Off

A. Framework - The affs reduction of public policy to neoliberal governmentality partitions reality, creating a divide between haves and have-nots that structures institutional reality thats a DA to both the aff and their FW and its zero-sum which means the perm doesnt solve Gunder & Hillier 9 (Michael, Senior planning Entanglement with Spatial Planning, pgs. 111-112)
The hegemonic network, or bloc, initially shapes the debates and draws appropriate policies of desired success, such as the needs of bohemians, knowledge clusters, or talented knowledge workers, as to what constitutes their desired enjoyment (cobblestones, chrome and cappuccinos at sidewalk cafes) and what is therefore lacking in local competitiveness. In turn, this defines what is blighted and dysfunctional and in need of economic, spatial planning, or other, remedy. Such an argument is predicated on a logic, or more accurately a rhetoric, that a lack of a particular defined type of enjoyment, or competitiveness (for surely they are one and the same) is inherently unhealthy for the aggregate social body. Lack and its resolution are general presented as technical, rather than political issues.
Consequently, technocrats in partnership with their dominant stakeholders can ensure the impression of rationally seeking to produce happiness for the many, whilst, of course, achieving their stakeholders specific interests (Gunder and Hiller 2007a. 469). The

current post-democratic milieu facilities the above through avoidance of critical policy debate challenging favored orthodox positions and policy approaches. Consideration of policy deficiencies, or alternative solutions, are eradicated from political debate so that while token institutions of liberal democracy are retained, conflicting positions and arguments are negated (Stavrakakis 2003, 59). Consequently, the safe names in the field who feed the policy orthodox are repeatedly used, or their work drawn upon by different stakeholders, while more critical voices are silenced by their inability to shape policy debates (Boland 2007, 1032.) The economic development or spatial planning policy analyst thus continues to partion reality ideologically by deploying only the orthodox successful or best practice economic development or spatial planning responses. This further maintains the dominant, or hegemonic status quo while providing a cover and shield against critical thought by acting in the manner of a buffer isolating the political field from any research that is independent and radical in its conception as in its implications for public policy (Wacquant 2004, 99). At the same time, adoption of the hegemonic orthodoxy tends to generate similar policy responses for every competing local area or city region, largely resulting in a zero-sum game (Blair and
Kumar 1997). In the race for global competitiveness, city-region authorities continue to prioritize-economic development and supporting spatial planning policies. They maintain the dominant status quo by appearing to increase the happiness of material wellbeing for all. The state, its local government and its governance structures, must be seen to be doing something to justify their existence. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, public amenity, actually

sector actions, which give the appearance of doing something to improve the local economy and the city-regions addresses the (primal) desire of most people in society for at least the illusion of a safe and assured happy future of security and prosperity. Even if practioners can only deliver this as a fantasy-scenario by providing
the potential of a limited material increase in happiness for some, even when this may not really be what is actually wanted, this type of response is more acceptable to politicians and the voting public than is the truth that to sate the wants and desires of everyone is an impossibility (Gunder 2003a, 2003b).

Partioning of reality causes extinctioncreates a background of violence that drives conflict and causes environmental collapse Szentes 8 Tams Szentes, a Professor Emeritus at the Corvinus University of Budapest. Globalisation
and prospects of the world society 4/22/08 http://www.eadi.org/fileadmin/Documents/Events/exco/Glob._prospects_-_jav..pdf
It s a common place that human society can survive and develop only in a lasting real peace. Without peace countries cannot develop. Although since 1945 there has been no world war, but --numerous local wars took place, --terrorism has spread all over the world, undermining security even in the most developed and powerful countries, --arms

race and militarisation have not

ended with the collapse of the Soviet bloc, but escalated and continued, extending also to weapons of mass destruction and misusing enormous resources badly needed for development, --many invisible wars are suffered by the poor and oppressed people, manifested in mass misery, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, starvation and malnutrition, epidemics and poor health conditions, exploitation and oppression, racial and other discrimination,
physical terror, organised injustice, disguised forms of violence, the denial or regular infringement of the democratic rights of citizens, women, youth, ethnic or religious minorities, etc., and last but not least, in the degradation of human environment, which means that --the war against Nature, i.e. the disturbance of ecological balance, wasteful management of natural resources, and large-scale pollution of our environment, is still going on, causing also losses and fatal dangers for human life. Behind global terrorism

invisible wars we find striking international and intrasociety inequities and distorted development patterns , which tend to generate social as well as international tensions , thus paving the way for unrest and visible wars. It is a commonplace now that peace is not merely the absence of war. The
and prerequisites of a lasting peace between and within societies involve not only - though, of course, necessarily - demilitarisation, but also a systematic and gradual elimination of the roots of violence, of the causes of invisible wars, of the structural and institutional bases of large-scale international and intra-society inequalities, exploitation and oppression. Peace requires a process of social and national emancipation, a progressive, democratic transformation of societies and the world bringing about equal rights and opportunities for all people, sovereign participation and mutually advantageous co-operation among nations. It further requires a pluralistic democracy on global level with an appropriate system of proportional representation of the world society, articulation of diverse interests and their peaceful reconciliation, by non-violent conflict management, and thus also a global governance with a really global institutional system.

peace is indivisible in both time and space. It cannot exist if reduced to a period only after or before war, and cannot be safeguarded in one part of the world when some others suffer visible or invisible wars. Thus, peace requires, indeed, a new,
Under the contemporary conditions of accelerating globalisation and deepening global interdependencies in our world, demilitarised and democratic world order, which can provide equal opportunities for sustainable development. Sustainability of development (both on national and world level) is often interpreted as an issue of environmental protection only and reduced to the need for preserving the ecological balance and delivering the next generations not a destroyed Nature with overexhausted resources and

no ecological balance can be ensured, unless the deep international development gap and intra-society inequalities are substantially reduced. Owing to global
polluted environment. However, interdependencies there may exist hardly any zero-sum-games, in which one can gain at the expense of others, but, instead, the negative-sum-games tend to predominate, in which everybody must suffer, later or sooner, directly or indirectly, losses. Therefore, the actual question is not about sustainability of development but rather about the sustainability of human life, i.e. survival of mankind because of ecological imbalance and globalised terrorism. When Professor Louk de la Rive Box was the president of EADI, one day we had an exchange of views on the state and future of development studies. We agreed that development studies are not any more restricted to the case of underdeveloped countries, as the developed ones (as well as the former socialist countries) are a lso facing development problems, such as those of structural and institutional (and even system-) transformation, requirements of changes in development patterns, and concerns about natural environment. While all these are true, today I would dare say that besides (or even instead of) development studies we must speak about and make survival studies. While the monetary, financial, and debt crises are cyclical, we live in an almost permanent crisis of the world society, which is multidimensional in nature, involving not only economic but

The narrow-minded, election-oriented, selfish behaviour motivated by thirst for power and wealth, which still characterise the political leadership almost all over the world, paves the way for the final, last catastrophe. One cannot doubt, of course, that great many positive historical changes
also socio-psychological, behavioural, cultural and political aspects. have also taken place in the world in the last century. Such as decolonisation, transformation of socio-economic systems, democratisation of political life in some former fascist or authoritarian states, institutionalisation of welfare policies in several countries, rise of international organisations and new forums for negotiations, conflict management and cooperation, institutionalisation of international assistance programmes by multilateral agencies, codification of human rights, and rights of sovereignty and democracy also on international level, collapse of the militarised Soviet bloc and system-change3 in the countries concerned, the end of cold war, etc., to mention only a few. Nevertheless, the crisis of the world society has extended and deepened, approaching to a point of bifurcation that necessarily puts an end to the present tendencies, either by the final catastrophe or a common solution. Under the circumstances

human society cannot survive unless such profound intra-society and international inequalities prevailing today are soon eliminated. Like a
provided by rapidly progressing science and technological revolutions, single spacecraft, the Earth can no longer afford to have a 'crew' divided into two parts: the rich, privileged, wellfed, well-educated, on the one hand, and the poor, deprived, starving, sick and uneducated, on the other. Dangerous 'zero-sum-games' (which mostly prove to be negative-sum-games) can hardly be played any more by visible or invisible wars in the world society. Because of global interdependencies, the apparent winner becomes also a loser. The real choice for the world society is between negative- and positivesum-games: i.e. between, on the one hand, continuation of visible and invisible wars, as long as this is possible at all, and, on the other, transformation of the world order by demilitarisation and democratization. No ideological or terminological camouflage can conceal this real dilemma any more, which is to be faced not in the distant future, by the next generations, but in the coming years, because of global terrorism soon having nuclear and other mass destructive weapons, and also due to irreversible changes in natural environment.

B. Uniqueness - The political winds in America are changing. A revolution is emerging. Reject this revolution at your peril. Farrell 10/4 marketwatch, the burning platform (A new Lost Decade is leading to revolution.
http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=22549 Unfortunately, the new one gets worse: Why? The coming Lost Decade is a backdrop for a wave of class warfare destined to trigger a historic revolution in American politics, bigger than the 29 Crash and Great Depression. Initially
inspired by the Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street is a virus spreading rapidly as Occupy Everything, a reform movement that will overshadow the GOP/Tea Party as the voice of the people, leading to an Occupy America. Investors, listen closely: First, well summarize five major signs of Americas new Lost Decade 2011-2021. Then, we summarize seven diverse examples of rebellions across the world adding fuel to Americas accelerating Occupy Wall Street revolution. Why is this crucial for investors? Because these

class wars are guaranteed to deepen Americas market and economic problems during the coming Lost Decade. So listen closely investors: 1. Decade of debt stagnation till 2021 Barrons Gene Epstein warns that Obamas latest is Too Little, Too Late. Even if the president gets everything he asked for in his new proposals, it wont reduce our growing public debt. And he wont get it all. So Americas debt will remain around 80% of GDP for a decade, levels not seen since the 1940s. Thats right, debt will remain dangerously high at least through 2021. And it wont matter who is president. Class warfare will accelerate this job-killing debt cycle. 2. Investors lose faith, bailing out Over at the Wall Street Journal Tom Lauricella warns Investors lose faith in stocks in a historic retreat, investors world-wide during the three months through August pulled some $92 billion out of stock funds in the developed markets, more than reversing the total put into those funds since stocks bottomed in 2009. Worse, theres a widening belief that the mess left behind by the housing bubble and financial crisis will be a morass to contend with for years. Yes, many years. 3. Fed surrenders, cannot fix economy In a Cleveland speech last week Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warned that with 45% of the unemployed out more than six months, long-term unemployment is now a national crisis the Fed cannot fix. Unheard of this has never happened in the post-war period. Theyre losing the skills they had, they are losing their connections, their attachment to the labor force. But a job-killing Congress wont act. 4. Wall Street still doesnt get it In a recent
Foreign Policy article, William Cohan, a former J. P. Morgan Chase managing director and author of Money and Power: How Goldman Sachs Came to Rule the World, warns

Wall Street not only learned nothing after the 2008 meltdown, theyre aggressively lobbying to kill all reforms that might break this dangerous cycle in which bankers and traders get
very rich while the rest of us suffer from their mistakes. Wall Street is deaf, blind and myopic, wants no limits on all manner of bets on the market, even at the risk of a U.S. recession. Only

a catastrophe will wake Wall Street. 5. Yes, Americas second Lost Decade just began In a Money interview, Are We the Next Japan? Nomura Research economist Richard Koo sees striking similarities between our current malaise and Japans Lost Decade. Their stimulus did work, but then the Japanese made a horrendous mistake in 1997. The IMF told Japan youre running a huge fiscal deficit with an aging population reduce your deficit. So Japan cut spending and raised taxes and the whole economy came crashing down. Sure sounds familiar. Wall Street protest spread. Inspired by the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York, some 100 people gathered Sunday outside the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago to protest inequities in the nations financial system . Warning: to Wall Street CEOs, the Super Rich, the top 1% who think they own our government the partys over. No matter who gets elected in 2012 and 2016, the new Lost Decade 2011-2021 will make life miserable for the president and Congress, as with Japan earlier. Worse, this Lost Decade will make life miserable for everybody: corporations, investors, consumers, workers, small
businesses and all our families, with the kind of economic suffering experienced in the painfully long Great Depression era. Yes, big shock dead ahead. The class wars like Arab Spring are accelerating across America. Occupy Wall Street is going viral, spreading through Occupy Together, expanding in dozens of cities across America and the world, growing bigger in commitment, in mission, in boldness a resistance movement waging war against our democracy-killing Super Rich. Next, expect many more class wars, regional rebellions, uprisings against the wealthy yes, this

is the second American Revolution.

C. Link - The aff acts to enclose energy within the market the wind, earth, and even the sun itself are transformed into commodities while agency is re-figured into the disciplinary framework of economic competition ensures a war of all against all

DeAngelis, 4
[Massimo DeAngelis, Reader in economics at the University of East London, Opposing fetishism by reclaiming our powers: The Social Forum movement, capitalist markets and the politics of alternatives, International Social Science Journal, 11/8/2004, Volume 56, Issue 182, Pages 591-604, http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/document/refinves.html]
There is not the space here to discuss the processes of market creation. Suffice to say that it is possible to theorise them in terms of enclosures (Caffentzis, 1995; De Angelis, 2004b). To put it simply, enclosures economic and political

refer to those strategies promoted by elites that commodify things. In general commodification is to turn resources that are held in common among communities, or exchanged as gifts among its members or across members of different communities, or
administrated and distributed by central institutions (Polanyi, 1944), into things that are bought and sold on the market, commodities. The things turned into commodities often represent important resources necessary for communities to reproduce their livelihoods, and their

enclosure represents at the same time the destruction of those communities and their increasing dependence on markets, which in todays context are increasingly linked to global commodity chains. The consolidation, development and deepening of capitalism in our lives heavily depends on enclosures. Indeed, as others and I have argued, enclosures are a continuous feature of the capitalist mode of production (Caffenzis, 1995; De Angelis, 2004b; Parelman, 2000) Today,
enclosures, the commodification of resources upon which people depend for their livelihoods, take many names. They may involve the dispossession of thousands of farming communities from land and water resources following international bank funding of dam construction, as in the case of the dam project in the Narmada valley in India or the Plan Puebla Panama in Latin America. Or they may take the form of cuts in social spending on hospitals, medicines, and schools, or, especially in countries in the south, cuts in food subsidies so as to have money to pay interest on a mounting international debt. In all these cases, cuts, dispossessions and austerity, namely enclosures, are imposed for the sake of efficiency, and rationalisation and global competitiveness. Enclosures are therefore any strategy that push people to depend on markets for their livelihood. Enclosures only create a context for market social interaction to occur. If

enclosures push people into increasing the degree of their dependence on markets for the reproduction of their livelihoods, then markets integrate their activities in a system that pits all against all. The increasing intensification of planetary interdependence brought about by global markets implies that any node of social production, at whatever scale whether an individual on the labour market, a company in a particular industry, a city and country in competition to attract capital and investments vis--vis other cities and countries faces an external force that forces it to adapt to certain standards of doing things, to adopt certain forms of social cooperation, in order to beat the competitor on
pain of threat to its livelihood. But beating the competitor is also, at the same time, threatening the livelihoods of other communities we are competing with, to the extent that they also depend on markets to reproduce their own livelihoods. The and markets

more we depend on money to satisfy our needs and follow our desires, the more we are exposed to a vicious circle of dependence that pits livelihoods against each other. Some of us win, and some of us lose, but in either case we are both involved in perpetrating the system that keeps us reproducing scarcity when in fact we could celebrate abundance. It must be noted that the competition that runs through the global social body is not similar to the competitive
games we play with friends. When I play table football with my friends I aim at winning. But whether I win or lose, I end up sharing food and laughter with my friends, whether they lose or win. Competition in this realm is innocuous; it is a practice that might strengthen communities playfulness instead of destroying it. But competition in the economy whether perfect or imperfect, whether real or merely simulated (the latter being increasingly the case in public services where, in the absence of markets, government agencies simulate their dynamics by setting new benchmarks) ultimately finds its very energy in its threat to livelihoods. It is a mode of social relation that is based on pitting livelihoods against each other. In so doing it continuously reproduces scarcity and community destruction. From the perspective of any node, this

mode of articulation across the social body is disciplinary because, borrowing from Foucaults (1975) analysis of Benthams Panopticon, or model prison, the market is also a mechanism in which norms are created through a social process that distributes rewards and punishments (see De Angelis, 2002). By norms of production I am here
referring to the variety of principles of allocation of resources and distribution associated with social human production, as well as ways of doing things, rhythms and forms of cooperation, that in capitalist markets are synthesised in prices. Norms of production (that is, ways of relating to one another) are answers to such fundamental questions as: what we shall produce, how we shall produce it, how much of it we shall produce, how long we should spend working to produce it, and who shall produce it all very concrete questions that define process and relational questions concerning the reproduction of our social body and the ways in which we relate to each other and to nature. These questions are not answered by people themselves taking charge of their lives and relations among themselves; thus, equally, the

norms of social production and of their relations to each other are not defined collectively. Instead they are defined by an abstract mechanism that we have created (actually, that states have created at sword- and gun-point: see Polanyi, 1944, and Marx, 1867, as classical accounts) and that we take as natural in the daily practices of our lives. It is the abstract process of
disciplinary markets that articulates the social body in such a way as to constitute social norms of production, rather than individual social

actors negotiating among themselves the norms of their free co-operation. In this market mechanism, individual

actors must respond to existing heteronomous norms imposed by the blind mechanism of the market by meeting or beating the market benchmark (or the simulated market benchmark imposed by neo-liberalisms state bodies), an activity which in turn affects the market norm itself. In this continuous feedback mechanism, livelihoods are pitted against each other . When
rewards and punishments are repeated in a system, norms are created. This is a process that the paladin of market freedom, Friedrich von Hayek, well understood, although he ignored the question of power and enclosure processes in explaining the emergence of capitalist markets. For Hayek, the abstract mechanism of the market is a spontaneously emerging system of freedom (De Angelis, 2002). Thus, if

another world is possible, the minimum condition is that we coordinate social action in a different way, one in which the norms of interaction among cooperators in social production are defined directly by them,
and not by a blind and abstract mechanism that pits livelihoods against each other.

D. Impact - Globalization makes extinction inevitable- social and environmental factors build positive feedbacks that create a cascade of destruction - only massive social reorganization of society can produce sustainable change and save the planet Ehrenfeld 5, (David, Dept. of Ecology, Evolution, and Natural Resources @ Rutgers University, The
Environmental Limits to Globalization, Conservation Biology Vol. 19 No. 2 April 2005) The known effects of globalization on the environment are numerous and highly significant. Many others are undoubtedly unknown. Given these circumstances, the first question that suggests itself is: Will globalization, as we see it now, remain a permanent state of affairs (Rees 2002; Ehrenfeld 2003a)? The principal environmental side effects of globalizationclimate change, resource exhaustion (particularly cheap energy), damage to agroecosystems, and the spread of exotic species, including pathogens (plant, animal, and human)are sufficient to make this economic system unstable and short-lived. The socioeconomic consequences of globalization are likely to do the same. In my book The Arrogance of Humanism (1981), I claimed that our ability to manage global systems, which depends on our being able to predict the results of the things we do, or even to understand the systems we have created, has been greatly exaggerated. Much of our alleged control is science fiction; it doesn't work because of theoretical limits that we ignore at our peril. We live in a dream world in which reality testing is something we
must never, never do, lest we awake. In 1984 Charles Perrow explored the reasons why we have trouble predicting what so many of our own created systems will do, and why they surprise us so unpleasantly while we think we are managing them. In his book Normal Accidents, which does not concern globalization, he listed the critical characteristics of some of today's

complex systems. They are highly interlinked, so a change in one part can affect many others, even those that seem quite distant. Results of some processes feed back on themselves in unexpected ways. The controls of the system often interact with each other unpredictably.
We have only indirect ways of finding out what is happening inside the system. And we have an incomplete understanding of some of the system's processes. His example of such a system is a nuclear power plant, and this, he explained, is why system-wide accidents in nuclear plants cannot be predicted or eliminated by system design. I would argue that globalization

is a similar system, also subject to catastrophic accidents, many of them environmentalevents that we cannot define until after they have occurred, and perhaps not even then. The comparatively few commentators who have predicted the collapse of globalization have generally given social reasons to support their arguments. These deserve some consideration here, if only because the environmental and social consequences of globalization interact so strongly with each other. In 1998, the British political economist
John Gray, giving scant attention to environmental factors, nevertheless came to the conclusion that globalization is unstable and will be shortlived. He said, There

is nothing in today's global market that buffers it against the social strains arising from highly uneven economic development within and between the world's diverse societies. The result, Gray states, is that The combination of [an] unceasing stream of new technologies, unfettered market competition and weak or fractured social institutions has weakened both sovereign states and multinational corporations in their ability to control important events. Note that Gray claims that not only nations but also
multinational corporations, which are widely touted as controlling the world, are being weakened by globalization. This idea may come as a surprise, considering the growth of multinationals in the past few decades, but I believe it is true. Neither

governments nor giant corporations are even remotely capable of controlling the environmental or social forces released by globalization, without first controlling globalization itself. Two of the social critics of globalization with the most dire predictions about its
doom are themselves masters of the process. The late Sir James Goldsmith, billionaire financier, wrote in 1994, It must surely be a mistake to

adopt an economic policy which makes you rich if you eliminate your national workforce and transfer production abroad, and which bankrupts you if you continue to employ your own people. It is the poor in the rich countries who will subsidize the rich in the poor countries. This will have a serious impact on the social cohesion of nations. Another free-trade billionaire, George Soros, said much the same thing in 1995: The collapse of the global marketplace would be a traumatic event with unimaginable consequences. Yet I find it easier to imagine than the continuation of the present regime. How much more powerful these statements are if we factor in the environment! As

globalization collapses, what will happen to people, biodiversity, and ecosystems? With respect to people, the gift of prophecy is not required to answer this question. What will happen depends on where you are and how you live. Many citizens of the Third World are still comparatively self-sufficient; an unknown number of these will survive the breakdown of globalization and its attendant chaos. In
the developed world, there are also people with resources of self-sufficiency and a growing understanding of the nature of our social and environmental problems, which may help them bridge the years of crisis. Some species are adaptable; some are not. For the nonhuman residents of Earth, not all news will be bad. Who would have predicted that wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo), one of the wiliest and most evasive of woodland birds, extinct in New Jersey 50 years ago, would now be found in every county of this the most densely populated state, and even, occasionally, in adjacent Manhattan? Who would have predicted that black bears (Ursus americanus), also virtually extinct in the state in the mid-twentieth century, would now number in the thousands (Ehrenfeld 2001)? Of course these recoveries are unusualrare bright spots in a darker landscape. Finally, a

few ecological systems may survive in a comparatively undamaged state; most will be stressed to the breaking point, directly or indirectly, by many environmental and social factors interacting unpredictably. Lady Luck, as always, will have much to say. In his book The Collapse of Complex Societies, the archaeologist Joseph Tainter (1988) notes that collapse, which has happened to all past empires, inevitably results in human systems of lower complexity and less specialization, less centralized control, lower economic activity, less information
flow, lower population levels, less trade, and less redistribution of resources. All of these changes are inimical to globalization. This lesscomplex, less-globalized condition is probably what human societies will be like when the dust settles. I do not think, however, that we can make such specific predictions about the ultimate state of the environment after globalization, because we anything like this

have never experienced exceptionally rapid, global environmental damage before. History and science have little to tell us in this situation. The end of the current economic system and the transition to a postglobalized state is and will be accompanied by a desperate last raid on resources and a chaotic flurry of environmental destruction
whose results cannot possibly be told in advance. All one can say is that the surviving species, ecosystems, and resources will be greatly impoverished compared with what we have now, and our descendants will not thank us for having adopted, however briefly, an economic system that consumed their inheritance and damaged their planet so wantonly. Environment is a true bottom lineconcern for its condition must

trump all purely economic growth strategies if both the developed and developing nations are to survive and prosper. Awareness of the environmental limits that globalized industrial society denies or ignores should
not, however, bring us to an extreme position of environmental determinism. Those whose preoccupations with modern civilization's very real social problems cause them to reject or minimize the environmental constraints discussed here (Hollander 2003) are guilty of seeing only half the picture. Environmental scientists sometimes fall into the same error. It

is tempting to see the salvation of civilization and environment solely in terms of technological improvements in efficiency of energy extraction and use, control of pollution, conservation of water, and regulation of environmentally harmful activities . But such needed developments will not be sufficientor may not even occurwithout corresponding social change, including an end to human population growth and the glorification of consumption, along with the elimination of economic mechanisms that increase the gap between rich and poor. The environmental and social problems inherent in globalization are completely interrelatedany attempt to treat them as separate entities is unlikely to succeed in easing the transition to a postglobalized world. Integrated change that combines environmental awareness, technological innovation, and an altered world view is the only answer to the life-threatening problems exacerbated by globalization (Ehrenfeld 2003b). If such integrated change occurs in time, it will likely happen partly by our own
design and partly as an unplanned response to the constraints imposed by social unrest, disease, and the economics of scarcity. With respect to the planned component of change, we

are facing, as eloquently described by Rees (2002), the ultimate challenge to human intelligence and self-awareness, those vital qualities we humans claim as uniquely our own. Homo sapiens will eitherbecome fully human or wink out ignominiously, a guttering candle in a violent storm of our own making. If change does not come quickly, our global civilization will join Tainter's (1988) list as the latest and most dramatic example of collapsed complex societies. Is there anything that could slow globalization quickly, before it collapses disastrously of its own environmental and social weight? It is still not too late to curtail the use of energy, reinvigorate local and regional communities while restoring a culture of concern for each other, reduce nonessential global trade and especially global finance (Daly & Cobb 1989), do more to control

introductions of exotic species (including pathogens), and accelerate the growth of sustainable agriculture.
Many of the needed technologies are already in place. It is true that some of the damage to our environmentspecies extinctions, loss of crop and domestic animal varieties, many exotic species introductions, and some climatic changewill be beyond repair. Nevertheless, the opportunity to help our society move past globalization in an orderly way, while there is time, is worth our most creative and passionate efforts. The citizens of the United States and other nations have to understand that our

global economic system has placed both our environment and our society in peril, a peril as great as that posed by any war of the twentieth century. This understanding, and the actions that follow, must come not only from enlightened leadership, but also from grassroots consciousness raising. It is still possible to reclaim the planet from a self-destructive economic system that is bringing us all down together, and this can be a task that bridges the divide between conservatives and liberals. The crisis is here, now. What we have to do has become obvious. Globalization can be scaled back to manageable proportions only in the context of an altered world view that rejects materialism even as it restores a sense of communal obligation. In this way, alone, can we achieve real homeland security, not just in the United
States, but also in other nations, whose fates have become so thoroughly entwined with ours within the global environment we share.

E. Alternative - The alternative is to do nothing this solves the inevitability of capitalism Zizek 08Senior Research @ Institute for Social Studies-Ljubljana [Slavoj, Violence, p. 207-217
While the parallel holds, the concluding characterisation seems to fall short: the

unsettling message of Seeing is not so much the indissolubility of both people and government as much the compulsive nature of democratic rituals of freedom. What happens is that by abstaining from voting, people effectively dissolve the government-not only in the limited sense of overthrowing the existing government, but more radically. Why is the government thrown into such a panic by the voters' abstention? It is compelled to confront the fact that it exists, that it exerts power, only insofar as it is accepted as such by its subjects-accepted even in the mode of rejection. The voters' abstention goes further than the intra-political negation, the vote of no confidence: it rejects the very frame of decision. In psychoanalytic terms, the voters' abstention is something like the
psychotic Verwerfung (foreclosure, rejection/repudiation), which is a more radical move than repression (Verdrangung). According to Freud,

the repressed is intellectually accepted by the subject, since it is named, and at the same time is negated because the subject refuses to recognise it, refuses to recognise him or herself in it. In contrast to
this, foreclosure rejects the term from the symbolic tout court. To circumscribe the contours of this radical rejection, one is tempted to evoke Badiou's provocative thesis: "It is better

to do nothing than to contribute to the invention of formal ways of rendering visible that which Empire already recognizes as existent.''6 Better to do nothing than to engage in localised acts the ultimate function of which is to make the system run more smoothly (acts such as providing space for the multitude of new subjectivities). The threat today is not passivity, but pseudoactivity, the urge to "be active," to "participate," to mask the nothingness of what goes on. People intervene all the time, "do something"; academics participate in meaningless debates, and so on. The truly difficult thing is to step back, to withdraw . Those in power often prefer even a "critical" participation, a dialogue, to silence-just to engage us in "dialogue," to make sure our ominous passivity is broken. The voters' abstention is thus a true political act: it forcefully confronts us with the vacuity of today's democracies.If one means by violence a radical upheaval of the basic social relations, then, crazy and tasteless as it may sound, the problem with historical monsters who slaughtered millions was that they were not violent enough. Sometimes doing nothing is the most violent thing to do.

Off
Text: The U.S. Supreme Court should rule Supreme court can rule against restrictions on energy production Craig 2010 (Robin Kundis Craig, Attorneys' Title Professor and Associate Dean for Environmental
Programs at Florida State University College of Law, Summer 2010, MULTISTATE DECISION MAKING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY AND TRANSMISSION: SPOTLIGHT ON COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, UTAH, AND WYOMING: Constitutional Contours for the Design and Implementation of Multistate Renewable Energy Programs and Projects, University of Colorado Law Review, Lexis) A number of dormant Commerce Clause cases have involved energy production , and they systematically conclude that states cannot create legal requirements or preferences based on the source of the fuel or energy. In Wyoming v. Oklahoma, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an Oklahoma statute that required Oklahoma coal-fired electric power plants producing power for sale in Oklahoma to burn a mixture of coal containing at least ten percent Oklahoma-mined coal. 121 Moreover, the "savings clause" of the Federal Power Act did not prevent the conclusion that the Oklahoma statute was unconstitutional. 122 Similarly, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois concluded that a Clean Air Act compliance plan that favored Illinois coalviolated the dormant Commerce Clause. 123 Nor can states "hoard" state-created energy within their borders. Thus, in
1982, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that New Hampshire could not constitutionally restrict interstate transportation of hydroelectric power generated in New Hampshire. 124

The counterplan is not a reductionit requires executive/congressional acquiescence. Spiro, 2001 (Peter J. Spiro, Professor, Hofstra University School of Law; Visiting Professor, University of
Texas School of Law, Texas Law Review, April, lexis)
The increments approach answers these objections, at the same time that it affirms the value of constitutionalism. It presents, first of all, a determinate method of constitutional location. Unlike translation exercises, the increments model substantially confines the possible discretion of individual constitutional actors, including the judiciary. Working from a premise of historical situatedness, the theory denies the possibility of independent constitutional determination. That is not to deny the inevitability of constitutional change. But all constitutional actors work from a baseline, departures from which can be challenged and rejected by other constitutional actors. Constitutional

norms are resolved only by the interplay of those actors. The content of constitutional norms will usually be reflected in institutional action, but one cannot necessarily find the law by reference to the action of any single institution alone . Even if the Supreme Court attempted to exploit the discretion afforded it by a translation model, its pronouncements amount to mere artifacts in the absence of acceptance by other actors. The increments model thus answers the primary volley of the originalists against countermajoritarian
judicial adaptation of the constitutional text. Such adaptation will not prevail where it is rejected by other actors.

Off
Obama will win by a narrow margin Enten, 9-20
Harry Enten, political science writer for the Guardian, 9-20-2012, Post-convention polling gives definitive view: Obama has consolidated his lead, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/20/post-convention-polling-obama-consolidateslead
Any individual national poll is confusing, but the aggregate is a fairly clear Obama edge. Nine pollsters have conducted a survey with a median field date at least a week after the Democratic National Convention. President Obama has led in all of their surveys except for Rasmussen's. National polls, 2012 The median result is Obama ahead by 4 percentage points. You might note that the Gallup and YouGov results are among registered voters. Even when we shave 2.5 points off of Obama's margin for a "likely voter" adjustment, the median result is still Obama, by 3 percentage points. For those who don't like doing the math, a 3-point lead is actually larger than the 1.5-point lead Obama had going into the conventions. The fact that I'm looking only at data one week (or later, for the RNC) after the conventions suggests to me that Obama didn't receive merely a momentary bump but may have gotten the campaign equivalent of a shot of cortisone that will last the rest of the campaign. The factors underlying this campaign have also not shifted in Romney's direction, but rather in Obama's. In May, I wrote that "the 2012 race comes down to Obama's approvals v Romney's favorables". Take a look at this chart of Romney's favorability ratings since 1 June. Favorables 2012 What you see is steadiness or even a slight dip in favorables since the conventions. The absolute numbers are skewed because of different sample populations (likely voters v registered voters v adults), yet the trend is undeniable. Mitt Romney's main electoral failing has been a lack of favorability, and the conventions did nothing to change this factor. Meanwhile, President Obama's achilles heel had been his low job approval rating . A chart of his approvals since the conventions shows a positive trend. Approvals 2012 For the first time in almost a year and a half, Obama's approval is reater than his disapproval in the HuffPollster approval chart. Remember that Obama managed to lead this race when his approval still trailed his disapproval in the HuffPollster chart. As you might expect, his lead has increased, given the rise in his approvals. The state level data is less clear, but we still ca make some keen observations. The baseline electoral college estimate looks like this: Electoral map 2012 There isn't an analyst in the world who thinks that Barack Obama isn't leading in Ohio right now. It is also fairly clear that Obama's Ohio lead is wider than his national margin . The weighted HuffPollster aggregate, which accounts for house effects and weights state level to regional and national estimates, has Obama running 1.3 points ahead of his national percentage in Ohio. Romney's own political director admits that it's not an "easy state". If Obama wins Ohio, he's at 255 electoral votes. A win in Florida puts him in the White House for a second term. Let's, for argument's sake, give Romney Florida, even though he trails there. We'll also afford him North Carolina, where he does hold a small advantage. Romney then must take Colorado and Iowa. Both are states where he seems to be running at least equal to his national numbers, if not somewhat ahead. Still, he is probably losing to Obama in both. Even after giving Romney all these states where he isn't ahead, he is still only at 250 electoral votes. His deficit in Virginia is almost certainly greater than his nationwide hole. A loss in Virginia means he's got to take New Hampshire, Nevada, and Wisconsin. The issue here is that there hasn't been a poll with Romney ahead in Nevada in the last year and a half. Likewise, Wisconsin also seems to be slipping from Romney's grip, with two polls out Wednesday pegging him down by at least 6 points. Only New Hampshire may be trending towards Romney. The bottom line is that the state level isn't any better than the national picture for Romney. In fact, you can argue that

it is considerably worse. Some Romney supporters might argue that this election is still about the economy and the economy stinks bad for the incumbent. The truth is that while the economy may not be booming, it is almost certainly good enough to get an incumbent re-elected. Econometric models projecting the election have a 50:50 split. That should give Romney hope for a comeback, but it definitely doesn't guarantee
one. John Sides makes a powerful argument that the economy, in fact, favors Obama. That's probably why you've seen Obama catching up to Romney on the question of who can best manage the economy. But what about a game-changing event? Gaffes like Romney's 47% remarks have shown no ability to move the polls. Debates, as John Sides points out, have historically almost never made a difference. A foreign policy fiasco would almost certainly result in a rally around the leader effect, a la Carter in 1980, before the incumbent gets blamed. There isn't enough time for the "blame" part of the equation to occur before the election. That's why polls a few weeks after the conventions are usually quite accurate in predicting

the result. The economy is usually factored in by voters at this time, and there isn't a campaign event that can alter the playing field fast enough. Simply put, there hasn't been a single candidate to come back after trailing by 3 points this late in the campaign in the past 60 years. When I look the current polling data and put it into this historical context, I just don't see a Romney victory. It's not that it can't happen; it's just

that 3 points is a good lead in a race that has hasn't shifted easily. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's 3-point lead eventually shrank back to the pre-convention numbers that were so stable for so long. That would fit a historical pattern of tightening before an election. But this race is no toss-up: it now leans pretty hard in Obama's direction.

And, Reid will avoid all budget debates now Taylor 3-17 [Andrew, BusinessWeek, GOP preps for budget battle with Democrats, Obama;
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-03/D9TIDUO80.htm] The annual budget debate is conducted under arcane rules. The main budget document, called a budget resolution, is a nonbinding measure that sets the parameters for follow-up legislation on spending and taxes. Even though its broader goals usually are not put into place, it is viewed as a statement of party principles. Democrats controlling the Senate do not want a budget debate. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has said he will instead rely on language he inserted in a budget pact last year that allows for floor action on the annual spending bills without a budget resolution. By avoiding a budget debate, Reid protects several vulnerable incumbent Democrats from politically dangerous votes.

Plan circumvents this process undermines Obamas do nothing Congress message key to reelection Drucker 2-23 [Jacob, Harvard Political Review, A $1.3 Trillion Hole, http://hpronline.org/unitedstates/a-1-3-trillion-hole/] Geithner further admitted that Obamas budget, while stabilizing the debt to GDP ratio over the next 10 years, will actually cause the ratio to double within the ensuing 50 years, to the point where the debt equals over 200% of GDP. Aside from being insanely fiscally irresponsible, the budget was proposed for purely political purposes. Obama needs to paint the GOP as obstructionist in order to win reelection Harry Truman-styleby running against a do-nothing congress. And he can only do so if no budget passes, an event virtually guaranteed as the Democratic Senate will never approve a GOP-written House budget. (Obama has not signed a regular budget in over 1000 days.) For a president who seemed so eager to stay above the political fray, Obama has had no compunction playing politics with the nations budget.

Romney win causes China-bashing causes a trade war Gerstein 11

(Josh, writer @ Politico, The GOP's China syndrome, 11/22/12, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68952.html)
Mitt Romney

says America is at war with China a trade war over its undervalued currency. Theyre

stealing our jobs. And were gonna stand up to China, the former Massachusetts governor declared in a recent Republican presidential debate, arguing

that the United States should threaten to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. When Romney steps on stage tonight for another debate, this one devoted to foreign policy, that kind of China-bashing is likely to be a favorite theme . With a moribund economy and relatively little traction for other international issues, the threat posed by cheap Chinese imports
and Chinese purchases of U.S. debt is an irresistible target. The problem, China experts are quick to point out, is that those attacks often fly in the face of the business interests Republicans have traditionally represented, not to mention the record many of the candidates have either supporting trade with China or actively soliciting it. Just last year, for example, Romney slammed President Barack Obama for growth-killing protectionism after he put a 35 percent tariff on Chinese tires because of a surge of cheap imports. And, Romney wrote in his book, No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, Protectionism stifles productivity. And though Texas Gov. Rick Perry predicted a t a debate this month that the Chinese government will end up on the ash heap of history if they do not change their virtues, a picture posted on the Internet shows a smiling Perry on a trade mission to Shanghai and Beijing posing with Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi after presenting him with a pair of cowboy boots. Nor has Perry been shy about encouraging Chinese investments in Texas: In October 2010, he appeared at the announcement of a new U.S. headquarters for Huawei Technologies to be located in Plano, Texas, despite lingering concerns among U.S.

security officials that Huawei-made telecommunications equipment is designed to allow unauthorized access by the Chinese government. Theres the GOP

a certain pandering going on, said Nicholas Lardy of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who adds that rhetoric is squarely at odds with the views of the U.S. establishment, which believes a showdown with China over the trade issue will make things worse, not better. Not all of the 2012 GOP
presidential hopefuls have taken to publicly pummeling Beijing. The only bona fide China expert in the group, former Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, has criticized Romney for being cavalier and simplistic in his talk of tariffs. You can give applause lines, and you can kind of pander here and there. You start a trade war if you start slapping tariffs randomly on Chinese products based on currency manipulation, Huntsman said at a recent debate. That doesnt work. Former Sen. Rick Santorum also rejected the idea of slapping tariffs on Beijing if it wont buckle on the currency issue. That just taxes you. I dont want to tax you, Santorum said. Newt Gingrich says he

wants to bring a world of

hurt down on Beijing for alleged Chinese cyberattacks on the U.S. and theft of intellectual property, though hes vague about how. Were going to have to find ways to dramatically raise the pain level for the Chinese cheating, the
former house speaker declares. And Herman Cain talks of a threat from China, but says the answer is to promote growth in the U.S. Chinas economic dominance would represent a national security threat to the USA, and possibly to the rest of the world, Cain wrote in May in the Daily Caller. We can outgrow China because the USA is not a loser nation. We just need a winner in the White House. Romneys

rhetoric has been particularly harsh. Its predatory pricing, its killing jobs in America, he declared at the CNBC debate earlier this month, promising to make a formal complaint to the W orld T rade O rganization about Chinas currency manipulation. I would apply, if necessary, tariffs to make sure that they understand we are willing to play at a level playing field. The
Romney campaign insists those tariffs are entirely distinguishable from the tire duties Obama imposed in 2009. The distinction between Obamas tire action and what Gov. Romney is proposing is simple, said a Romney aide who did not want to be named. President Obama

is

not getting tough with China or pushing them unilaterally, he is handing out political favors to union allies. *Romneys+ policy
focuses on fostering competition by keeping markets open and the playing field level. Romney, who helped set up investment bank Bain Capital, has long been a favorite of Wall Street, so his stridency on the China trade issue has taken some traditional conservatives for whom

Romneys move risk[ed] a trade war with China and was a remarkably bad idea. In fact, many business leaders give Obama good marks for his China policy. What the Obama administration has done in not labeling China as a currency manipulator is correct, said one U.S. business lobbyist who closely follows U.S.-China trade issues and asked not to be named. Were very leery of a titfree trade is a fundamental tenet by surprise. National Review said for-tat situation, he added, while acknowledging that the anti-China rhetoric is good politics.

That goes nuclear

Taaffe 5
(Peter Taaffe, general secretary of the Socialist Party of England and Wales, China, A New Superpower?, Socialist Alternative.org, Nov 1, 2005, pg. http://www.socialistalternative.org/news/article11.php?id=30)
While this conflict is unresolved, the shadow of a trade war looms. Some commentators, like Henry C.K. Liu in the Asia Times, go further and warn that " trade

wars can lead to shooting wars ." China is not the Japan of the 21st century. Japan in the 1980s relied on the U.S. military and particularly its nuclear umbrella against China, and was therefore subject to the pressure
and blackmail of the U.S. ruling class. The fear of the U.S., and the capitalists of the "first world" as a whole, is that China may in time "outcompete" the advanced nations for hi-tech jobs while holding on to the stranglehold it now seems to have in labor-intensive industries. As the OECD commented recently: "In the five-year period to 2003, the number of students joining higher education courses has risen by three and a half times, with a strong emphasis on technical subjects." The number of patents and engineers produced by China has also significantly grown. At the same time, an increasingly capitalist China - most wealth is now produced in the private sector but the majority of the urban labor force is still in state industries - and the urgency for greater energy resources in particular to maintain its spectacular growth rate has brought it into collision on a world scale with other imperialist powers, particularly the U.S.

In a new worldwide version of the "Great

Game" - the clash for control of central Asia's resources in the nineteenth century - the U.S. and China have increasingly come up against and buffeted one another. Up to now, the U.S. has held sway worldwide due to its economic dominance
buttressed by a colossal war machine accounting for 47% of total world arms spending. But Iraq has dramatically shown the limits of this: "A country that cannot control Iraq can hardly remake the globe on its own." (Financial Times) But no privileged group disappears from the scene of history without a struggle. Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. defense secretary, has stated: "Since no nation threatens China, one must wonder: why this growing [arms] investment? Why these continuing large and expanding arms purchases?" China could ask the same question of the U.S. In

order to maintain its position, the U.S. keeps six nuclear battle fleets permanently at sea, supported by an unparalleled network of bases. As Will Hutton in The Observer has commented, this is not because of "irrational chauvinism or the needs of the militaryindustrial complex, but because

of the pressure they place on upstart countries like China." In turn, the Chinese elite has responded in kind. For instance, in the continuing clash over Taiwan, a major-general in the People's Liberation Army baldly stated that if China was attacked "by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan... I think we would have to respond with nuclear weapons." He added: "We Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the cities east of Xian. Of course, the Americans would have to be prepared that hundreds... of cities would be destroyed by the Chinese." This bellicose nuclear arms rattling shows the contempt of the so-called great powers for the ordinary working-class and peasant peoples of China and the people of the U.S. when their interests are at stake.

Solvency
SMRs empirically fail at commercialization Magwood, commissioner NRC, 7/14/11
(William, ECONOMICS AND SAFETY OF MODULAR REACTORS; COMMITTEE: SENATE APPROPRIATIONS; SUBCOMMITTEE: ENERGY AND WATER DEVELOPMENT, CQ Congressional Testimony) That is not to say that SMRs are a new idea. The conceptual benefits of small reactors have been the subject of discussion and analysis for decades, and all the potential benefits I've mentioned have been considered in the past. The potential advantages of smaller reactors prompted the government to provide considerable financial support for the development of the mid- size, passive-safety reactors in the 1990s and to encourage the pursuit of the pebble-bed modular reactor in the early years of this century. Both efforts proved unable to overcome the economic realities
of building and operating nuclear power plants realities that tend to penalize small reactors and reward larger designs. Thus, instead of the AP-600 and 500 megawatt Simplified Boiling Water Reactor of the early 1990s, the

market pushed vendors to increase the size of their designs; today, vendors offer Generation III+ technologies based on those smaller systems the 1100 megawatt AP- 1000 and the 1600 megawatt Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor.2 Around the turn of the century, both DOE and industry became interested in the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, or PBMR. This was a small, high-temperature gas-cooled reactor with a generating capacity of about 165 megawatts. This technology captured considerable media attention after U.S. companies became involved in an effort to build a commercial pilot in South Africa. However, as the high costs of the project became apparent, commercial participants began to peel away and eventually the South African project was abandoned. All small reactor technologies of the past failed to find a way to overcome the fact that the infrastructure required to safely operate a nuclear power of steel and concrete are needed to construct containment buildings. Control rod drives, steam generators, and other key systems are hugely expensive to design and build. A larger plant with greater electric generating capacity simply has an inherently superior opportunity to recover these large up-front costs over a reasonable period. So why is today different from yesterday? The greatest difference is the fact
reactor of any size is considerable. Tons that the technology has evolved significantly over the years. Having learned lessons from the development of Generation III+ technologies and from the failure of previous small reactors, today's SMR vendors clearly believe they have solved the riddle of small reactor economics. They are presenting novel design approaches that could lead to significant improvements in nuclear safety. For example, design concepts that I have seen thus far further advance the use of passive safety systems, applying gravity, natural circulation, and very large inventories of cooling water to reduce reliance on human intervention during an emergency. SMR designs also apply novel technologies such as integral pressure vessels that contain all major system components and use fewer and smaller pipes and pumps, thereby reducing the potential for a serious loss-ofcoolant accident. Very importantly, these new SMRs are much smaller than the systems designed in the 1990s; this choice was made to assure that they could be factory-built and shipped largely intact by rail for deployment. The ability to "manufacture" a reactor rather than "constructing" it on-site could prove to be a major advantage in terms of cost, schedule reliability, and even quality control. But will

innovations like these allow this new breed of SMRs to be successful? Maybe. Many years of work remain for SMR vendors to refine their designs and allow for the development of realistic and reliable cost estimates. This is much the same state of affairs that existed in the 2002 time frame when DOE launched the Nuclear Power 2010 program to spur the development and certification of Generation III+ designs such as the AP-1000. At that time, the level of design completeness was insufficient to enable vendors to provide utilities with reliable cost and schedule estimates.

Low gas prices kill SMRs McMahon, energy contributor Forbes, 5/23/12

(Jeff, http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2012/05/23/small-modular-reactors-by-2022-but-nomarket-for-them/) S mall M odular Nuclear R eactor s By 2022 -- But No Market For Them The Department of Energy will spend $452
millionwith a match from industryover the next five years to guide two small modular reactor designs through the nuclear regulatory process by 2022. But cheap

natural gas could freeze even small nuclear plants out of the energy market well beyond that date. DOE accepted bids through Monday for companies to participate in the Small Modular Reactor program. A number
of reactor manufacturers submitted bids, including NuScale Power and a collaboration that includes Westinghouse and General Dynamic. This would allow SMR technology to overcome the hurdle of NRC certification the gold standard of the international nuclear industry, and would help in the proper development of the NRCs regulatory framework to deal with SMRs, according to Paul Genoa, Senior Director of Policy Development at the Nuclear Energy Institute. Genoas comments are recorded in a summary released today of a briefing given to Senate staff earlier this month on prospects for small modular reactors, which have been championed by the Obama Administration. DOE defines reactors as SMRs if they generate less than 300 megawatts of power, sometimes as little as 25 MW, compared to conventional reactors which may produce more than 1,000 MW. Small modular reactors can be constructed in factories and installed underground, which improves containment and security but may hinder emergency access. The same summary

records doubt that SMRs can compete in a market increasingly dominated by cheap natural gas. Nuclear Consultant Philip Moor told Senate staff that SMRs can compete if natural gas costs $7 to $8 per million BTUgas currently costs only $2 per MBTUor if carbon taxes are implemented, a scenario political experts deem unlikely. Like Mr. Moor, Mr. Genoa also sees the economic feasibility of SMRs as the final challenge. With inexpensive natural gas prices and no carbon tax, the economics dont work in the favor of SMRs, according to the summary.

Nuclears too expensive Folbre, professor of economics University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 3/26/12
(Nancy, The Nurture of Nuclear Power, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/the-nurtureof-nuclear-power/)
Remember the brouhaha about $563 million in Obama administration loan guarantees to Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer that went belly up last fall? Neither President Obama

nor Republicans in Congress have voiced opposition to an expected $8.3 billion Energy Department guarantee to help the Southern Company, a utility giant, build nuclear reactors
in Georgia. Pressed to respond to the comparison, Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida and chairman of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight and investigations, explained that the loan guarantee for nuclear power plant construction was for a proven industry that has been successful and has established a record. The nuclear power industry has certainly established a record for terrifying accidents. Most recently, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster in Japan led to the evacuation of 90,000 residents who have yet to return home and to the resignation of the prime minister. It prompted the German government to begin phasing out all nuclear generation of electricity by 2022. Yet the industry has proved remarkably successful at garnering public support in the United States,

ranging from public insurance against accident liability to loan guarantees. An article last year in The Wall Street Journal observed that subsidies per kilowatt hour during its initial stages of development far exceeded those provided to solar and wind energy technologies. According to a detailed report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, subsidies to the nuclear fuel cycle have often exceeded the value of the power produced. Buying power on the open market and giving it away for free would have been less costly. Heightened concerns about safety have driven recent cost estimates even higher , scaring off most private investors. Travis Hoium, an analyst who has written extensively about the industry on the investment Web site The Motley Fool, calls nuclear power a dying business. In an article, Warren Buffett Wants a Subsidy From You, he clearly explains recent efforts to shift risk from investors to ratepayers by allowing utilities to charge for construction in advance. Investor interest in nuclear-generated electricity has declined partly as a result of the boom in shale gas extraction. But energy sources that dont increase carbon emissions are also playing a major role, with wind, hydropower and other renewables projected to provide about 30 percent of expected
additions to power generation capacity in the United States between 2010 and 2035.

Multiple barriers prevent nuclear investment Fahring, JD U Texas School of Law, 11

(T.L., 41 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 279)

V. Potential

Problems with the Combined Government Measures to Promote New Nuclear Construction In NRC has received eighteen COL applications for twenty-eight reactors. n264 The NRC has granted four ESPs and four Standard Design Certifications. n265 Applicants have filed seventeen applications for a Standard Design Certification. n266 The
2007, a developer filed with the NRC the first application for a new reactor in nearly thirty years. n263 To date, the DOE has another seven Standard Design Certifications under review. n267 This recent spate of licensing activity after so long a dry-spell arguably owes much to the measures the United States has taken as of late to promote new nuclear [*303] development. To the extent that these applications have been filed, these measures have been a success. But

this initial success does not necessarily ensure that new nuclear construction will take place: In announcing the new reactor license applications ... utilities have made clear that they are not committed to actually building the reactors , even if the licenses are approved. Large uncertainties about nuclear plant construction costs still remain ... All those problems helped cause the long cessation of U.S. reactor orders and will need to be addressed before financing for new multibillion-dollar nuclear power plants is likely to be obtained. n268 A number of obstacles, thus, still might stand in the way of new nuclear
construction in the United States. A. Developers Have Not Followed the Ideal Sequence in the NRC's Streamlined Licensing Process First,

developers have failed to follow the ideal steps of the NRC's streamlined licensing process . n269 NRC Commissioner Gregory Jaczko explains: The idea was that utilities could get a plant design completed and certified and a site reviewed first ... They could then submit an application that simply references an already certified design and an approved early site permit. But almost no one is following that ideal process. Instead, we are once again doing everything in parallel ... n270 Developers also are delaying review of their applications. n271 They have put four of the seventeen COL applications filed with the NRC on hold. n272 They also have yet to complete
the seventeen applications for designs filed with the NRC and are continuing to revise the four designs under review. n273 A possible explanation for the problems with the streamlined licensing process is that much of 2005 EPACT

provides incentives only for the first few developers to proceed with new nuclear construction. In particular, the production tax credits, as construed by the IRS, were available only for the first 6,000 megawatts of additional nameplate capacity filed through COL applications with the NRC. n274 All COL applications that the NRC has received were filed after IRS Notice
2006-40, which provided this guidance. n275 "The deadline for automatic eligibility for the tax credit appears to [have provided] a strong incentive for nuclear plant applicants to file with the NRC by [*304] the end of 2008 ..." n276 Given

this incentive, developers might have filed quickly and with incomplete information, in the process failing to follow the NRC's ideal streamlined licensing sequence. n277 These problems with the licensing process could be detrimental to continued nuclear development. Defects in the licensing process led to cost overruns in the 1970s and 1980s, which dissuaded developers from undertaking any new nuclear construction for nearly thirty years. n278 Continued problems would constitute an input cost uncertainty to developers who have not yet filed applications, which might cause them to further delay new construction. B. The Reduction in Reactor Licensing Hearing Formality Might Cause a Public Backlash Second, insofar as the NRC's reduction in nuclear licensing hearing formality limits public participation in the licensing process, it could lead to a public backlash. "Public involvement has two basic functions:
it permits the raising of issues that will improve the safety of nuclear power plants, and it enhances the transparency and level of confidence and trust that the public can have in nuclear regulation and decision-making." n279 Measures that limit public participation in the nuclear licensing process undermine both of these functions. n280 As noted in the overview of the history of U.S. nuclear construction above, nuclear

construction has always been extremely sensitive to changes in public opinion. In 2009, a majority of the American public
favored nuclear power. n281 However, only

a minority of the public favored new nuclear construction in the area in which they live. n282 After the nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan, U.S. public support for nuclear power fell sharply, with polls showing that many feared a major nuclear accident in this country. n283 Limiting public participation
in the licensing process could decrease public support by undermining any trust that the public has in the regulatory

system. This defect could lead to more litigation and a repeat of U.S. nuclear construction's nightmarish cost

overruns of the 1970s and 1980s, thus increasing input cost uncertainty to developers. n284 [*305] C. Costs for Nuclear Construction Still Might Rise Over Time Third, much of 2005 EPACT is animated by the belief that costs will be highest for the first few reactors to be
built: as developers build subsequent units, costs will go down. n285 The history of U.S. nuclear development shows this assumption not necessarily to be the case. n286 Historically, costs of nuclear construction rose over time.

Nothing indicates that the

costs of nuclear construction will do otherwise now. n287 D. The Production Tax Credit Might Not Be Sufficient to Reduce Costs of

Construction in a Reactor Series Fourth, even if conditions are such that costs will decrease over time, the production

tax credits in

2005 EPACT might not be sufficient to reduce costs in a reactor series. n288 The credits go to those first reactors up to 6,000 megawatts in nameplate capacity filed with the NRC. n289 However, at the time of this note, the NRC has approved four standard design certifications. n290 Because each COL has a reactor with a nameplate capacity between 1,200-1,500 megawatts, at most only four to five reactors would be covered. n291 Therefore, only

one or two reactors from each design certification would be built that would qualify for the credit. n292 Thus, this tax credit might not be enough to reduce costs through series production so that subsequent units would be economically viable without a tax credit. n293 Moreover, the production tax credit does not have any adjustment for inflation, which could decrease its benefits to the first new plant to come online. n294 Because the benefit of the production tax credit is uncertain, developers
have less incentive to go through with new construction.

Waste destroys long term industry growth and causes public backlash GAO, Government Accountability Office, April 11
("Commercial Nuclear Waste, Effects of a Termination of the Yucca Mountain Repository Program and Lessons Learned," GAO-11-229)
The proposed termination

of Yucca Mountain, which had been planned to be opened in 2020, will likely prolong storage at reactor sites, which would increase on-site storage costs. Because of delays in opening the Yucca Mountain repository, on-site storage at commercial nuclear facilities has been the de facto near-term strategy for managing spent nuclear fuel. Most spent nuclear fuel is stored at reactor sites, immersed in pools of water designed to cool it and isolate it from the environment. With the extension of on-site storage because of the delays in opening Yucca Mountain, some reactors are running out of space in their pools and have turned to dry-cask storage systems. In 2009, we reported that such systems for reactor operators cost from about $30 million to $60 million per reactor, with costs increasing as more spent nuclear fuel is added to dry storage.34 We also reported that the spent nuclear fuel would likely have to be repackaged about every 100 years, although experts said this is uncertain and research is under way to better understand the longevity of dry-cask systems. This repackaging could add from about $180 million to nearly $500 million, assuming initial repackaging operations, with costs dependent on the number of casks to be repackaged and whether a site has a transfer facility, such as a storage pool. Prolonging on-site storage would add to the taxpayer burden by increasing the substantial liabilities that DOE has already incurred due to on-site storage at commercial nuclear reactors. Were DOE to open Yucca Mountain in 2020, as it had planned, and begun taking custody of spent nuclear fuel, it would still have taken decades to take custody of the entire inventory of spent nuclear fuel. Assuming a 2020 opening of Yucca Mountain, DOE estimated that the total taxpayer liabilities for the backlog as of 2020 would be about $15.4 billion and would increase by $500 million for each year of delay thereafter.35 It is important to recognize that these liabilities are outside of the nearly $15 billion already spent on developing a
repository and the estimated $41 to $67 billion still to be spent if the Yucca Mountain repository were to be constructed and become operational, most of the cost of which is borne by the Nuclear Waste Fund. Instead, these

liabilities are borne by taxpayers because of the governments failure to meet its commitment to take custody of the waste has resulted in lawsuits brought by industry.36 Furthermore, not all of the lawsuits have been resolved and industry has claimed that the
lawsuits still pending could result in liabilities of at least $50 billion. Some former DOE officials and industry and community
representatives stated that the termination

of the Yucca Mountain program could result in an additional delay in the opening of a repository by at least 20 years, which would lead to additional DOE liabilities in the billions of
dollars. Until a final disposition pathway is determined, there will continue to be uncertainties regarding the federal governments total liabilities. At decommissioned reactor sites, prolonged

on-site storage could further increase costs or limit opportunities for industry and local communities, according to industry and community representatives.37 As long as the spent nuclear fuel remains, the sites would not be available for other purposes, and the former operators may have to stay in business for the sole purpose of monitoring, storing, and providing costly security for the fuel. Local communities could lose the potential use of the site for alternative purposes, potentially impacting economic growth and tax revenue. For example, according to an industry representative, a local government in Illinois would like to encourage
development of property fronting Lake Michigan near a shutdown nuclear reactor planned for decommissioning. A local government official stated in an interview with the media, however, that it may be difficult to develop and sell the property because prospective buyers may feel

uneasy about living next to a site storing spent nuclear fuel. Similarly, a local government official from Minnesota expressed concern about having to provide security and emergency response for the Prairie Island reactor site and its spent nuclear fuel because tax revenues from the facility will decrease substantially after it is decommissioned. However, these issues may not affect all reactor sites. For example, officials in Oregon told us they did not feel dry-cask storage at Trojan, a decommissioned reactor, adversely affected economic growth or tax revenue. This

on-site storage could also increase opposition to expansion of the nuclear industry , according to state and industry officials. Without progress on a centralized storage facility or repository, some experts have stated that some state and local opposition to reactor storage site recertification will likely increase and so will challenges to nuclear power companies applications for reactor license extensions and for new reactor licenses.38 For example, Minnesota officials noted that negative public reaction to a proposal to increase dry-cask storage at a nuclear plant led the state legislature to impose a moratorium on new nuclear plants. At least 12 other states have similar prohibitions on new construction, 9 of which can be lifted when a means of disposing of spent nuclear fuel can be demonstrated. Representatives from some tribal and environmental organizations said they were concerned with the long-term on-site
site is about 42 miles north of Portland, Oregon, and is not in a major metropolitan area. Prolonging storage of spent nuclear fuel. They said nuclear plants should take additional measures to ensure the safety and security of dry-cask storage sites, and they have raised these concerns in objecting to the relicensing of commercial reactors in Minnesota and New Jersey. For instance, tribal officials from the Prairie Island Indian Community in Minnesota told us they opposed relicensing the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant because of environmental and safety concerns they have about living just 600 hundred yards from spent nuclear fuel.

Warming
Nuclear energy is too slow and risky to be deployed as a credible technology against global warming
Union of Concerned Scientists, UCS Position on Nuclear Power and Global Warming, March 5, 2007, http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_power/nuclear_power_and_global_warming/ucs-position-on-nuclearpower.html, accessed 7-8-2012. To address global warming, we need a profound transformation of the ways in which we generate and consume energy. The urgency of this situation demands that we be willing to consider all possible options for coping with climate change. In examining each option we must take into account its impact on public health, safety, and security, the time required for large scale deployment, and its costs. While there are currently some global warming emissions
associated with the nuclear fuel cycle and plant construction, when nuclear plants operate they do not produce carbon dioxide. This fact is used to support proposals for a large-scale expansion of nuclear power both in the United States and around the world. It must be borne in mind

that a large-scale expansion of nuclear power in the United States or worldwide under existing conditions would be accompanied by an increased risk of catastrophic eventsa risk not associated with any of the non-nuclear means for reducing global warming. These catastrophic events include a massive release of radiation due to a power plant meltdown or terrorist attack, or the death of tens of thousands due to the detonation of a nuclear weapon made with materials obtained from a civilian
most likely non-U.S.nuclear power system. Expansion of nuclear power would also produce large amounts of radioactive waste that would pose a serious hazard as long as there remain no facilities for safe long-term disposal. In this context, the Union of Concerned Scientists contends that: Prudence

dictates that we develop as many options to reduce global warming emissions as possible, and begin by deploying those that achieve the largest reductions most quickly and with the lowest costs and risk. Nuclear power today does not meet these criteria. Nuclear power is not the silver bullet for "solving" the global warming problem. Many other technologies will be needed to address global warming even if a major expansion of nuclear power were to occur. A major expansion of nuclear power in the United States is not feasible in the near term. Even under an ambitious deployment scenario, new plants could not make a substantial contribution to reducing U.S. global warming emissions for at least two decades. Until long-standing problems regarding the security of nuclear plantsfrom accidents and acts of terrorismare fixed, the potential of nuclear power to play a significant role in addressing global warming will be held hostage to the industry's worst performers. An expansion of nuclear power under effective regulations and an appropriate level of oversight should be considered as a longer-term option if other climate-neutral means for producing electricity prove inadequate. Nuclear energy research and development (R&D) should therefore continue, with a focus on enhancing safety, security, and waste disposal.

We need to put up 20 nuclear plants in each state in a few years to solve warming this is not possible
Daniel Botkin is a scientist who studies life from a planetary perspective, a biologist who has helped solve major environmental issues, and a writer about nature, degrees in physics and biology, Can Nuclear Energy Solve Our Energy Crisis?, October 21, 2007, http://www.danielbbotkin.com/2007/10/21/can-nuclear-energy-solve-our-energy-crisis/, accessed 7-72012. We would need too many nuclear plants. In the United States, 104 operating nuclear power reactors at 65 sites provide 8% of our energy, while fossil fuels provide 85%. For nuclear power to completely replace fossil fuels, we would need more than 1,000 new nuclear power plants of the same designs and efficiencies as existing plants. This

would mean an

average of 20 new plants per state. Today, fossil fuels provide 71.4% of the electricity produced in the United to replace the electrical generation by fossil fuels with nuclear energy would require 285 new nuclear power plants of the kind, size, and efficiency of those in use now, and to counteract global warming these would have to be built and put online within a few years. This is just not practical.
States, while nuclear power plants provide 19.4%. Just

No warming and no impact---no temperature increases, energy radiates to space, computer models are flawed, solar radiation is the cause, and crops provide a negative feedback Western Press 11 Europe Intelligence Wire Facts challenge the climate-change view.
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-265285996/facts-challenge-climate-change.html August 25 2011 *Notes on qualifications: Roy Spencer is a Climatologist, author and former NASA scientist; Dr. Lindzen is at the Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, U. S. A; Choi is at the Department of Environmental Science and Engineering, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Korea; Henrik Svensmark is a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen who studies the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation
Clearly they both accept the so-called consensus view of global warming due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions. So would they like to respond to the following points? First,

if increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing a dangerous increase in global temperature, why has global temperature not increased since 1998 when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by10 per cent? There must be something more powerful than atmospheric CO2 concentrations cooling the planet and overcoming recovery from the Little Ice Age. Second, the latest paper by Roy Spencer of NASA gives empirical evidence that far from being trapped in the atmosphere, most of the energy is being radiated to space, debunking the idea of positive feedback. It may even be negative. Third, the latest paper by Lindzen and Choi, again gives empirical evidence that climate sensitivity is much less than that assumed by IPCC in computer modelling and in consequence manmade CO2 emissions are not dangerously warming the planet. In fact they are "undetectable with current technology," according to Richard Lindzen. Fourth, according to the work of HenrikSvensmark (Danish National Space Centre) and the soon to be published paper on the CERN Cloud Project, the real forcing of global temperature is solar activity. There is a much closer correlation to global temperature anomalies with sunspot cycles than CO2 concentrations. Svensmark and the cloud project demonstrate the vital role of clouds. Fifth, increased levels of atmospheric CO2 enhance plant growth and so increase crop yields and capture more CO2. Science by its nature is never "settled" and all theories should be subjected to the test of empirical measurement. Hypothesis: increased concentrations of CO2 in the
atmosphere caused by man are dangerously increasing global temperatures. Test: global temperature remained constant since 1998 while CO2 concentrations have increased by 10 per cent. Hypothesis failed.

No warming, top scientists confirm. IPCC temperature records are unreliable. Leake 10 Science and Environment Editor for the Sunday Times (Jonathon, 2/14/10, World may not
be warming, say scientists, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)
It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7C and that there could be 5C-6C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife. However, new

research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all. The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change, said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published
research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama. The story is

the same for each one, he said. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development. The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report. The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods. We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the

IPCCs climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias, he said. Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by
Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic. His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment. Some are next to airconditioning units or are on waste treatment plants. One of the most infamous shows a weather station next to a waste incinerator. Watts has also found examples overseas, such as the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets. In Britain, a weather station at Manchester airport was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields but is now surrounded by heatgenerating buildings. Terry Mills, professor the same data as the IPCC. He found

of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Millss findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal. The earth has gone through warming spells like these at least twice before in the last 1,000 years, he said.

Desalination
No water wars all the data is on our side Masimba Biriwasha. "Will Water Fuel an Armageddon?" ECO Worldy. 9 July 2008.
http://ecoworldly.com/2008/07/09/will-water-fuel-an-armageddon/ There is no consensus among water analysts on whether there will be global wars over water ownership. According to UNESCO, globally there are 262 international river basins: 59 in Africa, 52 in Asia, 73 in Europe, 61 in Latin America and the Caribbean and 17 in North America overall, 145 countries have territories that include at least one shared river basin. UNESCO states that between 1948 and 1999, there have been 1,831 international interactions recorded, including 507 conflicts, 96 neutral or non-significant events and, most importantly, 1,228 instances of cooperation around water-related issues. As a result, some experts argue that the idea of water wars is rather farfetched given the precedent of water cooperation that has been exhibited by many of the countries around the world. Despite the potential problem, history has demonstrated that cooperation, rather than conflict, is likely in shared basins,
says UNESCO. However, the fact remains that throughout the world water supplies are running dry and the situation is being compounded by inappropriate management of water resources that will likely unravel previous international cooperation around water.