Negative Evidence Packet
Download 347.52 Kb.
|
AT: Military ReadinessObesity one of many factors including graduation, criminal records, and other physical efforts Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, 2010, Too Fat to Fight: Retired Military Leaders Want Junk Food Out of America’s Schools, As retired Generals, Admirals, and other senior leaders of the United States Armed Forces, we know firsthand that national security must be America’s top priority. Our organization recently released a report citing Department of Defense data indicating that an alarming 75 percent of all young Americans 17 to 24 years of age are unable to join the military because they failed to graduate from high school, have criminal records, or are physically unfit. Government Nutrition programs are best solution—not transportation. This is the solution the affirmative author’s recommend. Not bike paths. Mission Readiness: Military Leaders for Kids, 2010, Too Fat to Fight:Retired Military Leaders Want Junk Food Out of America’s Schools, p. 4 Recent research by Rachel Tolbert Kimbro of Rice University and Elizabeth Rigby of the University of Texas at Houston, published in Health Affairs, provided strong evidence that “Receiving [government subsidized] meals at school or child care helps children, particularly low-income children, maintain a healthy weight. ... Expanding access to subsidized meals may be the most effective tool to use in combating obesity in poor children.”42 The article showed that, at least for 3- to 5-year-old poor children, access to government-funded school lunches helped those children avoid excessive weight gain over the subsequent two years. The authors suggest that expanding access to these meals to more child care centers, to summer programs, and to all children in high-poverty Title I schools (not just those whose parents make it through the bureaucratic hurdles to qualify) would be one of the most promising ways to decrease childhood obesity. AT: Global WarmingNo solvency: Transportation spending will have little impact on greenhouse gases Craig Raborn, June 2011, (Transportation Policy Analyst, Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University), “Transportation and Climate Policy Summary Greenhouse Gas Emissions Resulting from Different Infrastructure Spending Levels” The debate over how much to spend on transportation infrastructure should not focus on how GHG emissions will be affected by overall spending levels or patterns. Significantly different levels of transportation infrastructure investment result in only small overall changes in GHG emissions and travel behavior. Varying national transporta tion infrastructure spending by up to $53 billion per year changes cumulative emissions over 10 years by less than 0.3%. • Emissions from construction and maintenance activities can be significantly affected by spending levels, ranging from a 10% decrease to a 73% increase. These emissions, however, make up only 0.7% of surface transportation emissions, so despite the large range of potential construction and maintenance emissions, there is little impact to overall transportation emissions. • The mix of spending—how the funds are spent between roads and transit and between new capacity construction or maintenance of existing infrastructure—also makes little difference on emissions from transportation activity. The cumulative difference in GHG emissions from spending $15 billion for three widely different infrastructure activi ties (all on new roads; focusing on maintenance; or 75% for transit improvements) is just 0.23% of total emissions. (a 34.7-million-ton2 variation from total emissions of 15,050 million tons). Impact is overstated. Data being used to measure climate are biased toward warming and away from cooler sites Jasper 11 [William F. Jasper, 1-18-11, ‘2010: "Hottest Year on Record"?’ http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5933-2010-qhottest-year-on-recordq] In a policy paper entitled Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?, published in August 2010 by the Science & Public Policy Institute (SPPI), D'Aleo and Watts write: Around 1990, NOAA/NCDC's GHCN dataset lost more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. It can be shown that country by country, they lost stations with a bias towards higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler. The remaining climate monitoring stations were increasingly near the sea, at lower elevations, and at airports near larger cities. This data were then used to determine the global average temperature and to initialize climate models. Interestingly, the very same often colder stations that have been deleted from the world climate network were retained for computing the average-temperature in the base periods, further increasing the potential bias towards overstatement of the warming. To make sure the reader did not miss this astounding point, we reiterate and emphasize: More than 75 percent of the weather stations around the globe have been inexplicably "lost." AT: Global WarmingEvidence is selectively used to support global warming Jasper 11 [William F. Jasper, 1-18-11, ‘2010: "Hottest Year on Record"?’ http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/5933-2010-qhottest-year-on-recordq] This is pure politics, not science. The "hottest year" claims confirm the case for political science overtaking climate science. The "hottest year" claim depends on minute fractions of a degree difference between years. Even NASA's James Hansen, the leading proponent of man-made global warming in the U.S., conceded the "hottest year" rankings are essentially meaningless. Hansen explained that 2010 differed from 2005 by less than 2 hundredths of a degree F (that's 0.018F). "It's not particularly important whether 2010, 2005, or 1998 was the hottest year on record," Hansen admitted on January 13. According to NASA, none of agencies tasked with keeping the global temperature data agree with each other. "Rankings of individual years often differ in the most closely watched temperature analyses - from GISS, NCDC, and the UK Met Office - a situation that can generate confusion." If there is confusion in the matter, it is Hansen and his colleagues at NASA's GISS and NOAA who are greatly responsible. In a January 14 commentary at WattsUpWithThat.com, meteorologist Dr. Ryan Maue of Florida State University ridiculed the "hottest year" rankings and Hansen's admission that it "was not particularly important" which year was declared the "hottest." Dr. Maue examines the NASA press release and then taunts Hansen: "Well, then stop issuing press releases which tout the rankings, which are subject to change ex post facto." Indeed, the AGW alarmists are not content to pull this PR stunt only once per year, they issue releases and hold press conferences on this manufactured "news" multiple times per year. Meteorologist Art Horn take the NOAA "hottest year" claims to task at the climate web site ICECAP, commenting: If NOAA was truly objective in their analysis of this 130 year period of temperature they would acknowledge that 130 years of record in the long history of climate is insignificant to the extreme. The reason they do not give this record its true historical context is because their statement is really political. Their true message is that global warming is causing the warm weather and that we need to abandon fossil fuels and somehow change to "renewable" energy sources.... "If one takes a serious, adult look at the variability of weather and climate over time you find amazing events," Horn continued. "In the winter of 1249 it was so warm in England that people did not need winter clothes. They walked about in summer dress. It was so warm people thought the seasons had changed. There was no frost in England the entire winter. Can you imagine what NOAA would say if that happened next year? But it did happen, 762 years ago and burning fossil fuels had nothing to do with it. In the winter of 1717 there was so much snow in Massachusetts in late February and early March, single story houses were buried." Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), is another of the many eminent climate scientists that challenge the NASA/NOAA's alarmist "hottest year" propaganda stunts, based as they are on "tenths of a degree" from questionable records. "Global warming enthusiasts have responded to the absence of warming in recent years by arguing that the past decade has been the warmest on record," Dr Lindzen noted, in an op-ed for The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Va. "We are still speaking of tenths of a degree, and the records themselves have come into question. Since we are, according to these records, in a relatively warm period, it is not surprising that the past decade was the warmest on record. This in no way contradicts the absence of increasing temperatures for over a decade." AT: Global WarmingClimate models are flawed – faulty data and poor assumptionsHoffman 12 [Doug L, adjunct Professor of Computer Science at Hendrix College and the University of Central Arkansas, author of the Resilient Earth, “Stop Them, Before They Model Again,” 4-17, http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/stop-them-they-model-again]In the latest generation of coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models (AOGCMs) contributing to the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 3 (CMIP-3), uncertainties in key properties controlling the twenty-first century response to sustained anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing were not fully sampled, partially owing to a correlation between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing, a tendency to overestimate ocean heat uptake and compensation between short-wave and long-wave feedbacks. This complicates the interpretation of the ensemble spread as a direct uncertainty estimate, a point reflected in the fact that the ‘likely’ (>66% probability) uncertainty range on the transient response was explicitly subjectively assessed as −40% to +60% of the CMIP-3 ensemble mean for global-mean temperature in 2100, in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The old models do not account for “key properties” that control climate to the point that the results are so uncertain as to be meaningless. This is unsurprising to those of us familiar with computer modeling in general and climate modeling in particular. “From this evidence it is clear that the CMIP-3 ensemble, which represents a valuable expression of plausible responses consistent with our limited ability to explore model structural uncertainties, fails to reflect the full range of uncertainties indicated by expert opinion and other methods,” the authors conclude. In other words, the older model results are crap. Yet the AR4 report's conclusions were justified using such twaddle. As the authors state: “In the absence of uncertainty guidance or indicators at regional scales, studies have relied on the CMIP-3 ensemble spread as a proxy for response uncertainty, or statistical post-processing to correct and inflate uncertainty estimates, at the risk of violating the physical constraints provided by dynamical AOGCM simulations, especially when extrapolating beyond the range of behaviour in the raw ensemble.” Violating physical constraints is modeling speak for the program acting in a way that contradicts the laws of physical reality—an indication that the models used do not accurately represent nature. Still, the reader is asked to accept this new analysis as proving the modeling approach's veracity. “Perturbed-physics ensembles offer a systematic approach to quantify uncertainty in models of the climate system response to external forcing, albeit within a given model structure,” the authors write. That last qualification is key, “within a given model structure.” More plainly put, if your model is wrong you cannot get good results. So they analyzed a multi-thousand-member ensemble of transient AOGCM simulations from 1920 to 2080 using HadCM3L, a version of the UK Met Office Unified Model, and found their results stayed within the constraints programmed into the model (what a surprise). Other caveats include: unexpectedly observing little relationship between climate sensitivity and aerosol forcing; difficulty in comparing the control simulation like-for-like to any period in the past, partially blamed on the “paucity of observations” at the start of the twentieth century; and under-sampling uncertainty in ocean heat uptake arising from ocean physics through perturbing only a single, coarse-resolution, ocean model structure. The bottom line on all this statistical and modeling slight of hand is this: “Assessing goodness-of-fit, which represents a limited expression of model error, requires a measure of the expected error between model simulations and observations due to sampling uncertainty, assuming it is primarily from internally-generated climate variability.” There is absolutely no justification in making that last assumption. All they are measuring is how stable their models are with respect to the output the model would generate if unperturbed. The result has no bearing on whether the model in question accurately represents Earth's actual climate system. This is hand-waving at its most creative. So if this new “study” is not really an improvement on previous computer driven shams why is it appearing now? Think of this report as the first salvo in the run up to the next IPCC report, due out sometime next year. But surely the IPCC has learned its lesson, you say, they must have figured out that making bogus claims of impending disaster, unsubstantiated by real science, has only lead to their own marginalization? Think again. Consider the words of the IPCC's discredited but dogged leader. “When the IPCC’s fifth assessment comes out in 2013 or 2014, there will be a major revival of interest in action that has to be taken,” said Dr. Pachauri, speaking of the periodic assessments rendered by the group of more than 400 scientists around the world that he leads. “People are going to say, ‘My God, we are going to have to take action much faster than we had planned.’ 1NC Solvency Social JusticeTransport policy alone is not enough to solve social injustice. Need social inclusion policies in all areas.Karen Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, ‘Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?” Transport Policy 20 (2012) 105–113 Furthermore, transport and social exclusion can never survive as a solely transport-focused agenda. The accessibility planning (in its broadest sense) of public transport which is necessary to meet the travel needs of socially excluded people must be highly integrated with socially responsible land use, housing, health, education and welfare policies and programmes. Similarly, large transport infrastructure projects need to be more transparent in their ex ante analyses to consider their long-term social equity effects on local populations and communities. Social exclusions cannot be solved by national policy makers in a globalized worldKaren Lucas, 2012, Transport Studies Unit, University of Oxford, ‘Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?” Transport Policy 20 (2012) 105–113 Urry (2000) builds on this theme of dynamic exclusion from the transport system within his new mobilities paradigm. His theories are concerned with macro (global), meso (national) and micro (local) changes in the physical and virtual movement of people, goods, services, images and information over time (Kaufmann, et al., 2004; Sheller and Urry, 2006; Urry, 2007). As Cass et al., 2005 identify, the new mobilities perspective is particularly important because it explores how different forms of mobility help to shape wider societal values and norms and to reinforce existing social stratification. Theorists from this perspective identify motility (the potential and ability to move) consists of three main layers: (i) access—the range of all available mobilities according to time, place and other contextual constraints; (ii) competence—the skills and abilities that directly or indirectly relate to the appropriation of access; (iii) appropriation—how individuals, groups, networks or institutions act upon or interpret perceived or real access and competences (Kaufmann et al., 2004). Unequal mobilities are seen as arising from differences in the status, wealth, prestige, power and geographical distribution of people and activities (Urry, 2007). Urry argues that unequal ‘network capital’ is distributed across traditional social stratifications leading to differential opportunities to access goods, services, social networks and life chances, which results in the social exclusion of both individuals and whole communities. One of the key issues that Urry and his colleagues bring to light within their thesis is the extent to which transport-related social exclusion can ever be properly addressed within a global system that prioritises hypermobility. Dennis and Urry (2009) predict it is not until After the Car that we will be able to establish the more equitable distribution of transport services. This implies that the problem of transport-related exclusion largely lies outside the influence of national or local policy makers. 1NC Solvency Social JusticeEquality in transportation justice is impossibleMartens et al, 2012, [Karel Martens, Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlans; Aaron Golub, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning and School of Sustainability, Arizona State U; Glenn Robinson, School of Engineering and Institute for Urban Research, Morgan State University, “A justice-theoretic approach to the distribution of transportation benefits: Implications for transportation planning practice in the United States,” Transportation Research A 46 (2012), 684-695 Let us first consider equal distribution of access in relation to space. While philosophical arguments may suggest that equality is called for, insights from research into the dynamics of space suggest that equal distribution in this respect is impossible to achieve. Theoretical modeling studies have shown that, even if starting from an even distribution of opportunities over space, and hence equality of access, centers will rapidly develop over time as a consequence of the advantages of spatial proximity (e.g., Puu, 2005). In other words, space by its very nature is divided into center and periphery and not every point on a plane can be equidistant from the important centers of opportunities. As a result, inequality in access to life opportunities is inevitable. Transport policies cannot correct the differences between center and periphery; they would at best redefine or reinforce the relationship between them. While this is not a normative argument against distribution according to equality, it does underscore that the principle of equality is hardly suited to guide the distribution of access in practice. More precisely, this observation suggests that equality of access cannot be achieved across-the-board and that a non-equal distribution must be proposed explicitly. Solvency Extensions Social JusticeMore important social factors contribute to social exclusion. Transport policy cannot solve.John Preston 2009 Transportation Research Group, School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, “Epilogue: Transport policy and social exclusion—Some reflections” Transport Policy 16 (2009) 140–142 Alternative approaches to quantification might involve developing measures of social inclusion as part of ongoing attempts to quantify Quality of Life such as work that has been undertaken for the World Health Organisation (Skevington et al., 2004), for the Economic and Social Research Council (Gilhooly et al., 2003) and for the Audit Commission (2005). In essence, this is the approach advocated by Stanley and Vella-Brodrick in this Special Issue. It is an approach that is particularly relevant to the transport needs of the elderly, which is pertinent given demographic ageing in many countries (Metz, 2000; Spinney et al., 2009). However, there are others who argue that Quality of Life is an individualistic concept that fails to capture all aspects of social exclusion. For example, the Bristol Social Exclusion Matrix (B-SEM) identifies access to resources and participation as being distinct from Quality of Life measures (Levitas et al., 2007). B-SEM identifies ten domains of potential importance in social exclusion of which transport features explicitly in only one (access to public and private services). This is reflective of a wider issue—that transport policy may only be a secondary tool to reducing social exclusion, with policies concerning employment, income, housing, social care, health and education of greater primary importance, although the intermediate goods status of transport means that it has impacts on many of these primary factors. Social exclusion includes barriers other than poverty and transportationStanley et al, 2008, “Social exclusion: What can public transport offer?” Janet Stanley a, *, Karen Lucas b a Brotherhood of St Laurence and Monash University, Victoria, Australia b University of Westminster, London, UK Research in Transportation Economics 22 (2008) 36–40 The workshop recognised that social exclusion is a relatively new social policy concept, having arisen from earlier work which sought to define, measure and understand poverty. Stanley and Vella-Brodrick’s (2007) paper pointed out that, while poverty is viewed as the difference between the amount of income needed to sustain an individual or household within their living environment, social exclusion is seen as a more comprehensive concept. The term social exclusion, while still heavily reliant on income measures, also acknowledges that there may be other barriers which make it difficult for people to participate fully in society. These barriers may include lack of employment, suitable housing, education, health care and transport. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencyNo evidence supports the claim that infrastructure improvements increase physical activityOgilvie, et al. 2010. (David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Simon Griffin--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Andy Jones--School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Norwich, Roger Mackett--3Centre for Transport Studies, University College London, Cornelia Guell-- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge,, Jenna Panter-- Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Natalia Jones--School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Norwich, UK, Simon Cohn--General Practice and Primary Care Research Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Lin Yang--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, Cheryl Chapman--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR), Institute of Public Health, Cambridge) “Commuting and health in Cambridge: a study of a ‘natural experiment’ in the provision of new transport infrastructure” Biomed Central Public Health, 10:703, http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/10/703 Modifying transport infrastructure to support active travel (walking and cycling), for example by constructing cycle routes or redesigning roads to discourage car use, is one way of modifying the physical environment that was identified in the recent Foresight report as one of the top five recommendations for tackling obesity in the UK [21]. The considerable potential for people to incorporate walking or cycling into their daily routines makes this an attractive strategy for increasing population levels of physical activity. However, several reviews have highlighted the limited quantity and quality of existing studies of the effects of this type of intervention, the very limited evidence that such interventions have been effective in promoting physical activity, and the missed opportunities for rigorous health-oriented studies of the effects of recent major innovations such as the impact of congestion charging in London on physical activity [13,22-26]. It cannot be assumed that people who take up more active travel will become more physically active overall, because the increase in energy expenditure while travelling may be counterbalanced - or even outweighed - by a compensatory decrease in leisure time physical activity [14]. There is a particular lack of evidence on the relationships between public transport and active travel and on the effects of interventions to improve public transport infrastructure, which may be especially important in a country such as the UK where many people live too far from their workplace to walk or cycle the entire journey. Several studies have shown that using public transport can involve a substantial daily quantity of walking and that commuters who use public transport tend to walk more than those who travel by car [27-30]. One study has also reported a correspondence between an increase in cycling and a positive shift in the distribution of overall physical activity in the targeted local populations following a multifaceted intervention including some infrastructural changes [31]. To the best of our knowledge, however, no study has yet convincingly demonstrated that investing in new transport infrastructure has led to an increase in physical activity in the local population directly attributable to the intervention [13,26]. Infrastructure investment alone is not sufficient to increase physical activityOglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-- Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, “Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43 Despite the growing volume of published studies in this field, many authors remain circumspect in their interpretation of the available evidence. Giles-Corti and Donovan have described access to a supportive physical environment as a necessary, but insufficient, condition for an increase in physical activity in the population [11], while Handy found 'convincing' evidence of an association between physical activity and the built environment in general but 'less convincing' evidence as to which specific environmental characteristics were most strongly associated [7]. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencyStudies show transportation access is not the problemLovas et al, 2009. (Gina S. Lovasi--Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholars Program, Columbia University, Malo A. Hutson--Department of City and Regional Planning, University of California, Berkeley, Monica Guerra--Department of Urban Plan- ning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Kathryn M. Neckerman, Center for Health and the Social Sciences, University of Chicago) “Built Environments and Obesity in Disadvantaged Populations” Epidemiologic Review, 2009. Vol. 31 Although the built environmental characteristics discussed above may vary in their consequences and meaning depending on regional or local context, a few patterns appear to be consistent across the United States (Table 2). When considering the obesity-related effects of built environment characteristics, we found the strongest support for the importance of food stores, exercise facilities, and safety as potentially influential for our target groups (low-SES, black, and Hispanic individuals). We also found evidence that the target groups were at a disadvantage with respect to food stores, fast food outlets, places to exercise, and problems related to aesthetic and safety perceptions. We can reject low walkability or sprawling urban form as a candidate explanation of obesity-related health disparities; these measures seemed relatively less correlated with physical activity and obesity for individuals within our target groups, while at the same time the target groups were not at a disadvantage with regard to the walkability as commonly measured. The specific characteristics that seem most relevant to obesity-related health disparities in the United States are supermarket access, exercise facilities, and safety; each of these has been reported to be correlated with body mass index or related behaviors within our target groups, while at the same time being distributed to their disadvantage. Even if a bad environment discourages walking, that does not mean a better environment will encourage walking.Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-- Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, “Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43 A more profound limitation of the available evidence is that identifying a relationship between, for example, urban form and walking for transport is not the same thing as showing that changing the built environment will lead to a change in behaviour [13]. Few researchers have taken up the opportunity (or challenge) presented by 'natural experiments' to investigate the effects of environmental interventions on physical activity. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencyNo cycling solvency: Many barriers exist to cyclesThe Community Cycling Center. 2009. “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review” http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf We contacted several professionals with experience on what barriers low-income, women and minority communities face regarding bicycle use. They shared some of their research findings, as well as impressions accumulated during community involvement meetings and their own work. In conducting a literature review for the Bike Walk Ambassador Program, David Peterson with the City of Minneapolis Department of Public Works encountered many of the same findings revealed in this paper. He shared that neighborhood conditions, like having many unattended dogs, can contribute to negative perceptions of safety that discourage people from biking and walking. He also said that some neighborhoods may lack nearby destinations, which is an obstacle because biking and walking are targeted at replacing shorter trips. Some low-income people may simply lack the funds to own a bicycle. People who must work more than one job might be too tired to exercise or ride a bicycle, and those who work at night may have concerns about riding in the dark or finding a secure parking location for their bicycle. Eric Anderson, Bicycle Coordinator for Berkeley, California with 10 years of experience in the bicycle and pedestrian field shared some of his conclusions on minority barriers to bicycling. Mr. Anderson pointed to language as a barrier to bicycling, as some informational resources commonly available in English often aren’t distributed in other languages. Translating materials on basic traffic laws applying to bicycles, helmet safety, simple maintenance tasks, and bicycle maps may help disseminate the baseline information people need before attempting to bicycle. He also mentioned financial obstacles, such as the cost of keeping a bicycle in repair, owning a good lock and the purchase of a helmet and lights in order to ride safely. Specific barriers deter women from cycling and walkingThe Community Cycling Center 2009, “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review” http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf Safety and security issues may be an obstacle to helping women make more trips by bicycle. Women may prefer to travel different routes than men when using a bicycle, so the availability of different types of bicycle facilities in their neighborhoods may determine their comfort when bicycling. In addition to overcoming possible concerns about the safety of bicycling in traffic, fear of crime and social stigma may be an obstacle to bicycling for some women. Social perceptions of bicycling and walking are generally unstudied among other groups. For all groups, concerns about bicycle theft and the lack of secure parking facilities may create security concerns in addition to personal safety. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencyResearch shows infrastructure investment has little impact on behaviorKrizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740 However, evaluation research on programs like those funded by the NTPP is rare because it is fraught with practical challenges as well as political ones: expectations are high, interventions are modest, and effects may be unclear. Pedestrian and cycling advocates have struggled for decades to gain significant attention for their proposals based on the belief that infrastructure improvements can make a difference. But such improvements typically represent marginal changes within extensive and complex transportation systems in which travelers have multiple options with respect to mode and route choice. In these contexts any behavioral changes that such improvements effect are likely to be relatively small, making them difficult to establish statistically. In addition, disentangling the effects of pedestrian and cycling improvements from the effect of other factors is tricky. For advocates, studies that do not produce proof of the effectiveness of such improvements can be hard to accept because they potentially jeopardize future investments. Minor impact on health, environment and trafficKrizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740 These secondary effects, at both the individual and community level, each contribute to other desired policy outcomes, such as improved air quality, reduced health-care costs, and increased livability (figure 1). The broad range of possible policy outcomes from walking and cycling activity expands the justification for programs to promote such activity. At the same time, however, such oft-cited benefits generate other expectations that are more challenging to support because the benefits are more tenuously connected to levels of walking and cycling. Issues often mentioned at the forefront of walking and cycling policy initiatives--traffic congestion, obesity, and environmental conservation--have many different causes, and levels of walking and cycling may have a minor effect on the overall extent of the problem. The challenge for researchers is to separate the effect of the intervention from the effects of these other forces. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencySocietal Impact of investment will be smallKrizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740 Several leading practitioners and academics suggest that many of the benefits often touted for walking and cycling facilities--decreased congestion, decreased consumption of natural resources, lower production of harmful pollutants, and even overall increases in physical activity--will not ultimately come to fruition (eg Giuliano and Hanson, 2004; Lockwood, 2006). Research shows that people do very little walking overall (Oakes et al, 2007), meaning that secondary benefits are marginal. Rates of bicycling are currently so low that even a quadrupling of the number of people in the United States who bike to work would lessen environmental and other harms from motorized vehicles by a miniscule degree--prompting some to term it a fringe mode (Gordon and Richardson, 1998). Furthermore, making small interventions in the existing built environment (eg improving intersections, installing sidewalks) or other walking or cycling policies or programs (eg installing showers) will likely have only a modest effect on one's propensity to drive less [driving is relatively inelastic: even dramatic increases in gas prices have not had a significant impact on levels of driving (Hughes et al, 2008)]. This is not to say that the individual benefits are insignificant; rather, that their cumulative effect is limited. Solvency Studies are biased and inconclusiveOglilve et al, 2011, (David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit and the UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR); Fiona Bull--School of Sport, Exercise and Health Science, Loughborough University, UK, and the School of Population Health, University of Western Australia. Jane Powell--University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. Ashley R. Cooper--Department of Exercise, Nutrition and Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. Christian Brand--Environmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Nanette Mutrie---Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. John Preston--School of Civil Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, UK. Harry Rutter--National Obesity Observatory, Oxford, UK. “An Applied Ecological Framework for Evaluating Infrastructure to Promote Walking and Cycling: The iConnect Study” American Journal of Public Health March 2011, Vol 101, No. 3 This lack of evidence reflects several unresolved challenges in this area of research, including problems of measurement and evaluation. The difficulty of measuring changes in walking, cycling, and physical activity in general is recognized in both the transportation and the physical activity fields16–19 and is compounded by the difficulty of applying robust study designs to the evaluation of complex infrastructural interventions.20 Existing research in this field has an evaluative bias in favor of interventions targeted at individuals, which may be easier to evaluate,13,14 and is often characterized by methodological limitations such as the lack of representative population samples, prospectively collected data, control groups or areas, or sufficient duration of follow-up.15 Meanwhile, only limited inferences about the population effects of new infrastructure can be drawn from routinely collected user monitoring data.21 As a result, we lack the means to assess the potential travel, physical activity, and carbon emission effects of different approaches to promoting walking and cycling, to set appropriate targets, or to allocate resources for new capital projects efficiently. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencyNo solvency: Minority communities lack other infrastructure amenities that encourage active transportationSallis, et al. 2012. (James F. Sallis, PhD-- From the Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Myron F. Floyd, PhD-- Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Daniel A. Rodríguez, PhD-- Department of City and Regional Planning, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Brian E. Saelens, PhD-- Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington) “Recent Advances in Preventive Cardiology and Lifestyle Medicine Role of Built Environments in Physical Activity, Obesity, and Cardiovascular Disease”, American Heart Association Journal, June 19, 2012, http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/125/5/729.full It appears that disparities in access to activity-supportive community environments vary across attributes. There is little evidence that Hispanics and blacks, or low-income populations, are disadvantaged with respect to the density of areas in which they live.70,71 Racial and ethnic minority and low socioeconomic status groups may be particularly sensitive to the built environment. In a review, light traffic, safety from crime, and sidewalks were most consistently associated with physical activity among black Americans.71 However, low socioeconomic status or high-minority neighborhoods appear to have less supportive environmental conditions for active transportation. A review concluded that disadvantaged neighborhoods had poorer aesthetics and worse conditions related to traffic safety and crime safety.71 For example, a study of 2 US regions found that lower- and higher-income neighborhoods did not differ substantially with regard to commonly assessed walkability variables, but lower-income neighborhoods had less favorable values on pedestrian/cycling facilities, aesthetics, access to recreation facilities, traffic safety, and crime safety.72 These poor conditions could potentially overcome the beneficial effects of living in a walkable low-income neighborhood. Portland is unique and not representative--Cannot generalize Portland experience to rest of nationDill, 2009. (Jennifer Dill, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University). “Bicycling for Transportation and Health: The Role of Infrastructure, Journal of Public Health Policy (2009) 30, S95–S110. doi:10.1057/jphp.2008.56 As with any research conducted in one location, care must be taken when applying the results to other locations. There is no comprehensive data set that includes the miles of bicycle infrastructure for other cities or metropolitan areas, so it is difficult to know exactly how Portland compares. In addition, the Portland region includes other bicycling supportive factors that were not examined as part of this study, yet likely influence behavior. The many types of innovative infrastructure to support bicycling installed by the City of Portland include special traffic signals, way finding signage (to help bicyclists orient themselves and find an appropriate route), on-street bike parking areas, and traffic signal detectors. Non-infrastructure programs and policies (e.g., marketing programs) and several independent bicycle organizations and events may also help create a ‘‘bicycle culture’’ that likely influences bicycling behavior. 1NC No Active Transit SolvencyPhysical activity and health are not constant across socioeconomic divide. The fundamental assumption that you can generalize across race is flawed.Sallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr -- San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293 Because disparities in health outcomes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2004) and physical activity are well documented across socioeconomic groups (Crespo, Smit, Andersen, Carter-Pokras, & Ainsworth, 2000), an important question is whether favorable built environments could reduce health disparities. Findings that walkability was related to physical activity and obesity among whites but not blacks (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Frank, Sallis, Chapman, & Saelens, 2005) raise the possibility that not all groups benefit from walkable built environments. Because a primary health objective of the United States is to eliminate health disparities (United States Department of Health and Human Services, 2000), it is important to determine whether walkability has similar associations with health outcomes in lower and higher-income groups. Extensions for Active Transportation SolvencyWomen are not comfortable with active transportation for many reasonsThe Community Cycling Center, 2009. “Understanding Barriers to Bicycling Transportation Literature Review” http://www.communitycyclingcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/understanding-barriers-transportation-review-101909.pdf This is a collection of studies from a conference held by the Transportation Research Board, many of which may be helpful in understanding barriers to women bicycling. One paper documents the difference between men and women in trip-chaining behavior, which may reveal how bicycling could be adapted to better serve the needs of women who need to transport children or make multiple stops on a trip. Another discusses the difference in preference for different types of bicycle facilities for men and women. Another analyzes the fear of crime as an obstacle to women walking, which may also be a barrier to bicycling. Other studies document the difference in travel needs depending on whether men or women work, and what role they serve in their household. This represents the largest single body of information on factors that may influence women’s ability or inclination to bicycle. Changing transportation alone is not enough. Crime and other factors will discourage active transportationSallis, 2009. (James F. Sallis--Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, Brian E. Saelens--University of Washington and Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center, Seattle, Lawrence D. Frank-- School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada & Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA c,d, Terry L. Conway--Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Donald J. Slymen-- Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, Kelli L. Cain --Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, James E. Chapman-- Lawrence Frank & Company, Point Robert, WA, Jacqueline Kerr -- San Diego State University, University of California San Diego, CA, USA) “Neighborhood built environment and income: Examining multiple health outcomes”, Social Science & Medicine 68 (2009) 1285–1293 There were no significant income differences on walking for transport or leisure, but there was an interaction between walkability and income on walking for transportation. The walkability– walking for transport association was weaker for adults living in lower-income than in higher-income neighborhoods. This is an important finding because it suggests lower-income residents may not experience all of the benefits from living in a walkable neighborhood unless other needs are met. Perceived danger from crime, which is higher among lower-income adults (Loukaitou-Sideris & Eckc, 2007), could reduce their willingness to walk for transport even in high-walkability neighborhoods (Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz, Schlossberg, & Stockard, 2006). After adjusting for self-selection, the walkability by income interaction became non-significant. Self-selection may not apply equally to lower- and higher-income groups, since higher-income groups may be able to satisfy more personal criteria when selecting neighborhoods (Levine & Frank, 2007). Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency Judges have a responsibility to evaluate the evidence carefully and not misuse Krizek, et al 2009. Kevin J Krizek--College of Architecture and Planning, University of Colorado, Susan L Handy--Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California at Davis, Ann Forsyth--City and Regional Planning, Cornell University. “Explaining changes in walking and bicycling behavior: challenges for transportation research”, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 2009, volume 36, pages 725 - 740 Adhering to all of these recommendations takes skill, time, resources, and patience, and many not be possible in every study. Researchers have a responsibility to employ sound methodologies and represent their results accurately. But consumers of research also have a responsibility to understand the limitations of the available evidence and not misuse that evidence in making the case for bicycle and pedestrian interventions. We hope that we have helped both researchers and research consumers understand better the challenges inherent in efforts to document the effects of bicycle and pedestrian interventions. No evidence that infrastructure will lead to active transit behaviorOglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-- Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, “Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43 On the other hand, we may have demonstrated a real absence of any major association. Although at first sight this appears at odds with the growing body of review-level evidence for environmental correlates of physical activity, Wendel-Vos and colleagues noted that of all the environmental factors examined in all the studies included in their review, analysis showed a 'null association' in 76% of cases [9], and our finding that personal factors account for a much larger proportion of the variance in active travel or physical activity than is accounted for by environmental factors is consistent with those of some other European studies [32,33]. In the particular context of this study, residents may simply have adapted to adverse conditions in their local environment in the ways identified by Hedges in a qualitative study of people living close to new roads built in the UK in the 1970s [34] – particularly by attitudinal adaptation, which Hedges characterises as developing an attitude that it is futile to resist. One can imagine that in the most deprived areas of Glasgow, people may have become resigned to the nature of their surroundings, seeing them as inevitable and not amenable to change either through environmental improvement or through their moving to another area. Extensions for Active Transportation Solvency No evidence that infrastructure investment will lead to active transit behavior Oglivie, et al., 2008. David Ogilvie--Medical Research Council Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, Glasgow and Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Richard Mitchell--Section of Public Health and Health Policy, University of Glasgow, Nanette Mutrie-- Department of Sport, Culture and the Arts, University of Strathclyde, Mark Petticrew--London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London and Stephen Platt--Research Unit in Health, Behaviour and Change, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, “Personal and environmental correlates of active travel and physical activity in a deprived urban population” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2008, 5:43 doi:10.1186/1479-5868-5-43 After demographic and socioeconomic characteristics were taken into account, neither perceptions of the local environment nor objective proximity to major road infrastructure appeared to explain much of the variance in active travel or overall physical activity in this study. Our study population may be both objectively constrained by their socioeconomic circumstances (including comparatively limited access to private cars) and adapted to living in conditions which others would consider to pose a barrier to active travel. Under these circumstances, environmental characteristics which have been found to influence discretionary active travel in studies in other, more affluent populations may simply be irrelevant in a population which is more captive in its travel choices. Environmental correlates of active travel should not be assumed to be generalisable between populations; researchers should continue to test hypotheses about putative environmental correlates in different settings, and policymakers should recognise that the effects of interventions to change the environment are likely to vary between populations and between socioeconomic groups within populations. Transportation alone is not sufficient--Too many other resources necessary to solve inactive lifestyle disparities.Garcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth Glenn—School of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA), “’Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice’”, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 330–33 Realization of the severity of the obesity and chronic disease epidemics and failure of individually focused interventions has led to heightened interest in implementing environmental interventions to increase physical activity. Although promising, the impact of these strategies in ultimately reducing the obesity epidemic will be limited by the presence of continued inequities in the distribution of physical activity-related resources in the community. Advocacy efforts are critically needed to ensure that all communities benefit equally from infrastructure projects designed to build healthy communities, effective public schools and safe and reliable transportation. Without continued advocacy efforts, the environmental strategies being implemented to increase physical activity levels in the population will lead to a widening versus narrowing of the gap between the health status of the wealthy and poor in this country. 1NC No Planning SolvencyModels are difficult to developMartens, Karel, 2006. Radboud University Nijemegan, “Basing Transport Planning on Principles of Justice,” Berkeley Planning Journal, 19 (1), 1-15, 2006 http://escholarship.org/uc/item/0tg6v7tn The challenge will be to develop a practically feasible method to ascribe monetary values to accessibility gains. Of all the accessibility measures developed since the early article of Hansen (1959), the measures that are based on economic theory and apply the concept of user benefits to assess accessibility offer the most potential (e.g., Ben-Akiva and Lerman 1985). But even these methods still fall short of translating accessibility and accessibility gains to monetary values (Miller 1999b). The development of a practically feasible method is further complicated by the conditions set by cost-benefit analysis. These conditions include an often limited data set with regard to travel and accessibility, which does not incorporate information on spatial or temporal constraints necessary for accessibility measures developed along the lines of time-space geography. This suggests the application of a relatively simple accessibility measure, which uses only data that are commonly generated within the framework of transport (demand) modeling and cost-benefit analysis. At the same time, the measure will have to be sophisticated enough to assess differences in accessibility between population groups, as defined, for example, by income or car ownership level. Classic accessibility measures that generate aggregate accessibility indices at the level of land uses or transport activity zones are thus not enough, as they do not provide the information necessary from the perspective of social justice. Need more comprehensive community planningGarcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth Glenn—School of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA), “’Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice’”, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 330–33 These case studies illustrate how advocacy efforts have resulted in increased access to public resources related to physical activity in several Southern California communities. Given the current inequities in access to public resources in poor and ethnic minority commu- nities, continued advocacy efforts are vital. With regard to the development and use of public lands, we have proposed ten principles to guide policy makers, which we summarize here (See full text of principles in García and White, 2006). The process of decision-making regarding investment of public monies in the built environment need to be transparent and fair and guided by a comprehensive vision for promoting the health of the entire community. Policy-makers should prioritize projects that can meet multiple community needs as well as promote community health such as establishing public parks within the campuses of new and remodeled schools that can provide safe-space for physical activity and potentially remove pollutants from the water and mitigate runoff. Resources should first be allocated to low-income and ethnic minority communities in order to overcome the legacy of inequities in access to high quality public parks and schools. Standards for measuring equity must be established for agencies in order to track progress in building healthy and livable communities for all. Increased attention should be paid to ensuring that recipients of public funds comply with federal and state laws designed to achieve equal access to all public resources including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (i.e., prohibits discrimination on basis of race, color, or national origin for programs and activities conducted with federal funding) and parallel state laws. Finally, the community needs to be engaged and empowered to take part in all aspects of infrastructure decision-making and prepared to engage in advocacy efforts if the outcome of the decision-making process is not satisfactory. 1NC No Planning SolvencyNeed Broad coalitions to solve social inequitiesGarcia et al, 2009. (Robert Garcia--The City Project, Los Angeles, CA, America Bracho and Patricia Cantero--Latino Health Access, Santa Ana, CA, and Beth Glenn—School of Public Health and Johnsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UCLA), “’Pushing Physical Activity, and Justice’”, Preventive Medicine, 49 (2009) 330–33 First, there is a need to bring people together through coalition building and a shared vision based on diverse values. Grassroots engagement is a necessity, and may require the development of coalitions with broad agendas and working across multiple issues as has been noted by others (Tajik and Minkler, 2007). The composition and nature of the coalition that are likely to be successful will depend on the timeline for achieving the goal, characteristics of the affected community and the health topic of concern among other factors. Solvency: Environmental Justice approach overlooks important constituenciesLitman and Brenman, 2011. (Todd Litman--Victoria Policy Institute and Marc Brenman—Social Justice Constituency and Senior Policy Advisor to the City Project) “New Social Equity Agenda for Sustainable Transportation (Draft for Discussion)”, March 3, 2011, p.3-4. This approach is understandable. It addresses what can be considered the worst categories of social inequities (measurable discrimination against vulnerable minorities), and it helps define a reasonable scope of issues that planning organizations can address. For example, to satisfy social equity requirements a planning agency should identify any vulnerable minorities and any impacts that a project will impose on them, and then work with that group to mitigate these impacts. Similarly, social equity advocacy organizations have a reasonably definable constituency with definable concerns and intervention methods, including legal action. However, this approach also has significant limitations: • It is not effective at representing the interests of less organized or geographically dispersed groups. For example, it is more likely to represent the interests of minority or low-income people if they live close together than if they are dispersed through a community. Transit riders and bicyclists tend to be represented politically, but the much larger group of people who rely on walking are generally not organized so their interests are poorly represented. Mobility for teenagers and young adults is generally overlooked as a social equity issue. • It relies on often ambiguous classifications, such as race and age, as surrogates for functional status such as poverty and physical disability. Although African Americans tend to have high poverty rates, it is inaccurate to assume that all African Americans are poor, and unfair to overlook white population poverty. Similarly, although seniors tend to have high disability rates, it is wrong to assume that all seniors are disabled, and unfair to overlook the needs of younger disabled people. This can alienate people who feel that their interests are undervalued, such as low-income people who lack minority status. • It tends to consider social equity issues in isolation, and so favors special mitigation actions rather than more integrated solutions that may help achieve more total benefits. For example, it is more likely to support special subsidies or transit services intended to help specific groups than to support broader policy and planning reforms that create more diverse transport systems and more accessible land use, which provide economic, environmental and social equity benefits. • It tends to overlook issues that are important to physically, economically and socially disadvantaged groups but not specifically defined as discrimination, such as the impacts of planning decisions on health, general household affordability, and community livability (Bell and Cohen 2009; CNT 2008; Litman 2007) Environmental justice, as it is currently applied, can therefore be considered a subset of total social equity issues. Environmental justice might be considered to reflect the most extreme and therefore most important issues, but this approach often excludes other impacts and groups.
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2012 2012 -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? 2012 -> Aa and na members Dying from Tobacco 2012 -> [Baby Crying] 01: 04 [Ching 2012 -> Unit Name / Nom de l’unité uic / ciu dates 2012 -> What We Owe Jehovah’s Witnesses 2012 -> Oceans Challenge Badge 2012 -> Canadian cycling olympians 2012 -> Greg landry, june olkowski and tom lysiak 2012 -> William goldman 2012 -> Does translocation and restocking confer any benefit to the European eel population? A review Download 347.52 Kb. Share with your friends:
|