Neoliberalism K—UMich 2013 neg 1NCs 1NC: Generic
Download 1.47 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Expanding neoliberalism assures total environmental destruction and increases disease susceptibility
- Neoliberalism destroys the environment—resources are being irreversibly depleted—tech can’t fix
- Latin America
- Neoliberal policies in Latin America have adverse environmental effects and spark political instability
I: EnvironmentGeneralNeoliberal expansion is unsustainable and causes pollution, diminishing resources, and environmental destructionFaber and McCarthy, Professor of Sociology at Northeastern University and Director of the Northeastern Environmental Justice Research Collaborative and Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the college of Charleston 03 (Daniel and Deborah, “Neo-liberalism, Globalization and the Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Linking Sustainability and Environmental Justice”, Just Sustainabilities: Development in an Unequal World, 2/28/03, http://books.google.com/books/about/Just_Sustainabilities_Development_in_an.html?id=I7QBbofQGu4C)//AS To sustain economic growth and higher profits in the new global economy, American companies are increasingly adopting ecologically unsustainable systems of production. Motivated by the growing costs of doing business and threat of increased international competition in the era of globalization, corporate America initiated a political movement beginning in the early 19805 for "regulatory reform', ie the rollback of environmental laws, worker health and safety, consumer protection, and other state regulatory protectionsseen as impinging upon the "˜free' market and the profits of capital. Termed "˜neo- liberalism'the recent effect has been a general increase in the rate of exploitation of both working people (human nature) and the environment (mother nature), as witnessed by the assaults upon labour, the ecology movement and thewelfare state. Coupled with increased trade advantages brought about by corporate-led globalization and significant innovations in high technology and service related industries in the "˜new economy', the US experienced a record-breaking economic boom under the Clinton administration during the l990s, However, this economic "˜prosperity' was to a large degree predicated upon the increased privatized-maximization of profits via the increased socialized-minimization of the costs of production, iethe increased displacement of potential business expenses onto the American public in the form of pollution, intensified natural resource exploitation and other environmental problems. Though progress was made on a number of critical issues, thc ecological crisis continued to deepen during the 1990s. Expanding neoliberalism assures total environmental destruction and increases disease susceptibilityGill, Distinguished Research Professor of Political Science at York University, 95 (Stephen, “Globalisation, Market Civilisation, and Disciplinary Neoliberalism”, Millennium - Journal of International Studies 24:3, 1995, Sage Publications)//AS Neoliberal forms of rationality are largely instrumental and are concerned with finding the best means to achieve calculated ends. For neoliberals, primary motivations are understood in a possessively individualistic framework. Motivation is provided by fear and greed, and is reflected in the drive to acquire more security and more goods. Yet, any significant attempt to widen this pattern of motivation would entail an intensification of existing accumulation and consumption patterns, tending to deplete or to destroy the eco-structures of the planet, making everyone less secure and perhaps more vulnerable to disease (even the powerful). Thus, if North American patterns of accumulation and consumption were to be significantly extended, for example to China, the despoliation of the global eco-structure would be virtually assured. Even so, the central ideological message and social myth of neoliberalism is that such a possibility is both desirable and attainable for all: insofar as limitations are recognised, this is at best through a redefinition of the concept of "˜sustainable development' so as to make it consistent with the continuation of existing patterns of accumulation and consumption." Neoliberalism destroys the environment—resources are being irreversibly depleted—tech can’t fixDe La Barra, Chilean political activist, international consultant and former UNICEF Latin America Public Policy Advisor 07-- (Ximena, “THE DUAL DEBT OF NEOLIBERALISM”, Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Social Struggles in Latin America”, 9/1/09, edited by Dello Bueno and Lara, Brill Online)//AS Meanwhile, environmental management remains on a permanent collision course with the neoliberal, agro-export model of production. The incessant search for expansion, consuming ever more non-renewable resources in the process, fails to assume the accompanying environmental costs and results in an irreversible deterioration. Technological innovation concentrated in the hands of just a few private transnational corporations is unable to act as an engine for social transformation and reduction of environmental risk, instead serving as a vehicle for intensifying exploitation of labour, social exclusion, and environmental destruction.Globalisation and the growth of industrial production and commercial advertising have created new patterns of consumption catering only to select sectors while increasing the production of wastes and pollution. At the same time, there has been no corresponding rhythm of increasing the capacity for waste reduction or even recycling the valuable resources being lost in waste, including water. This loss of balance has degraded ecosystems to an alarming extent. In the last 50 years, the overall level of deterioration has sharply accelerated. Climatic change is increasingly providing us with a painful reminder of this. The availability of water per capita is now less than half of what once existed and these supplies are being contaminated by pesticides, fertilisers, and untreated human wastes. Air quality is likewise worsening, resulting in at least a 50% increase in registered respiratory infections. Five times more combustible fuels are being burned and four times as much emissions of carbon monoxide are The Dual Debt of Neoliberalism • 43being produced. The proportion of urban inhabitants relative to the total has grown from 17% to 50%, while the investments being made in urban infrastructure are being reduced. The use of cement has multiplied four-fold and the expansion of built areas has limited the natural drainage capacity, especially in urban areas, causing more frequent and more severe flooding. Over the last 25 years, the planet has lost a third of its natural resources in terms of forests, fresh water, and marine species. Meanwhile, a high proportion of vegetation that fulfils a hydro-regulating role has been lost, and global warming has come to threaten our future as a species (UNDP 1998).4 Growing environmental risks therefore constitute an additional negative consequence of the dominant development model. Coupled with increased social vulnerability, the result is a breeding ground for the so-called “natural” disasters that continue to increase in frequency and intensity Latin AmericaIncreased trade and neoliberalism causes rampant environmental destruction in MexicoLiverman and Vilas,Regents ProfessorofGeographyandDevelopment, and co-Director of the Institute of the Environmentat theUniversity of Arizona and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Center for the Environment respectively 06 (Diana and Silvina, “NEOLIBERALISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA”, Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 6/23/06, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS Whatever the environmental impact of individual manufacturing plants, there is general agreement that the scale effects of NAFTA have had serious environmental effects in terms of the overall growth of industrial activity and the environmental footprint of rapidly increasing employment in the sector (26, 35, 36). An increase in the number of border maquiladora plants, from 2000 to 3500, between the years 1995 and 2000 was concentrated mostly in five cities (Tijuana, Mexicali, Ciudad Ju´arez, Matamoros, and Reynosa) where environmental degradation became increasingly evident. Several authors highlight the role of employment and associated rapid and unplanned urban growth in environmental degradation at the border. Employment in Mexican border states between 1995 and 2000 doubled to approximately 1.2 million workers, most of whom emigrated from southern Mexico. The growing population has increased water, energy, and transport demands, and according to Pope (37), “All along the border, more people are competing for limited supplies of drinking water and electricity, generating more solid refuse and sewage, and being exposed to ever higher levels of toxic wastes.” Liverman et al. (38) document a range of environmental problems in border cities including air pollution from dirt roads and expanding auto ownership in border cities such as Ciudad Ju´arez, untreated sewage and unclean drinking water, as well as an accumulation of household and industrial waste in cities where infrastructure has not kept up with urban sprawl. Border industrialization and population growth have increased vulnerability to flooding in some cities, for example, Tijuana and Nogales where unplanned settlements encroach on floodplains or are located on steep devegetated slopes (39). Neoliberal policies in Latin America have adverse environmental effects and spark political instabilityLiverman and Vilas, Regents Professor of Geography and Development, and co-Director of the Institute of the Environment at the University of Arizona and Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University Center for the Environment respectively 06 (Diana and Silvina, “NEOLIBERALISM AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN LATIN AMERICA”, Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 6/23/06, University of Michigan Libraries)//AS The emerging literature on neoliberalism and the environment in Latin America shows a complex and geographically varying pattern of the impacts of neoliberal processes, with researchers coming to different conclusions about the costs and benefits of neoliberal policies, even when considering the same cases or data. Many studies contradict the proneoliberal wisdoms that free trade will protect the environment, that private is better than common or state resource management, or that the market is the best way to conserve nature. There is little evidence in this review that the Latin American environment is better protected under neoliberal policies, but it is also not clear that a revival of state regulation, state and common ownership, and trade protections would be affordable and effective in a global economy. Most studies tend to be case specific and difficult to generalize, a chronic problem of comparative research, which is not set within a rigorous a priori framework. It is also important to reiterate that this review focuses on several key countries and mainly on English language publications. In many cases, environmental changes cannot be clearly linked to a specific neoliberal action because of multiple and sometimes contradictory policy changes. In others, careful research shows that apparent positive or negative impacts are better explained by earlier resource management decisions, by weak or uneven implementation of policy, or by inadequate regulatory regimes. There are some indications from the literature on water and forest reform that environment and livelihoods do better where there are strong local institutions, where local people have diverse income sources, or where some subsidies are provided during transitions. There is also evidence that the social and environmental effects of neoliberal policies are politically volatile, sparking local protests and bringing national electoral defeat to governments too closely identified with the neoliberal agenda. Download 1.47 Mb. Share with your friends:
|