Download US-China Relations Core – Wave 2 – HSS

US-China Relations Core – Wave 2 – HSS
Internal Link Defense
Affirmative
I/L – Climate Co-op
Cooperation over climate change spills over and outweighs alt causes – collaboration risks
being derailed by fears of containment
Tai 15 – (Michael Tai, University of Cambridge Centre of Development Studies, being interviewed by
reporters from The Diplomat, 9/15/15, “The Missing Piece of US-China Relations: Trust,” The Diplomat,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/the-missing-piece-of-us-china-relations-trust/, Accessed 7/8/16,
HWilson)
What issue areas provide the most fertile ground for cooperation and trust-building between
the United States and China? Is it possible for cooperation on climate issues, for example, to
counterbalance negativity in the security realm?
Climate mitigation offers a historic opportunity for cooperation. Global warming is
an existential threat. One would think that two people in a boat on rough seas would, for selfpreservation’s sake, put aside differences and cooperate. High income countries, however, do not
suffer as much from extreme weather and rising sea levels as poor countries (although the former is
responsible for putting most of the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the last 200 years). Despite
being in the same boat, they do not share the same sense of urgency. The Chinese have made
significant progress since the 12th Five-Year Plan was adopted in 2011, and according to a recent
report by the London School of Economics, China’s greenhouse gases could start to decline within
10 years, five years earlier than previously expected. Meanwhile, Washington dragged its heels
even as many U.S. states and municipalities took bold steps to curb carbon emission.
Last November Presidents Obama and Xi together pledged to expand joint clean energy
research and development, advance carbon capture and storage, and launch climate-smart city
initiatives and other measures to tackle global warming. They also promised to address major
impediments to a global climate accord. But Western oil companies continue to resist carbon
legislation, and Obama’s decision to approve Artic drilling undermines his own
climate message.
Whether climate cooperation will counter negativity in the security realm is left to be
seen as Washington appears determined to contain China. The campaign to stymie the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and American encouragement for Japanese troops to fight
overseas in “collective self defense” present the Chinese with yet more evidence of U.S. hostility. It is
hard to see how trust can grow when American leaders, despite polite statements about partnership
and cooperation, regard the Chinese government as illegitimate and morally bankrupt, and wish for its
downfall (regime change).
2AC – AT: Status Quo Solves
Status quo doesn’t solve – relations are worsening – expanding co-op on core issues with
China are key to overcome the reasons relations are going down
Qi 14 – (Chen Qi, Resident Scholar, Carnegie-Tsinghua Center for Global Policy, 1/9/14, “Competition
and Cooperation in U.S.-China Relations,” CARNEGIE-TSINGHUA CENTER FOR GLOBAL POLICY,
http://carnegietsinghua.org/publications/?fa=54099, Accessed 7/12/16, HWilson)
At his first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping offered up a new
approach to bilateral diplomacy—a new type of great-power relations. Though the rollout of
the concept was accompanied by much hopeful rhetoric, the approach faces a number of
hurdles. The primary challenge is the reality that the United States and China are still competitors.
From behavior at the recent Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting and East Asia
Summit to tense debates over China’s territorial disputes in the East and South China Seas, the
two major players are jockeying for power and rallying support from other nations . Neither
country is behaving like a neutral actor in East Asia.
In a recent example, the United States, Japan, and Australia met on the sidelines of the October
APEC meeting and released a joint statement on territorial conflicts in the South and East China
Seas. The trilateral statement opposed “coercive or unilateral actions” that could change the status
quo in the territories.
Official U.S. statements like this one list as priorities the issues of maritime safety and freedom of
navigation in the South and East China Seas for trade purposes. Beijing agrees on these priorities.
And both China and the United States are pursuing their own interests with regard to these
issues in Asia, especially in the East and South China Seas.
In that sense, the statement was, in effect, a veiled accusation that China is the aggressor. Chinese
Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying responded that the trilateral alliance was an excuse for
countries outside of Asia to interfere in Asian—namely, Chinese—affairs.
Indeed, Washington’s declared pivot toward Asia was a clear sign that the United States was not
interested in remaining neutral. The persistent U.S. presence in the region has worsened tensions
between China and its neighbors.
A central point of tension in this area is that Washington has demonstrated the tendency to
abuse rights like freedom of navigation to acquire intelligence on China, particularly the Chinese
military. The most prominent example was in 2009 when the presence of the U.S. Navy’s Impeccable in
China’s exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea resulted in a heated standoff with five Chinese
ships.
Though the United States claimed to have freedom of navigation, Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman
Ma Zhaoxu stated that a number of international laws clearly place strict limits on any U.S. vessels
entering the Chinese exclusive economic zone. Specifically, he cited the UN Convention on the Law of
the Sea, the Law on the Exclusive Economic Zone and the Continental Shelf of the People’s Republic of
China, and the Regulations on the Management of Foreign-Related Marine Scientific Research. Since
2009, debates between the two powers about the parameters of exclusive economic zones and the
presence of foreign vessels have become more hardline, hinting at the underlying concerns over U.S.
espionage in Chinese waters.
U.S. allies in Asia have also been making their own power plays. For example, just before the APEC
conference, Japan invited key regional countries engaged in maritime disputes to attend the first
International Seminar on Capacity Building of Maritime Law Enforcement Agencies in Emerging
Countries. All the current claimants to disputed territory in the South China Sea were invited—except
China.
As these actions play out and the United States reinforces its support for its allies in Asia, Beijing has
been responding by improving its own relations with its neighbors. At the APEC meeting and the East
Asia Summit, Xi explained that China and Southeast Asia are a “community of common destiny,”
emphasizing the importance of “diversity, harmony, inclusiveness and common progress” in both the
East and South China Seas. In the aftermath of the summits, Xi stated that Chinese diplomacy would
take on a “three-dimensional, multi-element perspective” toward neighboring countries with the intent
of cultivating friendlier relations.
The exception to this approach is the Philippines. It is in Beijing’s strategic interests to isolate the
Philippines because Manila has strongly spoken out against China on territorial disputes and in favor of
ties to the United States. Though each conflict in the East and South China Seas is different, China’s
preference to isolate the Philippines should be a warning to Japan—and the United States—that
Japanese leaders should take care to not escalate tensions further.
Given these obstacles, if the United States and China are to succeed in building a new type of
great-power relationship, they need to work together in areas where cooperation is
possible. The two powers share common interests on issues of global concern, such as climate
change and nonproliferation. By cooperating in these areas, Washington and Beijing can build
mutual trust.
And they can both have healthy competition and produce benefits for the region at large by
supplying public goods. With its economic power rising, China in particular is ready to take
a leadership role in stimulating development by investing in Asian countries as well as in
providing security for the region.
Pursuing these avenues is particularly important because the United States remains a polarizing
actor in Asia. The long-standing issues of U.S. arms sales to Taiwan and of Washington and
Beijing’s disagreements over the territorial disputes in the South China Sea will remain in the
immediate future. To mitigate some of these tensions, the United States should take
steps to limit its interference in the region and to demonstrate that it respects China’s
core interests on these issues.
There are still significant challenges to overcome in U.S.-China relations. But focusing on areas of
potential cooperation can help ease the tension between the two competing powers.
Negative
1NC – Alt Causes
Alt causes outweigh – SCS tensions, NGO laws, trade pacts, cybersecurity, and BIT
negotiations
Johnson 15 – (William Johnson is a reporter for Reuters, 6/23/15, “The five most important
issues in U.S.-China relations,” http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/06/23/the-fivemost-important-issues-in-u-s-china-relations/, Accessed 7/10/16, HWilson)
This week, the United States will host the seventh annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic
Dialogue (S&ED), the capstone piece of more than 90 high-level meetings between American and
Chinese officials. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and his Chinese counterpart will lead the economic track,
while Secretary of State John Kerry and his counterpart will co-chair the strategic track. All four will be
acting as the direct representatives of their respective presidents.
This year’s dialogue has special significance because it will set the stage for President Xi’s state
visit in September. U.S.-China relations have been rocky recently, owing primarily to tensions in
the South China Sea, China’s new law governing foreign non-governmental organizations, and
friction over membership in China’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the U.S.-led
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). In addition to these issues, Chinese and American leaders will
devote substantial attention to cybersecurity and the recently disclosed hack of the Office of
Personnel Management’s database, as well as the ongoing negotiations toward a U.S.-China
Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT).
2NC – Alt Causes
More alt causes –
Fundamental different value systems – prefer our ev – it actually impacts out the alt causes –
makes any bilateral solution impossible
Schell 15 – (Orville Schell is Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia
Society and former dean of the University of California, Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism;
10/6/15, “How China and U.S. Became Unlikely Partners on Climate,” Yale Environment 360,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_china_and_us_became_unlikely_partners_on_climate/2917/,
Accessed 7/12/16, HWilson)
Unfortunately, like the proverbial elephant in the middle of the room, there still sits one extremely
divisive problem that few want to recognize, because almost no one knows what to do about it,
and it effects our bilateral ability not just to tackle climate change, but the myriad of
other pressing problems — from pandemics and nuclear proliferation to terrorism
and humanitarian crises — that afflict our world: The United States and the People's
Republic of China have fundamentally irreconcilable political systems and antagonistic
value systems. We are a liberal democracy and they are a Leninist one-party state, and
nobody quite knows how to factor an equation that includes democracy and autocracy. Yet, to
collaborate, we are compelled to pretend this elephant isn’t in the room .
The U.S. system of governance derives, of course, from a liberal democratic model stressing
constitutionalism, multi-party electoral politics, rule of law, strong governmental checks and
balances, and elaborate protections of the rights of the individual, a system purposefully
adopted by our founding fathers as a bulwark against monarchical tyrannies . Our value system
is drawn from the same wellspring of enlightenment ideals and stresses personal liberty,
freedom, and the sanctity of the individual.
China’s one-party, Communist system, adopted from the Soviet Union during its darkest
Stalinist period, is based on the Leninist principle of “democratic centralism” and the Marxist
notion of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” that prescribe a strong, hierarchal, uni-party
political system organized around discipline, orthodoxy, and unity.
These fundamental contradictions make the U.S. and China unlikely partners for any
kind of partnership, and yet here we are in a world that begs our collaboration for the sake
of planetary survival.
The idea that two countries with such different political histories, values, and systems could
ever cooperate grew out of two previous historic diplomatic breakthroughs. The first came in
1972 when Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger visited Beijing to recast U.S.-China relations with
Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai as a hedge against the U.S.S.R., The second came in 1979 when Deng
Xiaoping visited Washington to reestablish full diplomatic relations with President Jimmy Carter.
Out of this rapprochement and Deng’s ambitious new program of “reform and opening up,” a
presumption unfolded that China was, at last, beginning to join the West’s notion of history as heading
ineluctably (a la Hegel) toward a more open and democratic horizon. Americans hoped that if we just
helped it along with a little more free marketization and cultural exchange, slowly China’s political
system would evolve and its values would change to become more like ours. It was a naïve dream that
we sometimes allowed ourselves to dream, if sometimes to doubt. It did, however, provide
grounds for both countries to begin many kinds of constructive collaboration.
Unfortunately, this phase of collaboration ended in the bloodshed of 1989 when leaders in Beijing
became alarmed at the way their dabbling in political reform almost landed the Chinese
Communist Party on the ash heap of history. The result was an almost complete halt in further
democratization.
Nonetheless, over the ensuing decades, through growing trade the two countries did manage to reknit
the U.S.-China relationship back together well enough for both sides to begin imagining that, with more
time, economic liberalization, educational exchange, civil society interaction, etc., China might yet
evolve into a responsible “stakeholder,” as then-Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick hopefully put
it.
But since Xi Jinping’s investiture as Communist Party general secretary and president in 2013,
he has made it abundantly clear that China is definitely not headed in any direction
that is convergent with the West. President Bill Clinton once scolded his Chinese predecessor for
being “on the wrong side of history.” Xi has made it emphatically clear that his China was on what
he viewed as the “right side” of history, and one with distinctly “Chinese characteristics .” What
is more, he seems to be suggesting that China had now also come up with its own viable model
of development, one that might be described as “Leninist capitalism.” But if this model is
China’s new historical endgame, the U.S.-China bilateral becomes deprived of any semblance of
converging long-term political game plans. Instead of sharing the presumption of an even vaguely
common political horizon, the two countries now find themselves traveling in diverging
historical directions.
North Korean denuclearization
Snyder 16 – (Scott A. Synder is Senior Fellow for Korea Studies and Director of the Program on U.S.Korea Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR); 1/9/16, “Where China and the United States
Disagree on North Korea,” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/where-china-and-theunited-states-disagree-on-north-korea/, Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson)
The “artificial earthquake” in North Korea caused by its fourth nuclear test has set off
geopolitical tremors in U.S.-China relations, exposing the underlying gap between the two
countries that has long been papered over by their common rhetorical commitment to Korean
denuclearization. At their Sunnylands summit in June of 2013, Presidents Xi Jinping and Barack
Obama vowed to work together on North Korea. Last September in Washington, the two leaders
underscored the unacceptability of a North Korean nuclear test.
But Secretary of State John Kerry stated in his January 7 conversation with Chinese Foreign Minister
Wang Yi that previous approaches to the North Korean problem have not worked and that “we
cannot continue business as usual.” The Global Times, a mouthpiece of the Chinese
Communist Party, responded by stating that “[t]here is no hope to put an end to the North
Korean nuclear conundrum if the U.S., South Korea, and Japan do not change their policies
toward Pyongyang. Solely depending on Beijing’s pressure to force the North to give up its nuclear
plan is an illusion.”
The now exposed Sino-U.S. gap over North Korea runs deep and extends to at least four
critical dimensions:
Washington’s air of superiority, general ignorance, and concerns of containment
Tai 15 – (Michael Tai, University of Cambridge Centre of Development Studies, being interviewed by
reporters from The Diplomat, 9/15/15, “The Missing Piece of US-China Relations: Trust,” The Diplomat,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/09/the-missing-piece-of-us-china-relations-trust/, Accessed 7/8/16,
HWilson)
With Chinese President Xi Jinping set to visit the United States next week, the U.S.-China relationship is
under close scrutiny. The Diplomat speaks to Michael Tai of the Center of Development Studies at the
University of Cambridge, and author of the book U.S.-China Relations in the Twenty-First Century: A
Question of Trust, about the state of the relationship and what both sides should try to achieve during
Xi’s visit.
The Diplomat: In your book, you focus on the role of trust in international relations, arguing that such
trust is crucial particularly between rising and established powers. But is it possible for the U.S. and
China to build up trust, given the vast differences between their political systems and values?
Michael Tai: The problem lies not so much in differences in political systems and values as in
Washington’s notion that no one should challenge U.S. supremacy. Washington applies morality
selectively. Indeed, it has no problem befriending states with quite different political systems and
values, even corrupt and repressive regimes, as long as they serve American interests. Its foreign
policy is guided less by moral norms or the vision of a “shining city upon a hill” than by the self-
interest of an elite class. While claiming to champion democracy and freedom, the U.S. has a
history of subverting or overthrowing democratically elected governments (in Indonesia, Iran,
Guatemala, Chile, etc.) who choose not to toe Washington’s line. It uses its power in institutions
like the IMF and the World Bank to advance American corporate interests against those of developing
countries. Trust is based upon the record of a person’s words and deeds. When it comes to
trust, history matters.
The Chinese government (the Chinese Communist Party) is not without blemish either. Economic
experimentation and power struggle during the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution led to
famine, social upheaval, and the tragic loss of millions of innocent lives. Since market reforms began
in 1978, however, China has gone from being a poor, backward country to become the world’s
biggest economy. Living standards have risen dramatically but so too have pollution and
corruption. These are, one might say, the growing pains of an ancient civilization building in 50 years
what took the West, with its vast colonial resources, 500 years. China’s external relations, however,
have been guided largely by a doctrine of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states,
a principle conceived by India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and China’s first premier, Zhou Enlai, in
1954. The Chinese conduct foreign relations with no reference to political systems, and whereas
the U.S. operates hundreds of military bases around the world, there are no Chinese soldiers on
foreign soil (except on UN peacekeeping duty) and no history of overthrowing foreign
governments.
But trust can be built through empathy. Empathy is the act of putting oneself in the other person’s
shoes. We are more apt to trust those who show they understand us, especially when it is demonstrated
through deeds. We win trust by showing empathy. Empathy conveys respect and has the power to turn
enemies into friends.
You argue that China is generally more knowledgeable about the United States’ policies and actions than
the U.S. is about China’s. Why is that? What impact do you think this knowledge gap has had on U.S.China relations?
Knowledge has to do with a nation’s capacity to empathize. McDonald’s, Coca Cola, Starbucks, Nike,
IBM, Boeing, and Apple have become household names in China, while Hollywood movies like Iron Man,
Mission Impossible, and Harry Potter are box office hits there. But the reverse is rarely the case.
Whereas Chinese children learn a good deal of American history, American schools teach little if
anything about China. Many Chinese parents spare no expense to have their children master English,
starting from third grade and some as early as kindergarten. There are 400 million Chinese (more
than the entire U.S. population) learning English compared to the 200,000 Americans learning
Chinese. Last year 274,000 Chinese studied in America (up 16.5 percent over the previous year)
compared to 14,413 American students in China (down 3.2 percent from the previous year). On the
whole, Americans know very little about China. The asymmetry is problematic. How we
construe ourselves and the world matters because our intuition shapes our fears,
impressions, and relationships.
There is also plenty of disinformation which the Chinese are unable [to] counter because of
Western control of the international media. For instance, Chinese efforts to export development
to the Third World through building much-needed infrastructure are dismissed out of hand as
self-serving neocolonialism. When the U.S. condemns the Chinese for this or that human rights
violation, it takes no account of the fact that the Chinese government has succeeded in lifting
over 500 million of its citizens out of extreme poverty in the last 30 years, nor of the fact that the
average Chinese today enjoys more basic human rights like food, shelter, schooling, and health care
than at any time in history. Harvard scholar John Fairbank warned early on that Chinese society is very
different from America, and that U.S. policymakers would fail unless they took the differences
into account. Chinese issues should be evaluated in the context of the country’s culture and
history, he urged, but few in Washington pay heed.
What issue areas provide the most fertile ground for cooperation and trust-building between the United
States and China? Is it possible for cooperation on climate issues, for example, to counterbalance
negativity in the security realm?
Climate mitigation offers a historic opportunity for cooperation. Global warming is an existential threat.
One would think that two people in a boat on rough seas would, for self-preservation’s sake, put aside
differences and cooperate. High income countries, however, do not suffer as much from extreme
weather and rising sea levels as poor countries (although the former is responsible for putting most of
the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere the last 200 years). Despite being in the same boat, they do not
share the same sense of urgency. The Chinese have made significant progress since the 12th Five-Year
Plan was adopted in 2011, and according to a recent report by the London School of Economics, China’s
greenhouse gases could start to decline within 10 years, five years earlier than previously expected.
Meanwhile, Washington dragged its heels even as many U.S. states and municipalities took bold steps to
curb carbon emission.
Last November Presidents Obama and Xi together pledged to expand joint clean energy research and
development, advance carbon capture and storage, and launch climate-smart city initiatives and other
measures to tackle global warming. They also promised to address major impediments to a global
climate accord. But Western oil companies continue to resist carbon legislation, and Obama’s decision
to approve Artic drilling undermines his own climate message.
Whether climate cooperation will counter negativity in the security realm is left to be
seen as Washington appears determined to contain China. The campaign to stymie the Asian
Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and American encouragement for Japanese troops to
fight overseas in “collective self defense” present the Chinese with yet more evidence of U.S.
hostility. It is hard to see how trust can grow when American leaders, despite polite
statements about partnership and cooperation, regard the Chinese government as
illegitimate and morally bankrupt, and wish for its downfall (regime change).
Campaign rhetoric – prefer our ev – cites the Chinese perspective
Huang and Zhou 16 – (Cary Huang and Laura Zhou, reporters for the South China Morning Post;
5/28/16, “American election to drag down China-US relationship: think tank,” South China Morning Post,
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1956859/american-election-drag-downchina-us-relationship-think, Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson)
The Sino-US relationship will be dragged down to a “lower point” in the US
presidential election year before improving, due to campaign politics, according to a leading
Chinese think tank.
“Both presidential candidates from two major parties have had a negative view on
China policy,” said the latest edition of the Blue Book of the United States, an -annual report
released by the -Institute of American Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
Donald Trump is leading the Republicans, while Hillary -Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee.
A chapter of the blue book analyses the front runners’ foreign policy stances and their China policy in
particular.
It said that ever since US President Barack Obama had embraced the US “pivot” towards Asia, ties
between Washington and Beijing had reached a new juncture.
It said Clinton, a former US secretary of state and first lady under Bill Clinton, was an old-hand diplomat
with the clearer foreign policy vision, while Trump, a property magnate, had preferred to remain
ambiguous in his vision for America’s relations with global powers.
“As one of the originators who designed [the US] Asia-Pacific strategy, Clinton has been known for
her tough stance on China affairs,” it said.
The think tanks said Hillary Clinton had the clearer foreign policy vision of the presidential hopefuls.
“There are many uncertainties and great ambiguity in Sino-US relations in Trump’s diplomacy,”
it said, accusing him of making numerous groundless attacks on China.
Trump’s diplomatic doctrine of isolation, which suggests the US should not maintain a strong presence
in the region, would mean the US would not invest too much in protecting the security of allies such as
Japan and South Korea, and would not be involved in the territorial disputes in the -region, it said.
“Under the cycle of presidential election politics, Sino-US relations will continue the practice of
‘beginning low and going up afterwards’,” it said, in a reference to a typical trading session on the stock
market.
However, the blue book said Sino-US relations would begin at an “even lower point”
than previously in the first year of the presidency.
1NC – Status Quo Solves / Relations Resilient
Status quo solves and relations are resilient – empirics prove
Zhen 16 – (Liu Zhen, reporter for the South China Morning Post, 3/16/16, “China’s relations with US
‘moving forward’, says premier, amid strains over territorial claims in South China Sea,” South China
Morning Post, http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1925794/chinas-relationsus-moving-forward-says-premier-amid, Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson)
China’s relationship with the United States will only improve, whoever wins the US
presidential election, as the two nations common interests expand, China’s Premier Li
Keqiang said on Wednesday.
Li said that as China had become the US’s top trading partner, with two-way trade reaching
US$560 billion, differences between two countries have been outweighed.
“I believe that in the end no matter who gets into the White House the underlying trend for USChina ties will not change.” Li told a press conference at the end of the National People’s Congress
in Beijing.
His comments came as relations between the two countries have been strained over US naval
patrols near Chinese controlled islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. The US says
the missions are to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters.
Li said that as co-operation between China and the United States grows the number of
differences may naturally rise, but the percentage of problems in their overall
relationship will fall.
He said there were over 100 mechanisms for dialogue to manage any differences
between the two sides.
“As long as the two sides act in good faith and properly manage their differences , I believe our
common interests will further expand,” he said.
Li discussed the negotiations for an investment treaty between the two countries, promising to
gradually give US investors wider access to China’s markets. He said Chinese investors should also enjoy
similar openings in the US.
The China-US relationship had gone through many ups and downs since diplomatic ties were
established , he said.
“It has always been moving forward, which I believe is the underlying trend,” he added.
2NC – Status Quo Solves
Status quo solves – both nations are expanding cooperation
Tiezzi 16 – (Shannon Tiezzi previously served as a research associate at the U.S.-China Policy
Foundation and studied at Tsinghua University in Beijing; currentlyEditor at The Diplomat. Her main
focus is on China, and she writes on China's foreign relations, domestic politics, and economy, 4/1/16,
“Obama, Xi Put Positive Spin on US-China Relations,” The Diplomat,
http://thediplomat.com/2016/04/obama-xi-put-positive-spin-on-us-china-relations/, Accessed 7/13/16,
HWilson)
Chinese President Xi Jinping is currently in the United States to attend the Nuclear Security
Summit, along with a host of global figures (including top leaders from India, Japan,
Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand). While the theme of the summit is focused on securing
nuclear materials and nuclear non-proliferation, Xi’s presence in the U.S. capital recalled the growing
list of friction points between Washington and Beijing, from the South China Sea to cyber issues.
On Thursday, Obama and Xi had their first bilateral meeting this year, the latest face-to-face since
talks on the sidelines of the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris four months ago.
Obama began his remarks with Xi by repeating the long-standing position that “the United States
welcomes the rise of a peaceful, stable, and prosperous China.” Xi, meanwhile, reiterated that “it
is a priority for China’s foreign policy to work with the United States to build a new
model of major country relations, and to realize no conflicts or confrontation, mutual
respect and win-win cooperation.” Both those oft-repeated statements have worn rather thin, thanks
in part to increasingly assertive moves in the disputed waters of the South China Sea from Beijing, and
increasingly barbed verbal responses from U.S. military officials.
Still, the two sides could — and did — point to some positive progress on nuclear security. In a joint
statement on nuclear security cooperation, the U.S. and China pledged to deepen cooperation and
coordination to prevent nuclear smuggling and increase the security of nuclear materials. At a
press briefing, Laura Holgate, added that Washington was “really quite encouraged by the leadership
that China is beginning to show in the nuclear security realm.”
In another positive step, a new nuclear security Center of Excellence opened in China earlier this
month, at a ceremony attended by U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. Moniz described the new
center, the result of close U.S.-China collaboration, as “a world-class facility for Chinese,
regional, and international nuclear security training and technical exchanges.”
Meanwhile, White House officials were also quick to note China’s cooperation over the North
Korean nuclear issue. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes pointed out that the recent UN
Security Council sanctions – “the toughest sanctions that have ever been imposed on North
Korea” – would not have been possible “without China’s cooperation and support.”
“So we’ve seen China step up in many ways in terms of applying pressure,” Rhodes told
reporters in a press briefing on Wednesday. “The fact is, it has to over time affect the calculus of the
North Korean leadership.”
Despite the upbeat tone, questions remain about just how coordinated China and the United States are
in their approach toward North Korea. Beijing strongly favors negotiations – including peace treaty
negotiations on a separate track from denuclearization talks – over sanctions, while the United States
continues to emphasize the use of pressure to eventually bring North Korea to the table. Daniel
Kritenbrink, the senior director for Asia on the National Security Council, called the North Korea
question “one of the most important issues that President Obama and President Xi [will] discuss.”
During his remarks with Xi, Obama noted that “President Xi and I are both committed to the
denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the full implementation of UN sanctions.” He said the
bilateral meeting would include discussions on how to discourage provocations like missile tests.
In another symbol of U.S.-China cooperation on global issues, Obama and Xi will also
gather together Thursday, along with the other leaders of the P5+1, to review progress on
implementing the nuclear deal reached with Iran last year.
Meanwhile, climate change continues to provide a bright spot for U.S.-China
cooperation. In a joint statement, Obama and Xi announced that the United States and China
will both sign the Paris climate change agreement on April 22, and committed to completing
the domestic processes to join the agreement “as early as possible this year.” The statement also
proclaimed that “climate change has become a pillar of the U.S.-China bilateral
relationship” and called cooperation in this field “an enduring legacy of the partnership
between our two countries.”
Relations Good – Generic
Affirmative
1AC – Relations Solve Everything
US-China co-operation is crucial to solving all global threats and crises – war, warming,
resource wars, and more – most qualled
Fingar, Ph.D, et al 13 – (Thomas Fingar is the inaugural Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow in the
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He was the Payne
Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford during January to December 2009 and holds a Ph.D in political science
from Stanford; Banning Garrett is the director of the Asia Program at the Atlantic Council of the United
States and also directs the Strategic Foresight Initiative, which works with the National Intelligence
Council on their quadrennial long-term assessments, he holds a PhD from Brandeis University and has
previously directed the Initiative for US-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Change at the Asia
Society’s Center for US-China relations, and was the founding executive director of the Institute for SinoAmerican International Dialogue at the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of
Denver; also includes input by Stephen J. Hadley (former US national security advisor to President
George W. Bush). Barry Hughes (Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, University of
Denver), Li Zhaoxing (China Public Diplomacy Association), Qu Xing (China Institute of International
Studies), Wang Jisi (Peking University), and Ruan Zongze (CIIS); Published by the China Institute of
International Studies, whose staff consists of nearly one hundred researchers and other professionals.
Among them are senior diplomats, leading area-study specialists, and preeminent experts in major fields
of foreign affairs. Young scholars at CIIS all have advanced university degree in I.R. or related disciplines.
Research at the Institute is focused primarily on medium and long-term policy issues of strategic
importance, particularly those concerning international politics and world economy. It also includes
comments and policy recommendations on the world's major events and hot-spot issues; also cites 20
other professors or directors at research institutes and you can access the full list by clicking the url and
going to page 5 of the pdf; September 2013, “China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future,”
http://cusef.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/05_eng.pdf, Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson)
Preface: Global Future Depends on Depth of China-US Cooperation
The world has achieved unprecedented peace, prosperity, and inter-dependence, but past
achievements — and further progress — are threatened by a host of looming challenges. Global
institutions that served us well and transformed the world are becoming victims of their own
success and must be reformed or replaced to deal with new challenges and take advantage of
new opportunities. Governments everywhere face rising expectations and increasing demands but
find themselves less able to manage the challenges they face.
The next round of challenges can only be managed successfully if nations, especially major
powers, cooperate. Moreover, the most difficult and most consequential challenges cannot
be managed effectively without sustained cooperation between the largest developing
country, China, and the largest developed country, the United States. Stated another way, the
ability of China and the United States to work together on critical global challenges
will determine whether the world is able to sustain and enhance mutually beneficial
developments or fails to cope with the issues critical to the global future and to the
security and prosperity of the United States and China.
This shared conviction persuades us that we must do more than just hope that our countries will
find ways to cooperate. This report represents a joint effort to develop both the rationale and
concrete mechanisms for sustained, proactive collaboration to address challenges resulting
from long-term global trends and consequential uncertainties. It builds on the findings of
independent efforts to identify megatrends and potential game-changers with the goal of
developing a framework for the US-China relationship that will better enable us to meet the
challenges facing the global community and the strategic needs of both countries.
The Joint Working Group recognizes that China and the United States hold different views on many
bilateral and international issues, and that our relationship is constrained by mutual suspicion and
strategic mistrust. Nevertheless, our common strategic interests and responsibility as major powers are
more important than the specific issues that divide us; we must not make cooperation on critical global
issues contingent on prior resolution of bilateral disputes. Our disagreements on bilateral issues are
important, but they are not as important to our long-term security and prosperity as is our ability to
cooperate on key challenges to global security and our increasingly intertwined futures. We must
cooperate on global challenges not as a favor to one another or because other nations expect us to
exercise leadership in the international system. We must do it because failure to cooperate on key
global challenges will have profoundly negative consequences for the citizens of our own countries.
The Joint Working Group has no illusions about how difficult the task ahead will be. Leaders in both
countries face relentless domestic pressures to focus on near-term issues, often to the detriment of
long-term interests, as well as on looming US-China bilateral differences and mutual suspicions. This
report seeks to illustrate why it is imperative and how it is possible to pursue long- and short-term
interests at the same time.
How We Reached Key Assessments and Recommendations
Generous support from the China-United States Exchange Foundation enabled the Atlantic Council and
the China Institute of International Studies (CIIS) to establish a Joint Working Group of experts from both
countries. The members of the group met in Beijing and Washington in the spring and summer of 2012
to compare and integrate the findings of separate Chinese and US draft reports on global trends. The
Chinese projection of trends, entitled Global Trends to 2030 and the Prospects for China-US Relations,
was prepared by CIIS with contributions from the School of International Studies at Peking University.
The US report, Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, was prepared by the US National Intelligence
Council (NIC).[1] The Atlantic Council contributed to the NIC report and members of the NIC team
attended (as observers) the joint assessment meetings.
This review confirmed that the independently developed reports were generally consistent in their
assessments of global trends and provided a solid basis for development of scenarios to illustrate what
might happen under different assumptions about cooperation between China and the United States.
The scenarios in both analyses depict markedly different outcomes for China, the United States, and the
world. When China and the United States cooperate to meet looming challenges, both countries benefit.
When they fail to cooperate and pursue narrow interests or win-lose or zero-sum outcomes, both
countries lose. Continuing down the path of drift and episodic cooperation that we are on now also
leads to lose-lose outcomes.
The obvious advantages of win-win outcomes and dangerous implications of behaviors that eschew or
minimize cooperation create strong incentives to focus on megatrends, critical challenges, and
enhancing the likelihood of success and mutual benefit through close and continuous collaboration. This
report outlines the case for collaboration and makes several specific recommendations to make
cooperation both possible and fruitful. It was drafted and circulated among group members for revisions
and to ensure consensus.
China and the United States have different interests, objectives, and perspectives on many matters, and
the number of issues in dispute may well grow as we broaden our bilateral relationship and at times
disagree with one another on the world stage. Resolving some of these issues will be difficult and
require much time and effort.
The resolution of these contentious issues in the US-China relationship, however, must not be made a
prerequisite for cooperation on a limited but arguably more important set of issues with the clear
potential to harm both of our interests. Continued drift toward strategic competition and failure to find
a balance of interests on core issues will undermine support in both countries for cooperation on major
global issues of mutual interest and benefit. Cooperation on shared global challenges may build trust
and make it easier to resolve nettlesome bilateral issues. But that would be an ancillary benefit and
should not be the primary reason for collaboration on the global challenges identified in the
independently prepared studies and summarized elsewhere in this report.
The primary reasons we need to work together on the global challenges are that they cannot be
addressed successfully unless we do, and that failure to deal effectively with consequential
megatrends will have deleterious consequences for China, the United States, and the world. It
is difficult to envision a stable, prosperous global system absent a US-China relationship that is
largely a cooperative one.
Forces and megatrends that are visible but not well understood today will shape the futures of people
everywhere. The list includes consequences of globalization that increase prosperity but also increase
demand for water, food, and energy. It also includes demographic change and effects of climate change
that will intensify the consequences of other megatrends and make them more difficult to manage.
Some of the megatrends and the way they interact will threaten social and political stability unless
managed effectively. All have profound implications for governance and global stability. How effectively
governments meet and manage these challenges in the next ten to twenty years will determine how
beneficial or detrimental they will be for our countries and our children.
Successfully navigating the turbulent waters ahead will require understanding the challenges we face
and foresight about the implications of alternative paths. Our common goal must be to avert or
ameliorate negative outcomes, and to maximize the chances of achieving desirable outcomes. To
accomplish this goal, China and the United States must establish and draw on a continuing dialogue on
the evolution, implications, and possible policy responses to the most consequential megatrends, key
uncertainties, and disruptive change. The framework and policy recommendations of this report seek to
jumpstart that process by suggesting mechanisms for collaboration that begin bilaterally but eventually
include other nations critical to finding paths to a better future for all.
I. Critical Importance of China-US Cooperation
The global future is likely to be increasingly volatile and uncertain. The rate of change is
increasing, driven by the accelerating pace of technological development, unprecedented
urbanization and growth of the global middle class, and a wide range of challenges beyond the
control of any one country but potentially affecting the prosperity and security of all countries .
Disruptive change in one geographic or functional area will spread quickly.. No country, and
certainly not those with the largest populations and largest economies, will be immune. Global
challenges like climate change, food and water shortages, and resource scarcities will
shape the strategic context for all nations and require reconsideration of traditional
national concerns such as sovereignty and maximizing the ability of national leaders
to control their country’s destiny.
What China and the United States do, individually and together, will have a major impact on
the future of the global system. As importantly, our individual fates will be inextricably linked
to how that future plays out. The three illustrative scenarios sketched out below underscore how
critical the future of the US-China relationship is to each country and to the world.
• Global Drift and Erosion (the present world trajectory): In a world in which nations fail to resolve
global problems and strengthen mechanisms of global cooperation, governments gradually turn
inward. Each nation seeks to protect and advance its own narrow national interests or to
preserve an unsustainable status quo that is rapidly changing in ways that erode the
international order. The international community’s lack of ability to cooperate to meet global
challenges leads to international crises and instability.
• Zero-Sum World: Unsustainable drift leads to a world of predominantly zero-sum competition
and conflict in the face of severe resource constraints. The result is economic crises and internal
instability as well as interstate confrontation. There is risk of military conflict between major
powers, which increases global mistrust and uncertainty and fosters an “each nation for itself”
mentality that further undermines the ability of states to cooperate in the face of growing
common challenges.
• Global Revitalization and Cooperation: To escape the perils of drift or zero-sum competition,
leaders in countries with the most to lose work together to manage and take advantage of
global challenges and megatrends. Cooperation makes it possible to achieve win-win outcomes
that avoid or mitigate negative consequences of increased demand for resources and the
impact of climate change as well as to harness new technologies to improve living conditions
through sustainable development. Cooperation creates and utilizes new transnational
institutions to prevent conflict and enhance security for all. China and the United States
become more prosperous as we work together.
The possible futures sketched out above (and developed at greater length below) are intended to
stimulate thinking about how current trends and uncertainties could lead to very different global
and national outcomes. For many reasons, the United States and China will have greater ability
and incentives than other countries to cooperate in determining and shaping developments
over the next two decades. Indeed, it is very difficult to imagine a pathway to “global
revitalization and cooperation” in which China and the United States do not cooperate and
provide critical international leadership.
Many factors will shape the future, some of which are beyond the control of any nation state, but
China and the United States — and the character of the US-China relationship — will be critical.
The mutual dependence on each other’s economic performance and the success of the global
economy as a whole was demonstrated during the 2008 financial crisis that began in the United
States but quickly spread around the world. US and Chinese leaders recognized that they were
in the “same boat” strategically and engaged in a closely coordinated response to the crisis, which
played a key—if not decisive—role in preventing the situation from becoming much worse. The
need for joint and coordinated responses to economic crises and to mounting economic
challenges and threats is certain to increase as globalization continues and interdependence
deepens.
Negative
1NC – Relations Fail
Relations fail – there are inherent limits and fundamental disagreements
Wei and Schwartz 16 – (Lingling Wei covers Chinese finance from The Wall Street Journal's Beijing
bureau. She focuses on China's central bank, some of the country's -- and the world's -- largest
commercial banks and deepest pools of capital. A graduate of New York University, she has also covered
U.S. real estate and finance; Felicia Schwartz is a reporter in the Washington, D.C. bureau, where she
writes about national security. She is a graduate of Dartmouth College; 6/6/16, “U.S., China Find
Common Ground Elusive at High-Level Talks,” The Wall Street Journal,
http://www.wsj.com/articles/beijings-south-china-sea-claims-cloud-u-s-china-talks-1465180495,
Accessde 7/12/16, HWilson)
BEIJING—High-level talks meant to steady often fractious U.S.-China relations are instead
showing the limits of cooperation in one of the Obama administration’s last major
negotiations with Beijing.
Disagreements in the mainly closed-door talks among dozens of senior officials this week were on
display Monday. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew took Beijing to task for its regulatory barriers
on foreign businesses and urged it to cut the rampant excess capacity in steel and other
industries that is having “a distorting and damaging effect on global markets.”
His counterpart, Chinese Finance Minister Lou Jiwei, later told reporters that China’s industrial
overcapacity “has been the subject of much hype around the world.” He said that Beijing is
“confronting the issue squarely.”
As for agreement, China is encouraging U.S. companies to invest in energy-efficient projects through a
20 billion yuan ($3 billion) green finance fund, according to officials with knowledge of the matter. That
initiative builds on the cooperation the two sides displayed in helping to forge the global accord on
climate change in Paris last year.
China and the U.S. are dealing with an array of disputes, from duties on trade, Chinese currency policy
and investment hurdles to cybersecurity and China’s new security laws and regulations that restrict
foreign nonprofit groups and pressure businesses to transfer technology.
Even so, the limited expectations for progress in the talks, which end Tuesday, are in part being
driven by rising tensions over the South China Sea, where the U.S. is challenging China’s
assertive pressing of expansive claims, and by the intrusion of domestic politics.
This year’s strategic and economic dialogue, or S&ED as the talks are known, is the last for the Obama
administration, leaving little time for major initiatives. With China policy—especially on trade—already a
topic in the presidential election, Chinese analysts expect the next president is likely to start out with a
harder line toward Beijing.
“At this final S&ED it is unlikely that there will be substantial outcomes because deals have
already been reached in areas where they agree,” said Bonnie Glaser, senior adviser for Asia at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The most difficult areas are left and
will likely be inherited by the next U.S. administration.”
Little headway has been made over a bilateral investment treaty, a key goal that both
governments embraced a few years ago. U.S. negotiators are waiting for a revised Chinese offer on the
sectors that would remain closed to foreign investment. Beijing’s previous “negative list” contained
more than 40 sectors. The U.S. side is looking for a more narrowly drawn list. On Monday, a senior
Chinese official declined to say when that might be delivered.
“It will take us more time to provide a revised negative list,” said Zhang Xiangcheng, a vice minister of
commerce, at a news conference.
For many years the bedrock of U.S.-China relations, trade and investment have emerged as a
new source of friction.
The Obama administration, given the sharp rhetoric in the presidential election, has issued trade
complaints and levied duties on some Chinese goods, including the cold-rolled steel used in
appliances and auto parts.
U.S. business groups are more vocal about what they see as an uneven playing field, with
regulations restricting access to major sectors and pressuring them to share technology and other
proprietary information with Chinese partners.
“Candidly, foreign businesses wonder if they are welcome, and find China’s regulatory
environment harder and harder to navigate,” Mr. Lew said during Monday’s talks. He called on
Beijing to increase transparency and remove barriers to market access.
Chinese officials, who want to keep factories humming in the midst of an economic slowdown, have
criticized the U.S. and other foreign governments for resorting to protectionist measures to
protect home markets from China’s competitive exports.
Some of Beijing’s prickliness was evident after Mr. Lew took issue with the overcapacity that is
sending a glut of steel, aluminum and other Chinese industrial goods onto global markets. Mr. Lou,
China’s finance minister, said that he didn’t “feel any discomfort” with Mr. Lew’s criticisms and said that
Beijing would rely on markets to deal with the capacity problems.
He reminded reporters that the problem is rooted in the massive infrastructure-building program China
launched following the global financial crisis in 2008. In the three years that followed, he said, China
accounted for more than half of the world’s economic growth.
“At the time, the world thanked China for boosting economic growth,” he said. “Now, the world is
pointing fingers at China.”
Relations Good – Warming
Affirmative
1AC – Relations Solve Warming
Expanding US-China ties are key to develop global solutions to climate change – relations
solve and the status quo doesn’t
Hongzhou 15 – (Zhang Hongzhou is an Associate Research Fellow with the China Programme at the S.
Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University, Singapore;
10/13/15, “China-US Climate Change Cooperation: Beyond Energy,” The Diplomat,
http://thediplomat.com/2015/10/china-us-climate-change-cooperation-beyond-energy/, Accessed
7/11/16, HWilson)
The Paris Summit in December 2015 is being seen as the “last chance” to save the world from the
worst ravages of climate change, yet whether the international community can reach a new
climate change agreement remains to be seen. The United States and China, the two
biggest economies and largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world, hold the key to the
success of not only the Paris Summit but also long-term global efforts to combat climate
change.
Thankfully, unlike most aspects of Sino-U.S. relations where tensions are rising, bilateral
cooperation on climate change has made remarkable progress, highlighted by the
historic climate change agreement signed by the two countries in November 2014. During Xi
Jinping’s first state visit to the United States last month, the two sides announced a new set of
policies to combat climate change, including a national cap-and-trade program in China and a
$3 billion fund from China to help developing countries curb global warming.
Energy Cooperation: The Key Success Factor
The remarkable success in Sino-U.S. climate change cooperation can be attributed to a wide
arrange of factors, including growing domestic pressures, stable and flourishing non-official
exchanges, and a change of attitude towards some of the key climate issues, to name but a few.
Nonetheless, the solid foundation which has been laid on bilateral energy cooperation,
clean energy in particular, is the key driving factor. However, relying on the energy
sector alone is risky, and efforts in the energy sector might not be sufficient to sustain
Sino-US climate change cooperation and curb global warming.
The two countries’ commitment on clean energy should not be taken for granted. In the U.S., the
Obama administration certainly has put curbing fossil fuels top of its policy agenda and has made very
real efforts to enact policies and regulations to achieve these goals. However, whether those
measures can survive political opposition remains uncertain. The 2016 presidential election could
be a critical moment in the trajectory of U.S. climate policy. Moreover, the shale gas revolution not
only enables the U.S. to achieve energy self-sufficiency, it may also make America the world’s
top exporter of fossil energies. This means energy security concerns might no longer be the top
policy issue for the United States, which could then weaken the government’s
commitment towards developing clean energies.
In the case of China, the current economic slowdown, if it persists, could force the country to
rethink its ambitious plans for carbon emission reduction . For years, the bottom line for China
on climate change mitigation has been to strike a balance between economic development and
climate concerns. While in recent years, amid rapidly worsening pollution, China has
been more willing to take decisive action such as breaking away from cheap coal and
closing down energy intensive factories to curb domestic greenhouse gas emission at
the expense of economic growth. However, it does not mean that climate change
concerns will prevail over economic development. With hundreds of millions of people
still living in poverty and per-capita incomes lagging far behind those of the developed
countries, China’s development needs are immense and the government’s top priority is to
maintain stable growth. Therefore, if the economic situation in China worsens, it will be no
surprise if the Chinese government retreats from efforts to curb emissions in favor of stabilizing
economic growth.
US-China co-operation solves warming – funding for relief and adaptation, emission
reductions, determining co-operation effectiveness, and clean tech
Fingar, Ph.D, et al 13 – (Thomas Fingar is the inaugural Oksenberg-Rohlen Distinguished Fellow in the
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. He was the Payne
Distinguished Lecturer at Stanford during January to December 2009 and holds a Ph.D in political science
from Stanford; Banning Garrett is the director of the Asia Program at the Atlantic Council of the United
States and also directs the Strategic Foresight Initiative, which works with the National Intelligence
Council on their quadrennial long-term assessments, he holds a PhD from Brandeis University and has
previously directed the Initiative for US-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Change at the Asia
Society’s Center for US-China relations, and was the founding executive director of the Institute for SinoAmerican International Dialogue at the Graduate School of International Studies at the University of
Denver; also includes input by Stephen J. Hadley (former US national security advisor to President
George W. Bush). Barry Hughes (Frederick S. Pardee Center for International Futures, University of
Denver), Li Zhaoxing (China Public Diplomacy Association), Qu Xing (China Institute of International
Studies), Wang Jisi (Peking University), and Ruan Zongze (CIIS); Published by the China Institute of
International Studies, whose staff consists of nearly one hundred researchers and other professionals.
Among them are senior diplomats, leading area-study specialists, and preeminent experts in major fields
of foreign affairs. Young scholars at CIIS all have advanced university degree in I.R. or related disciplines.
Research at the Institute is focused primarily on medium and long-term policy issues of strategic
importance, particularly those concerning international politics and world economy. It also includes
comments and policy recommendations on the world's major events and hot-spot issues; also cites 20
other professors or directors at research institutes and you can access the full list by clicking the url and
going to page 5 of the pdf; September 2013, “China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future,”
http://cusef.org.hk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/05_eng.pdf, Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson)
• Cooperation on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and consequence management.
China-US cooperation will be increasingly critical to the global response to climate
change. New scientific studies warn that the worst-case scenarios for climate change impacts
are the most likely outcomes. Scientific assessments also maintain that anthropomorphic
climate change is partly responsible for extreme weather events that the world is already
experiencing at an increasing rate, from the floods in Pakistan and the heat wave in Russia to
the melting glaciers and ice sheets and the “superstorm” Sandy that inflicted unprecedented
destruction on New York and New Jersey. It is highly likely that global climate change
will be a key issue in the coming two decades as the world faces increasing climateinduced humanitarian disasters and infrastructure destruction requiring immediate and
expensive relief as well as costly, long-term adaptation. Climate change likely will increase social
and political instability in many areas of the world, including emerging economies and
developed countries. It also will likely renew political pressure for emissions
reductions, especially by China and the United States, the world’s two biggest
emitters. China-US cooperation in all these areas will be critical to whether the world cooperates
and how effective any cooperation is in responding to the potentially existential threat posed
by global climate change. The two countries also can build on decades of bilateral
cooperation on energy and environment to seize opportunities for lucrative joint
energy technology development that would substantially benefit Chinese and US
businesses as well as lower costs and widely disseminate clean energy technologies.
1AC – Distrust I/L
Preventing future distrust is crucial to ensure the success of bilateral warming solutions –
solves extinction.
Reynolds 16 – (Ben Reynolds is a writer and foreign policy analyst based in New York. His commentary
has appeared in a number of forums, including The Diplomat, Russia Today, and AAJ; 6/30/16, “Climate
Change Outcomes of the 2016 Strategic and Economic Dialogue,” China US Focus,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/climate-change-outcomes-of-the-2016-strategic-andeconomic-dialogue/, Accessed 7/19/16, HWilson)
More than anything, the challenge of climate change should highlight the absolute necessity of
U.S.-China cooperation and the extraordinary dangers of a deepening rivalry. Climate
change poses a potentially existential threat to contemporary society. The U.S. and
China are the world’s two largest emitters of carbon dioxide, and some scientists have
suggested that a strong enough pact between the two countries would be enough to
put the world back on track to relative climate stability. But the changes necessary to
achieve climate stability will require painful compromises and sacrifices, neither of which
will be feasible if the world’s largest emitters view each other with suspicion.
The strategic rivalry between the U.S. and China continues to deepen, and this trend
seems likely to continue under a presumptive Clinton administration. Yet, because of the challenge of
climate change, we need the U.S. and China to embrace unprecedented levels of cooperation
now more than ever. There are few historical examples of the leaders of competing great
powers embracing peaceful cooperation to secure the common good . It will take a serious
reorientation to ensure that we place the fate of our children before the struggle for hegemony.
Increased cooperation is key to finalizing existing agreements and facilitate future
multilateral warming solutions
Aldy et al, 16 – (Joseph Aldy, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School; Thomas Brewer,
Senior Fellow, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development; Chen Ji, Assistant Researcher,
International Cooperation Department, National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation
(NCSC); Fu Sha Assistant Researcher, International Cooperation Department, NCSC; Qi Yue, Assistant Researcher,
International Cooperation Department, NCSC; Robert Stavins, Albert Pratt Professor of Business and
Government, Harvard Kennedy School; Director, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements; Robert Stowe,
Executive Director, Harvard Environmental Economics Program; Wang Pu, Postdoctoral Fellow, Harvard Kennedy
School; Zhang Xiaohua, Senior Policy Officer on Climate Cooperation, Executive Office of the United Nations
Secretary General; Zheng Shuang, Researcher and Director, CDM Management Center, NCSC; Zou Ji Professor
and Deputy Director General, NCSC; February 2016, “Bilateral Cooperation between China and the United
States: Facilitating Progress on Climate-Change Policy,” Published in coordination by the Harvard Project
on Climate Agreements in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the National Center for Climate Change
Strategy and International Cooperation in Beijing, China;
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/harvard-nscs-paper-final-160224.pdf, Accessed 7/19/16,
HWilson)
Given that China and the United States are the world’s two largest GHG emitters; the
momentum that already exists with respect to bilateral cooperation on climate change and
clean energy technologies;11 and the completion of the Paris Agreement at COP-21—it is
important to explore opportunities for and challenges to furthering this cooperation.
Among other reasons, much work remains to be done to elaborate the Paris Agreement
over the next five years—to specify rules, procedures, and guidelines for the various
elements of the accord. China-U.S. collaboration will continue to be very important during
this preparatory phase. More generally—beyond the UNFCCC process—it is important to
explore how China–U.S. cooperation can facilitate multilateral cooperation in global
efforts to address climate change.
We control uniqueness – relations are deteriorating now – climate change is the most
important issue – pursuing cooperative strategies is the only way to solve
Tao 15 – (Wang Tao is a resident scholar in the Energy and Climate Program based at the Carnegie–
Tsinghua Center for Global Policy that examines China’s climate and energy policies, with particular
attention to unconventional oil and natural gas, transportation, electric vehicles, and international
climate negotiation; 9/16/15, “Time to Join Forces for Climate War,” China US Focus,
http://www.chinausfocus.com/foreign-policy/time-for-u-s-and-china-to-form-a-coalition-against-thecommon-enemy-again/, Accessed 7/19/16, HWilson)
In less than twenty days after celebrating, in different ways, the 70th anniversary of victories in
WWII, President Xi met President Obama in Washington for his first state visit to the U.S. as Chinese
president. Unlike 70 years ago, the common enemies the two countries face this time is no
longer Japanese militarism, but instead, economic uncertainty and climate change.
This was the third formal meeting between Xi and Obama, and is likely to be the last. The first one
was in June 2013, the “private” meeting held at the Sunnylands in California. The two reached
agreement to build the “Sino-U.S. new type of major-power relationship,” and together with the
development of their personal relationships, provided impetus to build mutual trust and set a clear
strategic direction for the Sino-U.S. relations. The second was in November 2014 during the Beijing APEC
summit, when President Obama made state visit to China. The outcome was very successful, including
the “Sino-US Joint Declaration on Climate Change,” a landmark moment after years of international
climate change negotiations, bringing a bright prospect to the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris at
the end of 2015. For the third meeting between President Xi and Obama, both countries and the
international community had good reason to have high expectations.
However, this meeting took place at a time with more difficulties and complications. Since
2015, Sino-U.S. differences on a range of issues have deteriorated. Although some
progress was made in June during the seventh round of Strategic Economic Dialogue (S&ED),
inevitably hot-button issues negatively affected the bilateral relations.
A series of recent fluctuations in the Chinese and the world economies, however, reminded
everyone of the necessity for the two countries to cooperate. The Shanghai A-share index has
fallen about 40% from its high point in June. Prices of mass commodities, including crude oil,
experienced another sharp fall after an unexpected devaluation of the Chinese renminbi in August,
followed by disruption in European and U.S. stock markets. Weak demand from China also dampened
the expectations of oil prices, adding a threat to the U.S. shale boom, upon which it has based its
economic recovery. The road to transitioning the Chinese economy to a “new normal” is anything but
flat, and the expectation of the Fed raising rates has complicated overall implications on the world
economy, especially for the emerging economies. Economic decision-making in the world’s two largest
economies in the coming months may have decisive impacts on the world economy as it approaches
2020. Reaching a coordinated and common understanding of respective economic policies at the third
meeting between presidents Xi and Obama will have immense importance for stabilizing the world
economy.
Climate change negotiation has also reached the most critical time. After Xi’s visit to the U.S.,
less than 10 weeks remain before the UN climate conference in Paris. Whether Xi and Obama
could bring further consensus and cooperation between the two largest emitters is
also a question warmly expected by international community.
Ironically, the world now faces a similar economic difficulty as before Copenhagen in 2009, only the U.S.
and China have switched positions. Back in 2009, the Chinese economy outperformed the rest of the
world under the $4 trillion stimulus package, while the U.S. and Europe were struggling in financial
turmoil. The 2008 economic crisis was regarded one of the reasons for the failure of Copenhagen 2009.
Now the Chinese economy is a real concern to many, with worrying indicators in industry and energy
demand, whereas the U.S. economy is on track for strong recovery partly driven by the shale oil and gas
boom, with an employment rate higher than expected. Could there be a different outcome from 2009
due to this role reversal?
The Chinese government needs to make hard choices in 2016. Is it to go back to the old path of
heavy industrialization and investment to stimulate the economy, or insist on restructuring,
implementing the long-awaited reform in production factor pricing and state-owned monopoly
enterprises? The former means greater environmental risk, possibly making the early
conservation efforts in vain, while the latter means enduring greater pain in economy in the short
term. Given the scale of the Chinese economy and environmental impacts, either choice would have
global implications.
However, environment conversations and economic development are not necessarily an either-or
choice. Good investment can also drive good economic transitions.
If the Chinese government could make better use of market mechanisms to control pollution, providing
a supportive environment for clean energy and environment technologies, China’s environmentalprotection efforts and carbon-reduction targets could turn into huge economic opportunities. The total
environmental investment needed during the “Thirteenth Five Plan” in China is estimated to be more
than $1 trillion, while the Chinese government can only provide 15% of the funds. The United States can
use its own experience and technology to help China to achieve this goal, while bringing greater market
opportunities for its own business.
Investment and technical cooperation in key areas have been identified and agreed by both
governments in the latest SED, including heavy-load truck fuel standards, electric vehicles, shale gas,
industrial boiler efficiency, and smart grids. The Chinese government hopes to promote public-private
partnership (PPP) projects in these areas as primary means of stabilizing economic growth, but
inadequacy in protecting private investment and poor coordination in project management between
private and public partners are still prevailing barriers. The Chinese government could learn from U.S.
experience in effectively utilizing market forces to guide and encourage private investment towards
these areas.
China also needs to deepen the reform in the energy sector. Since the Third Plenum of the Eighteenth
Party Congress, President Xi has repeatedly pledged to carry out reform in monopolizing state-owned
enterprise, and to let the market be the decisive power in allocation of resources. Progress was made in
the past two years, but only slowly. If China wishes to replicate the shale boom of the U.S., it needs to
break down the restrictions of access to oil and gas resources, to establish a vibrant oil-and-gas trading
system, and continue to push for reforms in oil, gas and power markets. As a cleaner fossil energy,
natural gas can make contributions to both environmental protection and economic prosperity, but the
main obstacle is neither price nor supply, but the market and trade restrictions, as well as distorted
pricing of alternative energy. It is evident that with adequate supply and declining prices in the first half
of 2015, growth of natural gas demand slid. From 8.9% in 2014 to 1.4%. The national carbon-trading
market that China plans to establish in 2016 would help to partially alleviate this distortion, but the most
important thing is promote the much needed reform of in the power sector.
Energy security, especially of the oil and gas supply, has always been one of the major concerns of the
Chinese government. This also to some extent explains the Chinese firm stance on the issue of the South
China Sea. With clearer prospects for U.S. exports to the Asia-Pacific market, China and the U.S. would
have common interests in safeguarding oil and gas supplies in this region. Even though oil is not
mentioned in the “Sino-U.S. Joint Declaration on Climate Change,” coordinating the two countries’ oil
policies, including in the evaluation of greenhouse-gas emissions from unconventional oils. Managing
the consumption of its by-product, petroleum coke, requires institutionalizing cooperation
and communication between the United States and China. This would ease Chinese
concerns about energy security, contributing to the two countries’ common target of
climate change, and encourage China’s participation in international energy governance.
Collaboration on clean technology, energy-sector reform, and energy security could
provide new impetus to China’s economic transition, but also provide more support for the U.S.
economic recovery, and at the same time contribute to the stability of the world’s economy
and efforts in tackling climate change.
Professor Yan Xuetong, president of the management board of the Carnegie–Tsinghua Center for Global
Policy, commented in July 2013 that, “providing public good to the international
community is the foothold for a healthy competition between China and the United
States.” Seventy years ago, China and the U.S. fought side by side during the anti-fascist war,
but confined by different battlegrounds, direct cooperation was limited. Seventy years later, facing
economic uncertainty and climate change that put the world’s prosperity and sustainability at
great peril, the two countries have to work much more closely to provide much-needed
public good for the world. This should be the essence of “Sino-U.S. new type of majorpower relationship.”
Distrust makes cooperation increasingly difficult now – try or die for constructive
engagement
Keck 14 – (Zachary Keck was formerly Managing Editor of The Diplomat where he authored The Pacific
Realist blog; Previously, he worked as Deputy Editor of e-International Relations and has interned at the
Center for a New American Security and in the U.S. Congress, where he worked on defense issues;
2/3/14, “The US and China Are Right to Distrust Each Other,” The Diplomat,
http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/the-us-and-china-are-right-to-distrust-each-other/, Accessed 7/18/16,
HWilson)
“There is a low level of strategic trust between the United States and China, which could make
bilateral relations more turbulent,” warned a recent report jointly issued by the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace and the Beijing-based China Strategic Culture Promotion
Association (CSCPA).
It was hardly the first such report to assess that the U.S. and China fundamentally
distrust one another. Two years ago, Wang Jisi and Kenneth G. Lieberthal wrote a report for the
Brookings Institution that warned, “Although both Beijing and Washington consider the U.S.-China
relationship to be the most important in the world, distrust of each other’s long term intentions
(‘strategic distrust’) has grown to a dangerous degree.” Two years before that, in 2008, Phillip
Saunders spoke of the need to enhance trust between the U.S. and China; an argument picked
up recently by Chinese academics and the foreign minister.
Although it would be preferable if the two countries trusted one another, this is an unrealistic goal. The
U.S. and China are right to distrust one another and this won’t change anytime soon. Therefore, the
goal should be to find ways to manage the bilateral relationship without strategic trust.
In general, trust is a rare commodity in the world of international politics, and for good reason. To
begin with, it is impossible for states to know each other’s intentions. Even if a state is confident it
knows another country’s current leadership’s intentions—which is unlikely in and of itself—it certainly
cannot know what the country’s future leaders’ intentions will be.
Secondly, international politics is hyper-competitive. Although there are some issues like climate
change that might be somewhat conducive to cooperation, the main realms of world politics—
economics, politics, and military affairs—are based on relative power. Thus, each state has a strong
incentive to gain an advantage over other ones. Even issues like climate change are
ultimately about relative gains since there are strong economic advantages to be
gained by having other states shoulder a larger share of the burden for addressing
climate change. Hence why China and many developing countries argue that the U.S. and the
West should bear a disproportionate share of the burden on climate issues, and why
Washington and its allies refuse to oblige these demands.
2AC – AT: China Econ Outweighs
It’s not enough to outweigh – pressure solves – empirics prove
Stockton 15 – (Nick Stockton is a reporter on global scientific concerns and earned his degree in
geography from Portland State University; 9/28/15, “Climate Change Is So Bad That the US and China
Agree on It,” Wired, http://www.wired.com/2015/09/climate-change-bad-us-china-agree/, Accessed
7/18/16, HWilson)
President Xi Jinping announced his country’s commitment to cutting emissions from the White
House on September 24, the same day Pope Francis lectured Congress on how climate change is
affecting the world’s poor. None of this is accidental. These two superpowers likely hope their
combined barking will herd the rest of the world into a global emissions agreement at the
upcoming United Nations climate talks, to be held in Paris starting at the end of November.
It’s been a long time coming. Past attempts at global emissions agreements have failed because
neither the US or China (or any other emitters) wants to be left holding a bag full of economywilting regulations. But the effects of climate change are beginning to overshadow the
benefits of ignoring it, so last year the pair bilaterally announced that they would curb
emissions.
Obama followed through in August with the Clean Power Plan, an EPA regulation that limits how
much carbon each state can emit, but lets those states figure out their own ways to reach
emissions targets. In an ironic turn that nobody missed, China went with a market-based cap and
trade system. This lets dirtier power plants buy credits earned by those that emit less carbon. “In cap
and trade, the government provides a means by which companies can find lowest cost ways to reduce
their emissions,” says Jake Schmidt, international program director for the National Resources Defense
Council.
2AC – US-China Key
US and China are the largest warming contributors and need to collaborate on tech
innovation – that encourages other countries to develop low-carbon tech and diffuse it
globally – prefer experts
Gillis 15 – (Justin Gillis, Award-winning New York Times reporter on Climate Change, 12/5/15, “If China
Doesn't Cooperate, Is There Any Hope?,” The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climate-talks/can-we-doanything-without-chinas-cooperation, Accessed 7/14/16, HWilson)
Any country could make the argument that it alone cannot solve climate change. That is true, but
beside the point - it is just another way of saying that all countries are responsible. So the problem
cannot be solved without global action. China's emissions are now twice those of the
United States, but it still looks to the United States and to Europe for technical innovation and the Chinese leadership is paying close attention to whether the United States is
serious about cutting emissions.
Experts with longstanding contacts in China believe that the more ambitious the United
States is, the more ambitious the Chinese will be. These experts also believe that strong
climate goals in rich countries will help create the political conditions for broad
global action. Moreover, such goals will encourage industry in those countries to develop
low-carbon technologies, which could then be sold to the rest of the world. In that sense,
climate change is a huge business opportunity.
US and China are key
Sandalow 15 – (David Sandalow is the Inaugural Fellow at Columbia University’s Center on Global
Energy Policy. He has served in senior positions at the White House, State Department and U.S.
Department of Energy; 9/25/15, “U.S. and China team up on global warming,” Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-column-sandalow-idUSKCN0RP2D420150925, Accessed 7/15/16,
HWilson)
What does U.S. and Chinese cooperation on climate change mean for the world?
It offers hope in addressing one of the world’s most challenging problems. That’s not just because the
U.S. and China are responsible for almost half the heat-trapping gases released into
the atmosphere each year.
It’s also because the U.S. and China have complementary strengths when it comes to
addressing the problem. The U.S., for example, has an unrivalled capacity for producing the
technological innovations that will help drive solutions to global warming. China has a large and
growing market for those technologies, which often get cheaper as they are produced in large
volumes. Working together, the two countries can do far more than acting alone.
It also offers hope that the global climate negotiations in Paris this December will
produce a positive result. When the world’s two largest emitters come together as they did
today, that provides important momentum to the negotiations.
2AC – AT: India Alt Cause
US outweighs India
Anand 7/3 – Utkarsh Anand is an Assistant Editor at the Indian Express News which overs Indian new
and politics. He is also a facutlty of law at Delhi University and the Campus of Law Centre. He internally
cites CJI TS Thakur who is the 43rd and current Chief justice of India July 3rd, 2016 US pollutes 10 times
more than us, says CJI TS Thakur http://indianexpress.com/article/india/india-news-india/us-indiapollution-kyoto-resolution-cji-ts-thakur-2890341/ Accessed 07-17-16
Favouring a stringent international regime for making all industrialised nations pay for pollution they
have caused, Chief Justice of India T S Thakur Saturday reproached the United States for its refusal
to ratify the Kyoto agreement on carbon reduction even as developed countries blamed India
for emission of greenhouse gases.
In a rare comment by an Indian CJI on a foreign country’s policy, Justice Thakur disapproved of the
rejection of the Kyoto agreement on global warming by the US, noting that its contribution to
greenhouse gases is many times more than India.
“The US today emits 10 times more carbon per capita than us (India). In Kyoto, a
resolution was passed to reduce 1 per cent emission but the US refused. When there is an
international regime principle of polluter pays, then only those who have polluted the world till
now will pay,” said the CJI as he spoke at a seminar on international law organised in the capital.
Status quo solves India
Times of India 16 – (“With 3% emissions, India ready for climate change,” The Times of India, Mar 12,
2016, Accessed on July 17, 2016, Available Online at
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/pollution/With-3-emissions-India-ready-forclimate-change/articleshow/51373519.cms, KC)
Although India is responsible for only three per cent of the global carbon emissions, it is ready
to combat climate change and the government's commitment to sustainable development is
full and final, said union environment minister Prakash Javadekar on Saturday. Stating that climate
change was "a reality", he noted that the global temperature has risen by one degree owing to 150
years of uncontrolled carbon emission by the developed world without bothering about environmental
impact. "While the cumulative contribution of the US, Europe, Canada is 30 per cent, other
developed world accounted for 50 per cent, China 10 per cent where India is responsible for
only three percent of carbon emissions. "Though India is not part of the problem, it wants
to be part of the solution as it well aware of its responsibilities, committed to United Nations
Goals on sustainable development," said Javadekar, addressing the 11th National Convention on
Sustainable Development Goals, organized by UN Global Compact Network here. Elaborating on Prime
Minister Narendra Modi's vision on climate change, he said the government's commitment is
reflected in every programme being pursued by the country in this regard. Javadekar listed out
the ambitious 175 GW renewable energy programme covering solar, wind, hydro-power and
nuclear energy and other proactive measures to discourage use of fossil fuels to reduce carbon
footprint, as a major step in promoting environment-friendly development. "The Union Budget
2016-17 has levied a green cess of $6 (Rs.400) per tonne of coal. This is perhaps the highest levy in the
world, as even the US taxes coal at around $1. If the developed world followed India's example and
levied higher taxes on coal, billions of dollars would accrue to pursue clean energy
programmes," he said. Referring to the Pradhan Mantri Ujjwala Yojana under which five crore rural
poor households will be given free cooking connections, he said as the programme rolls out, daily
5,000 new homes will not be cutting down trees for firewood and provide health benefits to
the women who cook. He said the country will move to Bharat VI emission norms to control vehicular
pollution, listed policies on waste management, and massive tree plantation drive through
Compensation Afforestation Fund Bill 2015 as measures to attain sustainable development.
Emphasizing that environmental clearance would not be a roadblock for development,
Javadekar said in the last 20 months, his ministry has given eco-clearance for 900 projects
worth around Rs.600,000 crore investments, and a 10 year average time for eco-clearance of
600 days has now been brought down to 190 days and is further planned to be reduced to 100
days.
Squo solves India emissions
Friedman, 15
Lisa, writer for Climate Wire, 2015 (“India and U.S. Commit to Global Fight against Climate Change,”
Scientific American, January 26th, 2015, Accessible online at:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/india-and-u-s-commit-to-global-fight-against-climatechange/, Accessed on 7/17/16, DSF)
President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi made a "personal commitment" to
work together toward a successful global climate change agreement in Paris later this year as part
of a sweeping energy package unveiled in New Delhi yesterday on everything from boosting
renewables to curbing air pollution.
The deal between the two leaders fell well short of one that Obama and his Chinese counterpart,
President Xi Jinping, unveiled in Beijing last year. India offered no new concrete emissions targets
yesterday, and Modi insisted that the landmark U.S.-China deal had no impact on his country. Still, he
said, India is concerned about the threat of global warming.
"It's my feeling that the agreement that has been concluded between the United States and China does
not impose any pressure on us. India is an independent country, and there is no pressure on us from any
country or any person," Modi said during a joint press conference after the two leaders had taken a
stroll in the Hyderabad House gardens.
"But there is pressure," Modi acknowledged. "When we think about the future generations and
what kind of world we are going to give them, then there is pressure. Climate change itself is a
huge pressure. Global warming is a huge pressure. ... There is pressure on all countries, on all
governments and on all peoples."
Obama, meanwhile, vowed to expand U.S. support for India's ambitious renewable energy
goals—Modi has vowed India will expand its solar energy by 100 gigawatts by 2022—and
announced new joint initiatives to improve air quality in Indian cities. In negotiating this year
toward a new global climate deal that could be signed in Paris in December, Obama said, U.S.-India
cooperation will be critical.
"The prime minister and I made a personal commitment to work together to pursue a strong global
climate agreement in Paris. As I indicated to him, I think India's voice is very important on this issue.
Perhaps no country could potentially be more affected by the impacts of climate change, and no country
is going to be more important in moving forward a strong agreement than India," Obama said.
U.S. to help finance India's clean energy
Despite the personal chemistry between Obama and Modi, the relationship between the United States
and India in the U.N. climate talks has been rocky. The United States is pushing for a Paris deal that
would for the first time see all major climate-polluting nations take equal legal responsibility for tackling
climate change, while recognizing that wealthier and longer-polluting countries like the United States
will have to take heavier cuts. India, meanwhile, has argued that the United States and other wealthy
countries have essentially reneged on two decades of promises to cut emissions and deliver funding and
has blasted wealthy nations for demanding that still-developing countries take on new responsibilities.
Yesterday's agreements did not make any concrete headway in bridging that gap, but advocates of a
climate treaty said the commitment to cooperate was in itself important, as well as the practical steps to
help ramp up clean energy.
"At the practical level, the bilateral steps announced today will help contain India's carbon
emissions in ways that also address its urgent development needs. These concrete projects will
demonstrate on the ground that the climate and development agendas are fully compatible. At the
political level, the pledge by the two leaders to stay in close touch through the year on the
climate negotiations is very encouraging," Elliot Diringer, executive vice president of the Center for
Climate and Energy Solutions, said in a statement.
"This signals that India sees the Paris agreement as a priority, and establishes a direct channel that could
prove absolutely essential to delivering the final deal," Diringer said.
As part of the agreement, the U.S. Agency for International Development will install a field
investment officer in India with the backing of a transactions team to help mobilize investment
for India's clean energy sector. Meanwhile, the Export-Import Bank of the United States is exploring
projects with the Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency for up to $1 billion in clean energy
financing, and the Overseas Private Investment Corp. "plans to build on" Indian renewable projects,
particularly in off-grid energy access. The United States also agreed to implement a U.S. EPA
program to help measure and improve air quality in urban areas.
Carol Browner, a distinguished fellow at the liberal Center for American Progress and Obama's former
climate czar, called the agreements "admirable."
Obama and Modi, she said, "established a new leader-to-leader channel for communication to work
through issues in climate negotiations, affirmed ambitious solar energy goals for India, launched a new
air quality initiative focusing on India's major cities, catalyzed new clean energy investment
opportunities, and more. President Obama closed out last year with a historic joint climate
announcement of our two countries' new greenhouse gas reduction targets, and he has started this year
by taking a big step with India toward a clean energy future."
India will move to renewables now- market incentives
Saran 2/2
Samir Saran, 2-2-2016, "Indian climate policy in a post-Paris world," Strategist,
http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/indian-climate-policy-in-a-post-paris-world/
To ensure that India’s path to development doesn’t compromise its climate action, India has a few
options. First, it can ensure that the additional 200 GW of fossil fuel capacity that’s to be added
up to 2030 is significantly fueled by gas. Gas-based power has roughly half the emissions of coal
fired power plants. 24 GW of current gas capacity points to the limited presence of gas in India’s
current energy mix and also to the potential to dramatically scale that up. Two market conditions
allow India to pursue that policy path aggressively. First, the slump in global gas prices following
the restart of Japanese nuclear reactors and an oversupply in the market means that it’s the
perfect time for India to negotiate new gas deals and secure long term supply at competitive
prices. In fact, a lot of Indian gas plants were idle in 2015 as the prices of importing gas was more
expensive than the cost of selling power. The Indian government has had to recently renegotiate the
price with Qatar, its main supplier, and achieved a price reduction of about 50%. The second follows
from the Iran nuclear deal, which could see Iranian gas becoming available as a viable source.
Just last month, it emerged that India and Iran are considering a US$4.5 billion undersea pipeline
that would connect Iran to India’s west coast via the Oman Sea. Iran has the largest gas reserves in
the world and the availability of Iranian gas changes India’s energy calculus significantly. India’s second
option is to significantly scale-up nuclear power. Nuclear energy has the advantage of being both
carbon free and, like gas power, available all the time. It’s therefore the only clean energy
option to substitute coal in the electricity grid. However, India’s tardy rate of growth in the nuclear
sector so far, with only 5.8 GW of current capacity, as well as issues with the liability law, procurement
of technology and long construction times, mean that gas remains the only viable and cleaner option
over the short term.
2AC – AT: Status Quo Solves Warming Co-op
They’re right that we do co-operate now, so that takes our their disads, but we need more
engagement to ensure efforts are sustainable in the future and developing nations can
finance their green tech projects
Derla 16 – (Katherine, reporter for Tech Times, citing Xie Zhenhua, the Chinese climate change special
representative; 6/7/16, “China Wants US To Do More To Help Poor Nations Fight Climate Change,” Tech
Times, http://www.techtimes.com/articles/163460/20160607/china-wants-us-to-do-more-to-helppoor-nations-fight-climate-change.htm, Accessed 7/15/16, HWilson)
China is urging the United States to do more in the global fight against climate
change. In particular, China wants the other country to help poor and developing nations in
their own climate change initiatives and ensure that the 2015 Paris greenhouse gas
agreement is enforced.
According to Xie Zhenhua, the Chinese climate change special representative, the U.S. can
share technologies to these poorer nations and help fund the other countries' climate change
initiatives as well as efforts to curb extreme weather events.
"I believe the U.S. government can do better. As the largest developed country in the world, the
U.S. has done a lot in climate change and needs to be recognized. But at the same time, of
course, there [is] a lot more work to do," added Xie.
Back in 2010, the two countries failed to reach an agreement on how to handle the climate
change. But U.S. President Barack Obama and Xie eventually helped push the climate change
dialogues toward the United Nations level.
This led to the 2015 Paris climate change agreement wherein over 190 countries pledged to reduce
their respective emissions of fossil fuel. In the Paris agreement, the countries also vowed to take
quantifiable steps to prevent the dire consequences of both global warming and climate change.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry stressed that the key is to ensure that the participating
countries bring the Paris agreement into force this year.
For their part, the U.S. government pledged to lower their heat-trapping pollution by 26 percent
to 28 percent in 2025 from 2005 levels.
On the other hand, China vowed that their emissions would cease growing by 2030.
Chinese leaders said that they need more time to turn away from fossil fuels due to their
growing economies, a sentiment shared by many leaders of poorer and developing nations.
However, the Paris agreement lacked details on how countries will shoulder the finances for the
outlined initiatives. Xie's recent comment toward the U.S. can be seen as China's role as a likely
champion for poor and developing nations that need help on the finance side.
But the U.S. and China have the biggest carbon emission levels in the world. As one of
the world's biggest carbon-emission nations, China's added pressure to the U.S. may seem ill-placed.
China is also the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, and over 75 percent of the
country's energy consumption is highly dependent on coal.
Current agreements don’t solve- internal pressure because of economic slowdown
Adams 15 (Patricia, an economist and the executive director of Probe International, a Toronto-based
NGO that has been involved in the Chinese environmental movement since its nascency in the mid1980s, “THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINA: Why Beijing will resist demands for abatement,”
http://probeinternational.org/library/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/ChinaAtParis-FINAL.pdf, accessed
07/17/16, MM)
China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, is under intense international pressure to
reduce its use of fossil fuels. Although China’s leaders aim to reduce the country’s fossil-fuel
consumption to 80% of its energy mix by 2030, they will not forsake national economic growth
for the supposed global good. This is because China’s Communist Party knows that to stay in
power – its highest priority – it must maintain the economic growth rates that have raised the
incomes of much of its population and kept opposition at bay. China’s leaders know that GDP
growth is tied to fossilfuel use. China’s government is also under intense domestic pressure to clean
up its air pollution, which has made air unbreathable in many cities and has become a major flashpoint
for political unrest. China’s air pollution is estimated to kill at least half a million people each year. In an
attempt to induce China to join global efforts to curtail carbon at the upcoming UN conference in Paris
in December, President Obama and others argue that China’s abysmal air quality will improve if it cuts
its carbon dioxide emissions. The opposite is true. Not only do the goals of reducing carbon emissions
and air pollution not reinforce each other, they conflict. Carbon dioxide is a colourless, odourless,
tasteless gas that does not harm health. Efforts to reduce it rely on unproven abatement technologies,
and are prohibitively expensive. In contrast, abating air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur
dioxide rely on proven technologies and are relatively inexpensive. The West’s climate change
establishment is worried that if Beijing focuses ‘narrowly’ on eliminating the air pollutants that worry
the general population, China will entrench cleaner-burning fossil fuels in its economy, costing the West
its leverage over China’s energy policies. Yet the Chinese public is unlikely to tolerate a ‘carbonfirst’
abatement strategy while it continues to breathe noxious air. The apparent contradiction between what
the West wants and what China’s leadership needs is easily resolved. China’s leadership knows that
what China says to the West is more important than what China does, absolving it of the need to make
any binding commitment to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. China also knows that Western leaders’
have no firm expectation of concrete commitments in Paris. Rather, their paramount goal is to maintain
face at the Paris talks, which would collapse without China’s presence. China is deftly preparing the
stage in Paris to position itself as the Third World’s defender and also as a recipient of the
billions in climate aid that it is demanding from the West . We can expect more announcements,
agreements, and soaring rhetoric from global politicians at the Paris Conference, along with an
agreement to meet again next year. What we cannot expect are reforms designed to reduce
China’s carbon emissions.
2AC – AT: China Solves Now
Paris fails — China didn’t reduce its emissions AND a better negotiation is needed to solve
Cass 15 — Oren, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, where he focuses on energy, the
environment, and antipoverty policy, 2015 (“Why the Paris climate deal is meaningless,” November 29 th,
available online at http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissionschina-obama/)
Negotiators from around the world gather in Paris this week to finalize an international climate
change agreement, capping a years-long process on which hopes have been riding for global
action to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. When those demanding U.S. action speak of the need to
show “leadership” and foster international progress, they speak of building momentum toward Paris.
“This year, in Paris, has to be the year that the world finally reaches an agreement to protect the one
planet that we’ve got while we still can,” said U.S. President Barack Obama on his recent trip to Alaska.
Miguel Cañete, the EU’s chief negotiator, has warned there is “no Plan B — nothing to follow. This is not
just ongoing UN discussions. Paris is final.”
But the more seriously you take the need to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the angrier you
should be about the plan for Paris. With so much political capital and so many legacies staked to
achieving an “agreement” — any agreement — negotiators have opted to pursue one worth less
than…well, certainly less than the cost of a two-week summit in a glamorous European capital.
***
Climate talks are complex and opaque, operating with their own language and process, so it’s important
to cut through the terminology and look at what is actually under discussion. Conventional wisdom
holds that negotiators are hashing out a fair allocation of the deep emissions cuts all countries
would need to make to limit warming. That image bears little resemblance to reality.
In fact, emissions reductions are barely on the table at all. Instead, the talks are rigged to
ensure an agreement is reached regardless of how little action countries plan to take. The
developing world, projected to account for four-fifths of all carbon-dioxide emissions this
century, will earn applause for what amounts to a promise to stay on their pre-existing
trajectory of emissions-intensive growth.
Here’s how the game works: The negotiating framework established at a 2014 conference in Lima,
Peru, requires each country to submit a plan to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, called an
“Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” (INDC). Each submission is at the discretion of
the individual country; there is no objective standard it must meet or emissions reduction it
must achieve.
Beyond that, it’s nearly impossible even to evaluate or compare them. Developing countries
actually blocked a requirement that the plans use a common format and metrics, so an INDC
need not even mention emissions levels. Or a country can propose to reduce emissions off a
self-defined “business-as-usual” trajectory, essentially deciding how much it wants to emit and
then declaring it an “improvement” from the alternative. To prevent such submissions from being
challenged, a group of developing countries led by China and India has rejected “any obligatory
review mechanism for increasing individual efforts of developing countries.” And lest pressure
nevertheless build on the intransigent, no developing country except Mexico submitted an INDC by
the initial deadline of March 31 — and most either submitted no plan or submitted one only as
the final September 30 cut-off approached.
After all this, the final submissions are not enforceable, and carry no consequences beyond
“shame” for noncompliance — a fact bizarrely taken for granted by all involved.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the submitted plans are even less impressive than the process that
produced them. In aggregate, the promised emissions reductions will barely affect anticipated
warming. A variety of inaccurate, apples-to-oranges comparisons have strained to show significant
progress. But MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change calculates the
improvement by century’s end to be only 0.2 degrees Celsius. Comparing projected emissions to the
baseline established by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change back in 2000 shows no
improvement at all.
The lack of progress becomes even more apparent at the country level. China, for its part,
offered to reach peak carbon-dioxide emissions “around 2030” while reducing emissions per
unit of GDP by 60-65 percent by that time from its 2005 level. But the U.S. government’s Lawrence
Berkeley National Laboratory had already predicted China’s emissions would peak around 2030
even without the climate plan. And a Bloomberg analysis found that China’s 60-65 percent target
is less ambitious than the level it would reach by continuing with business as usual. All this
came before the country admitted it was burning 17 percent more coal than previously
estimated—an entire Germany worth of extra emissions each year.
India, meanwhile, managed to lower the bar even further, submitting a report with no promise of
emissions ever peaking or declining and only a 33-35 percent reduction in emissions per unit of GDP
over the 2005-2030 period. Given India’s recent rate of improving energy efficiency, this actually implies
a slower rate of improvement over the next 15 years. In its INDC, India nevertheless estimates it will
need $2.5 trillion in support to implement its unserious plan.
And therein lies the sticking point on which negotiations actually center: “climate finance.”
Climate finance is the term for wealth transferred from developed to developing nations based
on a vague and shifting set of rationales including repayment of the “ecological debt” created
by past emissions, “reparations” for natural disasters, and funding of renewable energy
initiatives.
The issue will dominate the Paris talks. The INDCs covering actual emissions reductions are
subjective, discretionary, and thus essentially unnegotiable. Not so the cash. Developing
countries are expecting more than $100 billion in annual funds from this agreement or they will
walk away. (For scale, that’s roughly equivalent to the entire OECD budget for foreign development
assistance.)
Somehow, the international process for addressing climate change has become one where addressing
climate change is optional and apparently beside the point. Rich countries are bidding against
themselves to purchase the developing world’s signature on an agreement so they can declare victory
— even though the agreement itself will be the only progress achieved.
An echo chamber of activist groups and media outlets stands ready to rubber-stamp the final agreement
as “historic,” validating the vast reservoirs of political capital spent on the exercise. Already, the Chinese
and Indian non-plans have been lauded as proof that the developing world is acting and the United
States stands as the true obstacle. India won the remarkably inapt New York Times headline: “India
Announces Plan to Lower Rate of Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” A formal agreement, notwithstanding its
actual contents, will only amplify the demands that we do more ourselves—and, of course, that we
contribute hundreds of billions of dollars along the way.
From a political perspective, perhaps this outcome represents “victory” for environmental activists
launching their next fundraising campaign or for a president building his “legacy.” But it comes at the
environment’s expense. A system of voluntary, unenforceable pledges relies on peer pressure for
ambitious commitments and the “naming and shaming” of countries that drag their feet. In this context,
true U.S. leadership and environmental activism require the condemnation of countries manipulating
the process. Instead, the desperation to sign a piece of paper in Paris has taken precedence over
an honest accounting. And once the paper is signed, any leverage or standing to demand actual
change in the developing world will be weakened further.
Logistical and political issues prevent development- bad infrastructure and corruption
Piovani 15 (Chiara Piovani, Assistant Professor of Economics, with one specialty in China, 2015, “The
‘Greening’ of China: Progress, Limitations, and Contradictions,”
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%205420-6420/Piovani_2015.pdf, accessed 06/20/16,
MM)
In addition to the challenges associated with low energy efficiency, China’s commitment to shift to a
low-carbon economy is constrained by the current state of China’s electric grids and by the
typical enforcement problems of China’s legislation. In the recent years, China has set national targets
for the development of renewable energy, and enterprises are provided with financial subsidies,
preferential loans, and tax incentives to comply with the national policies. China’s infrastructure
system for electricity distribution, however, represents a major obstacle for the development of
renewable energy in China (REN21 2009).29 China’s largest wind power plants are located in the
North and the large-scale photovoltaic power plants have been built in Western China, Tibet,
and Mongolia; the largest share of demand, however, comes from the industrialized areas in
the East and the South (IEA and Energy Research Institute 2011; RENI 2013; Wang et al. 2010). Grid
connectivity between renewable power plants and the main power grids remains inadequate.
Each regional grid unit is accountable for their own financial records, and therefore – based on
the current institutional arrangement – there is insufficient incentive for cooperation across
regions and for long-term planning; in addition, traditional energy dispatch rules provide each coal
power plant an equal number of operating hours, independent of the level of efficiency and the
environmental impact of each power plant. Although portfolio mandate 28 China’s energy intensity is 76
percent higher than Brazil’s, and 66 percent higher than India’s (EIA 2014). 29 Since 2002, power grids in
China have been controlled by two state-owned enterprises, the China Southern Power Grid Company
and the State Grid Corporation of China, both divided in regional grid enterprises. 20 schemes assign
priority to renewables and “clean” coal power plants and the government has committed to the
construction of new smart grids to specifically allow the transmission of wind and solar energy coming
power plants located in remote areas, thus far these efforts are not expected to contribute to a
reduction in carbon emissions and may only lead to a significant increase in electricity prices for
consumers (Madrigal and Porter 2013; Chandler et. al. 2012; Wang et al. 2010). A major challenge for
China’s environmental legislation is enforcement. The growing decentralization of the central
government observed during the reform period has brought greater relative autonomy to local
governments. Such political restructuring, however, has generated enforcement problems at
the local level, primarily due to widespread corruption and inadequate supervision, guidance,
and incentives from the central government. Several proposals have been advanced to repair this
deficiency, but enforcement remains a critical institutional barrier for environmental protection (Lo et
al. 2012; He et al. 2012).
Industrial factors limit China’s shift- low earnings, grid instability, coordination, and lack of
infrastructure
Jin and Chen 12 (Yueqin Jun, associate professor of Economics at Renmin University in China, Yisi Chen,
Former Researcher at the Energy Research Institute, Fall 2012, “Renewable Energy in China: Market
Barriers and Policy Options,” Journal of the Washington Institute of China Studies, Volume 6, Pages 2829, https://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/175/323, Accessed 06/20/16, MM)
Firstly, the innovation of RE industry is in the face of a lack of core technology caused by “dual
information externalities”. Currently, R&D in wind power and solar thermal technology has been
refined to an advanced extent while China is holding fairly limited core technology, expanding
manufacturing ability by purchasing production licenses or by designing in alliance with foreign
counterparts. This is because of the “dual information externalities” in innovation of RE technology.
The first externality---the enterprise which innovates and develops the RE technology is not the
monopolist of the achievements of R&D with part of the “technology spillovers” ----exists in
every innovation act. The second externality is a “privilege” of RE technology innovation in that
innovation of RE technology could not only reduce carbon emission and lessen externality
costs, but contribute to environmental protection, energy security and energy independence as
well, which leads to greater externality gains. Yet it cannot be reflected entirely on the price of RE
the decrease in externality costs and the increase in externality gains. Dual externalities connote that
the innovator of RE technology cannot monopolize all the social benefits originating from
innovation and that its ratio of earnings to costs is far lower than that of general technology
innovation. Given inadequate incentives of policies, the issue of “exclusion” discussed above will lead to
a lack of motivation to innovate for entreprises. This can explain why developed countries such as the
U.S., Germany and Japan give every assistance to technology innovation of RE. Secondly, the
innovation of RE industry is in the face of “coordination failure”. Involving various phases, RE
industry encompass a wide range of industrial chains including R&D, manufacturing of
equipment and material, power generation, power transmission and grid connection , thus
coordination of every industrial chains is essential to the progress of RE industry. In particular, wind and
solar power are very sensitive to seasonal and climate change and may cause grid instability
and increase the complexity of grid management. Therefore they call for more organized and
comprehensive coordination in the overall power system. Meanwhile, arrangement concerning power
network planning and designing should show foresight so that RE industrial could develop in harmony
with traditional energy industries. For instance, the majority of renewable resources needed for
power generation are located in the west of China, which requires: (a) the construction of longdistance high-voltage transmission lines; (b) an adequate amount of backup generation capacity
to maintain sufficient capacity in the grid to handle peak loads, (c) the restraint of the regular
conventional power supply in the east in order to accept renewable power. Evidently, the market
mechanism is not competent for such complicated tasks of coordination. The third barrier to the
innovation of RE industry is “lock-in effect”. One of the outstanding problems in technological
innovation of RE is the “chicken-egg problem”: Market demand in RE depends on its cost and price;
in the meantime, the cost and the price are determined by the scale of market demand due to
network effects and economies of scale. Traditional fossil energy is still dominating the current
energy structure in China. Particularly, 46% of installed capacities of thermal power, with
international advanced levels, have operated less than 5 years and 65% less than 10 years. Therefore,
the operating space for RE to replace traditional energy directly is very limited .7 In addition, the
cost of RE is relatively high, attenuating its market share exceedingly. At present, the proportion of
wind power and solar energy in generating electricity per year is less than 2%. It is significant to create
new market demand for RE through incentives of policies so as to break with the “lock-in effect”.
Barriers to innovation block development- import and international dependence, uncertainty
Jin and Chen 12 (Yueqin Jun, associate professor of Economics at Renmin University in China, Yisi Chen,
Former Researcher at the Energy Research Institute, Fall 2012, “Renewable Energy in China: Market
Barriers and Policy Options,” Journal of the Washington Institute of China Studies, Volume 6, Pages 3032, https://www.bpastudies.org/bpastudies/article/view/175/323, Accessed 06/20/16, MM)
Self-dependent innovation capability of core technology is far from sufficient. Although China has
turned the world’s largest producer of solar PV cell and ranked top in terms of installed capacity of wind
power, the major part China is playing is concentrated on the low end of the manufacturing
process in the industry. In regard to wind power, at the moment it is the international mainstream
trend that the power of onshore wind turbine exceeds 3 MW and that of offshore wind turbine is over 5
MW, still there are merely few of Chinese firms possessing the manufacturing ability of more than 3
MW wind turbines. Also, most manufacturers of wind power equipment are simply an assembly plant
while the acquire control system and the pivotal bearings need to be imported. Despite the fact that
there has emerged over 500 photovoltaic firms, the majority of them still specialize in the
manufacturing and assembling of solar panels. Both high-purity silicon materials and high-class
equipment used for crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells are heavily dependent on import. Also,
China still has a long distance to go in comparison with advanced world levels in terms of thin film solar
cells and equipment manufacture. (b) Industrial standards are not consistent and market
competition is out of order. In respect to RE industry where market access threshold is low, there
could still see deficiencies in the system of technical standards, product testing and
authentication, bringing about an influx of smaller firms into the industry, which consequently
results in backward over-production. Some products are launched into the market in huge quantity
without being tested, putting a great deal of equipment at the risk of breakdown. Several cases of wind
fan off the grid in succession this year is a worrying alarm. (c) Another difficulty is the violent
uncertainty as well as the lagging demand management. The extensive exploitation of wind power
is far from commensurate to the construction of power grid, leading to such a huge excess of generating
capacity. By the middle of 2011, nearly one-third of the domestic wind turbines are idle. It is even a
worse case for the PV market. It should be noted that photovoltaic power generation costs a much
larger amount than thermal power and wind power while both feed-in tariff and market
support mechanisms are unsatisfactory, which contributes to the consequence that the growth
of domestic market is lagging behind. With 95% of the production being exported, PV
manufacturers in China are in a dilemma of “production without utilization” and the industry
profit often fluctuates radically with the international market’s undulation. The issues discussed
above are closely related to the deviation of current RE industrial policies. Firstly, the goals of RE
industrial policies tend to overemphasize quantity but ignore quality at the same time. Industrial policies
set specific goals in magnitude of production for the development of RE and adopt various measures
including tax and subsidy to expand the industry, but seldom strict norms are posed upon
technology standards, environment standards and competition rules. The developmentoriented industrial policies are too obsessed with expansion in quantity, the possible aftermath
of which is the inferior low-level expansion, overlapping projects as well as vicious competition.
Secondly, as a result of lack of in-depth understanding in the innovation’s essence in RE industry, the
thinking patterns of industrial policies are still bounded in “picking winners” rather than
fostering innovation ability, along with neglect of the need for forward-looking and systematic
strategic arrangement of industrial innovation. For example, R&D funded by the government is relativly
low; with inadequate support entreprises would rather take a shortcut by introducing foreign
technology than innovate rashly under high market risk and unpredictable return on investment (ROI).
Structural and policy problems- unused energy and fossil fuel priority
Song and Hong 16 (Ranping Song, Developing Country Climate Action Manager at World Research
Institute, and Miao Hong, April 27th, 2016, “China’s 1-2-3 Punch to Tackle Wasted Renewable Energy,”
World Research Institute, http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/04/chinas-1-2-3-punch-tackle-wastedrenewable-energy, accessed 06/20/16, MM)
Like other countries, China faces challenges in its shift to low-carbon electricity. One major
problem is “curtailment,” which means power grids do not use renewable power even when
wind and solar power plants are capable of producing it. Close to 10 percent of solar capacity
remained untapped during the first half of 2015, while around 15 percent of wind power was
wasted throughout the year. In regions such as Gansu, Ningxia, Heilongjiang, Xinjiang and Yunnan, the
situation is a lot worse. China’s Renewable Energy Law prohibits curtailment, but the problem
persists, partly for technical reasons. However, a large part of the problem is not technical. In
practice, fossil fuel power plants have priority over renewables, leaving less room for solar and
wind power in a country with a large overcapacity of coal-fired power. There is also a lack of
clarity on how the renewable energy integration mandate should be enforced. Better-designed
and -implemented policies can help.
Technical problems stop adoption of renewables
Fairley 16 (Peter, Energy and Environment Journalists, May 23rd, 2016, “Why China's Wind Energy
Underperforms,” IEEE Spectrum, http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/green-tech/wind/the-hunt-forchinas-missing-wind-energy, accessed 06/20/16, MM)
China accounted for 36 percent of global investment in renewable energy last year, pouring
$102.9 billion into non-hydro renewables such as wind and solar power. The country is a laggard,
however, in maximizing return on renewable energy dollars, especially for wind power. China
closed out 2015 with nearly twice the installed wind power capacity of the U.S., yet last year it
generated less wind energy. Harvard University and Tsinghua University researchers parse the causes
of China’s wind energy gap in a report today in the journal Nature Energy. Using data from 2012, they
conclude that delays in connecting new wind farms to the grid, low-quality equipment, and
deliberate favoring of coal power over wind by grid operators are each about equally at fault.
But that conclusion is surprising on two counts. It downplays the role of China's relatively weaker
winds—a factor often cited in earlier academic studies. And it suggests that deliberate curtailment of
wind farm operations—which Chinese president Xi Jinping pledged to reduce in a climate deal struck
with U.S. President Barack Obama last fall— is less of a factor than expected. img Image: Tsinghua
University/Harvard University China’s installed wind capacity has exceed that of the United States for
years [top]. But it generates less wind energy [bottom]. However, it may be an outdated picture, the
authors acknowledge, owing to their reliance on 2012 data. Independent experts agree. “For 2012 [the
findings] are reasonable, but curtailment is a much bigger issue now,” argues Ranping Song, a China
energy expert with the Washington, D.C.-based World Resources Institute. The team behind today's
report, led by Michael McEvoy at Harvard and Xi Lu at Tsinghua, is well-versed in Chinese wind power. In
2009 pathbreaking modelling by the same team projected that wind power could meet 100 percent of
China's future electricity needs at reasonable cost. Here the Harvard-Tsinghua team is projecting
backward, using statistical methods to understand why China’s wind farms delivered 39 terawatt-hours
less energy in 2012 than their U.S. counterparts despite having 15 gigawatts greater generating capacity.
Only one-tenth of that shortfall can be attributed to the wind itself, according to their modelling of wind
resources at Chinese wind farm sites. Instead, they found that lower wind turbine quality, greater
delays in connecting wind farms to the grid, and more frequent deliberate curtailment of wind farm
output each reduced Chinese output by more than 19 terawatt-hours relative to its potential in
2012. 19 TWh is alot of energy – 50 percent more than what all of California's wind farms deliver today.
The relative impact of these factors may be quite different in 2016. Take turbine quality, for example. In
2008 IEEE Spectrum reported that China’s wind industry association was calling for a slowdown,
worried that explosive wind farm construction was outpacing domestic manufacturers' ability
to assure turbine quality. But China's turbine technology has been "catching up quickly” and will
match international standards “in short order” according to the Harvard-Tsinghua report. Grid
connection is also much improved since 2011, when China’s National Energy Administration, in Beijing,
took control of all wind farm authorizations. “The grid connection issue has dramatically improved in the
last few years,” says Song at WRI. In contrast, government statistics show that curtailment—in which
regional grid operators order wind farms to stay offline—has gotten worse. In 2015 Chinese grid
operators curtailed 34 TWh of wind energy, wasting as much wind energy as was delivered by all of the
UK's wind farms. Curtailment also cut China's solar output by 10 percent last year. Some of
China's curtailment is a symptom of inflexible power grids. In the wind-rich North in particular,
coal-fired power plants supply district heating as well as electricity. So they must run during the winter
clogging transmission lines and crowding out wind power. However, experts such as Song say wind and
solar power are more often curtailed because China has a glut of coal-fired power capacity, and
grid operators are under pressure to give each plant a share of the market.
China coal emissions increasing — need for assistance to meet emission cut standards
Spegele 16 — Brian, reporter at the WSJ, covers China’s foreign policy, domestic politics and
energy companies from The Wall Street Journal’s Beijing bureau, 2016 (“China’s Coal-Plant
Binge Deepens Overcapacity Woes,” May 31st, available online at
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-coal-plant-binge-deepens-overcapacity-woes-1464692337)
SHOUGUANG, China—In a whir of hammering and welding, construction crews in the industrial
town of Shouguang put finishing touches on a new coal power plant that testifies to a building
binge by Chinese companies—one that is compounding an oversupply of power.
For companies and local officials eager to prop up growth with new jobs, the availability of lowcost financing is combining with coal prices that are half the level of five years ago to make
power projects attractive.
Tens of billions of dollars will be spent over the next two years. Investment in thermal power
projects jumped 20% last year even as China’s power demand fell.
Workers at the new coal plant in Shouguang, 200 miles southeast of Beijing, say they’ve been at
it for two and half years. The project could have been ready earlier, says one, but the electricity
“wasn’t urgently needed.”
While Chinese leaders are eager to recharge flagging economic growth, the pace of building and
investment has started to worry them, frustrating key goals to restructure the economy and
clean up the nation’s polluted skies.
This raises the question as to whether state companies’ investments are “being used to drive
short term GDP numbers with no regard for market demand or investment returns,” said Lauri
Myllyvirta, a coal campaigner at the environmental group Greenpeace.
Beijing has promised to reduce overcapacity in the coal sector and other industries sucking up
investment that could be better spent elsewhere. It has set aside 100 billion yuan to resettle
laid-off workers, some 1.8 million of them from the coal and steel sectors.
Cutting coal demand is also a necessary step for China to meet its pledge to begin reducing its
carbon emissions by about 2030, if not earlier.
The National Development and Reform Commission, China’s top economic planning agency, has
banned approvals for new coal-fired power projects in oversupplied regions. While the move
may help curb planned projects, many already under construction appear to be pushing ahead.
The commission and the National Energy Administration didn’t respond to requests for
comment.
China already has more power-generating capacity than any other country. It is projected to
add nearly 200 gigawatts worth of new thermal power capacity between 2015 and 2017,
according to an analysis by Fitch Ratings Inc. That is more than the entire electrical capacity of
Canada. While some capacity would be for natural gas, most will be coal-powered.
Building unneeded thermal power plants underscores the difficulties President Xi Jinping and
other leaders face in effecting their pledge to downshift the economy to a more sustainable
track. State-led investment is still a mainstay to generate growth, and, industry analysts say,
local governments are valuing the short-term over longer term financial health.
“Local governments are focused on regional jobs,” said Ranping Song, a China energy expert at
the Washington-based World Resources Institute. “There’s no question” power overcapacity
stands to get worse in the coming years.
The mismatch between electricity demand and investment is evident in Shandong, where the
Shouguang plant is forging ahead. The province is among those where the NDRC, the
government agency, banned new project approvals.
Operational coal-fired plants already dot Shandong’s industrialized coastline. Heavy emissions
from chemical plants and oil refineries cause a thick pall of smog. As more power-generating
capacity comes online, utilization rates at power plants are falling.
The Shenhua Guohua power plant—as the Shouguang plant is known and which is controlled by Hong
Kong-listed energy giant China Shenhua Energy Co.—has created thousands of jobs, say company
officials and workers.
The consortium that owns the plant, which includes investment from companies backed by the
local government, declined a request for an interview. City and provincial economic planning
officials didn't respond for comment. A Shenhua Guohua official confirmed the project will
enter service in June.
Authorities in recent years justified new power plants in Shouguang and elsewhere by saying
they would replace older, less efficient ones. But capacity growth is outpacing the
decommissioning of older units.
An analysis by Greenpeace’s Mr. Myllyvirta estimates that by 2020, Shandong could have over
30 gigawatts of excess power capacity.
One force behind the build out is plunging coal prices. Prices for one coal type at the northern
port of Qinhuangdao plummeted to less than $60 per metric ton this month from around $130
per metric ton in 2011.
Low fuel prices help keep projects profitable, given that state-set electricity prices haven’t been
adjusted downward as much as the price-drop for coal. Meanwhile, benchmark commercial
borrowing rates for loans of five years or longer fell to 4.9% by the end of 2015, compared with
7.05% in early 2012.
Risk lies in whether Beijing pushes ahead with reform plans that include letting electricity
consumers such as factories negotiate power supply agreements with producers. Added
competition could bring down electricity tariffs, pressuring operators.
Even as they compete, thermal power plants have to contend with the cleaner sources of
energy coming online: nuclear plants along China’s coast, wind farms across the northern plains
and hydropower in the south.
Kiah Wei Giam, an analyst at energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie forecasts a drop in thermal
coal demand of 50-100 million metric tons annually for the next few years. “When nuclear
comes online and hydro comes online you can’t stop them from displacing coal.”
2AC – AT: Warming Not Real / Anthropogenic
Global warming is real and anthropogenic – feedbacks are net positive – action now is key to
prevent runaway warming
Jamail 14 – (Dahr Jamail is a Truthout staff reporter and the author of The Will to Resist: Soldiers Who
Refuse to Fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, (Haymarket Books, 2009), and Beyond the Green Zone:
Dispatches From an Unembedded Journalist in Occupied Iraq, (Haymarket Books, 2007). Jamail reported
from Iraq for more than a year, as well as from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Turkey over the last ten
years, and has won the Martha Gellhorn Award for Investigative Journalism, among other awards, New
Scientist Academic Journal, NOAA study published by the Bulletin of the American Meteorological
Society, NASA & National Snow and Ice Data Center stats, European Space Agency, US Energy
Information Administration, Nature Climate Change, American Legislative Exchange Council, National
Journal, PolitiFact, Department of Defense's 2014 Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap, Donovan, the
new US director of the Office of Management and Budget, Endangered Species Coalition, MIT's 2014
Climate and Energy Outlook, 10/20/14, “As Casualties Mount, Scientists Say Global Warming Has Been
"Hugely Underestimated"”, Truth-Out, http://truth-out.org/news/item/26909-as-casualties-mountscientists-say-global-warming-has-been-hugely-underestimated, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)
***note – “ACD” refers to “anthropogenic climate disruption”
As we look across the globe this month, the signs of a continued escalation of the impacts of
runaway anthropogenic climate disruption (ACD) continue to increase, alongside a
drumbeat of fresh scientific studies confirming their connection to the ongoing human geoengineering project of emitting carbon dioxide at ever-increasing rates into the atmosphere.
A major study recently published in New Scientist found that "scientists may have hugely
underestimated the extent of global warming because temperature readings from southern
hemisphere seas were inaccurate," and said that ACD is "worse than we thought" because it is
happening "faster than we realized."
As has become predictable now, as evidence of increasing ACD continues to mount, denial and
corporate exploitation are accelerating right along with it.
The famed Northwest Passage is now being exploited by luxury cruise companies. Given the ongoing
melting of the Arctic ice cap, a company recently announced a 900-mile, 32-day luxury cruise there, with
fares starting at $20,000, so people can luxuriate while viewing the demise of the planetary ecosystem.
This, while even mainstream scientists now no longer view ACD in the future tense, but as a reality
that is already well underway and severely impacting the planet.
It is good that even the more conservative scientists have come aboard the reality train, because
a recent National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led (NOAA) study published by the Bulletin
of the American Meteorological Society has provided yet more evidence linking ACD with extreme
heat events.
To provide perspective on how far along we are regarding runaway ACD, another recent study shows
that the planet's wildlife population is less than half the size it was four decades ago . The culprits
are both ACD and unsustainable human consumption, coupling to destroy habitats faster than
previously thought, as biodiversity loss has now reached "critical levels," according to the report.
More than half of the vertebrate population on the planet has been annihilated in
just four decades.
Let that sink in for a moment before reading further.
Meanwhile, the situation only continues to grow grimmer.
NASA announced that this August was the hottest globally since records began in 1880.
Days later, NOAA confirmed this and added that 2014 is on track to become the hottest year
on record.
Shortly thereafter, NASA announced that this September was the hottest since 1880.
And emissions only continue to increase.
Global greenhouse gas emissions rose this last year to record levels, increasing 2.3 percent.
The effects of all these developments are especially evident in the Arctic, where sea ice coverage
reached its annual minimum on September 17, continuing a trend of below-average years. According
to the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center, Arctic sea ice coverage this year is the
sixth lowest recorded since 1978.
Equally disconcerting and symptomatic of the aforementioned, 35,000 walruses crowded onto land near
the Northwest Alaska village of Point Lay late last month, when they couldn't find their preferred resting
grounds of summer sea ice.
Earth
The European Space Agency announced that, due to billions of tons of ice loss, a dip in the
gravity field over the Western Antarctic region has occurred, making even gravity itself the
latest casualty of ACD.
A recent analysis of 56 studies on ACD-related health problems revealed that increasing global
temperatures and extreme weather events will continue to deleteriously impact human health
on a global scale.
On a micro-scale, another report showed how Minnesota's warming (and increasingly wetter) climate is
escalating the risk of new diseases in the area, according to the Minnesota Climate Change
Vulnerability Assessment.
Further north, warming temperatures continue to disrupt the fragile ecological balance in the
Canadian Arctic, which is warming faster than most of the rest of the planet. Canada's minister for
natural resources provided a new report detailing the impact ACD is having on that country's forests,
which are being impacted "faster than the global average."
In neighboring Alaska, summer heat and invasive insects are taking a similar toll on interior Alaska birch
trees, according to experts there.
Wildlife populations continue to struggle to adapt to the dramatic changes wrought by ACD. In
California, one of the largest populations of state-protected Western pond turtles in the southern part
of that state is struggling to survive as its habitat, a natural two-mile long lake, has become a smelly,
severely alkaline death trap due to drought and fires there.
Of course it isn't just wildlife that is struggling to adapt and cope with ACD.
Members of the Swinomish tribe, located north of Seattle, were recently awarded a large grant from the
federal government in order to deal with rising seas and flooding, as they live near the mouth of the
Skagit River.
Water
The extremes of water, flooding and drought continue to persist and escalate as ACD continues. In
California, where record-breaking drought is becoming a way of life for much of the state, at least 14
communities are on the brink of waterlessness and are trucking in water while trying to find a solution.
In East Porterville, a small rural community in Tulare County, California, the situation has become so
desperate that residents are no longer able to flush toilets, fill a glass with water or wash their hands
without using bottled water.
Dairy farmers in that state are struggling to survive the drought, as the cost for feed and water is being
driven up by the lack of water.
The US Energy Information Administration announced that California's ability to produce electricity from
hydroelectric dams is being significantly hampered by the drought, which covers 100 percent of the
state now. This is because the reservoirs, which create power when the water in them is released into
turbines, are drying up, thus providing less pressure to spin the turbines. The first six months of this year
have seen the state's hydropower generation decrease by half.
And it's not just California that is experiencing drought. The better part of the entire Western
Hemisphere has experienced some form of drought in recent years, according to another recent
report published in the journal Science which states: "A dry spell has killed cattle and wiped out
crops in Central America, parts of Colombia have seen rioting over scarce water, and southern
Brazil is facing its worst dry spell in 50 years."
Across the Atlantic, at a recent international conference that was held to discuss the growing global
water crisis, experts warned that Britain must prepare for the "worst droughts in modern times."
In Iran, worshippers have sought divine intervention and they're being urged to literally pray for rain.
An excellent report by National Geographic asked a critical question: What will happen to the American
West, which has been built upon the back of snowmelt, when the snows fail?
On the other end of the water spectrum - melting and flooding - we continue to see global evidence of
the impact of ACD. The aforementioned recent satellite observations from the US National Snow
and Ice Data Center revealed in October that the Arctic ice cap has melted so much that open
water is now a mere 350 miles from the North Pole, which is the shortest distance ever
recorded, according to scientists.
This coincides with predictions from leading British and American polar researchers that Truthout has
previously interviewed who predict the ice cap will melt completely during the summer as early as
next year.
A recent report by the Union for Concerned Scientists warned that several major US cities will see at
least 10 times more coastal flooding by 2045, in addition to at least 11 inches of sea level rise
by the same year.
In Delaware, they aren't waiting. There, millions of dollars have been spent to pump sand in to build up
dunes along the beaches in order to create a buffer from future storms and sea level rise.
Down in Miami, hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to install new storm pumps and storm
drains in order to combat sea level rise at Miami Beach. Near the Cape Canaveral area, a low-lying
barrier island is getting even lower as sea levels continue to rise, so communities there are investigating
ways to keep the water at bay, or to plan a retreat.
Edmonton, Canada, is pushing forward with a $2.4 billion bill for flood prevention, as that city is seeing
increasingly severe downpours.
Southern France experienced a deluge of 10 inches of rain in just three hours, which amounted to half a
year's worth of rain in one day in Montpellier.
In Norway, massive amounts of melt-water from streams and blue ice on mountains indicated that the
ice fields and glaciers on central Norway's highest peaks were in full retreat, and exposed rock and ice
that had not been seen for 6,000 years. On that note, recent studies also show that sea-level rise over
the last century (20 centimeters) has been unmatched in 6,000 years.
Recent reports indicate that the Gulf of Alaska has become unusually warm, warmer in fact than
since researchers began tracking surface water temperatures in the 1980s, according to NOAA.
In the Atlantic, lobsters off the coast of southern New England are moving up into Canada due to
warming waters. The exotic lionfish, native to the Indo-Pacific, is also heading north up the Atlantic
coast, as warming waters are changing ocean habitats.
In Greenland, "dark" snow atop the ice sheet is now being called a "positive feedback loop" by
an expert there, as the increasing trend is reducing the Arctic's ability to reflect sunlight, further
contributing to runaway ACD.
Recent analysis indicates that scientists could have underestimated the size of the heat sink across
the upper ocean, according to a recent report. The study, published in Nature Climate Change,
found that the upper 700 meters of the ocean have been warming 24 to 55 percent faster since
1970 than previously thought. This means that the pace and scale of planetary warming is much
faster than previously believed.
Lastly in this section, and possibly the most distressing, a recent report revealed that fish are failing
to adapt to increasing carbon dioxide levels in the oceans. This means that within just a few
generations of fish, a mass die-off could occur due to lack of adaptation. More carbon dioxide in
the oceans is adversely changing the behavior of fish through generations, which means that
marine species may never fully adapt to their changing environment.
Air
A study published in Geophysical Research Letters showed that tornado activity in "Tornado Alley" in
the Midwestern United States is peaking two weeks earlier than it did 50 years ago, and ACD is the
culprit.
Erratic jet stream behavior is now believed to be caused by the rapid retreating of Arctic sea ice
as a result of ACD. The increasingly unpredictable jet stream is being blamed for more frequent,
prolonged spells of extreme weather in Europe, North America and Asia. This includes more and
longer freezing temperatures, storms and heat waves.
In October, California found itself in yet another heat wave, with record-breaking temperatures
reported in several cities and hotter-than-usual temperatures across the state. The National Weather
Service put the San Francisco Bay area and San Diego under a heat advisory and issued a hazardous
weather outlook for the Los Angeles area. The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) cancelled
outside activities and sports for the better part of a week due to the extreme heat, which was the
second time this school year that LAUSD has had to cancel activities because of high temperatures.
On one day, downtown Los Angeles reached 92 degrees by noon, whereas the average October
temperature for that city is 79 degrees. Several cities in Southern California broke record temperatures.
Oxnard reached 98 degrees, breaking an almost 70-year-old record.
Fire
As wildfires continued to burn across parts of drought-stricken California, a record-breaking amount of
fire retardant was used (203,000 gallons in one day alone) while combatting a massive wildfire in
Northern California. The fire was burning so hotly and expanding so explosively, due to the
prolonged drought, that firefighters found that normal amounts of retardant weren't stopping
the flames.
It is now well known that fire season in California, as well as across all the other Western US states, is
extending due to ACD.
Denial and Reality
The person who runs the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a free-market lobbying group
that opposes policies to mitigate ACD, is not sure whether humans actually cause ACD, according to an
interview recently published in National Journal.
When asked specifically whether or not she thought human carbon emissions are causing climate
change, ALEC CEO Lisa Nelson said, "I don’t know the science on that."
The denial-based antics of Gov. Chris Christie are ongoing as well. He recently said that a regional capand-trade program from which his state of New Jersey withdrew in 2011 was "a completely useless
plan" and added that he "would not think of rejoining it."
Louisiana's Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential Republican presidential candidate for 2016, is taking a "soft
denial" approach by admitting that ACD is real, while saying the extent to which humans have a role is
still in "doubt."
The denial project's success is evidenced by large numbers of Americans racing to buy and
develop seashore properties in areas well known to be at high-risk for rising seas and
increasingly intense storms. Mike Huckabee, now apparently a chronic presidential candidate, is
among those racing to build on shores that will be submerged in the not-so-distant future.
It's no coincidence that merely 3 percent of current Congressional Republicans have even gone
on record to accept the fact that climate disruption is anthropogen ic, according to PolitiFact,
which also found that there is a grand total of eight Republican non-deniers, total, in the House and
Senate.
Another interesting turn of events shows companies like GE and Google operating as large companies
do in advance of elections - funding both sides to safeguard their interests. In this case, these
companies, along with others, are making campaign contributions to Congressional ACD-deniers - while
simultaneously professing to be pro-sustainability companies.
Meanwhile the media blitz continues, as the Rupert Murdoch-owned and ACD-denying Wall Street
Journal recently ran an article titled "Climate Science Is Not Settled," which was chock full of the usual
ACD-denier talking points. The article provides us with a prime example of how the doubt narrative is
consistently slipped in as a meme: "Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by
acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the
future."
In stark contrast to the "doubters" and "deniers," the Pentagon recently announced that ACD
poses an "immediate risk" to national security, according to the Department of Defense's 2014
Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap.
Shaun Donovan, the new US director of the Office of Management and Budget, used his first speech to
talk about the dangers of inaction on climate change, in regards to the federal budget. "From where I sit,
climate action is a must do; climate inaction is a can't do; and climate denial scores - and I don't
mean scoring points on the board," he said. "I mean that it scores in the budget. Climate denial will
cost us billions of dollars."
Google CEO Eric Schmidt recently admitted that funding ALEC was a "mistake," and said that the
group's spreading of disinformation and lies about ACD was "making the world a much worse
place." During an NPR interview, Schmidt said, "Everyone understands climate change is occurring and
the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren. . . . And so we should
not be aligned with such people - they're just, they're just literally lying."
2AC – Consensus
There’s an unquestionable scientific consensus about warming.
Nuccitelli 16 — Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Writer for the Guardian, Environmental Scientist at Tetra
Tech—a private environmental consulting firm, holds an M.A. in Physics from the University of
California-Davis and a B.A. in Astrophysics from the University of California-Berkeley, 2016 (“It’s settled:
90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming,” Climate Consensus – The 97%—a
Guardian blog about climate change, April 13th, Available Online at
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming, Accessed 07-15-2016)
There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming.
Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter
Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, myself, and
six of our colleagues — have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once
and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere
between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with
most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.
2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus
on human-caused global warming.
[Graphic Omitted]
Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn
about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit
doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert
consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:
Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting
other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.
That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a
misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been
largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the
“consensus gap.” Only 12% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90% .
[Video Omitted]
Consensus misrepresentations
Our latest paper was written in response to a critique published by Richard Tol in Environmental
Research Letters, commenting on the 2013 paper published in the same journal by John Cook,
myself, and colleagues finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peerreviewed literature.
Tol argues that when considering results from previous consensus studies, the Cook 97% figure is an
outlier, which he claims is much higher than most other climate consensus estimates. He makes this
argument by looking at sub-samples from previous surveys. For example, Doran’s 2009 study broke
down the survey data by profession – the consensus was 47% among economic geologists, 64% among
meteorologists, 82% among all Earth scientists, and 97% among publishing climate scientists. The lower
the climate expertise in each group, the lower the consensus.
[Graph Omitted]
Like several of these consensus surveys, Doran cast a wide net and included responses from many nonexperts, but among the experts, the consensus is consistently between 90% and 100%. However, by
including the non-expert samples, it’s possible to find low “consensus” values.
The flaw in this approach is especially clear when we consider the most ridiculous sub-sample
included in Tol’s critique: Verheggen’s 2015 study included a grouping of predominantly nonexperts who were “unconvinced” by human-caused global warming, among whom the
consensus was 7%. The only surprising thing about this number is that more than zero of those
“unconvinced” by human-caused global warming agree that humans are the main cause of global
warming. In his paper, Tol included this 7% “unconvinced,” non-expert sub-sample as a data point
in his argument that the 97% consensus result is unusually high .
By breaking out all of these sub-samples of non-experts, the critique thus misrepresented a
number of previous consensus studies in an effort to paint our 97% result as an outlier. The
authors of those misrepresented studies were not impressed with this approach, denouncing
the misrepresentations of their work in no uncertain terms.
We subsequently collaborated with those authors in this newly-published scholarly response,
bringing together an all-star lineup of climate consensus experts. The following quote from
the paper sums up our feelings about the critique’s treatment of our research:
Tol’s (2016) conflation of unrepresentative non-expert sub-samples and samples of
climate experts is a misrepresentation of the results of previous studies , including those
published by a number of coauthors of this paper.
Consensus on consensus
In our paper, we show that including non-experts is the only way to argue for a consensus
below 90–100%. The greater the climate expertise among those included in the survey sample,
the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. Similarly, if you want to know if you
need open heart surgery, you’ll get much more consistent answers (higher consensus) if you
only ask cardiologists than if you also survey podiatrists, neurologists, and dentists.
That’s because, as we all know, expertise matters. It’s easy to manufacture a smaller nonexpert “consensus” number and argue that it contradicts the 97% figure . As our new paper
shows, when you ask the climate experts, the consensus on human-caused global warming is
between 90% and 100%, with several studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate
scientists.
There’s some variation in the percentage, depending on exactly how the survey is done and how the
question is worded, but ultimately it’s still true that there’s a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed
scientific literature on human-caused global warming. In fact, even Richard Tol has agreed:
The consensus is of course in the high nineties.
Is the consensus 97% or 99.9%?
In fact, some believe our 97% consensus estimate was too low. These claims are usually based on
an analysis done by James Powell, and the difference simply boils down to how “consensus” is defined.
Powell evaluated the percentage of papers that don’t explicitly reject human-caused global warming in
their abstracts. That includes 99.83% of papers published between 1991 and 2012, and 99.96% of
papers published in 2013.
In short, 97% of peer-reviewed climate research that states a position on human-caused
warming endorses the consensus, and about 99.9% of the total climate research doesn’t
explicitly reject human-caused global warming. Our two analyses simply answer different questions.
The percentage of experts and their research that endorse the theory is a better description of
“consensus.” However, Powell’s analysis is useful in showing how few peer-reviewed scientific papers
explicitly reject human-caused global warming.
In any case, there’s really no question that humans are the driving force causing global warming.
The experts are almost universally convinced because the scientific evidence is
overwhelming. Denying the consensus by misrepresenting the research won’t change that
reality.
With all of the consensus authors teaming up to show the 90–100% expert consensus on
human-caused global warming, and most finding 97% consensus among publishing climate
scientists, this paper should be the final word on the subject.
Prefer our evidence — it’s a meta-study of meta-studies.
MTU 16 — Michigan Technological University, 2016 (“Consensus on consensus: Expertise matters in
agreement over human-caused climate change,” Science Daily, April 12th, Available Online at
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/04/160412211610.htm, Accessed 07-15-2016)
A research team confirms that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that climate change is
caused by humans. The group includes Sarah Green, a chemistry professor at Michigan Technological
University.
"What's important is that this is not just one study -- it's the consensus of multiple studies,"
Green says. This consistency across studies contrasts with the language used by climate change
doubters. This perspective stems from, as the authors write, "conflating the opinions of nonexperts with experts and assuming that lack of affirmation equals dissent."
Environmental Research Letters published the paper this week. In it, the team lays out what they call
"consensus on consensus" and draws from seven independent consensus studies by the
co-authors. This includes a study from 2013, in which the researchers surveyed more than
11,000 abstracts and found most scientists agree that humans are causing climate change.
Through this new collaboration, multiple consensus researchers – and their data gathered from
different approaches – lead to essentially the same conclusion.
The key factor comes down to expertise: The more expertise in climate science the scientists
have, the more they agree on human-caused climate change.
Skeptic vs. Doubter
There are many surveys about climate change consensus. The problem with some surveys,
Green points out, is that they are biased towards populations with predetermined points of view.
Additionally, respondents to some surveys lack scientific expertise in climate science.
"The public has a very skewed view of how much disagreement there is in the scientific
community," she says. Only 12 percent of the US public are aware there is such strong scientific
agreement in this area, and those who reject mainstream climate science continue to claim that
there is a lack of scientific consensus. People who think scientists are still debating climate
change do not see the problem as urgent and are unlikely to support solutions .
This new paper is a rebuttal to a comment criticizing the 2013 paper. Green is quick to point out that
skepticism, a drive to dig deeper and seeking to better validate data, is a crucial part of the scientific
process.
"But climate change denial is not about scientific skepticism," she says.
Broader Impacts
Refuting climate change doubters is the main purpose of a website Green contributes to called
skepticalscience.com. The website is run by the new study's lead author, John Cook from the University
of Queensland in Australia. He says consensus studies have helped change political dialogue around
climate change.
"The progress made at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris late last year
indicates that countries are now well and truly behind the scientific consensus, too," Cook says.
Co-author Naomi Oreskes from Harvard University originally pursued consensus data about climate
change in 2004 and co-wrote Merchants of Doubt, which was turned into a documentary in 2014. She
says that this latest work places the findings in the broader context of other research.
"By compiling and analyzing all of this research – essentially a meta-study of meta-studies –
we've established a consistent picture with high levels of scientific agreement among
climate experts," she says.
And among climate scientists, there's little doubt. There is consensus on consensus.
Dismiss evidence from skeptics — it’s single-study syndrome.
Nuccitelli 14 — Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Writer for the Guardian, Environmental Scientist at Tetra
Tech—a private environmental consulting firm, holds an M.A. in Physics from the University of
California-Davis and a B.A. in Astrophysics from the University of California-Berkeley, 2014 (“The 97% v
the 3% – just how much global warming are humans causing?,” Climate Consensus – The 97%—a
Guardian blog about climate change, September 15th, Available Online at
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/sep/15/97-vs-3-howmuch-global-warming-are-humans-causing, Accessed 09-26-2014)
A pair of climate scientists recently had a dispute regarding how much global warming humans
are responsible for. Gavin Schmidt from NASA represented the consensus of 96–97% of climate
experts in arguing that humans have been the dominant cause of global warming since 1950,
while Judith Curry from Georgia Tech represented the opinions of 2–4% of climate experts that
we could be responsible for less than half of that warming.
Curry is to be the featured speaker on this subject at a National Press Club event tomorrow hosted by
the Marshall Institute; a right-wing thinktank that has spread misinformation about the dangers of
smoking, ozone depletion, acid rain, DDT, and now climate change. She may also discuss the subject at
an event next week hosted by the fossil fuel-funded right-wing think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation
(TPPF).
The exchange between Schmidt and Curry can be read on RealClimate – a blog run by climate scientists.
The discrepancy in both the quantity and quality of the supporting evidence used by each
scientist was one of the most telling aspects of their debate.
For his part, Schmidt referenced the most recent IPCC report. The IPCC summarises the latest
and greatest climate science research, so there is no better single source. The figure below
from the IPCC report illustrates why 96–97% of climate science experts and peer-reviewed research
agree that humans are the main cause of global warming.
[graphic omitted]
The black bar indicates the amount of global surface warming observed from 1951 to 2010. The green
bar shows the amount of warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions during that time. The
yellow is the influence from other human effects (mainly cooling from human sulfate aerosol emissions,
which scatter sunlight), and the orange is the combined human effect. Below those are the
contributions from external natural factors (mainly the sun and volcanoes) and from natural internal
variability (mainly ocean cycles), while the whiskers show the uncertainty range for each.
[graphic omitted — IPCC AR5 Figure 10.5: Assessed likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars)
for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to well-mixed greenhouse gases, other
anthropogenic forcings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) and
internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black with the 5 to 95% uncertainty range
due to observational uncertainty in this record.
IPCC AR5 figure 10.5: Likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming
trends over the 1951–2010 period due to greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (OA), natural
forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) and internal variability. The HadCRUT4
observations are shown in black.]
Notice that the green and orange bars are both bigger than the black bar. This shows that greenhouse
gases have caused more warming than has been observed over the past six decades, but some
of that was offset by cooling from human aerosol pollution. And the best estimate from the
body of peer-reviewed climate science research is that humans are responsible for more than
100% of the global surface warming since 1950, with natural factors probably offsetting a little
bit of that with a slight cooling influence.
Schmidt illustrated this key point in the figure below, which is called a probability distribution of the
warming caused by humans since 1950. The curve is centered at about 110% – the most likely value for
the human contribution to global warming, while the probability of the human contribution being less
than 50% is almost nil.
[graphic omitted — The probability density function for the fraction of warming attributable to human
activity (derived from Fig. 10.5 in IPCC AR5). The bulk of the probability is far to the right of the “50%”
line, and the peak is around 110%.
The probability density function for the fraction of warming attributable to human activity (derived from
figure 10.5 in IPCC AR5). The bulk of the probability is far to the right of the ‘50%’ line, and the peak is
around 110%. Source: RealClimate]
Again it’s important to remember that the IPCC report is just a summary of the latest and greatest
climate science research. The figures above are supported by the papers that have specifically
investigated the attribution of recent global warming. This isn’t just one study; it’s based on
many studies that are all in strong agreement. As the IPCC report concluded,
It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed
increase in GMST [global mean surface temperature] from 1951 to 2010.This assessment
is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods .
It’s not just “more than half,” it’s also most likely close to 100 %. In fact it’s just as likely that
humans are responsible for about 160% of the global surface warming since 1950 as it is that
we’re only responsible for 50%.
Curry disagrees with the expert consensus on this issue, but her arguments are rather muddled and
“confused,” as Schmidt puts it. Her main argument is that there is uncertainty regarding the
contribution of internal variability. The problem with that argument is that over long periods of time
(like the six decades since 1950), positive and negative phases of ocean cycles tend to cancel each other
out, and thus internal variability doesn’t have a large influence on long-term temperatures. As the first
figure above shows, the IPCC estimates the temperature influence of internal variability since 1950 at
±0.1°C, during which time we’ve seen about 0.65°C global surface warming.
Curry also references a report written by Nic Lewis for the anti-climate policy think tank Global Warming
Policy Foundation (GWPF), which I wrote about here. The GWPF report argues that the climate
sensitivity is toward the lower end of the IPCC estimated range. However, the report is biased towards
Lewis’ preferred approach, finding poor excuses to reject the many other methods that arrive at higher
climate sensitivity estimates. Moreover, recent research has identified flaws in Lewis’ approach that
explain why it incorrectly yields the lowest climate sensitivity estimates. In any case, even if the GWPF
were correct, it wouldn’t disprove that most of the warming since 1950 is human-caused.
Curry’s other reference is to a single paper written by Zhou & Tung at the University of Washington in
2013, which concluded that roughly half of the global surface warming over the past 32 or 50 years
could be explained by ocean cycles (specifically, the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation). Matt Ridley also
recently referenced this paper in an error-riddled Wall Street Journal editorial (debunked here and here
and here and here). However, as Schmidt points out,
Tung and Zhou assumed that all multi-decadal variability was associated with the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and did not assess whether anthropogenic forcings could project onto
this variability. It is circular reasoning to then use this paper to conclude that all multi-decadal
variability is associated with the AMO.
Recent research led by Michael Mann has confirmed that the approach used by Tung and Zhou
misidentifies external influences on the AMO as being part of its internal variability.
The problem with relying on a single paper (aka “single study syndrome”) is that flawed studies
sometimes get published. On the other hand, when many studies using multiple independent
approaches arrive at similar results, they’re probably right. Schmidt’s supporting evidence is
far stronger than Curry’s.
Thus although Curry doesn’t understand why so few experts agree with her, it’s easy to see why
96–97% of climate scientists and their peer-reviewed research agree that humans are the
main cause of global warming. That’s what the scientific evidence overwhelmingly shows.
While it’s possible to find one or two flawed papers arguing to the contrary, the balance of
evidence is tilted heavily to the side of human-caused global warming.
It’s about as settled as science gets. In fact, it’s about as settled as the fact that smoking
causes cancer, chlorofluorocarbons cause ozone depletion, sulfur dioxide causes acid rain, and
DDT is toxic. Although the science is inconvenient for certain industries and the political think
tanks they fund (like the Marshall Institute and TPPF), these effects all pose dangers to public
health. Climate change perhaps most of all.
2AC – Linearity
Every incremental reduction in warming has a large impact — it’s linear, not binary.
Klein 14 — Ezra Klein, Editor-in-Chief for Vox News, B.A. in Political Science from the University of
California-Los Angeles, 2014 (“7 reasons America will fail on climate change,” Vox, June 5th, Available
Online at http://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5779040/7-reasons-America-fail-global-warming, Accessed
07-17-2016)
Perhaps more to the point, climate change isn't binary. There's not a single state of success
and a single state of failure. Warming the world by 2.5 degrees Celsius is a whole lot better
than warming it by three degrees Celsius. Warming the world by three degrees Celsius is vastly
less catastrophic than warming it by four degrees Celsius. There are manageable failures
and there are unmanageable failure. We're currently on track for an unmanageable
failure. I think it's possible that we can slowly, painfully pull ourselves towards a manageable
failure, but I'm not willing to call that optimism.
2AC – AT: Lukewarmers
Lukewarmers are bad gamble — they’re softcore deniers that will result in climate
catastrophe.
Nuccitelli 15 — Dana Nuccitelli, Climate Writer for the Guardian, Environmental Scientist at Tetra
Tech—a private environmental consulting firm, holds an M.A. in Physics from the University of
California-Davis and a B.A. in Astrophysics from the University of California-Berkeley, 2015
(“Lukewarmers – the third stage of climate denial, gambling on snake eyes,” Climate Consensus – The
97%—a Guardian blog about climate change, May 13th, Available Online at
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2015/may/13/lukewarmers-the-third-stage-of-climate-denial, Accessed 07-17-2016)
The Luckwarmer Case
It’s akin to rolling dice and betting all of our money that they’ll come up as snake eyes.
For the Luckwarmer case to be true, first the climate sensitivity must be close to the lowest
end of possible values. This requires rejecting the vast body of evidence suggesting that
the climate is in reality quite sensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect.
Second, even if the climate is relatively insensitive to the increasing greenhouse effect, the planet will
nevertheless continue to warm if we continue to pump carbon pollution into the atmosphere. Thus the
Luckwarmer case also generally depends on the impacts associated with that climate change being
relatively benign. Contrarian climate scientist Judith Curry recently made this case in testimony to the
House Committee on Science, Space and Technology:
The concern about inaction comes from concern about passing the 2°C ‘danger’ threshold,
possibly by mid-century. This concern relies on a very weak assessment that 2°C of warming is actually
‘dangerous’ and that we can believe the climate models (which seem to be running too hot).
Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen recently outlined the scientific evidence behind why even
2°C warming is very dangerous for our long-term future. The most vulnerable developing nations agree.
Scientific research seems to keep revealing more and more negative impacts associated with further
global warming; most recently the likelihood that wheat yields will decrease in a hotter world as
demand rises from a growing population.
The claim about climate models running hot is a popular one among Luckwarmers, but
observed temperatures are within the range of model simulations, and all signs point
toward the reliability of long-term model projections.
The Luckwarmer argument relies on both the climate sensitivity and climate change impacts
being about as low as the scientific evidence suggests they could possibly be. But that
requires rejecting all the evidence supporting the possibility of the worst case, or even
the most likely case scenarios. Each of the dice could come up showing any number from 1
to 6. Betting that they’ll both come up showing 1 is a risky gamble.
2AC – AT: No Impact
Global warming definitively causes extinction
Sharp and Kennedy 14 – (Associate Professor Robert (Bob) A. Sharp is the UAE National Defense
College Associate Dean for Academic Programs and College Quality Assurance Advisor. He previously
served as Assistant Professor of Strategic Security Studies at the College of International Security Affairs
(CISA) in the U.S. National Defense University (NDU), Washington D.C. and then as Associate Professor at
the Near East South Asia (NESA) Center for Strategic Studies, collocated with NDU. Most recently at
NESA, he focused on security sector reform in Yemen and Lebanon, and also supported regional security
engagement events into Afghanistan, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Qatar; Edward Kennedy is a
renewable energy and climate change specialist who has worked for the World Bank and the Spanish
Electric Utility ENDESA on carbon policy and markets; 8/22/14, “Climate Change and Implications for
National Security,” International Policy Digest, http://intpolicydigest.org/2014/08/22/climate-changeimplications-national-security/, Accessed 7/11/16, HWilson)
Our planet is 4.5 billion years old. If that whole time was to be reflected on a single one-year calendar
then the dinosaurs died off sometime late in the afternoon of December 27th and modern humans
emerged 200,000 years ago, or at around lunchtime on December 28th. Therefore, human life on earth
is very recent. Sometime on December 28th humans made the first fires – wood fires – neutral in the
carbon balance.
Now reflect on those most recent 200,000 years again on a single one-year calendar and you might be
surprised to learn that the industrial revolution began only a few hours ago during the middle of the
afternoon on December 31st, 250 years ago, coinciding with the discovery of underground carbon fuels.
Over the 250 years carbon fuels have enabled tremendous technological advances including a
population growth from about 800 million then to 7.5 billion today and the consequent demand to
extract even more carbon. This has occurred during a handful of generations, which is hardly noticeable
on our imaginary one-year calendar. The release of this carbon – however – is changing our climate
at such a rapid rate that it threatens our survival and presence on earth. It defies
imagination that so much damage has been done in such a relatively short time. The implications of
climate change is the single most significant threat to life on earth and, put simply, we are
not doing enough to rectify the damage.
This relatively very recent ability to change our climate is an inconvenient truth; the science is sound.
We know of the complex set of interrelated national and global security risks that are a result of
global warming and the velocity at which climate change is occurring. We worry it may already be
too late.
Climate change writ large has informed few, interested some, confused many, and polarized politics. It
has already led to an increase in natural disasters including but not limited to droughts, storms,
floods, fires etc. The year 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record according to an American
Meteorological Society (AMS) report. Research suggests that climate change is already affecting
human displacement; reportedly 36 million people were displaced in 2008 alone because of sudden
natural disasters. Figures for 2010 and 2011 paint a grimmer picture of people displaced because of
rising sea levels, heat and storms.
Climate change affects all natural systems. It impacts temperature and consequently it affects
water and weather patterns. It contributes to desertification, deforestation and
acidification of the oceans. Changes in weather patterns may mean droughts in one area and
floods in another. Counter-intuitively, perhaps, sea levels rise but perennial river water supplies are
reduced because glaciers are retreating.
As glaciers and polar ice caps melt, there is an albedo effect, which is a double whammy of
less temperature regulation because of less surface area of ice present. This means that less
absorption occurs and also there is less reflection of the sun’s light. A potentially critical wild card
could be runaway climate change due to the release of methane from melting tundra. Worldwide
permafrost soils contain about 1,700 Giga Tons of carbon, which is about four times more than all the
carbon released through human activity thus far.
The planet has already adapted itself to dramatic climate change including a wide range of distinct
geologic periods and multiple extinctions, and at a pace that it can be managed. It is human
intervention that has accelerated the pace dramatically: An increased surface temperature,
coupled with more severe weather and changes in water distribution will create uneven threats
to our agricultural systems and will foster and support the spread of insect borne diseases like
Malaria, Dengue and the West Nile virus. Rising sea levels will increasingly threaten our coastal
population and infrastructure centers and with more than 3.5 billion people – half the planet –
depending on the ocean for their primary source of food, ocean acidification may dangerously undercut
critical natural food systems which would result in reduced rations.
Climate change also carries significant inertia. Even if emissions were completely halted today,
temperature increases would continue for some time. Thus the impact is not only to the
environment, water, coastal homes, agriculture and fisheries as mentioned, but also would lead
to conflict and thus impact national security. Resource wars are inevitable as
countries respond, adapt and compete for the shrinking set of those available resources.
These wars have arguably already started and will continue in the future because climate change will
force countries to act for national survival; the so-called Climate Wars.
As early as 2003 Greenpeace alluded to a report which it claimed was commissioned by the Pentagon
titled: An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for U.S. National Security. It painted a
picture of a world in turmoil because global warming had accelerated. The scenario outlined was
both abrupt and alarming. The report offered recommendations but backed away from declaring
climate change an immediate problem, concluding that it would actually be more incremental and
measured; as such it would be an irritant, not a shock for national security systems.
In 2006 the Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) – Institute of Public Research – convened a board of 11
senior retired generals and admirals to assess National Security and the Threat to Climate
Change. Their initial report was published in April 2007 and made no mention of the potential
acceleration of climate change. The team found that climate change was a serious threat to
national security and that it was: “most likely to happen in regions of the world that are already
fertile ground for extremism.” The team made recommendations from their analysis of regional impacts
which suggested the following. Europe would experience some fracturing because of border
migration. Africa would need more stability and humanitarian operations provided by the
United States. The Middle East would experience a “loss of food and water security (which) will
increase pressure to emigrate across borders.” Asia would suffer from “threats to water and
the spread of infectious disease. ” In 2009 the CIA opened a Center on Climate Change and National
Security to coordinate across the intelligence community and to focus policy.
In May 2014, CNA again convened a Military Advisory Board but this time to assess National
Security and the Accelerating Risk of Climate Change. The report concludes that climate change
is no longer a future threat but occurring right now and the authors appeal to the security
community, the entire government and the American people to not only build resilience against
projected climate change impacts but to form agreements to stabilize climate change and also to
integrate climate change across all strategy and planning. The calm of the 2007 report is
replaced by a tone of anxiety concerning the future coupled with calls for public discourse and debate
because “time and tide wait for no man.”
The report notes a key distinction between resilience (mitigating the impact of climate change) and
agreements (ways to stabilize climate change) and states that:
Actions by the United States and the international community have been insufficient to
adapt to the challenges associated with projected climate change. Strengthening resilience to
climate impacts already locked into the system is critical, but this will reduce long-term
risk only if improvements in resilience are accompanied by actionable agreements on
ways to stabilize climate change.
The 9/11 Report framed the terrorist attacks as less of a failure of intelligence than a failure of
imagination. Greenpeace’s 2003 account of the Pentagon’s alleged report describes a coming
climate Armageddon which to readers was unimaginable and hence the report was not really taken
seriously. It described:
A world thrown into turmoil by drought, floods, typhoons. Whole countries
rendered uninhabitable. The capital of the Netherlands submerged. The borders of the
U.S. and Australia patrolled by armies firing into waves of starving boat people desperate
to find a new home. Fishing boats armed with cannon to drive off competitors. Demands for
access to water and farmland backed up with nuclear weapons.
The CNA and Greenpeace/Pentagon reports are both mirrored by similar analysis by the World Bank
which highlighted not only the physical manifestations of climate change, but also the significant
human impacts that threaten to unravel decades of economic development, which will
ultimately foster conflict.
Climate change is the quintessential “Tragedy of the Commons,” where the cumulative impact of many
individual actions (carbon emission in this case) is not seen as linked to the marginal gains available to
each individual action and not seen as cause and effect. It is simultaneously huge, yet amorphous and
nearly invisible from day to day. It is occurring very fast in geologic time terms, but in human time it is
(was) slow and incremental. Among environmental problems, it is uniquely global. With our planet and
culture figuratively and literally honeycombed with a reliance on fossil fuels, we face systemic challenges
in changing the reliance across multiple layers of consumption, investment patterns, and political
decisions; it will be hard to fix!
2AC – AT: Adaptation Solves
Adaptation fails and hurts the poor
Reilly, Ph.D, 14 – (John Reilly, Ph.D, is a Co-Director of the MIT Joint Program and an energy,
environmental, and agricultural economist. His research is focused on understanding the role of human
activities as a contributor to global environmental change and the effects of environmental change on
society and the economy. A key element of his work is the integration of economic models of the global
economy as it represents human activity with models of biophysical systems including the ocean,
atmosphere, and terrestrial vegetation; 4/3/14, “Why We Can’t Just Adapt to Climate Change,”
MIT Technology Review, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/526116/why-we-cant-just-adapt-toclimate-change/, HWilson)
The difficulty of predicting local effects of climate change makes a compelling case for preventing it.
This week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a major report
focused on what actions might or could be taken to adapt to climate change. It attempts to
describe who and what is especially vulnerable to climate change, and gives an overview of ways some
are adapting.
The report makes clear that specific estimates of how climate change will affect places, people, and
things are very uncertain. Brought down to a local level, climate change could go in either
direction—there are risks that a given area could get drier or wetter, or suffer floods or droughts,
or both. This uncertainty makes efforts to prevent climate change even more important.
Specific risks to natural systems are well documented by the report. It finds, for example, the greatest
risks are to those ecosystems, people, and things in low-lying coastal areas, because expected
sea-level changes are in only one direction, up. This is also the case in the Arctic, where the
temperature rise is expected to be much greater than the global average. There is good
science and unanimous agreement among climate models behind these assertions.
But a frustrating aspect of the report—and a reflection of the difficulty of working in this line of
research—is that very few specific risks to humans are quantified in a meaningful way. For example, one
might ask: has my risk of death increased because of more hot days? The report says, “Local changes in
temperature and rainfall have altered the distribution of some water-borne illnesses and disease vectors
(medium confidence).” This seems to state the obvious, while giving no indication of whether the
alterations may have increased or decreased risk or what the magnitude of the alteration might be.
Given that the statement seems to say little, it is hard to imagine there is not high confidence.
The report does conclude with high confidence risks to low-lying coastal areas: emergencies during
extreme weather, mortality from heat, food insecurity, loss of livelihood in rural areas due to water
shortage and temperature increases, loss of coastal ecosystems and livelihoods that depend on them,
and loss of freshwater ecosystems. But again, this high confidence comes with an absence of
quantification of how many/much and the degree of risk. Will extreme weather double, triple, or
quadruple the number of extreme emergency weather-related events of a given magnitude (dollars or
lives lost)? Will it increase these incidences by 10 percent, or will some areas face increased risk while
other areas face reduced risk?
In the end, the report is a compendium of things that might happen or are likely to happen to someone
or something, somewhere. But what does this actually mean for me, or anyone who might read the
report? I would avoid beachfront property. If my livelihood depended on a coastal resource, I would try
to find a different job, or at least urge my children to pursue another line of work.
That is where a measure of wealth brings some resilience—I have those options, others do not. The
report “quantifies” in some sense by establishing an element of “relative risk,” concluding that the
poor and marginalized in society are more vulnerable because they do not have the
means to adapt. Beyond this, it is not clear that climate prediction is at a high enough level to
offer information that I can use to take concrete actions for most day-to-day decisions and
investments.
What the report does provide is some documentation of adaptation in action—what different regions,
cities, sectors, and groups are doing to adapt—concluding that there is a growing body of experience
from which to learn.
However, perhaps the greatest truth in the report is in the following statement:
“Adaptation is place and context specific, with no single approach for reducing risks appropriate
across all settings (high confidence). Effective risk reduction and adaptation strategies consider the
dynamics of vulnerability and exposure and their linkages with socioeconomic processes, sustainable
development, and climate change.”
Hence, while it’s possible to learn from others’ adaptation experiences, in the end, the specifics of
climate change in my place, given my circumstances, and the socio-economic environment in which I live
will present me with very different climate outcomes and opportunities to adapt than you will have
where you live.
This fact alone raises the cost of adaptation, because to some degree each recipe needs to be
invented anew. What worked in the past likely won’t work in the future—or at least, not as well.
And we need to process a lot of highly uncertain climate projections in developing the new
recipe.
2AC – AT: Paris Solves
Best peer-reviewed research suggests it’s not enough
Lomborg, Ph.D, 16 – (Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, Ph.D, is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and
visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, named one of TIME magazine's 100 most influential
people in the world, 2/22/16, “The Paris climate deal won’t even dent global warming,”
http://nypost.com/2016/02/22/the-paris-climate-deal-wont-even-dent-global-warming/, HWilson)
Two months after the Paris climate-treaty negotiations concluded with fanfare, the world is
figuring out it was sold a lemon.
In December, global leaders patted each other on the back and declared a job well done. The treaty
will come into force later this year after it has been signed by representatives of at least 55 nations
representing 55 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions.
This will provide “a turning point for the world,” according to President Obama. “Our children and
grandchildren will see that we did our duty,” says UK Prime Minister David Cameron.
Climate activists have been quick to declare success. This marks “the end of the era of fossil fuels,”
said activist group 350.org. Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute, called the Paris agreement a
“diplomatic triumph.”
A diplomatic triumph? More like a p.r. coup. The Paris Treaty is rich in rhetoric, but it’ll
make little change in actual temperature rises.
Increasingly, that fact is being recognized, even by some of the biggest proponents of
climate action.
Jim Hansen, a former NASA scientist and advisor to Al Gore who was the first to put global
warming on the public radar in 1988, wasn’t fooled. “It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he said in
December. “It’s just worthless words.”
And this month, 11 climate scientists signed a declaration stating that the Paris treaty is crippled
by “deadly flaws.”
The problem with the deal is simple, and was obvious from before it was even signed. The Paris
agreement talks a big game. It doesn’t just commit to capping the global temperature increase at the
much-discussed level of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. It says that leaders commit to keeping the
increase “well below 2°C,” with an effort to cap it at 1.5°C.
But this is all talk.
My own peer-reviewed research, published in the journal Global Policy, shows that all of the
treaty’s 2016-2030 promises on cutting carbon-dioxide emissions will reduce temperatures by
the year 2100 by just 0.05°C. Even if the promised emissions cuts continued unabated throughout
the century, the Paris agreement would cut global temperature increases by just 0.17°C.
Scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reach a similar conclusion.
And that’s assuming countries actually live up to their promises: The treaty’s nonbinding.
This is reminiscent of another non-binding pact also signed in Paris. The Kellogg-Briand Pact was
drafted in 1928 and signatories included the United Kingdom, United States, France, Germany,
Japan and Italy. Leaders agreed to outlaw war. The treaty scored its architect, Secretary of State
Frank Kellogg, a Nobel Peace Prize. But after barely a decade, global war broke out.
By the United Nations’ own reckoning, the treaty will only achieve less than 1 percent of the
emission cuts needed to meet target temperatures. So instead, signatories point to the fact that
beginning in 2020, countries will be asked to lay out more ambitious targets every five years. In other
words, 99 percent of the problem is left for tomorrow’s leaders to deal with.
2AC – Tipping Point Near
The tipping point is near but it’s not too late – prefer experts
EarthTalk 15 – (EarthTalk is produced by Doug Moss & Roddy Scheer; Douglas B. Moss, D.P.M. grew up
in Southfield, Michigan and attended
Michigan State University with a dual
major in biology and physical science; Roddy Scheer is a journalist and photographer specializing in
nature, the outdoors, environmental issues and travel; 4/13/15, “Have We Passed the Point of No
Return on Climate Change?,” Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/have-wepassed-the-point-of-no-return-on-climate-change/, Accessed 7/11/16, HWilson)
While we may not yet have reached the “point of no return”—when no amount of cutbacks on
greenhouse gas emissions will save us from potentially catastrophic global warming—climate
scientists warn we may be getting awfully close. Since the dawn of the Industrial
Revolution a century ago, the average global temperature has risen some 1.6 degrees
Fahrenheit. Most climatologists agree that, while the warming to date is already causing
environmental problems, another 0.4 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, representing a
global average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) of 450 parts per million (ppm),
could set in motion unprecedented changes in global climate and a significant increase
in the severity of natural disasters—and as such could represent the dreaded point of
no return.
Currently the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (the leading greenhouse gas) is approximately
398.55 parts per million (ppm). According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), the federal scientific agency tasked with monitoring the health of our oceans and atmosphere,
the current average annual rate of increase of 1.92 ppm means we could reach the point of no
return by 2042.
Environmental leaders point out that this doesn’t give us much time to turn the tide.
Greenpeace, a leading environmental advocacy group, says we have until around 2020 to
significantly cut back on greenhouse gas output around the world—to the tune of a five percent
annual reduction in emissions overall—if we are to avoid so-called “runaway” climate change.
“The world is fast approaching a 'point of no return' beyond which extremely
dangerous climate change impacts can become unavoidable,” reports the group. “Within
this time period, we will have to radically change our approach to energy production
and consumption.”
In a recent lecture at Georgetown University, World Bank president Jim Yong Kim reported that whether
we are able to cut emissions enough to prevent catastrophe likely depends on the policies of the world’s
largest economies and the widespread adoption of so-called carbon pricing systems (such as emissions
trading plans and carbon taxes). International negotiators meeting in Paris next December are already
working to hammer out an agreement mandating that governments adopt these types of systems to
facilitate emissions reductions. “A price on carbon is the single most important thing we have to get out
of a Paris agreement,” Kim stated. “It will unleash market forces.”
While carbon pricing will be key to mitigating global warming, Greenpeace adds that stemming the tide
of deforestation in the world’s tropical rainforests and beyond and adapting our food systems to
changing climatic conditions and increasingly limited resources will also be crucial to the health of the
planet.
“Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century
will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally,”
reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international group of
leading climate experts convened by the United Nations to review and assess the most recent
scientific, technical and socio-economic information on global warming. Indeed, there’s no time like the
present to start changing our ways.
2AC – AT: Congress Blocks
Strong legal precedent proves the executive can solve climate change alone
Percival 14 — Robert V. Percival, Robert F. Stanton Professor of Law and Director, Environmental Law
Program at the University of Maryland, 2014 (“Presidential Power to Address Climate Change in an Era
of Legislative Gridlock,” Virginia Journal of Environmental Law, Vol. 32,¸Available Online at
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2500&context=fac_pubs,
Accessed 07-17-2016, AS)
B. Executive Power to Address Climate Change
When he represents the interests of the United States in conducting foreign policy, President
Obama’s powers are extremely broad. 122 A clear example of this is Obama’s agreement
with Chinese President Xi Jinping to support a global phase-out under the Montreal Protocol of
hydrofluorocarbons (“HFCs”), ozone-depleting substances that also are potent greenhouse gases.123
Obama also used his foreign policy powers [end page 153] to bypass Congress on a critical global
environmental issue when he determined that the U.S. could deposit its instrument of
acceptance for the Minimata Convention on Mercury without seeking Senate ratification .124 On
November 6, 2013, the U.S. became the first country formally to accept the convention after the Obama
Administration determined that existing U.S. law already provided sufficient authority for the U.S. to
implement it.125
The president’s Climate Action Plan specifies an ambitious timetable for EPA to regulate GHG
emissions. EPA has a solid legal foundation for action in light of the Supreme Court’s decisions
in Massachusetts v. EPA and American Electric Power v. Connecticut . As noted above,
Massachusetts v. EPA126 held that GHG emissions were air pollutants subject to regulation
under the CAA. In American Electric Power, the Court unanimously held that because the CAA
delegated authority to EPA to regulate GHG emissions, it displaced the federal common law of
nuisance in an action brought by eight states and the City of New York against six of the largest
electric utilities operating coal-fired power plants in the United States.127
These decisions make it clear that EPA has broad authority under the existing Clean Air Act to
regulate GHG emissions. Although industry groups asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review
virtually every aspect of the D.C. Circuit’s decision upholding EPA’s GHG regulations, the
Supreme Court granted review solely to the question whether the Tailpipe Rule “triggered
permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases.”
128 At oral argument on February 24, 2014, the Justices made it clear that they were not entertaining
any thoughts of overruling Massachusetts v. EPA129 or reversing EPA’s endangerment finding. Thus, it
is clear that EPA has the authority to regulate GHG emissions. The only question under
consideration by the Court is which parts of the CAA can be used for that regulation. [end page 154]
Given the Court’s confirmation of EPA’s authority to regulate GHG emissions under the CAA,
the only viable question concerning executive overreach is whether EPA overstepped its
bounds when it decided not to regulate all sources that the Act normally subjects to regulation
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program. In essence, the industry
challengers are claiming that EPA has been too reasonable in focusing its regulatory attention only on
the largest sources that generate eighty-six percent of GHG emissions.
Aside from this issue, which may produce a 5-4 split when the Court decides the case by June
2014, there is little question that the bulk of President Obama’s Climate Action Plan can be
carried out by executive action alone. Arguments that regulation of GHGs under the CAA
represent a power grab by the Obama Administration ignore the fact that the Supreme Court
has twice confirmed EPA’s authority to regulate GHGs under the CAA.130 As the Court opined in
American Electric Power, regulation by an expert administrative agency is preferable to regulation “by
judicial decree under federal tort law.”131 EPA “is surely better equipped to do the job than individual
district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions” because
[f]ederal judges lack the scientific, economic, and technological resources an agency can utilize
in coping with issues of this order. Judges may not commission scientific studies or convene
groups of experts for advice, or issue rules under notice-and-comment procedures inviting input
by any interested person, or seek the counsel of regulators in the States where the defendants
are located.”132
Thus, EPA is “better suited to serve as primary regulator of greenhouse gas
emissions.”133
Obama can bypass Senate- Paris Accord proves
DeMint 16 James Warren "Jim" DeMint (born September 2, 1951) is an American politician who was a
United States Senator from South Carolina from 2005 to 2013. He is a member of the Republican Party
and a leading figure in the Tea Party movement.[1][2][3] He previously served as the United States
Representative for South Carolina's 4th congressional district from 1999 to 2005. DeMint resigned from
the Senate on January 1, 2013, to become president of The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think
tank.[4] Jim DeMint April 21, 2016 “ Obama bypasses Senate approval of Paris climate change
agreement," Washingtion Times, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/21/jim-demintobama-bypassessenate-approval-of-paris/
This Friday is “Earth Day” and by all indications the Obama administration intends to celebrate it by
traveling to the United Nations in New York and signing the Paris Agreement on climate change. Despite
the pomp and circumstance of a U.N. Headquarters signing ceremony, President Obama claims that
the Paris Agreement is not a treaty. Since he claims it is not a treaty, he does not plan to submit
the Agreement to the Senate for approval. The problem is that the Paris Agreement is certainly a
treaty. I reviewed enough treaties during my time in the Senate where I served on the Foreign Relations
Committee to know. But don’t take my word for it. The State Department’s internal guidelines make
clear that the Paris Agreement is a treaty. Those guidelines, known as the “Circular 175” procedure,
demonstrate that the Paris Agreement is a treaty. For example, the Agreement makes environmental
commitments that affect the U.S. as a whole. The Agreement is formal and complex rather than informal
and routine. The Agreement is open-ended and requires the U.S. to deliver untold billions of dollars to a
“Green Climate Fund” for redistribution around the world to pay for “green projects” in foreign
countries. These all indicate that the Agreement is a treaty and not a mere executive agreement, as the
president claims. But how does an agreement of such significance avoid Senate review? After all,
the president himself said that the Agreement “represents the best chance we have to save the
one planet we’ve got.” The White House released a statement referring to the Agreement as
“historic” and “the most ambitious climate change agreement in history.” For his part, my former
colleague and current Secretary of State John Kerry stated that the Agreement “will empower us to
chart a new path for our planet.” I suppose the president and Secretary Kerry intend to save the planet
without the help of the Senate. The fact is the White House gave up the game about a year ago
when it signaled it would bypass the Senate no matter what. In March 2015 White House
spokesman Josh Earnest was asked whether the Paris Agreement (which had not even been negotiated
yet) would be submitted to the Senate for approval. Earnest replied, “I think it’s hard to take seriously
from some Members of Congress who deny the fact that climate change exists, that they should have
some opportunity to render judgment about a climate change agreement.”
Negative
1NC – Relations Don’t Solve Warming
Relations can’t solve warming – multiple reasons
Lieberthal and Sandalow 9 – (Kenneth Lieberthal, Visiting Fellow, The Brookings Institution,
Professor, University of Michigan; David Sandalow, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution; January
2001, “Overcoming Obstacles to U.S.-China Cooperation on Climate Change,” John L. Thornton China
Center Monograph Series, Number 1;
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2009/1/climate-change-lieberthalsandalow/01_climate_change_lieberthal_sandalow.pdf, Accessed 7/11/16, HWilson)
Success in launching this program is not assured. The United States and China are
separated by different histories, different cultures and different objectives. Global
warming is an unusually difficult problem, involving invisible gases from every corner of
the globe and requiring changes in deeply-entrenched economic patterns. The benefits of
bilateral U.S.-China cooperation are potentially great, but a realistic approach must take
full account of the following obstacles to success:
1. Mutual suspicions. As noted above, the legacy of mistrust between the two nations on
this issue runs deep. Many people in each country suspect the other of using the climate
change agenda to gain hidden economic advantage. It will take serious decisions on cooperative
efforts to begin to overcome this mutual distrust.
2. Different expectations on technology. The Chinese side often identifies technology
transfer as a priority when it comes to clean energy. However, most clean energy technology in
the United States is owned by private businesses, which have little incentive to transfer it on
concessional terms. U.S. businesses identify lack of intellectual property protection as a
significant barrier to technology cooperation with China. While these issues must be
addressed, there is also major opportunity to engage in co-development of clean energy technologies,
as each side has considerable complementary capabilities in this sphere.
3. Different expectations on finance. Chinese officials cite the need for additional financing
to support the shift to a clean energy economy. Significant U.S. federal appropriations for
this purpose in the years ahead are extremely unlikely, as any proposal to spend U.S. tax
dollars in China would meet with stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. In practice, good projects tend to
generate necessary funding, and that will be even truer as the economic crisis is resolved over
time.
4. Widespread expectations of high cost. In both countries, much of the dialogue about
climate change has focused on the cost of cutting emissions instead of the economic
opportunities from doing so. But the next industrial revolution will be the green revolution, and
enhanced U.S.-China cooperation on climate change/clean energy will position the companies in both
countries to lead that transformation.
2NC – Relations Don’t Solve Warming
Relations fail – economic woes outweigh and block any US-China efforts – it’s politically
impossible to make the necessary commitments and it’s too late anyway
Reynolds 15 – (Ben Reynolds is a writer and foreign policy analyst based in New York. His commentary
has appeared in a number of forums, including The Diplomat, Russia Today, and AAJ; 5/10/16, “Getting
Below Two Degrees Celsius,” China US Focus, http://www.chinausfocus.com/energyenvironment/getting-below-two-degrees-celsius, Accessed 7/19/16, HWilson)
In order to keep warming below the two-degree Celsius limit, we need to reduce carbon
emissions. This does not mean we need to reduce the growth of emissions. We need to engineer an
absolute decline in total global emissions, and we need to do it very quickly. When economic
activity creates carbon emissions, and it does, any economic growth means that carbon emissions
will rise if all else holds equal. It takes resources and energy to produce virtually any commodity. Even
“immaterial” services like counseling require computers and phones, which rely on electric lighting,
power plants, and mining.
Carbon emissions are closely correlated with economic growth – emissions fall during
recessions and rise during recoveries. Unsurprisingly, the countries whose carbon emissions are
growing fastest are those countries with rapid economic growth driven by industrialization.
China is now the largest emitter of CO2. The “carbon intensity” of GDP is a measure of the average
carbon emissions required to produce one dollar in GDP. As Ulrich Hoffman notes, global carbon
intensity actually fell 23% from 1980 to 2008. However, emissions still rose faster than ever because
economic growth far outpaced the gains in efficiency.
This is the real, fundamental problem with negotiations like COP21. As long as growing
economic output produces emissions, which it does, then economic growth in general
contributes to our potentially catastrophic global warming problem. As Hoffman writes, if current
trends of population and income growth are extended to 2050, we would need to reduce
carbon intensity 21-fold. If the developing nations were to catch up to European standards of GDP
per capita, this number would skyrocket to almost 130-fold. Reductions in carbon intensity on
this scale have never been seen in history, and there are few reasons to believe that
they are at all likely.
The United States and China are the two largest carbon emitters in the world, and as such they
are perfect candidates for analyzing the politics of global warming. The legitimacy of both
governments is staked heavily on their ability to ensure consistent economic growth.
In a capitalist economy, growth is essential for maintaining employment and producing
rising living standards. Just as importantly, continuous growth can postpone looming
questions about the equitable distribution of wealth. One need only look to Europe, which
suffers from low growth and high unemployment, to see how these maladies can threaten the
future of any government or political party.
As long as booming economic growth is seen as the key to enduring legitimacy and political
success, it may be politically impossible to avoid catastrophic global warming. Consider
Jeb Bush, until recently a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Bush repeatedly
promised to increase U.S. economic growth to 4% per year. However laughable this pledge might
be, it would certainly have disastrous effects on climate stability if achieved. China is
currently suffering from economic turbulence, and continued steady growth is likely seen
as being key to the Party’s political legitimacy. Just as is the case with the United States, this
very same growth imperils the stability of the planet even as it shores up the stability
of the Chinese government.
Another problem with international climate negotiations is that they are based on misleading
premises. There are no “American” or “Chinese” emissions. There are simply carbon emissions ,
which are produced through the operations of the global economy. The emissions of developing
countries appear to be growing faster than those of the developed world because that is where
new factories and power plants are being built. Companies in the developed world rely completely
on these emissions sources for their own “green” operations. Apple would not be what it is without
Chinese factories and rare-earth mineral refineries. Developed nations are not actually getting much
greener. They have simply outsourced their emissions to the developing world, merely
postponing the hard choices that will be necessary if we intend to stay below the two-degree
limit.
The pledges submitted to COP21 by the world’s countries will not meet this target. Even if
every country sticks by its pledges religiously, which did not happen after previous accords,
then we will still be on course for around three degrees of warming by the end of the
century. That rate could still create unstoppable melting of the world’s ice caps,
leading to a massive rise in global sea levels. Some parts of the world would endure
catastrophic flooding, while others would suffer from droughts and famine as fresh
water dries up. Fluctuations in local climates would be severe, and millions would
likely migrate away from unbearably hot regions around the equator.
Avoiding catastrophe will require more than international negotiations like COP21. It
requires a political shift away from pursuing economic growth at the expense of all
other considerations. This means that countries will need to tackle questions of employment
and the equitable distribution of wealth without the panacea of infinite future growth. Social
movements will need to shift the basis of political legitimacy toward a concern for
climate and ecological stability. Otherwise, we will condemn ourselves and our children to
an increasingly hostile world.
Multiple alt causes to Chinese noncompliance – lack of motivation, weak enforcement, and
international disagreements – local solutions solve
Duggan 13 – (Jennifer Duggan is a former research assistant at the Mary Robinson Foundation for
Climate Justice and holds a B.Sc. in journalism from Dublin Institute of Technology and an M.A. in
international relations from Dublin City University; she is currently a freelance journalist covering the
environment in Shanghai, China; 10/7/13, “Ma Jun: China needs to do its bit to combat climate change,”
The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/oct/07/ma-jun-chinacombat-climate-change, Accessed 7/18/16, HWilson)
***note – “Ma” refers to Ma Jun, one of China's most well-known environmentalists and director of the
Institute of Environmental and Public Affairs (IPE).
Ma says that the real barrier his organisation have found in relation to pollution control work in
China is the lack of motivation and weak enforcement. At the moment pollutors do not have
the motivation to improve because "the cost of violation remains low," says Ma.
"It is lower than the cost of compliance. So they [pollutors] would rather pay fines year after
year rather than solving their problem. The reason behind that is because the local governments,
many of them, still put GDP growth ahead of environmental protection ."
There is rising awareness in China of environmental issues, and according to a recent survey the Chinese
public are increasingly concerned about the quality of the country's air and water. Ma says that 30 years
ago people were not as vocal or involved in environmental issues but "new tools like the internet and
social media have created channels, not just for people to access information but for people to
exchange views and have a debate on public issues".
He believes this sort of awareness is having an impact, especially when it comes to the disclosure of
environmental information. He uses the example of air pollution monitoring "before this year our ciites
were not monitoring or disclosing the PM2.5 air pollution. But now we have around 80 cities disclosing
every hour to the people".
"Not only people can better protect themselves by keeping their children indoors and wearing
facemasks but they demand change and the government is responding to this by creating plans to deal
with the problem," he added.
Ma sees China's local pollution and environment problems as being very much linked that therefore
both should be taken into consideration when it comes to finding a solution. "I hope to see an
integrated solution created to deal with both the local pollution problem and the global climate change
problem," he says.
"Much of these two problems have a similar source, funadamentally it is our energy source that
is predominantly dependent on coal. That is the source of the problem for our local smog
problem and also for our climate change contribution. We need to deal with the coal
issue."
Ma isn't very optimistic about progress being made to combat climate change at an
international level. "I think the international negotiations will always have its
difficulties because different countries come up with very different perspectives. The idea of
fairness, especially about the historic responsibilities and the current financial difficulties especially
in Europe, I think all this will create a challenge."
But he is still hopefully that there is a solution and that it is more likely to come from a local level.
For example the desire in China to improve the air pollution which would also help to reduce carbon
emissions. "In China there is such a strong local dynamic to combat the local smog problem, the air
pollution problem has created opportunities," he says.
"In China most people don't need to be convinced about climate change before they want to take action
... Hundreds of millions of people are exposed to a bad pollution problem and they do want to
solve this problem."
China only responds to domestic pressure, not international coercion
Adams 15 – (Patricia Adams is an economist and the executive director of Probe International, a Toronto-based NGO
that has been involved in the Chinese environmental movement since its nascency in the mid-1980s through the publication of
books such as Damming the Three Gorges and Three Gorges Probe, a news portal published in English and Chinese. She is an
authority on China’s environmental policy. Ms Adams, a founder of the World Rainforest Movement and the International
Rivers Network, has testified before Congressional and Parliamentary Committees in the US and Canada, and has often
appeared in major media, including the BBC, CBC, NPR, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, the Globe and Mail and National
Post; Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, an all-party and non-party think tank with over
50 experts and university professors; December 2015, “THE TRUTH ABOUT CHINA: Why Beijing will resist
demands for abatement,” http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2015/12/Truth-about-China.pdf,
Accessed 7/15/16, HWilson)
The Communist Party of China is highly sensitive to domestic pressure, which has the potential
to threaten its existence. It is much less concerned about international pressure. Because
of the irrelevance of global carbon dioxide levels to most Chinese citizens,30 China’s leadership
has had few qualms in fending off international pressure to contain its emissions at
successive UN climate change meetings. Its diplomatic position has been dictated by its
understanding of its needs: China is a developing country that must increase its per-capita
energy use in order to lift its citizens out of poverty.
This position began to change once widespread air pollution emerged as an issue of public
derision and concern in China. Because of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx)31 and sulfur
oxides (SOx)32 – but not carbon dioxide, which is colourless, odourless, and a natural component of the
air33 – Beijing is now mocked as ‘Greyjing’ and its level of pollution has been dubbed an
‘airpocalypse’.34 The problem is not limited to Beijing. Most of China’s major cities fail to meet
World Health Organization standards for air safety; pollution sometimes exceeds safe levels by
40 times.35
US domestic politics blocks
Tiezzi 14 – (Shannon Tiezzi previously served as a research associate at the U.S.-China Policy
Foundation and studied at Tsinghua University in Beijing; currentlyEditor at The Diplomat. Her main
focus is on China, and she writes on China's foreign relations, domestic politics, and economy; 11/14/14,
“Is the US-China Climate Change Deal DOA?,” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2014/11/is-the-uschina-climate-change-deal-doa/, Accessed 7/18/16, HWilson)
Republicans in Congress cannot outright kill the deal, but they can hamstring the Environmental
Protection Agency’s ability to enforce restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, potentially
rendering Obama’s energy guidelines toothless. Even if Congress cooperates, the U.S.
would need buy-in from the next president (and possibly the next two presidents, if the 2020
election doesn’t lead to a re-election) to ensure the emissions reductions targets can be met.
The issue of credibility is crucial. The failure to reach climate change agreements in the past was
motivated in part by China’s suspicion that U.S. presidents could not enact their promised
policies. Beijing was unwilling to take on aggressive targets with no guarantee that the White House
could convince Congress to pass similar policies. The failure to pass a deal in Copenhagen was
motivated in part by China’s sense that Obama would not be able to pass legislation to back up
his promises – a prediction that turned out to be true. Should the U.S. Congress, as promised,
pull the rug out from under the U.S. pledge made this week, it would severely hinder future
U.S.-China cooperation on climate change.
The deal reached on Tuesday is not perfect, but it is a substantial step up from previous commitments.
As James Fallows of The Atlantic put it,” To have looked at either the numbers or the politics of global
climate issues is to recognize that unless China and the U.S. cooperate, there is no hope for
anyone else.” The U.S. and China have pledged to cooperate, but it may not be enough. While
some are pushing for China to do more than promised, the real challenge may be getting
Washington to do anything at all.
2NC – Gillis Indict
Gillis knows nothing about how climate change works
Spencer 15 – (Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of WisconsinMadison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center,
where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global
temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S.
Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming; 2/13/15,
“What to Call a New York Times Reporter of Climate Science?,”
http://blog.heartland.org/2015/02/what-to-call-a-new-york-times-reporter-of-climate-science/,
Accessed 7/14/16, HWilson)
The title of Justin Gillis’ recent NYT article is an excellent tip-off of how bad environmental
reporting has gotten: “What to Call a Doubter of Climate Change?”
Now, as a skeptical Ph.D. climate scientist who has been working and publishing in the climate field for
over a quarter century, I can tell you I don’t know of any other skeptics who even “doubt climate
change”.
The mere existence of climate change says nothing about causation. The climate system is always
changing, and always will change. Most skeptics believe humans have at least some small role in that
change, but tend to believe it might well be more natural than SUV-caused.
So, the title of the NYT article immediately betrays a bias in reporting which has become all too
common. “He who frames the question wins the debate.”
What we skeptics are skeptical about is that the science has demonstrated with any level of certainty:
(1) how much of recent warming has been manmade versus natural, or (2) whether any observed
change in storms/droughts/floods is outside the realm of natural variability, that is, whether it too can
be blamed on human activities.
But reporters routinely try to reframe the debate, telling us skeptics what we believe. Actually
reporting in an accurate manner what we really believe does not suit their purpose. So (for example)
Mr. Gillis did not use any quotes from Dr. John Christy in the above article, even though he was
interviewed.
Mr. Gillis instead seems intent on making a story out of whether skeptical climate scientists
should be even afforded the dignity of being called a “skeptic”, when what we really should be
called is “deniers”.
You know — as evil as those who deny the Holocaust. (Yeah, we get the implication.)
He then goes on to malign the scientific character of Dr. Richard Lindzen (a Jew who is not entirely
pleased with misplaced Holocaust imagery) because the majority of scientific opinion runs contrary
to Dr. Lindzen, who is also a member of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences.
Do I need to remind Mr. Gillis that the cause(s) of climate change are much more difficult to
establish than, say, the cause of stomach ulcers? There is only one climate system (patient) to study,
but many millions of ulcer sufferers walking around.
And yet the medical research community was almost unanimous in their years of condemnation of
Marshall and Warren, two Australian researchers who finally received the 2005 Nobel Prize in medicine
for establishing the bacterial basis for peptic ulcers, one of the most common diseases in the world.
Does Mr. Gillis really want to be a journalist? Or just impress his NYC friends?
1NC – Relations Resilient – Warming Specific
Co-op over warming is high and resilient – multiple past examples prove – outweighs all
causes of disagreement in the status quo
Schell 15 – (Orville Schell is Arthur Ross Director of the Center on U.S.-China Relations at the Asia
Society and former dean of the University of California, Berkeley’s Graduate School of Journalism;
10/6/15, “How China and U.S. Became Unlikely Partners on Climate,” Yale Environment 360,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/how_china_and_us_became_unlikely_partners_on_climate/2917/,
Accessed 7/12/16, HWilson)
Amid tensions between the U.S. and China, one issue has emerged on which the two
nations are finding common ground: climate change. Their recent commitments on
controlling emissions have created momentum that could help international climate talks in
Paris in December.
When President Obama went to Beijing last November and met with Chinese President Xi Jinping,
both leaders were aware of the litany of contentious issues that divided the United States and
China. But a curious thing happened. Despite a host of intractable disagreements —
maritime disputes in the South and East China Seas, cyber-hacking, human rights abuses, trade
protectionism — the two countries found a new area of accord. They agreed to
voluntarily set joint targets for carbon emissions reductions to peak by 2030.
Then, even as U.S.-China relations continued to unravel, the two leaders met again in
Washington last month. Once again climate change was the issue that brought them
together to “reaffirm their shared conviction that climate change is one of the greatest threats
facing humanity and that their two countries have a critical role to play in addressing it.” Both
leaders promised “to move ahead decisively to implement domestic climate policies, to
strengthen bilateral coordination and cooperation, and to promote sustainable development
and the transition to green, low-carbon, and climate-resilient economies.”
China agreed to match the U.S. by pledging $3.1 billion to help developing countries meet the
climate change challenge and then went the U.S. one better: It promised to expand its seven
experimental carbon markets into a nationwide cap-and-trade carbon emissions trading
system.
The U.S.-China relationship turned out to be an unexpected vessel into which despairing climate change
activists could place their hopes. But climate change also proved to be an unexpected
providence for the increasingly fraught U.S.-China relationship. Regularly touted as the
most important bilateral relationship in the world today, Beijing’s relations with Washington
had been unraveling under of a host of issues caused by China’s new assertiveness colliding
with America’s “pivot to Asia” and Xi Jinping’s new assertiveness abroad and uncompromising
authoritarianism at home. But now it suddenly seems to have some new lift under its wings. And
heading into the international climate conference in Paris this December, people in other nations also
feel encouraged by this new Sino-U.S. rapprochement.
Despite the fact that the U.S. is plagued by a Congress filled with climate deniers and that the
Chinese Communist Party increasingly views the U.S. as out to covertly overthrow its one-partysystem government, the two nations nonetheless managed to come together. And as
world’s two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the U.S. are the essential
keystones of any global climate change solution arch, so their finally finding this common
ground gives modest reason for optimism.
2NC – Relations Resilient – Warming Specfic
U.S.-China climate cooperation is strong now.
Ewing 15 — J. Jackson Ewing, Adjunct Research Fellow in International Relations and Head of the
Environment, Climate Change, and Food Security Program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Security and an
M.A. in International Relations from Bond University (Australia), 2015 (“Why China and the U.S. Have
Found Common Purpose on Climate Change,” U.S. News & World Report, December 10th, Available
Online at http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/10/why-china-and-the-us-have-foundcommon-purpose-on-climate-change, Accessed 07-17-2016)
Over the past year, the United States and China forged a climate change partnership that would
have been almost unthinkable not long ago. Not only have both countries committed to
emissions reduction and sustainable energy goals of substantial ambition, they are
pursuing those goals in concert.
This bilateral climate cooperation has been crucial to the UN climate summit in Paris and will
continue to be so after any agreements are signed. Following years at loggerheads, the
converging positions of the world’s two largest emitters are becoming invaluable components
of future climate response actions.
So why is this happening?
A combination of domestic, bilateral and international forces help explain the
transformation, and reveal its potential and continuing challenges.
U.S.-China climate cooperation is locked in — it’ll survive tensions on other issues.
Ewing 15 — J. Jackson Ewing, Adjunct Research Fellow in International Relations and Head of the
Environment, Climate Change, and Food Security Program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Security and an
M.A. in International Relations from Bond University (Australia), 2015 (“Why China and the U.S. Have
Found Common Purpose on Climate Change,” U.S. News & World Report, December 10th, Available
Online at http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/10/why-china-and-the-us-have-foundcommon-purpose-on-climate-change, Accessed 07-17-2016)
Some Welcome Common Ground
Bilaterally, American and Chinese diplomats have come to see climate change cooperation as
low-hanging fruit in an agenda otherwise brimming with strategic tension. From currency
markets and competitive free trade groupings to maritime navigation and the rise of China’s
military, the relationship does not lack for wicked problems.
Climate change used to be just another avenue for strategic posturing, with China clinging
to its status as a developing country with little culpability for the problem, and the U.S.
justifying its inflexibility through China’s inaction. Those days have passed, at least for now.
Beijing and Washington now see opportunity in the climate problem, and view it as a
refreshingly non-zero sum game. They recently formed and now cofund the U.S.-China Clean
Energy Research Center, with a mandate extending through 2020, and are pursuing technical
cooperation on issues from carbon capture and sequestration to sustainable urban
infrastructure.
These connections feed into growing business ties, manifested most publicly through the
annual U.S.-China Clean Energy Forum. Such ties create incentives that are likely to keep
climate cooperation from being a flash in the pan.
1NC – Status Quo Solves
Sq solves warming and US-China co-op
Johnson and Le 15 – (Gene Johnson, reporter at Associated Press, and Phuong Le, Reporter, The
Associated Press, 9/22/15, “Clean Tech A Priority In Chinese President’s U.S. Visit,” Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clean-tech-priority-in-chinese-presidentvisit_us_56015d1ae4b00310edf87bc2, Accessed 7/12/16, HWilson)
SEATTLE (AP) — Discussing how U.S. and Chinese experts and businesses can collaborate on
nuclear energy, smarter electricity use and other clean technologies is a top agenda item as
Chinese President Xi Jinping arrives in Seattle Tuesday, almost a year after he and President Barack
Obama announced their nations would cooperate to fight climate change.
The three-day visit begins with talks between a handful of U.S. governors and six of their Chinese
counterparts over issues that include improving energy efficiency in buildings, modernizing electrical
grids and commercializing renewable energy, and the governors are expected to meet privately with
Xi later in the day.
The University of Washington and Tsinghua University in Beijing are scheduled to sign an
agreement saying they’ll collaborate on research related to clean tech, and an energy company
founded by Bill Gates, TerraPower Inc., will be entering an agreement with China National
Nuclear Corp. to plan to work together on next-generation nuclear power plant technology.
“These are the largest economies in the world, and we’re the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases,
so improving cooperation and collaboration is really a necessity,” said Brian Young, Washington
state’s director of economic development for the clean technology sector. “Second, it’s a huge business
opportunity. Both sides recognize the opportunity for job creation.”
U.S.-China cooperation on climate change has been a warmer and fuzzier point of relations
between the superpowers than others recently.
2NC – Status Quo Solves
China is fully committed to substantial emissions reductions for self-interested reasons —
they’re already a climate leader.
Henderson et al. 16 — Geoffrey Henderson, ChinaFAQs Project Specialist at the World Resources
Institute, Graduate Student Researcher at the University of California-Santa Barbara, holds a B.A. in
Political Science from Haverford College, with Ranping Song, Developing Country Climate Action
Manager at the World Resources Institute, former China Campaign Manager for The Climate Group in
Beijing, holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Wagner School of Public Service at New York
University, and Paul Joffe, Senior Foreign Policy Counsel at the World Resources Institute, former Senior
Director of International Affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, former Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting General Counsel at the Commerce Department during the Clinton Administration, holds a
J.D. from Yale Law School, 2016 (“5 Questions: What Does China’s New Five-Year Plan Mean for Climate
Action?,” World Resources Institute, March 18th, Available Online at
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/5-questions-what-does-chinas-new-five-year-plan-mean-climateaction, Accessed 07-17-2016)
Why are these targets important?
The new targets in the plan underscore the fact that the country is no longer merely
concerned with the pace of growth, but with the quality of growth. China’s efforts on
sustainable development and climate action are driven by strong national interests, such as
concern about the impacts of climate change, hazardous air pollution and energy
security. There’s also evidence that China’s leaders recognize the economic benefits of
clean energy, and that new drivers will be required for the economy to continue its rapid
economic growth.
To achieve these targets, the plan calls for controlling emissions from energy-intensive
industries like power and steel, building a unified national carbon emissions trading
market, implementing emissions reporting and verification for key industries, and
establishing a green finance system, among other measures. The plan also states that China
will be actively involved in the global effort to address climate change, including advancing
its own contribution, and will deepen its bilateral dialogue with other countries. These
efforts will provide momentum toward stronger climate action both in China and
internationally.
China is locked in to substantial emissions reductions — it’s a byproduct of their new
development strategy.
Ewing 15 — J. Jackson Ewing, Adjunct Research Fellow in International Relations and Head of the
Environment, Climate Change, and Food Security Program at the S. Rajaratnam School of International
Studies at Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), holds a Ph.D. in Environmental Security and an
M.A. in International Relations from Bond University (Australia), 2015 (“Why China and the U.S. Have
Found Common Purpose on Climate Change,” U.S. News & World Report, December 10th, Available
Online at http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/12/10/why-china-and-the-us-have-foundcommon-purpose-on-climate-change, Accessed 07-17-2016)
China's Pollution Crisis
In China, conventional pollution has moved environmental issues up the list of development
priorities and made them part of the country’s core national strategic calculations.
The scale and scope of protests against air pollution and environmental decline – which by some
measurements lead to 1.6 million deaths per year – are on the rise, and Chinese leadership is
responding through rhetoric and practice.
President Xi called poor air quality Beijing’s “most prominent” challenge in 2014, while a top
climate adviser deemed an acute pollution episode in the capital “unbearable.”
In response, the metrics for measuring local bureaucratic success and promotions through party
ranks emphasize environmental performance more than ever before. Punitive measures
against polluters are gaining strength, and efforts to transform energy systems are accelerating
through rapid expansions in solar, wind and nuclear sectors.
Such measures have the corollary effect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which has
changed the ways that Chinese leadership views international pressure to act on
climate change.
Outside pressures to reduce China’s carbon emissions used to be viewed as anathema to the
country’s development needs, and a distraction from its core business of wealth generation and
societal development. They are now seen as opportunities for gaining partnerships, technical
support and finance to help China transition toward a cleaner energy future. This includes
expanding China’s manufacturing and export of clean-energy technologies, which have strong
economic growth potential.
Xi’s China thus looks to the international climate arena for help addressing its domestic energy
transition and pollution reduction goals. That the measures taken will also reduce climate risks
is an added bonus.
China’s new Five-Year Plan locks-in emissions reduction targets — they’ll follow-through.
Henderson et al. 16 — Geoffrey Henderson, ChinaFAQs Project Specialist at the World Resources
Institute, Graduate Student Researcher at the University of California-Santa Barbara, holds a B.A. in
Political Science from Haverford College, with Ranping Song, Developing Country Climate Action
Manager at the World Resources Institute, former China Campaign Manager for The Climate Group in
Beijing, holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Wagner School of Public Service at New York
University, and Paul Joffe, Senior Foreign Policy Counsel at the World Resources Institute, former Senior
Director of International Affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, former Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting General Counsel at the Commerce Department during the Clinton Administration, holds a
J.D. from Yale Law School, 2016 (“5 Questions: What Does China’s New Five-Year Plan Mean for Climate
Action?,” World Resources Institute, March 18th, Available Online at
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/5-questions-what-does-chinas-new-five-year-plan-mean-climateaction, Accessed 07-17-2016)
China has officially unveiled its 13th Five-Year Plan, which will guide the country’s economic and
social development from 2016 through 2020. This latest edition builds on progress made over the
last five years, and makes clear that environmental stewardship is an increasingly integral
component of China’s development.
The plan lays out targets and measures to address several sustainability challenges—including
climate change, air pollution, water, urbanization, transportation and more. The new plan’s highlevel targets and policies will continue to strengthen China’s efforts to shift to a more
sustainable model of growth and deliver on its climate commitments. Here’s a look at the
highlights and importance of the plan for China’s action on energy and climate change:
What are the highlights of the plan for energy and climate?
China plans to develop its economy by more than 6.5 percent per year over the next five years.
Under the plan, this growth will increasingly come from services—which will rise from 50.5 to 56
percent of the economy by 2020—and more innovative and efficient manufacturing. These sectors
typically have lower air pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions than China’s traditional
growth engines, like heavy industry and infrastructure construction .
The plan sets out a new round of targets for the carbon and energy intensity of China’s economy.
With China’s new target for an 18 percent reduction in carbon-intensity from 2015 levels, we
estimate that China will actually reduce its carbon intensity 48 percent from 2005 levels by
2020, exceeding its original target of a 40-45 percent reduction by that year. It will also be a
first step toward achieving its Paris Agreement pledge to reduce carbon intensity 60 to 65
percent by 2030. The plan also includes a goal to reduce energy intensity by 15 percent,
suggests that China’s most-developed eastern regions will be the first to peak their carbon
emissions, and builds on efforts to increase China’s forest stock.
[Graph Omitted]
For the first time, the plan includes quantified guidance on energy consumption control,
stating that China should limit its energy use to 5 billion tons of standard coal equivalent. As
energy is the largest source of carbon emissions, limiting energy consumption is an important
component of China’s implementation of its Paris commitments. This guidance seems to be an
effort to ensure an upper limit on energy consumption, as there are signs that China’s energy use
could be lower than 5 billion tons in 2020. Growth in China’s energy use has slowed in recent years,
and China has the potential to achieve its economic goals with less energy through energy
efficiency initiatives.
China already exceeded its climate goals from the last Five-Year Plan.
Henderson et al. 16 — Geoffrey Henderson, ChinaFAQs Project Specialist at the World Resources
Institute, Graduate Student Researcher at the University of California-Santa Barbara, holds a B.A. in
Political Science from Haverford College, with Ranping Song, Developing Country Climate Action
Manager at the World Resources Institute, former China Campaign Manager for The Climate Group in
Beijing, holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Wagner School of Public Service at New York
University, and Paul Joffe, Senior Foreign Policy Counsel at the World Resources Institute, former Senior
Director of International Affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, former Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting General Counsel at the Commerce Department during the Clinton Administration, holds a
J.D. from Yale Law School, 2016 (“5 Questions: What Does China’s New Five-Year Plan Mean for Climate
Action?,” World Resources Institute, March 18th, Available Online at
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/5-questions-what-does-chinas-new-five-year-plan-mean-climateaction, Accessed 07-17-2016)
What are other signs of China’s progress on climate to date?
China has already made substantial progress under the 12th Five-Year Plan, surpassing its
targets for energy intensity (down 18.2 percent) and carbon intensity (down 20 percent), according
to official figures. Services’ share of China’s economy has risen in recent years, eclipsing
manufacturing’s share in 2013. Consumption of coal leveled off in 2014, and output in heavy
industries like steel and cement has begun to decline. Further, China is investing in clean
energy and installing wind and solar power at world-record levels, making the country the
global leader in solar power capacity last year.
China’s commitment to reduce emissions is structural and long-term.
Henderson et al. 16 — Geoffrey Henderson, ChinaFAQs Project Specialist at the World Resources
Institute, Graduate Student Researcher at the University of California-Santa Barbara, holds a B.A. in
Political Science from Haverford College, with Ranping Song, Developing Country Climate Action
Manager at the World Resources Institute, former China Campaign Manager for The Climate Group in
Beijing, holds a Masters in Public Administration from the Wagner School of Public Service at New York
University, and Paul Joffe, Senior Foreign Policy Counsel at the World Resources Institute, former Senior
Director of International Affairs at the National Wildlife Federation, former Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting General Counsel at the Commerce Department during the Clinton Administration, holds a
J.D. from Yale Law School, 2016 (“5 Questions: What Does China’s New Five-Year Plan Mean for Climate
Action?,” World Resources Institute, March 18th, Available Online at
http://www.wri.org/blog/2016/03/5-questions-what-does-chinas-new-five-year-plan-mean-climateaction, Accessed 07-17-2016)
What challenges remain?
Along with the above-mentioned carbon-intensity pledge, China’s Paris commitments include a
target to peak carbon emissions in 2030 and to make best efforts to peak earlier . While making
progress, the country’s effort to decouple emissions from economic growth at its present stage of
development faces continuing uncertainties. For instance, China’s work to further strengthen measures
to improve efficiency and reduce demand in buildings and transportation (including through efforts on
high-speed rail laid out in the plan) will be important to offset potential emissions growth from China’s
trends toward increased urbanization and vehicle ownership.
Studies make clear that the commitments made by countries do not go far enough to limit warming to
below 2°C and avoid some of the worst impacts of climate change. In Paris, countries agreed to come
back to the table by 2020 to review their targets. If significant progress were made on addressing
remaining challenges during the next five years, then China could be in a position to revise its pledge.
At the same time, the debate over the precise timing of China’s emissions peak may be less
important than its continuing efforts to build a foundation for deep emissions reductions
over the long term. China is continuing to develop and implement measures that can help
achieve this goal, such as limits on coal and energy use, energy efficiency
improvements, renewable energy deployment and grid integration, carbon pricing,
and steps to shift toward a cleaner model of development. The energy and other sectoral
plans following the national Five-Year Plan will provide further opportunities to make progress
on these efforts.
China has made emissions reductions the core of its new growth strategy.
Stern 16 — Nicholas Stern, I.G. Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,
President of the British Academy, Fellow of the Royal Society, former Chief Economist of the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the
World Bank, 2016 (“China’s green revolution goes global,” Financial Times, July 8th, Available Online at
https://next.ft.com/content/4644c883-0893-3add-b1e3-63a7dda2e275, Accessed 07-17-2016)
China’s 13th Five-Year Plan, for the period from 2016 to 2020, is guided by five principles:
innovation, coordination, greening, opening up and sharing. When Zhang Gaoli, vice-premier,
described these principles this year to a group of overseas business and academic leaders at the China
Development Forum, he spent longest on ‘greening’, providing a clear indication of the
importance being placed on green development for China’s future growth.
In a conversation that followed, Li Keqiang, China’s premier, told Mark Fields, chief executive of the Ford
Motor Company, that sales of gasoline-powered cars are likely to be overtaken within the next two
decades in China by those of “new energy vehicles”. Both the emphasis and the exchange are indicative
of China’s plans for a clean economy, shifting away from carbon-intensive industries like iron and steel
towards services, while seeking to maintain a robust 6.5 per cent GDP growth rate – the envy of many
developed countries.
The old growth model based on manufacturing exports lifted millions of Chinese out of poverty
and made China an economic superpower. But it also brought challenges including a coaldominated energy mix that was damaging to people’s health. Some recent estimates put the cost
of damage to health from poor air quality, much of which is associated with burning fossil fuels, at
around 10 per cent of China’s GDP.
Now, however, China’s policymakers are going to show the world decisively that climate action
and economic growth go hand-in-hand. The 13th plan intends to move the country up the
economic value chain towards consumption patterns that are less resource-intensive. The plan
also makes explicit reference to managing the structural transition for workers in sectors such
as coal, steel and iron, where production will be reduced to eliminate over-capacity.
China has already made substantial progress.
Stern 16 — Nicholas Stern, I.G. Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,
President of the British Academy, Fellow of the Royal Society, former Chief Economist of the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the
World Bank, 2016 (“China’s green revolution goes global,” Financial Times, July 8th, Available Online at
https://next.ft.com/content/4644c883-0893-3add-b1e3-63a7dda2e275, Accessed 07-17-2016)
So what does a green China mean for its own economic growth and for the world?
First, the climate agenda has taken firm root, with major positive shifts already underway.
China will likely over-deliver on its commitments for 2020, which were made at the United
Nations climate change summit in Cancún, Mexico, in December 2010. Researchers estimate that
China is already on track to exceed its target of a 40-45 per cent reduction in carbon intensity
from 2005 levels by 2020 and the reduction could be as high as 50 per cent. Next year will also
see the world’s largest emissions trading scheme being implemented across China, when the
seven pilot trading systems currently in place expand to a national level. And recent research suggests
that China’s overall emissions will peak well before the year 2030 as indicated as part of its
national pledge in the run-up to the United Nations climate change summit in Paris last December.
China is locked-in to a renewable energy transition — emissions are falling.
Stern 16 — Nicholas Stern, I.G. Patel Professor of Economics and Government at the London School of
Economics and Political Science, Co-Chair of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate,
President of the British Academy, Fellow of the Royal Society, former Chief Economist of the European
Bank for Reconstruction and Development, former Chief Economist and Senior Vice President at the
World Bank, 2016 (“China’s green revolution goes global,” Financial Times, July 8th, Available Online at
https://next.ft.com/content/4644c883-0893-3add-b1e3-63a7dda2e275, Accessed 07-17-2016)
Second, reaching the renewable energy targets that China declared in the run-up to Paris
translates into a rapid increase in clean energy investment. China’s renewable energy
investment in 2015 was $110bn: a 17 per cent increase from the year before and nearly
double the US renewable investment level. China has installed more wind capacity – 145 GW –
than that in the US, Germany, and India combined. Utilisation is also rising: as part of the total
primary energy consumption, the share of non-fossil fuels has also increased from roughly 8 per cent in
2010 to 12 per cent in 2015. Recent data suggest that these investments, as well as successful
efforts to reduce coal use, may have helped carbon dioxide emissions slow, or even fall, last
year. Indeed, China’s coal consumption seems to have reached its peak in 2014.
The agreement solves climate change writ large
Biello 14 – (David Biello is an award-winning senior reporter for environment and energy at Scientific
American, 11/12/14, “Everything You Need to Know about the U.S.–China Climate Change Agreement,”
Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/everything-you-need-to-know-aboutthe-u-s-china-climate-change-agreement/, Accessed 7/12/16, HWilson)
The presidents of the world's two most polluting nations agree: something should be done
about climate change. And they're just the leaders to do it, per the terms of what President Barack
Obama called a "historic agreement" announced November 12 between the U.S. and China .
Although neither country has plans to stop burning coal or oil in the near future, both countries now
have commitments to reduce the greenhouse gases that result.
"As the world's two largest economies, energy consumers and emitters of greenhouse gases, we have a
special responsibility to lead the global effort against climate change," said Obama in a joint press
conference with President Xi Jinping, wrapping up a visit to Beijing that included the joint effort on
climate change.
The U.S. will double the speed of its current pollution reduction trajectory, which has seen
carbon dioxide emissions fall roughly 10 percent below 2005 levels to date. The country will now
aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 . That's in
addition to the 17 percent reduction below 2005 levels due by 2020 and shows the kind of five-year
planning the U.S. would like to see adopted in international plans to combat climate change. In other
words, ever-increasing ambition in reduction targets delivered every five years. "This is an ambitious
goal, but it is an achievable goal," Obama said. "It puts us on a path to achieving the deep
emissions reductions by advanced economies that the scientific community says is
necessary to prevent the most catastrophic effects of climate change."
Recent China investment and agreements solve
Rapoza 15 – (Kenneth Rapoza, reporter for Forbes, 8/11/15, “China To Spend Trillions On 'Green
Tech',” Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2015/08/11/china-to-spend-trillions-on-greentech/#345cd6863561, Accessed 7/12/16, HWilson)
The Chinese government will spend upwards up $2.5 trillion over the next 15 years on clean
energy projects designed to provide a lift-off to its most promising alternative energy firms.
Rae Kwon Chung, principal advisor on climate change of the United Nations Secretary-General,
came up with the figures during the China Summit on Caring for Climate hosted by the U.N. Global
Compact Network China. Chung said that China pumped $90 billion into the renewable energy
sector in 2014, more than one quarter of the world’s total investment in green technology.
China submitted its climate change action plan to the U.N. in June, promising to cut carbon
dioxide emissions and expand the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy mix. So far, solar
is China’s biggest upside with dozens of companies facing overcapacity and no official support for the
industry. Around 1% of China’s energy matrix is solar power.
Earlier this year, a documentary titled “Under the Dome” caught the attention of the Chinese, especially
those in the crowded east coast cities that have more days of poor air quality than good days. The
“Under the Dome” documentary was quickly called China’s “Inconvenient Truth”, the Al Gore
documentary that put climate change on the map. “Under the Dome” put pollution high on Beijing’s
agenda, even as the government tried to censor the film. Shortly after its release, the government said
during an official plenary session that it would make fighting pollution a top priority.
China published its new Environmental Protection Tax Law on June 10, shortly after the release of
the film. The law bolsters regulators to enforce policies designed to improve quality. Call it a de
facto Clean Air Act, but China is increasing taxes on polluters.
Paris solves – also disproves their mistrust warrant.
Li 3/1 - research assistant at the CEFC, (Anthony H. F., March 1, 2016, “Hopes of Limiting Global
Warming? China and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change”, Ebsco)//HH
Paris Climate Summit resulted in a legally binding consensus by 195 participant
countries on limiting global warming to 2o C above preindustrial levels by the end of this
century, with an aim to reduce it to 1.5o C. In the parts that were agreed upon but not legally binding,
participant countries also agreed to review the respective INDC every five years as a way of
monitoring the effectiveness of carbon emission reduction on a global scale. In addition, the
developed countries promised to discuss a roadmap to boost climate finance to US$ 100 billion
per year by 2020 in order to help developing countries mitigate and adapt to the impact of
climate change. (19)On the one hand, the Paris Agreement has been largely regarded as historic. On the other hand, some critics such as Bjørn Lomborg,
Ultimately, the
the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, cast doubt over the credibility of participant countries in their pledges of voluntary contribution, warning that
hypocrisy could result if words are not matched with real action. (20)
China has made its voice heard, and it appears to have
played an indispensable role in reaching the Agreement. As Arthur Mol and Neil Carter from the University of York and the
Wageningen University respectively predicted, in tandem with China’s deeper integration with the international community, it is unavoidable for
China to play a bigger role in environmental negotiations and to exercise greater power to
direct the outcomes. (21)Nevertheless, it would be speculative to say that China’s role in the Agreement can be interpreted as having far-reaching
The final outcome of the Paris Agreement seems to suggest that
implications for its ascendance on the international stage. China’s constant violations of international treaties in the area of human rights protection continue to
make the country a target of international criticism. (22) In the Paris talks, some Chinese delegates admitted that they needed to find a better way to communicate
the country’s position with other participants and improve China’s international standing. (23)
1NC – No Warming
No warming – models exaggerate – prefer quantitative data
Goklany 15 – (Indur M. Goklany is a science and technology policy analyst for the United States
Department of the Interior, where he holds the position of Assistant Director of Programs, Science and
Technology Policy; He has represented the United States at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) and during the negotiations that led to the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. He was a rapporteur for the Resource Use and Management Subgroup of Working
Group III of the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990, and is the author of Clearing the Air (1999), The
Precautionary Principle (2001), and The Improving State of the World (2007); 11/2/15, “Indur Goklany:
The great carbon boom,” Financial Post, http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/indur-goklanythe-great-carbon-boom, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)
The wide divergence between dystopian warmist claims and empirical reality can be attributed
to the fact that those claims derive largely from unvalidated models. Empirical data, however,
indicate that these models have overestimated the rate of warming.
A recent study compared projections from 117 simulations using 37 models versus empirical
surface temperature data. It found that the vast majority of the simulations/models have
overestimated warming, on average by a factor of two for 1993-2012 and a factor of four for
1998-2012.It also estimated that the observed trend for 1998-2012 was marginally positive, but
not statistically significant; that is, notwithstanding model results, warming has essentially
halted.
2NC – AT: Consensus
Consensus is a lie – their models just have to be overlooking one factor for them all to be
wrong
Tol 13 – (Richard S.J. Tol, Department of the Economics, Jubilee Building, University of Sussex; Institute
for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Spatial
Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands; CESifo, Munich, Germany; 12/20/13, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global
warming in the literature: A re-analysis,”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514002821, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)
A claim has been that 97% of the scientific literature endorses anthropogenic climate change
(Cook et al., 2013. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024). This claim, frequently repeated in debates
about climate policy, does not stand. A trend in composition is mistaken for a trend
in endorsement. Reported results are inconsistent and biased. The sample is not
representative and contains many irrelevant papers. Overall, data quality is low. Cook's
validation test shows that the data are invalid. Data disclosure is incomplete so that key
results cannot be reproduced or tested.
Even the IPCC agrees – past models are inaccurate and extinction scenarios are improbable
and detract focus from actual existential problems like habitat destruction
Bastasch 14 – (Michael Bastasch is a reporter at The Daily Caller News Foundation, 3/24/14, “IPCC runs
from claims that global warming will cause mass extinctions,” The Daily Caller,
http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/24/ipcc-runs-from-claims-that-global-warming-will-cause-massextinctions/, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is distancing itself from
past claims that global warming could cause mass extinctions.
A leaked IPCC draft report says that there is “very little confidence that the models
currently predict accurately the risk of extinction.”
The leaked report, obtained by Germany’s Der Spiegel newspaper, says that an “acute lack of
data” have added to doubts over past claims made by climate scientists of mass extinctions in
the future. “[B]iological findings have increased doubt over the expected species
extinction,” says the IPCC.
In its 2007 climate assessment, the IPCC said that there was a “medium confidence” that 20 to
30 percent of plant and animal species were at risk of going extinct if global temperatures rose
between 1.5 and 2.5 degrees Celsius this century. If temperatures rose by 3.5 degrees Celsius the
IPCC predicted “significant extinctions” would occur — between 40 and 70 percent of species.
Environmental groups have also warned of mass extinctions due to global warming. The Nature
Conservancy says that “one-fourth of Earth’s species will be headed for extinction by 2050 if the
warming trend continues at its current rate.” The group adds that “polar bears may be gone from the
planet in as little as 100 years and that several “U.S. states may even lose their official birds as they head
for cooler climates — including the Baltimore oriole of Maryland, black-capped chickadee of
Massachusetts, and the American goldfinch of Iowa.”
But Der Spiegel reports that the IPCC is shying away from such claims and gives no
concrete numbers for how many plant and animal species could be at risk if global
temperatures increased.
While the IPCC does say that the pace of global warming is making it hard for some species to adapt, the
lack of basic data makes it impossible for there to be any hard evidence to back up this claim.
Zoologists actually fear that the focus on global warming has drawn attention away
from issues that actually cause extinctions, like destruction of natural habitats.
“Monoculture, over-fertilization or soil destruction destroy more species than several
degrees temperature rise ever assets,” University of Rostock zoologist Ragnar Kinzelbach
told Der Spiegel.
The UN’s final climate report that will include its analysis on extinctions is set to be released in late
March. Scientists and government representatives from around the world are meeting this week in
Japan to hammer out a summary for policymakers on the UN’s key findings.
Prefer skeptics – they rigorously research climate change science as opposed to going along
with climate groupthink
Newman 15 – (Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics,
education, politics, and more; cites a recent study by Dan Kahan, the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of
law at Yale Law School, 2/19/15, “Global-warming Skeptics Know More Climate Science, Study Shows,”
New American, http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/20158-global-warmingskeptics-know-more-climate-science-study-shows, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)
***note – “AGW” = “Anthropogenic Global Warming”
A new study by Yale University Professor Dan Kahan confirmed that skeptics of the controversial
anthropogenic global-warming theory — or realists, as they often call themselves — know more
about climate science than AGW theorists. The latest findings directly contradict the myths,
or lies, put forward by man-made warming alarmists about the countless scientists and
the majority of the U.S. public that does not accept their theory.
The warmists consistently label those who reject their climate alarmism as “deniers,” “antiscience,” and worse. In reality, however, Kahan’s study, set to be published in the journal Advances in
Political Psychology, shows yet again that the skeptics are generally more familiar with the science
and the evidence surrounding the climate than warming theorists. Other recent studies have
found that skeptics know more about science generally, too.
As part of the latest study, 2,000 participants were asked nine questions about what “scientists”
— most of whom are funded with taxpayer money by governments seeking carbon taxes, global
governance, and more regulation — believe about the climate. According to the study results, the
average skeptic answered 4.5 questions correctly. By contrast, warming theorists only got four
correct out of nine on average.
That might be due in part to factually challenged “reporting” from the increasingly discredited
establishment press, with the New York Times and the far-left U.K. Guardian, among others, taking the
lead in misleading readers and in many cases printing outright factual errors about climate
change. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, virtually all of the “mainstream” media, with the notable exception
of Fox News, have ignored the revealing results of Kahan’s new study.
Kahan, who appears to be an AGW believer based on his comments as quoted in various media reports,
asked participants questions such as whether “scientists believe” that global warming would
“increase the risk of skin cancer.” Skeptics were more likely than AGW believers to
know that was false, Fox reported, in details about some of the study questions.
AGW skeptics were also more likely than believers to understand that global sea levels would
not rise if the icecap at the North Pole were to melt. Of course, despite the embarrassing
predictions by climate guru Al Gore and some government-funded “climate scientists” about the icecap
melting by 2013 or even earlier, Arctic ice has been expanding quickly in recent years.
One question AGW faithful were more likely to answer “correctly” was: “What gas do most
scientists believe causes temperatures to rise?” The correct answer, for the purposes of the study at
least, was carbon dioxide, an essential-to-life gas exhaled by humans and required for plant life.
However, the skeptics who did not answer carbon dioxide may have actually been closer to the
truth.
All climate scientists, for example, know that water vapor, which is beyond human control,
constitutes the primary greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for more than 95
percent of the “greenhouse effect.” CO2 emitted by humans actually makes up a fraction
of one percent of all the greenhouse gases present naturally in the atmosphere. Other
natural greenhouse gases such as methane are also more important than CO2, despite
efforts to demonize carbon dioxide as “pollution” by politicians and dictators trying to extort
Western taxpayers.
Kahan’s findings about skeptics being more knowledgeable about the science were hardly
surprising to serious climate experts. “It's easy to believe in the religion of global
warming,” Dr. Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist for climate studies at NASA who now
works as a climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told Fox News. “It takes
critical thinking skills to question it.” Outraged by the increasingly rabid attacks from alarmists
and the moniker “denier,” Spencer recently blasted “global warming Nazis” whose
outlandish policy schemes literally threaten the lives of millions.
Another top expert in the field, MIT Meteorology Professor Emeritus Richard Lindzen, last
month compared the alarmist movement to a religious cult. “As with any cult, once the
mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more
and more fanatical,” he said during a radio interview. “I think that’s what’s happening here. Think
about it…. You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get
absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
Of course, Kahan’s explosive new study comes amid the accelerating implosion of the United
Nations- and Obama administration-backed global-warming theory on the world stage. From the
ongoing two decade-long “pause” in global warming and the record high levels of sea ice around
Antarctica to the non-stop scandals such as “ClimateGate” and the failure of every UN “climate model”
to reflect reality, recent years have been devastating for the alarmist cause.
In that context, the results of the latest study showing skeptics to be more literate on climate science
were to be expected. The finding also meshes well with a separate 2012 study on the issue. As The New
American’s James Heiser reported about those findings at the time: “The more scientifically
knowledgeable a person is, the less likely he is to be troubled by the alarmist rhetoric of the
purveyors of ecological gloom and doom.” In essence, the study found that those who are
not worried about alleged global warming tended to have more scientific knowledge
than alarmists.
1NC – Not Anthropogenic
***note when prepping file – this card is LONG, but that’s because it has a lot of warrants –
consider breaking it up and reading the different warrants in the block as different cards
No anthropogenic warming – 10 warrants
Van Biezen 15 – (Mike van Biezen is adjunct professor at Compton College, Santa Monica College, El
Camino College, and Loyola Marymount University teaching Physics, Mathematics, Astronomy, and
Earth Science; 12/23/15, “The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever,” DailyWire,
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-vanbiezen, Accessed 7/9/16, HWilson)
It made sense. Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large
amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global
temperatures to rise. But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the
“global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd . It was subtle, and as I
found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked. There appeared to be a period of about 40
years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit. As a data
analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more. Forty years is
a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the
same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation
between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Thus I began to look into it a little further
and here are some of the results 7 years later.
Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct. The global average temperature has
increased since the 1980’s. Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice
cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months. The
average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade
higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these
facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these
increasing temperatures. But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that
link the current observations to human activity. The link is assumed to be simply a
fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.
Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing
“global warming” or “climate change”:
1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that
today’s temperatures are unusual.
The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold
temperature record was set in 1983. By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature
record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records. In the United States, which has
more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by
state were set more recently than hot temperature records. When the temperature records for
each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12
months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot
temperature records were set longer ago. This is directly contradictory to what would be
expected if global warming were real.
2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are
rising rapidly:
Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe.
For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct
contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented”
temperature increases. In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which
returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001. In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of
about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very
slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.
3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but
for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:
If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing
remarkable. For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100
years, including those found in Greenland. Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like
comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer. It is
obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving ).
4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:
Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the
point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age
period. For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the
1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world. During that same 40-year
period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase. If
global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2
increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak
correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must
be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2.
5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of
weather stations:
It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been
artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by
concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars. Since land area of
cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of
the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant.
Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificiallyraised nighttime temperatures skew the average data. When one only looks at daytime
temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible .
(This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative
of the true climate of that area).
6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and
atmospheric CO2 levels:
Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An
Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower
temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around . Any college freshman
chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing
temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the
atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is
colder. That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today.
That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but
just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in
any significant way. The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support
that premise. What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the
atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very
large climate changes.
7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global
temperature changes:
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies,
which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated
from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26
micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant
because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule
which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus
having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth,
including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2. It turns out that between water vapor
and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being
absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the
atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth. That explains why there
appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and
why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution
the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to
contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.
8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was
prevalent long before the industrial revolution:
Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as
having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced. But it is hard to
convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was
presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval
warm period. Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on
Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods
during the last 10,000 years. There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that
over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm
periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder. The famous Belgian city of Brugge,
once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from
the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the
onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.
Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even
along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold
again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter
cold winters. The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of
these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our
recent history.
9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years
The notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific
basis. Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years. It is no secret that glaciers advanced to
unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age.
Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps saw their homes threatened and fields destroyed by
these large ice masses. Pleas went out to local bishops and even the Pope in Rome to come and pray in
front of these glaciers in the hope of stopping their unrelenting advance. Around 1850, the climate
returned to more “normal” temperatures and the glaciers began to recede. But then between 1940
and 1980, as the temperatures declined again, most of the glaciers halted their retreat and
began to expand again, until warmer weather at the end of the last century caused them to
continue the retreat they started 150 years earlier. Furthermore, we now know that many of the
glaciers around the world did not exist 4000 to 6000 years ago. As a case in point, there is a glacier to
the far north of Greenland above the large ice sheet covering most of the island called the Hans Tausen
Glacier. It is 50 miles long ,30 miles wide and up to 1000 feet thick. A Scandinavian research team bored
ice cores all the way to the bottom and discovered that 4000 years ago this glacier did not exist. It was
so warm 4000 years ago that many of the glaciers around the world didn’t exist but have returned
because of the onset of colder weather. Today’s temperatures are much lower than those that
were predominant during the Holocene era as substantiated by studying the many cores that
were dug from Greenland’s ice sheet.
10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming:
For the first several years of my research I relied on the climate data banks of NASA and GISS,
two of the most prestigious scientific bodies of our country. After years of painstaking gathering
of data, and relentless graphing of that data, I discovered that I was not looking at the originally
gathered data, but data that had been “adjusted” for what was deemed “scientific
reasons.” Unadjusted data is simply not available from these data banks. Fortunately I was able
to find the original weather station data from over 7000 weather stations from around the
world in the KNMI database. (Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute). There I was able to review
both the adjusted and unadjusted data as well as the breakout of the daytime and nighttime
data. The results were astounding. I found that data from many stations around the
world had been systematically “adjusted” to make it seem that global warming was
happening when, in fact, for many places around the world the opposite was true.
Following will be a few of the myriad of examples of this data adjustment. When I present my material
during presentations at local colleges, these are the charts that have some of the greatest impact in
affecting the opinion of the students, especially when they realize that there is a concerted effort to
misrepresent what is actually happening. Another amazing result was that when only graphing the
daily highs from around the country, a very different picture arises from the historical temperature data.
There are many more specific areas that I have researched and for which I have compiled data and
presentation material, equally compelling regarding at exposing the fallacies of global warming. A new
twist has swept the global warming movement lately, especially since they had to admit that
their own data showed that there was a “hiatus” on the warming, as illustrated in the 2014
IPCC report; their data showed an actual cooling over the last 10 years. The new term: “climate
change” is now taking over, such that unusual events of any kind, like the record snowfall in Boston,
can be blamed on the burning of fossil fuels without offering any concrete scientific data as
to how one could cause the other.
1NC – Alt Causes – Generic
Alt causes to warming –
Peat fires
Lim 16 – (XiaoZhi Lim, freelance science reporter based in Singapore, cites Adam Watts, fire ecologist at
the Desert Research Institute in Nevada; Guillermo Rein, peat fire researcher at Imperial College in the
UK, and Robert Gray, an independent fire ecologist based in Chilliwack, British Columbia; 7/2/16, “Vast
Peat Fires Threaten Health and Boost Global Warming,” Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/vast-peat-fires-threaten-health-and-boost-global-warming/,
Accessed 7/10/16, HWilson)
June 28, 2016 — As forest fires devastated Fort McMurray, Alberta, last month, a different sort of fire
may have started beneath the ground. Peat, a carbon-rich soil created from partially decomposed,
waterlogged vegetation accumulated over several millennia and the stuff that fueled Indonesia’s
megafires last fall, also appears in the boreal forests that span Canada, Alaska and Siberia. With
the intense heat from the Fort McMurray fires, “there’s a good chance the soil in the area could
have been ignited,” says Adam Watts, a fire ecologist at Desert Research Institute in Nevada.
Unlike the dramatic wildfires near Fort McMurray, peat fires smolder slowly at a low
temperature and spread underground, making them difficult to detect, locate and
extinguish. They produce little flame and much smoke, which can become a threat to public
health as the smoke creeps along the land and chokes nearby villages and cities.
And although they look nothing like it, peat fires are the “largest fires on earth,” says Guillermo
Rein, a peat fire researcher at Imperial College in the United Kingdom. Since the 1990s,
Indonesia’s slash-and-burn practices that clear forests for agriculture have often led to fires
that grow out of control because of peat. Indonesia has over 200,000 square kilometers (77,000
square miles) of peatland that is on average 5.5 meters (18 feet) deep and in some places up to 20
meters (66 feet) deep. “They’re very difficult to put out because they’re deep,” says Robert Gray,
an independent fire ecologist based in Chilliwack, British Columbia.
The boreal forests are thought to contain some 30 times more peat than Indonesia. Because they can
smolder for weeks and months, sometimes even staying active underground throughout cold
northern winters, peat fires emit on average the equivalent of 15 percent of
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions per year, according to Rein — carbon that
took thousands of years to sequester.
Peat fires also destroy crucial habitat for endangered species such as orangutans; the haze
they create has consequences for surface temperatures because it can block sunlight, and for
rainfall patterns because it can disrupt cloud formation. Such negative impacts from peat fires and
their persistence call for modern technologies to better detect and battle them.
NOAA and NASA budget cuts
Vaidyanathan 16 – (Gayathri Vaidyanathan, reporter for the Scientific American covering climate
issues, 6/2/16, “U.S. Congress Aims to Cut Climate Science,” Scientific American,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/u-s-congress-aims-to-cut-climate-science/, Accessed
7/10/16, HWilson)
Congress is considering spending bills that would significantly cut funding for key
climate change research by NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration in 2017.
Among the losers: the oldest carbon dioxide observatories on the planet, the ability to track fossil
fuel emissions in the United States and a program to study ocean acidification.
“We are asking for a small amount of money to do all the right things,” said James Butler, director of
global monitoring at NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL).
The spending bill passed by the House Appropriations Committee last week allocates $128 million
for NOAA’s climate research, a 20 percent cut from the previous year. The bill allocates $1.7
billion for NASA’s earth science division, a 12 percent cut from 2016.
Republican appropriators termed climate and ocean services research “lower-priority,” which earned
them a rebuke from Democrats.
“It’s important that we provide appropriate support across all the fields and not just the few
mission directorates or a few of the sciences,” Rep. Mike Honda (D-Calif.) said. “So, to this end, I’m
disappointed that the earth science funding was so dramatically cut.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee passed its comparatively less brutal spending bill in April. Senate
appropriators chose to maintain funding at 2016 levels for both agencies. The differences between the
House and Senate appropriators will have to be resolved during conference negotiations.
ClimateWire analyzed the House spending bill and NASA and NOAA’s original budget requests to identify
programs that might suffer, and ones that will receive love, in 2017.
CARBON MONITORING
Since the 1950s, NOAA has been tracking CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere at six
observatories located in Mauna Loa, Hawaii; Summit, Greenland; Trinidad Head, Calif; the South Pole;
Barrow, Alaska; and American Samoa. Thousands of scientists use the data generated at these
iconic observatories to study the climate system.
The observatories are in dire need of updates. Congress has, in effect, kept funding flat
since the 1970s, which has put them at operational risk, according to NOAA.
ESRL is beginning to dip into its research funding pot to pay for things like new electrical wiring to deal
with corrosion, said Butler. Without adequate funding, two of the six observatories might be
affected next year, he said.
“Adding up all those little things, like fuel and wear and tear and the superinflationary costs of these
sites, and increasing demand for the information from these sites, we just need a little bit more,” he
said. “We are not asking for a whole lot more, but a little bit more to just bring us back to speed so
we are not dipping into research dollars to maintain these.”
NOAA requested an extra $3 million from Congress, though Butler said the actual need is closer to $12
million. But the plea fell on deaf ears in the House, as appropriators cut funding for climate
labs run by NOAA by 17 percent below 2016 levels. The cut will not accrue solely to the baseline
laboratories, which are a high priority at NOAA, but the observatories may go another year without an
increase in funding.
HUMAN-CAUSED EMISSIONS
Nations signed a climate deal in Paris last year, and many submitted pledges to curb their CO2
emissions. NOAA would like to set up a facility that would allow scientists to check if nations are keeping
their word.
“In the light of the Paris climate agreement, there’s going to be a very strong need for some
form of objective verification for policy purposes,” said Pieter Tans, a climate scientist at ESRL.
“We have an opportunity to come up with an observing system that will give us an objective tool to
measure the amount of success that [nations’ climate] pledges have.”
At present, no one directly measures CO2 emissions in the atmosphere released by humans.
CO2 has many origins, some natural, such as respiring trees, and some man-made, such as power plants.
Isolating just the human contribution can be challenging because the natural emissions can be
large and varying. So, NOAA scientists will rely on a quirk of nature: All living beings, including trees,
respire a heavier CO2 molecule comprising a carbon isotope called C14. CO2 emitted by power plants, in
contrast, does not contain C14. By tracking C14, scientists can pinpoint the carbon emissions of a
particular region.
Most other proposals to track CO2 typically suggest the use of satellites, such as the Orbiting
Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) that NASA launched in 2014 with the goal of identifying the sources and
sinks of CO2 (ClimateWire, May 28, 2014). The European Space Agency also has similar projects in the
pipeline.
But scientists who track CO2 with their boots firmly on the ground are skeptical about the utility
of satellite data, which scientists have to tinker with to resolve biases in the data stream that
can overwhelm the signals. Ultimately, satellites would have to detect changes of 0.1 part per
million of CO2 in an atmosphere containing 400 ppm. That’s a level of accuracy that no satellite
has so far accomplished, Tans said. It may take more than a decade for OCO-2’s data to be useful, he
said.
The same goals could be accomplished using the proposed ground-based system. NOAA would like to
track U.S. emissions by collecting 5,000 samples per year and analyzing them at a dedicated center in
Colorado. Tans estimates the program would cost $5 million annually to operate.
“Which, in the big scheme of things, is nothing really,” he said. “It is a hell of a lot cheaper than
satellites.”
NOAA requested a budget increase of $3 million for launching this program and for expanding its
existing regional network of carbon measuring stations. This program also falls under climate labs,
which suffer a 17 percent cut in the House spending bill.
OCEAN TRACKING
The oceans are a large carbon sink, absorbing about a quarter of the CO2 emitted by humans between
2002 and 2011. NOAA has been measuring the uptake of CO2 by the oceans for more than 25
years, using a network of 40 moorings and oceangoing vessels.
The work has revealed that the oceans, on average, take up 2.6 billion metric tons of carbon a year. The
uptake is not uniform throughout the oceans. In some parts, such as the equatorial Pacific Ocean,
upwelling currents expel CO2 into the atmosphere. And in other parts, such as off the coast of Japan, a
springtime phytoplankton bloom sucks CO2 back into the ocean.
“We have to study that very carefully to understand how all that balances out,” said
Christopher Sabine, director of NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory.
Ideally speaking, scientists could use more ships and moorings to get more accurate measurements,
Sabine said.
“Right now, 40 moorings for the entire ocean is not very many, so we have to use various
mathematical and statistical approaches for extrapolating the few measurements we have out to the
global oceans,” he said. “We are fairly confident in what we’re doing, but more observations are better
and we can begin to knock down that uncertainty.”
The House budget allocates the $42 million that NOAA requested for oceans monitoring and
observation programs. But it does not fund related ocean acidification research that the Obama
administration had identified as a priority.
The oceans have been acidifying due to the input of excess CO2, affecting some aquatic species with
calcium carbonate shells. NOAA would like to launch a program to assess the vulnerability of various
communities to the problem.
“That is the one piece of ocean acidification that has been very limited because of funding,”
Sabine said.
2NC – Alt Cause – India
India is more important than the U.S. and China.
Joyce 16 — Christopher Joyce, Correspondent on the Science Desk at National Public Radio, 2016 (“Can
The U.S. And China Keep Their Climate Pledges?,” All Things Considered — NPR, April 21st, Available
Online at http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/21/474690936/can-the-u-s-and-chinakeep-their-climate-pledges, Accessed 07-17-2016)
What the U.S. and China do is critically important now, but ultimately their efforts won't be
enough to stop climate change. Other countries matter as well — in particular, India. India's
emissions are growing fast, and while its government pledged in Paris to shift to renewable
energy as fast as the country can, it's not giving up fossil fuels such as coal either — not
with hundreds of millions of people still without electricity. Over the long haul, India's
emissions could surpass those from the U.S. or China.
"What pathway India takes will go a long way to saying where we end up in 10 to 20 years,"
Jackson says, "along with what the U.S. does and what China does."
* Jackson = Rob Jackson, a climate scientist at Stanford University
Growing emissions in India can negate progress in the U.S. and China.
Mishra 15 — Anish Mishra, Senior Vice President of IPB NRI Business at Citibank NA, UAE, holds a
degree from the Indian Institute of Management, Indore, 2015 (“Why India must take climate change
seriously,” Japan Times, October 29th, Available Online at
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2015/10/29/commentary/world-commentary/india-must-takeclimate-change-seriously/, Accessed 07-17-2016)
The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs has projected that by 2028 India will
be the world’s most populous country, with 1.45 billion people. According to the International
Monetary Fund, India is the world’s faster growing economy with GDP growth of 7.5 percent,
ahead of China. As of today, nearly half a billion Indians do not have full access to electricity
supply and running water.
If anyone were to listen to the aspirations and promises of Indian politicians during election rallies, it
would appear very clear that this great democracy is still struggling with poverty and providing its
people with their basic needs. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) was not surprisingly handed a
clear mandate for economic development. As India rapidly progresses toward a bright future, its
people will experience dramatic improvements in their standards of living, with millions of
Indian leaping out of poverty every year. India will have a growing middle class with high
aspirations, and by extension rising consumption and production.
There can be little doubt that as Indians get richer, owning more cars and electrical appliances,
India’s carbon emissions rate will rise. Currently, the World Bank has it at 1.67 metric tons of
carbon dioxide per capita, compared with China’s 6.19 metric tons per capita and America’s
colossal 17.56 metric tons per capita. This suggests the potential rise in India’s CO2 emissions.
As an emerging economy with massive socioeconomic complexities and low per capita carbon
emission rates, climate change may seem the very least India’s concerns. Yet if India overlooks
the importance of climate change, the consequences could be dire. Given India’s enormous
population, a marginal increase in per capita CO2 emissions will produce a huge increase in
global CO2 emissions.
1NC – No Impact
No impact – climate change does not have the ability to kill species – even the IPCC admits
their models are wrong
Bojanowski 14 – (Axel, Spiegel International, cites studies from IPCC new report and Ragnar
Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, 3/26/14, “UN Backtracks: Will Global Warming
Really Trigger Mass Extinctions?”, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/new-un-climate-reportcasts-doubt-on-earlier-extinction-predictions-a-960569.html, HWilson)
In 2007, the IPCC predicted that rising global temperatures would kill off many species. But in its
new report, part of which will be presented next Monday, the UN climate change body backtracks. There is a shortage of
evidence, a draft version claims.
The last remaining passenger pigeon, Martha, died a century ago in a Cincinnati zoo. The bird's downfall was having tender, tasty meat so pleasing to the human
palate.
Hundreds of species have suffered the same fate in modern times. The last Tasmanian wolf died in an Australian zoo in 1936. Two years later, the final remaining
Schomburgk's deer met its end as a pet in a Thai temple. The Chinese river dolphin hasn't been sighted for years either. In total, 77 species of mammal, 130 birds, 22
reptiles and 34 amphibians have vanished from the face of the earth since 1500, according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
Humans have shrunk the habitats of many life forms, through unsustainable agriculture, fishing or hunting. And it is going to get even worse. Global warming is said
to be threatening thousands of animal and plant species with extinction. That, at least, is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been
predicting for years.
But the UN climate body now says it is no longer so certain. The second part of the IPCC's new assessment report is due to be presented next Monday in Yokohama,
Japan. On the one hand, a classified draft of the report notes that a further "increased extinction risk for a substantial number of species during and beyond the 21st
the IPCC admits that there is no evidence climate change has led to
even a single species becoming extinct thus far.
century" is to be expected. On the other hand,
'Crocodile Tears'
even the
icons of catastrophic global warming, the polar bears, are doing surprisingly well. Their
population has remained stable despite the shrinking of the Arctic ice cap.
At most, the draft report says, climate change may have played a role in the disappearance of a few amphibians, fresh water fish and mollusks. Yet
Kinzelbach, a zoologist at the University of Rostock, says essential data is missing for most
other life forms, making it virtually impossible to forecast the potential effects of climate change.
Given the myriad other human encroachments in the natural environment, Kinzelbach says, " crocodile tears over an animal kingdom
threatened by climate change are less than convincing."
Ragnar
the IPCC -- that it doubts its own computer simulations for species
extinctions. "There is very little confidence that models currently predict extinction risk
accurately," the report notes. Very low extinction rates despite considerable climate variability during past hundreds of thousands of years have led to
concern that "forecasts for very high extinction rates due entirely to climate change may be
overestimated."
The draft report includes a surprising admission by
the IPCC predicted that 20 to 30 percent of all animal and plant species faced a high risk for extinction
should average global temperatures rise by 2 to 3 degrees Celsius (3.6 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit). The current draft report says that
scientific uncertainties have "become more apparent" since 2007.
In the last assessment report, Climate Change 2007,
key environmental processes and life form characteristics were given scant
consideration in the models -- the ability of plants and animals to adapt to new climatic
conditions, for example. Consequently, the new assessment report will not include any concrete figures regarding the percentage of species that could
It notes that
become extinct as a result of global warming.
2NC – No Impact
No impact for a century — IPCC agrees.
Ridley 15 — Matt Ridley, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Academy of Medical
Sciences, Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Conservative
Member of the House of Lords (UK), Author of several popular science books including The Rational
Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves and The Evolution of Everything: How Ideas Emerge, former Science
Editor at The Economist, former Visiting Professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, holds a
D.Phil. in Zoology from Magdalen College, Oxford, 2015 (“Climate Change Will Not Be Dangerous for a
Long Time,” Scientific American, November 27th, Available Online at
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-will-not-be-dangerous-for-a-long-time/,
Accessed 07-17-2016)
The climate change debate has been polarized into a simple dichotomy. Either global warming
is “real, man-made and dangerous,” as Pres. Barack Obama thinks, or it’s a “hoax,” as Oklahoma
Sen. James Inhofe thinks. But there is a third possibility: that it is real, man-made and not
dangerous, at least not for a long time.
This “lukewarm” option has been boosted by recent climate research, and if it is right, current
policies may do more harm than good. For example, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations and other bodies agree that the rush to grow biofuels, justified as a decarbonization
measure, has raised food prices and contributed to rainforest destruction. Since 2013 aid agencies such
as the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation, the World Bank and the European Investment
Bank have restricted funding for building fossil-fuel plants in Asia and Africa; that has slowed progress in
bringing electricity to the one billion people who live without it and the four million who die each year
from the effects of cooking over wood fires.
In 1990 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was predicting that if emissions rose
in a “business as usual” way, which they have done, then global average temperature would
rise at the rate of about 0.3 degree Celsius per decade (with an uncertainty range of 0.2 to 0.5
degree C per decade). In the 25 years since, temperature has risen at about 0.1 to 0.2 degree C
per decade, depending on whether surface or satellite data is used. The IPCC, in its most recent
assessment report, lowered its near-term forecast for the global mean surface temperature
over the period 2016 to 2035 to just 0.3 to 0.7 degree C above the 1986–2005 level. That is a
warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degree C per decade, in all scenarios, including the high-emissions
ones.
At the same time, new studies of climate sensitivity—the amount of warming expected for a doubling
of carbon dioxide levels from 0.03 to 0.06 percent in the atmosphere—have suggested that most
models are too sensitive. The average sensitivity of the 108 model runs considered by the IPCC is 3.2
degrees C. As Pat Michaels, a climatologist and self-described global warming skeptic at the Cato
Institute testified to Congress in July, certain studies of sensitivity published since 2011 find an
average sensitivity of 2 degrees C.
Such lower sensitivity does not contradict greenhouse-effect physics. The theory of dangerous
climate change is based not just on carbon dioxide warming but on positive and negative
feedback effects from water vapor and phenomena such as clouds and airborne aerosols from
coal burning. Doubling carbon dioxide levels, alone, should produce just over 1 degree C of
warming. These feedback effects have been poorly estimated, and almost certainly
overestimated, in the models.
The last IPCC report also included a table debunking many worries about “tipping points” to
abrupt climate change. For example, it says a sudden methane release from the ocean, or a
slowdown of the Gulf Stream, are “very unlikely” and that a collapse of the West Antarctic or
Greenland ice sheets during this century is “exceptionally unlikely.”
If sensitivity is low and climate change continues at the same rate as it has over the past 50
years, then dangerous warming—usually defined as starting at 2 degrees C above preindustrial
levels—is about a century away. So we do not need to rush into subsidizing inefficient and landhungry technologies, such as wind and solar or risk depriving poor people access to the beneficial effects
of cheap electricity via fossil fuels.
Climate change is not catastrophic — their impacts exaggerate.
Tol 14 — Richard Tol, Professor of Economics at the University of Sussex, Professor of the Economics of
Climate Change at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Member of the Academia Europaea—a European
non-governmental scientific association, served as Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC Fifth
Assessment Report Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, holds a Ph.D. in Economics
and an M.Sc. in Econometrics and Operations Research from the VU University Amsterdam, 2014
(“Bogus prophecies of doom will not fix the climate,” Financial Times, March 31st, Available Online at
https://next.ft.com/content/e8d011fa-b8b5-11e3-835e-00144feabdc0, Accessed 07-15-2016)
Humans are a tough and adaptable species. People live on the equator and in the Arctic, in
the desert and in the rainforest. We survived the ice ages with primitive technologies. The idea
that climate change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable.
Climate change will have consequences, of course. Since different plants and animals thrive in
different climates, it will affect natural ecosystems and agriculture. Warmer and wetter weather will
advance the spread of tropical diseases. Seas will rise, putting pressure on all that lives on the coast.
These impacts sound alarming but they need to be put in perspective before we draw
conclusions about policy.
According to Monday’s report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a further warming
of 2C could cause losses equivalent to 0.2-2 per cent of world gross domestic product. On current
trends, that level of warming would happen some time in the second half of the 21st century. In other
words, half a century of climate change is about as bad as losing one year of economic growth.
Since the start of the crisis in the eurozone, the income of the average Greek has fallen more than 20
per cent. Climate change is not, then, the biggest problem facing humankind. It is not even its
biggest environmental problem. The World Health Organisation estimates that about 7m [million]
people are now dying each year as a result of air pollution. Even on the most pessimistic
estimates, climate change is not expected to cause loss of life on that scale for another 100
years.
No catastrophic impact — they overestimate the predictive power of models.
Ridley 15 — Matt Ridley, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Academy of Medical
Sciences, Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Conservative
Member of the House of Lords (UK), Author of several popular science books including The Rational
Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves and The Evolution of Everything: How Ideas Emerge, former Science
Editor at The Economist, former Visiting Professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, holds a
D.Phil. in Zoology from Magdalen College, Oxford, 2015 (“My Life As A Climate Lukewarmer,” Times
(UK), January 19th, Available Online at http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climatelukewarmer.aspx, Accessed 07-16-2016)
I was not always a lukewarmer. When I first started writing about the threat of global warming
more than 26 years ago, as science editor of The Economist, I thought it was a genuinely
dangerous threat. Like, for instance, Margaret Thatcher, I accepted the predictions being made at
the time that we would see warming of a third or a half a degree (Centigrade) a decade, perhaps
more, and that this would have devastating consequences.
Gradually, however, I changed my mind. The failure of the atmosphere to warm anywhere near
as rapidly as predicted was a big reason: there has been less than half a degree of global
warming in four decades — and it has slowed down, not speeded up. Increases in malaria,
refugees, heatwaves, storms, droughts and floods have not materialised to anything like the
predicted extent, if at all. Sea level has risen but at a very slow rate — about a foot per century.
Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big
amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour; carbon dioxide is
merely the primer, responsible for about a third of the predicted warming. When this penny
dropped, so did my confidence in predictions of future alarm: the amplifiers are highly
uncertain.
Another thing that gave me pause was that I went back and looked at the history of past
predictions of ecological apocalypse from my youth – population explosion, oil exhaustion,
elephant extinction, rainforest loss, acid rain, the ozone layer, desertification, nuclear winter,
the running out of resources, pandemics, falling sperm counts, cancerous pesticide pollution
and so forth. There was a consistent pattern of exaggeration, followed by damp squibs: in not
a single case was the problem as bad as had been widely predicted by leading scientists. That
does not make every new prediction of apocalypse necessarily wrong, of course, but it should
encourage scepticism.
What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick”
graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any
time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the
early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and
return to the “alarmed” camp.
Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They
and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the
hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use
inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns.
What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that
nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists
apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and
evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to
re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the
prediction of rapid warming seemed.
I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is
“settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No
prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the
global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually
nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one
cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible?
Our impact defense is consistent with the scientific consensus.
Ridley 15 — Matt Ridley, Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and of the Academy of Medical
Sciences, Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Conservative
Member of the House of Lords (UK), Author of several popular science books including The Rational
Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves and The Evolution of Everything: How Ideas Emerge, former Science
Editor at The Economist, former Visiting Professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York, holds a
D.Phil. in Zoology from Magdalen College, Oxford, 2015 (“My Life As A Climate Lukewarmer,” Times
(UK), January 19th, Available Online at http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/my-life-as-a-climatelukewarmer.aspx, Accessed 07-16-2016)
Incidentally, my current view is still consistent with the “consensus” among scientists, as
represented by the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The consensus is
that climate change is happening, not that it is going to be dangerous. The latest IPCC
report gives a range of estimates of future warming, from harmless to terrifying. My best guess
would be about one degree of warming during this century, which is well within the IPCC’s
range of possible outcomes.
Yet most politicians go straight to the top of the IPCC’s range and call climate change
things like “perhaps the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction” (John Kerry), requiring
the expenditure of trillions of dollars. I think that is verging on grotesque in a world full of war,
hunger, disease and poverty. It also means that environmental efforts get diverted from more
urgent priorities, like habitat loss and invasive species.
Our authors aren’t climate deniers — the IPCC is on our side.
Wente 14 — Margaret Wente, Columnist for The Globe and Mail, Director of the Energy Probe
Research Foundation, holds an M.A. in English from the University of Toronto, 2014 (“Don’t bash the
global lukewarmers,” The Globe & Mail, April 10th, Available Online at
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/dont-bash-the-global-lukewarmers/article17906081/,
Accessed 07-17-2016)
What if global warming isn’t an existential threat to the planet after all? What if many of its
impacts are more or less manageable? Wouldn’t that be a relief?
Well, no. Not if you’re Greenpeace or the Sierra Club, or any number of environmental activists who
need prophecies of doom to raise money. Not if you’re a climate scientist who depends on a
steady stream of research funding to stay in business. Not if you’re a politician who likes to bash
the other side for its appalling lack of action.
But that’s what the UN’s own panel on climate change suggests. Compared to its last report in
2007, the new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released last week is notably
more subdued. Gone are the melting Himalayan glaciers, the monster hurricanes, the millions
of climate refugees fleeing floods and drought. It says no species have yet been extinguished by
climate change. And, it says, there’s a lot we can do to adapt.
You won’t have caught this nuance in media reports, which relied on a far more dramatic 49-page
summary. Worst Is Yet To Come, said a headline in the New York Times. The CBC, for instance, used the
report as an excuse to bash the Harper government for not restricting coal exports.
Almost all reporting about climate change is binary: There are warmers and deniers, and few in
between. But the real fight isn’t like that at all, observes climate critic Matt Ridley. It’s between
warmers and lukewarmers – people who believe climate change is an urgent, existential
threat and those who think it’s not that big a deal.
Unfortunately, the warmers have done their best to lump the lukewarmers in with the deniers.
When Richard Tol, a Dutch professor of the economics of climate change, withdrew from the IPCC
writing team because he thought the tone was too alarmist, he was denounced and ostracized.
His belief is that by the end of the century, the overall effects of climate change will be damaging – but
that warming will also have some positive effects that shouldn’t be ignored. “The idea that climate
change poses an existential threat to humankind is laughable,” he wrote in the Financial Times.
“I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening,” James Lovelock, the eminent environmental
scientist, told the British Broadcasting Corp. last week. “They just guess.” He told the Guardian that
environmentalism “has become a religion,” and doesn’t pay enough attention to the facts.
Much of the public seems to agree. The number of Americans who think the news media are
exaggerating global warming has grown to 42 per cent, according to Gallup – and the fear-based
approach has clearly backfired, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute
wrote recently in The New York Times. If anything, it increases people’s skepticism about the problem.
It’s not hard to figure out why. Cry “wolf” too often, and people start to tune you out.
For what it’s worth, this is not an argument for doing nothing. It would be good to reduce our
dependency on fossil fuels. Energy companies should be held to high environmental standards.
Yet no matter what we do, the world is not about to give up fossil fuels, and cheap, reliable
substitutes are a long way down the road.
Personally, I wish we’d spend more time on real catastrophes today than on hypothetical ones
half a century from now. Perhaps the worst environmental problem in the world is indoor air pollution
from cooking fires, which kills 4.3 million people a year prematurely – mostly women and children.
Maybe we could do something about that.
I can’t predict what the temperature will be 50 years from now, and neither can anybody else.
What I will predict is that historians will look back and marvel that we got so hysterical about
global warming. The planet is resilient. And people are, too.
1NC – Irreversible / Too Late
It’s too late to solve warming – prefer experts
McKie 15 – (Robin, Science Editor for The Guardian, cites Chris Field, the founding director of the
Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology and Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for
Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at Stanford University, as well as Dr Louise Jeffery of the
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research; 10/10/15, “World will pass crucial 2C global warming
limit, experts warn,” The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/10/climate2c-global-warming-target-fail, Accessed 7/11/16, HWilson)
Pledges by nations to cut carbon emissions will fall far short of those needed to
prevent global temperatures rising by more than the crucial 2C by the end of the
century. This is the stark conclusion of climate experts who have analysed submissions in
the runup to the Paris climate talks later this year.
A rise of 2C is considered the most the Earth could tolerate without risking catastrophic changes
to food production, sea levels, fishing, wildlife, deserts and water reserves. Even if rises are
pegged at 2C, scientists say this will still destroy most coral reefs and glaciers and melt
significant parts of the Greenland ice cap, bringing major rises in sea levels.
“We have had a global temperature rise of almost 1C since the industrial revolution and have
already seen widespread impacts that have had real consequences for people,” said climate expert
Professor Chris Field of Stanford University. “We should therefore be striving to limit warming to
as far below 2C as possible. However, that will require a level of ambition that we have not yet
seen.”
In advance of the COP21 United Nations climate talks to be held in Paris from 30 November to 11
December, every country was asked to submit proposals on cutting use of fossil fuels in order to
reduce their emissions of greenhouses gases and so tackle global warming. The deadline for these
pledges was 1 October.
A total of 147 nations made submissions, and scientists have since been totting up how these
would affect climate change. They have concluded they still fall well short of the amount
needed to prevent a 2C warming by 2100, a fact that will be underlined later this week when
the Grantham Research Institute releases its analysis of the COP21 submissions. This will show that
the world’s carbon emissions, currently around 50bn tonnes a year, will still rise over the next
15 years, even if all the national pledges made to the UN are implemented. The institute’s figures
suggest they will reach 55bn to 60bn by 2030.
To put that figure in context, the world will have to cut emissions to 36bn billion tonnes of carbon
to have a 50-50 chance of keeping temperatures below 2C, scientists have calculated . Current
pledges will not bring the planet near that reduced output. Developed nations may pledge to make
increasing use of renewable energy sources but as more developing nations become industrialised,
carbon outputs continue to rise overall. And there is no prospect of nations now changing
their carbon pledges before or during the Paris talks.