Nuclear 1NC

Reg Neg CP
Text: The United States federal government should conduct a binding regulatory negotiation over the substance, implementation and enforcement of [ ]. The United States federal government should implement the results of the negotiation. Reg negs are key to expanding nuclear mineral, siting, mining, waste, security IAEA, Uranium production and raw materials for the nuclear fuel cycleSupply and demand, economics, the environment and energy security, Proceeding Series, June 2005,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/77476229/Uranium-Production-Raw-Materials-for-Nuclear-Fuel-CycleSupply-Demand-Economics-Environment-Energy-Security, accessed 9-13-2012. We propose that the indicator mix for any site-level or sector-level CSR reporting process should respect a principle of representative diversity. We use this term in an intuitive way, to mean that no important consideration should be omitted. For example, it is essential to maintain the Representative Diversity of indicators that signal the specificities of individual stakeholder groups and the full spectrum of performance issues. We can also express this as a principle of equitable stakeholder visibility. This is not a purely quantitative equity. As in other forms of industrial bargaining or multi-stakeholder negotiations, compromises can be made if honour is preserved. Just as important as the retention of an individually preferred
indicator, is the visible trace of the deliberation process and of the meaningful participation of the cross-section of stakeholders [4]. CSR reporting is not an end in itself; it

is an input to wider stakeholder dialogue and governance, and it is a reference point for forward planning, investment and other strategic decisions for the plant management, companies and industrial sectors concerned. In project planning contexts, there is generally a need to
identify, appraise and choose amongst the various different options or courses of action that present themselves. The different protagonists concerned will have divergent views about what is their interest, their right or their due; and they may also propose quite different principles for deciding what to do or what should be done. There are various degrees of uncertainty due partly to technological and natural system complexity and partly to social indeterminacies. In this context of complexity, a pragmatic and robust evaluation approach is to frame the problem of social choice as a multi-stakeholder deliberation about the merits and demerits of policy alternatives that present themselves to the society. A

comparison of project or regulatory policy options (e.g., mine site development, or postmine site management regimes, etc.) can be developed in terms of: 1. The exploration of options: Minerals exploitation strategies, site rehabilitation, radioactivewaste policy or other strategic perspectives are explored in terms of a small number of scenarios each of which expresses distinct technological, economic and governance features.2. The diversity of stakeholders: The scenarios of distinct possible futures are to be evaluated explicitly from as many distinct stakeholder perspectives as seem germane to the task.3. Multiple evaluation criteria: The stakeholders will make evaluations of each scenario interms of a range of key performance issues, using a variety of different criteria reflecting the spread of societal concerns. This leads to a three-dimensional Deliberation Matrix (Fig. 1) as an intuitive framework for organising the judgements offered
by each category of stakeholders, for each of a variety of scenarios, across a spectrum of governance or performance issues. The hypothesis is that, as

the multiple perspectives are brought to bear on a common ground (viz., the scenario set) then the tensions, conflicts of interests, uncertainties and dissent (amongst scientists as well as decision makers, administrators and stakeholders from different walks of commercial activity and civil society) can be articulated and explored in a structured way. The participatory evaluation activity proceeds through the step-bystep phase, which can be undertaken on an individual or a collective basis within the group, of the filling out of cells of the Deliberation Matrix.

Individual reflection and/or exchanges of views between protagonists in a deliberation/negotiation process may lead to modifications at any or all or the steps of the choices and judgements.

CP avoids elections reg negs can transform public disdain to active public support Matthew Lindstrom and Martin Nie, Research Consultants, HOW DO YOU COLLECT AND USE
PUBLIC INFORMATION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PLANS AND PROGRAMS?, AZ Department of Transportation, March 1997, http://www.azdot.gov/TPD/ATRC/publications/project_reports/PDF/AZ452.pdf, accessed 9-10-2012. To achieve improved public participation and acceptance of plans and projects an agency must first want to improve public participation. It seems clear -- through the focus groups, telephone interviews, and mail surveys that acceptance of plans and projects is directly related to improved and effective public participation. Citizen support and approval is a common goal sought by agencies, but agencies rarely enjoy these benefits if they continually ignore, silence, or try to placate the public. By building a mutually cooperative relationship with the diverse array of citizens, an agencys plans and programs will be well known and more likely accepted because citizens and groups will have helped design them from the outset. Through an active and diverse communication process with the public, there will be less community polarization, more information and feedback for both the agency and public, and as a result, more policies that are not just passively accepted, but actively supported by the public.

Elections DA
Obama will win and is gaining momentum national polls The Hill 7/12 (2012, Pew poll: Obama widens lead nationally, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballotbox/polls/237617-pew-obama-widens-lead-nationally President Obama has widened his lead to 7 percentage points over Mitt Romney nationally, according to a Pew Research survey released on Thursday. Obama took 50 percent in the poll, compared to Romney, at 43 percent. Obama led by 4 percentage points, 50 to 46, in the same poll from June. Despite recent poor economic news, Romney has been unable to capitalize on the question of who is better equipped to handle jobs and
the economy. The former Massachusetts governor has staked his campaign on arguing that his experience in the private sector makes him better equipped to handle the economy, and has blamed sluggish economic growth on what he says are Obamas failed economic policies. The economy added only 80,000 jobs in June, below the forecasts of most economists, and the unemployment rate remained stuck at 8.2 percent. But according to Pew, Romney is losing ground on these fronts. Obama leads Romney 48 to 42 percent on who would be better for the economy a 14-point swing from June, when Romney led by 8 on that issue. Obama also leads Romney 46 to 42 percent on the question of who will do better in improving the job situation. The only issue where Romney polled better than Obama was on reducing the deficit, where Romney has a sizable lead of 50 to 36 percent.

Romney also suffers from an enthusiasm gap something that plagued him throughout the Republican primaries with only 34 percent of his supporters saying they support him strongly, compared to 64 percent for Obama.

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

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

Obama win reduces the nuclear arsenal revives the economy, bolsters nuclear nonproliferation, solves nuclear terrorism and Iran nuclearization & doesnt hurt deterrence. Korb & Rothman, 2-15 [Lawrence J. Korb: Senior Fellow @ American Progress; senior advisor,
Center for Defense Information, Georgetown University Prof. Alex Rothman: Special Assistant w/ National Security & International Policy team, American Progress. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/02/15/426332/obama-plan-to-reduce-nukes-is-good-forbudget-boosts-moral-authority-on-global-nonproliferation/?mobile=nc] The Obama administration is reportedly considering major reductions in the size the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The administration has reportedly asked the Pentagon to evaluate three options for further cuts: to approximately 1100, 800, or 400 weapons. Any of these scenarios would take the United States well below the ceiling imposed by the New START treaty, which requires the
United States and Russia to reduce their nuclear arsenals to no more than 1,550 deployed weapons. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that the

strategic value of the U.S. nuclear stockpile has declined significantly in the 21st century. Nuclear weapons have been useless in all of the U.S.s recent military campaigns Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. And they offer no protection against terrorist groups and subnational actors, two of the most significant threats
facing the United States today. In fact, the Pentagons own strategic thinkers have noted that the strategic landscape has changed and that the U.S.s Cold War-sized arsenal may exceed the countrys current needs. The

Defense Departments strategic guidance document, released in early January, states that it is possible that our deterrence goals can be achieved with a smaller nuclear force, which would reduce the number of nuclear weapons in our inventory as well as their role in U.S. national security strategy. Moreover, according to strategists at the Air War College and the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, the U.S. could draw down its arsenal to 311 survivable reliable weapons and still maintain a credible deterrent. For two reasons, President Obama is wise to reevaluate the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. First, our massive nuclear arsenal is tremendously expensive and diverts funds away from programs designed to bolster the U.S.s long-term health of the U.S. economy and military. The budget for nuclear weapons activities is projected to grow by 6 percent to $18 billion next year in FY 2013. It will be 20 percent higher in real terms than President Reagans largest nuclear weapons budget. Further, unless the Pentagon reduces the number of deployed nuclear weapons significantly, it will have to modernize all three legs of the triad at a cost of over $100 billion. Protecting and modernizing our exponentially larger nuclear stockpile adds to the national debt and sucks up taxpayer dollars that could be used to bolster our
economy, put people back to work, or invest in technologies that support our men and women serving around the globe. Adopting the Air War College recommendation would save the Pentagon at least $11 billion per year. Second, significant reductions

in the U.S. nuclear arsenal would give the Obama administration the moral authority to push for stronger international commitments control the spread weapons-usable nuclear technology and material.
President Obama has called nuclear terrorism the single biggest threat to U.S. security, both short-term, medium-term and long-term.

Demonstrating that the United States is serious about controlling the size of its own nuclear stockpile would breathe life into the global nonproliferation regime, thereby decrease the chances of a terrorist group acquiring a nuclear warhead without undermining U.S. security. Given the fiscal problems facing our nation
and historic highs in defense spending, the Obama administration has been right to downsize or eliminate out-dated weapons systems that do little to further American security, like the F-22 and EFV. Surplus nuclear weapons, which are expensive to maintain and protect, should be no exception. Last week, State department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland criticized the Iranian government, stating it would rather spend money on a nuclear weapons program than on the welfare of its people. Reducing strategically reasonable levels

the size of the U.S. nuclear arsenal to more will allow the Obama administration to practice what it preaches.

Nuclear terror causes extinction. Sid-Ahmed 4 [Mohammed, Political analyst for Al-Ahram Newspaper for more than 20 years and
author of several books on Middle East issues, 8/1, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm] A nuclear attack by terrorists will be much more critical than Hiroshima and Nagazaki , even if -- and this is far
from certain -- the weapons used are less harmful than those used then, Japan, at the time, with no knowledge of nuclear technology, had no choice but to capitulate. Today,

the technology is a secret for nobody. So far, except for the two bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear weapons have been used only to threaten. Now we are at a stage where they can be detonated. This completely

changes the rules of the game. We have

reached a point where anticipatory measures can determine the course of events. Allegations of a terrorist connection can be used to justify anticipatory measures, including the invasion of a sovereign state like Iraq. As it turned out, these allegations, as well as the allegation that Saddam was harbouring WMD, proved to be unfounded. What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would further exacerbate the negative
features of the new and frightening world in which we are now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the expense of human rights, tensions

between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.

Uranium DA
Uranium supply crunch coming in 2013 nuclear expansion exacerbates shortage and leads to uranium mining Keith Johnson, Peak Uranium: More Reasons to Worry About Powering the Nuclear Revival, WSJ, December 10, 2009,
http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/2009/12/10/peak-uranium-more-reasons-to-worry-about-powering-the-nuclear-revival/, accessed 8-15-2012. A few news items this week fuel those concerns. Chinese

officials acknowledge that their planned nuclear push could strain uranium supplies in the futureespecially since Chinese uranium production seems well below domestic needs already. And Indias existing nuclear fleet is running well below capacity because of shortages of domestic uranium. India has also planned a massive nuclear-energy expansion. All that has Russia eager, as always, to step into the breach with offers to supply uranium to potential new customers. The fears over peak uranium boil down to simple math: The world presently consumes a lot more uranium than it produces. The latest numbers from the International Atomic Energy Agency say global annual consumption is 69,100 tons; global production from mining is around 43,000 tons. The differencefor nowis basically made up from
nuclear-weapons stockpiles, which obviously arent an infinite resource. Thats the arithmetic that has renewed peak uranium chatte r in recent weeks. Swiss

scientist Michael Dittmar talks of a supply crunch as soon as 2013. And all those worries are based on the size of the worlds current nuclear power fleet. The thing is, China, India, the Middle
East, and the U.K. are already ramping up their own nuclear renaissance. The U.S.the worlds biggest user of nuclear energyhas plans for more, though perhaps not as much as Republicans would like. Either

way, nuclear expansion on the drawing board seems likely to increase the worlds appetite for uranium. So is there cause for concern? MIT, in its benchmark
evaluation of the outlook for the nuclear industry, brushes off concerns about uranium supplies. The IAEA figures the world has 5.5 million tons of uranium already identifiedwhich would be about 80 years of supplies at todays current pace. (Though the official estimates of supplies have their own share of critics.) And Harvards Belfer Center just summarized all the myriad challenges facing the nuclear revivalfuel supplies per se arent one of them. In

the end, demand might just create its own supply. Just the talk of the nuclear renaissance has jazzed up uranium-mining companies and countries which spent a couple of decades treading water. And, as has been historically true with oil and is probably true with future supplies of lithium for electric-car batteries, theres nothing like a supply crunch and rising commodity prices to spur new exploration and production.

Uranium mining perpetuates radioactive colonialism. Danielle Endres, November 2009, research and teaching interests lie in argumentation, rhetorical
criticism, environmental communication, social movements, and Native American cultures, directing an oral history project: Nuclear Technology in the American West that is collecting and archiving the stories of people involved in nuclear issues, particularly nuclear waste, in the American West. Third, Danielle is a co-director of a national research project on climate change activism, From wasteland to waste site: the role of discourse in nuclear powers environmental injustices, Local Environment, Ebsco Host The focus of this essay will be on nuclear power. Although it is billed as a clean form of power because it emits fewer greenhouse gasses than fossil fuel power plants, nuclear power is not immune from perpetuating environmental injustices. Empirical research in environmental justice has shown that marginalised communities are more likely to host polluting and toxic industries, including power plants, than non-marginalised communities (e.g.
Commission for Racial Justice 1987, Mohai and Bryant 1992, Bullard 1994, Bullard and Johnson 2000). For instance, the Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant (Xcel Energy) is adjacent to the Prairie Island Indian Community Reservation. Beyond the locations of nuclear power plants, the front and back ends of nuclear power production Uranium

mining and storage of high-level nuclear waste (HLW) disproportionately harm marginalised peoples (Grinde and Johansen 1995, Yih et al. 1995, Kuletz 1998, Banjeree 2000,

Hoffman 2001, Hecht 2003, Hooks and Smith 2004, Bullard 2005b, Sze 2005, Fan 2006a, 2006b). Uranium

mining and HLW storage in the USA are particularly associated with Native American peoples and lands (Grinde and Johansen
1995, Yih et al. 1995, Thorpe 1996, Kuletz 1998, LaDuke 1999, Bullard and Johnson 2000, Hoffman 2001, Hooks and Smith 2004). Indeed, Native American activists use the terms radioactive colonisation

or nuclear colonialism1 to describe the phenomenon in which indigenous peoples are disproportionately targeted and harmed by the effects of nuclear technologies (e.g. Thorpe 1996, LaDuke 1999).

The impact is unending violence and war. Pinar Batur, 2007, Ph.D. at UT-Austin Prof. of Scociology at Vassar, The Heart of Violence: Global
Racism, War, and Genocide, Handbook of the Sociology of Racial and Ethnic Relations, eds. Vera and Feagin, p. 441-443
Under colonialism, colonizing and colonized societies were antagonistic opposites. Since colonizing society portrayed the co lonized other, as the adversary and challenger of the the ideal self, not only identification but also segregation and containment were essential to racist policies. The terms of exclusion were set by the institutions that fostered and maintained segregation, but the intensity of exclusion, and redundancy, became more apparent in the age of advanced capitalism, as an extension of post-colonial discipline. The exclusionary measures when tested led to war, and genocide. Although, more often than not, genocide was perpetuated and fostered by

the colonial identification of the inferior other led to segregation, then exclusion, then war and genocide. Violence glued them together into seamless continuity. Violence is integral to understanding global racism. Fanon (1963), in exploring colonial oppression, discusses how divisions created or reinforced by colonialism guarantee the perpetuation, and escalation, of violence for both the colonizer and colonized.
the post-colonial institutions, rather than colonizing forces,

Solvency
Global nuclear power is dead Independent Australian 11quoting Dr. Helen Caldicott, MD and anti-nuclear activist (15 March 2011,
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/international/caldicott-japan-may-spell-end-of-nuclear-industry-worldwide/

Dr Caldicott said that despite the best efforts of nuclear energy campaigners, the Japanese disaster is likely to spell the end of the industry not just in Australia but worldwide. Weve had earthquakes in Australia beforeno-one will want to risk this happening in this country. But I think the nuclear industry is finished worldwide. I have said before, unfortunately, the only thing that is capable of stopping this wicked industry is a major catastrophe, and it now looks like this may be it.

Nuclear power fails Ferguson & Squassoni 7 [Charles Ferguson--- BA in mathematics from the University of California, Berkeley, and a Ph.D. in
political science from M.I.T. in 1989, Ferguson conducted postdoctoral research at MIT while also consulting to the White House, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the Department of Defense, and several U.S. and European high technology firms, Sharon Squassoni is a senior fellow and director of the Proliferation Prevention Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 6/25, Why Nuclear Energy Isn't the Great Green Hope, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2007/06/24/why_nuclear_energy_isnt_the_great_green_hope When U.S. President George W. Bush speaks of using technology to fix climate problems, he often focuses on nuclear energy. Last month he said that if were truly interested in cleaning up the environment, or interested in renewable sources of energy, the best way to do so is through safe nuclear power. While Bush is talking up nuclear energy, China and India are racing ahead to build dozens of new plants. Even many environmentalists, concerned about emissions from coal-fired power plants, have begun holding their noses and are coming out in reluctant support of a technology they once reviled. But their original instincts were right: Nuclear

energy is not the silver-bullet solution to save us or the environment. Today, nuclear energy produces 16 percent of the worlds electricity, compared with coal, which produces 39 percent and hydropower, which produces 19 percent. In the United States, the good news is that the nuclear industry has maintained its 20 percent share of the electricity market by
increasing the power rating of many of its 104 nuclear power reactors while decreasing the time required for shutdown for refueling and maintenance. But during

the past 30 years, reactor construction stagnated in the United States because of large uncertainties in capital costs as well as red tape and legal challenges in obtaining a license to operate a reactor. Although legislative changes in 1992 and more recently in 2005 have tried to streamline the licensing process and create incentives to entice investors, the industry has not had an order for a new nuclear power plant since 1978, and that order was subsequently canceled. The last completed U.S. reactor was Watts Bar 1, which was ordered in 1970 and began operations in 1996. Although many U.S. reactors have received operating-license renewals for an additional 20 years of life, by 2030 the reactor fleet will be in serious disrepair if no further reactors are built. The United States hopes to build upward of 30 reactors in the next couple of decades. However, because the incentives in the 2005 legislation are limited, only a handful of new reactors will probably be built, but not many more than that. China and India produce an even more modest share of their electricity from nuclear energy, only about 2 and 3 percent, respectively. Though they can realistically aim to boost this share up to 4 to 5 percent by 2030, both countries will continue to rely primarily on fossil fuels for electricity generation. The truth is, its doubtful that nuclear energy, which produces its own unpleasant waste, can really be a major solution to climate changeor even the coming energy crunch, for that matter. Because worldwide electricity demand is predicted to grow by 85 percent by 2030, nuclear power would have to almost double its capacity just to maintain its current share of the energy mix. Even the most optimistic projections of nuclear power expansion do not foresee a much larger share for nuclear energy globally. Nor will nuclear energy be a quick fix. If, as the scientists tell us, the deadline for turning around the level of greenhouse gases is truly a decade from now, then a nuclear renaissance will take too long to have a significant effect. Typically, U.S. nuclear plants have required around 10 to 12 years from start to finish. The industry predicts that future plants can be built in as little as four years, but

the proof is in the actual construction. Assuming the best estimates, a quick ramp-up of nuclear capacity will run into industrial bottlenecks; only a few companies in the world can now make reactor-quality steel, concrete, and other vital components. A rush to build could also create shortages in the skilled workers and qualified engineers needed to run plants safely. Not to mention that building nuclear plants at the rapid pace required would likely drive up capital costs, which are already higher than other electricity options, even given significant government subsidies.

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

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

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

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

race and militarisation have not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

is the second American Revolution.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dedev
Growth is unsustainable because of physics, tech doesnt solve and collapse is the only way to solve Gilding 12 (Paul, international thought leader and advocate for sustainability, served as head of Greenpeace International, and is
currently a faculty member for Cambridge University's Programme for Sustainability Leadership, February 2012 TED Talks,The Earth is full http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full.html Let me begin with four words that will provide the context for this week, four words that will come to define this century. Here they are: The

Earth is full. It's full of us, it's full of our stuff, full of our waste, full of our demands. Yes, we are a brilliant and creative species, but we've created a little too much stuff -- so much that our economy is now bigger than its host, our planet. This is not a philosophical statement, this is just science based in physics, chemistry and biology. There are many science-based analyses of this, but they all draw the same conclusion -- that we're living beyond our means. The eminent scientists of the Global Footprint Network, for example, calculate that we need about 1.5 Earths to sustain this economy. In other words, to keep operating at our current level, we need 50 percent more Earth than we've got. In financial terms, this would be like always spending 50 percent more than you earn, going further into debt every year. But of course, you can't borrow natural resources, so we're burning through our capital, or stealing from the future. So when I say full, I mean really full -- well past any margin for error, well past any dispute about methodology. What this means is our economy is unsustainable. I'm not saying it's not nice or
pleasant or that it's bad for polar bears or forests, though it certainly is. What I'm saying is our approach is simply unsustainable. In other words, thanks to those pesky laws of physics, when things aren't sustainable, they stop. But that's not possible, you might think. We can't stop economic growth. Because that's what will stop: economic growth. It

will stop because of the end of trade resources. It will stop because of the growing demand of us on all the resources, all the capacity, all the systems of the Earth, which is now having economic damage. When we think about economic growth stopping, we go, "That's not possible," because economic growth is so essential to our society that is is rarely questioned. Although growth has certainly delivered many benefits, it is an idea so essential that we tend not to understand the possibility of it not being around. Even though it has delivered many benefits, it is based on a crazy idea -- the crazy idea being that we can have infinite growth on a finite planet. And I'm here to
tell you the emperor has no clothes. That the crazy idea is just that, it is crazy, and with the Earth full, it's game over. Come on, you're thinking. That's not possible. Technology is amazing. People are innovative. There are so many ways we can improve the way we do things. We can surely sort this out. That's all true. Well, it's mostly true. We are certainly amazing, and we regularly solve complex problems with amazing creativity. So if our problem was to get the human economy down from 150 percent to 100 percent of the Earth's capacity, we could do that.

The problem is we're just warming up this growth engine. We plan to take this highly-stressed economy and make it
twice as big and then make it four times as big -- not in some distant future, but in less than 40 years, in the life time of most of you. China plans to be there in just 20 years. The only problem with this plan is that it's not possible. In response, some

people argue, but we need growth, we need it to solve poverty. We need it to develop technology. We need it to keep social stability. I find this
argument fascinating, as though we can kind of bend the rules of physics to suit our needs. It's like the Earth doesn't care what we need.

Mother nature doesn't negotiate; she just sets rules and describes consequences. And these are not esoteric limits. This is about food and water, soil and climate, the basic practical and economic foundations of our lives. So the idea that we can smoothly transition to a highly-efficient, solar-powered, knowledge-based economy transformed by science and technology so that nine billion people can live in 2050 a life of abundance and digital downloads is a delusion. It's not that it's not possible to feed, clothe and house us all and have us live decent lives. It certainly is. But the idea that we can
gently grow there with a few minor hiccups is just wrong, and it's dangerously wrong, because it means we're not getting ready for what's really going to happen. See what happens when you operate a system past its limits and then keep on going at an ever-accelerating rate is that the system stops working and breaks down. And that's what will happen to us. Many of you will be thinking, but surely we can still stop this. If it's that bad, we'll react. Let's just think through that idea. Now we've had 50 years of warnings. We've had science proving the urgency of change.

We've had economic analysis pointing out that, not only can we afford it, it's cheaper to act early . And yet, the reality is we've done pretty much nothing to change course. We're not even slowing down. Last year on climate, for example, we had the highest global emissions ever. The story on food, on water, on soil, on climate is all
much the same. I actually don't say this in despair. I've done my grieving about the loss. I accept where we are. It is sad, but it is what it is. But

it is also time that we ended our denial and recognized that we're not acting, we're not close to acting and we're

not going to act until this crisis hits the economy. And that's

why the end of growth is the central issue and the event

that we need to get ready for.

Collapse is good Prevents extinction from environmental destruction Speth 8 (James Gustave, Served as President Jimmy Carters White House environmental adviser and as head of the United Nations
largest agency for international development Prof at Vermont law school. Former dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University . Former Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching environmental and constitutional law. .Former Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality in the Executive Office of the President. Co-founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council. Was law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. Black JD, Yale. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, Gigapedia, 6-9) But the much larger and more threatening impacts stem from the economic activity of those of us participating in the modern, increasingly, prosperous world economy. This

activity is consuming vast quantities of resources from the environment and returning to the environment vast quantities of waste products. The damages are already huge and are on a path to become
ruinous in the future. So, a fundamental question facing societies today-perhaps the fundamental question-is how can the operating environmental instructions for the modern world economy be changed so that economic activity both protects and restores the natural world? With increasingly few exceptions, modern

capitalism is the operating system of the world economy. I use modern capitalism here in a broad sense as an actual, existing system of political economy, not as an idealized model. Capitalism as we know it
today encompasses the core concept of private employers hiring workers to produce products and services that employers own and then sell with the intention of making a profit. But it also includes

competitive markets, the price mechanism, the modern corporation as a political institution, the consumer society and the materialistic values that sustain it, and the administrative state actively promoting economic strength and growth for a variety of reasons. Inherent in the dynamics of capitalism is a powerful drive to earn profits, invest them, innovate, and thus grow the economy, typically at exponential rates, with the result that the capitalist era in fact has been characterized by a remarkable exponential expansion of the world economy. The capitalist operating system, whatever its shortcomings, is very good at generating growth. These features of capitalism, as they are constituted today, work together to produce an economic and political reality that is highly destructive of the environment. An unquestioning society-wide commitment to economic growth at any cost; enormous investment in technologies designed with little regard for the environment; powerful corporate interests whose overriding objective is to grow by generating profit; including profit from avoiding environmental costs they create; markets that systemically fail to recognize environmental costs unless corrected by government; government that is subservient to corporate interests and the growth imperative; rampant consumerism spurred by a worshipping of novelty and by sophisticated advertising; economic activity so large in scale that its impacts alter the fundamental biophysical operations of the planet-all combine to deliver an ever-growing world economy that is undermining the planets ability to sustain life. The fundamental
question thus becomes one of transforming capitalism as we know it: Can it be done? If so, how? And if not, what then? It is to these questions that this book is addressed. The larger part of the book proposes a variety of prescriptions to take economy and environment off collision course. Many of these prescriptions range beyond the traditional environmental agenda. In part 1 of the book, Chapters 1-3, I lay the foundation by elaborating the fundamental challenge just described. Among the key conclusions, summarized here with some oversimplification, are: The

vast expansion of economic activity that occurred in the twentieth century and continues today is the predominant (but not sole) cause of the environmental decline that has occurred to date. Yet the world economy,
now increasingly integrated and globalized, is poised for unprecedented economic growth. The engine of growth is modern capitalism or, better, a variety of capitalisms. A mutually reinforcing set of forces associated with todays capitalism combines to yield e conomic activity inimical to environmental sustainability. This result is particularly the result of an ongoing political default- a failed politics-that not only perpetrates wide spread market failure-all the nonmarket environmental costs that no one is paying-but exacerbates this market failure with deep and environmentally perverse subsidies. The result is that our market economy is operating on wildly wrong market signals, lacks other correcting mechanisms, and is thus out of control environmentally. The upshot is that societies now

face environmental threats of unprecedented scope and severity, with the possibility of various catastrophes, breakdowns, and collapses looming as distinct possibilities, especially as environmental issues link with social inequalities and tensions, resource scarcity, and other issues. Todays mainstream environmentalism-aptly characterized as
incremental and pragmatic problem solving-has proven insufficient to deal with current challenges and is not up to coping with the larger challenges ahead. Yet the approaches of modern day environmentalism, despite their limitations, remain essential: right now, they are the tools at hand with which to address many very pressing problems.

The momentum of the current system-50 trillion dollars in output in

2004, growing fast, and headed towards environmental disaster-is

so great that only powerful forces will alter the trajectory. Potent measures are needed that address the root cause of todays destructive growth and transform economic activity into
something environmentally benign and restorative. In short, my conclusion, after much searching and considerable reluctance, is that most

environmental deterioration is a result of systemic failures of capitalism that we have today and long term solutions must seek transformative change in the key features of this contemporary capitalism. In Part 2, I address these basic
features of modern capitalism, in each case seeking to identify the transformative changes needed.

Growth is unsustainable and will cause agricultural collapse, nuclear war and environmental destruction culminating in extinctiononly economic collapse causes cultural shift that solves. Djordjevic 98 (Johnny, BA Global Economics, Paper in Global Sustainability at UC, Irvine. Sustainability, Senior Seminar for
Instructor: Peter A. Bowler, http://www.dbc.uci.edu/~sustain/global/sensem/djordj98.html Max Weber believed in the power of an idea. This political theorist discussed how Calvinism was one idea that perpetuated the rise of capitalism. Few people ever examine the power of an idea, but if one examines and contemplates this theory, a realization comes across: that

ideas drive society. The key premise is that some values of our society must be altered in order to avert catastrophic consequences. The way of life in developed countries is "the origin of many of our most serious problems"(Trainer, 1985). Because developed countries have high material living standards and consume massive quantities of all resources, "hundreds of millions of people in desperate need must go without the materials and energy that could improve their conditions while these resources flow into developed countries, often to produce frivolous luxuries"(Trainer, 1985). People's way of life seems to be a glaring example of values
leading to high rates of personal consumption of resources and the waste of these same materials. In addition to overconsumption, the

services used to supply our society with goods, (examples of these goods would be food, water, energy, and sewage services.) tends to be wasteful and expensive. Production is organized in such a way, (usually highly centralized) that travel becomes an enormous burden. Another consideration is that our population is expected to increase to rise to eleven billion within the next half century. Considering the mineral and energy resources needed in the future, these estimates must also include the consumption of a population almost doubled from its current status and these same figures must include an expected increase in the affluence of developed countries. "If we are willing to endorse an
already affluent society in which there is continued growth on this scale,(american resource use increasing 2% each year), then we are assuming that after 2050 something like 40 times as many resources can be provided each year as were provided in the 1970's, and that it is in order for people in a few rich countries to live in this superaffluent way while the other 9.5 billion in the world do not"(Trainer, 1985). The

environment is in danger from our pursuit of affluence. Serious worries come from predictions about the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels will raise temperatures and result in climatic effects. Rising temperatures could have horrific effects. First of all, food production could seriously be imperiled even by increases of only one degree
celcius. If the temperature should increase by five degrees scientists predict the coastal island nations would be submerged and possibly trigger the next ice age. Another

environmental concern deals with the soil. Our agricultural practices disregard the value of recycling food waste. Also, the use of pesticides and chemicals in agriculture lead to the poisoning of the soil and topsoil loss through erosion. Yields per acre for grain are falling and "we do not produce food in ways that can be continued for centuries"(Trainer, 1985). Even more disturbing is the deforestation of rainforests. This results in the extinction of many species, concentration of carbon dioxide, the loss of many potential medical breakthroughs, and possibly the disruption of rainfall. Opponents of the deforestation fail to realize that our expensive way of life and greedy economic system are the driving forces. "Nothing can be achieved by fighting to save this
forest or that species if in the long term we do not change the economic system which demands ever-increasing production and consumption of non-necessities"(Trainer, 1985). There also lies a problem in the Third World. Developed

countries high living standards and quest for an ever-increasing quality of life lead to Third World poverty and the deprivation of the Third World's access to its own resources. As Third World countries get deprived of materials, the developed world consumes and imports over half of their resources. A few developed countries seem to be consuming the globe's resources and this consumption rate is always increasing. "The rich must live more simply that the poor may simply live"(Trainer, 1985). The Third World is exploited in many ways. One way is that the best land in a developing country is used for crops exported to developed countries, while citizens of the Third World starve and suffer. Another way is the poor working conditions of the Third World. A third exploitation can be overlooked but no less disgusting; "The world's greatest health problem could be simply by

providing water for the perhaps 2.000 million people who now have to drink form rivers and wells contained by human and
animal wastes. Technically it is a simple matter to set up plants for producing iron and plastic pipes. But most of the world's iron and plastic goes into the production of luxurious cars, soft-drink containers, office blocks and similar things in rich countries"(Trainer, 1985). The threat of

nuclear war and international conflict rises with countries of all kinds entranced with the logic and idea of materialism. Perhaps the most dangerous and likely chances for a nuclear conflict arise from the competition for dwindling resources by developed countries. Similar events can be seen all across the globe. Major superpowers get themselves involved in domestic matters not concerning them, providing arms and advice to try and obtain the inside track on possible resources. International tension will rise in the competition for resources and so will the "ever-increasing probability of nuclear war"(Trainer, 1985). As
developed countries pursue affluence they fail to see the inherent contradiction in this idea; as growth is the quest, the quality of life will decrease. For a healthy community, there exists a list of non-material conditions which must be present, "a sense of purpose, fulfilling work and leisure, supportive social relations, peace of mind, security from theft and violence, and caring and co-operative neighborhoods"(Trainer, 1985). And as developed countries think their citizens are the happiest in the world, "In most affluent societies rates of divorce, drug-taking, crime, mental breakdown, child abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, suicide, stress, depression, and anxiety are increasing"(Trainer, 1985). Despite all the gloomy facts and sad stories, there only thinking about the self, each

is a solution, to create a sustainable society. Rather than being greedy and individual must realize the impacts of his/her selfish tendencies, and disregard their former view of the world. One must come into harmony with what is really needed to survive, and drawn a strict distinction between what is necessity and what is luxury. Not every family needs three cars, or five meals a day or four telephones and two refrigerators. Countries do not need to strive for increasing growth, less materials could be imported/exported and international tension could be greatly reduced. The major problems seem not to step from the determination of what a sustainable society is, but on how to get people to change their values. This task is not an easy one. People must be forced to realize the harmful and catastrophic consequences lie in their meaningless wants and greed. The problem of cognitive dissonance is hard to overcome, but it is not impossible. The solution to this dilemma lies in castastrophe. The only event that changes people's minds is
social trauma or harm. The analogy is that a person who refuses to wear a seat belt and one day gets thrown through his/her windshield will remember to wear the seat belt after the accident. The logic behind this argument is both simple and feasible. So the question of dissonance is answered in part, but to

change a whole society obviously takes a bigger and more traumatic event to occur. An economic collapse or ice age would trigger a new consciousness leading to a sustainable society.

No risk of offensedecline prevents war Deudney 91 (Daniel, Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society at the Center for Energy and Environmental Studies at
Princeton. Environment and Security: Muddled Thinking, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 47.3 Poverty Wars. In a second scenario, declining living standards first cause internal turmoil. then war. If groups at all levels of affluence protect their standard of living by pushing deprivation on other groups class war and revolutionary upheavals could result. Faced with these pressures, liberal democracy and free market systems could increasingly be replaced by authoritarian systems capable of maintaining minimum order.9 If authoritarian regimes are more war-prone because they lack democratic control, and if revolutionary regimes are warprone because of their ideological fervor and isolation, then the world is likely to become more violent. The

record of previous depressions supports the proposition that widespread economic stagnation and unmet economic expectations contribute to international conflict. Although initially compelling, this scenario has major flaws. One is that it is arguably based on unsound economic theory. Wealth is formed not so much by the availability of cheap natural resources as by capital formation through savings and more efficient production. Many resource-poor countries, like Japan, are very wealthy, while many countries with more extensive resources are poor. Environmental constraints
require an end to economic growth based on growing use of raw materials, but not necessarily an end to growth in the production of goods

In addition, economic decline does not necessarily produce conflict.How societies respond to economic decline may largely depend upon the rate at which such declines occur. And as people get poorer, they may become less willing to spend scarce resources for military forces. As Bernard Brodie observed about the modein era, The predisposing factors to military aggression are full bellies, not empty ones. The experience of economic depressions over the last two centuries may be irrelevant, because such depressions were characterized by under-utilized production capacity and falling resource prices. In the 1930 increased military spending stimulated economies, but if economic growth is retarded by environmental constraints, military spending will exacerbate the problem. Power Wars. A third
and services. scenario is that environmental degradation might cause war by altering the relative power of states; that is, newly stronger states may be

tempted to prey upon the newly weaker ones, or weakened states may attack and lock in their positions before their power ebbs firther. But such alterations might not lead to war as readily as the lessons of history suggest, because

economic power and military

power are not as tightly coupled as in the past. The economic

power positions of Germany and Japan have changed greatly

since World War 11, but these changes have not been accompanied by war or threat of war. In

the contemporary world, whole industries rise, fall, and relocate, causing substantialfluctuations in the economic well-being of regions and peoples without producing wars.There is no reason to believe that changes in relative wealth and power caused by the uneven impact of environmental degradation would inevitably lead to war. Even if environmental degradation were to destroy the basic social and economic fabric of a country or region, the impact on international order may not be very great. Among the first casualties in such country would be the capacity to wage war.The poor and wretched of the earth may be able to deny an outside aggressor an easy conquest, but they are themselves a minimal threat to other states.Contemporary offensive military operations require complex organizational skills, specialized industrial products and surplus wealth.

Heg Bad
Multipolarity is here the rise of the rest has reshaped the global economy and every international institution. The US is accommodating this in order to maintain influence Berliner 10 (Jake, Deputy Policy Director of NDNs Globalization Initiative, BA, Political Science from
Tufts University, Apr 23, [ndn.org/essay/2010/04/rise-rest-how-new-economic-powers-are-reshapingglobe] AD: 9-24-11 The structure of the global economy has changed dramatically over the past two decades. Since the end of the Cold War, global commerce has connected the farthest reaches of the globe, resulting in a world economy marked by the ascendance of people and nations outside of the advanced industrialized world, a phenomenon Fareed Zakaria has termed The Rise of the Rest. This rise means that American people and businesses are competing with not just more, but more capable, connected, and innovative people and businesses than ever before. There can be no
doubt that this heightened competition, fueled by the inextricable march of globalization, will shape the early part of the 21st century and help define the changing world. New People Join the Global Economy Two decades of globalization, facilitated by economic liberalization, have resulted in the rise not only of nations but of people. Global poverty levels have dropped and living standards have increased dramatically.

China alone has pulled hundreds of millions out of poverty in 1990, roughly 60 percent of Chinese lived on under
$1.25 per day; by 2005 that number had fallen to 16 percent. Between 1990 and 2008, Gross National Income (GNI) per capita, adjusted for Purchasing Power Parity, increased more than seven-fold in China. Other emerging nations have seen impressive increases GNI

per capita approximately doubled in South Africa, Brazil, and Mexico, and more than tripled in India. New Economies Compete Globally Businesses in emerging economies also now play a much larger role in the global economy. Developing and emerging economies exported 42 percent of global merchandise in 2007, compared to just 28 percent in 1990.
These same economies also compete with developed nations for global capital, nearly doubling their inward flow of global Foreign Direct Investment from 18 percent in 1990 to 33 percent in 2006. The

rise of new economic players has resulted in an intensely more competitive global economy, a hallmark of which has been the emergence of multinational corporations
based not just in the United States and other advanced industrialized nations, but emerging markets as well. Thirty-seven of the Fortune Global 500 are Chinese, compared with just eight in 2000. The worlds three largest banks (by market capitalization) the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank, and HSBC are headquartered in China. (HSBC is British, but moved its headquarters to Hong Kong in 2009.) Most stunningly, according to The New York Times, 2009 admittedly an unusual year saw $34.8 billion in initial public offerings in China compared to $13.7 billion in the United States (as of November 13, 2009). Other regions and nations have seen similar developments state owned oil and gas companies in Brazil, Russia, India, and China (the so-called BRICs) are major and in some cases dominant players in the global energy scene. The Asian Tigers Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong have rapidly become major global players in the technology and financial sectors, providing competition to Japan and serving as role models for other emerging regions. South Koreas export growth over the past decade has been especially impressive; its 9.7% export growth over that period trails only China (at 20%) in growth for the worlds top ten exporters. Additionally, trends such as the emergence of Mobile Banking and Islamic Finance have the potential to extend powerful economic tools to areas of the globe that have yet to begin their rise. Rising Powers Emerge While notable for its changing economic relationships, the

Rise of the Rest has resulted in a fundamentally new global structure that includes new power dynamics. Europe, which in the post war era had been able to rely on economic heft to ensure diplomatic sway, has seen a relative decline as economic might has shifted away, in large part to Asia. Outside of Asia,
new regional powers have emerged as well, with Brazil, South Africa, and Mexico, among others, playing significant regional roles. These new power relationships are evident in formal organizations of global governance. The

G-20 has replaced the G-8 as the primary global economic leadership body, and similar organizational changes have occurred at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). New security arrangements are likely not far behind. NATOs membership has already been broadened to include emerging countries formerly anathema to NATOs original mission, and rumblings persist about reform of the United Nations Security Council. In the most striking example of the weight of new powers in the diplomatic sphere, the pivotal negotiations during the recent Copenhagen climate conference involved only Brazil, South Africa, India, China (the so-called BASIC countries), and the United States, casting aside European nations, many of whom are the worlds leading champions for climate accords. The rise of new powers, particularly China, will not come without economic and political challenges on the international stage. China has created a number of questions about the

ability of foreign multinational corporations to function in China following its recent breach of Googles corporate networks. Additionally, Chinas ongoing inability to fully satisfy its obligations to the rules-based global trading system has earned it the ire of both industrialized and developing countries, as its currency policies could quite literally beggar its developing neighbors. While Chinas growth into a major player in the global
economy is clearly a central development of the 21st century, the sustainability of its mercantilist orientation is open to question. Its dominance is also far from assured, and doomsday

scenarios of a Chinese Century seem unrealistic, as China still lags Obama administrations recent diplomatic approach to Chinese currency practices is a prime example of leadership in the age of the Rise of the Rest. Instead of releasing a Treasury Department report labeling China a currency manipulator, the Obama administration used nuance and multilateral diplomacy to thaw the previously icy Sino-American relationship. By publicly declaring its intention to engage through the G-20, a body whose membership includes
far behind both the United States and Europe in military, economic, technological, and diplomatic clout. The countries more affected by Chinas currency practices than the United States, the Obama administration demonstrated an effective use of modern international institutions representative of the new global economy.

Post-unipolarity is coming now but the affs widening of the power gap st alls that and causes blowback destroying US influence and legitimacy Maher 11 (Richard, Max Weber postdoctoral fellow at the European University Institute, Ph.D in
Political Science from Brown University, Orbis, 55(1), Winter And yet, despite this material preeminence, the United States sees its political and strategic influence diminishing around the world. It is involved in two costly and destructive wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, where success has been elusive and the end remains out of sight. China has adopted a new assertiveness recently, on everything from U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, currency convertibility, and America's growing debt (which China largely finances). Pakistan, one of America's closest strategic allies, is facing the threat of social and political collapse. Russia is using its vast energy resources to reassert its dominance in what it views as its historical sphere of influence. Negotiations with North Korea and Iran have gone nowhere in dismantling their nuclear programs. Brazil's growing economic and political influence offer another option for partnership and investment for countries in the Western Hemisphere. And relations with Japan, following the election that brought the opposition Democratic Party into power, are at their frostiest in decades. To many observers, it seems that America's vast power is not translating into America's preferred outcomes. As the United States has come to learn, raw power does not automatically translate into the realization of one's preferences, nor is it necessarily easy to maintain one's predominant position in world politics. There are many costs that come with predominance material, political, and reputational. Vast imbalances of power create apprehension and anxiety in others, in one's friends just as much as in one's rivals. In this view, it is not necessarily American predominance that produces unease but rather American predominance. Predominance also makes one a tempting target, and a scapegoat for other countries own problems and unrealized ambitions. Many a
Third World autocrat has blamed his country's economic and social woes on an ostensible U.S. conspiracy to keep the country fractured, underdeveloped, and subservient to America's own interests. . How is it possible for one country to be so rich and powerful when so many others are weak, divided, and poor? Legitimacy the perception that one's role and purpose is acceptable and one's power is used justly is

Predominant power likewise breeds envy, resentment, and alienation

. As we witness the emergence (or re-emergence) of great powers in other parts of the world, we realize that American predominance cannot last forever. It is inevitable that the distribution of power and influence will become more balanced in the future, and that the United States will necessarily see its relative power decline. While the United States naturally should avoid
indispensable for maintaining power and influence in world politics hastening the end of this current period of American predominance, it should not look upon the next period of global politics and international history with dread or foreboding. It certainly should not seek to maintain its predominance at any cost, devoting unlimited ambition, resources, and prestige to the cause. In fact, contrary to what many have argued about

America's position in the worldboth at home and internationallycould very well be strengthened once its era of preeminence is over. It is, therefore, necessary for the United States to start thinking about how best to position itself in the post-unipolar world.
the importance of maintaining its predominance,

Hegemony causes China war

Glain 11 (Stephen, freelance writer with extensive experience as a foreign correspondent in Asia
and the Middle East, Sep 8, [www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/stephen-glain/2011/09/08/why-a-uswar-with-china-may-be-inevitable
Meanwhile, Dan Blumenthal, a commissioner of the reliably alarmist U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, has cowritten a clarion call to preserve American hegemony in Asia and beyond. According to Blumenthal and his colleagues, the primary benefactor of the Pax AmericanaChinais now doing everything possible to subvert it. In an essay posted on FP.Com this week, the authors

warned a defense-spending floor of 4 percent of gross domestic product should be established to cope with the looming China threat. Otherwise, they argue, America will render itself vulnerable to Chinese prodding in Beijings own backyard. ("Can we thrive as a nation if we need China's permission to access Asia's trade routes?" the authors ask plaintively, as if
Beijing was constructing a toll road through the South China Sea.) Even now, they warn, the Pentagon is forecasting strategic "shortfalls" of badly needed fighter aircraft, naval ships, and submarines. A failure of Congressional nerve to cover those deficits, according to Team Blumenthal, could "lead to Armageddon." As a Tokyo-based correspondent in the mid-1990s, I used to lament the "irony deficiency" of my hosts. Clearly, that ailment has gone viral and jumped the Pacific (along with stagnant economic growth and political dysfunction). Have we forgotten the fraudulent "bomber" and "missile" gaps peddled by the Defense Department during the 1950s to leach taxpayers for ever more powerful, and as it turned out, largely unnecessary, weaponry against the Soviet Union? If the events of the last 60 years has proven anything, its that threat inflation is as deeply entrenched an American tradition as predatory lending . Yet with the evaporation of one threat inevitably comes the rise of another. Just as radical Islam filled the vacuum created by the imploded Soviet Union as an existential core threat, so too has the degradation of al Qaeda cleared the decks for the coming war with China. [See a collection of political cartoons on Afghanistan.] In its annual report on Chinas military modernization, the Pentagon this week expressed concerns about what it interprets as Beijings increasingly offensive posture and lack of transparency. (This from a bureaucracy that, according to its own inspector general, fails every year to account for hundreds of billions of dollars in unsupported expenditures.) No

doubt China has its own hegemonic ambitions for a region that has been largely Sino-centric for the last three millennia. Washington meanwhile, appeals for a "peaceful" evolution of Chinese power even as it refuses to concede an inch of its own suzerainty over Asias seaways and air corridors. The two sides are talking past one another even as they engage in a menacing arms race; absent a diplomatic effort to reconcile their divergent positions, some kind of Sino-U.S. conflict is inevitable.

Extinction Cheong 2k (Ching, senior journalist with the Strait Times, June 25, 2000, lexis, AD: 6/21/10
THE high-intensity scenario postulates a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China. If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable. Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries far and near and -horror of horrors raise the possibility of a nuclear war. Beijing has already told the US and Japan privately that it considers any country providing bases and logistics support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties open to its retaliation. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore. If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire. And the conflagration may not end there as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order. With the US distracted, Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political landscape. The balance of power in the Middle East may be similarly upset by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia, hostilities between India and Pakistan, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal, could enter a new and dangerous phase. Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war?
According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there

is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons. The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities. Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese
military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. MajorGeneral Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should

that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation.

Hegemony causes overstretch and miscalc multipolarity solves Maher 11 (Richard, Max Weber postdoctoral fellow at the European University Institute, Ph.D in
Political Science from Brown University, Orbis, 55(1), Winter
Overextension. During its period of preeminence, the United States has found it difficult to stand aloof from threats (real or imagined) to its security, interests, and values. Most states are concerned with what happens in their immediate neighborhoods. The United States has interests that span virtually the entire globe, from its own Western Hemisphere, to Europe, the Middle East, Persian Gulf, South Asia, and East Asia. As its preeminence enters its third decade, the

United States continues to define its interests in increasingly expansive terms. This has been facilitated by the massive forward presence of the American military, even when excluding the tens of thousands of troops stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military has permanent bases in over 30 countries and maintains a troop presence in dozens more.13 There are two logics that lead a preeminent state to overextend, and these logics of overextension lead to goals and policies that exceed even the considerable capabilities of a superpower. First, by definition, preeminent states face few external constraints. Unlike in
bipolar or multipolar systems, there are no other states that can serve to reliably check or counterbalance the power and influence of a single hegemon. This gives preeminent states a staggering freedom of action and provides a tempting opportunity to shape world politics in fundamental ways. Rather than pursuing its own narrow interests, preeminence

provides an opportunity to mix ideology, values, and normative beliefs with foreign policy. The United States has been susceptible to this temptation, going to great
lengths to slay dragons abroad, and even to remake whole societies in its own (liberal democratic) image.14 The costs and risks of taking such bold action or pursuing transformative foreign policies often seem manageable or even remote. We

know from both theory and history that external powers can impose important checks on calculated risk-taking and serve as a moderating influence. The bipolar system of the Cold War forced policymakers in both the United States and the Soviet Union to exercise extreme caution and prudence. One wrong move could have led to a crisis that quickly spiraled out of policymakers control.