Environmental collapse risks extinction

humanitys survival is threatened by enviro problems humanity depends on other species scarce resources, overexploited ag, etc. interact Ehrlich & Ehrlich 13 Professor of Biology & Senior Research Scientist in Biology @ Stanford University (Paul R. Ehrlich (President of the Center for Conservation Biology @ Stanford University) & Anne H. Ehrlich, Can a collapse of global civilization be avoided?, Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, Proc. R. Soc. B 2013 280, published online 9 January 2013)//HA Virtually every past civilization has eventually undergone collapse, a loss of socio-politicaleconomic complexity usually accompanied by a dramatic decline in population size [1]. Some, such as those of Egypt and China, have recovered from collapses at various stages; others, such as that of Easter Island or the Classic Maya, were apparently permanent [1,2]. All those previous collapses were local or regional; elsewhere, other societies and civilizations persisted unaffected. Sometimes, as in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys, new civilizations rose in succession. In many, if not most, cases, overexploitation of the environment was one proximate or an ultimate cause [3]. But today, for the first time, humanitys global civilization the worldwide, increasingly interconnected, highly technological society in which we all are to one degree or another, embedded is threatened with collapse by an array of environmental problems. Humankind finds itself engaged in what Prince Charles described as an act of suicide on a grand scale [4], facing what the UKs Chief Scientific Advisor John Beddington called a perfect storm of environmental problems [5]. The most serious of these problems show signs of rapidly escalating severity, especially climate disruption. But other elements could potentially also contribute to a collapse: an accelerating extinction of animal and plant populations and species, which could lead to a loss of ecosystem services essential for human survival; land degradation and land-use change; a pole-to-pole spread of toxic compounds; ocean acidification and eutrophication (dead zones); worsening of some aspects of the epidemiological environment (factors that make human populations susceptible to infectious diseases); depletion of increasingly scarce resources [6,7], including especially groundwater, which is being overexploited in many key agricultural areas [8]; and resource wars [9]. These are not separate problems; rather they interact in two gigantic complex adaptive systems: the biosphere system and the human socio-economic system. The negative manifestations of these interactions are often referred to as the human predicament [10], and determining how to prevent it from generating a global collapse is perhaps the foremost challenge confronting humanity. The human predicament is driven by overpopulation, overconsumption of natural resources and the use of unnecessarily environmentally damaging technologies and socio-economic-political arrangements to service Homo sapiens aggregate consumption [1117]. How far the human population size now is above the planets long-term carrying capacity is suggested (conservatively) by ecological footprint analysis [18 20]. It shows that to support todays population of seven billion sustainably (i.e. with business as usual, including current technologies and standards of living) would require roughly half an additional planet; to do so, if all citizens of Earth consumed resources at the US level would take four to five more Earths. Adding the projected 2.5 billion more people by 2050 would make the human assault on civilizations life support systems disproportionately worse, because almost everywhere people face systems with nonlinear responses [11,2123], in which environmental damage increases at a rate that becomes faster with each additional person. Of course, the claim is often made that humanity will expand Earths carrying capacity dramatically with technological innovation [24], but it is widely recognized that technologies can both add and subtract from carrying capacity. The plough evidently first expanded it and now appears to be reducing it [3]. Overall, careful analysis of the prospects does not provide much confidence that technology will save us [25] or that gross domestic product can be disengaged from resource use [26] 2. Do current trends portend a collapse? What is the likelihood of this set of interconnected predicaments [27] leading to a global collapse in this century? There have been many definitions and much discussion of past collapses [1,3,2831], but a future global collapse does not require a careful definition. It could

be triggered by anything from a small nuclear war, whose ecologic al effects could quickly end civilization [32], to a more gradual breakdown because famines, epidemics and resource shortages cause a disintegration of central control within nations, in concert with disruptions of trade and conflicts over increasingly scarce necessities. In either case, regardless of survivors or replacement societies, the world familiar to anyone reading this study and the well-being of the vast majority of people would disappear. pg. 1-2

Cuba is the model for vermicomposting. Their transition is driven by the embargo Project Censored 10 [Cuba Leads the World in Organic Farming, Apr 30, 2010, pg.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/12-cuba-leads-the-world-in-organic-farming/

Cuba has developed one of the most efficient organic agriculture systems in the world, and organic farmers from other countries are visiting the island to learn the methods . Due to the U.S. embargo , and the collapse of the Soviet Union, Cuba was unable to import chemicals or modern
farming machines to uphold a high-tech corporate farming culture. Cuba needed to find another way to feed its people. The lost buying power for agricultural imports led to a general diversification within farming on the island. Organic agriculture has become key to feeding the nations growing urban populations. Cubas new revolution is founded upon the development of an organic agricultural system. Peter Rosset of the Institute for Food and Development Policy states that this is the largest conversion from conventional agriculture to organic or semi-organic farming that the world has ever known. Not only has organic farming been prosperous, but the migration of small farms and gardens into densely populated urban areas has also played a crucial role in feeding citizens. State food rations were not enough for Cuban families, so farms began to spring up all over the country. Havana, home to nearly 20 percent of Cubas population, is now also home to more than 8,000 officially recognized gardens, which are in turn cultivated by more than 30,000 people and cover nearly 30 percent of the available land. The growing number of gardens might seem to bring up the problem of space and price of land. However, the local governments allocate land, which is handed over at no cost as long as it is used for cultivation, says S. Chaplowe in the Newsletter of the World Sustainable Agriculture Association. The

removal of the chemical crutch has been the most

important factor to come out of the Soviet collapse, trade embargo , and subsequent organic revolution. Though Cuba is organic by default because it has no means of acquiring pesticides and herbicides, the quality and quantity of crop yields have increased. This increase is occurring at a lower cost and with fewer health and environmental side effects than ever. There are 173 established vermicompost centers across Cuba, which produce 93,000 tons of natural compost a year. The agricultural abundance that Cuba is beginning to experience is disproving the myth that organic farming on a grand scale is inefficient or impractical. So far Cuba has been successful with its transformation from conventional, high input, mono-crop intensive agriculture to a more diverse and localized farming system that continues to grow. The country is rapidly moving away from a monoculture of tobacco and sugar. It now needs much more diversity of food crops as well as regular crop rotation and soil conservation efforts to continue to properly nourish millions of Cuban citizens. In June 2000, a group of Iowa farmers, professors, and students traveled to Cuba to view that countrys approach to sustainable agriculture. Rather than relying on chemical fertilizers, Cuba relies on organic farming, using

compost and worms to fertilize soil . There are many differences between farming in
the United States and Cuba, but in many ways theyre ahead of us, say Richard Wrage, of Boone County Iowa Extension Office. Lorna Michael Butler, Chair of Iowa State Universitys sustainable agriculture department said, more students should study Cubas growing system. (AP 6/5/00)

CP

Counterplan solves 100% of the aff and avoids politics. Sunset provisions create temporary legislation instead of using the normal legislative process, thats our

eHow evidence, which expires after five years. Once it does it comes under review to be revised and implemented again, making it very distinct from the affs permanent legislation. They have empirically been used in war fighting and troop levels. Counterplan avoids politics because sunsets create a shield politicians can hide under by saying the legislation is only temporary or a stopgap measure. This is empirically true, the Bush tax cuts were widely controversial but made it through congress almost unscathed once a sunset provision was added, thats our Sargent 10 evidence. Plus the Patriot Act, the most controversial measure in decades, sailed through congress once a sunset provision was added.

AT: Perm Do Both

1. Links to politics Still uses normal legislation which would be perceived by congress because it would be seen as permanent. 2. Doesnt solve as well as counterplan alone because it wouldnt be reviewed after five years, continuing any harmful policy effects. 3. Impossible Congress would never pass two pieces of legislation to do the same action, and if they did it would be politically explosive, magnifies link to politics. 4. Permanent legislation and sunsets are substantially different and are perceived differently. Finn, Professor of Government at Princeton University, 10 (John E., Colombian Journal of
International Law, Sunset Clauses and Democratic Deliberation: Assessing the Significance of Sunsets in Antiterrorism Legislation, L/X) CC
In sum, the benefits of sunset clauses as elements of statutory design generally fall into three categories - deliberative, informational and distributive. This suggests strongly we should expect to seesunset clauses in policy environments dominated by informational uncertainty, risk (both social and electoral) and typified by a high potential for political conflict regarding the allocation of power. In addition, because sunset clauses "allocate transaction costs differently than permanent legislation," n29 we should expect sunsetted legislation to be substantively different than legislation that would otherwise result. This is because "legislators perceive (accurately or not) temporary legislation differently."

AT: Perm Do Counterplan

***Read the Normal Means card here if you arent going to read it elsewhere*** 1. Its severance two reasons: a. Severs out of normal means which is permanent legislation that would not come under review. b. Severs out of should and will which imply permanence, thats dictionary.com. Severance is bad because it kills neg counterplan and K ground by making nothing competitive, also kills education and changes plan focus. 2. They have to win that textual competition is good to win that the perm isnt severance; well beat them on that argument.
Conditionality is Good: 1. Neg flexibility the negative role is to negate the resolution conditionality provides us with a crucial strategic tool neg flexibility is key to competitive equity and balancing the aff bias 2. Search for the best policy option - Any preferable advocacy the aff impedes just provides all the more reason not to vote for it Strategic thinking we force the aff to think strategically about which args to make in the 2AC 3. Time and strat skews are inevitable teams will always be faster than others and theory and T will always produce a time and strategy trade-off 4. All args are functionally conditional they cant force us to go for any particular flow 5. Most real world politicans reject proposals in light of alternatives all the time debate should be no different 6. Counter-interpretation the neg gets one conditional cp this solves all their contradictory and irresponsibility args 7. Err Neg on Theory the aff gets the first and last speech, infinite prep time, and higher win percentage 8. Reject the arg, not the team 9. Potential abuse isnt a voter they cant articulate any in-round abuse this proves why we shouldnt be rejected

CIR will pass its bipartisan and piecemeal reform is unpopular Diamondback 11/12 (2013, http://www.diamondbackonline.com/news/national/article_0fd78152-4b5b-11e3-a6de0019bb30f31a.html) CC
At the federal level, comprehensive immigration reform is not necessarily an issue divided along party lines. Former Republican president George W. Bush oversaw a push for such a measure, but ultimately failed to pass Congress.What do you think? Additionally, a Senate immigration bill passed on a bipartisan 68-32 vote in June, and Gutierrez said as many as 28 Republicans in the House are willing to vote on it. She said the votes are lined up, but House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) is wary of bringing the vote to the floor because the more conservative elements of the Republican Partywho oppose it could threaten his speakership. Gutierrez is hopeful that the House bill might pass in December before the 2014 midterm elections create an atmosphere less conducive to substantial reform. Comprehensive immigration reform would likely include a federal DREAM Act like this states, which helps create uniformity in students tuition rates and a more explicit path to citizenship. The DREAM Act is more popular than other provisions in the comprehensive law and could pass both chambers of the federal legislature on its own merit. But Democrats are unlikely to support a piecemeal approach to reform,
and Gutierrez said it is myopic and nearsighted to target only small parts of a bill that could affect millions of undocu mented immigrants. If Boehner tomorrow said, Im going to bring forth the bill, it would pass, Gutierrez said.

Immigration reform would be absolutely stellar for the Republicans to take action on, its in their interest to move forward on immigration reform.

CIR Will pass their evidence is media hype and empirically denied Think Progress 11/13 (2013, http://thinkprogress.org/immigration/2013/11/13/2935541/burying-immigration-reformmuddling-responsibility/) CC
Another day, another Immigration Reform is Dead pronouncement. Now that declaration is being coupled with the jaw-dropping claim that both parties share the blame for the putative demise. Neither assertion holds up to scrutiny. The number of times this issue has been declared dead and then resuscitated borders on the comical. Im tempted to call immigration the cat of D.C. politics, but that would suggest these declarations of death and reincarnation are real. They are not; they are manufactured stories by Beltway papers that thrive on predicting winners and losers. The Hill takes a turn at the coroners table today by publishing the second
in a 2-part series imaginatively entitled: How immigration died. The article admi rably pieces together the breakdown of the House Gang of 8s bill negotiations. Presumably in order to make what is now an old story (the negotiations collapsed several month s ago) still relevant, it suggests that the Gangs failure to produce a bill killed immigration reform in the house. It asserts without any context or reference points: Immigration reform is widely seen as dead in this Congress. Hmm, widely seen as dead with 13 plus months left in this Congress? Maybe the reporter should talk to the faith, immigrant rights and labor organizations who began a fast on the National Mall to raise the moral imperative of immigration reform. Or maybe to the individuals and organizations engaging in acts of civil disobedience in states all across the country. Or the 600 conservative faith, business, and law enforcement leaders who descended on the Capitol last week and are throwing down like never before in support of reform. Or the kids who tracked Speaker Boehner down at a diner this morning to tell him their heart-wrenching stories. Or the strong supermajority of Americans across the country who support reform with a path to citizenship. Perhaps he should talk to the Republican Members themselves who are feeling the heat of this escalation, who see their reelection fates tied to passing immigration reform, and are calling on their leaders to act. Better still, maybe he should talk to the Republican leaders who continue to maintain that they have to do it this Congress and that they intend to do it, just not this year. Even more disturbing than the effort to bury immigration reform by declaring it dead is the medias bondage to false equivalencies. Yesterdays report asserts that [b]oth parties are responsi ble for the efforts demise. But the conclusion that Democrats could somehow be jointly responsible for immigration reforms purported demise because the Gang of 8 negotiations collapsed belies the most basic fact about the legislative dynamics in the House: the GOP leadership controls what does (and doesnt) go to the House floor and, as part 2 of the Hill piece reports, this leadership team never committed to endorse or move the Gangs bill. Whats more, the reasons for the leaderships refusal to endorse the Gang bill are unsurprising given the litany of pre-conditions they have attached to the issue. They have monotonously voiced a commitment to regular order, but they have always known that it would be hard (impossible?) to pass a bill that legalized 11 million undo cumented immigrants out of the hyper-conservative Judiciary Committee. And they have also voiced repetitious opposition to passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill, vowing instead to move the various components of reform through individual pieces of legislation. In fact, today Speaker Boehner indicated that he has no intention of taking a House product to conference with the Senate bill yes, the bill that passed with a bipartisan supermajority. So it is hard (impossible?) to square how the failure of a self-selected group of legislators to draft a comprehensive bill that the leadership never committed to endorse factors in to the blame game. Indeed, it is the Democrats who have created the conditions to move legislation across the finish line by introducing H.R. 15, a bill that now has 189 cosponsors including a handful of Republicans. That bill could pass right now if Speaker Boehner would

bring it to the Floor. The fact that the GOP leadership currently refuses to bring legislation to the Floor that could pass and is opposed to conferencing any House legislation with the Senate bill makes two things crystal clear.

Immigration reform is not dead because the votes exist right now, today, to pass historic legislation.
But if we reach the end of this Congress in December 2014 and immigration reform has truly died, there will be only one reason: a failure of leadership by House Republicans.