Growth Core UMKC

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)
1 Growth Core
Growth Core Pre Camp Index

Growth Core Pre Camp Index.................................................................................................................. 1 Uniqueness.................................................................................................................................................... 3 Economy Yes/No ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Economy High Now ............................................................................................................................... 5 Economy High Now ............................................................................................................................... 6 Economy Low Now................................................................................................................................ 7 Economy Low Now................................................................................................................................ 8 Economy Low Now................................................................................................................................ 9 Economy Low Now.............................................................................................................................. 10 Sustainability Yes/No .............................................................................................................................. 11 Growth is Sustainable ......................................................................................................................... 12 Growth is Sustainable ......................................................................................................................... 13 Growth is Sustainable ......................................................................................................................... 14 Growth is Sustainable ......................................................................................................................... 15 Growth Not Sustainable ...................................................................................................................... 16 Growth Not Sustainable ...................................................................................................................... 17 Growth Not Sustainable ...................................................................................................................... 18 Links ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Transportation K2 Economic Growth.................................................................................................. 20 Transportation K2 Economic Growth.................................................................................................. 21 Transportation K2 Economic Growth.................................................................................................. 22 Impacts........................................................................................................................................................ 23 Growth Good .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Growth Good War ............................................................................................................................ 25 Growth Good War ............................................................................................................................ 26 Growth Good War ............................................................................................................................ 27 Growth Good Terrorism 1/2 ............................................................................................................ 28 Growth Good Terrorism 2/2 ............................................................................................................ 29 Growth Good Terrorism ................................................................................................................... 30 Growth Good Environment 1/2 ....................................................................................................... 31 Growth Good Environment 2/2 ....................................................................................................... 32
2 Growth Core
Growth Good Environment .............................................................................................................. 33 Growth Good Environment .............................................................................................................. 34 Growth Good Space 1/2 ................................................................................................................... 35 Growth Good Space 2/2 ................................................................................................................... 36 Growth Good Space ......................................................................................................................... 37 Growth Good Space ......................................................................................................................... 38 Growth Good AT Disease .............................................................................................................. 39 Growth Good AT Poverty .............................................................................................................. 40 Growth Bad ............................................................................................................................................. 41 Growth Bad War .............................................................................................................................. 42 Growth Bad War .............................................................................................................................. 43 Growth Bad War .............................................................................................................................. 44 Growth Bad War .............................................................................................................................. 45 Growth Bad Environment ................................................................................................................ 46 Growth Bad Environment ................................................................................................................ 47 Growth Bad Environment ................................................................................................................ 48 Growth Bad Disease ......................................................................................................................... 49 Growth Bad Disease ......................................................................................................................... 50 Growth Bad Disease ......................................................................................................................... 51 Growth Bad Poverty 1/2 .................................................................................................................. 52 Growth Bad Poverty 2/2 .................................................................................................................. 53 Growth Bad Poverty ......................................................................................................................... 54 Growth Bad Poverty ......................................................................................................................... 55 Growth Bad AT Decline Causes War ............................................................................................. 56 Growth Bad AT Space/Asteroids ................................................................................................... 57 Growth Bad AT Terrorism ............................................................................................................. 58 Misc ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 Transition Solves ................................................................................................................................. 60 Transition Solves ................................................................................................................................. 61 Transition Solves ................................................................................................................................. 62 Transition Fails .................................................................................................................................... 63 Transition Fails .................................................................................................................................... 64 Transition Fails .................................................................................................................................... 65
3 Growth Core
Uniqueness
4 Growth Core
Economy Yes/No
5 Growth Core
Economy High Now

Economy turning around nowstrong companies and rich households, consistent housing market and job growth, and activist federal reserve El-Erian, 6-8-12
*Mohamed, Is America Healing Fast Enough? Online, http://www.minyanville.com/business-news/theeconomy/articles/pimco-job-creation-us-economy-multinationals/6/8/2012/id/41541] /WFI-MB Six internal factors suggest that the United States economy is slowly healing. For some observers, these factors
were deemed sufficient to form the critical mass needed to propel the economy into escape velocity. While I hoped that they might be proven right, the recent stream of weak economic data, including Mays timid net job creation of only 69,000, confirmed my doubts. With this and other elements of a disheartening employment report now suddenly raising widespread worries about the underlying health and durability of Americas recovery, it is important to understand the positive factors and why they are not enough as yet. For
starters, large US multinational companies are as healthy as I have ever seen them. Their cash balances are extremely high, interest payments on debt are low, and principal obligations have been termed out. Many of them are successfully tapping into buoyant demand in emerging economies, generating significant free cash flow. Company cash is not the only source of considerable spending power waiting on the sidelines. Rich households also hold significant resources that could be deployed in support of both consumption and investment. The third and fourth positive factors relate to housing and the labor market. These two long-standing areas of
persistent weakness have constituted a major drag on the type of cyclical dynamics that traditionally thrust the US out of its periodic economic slowdowns. But recent
data support the view that the housing sector could be in the process of establishing a bottom, albeit an elongated one. Meanwhile, job growth, while anemic, has nonetheless been consistently positive since September 2010. Then there is the US Federal Reserve Board. Despite legitimate questions about the effectiveness of its unconventional and ever-experimental policy stance, the Fed appears willing to be even more activist if the economy weakens. Indeed, if the Fed makes an inadvertent mistake (the likelihood of this is
considerable, given the countrys complex situation and the unusually uncertain outlook), it is more likely to err on the side of staying accommodative for too long, rather than tightening monetary policy prematurely.
Finally, with the November elections in sight and subsequently out of the way, some believe that politicians in Washington might finally be in a better position to agree to much-needed grand policy bargains. In addition to removing the damaging specter of the fiscal cliff
a potentially disruptive economic hindrance equivalent to some 4% of GDP, in the form of excessively blunt spending cuts and across-the-board tax increases greater political effectiveness would serve to remove other uncertainties that inhibit certain economic activities.
Each of these six factors suggests actual and potential economic healing. So, not surprisingly, they have provoked excitement in some circles that the US may finally be poised to leave behind the depressing trio of unusually sluggish growth, persistently high unemployment, and high and growing inequality.
Economy strongUS productive capabilities are unmatched anywhere Carnevale, 6-8-12

[Chuck, Invest management advisor and article contributor, The US economy sitting on the threshold of a new golden age? Part 1 Online, http://seekingalpha.com/article/647141-the-u-s-economy-sitting-onthe-threshold-of-a-new-golden-age-part-1?source=google_news] /WFI-MB This leads me to perhaps some of the most important statements I will make in this whole series of articles: The true strength of an economy lies within its productivity capabilities. In this context, there is no economy that exists today nor any economy that has ever existed on the face of this earth that is more productive, and therefore more powerful and healthy, than the U.S. economy of today. But even more importantly, our future productivity over the next couple of decades is poised to grow exponentially. As this occurs, future prosperity and the opportunities it brings with it are nothing short of remarkable. Yes, that is an optimistic statement, but also realistic at the same time. Over the course of this series I intend to provide numerous reasons and evidence behind my
cheerful view of our country's exciting future economic potential.
6 Growth Core
Economy High Now

Economy recovering nowincreases in manufacturing Rugabar, 3-2-12
*Christopher, Associated press, US economy shows strength. Online, http://www.telegram.com/article/20120502/NEWS/105029902/1237] /WFI-MB U.S. manufacturing grew last month at the fastest pace in 10 months, suggesting that the economy is healthier than recent data had indicated. New orders, production and a measure of hiring all rose. The April survey from the Institute for Supply Management was a hopeful sign ahead of Fridays monthly jobs report and helped the Dow Jones industrial average end the day at its highest level in more than four years. The trade group of purchasing managers said Tuesday that its index of manufacturing activity reached 54.8 in April, the highest level since June. Readings above 50 indicate expansion. The sharp increase surprised analysts, who had predicted a decline after several regional reports showed
manufacturing growth weakened last month. The gain led investors to shift money out of bonds and into stocks. The ISM manufacturing index is closely watched in part because its the first major economic report for each month. Aprils
big gain followed a series of latest recovery is made
weaker reports in recent weeks that showed hiring slowed, applications for unemployment benefits rose and factory
output dropped. This survey will ease concerns that the softer tone of the incoming news in recent months marked the start of a renewed slowdown in growth, Paul Dales, an economist at Capital Economics, said in a note to clients. We think the
of sterner stuff, although we doubt it will set the world alight.
Multiple factors have ensured continued US growthjob growth, debt reduction, avoidance of spending cuts and tax increases Sherter, 3-22-12
[Alain, Journalist, OECD: Global economic recovery is 'fragile,' uneven. Online, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-57439004/oecd-global-economic-recovery-is-fragileuneven/] /WFI-MB The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development projects in a new report that GDP growth across the
group's 34 member countries will slow this year to 1.6 percent, down from 1.8 percent in 2011, before recovering to 2.2 percent in 2013. But while the group expects economic growth in the U.S. to rise 2.4 percent in 2012 and 2.6 percent in 2013 , Europe's overall GDP this year is forecast to shrink 0.1 percent. "The crisis in the eurozone remains the single biggest downside risk facing the global outlook," said OECD chief economist Pier Carlo Padoan in a statement. Increasing
personal consumption and
moderate job growth is boosting incomes in the U.S., although rising energy prices have muted those positive effects. Americans also continue to reduce their debt, pinching spending and constraining growth. Investment by private businesses in 2012 has declined slightly from last year. On a more positive note for the economy, inflation remains in check and is not expected to rise so long as the Federal Reserve maintains its policy of supporting low interest rates for the foreseeable future. One key factor that has helped the U.S. economy is its avoidance of the major government spending cuts and tax hikes that many European countries have adopted since the 2008 financial crisis. But the expiration of tax cuts and unemployment benefits, coupled with
automatic spending cuts negotiated between Democrats and Republicans as part of a budget compromise last year, could derail the U.S. recovery, the OECD warns.
7 Growth Core
Economy Low Now

World and regional economies are declining nowweak economic data from China, Europe and the US Sampson, 6-8-2012
*Pamela, Associate press, World stock markets fall after Fed chief coy about new stimulus for US economy. Canadian Business, online, http://www.canadianbusiness.com/article/86859--world-stockmarkets-fall-after-fed-chief-coy-about-new-stimulus-for-us-economy] /WFI-MB World stock markets fell Friday, deflated after U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke gave no hint of immediate action to jump-start growth in the world's No. 1 economy. Markets were also bracing for the possibility of glum economic data from China over the weekend. Bernanke avoided sending any signals in an appearance before members of the U.S. Congress about what the Fed might do in response to a slowdown in hiring. The 69,000 jobs created in May was the fewest in a year. Francis Lun, managing director of Lyncean Holdings in Hong Kong, said markets were "slightly disappointed" that Bernanke had not said the Fed would extend its Treasury bond-buying program, known as quantitative easing. The program injects money into the financial system, lowering interest rates to spur lending and growth. An effort by China on Thursday to reverse a sharp economic downturn with a surprise cut to a benchmark lending rate failed to rejuvenate markets because it may have been too little, Lun said. "The economy is slowing much faster than people expected," he said. In early European trading, Britain's FTSE 100 dropped 1 per cent to 5,394.44. Germany's DAX lost 1.3 per cent to 6,063.96 and France's CAC40 fell 1.6 per cent to 3,023.37. U.S. futures augured a lower open on Wall Street. Dow Jones industrial futures fell 0.7 per cent to 12,316 and S&P 500 futures lost 0.8 per cent at 1,299.60. The losses echoed those in Asia. Japan's Nikkei 225 index fell 2.1 per cent to close at 8,459.26. South Korea's Kospi dropped 0.7 per cent to 1,835.64. Australia's S&P/ASX 200 lost 1.1 per cent to 4,063.70. Hong Kong's Hang Seng shed 0.9 per cent to 18,502.34. Benchmarks in mainland China, Singapore, Taiwan, Indonesia, the Philippines and New Zealand also fell. Aside from an interest rate cut, China's central bank also said Thursday that commercial banks would be allowed to pay higher deposit rates than those dictated by the government. That could help to shift money to households from China's hugely profitable government-owned banks. Analysts said the moves suggest May trade and economic data due to be released in the next few days could be unexpectedly weak, spurring authorities to take more urgent action. China has rolled out a series of measures to stimulate the economy after growth fell to a nearly three-year low of 8.1 per cent in the first quarter and April factory output grew at its slowest rate since the 2008 crisis. Private sector analysts expect this quarter's growth to fall further. Andrew Sullivan of Piper Jaffray Asia in Hong Kong said in a commentary that investor concerns remained focused on Europe where a lingering financial crisis has now infected Spain and its banks. Global investors are worried that the recession-hit country can't come up with the money needed to save its banks without bankrupting the government. Expectations are rising that Spain's leaders will have to seek an international bailout for banks swaying under the weight of bad real estate loans.
8 Growth Core
Economy Low Now

Growth declining nowreducing oil demand Fahey, 6-8-12
*Jonathan, Bloomberg Businessweek, Oil price tumbles on weak economy. Online, http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-06/D9V927R81.htm] /WFI-MB The price of oil fell below $83 Friday on the prospect of weak economic growth with no immediate assistance from the U.S Federal Reserve. U.S. benchmark crude fell $1.93 to $82.89 per barrel in midday trading in New York. The last time oil closed below $83 was in early October of 2011. Brent crude, which is used to make gasoline in much of the U.S., fell 2 percent to $97.91. Global economic growth is weakening. Europe remains mired in a debt crisis and growth in the U.S. and China has slowed. That reduces demand for oil to make fuels for shippers and travelers. Oil prices had risen off recent lows on hopes that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke would unveil a plan to stimulate the U.S. economy, which would lower the value of the dollar and provide investors with cheap money to buy oil and other assets. But Bernanke told Congress Thursday that no plan was imminent. That sent the value of the dollar higher, making oil look more expensive to foreign buyers.
Global Economy failing nowEurozone recession and Greece exit speculation Jarvis, 5-24-12
*Gail Marks, Chicago Tribune Award winning Finance Columnist, Eurozone's turmoil threatens global economy. Online, http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/yourmoney/ct-biz-0523-gail-market-20120524-11,0,6654603.column] /WFI-MB While the eurozone's debt issues are not new, recessions are deepening, political instability is growing, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development warned Tuesday that without quick action by European leaders and the European Central Bank, Europe could go into a severe recession with global ramifications. New concerns focus on potential runs on banks. In Greece, individuals fearing that their country might leave the eurozone have been removing money from accounts rather than taking a chance that at some point they might be given drachmas instead of euros. Similar behavior is suspected in weak countries such as Spain, although analysts are not sure how extensive the practice has been. "Bank runs can easily get out of control," Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian noted in an essay Monday on Foreign Policy magazine's website. During the last few weeks, stock market strategists and economists have been trying to estimate the impact if Greece defaults, leaves the eurozone and other countries threaten or take the same route. Given the lack of precedent, no analysis is certain. While many analysts believe Greece would face a depression and Europe's recession would deepen amid worry and banking trouble, there is disagreement about the extent of infection worldwide.
9 Growth Core
Economy Low Now

US and global economy decliningEurozone crisis, decreased US manufacturing, and slow Chinese growth Cable and Johnson, 5-24-12
*Jonathan and Steven, Reuters News Service, Storm Clouds Loom Over the global economy. Online, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47551586/ns/business-world_business/#.T76LJNVYvuQ] /WFI-MB The shadows over the global economy darkened this month as the euro zone's private sector contracted, U.S. manufacturing growth slowed and China's once-booming factories faltered, surveys showed on Thursday. In Europe, a downturn that started in smaller states on the euro zone's periphery is now taking root in the core countries of Germany and France, where tepid growth had been the main ballast of support for the euro area economy. "We are very much in a period of weakening global growth. It doesn't quite feel like 2008 yet but the danger is we could get there quicker than we think," said Peter Dixon at Commerzbank. The euro zone
composite PMI, comprising the services and manufacturing sectors, fell to 45.9 from April's 46.7, its lowest reading since June 2009 and its ninth month below the 50-mark that divides growth from contraction. The data sent German Bund futures to a record high as investors sought relative safety, and the euro neared a two-year low against the dollar. Wednesday's news that European Union leaders have been advised by senior officials to prepare contingency plans in case Greece quits the single currency also hurt the euro. US momentum slows, China brakes Europe's woes were felt across the Atlantic. Financial information firm Markit's "flash" U.S.
manufacturing Purchasing Managers Index slipped to 53.9 in May from 56.0, with slower export sales sapping momentum. Markit, which also compiles the euro zone PMIs, released its U.S. index for the first time on Thursday but has been tracking data in the entire sector since late 2009. "The cause seems to lie largely with weak export sales, which likely reflects the deteriorating economic situation in Europe as well as slower growth in China," said Markit chief economist Chris Williamson. HSBC's Flash China
PMI, the earliest indicator of China's industrial sector, retreated to 48.7 in May from a final reading of 49.3 in April. It marked the seventh straight month that the index has been below 50. The
figures signal that the sluggish economic conditions of the first quarter are set to continue throughout the first half of the year in China's longest slowdown since the global financial crisis. "The series of highly disappointing April activity data - exports, imports, industrial production and retail sales
indicators all fell short of even the most pessimistic forecasts - the first gauge for economic activity in the current month is a further signal that internal and external headwinds are still biting into economic momentum," said Nikolaus Keis at UniCredit. The HSBC PMI has provided a contrast to the Chinese government's official PMI, which includes more state-owned firms with better access to credit. The government PMI hit a 13-month high of 53.3 in April as exports ticked higher although domestic orders showed signs of weakness. US summer slowdown?
Manufacturing has been a bright spot for the U.S. economy, with the Markit index showing the sector has expanded for 32 straight months. The U.S. PMI index's average reading in 2011 was 54.3. But as the pace of hiring across the economy has slowed in recent months, economists worry about whether demand will hold up this summer . "We are seeing slower growth globally, including China," said Sam Bullard, senior economist at Wells Fargo in Charlotte, North Carolina. "Manufacturers remain cautious. We have seen evidence of softer equipment demand in the first quarter and that softness will likely continue into the second quarter." Separate data showed orders for long-lasting U.S. durable goods rose less than expected as firms scaled back plans to add machinery and the military
ordered fewer aircraft. Meanwhile, first-time applications for U.S. jobless benefits fell slightly in the latest week, the Labor Department said on Thursday, though data earlier this month showed employers in April added the fewest new jobs to their payrolls since October.
10 Growth Core
Economy Low Now

Global economy failingwill tank US growth as well Semuels, 5-24-12
*Alana, LA Times Staff Writer, Nervous investors are looking beyond positive U.S. economic signs. Online, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-euro-markets-20120524,0,676006.story] /WFI-MB But investors are turning their back on positive economic signs, looking nervously at Europe's seemingly never-ending debt troubles and Facebook's flat IPO, wondering whether the global economy is beginning yet another deep dive. "Although better economic data did not go unnoticed, investors look forward and not backward," said David Dietze, president and chief investment strategist at Point View Wealth Management in Summit, N.J. "All eyes are looking across the pond and seeing a bit of a meltdown in terms of the European sovereign debt crisis." European stocks and the euro plunged Wednesday to 2012 lows on growing fears about a potential Greek exit from the Eurozone. Rattled investors then sent major U.S. indexes sharply lower in another volatile trading session, though stocks were able to reverse losses and finish mostly flat. Investors won't likely see stocks rally in the near future. The Dow Jones industrial average has slid downhill since May 1, staying below 13,000 for the last two weeks. The yield on 10-year Treasuries is reaching an all-time low, and investors are even running from gold, a one-time safe bet that has fallen 12% since February. Problems in Europe have plagued the global economic outlook for more than a year. But turmoil ahead of Greece's June 17 elections indicates that the country's new leadership may not follow through with agreed-upon austerity measures. Leaders in Germany, which has the strongest economy in the Eurozone, are finding it politically difficult to continue to extend credit to Greece. But they also are loath to see the common currency crumble with a Greek exit. Europe has so far come up with short-term solutions for these problems. Analysts say that long-term solutions are likely to be more painful than anything the continent has recently experienced. "The economy is in a downward spiral, debt burdens are rising, the public is not accepting fiscal austerity, and at some point the Greek situation will come to its head," said Sara Johnson, an economist with IHS Global Insight, which says the probability of a Greek exit from the Eurozone is 75%. Though the U.S. economy is not overly dependent on European consumers, countries in Asia and South America could suffer if there is less European demand for their exports. That could in turn slow demand for U.S. products. U.S. companies had, by and large, positive earnings reports this year, growth that does not appear sustainable for the remainder of the year.
11 Growth Core
Sustainability Yes/No
12 Growth Core
Growth is Sustainable
Capitalism can be green and is sustainable Wallis, 2010
[Victor, teaches in the Liberal Arts department at the Berklee College of Music (in Boston) and is the managing editor of Socialism and Democracy, Beyond green capitalism. Monthly Review, 61.9, Accessed online via academic search premier] /WFI-MB At a conceptual level, it is clear that "green capitalism" seeks to bind together two antagonistic notions. To be green means to prioritize the health of the ecosphere, with all that this entails in terms of curbing greenhouse gases and preserving biodiversity. To promote capitalism, by contrast, is to foster growth and accumulation, treating both the workforce and the natural environment as mere inputs. Capital is no stranger to contradiction, however. Just as it seeks to balance marketexpansion with wage-restraint, so it must seek to balance perpetual growth with preservation of the basic conditions for survival. Despite the ultimate incompatibility of these two goals, therefore, capital must to some extent pursue both at once. Although green capitalism is an oxymoron, it is therefore nonetheless a policy objective. Its proponents thus find
themselves in an ongoing two-front struggle against, on the one hand, capital's more short-sighted advocates and, on the other, the demand for a far-reaching ecologically grounded conversion of production and consumption. The
green capitalist vision is sometimes associated with small enterprises that can directly implement green criteria by, for example, using renewable energy sources, avoiding toxic chemicals, repairing or recycling used products, and minimizing reliance on long-distance shipment for either supplies or sales. But the scope of such practices is likely
to be severely limited by market pressures. The aspect of local self-sufficiency is most widely seen in the food-services sector, especially in farmers' markets, which have experienced a notable resurgence in recent years in industrialized countries. This corresponds more to what Marx called "simple commodity production," however, than to capitalist enterprise. Agribusiness allows residual space for it, but at the same time undercuts it through economies of scale facilitated by technologies of food processing and storage; political clout, resulting in subsidies; and reliance on a typically migrant workforce that receives less than a living wage. Because of the resulting cost differences (as well as inconveniences of access), patronage of farmers' markets is likely to remain primarily a political choice until much more is done to offset the artificial competitive edge enjoyed by the food-industrial complex. Focusing now on
the dominant corporate sector, we
find the green capitalist agenda expressed partly by the enterprises themselves, partly by industry associations, and partly by government.3 For the corporations themselves, "green" practice takes essentially three forms: (1) energysaving and other costcutting measures, which are advantageous to them in any case; (2) compliance with whatever regulations may be enforced by a government in which they normally have a large voice; and (3) most importantly, public relations (PR). The
industry associations further amplify the PR aspect, playing an especially vital role on the global stage, where they strive to establish the common assumptions underlying international agreements. They
have worked extensively to influence the United Nations Development Program, and they also carry out largescale lobbying campaigns to set negotiating parameters for the
periodic Earth Summits (Rio de Janeiro 1992, Kyoto 1997, Johannesburg 2002, Copenhagen 2009). The Business Council for Sustainable Development thus came into being in the run-up to the Rio conference, declaring in its charter that "economic
growth provides
the conditions in which protection of the environment can best be achieved."
13 Growth Core
Growth is sustainableInnovation from capitalism and transition to natural capitalism will solve all problems with current growth Schweickart, 2009
*David, Loyola University Chicago, Is sustainable capitalism an oxymoron? PGDT 8, 559-580, Accessed online via academic search premier] /WFI-MB Hawken and the Lovins agree with Kovel that the current model of capitalism is problematic. Capitalism, as practiced, is a nancially protable, nonsustainable aberration in human development (Hawken, Lovins, and Lovins 1999:5). But they do not see the problem as residing in capitalism itself. They distinguish among four kinds of capital, all necessary for production: human capital, nancial
capital, manufactured capital and natural capital. The problem with the current form of capitalism, they argue, is its radical mispricing of these factors. Current
market prices woefully undervalueand often do not value at allthe fourth factor: the natural resources and ecological systems that make life possible and worth living on this planet (Ibid. 2). All economists, liberal, Left and Right, recognize that market transactions can involve externalitiescosts (or benets) not paid for by the transacting parties. All agree that there is a role for governments to play in rectifying these defects. The standard
remedies involve taxation (for negative externalities) and subsidies (for positive externalities). More recently, cap and trade schemes for carbon emissions have been added to the list. Hawken and the Lovins argue that these remediesproperly applied can work. The
rst step, they say, is to eliminate the perverse incentives now in place. They document the massive subsidies that
governments currently provide for ecologically destructive behavior, e.g. highway construction and repair, which encourages suburban sprawl and the shift away from more ecient modes of transportation, agricultural subsidies that encourage soil degradation and wasteful use of water, subsidies to mining, oil, shing and forest industries, etc. Second step: impose resource and pollution taxes so as to reect the true costs of natural capital. Sweeten the pie by phasing out all taxes on labor the payroll tax, which increases unemployment, and income taxes as well. The point is to
level the playing eld so that more sustainable technologies and more energy-ecient processes can compete fairly with the destructive practices of industrial capitalism . We might even want to
go further, and subsidize at least initiallythe technologies that reduce the negative environmental impact of our production and consumption choices. Natural
Capitalism is chock full of examples of the shocking waste pervasive in our current system and of the existing technologies and procedures that could reduce our impact on the environment to a small fraction of what it is now. Many of these changes are already underway. Many more will follow if appropriate government policies are adopted. Hawken and the Lovins envisage a bright future: Imagine for a moment a world where cities have become peaceful and serene because cars and buses are whisper quiet, vehicles exhaust only water vapor, and parks and greenways have replaced unneeded urban freeways. OPEC has ceased to function because the price of oil has fallen to ve dollars a barrel, but there are few buyers for it because cheaper and better ways now exist to get the services people once turned to oil to provide. Living standards for all people have dramatically improved, particularly for the poor and those in developing countries. Involuntary unemployment no longer exists, and income taxes have been largely eliminated. Houses, even low-income housing units, can pay part of their mortgage costs by the energy they produce. (Ibid. 1). Such a future will come about if we harness the creative energy of capitalism and let the markets work.
14 Growth Core
Growth is sustainable profitable technologies will solve for waste and eliminate consumption Schweickart, 2009
*David, Loyola University Chicago, Is sustainable capitalism an oxymoron? PGDT 8, 559-580, Accessed online via academic search premier] /WFI-MB Hawken and the Lovins have much to say about energy. They argue that vast amounts of energy are currently wastedand that there is much prot to be made in reducing this waste. They are convinced that technologies already exist that, if properly implemented, could drastically reduce, and eventually eliminate, fossil fuel consumptionwithout relying on nuclear power. Many of these are already protable. Others would be, if sensible governmental policies were put in place.
Capitalism has regulatory components and profit motives that encourage sustainable growth and use of resources Fleisher, 2009
*Chris, Valley news service, Is Capitalism Sustainable?: Short Answer: Yes, but With Better Regulation. Valley news, 1-18-2009, Accessed online via academic search premier] /WFI-MB "Capitalism is sustainable in every sense of the term," said Anant Sundaram, a professor of business administration at
Tuck, during the opening chat last week. "With extremely important caveats." The conference, which ran Thursday and Friday, posed the question of whether capitalism is sustainable, as an economic system and force on the environment. In
panel discussions, professors, consultants, investment analysts and other corporate leaders considered the question and did their best to offer a way forward. Even if the economic circumstances surrounding the question are not pleasant, most of the panelists agreed with Sundaram that capitalism could function without destroying the natural world. But it might not be sustainable in its current form. If it is going to survive as a system of production
and exchange, it would have to change, become much more forward thinking and acknowledge new restrictions to keep from gobbling itself whole. The question is more than a conversation topic for a Tuck-sponsored salon. It is being considered by plenty of people in the Upper Valley every day. "One thing that comes immediately to mind when you talk about the topic is our whole floodplain on 12A is covered with buildings," said Judy Macnab, chairwoman of the Lebanon Conservation Commission, in reference to the Upper Valley's most notorious commercial strip. That development along the Connecticut River is what happens when capitalist impulses are given unchecked access to the natural environment, and a testament to the need for strong zoning laws, she said. Commercial interests are at stake, too. Poor design and heavy traffic have made West Lebanon's Route 12A an unpleasant place to visit, she said, driving shoppers away whenever possible. A better approach would be the path two other developers have taken in Lebanon. One is David Clem of Lyme Timber Co., she said, who has solicited feedback from residents in redeveloping the former Bailey Brothers building on Route 10. Another is a project planned near the crest of Route 120. The landowner, L-A Suncook LLC, owns 289 acres off the eastern side of Route 120, behind the former Wilson Tire building. Suncook, a Philadelphia-based private equity firm, intends to set aside 223 acres for preservation and develop the rest for offices and a hotel. "Both of those are much appreciated for their willingness to work with us, instead of push things down our throats," Macnab said of the two projects. The incentive to do something that the community wants has some real economic value, according to P.K. Knights, local operating partner of LA Suncook. The company might realize a higher profit if it were to pack all 289 acres with single-family homes, but there is also value in avoiding a long fight with the city by doing something the community wants. "It might be better to create something the community accepts and move forward in the near future," Knights said. Going Green More
than proper land use, however, there are the buildings themselves. Sustainable development, as it relates to so-called "green building," was the subject of one Friday morning panel at Tuck. Environmentally sustainable construction is yet another area where profit motives and environmental concerns are becoming increasingly aligned, even during a recession, according to the panelists. "Growth (in the industry) is unbelievable," said Jim Boyle, founder and CEO of Sustainability Roundtable Inc., a sustainable real estate consultant. The
value of green building construction was estimated at $12.3 billion in 2008, according to the U.S. Green Building Council, and projected to be
Continued on next page
15 Growth Core
Continued from last page
$60 billion in 2010. Dartmouth College has supported a number of sustainable projects and has three buildings on campus certified under the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED program, a benchmark for green buildings. There
are different certification levels that consider a building's energy efficiency, use of native materials and other initiatives to reduce its environmental impact. LEED certification has become attractive to companies that want to advertise sensitivity to the environment.
But beyond the marketing opportunities, it doesn't always make sense to get certified, said Paul Olsen, of Dartmouth's Real Estate office, who was one of the panelists. Getting certified is expensive, costing as much as $100,000 for a project. "In order to be a green building, it doesn't have to get certified," Olsen said. "That money could be better spent." The financial advantages of going green are something Wayne Bonhag considers every day as a principal of Bonhag Associates. His Lebanon-based engineering firm is working on several LEED projects for Southern New Hampshire University, which is watching its bottom line carefully amid the recession. "We are very much aware that we don't want to spend any more money on the capital side of things that won't be coming back to us in the short term," Bonhag said. Sometimes it doesn't make sense, he said. One industrial client in New Hampshire wanted to line its roof with solar panels. But when Bonhag crunched the numbers, solar just didn't seem to make sense. It was too expensive. However, he was able to find another renewable energy option. "In this particular case, I was able to negotiate a wind purchase," Bonhag said. "It's still green, and yet we were able to do this so they can buy power." Not every problem is so neatly resolved. Especially in the financial sector.
Socially responsible investing has grown in popularity in the past few years, but has been tested in this recession. The Wilderhill New Energy Global Innovation Index -- a benchmark for green
investing -- is down 56 percent since June 30. By comparison, the S&P 500 was down 31 percent over the same six months. Carey Callaghan manages the Energy Alternatives Fund, a mutual fund through American Trust Co. in Lebanon. As its name suggests, the fund invests in companies that, in one way or another, address the twin concerns of climate change and energy supply shortages. Since it was launched last June, the fund has declined 44 percent, Callaghan said. The financial crisis has hurt short-term prospects for some of his companies, as addressing climate change takes a back seat to other pressing concerns. The collapse in energy prices has also affected perceptions about the need to develop alternative fuel. Still, he believes the need for solar technology and alternative fuel sources will not go away. And new regulations that result from this crisis -- for fuel standards, emissions and energy consumption -- could play to his advantage. If
the crisis has resulted in anything, he said, it is a healthy skepticism of unbridled capitalism and calls for tighter regulation. "The blind faith of many adherents to capitalism has been put to the test because it's clear capitalism has flaws," he said. "You need to impose some limits on capitalism." Impure Capitalism The panelists at Tuck largely agreed. One speaker -- Greg Hintz
of the consulting company McKinsey & Co. -- began his introduction with a couple straw polls. First, he asked the audience of about 60 whether capitalism -- simply as a system of exchanging goods -- was sustainable. Most raised their hands in agreement. Then, he wondered whether capitalism, in its pure form -- an open-market free-for-all, with no regulation -- was sustainable in terms of social and environmental needs, able to regenerate the resources upon which it fed. The other panelists wouldn't let him get that far. "No regulation?" Sundaram asked. Pure capitalism, Hintz repeated. The discussion broke down into a series of qualifying questions. No regulation at all? No contracts? Nothing? The question never made it to a vote, and Hintz moved on with his talk. But the provocative suggestion of "pure capitalism" never went away. Later, regulation came up again, and Hintz suggested that if capitalism relied so much on rules and law, then the answer to the conference's question was "no." Capitalism wasn't sustainable. "I completely disagree," Sundaram said. It is
a system that needs regulation to function, even to establish a clearinghouse where trade can happen, the other panelists suggested. It requires policing to keep its practitioners' safe from their own worst impulses. The economic system upon which our modern world relies would be unworkable otherwise. "I won't accept a definition of capitalism that doesn't have a regulatory component," said Michael Dworkin, a professor at Vermont Law School. "It becomes meaningless."
16 Growth Core
Growth Not Sustainable

Major overshoot nowenvironmental destruction, resource depletion, deprivation and conflict all signal the end of the growth economy Trainer, 2011
*Ted, University of New South Wales Australia, The radical implications of the zero growth economy. Real world economics review, issue 57, Online, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf] /WFI-MB The planet is now racing into many massive problems, any one of which could bring about the collapse of civilization before long. The most serious are the destruction of the environment, the deprivation of the Third World, resource depletion, conflict and war, and the breakdown of social cohesion. The main cause of all these problems is over-production and over-consumption people are trying to live at levels of affluence that are far too high to be sustained or for all to share. Our society is grossly unsustainable the levels of consumption, resource use and ecological impact we have in rich countries like Australia are far beyond levels that could be kept up for long or extended to all people.
Yet almost everyones supreme goal is to increase material living standards and the GDP and production and consumption, investment, trade, etc., as fast as possible and without any limit in sight. There
is no element in our suicidal condition that is more important than this mindless obsession with accelerating the main factor causing the condition. The following points drive home the magnitude of the overshoot. If the 9 billion people we will have on earth within about 50 years were to use resources at the per capita rate of the rich countries, annual resource production would have to be about 8 times as great as it is now. If 9 billion people were to have a North American diet we would need about 4.5 billion ha of cropland, but there are only 1.4 billion ha of cropland on the planet. Water resources are scarce and dwindling. What will the situation be if 9 billion people try to use water as we in rich countries do, while the greenhouse problem reduces water resources. The worlds fisheries are in serious trouble now, most of them overfished and in decline. What happens if 9 billion people try to eat fish at the rate Australians do now? Several mineral and other resources are likely to be very scarce soon, including gallium, indium, helium, and there are worries about copper, zinc, silver and phosphorous. Oil and gas are likely to be in decline soon, and largely unavailable in the second
half of the century. If 9 billion were to consume oil at the Australian per capita rate, world demand would be about 5 times as great as it is now. The seriousness of this is extreme, given the heavy dependence of our society on liquid fuels. Recent "Footprint" analysis indicates that it takes 8 ha of productive land to provide water, energy, settlement area and food for one person living in Australia. (World Wildlife Fund, 2009.) So if 9 billion people were to live as we do about 72 billion ha of productive land would be needed. But that is about 10 times all the available productive land on the planet. The most disturbing argument is to do with the greenhouse problem. It is very likely that in order to stop the carbon content of the atmosphere rising to dangerous levels CO2 emissions will have to be totally eliminated by 2050 (Hansen says 2030). (Hansen, 2009, Meinschausen et al., 2009.) Geosequestration cant enable this, if only because it can only capture about 85% of the 50% of emissions that come from stationary sources like power stations. These
kinds of figures make it abundantly clear that rich world material living standards are grossly unsustainable. We are living in ways that it is impossible for all to share. We are not just a little beyond sustainable levels of resource consumption -- we have overshot by a factor of 5 to 10. Few seem to realise the magnitude of the overshoot, nor therefore about the enormous reductions that must be made.
17 Growth Core

Sustainable growth is impossiblecarrying capacity inevitably trumps other resources for generating wealth Rull, 2011
*Valenti, Botanical Institute of Barcelona, Sustainability, capitalism, and evolution. The European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 2011 Feb 12(2), 103-106, Accessed online via PubMed] /WFIMB However, submitting natural resources to economic analysis does not guarantee sustainable practices. The first thing to bear in mind is that comprehensive wealth is finite and limited by the carrying capacity of the Earth. If certain planetary systemssuch as climate, ocean acidity, freshwater and biodiversitychange beyond a certain limit, it could trigger nonlinear and catastrophic consequences on a global scale (Rokstrm et al, 2009). Second, the components of comprehensive wealth depend on each other: for example, building a road through a forest is done at the expense of the forest, that is, natural capital. Building the road might increase comprehensive wealth but it has a price: natural degradation, including resource exhaustion, loss of biodiversity and increased pollution. If human growth continues, these costs could become so high that systemsboth ecological and economic collapse. Sustainable practices could therefore aim to minimize the loss of natural capital, but if human development continues unabated, the carrying capacity of the Earth will nonetheless be reached sooner or later. Rockstrm et al (2009) argue that humanity has already transgressed three of nine critical planetary boundaries, namely climate change, biodiversity loss and interference with the nitrogen cycle through industrial and agricultural fixation of atmospheric nitrogen, the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass and the pollution of waterways and coastal zones. This means that nature is subsidizing the capitalist mode of development. For a quantitative estimate of natural costs, the LPI (Living Planet Index) of global diversity has declined by nearly 35% in the past 30 years (WWF, 2008); hence, the cost during this period has been about 1.2% of species per year. Even if capitalism, as the dominant economic model, incorporates natural capital into its costbenefit analysis, nature still loses out; unlimited human growththe central tenet of capitalismand sustainable development are incompatible (Rull, 2010b). Some alternative modes of human development exist (Costanza, 2009; Schneider et al, 2010), but these also rely on sustainability.
18 Growth Core

Economic growth is not sustainableexploits the Earths environment and biodiversity in an unsustainable manner Rull, 2011
[Valenti, Botanical Institute of Barcelona, Sustainability, capitalism, and evolution. The European Molecular Biology Organization Reports, 2011 Feb 12(2), 103-106, Accessed online via PubMed] /WFIMB Humans are exploiting the Earth in an unsustainable manner, which is accelerating both environmental degradation and loss of biodiversity. Moreover, owing to global climate change, the rates of deterioration and extinction will probably increase in the near future. The scientific community has been highly sensitive to this alarming development and increased the number of baseline and ecological studies on the impact of humans on the biosphere and proposed various strategies to alleviate the environmental and biotic crisis. This has triggered vivid discussions about the potential risks and benefits of measures such as adaptation and/or mitigation actions, ecosystem restoration, the assisted migration of species or triage conservation (Mooney, 2010). One constant in these proposals is a sense of urgency, as the pace of change seems to outstrip our capacity to react to it. There are various crucial issues that limit said capacity: the incomplete inventory of biodiversity we still do not know how many and which species live on Earth; our deficiency in understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning; and the inertia of the planet itself even if we immediately stopped using fossil fuels and reduced CO2 emissions, global climate change would continue for decades or even centuries (Matthews & Weaver, 2010). Finally, but maybe most damaging, our social and economic systems are too recalcitrant to even acknowledge, let alone abandon or reduce their destructive practices.
Growth is not sustainable, it is trumped by environmental limitstransition is key Panayotou, 2003

[Theodore, Economic Growth and the Environment. Economic Survey of Europe, 2003, No. 2. Online, http://staging.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ead/pub/032/032_c2.pdf] /WFI-MB Will the world be able to sustain economic growth indefinitely without running into resource constraints or despoiling the environment beyond repair? What is the relationship between a steady increase in incomes and environmental quality? Are there trade-offs between the goals of achieving high and sustainable rates of economic growth and attaining high standards of environmental quality? For some social and physical scientists such as GeorgescuRoegen and Meadows et al., growing economic activity (production and consumption) requires larger inputs of energy and material, and generates larger quantities of waste by-products. Increased extraction of natural resources, accumulation of waste and concentration of pollutants will therefore overwhelm the carrying capacity of the biosphere and result in the degradation of environmental quality and a decline in human welfare, despite rising incomes. Furthermore, it is argued that degradation of the resource base will eventually put economic activity itself at risk. To save the environment and even economic activity from itself, economic growth must cease and the world must make a transition to a steady-state economy.
19 Growth Core
Links
20 Growth Core
Transportation K2 Economic Growth

Transportation infrastructure investment is key to economic growth Rahall, 2011
*Nick, Ranking member of House committee of transportation and infrastructure, Report: Americas Crumbling Infrastructure to Cost Economy 877,000 High-Skill Jobs. 7-27-12, Online, http://democrats.transportation.house.gov/press-release/report-america%E2%80%99s-crumblinginfrastructure-cost-economy-877000-high-skill-jobs] /WFI-MB Citing a first-ever report released today by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) that found Americas crumbling surface transportation infrastructure will cost the economy more than 877,000 jobs, U.S. Representative Nick J. Rahall (D-WV), top Democrat on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, renewed calls for Congress to craft a robust surface transportation bill that provides the investments necessary to tackle the well documented backlog of highway, bridge, and transit infrastructure needs. While Republicans may hope that if they simply say we are going to do more with less enough times it will magically make it so, todays report provides the cold hard truth that Americas economic recovery and long-term competitiveness will suffer if we continue to under invest in our future, said Rahall. The report paints a disturbing picture of how Americas small businesses and middle class family incomes will be affected by our Nations deteriorating surface transportation systems. Slashing investments by one third, as Republicans have proposed to do, will make the economic impact on Americas middle class even worse than the grim predictions by the economists in this report. The report finds that a failure to increase investment in surface transportation over the next ten years will have significant economic implications for the U.S. economy, resulting in U.S. businesses paying an added $430 billion in transportation costs, household incomes falling by more than $7,000, and U.S. exports falling by $28 billion. There is no doubt we need to tighten our budgetary belt and learn to live within our means, but this report is proof positive that the cost of not addressing this impending catastrophe is simply too high, said Rahall. Instead of making robust investments in Americas future and strengthening our position in the worldwide economy, slashing investments in transportation infrastructure is shortsighted and will have a negative impact on the pocketbooks of American families. Republicans on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee earlier this month unveiled a six-year Federal highway and transit reauthorization proposal that represents a 33% reduction from current funding levels. The dramatic cuts proposed to surface transportation programs will destroy over 600,000 American jobs next year alone, undermine our Nations long-term economic competitiveness, and jeopardize our economic recovery. By cutting $109 billion in surface transportation investment, the Republican proposal ignores another deficit just as critical to Americas future the infrastructure deficit, said Rahall. While our international competitors are moving forward, the Republican bill would put American businesses at a disadvantage with companies around the world. America can continue to lead the worldwide economy and win the future, but we must be willing to invest in a transportation system fit for the 21st century just as our competitor nations are investing in their own futures. They are not waiting; we must not wait any longer.
21 Growth Core

Failed transportation infrastructure tanks the economyabout 7% of annual GDP Davidson, 2012
*Paul, USA Today, USA's creaking infrastructure holds back economy. 3-20-12, Online, http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/story/2012-05-20/creaking-infrastructure/55096396/1] /WFI-MB As the economy picks up, the nation's creaking infrastructure will increasingly struggle to handle the load. That will make products more expensive as businesses pay more for shipping or maneuver around roadblocks, and it will cause the nation to lose exports to other countries both of which are expected to hamper the recovery. "The good news is, the economy is turning," says Dan Murray, vice president of the American Transportation Research Institute. "The bad news is, we expect congestion to skyrocket." The ancient lock-and-dam system is perhaps the most egregious example of aging or congested transportation systems that are being outstripped by demand. Fourteen locks are expected to fail by 2020, costing the economy billions of dollars. Meanwhile, seaports can't accommodate larger container ships, slowing exports and imports. Highways are too narrow. Bridges are overtaxed. Effects 'sneaking up' The shortcomings were partly masked during the recession as fewer Americans worked and less freight was shipped, easing traffic on transportation corridors. But interviews with shippers and logistics companies show delays are starting to lengthen along with the moderately growing economy. "I call this a stealth attack on our economy," says Janet Kavinoky, executive director of transportation and infrastructure for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "It's not like an immediate crisis. It's something that's sneaking up on us." Freight bottlenecks and other congestion cost about $200 billion a year, or 1.6% of U.S. economic output, according to a report last year by Building America's Future Educational Fund, a bipartisan coalition of elected officials. The chamber of commerce estimates such costs are as high as $1 trillion annually, or 7% of the economy.
22 Growth Core

Transportation infrastructure investment has massive returns on economic growth and GDP Business news daily, 2010
*Staff writer, U.S. Transportation Infrastructure is Roadblock to Economic Growth. 9-27-2010, Online, http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/245-us-transportation-infrastructure-is-roadblock-to-economicgrowth.html] /WFI-MB An army may travel on its stomach, but Americas economy travels on its highways, railroads and runways. And the pace at which Americas infrastructure is deteriorating is having a measurable impact on the U.S. economy. Thats the finding of the U.S. Chamber of Commerces Transportation Performance Indexes, released last week. The index showed a significant decline over the last five years in how the nations transportation infrastructure is serving the needs of domestic commerce, international trade and the overall U.S. economy . The survey combines indicators of supply, quality of service and potential for future growth across all modes of passenger and freight transportation highway, public transportation, freight railroad, aviation and intermodal to show how well the U.S. transportation system is serving the needs of business and the economy. The index reveals a clear downward trend from 2003 to 2008, demonstrating that the performance of our transportation system is not keeping pace with the demands on that system. Over the period of the index, the performance of the transportation system increased only 6 percent, while the U.S. population grew by 22 percent, passenger travel grew by 39 percent and freight traffic increased by 27 percent. As our economy recovers, the nations transportation infrastructure must be prepared to meet the projected growth in freight and population, said Thomas J. Donahue, president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In fact, a ten-point improvement in the new national transportation could generate 3 percent more growth in the nations Gross Domestic Product. Our index, however, shows that from now through 2015 there will be a rapid decline in the performance of the system if we continue business as usual. Right now were on an unsustainable path. The nations deteriorating infrastructure is placing a major drag on the economy , Donahue said. We must focus on improving the way transportation delivers for business, removing barriers to maintaining, modernizing and expanding our nations transportation infrastructure, and driving increased public and private investment, he said.
23 Growth Core
Impacts
24 Growth Core
Growth Good
25 Growth Core
Growth Good War

Eighth, sustained economic downturn causes nuclear world war 3 Austin 9
*Michael, Resident scholar at AEI, The Global Economy Unravels, Forbes, 3.6, p. http://www.aei.org/article/100187 //wyo-tjc] What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
economically sound recovery plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems.
The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20
million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal stability. The
regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward, leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far
East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse.
If that devil's bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly
50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe. A
prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big bang.
26 Growth Core
Growth Good War

Broad statistical models prove unmanaged economic declines lead to war, tanks heg, and increases terrorism Royal 10
[Jedediah, Director of cooperative threat reduction, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction U.S. Department of Defense, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, Ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213-215] Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political science
literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompsons (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crisis could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain
unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copelands (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that future expectation of trade is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviours of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations, However,
if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crisis could
potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflict self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002. P. 89) Economic decline has been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. Diversionary theory suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increase incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a rally around the flag effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting
evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that
the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlated economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crisis and armed conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This
observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter.
27 Growth Core
Growth Good War

Global economic decline increases the risk of World War III and global nuclear war O'Donnell 2009
[Maryland native Sean O'Donnell received a B.A. in History from the University of Maryland. He is a Squad Leader in the Marine Corps Reserve and is currently a graduate student at the University of Baltimore studying law and ethics, Baltimore Examiner, "Will this recession lead to World War III?" , http://www.examiner.com/republican-in-baltimore/will-this-recession-lead-to-world-war-iii, uwyo//amp] One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself.
28 Growth Core
Growth Good Terrorism 1/2

Economic growth prevents terrorism, studies provehigher opportunity costs Gries, Krieger, and Meierreks, 2011
*Thomas, Time, and Daniel, Univ. of Paderborn Dept. of Economics, Causal Linkages Between Domestic Terrorism and Economic Growth. Defence and Peace Economics, Vol. 22, Issue 5, 493-508, Accessed Online via Taylor Francis Online] /WFI-MB Economic theory argues that terrorists are rational individuals which choose their levels of violent activity according to the costs and benefits arising from their actions (cf., e.g., Sandler and Enders, 2004). Because of terrorists presumed rationality, the opportunity costs of terror also matter. Intuitively, low opportunity costs of violence that is, few prospects of economic activity lead to elevated terrorist activity, whereas high opportunity costs result in the opposite (cf., e.g., Freytag et al., 2008). Times of economic success mean, inter alia, more individual economic opportunities and economic participation. Higher levels of overall growth should coincide with higher opportunity costs of terror and thus less violence. Conversely, in periods of economic downturn should be accompanied by fewer economic opportunities and participation and thus by more economic dissatisfaction. In times of economic crisis, dissidents are more likely to resort to violence as the opportunity costs of terror are low, while the potential long-run payoffs from violence a redistribution of scarce economic resources which is to be enforced by means of terrorism are comparatively high (cf. Blomberg, Hess and Weerapana, 2004). To some extent, empirical evidence suggests that economic performance and terrorism are linked along the lines discussed before. The ndings of Collier
and Hoeffer (1998) indicate that higher levels of economic development coincide with lower likelihoods of civil war, providing initial evidence that economic success and conflict are diametrically opposed. Considering
economic development and terrorism, several studies found that higher levels of development are obstacles to the production of transnational terrorism (cf., e.g., Santos Bravo and Mendes Dias, 2006; Lai, 2007; Freytag et al., 2008). Blomberg and Hess (2008) also found that higher incomes are a strong deterrence to the genesis of domestic terrorism. Furthermore, there is evidence connecting solid short-run economic conditions with less political violence (cf. Muller and Weede, 1990; Freytag et al., 2008). In general, the evidence indicates that terrorism and economic conditions are linked. Here, economic success seems to impede the genesis of terrorism, presumably due to higher opportunity costs of conflict. In other words, in times of stronger economic performance individuals simply have more to lose.
29 Growth Core
Growth Good Terrorism 2/2

Terrorism causes retaliation that guarantees extinction Morgan 9
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Yongin Campus South Korea (Dennis, Futures, November, World on fire: two scenarios of the destruction of human civilization and possible extinction of the human race, Science Direct), accessed 9-16-2011,WYO/JF
In a remarkable website on nuclear war, Carol Moore asks the question Is Nuclear War Inevitable?? In Section , Moore points out what
most terrorists obviously already know about the nuclear tensions between powerful countries. No doubt, theyve figured out that the best way to escalate these tensions into nuclear war is to set off a nuclear exchange. As Moore points out, all that militant terrorists would have to do is get their hands on one small nuclear bomb and explode it on either Moscow or Israel. Because of the Russian dead hand system, where regional nuclear commanders would be given full powers should Moscow be destroyed, it is likely that any attack would be blamed on the United States Israeli leaders and Zionist supporters have, likewise, stated for years that if Israel were to suffer a nuclear attack, whether from terrorists or a nation state, it would retaliate with the suicidal Samson option against all major Muslim cities in the Middle East. Furthermore, the Israeli Samson option would also include attacks on Russia and even anti-Semitic European cities In that case, of course, Russia would retaliate, and the U.S. would then retaliate against Russia. China would probably be involved as well, as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nuclear warheads, many of them much more powerful than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, would rain upon most of the major cities in the Northern Hemisphere. Afterwards, for years to come, massive radioactive clouds would drift throughout the Earth in the nuclear fallout, bringing death or else radiation disease that would be genetically transmitted to future generations in a nuclear winter that could last as long as a 100 years, taking a savage toll upon the environment and fragile ecosphere as well. And what many people fail to realize is what a precarious, hair-trigger basis the nuclear web rests on. Any accident, mistaken communication, false signal or lone wolf act of sabotage or treason could, in a matter of a few minutes, unleash the use of nuclear weapons, and once a weapon is used, then the likelihood of a rapid escalation of nuclear attacks is quite high while the likelihood of a limited nuclear war is actually less probable since each country would act under the use them or lose them strategy and psychology; restraint by one power would be interpreted as a weakness by the other, which could be exploited as a window of opportunity to win the war. In other words, once Pandora's Box is opened, it will spread quickly, as it will be the signal for permission for anyone to use them. Moore compares swift nuclear escalation to a room full of people embarrassed to cough. Once one does, however, everyone else
feels free to do so. The bottom line is that as long as large nation states use internal and external war to keep their disparate factions glued together and to satisfy elites needs for power and plunder, these nations will attempt to obtain, keep, and inevitably use nuclear weapons. And as long as large nations oppress groups who seek self-determination, some of those groups will look for any means to fight their oppressors In other words, as
long as war and aggression are backed up by the implicit threat of nuclear arms, it is only a matter of time before the escalation of violent conflict leads to the actual use of nuclear weapons, and once even just one is used, it is very likely that many, if not all, will be used, leading to horrific scenarios of global death and the destruction of much of human civilization while condemning a mutant human remnant, if there is such a remnant, to a life of unimaginable misery and suffering in a nuclear winter.
30 Growth Core
Growth Good Terrorism

Economic growth solves terrorismempirics prove Gries, Krieger, and Meierreks, 2011
[Thomas, Time, and Daniel, Univ. of Paderborn Dept. of Economics, Causal Linkages Between Domestic Terrorism and Economic Growth. Defence and Peace Economics, Vol. 22, Issue 5, 493-508, Accessed Online via Taylor Francis Online] /WFI-MB The results of our Hsiao-Granger causality analysis indicate that economic factors - at least in some countries - played an important role in shaping terrorist violence in Western Europe after the Second World War. In general, we provide support for policies that aim at increasing the opportunity costs of terror as, for instance, advocated by Frey and Luechinger (2003). Apparently economic success - especially in Germany, Portugal and Spain - helped to reduce political violence by raising the opportunity costs of terrorism. Policies that focus on growth and economic development are thus also potentially helpful in scaling down terror risks. Related policies may yield additional dividends beyond raising economic status, as social stability and peace may also be affected. For Western Europe, developed welfare states may provide
important institutional channels for disseminating economic success, likewise explaining a link from economic performance to domestic terrorism.17 Our results also imply that domestic terrorist violence did not affect GDP per capita growth. Affected economies seem to have been generally successful in dealing with terror risks. Markets and institutions appear to have adjusted effectively to terror risks. In general, we argue that (i) policies
that aim at improving economic status should also be pursued because they may robustly reduce the propensity towards domestic terrorism at least in some countries. The opportunity costs of
violence and the general influence of economic factors on terror should not be disregarded. (ii) Policies that aim to increase the efficiency of markets and institutions should also be undertaken because they help to protect economies from the negative effects of terrorism by increasing markets and institutions resiliency to terrorist attacks.
Economic success crowds out terrorismanalysis of many countries proves Gries, Krieger, and Meierreks, 2011
*Thomas, Time, and Daniel, Univ. of Paderborn Dept. of Economics, Causal Linkages Between Domestic Terrorism and Economic Growth. Defence and Peace Economics, Vol. 22, Issue 5, 493-508, Accessed Online via Taylor Francis Online] /WFI-MB
We found that (i) all investigated growth and terror series exhibit structural breaks matching major turning points in the countries economic and political history. (ii) In bivariate systems, economic growth leads terrorist violence in all cases, whereas terrorism causally influences growth only for one country. We argued that economic performance appears to influence the terrorists calculus, while attacked economies are generally resistant to domestic terrorism. (iii) We noted that bivariate causality tests may be prone to inconsistencies, so we also performed causality tests in trivariate systems. The findings confirmed that economies under attack are successful in adjusting to the threats of terror, so economic growth is not impaired. With respect to causality running from growth to terrorism, the results weaken those of the bivariate analysis. Economic
performance robustly sways the terrorists calculus only for Germany, Portugal and Spain, but not for France, Greece, Italy and the United Kingdom. Solid growth in some countries may raise the opportunity costs of terror, thus discouraging violent behavior, for instance as individuals found more economic opportunities. In the light of our results, policymakers therefore should not underestimate the role of economic factors - and the role of the opportunity costs of violence - in impacting domestic terrorism. For some countries in the investigated part of the world, economic success apparently has contributed to a crowding out of domestic terrorist violence. However, factors other than economic performance
should also be considered when explaining terrorism dynamics, in particular when the links between economic growth and domestic terrorist violence are not found to be strong.
31 Growth Core
Growth Good Environment 1/2

Capitalism generates economic incentives and profit that promotes green energy and development that solves environmental crisis Scott, 2012
*Read, NQA, Red, white, and green: an American energy strategy. 1-2-12, Online, http://www.townsquaredelaware.com/red-white-and-green-an-american-energy-strategy/] /WFI-MB The energy and environmental crises are not news to the American people. Anyone can feel the pain of our current
dilemma by visiting a local gas station; yet Congress and political leaders across the country are focused on short-term solutions to our energy crisis. Republicans in Congress and on the campaign trail alike have called on President Obama to drill for more oil to ease the pain at the pump. If the
United States does not get serious about alternative energy sources, then we risk not only intensifying this crisis, but also ceding hundreds of billions in profit opportunities (and millions of jobs) to China
and Germany, who have accelerated their investments in green energy. The German government recently provided one billion Euros in incentives to companies developing electromobility technology, such as clean vehicles and fuels. Germany is home to some of the worlds most innovative companies, such as BMW, Bosch, Porsche, and Deutsche Telekom, which are rushing to take advantage of the governments green technology incentives. With its largest and strongest companies investing in new clean energy technology, Germany is cornering this new market. In addition, small and medium-sized businesses (Mittelstand) have been able to take advantage of these incentives. German business has seen the writing on the wall. In the next few decades, clean cars developed through electromobility investments will likely replace petroleum-powered cars. The
energy crisis, climate change, or a combination of both, will force us to move on to alternative energy sources and more efficient technology. When this time comes, the companies currently investing billions into technology development will profit immensely. These companies will become the face of green industry, and the green market will explode in Germany, creating millions of new jobs for German
workers. These arent start-up companies taking a long shot risk; these are giants like BMW and BASF seeing clean technologys potential in their industries. Its time for the United States to take note. We need to ask ourselves whether, when electromobility becomes the industry standard, we want to import cars from Germany, or manufacture them in America, with American technology and parts, employing millions of American workers. Talk
of government involvement in the free market inevitably degrades into a debate over big government vs. free market capitalism. Frankly, this debate holds us back, because it obscures the enormous opportunity for the United States in green energy technology. President Obama has tried to make substantial investments in green technology, but this has faced ferocious opposition that would have us maintain our dependence on oil. Germany has shown the world the power of a progressive approach, making the free market and the government partners with a mutual goal of innovation. This approach is underscored through Germanys use of government incentives that encourage companies to innovate, rather than regulations that force compliance. Government regulation can squash creativity by favoring incumbent technologies. With government incentives, companies that do not invest in new technologies will simply be at an economic disadvantage when the new industry expands. Thus, these companies have a competitive incentive to invest, rather than a one-size-fits-all legal
mandate. The German government has chosen not to approach the clean energy market with sweeping regulations, because they realize that regulations favoring existing technologies will hamper this emerging market. Rather, it uses government incentives
to spur innovation in existing and emerging companies that hope to capitalize on economic opportunities opened by government investment and support. Government investment and incentives encourage companies to respond in kind by investing billions in the clean energy industry, which holds seemingly endless potential for America to regain its status as a global manufacturing giant. In order to promote an American clean energy revolution, the United States could replicate many of the measures that the German government has
implemented. Given Americas geographical advantagesthousands of miles of coastline, and wide, flat, open plainswind and solar energy have the potential to emerge as booming American commodities. This has the potential to create millions of new manufacturing jobs, and to
32 Growth Core
Growth Good Environment 2/2

Continued no text removed
save the government billions each year in environmental protection and restoration. The environmental crisis is becoming a drain on our government, with billions wasted cleaning up after the irresponsible actions of a few corporations. Clean
energy has the potential
to become a growing, stable market, with opportunities for American carmakers, steel manufacturers, utility companies, and
other industries to build a new market in the private sector. Making the United States energy-independent is vital to our long-term prosperity and security. Our dependence on oil has involved us with authoritarian and anti-democratic nations around the world, severely weakening us financially, and tarnishing our international credibility. If we wish to be the worlds leader for decades to come, the
government needs to accelerate investment in green technology and provide greater incentives for public-private partnerships. This can be the centerpiece of Americas comeback, and a source of renewed strength for our country. Green investments and incentives will pay huge dividends over time, making us energy-independent, more efficient, and a global leader in fighting climate change. Ignorance will no longer cut it in the energy debate. Its time for
us to move on to a better, more progressive approach to energy.
That solves collapse of civilization John C. Dernbach, Associate Professor, Law, Widener University, Sustainable Development as a
Framework for National Governance, CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW v. 49, Fall 1998, p. 16. The global scale and severity of environmental degradation and poverty are unprecedented in human history. Major adverse consequences are not inevitable, but they are likely if these problems are not addressed. Many civilizations collapsed or were severely weakened because they exhausted or degraded the natural resource base on which they depended. n76 In addition, substantial economic and social inequalities have caused or contributed to many wars and revolutions. n77 These problems are intensified by the speed at which they have occurred and are worsening, making it difficult for natural systems to adapt. The complexity of natural and human systems also means that the effects of these problems are difficult to anticipate. The potential impact of global warming on the transmission of tropical diseases in a time of substantial international travel and commerce is but one example.
33 Growth Core
Growth Good Environment

Economic growth is key to the environmentcreates demands for goods and services that are less materially intensive and improved environmental quality Panayotou, 2003
[Theodore, Economic Growth and the Environment. Economic Survey of Europe, 2003, No. 2. Online, http://staging.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/ead/pub/032/032_c2.pdf] /WFI-MB At the other extreme, are those who argue that the fastest road to environmental improvement is along the path of economic growth: with higher incomes comes increased demand for goods and services that are less material intensive, as well as demand for improved environmental quality that leads to the adoption of environmental protection measures. As Beckerman puts it, The strong correlation between incomes, and the extent to which environmental protection measures are adopted, demonstrates that in the longer run, the surest way to improve your environment is to become rich. Some went as far as claiming that environmental regulation, by reducing economic growth, may actually reduce environmental quality.
Economic growth solves environmental destruction, at higher standards of living environmental protection increases Arrow et al, 1995
*Kenneth, K Arrow is in the Department of Economics, Stanford University, Economic Growth and Carrying Capacity. Science, Vol 268, 4-28-1995, Online, http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/econ_growth_and_carrying_capacity.pdf] /WFI-MB The general proposition that economic growth is good for the environment has been justified by the claim that there exists an empirical relation between per capita income and some measures of environmental quality. It has been observed that as income goes up there is increasing environmental degradation up to a point, after which environmental quality improves. (The relation has an "invertedU" shape.) One explanation of this finding is that people in poor countries cannot afford to emphasize amenities over material well-being. Consequently, in the earlier stages of economic development, increased pollution is regarded as an acceptable side effect of economic growth. However, when a country has attained a sufficiently high standard of living, people give greater attention to environmental amenities. This leads to environmental legislation, new institutions for the protection of the environment, and so forth.
34 Growth Core
Growth Good Environment

Growth produces technology that can solve pollution and any environmental problems it causes Michael Zey, Montclair University, SEIZING THE FUTURE, 1998, p. 36-37.
Once we discover new capacities, both technological and human, we are set off in novel directions, crossing boundaries and exploring frontiers we never thought existed. The Spanish explored the New World in
order to extract natural resources such as gold from the Earth and spread Christianity. Many English settlements were established by people simply trying to escape religious intolerance. None could have guessed that their expression of progress circa 1600 would lead to the birth of an independent nation that became the crucible for personal liberation and technological innovation. The fact that progress
itself leads to
new definitions of human growth also explains the Wests faith in progress. Our accomplishments consistently exceed our wildest dreams. Regardless of the stated purpose of a technology, the applications usually exceed such purposes. The automobile became important as a means of redistributing the population from cities to the suburbs; the discovery of the
steam engine revolutionized industry and the very concept of abundance. Third, growth itself contains to their economic woes. hence, he concludes that in order to ensure the solutions to the problems it produces. Supporting this principle is the World Banks 1992 report Development and the Environment, which blatantly states that growth
is a powerful antidote to a number of ills plaguing Third World countries, including the pollution that growth supposedly generates. The report thus contends that eliminating poverty should remain the top goal of world policymakers. Although economic growth can initially lead to such problems as pollution and waste, the resulting prosperity also facilitates the developments of technologies that lead to cleaner air and water. In fact, once a nations per capita income rises to about $4000 in 1993 dollars, it produces less of some pollutants per capita, mainly due to the fact that it can afford technology like catalytic converters and sewage systems that treat a variety of wastes. According to Norio Yamamoto, research director of the Mitsubishi Research Institute, We consider any kind of environmental damage to result from mismanagement of the economy. He claims that the pollution problems of poorer regions such as eastern europe can be traced to their economic woes. Hence, he concludes that in order to ensure environmental safety we need a sound economy on a global basis. so the answer to pollution, the supposed outgrowth of progress, ought to be more economic growth.
35 Growth Core
Growth Good Space 1/2

Free market growth key to space explorationprofit incentive boosts innovation and creativity Garmong, 2005
[Robert, Ph.D. in philosophy, was a writer for the Ayn Rand Institute from 2003 to 2004, Privatize Space Exploration. 7-22-2005, Online, http://capitalismmagazine.com/2005/07/privatize-space-exploration] /Wyo-MB Nor would it be difficult to spur the private exploration of spaceits been happening, quietly, for years. The free market works to produce whatever there is demand for, just as it now does with traditional aircraft. Commercial satellite launches are now routine, and could easily be fully privatized. The X Prize, which SpaceShipOne won, offered incentives for private groups to break out of the Earths atmosphere. But all this private exploration is hobbled by the crucial absence of a system of property rights in space. Imagine the incentive to a profit-minded business if, for instance, it were granted the right to any stellar body it reached and exploited. We often hear that the most ambitious projects can only be undertaken by government, but in fact the opposite is true. The more ambitious a project is, the more it demands to be broken into achievable, profit-making stepsand freed from the unavoidable politicizing of government-controlled science. If space development is to be transformed from an expensive national bauble whose central purpose is to assert national pride to a practical industry, it will only be by unleashing the creative force of free and rational minds. The creative minds that allowed SpaceShipOne to soar to triumph have made the first private steps toward the stars. Before them are enormous technical difficulties, the solution of which will require even more heroic determination than that which tamed the seas and the continents. To solve them, America must unleash its best minds, as only the free market can do.
36 Growth Core
Growth Good Space 2/2

Space solves asteroids strikes W. H. Siegfried (The Boeing Company, Integrated Defense Systems) 2003
*Space ColonizationBenefits for the World online @ http://www.aiaa.org/Participate/Uploads/ACF628B.pdf, loghry] Over the last decade a large mass of evidence has been accumulated indicating that near-Earth-object (NEO) impact events constitute a real hazard to Earth. Congress held hearings on the phenomenon in 1998, and NASA created a small NEO program. Since 1988, a total (as of 7 August 2002) of some many thousand near-Earth objects (of which about 1,000 are larger that 1 km in diameter) have been catalogued that are potentially hazardous to Earth. New discoveries are accelerating. In just
the last few months, a 2-mile-wide crater was discovered in Iraq dating from around 2000 to 3000 B.C. This impact was potentially responsible for the decline of several early civilizations. A similar crater was recently discovered in the North Sea. Major
events have occurred
twice in the last hundred years in remote areas where an object exploded near the Earths surface bur did not impact (such as in Russia). If either of these events had occurred over a populated area the death toll would have been enormous. Our armed forces are concerned that an asteroid strike could be interpreted as a nuclear attack, thus triggering retaliation. What higher goals could Space Colonization have than in helping to prevent the destruction of human life and to ensure the future of civilization? The odds of an object 1 km in diameter impacting Earth in this century range between 1 in 1,500 and 1 in 5,000 depending on the assumptions made. A 1-km-diameter meteoroid impact would create a crater 5 miles wide. The death toll would depend on the impact point. A hit at Ground Zero in New York would kill millions of people and Manhattan Island (and much of the surrounding area) would disappear. The resulting disruption to the Earths environment would be immeasurable by todays standards. A concerted Space
Colonization impetus could provide platforms for early warning and could, potentially, aid in deflection of threatening objects. NEO detection and deflection is a goal that furthers international cooperation in space and Space Colonization. Many nations can contribute and the multiple dimensions of the challenge would allow participation in many waysfrom telescopes for conducting surveys, to studies of lunar and other planet impacts, to journeys to the comets. The Moon is a natural laboratory for the study of impact events. A lunar colony would facilitate such study and could provide a base for defensive action. Lunar and Mars cyclers could be a part of Space Colonization that would provide survey sites and become bases for mining the NEOs as a resource base for space construction.
The infrastructure of Space
Colonization would serve a similar purpose to the solar system as did that of the United States Interstate Highway system or the flood control and land reclamation in the American West did for the United States development. In short, it would allow civilization to expand into the high frontier.
Those cause extinction Richard A. Posner (Senior Lecturer @ the University of Chicago Law School and Judge of the US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit) 2004
[Catastrophe: Risk & Response, p. 3, loghry] You wouldnt see the asteroid, even though it was several miles in diameter, because it would be hurtling toward you at 15 to 25 miles a second. At that speed, the column of air between the asteroid and the earths surface would be compressed with such force that the col- umns temperature would soar to several times that of the sun, inciner- ating everything in its path. When the asteroid struck, it would penetrate deep into the ground and explode, creating an enormous crater and ejecting burning rocks and dense clouds of soot into the atmosphere, wrapping the globe in a mantle of fiery debris that would raise surface temperatures by as much as 100 degrees Fahrenheit and shut down photosynthesis for years. The shock waves from the collision would have precipitated earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, gargantuan tidal waves, and huge forest fires. A quarter of the earths human population might be dead within 24 hours of the strike, and the rest soon after.
37 Growth Core
Growth Good Space

Globalization is a driving force of space development Vedda, 2007
[James, NASA historical contributor, From The Societal Impact of Space Flight By Steven Dick and Roger Launius, The Role of Space Development In Globalization. Online, http://history.nasa.gov/sp4801chapter10.pdf] /WFI-MB Globalization has been identified as the dominant trend that has replaced the cold war, although its development overlaps the cold war by at least three decades. for much of that time, U.S. government space activities had fairly well defined roles that were closely associated with the nations cold war-era interests. if globalization is the successor to the cold war paradigm, then U.S. space efforts, particularly those involving exploration and development, must be redefined appropriately. this is not a simple task, since debates rage as to what globalization means, where it is headed, and whether the net effect will be good or bad. Although globalization debates primarily address economic, social, and environmental issues, the continuing influence of space development cannot be ignored or viewed in isolation from these issues. this chapter highlights the role of space development in the emergence of the current era of globalization, and briefly discusses how space activities are likely to continue to influence this evolving process. globalization, in turn, has influenced the course of space development. the implications for the future may be both positive and negative, including the risk of a backlash against space development stemming from anti-globalization movements.
38 Growth Core
Growth Good Space

Economic growth fosters government private partnerships that are key to space development and technology1960s prove Vedda, 2007
[James, NASA historical contributor, From The Societal Impact of Space Flight By Steven Dick and Roger Launius, The Role of Space Development In Globalization. Online, http://history.nasa.gov/sp4801chapter10.pdf] /WFI-MB The output of this government partnership with science was the eventual widespread availability of technologies that could only be dreamed ofor in some cases, were unimaginablein the prior era of globalization. for example, technologies that allowed more rapid movement of people, goods, and information in the latter half of the twentieth century included the following: Jet air transport for passengers and
cargo multiplied the speed of long-distance travel, effectively shrinking travel times from days to hours. equally important, it eventually became affordable to a broad swath of society. Supertankers and container ships have dramatically reduced the cost of transporting cargo across the oceans, and refrigeration allows perishable products to make their way around the world. near-instantaneous, high-bandwidth communications have evolved so far beyond the telegraph and radio of our great-grandfathers day that the benefits are beyond our ability to quantify. By the 1960s,telephones became ubiquitous and continents were connected by undersea cables. the fax machine became popular in the mid- 1980s,at the same time that so-called microcomputers were maturing. By the 1990s, the expectation was that every desktop would have its own computer, probably linked to a corporate network and the internet. Space making its contribution to globalization in
technology in its various forms started
the 1960s.
Profit motive from capitalism is key to space development and travel Kalinchenko, 2012
*Dmitry, MA in Information Science and Concentration Economics and Univ. of Michigan, Capitalism as a driver of space exploration. 3-31-2012, Online, http://dmitrykalinchenko.wordpress.com/2012/03/31/capitalism-as-a-driver-of-space-exploration/] /WFI-MB While moon colonies are a fairly distant goal, I think that more casual space travel could become feasible within next decade. The force behind this, however, will not be Newts administration controlling the White House (hopefully); instead it will be the profit motif driving any organization in a capitalist society. Today we already have a number of firms like SpaceX that are close to developing a ship capable of carrying a person to space. SpaceX was mostly funded
by the ambitious entrepreneur Elon Musk, a founder of PayPal, whose passion for space exploration drove him to invest millions of dollars in the firm. But, while the ambition started this endeavor, the eventual goal of the firm is to be profitable in the long run. Once the company is capable of sending a man to space, Musk is planning on selling trips to space to those who can afford it. While the price of these kinds of trips is likely to be very expensive initially, I bet there are going to be a lot of takers (I know I would buy a trip to space if I was a multi-millionaire). Even if one trip were to cost $1 million, I can see at least 100 people signing up for it, which would rake in considerable revenue (I have to admit, though, that I have absolutely no idea how much a space flight would cost to a firm like SpaceX). The
profits from these trips can be invested back into R&D which will make the flights more affordable to the broader public. So my point is that markets can soon become a better tool for space exploration than
government funding. It is important to understand that governments played a major role in this by doing the fundamental research that firms like Space X were able to take an advantage of. In the future, though, I can see space
exploration can take a similar evolutionary path as Internet once did where the government provided initial research and development which allowed the private sector to see the market potential of the invention and develop it further .
39 Growth Core
Growth Good AT Disease

No risk of extinctionEvery disease has trade offs Gladwell 95 [Malcom, New York Bureau Chief of the Washington Post, The New Republic, July 17, ln]
Then there
is the problem of mutation. To become airborne, HIV would have to evolve in such a way as to become more durable. Right now the virus is highly sensitive to changes in temperature and light. But it is hardly going to do any
damage if it dies the moment it is coughed into the air and exposed to ultraviolet rays. HIV would have to get as tough as a cold virus, which can live for days on a countertop or a doorknob. At the same time HIV would have to get more flexible. Right now HIV mutates in only a limited manner. The virus essentially keeps changing its clothes, but its inner workings stay the same. It kills everyone by infecting the same key blood cells. To become airborne,
it would have to undergo a truly fundamental transformation, switching to an entirely different class of cells. How can HIV make two contradictory changes at the same time, becoming both less and more flexible? This is what is wrong with the Andromeda Strain argument. Every infectious agent that has ever plagued humanity has had to adopt a specific strategy, but every strategy carries a corresponding cost, and this makes human counterattack possible. Malaria is vicious and deadly, but it relies on mosquitoes to spread from one human to the next, which means that draining swamps and putting up mosquito netting can all but halt endemic malaria. Smallpox is extraordinarily durable, remaining infectious in the environment for years, but its very durability, its essential rigidity, is what makes it one of the easiest microbes to create a vaccine against. aids is almost invariably lethal because its attacks the body at its point of great vulnerability, that is, the immune system, but the fact that it targets blood cells is what makes it so relatively uninfectious.
Disease pandemics wont lead to human extinction Posner 5 *Richard, federal judge Judge 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Catastrophe, 11:3, Proquest+hs
AIDS illustrates the further point that despite the progress made by modern medicine in the diagnosis and treatment of diseases, developing a vaccine or cure for a new (or newly recognized or newly virulent) disease may be difficult, protracted, even impossible. Progress has been made in treating ATDS, but neither a cure nor a vaccine has yet been developed. And because the virus's mutation rate is high, the treatments may not work in the long run.7 Rapidly mutating viruses are difficult to vaccinate against, which is why there is no vaccine for the common cold and why flu vaccines provide only limited protection.8 Paradoxically, a treatment that is neither cure nor vaccine, but merely reduces the severity of a disease, may accelerate its spread by reducing the benefit from avoiding becoming infected. This is an important consideration with respect to AIDS, which is spread mainly by voluntary intimate contact with infected people. Yet the fact that Homo
sapiens has managed to
survive every disease to assail it in the 200,000 years or so of its existence is a source of genuine comfort, at least if the focus is on extinction events. There have been enormously destructive plagues, such as the Black Death, smallpox, and now AIDS, but none has come close to destroying the entire human race. There is a biological reason. Natural selection favors germs of limited lethality; they are fitter in an evolutionary sense because their genes are more likely to be spread if the germs do not kill their hosts too quickly.
The AIDS virus is an example of a lethal virus, wholly natural, that by lying dormant yet infectious in its host for years maximizes its spread. Yet
there is no danger that AIDS will destroy the entire human race. The likelihood of a natural pandemic that would cause the extinction of the human race is probably even less today than in the past (except in
prehistoric times, when people lived in small, scattered bands, which would have limited the spread of disease), despite wider human contacts that make it more difficult to localize an infectious disease. The reason is improvements in medical science. But the comfort is a small one. Pandemics can still impose enormous losses and resist prevention and cure: the lesson of the AIDS pandemic. And there is always a first time.
40 Growth Core
Growth Good AT Poverty

Global income gaps declininggrowth better approach to poverty, Latin America proves The Economist, 2011
[Staff writer, 1-20-2011, The rich and the rest. Online, http://www.economist.com/node/17959590] /WFI-MB If these arguments are right, there might be a case for some fairly radical responses, especially a greater focus on redistribution. In fact, much of the recent hand-wringing about widening inequality is based on sloppy thinking. The old Davos consensus of boosting growth and combating poverty is still a better guide to good policy. Rather than a sweeping assault on inequality itself, policymakers would do better to take on the market distortions that often lie behind the most galling income gaps, and which also impede economic growth. Begin with the facts about inequality. Globally, the gap between the rich and the poor has actually been narrowing, as poorer countries are growing faster. Nor is there a monolithic trend within countries (see article). In Latin America, long home to the worlds most unequal societies, many countriesincluding the biggest, Brazilhave become a bit more equal, as governments have boosted the incomes of the poor with fast growth and an overhaul of public spending to improve the social safety-net (but not by raising tax rates for the rich).
Growth will solve poverty, and check conflict Gregg Easterbrook, Visiting Fellow, Brookings Institution, The Capitalist Manifesto, Review of The
Moral Consequences of Economic Growth by Benjamin M. Friedman, THE NEW YORK TIMES, November 27, 2005, p. 16. Though ''The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth'' may not quite succeed in showing an iron law of growth and liberalization, Friedman is surely correct when he contends that economic expansion must remain the world's goal, at least for the next few generations. Growth, he notes, has already placed mankind on a course toward the elimination of destitution. Despite the popular misconception of worsening developing-world misery, the fraction of people in poverty is in steady decline. Thirty years ago 20 percent of the planet lived on $1 or less a day; today, even adjusting for inflation, only 5 percent does, despite a much larger global population. Probably one reason democracy is taking hold is that living standards are rising, putting men and women in a position to demand liberty. And with democracy spreading and rising wages giving ever more people a stake in the global economic system, it could be expected that war would decline. It has. Even taking Iraq into account, a study by the Center for International Development and Conflict Management, at the University of Maryland, found that the extent and intensity of combat in the world is only about half what it was 15 years ago.
41 Growth Core
Growth Bad
42 Growth Core
Growth Bad War

Economic growth causes resource depletion that makes resource conflicts likely Klare and Myers, 2001
[Michael, defense correspondent of The Nation, a contributing editor to Current History, and a member of the Editorial Board of The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. His articles have appeared in Arms Control Today, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Harpers, and International Security Issues in Science and Technology, as well as other periodicals. Currently he is the Five College Professor as well as Director of Peace and World Security Studies, which is a joint appointment at Hampshire College, Amherst, Mount Holyoke, Smith, and the University of Massachusetts, and Joanne, Director of Merrill House programs on behalf of the Carnegie Council, Resource wars: the new landscape of global conflict. 3-22-2001, Online, https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/5021.html/:pf_printable] /WFI-MB
I looked for other explanations that would better help me to understand what we were seeing around the world in terms of conflict and the disposition of military forces. That led me to resources. I have become convinced that the competition
for control of resources, for control of the revenues that certain resources bring, like diamonds or rare timber, has been a decisive factor in many of the conflicts that we have seen. Im not saying that ethnicity and culture and religion are not an important factor. Often demagogues
and warlords and rising leaders use ethnicity and religion as a tool to arouse public support for whatever their program might be. But if you look closely, often underneath all of this is a desire to control valuable sources of resources or their revenues. You can see this in conflicts such as the one now underway in the DR Congo, where, as the UN has recently indicated, some of the foreign and domestic parties have developed very valuable interests in the exploitation of rare minerals or timber, diamonds and gold, and that this, more than anything else, appears to be driving the continuing conflict and explains why its so difficult to reach a negotiated peace settlement. Same thing in Angola and Sierra Leone, where diamonds are a key factor. In conflicts even like that in Chechnya, which is described primarily as an ethnic conflict, Moscow has a strong interest in controlling the critical pipelines from the Caspian Sea that go right through Grozny. This kind of dynamic operates in many other conflicts as well. Im sure youre saying to yourself that, There isnt anything new about this.
Conflict has always had an
important resource dimension. And this is absolutely true. If you go back to the oldest human written histories that we have, the
texts from the ancient Near East, a lot of what those ancient texts are about is the struggle to control the irrigated river valleys of Mesopotamia, the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, and much of the Old Testament in Exodus is about resource conflict in the area of the Jordan River Valley. Both of those places remain important centers of resource or water conflict today. Also, if you look at the history of the Western Hemisphere and the history of Africa in recent times, in both cases you see that the pursuit of valuable resources gold and silver in South America; furs and tobacco and other agricultural products and fish in North America; again, the mineral and timber of Africa, slaves; and more recently in the Middle East, oilalways
has been an important factor in driving outward
expansion, conquest, colonialism, and conflict. So some of what we see today does bear a resemblance to what we have seen in the past. Yet we are in a qualitatively different situation today. There are forces and dynamics in the world that will
bring these resource issues much more to the fore, to the center of international relations, and they are really qualitative new phenomena. Let me briefly summarize these key phenomena. 1) Population. In the 20th century, world population grew from about 1.5 billion to 6 billion at the end of the century, and we expect another 2 billion people to be added between now and the year 2025. There
has never in human
history been population growth on this scale. I am not going to argue that population is necessarily the most decisive factor in all of this, as youll see; nonetheless, this kind of increase in population has to be having a tremendous impact on the world resource base. We see this especially with respect to water and arable land. Its not that the water
is becoming more scarce, but that the demands on the available supply are growing so rapidly that the existing supply is simply proving inadequate for many populations, especially in the Middle East, South Asia, Central and Southwest Asia, and North Africa. Ill come back to the water issue, but this is one where population will have a big impact. The same is true of arable land. 2) Consumption patterns. The 6 billion people of today, on average, have an enormously higher consumption rate than the 1.5 billion people of the year 1900.
Water use, petroleum use, mineral use, are growing at two or three times the rate of population increase. So its not
just population, but our consumption patterns. There are still as many as a billion people who dont have enough food and other resources to lead a healthy life, so the whole world is not benefiting from this increase in consumption. But, on average, people have more than they ever did. We see this most especially in the use of petroleum for private vehicles. A century ago, nobody owned a private motor vehicle. Today there are about 675 million private motor vehicles in circulation around the world, and the expectation is that number will grow to about 1.1 trillion in the year 2020. This vast expansion in automobile ownership and use, what the Department of Energy calls the motorization of the world has produced just an extraordinary increase in demand for petroleum products. That is just one example of the way in which individual
43 Growth Core
Growth Bad War

Continued from last page
consumption patterns are affecting the resource base. The same is true of water. As peoples incomes rise, they eat a diet that requires more waterfresh vegetables, a lot of meat and chicken and porkand all of this puts pressure on water use. And washing machines, dishwashers etc. 3) Globalization. Globalization
is another aspect of the current scene that has qualitatively changed the environment. Industrialization is spreading from the few centers of the 20th centuryin Western Europe, the United States, Japanto vast areas of the world: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and increasingly other regions such as Southeast Asia. As industrialization spreads, the demand for all of our needsminerals, wood, petroleum, energy increases at a very high rate. We expect that the demand for energy in the developing parts of Asia, for example, will more than
double over the next twenty-five years, developing Asia being China and Southeast Asia, Taiwan, and South Korea. The rate for India, Central America, and Latin America is expected to increase by even higher rates during that period. So globalization,
increased consumption, population growth on an unprecedented scale, are producing an enormous increase in demand for all of these products. And the fact is that some of them are quite limited. The Earth provided us
with an extraordinary bounty of the resources we need to survive: water, energy, minerals, timber. Its easy to think, as people did in the past, that there were always new continents to conquer to find more resources. But we are beginning to approach limits to the availability of some of these materials. The supply of oil is not unlimited, and in all likelihood we
will begin to reach the end of the easy availability of petroleum by the middle of this century. Water is a renewable resource, but each year there is only so much fresh
water. Were now using about half of it. Its very likely that in this current century were likely to see large areas of the world that are fully utilizing the available supply of fresh water, and in many of those areas there simply wont be enough to meet the need. The
resource base is not unlimited, but we are using it at an unprecedented rate. This is producing a collision between rising demand and limited supply that has many consequences. These pressures will intensify at an everincreasing rate, if these patterns that Im describing continue, with increased pressure on the available supply of resources. This will lead to increasing competition between the users of resources for access. These pressures will
be mediated in various ways. Market forces will kick in and have a significant impact on resolving some of this competition. In some cases, rising prices for some of these products will lead to an impetus either for the development of new technologies or for the utilization of resources that are currently too expensive to obtain but are within our reach. For instance, oil in Siberia, in the Arctic region, or deep offshore in the Atlantic Ocean, in the Gulf of Mexico. These supplies will, under the pressure of demand, come on-line and ease some of the pressure on supply. So technology/market forces will certainly mediate some of these pressures. In some areas, people will be motivated to cooperate more. In the case of water resources, its absolutely critical that people in the Nile River Basin or the Jordan Basin, for example, cooperate in sharing whats available, because through cooperation they will each be assured of a more secure supply. We hop
some of this competition will lead to violent conflict in some cases. I see evidence of the securitization of resource issuesthe articulation of the view that certain resources are vital to national security of the states involved and, therefore, something that legitimately can be fought over. We see this explicitly in U.S. policy on petroleum supplies. In the Carter Doctrine of January 23, 1980, the President said that the
to see more cooperation in the developing of available resources, in new technology, and conservation. But I also fear that free flow of petroleum from the Persian Gulf is essential to the national security of the U.S. and to protect that well use any means necessary, including military force. That principle still holds today. It was cited by President Reagan to justify the re-flagging of Kuwait tankers during the Iran-Iraq war. It was cited by President Bush the elder to justify Operation Desert Storm. It was cited by President Clinton to undertake a massive increase in American military forces in the Gulf. And we see that in President Bushs recent energy policy, which emphasizes the strategic importance of Persian Gulf oil to the United States. While the United States has drawn down its military presence in Europe and in other parts of the world, it is rapidly building up its military presence in the Gulf area, building new bases, pre-positioning forces there, gradually accreting the permanently or semi-permanently deployed forces in the region. So with respect to the Gulf, the United States has been very explicit. President Clinton spoke in the same terms of the Caspian region in 1999, when the President of Azerbaijan visited the White House. He said that gaining access to the Caspians oil is a security interest of the United States, and he undertook a number of initiatives leading to greater American military involvement in that region. These activities, which havent been widely reported in the U.S.building military ties with the military organizations of the new states of the Caspian, training exercises, arms transfers, military training activitieshave caused deep alarm in Russia, which also views the Caspian as vital to its security, and which has have also been building up its military capabilities in the region, even as it draws down significantly in other parts of the former Soviet Union. Not only Russia and the United States, but China has expressed the view that resources are vital to its security. We see this explicitly with the case of the South China Sea, where China has claimed the Spratly and Paracel islands as part of its national territory, because of the resources that are believed to lie underneath the South China Sea, and has clashed with Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam over control of those islands. We see the same with respect to water, particularly in the Middle East, where Israel has said about Jordan and Egypt about the Nile River, that gaining access to these supplies is vital to their security, and that if necessary they are prepared to use force to protect access to those valuable supplies. A different situation applies to some of the internal conflicts around the world, where governments that depend on the revenue from vital resources that are threatened by separatist groups have used whatever military power they have to suppress those challenges. A brief example is the struggle over the island of Bougainville, which is claimed by Papua, New Guinea. It hired Executive Outcomes, the private military firm, to undertake an invasion of Bougainville, which has declared its independence from Papua, New Guinea. Bougainville houses the largest copper mine in the world. It was the sole source of income for the Papua New Guinea government, and so they were prepared to hire a mercenary army to
many governments, and factions within governments, view resources as something worth fighting over and are building up military capacities in order to carry out these operations. It is this logic of the securitization of resource issues that worries me most; not scarcity per se, but the government view that territorial disputes over resources can be solved by force when other means dont succeed. If these trends continue, the 21st century increasingly will be plagued with conflicts over access to resources, the protection of resources, or control over particularly valuable sites of resource revenues such as diamond fields and timber stands. Unless, therefore, the human community could put more emphasis on other optionstechnology, cooperation, and the use of market forces to try to resolve some of these problemswe will see much more conflict.
invade and reconquer the island. My argument is that
44 Growth Core
Growth Bad War

Economic growth causes political instability and resource competition that causes conflict and wars Le Billon, 2001
*Phillippe, School of Geography Mansfield Road Oxford, The political ecology of war: natural resources and armed conflict. Political Geography, Vol. 20, Issue 5, June 2001, 561-584, Accessed online via Science Direct] /WFI-MB Natural resources have played a conspicuous role in the history of armed conflicts. From competition over wild game to merchant capital and imperialist wars over precious minerals, natural resources have motivated or financed the violent activities of many different types of belligerents (Westing, 1986).1 With the sharp drop in foreign assistance to many governments and rebel groups resulting from the end of the Cold War, belligerents have become more dependent upon mobilising private sources of support to sustain their military and political activities; thereby defining a new political economy of war ( [Berdal and Keen, 1997] and [Le Billon, 2000a]). Similarly, a fall in terms of international trade in primary commodities and structural adjustments have led to a readjustment of the strategies of accumulation of many Southern ruling elites towards shadow state politics controlling informal economies and privatised companies (Reno, 1998). Although domestic and foreign state budgets continue to support armed conflict expenditures, other major sources of funding include criminal proceeds from kidnappings or protection rackets, diversion of relief aid, Diaspora remittances, and revenues from trading in commodities such as drugs, timber or minerals (Jean & Rufin, 1996).2 Arms dumping and the support of corrupt regimes during the Cold War, the liberalisation of international trade, as well as the redeployment of state security personnel and networks into private ventures have frequently participated in the growth of such parallel networks and the routinisation of criminal practices within states institutions, most notably in Africa and the former Soviet Union ( [Bayart et al., 1999] and [Duffield, 1998]). There is growing concern that whereas resources were once a means of funding and waging armed conflict for states to a political end, armed conflict is increasingly becoming the means to individual commercial ends: gaining access to valuable resources (Keen, 1998; Berdal & Malone, 2000). This demise of ideology and politics informs, for example, the assumption of the UN Security Council that the control and exploitation of natural resources motivates and finances parties responsible for the continuation of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo.3 Beyond increasing the risk of armed conflict by financing and motivating conflicts, natural resources also increase the vulnerability of countries to armed conflict by weakening the ability of political institutions to peacefully resolve conflicts. Contrary to the widely held belief that abundant resources aid economic growth and are thus positive for political stability, most empirical evidence suggests that countries economically dependent on the export of primary commodities are at a higher risk of political instability and armed conflict ( [Collier, 2000] and [Ross, 1999]). This notion of a resource curse also underpins much of the resource scarcity-war literature (Homer-Dixon, 1999). Indeed, both armed conflicts and chronic political instability in many oil producing regions, such as in the Gulf of Guinea, the Middle-East, or the Caspian region, or in scarce cropland regions, such as the African Great Lakes region point to the possible influence of this resource on both vulnerability to and risk of conflict.
45 Growth Core
Growth Bad War

Economic growth fosters competition in states that cause war and genocide Stewart, 2011
[Frances, University Professor of Development Economics, Working paper for MICROCON: A Micro Level Analysis of Violent Conflict, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, Economic and Political Causes of Genocidal Violence: A comparison with findings on the causes of civil war. March, Online, http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/MICROCON_ EconomicandPoliticalCausesofGenocidalViolence.pdf] /WFI-MB In the manifold classifications of genocide, some include a specific economic objective, and thus implicitly an economic motive. For example, Dadrian defines utilitarian genocide (one of four types) as using mass killings in order to obtain control over economic resources; Fein describes developmental genocide (also one of four types) where the perpetrator destroys peoples who stand in their way in relation to the exploitation of resources; Smith also refers to utilitarian genocide , which is motivated by material gain, and includes colonial killings and post-colonial developments devastating aboriginal groups. Chalk and Jonassohn differentiate motives for genocide, one (of four again) being to acquire economic wealth. These motives are akin to the rent-seeking motives argued to underly the motives of many (particularly leaders) in mobilising for civil wars. In line with this, (Valentino 2000)Bae and Ott (2008) argue that mass killings (not specifically genocide) are motivated by the leaders expectations of gain. Again, in common with some findings on civil war, some have pointed to economic depression as predisposing to genocide (Midlarsky 2005)(Valentino 2000). For example, in the German holocaust, the depression of the 1920s and 1930s was an important factor behind Hitlers popularity, and thus an indirect cause of the genocide.
Economic growth fosters militarization, resource wars and resentment that cause conflict Barret, 2008
*Mark, MA in Environment and Management, Dedevelopment. Masters thesis prepared for Royal Roads University, Online, http://dspace.royalroads.ca/docs/bitstream/handle/10170/59 /BarrettThesis20081105.pdf?sequence=1] /WFI-MB Following the end of the cold war many believed the reasons for military conflict would lessen, but militarization has in fact increased. There is now potential for endless conflict (Putin, 2007). The destruction of the environment (Schwartz & Randall, 2003) and declining opportunities for development, economic growth, and consumption are increasingly leading to conflict (Leahy, 2007) (Ziegler, 2005) (Christian Aid, 2001). Conflicts over resources are fueling wars in many countries (United Nations Development Programme, 2005). Climate change is likely to threaten international stability and security and global economic development. There are risks of growing national and international conflicts over the distribution of resources, and of the failure of disaster management systems (Klare, 2002) (Hiro, 2006). There is the possibility of an increase in the number of weak and fragile states, and rising migration. As well, the effects of climate change may erode the social order, causing increased violence and threatening human rights. The legitimacy of the role of industrialized countries as global governance actors may be called into question (German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU), 2007). Throughout the world, people are increasingly questioning why they should suffer and do without in order to satisfy the profligate lifestyles of the elites. Their resistance to social injustice may lead to conflict (Leahy, 2007) (Ramonet, 2002).
46 Growth Core
Growth Bad Environment

Capitalist economic growth is driving the destruction of the planetary environment warming, ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater depletion, species extinction, and disruption of the nitrous-phosphorous cycle will all cause extinction Foster, 2011
*John Bellamy, editor of The Monthly Review and author, Capitalism and Environmental Catastrophe. 10-31-2011, Online, http://www.zcommunications.org/capitalism-and-environmental-catastrophe-byjohn-bellamy-foster] /WFI-MB The Occupy Wall Street movement arose in response to the economic crisis of capitalism, and the way in which the costs of this were imposed on the 99 percent rather than the 1 percent. But "the highest expression of the capitalist threat," as Naomi Klein has said, is its destruction of the planetary environment. So it is imperative that we critique that as well.1 I would like to start by pointing to the seriousness of our current environmental problem and then turn to the question of how this relates to capitalism. Only then will we be in a position to talk realistically about what we need to do to stave off or lessen catastrophe. How bad is the environmental crisis? You have all heard about the dangers of climate change due to the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere -- trapping more heat on earth. You are undoubtedly aware that global warming threatens the very future of the humanity, along with the existence of innumerable other species. Indeed, James Hansen, the leading climatologist in this country, has gone so far as to say this may be "our last chance to save humanity."2 But climate change is only part of the overall environmental problem. Scientists, led by the Stockholm Resilience Centre, have recently indicated that we have crossed, or are near to crossing, nine "planetary boundaries" (defined in terms of sustaining the environmental conditions of the Holocene epoch in which civilization developed over the last 12,000 years): climate change, species extinction, the disruption of the nitrogen-phosphorus cycles, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, freshwater usage, land cover change, (less certainly) aerosol loading, and chemical use. Each of these rifts in planetary boundaries constitutes an actual or potential global ecological catastrophe. Indeed, in three cases -- climate change, species extinction, and the disruption of the nitrogen cycle -- we have already crossed planetary boundaries and are currently experiencing catastrophic effects. We are now in the period of what scientists call the "sixth extinction," the greatest mass extinction in 65 million years, since the time of the dinosaurs; only this time the mass extinction arises from the actions of one particular species -- human beings. Our disruption of the nitrogen cycle is a major factor in the growth of dead zones in coastal waters. Ocean acidification is often called the "evil twin" of climate change, since it too arises from carbon dioxide emissions, and by negatively impacting the oceans it threatens planetary disruption on an equal (perhaps even greater) scale. The decreased availability of freshwater globally is emerging as an environmental crisis of horrendous proportions.3 All of this may seem completely overwhelming. How are we to cope with all of these global ecological crises/catastrophes, threatening us at every turn? Here it is important to grasp that all of these rifts in the planetary system derive from processes associated with our global production system, namely capitalism. If we are prepared to carry out a radical transformation of our system of production -- to move away from "business as usual" -- then there is still time to turn things around; though the remaining time in which to act is rapidly running out.
47 Growth Core

Growth causes unsustainable environmental destruction and resource depletion that causes war Trainer, 2011
*Ted, University of New South Wales Australia, The radical implications of the zero growth economy. Real world economics review, issue 57, Online, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf] /WFI-MB This limits to growth analysis is crucial if one is to understand the nature of the environmental problem, the Third World problem, resource depletion and armed conflict in the world. Although there may also be other causal factors at work, all these problems are directly and primarily due to the fact that there is far too much producing and consuming going on. For instance, we have an environment problem because far too many resources are being drawn out of nature and far too many wastes dumped back in, at rates technical advance cannot cut to sustainable levels. We have an impoverished and underdeveloped Third World because people in rich countries insist on taking most of the resources, including those in the Third World that should be being used by Third World people to meet their own needs. And how likely is it that we will ever have peace in the world if resources are very scarce and all cannot use them at the rate a few do now, yet all insist on getting richer and richer all the time without limit? If you insist on remaining affluent then you should arm yourselves heavily, you will need arms if you want to continue to take far more than your fair share.
48 Growth Core

Shifting away from growth is the only way to solve environmental problemsgreen reform movements will inevitably fail Trainer, 2011
*Ted, University of New South Wales Australia, The radical implications of the zero growth economy. Real world economics review, issue 57, Online, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf] /WFI-MB This does not mean we should forget about renewables. They are the sources we should be moving to full dependence on as soon as possible. But they cant fuel a consumer society for all. They have to be part of the simpler way sketched below. The failure of the Greens Despite the overwhelming case against growth, and the argument that there is no possibility of solving the environment problem unless we shift to a zero-growth economy, green movements and political parties have almost totally ignored the issue. The original German Green Party saw the need for vast and radical system change away from consumer capitalist society. However, now almost all green effort goes into merely trying to reform that society, so that its damage to the environment will be reduced somewhat, and virtually no green campaigning is directed at moving towards a kind of society that does not inevitably and increasingly destroy the environment. Almost none of their attention is given to the topic of growth. (For instance Geoff Mosleys recent book details the continued refusal over many years of the Australian Conservation Foundation to deal with it. Mosley, 2010.) Similarly Green political parties will not discuss economic or population growth and instead focus on reforms which never challenge growth and affluence. Green people are among those who make the strongest claims that technology can solve the problems eliminating any need to face up to system change...and the politicians are at fault for not implementing the available solutions. The reason for this failure/refusal is of course that if they spoke up against the pursuit of growth and affluence in a society that is fiercely obsessed with these goals, they would quickly lose their subscribers. The wider context The gross unsustainability of consumer-capitalist society is only the first of two crushing arguments against its acceptability. The other is to do with the extreme and brutal injustice built into the global economy, and without which we in rich countries could not have such high material living standards.
49 Growth Core
Growth Bad Disease

Globalization and growth spread disease through expanded travel and exposure Knobler et al, 2006
[Stacey, Adel Mahmoud, Stanley Lemon, and Leslie Pray, Editors of Forum on Microbial Threats, The Impact of Globalization on Infectious Disease Emergence and Control: Exploring the Consequences and Opportunities, Workshop Summary - Forum on Microbial Threats. Produced for the Board on Global Health, Pg. 21-22, Online, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11588&page=21] /WFI-MB The increasing cross-border and cross-continental movements of people, commodities, vectors, food, capital, and decision-making power that characterize globalization, together with global demographic trends, have enormous potential to affect the emergence and spread of infectious diseases. This chapter summarizes the
workshop presentations and discussions on these various aspects of globalization and their implications for the prevention and control of emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. The
unprecedented volume and speed of human mobility are perhaps the most conspicuous manifestations of the present era of globalization. From international tourists to war-displaced refugees, more people are on the move than ever before. They are also traveling faster and are regularly visiting what used to be very remote parts of the world. This movement has the potential to change dramatically the factors involved in the transmission of infectious disease. Of particular concern, over the next 15 years, as the global population continues to grow and economic and social disparities between rich and poor countries intensify, the world will likely continue to witness rapidly growing numbers of migrants in search of
employment or a better quality of life. In fact, many political scientists and demographers already refer to the twenty-first century as the century of migration (Leaning, 2002). Migrant
populations are among the most vulnerable to emerging and reemerging infectious diseases and have been implicated as a key causal factor in the global spread of such diseases, most notably multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (TB). Workshop presentations and discussions addressing this increased human
mobility and its effect on infectious disease transmission are summarized here; those addressing the need for improved surveillance of mobile populations are reported in Chapter 2. Just as modern
modes of transportation allow more people and products to travel around the world at a faster the airways to the transcontinental movement of infectious disease vectors. That mosquitoes can cross the ocean by riding in airplane wheel wells is a commonly cited example of this phenomenon and is one of several hypotheses proposed to explain the introduction of West Nile virus into New York City in 1999, the
pace, they also open
first known incidence of this disease in North America. Beyond such transport of disease vectors, controversial evidence suggests that global warming, much of which is generated by human activities, has caused or is causing changes in vector distributions worldwide and affecting the incidence rates of various tropical infectious diseases, such as malaria and dengue.
Extinction Yu 9Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science (Victoria, Human Extinction: The Uncertainty of
Our Fate, 22 May 2009, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-ofour-fate) A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new viral strains are constantly emerging a process that maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that
scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIVs rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the viruss abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIVs use of reverse transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a large-scale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly, but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for
more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza, the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the
inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could potentially lead to a global influenza pandemic, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the original viral strain which could only infect birds into a human-viable strain (10).
50 Growth Core
Growth Bad Disease

Growth causes disease spread through expansion of food-borne illnesses and largescale projects Knobler et al, 2006
*Stacey, Adel Mahmoud, Stanley Lemon, and Leslie Pray, Editors of Forum on Microbial Threats, The Impact of Globalization on Infectious Disease Emergence and Control: Exploring the Consequences and Opportunities, Workshop Summary - Forum on Microbial Threats. Produced for the Board on Global Health, Pg. 21-22, Online, http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11588&page=21] /WFI-MB Consumers in much of the developed world expect constant access to a wide variety of high-quality, safe food products, regardless of the season or the products geographic origin. This demand for a global food market and the resulting transnational movement of food have important implications for foodborne infectious diseases. The global transport of food also raises concerns about the risk of the emergence of antibiotic resistance in humans. Food-producing animals are often given antibiotic drugs for important therapeutic, disease prevention, or production reasons; however, these drugs can cause microbes to become resistant to drugs used to treat human illness. Although the movement of people and products may be the most conspicuous manifestation of the present era of globalization, the phenomenons main driving force is the global expansion of capitalism and the free-market system. Thus, it is useful to examine how the global flow of capital affects emerging and reemerging infectious diseases. The most direct effect results from the financing of environmental projects, such as dams and other water or land development efforts, that alter local vector ecologies and increase the potential for human exposure to infectious diseases. The movement of capital is often accompanied by movements or shifts in decision-making power, another manifestation of globalization with implications for infectious disease transmission.
51 Growth Core
Growth Bad Disease

Growth causes disease spread and mutationSARS proves Hamburg 8FDA Commissioner. Senior Scientist Nuclear Threat Initiative. MD (Margaret, Germs Go
Global: Why Emerging Infectious Diseases Are a Threat to America, http://healthyamericans.org/assets/files/GermsGoGlobal.pdf) Globalization, the worldwide movement toward economic, financial, trade, and communications integration, has impacted public health significantly. Technology and economic interdependence allow diseases to spread globally at rapid speeds. Experts believe that the increase in international travel and commerce, including the increasingly global nature of food handling, processing, and sales contribute to the spread of emerging infectious diseases. 47 Increased global trade has also brought more and more people into contact with zoonosis -diseases that originated in animals before jumping to humans. For example, in 2003, the monkey pox
virus entered the U.S. through imported Gambian giant rats sold in the nations under-regulated exotic pet trade. The rats infected pet prairie dogs, which passed the virus along to humans. 48 International smuggling of birds, brought into the U.S. without undergoing inspection and/or quarantine, is of particular concern to public health experts who worry that it may be a pathway for the H5N1 bird flu virus to enter the country. Lower
cost and efficient means of international transportation allow people to travel to more remote places and potential exposure to more infectious diseases. And the close proximity of passengers on passenger planes, trains, and cruise ships over the course of many hours puts people at risk for higher levels of exposure. If a person contracts a disease abroad, their symptoms may not emerge until they return home, having exposed others to the infection during their travels. In addition, planes and ships can themselves become breeding grounds for infectious diseases. The 2002-2003 SARS outbreak spread quickly around the globe due to international travel. SARS is
caused by a new strain of corona virus, the same family of viruses that frequently cause the common cold. This contagious and sometimes fatal respiratory illness first appeared in China in November 2002. Within 6 weeks, SARS had spread worldwide, transmitted around the globe by unsuspecting travelers. According to CDC, 8,098 people were infected and 774 died of the disease. 49 SARS represented the first severe, newly emergent infectious disease of the 21st century. 50 It illustrated
just how quickly infection can spread in a highly
mobile and interconnected world. SARS was contained and controlled because public health authorities in the communities most
affected mounted a rapid and effective response. SARS also demonstrated the economic consequences of an emerging infectious disease in closely interdependent and highly mobile world. Apart from the direct costs of intensive medical care and disease control interventions, SARS caused widespread social disruption and economic losses. Schools, hospitals, and some borders were closed and thousands of people were placed in quarantine. International travel to affected areas fell sharply by 50 - 70 percent. Hotel occupancy dropped by more than 60 percent. Businesses, particularly in tourism-related areas, failed. According to a study by Morgan Stanley, the Asia-Pacific regions economy lost nearly $40 billion due to SARS. 51 The World Bank found that the East Asian regions GDP fell by 2 percent in the second quarter of 2003. 52 Toronto experienced a 13.4 percent drop in tourism in 2003. 53
52 Growth Core
Growth Bad Poverty 1/2

Capitalism generates povertyprofit motive for elites, outsourcing, lay-offs, and highpriced goods Wolff, 2011
[Richard, Professor of Economics Emeritus, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he taught economics from 1973 to 2008. He is currently a Visiting Professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, New York City, Capitalism and Poverty. 10-11-2011, Online, http://rdwolff.com/content/capitalism-and-poverty] /WFI-MB Deepening poverty has multiple causes, but the capitalist economic system is major among them . First, capitalism's periodic crises always increase poverty, and the current crisis is no exception. More precisely, how capitalist corporations operate, in or out of crisis, regularly reproduces poverty. At the top of every corporation, its major shareholders (15-20 or fewer) own controlling blocs of shares. They select a board of directors -- usually 15-20 individuals -- who run the corporation. These two tiny groups make all the key decisions: what, how, and where to produce and what to do with the profits. Poverty is one result of this capitalist type of enterprise organization . For example, corporate decisions generally aim to lower the number of workers or their wages or both. They automate, export (outsource) jobs, and replace higher-paid workers by recruiting domestic and foreign substitutes willing to work for less. These normal corporate actions generate rising poverty as the other side of rising profits. When poverty and its miseries "remain always with us," workers tend to accept what employers dish out to avoid losing jobs and falling into poverty. Another major corporate goal is to control politics. Wherever all citizens can vote, workers' interests might prevail over those of directors and shareholders in elections. To prevent that, corporations devote portions of their revenues to finance politicians, parties, mass media, and "think tanks." Their goal is to "shape public opinion" and control what government does. They do not want Washington's crisis-driven budget deficits and national debts to be overcome by big tax increases
on corporations and the rich. Instead public discussion and politicians' actions are kept focused chiefly on cutting social programs for the majority.
Corporate goals include providing high and rising salaries, stock options, and bonuses to top executives and rising dividends and share prices to shareholders. The less paid to the workers who actually produce what corporations sell, the more corporate revenue goes to satisfy directors, top managers, and major shareholders. Corporations also raise profits regularly by increasing prices and/or cutting production costs (often by compromising output quality). Higher priced and poorer-quality goods are sold mostly to working people. This too pushes them toward poverty just like lower wages and benefits and government service cuts. Over the years, government interventions like Social Security, Medicare, minimum wage laws, regulations, etc. never sufficed to eradicate poverty. They often helped the poor, but they never ended poverty. The same applies to charities aiding the poor. Poverty always remained. Now capitalism's crisis worsens it again. Something more than government interventions or charity is required to end poverty.
53 Growth Core
Growth Bad Poverty 2/2

Poverty produces structural violence that is the equivalent of an ongoing nuclear war Gilligan 2000
[James, Department of Psychiatry Harvard Medical School, Violence: Reflections on our deadliest epidemic, p 195-196] The 14 to 18 million deaths a year cause by structural violence compare with about 100,000 deaths per year from armed conflict. Comparing this frequency of deaths from structural violence to the
frequency of those caused by major military and political violence, such as World War II (an estimated 49 million military and civilian deaths, including those caused by genocide--or about eight million per year, 1935-1945), the Indonesian massacre of 1965-1966 (perhaps 575,000 deaths), the Vietnam war (possibly two million, 1954- 1973), and even a
hypothetical nuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R (232 million), it was clear that even war cannot begin to compare with structural violence, which continues year after year. In other word, every fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide, perpetrated on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world.
54 Growth Core
Growth Bad Poverty

Globalization and growth foster economic inequality and economic divides that breed poverty, conflict and extremism Vedda, 2007
[James, NASA historical contributor, From The Societal Impact of Space Flight By Steven Dick and Roger Launius, The Role of Space Development In Globalization. Online, http://history.nasa.gov/sp4801chapter10.pdf] /WFI-MB This globalized economy will be a net contributor to increased political stability in the world in 2015, although its reach and benefits will not be universal. in contrast to the industrial revolution, the process of globalization is more compressed. its evolution will be rocky, marked by chronic financial volatility and a widening economic divide . . . regions, countries, and groups feeling left behind will face deepening economic stagnation, political instability, and cultural alienation. they will foster political, ethnic, ideological, and religious extremism, along with the violence that often accompanies it. they will force the United States and other developed countries to remain focused on old-world challenges while concentrating on the implications of new-world technologies at the same time. 19 as noted earlier, supporters of globalization believe it will allow more and more individuals, as consumers and producers, to enjoy the benefits of economic liberalization, competition ,and innovation.it is natural to want to see oneself as part of the solution rather than part of the problem, so the space community undoubtedly would like to view itself as an essential tool of globalization for redressing deficiencies and providing solutions for global problems. But general acceptance of this view is not automatic. in fact, there is a risk that the opposite may occur. globalization has a dark side, and there is no shortage of critics around the world who are eager to point this out. among the negative aspects of globalization that have been cited are: exposure of workers and firms to unwelcome competition from abroad, and increased risk that companies will relocate their production elsewhere. competition between locations for mobile capital that may lead to a race to the bottom in environmental standards. diffidence to the outside world or fear that a cherished way of life will disappear as a result of cultural standardization. potential worsening of inequality and injustice and erosion of democratic governance.
55 Growth Core
Growth Bad Poverty

Free market capitalist growth generates massive povertyempirics prove Weller, 2002
[Christian, Macroeconomist at the Economic Policy Institute, Free Markets and Poverty. The American Prospect, 1-4-2002, Online, http://prospect.org/article/free-markets-and-poverty] /WFI-MB Yet the actual experience since 1980 contradicts almost every one of these claims. Indeed, the free-trade/free-capital formula has led to slower growth and more vulnerability for poor countries--and to greater income disparity among individuals. In 1980 median income in the richest 10 percent of countries was 77 times greater than in the poorest 10 percent; by 1999 that gap had grown to 122 times. Progress in poverty reduction has been limited and geographically isolated. The number of poor people rose from 1987 to 1998; in many countries, the share of poor people
increased (in 1998 close to half the population in many parts of the world were considered poor). In 1980 the world's poorest 10 percent, or 400 million people, lived on the equivalent of 72 cents a day or less. The same number of people had 79 cents per day in 1990 and 78 cents in 1999. The
income of the world's poorest did not even keep up with inflation. Why has the laissez-faire approach worsened both world growth and world income distribution? First, the IMF and the World Bank often commend austerity as an economic cure-all in order to reassure foreign investors of a sound fiscal and business climate--but austerity, not surprisingly, leads to slow growth. Second, slow growth itself can mean widening income inequality, since
high growth and tight labor markets are what increase the bargaining power of the poor. (Economists estimate that poverty increases by 2 percent for every 1 percent of decline in growth.) Third,
the hands-off approach to global development encourages foreign capital to seek regions and countries that offer the cheapest production costs--so even lowincome countries must worry that some other, even more desperate workforce will do the same work for a lower wage. Finally, small and newly opened economies in the global free market are vulnerable to investment fads and speculative pressures from foreign investors--factors that result in instability and often overwhelm the putative benefits of greater openness. All of these upheavals disproportionately harm the poorest.
56 Growth Core
Growth Bad AT Decline Causes War

Economic downturns dont cause wars. Miller, 2K (Faculty of Administration, University of Ottawa, Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 25,
No. 4, pg. 277)
The question may be formulated. Do wars spring from popular reaction to a sudden economic crisis that exacerbates poverty and growing disparities in wealth and incomes? Perhaps one could argue, as some scholars do, that it is some dramatic event or sequence of such events leading to the exacerbation of poverty that, in turn, leads to this deplorable denouement. This exogenous factor might act as a catalyst for a violent reaction on the part of the people or on the part of the political leadership who would then possibly be tempted to seek a diversion by finding or, if need be, fabricating an enemy and setting in train the process leading to war. undertaken by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik of the
According to a study Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, there would not appear to be any merit in this hypothesis. After studying ninety-three episodes of economic crisis in twenty-two countries in Latin America and Asia in the years since the Second World War they concluded that: Much of the conventional wisdom about the political impact of economic crises may be wrong The severity of economic crisis- as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes (or, in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence.. In the cases of dictatorships and semidemocracies, the ruling elites responded to crisis by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another).
Economic decline doesnt cause war Ferguson 2006 [Niall, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University and a Senior Fellow
at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. The next war of the world, Foreign Affairs. V 85. No 5.] Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal chain in modern historiography links the great depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But the simple story leaves too much out. Nazi Germany started the war In Europe only after its economy had recovered. Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the cause rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe, and some sever economic crises were not followed by war.
57 Growth Core
Growth Bad AT Space/Asteroids

No impactchance of asteroid strike is zero Alasdair Wilkins (io9 staff) 1/3/2011
*Why a massive meteorite strike could be the best thing to happen to us online @ http://io9.com/5723654/why-a-massive-meteorite-strike-could-be-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-us, loghry] Meteorites killed the dinosaurs and have nearly wiped out humanity in multiple Hollywood blockbusters, but have these deadly space rocks actually gotten a bad rap? One geologist argues we should actually be thankful for all meteorites have done for us. Ted Nield, the
author of the new book Incoming!: or, Why We Should Stop Worrying and Learn to Love the Meteorite, explains in an interview with the British newspaper The Guardian why meteorites have been benefited Earth throughout its long history. He points out that, while meteorites
can cause an extinction event every few hundred million years, the odds of being killed by a meteorite are beyond remote - in all of human history, the only claimed meteorite fatality was a dog in Egypt in 1911, and he says that was almost certainly just a story. And, on any sort of timescale we should be worried about, Earth's chances of being hit by a meteorite are next to zero.
No Extinctionpopulation distribution and tech solve Alasdair Wilkins (io9 staff) 1/3/2011
*Why a massive meteorite strike could be the best thing to happen to us online @ http://io9.com/5723654/why-a-massive-meteorite-strike-could-be-the-best-thing-to-happen-to-us, loghry] That said, Nield doesn't downplay the destructive capabilities of these meteorites. When asked to imagine a 10-kilometer-wide asteroid headed towards Earth, he paints a grim picture: It would be travelling at 30-40km per second when it hit the top of the
atmosphere and would immediately start to vaporise. It would be like turning an oven to broil except it would happen to the entire planet. You would be talking about rendering large areas, possibly a hemisphere, uninhabitable. Within the blast zone, nothing would survive, because when these things hit, they produce plasma and incredible temperatures. He says humanity
is widely distributed enough that some scattered population pockets might survive the explosion, although they'd then be looking at tens of thousands of years spent scraping by on a charred planet. There are, however, solutions, although he does dismiss the survival plan put forward by the acclaimed physicists Michael Bay and Bruce Willis: It is possible to envisage dealing with an incoming meteorite if we saw it far in advance. We could try to deflect it using spacecraft. Hollywood pictures suggest we could use a big
bomb, though this would probably be very silly. We would break the meteorite into parts and would then have several lethal objects, instead of just one, heading our way. However, you
could attach little ion engines to the meteorite to divert it over several orbits around the sun. It would only take a very slight deviation. So, no, meteorites don't mean the end of humanity.
No risk of extinction from asteroids Robin McKie & (Guardian staff) Ted Nield (Geologist & Author) 1/2/2011
*Ted Nield: We won't go the way of the dinosaurs online @ http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/02/my-bright-idea-ted-nield, loghry] So is it really time to love a meteorite? Why not? No one has ever been killed by one. Indeed, the only claimed fatality is that
of a dog, from the village of Nakhla in Egypt, supposedly vaporised by a meteorite on 28 June 1911 . In fact, this story is almost certainly made up. No humans killed and one disputed dead dog. It's not much of a death list. Not really. Also, we
have been monitoring nearEarth asteroids for many years and haven't found one yet that stands the remotest chance of hitting us in the near future. Your risk of being killed by one is about the same as dying by a firework. As for our chances of being hit by something like the one that helped kill the dinosaurs, those are pretty much nil in the foreseeable future.
58 Growth Core
Growth Bad AT Terrorism

No risk of nuclear terror technical and logistical hurdles like access to materials are impossible to overcome Mueller 1/1/2008 [John Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies, Mershon Center Professor of
Political Science Department of Political Science, Ohio State University. THE ATOMIC TERRORIST: ASSESSING THE LIKELIHOOD Prepared for presentation at the Program on International Security Policy, University of Chicago, January 15, 2008 ] It is essential to note, however, that making a bomb is an extraordinarily difficult task. Thus, a set of counterterrorism and nuclear experts interviewed in 2004 by Dafna Linzer for the Washington Post pointed to the "enormous technical and logistical obstacles confronting would-be nuclear terrorists, and to the fact that neither al-Qaeda nor any other group has come close to demonstrating the means to overcome them." Allison nonetheless opines that a
dedicated terrorist group, al-Qaeda in particular, could get around all the problems in time and eventually steal, produce, or procure a "crude" bomb or device, one that he however acknowledges would be "large, cumbersome, unsafe, unreliable, unpredictable, and inefficient" (2004, 97; see also Bunn and Wier 2006, 139; Pluta and Zimmerman 2006, 61). In his recent book, Atomic Bazaar: The Rise of the Nuclear Poor, William Langewiesche spends a great deal of time and effort assessing the process by means of which a terrorist group could come up with a bomb. Unlike Allison, he concludes that it
"remains very, very unlikely. It's a possibility, but unlikely." Also: The best information is that no one has gotten anywhere near this. I mean, if you look carefully and practically at this process, you see that it is an enormous undertaking full of risks for the would-be terrorists. And so far there is no public case, at least known, of any appreciable amount of weapons-grade HEU [highly enriched uranium] disappearing. And that's the first step. If you don't have that, you don't have anything.
Terror threat overblownmore likely to be killed by comet John Mueller, Is There Still a Terrorist Threat? FOREIGN AFFAIRS v. 85 n. 5, September/October 2005, p. 2+.
But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaeda-like operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000). Although it remains heretical to say so, the evidence so far suggests that fears of the omnipotent terrorist -- reminiscent of those inspired by images of the 20-foot-tall Japanese after Pearl Harbor or the 20-foot-tall Communists at various points in the Cold War (particularly after Sputnik) -- may have been overblown, the threat presented within the United States by al Qaeda greatly exaggerated. The massive and expensive homeland security apparatus erected since 9/11 may be persecuting some, spying on many, inconveniencing most, and taxing all to defend the United States against an enemy that scarcely exists.
59 Growth Core
Misc
60 Growth Core
Transition Solves
Quick collapse is better means we are able to survive the transitionthe sooner the better LEWIS 2002
(Chris H., Instructor, Sewall Program @ CU Boulder, On the Edge of Society, "Global Industrial Civilization: The Necessary Collapse," ed. M Dobkowski & I Wllimann, Syracuse U. Press, P.____) In conclusion, the only solution to the growing political and economic chaos caused by the collapse of global industrial civilization is to encourage the uncoupling of nations and regions from the global industrial economy. Unfortunately, millions will die in the wars and economic and political conflicts created by the accelerating collapse of global industrial civilization. But we can be assured that on that basis of past history of the collapse of regional civilizations such as the Mayan and the Roman Empires, barring global nuclear war, human societies and civilizations will continue to exist and develop a smaller, regional scale . Yes, such civilizations will be violent, corrupt, and often cruel, but, in the end, less so than our current global industrial civilization, which is abusing the entire planet and threatening the mass death and suffering of all its peoples and the living biological fabric of life on earth. The paradox of global economic development is that although it
creates massive wealth and power for First World Elites, it also creates massive poverty and suffering for Third World people and societies.
The failure of global development to end this suffering and destruction will bring about us collapse. This collapse will cause millions of people to suffer and die throughout the world, but it should paradoxically, ensure the survival of future human societies. Indeed, the collapse of global industrial civilization is necessary for the future long-term survival of human beings. Although this future seems hopeless and heartless, it is not. We can learn alot from our
present global crisis. What we learn will shape our future and the future of the complex, interconnected web of life on Earth.
61 Growth Core
Transition Solves
Transition solves the negative impacts of growthradical change is key Trainer, 2011
*Ted, University of New South Wales Australia, The radical implications of the zero growth economy. Real world economics review, issue 57, Online, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf] /WFI-MB
The argument in this paper is that the implications of a steady-state economy have not been understood at all well, especially by its advocates. Most proceed as if we can and should eliminate the growth element of the present economy while leaving the rest more or less as it is. It will be argued firstly that this is not possible, because this
is not an economy which has growth; it is a growth-economy, a growth is eliminated then radically different ways of carrying out many fundamental processes will have to be found. Secondly, the critics of growth typically proceed as if it is the only or the primary or the sufficient thing that has to be fixed, but it will be argued that the major global problems facing us cannot be solved unless several fundamental systems and structures within consumer-capitalist society are radically remade. What is required is much greater social change than Western society has undergone in several hundred years. Before offering support for these claims it is important to sketch the general limits to growth situation confronting us. The magnitude and seriousness of the global resource and environmental problem is not generally appreciated. Only when this is grasped is it possible to understand that the social changes required must be huge, radical and far reaching. The initial claim being argued here (and detailed in Trainer 2010b) is that consumer-capitalist society cannot be reformed or fixed; it has to be largely scrapped and remade along quite different lines.
system in which most of the core structures and processes involve growth. If
Its try or dieonly a complete abandonment of growth will ensure we can survive the transition to small scale economies Trainer, 2011
*Ted, University of New South Wales Australia, The radical implications of the zero growth economy. Real world economics review, issue 57, Online, http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Trainer57.pdf] /WFI-MB If we must abandon growth and greatly reduce production and consumption then there is no alternative but to develop an economy which is basically under social control, i.e., in which we discuss, decide, plan and organise to produce that stable quantity of the basic things we need to enable a high quality of life for all. In the coming conditions of intense resource scarcity, viable communities will have to be mostly small, selfsufficient local economies using local resources to produce what local people need. Such economies can only work well if control is in
the hands of all citizens, via participatory-democracy exercised through whole town assemblies. This vision would enable most of the firms and farms to be privately owned or community cooperatives, and would involve little role for councils, state or federal governments. Although the
case against the wisdom of pursuing growth and affluence has in my opinion been overwhelmingly convincing for decades, it has been almost totally ignored. Although it is now gaining more attention, on the fringes of the economics profession, unfortunately there is little recognition of just how profoundly radical the notion of zero-growth is. It logically entails the termination of several fundamental structures and processes, values and taken for granted ideas, which have developed over hundreds of years. If the limits analysis is valid we have only decades to make the enormous transitions. Given that the mainstream, resolutely led by the economics profession, shows no sign of ever attending to these issues, it is difficult to maintain belief that we have the wit or the will to save ourselves.
62 Growth Core
Transition Solves
Only a transition away from growth can solve environmental and social destruction Foster, 2011
*John Bellamy, editor of The Monthly Review and author, Capitalism and Environmental Catastrophe. 10-31-2011, Online, http://www.zcommunications.org/capitalism-and-environmental-catastrophe-byjohn-bellamy-foster] /WFI-MB The other approach is to demand changes in society itself; to move away from a system directed at profits, production, and accumulation, i.e., economic growth, and toward a sustainable steady-state economy. This would mean reducing or eliminating unnecessary and wasteful consumption and reordering society -- from commodity production and
consumption as its primary goal, to sustainable human development. This could only occur in conjunction with a move towards substantive equality. It would require democratic ecological and social planning. It therefore coincides
with the classical objectives of socialism. Such a shift would make possible the reduction in carbon emissions we need. After all, most of what the U.S. economy produces in the form of commodities (including the unnecessary, market-related costs that go into the production of nearly all goods) is sheer waste from a social, an ecological -- even a long-term economic -- standpoint. Just think of all the useless things we produce and that we are encouraged to buy and then throw away almost the moment we have bought them. Think of the bizarre, plastic packaging that all too often dwarfs the goods themselves. Think of military spending, running in reality at $1 trillion a year in the United States. Think of marketing (i.e. corporate spending aimed at persuading people to buy things they don't want or need), which has reached $1 trillion a year in this country alone. Think of all the wasted resources associated with our financial system, with Wall Street economics. It is this kind of waste that generates the huge profits for the top 1 percent of income earners, and that alienates and impoverishes the lives of the bottom 99 percent, while degrading the environment.8 What we need therefore is to change our economic culture. We need an ecological and social revolution. We
have all the technologies necessary to do this. It is not primarily a technological problem, because the goal here would no longer be the impossible one of expanding our exploitation of the earth beyond all physical and biological limits, ad infinitum. Rather the
goal would be to promote human community and community with the earth. Here we would need to depend on organizing our
local communities but also on creating a global community -- where the rich countries no longer imperialistically exploit the poor countries of the world. You
may say that this is impossible, but the World Occupy Movement would have been declared impossible only a month ago. If we are going to struggle, let us make our goal one of ecological and social revolution -- in defense of humanity and the planet.
63 Growth Core
Transition Fails
Transition will inevitably failthere are no alternatives to capitalism to fill in Rogoff, 2012
*Kenneth, Professor of Economic and Public Policy at Harvard University, Is modern capitalism sustainable? The International Economic, 26.1, 60-61, Accessed online via Proquest] /WFI-MB In the broad sweep of history, all forms of capitalism are ultimately transitional. I am often asked if the recent global financial crisis marks the beginning of the end of modem capitalism. It is a curious question, because it seems to presume that there is a viable replacement waiting in the wings. The truth of the matter is that, for now at least, the only serious alternatives to today's dominant AngloAmerican paradigm are other forms of capitalism. Continental European capitalism, which combines generous health and social benefits with reasonable working hours, long vacation periods, early retirement, and relatively equal income distributions, would seem to have everything to recommend it except sustainability. China's Darwinian capitalism, with its fierce competition among export firms, a weak social-safety net, and widespread government intervention, is widely touted as the inevitable heir to Western capitalism, if only because of China's huge size and consistent outsize growth rate. Yet China's economic system is continually evolving. Indeed, it is far from clear how far China's political, economic, and financial structures will continue to transform themselves, and whether China will eventually morph into capitalism's new exemplar. In any case, China is still encumbered by the usual social, economic, and financial vulnerabilities of a rapidly growing lower-income country. Perhaps the real point is that, in the broad sweep of history, all current forms of capitalism are ultimately transitional. Modern-day capitalism has had an extraordinary run since the start of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago, lifting billions of ordinary people out of abject poverty. Marxism and heavyhanded socialism have disastrous records by comparison. But, as industrialization and technological progress spread to Asia (and now to Africa), someday the struggle for subsistence will no longer be a primary imperative, and contemporary capitalism's numerous flaws may loom larger.
64 Growth Core
Transition Fails
Collapse failscauses right wing fascist states that are worse Martin Lewis, Professor, School of the Environment, Duke University, GREEN DELUSIONS, 1992, p.
170-171. While an explosive socioeconomic crisis in the near term is hardly likely the possibility certainly cannot be dismissed. Capitalism is an inherently unstable economic system, and periodic crises of some magintude are inevitable. An outbreak of jingoistic economic nationalism throughout the world, moreover, could quickly result in virtual economic collapse. Under such circumstances we could indeed enter an epoch of revolutionary social turmoil. Yet I believe that there are good reasons to believe that the victors in such a struggle would be radicals not of the left but rather of the right. The extreme left, for all its intellectual strength, notably lacks the kind of power necessary to emerge victorious from a real revolution. A few old street radicals may still retain their militant ethos, but todays college professors and their graduate students, the core marxist contingent, would be ineffective. The radical right, on the other hand, would present a very real threat. Populist right-wing paramilitary groups are well armed and well trained, while establishment-minded fascists probably have links with the American military, wherein lies the greatest concentration of destructive power this planet knows. Should a crisis strike so savagely as to splinter the American center and its political institutions, we could well experience a revolutionary movement similar to that of Germany in the 1930.
65 Growth Core
Transition Fails
Rejection of capitalism causes massive transition wars Harris 3 (Lee, Analyst Hoover Institution and Author of The Suicide of Reason, The Intellectual
Origins of America-Bashing, Policy Review, January, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3458371.html) This is the immiserization thesis of Marx. And it is central to revolutionary Marxism, since if capitalism produces no widespread misery, then it also produces no fatal internal contradiction: If everyone is getting better off through capitalism, who will dream of struggling to overthrow it? Only genuine misery on the part of the workers would be sufficient to overturn the whole apparatus of the capitalist state, simply because, as Marx insisted, the capitalist class could not be realistically expected to relinquish control of the state apparatus and, with it, the monopoly of force. In this, Marx was absolutely correct. No capitalist society has ever willingly liquidated itself, and it is utopian to think that any ever will. Therefore, in order to achieve the goal of socialism, nothing short of a complete revolution would do; and this means, in point of fact, a full-fledged civil war not just within one society, but across the globe. Without this catastrophic upheaval, capitalism would remain completely in control of the social order and all socialist schemes would be reduced to pipe dreams.
Extinction Kothari 82 (Rajni, Professor of Political Science University of Delhi, Toward a Just Social Order, p.
571) Attempts at global economic reform could also lead to a world racked by increasing turbulence, a greater sense of insecurity among the major centres of power -- and hence to a further tightening of the structures of domination and domestic repression producing in their wake an intensification of the old arms race and militarization of regimes, encouraging regional conflagrations and setting the stage for eventual global holocaust.

Growth Core UMKC

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Growth Core UMKC

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Core Pre Camp Index

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Economy High Now

Economy strongUS productive capabilities are unmatched anywhere Carnevale, 6-8-12

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Economy High Now

big gain followed a series of latest recovery is made

of sterner stuff, although we doubt it will set the world alight.

personal consumption and

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Economy Low Now

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Economy Low Now

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Economy Low Now

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Economy Low Now

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

the dominant corporate sector, we

the conditions in which protection of the environment can best be achieved."

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Continued on next page

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Not Sustainable

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Not Sustainable

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Not Sustainable

Growth is not sustainable, it is trumped by environmental limitstransition is key Panayotou, 2003

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Transportation K2 Economic Growth

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Transportation K2 Economic Growth

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Transportation K2 Economic Growth

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good War

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good War

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good War

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good Terrorism 1/2

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good Terrorism 2/2

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good Terrorism

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good Environment 1/2

Continued on next page

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)

Growth Good Environment 2/2

energy has the potential

UMKC SDI 12 (DBS Lab)