Warming Reps K

Shells

1nc
Apocalyptic framing of warming as a security related issue destroys
solvency redirects solutions towards a technical manner, limits
attention on other issues, doesnt address root cause or alternative
causes of warming
Crist 7 Ass. Prof. Sci & Tech in Society @ VT (Eileen, Telos 141, Winter, Beyond the Climate Crisis)
While the dangers of climate change are real, I argue that there are even greater dangers in
representing it as the most urgent problem we face. Framing climate change in such a manner
deserves to be challenged for two reasons: it encourages the restriction of proposed solutions to the technical
realm, by powerfully insinuating that the needed approaches are those that directly address the
problem; and it detracts attention from the planets ecological predicament as a whole, by virtue of
claiming the limelight for the one issue that trumps all others. Identifying climate change as the biggest threat
to civilization, and ushering it into center stage as the highest priority problem, has bolstered the proliferation of technical proposals
that address the specific challenge. The race is on for figuring out what technologies, or portfolio thereof, will solve the problem.

Whether the call is for reviving nuclear power, boosting the installation of wind turbines, using a variety of
renewable energy sources, increasing the efficiency of fossil-fuel use, developing carbon-sequestering technologies, or
placing mirrors in space to deflect the suns rays, the narrow character of such proposals is evident: confront
the problem of greenhouse gas emissions by technologically phasing them out , superseding them,
capturing them, or mitigating their heating effects. In his The Revenge of Gaia, for example, Lovelock briefly mentions the need to
face climate change by changing our whole style of living.16 But the thrust of this work, what readers and policy-makers come
away with, is his repeated and strident call for investing in nuclear energy as, in his words, the one lifeline we can use
immediately.17 In the policy realm, the first step toward the technological fix for global warming is often identified with
implementing the Kyoto protocol. Biologist Tim Flannery agitates for the treaty, comparing the need for its successful endorsement
to that of the Montreal protocol that phased out the ozone-depleting CFCs. The Montreal protocol, he submits, marks a signal
moment in human societal development, representing the first ever victory by humanity over a global pollution problem.18 He
hopes for a similar victory for the global climate-change problem. Yet the deepening realization of the threat of climate change,
virtually in the wake of stratospheric ozone depletion, also suggests that dealing with global problems treaty-by-treaty is no solution
to the planets predicament. Just as the risks of unanticipated ozone depletion have been followed by the dangers of a long
underappreciated climate crisis, so it would be nave not to anticipate another (perhaps even entirely unforeseeable) catastrophe
arising after the (hoped-for) resolution of the above two. Furthermore, if greenhouse gases were restricted successfully by means of
technological shifts and innovations, the

root cause of the ecological crisis as a whole would remain unaddressed.

The destructive patterns of production, trade, extraction, land-use, waste proliferation, and
consumption, coupled with population growth, would go unchallenged, continuing to run down the integrity, beauty,
and biological richness of the Earth. Industrial-consumer civilization has entrenched a form of life that admits virtually no limits to
its expansiveness within, and perceived entitlement to, the entire planet.19 But questioning this civilization is by and large
sidestepped in climate-change discourse, with its single-minded quest for a global-warming techno-fix.20 Instead of confronting the
forms of social organization that are causing the climate crisisamong numerous other catastrophesclimate-change literature
often focuses on how global warming is endangering the culprit, and agonizes over what technological means can save it from
impending tipping points.21 The dominant frame of climate change funnels cognitive and pragmatic work toward specifically
addressing global warming, while muting a host of equally monumental issues. Climate

change looms so huge on the

environmental and political agenda today that it has contributed to downplaying other facets of the
ecological crisis: mass extinction of species, the devastation of the oceans by industrial fishing, continued oldgrowth deforestation, topsoil losses and desertification, endocrine disruption, incessant
development, and so on, are made to appear secondary and more forgiving by comparison with
dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. In what follows, I will focus specifically on
how climate-change discourse encourages the continued marginalization of the biodiversity crisisa crisis that has been soberly
described as a holocaust,22 and which despite decades of scientific and environmentalist pleas remains a virtual non-topic in
society, the mass media, and humanistic and other academic literatures. Several works on climate change (though by no means all)
extensively examine the consequences of global warming for biodiversity, 23 but rarely is it mentioned that biodepletion predates
dangerous greenhouse-gas buildup by decades, centuries, or longer, and will not be stopped by a technological resolution of global
warming. Climate change is poised to exacerbate species and ecosystem lossesindeed, is doing so already. But while

technologically preempting the worst of climate change may temporarily avert some of those

losses, such a resolution of the climate quandary will not put an end towill barely addressthe ongoing
destructionof life on Earth.

Environmental securitization leads to war

Brzoska 8 Michael Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg,
The securitization of climate change and the power of conceptions of security, Paper prepared for the
International Studies Association Convention 2008
***We dont support gendered language***
In the literature on securitization it is implied that when

a problem is securitized it is difficult to limit this to

an increase in attention and resources devoted to mitigating the problem (Brock 1997, Waever 1995).
Securitization regularly leads to all-round exceptionalism in dealing with the issue as well as
to a shift in institutional localization towards security experts (Bigot 2006), such as the military and police. Methods
and instruments associated with these security organizations such as more use of arms, force
and violence will gain in importance in the discourse on what to do. A good example of
securitization was the period leading to the Cold War (Guzzini 2004 ). Originally a political conflict
over the organization of societies, in the late 1940s, the East-West confrontation became an
existential conflict that was overwhelmingly addressed with military means ,
including the potential annihilation of humankind . Efforts to alleviate the political
conflict were, throughout most of the Cold War, secondary to improving military capabilities. Climate
change could meet a similar fate .An essentially political problem concerning the
distribution of the costs of prevention and adaptation and the losses and gains in income arising from change in
the human environment might be perceived as intractable , thus necessitating the build-up of
military and police forces to prevent it from becoming a major security problem .
The portrayal of climate change as a security problem could, in particular, cause the richer countries
in the global North, which are less affected by it, to strengthen measures aimed at protecting them
from the spillover of violent conflict from the poorer countries in the global South that will be most affected by
climate change. It could also be used by major powers as a justification for improving their military
preparedness against the other major powers, thus leading to arms races.

The alternative is to reframe environmental problems from

apocalyptic discourse and extinction rhetoric this is critical for
universal action
Foust 8 Christina R. Foust, Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies
at the University of Denver, et al., with William O. Murphy, Doctoral Student and Graduate Teaching
Instructor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver, and Chelsea
Stow, Doctoral Student and Graduate Teaching Instructor in the Department of Human Communication
Studies at the University of Denver, 2008, Global Warming and Apocalyptic Rhetoric: A Critical Frame
Analysis of US Popular and Elite Press Coverage from 1997-2007, Paper Submitted to the Environmental
Communication Division of the National Communication Association Convention in San Diego, 11/20, p.
22-23
In conclusion, we

hope to inspire more scholarship in the spirit of Moser and Dillings (2007) call for a greater
inter-disciplinary conversation on climate change. The methodological tool of frame analysis
can help foster common ground between humanities scholars, social scientists, and climate scientists, concerned about

global warming. Frame

analysis can also be a valuable tool in identifying the troubling

aspects of how a discourse evolves and is communicatedand in so doing, it can lead to
more effective communication . Deconstructing the harmful effects of an apocalyptic
frame, we feel some responsibility to try to offer alternative frames which might balance
the need to communicate the urgency of climate change, without moving people to denial
and despair. We would like to see the press inspire more of a public dialogue on how we can mitigate climate change, rather
than encouraging readers to continue to be resigned to the catastrophic telos. This does not mean that we should
ignore the potentially devastating consequences of global warming (now and in the future); but it does
mean that we must begin a conversation about how to change our daily routines to make things
better. We believe that the press could promote greater human agency in the issue of climate change,
so that people do not become resigned to the telos of global warming. This includes
encouraging more personal and civic responsibility, rather than suggesting that
experts will take care of it (or that we can do nothing to mitigate the impacts of
climate change). Journalists could acknowledge the expertise of scientists, balanced with an
acknowledgement of the power of common sense and moralitysuch a move may help avoid casting
scientists as prophets. Through a less tragic, more productive framing of the issues of climate
change, we may expand the common ground needed to build a political will for
dealing with climate change.

2NC/1NR
Overview heres the argument:
a) Extend Crist 7 Their representations are the root cause
framing warming as an apocalyptic threat rejects real solutions
and attention to other environmental problems
b) Extend Brzoska 8 framing the environment in a militaristic
manner leads to extinction creates environmental
exceptionalism in which any action that solves some threat to
the environment is justified. Their framing creates the build-up
of military forces to strengthen the protection of the
environment leading to arms races.
c) Foust 8 the alternative is the only way to solve deconstructs
apocalyptic framing and expertism. The alt expands the common
ground that is ultimately needed to build a political will for
dealing with climate change we solve the root cause of the
impact
Noncooperation can disempower the securitizing hierarchies that
hold environmental policy hostage.
Carter, 4 (Alan, Department of Philosophy @ University of Colorado @ Boulder, Some
theoretical foundations for radical green politics, Environmental Values, Vol. 13. No. 3, August,
pp. 305-328, JSTOR)
Hence, if the state is empowered not only by its coercive forces but also to a large degree by the compliance of its people, then an
increasing perception that it

is irrational to maintain that support could provide an answer to the

environmentally hazardous dynamic. In other words, widespread individual non-cooperation with the state,
undertaken as a response to the growing need to take action against the increasingly threatening
environmental crises the state seems to be centrally implicated in, could conceivably disempower
it . In short, the extent of the environmental problems that we appear to face could provide the rationale and motivation for the
disempowering of the state through non-cooperation. And this could begin to undermine any environmentally
hazardous dynamic we might currently be imprisoned within. In which case, the disempowerment of
the state by non-violent civil disobedience, and the correlative empowerment of those practising it,
seems the most promising place to start undermining the environmentally
hazardous dynamic . And 'the velvet revolutions' of Eastern Europe certainly suggest that widespread noncooperation with the state can be an effective strategy for radical transformation .

Mechanics

Impacts

Serial Policy Failure

Endless War

Structural Violence

Etc.

Alternative

Alt Solves

AT Alternative is not competitive

Were functionally competitive
Hill 91 (Thomas E. Jr., Professor of Philosophy University of North Carolina, The Message
of Affirmative Action, The Affirmative Action Debate (1995), Ed. Cahn, p. 169-170)
Actions, as the saying goes, often speak louder than words. There are times, too, when only actions can effectively communicate the

What our actions

say to others depends largely, though not entirely, upon our avowed reasons for acting; and
message we want to convey, and times when giving a message is a central part of the purpose of action.

this is a matter for reflective [end page 169] decision, not something we discover later by looking back at what we did and its effects.
The decision is important because "the

same act" can have very different consequences ,

depending upon how we choose to justify it. In a sense, acts done for different
reasons are not "the same act" even if otherwise similar , and so not merely the
consequences but also the moral nature of our acts depend in part on our
decisions about the reasons for doing them. Unfortunately, the message actually conveyed by our actions
does not depend only on our intentions and reasons, for our acts may have a meaning for others quite at odds with what we hoped to
express. Others may misunderstand our intentions, doubt our sincerity, or discern a subtext that undermines the primary message.
Even if sincere, well-intended, and successfully conveyed, the

message of an act or policy does not by itself justify

almost always a relevant factor, however, in the moral
assessment of the act or policy. These remarks may strike you as too obvious to be worth mentioning; for, even if
the means by which it is conveyed; it is

we do not usually express the ideas so abstractly, we are all familiar with them in our daily interactions with our friends, families,

Who, for example, does not know the importance of the message
expressed in offering money to another person, as well as the dangers of
misunderstanding? What is superficially "the same act" can be an offer to buy, an
admission of guilt, an expression of gratitude, a contribution to a common cause, a
condescending display of superiority, or an outrageous insult. Because all this is
so familiar, the extent to which these elementary points are ignored in
discussions of the pros and cons of social policies such as affirmative action is surprising.
The usual presumption is that social policies can be settled entirely by debating the
rights involved or by estimating the consequences, narrowly conceived apart from
the messages that we want to give and the messages that are likely to be received.
and colleagues.

Framework

Discourse Shapes reality

Discourse shapes reality empirically proven with the escalation of
the Cold War
Foster 1995
(Gregory D., professor at the National Defense University at West Point,
Interrogating the Future: The Question of Long-Term Threats, Alternatives)
Where, then, does

this leave usin an elevated state of awakening or in a depressed state of

confusion and resentment? It is, admittedly, burdensome and intimidating to face a deluge of questions
without being afforded the intellectual crutch of an authoritative answer or two . That is the price
we pay, though, for having allowed our minds to be crippled by Cold War dogma. Possessed of
truth, we ignored, we denied, we disdained anyone or anything that contradicted our certainty. We did
not question, we did not seek answers other than the ones we already had . To do so would have been
superfluous, and clearly suspect. Now we must undergo corrective surgery. Whatever answers might
emerge from the questions posed here, three fundamental issues deserve our attention. The first concerns
the very languagethe terminologywe use in public discourse. In his rather well-known 1946 essay, "Politics and the
English Language," George Orwell drew the link between the debasement of language and the decline of
civilization. He was convinced that both conditions were taking place in tandem at the time he wrote. By the same token, he
believed the problem could be reversed. By ridding oneself of the many bad habits of English usage we
have adopted, one can think more clearly, he said, and thereby take the first step toward political
regeneration.74 The use of the word "threat" certainly seems to fit here. Although it is not a new word, the Cold War
gave it heightened visibility, broadened and obscured its meaning, and made it part of the lingua
franca of contemporary international politics. What should be all too obvious is the adversarial
image the term conveys and the Manichean world view it engenders. Threattalk becomes
threatthink. The resultant paranoia and intolerance invariably blind us to emerging developments
and conditions that truly threaten our well-being but fall outside the bounds of our distorted
perception. This brings us to a second fundamental issue: the effect our image of threat has on reality.
The late Kenneth Boulding made the astute observation that there is a reciprocal, escalatory dynamic
associated with threat imagery. For example, Country A, feeling itself threatened (however and for whatever reasons) by
Country B, increases its armaments to reduce its insecurity. This makes B feel threatened, and so B increases its armaments to
bolster its security. This makes A feel even more threatened, so A again increases its armaments. This growing threat "forces" B to
further increase its armaments. And so on until either war breaks out or some other change (such as internal economic collapse)
reverses the process.75 This is how threatthink becomes threat. If

there is a single, documentable truth to be

derived from an assessment of threat-based thinking, it is that the perception of threat at least
where that threat has a human componentalmost invariably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. For this reason
alonethe fact that we have shown ourselves perversely capable of creating unwanted inevitability
we must face up to a third fundamental issue: the more general failure of our overall approach to
envisioning the future. Most of us justifiably consider ourselves unqualified to divine the future. We therefore typically
defer to experts and authoritiesfuturists and assorted government technocrats presumably possessed of
special powers or information the rest of us do not havewho end up thereby dictating not only our future
but our present as well. These are the individuals who tell us not only that there are threats, but what they are and how we
must deal with them. What we refuse to recognize is that the future these purported visionaries are able to
see is invariably nothing more imaginative than a simple projection of what already is
happening. It also is an assured way for them to solidify and perpetuate their own power over us.
The future they see, because the rest of us accept it on authority as all but inevitable, closes out
any perceived need to pursue other potentially fruitful possibilities; it provides an excuse for
ignoring present needs that, if fulfilled, might well produce a markedly different future; it

ensures nothing more enlightened or progressive than creeping incrementalism and

evolutionary drift; it creates false expectations about what can and will be; and when it fails to
materializeas it so often does because of the unexpected-it produces feelings of helplessness, not among the
purveyors of the deception, but among those of us who have so carelessly relinquished our fate
to them.76 Threats are in the future. Threat assessment is about the future. Vision is of the future. The Cold War clouded
our vision and crippled our ability to determine, objectively, whether there are threats that
should concern us, what they are, why they are important, and how we should deal with them. Our future will
depend in large measure on our willingness to overcome our Cold War myopia and to demonstrate a
newfound degree of individual and collective vision. Whether vision is a gift or an acquired skill, we will have to
seek out the visionaries in our midst who can either lead the rest of us less gifted out of our self-imposed darkness or at least stand as
models on which we can pattern ourselves. And how

will we know vision when we see it? We need not doubt

that its presence will be so unlike anything we are used to, we will know . But if we are searching for a
standard against which to judge, we could do no better than to recall the surpassing insight Abraham Lincoln demonstrated on at
least one occasion at the height of the US Civil War. At an official reception, the president referred to Southerners rather as erring
human beings than as foes to be exterminated. An elderly lady, a fiery patriot, rebuked him for speaking kindly of his enemies when
he ought to be thinking of destroying them. "Why, madam," said Lincoln, "do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my
friends?',77 (86-88)

ROB

AT Extinction 1st
Well concede extinction comes first their representations are the
root cause of the impact. Even if they win that extinction comes first,
well still win that they dont functionally solve the root cause the alt
is the only way to solve. They guarantee extinction without solving
the root cause of the impact, they make serial policy failure and
extinction inevitable
OR

AT Reps not first

AT Discourse not first

Perm/Theory

AT Perm
The plan links to the kritik through apocalyptic representation and
discourse. Do not let them sever this rhetoric in an attempt to
permute the alternative. It is impossible for the affirmative to
perform the alternative while using the same representation that is
criticized.
A complete reframing through the alternative is the only way to avoid
a collapse of the policy and the impacts of apocalyptic representations
Dalby, 92 (Simon, Department of Political Science @ Simon Fraser University, Security,
Modernity, Ecology: The Dilemmas of Post-Cold War Security Discourse, Alternatives: Global,
Local, Political, vol. 17, no. 1, Winter, pp. 95-134, JSTOR)
Suggestions such as Sorensen's to extend US national security thinking to encompass economic security
are vulnerable to this kind of critique. They perpetuate the system of global disparities and keep the growing
populations of poor people in conditions of anything but security. A political strategy to transform the current patterns of
resource exploitation and the structural violence that goes with the contemporary forms of development must be
part of a discussion of alternative formulations of security. Security for many requires a transformation of
international economic structures. Yet this is precisely the kind of transformation resisted by conventional Western uses of the term
security, when it is used to ensure the Western model of development and the continued uninterrupted flow of resources and access
to international markets. The contradictions in the use of the term are clear and persistent. Any

political strategy using

the term security will need to be cautious, given the potential for cooptation and the difficulties
inherent in using a term that is widely used with decidedly unprogressive overtones. Simply
tacking on "ecological" or "common" or "sustainable" may not be enough to shift
the focus away from neorealist assumptions and the practices of security as
imposed force . Neither, as R. B. J. Walker argues, is a global polity as yet easy to conceptualize in political terms whatever
the hopes of the prophets of "biosphere politics."149 Reformulating security drastically, as Booth's "emancipation" ideas
suggest, requires a complete change of the discourse on international security - a political
project of very large scope indeed, albeit one that could draw on popular common sense meanings of the term security to subvert the
institutionalized definitions.

AT Timeframe Perm
This is severance. The alt calls for a complete rejection of the 1AC
discourse with no exceptions. You cant reject the aff, then do the aff.
Doesnt test the competition between the plan and the alt their perm
changes the nature of the alternative by changing its timeframe
allowing them to add additions to the alt makes generating
competition extremely difficult killing neg ground independent
voter.

AT Perm Double Bind

AT All Other Instances

AT Do Both

***Theory***

AT Condo Bad
Interp Neg gets [x] conditional advocacies.
Multiple policy options in reality
They can kick an advantage this should reciprocate towards the neg.
Key to test from different angles creates good policymaking and
education
Aff has infinite prep and first and last speech.

AT Floating PIKs bad

Interpretation: Negative should be allowed to PIC out of affirmative
representations
A) Net benefits check abuse We kritik development, they can impact
turn the alternative
B) Lit checks abuse we have specific evidence contextualizing the
representations of the affirmative in the context of policymaking
C) Reject the argument not the team If they win floating piks are
bad, you should still grant us our alternative minus the advocacy of
the aff

AT Ks Bad

Answers

AT Environmental Securitization Good

Pretty much just impact cards here

AT Environment Apocalyptic Framing Good