1AC

Warming
Emissions trading and negative emissions technology now---they risk climate disaster
Ben Courtice, 11-24-2016, Australian Climate Activist, Scholar, and Journalist at Green Left Weekly,
Thursday, November 24, 2016, After COP22, lets not follow the Kyoto road again,
http://www.climatejusticeaotearoa.org/2016/11/24/after-cop22-lets-not-follow-the-kyoto-road-again/

Perhaps the
most fundamental problem of the Paris Agreement is that it relies on hypothetical negative
emissions technology to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere after 2050.

In an October Science magazine paper, respected European climate scientists Kevin Anderson and
Glen Peters wrote that models used to determine emissions targets assume perfect knowledge of
future technologies and give less weight to future costs Negative-emission technologies are not an
insurance policy , but rather a n unjust and high-stakes gamble .

In other words, there is no guarantee that negative emissions technology will work, at a scale or cost that
is feasible . Yet the lives of the worlds most vulnerable are being gambled on it.

The combination of enormous flaws in the Paris Agreement and the US election result risks repeating the
disaster of the Kyoto period. The Kyoto protocol, adopted in 1997, was a manifest failure: greenhouse gas emissions continued to rocket
upward during its life.

Its farcical central policy mechanism emissions trading crashed and burned repeatedly in the one
region that took it up most seriously, the E uropean U nion.

Yet having the US outside the treaty, as well as Australia under Prime Minister John Howard, led to much effort and anger being spent on trying
to get those recalcitrant nations to sign up, rather than questioning what kind of treaty might actually stop climate change.

The world cannot afford the delaying tactics of fossil fools like the Trump administration, or a Liberal-National Coalition

government in Australia, distracting from serious action again.

Ben Schreiber of FoE US said: The world should respond to Donald Trumps Presidency by moving forward and strengthening the weak Paris
Agreement pledges. Trumps election must unify the world in treating the US as a climate pariah, not serve as an excuse for inaction.

Most urgently, the world needs to ensure that unity against the idiocy of the Trump administration does not blind us to the fatal flaws built into
the fabric of the Paris Agreement.

Will fiddling with the Paris Agreement fix it? Is that even on the cards? Or is it, more realistically, going to be an exercise in marshalling another
defence of token action, too little and too late?

Renewables

Without sabotaging whatever is worthwhile in the lowest-common-denominator approach of the international treaty process, nations that

accept the urgency of the climate crisis should set the bar for action higher .

Australian researchers, for example, have repeatedly demonstrated that Australia could rapidly move to 100% renewable energy by 2030 or
earlier. Professor Mark Z Jacobson of Stanford University in the US has pioneered research demonstrating the global potential for renewable
energy.

Renewable energy is only one measure needed to limit the damage of climate change, but it is a crucial one. Given the central role of
the fossil fuel industry in organising opposition to climate action, any government that wishes to take serious action will
need to move rapidly to smash the resistance of the fossil fuel industry. Renewables provide a
weapon.

The next question is how to create a government (or alliance of governments) that can and will take this kind
of action at a scale that can lead the world . This question, more than evaluating the charade of international climate
diplomacy, is what should concern us.

Warming magnifies the risk of every global conflict---causes prolif, nuclear terrorism,
and nuclear war
Jrgen Scheffran 16, Professor at the Institute for Geography at the University of Hamburg and head
of the Research Group Climate Change and Security in the CliSAP Cluster of Excellence and the Center
for Earth System Research and Sustainability, et al., April 2016, The Climate-Nuclear Nexus: Exploring
the linkages between climate change and nuclear threats,
http://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/file/2016/01/WFC_2015_The_Climate-Nuclear_Nexus.pdf

Climate change and nuclear weapons represent two key threats of our time. Climate change endangers ecosystems and
social systems all over the world . The degradation of natural resources, the decline of water and food
supplies, forced migration, and more frequent and intense disasters will greatly affect population clusters, big and
small. Climate-related shocks will add stress to the worlds existing conflicts and act as a threat
multiplier in already fragile regions. This could contribute to a decline of international stability and
trigger hostility between people and nations . Meanwhile, the 15,500 nuclear weapons that remain in the arsenals of only
a few states possess the destructive force to destroy life on Earth as we know multiple times over. With nuclear

deterrence strategies still in place, and hundreds of weapons on hair trigger alert, the risks of nuclear war
caused by accident, miscalculation or intent remain plentiful and imminent .

Despite growing recognition that climate change and nuclear weapons pose critical security risks, the linkages between both threats are largely
ignored. However, nuclear and climate risks interfere with each other in a mutually enforcing way.

Conflicts induced by climate change could contribute to global insecurity , which, in turn, could enhance
the chance of a nuclear weapon being used , could create more fertile breeding grounds for terrorism,
including nuclear terrorism , and could feed the ambitions among some states to acquire nuclear arms .
Furthermore, as evidenced by a series of incidents in recent years, extreme weather events, environmental degradation and major seismic
events can directly impact the safety and security of nuclear installations. Moreover, a nuclear
war could lead to a rapid and
prolonged drop in average global temperatures and significantly disrupt the global climate for years to
come, which would have disastrous implications for agriculture, threatening the food supply for most of the world . Finally,
climate change, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy pose threats of intergenerational harm, as evidenced by the transgenerational effects of
nuclear testing and nuclear power accidents and the lasting impacts on the climate, environment and public health by carbon emissions.
Tipping points are likely---only 1.5 degrees solves
Yongyang Cai 16, Computational and Environmental Economist, Associate Professor in the Department
of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, PhD in Copmutational and Mathematical
Engineering, at Stanford, Timothy M. Lenton, Thomas S. Lontzek, Risk of multiple interacting tipping
points should encourage rapid CO2 emission reduction,
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n5/pdf/nclimate2964.pdf

Existing scientific studies suggest there are multiple climate tipping points that could be triggered
this century or next if climate change continues unabated7,8 , and there are causal interactions
between tipping events such that tipping one element affects the likelihoods of tipping others 8 (Fig. 1).
The likelihood of specific tipping events varies, but is generally expected to increase with global
temperature7,8 . However, internal variability within the climate system, and relatively rapid anthropogenic forcing, mean that even if
deterministic tipping points could be precisely identified, the actual systems could be tipped earlier or later9 . Thus, any assessment of
their policy implications needs to represent the stochastic uncertainty surrounding when tipping
points could occur10. Furthermore, the impacts of passing different tipping points are expected to vary7,11,
and to unfold at different rates depending on the internal timescale of the part of the climate system
being tipped7,11 Relative to this scientific understanding, most costbenefit analyses of climate change allow for
only simple and scientifically unrealistic representations of climate tipping points11. Most previous IAM
studies of climate catastrophes have treated them in a deterministic fashion, sometimes giving them a probability distribution5,1215. Some
recent IAM studies have considered one stochastic climate tipping point impacting economic
output10, nonmarket welfare16, climate sensitivity17, or carbon cycle feedbacks17 . This can lead to up to
200% increases in the SCC in extreme cases10, with the results clearly sensitive to the timescale over which tipping point impacts unfold, as well
as the final magnitude of those impacts10. However, there
has been little consideration of multiple tipping points
and interactions between them, or of how an appropriate representation of risk aversion affects the
optimal response to the prospect of future tipping points. A recent IAM study18 has examined three
loosely defined tipping points that instantaneously alter climate sensitivity, carbon cycle feedbacks, or
economic output, and interact through their effects on atmospheric CO2 , global temperature, or
economic output. Here we consider five carefully defined tipping points7,8 and the direct causal
interactions between them identified by scientific experts8 (Fig. 1). These interactions occur primarily
through aspects of the climate system that are not resolved in simple IAMs. The impacts of our tipping
points unfold at a rate appropriate for the system being tipped, in contrast with instantaneous changes17,18 in
climate sensitivity and carbon cycle feedbacks, which are scientifically questionable10. Our tipping points principally affect economic output,
although we also consider their feedback effects on the carbon cycle. Instead of arbitrarily specifying the likelihood of the tipping points18, we
calibrate their likelihoods (and the causal interactions between them) on the basis of the results of an existing
expert elicitation8 . Furthermore, in contrast to recent work18, we alter the specification of the social planners preferences regarding
risk aversion and intergenerational equity, in a manner appropriate for the stochastic uncertainty surrounding future tipping points. Modelling
tipping points We use the dynamic stochastic integration of climate and economy (DSICE) framework19 to incorporate five stochastic tipping
points and causal interactions between them into the 2013 version of the well-known DICE model20 (see Methods and Supplementary Figs 1
and 2). This means solving a sixteen-dimensional stochastic modelthe first time in the field of economics of climate change that an analysis on
such a scale has been accomplished (our previous work10 solved a seven-dimensional system, whereas other simplified stochastic versions17 of
DICE consider only four dimensions). In our stochastic version of the DICE model, we use annual time steps, and calibrate parameters in the
carbon cycle and temperature modules against the emulated median response of complex climate models for the four RCP (representative
concentration pathway) scenarios21 (see Supplementary Methods). In a deterministic setting within our model (without considering climate
tipping points) our calibration gives a SCC in 2010 of US$15 per tCO2 (all results are in 2010 US dollars). For reference, the DICE-2013R model20
that uses five-year time steps and is calibrated against one RCP scenario also has a 2010 SCC of US$15 per tCO2 In IAMs such as DICE, greater
emission control at present mitigates damages from climate change in the future but limits consumption and/or capital investment today. A
social planner is assumed to weigh these costs and benefits of emission control to maximize the expected present value of global social
welfare. When faced with stochastic uncertainty about future tipping events, the social planners response will depend on their preferences
regarding risk and smoothing consumption. DICE adopts a specification of risk aversion that is inversely tied to the decision-makers preferences
to smooth consumption over time (that is, the intertemporal elasticity of substitution). Thus, a high inter-temporal elasticity of substitution is
taken to imply a low risk aversion. In the baseline DICE model, risk aversion RA = 1.45, and inter-temporal elasticity of substitution IES = 1/1.45.
However, empirical economic data do not support this inverse proportionality (implying timeseparable utility) and suggest instead decoupling
these preferences22 . Hence, we incorporated EpsteinZin (EZ) preferences22 using default parameter settings23 of RA = 3.066 and IES = 1.5,
which are consistent with empirical findings23 (implying non-time-separable utility). Estimates of IES > 1 have been obtained from, for example,
stockholder data24, IES = 1.5 is used in a long-run risk model19,25 , and the upper bound is considered23 to be IES 2. Using IES = 1.5, equity
returns data23 suggest RA = 3.066, which is in the range RA = 34 from a separate study of equity premiums of rare disasters26, with the upper
bound considered25 to be RA 10. The
five interacting, stochastic, potential climate tipping points7,8 (Fig. 1 and
Table 1) represent reorganization of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC),
disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet (GIS), collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS),
dieback of the Amazon rainforest (AMAZ), and shift to a more persistent El Nio regime (ENSO). We
used published expert elicitation results8 to derive the likelihoods (see Methods) of each of the five
tipping events (Table 1), and the causal interactions between them (Fig. 1 and Supplementary Table 1). By causal
interaction, we mean that the hazard rate of each tipping point depends on the state of the others. For each tipping event, we specified a
transition timescale10 (Table 1, see Methods)that is, how long it would take for the full impacts to unfold, based on current scientific
understanding of the timescales of the systems being tipped7,11 (for example, ice sheets melt more slowly than the ocean circulation can
reorganize). Recognizing the scientific uncertainty surrounding transition times, we explore a factor of 5 uncertainty range in either direction.
We must also specify a final damage for each tipping event (Table 1, see Methods), taken to be an irreversible percentage reduction in world
GDP (gross domestic product). This is the most problematic and debatable part of the parameterization, because of a gross shortage of
scientific and economic estimates of tipping point damages11. We
can make some scientific inferences about relative
damages (for example, based on the eventual contributions of different ice sheets to sea-level rise).
Past studies with DICE have loosely associated a 2530% reduction in GDP comparable with the Great
Depression with a collapse of the AMOC27,28, but when combined with other tipping points this could lead to
excessively high overall damages . Our assigned damages for individual tipping points range from 5 to 15% reduction in GDP with
a combined reduction in GDP if all five tipping events occur and complete their transitions of 38%. However, owing to relatively low
probabilities and long transition timescales, the expected tipping point damages in our default scenario amount to only 0.53% of GDP in 2100
and 1.89% of GDP in 2200. In our sensitivity analysis, we consider a factor of 23 total uncertainty range in final damages for each tipping point.
Finally, we include some conservative effects of tipping particular systems on the carbon cycle (Table 1, see Methods). Optimal policy
The result of including multiple interacting tipping points under the default EZ preferences (Fig. 2) is a nearly eightfold increase in the initial SCC
from US$15 per tCO2 in the baseline model (grey line) to US$116 per tCO2 (black line). Across
10,000 sample paths of the
model, there are cases where one or more tipping points still occur, leading to uncertainty ranges for
the key variables (grey-shaded areas). The emissions control rate jumps from 18 to 56% in 2010
and rises to 100% by 2050, effectively shutting down fossil fuel CO2 emissionswhereas in the baseline
model, emissions continue into the next the century. The average atmospheric carbon peaks in the 2030s at 415 ppm and
then declines (owing to ongoing ocean carbon uptake)whereas in the baseline model, atmospheric CO2 continues to rise to
650 ppm by 2100. Temperature rise slows down and is almost stable around 1.4 C above pre-
industrial by 2100whereas in the baseline model, warming continues and approaches 3 C by 2100.
Following the expected path (black line) there is only an 11% probability of one or more tipping events by 2100, reduced from 46% in the
baseline model, or 87% under a prescribed RCP8.5 emissions scenario (Table 2). A factor of 2.4 increase from the baseline SCC to US$36 per
tCO2 is just due to the change to IES = 1.5 (dashed black line, Fig. 2), with a further factor of 3.2 increase due to the potential for multiple
tipping points. With just IES = 1.5 (and no stochastic tipping points), the initial emissions control rate increases from 18 to 29% with 100%
emissions control in 2100. Atmospheric carbon peaks around 550 ppm, with surface temperature stabilizing around 2.3 C above pre-
industrial. Tipping point interactions In the full model, there are both positive and negative causal interactions between tipping points (Fig. 1
and Supplementary Table 1), which are conservatively calibrated (see Methods). Hence their inclusion has only a modest net effect on the
expected SCC, increasing it from US$109 per tCO2 to US$116 per tCO2 (see also Supplementary Fig. 3). However, a specific sample path where
multiple tipping events occur before 2200 (Fig. 3, solid line) reveals that some tipping point interactions can have a strong effect on the time
evolution of the SCC. Considering a no-interactions sample path (Fig. 3, dashed line) shows that, in general, passing a tipping point reduces the
incentive to mitigate and therefore lowers the SCC, because it can no longer be avoided. However, with interactions, tipping of the GIS
significantly increases the likelihood of AMOC tipping (which is assumed to be the most damaging event); hence, this causes a large increase in
the SCC to try to avoid AMOC tipping. (This is consistent with previous suggestions29,30 that tipping points can create multiple optimahere
for the SCC and corresponding emissions30.) Subsequent tipping of AMOC greatly reduces the SCC. Tipping of ENSO causes a small increase in
the SCC because it increases the likelihood of tipping the Amazon. Subsequent tipping of the Amazon halves the SCC because there is now an
unavoidable extra source of carbon to the atmosphere and only WAIS left to tip. There are other sample paths where the first tipping event
does not increase the likelihood of others, so the SCC dropsfor example, when the Amazon rainforest tips first (Supplementary Fig. 4). The
SCC therefore depends on whether tipping events occur and in which order. This can also be seen by looking at the sample paths for the earliest
and sole tipping before 2100 of each element (Supplementary Fig. 5). If the GIS tips first, this leads to the highest SCC path and the most
stringent emission control, reaching 100% before 2040, because of the increased risk of AMOC collapse. If the AMOC tips first, this gives the
lowest SCC path because it has the greatest damages, which can no longer be avoidedyet emission control remains above 60% and the SCC
remains above US$110 per tCO2 . If the Amazon tips first, this also lowers SCC and emission control, but it leads to the highest atmospheric
carbon and temperature trajectory because of an accompanying carbon source. If ENSO tips first, this slightly increases emission control
because the likelihood of the AMAZ tipping is increased. If the WAIS tips first, there is little effect on emission control because it only slightly
increases the likelihood of tipping the AMOC and GIS. CO2 emissions trajectories (Supplementary Fig. 6) therefore depend on the
contemporaneous state of tipping elements. Sensitivity analysis The high SCC is robust to sensitivity analyses (see Methods). Combined
variations in assumed transition times and final damages of the tipping points give a full range in initial SCC of US$50166 per tCO2
(Supplementary Table 2). With pessimistic settings for the expert assessment of interactions between tipping elements (Supplementary Table
3), the SCC increases from US$116 per tCO2 to US$121 per tCO2 . Including an endogenous transition time for the GIS gives only a slight
reduction in SCC to US$114 per tCO2 because its damages tend to be discounted away anyway. Allowing all tipping elements to have an
endogenous transition time reduces SCC to US$94 per tCO2 Retaining an inter-temporal elasticity of substitution IES = 1.5 but increasing risk
aversion to RA = 10 increases the SCC from US$116 per tCO2 to US$146 per tCO2 .With the original RA = 3.066 and an upper limit of IES = 2, the
SCC increases to US$151 per tCO2 . Using the default DICE settings of IES = 1/1.45 and RA = 1.45 gives an SCC of US$28 per tCO2 , a factor 1.9
increase from the default US$15 per tCO2 due to the five interacting tipping points. Thus, EZ preferences magnify the effect of including
potential future tipping points, causing a factor 3.2 (rather than 1.9) increase in the SCC. To disentangle the effect of IES and RA, we also
investigate a case with IES = 1.5 and RA = 1/1.5, which gives an SCC of US$104 per tCO2 . That is, when we incorporate the climate tipping risks,
using time-separable preferences as in DICE, an increase from IES = 1/1.45 (and RA = 1.45) to IES = 1.5 (and RA = 1/1.5 ) leads to a factor 3.7
increase in the SCC, and the additional change to our default time non-separable EZ preferences (IES = 1.5, RA = 3.066) leads to an extra SCC of
US$12 per tCO2 . Discussion and conclusion Putting
our results in scientific context, there is already evidence
that major ice sheets are losing mass at an accelerating rate31,32 . GIS mass loss is estimated to be
contributing 0.7 mm yr1 to sea-level rise33, with a corresponding increase in freshwater flux to the
North Atlantic34 since 1990 of 0.01 Sv. Although modest at present, this and other contributors to
increasing freshwater input to the North Atlantic35 are thought8 to increase the likelihood of AMOC
tipping, and our results suggest that this should be increasing the incentive to control CO2 emissions .
WAIS mass loss is contributing 0.35 mm yr1 to sea-level rise32, and there is evidence that parts of
the West Antarctic ice sheet are already in irreversible retreat3638. If the WAIS has already passed a
tipping point, then mitigation cannot avoid it, but our results suggest that this should not significantly
reduce the incentive to mitigate to try to avoid other tipping events. Our results and policy recommendations
differ considerably from another recent study considering multiple tipping points18 , which recommends at most a doubling of the SCC that
allows CO2 emissions to continue to grow past mid-century, with temperature ultimately peaking at just under 3 C. In contrast, our results
recommend a nearly eightfold increase in the SCC to drive a cessation of CO2 emissions by mid-century, which
limits warming to <1.5 C . This very different outcome is a result of our different specification of tipping
points together with our change in decision-maker preferences to something more appropriate for
such stochastic climate risks.

Adaptation fails---mitigation efforts now are key to prevent irreversible warming

Joseph Romm 16, PhD in Physics, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, 2016, Climate
change: What Everyone Needs to Know, pg 134-145
Most environmental problems that people, communities, and governments have experience dealing with are reversible. A polluted lake or river
can be cleaned up and then used for swimming and fishing. A city with polluted air can put in place clean air standards and turn its brown haze
into blue skies. However, climate change
is different from most environmental problems. The scientific
literature has made it increasingly clear that key impacts are irreversible on a time scale of centuries
and possibly millennia. This means that climate change creates risks that are unparalleled in human
history . It also means that if we follow the traditional way of dealing with an environmental problem, that
is, wait until the consequences are obvious and unmistakable to everybody, it will be too late " to
undo those consequences for a long, long time. Climate inaction inherently raises issues of equity because it will harm billions of people
who have contributed little or nothing to the problem. However, what makes the issue unique in the annals of history is that the large-scale
harm is irreparable on any timescale that matters (and that we could avoid the worst of the irreparable harms at a surprisingly low net cost, as
discussed in Chapter Four). Because irreversibility is such a unique and consequential fact about climate change, the world's leading climate
scientists (and governments) took extra measures to emphasize the issue in the most recent international assessment of climate science by the
U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changethe November 2014 full, final "synthesis" report in its Fifth Assessment all of the scientific
and economic literature. In the IPCC's final "synthesis" report of its Fourth Assessment, issued in 2007, irreversibility was only mentioned two
times and there was minimal discussion in the Summary for Policymakers. Seven years later, the "Summary for Policymakers" of the IPCC's
synthesis report mentions "irreversible" 14 times and has extended discussions of exactly what it means and why it matters. The full report has
an even more detailed discussion. What do the world's leading scientists mean by "irreversible impacts"? In the
latest IPCC report, they explain that Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6 [where emissions are cut
sharply]. Surface
temperatures will remain approximately constant at elevated levels for many centuries
after a complete cessation of net anthropogenic CO2 emissions. A large fraction of anthropogenic
climate change resulting from CO2 emissions is irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale,
except in the case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period It is
virtually certain that global mean sea-level rise will continue for many centuries beyond 2100 , with
the amount of rise dependent on future emissions. In other words, impacts will be much worse than
described in this report after 2100 in every case but the one where we sharply cut carbon dioxide
starting now (to stabilize at below 2C total warming). In addition, whatever temperature the planet ultimately hits thanks to human-
caused warming, that is roughly as high as temperatures will stay for hundreds of years after we bring total net human-caused carbon pollution
emissions to zero. The "case of a large net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere over a sustained period" means a time far beyond when
humanity has merely eliminated total net human-caused emissionsfrom deforestation and burning fossil fuels (and from whatever amplifying
carbon-cycle feedbacks we have caused, such as defrosting permafrost). To
start reversing the irreversible, we have to go
far below zero net emissions to actually sucking vast quantities of diffuse CO2 out of the air and
putting it someplace that is also permanent, which, according to a 2015 National Academy of Sciences report (discussed in
Chapter Six), we currently do not know how to do on a large scale. One can envision such a day when we might be able to go far below zeroif
we sharply reduce net carbon pollution to zero by 2100, as we must to stabilize near 2C. However, it is much
more difficult to
imagine when it would happen if emissions are anywhere near current levels by 2100, and we have
started one or more major amplifying carbon-cycle feedbacks that make the job of getting to even
zero net emissions doubly difficult. If we do not get on the 2C path, then some of the most serious climate changes caused by
global warming could last a thousand years or more. The IPCC explained in 2014, "Stabilisation of global average surface
temperature does not imply stabilisation for all aspects of the climate system." That is to say, as we warm
above 2C, then even at a point many hundreds of years from now when temperatures start to drop, some changes in the
climatesea-level rise being the most obvious examplewill likely keep going and going. The IPCC reports
are primarily reviews of the scientific literature, so the new focus on the irreversible nature of climate change is no surprise. In a 2009 study
titled "Irreversible Climate Change Because of Carbon Dioxide Emissions," researchers led by NOAA scientists concluded that "the climate
change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop." It is
significant to note that the NOAA-led study warned that it was not just sea-level rise that would be irreversible: Among
illustrative
irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase
from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the
coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those
of the "dust bowl" era and inexorable sea level rise. Recent studies strongly support that finding for
both sea-level rise and Dust-Bowlification of some of the world's most productive agricultural lands, as
we have seen. This 2014 Synthesis report may be the first time the world's leading scientists and
governments explain why the irreversibility of impacts makes inaction so uniquely problematic . Here is
the key finding (emphasis in original): Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and
even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of
severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence). Mitigation involves some level of co-
benefits and of risks due to adverse side-effects, but these risks do not involve the same possibility of
severe, widespread, and irreversible impacts as risks from climate change, increasing the benefits
from near-term mitigation efforts. Why is this conclusion so salient? The IPCC is acknowledging that
mitigation efforts taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have risks in addition to their cobenefits"possible
adverse side effects of large-scale deployment of low-carbon technology options and economic costs," as the full report puts it.

However, the risks involved in reducing emissions are both quantitatively and qualitatively different
than the risks deriving from inaction because they are not likely to be anywhere near as "severe,
widespread, and irreversible." The full 2014 "Synthesis" report expands on this point, noting that "Climate change risks may
persist for millennia and can involve very high risk of severe impacts and the presence of significant irreversibilities combined with limited
adaptive capacity." In sharp contrast, "the
stringency of climate policies can be adjusted much more quickly in
response to observed consequences and costs and create lower risks of irreversible consequences." Put
another way, if some aspect of the emissions reduction strategy turns out to start having unexpected,
significant negative consequences, humanity can quickly adjust to minimize costs and risks . However,
inactionfailing to embrace strong mitigationwill lead to expected climate impacts that are not
merely very long lasting and irreversible, but potentially beyond adaptation . For instance , sea-level rise
would become so great, so rapid, and so unstoppable that we simply have to abandon the vast
majority of coastal cities .

Warming is an existential risk to the whole planetadaptation alone fails

Naomi Klein 14, award-winning journalist, syndicated columnist, former Miliband Fellow at the London
School of Economics, member of the board of directors of 350.org, This Changes Everything: Capitalism
vs. the Climate, pp. 12-14
But the bigger problemand the reason Copenhagen caused such great despairis that because governments did not agree to binding targets,
they are free to pretty much ignore their commitments. Which is precisely what is happening. Indeed, emissions are rising so rapidly that unless
something radical changes within our economic structure, 2 degrees now looks like a utopian dream. And its not just
environmentalists who are raising the alarm. The World Bank also warned when it released its report that were on track
to a 4-C warmer world [by centurys end] marked by extreme heat waves, declining global food stocks, loss of
ecosystems and biodiversity, and life-threatening sea level rise. And the report cautioned that, there is also no
certainty that adaptation to a 4-C world is possible. Kevin Anderson, former director (now deputy director) of
the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, which has quickly established itself as one of the U.Ks premier climate
research institutions, is even blunter; he says 4 degrees Celsius warming7.2 degrees Fahrenheitis
incompatible with an organized, equitable, and civilized global community. We dont know exactly what a 4
degree Celsius world would look like, but even the best-case scenario is likely to be calamitous. Four degrees of warming could
raise global sea levels by 1 or possibly even 2 meters by 2100 (and would lock in at least a few additional meters over
future centuries). This would drown some island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, and inundate many coastal areas from Ecuador and
Brazil to the Netherlands to much of California and the northeastern United States as well as huge swaths of South and Southeast Asia. Major
cities likely in jeopardy include Boston, New York, greater Los Angeles, Vancouver, London, Mumbai, Hong Kong, and Shanghai. Meanwhile,
brutal heat waves that can kill tens of thousands of people, even in wealthy countries, would become entirely
unremarkable summer events on every continent but Antarctica. The heat would also cause staple crops
to suffer dramatic yield losses across the globe (it is possible that Indian wheat and U.S. could plummet by as much as 60
percent), this at a time when demand will be surging due to population growth and a growing demand for
meat. And since crops will be facing not just heat stress but also extreme events such as wide-ranging droughts, flooding, or pest outbreaks,
the losses could easily turn out to be more severe than the models have predicted. When you add ruinous
hurricanes, raging wildfires, fisheries collapses, widespread disruptions to water supplies, extinctions,
and globe-trotting diseases to the mix, it indeed becomes difficult to imagine that a peaceful, ordered
society could be sustained (that is, where such a thing exists in the first place). And keep in mind that these are the
optimistic scenarios in which warming is more or less stabilized at 4 degrees Celsius and does not trigger
tipping points beyond which runaway warming would occur. Based on the latest modeling, it is becoming safer to assume
that 4 degrees could bring about a number of extremely dangerous feedback loopsan Arctic that is regularly ice-
free in September, for instance, or, according to one recent study, global vegetation that is too saturated to act as a
reliable sink, leading to more carbon being emitted rather than stored. Once this happens, any hope of predicting
impacts pretty much goes out the window. And this process may be starting sooner than anyone predicted. In May 2014,
NASA and the University of California, Irvine scientists revealed that glacier melt in a section of West Antarctica roughly the
size of France now appears unstoppable. This likely spells down for the entire West Antarctic ice sheet, which according to lead study
author Eric Rignot comes with a sea level rise between three and five metres. Such an event will displace millions of people worldwide. The
disintegration, however, could unfold over centuries and there is still time for emission reductions to
slow down the process and prevent the worst. Much more frightening than any of this is the fact that plenty of
mainstream analysts think that on our current emissions trajectory, we are headed for even more than 4 degrees
of warming. In 2011, the usually staid International Energy Agency (IEA) issued a report predicting that we
are actually on track for 6 degrees Celsius10.8 degrees Fahrenheitof warming. And as the IEAs chief economist put it:
Everybody, even the school children, knows that this will have catastrophic implications for all of us. (The evidence
indicates that 6 degrees of warming is likely to set in motion several major tipping pointsnot only slower ones
such as the aforementioned breakdown of the West Antarctic ice sheet, but possibly more abrupt ones, like massive releases of
methane from Arctic permafrost.) The accounting giant PricewaterhouseCoopers as also published a report warning businesses
that we are headed for 4-C , or even 6-C of warming. These various projections are the equivalent of every alarm in your house going off
simultaneously. And then every alarm on your street going off as well, one by one by one. They mean, quite simply, that climate change
has become an existential crisis for the human species . The only historical precedent for a crisis of this depth and scale
was the Cold War fear that we were headed toward nuclear holocaust, which would have made much of the planet uninhabitable. But that was
(and remains) a threat; a slim possibility, should geopolitics spiral out of control. The
vast majority of nuclear scientists never
told us that we were almost certainly going to put our civilization in peril if we kept going about our daily
lives as usual, doing exactly what we were already going, which is what climate scientists have been
telling us for years. As the Ohio State University climatologist Lonnie G. Thompson, a world-renowned specialist on glacier melt,
explained in 2010, Climatologists, like other scientists, tend to be a stolid group. We are not given to theatrical
rantings about falling skies. Most of us are far more comfortable in our laboratories or gathering data in the field than we are giving
interviews to journalists or speaking before Congressional committees. When then are climatologists speaking out about
the dangers of global warming? The answer is that virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming
poses a clear and present danger to civilization.

The public trust doctrine creates a fiduciary obligation that creates effective mitigation
and sequestration through sink recovery--- solves 350 PPM
Mary Christina Wood 16 et.al, Knight Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, 2016, with
Woodward, J.D. University of Oregon School of Law (2016), ATMOSPHERIC TRUST LITIGATION AND THE
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A HEALTHY CLIMATE SYSTEM: JUDICIAL RECOGNITION AT LAST, Mary
Christina Wood & Charles W. Woodward, IV, 2016, 634 WASHINGTON J. OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW &
POLICY [Vol. 6:2016]
Carbon dioxide pollution not only disrupts the planets climate system but also imperils the worlds oceans. The oceans operate as natural
carbon sinks absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2). This absorption causes a series of chemical reactions in marine water and results in ocean
acidification.6 In fact, since the Industrial Revolution, about one-third of human carbon emissions have been absorbed by the oceans, and
unsurprisingly, the oceans are now thirty percent more acidic.7 Ocean acidification threatens biodiversity, fisheries, and aquaculture,
undermines the food security of millions of people, and jeopardizes tourism and other sea-related economies.8 Atmospheric energy
imbalances also warm the oceans. In the annual 2014 State of the Climate Report, United States government scientists reported record
warming on the surface and upper levels of the oceans, with the Pacific Ocean registering four to five degrees Fahrenheit above normal.9 The
oceans absorb more than ninety percent of man-made heat energy driving global warming. The rate of heat absorption has
doubled since 1997.10 To put the matter into staggering perspective, half of the approximately 300ZJ 11 FOOTNOTE 11
BEGINS... 11. One zettajoule (ZJ) is the equivalent of one billion terajoules (TJ) or 278 billion megawatt hours (Mwh). FOOTNOTE
11 ENDS. of total heat energy absorbed by the planet since 1865 is attributable to the last eighteen
years.12 FOOTNOTE 12 BEGINS 12.See Borenstein, supra note 10. By comparison, two ZJ is the equivalent of detonating an
atomic bomb (the size dropped on Hiroshima) every single second for a full year . Id. FOOTNOTE 12 ENDS. Associated Press reporter

Seth Borenstein makes this analogy: in the last eighteen years alone, Earths oceans have absorbed man-made
heat energy equivalent to a Hiroshima-style bomb being exploded every second for seventy-five
straight years .13 This marine warming brings devastating consequences for coral reefs, the oceans rainforests.14 In 2015, half of the
corals in the Caribbean Sea died after warming waters sparked a massive bleaching event, and U.S. scientists predict that the warm
temperatures of 2016 will cause an additional six-percent loss of coral reefs worldwide in that year alone.15 A survey conducted in early 2016
of Australias Great Barrier Reef reinforces the U.S. scientists predictions, finding that ninety-three percent of Australias reefs are already
bleached, with the northern reefs suffering nearly fifty percent coral death.16 More recently, scientists have discovered
significant oxygen depletion as a result of this heating.17 Overall, with each degree increase in ocean temperature, the
oxygen concentration in the water decreases by two percent.18 Additionally, higher water temperatures decrease the rate of ocean circulation,
causing stratification where the oxygen-rich upper layers mix less with the oxygen-depleted deeper layers.19 Over the past ten years, oxygen
levels in the deep waters off the southern coast of California have decreased by twenty percent.20 While higher temperatures slow the rate of
ocean circulation, the warmer waters also boost the metabolism of marine life, increasing their need for oxygen, and thereby further
exacerbating the devastating effects of the warming ocean on marine ecology.21 Because
humans today are both increasing
carbon emissions into the atmosphere and also destroying the planets natural carbon sinks, the forests and
oceans, the Earths climate system has lurched into a perilous imbalance.22 The dual, worsening crises of climate disruption and dying oceans
cannot find relief without slashing greenhouse gas emissions across the globe. Though considerable climate harm is
irrevocably underway, many leading scientists say it is still possible to restore climate equilibrium
over the long term. Such an effort requires reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels to 350 parts per

million ( ppm ), the uppermost level to limit total average planetary heating to a safe zone of one
degree Celsius.23 FOOTNOTE 23 BEGINS 23.See Climate Prescription, supra note 4, at 13. In defining such a zone, the team
aimed for carbon levels present during the Holocene period in which human civilization developed. See id. at 8 (Warming of 1C relative to
18801920 keeps global temperature close to the Holocene range, but warming of 2C, to at least the Eemian level, could cause major
dislocations for civilization.); id. at 5 (discussing 350 target); id. at 10 (keeping
global climate close to the Holocene range
requires a long-term atmospheric CO2 level of about 350 ppm or less). Other research institutions refer to a 1.5C
trajectory as the most cautionary path that remains technically feasible. See PAUL BAER ET AL., STOCKHOLM ENVT INST., THREE SALIENT
GLOBAL MITIGATION PATHWAYS ASSESSED IN LIGHT OF THE IPCC CARBON BUDGETS (2013), http://sei-us.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-DB-2013-
Climate-risk-emission-reduction-pathways.pdf (comparing the risks associated with a 1.5C increase, a 2.0C increase, and the increase outlined
at the G8 conference of 2009). FOOTNOTE 23 ENDS. In 2010, recognizing the need to quantifyfor policymakers, judges, and
citizensthe emissions reduction necessary to stay within the safe zone, NASAs chief climate scientist, Dr. James Hansen, convened an
international team of scientists to create a climate prescription for the planet.24 The resulting prescription addresses both carbon emissions
and the planets natural carbon absorption mechanisms, as they are inextricably linked. The first part of the climate prescription calls for a
dramatic slash of carbon emissions well beyond those targeted at COP21. The prescription presents a trajectory, or glidepath, of annual
emissions reduction towards an ultimate goal of near-zero emissions.25 FOOTNOTE 25 BEGINS 25.Id. at 9. But see PAUL BAER ET AL., supra
note 23, at 3 (noting reductions of 6% per year only have a 50% chance of holding the global warming under 2C, while more aggressive
reductions, 9% per year, increase the chance of staying under 2C to 66%). The BEAR ET. AL. assessment does not account for the drawdown of
CO2 contemplated in the Climate Prescription. See, Climate Prescription, infra note 32, and accompanying text. FOOTNOTE 25 ENDS.
The team stated that global emissions reduction of six percent annually, beginning in year 2013, was required to reach 350 ppm by the end of
the century.26 Delaying reduction in carbon emissions sharply increases the level of necessary yearly
reductions to a point at which the reductions ultimately become too steep to plausibly salvage a
habitable planet .27 FOOTNOTE 27 BEGINS 27.See PAUL BAER ET AL., supra note 23, at 1 (The 1.5C marker pathway is
defined as the most challenging mitigation pathway that can still be defended as being techno-economically achievable.). FOOTNOTE 27
ENDS. For example, the Hansen team estimated that, had concerted action started in 2005, emissions reduction of just 3.5% a year could
have restored equilibrium by the end of the century, yet in just eight years of inaction, that figure climbed to six percent a year.28 The scientists
project that, if
emissions reduction is delayed until 2020, society would need to reduce emissions by
fifteen percent a year.29 FOOTNOTE 29 BEGINS 29.Id. at 10 (These results emphasize the urgency of initiating emissions
reduction. As discussed above, keeping global climate close to the Holocene range requires a long-term atmospheric CO2 level of about 350
ppm or less, with other climate forcing similar to todays levels. If emissions reduction had begun in 2005, reduction at 3.5%/year would have
achieved 350 ppm at 2100. Now the requirement is at least 6%/year. Delay of emissions reductions until 2020 requires a
reduction rate of 15%/year to achieve 350 ppm in 2100.). FOOTNOTE 29 ENDS. At some point, the
necessary cuts become too drastic for global society to accomplish. As the Hansen team emphasized: [I]t is urgent that
large, long-term emissions reductions begin soon.30 Moreover, it is important to understand that reducing emissions alone is

not adequate to restore climate equilibrium. Because approximately forty percent of emissions persist in the atmosphere for
over a thousand years at present removal rates, any planetary atmospheric rescue effort must also focus on removing much of the carbon
dioxide that has already accumulated in the atmosphere.31 FOOTNOTE 31 BEGINS 31.See William Moomaw, From Failure to
Success: Reframing the Climate Treaty, THE FLETCHER FORUM OF WORLD AFFAIRS (Feb. 10, 2014),
http://www.fletcherforum.org/2014/02/10/moomaw/. Only by restoring the Earths natural ability to remove carbon
can overall atmospheric levels drop . As Professor William Moomaw explained, We must not only turn off the
faucet that is filling the atmosphere with heat trapping gases, but we must also unclog the drain
that is removing them. Id. FOOTNOTE 31 ENDS. Accordingly, the second part of the scientific climate prescription addresses
the drawdown of carbon dioxide through massive reforestation (because trees naturally absorb carbon dioxide)
and improved agricultural measures (because soil also absorbs carbon dioxide). The Hansen team calculated that a full-scale
massive restoration program consisting of reforestation and soil measures can draw down about 100 gigatons of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere, an amount key to restoring atmospheric carbon levels to 350 ppm.32
FOOTNOTE 32 BEGINS 32.Climate Prescription, supra note 4, at 10 ([I]t is not impossible to return CO2 to 350 ppm this century.
Reforestation and increase of soil carbon can help draw down atmospheric CO2.). If the drawdown from reforestation is less, the amount of
carbon emissions reduction necessary to achieve 350 ppm increases substantially. Id. While the team admits that the forest and soil storage of
100 GT is ambitious, they point out that the strategy includes beneficial externalities, including increased resilience to climate change, improved
productivity in agriculture, and further protection of ecosystem function. Id. FOOTNOTE 32 ENDS. The global challenge of CO2
emissions reduction finds unprecedented urgency due to natures own tipping pointsthresholds beyond
which dangerous feedback processes are triggered. Such feedbacks can unleash uncontrollable, irreversible,
runaway heating capable of destroying the balance of the planets climate system .33 Such tipping points
form the crux of the scientific communitys call for urgent action. Recognizing this danger, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stated in one
climate case: Several studies also show that climate change may be non-linear, meaning that there are positive feedback mechanisms that
may push global warming past a dangerous threshold (the tipping point).34 Once fully triggered, these feedback loops continue despite any
subsequent carbon reductions achieved by humanity.35 Though the precise threshold of atmospheric CO2 that represents the point-of-no-
return is unknown,36 the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has surpassed 400 ppm.37 Already, some dangerous feedback loops
are manifestly in motion. Vast areas of melting permafrost now release huge amounts of CO2 and methane (both of which are greenhouse
gasses) into the atmosphere,38 and melting polar ice caps intensify the heating, because less ice remains to reflect heat away from Eartha
dynamic known as the albedo effect.39 FOOTNOTE 39 BEGINS 39.See James Hansen et al., Climate Change and Trace Gases, 365
PHIL. TRANSACTIONS ROYAL SOCY A 1925, 1935 (2007) (A climate forcing that flips the albedo of a sufficient portion of an ice sheet can spark
a cataclysm.). FOOTNOTE 39 ENDS. Gus Speth, the former Dean of the Yale School of Forestry, warns that if we maintain our largely
inadequate course of action, the world wont be fit to live in by mid-century.40 B. Atmospheric Trust Litigation: The Planet on the Docket
With such feedback loops looming, a rapid and decisive response to the planets atmospheric crisis is
paramount to overcoming an existential threat to global civilization . As an indicator of the growing international
recognition of climate danger, the recent COP21 talks in Paris produced an accord aiming to limit planetary heating to
1.5C.41
Despite this aspirational goal, the actual plans submitted by the participating countries would result in only half of the
required greenhouse gas reductions necessary to limit the increase to just two degrees Celsius.42 Thus, while the remedy for
the climate change crisis increasingly becomes more difficult and more expensive, not only in terms of monetary cost but in societal and
cultural upheaval as well, the Paris accord continued the pattern of inadequate international action.43 Indeed, the failure of the Paris
talks demonstrates that domestic processes must provide the imperative for carbon reduction . As
Johannes Urpelainen of Columbia University summarized, [i]n the end, the future of climate mitigation remains in the hands of national
governments, political parties, interest groups, [and] sub-national jurisdictions.44

The public trust spurs effective agroforestry and forest management key to a recovery
plan that causes effective capital deployment
Mary Christina Wood & Galpern 15 Environmental Attorney & Policy Analyst, and Knight Professor
at the University of Oregon School of Law, with Dan Galpern, ATMOSPHERIC RECOVERY LITIGATION:
MAKING THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY PAY TO RESTORE A VIABLE CLIMATE SYSTEM, ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW [Vol. 45:259 2015]

An adequate and dynamic global Atmospheric Recovery Plan (Plan) is required both to guide carbon
drawdown activities in nations, states, and communities, and to galvanize the international community to
concerted action, including securing an adequate funding stream . The Plan must build on scientific research undertaken in
the last twenty years to maximize the carbon sequestering capacity of forests and soils, uncover the potential of bioenergy, and preserve lands central role in
providing for food, fiber and ecosystem services. It is a tall order. In the words of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2014, the Agriculture,
Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector derives its significant mitigation potential from both an enhancement of removals of [GHGs], as well as reduction of
emissions through management of land and livestock, although [t]he nature of the sector means that there are potentially many barriers to implementation of
available mitigation options.455 Enough is known to hazard an outline of the Plan. It will, at minimum, need to identify
the highest-yield actions capable of implementation and monitoring over the time period in which the
atmospheric drawdown of CO2 must be accomplishedfrom the present to 2100. Areas now believed to be
of high promise include: 1) forest restoration, reforestation, and improved forest management; 2) cropland
practices, including reduced tillage, straw and residue retention, and rewetting peat lands previously drained for agriculture; 3) grassland management,
including native revegetation, appropriate stocking densities, and soils restoration; 4) livestock, including improvements in feed and improvements in manure
management; and 5) integrated
systems, including agroforestry practices that may both increase land
productivity and reduce nitrogen inputsand associated emissions.456 FOOTNOTE 456 BEGINS See id. at
82931 (discussing the various areas and their respective mitigation potentials, implementation ease, and implementation timescale). Improvements to livestock
management are aimed at reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions. Other projects offer high promise, albeit in limited regions, including halting the
destruction of carbon-rich mangrove ecosystems and restoring these ecosystems. See id. at 828 (citing a recent study estimat[ing] that deforestation of mangroves
released 0.07 to 0.42 GtCO2/yr). FOOTNOTE
456 ENDS The goal of the Plan must be to pave the way for a rapid
transformation of present land-based sources of CO2 emissions into net carbon sinks.457 FOOTNOTE 457
BEGINS One think tank, for example, estimates the annual carbon sequestration potential for its
proposed widespread adoption of regenerative organic agriculture practices to be equivalent to
total annual global GHG emissions. RODALE INST., REGENERATIVE ORGANIC AGRICULTURE AND CLIMATE CHANGE: A DOWN-TO-EARTH
SOLUTION TO GLOBAL WARMING 4 (2014), available at http://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/RegenOrgAgricultureAndClimateChange_20140418.pdf.
FOOTNOTE 457 ENDS To implement the Plan and realize its aims, significant scientific expertise is necessary in light of the variability of projects that
aim, or claim, to draw down atmospheric carbon. In particular, some such projects may draw down carbon, while some may prove carbon neutral, while others still
may do the reverse, depending on numerous factors including location, the existing level of land disturbance, biodiversity and nature conservation requirements,
societal and governance questions, and local cultural and economic development constraints. A body with expertise, building upon existing science and reliable
information, will need to make distinctions and render authoritative estimates of carbon sequestration potential, related impacts, and costs, so as to secure the
overall success of carbon drawdown efforts.458 In the end, the Plan must produce a strategic and adaptive template geared toward the drawdown element of the
climate prescription.

The plan solves -- agroforestry is key to reconcile climate policy and food production
locks in resilience to short term warming impacts and solves food insecurity
Cheikh Mbow 14, Adjunct Associate Professor, MSU Department of Forestry, Senior Scientist at the
World Agroforestry Center, PhD, University of Copenhagen, February 2014, Agroforestry solutions to
address food security and climate change challenges in Africa, Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, Vol 6, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513001449

Regarding adaptation of agricultural production to climate change, agroforestry has potential to moderate climate
extremes, in particular high temperatures, as well as intra-annual climatic fluctuations. Tree canopies can
create a more adequate microclimate for crops and more resilient ecosystems for better food
production [8]. On the other hand, a dense tree canopy also reduces incident solar radiation, possibly depressing crop yield potentials.
Additional research is needed for guidance on optimum tree cover for climate change adaptation in varied environmental settings, especially in
the area of modelling where tools remain inadequate [42]. Although microclimatic effects may convey adaptation benefits to farmers,
added resilience through enhanced productivity and farming portfolio effects may be a greater
contribution to coping with climate change at the farm level. Establishing agroforestry on land that
currently has low tree cover has been identified as one of the most promising strategies to raise food
production without additional deforestation [2 and 23]. The often favourable soil fertility effects of
agroforestry are supplemented by additional direct benefits and services that trees on farm provide,
such as fuel wood, timber, fruits or fodder. Such services are typically more important to farmers than
indirect effects of enhanced soil fertility or avoided deforestation [28]. Since agroforestry may raise and
stabilize farm incomes, adaptation benefits are then not so much derived from interventions that target particular climate
hazards, but from a general reduction in farmers vulnerability to shocks through greater human and

environmental wealth. A recent paper showed that agroforestry reduced food insecurity during drought and
flooding in western Kenya by 25% due to increased income and improved livelihoods [16]. Synergies between
food security and climate change mitigation Climate change mitigation has not traditionally been a driver of
farmers decisions , and it is unlikely to become a major driver in the future. Clearly, sequestering
carbon on farms for the sake of climate change mitigation may not be attractive for an African
smallholder farmer, especially if mitigation efforts do not lead to short-term increases in income or
welfare. African farmers may be very reluctant to sacrifice any part of their often meagre farm incomes to sequester carbon. If such farmers
are to contribute to mitigation anyway, carbon-sequestering land use strategies must either be subsidized, to an extent that makes them
equivalent to foregone profits from alternative land uses, or they must be profitable in their own right without any compensation. With
biocarbon projects continuing to be challenged to overcome financial, institutional and governance hurdles, thegreatest opportunity
to sequester carbon on a large scale on Africa's farms is through innovations that enhance food security
and provide mitigation services as a co-benefit (e.g. increased parkland tree cover, multi-layered farming, intercropping, land
sharing practices, among others) [43 and 44] (Figure 2). Agroforestry is one the few land use strategies that
promises such synergies between food security and climate change mitigation. It is also less likely than
other strategies to negatively affect the provision of non-carbon ecosystem services, such as water
cycle regulation [33 and 45] or biodiversity conservation [46], all of which are integral aspects of climate-smart agriculture [47].
Agroforestry is key -- its the only system that can solve food yields, deforestation and
climate change
Paul Brown 16, fellow of Wolfson College, the Geologists Association, and the Royal Geographical
Society, author, 10/10/2016, Agroforestry Can Boost Profits and Help Save the Planet,
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/agroforestry_can_help_profits_and_the_planet_20161009

LONDONFeeding the worlds growing population in a rapidly warming world will not be possible with
modern intensive agriculture that relies on cutting down more forests to plant crops, according to new
research. The only way to produce enough crops and mitigate climate change at the same time is to
adopt what the researchers have called agroforestry, a system of growing crops alongside trees and
shrubs. In a paper published in Sustainability journal, scientists from the department of crop sciences at the University of Illinois, US, say
one of the most difficult aspects of the idea is changing farmers attitudes. Adopting agroforestry Matt Wilson, a graduate student who has
been talking to farmers about the ideas, says that there are cultural barriers in the US to adopting agroforestry practicesbarriers that do not
exist in Europe and elsewhere. He says: Weve had some farmers share sentiments like: Why should I plant trees? My grandpa spent his
whole life tearing trees out so he could put crops in. Theres definitely some perception that trees are not good in a farm landscape. And
trying to overcome that has been a challenge. But the researchhas shown that intermingling traditional grain crops
with fruiting shrubs and trees can make more profit for the farmer, as well as combating climate
change, habitat loss, improving water and soil quality, and reducing problems such as flooding and
soil erosion. The researchers do not dismiss research into high-yielding crop varieties and the contribution made by
organic farming to greater sustainability and feeding the world. However, they say that neither [can] do enough to provide
sufficient food for the projected world population of nine billion. Nor will they help reduce the effects
of climate change. Were looking at economic strategies to maximise profit from the very beginning. With more than a
third of the worlds land already given over to agriculture, there is likely to be more deforestation
and habitat loss in an effort to feed this growing populationmaking a bad situation worse, according to
Sarah Taylor Lovell, an agro-ecologist at the University of Illinois. Lovell and Wilson advocate five agroforestry systems: Alley cropping
growing crops between rows of trees; Silvopasturetrees added to pasture systems; Riperian bufferstrees planted between field edges
and river systems; Windbreakstrees planted next to fields to shield them from the prevailing wind; Forest farmingharvesting or
cultivating products such as mushrooms, medicinal herbs or ornamental wood in established forests. The
plan is to produce a
whole series of crops from the same land at different times of yearalthough some farmers were still resistant
to the idea of trees because they feared these would shade crops and lower the yield, But properly-designed
systems would not do this, the researchers claim. For example, the combination of winter wheat and walnut trees in an alley
cropping system works well. Winter wheat grows in the late winter or early spring, but the walnut doesnt leaf out until late spring, Wilson
explains. So, when you mix the two together, youve got the benefit of having two crops growing in different parts
of the year. The researchers say that some of these practices are already being adopted in Europe. Long timeframe They accept that
the long timeframe needed for trees to establish and mature may discourage some farmers, but they offer a strategy for the transition period.
In an alley cropping system with hazelnut and chestnut trees, for example, they suggest growing edible shrubs and pasture between rows of
crops. Farmerscan expect to start harvesting and selling hay almost immediately, and will start seeing
fruit production from the shrubs within a couple of years. Eight to 10 years after establishment, trees
will begin producing nuts. Were looking at economic strategies to maximise profit from the very
beginning, Lovell says. Despite the challenges, the researchers insist the environmental benefits are worth the
trouble .
Food shortages cause WWIII
Carolyn Heneghan 15, Reporter, citing UN experts, Global Harvest Initiative Report, 1/22/2015,
Where food crises and global conflict could collide, http://www.fooddive.com/news/where-food-crises-
and-global-conflict-could-collide/350837/

World War III is unimaginable for many, but some experts believe that not only is this degree of global
conflict imminent, but it may be instigated not by military tensions, oil and gas, or nuclear threats, but
instead by, of all things, food. As it stands, countries across the globe are enduring food crises, and the U.N.s Food &
Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that about 840 million people in the world are undernourished, including the one
in four children under the age of 5 who is stunted because of malnutrition. Assistant director-general of U.N. FAO Asia-
Pacific Hiroyuki Konuma told Reuters that social and political unrest, civil wars, and terrorism could all
be possible results of food crises, and world security as a whole might be affected. Such consequences
could happen unless the world increases its output of food production 60% by mid-century. This includes
maintaining a stable growth rate at about 1% to have an even theoretical opportunity to circumvent severe shortages. These needs are
due to the growing global population, which is expected to reach 9 billion by 2050 while demand for
food will rise rapidly. Where the problems lie Exacerbating this issue is the fact that the world is spending less on agricultural
research, to the dismay of scientists who believe global food production may not sustain the increased demand. According to American
Boondoggle, The pace of investment growth has slowed from 3.63 percent per year (after inflation) during 195069, to 1.79 percent during
197089, to 0.94 percent during 1990 2009. Decreased growth in agricultural research and development spending has slowed across the
world as a whole, but it is even slower in high-income countries. Water scarcity is another problem, including in major food-producing nations
like China, as well as climate change. Extreme weather events are having a severe effect on crops, which have
been devastated in countries like Australia, Canada, China, Russia, and the U.S., namely due to floods
and droughts. An Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change recently warned that climate change may result in a 2% drop each decade
of this century, according to RT. Rising food costs also contribute to poor food security across the world as
prices remain high and volatile. Higher food costs inhibit lower socioeconomic peoples access to food, which contributes to the
FAOs disturbing figure of global malnutrition. In addition to an inability for people to feed themselves, poverty can also reduce food
production, such as some African farmers being unable to afford irrigation and fertilizers to provide their regions with food. Still
another
issue for decreased food production is the fact that many farmers are turning crops like soy, corn, and
sugar into sources for biofuel rather than edible consumption, which means these foods are taken
away from people to eat. Could these shortages lead to a major global conflict? Studies suggest that the food crisis could
begin as early as 2030, just a short 15 years from now, particularly in areas such as East Asia and Sub-
Saharan Africa. Both regions have significant problems with domestic food production. Some experts
believe that, to secure enough food resources for their populations , countries may go to war over the
increasingly scarce food supply. This could be due in part to warring parties blocking aid and
commercial food deliveries to areas supporting their enemies, despite the fact that such a practice
breaks international humanitarian law. Conflict also leads to lack of food supply for populations as people become displaced
and forced from their homes, jobs, and income and thus cannot buy food to feed themselves. Displaced farmers are also unable to produce
their normal crops, contributing still more to food shortages in certain countries. Food
insecurity is a major threat to world
peace and could potentially incite violent conflict between countries across the world. Thus, the U.N. and
other governmental bodies are desperately trying to find ways to solve the problem before it becomes something they cannot control.
 New

Nuclear powers inevitable globally---it will be unsafe and cause proliferation absent
renewed US leadership
Micah Loudermilk 11, Research Associate for the Energy & Environmental Security Policy program
with the Institute for National Strategic Studies at National Defense University, Small Nuclear Reactors
and US Energy Security: Concepts, Capabilities, and Costs,
www.ensec.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=314:small-nuclear-reactors-and-us-
energy-security-concepts-capabilities-and-costs&catid=116:content0411&Itemid=375
Reactor safety itself notwithstanding, many argue that the scattering of small reactors around the world would invariably lead to increased proliferation problems as nuclear technology and
know-how disseminates around the world. Lost in the argument is the fact that this stance assumes that US decisions on advancing nuclear technology color the world as a whole. In reality,

regardless of the US commitment to or abandonment of nuclear energy technology, many countries (notably China) are
blazing ahead with research and construction, with 55 plants currently under construction around the worldthough Fukushima may cause a temporary lull. Since Three Mile
Island, the US share of the global nuclear energy trade has declined precipitously as talent and technology

begin to concentrate in countries more committed to nuclear power. On the small reactor front, more than
20 countries are examining the technology and the IAEA estimates that 40-100 small reactors will be in operation by 2030. Without US
leadership, new nations seek to acquire nuclear technology turn to countries other than the US who
may not share a deep commitment to reactor safety and nonproliferation objectives. Strong US
leadership globally on nonproliferation requires a vibrant American nuclear industry. This will enable
the US to set and enforce standards on nuclear agreements, spent fuel reprocessing, and developing
reactor technologies.

Plans PTD spurs safe, waste-free and modular nuclear power--- solves scale up
James Hansen et al 13, adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at
Columbia University, "Assessing 'Dangerous Climate Change': Required Reduction of Carbon Emissions
to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature", December 3,
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0081648

A rising carbon fee is the sine qua non for fossil fuel phase out, but not enough by itself. Investment
is needed in RD&D (research, development and
demonstration) to help renewable energies and nuclear power overcome obstacles limiting their
contributions. Intermittency of solar and wind power can be alleviated with advances in energy storage, low-loss smart electric grids, and electrical vehicles
interacting with the grid. Most of todays nuclear power plants have half-century-old technology with light-

water reactors [243] utilizing less than 1% of the energy in the nuclear fuel and leaving unused fuel as
long-lived nuclear waste requiring sequestration for millennia. Modern light-water reactors can employ convective
cooling to eliminate the need for external cooling in the event of an anomaly such as an earthquake.
However, the long-term future of nuclear power will employ fast reactors, which utilize 99% of the
nuclear fuel and can burn nuclear waste and excess weapons material [243]. It should be possible to
reduce the cost of nuclear power via modular standard reactor design , but governments need to provide a
regulatory environment that supports timely construction of approved designs. RD&D on carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology is
needed, especially given our conclusion that the current atmospheric CO2 level is already in the dangerous zone, but continuing issues with CCS technology [7],
[244] make it inappropriate to construct fossil fuel power plants with a promise of future retrofit for carbon capture. Governments should support energy planning
for housing and transportation, energy and carbon efficiency requirements for buildings, vehicles and other manufactured products, and climate mitigation and
adaptation in undeveloped countries. Economic efficiency would be improved by a rising carbon fee. Energy efficiency and alternative low-carbon and no-carbon
energies should be allowed to compete on an equal footing, without subsidies, and the public and business community should be made aware that the fee will
continually rise. The fee for unconventional fossil fuels, such as oil from tar sands and gas from hydrofracking, should include carbon released in mining and refining
processes, e.g., methane leakage in hydrofracking [245][249]. If the carbon fee rises continually and predictably, the resulting energy transformations should
generate many jobs, a welcome benefit for nations still suffering from long-standing economic recession. Economic modeling shows that about 60% of the public,
especially low-income people, would receive more money via a per capita 100% dispersal of the collected fee than they would pay because of increased prices
[241]. Fairness: Intergenerational Justice and Human Rights Relevant fundamentals of climate science are clear. The physical climate system has great inertia,
which is due especially to the thermal inertia of the ocean, the time required for ice sheets to respond to global warming, and the longevity of fossil fuel CO2 in the
surface carbon reservoirs (atmosphere, ocean, and biosphere). This inertia implies that there is additional climate change in the pipeline even without further
change of atmospheric composition. Climate system inertia also means that, if large-scale climate change is allowed to occur, it will be exceedingly long-lived, lasting
for many centuries. One implication is the likelihood of intergenerational effects, with young people and future generations inheriting a situation in which grave
consequences are assured, practically out of their control, but not of their doing. The possibility of such intergenerational injustice is not remote it is at our
doorstep now. We have a planetary climate crisis that requires urgent change to our energy and carbon pathway to avoid dangerous consequences for young
people and other life on Earth. Yet governments and industry are rushing into expanded use of fossil fuels, including
unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, tar shale, shale gas extracted by hydrofracking, and methane hydrates. How can this course be

unfolding despite knowledge of climate consequences and evidence that a rising carbon price would be economically efficient and
reduce demand for fossil fuels? A case has been made that the absence of effective governmental leadership is related to
the effect of special interests on policy , as well as to public relations efforts by organizations that profit from the publics addiction to fossil
fuels [237], [250].

Rapid global spread of unsafe nuclear power risks nuclear terrorism and proliferation
Charles K. Ebinger 11, senior fellow and director of the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings
Institution and John P. Banks is a nonresident fellow with the Energy Security Initiative at the Brookings
Institution, Introduction: Planning a Responsible Nuclear Energy Future, Business and
Nonproliferation: Industry's Role in Safeguarding a Nuclear Renaissance, 2011,

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2011/10/businessandnonproliferation/businessandno
nproliferation_chapter.pdf

Currently, 440 reactors with a total capacity of 375 gigawatts (GWe) are in operation worldwide. 4 As of March 2011, 65
nuclear reactor units, with a total capacity of 63 GWe, are under construction. 5 And as of April 2011, 158 projects are also on

order or planned and 326 proposed. 6 These preparations for replacing or expanding reactor fleets and for new entries to the marketplace follow a
decades-long lull in construction and suggest a nuclear renaissance has begun. While renaissance implies a revival or return to a better time, the

global expansion of nuclear energy in the coming decades will differ in several respects from the way civilian nuclear power developed between the late 1950s and mid-1980s. First, the scope

and pace of this new deployment could be significantly larger than in previous
periods of expansion: some recent analyses put installed nuclear capacity up at 550850 GWe by 2035, depending on assumptions about the implementation of low-carbon
energy policies. 7 In IEA projections, a 50 percent cut in energy-related CO2 emissions by 2050 would require global capacity to reach 1,200 GWe, a net addition of 30 GWe each year over the next forty
years. 8 To put this figure into perspective, during the period of nuclear powers most rapid expansion (198190), capacity increased by only 20 GWe a year, slowing to an annual average of 4 GWe from 1991
to 2006. 9 To achieve largescale reductions in energy-related CO2 emissions, nuclear capacity must therefore grow not only faster but also for several decades longer than during nuclear energys previous
golden age. (As the preface indicates, safety concerns arising in the aftermath of the Fukushima accident will slow or scale back nuclear power expansion globally in the short term. At the same time, the

Also different today is the

longer-term impact of Fukushima on global nuclear power expansion will be less adverse, especially in emerging market countries.)

number of countries seeking to build their first nuclear power reactor. Some
sixty-five countries have expressed interest in or are actively planning for nuclear power. 10 As the

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) points out, however, most of these countries are merely considering the range of issues involved in nuclear power development. Many of them cannot
realistically afford the large costs associated with civilian nuclear power programs. According to some analyses, countries with a GDP of less than $50 billion could not spend several billion dollars building a
reactor. 11 In addition, many aspirant countries still lack the electricity grids required for nuclear power: electricity systems with a capacity below 10 GWe are unlikely to be able to accommodate a nuclear
reactor. 12 Some countries could address this issue by expanding electricity interconnections with neighboring states or developing power export arrangements; however, these alternatives are not widely

available and in any case would take time to implement. At the same time, a number of countries have credible plans to become new
nuclear energy states (NNES). The IAEA has indicated that ten to twenty-five countries might
begin operating their first plants by 2030 , whereas since Chernobyl only threeChina, Mexico, and Romaniahave brought nuclear plants online for the first
time. 13 The following list shows the stages of progress of eleven emerging market countries in their efforts to develop a civilian nuclear energy program: 14 Power reactors under construction: Iran. 15
Contracts signed, legal and regulatory infrastructure well developed: United Arab Emirates (UAE), Turkey. Committed plans, legal and regulatory infrastructure developing: Vietnam, Jordan. Well-

developed plans but commitment pending: Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, Kazakhstan. Developing plans: Saudi Arabia, Malaysia. Emerging market nations
 face several critical issues. Domestically, each must
entertaining the construction of new nuclear power capacity

establish strong institutions and viable regulatory frameworks addressing health, safety,
proliferation , and environmental concerns while ensuring that adequate human and financial resources are available for these tasks. Even if
a state is willing to buy a nuclear reactor on a turnkey basis (paying for an
outside operator to build and run the system), it must still train its own
nationals in these various respects and establish a strong academic and industrial culture in all aspects of commercial nuclear operations in order to achieve a sound, sustainable program. The
NNES will need to build these capabilities in a sufficient and timely manner. New States and Nonproliferation One of the biggest challenges in any

expansion of the civilian nuclear sector is that of maintaining and strengthening the global regime
for nuclear nonproliferation . The changing geopolitical and security environment,
combined with the political instability of many regions and countries that aspire
to develop civilian nuclear reactor technology, has already raised proliferation
concerns. Nuclear power reactors could become attractive targets for terrorists , who might also
seek access to fissile material for radiological dispersal devices ( dirty bombs) or for nuclear weapons. With
such materials more widely available, the proliferation risks could mount . As commercial
enrichment and recycling programs multiply, countries may be tempted also to develop
latent nuclear weapons capabilities , especially if they aspire to attain regional
predominance, international standing, or the capabilities of regional rivals.

Wildfire prolif and terrorism inevitable without safe nuclear

Terry Macalister 9, energy editor of the Guardian, New generation of nuclear power stations 'risk
terrorist anarchy', www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/16/nuclearpower-nuclear-waste

The new generation of atomic power stations planned for Britain, China and many other parts of the world risks proliferation
that could lead to " nuclear anarchy", a security expert warned in a report published today. Governments and multilateral

organisations must come up with a strategy to deal the impact of the new nuclear age, which will produce enough
plutonium to make 1m nuclear weapons by 2075, argues Frank Barnaby from the Oxford Research Group thinktank in a paper for the

Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). " We are at a crossroads . Unless governments work together to safeguard
nuclear energy supplies, the rise in unsecured nuclear technology will put us all in danger. Without
this, we are hurtling towards a state of nuclear anarchy where terrorists or rogue states have the ways

and means of making nuclear weapons or 'dirty bombs', the consequences of which are unimaginable," says Barnaby. Any country choosing
to operate new-generation nuclear reactors in future would have relatively easy access to plutonium, which is used to make the most efficient atomic weapons,
along with the nuclear physicists and engineers to design them. These countries would be latent nuclear-weapon powers "and it
is to be expected that some will take the political decision to become actual nuclear weapons powers," argues Barnaby in his paper submitted to the IPPR's
independent Commission on National Security chaired by former Nato boss, Lord George Robertson. The issue of nuclear proliferation security has been largely
ignored until today as the nuclear power debate has concentrated on the economics, social issues and how to deal with radioactive waste. Ministers in the UK
have made clear their desire to see a new generation of facilities to replace existing ones at a time when North Sea gas is running out and the country needs to
reduce its reliance on fossil fuels to meet its Kyoto protocol carbon emission targets. Nuclear power plants across the life cycle produce one third of the CO2 of gas-
fired ones. Barnaby says that a shortage of uranium for the kind of reactors that EDF and others are considering building in Britain could encourage them to
reprocess fuel and produce more plutonium. But he is equally convinced that a nuclear renaissance will lead to fast breeder reactors which produce more nuclear
fuel than they use and which could be useful to terrorists. The Atomic Energy Agency and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development have
already suggested that uranium resources would last less than 70 years if processed using the current generation of light water nuclear reactors. Barnaby wants
the non-proliferation treaty strengthened at a "make or break" review conference next year and would also like to see countries as yet without nuclear capabilities
discouraged from obtaining enriched uranium, a problem highlighted in the case of Iran. Ian Kearns, deputy commissioner of the IPPR's security commission, said it
was crucial that the rush to address climate change did not worsen the international security environment. " A global nuclear renaissance, if
badly managed, could bring enormous complications in terms of nuclear non-proliferation and
terrorism . Policymakers need to be alert to the dangers and to construct policies that bring secure low-carbon energy and a stable nuclear weapons
environment," he said.

Prolif causes multiple scenarios for nuclear war

Matthew Kroenig 16, Associate Professor in the Department of Government and School of Foreign
Service at Georgetown University and a Senior Fellow in the Brent Scowcroft Center on International
Security at the Atlantic Council, Approaching Critical Mass: Asias Multipolar Nuclear Future, National
Bureau of Asian Research Special Report #58, June 2016

The most important reason to be concerned about nuclear weapons in Asia, of course, is the threat that
nuclear weapons might be used . To be sure, the use of nuclear weapons remains remote, but the
probability is not zero and the consequences could be catastrophic . The subject, therefore, deserves careful scrutiny.
Nuclear use would overturn a 70-year tradition of nonuse, could result in large-scale death and
destruction, and might set a precedent that shapes how nuclear weapons are viewed, proliferated, and
postured decades hence. The dangers of escalation may be magnified in a multipolar nuclear order in
which small skirmishes present the potential to quickly draw in multiple powers, each with a finger on
the nuclear trigger. The following discussion will explore the logic of crisis escalation and strategic stability in a multipolar nuclear order.14 First and
foremost, the existence of multipolar nuclear powers means that crises may pit multiple nuclear-armed

states against one another . This may be the result of formal planning if a states strategy calls for fighting multiple nuclear-armed adversaries
simultaneously. A state may choose such a strategy if it believes that a war with one of these states would inevitably mean war with both. Alternatively, in a war
between state A and state B, state A may decide to conduct a preventive strike on state C for fear that it would otherwise seek to exploit the aftermath of the war
between states A and B. Given U.S. nuclear strategy in the early Cold War, for example, it is likely that a nuclear war between the United States and the Soviet Union
would have also resulted in U.S. nuclear attacks against China, even if China had not been a direct participant in the precipitating dispute. In addition, conflicts

of interest between nuclear powers may inadvertently impinge on the interests of other nuclear-armed
states, drawing them into conflict. There is always a danger that one nuclear power could take action
against a nuclear rival and that this action would unintentionally cross a red line for a third nuclear
power, triggering a tripartite nuclear crisis. Linton Brooks and Mira Rapp-Hooper have dubbed this category of phenomena the security
trilemma.15 For example, if the United States were to engage in a show of force in an effort to signal resolve to Russia, such as the flushing of nuclear submarines,

this action could inadvertently trigger a crisis for China. There is also the issue of catalytic war . This may be the first mechanism by which
Cold War strategists feared that multiple nuclear players could increase the motivations for a nuclear exchange. They worried that a third nuclear

power, such as China, might conduct a nuclear strike on one of the superpowers, leading the wounded
superpower to conclude wrongly that the other superpower was responsible and thereby retaliate against an
innocent state presumed to be the aggressor. This outcome was seen as potentially attractive to the third state as a way of destroying the
superpowers and promoting itself within the global power hierarchy. Fortunately, this scenario never came to pass during the Cold War. With modern intelligence,

reconnaissance, and early warning capabilities among the major powers, it is more difficult to imagine such a scenario today, although this risk is still
conceivable among less technologically developed states. In addition to acting directly against one another, nuclear
powers could be drawn into smaller conflicts between their allies and brought face to face in peak
crises . International relations theorists discuss the concept of chain ganging within alliance relationships, the
dangers of which are more severe when the possibility of nuclear escalation is present.16 Although this was a
potential problem even in a bipolar nuclear order, the more nuclear weapons states present, the greater the likelihood of
multiple nuclear powers entering a crisis. A similar logic suggests that the more fingers on the nuclear
trigger, the more likely it is that nuclear weapons will be used. Multipolar nuclear crises are not
without historical precedent .17 Several Cold War crises featured the Soviet Union against the United States and its European nuclear-armed allies,
Britain and later France. The 1973 Arab-Israeli War involved the United States, the Soviet Union, and a nuclear-armed Israel. The United States has been an
interested party in regional nuclear disputes, including the Sino-Soviet border war of 1969 and several crises in the past two decades on the Indian subcontinent.

Indeed, many of these crises stand out as among the most dangerous of the nuclear era.

Terrorism causes extinction

Martin E. Hellman 8, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence
SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf

The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the publics mind than the threat of a full-scale nuclear war, yet this article focuses primarily on the latter.
An explanation is therefore in order before proceeding. A terrorist attack involving a nuclear weapon would be a

catastrophe of immense proportions: A 10-kiloton bomb detonated at Grand Central Station on a typical work day would likely kill some half a million people,
and inflict over a trillion dollars in direct economic damage. America and its way of life would be changed forever. [Bunn 2003, pages viii-ix]. The likelihood of such an

attack is also significant. Former Secretary of Defense William Perry has estimated the chance of a nuclear terrorist
incident within the next decade to be roughly 50 percent [Bunn 2007, page 15]. David Albright, a former weapons inspector in Iraq, estimates those odds at less than
one percent, but notes, We would never accept a situation where the chance of a major nuclear accident like Chernobyl would be anywhere near 1% .... A nuclear terrorism attack is a low-probability event,

but we cant live in a world where its anything but extremely low-probability. [Hegland 2005]. In a survey of 85 national security experts,
Senator Richard Lugar found a median estimate of 20 percent for the probability of an attack involving a nuclear
explosion occurring somewhere in the world in the next 10 years, with 79 percent of the
respondents believing it more likely to be carried out by terrorists than by a government [Lugar
2005, pp. 14-15]. I support increased efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear terrorism, but that is not inconsistent with the approach of this article. Because terrorism is one of the

potential trigger mechanisms for a full-scale nuclear war, the risk analyses proposed herein will include estimating the risk of nuclear terrorism as one
component of the overall risk. If that risk, the overall risk, or both are found to be unacceptable, then the proposed remedies would be directed to reduce which- ever risk(s) warrant attention. Similar
remarks apply to a number of other threats (e.g., nuclear war between the U.S. and China over Taiwan). his article would be incomplete if it only dealt with the threat of nuclear terrorism and neglected

societys almost
the threat of full- scale nuclear war. If both risks are unacceptable, an effort to reduce only the terrorist component would leave humanity in great peril. In fact,

total neglect of the threat of full-scale nuclear war makes studying that risk all the more
important. The cosT of World War iii The danger associated with nuclear deterrence depends on both the cost of a failure and the failure rate.3 This section explores the cost of a failure of
nuclear deterrence, and the next section is concerned with the failure rate. While other definitions are possible, this article defines a failure of deterrence to mean a full-scale exchange of all nuclear
weapons available to the U.S. and Russia, an event that will be termed World War III. Approximately 20 million people died as a result of the first World War. World War IIs fatalities were double or
triple that numberchaos prevented a more precise deter- mination. In both cases humanity recovered, and the world today bears few scars that attest to the horror of those two wars. Many people
therefore implicitly believe that a third World War would be horrible but survivable, an extrapola- tion of the effects of the first two global wars. In that view, World War III, while horrible, is something
that humanity may just have to face and from which it will then have to recover. In contrast, some of those most qualified to assess the situation hold a very different view. In a 1961 speech to a joint
session of the Philippine Con- gress, General Douglas MacArthur, stated, Global war has become a Frankenstein to destroy both sides. If you lose, you are annihilated. If you win, you stand only to

lose.No longer does it possess even the chance of the winner of a duel. It contains now only the
germs of double suicide. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara ex- pressed a similar view: If deterrence fails and conflict develops, the present U.S. and NATO
strategy carries with it a high risk that Western civilization will be destroyed [McNamara 1986, page 6]. More recently, George Shultz, William Perry, Henry
Kissinger, and Sam Nunn4 echoed those concerns when they quoted President Reagans belief that nuclear weapons were totally irrational, totally inhu- mane, good for nothing but killing, possibly

The
destructive of life on earth and civilization. [Shultz 2007] Official studies, while couched in less emotional terms, still convey the horrendous toll that World War III would exact:

resulting deaths would be far beyond any precedent. Executive branch calculations show a range of U.S. deaths from 35 to 77 percent (i.e., 79-
160 million dead) a change in targeting could kill somewhere between 20 million and 30 million additional people on each side .... These calculations reflect only deaths during the first 30 days.
Additional millions would be injured, and many would eventually die from lack of adequate medical care millions of people might starve or freeze during the follow- ing winter, but it is not possible to
estimate how many. further millions might eventually die of latent radiation effects. [OTA 1979, page 8] This OTA report also noted the possibility of serious ecological damage [OTA 1979, page 9], a

nuclear explosions and their

concern that as- sumed a new potentiality when the TTAPS report [TTAPS 1983] proposed that the ash and dust from so many nearly simultaneous

resultant fire- storms could usher in a nuclear winter that might erase homo sapiens from the face of the

earth, much as many scientists now believe the K-T Extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs resulted from an impact winter caused by ash and dust from a large asteroid or comet striking Earth. The
TTAPS report produced a heated debate, and there is still no scientific consensus on whether a nuclear winter would follow a full-scale nuclear war. Recent work [Robock 2007, Toon 2007] suggests that

even a limited nuclear exchange or one between newer nuclear-weapon states, such as India and Pakistan, could have devastating
long-lasting climatic consequences due to the large volumes of smoke that would be generated by fires in modern megacities. While it is uncertain how
destructive World War III would be, prudence dictates that we apply the same engi- neering conservatism that saved the Golden Gate Bridge from collapsing on its 50th anniversary and assume that

preventing World War III is a necessitynot an option.

The plans fiduciary responsibility to future generations ensures advanced nuclear
avoiding current downsides
Behnam Taebi 10, PhD Candidate, "Nuclear Power and Justice between Generations", PDF, p. 28-29
Chapter 5 address the normative issue of the desirability of any given fuel cycle on the basis of the findings of the foregoing three chapters. In
this particular chapter it
is argued that the morally desirable option for nuclear power production is to
safeguard the interests of future generations. I argue that the desirable option should primarily be
formulated in terms of the duty that the present generation has towards posterity 1) not to harm
people of the future and 2) to sustain future well-being by guaranteeing the availability of resources.
If these duties are to be fulfilled then certain technologies will have to be implemented , all of which affects
the burdens and benefits for different generations. In order to be able to address these intergenerational conflicts, I treated
temporal duties as prima facie duties and alluded to the fact that they might be overruled by morally more important duties. It is a notion
borrowed from moral pluralists and in particular from William David Ross (see 1930/2002). I argue that in all-things-equal situations
the duty not to harm future generations extends farther into the future and is more compelling; this
supports the idea of introducing Partitioning and Transmutation (P&T) fuel cycles in order to
substantially reduce the waste life-time periods. Such a fuel cycle creates additional safety, security
and economic burdens for contemporaries. All these intergenerational conflicts are further explored. In addressing
intergenerational conflicts Chapter 5 examines the extent of the moral stringency of the no harm duty by seeking out situations in which
future interest could guide us in our decisions to choose a certain technology .

The plans safe nuclear avoids prolif and waste risks while being an essential part of
solving warming
James Hansen et al 13, adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at
Columbia University, Ken Caldeira, Kerry Emanuel and Tom Wigley, Climate experts, To those
influencing environmental policy but opposed to nuclear power, Nuclear Reactions: Documenting
American Encounters with Nuclear Energy, p. 300-301

As climate and energy scientists concerned with global climate change, we are writing to urge you to advocate
the development and deployment of safer nuclear energy systems . We appreciate your organizations concern
about global warming, and your advocacy of renewable energy. But continued
opposition to nuclear power threatens
humanitys ability to avoid dangerous climate change. We call on your organization to support the
development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as a practical means of addressing the
climate change problem. Global demand for energy is growing rapidly and must continue to grow to provide the needs of developing
economies. At the same time, the need to sharply reduce greenhouse gas emissions is becoming ever clearer. We can only increase energy
supply while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions if new power plants turn away from using the atmosphere as a waste dump.
Renewables like wind and solar and biomass will certainly play roles in a future energy economy, but
those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough to deliver cheap and reliable power at the scale the
global economy requires . While it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without
nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include
a substantial role for nuclear power We understand that todays nuclear plants are far from perfect.
Fortunately, passive safety systems and other advances can make new plants much safer. And
modern nuclear tech nology can reduce prolif eration risks and solve the waste disposal problem by
burning current waste and using fuel more efficiently. Innovation and economies of scale can make
new power plants even cheaper than existing plants. Regardless of these advantages, nuclear needs to be encouraged
based on its societal benefits. Quantitative analyses show that the risks associated with the expanded use of
nuclear energy are orders of magnitude smaller than the risks associated with fossil fuels. No energy system
is without downsides. We ask only that energy system decisions be based on facts, and not on emotions and
biases that do not apply to 21st century nuclear technology . While there will be no single
technological silver bullet, the time has come for those who take the threat of global warming seriously
to embrace the development and deployment of safer nuclear power systems as one among several
technologies that will be essential to any credible effort to develop an energy system that does not rely on using the atmosphere
as a waste dump. With the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any
technology that has the potential to displace a large fraction of our carbon emissions. Much
has changed since the 1970s. The
time has come for a fresh approach to nuclear power in the 21st century. We ask you and your organization to
demonstrate its real concern about risks from climate damage by calling for the development and deployment of advanced nuclear energy.

Boosting domestic nuclear is key to make the global expansion safe and renew US
leadership
WGR 12Working Group Report Prepared by the Idaho National Laboratory, Third Way energy think
tank, and New Millennium Nuclear Energy Partnership (June 2012, A Strategy for the Future of Nuclear
Energy: The Consolidated Working Group Report,
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/540/Third_Way_Report_-
_A_Strategy_for_the_Future_of_Nuclear_Energy.pdf)

For more than sixty years, the United States has led the world in the development, deployment, and operation of the global
commercial nuclear fleet. This leadership had two important implications for the United States: it enhanced our security, and it
offered an engine for economic growth . This nuclear energy leadership provided an important
component of U.S. national security, by giving this nation effective influence over nonproliferation
issues and global nuclear safety standards. The commercial relationships that U.S. suppliers developed during the formative
decades (1950-1970) of nuclear energy deployment strongly reinforced U.S. norms for nuclear

nonproliferation and safety. In effect the U.S. was able to export its nuclear nonproliferation and safety
policies to much of the world. The original U.S. dominance in nuclear energy was also an important driver of growth in the American nuclear energy
manufacturing and service sectors. In addition to the design and manufacture of reactor parts, fuel, and other components, the U.S. led the world in engineering,
procurement, and construction (EPC) and architectural engineering (AE) services. All of these produced highskill, high-wage jobs in industries throughout the United
States. Unfortunately, the three-decade drought in the construction of new plants in the United States, corresponding with enormous
growth in the nuclear energy infrastructure internationally, has led to this country becoming primarily a global service provider

in nuclear energy. This has limited our ability to influence nuclear energy security issues and take advantage
of trade-based growth opportunities . The Government Accountability Office recently estimated that the U.S. share of the global market
declined sharply during that period, to approximately nine percent in 2008. While there are plans to build new reactors in the U.S. and the first combined
construction and operating licenses have been issued for two projects, the bulk of the growth is happening overseas. According to the World Nuclear Association
(WNA), more than 60 power reactors currently are being constructed in Taiwan, China, South Korea,
Russia, and fifteen other countries. WNA also reports that 155 power reactors, with a total net capacity of some 175,000 MWe,
are being planned and over 320 more are proposed. Given this dramatic global growth, the United States
has an opportunity to restore its leadership role. This would give the U.S. greater opportunity to
influence global nonproliferation safeguards for decades to come and assist in establishing the nuclear safety
norms for the next generations of nuclear plants. It could also raise U.S. exports by billions of dollars
per year and create thousands of U.S. jobs in the nuclear energy supply chain. But to get there, industry and
government must work together to establish our position in the worldwide market for nuclear energy infrastructure.

Application of statutory PTD fiduciary duties dismantle dangerous nuclear plants and
result in safe waste disposal
Mary Christina Wood 14, Knight Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Natures Trust:
Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, 2014, Cambridge University Press, p 219-220

Global Hazard Resources. A fourth trust category reaches to the dangerous materials of Nature. As Professor John Davidson urges, fiduciary
concepts should not only protect vital and irreplaceable assets, but should also limit the ability of
governments to engage in ecological ultrahazardous activity (discussed in Chapter 7). In a similar vein, Professor Edith
Brown Weiss underscores a global duty to future generations to prevent disasters. On a planetary level, the concern applies to
hazards that carry potential to damage or destroy the Earths living systems. A ghastly example of this
prospect lies in Japans nuclear reactors at Fukushima, which scientific observers warn could contaminate much of the
northern hemisphere if another major seismic event rattles the unstable reactor #4 and ignites a fire that reaches the seven pools of high-level
radioactive waste stored onsite. The
international trust responsibility demands proactive, precautionary action
in face of such global hazards. In a famous advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 1996, Judge Christopher
Weeramantry announced the principle of trusteeship of earth resources with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons, a situation
bearing danger similar to the operation of nuclear power plants. The distant transportability, long-term persistence, and lethal consequences of
radioactive contamination all create a scale of global interest that far outweighs parochial concerns, most of which typically focus on local jobs
and the availability of regional energy supplies.17 The global hazard category extends well beyond nuclear power
activity to all actions holding potential to cause large-scale irrevocable planetary damage, such as deep-
sea drilling that imperils ocean resources, fossil fuel production that damages climate systems, and risky geoengineering attempts to
mitigate planetary heating. A potential breach of trust toward global beneficiaries occurs not only when government allows ultrahazardous
activity, but also when agencies confer power to private corporations to use or manage these hazard resources. As became evident with BPs
operation of deep-sea oil drilling and Tokyo Electrics management of nuclear power plants, privatizing hazard resources can bring disaster.
Corporations are incentivized to compromise costly safety measures in order to maximize their profits. The global trust aims to prevent such
privatization. After characterizing a planetary trust resource, the next step involves identifying the nations situated as co-tenant trustees of the
asset. Generally speaking, the sovereigns that assert dominion and control over, or gain direct beneficial use of, the asset hold recognized
property rights to it. All global trust resources can be situated along a continuum of national dominion. At one end, nations assert clear and
exclusive dominion over purely domestic resources. Here the possessory interests run most acute. Examples of such domestic trust assets
include a forest, a mineral deposit, a shoreline, or an underground aquifer located entirely within national boundaries. (Professor Sand rightly
argues that some of these domestic resources exist as a matter of global common concern notwithstanding the fact that they fall squarely
within a nations territorial boundaries.)18 At the other end of the continuum, nations assert non-possessory interests in those resources that
are not capable of possession but provide mutual societal benefit, like oceans, atmosphere, and space. In the middle of the continuum, nations
assert shared possessory interests in trans-boundary resources of a transitory nature, such as a migratory species of wildlife. Some assets, like
international waterways, straddle the categories: the submerged beds fix clearly within national borders, but the water remains transitory,
running between borders. Regardless of where the asset falls on this continuum, the sovereign trustees that stand positioned to manage the
resource become identifiable from the territorial dominion or beneficial interests they claim. A few examples demonstrate the concept. The
United States and Canada serve as co-tenant sovereign trustees of the Great Lakes trust. Eight co-tenant sovereign trustees manage the
Amazon Forest trust: Brazil, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Columbia, Venezuela, Guyana, and Suriname. Within the United States, multiple state and
tribal sovereign trustees oversee the Columbia River trust; Canada acts as a co-trustee of that trust with the United States on the international
level. Eight states hold the Ogallala Aquifer in co-tenant trusteeship: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas,
and Wyoming. All nations on Earth share the atmospheric trust and the oceans trust as co-tenant sovereign trustees. A trust paradigm does
not disturb nations assertions of beneficial interests in global assets, but it does broaden the duties of each sovereign trustee with respect to
the asset as a whole. By recognizing co-tenancy sovereign interests in planetary assets, the analysis enlarges the group of beneficiary interests
that a nation must account for in asserting control over such assets, no matter where they fall on the continuum of possession and dominion. In
their use and management, each co-tenant trustee of a shared planetary asset bears a duty toward all of the beneficiaries of the joint trust
that is, the present and future global citizenry. Likewise, apart from this duty toward citizens worldwide, a government owes a parallel fiduciary
duty to protect the planetary interests of its own citizens in maintaining the functionality of global ecology. The principle works in a rather
straightforward manner with respect to obviously shared resources like the oceans, atmosphere, or a migrating fishery. Co-tenant duties to
maintain the asset apply to all sovereign co-trustees of that asset, and these duties stand capable of enforcement by the citizen beneficiaries of
each sovereign, as illustrated in the context of Atmospheric Trust Litigation, discussed later. But what about assets that fall on the other end of
the continuum the purely domestic resources (with planetary importance), as well as those that straddle categories? As to these, Sand argues,
the sovereign must still act as a fiduciary managing a public trust. Yet traditional law has never analyzed the bundle of sovereign property
interests in a way that fully recognizes obligations flowing to those outside the sovereigns borders. Where possessory use seems exclusive, the
law must find a basis for inherent property obligations owed to the broader world.19 A global trust construct may draw useful analogies from
property law, which offers many arrangements that vest owners with full possession yet impose obligations toward external interests. Owners
of a condominium, for example, enjoy full and exclusive possession of their single unit, but that unit is of part of a larger structure (including the
buildings exterior walls and its roof) owned in common with other unit owners. All owners share a duty not to damage or waste the supporting
structure. The very same logic extends, for example, to the deep sea bed of the planet. While nations may assert exclusive possession over their
shoreline zones, the deep sea bed itself functions, in essence, as the floor of the planet. All
nations have a co-tenancy interest
in it, even though particular nations may exercise exclusive possessory rights over parts of it their
territorial units, so to speak. An ensemble of duties flowing from this co-tenancy relationship limits the action any one nation can
take in managing its possessory interests. While the economic interests of local citizens may support oil drilling, for instance, the planetary
interests of those same citizens and the interests of co-tenant nations in the ocean floor flatly contravene dangerous deep-sea drilling that
threatens the oceans and living systems. Defining and Enforcing a Fiduciary Obligation toward Planetary Assets Once
a natural
resource becomes identified as a planetary trust asset, legal principles evaluate its management
according to measures of asset health and functionality, as explained in Chapter 8. Natures own laws, scientifically
interpreted, set the parameters. By applying scientifically defined planetary prescriptions as fiduciary
obligations, the trust formulation creates a uniform and principled approach to global ecological
responsibility . It offers beneficiaries concrete, science-based descriptions of government obligation,
divesting leaders of their presumed prerogative to take only that action urged by their own political ambition. Global fiduciary obligations flow
to two separate classes of interests. First, each trustee government bears a fiduciary duty to its own citizens as well as citizens of the world to
protect their planetary inheritance. Second, each nation owes a duty to all other nations, arising from the sovereign co-tenancy relationship, to
prevent waste to common global assets. These two duties merge into a uniform obligation of asset protection. The mere existence of such
duties, however, does not ensure they will be carried out. Citizens must explore opportunities to press the fiduciary obligation in their own legal
systems. While such systems vary greatly between nations, this discussion offers five common approaches. First and foremost, citizens should
pursue enforcement of global trust obligations against their own governments in domestic courts. It is well settled that beneficiaries may sue
the trustee to protect their property.20 Recognizing that planetary fiduciary duties encumber sovereign management of a joint trust asset,
judges need not shunt all ecological questions of global significance to the international political realm. Citizen beneficiaries that bring suit
represent not only their own interests as members of the sovereign public, but also assert broader global interests in their capacity as world
citizens, thus making the fiduciary duty a matter of domestic law and obligation. This duty provides the basis for a judicial remedy that can
impose discrete and actionable baselines, benchmarks, and goals calibrated to scientific prescriptions for asset health, as the discussion below
shows. Second, the trust positions subnational sovereigns to assert property-based rights both in domestic courts and in legislative venues. In
the United States, for example, states and tribes may bring suit (so far as allowed by principles of sovereign immunity) as co-tenants of common
resources against other states, tribes, or the federal government for waste to the joint assets. As the Ninth Circuit court said in a treaty fishing
case, A court will enjoin the commission of waste. Apart from litigation, positioning domestic sovereigns as co-tenants of shared ecology in
policy realms may help disassemble power-based relationships that have suppressed many native nations and states from protecting resources
beyond their jurisdictional reach and may strengthen a sovereign pluralism that leads to more diverse approaches to ecological
management.21 Third, the trust framework offers a fresh model for domestic legislative reform . By reframing
global ecological problems (such as climate crisis) in terms of property rights, citizens can present a logical conception of global ecological
responsibility for the domestic agenda. Science-based prescriptions for global asset protection provide benchmarks of fiduciary obligation and
legislative accountability. In terms of time and money spent, domestic advocacy may prove more productive for citizens than attending
international treaty negotiations, where they wield minimal political power. Fourth, the trust provides a basis for national governments and
subnational sovereigns (such as tribes and states) to seek natural resource damage actions against corporations that have polluted planetary
resources. Global ecological crises require huge amounts of money for restoration measures. Strangely, the current realm of international
diplomacy altogether ignores polluters, overlooking both their colossal culpability in causing the harm and their deep-pocket ability to finance
mitigation through natural resource damages. While multinational corporations hold the lions share of aggregate global wealth, they have
rarely been sent the bill for their damage to planetary property. As Chapter 8 explained, federal, tribal, and state trustees stand positioned to
collect natural resource damages for harm to trust property. An immediately obvious global campaign would focus on the fossil fuel
corporations to fund massive reforestation and soil sequestration needed to draw down carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Another
would target the nuclear corporations to fund the dismantlement of dangerous plants and
encasement of radioactive waste they have generated. Of course, weighty challenges exist in the collection of natural
resource damages. The international community of nations will have to devise a fair way of allocating money damages gained by any one
nation-trustee for harm to a shared asset. Moreover, domestic courts issuing damage judgments in one country might have to rely on courts in
another country for enforcing those judgments. In 2009, for example, a court in Ecuador ordered Chevron Corporation to pay $27 billion for
polluting the countrys rainforest, but collection of the judgment depends on courts in other countries having jurisdiction over the companys
assets.22

Continued nuclear waste pollution causes extinction---radiation poisoning and

meltdowns
Margaret Morris 16, Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, " Nuclear Waste Pollution is an
Existential Risk that Threatens Global Health ", April 5, ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/morris20160405

Deadly environmental pollution has become an existential risk that threatens the prospect for the
long-term survival of our species and a great many others. Here we will focus on the nuclear waste aspect of the
problem and ways to mitigate it before there is a critical tipping point in our global ecosystem. As philosopher Nick
Bostrom said in his 2001 paper titled Existential Risks, published in the Journal of Evolution and Technology, Our future, and whether we
will have a future at all, may well be determined by how we deal with these challenges.1 Unlike many
radioactive materials that degrade fairly rapidly, some will remain intensely poisonous for incredibly long periods. Plutonium-240 (Pu-240) has a half-life of 6,560
years. The half-life is the time it takes for radioactive decay to decrease by half. But decay does not occur at an even pace, and radioactive isotopes are dangerous
for much longer typically 10 to 20 times the length of their half-life. Pu-238 has an 88-year half-life, and is used for space vehicles despite the frequency of rocket
failures. Any exploding rocket including such cargo spreads pollution far and wide. Pu-239 has a half-life of over 24,000 years, and will remain radioactive for about a
half a million years. But the situation is more complicated because as Pu-239 decays it transforms to uranium-235 (U- 235), which has a half life of 600 to 700 million
years. Iodine-129 has a half-life of 16 million years. Pu-244 has a half-life of 80.8 million years. U-238 has a half- life of 4.5 billion years.2 When taken into the body,
isotopes of radioactive plutonium are not fully eliminated and tend to accumulate. They are deadly when sufficiently accumulated. Pu-239 was described by its co-
discoverer, chemist Glenn Seaborg, as fiendishly toxic. In addition to terrible chemical toxicity, plutonium emits ionizing radiation. Pu-239 emits alpha, beta and
gamma particles. Gamma radiation can penetrate the entire body and kill cells. Pu-239 has a robust resonance energy of 0.2 96 electron-volts that can badly
damage DNA and produce birth defects that carry over generations.3 The body repairs tissues and DNA, but becomes overwhelmed when plutonium concentrates
too heavily. According to a 1975 article in New Scientist Magazine, But if it is inhaled, 10 micrograms of plutonium-239 is likely
to cause fatal lung cancer.4 Experts estimate that Pu-239 is so noxious that only one pound would be enough
to kill everyone on our planet if it were so evenly dispersed in the air that everyone inhaled it.5 Although it occurs in nature in exploding stars,

almost all plutonium on Earth is man-made the product of manufacturing nuclear weapons and energy in nuclear
power plants . Of the different forms of nuclear products, deadly Pu-239 is very abundant because it is used to make nuclear weapons and is a by-product
of energy production in nuclear reactors. As part of the U.S. weapons program (between 1944 and 1988), 114 tons of Pu-239 was produced in nuclear reactors at
the Hanford Works facility, in Washington state, and at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina.6 Large quantities of this Pu-239 remains
at temporary storage facilities at these locations. Hanford stores about 50 million gallons of high-level radioactive nuclear and
chemically hazardous wastes in underground storage tanks that were not designed for long-term storage. Roughly a third of these tanks have leaked, so that at least
a million gallons of radioactive waste has reached the natural environment. Hanford is the most toxic site in the U.S., and among the most toxic places on Earth.
Over 1,000 contaminated sites at Hanford have been identified. Groundwater aquifers are polluted for over 200 square miles beyond Hanford. No less than nine
pounds of Pu-239 is used to make a working nuclear bomb. As of 2015, a total of 15,695 nuclear weapons are stockpiled by nine countries.7 Some of these weapons
are 35 years old, but have a shelf-life of only 25 years.8 These aging weapons are undergoing corrosion. oxidation and other detrimental changes, and they must
constantly be maintained and upgraded to prevent them from becoming an immanent threat to life on Earth. They are primary war targets. The situation
emphasizes the need for absolute global peace. As of 2014, about 435 nuclear power plants have been built in 31 countries around the world.9 A
great
number of radioactive products, including Pu-239, are byproducts of U-235 fission occurring in the fuel
rods of those plants with uranium reactors. In addition to being susceptible to natural disasters and
accidents, these nuclear plants are all vulnerable to acts of war . They, too, emphasize the need for absolute global peace.
Many nuclear power plants are operating beyond their established service lives, and storing their
nuclear wastes remains highly problematic . No method for the long-term storage of high-level nuclear products was available when
industries began producing them to make commercial energy and weapons. Storage remains very precarious, and there is no
realistic way to safeguard those that are long-lived. There are 93 different long-lived radioactive elements that are toxic for a
minimum of 17,000 years, and the time scale extends for many billions of years of total decay time for some.10 The U.S. alone stores tens of

thousands of tons of spent fuel containing Pu-239 and other highly radioactive materials from the various
reactor cores. The quantity continues to increase worldwide as long as the nuclear plants continue to operate. About 1% of spent
nuclear fuel is plutonium, and nuclear power provides about 10 percent of the worlds electricity. A uranium reactor will contain about a ton of plutonium. These

figures provide a rough idea of the enormity of continual global radioactive waste accumulation. Aside from accidents like the Chernobyl
disaster (which contaminated 40% of Europe), dangers include the potential for spontaneous fuel combustion and nuclear meltdown at
pools containing spent fuel . The following quote from a National Research Council Panel report provides a rough idea of the growing tonnage
build-up of plutonium from commercial nuclear reactors: New production of commercial reactor plutonium during the first half of the 1990s was about 70 MT
[metric tons] per year.11 At least four to five tons of Pu-239 are known to have been released into the environment during nuclear weapons testing.12 Much of
the Pu-239 remains buried underground at the test sites. But some was released into the air during atmospheric tests, and some traveled for many miles by way of
groundwater after underground tests. About two-thirds of the plutonium in the atmosphere winds up in the oceans, where it tends to sink to their bottoms and
challenges sea life. The polluted sediment is disturbed and redistributed by underwater tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes and enormous landslides.
 Plan

The United States federal government should establish a statutory basis for an atmospheric public
trust framework that restricts private sector greenhouse gas emissions by establishing fiduciary
responsibilities including: limiting carbon dioxide levels to at most 350 parts-per-million of air,
recognizing obligations to future generations for atmospheric climate mitigation, requiring the
recovery of carbon sinks, and establishing an autonomous federal public trust advocate with the
authority to enforce trustee duties.
 Solvency

Congress is key solves effective application of public trust values for federal public
lands
Alexandra B. Klass 11, University of Minnesota Law School, Renewable Energy and the Public Trust
Doctrine, March 17, 45 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 1021 (2012), Minnesota Legal Studies Research Paper No. 11-
12

Such an approach may understandably cause some concern to environmental groups and
others who are wary about elevating renewable energy development on federal land to the
same or a higher level as existing public trust values already protected by federal statutes.
However, Congress is likely the best branch of government to set that balance among
competing public trust values, rather than having courts apply indeterminate statutes when
disputes inevitably arise. So long as there is an express balancing of the competing public trust
values, the goals of the public trust doctrine may in fact be met without adversely affecting
competing public trust values any more than would happen without placing an express public
trust value on renewable energy, which many agree is already strongly in the public interest. In
Illinois Central, the Supreme Court was careful to say that public trust lands could in fact be
used by private industry, so long as that use did not adversely impact remaining public trust
lands and values.239 Likewise, the California Supreme Court in the Mono Lake case did not say
the water board could not give water from the streams at issue to Los Angeles but only that it
must consider the impact on the public trust values of Mono Lake. Thus, in the case of
promoting renewable energy on federal lands, it might be in the interest of federal agencies
to have a statutory public trust basis for renewable energy. Moreover, because there is no
clear common law or constitutional basis for a federal public trust doctrine, challenges to
particular renewable energy projects must occur under existing federal environmental
protection provisions that derive from federal statutes. Creating an express public trust value
in renewable energy, from the perspective of project opponents, merely means that courts can
expressly balance competing public trust values instead of doing so without any real
framework. Thus, opponents of renewable energy projects, as well as federal agencies, would
both be no worse off, but courts would have more guidance to make decisions. Finally, there
are creative methods for Congress and federal agencies to attempt to balance renewable
energy and other public trust values. Professor John Leshy has suggested several ways to
attempt to reconcile competing uses on public lands in the area of renewable energy and
climate change, including: (1) requiring renewable energy projects to pay the government for
use of federal lands based on the value of the energy produced and using that money for
conservation programs on other public lands; (2) identifying those lands that would be
preserved from energy development while actively encouraging the use of other, more
appropriate lands, for such development; and, (3) auctioning off some lands with time-limited
permits and others in fee simple conditional with a reverter back into public ownership once
the use ends and the land is reclaimed.240 Approaches such as these recognize the potential public
trust value in renewable energy without promoting it over all other existing public trust values on
federal lands. Ultimately, Congress and federal agencies appear to be in the best position to
set some standards and priorities in addressing conflicts on federal lands regarding
competing public trust values, rather than having courts apply a common law public trust
doctrine that has a very uncertain application in the federal lands context .

Causes global modeling --- federal leasing policy critical to avoid further investment in
fossil fuel production investment
Michael Lazarus & Erickson 16, Senior Scientist, Stockholm Environment Institute, Peter, 2/2016,
How would phasing out U.S. federal leases for fossil fuel extraction affect CO2 emissions and 2C goals?,
Stockholm Environment Institute, https://www.sei-
international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2016-02-US-fossilfuel-
leases.pdf

In addition, a cessation of new federal leases would send a strong signal to other countries , encouraging
them to take similar steps . Based only on the straightforward economic tools used here, we estimate that in such a case, with
global fossil fuel supply more constrained and low carbon renewables more available, the impact could be at least twice as high: 210 Mt CO2 in
2030 alone. Taken together, reduced government licensing and support for fossil fuel production could also
help avoid further carbon lock-in in terms of investment in both fossil fuel -using and- producing
infrastructure . Phasing out of federal oil supply could help accelerate the development of lowcarbon transport options (such as electric
vehicles powered by low-carbon electricity). Leases for offshore oil production, estimated to supply as much as three-quarters of U.S. federal oil
(chiefly from the Gulf of Mexico), may be especially important as offshore oil production, with its high capital costs, is a key contributor to
carbon lock-in, increasing the cost of meeting climate goals and making it harder to transition away from oil later (Erickson et al. 2015). Finally,
by ceasing new leases, theU.S. government would put fossil fuel production on a path to ending completely
sometime in the second half of this century. That
would be consistent with a long-term goal adopted in the Paris Agreement to achieve
net zero greenhouse gas emissions from human activities later in the century, consistent with having a likely chance of
keeping warming below 2C (or 1.5C).41
Statutory approaches solve agency politicization and leverage existing law to establish a
duty for recovery and a duty to prevent waste
Nathan Bellinger 16, JD, Oregon School of Law, Gordon Levitt, Jared Margolis, March 2016, The Public
Trust Doctrine and Environmental Decision Making,
https://law.uoregon.edu/images/uploads/entries/environmental_decision_making_-_EK_edit.pdf

At the federal level, a more nuanced approach may be necessary to incorporate the P ublic T rust D octrine
in to legislative and agency decision making. Federal agencies may be hesitant to incorporate certain aspects of the doctrine,
particularly those that would require that fewer permits be issued for natural resource exploitation, or that would significantly alter decision-
making processes; however, by systematically introducing elements of the doctrine, we can work with agencies to establish the regulatory shift
necessary to fully incorporate the doctrine. As Professor Mary Christina Wood points out, reform efforts need to institutionalize predictable,
punitive consequences for agency violations of fiduciary duties owed to the public. Ultimately, however, punitive systems will
only go so far . Professor Wood notes the nature of this challenge stating that: A very personal challenge must ultimately find its way into
the hearts of those public servants who have the sense that agencies have not behaved as they should have, that agencies have been serving
some powers other than the public, that their own personal actions, if not illegal do not fulfill the spirit of the public oath they tookand that
their time in history proves so pivotal that they must become the change agents within their institutions, daunting and personally risky as that
prospect may be. Agency reforms will fail if agents of change remain unprotected in their courageous action. They

must be nurtured in their sense of public mission and championed by the broader community they serve.102 Inorder to nurture this
reform and move towards a decision-making paradigm that recognizes the trust responsibilities of government, it would be
advantageous to rely on existing legal standards that provide for trust oversight regarding natural resources. We,

therefore suggest looking to aspects of the trust that are already included in statutory schemes, and which would provide
tangible improvements to natural resource management while engendering the least amount of opposition to

the adoption of a trust framework. There are certain duties under the Public Trust Doctrine that must not be ignored.
Perhaps the most evident is the duty to prevent substantial impairment of trust resources. In order to prevent
impairment, a basic tenet of trust law is that trustees have an affirmative obligation to recoup damages against
third parties that harm or destroy trust assets. This duty helps ensure that the beneficiaries will be made whole for loss or
damage to their property. In the public trust context, the duty demands recovery of natural resource damages whenever there is undue harm
to trust resources (i.e. unpermitted harm or any action that causes substantial impairment). There is an existing trust paradigm
in environmental law that would provide a foundation for incorporating the duty to seek n atural
r esource d amages into all aspects of natural resource management. Pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act and the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Cleanup, Liability Act, the federal government acts as a trustee of natural resources, including land,
fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources,103 and may seek natural resource damages
for restoration or replacement of the injured natural resource, or for acquisition of an equivalent resource. This process provides a
means for the government to comply with the duty to prevent waste , and ultimately could be a
central component in preventing substantial impairment of trust resources. Whereas it is an existing framework,
already employed by the government to protect certain resources, expanding the doctrine into other, similar, contexts such as where
the activities of private entities causes damage to the air, water, land or wildlife, would be a straightforward process. Therefore,
we suggest that efforts be undertaken to utilize the existing trust framework for natural resource damage recovery in OPA and CERCLA into
all other areas of natural resource regulation, and require that the government not only seek NRDs, but use those funds
to restore the functions and values of lost ecological services and natural resource values when those are harmed by
a third party. While the trusteeship process for recovering NRDs has been established pursuant to OPA and CERCLA, it remains a discretionary
process that provides the authority to seek NRDs, but does not compel governmental action. This is, perhaps, the most essential
component of the puzzle for ongoing efforts to revitalize the P ublic T rust D octrine in environmental regulation. It is the
affirmative duty of a trustee to prevent harm to the trust resources. When private parties have caused damage to
natural resources, it is imperative that such damage be remediated, so that the resource is not substantially impaired for the beneficiaries.
The nature of a trust relationship requires the trustee to react to damage by undertaking actions that
will restore the trust resources, which suggests that the recovery of NRDs should not be discretionary.
A campaign to require that the government seek natural damages whenever there is substantial impairment to public trust resources should be
the focus of efforts at the federal level.

An independent public trust advocate solves politicization

Ellen Hanak 11, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center and a senior fellow at the Public Policy
Institute of California, 2011, Effective and Adaptive, Governance, Managing California's Water: From
Conflict to Reconciliation, http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_211EHChapter8R.pdf
The legislature should also look for ways to ensure that the water agency adequately considers the public trust interest in California water. The diffuse character of
public benefits and the limited resources of environmental interests mean that the public trust is not always adequately represented in board proceedings. One

potential solution is to establish a public trust advocate, modeled after the Division of Ratepayer Advocates at the California Public
Utility Commission (Division of Ratepayer Advocates 2010). The public trust advocate would be responsible for evaluating

major board proceedings for public trust implications and advocating for positions that promote the
public trust. To promote independence, the public trust advocate could be appointed by the governor, with confirmation by the legislature, but serve for a
fixed term rather than at the governors pleasure. In addition to ensuring representation of public trust interests, a public

trust advocate would also help provide for more deliberate and consistent development of public-
trust principles in the boards work. Like the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the public trust advocate also could be a source
of information to the legislature. A public trust advocate would be a useful innovation whether the board
remains independent or is merged into a Department of Water Management. In interviews, we repeatedly heard that a major obstacle

to effective, longterm reform by California administrative agencies has been political pressure from the legislature or governor.
The state may wish to seek ways to shield state water authorities from the most pernicious pressures and provide them with sufficient autonomy to formulate
coherent, long-term water policies. The short-term political objectives of water users and other stakeholders often are inconsistent with the long-term needs of a

sustainable water system. Effective water management requires a consistent, long-term perspective, protected
to a significant degree from short-term politics .

When crises such as droughts hit, water managers need to keep long-term goals in mind and not simply respond to immediate political demands .
Autonomy is particularly important where issues are technical and depend on scientific expertise, as in
the protection of imperiled ecosystems and fisheries.
The Aff causes the carbon majors to shift to clean energy

Terry Macalister, 2016, Green really is the new black as Big Oil gets a taste for renewables, Energy
Editor of the Guardian. He is an award-winning journalist, author of a book on the Arctic and a former
Press Fellow of Wolfson College, Cambridge, Former elected London borough councilor, May 2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/21/oil-majors-investments-renewable-energy-solar-
wind

Jeremy Leggett, a former petroleum geologist who went on to found photovoltaics group SolarCentury, thinks the oil companies are
taking precautions as the world moves towards low-carbon energy . The oil and gas majors are in a
fascinating place, he said. Theyre starting to use clean-energy investments to hedge their bets
that markets for o il a n d g as will exist decades from now.

These investments are of varying degrees of seriousness . I would put Total at the top of the league table at the moment. But,
unlike many of the big utilities, none of the majors has yet grasped the nettle and told stakeholders that the
game is up . That oil and gas will be over by year X, and strategy is now being based on back-mapping from that year.
2AC
 Ag F
Industrial ag causes numerous scenarios for food shocks and extinction
Sarah Taylor Lovell 16, Associate Professor, Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, PhD in Agronomy, University of Illinois, Matthew Heron Wilson, AgroforestryThe
Next Step in Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture, http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/8/6/574

Roughly 38% of the land surface of

orest farming; windbreak 1. Introduction Agriculture shapes our planet in profound ways.
the earth is used to grow food, making agriculture the largest anthropogenic land use [1]. Expansion in
agricultural land is the leading cause of deforestation and native habitat loss [2,3], a situation that has led to
declines in wildlife, including birds [4], insects [5], and mammals [6], some of which are now considered endangered species [2]. Nutrient
leaching from fertilizer results in the eutrophication of waterways, leading to oxygen deficient dead
zones in water bodies around the world [7,8]. Agriculture is the largest human-caused contributor to the greenhouse gas
emissions implicated in climate change [1,9] Humans are not exempt from these effects. Pesticides in measurable quantities can be found in
many environments, including the human body [10,11]. In the United States alone, the human health cost of pesticide
poisoning has been estimated at $1.2 billion per year [12], and excess nitrate in drinking water caused by
over-fertilization can cause illness and is costly to clean up [1315]. In addition to environmental and human impacts, there are
disconcerting implications for the resilience of our agricultural systems [16]. Worldwide, just fifteen crops
produce 90% of food calories, with wheat, rice, and maize alone supplying 60% [17]. A majority of these
crops are grown in vast tracts of annual monocultures which have a high risk for pest and disease
outbreaks [18,19]. The Irish potato famine of 18451850 contributed to the deaths of over a million
people and is a stark reminder of what can happen when disease destroys a single crop that is relied
upon too heavily [20]. These monocultures require yearly replanting, high inputs, and weed control [21],
and it has been suggested that this cycle of plant-fertilize-spray tends to serve the interests of the large
agribusiness companies who supply the inputs for this system more than furthering the goal of feeding the
world [22]. The long-term sustainability of any agricultural system requires that soils stay productive
and that necessary inputs remain available in the future. However, soil loss occurs more rapidly than soil
creation in many agricultural landscapes [23], and the soil that remains tends to decline in quality [24].
Heavy reliance on fossil fuels in the form of liquid fuel and fertilizer makes agriculture subject to
fluctuations in fuel costs and supply [25]. One-way fertilizer nutrient flows simultaneously cause
pollution and scarcity. Phosphorus is one example: this essential plant nutrient is expected to become increasingly
expensive to mine and process, while, at the same time, phosphorus runoff causes eutrophication of
water bodies [26,27]. In the near future, our agricultural systems will also have to adapt to a changing
climate that is expected to bring more extreme weather events like droughts and floods, in addition
to increases in outbreaks of diseases and pests [28]. The changes will be more severe in the developing world, where
poverty hinders peoples ability to adapt [29,30]. The Dust Bowl of the 1930s is an example of destructive agricultural practices
paired with an extreme drought that led to catastrophic consequences [31]. Agricultural overreach along with the inability
to adapt to changes in climate has toppled civilizations, from the ancient Mesopotamians to the
Mayans [32,33].
 T Establish
Policy is legislation and regs made the gov includes the courts
Donald E. MacDonald 11, earth scientist, former climate change policy advisor, currently teaching at
Grant MacEwan University, previously senior climate change policy advisor for the Alberta Government
and represented the province in UNFCC negotiating sessions, 2011, Climate Change Policy 101, Earth
Common Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 39-48

Policies can be political, financial, and administrative; by their nature, they are arranged to reach explicit or specific goals. Public policy
can be generally defined as . . . the broad framework of ideas and values within which decisions are taken
and action, or inaction, is pursued by governments in relation to some issue or problem (Brooks, 1989). Public
policy is commonly embodied in constitutions , legislative acts , and judicial decisions . More specifically,
climate change policy is simply the result of governments, private sector operations, or institutions responses to
an issue like climate change. Climate policies have been adopted by governments at the international (UN), national,
provincial/state, municipal, and institutional levels (e.g. Universities, Fig. 1). The climate change issue has become highly politicized and policy
approaches are almost always a derivative of politics. Private sector corporations have internal operational policies, but in the past at least,
they have tended to have positional stances on government climate change policy (i.e. what they think of them). Climate policies are often
set out in high-level political strategic documents, while details concerning their actual implementation tend to be found in action plans or
similar documents. However, most critically, policy implementation is often expressed as legislation, regulations ,
or the announcement of approved funding for various incentive schemes. Serious action on the climate change
issue does not begin until this policy implementation commitment is put in place
 Research CP
Oversight is key tech misteps are inevitable only review solves
Edwin Lyman 16, PhD, Senior Scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, 4/21/2016, Enabling
Advanced Reactors and a Legislative Hearing on S.2795, The Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act, http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/49c19c65-0886-46fc-afc7-
b944ca7e2e7c/lyman-testimony.pdf
Our position on nuclear power is not ideological but pragmatic. UCS believes that nuclear power could have a role to play in helping to mitigate the threat of climate
change, and that the
United States may need to extend the life of existing reactors and/or build new ones to
address this problem. But this should only happen if nuclear power is sufficiently safe and secure. This means that
any growth in nuclear power must be accompanied by increases in reactor safety and security;
otherwise, the total risk to public health and the environment will increase . Moreover, nuclear power
could take itself out of the running if there is another event like the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi
nuclear plant disaster, whether caused by an accident or by a terrorist attack. Just over five years ago, Japan was a world
leader in nuclear energy, with over 3 50 operating nuclear power reactors and bold plans to build
many more. But Japans nuclear establishment was too complacent about the dangers their reactors
faced. Today, only two of those reactors are running and a battle is raging in the courts over the
restart of two others. Japans nuclear energy capacity is not likely to return to its pre-Fukushima level for many decades, if ever. The United States
needs to do everything it can to avoid repeating Japans mistakes. Therefore, Congress must ensure that the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) serves as a thorough and rigorously independent regulator for overseeing both the
operation of existing plants and the licensing of new ones. While the most efficient and cost-effective way to enhance reactor
safety and security in the near-term is making evolutionary improvements in current designs and strengthening regulatory oversight, new and novel

reactor technologies have the potential to achieve these goals in the longer term. However, experience
has shown that there are no quick or easy fixes to make nuclear power safer. Although each new
reactor type has advocates who make claims about the benefits of their preferred designs for
improving safety, proliferation resistance or economic competitiveness , such assertions rarely stand
up to scrutiny. Those who are engaged in the complex business of nuclear reactor development
usually learn this lesson quickly. For example, the traveling wave concept that was a major early selling point of Bill Gates Terrapower
reactorone of a class of reactors that UCS believes shows great promiseturned out not to work, necessitating a significant change in design. Given the
proliferation of new reactor designs and the massive investment needed to commercialize just one of them, private and public investment in nuclear development
should be focused on those concepts that have the greatest chance of meeting goals for enhanced safety, security, proliferation resistance, and economic viability.

Cutting through the hype and identifying the best prospects is a major challenge. For this reason, a
thorough and independent technical peer review process needs to be part of any government
program that provides support to new nuclear projects , whether at the national labs or in the private sector.
SRM CP
 SRM Fails
Sulfate aerosols fail---not feasible, causes drought and ineffective
Rotman 2/8 David, Editor of the MIT Technology Review, "A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global
Warming", 2013, www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-
global-warming/

Critics of SRMand even its advocatesnote that the technology has numerous limitations, and that no
one is entirely sure what the consequences would be. Sulfate aerosols reflect sunlight in the upper atmosphere, thus directly cooling the planet. But
greenhouse gases operate very differently, trapping long-wave infrared radiation escaping from
Earths surface and thus warming it. While sulfates would be likely to offset warming, its not clear
exactly how they would counteract some of the other effects of greenhouse gases , particularly changes in precipitation patterns. And
SRM would do nothing to reduce the acidification of the oceans caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. While sulfates would

be likely to offset warming, its not clear how they would affect precipitation. The term solar radiation management is positively Orwellian, says Raymond Pierrehumbert, a geophysicist at the University of Chicago. Its

What were really talking about is

meant to give you a feeling that we really understand what we would be doing. Its a way to increase comfort levels with this crazy idea.

hacking the planet in a case where we dont really know what it is going to do. In delivering the prestigious Tyndall Lecture at the
annual American Geophysical Union meeting last December, he said the idea of putting sulfate aerosols in the stratosphere was barking
mad . Pierrehumbert also rejects the value of doing field experiments. The whole idea of geoengineering is so crazy and would lead to such bad consequences, it really is pretty pointless We already
know enough about sulfate albedo engineering to know it would put the world in a really precarious
state. Field experiments are really a dangerous step on the way to deployment, and I have a lot of
doubts what would actually be learned. The fundamental problem with albedo engineering , says Pierrehumbert,
is that once we start using it, well need to continue indefinitely . Since it only offsets warming, once
the process stops, temperature changes caused by greenhouse gases will manifest themselves suddenly and
dramatically. If you stopor if you have to stopthen youre toast, he says. Even using it as a temporary Band-Aid
doesnt make sense, he argues: Once you get to the point in terms of climate changes that you feel you have to use it, then you have to use [SRM] forever. He believes that this makes
the idea a complete nonstarter . Besides, Pierrehumbert says, our climate models are nowhere near advanced enough for us to begin thinking of actually engineering the planet. In
computer models dont accurately predict specific regional precipitation patterns. And, he says, its not
particular,

possible to use existing models to know how geoengineering might affect, say, Indias monsoons or
precipitation in such drought-prone areas as northern Africa. Our ability to actually say what the regional climate patterns will be in a geoengineered world is very limited, he says.
Alan Robock, meanwhile, has a long list of questions concerning SRM, at the top of which is: can it even be done? Robock, an expert on

how volcanoes affect climate and a professor of environmental sciences at Rutgers University, cautions that while the Pinatubo eruption confirmed the

cooling effect of sulfate aerosols, it injected a massive amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere
over a few days. Solar geoengineering would use far less sulfur but disperse it continuously over an extended period. That could be a critical difference. The optimal way to achieve SRM is with sulfur particles only about half a

Robock worries
micrometer in diameter. Sunlight reflects off the surface of the particles, and smaller particles have more surface area than larger ones, making them far more efficient at blocking the sun.

that as sulfur is continuously injected and concentrations build up, the small particles will clump
together into large ones, necessitating far more sulfur than some current proposals assume. These details of aerosol chemistry could
help determine the viability of SRM. David [ Keith] thinks it is going to be easy and cheap, and I dont agree , says Robock. He estimates that
several million tons of sulfur would have to be injected into the atmosphere annually to offset doubled levels of carbon
dioxide, but if the particles clump together, it could be many times that . Research so far shows that producing a cloud in the stratosphere

Robocks preferred description of SRMcould cool the climate, he says. But you would have a very different planet, and other things could be

worse. He points out, for example, that in the aftermath of Mount Pinatubo, rainfall decreased significantly in some parts of the world. Robock supports more modeling on solar geoengineering, but right now, I dont see a
path in which it would be used, he says. I dont see how the benefits outweigh the negatives.
 WW A/O
PTD stops water privatization -- solves water wars
Mary Christina Wood 14, Knight Professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, Natures Trust:
Environmental Law for a New Ecological Age, 2014, Cambridge University Press, no page numbers
The first prong of the Illinois Central test sets a limit on privatization by allowing only conveyances of trust resources that further trust
purposes. But some acts of privatization, as a per se matter, run antithetical to trust purposes because they allow private parties to monopolize
crucial life sources, which would deprive citizens of access to meet their most paramount needs. As Professor Blumm observes, The
doctrines central purpose may be to serve as a vehicle to avoid monopolization of resources with
important public values.41 Two trust assets, though not exclusive, fit obviously into the life source category:
water and seeds . In todays world, both remain subject to dangerous control by global corporations. As illustrated later in the chapter,
the public trust will not intrude into benign usufruct possession but should intervene when possessors attempt harmful domination and control
of the asset. Waters. Inherently a public good, water remains essential to life itself, yet scarcity looms on
many fronts . Increasingly, various parts of the United States have faced severe water shortages,
threatening dry faucets in a matter of days or weeks as a result of prolonged drought caused by global
heating. Many countries elsewhere regularly experience water scarcity that endangers survival . Yet
even as scarcity intensifies the public need for water, policy leaders trend toward privatizing this life
source. Increasingly, governments treat water solely as a consumer commodity, as Professor Craig Arnold
observes. In countries around the world, local governments now confer bottling rights to local water supplies,
placing the survival of their own citizens in the hands of corporations that operate bereft of any moral
sensibility. Water policy experts Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke warn of an emerging water elite that will
determine the worlds water future in its own interest. They note: In such a scenario, water will go to those
who can afford it and not to those who need it . In South Africa, privatization led to water apartheid, as private companies
cut supplies to millions of residents. And across the globe, a bulk transport water industry has established itself. In Alaska, a company has
gained rights to suck 12 billion gallons of water per year from Blue Lake (located 6 miles east of Sitka) for shipment to India doubtless only the
beginning of similar ventures. Corporate hegemony over this life source portends danger for all citizens.42

Water wars escalate

Peter Engelke 16, senior fellow at the Atlantic Councils Strategic Foresight Initiative, 3/22/2016, Will
the world's next wars be fought over water?, LA Times, http://www.latimes.com/world/global-
development/op-ed/la-fg-global-water-oped-story.html

As evocative as this hypothesis is, the track record also shows that water wars are overblown thankfully. Exhaustive research
by Aaron
Wolf, a geographer at Oregon State University, has documented the surprising fact that there have been no interstate
wars fought directly over water for thousands of years. In fact, his teams research indicates that states
have cooperated over shared water resources far more often than they have fought over them. But the absence of
a historical record of interstate warfare over water does not mean that we have no reason for
concern. On the contrary . There are two very good reasons why we should intensify our efforts to understand how water
intersects with conflict and to build the structures necessary to ensure that water leads to peace and prosperity rather than war. One
reason is that the future is not going to look exactly like the past. This is a truism: No future ever looks
exactly like any past. But in terms of how the Earths various systems operate, we likely are looking at
a future that is very different from the past. For years now, Earth scientists have been debating whether
we should rename the geological epoch in which we live, whether we should drop the term Holocene (the period since
the last ice age) and substitute for it the term Anthropocene. As the root of the word Anthropocene suggests, the scientists
basic idea is that human interference in Earth systems has become so pervasive that we have, in
effect, a new planet on our hands. Indicators such as climate change, ozone depletion, massive sedimentation, and ocean
acidification are proof that human interference in Earth systems already has altered how the planet works. So too with fresh water: Water
cycling will become less predictable in the future. For example, a changing climate will create more droughts and floods more frequently in
more places. As
water systems become less reliable say, transboundary river flows no longer follow
historic, seasonal patterns states will come under greater pressure to deal with the consequences.
States might begin to take matters into their own hands and lay claim to water resources that others believe belong to

them. No one can say whether such a causal chain will result in future water wars . But the second reason we should
remain concerned about the potential for water-based conflict is the overly narrow frame we use to understand the relationship in the first
place. Interstate warfare represents only a small part, indeed the far less significant part, of a much larger
equation involving conflict and water. We would be smart to focus on that larger equation rather than on the narrower if
spectacular "water wars" hypothesis. The smart frame is to think about how water can either contribute to peace and
stability or, conversely, help destabilize vulnerable countries and regions around the world. Water is
essential for all human activities, indeed for all life .

When present in sufficient quantity and quality, water is an enabler of other good things, whether we are talking about human health or food
production or energy production or a thousand other things. However, when water is not present in sufficient quantity
and quality, the reverse becomes true: human health suffers, food cannot be grown, electricity cannot be produced, and so on. Under
extreme conditions, society can begin to break down , and conflict becomes inevitable. The current Syrian tragedy
provides an important case study of what happens to a society under severe water stress. Between 2007 and 2010, Syria experienced one of
the worst droughts in recorded history, the effect of which was to decimate rural communities and drive hundreds of thousands off the land
and into Syrias cities, where they were marginalized. When the "Arab Spring" began in 2011, Syria therefore was an especially vulnerable
society. The effects of the drought combined with long-standing grievances against the Assad regime to create the conditions for violence. Once
conflict began, rebel groups found willing recruits from those regions most affected by drought. Since the onset of civil war, moreover,
combatants have "weaponized" water, meaning they have turned water into an instrument of war. The Islamic State has been the most
egregious offender, alternatively flooding areas or deliberately withholding water in order to punish civilians or prosecute their conflict against
other combatants.
Oil DA
 2AC Oil DA
Oil price collapse inevitable market experts
Howard R. Gold 1/19, Founder of Golden Egg Investing, citing Shawn Driscoll, of T Rowe Price New Era
Fund, 1/19/2017, Opinion: Fund manager who correctly predicted 2014 drop in oil now sees prices in
the $30s, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fund-manager-who-correctly-predicted-2014-drop-in-
oil-now-sees-prices-in-the-30s-2017-01-19

But oneenergy fund manager who correctly predicted the previous big drop in oil prices cautions
investors not to get too complacent. We look at this as a typical counter-trend rally that tends to
happen during long bear markets , said Shawn Driscoll, who has managed the $3.6 billion T. Rowe
Price New Era Fund PRNEX, -0.21% for three years and been with the firm for 11. He says oil is still in a long-term bear
market and the worst isnt over . Driscoll, whose mutual fund has soared 40% in the past year, was an early bear on oil and other
commodities. In November 2014, with crude changing hands above $80, he told this column oil would fall to $50 a barrel. When it hit that mark
only weeks later, he said it was heading into the $30s. And last January, he said it could fall into the mid-$20s over the next six months but
would ultimately trade in the teens. Obviously the latter hasnt happened, yet, but Driscoll is sticking to his guns. In an interview, he said the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) production cuts have helped the market firm over the short
run. Things stabilized faster than I expected, he acknowledged. But he thinks secular problems of oversupply and rising
productivity, which enables producers, particularly U.S. shale-oil companies, to pump more oil at
lower prices, will depress prices. Unless we see a major economic boom, the structural supply-demand imbalance
could last years. I dont think anythings changed long term, he told me. We dont think theres much
left to the rally. Were looking at an oil-price peak somewhere around here by the end of the first
quarter, beginning of the second quarter, then its back in the soup , so to speak. The underlying problem, he explained, is that
when prices started rising, many U.S. shale producers started drilling again even though oil is way
below its 2008 peak of $146. U.S. oil production is now around 8.8 million barrels a day, he said, and it could
grow by as much as a million. Russia, which is chafing under Western sanctions and is desperate for revenue, is pumping over 11 million barrels
daily. Meanwhile, OPEC members boosted production ahead of Novembers agreed cuts, under which Saudi Arabia will produce 10 million
barrels a day. Iran, now free of U.S.-led sanctions imposed before the nuclear deal was signed, is back up to its previous production of 3.7
million. And despite continuing warfare with ISIS, Iraq
keeps growing well beyond what everyone thought was
possible, said Driscoll. Its producing 4.6 million barrels daily, which it would cut to 4.35 million under
the OPEC deal, he told me. Plus, he said, You have projects that started several years ago and are just
coming on. In a short-cycle business, that can bring production back extraordinarily quickly, and thats
happening . Even bankrupt U.S. producers are drilling again , he added. So, were facing a structural oversupply
combined with greater efficiency that allows marginal producers to keep pumping rather than get shaken out. In other words, a secular bear
market, which for commodities typically lasts 10 to 15 years. The last two commodities supercycles, which included oil, ran 13 years each,
from 1968-1981 and from 1998-2011. The bear market between them lasted 17 years. Driscoll said the current moves in oil
prices are very similar to the 1980s. You had a big rally in oil from July 1986 to the summer of 87, he explained. Oil went
from $10 to $21 and backed all the way to $12 in 88. The 1990-1991 recession kept prices kicking around in the teens. Ultimately oil prices
bottomed in 1998, when the next supercycle began. Obviously, any boost in economic growth would spur oil demand, but its unclear if it
would be enough to cut into the oversupply. To Driscoll, however, the die is cast. I think people are very confident the worst is over when you
see some stocks back to their 2014 highs, he said. We think were going to see [prices in the $30s] in 2018. The last time we spoke I
told you some time during this bear market wed see [oil in the] teens . I really believe that.
Libya and Nigeria pound outweighs OPEC
Alessandro Bruno 1/17, Analyst, Geopolitical Monitor Intelligence Corp, MA, Political Science,
1/17/2017, Oil Price Forecast 2017: 5 Reasons Why Prices Could Drop, Lombardi,
https://www.lombardiletter.com/oil-price-forecast-2017-five-reasons-prices-drop/5856/

Not all OPEC countries are like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Thus, not all can afford to cut their production
to keep in line with the OPEC agreement. Some countries, like Algeria, need sustained oil production
to maintain social cohesion, or risk an Arab Spring episode of their own. Here are five reasons why oil prices in
2017 could suffer. 1. Libya and Nigeria There is Libya, which, in a not-too-distant past was a leading member of OPEC. The Italian
government recently reopened its embassy in Tripoli. Italys Eni SpA (BIT:ENI) has long been Libyas leading foreign producer. Theres a chance
that Libya has started to find some stability. I would not move thereI have lived there beforebut Libyas oil production could
see a major increase in 2017 . Moreover, OPEC has already exempted italong with Nigeriafrom
having to cut production. Libya might be experiencing a political stabilization. Its still precarious, and
the country remains split in three parts, but the key oil-producing region of Cyrenaica is under the
control of the secular General Khalifa Haftar. He has recently intensified talks with Russia, which could do for Libya what it did
in Syria: crush the Islamists. As for oil, General Haftar has allowed ENI to resume and intensify oil production.
Nigeria, meanwhile, has reclaimed the role of Africas top oil producer, beating out Angola. Thus, the two
countries, capable between them of producing some three million barrels a day, have been catching
up faster than the market has absorbed the OPEC December 2016 agreement. This puts the other oil producers
in a situation of weakness. The risk of a breach, though, comes not necessarily from an OPEC member, but rather from a non-OPEC producer.
As Libya and Nigeria have resumed productionNigeria even overtaking Angola as Africas top
producer nowwhy should Russia, Oman, or South Sudan for that matter, cut production?

Transpo changes crush oil demand in a year consumption habits, EVs, autonomous
cars
Fereidoon Sionshansi 11/4, President of Menlo Energy Economics, PhD in Economics from Purdue,
11/4/2016, Peak car ownership will speed up peak oil demand, http://energypost.eu/peak-car-will-
accelerate-peak-oil/

Oil is likely to lose out in the process of electrification of mobility service Moreover, it says, The various

permutations of carsharing, car-pooling and ridehailing pose a big threat to vehicle manufacturers sales.
Some are rattled enough to get in on the act. The global car market is worth $2.3 trillion a year, of which Ford gets 6%, says Mark Fields, the
firms boss. The market for transport services is $5.4 trillion a year, he estimates, of which it gets near to nothing. Forget taxi monopolies;
they are already history. These are among the reasons that will increasingly challenge the traditional business models of oil and auto
companies. Autonomous cars The latest to predict the doom of traditional auto companies is a report by the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI),
which predicts that car ownership will peak by 2020. One can argue about 2020, but the overall trends are probably
hard to dispute. The reasons are by now familiar: urban dwellers who now outnumber rural ones, will
increasingly rely on public transportation and/or hailing services such as those offered by Uber and its rivals. The rise of
autonomous cars will only accelerate these trends, gradually shrinking demand for private cars, indeed car ownership,
period. Why own one if you can get a ride from Uber any time you want by hailing a cab, with or without a driver? For those in the
power sector who are salivating at the prospects of EVs giving them a boost in sales and revenues,
there is good news indeed According to RMI as always one needs to read the fine print and the assumption by 2018 the
average per passenger mile cost of travel on automated Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)
will beat that of a personal internal combustion engine (ICE), in this case Toyota Camry, currently the bestselling car in
the US market. Toyota executives take note. The key, according to RMI, is not the rapid rise of TNCs such as todays Uber business
model, but the automation of TNCs, the emergence of driverless or autonomous cars offering shared mobility using Uber-like hailing service.
The reason should be self-evident once one examines figure 1. Without
the cost of the driver, the automated TNCs
costs beats conventional car ownership. And that is in 2018. Fast forward to 2028 and beyond, and the
impact of shared autonomous mobility begins to sink in. Fereidoon mobility figure 1 Source: Rocky Mountain Institute
The RMI report has even more bad news for the oil majors. Their nemesis is electric vehicles (EVs),
increasingly charged with essentially free renewable electricity due to the equally rapid rise of
renewable generation in many markets. As illustrated in figure 2, by 2018 , EVs will offer an estimated $1,000
per annum cost advantage over internal combustion engines (ICEs) powered by gasoline. Once again, these
predictions are critically dependent on assumptions about the relative cost of operating EVs versus ICE, cost of electricity versus gasoline,
range, performance and a host of other issues. Fereidoon mobility figure 2 Source: Rocky Mountain Institute With so much
investment going into the next generation EVs expected in the market over the next 5-10 years, their
costs are expected to decline while their range will be extended and their performance enhanced. That much is for sure. RMI
reaches obvious conclusions by comparing the per-mile costs of EVs vs. traditional ICEs. The next generation of EVs such as Teslas next model
expected in 2017 and costing $35,000 are projected to beat gasoline varieties on per-mile basis for someone driving 70,000 miles per annum
starting around 2018 give or take a little (figure 3). Fereidoon mobility figure 3 Source: Rocky Mountain Institute As time goes on, EVs are
projected to gain on ICEs. Price of oil matters but probably not enough to change the outcome over time. The
next few years, of course, will be critical for EVs depending on how fast the technology improves, how the range and performance of batteries
increases and how fast the charging infrastructure advances. RMI
examined 26 major US markets estimating huge
potential, perhaps as much as $123 billion for early adaptors. It predicts rapid penetration rates for
what it calls automated mobility services such as driverless Uber by 2024 among the same mass markets in
the US under 2 scenarios (figure 7). Fereidoon mobility figure 7 Source: Rocky Mountain Institute Under a rapid growth scenario
automated mobility service or AMS may exceed 10% of total US mobility service market share by
2024. If that is not an amazing prediction, what is?
 2AC IPO Turn
Current Saudi reforms cause a recession -- the oil revenue is too low to solve
Marwa Rashad 12/22, Senior Financial Correspondent at R

euters, Andrew Torchia, 12/22/2016, Saudis cut huge budget deficit, to loosen purse strings in 2017,
Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-economy-budget-idUSKBN14B1GL

Some doubts continue to overhang Saudi finances , however. The budget projected oil revenues would
soar 46 percent to 480 billion riyals next year, even though Saudi Arabia has pledged to cut its output
under a deal with OPEC and Brent oil, at $55 a barrel, is only 25 percent above its average price in
2016. Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih said Riyadh had based its budget on a "conservative" scenario for oil prices, but did not reveal a
specific price. Higher domestic energy prices will help bolster oil revenues, other officials said. Several economists estimated the
budget assumed an average oil price within a range of about $47 to $55 a barrel. Another uncertainty is
the effect on the economy of Riyadh's drive to reduce the deficit to zero by 2020. A 5 percent value-
added tax is to be introduced in 2018, which could hit consumer spending significantly. "It is feasible that
the combination of expenditure reduction, new taxes, cutting of waste, privatization plans etc. could allow Saudi to eliminate the
budget deficit by 2020," said Nasser Saidi, president of consultancy Nasser Saidi and Associates in Dubai. "However, this would
require fiscal adjustment by some 2 or 3 percent (of GDP) per annum, which risks inducing a
recession ."

Low prices trigger an IPO of Saudi Aramco --- critical to effective diversification
Open Square Capital, 1-6, 2017, Note from Open Square Cap a long-biased value oriented hedge fund,
Saudi Arabia's Investment In The Softbank Venture Fund Portends Higher Oil Prices, Jan. 6.17,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4034716-saudi-arabias-investment-softbank-venture-fund-portends-
higher-oil-prices
Saudi Arabia's recent commitment to invest in the SoftBank Venture Fund is a further proof of its determination to have Vision 2030 succeed.

Low oil prices have pressured foreign reserves, thereby placing further urgency on a successful Saudi
Aramco IPO .
Monetization of Saudi Aramco hinges on higher oil prices.

There's a scene in the Tom Cruise movie "Top Gun" where Tom Cruise's character, Maverick is being scolded by his commanding officer. In the
scene the Captain says "son your ego is writing checks your body can't cash." That line reminds us of Saudi Arabia's recent investment
commitment.

SoftBank Vision Fund

In October 2016, SoftBank (OTCPK:SFTBY) announced plans to form a technology investment fund worth as much as $100B, the SoftBank Vision
Fund. The fund will invest in various technology ventures in the coming years. Over the next five years, Softbank and Saudi Arabia have
committed to contributing $25B and $45B, respectively, comprising 70% of the total capital committed.

Saudi Arabia's investment will be made through its sovereign wealth fund, the Public Investment Fund ("PIF"). This is the same fund in which
Saudi Arabia will contribute its national oil company Saudi Aramco, the same oil company that Saudi Arabia plans to list on global markets via
an initial public offering ("IPO") in 2018.

The PIF , and in turn, the SoftBank Vision Fund, is now central to Saudi Arabia's plans (i.e., Prince Mohammed bin Salman's Vision 2030

program) to diversify its economy beyond oil .

It's important to note that this commitment is to be fulfilled over the next five years. Yet it's also important to realize that the capital for
this investment has to come from the IPO and subsequent stock sales of Saudi Aramco. With oil still
mired in the $50-60/barrel range, the country's soaring budget deficits have forced the government to
spend down its considerable foreign reserves. Deficits of $98B in 2015 and $87B in 2016 have reduced the country's foreign
reserves from $730B at the end of 2014 to approximately $560B as of July 2016.
Coal DA
 Coal Dead
Coal is dead -- Trump cant reverse the long term trends continued natural gas
switching, coal plant retirement, lack of utility interest
Benjamin Storrow 11-10-16, E&E reporter, Coal country rejoices at Trump victory, but can he
deliver?, http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2016/11/10/stories/1060045561

Trump's win will likely provide the industry with a short-term boost, analysts said, helping bolster demand forecasts that
were previously weighed down by President Obama's carbon-cutting regulations. The optimism was evident in coal stocks yesterday. Shares of
Peabody Energy Corp., the country's largest coal company, were up 49 percent to $12.75; Consol Energy Corp. ended the day up 9 percent to
$18 a share, while Cloud Peak Energy Inc. closed at $7.47 a share, an increase of 13.7 percent. "If Trump tends to be friendly from a regulatory
standpoint, or if the government tends to be friendly, that would certainly help coal and coal producers," said Jim Thompson, director of North
American coal research at IHS Energy, a consultancy. Still, the president-elect cannot alone redirect long-term
trends in the utility sector , observers said. Many older coal plants were shut down or converted to
natural gas as part of power companies' attempts to comply with the M ercury and A ir T oxic S tandards
implemented by U.S. EPA after 2011. Trump has also promised support for the nation's natural gas drillers,
increasing the potential for continued gas surpluses and lower prices. It is also unclear how his promises to
renegotiate trade deals could affect mining firms' hopes of gaining a greater foothold in the Asian market. And, they said, the industry's

greatest future challenge remains unmoved by Tuesday's outcome. "No utility's management team
we talked to has any near-term or any plans to build new coal generation," said Travis Miller, an
analyst at Morningstar Inc. Gas plants are cheaper, as are renewables in some instances, Miller said, pointing
to a series of large wind projects in Texas. "That is going to have a material impact on coal plant economics, and that's
regardless of any incremental regulations," he said.
 Manufacturing
Manufacturing is down and will stay weak---dollar and weak business spending
Bill Conerly 16, Ph.D. from Duke in Economics, the longest-tenured member of the Oregon Governors
Council of Economic Advisors, chairman of the board of Cascade Policy Institute and senior fellow at the
National Center for Policy Analysis, "Manufacturing Forecast 2016-2017", May 20,
www.forbes.com/sites/billconerly/2016/05/20/manufacturing-forecast-2016-2017/3/#7315abd92e46

Manufacturing is weak in the United States, with a so-so outlook for the next few years. Some sectors will
certainly grow, and the best-run companies in lagging sectors can usually do well. The overall picture, though, is not pretty. Causes
of the weakness are the strong dollar, weak capital spending , and oil drillings decline. Export markets have
fallen precipitously in the last year and half as the dollar has risen on foreign exchange markets. The Greenback is up 16 percent over the
past two years, and thats with three months of softening. With the dollar more expensive, foreign buyers are choking on
U.S. price tags. The manufacturing sectors most dependent on exports are: Aircraft*: 40% of production exported
Computers and electronics: 33% Machinery: 29% Electrical eqmt & appliances: 26% Chemicals: 21% * includes other transportation equipment but not motor

vehicles and parts The impact of foreign exchange rates takes time and then persists for quite a while. As a rough

rule of thumb, think of 6 quarters between exchange rate movements and the biggest impact on exports, with continuing effects through the third year after the initial change. The aircraft
industry is at the extreme tail of the time lag. Jetliners are very long lead time purchases. Based on Boeings report of orders and deliveries, delivery on a new order could take five to nine
years. Obviously last years dollar run-up wont immediately impact production. At the opposite extreme, commodities often sell on short lead times. Raw steel production dropped pretty
much at the same time that the dollar began to rise. In between, products such as computers and machinery react in months or a year or two. Companies have their preferred vendors so
changing suppliers is not immediate, but given time, purchasing managers switch to lower cost countries of origin. We have another year or more of impact from the rise that already has

Capital spending weakness is the second problem in

occurred even if the dollar falls through the rest of this year, because of those time lags.

manufacturing. While consumers continue to spend, businesses are cutting back. Orders for non-defense capital goods
excluding aircraft, the standard gauge of capital spending, hit a peak in September 2014 and have since dropped ten percent. That peak was shortly after oil prices began diving, so some of the
trouble comes from the oil patch. However, oil exploration and development takes less than half a percent of all manufacturing output, though one to two percent of machinery and metals

production. That hardly explains the precipitous drop in capital spending. A poor outlook for top-line sales explains a lot. The Business Roundtables
CEO Economic Outlook Survey was at 95 (index level) two years ago; now its under 70. The business leaders Ive spoken with are spending money to cut expenses, such as through computers

or equipment that can replace workers, but they are not spending to build productive capacity. They dont feel the need to produce more. Thats a broad
generalization, but it seems to catch a key part of the manufacturing story. Oil drilling activity is the final part of the story. The number of drilling rigs operating in the U.S. dropped 67 percent
since the end of 2014. Every oil well drilled triggers demand for pipe, machinery, and local infrastructure, such as roads and terminals. For some manufacturing sectors, this has been a

significant hit. The economic forecast is not positive for manufacturing . On the good side, consumer spending will continue growing at
about four percent annually. Construction, both residential and non-residential, will grow well in the coming two year, helping a few manufacturing sectors. Business capital spending will
slowly rise, but dont expect immediate miracles. Exports will continue falling for at least another year, then turn up.
 Nuclear A/O
Nuclear expansion is key to prevent natural gas spikes
Whitman 12former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (5/9/12, Christine, It's
dangerous to depend on natural gas, tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/05/09/christine-whitman-nuclear-
energy/)

The United States needs an "all of the above" energy strategy that focuses on low-carbon electricity sources that will
lower energy costs, reduce dependency on foreign fuel sources and promote clean electricity. This is a prudent
strategy to help drive American manufacturing and transportation networks of the future. Most importantly, this
approach can put the country on a sustainable path toward long-term economic growth. While today's rock-
bottom natural gas prices are attractive, an unbalanced dependence on natural gas in the electricity sector would put

Americans at risk, both economically and in terms of longer term energy security. While many look at energy prices from today's lens,
successful energy policy requires a long view that promotes fuel diversity but doesn't pick technology winners; it preserves our air, land and water and is
affordable for consumers. We need only look at the volatile history of natural gas prices. Consider the shift from the

low, stable prices of the 1990s to the record-high rates and wild supply fluctuations of the mid-2000s. We
should take advantage of our domestic energy resources, recognizing that today's natural gas market is still vulnerable. The present

oversupply of natural gas opens opportunities for exports into foreign markets at prices two-to-three times
higher. If demand from other countries increases as they meet growing energy demand, it will cause our prices to align with higher world
prices. During my tenure as governor of a state that relies heavily on nuclear energy, I can attest to the cost effectiveness of nuclear fuel
and the protection it offers against price spikes in natural gas or future environmental controls such as a cost on carbon. Nuclear energy
doesn't emit any greenhouse gases or controlled pollutants while producing power and it is affordable, predictable and efficient. Moreover, a nuclear power plant with

a footprint of one square mile generates the same amount of energy as 20 square miles of solar
panels or 2,400 wind turbines spread out across 235 square miles. Uranium fuel is abundant and costs an average of 2.14 cents per
kilowatt-hour, compared to 4.86 cents per kilowatt-hour for natural gas. A nuclear plant typically generates electricity at 90 percent capacityan electric sector best and twice that of
combined cycle natural gas plants at 40 to 45 percent capacity. Clean energy production costs, which include fuel, operations and maintenance, run nearly equal for nuclear and natural gas. A
new nuclear plant with state or federal support can generate power at $84-$91 per megawatt-hour with zero carbon emissions. Natural gas plants produce power at today's gas prices for $56-
$71 per megawatt-hour, but still emit greenhouse gases at about half the rate of coal plants. Assuming a carbon price of $30 per ton, natural gas power generation costs rise to about $74-$89
per megawatt-hour. At Fortune's Brainstorm Green conference, I noted a March 2012 Gallup poll that found 57% of Americans support nuclear energy. This support reflects the momentum

New large-scale
behind nuclear energy's expansion, including recent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of four reactors in Georgia and South Carolina.

electricity is needed today in the fast-growing Southeast electric grid because of business expansion and
population growth. These new reactors will serve the needs of 3 million homes while creating thousands
of high-paying jobs. On average, a nuclear facility creates up to 3,500 construction jobs and 400 to 700 operation positions. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
nuclear energy accounted for 54% of green jobs in the utility sector in 2010, supplying the most green
goods-and-services jobs35,800in private sector electricity generation. For example, 90% of the components for the Westinghouse
reactors being built in Georgia and South Carolina will be manufactured domestically. As the dash to gas accelerates across America, I am encouraged

by the support from government and industry leaders for nuclear energy as part of a diverse electricity supply.
Secretary of Energy Steven Chu recently restated the administration's support for nuclear energy to be developed alongside renewable energy sources and natural gas. Kevin Marsh, president

You don't want to be

and CEO of Columbia, S.C.-based SCANA, which is developing two advanced designed Westinghouse reactors, said a balanced energy portfolio is best. "

all gas, all nuclear or all coal." Fuel diversity is one of the great strengths of the United States' electric
supply system, and we must be mindful of that lesson. In the coming years, we will need hundreds of new power plants from a variety of fuel sources along with significant
investment in the smart grid that will move that power to homes, businesses and an evolving electrified transportation system. Nuclear energy is the only large-

scale, carbon-free electricity source, and it must be among these energy choices if we are to secure a
safe and sustainable portfolio of energy resources.
That solves coming sector shocks
Stones 9Director of Energy Risk, Dow Chemical Company (Edward, Testimony in front of the Senate
Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-
111shrg54945/html/CHRG-111shrg54945.htm)

natural gas spikes. During this time, these spikes have contributed to the loss of nearly 4
Over the last 12 years, there have been five significant

million manufacturing jobs, 135,000 chemical industry jobs, the permanent loss of nearly half of the
U.S. fertilizer production capacity, and a $1- billion trade surplus in the chemical industry in 1997, turning into a deficit over 2001 to 2007. We hope the
predictions about increased natural gas supply are right. But, we think it's too early to declare natural gas a silver bullet or a bridge
fuel solution . Driving natural gas preferentially into power generation could further erode our
manufacturing economy and increase the volatility of natural gas, especially for those that remain, including residential energy users. If the

predictions of increased supply of natural gas turn out to be true, it would be a greater value to our economy as a fuel to spur increased manufacturing investment. More industrial users of
natural gas will also help dampen volatility, as we'll have more price-conscious consumers, not fewer. Let me be clear. Dow supports prompt congressional action on climate and energy bills
that achieve environmental results while maintaining the competitiveness of American manufacturing. Congress should adopt policies that ensure the diversity of our energy sources while, at
the same time, reducing demand through robust efficiency efforts. A price on carbon, in our opinion, will be a sufficient market incentive for natural gas to aid in the transition to a low-carbon
economy over a reasonable period of time. In summary, Congress is debating legislation that would make dramatic changes to the Nation's energy markets. We urge you to act now and to

make policy choices that increase and do not limit our energy options. We must be careful to avoid a dash to natural gas. Congress created such a
dash in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. It then followed with restrictions on access that disconnected the supply from demand. We cannot afford to replay that scenario. Some call
natural gas a ``bridge fuel.'' But, if the wrong policy causes a ``dash to gas,'' it's going to be ``a bridge too far.'' Thank you, for your time today, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you
may have. [The prepared statement of Mr. Stones follows:] Prepared Statement of Edward Stones, Director of Energy Risk, The Dow Chemical Company introduction The Dow Chemical
Company appreciates the opportunity to submit these written comments to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Dow was founded in Michigan in 1897 and is one of the world's
leading manufacturers of chemicals and plastics. We supply more than 3,300 products to customers in approximately 160 countries, connecting chemistry and innovation with the principles of
sustainability to help provide everything from fresh water, food, and pharmaceuticals to insulation, paints, packaging, and personal care products. About 21,000 of Dow's 46,000 employees
are in the US, and Dow helps provide health benefits to more than 34,000 retirees in the US. Dow is committed to sustainability. We have improved our performance on greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, and we are committed to do even better in the future. Our ambitious 2015 sustainability goals underscore this commitment. Dow is an energy-intensive company. Dow uses
energy, primarily naphtha, natural gas and natural gas liquids, as feedstock materials to make a wide array of products essential to our economy and quality of life. We also use energy to drive
the chemical reactions necessary to turn our feedstocks into useful products, many of which lead to net energy savings. This testimony describes the current US energy situation and
recommends specific policies to ensure a sustainable energy policy for the United States. Particular attention is focused on natural gas prices, which have and continue to affect the US
manufacturing sector. Dow believes that natural gas will play a critical role in US policy to control greenhouse gases. Because US manufacturing jobs are dependent on the US natural gas
market, policies that impact natural gas will have a direct impact on jobs in the US manufacturing sector. We recommend that Congress consider policies that utilize natural gas in ways that
preserve the competitiveness of US manufacturers. natural gas in energy and climate policy Natural gas is a relatively ``clean'' (in terms of GHG emissions per unit of energy) fossil fuel.
Current estimates of the domestic supply of natural gas are greater than those of just a few years ago. Therefore, increased use of natural gas could help the United States reduce GHG
emissions and reduce its reliance on foreign sources of energy. Climate change and energy security are two of the biggest challenges facing the United States, so policies that affect natural gas
markets impact our collective well being. natural gas policy is critical to us manufacturers Major sectors that use natural gas include the power, industrial, residential, commercial, and
transportation sectors. Those sectors in which demand is most sensitive to natural gas prices are termed price elastic. The more elastic the demand, the more quickly a sector will change its
demand for natural gas after a change in price. Inelastic demand occurs when a change in price results in little change in demand. Of the sectors previously identified, the industrial sector has
the most elastic demand for natural gas. From 1997 to 2008, US industrial gas demand fell 22% as average annual prices rose 167%. Over the same time, demand for power rose 64% (EIA
data). Clearly, a change in natural gas price will impact industrial sector demand before that in other sectors. Both price volatility and the ``average'' price over time have an impact on the
industrial sector and should be addressed by a comprehensive energy policy. price volatility in the us natural gas market Since 1997, there have been five natural gas price spikes, each caused
by lags between price signals and production response. The lag between changes in drilling and changes in production has been remarkably consistent, at about six months. This is the time
required to fund drilling programs, site wells, schedule crews, drill and tie new wells into the grid. When the gas market is over supplied, producers respond by reducing drilling, leading to a
reduction in supply. In 2009, as in 2002, 2004 and 2006, drilling has declined dramatically as price has fallen. After each trough, natural gas demand and price rise once the economy turns,
signaling the production community to increase drilling. During the lag between the pricing signals and new production, only one mechanism exists to rebalance supply and demand: demand
destruction brought about by price spikes. Demand destruction is an antiseptic economic term for job destruction. These price spikes have significantly contributed to the US manufacturing
sector losing over 3.7 million jobs, the chemical industry losing nearly 120,000 jobs, and the permanent loss of nearly half of US fertilizer production capacity. The manufacturing sector, which

Although increased supply from shale gas appears to

has limited fuel switching ability, has become the shock absorber for high natural gas costs.

have changed the production profile, we have seen similar scenarios occur after past spikes. In 1998,
significant new imports from Canada came on line; in 2002-2003, there were new supplies from the Gulf
of Mexico and in 2005, new discoveries in the Rockies were brought into play . In each case, the initial
hopes were too high and production increases were not as large as initially expected . Some claim that the lag
expected for shale gas will be shorter due to the reduced drilling scope of shale type wells. However the latest available data show natural gas production peaked with the same delay from the

start of drilling reductions as in other cycles. The inherent lags between changes in drilling and production created natural
gas spikes over the last ten years, and will continue to do so a

fter this and every trough. The next table shows the EIA-estimated levelized cost for new power plants by fuel type in 2030. This table shows that the levelized cost of a
new power plant is equal across the four fuel types. However, the variable component of cost for natural gas fired generation is
much greater than for other fuel choices. This means that electricity consumers served by natural gas
will experience the biggest price shocks. Along with manufacturers who rely on natural gas,
consumers of electricity generated by natural gas are among those who will be most negatively affected by price spikes in the natural gas
market. We believe that the increased supply of natural gas from shale plays will be an important resource for the United States over the next decades. However, as has been demonstrated
in previous cycles, this new production will not end the cyclicality of natural gas markets. Placing a price on GHG emissions will also not overcome the most important factors affecting volatility
of natural gas prices (e.g., weather). When it comes to natural gas and climate policy, Congress should consider policies that minimize the demand destruction that occurs in natural gas price
spikes. This means supporting price elastic consumers of natural gas and avoiding the disproportionate addition of inelastic demand. average price level in the us natural gas market It is not
just price spikes in natural gas that hurt US manufacturers. It is also the average level of natural gas prices. Much of the US chemical industry was built when natural gas prices were below
$2/MMBtu. Since 2001, this historic price level has been exceeded, maybe forever. We do not expect US natural gas prices to return consistently to this low level in the future. Because
manufacturers that depend on competitive natural gas prices must make capital investment decisions that span decades, the US faces stiff competition from abroad. In fact, in our 2005
testimony before this Committee, Dow stated that of the 120 world scale petrochemical plants proposed to be built, only one was planned for the US. Should the US enact a price on GHG
emissions, the net impact on supply and demand balances must be considered in cases of both average and extreme demand. The country's energy supply must be resilient enough to
overcome natural phenomena such as hurricanes, harsh winters, and arid summers. It must continue to support economic growth, allowing for high-value job creation in the industrial sector.
Without this resiliency, natural gas price volatility will increase, affecting both employment in the industrial sector and all electricity users. EIA modeling of the House-passed energy and
climate bill indicate how to avoid a ``dash to gas'' in the power sector under a cap and trade program. If new power plants using nuclear, renewable, and coal with associated carbon capture
and sequestration (CCS) are not developed and deployed in a timeframe consistent with emission reduction requirements, covered entities will respond by increasing their use of offsets, if
available, and by turning to increased use of natural gas in lieu of coal-fired generation. Therefore, it is critical to advance all low carbon emitting energy sources and ensure the availability of
offsets under any cap and trade program. relationship between the price of carbon and fuel switching A price on GHG emissions will increase demand for natural gas relative to other fuels
that emit more GHGs per unit of energy. Demand is also influenced by the relative price of natural gas compared to other fuels in the absence of a price on GHG emissions. Both these factors--
the relative price differential and the price of GHG emissions--work together to influence fuel switching. For example, if the price of natural gas is only slightly higher than the price of coal,
then fuel switching from coal to natural gas will occur at a relatively low price on carbon. Conversely, if the price of natural gas is much higher than the price of coal, then it would take a higher
price on carbon to impact fuel switching from coal to natural gas. In practice, major investment decisions--such as in power generation--can impact fuel choices for decades. Therefore,
investors project the relative price of natural gas and coal and the expected carbon price over the entire time period of the investment. Due to the much higher capital cost of coal-fired power
generation plants, greater uncertainty in price outcomes for power or green house gas emissions raises the cost of capital for new power projects, and favors natural gas generation. A well-
considered, comprehensive, and timely energy policy will both lower the cost of power for American consumers and reduce the impact of implementing policies to address GHG's. For policy
makers, the lesson to be learned is straightforward: The higher the expected carbon price, the greater the degree of fuel switching from coal to natural gas in the power sector. Therefore, cost
containment is key to minimizing fuel switching under any climate policy that places a price on carbon. Under a cap and trade system, cost containment depends on the reduction schedule
over time and on the availability of offsets (and international offsets in particular). recommended policies When it comes to natural gas and climate policy, Dow favors policies that will avoid
the demand destruction that occurs in natural gas price spikes, along with policies that will allow the US to use all of its low-carbon resources. Such policies will maintain industrial
competitiveness. Dow also believes that the US needs a sustainable energy policy. Climate change is an important component of a sustainable energy policy, but it is not the only part. We
have developed a list of specific recommendations that, if implemented, would form the basis of a sustainable energy policy. First, aggressively promote the cleanest, most reliable, and most
affordable ``fuel''--energy efficiency. Energy efficiency is the consensus solution to advance energy security, reduce GHGs, and keep energy prices low. It is often underappreciated for its value.
Of particular importance is improving the energy efficiency of buildings. Buildings are responsible for 38% of CO2 emissions, 40% of energy use, and 70% of electricity use. A combination of
federal incentives and local energy efficiency building codes is needed. Second, increase and diversify domestic energy supplies, including natural gas. Nuclear energy and clean coal with
carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) should be part of the solution, as should solar, wind, biomass, and other renewable energy sources. We believe a price on carbon will advantage
natural gas, and further incentives would only dangerously increase inelastic demand. Therefore, Congress should not provide free allowances or other incentive payments for the purpose of
promoting fuel switching from coal to natural gas in the power sector. An estimated 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are not being tapped. History suggests
that the more we explore, the more we know, and the more our estimates of resources grow. EIA has said that ``the estimate of ultimate recovery increases over time for most reservoirs, the
vast majority of fields, all regions, all countries, and the world.'' And we have the technology that allows us to produce both oil and natural gas in an entirely safe and environmentally sound
manner. Any new fossil energy resources must be used as efficiently as possible. One way to maximize the transformational value of increased oil and gas production is to share the royalty
revenue with coastal states and use the federal share to help fund research, development and deployment in such areas as energy efficiency and renewable energy. Production of oil and gas
on federal lands has brought billions of dollars of revenue into state and federal treasuries. Expanding access could put billions of additional dollars into state and federal budgets. Third, act
boldly on technology policy through long-term tax credits, and increased investment in R&D and deployment. These are costly but necessary to provide the certainty that the business
community needs to spur investment. We didn't respond to Sputnik with half-measures. We can't afford to respond to our energy challenges with halfmeasures, either. Fourth, employ
market mechanisms to address climate change in the most cost-effective way. There is a need for direct action now to slow, stop, and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gas levels in the
atmosphere. We concur with the principles and recommendations of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), of which Dow is a proud member. And we recognize that concerted action is
needed by the rest of the world to adequately address this global problem. Particular attention must be paid to cost containment and the availability of offsets (and international offsets). Also,
climate policy should not penalize the use of fossil energy as a feedstock material to make products that are not intended to be used as a fuel. To minimize the downsides of natural gas price
volatility, Congress should adopt policies to increase the number of elastic users of natural gas, and consider policies to increase US supply of natural gas. A resilient natural gas market would
empower US manufacturers to create high value jobs as they did from 1983-1996, during which period US industrial gas use grew at an average rate of 2.7%/yr. In the event weather increases
natural gas demand, price sensitive exports would be temporarily reduced, rebalancing the natural gas market with less disruption. Under this scenario, price spikes won't be as severe, and
won't cause as much harm when they occur, which is ultimately good for both industry and all consumers. Under this scenario we can envision a circumstance in which the chemical industry is

once again able to preferentially invest in the US. conclusion Natural gas will play a critical role in US climate policy. US manufacturing jobs are closely
linked to natural gas price and price volatility. The policy choices Congress will make on natural gas are therefore critical to US manufacturers. Without
industrial gas users, any disruption in supply or demand must be met by dramatic price changes. Energy efficiency should become a national priority. Congress should

enact legislation to create a sustainable energy supply based on all sources of domestic energy, including nuclear energy.
Technology policy should create powerful incentives for clean energy technologies, such as CCS. A price on carbon,
coupled with appropriate cost containment measures, would be a large and sufficient incentive to promote US natural gas demand, which is already growing even in the absence of a price on

carbon. There is no one silver bullet solution to our energy and climate problems. All Americans paid a high price for over-reliance on
natural gas in the last ten years. Our country cannot afford to repeat that mistake . This time we must fashion
a comprehensive energy policy which addresses supply and demand realities, and environmental, security and
economic goals to ensure energy costs in the US remain globally competitive and avoid economically
devastating volatility.
 Steel DA
Steel is deadoutsourcing and foreign imports have created structural defectssteel
will never recover
Thomas J. Gibson 16, and Chuck Schmitt, Analysts at CNN, 3/23, The crisis facing the U.S. steel
industry, http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/opinions/american-steel-industry-gibson-schmitt/

But today, our steel industry is being hurt by an unprecedented surge in unfairly traded imports , with
record amounts of foreign-produced steel flooding into the U nited S tates. Cheap, subsidized foreign imports
are taking steel jobs away. In 2015, almost one in three tons of steel sold in the United States was produced outside
the country. The import crisis is now beginning to get the national attention it deserves. The crisis has become the topic of presidential debates, candidate
interviews and stump speeches. And it's about time. Steel supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs. But because of these unfairly

traded imports, many American steel producers have had to make difficult decisions affecting steelmaking communities. Steel companies
have closed down major facilities , or reduced production at those plants, resulting in devastating layoffs
and job losses for many families who have made steel for generations. More than 12,000 steel jobs have been lost in the past year, as imports
took a record 29% of the U.S. market. At the same time, U.S. steel production has continued to decline.
Domestic shipments for 2015 stood at nearly 87 million tons, a nearly 12% decrease over what American steel mills shipped in 2014. Many presidential candidates
are realizing that global overcapacity of steel -- in part due to massive subsidization by foreign governments -- is a huge problem and a chief contributor to the crisis
the American steel industry faces. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that there are about 700 million metric tons of excess

steel capacity globally today. China's government-owned and -supported steel industry represents almost half
of the world's steelmaking and more than half of the world's overcapacity . Between 2000 and 2014,
Chinese steel production increased a whopping 540% , while U.S. production declined 13%. As has been said by one steel
company CEO in testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, the
Chinese government is a company
disguised as a country. The Chinese government recently set a goal to cut steel excess capacity by between about 100 million metric tons and 150
million metric tons over a five-year period, but it failed to specify how it proposes to achieve these reductions. Meanwhile, a representative of the Chinese steel
industry recently conceded that China must reduce its government-owned steel overcapacity by around 400 million metric tons if it is to address the problems
caused by past Chinese government industrial policies, according to Reuters. And it must make these reforms now, before further damage is caused, both in China
and around the world. China
is not the only source of the surge in steel imports into the United States. Other major
offshore suppliers of steel have seen substantial increases in their volumes of exports to the U.S. market in
recent years, including South Korea and Turkey. With the rising tide of cheap imports entering the U.S. market from these

and other countries, capacity utilization at domestic mills dropped to as low as 60% in early January, an
unsustainable level for a capital-intensive steel producer.
 AT: Readiness
Steel is not key to the military---their claims are all industry propaganda that the DoD
disputes
Richard A. McCormack 9, Manufacturing & Technology News, "Defense Department To The U.S.
Specialty Metals Industry: We Don't Need You", April
17,www.manufacturingnews.com/news/09/0417/specialtymetals.html

The health and well being of the U.S. specialty metals industry is not important to the Department of
Defense, according to DODs Strategic Materials Protection Board. Specialty metals are no different to DOD than
materials such as plastic, rubber and glass, says the board in a report that is raising the ire of U.S. specialty metals
industries. If the U.S. industry is not competitive, then there are plenty of reliable producers in Japan,
Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, Brazil and Canada that can supply the U.S. military with most

everything it needs , according to the Strategic Materials Protection Board. The specialty metals industry has falsely
made the claim that it is critical to national security , says the DOD board. Reliable access does not always
necessitate a domestic source , says the Mate

rials Board in the second sentence of its assessment of DODs relationship with the industry. In
fact, the Department wants to
take full advantage of the competitive benefits offered by access to the best global suppliers; and to
promote consistency and fairness in dealing with its allies, all the while assuring that an adequate
industrial base is maintained to support defense needs. As a result, DOD sometimes may be
dependent on reliable non-U.S. suppliers, which is just as good as being dependent on reliable U.S.
suppliers. The Strategic Materials Board sounds like it holds great disdain for the U.S. steel and specialty metals

industries . It says in its report from the meeting it held on December 12, 2008, that its key finding is that specialty metals are not
materials critical to national security for which only a U.S. source should be used; and there is no
national security reason for the Department to take action to ensure a long-term domestic supply of
these specialty metals. In a January 2007 report prepared by the American Iron and Steel Institute, the
Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), the Steel Manufacturers Association and the United Steelworkers union, the groups
argued that the United States government has long recognized the importance of a strong metals
industry to Americas national security. The U.S. industry is responsible for supplying high-tech metals and alloys used in nuclear
submarines, Patriot and Stinger missiles, aircraft carriers, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and virtually every military aircraft in production. If we
continue to lose our manufacturing base due to market-distorting foreign competition or U.S. economic policies that are hostile to domestic
investment and U.S.-based manufacturing, it could become impossible to produce here; the U.S. military would lose its principal source of
strategic metals; and we as a nation would become dangerously dependent upon unreliable foreign sources of supply, said the study. DOD
doesnt buy it . In an assessment of that report, the Strategic Materials Board said that while many U.S. military
platforms use these metals incorporation into a DOD system does not, by itself, make a material
critical to national security. If incorporation alone was sufficient, every type of material from plastic
to rubber and glass would be a critical material. More discriminating criteria are needed to distinguish critical materials from
the larger set of strategic materials. Specialty metals might be strategic and may require monitoring, but
they do not require a domestic source restriction, says the DOD Materials Protection Board. If there are
problems of supply during a projected conflict, other risk mitigation options, like stockpiling, could
represent an effective alternative to assuring supply . The specialty steel industry should stop
claiming that its products are critical to national security, says the DOD board. The only way they
could be considered critical is if the military was the primary market for their products, which it is
not, and if there were problems associated with the security of supply, be they domestic or international. The Department of Defense does
not dominate the market for specialty metals, it points out. Its active and full involvement and support is not necessary to sustain and shape
the strategic direction of the market; and the risk of supply disruption is not significant. According to the SSINA, defense applications account
for less than 10 percent of revenues in specialty metals companies. Recent Defense Contract Management Agency
analysis of
certain metals found that DOD consumes less than 1 percent of total U.S. steel production; about 6 percent
of U.S. aluminum production and between 8 and 19 percent of domestic titanium production.The health of the domestic specialty metals
industry is, and will continue to be, determined by its ability to sell core commercial products to commercial customers.

Warming turns hegemony and military readiness

John Kerry 15, US Secretary of State, 11-12-15, Climate Change: A Threat to Security and Stability
Everywhere, https://blogs.state.gov/stories/2015/11/12/climate-change-threat-security-and-stability-
everywhere

Decades of science tell us beyond any reasonable doubt that human beings are directly causing and
accelerating climate change, and that unless we take bold steps now to transition away from a carbon-
based economy, we are facing irreversible damage to our habitat, infrastructure, food production,
water supplies, sea levels, and potentially life itself. I have made climate change a priority in my
current role as Secretary of State not simply because climate change is a threat to the environment. It is
because--by fueling extreme weather events, undermining our military readiness, exacerbating conflicts
around the world climate change is a threat to the security of the United States and to the security
and stability of countries everywhere . Climate Change is Fueling Extreme Weather Events You
certainly dont need to be a scientist to see that our climate is already changing. The past decade was
the hottest on record. The one before that was the second hottest on record. The one before that was
the third hottest on record. Three decades in a row. Nineteen of the 20 warmest years in recorded
history have occurred in the past two decades. And this year is on track to be the warmest of all. In
recent years, what we used to think of as extreme weather has started to become plain-old weather. In
some places, the kind of flooding that happened every 500 years or so is now expected to happen every
25 years. And these kinds of weather events are expected to become more frequent and more intense
as our planet warms, our glaciers melt, and our seas rise. This will have very real impacts on our
communities, our economy, and our military, and will exacerbate the development challenges we
already face. In other words, this is going to be like Mother Nature on steroids. Climate Change is
Undermining our Military Readiness Local sea levels are rising twice as fast as the global average.
What is causing most of this sea level rise is the one-two punch that is mandated by the laws of
science: as ocean water warms, it expands. And, similarly, as the atmosphere warms, ice all over the
world melts. We are seeing this dramatically in the Arctic -- from the glaciers of Alaska to the massive
Ice Sheet of Greenland. When extreme weather leads to natural disasters and humanitarian suffering,
our military responds bravely and with great skill, but it takes our troops away from work on other
important missions. Climate change is a security threat: it has a direct impact on military readiness .
If our military vehicles are immobile and unable to operate due to flooding, this affects our military
readiness. Similarly, if the high risk of wildfires prevents our troops from training with live
ammunition, it affects our military readiness. If the permafrost our Alaska bases are built on begins to
thaw out and become less stablethis, too, affects our ability to respond to national security threats
on the global stage . The direct impact on our militarys ability to defend our nation is just the
beginning of the peril that climate change could pose to our national security.
Ptx
 Pounder
Tons of pounders including the Wall, Obamacare, and the Supreme Court all highly
controversial
SH 1-17, Sharon Herald, "Trump's agenda overly ambitious", 2017,
www.sharonherald.com/opinion/columns/trump-s-agenda-overly-ambitious/article_b3cf4efb-51cd-
54bd-b2d0-76e066c9ab27.html

Donald Trump, through the Republican National Committee, has issued a list of 30 goals he hopes to achieve in his
first year and hes asked recipients their opinion about the priority each should be given high or low. The list not only makes Roosevelts
proposals look anemic but the ideas would also change the nation, for better or worse, in ways hardly ever imagined. The list begins
with key Trump campaign promises and ends with the president-elect pledging to cancel every
unconstitutional action taken by Barack Obama. In between are two dozen objectives that would reshape the size of
government, restrict congressional service through term limits and pretty much abandon the current public school system, among other
things. Much of this super-ambitious agenda has been around a long time, including congressional term limits, first
proposed by Lyndon Johnson in his 1965 state of the union address. The idea of school choice, permitting the use of taxpayer money to finance
charter and parochial schools, is a longtime conservative Republican goal. Other Trump agenda items, like the clean up Washington corruption
act, are just naturally what should be expected of any presidential administration, including Trumps, where there is growing concern about
potential ethical conflicts between his private and official public dealings. At the top of the list are two enormously
controversial and expensive items the construction of the wall along the countrys border with
Mexico, and the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which has been a thorn in the side of Republicans
for Obamas entire time in the White House. The cost of constructing such a wall has been estimated as
high as $800 billion, which seems like a lot of money for a barrier that a growing number of experts
contend wont do much more than slow down the tide of illegal immigration, if it works at all. Also, its moral
(make that immoral) implications throw into question this countrys reputation of being one of the most welcoming in world history. As for

the ACA, aka Obamacare, the GOP mill in Congress is already grinding it out with Democrats, who are trying to
stall outright repeal until Republicans come up with a replacement that saves major features on which there already is bipartisan agreement.
These include transportability of policies, no disqualification for pre-existing conditions and the coverage of children on parents insurance until
age 26. This is expected to take well into summer . Also near the top of the Trump priority survey is the
appointment and confirmation of a strong constitutionalist to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat left
vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Confirmation is expected to be highly contentious , but outnumbered
Democrats will be hard put to hold off Senate approval. The agenda also includes approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline project, which
Obama rejected, and the passage of a package to rebuild the nations infrastructure. Among
what would be the more difficult
and time-consuming goals is a proposal to unleash a middleclass tax relief act. Trump also wants to
renegotiate the North American Free Trade Act and withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. He wants to lift restrictions on
$50 trillion worth of developable shale, oil and clean coal. He also would end the ban on offshore drilling. Good luck . He would cancel
billions of dollars in contributions to the U.N.s climate change programs, remove two million criminal aliens, introduce plans to defeat the
Islamic State, establish America First foreign policy through peace and strength, and at the same time end any policy sequestering defense
funds. Whew! And on the seventh day ... There is enough on this list to occupy most mortals for decades , and
the consequences of these actions, if carried out, could certainly remind us all that one should be
careful what one wishes for. The fact is, accomplishing even a good portion of the agenda will
require a second term .
 AT: Dems
There is no way that democrats are actually going to successfully stop Trump
Michelle Cottle 1/17, Contributing editor at The Atlantic, Democrats Are Unprepared for the Trump
Era, 1/17/17, The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/democrats-are-
unprepared-for-the-age-of-trump/513281/

For Democrats and other progressive types, Winter Is Coming. Scratch that. Winter has hitfull forceand hordes of White
Walkers are now wilding across the land.
Its not merely that the partys presidential dreams were crushed. Defeat came at the hands of a chest-thumping reality-TV star with the attention span of a toddler
on speed to whom the norms of civilized society, much less politics, dont seem to apply. Donald Trumps jerkiness is central to his appeal, and for whatever cocktail
of reasonsfear, awe, confusioneven many of the guys detractors find him hard to resist.

How the heck is non-Trump America supposed to forge an effective opposition to such a character,
especially when his political team controls all the levers of power?

Short answer: Nobody has a clue.

Oh, sure, this group of Democrats has one plan, and that group has another. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are
working to fire up the left. Contenders to head the DNC are debating how to reseed the grassroots. Hill Dems are pondering legislative strategies (obstruct,
challenge but dont obstruct, cooperate but exact concessions). Operatives are studying European models for overthrowing despots. And a veritable bouquet of
protests are on tap for inauguration week.

But as pretty much any Democrat will tell you (if mostly sotto voce), the party is nowhere near ready to take on
Trump. And even some of this weeks more prominent protests illuminate the challenge that lies ahead.

Take the Womens March on Washington, by far the buzziest of the gatherings. Set for Donald Trumps first full day in office, the Saturday
event is expected to draw upwards of 160,000 participants from across the country. An outgrowth of post-election Facebook venting by disappointed Hillary
supporters, the march has garnered scads of attention. People are charmed by its organic, grassroots origins, and, following complaints that its initial organizers
were all white chicks, the event has assumed an aggressively inclusive flavor. It is, in fact, not a rally for traditional womens rights (reproductive freedom, equal pay,
protection against sexual harassment, and so on) but rather a show of support for the rights of all potentially oppressed groups: racial minorities, immigrants,
Muslims, Jews, the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples, the disabled, and, yes, women. The marchs home page trumpets:

We support the advocacy and resistance movements that reflect our multiple and intersecting identities. We call on all defenders of human rights to join us. This
march is the first step towards unifying our communities, grounded in new relationships, to create change from the grassroots level up.

The overarching goal: to send a bold message to our new government on their first day in office, and to the world that women's rights are human rights.

Does this soaring, all-encompassing mission give the march broad appeal? Absolutely. But in standing for everythingand thus nothing in particularthe gathering
also lacks
political focus. It isnt a push for change so much as a cri de coeur by anti-Trumpers who want everyone to know that they
reject the thuggish, bigoted demagoguery of their new president. Even people
who cheer the event acknowledge that its
basically a chance for those appalled by Trumpism to meet up for a big group hug.

Not that theres anything wrong with that. With a little luck and some targeted follow-up, the march could ultimately spur more women to get involved in the
political process and even run for office. (This is clearly what EMILYs List hopes. The women-focused PAC has joined with a handful of other progressive groups to
conduct candidate-training sessions for 500 gals that weekend.) But as for the gathering itself, noted a long-time Democratic strategist who plans to attend: If

anyone thinks they're going to change or scare Trump and his people, they're dumb as a sack of
jacks.
If the womens march is an exercise in group catharsis, the January 15th Day of Action, which was run out of Bernie Sanders office, had a sharper, more targeted
aim: to cause Republicans political pain as they work to repeal Obamacare and tinker with Medicare and Medicaid. (This should not be confused with the Day of
Action held by immigrant-rights group on January 14.)
In late December, Sanders sent out a letter, co-signed by conference leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, asking Democratic colleagues to organize rallies back
home to Save Healthcare by slamming the GOPs efforts to throw nearly 30 million people off health insurance. As Sanders campaign web site urges: Tell
Republicans loudly and clearly: You are not going to get away with it.

More specifically, Sanders wants folks to hound Trump about his campaign vow not to mess with Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Repeatedly in recent
weekson social media, in interviews, and even on the floor of the Senatethe senator has called on the incoming president to either pledge to veto any bill that
threatens entitlements or to admit he lied to the American people.

This was Sanderss first significant foray as the Democrats head of outreach. (The event was touted as Our First Stand.) Even more notably, it was also his first
attempt to rally the revolutionaries who fueled his White House run around something other than his candidacy. But, as President Obama can attest, transferring a
political following from a person onto a policy crusade or set of political goals can be tough. A presidential candidate provides a clear, compelling focal point for a
diverse coalition. A policy fight, by contrast, tends to draw a much narrower band of support.

The Day of Action didnt exactly capture the public imagination (certainly far less than the fuzzier womens march). Around three-dozen rallies were set up
(including six in Iowa and five in Wisconsin!), led by a collage of Congress members, local officials and Democratic groups, labor unions, and senior-citizens
organizationsnot shabby, but hardly an overwhelming show of force.

Its agenda requires the media and public to tear themselves away from the spectacle of Trumps Cabinet hearings and inauguration hullabaloo, not to mention the
rolling revelations about Russias efforts to undermine American democracy. Piercing the cacophony of the Trump carnival will not be easy for any politician, much
less those looking to talk policy.

Obviously, Democrats are in the early stages of recovery. (Or is it still the late stages of grief?) After
all, Trump hasnt even been sworn in yet. Members of the opposition tell me they will get organized
and mobilized and put the necessary systems in place to fight back. (At this point, the DNCs war room
consists of a handful of wounded veterans of Team Hillary.)

What that will look like, no one can yet sayin part because no one can say what the Trump
presidency will look like. But all agree that political resistance in the Age of Trump promises to be
bitter, frustrating, and very, very weird.
 AT: Immigration
Trump has actually no idea how to limit legal immigration-
Lomi Kriel 9-5, Writer for the Houston Chronicle, Trumps Latest Immigration Stance Signals a Major
Shift, 9/5/16, San Antonio Express News, http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/Trump-s-
latest-immigration-stance-signals-a-9204300.php

Trump did not detail in his speech how he would limit legal immigration but said he would create a
commission to study the issue and develop a set of reforms. Charles Foster, a Houston attorney who has advised
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama on immigration policy, questioned how such a policy would be
defined or enforced. Im a Methodist, but if I had to prove Im a Methodist, I dont know what I would

show, he said. Its just almost impossible to enact. Current U.S. immigration policy emphasizes family
reunification with fewer visas issued based on a persons ability to contribute to the economy.
Trumps proposal would flip that.
1AR
SRM CP
 Cant Solve
Not even close enough to solve
Angel 6 (Roger, an astronomer and optics expert at the University of Arizona, Feasibility of cooling the
Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1)
http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full.pdf

One way known to reduce heat input, observed after volcanic eruptions, is to increase aerosol
scattering in the stratosphere (6). Deployment of 3 to 5 million tons_year of sulfur would be needed
to mitigate a doubling ofCO2. This amount is not incompatible with a major reduction in the current
atmospheric sulfur pollution of 55 million tons_year that goes mostly into the troposphere. The
approach we examine here to reduce solar warming is to scatter away sunlight in space before it
enters the Earths atmosphere. The preferred location is near the Earthsun inner Lagrange point (L1)
in an orbit with the same 1-year period as the Earth, in-line with the sun at a distance_1.5million
km(Gm) (Fig. 1). From this distance, the penumbra shadow covers and thus cools the entire planet.

Hacks propose new geoengineering ideas all the time---be very skeptical of their
speculation
Discover News 12 Discovery News, December 13th, 2012, "Geoengineering Schemes Split
Scientists" news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/geoengineering-climate-change-121021.htm

In the past, proponents of

geo-engineering have proposed things like orbiting space-based sunshades to
shield the Earth, putting up huge reflective balloons or dumping tons of rust particles into the ocean to
capture CO2. That happened in 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted and dumped an estimated 40,000 tons of iron dust into the world's
oceans, which did in fact slightly lower carbon levels. Of course, it's never been tried on a global scale on purpose.
"There are lots of reasons why geo-engineering is not an ideal solution," said MacMartin. "Certainly
emissions reductions are a lot safer . But we don't know all the consequences of geoengineering are, and what the
consequences that not doing it are. We might wind up in situation that some form of geoengineering is better than not doing it." That might
have been the working theory behind George's plan, which was first revealed in The Guardian. George said that he was the world's leading
champion of geo-engineering, and was also planning to profit from his plan to dump 100 metric tons of iron sulfate in the ocean. The Canadian
tribal group who contracted with George said on Friday that they weren't too happy about the plan. BLOG: Geoengineering Soaring To New
Heights "The
consequences of tampering with nature at this scale are not predictable and pose
unacceptable risks to the marine environment," read the statement from the Council of Haida Nation. "Our people
along with the rest of humanity depend on the oceans and cannot leave the fate of the oceans to the
whim of the few." Rutgers University climate scientist professor Al Robock remains skeptical of global climate-
tweaking projects for both scientific and ethical reasons. "We have to learn what the benefits and risks
of proposed schemes are," he said. Seeding the stratosphere can also damage the Earth's protective
ozone layer, although the exact amount isn't clear. That was another side effect of the Pinatubo eruption.
Coal DA
 UQ
Coal demand low predictive 2017
Brian OConnell 16, freelance writer covering business news and trends, former Wall Street bond
trader, 8-26-16, Lower Coal Prices In 2017? Chalk It Up To Lower Demand,
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13686775/3/lower-coal-prices-in-2017-chalk-it-up-to-lower-
demand.html

Average coal commodity spot prices stand at $41 per ton right now, according to the U.S. Energy Information
Administration, and few analysts expect coal prices to rise anytime soon. Both futures prices and exports
in the coal market have been flat for all of 2016, a year in which Citigroup Inc. predicted coal would be a "hot commodity"
this year. "Believe it or not iron ore and coal are the hot commodities of 2016," the bank said in the note released early this year. Citigroup did
warn commodities investors not to hang on to long coal positions for an extended period of time, citing low demand and high inventories.
"Don't expect the strength to last," the firm states, "Structurally the world remains oversupplied with relatively low-
cost material." Currently, coal future price estimates through the end of the year will fall in the $39
per ton range, according to NYMEX coal futures estimates. The last few years have not been kind to coal investors,
as new energy resources, most notably cheap oil and gas from North American-based fracking extraction, as coal prices have
fallen from $130 per ton in 2012 to its current levels of $41 per ton today. Typically, as natural gas prices
decline, the coal industry experienced weaker market share given that utility markets turn to use
natural gas for cheaper power generation. Vic Sperandeo, president and CEO of EAM Partners, which developed the Trader
Vic Index, a collection of futures contracts in commodities, currencies and U.S. interest rates, says coal prices in 2017 will also be
impacted by the U.S. presidential election. "2017 coal prices will be governed by the policies enacted
by the next president and thus by the result of the upcoming election," he says. "If the current low-
growth environment continues under the next administration, then energy prices would be expected
to stay soft. However, the enactment of pro-growth policies like tax cuts should drive growth in the
economy as a whole and related demand should drive energy prices."

Coal not coming back

James Van Norstrand 12/1, Professor and director of the Center for Energy and Sustainable
Development at West Virginia University College of Law, 12/1/2016, Why the U.S. Coal Industry and Its
Jobs Are Not Coming Back,
http://e360.yale.edu/features/why_us_coal_industry_and_its_jobs_are_not_coming_back
As a candidate, and now as the incoming President of the United States, Trump has embraced the war on coal narrative that has been a
staple of political discourse in coal-dependent regions of the country for the past several years. In West Virginia, billboards along I-79 paid
for by the coal industry attacked Obamas Job-Killing EPA and proclaimed the region to be the Obama Administrations No-Job Zone. This
has been a point on which all of West Virginias political leaders of both political parties could heartily agree: Obamas Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the decline of the coal industry in West Virginia and throughout the United States. It
would
seem to necessarily follow, then, that ending this war on coal by electing a new president would
result in a stirring revival of the nations coal industry. Unfortunately, that is not likely to happen,
and the reasons are straightforward: The economic, political, and geological forces aligned against
coal chief among them the increasing abundance of cheaper, cleaner, U.S.-produced natural gas
dwarf the impact that the federal governments regulations have had on the coal industry. These
larger forces are far greater than Trump will be able to overcome through his promises to end the
war on coal by conduct[ing] a top-down review of all anti-coal regulations issued by the Obama
Administration, as stated in his transition teams plan for energy independence. Indeed, Trumps promised crusade against federal
regulations in the energy sector is likely to benefit natural gas producers more than the coal industry, further widening the gap between the
two fossil fuel sectors. The truth is that voters in coal country have been sold a bill of goods by this would-be savior of the coal industry. The
truth is that voters in West Virginia, Kentucky, Wyoming and other coal-producing states areas where Trump crushed Clinton with 63 percent
to 70 percent of the vote have been sold a bill of goods by this would-be savior of the coal industry and its mining jobs. With Trumps
campaign rhetoric now just weeks away from colliding with reality, here are the reasons that coal will never again be king in the U.S.
Economics: Coal is simply not cost-competitive with other fuels in generating electricity primarily cheap and
plentiful natural gas as a result of the shale gas revolution, which has resulted in massive displacement of coal-fired generation by highly
efficient, natural gas-fired combustion turbines. Coal
has declined from its historically dominant position from
2000 to 2008, coal supplied about 50 percent of U.S. power generation to the point where, this year, for the first
time, natural gas (with 33 percent of electricity generation) will outstrip coal (with 32 percent) as the U.S.s primary electricity source, a
transition that has occurred far more quickly than anyone thought possible. In addition, the cost of renewables, both wind and solar, continues
to decline, and utilities are increasingly integrating these carbon-free sources of generation into their portfolios, to the exclusion of coal plants.
In 2015, wind and solar power represented two-thirds of all new electricity-generating capacity in the United States, and in some parts of the
country they are cheap enough to compete with natural gas. Geology: In
central Appalachia, the wide and easily
accessible coal seams are gone, and coal operators in this region are working their way up the cost
curve as they exploit harder-to-reach reserves. Coal from this region is more expensive, and our mines are less productive
not because our miners arent working hard, but because of basic geology. Coal production in the central Appalachian Basin in 2015 was 40
percent below its annual average level in 2010-14. In three other main coal-producing regions of the country the northern Appalachian
Basin, Rocky Mountain region, and the Powder River Basin in Wyoming and Montana production in 2015 was 10 to 20 percent below their
corresponding regional annual average levels from 2010-14. Climate change: Climate change is a factor not because our
coal-state politicians get it and accept the reality of global warming. (In West Virginia, in fact, our political leaders
will be debating the existence of climate change until our valleys and hollows are flooded repeatedly due to extreme weather events.) But
the world gets it, and other nations are not going to be importing any more of our coal. U.S. coal exports
fell 23 percent overall in 2015 and have fallen another 32 percent through the first half of 2016. More recently, Canada the sixth largest
market for U.S. coal announced it would aggressively phase out its coal plants by 2030, or ten years ahead of schedule, in order to meet its
commitments under the Paris climate agreement.
 Readiness
Finishing 2ac
the industry. In
fact, the Department wants to take full advantage of the competitive benefits offered by
access to the best global suppliers; and to promote consistency and fairness in dealing with its allies,
all the while assuring that an adequate industrial base is maintained to support defense needs. As a
result, DOD sometimes may be dependent on reliable non-U.S. suppliers, which is just as good as
being dependent on reliable U.S. suppliers. The Strategic Materials Board sounds like it holds great disdain for
the U.S. steel and specialty metals industries . It says in its report from the meeting it held on December 12, 2008, that its key
finding is that specialty metalsare not materials critical to national security for which only a U.S. source
should be used; and there is no national security reason for the Department to take action to ensure a
long-term domestic supply of these specialty metals. In a January 2007 report prepared by the
American Iron and Steel Institute, the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), the Steel Manufacturers Association and
the United Steelworkers union, the groups argued that the United States government has long recognized the
importance of a strong metals industry to Americas national security. The U.S. industry is responsible for supplying
high-tech metals and alloys used in nuclear submarines, Patriot and Stinger missiles, aircraft carriers, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and virtually
every military aircraft in production. If we continue to lose our manufacturing base due to market-distorting foreign competition or U.S.
economic policies that are hostile to domestic investment and U.S.-based manufacturing, it could become impossible to produce here; the U.S.
military would lose its principal source of strategic metals; and we as a nation would become dangerously dependent upon unreliable foreign
sources of supply, said the study. DOD doesnt buy it . In an assessment of that report, the Strategic Materials Board
said that while many U.S. military platforms use these metals incorporation into a DOD system does
not, by itself, make a material critical to national security. If incorporation alone was sufficient, every
type of material from plastic to rubber and glass would be a critical material. More discriminating criteria are
needed to distinguish critical materials from the larger set of strategic materials. Specialty metals might be strategic and
may require monitoring, but they do not require a domestic source restriction, says the DOD Materials
Protection Board. If there are problems of supply during a projected conflict, other risk mitigation
options, like stockpiling, could represent an effective alternative to assuring supply . The specialty
steel industry should stop claiming that its products are critical to national security, says the DOD
board. The only way they could be considered critical is if the military was the primary market for
their products, which it is not, and if there were problems associated with the security of supply, be they domestic or
international. The Department of Defense does not dominate the market for specialty metals, it points out. Its active and full involvement
and support is not necessary to sustain and shape the strategic direction of the market; and the risk of supply disruption is not significant.
According to the SSINA, defense applications account for less than 10 percent of revenues in specialty metals companies. Recent Defense
Contract Management Agencyanalysis of certain metals found that DOD consumes less than 1 percent of
total U.S. steel production; about 6 percent of U.S. aluminum production and between 8 and 19 percent of domestic titanium
production.The health of the domestic specialty metals industry is, and will continue to be, determined by its ability to sell core commercial
products to commercial customers.
Ptx
 No PC
Trump has no political capital---means Congress will oppose him
STEVEN Shepard 12/24, Politico, 12/24/2016, Trumps unpopularity threatens to hobble his
presidency, http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-favorability-232950

President-elect Donald Trump will descend on Washington next month, buoyed by his upset victory
and Republican control of Congress to implement his agenda.

But hes facing a major obstacle : Trump will enter the White House as the least-popular incoming
president in the modern era of public-opinion polling. The down-in-the-dumps figures raise hard questions
about whether hell have the political capital needed to push through his more controversial
nominees and his aggressive legislative goals of repealing Obamacare, passing a major infrastructure
spending plan and reforming immigration and tax policies. On Election Day, just 38 percent of voters
had a favorable opinion of Trump, compared to 60 percent who viewed him unfavorably unheard of for a presidential-
election victor . (Still, Trump won about 15 percent of the vote among those who had an unfavorable opinion of him.) While Trump has received a boost
in public opinion after his victory, he still badly lags past presidents-elect when it comes to personal favorability .
Currently, his average favorable rating stands at 43 percent, according to HuffPost Pollster, while a 49-percent plurality views him unfavorably. More respondents
viewed Trump unfavorably than favorably in the most recent batch of public polls from NBC News/Wall Street Journal, Suffolk University/USA Today, Fox News,CBS
News and POLITICO/Morning Consult, all conducted in early- or mid-December. Compare that with President Barack Obama, who entered 2009 with a 68-percent

favorable rating and only a 21-percent unfavorable rating. Trumps persistent and deep unpopularity combined with the fact that he

lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by nearly 3 million ballots means he lacks the potent argument that the will of the
people are behind his agenda. Hes clearly not doing as well as other presidents-elect, said GOP pollster David Winston, a long-time adviser

to Republican leaders in both the House and Senate. Weve never had a president-elect that had more unfavorables than favorables. Hes started in a
pretty big hole in terms of favorables. And even though Democrats are in the minority in both chambers of Congress Republicans will control 241 of

435 House seats and 52 out of 100 Senate seats the party sees an opening in Trumps poor poll standing. The lack of support for the president-elect

means that Democrats can oppose him when they believe they should , said Jesse Ferguson, the former Democratic
Congressional Campaign Committee independent-expenditure head who worked as a spokesman for Clintons campaign this year. They
can be
confident that theres no pressure for them to support him out of fear of his political prowess and
political power, because his coattails look a little more like a T-SHIRT . Typically, incoming presidents
face little resistance to their executive-branch nominees. Both Obama and George W. Bush were no exception. They entered
with their respective parties in control of both houses of Congress, and in the first years of their presidencies 2009 and 2001, respectively a total of 43
executive-branch nominees came before the Senate for roll-call votes, not including nominees approved by voice vote or judicial candidates. On average, the
nominees received 83 votes, while an average of 12 senators from the opposition party voted against the presidents nominee, meaning the appointees generally
got an easy ride when it came to vote time. Moreover, presidents almost always united their own parties. For the 20 Bush
nominees on whom the Senate voted in 2001, not a single no vote was cast by a Republican senator. Obama faced scattered opposition by his own party in 2009,
but the largest number of Democratic senators to oppose a nominee was five Cass Sunstein for a regulatory post at the Office of Management and Budget, and
Gary Gensler to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission not including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, who voted against both men as

well. The outlook for Trumps nominees is generally positive, but some have already caused agitation not only among
Democrats but also among his fellow Republicans. The loudest intra-party dissent has come in
reaction to Trumps nominee for secretary of state, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, who has extensive ties with
Russia. That has raised the ire of Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), two notable Russia hawks.
 AT: Demo
Global democracy inevitable
Tow 10Director of the Future Planet Research Centre (David, Future Society- The Future of
Democracy, 26 August 2010,
http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4280:future-society-
the-future-of-democracy&catid=76:david-tow&Itemid=230)

Democracy, as with all other processes engineered by human civilisation, is evolving at a rapid rate. A number of indicators are pointing
to a major leap forward, encompassing a more public participatory form of democratic model and the harnessing of the expert
intelligence of the Web. By the middle of the 21st century, such a global version of the democratic process will be

largely in place. Democracy has a long evolutionary history. The concept of democracy - the notion that men and women have the right to govern themselves, was practised at around 2,500 BP in Athens. The
Athenian polity or political body, granted all citizens the right to be heard and to participate in the major decisions affecting their rights and well-being. The City State demanded services and loyalty from the individual in return.
There is evidence however that the role of popular assembly actually arose earlier in some Phoenician cities such as Sidon and Babylon in the ancient assemblies of Syria- Mesopotamia, as an organ of local government and justice.
As demonstrated in these early periods, democracy, although imperfect, offered each individual a stake in the nations collective decision-making processes. It therefore provided a greater incentive for each individual to cooperate
to increase group productivity. Through a more open decision process, improved innovation and consequently additional wealth was generated and distributed more equitably. An increase in overall economic wellbeing in turn

According to the Freedom House

generated more possibilities and potential to acquire knowledge, education and employment, coupled with greater individual choice and freedom.

Report, an independent survey of political and civil liberties around the globe, the world has made great strides towards democracy in the 20th and
21st centuries. In 1900 there were 25 restricted democracies in existence covering an eighth of the worlds population, but none that could be judged as based on universal suffrage. The US and Britain denied
voting rights to women and in the case of the US, also to African Americans. But at the end of the 20th century 119 of the worlds 192 nations were

declared electoral democracies. In the current century, democracy continues to spread through Africa
and Asia and significantly also the Middle East, with over 130 states in various stages of democratic evolution. Dictatorships or quasi
democratic one party states still exist in Africa, Asia and the middle east with regimes such as China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Burma, the Sudan, Belarus and Saudi Arabia, seeking to maintain total control over their populations.

two thirds of sub-Saharan countries have staged elections in the past ten years, with coups
However

becoming less common and internal wars gradually waning. African nations are also starting to police
human rights in their own region. African Union peacekeepers are now deployed in Darfur and are working with UN peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The evolution of democracy can also be
seen in terms of improved human rights. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and several ensuing legal treaties, define political, cultural and economic rights as well as the rights of women, children, ethnic
groups and religions. This declaration is intended to create a global safety net of rights applicable to all peoples everywhere, with no exceptions. It also recognises the principle of the subordination of national sovereignty to the

The global spread of democracy is now also irreversibly

universality of human rights; the dignity and worth of human life beyond the jurisdiction of any State.

linked to the new cooperative globalisation model. The EU, despite its growing pains, provides a compelling template; complementing national decisions in the
supra-national interest at the commercial, financial, legal, health and research sharing level. The global spread of new technology and knowledge also

provides the opportunity for developing countries to gain a quantum leap in material wellbeing; an
essential prerequisite for a stable democracy. The current cyber-based advances therefore presage a much more
interactive public form of democracy and mark the next phase in its ongoing evolution. Web 2.0s social networking,
blogging, messaging and video services have already significantly changed the way people discuss political issues and exchange ideas beyond national boundaries. In addition a number of popular sites exist as forums to actively

harness individual opinions and encourage debate about contentious topics, funnelling them to political processes. These are often coupled to online petitions, allowing the public to deliver
requests to Government and receive a committed response. In addition there are a plethora of specialized smart search engines and analytical tools aimed
at locating and interpreting information about divisive and complex topics such as global warming and medical stem cell advances. These are increasingly linked to Argumentation frameworks and Game theory, aimed at supporting
the logical basis of arguments, negotiation and other structured forms of group decision-making. New logic and statistical tools can also provide inference and evaluation mechanisms to better assess the evidence for a particular
hypothesis. By 2030 it is likely that such intelligence-based algorithms will be capable of automating the analysis and advice provided to politicians, at a similar level of quality and expertise as that offered by the best human
advisers. It might be argued that there is still a need for the role of politicians and leaders in assessing and prioritising such expert advice in the overriding national interest. But a moments reflection leads to the opposite
conclusion. Politicians have party allegiances and internal obligations that can and do create serious conflicts of interest and skew the best advice. History is replete with such disastrous decisions based on false premises, driven by
party political bias and populist fads predicated on flawed knowledge. One needs to look no further in recent times than the patently inadequate evidential basis for the USs war in Iraq which has cost at least half a million civilian
lives and is still unresolved. However there remains a disjunction between the developed west and those developing countries only now recovering from colonisation, the subsequent domination by dictators and fascist regimes
and ongoing natural disasters. There is in fact a time gap of several hundred years between the democratic trajectory of the west and east, which these countries are endeavouring to bridge within a generation; often creating
serious short-term challenges and cultural dislocations. A very powerful enabler for the spread of democracy as mentioned is the Internet/Web- todays storehouse of the worlds information and expertise. By increasing the flow
of essential intelligence it facilitates transparency, reduces corruption, empowers dissidents and ensures governments are more responsive to their citizens needs. Ii is already providing the infrastructure for the emergence of a

By 2040 more democratic

more democratic society; empowering all people to have direct input into critical decision processes affecting their lives, without the distortion of political intermediaries.

outcomes for all populations on the planet will be the norm. Critical and urgent decisions relating to global warming, financial regulation, economic
allocation of scarce resources such as food and water, humanitarian rights and refugee migration etc, will to be sifted through community knowledge, resulting in truly representative and equitable global governance.

Implementation of the democratic process itself will continue to evolve with new forms of e-voting
and governance supervision, which will include the active participation of advocacy groups supported
by a consensus of expert knowledge via the Intelligent Web 4.0. Over time democracy as with all other social processes, will
evolve to best suit the needs of its human environment. It will emerge as a networked model- a non-hierarchical, resilient protocol, responsive to rapid social change.
Such distributed forms of government will involve local communities, operating with the best expert advice from the ground up; the opposite of political party self-interested power and superficial focus-group decision-making, as
implemented by many current political systems. These are frequently unresponsive to legitimate minority group needs and can be easily corrupted by powerful lobby groups, such as those employed by the heavy carbon emitters
in the global warming debate.