Impact Takeout Brief

1. BIODIVERSITY LOW:......................................................................................................................................
1
A. Biodiversity is already low: 1/3 of mammals face decline.................................................................1
B. Biodiversity currently low: 40% of species are threatened, 3,000 are critically endangered...........2
C. Biodiversity currently low: Mass extinction is ongoing.....................................................................2
2. BIODIVERSITY – ALT CAUSES.........................................................................................................................2
A. GM crops encourage expanded deforestation – leading to biodiversity loss....................................2
B. Deforestation kills biodiversity: Madagascar has lost 42% of its biodiversity.................................3
3. PESTICIDES – BENEFITS OUTWEIGH..................................................................................................................3
A. EU ban of pesticides saves from supposed threat while causing a 30% fall in production...............4
B. Banning 15% of pesticides would cause 1/3 increase in cereal(no, not cheerios) prices.................4
C. Pesticide controls kill thousands........................................................................................................4
D. Malaria kills a million people per year and DDT(a pesticide) is the k2 stopping malaria...............5
E. DDT is safe and is best available solution to malaria.......................................................................5
4. PESTICIDES – RISKS ARE UNREALISTIC.............................................................................................................6
A. Concentrations high enough to cause harm are unrealistic and will never happen..........................6
5. AIR POLLUTION – NON-UNIQUE, CHINA AND INDIA WILL POLLUTE.......................................................................6
A. Pollution travels from one continent to another................................................................................6
B. Interstate pollution includes soot particles(PM), dust, mercury, pesticides, NoX, o3, hydrogen
peroxide, sulfuric acid, nitric acid and smog.........................................................................................7
C. Interstate pollution confirmed by multiple studies and satellites......................................................8
6. SMOG – BEING CONTROLLED BY CAP-AND-TRADE PROGRAM................................................................................9
EPA program reduced smog by 75% in eastern states...........................................................................9
7. SOFT POWER – LOW NOW.............................................................................................................................9
A. Soft Power in decline: hinders our ability to get what we want........................................................9
B. Financial crisis kills US soft power: three reasons...........................................................................9
8. SOFT POWER – HIGH..................................................................................................................................10
A. Soft Power is still very high, economy, military and culture best in world.....................................10
B. AT: “Financial crisis kills SP”, world still looks to the US for solution.........................................11
C. Obama solves: yay. Obama victory gives us Soft Power.................................................................11
D. AT: “China new superpower”, US is still better than China..........................................................11
Oil – Terrorism/ “we import from bad countries”

Oil – Dependence
Oil – Peak
Air pollution – Not dangerous
Air pollution – Going down
Air pollution – Regulations
1. Biodiversity low:
Biodiversity is already in crisis state. No uniqueness to impact.
A. Biodiversity is already low: 1/3 of mammals face decline

(AFP – Agence France Presse) – Oct 6, 2008 “Half of mammals 'in decline', says
extinction Red List”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpftiFBrckhaI_mtTA15UzqTfubg [CR]
“Half the world's mammals are declining in population and more than a third probably
face extinction, said an update Monday of the "Red List," the most respected inventory of
biodiversity. A comprehensive survey of mammals included in the annual report by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which covers more than 44,000
animal and plant species, shows that a quarter of the planet's 5,487 known mammals are
clearly at risk of disappearing forever. But the actual situation may be even grimmer
because researchers have been unable to classify the threat level for another 836
mammals due to lack of data.”
B. Biodiversity currently low: 40% of species are threatened, 3,000 are critically
endangered
(AFP – Agence France Presse) – Oct 6, 2008 “Half of mammals 'in decline', says
extinction Red List”
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hpftiFBrckhaI_mtTA15UzqTfubg [CR]
“The Red List classifies plants and animals in one of half-a-dozen categories depending
on their survival status. Nearly 40 percent of 44,838 species catalogued are listed as
"threatened" with extinction, with 3,000 of them classified as "critically endangered,"
meaning they face a very high probability of dying out.”
C. Biodiversity currently low: Mass extinction is ongoing

United Press International Oct. 21, 2008 “Study: World is undergoing mass extinction”
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2008/10/21/Study-World-is-undergoing-mass-
extinction/UPI-86681224612180/ [CR]
“U.S. scientists say the Earth is in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and
animals, with nearly 50 percent of all species disappearing. Biologists at the University of
California-Santa Barbara say they are working to determine which species must be saved.
"The current extinction event is due to human activity, paving the planet, creating
pollution, many of the things that we are doing today," said study co-author Assistant
Professor Bradley Cardinale. "The Earth might well lose half of its species in our
lifetime. We want to know which ones deserve the highest priority for conservation."”
2. Biodiversity – Alt causes

Impact non-unique to aff plan(or solvency if its an aff ham/advantage). GM crops cause
Bio-d loss already.
A. GM crops encourage expanded deforestation – leading to biodiversity loss

International Union for Conservation of Nature IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest
global environmental network - a democratic membership union with more than 1,000
government and NGO member organizations, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists in
more than 160 countries. IUCN’s work is supported by over 1,000 professional staff in
60 offices and hundreds of partners in public, NGO and private sectors around the
world. August 2007 “CURRENT KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPACTS OF GENETICALLY
MODIFIED ORGANISMS ON BIODIVERSITY AND HUMAN HEALTH AN
INFORMATION PAPER” http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/ip_gmo_09_2007_1_.pdf
[CR]
“GM proponents claim that GM crops will indirectly contribute to forest conservation by
allowing marginal land to be cultivated, preventing further deforestation for conversion to
cropland. However, actual experiences indicate that GM crop cultivation can accelerate
land use change. In a study of deforestation in seasonally dry forests of north-west
Argentina, Grau et al. (2005) conclude that the initial deforestation was associated with
black bean cultivation during the 1970s and high soybean prices in the 1980s. The
introduction of GM soybean in 1997 stimulated a further increase in deforestation, which
has been mirrored in other Latin American countries. It appears, therefore, that in at least
some cases, the spread of GMOs can lead to agricultural expansion, sometimes
accompanied by intensification.”
B. Deforestation kills biodiversity: Madagascar has lost 42% of its biodiversity

Allnut et al. July 2008 Thomas F. Allnutt Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife
Fund–US, Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of
California, Berkeley, Simon Ferrier Department of Environment and Climate
Change(Australia) Glenn Manion Department of Environment and Climate
Change(Australia) George V. N. Powell Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife
Fund Taylor H. Ricketts Conservation Science Program, World Wildlife Fund Brian L.
Fisher Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences Grady J. Harper
Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Michael E. Irwin
Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois
Claire Kremen Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management,
University of California, Jean-Noe¨ Labat De´ partement Syste´matique et Evolution,
Muse´um National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris David C. Lees Department of Entomology,
Natural History Museum, London Timothy A. Pearce Carnegie Museum of Natural
History & France Rakotondrainibe De´ partement Syste´ matique et Evolution, Muse´um
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris “A method for quantifying biodiversity loss and its
application to a 50-year record of deforestation across Madagascar”
http://www.azoresbioportal.angra.uac.pt/files/publicacoes_Allnut%20et%20al
%202008.pdf [CR]
“The method applied here combines the complementary strengths of biological

inventories and continuous environmental data (Ferrier et al. 2004) to predict biodiversity
loss from deforestation. Using the model, we estimate that Madagascar lost 9.1% of its
total biodiversity from deforestation between 1950 and 2000. Our total estimate of 42%
biodiversity loss up to 2000 (third step Figure 1) is consistent with a recent report that
found that 43% of” Madagascar’s endemic forest dwelling Helictopleurini dung beetles
are “effectively extinct” due to regional forest loss since 1953 (Hanski et al. 2007).”
3. Pesticides – Benefits outweigh

Current policy is better than the impacts of reduced pesticide use.
A. EU ban of pesticides saves from supposed threat while causing a 30% fall in
production
International Policy Network December 17, 2008 Franklin Cudjoe is director of Imani,
an independent policy think-tank in Ghana. Erin Wildermuth is a Researcher at
International Policy Network, London, a development think-tank. “Pesticide proposals
cast a cloud over global food production”
http://www.policynetwork.net/environment/media/pesticide-proposals-cast-cloud-over-
global-food-production [CR]
“The EU plans to save its citizens from a hypothetical threat by banning a fifth of
pesticides, creating a real threat to crop yields, food prices and the poor--especially in
Africa. The UK's Pesticide Safety Directorate estimates that the proposals could ban 14%
to 23% of agricultural pesticides. A University of Warwick study for the EU Agriculture
Committee predicts a 30% fall in wheat yields and the possible disappearance of crops
such as carrots, parsnips and onions. Sixteen EU states have warned that the legislation
will damage food production without any benefits to health or the environment.”
B. Banning 15% of pesticides would cause 1/3 increase in cereal(no, not cheerios)
prices
“According to a study by Sean Rickard of Cranfield University, a ban on just 15% of

pesticides would cut yields enough to push up the price of cereals by a third and the price
of potatoes by a quarter. With food prices already high and recession biting, this is a real
and direct risk to consumers around the world, especially in poor countries. If that were
not enough, chemicals such as insecticides are not just used on crops but also against
diseases.”
C. Pesticide controls kill thousands

International Policy Network January 22, 2009 Julian Harris has a BA in English
Literature and MSc in Public Policy from University College London; during the latter
he specialised in Voluntary Sector Policy and subsequently worked at the Institute for
Philanthropy. “New EU pesticides regulations will undermine fight against malaria –
new report” http://www.policynetwork.net/health/media/new-eu-pesticides-regulations-
will-undermine-fight-against-malaria-–-new-report [CR]
“Effective malaria control relies on insecticides, many of which are derived from
commercial agricultural insecticides. If these insecticides are banned in the EU, it is
unlikely they will continue to be manufactured for public health uses, as there is almost
no profit to be found there. Insecticide supplies will fall and prices will rise, leaving
millions at greater risk of malaria. Over 1 million people die from malaria every year,
mainly in the world’s poorest countries. The new legislation could also prevent people in
poor countries from using EU-banned insecticides. In 2005 the EU threatened to impose
trade restrictions on Uganda if it used the insecticide DDT for malaria control, which is
banned in the EU. Uganda’s economic reliance on agricultural exports to the EU meant it
was compelled to sacrifice one of the most effective methods of malaria control, resulting
in thousands of unnecessary deaths. The same will occur for the new banned insecticides,
directly undermining the EU’s support for the Millennium Development Goals – one of
which is to halt and reverse the incidence of malaria by 2015.”
D. Malaria kills a million people per year and DDT(a pesticide) is the k2 stopping
malaria
Wall Street Journal MAY 26, 2009 “Malaria, Politics and DDT, The U.N. bows to the
anti-insecticide lobby.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html#articleTabs%3Darticle [CR]
“Most malarial deaths occur in sub-Saharan Africa, where chloroquine once worked but
started failing in the 1970s as the parasite developed resistance. Even if the drugs were
still effective in Africa, they're expensive and thus impractical for one of the world's
poorest regions. That's not an argument against chloroquine, bed nets or other
interventions. But it is an argument for continuing to make DDT spraying a key part of
any effort to eradicate malaria, which kills about a million people -- mainly children --
every year. Nearly all of this spraying is done indoors, by the way, to block mosquito
nesting at night. It is not sprayed willy-nilly in jungle habitat.”
E. DDT is safe and is best available solution to malaria

Wall Street Journal MAY 26, 2009 “Malaria, Politics and DDT, The U.N. bows to the
anti-insecticide lobby.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124303288779048569.html#articleTabs%3Darticle [CR]
“"Sadly, WHO's about-face has nothing to do with science or health and everything to do
with bending to the will of well-placed environmentalists," says Roger Bate of Africa
Fighting Malaria. "Bed net manufacturers and sellers of less-effective insecticides also
don't benefit when DDT is employed and therefore oppose it, often behind the scenes."
It's no coincidence that WHO officials were joined by the head of the U.N. Environment
Program to announce the new policy. There's no evidence that spraying DDT in the
amounts necessary to kill dangerous mosquitoes imperils crops, animals or human health.
But that didn't stop green groups like the Pesticide Action Network from urging the
public to celebrate World Malaria Day last month by telling "the U.S. to protect children
and families from malaria without spraying pesticides like DDT inside people's homes."
"We must take a position based on the science and the data," said WHO's malaria chief,
Arata Kochi, in 2006. "One of the best tools we have against malaria is indoor residual
spraying. Of the dozen or so insecticides WHO has approved as safe for house spraying,
the most effective is DDT." Mr. Kochi was right then, even if other WHO officials are
now bowing to pressure to pretend otherwise.”
4. Pesticides – Risks are unrealistic
A. Concentrations high enough to cause harm are unrealistic and will never happen
“But these chemicals must be banned "even if the causal link between the activity and the
possible harm has not been proven or the causal link is weak and the harm is unlikely to
occur." This "precautionary principle" is not just theoretical gobbledygook but official
EU policy. Apply this to pesticides and suddenly chemicals that are only dangerous in
large, concentrated amounts that would never appear in real life are considered a health
threat--even though water in a high enough dose will kill you too.”
5. Air pollution – Non-unique, China and India will pollute

A. Pollution travels from one continent to another
National Research Council Kolb et. Al. Sept. 29, 2009 Peer-reviewed study by
Committee on the Significance of International Transport of Air Pollutants. CHARLES E.
KOLB (Chair), Aerodyne Research Inc., Boston, Massachusetts where his personal areas
of research have included atmospheric and environmental chemistry TAMI BOND,
University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign B.S. in Mechanical Engineering (University of
Washington 1993) and M.S. in Mechanical Engineering (UC Berkeley 1995), and an
Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in Atmospheric Sciences, Civil Engineering and Mechanical
Engineering (University of Washington 2000). , GREGORY R. CARMICHAEL,
University of Iowa Ph.D., Chemical Engineering, University of Kentucky, 1979 M.S.,
Chemical Engineering, University of Kentucky, 1975 B.S., Chemical Engineering, Iowa
State University, 1974 KRISTIE L. EBI, IPCC Working Group II Technical Support Unit,
Stanford, California DAVID P. EDWARDS, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder Colorado HENRY FUELBERG, Florida State University MAE S. GUSTIN,
University of Nevada, Reno JIMING HAO, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China DANIEL
J. JACOB, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts DANIEL A. JAFFE,
University of Washington-Bothell SONIA KREIDENWEIS, Colorado State University,
Ft. Collins KATHARINE S. LAW, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris,
France MICHAEL J. PRATHER, University of California, Irvine STACI L. MASSEY
SIMONICH, Oregon State University, Corvallis MARK H. THIEMENS, University of
California, San Diego“Global Sources of Local Pollution An Assessment of Long-Range
Transport of Key Air Pollutants to and from the United States” Can be downloaded from
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12743 [CR]
“Ten days ago factories, traffic, and cooking stoves half a world away emitted pollutants
that may make the air you inhale today more hazardous to your health. Air pollutants
emitted by your local electric power plant or your lawn mower today may help push air
pollution levels above local air quality standards somewhere in Europe next week. Recent
advances in air pollution monitoring methods and models, including satellite-borne
sensors, have made it possible to show that long-range transport of air pollutants,
including transpacific and transatlantic trajectories, does occur. These studies make it
clear that the world has only one atmosphere and that adverse impacts of emitted
pollutants often cannot be confined to one location, one region, or even one continent.”
B. Interstate pollution includes soot particles(PM), dust, mercury, pesticides, NoX,

o3, hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric acid, nitric acid and smog
“Many types of air pollutants have been observed to travel far from their sources. These
include primary pollutants that are directly emitted like soot particles from diesel
vehicles, windblown dust from deserts or degraded croplands, mercury from coal-fired
power plants, pesticides from agricultural operations, and nitrogen oxides from motor
vehicles. They also include secondary pollutants that are created in the atmosphere by
chemical reaction sequences that begin with primary pollutants. Important secondary
pollutants include atmospheric oxidants like ozone and hydrogen peroxide, sulfuric and
nitric acids, and chemically diverse secondary smog particles. Any air pollutant with an
atmospheric lifetime of at least three to four days may be transported across most of a
continent, a week or two may get it across an ocean, a month or two can send it around
the hemisphere, and a year or two may deliver it anywhere on Earth.”
C. Interstate pollution confirmed by multiple studies and satellites
“Both observational and modeling studies confirm that significant quantities of the
pollutants considered in this study are transported over long distances, both to and from
North America. Meteorological conditions off the east coasts of both Asia and North
America are conducive to lofting pollutants into the midlatitude free troposphere, where
strong winds aloft can rapidly transport polluted Asian air masses to North America and
polluted North American air masses to Europe. Satellite observations and high-altitude in
situ measurements observe polluted air masses in the free troposphere crossing both the
Pacific and Atlantic [o]ceans. The mixing of these pollutants down to ground level is not
well characterized, and thus the question of how much and where long-range transport of
pollution from distant emissions can impact local air quality is much harder to determine.
Other mechanisms that transport pollutants over long ranges at lower altitudes and lower
latitudes are also incompletely characterized. Nonetheless, atmospheric chemical
transport models do predict the occurrence of ground-level pollution due to long-range
transport, and low-altitude and ground-level measurements do at times clearly detect such
events. The Committee thus concludes that long-range transport of pollutants from
foreign sources can under some conditions have a significant impact on U.S ambient
concentrations and deposition rates for each of the four pollutant classes considered and
that U.S. environmental goals are affected to varying degrees by nondomestic sources of
these pollutants. Similarly, long-range transport of pollutants originating in the United
States can significantly affect air quality and other environmental concerns elsewhere
(e.g., northern and central Europe, the Arctic). The relative importance of long-range
pollutant contributions from foreign sources is likely to increase as nations institute
stricter air quality standards that result in tougher emissions controls on domestic
sources.”
6. Smog – Being controlled by cap-and-trade program

EPA program reduced smog by 75% in eastern states
EPA news release, October 14, 2009 “Cap and Trade Program Lowers Smog Levels in
Eastern United States/Market based program allows cost-effective reductions of harmful
air pollution”
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/0C5CD8C04B5624F98525764F0053585F
[CR]
“EPA released a report showing that more than 103 million Americans breathe cleaner air
thanks to a cap and trade program that reduces smog-forming emission of Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx). The 2008 NOx Budget Trading Program Annual Report, covering 20
eastern states and the District of Columbia, shows the summertime NOx emissions from
power plants and large industrial sources were down by 62 percent compared to year
2000 levels and 75 percent lower than in 1990.”
7. Soft Power – Low now

A. Soft Power in decline: hinders our ability to get what we want
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., is former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard
University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. May/June 2004 Foreign Affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-
soft-power [CR]
“Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its
ability to attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie
them -- is in decline as a result. According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29
countries say that Washington's policies have had a negative effect on their view of the
United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes that
Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and
maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United
States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.”
B. Financial crisis kills US soft power: three reasons

Susan Ariel Aaronson is Associate Research Professor at George Washington University
and author of six books on globalization, Policy innovations, October 29, 2008
“Financial Crisis Hurts U.S. Soft
Power”http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000090 [CR]
“Many of my students come from foreign countries and have strong opinions about
America's role in the world. As the discussion continued, I realized that the financial
crisis would have an additional unforeseen effect. The United States could lose much of
its ability to influence the behavior of other nations without using coercion or force—so-
called soft power. Much of that soft power is rooted in U.S. economic prowess. First,
America's global standing is, to a great extent, reflective of how it projects its power,
relates to other countries, and keeps its commitments to them. If the global financial
meltdown makes life worse for the world's poor, many people may link the U.S. model of
democratic capitalism with global misery. They may be less receptive to economic and
political strategies presented by U.S. diplomats and NGOs. Meanwhile, the financial
crisis will make American taxpayers less able to provide generous levels of foreign aid to
help the world's poor. Second, although many countries will be desperate for investment,
U.S. investors could come under considerable pressure to create jobs at home. U.S. tax
policy is likely to favor domestic job creation and investment in the U.S. market.
Meanwhile, U.S. investors may be less welcome abroad than, for example, Chinese or
Indian investors—Americans and Europeans are more likely to demand transparency,
accountability, and human rights. Finally, the United States, like the European Union, has
long used the incentive of its large market to prod other nations to change their behavior.
With a shrunken economy, America will be less able to use trade policy to advance good
governance. For example, the U.S. preference program that benefits some 140 developing
countries requires participants to protect labor rights and improve the rule of law. In
recent years, the United States used free-trade agreements with Oman, Jordan, and
Bahrain to promote democracy and good governance in the Middle East; and used a trade
ban with South Africa to encourage the end of apartheid.”
8. Soft Power – High

A. Soft Power is still very high, economy, military and culture best in world
Michael Fullilove is the program director for global issues at the Lowy Institute and a
visiting fellow in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. January 7, 2009 The Sydney
Morning Herald “Reports of US decline could be premature”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/talk-of-us-decline-
premature/2009/01/06/1231004015185.html?page=fullpage [CR]
“Yet the analytical underpinnings of the argument have never been sturdy.
Notwithstanding the Bush Administration's best efforts, the $US14 trillion ($19 trillion)
economy still looms over all the others. Washington spends as much on its military as the
rest of the world combined, and it can project its power anywhere on Earth. American
culture is the world's default culture; American opinions shape global opinions. Relative
to when exactly is the US in decline? One US intelligence analyst told me the high-water
mark of its power was August 1941, when Franklin D. Roosevelt felt he needed to
consult only Winston Churchill before issuing the Atlantic Charter. Yet when Roosevelt
and Churchill met at sea off the coast of Newfoundland, much of Europe was controlled
by a genocidal fanatic. Washington's relative power is greater now than at any time
during the Cold War, when it faced a mighty foe with a competing ideology, a nuclear
arsenal and a global network of allies.”
B. AT: “Financial crisis kills SP”, world still looks to the US for solution
“For example, the G20 summit on the financial crisis demonstrated that the antique
governance structures of global institutions need updating and developing economies
should be brought into the innermost councils. In that sense, the meeting was the message
- yet that meeting was still held in Washington. Even though the US was the principal
author of the current crisis, it was still the only plausible candidate to convene the
discussions in response to the crisis.”
C. Obama solves: yay. Obama victory gives us Soft Power

“The United States remains a special case. The world's response to the contest between
John McCain and Obama showed that the idea of the democratic, meritocratic
superpower continues to fascinate. The world was not agnostic about the two candidates:
in many countries, including Australia, Obama was favoured by ratios of four and five to
one. He is, after all, a child of globalisation - linked by his father's birth to Africa, by his
middle name to the Middle East, by his upbringing to South-East Asia. Yet for all that,
his is a classic American story, so enormous quantities of soft power has accrued to the
United States with his victory.”
D. AT: “China new superpower”, US is still better than China

University of Southern California US- China institute at USC June/19/2008 “America’s
Soft Power is Still Supreme in Asia” http://china.usc.edu/ShowArticle.aspx?
articleID=1101&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 [CR]
“Its economic influence and its involvement in regional organizations has never been
greater, but a just released survey of popular attitudes in Asia and the United States
indicates that China’s soft power in the region is no match for America’s. Having coined
the term in 1990, Harvard University’s Joseph Nye later defined it as “the ability to get
what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. It arises from the
attractiveness of a country’s culture, political ideals, and policies.” The importance Nye
attributes to soft power can be seen in his 2004 book’s subtitle: The Means to Success in
World Politics. Soft power is a hot topic in academia and among the general public. In
recent years, many journalists and scholars have described Chinese efforts to exert such
influence. In 2007 Joshua Kurlantzick, a USC Center for Public Diplomacy fellow,
published a widely-cited study, Charm Offensive: How China's Soft Power Is
Transforming the World. At the outset he notes, In a short period of time, China appears
to have created a systematic, coherent soft power strategy, and a set of soft power tools to
implement that strategy. Through those tools – particularly its public diplomacy and its
growing aid and trade – it has developed significant influence, though it is still in a
honeymoon period in which many nations have not recognized the downsides of
Beijing’s new power. The new survey, however, finds that many in Asia and the U.S.
worry that China could pose a military threat and in none of the surveyed regions was
China seen as more “attractive” than the U.S. The survey was conducted by the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs and the South Korea-based East Asia Institute. The survey was
conducted in January and February, ahead of March protests, riots, and a police
crackdown in and near Tibet, the demonstrations and debates stimulated by the Olympic
torch relay, and the suffering produced by the massive May 12th earthquake and the
current flooding. Christopher Whitney of the Council and David Shambaugh of George
Washington University wrote the survey report.””

Impact Takeout Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Impact Takeout Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1. BIODIVERSITY LOW:......................................................................................................................................

Oil – Terrorism/ “we import from bad countries”

Biodiversity is already in crisis state. No uniqueness to impact.

A. Biodiversity is already low: 1/3 of mammals face decline

C. Biodiversity currently low: Mass extinction is ongoing

2. Biodiversity – Alt causes

A. GM crops encourage expanded deforestation – leading to biodiversity loss

B. Deforestation kills biodiversity: Madagascar has lost 42% of its biodiversity

“The method applied here combines the complementary strengths of biological

3. Pesticides – Benefits outweigh

“According to a study by Sean Rickard of Cranfield University, a ban on just 15% of

C. Pesticide controls kill thousands

E. DDT is safe and is best available solution to malaria

5. Air pollution – Non-unique, China and India will pollute

B. Interstate pollution includes soot particles(PM), dust, mercury, pesticides, NoX,

6. Smog – Being controlled by cap-and-trade program

7. Soft Power – Low now

B. Financial crisis kills US soft power: three reasons

8. Soft Power – High

C. Obama solves: yay. Obama victory gives us Soft Power

D. AT: “China new superpower”, US is still better than China

You might also like