1ACPlan: The United States federal government should establish a carbon tax on private sector emissions of greenhouse gases in the United States.

Econ AdvantageAdvantage one is the economyBrexit sparked issues in already slowing markets across the United StatesGillespie 06/28 (Patrick 06/28/2016 “Us Economic outlook lowered after the Brexit” CNN Money http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/28/news/economy/brexit-us-economy-downgrade/)KG

The Brexit hangover could create headaches for the U.S. economy. A handful of economists are already downgrading their outlook for U.S. growth this year after Britons voted to leave the European Union. The vote sparked severe volatility in stock markets and a rally in the dollar . For America, that's a one-two punch. Experts at Goldman Sachs (GS), Barclays and Bank of America (BAC) lowered their forecast for U.S. economic growth. Other economists told CNNMoney they anticipate reducing their outlook later this week but requested not to be named since the forecasts weren't public yet. The reductions are minor for now. However, the huge uncertainties unleashed by the vote, along with the stock market selloff, are the key reasons behind the volume being turned down on U.S. growth . "We expect only a small net drag on U.S. growth from the Brexit vote, with the caveat that the outlook could change significantly if the equity markets keep falling," said Jim O'Sullivan, chief U.S. economist at High Frequency Economics, a research firm that slightly lowered its outlook too. The last thing America needs is another headwind. Growth so far this year has been anemic : the U.S. economy only grew 1.1% between January and March on an annual basis, the Commerce Department reported Tuesday. That's higher than the initial estimate of 0.5%, but still very low. Beyond weak economic growth, job gains have started to slow this spring and American employers are very tepid about investing in their own businesses . Better growth was already an uphill battle, before Brexit. American trade with the U.K. makes up less than 1% of U.S. economic activity. Nor is the U.S. directly affected if U.K. economy sinks into recession as a result of leaving the EU. However, Brexit could hurt the U.S. economy in two key ways: volatile stock markets and a strong dollar.

Global warming acts as a magnifier to the already tenuous situation of the global economyWorland ’15 (Justin “Climate Chance Could Wreck the Global Economy” Time 10/22/2015 http://time.com/4082328/climate-change-economic-impact/) KG

Temperature rise due to climate cha n ge m ay r adicall y d am ag e t he glo bal economy and slow growth in the coming decades if nothing is done to slow the pace of warming, according to new research. The researchers

behind the study, published in the journal Nature, found that temperature change due to unmitigated global warming will leave global GDP per capita 23% lower in 2100 than it would be without any warming. “We’re basically throwing away money by not addressing the issue,” said Marshall Burke, an assistant professor at Stanford

University. “We see our study as providing an estimate of the benefits of reducing emissions.” The economic effects of climate change may be even worse than this study makes them sounds. The research relies on historical data from countries around the world on how temperature increase has affected productivity . This means the study does not account for the economic impact of sea level rise, storms or any of the other expected effects of climate change beyond simple warming. “Sea level rise, increased storm intensity…if you think those things are going to worsen the effects of climate change, then our estimates would be an underestimate of the potential impacts, which is sort of terrifying,” said Burke. This study is far from the first to suggest that climate change will slow economic growth. Big business has been especially keen on highlighting the potential damage. A Citigroup

report released last month found that minimizing temperature rises to 2.7ºF (1.5ºC) could minimize global GDP loss by $50 trillion compared to a rise of 8.1ºF (4.5ºC) in the coming decades. The study breaks down productivity into agricultural and

non-agricultural fields. The effect of agricultural productive is easy to explain: crops grow most productively within a certain temperature range. (The effects of warming on crop productivity have been well documented.) But research still

don’t know why warm weather decreases productivity for workers in other fields. The anticipated spike in temperatures will not affect the world evenly, according to the study. Productivity peaks when temperatures in a given region average 55ºF (13ºC), meaning warming may actually increase productivity in cold northern countries while devastating the tropics. That means climate change could also worsen global inequality —northern countries are in general already better off than tropical ones. The study comes just weeks before negotiators from around the world are scheduled to meet at a United Nations conference on climate change in Paris later this year. University of Gothenburg Professor Thomas Sterner, who wrote an editorial to accompany the study, said he hopes the new evidence of the economic effects will encourage leaders of developing countries to agree to strong action to address climate change. “The situation is pretty bleak,” said Sterner. “This is really a call to action.”

A carbon tax would generate 88 billion dollars in the first year Morris ’13 (Adele C. -The Brookings Institute 02/11/2013 “Proposal 11: The Many Benefits of a Carbon Tax” The Hamilton Project http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/02/thp-budget-papers/thp_15waysfedbudget_prop11.pdf) KG

The proposed carbon tax would raise about $88 billion in the first year and rise to almost $200 billion two decades later (figure 11-1), for an undiscounted total of $1.1 trillion in the first decade and $ 2.7 trillion in revenue over twenty years, according to McKibbin and colleagues (2012).10 Adding in the proposed subsidy reduction of $6 billion per year, this proposal would provide almost $200 billion in deficit reduction in the first ten years and $815 billion in deficit reduction over the first twenty years . In the very long run,

emissions will decline enough to reduce annual revenue, so eventually other sources of revenue or spending reductions would be necessary to replace revenue from the carbon tax . Initial effects on households are likely to be modest. Mathur and Morris (2012) analyze an analogous tax and find that if the tax is passed fully to households, then retail prices of electricity, gasoline, and home heating oil would rise in the short run by 5 to 6 percent. Natural gas prices to households would rise somewhat more, by about 19 percent, at the outset of the policy. Mathur and Morris (2012) estimate that 11 percent of the revenue would be necessary

to hold the bottom 20 percent of households by income harmless, and 18 percent would be enough to protect the bottom three deciles. This proposal recommends that policymakers reserve about 15 percent of the revenue (about $161 billion in the first decade and $405 billion over twenty years) to protect households with income below about 150 percent of the poverty level .11 These reserved funds could bolster programs that serve the poor (e.g., Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and food stamps), or could go to qualifying households through electronic debit

cards. In no case should the revenue be used to directly offset higher energy prices to consumers because that would blunt the incentive to conserve energy and would undermine the environmental performance of the tax. Indeed, the carbon tax law should instruct utilities to pass through to consumers any increased input costs arising from the tax

The revenue generated from a carbon tax boosts employment and the GDPMorris ’13 (Adele C. -The Brookings Institute 02/11/2013 “Proposal 11: The Many Benefits of a Carbon Tax” The Hamilton Project http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/02/thp-budget-papers/thp_15waysfedbudget_prop11.pdf) KG

After holding harmless low-income households, about 85 percent of the revenue and all of the savings from subsidy reductions could be used for efficiency-enhancing tax reform and deficit reduction. Marron and Toder (2013) estimate that cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 28 percent would reduce corporate income tax revenues by about $800 billion, or roughly 18 percent, over the next ten years. For comparison, the CBO’s projection of total corporate income tax revenue in 2014 is about $430 billion (Statistica 2013). Some of that loss could be made up by expanding the corporate income tax base, for example by reducing tax preferences. Nonetheless, corporate tax reform will

clearly require increased revenue elsewhere in the budget. A carbon tax is a natural fit. In the early years of the carbon

tax, particularly during this protracted sluggish economic recovery, policymakers should target the carbon tax revenue predominantly toward progrowth reform of the corporate income tax (Marron and Toder,

2013). This maximizes the near term efficiency gains of the tax reform by focusing the revenue on l owering one of the most distortionary tax instruments while preserving its role in long-term deficit reduction. Several scholars have analyzed the cost-lowering potential of reducing other distortionary taxes with carbon tax revenue. For example, Dinan and Lim Rogers (2002) found that using carbon revenues to reduce corporate income taxes could reduce the economic cost of limiting carbon emissions by 60 percent. In a general equilibrium modeling analysis, McKibbin and colleagues (2012) find that using the carbon tax revenue to reduce taxes on capital income could slightly boost GDP, employment, and wages through the first few decades of the tax, in part as a result of the tax swap’s salutary effect on U.S. investment. In

another modeling study, Rausch and Reilly (2012) also find that introducing a carbon tax and using the revenue to reduce corporate income tax rates would produce a net welfare gain for American households .12

Economic collapse causes nuclear war, terrorism, and proliferationHarris and Burrows ‘9 (Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf)// )

Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces . With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample

opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity . Even so, history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe

in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no

reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier . In surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups

inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks and

newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn . The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that

existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established . The close proximity of

potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth

in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption

rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could reemerge , particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war , however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus focus for these countries indeed turns inward , one of the most obvious funding targets may be military . Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves, but

i t also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

Warming Adv.Advantage 2 is Warming2016 is the hottest year on record – now is the key time to take action on global warmingDeemer 06/22 (Kacey -“2016 Burning Through Heat Records” Seeker 06/22/2016 http://www.seeker.com/2016-burns-through-heat-records-1937745078.html) KG

This year may be only half over, but 2016 is already on track to be the hottest year ever on rec ord , with each of the first

six months, from January to June, setting new temperature records, NASA officials announced this week. For the first time, NASA shared a midyear climate analysis , doing so b ecause temperature averages this year have been so in excess of previous data, agency officials said. NASA's data showed that each month in 2016 was the warmest respective month globally in the modern temperature record , which dates to 1880. This trend suggests 2016 will surpass 2015 as the hottest year on record, NASA said. "2016 has really blown that out of the water," said Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. According to Schmidt's calculations, there is a 99 percent probability that 2016, on average, will be hotter than 2015. So far this year , the planet's average temperature has been 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit ( 1.3 degrees Celsius) warmer than the late 19th centur y. In 2009, international climate negotiators agreed in the Copenhagen Accord that warming should not increase more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) this century. The Accord's temperature threshold was put in place to

hopefully avoid the worst impacts of climate change. A strong El Niño this past year did contribute to these temperatures, but Schmidt said the continued warming trend is mostly due to the effects of greenhouse gases. While the impacts of El Niño will dissipate by 2017, leaving temperatures slightly lower than this year, Schmidt said 2017 will still

average to 1 degree C (1.8 degrees F) above the pre-industrial average. These record-breaking temperatures have taken a toll on the Arctic, which has seen thinning and melting ice f or more than a decade. Five of the first six months of 2016 set records for lowest respective levels of monthly Arctic sea-ice extent (the area of ocean covered by the ice). By late September, Arctic sea ice could reach its lowest extent since satellite record-keeping began, NASA said. Walt Meier, a sea ice scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, said the low sea-ice extent seen in the first half of 2016 follows the continuing trend and is "not at all

surprising given the warm air temperatures. "We're seeing the surface begin melting as much as two months ahead of schedule," he said. At the peak of summer, the Arctic sea-ice extent now covers 40 percent less area than it did in the late 1970s and

early 1980s, NASA said. What this means Sustained above-average temperatures, as the planet has seen so far this century, can affect the ice sheet, global sea levels, ecosystems and more , according to Schmidt. One of the very visible effects of the warming climate is the greening of the Arctic. What was once a frozen tundra landscape has practically become a new ecosystem, said Charles Miller, deputy science lead for the Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE) at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "Because of longer, warmer growing seasons coupled with shorter, less brutally cold winters, we've had a significant

change in the vegetation structure … really changing the landscape," Miller said. Increasing temperatures and a warmer Arctic have global implications , Meier said. The jet stream and weather patterns could shift as the Arctic ice cover continues to diminish, he said.

Greenhouse gas emissions are the largest contributor to global warming- establishing a carbon tax is a necessary step to halt ongoing environmental degradationCTC ’16 (“The Answer to Climate Tragedies is a Carbon Tax” Carbon Tax Center. Updated June 2016 http://www.carbontax.org/the-answer-to-climate-tragedies-is-a-carbon-tax/) KG

Every week seems to bring another disaster rooted in climate change . Extreme and historic floods , droughts, wildfires, icemelts. Setting off food shortages, civil unrest, mass migrations . And no, it’s not our wired

world putting more cataclysms on our screens. The frequencies are rising . The last colder-than-average month in NASA’s global-

temperature database was July 1985. June 2016 was the 14th straight month to break a century-or-older temperature record. The cause is global warming from greenhouse gases. The habitually cautious New York Times reported last year that the planetary warming already caused by human emissions has quadrupled the frequency of some heat extremes since the Industrial Revolution. Scientists writing in the peer-reviewed journal Nature warned that continued unchecked emissions could eventually trigger a 62-fold increase in such heat blasts — and consequent storms, deluges, loss of habitat, and human suffering. It’s true that some calamities are now “baked in” to our climate

future due to carbon dioxide’s persistence in the atmosphere. But it’s also true that slowing and stopping future emissions can reduce the rates and magnitudes of these catastrophes. And the fastest and fairest way to drive down emissions is through national-level carbon taxes in the U.S. and around the world . We should have started taxing carbon pollution decades ago, but acting now will help limit future losses. Moreover, a world with less and eventually zero fossil fuels will be healthier and more just. No more oilgarchs. No more coal particulates. No more fracking. Fewer extremes not just of weather but of wealth. More jobs, and not in mopping up climate disasters but building sustainable infrastructure.

What’s the proper response to the latest climate disaster? Compassion. Grief. And political action to support actions, organizations and candidates who advocate taxing carbon, and push those that don’t to come on board. Earth needs you to support carbon taxes.

Putting a price on pollution creates clean energy technology, and reduces the national deficitClimate Progress ’13 (“The Newly Proposed Carbon Tax Will Fight Global Warming, Protect Low-Income Americans and Reduce the Deficit” Think Progress 02/14/2013 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1596391/the-newly-proposed-carbon-tax-will-fight-global-warming-protect-low-income-americans-and-reduce-the-deficit/)KG

Taken together, the Climate Protection Act and Sustainable Energy Act are a comprehensive climate bill, led by Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Most important, the package puts a price on carbon, which will make polluters pay for the damage they inflict on all of us while encouraging the transition to cleaner fuels . This $20 fee for each ton of carbon dioxide pollution will reduce emissions to 20 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. These bills also bring in more than $1 trillion in new revenue over the next decade. The success of any pollution

reduction program depends on how new revenue is spent, and these bills spend the money smartly. Broadly speaking, the money goes to three places: consumer protection, clean energy infrastructure, and deficit reduction . Each of these is important. A carbon fee is just like any other consumption tax in that it inordinately impacts low- and middle-income families. The Climate Protection Act and Sustainable Energy Act create a rebate program to make sure that these families are not harmed. This is modeled after Alaska’s oil dividend, and will ensure that pollution reduction is not a regressive tax. Reducing dirty energy use is great, but we need to make sure that we replace it with clean energy to power our economy. This package funds the Weatherization Assistance Program, ARPA-E, the production tax credit and investment tax credit, manufacturing for clean energy technologies, worker training, and other programs that will be critical in transitioning to a clean energy future.

Finally, our nation’s budget deficit is a real problem. The Climate Protection Act and Sustainable Energy Act will reduce the debt by $300 billion over the next ten years. This package is closely aligned with the progressive carbon tax that CAP proposed in December 2012. At that time, we said that any carbon tax must: Be sufficiently robust that it leads to meaningful reductions in greenhouse gas pollution, getting us on a path that helps us avoid the most catastrophic effects of climate change. In addition to being high enough to affect pollution rates, the tax should also increase over time and be applicable to non-carbon-dioxide greenhouse gases such as methane. This would both ensure a continuing reduction in the release of carbon dioxide and also encourage companies to move toward cleaner energy sources instead of different dirty ones. Encourage businesses to make new investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This will stimulate the economy and put people back to work in the burgeoning clean-tech and green-jobs sectors. Reduce — not increase — economic vulnerability of low-income households by ensuring that they are fairly compensated for any increase in energy prices. Have appropriate mechanisms to protect existing American businesses and prevent so-called pollution leakage to countries without similar systems in place. Leakage occurs if highly polluting industries simply move to other countries that don’t have a comparable limit on pollution. In this way, they can continue business as usual without stricter environmental regulations. Leakage can also happen if domestic industries shut down, causing us to import goods from other countries. Reduce the budget deficit to prevent draconian cuts in vital domestic programs by raising revenue from the tax. This legislation does each of these five things. That’s why CAP has encouraged Congress to pass the bills without delay. Tara McGuinness, Executive Director of the Center for American

Progress Action Fund, spoke at the bills’ introduction this morning. This is her statement about why this legislation matters: Sen. Sanders and Sen. Boxer continue to focus us on what really matters: our moral obligation to leave a country and a planet to our children that is not damaged and polluted. They are taking action to reduce carbon pollution — making sure that political squabbling doesn’t distract us from the task at

hand. Today, across the country, Americans of all walks of life are coping with the devastating impacts of climate change on their homes, businesses, and livelihoods. It’s time that we invest in our communities, rather than leaving the American taxpayer to foot a billion-dollar bill while they’re clearing the debris and fearing the effects of the next catastrophic storm. The Climate Protection Act and Sustainable Energy Act include some

important details that were not in CAP’s proposal. For example, the bills end the taxpayer subsidies to oil and gas companies. We should be charging them for pollution, not lowering their taxes by billions of dollars per year. And, the bills include

provisions to reduce risks from natural gas production. Since a fee on pollution will likely encourage some shifting from coal to natural gas for power generation, it’s important that this not lead to more local air and water pollution . In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, President Obama called on Congress to pass a bill just like this one. Congress should heed that call. At the same time, the Environmental Protection Agency must move forward with limits on pollution from power plants. Not only is this a powerful backstop if Congress doesn’t act, but it also makes sure that EPA has the authority to require more reductions than this bill calls for if the benefits of more action outweigh the costs.

Establishing a carbon tax would reduce CO2 by 9.2 billions metric tonsMorris ’13 (Adele C. -The Brookings Institute 02/11/2013 “Proposal 11: The Many Benefits of a Carbon Tax” The Hamilton Project

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2013/02/thp-budget-papers/thp_15waysfedbudget_prop11.pdf) KG

In addition to the positive budgetary impacts of a carbon tax, there are significant environmental benefits as well. Results

predict the policy would reduce taxed emissions relative to baseline by about 12 percent after twenty years and by a third by mid-century, producing a cumulative reduction of 9.2 billion metric tons of CO2 in its first two decades. As shown in table 11-2, if the present value of those emissions reductions is, say, at least $16 per ton, the first twenty years of the tax would produce at least $148 billion in climate benefits. Further benefits could arise from increased GHG abatement by other countries in response to U.S. climate action and diplomacy. The United States should use its new carbon price policy to become an international leader for pricing GHG emissions globally . It should encourage carbon pricing by other major emitters. In particular, the United States should launch a vigorous carbon pricing dialogue within the Major Economies Forum, the

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the G-20, or more than one of these.13 The dialogue could focus on administrative and technical aspects of carbon pricing and help build GHG tax administration capacity in developing countries . These diplomatic efforts would help address climate risks, protect energy-intensive American industry, limit the need for border carbon adjustments , and signal to the international community that the world’s largest economic power is taking positive and transparent steps to curb its emissions.

Warming is real and anthropogenicPierrehumbert 14 (Raymond T. – Professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Chicago, Chairman in Environmental Science at Stockholm’s University Slate. 10/01/2014 “Climate Science is Settled Enough.” http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/10/the_wall_street_journal_and_steve_koonin_the_new_face_of_climate_change.html) KG

A litany of discredited arguments. Let’s first gratefully acknowledge that in some ways this piece represents a material step forward in the

annals of the Wall Street Journal’s coverage of climate change: Koonin writes that the human influence on climate is “no hoax,” and that “continually growing amounts of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, due largely to carbon-dioxide emissions from the conventional use of fossil fuels, are influencing the climate.” He affirms that “uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction.” If all the economic heavy hitters who read the Journal subscribed to these views, that would represent progress of a sort. But the nuggets of truth in Koonin’s essay are buried beneath a rubble of false or misleading claims from

the standard climate skeptics’ canon. To pick a few examples: He claims that the rate of sea level rise now is no greater than it was

early in the 20th century, but this is a conclusion one could draw only through the most shameless cherry-picking. In reality, according to the data, the sea level trend was .8 millimeters of rise per year from 1870 to 1924, 1.9 millimeters per year from 1925 to 1992, and 3.2 millimeters

per year from 1993 to 2014—i.e., the rate has actually quadrupled since preindustrial times . He claims that the human imprint

on climate is only “comparable” to natural variability, whereas multiple lines of research confirm that the climate signature of human-caused greenhouse gas increases has already risen well above the background noise level. Koonin’s claim also obscures the fact that human-induced greenhouse gas increases are the only influences that have been found to provide a significant drive for warming. The most prominent natural influences, such as volcanic eruptions and heat uptake by the ocean, only serve to offset some of the warming caused by human influences. He states that human additions to the greenhouse effect will shift the natural greenhouse effect by only 1 percent to 2 percent by the middle of the century. This is another variant of the standard skeptics’ arguments that attempt to make the human influence seem small, but, like all such arguments, requires a lot

of creative accounting. In reality, a large part of the natural greenhouse effect is due to substances (mainly water

vapor, and consequent cloudiness) t hat are in the atmosphere only because carbon dioxide keeps the Earth warm enough to prevent them from condensing out. Carbon dioxide is the main control knob for Earth’s climate, and if one looks at the effect of doubling carbon dioxide relative to the baseline carbon dioxide greenhouse effect, that amounts to a change of over 10 percent—and at the rate our fossil fuel burning is increasing, we could go well beyond doubling. Further, if one looks at fossil fuel burning in terms of the magnitude of our

disruption of the natural carbon cycle, industrial civilization looks like a force of much more than geological proportions. Fossil fuel burning is adding carbon to the Earth system at a rate that is more than 100 times greater than the volcanic sources that drive the Earth’s natural long-term carbon cycle. He states that the effects of carbon dioxide will last “several centuries,” whereas “several millennia” would be closer to the truth. The carbon dioxide we emit while dithering about what to do will cause essentially irreversible changes to our climate. He does a lot of hand-wringing about the uncertainties in ocean behavior,

but doesn’t seem to appreciate that oceans cannot be a cause of long-term warming because almost all of the mass of the oceans is colder than the lower atmosphere. Oceans can delay warming by taking up heat (indeed

they are, as ocean observations confirm), but the warming will be made up with a vengeance once the oceans stop taking up heat, as they eventually must. One could go on for a long time dissecting the flaws and misleading spin in Koonin’s arguments. Most of the old chestnuts are there, including the dismissive statement that “climate has always changed and always will” (true enough, but not cause for complacency about human influences), the supposedly missing tropical “hot spot” (which Koonin badly garbles in multiple ways, but which is well-discussed by Carl Mears and by Steve Sherwood here), and the by-now-obligatory reference to the decadal “pause” in global warming. Without belaboring the point, let’s just say that Koonin’s arguments are not the sort of thing that would emerge from a period of deep reflection by some brilliant mind turning serious attention to the subject. Rather, they are the sorts of things one could pick up in a weekend surfing a few of the more willfully ignorant skeptic’s blogs. Climate science is not settled, but it’s settled enough. Koonin’s most seriously misleading claims concern uncertainty. There are two parts to his attack: first, that climate scientists systematically suppress discussion of uncertainty, especially when communicating with policymakers; and second, that climate science is too uncertain to provide a basis for policy

decisions. These disputes are more like bar fights than the secretive “hushed sidebar conversations” Koonin makes them out to be. To anybody with even a cursory familiarity with the climate science literature, the claim that it is impermissible to discuss uncertainties is laughable. There is hardly anything else scientists do, in climate science or elsewhere, besides dispute received wisdom and one another’s findings. The reward structure in all of science favors those who overturn some widely accepted theory over those who just confirm or provide an elaboration on what is already known. A lot of these disputes (and I have been party to several myself) are more

like bar fights than the secretive “hushed sidebar conversations” Koonin makes them out to be. Climate science has been refined in the fires of such disputes for well over a century now, and the constant turmoil of questioning still dominates the professional journals and meetings. Indeed, most of the uncertainties highlighted by Koonin were first identified and reported in professional journals by climate science “insiders” (in some cases even IPCC authors), and continue to be vigorously discussed there. For example, the case of the (possibly) missing tropical hot spot was first discussed in a paper by Dian Gaffen in 2000, and has been the subject of numerous other papers, including this recent one co-authored by Suki Manabe, one of the founding fathers of climate modeling. Climate sensitivity—the amount by which the global average temperature increases upon doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere—is one of the key uncertain factors governing our climate future, and results on this key parameter are almost invariably presented in terms of a distribution

of possible values. Science is never settled, but it can be settled enough. Newtonian mechanics was not settled science—it was overturned by both relativity and quantum mechanics. Nonetheless, it was, and continues to be, settled enough to build bridges and design airplanes . It is in this spirit that the word settled is used sometimes in connection with climate science, and not in the cartoonish sense that Koonin fabricates in his straw-man argument. It is always easy to find gaps—even

very significant gaps—in the understanding of a system as complex as the climate, but the issue on the table isn’t whether our understanding is complete, but whether it is complete enough to justify the need for serious controls on carbon dioxide emissions. It’s not the situation that the range of climate predictions runs from “pretty good” to “somewhat bad”—the truth is more like “bad” to “extremely bad,” unless emissions growth is halted and eventually reversed. Let’s imagine you are a smoker and go to the doctor with a variety of troubling physical complaints. She tells you, “Well, a lot of these troubles are typically associated with smoking, but you don’t have cancer yet and the fact is we don’t know everything about the precise biochemical pathways that connect smoking to cancer, and anyway there’s always the chance you’ll get emphysema before you get cancer.” If you were to apply Koonin’s reasoning to this situation, your response would be, “OK, Doc, I’ll wait to give

up smoking until you can tell me exactly how it will kill me and when.” Climate science is settled enough to provide the policy guidance that matters most , namely that there is an urgent need for halting, and eventually reversing, the worldwide growth in carbon dioxide emissions . At a time when essentially nothing effective is being done, it is pointless

to fret, as Koonin does, about exactly how much reduction is optimal—the clear answer from climate science is: “The more the better, the sooner the better, and whatever we actually do is apt to be less than what is really needed, though worth doing nonetheless.” Major policy decisions are routinely made in economic and national security areas in the face of far greater uncertainty than prevails in climate science. The conclusion that climate science is settled enough proceeds from two well-established properties of the climate system: No. 1,

most climate damages rise with the rise in global mean temperature, though the regional distributions of the damages

are uncertain and vary from model to model; and No. 2, the peak global mean warming is approximately proportional to the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted up to the time such emissions cease completely. Given current rates of emissions growth, about 2.5 percent annually, we will exceed a threshold corresponding to 2 degrees Celsius of warming in a matter of a few decades, if climate sensitivity turns out to be in the middle of the uncertainty range. If we are lucky and climate sensitivity turns out to be at the lower end of the range of scientifically credible estimates, then given a 2.5 percent annual rate of growth of emissions, the good news would buy us only an extra 28 years beyond the perilously short time that would be allotted to us under midrange climate sensitivity. Given that we really should have started decarbonizing the economy 30 years

ago, that’s not much justification for inaction ; in fact, it would be nothing but good news since it would make the task more feasible.

Runaway warming leads to extinction Roberts 13 (David, 01/10/2013 “If you aren’t alarmed about climate, you aren’t paying attention – citing the World Banks Review compilation of climate studies” [http://grist.org/climate-energy/climate-alarmism-the-idea-is-surreal/) KG

We know we’ve raised global average temperatures around 0.8 degrees C so far. We know that 2 degrees C is where most scientists predict catastrophic and irreversible impacts. And we know that we are currently on a trajectory that will push temperatures up 4 degrees or more by the end of the century . What would 4 degrees look like? A

recent World Bank review of the science reminds us. First, it’ll get hot: Projections for a 4°C world show a dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of high-temperature extremes. Recent extreme heat waves such as in Russia in 2010 are likely

to become the new normal summer in a 4°C world. Tropical South America, central Africa, and all tropical islands in the Pacific are likely to regularly experience heat waves of unprecedented magnitude and duration . In this new high-temperature climate regime, the coolest months are likely to be substantially warmer than the warmest months at the end of the 20th century. In regions such as the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Tibetan plateau, almost all summer months are likely to be warmer than the most extreme heat waves presently experienced. For example, the warmest July in the Mediterranean region could be

9°C warmer than today’s warmest July. Extreme heat waves in recent years have had severe impacts , causing heat- related deaths, forest fires, and harvest losses. The impacts of the extreme heat waves projected for a 4°C world have not

been evaluated, but they could be expected to vastly exceed the consequences experienced to date and potentially exceed the adaptive capacities of many societies and natural systems. [my emphasis] Warming to 4 degrees would also lead to “an increase of about 150 percent in acidity of the ocean,” leading to levels of acidity “unparalleled in Earth’s history.” That’s bad news for, say, coral reefs: The combination of thermally induced bleaching events, ocean acidification, and sea-level rise threatens large fractions of coral reefs even at 1.5°C global warming. The regional extinction of entire coral reef ecosystems, which could occur well before 4°C is reached, would have profound consequences for their dependent species and

for the people who depend on them for food, income, tourism, and shoreline protection. It will also “likely lead to a sea-level rise of 0.5 to 1 meter, and possibly more, by 2100, with several meters more to be realized in the coming centuries.” That rise won’t be spread

evenly, even within regions and countries — regions close to the equator will see even higher seas. There are also indications that it would

“significantly exacerbate existing water scarcity in many regions , particularly northern and eastern Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, while additional countries in Africa would be newly confronted with water scarcity on a national scale

due to population growth.” Also, more extreme weather events: Ecosystems will be affected by more frequent extreme weather events, such as forest loss due to droughts and wildfire exacerbated by land use and agricultural expansion. In Amazonia, forest fires could as much as double by 2050 with warming of approximately 1.5°C to 2°C above preindustrial levels.

Changes would be expected to be even more severe in a 4°C world. Also loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services: In a 4°C

world, climate change seems likely to become the dominant driver of ecosystem shifts, surpassing habitat destruction as the greatest threat to biodiversity. Recent research suggests that large-scale loss of biodiversity is likely to occur in a 4°C world, with climate change and high CO2 concentration driving a transition of the Earth’s ecosystems into a state unknown in human experience. Ecosystem damage would be expected to dramatically reduce the provision of ecosystem services on which society depends (for example, fisheries and protection of

coastline afforded by coral reefs and mangroves.) New research also indicates a “rapidly rising risk of crop yield reductions as the world warms.” So food will be tough. All this will add up to “large-scale displacement of populations and have adverse consequences for human security and economic and trade systems.” Given

the uncertainties and long-tail risks involved, “there is no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible . ” There’s a small but non-trivial chance of advanced civilization breaking down entirely. Now ponder the fact that some scenarios show us going up to 6 degrees by the end of the century, a level of devastation we have not studied and barely know how to

conceive. Ponder the fact that somewhere along the line, though we don’t know exactly where, enough self-reinforcing feedback loops will be running to make climate change unstoppable and irreversible for centuries to come. That would mean handing our grandchildren and their grandchildren not only a burned, chaotic, denuded world, but

a world that is inexorably more inhospitable with every passing decade.

Warming is a conflict multiplier – causes global wars and multiple independent extinction scenarios Sawin ’12 (Janet Senior Director of the Energy and Climate Change Program at the WorldWatch Institute, Aug 2012, “Climate Change Poses Greater Security Threat than Terrorism” http://www.worldwatch.org/node/77)

As early as 1988, scientists cautioned that human tinkering with the Earth's climate amounted to "an unintended, uncontrolled globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war." Since then, hundreds of scientific studies have documented ever-mounting evidence that human activities are altering the climate around the world. A growing number of international

leaders now warn that climate change is, in the words of U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King, "the most severe problem that we are facing today—more serious even than the threat of terrorism." Climate change will likely

trigger severe disruptions with ever-widening consequences for local, regional, and global security. Droughts,

famines, and weather -related disasters could claim thousands or even millions of lives and exacerbate existing tensions within and among nations, fomenting diplomatic and trade disputes. In the worst case, further warming will reduce the capacities of Earth's natural systems and elevate already-rising sea levels, which could threaten the very survival of low-lying island nations, destabilize the global economy and geopolitical balance , and incite violent conflict . Already, there is growing evidence that climate change is affecting the life-support systems on

which humans and other species depend. And these impacts are arriving faster than many climate scientists predicted. Recent studies have revealed changes in the breeding and migratory patterns of animals worldwide, from sea turtles to polar bears. Mountain glaciers are shrinking at ever-faster rates, threatening water supplies for millions of people and plant and animal species. Average global sea level has risen 20-25 centimeters (8-10 inches) since 1901, due mainly to thermal expansion; more than 2.5 centimeters (one inch) of this rise occurred over the past decade. A recent report by the International

Climate Change Taskforce, co-chaired by Republican U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe, concludes that climate change is the "single most important long term issue that the planet face s ." It warns that if average global temperatures increase more than

two degrees Celsius—which will likely occur in a matter of decades if we continue with business-as-usual—the world will reach the "point of no return , " where societies may be unable to cope with the accelerating rates of change.

Existing threats to security will be amplified as climate change has increasing impacts on regional water supplies, agricultural productivity, human and ecosystem health, infrastructure, financial flows and

economies, and patterns of international migration. Specific threats to human welfare and global security include: ► Climate change will undermine efforts to mitigate world poverty, directly threatening people's homes and livelihoods through

increased storms, droughts, disease, and other stressors. Not only could this impede development, it might also increase national and regional instability and intensify income disparities between rich and poor. This, in turn, could lead to

military confrontations over distribution of the world's wealth , or could feed terrorism or transnational crime. ► Rising temperatures, droughts, and floods, and the increasing acidity of ocean waters, coupled with an expanding human

population, could further stress an already limited global food supply, dramatically increasing food prices and potentially triggering internal unrest or the use of food as a weapon. Even the modest warming experienced to date has affected fisheries and agricultural productivity, with a 10 percent decrease in corn yields across the U.S. Midwest seen per degree of warming.

► Altered rainfall patterns could heighten tensions over the use of shared water bodies and increase the likelihood of violent conflict over water resources. It is estimated that about 1.4 billion people already live in areas that are water-stressed. Up to 5 billion people (most of the world's current population) could be living in such regions by 2025. ► Widespread impacts of climate change could lead to waves of migration, threatening international stability. One study estimates that by 2050, as many as 150 million people may have fled coastlines vulnerable to rising sea levels, storms or floods, or agricultural land too arid to cultivate. Historically, migration to urban areas has stressed limited services and infrastructure, inciting crime or insurgency movements, while migration across borders has frequently led to violent clashes over land and resources.

Green Adv. Advantage three is Green Energy The United States strategy for global science leadership needs to shift to a a strategy of cooperation – implementing a carbon tax frees up the resource necessary to cooperate internationallyColglazier and Lyons ’14 (E. William and Elizabeth E. “The United States Looks to Global Science Technology and Innovation Horizon” Science & Diplomacy 07/08/2014 http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2014/united-states-looks-global-science-technology-and-innovation-horizon) KG

U.S. STI (science, technology, and innovation) excellence and leadership are essential for national interests , e.g., economy, health, security, and environment. It is also important to U.S. diplomacy, its soft power, and efforts to advance peace , prosperity, and security around the world. Therefore, the U.S. STI enterprise will need to adapt to new opportunities and changes in the current landscape of global science. To be most effective, the response should include embracing a strategy of international STI research cooperation and utilizing STI knowledge strategically by looking out, up, around, and forward. This can empower the U.S. STI enterprise, especially its decentralized academic components, to engage globally.1 We discuss a knowledge framework that could facilitate

strategic international STI cooperation. Embracing a National Strategy of International STI Research Cooperation The overwhelming U.S. dominance in scientific researc h in the last half of the twentieth century is being replaced by a more multipolar landscape 2 of science, technology, and innovation , with the United States remaining a very strong force. The

new data presented in the National Science Board’s Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 confirms what we already know—the United States is becoming less dominant in STI and there are substantial and increasing STI investments, linkages, and capacities now dispersed around the world. While the United States saw 4.9 percent growth from 2009 to

2011 in total research and development (R&D) expenditures, worldwide R&D spending increased over the same period by 15 percent. The U.S. share of worldwide R&D expenditures continued its decline; in 2000 it was 38 percent and in 2011 it stood at 30 percent. These changes and others, for example in the global distribution of research excellence and STI infrastructure, have brought the United States to a challenge that can be converted into an opportunity. Numerous U.S. national reports3 have lamented the decreasing dominance of U.S. STI. A recommendation shared

by these reports is to increase domestic STI spending, but national fiscal constraints are likely to limit such increases for the immediate future. Sustaining American STI leadership will need to involve vigorous STI international collaboration across the new

dynamic landscape. If the United States can no longer be assured of leadership in STI through sheer dominance of size and resources, it will need to maintain leadership through synergistic partnerships . Such partnerships will yield mutual benefit for America and its partners by tapping great U.S. strengths, e.g., world-class scientists, students, and institutions and their immense creative capacity, entrepreneurial orientation, idealism, and generosity of spirit.4

Implementing a carbon tax would create new revenues that sparks investment in clean energy technologyObeiter’15 (Michael – John Hopkins University -Energy and Climate advisor to the Senate“ A Carbon Price Would Benefit More Than Just the Climate” World Resources Institute. 04/30/2015. http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/04/carbon-price-would-benefit-more-just-climate) KG

When the price of carbon-intensive fuels and goods increases, the government takes in new revenues, which it can put to use in any number of productive ways. In this way, a carbon price can achieve several policy goals simultaneously . For example, politicians from across the political spectrum support comprehensive tax reform. A carbon-

pricing policy would provide the opportunity to reduce taxes on things we want to encourage (such as work and investment) by discouraging

things we want less of (greenhouse gas emissions). It’s no wonder that such a win-win opportunity has the support of an overwhelming majority of economists , the American public and residents of British Columbia, where that policy was put in

place seven years ago. As a result of the revenue-neutral tax swap it implemented, the province used carbon tax revenue to reduce other taxes. It now has the lowest personal income tax rates in Canada and one of the lowest corporate income tax rates in

North America. Deficit reduction is another priority of Democrats and Republicans alike , and carbon pricing revenues can be used to pay down the federal debt. Others support simply returning all of the revenues to consumers in the form of lump-sum dividends. This would ensure minimal government involvement and that lower-income households are not negatively

affected. While the carbon price itself would spur innovation in clean energy technologies, the government can enhance that incentive by using revenue to support research and development – a proposal that has polled well among the American public . Of course, policymakers could decide to mix and match among these options, as well as others that are discussed in more detail in the Handbook.

Science diplomacy to solve numerous existential threatsPickering and Agre 10 (Thomas Pickering, former undersecretary of State and US Ambassador to the UN, Russia, India, Israel, Jordan, El Salvador, and Nigeria. Peter Agre, Nobel Prize winning chemist at Johns Hopkins. “More opportunities needed for U.S. researchers to work with foreign counterparts” Baltimore Sun 2-9-10 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2010-02-09/news/bal-op.northkorea0209_1_science-and-technology-north-korea-scientists-and-engineers)

In particular, the U.S. government should quickly and significantly increase the number of H1-B visas being approved for specialized foreign workers such as doctors, scientists and engineers. Their contributions are

critical to improving human welfare as well as our economy. Foreign scientists working or studying in U.S. universities also

become informal goodwill ambassadors for America globally -- an important benefit in the developing world, where senior scientists and engineers often enter national politics. ¶ More broadly, we urgently need to expand and deepen links between the U.S. and foreign scientific communities to advance solutions to common challenges. Climate change, sustainable development, pandemic disease, malnutrition, protection for oceans and wildlife, national security and innovative energy technologies all demand solutions that draw on science and technology.¶ Fortunately, U.S. technological leadership is admired worldwide, suggesting a way to promote dialogue with countries where we otherwise lack access and leverage. A June 2004 Zogby International poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute found that only 11 percent of Moroccans surveyed had a favorable overall view of the United States -- but 90 percent had a positive view of U.S. science and technology. Only 15 percent

of Jordanians had a positive overall view, but 83 percent registered admiration for U.S. science and technology. Similarly, Pew polling data from 43 countries show that favorable views of U.S. science and technology exceed overall views of the United States by an average of 23 points.¶ The recent mission to North Korea exemplified the vast potential of science for U.S. diplomacy. Within the scientific community, after all, journals routinely publish articles co-written by scientists from different nations, and scholars convene frequent conferences to extend those ties. Science demands an intellectually honest atmosphere, peer review and a common

language for professional discourse. Basic values of transparency, vigorous inquiry and respectful debate are all inherent to science.¶ Nations that cooperate on science strengthen the same values that support peaceful conflict resolution and improved public safety . U.S. and Soviet nongovernmental organizations contributed to a thaw in the Cold War through scientific exchanges, with little government support other than travel visas. The U.S. government is off to a good start in leveraging science diplomacy, with 43 bilateral umbrella science and technology agreements now in force. The Obama administration further elevated science engagement, beginning with the president's June speech in Cairo. Then, in November, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appointed three science envoys to foster new partnerships and address common challenges, especially within Muslim-majority countries. She also announced the Global Technology and Innovation Fund, through which the Overseas Private Investment

Corporation will spur private-sector investments in science and technology industries abroad.¶ These steps are commendable, but the White House and the State Department need to exercise even greater leadership to build government capacity and partnerships that advance U.S. science diplomacy globally. Congress should lead as well, with greater recognition of

science engagement and increased funding for science capacity-building. Both chambers must work together to give the executive branch the

resources it needs. In an era of complex global challenges, science diplomacy is a critical tool for U.S. foreign policy. The opportunity to strengthen that tool and advance our diplomatic goals should not be missed.