclopedia of Earth: A reference source
about the Earths natural environments and their interaction with society, Deep Water: The
Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling, 8/16/12,
http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/162358/)
More broadly, the disaster in the Gulf undermined public faith in the energy industry, government
regulators, and even our own capability as a nation to respond to crises. It is our hope that a thorough
and rigorous accounting, along with focused suggestions for reform, can begin the process of restoring
confidence. There is much at stake, not only for the people directly affected in the Gulf region, but for
the American people at large. The tremendous resources that exist within our outer continental shelf
belong to the nation as a whole. The federal governments authority over the shelf is accordingly
plenary, based on its power as both the owner of the resources and in its regulatory capacity as
sovereign to protect public health, safety, and welfare. To be allowed to drill on the outer continental
shelf is a privilege to be earned, not a private right to be exercised.
2)Opposition to drilling in the Arctic- Shows drilling wont continue to increase in the
status quo
Barron-Lopez 4/23 (Laura Barron-Lopez- Reporter for The Hill: A top US political website used by the
White House and lawmakers, Report: US not ready for Arctic drilling, 4/23/14,
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/204199-report-us-not-ready-for-arctic-drilling
The United States is not prepared for oil drilling in the increasingly accessible Arctic waters, according to
a new report by the National Research Council. The report, released on Wednesday, found that safety resources and
oil response tools are not adequate. The absence of personnel, equipment, communication and overall
infrastructure create a "significant liability" in the event of a large oil spill. With a changing climate, the research
council said, additional research must be conducted to determine the best response options that will leave
the least adverse impact on the fragile Arctic environment.
3)No Impact to Oil Spills- Recovery in 2 years-only the dispersants cause loss of
Biodiversity
Hanlon 10 (Micheal Hanlon, a writer for the Daily Mail in the U.K ,Yes, oil spills are terrible. But the
truth is they're not the calamity doom-mongers say they are, May 20th, 2010,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1279847/MICHAEL-HANLON-Yes-oil-spills-terrible-But-
truth-theyre-calamity-doom-mongers-say-are.html)
But the truth is that when it comes to oil spills and other environmental disasters history tells us something very puzzling
and counter-intuitive. Despite the appalling pictures beamed onto our screens the oil-covered seabirds, the grim tides of dead fish, the
blackened beaches and disgusting oozing mess at the waters edge Nature has seen that, usually within a year or two or even
less, places affected by oil spills have returned more or less to normal, the disaster forgotten. Indeed, many
experts now believe that if left to run their natural course, it is likely that the effects of even the worst
disasters are nullified. How can this be? Are oil spills really less bad than we have been led to believe? Certainly, our
attempts to deal with them can often cause far more havoc and destruction than the spills themselves.
In March 1967, the oil tanker Torrey Canyon ran aground off the Scilly Isles en route from the Gulf to Milford Haven. As the ship
foundered and started to break up with its 120,000 tonnes of crude leaking into the Atlantic, the world faced its first major oil-
spill disaster. A huge slick was heading for the holiday beaches of Cornwall. First, the RAF bombed the stricken tanker, in an effort to burn
off the oil. Most of the bombs missed and the effect was to accelerate the rate at which oil leaked into the sea. Next, 10,000 tonnes of
industrial-strength detergents were sprayed on the oil by teams on 42 ships in an effort to disperse it all. These
chemicals had little effect on the slick, but they poisoned millions of marine organisms and probably
caused far more damage to the ecosystem than the oil itself. At one point, huge drums of detergent were simply poured
onto the beaches around Lands End in the hope that, should the oil wash ashore, this would keep the sands clean. At Sennen Cove, huge
quantities of solvent were ploughed into the sand meaning that the oil was held in situ for months. There is no doubt that the oil from the
Torrey Canyon was toxic and killed a lot of animals, as well as being unsightly. But experts are now convinced that the best
solution, short of pumping the oil off the tanker before it could escape or otherwise trying to contain it,
would have simply been to do nothing. oil spill Disaster: This image taken by a NASA satellite shows the oil spill perilously close
to the U.S. coastline According to Dr Simon Boxall, an oceanographer and oil-spill expert at Southampton University: Crude oil
is a natural product (being rotting vegetation albeit modified by age and pressure) and in the
environment breaks down naturally through bacterial decay.

US-China War
US-China War
US-China War likely- territorial disputes and arms race lead to Nuclear Armageddon

Chow 14 (Eugene K.Chow is the former executive editor of Homeland Security NewsWire, What would
a U.S.-China war look like?, Jan 1
st
2014, http://theweek.com/article/index/254400/what-would-a-us-
china-war-look-like)

To be clear: The United States military remains the world's most fearsome fighting force, unbeatable on a one-on-
one basis. Yet it would find a protracted war that could end in nuclear Armageddon too costly. China is keenly
aware of that fact. So rather than orienting itself towards a total war it cannot win, China's military strategy serves a smaller,
but shrewder purpose pushing the United States out of China's backyard. Reclaiming Chinese pride
Provocations over Taiwan and the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands are not about the land itself per se, but rather a matter of national pride. Still fuming
over its embarrassment in the 1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, when President Bill Clinton made an overwhelming display of American power with the
deployment of two aircraft carrier strike groups to the region, the Chinese government has sought to showcase its growing stature by taking
control of the Pacific, a region long dominated by the U.S. Navy. China's actions, especially of late, are a strong message
to the United States that it wants to usurp America as the regional power, Hugh White, a professor of
strategic studies at Australian National University, told Bloomberg. "They're saying to America that we're so serious
about this that we're prepared to take the risks of being provocative, in order to persuade you to take seriously that we want to change the
order." To back up their actions, Chinese strategists have developed a large arsenal of conventional
asymmetric weapon systems specifically designed to blunt American might, in effect creating a powerful deterrent
that is forcing the U.S. military to walk softly in a region it once ruled supreme. A2/AD Aimed at preventing American forces from using their
technological superiority to strike the heart of China, the Chinese military has pursued an anti-access/area denial
(A2/AD) strategy. At its most basic, A2/AD is a layered defense strategy that incorporates land, sea, air, cyber, and space attacks to
counter America's military advantages. Rather than forcing an outright defeat, the strategy utilizes repeated waves of assaults using cyber
attacks, anti-satellite weapons, ballistic missiles, stealth submarines, and other weapons to slow U.S. forces as they draw nearer the Chinese
coast. In a successful scenario, each successive wave of attacks would whittle down a superior force's
advantage so by the time they reach their goal they have suffered too many casualties or are too spent
to launch a significant offensive. A key element of China's defenses is its growing stockpile of ballistic
and cruise missiles that have enough range to blanket much of Asia. Most troubling is its DF-21D "carrier killer"
missile, which has an estimated range of 2,700 km and is specially designed to target the U.S. military's greatest form of force projection the
aircraft carrier. Additionally, China possesses a growing number of war planes, and is notably developing
the fifth-generation J-20 and J-31 stealth fighter jets. At the same time, China has procured at least 12
stealthy diesel-electric Kilo-class subs from Russia, while the U.S. military has shifted its focus away from Cold War skills, like
submarine hunting. Countering A2/AD In the theoretical war against China, the arms race is already on. As China develops asymmetrical
weapons to minimize American advantages, the Pentagon is also at work on technologies to overcome those counter-technologies.
AT: US-China War
No US-China War through miscalculation- lack of isolation proves

Brzezinski 13 ( Zbigniew Kazimierz is a Polish American political scientist, geostrategist, and
statesman who served as United States National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter from 1977
to 1981.
Major foreign policy events during his term of office included the normalization of relations with the
People's Republic of China (and the severing of ties with the Republic of China); the signing of the
second Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II); the brokering of the Camp David Accords; the
transition of Iran from an important U.S. client state to an anti-Western Islamic Republic; encouraging
dissidents in Eastern Europe and emphasizing human rights in order to undermine the influence of the
Soviet Union. The US-China relationship is vital to global stability. Good thing it isn't doomed, 2/18/13,
Accessed 6/5/13, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Global-Viewpoint/2013/0218/The-US-
China-relationship-is-vital-to-global-stability.-Good-thing-it-isn-t-doomed)

Moreover, despite our very different political systems, both of our societies are, in different ways, open.
That, too, offsets pressure from within each respective society toward animus and hostility. More than 100,000 young Chinese
are students at American universities. It is fashionable for the offspring of the top Chinese leaders to
study in the US. Thousands of young Americans study and work in China, or participate in special study
or travel programs. Several major US universities now have their own campuses in China with both American and Chinese faculty.
Unlike the former Soviet Union, millions of Chinese regularly travel abroad as tourists and to work
temporarily. Millions of young Chinese are in daily touch with the world through the Internet. All this
contrasts greatly with the societal self-isolation of the 19th- and 20th-century contestants for global
power. Mutual isolation in those days intensified grievances, escalated hostility, and made it easier to demonize
one another.

No US-China War-Economic Interdependence Proves

Wyne 12 ( Ali Wyne is a Former Research Assistant, Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs,China May Not Be A U.S. Ally, But It's Also Not An Adversary, 11/6/12, Accessed 6/5/14,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/11/06/china-may-not-be-a-u-s-ally-but-its-also-not-an-
adversary/)

For starters, the interactions between the U.S. and China are far more numerous and substantive than they
have been in previous meetings between rising powers and leading powers. It is often observed that China has
a strong interest in a revitalized U.S. economy. By virtue of their thick economic interdependence,
however, the U.S. also has a strong interest in continued Chinese growth. Paradoxically, then, each
countrys ability to compete with the other depends in part on the others health. While the U.S. may
not be pleased that its gross domestic product (GDP) will soon be overtaken, schadenfreude over the
current slowdown in China would be misguided. After all, the Financial Times notes, the trudging U.S. economy has been
one of the decelerations most obvious victims: China is so integrated into the global economy that even relatively
minor shifts in its domestic production or spending can have a big impact on the other side of the
world. Chinas economy is notable for another reason: even when it overtakes Americas in absolute
terms, it will still be poor in relative, per-capita terms. Thus does Gideon Rachman observe that Chinas rise challenges the
idea that the worlds largest economy [is] also the worlds most obviously affluent nation.China is both richer and poorer than
the [W]estern world.

US-China War Extremey Likely- Centers of Gravity Prove

Keck 14 (Zachary Keck is the Managing Editor of The Diplomat where he authors The
Pacific Realist blog. He also writes a monthly column for The National Interest, US-
China Rivalry More Dangerous Than Cold War?, Jan 28
th
, 2014,
http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/us-china-rivalry-more-dangerous-than-cold-war/)
The prominent realist international relations scholar John Mearsheimer says there is a greater possibility of the U.S.
and China going to war in the future than there was of a Soviet-NATO general war during the Cold War.
Mearsheimer made the comments at a lunch hosted by the Center for the National Interest in Washington, DC on Monday. The
lunch was held to discuss Mearsheimers recent article in The National Interest on U.S. foreign policy towards the Middle East.
However, much of the conversation during the Q&A session focused on U.S. policy towards Asia amid Chinas rise, a topic that
Mearsheimer addresses in greater length in the updated edition of his classic treatise, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, which is
due out this April. In contrast to the Middle East, which he characterizes as posing little threat to the United States,
Mearsheimer said that the U.S. will face a tremendous challenge in Asia should China continue to rise economically.
The University of Chicago professor said that in such a scenario it is inevitable that the U.S. and China will engage
in an intense strategic competition, much like the Soviet-American rivalry during the Cold War. While stressing that
he didnt believe a shooting war between the U.S. and China is inevitable, Mearsheimer said that he believes a U.S.-China
Cold War will be much less stable than the previous American-Soviet one. His reasoning was based on geography
and its interaction with nuclear weapons. Specifically, the center of gravity of the U.S.-Soviet competition was the
central European landmass. This created a rather stable situation as, according to Mearsheimer, anyone that war gamed a
NATO-Warsaw conflict over Central Europe understood that it would quickly turn nuclear. This gave both sides a powerful
incentive to avoid a general conflict in Central Europe as a nuclear war would make it very likely that both the U.S.
and Soviet Union would be vaporized. The U.S.-China strategic rivalry lacks this singular center of gravity.
Instead, Mearsheimer identified four potential hotspots over which he believes the U.S. and China might find
themselves at war: the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait and the South and East China Seas. Besides featuring
more hotspots than the U.S.-Soviet conflict, Mearsheimer implied that he felt that decision-makers in Beijing and
Washington might be more confident that they could engage in a shooting war over one of these areas without it
escalating to the nuclear threshold.
Sea level rise
Sea Levels
AT Sea Levels
Sea level rise statistics exaggerated
Gray, 2013
(Vincent; October 30, 2013;IPCC sea level exaggeration;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/ipcc-sea-level-exaggeration/)

Chapter 13 of the IPCC 5th WGI Report claims that sea level will rise by an amount between 0.26 to 0.97
metres by 2100 according to which of their new scenarios actually happens Relative Sea Level,the
distance between the level of the sea and the level of neighbouring land is what matters to most of us.
The Level of the open ocean is only of minor importance. This Report tries to mix the two up in a single
chart. Relative Sea Level is measured by tide gauges which measure the distance between the level of
the sea registered on specialist equipment and a supposedly constant benchmark location on the
neighbouring land. carried out in over 1000 coastal locations all over the world. The records are
averages, over a day, week, month or years. Both the level of the sea and of the neighbouring land
constantly vary from place to place. and from time to time. The sea changes level constantly, diurnally
and seasonally. It is influenced by winds, storms and hurricanes and also by earthquakes. The level of
the sea may be influenced by breakwaters and harbour works. The equipment may be damaged or its
location altered by storms. Severe storms may prevent correct measurement and give a false reading
which interferes with claims for change. Land surfaces may change. The land may subside by weight
of buildings, and removal of minerals and groundwater. The Report illustrates the problem of
measurement near land covered in iceGeological change (Isostasy) may result from plate movements
and earthquakes. Many of these effects cause an upwards bias to the readings. The records are publicly
available at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) website at
http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/map.html which features a very convenient map of the world
from which all the records can be obtained. Every one of these actual measured sea levels have shown
no sign of change for at least ten years, yet all the projections claim that this settled behaviour will
suddenly change to an upwards level of around half a metre by the end of the century. This is based on
models which have failed to predict the lack of a global temperature increase for the past 17 year,.yet it
is claimed they are causing melting of ice, particularly in the Arctic All the models assume that any
temperature rise will be least at the poles and greatest at the tropics because the water vapour
feedback is lower at the poles..They do not mention Antarctica where the ice is currently increasing
There are no measurements of temperatures on ice anywhere, on ice caps, oceans or glaciers. In all
cases there are other influences.on their behaviour. In the Arctic it is the temperature of the ocean and
the behaviour of the ocean oscillations. The ice in the Arctic is beginning to grow now The satellite
measurements do seem to show a steady increase in sea level, but it seems to be little known that the
instruments are subject to drift and they have to be calibrated on tide gauge measurements,


No trend for Sea Levels Rising
Lynas, 2012
(Mark; author of several books on the environment; 25 April 2012; Where sea-level
rise isnt what it seems; http://www.marklynas.org/2012/04/where-sea-level-rise-
isnt-what-it-seems/)
A new paper published in the AGUs house journal Eos Transactions shows why
caution is often justified. Here (via a screengrab, as the entire thing is behind a
password) is the 1993-2011 sea level trend data from Tarawa atoll, part of Kiribati in
the central Pacific: Whoa! No sea-level rise there, then. And yet of course climate
campaigners and even the Kiribati government understandably anxious to
highlight the future existential threat to the islands, have used storm surges, flooding
events and suchlike as evidence of current sea-level rise impacts. Which they are
almost certainly not, at least not in Tarawa atoll anyway. To me the graph is
interesting for two reasons. The first is the absence of any trend over the last 20 years
towards increased sea levels in that part of the Pacific. This should be expected,
because sea level rise as a computed average means that the oceans are rising in more
places than they are falling, but they are falling in some places nonetheless. (Just as a
few areas of the globe have got colder over recent years.) The second is the sheer up-
and-down massive variability in actual sea levels, which is linked to the El Nio cycle.
The author (Simon Donner, a geographer from the University of British Columbia,
Canada) points out in the Eos paper that the monthly mean sea level dropped by
nearly half a metre (45cm) between March 1997 and February 1998 because of switch
from El Nio to La Nia conditions, and peaks of 15cm were seen in each of the recent
El Nio events which as the author points out is equivalent to 50 years of global sea
level rise at the rate observed since 2000 of 3 mm per year.

Proliferation
Proliferation
AT: Proliferation
Countries with nuclear weapons wont go to the extent of using those nuclear
weapons
Tepperman, 2010
(Jonathan; 3/13/10; How Nuclear Weapons Can Keep You Safe
; http://www.newsweek.com/how-nuclear-weapons-can-keep-you-safe-78907)
The argument that nuclear weapons can be agents of peace as well as destruction rests on two
deceptively simple observations. First, nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. Second, there's
never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two states that possess them. Just stop for a
second and think about that: it's hard to overstate how remarkable it is, especially given the singular
viciousness of the 20th century. As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor
emeritus of political science at UC Berkeley puts it, "We now have 64 years of experience since
Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not
been any war among nuclear states."
To understand whyand why the next 64 years are likely to play out the same wayyou need to start
by recognizing that all states are rational on some basic level. Their leaders may be stupid, petty, venal,
even evil, but they tend to do things only when they're pretty sure they can get away with them. Take
war: a country will start a fight only when it's almost certain it can get what it wants at an acceptable
price. Not even Hitler or Saddam waged wars they didn't think they could win. The problem historically
has been that leaders often make the wrong gamble and underestimate the other sideand millions of
innocents pay the price.
Nuclear weapons change all that by making the costs of war obvious, inevitable, and unacceptable.
Suddenly, when both sides have the ability to turn the other to ashes with the push of a buttonand
everybody knows itthe basic math shifts. Even the craziest tin-pot dictator is forced to accept that war
with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort. As Waltz puts it, "Why fight if you can't
win and might lose everything?"



Biodiversity
Biodiversity
Marine life facing mass extinction and fast
Thair Shaikh, CNN 13/11
(http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/06/21/ocean.extinction.global.warming
/)
London (CNN) -- Marine life is under severe threat from global warming, pollution and habitat loss,
with a high risk of "major extinctions" according to a panel of experts.
These are the conclusions of a distinguished group of marine scientists who met at Oxford
University, England, in April to discuss the impact of human activity on the world's oceans.
The meeting, led by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO), examined the
combined effects of pollution, acidification, ocean warming, over-fishing and depleting levels of
oxygen in the water. The panel found that oceanic conditions are similar to those of "previous major
extinctions of species in Earth's history," and that we face losing marine species and entire marine
ecosystems, such as coral reefs, within a single generation. The interim report, produced in
partnership with the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), was presented to the
U.N. on Tuesday. The study also said that the speed of decline of marine ecosystems is faster than
predicted. Alex Rogers, IPSO's scientific director, said: "The oceans are a common heritage of
mankind. The extinction threat we believe is real. "Rogers, professor of Conservation Biology at the
Department Of Zoology, University of Oxford, told CNN: "The rate of change we are seeing in the
quantities of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere and then being absorbed into the oceans is
so great that it is difficult to compare what is happening now with what has happened in the past but
we do know that past disturbances in the carbon cycle have been a feature of mass extinction
events. According to the panel -- which consisted of 27 marine experts from 18 organizations --
most if not all the five "global mass extinctions" in Earth's history were probably caused by the
"deadly trio" of global warming, ocean acidification and lack of water oxygen or hypoxia. It states that
these three factors are present in the ocean today and gives examples of marine ecosystems
suffering severe disturbance, such as the mass "coral bleaching" in 1998 that killed 16% of all the
world's tropical coral reefs. According to the report, over-fishing has reduced some commercial fish
stocks and populations of by-catch species by more than 90%.Dan Laffoley, senior advisor on
Marine Science and Conservation for IUCN, and co-author of the report, said: "The challenges for
the future of the ocean are vast, but unlike previous generations we know what now needs to
happen. The time to protect the blue heart of our planet is now, today and urgent. Marine scientists
often describe oceans as the earth's circulatory system, performing numerous vital functions which
make the planet habitable, such as creating more than half our oxygen, driving weather systems
while modulating the atmosphere, as well as providing us with vital resources.


Coral reef extinction lead to Human extinction and economic decline
Associated Press Writer Brian Skoloff; AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein 3/26/13
(http://www.cbsnews.com/news/coral-reefs-face-extinction-within-century/)

Coral reefs are dying, and scientists and governments around the world are contemplating what
will happen if they disappear altogether. The idea positively scares them. Coral reefs are part of
the foundation of the ocean food chain. Nearly half the fish the world eats make their homes
around them. Hundreds of millions of people worldwide - by some estimates, 1 billion across
Asia alone - depend on them for their food and their livelihoods. If the reefs vanished, experts
say, hunger, poverty and political instability could ensue. Whole nations will be threatened in
terms of their existence," said Carl Gustaf Lund in of the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature. Numerous studies predict coral reefs are headed for extinction
worldwide, largely because of global warming, pollution and coastal development, but also
because of damage from bottom-dragging fishing boats and the international trade in jewelry
and souvenirs made of coral. At least 19 percent of the world's coral reefs are already gone,
including some 50 percent of those in the Caribbean. An additional 15 percent could be dead
within 20 years, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Old
Dominion University professor Kent Carpenter, director of a worldwide census of marine
species (the Global Marine Species Assessment) , warned that if global warming continues
unchecked, all corals could be extinct within 100 years. "You could argue that a complete
collapse of the marine ecosystem would be one of the consequences of losing corals," Carpenter
said. "You're going to have a tremendous cascade effect for all life in the oceans."Exotic and
colorful, coral reefs aren't lifeless rocks; they are made up of living creatures that excrete a hard
calcium carbonate exoskeleton. Once the animals die, the rocky structures erode, depriving fish
of vital spawning and feeding grounds. Experts say cutting back on carbon emissions to arrest
rising sea temperatures and acidification of the water, declaring some reefs off limits to fishing
and diving, and controlling coastal development and pollution could help reverse, or at least
stall, the tide. Florida, for instance, has the largest unbroken "no-take" zone in the continental
U.S. - about 140 square miles off limits to fishing in and around Dry Tortugas National Park, a
cluster of islands and reefs teeming with marine life about 70 miles off Key West. Many
fishermen oppose such restrictions. And other environmental measures have run into resistance
at the state, local, national and international level. On Sunday, during a gathering of
the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) on Wild Fauna and
Flora, restrictions proposed by the U.S. and Sweden on the trade of some coral species were
rejected. If reefs were to disappear, commonly consumed species of grouper and snapper could
become just memories. Oysters, clams and other creatures that are vital to many people's diets
would also suffer. And experts say commercial fisheries would fail miserably at meeting demand
for seafood. "Fish will become a luxury good," said Cassandra deYoung of the United Nations
Food and Agriculture Organization. "You already have a billion people who are facing hunger,
and this is just going to aggravate the situation," she added. "We will not be able to maintain
food security around the world."The economic damage could be enormous. Ocean fisheries
provide direct employment to at least 38 million people worldwide, with an additional 162
million people indirectly involved in the industry, according to the U.N. Coral reefs draw scuba
divers, snorkelers and other tourists to seaside resorts in Florida, Hawaii, Southeast Asia and
the Caribbean and help maintain some of the world's finest sandy beaches by absorbing energy
from waves. Without the reefs, hotels, restaurants and other businesses that cater to tourists
could suffer financially. (Left: Red and pink corals, or Corallium rubrum, are seen on the
seabed of the Mediterranean. According to the marine conservation group SeaWeb, they are
harvested and then turned into expensive jewelry in Italy, Taiwan and China.)
Many Caribbean countries get nearly half their gross national product from visitors seeking
tropical underwater experiences.People all over the world could pay the price if reefs were to
disappear, since some types of coral and marine species that rely on reefs are being used by the
pharmaceutical industry to develop possible cures for cancer, arthritis and viruses."A world
without coral reefs is unimaginable," said Jane Lubchenco, a marine biologist who heads NOAA.
"Reefs are precious sources of food, medicine and livelihoods for hundreds of thousands around
the world. They are also special places of renewal and recreation for thousands more. Their
exotic beauty and diverse bounty are global treasures."


AT Biodiversity
TURN-
Scientific study says climate change solves ecosystem biodiversity
Bastasch 5/15 (Michael Bastasch, Global Warming Is Increasing Biodiversity Around The World 1:00
PM 05/15/2014 Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/15/global-warming-is-increasing-
biodiversity-around-the-world/#ixzz37jn1MRk6)
A new study published in the journal Science has astounded biologists: global warming is not harming
biodiversity, but instead is increasing the range and diversity of species in various ecosystems. Environmentalists have long warned that
global warming could lead to mass extinctions as fragile ecosystems around the world are made unlivable as temperatures increase. But a
team of biologists from the United States, United Kingdom and Japan found that global warming has not
led to a decrease in biodiversity. Instead, biodiversity has increased in many areas on land and in the
ocean. Although the rate of species extinction has increased markedly as a result of human activity across the biosphere, conservation
has focused on endangered species rather than on shifts in assemblages, reads the editors abstract of
the report. The study says species turnover was above expected but do not find evidence of
systematic biodiversity loss. The editors abstract adds that the result could be caused by
homogenization of species assemblages by invasive species, shifting distributions induced by climate
change, and asynchronous change across the planet. Researchers reviewed 100 long-term species monitoring studies from around the
world and found increasing biodiversity in 59 out of 100 studies and decreasing biodiversity in 41 studies.
The rate of change in biodiversity was modest in all of the studies, biologists said. But one thing in particular that shocked the studys authors
was that there were major shifts in the types of species living in ecosystems. About 80 percent of the ecosystems
analyzed showed species changes of an average of 10 percent per decade much greater than anyone has previously
predicted. This, however, doesnt mean that individual species arent being harmed by changing
climates. The study noted that, for example, coral reefs in many areas of the world are being replaced by a type of algae. In the oceans we
no longer have many anchovies, but we seem to have an awful lot of jellyfish, Nick Gotelli, a biologist at the University of Vermont and one of
the studys authors, told RedOrbit.com. Those kinds of changes are not going to be seen by just counting the number of species that are
present. We move species around, Gotelli added. There is a huge ant diversity in Florida, and about 30 percent of the ant species are non-
natives. They have been accidentally introduced, mostly from the Old World tropics, and they are now a part of the local assemblage. So you
can have increased diversity in local communities because of global homogenization. The study comes with
huge implications for current species preservation strategies, as most operate under the assumption that biodiversity will decrease in a
warming world. But if biodiversity is increasing, then conservationists may need a new way to monitor the effects of global warming on
ecosystems.

Economy
Economy
Economic decline causes conflict, resource competition, terrorism and war
Kemp, 10, , [Director of Regional Strategic Programs at The Nixon Center, served in the White House
under Ronald Reagan, special assistant to the president for national security affairs and senior director
for Near East and South Asian affairs on the National Security Council Staff, Former Director, Middle East
Arms Control Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Geoffrey The East Moves
West: India, China, and Asias Growing Presence in the Middle East, p. 233-4)
The second scenario, called Mayhem and Chaos, is the opposite of the first scenario; everything that can go wrong does go wrong. The world
economic situation weakens rather than strengthens, and India, China, and Japan suffer a major reduction in their
growth rates, further weakening the global economy. As a result, energy demand falls and the price of fossil fuels plummets,
leading to a financial crisis for the energy-producing states, which are forced to cut back dramatically on expansion programs and
social welfare. That in turn leads to political unrest: and nurtures different radical groups, including, but not limited to, Islamic
extremists. The internal stability of some countries is challenged, and there are more failed states. Most serious is the collapse
of the democratic government in Pakistan and its takeover by Muslim extremists, who then take possession of a large number of
nuclear weapons. The danger of war between India and Pakistan increases significantly. Iran, always worried about
an extremist Pakistan, expands and weaponizes its nuclear program. That further enhances nuclear proliferation in the Middle
East, with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt joining Israel and Iran as nuclear states. Under these circumstances, the potential for nuclear
terrorism increases, and the possibility of a nuclear terrorist attack in either the Western world or in the oil-producing states
may lead to a further devastating collapse of the world economic market, with a tsunami-like impact on stability. In this
scenario, major disruptions can be expected, with dire consequences for two-thirds of the planets population.

AT Economy

Economic collapse shifts to post-growth society enables solutions to social problems
James Gustave Speth 11
Speth is a professor at Vermont Law School and a Distinguished Senior Fellow at Demos, a nonpartisan public policy research and advocacy
organization. A former dean of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies, he also co-founded the Natural Resources Defense Council,
was founder and president of the World Resources Institute, and served as administrator of the United Nations Development
Programme.Creating A New Vision Of Economic Growth 6/1, http://www.countercurrents.org/speth010611.htm
But an expanding body of evidence is now telling us to think again. The never-ending drive to grow the overall U.S. economy
is ruining the environment; it fuels a ruthless international search for energy and other resources; it fails
at generating the needed jobs; it hollows out communities; and it rests on a manufactured consumerism that
is not meeting the deepest human needs. Americans are substituting growth and consumption for dealing with the real issues for
doing things that would truly make us and the country better off.
It is time for America to move to post-growth society where the natural environment, working life, our communities and
families, and the public sector are no longer sacrificed for the sake of mere GDP growth; where the illusory promises of ever-
more growth no longer provide an excuse for neglecting to deal generously with our countrys
compelling social needs; and where true citizen democracy is no longer held hostage to the growth
imperative.