Changes for page West Nelson Aff

Last modified by Administrator on 2017/08/29 03:41

From version < 6.1 >
edited by Kenneth Nelson
on 2016/09/17 21:42
To version < 14.1 >
edited by Kenneth Nelson
on 2016/10/28 20:13
< >
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[1]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1 -2016-09-17 21:42:19.357
1 +2016-09-17 21:42:19.0
Caselist.RoundClass[1]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +1
Caselist.CitesClass[2]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,35 @@
1 +Capitalism pursues endless growth at the expense of environmental crises and structural violence in The Third World. Zhang 13
2 +http://www.worldscholars.org, Capitalism and Ecological Crisis. Yonghong Zhang, School of Marxism Studies, Research Center for Marxist Theory, Southwest University, Chongqing, China. Journal of Sustainable Society Vol. 2, No. 3, 2013, 69-73 DOI: 10.11634/216825851302440 ISSN 2168-2585 Print/ ISSN 2168-2593 Online/ World Scholars
3 +Before the birth of the capitalist mode of production, environmental problem was but a regional one, which, in most cases, had only a minor and partial negative impact on the human society. But, in several hundred years of capitalist globalization and in the process of “conquering nature” by the capitalist mode of production, the environmental problem has been becoming more and more serious and ravaging the world. Nature occasionally brings up its sword of Damocles and retaliates on humanity. With the progress of the Western-dominated globalization, some global environmental problems become increasingly serious. According to 1998 data from World Wide Fund For Nature, the Earth lost 1/3 of the natural resources from 1970 to 1995; freshwater index decreased by 50; the marine ecosystem index fell by 30; the world's forest area declined by 10.According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization statistics, the annual tropical deforestation rate is about 0.7 and still in constant acceleration. Rain forest reduction results in floods and climate change, especially the rampant El Nino Phenomenon, as well as the destruction of biodiversity, and so on. The extensive use of Freon and other substances results in the growing Antarctic ozone hole, which makes creatures on earth facing more and more serious threat from solar ultraviolet radiation; massive emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases exacerbate the existing “greenhouse effect”, causing global climate to rise and making glaciers melt and sea levels rise; the earth’s organisms are being destroyed and desertification is developing rapidly. In this case, human beings are probably losing natural respiratory organs and their survival base. That Hundreds of years of capitalist accumulation of capital has damaged or destroyed the natural ecological environment is obvious. No one has made specific statistics of this destruction. Today’s economic and technological achievements the Western world has reached, result, in a certain sense, from the plundering of the Third World resources and destruction of the Third World ecology by the West monopoly bourgeoisie for several centuries. The Western capitalist industrial civilization has created a global economy and brought the world into an unprecedented new era of rapid economic development, and has also brought unprecedented “ecological deficit” and “environmental overdraft” to humans, especially to the Third World. The price the Third World countries have paid for the development and prosperity of the West is innumerable. In a world with limited supply, the more the West demands, the less the Third World will be left, either in natural resources or social needs. The irrational and unlimited expansion of social product demands of the West has not only caused a lot of pressure on their own environment, but also lead to the destruction of the environment of the third world countries by recklessly plundering natural resources. Currently, the West, with 20 of the world's population, consumes 80 of the world's total resources and continues to leave the major negative impacts of ecological damages to the Third World. According to a World Wide Fund For Nature report on October 1, 1998, the world lost nearly 1/3 of the natural wealth from 1970 to 1995.Human production activities and consumption on natural resources such as land, minerals, fish, timber and fresh water, as well as emissions of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, have led to natural environment pressures, most of which have been caused by the Western countries. The British magazine New Statesman issued an article on October 16, 1998 saying that “It’s the poor that do the suffering...while the rich do all the protesting”. The environmental toll of poverty is enormous and growing. All over the world, the poor account for the most deaths from pollution, and are by far the greatest victims of the degradation of the natural world. The wood consumption in papermaking in the 1990s only was twice as much as that in the 1950s. The consumption of paper products in U.S., Japan and Europe accounts for 2/3 of the world's total, while the lumber used comes almost entirely from the Third World. The best example might be that Japan has the highest forest coverage rate in the world, while its needs for woods are being met mainly through the rain forest deforestation of Southeast Asia. With the enhancement of environmental protection consciousness and the improvement of environmental standards, some sunset industries with high energy consumption and heavy pollution in the Western countries are difficult to survive, so the Western developed countries capitalize the desires of the third world countries to eagerly develop the economy, to make cross-border transfers of pollution industries, resulting in the global expansion of contamination. The Third World countries thus become the “pollution havens”. In order to pursue development, the Third World countries are forced to swallow the bitter pill of the ecological crisis Journal of Sustainable Society 72 both at home and abroad. They have already got into trouble because of lack of resources and environmental pollution before achieving a highspeed, high-quality development. U.S. futurist Alvin Toffler made a profound description of the capitalist ecological crisis caused by the capitalist civilization: “Never before did any civilization create the means for literally destroying not a city but a planet. Never did whole oceans face toxification, whole species vanish overnight from the earth as a result of human greed or inadvertence; never did mines scar the earth's surface so savagely; never did hair-spray aerosols deplete the ozone layer, or thermo pollution threaten the planetary climate”. Toffler’s description shows us the devastating ecological consequences brought about by the capitalist-led globalization. Numerous facts have proved that the capitalist system is the real root cause of human environmental crisis. Awareness of this issue will affect the prospects for mankind. As the American scholar Paul Sweezy said: “Already, a very large section of the world’s scientific community is fully aware of the seriousness of the ecological threat facing the planet, but what is not widely recognized is that the cause of the threat is capitalism itself. Bourgeois economics seeks to hide or deny this fact. No wonder. If it were generally understood, capitalism would soon be identified for what it is, the mortal enemy of human kind and many other forms of life on the planet. In these circumstances, our responsibility is not only to help the ecologists to get their message across, important as it is, but to convince the ecologists themselves as well as the public at large of the truth about capitalism, that it must be replaced by a social system that puts the life giving capacity of the earth as its first and highest priority. As the unfolding of capitalism's deadly consequences proceeds, more and more people, including 'bourgeois ideologists who have raised themselves to the level of understanding the historical movement as a whole,' will come to see what has to be done if our species is to have any future at all. Our job is to help bring this about in the shortest possible time”. Capitalism is an economic system that pursues endless growth, which requires the use of ever-greater quantities of resources. Thus, the tendency of capital is to violate the natural conditions, undermining the base on which ecological and human sustainability depends. The global reach of capital is creating an ecological crisis all over the world. But, capitalism can't solve this problem by itself. Just as Brett Clark and Richard York (2008) clearly revealed: “A fundamental structural crisis cannot be remedied within the operations of the system”. This is because that “capital shows no signs of slowing down, given its rapacious character. The current ecological crisis has been in the making for a long time and the most serious effects of continuing with business as usual will not fall on present but rather future generations”. “Capitalism is incapable of regulating its social metabolism with nature in an environmentally sustainable manner. Its very operations violate the laws of restitution and metabolic restoration. The solution to each environmental problem generates new environmental problems (while often not curtailing the old ones). One crisis follows another, in an endless succession of failure, stemming from the internal contradictions of the system”. In this case, “if we are to solve our environmental crises, we need to go to the root of the problem: the social relation of capital itself, given that this social metabolic order undermines the vital conditions of existence.” Brett Clark and Richard York, then, came to a conclusion that to resolve the ecological crisis “requires a complete break with the logic of capital and the social metabolic order it creates”. They are not alone in this conclusion. Professor Fred Magdoff (2013) stated more categorically that capitalism, “the system of the accumulation of capital, must go—sooner rather than later.” He further pointed out: “just radically transcending a system that harms the environment and many of the world’s people is not enough. In its place people must create a socio-economic system that has as its very purpose the meeting of everyone’s basic material and nonmaterial needs, which, of course, includes healthy local, regional, and global ecosystems.” This system, without doubt, will has the creation of a harmonious civilization as its goal; it will get rid of all the troubles and problems capitalism causes. In Fred Magdoff's opinion (2012), the harmonious civilization exactly consists in socialism, in which economy and politics are under social control. It’s characteristic of this civilization and socialism that communities strive for self regulation by meaningful democratic processes; self sufficiency for critical life needs; economic equality in which everyone has their basic human material needs—but no more—met; and application of ecological approaches to production, living, and transportation. In construction of a harmonious civilization, to correctly handle the relationship between man and nature is closely related to human survival and development, and also involves the country's sustainable economic development. One of the main problems of the highly developed western countries is that they can't effectively handle the conflict between the boundless demands of man and the environmental carrying capacity and the finiteness of natural resources. Only by properly handling the relationship between man and nature, and scientific development and planned control, could we find a way out for the 73 Y. Zhang future. This, indeed, is the very reason why humans take socialism as the necessary and inevitable alternative to capitalism.
4 +
5 +Modern economic study ended with Adam Smith. Individualist economics is celebrated throughout the discipline, as capitalism disregards the costs of its action, pursuing only profit, and eventually, causing extinction. Hence, educational spaces are key. Thus, the role of the judge is to vote for the debater who best deconstructs overconsumption. Smith 16
6 +Richard Smith economic historian, Ph.D., post-docs at the East-West Center in Honolulu and Rutgers University. 7-21-2016, "How Individualist Economics Are Causing Planetary Eco-Collapse," Truthout, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36916-how-individualist-economics-are-causing-planetary-eco-collapse
7 +While capitalism has brought unprecedented development, this same motor of development is now driving us towards ecological collapse, threatening to doom us all. Adam Smith's capitalist economics can offer no solution to the crisis because the crisis is the product of the same dynamic of competition-driven production for market that generates the ever-greater accumulation of wealth and consumption that Smithian economists celebrate. In his 1996 book The Future of Capitalism, Lester Thurow lucidly captured the socially suicidal aggregate impact of individualistic economic decision-making: "Nowhere is capitalism's time horizon problem more acute than in the area of global environmentalism... What should a capitalistic society do about long-run environmental problems such as global warming or ozone depletion?... Using capitalist decision rules, the answer to what should be done today to prevent such problems is very clear ~-~- do nothing. However large the negative effects fifty to one hundred years from now might be, their current discounted net present value is zero. If the current value of the future negative consequences is zero, then nothing should be spent today to prevent those distant problems from emerging. But if the negative effects are very large fifty to one hundred years from now, by then it will be too late to do anything to make the situation any better, since anything done at that time could only improve the situation another fifty to one hundred years into the future. So being good capitalists, those who live in the future, no matter how bad their problems are, will also decide to do nothing. Eventually a generation will arrive which cannot survive in the earth's altered environment, but by then it will be too late for them to do anything to prevent their own extinction. Each generation makes good capitalist decisions, yet the net effect is collective social suicide." Lester Thurow, almost alone among mainstream economists as near as I can tell, recognizes this potentially fatal contradiction of capitalism ~-~- even though he is no anti-capitalist and wrote the book from which this excerpt is drawn in the hopes of finding a future for capitalism. Until very recently the standard economics textbooks ignored the problem of the environment altogether. Even today, the standard Econ 101 textbooks of Barro, Mankiv and so on, contain almost no mention of environment or ecology and virtually no serious consideration of the problem. This reflects the increasingly rightward drift of the discipline since the seventies. The American economics profession has long-since abandoned the practice of critical scientific thought to seriously dissenting views. Today, a neo-totalitarian "neoliberal" religious dogma rules the discipline. Keynesianism, liberalism, to say nothing of Marxism, are all dismissed as hopelessly antiquated, ecological economics is suspect, and the prudent graduate student would be well advised to steer clear of such interests if he or she wants to find a job. As Francis Fukuyama put it back in the 90s after communism collapsed, history has reached its apogee in free-market capitalism and liberal democracy. The science of economics, Fukuyama pronounced, was "settled" with Adam Smith's accomplishment. The future would bring no more than "endless technical adjustments" and no further theoretical thought is required or need be solicited.
8 +Nuclear power production is justified through this overconsumption mindset, producing inequality. Maciejewska and Marszalek 11
9 +Malgorzata Maciejwska institute of Sociology and Faculty of Social Sciences at Wroclaw University and Marcin Marszalek Sociologist, Wroclaw University, Sept. 2011, " Lack of power or lack of democracy: the case of the projected nuclear power plant in Poland " Economic and Environmental Studies Vol. 11, No.3 (19/2011) P. 245-46, http://www.ees.uni.opole.pl/content/03_11/ees_11_3_fulltext_02.pdf.
10 +The mainstream discourse on nuclear power rarely takes up the question of how the global energy industry is organized. In the modern economy the production of energy around the world, which is supposed to be a kind of public good and to guarantee sustainable development, is planned and arranged under free market conditions. As a part of the global chain of extraction, production and trading, it is subordinated to the neoliberal logic on terms of which the society and economy is governed as a business enterprise with the logic of maximum interest and minimum loss. This imposes on different actors (from the international corporations to individual households) the discipline of competitiveness and profitability, resulting in the growth of existing inequalities as ‘the invisible hand’ of the free market economy legitimizes those subjects which are already in power. The modern global economy is based on irrational production and social inequalities where one can observe the processes of work intensification and the cheapening of labor. The markets are dominated by the unproductive virtual economy (See Peterson, 2002) where the major players are the financial institutions which, by means of sophisticated financial tools, buy and sell virtual products (currencies, stocks, insurances, debts and its derivatives). In effect, the major actors in the capitalist economy are the international investors who have the capability of financial liquidity, and operate with those sophisticated financial tools on the global stock market. Even when they lose those capacities because of indebtedness, the states and international organizations seem often to be willing to repair the damage by transferring the taxes paid by citizens. (This is actually happening now, during the financial crisis, when southern and western European countries are subjected to shock therapy under which governments introduce austerity measures.) The praxis of nuclear power producers and the discourse which legitimizes it is therefore reduced to one goal – increasing financial revenues. The Polish plan to build the atomic power plant seems to be another element of the competitiveness strategy. In the authorities’ mind set it could put Poland into the position of more a competitive, more dynamic economy, as expected by the European Union and international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank. The welfare of Poland’s or Niger’s society does not fit into that picture. The nuclear establishment does not take into account the most important aspect of sustainable development: the overall reduction of energy consumption and therefore of energy production. Such a policy could bring a wide range of profits to the societies, the ecosystem, as well as the economy. On the contrary, the increase of power production and power use is one of the core concepts of pro-atomic discourse. This dogmatic belief draws the ideological line indicated at the beginning: the question of energy use and the ideas for solving this problem are seen only as a matter of technological challenges and the amount of financial and material means which have to be invested in them, but not as an effort to re-organize and restructure the modern economy.
11 +Advocacy: All countries will stop the production of nuclear power IMMEDIATELY. To clarify, this would not be a phaseout. I defend that the federal governments of countries take the action. I reserve the right to clarify.
12 +Multiple disruptions throughout the international economy right now. On the brink of economic collapse. McBride 16
13 + James McBride, writer and editor @ Council on Foreign Relations, “5 Expert Predictions for the Global Economy in 2016,” The Atlantic, January 4, 2016, 7/20/2016, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/01/global-economy-2016/422475/ JW
14 +The world will face economic challenges on multiple fronts in 2016. As the U.S. Federal Reserve begins its monetary tightening, Europe is struggling to manage migrant and debt crises, China’s financial stability is in doubt, and emerging economies are increasingly fragile. The global economy “could be doing much worse,” writes the Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Low oil prices and weak currencies are keeping the European and Japanese economies afloat, but Rogoff warns of “a slowing Chinese economy, collapsing commodity prices, and the beginning of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s rate-hiking cycle.” Emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa, Thailand, and Turkey, rather than China, will be the real sources of concern in 2016, argues U.C. Berkeley’s Barry Eichengreen. With their high levels of short-term debt, these countries are vulnerable to currency crisis, “potentially leading to economic collapse.” For CFR’s Varun Sivaram, new investments announced at the Paris climate talks are reason for optimism in the energy sector. In particular, the $20 billion earmarked for clean-energy research and development “could make it more likely for breakthrough technologies to emerge.” In the United States, meanwhile, steady GDP and job growth has been constrained by weak productivity gains, writes the American Enterprise Institute’s James Pethokoukis. Without increased productivity delivering higher living standards, the United States could face decades of “unhealthy economic populism.” Europe continues to face the risk of debt crises, writes CFR’s Robert Kahn, but the most dangerous economic risk for the continent in 2016 is “a growing populist challenge from both the Left and Right,” which could create economic-policy uncertainty and constrain policymakers.
15 +Plan collapses the world economy – energy shortages, inflation, and natural gas spikes. Bauschard 8/12 cites Our Energy Policy Organization 1/6, Cicio no date, and Bezdek and Wendling 4.
16 +Stefan Bauschard, Debate Coach citing multiple economists, 8-12-2016, "Essay — Resolved: Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.," Millennial Speech andamp; Debate, http://millennialsd.com/2016/08/12/essay-resolved-countries-ought-to-prohibit-the-production-of-nuclear-power/
17 +The basic problem with banning nuclear power is that it would substantially undermine, if not completely eviscerate, the world economy. Why? To begin with, nuclear power would eliminate 11 of the world’s electricity supply1. That’s a lot. But even if you don’t’ think it’s a lot, consider that 20 of US electricity and nearly 80 of France’s electricity is generated from nuclear power2. Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity3. That’s a lot of electricity to suddenly lose, especially when you consider that nearly all businesses depend on electricity to function. Some will argue that traditional renewable energy resources could replace nuclear power, but it would take at least 25 years for renewable energy to even replace existing nuclear power Our Energy Policy Organization, July 1-6, 2016, Nuclear Energy: Overview, http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEO.pdf DOA: 8-10-16 For those who hope that renewables can quickly fill the gap left by closed nuclear energy facilities, NEI points out that wind and solar lack the scale and reliability of nuclear power plants that usually run 24/7 except when they are in refueling outages “Renewable sources are intermittent and do not have the same value to the grid as dispatchable baseload resources like nuclear plants. And renewables do not have the scale necessary to replace existing nuclear plants,” NEI say NEI’s comments also point to analysis by the independent market monitor for the New England and New York independent system operators (ISO) demonstrating that preserving existing nuclear power plants has a lower carbon abatement cost than renewables sources like wind and solar. “Looking to the future, the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy Outlook expects nuclear energy to produce 789 billion kWh in 2040. By then, EIA forecasts wind and solar will produce 818 billion kWh. So it will take the next 25 years for wind and solar to catch up to where nuclear energy is today,” NEI says. So, if nuclear power was banned, in at least the short-term there would be a massive energy shortage. Renewable energy would not be able to cover the difference, meaning that we would turn to natural gas and coal to make up the existing difference. Our Energy Policy Organization, July 1-6, 2016, Nuclear Energy: Overview, http://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/NEO.pdf Recent closures of nuclear power plants hit the bottom line of those who can afford it least: households and businesses. After the shutdown of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in 2013, California consumers paid $350 million more for electricity the following year “Sooner or later, that nuclear capacity must be replaced and, when it is replaced with new gas fired combined cycle capacity, consumers will pay more on a levelized lifecycle cost basis,” NEI warns This would massively increase demand for both energy sources. And what happens when demand for a product goes up, especially suddenly? The price skyrockets, as limited supplies go to the highest bidder/purchaser, threatening the economy. Bezdek and Wendling, Energy Consultants at Management Information Services, April 2004 (Public Utilities Fortnightly) The Economy and Demand Destruction The energy crises of the 1970s demonstrated the harmful impact on jobs and the economy that natural gas shortages can have. The U.S. economy suffered through recessions, widespread unemployment, inflation, and record-high interest rates. In the winter of 1975-76, unemployment resulting from gas curtailments in hard-hit regions ran as high as 100,000 for periods lasting from 20 to 90 days. These effects were especially serious for the poor and for the nation’s minorities. More recently, the winter of 2002-2003 brought higher natural gas bills to many consumers, and low-income families were especially hard hit. As Paul Cicio, director of the Industrial Energy Consumers Association, notes: “The economic welfare of our economy, the competitiveness of our industries, the affordability of natural gas for all consumers are at risk. We cannot afford another natural gas crisis. Every U.S. energy crisis in the last 30 years has been followed by an economic recession, and the 2000-2001 price spike was no exception. The energy crisis devastated industrial consumers. When natural gas prices reached $4/MMBtu, manufacturing began to reduce Just think about it: When energy prices rise, every consumer has to pay more for energy, reducing demand for every day goods, such as clothes, vacations, electronics, and even food. And what happens to the cost of producing those goods? Those costs increase because energy is an essential element in the production of every good. This would trigger massive inflation in the economy, making it even more difficult for consumers to purchase goods. A spike in natural gas prices would threaten many industries, including the chemical industry, the steel industry, and all manufacturing industries that depend on energy inputs for production. Many more impacts to high natural gas prices are included in the August nuclear power update. Icon of Nuclear Power Update ~-~- August 2016 ~-~- In Progress ~-~- Updated 8-11-16 Nuclear Power Update ~-~- August 2016 ~-~- In Progress ~-~- Updated 8-11-16 ~-~- Subscribers Only (356.2 KiB) Simply put, banning nuclear power would be an economic disaster.
18 +
19 +Every crisis is an opportunity for radical change – Cuba proves. The aff is key to a mindset shift against overconsumption, a strategy of prefiguring political structures for change and creating that change. Alexander and Rutherford 14
20 +Samuel Alexander co-director of the Simplicity Institute, is a lecturer at the Office for Environmental Programs, University of Melbourne and Jonathan Rutherford, " THE DEEP GREEN ALTERNATIVE DEBATING STRATEGIES OF TRANSITION", Simplicity Institute; Report 14a. http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/The-Deep-Green-Alternative.pdf
21 +As industrial civilisation continues its global expansion and pursues growth without apparent limit, the possibility of economic, political, or ecological crises forcing an alternative way of life upon humanity seems to be growing in likelihood (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 2013). That is, if the existing model of global development is not stopped via one of the pathways reviewed above, or some other strategy, then it seems clear enough that at some point in the future, industrial civilisation will grow itself to death (Turner, 2012). Whether collapse is initiated by an ecological tipping point, a financial breakdown of an overly indebted economy, a geopolitical disruption, an oil crisis, or some confluence of such forces, the possibility of collapse or deep global crisis can no longer be dismissed merely as the intellectual playground for doomsayers with curdled imaginations. Collapse is a prospect that ought to be taken seriously based on the logic of limitless growth on a finite planet, as well as the evidence of existing economic, ecological, or more specifically climatic instability. As Paul Gilding (2011) has suggested, perhaps it is already too late to avoid some form of great disruption . Could collapse or deep crisis be the most likely pathway to an alternative way of life? If it is, such a scenario must not be idealised or romanticised. Fundamental change through crisis would almost certainly involve great suffering for many, and quite possibly significant population decline through starvation, disease, or war. It is also possible that the alternative system that a crisis produces is equally or even more undesirable than the existing system. Nevertheless, it may be that this is the only way a post-growth or post-industrial way of life will ever arise. The Cuban oil crisis, prompted by the collapse of the USSR, provides one such example of a deep societal transition that arose not from a political or social movement, but from sheer force of circumstances (Piercy et. al, 2010). Almost overnight Cuba had a large proportion of its oil supply cut off, forcing the nation to move away from oil-dependent, industrialised modes of food production and instead take up local and organic systems – or perish. David Holmgren (2013) has recently published a deep and provocative essay, Crash on Demand , exploring the idea that a relatively small anti-consumerist movement could be enough to destabilise the global economy which is already struggling. This presents one means of bringing an end to the status quo by inducing a voluntary crisis, without relying on a mass movement. Needless to say, should people adopt such a strategy, it would be imperative to prefigure the alternative society as far as possible too, not merely withdraw support from the existing society. Again, one must not romanticise such theories or transitions. The Cuban crisis, for example, entailed much hardship. But it does expose the mechanisms by which crisis can induce significant societal change in ways that, in the end, are not always negative. In the face of a global crisis or breakdown, therefore, it could be that elements of the deep green vision (such as organic agriculture, frugal living, sharing, radical recycling, post-oil transportation, etc.) come to be forced upon humanity, in which case the question of strategy has less to do with avoiding a deep crisis or collapse (which may be inevitable) and more to do with negotiating the descent as wisely as possible. This is hardly a reliable path to the deep green alternative, but it presents itself as a possible path. Perhaps a more reliable path could be based on the possibility that, rather than imposing an alternative way of life on a society through sudden collapse, a deep crisis could provoke a social or political revolution in consciousness that opens up space for the deep green vision to be embraced and implemented as some form of crisis management strategy. Currently, there is insufficient social or political support for such an alternative, but perhaps a deep crisis will shake the world awake. Indeed, perhaps that is the only way to create the necessary mindset. After all, today we are hardly lacking in evidence on the need for radical change (Turner, 2012), suggesting that shock and response may be the form the transition takes, rather than it being induced through orderly, rational planning, whether from top down or from below. Again, this non-ideal pathway to a post-growth or post-industrial society could be built into the other strategies discussed above, adding some realism to strategies that might otherwise appear too utopian. That is to say, it may be that only deep crisis will create the social support or political will needed for radical reformism, eco-socialism, or eco-anarchism to emerge as social or political movements capable of rapid transformation. Furthermore, it would be wise to keep an open and evolving mind regarding the best strategy to adopt, because the relative effectiveness of various strategies may change over time, depending on how forthcoming crises unfold. It was Milton Friedman (1982: ix) who once wrote: only a crisis – actual or perceived – produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. What this collapse or crisis theory of change suggests, as a matter of strategy, is that deep green social and political movements should be doing all they can to mainstream the practices and values of their alternative vision. By doing so they would be aiming to prefigure the deep green social, economic, and political structures, so far as that it is possible, in the hope that deep green ideas and systems are alive and available when the crises hit. Although Friedman obviously had a very different notion of what ideas should be lying around, the relevance of his point to this discussion is that in times of crisis, the politically or socially impossible can become politically or socially inevitable (Friedman, 1982: ix); or, one might say, if not inevitable, then perhaps much more likely. It is sometimes stated that every crisis is an opportunity – from which the optimist infers that the more crises there are, the more opportunities there are. This may encapsulate one of the most realistic forms of hope we have left.
22 +Two impacts:
23 +1st Endless growth causes runaway warming – only economic collapse solves. Smith 13
24 +Smith, UCLA history PhD, 2013 (Richard, “’Sleepwalking to Extinction’: Capitalism and the Destruction of Life and Earth,” Common Dreams, 11/15/13, http://www.commondreams.org/views/2013/11/15/sleepwalking-extinction-capitalism-and-destruction-life-and-earth, IC)
25 +For all the climate summits, promises of “voluntary restraint,” carbon trading and carbon taxes, the growth of CO2 emissions and atmospheric concentrations have not just been unceasing, they have been accelerating in what scientists have dubbed the “Keeling Curve.” In the early 1960s, CO2 ppm concentrations in the atmosphere grew by 0.7ppm per year. In recent decades, especially as China has industrialized, the growth rate has tripled to 2.1 ppm per year. In just the first 17 weeks of 2013, CO2 levels jumped by 2.74 ppm compared to last year. Carbon concentrations have not been this high since the Pliocene period, between 3m and 5m years ago, when global average temperatures were 3˚C or 4˚C hotter than today, the Arctic was ice-free, sea levels were about 40m higher and jungles covered northern Canada; Florida, meanwhile, was under water along with other coastal locations we now call New York, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Sydney and many others. Crossing this threshold has fuelled fears that we are fast approaching converging “tipping points” — melting of the subarctic tundra or the thawing and releasing of the vast quantities of methane in the Arctic sea bottom — that will accelerate global warming beyond any human capacity to stop it. “I wish it weren’t true, but it looks like the world is going to blow through the 400 ppm level without losing a beat,” said Scripps Institute geochemist Ralph Keeling, son of Charles Keeling. “At this pace, we’ll hit 450 ppm within a few decades.” “It feels like the inevitable march toward disaster,” said Maureen E. Raymo, a scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a unit of Columbia University. Why are we marching toward disaster, “sleepwalking to extinction” as the Guardian’s George Monbiot once put it? Why can’t we slam on the brakes before we ride off the cliff to collapse? I’m going to argue here that the problem is rooted in the requirement of capitalist production. Large corporations can’t help themselves; they can’t change or change very much. So long as we live under this corporate capitalist system we have little choice but to go along in this destruction, to keep pouring on the gas instead of slamming on the brakes, and that the only alternative — impossible as this may seem right now — is to overthrow this global economic system and all of the governments of the 1 that prop it up and replace them with a global economic democracy, a radical bottom-up political democracy, an eco-socialist civilization. Although we are fast approaching the precipice of ecological collapse, the means to derail this train wreck are in the making as, around the world we are witnessing a near simultaneous global mass democratic “awakening” — as the Brazilians call it — from Tahir Square to Zucotti Park, from Athens to Istanbul to Beijing and beyond such as the world has never seen. To be sure, like Occupy Wall Street, these movements are still inchoate, are still mainly protesting what’s wrong rather than fighting for an alternative social order. Like Occupy, they have yet to clearly and robustly answer that crucial question: “Don’t like capitalism, what’s your alternative?” Yet they are working on it, and they are for the most part instinctively and radically democratic; in this lies our hope. Capitalism is, overwhelmingly, the main driver of planetary ecological collapse From climate change to natural resource overconsumption to pollution, the engine that has powered three centuries of accelerating economic development, revolutionizing technology, science, culture and human life itself is, today, a roaring out-of-control locomotive mowing down continents of forests, sweeping oceans of life, clawing out mountains of minerals, pumping out lakes of fuels, devouring the planet’s last accessible natural resources to turn them into “product,” while destroying fragile global ecologies built up over eons of time. Between 1950 and 2000 the global human population more than doubled from 2.5 to 6 billion. But in these same decades, consumption of major natural resources soared more than sixfold on average, some much more. Natural gas consumption grew nearly twelvefold, bauxite (aluminum ore) fifteenfold. And so on. At current rates, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson says that “half the world’s great forests have already been leveled and half the world’s plant and animal species may be gone by the end of this century.” Corporations aren’t necessarily evil, though plenty are diabolically evil, but they can’t help themselves. They’re just doing what they’re supposed to do for the benefit of their shareholders. Shell Oil can’t help but loot Nigeria and the Arctic and cook the climate. That’s what shareholders demand. BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and other mining giants can’t resist mining Australia’s abundant coal and exporting it to China and India. Mining accounts for 19 of Australia’s GDP and substantial employment even as coal combustion is the single worst driver of global warming. IKEA can’t help but level the forests of Siberia and Malaysia to feed the Chinese mills building their flimsy disposable furniture (IKEA is the third largest consumer of lumber in the world). Apple can’t help it if the cost of extracting the “rare earths” it needs to make millions of new iThings each year is the destruction of the eastern Congo — violence, rape, slavery, forced induction of child soldiers, along with poisoning local waterways. Monsanto and DuPont and Syngenta and Bayer Crop Science have no choice but to wipe out bees, butterflies, birds, small farmers and extinguish crop diversity to secure their grip on the world’s food supply while drenching the planet in their Roundups and Atrazines and neonicotinoids. This is how giant corporations are wiping out life on earth in the course of a routine business day. And the bigger the corporations grow, the worse the problems become. In Adam Smith’s day, when the first factories and mills produced hat pins and iron tools and rolls of cloth by the thousands, capitalist freedom to make whatever they wanted didn’t much matter because they didn’t have much impact on the global environment. But today, when everything is produced in the millions and billions, then trashed today and reproduced all over again tomorrow, when the planet is looted and polluted to support all this frantic and senseless growth, it matters — a lot. The world’s climate scientists tell us we’re facing a planetary emergency. They’ve have been telling us since the 1990s that if we don’t cut global fossil fuel greenhouse gas emissions by 80-90 below 1990 levels by 2050 we will cross critical tipping points and global warming will accelerate beyond any human power to contain it. Yet despite all the ringing alarm bells, no corporation and no government can oppose growth and, instead, every capitalist government in the world is putting pedal to the metal to accelerate growth, to drive us full throttle off the cliff to collapse. Marxists have never had a better argument against capitalism than this inescapable and apocalyptic “contradiction.” Solutions to the ecological crisis are blindingly obvious but we can’t take the necessary steps to prevent ecological collapse because, so long as we live under capitalism, economic growth has to take priority over ecological concerns. We all know what we have to do: suppress greenhouse gas emissions. Stop over-consuming natural resources. Stop the senseless pollution of the earth, waters, and atmosphere with toxic chemicals. Stop producing waste that can’t be recycled by nature. Stop the destruction of biological diversity and ensure the rights of other species to flourish. We don’t need any new technological breakthroughs to solve these problems. Mostly, we just stop doing what we’re doing. But we can’t stop because we’re all locked into an economic system in which companies have to grow to compete and reward their shareholders and because we all need the jobs. James Hansen, the world’s preeminent climate scientist, has argued that to save the humans: “Coal emissions must be phased out as rapidly as possible or global climate disasters will be a dead certainty ... Yes, coal, oil, gas most of the fossil fuels must be left in the ground. That is the explicit message that the science provides. … Humanity treads today on a slippery slope. As we continue to pump greenhouse gases in the air, we move onto a steeper, even more slippery incline. We seem oblivious to the danger — unaware of how close we may be to a situation in which a catastrophic slip becomes practically unavoidable, a slip where we suddenly lose all control and are pulled into a torrential stream that hurls us over a precipice to our demise.” But how can we do this under capitalism? After his climate negotiators stonewalled calls for binding limits on CO2 emissions at Copenhagen, Cancun, Cape Town and Doha, President Obama is now trying to salvage his environmental “legacy” by ordering his EPA to impose “tough” new emissions limits on existing power plants, especially coal-fired plants. But this won’t salvage his legacy or, more importantly, his daughters’ futures because how much difference would it make, really, if every coal-fired power plant in the U.S. shut down tomorrow when U.S. coal producers are free to export their coal to China, which they are doing, and when China is building another coal-fired power plan every week? The atmosphere doesn’t care where the coal is burned. It only cares how much is burned. Yet how could Obama tell American mining companies to stop mining coal? This would be tantamount to socialism. But if we do not stop mining and burning coal, capitalist freedom and private property is the least we’ll have to worry about. Same with Obama’s “tough” new fuel economy standards. In August 2012 Obama boasted that his new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards would “double fuel efficiency” over the next 13 years to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, up from 28.6 mpg at present — cutting vehicle CO2 emissions in half, so helping enormously to “save the planet.” But as the Center for Biological Diversity and other critics have noted, Obama was lying, as usual. First, his so-called “tough” new CAFE standards were so full of loopholes, negotiated with Detroit, that they actually encourage more gas-guzzling, not less. That’s because the standards are based on a sliding scale according to “vehicle footprints” — the bigger the car, the less mileage it has to get to meet its “standard.” So in fact Obama’s “tough” standards are (surprise) custom designed to promote what Detroit does best — produce giant Sequoias, mountainous Denalis, Sierras, Yukons, Tundras and Ticonderogas, Ram Chargers and Ford F series luxury trucks, grossly obese Cadillac Escalades, soccer-kid Suburbans, even 8,000 (!) pound Ford Excursions — and let these gross gas hogs meet the “fleet standard.” These cars and “light” trucks are among the biggest selling vehicles in America today (GM’s Sierra is #1) and they get worse gas mileage than American cars and trucks half a century ago. Cadillac’s current Escalade gets worse mileage than its chrome bedecked tail fin-festooned land yachts of the mid-1950s! Little wonder Detroit applauded Obama’s new CAFE standards instead of damning them as usual. Secondly, what would it matter even if Obama’s new CAFE standards actually did double fleet mileage — when American and global vehicle fleets are growing exponentially? In 1950 Americans had one car for every three people. Today we have 1.2 cars for every American. In 1950 when there were about 2.6 billion humans on the planet, there were 53 million cars on the world’s roads — about one for every 50 persons. Today, there are 7 billion people but more than 1 billion cars and industry forecasters expect there will be 2 to 2.5 billion cars on the world’s roads by mid-century. China alone is expected to have a billion. So, at the end of the day, incremental half measures like CAFE standards can’t stop rising GHG missions. Barring some technical miracle, the only way to cut vehicle emissions is to just stop making them — drastically suppress vehicle production, especially of the worst gas hogs. In theory, Obama could simply order GM to stop building its humongous gas guzzlers and switch to producing small economy cars. After all, the federal government owns the company! But of course, how could he do any such thing? Detroit lives by the mantra “big car big profit, small car small profit.” Since Detroit has never been able to compete against the Japanese and Germans in the small car market, which is already glutted and nearly profitless everywhere, such an order would only doom GM to failure, if not bankruptcy (again) and throw masses of workers onto the unemployment lines. So given capitalism, Obama is, in fact, powerless. He’s locked in to promoting the endless growth of vehicle production, even of the worst polluters — and lying about it all to the public to try to patch up his pathetic “legacy.” And yet, if we don’t suppress vehicle production, how can we stop rising CO2 emissions? In the wake of the failure of climate negotiators from Kyoto to Doha to agree on binding limits on GHG emissions, exasperated British climate scientists Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows at the Tyndall Centre, Britain’s leading climate change research center, wrote in September 2012 that we need an entirely new paradigm: Government policies must “radically change” if “dangerous” climate change is to be avoided “We urgently need to acknowledge that the development needs of many countries leave the rich western nations with little choice but to immediately and severely curb their greenhouse gas emissions... The misguided belief that commitments to avoid warming of 2˚C can still be realized with incremental adjustments to economic incentives. A carbon tax here, a little emissions trading there and the odd voluntary agreement thrown in for good measure will not be sufficient ... long-term end-point targets (for example, 80 by 2050) have no scientific basis. What governs future global temperatures and other adverse climate impacts are the emissions from yesterday, today and those released in the next few years.” And not just scientists. In its latest world energy forecast released on November 12, 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warns that despite the bonanza of fossil fuels now made possible by fracking, horizontal and deepwater drilling, we can’t consume them if we want to save the humans: “The climate goal of limiting global warming to 2˚C is becoming more difficult and costly with each year that passes... no more than one-third of proven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the 2˚C goal...” Of course the science could be wrong about this. But so far climate scientists have consistently underestimated the speed and ferocity of global warming, and even prominent climate change deniers have folded their cards. Still, it’s one thing for James Hansen or Bill McKibben to say we need to “leave the coal in the hole, the oil in the soil, the gas under the grass,” to call for “severe curbs” in GHG emissions — in the abstract. But think about what this means in our capitalist economy. Most of us, even passionate environmental activists, don’t really want to face up to the economic implications of the science we defend. That’s why, if you listen to environmentalists like Bill McKibben for example, you will get the impression that global warming is mainly driven by fossi- fuel-powered electric power plants, so if we just “switch to renewables” this will solve the main problem and we can carry on with life more or less as we do now. Indeed, “green capitalism” enthusiasts like Thomas Friedman and the union-backed “green jobs” lobby look to renewable energy, electric cars and such as “the next great engine of industrial growth” — the perfect win-win solution. This is a not a solution. This is a delusion: greenhouse gasses are produced across the economy not just by power plants. Globally, fossil-fuel-powered electricity generation accounts for 17 of GHG emissions, heating accounts for 5, miscellaneous “other” fuel combustion 8.6, industry 14.7, industrial processes another 4.3, transportation 14.3, agriculture 13.6, land use changes (mainly deforestation) 12.2. This means, for a start, that even if we immediately replaced every fossil-fuel-powered electric generating plant on the planet with 100 renewable solar, wind and water power, this would only reduce global GHG emissions by around 17. What this means is that, far from launching a new green-energy-powered “industrial growth” boom, barring some tech-fix miracle, the only way to impose “immediate and severe curbs” on fossil fuel production/consumption would be to impose an EMERGENCY CONTRACTION in the industrialized countries: drastically retrench and in some cases shut down industries, even entire sectors, across the economy and around the planet — not just fossil fuel producers but all the industries that consume them and produce GHG emissions — autos, trucking, aircraft, airlines, shipping and cruise lines, construction, chemicals, plastics, synthetic fabrics, cosmetics, synthetic fiber and fabrics, synthetic fertilizer and agribusiness CAFO operations. Of course, no one wants to hear this because, given capitalism, this would unavoidably mean mass bankruptcies, global economic collapse, depression and mass unemployment around the world. That’s why in April 2013, in laying the political groundwork for his approval of the XL pipeline in some form, President Obama said “the politics of this are tough.” The earth’s temperature probably isn’t the “number one concern” for workers who haven’t seen a raise in a decade; have an underwater mortgage; are spending $40 to fill their gas tank, can’t afford a hybrid car; and face other challenges.” Obama wants to save the planet but given capitalism his “number one concern” has to be growing the economy, growing jobs. Given capitalism — today, tomorrow, next year and every year — economic growth will always be the overriding priority ... till we barrel right off the cliff to collapse.
26 +Warming is a process of strategic refusal – wealthy countries refuse to acknowledge their complicity, resulting in large scale structural violence. Nelson 16
27 +Sara Nelson doctoral candidate in the Department of Geography, Environment, and Society at the University of Minnesota, researches conservation and environmental management, 2-17-16, "The Slow Violence of Climate Change," Jacobin Magazine, https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/02/cop-21-united-nations-paris-climate-change/
28 +The Paris Agreement, achieved December 12 at the twenty-first Conference of the Parties to the United National Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC COP21), has been heralded as a “turning point for humanity” and “a new type of international cooperation.” In his remarks to the General Assembly following the close of COP21, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called it “a triumph for people, the planet, and multilateralism.” More critical voices have pointed to the “wrinkles” that mar the agreement, while influential climate scientist James Hanson has dismissed it as “just worthless words.” Most commentary falls in a middle ground, viewing the agreement as an important, if faltering,step in the right direction: even if we’re not entirely happy with what has been achieved, that something was achieved at all signals a “political will” for change. But the drama and significance of the COP as an event isn’t primarily about the emergence of an agreement. The history of international climate negotiations — with the exception of the spectacular failure at Copenhagen — boasts a long line of Outcomes, Accords, and even Protocols. Throughout, emissions have continued not only unabated, but at an accelerated pace. Bolivian president Evo Morales remarked on this uncomfortable truth at last year’s COP20 in Lima, when he admonished delegates for having little to show for over two decades of climate change negotiations other than “a heavy load of hypocrisy and neocolonialism.” The COP as an event, then, does not simply represent the failure to contend with the ongoing catastrophe of climate change. Its very process perpetrates what Rob Nixon calls the “slow violence” of climate change. Nixon uses this term to describe how contemporary imperialism transfers its toxic byproducts to peoples and ecosystems at the peripheries of the global economy, challenging us to recognize imperial violence in the cumulative, attritional, and mundane forms of death and disease that do not resolve into moments of spectacular destruction. Climate change, for Nixon, is the ultimate expression of slow violence, a “temporal and geographical outsourcing” of environmental devastation to the most vulnerable populations and to future generations, a “discounting” of lives and livelihoods that cannot prove their worth in economic terms. But if climate change is “slow violence” in terms of its cumulative effects, it is equally slow in its execution — and nothing illustrates this quite so effectively as the trudging pace of international negotiations. Geopolitical power operates here in decidedly non-spectacular ways, through the procedural minutiae of negotiations over subtleties of wording. The drama of urgency around the production of an outcome distracts from the reality of negotiations as a long process of strategic refusal, whereby wealthy countries deny their historical responsibility for global emissions and thereby lock in catastrophic climate trajectories. Rather than heralding the success of an agreement or rejecting it outright as a failure, we should attend to the COP as an instance of slow violence in action.
29 +2nd Impact: nuclear power externalizes costs onto developing countries and poor individuals through uranium mining. This is structural violence of the worst kind. Maciejwska and Marsazalek 2
30 +Malgorzata Maciejwska institute of Sociology and Faculty of Social Sciences at Wroclaw University and Marcin Marszalek Sociologist, Wroclaw University, Sept. 2011, " Lack of power or lack of democracy: the case of the projected nuclear power plant in Poland " Economic and Environmental Studies Vol. 11, No.3 (19/2011), http://www.ees.uni.opole.pl/content/03_11/ees_11_3_fulltext_02.pdf.
31 +The mainstream discourse produced by government experts and reproduced in the media overlooks the phenomena and voices which could undermine the pro-atomic agenda, especially in the context of the nuclear power plant costs calculations and technology design. In social science this mechanism is called ‘the externalization of costs’, which means that certain aspects and outcomes of atomic energy manufacturing become invisible to the public opinion. The concept also indicates that the heaviest burden and the risks of constructing the nuclear power plant are put on the shoulders of the society, namely on low-income households and small local communities which live near the reactors. Yet, there are multiple sources of information which show the alternative estimations the costs of nuclear energy and its consequences, in particular for people and nature. This section will focus on the analysis of how the externalization of nuclear costs works in practice. The main goal is not to investigate the technological details of power plant architecture but to look into the global chain of nuclear industry and its social and environmental effect on local communities. As one can read on the Institute of Atomic Energy POLATOM website, in the Frequent Asked Questions folder there is a recurrent thesis on the ‘political stability’ of the uranium suppliers, unfortunately without the explanation what this actually means (2011). But when combined with the general logic of costs calculation given by POLATOM and characterized as the one of financial nature, the ‘political stability’ might be interpreted in terms of supply reliability and low costs (or lack of strong price fluctuations) of uranium extraction (2011). The reflection on how the uranium mines work and what are the labor and living conditions in the extraction area is again taken out of the picture. The example of Niger in Africa3 , a country that is one of the biggest uranium suppliers, illustrates how cost externalization functions. Niger, a post-colonial French territory, has been exploited by France since the early 1970s, and uranium accounts for about 70 of the national export. Despite the very profitable uranium business (which is frequently emphasized by proatomic lobby experts) Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world. 3 The information and data on this issue were provided by Issa Aboubacar, member of Reseau National Dette et Developpement from Niger. LACK OF POWER OR LACK OF DEMOCRACY: THE CASE OF THE PROJECTED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN POLAND 243 One of the major investors in uranium extraction is a French corporation AREVA. The company is also one of the most important players in Polish development plans as the future uranium supplier and power plant producer. The plan of nuclear reactor construction will drag Poland into the global chain of atomic production (a fact that is being kept in silence), and therefore Poland will be jointly responsible for the company’s interests and efficiency, as well as jointly responsible for the externalization of nuclear costs. The two biggest mines situated in the north of Niger are operated by Compagnie Minière d’Akouta (COMINAK) and Société des Mines de l’aïr (SOMAIR). Both operators are owned by international energy companies, mainly AREVA. The government of Niger owns only 31 of the shares in the first mine and 36 in second one. The only beneficiaries are state authorities in the capital, Niamey, situated in the southern part of the country, far from the mines. In contrast to Polish and French citizens, Niger citizens are deprived of the basic rights to social security and welfare: there is limited access to drinking water, food and electricity, there is no developed health care system or welfare. The unequal power relations are most visible in the economic field. France supplies its own electro-energetic grid mainly with nuclear power plants which are fuelled by Niger’s uranium. French profits are incomparable to the ones Niger’s citizens have been obtaining form their country’s natural resources. Paradoxically, it would seem that France is dependent on African uranium but post-colonial history shows the reverse power relation. In 1961 France and Niger signed the convention under which France secured the right to mine Niger’s uranium deposits. By the year 2006, France had exploited 100,000 tons of uranium, which – at an average price of 25,000 CFA (38 EUR) per kilogram of uranium – had brought gains in the amount of 2.5 trillion CFA (3.8 billion EUR). In 2007 the mines operators SOMAIR/COMINAK published data which confirmed the level of French exploitation in Niger: since 1971 Niger had gained a profit of 283 million CFA (431,000 EUR). Before the year 1973 the uranium extraction had barely brought any profits to the country (the estimated amount oscillates between 1.3 and 1.7 billion CFA, that is, about 2 – 2.6 million EUR). Hamani Diori, the first president since Niger gained independence in August 1960, wanted to claim back Niger’s shares in the uranium mines and started the struggle with French authorities. As a consequence, the French government overthrew Diori’s administration and helped a military junta to come to power. At the time when the junta was ruling the country, Małgorzata MACIEJEWSKA, Marcin MARSZAŁEK 244 the profits from uranium extraction increased to 24 billion CFA (36 million EUR). This was not related to the growth in shares but was a result of increasing uranium prices on global markets. After several years the prices of uranium dropped, which lead in 1980 to a deep crisis and indebtedness of the country. Since that time, the extraction of uranium has not brought real income to the state. The ambitious program for investments in the infrastructure which had begun in the late 1970s was left off, and the country introduced the policy of indebtedness in the private banks. Meanwhile, the austerity measures introduced, badly affected the standards of living in Niger. The state resigned from its responsibility to care for its citizens and cut the expenditures for the social security system. In 2002, the uranium business brought a profit of 5.39 billion CFA (8.2 million EUR), which made up only 3.35 Niger’s budget revenue. In fact, the mining business does not lead to an increase of Niger’s Gross Domestic Product because it does not bring growing or even stable profits. Since 1980 the number of workers employed in the mines dropped from 3000 to 1600 in 2010. The operating companies have started to hire workers on fixed or temporary contracts and to outsource to subcontractors who provide a cheap labor force, which has had a negative impact on the miners’ salaries. In other words, ‘political stability’ does not translate into economic stability. For a long time AREVA had exclusive rights to conduct the research on the level of radiation around the mining areas. The company was frequently sued for lowering the radiations measures. Recent independent research indicates that the level of radiation around the mining areas exceeds the norms of radiation rates which are safe for human life (Dixon, 2010). It is argued that the uranium extraction has been causing huge environmental damage and have been strongly influencing the quality of life. AREVA’s ex-workers have accused the company for neglecting the danger of radiation and not informing the society about the risks local residents and workers have been facing, as well as for not taking action to improve the environmental and human health protection. The workers do not wear special clothing which would protect them from radioactive dust present in the air and diffusing far beyond the mining areas. Until the 1980s, the workers were practically not informed about the radiation level. Today it is known that the workers’ settlements near the mines are contaminated. The other environmental risk is the contamination of water and LACK OF POWER OR LACK OF DEMOCRACY: THE CASE OF THE PROJECTED NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN POLAND 245 decreasing water supplies. The mines use massive amounts of water during the processing of uranium ore, thus clean drinking water for people and nature is becoming a scarce commodity. New uranium mines are being established in Niger, and there are plans to build more. Local communities cannot expect that the present and new companies will act on their behalf and for the good of the nature to protect the society and the ecosystem, for otherwise the uranium extraction could become unprofitable. That kind of neocolonial relation seems to be a widespread practice of the international corporations in the mining industry. The exploitation of people and nature, the transfer of the hidden costs onto their shoulders deepens the developmental and economic gap between the Global North and Global South. The fragile political and economic position and the indebtedness of developing countries results from the arrangements of global chains of production, trading and international policies mainly posed by rich and developed countries.
32 +UV:
33 +Using the state is key. Alexander 16
34 +Samuel Alexander, 2016, " WILD DEMOCRACY A biodiversity of resistance and renewal”, Simplicity Institute http://simplicityinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/WildDemocracySamuel-Alexander.pdf
35 +In this paper I am defining eco-socialism in terms of state-instituted eco-socialism. It is important to acknowledge however that most anarchists are ‘socialists’ too, in the sense that they believe the most important means of production should be under ‘social control’ (primarily if not exclusively) rather than be held as private property. So the distinction between eco-socialist and eco-anarchism in this paper is primarily for the purpose of highlighting differing views on the role the state should play in the transition beyond capitalism. 12 living that do not accord with anarchist values, leaving activists with little time, energy, or capacity to engage in acts of resistance and renewal. Change the structures, however, in line with an eco-socialist agenda, and new ways of living and being may emerge or be possible. New eco-socialist structures may even permit anarchism to flourish. The urgency with which change needs to occur is another strength of the eco-socialist position. Even if it would be more desirable for grassroots movements to progressively ‘build the new world within the shell of the old’, a case can be made that the depth and urgency of the transition needed requires centralised state action. Establishing things like new public transport networks or bike lanes, or new energy systems, or new banking, monetary, or property systems, while conceivably achieved in a developed anarchist society, are arguably more readily achievable in the short term via state policy. Similarly, in a crisis or collapse situation – far from being an unrealistic scenario – it could also be the case that the state is needed simply to maintain and administer the most basic social services and infrastructure (e.g. electricity, water, hospitals, food rationing etc). What Brendan Gleeson calls a ‘Guardian State’ 25 may be required in such times to avoid complete societal breakdown and the suffering that economic or ecosystemic collapse would bring. Such a crisis could also be a (tragic) opportunity to re-draw the contours of the economy, informed by eco-socialist values. Obviously, it would be better to plan and design such an economy in advance of collapse, but in cynical moods one can easily think that the conditions of instability needed for genuine change will not come about until the crises of capitalism deepen and intensify further. Of course, what is produced in the wake of such deep instability can take any number of forms – the challenge being to make the best of it, and above all to protect democracy. There are also global structures – such as international trade agreements – which could be influenced more coherently via an eco-socialist government than via the strategies of eco-anarchism. For example, the Transpacific Partnership agreement, currently being negotiated, is threatening
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-18 14:24:24.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nigel Ward
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Holy Cross TL
ParentRound
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +4
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Team
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +West Nelson Aff
Title
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill R6 1AC
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[4]
Cites
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-09-18 14:24:22.0
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Nigel Ward
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Holy Cross TL
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +6
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Greenhill
Caselist.RoundClass[5]
EntryDate
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2016-10-28 20:13:18.446
Judge
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Ryan Fink
Opponent
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Immaculate MC
Round
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +2
Tournament
... ... @@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
1 +Meadows

Schools

Aberdeen Central (SD)
Acton-Boxborough (MA)
Albany (CA)
Albuquerque Academy (NM)
Alief Taylor (TX)
American Heritage Boca Delray (FL)
American Heritage Plantation (FL)
Anderson (TX)
Annie Wright (WA)
Apple Valley (MN)
Appleton East (WI)
Arbor View (NV)
Arcadia (CA)
Archbishop Mitty (CA)
Ardrey Kell (NC)
Ashland (OR)
Athens (TX)
Bainbridge (WA)
Bakersfield (CA)
Barbers Hill (TX)
Barrington (IL)
BASIS Mesa (AZ)
BASIS Scottsdale (AZ)
BASIS Silicon (CA)
Beckman (CA)
Bellarmine (CA)
Benjamin Franklin (LA)
Benjamin N Cardozo (NY)
Bentonville (AR)
Bergen County (NJ)
Bettendorf (IA)
Bingham (UT)
Blue Valley Southwest (KS)
Brentwood (CA)
Brentwood Middle (CA)
Bridgewater-Raritan (NJ)
Bronx Science (NY)
Brophy College Prep (AZ)
Brown (KY)
Byram Hills (NY)
Byron Nelson (TX)
Cabot (AR)
Calhoun Homeschool (TX)
Cambridge Rindge (MA)
Canyon Crest (CA)
Canyon Springs (NV)
Cape Fear Academy (NC)
Carmel Valley Independent (CA)
Carpe Diem (NJ)
Cedar Park (TX)
Cedar Ridge (TX)
Centennial (ID)
Centennial (TX)
Center For Talented Youth (MD)
Cerritos (CA)
Chaminade (CA)
Chandler (AZ)
Chandler Prep (AZ)
Chaparral (AZ)
Charles E Smith (MD)
Cherokee (OK)
Christ Episcopal (LA)
Christopher Columbus (FL)
Cinco Ranch (TX)
Citrus Valley (CA)
Claremont (CA)
Clark (NV)
Clark (TX)
Clear Brook (TX)
Clements (TX)
Clovis North (CA)
College Prep (CA)
Collegiate (NY)
Colleyville Heritage (TX)
Concord Carlisle (MA)
Concordia Lutheran (TX)
Connally (TX)
Coral Glades (FL)
Coral Science (NV)
Coral Springs (FL)
Coppell (TX)
Copper Hills (UT)
Corona Del Sol (AZ)
Crandall (TX)
Crossroads (CA)
Cupertino (CA)
Cy-Fair (TX)
Cypress Bay (FL)
Cypress Falls (TX)
Cypress Lakes (TX)
Cypress Ridge (TX)
Cypress Springs (TX)
Cypress Woods (TX)
Dallastown (PA)
Davis (CA)
Delbarton (NJ)
Derby (KS)
Des Moines Roosevelt (IA)
Desert Vista (AZ)
Diamond Bar (CA)
Dobson (AZ)
Dougherty Valley (CA)
Dowling Catholic (IA)
Dripping Springs (TX)
Dulles (TX)
duPont Manual (KY)
Dwyer (FL)
Eagle (ID)
Eastside Catholic (WA)
Edgemont (NY)
Edina (MN)
Edmond North (OK)
Edmond Santa Fe (OK)
El Cerrito (CA)
Elkins (TX)
Enloe (NC)
Episcopal (TX)
Evanston (IL)
Evergreen Valley (CA)
Ferris (TX)
Flintridge Sacred Heart (CA)
Flower Mound (TX)
Fordham Prep (NY)
Fort Lauderdale (FL)
Fort Walton Beach (FL)
Freehold Township (NJ)
Fremont (NE)
Frontier (MO)
Gabrielino (CA)
Garland (TX)
George Ranch (TX)
Georgetown Day (DC)
Gig Harbor (WA)
Gilmour (OH)
Glenbrook South (IL)
Gonzaga Prep (WA)
Grand Junction (CO)
Grapevine (TX)
Green Valley (NV)
Greenhill (TX)
Guyer (TX)
Hamilton (AZ)
Hamilton (MT)
Harker (CA)
Harmony (TX)
Harrison (NY)
Harvard Westlake (CA)
Hawken (OH)
Head Royce (CA)
Hebron (TX)
Heights (MD)
Hendrick Hudson (NY)
Henry Grady (GA)
Highland (UT)
Highland (ID)
Hockaday (TX)
Holy Cross (LA)
Homewood Flossmoor (IL)
Hopkins (MN)
Houston Homeschool (TX)
Hunter College (NY)
Hutchinson (KS)
Immaculate Heart (CA)
Independent (All)
Interlake (WA)
Isidore Newman (LA)
Jack C Hays (TX)
James Bowie (TX)
Jefferson City (MO)
Jersey Village (TX)
John Marshall (CA)
Juan Diego (UT)
Jupiter (FL)
Kapaun Mount Carmel (KS)
Kamiak (WA)
Katy Taylor (TX)
Keller (TX)
Kempner (TX)
Kent Denver (CO)
King (FL)
Kingwood (TX)
Kinkaid (TX)
Klein (TX)
Klein Oak (TX)
Kudos College (CA)
La Canada (CA)
La Costa Canyon (CA)
La Jolla (CA)
La Reina (CA)
Lafayette (MO)
Lake Highland (FL)
Lake Travis (TX)
Lakeville North (MN)
Lakeville South (MN)
Lamar (TX)
LAMP (AL)
Law Magnet (TX)
Langham Creek (TX)
Lansing (KS)
LaSalle College (PA)
Lawrence Free State (KS)
Layton (UT)
Leland (CA)
Leucadia Independent (CA)
Lexington (MA)
Liberty Christian (TX)
Lincoln (OR)
Lincoln (NE)
Lincoln East (NE)
Lindale (TX)
Livingston (NJ)
Logan (UT)
Lone Peak (UT)
Los Altos (CA)
Los Osos (CA)
Lovejoy (TX)
Loyola (CA)
Loyola Blakefield (MA)
Lynbrook (CA)
Maeser Prep (UT)
Mannford (OK)
Marcus (TX)
Marlborough (CA)
McClintock (AZ)
McDowell (PA)
McNeil (TX)
Meadows (NV)
Memorial (TX)
Millard North (NE)
Millard South (NE)
Millard West (NE)
Millburn (NJ)
Milpitas (CA)
Miramonte (CA)
Mission San Jose (CA)
Monsignor Kelly (TX)
Monta Vista (CA)
Montclair Kimberley (NJ)
Montgomery (TX)
Monticello (NY)
Montville Township (NJ)
Morris Hills (NJ)
Mountain Brook (AL)
Mountain Pointe (AZ)
Mountain View (CA)
Mountain View (AZ)
Murphy Middle (TX)
NCSSM (NC)
New Orleans Jesuit (LA)
New Trier (IL)
Newark Science (NJ)
Newburgh Free Academy (NY)
Newport (WA)
North Allegheny (PA)
North Crowley (TX)
North Hollywood (CA)
Northland Christian (TX)
Northwood (CA)
Notre Dame (CA)
Nueva (CA)
Oak Hall (FL)
Oakwood (CA)
Okoboji (IA)
Oxbridge (FL)
Oxford (CA)
Pacific Ridge (CA)
Palm Beach Gardens (FL)
Palo Alto Independent (CA)
Palos Verdes Peninsula (CA)
Park Crossing (AL)
Peak to Peak (CO)
Pembroke Pines (FL)
Pennsbury (PA)
Phillips Academy Andover (MA)
Phoenix Country Day (AZ)
Pine Crest (FL)
Pingry (NJ)
Pittsburgh Central Catholic (PA)
Plano East (TX)
Polytechnic (CA)
Presentation (CA)
Princeton (NJ)
Prosper (TX)
Quarry Lane (CA)
Raisbeck-Aviation (WA)
Rancho Bernardo (CA)
Randolph (NJ)
Reagan (TX)
Richardson (TX)
Ridge (NJ)
Ridge Point (TX)
Riverside (SC)
Robert Vela (TX)
Rosemount (MN)
Roseville (MN)
Round Rock (TX)
Rowland Hall (UT)
Royse City (TX)
Ruston (LA)
Sacred Heart (MA)
Sacred Heart (MS)
Sage Hill (CA)
Sage Ridge (NV)
Salado (TX)
Salpointe Catholic (AZ)
Sammamish (WA)
San Dieguito (CA)
San Marino (CA)
SandHoke (NC)
Santa Monica (CA)
Sarasota (FL)
Saratoga (CA)
Scarsdale (NY)
Servite (CA)
Seven Lakes (TX)
Shawnee Mission East (KS)
Shawnee Mission Northwest (KS)
Shawnee Mission South (KS)
Shawnee Mission West (KS)
Sky View (UT)
Skyline (UT)
Smithson Valley (TX)
Southlake Carroll (TX)
Sprague (OR)
St Agnes (TX)
St Andrews (MS)
St Francis (CA)
St James (AL)
St Johns (TX)
St Louis Park (MN)
St Margarets (CA)
St Marys Hall (TX)
St Thomas (MN)
St Thomas (TX)
Stephen F Austin (TX)
Stoneman Douglas (FL)
Stony Point (TX)
Strake Jesuit (TX)
Stratford (TX)
Stratford Independent (CA)
Stuyvesant (NY)
Success Academy (NY)
Sunnyslope (AZ)
Sunset (OR)
Syosset (NY)
Tahoma (WA)
Talley (AZ)
Texas Academy of Math and Science (TX)
Thomas Jefferson (VA)
Thompkins (TX)
Timber Creek (FL)
Timothy Christian (NJ)
Tom C Clark (TX)
Tompkins (TX)
Torrey Pines (CA)
Travis (TX)
Trinity (KY)
Trinity Prep (FL)
Trinity Valley (TX)
Truman (PA)
Turlock (CA)
Union (OK)
Unionville (PA)
University High (CA)
University School (OH)
University (FL)
Upper Arlington (OH)
Upper Dublin (PA)
Valley (IA)
Valor Christian (CO)
Vashon (WA)
Ventura (CA)
Veritas Prep (AZ)
Vestavia Hills (AL)
Vincentian (PA)
Walla Walla (WA)
Walt Whitman (MD)
Warren (TX)
Wenatchee (WA)
West (UT)
West Ranch (CA)
Westford (MA)
Westlake (TX)
Westview (OR)
Westwood (TX)
Whitefish Bay (WI)
Whitney (CA)
Wilson (DC)
Winston Churchill (TX)
Winter Springs (FL)
Woodlands (TX)
Woodlands College Park (TX)
Wren (SC)
Yucca Valley (CA)