***Only Environmental Case Neg***

File Notes
File completed by the following hard working students: Sammy, Vinny, Tori, Lailay, Maki, Christie, Rahi, Maddie, and Brandon aka Chris This file is used as a hodge-podge of answers to Environmental advantages. We did not do a lot of unique warming work since there are already several waves of climate work done by other labs; however, we did do some Warming Rhetoric K work so there is some specific analysis against warming advantages. The aff answers to this K are in the 7Wk Apocalyptic Rhetoric Aff so we did not cut additional answers here.

**Animal Rights**

Kills Human Rights

Animal rights destroy human rights-devalues mentally ill, blind, disabled Baughan 09 Loretta-Animal Rights is Wrong,-the founder, editor and publisher of Spaniel Journal. Award winning professional
photographer, webdesigner, owner of Autumnsge, LLC. Loretta is a member of the Dog Federation of Wisconsin, the National Rifle Association and is the Wisconsin contact for the Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance. She resides in northern Wisconsin, with her husband, Steve, and their three children. Published by Spaniel Journal (file:///C:/Users/Maddie/Documents/Animal%20Rights%20is%20Wrong%20by%20Loretta%20Baughan.htm) MK Some fanatic animal rights believers advocate for "non-human" animals to be granted "personhood" and legal rights enabling individuals and

In reality, it is human life they wish to devalue, lowering us to a status equal with - or less than - animals. 'Animal rights promotes the idea that people should have no more rights than animals. As PETA cofounder and national director Ingrid Newkirk puts it, "I don 't believe human beings have the 'right to life'. That's a supremacist perversion. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. " --AnimalScam by Kathleen Marquardt, Herbert M. Levine and Mark LaRochelle, pg. 5 (1993) '34 chimpanzee, dog, or pig, for instance, will have a higher degree of selfawareness and a greater capacity for meaningful relations with others than a severely retarded infant or someone in a state of advanced senility. So if we base the right to life on these characteristics we must grant these animals a right to life as good as, or better than, such retarded or senile humans. " -quoting Peter Singer in The Animal Rights, Environmental Ethics Debate by Eugene C. Hargrove (1992), pg 20 "The animal rights movement would allow people no more rights than rats or cockroaches. The real agenda of this movement is not to give rights to animals, but to take rights from people - to dictate our food, clothing, work, recreation, and whether we will discover new medicines or die. Animal rights pose an extraordinary threat to our health, freedom, and even our lives. " < --AnimalScam by Kathleen Marquardt, Herbert M. Levine and Mark LaRochelle (1993), pg 6 The concept and doctrine of "animal rights" is far from mainstream. It is radical belief. It is un-American. It is dangerous. You don't have to
groups to take owners to court on behalf of their animal. take my word for it because I have included a multitude of published quotes right from the horses' mouths... the leaders and founders of the animal rights movement, as well as a few well-versed experts. Their words are disturbing and, at the same time, revealing. Please read them carefully. These people are committed to their cause, are extremely well-funded a have well established connections in all levels of government Their word should be a wake-up call for those who support any animal rights organization - financially or otherwise. "If

we are serious about animal rights, we have a responsibility to stop bringing them into existence for our purposes. We would stop bringing all domestic animals into existence for human purposes. " --Gary L.
Francione, Professor of Law, Rutgers University School of Law, when asked if he supports the use of dogs to assist the blind and disabled in An Interview with Professor Gary L. Francione on the State of the U.S. Animal Rights Movement, Friends of Animals, published on The Animal Spirit website. nd s Our "one nation, under God, with liberty and justice for all" is quickly becoming a land of intolerance as these and other special interest groups seek to gain the power of the law to advance their fanatic agendas at the expense of liberty and justice.

These radical animal rights groups believe that they should dictate to the rest of us how to live; what we can and can't do. Their demented goal is to create an utopian society where people cannot eat meat, eggs or dairy... cannot wear leather, fur or wool... cannot enjoy aquariums, zoos, circuses, rodeos, dog or horse races, field trials, hunt tests or dog shows... cannot hunt, trap or fish... cannot own, use or breed any animals... where advances in medicine are stiffled and a place where guide dogs for the blind and service animals for the disabled are forbidden. These animal rightists have no respect for other peoples' freedom to decide
these things for themselves... no respect for the US Constitution. Just intolerance. That's not the America I believe in and that our founding fathers sacrificed so much to establish and preserve. Tell everyone you know that animal rights is wrong.

The isolation and concealment of disabled bodies deems them worthless and strips them of all human value Snyder and Mitchell 01 (Sharon, Assistant Professor in the Department of Disability and Human Development at the University
of Illinois at Chicago, David, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of Disability and Human Development at the University of Illinois at Chicago, Re-engaging the Body: Disability Studies and the Resistance to Embodiment, Public Culture, Vol. 13 No. 3, Fall, Project Muse)

We begin with Byrons The Deformed Transformed as an allegory for the efforts of U.S. disability studies first to disengage from, and then to reengage with, disabled bodies. In the drama, rejection of the apparently visceral life of disability for the evidently social ideal of a classical and able body encapsulates the double bind that confronts those

who inhabit disabled bodies: one must either endure the cultural slander heaped upon bodily difference or seek to evade the object of derision. Such erasures of disabled people have historically been achieved through such cultural solutions as institutionalization, isolation, genocide, cure, concealment, segregation, exile, quarantine, and prosthetic masking, among others. As a theatrical effort to destigmatize the disabled body, Byrons playmuch like research in disability studies over the past twenty yearsaims to debunk the fictions of desirability that invest the able body. In critiquing the presumed
desirability invested in able bodies, disability studies has sought to destigmatize disabled bodies only by default. In the mid-1990s, U.S. disability studies returned to encounter the sloughed-off disabled body after

the perfectible, able body had been rethought as a matter of epistemology, as opposed to biology. We argue that disability studies has strategically neglected the question of the
experience of disabled embodiment in order to disassociate disability from its mooring in medical cultures and institutions. Although recently disability criticism has been calling for a return to a phenomenology of the disabled body,3 this return has been slow in coming. Like feminized, raced, and queered bodies, the disabled body became situated in definitive contrast to the articulation of what amounted to a hegemonic aesthetic premised on biology. Within

this cultural belief system, the normal body provided the baseline for determinations of desirability and human value.

Animal rights unethical, inhumane, and unnecessary-justifies Auschwitz Schmahmann and Polacheck 95 - *partner in the firm of Nutter, McLennan and & Fish. **associate in the firm of Nutter,
Mclennan and Fist (David Schmahmann and Lori J. Polacheck: 22 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 747) LexisNexis (http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/) MK In pressing the boundaries of existing statutory and common law, proponents of radical change in the way humans interact with animals seek to have our institutions take an unprecedented step: to endow animals with legal rights. n1 What this means -- what "rights" for animals unavoidably entails as a matter of constitutional and civil law -- raises issues that go to the core of our assumptions about ourselves and about the nature, aims, and limits of our institutions. The term "animal rights" poses vexing definitional issues, and these issues are complicated by the imprecision with which the term is so often used. Many

people loosely associate "animal rights" with the idea that people have a moral, legal, or custodial duty to treat animals humanely. Such a gloss allows the notion of
rights for animals to appear mainstream and to elicit support across a broad spectrum. Peter Singer, who first articulated the ethical basis upon which much of the contemporary animal rights movement rests, prefers to avoid the use of the word "rights" altogether. "The language of rights is a convenient political shorthand[,]" Singer wrote in his seminal book, [*748] Animal Liberation. n2 "It is even more valuable in the era of thirty-second TV news clips than it was in [Jeremy] Bentham's day;

but in the argument for a radical change in our

attitude to animals, it is in no way necessary."

Lawyers, however, in analyzing issues of animal "liberation" (Singer's preferred term), often find "rights language" indispensable. In an article advocating rights for natural objects, Professor Christopher Stone articulates his common understanding of the meaning of "rights" in this context. n4 Professor Stone argues that animals should be "holders of legal rights" and that an entity cannot be said to hold legal rights unless a public authoritative body is prepared to review conduct inconsistent with those rights. n5 Further, each of the following three additional criteria must be satisfied: "[F]irst, that the thing can institute legal actions at its behest; second, that in determining the granting of legal relief, the court must take injury to it into account; and, third, that relief must run

n3

to the benefit of it." n6 Radical

changes in our legal institutions would be necessary if animals were to be "holders of legal rights" as so defined. Proponents of animal rights strongly advocate just such changes and an outcome in which
our legal institutions would serve the perceived interests of animals as readily as legal institutions presently serve human interests. As one commentator has explained: Time and time again, without exception, animals are denied the independent jural standing they deserve and are, instead, systematically treated as if they deserve the law's attention or [protection] only if some human interest is harmed or benefited -- for example, our interests in property, or our recreational or aesthetic interests. Thus does existing law continue to foster the no longer tenable moral belief that all our duties to animals are indirect duties. In doing so, the law continues to perpetuate a system that is, in this respect, unjust to the core. For

the justice of how animals are treated by us must be fixed by how they are benefited or harmed, not by whether we care about this. n7 [*749] To facilitate the idea of animals as "jural persons" n8 and to shift the focus to the harm or benefits to animals, numerous commentators -- and some lawyers in cases in litigation -- have recommended the creation of guardianships for animals. n9 Some people have also
advocated a shift in the focus of legal proceedings from the impact on humans to the impact on animals. n10 This Article explores the issue of legal rights for animals. Section II provides a brief overview of the foundations of animal rights theory. Section III discusses some of the

critical flaws in the arguments animal rights advocates make in opposition to the use of animals in medical research. Section IV identifies ways in which the concept of legal rights for animals would threaten the delicate balance of power between government and individuals. Section V summarizes the existing laws that govern
our treatment of animals and shows that such laws fail to recognize legal rights for animals in the sense dicussed above. Finally, Section VI

explains how the doctrine of standing helps to insure that our court system does not become a forum for interspecies disputes. It

is our thesis that it would be both implausible and dangerous to give or attribute legal rights to animals because such extension of legal rights would have serious, detrimental impacts on human rights and freedoms. This Article is not, however, aimed at those who urge that we interact with animal life in ways that are humane, esthetic, and
environmentally sound. Nor is this Article aimed at those who worry that society's present ways of producing food and conducting research may be wasteful and disruptive of nature's balance. Instead, this Article is aimed at those who believe that every individual animal, in itself, possesses certain rights which, when violated, give rise to claims that may be pursued legally at the animal's "behest" and for relief running to the animal's "benefit." [*750] II. AN OVERVIEW OF ANIMAL RIGHTS THEORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS The entire edifice of animal rights theory, it seems, rests on the notion that animals, if mistreated, suffer as do humans: Animal

rights are built upon a misconceived premise that rights were created to prevent us from unnecessary suffering. You can't find an animal rights book,
video, pamphlet, or rock concert in which someone doesn't mention the Great Sentence, written by Jeremy Bentham in 1789. Arguing in favor of such rights Bentham wrote "The question is not can they reason? nor, can they talk? but, can they suffer?" The logic of the animal rights movement places suffering at the iconographic center of a skewed value system. n11 Whether or not animals suffer, however, only begins the analysis. As interesting as it is to dwell on the relative capacities for suffering of various species n12 and the possibility that some animals may suffer less under human control than when left alone, n13 the

ability to suffer cannot, standing alone, be the sole tool with which access to legal rights and remedies is analyzed. n14 While the capacity for suffering may be a common denominator of humans and animals, and is easily polemicized, legal rights have their origins in and are intertwined with a multitude of complex and subtle concepts that may include, but are in no means limited to, suffering. n15 Perhaps because the common view of the moral and legal status of animals is based on a bright line separating animals from
people, animal rights activists are preoccupied with the similarities between animals and people. Some animal rights theorists contend that at least some animals have the capacity for reasoning, language, and self-consciousness [*751] and therefore can and should be holders of legal rights. n16 Professor Tom Regan argues that because animals are "the experiencing subjects of a life" and may directly be benefited and harmed by human acts and conduct, people owe direct moral duties to animals which translate into animal rights. n17 Yet,

the differences between humans and animals cannot be ignored, and those differences have made possible all of civilized life.
Furthermore, while there are as many formulations of what makes humans "human" as there are philosophers who have considered the subject, n18 it is a central feature of animal rights theory -- and its major danger -- to dismiss as high sounding rhetoric any attempt to catalog those features that do indeed distinguish humans from animals. In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer deftly attempts to discount rebuttals to his central thesis that "I have and know of nothing which enables me to say, a priori, that a human life of any quality, however low, is more valuable than an animal life of any quality, however high." n19 Singer writes that "[t]o introduce ideas of dignity and worth as a substitute for other reasons for distinguishing humans and animals is not good enough. Fine phrases are the last resource of those who have run out of arguments." n20 Even relatively moderate commentators like Andrew Rowan concede the battleground on this point: The various criteria mentioned above [rationality, linguistic ability, the human soul, a God-granted

dominion over animals, or the fact that humans are unique in being moral agents as well as objects of moral concern] which have been proposed as
conferring a unique moral status on humans have all been strongly challenged [*752] in the last decade. In most cases, I believe, they have been found deficient. n21 Singer is right, of course, that once one dismisses Hebrew thought; n22 the teachings of Jesus; n23 the views of St. Aquinas, St. Francis, Renaissance writers, and Darwin; n24 and an entire "ideology whose history we have traced back to the Bible and the ancient Greeks" n25 -- in short, once one dismisses innate human characteristics, the ability to express reason, to recognize moral principles, to make subtle distinctions, and to intellectualize -- there is no way to support the view that humans possess rights but animals do not. In the end, however, it is the aggregate of these characteristics that does render humans fundamentally, importantly, and unbridgeably different from animals, even though it is also beyond question that in individual instances -- for example, in the case of vegetative individuals -- some animals may indeed have higher cognitive skills than some humans. To argue on that basis alone, however, that human institutions are morally flawed because they rest on assumptions regarding the aggregate of human abilities, needs, and actions is to deny such institutions the capacity to draw any distinctions at all. Consider

the consequences of a theory which does not distinguish between animal life and human life for purposes of identifying and enforcing legal rights. Every individual member of every species would have recognized claims against human beings and the state, and perhaps other animals as well. As the concept of rights expanded to include the "claims" of all living creatures, the concept would lose much of its force, and human rights would suffer as a consequence. Long before Singer wrote Animal Liberation, one philosopher wrote: If it is once observed that there is no difference in principle between the case of dogs, cats, or horses, or stags, foxes, and hares, and that of tsetse-flies or tapeworms or the bacteria in our own blood-stream, the conclusion likely to be drawn is that there is so much wrong that we cannot help doing to the brute creation that it is best not to trouble ourselves about it any more at all. The ultimate sufferers are likely to be our fellow men, because the final conclusion is likely to be, not that we ought to treat the [*753] brutes like human beings, but that there is no good reason why we should not treat human beings like brutes. Extension of this principle leads straight to Belsen and Buchenwald, Dachau and

Auschwitz, where the German and the Jew or Pole only took the place of the human being and the Colorado beetle. n26 To some extent, it is a challenge to the value of civilization to dismiss the Judeo-Christian ethic as anthropocentric or
speciesist n27 and thus deficient, and to minimize the significance of the capacity to express reason, to recognize moral principles, and to plan for ordered coexistence in a complex technological society. "The core of this book," Singer writes in Animal Liberation, "is the claim that to discriminate against beings solely on account of their species is a form of prejudice, immoral and indefensible in the same way that discrimination on the basis of race is immoral and indefensible." n28Such an equation, however, allows Ingrid Newkirk, founder of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), to state that "[s]ix million Jews died in concentration camps, but six billion broiler chickens will die this year in slaughter houses." n29 The only "pure" human being, Newkirk has theorized, is a dead one. "[O]nly dead people are true purists, feeding the earth and living beings rather than taking from them. . . . We know it is impossible to breathe without hurting or exploiting." n30 These forms of doctrinaire "animal

rightism" ignore the value that society has placed on human life which enables society to function in an orderly fashion. In effect, the extreme positions of animal rights activists devalue human life and detract from human rights. n31 "The belief that human life, and only human life, is sacrosanct is a form of [*754] speciesism," Singer writes. n32 But if the sacredness of all life is equivalent, what is one to make of animals that kill each other and the often arbitrary nature of life and death and survival of the fittest in the wild? What is one to make of the conflict between the seeming arbitrariness of the killing that takes place in nature and the ethical content of human existence that starts with the certainty that the life of every individual person is uniquely sacred? Sometimes the statements of contemporary radical
environmentalists and animal rights activists display a profound misanthropy. "If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human population back to ecological sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS," writes one author using the pseudonym Miss Ann Thropy. n33 "Seeing no other possibility for the preservation of biological diversity on earth than a drastic decline in the number of humans,

Miss Ann Thropy contends that AIDS is ideal for the task primarily because 'the disease only affects humans' and shows promise for wiping out large numbers of humans." n34 Ingrid Newkirk has commented that even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, PETA would "be against it." n35 The point is that reverence for human life must be both the starting point and the reference point for any ethical philosophy and system of law that does not immediately become unhitched from its moorings in civilization. With respect to animals and their similarities to humans, Singer's dismissal of "fine phrases" notwithstanding, the fact that debate exists about the ethical consequences of such differences is almost distinction enough. It is we -- humans -- who are having the debate, not animals; and it is a unique feature of humankind to recognize ethical subtleties. This ability to recognize gradations and competing interests is what defines the rules that we live by and the system of rights and responsibilities that comprise our legal system. Animals cannot possess rights because animals are in no way a part [*755] of any of these processes . On the other
hand, any duties we may have respecting our treatment of animals derive from the fact that we are part of these processes.

Human Rights 1st

Human welfare should come first-Humanizing animals dehumanizes us Ozboy 11-May 22, 2011,Australian, born and raised in Sydney. geologist, scientist, teacher, musician, storeman, charity worker, designed
software systems currently in use in Australia, New Zealand, South-East Asia, UK and USA. (http://libertygibbert.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/animal-welfare-a-good-cause-gone-bad/) MK

I definitely do draw a philosophical distinction between humans and animals, even the higher ones; to regard humans as merely one more species of animal is to cascade a string of contradictions; far from elevating animals, it de-humanizes usliterally. The reductio ad absurdum of this line of
I guess I must be a speciesist, because thinking was (almost) reached in 2008, when the European Court of Human Rights rejected an appeal on behalf of one Matthew Haisl Pan, to grant him a court-appointed guardian and accord basic rights such as life, freedom of movement and welfare. The appellant, being unable to read, write or even speak, and with no prospect of ever being able to do so (Mr Pan being, in fact, a chimpanzee), belonged to an animal shelter

That hasnt stopped efforts by activists to have him legally declared a human (he now Wouldnt it be simpler to have the activists declared to be chimps? In the end, animal welfare is important, but human welfare is even more important. A few examples will serve to illustrate: It is not cruel when I quickly and humanely end the life of pests that threaten my crops. In fact, Im licensed to do so, although I have gone to great lengths (electric fences and so on) to ensure that these days it almost never comes to that. I also have no compunctions about blasting away any copperhead or tiger snakes I see in my backyard during their breeding season; frankly, my familys safety is more important to me than the lives of any animals, no matter how endangered (these arent). When I come across them in the bush, however, I leave them be; after all, theyre not hurting me, and theyre great at keeping down vermin. Funny though, for all the good snakes do out in the environment, somehow you never see ALF or PETA on the warpath for their welfare. I guess its the misfortune of snakes not to be as cute and cuddly as baby fur seals or orangutans, and to be demonized (literally) in the Bible: the Jews of the animal kingdom. Nor is it cruel to raise animals for food, although I believe it is a moral imperative to raise those animals in as close to a natural environment as is safe for them; give them a really good life; and when the time comes for them to be slaughtered, it is done quickly, painlessly and without their knowing that death is imminent. Believe me, meat definitely tastes better this way. I realise
in Austria facing bankruptcy. has his own Facebook page - so I guess its official). this sounds like it pertains only to organically raised meat, but even on industrial-scale production, it remains a guiding principle. Ive always been impressed by the work of the cow whisperer, autistic savant Dr. Temple Grandin, in re-designing stock marshaling infrastructure in slaughterhouses to reduce animal stress.

Destroys Med Research

Animal medicinal research vital to advances Botting 97 former scientific adviser to the Research Defense Society in London (Jack H. Botting: Animal Research is Vital to Medicine)
Published by Scientific American Magazine, February 1997 (http://www.sciamdigital.com/index.cfm?fa=Products.ViewIssuePreview&ISSUEID_CHAR=F1C2CBCD-B61D-4FDF-9F7E9E8CCB2A04A&ARTICLEID_CHAR=02EA00AB-617F-40F7-98ED-D09F652DA20) MK

Experiments using animals have played a crucial role in the development of modern medical treatments, and they will continue to be necessary as researchers seek to alleviate existing ailments and respond to the emergence of new disease. As any medical scientist will readily state, research with animals is but one of several complementary approaches. Some questions, however, can be answered only by animal research. We intend to show exactly where we regard animal research to have been essential in the past and to point to where we think it will be vital in the future. To detail all the progress that relied on animal experimentation would require many times the amount of space allotted to us. Indeed, we cannot think of an area of medical research that does not owe many of its most important advances to animal experiments. In the mid-19th century, most debilitating diseases resulted from
bacterial or viral infections, but at the time, most physicians considered these ailments to be caused by internal derangements of the body.

The proof that such diseases did in fact derive from external microorganisms originated with work done by the French chemist Louis Pasteur and his contemporaries, who studied infectious diseases in domestic animals. Because of his knowledge of how contaminants caused wine and beer to spoil, Pasteur became convinced that
microorganisms were also responsible for diseases such as chicken cholera and anthrax.

**Biodiversity**

No Impact
Extinction claims overstated species will rebound

Economist, 9 - The Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news,
politics, business, finance, science and technology (Second life: Biologists debate the scale of extinction in the worlds
tropical forests, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/node/12926042, January 15, 2009)//TWR

the global extinction crisis may have been overstated. The world is unlikely to lose 100 species a day, or half of all species in the lifetime of people now alive, as some have claimed. The bad news, though, is that the lucky survivors are tiny tropical insects that few people care about. The species that are being lost rapidly are the large vertebrates that conservationists were worried about in the first place. This new view of the prospects for biodiversity emerged from a symposium held this week at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, but the controversy over how bad things really are has been brewing since 2006. That was when Joseph Wright of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama and Helene Muller-Landau of the University of Minnesota first suggested that the damage might not be as grim as some feared. They reasoned that because population growth is slowing in many tropical countries, and people are moving to cities, the pressure to cut down primary rainforest is falling and agriculturally marginal land is being abandoned, allowing trees to grow. This regrown secondary forest is crucial to the pair's analysis. Within a few decades of land being abandoned, half of the original biomass has returned. Depending on what else is nearby, these new forests may then be colonised by animals and additional plants, and thus support many of the species found in the original forest. Dr Wright and Dr Muller-Landau therefore reckon that in 2030 reasonably unbroken tropical forest will still cover more than a third of its natural range, and after that date its areaat least in Latin America and Asiacould increase. Much of this woodland will be
A RARE piece of good news from the world of conservation: secondary forest, but even so they suggest that in Africa only 16-35% of tropical-forest species will become extinct by 2030, in Asia, 21-24% and, in Latin America, fewer still.

Once forest cover does start increasing, the rate of extinction should dwindle.

Loss Inevitable
Biodiversity loss inevitable invasive species, climate change, and pollution affecting 95% of land and 83% of water resources Ly, 11-Epoch Times staff writer. The Epoch Times is a multi-language, international media organization. (Mimi
Nguyen Ly, Global Biodiversity Loss Inevitable With Protected Areas Only, The Epoch Times, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/science/global-biodiversity-loss-inevitable-with-protected-areas-only59685.html, July 28, 2011)//TWR

It is not enough to set aside "protected areas" to prevent global biodiversity loss. This message comes from a comprehensive assessment by North American scientists published today, July 28, in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series. Biodiversity is declining at an alarming rate, despite extensive efforts to increase the number of
protected areas over the past 30 yearsnow more than 100,000, covering 17 million square kilometers of land and 2 million square kilometers

This rate is expected to accelerate due to unsustainable demands on Earths ecological resources from human consumption and population growth. Biodiversity is humanitys life-support system, delivering everything from food, to clean water and air, to recreation and tourism, to novel chemicals that drive our advanced
of ocean. civilization, explains lead author Camilo Mora of Hawaii University at Manoa in a press release. Ongoing losses have prompted strong calls to expand protected areas as a remedy.

"Protected areas are a valuable tool in the fight to preserve biodiversity," Mora says. "We need them to be well managed, and we need more of them, but they alone cannot solve our biodiversity problems." "We need to recognize this limitation promptly and to allocate more time and effort to the complicated issue of human overpopulation and consumption. "Why Protected Areas Are Not Enough The minimum target for effective biodiversity conservation is 30 percent of the worlds ecosystems, but this is simply unachievable at their current growth rate: it will take 185 years for land and 80 years for oceans to reach this target, which is insufficient in the face of rapid climate change, habitat loss, and resource exploitation predicted to cause widespread species extinction before 2050. One limiting factor is funding for effective management of protected areasthe requisite $24 billion a year estimate is four times the current global expenditure. Despite strong support, budget growth is slow and probably will not rise significantly in the near future. Furthermore, even if the 30 percent target were reached, intense conflicts with humanitys needs for housing and food would occur, displacing many people and impairing their livelihoods. A compromise between the two is unlikely to achieve biodiversity preservation. Another problem lies in the inability of protected areas to counteract human stressors on biodiversity. They are most effective against overexploitation and habitat loss. But climate change, pollution, and invasive species continue to cause losses, with 95 percent of land and 83 percent of ocean protected areas are vulnerable. Many
current protected areas are not large enough to sustain viable populations, nor close enough to maintain a healthy exchange of species across protected populations. The study authors affirm that biodiversity loss is unlikely to stop without confronting humanitys ecological footprint. "The international community is faced with a choice between two paths," says fellow author Peter F. Sale, Assistant Director of the United Nations Universitys Canadian-based Institute for Water, Environment and Health, in the release. "One option is to continue a narrow focus on creating more protected areas with little evidence that they curtail biodiversity loss," he added. "That path will fail." "The other path requires that we get serious about addressing the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population."

Biodiversity loss now - inevitable climate change and lack of effective policies
European Commission, 08 (Planning for the inevitable: the impact of climate change on biodiversity, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/116na6.pdf, July 17, 2008)//TWR Many scientific reports suggest that unavoidable changes in climate will happen over the next 40-50 years as a result of past emissions. Areas seen as most vulnerable to climate change include the Mediterranean and southern Europe, mountain
and sub-arctic areas, and densely occupied floodplains and coastal zones. Annual temperatures could increase by 2.0-6.3 degrees centigrade by

Events affecting habitats and biodiversity will include heat waves, droughts, storms and rising sea levels. The
2100. Rainfall could also increase by 1-2 per cent per decade for northern Europe and decrease by 1 per cent in southern Europe.

impact may cause species to move towards the north and an increase in extinction rates. Mitigation remains the key focus of climate change policy, with less attention given to understanding how to adapt to inevitable rising temperatures. The pressures of climate change present a major challenge, not just for biodiversity
policy, but also for land use policy, which affects biodiversity. The EUs 2006 Biodiversity Communication and its Action Plan set an agenda for action to halt the loss of biodiversity by 2010, as agreed in the Gothenburg summit, 2001. However, biodiversity continues to decline under pressure from land use change and development. For example, as water supplies for urban populations shrink, building new infrastructures may place stress on existing ground and surface water systems and the flora and fauna that rely on it. The research 1 reviewed land use plans and policy in three countries: France, the Netherlands and the UK. It looked at their use of natural resources, management of water and coastal zones, plans for designated sites and case studies on urban, rural, inland and coastal sites. The policies were examined for their ability to account for biodiversity adaptation to climate change and to identify ways of integrating spatial planning and biodiversity policy. Spatial planning has a broader sense than land use, in that it accounts for all activities and interests that concern a particular area. The authors found that although dynamic biodiversity is becoming more fully realised in spatial planning policy, existing EU directives such as the Birds Directive (CEC 1979), the Habitats Directive (CEC 1992), and the Natura 2000 network set up to create a network of protected sites, by themselves cannot fully protect landscape features necessary to support biodiversity under a period of prolonged climate change. They recommend climate-proofing plans through the use of Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment. Land use plans should be integrated with the adoption of common objectives, time horizons and boundaries. The study also highlighted the need for more flexible responses to climate change, with stakeholders safeguarding habitats in between protected areas. This would result in more robust conservation planning across whole landscapes, reducing fragmentation of sites and creating corridors and networks for wildlife. International cooperation was also found to be critical, as wildlife moves across national boundaries. Integration with agriculture, transport and water

Barriers to putting a fully effective policy in place include: planning time-scales that are too short, a lack of consensus on intervention measures, uncertainty on the actual impact of climate change impacts, conflicts of interest and public opinion which is sensitive to change, especially in treasured landscapes.
sectors would also lead to a better capacity to adapt to climate change.

Invasive Species Solve

Invasive species fill niches in environments and restores native environments Science Daily, 11- Science Daily is a news website for topical science articles. It features articles on a wide
variety of science topics including: astronomy, exoplanets, computer science, nanotechnology, medicine, psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, geology, climate, space, physics, mathematics, chemistry, archeology, paleontology, and others. (Invasive Plants Can Create Positive Ecological Change, Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110211095555.htm, Feb. 14, 2011)//TWR
A team of scientists has discovered that

human-introduced, invasive species of plants can have positive ecological

effects. Toms Carlo, an assistant professor of biology at Penn State University, and Jason Gleditsch, a graduate student in the Department
of Biology, have studied how invasive fruiting plants affect ecosystems and how those effects, contrary to prevailing ideas, sometimes can be beneficial to an ecological community. The team's research, which will be published in the journal Diversity and Distributions, is expected to

"Among conservation biologists, ecologists, and managers, the default approach is to try to eliminate and root out non-native, invasive shrubs -- anything that seems to change an ecosystem," Carlo said. "The fundamental goal is to return a natural area to its original, pristine state, with the native species occupying the dominant position in the community. But the problem is that most native communities already have been changed beyond recognition by humans, and many native species are now rare." Carlo explained that his team wanted to test whether certain well-established, invasive fruiting species have negative or positive effects on bird and fruiting-plant communities. "We wondered: Are we sometimes doing more harm than good when we eradicate plants that, despite being introduced recently, have formed positive relationships with native animals?" To be considered invasive, a species of plant must have been introduced by humans, and it
affect the way environmental resource managers respond to ecosystem maintenance. must be dominant numerically in the new environment. To test the impact of an invasive fruiting-plant species on native bird communities, Carlo and Gleditsch sectioned off an area of central Pennsylvania known as the Happy Valley region, where honeysuckle -- a non-native fruiting plant that is considered invasive -- grows in abundance. They then assessed the abundance of bird species and fruiting plants -- including honeysuckle -- within the area. After comparing their data with similar data from urban, agricultural, and forested areas, they determined that the abundance of honeysuckle predicted the numbers and diversity of birds within the region and even beyond the region. That is, the honeysuckle and bird communities had formed a relationship known as mutualism -- a term that describes how two or more species interact by benefiting mutually from each other's existence. "The abundance of fruit-eating birds in the Happy Valley region is linked to the abundance of honeysuckle," Carlo explained. "Honeysuckle comprises more than half of all the fruits available in the landscape, and it benefits birds by providing them with a source of food in the fall. Meanwhile, birds benefit honeysuckle by dispersing the plant's seeds across a wider geographical area, helping the species to occupy more and more territory in areas already affected by human activities." Carlo explained that returning this particular ecosystem to its honeysuckle-free state could harm many species of native birds that now seem to rely on honeysuckle as a major food source in the fall. The team also tested the honeysuckle's influence, not just on birds, but on other species of fruiting plants. First, they grew native fruiting plants known as American nightshades in pots in a greenhouse. When the fruits were ripe on each plant, they then placed them into both honeysuckle-dense areas and areas area without honeysuckle but dominated by other native and non-native fruiting species. "We chose the American nightshade because it is native and common in the Happy Valley region," Carlo said. "Also, it is easy to manipulate experimentally, and its fruits are eaten -- and thus dispersed -- by native birds." In the area in which honeysuckle grew in abundance, the rate of fruit-removal of Carlo's American nightshades was 30-percent higher than in the areas without honeysuckle. Carlo explained that in the honeysuckle-rich area, birds were present in abundance. These birds allowed the nightshades to receive more seed-dispersal services -- an ecological process known as facilitation. "The newly introduced plants piggybacked on the success of the honeysuckle, which is a common phenomenon because fruit-eating birds usually feed on a variety of fruit -- whatever happens to be available to them," Carlo explained. "The same birds that ate the honeysuckle also ate the American nightshade, dispersing the seeds of both plants. It's a win-win-win for all three: the birds, the honeysuckle, and the nightshades." Carlo also explained that in Pennsylvania there are now three to four times more fruit-eating birds such as robins and catbirds than there were just 30 years ago, especially in landscapes of high human presence. So scientists should conclude that, while some invasive, human-introduced plants are definitely problematic, others could serve to restore ecological balance by providing essential food resources to native migratory birds that populate areas affected by humans.

"Invasive species could fill niches in degraded ecosystems and help restore native biodiversity in an inexpensive and self-organized way that requires little or no human intervention," Carlo said. In addition, Carlo explained, while eliminating an invasive species could result in harm to the newly formed balance of an ecosystem, large-scale attempts to remove species also could be a waste of time and tax dollars. He explained that when managers and agencies attempt to eradicate an invasive plant from a particular ecosystem, the species often ends up growing back anyway. "Nature is in a constant state of flux, always
shifting and readjusting as new relationships form between species, and not all of these relationships are bad just because they are novel or created by humans," Carlo said.

"We need to be more careful about shooting first and asking questions later --

assuming that introduced species are inherently harmful. We should be asking: Are we responding to real threats to
nature or to our cultural perception and scientific bias?" Support for this research is provided by the Penn State Department of Biology and the Penn State Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences.

No Salmon Impact
Biodiversity loss does not affect sock eye salmon-quick ability to evolve Levine and Shiewe, 01-American Scientist is a bimonthly science and technology magazine
published since 1913 by Sigma Xi. Each issue includes four to five feature articles written by scientists and engineers. These authors review research in all fields of science. Each issue also includes the work of cartoonists such as Sidney Harris, Benita Epstein, and Mark Heath. (Philip and Michael, Preserving Salmon Biodiversity, American Scientist, http://www.bluefish.org/biodiver.htm, May/June 2001)//TWR Although the value of genetic diversity is often taken as a truism by conservation biologists, for some species the loss of variability does not necessarily increase the likelihood of extinction. The biological
diversity seen in the northern elephant seal, for example, is very low; yet there is no evidence that this animal is endangered because of it. Faced with certain changes to salmon biodiversity, fisheries biologists must determine whether or not salmonids are fundamentally like elephant seals. The answer depends in large part on two factors: first, the extent to which salmon have adapted to their local environments and second, the speed with which salmon adapt (or readapt) to their surroundings. Because much of the diversity within and among Pacific salmon has at least some genetic component and because there is little gene flow among these populations, one expects to see some local differences in homing ability, disease resistance and response to stream flow, for example. The failure of most attempts to transplant stocks to a new habitat also suggests that salmonids have evolved specializations suited to particular local environments. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that some highly variable traits do not reflect genetic adaptations. This hypothesis receives far less attention than adaptationist theories, yet evolutionary biologists acknowledge that populations of any species may diverge randomly as a result of genetic drift over generations. To evaluate local adaptation (or lack thereof) among salmon, one needs some idea of how much drift has taken place. A recent survey of sockeye

Jay Hensleigh and Andrew Hendry of the University of Washington explored the response of sockeye to the direction of the current. This species is particularly sensitive to flow because
salmon sheds some light on this question. after emerging from the gravel river bottom, young sockeye must move to lakes where they grow. Fry born in outlet streams must migrate upstream to get to the lake; fry born in inlet streams must travel downstream. This response is genetically determined and is usually under strong selection pressure, because fish that migrate in the wrong direction will die. Remarkably, however, some sockeye spawn on the beaches of lakes. Because these fish do not need to travel upstream or downstream, there is no selective pressure for this behavior. Hensleigh and Hendry tested the response to stream flow in two sockeye populations: one from an inlet stream (genetically programmed to migrate

Using laboratory raceways, the two researchers found that both groups migrated downstream. Surprisingly, though, fry from the lake showed a greater tendency to migrate downstream than the inlet population did. Presumably, this result reflects genetic drift. Or it may be that natural selection indeed operatedbut for an entirely different trait that was by happenstance linked to the gene controlling downstream migration. In any
downstream) and one from a lake, which had been established 13 generations previously by salmon from an inlet stream. event, this study shows that salmon may possess an array of traits that do not necessarily reflect the selective pressures of their local

even if the majority of these traits do reflect local adaptations, the long-term persistence of salmon will not be hampered by the loss of some genetic diversity if the fish can evolve rapidly enough. Just how quickly can a new trait arise? By again examining these same two populations of sockeye, Hendry, in a paper published last year, suggested that reproductive isolation and evolutionary divergence can happen in as little as 13 generations. Specifically, among sockeye, the size of the male body is sexually selected (females almost always mate
environment. Yet with the larger males) and reaches a maximum among beach-spawning populations, because shallow water limits the size of stream-spawning

After only 13 generations, males of beach-spawning sockeye had significantly larger bodies than males from the parent stream-spawning populationthese lake dwellers had evolved to reflect their new environment in just decades. These findings remain controversial, but regardless of whether they prove to be in error, Hendry and coworkers have raised the specter that the conservation of a wide spectrum of observable traits is not necessarily of paramount concerna somewhat surprising outcome. How then should resource managers charged
males. with saving salmon respond?

Tech Solves
Tech solves biodiversity loss Carpenter, 11-Carpenter is an independent consultant based in Massachusetts, USA. Previously, she
worked with USDA, USAID and the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy ( Janet, Impacts of GE Crops on Biodiversity, ISB news report, http://www.isb.vt.edu/news/2011/Jun/Impacts-GE-CropsBiodiversity.pdf, June 2011)//TWR Knowledge gained over the past 15 years that GE crops have been grown commercially indicates that the impacts on biodiversity are positive on balance. By increasing yields, decreasing insecticide use, increasing use of more environmentally friendly herbicides, and facilitating adoption of conservation tillage, GE crops have contributed to increasing agricultural sustainability. Previous reviews have also reached the
general conclusion that GE crops have had little to no negative impact on the environment. Most recently, the U.S. National Research Council released a comprehensive assessment of the effect of GE crop adoption on farm sustainability in the U.S. that concluded, *g+enerally, *GE+

GE crops can continue to decrease pressure on biodiversity as global agricultural systems expand to feed a world population that is expected to continue to increase for the next 30 to 40 years. Due to higher income elasticities of demand and
crops have had fewer adverse effects on the environment than non-*GE+ crops produced conventionally population growth, these pressures will be greater in developing countries. Both current and pipeline technology hold great potential in this regard. The potential of currently commercialized GE crops to increase yields, decrease pesticide use, and facilitate the adoption of conservation tillage has yet to be realized, as there continue to be countries where there is a good technological fit, but they have not yet approved these technologies for commercialization. In addition to the potential benefits of expanded adoption of current technology, several pipeline technologies offer additional promise of alleviating the impacts of agriculture on biodiversity. Continued yield improvements in crops such as rice and wheat are expected with insect resistant and herbicide tolerant traits that are already commercialized in other crops.

Technologies such as drought tolerance and salinity tolerance would alleviate the pressure to convert high biodiversity areas into agricultural use by enabling crop production on suboptimal soils. Drought
tolerance technology, which allows crops to withstand prolonged periods of low soil moisture, is anticipated to be commercialized within five years. The

technology has particular relevance for areas like sub-Saharan Africa, where drought is a common occurrence and access to irrigation is limited. Salt tolerance addresses the increasing problem of saltwater encroachment on freshwater resources. Nitrogen use efficiency technology is also under development, which can reduce run-off of nitrogen fertilizer into surface waters. The technology promises to decrease the use of fertilizers while maintaining yields, or increase yields achievable with reduced fertilizer rates where access to fertilizer inputs is limited. The technology is slated to
be commercialized within the next 10 years.

**Oil Spills Good**

Peak Oil Wrong

Peak Oil Wrong A) New oil boom
Monbiot 12- is the author of the bestselling books The Age of Consent: A Manifesto for a New World Order and Captive State: The
Corporate Takeover of Britain, as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man's Land. His latests books are Heat: how to stop the planet burning and Bring on the Apocalypse? (George, A boom in oil production has made a mockery of our predictions. Good news for capitalists but a disaster for humanity, We were wrong on peak oil. There's enough to fry us all, 7/2/12, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/02/peak-oil-we-we-wrong)//RP The facts have changed, now we must change too. For the past 10 years an unlikely coalition of geologists, oil drillers, bankers, military strategists and environmentalists has been warning that peak oil the decline of global supplies is just around the corner. We had some strong reasons for doing so: production had slowed, the price had risen sharply, depletion was widespread and appeared to be escalating. The first of the great resource crunches seemed about to strike. Among environmentalists it was never clear, even to ourselves, whether or not we wanted it to happen. It had the potential both to shock the world into economic transformation, averting future catastrophes, and to generate catastrophes of its own, including a shift into even more damaging technologies, such as biofuels and petrol made from coal. Even so, peak oil was a powerful lever. Governments, businesses and voters who seemed impervious to the moral case for cutting the use of fossil fuels might, we hoped, respond to the economic case. Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In

all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was "99% confident" that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that "never again will we pump more than 82m barrels" per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that "Saudi Arabia cannot materially grow its oil production". (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.) Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time. A report by the oil executive Leonardo Maugeri, published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun. The constraints on oil supply over the past 10 years appear to have had more to do with money than
geology. The low prices before 2003 had discouraged investors from developing difficult fields. The high prices of the past few years have changed that. Maugeri's analysis of projects in 23 countries suggests that global oil supplies are likely to rise by a net 17m barrels per day (to 110m) by 2020. This, he says, is "the largest potential addition to the world's oil supply capacity since the 1980s". The investments required to make this boom happen depend on a long-term price of $70 a barrel the current cost of Brent crude is $95. Money

is now flooding into new oil: a trillion dollars has been spent in the past two years; a record $600bn is lined up for 2012. The country in which production is likely to rise most is Iraq, into which multinational companies are now sinking their money, and their claws. But the bigger surprise is that the other great boom is likely to happen in the US. Hubbert's peak, the famous bell-shaped graph depicting the rise and fall of American oil, is set to become Hubbert's Rollercoaster. Investment there will concentrate on unconventional oil, especially shale oil (which, confusingly, is not the same as oil shale). Shale oil is high-quality crude trapped in rocks through which it doesn't flow naturally. There are, we now know, monstrous deposits in the United States: one estimate suggests that the Bakken shales in North Dakota contain almost as much oil as Saudi Arabia (though less of it is extractable). And this is one of 20
such formations in the US. Extracting shale oil requires horizontal drilling and frocking: a combination of high prices and technological refinements has made them economically viable. Already production in North Dakota has risen from 100,000 barrels a day in 2005 to 550,000 in January. So this is where we are. The automatic correction resource depletion destroying the machine that was driving it that many environmentalists foresaw is not going to happen. The

problem we face is not that there is too little oil, but that there is too much. We have confused threats to the living planet with threats to industrial civilization. They are not, in the first instance, the same
thing. Industry and consumer capitalism, powered by abundant oil supplies, are more resilient than many of the natural systems they threaten. The great profusion of life in the past fossilized in the form of flammable carbon now jeopardizes the great profusion of life in the present.

There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon

governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral
persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbor is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty. Humanity seems to be like the girl in Guillermo del Toro's masterpiece Pan's Labyrinth: she knows that if she eats the exquisite feast laid out in front of her, she too will be consumed, but she cannot help herself. I don't like raising problems when I cannot see a solution. But right now I'm not sure how I can look my children in the eyes.

B) New extraction methods Worstall 11-contributor to Forbes (Tim, Peak Oil, Entirely Nonsense: As is Peak Gas, Forbes, 10/19/11,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/19/peak-oil-entirely-nonsense-as-is-peak-gas/)//RP And to make the point more directly. Once might like to think of) this

we invent a new technology to extract oil or gas (or indeed any other mineral you does not mean that weve just found that one new field that weve developed the new technology to extract oil or gas from. It means that weve just created a whole new Earth, an entire new planet that we can prospect for similar deposits that can be exploited with the new technology . To take a few examples, BPs Macondo well was the first to drill down to 5,000 feet below the sea bed. Previously we had only been drilling perhaps a couple of thousand feet below the sea bed. Now it is true that that particular well didnt work out so well (sorry) but the basic point still stands: that we now have the entire planet to prospect again at 5,000 feet down, not just the 2,000 feet down that the previous technology afforded, to see how much oil there is. The Bakken Shale in North Dakota. This has propelled the State into the number three oil
producing State in the nation. But now that weve found the technology to get oil from oil shales this does not mean that weve only found the Bakken Shale. This means that we

want to scour the entire planet for other oil shales that can be exploited using the same technology. The Marcellus Shale, the technologies developed to exploit that gas shale: this does not mean that weve
only got the gas from the Marcellus Shale. It means that weve now got the whole Earth o explore again for shales that we can exploit using that same fracking technology. As Cuadrilla Resources has just found out in Lancashire. As most people dont know as yet, British Gas had explored that very same shale some 20 years ago. They knew the shale was down there, there was just no way of extracting the gas at that point. Now there is and there are other fields in Poland, China and so on as well. In fact, what seems to be becoming a consensus among some geologists is that shales

are abundant (oil shales come from terrestrial plants, gas from marine) and what weve been thinking of for a century or two as oil or gas deposits are just those few places where geology has done the fracking and collection for us already. Now that weve developed fracking, to do what geology hasnt done in the
far more numerous shales, there just really isnt any long term, long term meaning century or more, shortage of oil and or gas. This does pose other problems to do with atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions and climate change but thats a very different argument. What

shale

has really done is destroy the whole Peak Oil, and peak gas, argument.

Peak Oil Wrong Ext

Peak oil wrong - oil production increasing and technology improving
Deming 12- associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma (David, Demise of Peak Oil Theory, 4/9/12,
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming9.1.1.html)//RP Peak Oil is the theory that the production history of petroleum follows a symmetrical bell-shaped curve. Once the curve peaks, decline is inevitable. The theory is commonly invoked to justify the development of alternative energy sources that are allegedly renewable and sustainable. Peak Oil theory was originated by American geologist M. King Hubbert. In 1956 Hubbert predicted that US oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970. When production peaked in 1970, it was interpreted as proof that Hubbert's model was correct and that US oil production had entered a period of inexorable and irreversible decline. Unanswered was the question of whether or not US production had declined simply because it had become cheaper to purchase imported oil. Peak Oil is a theory based upon assumptions. Like other scientific theories, it is subject to empirical corroboration or falsification. Although

Hubbert correctly predicted the timing of peak US oil production, several of his other predictions based on Peak Oil theory were wrong. Hubbert predicted that the maximum possible US oil production by 2011 would be one billion barrels. But actual production in 2011 was two billion barrels. Hubbert predicted that annual world oil production would peak in the year 2000 at 12.5 billion barrels. It didn't. World oil production in 2011 was 26.5 billion barrels and continues to increase. Hubbert was grossly wrong about natural gas production. In 1956 he predicted that by 2010 US annual gas production would be 4 TCF. But in 2010, US wells produced more than 26 TCF of gas. The flaw of Peak Oil theory is that it assumes the amount of a resource is a static number determined solely by geological factors. But the size of a exploitable resource also depends upon price and technology. These factors are very difficult to predict. The US oil industry began in 1859 when Colonel Edwin Drake hired blacksmith Billy Smith to drill a 69-foot-deep well. Subsequent technological advances have opened up resources beyond the limits of our ancestors' imaginations. We can drill offshore in water up to eight-thousand feet deep. We have enhanced recovery techniques, horizontal drilling, and four-dimensional seismic imaging. Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm is turning North Dakota into Saudi Arabia by utilizing hydraulic fracturing technology. US oil production has reversed its forty-year long decline. By the year 2020, it is anticipated that the US will be the world's top oil producer. For at least a hundred years, people have repeatedly warned that the world is running out of oil. In 1920, the US Geological Survey estimated that the world contained only 60 billion barrels of recoverable oil. But to date we have produced more than 1000 billion barrels and currently have more than 1500 billion barrels in reserve. World petroleum reserves are at an all-time high. The world is awash in a glut of oil. Conventional oil resources are currently estimated to be in the neighborhood of ten trillion barrels. The resource base is growing faster than production can deplete it. In addition to conventional oil, the US has huge amounts of unconventional oil resources that remain untouched. The western US alone has 2000 billion barrels of oil in the form of oil shales. At a current
consumption rate of 7 billion barrels a year, that's a 286-year supply. Nine years ago, I predicted that "the age of petroleum has only just begun." I was right. The Peak

Oil theorists, the Malthusians, and the environmentalists were all wrong. They have been proven wrong, over and over again, for decades. A tabulation of every failed prediction of resource exhaustion would fill a library.
Sustainability is a chimera. No energy source has been, or ever will be, sustainable. In the eleventh century, Europeans anticipated the industrial revolution by transforming their society from dependence on human and animal power to water power. In the eighteenth century, water power was superseded by steam engines fired by burning wood. Coal replaced wood, and oil and gas have now largely supplanted coal. In the far distant future we will probably utilize some type of nuclear power. But for at least the next hundred years, oil will remain our primary energy source because it is abundant, inexpensive, and reliable. Petroleum is the lifeblood of our industrial economy. The US economy will remain stagnant and depressed until we begin to aggressively develop our native energy resources. As Harold Hamm has said, "we can do this." What's stopping us is not geology, but ignorance and bad public policy.

Oil Boosts Environment

Boosts Marshes
Oil spills improve marsh ecosystems - at worst, no long-term impacts on marine life.
Vince 12- ABC Environment (Gaia, Is there life after an oil spill? ABC Environment, 2/27/12,
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2012/02/27/3437955.htm)//RP It was the worst accidental oil spill in history, spewing some 750 million litres of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and provoking fears of an environmental Armageddon. With fishermen reportedly suicidal, President Barack Obama called it "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced" and said that the country would be "fighting the spill" for years to come. But, nearly two years after the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion, the Louisiana coastline bears little sign of the catastrophe that was beamed to living rooms around the world. Could it be that natural ecosystems are far more resilient than we realised? On 20 April 2010, on the seabed 1.5km beneath the Deepwater Horizon rig located some 160km offshore, a well head sprang a leak. What happened next will be unpicked during the months-long three-phase trial into the incident, scheduled to begin next week, but essentially, the leak led to an explosion that killed 11 men and caused around 10 million litres of oil per day to gush into the ocean. By the time the leak was finally plugged, three months later on 15 July, more than 6,000 birds, 600 sea turtles, 150 dolphins and thousands of fish had died, although it's impossible to say how many of these can be solely attributed to the spill. In addition, a third of Gulf fisheries were closed and more than 160km of shoreline had been impacted by oil, including ecologically sensitive salt marshes. BP estimated the spill would cost around US$40 billion to clean up. Looking

at the area now, you'd struggle to find evidence of the devastation, says Alex Kolker, a coastal oceanographer at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium in Chauvin. Kolker has been working on a project that takes aerial photographs using balloons and land-based shots of the most heavily oiled areas. "We ran the photos through our image analysis, and by last fall, there was no statistical difference between the oiled areas and unaffected ones," he says. In fact, many of the salt marshes seemed healthier than ever, with bright green grasses, where usually he would expect a mix of dead straws - and these in some of the places that were most covered in 2010 with the black oily slick. "It could be that the oil worked a bit like fire does," Kolker suggests. "A fire burns the living and dead stems and clears the way for vibrant new growth. The marsh grasses were waist-high last fall in some of the worst hit areas, where everything had been killed off the year before."

Boosts Resilience
Oil spills cause ecological succession - increasing marine resilience
Siegel 10- writer in Washington, D.C. (Alan, Worms love it., Is an Oil Spill Ever Good for Animals?, 7/8/10,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/07/is_an_oil_spill_ever_good_for_animals.html)//RP The BP oil spill could take a major toll on the Gulf Coast's wildlife, say marine scientists. We're already seeing some evidence of die-offs (PDF) among marine mammals, birds, and sea turtles. Are there any species that might actually benefit from the disaster? Yes. Scientists

don't know what makes it so resilient to the health effects of oil, but the blood-red-colored bristle worm known as Capitella capitata seems able to survive in a polluted environment. Indeed, it thrives. The worm's natural predatorsshrimp, fish, and crabsstart to die off after a spill, leaving room for what's called ecological succession: The population of one species grows to fill a gap left by damage to another. At up to 10 centimeters in length and about the width of a human hair, Capitella capitata may seem like the oil spill's tiny grim reaper. In fact, it could help to restore the Gulf ecosystem. The animals burrow into the sea floor to feed on organic matter deposited there. This movement circulates new water into the sediments and addresses one of the major problems after an oil spillthe depletion of oxygen in the ocean by the hungry bacteria that are working to break down pollutants. By churning up mud at the bottom of the Gulf, the worms release and recycle pockets of anoxic water, which in turn allows sediment bacteria to degrade more oil. (The flourishing micro-organisms also
serve as food for the bristle worms.) The ecological interplay between worms and bacteria paves the way for the return of other species. Bolstered by higher oxygen levels and more worms to eat, the populations of fish, crab, and shrimp begin to increase. Capitella capitata is known as an indicator species, which means biologists rely on it to assess the condition of a particular environment. A large number of worms suggests poor water quality, but with the potential for improvement. For example, Capitella has been tracked in water near sewage outfalls, such as parts of Boston Harbor, as a way of assessing cleanup efforts. It's not yet clear whether Capitella numbers are increasing in the Gulf. Due to the extent of the cleanupthousands of barrels of oil are still leaking into the ocean dailyit may be months before worm-tracking scientists have access to the sediment.

Oil spills make populations resilient leading to natural recovery processes ITOPF 10- The International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Limited (Effects of Oil Spills, http://www.itopf.com/marinespills/effects/)//RP Oil spills can have serious effects on marine life, as highlighted by the photos of dead birds which regularly appear in the news after such an event. Such images fuel the perception of widespread and permanent environmental damage after every spill, and an inevitable loss of marine resources with serious economic repercussions. A

science-based appraisal of the effects reveals that whilst damage occurs more resilient and natural recovery processes are capable of repairing the damage and returning the system to normal functions. The first stage on the road to
and may be profound at the level of individual organisms, populations are recovery is usually a well conducted clean-up operation but in some specific habitats aggressive clean-up methods can cause more harm than good and then it is better to let natural cleaning processes take their course. Many spill impacts have been documented in the scientific and technical literature, and although not all the effects of oil pollution are completely understood, an indication of the likely scale and duration of damage can usually be deduced from the information available. However, it can be difficult to present a balanced view of the realities of spill effects, given the often highly charged and emotional nature of a spill and its aftermath. The scientific community can become polarized into opposing camps with one side intent on quantifying every aspect of damage, and the other emphasizing the capacity of the environment to recover naturally. The simple reality is that sometimes significant damage occurs, sometimes not and the aim of these pages is to draw together what general information is known about spill effects and their longevity. The marine ecosystem is highly complex and natural fluctuations in species composition, abundance and distribution are a basic feature of its normal function. The extent of damage can therefore be difficult to detect against this background variability. Nevertheless, the key to understanding damage and its importance is whether spill effects result in a downturn in breeding success, productivity, diversity and the overall functioning of the system. Spills are not the only pressure on marine habitats; chronic urban and industrial contamination or the exploitation of the resources they provide are also serious threats. The following sections consider some of the types of damage caused by oil spills as well as some of the benefits of conducting post-spill studies.

**Ozone**

Alt cause other nations

Stopping Ozone Depletion relies on other nations Gutierrez 90 - leader of CATIEs Mesoamerican Agroenvironmental Program (MAP), (Isabel, Global
Warming/Greenhouse Effect, Model United Nations Far West, 4/22/1990, http://www.munfw.org/archive/40th/unep4.htm )//LA Some scientists are now concerned because the percentage of carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere is increasing. Scientists theorize that perhaps oceans are not absorbing as much carbon dioxide as before, or that a
change is taking place in land-based terrestrial ecosystems. They warn that if this is true, the kinds of global climate changes that modelers are forecasting for the future will occur more rapidly than is now predicted' Concentrations of the trace gases methane, nitrous oxide, tropospheric ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons are much lower than carbon dioxide (green- house gases), but are rising rapidly. As a group, they are able to absorb 60% more long- wave radiation than carbon dioxide. This is due to the fact that they are able to absorb radiation in a window of the electromagnetic spectrum where carbon dioxide and water vapor are relatively transparent. Water vapor traps radiation with wavelengths below 7um, and carbon dioxide absorbs in the region above 13um. These trace gases are able to absorb the radiation between 7um and 13um. Methane has a lifetime of approximately nine years. Alone, it is 30 times more effective than a carbon dioxide molecule in greenhouse warming and leads to the production of another greenhouse gas, ozone. More than 50% of the methane released to the atmosphere is derived from the action of anaerobic bacteria on plant material, primarily in the stomachs of ruminants such as cows and sheep and in the guts of termites, and in rice paddies and wetlands of all types in all latitudes. Methane is also released from coal mines, leaks in natural gas pipelines, leaks of natural gas associated with oil production and decomposition of organic matter in landfills. It is also emitted from incomplete combustion of vegetation, in forest or range fires, or when land is cleared for agriculture. As a result, increased agricultural production will contribute to the rise of methane levels in our atmospheres Nitrous oxide

is detrimental to the atmosphere because it contributes to greenhouse warming as well as ozone depletion. In the past, it was believed that the
majority of atmospheric nitrous oxide was produced through the burning of fossil fuels. Now it is known that it is produced mainly through biomass burning and through artificial fertilization of soils." Ozone is somewhat paradoxical in nature. At high altitudes, it safeguards the earth through the absorption of ultraviolet radiation. At lower altitudes, however, it is a pollutant and a greenhouse gas. Scientists believe that ozone depletion in the lower stratosphere may cause some global cooling, while depletion in the upper stratosphere may cause warming. In addition, an ozone molecule in the upper troposphere produces much more surface warming than does a molecule at the surface or in the mid or upper stratosphere. However, since there is very little data on ozone concentrations in the upper troposphere, scientists are unable to make concrete projections. Chlorofluourcarbons (CFC's) are a greenhouse

gas and contributes to the destruction of stratospheric

ozone. CFCs catalyze the breakdown of ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere into oxygen molecules. Their production and use has risen
drastically in recent years, but the 1987 Montreal Protocol may curtail their production. Reducing emissions of greenhouse gases may not be an easy task. Perhaps the

biggest obstacle is the difference in in the amounts of greenhouse gas emissions of developed and underdeveloped nations. As an example, estimates show that per capita emissions of carbon dioxide are five tons for every man, woman, and child in the U.S., compared with only about 0.1 to 0.4 tons in China and India. To continue planned development, China and India will find it inevitable to drastically increase their current greenhouse emissions.

Depletion Inevitable
Ozone depletion inevitable Wilkins 11, - editor of Welcome from the future, (Alasdair, Giant ozone hole opens up over the Arctic
for the first time, Welcome from the future, 10/3/11, http://io9.com/5846155/giant-ozone-holeopens-up-over-the-arctic-for-the-first-time )//LA A hole in Earth's protective ozone layer above the Antarctic has become an annual event for the last 25 years, greatly increasing the South Pole's exposure to ultraviolet rays. Now, the same thing is happening above the Arctic Circle. The ozone layer is found roughly between 20 and 25 miles above our planet's surface.
Primarily composed of the oxygen compound ozone, this layer serves to absorb about 97-99% of all ultraviolet light that reaches Earth from the Sun, shielding us from its more dangerous effects. But

due to the heavy use of various human-manufactured compounds in particular chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which have since been largely banned the ozone layer has become depleted, opening up holes over as much as 5% of the Earth's surface ever since the mid-1980s. Until
now, the vast majority of those holes were found high above Antarctica, but now it appears this severe ozone depletion has migrated to the other pole. An international team of researchers discovered that a mix of ozone-depleting pollutants and unusually cold temperatures above the North Pole drove the creation of a new Arctic ozone hole unlike any we've seen before. The polar regions tend to attract these holes because of a phenomenon known as the polar vortex, a circulation pattern in the atmosphere caused by cold temperatures and the rotation of the Earth that greatly increases the amount of regular chemicals being converted into ozone-depleting ones.

This past year saw particularly cold temperatures and, as a result, an unusually long and severe polar vortex. The result was the creation of way more ozone-depleting chemicals than normal, making the formation of a fullblown ozone hole in the Arctic all but inevitable.

Ozone depletion inevitable frequent rocket launches Science Daily 09- research funded by the National Science Foundation, NASA and The Aerospace
Corporation, (Rocket Launches May Need Regulation to prevent Ozone depletion, Science Daily LCC, 4/1/09, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331153014.htm )//LA Future ozone losses from unregulated rocket launches will eventually exceed ozone losses due to chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which stimulated the 1987 Montreal Protocol banning ozone-depleting chemicals, said Martin Ross, chief
study author from The Aerospace Corporation in Los Angeles. The study, which includes the University of Colorado at Boulder and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, provides a market analysis for estimating future ozone layer depletion based on the expected growth of the space industry and known impacts of rocket launches. "As

the rocket launch market grows, so will ozone-destroying rocket emissions," said Professor Darin Toohey of CU-Boulder's atmospheric and oceanic sciences department. "If left
unregulated, rocket launches by the year 2050 could result in more ozone destruction than was ever realized by CFCs." A paper on the subject by Ross and Manfred Peinemann of The Aerospace Corporation, CU-Boulder's Toohey and Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University's Patrick Ross appeared online in March in the journal Astropolitics. Since some proposed space efforts would require frequent launches of large rockets over extended periods, the new study was designed to bring attention to the issue in hopes of sparking additional research, said Ross. "In the policy world uncertainty often leads to unnecessary regulation," he said. "We are suggesting this could be avoided with a more robust understanding of how rockets affect the ozone layer." Current global rocket launches deplete the ozone layer by no more than a few hundredths of 1 percent annually, said Toohey.

But as the space industry grows and other ozone-depleting chemicals decline in the Earth's stratosphere, the issue of ozone depletion from rocket launches is expected to move to the forefront. Today, just a handful of NASA space shuttle launches release more ozone-depleting substances in the stratosphere than the entire annual use of CFC-based medical inhalers used to treat asthma and other diseases in the United States and which are now banned, said Toohey. "The Montreal
Protocol has left out the space industry, which could have been included." Highly reactive trace-gas molecules known as radicals dominate stratospheric ozone destruction, and a single radical in the stratosphere can destroy up to 10,000 ozone molecules before being deactivated and removed from the stratosphere. Microscopic particles, including soot and aluminum oxide particles emitted by rocket engines, provide chemically active surface areas that increase the rate such radicals "leak" from their reservoirs and contribute to ozone destruction, said Toohey. In addition, every type of rocket engine causes some ozone loss, and rocket combustion products are the only human sources of ozone-destroying compounds injected directly into the middle and upper stratosphere where the ozone layer resides, he said. Although U.S. science agencies spent millions of dollars to assess the ozone loss potential from a hypothetical fleet of 500 supersonic aircraft -- a fleet that never materialized -- much less research has been done to understand the potential range of effects the existing global fleet of rockets might have on the ozone layer, said Ross. Since 1987 CFCs have been banned from use in aerosol cans, freezer refrigerants and air conditioners.

Many scientists expect the stratospheric ozone layer -- which absorbs more than 90 percent of harmful ultraviolet radiation that can harm humans and ecosystems -- to return to levels that existed prior to the use of ozone-depleting chemicals by the year 2040. Rockets

around the world use a variety of propellants, including solids, liquids and hybrids. Ross said while little is currently known about how they compare to each other with respect to the ozone loss they cause, new studies are needed to provide the parameters required to guide possible regulation of both commercial and government rocket launches in the future. "Twenty years may seem like a long way off, but
space system development often takes a decade or longer and involves large capital investments," said Ross. "We want to reduce the risk that unpredictable and more strict ozone regulations would be a hindrance to space access by measuring and modeling exactly how different rocket types affect the ozone layer." The research team is optimistic that a solution to the problem exists. "We have the resources, we have the expertise, and we now have the regulatory history to address this issue in a very powerful way," said Toohey. "I am optimistic that we are going to solve this problem, but we are not going to solve it by doing nothing."

Impacts Hyped
Ozone impacts are hype past apocalyptic rhetoric proves Lieberman 07-Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Roe Institute for Economic Policy
Studies, specializes in energy and environmental issues, including the Clean Air Act, climate change, and the impact of environmental policy on energy prices, (Ben, Montreal Protocal and ozone crisis that wasnt, International Policy Network, 9/27/07, http://www.policynetwork.net/environment/media/montreal-protocol-and-ozone-crisis-wasnt )//LA The international treaty to protect the ozone layer turns twenty this year and claims success. But is there really reason to celebrate? Environmentalists have made many apocalyptic predictions over the past decades and, when they have not come to pass, have proclaimed that their preventive measures averted disaster--as with the 1987 Montreal Protocol On Substances That Deplete The Ozone Layer (Montreal Protocol). The many lurid predictions of skin cancer epidemics, eco-system destruction and so on have not come true, and to Montreal Protocol proponents this is cause for self-congratulation. But in retrospect the evidence shows that ozone depletion was an exaggerated threat in the first place and that the parade of horribles never really was in the cards. As the parties to the treaty return to Montreal for their 20th anniversary this week it should be cause for reflection, not celebration, especially for those who see it
as a success story to be repeated for climate change. The treaty came about over legitimate but overstated concerns that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs, then a widely used refrigerant gas) and other compounds were rising to the stratosphere and destroying ozone molecules. These molecules, collectively known as the ozone layer, shield the earth from excessive ultraviolet-B radiation (UVB) from the sun. The 1987 Montreal Protocol led to a CFC ban in most developed nations by 1996, while Developing nations were given an extension but are under pressure to curtail it.

Not Anthropogenic
Ozone depletion is not anthropogenic- caused by a cold spell Geere 11- I'm a British journalist, based in London, UK, editor of the Wired UK, (Duncan, Arctic Ozone
Hole Enlarged by Severe Cold Spell, 10/3/11, Cond Nast, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/largest-arctic-ozone-hole/ )//LA Atmospheric chemists measuring ozone depletion above the Arctic have found that 2011s hole is the largest ever, due to an unusually long cold spell. When we think of the hole in the ozone layer, we usually think of the
Antarctic, but the latest data suggests that the Arctic could be experiencing a severe depletion in the ultraviolet-blocking chemical, too at 20km above the ground, 80 percent of ozone is gone over an area five times the size of Germany. It was reported earlier in 2011 that the hole was expected to be large this year, but a recent paper in Nature is the first to fully analyze the extent of the phenomenon. The

blame has been pinned on cold temperatures. The level of ozone in the atmosphere varies depending on temperature, as the chlorine compounds that break the ozone down are most active at lower temperatures. This year didnt break any low-temperature records in the Arctic, but the upper-air region where the ozone sits stayed chilly for an unusually long time over an unusually large area. It was continuously cold from December through April, and that has never happened before in the Arctic in the instrumental record, said Michelle Santee from NASAs Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Why *all this+ occurred will take years of detailed study. On the bright side, the root cause of this problem anthropogenic CFC emissions were successfully restricted in 1987 by the Montreal Protocol, and eventually eliminated in a rare case of international cooperation over atmospheric science. Its just that the chlorine compounds that were emitted prior to the restrictions being implemented can persist for a long time in the upper atmosphere. The ozone layer is on its way back to health, and isnt expected to get any better before the middle of the century, but at least it isnt getting much sicker.

Ozone Depletions completely natural Manney et. al. 11- New Mexico Institute of Mining Technology and Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology (Gloria L. Unprecedented Ozone loss in 2011: Nature, Nature Publishing Group, 10/2/11, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v478/n7370/full/nature10556.html#/author-information )//LA
Chemical ozone destruction occurs over both polar regions in local winterspring. In the Antarctic, essentially complete removal of lowerstratospheric ozone currently results in an ozone hole every year, whereas in the Arctic, ozone loss is highly variable and has until now been much more limited. Here we demonstrate that chemical ozone destruction over the Arctic in early 2011 wasfor the first time in the observational recordcomparable to that in the Antarctic ozone hole. Unusually

long-lasting cold conditions in the Arctic lower stratosphere led to persistent enhancement in ozone-destroying forms of chlorine and to unprecedented ozone loss, which exceeded 80 per cent over 1820 kilometres altitude. Our results show that Arctic ozone holes are possible even with temperatures much milder than those in the Antarctic. We cannot at present predict when such severe Arctic ozone depletion may be matched or exceeded.

Anthropogenic ozone depletion is false Ball 2/9- B.A., (Honours), Gold Medal Winner, University of Winnipeg, 1970M.A., University of
Manitoba, 1971Ph.D. (Doctor of Science), Queen Mary College, University of London (England), 1982 (Tim Effect of Environmentalists Crying Wolf Over Ozone Thinning Appear, 2/9/12, Dr. Tim Ball, http://drtimball.com/2012/effect-of-environmentalists-crying-wolf-over-ozone-thinning-appear/ )//LA
Ozone is created in the upper atmosphere when ultraviolet (UV) radiation, a small part of the total electromagnetic energy from the sun, strikes free oxygen molecules (O2). The molecules are split into single oxygen molecules (O), which combine with other O2 to create ozone (O3). Formation of ozone occurs between 15 and 55 km above the surface with maximum concentration between 15 and 30 km. Densities vary horizontally and vertically, so levels over any region changes hourly with air movement in the upper atmosphere. The

Ozone Layer is self-healing, because as UV penetrates further into the atmosphere, it encounters more free oxygen.
The angle at which solar rays strike the atmosphere decreases from 90 at the equator to 0 at the poles, so the amount of ultraviolet radiation striking the surface decreases dramatically. As Professor Fred Singer explained in his Congressional testimony (September 20, 1995), A projected 10 percent UV increase from a worst-case global ozone depletion is the equivalent of moving just 60 miles closer to the equator New

Yorkers moving to Florida experience a more than 200 percent increase in UV because of the change of latitude. Increased lifespan explains the increase in skin cancer, not ozone thinning. The problem began with a hypothesis. Molina and Rowland theorized CFCs

went to the stratosphere and destroyed ozone. Their laboratory studies showed CFCs destroyed ozone in the presence of high frequency UV.
They didnt, and couldnt, simulate atmospheric conditions in the Ozone Layer. Now ideology took over; determined to prove, rather than disprove as proper science requires. The imperative was to ban CFCs, not to test the theory. Like the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis, the consensus was determined and contradictory or conflicting research ignored. Central to the CFC hypothesis is the assumption that UV levels are constant. This meant measured variations in ozone were caused by something else. Environmentalism

demanded a human cause and Molina and Rowland provided the answer. We now know UV varies considerably, more than enough to explain the variations. CFCs are four times denser than air, so there was a transport question how did they get to 15 km above the surface? The answer is they didnt. The active portion, that is the part that destroys ozone, is the first C
or chlorine. It is part of a growing family of Ozone Depleting Substances (ODS). In a laboratory, a chemical is placed in a chamber with ozone. If the ozone is destroyed, then the chemical is designated an ODS and banned. Beneficial effects of UV were overlooked in the scramble to keep children out of the sun, physically or by chemical blockers. It produces vitamin D in the body, essential to prevent rickets and other bone problems, as well as scrofula, a form of tuberculosis. Reports from England say doctors are finding increasing levels of rickets. Chemical sun blockers are a huge industry and apparently profited from emphasizing the dangers of ultraviolet radiation (UV). However, there is a downside. Humans need UV to create vitamin D. Blockers reduce the UV absorbed, and unless used judiciously, the amount of vitamin D created. Skin colour is a function of controlling the amount of UV the skin absorbs too much exposure and the melanin levels increase to darken the skin and reduce absorption. This occurs on two levels: a rapid response with a sun tan (all groups tan), and a general skin colour depending on the climate zone in which a group has evolved. As early as 1998, a Washington success to build on said

News Tribune editorial titled Ozone recovery offers a the ozone layer was recovering because government policies banning CFCs, through the Montreal Protocol, were working. Recovery is because there was no problem in the first place. This pattern is repeated with
many environmental doomsday scenarios. Almost all are due to natural variability, which is ignored as is the requirement for evidence by invoking the Precautionary Principle. The CFC-ozone issue was a test for emotional, environment-driven global warming science. The

Montreal Protocol was based on the false science that a variation in atmospheric ozone was due to human-produced CFCs. We were told destruction of ozone would continue for 100 years. That and the hypothesis were wrong. Now children suffer from the understandable public reaction to the fears the false science created. Some of the damage of the false CO2 science is already evident.

**Pollution Good**

Solves UV rays
Air pollution good blocks dangerous ultraviolet rays
Orlando Sentinel 92 the primary newspaper of Orlando, Florida; overseen by the Chicago Tribune (GOOD POLLUTION?, Orlando
Sentinel, October 4 1992, ArticlePlus)//CB

A new study of air pollution suggests that dirty air could have an unexpected benefit: It may block dangerous ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Science News reports that two atmospheric scientists have found twice the levels of ultraviolet light in the clean air of New Zealand compared to the more polluted air of Germany. But scientists say the difference in dangerous ultraviolet radiation doesn't stem from changes in the ozone hole alone. The protective ozone layer over New Zealand is much thinner than over Germany, but scientists found that ozone pollution in Germany also is greater and that could be playing a role, cutting down on dangerous ultraviolet radiation bombarding Earth.

Ultraviolet rays cause skin cancer

Gallagher et al 10 specializes in Medical, Oncology, and Dermatology (Richard P.; Lee, Tim K.; Bajdik, Chris D.; Borugian, Marilyn;
Ultraviolet Radiation, Public Health Agency Canada, 2010, ArticlePlus)

The major source of ultraviolet radiation is solar radiation or sunlight. However, exposure to artificial sources
particularly through tanning salons is becoming more important in terms of human health effects, as use of these facilities by young people, has increased. The International Agency for Research on Cancer has noted that there is sufficient evidence from studies in animals and in man to

Skin cancer has been the most commonly studied cancer site with respect to UV radiation. The nature and timing of sun exposure appear to be important determinants of both the degree of risk and the type of skin cancer. Cutaneous malignant melanoma and basal cell
establish ultraviolet radiation as a human carcinogen. cancer are much more strongly related to measures of intermittent ultraviolet exposure (particularly those of childhood or adolescence) than to

Lip cancer is causally related to lifetime sun exposure. It has been estimated that solar ultraviolet radiation accounts for approximately 93 percent of skin cancers and about half of lip cancers. This translates to approximately 4,500 life-threatening cancers (cutaneous malignant melanoma) per year in Canada, as well as 65,000 less
measures of cumulative exposure. In contrast, squamous cell cancer is more strongly related to constant or cumulative sun exposure. serious cancers (basal cell cancer, squamous cell cancer and lip cancer). Appropriate clothing use, care not to sunburn and judicious use of sunscreens could prevent at least half of these and save approximately 450 lives per year. In addition, physician and public education programs can significantly increase the proportion of melanomas diagnosed early. Lesions that have not yet penetrated deeply are associated with a mortality rate of less than five percent. Several recent studies suggest a possible inverse relationship between ultraviolet radiation exposure and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, colon, breast and prostate cancer, and investigators have speculated that this might be due to the higher serum levels of vitamin D stimulated by high lifetime sun exposure. Further, studies conducted within cohorts using stored pre-diagnostic serum suggest that those with high levels of vitamin D have lower incidence rates of a number of malignancies, particularly colon cancer. However, since serum vitamin D levels can be raised through the use of supplements without increasing risk for skin lip and other known UVrelated cancers, changes to health policy with regard to exposure are not merited at this point. Further research is needed in this area.

Pollution blocks UV rays Monastersky 92 - Richard joined Nature in 2008, writing and editing features on geosciences, climate, environment and other gloomy topics. Prior to
that, he was a reporter and editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education and he covered earth sciences at Science News magazine. In more than two decades as a journalist, he has reported science stories from every continent and won several awards. (Richard, UV Hazard: Ozone Lost Versus Ozone Gained, Science News, September 19 1992, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/UV+hazard%3A+ozone+lost+versus+ozone+gained.-a012677605)//CB

bad air also has its good side. Measurements in New Zealand and Germany reveal that a polluted environment can provide significant protection against the harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation streaming through Earth's damaged ozone layer. "We found unexpected, big differences in the UV radiation at the two sites," New Zealand and Germany, says Gunther Seckmeyer, an atmospheric scientist with the Institute for Biochemical Plant Pathology in Neuherberg, Germany. Levels of UV light were nearly twice as high in the relatively clean air of New Zealand as in the
Living amid polluted air can cause serious health problems, especially for the elderly and asthma sufferers. But

more polluted air of Germany, report Seckmeyer and Richard L. McKenzie of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric
Research, Ltd., in Omakau, New Zealand.

Air pollution blocks damaging UV wavelengths studies prove Monastersky 92 - Richard joined Nature in 2008, writing and editing features on geosciences, climate, environment and other gloomy topics. Prior to
that, he was a reporter and editor at The Chronicle of Higher Education and he covered earth sciences at Science News magazine. In more than two decades as a journalist, he has reported science stories from every continent and won several awards. (Richard, UV Hazard: Ozone Lost Versus Ozone Gained, Science News, September 19 1992, http://www.thefreelibrary.com/UV+hazard%3A+ozone+lost+versus+ozone+gained.-a012677605)//CB

In their study, Seckmeyer and McKenzie compared UV levels during cloud-free days in New Zealand at 45 degrees south latitude and in Germany at 48 degrees north latitude. By using the same spectroradiometer in both locations, the researchers eliminated errors caused by comparing data from two instruments. Seckmeyer and McKenzie found that on a summer day at each site, DNA-damaging wavelengths of UV were 90 percent higher in New Zealand, while wavelengths capable of producing sunburn were 60 percent higher there. Although many factors can
control the amount of UV light reaching the surface, analysis of the light's strength at various wavelengths indicates that ozone differences accounted for the big discrepancy between the two sites. Wavelengths of light not affected by ozone were virtually the same at the two sites. To examine whether the UV levels on the days studied were typical of an entire summer, the researchers used a model to calculate average UV

calculations suggest that DNAdamaging wavelengths of UV light were 81 percent stronger and sunburn-producing wavelengths were 44 percent stronger in New Zealand, they report in the Sept. 10 Nature. The researchers say they had not expected such a large hemispheric difference.
levels on the basis of such factors as ozone amount, latitude, and weather variables. The

Aerosols

Solve Warming
Aerosol pollutants good cooling effect and add nutrients Harris 11 award winning journalist and recipient of many of the journalism and science industrys most prestigious awards (Richard, Air
Pollution: Bad for Health, But Good for the Planet?, NPR, November 11 2011)//CB

"There are so many different kinds of aerosols and they have many different sources," she says. "Some warm and some cool. But in the net, humans are emitting a lot of extra aerosols, and they tend to cool for the most part." The aerosols reflect sunlight back into space, or they stimulate clouds that keep us cool. But it turns out that's not all they do. These aerosols also influence how much carbon dioxide gets drawn out of the air by plants on land and in the sea. "They can add nutrients, for example, to the oceans or to the land," Mahowald
says. "But also while they're in the atmosphere they can change the climate, and so that also can impact the amount of carbon the land or the ocean can take up. So there are quite a few different ways that aerosols can interact."

CO2 Good General

CO2 good make natural ecosystems more resilient
Bazzaz and Fajer 2 - The authors are with the Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University (F.A. and Eric
D., Is Carbon Dioxide a Good Greenhouse Gas?: Effects of Increasing Carbon Dioxide on Ecological Systems, Global Environmental Change, July 22 2002, ArticlePlus)//CB

(CO2) in the atmosphere, a greenhouse gas, may also provide benefits for mankind: many plants grow better under increasing CO2 concentrations. Individuals have speculated that agricultural yields will increase up to 30% under future CO2 concentrations, and natural ecosystems will become more lush and resilient. However, infertile conditions and complex ecological interactions often limit improved plant growth under increasing CO2 atmospheres. Future policies to adapt to a CO2-rich world must not overstate benefits from these conditions, nor ignore their usefulness for increasing future agricultural yields or restoring degraded habitats.
Carbon dioxide

CO2 Good Plants

CO2 good for plants increased photosynthesis and improved crop yields
Anonymous 10 (Carbon Dioxide Good for Crops, Townsville Bulletin, January 11 2010, ArticlePlus)//CB THE positive aspects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide have generally been ignored by the media and global warming alarmists. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are the basis of all living things on the planet. Studies show that biomass growth increases with increased carbon dioxide levels. A 300ppm increase in carbon dioxide resulted in a 20-40 per cent increase in cereal crops and 30-80 per cent increase in orchard fruit crops. Photosynthetic growth response was even greater. Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide has a positive effect on plant growth. It gives the most remarkable response of all nutrients in increasing plant bulk. Higher carbon dioxide levels also result in increased water efficiency of plants. Because carbon dioxide levels are relatively low they are nearly always the limiting factor for photosynthesis. Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels will ensure improved crop yields in the future.

CO2 good for the environment fertilizes plants and increases food production
Spalton 9 (Edward, Forget Junk Science, Carbon Dioxide is Good for you!, Derby Evening Telegraph, December 3 2009, ArticlePlus)//CB
Many good people have been terribly worried by the propaganda arising from this junk science because politicians have been keen to believe it. Some schoolchildren have been frightened by the propaganda with which the Government has instructed teachers to indoctrinate them. The prospect of a world-wide climate government, raising huge amounts of taxes on the authority of supra-national treaties which cannot be repealed by individual parliaments, is hugely attractive to the polit-ical class. The climate gravy train would make the EU version look like a table-top model by comparison. While nobody would object to reasonable, proportionate measures (under democratic control) to conserve expensive fuel and preserve environmental amenity, there is now no panic at all to "save the planet" by spending trillions on grandiose schemes. There

is a plus side too. CO2 is good for you. It really is! It is a marvelous plant fertiliser which will help improve crop yields and feed a hungry world. I recently saw results of a smallscale trial with spinach. Doubling present CO2 levels led to massive increases in nutrient content and crop yield without extra fertiliser or GM technology. I don't like spinach much but CO2 would almost certainly produce similar improvement in most other plants. Neither do I look forward to having to mow my lawn more often but, on balance, more abundant crops would outweigh my small inconvenience.

**Resource Crunches**

General Predictions Flawed

Frontline
Malthusian predictions wrong - two reasons: A) Doesnt account for lower birth rates and innovation The Economist, 8 - The Economist online offers authoritative insight and opinion on international news, politics, business, finance, science and technology. (Malthus, the False Prophet, The Economist, May 15, 2008,
http://www.economist.com/node/11374623)//SS It was the misfortune of Malthusbut the good luck of generations born after himthat he wrote at an historical turning point. His ideas, especially his later ones, were arguably an accurate description of pre-industrial societies, which teetered on a precarious balance between empty and full stomachs. But the

industrial revolution, which had already begun in Britain, was transforming the longterm outlook for economic growth. Economies were starting to expand faster than their populations, bringing about a sustained improvement in living standards. Far from food running out, as Malthus had feared, it became abundant as trade expanded and low-cost agricultural producers like Argentina and Australia joined the world economy. Reforms based on sound political economy
played a vital role, too. In particular, the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1846 paved the way for British workers to gain from cheap food imports. Malthus got his demographic as well as his economic predictions wrong. His

assumption that populations would carry on

growing in times of plenty turned out to be false. Starting in Europe, one country after another underwent a demographic transformation as economic development brought greater prosperity. Both birth and death rates dropped and population growth eventually started to slow.
The Malthusian heresy re-emerged in the early 1970s, the last time food prices shot up. Then, at least, there appeared to be some cause for demographic alarm. Global-population growth had picked up sharply after the second world war because it took time for high birth rates in developing countries to follow down the plunge in infant-mortality rates brought about by modern medicine. But once again the worries about overpopulation proved mistaken as the

green revolution and further advances in agricultural efficiency

boosted food supply.

If the world's population growth was a false concern four decades ago, when it peaked at 2% a year, it is even less so now that it has slowed to 1.2%. But even though crude demography is not to blame, changing lifestyles arising from rapid economic growth especially in Asia are a new worry. As the Chinese have become more affluent, they have started to consume more meat, raising the underlying demand for basic food since cattle need more grain to feed than humans. Neo-Malthusians question

whether the world can provide 6.7 billion people (rising to 9.2 billion by 2050) with a Western-style diet. Once again the gloom is overdone. There may no longer be virgin lands to be settled and cultivated, as in the 19th century, but there is no reason to believe that agricultural productivity has hit a buffer. Indeed, one of the main barriers to another
green revolution is unwarranted popular worries about genetically modified foods, which is holding back farm output not just in Europe, but in the developing countries that could use them to boost their exports.

B) New tech solves problems

Hoffmans, 11- Economic and financial analyst for Forbes (Lara, 7 Billion Reasons Malthus Was Wrong, Forbes,
October 31, 2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/larahoffmans/2011/10/31/7-billion-reasons-malthus-was-wrong/)//SS Thomas Malthus is famous (or infamous, depending on your view) for his belief that human population growth would outpace food productionand fastwhich would lead to societal ruin. He was downright dismissive of the idea of unlimited progress in food production. Can there be unlimited progress in food production? Not sure. But Malthus would never imagine that, with 6 billion more people than in his day, we have a holiday dedicated to handing total strangers handfuls of free food. Utterly non-nutritional food at that! You cant really blame Malthus for getting this so wrong. Long-term

forecasts are right devilish. Example, the London Times columnist who predicted in 1894 that by 1950, London would be buried under 9 feet of manure likely died before he could have any egg on his face. (Though, no doubt, he had enough time to surmise that the horse-dropping build-up was going awfully slowly.) There was no way for him to know in a few short years, the combustion engine would make horse-drawn transport a cute relic for honeymooners. And thats how these long-term forecasts go. The peak oil date certain (the point at which oil production hits an apex and starts falling) has come and gone multiple times over the past decades. Yet, since the concept of peak oil was first popularized by Marion Hubbert in 1956, the amount of oil we produce has increased vastly. So too has the amount of known reserves in the

ground. There was just no way for him to predict wed be drilling in thousands of feet of wateror fracking! (Heck, in 1956, frack was still what polite Dads said after their thumbs got in the way of their hammers.) Or that wed even have the technology to find the oil (or gas) to deep-water drill (or frack).

The popular 1968 book the Population Bomb posited that in the 1970s, hundreds of millions would starve to death. The theory was that if food production is growing at X rate and the population growing at much faster Y rate, that could pose quite a problem. But then, along came Norman Borlaug, who invented high-yielding, disease-resistant dwarf wheat. (Thank goodness Normans mom wasnt a Malthusian.) Now, dwarf wheat may make those who shun frankenfoods mad, but it also
meant the emerging worlds burgeoning populations didnt all starve. (Not to mention that sticky question, if you buy whole-hog into Malthuss *long-disproven] concept, of how exactly you get the population to that lower, appropriate level. Lets move on.) I dont care what its oneconomies, capital markets, wheat yields, hemline trendslong-term

forecasts are fraught with peril. And ones that underestimate humanitys ingenuity and ability to problem-solve are particularly faulty. Yes, pockets of the world face famineusually in regions with corrupt, despotic governments. But overall, the world hasnt outgrown
its ability to feed itself. Someone invented the steel plow, the tractor, the threshing machine, better fertilizers. Handily, someone also discovered penicillin, the pasteurization process, the Polio vaccine and DDT so we have a better shot at getting past age 5. (And the iPhone too, so we can live, not starve and be entertained all the while.) Malthus didnt think about the iPhone anymore than he thought about dwarf wheat or the MMR vaccine. That doesnt make him a bad person, just rather unimaginative. And while

global population has grown, life expectancies keep increasing, quality of life keeps improving, and per capita GDP keeps expanding. So bring on number 8 billion! (Malthus will still be wrong then.)

Technology Solves Ext.

Malthusian predictions wrong technology prevents the crunch Powell, 11- A journalist for Mail Online (Laura, Thomas Malthus predicted the end of the world...but the only thing doomed was
his own family, MailOnline.com, November 7, 2011, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057994/Thomas-Malthus-predicted-endworld--thing-doomed-family.html)//SS
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057994/Thomas-Malthus-predicted-end-world--thing-doomed-family.html#ixzz21fOfAP3l

He predicted that eventually there would be what is now called a

Malthusian crisis. This could be a dearth, a famine, a plague, or something that would cut numbers so the population and natural resources would be kept in tandem with one another, explains historian Dr Emma Griffin, of the University of East Anglia and author of A Short History Of The British Industrial Revolution. Of course, it has never happened. Indeed, although our population hit seven billion last week, experts already say it will reach nine billion by 2050. Economists believe the Industrial Revolution saved us from the doom Malthus foresaw. Technological innovation enabled modern society to equip itself with sufficient resources. Once youve got an industrial society, the connection between the size of the population and the natural resources is broken so we arent dependent on our own agriculture to feed ourselves, explains Dr Griffin.
Things looked very different in Malthuss era. From his perspective, it seemed that every spurt in population had been followed by setback, such as the Black Death in the Middle Ages.

Food

Frontline
A) No food crisis - constant innovation solves Ronald, 11- Dr. Robert L. Thompson is a senior fellow for The Chicago Council on Global Affairs and professor emeritus at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He previously served as the Gardner Endowed Chair in Agricultural Policy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Dean of Agriculture at Purdue University and Director of Rural Development at the World Bank, and is a former president of the International Association of Agricultural Economists. (Robert L., Proving Malthus Wrong: Sustainable Agriculture in 2050,
ScienceBlogs, May 13, 2011, http://scienceblogs.com/tomorrowstable/2011/05/13/proving-malthus-wrong-sustaina/)//SS

Adoption of technologies that produce more output from fewer resources has been hugely successful from an economic standpoint: prior to the price spike in 2008, there was a 150-year downward trend in the real price of food. The jury is still out on whether the long-term downward trend will resume, prices will flatten out on a new higher plateau, or they will trend upward in the future. The key is investing in research in the public and private sectors to increase agricultural productivity faster than global demand grows.
Long ago, British scholar Thomas Malthus predicted that the human population would eventually outgrow its ability to feed itself. However,

Malthus has been proven wrong for more than two centuries precisely because he underestimated the power of agricultural research and technology to increase productivity faster than demand. There is no more reason for Malthus to be right in the 21st century than he was in the 19th or 20th but only if
we work to support, not impede, continued agricultural research and adoption of new technologies around the world.

B) Poverty causes distribution problems this is the root cause of starvation, not food shortages Goodman, 10 -Jim Goodman is a farmer in Wonewoc and a policy fellow for the Food and Society Fellows Program. (Jim, The food crisis is not about a shortage of food, Energy Bulletin, September 17, 2010,
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-09-28/food-crisis-not-about-shortage-food)//SS

Food shortages are seldom about a lack of food, there is plenty of food in the world, the shortages occur because of the inability to get food where it is needed and the inability of the hungry to afford it. These two
problems are principally caused by, as Francis Moore Lappe' put it, a lack of justice. There are also ethical considerations, a higher value should be placed on people than on corporate profit, this must be at the forefront, not an afterthought.

In 2008, there were shortages of food, in some places, for some people. There was never a shortage of food in 2008 on a global basis, nor is there currently. True, some countries, in Africa for example, do not have enough food where it is needed, yet people with money have their fill no matter where they live. Poverty and inequality cause hunger.
The current food riots in Mozambique were a result of increased wheat prices on the world market. The UN Food and Agriculture organization, (FAO) estimates the world is on course to the third largest wheat harvest in history, so increasing wheat actual shortages,

prices were not caused by but rather by speculation on the price of wheat in the international market. While millions of people go hungry in India, thousands of kilos of grain rot in storage. Unable to afford the grain, the
hungry depend on the government to distribute food. Apparently that's not going so well. Not everyone living in a poor country goes hungry,

those with money eat. Not everyone living in rich country is well fed, those

without money go hungry. We in the US are said to have the safest and most abundant food supply in the world, yet even here,
surrounded by an over abundance of food, there are plenty of hungry people and their numbers are growing. Do we too have a food crisis, concurrent with an obesity crisis?

C) Racism and sexism cause distribution disparities Scanlin, Jenkons, and Peterson, 10- ***Scanlan is in the department of sociology and anthropology at Ohio University. He studies comparative social change with an emphasis on food insecurity and development. *** Jenkins is in the sociology department at Ohio State University. He is the author of Identity Conflict: Can Violence Be Regulated? *** Peterson is in the department of sociology at The Ohio State University. She studies stratification,

movements, and political sociology. (Stephen J., J. Craig, Lindsey, the scarcity fallacy, American Sociological Association,
Winter 2010, http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2010/the-scarcity-fallacy/)//SS Poverty, though, is only one form of inequality. Gender,

ethnic, and other types of stratification have contributed considerably to hunger as well. Women are disproportionately likely to suffer from hunger, and in fact constitute approximately 60 percent of the worlds hungry. This is particularly troubling given that women do as much as 80
percent of the worlds agricultural labor, working land that in more than a few places they may not be legally entitled to own. As we have found in our own work, countries

with more gender inequality (especially in education) have the greatest

degree of child hunger. Gender inequality also influences womens health and access to contraception as well as limits their
opportunities in society, potentially condemning them to lives where childrearing is their only opportunity for social status. In this context, large numbers of children may not be a cause of scarcity so much as a consequence of poverty and powerlessness.

Ethnic inequality can also contribute significantly to world hunger, especially in countries with marginalized minorities and a history or present situation of ethnic violence. Such minorities at risk, as social movements scholar
Ted Gurr calls them in People versus States, have long been threatened with hunger. Eritrea, Indonesia, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, and the Sudan are among many such places. While contributing to rampant militarism and armed conflicts, ethnic

discrimination also silently marginalizes minorities to less desirable lands and occupations. The effects of ethnic discrimination then go beyond

Distribution Problems Ext.

Distribution causes starvation - not production

Scanlin, Jenkons, and Peterson, 10- ***Scanlan is in the department of sociology and anthropology at Ohio University. He studies comparative social change with an emphasis on food insecurity and development. *** Jenkins is in the sociology department at Ohio State University. He is the author of Identity Conflict: Can Violence Be Regulated? *** Peterson is in the department of sociology at The Ohio State University. She studies stratification, movements, and political sociology. (Stephen J., J. Craig, Lindsey, the scarcity fallacy, American Sociological Association,
Winter 2010, http://contexts.org/articles/winter-2010/the-scarcity-fallacy/)//SS The bigger problem with emphasizing food supply as the problem, however, is that scarcity

is largely a myth. On a per capita basis,

food is more plentiful today than any other time in human history. Figures on the next pages reveal that over the last several decades food production (represented here in a common staple, cereals) and the average daily food availability per capita have grown, outpacing what has been the most rapid expansion of human population ever. Data
such as these from the FAO reveal that even in times of localized production shortfalls or regional famines there has long been a global food surplus.

The problem is ensuring access to this food and distributing it more equitably. A 2002 New York Times headline proclaiming Indias
Poor Starve as Wheat Rots dramatically, if tragically, illustrates this point. Starvation amidst plenty has occurred in many a famine, as in Bangladesh in 1974 or Ethiopia in the 1980s.Even

Ireland during the Great Famine exported vast quantities of food. Hunger in contemporary world societies is often no different. Markets are overflowing and even when shortfalls occur in
emergencies, the global surplus is more than adequate to address such concerns.

Crop science can produce more food, and transportation and storage improvements can distribute greater amounts of it, but
these dont guarantee access for alla scenario that became quite evident with the 2007 global food crisis and spikes in food prices. Indeed, the global supermarket revolution can actually be devastating and counterproductive on the local level when prices increase and make food unaffordable for hundreds of millions of people.

Peak Oil

Frontline
No peak oil several reasons: A) Oil production rising Perry, 12- Dr. Mark J. Perry is a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management. Perry holds two graduate degrees in economics (M.A. and Ph.D.) from George Mason University. (Mark, No Peak
Oil In Sight: Weve Got An Unprecedented Upsurge In Global Oil Production Underway, Daily Market, June 26, 2012, http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2012/06/26/no-peak-oil-in-sight-weve-got-an-unprecedented-upsurge-in-global-oil-productionunderway/)//SS

oil is not in short supply and oil supply capacity is growing worldwide at such an unprecedented level that it might outpace consumption. From a purely physical point of view, there are huge volumes of conventional and unconventional oils still to be developed, with no peak-oil in
1. Contrary to what most people believe,

sight.
2. The

The full deployment of the worlds oil potential depends only on price, technology, and political factors. More than 80 percent of the

additional production under development globally appears to be profitable with a price of oil higher than $70 per barrel.

shale/tight oil boom in the United States is not a temporary bubble, but the most important revolution in the oil sector

in decades. It will probably trigger worldwide emulation, although the U.S. boom is difficult to be replicated given the unique features of the U.S. oil (and gas) arena. Whatever the timing, emulation over the next decades might bear surprising results, given the fact that most shale/tight oil resources in the world are still unknown and untapped. China appears to be the first country to follow the U.S. example. Moreover, the extension of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing combined to conventional oil fields might dramatically increase worlds oil production and revive mature, declining oilfields. 3. In the aggregate, conventional oil production is also growing throughout the world, although some areas (e.g. the North Sea), face an apparently irreversible decline of the production capacity. In most traditional producing countries, old oilfields go through a production revival thanks to better techniques and knowledge, or advanced exploration and production technologies, so far used only in the U.S. and in the North Sea. Huge parts of the world are still relatively unexplored for conventional oil (for example, the Arctic Sea or most of sub-Saharan Africa). 4. Over the next decades, the growing role of unconventional oils will make the Western hemisphere the new center of gravity of oil exploration and production. 5. Based

on original, bottom-up, field-by-field analysis of most oil exploration and development projects in the world, this paper suggests that an unrestricted, additional production of more than 49 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil is targeted for 2020, the equivalent of more than half the current world production capacity of 93 mbd. B) Production peak distinct from available supplies - Hubbert ignored unconventional sources

WUERTHNER, 12 An ecologist. (George, Th e Rea l Problem is Not T oo Little Oil, Bu t Too Mu ch, Coun ter
Punch, March 29, 2 012, http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/29/the-myth-of-peak-oil/)//SS

Hubbert presented a paper titled Nuclear Energy and Fossil Fuels where he suggested that overall petroleum production would peak in the United States between the late 1960s and the early 1970s. Since US oil production did indeed appear to peak in 1970, many Peak Oil advocates acclaim Hubbert as a prophet. However, an apparent peak in production does not necessarily represent a peak in oil availability, especially in a global marketsomething that Peak Oil advocates tend to overlook. In fact, a peak may just be one of many
In the 1956 meeting of the American Petroleum Institute in San Antonio, Texas, spikes. Another point of confusion in the debate over the ultimate availability of oil and gas supplies is the question of unconventional

fossil fuel sources like tar sands, oil shales, heavy oils, and shale oil. Hubbert did not include these other energy types in his estimates and many of the proponents of Peak Oil today tend to ignore these hydro-carbon sources. However, since there is vastly more oil (and gas) found in these unconventional sources compared to conventional crude oil and traditional gas sources, the exclusion of them from any policy debate over oils demise leads to serious misrepresentation of our ultimate fossil fuel availability.

C) Hubbert wrong ignored new technology

WUERTHNER, 12 An ecologist. (George, Th e Rea l Problem is Not T oo

Little Oil, Bu t Too Mu ch, Coun ter Punch, March 29, 2 012, http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/29/the-myth-of-peak-oil/)//SS The first problem with Hubberts prediction is that his estimates of total oil and gas reserves are far too low. If the starting amount of reserves are low, than the top of the bell curve is reached much sooner than if there are greater amounts of oilassuming that a bell curve actually represents what is occurringwhich many people dispute. Some

suggest Hubbert just drew the curve to fit his assumptions. In his paper, Hubbert estimated that the ultimate potential reserve of 150 billion barrels of crude oil for both
the land and offshore areas of the United States. Hubberts estimate was based on the crude oil initially present which are producible by methods now in use. Using the 150 billion barrel estimate he predicted US Peak Oil occurring in 1965. But to be cautious, he also used a slightly higher figure of 200 billion barrels which produced a peak in oil production around 1970the figure that Hubbert advocates like to use to demonstrate that Hubbert was prophetic in his predictions. However, by 2006 the Department of Energy estimated that domestic oil resources still in the ground (in-place) total 1,124 billion barrels. Of this large in-place resource, 400 billon barrels is estimated to be technically recoverable with current technology.

This estimate was produced before horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or fracking techniques were widely adopted which most authorities believe will yield considerably more oil than was thought to be recoverable in 2006.
Going back to Hubberts paper we find that he predicted that by 1970 the US should have consumed half or about 100 million barrels of oil of the original endowment of 150-200 billion barrels of recoverable oil. And by

his own chart on page 32 of his paper if we use the

assumption of 200 billion barrels as the total potential oil reserves of the US we should be completely out of oil by now. According to his curve and graph, by year 2000 we should have had only around 27 billion or so barrels of oil left in the US and fallen to zero sometime in the mid-2000s.

D) Demand will slow before supply peaks Peak Oil News, 12- A news organization and forum for understanding the worlds hydrocarbon energy systems (Peak oil: Are we looking at it all wrong?, Peak Oil News, June 1, 2012, http://peakoil.com/consumption/peak-oil-are-we-lookingat-it-all-wrong/)//SS But its a good thing I broke with tradition when I came to the New Scientist article Dump the pump: When oil will lose its luster. Guess what these scientists and analysts now find? You

know that whole problem with oil, how eventually its going to run out and trigger a global depression and maybe a breakdown of civilization and is it really such a good idea to bring children into this crazy world? Well dont sweat it, everythings going to be totally fine. Its all going to be one hundred percent aokay. All right, that might be a somewhat simplistic rendering of the argument. What the scientists and analysts are arguing and presenting evidence for is that although weve been worrying this whole time about peak oil supply, the operative force will actually be peak oil demand. Due to a variety of factors the article focuses mainly on advances in automotive fuel efficiency global

demand for oil is only going to keep increasing for a few more years, after which it will begin to decline and will continue on a downward path. Specifically, the costs of alternative-fuel vehicles will drop as their batteries become easier to mass-produce, the cost of oil
will keep going up, and carmakers will have to sell a lot of electrics and hybrids to keep up with intensifying CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards. The

global demand for oil will peak long before the supply does, according to a study from Ricardo Strategic Consulting perhaps as early as 2015.

AT: 1970s Prove

1970 was due to economics, not lack of oil WUERTHNER, 12 An ecologist. (George, Th e Rea l Problem is Not T oo Little Oil, Bu t Too Mu ch, Coun ter
Punch, March 29, 2 012, http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/29/the-myth-of-peak-oil/)//SS

Was it just coincidence and luck that Hubbert picked 1970 as one of the possible peaks in US oil production even though his starting
numbers were way too low?

This raises the question whether declining US production since 1970 is due to depletion of oil fields as asserted by Peak Oil advocates or whether economics explains it better. (This is not to deny that at some point we
will see declining production due to real limitsthe question of importance however is when that will occur). Another explanation requires looking beyond the US. Keep in mind that oil

is a commodity. Just because we may see a decline in production of some commodity does not mean we are running out of that substance or resource. The Northeast US
was once the major producer of timber in the US. Today if you buy lumber in New England, theres a good chance it was cut and shipped from the Pacific Northwest, not because there are no trees to cut in New England. Rather due to climate, vegetation, and infrastructure factors, its less expensive to cut trees in Oregon or British Columbia than to log New England forests. It would be wrong to conclude that because New England imports most of its lumber that there are not enough trees left to provide wood locally. Similarly attributing

declining US oil production to geological depletion ignores the effect of global oil production. Immediately after WWii the US was easily the global leader in oil production. This dominance of global oil markets by US production and companies continued throughout the 1950s and 1960s. Then in the late 1960s and early 1970s oil production in other parts of the world began to increase substantially. In particular, Middle East oil production improved dramatically due to foreign investment and technology. For a variety of factors, once the oil infrastructure (pipelines, tanker ports, oil fields,) was built in these places, it became less expensive to import oil from Saudi Arabia, for example, than to build a new oil field in Wyoming or Texas. Indeed in some cases producing oil wells in the US were capped and
retired even though they were perfectly capable of producing more oil. Not only was oil production increasing in Saudi Arabia, but all over the world at this time including Venezuela, Mexico, and the Soviet Union. All of these new fields were producing lower cost oil than one could get from most US oil fields at the time. So could than invest in US oil production? Worse for US producers, except for a few manufactured shortages like the 1973 oil crisis created by OPEC in response to US support for Israel

it be that US producers just decided it was a better business plan to invest in and/or buy oil from other oil producing countries? Did this low cost oil cause oil companies to import oil rather kept oil prices depressed throughout the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and into the early 2000s, discouraging new investment in US oil production.
or the War in Iraq, the abundance of relatively inexpensive oil

Water Shortages

Not Anthropogenic
Shortages arent our fault, Earths formation PC Mag, 6/19 (Stephanie Mlot-Writer for PC Mag, has degree in journalism from University of Pennsylvania, Report Explains Earth's
Water Shortage, 6/19/2012, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407365,00.asp)//VS Despite the vast oceans and enormous glaciers that cover our planet, Earth

may have been formed in a hotter, drier part of the solar system than previously thought, which could explain its mysterious water shortage. The Earth was previously thought to have merged from water-rich substances beyond what scientists call the "snow line." But the planet is actually made up of less than 1 percent H2O, a puzzling fact that may be explained by new discoveries about the snow line's location. When the solar system took shape 4.5 billion years ago, the line was thought to be closer to the sun, but is instead positioned in the middle of the asteroid belt, between Mars and Jupiter, where the sun's light is too weak to melt icy debris. "Unlike the standard accretion-disk model, the snow line in our analysis never migrates inside Earth's orbit," said Mario Livio, co-author of a Baltimore's Space Telescope Science Institution (STSd) study, in a statement. If the snow line had been inside the Earth's orbit, the planet would have formed into an icy body, said coauthor Rebecca Martin. In contrast, planets like Uranus and Neptune, which formed beyond the snow line, carry tens of percents of water, Martin said. The fact that Earth doesn't carry much water, "has always been a puzzle." The original theory pointed to the evolution of the snow line's accretion disk model, which means that the line slowly moved inward toward the sun and away from Earth's orbit before the planet formed. But Martin and Livio said that protoplanetary disks around young stars aren't fully ionized and couldn't have fired up the disk. Extremely hot objects like white dwarfs or X-ray sources release enough energy to ionize accretion disks, Martin said, but young stars, like those listed in the standard disk model, don't have enough radiation to provide what she calls the necessary "energetic punch" to ionize the disks. Instead, gas and dust would have orbited around Earth without moving inward, building what scientists refer to as a "dead zone" in the disk, which acts like a plug to prevent space matter from migrating toward the star. Instead, material simply piles up in the dead zone, increasing its density and causing it to heat up. "This process, in turn, heats the area outside the plug, vaporizing the icy material and turning it into dry matter," the release said. Earth then formed in that hotter, drier region. Scientists are still researching the new model, though, warning that this is not a blueprint for how all disks around young stars behave.

Earths formation cause of water shortages-newest study proves Space.com, 7/17 (Earths Hot Formation May Solve Water Shortage Mystery, 7/17/2012, http://www.space.com/16629-earth-dryformation-snow-line.html)//VS

Earth probably formed in a hotter, drier part of the solar system than previously thought, which could explain our planet's puzzling shortage of water, a new study reports. Our newly forming solar system's "snow line" the zone beyond which icy compounds could condense 4.5 billion years ago was actually much farther away from the sun than prevailing theory predicts, according to the study. "Unlike the standard accretion-disk model, the snow line in our analysis never migrates inside Earth's orbit," co-author Mario Livio, of the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, said in a statement. "Instead, it remains farther from the sun than the orbit of Earth, which explains why our Earth is a dry planet," Livio added. "In fact, our model predicts that the other
innermost planets Mercury, Venus andMars are also relatively dry. " [A Photo Tour of the Planets] Earth a dry planet? Referring to Earth with its vast oceans, huge rivers and polar ice caps as a dry planet may sound strange. But water

makes up less than 1

percent of our planet's mass, and much of that material was likely delivered by comets and asteroids after Earth's formation. Scientists have long been puzzled by our planet's relative water deficiency, especially because Earth is thought to
have coalesced from water-rich substances out beyond the snow line. The snow line now lies in the middle of the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, but conventional models suggest that it was much closer to the sun 4.5 billion years ago, when Earth and the other planets took shape. "If the snow line was inside Earth's orbit when our planet formed, then it should have been an icy body," said co-author Rebecca Martin, also of STScI. "Planets such as Uranus and Neptune that formed beyond the snow line are composed of tens of percents of water. But Earth doesn't have much water, and that has always been a puzzle." The journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,

new study, which has been accepted for publication in the may help solve the mystery.

Humans not root cause of shortages-laundry list of alt causes Market Watch, 7/24 (Paul Farrell- writes the column on behavioral economics. He's the author of nine books on personal
finance; He has a Juris Doctor and a Doctorate in Psychology, Water is the new gold, a big commodity bet, 7/24/2012, http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-24/commentary/32806438_1_water-usage-city-water-population-growth/3)//VS

Chinas mining new gold, for agriculture, industry, economic leadership You probably think individuals consume the most water, says Fortune. Not so. Agriculture accounts for 71%, and industry another 16% for a total 86% of all water use in the world. It even takes 71 gallons to produce a single cup of coffee, forcing Starbucks to cut its in-store water usage by 25% by 2015 with, for example, espresso machines that
dispense less water. Heres Fortunes summary of the global market for all water users: Total worldwide revenues of $508 billion in 2010 the bottled water market generated $58 billion of that total and growing fast industry needs $28 billion for water equipment and services to all kinds of businesses another $10 billion covers agricultural irrigation another $15 billion in retail products like filters and various heating and cooling systems $170 billion is used for waste water, sewage systems, waste-water treatment and water recycling systems and $226 billion for water utilities, treatment plants and distribution systems. Read our Weekend Investor column on food and water investments to weather the drought.

New Gold hidden in steaks, auto tires, chickens, designer jeans So humans consuming lots of bottled water are not the worlds biggest guzzlers. Its our lifestyle and consumer habits that accelerate the impact of population growth. Everything we eat, wear and use has a big water-use price tag, says Fortune: Consider the impact on the water supply when more people in developing nations begin living Western lifestyles. In India alone, water usage is expected to rise by nearly 100% over the next 20 years. Expanding
populations will also swell demand for agricultural water some 42% by 2030. What we must do is grow more crops with less water by applying genetically modified seeds, drip irrigation, and other technologies. In short, New Gold is costly to purify and the cost will keep going up. So the price of the New Gold will appreciate in the future for investors betting on this key commodity. Consider this data: It

takes 70 gallons of water to produce 50 cents worth of milk, says Danielle Commisso in Carnegie Mellon Today. In Fortune we learn those designer jeans your daughter just bought require 2,906 gallons of water, mostly from growing cotton ... a pound of that juicy prime steak you had for dinner required 1,857 gallons ... while a pound of that fingerlicking-good chicken for lunch used 467 gallons a pound of rice pilaf is a little less at 407 gallons how about that bowl of shredded wheat you had for breakfast? A pound needed 160 gallons ... and a pound of steel needs a mere 31 gallons so why does a car requires 104,000 gallons you ask? Most of it from the rubber. Add it all up and you got megaopportunities the next generation, in a world adding a staggering 200,000 people each and ever day.

Boost Econ
Shortages mean water industry skyrockets drives scarcity means water prices go up Market Watch, 7/24 (Paul Farrell- writes the column on behavioral economics. He's the author of nine books on personal
finance; He has a Juris Doctor and a Doctorate in Psychology, Water is the new gold, a big commodity bet, 7/24/2012, http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-24/commentary/32806438_1_water-usage-city-water-population-growth/3)//VS

Is water the gold of the 21st century? asks Fortune. Answer: Yes, water is the New Gold for investors this century. In 2010 global water generated over a half trillion dollars of revenue. Global world population will explode from 7 billion today to 10 billion by 2050, predicts the United Nations. And over one billion lack access to clean drinking water. Climate and weather patterns are changing natural water patterns. And industrial pollution is making water a scarce commodity. So the good news is that huge opportunities exist for businesses that can figure out how to keep the pipes flowing. Yes, its a hot market. So, expand your vision for a minute. How many bottles of water do you drink a week? How much did you use for a shower? When you flushed a toilet? Wash your car? Cooking? Lattes? And my guess is your city water bills gone up in recent years. So ask yourself: What happens in the next 40 years when another three billion people come into the world? Imagine adding 75 million people every year, six million a month, 200,000 every day, all demanding more and more water to drink, to shower, to cook, to everything. All guzzling down the New Gold thats getting ever scarcer. Population, the explosive driver in the demand for ever-scarcer water
Now heres the real scary stuff, the investors basic multiplier. In the 12 short years leading up to 2011 the world added a billion people. Chinas population is now 1.3 billion. Plus theyll add another 100 million in the next generation, while India adds 600 million according to United Nations experts. Chinas already planning as many as 500 new cities to house all their new folks. Imagine, 500 new cities each housing 100,000 or more people, and thats just for half of Chinas projected growth to 2050, all demanding more water. The numbers

are

overwhelming. Today Americans use 150 gallons a day, compared with 23 gallons in China. But theyre catching up, just check out any
panoramic travel photos of Chinas beautiful megacities, Shanghai, Beiiing, Guangzhou. And read about skyrocketing sales of Ferraris, Cartier watches, Gucci handbags and luxury goods in China. China has its own version of the American Dream! Seriously, just a few decades ago China was an emerging country, a bit backward, not a global economic threat. But change is happening at light speed. Soon their GDP will overtake ours. India

expects their water demand to double in one decade while Fortune says expanding populations will also swell demand for agricultural water some 42% by 2030, in two decades.

Insurance paybacks mean farmers profit during drought Buisnessweek 7/26 (Mark Drajem and Alan Bjerga, Farmers May Gain Amid Drought With U.S.-Backed Insurance, 7/26/12,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-26/farmers-may-see-gains-amid-drought-with-u-dot-s-dot-backed-insurance#p1)//VS

This years once-in-a-generation drought may leave many crop farmers largely unscathed as they are protected by taxpayer-subsidized insurance, a program Congress is moving to make more generous. With prices for corn, soy and wheat escalating along with estimates of the droughts severity, government-backed revenueinsurance policies offered through units of companies such as ACE Ltd. (ACE) (ACE) and Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC) (WFC) probably will be paying out billions of dollars in claims. And the program is designed so that the larger the losses for insurers, the greater the share of the payouts the government will pick up. Farmers are laughing all the way to the bank, Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State University economist and critic of the insurance program, said at a presentation in Washington July 19. If the price goes up, you could end up better off than anticipated if you have a crop loss . Im not
saying this is anything illegal, or immoral, he added. Its just the way it is. In 2011, with a drought in Texas and other weather woes, government-run crop-insurance programs paid out a record $10.8 billion. Of premiums paid in 2011, farmers chipped in $4.5 billion, while the government paid $7.4 billion, according to data published by the department. Because of the programs reinsurance rules, insurers made a $1.7 billion profit even with those record payouts, while the government took an underwriting loss of about $500 million, Pat Engel, a spokeswoman for the USDA Risk Management Agency, said in an e-mail. Never Whole Jeff Scates, who farms corn and soybeans on 15,000 acres in Shawneetown, Illinois, said this year demonstrates the need for an effective insurance program. He said he may lose as much as 80 percent of his crop because of the dry conditions. With insurance, he said

he can recoup 75 percent of his potentially

lost revenues. Even with insurance, youre never whole as farmers must pay for seeds and fertilizer, he said in an interview. Im
definitely in favor of the crop-insurance program. It gives us skin in the game. If everyone buys it, everyone is in the game. Like auto, fire, and other forms of insurance, farmers pay into the program each year, collecting only when they suffer losses. In each of the previous 10 years

insurance companies made more in premiums than they paid out to farmers. Dust Bowl Federal crop insurance dates to the Dust Bowl droughts of the 1930s. The program and subsidies were boosted in 2000 as lawmakers sought to use it as a way to avoid what by the 1980s had become near-annual disaster payouts. Those payments cost taxpayers $68.7 billion from 1989 to 2009, according to the Congressional Research Service. When the last major drought hit in 1988, 25 percent of farmers had crop insurance, while this year 85 percent do, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said today on Bloomberg Television. Were fortunate, he said. The program reflects a long-standing desire in Congress to protect farmers, who are considered essential to the economy and at unusual risk of losses because of weather, said Keith Collins, a former chief economist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture who is currently a consultant for the crop-insurance industry. The share of government support for crop insurance could rise by the time the next disaster hits, as lawmakers are working on a new agriculture-policy law that would expand support both for farmers and the insurers. The Senate has passed a bill with a provision that reduces premium costs for new farmers, expands insurance for cotton growers and allows farmers to buy a supplemental policy. Good Example The Senate changes would cost the government an additional $5 billion over the next decade, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The House Agriculture Committee has approved a similar measure. That expansion partly compensates for the proposed elimination of another form of subsidy, direct payments, which growers can receive regardless of crop prices. Lawmakers have moved substantially in the direction of having risk management be the farmers safety net, David Graves, manager of the American Association of Crop Insurers in Washington, said in an interview. The droughts last year and this year show the program is working, he said. Farmers will have a loss, but theyll be able next year to ante up and go at it again. Crop Threat The threat to crops is high. The U.S. Drought Monitor today said moderate to severe drought expanded to 64 percent of the lower 48 states in the week ended yesterday, up slightly from the previous week. Yesterday, the Department of Agriculture designated 76 more counties as natural-disaster areas, bringing the total to 1,369 in 31 states -- 44 percent of those in the entire country. The USDA last week said 88 percent of the nations corn crop and 87 percent of soybeans were in drought-stricken areas, making the conditions the worst for farmers since 1988. Higher commodity prices mean higher insurance payments to farmers, who are able to buy policies that are linked to the price of their crops at harvest time. Theoretically, that means growers, who often insure 70 percent to 75 percent of their crop, can end up with a bigger payday if their crop fails and prices rise than if they harvest their full expected crop while prices are stagnant. Corn Prices The price of corn, the biggest U.S. crop, closed yesterday at $7.88 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade, up 20 percent from March 1, as the planting season was getting under way. Soybeans gained 22 percent in that period and wheat 36 percent. And the higher the indemnities, the greater the share that the government chips in, protecting the companies such as ACE and Wells Fargo from overwhelming losses. The government also takes a share of underwriting profits. Insurers arent protected from all losses. Drought conditions in the U.S. are impacting our crop- insurance business and will affect our earnings in the second half of the year, Evan Greenberg, chairman and chief executive of ACE, said in a statement July 24. Gabriel Boehmer, a spokesman for Wells Fargo, said its premature to speculate on the effects the drought will have on the company He said Wells Fargo recognizes the vital role crop insurance plays in helping our country sustain an agricultural industry that delivers a stable, affordable food supply. Farmer groups say criticisms of the program are misplaced, because crop insurance has achieved its goal of reducing risk and lessening dependence on emergency bailouts that also cost billions. After last years drought in Texas and flooding in the Midwest, for the first time in my memory, we did not have any serious legislative effort at an ad hoc disaster bill, Bob Young, the chief economist of the American Farm Bureau Federation in Washington, said in an e-mail.

Boost Coop
Water wars are a myth even states that hate each other will cooperate over water
Neubert and Scheumann, 03 (Susanne Nuebert, agriculture economist at the German Development Institute. Dr. Waltina
Scheumann, Institute for Management in Environmental Planning, Technical Berlin University. Water Stress But No Water Wars. Winter 2003. http://en.internationalepolitik.de/archiv/ 2003/winter2003/----water-stress------but-no-water-wars.html) The gloomy prognosis that water scarcity equals conflict equals war is plausible, however, only at first glance. A

quick review shows that in the past fifty years alone, utilization conflicts for transboundary water resources worldwide were settled in 1800 agreements. Transboundary water resources have often even been a catalyst for cooperation among bordering states that were at odds over other issues. The best-known example is the Indus agreement of 1961 between India and Pakistan, which was signed at a time of extreme political tension and has weathered several wars over Kashmir since then. In practice, states on the lower course of a river,
like Egypt and Iraq, were often the original users of its water and could thus claim the right of first use. Egypt, threatening military retaliation, was thus able to block utilization at the upper course of the Nile, and Iraq has simply stopped supplying oil to Turkey. In addition,

since not

all potential uses of the upper course have negative effects on those living downstream (for example, dams protect downstream states from floods, while reservoirs ensure the availability of water for all during dry spells), cooperation is in everyones interest. In 1997 Heather L. Beach and other American researchers at Oregon State University published spectacular findings in their Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Data Base. The last water war was waged 4500 years ago, they documented, between the two Mesopotamian city-states of Lagash and Umma. In a word, water wars are a myth. In todays unsettled conflicts over the Jordan, Nile, and Euphrates rivers, there are usually other factors that come into play and have prevented cooperative solutions to date, such as the territorial and status disputes between Israel and Palestine, or security issues between Turkey and Syria. In another
study of 460 constellations of upper/lower course riparian states, German academics Frank Biermann, Gerhard Petschel-Held, and Christoph Rohloff found thirty

critical conflicts of interest, of which only seven reached a high conflict potential. Some of these cases have now been settled by contractual agreement. Even in the case of those transboundary rivers (with the exception of the Jordan river) where no agreements have been reached between states, there are signs of cooperative developments. Riparian states tend to favor non-military conflict resolution by such mediators as joint technological committees and joint water commissions to increase their water supply. The simple hydrological determinism on which the thesis of water wars is based has thus been refuted: water wars have no empirical reality.

Shortages dont cause conflict - Africa

Kasrils- Minister of water affairs and forestry, Republic of South Africa- 02
[Ronnie, HYDROPOLITICS IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD:A SOUTHERN AFRICAN PERSPECTIVE, edi.Anthony Turton & Roland Henwood,pg 9-10] There is a popularly held belief in parts of the developed world that water scarcity will inevitably lead to conflict. This notion is often nurtured by the available literature, which tends to be dominated by geographic areas like the Middle East and other international river basins that lie in conflict-ridden settings. This

idea is flawed and its perpetuation continues to undermine investor confidence in the developing world. As almost no literature has been generated from an African perspective to show that this is not universally true, this book is particularly relevant. The efforts by
the editors and authors to lay the foundation for an African perspective to an African problem are laudable. Although the views expressed here are not necessarily aligned to the approaches of the South African government on international water issues, the contents of the book certainly emphasises the importance, particularly politically, of water in developing countries. This work can rightly be regarded as a contribution to the Millennium Partnership for the African Recovery Programme (MAP)* that grew from President Thabo Mbeki's African Renaissance initiative.

Water scarcity necessitates regional cooperation Central Asia BBC, 09 (Kyrgyz leader says that cooperation key to regions water problems, 7/28/2009,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)

Kyrgyz President-elect has said cooperation

among regional countries is the key for resolving the growing problem of lack of clean water in the Central Asian region. In his first televised speech after the recent presidential election, the recording of which was broadcast by Kyrgyz TV on 28 July, the Kyrgyz head of state warned of a "catastrophic shortage of clean water" in future and called on the region's countries to join efforts to start dealing with the problem today.
"It is no secret to anybody that, affected by the global climate change, the balance of water has been changing, including in the region. According to scientists, the number of glaciers has been steadily shrinking. Prognoses show that after between 30 and 50 years, the region, as well as the entire world, is going to face a catastrophic shortage of clean water. Acknowledging their responsibility before the future generations, the

region's countries, helped by the international community, need to start resolving this problem already today. Together we must find ways of establishing a strategic reserve of clean water. This is a colossal task, whose accomplishment is beyond the capability of one individual country. There should not be any room for national egoism in this matter. Only through cooperation is it possible to find a solution to the situation that has emerged," the Kyrgyz leader said.

Shortages spur cooperation Central Asia BBC, 07 (Tajik leader offers solution to water shortage in Central Asia, 4/30/2007,
http://www.lexisnexis.com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/)//VS Tajik President Emomali Rahmon has proposed alleviating the shortage of water in Central Asia by taking water
from the country's Sarez Lake. Addressing parliament on 30 April, broadcast live by Tajik TV, said that the Central Asian region had problems linked to the shortage of water. "It is no secret that the region is already facing water problems, particularly pure drinking water. This problem will naturally grow more serious year by year. Tajikistan proposes that Central Asian countries be permanently supplied with this kind of excellent quality water [changes tack], high quality water from the ecological point of view, from the Sarez Lake [in the east of the country] to resolve this vital problem," Rahmon said. He

also said that all problems in the region should be resolved in line with the principles of good-neighbourliness. "I think the problem of water shortage and transportation of energy and fuel materials should be a driving factor in achieving unity and regulating cooperation between the Central Asian states. It would be good if we establish unbiased, reliable and genuinely friendly and fraternal relations and resolve the existing problems by observing goodneighbourliness, expanding economic and social cooperation and promoting common regional interests," Rahmon added. He also spoke about some media reports alleging that the construction of hydroelectric power stations in
Tajikistan would lead to water shortage in Central Asia. "However, the region's states do not have a single and common approach to this topical issue, and trivial and artificial problems are still creating new barriers and obstacles on the way of expanding cooperation... Some electronic media outlets have been posting biased reports on the water resources in Central Asia. They say Tajikistan will build new hydroelectric power stations and allege that this will block the water[running] to the region and create a water shortage crisis. Every soberminded person knows that a hydroelectric power station does not consume water, but water should permanently run to drive turbines and generate electricity. Second, no great power can block the way of billions of cubic metres of water and stop it from running... We are not going to block water, as was mentioned above. Muslims do not do this. There is no deed or good-will gesture better than this [as giving water to people]," Rahmon said. President Rahmon also said Tajikistan still supported the idea of setting up a Central Asian water and energy consortium.

Squo Solves
Status quo solves-desalination, filters, and aqueducts Market Watch, 7/24 (Paul Farrell- writes the column on behavioral economics. He's the author of nine books on personal
finance; He has a Juris Doctor and a Doctorate in Psychology, Water is the new gold, a big commodity bet, 7/24/2012, http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-07-24/commentary/32806438_1_water-usage-city-water-population-growth/3)//VS

Long-range solutions do exist for coming global water shortages The good news is that long-term solutions do exist for todays global water problems: 20% of Singapores drinking water comes from processed sewage thanks to innovative superfine filters. Chinas constructing a 1,816-mile aqueduct to move water from rivers in the south to the parched northeast. And global water companies like Veolia and Suez, in France, and ITT are partnering with municipalities to manage water. Beating the Coming Water Shortage was
the challenge headlining Fortunes feature. To get the message across it also highlighted several examples where government and industry are cooperating to beat the water shortage problem: million, to

In America a desalination project is underway, at a cost of $700 supply 8% of San Diego Countys drinking water by 2014, a county growing at a rate of almost 17% a decade. The Tampa Bay Water Utility is spending $210 million for Veolia to build a treatment plant to provide 120 million gallons a day for 2.4 million people who had been using well water.

**Warming**

Warming K

1NC
Apocalyptic and financial framing of global warming perpetuates human dominance over nature it disables change.
Segal 91, -professor of rhetorical history and theory and rhetoric of health and medicine at University of British Columbia, (Judy Z., The Structure of Advocacy: A Study of Environmental Rhetoric, Canadian Journal of Communication Vol. 16 No. 3, 1991, http://cjconline.ca/index.php/journal/article/viewArticle/626/532)//BL the rhetoric of environmental change is rooted at the level of lexis and metaphor in values of mastery and growth, it disables itself. Yet environmental advocates themselves resort to such a rhetoric, suggesting, in effect, that we take charge of the environment as always, but in a new way-that we declare "war" on pollution, organize our "plan of attack," and make good on our "investment" in the future. For example, Tom Brydges, head of the changing atmosphere secretariat with Environment Canada says
To the extent that Canadian scientists are playing a key role in the "war" to control the effects of climate change; he talks about cooperation by 50 countries to

Metaphors of dominance are commonplace among politicians. However, when environmentalists speak, the perspective changes, while the language, for the most part, stays the same. In the following quotation, John Livingston condemns human violation of nature, but his indignation is
develop a "joint plan of attack" (Burtt, 1990). both expressed and undermined by his description: Entirely out of control, the human technomachine guzzles and lurches and vomits and rips its random crazy course over the face of the once-blue planet, as though some filthy barbaric fist were drunkenly swiping with a gigantic paint

reads like a rape. While the metaphor is apt, the prose indulges too much in the sounds and images of violence, so that the act is rehearsed even as it is condemned. The framing of the environmental position in the language of entrenched values is apparent also in the persistence of
roller across an ancient tapestry. (p. 20) The encounter financial metaphors in the arguments of environmental advocates. Scientist Stephen Schneider: There are four or five good reasons to invest in a strategic policy of energy efficiency, of which climate change insurance is only one. . . . There's a better than even money odds of unprecedented change, that we can slow down. And that to me is what a prudent society does, especially when you can get lots of other dividends for your money. (MS, 1, p. 17) Ecologist Paul Ehrlich: We've managed to build a gigantic population size. . . and we're going to keep it going, by doing something that I don't think any of us would do in our personal finances; that is, we're squandering our inheritance; we're living on capital. (MS, 2, p. 2) Conservationist Doug Scott: My vision of what a comfortable life is, for myself and for my children, may change as I understand that I was doing it all on a big gigantic ecological credit card. Balance due. Overdrawn at the bank. (MS, 2, p. 21) These

financial metaphors seem to make solid arguments, as they describe the unknown in terms of the known. However, the strength of the arguments--their grounding in the language and the alreadyheld beliefs of their audience--is also their weakness. The arguments work to a point because they begin from where the audience is, but in using the terms of that starting place, they also restrict their own efficacy. Metaphors of finance, like metaphors of aggression, depend on the values of the past, the very values that created the situation environmental rhetoric is supposed to change. As they play in environmental argument, these
metaphors implicitly make sense of the notion that Americans must measure environmental legislation against free market principles, and Canadians should assess fossil fuel megaprojects in the context of employment figures. Both of these positions may indeed be completely sensible; what is interesting is that part of the tug of the argument is invisible. Because the structure and language of any debate are necessarily factors in the debate itself, it is possible to argue that environmental rhetoric sabotages itself. To say so is not to suggest that a change in the conduct of environmental argument would necessarily bring about rapid change in the course of environmental action. The point

In the case of environmental debate, in which positions resist identification and all of us are inclined to resist reality, such criticism is crucial, for it enables at least the possibility of change.
of rhetorical criticism is to subject debate to scrutiny, to determine how arguments are made--or fail to be made--compelling.

Dominance over nature is the root cause of your harms and destroys biosphere sustainability rethinking this paradigm is necessary to prevent planetary destruction Tompkins 02 president of the foundation for Deep Ecology (Douglas, Foundation for Deep
Ecology, http://fr.wiser.org/organization/view/c84dcc9e4e7d817b7db5d9e444fe20b2)

We begin with the premise that life on

Earth has entered its most precarious phase in history. We speak of threats not only to human life, but to the lives of all species of plants and animals, as well as the health and continued viability of the biosphere. It is the awareness of the present condition that primarily motivates our foundation`s activities. Without placing them into a hierarchy of lesser or greater importance, we believe that current problems are largely rooted in the following circumstances: The loss of traditional knowledge, values, and ethics of behavior that celebrate the intrinsic value and sacredness of the natural world and that give the preservation of Nature prime importance. Correspondingly, the assumption of human superiority to other life forms, as if we were granted royalty status over Nature; the idea that Nature is mainly here to serve human will and purpose. The prevailing economic and development
paradigms of the modern world, which place primary importance on the values of the market, not on Nature. The conversion of nature to commodity form, the emphasis upon economic growth as a panacea, the industrialization of all activity, from forestry to farming to fishing, even to education and culture; the drive to economic globalization, cultural homogenization, commodity accumulation, urbanization, and human alienation. All of these are fundamentally incompatible with ecological or biological sustainability on a finite Earth. Technology worship and an unlimited faith in the virtues of science; the modern paradigm that technological development is inevitable, invariably good, and to be equated with progress and human destiny. From this, we are left dangerously uncritical, blind to profound problems that technology and science have wrought, and in a state of passivity that confounds democracy. Overpopulation, in both the overdeveloped and the underdeveloped worlds, placing unsustainable burdens upon biodiversity and the human condition. As our name suggests, we are influenced by the Deep Ecology Platform, which helps guide and inform our work. We believe that values other than market values must be recognized and given importance, and that Nature provides the ultimate measure by which to judge human endeavors. Both as philosophy and activism, deep ecology views the survival of natural systems and the capacity of the planet for self-renewal as crucial to all life [human and nonhuman] and not to be compromised. We accept that true

ecological sustainability may require a rethinking of our values as a society. Present assumptions about economics, development, and the place of human beings in the natural order must be reevaluated. If we are to achieve ecological sustainability, Nature can no longer be viewed only for its commodity value; it must be seen as a partner and model in all human enterprise.

Alternative: Reject the aff as a means to reject apocalyptic environmental framing this will spur comic framing critical to encouraging political action
Foust & Murphy '9 Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver; doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver (Christina R.; William O'Shannon, "Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse," Environmental Communication, July, Communication & Mass Media Complete) // MK
Conclusions: Understanding and Reframing Apocalyptic Despair Framing global warming as an apocalyptic event has several implications. Tragic apocalyptic framing in particular posits the issue of global warming as extra-human, driven by cosmic forces, and, as such, Fated. Oddly, this makes it difficult to hold humans accountable for pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We are dismayed by tragic discourse that attributes global warming to a simple rise in temperatures (Bacon & Watson, 1998, p. 3A), which alleviates humans of responsibility for creating, or at least contributing to, climate change; and decreases the sense of human responsibility for combating global warming. Furthermore, apocalyptic

framing diminishes the range of human agency possible in

influencing the inevitable march of global warming. As Brummett (1991) explains, believers who have lost control
over events are reassured, not by regaining control, Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy 161but by knowing that history is nevertheless controlled by an underlying order (p. 37). Apocalyptic framing

limits believers agency to acting in

accordance with prophetic directives, which typically involves intrapersonal activity (e.g., repentance) in the face of cosmic forces beyond individual control. Rather than encouraging material action or

behavioral change, being a true believer resigns the community to inaction. A second implication of the tragic apocalyptic frame is that it invites naysayers to discredit scientists as false prophets and label environmentalists as alarmists. As Gleiberman (2006) notes: The right-wing strategy, which has been to paint global
warming as a lofty hypothetical*an alarmist scenario pushed by pesky Chicken Littles*is a way of relegating it back to the era of 60s paranoia (p. 65).

Apocalyptic framing serves as fodder for naysayers to continue portraying global

warming as overblown or arguing that it may not exist (Stevens, 1997, p. F1). Ultimately, such a discourse polarizes readers, who are forced to choose sides because they were not given more nuanced options for addressing the issue. But if not through a tragic apocalypse, how might the narrative of global
warming be framed to promote political action? Participants in a recent Environmental Communication forum speak to this question, in light of Schwarzes discussion of melodrama (Kinsella, 2008). As Schwarze (2006) argues, the polarizing structure of melodrama may inspire action: Promoting division and drawing sharp moral distinctions can be a fitting response to situations in which identification and consensus have obscured recognition of damaging material conditions and social injustices (p. 242). Though melodrama and apocalyptic tragedy differ, they share a tendency to divide audiences, for instance, into heroes against villains (Schwarze, 2006) or believers against non-believers (Brummett, 1991). Perhaps the polarizing rhetoric of melodrama may shift the ground of the climate change debate away from economic costs and benefits, to the moral stakes of decimating the earth, as Peterson suggests (Kinsella, 2008). Drawing clear distinctions between heroes and villains could motivate identifications to mitigate emissions. As Check counters, the complex issue of climate change may not lend itself to divisive, melodramatic structure, for it does not have a single clear rhetorical devil that is powerful, ubiquitous, deceitful, and identifiable (Kinsella, 2008, p. 98). We, too, worry that divisive rhetoric, particularly in the form of tragic apocalypse, has precluded and will continue to suffocate opportunities for a widespread collective will to form. If we

accept the view advocated by a number of experts*that global warming represents a challenge to every aspect of modern development*it is imperative for as many different sectors of society as possible to contribute to positive change. Polarizing the community while denying the potential for action, as in apocalyptic tragedy, seems an untenable rhetorical strategy for encouraging the public to become active participants in climate change mitigation. As a frame, apocalyptic comedy may
promote agency on the issue of global warming more than tragic polarization. The

comic frame promotes humanity as

mistaken, rather than evil. As such, comic discourse allows some space for bringing ideologically disparate communities together. To the extent that humanity is 162 C. R. Foust and W. O. Murphy mistaken, it has agency
for making different choices which may lead to different outcomes. Time

is open-ended, with human intervention

possible. Humanity is less likely to be resigned to its fate, and, as such, may be inspired to take steps to change. However, it is important that we recognize the comic frame as charitable, but not gullible (Peterson, 1997, p. 44) in forming a collective will, particularly in light of the tendency to valorize comedy. Though comedy unifies communities and promotes possibilities, it may do so by appealing to hegemonic values rather than, for instance, fundamentally challenging the neo-liberal logic which justifies exploitation of the earth (Kinsella, 2008). Comic fluidity must not be taken as an excuse to justify
doing nothing about global warming, or to maintain the status quo. As Moser and Dilling (2004) argue, one of the greatest challenges facing a movement to mitigate global warming is the communication of urgency. Rhetors

must strike a balance between

framing global warming as cataclysmic, or simply inconvenient*something which does not require immediate
action. To

strike this balance, we must avoid the tragic tendencies of apocalyptic discourse, while

effectively promoting human agency. As a starting point to constituting audiences as active advocates and participants, we
suggest three comic strategies. First, to combat tragic divisiveness, rhetors may link the concerns of global warming to discourses already in existence and of importance to different stakeholders (Leiserowitz, 2007). For instance, articulating climate change to energy independence (from foreign oil) may prove powerful in building identification between (American) naysayers and environmental advocates. Second, we believe that careful attention to the various perspectives on time scale may combat tragic apocalyptic risk, which leads to resignation (or at least inaction). In particular, we

advise rhetors to avoid framing their estimates in terms

of ultimatums, which exacerbate a tragic denial of human agency. Rather than threatening that the public must act in ten years or face an apocalypse, rhetors may rearticulate the current crisis as an opportunity to avoid potential disaster for our families and communities. Communication scholars
and climate scientists must work together on the difficult task of providing appropriate perspectives toward time, such that readers may experience the urgent effects of global warming as something they have opportunities to manage. Finally, rather than maintaining the tragic apocalyptic assumptions that global warming is fated by the cosmos, rhetors may frame narratives to promote human agency. Instead of beginning stories with mysterious rises in carbon dioxide concentrations, journalists should focus on global warming as it relates to human activities, such that human agency is at the heart of the narrative. A comic apocalyptic scenario casts humans as mistaken, in need of*and capable of*correction. Reframing the tragic apocalypse cannot end with vaguely interpretive or individualized agency. While becoming educated and expressing ones support for the growing coalition are important, in order to reduce emissions, such agency must be joined by concrete changes in our daily routines. Furthermore, while small behavioral changes (such as installing compact fluorescent light bulbs) are important to prepare individuals for the major changes to come, they must be connected to Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy 163collective efforts and structural changes. To positively influence the global warming narrative, rhetors should, for instance, stress human agency in a number of sites, from altering heating and cooling practices; advocating for and using mass transit, bicycling, walking, and tele-commuting; to public support for funding alternative energy infrastructure. Along with supporting diverse sites of human agency, rhetors may want to avoid the inherent conservatism of apocalyptic discourse. Apocalyptic rhetoric suggests that received sense-making systems (i.e., common sense) cannot explain great changes, but that various prophets can (Brummett, 1991). In the case of climate change, apocalyptic framing endows an array of experts and elites (including scientists, actuaries, politicians, and journalists) with the power to understand, frame, and perhaps resolve the issue; helping fuel the common sentiment that ordinary people cannot do anything to reduce global warming (Lorenzoni et al., 2007), or that they will not need to because someone will invent the gizmo that solves the problem (Gregg Easterbrook, quoted in Nocera, 2007, p. C1). Perhaps by linking climate change solutions to common sense*especially Americans notions of sacrifice, conservation, community, and family (Moser & Dilling, 2004)*we may free scientists from their role as controversial prophets, while expanding agency beyond Fate. As our analysis suggests, simply creating awareness of an issue is not enough to create an active public. Rather, that awareness needs to work toward arousing the public toward action (Hallahan, 2001). In conclusion, an apocalyptic structure permeates the global warming narrative in the American elite and popular press, with the potential to force the predicted tragedy into being, due to its limitations on human agency. We echo the call for communication scholars of all methodological commitments to join environmental advocates, climate scientists, and others, in their efforts to build a collective will to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Moser & Dilling, 2007). A great

part of this effort is in reframing the way the press constitutes climate change discourse (Boykoff, 2007b). These efforts also must extend beyond the media to include other arenas in which an active public is aroused, from kitchen tables and water coolers, to board rooms and classrooms. By providing the public, agenda-setting professionals (e.g., public relations practitioners and journalists), and community leaders with ways to structure communication that promote agency, rhetoricians might advance widespread public action on climate change. The apocalyptic frame, particularly in its tragic version, is not an effective rhetorical strategy for this situation. It has been developed over at least the last decade of press coverage, a time in which the US has refused all but the most paltry political action on greenhouse gas reductions. Tragic apocalyptic discourse encourages belief in prophesy at the expense of practicing persuasion, even as it provokes resignation in the face of a human-induced dilemma. Given the tragic apocalyptic frames ineffectiveness at inspiring action*or, at least its persistent evacuation of agency* we must promote more action-oriented rhetorical strategies. Together, we may advance the climate change narrative from an apocalyptic tragedy to a more comic telos for humanity.

Link - Verbs Is and Will

Is and will in reference to warming impacts attributes effects to Fate, disempowering human change
Foust and Murphy 09, *Associate Professor, Director of Graduate Teaching Instructors AND ** doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver. (Christina R. and William OShannon, Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse Environmental Communication Vol. 3, No. 2, July 2009, Taylor and Francis Online)//BL
A number of discursive features

constitute global warming tragically: verbs which express the certainty of catastrophic effects, a lack of perspective or shortening of time from beginning to telos, and analogies which equate global warming with foretold apocalyptic outcomes. Each feature forecloses human agency or frames climate change as a matter of Fate. Within the tragic variation of apocalypse, global warming (not other natural or divinely ordained events or processes, such as a steady decline to extinction which inevitably befalls all earthly species) is viewed as the demise of humanity. A close reading of the discourse reveals important differences in the verbs, is, will, and could, which call attention to variations in human agency. Predicting global warming through the word could frees space for human action, including adaptation and mitigation. Asserting that the catastrophic telos of climate change is happening or will occur, however, may reduce the potential for human intervention. As Revkin (2006a) quotes British chemist James E. Lovelock, a 14-degree temperature rise means roughly that most of
life on the planet will have to move up to the Arctic basin, to the few islands that are still habitable and to oases on the continent. It will be a much-diminished world (p. F2).

Declaring with certainty that these negative impacts of global warming will happen suggests that a cosmic, extra-human force determines the outcome of events.

Impact Biodiversity
Focus on climate change destroys the environment- trades off with other crises
Crist, 7 (Eileen Crist, Associate Professor of Science and Technology Studies in the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech Beyond the Climate Crisis: A Critique of Climate Change Discourse Telos 141 Winter 2007 http://www.sts.vt.edu/faculty/crist/Beyond_the_Climate_Crisis.pdf)//BL Industrial-consumer civilization has entrenched a form of life that admits virtually no limits to its expansiveness within, and perceived entitlement to, the entire planet. 9 But questioning this civilization is by and large sidestepped in climate-change discourse, with its single-minded quest for a global-warming technofix. 20 Instead of confronting the forms of social organization that are causing the climate crisisamong numerous other catastrophesclimate-change literature often focuses on how global warming is endangering the culprit, and agonizes over what technological means can save it from impending tipping points.
2 The dominant frame of climate change funnels cognitive and pragmatic work toward specifically addressing global warming, while muting

Climate change looms so huge on the environmental and political agenda today that it has contributed to downplaying other facets of the ecological crisis: mass extinction of species, the devastation of the oceans by industrial fishing, continued old-growth deforestation, topsoil losses and desertification, endocrine disruption, incessant development, and so on, are made to appear secondary and more forgiving by comparison with dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
a host of equally monumental issues.

Impact Pollution
Focusing on global warming trades off focus from water/air pollution, especially in the third world
Fareed Zakaria, 6/18 Journalist and author, host of Fareed Zakaria GPS (Interviewed: Bjorn Lomborg: author,
academic, and environmental writer, adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, internationally known for his The Skeptical Environmentalist, Focus on clean water, not global warming, Fareed Zakaria Global Public Square, 6/18/12, http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/18/environmental-summit-misguided/) // MK This week, hundreds of world leaders and tens of thousands of environmentalists are convening in Rio de Janeiro for the U.N.'s Conference on Sustainable Development. Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist, says the Rio+20 summit will be a wasted opportunity and that the

U.N. is focused on the wrong things. He says that for every person who might

die from global warming, 210 will die from health problems caused by a lack of clean water and pollution. Lomborg joined Fareed Zakaria GPS on Sunday to talk about his views and possible long-term solutions. Heres an edited
version of their conversation, which can also be viewed by downloading the entire show on iTunes. Fareed Zakaria:You have a Foreign Affairs article coming out in which you point out the history of these kinds of growth predictions and what the environmental concerns have been. Explain that point briefly. Bjorn Lomborg: Its the 40th anniversary of (the report) The Limits to Growth the idea that we were going to run out of everything and, even if we weren't, we were going to be screwed anyway because we would basically be polluting ourselves to death. That ran computer models back then. Of course, remember, computers seemed like they were telling the truth no matter what you put into them. And I think with the oil embargo in '73 just one year later and oil prices shooting up, there was a real sense that, yes, we are running out of everything we are running out of oil and we need to conserve everything and we are really on a very, very wrong path. In many ways, you can say, it's set the environmental agenda certainly for a couple of decades. Zakaria:So what are the facts? Lomborg: Well, the problem is they were wrong. They were, first of all, wrong that we were going to run out of food. But perhaps more importantly for the environmental concern, they were wrong about the idea that we were going to run out of all resources. Actually, if you look at the cost of resources, which is the economist's way of looking at how many resources do we have left, the cost of resources generally have come down about sevenfold since 1850. Yes, it's ticked up in the last 10 years but if you look at the whole curve, it's very clear, it's a clear downward trend. Why? Because innovation is much, much more important than using up the resources. The Club of Rome thought there were only so many resources; when we've used up them, we are really up a creek. But what they forgot was we find many more resources and we get much better at exploiting poor resources further away but even cheaper with technology. And that's really what we've done with virtually all resources. Zakaria: What about the other half of that report, which was about pollution? Lomborg: They

thought as we get richer and richer and there are more and more people,

you'll have more and more belching smokestacks. But what they forgot was technology actually handles a lot of that. Now, we've actually seen air pollution come down in most rich countries for most of the last century. It's not just the technology. After '72, we put extra effort into making regulations that meant that
we've gotten even lower levels of air pollution. Zakaria: So you support those government regulations? Lomborg: Absolutely. We want to have regulation where it makes sense - where there's lots of people dying, for instance, from air pollution. That is a real concern. But you should also recognize, what is it that drives the ability to care about the environment? It is that you're rich enough that you don't have

to worry about your kids dying tomorrow. And that's my real concern about the way we look into the future when we go down to Rio in just a few days. What are we talking about there? Well, we're talking about going to a green economy, and we're talking about global warming. But in reality, the real issues for most of this world is still air and water pollution. Why

are we not talking about

the important issues in the third world? Why are we talking about somewhat more esoteric issues that clearly concern first-world people? There is perhaps 0.06% of all deaths in the developing world caused by global warming. There's 13% of all deaths caused by air and water pollution. Let's get our priorities right. If you read the U.N., their little leaflet that they distribute for the Rio summit, they show how we
should all get electric cars and we should go organic and stuff like that. No. Most

people in (the) developing world

cannot afford an electric car. What we should do is focus on innovation to make those cars so cheap. Then the next half-century, everyone will want them. Zakaria: And how can we focus on air and water pollution in the third
world? How do we deal with bringing that number down from 13%? Lomborg: Well, there are two main solutions. One is that we have a lot of technologies that we know how to get clean drinking water. We also know most

of the air-pollution deaths are

actually caused by indoor air pollution, people cooking with bad fuels like dung or cardboard. Let's make sure they actually get access to fossil fuels. That makes a lot of people uncomfortable, but that's the reality that
we live with. And that's why 2

million people don't have to die in the developing world each year because

of unsafe cooking and heating fuels. But the long-term solution for that, of course, is to make sure that people actually get richer in the third world. It's a poverty problem. And so I'm a little concerned about
the fact that we talk a lot about the Kyoto Protocol. But there's another city with a protocol that we don't talk very much about:

the

Doha Round, the idea of free trade. That is one that most economists would estimate would give much, much better opportunities in the long run for most countries in the world to actually get rid of their old problems, both environmental, but also all the other poverty-related problems.

Turns Case Shortsighted solutions

Identifying climate change as a threat undermines solvency- spurs short-term fixes
Crist, 7 (Eileen Crist, Associate Professor of Science and Technology Studies in the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech Beyond the Climate Crisis: A Critique of Climate Change Discourse Telos 141 Winter 2007 http://www.sts.vt.edu/faculty/crist/Beyond_the_Climate_Crisis.pdf)//BL
Identifying

climate change as the biggest threat to civilization, and ushering it into center stage as the highest priority bolstered the proliferation of technical proposals that address the specific challenge. The race is on for figuring out what technologies, or portfolio thereof, will solve the problem. Whether the call is for
problem, has reviving nuclear power, boosting the installation of wind turbines, using a variety of renewable energy sources, increasing the efficiency of fossil-fuel use, developing carbon-sequestering technologies, or placing mirrors in space to deflect the suns rays, the narrow character

of such proposals is evident: confront the problem of greenhouse gas emissions by technologically phasing them out, superseding them, capturing them, or mitigating their heating effects. In his The Revenge of Gaia, for example, Lovelock briefly mentions the need to face climate change by changing our whole style of living. 6 But the thrust of this work, what readers and policy-makers come away with, is his repeated and strident call for investing in nuclear energy as, in his words, the one lifeline we can use immediately. 7 In the policy realm, the first step toward the technological fix for global warming is often identified with implementing the Kyoto protocol. Biologist Tim Flannery agitates for the treaty, comparing the need for its successful endorsement to
that of the Montreal protocol that phased out the ozone-depleting CFCs. The Montreal protocol, he submits, marks a signal moment in human societal development, representing the first ever victory by humanity over a global pollution problem. 8 He hopes for a similar victory for the global climate-change problem.

Turns Case Political Inaction

Apocalyptic framing of climate change desensitizes people from the actual dangers
Crist, 7 (Eileen Crist, Associate Professor of Science and Technology Studies in the Center for Interdisciplinary Studies at Virginia Tech Beyond the Climate Crisis: A Critique of Climate Change Discourse Telos 141 Winter 2007 http://www.sts.vt.edu/faculty/crist/Beyond_the_Climate_Crisis.pdf)//BL a looming calamity for large numbers of people, and for civilization itself, is widespread in the literature.
While the specific forecast of a Hell in which billions perish is at the extreme end of climate-change predictions, the general intimation of Overt or oblique, apocalyptic intimations abound in climate-change discourse. The concept of apocalypse is not just a household idea, but it

reference to an impending apocalypse is redundant for the audience of climate-change writings. Dire warnings about the
is so in the air today (with fundamentalisms of all stripes and their ideas in full swing) that explicit consequences of the continued use of fossil fuels, coupled with images of rising seas, soaring heat waves, raging wildfires, rampant disease,

suffice to vividly evoke an end-of the-world vision circulated for two millennia by Judeo-Christian culture. Apocalyptic thinking manifests in a three-fold narrative structure pertaining to the timing, nature, and consequences of expected events if greenhouse-gas emissions continue unabated: one, an Earth-shattering calamity is forecast (or insinuated) to arrive at a future, albeit unspecified, time; two, it is nebulously portrayed as a single monumental catastrophe (adumbrated, perhaps, by a string of interconnected lesser catastrophes) that will affect everyone and everything; and three, it is suggested that human survival and the viability of civilization are at stake, with unprecedented levels of death, suffering, and social breakdown anticipated.
and acidified oceans,

Alt Solves
Comic apocalypse framing spurs environmental action
Foust & Murphy '9 Assistant Professor in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver; doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver (Christina R.; William O'Shannon, "Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse," Environmental Communication, July, Communication & Mass Media Complete) // MK
Framing Global Warming as a Comic Apocalypse A comic apocalyptic frame suggests that human beings have agency at different points within the global warming narrative.

Comically framed discourse posits that humans may mitigate the worst effects of climate change, or that they may adapt to the unchangeable telos. For instance, Kristof (2005) identifies relatively inexpensive initial steps we can take to reduce carbon emissions . . . like encouraging mass transit, hybrid vehicles, better insulation and energy-efficient light bulbs, which could reduce global emissions by one-third (p. A25). At the same time it leaves Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy 159open the possibility that humans may influence the future, apocalyptic rhetoric from a comic frame casts global warming as a material reality, (more or less) ordained and thus constraining human choices. Empowerment within the comic variation of apocalypse is not a trivial
matter, however. It requires humans to make the right decisions from a limited set of choices: Nature commands humans to adapt or die. The natural world keeps erupting, shifting, storming, collapsing, whirling. It refuses, despite our entreaties, to become something dependable and constrained and rational (Achenbach, 2004, p. C1). In other words, a comic apocalypse does not suggest that events are controllable through any or all human actions. Using the comic frame permits humans to miss the fully tragic telos (which would, presumably, end all time and humanity): In *climatologist Roger Pulwatys+ view, a crisis is a point in a story, a moment in a narrative that presents an opportunity for characters to think their way through a problem. A catastrophe . . . is one of several possible outcomes that follows from a crisis. Were at the point of crisis . . . Pulwaty concluded. (Gertner, 2007, p. 68) By distinguishing between crisis and catastrophe, the

comic variation suggests that the tragic telos is only one potential ending to the climate change narrative, contingent upon whether humans alter their behavior in an appropriate manner. Human beings can assume responsibility within a comically constructed apocalypse, even if the narrative begins tragically. Eilperin (2007) reports that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal . . . even in the best-case scenario, temperatures
are on track to cross a threshold to an unsustainable level which could produce effects irreversible within a human lifetime (p. A1). What begins as a tragically ordained story takes a comedic turn, as humans have an opportunity to realize that they are mistaken. Eilperin interviews climate scientist Gerald Meehl, who concludes that a

sharp cut in greenhouse gas emissions could still keep catastrophic consequences from occurring: The message is, it does make a difference what we do
(p. A1). Comically, the telos does not overshadow the significance of human choice, which may stave off total catastrophe. While mitigation is one potential source for human agency, another is adaptation. As Revkin (2007) quotes Dr. Mike Hulme: Climate change is not a problem waiting for a solution . . . but a powerful idea that will transform the way we develop (p. A16). The emphasis on transformation suggests that humans can adapt to the apocalyptic telos of global warming, even though the telos is, implicitly, foretold. The comic telos thus requires humans to rethink their choices, sometimes after the worst effects of global warming have taken place. Such effects may be forecast as though they will (most likely) occur, maintaining the apocalyptic structure (even in the comic variation): If

the scientists are right about an apocalyptic future of floods, droughts, dead coral reefs, rising sea levels and advancing deserts, global warming is an existential threat that should affect our approach to just about every issue. To take it seriously, we would have to change the way we think about transportation, agriculture, development, water resources, natural disasters, foreign relations, and more. (Grunwald, 2006, p. B1) 160 C. R. Foust and W. O. Murphy Though the ending of global warming is foretold, climate change provides a comic challenge from which people may learn, grow, and adapt. While the tragic variation would end the narrative with humans and all other species as victims of the catastrophic effects of global warming, the comic version is more open-ended. Furthermore, comic variations often present the apocalyptic telos in a nontotalizing way, again with the effect of
amplifying human agency. Comic versions of the global warming narrative posit localized effects, as Clynes (2007) suggests: A one-meter rise in sea levels over the next 93 years would have enormous consequences, flooding low-lying coastal areas and megadeltas, such as the Nile and Brahmaputra in Bangladesh, where millions of people live (p. 52). Though Northern industrialized nations could adapt to flooding, developing coastal countries likely could not: the dramatic effects of climate change could push the number of displaced people globally to

at least one billion (Clynes, 2007, p. 52). Discourse such as this takes seriously global warmings threat, while emphasizing a non-total telos. As exemplary of the comic variation, it reinforces responsibility for making ethical choices, rather than resigning oneself to the foretold, total catastrophe. In addition, comic discourse indicates a time frame (93 years in the previous example) over which global warming will occur, rendering the temporality comic. While a tragic temporality might predict an exact date after which human agency is impossible; or, leave time to be experienced as rapid through its portrayal of catastrophic events; a comic framing allows readers to experience a more manageable time period across which effects may occur. In comic temporality, the effects of global warming do not happen all at once: while widespread permanent inundation . . . is possible, it isnt likely to occur in *New York City+ in our grandchildrens lifetimes, or even their grandchildrens. And an extra 5 to 10 inches of water over the next few decades, Rogers (2007) concludes, is manageable for residents (p. 1). While such temporality may make the issue of climate change appear less pressing to crass readers unconcerned with their families or communities futures, it permits human action on climate change, rather than limiting possible expressions of human agency to total resignation.

Alternative solves- framing warming as a Comic Apocalypse empowers change

Foust and Murphy 09, *Associate Professor, Director of Graduate Teaching Instructors AND ** doctoral student in the Department of Human Communication Studies at the University of Denver. (Christina R. and William OShannon, Revealing and Reframing Apocalyptic Tragedy in Global Warming Discourse Environmental Communication Vol. 3, No. 2, July 2009, Taylor and Francis Online)//BL Human beings can assume responsibility within a comically constructed apocalypse, even if the narrative begins
tragically. Eilperin (2007) reports that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal .. . even in the best-case scenario, temperatures are on track to cross a threshold to an unsustainable level which could produce effects irreversible within a human lifetime (p. A1). What

begins as a tragically ordained story takes a comedic turn, as humans have an opportunity to realize that they are mistaken. Eilperin interviews climate scientist Gerald Meehl, who concludes that a sharp cut in greenhouse gas
emissions could still keep catastrophic consequences from occurring: The message is, it does make a difference what we do (p. A1).

telos does not overshadow the significance of human choice, which may stave off total catastrophe. While mitigation is one potential source for human agency, another is adaptation. As Revkin (2007) quotes Dr. Mike Hulme: Climate change is not a problem waiting for a solution ... but a powerful idea that will transform the way we develop (p. A16). The emphasis on transformation suggests that humans can adapt to the apocalyptic telos of global warming, even though the telos is, implicitly, foretold. The comic telos thus requires humans to rethink their choices,
Comically, the sometimes after the worst effects of global warming have taken place. Such effects may be forecast as though they will (most likely) occur, maintaining the apocalyptic structure (even in the comic variation).

If the scientists are right about an apocalyptic future of floods, droughts, dead coral reefs, rising sea levels and advancing deserts, global warming is an existential threat that should affect our approach to just about every issue. To take it seriously, we would have to change the way we think about transportation, agriculture, development, water resources, natural disasters, foreign relations, and more. (Grunwald, 2006, p.
B1)

Warming Defense

Warming False
Warming not real flawed models
Berkowitz 01 - research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Former CIA officer and

staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee and consultant to most of the agencies within the US Intelligence Community (Bruce, The Pseudoscience of Global Warming, The Hoover Institute, 7/20/1, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7944) // MK
The Pseudoscience of Global Warming by Bruce Berkowitz Environmentalists

have convinced the public that global warming is looming. Yet the evidence is far from conclusiveand the proposed remedies are based on politics, not science. By Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz. Last March the Bush administration announced that it would not abide by the Kyoto
Protocol, the 1998 treaty that would have required the United States and other industrial countries to reduce their output of "greenhouse gases"carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat and contribute to global warming. The presidents decision was just icing on the cake the Kyoto Protocol was so ambiguous and overreaching that it was probably doomed in any casebut the issue is unlikely to go away. Recent polls, including a Gallup survey taken earlier this year, show why. Most Americans have some concerns about global warming: 35 percent of those polled worry a "great deal" and 28 percent worry a "fair amount." About two-thirds believe global warming is mainly caused by human activitiesspecifically, industrial production and energy consumption. Illustration by Taylor Jones for the Hoover Digest. Our allies in Europe are also bound to keep up the heat. Just about every party and potential coalition on the left side of the political spectrum has staked a position on global warming designed to win enviro-leaning voters. Indeed, the current government in Germany holds office only with the support of the Green Party. European leaders raced for the opportunity to paint President Bush as Attila the Hun in his disregard for the future of civilization. (Never mind that no European country had implemented the Kyoto treaty, either.) Global

warming? There is probably no other issue today about which so many hold such strong views with so little firsthand knowledge. In short, global warming has achieved the status of dogma in modern politics, despite the fact that the average citizen has devoted little serious study to the issue nor has the typical political official. There is probably no other issue today about
which so many hold such strong views with so little firsthand knowledge. THE CLIMATE DATA CONUNDRUM Global warming is unlike any other environmental issue. Usually the health hazards of a pollutant like asbestos or benzene are well documented at the level of the individual subject. Estimating the hazards they present to the environment and the public as a whole is mainly a problem of scaling so that we can limit average exposure rates. Not so global warming. There is good direct evidence suggesting global temperatures have indeed been rising lately. Weather watchers throughout the literate world have been recording local temperatures for about two centuries. These data show that temperatures today are higher than in the early 1800s and that there has been an upward trend during the past half century. However, the exact cause of this warming is still uncertain. For

periods between the dawn of literacy and the early 1800s, one has to rely on anecdotal evidence to estimate temperature patterns. For example, some of the few people who
knew how to write (mainly nobility and clergy) made observations in their letters and journals about early snows, good crops, and the like. This evidence suggests

that there have been several fluctuations in temperatures during the past few millennia. For example, glaciers advanced throughout the world between 1400 and the late 1800s the so-called Little Ice Age. The Middle Ages, in contrast, appear to have been distinctly warmer. For the period predating written records, there is only circumstantial and inferential evidence: tree rings from thousand-year-old sequoias, layers of snow from core samples taken in Greenland, and the like. The main problem with these data is that our samples are limited and that inferences usually depend on several interrelated variables. For example, we know how snowfall correlates with temperature today, but this relationship could have been different 10,000 or
100,000 years ago because of differences in geology and vegetation cover. Also, any amateur weather watcher knows how much precipitation can vary among sites separated by just a few miles. All of this leads to the big question: Did

human activityin particular, industrial activity and the burning of fossil fuelscontribute to recent warming? This is the key to the recent debates. After all, if human activity is just the proverbial ant on an elephants buttock and has had just a small effect, any effort to reverse the current warming trend by regulating the economy would be foolish and futile.
That is why it is important to understand that so-called evidence of human factors in global warming is completely different from evidence that has been used in any other public policy issue. In fact, it is hardly "evidence" in the conventional sense of the word. Arguments

that humans are causing global warming are in fact based mainly on interpretations of extraordinarily complex mathematical models. The problem is not simply that these models are complex but that their complexity leaves a lot of room to debate their conclusions. Most analyses claiming that human activity contributes to global warming rely on the results of general circulation models (GCMs). These models portray the
earths atmosphere as a network of interconnected cells. They postulate parameters defining how outside factors affect each cell (e.g., how

much solar energy is absorbed by the air in a cell) and how each cell affects its neighbors (e.g., how fast is the solar energy in one cell transferred to the ones next to it). Needless to say, the results of a GCM depend a lot on the assumptions you make. How big should each cell be? What is the effect of water vapor? How much heat and carbon dioxide does the ground absorb? Are there factors that have been previously ignored? Do these factors attenuate heatingfor example, does airborne dust reflect a lot of sunlight into space? Or do they accentuate itfor example, do hydrocarbons absorb and retain heat? As

one adds more variables and interrelationships to any model, one needs more data to estimate their effects with confidence. Alas, as we have seen, data are hard to collect for the distant past. As one goes further into the past, the less precise and less reliable the data become. Ironically, atmospheric modeling happens to be one of the hardest problems computer designers are trying to tackle today. In fact, GCMs require more computing capacity than breaking codes and designing nuclear weapons (two widely known benchmarks). That is why predicting the weather for more than a week in advance is so hard. If just a few variables are off by much, the entire forecast can go awry. And, as one tries to predict over longer stretches of time, error terms accumulate, making predictions even less reliable. Little wonder that the debate among climatologists over GCMs soon becomes very technical and arcane. It is also little wonder that most serious scientists tend to be modest about their ability to forecast large-scale climate changes. Only a polemicistor a politician with a vested interestwould argue that the results of these models are so clear that one could use them to plan the worlds economy, which is what the Kyoto Protocol and similar
agreements propose to do.

Global warming is a myth-movement driven by profits and military

Morano 10- , runs the climate website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Marc, Left-wing Env. Scientist
Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass',7/26/10, http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-acorrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass)//RP

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. In a hard-hitting and new exclusive video just released by Climate Depot, Dr. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a corrupt social phenomenon. It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else, Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay. I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized, Rancourt said. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass, he stated.

Warming not real - environmentalists are just alleviating the guilt

Morano 10- , runs the climate website ClimateDepot.com for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (Marc, Left-wing Env. Scientist
Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a 'corrupt social phenomenon...strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass',7/26/10, http://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477/Leftwing-Env-Scientist-Bails-Out-Of-Global-Warming-Movement-Declares-it-acorrupt-social-phenomenonstrictly-an-imaginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass)//RP Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me -- they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, Rancourt explained to Climate Depot. Rancourt

bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm. They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet -- a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks, he said. They are weekend activists...looking for lies to hitch onto. The modern environmental move has hijacked itself by looking for an excuse to stay comfortable and stay away from actual battle. Ward Churchill has called this pacifism as pathology, he explained. If you are really concerned about saving world's

forests or habitat destruction, then fight against habitat destruction, don't go off in tenuous thing about co2 concentration in the atmosphere. Actually address the question; otherwise you are weakening your effect as an activist.

Warming is a scientific hype scientists want grants and government wants regulation of international commerce Greeley 10 - Republican State Committeeman and vice chairman of the Halifax Republican Town
Committee (Richard, HERES THE POINT: Global warming not a threat, GateHouse News Service, 2/18/10, http://www.wickedlocal.com/halifax/news/lifestyle/columnists/x1135181457/HERE-S-THEPOINT-Global-warming-not-a-threat?zc_p=0#axzz21vfGa5um) // MK

Environmental activists in federal, state and local governments the world over have been implementing policies based on the false premise of global warming. Theyve long argued that staple conveniences
of normal, capitalist society are having detrimental effects on the planet. Technologies such as incandescent light bulbs, internal combustion engines and air conditioning, which make life more livable for all of us, will ultimately prove to be the death of us all. To those on the left, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and Willis Carrier are villains, not American heroes. They argue that because aerosol cans of spray paint, hair spray and deodorant are ripping a hole in the atmosphere by depleting the ozone layer that the sky, quite literally, is falling. They argue that the use of hydrocarbon-based fuels is increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere, thus increasing the greenhouse effect. They argue that over the last 20 years global temperatures have been rising, causing both alpine and continental glaciers to melt, thus causing sea levels to rise. And they argue that since a global cabal of scientists cite specific data that support these claims, that these claims must be true. Weve all seen the footage of massive ledges of ice, hundreds of feet high, breaking off and smashing into the ocean. But people are now rejecting these theories because they are finding out that not only are these governmental infringements becoming increasingly burdensome, the

supposed science upon which these regulations are based is unraveling at the seams. The size of the hole in the ozone layer is directly proportionate to the suns activity because the sun creates ozone. Increasing global temperatures precede, not follow, increased CO2 levels. The United Nations Climategate scandal showed that scientists manipulated, hid, lost and/or made up data to secure millions of dollars in grant money. And glaciers break off into the ocean to form icebergs because the glaciers are expanding, not receding. Even if it were shown that the Earth was in a warming cycle, there is no way anyone could say that it would actually be
problematic because nobody knows what the proper temperature of the Earth actually is. In other words, how would we know that the Earth, with a little help from the sun, wasnt correcting itself? Heres the point:

Global warming is, and always has been, nothing more than a vehicle used to implement more government control of peoples day to day lives. International organizations such as the United Nations wish to regulate international commerce under the guise of environmental protection. See the Kyoto Protocol. The Obama administration wishes to further regulate national
commerce under this same premise by implementing Cap and Trade. Gov. Patrick is the first governor in the country to combine the energy and environmental agencies together. Given the international, national and state Big Brothers glaring at us through the prism of global warming, we can only wonder why we even have local agencies, but we do. Cambridge has a particularly interesting set of busybodies called The Cambridge Climate Emergency Congress (no kidding!) who convened to discuss the climate emergency and drafted some really bizarre proposals such as cars should be shared rather than privately owned, ban leaf blowers, no TV or TV one day a week and monitor electric bills. They call this the climate emergency. The earthquake in Haiti was an emergency, 9/11 was an emergency. The marginal effects of a pickup truck vs. a Prius on the seasonal, temperature changes in North America is not an emergency, no matter how much those self-important, fear-mongering environmentalists say it is. Professor

Phil Jones, the top global warming scientist and author of the hockey stick theory, admitted there has been no global warming since 1995, previous warming periods were not caused by man, and that his data gathering and record keeping is not what it should be, which is quite an understatement given that the data for the hockey stick theory is missing. The hockey stick theory, which purports that
increased CO2 levels increase temperature levels, was the basis to Vice President Al Gores movie, An Inconvenient Truth, for which he won the Nobel Peace Prize. This should be good news to those who truly believe that global warming was a threat to humanity. They should feel liberated and relieved to learn that this theoretical, doomsday asteroid simply didnt exist. Those same people who believed this fallacy should be angry at, and suspicious of, those who filled their hearts and minds with fear.

Not Anthropogenic
No relationship between industrial activity and warming past data proves
Berkowitz, 01- research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. Former CIA officer and

staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee and consultant to most of the agencies within the US Intelligence Community (Bruce, The Pseudoscience of Global Warming, The Hoover Institute, 7/20/1, http://www.hoover.org/publications/hoover-digest/article/7944) // MK
TESTING THE IMPACT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY Meanwhile, there are simple tests to determine whether the proposals offered by the globalwarming lobby would have any effect. Proposals like the Kyoto Protocol would impose significant reductions on industrial activity and energy consumption to curb warming. The question is, Have such reductions led to predictable changes in warming when they have occurred in the past for other reasons? And how have these effects compared to the effects of natural phenomena, such as solar activity and volcanic eruptions (which most scientists agree do cause major changes in global temperatures)? It happens that, for the period in which there are reasonably reliable global temperature records (roughly 1800 to today), there are also good data on all these phenomena. Astronomers have observed the sun since the time of Galileo. They noticed early on that solar activity follows an 11-year cycle. (Originally they tracked these cycles by monitoring sun spots, which rise and fall in number every 11 years; more recently, by measuring the diameter of the sun and its emitted radiation.) Meteorologists have long known that extreme weather phenomenablizzards, hurricanes, drought, and the likecoincide with these cycles. Similarly, geologists have been tracking major volcanic eruptions for about two centuries. Active volcanoes are hard to miss, and written records go back several centuries (for example, the account by Pliny the Younger of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius that buried Pompeii and Herculaneum in a.d. 79). There is also physical evidence of the largest eruptions (the devastation caused by the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens will be evident for hundreds of years). Meteorologists also know that major eruptions often result in longer and colder winters. We

also have good data for industrial activity in most countries going back to almost the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Political scientists and economic historians have used the data to study war and
economic development. As companies began to build large-scale industry in a country, they also started to keep records for accounting and inventory control. So

we know about how much energy (coal, oil, gas) most countries have consumed since 1800 or so and how much steel factories have turned out. We also know how these production rates slacked off during depressions and ramped up during booms. A few years ago some colleagues and I were surprised to discover that,
even though these geophysical and economic data are readily available, we could not find a single scientific paper that tested their combined correlation with changes in global warming. After

controlling for solar cycles and volcanic activity, one would expect global temperatures to rise as industrial output and energy production spiked and to fall as this activity tapered offsay, because of an economic depression. After all, this is what the global-warming mavens
want: to shut down industries and cut down energy consumption to reduce the output of greenhouse gases. To the casual observer, a factory that shuts down because of an economic downturn is indistinguishable from a factory that shuts down because it was ordered to do so by a regulatory official. If the measures proposed under Kyoto would work as claimed, we

ought to see some link between past economic fluctuations and past temperature fluctuations. Only a polemicistor a politician with a vested interest
would dare argue that the results of the environmental models are clear enough to be used in planning the worlds economy. So we ran the correlation. The results? The effects of solar activity and volcanoes were impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than one in a hundred. Yet, try as we might,

we simply could not find any relationship between industrial activity, energy consumption, and changes in global temperatures. We tried adjusting for delayed effects. We tried adjusting for cumulative effects. Nothing the relationship just wasnt there. It could be that the relationship between economic activity and temperature changes is so subtle
especially in comparison with natural factorsthat extraordinary measures are required to detect it. Of course, that would also make you wonder how significant the relationship is. The implication, however, is clear.

Even if you completely shut down the factories and power plants todayessentially what the Greens are recommendingthere would not be much effect on temperatures.

Poverty Root Cause

Fixing poverty is more important than solving global warming Goklany 5/2 - an independent scholar and author, co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable
Development, member of the U.S. delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report, subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer (Dr. Indur, "Global Warming Policies Might Be Bad For
Your Health," Global Warming Polcy Foundation, 5/2/12, http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/goklany-public_health.pdf) // MK executive summary global warming Does not currently rank among the Top Public Health Threats The World Health Organization (WHO) attributes 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) in 2004 to global warming. This is only 0.2% of all deaths and 0.4% of the burden of disease (Figure 1; WHO 2008a, 2009). This estimate, however, does not account for the health outcomes that are the major contributors to the long-known phenomenon of excess winter mortality (see Table 1). Deaths from excess winter mortality in Japan and the U.S. alone (about 159,000 per year) exceed deaths currently attributed to global warming (141,000 per year) (Table 4). WHO analysis indicates that at least 22 other health risks currently outrank global warming as a global public health threat (based on data for 2004) (Figure 1; WHO 2009). Global warming would exacerbate existing diseases of poverty rather than create any significant new health risks. More than 99.9% of the burdens of death and disease attributed to global warming by WHO are in developing countries (Figure 1, WHO 2009). The contribution of much-Publicized extreme weather events to global mortality is negligible, and Declining. Despite the emphasis in the popular press on extreme weather events (e.g., droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, cyclones and other storms), their global contribution to mortality, at 0.07%, is negligible (EM-DAT 2011). Global mortality attributed to all such events has declined by 93% since the 1920s, while total mortality rate declined 98% (EM-DAT 2011). Mortality from extreme weather events has declined but all-cause mortality has increased. That is, humanity

is coping better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems (EM-DAT 2011; UNPD 2011).6 Poverty is a much larger Public Health Threat than global warming The contribution of diseases of poverty (e.g.,
underweight, malnutrition, unsafe water, poor sanitation and hygiene) to the global burden of death and disease is currently 7080-fold larger than that of global warming. (Table 2; Figure 1; WHO 2009)

Deaths from diseases of poverty and excess winter mortality are real (WHO 2009; Falagas 2009), whereas those from global warming are based on hypotheses and models which short-circuited the scientific method and have not been tested rigorously (McMichael et al. 2004, p. 1546). other factors will outweigh warming as a Public Health risk in the foreseeable future In the foreseeable future, global warming may contribute no more than 13% to mortality from hunger, malaria and extreme weather events, even under the warmest IPCC scenario. Therefore, rolling back climate, i.e. temperature, precipitation and other climatic variables, to 1990 levels currently infeasible, regardless of costwould at most reduce mortality from these causes by less than 13% (Figure 6). either
focused adaptation or economic Development would Provide greater Health Benefits at Lower Costs than Mitigation By contrast,

measures focused on reducing vulnerability to hunger, malaria and extreme weather events would target 100% of the above mortality and cost much less (Goklany 2009b). Such focused adaptation, designed to reduce vulnerability more broadly to todays urgent health problems that would be exacerbated by warming, would, therefore, deliver greater reductions in deaths at a lower cost than mitigation. Alternatively, reductions in poverty, which depends on greater economic growth, should also help eliminate death and disease from not just hunger, malaria, extreme weather events but all the other diseases of poverty. Poverty, moreover, can be reduced at a fraction of the cost of substantial mitigation. No less important, reducing poverty should provide other ancillary benefits beyond improved public health, e.g., better education and economic opportunities. 7 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health emission reduction Policies may add to Death and Disease Mitigation policies that would retard economic development or increase the price of agricultural inputs and output would slow down reductions in poverty and, thereby, increase net death and disease, and retard improvements in human welfare. Mitigation policies designed to replace fossil fuels with biofuels in particular may have, by adding to world hunger and poverty, contributed 200,000 additional deaths and 6.7 million lost DALYs in 2010 without significantly reducing the public health impact of global warming. (De Hoyos and Medvedev 2009; Goklany 2011) Mitigation policies, if successful, would retard progress toward reducing excess winter mortality. If unsuccessful, that too would exacerbate excess winter mortality if it

reduces economic development and/or increases heating fuel costs. Policies to reduce global warming may be doing more harm than good for public health in both developing and industrialized countries.8 introduction: How sound is the basis for Popular claims of global warmings Health impacts? Claims that global warming is
among the most important, if not the most important, global threats to public health are based on the notion that global warming would add to the global burden of death and disease by increasing hunger through reductions in agricultural productivity, increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, storms and heatwaves, and facilitating the spread of vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue, and other infectious diseases (McMichael et al. 2004, 2006; Patz et al. 2005; Campbell-Lendrum and Woodruff 2006). The above claims owe their legitimacy in large part to a modeling study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO)the United Nations agency which has primacy for directing and coordinating activities related to public healththat attributed 154,000166,000 deaths worldwide and 5.5 million lost Disability-Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) to global warming in 2000 (McMichael et al. 2004). That study noted that: *C+limate change occurs against a background of substantial natural climate variability, and its health effects are confounded by simultaneous changes in many other influences on population health. Empirical observation of the health consequences of long-term climate change, followed by formulation, testing and then modification of hypotheses would therefore require long time-series (probably several decades) of careful monitoring. While this process may accord with the canons of empirical science, it would not provide the timely information needed to inform current policy decisions on GHG emission abatement, so as to offset possible health consequences in the future. *Emphasis added+. [McMichael et al. 2004, p 1546] Despite the authors revelation that they shortchanged the scientific method in pursuit of a policy agenda, this studys results were reported in the WHOs flagship annual publication, The World Health Report 2002, along with other results from the Global Burden of Disease study for 2000 (GBD 2000). Once reported, they were repeated in several influential scientific and medical publications, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes latest assessment (IPCC 2007), and major review papers in Nature (Patz et al. 2005), Lancet (McMichael et al. 2006), and Environmental Health Perspectives (Campbell-Lendrum and Woodruff 2006), among others. Drawing upon the above claims, the WHO devoted the 2008 World Health Day to Protecting health from climate change (WHO 2008), and a joint University College London-Lancet Commission, in a widely-cited report in The Lancet, declared that climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century (Costello et al. 2009).9 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health Clearly, global warming seems firmly ensconced in the global public health agenda. Since then, in late 2009, the WHO published a new study, Global Health Risks (WHO 2009) as part of its ongoing Global Burden of Disease study which updated the earlier estimates of death and disease for 24 risk factors (for 2004), including global warming. Because WHO (2009) updates the heavilycited results from GBD 2000, it presumably is an improvement. Accordingly, in this paper, I will use the estimates from WHO (2009) to ascertain whether global warming should be ranked among the more important health risks facing humanity now and through the foreseeable future. This analysis will, for the sake of argument, take these newer estimates for granted, and follow their implications to their logical conclusions. I will also examine deaths, and trends in deaths, from extreme weather events in the wider context of mortality from all causes. After undertaking these comparative analyses, I will address the efficacy of policies to limit global warming in alleviating death and disease. In this paper the burden of disease is measured using disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost to disease. This is the cumulative sum over the population of (a) the number of years lost due to premature death from disease, and (b) the number of years spent in a disabled condition due to disease, weighted by the severity of the disease. Note that this paper is based on previous work, listed in the Bibliography, which I shall draw upon without specific attribution. where Does global warming rank as a Public Health risk Today? According to WHO (2009), global warming will exacerbate death and disease from diarrhoea, malaria, undernutrition, and 34 other associated causes (see Table 1). Humanity has a long-standing history with each of these 37 causes. Each is virtually absent in the industrialized world, including the ones that used to be endemic there (e.g., diarrhoea, malaria, undernutrition, and others listed in the top half of the table). In fact, today these 37 listed causes of death and disease are associated with poverty and its corollary, poor health services. Thus, according to the WHO, global warming would not create new health problems as much as it would worsen existing, povertyrelated health problems. Notably, neither stroke nor cardiovascular disease is listed in Table 1. 10 However, as we will see below, more people die in winter than in summer in many parts of the world. This phenomenon, known as excess winter mortality, is in large part due to the seasonal increases in deaths from these two conditions during the colder months (see, e.g., Woodhouse 1993; Keatinge 2002). Thus, WHO (2009) apparently does not account for any reduction in mortality from higher temperatures during winter. WHO (2009) attributes 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs in 2004 to global warming. These translate to 0.2% of all deaths and 0.4% of the burden of disease. Given this, Figure 1, also based on WHO (2009), not surprisingly shows that global

warming ranks second-last based on global mortality (panel on page 28) or last based on the global burden of disease,
i.e., lost DALYs (panel on page 29). The rankings are unchanged if one focuses only on developing countries. If one considers only industrialized countries, global warming should be ranked 23rd based on mortality, and 21st based on the burden of disease. Clearly, regardless of the criterion, based on its current health impact, global warming does not rank high as a global public health risk. which is the greater Health riskPoverty or global warming? Table 2 shows the 24 risk factors arranged in descending order of the sensitivity of the disease burden to poverty, based on estimates provided in WHO (2009). The higher it is listed on this table, the more sensitive it is to poverty, that is, the greater its relative toll in poorer countries. Sensitivity is determined using the ratio of the disease burden per capita for low-income countries to that of lower-middle-income countries (right-most column). These ratios range from 11.9 to 0.6, with global warming having the highest ratio. This is consistent with the previous finding that global warming exacerbates diseases of poverty. In fact, of the 141,300 global deaths in 2004 attributed to warming, about 100 (0.08%) were in the industrialized countries. Similarly, with respect to the burden of disease, only 3,000 (0.06%) of the 5.4 million lost DALYs were in industrialized countries. I will deem arbitrarily that those risk factors that have relative disease burden ratios exceeding 2 are poverty-related. Ten risk factors meet this criterion. 99.4% of the death and disease attributed to these ten risk factors were in developing countries. In addition to global warming, these risk factors are: underweight (largely 11 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health synonymous with chronic hunger); zinc deficiency; Vitamin A deficiency; unsafe sex; unsafe water, sanitation and hygiene; unmet contraceptive needs; indoor smoke from solid fuels; sub-optimal breast feeding; and iron deficiency. As Figure 1 indicates, three of these listedunderweight; unsafe sex; and unsafe water, sanitation and hygieneare the top three health risk factors for developing countries based on their contribution to the burden of disease. Cumulatively, WHO (2009) attributed 11.2 million deaths and 379 million lost DALYs to these nine poverty-related risk factors. By contrast, 0.14 million deaths and 5.4

million lost DALYs were attributed worldwide to global warming (see Figure 1). Obviously, at present, the

health consequences of global warming are trivial relative to the cumulative non-global warming impact of hunger and poverty. Under either criterion, poverty-related health risks easily outrank global warming as global priorities. The 70- to 80-fold mismatch in scale between the diseases of poverty and global warming indicates that even a small increase
in poverty due to, for example, either lower economic growth induced by efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or an increase in biofuel production, could outweigh the public health benefits from the associated greenhouse gas reductions (Tol and Dowlatabadi 2001; Tol and Yohe 2006). In fact, the improvements in public health since the start of the Industrial Revolution can, in large measure, be attributed directly or indirectly to economic growth, which has been underpinned, in large part, by fossil fuel energy usage in all sectors agricultural, manufacturing, transportation, service, and residential. This is illustrated in Figure 2, which indicates that as carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth began to take off in the late 18th century, life expectancy, which had been static for millennia, started to increase more or less continuously. The long-term increase in life expectancy can also be viewed as a result of continual reductions in poverty due to economic growth, and its consequences for public health. what is the contribution of extreme weather events to Total mortality? The wall-to-wall media coverage that accompanies extreme weatherrelated natural disasters (e.g., droughts, floods, heat waves, hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes and other storms), give many the impression that such disasters are significant contributors to global mortality. In fact, their collective contribution verges on the negligible, and has been declining for several decades.12 There were an average of 210,000 global deaths from extreme weather events and 50 million all-cause deaths annually in the 1950s (EM-DAT 2011; UNPD 2011). By

the 2000s, the average annual global death toll from extreme weather events had declined to 38,300, but all-cause deaths had increased to 56 million. Thus, the contribution of extreme weather events to total mortality declined from 0.42% to 0.07% from the 1950s to the 2000s. That is, humanity is apparently coping much better with extreme weather events than it is with far more important health and safety problems (EM-DAT 2011; UNPD 2011). Perhaps public health would advance farther and faster if resources expended on global warming-related public health issues were instead expended on these other health risks. are Deaths from extreme weather events increasing? Contrary to the impression one may get from media coverage, aggregate deaths and death rates from extreme weather events have been declining. Consider tornadoes in the U.S. Despite the very active
2011 tornado season, both deaths and death rates for tornados peaked in the 1920s. As of November 11, with the deadliest portion of the tornado season over, the U.S. had suffered 548 deaths from tornadoes in 2011 (NWS 2011). This makes 2011 the fourth deadliest tornado year since 1900. But in terms of death rates, as shown in Figure 3, it ranks 23rd. In fact, Figure 3 indicates that over the long term, death rates from tornadoes have been declining. More broadly, aggregate deaths and death rates from all extreme weather events have been declining globally since at least the 1920s. Comparing the 1920s to the latest (20002010) period, the annual deaths from all extreme events declined from 485,000 to 37,000, a 93% decline, while the death rate per million dropped from 241 to 5.4, a decline of 98%. would future Health risks from global warming outweigh other Health risks? Despite being outranked by numerous other health risks based on present day estimates of death and disease, the health impacts of global warming may advance in future rankings if global warmingand, more importantly, 13 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health its impactsincreases. But neither WHO (2009) nor any other study has made future projections of mortality or lost DALYs for a group of health risks that also includes global warming. So it is not possible to rank global warming relative to other health risks for the foreseeable future, as was done in Figure 1 for 2004. In the absence of any such analysis, in order to gauge the significance of global warming as a health threat, one can draw upon the Fast Track Assessments (FTAs) of the global impacts of global warming sponsored by the British government (Arnell et al. 2002; Parry 2004) to estimate the contribution of global warming to total mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme weather events for the year 2085. The FTA studies were undertaken by an international group of scientists and, from the perspective of the champions of the so-called consensus view of climate science, the FTAs provenance is impeccable. Many of their authors were intimately involved in the writing of the IPCCs second (1995), third (2001) and fourth (2007) assessments (IPCC 1995, 2001, 2007). For example, the FTAs hunger study (Parry et al. 2004) was led by Professor Martin Parry, cochair of IPCC Work Group 2 during the preparation of the IPCCs latest (2007) assessment. More than half the burden of disease attributed to global warming in the WHOs original estimate of the health impacts of global warming (WHO 2002) was derived from an earlier version of the FTAs hunger study. That study was also authored by a team led by Professor Parry (Parry et al. 1999; see McMichael et al. 2004). Similarly, the authors of the FTA studies on water resources (Arnell 2004) and coastal flooding (Nicholls 2004) were lead authors of corresponding chapters in the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report. Not surprisingly, these studies were considered to be state-of-the-art at the time the IPCCs Fourth Assessment Report was prepared. Nevertheless, FTA estimates of future global warming impacts are plagued with uncertainties and, more significantly, systematic biases (Goklany 2007a, 2009e). Specifically, like virtually all other climate

change impact assessments, they substantially overestimate the negative impacts of warming, while simultaneously underestimating its positive impacts because they fail to fully consider, if at all, future advances in adaptive capacity due to (a) secular technological change, and (b) higher levels of future economic development than were assumed in the development of the emission scenarios used to derive the IPCCs estimates of global warming. This not only violates the IPCCs methodological guidelines for impact
assessments (Carter et al. 2007a: 136, footnote 2) which require consideration of autonomous or automatic adaptations (such as would be driven by the advances in adaptive capacity). It also means that these assessments are internally inconsistent. Under the IPCC scenarios, which are projected to increase average global temperature by 2.1C4.0C from 1990 to 2085, the average net GDP per capita of developing countries in 2100 is projected to range from US$10,000 US$62,000 (in 1990 US$) even after adjusting GDP downward to account 14 for the upper bound estimate of losses due to global warming per the Stern Review (2006) (see Figure 5). To put these numbers in context, consider that: The Stern Review estimates include losses from market effects, nonmarket effects from environmental and public

health impacts, and the risk of catastrophe. Thus, the net GDP per capita is a surrogate for human welfare. The Stern Review overestimates the costs and damages from global warming (e.g., Carter et al. 2007b; Tol 2008). To quote Tol (2008), it lies beyond the 95th percentile that is, it is an outlier. In 2006, average GDP per capita for industrialized countries was $19,300; for the United States, $30,100; and for developing countries, $1,500. Accordingly, even if one assumes no technological improvements through 2100, Figure 5 indicates that future adaptive capacity for even developing countries should substantially exceed current levels under each IPCC scenario. Moreover, if the IPCCs assumptions regarding economic growth out to 2100 are to be trusted, then regardless of which scenario the world follows, there should be few, if any, people living in absolute poverty as currently defined ($1.25 per day in 2005 US dollars, or $456 per year). In fact, absolute poverty is most likely to be eradicated under the wealthiest scenario (A1FI). But this is also the warmest scenario, under which the net GDP per capita in developing countries should be $62,000 in 2100, double the U.S.s in 2006 ($30,100). Thus, all else being equal, death and disease from global warming should also be greatly diminished, if not eliminated. Yet the FTA studies, for the most part, ignore this. For example, the FTAs malaria study (van Lieshout et al. 2004) did not consider any advances in adaptive capacity after the base year (1990), even though its analysis extended to 2085. However, Tol and Dowlatabadi (2001) have estimated that malaria is functionally eliminated once a countrys average GDP per capita exceeds $3,100 (also in 1990 US$). Accordingly, by 2085, for practical purposes, malaria should be eliminated (as should other vector-borne diseases). Even more egregious, the FTA study of water resources (Arnell 2004) did not consider any adaptation at all, even though adaptations to alleviate water resource problems are among mankinds oldest adaptations. As noted, this is clearly inappropriate and contradicts the IPCCs methodological guidelines, which require that automatic adaptations be included in any assessment. The FTAs hunger analysis (Parry et al. 2004) is somewhat less prone to systematic error. It allows for increases in fertilization and irrigation because of economic development. It also provides for a modest annual increase in yields from the base year (1990). However, it did not allow for any new technologies subsequent to the mid-1990s. But we know that several new or 15 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health improved technologies have become available since then and even more should become available by 2085, e.g. bioengineered crops and precision agriculture, which could substantially reduce the negative impacts of global warming on agriculture while taking advantage of any positive outcomes. But experience informs us that long-term prospective analyses that neglect economic and technological advances will, likely, overestimate future negative impacts by an order of magnitude (Goklany 2009d). For example, an assumption that there would be no advance in adaptive capacity with respect to various water-related diseasesdysentery, typhoid, paratyphoid, other gastrointestinal disease, and malariabetween 1900 and 1970, for instance, would have implied that U.S. death rates for these diseases would be frozen at their 1900 levels. But, in fact, from 1900 to 1970 these death rates declined by between 99.6% and 100.0 percent. Similarly, globally, deaths and death rates from extreme weather events declined by 93% and 98% since the 1920s (EMDAT 2011). Thus, it is quite likely that due to the combination of economic development assumed under the IPCC scenarios and secular technological change, global warming should, at best, have a trivial impact on public health by 2100. Nevertheless, despite the tendency of the FTAs to systematically overestimate health impacts, one can use their results to estimate the contribution of global warming to mortality from various climate-sensitive health risks in 2085. In order to do this, assume that mortality for each type of climate-sensitive health risk is proportional to its population-at-risk, as estimated by the FTA studies, 1 and that the population-at-risk of floods is a good surrogate for the population-at-risk of all extreme weather events. Next, compare the FTAs estimates of the populations-at-risk in 1990 from hunger (Parry et al. 2004) and malaria (Arnell et al. 2002) to estimates of deaths from the WHO for the early 1990s to calculate the coefficients of proportionality between populations-at-risk and deaths. Then apply these relationships to the FTA estimates for the populations-at-risk in 2085 for hunger, malaria and extreme weather events to calculate corresponding mortalities, both with and without global warming for 2085. A similar methodology is used for extreme weather events, except that the FTA estimates of population-at-risk for coastal flooding (Nicholls 2004) is used as a surrogate for extreme weather events, and the mortality estimate for calculating the coefficient of proportionality was obtained from EM-DAT (which compiles the global disaster database). The results are shown in Table 3. They indicate that in 2085, global warming should contribute between 7% and 13% to total mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme weather events, depending on the IPCC scenario that 1 Because the more recent FTA study for malaria (van Lieshout et al. 2004) neglected to provide estimates of the populations-at-risk (PAR) of malaria in the absence of global warming, Goklany (2009a) used the results of the previous FTA malaria study (Arnell et al. 2002). That study provided estimates of PAR in 2085 in (a) the absence of warming and (b) a warming of 3.2 C. Per Goklany (2009b), it was also assumed that the additional population-at-risk due to global warming varies with the square of the global temperature change in order to develop estimates consistent with the temperature increases estimated under the various IPCC scenarios.16 one adopts (see Figure 6). Thus, with respect to these outcomes, other factors are more important than global warming, at least for the foreseeable future. How should we deal with global warming in the context of other more significant health threats? which would improve Public Health more adaptation or mitigation? focused adaptation Figure 6 shows that even if it were possible to roll climate - i.e. temperature, precipitation and other climatic variables - back to 1990 levels through drastic emissions reductions, it would at best reduce mortality from hunger, malaria, and extreme events in 2085 by 13% under the warmest (A1FI/4C) scenario, while adding a net 1.2 billion people to global PAR of water stress (Figure 7, based on Arnell 2004). Such a rollback would require emissions to be reduced to significantly below 1990 levels, which is infeasible with present technology without incurring astronomical economic and social costs. Alternatively, one could focus on reducing vulnerability to hunger, malaria, and extreme weather events. Such focused adaptation efforts would target 100% of the mortality (compared to a maximum of 13% for emission reductions) while allowing society to benefit from positive impacts of global warming on water stress, even as it tries to reduce its negatives. For malaria, focused adaptation efforts could include methods to improve antenatal care for expectant mothers in vulnerable areas, developing a malaria vaccine, indoor residual spraying with DDT, insecticide-treated bed nets, and otherwise improving public health services (Reiter 2008). These measures, according to the U.N. Millennium Project (2005a), would reduce

malaria by 75% at a cost of $3 billion a year. By contrast, the maximum reduction in malaria mortality that could be obtained in 2085 from emissions reduction is 5% (under the warmest

scenario) (see Table 3) were climate to beimplausiblyrolled back to its 1990 level. For hunger, focused adaptation could include measures to develop crops that would do better in poor climatic or soil conditions (drought, waterlogging, high salinity, or acidity) that could be exacerbated by global warming, and under the higher CO2 and temperature conditions that might prevail in the future. The UNMP (2005b) estimates that a 50% reduction in 17 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health hunger could cost an additional $12-15 billion per year (see Table 3), a bargain compared to the cost of rolling back post-1990 global warming. For extreme weather events, focused adaptation would include improved early warning systems, evacuation and response plans, transportation networks and machines to move

people, food, medicine and other critical humanitarian supplies before and after events strike, and building technologies. This approach focused adaptationcan be extended to all the 37 disease and injury outcomes listed in Table 1. Specifically, this

entails reducing vulnerability to todays climate-sensitive global health problems that might be exacerbated by global warming. This has the advantage that it would reduce death and disease from each of these outcomes, regardless of whether it is caused by global warming or something else, whereas mitigation would only address that portion caused by global warming. In other words, focused adaptation would address the whole iceberg, while mitigation would only address its tip, and at a much larger costessentially paying more for less. economic Development and Poverty reduction Another approach to addressing the
health threats posed by global warming in the foreseeable future would be to strive to increase economic development, which would reduce poverty. Figure 5 indicates that under the wealthiest-but-warmest (A1FI) scenario, the average net GDP per capita in developing countries in 2100 (after accounting for global warming impacts) would be double the U.S.s present level. It is, therefore, very unlikely that there would be much, if any, absolute poverty under this scenario. Realizing this scenario should, therefore, for practical purposes also eliminate the diseases of poverty, which currently are responsible for 11.3 million deaths and 384 million lost DALYs. Additionally that would eliminate global warming as a public health threat because, as indicated in Table 1, global warming would exacerbate the diseases of poverty, rather than create brand new health risks. No less important, the benefits of economic growth extend beyond reductions in death and disease to virtually all other aspects of human welfare (Goklany 2007b). A comparison of the two adaptive approachesfocused adaptation and economic developmentwith mitigation of global warming indicates that either adaptive approach will, for a fraction of the cost of any significant emission reductions, deliver greater benefits for human health and wellbeing. These greater benefits would also be delivered faster because any 18 benefits from emission reductions would necessarily be delayed by several decades due to the climate systems inertia. No less important, they would accrue to humanity with greater certainty because, while the reality of hunger, malaria, and extreme events is uncontested, the contribution of global warming to these problems is, at best, uncertain, as discussed previously. Yet another benefit of the adaptive approaches is that they allow societies to take advantage of the positive consequences of higher carbon dioxide concentrations and global warming (e.g., higher crop productivity due to carbon fertilization, longer growing seasons in some areas, or lower water stress in some heavily populated areassee Figure 7). On the other hand, mitigation indiscriminately reduces both the positive and the negative impacts associated with global warming. Essentially the adaptive approaches are scalpels compared to mitigation, which is necessarily a meat axe. are global warming Policies Deadlier than global warming? Among the policy responses to the perceived threat of global warming are subsidies and mandates for the production and use of biofuels, including ethanol and biodiesel. This has helped fuel an increase in food prices which, in turn, has increased the number of people suffering from chronic hunger (FAO 2009a, 2009b). It has also added to the number of people living in absolute poverty worldwide, particularly in developing countries (World Bank 2009a). A World Bank Policy Research working paper, based on analysis covering 90% of the worlds population, estimates that the number of people living in absolute poverty, i.e., the poverty headcount, in developing countries would decline from 1,208 million in 2005 to 798 million in 2010 because of economic development (De Hoyos and Medvedev 2009). But it also estimates that higher food prices induced by increased biofuel production over the 2004 level would drive an additional 32 million into absolute poverty in 2010. In other words, biofuel policies are retarding humanitys on-going battle against poverty. If one (a) adjusts this estimate upward to account for the less-than-total coverage of the worlds population and (b) assumes proportionality between the headcount of people living in absolute poverty on one hand and, on the other, death and disease in developing countries due to poverty-related diseases per WHO (2009), then one can (c) calculate the 19 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health increase in death and disease due to increases in biofuel production. Using this methodology, I estimate that the increase in biofuel production between 2004 and 2010 may have led to 192,000 additional deaths and 6.7 million additional lost DALYs in 2010 alone (Goklany 2011). By contrast, WHO (2009) attributes 141,000 deaths and 5.4 million lost DALYs in 2004 to global warming. Given the climate systems inertia, the reduction in these numbers from any slowing of global warming due to the increased use of biofuels is, most likely, negligible. Moreover, death

and disease due to poverty is real whereas death and disease attributed to global warming is hypothetical and, as already emphasized, based on unverified models and scientific short cuts, according to the very researchers who developed those estimates (McMichael
et al. 2004: 1546). Thus, biofuel policies motivated, in part, by the high-minded desire to mitigate global warming in order to reduce death and disease in the developing world may have made matters worse. Nor are industrialized countries, despite their wealth and advanced adaptive capacity, immune from the unintended consequences of global warming policies. Mortality data from a variety of industrialized countries show that average daily mortality is substantially higher in cold months than in warm months. This is shown in Figure 8, which is based on ten years data for the US and Canada. It shows that average daily mortality peaks in January at 7,400 deaths in the U.S., and 680 in Canada. Its low is in August (6,100 daily deaths in the U.S. and 570 in Canada). Table 4 shows the excess winter mortality for several industrialized countries in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. This is calculated as the increase in the number of deaths during the four coldest monthsJanuary, February, March and December in the Northern Hemisphere, and June through September in the Southern Hemisphereover the number of deaths that would have occurred had daily death rate stayed at the average level during the other eight months of the year. It shows, for example, that excess winter mortality was 108,500 for the U.S. in 2008 (NCHS 2009), 25,400 for England and Wales in the winter of 2009-2010 (UKONS 2011), and 50,887 for Japan (averaged over 2006 and 2007) (Falagas et al. 2009). 2 Notably, the aggregate excess winter mortality from the U.S. and Japan alone (159,000) exceeds the WHOs latest estimate of deaths from global warming (141,000)! Figure 9 shows that the excess winter mortality for England and Wales has declined more or less continuously from 106,400 in the winter of 1950/51 to 25,400 in the winter of 2009/10 (UKONS 2011). While some of this reduction might conceivably be due to global warming, the majority of the reduction is probably due to higher living standardsbetter housing, better economic access to heating, adequate clothing, and generally better health. Poorer 2 Calculations for England and Wales are done using the meteorological year rather than calendar year, starting in August of the previous year (see UKONS 2011).20 nutrition may also have contributed to the high death levels in the early 1950s, considering that food rationing was in effect until 1954. The phenomenon of excess winter mortality may also be present in warmer areas of the world and in developing countries. Marie et al. (2009) showed that in Cuba, deaths from heart diseases and

cerebrovascular diseases, which accounted for 37% of all deaths in that country from 19962006, were highest in the colder (winter) months. Seto et al. (1998) found that in Hawaii, mortality from carotid artery disease was 22% higher in the winter. Douglas et al. (1991) found that mortality was higher in the winter in Kuwait. Woodhouse (1993) reported that more deaths occurred in winter in a number of countries including Tunisia and Hong Kong, but not in Egypt. Even for So Paolo, Brazil, which is at the Tropic of Capricorn, Gouveia et al. (2003) found a 2.6% increase in all-cause mortality per degree increase in temperature above 20 C for the elderly, but a 5.5% increase per degree drop below 20 C, after adjusting for confounding factors such as air pollution. The relationships for children were similar, but somewhat weaker for adults. Shanghai, China also has more deaths in winter than in other months (Kan et al. 2003), but this is less surprising given its latitude. Finally, Duschenes and Moretti (2009) estimate that 4%7% of the total gains in life expectancy in the U.S. population from 1970 to 2000 may be due to continuing migration from the cold Northeastern states to the warmer Southern states. For the future, Tol (2002) estimates that net mortality from cardiovascular disease (from heat and cold stress) and respiratory disease (due to heat stress) may decline by half a million in 2050, and 1.5 million in 2200, because reductions in mortality due to lower cold temperatures would more than offset increases due to hotter weather. Similarly, Kovats (2004) estimates that through the 2050s, global warming would reduce net mortality in Europe. Bosello et al. (2006), however, have a mixed result. Their estimates indicate that net mortality from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases should decline by 1.4 million worldwide in 2050 for a 1 C temperature increase from 1997 to 2050; however, they also estimate an increase in the burden of disease of 4.2 million (based on additional years spent in a diseased condition). However, they do not account for secular technological change. All this indicates that claims that global warming would increase net mortality should be viewed with scepticism unless there is specificand accurate accounting for changes in mortality that would result from increases in yearround temperature that might occur not only because of greater warming during the summer months, but lesser cooling in the winter months. Moreover, mitigation policies that would increase the price of fossil fuels have a number of detrimental public health effects. First, an increase in the price of agricultural inputs and the price of food would, similar to the case of biofuel production, exacerbate hunger and its public health consequences. 21 global warming Policies might be bad for your Health Second, higher fuel prices would leave the poor more vulnerable to coldrelated health problems, and this problem would only worsen if mitigation policies indeed result in colder temperatures. To summarize, policies to

reduce global warming may be doing more harm than good for public health in both developing and industrialized countries. conclusion: reducing the urgent Health risks that global warming would exacerbate Even on the basis of speculative analysis that tends to systematically overestimate the threat of global warming, it is now, and for the foreseeable future, outweighed by numerous other health threats. Many of these greater threats are diseases of poverty. Exaggerating the importance of global warming seriously risks misdirecting the worlds priorities and its resources in efforts to reduce poverty and improve public health. Equally importantly, policies to curb global warming would, by increasing the price of energy and reducing its usage worldwide, slow down, if not reverse, the pace of economic growth.
As economic development is central to the fight against poverty, such policies would tend to perpetuate the diseasesand all the other problemsassociated with poverty. Specifically, since

the diseases of poverty are currently responsible for 7080 times more death and disease than global warming, such policies may well be counterproductive. They
would, moreover, slow advances in societys adaptive capacity, and otherwise retard improvements in human well-being (Goklany 2009e). For example, the increase in biofuel production between 2004 and 2010, partly as a consequence of policies designed to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, is estimated to have increased the population in absolute poverty in the developing world by over 35 million, leading to about 200,000 additional deaths in 2010 alone. Moreover, to the extent that mitigation may have reduced the rate of warming (which is the best that mitigation can hope to achieve given current technologies and the inertia of the climate system), it may have slowed the reduction in excess winter mortality, a phenomenon that isnt only restricted to the higher latitudes. Since global warming would mostly amplify existing health risks that are associated with poverty, tackling these underlying health risks (e.g., hunger, malaria and other vector-borne diseases listed in Table 1) would also address any incremental health risks attributable to global warming. Accordingly, global health and well-being would, for the foreseeable future, be advanced farther, faster, more surely and more economically through (a) focused adaptation, that is, efforts focused on reducing vulnerability to todays urgent poverty-related health problems that may be exacerbated by global warming, or (b) increasing adaptive capacity, especially of developing countries, through economic and technological development rather than on (c) quixotic and, most likely, counterproductive, efforts to reduce energy usage.

Warming Offense

Increases Phytoplankton
Warming creates nourishing Phytoplankton Skylights-recent studies prove
Myslewski, 2k12 (Rik Myslewski, San Francisco Correspondent/writer for The Register, Global warming helps Arctic algae suck CO2 June 8th, 2012, Online @ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/08/phytoplankton_bloom/ ) There's good news for folks worried that atmospheric CO2 levels in the Arctic have passed 400ppm for the first time: a vast CO2-sucking phytoplankton bloom has been discovered beneath Arctic ice and it may thank global warming for its presence. "This wasn't just any phytoplankton bloom," Stanford University marine scientist Kevin Arrigo toldThe Christian Science Monitor. "It was literally the most intense phytoplankton bloom I've ever seen in my 25 years of doing this type of research." Arrigo's research, conducted in the Chukchi Sea last year as part of NASA's ICESCAPE Arctic-research expedition, is discussed in the online issue of the journal Science in a report entitled "Life Blooms Under Arctic Ice". The massive under-ice bloom discovered during ICESCAPE was thoroughly unexpected. The meager amount of phytoplankton in that area's
open waters had led scientists to believe that under-ice phytoplankton would be even more rare. Not so. Due to the recent thinning of the Arctic ice sheets, enough light is now able to penetrate below the ice, enabling phytoplankton to thrive. According to Don Perovich of the US Army Corps of Engineers' Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,

ponds of meltwater form on the surface of the ice sheet, acting as "skylights" that let light reach the phytoplankton below. These skylights don't have to let the
light travel far: since satellite observations began in 1979, summer ice has declined by about 45 per cent due to global warming, wind patterns, and pollution. Perovich told the Monitor that much of the melt-season sea ice is now no more than around six feet thick, and has little or no snow cover.

No snow cover, more melting; more melt ponds, more skylights; more sunlight, more phytoplankton. The amount of phytoplankton blooming beneath the ice, the theory goes, is so great that it contributes to the lack of blooms in open water the under-ice blooms simply eat up all the available nutrients before they have a chance to make it out to the open ocean. The huge amount of CO2 photosynthesized by the phytoplankton, in fact, may help explain why the ocean is absorbing more of that greenhouse gas than calculations would otherwise indicate: even though the amount of dissolved CO2 in Arctic waters is below predicted levels, that carbon is finding another home in the photosynthetic systems of the phytoplankton.