Gdi 2010 Energy Reform Politics da
I/L Economy – Oil dependence
Download 0.59 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Econ Impacts – Disease
- Econ Impacts – Key to Global
- Econ Impacts – War
I/L Economy – Oil dependencePublic want energy reform- sick of oil dependence hurting our economy Geller June 8th ( Kate, Rutgers, League of Conservative Voters, http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/poll-americans-want-real-energy-reforms-in-wake-of-gulf-coast-disaster.html , 6-8-10) ET “This poll makes crystal clear that the Gulf Coast disaster is the final straw for voters when it comes to allowing corporate polluters to dictate our energy policies,” said LCV President Gene Karpinski. “Now, more than ever, it is clear that our dependence on oil – be it from hostile nations or friendly coasts – hurts our economy, threatens our security and harms our environment. Senators must work to deliver comprehensive energy and climate legislation this year that prevents future energy disasters, makes polluters pay their fair share and creates a thriving clean energy economy.” “Voters firmly believe Congress needs to do more than just make BP pay for the Gulf Coast oil spill, they want Senators to pass real reforms to invest in clean American energy and hold polluters accountable,” said Joel Benenson, President of the Benenson Strategy Group. Econ Impacts – DiseaseGlobal economic turmoil forces deadly disease prevention organizations to cut aid. Skirble 9 (Rosanne, Writer for the Voice of America, VOA “Economic Downturn Threatens Global Fund for AIDS, TB, Malaria” 04 February http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2009-02/2009-02-04-voa23.cfm?CFID=256884522&CFTOKEN=31 541345&jsessionid=de307b49f1da35d5dbcd4a1e52696331c2f6) As world leaders grapple with the global financial crisis, the world's largest source of funds to combat killer diseases is facing a crisis of its own. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria supplies one-quarter of all AIDS funding, two-thirds of tuberculosis funding and three-fourths of malaria funding. A $5 billion funding gap now threatens this institution's worldwide programs. Every year since 2001, leaders from the world's wealthier nations have renewed their commitments to fund all approved disease treatment, prevention and research programs in poor countries. According to Jeffrey Sachs, a special United Nations advisor and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, the Global Fund was designed to keep the promises made to the world's poor to help them fight AIDS, TB and malaria. Sachs says that despite the urgency of its mission, the Global Fund has been forced by the recession-pinched budgets of its donor countries to cut back or delay funding. "It already cut by 10 percent the budgets for the approved plans. And it's warned that it would have to cut by 25 percent the second half of those plans," he says. The current funding cycle has been postponed for several months, which he says, "puts at risk the malaria control effort." The cutbacks are all the more distressing to Global Fund supporters because in its relatively short life, the organization has reported remarkable progress against killer diseases. For example, malaria deaths are down 66 percent in Rwanda and 80 percent in Eritrea over the past five years. Econ Impacts – Key to GlobalThe world econ directly influenced by the US econ. Arora & Vamvakidis 5 (Vivek & Athanasios, IMF Senior Resident Representatives, “Economic Spillovers” Finance and Development; Sept, Vol 42, No 3; http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2005/09/arora.htm)AQB Economists usually see the United States as an engine of the world economy: U.S. and world output are closely correlated, and movements in U.S. economic growth appear to influence growth in other countries to a significant degree. Certainly, given its size and close links with the rest of the world, the United States could be expected to have a significant influence on growth in other countries. In 2004, U.S. GDP accounted for over one-fifth of world GDP on a purchasing power parity (PPP) basis and for nearly 30 percent of world nominal GDP at market exchange rates. The United States accounted for nearly a quarter of the expansion in world real GDP during the 1990s. World and U.S. growth have moved closely together in recent decades, with a correlation coefficient of over 80 percent. Trade with the United States accounts for a substantial share of total trade in a large number of countries. Estimates of the overall impact of U.S. growth on growth in other countries during the past two decades, in the context of a standard growth model, suggest that U.S. growth is a significant determinant of growth in a large panel of industrial and developing countries, with an effect as large as one-for-one in some cases (Arora and Vamvakidis, 2004). The impact of U.S. growth turns out to be higher than the impact of growth in the rest of the world. This could be explained by the role of the United States as a major global trading partner. The results are robust to changes in the sample, the period considered, and the inclusion of other growth determinants, including common drivers of growth in both the United States and other countries. We also found the impact of U.S. growth on growth in other countries to be larger than that of other major trading partners. For example, the impact of EU growth on the rest of the world is significant but smaller than the impact of U.S. growth. Econ Impacts – WarEncouraging economic growth ensures peace through interdependence. Grisworld 7(Daniel, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute “Trade, Democracy and Peace: The Virtuous Cycle”)AQB A little-noticed headline on an Associated Press story a while back reported, "War declining worldwide, studies say." In 2006, a survey by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found that the number of armed conflicts around the world has been in decline for the past half-century. Since the early 1990s, ongoing conflicts have dropped from 33 to 17, with all of them now civil conflicts within countries. The Institute's latest report found that 2005 marked the second year in a row that no two nations were at war with one another. What a remarkable and wonderful fact. The death toll from war has also been falling. According to the Associated Press report, "The number killed in battle has fallen to its lowest point in the post-World War II period, dipping below 20,000 a year by one measure. Peacemaking missions, meanwhile, are growing in number." Current estimates of people killed by war are down sharply from annual tolls ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 in the 1990s, and from a peak of 700,000 in 1951 during the Korean War. Many causes lie behind the good news--the end of the Cold War and the spread of democracy, among them--but expanding trade and globalization appear to be playing a major role in promoting world peace. Far from stoking a "World on Fire," as one misguided American author argued in a forgettable book, growing commercial ties between nations have had a dampening effect on armed conflict and war. I would argue that free trade and globalization have promoted peace in three main ways. First, as I argued a moment ago, trade and globalization have reinforced the trend toward democracy, and democracies tend not to pick fights with each other. Thanks in part to globalization, almost two thirds of the world's countries today are democracies--a record high. Some studies have cast doubt on the idea that democracies are less likely to fight wars. While it's true that democracies rarely if ever war with each other, it is not such a rare occurrence for democracies to engage in wars with non-democracies. We can still hope that has more countries turn to democracy, there will be fewer provocations for war by non-democracies. A second and even more potent way that trade has promoted peace is by promoting more economic integration. As national economies become more intertwined with each other, those nations have more to lose should war break out. War in a globalized world not only means human casualties and bigger government, but also ruptured trade and investment ties that impose lasting damage on the economy. In short, globalization has dramatically raised the economic cost of war. The 2005 Economic Freedom of the World Report contains an insightful chapter on "Economic Freedom and Peace" by Dr. Erik Gartzke, a professor of political science at Columbia University. Dr. Gartzke compares the propensity of countries to engage in wars and their level of economic freedom and concludes that economic freedom, including the freedom to trade, significantly decreases the probability that a country will experience a military dispute with another country. Through econometric analysis, he found that, "Making economies freer translates into making countries more peaceful. At the extremes, the least free states are about 14 times as conflict prone as the most free." By the way, Dr. Gartzke's analysis found that economic freedom was a far more important variable in determining a countries propensity to go to war than democracy. A third reason why free trade promotes peace is because it allows nations to acquire wealth through production and exchange rather than conquest of territory and resources. As economies develop, wealth is increasingly measured in terms of intellectual property, financial assets, and human capital. Such assets cannot be easily seized by armies. In contrast, hard assets such as minerals and farmland are becoming relatively less important in a high-tech, service economy. If people need resources outside their national borders, say oil or timber or farm products, they can acquire them peacefully by trading away what they can produce best at home. In short, globalization and the development it has spurred have rendered the spoils of war less valuable. Recession will lead to another World War and the fascist takeover of countries – Empirically the root of both WWI and II. O’Donnell 10(Sean, The Baltimore Examiner, “Will this recession lead to World War III?”)AQB Could the current economic crisis affecting this country and the world lead to another world war? The answer may be found by looking back in history. One of the causes of World War I was the economic rivalry that existed between the nations of Europe. In the 19th century France and Great Britain became wealthy through colonialism and the control of foreign resources. This forced other up-and-coming nations (such as Germany) to be more competitive in world trade which led to rivalries and ultimately, to war. After the Great Depression ruined the economies of Europe in the 1930s, fascist movements arose to seek economic and social control. From there fanatics like Hitler and Mussolini took over Germany and Italy and led them both into World War II. With most of North America and Western Europe currently experiencing a recession, will competition for resources and economic rivalries with the Middle East, Asia, or South American cause another world war? Add in nuclear weapons and Islamic fundamentalism and things look even worse. Hopefully the economy gets better before it gets worse and the terrifying possibility of World War III is averted. However sometimes history repeats itself. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 0.59 Mb. Share with your friends:
|