Tpp will pass during the lame duck

Manufacturing Impact—1NC

TPP key for US manufacturing jobs and industry

Opponents of giving President Obama fast-track authority to negotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the pending trade pact between the United States and 11 countries in Asia and the Americas — cite the job-killing impacts of globalization as a prime reason for their objection. The free-trade agreement would lower tariffs and remove other barriers to imports from member countries, which opponents fear would create steep competition for U.S. industries domestically. There is indeed substantial evidence that import competition from low-wage countries has contributed to the momentous decline in U.S. manufacturing employment in the last two decades. We even researched and published some of that empirical evidence. Still, we believe blocking the TPP on fears of globalization would be a mistake. There are several reasons to support the TPP despite globalization concerns. First, the TPP — which seeks to govern exchange of not only traditional goods and services, but also intellectual property and foreign investment — would promote trade in knowledge-intensive services in which U.S. companies exert a strong comparative advantage. Second, killing the TPP would do little to bring factory work back to America. Third, and perhaps most important, although China is not part of the TPP, enacting the agreement would raise regulatory rules and standards for several of China’s key trading partners. That would pressure China to meet some of those standards and cease its attempts to game global trade to impede foreign multinational companies. Since 2000, America has lost 5 million manufacturing jobs. Regions that specialized in apparel, footwear, furniture, home electronics, toys and sports equipment — industries in which China achieved explosive growth — have seen factories close and wages for local workers flatten. Our research indicates that rising import competition from China accounted for 21 percent of the overall decline in U.S. employment in manufacturing industries during the 1990s and 2000s. The wave of automation that replaced middle-class jobs available to workers without a college education added to those losses. We sympathize with the regions and families that suffered, but halting TPP would not assist U.S. manufacturing or benefit U.S. workers. The reality is that the globalization of manufacturing is a fait accompli. Those manufacturing jobs are not coming back.

Any alternative to US manufacturing hegemony results in War with China

Shor 11-[Francis Shor is a professor at Wayne State University, he has written books in many firlds including utopian societies and hegemony. His 2004 article,“Utopian Aspirations in the Black Freedom Movement,” in the journal, Utopian Studies, won an award for best journal article of that year.]  [MB]
A defining historical feature of the decline of specific empires in the world capitalist system has been the conflict surrounding the emergence of a successor. The United States and Germany engaged in a protracted struggle in the first half of the twentieth century to determine which country would replace Great Britain as the dominant hegemon. After Germany’s second defeat in a world war in 1945, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. contended for global hegemony even though the U.S. was the pre-eminent power in economic and military terms throughout the four decades of the Cold War. Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has attempted to use its unrivaled military power as a weapon to retain an eroding hegemony. However, given extensive internal and external contradictions, the U.S. Empire faces global competition and realignment, especially, but not exclusively, as a consequence of the rise of Chinese power. [1] This essay will focus on those sites of U.S./China conflict in the present period and project, albeit tentatively, where such conflict may lead in the future.
While it may be that global capital has, to a certain extent, delinked itself from the nation-state, in the case of the United States, in particular, the state and state apparatus, especially in the form of military neo-imperialism, still perform essential geostrategic functions. [2] A fully realized deterritorialized and decentered global system, whether envisioned by Hardt and Negri on the left or Thomas Friedman on the right, does not yet exist. Indeed, the “dialectical relation between territorial and capitalist logics of power,” which David Harvey identifies as the defining characteristic of the “new imperialism,” still persists. [3] That persistence of territorial logic, described by Chalmers Johnson as an “empire of bases,” [4] i.e., military neo-imperialism, more than a predetermined inter-imperialist rivalry or an emergent transnational capitalist class, underscores the growing geopolitical conflict between the U.S. and China. Nonetheless, it is necessary to account for both elements in Harvey’s dialectic in order to demarcate those sites of US/Chinese competition and conflict.
While the United States no longer dominates the global economy as it did during the first two decades after WWII, it still is the leading economic power in the world. However, over the last few decades China, with all its internal contradictions, has made enormous leaps until it now occupies the number two spot. In fact, the IMF recently projected that the Chinese economy would become the world’s largest in 2016. In manufacturing China has displaced the US in so many areas, including becoming the number one producer of steel and exporter of four-fifths of all of the solar products in the world and two-thirds of the world’s copy machines, DVD players, and microwaves ovens. Yet, a significant portion of this manufacturing is still owned by foreign companies, including U.S. firms like General Motors. [5]
On the other hand, China is also the largest holder of U.S. foreign reserves, e.g. treasury bonds. This may be one of the reasons mitigating full-blown conflict with the U.S. now, since China has such a large stake in the U.S. economy, both as a holder of bonds and as the leading exporter of goods to the U.S. Nonetheless, “the U.S. has blocked several large scale Chinese investments and buyouts of oil companies, technology firms, and other enterprises.” [6] In effect, there are still clear nation-centric responses to China’s rising economic power, especially as an expression of the U.S. governing elite’s ideological commitment to national security.
At the same time, China is now the world’s largest consumer of essential metals (copper, zinc, platinum) and one of the most voracious importers of hydrocarbons. Essential investment and trade by China in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, plus engagement with a host of Central Asian countries, indicates China’s growing need for oil and natural gas, as well as its growing challenge to U.S. geostrategic interests in these aforementioned countries and regions. [7] With China’s energy consumption approaching 20% of the world’s total, it may well overtake the U.S. as the largest hydrocarbon consumer in the next decade or so. It is already the number one producer of greenhouse gasses although the U.S. is still the per capita leader. Nonetheless, as Michael Klare points out, the scramble for more oil will lead to extracting what he calls “tough oil,” resulting in more expensive and environmentally destructive production. [8]
Compounding the energy strains and resource competition are additional environmental catastrophes in the form of global warming and desertification. As one skeptical analysis of China’s rise warns: “By impinging on the very process of world-systemic reproduction itself, the mutually interpenetrating character of energy resource bottlenecks and extreme climate perturbations should make an already unlikely transition in world-systemic leadership between a declining U.S. and a rising China even more inconceivable – especially considering these bottlenecks and perturbations will both compound China’s well-documented explosion of peasant and worker protests and hamstring the capacity of the Chinese state to respond to myriad crises.” [9]

Manufacturing Impact—Uniqueness

The US Manufacturing industry has had huge declines in the last 30 years

Jeffrey 16-[Terry earned a bachelors degree in English Literature from Princeton in 1981. In 1984-85, he studied Arabic at the Arabic Language Institute of The American University in Cairo. In 1986-87, he studied in the Masters of Arts in Arab Studies program at Georgetown University, but did not earn a degree. From 1987-91, he was an editorial writer for The Washington Times, which entered his investigative editorials about then-House Speaker Jim Wright for consideration for the Pulitzer Prize. In 1992, he served as issues and research director for Pat Buchanan's first Republican presidential campaign. In 1993-1994, he served as executive director of The American Cause, an educational foundation.] http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/7231000-lost-jobs-manufacturing-employment-down-37-1979-peak[MB]

The number of jobs in manufacturing has declined by 7,231,000--or 37 percent--since employment in manufacturing peaked in the United States in 1979, according to data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The real median household income of Americans who have completed high school--but have not attained a higher degree--also peaked in the 1970s and has declined since then. In fact, according to the Census Bureau (Tables H-13 and H-14), the real median household income of an American householder who has completed four years of high school peaked in 1973 at $56,395 in constant 2013 dollars. By 2013, it was down to $40,701. That is a drop of $15,694--or 27.8 percent. (The Census Bureau's Table H-14 publishes the annual median household income from 1960 through 1990 of householders who have "completed" four years of high school. Table H-13 publishes the annual median household income of householders who have 'graduated" from high school or its equivalency from 1991 through 2013.) According to the BLS’s seasonally adjusted employment numbers, employment in the U.S. manufacturing sector hit a peak of 19,553,000 in June 1979. In April 2015, there were only 12,322,000 employed in the manufacturing sector. That is a decline of 7,231,000—or 37 percent. The decline has even been greater as a share of the civilian noninstitutional population, which includes all U.S. residents 16 and older who are not on active duty in the military or in an institution such as a prison or nursing home. (This is the population number that forms the foundation of the BLS’s employment numbers.) In April 1973, the year median household income peaked for householders who have completed high school but not earned a higher degree, there were 146,459,000 in the civilian noninstitutional population and employment in manufacturing was 18,359,000—or 12.5 percent of the civilian noninstitutional population. In April 2015, there were 250,266,000 in the civilian noninstitutional population and employment in manufacturing was 12,272,000—or 4.9 percent of the civilian population. In 1973, manufacturing employment as a share of the civilian noninstutional population was 2.5 times what it is today.

Manufacturing Impact—I/L Ext.

TPP key for US manufacturing jobs and industry

ITC 16-[ "International Trade Commission Report Shows Economic Benefit of TPP," No Publication, http://tppnow.com/international-trade-commission-report-shows-economic-benefit-of-tpp/ [MB]
“Cattlemen and women worked closely with the administration through the U.S. Trade Representative to ensure TPP met the highest standards and lowered taxes and trade barriers in all member countries,” said Brunner. “We supported the conclusion of the agreement in Atlanta in October and have called on Congress to swiftly pass this agreement. This report clearly shows that TPP would not only lower the taxes on U.S. beef into critical markets like Japan and level the playing field with our competitors, it would provide a boon to the entire U.S. economy.” According to the report, the TPP agreement would increase annual U.S. Gross Domestic Product by $42.7 billion and expand U.S. employment by close to 128,000 full-time equivalents by 2032 when the agreement is fully implemented. Moreover, the report estimates that ten years after full implementation those benefits would continue to grow, expanding U.S. GDP by $67 billion and employment by 174,000 FTE’s. For beef specifically, the Commission estimates that overall beef exports would be about $876 million higher once TPP is fully implemented and that it would have a moderate impact on U.S. beef imports.

Asia War Impact—1NC

TPP Failure Causes Asia Wars

Morimoto 15-[Andy Morimoto, The Diplomat, 8-22-2015, "The Strategic Costs of TPP Failure," Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2015/08/the-strategic-costs-of-tpp-failure/] [MB]

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is in trouble. Trade ministers failed last month to conclude the massive 12-nation trade deal by their hoped-for summer deadline, putting negotiations in danger of collapse. This is a problem. Trade advocates argue that letting the TPP die would be a significant lost opportunity for the global economy. But there’s a potentially bigger problem here – one that may have serious consequences for both U.S. national security and regional stability in the Asia-Pacific. Just consider the strategic backdrop against which last month’s negotiations occurred. Maritime disputes flaring across the South China Sea. Tensions rising between Beijing and Tokyo. Perennial friction between China and Taiwan and a growing nuclear stockpile in North Korea. If the TPP falls through, it could greatly hurt the America’s ability to stabilize the fraught geopolitics of Asia. Some have argued that a TPP failure would be a net positive for regional stability. The deal, they claim, would isolate and provoke China, and should therefore be abandoned. But this view is blinkered. Given the high trade volumes and trade arrangements across the Asia-pacific, China stands very little chance of being isolated. Moreover, Chinese officials have other ventures on their minds. According to He Weiwen, a former Chinese Commerce Ministry official, “the Chinese are more or less neutral because we have our own agenda, pushing forward ASEAN plus six and the Silk Road.” In fact, there are a number of reasons to believe that the opposite is true: that a TPP failure will cause a number of strategic problems for the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific. First, failure would mean stunting the growth of America’s Pacific partners. This is problematic for two reasons. Most importantly, fewer states would be devoting fewer resources to meet shared challenges like counterterrorism and climate change. In addition, as countries get richer and more interdependent, they become more invested in the well-being of their neighbors. And while free trade, interdependence, and prosperity do not guarantee stability and peace (see: World War I), they do create conditions that make conflict less appealing. Second, failure would create more potential for instability and crises. Consider a hypothetical scenario in which China and one of its neighbors along the South China Sea (say, Vietnam) get into a serious spat over territorial claims. With the TPP, this spat would be less likely to escalate into a full-blown crisis, as China understands that the U.S. is more inclined to intervene in situations that threaten its growing trade interests. Without the TPP, there is less clarity about U.S. resolve, so the potential for miscalculation and escalation increases. Third, failure would send a strong signal that the U.S. no longer has the political will to lead in the region. This would come at a time when allies are already uncertain of U.S. commitments. Earlier this week, for example, Japan’s trade minister expressed disappointment in last month’s trade meetings, saying “every TPP country wondered why the U.S. was quick to give up the conclusion without its usual relentless persistence.” If the U.S. allows negotiations to collapse, it would demonstrate the Obama administration’s declaration – that the U.S. is “all in, when it comes to the Asia-Pacific” – to be hollow. This has important geopolitical implications. If Asia’s great powers perceive the U.S. to be unserious about its role in the region, this will increase the incentive for the powerful regional states (i.e. China and Japan) to jockey with one another for regional hegemony. Finally, failure would be a missed opportunity for the U.S. economy – and America’s ability to project strength abroad rests on its economic foundation at home. According to an analysis from the Peterson Institute, U.S. income gains under the TPP would be significant, potentially adding $59 billion per year by 2020. Failing to conclude the TPP would forego these potential gains, and would make it more difficult for the U.S. to stem the defense cuts put in place by the sequester and invest in our military presence in the Asia-Pacific. The Nobel Prize winning economist Thomas Schelling noted that “trade is what most of international relations are about. For that reason trade policy is national security policy.” Today, U.S. trade policy – and indeed, its national security policy – are in danger of falling apart. Getting something as big and complicated as the TPP across the line won’t be easy. But given the smoldering flashpoints across Asia, the U.S. can hardly afford to squander any tools in its foreign policy toolkit. The stakes are too high.

That’s the most likely scenario for war

Campbell 8 (Kurt M, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Dr. Campbell served in several capacities in government, including as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asia and the Pacific, Director on theNational Security Council Staff, previously the Chief Executive Officer and co-founder of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), served as Director of the Aspen Strategy Group and the Chairman of the Editorial Board of the Washington Quarterly, and was the founder and Principal of StratAsia, a strategic advisory company focused on Asia, rior to co-founding CNAS, he served as Senior Vice President, Director of the International Security Program, and the Henry A. Kissinger Chair in National Security Policy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, doctorate in International Relation Theory from Oxford, former associate professor of public policy and international relations at the John F. Kennedy School of Government and Assistant Director of the Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, member of Council on Foreign Relations and  International Institute for Strategic Studies, “The Power of Balance: America in iAsia” June 2008, http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CampbellPatelSingh_iAsia_June08.pdf)

Asian investment is also at record levels. Asian countries lead the world with unprecedented infrastructure projects. With over $3 trillion in foreign currency reserves, Asian nations and businesses are starting to shape global economic activity. Indian firms are purchasing industrial giants such as Arcelor Steel, as well as iconic brands of its once-colonial ruler, such as Jaguar and Range Rover. China’s Lenovo bought IBM’s personal computer We call the transformations across the Asia-Pacific the emergence of “iAsia” to reflect the adoption by countries across Asia of fundamentally new strategic approaches to their neighbors and the world. Asian nations are pursuing their interests with real power in a period of both tremendous potential and great uncertainty. iAsia is: Integrating: iAsia includes increasing economic interdependence and a flowering of multinational forums to deal with trade, cultural exchange, and, to some degree, security. Innovating: iAsia boasts the world’s most successful manufacturing and technology sectors and could start taking the lead in everything from finance to nanotech to green tech. Investing: Asian nations are developing infrastructure and human capital at unprecedented rates. But the continent remains plagued by: Insecurity: Great-power rivalry is alive in Asia. Massive military investments along with historic suspicions and contemporary territorial and other conflicts make war in Asia plausible. Instability: From environmental degradation to violent extremism to trafficking in drugs, people, and weapons, Asian nations have much to worry about. Inequality: Within nations and between them, inequality in Asia is more stark than anywhere else in the world. Impoverished minorities in countries like India and China, and the gap in governance and capacity within countries, whether as backward as Burma or as advanced as Singapore, present unique challenges. A traditional approach to Asia will not suffice if the United States is to both protect American interests and help iAsia realize its potential and avoid pitfalls. business and the Chinese government, along with other Asian financial players, injected billions in capital to help steady U.S. investment banks such as Merrill Lynch as the American subprime mortgage collapse unfolded. Chinese investment funds regional industrialization, which in turn creates new markets for global products. Asia now accounts for over 40 percent of global consumption of steel 4 and China is consuming almost half of world’s available concrete. 5 Natural resources from soy to copper to oil are being used by China and India at astonishing rates, driving up commodity prices and setting off alarm bells in Washington and other Western capitals. Yet Asia is not a theater at peace. On average, between 15 and 50 people die every day from causes tied to conflict, and suspicions rooted in rivalry and nationalism run deep. The continent harbors every traditional and non-traditional challenge of our age: it is a cauldron of religious and ethnic tension; a source of terror and extremism; an accelerating driver of the insatiable global appetite for energy; the place where the most people will suffer the adverse effects of global climate change; the primary source of nuclear proliferation; and the most likely theater on Earth for a major conventional confrontation and even a nuclear conflict. Coexisting with the optimism of iAsia are the ingredients for internal strife, non-traditional threats like terrorism, and traditional interstate conflict, which are all magnified by the risk of miscalculation or poor decision-making.

Economy Impact—1NC

Failure to pass TPP this year pushes its members towards more China-centric trade policy hurting the US economy, erodes US credibility, and ability to pursue its economic and diplomatic interests in the region

Ikenson, associate director of Cato's Center for Trade Policy Studies ‘16 (Daniel Ikenson focuses on WTO disputes and regional trade agreements. Ikenson has been involved in international trade since 1990, WHY IS OBAMA STRANGELY SILENT ON THE PACIFIC TRADE DEAL?, Jun 3^rd 2016, News Week, http://www.newsweek.com/why-obama-strangely-silent-pacific-trade-deal-465787)

If the United States fails to ratify the agreement this year, TPP members that are also party to the China-centric Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiations will be drawn more deeply into China’s ambit. While that doesn’t mean that U.S. entities will be excluded from engaging in commerce with entities in those countries, it does mean that existing China-centric investment and supply chain relationships will be reinforced, new ones will emerge and become established and the costs of reorienting those relationships in the event of some future TPP implementation will increase with each passing year. But at a deeper, institutional level, failure to ratify would impair U.S. commercial and diplomatic interests in the region. Foreign governments that incurred political costs to push the TPP in their countries with expectations of U.S. participation wouldn’t soon forget that the United States proved to be an unreliable partner. Expectations that the United States is still capable of leading the world to the economic liberalization it so desperately needs would erode, and with that diminished credibility U.S. policy objectives would become more difficult or, in some cases, impossible to meet. Those would be the costs of a U.S. failure to ratify the TPP this year. Avoiding that outcome is President Obama’s obligation to posterity.

Nuclear war

Friedberg and Schoenfeld 8 — Aaron Friedberg, Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, and Gabriel Schoenfeld, Senior Editor of Commentary and Visiting Scholar at the Witherspoon Institute—an independent research center in Princeton, NJ, 2008 (“The Dangers of a Diminished America,” Wall Street Journal, October 21^st, Available Online at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html, Accessed 11-11-2008)

If America now tries to pull back from the world stage, it will leave a dangerous power vacuum. The stabilizing effects of our presence in Asia, our continuing commitment to Europe, and our position as defender of last resort for Middle East energy sources and supply lines could all be placed at risk.

In such a scenario there are shades of the 1930s, when global trade and finance ground nearly to a halt, the peaceful democracies failed to cooperate, and aggressive powers led by the remorseless fanatics who rose up on the crest of economic disaster exploited their divisions. Today we run the risk that rogue states may choose to become ever more reckless with their nuclear toys, just at our moment of maximum vulnerability.

The aftershocks of the financial crisis will almost certainly rock our principal strategic competitors even harder than they will rock us. The dramatic free fall of the Russian stock market has demonstrated the fragility of a state whose economic performance hinges on high oil prices, now driven down by the global slowdown. China is perhaps even more fragile, its economic growth depending heavily on foreign investment and access to foreign markets. Both will now be constricted, inflicting economic pain and perhaps even sparking unrest in a country where political legitimacy rests on progress in the long march to prosperity.

None of this is good news if the authoritarian leaders of these countries seek to divert attention from internal travails with external adventures.

As for our democratic friends, the present crisis comes when many European nations are struggling to deal with decades of anemic growth, sclerotic governance and an impending demographic crisis. Despite its past dynamism, Japan faces similar challenges. India is still in the early stages of its emergence as a world economic and geopolitical power.

What does this all mean? There is no substitute for America on the world stage. The choice we have before us is between the potentially disastrous effects of disengagement and the stiff price tag of continued American leadership.

Economy Impact—I/L Ext.

TPP failure shatters global economic stability and US credibility

Goto 13-[ Shihoko Goto, program associate for Northeast Asia at the Woodrow Wilson Center, spent over ten years as a journalist writing about the international political economy with an emphasis on Asian markets, was an external affairs officer at the World Bank, has been a recipient of the Freeman Foundation’s Jefferson Fellowship and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation’s journalism fellowship for the Salzburg Global Seminar, “The trade deal that can't afford to be derailed,”http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Analysis/Outside-View/2013/09/06/The-trade-deal-that-cant-afford-to-be-derailed/UPI-62561378440180/] [MB]

Time is running out for what would be the world's biggest trade deal to be clinched on time.¶ While rumblings of the possibility of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement not meeting its October deadline grow stronger, politics must not pre-empt the United States or Japan from stalling the momentum forward. The price to pay for the two biggest countries in the 12-country talks to walk away from TPP would be too great for both.¶Cautious optimism about the global economic outlook prevails, not least at the latest Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. With the worst of Europe's financial crisis seemingly behind, economic concerns now focus on U.S. monetary policy and international tax codes but most attention will be focused on Syria.¶ Yet this is hardly the time to lose sight of the momentum that could further open markets worldwide. With the United States looking into signing a landmark trade pact with Europe under the auspices of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, it is in Asia's best interest to ensure that TPP is successful.¶ In concluding the latest round of TPP negotiations in Brunei Aug. 30, the U.S. Trade Representative's office stated that officials from Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam as well as the United States still look "to conclude this landmark agreement this year," even as a slew of highly sensitive issues including opening dairy and auto markets, not to mention the sparring of pharmaceutical companies and tackling environmental regulations, being part of the mix.¶ But while the urgency to conclude what would be the world's most ambitious trade deal yet should be felt by Japan, it is in the United States' interest too for the October deadline to be met.¶ Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe certainly has staked his political future into the success of TPP and, to date, the gamble has paid off.¶ Declaring that "if Japan alone should become inward-looking, we would have no chance of growth," Abe stated that TPP would also "significantly contribute to the security of our country and also to the stability of the Asia-Pacific region."¶ Joining the pact is a key part of his economic policy now known as "Abenomics," that looks to press ahead with structural reform that would include lowering tariffs on politically sensitive sectors including rice, which could obliterate some of Japan's most powerful farming groups.¶ The cost of TPP failing or even being watered down, however, would be far more damaging than the wrath of any single interest group, even the most powerful ones.¶ Massive debt, aging population, lackluster entrepreneurial incentives and energy challenges are but a few of the fundamental problems facing Japan that require the country to be an integral part of the global economy.¶ With China's ever-growing economic might on the one hand and Japan's seemingly continued slide on the economic ladder on the other, becoming a key player in the world's biggest trade deal to date would certainly enhance its standing in the global arena as it sits at the table to decide trade rules that will impact international markets over the next decades.¶ Equally important too would be an enhancement of Japan's relations with the United States. While South Korea concluded a bilateral free trade agreement with the United States in 2011, Tokyo has yet to sign an FTA with Washington. As such, the TPP agreement would effectively take place instead of a bilateral agreement between Japan and the United States.¶ Still, it is not only Japan that needs TPP. The United States too would be losing a tremendous opportunity to engage more actively with the Asia-Pacific region.¶ Granted, the treaty has caused outrage in certain sectors, most notably in the automobile industry. U.S. carmakers have clamored for tariffs on Japanese cars to be phased out only gradually, with the American Automotive Policy Council estimating that it would cost U.S. automakers $1 billion and about 100,000 U.S. jobs should tariffs be dropped immediately.¶ It goes without saying that certain industries in all TPP member countries will be particularly vulnerable to the competition and higher regulatory standards imposed by the trade pact. Yet the sheer size and ambition of the agreement also means that the United States would have a unique foothold in the Asia-Pacific region should it go through as planned.¶ With China's absence in the agreement, the United States will undoubtedly be the single most influential economy that will have a tremendous voice in shaping trade rules some of the world's most robust countries. Failure to play an active role in developing and implementing the framework would ultimately hurt the economic future of the United States.¶Much rides on the success of the next round of talks in Bali, Indonesia, next month during the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting.Losing that momentum would have far greater consequences to the global economy as well as political stability worldwide than simply opening up markets on both sides of the Pacific.

Global Warming Impact—1NC

TPP key to US climate leadership—solves global warming

Richardson 16-[Bill Richardson, Bill Richardson is a former governor of New Mexico and U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, 5-31-2016, "Congress should ratify the Trans- Pacific Partnership agreement," miamiherald, http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article80915612.html] [MB]

If you’re following the 2016 election campaigns, you might be under the impression that international trade is an unmitigated disaster and it’s time for America to turn inwards. But as former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, I know that trade and economic relationships are the foundation for U.S. influence abroad. So as Congress considers whether to vote on President Obama’s major trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), they should turn off the cable news and consider the cost of inaction, because it is far more significant than you might think. Recently, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released its economic impact report on TPP. After an extensive, 6-month, independent review, the report confirms that President Obama’s trade agreement with 11 Pacific Rim countries, representing 40 percent of world GDP, will open new markets, set fair rules of trade, and drive demand for “Made in America” products. But TPP’s benefits reach beyond wage and job gains for the U.S. economy. It also furthers important U.S. interests like higher labor standards, reduced wildlife trafficking, and cooperation to combat climate change. Access to clean energy technology is a cornerstone to solving the global climate change problem. TPP will boost international adoption of clean energy by cutting tariffs on renewable energy technologies and committing member countries shift to low-emission economies. TPP will eliminate taxes on wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy products: making it cheaper and easier for these growing economies to switch to clean energy and reach their climate change goals. In an increasingly complex global economy, governments must be empowered to put in place regulations that account for climate change. TPP does this by securing the right of each member country to create laws and regulations in the public interest, like addressing carbon pollution and climate change. Countries need the freedom to take decisive action on climate change and the TPP protects its members rights to do so. But most importantly, combatting climate change requires leadership. Last year, President Obama led the world to a groundbreaking global climate agreement in Paris. American leadership, including significant domestic policy achievements like the Clean Power Plan, allowed the United States to bring other major world powers to the table and achieve this landmark deal. TPP is another opportunity to exert American leadership. It fosters strong economic and trade relationships in the fast-growing Asia Pacific region, home to countries responsible for over 25 percent of global carbon emissions. Deepening ties to the region renews U.S. commitment to its Asian allies, and adopting the same standards as its TPP counterparts establishes U.S. credibility as a global leader to advance other international issues, like climate change initiatives.

Warming causes extinction.

Flournoy 12 -- Citing Feng Hsu, PhD NASA Scientist @ the Goddard Space Flight Center. Don Flournoy is a PhD and MA from the University of Texas, Former Dean of the University College @ Ohio University, Former Associate Dean @ State University of New York and Case Institute of Technology, Project Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Currently Professor of Telecommunications @ Scripps College of Communications @ Ohio University (Don, "Solar Power Satellites," January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, Book, p. 10-11

In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a  NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space and Earth, writes, “The evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary climate change is real and troubling (Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt global temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of greenhouse gases into Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert, Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a fundamental shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances” (Hsu 2010 ) 

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 499.68 Kb.

Share with your friends: