compiled commons neg updated

8/2/2019 Compiled Commons Neg Updated

1/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 20111/61

Commons NegCommons Neg..........................................................................................................................................................1

Solvency......................................................................................................................................2Solvency...................................................................................................................................................................2Commons Fails Neolib.........................................................................................................................................3Commons Fails Laundry List...............................................................................................................................4Commons Fails Misinterpreted............................................................................................................................6Commons Fails Conflicting Views........................................................................................................................8Commons Fails Amuhrican Culture...................................................................................................................10Commons Fails- No Spillover.................................................................................................................................11Commons Fails- Law..............................................................................................................................................12Poverty....................................................................................................................................................................13

***Capitalism Good....................................................................................................................13***Capitalism Good................................................................................................................................................13Economy.................................................................................................................................................................14Environment..........................................................................................................................................................16Ozone......................................................................................................................................................................19

***Neoliberalism Good..............................................................................................................20***Neoliberalism Good..........................................................................................................................................20

AT: Poverty.............................................................................................................................................................2 AT: Environment...................................................................................................................................................2Commons Now.......................................................................................................................................................27

***Inherency.............................................................................................................................27***Inherency..........................................................................................................................................................27Neoliberalism Now................................................................................................................................................28Collapse inevitable.................................................................................................................................................291NC Shell Exploration/Development....................................................................................................................30

***Topicality.............................................................................................................................30***Topicality..........................................................................................................................................................302NC Overview.........................................................................................................................................................312NC FX Bad...........................................................................................................................................................322NC Its Card..........................................................................................................................................................33

A2: Kritik of Topicality.........................................................................................................................................34Private Actor..........................................................................................................................................................35

***Counteradvocacies................................................................................................................35***Counteradvocacies............................................................................................................................................35Social Movement...................................................................................................................................................36

Common Differentiated Responsibility.................................................................................................................38Outer Space Treaty ...............................................................................................................................................392NC Solvency Ext..................................................................................................................................................40

AT: I-Law DA.........................................................................................................................................................4 AT: Space War turn...............................................................................................................................................48 AT: Boundaries Impossible...................................................................................................................................49 AT: Self Govt.........................................................................................................................................................50AT Comp. Legal Codes Good..................................................................................................................................51 AT: Exploitation ....................................................................................................................................................52Net Ben PTX..........................................................................................................................................................53Commons Bad Environment..............................................................................................................................54


2/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 20112/61***Commons Bad......................................................................................................................54***Commons Bad...................................................................................................................................................54Commons Bad Multilat.......................................................................................................................................56Commons Bad Private Investment.....................................................................................................................57Space Weaponization turns solvency....................................................................................................................58

***DA Turns case.......................................................................................................................58

***DA Turns case...................................................................................................................................................58Multilateralism Solves...........................................................................................................................................59Hege Link..............................................................................................................................................................60

***PTX Links.............................................................................................................................61***PTX Links..........................................................................................................................................................61

Solvency


3/61


Commons Fails NeolibThe neoliberal order and technological inequality between states makes CHM difficultOkereke, Chukwumerije (Dr Chukwumerije Okereke is a Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Climateand Development centre at the Smith School. He is a renowned policy analysis and development specialist.)08 Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance Global Environmental Politics Volume 8, Number 3

August 2008The impact of prevailing neoliberal ideas on the law of sea is also mirrored in the activities on the moon and othercelestial bodies even if political events in these resource-areas have been less dramatic.Although it has been officially declared that these areasare the common heritage of the mankind and that any exploitation would have to be done on the basis of globaldistributive equity, the developed countries have continued to enjoy the benefits of launching satellites atoptimal positions without transferring the profits accruing from these activities to the international body. 100 Thiscondition has led Chemillier-Gendreau to suggest that despite the proclamations designating these resources as common heritage,the technological inequality between states renders the principle of equal access derisory.101 As with CHM, the overallimpact of CDR in global environmental governance has also been more or less shaped by the prevailing neoliberal economic order. In insisting that CDR should constitute thefoundation for North-South environmental cooperation during the Stockholm Conference, developing countries had hoped that this principle would result in significanteconomic empowerment if not the complete closure of the economic gap between the North and the South. The hopes were for substantial quantities of financial andtechnological assistance, the free flow of up-to-date scientific information, and the ready transfer of technical experience across the various countries of the world in thespirit of a new mode of international cooperation.102 These hopes were also loudly echoed in the World Commission for Environment and Development (WCED)(Brundtland) Report which asserts that inequality is the planets main environmental problem and that it is futile to attempt to deal with environmental problems without a

broader perspective that encompasses the factors underlying world poverty and international inequality.103 However, by the time of the Rio Conference in 1992, and even

more clearly during (and beyond) the Johannesburg Conference in 2002, it had become increasingly apparent that radical North-South

redistributive mechanisms that are ostensibly inconsistent with free market ideals could hardly be a prominentpart of global environmental rule-based regimes.

CHM has been co-opted by neoliberalismOkereke, Chukwumerije (Dr Chukwumerije Okereke is a Senior Research Fellow and Head of the Climateand Development centre at the Smith School. He is a renowned policy analysis and development specialist.)08 Equity Norms in Global Environmental Governance Global Environmental Politics Volume 8, Number 3

August 2008The foregoing analysis suggests that the limited impact of CDR and CHM normsand, indeed, the general responsibility deficit that characterizesthe current global environmental governance systemare fundamentally due to the co-option of global equitynorms by neoliberalism. The analysis supports the works of many other scholars who have rigorously argued that in the years leading up to Rio, and thereafter,there has been a general global shift towards the neoliberal order with what Mansfield calls the predominant focus on markets as the central form of governance.104 As aresult of the hegemony of neoliberalism, even the Southern states, according to these scholars, have also begunto endorse market-based approaches as the best route to global environmental management.
http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/research-centres/climate-and-development/


4/61


Commons Fails Laundry ListCommons Fails-states arent the same-membership isnt equal-distribution will be coopted-only helps those in power/who can vote-dont change the underlying structure of IR

Aceves LawAssociate Professor, California Western School of Law2001William J., Critical Jurisprudence and International Legal Scholarship: A Study of Equitable Distribution,Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 39 Colum. J. Transnat'l L. 299, LexisNexisB. The Limits of Equitable Distribution Despite the purported benefits of equitable distribution, a second strand of critical jurisprudence posits thefutility of such efforts. In the postmodern tradition, this approach dismisses equitable distribution, arguing that it isonly a temporary solution to the fundamental problems facing the international system. Indeed, these "crits" would arguethat equitable distribution itself perpetuates other forms of inequality and is, therefore, illegitimate. First, equitabledistribution is premised upon the equality of states - a noble premise, but one that is wholly unrelated toreality. Like snowflakes, no two states are entirely alike. Even within classification schemes, states vary along a multitude offactors, including historical, political, demographic, economic, social, cultural, and linguistic features. Equitabledistribution overlooks such variation in its efforts to promote the equality of states within international organizations. In doing so, equitable distribution may [*367] promote

other forms of inequality. For example, equitable distribution policies do not take demographic factors into account. n297

Should India and Luxembourg have the same voting power in international organizations? n298 The problem ofdemographic disparity has worsened in recent years as new states, particularly small states, have entered the international community. n299 As noted by Professor Franck,"this problem of unfair equality has become much more pressing as a new wave tribal nationalism ... swells therank of mini-states, all of them claiming equal voice." n300 Second, equitable distribution assumes that states

within any of the enumerated classification schemes share the same interests, concerns, and preferences - adubious proposition at best. n301 Indeed, equitable distribution assumes state classification is a simple and uncontroversial process. In fact, distribution basedupon geographic classification schemes may be difficult to support in every case. n302 Not all countries located

within a particular geographic area are alike. n303Among African states, for example, do Egypt, Nigeria, [*368]Rwanda, South Africa, and Sudan share similar interests and concerns? The same questions may be posed of states within Asia,Europe, North America, and South America. n304 Efforts to classify states based upon forms of civilization are also fraught with difficulty. Some states are not neatly

categorized into any particular civilization. Indeed, there is significant controversy over the concept of civilization. n305 Even efforts to classify statesbased upon their respective legal systems must be undertaken with caution. n306 Many countries containmultiple legal systems within their borders which makes classification difficult. n307 In addition, the differences between legal

systems are gradually diminishing, making such distinctions less relevant. n308 If the proxy theory is inaccurate, it severely undermines a key premise of equitabledistribution. Third, there are no clear guidelines for establishing or prioritizing classification schemes. Thetraditional classification schemes have differentiated between geographic regions, legal systems, and forms ofcivilization. Is this list exclusive? Should demographic or economic factors be considered? Is this list outdated? Are geographic factors less relevant today? In addition,should particular classification schema be given priority? For example, should preference be given to equitable distribution based upon geographic region, legal system, or

form of civilization? Fourth, equitable distribution policies do not always succeed in their efforts to promote equitablerepresentation in international organizations. In this respect, it is important to recognize that equitable distribution policies do not guaranteeequitable distribution. As currently drafted, most equitable distribution policies only [*369] encourage states to considerequitable distribution principles in determining membership for non-plenary treaty organs and the selection of staff for internationalorganizations. There is no mechanism to ensure that equitable distribution is manifest in the final membershipcomposition. For example, the Statute of the International Court of Justice does not require that the Court contain an equitable distribution of judges based uponcivilization and legal system. Rather, Article 9 merely requests electors to "bear in mind" that the "representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principal legalsystems of the world should be assured." No formal sanction or remediation mechanism is available if equitable distribution is not accomplished. Because the principle ofequitable distribution remains ambiguous and undefined, it can easily be co-opted by states to ensure that dominant powers are guaranteed a position in non-plenary treatyorgans. For example, the practice of the United Nations has been to ensure that each permanent member of the Security Council is represented on the International Court of

Justice. Thus, equitable distribution policies are subject to the vagaries of political and diplomatic intervention.Even if international organizations manifest equitable distribution in their composition, research data suggeststhat the underlying reasons for these policies may not be evident in the output of some organizations . In other words,the preferences of states that are not represented in non-plenary treaty organs may not always be expressed by proxy states. For example, studies of voting patterns in theInternational Court of Justice do not reveal significant correlation of voting patterns along regional or political lines. n309 Even voting patterns within the General Assemblydo not always coincide along regional or political groupings. n310 Fifth, equitable distribution may promote the selection of less qualified candidates. n311 Thus, equitabledistribution policies have been criticized because it "means to some extent weaker candidates must be preferred to stronger on the ground of the civilization or the [*370] legalsystem which they represent." n312 For example, critics have argued that the priority given to equitable geographical distribution in the U.N. Secretariat "has been responsible

for a lowering of the quality of the staff." n313 Sixth, equitable distribution policies perpetuate other forms of inequality.Because they only recognize state representation, equitable distribution policies only promote the interests ofthose groups that dominate intra-state politics. There is no mechanism for representing the interests ofminorities, including racial or religious groups. n314 While representation may be viewed as equitable at the inter-state level, it often remains


5/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 20115/61inequitable at the intra-state level. In addition, equitable distribution policies disregard the plight of people with "multiplesubordinated identities." n315 Many groups, differentiated by such factors as race, religion, or gender, faceseveral layers of subordination and marginalization in their own countries. n316 Women of color are a prominent example of people

with multiple subordinated identities. Discrimination, both overt and implicit, has prevented women of color from attaining positions of power within their own countries. Asa result, these women are often underrepresented within the power structures of their countries. n317 [*371] Because of their marginalization at the domestic level, the abilityof these women to participate at the international level is severely diminished. n318 If these women are from countries that are themselves on the margins of internationaldiscourse, their plight becomes even more pronounced. n319 Thus, women do not benefit from efforts to promote equitable distribution at the international level. Racial andethnic minorities face similar obstacles. n320 It is not surprising, therefore, that few women are members of the various international tribunals. n321 In the entire history ofthe International Court of Justice, there has only been one female judge on the Court. n322 Gender composition in other international tribunals is equally unbalanced. The

European Court of Justice, one of the most successful international tribunals in history, did not have a woman on the Court until October 1999. n323 The European Court of[*372] Human Rights has only a slightly better record. n324 While the United Nations has sought to promote the development of women's rights within states, it has generally

been less successful at the higher levels of power within the international level. n325 Finally, equitable distribution policies assume the state isthe most appropriate governance structure to regulate human behavior. These policies do not change orchallenge the fundamental structure of the international system; they merely work within the system . There is noeffort (or apparent interest) in promoting structural change. Thus, the status quo remains protected against efforts to change thestructure of the international system or the primacy of the state. Such policies overlook structural flaws of stategovernance. Do states adequately protect the interests of all individuals within their control? n326 Are there alternative governance structures capable of addressing theproblems of humanity more effectively than the current regime? n327


6/61


Commons Fails MisinterpretedCommon Heritage fails and is misinterpreted massive resource disparities still existMickelson Associate Professor, University of British Columbia 2003Karin, Humanizing our Global Order, Co-opting Common Heritage, pg. 119-120Criticisms of how common heritagehas been deployed in the scholarly literature might appear to be an exercise infinger-pointing were it not for the fact that the treatment of common heritage is symptomatic of a perspectivethat seems widespread. One has become accustomed to reading dismissals of the new international economic order, of the heady optimism of the 1960s and1970s. What is unusual about common heritage is that instead of merely relegating a Third World doctrine to the dustbin ofhistory, attempts have been made to retool it into a concept that is applicable to a different context . It may seemuncharitable to take issue with such attempts, especially when they are the work of young scholars whose enthusiasm, at least, cannot be faulted. However, I cannothelp feeling that these attempts represent a fundamentally problematic approach to international legalscholarship. These writers are able to justify their approach through an elaborate array of reasons andauthorities, underlying which is an attitude that verges on contempt for the original rationale of the concept, as

well as for its proponents. Even if one were to accept the view that the `Third World' no longer exists (as I do not).vast disparities of wealthand access to resources are still with us, and these disparities have in fact been increasing over the pastdecades. This is either missing from the analysis or is mentioned only in passing. Where, then, does this leave common heritage? My own preference would

be to allow the principle to rest in peace rather than have it exist as a simulacrum that not only fails to reflectthe content of the original but in fact is almost wholly inconsistent with it. I would argue that politically and legally,such a decision has already been made. Common heritage has not been incorporated into multilateral

environmental agreements; in its place, notions such as the common concern of humankind' have emerged. which have the benefit ofbeing unaccompanied by the baggage of 'political connotations. Yet this does not eliminate the underly ing dilemma. Common concern,too, along with other principles of international law, must be interpreted and applied in ways that are sensitiveand responsive to the needs of the South. And such sensitivity and responsiveness are sorely lacking in thetypes of analyses I have been considering here.

Developed countries interpret CHM differently than developing nations causes conflictShackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in InternationalRelations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1The commons places limitations on states ability to exercise national sovereignty.As commons belong to all ofmankind, only mankind may decide when and in what manner to exploit common resources. Difficulties arise

in administration given that nations vary greatly in their resource endowments and comparative advantages. AsAvrid Pardo, Maltese Delegate to the UN and the Father of the Sea, stated: The manner in which the common heritage principle will be used will depend on differingperceptions. There is a need to take into account the wants, needs, interests and values favored by world constituencies. Undoubtedly different policies will be advancedby

developed and developing states.75 Developed countries interpret the CHM principle narrowly as allowing the common useof designated areas, while upholding traditional concepts such as freedom of the high seas and of exploration.Developing nations interpret the CHM principle broadly, seeking to direct participation in the internationalmanagement of resource extraction.This is not an argument for environmental protection, only representativeexploitation. A viable compromise would provide an incentive for investment for the exploitation of resourcesin common regions along with some form of limited property rights as well as equitable economic benefit-sharing. This is the lesson of neoterritoriality specifically and this study of sovereignty generally.

CHM is bad either the developed countries benefit alone or a communal basis stifles econ.growth

Shackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in InternationalRelations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1The first theory holds that the CHM is an extension ofres communis, since it provides for communal and not exclusive propriety use.67 The CHM seeks to benefitthe long-run prosperity of humanity by conserving the worlds resources for future generations through aninternational regime. Developing countries are proponents of this viewpoint. The second CHM theoryconsiders the first conception to be in conflict with established international law.68 Proponents regard the first theory as amodern version ofres communis applied to another phenomenon, namely the right to use a resource. Such a res communis cannot be owned but may be used on an equal

basis.69 Comparing the philosophies ofres communis, res nullis and the CHM consequently opens the door to two lines of logic. One allows for the completefreedom of exploration, meaning that technologically advanced countries would benefit most from commonresources. The other extreme views exploration on a communal basis. Although this would fulfill the spirit of


7/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 20117/61the CHM principle, it would not generate the amount of commercial activity necessary for substantial economicdevelopment due to a complete absence of property rights.

CHM is temporary once tech. is created to exploit resources, countries ignore the idea ofcommunal propertyShackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in InternationalRelations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February

2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1When COPUOS began work in 1970 to draft a treaty on the legal status of the Moon and its natural resources, opinion was divided. Controversies centered on the question ofwhether resources could be lawfully and freely exploited, or whether such activity was unlawful appropriation.206 Distinctions were offered between states, private enterpriseand scientific investigations. Proposed solutions included applying the CHM to the Moon but not its natural resources, or to the Moon but nowhere else in outer space.207Negotiations took on an ardent fervor as the US had landed on the Moon in the previous July, and the USSR had recently obtained its own lunar regolith samples.208 Duringthe drafting process of the Moon Treaty209 confrontations erupted between the US, USSR and many developing countries. When the treaty was opened for signature in 1979,the climate had shifted and these initial confrontations emerged as organized opposition to the proposed international regime. This outcome is mirrored by the initial

acceptance, and then ultimate infeasibility, of the UNCLOS system. Using wording identical to UNCLOS, the Moon Treaty expressly asserts that thenatural resources of the Moon and other celestial bodies belong to the common heritage of mankind. Article 11(5)states that an international regime should be set up to develop the commons as soon as exploitation is about to

become feasible. 210 This confirms the propensity in international law to declare a new frontier communalproperty until the technology is developed to exploit the newfound resources. Naturally, this begs the questionas to the staying power of CHM areas in international law generally.


8/61


Commons Fails Conflicting ViewsConflict occurs over views on whether or not the Moon Treaty allows private interests in spaceShackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in InternationalRelations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1The OST, dubbed the Magna Carta for space,185 states that Outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, is notsubject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any othermeans.186 Interpreting Article II has engendered debates among academics and policymakers. Some see it as giving private interests freedomof action in space, so long as a government supervises but does not nationalize new territory. 187 Others seethis clause as a hindrance to economic development as great as the cost of accessing space (approximately $10,000/pound)

by voiding property rights and making entrepreneurs less apt to invest.188 The center is comprised of those who feel that the legalframework will ensure sufficient protection to private entities, safeguarding commerce rather than hamperingit and securing appropriate economic returns to those in need.189 This trichotomy of views underscores theoriessurrounding what to do with celestial bodies such as the Moon and the asteroids that have vast amounts of untapped natural resources.Gold has now been discovered on asteroids, Helium-3 on the Moon, and magnesium, cobalt and uranium on Mars. The first wave of space tourists are preparing for launch in2008 courtesy of Virgin Galactic.190 New industries promising unlimited energy could be developed, necessitating a well-defined legal regime.

The divided world is preventing solvency for any major impactFalk (Richard Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, the authoror co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 books,[1] speaker, activist on world affairs,and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.) 00 Human Governance forthe world: Reviving the Quest 2000 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345) [Pitman]

Delimiting the idea of humane governance on behalf of the peoples of the world is itself a daunting andinconclusive undertaking. The unevenness of material circumstance, cultural orientation and resourceendowment makes it especially difficult, and even suspect, to universalize aspirations, and set forth some imageof humane governance that can be affirmed by all. It seems appropriate to be tentative, inviting dialogue across civilizational and classboundaries as to the nature of humane governance. From such a bottom-up process, areas of overlapping consensus can begin to be identified, and the

negotiation of differences in values and priorities facilitated. If successful, this interactive dynamic could in time produce acoherent project, democratically conceived, to establish humane governance for all peoples.

Divided world prevents solvency for every major impact

Falk (Richard Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, the authoror co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 books,[1] speaker, activist on world affairs,and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.) 00 Human Governance forthe world: Reviving the Quest 2000 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345) [Pitman

Despite these reasons for seeking a warless world, the obstacles remain formidable: entrenched economic andbureaucratic interests in military establishments; distrust of the capacity and objectivity of the UN system;inertia associated with reliance on the state to provide security against adversaries; and persisting, unresolvedregional conflicts, border disputes and territorial conflicts involving offshore islands. In addition, geopoliticalactors, especially the US government, insist on the relevance of force to deter and contain so-called 'roguestates' and to prevent the further fraying of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. In these regards, only a transnationalpeace movement is likely to be able to revitalize the long and crucial struggle to minimize war and preparations for war. At the moment, there is no effort

in this direction except in relation to transnational initiatives to abolish nuclear weaponry and some inter-governmental efforts tocontrol the spread of nuclear weaponry and to encourage regim regimes of prohibition with respect to chem-ical and biological weaponry.

CHM impossible cant establish an internationally acceptable view on proprietary rights inspaceShackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in InternationalRelations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345


9/61


Varying interpretations have been put forward as to the importance of property rights in space to investment.One argument is that developing countries have kept all countries from reaching the Moon and let a valuablesource of alternative energy lie unused due to their majority support of the CHM in international relations.250Developing countries contend that they have not fettered any state in its quest for property rights. It is in this

way that the form and the compliance with international law conflict. Rather than an ill-defined legal regime,some scholars contend that it is the high cost of accessing space and insufficient Return on Investment (ROI)and nothing else that is the primary hurdle to developmental.251 Any actions that developing countries have

collectively taken to curtail property rights in outer space have not adversely impacted ROI.252 However,developing countries have adversely impacted the development of space law generally, as seen ingeosynchronous orbit (GSO) debates253 and the resulting Bogot Declaration under which a group ofequatorial developing countries asserted their sovereignty over equatorial geosynchronous space.254 This pactunderscores the primary flaw of existing space law: the failure to establish an internationally acceptable viewon proprietary rights in space, and the lack of any coordinated effort between or among developed anddeveloping countries to change this fact. The failure of folding in limited property rights into the CHM regimegoverning the Moon occurs because of two conflicting interpretations of property rights, namely a collection ofprinciples versus a codification of regulations. Drafters of the treaties did not foresee civilian space travel as aregular commercial activity. The main hindrance is Article 11, which states that the Moon and its naturalresources are the common heritage of mankind.255 The majority of space faring nations believe that anyinternational lunar regime established will prove to be a politically dysfunctional, economically, inefficient,

global bureaucracy,256 prohibiting the accords acceptance into customary international law, and highlightingwhy multilateral cooperation can be such a difficult proposition. Though, despite the frustrations inherent in building asystem of internationally respected property rights for the commons certain property rights already exist in space law that may be usedas a foundation to be used for allaying the fears of investors and developing countries alike. In this manner, property rights in space lawmay be used as a case study to examine how a similar system of rights and duties may be setup in other portions of the internationalcommons.


10/61


Commons Fails Amuhrican CultureAmericas approach to property rights makes CHM difficult, Moon Treaty empirically provesShackelford, Scott ( J.D. Candidate (2009) at Stanford Law School and a Ph.D Candidate in InternationalRelations at the University of Cambridge.) 08 The Tragedy of the Common Heritage of Mankind February2008 http://works.bepress.com/scott_shackelford/1The ambiguities and uncertainties inherent in the Moon Treaty, specifically regarding the CHM, made the USand every other participating nation save four put off ratification. This decision was made in the face of a US State Departmentreport which indicated that the Moon Treaty was the best possible structure for regulating activities whichgovernments may now or in the future engage in on the Moon or elsewhere in space .211 The Reagan

Administration viewed the concept of the CHM as hostile to free enterprise and thereby contrary to theinterests of advanced states with free-market economies. It would be a disincentive to development, a de facto moratorium, as had occurredafter UNCLOS 1982. The US viewed the Moon Treaty as antithetical to US interests. The US thus adopted a resourcedistribution philosophy in line with the freedom of the high seas, a freedom of outer space. While the USmaintains that no state may claim or acquire exclusive sovereign rights to outer space, it does maintain thatactors may exploit resources as long as there is reasonable regard for the rights and activities of others. This freemarket approach applies universally. As the only remaining superpower, the US approach to exploitation and property rights versus theCHM approach is the biggest impediment to a trulyde facto rather than de jure CHM in outer space, or indeed anywhere. Given thefragmented nature of the regime governing space law today, the US , as well as the other space powers, are in a position toimplement policy priorities without the restraint of multilateral commitments. Ultimately, this will prove

detrimental to the commons as well as to development as entrepreneurs will not have the certainty necessary toinvest with confidence.

American culture is in direct conflict with the CommonsBollier( David Bollier , co-founded the Commons Strategy Group, a consulting project that works to promotethe commons internationally) 07 The Growth of the Commons Paradigm 2007http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4975/GrowthofCommonsParadigm.pdf;jsessionid=BB58D234F012FEE4A5E63B8FB9DA6477?sequence=1[Pitman]So it is in talking about the commons. The commons is not such a difficult frame of analysis in itself. It is, infact, a rather simple and obvious concept. But because our culture is so steeped in a standard economicnarrative about how things work, the idea of the commons often seems exotic. American political culture is adedicated champion of the free market, after all. It celebrates the heroic individual, the self-made man, not the community. Perhaps

because the Cold War was directed against communism and its cousin, socialism, Americans tend to regard collective managementregimes as morally problematic and destructive of freedom, at least in the abstract.

United States is a major blocker of the common heritageFalk (Richard Falk is an American professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, the authoror co-author of 20 books and the editor or co-editor of another 20 books,[1] speaker, activist on world affairs,and an appointee to two United Nations positions on the Palestinian territories.) 00 Human Governance forthe world: Reviving the Quest 2000 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345) [Pitman]And yet the substantive outcomes have so far been disappointing. The language of common heritage, while retained as a goal, has been virtually emptied

of substantive content in the Law of the Seas as a result ofheavy lobbying by the private sector and the gradual adoption of aneoliberal outlook by western states, led by the USAand Thatcherite Britain. This is a process of 'normative cooption'

whereby a progressive idea is introduced with great fanfare, but then applied in such a way as to deprive it ofsubstantive content. In this instance, it is making common heritage subordinate to the operation of globalmarket forces. Such a process contributes to a kind of complacency in which there is the illusion of commitment to human well-being, but withoutany tangible results. This pattern invites cynicism, and leads to widespread despair.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345http://www.jstor.org/stable/4177345


11/61


12/61


13/61


Poverty

Capitalism is key to innovation which solves povertyPhelps '09(Edmund Phelps, director of the Centre on Capitalism and Society, Columbia University, won the 2006 NobelPrize for economics, "Global Outlook 2009: Does capitalism have a future?", 1/5/09, Lexis// ASpomer)First of all, Europeans think of capitalism as the "free market" - laissez-faire. But capitalism means openness to

bottom-up innovation. Capitalism does not per se threaten anyone's welfare benefits. The fashionablehypothesis denies even the most obvious benefit. I concede that the salaries of my overpaid friends are highenough to meet virtually all of their foreseeable needs. Even my own salary suffices to meet my own. Butincreases in productivity almost always lead to increases in pay across the economy. And increases in thegeneral pay level have a social value that is of huge benefit. These increases make it possible for more people toshun dull, tedious or onerous work in favour of stimulating, engaging and mind-expanding work. The "darkSatanic mills" of Marx's era are gone, thanks to greater productivity, not greater state regulation. The otherdifficulty with that fashionable hypothesis is that most of the alleged costs are illusory or trumped up. The ideathat a well-functioning capitalism makes for a weak job market, leading to higher unemployment and lowerparticipation in the labour force, cannot be substantiated. On the contrary, the innovations stimulated andfacilitated by capitalism create jobs - in new companies started to develop new ideas, in marketing, and inmanagements that must keep abreast of new organisations and tools. The idea that ordinary people are

anguished by the thought that other people have extraordinary wealth is also cultivated in fashionable circleswithout the presentation of any evidence. Most people are practical enough to see that when, say, they have togo to the hospital for tests, what matters is whether the right kind of diagnostic machine is there for them, not

whether there is a better machine for others somewhere else. True, capitalism creates disruption anduncertainty. But we should not lose sight of the other side of that coin. Capitalism is unique in stimulatingentrepreneurs to dream up new commercial ideas and develop them for the market, and generating excitementfor consumers in discovering the new. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of capitalism was in transformingthe workplace from one of routine, and thus boredom, into one of change, mental stimulus, challenge, problemsolving, exploration and sometimes, discovery. True, the assembly line, a brain-numbing experience, was afeature of capitalism from the pin factor that Adam Smith wrote about in 1776 until Henry Ford's giant plantsin the 1920s. But communist Russia and socialist Europe could not afford to do without assembly lines, either.

And thanks to productivity growth, an ever larger share of jobs lay outside factories as well as farms.

***Capitalism Good


14/61


Economy

Capitalism is key to innovation and the economySchramm '11(Carl J. Schramm, served on Department of Commerce innovation committees during both the Bush andObama administrations and a leading authority on innovation and economic growth, "Kauffman Foundation:Messy Capitalism Drives Innovation -- And Economic Growth", 1/18/11, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-

j-schramm/entrepreneurship_b_809866.html// ASpomer)Since the earliest days of the American republic, entrepreneurs have been essential to the economic growth andsocial dynamism of the United States. From Nathan Appleton, textile merchant and entrepreneur in the late1700s, to the founding of Apple by Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak in the 1970s, entrepreneurs and the newcompanies they create account not only for most new jobs in this country but also a disproportionate share ofthe innovations that boost human welfare. Welcome to the Kauffman Foundation's new column onentrepreneurship. The Kauffman Foundation is a private, nonprofit foundation dedicated to promotingentrepreneurship and improving education. Like most other American philanthropists, our founder, EwingKauffman, was a successful entrepreneur -- in his case, starting and growing a pharmaceutical company thatcreated thousands of jobs and innovations. Unlike many other philanthropists, however, Mr. Kauffman choseto dedicate his fortune to helping others to follow their entrepreneurial dream. He spoke of himself as a"common man who did an uncommon thing," but wanted his philanthropic dollars spent in making that

phenomenon, entrepreneurship, a more common and achievable prospect. Toward those ends, the KauffmanFoundation funds and performs a wide range of research on entrepreneurship and also operates a number ofprograms aimed at helping entrepreneurs and better preparing students at all levels for success in anentrepreneurial economy. In this space over the coming months, you will hear from a variety of Kauffmanscholars and researchers about our work on the importance of entrepreneurship. While the link betweenentrepreneurship and economic growth has been well-established by a number of economists and is wellunderstood by the average citizen, this insight has not yet penetrated the minds of legislators andpolicymakers. When officials and commentators in Washington and state capitals discuss "business" and"commerce," they almost universally mean big business, companies such as those on the Fortune 500. Make nomistake: big business is highly important to our economic health. But such companies are not the source of theinnovations that make our economy grow. Economists often boil the mechanics of economic growth down tosterile-sounding categories such as capital, labor, and "the residual" -- essentially, technological change. But if

you think about economic growth in a common-sense manner, what does it mean? It doesn't just involve moreproducts and services, more "stuff." It also means better and cheaper products and services and an overallimproved quality of life. Consider pharmaceuticals: economists attribute the lion's share of the increase in lifeexpectancy over the past forty years not to public programs but to new drug discoveries. And, increasingly,large, established companies find it difficult to introduce new pharmaceuticals. The key point is that behindthese innovations are entrepreneurs who start new companies -- that, as Northwestern scholar Dan Spulberhas found, is the essential function of entrepreneurs. They found new companies as the vehicles forpropagating innovations. If successful, those companies will grow and, accordingly, so will the overalleconomy. When firms grow, the economy grows -- and entrepreneurs are the drivers of firm growth. Only atiny fraction of new and young companies, of course, will successfully create jobs and grow into larger firms.(An enduring dilemma for any economy is that once entrepreneurial companies successfully turn into largerfirms, they often become the enemies of innovation and the next generation of firms. This is a problem that

economists and policymakers and corporate leaders have wrestled with for a century with no resolution, andwill be the subject of the some of the columns in this series.) What legislators and policymakers mustremember is that the messy process of firms starting, competing, failing, and growing (and, potentially,shrinking) is absolutely essential to achieving economic growth. This is what we call "messy capitalism" --economic growth and dynamism do not emerge from a neat process nor are they borne, like Athena from Zeus'head, fully-formed in the shape of successful firms out of university laboratories.

Global economic collapse causes extinctionRight Vision News 11/26/10(Economic crisis threatens existence of human beings pg online @ lexisnexis)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-j-schramm/entrepreneurship_b_809866.html//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-j-schramm/entrepreneurship_b_809866.html//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-j-schramm/entrepreneurship_b_809866.html//http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-j-schramm/entrepreneurship_b_809866.html//


15/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 201115/61The financial and economic crisis being faced by the world is in fact a human catastrophe as it maythreatenthe well-being and existence of human beings in the globe, said Dr. Jean-Francois Daguzan, seniorresearch fellow at the Foundation for Strategic Research, France. He was speaking at a roundtable discussionon 'The Strategic Consequences of World Financial and Economic Crisis' organised by the South Asia StrategicStability Institute (SASSI) here on Wednesday. Former ambassador Tasawur Naqvi conducted the proceedings.Dr. Jean-Francois Daguzan said that the crisis could lead to violence. Every effort should be made to control itas it may lead to risky and dangerous situations. He said that the balance of power had already changed. He

said that if economic crisis is compared with 9/11 and invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, the World TradeCentre debacle seemed to be a contingent affair. The financial crisis to him was like a nuclear war, which istilting the balance of power in the world. He said that an amount of $50,000 billion went to the aid ofdeveloping nations. He noted the impact of the snowballing crisis on stock exchanges and investment potentialof different countries. He said that the crisis also affected stability of nations by impacting equities and stockexchanges. He said that the war in currencies is the last impact of the crisis in an age of artificial monetarypowers of currencies, which would provoke and continue with economic crises within countries. He said that itis rebalancing the power politics in the world. He enumerated Southeast Asia's economies facing problems in1988 when China was big, but not enough to become the lone competitor of the west. He said that the mid-termelections in the US earlier this month reflected the consequences of the crisis. He said that the US and the Westare declining and the US is now not capable of passing through this economic challenge. He said that the rise ofthe 'Tea Party' in the US is also a reflection of the economic crisis. He did not think that the US could continue

to assume the responsibility of developing Europe though China could do something. He said that the US couldnot have a leading position in this respect. He said that India is a big economy, but it is not really capable tounderstand the global gains. He said that the Indian government did not have all tools to react to the globalcrisis though China could. He said that the failure of Europe to find an alternative is regrettable. Earlier, SASSIDirector-General Dr. Maria Sultan, welcoming the guest speaker, said: "We are living in a transitional period inhistory and the topic is very important in terms of geo-strategic and geo-economic developments in the world.She said that it is ultimate connection between the two that will shape the military and political securitysituation not only in this region, but also all around the world. This is particularly true as we see the risingemergence of Asia as a new powerhouse, which will only be complemented by factors of human resourcedevelopment, political stability and regional military security." She said that contrary to this, if these trends arenot developed, regional harmony will be replaced by political chaos, military strife and continued state ofrivalry not only between state actors but also inter-state actors which will only get compounded by the presence

of trans-national non-state actors and their relevance to international security. She said: "If we are to createpositive patterns of developments, power has to become more multi-polar in nature strengthened byoverlapping security architectures and economic relations." Ms Maria said: "We can no longer afford to live in aperpetual uni-polar moment where the rise and fall of new power centres such as India etc is added by thedomestic policy concerns of the sole super power." She said that for such an arrangement, an artificial attemptto create regional supremacy for one actor will only undermine traditional balance of power arrangements andnatural sense of balance, which is necessary for regional strategic stability. All this will come at the cost ofinternational security and global peace if it is not balanced by the emergence of equal multi-polar powercentres grounded in economic and regional realities.


16/61


Environment

Maintaining innovation is key to prevent collapse of the biosphere

Perry et al 8(William, Prof of Engineering @ Stanford, former Secretary of Defense and Under Deputy Secretary of Defensefor Research and Engineering, Grand Challenges For Engineering,http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/Object.File/Master/11/574/Grand%20Challenges%20final%20book.pdf//)Throughout human history, engineering has driven the advance of civilization. From the metallurgists whoended the Stone Age to the shipbuilders who united the worlds peoples through travel and trade, the past

witnessed many marvels of engineering prowess. As civilization grew, it was nourished and enhanced with thehelp of increasingly sophisticated tools for agriculture, technologies for producing textiles, and inventionstransforming human interaction and communication. Inventions such as the mechanical clock and the printingpress irrevocably changed civilization. In the modern era, the Industrial Revolution brought engineerings influence to every niche of life, as machines supplemented and replaced human labor for countless tasks,improved systems for sanitation enhanced health, and the steam engine facilitated mining, powered trains andships, and provided energy for factories. In the century just ended, engineering recorded its grandestaccomplishments. The widespread development and distribution of electricity and clean water, automobiles

and airplanes, radio and television, spacecraft and lasers, antibiotics and medical imaging, and computers andthe Internet are just some of the highlights from a century in which engineering revolutionized and improved

virtually every aspect of human life. Find out more about the great engineering achievements of the 20thcentury from a separate NAE website: www.greatachievements.org. For all of these advances, though, thecentury ahead poses challenges as formidable as any from millennia past. As the population grows and itsneeds and desires expand, the problem of sustaining civilizations continuing advancement, while stillimproving the quality of life, looms more immediate. Old and new threats to personal and public healthdemand more effective and more readily available treatments. Vulnerabilities to pandemic diseases, terrorist

violence, and natural disasters require serious searches for new methods of protection and prevention. Andproducts and processes that enhance the joy of living remain a top priority of engineering innovation, as theyhave been since the taming of fi re and the invention of the wheel. In each of these broad realms of humanconcern sustainability, health, vulnerability, and joy of living specific grand challenges await engineering

solutions. The worlds cadre of engineers will seek ways to put knowledge into practice to meet these grandchallenges. Applying the rules of reason, the fi ndings of science, the aesthetics of art, and the spark of creativeimagination, engineers will continue the tradition of forging a better future. Foremost among the challengesare those that must be met to ensure the future itself. The Earth is a planet of finite resources, and its growingpopulation currently consumes them at a rate that cannot be sustained. Widely reported warnings haveemphasized the need to develop new sources of energy, at the same time as preventing or reversing thedegradation of the environment. Sunshine has long offered a tantalizing source of environmentally friendlypower, bathing the Earth with more energy each hour than the planets population consumes in a year. Butcapturing that power, converting it into useful forms, and especially storing it for a rainy day, poses provocativeengineering challenges. Another popular proposal for long-term energy supplies is nuclear fusion, the artifi cialre-creation of the suns source of power on Earth. The quest for fusion has stretched the limits of engineeringingenuity, but hopeful developments suggest the goal of practical fusion power may yet be attainable.

Engineering solutions for both solar power and nuclear fusion must be feasible not only technologically butalso economically when compared with the ongoing use of fossil fuels. Even with success, however, it remainsunlikely that fossil fuels will be eliminated from the planets energy-source budget anytime soon, leaving theirenvironment-associated issues for engineers to address. Most notoriously, evidence is mounting that thecarbon dioxide pumped into the air by the burning of fossil fuels is increasing the planets temperature andthreatens disruptive effects on climate. Anticipating the continued use of fossil fuels, engineers have exploredtechnological methods of capturing the carbon dioxide produced from fuel burning and sequestering itunderground. A further but less publicized environmental concern involves the atmospheres dominantcomponent, the element nitrogen. The biogeochemical cycle that extracts nitrogen from the air for itsincorporation into plants and hence food has become altered by human activity. With widespread use offertilizers and high-temperature industrial combustion, humans have doubled the rate at which nitrogen is


17/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 201117/61removed from the air relative to pre-industrial times, contributing to smog and acid rain, polluting drinking

water, and even worsening global warming. Engineers must design countermeasures for nitrogen cycleproblems, while maintaining the ability of agriculture to produce adequate food supplies. Chief amongconcerns in this regard is the quality and quantity of water, which is in seriously short supply in many regionsof the world. Both for personal use drinking, cleaning, cooking, and removal of waste and large-scale usesuch as irrigation for agriculture, water must be available and sustainably provided to maintain quality of life.New technologies for desalinating sea water may be helpful, but small-scale technologies for local water

purification may be even more effective for personal needs. Naturally, water quality and many otherenvironmental concerns are closely related to questions of human health. While many of the health scourges ofthe past have been controlled and even eliminated by modern medicine, other old ones such as malaria remaindeadly, and newer problems have remained resistant to medical advances, requiring new medical technologiesand methods. One goal of biomedical engineering today is fulfi lling the promise of personalized medicine.Doctors have long recognized that individuals differ in their susceptibility to disease and their response totreatments, but medical technologies have generally been offered as one size fi ts all. Recent cataloging of thehuman genetic endowment, and deeper understanding of the bodys complement of proteins and their

biochemical interactions, offer the prospect of identifying the specifi c factors that determine sickness andwellness in any individual. An important way of exploiting such information would be the development ofmethods that allow doctors to forecast the benefi ts and side effects of potential treatments or cures. Reverse-engineering the brain, to determine how it performs its magic, should offer the dual benefi ts of helping treat

diseases while providing clues for new approaches to computerized artifi cial intelligence. Advanced computerintelligence, in turn, should enable automated diagnosis and prescriptions for treatment. And computerizedcatalogs of health information should enhance the medical systems ability to track the spread of disease andanalyze the comparative effectiveness of different approaches to prevention and therapy. Another reason todevelop new medicines is the growing danger of attacks from novel disease-causing agents. Certain deadly

bacteria, for instance, have repeatedly evolved new properties, conferring resistance against even the mostpowerful antibiotics. New viruses arise with the power to kill and spread more rapidly than disease-preventionsystems are designed to counteract. As a consequence, vulnerability to biological disaster ranks high on the listof unmet challenges for biomedical engineers just as engineering solutions are badly needed to counter the

violence of terrorists and the destructiveness of earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural dangers.Technologies for early detection of such threats and rapid deployment of countermeasures (such as vaccinesand antiviral drugs) rank among the most urgent of todays engineering challenges. Even as terrorist attacks,

medical epidemics, and natural disasters represent acute threats to the quality of life, more general concernspose challenges for the continued enhancement of living. Engineers face the grand challenge of renewing andsustaining the aging infrastructures of cities and services, while preserving ecological balances and enhancingthe aesthetic appeal of living spaces. And the external world is not the only place where engineering matters;the inner world of the mind should benefit from improved methods of instruction and learning, including waysto tailor the minds growth to its owners propensities and abilities. Some new methods of instruction, such ascomputer-created virtual realities, will no doubt also be adopted for entertainment and leisure, furtheringengineerings contributions to the joy of living. The spirit of curiosity in individual minds and in society as a

whole can be further promoted through engineering endeavors enhancing exploration at the frontiers of realityand knowledge, by providing new tools for investigating the vastness of the cosmos or the inner intricacy of lifeand atoms. All of these examples merely scratch the surface of the challenges that engineers will face in the 21stcentury. The problems described here merely illustrate the magnitude and complexity of the tasks that must bemastered to ensure the sustainability of civilization and the health of its citizens, while reducing individual andsocietal vulnerabilities and enhancing the joy of living in the modern world. None of these challenges will bemet, however, without fi nding ways to overcome the barriers that block their accomplishment. Most obviously,engineering solutions must always be designed with economic considerations in mind for instance, despiteenvironmental regulations, cheaper polluting technologies often remain preferred over more expensive, cleantechnologies. Engineers must also face formidable political obstacles. In many parts of the world, entrenchedgroups benefi ting from old systems wield political power that blocks new enterprises. Even where no onegroup stands in the way of progress, the expense of new engineering projects can deter action, and meetingmany of the centurys challenges will require unprecedented levels of public funding. Current government

budgets for U.S. infrastructure improvement alone falls hundreds of billions of dollars short of estimatedneeds. Securing the funds necessary to meet all the great challenges will require both popular and political


18/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 201118/61support. Engineers must join with scientists, educators, and others to encourage and promote improvedscience, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in the schools and enhanced fl ow of technicalinformation to the public at large conveying not just the facts of science and engineering, but also anappreciation of the ways that scientists and engineers acquire the knowledge and tools required to meetsocietys needs. Public understanding of engineering and its underlying science will be important to supportthe calls for funding, as well as to enhance the prospect for successful adoption of new technologies. Theultimate users of engineerings products are people with individual and personal concerns, and in many cases,

resistance to new ways of doing things will have to be overcome. Teachers must revamp their curricula andteaching styles to benefi t from electronic methods of personalized learning. Doctors and hospital personnel

will have to alter their methods to make use of health informatics systems and implement personalizedmedicine. New systems for drug regulation and approval will be needed when medicines are designed for smallnumbers of individuals rather than patient populations as a whole. A prime example where such a barrierexists is in the challenge of reducing vulnerability to assaults on cyberspace, such as identity theft andcomputer viruses designed to disrupt Internet traffi c. Systems for keeping cyberspace secure must be designedto be compatible with human users cumbersome methods that have to be rigorously observed dont work,

because people fi nd them inconvenient. Part of the engineering task will be discovering which approacheswork best at ensuring user cooperation with new technologies.


19/61


Ozone

Innovation key to solve Ozone depletionKolb '98(Charles E. Kolb, president of Aerodyne Research "Building a Foundation for Sound Environmental Decisions",3/11/98, http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ocga/testimony/EPA_Research_ Development.asp// GH-aspomer)Last year, the committee completed its deliberations and published a final report, Building a Foundation forSound Environmental Decisions (National Academy Press, 1997). The report advocates a more comprehensiveand integrated approach to our nation's environmental research and development (R&D) activities. Because weface environmental problems of unprecedented complexity, the committee maintains that the traditionalpractice of studying individual environmental problems and devising narrowly-focused control or remediationstrategies to manage them will no longer suffice. The report highlights the need for developing a deeperscientific understanding of ecosystems, as well as studying the sociological and economic aspects of humaninteractions with the environment. To achieve these goals, the committee recommended a core researchagenda for the Environmental Protection Agency that has three components. First, research is required toadvance our understanding of the physical, chemical and biological processes underlying environmentalsystems, as well as the social and economic processes controlling our interactions with those systems. A moresystematic understanding of environmental processes would inform and complement problem-focused R&D

efforts, leading to more successful management strategies. Second, the committee advocated the developmentof more effective environmental research tools, including innovative measurement instruments and platforms,through exploitation of advances in electronic, electro-optical, computational, materials, aerospace,communication, and biological technologies. In addition, more sophisticated environmental models, andimproved laboratory, data analysis, and assessment methods are needed. Third, the committee advocatedsustained support for the design, implementation, and maintenance of environmental monitoring systems andfor analysis, dissemination and archiving of long-term data sets. Scientists using the data from thesemonitoring networks would be able to establish environmental norms, identify trends, and determine ifenvironmental management strategies are effective. Many environmental problems that we have attempted tounderstand and manage as isolated phenomena are, in fact, closely intertwined. For instance, a single pollutantspecies such as nitric oxide (NO), produced from the combustion engine of an automobile or aircraft, can:modify the rate of ozone depletion if released in the stratosphere; contribute to global warming by producing

ozone, a powerful greenhouse gas, in the upper troposphere; trigger problems for a child with asthma bydriving photochemical production of nitrogen dioxide and ozone in the atmospheric boundary layer; beoxidized to nitric acid and contribute to acid rain; or after oxidation be deposited as nitrate fouling a drinking

water reservoir or adding to the eutrophication of a productive estuary. However, deposited nitrate ions canalso serve as badly needed fertilizer for valuable wild or domesticated plants. Strategies designed to ameliorateone problem may exacerbate another. Our understanding of the complex temporal and spatial scales thatcharacterize environmental problems is also evolving. Global issues, such as stratospheric ozone depletion andglobal warming, now compete for attention with regional problems, like health-threatening episodes ofphotochemical air pollution, aquifer contamination by toxic substances, and ecological effects of airborne acidand oxidant deposition. Pollutants emitted from a localized source often cause problems tens to tens-of-thousands of kilometers away, while mobile pollutant sources, such as commercial aircraft or long haul dieseltrucks, can release pollutants over a wide geographical area in a single day. A wide range of time scales can also

be important. A reactive hydrocarbon vapor molecule released from a gas pump nozzle can take only a fewminutes to fuel the formation of ozone during a summer smog episode, while a chlorofluorocarbon moleculeleaking from a refrigerator may survive in the atmosphere for over a century before releasing its ozone-destroying chlorine atoms in the stratosphere. Although the NRC report was requested by the EPA's Office ofResearch and Development, its findings and recommendations are relevant to other government agencies,many of which also focus R&D strategies on specific environmental problems. (The National ScienceFoundation is one notable and effective exception. The NRC report praised recent competitive research grantprograms EPA/ORD has established in collaboration with the NSF.) Problem driven R&D should not beisolated from core research efforts directed at acquiring systematic understanding: a balance between them isrequired. All agencies with significant environmental R&D activities should consider investing in a coreenvironmental R&D program. The NRC committee, which included members from the private sector, noted


20/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 201120/61that while industry and other private sector funding can be obtained for many problem-driven R&D activities,components of a core environmental R&D program are not likely to attract these funds. The core researchfunding will almost certainly have to come from enlightened federal and state R&D managers if we are to gainthe expanded insights, improved tools and long-term data needed to make sound environmental decisions. Theimplementation and sustenance of meaningful core environmental R&D programs will be critical if theenvironmental science and engineering community is to adequately understand and manage current and futureenvironmental problems.

Ozone depletion results in extinction.Greenpeace, non-governmental environmental organization with offices in over 40 countries and with aninternational coordinating body, 1995, Full of Holes: Montreal Protocol and the Continuing Destruction of theOzone Layer,http://archive.greenpeace.org/ozone/holes/holebg.html

When chemists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina first postulated a link between chlorofluorocarbons andozone layer depletion in 1974, the news was greeted with scepticism, but taken seriously nonetheless. The vastmajority of credible scientists have since confirmed this hypothesis.The ozone layer around the Earth shields us all from harmful ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Without the

ozone layer, life on earth would not exist. Exposure to increased levels of ultraviolet radiation can causecataracts, skin cancer, and immune system suppression in humans as well as innumerable effects on other

living systems. This is why Rowland's and Molina's theory was taken so seriously, so quickly - the stakes areliterally the continuation of life on earth.

***Neoliberalism Good


21/61


AT: Poverty

Neoliberalism has internal checks against extreme poverty any alternative system is worseAltman '05(Daniel Altman, assistant professor of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business, TheInternational Herald Tribune, "Neoliberalism? It doesn't exist ;With Interest", 7/16/05, Lexis,http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic//ASpomer)In other words, opponents of free trade under the banner of neoliberalism must be dreaming they've neverseen free trade in real life, and neither has anyone else. What seems to irk campaigners against globalization ora supposed neoliberalism is the idea that rich people are going to get richer at the expense of poor people. Yetthis is not what free markets do. When big companies find cheaper labor or raw materials outside their wealthyhomes, they may make a profit in the short term. But when their competitors a feature of free markets do thesame, then the savings are passed on to consumers as lower prices. And it's not as though the poorer people

who sold that labor and those raw materials did so unwillingly; though the working conditions and bargainingpower of poor people employed by big foreign companies may be subpar, their only alternatives often aresubsistence farming or no work at all. Meanwhile, the restriction of markets is responsible for keeping plenty ofpeople poor, be they fruit farmers in Africa or the long-term unemployed in Western Europe. That is whydemands for access to wealthy countries' export markets have crept their way into the vocabulary of theantipoverty lobbies. Yet strangely, the parties that claim to represent the poor in rich countries tirelessly defend

the cumbersome labor regulations that prevent the young and the marginalized from finding work.

Sustained growth is the only way to combat povertyHertz '02(Noreena Hertz, Professor of Globalisation at Cambridge, The Washington Post, "THE SILENTTAKEOVERGlobal Capitalism andThe Death of Democracy", 7/7/02, Lexis// ASpomer)Hertz's history of the capitalist takeover begins a scant 20 years ago, with the rise of free-marketeers MargaretThatcher and Ronald Reagan. Since then, Hertz argues, laissez-faire economics and its corporate minions havespread everywhere, dispensing misery and hardship. "This global policy shift toward neoliberalism that tookplace during the 1980s and 1990s was supposed. . . to bring a convergence of living standards of richer and

poorer nations," writes Hertz. "This never actually happened." But it is misleading to fault market reforms forfailing to equalize living standards over two decades. Economists such as Harvard University's Lant Pritchetthave shown that income divergence between poor and rich nations is a much older trend; several generationsof high economic growth are needed for even dynamic poor countries to reach the living standards of thedeveloped world. The relevant question, therefore, is how best to produce sustained growth. Here Hertz ishelpful. "Capitalism is clearly the best system for generating wealth," she admits, "and free trade and opencapital markets have brought unprecedented economic growth to most if not all the world." So, oddly, Hertzsupports free trade in theory yet seems to abhor the corporations that engage in trade in practice -- as if the two

were separable.

Neoliberalism solves poverty, patriarchy, and free-tradeChong '05(Terence Chong, Senior Fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Straits Times, "Globalisation hasanother defender, but he's found wanting;Book fails to address adequately role of strong govts. And issues are

broader than just a defence of neoliberalism", 3/11/05, Lexis// ASpomer)But only briefly. President George W. Bush's subsequent war on terrorism and stoic faith-based convictionsreplaced national soul-searching with moral certainty. America must lead the way on different fronts:militarily, economically and politically. Free trade, freedom and democracy became its packaged gifts to the

world. Globalisation was back on the agenda. Martin Wolf's Why Globalisation Works is one in the latest roundof books since 9/11 pushing the free-market agenda. It sits alongside Jagdish Bhagwati's In Defence OfGlobalisation and Tyler Cowen's more culturally oriented Creative Destruction. These books have two things in
http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic//http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/lnacademic//


22/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 201122/61common: They are written by economists and they make no distinction between globalisation andneoliberalism. The arguments in Why Globalisation Works are framed by a point-by-point examination andrefutation of anti-globalisation claims. Mr Wolf's arguments are complex and well-furnished with statistics, buthis thesis is simple: Globalisation is good. It is good because it is about deregulation and liberalisation, which isabout sharing and exchange - both of which offer the best chance of ensuring the welfare of the largest numberof people. The conditions of globalisation, such as improved communications, increased and cheaper travel andtransportation, Mr Wolf argues, have made economic relations much less expensive. Given these opportunities,

it is now, at least in theory, easier than ever to benefit from economic activity elsewhere. It would be plainfoolishness to erect and maintain barriers that prevent one from seizing such opportunities. Mr Wolf offers thereader a historical tour by delving into the last 150 years of the global economy. He underlines the fact thatthere was a major trend towards liberalisation and globalisation - what he defines as the integration ofeconomic activities via markets - at the close of the 19th century. Some may feel shortchanged by the durationof Mr Wolf's tour, with some venturing even further back to the Roman Empire or pointing to world religionsas examples of 'proto-globalisation'. But the heart of the book lies in Part IV, where Mr Wolf focuses onmultinational corporations, or MNCs, in the global economy. He dismisses the argument that MNCs exploitThird World workers through low wages. He asks: If MNCs are so bad, why are there queues to work in theirfactories? MNCs, in fact, offer workers better wages than do local companies. Mr Wolf cites a study of 20,000factories in Indonesia showing that the average wage in MNCs in 1996 was 50 per cent higher than in localcompanies. Another argument often made by globalisation advocates like Mr Wolf is that MNCs offer Third

World women a route to autonomy and dignity from a patriarchal society. He writes that while local traditionspreviously forbade Bangladeshi women from working in factories, the emergence of the clothing industry hasresulted in women making up 95 per cent of its 1.4 million workforce. However, while critics do not take issue

with the increased financial independence that globalisation brings to women, they do point to the socialconsequences such as changing power relations that place stress on the traditional family unit, something Mr

Wolf does not adequately acknowledge. Mr Wolf tackles the critics of free trade with more success. He points toChina and India and their rocketing growth rates as they open up their economies. He then states withempirical accuracy that never before have so large a proportion of the world's population enjoyed such hugeincreases in their standards of living.

Neoliberalism is changing philanthropy can solve povertyBusiness Times '11(Teh Hooi Ling, Senior Correspondent, "Version 2.0: A kinder brand of capitalism;The system on the whole has

worked well, and there're reasons to be hopeful for a better future", The Business Times Singapore, 3/26/11,Lexis// ASpomer)There is no denying that the capitalist system has proven to be the most effective way to lift the masses out ofpoverty. I was at Gokul Indian vegetarian restaurant last Sunday and one of the waiters, a man from China,started chatting with us. He told us how he wanted to see what's outside the Middle Kingdom but had no ideathat he'd been recruited to work for an Indian restaurant in Singapore - especially given his barely existentEnglish. Then he told us about how, in China today, prices for almost anything can vary widely. You can buy

very cheap cigarettes, or very expensive ones. He went on to complain about the corruption in China, and howsome people are getting wildly rich as a result. But then he added: 'But it's okay. On the whole, the governmentis doing a good job and life is getting better for almost everybody.' Yes, capitalism on the whole has worked

well. But as Charlie Munger, vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway and long-time partner of Warren Buffett,puts it: 'It isn't always that bad ideas cause bad outcomes, but good ideas taken to excess.' Many now areconvinced that the Anglo-Saxon style of capitalism belongs to this category. A saner model perhaps is the oneimplemented by the Scandinavian countries - and numerous surveys actually showed, the people are happierfor it. China too is cognisant of the dangers of going down the road of US-style capitalism, and is trying tointroduce policies to steer it down a different path. But there are reasons to be hopeful for a better future. Notall the rich are consumed by accumulating wealth. The likes of Bill Gates and Mr Buffett are trying to round up


23/61

Commons Neg Turner Group 201123/61the world's rich to redistribute their wealth. And that movement seems to be gaining traction. For all we know,this could turned out to be the version 2.0 that capitalism is evolving into.


24/61


AT: Environment

The only pollution any of their cards talk about is space debrisAND,NASA actively and effectively tracking space debris now, they are no threatUPI 11(100 year running publisher and authority on science news)Debris from a dead Soviet-era satellite poses no threat to the International Space Station and the shuttle

Atlantis currently docked with it, NASA says. The Space Surveillance Network operated by the U.S. militaryinformed notified NASA of the orbiting piece of space junk Sunday. NASA began tracking the object's path todetermine how close it might come to the station and the shuttle, SPACE.com reported Monday. "MissionControl has verified that the track of a piece of orbital debris will not be a threat to the International SpaceStation and space shuttle Atlantis," NASA officials in Houston said in a statement. "No adjustments to thedocked spacecraft's orbit will be necessary to avoid the debris."More than 500,000 pieces of space junk,including the chunk of the defunct Soviet Cosmos 375 satellite currently being tracked, are cataloged andmonitored in Earth's orbit, NASA officials said.

Europe is cleaning up space debris in the squo, their methods are efficientMSNBC 11(World authoritative source for news on science and scientific conductions)Human spacefarers and satellites constantly do

compiled commons neg updated

Documents