CARBON TAX AFFCOREI Affirm. Resolved: Just governments have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of global climate change.UtilI value morality as per the evaluative term moral obligation in the resolution. The standard is maximizing societal welfare. 1. Experience is the source of epistemic knowledge as it is how we empirically ground our existence. We cannot derive truth from reason as conceptions of reason differ from person to person and reason is socially constructed and thus dynamic. Sentience is the only non-arbitrary source of normativity. Pain is universally bad and pleasure is universally good. Thomas Nagel 86 [The View From Nowhere, 1986] //AGI shall defend the unsurprising claim that sensory pleasure is good and pain bad, no matter whose they are. The point of the exercise is to see how the pressures of objectification operate in a simple case. Physical pleasure and pain do not usually depend on activities or desires which themselves raise questions of justification and value. They are just [is a] sensory experiences in relation to which we are fairly passive, but toward which we feel involuntary desire or aversion. Almost everyone takes the avoidance of his own pain and the promotion of his own pleasure as subjective reasons for action in a fairly simple way; they are not back up by any further reasons. On the other hand if someone pursues pain or avoids pleasure, either it as a means to some end or it is backed up by dark reasons like guilt or sexual masochism. What sort of general value, if any, ought to be assigned to pleasure and pain when we consider these facts from an objective standpoint? What kind of judgment can we reasonably make about these things when we view them in abstraction from who we are? We can begin by asking why there is no plausibility in the zero position, that pleasure and pain have no value of any kind that can be objectively recognized. That would mean that I have no reason to take aspirin for a severe headache, however I may in fact be motivated; and that looking at it from outside, you couldn't even say that someone had a reason not to put his hand on a hot stove, just because of the pain Without some positive reason to think there is nothing in itself good or bad about having an experience you intensely like or dislike, we can't seriously regard the common impression to the contrary as a collective illusion. Such things are at least good or bad for us, if anything is. What seems to be going on here is that we cannot from an objective standpoint withhold a certain kind of endorsement of the most direct and immediate subjective value judgments we make concerning the contents of our own consciousness. We regard ourselves as too close to those things to be mistaken in our immediate, nonideological evaluative impressions. No objective view we can attain could possibly overrule our subjective authority in such cases. There can be no reason to reject the appearances here.

2. Because there is no objective epistemic distinction between individuals, equality must be the foundation of any system of normativity. Utilitarianism is the only ethical framework that is consistent with the equality of individuals by impartially maximizing good consequences. Reject ethics that admit arbitrariness as they are not coherent guides to action.

3. Life is a prerequisiteyou need to be alive before you can take an action or be moral. Based upon this justification alone, my standard precedes all others

Extinction First Extinction comes first.Existential risks are not trial and error process.Nick Bostrom 02, Department of Philosophy, Yale University, 2002, Existential Risks: Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards, http://www.transhumanist.com/volume9/risks.html // vkoneruOur approach to existential risks cannot be one of trial-and-error. There is no opportunity to learn from errors. The reactive approach see what happens, limit damages, and learn from experience is unworkable. Rather, we must take a proactive approach. This requires foresight to anticipate new types of threats and a willingness to take decisive preventive action and to bear the costs (moral and economic) of such actions. We cannot necessarily rely on the institutions, moral norms, social attitudes or national security policies that developed from our experience with managing other sorts of risks. Existential risks are a different kind of beast. We might find it hard to take them as seriously as we should simply because we have never yet witnessed such disasters.[5] Our collective fear-response is likely ill calibrated to the magnitude of threat. Reductions in existential risks are global public goods [13] and may therefore be undersupplied by the market [14]. Existential risks are a menace for everybody and may require acting on the international plane. Respect for national sovereignty is not a legitimate excuse for failing to take countermeasures against a major existential risk. If we take into account the welfare of future generations, the harm done by existential risks is multiplied by another factor, the size of which depends on whether and how much we discount future benefits [15,16].PlanPlan text: All just governments should impose a carbon tax on the public and private sector to mitigate global climate change.The Ministry of Finance clarifies the plan A carbon tax is usually defined as a tax based on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated from burning fuels. It puts a price on each tonne of GHG emitted, sending a price signal that will, over time, elicit a powerful market response across the entire economy, resulting in reduced emissions. It has the advantage of providing an incentive without favouring any one way of reducing emissions over another. By reducing fuel consumption, increasing fuel efficiency, using cleaner fuels and adopting new technology, businesses and individuals can reduce the amount they pay in carbon tax, or even offset it altogether.

Part 1 is the harmsWarming causes extinction scientific data, prediction models and historicity provesFlournoy 12 [Citing Feng Hsu, PhdD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center, Don FLournoy, PhD and MA from UT, former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, former Associate Dean at SUNY and Case Institute of Technology, Former Manager for Unviersity/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, Solar Power Satellites, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-11, January 2012,]**We disagree with the authors use of gendered language**In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, The evidence of global warming is alarming, notingthe potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling(Hsu 2010 ) .Hsu andhisNASA colleagueswere engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: Inow have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a)there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrationsin Earths atmospherewith respect tothe historicalfluctuations of global temperaturechanges;and(b)the overwhelming majority of the worlds scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing,if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earths biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk(Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. This, he writes, is becausethe risksof a catastrophic anthropogenic climate changecan be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances (Hsu 2010 )And climate change causes biodiversity lossUniversity of East Anglia 2013. "Climate change will cause widespread global-scale loss of common plants and animals, researchers predict." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 12 May 2013. (www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/05/130512140946.htm)More than half of common plants and one third of the animals could see a dramatic decline this century due to climate change, according to research from the University of East Anglia. Research published today in the journal Nature Climate Change looked at 50,000 globally widespread and common species and found that more than one half of the plants and one third of the animals will lose more than half of their climatic range by 2080 if nothing is done to reduce the amount of global warming and slow it down. This means that geographic ranges of common plants and animals will shrink globally and biodiversity will decline almost everywhere. Plants, reptiles and particularly amphibians are expected to be at highest risk. Sub-Saharan Africa, Central America, Amazonia and Australia would lose the most species of plants and animals. And a major loss of plant species is projected for North Africa, Central Asia and South-eastern Europe. But acting quickly to mitigate climate change could reduce losses by 60 per cent and buy an additional 40 years for species to adapt. This is because this mitigation would slow and then stop global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial times (1765). Without this mitigation, global temperatures could rise by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. The study was led by Dr Rachel Warren from UEA's school of Environmental Sciences and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Collaborators include Dr.Jeremy VanDerWal at James Cook University in Australia and Dr Jeff Price, also at UEA's school of Environmental Sciences and the Tyndall Centre. The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Dr Warren said: "While there has been much research on the effect of climate change on rare and endangered species, little has been known about how an increase in global temperature will affect more common species. "This broader issue of potential range loss in widespread species is a serious concern as even small declines in these species can significantly disrupt ecosystems. "Our research predicts that climate change will greatly reduce the diversity of even very common species found in most parts of the world. This loss of global-scale biodiversity would significantly impoverish the biosphere and the ecosystem services it provides. "We looked at the effect of rising global temperatures, but other symptoms of climate change such as extreme weather events, pests, and diseases mean that our estimates are probably conservative. Animals in particular may decline more as our predictions will be compounded by a loss of food from plants. "There will also be a knock-on effect for humans because these species are important for things like water and air purification, flood control, nutrient cycling, and eco-tourism. "The good news is that our research provides crucial new evidence of how swift action to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gases can prevent the biodiversity loss by reducing the amount of global warming to 2 degrees Celsius rather than 4 degrees. This would also buy time -- up to four decades -- for plants and animals to adapt to the remaining 2 degrees of climate change." The research team quantified the benefits of acting now to mitigate climate change and found that up to 60 per cent of the projected climatic range loss for biodiversity can be avoided. Dr Warren said: "Prompt and stringent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions globally would reduce these biodiversity losses by 60 per cent if global emissions peak in 2016, or by 40 per cent if emissions peak in 2030, showing that early action is very beneficial. This will both reduce the amount of climate change and also slow climate change down, making it easier for species and humans to adapt." Information on the current distributions of the species used in this research came from the datasets shared online by hundreds of volunteers, scientists and natural history collections through the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). Co-author Dr Jeff Price, also from UEA's school of Environmental Studies, said: "Without free and open access to massive amounts of data such as those made available online through GBIF, no individual researcher is able to contact every country, every museum, every scientist holding the data and pull it all together. So this research would not be possible without GBIF and its global community of researchers and volunteers who make their data freely available."Biodiversity loss causes extinction Diner 94 (David N. J.D. Recipient. College of Law. Ohio State University. The Army and the Endangered Species Act: Whos Endangering Whom? Military Law Review. 143 Mil. L. Rev. 161. Winter, 1994, gender edited) BLNo species has ever dominated its fellow species like man. In most cases, we have assumed the God-like power of life and death, extinction or survival, over the plants and animals of the world. For most of history, mankind pursued this domination with a single-minded determination to master the world, tame the wilderness, and exploit nature for the maximum benefit of the human race.67 We know that in past mass extinction episodes, as many as ninety percent of the existing species perished, and yet the world moved forward, and new species replaced the old. So why should we be concerned now? The prime reason is our own survival. Like all animal life, we live off other species. At some point the number of species could decline to the point where the ecosystem fails, and then we too would become extinct. Nobody knows how many species are needed to support human life, and it is not sound policy to find out. In addition to food, species offer many direct and indirect benefits to mankind. 2. ECOLOGICAL VALUE Ecological value is defined as the value that species have in maintaining the functioning of the environment. Pest, 69 erosion, and flood control are prime benefits certain species provide to man. Pollution control, 7 oxygen production, sewage treatment, and biodegradation are other ecological services provided by plants and animals.7 3. SCIENTIFIC AND UTILITARIAN VALUE Scientific value is defined as the use of species for research into understanding the natural world. 72 Without plants and animals, a large portion of basic scientific research would be impossible. Utilitarian value is the direct benefit humans derive from exploiting plants and animals.7 Only a fraction of . the earth's species have been examined, and mankind may someday desperately-need the species that are being wiped out today. It may be difficult to accept that the snail darter, harelip sucker, or Dismal Swamp southeastern shrew, 74 could save mankind. Many, if not most, species are useless to man in a direct utilitarian sense. Nonetheless, they may be critical in an indirect role, because their extirpation could negatively affect a directly useful species. In a closely interconnected ecosystem, the loss of each species affects other species dependent upon it. 75 Moreover, as the number of species decline, the affect of each new extinction on the remaining * species increases dramatically 76 4. BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY The main premise of species preservation is that diversity is better than simplicity.77 As the current mass extinction progresses, there has been a general decrease in the world's biological diversity. This trend occurs within ecosystems by reducing the number of species, and within species by reducing the number of individuals. Both trends carry serious future implications. 78 Biologically diverse ecosystems are characterized by a large number of specialist species, filling narrow ecological niches. These ecosystems are inherently more stable than less diverse systems: "'The more complex the ecosystem, the more successfully it can resist a stress...[l]ike a net, in which each knot is connected to others by several strands, such a fabric can resist collapse better than a simple, unbranched circle of threads which if cut anywhere breaks down as a whole.",79 By causing widespread extinctions humans have artificially simplified many ecosystems. As biologic simplicity rises, so does the risk of ecosystem failure. The spreading Sahara desert in Africa, and the dustbowl conditions of the 1930s in the U.S. are relatively mild examples of what might be expected if this trend continues. Theoretically, each new animal or plant . extinction, with all its dimly perceived and intertwined affects, could cause total ecosystem collapse, and human extinction. Certainly, each new extinction increases the risk of disaster. Like a mechanic removing, one by one, the rivets from an aircraft's wings, 80 mankind may be edging closer to the abyss.Poverty is the worst form of structural violence and creates conditions worse than nuclear war. Mumia Abu Jamal is a journalist and political activist, 7-15-2009 [A Quiet and Deadly Violence http://www.angelfire.com/az/catchphraze/mumiaswords.html - 9/19/98] Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196] Worse still, in a thoroughly capitalist society, much of that violence became [is] internalized, tut alrned back on the Self, because, in a society based on the priority of [in] wealth, those who own nothing are taught to loathe themselves, as if something is inherently wrong with themselves, instead of the social order that promotes this self-loathing. This intense self-hatred was often manifest[s]ed in familial violence as when the husband beats the wife, the wife smacks the son, and the kids fight each other. This vicious, circular, and invisible violence, [is] unacknowledged by the corporate media, uncriticized in substandard educational systems, and un- understood by the very folks who suffer in its grips, feeds on the spectacular and more common forms of violence that the system makes damn sure -that we can recognize and must react to it. This fatal and systematic violence may be called The War on the Poor.Part 2 is solvencyCarbon taxes are the most effective measure to cut greenhouse gas emissionsDavid Shipley, September 29, 2014; David Shipley is the senior executive editor of Bloomberg View. He was previously the deputy editorial page editor and op-ed page editor for the New York Times. He served in the Clinton administration as special assistant to the president and senior presidential speechwriter. Before that, he was executive editor at the New Republic. Climate March, Climate Summit, Climate Tax? (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-29/climate-march-climate-summit-climate-tax)Most economists agree that a carbon tax is the best way to slow climate change. Make energy derived from fossil fuels more expensive, they say, and let the market do the rest. In principle, the advantages of this approach are clear -- prices are better than quantitative mandates at guiding efficient solutions -- but what about the practical drawbacks? It's right to wonder about the unintended consequences of introducing a carbon tax. However, it's wrong to keep this discussion theoretical. More than a dozen countries have adopted such taxes, in some cases decades ago. Their experience, little discussed in the U.S., can inform the debate. This is the first in a series of editorials on lessons from countries that have introduced taxes on carbon. Where the idea has been tried, what was the effect on the economy? When governments promised to use the revenue to reduce other taxes, did they keep those promises? Did the burden fall unduly on more vulnerable households? And how did governments make the tax politically feasible? If carbon taxes failed to cut emissions, one need go no further. And, in principle at least, there are reasons to be skeptical. Perhaps it's hard to make the tax high enough or comprehensive enough to make a difference. This turns out to be wrong -- though it's true that the design of the tax makes a big difference. Researchers at Cambridge Econometrics, a U.K. consulting firm, looked at greenhouse-gas emissions in some of the first countries to adopt a carbon tax -- Finland (1990), Sweden (1991), Denmark (1992) and the Netherlands (1996). They then estimated what emissions would have been without the tax, based on trends in consumption of 11 fuels across more than 40 economic sectors. As the chart shows, the taxes cut emissions, though by varying amounts. Other studies have also found that carbon taxes work. One found that companies in Denmark cut their carbon emissions per unit of output by a quarter from 1993 to 2000. Finland's carbon tax cut emissions by 7 percent from 1990 to 1998, according to the government. In the Netherlands, one study found that the tax cut household electricity demand by 8 percent from 1994 to 1999. Yet as the chart shows, the effectiveness of the tax varied. That's partly because its coverage, and the rate applied in different sectors, has varied from country to country. In Sweden, industrial sources of emissions paid just half the standard levy. In Finland, fuel used for agriculture was taxed at a lower rate. The Dutch tax applied to homes and small businesses, with different rates for electricity and natural gas -- one academic called the system "incoherent." Some countries offered further breaks to companies that entered agreements with the government on energy efficiency. These complications and carve-outs are pernicious in two ways. First, by limiting the reach of the tax, they make it less effective at cutting emissions, defeating the whole point. Second, they ignore the reason for using a tax, as opposed to quantity controls, in the first place. Taxes work better than sector-specific controls because they let markets discover the cheapest way to reduce emissions. Complex tax schedules override those market-based judgments. A better model is the approach adopted by British Columbia. The tax it introduced in 2008 applies to all emissions from all fossil fuels. The rate started at 10 Canadian dollars for a ton of carbon dioxide and was increased to 30 a ton by 2012. The province's per-capita consumption of fuels subject to the tax fell 16 percent by 2013; in the rest of Canada, it rose 3 percent over the same period. Of course, these numbers don't tell you exactly what the U.S. could expect if it introduced a carbon tax. Patterns of consumption and sensitivity to price changes vary from place to place. What all these cases show, however, is that a carbon tax can succeed in cutting emissions. How well it works, how much it cuts emissions and at what cost, depends on how it's designed.Due to current oil consumption, passing a carbon tax NOW is the only way to combat emissionsLawrence Summers January 4, 2015; Lawrence Summers is a professor at and past president of Harvard University. He was treasury secretary from 1999 to 2001 and economic adviser to President Obama from 2009 through 2010. Oils Swoon Creates the Opening for a Carbon Tax (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/oils-swoon-creates-the-opening-for-a-carbon-tax/2015/01/04/3db11a3a-928a-11e4-ba53-a477d66580ed_story.html)The case for carbon taxes has long been compelling. With the recent steep fall in oil prices and associated declines in other energy prices, it has become overwhelming. There is room for debate about the size of the tax and about how the proceeds should be deployed. But there should be no doubt that, given the current zero tax rate on carbon, increased taxation would be desirable. The core of the case for taxation is the recognition that those who use carbon-based fuels or products do not bear all the costs of their actions. Carbon emissions exacerbate global climate change. In many cases, they contribute to local pollution problems that harm human health. Getting fossil fuels out of the ground involves both accident risks and environmental challenges. And even with the substantial recent increases in U.S. oil production, we remain a net importer. Any increase in our consumption raises our dependence on Middle East producers. All of us, when we drive our cars, heat our homes or use fossil fuels in more indirect ways, create these costs without paying for them. It follows that we overuse these fuels. Advocating a carbon tax is not some kind of argument for government planning; it is the logic of the market: That which is not paid for is overused. Even if the government had no need or use for revenue, it could make the economy [would] function better by levying carbon taxes and rebating the money to taxpayers. While the recent decline in energy prices is a good thing in that it has, on balance, raised the incomes of Americans, it has also exacerbated the problem of energy overuse. The benefit of imposing carbon taxes is therefore enhanced. On the other side of the ledger, there has always been the concern that a carbon tax would place an unfair burden on some middle- and low-income consumers. Those who drive long distances to work, say, or who have homes that are expensive to heat would be disproportionately burdened. Now that these consumers have received a windfall from the fall in energy prices, it would be possible to impose substantial carbon taxes without them being burdened relative to where things stood six months ago. The price of gasoline has fallen by more than a dollar. A $25-a-ton tax on carbon that would raise far more than $1 trillion over the next decade would [and] lift gasoline prices by only about 25 cents. Some worry that taxing fossil fuels will hurt the competitiveness of U.S. industry and encourage offshoring. In fact, a well-designed tax would be levied on the carbon content of all imports coming from countries that did not impose their own carbon levies. The United States can make the case that such a tax is compatible with World Trade Organization rules. Such an approach would have the virtue of encouraging [the tax would encourage] countries who wished to avoid the U.S. tax to impose carbon taxes of their own, thereby further supporting efforts to reduce global climate change. A U.S. carbon tax would contribute to efforts to combat climate change in other ways. It would be a hugely important symbolic step ahead of the global climate summit in Paris late this year. It would shift the debate toward harmonized measures to raise the price of carbon use and away from the complex cap-and-trade-type systems that have proved more difficult to operate than expected in the European Union and elsewhere. What size levy is appropriate? Here there is more danger of doing too little than too much. Once the principle of taxation is accepted, its level can be adjusted. A tax of $25 a ton would raise more than $100 billion each year and seems a reasonable starting point. How should the proceeds be used? Here, too, it seems more important to reach consensus on the principle of taxation. My preference would be for the funds to be split between investments in infrastructure and pro-work tax credits. An additional $50 billion a year in infrastructure spending would be a significant contribution to closing Americas investment gap in that area. The same sum devoted to pro-work tax credits could finance a huge increase in the earned-income tax credit, a meaningful reduction in the payroll tax or some combination of the two. Progressives who are most concerned about climate change should rally to a carbon tax. Conservatives who believe in the power of markets should favor carbon taxes on market principles. And Americans who want to see their country lead on the energy and climate issues that are crucial to the world this century should want to be in the vanguard on carbon taxes. Now is the time.A carbon tax would encourage technology investments and solve federal deficit problemsRausch and Reilly 12, Sebastian Rausch and John Reilly are from the MIT Joint program on the science and policy of global climate change. August 2012. Carbon Tax Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A Win-Win-Win Solution? (http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt228.pdf)While raising taxes is never popular, a carbon tax is potentially a win-win-win solution. First, carbon tax revenue can allow revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes, corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance) or Defense spending. Among the revenue raising options evaluated by the CBO was a carbon tax that would start at $20 in 2012 and rise at a nominal rate of 5.8% per year, approximately 4% in real terms given the underlying inflation rate they projected. By their estimate it [the tax] would raise on the order of $1.25 trillion over a 10-year period. Second, economic analysis has demonstrated the potential for a double dividend whereby recycling of revenue from a carbon tax to offset other taxes could reduce the cost of a carbon policy or even under some circumstances [and] boost economic welfare (Goulder, 1995). The Bush tax cuts and other temporary tax relief measures are due to expire at the end of 2012. A carbon tax could allow their further extension. And, third, a carbon tax would lower fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports. The effects of this last win would spread across the energy sector. With the new requirements for improved vehicle efficiency the higher tax-inclusive gasoline price would make fuel efficient [options] vehicles more attractive to consumers and thus make it easier for automobile producers to sell a fleet that meets the efficiency requirements. With a more efficient fleet, even though gasoline prices would rise, the actual fuel cost of driving could fall. A carbon tax would also create support for renewable fuels and electricity. Provisions to stimulate these alternative sources have often involved tax expendituresinvestment in or production of renewable energy gives companies a tax credit, thereby reducing tax revenue and aggravating the deficit. The investment and production tax credits for renewable electricity are due to expire, and with the looming deficit it would be more difficult to justify their continuation. A carbon [the] tax would 3 continue to provide encouragement for these technologies by making dirtier technologies more expensive, and raise revenue rather than spend it. To investigate the potential tradeoffs among different strategies for reducing the deficit we use the MIT U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model. USREP has been widely used to investigate energy and climate policy, including interactions with tax policy, and effects on economic growth, efficiency, and distribution (Rausch et al., 2010, 2011a,b; Caron et al., 2012). The version we apply here is that in Rausch et al. (2010). We find that any of several different options for using the carbon tax revenue would generate a win-win-win solution. Given that all other options for dealing with the Federal deficit require difficult tradeoffs, it would seem hard to pass up one that offers so many advantages.An increase in renewables would increase employment, decrease poverty, and decrease emissionsBarbut 09, Monique Barbut is the CEO and Chairperson of Global Environmental Facility. Investing In Renewable Energy The GEF Experience (https://www.thegef.org/gef/sites/thegef.org/files/publication/gef_renewenergy_CRA_rev.pdf)As developing countries expand their economies and reduce poverty, they face major climate change and energy challenges. The mere facts are cause for alarm: World energy consumption is projected to increase from 138 TWh in 2006 to 162 TWh in 2015 and 199 TWh in 2030an increase of 44 percent. Non-OECD countries are expected to increase their consumption by 73 percent, compared with only a 15 percent increase for OECD countries for the same period (EIA 2009). Developing countries today emit about half of global CO2 emissions. Under business as usual scenarios, their future emissions increase faster than those of industrialized countries (den Elzen, M., and Hohne, N. 2008). 1.6 billion people today, most of them living in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, do not have access to electricity. Over two billion people remain dependent on biomass for their basic cooking and heating energy needs. Eighty percent of Sub-Saharan Africas population relies on kerosene and batteries in their households and diesel generators for their businesses (World Bank 2008). Gross domestic product [GDP] per capita and energy per capita will remain lower in most of the developing countries than in industrialized countries over the next decades. Energy-related CO2 emissions per capita will also remain signifi cantly lower in most developing countries for the decades to come (World Bank 2008). In the face of growing energy demand, conventional energy sources are environmentally, economically, and socially unsustainable and their continued use will contribute greatly to an increase in CO2 emissions (World Bank 2008). Energy use accounts for about 65 percent of the worlds greenhouse gas emissions (OECD/IEA 2009). Renewable Energy Challenges and Opportunities for the Developing World PV module manufacturing in China NVESTING IN RENEWABLE ENERGY: THE GEF EXPERIENCE 3 Energy is at the heart of widespread social, economic, and climate problems. Energy must be at the heart of the solution. Without access to clean, reliable, and effi cient energy services, the poor are deprived of the most basic opportunities for economic development and improved living standards. Clearly, energy demand and supply patterns both must be altered. This is a major challenge that demands comprehensive and sustainable solutions. In this context, the importance of renewable energy (RE) is beyond dispute. Clean energy technologies are vital to alleviating poverty, expanding rural development, and maintaining environmental quality. The productive use of renewable energy in rural areas helps raise incomes and improve health [and] power services, providing power to pump water for irrigation, to process crops and power cottage industries, to light homes, schools, and hospitalsall services of premier importance and immeasurable impact in the remote rural areas. Renewable energy technologies can also play crucial roles in employment and economic growth. They are more labor-intensive than conventional technologies for the same energy output (Pachauri, R. 2009) but at the same time renewable energy technologies (RETs) employ both local and decentralized workers. For an investment in RETs of US$ 1 million over10 years: Wind energy generates 5.70 personyears of employment. Solar photovoltaics generate[s] 5.65 person-years. The coal industry generates 3.96 person-years. Most renewable energy resources are virtually untapped in the developing world. Their local and distributed nature means investments in transmission grids are largely unnecessary. This is a cost-saving advantage developed countries do not enjoy, as their centralized energy grids are less appropriate for distributed energy applications. The main barrier to the widespread use of renewable energy is the high up-front cost, particularly for installing equipment, particularly given the limited economic resources of the people most in need of the technologymost often the rural poor. Strengthening capacity building, promoting enabling environments, developing policy frameworks, and improving demands for RETs can help mitigate steep transaction costs and underdeveloped markets to some degree. However, significantly decarbonizing power production will require considerably more investment in renewable energy, of which at least 75 percent should be directed to non-OECD countries (IEA 2009).Economic growth decreases poverty and increases value to lifeDFID,2007, Department for International DevelopmentGrowth Building Jobs and Prosperity in Developing Countries http://www.oecd.org/derec/unitedkingdom/40700982.pdfEconomic growth is the most powerful instrument for reducing poverty and improving the quality of lifeindevelopingcountries.Bothcross-country research and country case studies provide overwhelming evidence that rapid and sustained growthis critical to making faster progress towards the Millennium Development Goals and not just the first goal of halving the global proportion of people living on less than $1 a day. Growth can generate virtuous circles of prosperity and opportunity.Stronggrowthand employment opportunities improveincentivesforparents to invest in their childrens educationby sending them to school. This may lead to the emergence of a strong and growing group of entrepreneurs, which should generate pressure for improvedgovernance. Strong economic growth therefore advances human development, which, in turn, promotes economic growth.Researchthat compares the experiences of[on] a wide range ofdevelopingcountries f[ound]inds consistently strong evidencethatrapidand sustainedgrowthis[was] the single most important way to reduce poverty.A typical estimate from these cross-country studies is that a10 per cent increase in a countrys average incomewillreduce[s]thepovertyratebybetween20and[to] 30 per cent.1 The central role of growth in driving the speed at which poverty declines is confirmed by research on individual countries and groups of countries. For example,aflagshipstudy of 14 countriesin the 1990sfound thatover the course of the decade,poverty fell in the 11countries that experienced significant growthand rose in the three countries with low or stagnant growth. On average, a one per cent increase in per capita income reduced poverty by 1.7 per cent (see Figure 1).2 Among these 14 countries, the reduction in poverty was particularly spectacular in Vietnam, where poverty fell by 7.8 per cent a year between 1993 and 2002, halving the poverty rate from 58 per cent to 29 per cent. Othercountries with impressive reductionsover this periodinclude El Salvador, Ghana, India, Tunisia and Uganda, each with declines in the poverty rate of between three and six per cent a year. Driving these overall reductions in poverty was the rebound in growth that began for most of the countries in the mid-1990s. The median GDP growth rate for the 14 countries was 2.4 per cent a year between 1996 and 2003.Numerous other country studies show the power of growth in reducing poverty: China alone has lifted over 450 million people out of poverty since 1979. Evidence shows thatrapid economic growthbetween 1985 and 2001was crucial to this enormous reduction in poverty.3 India has seen significant falls in poverty since the 1980s, rates that accelerated into the 1990s. This has been strongly related to Indias impressive growth record over this period.4 Mozambique illustrates the rapid reduction in poverty associated with growth over a shorter period. Between 1996 and 2002, the economy grew by 62 per cent and the proportion of people living in poverty declined from 69 per cent to 54 per cent.Economic growth generates job opportunitiesand hence stronger demand for labour, the main and often the sole asset of the poor. In turn, increasing employment[which] has been crucial in delivering higher growth.Strong growth in the global economy over the past 10 years means that the majority of the worlds working-age population is now in employment. At the same time, in every region of the world and particularly inAfrica,youth unemployment is a major issue. This is reflected in higher than average unemployment rates:young people make up 25 per cent of the working population worldwide but 47 per cent of the unemployed. Nevertheless, since the early 1990s, global employment has risen by over 400 million. While China and India account for most of this increase, almost all of the new jobs have been created in developing countries.Real wages for low-skilled jobs have increased with GDP growth worldwide, which indicates that the poorest workers have benefitedfrom the increase in global trade and growth.12 Fears that greater global integration and ever more footloose international investors would push down wages have proved to be unfounded. Indeed, evidence on foreign direct investment suggests that firms are attracted to countries with higher, not lower, labour standards.AdditionallyGlobal warming is real and anthropogenic: scientific data supportsKaku 11 Michio Kaku, co-creator of string field theory, a branch of string theory. He received a B.S. (summa cum laude) from Harvard University in 1968 where he came first in his physics class. He went on to the Berkeley Radiation Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley and received a Ph.D. in 1972. In 1973, he held a lectureship at Princeton University. Michio continues Einsteins search for a Theory of Everything, seeking to unify the four fundamental forces of the universethe strong force, the weak force, gravity and electromagnetism. He is the author of several scholarly, Ph.D. level textbooks and has had more than 70 articles published in physics journals, covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics. Professor of Physics He holds the Henry Semat Chair and Professorship in theoretical physics at the City College of New York, where he has taught for over 25 years. He has also been a visiting professor at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, as well as New York University (NYU). Physics of the Future http://213.55.83.52/ebooks/physics/Physics%20of%20the%20Future.pdf Accessed 6/26/12 BJMBy midcentury, the full impact of a fossil fuel economy should be in full swing: global warming. It is now indisputable that the earth is heating up. Within the last century, the earths temperature rose 1.3 F, and the pace is accelerating. The signs are unmistakable everywhere we look: The thickness of Arctic ice has decreased by an astonishing 50 percent in just the past fifty years. Much of this Arctic ice is just below the freezing point, floating on water. Hence, it is acutely sensitive to small temperature variations of the oceans, acting as a canary in a mineshaft, an early warning system. Today, parts of the northern polar ice caps disappear during the summer months, and may disappear entirely during summer as early as 2015. The polar ice cap may vanish permanently by the end of the century, disrupting the worlds weather by altering the flow of ocean and air currents around the planet. Greenlands ice shelves shrank by twenty-four square miles in 2007. This figure jumped to seventy-one square miles in 2008. (If all the Greenland ice were somehow to melt, sea levels would rise about twenty feet around the world.) Large chunks of Antarcticas ice, which have been stable for tens of thousands of years, are gradually breaking off. In 2000, a piece the size of Connecticut broke off, containing 4,200 square miles of ice. In 2002, a piece of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaites Glacier. (If all Antarcticas ice were to melt, sea levels would rise about 180 feet around the world.) For every vertical foot that the ocean rises, the horizontal spread of the ocean is about 100 feet. Already, sea levels have risen 8 inches in the past century, mainly caused by the expansion of seawater as it heats up. According to the United Nations, sea levels could rise by 7 to 23 inches by 2100. Some scientists have said that the UN report was too cautious in interpreting the data. According to scientists at the University of Colorados Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, by 2100 sea levels could rise by 3 to 6 feet. So gradually the map of the earths coastlines will change. Temperatures started to be reliably recorded in the late 1700s; 1995, 2005, and 2010 ranked among the hottest years ever recorded; 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade. Likewise, levels of carbon dioxide are rising dramatically. They are at the highest levels in 100,000 years. As the earth heats up, tropical diseases are gradually migrating northward. The recent spread of the West Nile virus carried by mosquitoes may be a harbinger of things to come. UN officials are especially concerned about the spread of malaria northward. Usually, the eggs of many harmful insects die every winter when the soil freezes. But with the shortening of the winter season, it means the inexorable spread of dangerous insects northward. According to the UNs Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, scientists have concluded with 90 percent confidence that global warming is driven by human activity, especially the production of carbon dioxide via the burning of oil and coal. Sunlight easily passes through carbon dioxide. But as sunlight heats up the earth, it creates infrared radiation, which does not pass back through carbon dioxide so easily. The energy from sunlight cannot escape back into space and is trapped. We also see a somewhat similar effect in greenhouses or cars. The sunlight warms the air, which is prevented from escaping by the glass. Ominously, the amount of carbon dioxide generated has grown explosively, especially in the last century. Before the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide content of the air was 270 parts per million (ppm). Today, it has soared to 387 ppm. (In 1900, the world consumed 150 million barrels of oil. In 2000, it jumped to 28 billion barrels, a 185-fold jump. In 2008, 9.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide were sent into the air from fossil fuel burning and also deforestation, but only 5 billion tons were recycled into the oceans, soil, and vegetation. The remainder will stay in the air for decades to come, heating up the earth.) VISIT TO ICELAND The rise in temperature is not a fluke, as we can see by analyzing ice cores. By drilling deep into the ancient ice of the Arctic, scientists have been able to extract air bubbles that are thousands of years old. By chemically analyzing the air in these bubbles, scientists can reconstruct the temperature and carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere going back more than 600,000 years. Soon, they will be able to determine the weather conditions going back a million years. I had a chance to see this firsthand. I once gave a lecture in Reykjavik, the capital of Iceland, and had the privilege of visiting the University of Iceland, where ice cores are being analyzed. When your airplane lands in Reykjavik, at first all you see is snow and jagged rock, resembling the bleak landscape of the moon. Although barren and forbidding, the terrain makes the Arctic an ideal place to analyze the climate of the earth hundreds of thousands of years ago. When I visited their laboratory, which is kept at freezing temperatures, I had to pass through thick refrigerator doors. Once inside, I could see racks and racks containing long metal tubes, each about an inch and a half in diameter and about ten feet long. Each hollow tube had been drilled deep into the ice of a glacier. As the tube penetrated the ice, it captured samples from snows that had fallen thousands of years ago. When the tubes were removed, I could carefully examine the icy contents of each. At first, all I could see was a long column of white ice. But upon closer examination, I could see that the ice had stripes made of tiny bands of different colors. Scientists have to use a variety of techniques to date them. Some of the ice layers contain markers indicating important events, such as the soot emitted from a volcanic eruption. Since the dates of these eruptions are known to great accuracy, one can use them to determine how old that layer is. These ice cores were then cut in various slices so they could be examined. When I peered into one slice under a microscope, I saw tiny, microscopic bubbles. I shuddered to realize that I was seeing air bubbles that were deposited tens of thousands of years ago, even before the rise of human civilization. The carbon dioxide content within each air bubble is easily measured. But calculating the temperature of the air when the ice was first deposited is more difficult. (To do this, scientists analyze the water in the bubble. Water molecules can contain different isotopes. As the temperature falls, heavier water isotopes condense faster than ordinary water molecules. Hence, by measuring the amount of the heavier isotopes, one can calculate the temperature at which the water molecule condensed.) Finally, after painfully analyzing the contents of thousands of ice cores, these scientists have come to some important conclusions. They found that temperature and carbon dioxide levels have oscillated in parallel, like two roller coasters moving together, in synchronization over many thousands of years. When one curve rises or falls, so does the other. Most important, they [scientists] found a sudden spike in temperature and carbon dioxide content happening just within the last century. This is highly unusual, since most fluctuations occur slowly over millennia. This unusual spike is not part of this natural heating process, scientists claim, but is a direct indicator of human activity. There are other ways to show that this sudden spike is caused by human activity, and not natural cycles. Computer simulations are now so advanced that we can simulate the temperature of the earth with and without the presence of human activity. Without civilization producing carbon dioxide, we find a relatively flat temperature curve. But with the addition of human activity, we can show that there should be a sudden spike in both temperature and carbon dioxide. The predicted spike fits the actual spike perfectly. Lastly, one can measure the amount of sunlight that lands on every square foot of the earths surface. Scientists can also calculate the amount of heat that is reflected into outer space from the earth. Normally, we expect these two amounts to be equal, with input equaling output. But in reality, we find the net amount of energy that is currently heating the earth. Then if we calculate the amount of energy being produced by human activity, we find a perfect match. Hence, human activity is causing the current heating of the earth. Unfortunately, even if we were to suddenly stop producing any carbon dioxide, the gas that has already been released into the atmosphere is enough to continue global warming for decades to come. As a result, by midcentury, the situation could be dire. Scientists have created pictures of what our coastal cities will look like at midcentury and beyond if sea levels continue to rise. Coastal cities may disappear. Large parts of Manhattan may have to be evacuated, with Wall Street underwater. Governments will have to decide which of their great cities and capitals are worth saving and which are beyond hope. Some cities may be saved via a combination of sophisticated dikes and water gates. Other cities may be deemed hopeless and allowed to vanish under the ocean, creating mass migrations of people. Since most of the commercial and population centers of the world are next to the ocean, this could have a disastrous effect on the world economy. Even if some cities can be salvaged, there is still the danger that large storms can send surges of water into a city, paralyzing its infrastructure. For example, in 1992 a huge storm surge flooded Manhattan, paralyzing the subway system and trains to New Jersey. With transportation flooded, the economy grinds to a halt. FLOODING BANGLADESH AND VIETNAM A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change isolated three hot spots for potential disaster: Bangladesh, the Mekong Delta of Vietnam, and the Nile Delta in Egypt. The worst situation is that of Bangladesh, a country regularly flooded by storms even without global warming. Most of the country is flat and at sea level. Although it has made significant gains in the last few decades, it is still one of the poorest nations on earth, with one of the highest population densities. (It has a population of 161 million, comparable to that of Russia, but with 1/120 of the land area.) About 50 percent of the land area will be permanently flooded if sea levels rise by three feet. Natural calamities occur there almost every year, but in September 1998, the world witnessed in horror a preview of what may become commonplace. Massive flooding submerged two-thirds of the nation, leaving 30 million people homeless almost overnight; 1,000 were killed, and 6,000 miles of roads were destroyed. This was one of the worst natural disasters in modern history. Another country that would be devastated by a rise in sea level is Vietnam, where the Mekong Delta is particularly vulnerable. By midcentury, this country of 87 million people could face a collapse of its main food-growing area. Half the rice in Vietnam is grown in the Mekong Delta, home to 17 million people, and much of it will be flooded permanently by rising sea levels. According to the World Bank, 11 percent of the entire population would be displaced if sea levels rise by three feet by midcentury. The Mekong Delta will also be flooded with salt water, permanently destroying the fertile soil of the area. If millions are flooded out of their homes in Vietnam, many will flock to Ho Chi Minh City seeking refuge. But one-fourth of the city will also be underwater. In 2003 the Pentagon commissioned a study, done by the Global Business Network, that showed that, in a worst-case scenario, chaos could spread around the world due to global warming. As millions of refugees cross national borders, governments could lose all authority and collapse, so countries could descend into the nightmare of looting, rioting, and chaos. In this desperate situation, nations, when faced with the prospect of the influx of millions of desperate people, may resort to nuclear weapons. Envision Pakistan, India, and Chinaall armed with nuclear weaponsskirmishing at their borders over refugees, access to shared rivers, and arable land, the report said. Peter Schwartz, founder of the Global Business Network and a principal author of the Pentagon study, confided to me the details of this scenario. He told me that the biggest hot spot would be the border between India and Bangladesh. In a major crisis in Bangladesh, up to 160 million people could be driven out of their homes, sparking one of the greatest migrations in human history. Tensions could rapidly rise as borders collapse, local governments are paralyzed, and mass rioting breaks out. Schwartz sees that nations may use nuclear weapons as a last resort. In a worst-case scenario, we could have a greenhouse effect that feeds on itself. For example, the melting of the tundra in the Arctic regions may release millions of tons of methane gas from rotting vegetation. Tundra covers nearly 9 million square miles of land in the Northern Hemisphere, containing vegetation frozen since the last Ice Age tens of thousands of years ago. This tundra contains more carbon dioxide and methane than the atmosphere, and this poses an enormous threat to the worlds weather. Methane gas, moreover, is a much deadlier greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. It does not stay in the atmosphere as long, but it causes much more damage than carbon dioxide. The release of so much methane gas from the melting tundra could cause temperatures to rapidly rise, which will cause even more methane gas to be released, causing a runaway cycle of global warming.

Underview1. Presume aff to overcome the structural time skew. I debated better if the flow comes out even. Second, the neg is reactive so they can choose a strategy while I have to read in the dark so they can adapt to my decisions. 2. Prefer aff definitions because the affirmative must establish a framework, whereas the negative can adapt to definitions advanced by the aff; skews strat toward the negative because they can run definitions they know will preclude the AC. 3. Neg must defend the status quo or else they nullify 6 minutes of offensethe 1AC pertains to the status quodefending an alt moots my constructive. This outweighs any claim to fairnessthey have twice as much rebuttal time as me, the 1AC is uniquely key to rectify this bias. This also means presume AFF to overcome structural skews I did the better debating if the flow comes out even4. Only Aff RVIs on T/Theory. A) Strat skew- NC theory is A priority and renders the 1ac useless. They get 6 minutes to respond to a 4 minute 1ar. The neg doesnt need an RVI because they have twice the rebuttal time. B) Discourages bad theory because debaters wont run it frivolously if they know they can lose on it. C) No-risk issues hurt education because they provide competitive incentive to kick the shell instead of clashing.5. Ask if I will meet your interp in cx; this avoids unnecessary theory- we can work something out which allows for substantive debate. Grant me an auto I meet on theory if the interp isnt checked in cross-ex to discourage nonchecking