What are mhk technologies?
Competitiveness Internals
Download 0.89 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Increasing investment in MHK technologies bolsters U.S. competitiveness
- Only USFG funding solves MHK competitiveness
- USA has to decrease reliance on fossil fuels to remain competitive
- Competitiveness – Clean Energy
- US currently leads clean energy but risks falling behind
- Competitiveness Low Now, but Investments Solve
- Competitiveness – A2: Ex-Im Alt. Cause
- Ex-Im isn’t an alt cause – effects less than 2% of US exports
- Lack of Competitiveness causes several scenarios for nuclear war
- Heg is key to the economy
- It is actually low and is no longer resilient- old factors are no longer present
- U.S. is key to the global economy
- The U.S. is still key to the global economy
- US econ reports of bad Q1 led to weak global markets
- Competitiveness is key to the economy
- Growth good for poor- rising economy lifts all boats
- Growth disincentivizes armed conflict- interdependence is the better strategy for countries
- US economic model is the key internal link to interdependence and multilateral cooperation. The alternative is competitive mercantilism that will destroy cooperation
- Growth Good – Nuclear War
- Growth Good - Biodiversity
Competitiveness InternalsInvest in MHK technology can provide 25% of energy needs – however commercialization is key and only Federal implementation of the Water Power Program will enable the industry to be competitiveStrategic Marketing Innovations 14 Strategic Marketing Innovations (SMI), March 24, 2014, “The U.S. MHK Industry Request for the DOE Water Power Program,” Fiscal Year 2015 Energy and Water Development Appropriations, http://www.strategicmi.com/press/FY15_Request_for_MHK_ EW_Approps_FINAL_3.21.14.pdf, Accessed 4/28/2014 Marine hydrokinetic (MHK) technologies generate power from predictable and forecastable ocean currents, waves, tidal flows and in-stream sources. Commercialization of the technologies to capture these MHK resources can add to our national energy security, help strengthen our economic development and balance our renewable energy portfolio. By any measure, the U.S. has significant MHK resources. Mr. Mike Carr, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, testified before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on February 27, 2014, that recently completed comprehensive MHK assessments estimate that the technically extractable resource potential is almost 900 TWh/yr for wave energy and under 400 TWh/yr for tidal and ocean current, which represents up to 25 percent of projected U.S. generation needs by 2050. Likewise, a study conducted by the Electric Power Research Institute found that the wave power potential off the coast of the U.S. is robust. Harnessing just 24 percent of the available wave energy resource base at a fifty percent conversion efficiency rate would generate as much electricity as all conventional hydropower installed in the United States. Commercialization of technologies to harness marine renewable energy resources will require federal funding to augment research and development efforts already underway in the private sector. Just as the wind and solar industries have enjoyed DOE funding support for over two decades (which has resulted in the rapid deployment of these technologies in recent years), the nascent marine energy industry is requesting similar federal assistance to develop promising technologies that are on the verge of commercial viability. Increased resources for the U.S. MHK industry through DOE’s Water Power Program will enable the United States to leverage its technological superiority in shipbuilding and offshore oil and gas production, creating jobs and diversifying these maritime industries toward developing new domestic energy supplies and capturing an emerging global export market. In the absence of such funding, however, the United States will have to depend on foreign suppliers for marine energy technologies, and will have missed a significant opportunity to expand our economic competiveness in this renewable energy sector. During Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Carr’s recent testimony, he stated that “the Department (of Energy) supports the goals of ensuring United States leadership in innovating, validating, and manufacturing MHK technologies domestically, as well as deploying these technologies sustainably in order to harness the energy potential of our various water resources while building a clean energy economy.” Unfortunately, the United States is falling behind in the race to capture the rich energy potential of our oceans. Many countries, especially those in Europe, have already deployed viable, operating, power generating technologies using the emission-free power of ocean waves, currents, and tidal forces. Early funding support, along with development of full-scale device testing centers (still unavailable here in the United States), demonstrates that the significant technological advances and competitive advantages in this industry are taking place in Europe and elsewhere. The U.S. is far behind in acknowledging the importance of these technologies. Increasing investment in MHK technologies bolsters U.S. competitivenessUS DOE 13 (United States Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy “Marine and Hydrokinetic (Wave) Testing Infrastructure Development” Notice of Intent (NOI) Number DE-FOA-0000899 p. 2. Published April 2013, Accessed 23-6-14)GH The global MHK industry is relatively nascent, and although some innovative wave energy designs have progressed towards commercial readiness (Technology Readiness Level [TRL] 9), none of these designs are yet optimized nor are they able to compete with other traditional forms of electricity generation. There is tremendous innovation currently taking place within the U.S. MHK industry sector. However, for the U.S. to catch up with international MHK development and accelerate the development of this important wave energy resource, continued investment in research and development, including the development of supporting test infrastructure, will be necessary. Only USFG funding solves MHK competitivenessBatten 14 (Dr. Belinda A. Batten, Director of Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, in her testimony before the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power in the hearing on “S. 1419, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013” on 27 Feb 2014. Accessed 26-6-14) The reauthorization of the Department of Energy’s Water Power Program through S. 1419 is essential to providing the continued funding that this industry needs at this stage of its development. This is particularly true when you keep in mind that funding from the DOE Water Power Program is the one key mechanism to support U.S. technology developers competing against overseas companies that receive a suite of subsidies. The reality is that most MHK companies are not yet in a position to receive the tax benefits enjoyed by more mature conventional and renewable energy technologies. In addition, the regulatory changes proposed in S. 1419 will provide an avenue for promising new MHK companies and their technologies to advance through the necessary testing stages more quickly. This industry requires targeted investments and permitting efficiencies like those that are included in S. 1419. These investments and permitting efficiencies are essential to developing the MHK energy sector that has the potential to deliver reliable power to our coastal communities with significant, positive economic impact. NNMREC has received over $10M in funds from DOE to date, and another $10M in non-federal matching funds, mostly from the States of Oregon and Washington. This bill will enable NNMREC to continue to support developers as illustrated in my example with Columbia Power Technologies. Ocean energy can play a significant role in our nation’s renewable energy portfolio. With the right support, the United States’ MHK industry can be competitive internationally. I am pleased to offer my support for S. 1419. I ask this committee to consider the measure and positively refer it to the full Senate for its eventual passage. I will be glad to respond to any questions that you may have about NNMREC’s activities or the MHK industry. USA has to decrease reliance on fossil fuels to remain competitiveMineral Webs 14 “The US Dependency on Fossil Fuels”; http://www.mineralwebs.com/us-dependency-on-fossil-fuels.php; Accessed June 22, 2014// More than any other country the US is dependent on fossil fuels. As by far the world’s largest consumer this dependency is starting to become a problem. The entire economy is built on the idea that fossil fuels can provide the country with cheap energy and for many years that has been the case. Unfortunately that is unlikely to continue, the increasing competition for a limited resource likely means that the price will rise rapidly in the future. Even worse the US has tended to lag behind other countries when it comes to developing alternative energy sources. This is a serious problem that the US is going to have to adapt to if the economy is to remain strong and vibrant.¶ The main problem with US dependency on fossil fuels is that most of it has to be imported. The US doesn’t produce anywhere near enough fossil fuels to meet their own needs, especially oil. This can be a real problem when there is hostility towards the US from the countries that produce the oil. Over the last fifty years a great deal of US foreign policy has revolved around making sure that the country had access to cheap supplies of oil. This has come at great expense so while the gas may be cheap at the pump a great deal of tax dollars were invested in making sure that cheap gas was available.¶ The other big problem with the US dependency on fossil fuels is that there is an increasing amount of competition for those fuels. This is mainly from the developing world. Most of the fastest growing economies in the world are also some of the largest countries in the world in terms of population. In order to meet the demand for a higher standard of living that the people in these countries are going to expect from a booming economy more and more fossil fuels are going to be required. This is going to send the price soaring since there is a limited amount that can be produced. People in the US are already concerned about high oil prices but in reality the price is going to go much higher. The US economy is going to have to adapt to this increase if it is to remain competitive.¶ Of course at some point the fossil fuels are going to run out. Nobody can predict when this will happen but it is pretty widely agreed that we have at least a hundred years before it becomes a problem. Unfortunately this has led to complacency as people aren’t concerned about the fact that in the distant future we will run out of fossil fuels. The problem is that it is going to take many decades to develop and switch the entire country over to alternative energy sources. We can’t wait until we are actually in danger of running out of fossil fuels before we switch over or it will be too late. Competitiveness – Clean EnergyLeadership in clean energy boosts competitivenessGordon et al 13 (Kate Gordon is VP and Director of the Energy & Climate Program at Next Generation. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. She is a nationally recognized expert on the intersection of clean energy and economic development, most recently as VP for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington D.C. Derek Pugh is a special assistant at the Campaign for America’s Future. Robert L. Borosage is the founder and president of the Institute for America’s Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future. The organizations were launched by 100 prominent Americans to develop the policies, message and issue campaigns to help forge an enduring majority for progressive change in America. Published in “The Green Industrial Revolution and the United States” on 12 Dec 2013 at http://ourfuture.org/report/green-industrial-revolution-and-united-states Accessed 26-6-14) The countries that lead this transformation will benefit enormously, not just from breathing healthier air and drinking untainted water, but also from economic expansion in the forms of new markets, profits, and jobs. The countries that lead this green revolution will lead the 21st century. Those that ignore it will become this century’s Luddites. The question facing the United States is clear: Which one will we choose to be, leader or Luddite? Today, the United States is a leader in advanced energy innovation, holding most of the world’s patents in this area. We are also at the front of the pack when it comes to installing new renewable energy systems, building highly efficient structures, and pushing for more fuel-efficient and electric cars. But we have many rivals. China and Germany, in particular, have made the clean energy transition central to their overall economic development strategies. Despite some major setbacks and obstacles, these countries continue to have a strong political and policy consensus behind transforming to a more advanced energy economy, while in the United States—notwithstanding the president’s recent rousing climate speech in June 2013—the past few years have seen an increasingly partisan divide on energy and climate issues at the national level. US currently leads clean energy but risks falling behindGordon et al 13 (Kate Gordon is VP and Director of the Energy & Climate Program at Next Generation. She is also a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress. She is a nationally recognized expert on the intersection of clean energy and economic development, most recently as VP for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress (CAP) in Washington D.C. Derek Pugh is a special assistant at the Campaign for America’s Future. Robert L. Borosage is the founder and president of the Institute for America’s Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America’s Future. The organizations were launched by 100 prominent Americans to develop the policies, message and issue campaigns to help forge an enduring majority for progressive change in America. Published in “The Green Industrial Revolution and the United States” on 12 Dec 2013 at http://ourfuture.org/report/green-industrial-revolution-and-united-states Accessed 26-6-14) The United States has been a leader in technical innovation and market transformation since the Industrial Revolution. But when it comes to the Clean Energy Revolution—the transformation of the global economy from high-carbon, polluting energy sources to a more sustainable future—the U.S. risks falling behind. Countries with top-down approaches on clean energy policy, like China and Germany, are surging ahead. It’s time we in the U.S. brought our own unique brand of bottom-up, regionally diverse, disruptive economic growth strategy to the table. This report argues that a clean energy strategy that builds on regional strengths could turn the U.S. from a clean energy Luddite to a clean energy leader. Competitiveness Low Now, but Investments SolveUS is currently not competitive due to lack of investmentWashington Post 14 (Zachary Godfarb for the Washington Post in “Your taxes are going up. You just don’t know it yet.” On 24 June 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/06/24/your-taxes-are-going-up-you-just-dont-know-it-yet/ Accessed 25-6-14) It is too soon to declare the U.S. economy in decline. But U.S. spending on infrastructure, research and development and early childhood education is not a source of optimism. On some of these measures, the United States has already fallen behind; on others, it is at risk of doing so. The only way to do better is invest more. And to pay for that, you either need to cut a substantial amount of spending elsewhere—Social Security, Medicare and the safety net are the biggest sources of spending—or raise taxes. America's R&D problem Perhaps the most vivid example of where the country is falling behind is R&D, which more than anything else is what generated the innovations that made the U.S. economy the most productive and most dynamic in the world. Since 1976, federal R&D as a percentage of gross domestic product has fallen from 1.23 percent to .78 percent. In large part as a result, the United States, which used to be first in the world, is losing ground to other countries in overall R&D—which consists of federal, state and private dollars. As a percentage of GDP, the United States ranks tenth in the world. And the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology warned in 2012 that "China’s investment as a percentage of its GDP shows continuing, deliberate growth that, if it continues, should surpass the roughly flat United States investment within a decade." To alter these trends, the United States is going to need to significantly boost R&D spending. In recent years, however, Congress's impulse has been to cut or limit R&D, which is part of a category of domestic expenditures known as non-defense discretionary spending. It is usually the easiest to whack, and both Democrats and Republicans have gleefully done so. Competitiveness – A2: Ex-Im Alt. CauseEx-Im is not an alt causeMulvaney 14 (Sean Robert Mulvaney, member of the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), presidential appointee, sworn-in on June 6, 2011, in “Enabling Export Credit to Support Growth: The Role of the Export-Import Bank of the United States” on 27 June 2014. http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticle/2014/06/27/enabling-export-credit-to-support-growth-the-role-of-the-export-import-bank-of--a-523467.html#.U68jnfldV8E Accessed 28-6-14) To support US export competitiveness and jobs, Ex-Im also issues loan guarantees or insurance to financial institutions to facilitate credit to foreign buyers of US capital goods and services. Financial institutions apply for the Ex-Im guarantee or insurance enabling full payment to exporters at the time of sale. To qualify for Ex-Im financing, buyers must meet minimum credit criteria. If the buyer does not meet the standards, a guarantor, bank guarantees or other credit enhancements may be used to qualify. Ex-Im's support enables the buyers to obtain competitive term financing (matching the financing offered by foreign competitors of US exporters) or when there are no economically viable terms beyond one or two years in their respective countries. US exporters benefit by receiving payment at the time of shipment. Ex-Im support is the lesser of 85% of the value of all eligible goods and services in the supply contract, or 100% of the content. The interest rate charged is typically a floating rate negotiated between the buyer and the lender. With Ex-Im's guarantee or insurance, lenders will be covered for 100% of principal and accrued interest on the eligible good and services shipped from the United States. Ex-Im isn’t an alt cause – effects less than 2% of US exportsAlden 14 (Edward Alden, Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow Council of Foreign Relations, in “The GOP’s Tunnel Vision on the Export-Import Bank on 27-6-14. http://www.economonitor.com/blog/2014/06/the-gops-tunnel-vision-on-the-export-import-bank/ Accessed 28-6-14) This is simply a fantasy. Other countries, especially China, are ramping up support for their exporters. The Export-Import Bank’s role is a small one, helping less than two percent of all U.S. exports. For a certain class of exports to developing countries–mostly aircraft and large infrastructure projects such as mining, telecommunications and oil and gas development–the bank offers various kinds of loans, insurance and loan guarantees to ensure that U.S. companies get paid. These are transactions that private sector banks are reluctant to finance completely because of the risks involved. Yet the Export-Import Bank, because it is backed by the full credit of the U.S. government, is able to do so. And its track record is impeccable–in the past five years it has actually earned $2 billion for the U.S. Treasury. If the bank is shuttered, it’s not like those projects will disappear. Instead the contracts will go to European or Canadian or Chinese companies that are getting the same sort of export credit support from their governments (indeed, often more generous) that the Export-Import Bank currently offers. If American companies want to compete they will likely move production to other countries to become eligible for that financial support. Jobs will move with them. Competitiveness ImpactsLack of Competitiveness causes several scenarios for nuclear warFerguson, History Professor @ Harvard 4 – (Niall, A World Without Power, Foreign Policy) The reversal of globalization--which a new Dark Age would produce--would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itself after a second September 11 devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business. Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans- Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis, unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Western investors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worst effects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the edges of the waning great powers. The wealthiest ports of the global economy--from New York to Rotterdam to Shanghai--would become the targets of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oil tankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile, limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions, beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir, perhaps ending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded safe havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the United States retreats from global hegemony--its fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontier--its critics at home and abroad must not pretend that they are ushering in a new era of multipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful what you wish for. The alternative to unipolarity would not be multipolarity at all. It would be apolarity--a global vacuum of power. Heg is key to the economyStephen Walt, Spring 2002. John F Kennedy School of Government Professor at Harvard. Naval War College Review, www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2002/spring/art1-sp2.htm. By facilitating the development of a more open and liberal world economy, American primacy also fosters global prosperity. Economic interdependence is often said to be a cause of world peace, but it is more accurate to say that peace encourages interdependence-by making it easier for states to accept the potential vulnerabilities of extensive international intercourse. Investors are more willing to send money abroad when the danger of war is remote, and states worry less about being dependent on others when they are not concerned that these connections might be severed. When states are relatively secure, they will also be less fixated on how the gains from cooperation are distributed. In particular, they are less likely to worry that extensive cooperation will benefit others more and thereby place them at a relative disadvantage over time. By providing a tranquil international environment, in short, U.S. primacy has created political conditions that are conducive to expanding global trade and investment. Indeed, American primacy was a prerequisite for the creation and gradual expansion of the European Union, which is often touted as a triumph of economic self-interest over historical rivalries. Because the United States was there to protect the Europeans from the Soviet Union and from each other, they could safely ignore the balance of power within Western Europe and concentrate on expanding their overall level of economic integration. The expansion of world trade has been a major source of increased global prosperity, and U.S. primacy is one of the central pillars upon which that system rests. The United States also played a leading role in establishing the various institutions that regulate and manage the world economy. As a number of commentators have noted, the current era of “globalization” is itself partly an artifact of American power. As Thomas Friedman puts it, “Without America on duty, there will be no America Online.” Growth Low NowIt is actually low and is no longer resilient- old factors are no longer presentAppelbaum 6/11 BINYAMIN APPELBAUM is correspondent for NYT, “U.S. Economic Recovery Looks Distant as Growth Stalls”, NYT, Jun. 11, 14 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/12/business/economy/us-economic-recovery-looks-distant-as-growth-lingers.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=1 WASHINGTON — Recessions are always painful, but the Great Recession that ran from late 2007 to the middle of 2009 may have inflicted a new kind of pain: an era of slower growth. It has been five years since the official end of that severe economic downturn. The nation’s total annual output has moved substantially above the prerecession peak, but economic growth has averaged only about 2 percent a year, well below its historical average. Household incomes continue to stagnate, and millions of Americans still can’t find jobs. And a growing number of experts see evidence that the economy will never rebound completely. For more than a century, the pace of growth was reliably resilient, bouncing back after recessions like a car returning to its cruising speed after a roadblock. Even after the prolonged Great Depression of the 1930s, growth eventually returned to an average pace of more than 3 percent a year. But Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew, citing the Congressional Budget Office, said on Wednesday that the government now expected annual growth to average just 2.1 percent, about two-thirds of the previous pace. “Many today wonder whether something that has always been true in our past will be true in our future,” Mr. Lew told members of the Economic Club of New York. “There are questions about whether America can maintain strong rates of growth and doubts about whether the benefits of technology, innovation and prosperity will be shared broadly.” The most recent recession and the slow recovery have “left lasting scars on the economy,” the Labor Department concluded late last year in a report that declared slower growth “the new normal” for the American economy. The Federal Reserve, persistently optimistic in its previous forecasts, said in March that it no longer expected a full recovery in the foreseeable future. Lawrence H. Summers, formerly President Obama’s chief economic adviser and now a leading member of this Cassandra chorus, has warned that growth may fall short of expectations unless the federal government increases its spending on things like upgrading deteriorating roads and bridges and the development of new technologies. “A soft economy casts a substantial shadow forward onto the economy’s future output and potential,” he said in a speech in April. The pessimism is a striking departure from economic orthodoxy. Recessions cause considerable suffering, including permanent disruptions to individual lives, but most economists have long asserted that recessions do not reduce the economy’s capacity to supply goods and services. Some economists still expect a complete recovery. They say it takes a long time to recover from financial crises, and that the healing process has been set back unexpectedly by cuts in government spending, by Europe’s woes and, most recently, by a hard winter. Other economists, also committed to the orthodox view of recessions, argue that the slower growth is here to stay, but say that it is the result of longer-term trends that predate the recession, like fewer Americans entering the work force and less innovation. “We have recovered” from the recession, said Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University. “We just don’t like what that looks like.” The emerging view espoused by an eclectic range of economists — including Mr. Summers; Paul Krugman of Princeton and an Op-Ed page columnist for The New York Times; and Robert E. Hall of Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution — accepts that slower growth is partly the result of long-term trends. It is an unfortunate coincidence, in effect, that just as the floor was giving way, the ceiling was falling, too. But these analysts also see mounting evidence that recessions, and slow recoveries, can have enduring consequences. Since 2007, the Congressional Budget Office has cut its estimate of potential economic output in 2017 by a total of about 7 percent, or $2,500 per American. The budget office says the recession is responsible for a quarter of the cuts. It attributes the rest to long-term trends. An analysis published last month by Mr. Hall argued that the recession played an even larger role. Much of the scrutiny has focused on the labor market. The share of adults with jobs fell sharply during the recession and has rebounded only slightly because many people have simply stopped looking for work. The situation is likely to improve somewhat as the economy gains strength, but part of the decline is tied to factors that are more permanent. They include the share of Americans claiming federal disability benefits, which rose sharply in recent years. Few of those people will ever return to the work force after receiving benefits. At the same time, fewer immigrants have been arriving. There are almost two million fewer people over the age of 16 than the federal government had projected back in 2007. The recession also reduced the number of future workers. The birthrate has declined each year from 2007 to 2012, the most recent for which data is available. Economic prosperity is determined not just by the number of workers but, even more important, by their output per hour of work. There is growing speculation that decisions made in the wake of the recession have weakened that output, too. Government spending and public investment has fallen by almost 8 percent, the largest decline in more than half a century. Corporate investment has also been lackluster. As with the labor market, there is a clear short-term problem and also a long-term trend. John G. Fernald, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and a leading expert on productivity, argued in a 2012 paper that the growth of productivity had slowed as companies completed a cycle of technological investment. U.S. is key to the global economyThe U.S. is key to global economic growth in 2015Nicholas J. Mangee, April 24, ’14, an assistant professor of economics at Armstrong Atlantic State University, “Our economic times: IMF reports U.S. economy to drive global growth,” Business in Savannah, http://businessinsavannah.com/bis/2014-04-24/our-economic-times-imf-reports-us-economy-drive-global-growth#.U3jaf_k8CSo, Accessed 5/18/2014 The latest report from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) states that the U.S. will lead global economic growth through 2015. This is welcome news as our nation continues to battle with notions of the “new economic norm” characterized by droves of long-term unemployed and dysfunctional politics. Although U.S. economic growth has shown sloth-like progress on the heels of the great recession, our recovery has outpaced that of other advanced economies. And, in light of weakened financial positions and mounting geopolitical risks, emerging nations such as Brazil and Russia, once anointed as the new global economic engines, have had their 2014-15 growth estimates slashed by the IMF. The U.S. is still key to the global economyTom Keane, Staff Writer, April 13, ‘14, “World economy no longer hangs on the US,” Boston Globe, http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/04/12/world-economy-longer-hangs/GRC0rfo0QP2YT5q4qpFw8L/story.html, Accessed 4/14/2014 So now that the United States appears poised to bounce back, does the world bounce back as well? The International Monetary Fund says yes — it expects the US revival to translate to global revival. The fund’s World Economic Outlook, just released this month, figures worldwide economic activity will grow in 2014 by 3.6 percent (up from 2013’s 3.0 percent) and in 2015 by 3.9 percent. “Much of the impetus” for that, the IMF says, is “coming from advanced economies” — namely, the United States. So the metaphor still holds. We matter. We really do matter. But perhaps not as much as we once did. US econ reports of bad Q1 led to weak global marketsAP 5/30, 5-30-14, "World Stock Markets Drop After Bad US Economic Report", The Epoch Times, Accessed 6-28-14, World stock markets were mostly weaker Friday after a government report showed the U.S. economy shrank in the first quarter and the U.S. dollar lost value against major Asian currencies.¶ The yen gained against the greenback after reports that Japan’s consumer price index rose 3.2 percent in April, the highest inflation rate since 1991. Higher inflation was driven by a sales tax increase that is expected to dampen growth this quarter. The dollar fell to 101.63 yen from 101.73 yen.¶ Europe opened mostly lower but the drop was small. Britain’s FTSE 100 was down 0.1 percent to 6,867.07 and France’s CAC 40 dipped 0.3 percent to 4,519.33. Germany’s DAX rose 0.2 percent to 9,962.37.¶ Futures indicated Wall Street was set for a flat session. Dow futures stayed nearly unchanged and S&P 500 futures edged down 0.1 percent.¶ Japan’s Nikkei 225 declined 0.3 percent to 14,632.38 and South Korea’s Kospi slipped 0.9 percent to 1,994.96. Earlier Friday, the South Korean won strengthened to the highest level against the U.S. dollar in more than five years.¶ “Asian equities have remained directionless heading into the weekend and the end of the month with mixed performances across the board,” IG strategist Stan Shamu said in commentary.¶ Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 fell 0.5 percent to 5,492.50. Markets in Indonesia, Taiwan and New Zealand also fell.¶ But Hong Kong’s Hang Seng added 0.3 percent to 23,081.65. Thai stocks also rose.¶ Figures from the Commerce Department showed that the U.S. economy, the world’s largest, shrank by an annualized rate of 1 percent in the January-March period, far worse than the initial estimate of a 0.1 percent contraction. Competitiveness is key to the economySally 13 http://forumblog.org/2013/09/why-cities-hold-the-key-to-a-nations-competitiveness/ Razeen Sally Why cities hold the key to a nation's competitiveness It is commonplace to think, as Adam Smith did, of the wealth of nations. Two centuries later, with Smith as relevant as ever, we think of “national competitiveness”. I would argue that to complement the debate on policies and institutions that enhance national productivity another factor should be taken into account. We should also try to understand how city economies can be harnessed for economic, political and social gain. More than ever, cities – especially “global cities”, from London to Beijing – are the lifeblood of the global economy, accounting for account for over 80% of the world’s GDP. The competitiveness of cities increasingly determines the wealth of nations, regions and the whole world. The map of the global economy most of us have in mind is one of nation states connected to each other via flows of trade, capital, people and technology. That is still highly relevant. But throughout history the most intensive cross-border economic transactions have been between cities – most of them on the coastline. Today, the bulk of international trade by volume is still ocean-going trade between coastal cities, only now it is conveyed by huge container ships. So think of a different map of the global economy: one of cities connected across land borders, seas and oceans through the exchange of goods and services, foreign investment, migrants and short-term workers, and border-hopping technology. Given the enduring importance of national competitiveness, such a map is a complement – not an alternative — to an inter-national map of the global economy. Unprecedented levels of urbanization make this city-based map particularly relevant. Three years ago, for the first time in history, over half the world’s population lived in cities. According to McKinsey Global Institute, as of 2007, 1.5 billion people (22% of the world’s population) lived in the world’s 600 most populous cities and accounted for a GDP of USD 30 trillion – well over half of global GDP. The top 100 cities, with a GDP of USD 21 trillion, accounted for 38% of global GDP. In 2025, McKinsey reckons, the top 600 cities will have 25% of the world’s population and nearly 60% of global GDP. The World Economic Forum’s annual Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014, published today, identifies the policies and institutions that boost national productivity and determines competitiveness and economic growth. But what can nations learn from cities when it comes to building sustainable, long term economies? Most productive policy innovation is happening in cities and regions. Policy-making is more flexible and practical the closer it is to the citizen. And this is more conducive to all-round learning and adaptation: cities emulate each other and adopt best international practice often better than do nations. This is true of cities and state governments in the United States, while Washington DC remains gridlocked. In the EU, national governments and EU institutions are stuck with failed policies. Can Europe’s cities break out of this straightjacket and unleash long-delayed reforms? This century’s story of cities and the wealth of nations will be scripted mainly in the emerging world – outside the West. Asian cities, stretching from India to China and Northeast Asia via Southeast Asia, will be the main players. McKinsey Global Institute’s list of top 600 cities includes 220 from developing countries. But it estimates that, by 2025, 136 new cities will join this list – all from developing countries. Of the new entrants, 100 will come from China alone. What are the ingredients that make cities more productive? Some vital policies are parochial: urban planning and zoning, housing, water, sanitation, policing and so on. But the most successful cities, like the most successful nations, also have the following: stable and solid public finances; low, simple and competitive taxation; simple and transparent business regulation; strong and impartial rule of law; openness to international trade and foreign investment; a welcoming environment for “foreign talent”; good “hard connectivity” – roads, transit systems, ports, airports; and good “soft connectivity” – education, skills and technology diffusion. Like nations, cities with limited – but effective – government and competitive markets do better than cities with big, inefficient government and distorted markets. This reinforces the message that there is a good deal of overlap between city competitiveness and national competitiveness. My role models are the city-states of Hong Kong and Singapore. Both regularly top the rankings of the Global Competitiveness Report, the World Bank’s Doing BusinessIndex and the Simon Fraser Institute’s Economic Freedom of the World Index. Government is relatively small, clean and efficient, and markets are relatively competitive and highly globalized. Nowadays, Hong Kong and Singapore are the logistics and services hubs for Asian trade. Modern global supply chains plug them into other cities in Asia and beyond. To me, free markets and free trade form a trinity. First, they promote growth and prosperity – the economic imperative. Second, they enhance individual freedom – the moral imperative. And third, they, more than anything else, sustain peaceful international relations – the geopolitical imperative. I think of cities in this context. They might indeed be among the best available political-economic units to promote prosperity, freedom and peace. Growth Good - povertyGrowth good for poor- rising economy lifts all boatsKraay et al 13 David Dollar is a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development programs Growth Still Is Good for the Poor. Tatjana Kleineberg is a PhD candidate in Economics at Yale University. Aart Kraay is an economist in the Development Research Group at the World Bank. He joined the World Bank in 1995 after earning a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University (1995), and a B.Sc. in economics from the University of Toronto (1990). “Growth still is good for the poor”, Brookings, Aug 13 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/blogs/2013/10/23%20growth%20and%20income%20of%20the%20poor/growth_still_a_good_for_the_poor_ddollar.pdf Incomes of the bottom 20 percent and bottom 40 percent of the income distribution generally rise equiproportionally with mean incomes as economic growth proceeds. We establish this result in a data-set spanning 118 countries and four decades, updating and expanding the results of Dollar and Kraay (2002). The result holds across decades, including in the 2000s -- hence the conclusion that “growth still is good for the poor.” The shares of the bottom 20 percent and bottom 40 percent are measures of income inequality, and the foundation of our result is that changes in this particular measure of inequality generally are small and uncorrelated with economic growth. The finding is good news in the sense that we can expect economic growth to lift people out of poverty and lead to shared prosperity on average. The result also helps us understand how the rapid growth in the developing world in recent decades has led to such dramatic poverty reduction. A second important finding is that the income shares of the bottom 20 percent and bottom 40 percent show no systematic tendency to decline over time; that is, there is no worldwide trend towards greater inequality, using these measures on a country-by-country basis. During 299 minimum-five-year spells, the average annual growth rate in the income share of the bottom 40 percent is 0.000. Furthermore, there is no tendency for that result to change over time. The average change was 0.003 in the 1980s, -0.003 in the 1990s, and 0.004 in the 2000s. Our third result is that around three-quarters of the variation across countries and over time in growth rates of income of the bottom 20 percent or 40 percent can be explained by variation in growth rates of mean income, while the remainder comes from changes in quintile shares. The fact that changes in quintile shares are zero on average does not mean that there are not some striking changes in inequality in particular countries at particular time periods. We attempt to explain these changes in inequality with variables used in the empirical growth literature, such as measures of macroeconomic stability, trade openness, and political stability. We also include variables that might plausibly increase the income share of the poor (measures of agricultural productivity and government spending in health 18 and education). This part of our work essentially provides non-results: none of the macro country-level variables we consider robustly correlates with changes in the income shares of the poorest quintiles. So, if we are interested in “shared prosperity”, we have both good news and bad news. The good news is that institutions and policies that promote economic growth in general will on average raise incomes of the poor equiproportionally, thereby promoting “shared prosperity”. The bad news is that, in choosing among macroeconomic policies, there is no robust evidence that certain policies are particularly “pro-poor” or conducive to promoting “shared prosperity” other than through their direct effects on overall economic growth. Growth Good - WarGrowth disincentivizes armed conflict- interdependence is the better strategy for countriesZakaria 14 Fareed Zakaria is a columnist for Washington post, “Obama’s 21st-century power politics”, Washington Post, Mar. 27, 14 http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obama-pursues-the-right-response-to-russias-19th-century-behavior/2014/03/27/a7b8dc2a-b5df-11e3-b899-20667de76985_story.html Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought to the fore an important debate about what kind of world we live in. Many critics charge that the Obama administration has been blind to its harsh realities because it believes, as the Wall Street Journal opined, in “a fantasy world of international rules.” John McCain declared that “this is the most naive president in history.” The Post’s editorial board worried that President Obama misunderstands “the nature of the century we’re living in.” Almost all of these critics have ridiculed Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion that changing borders by force, as Russia did, is 19th-century behavior in the 21st century. Well, here are the facts. Scholar Mark Zacher has tallied up changes of borders by force, something that was once quite common. Since World War I, he notes, that practice has sharply declined, and in recent decades, that decline has accelerated. Before 1950, wars between nations resulted in border changes (annexations) about 80 percent of the time. After 1950, that number dropped to 27 percent. In fact, since 1946, there have been only 12 examples of major changes in borders using force — and all of them before 1976. So Putin’s behavior, in fact, does belong to the 19th century. The transformation of international relations goes well beyond border changes. Harvard’s Steven Pinker has collected war data in his superb book “The Better Angels of Our Nature.” In a more recent essay, he points out that “after a 600-year stretch in which Western European countries started two new wars a year, they have not started one since 1945. Nor have the 40 or so richest nations anywhere in the world engaged each other in armed conflict.” Colonial wars, a routine feature of international life for thousands of years, are extinct. Wars between countries — not just major powers, not just in Europe — have also dropped dramatically, by more than 50 percent over the past three decades. Scholars at the University of Maryland have found that the past decade has seen the lowest number of new conflicts since World War II. Many aspects of international life remain nasty and brutish, and it is easy to sound tough and suggest that you understand the hard realities of power politics. But the most astonishing, remarkable reality about the world is how much things have changed, especially since 1945. It is ironic that the Wall Street Journal does not recognize this new world because it was created in substantial part through capitalism and free trade. Twenty years ago, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew, as hardheaded a statesman as I have ever met, told me that Asian countries had seen the costs of war and the fruits of economic interdependence and development — and that they would not choose the former over the latter. This is not an academic debate. The best way to deal with Russia’s aggression in Crimea is not to present it as routine and national interest-based foreign policy that will be countered by Washington in a contest between two great powers. It is to point out, as Obama did eloquently this week in Brussels, that Russia is grossly endangering a global order that has benefited the entire world. Compare what the Obama administration has managed to organize in the wake of this latest Russian aggression to the Bush administration’s response to Putin’s actions in Georgia in 2008. That was a blatant invasion. Moscow sent in tanks and heavy artillery; hundreds were killed, nearly 200,000 displaced. Yet the response was essentially nothing. This time, it has been much more serious. Some of this difference is in the nature of the stakes, but it might also have to do with the fact that the Obama administration has taken pains to present Russia’s actions in a broader context and get other countries to see them as such. You can see a similar pattern with Iran. The Bush administration largely pressured that country bilaterally. The Obama administration was able to get much more effective pressure because it presented Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to global norms of nonproliferation, persuaded the other major powers to support sanctions, enacted them through the United Nations and thus ensured that they were comprehensive and tight. This is what leadership looks like in the 21st century. There is an evolving international order with new global norms making war and conquest increasingly rare. We should strengthen, not ridicule, it. Yes, some places stand in opposition to this trend — North Korea, Syria, Russia. The people running these countries believe that they are charting a path to greatness and glory. But they are the ones living in a fantasy world. US economic model is the key internal link to interdependence and multilateral cooperation. The alternative is competitive mercantilism that will destroy cooperationPosen 09 Deputy director and senior fellow of the Peterson Institute for International Economics Adam, “Economic leadership beyond the crisis,” http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/foresight/documents/PN%20USA_FINAL_LR_1.pdf Accessed 6/26 In the postwar period, US power and prestige, beyond the nation’s military might, have been based largely on American relative economic size and success. These facts enabled the US to promote economic openness and buy-in to a set of economic institutions, formal and informal, that resulted in increasing international economic integration. With the exception of the immediate post-Bretton Woods oil-shock period (1974-85), this combination produced generally growing prosperity at home and abroad, and underpinned the idea that there were benefits to other countries of following the American model and playing by American rules. Initially this system was most influential and successful in those countries in tight military alliance with the US, such as Canada, West Germany, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom. With the collapse of Soviet communism in 1989, and the concomitant switch of important emerging economies, notably Brazil, China, India, and Mexico, to increasingly free-market capitalism, global integration on American terms through American leadership has been increasingly dominant for the last two decades. The global financial crisis of 2008-09, however, represents a challenge to that world order. While overt financial panic has been averted, and most economic forecasts are for recovery to begin in the US and the major emerging markets well before end of 2009 (a belief I share), there remain significant risks for the US and its leadership. The global financial system, including but not limited to US-based entities, has not yet been sustainably reformed. In fact, financial stability will come under strain again when the current government financial guarantees and public ownership of financial firms and assets are unwound over the next couple of years. The growth rate of the US economy and the ability of the US government to finance responses to future crises, both military and economic, will be meaningfully curtailed for several years to come. Furthermore, the crisis will accelerate at least temporarily two related long-term trends eroding the viability of the current international economic arrangements. First, perhaps inevitably, the economic size and importance of China, India, Brazil, and other emerging markets (including oil-exporters like Russia) has been catching up with the US, and even more so with demographically and productivity challenged Europe and northeast Asia. Second, pressure has been building over the past fifteen years or so of these developing countries’ economic rise to give their governments more voice and weight in international economic decision-making. Again, this implies a transfer of relative voting share from the US, but an even greater one from overrepresented Western Europe. The near certainty that Brazil, China, and India, are to be less harmed in real economic terms by the current crisis than either the US or most other advanced economies will only emphasise their growing strength, and their ability to claim a role in leadership. The need for capital transfers from China and oil-exporters to fund deficits and bank recapitalisation throughout the West, not just in the US, increases these rising countries’ leverage and legitimacy in international economic discussions. One aspect of this particular crisis is that American economic policymakers, both Democratic and Republican, became increasingly infatuated with financial services and innovation beginning in the mid-1990s. This reflected a number of factors, some ideological, some institutional, and some interest group driven. The key point here is that export of financial services and promotion of financial liberalisation on the US securitised model abroad came to dominate the US international economic policy agenda, and thus that of the IMF, the OECD, and the G8 as well. This came to be embodied by American multinational commercial and investment banks, in perception and in practice. That particular version of the American economic model has been widely discredited, because of the crisis’ apparent origins in US lax regulation and over-consumption, as well as in excessive faith in American-style financial markets. Thus, American global economic leadership has been eroded over the long-term by the rise of major emerging market economies, disrupted in the shortterm by the nature and scope of the financial crisis, and partially discredited by the excessive reliance upon and overselling of US-led financial capitalism. This crisis therefore presents the possibility of the US model for economic development being displaced, not only deservedly tarnished, and the US having limited resources in the near-term to try to respond to that challenge. Additionally, the US’ traditional allies and co-capitalists in Western Europe and Northeast Asia have been at least as damaged economically by the crisis (though less damaged reputationally). Is there an alternative economic model? The preceding description would seem to confirm the rise of the Rest over the West. That would be premature. The empirical record is that economic recovery from financial crises, while painful, is doable even by the poorest countries, and in advanced countries rarely leads to significant political dislocation. Even large fiscal debt burdens can be reined in over a few years where political will and institutions allow, and the US has historically fit in that category. A few years of slower growth will be costly, but also may put the US back on a sustainable growth path in terms of savings versus consumption. Though the relative rise of the major emerging markets will be accelerated by the crisis, that acceleration will be insufficient to rapidly close the gap with the US in size, let alone in technology and well-being. None of those countries, except perhaps for China, can think in terms of rivaling the US in all the aspects of national power. These would include: a large, dynamic and open economy; favorable demographic dynamics; monetary stability and a currency with a global role; an ability to project hard power abroad; and an attractive economic model to export for wide emulation. This last point is key. In the area of alternative economic models, one cannot beat something with nothing – communism fell not just because of its internal contradictions, or the costly military build-up, but because capitalism presented a clearly superior alternative. The Chinese model is in part the American capitalist (albeit not high church financial liberalisation) model, and is in part mercantilism. There has been concern that some developing or small countries could take the lesson from China that building up lots of hard currency reserves through undervaluation and export orientation is smart. That would erode globalisation, and lead to greater conflict with and criticism of the US-led system. While in the abstract that is a concern, most emerging markets – and notably Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa, and South Korea – are not pursuing that extreme line. The recent victory of the incumbent Congress Party in India is one indication, and the statements about openness of Brazilian President Lula is another. Mexico’s continued orientation towards NAFTA while seeking other investment flows (outside petroleum sector, admittedly) to and from abroad is a particularly brave example. Germany’s and Japan’s obvious crisis-prompted difficulties emerging from their very high export dependence, despite their being wealthy, serve as cautionary examples on the other side. So unlike in the1970s, the last time that the US economic performance and leadership were seriously compromised, we will not see leading developing economies like Brazil and India going down the import substitution or other self-destructive and uncooperative paths. If this assessment is correct, the policy challenge is to deal with relative US economic decline, but not outright hostility to the US model or displacement of the current international economic system. That is reassuring, for it leaves us in the realm of normal economic diplomacy, perhaps to be pursued more multilaterally and less high-handedly than the US has done over the past 20 years. It also suggests that adjustment of current international economic institutions is all that is required, rather than desperately defending economic globalisation itself. For all of that reassurance, however, the need to get buy-in from the rising new players to the current system is more pressing on the economic front than it ever has been before. Due to the crisis, the ability of the US and the other advanced industrial democracies to put up money and markets for rewards and side-payments to those new players is also more limited than it has been in the past, and will remain so for at least the next few years. The need for the US to avoid excessive domestic self-absorption is a real concern as well, given the combination of foreign policy fatigue from the Bush foreign policy agenda and economic insecurity from the financial crisis. Managing the post-crisis global economy Thus, the US faces a challenging but not truly threatening global economic situation as a result of the crisis and longer-term financial trends. Failure to act affirmatively to manage the situation, however, bears two significant and related risks: first, that China and perhaps some other rising economic powers will opportunistically divert countries in US-oriented integrated relationships to their economic sphere(s); second, that a leadership vacuum will arise in international financial affairs and in multilateral trade efforts, which will over time erode support for a globally integrated economy. Both of these risks if realised would diminish US foreign policy influence, make the economic system less resilient in response to future shocks (to every country’s detriment), reduce economic growth and thus the rate of reduction in global poverty, and conflict with other foreign policy goals like controlling climate change or managing migration and demographic shifts. If the US is to rise to the challenge, it should concentrate on the following priority measures. Growth Good – Nuclear WarEconomic growth decreases the likelihood of nuclear conflictRichard Heinberg, Dec. 12, ‘12, Senior Fellow-in-Residence of Post Carbon Institute, “Conflict and Change in the Era of Economic Decline: Part 2: War and peace in a shrinking economy,” http://www.resilience.org/stories/2012-12-12/conflict-and-change-in-the-era-of-economic-decline-part-2-war-and-peace-in-a-shrinking-economy, Accessed 5/18/2014 When empires crumble, as they always do, the result is often a free-for-all among previous subject nations and potential rivals as they sort out power relations. The British Empire was a seeming exception to this rule: in that instance, the locus of military, political, and economic power simply migrated to an ally across the Atlantic. A similar graceful transfer seems unlikely in the case of the U.S., as economic decline during the 21st century will be global in scope. A better analogy to the current case might be the fall of Rome, which led to centuries of incursions by barbarians as well as uprisings in client states. Disaster per se need not lead to violence, as Rebecca Solnit argues in her book A Paradise Built in Hell: The Extraordinary Communities that Arise in Disaster. She documents five disasters—the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; earthquakes in San Francisco and Mexico City; a giant ship explosion in Halifax, Canada; and 9/11—and shows that rioting, looting, rape, and murder were not automatic results. Instead, for the most part, people pulled together, shared what resources they had, cared for the victims, and in many instances found new sources of joy in everyday life. However, the kinds of social stresses we are discussing now may differ from the disasters Solnit surveys, in that they comprise a “long emergency,” to borrow James Kunstler’s durable phrase. For every heartwarming anecdote about the convergence of rescuers and caregivers on a disaster site, there is a grim historic tale of resource competition turning normal people into monsters. In the current context, a continuing source of concern must be the large number of nuclear weapons now scattered among nine nations. While these weapons primarily exist as a deterrent to military aggression, and while the end of the Cold War has arguably reduced the likelihood of a massive release of these weapons in an apocalyptic fury, it is still possible to imagine several scenarios in which a nuclear detonation could occur as a result of accident, aggression, pre-emption, or retaliation. We are in a race—but it’s not just an arms race; indeed, it may end up being an arms race in reverse. In many nations around the globe the means to pay for armaments and war are starting to disappear; meanwhile, however, there is increasing incentive to engage in international conflict as a way of re-channeling the energies of jobless young males and of distracting the general populace, which might otherwise be in a revolutionary mood. We can only hope that historical momentum can maintain The Great Peace until industrial nations are sufficiently bankrupt that they cannot afford to mount foreign wars on any substantial scale. Growth Good - BiodiversityEconomic growth benefits biodiversityEmma Duncan, September 14, 2013, “All creatures great and small,” The Economist, p. 4. Endangered species have benefited from some of the concomitants of growth, too. Improved sanitation has made the planet healthier, as has regulation of pesticides. Cleaner air is better for biodiversity. As countries get richer, they tend to become more peaceful and better governed and their population growth slows down. Technological progress has improved life for other species, making conservation efforts more effective. ExtinctionReese Halter, Dec. 13, ‘13, PhD, Biology, “Why Biodiversity Matters,” Malibu Times, http://www.malibutimes.com/blogs/ article_4fe268e4-6365-11e3-bf88-001a4bcf887a.html, Accessed 4/30/2014 In order for 7.1 billion people (and growing to 8 billion by 2023) to exist on Earth, we require old growth forests and tropical jungles to provide fresh water, white clouds to reflect incoming solar radiation at the tropics, oxygen and habitats for all the critters. Scientists must be allowed to study these magnificent ancient forests to understand how they work. Accordingly, a moratorium on logging any ancient forests on Earth is requisite. Wild forests contain untold cancer fighting and pain-relieving medicines. In addition, big trees are the most remarkable carbon warehouses to have ever evolved on our planet! If we deprive a species of what it needs to live, it becomes extinct. Globally, over the past 50 years, thousands of species have gone extinct due to human population pressures and destruction of habitat from mining and logging. Conservation biology is a relatively new, exciting and challenging branch of science. The discipline is charged with the responsibility of maintaining biological diversity or the tapestry of life on our planet. Protecting all remaining wild ecosystems brimming with biodiversity -- in face of rapid human-induced climate change -- is our salvation. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.89 Mb. Share with your friends:
|