USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev

Gonzo
1/15

IMPACT FILE DEDEV

Impact File DeDev....................................................................................................................................................................................1
DeDev Frontline 1NC/2AC......................................................................................................................................................................2
DeDev Frontline 1/2 2NC......................................................................................................................................................................3
DeDev Frontline 2/2 2NC......................................................................................................................................................................4
DeDev Frontline 1AR...............................................................................................................................................................................5
DeDev Ext 2NC/1NR...............................................................................................................................................................................6
DeDev Ext 1AR........................................................................................................................................................................................7
Growth Bad Environment.........................................................................................................................................................................8
Growth Bad Terrorism..............................................................................................................................................................................9
Growth Bad War.....................................................................................................................................................................................10
Growth Bad Warming.............................................................................................................................................................................11
High Unemployment Good Military Recruitment..................................................................................................................................12
Econ Defense No War.............................................................................................................................................................................13

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
2/15

DEDEV FRONTLINE 1NC/2AC

On the econ impact
First is our defense
Economic decline doesnt cause war
Ferguson 6 Niall, Professor of History @ Harvard, The Next War of the World, Foreign Affairs 85.5, Proquest
There are many unsatisfactory explanations for why the twentieth century was so destructive. One is the assertion that the
availability of more powerful weapons caused bloodier conflicts. But there is no correlation between the sophistication of military technology and the lethality of
conflict. Some of the worst violence of the century -- the genocides in Cambodia in the 1970s and central Africa in the 1990s, for instance -- was perpetrated with
the crudest of weapons: rifles, axes, machetes, and knives. Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal
chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi
Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered . Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken
over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is
discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe,
and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Second is the offense

Immediate collapse is the only way to save humanity growth will destroy the planet by environmental collapse - this assumes
the benefits of growth
Dr. Glen Barry 08. Dr. Glen, president and founder of Ecological Internet. [Economic Collapse and Global Ecology]
http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this
growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond
its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every
economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure
global ecological sustainability will be embraced . This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global
ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is
a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up
fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection.
Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure . Humanity has proven itself unwilling and
unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission
reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not
dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible.
Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole
industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration This critical transition
to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as
economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate
policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming
decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for
equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the
collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all
species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether
enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and
humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse
will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will
be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in
that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food
comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering
-- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has
been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter
medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
3/15

DEDEV FRONTLINE 1/2 2NC

On the econ impact
First is our defense
Economic decline doesnt cause war
Ferguson 6 Niall, Professor of History @ Harvard, The Next War of the World, Foreign Affairs 85.5, Proquest
There are many unsatisfactory explanations for why the twentieth century was so destructive. One is the assertion that the
availability of more powerful weapons caused bloodier conflicts. But there is no correlation between the sophistication of military technology and the lethality of
conflict. Some of the worst violence of the century -- the genocides in Cambodia in the 1970s and central Africa in the 1990s, for instance -- was perpetrated with
the crudest of weapons: rifles, axes, machetes, and knives. Nor can economic crises explain the bloodshed. What may be the most familiar causal
chain in modern historiography links the Great Depression to the rise of fascism and the outbreak of World War II. But that simple story leaves too much out. Nazi
Germany started the war in Europe only after its economy had recovered . Not all the countries affected by the Great Depression were taken
over by fascist regimes, nor did all such regimes start wars of aggression. In fact, no general relationship between economics and conflict is
discernible for the century as a whole. Some wars came after periods of growth, others were the causes rather than the consequences of economic catastrophe,
and some severe economic crises were not followed by wars.

Second is the offense

Growth causes great power conflict and nuclear war
Sachs 8 Jeffrey, Professor of Sustainable Development, A Users Guide to the Century, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18682
THE NEW world order is therefore crisis prone. The existence of rapidly emerging regional powers, including Brazil, China and India, can potentially give rise to
conflicts with the United States and Europe. The combination of rapid technological diffusion and therefore convergent economic growth, coupled with
the natural-resource constraints of the Anthropocene, could trigger regional-scale or global-scale tensions and conflicts. Chinas
rapid economic growth could turn into a strenuous, even hot, competition with the United States over increasingly scarce
hydrocarbons in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Conflicts over water flow in major and already-contested watersheds (among India,
Bangladesh and Pakistan; China and Southeast Asia; Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Jordan; the countries of the Nile basin; and many others) could erupt into regional
conflicts. Disagreements over management of the global commons including ocean fisheries, greenhouse gases, the Arctics newly accessible
resources, species extinctions and much more could also be grounds for conflict.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
4/15

DEDEV FRONTLINE 2/2 2NC

AND Immediate collapse is the only way to save humanity growth will destroy the planet by environmental collapse - this
assumes the benefits of growth
Dr. Glen Barry 08. Dr. Glen, president and founder of Ecological Internet. [Economic Collapse and Global Ecology]
http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this
growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond
its ecological carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every
economic downturn, like the one now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure
global ecological sustainability will be embraced . This essay explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global
ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is
a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain. Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up
fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection.
Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes the biosphere closer to failure . Humanity has proven itself unwilling and
unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission
reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -- primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not
dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible.
Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole
industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration This critical transition
to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as
economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate
policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming
decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for
equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the
collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all
species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether
enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and
humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse
will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will
be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in
that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food
comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering
-- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has
been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter
medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.

AND Only we have long term solvency the recession has caused the zero growth idea to be pushed into politics the
transition would be feasible now economic downturns are inevitable in the world of the aff which means their impacts are
inevitable
Fletcher 9 (Nick, 3-30-9, Prosperity without growth, The worlds resources, http://www.stwr.org/economic-sharingalternatives/prosperity-without-growth-transition-to-a-sustainable-economy.html)
The pursuit of economic growth was one of the root causes of the financial crisis , and governments should respond to the recession
by abandoning growth at all costs in favour of a more sustainable, greener system, says a report out today. Before this week's G20 summit, the
Sustainable Development Commission, an independent adviser to the government, says the developed world's reliance on debt to fuel its
relentless growth has created an unstable system that has made individuals, families and communities vulnerable to cycles of boom and bust. The
benefits of growth have also been delivered unequally, with a fifth of the world's population earning only 2% of global income. Inreased consumption also has
disastrous environmental consequences, including the degradation of some 60% of the world's ecosystems. According to the SDC, the global economy is almost
five times larger than it was 50 years ago, and if it continues to grow at the same rate it would be 80 times larger by the end of the century. "Faced with the current
recession, it is understandable that many leaders at the G20 summit will be anxious to restore business as usual," said Professor Tim Jackson, economics
commissioner at the SDC. "But governments really need to take a long, hard look at the effects of our single-minded devotion to growth - effects which include the
recession itself. "It may seem inopportune to be questioning growth while we are faced with daily news of the effects of recession, but allegiance to growth

is the most dominant feature of an economic and political system that has led us to the brink of disaster. Not to stand back
now and question what has happened would be to compound failure with failure: failure of vision with failure of responsibility. Figuring
out how to deliver prosperity without growth is more essential now than ever." The report - called Prosperity without growth? - calls on governments to develop a
sustainable economic system that does not rely on ever-increasing consumption. The SDC's proposals to achieve this include: improving financial and fiscal
prudence, as well as giving priority to investment in public assets and infrastructure over private affluence; allowing individuals to flourish by tackling inequality,
sharing available work, improving work-life balance and reversing the culture of consumerism; and establishing ecological limits on economic activity. The report
concludes: "The clearest message from the financial crisis is that our current model of economic success is fundamentally
flawed. For the advanced economies of the western world, prosperity without growth is no longer a utopian dream. It is a

financial and ecological necessity."

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
5/15

DEDEV FRONTLINE 1AR

On the new econ impact
First, growth cant solve war IT CAUSES IT!
Sachs 8 Jeffrey, Professor of Sustainable Development, A Users Guide to the Century, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18682
THE NEW world order is therefore crisis prone. The existence of rapidly emerging regional powers, including Brazil, China and India, can potentially give rise to
conflicts with the United States and Europe. The combination of rapid technological diffusion and therefore convergent economic growth, coupled with
the natural-resource constraints of the Anthropocene, could trigger regional-scale or global-scale tensions and conflicts. Chinas
rapid economic growth could turn into a strenuous, even hot, competition with the United States over increasingly scarce
hydrocarbons in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Conflicts over water flow in major and already-contested watersheds (among India,
Bangladesh and Pakistan; China and Southeast Asia; Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Jordan; the countries of the Nile basin; and many others) could erupt into regional
conflicts. Disagreements over management of the global commons including ocean fisheries, greenhouse gases, the Arctics newly accessible
resources, species extinctions and much more could also be grounds for conflict.

Second Immediate collapse is the only way to save humanity growth will destroy the planet by environmental collapse
Dr. Glen Barry 08. Dr. Glen, president and founder of Ecological Internet. [Economic Collapse and Global Ecology]
http://www.countercurrents.org/barry140108.htm
Humanity and the Earth are faced with an enormous conundrum -- sufficient climate policies enjoy political support only in times of rapid economic growth. Yet this
growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. The growth machine has pushed the planet well beyond its ecological
carrying capacity, and unless constrained, can only lead to human extinction and an end to complex life. With every economic downturn, like the one
now looming in the United States, it becomes more difficult and less likely that policy sufficient to ensure global ecological sustainability will be embraced. This essay
explores the possibility that from a biocentric viewpoint of needs for long-term global ecological, economic and social sustainability; it would be better for the
economic collapse to come now rather than later. Economic growth is a deadly disease upon the Earth, with capitalism as its most virulent strain.
Throw-away consumption and explosive population growth are made possible by using up fossil fuels and destroying ecosystems. Holiday shopping numbers are
covered by media in the same breath as Arctic ice melt, ignoring their deep connection. Exponential economic growth destroys ecosystems and pushes
the biosphere closer to failure. Humanity has proven itself unwilling and unable to address climate change and other environmental threats with necessary
haste and ambition. Action on coal, forests, population, renewable energy and emission reductions could be taken now at net benefit to the economy. Yet, the losers -primarily fossil fuel industries and their bought oligarchy -- successfully resist futures not dependent upon their deadly products. Perpetual economic growth, and
necessary climate and other ecological policies, are fundamentally incompatible. Global ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state
economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and natural forest logging will be eliminated even as new
opportunities emerge in solar energy and environmental restoration This critical transition to both economic and ecological sustainability is simply not happening on
any scale. The challenge is how to carry out necessary environmental policies even as economic growth ends and consumption plunges. The natural response is going to
be liquidation of even more life-giving ecosystems, and jettisoning of climate policies, to vainly try to maintain high growth and personal consumption. We know that
humanity must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80% over coming decades. How will this and other necessary climate mitigation strategies be maintained
during years of economic downturns, resource wars, reasonable demands for equitable consumption, and frankly, the weather being more pleasant in some places? If
efforts to reduce emissions and move to a steady state economy fail; the collapse of ecological, economic and social systems is assured. Bright greens take the continued
existence of a habitable Earth with viable, sustainable populations of all species including humans as the ultimate truth and the meaning of life. Whether this is possible
in a time of economic collapse is crucially dependent upon whether enough ecosystems and resources remain post collapse to allow humanity to recover and
reconstitute sustainable, relocalized societies. It may be better for the Earth and humanity's future that economic collapse comes sooner rather than later, while more
ecosystems and opportunities to return to nature's fold exist. Economic collapse will be deeply wrenching -- part Great Depression, part African famine. There will be
starvation and civil strife, and a long period of suffering and turmoil. Many will be killed as balance returns to the Earth. Most people have forgotten how to grow food
and that their identity is more than what they own. Yet there is some justice, in that those who have lived most lightly upon the land will have an easier time of it, even
as those super-consumers living in massive cities finally learn where their food comes from and that ecology is the meaning of life. Economic collapse now means
humanity and the Earth ultimately survive to prosper again. Human suffering -- already the norm for many, but hitting the currently materially affluent -- is inevitable
given the degree to which the planet's carrying capacity has been exceeded. We are a couple decades at most away from societal strife of a much greater magnitude as
the Earth's biosphere fails. Humanity can take the bitter medicine now, and recover while emerging better for it; or our total collapse can be a final, fatal death swoon.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
6/15

DEDEV EXT 2NC/1NR

On the DeDev debate you can extend our defense
Economic decline wont cause war look to our Fergusson evidence first he is a professor of history at Harvard citing
empirical examples of exactly why their cards use faulty analysis.
AND Well win growth actually causes great power conflict
Sachs 8 Jeffrey, Professor of Sustainable Development, A Users Guide to the Century, http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=18682
THE NEW world order is therefore crisis prone. The existence of rapidly emerging regional powers, including Brazil, China and India, can potentially give rise to
conflicts with the United States and Europe. The combination of rapid technological diffusion and therefore convergent economic growth, coupled with
the natural-resource constraints of the Anthropocene, could trigger regional-scale or global-scale tensions and conflicts. Chinas
rapid economic growth could turn into a strenuous, even hot, competition with the United States over increasingly scarce
hydrocarbons in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia. Conflicts over water flow in major and already-contested watersheds (among India,
Bangladesh and Pakistan; China and Southeast Asia; Turkey, Israel, Iraq and Jordan; the countries of the Nile basin; and many others) could erupt into regional
conflicts. Disagreements over management of the global commons including ocean fisheries, greenhouse gases, the Arctics newly accessible
resources, species extinctions and much more could also be grounds for conflict.

Second is the turn

Ecological collapse and human extinction is inevitable in a world of growth thats Barry. Were reading the only comparative
evidence that it will be better to let the economy collapse now the more we try and recover, the more unsustainable our
policies get and the less likely we are to actually transition.
AND Only we have long term solvency the recession has caused the zero growth idea to be pushed into politics the
transition would be feasible now economic downturns are inevitable in the world of the aff which means their impacts are
inevitable
Fletcher 9 (Nick, 3-30-9, Prosperity without growth, The worlds resources, http://www.stwr.org/economic-sharingalternatives/prosperity-without-growth-transition-to-a-sustainable-economy.html)
The pursuit of economic growth was one of the root causes of the financial crisis , and governments should respond to the recession
by abandoning growth at all costs in favour of a more sustainable, greener system, says a report out today. Before this week's G20 summit, the
Sustainable Development Commission, an independent adviser to the government, says the developed world's reliance on debt to fuel its
relentless growth has created an unstable system that has made individuals, families and communities vulnerable to cycles of boom and bust. The
benefits of growth have also been delivered unequally, with a fifth of the world's population earning only 2% of global income. Inreased consumption also has
disastrous environmental consequences, including the degradation of some 60% of the world's ecosystems. According to the SDC, the global economy is almost
five times larger than it was 50 years ago, and if it continues to grow at the same rate it would be 80 times larger by the end of the century. "Faced with the current
recession, it is understandable that many leaders at the G20 summit will be anxious to restore business as usual," said Professor Tim Jackson, economics
commissioner at the SDC. "But governments really need to take a long, hard look at the effects of our single-minded devotion to growth - effects which include the
recession itself. "It may seem inopportune to be questioning growth while we are faced with daily news of the effects of recession, but allegiance to growth

is the most dominant feature of an economic and political system that has led us to the brink of disaster. Not to stand back
now and question what has happened would be to compound failure with failure: failure of vision with failure of responsibility. Figuring
out how to deliver prosperity without growth is more essential now than ever." The report - called Prosperity without growth? - calls on governments to develop a
sustainable economic system that does not rely on ever-increasing consumption. The SDC's proposals to achieve this include: improving financial and fiscal
prudence, as well as giving priority to investment in public assets and infrastructure over private affluence; allowing individuals to flourish by tackling inequality,
sharing available work, improving work-life balance and reversing the culture of consumerism; and establishing ecological limits on economic activity. The report
concludes: "The clearest message from the financial crisis is that our current model of economic success is fundamentally
flawed. For the advanced economies of the western world, prosperity without growth is no longer a utopian dream. It is a

financial and ecological necessity."

Third this outweighs growth good.
- First, our Barry evidence is already doing the comparative analysis for us and concludes neg that ecological collapse is
worse than not having the benefits of growth.
- Second were the only ones that have uniqueness. In the world of the aff, the economy can collapse again and their
impacts will still happen. Its try or die for the neg, because no matter how much they do to save the economy now, it
will just collapse again later.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
7/15

DEDEV EXT 1AR

On the DeDev debate you can extend our defense
Economic decline wont cause war look to our Fergusson evidence first he is a professor of history at Harvard citing
empirical examples of exactly why their cards use faulty analysis.
Second is the turn
Ecological collapse and human extinction is inevitable in a world of growth thats Barry. Were reading the only comparative
evidence that it will be better to let the economy collapse now
Third this outweighs growth good.
Were the only ones that have uniqueness. In the world of the neg, the economy can collapse again and their impacts will still
happen. Its try or die for the aff, because no matter how much they do to save the economy now, it will just collapse again later.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
8/15

GROWTH BAD ENVIRONMENT

On the brink of total environmental catastrophe change in growth patterns allows the environmental movement to take root
and solve extinction*
Shekhar 9 Manisha, 1/30, Professor in the Research Department of Electronics and Communications @ Centre for Strategic Analysis & Research Dept, Environment does not allow
further economic growth in the world?, http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/articles/12807_environment_does_not_allow_further_economic_growth_in_the_world

The world is currently facing an unprecedented health and environmental Crisis. Despite progress in both the health and the environment
fields, the situation is approaching the brink of global disaster . So extensive and far-reaching are the problems that the future wellbeing of
humanity, together with that of many other life forms on the planet, is in jeopardy. On one level, individuals and communitiesespecially
those who are poorest, most marginalized and suffering the most discrimination are facing the direct consequences of local environmental destruction, which often
result from exploitative business practices and destructive development projects. Those who are worst off pay with their health for the destruction of their local
environment. On another level, people all over the world are beginning to be affected by regional and global environmental changes.
These drastic environmental problems, e.g. the changing climate and the depletion of the ozone layer, are mainly the result of unsustainable
lifestyles, over consumption and unhealthy patterns of development . Also these environmental problems are likely to hit the poor and
marginalized firstand with the most drastic consequencesbut will sooner or later also affect the privileged. Unless curbed (through wide ranging,

structural changes) these global environmental trends threaten to cause havoc to whole ecosystems and essential life-supporting
systems. This may in turn lead to an immense, unprecedented crisis for the whole of humanity . It is thus of utmost relevance for everyone
involved in the Peoples Health Assembly to understand the links and interconnections between health, the environment as well as underlying factors such as social,
political and economic structures which determine the current patterns of development. Ultimately, the health and environment crisis relates to issues of social
justice. Analyzing health in an ecological and environmental framework calls for a broad, intersect oral, holistic understanding of health. It shows how many of the
pressing health and environmental problems of today share the same root causes and the same barriers to being effectively tackled and solved. It encourages a longterm perspective on health and its future challenges. And it provides, through the experiences of the environmental movement, exciting examples of

how peopleor civil societycan successfully influence current thinking and policies. To achieve environmentally sustainable
societies will require drastic changes in the current world order and the formulation of alternative ways of thinking. Within the
environmental movement there is a huge wealth of ideas, experience and visions of what an alternativejust, environmentally
sustainable and people-orientedsociety would look like. The health movement can draw on this experience while, on the other hand, influencing
the environmental movement to incorporate human health into their analyses and actions. A closer integration of the health and environmental movements is
essential to counter the present environmentally destructive and exploitative course of development. In order to solve the current crisis, both humans

and the environment must be taken into full account.

Growth leads to environmental collapse and disease epidemics
Shekhar 9 Manisha, 1/30, Professor in the Research Department of Electronics and Communications @ Centre for Strategic Analysis & Research Dept, Environment does not allow
further economic growth in the world?, http://www.ecommerce-journal.com/articles/12807_environment_does_not_allow_further_economic_growth_in_the_world

Throughout time, environmental problems have been some of the most important factors affecting peoples health , both on the individual
and the community level. Floods, plagues and the environmental consequences of war have continuously led to ill health and premature death. However, as the

scale of human societies has steadily increased and technology has developed ever faster, the pressure on the environment has
likewise increased enormously. Fuelled, by a runaway global economic systemwhich has created both unprecedented affluence
(over consumption) and enormous levels of poverty environmental deterioration now threaten to increase inequalities and cause
irreversible harm to ecosystems on a global scale. While many environmental problems remain immediate, local problems whose causes may be
relatively easy to understand and for which solutions can be identified (although not necessarily easy to implement), many others are incredibly complex and
difficult to handle. These involve much uncertainty, affect whole continents or even the whole earth, and are the combined result of millions or billions of peoples
behaviors. They are often deeply embedded in societal structures maintained by powerful interests. Even worse, many of the current problems cause irreversible
damage, so we cannot afford to make certain mistakes even once! Moreover, there may be a considerable time lag between the harmful action and the visible
effects. The history of the environment is partly a story of unpredictable, unexpected problems. Often, environmental abuses are absorbed until a
threshold is crossed and a catastrophe results. At this stage it may be too late, or more costly, to reverse the damage. There is no reason to believe that
the future does not have new unpleasant surprises in store. Environmental threats to health Degradation of the environment threatens health both directly and
indirectly; and both immediately and in the long term. The environmental problems we most easily observe are those with immediate and direct effects. People
and mostly the poorest and the marginalizedget sick from drinking polluted water, eat contaminated food, suffer from exposure to polluted air and poisonous
chemicals, and spend much of their time in harmful working conditions. Peoples health suffers in immediate and indirect ways from, for example, food shortages
caused by the environmental degradation of both farmland and forests. Environmental refugeespeople who have been forced to leave their homes because of the
destruction of their local environmentoften suffer severe hardships and are prone to ill health. Many people are also being killed or maimed in wars fought over
scarce natural resources. Accidents resulting from environmentally induced natural disasters, such as floods caused by the destruction of forests, are another
example of the immediate and indirect effects of environmental degradation. Many environmental threats to health have direct, long-term (delayed delayed) effects
about which awareness may be slow to develop. For example, cancer is increasing rapidly in all areas of the world, largely as a result of exposure to pesticides,
carcinogenic chemical substances included in the goods we consume, and increased exposure to various forms of radiation. These threats concern every person on
the planet, although we might not even know what is making us sick and where it is coming from. Toxic substances accumulate in our bodies and are

mixed in new and potentially lethal ways . Health may result several decades after exposure. Yet, the possible indirect effects of environmental change in the long term
may pose some of the most alarming threats to human health. The disturbance of the worlds climate due to enhanced global warming is already
underway, and may cause severe damage to health. Droughts and floods could kill millions of people and introduce new
epidemics. New scarcity of valuable resources might increase tensions and lead to drastic increases in wars and violent conflicts.
All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
9/15

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
10/15

GROWTH BAD TERRORISM

Growth causes terrorism.
Ted Trainer, 2002. Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Work, University of New South Wales. If You Want Affluence, Prepare for
War, Democracy & Nature 8.2, Ebsco.
Again, there is an extensive literature documenting these and many other cases.43 Herman and OSullivan present a table showing
that in recent decades the overwhelming majority of terrorist actions, measured by death tolls, have been carried out by Western states.
State terror has been immense, and the West and its clients have been the major agents.44 Any serious student of international
relations or US foreign policy will be clearly aware of the general scope and significance of the empire that rich countries operate, and
of the human rights violations, the violence and injustice this involves. Rich world living standards, corporate prosperity, comfort
and security could not be sustained at anywhere near current levels without this empire, nor without the oppression, violence and
military activity that keep in place conventional investment, trade and development policies. It should therefore be not in the least
surprising that several hundred million people more or less hate the rich Western nations. This is the context in which events like those
of 11 September must be understood. It is surprising that the huge and chronic injustice, plunder, repression and indifference evident
in the global economic system has not generated much greater hostile reaction from the Third World, and more eagerness to hit back
with violence. This is partly explained by the fact that it is in the interests of Third World rulers to acquiesce in conventional
development strategies.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
11/15

GROWTH BAD WAR

Economic Upswings statistically cause wars 71% see great power wars and correlation is even stronger
Goldstein 85 (Joshua S, Poli Sci @ MIT, International Studies Quarterly vol. 29, No. 4, Dec 1985,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600380, p. 421- 423) ET
Columns 5 and 6 show the incidence ofwar years during upswings and downswings- column 5 measuring as a war year any year in
which a great power war was in progress; column 6 measuring only years in which very major wars were in progress. The first
measure matches the upswing/downswing pattern from 1595 on, except for two periods (1747-1761 and 1917-1939). Overall, 71
percent of the upswing years saw great power wars in progress, as compared with 50 percent of the downswing year The correlation is
stronger for the incidence of very major wars (column 6). There were no wars this severe before 1595, but after 1595 the
upswing/downswing pattern matches the ups and downs of war incidence with only one exception (1917-1939 slightly higher than
1893-1916). Of the upswing years, 40 percent saw very major great power war in progress, as compared with only 6 percent of the
downswing years
These will be nuclear
Goldstein, 85 [Joshua, International studies quarterly, v29, n4, p411-444, Kondratieff Waves as War Cycles, jstor]
First, the incidence of great power war is declining-more and more 'peace' years separate the great power wars. Second, and related, the great power wars are
becoming shorter. Third, however, those wars are becoming more severe-annual fatalities during war increasing more than a hundredfold over the five centuries. Fourth (and more tentatively), the war cycle may be gradually lengthening in each successive era, from about 40
years in the first era to about 60 years in the third. The presence of nuclear weapons has continued these trends in great power war from the

past five centuries-any great power wars in this era will likely be fewer, shorter and much more deadly.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
12/15

GROWTH BAD WARMING

Economic growth fuels climate change- root cause
Godhaven 9 (Merrick, staff writer, Organic Consumers assocociation, http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18583.cfm ,
7.15.10)
Technology is part of the solution to climate change. But only part. Techno-fixes like some of those in the Guardian's Manchester
Report simply cannot deliver the carbon cuts science demands of us without being accompanied by drastic reductions in our
consumption. That means radical economic and social transformation. Merely swapping technologies fails to address the root
causes of climate change. We need to choose the solutions that are the cheapest, the swiftest, the most effective and least likely to
incur dire side effects. On all counts, there's a simple answer - stop burning the stuff in the first place. Consume less. There is a
certain level of resources we need to survive, and beyond that there is a level we need in order to have lives that are comfortable
and meaningful. It is far below what we presently consume. Americans consume twice as much oil as Europeans. Are they twice as
happy? Are Europeans half as free? Economic growth itself is not a measure of human well-being, it only measures things with an
assessed monetary value. It values wants at the same level as needs and, while it purports to bring prosperity to the masses, its
tendency to concentrate profit in fewer and fewer hands leaves billions without the necessities of a decent life. Techno-fixation
masks the incompatibility of solving climate change with unlimited economic growth. Even if energy consumption can be reduced
for an activity, ongoing economic growth eats up the improvement and overall energy consumption still rises. We continue
destructive consumption in the expectation that new miracle technologies will come and save us.
And, continued accelerated climate change will annihilate humanity
Tickel 8 (Oliver, , Climate Researcher. The Gaurdian, 8-11-2008 ,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)
We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like
wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global
warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the
end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice
caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost,
complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's
geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the
Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and
severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die.
Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a fourdegree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate
system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the
more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of
methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years captured under melting permafrost is already under
way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature
increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from
bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears
that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to
the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
13/15

HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT GOOD MILITARY RECRUITMENT

Low US jobs lead to military recruitment
Herald News 9 (Maryam Roberts, Economic downturn is boost for ranks, 3-30-09, Lexis)
One sector benefiting from the economic downturn is military recruitment , often at the expense of enlistees. Hard times are forcing people to
make life-changing decisions, especially those who have little choice but to join the military. Weve lost 3.3 million jobs in the last six
months alone, as the unemployment rate has vaulted over the 8 percent bar. The job market is terrible, and higher education is becoming more unaffordable, as
colleges slash their financial assistance and raise tuition. Welfare support for young mothers is dwindling, with states tossing
thousands off the rolls. For the poor and the unemployed, who are disproportionately people of color, the military is one of the only institutions with
resources to help them or their children. Military recruiters already recruit larger numbers from low-income and communities of color. Blacks and Latinos are
consistently overrepresented in the armed forces, especially in enlisted ranks. In 2008, all four branches of the armed forces met their recruiting goals
for the federal fiscal year, as 185,000 men and women signed up for service. This was the highest number of people joining since
2003. The number will likely rise, as the economy gets worse.
Troop levels are key to hegemony
Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, specializing in defense transformation, the defense budget, and defense strategy and warfare, former professor of military
history at the United States Military Academy, and OHanlon, senior fellow and Sydney Stein Jr. Chair in foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution, where he specializes in
U.S. defense strategy, the use of military force, and homeland security, former analyst with the Congressional Budget Office, 2K7 (Frederick, Michael, The Case for Larger Ground Forces,
http://www3.brookings.edu/views/articles/ohanlon/2007april_kagan.pdf, REQ)

We live at a time when wars not only rage in nearly every region but threaten to erupt in many places where the current relative calm is tenuous. To view
this as a strategic military challenge for the United States is not to espouse a specific theory of Americas role in the world or a certain political philosophy. Such an assessment flows

overseas threats must be countered before they can directly

stability of the international system is essential to American peace and prosperity, and
that no country besides the United States is in a position to lead the way in countering major challenges to the global order. Let us highlight
the threats and their consequences with a few concrete examples, emphasizing those that involve key strategic regions of the world such as the Persian
Gulf and East Asia, or key potential threats to American security, such as the spread of nuclear weapons and the strengthening of the global
Al Qaeda/jihadist movement. The Iranian government has rejected a series of international demands to halt its efforts at enriching uranium and submit to
international inspections. What will happen if the USor Israeligovernment becomes convinced that Tehran is on the verge of fielding a nuclear
weapon? North Korea, of course, has already done so, and the ripple effects are beginning to spread. Japans recent election to
supreme power of a leader who has promised to rewrite that countrys constitution to support increased armed forcesand, possibly, even nuclear
weapons may well alter the delicate balance of fear in Northeast Asia fundamentally and rapidly. Also, in the background, at least for now, SinoTaiwanese tensions continue to flare, as do tensions between India and Pakistan , Pakistan and Afghanistan, Venezuela and the United States,
directly from the basic bipartisan view of American foreign policy makers since World War II that

threaten this countrys shores, that the basic

and so on. Meanwhile, the worlds nonintervention in Darfur troubles consciences from Europe to Americas Bible Belt to its bastions of liberalism, yet with no serious international
forces on offer, the bloodletting will probably, tragically, continue unabated. And as bad as things are in Iraq today, they could get worse. What would happen if the key Shiite figure, Ali
al Sistani, were to die? If another major attack on the scale of the Golden Mosque bombing hit either side (or, perhaps, both sides at the same time)? Such deterioration might convince

Afghanistan is somewhat more stable for the

moment, although a major Taliban offensive appears to be in the offing. Sound US grand strategy must proceed from the recognition that, over the
many Americans that the war there truly was lostbut the costs of reaching such a conclusion would be enormous.

next few years and decades, the world is going to be a very unsettled and quite dangerous place, with Al Qaeda and its associated groups as a subset of a much larger set of worries.

The only serious response to this international environment is to develop armed forces capable of protecting Americas vital interests throughout this
dangerous time. Doing so requires a military capable of a wide range of missionsincluding not only deterrence of great power conflict in dealing with
potential hotspots in Korea, the Taiwan Strait, and the Persian Gulf but also associated with a variety of Special Forces activities and stabilization operations. For todays US
military, which already excels at high technology and is increasingly focused on re-learning the lost art of counterinsurgency, this is first and foremost a question of
finding the resources to field a large-enough standing Army and Marine Corps to handle personnel intensive missions such as the ones now
under way in Iraq and Afghanistan.

American decline threatens extinction withdrawal would be the largest mistake in the history of geopolitics
Bradley A. Thayer (Associate Professor in the Dept. of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University) 2007 American
Empire: A Debate, Reply to Christopher Layne p 118
To abandon its leadership role would be a fundamental mistake of American grand strategy. Indeed, in the great history of the United States,
there is no parallel, no previous case, where the United States has made such a titanic grand strategic blunder. It would surpass by far its great mistake of 1812, when the
young and ambitious country gambled and declared war against a mighty empire, the British, believing London was too distracted by the tremendous events on the Continentthe formidable military genius of Napoleon and the prodigious threat from the French

. The citizens of the United States cannot pretend that, by weakening ourselves, other countries will
be nice and respect its security and interests. To suggest this implies a naivet and innocence about international politics that would
be charming, if only the consequences of such an opinion were not so serious. Throughout its history, the United States has never refrained from acting boldly to secure its interests. It
should not be timid now. Many times in the great history of the United States, the country faced difficult decisionsdecisions of confrontation or appeasement --and
significant threats--the British, French, Spanish, Germans, Italians, Japanese, and Soviets. It always has recognized those threats and faced them down, to emerge
victorious. The United States should have the confidence to do so now against China not simply because to do so maximizes its power and security or ensures it is the dominant vice in the
world's affairs, but because it is the last, best hope of humanity.
empire and its allies--to notice while it conquered Canada

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
14/15

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!

USF Debate 2010-2011

Impact File - DeDev
Gonzo
15/15

ECON DEFENSE NO WAR

Empirical studies show no causal relationship between economic decline and war
Miller 1 Morris, Professor of Economics, Poverty: A Cause of War?, http://archive.peacemagazine.org/v17n1p08.htm
Library shelves are heavy with studies focused on the correlates and causes of war. Some of the leading scholars in that field
suggest that we drop the concept of causality, since it can rarely be demonstrated. Nevertheless, it may be helpful to look at the
motives of war-prone political leaders and the ways they have gained and maintained power, even to the point of leading their
nations to war. Poverty: The Prime Causal Factor? Poverty is most often named as the prime causal factor. Therefore we approach
the question by asking whether poverty is characteristic of the nations or groups that have engaged in wars. As we shall see,
poverty has never been as significant a factor as one would imagine. Largely this is because of the traits of the poor as a group
- particularly their tendency to tolerate their suffering in silence and/or be deterred by the force of repressive regimes. Their
voicelessness and powerlessness translate into passivity. Also, because of their illiteracy and ignorance of worldly affairs, the
poor become susceptible to the messages of war-bent demagogues and often willing to become cannon fodder. The situations
conductive to war involve political repression of dissidents, tight control over media that stir up chauvinism and ethnic prejudices,
religious fervor, and sentiments of revenge. The poor succumb to leaders who have the power to create such conditions for their
own self-serving purposes. Desperately poor people in poor nations cannot organize wars, which are exceptionally costly. The
statistics speak eloquently on this point. In the last 40 years the global arms trade has been about $1500 billion, of which twothirds were the purchases of developing countries. That is an amount roughly equal to the foreign capital they obtained through
official development aid (ODA). Since ODA does not finance arms purchases (except insofar as money that is not spent by a
government on aid-financed roads is available for other purposes such as military procurement) financing is also required to
control the media and communicate with the populace to convince them to support the war. Large-scale armed conflict is so
expensive that governments must resort to exceptional sources, such as drug dealing, diamond smuggling, brigandry, or dealmaking with other countries. The reliance on illicit operations is well documented in a recent World Bank report that studied 47
civil wars that took place between 1960 and 1999, the main conclusion of which is that the key factor is the availability of
commodities to plunder. For greed to yield war, there must be financial opportunities. Only affluent political leaders and elites
can amass such weaponry, diverting funds to the military even when this runs contrary to the interests of the population. In most
inter-state wars the antagonists were wealthy enough to build up their armaments and propagandize or repress to gain acceptance
for their policies. Economic Crises? Some scholars have argued that it is not poverty, as such, that contributes to the support for
armed conflict, but rather some catalyst, such as an economic crisis. However, a study by Minxin Pei and Ariel Adesnik shows that
this hypothesis lacks merit. After studying 93 episodes of economic crisis in 22 countries in Latin American and Asia since World
War II, they concluded that much of the conventional thinking about the political impact of economic crisis is wrong: "The
severity of economic crisis - as measured in terms of inflation and negative growth - bore no relationship to the collapse of regimes
... or (in democratic states, rarely) to an outbreak of violence... In the cases of dictatorships and semi-democracies, the ruling elites
responded to crises by increasing repression (thereby using one form of violence to abort another)."
An economic depression does not cause war
Lloyd deMause, director of The Institute for Psychohistory, Nuclear War as an Anti-Sexual Group Fantasy Updated December 18 th
2002, http://www.geocities.com/kidhistory/ja/nucsex.htm
The nation "turns inward" during this depressed phase of the cycle. Empirical studies have clearly demonstrated that major economic
downswings are accompanied by "introverted" foreign policy moods, characterized by fewer armed expeditions, less interest in
foreign affairs in the speeches of leaders, reduced military expenditures, etc. (Klingberg, 1952; Holmes, 1985). Just as depressed
people experience little conscious rage--feeling "I deserve to be killed" rather than "I want to kill others" (Fenichel, 1945, p. 393)-interest in military adventures during the depressed phase wanes, arms expeditures decrease and peace treaties multiply.

All I Do Is WIN WIN WIN No Matter What!