Off-Case

Topicality
 In The US

A.The Great Lakes are GOVERNED by Canada and the US – the majority of the
population is CANADIAN
EPA N/D, “Facts and Figures about the Great Lakes,” no date, Environmental Protection Agency,
https://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/facts-and-figures-about-great-lakes //SDD

The Great Lakes are, from west to east: Superior, Michigan, Huron, Erie and Ontario. They are a dominant part of the physical and
cultural heritage of North America. Shared with Canada and spanning more than 750 miles (1,200 kilometers) from west to east, these
vast inland freshwater seas provide water for consumption, transportation, power, recreation and a host of other uses. The Great Lakes are one
of the world’s largest surface freshwater ecosystems. 84% of North America's surface fresh water about 21% of the world's supply of surface
fresh water Physical Features of the Great Lakes The Great Lakes Atlas Third Edition 1995 is available from NSCEP, US EPA's publication service
Data and Map Floor Studies of the Great Lakes from NOAA's Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory The Great Lakes Basin The
Great Lakes basin encompasses large parts of two nations, the United States and Canada. Nearly 25% of
Canadian agricultural production and 7% of American farm production Population is more than 30 million people -
roughly 10% of the U.S. population and more than 30% of the Canadian population The Great Lakes basin is
defined by science, engineering and politics. Most of the basin is defined by hydrology; watersheds that drain into the Great Lakes and their
connecting channels are in the Great Lakes basin. A combination of engineering and politics (Canadian) have resulted in the Rideau exception
being included in the Great Lakes basin (the orange striped polygon on the Canadian side of the St. Lawrence River). The Clean Water Act
defines the orange striped polygon on the US side as part of the Great Lakes basin (though hydrologically it drains into the St. Lawrence River).
The boundaries on these two maps are defined by 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Codes (HUC8). These may change slightly as more detailed mapping is
completed for these watersheds. The maps also display the counties in the Great Lakes basin.

At the very least, its binational - US and Canada would have to cooperate
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, No Date, "NOAA Office of General Counsel
International Section," NOAA Office of General Council,
https://www.gc.noaa.gov/gcil_greatlakes.html//LaD

Under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. § 1301 et seq., the seaward limit of the lands and waters of the eight
U.S. states that border the Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin)
extend to the international maritime boundary with Canada . The United States retains the right to regulate
offshore activities in this area for the constitutional purposes of navigation, national defense,
international affairs, and commerce. 43 U.S.C. § 1314(a). Although U.S. states manage fisheries in the Great Lakes up to the
international maritime boundary with Canada, the federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act may be applied to
protect such fisheries from foreign flagged vessels. See 16 USC § 1857(2) (it is unlawful for a foreign vessel to “engage in fishing within the
boundaries of any State”) & (4) (it is unlawful for a foreign fishing vessel to operate “within the boundaries of any State” without its gear
stowed or otherwise rendered unusable for fishing).

For issues affecting waters of the Great Lakes on both sides of the international maritime boundary, the
Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 serves as the foundation for binational management of the region and
continues to provide a framework for addressing joint U.S.-Canada management issues. Subsequent
agreements between the United States and Canada have built upon the Boundary Waters Treaty to advance
environmental protection. For example, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement seeks to restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the Great Lakes. To achieve this
purpose the U.S. and Canada agreed to cooperate and develop programs, practices and technology for a
better understanding of the Great Lakes ecosystem, and to eliminate or reduce , to the maximum extent practicable,
environmental threats to the waters of the Great Lakes, including concentrations of specific pollutants,
discharges from shipping, and to monitor the heath of the Great Lakes ecosystem.
B. Violation: The AFF’s plan doesn’t stay within the US ONLY. The binational
management violates the terms of protecting water resources within the United
States.

C. Standards:
 Fairness: This is unfair to the NEG to have to prepare for cases in and outside the United States.
This blows up AFF grounds b/c there are thousands of cases that the NEG have to prepare for
which is impossible.
 Education: What happens within debate stays within it. Any decision that happens here is not
leaving the room. The only thing we carry with us outside of this competition is the education
we learn. The AFF has so many cases they could run with binational managements that there
would be no educational value as the NEG would worry more about winning than understand
different conflicts.

D. Voters: Topicality is a voting issue for reasons of fairness and education.

 2NC

Overview: To be topical the AFF’s plan has to be within, but the plan includes
binational managements which violates the “In The US” and makes the debate unfair
and no educational value. This is a voting issue.

Extend our interp that the great lakes is governed by the US and Canada which makes it a binational
management. This is our EPA and NOAA card. And…

Under the aff, Canada would be subject to the plan’s ruling

Complaint. Drewes Farm Partnership v. City of Toledo, Ohio. No. 3:19-cv-00434-JZ. United States District
Court For The Northern District Of Ohio Western Division. 27 February 2019.
https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DrewesErie.pdf//LaD

92. Moreover, the Federal Government has entered into treaties and agreements with Canada regarding Lake
Erie.

93. The northern shore of Lake Erie is in Ontario, Canada, and the Lake is situated over the border between
the United States and Canada.

94. LEBOR purports to govern “all natural water features, communities of organisms, soil as well as
terrestrial and aquatic sub ecosystems that are part of Lake Erie and its watershed.”

95. LEBOR also provides that governments and corporations engaged in activities that violate the rights of
the Lake Erie Ecosystem, in or from any jurisdiction, shall be strictly liable for all harms and rights
violations resulting from those activities.

96. The government of Canada

and the Province of Ontario and the corporate citizens residing therein are
therefore subject to strict criminal liability under LEBOR.

97. LEBOR, a municipal regulation, therefore has a direct impact upon United States foreign policy , including foreign
trade and immigration, and adversely affects the power of the United States Federal Government to administer foreign relations.

AT We Meet: The AFF doesn’t meet our interp because their plan includes The Great
Lakes, which is a binational management making it not within the US.

AT Counter Interp: Even if The Great Lakes are geographically within the US it doesn’t
ignore the fact that it’s governed by two nations. Canadian people still live along these
waters and policy actions occur between both the US and Canada.
AT Reasonability: There is no reasonability between both sides. The interps are vastly
different and include or exclude waters under binational management.
 Protection

A. Protection means to directly regulate the use of water resources not merely
to take indirect steps that have the effect of less damage
Sercome 10 Timothy Sercome Judge on the Oregon Court of Appeals, Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop
County, https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/court-of-appeals/2010/a145336.html

As used in the statewide planning goals, "protect"

means to "[s]ave or shield from loss, destruction, or injury or for
future intended use."(6) LUBA concluded that to "protect" an estuarine resource, as "protect" is used in Goal 16, means
to regulate or prevent conflicting uses from affecting the resource in a significant way : "Goal 16 requires
protection of the environmental, economic, and social values, diversity and benefits of estuaries, and allows estuarine development and
restoration only 'where appropriate.' The goal sets out a hierarchy of priorities for management and use of estuarine resources, placing in first
priority '[u]ses which maintain the integrity of the estuarine ecosystem.' Within the remaining text of Goal 16, the word 'protect' appears
almost exclusively in the Goal text describing the 'natural management unit' designation. That designation is the most protective classification
of Goal 16 resources, and includes 'areas * * * designated to assure the protection of significant fish and wildlife habitats * * *.' The natural
management unit allows uses and activities that allow the resources of the estuary to 'continue to function in a manner to protect significant
wildlife habitats, natural biological productivity, and values for scientific research and education.' Thus, the most protective classification in
Goal 16, the natural management unit designation, allows only activities that are sufficient to protect the identified resources. "The Goal
language describing the other designations also provides context for the meaning of 'protect.' The description of the 'conservation
management unit,' which is the current management designation of the subject property, does not include the word 'protect.' The description
of the 'development management unit,' the proposed designation of the property, also does not use the word 'protect.' Taken together, the
uses of the
word 'protect' within Goal 16 itself indicate that the definition is not equivocal in requiring that identified
resources are 'saved' or 'shielded' from more than de minimis damaging impacts. "Although we agree with the
county that the Goal definition of 'protect' does not require that estuarine resources identified for protection be completely or absolutely
protected from any 'loss, destruction, or injury' whatsoever, the county has made a planning decision under the CCCP policies at issue that
implement Goal 16 and the scheme set forth in the second paragraph of Goal 16, quoted above, to 'protect' as opposed to a decision to
'maintain,' 'develop,' or 'restore' traditional fishing areas and endangered or threatened species habitat. Having made that 'protect' planning
decision, the local program to protect those estuarine resources must not allow 'loss, destruction, or injury'
beyond a de minimis level. Thus, the development that is to be allowed by the disputed rezone is not consistent with the Goal
definition of 'protect' unless the measures proposed in seeking to rezone the property are sufficient to reduce harm to such a degree that there
is at most a de minimis or insignificant impact on the resources that those policies require to be protected." Bradwood II, ___ Or LUBA at ___
(slip op at 17-18) (emphases in original; footnote omitted). Intervenors complain that LUBA's construction of "protect" is inconsistent with the
practical operation of Goal 16 to allow development within estuaries and with the particular industrial designation of the Bradwood area. We
fail to see the inconsistency. The protection policies apply to particular development, wherever located within an estuary, that could affect
fisheries or wildlife habitat. CCCP Section P20.2 states the ambit of Policy 20.2(1), as "apply[ing] to all projects that could conceivably affect
fisheries (either commercial or recreational) or aquaculture in the Columbia River Estuary." Section P20.8 frames the scope of Policy 20.8(1) as
applying "to uses and activities with potential adverse impacts on fish or wildlife habitat, both in Columbia River estuarine aquatic areas and in
estuarine shorelands." Thus, the plan expressly provides that the policies apply throughout the estuary, based on the nature of a proposed use
or activity and irrespective of management unit designation or zoning allowances. Moreover, under Goal 16, the overall classification of an
estuary as one in which development is allowed does not inhibit the designation of natural management units within that estuary in order to
protect specific land resources. The Land Conservation and Development Commission adopted rules to implement Goal 16 that are codified at
OAR chapter 660, division 17. Under those rules, estuaries are classified as "natural estuaries," "conservation estuaries," "shallow-draft
development estuaries," and "deep-draft development estuaries," in much the same way as management units of an estuary are classified
under Goal 16. See OAR 660-017-0010. The Columbia River is a deep-draft development estuary. OAR 660-017-0015(4). OAR 660-017-0025(3)
(b) provides that "[s]hallow and deep-draft development estuaries shall have natural, conservation, and development management units as
provided in the Estuarine Resources Goal." Thus, the overall character of an estuary as suitable for development is not inconsistent with the
protection of discrete areas (natural management units) from the effects of particular development. It is consistent with the structure of Goals
16 and 17 in general, and with the plan allowance of industrial uses at Bradwood in particular, that the protection policies might inhibit
intervenors' planned dredging uses and not other types of development. We agree with LUBA's analysis of the meaning of "protect" under Goal
16. "Protect" is used in the policies relating to natural management units, which are designated, in part, to "assure the protection of significant
fish and wildlife habitats." A use in those units must be "consistent with the resource capabilities of the area" which is defined to mean that the
impacts of the use are not "significant" or that significant wildlife habitats can continue to be "protect[ed]." In other management units, where
resource values are conserved or not immunized from development effects, alterations of the estuary that produce significant impacts are
allowed. "Protect," in this context, means more than minimizing the adverse impacts of conflicting development through
mitigation. It means inhibiting development that causes significant adverse impacts on the protected
resource.(7)

B. Violation: The AFF isn’t directly protecting water resources and instead takes
indirect measures by redefining the rights of waters. The effect of that would be
water’s health increasing, but not directly.

C. Standards:
 Education: Focusing on an indirect action that leads to minimal action towards the
protection of water reduces the educational value we get from this debate. When this
debate is over the plan won’t happen. What matters is the education we receive from
this debate to use in the future. The AFF’s plan reduces any educational value from this
debate because it isn’t topical.
 Fairness: The AFF’s ground is blown up because their plan is through indirect action,
meaning that the NEG has to prepare for both direct and indirect which is impossible.
The NEG can’t prepare for so many AFF’s and makes the debate unfair. No one would
have fun arguing on the NEG side when having to prepare for so many possibilities.

D. Voters: Topicality is a voting issue for reasons of education and fairness.

 2NC

Overview: The AFF’s plan is to give personhood and rights to the waters which as an
effect will increase the health of the waters to protect it. This is a violation of our
interp because it takes an indirect measure to protect water.

Extend our interp that protection means to directly regulate the water rather than indirect measures.
This is our Sercome, 10 card. And…

Protection is distinct from general environmental laws—It means explicit regulations that
restrict or deny access to environmental resources—protection requires direct increased
control and authority over water resources
Rakoczy 13, Bartosz Rakoczy is Professor doctor habilitated in environmental protection law, professor of the Nicolaus Copernicus
University, professor of the Kazimierz Wielki University. Head of the Chair of Environmental Protection Law of the Nicolaus Copernicus
University in Toruń, legal advisor., ENVIRONMENTAL LAW OR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAW? A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS,
Comparative Law Review 15 2013, https://repozytorium.umk.pl/bitstream/handle/item/908/CLR.2013.005%2CRakoczy.pdf?sequence=1

The above–presented definitions of “environmental protection law”, characteristic of the Polish doctrine, most of all emphasize the protective
nature of legal norms. The Polish legislator, using theterm “environmental protection law” indicates that its
fundamental intention and purpose is to create protective norms. It remains at the level of considerations regarding
the admissibility of intruding on the environment and having impact on such environment. Legal norms in this approach are mostly
designed as barriers preventing or restricting access to environmental resources. A legal norm should, a
priori, protect the environment, and speaking more closely, its respective elements against impact. In this case the preventive and
conservational function of law is reinforced. The legal norm should cause the environment to be maintained in a
non–deteriorated condition and, preferably, it should prevent any impact on the environment. The emphasis
is distributed in a slightly different manner if the legislator uses the term “environmental law ”. Elimination of the
term “protection” from terminology used by the language of law or the language of lawyers is not just a simple legislative or
doctrinal operation. Likewise in the previous case, also in this situation, the term “environmental law” defines the attitude of the
legislator to the environment. Due to the conscious resignation from using the term “protection” the legal norm will
not perform a protective function only, but it will also have other functions to be described hereinafter. In
environmental law the legislator does not solely give thought to whether people should have an impact
on the environment and obtain its resources, but also deliberates how people should impact the environment and obtain its
resources29. Thus, the emphasis is shifted from “whether” to “how”. Only when the legislator considers that living in the contemporary world,
managing business, organizing society, running the economy, and even political activity are impossible without exerting an impact on the
environment and obtaining its resources, could emphasis on the protective nature of legal norms be given up. Another step in this concept
should be the creating of legal norms and instruments focusing on the rational impact on the environment and rational obtaining of
environmental resources. Further, the
legislator proposes that environmental resources should be replaced by
other elements, which is particularly noticeable in relation to renewable energy. The rule of sustainable
development is excellently inscribed in such concepts of environmental law. Leaving deep theoretical considerations aside (as they are not the
subject of this article) it must be noted that the essence of sustainable development is the avoidance of confrontation for the sake of
conciliation in the concept of environmental law. The main objective of the addressee of the legal norm is to identify a potential controversy
between the various values protected by law, the environment being one of such values. Having identified the controversy, the addressee of
the legal norm should resolve it so that both conflicting values are accomplished to the fullest possible extent. Only if the conflicting values
cannot be objectively reconciled, must the addressee of the legal norm resort to confrontation. Nevertheless, before the environment is
confronted with other values in the concept of environmental law, conciliation activities must be undertaken. Only if such measures fail, can
the addressee of the legal norm choose one of the conflicting values, but at the same time they are obliged to explain to other addressees of
the legal norm the motives behind their choice. Meanwhile, in the concept of environmental protection law the
confrontation element is in the foreground , while the conciliation element is either in the background or disappears
completely. Choosing the concept of environmental protection law the lawmaker is aware of the conflict existing between the environment and
other values, but this conflict is resolved by giving normative support to the environment and indicating that the legal norm is supposed to
protect it. Another consequence of choosing a specific concept is a different distribution of emphasis regarding the instruments of legal
regulations. In the case of the concept of environmental protection law, as mentioned above, the potential conflict is resolved
by means of a legal norm. Consequently, the public administration authority is not appointed primarily in order to
resolve this conflict by the operation of law, but to carry out control and supervision activities regarding compliance
with normative conditions. On the other hand, in the concept of environmental law, the lawmaker determines the conditions
governing the use of the environment and environmental impact, but leaves the competence to resolve potential conflicts in specific cases
involving specific elements of the environment, specific entities making use of the environment in specific social, economic, political and
environmental conditions, to executive authorities. The aforementioned considerations of comparative law regarding the name of the specified
normative area, as a matter of fact referring to a specific vision and place of the environment in the system of law, should stimulate the Polish
legislator to reflect on which model it supports. Without any doubt, Polish environmental protection law is constructed in a way characteristic
of environmental law. The core of the Polish environmental protection law is the principle of sustainable development expressed in Article 5 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of 2 April 199730. The essence of sustainable development was perfectly explained by the
Constitutional Tribunal in its decree of 6 June 2006, application no. K 23/05. It indicated that: The provisions appealed against are thus
consistent with Article 5 and with Article 74 § 1 and 2 of the Constitution. Public authorities are first of all required to “pursue a policy ensuring
ecological security to the present and future generations” (Article 74 § 1). This phrase is typical for the determination of the tasks (policy) of the
state, but it does not directly give rise to any rights of an individual. The term “ecological security” must be understood as bringing the
environment to a condition allowing the safe staying in such an environment and using such an environment to enable human development.
Environmental protection is one of the elements of “ecological security”, but the tasks of public authorities are wider – they also cover activities
improving the current condition of the environment and programming its further development. The fundamental method to accomplish this
objective is – pursuant to Article 5 of the Constitution – to be guided by the principle of sustainable development, which makes reference to
international agreements, in particular those made at the conference in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 (cf. J. Boć (ed.), Konstytucje Rzeczypospolitej
oraz komentarz do Konstytucji RP z 1997 r. [Constitutions of the Republic of Poland and the commentary to the Constitution of the Republic of
Poland from 1997], Wrocław: Kolonia Limited 1998, p. 24 et seq.). The principles of sustainable development comprise not only environmental
protection or land management, but also due care for social and civilisation development related to the necessity of building the appropriate
infrastructure required for – taking into account the needs of civilisation – the life of man and respective communities. Thus, the idea of
sustainable development incorporates a need to take various constitutional values into account and balance them properly. Polish
environmental protection law no longer focuses on the protective elements, but on elements ensuring proper use of the environment. It does
not answer the question whether it makes use of the environment and environmental resources, but attempts to answer the question of how
to make use of the environment and environmental resources or, in other words, to what extent people can exert an impact on the
environment and make use of environmental resources. As a consequence, one should consider whether the name of the analysed normative
area – environmental protection law – is still adequate to the substance of the regulation. Of course, one could reply that the choice of this
name is traditional since from the very beginning this area of normative matter was referred to as “environmental protection law”.
Nevertheless, perhaps it is time to give a new, more adequate name to this area. Indeed, this is the most dynamically developing area of
legal regulations. To sum up, the problem of environmental law and environmental protection law is not only a terminology issue. Using
either of the two terms the lawmaker reveals its vision of regulating environmental issues in the system of law. In environmental
protection law the protective nature of a legal norm is emphasized, and at the same time the control and
supervisory powers of public administration authorities are increased . In the case of environmental protection law
the confrontation element is in the foreground and the lawmaker immediately advocates the environment. On the other hand, in the case of
environmental law the predominant element is conciliation, that is, the reconciliation of conflicting values. The role of the authorities is not
limited to control and supervision,but rather to resolving conflicts between different values.

AT We Meet: The AFF doesn’t meet our interp because their plan takes an indirect
measure to protect water resources. And our Rakoczy 13 card says protection is
increased control and authority over water which is the opposite of the AFFs plan.
AT Counter Interp: The AFF’s counter interp is very broad and blows up AFF
grounds. Their interp allows for plans that both directly and indirectly protect
water. This is extremely unfair for the negative and gives a huge advantage to
the AFF. Our interp allows for fair grounds for both sides allowing the NEG to
prepare and the AFF to have unique cases.

AT Reasonability:
Counterplans
 States Counterplan

Text: The 50 states and all relevant territories should substantially increase its
protection of water resources in the United States by recognizing the legal
personhood of the Great Lakes.

Solvency:
States solve better – they can regulate, implement, and allocate funding for water protection
effectively. 
Berry & Huckins 19 [Scott Berry at the US Water Alliance who led the writing and outreach around
this toolkit and Sarah Huckins, program associate at the US Water Alliance, “One Water for America
State Policymakers’ Toolkit,” April 2019, The Council of State Governments
http://uswateralliance.org/sites/uswateralliance.org/files/publications/State%20Policymakers
%27%20Toolkit.pdf]
Why A State-Focused Toolkit? As the Seven Big Ideas continue to spark action around the country, it’s clear that state
governments are essential to realizing the promise of One Water . State agencies have a primary role in
implementing and enforcing clean water, surface water, and drinking water laws. State policymakers
are uniquely positioned to address water management issues through legislation and executive office initiatives. These
policymakers can work directly with their municipalities to hear the concerns of ratepayers and give
local governments the flexibility and support they need. Drawing public attention to water challenges
and solutions can be an effective way to develop the public and political will for innovative policy . The
state agencies that are part of a governor’s administration can also set reasonable regulatory policy that ensures
compliance but also preserves local government flexibility and innovation. State legislatures can also advance sustainable
water management by prioritizing funding and financing for water infrastructure and management
programs. In many states, governor’s offices also propose and advocate for their own legislative ideas. Governors and legislatures also have
a role in cooperating with the federal government, which assists in funding and sets regulatory standards through agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Roles of State Government • Establish Targets and Goals. Develop and broadcast
an achievable One Water vision. For example, the water service extension goals set by Kentucky in Big Idea 1. • Benchmark
Performance. Set strong but realistic performance metrics. For example, the Lead and Copper Rule changes established by Michigan in Big
Idea 6. • Create Enabling Conditions . Create incentives for innovation and performance. For example, the targeted funding used by
North Carolina in Big Idea 5, or permit flexibility implemented by Wisconsin in Big Idea 2. • Remove Barriers and Bottlenecks .
Reevaluate state laws or regulations that may hamper innovative problemsolving or filling gaps in existing law. For example, the California State
Water Board receiving additional authority in Big Idea 1. • Prioritize Funding and Financing . Establish and secure funding and
financing for water infrastructure and water management programs. For example, the dedicated funding mechanisms created by Iowa and
Missouri in Big Idea 3.
To spotlight the important role that state governments can play in advancing
sustainable water management, we developed this toolkit as a resource for elected officials and staff in
the executive and legislative branches of state government. For each of the Seven Big Ideas, we briefly
summarize the key issues and then provide real world examples of how states are forging progress. The
promising examples are not meant to be prescriptive, but rather serve as a starting place for the
generation of potential solutions that are specific to individual state contexts . For research purposes, these
examples include endnote citations back to the legislative or regulatory language that was passed and/or implemented.
States control water protection efforts and solve best 
Nolon 19 [John R. Nolon, Distinguished Professor of Law at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace
University where he teaches property, land use, dispute resolution, and sustainable development law
courses; “CALMING TROUBLED WATERS: LOCAL SOLUTIONS”; Vermont Law Review Vol. 44:001 (2019);
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3454651; kp]
The limitson Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause constrain CWA jurisdiction; the Act can
only go as far as the Constitution allows.157 As the Supreme Court explained, the reach of Commerce
Clause authority “must be considered in the light of our dual system of government” and cannot
swallow the line between what is federal and what is truly local.158 In this way, authority over waters is
fragmented, and, in many contexts, states have the sole power to implement protective regulations
directly or by delegating that authority to their local governments .159
This federalism structure is a hallmark characteristic of the CWA.160 It is meant to respect states’
traditional jurisdiction over their property.161 The Act states that, “[i]t is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect
the primary responsibilities and rights of States.”162 The federal government therefore has limited jurisdiction over
water pollution and leaves much regulation to the states and their municipalities .163 If the
interconnected groundwater, wetlands, and surface waters in watersheds are to be properly protected,
state and local governments must implement their own laws addressing water pollution.164

The CP ensures effective agency regulation at the state level – results in additional
protections beyond the Clean Water Act. 
ELI 13 [Environmental Law Institute, Principal ELI staff contributing to the project were Bruce Myers,
Catherine McLinn, and James M. McElfish, Jr. Additional research and editing assistance was provided by
Carolyn Clarkin, Michael Liu, Jocelyn Wiesner, Masumi Kikkawa, and more. “State-Imposed Limitations
on the Authority of Agencies to Regulate Waters Beyond the Scope of the Federal Clean Water Act,”
May 2013, https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/eli-pubs/d23-04.pdf]
Twice in the last 12 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued decisions limiting the reach of the federal Clean Water Act: Solid Waste Agency of
Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in 2001, and Rapanos v. United States, in 2006. The result has been confusion among
judges, regulators, the regulated community, and environmentalists over which waters are “in” for purposes of the federal Clean Water Act,
and which waters are “out”—with serious consequences for environmental protection, development planning, and enforcement. Absent
comprehensive federal regulation for particular surface waters, it falls to the states to decide whether or not to protect
these waters under state law. State legislatures can, without question, enact or amend laws to protect state
water resources that have lost federal protection, or whose coverage by federal law is now clouded by
legal uncertainty. A few states have done so, with respect to some waters. But state environmental agencies, and some local
governments, may also seek to use their existing legal authorities to address water resources that are
vulnerable and merit additional protection in the face of a newly limited Clean Water Act. This 50-state study
examines limitations imposed by state law that could constrain the ability of state agencies (and, to a lesser extent, localities) to do this.
Findings. Over
two-thirds of U.S. states, 36 in all, have laws that could restrict the authority of state agencies or
localities to
regulate waters left unprotected by the federal Clean Water Act. These restrictions take the form of
absolute or qualified prohibitions that require state law to be “no more stringent than” federal law;
property rights limitations; or a combination of the two . Such provisions constrain, and in some instances eliminate, the
authority of state or local regulators to protect aquatic resources whose Clean Water Act coverage has disappeared or been rendered uncertain
as a result of the SWANCC and Rapanos decisions. In 14 states and the District of Columbia, there are no such state-law impediments. “No more
stringent than” laws. Twenty-eight states have laws that could operate to either prohibit state agencies from regulating waters more stringently
than the federal Clean Water Act, or limit their authority to do so. The
Clean Water Act establishes national minimum
standards— essentially, a stringency “floor”—beneath which states are not allowed to fall in their
protection of water quality. States may, however, protect their waters more rigorously. A “no more stringent
than” prohibition, found in 13 states, ensures that the federal program floor also will be a state “ceiling” with respect to whatever subject
matter the stringency provision covers. A “qualified” stringency provision, found in 23 states, makes it more difficult for states to regulate more
stringently than the federal programs do, but stops short of creating a bar to state agency action. Private property rights laws. Twenty-two
states have adopted legal protections, often contained in state private property rights acts, for the
benefit of landowners whose property values may be affected by government regulation . These statutes rarely
reference water quality or water pollution directly, but they are likely implicated by any new state regulation that affects the uses to which
property may be put. State
laws containing what this study calls “compensation/prohibition provisions” can
bar or impede new environmental regulation , as agencies generally cannot afford to pay compensation to have their
regulations enforced. In other instances, state law requires agencies to perform property impact assessments or take other steps 2 that serve
as a disincentive for an agency to regulate in any manner that arguably affects property rights. Finally, a handful of states have established a
property rights ombudsman/advocate, or set up a private property dispute resolution program, which facilitate property owners’ ability to
challenge state regulations. Ability of states to regulate non-CWA waters given these limitations. Half of the states—25 in all— have in place
state regulatory protections that cover at least some waters that are either no longer subject to federal coverage following SWANCC and
Rapanos, or whose federal coverage has been rendered uncertain. The list of states that attempt to afford these additional state protections
intersects with the list of states identified by this study as having relevant limitations, as follows: • Eight states—including all EPA Region 1
states except Maine, as well as New York, Illinois, and California—have no relevant stringency or property-based limitations provisions and
regulate waters more broadly than is required by the Clean Water Act. • Seven jurisdictions (including the District of Columbia) have no
relevant limitations provisions, but also do not regulate waters more broadly than is required by the Clean Water Act. • Seventeen states have
relevant limitations provisions but also regulate waters more broadly than is required by the Clean Water Act. • Nineteen states have relevant
limitations provisions and do not regulate waters more broadly than is required by the Clean Water Act. This category includes all EPA Region 8
states, and all Region 6 states but New Mexico. These states thus have an identifiable “gap” in the coverage of their waters following SWANCC
and Rapanos, but are constrained (to varying degrees) in regulating to fill that gap under existing state laws. Conclusion. State
laws
imposing limitations on the authority of state agencies (and to some extent, municipalities) to protect aquatic
resources are commonplace. Although these laws vary significantly in their scope and application, they can constrain, and in some
cases eliminate, the ability of state regulators to protect waters no longer covered by the federal Clean Water Act, or whose
federal protection has become uncertain. Since these laws are statutory, they do not affect the ability of state
legislatures to alter them or to enact additional water protections . However, the prevalence of these state constraints
across the country, together with the reality that only half of all states already protect waters more broadly than is required by federal law,
suggest that states are not currently “filling the gap” left by U.S. Supreme Court rulings limiting the Clean Water Act, and face significant
obstacles to doing so.
 Advantage Counterplan

Text: The United States federal government should:

 implement the Green New Deal, and;
 establish a human right to nature.

Green New Deal solves climate change better than degrowth AND boosts the
economy---mutually exclusive with degrowth
Robert Pollin 18, Professor of Economics and Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute
(PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 2018, “DE-GROWTH VS A GREEN NEW DEAL,” New
Left Review, https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii112/articles/robert-pollin-de-growth-vs-a-green-new-
deal

Job creation and a just transition

Countries at all levels of development will experience significant gains in job creation through clean-
energy investments relative to maintaining their existing fossil-fuel infrastructure . Our research at the Political
Economy Research Institute, cited below, has found this relationship to hold in Brazil, China, Germany, India, Indonesia, Puerto Rico, South
Africa, South Korea, Spain and the United States. For a given level of spending, the percentage increases in job creation range from about 75
per cent in Brazil to 350 per cent in Indonesia. For India, as a specific example, we
found that increasing clean-energy
investments by 1.5 per cent of gdp every year for twenty years will generate a net increase of about 10
million jobs per year. This is after factoring in job losses resulting from retrenchments in the country’s fossil-fuel industries. There is no
guarantee that the jobs being generated through clean-energy investments will provide decent compensation to workers. Nor will they
necessarily deliver improved workplace conditions, stronger union representation or reduced employment discrimination against women,
minorities or other under-represented groups. But the fact that new investments will be occurring will create increased leverage for political
mobilization across the board—for improving job quality, expanded union coverage and more jobs for under-represented groups.

At the same time, workers and communities throughout the world whose livelihoods depend on oil, coal
and natural gas will lose out in the clean-energy transition. In order for the global clean energy project
to succeed, it must provide adequate transitional support for these workers and communities. Brian Callaci
and I have developed a ‘just transition’ policy framework in some detail for the us economy; and Heidi Garrett-Peltier, Jeannette
Wicks-Lim and I have developed more detailed approaches around these issues for the us states of New York and Washington.footnote19
Considering the us as a whole, Callaci and I estimate that a
rough high-end cost for such a programme is a relatively
modest $600 million per year, which is less than 0.2 per cent of the 2018 us Federal budget. This level of
funding would provide strong support in three areas: income, retraining and relocation support for
workers facing retrenchments; guaranteeing the pensions for workers in the affected industries; and
mounting effective transition programmes for what are now fossil-fuel dependent communities.
Comparable programmes will need to be implemented in other country settings.
Industrial policies and ownership forms

Increasing clean-energy investment by 1.5 per cent of global gdp will not happen without strong industrial policies. Even though, for
example, energy-efficiency investments generally pay for themselves over three to five years, and the average costs of producing renewable
energy are at rough parity with fossil fuels, it is still the case that some entities—public enterprises, private firms or a combination of both—will
have to advance the initial capital and bear the project risk. Depending on specific conditions within each country, industrial policies will be
needed to promote
technical innovation and, more broadly, adaptations of existing clean-energy technology.
Governments will need to deploy a combination of policy instruments, including research and development
support, preferential tax treatment for clean-energy investments and stable long-term market
arrangements through government-procurement contracts . Clean-energy industrial policies also need to
include emission standards for utilities and transport, and price regulation for both fossil fuel and clean
energy. The widely discussed tool of pricing carbon emissions through either a carbon tax or a cap on
permissible emissions certainly needs to be a major component of the overall industrial-policy mix . A
carbon tax in particular can raise large amounts of revenue that can then be used to help finance clean-energy investments
as well as redistributing funds to lower-income households . Germany’s experience of financing is valuable here, since it
has been the most successful advanced economy in developing its clean-energy economy. According to the International Energy Agency, a
major factor in Germany’s success is that its state-owned development bank, kfw, ‘plays a crucial role by providing loans and subsidies for
investment in energy efficiency measures in buildings and industry, which have leveraged significant private funds.’footnote20 This Germany
development banking approach could be adapted throughout the world.

Another critical measure in supporting clean-energy investments at 1.5 per cent of annual global gdp will be to lower the profitability
requirements for these investments. This in turn raises the issue of ownership of newly created energy enterprises and assets. Specifically: how
might alternative ownership forms—including public ownership, community ownership and small-scale private companies—play a role in
advancing the clean-energy investment agenda? Throughout the world, the energy sector has long operated under a variety of ownership
structures, including public or municipal ownership, and forms of private cooperative ownership as well as private corporations. Indeed, in the
oil and natural-gas industry, publicly owned national companies control approximately 90 per cent of the world’s reserves and 75 per cent of
production, as well as many of the oil and gas infrastructure systems. These national corporations include Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, China
National Petroleum Corporation, the National Iranian Oil Company, Petroleos de Venezuela, Petrobras in Brazil and Petronas in Malaysia. There
is no evidence to suggest that these publicly owned companies are likely to be more supportive of a clean-energy transition than the private
corporations. National development projects, lucrative careers and political power all depend on continuing the flow of fossil-fuel revenues. In
and of itself, public ownership is not a solution.

Clean-energy investments will nevertheless create major new opportunities for alternative ownership forms, including various combinations of
smaller-scale public, private and cooperative ownership. For example, community-based wind farms have been highly successful for nearly two
decades in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and the uk. A major reason for their success is that they operate with lower profit requirements than
large-scale private corporations. On this point, my Green New Deal perspective converges with positions supported by degrowth proponents.
For example, Juliet Schor describes in True Wealth (2011) what she calls ‘a prima facie case that the emerging green sector will be powered by
small and medium-size firms, with their agility, dynamism and entrepreneurial determination’. Over time, Schor writes, ‘these entities can
become a sizeable sector of low-impact enterprises, which form the basis of animated local communities and provide livelihood on a wide
scale.’footnote

It is one thing to conclude that all countries—or at least those countries with either large gdps or populations—should invest about 1.5 per cent
of gdp per year in energy efficiency and clean renewable investments. But it is another matter to determine what standard of fairness should be
applied in allocating the costs of such investments among the various people, countries and regions of the globe. What would be a fair
procedure? If the global clean-energy investment project sketched here is successful, average per capita co2 emissions will fall within twenty
years from its current level of 4.6 tons to 2.3 tons. This corresponds to a fall in total emissions from 32 to 20 billion tons. Still, at the end of this
20-year investment cycle, average us emissions will be 5.8 tons per capita, nearly three times the averages for China and the world as a whole,
and five times the average for India. At a basic level, this is unfair—particularly given that, over the past century of the fossil-fuel era, us
emissions have exceeded those in India and China combined by around 400 per cent. As a standard of fairness, one could, with good reason,
insist that the United States and other rich countries be required to bring down per capita co2 emissions to the same level as low-income
countries. We could also insist that high-income people—regardless of their countries of residence—be permitted to produce no more co2
emissions than anyone else.

There is a solid ethical case for such measures. But there is absolutely no chance that they will be implemented. Given the climate-stabilization
imperative facing the global economy, we do not have the luxury to waste time on huge global efforts fighting for unattainable goals. Consider
the us case: on grounds of both ethics and realism, it will be much more constructive to require that, in addition to bringing its own emissions
down to about 6 tons per capita within twenty years, the
us should also provide large-scale assistance to other
countries in financing and bringing to scale their own transformative clean-energy projects.
Problems with degrowth

As I emphasized at the outset, degrowth proponents have made valuable contributions in addressing many of the untenable features of
economic growth. But
on the specific issue of climate change, degrowth does not provide anything like a
viable stabilization framework. Consider some very simple arithmetic. Following the ipcc, we know that global co2 emissions need
to fall from their current level of 32 billion tons to 20 billion tons within twenty years. If we assume that, following a degrowth agenda, global
gdp contracts by 10 per cent over the next two decades, that would entail a reduction of global gdp four times greater than during the 2007–09
financial crisis and Great Recession. In terms of co2 emissions, the net effect of this 10 per cent gdp contraction, considered on its own, would
be to push emissions down by precisely 10 per cent—that is, from 32 to 29 billion tons. It would not come close to bringing emissions down to
20 billion tons by 2040.

Clearly then, even under a degrowth scenario, the overwhelming factor pushing emissions down will
not be a contraction of overall gdp but massive growth in energy efficiency and clean renewable-energy
investments—which, for accounting purposes, will contribute towards increasing gdp—along with similarly dramatic cuts
in fossil-fuel production and consumption, which will register as reducing gdp. Moreover, the immediate effect of any global
gdp contraction would be huge job losses and declining living standards for working people and the
poor. During the Great Recession, global unemployment rose by over 30 million. I have not seen a convincing argument from a degrowth
advocate as to how we could avoid a severe rise in mass unemployment if gdp were to fall by twice as much.

These fundamental problems with degrowth are illustrated by the case of Japan, which has been a slow-growing economy for a generation
now, even while maintaining high per capita incomes. Herman Daly himself describes Japan as being ‘halfway to becoming a steady-state
economy already, whether they call it that or not.’footnote22 Daly is referring to the fact that, between 1996 and 2015, gdp growth in Japan
averaged an anemic 0.7 per cent per year. This compares with an average Japanese growth rate of 4.8 per cent per year for the 30-year period
1966 to 1995. Nevertheless, as of 2017, Japan remained in the ranks of the large, upper-income economies, with average gdp per capita at
about $40,000. Yet despite the fact that Japan has been close to a no-growth economy for twenty years, its co2 emissions remain among the
highest in the world, at 9.5 tons per capita. This is 40 per cent below the figure for the United States, but it is four times higher than the average
global level of 2.5 tons per capita that must be achieved if global emissions are to drop by 40 per cent by 2040. Moreover, Japan’s per capita
emissions have not fallen at all since the mid-1990s. The
reason is straightforward: as of 2015, 92 per cent of Japan’s
total energy consumption comes from burning oil, coal and natural gas.

Thus, despite
‘being halfway to becoming a steady-state economy’, Japan has accomplished virtually
nothing in advancing a viable climate-stabilization path . The only way it will make progress is to replace its existing,
predominantly fossil-fuel energy system with a clean-energy infrastructure. At present, hydro power supplies 5 per cent of Japan’s total energy
needs, and other renewable sources only 3 per cent. Overall then, like all large economies—whether they are growing rapidly or not at all—
Japan needs to embrace the Green New Deal.

A green great depression?

The majority of degrowth proponents pay almost no attention to emission levels. Thus the introduction to a special issue of Ecological
Economics focused on degrowth, edited by leading contemporary degrowthers Giorgos Kallis, Christian Kerschner and Joan Martinez-Alier,
devoted precisely one paragraph to the issue. This described a proposal for ‘cap-and-share’ which, the authors explained, would involve placing
‘a declining annual global cap on the tonnage of co2 emitted by fossil fuels’ and ‘allocating a large part of each year’s tonnage to everyone in
the world on an equal per capita basis’.footnote23 Kallis, Kerschner and Martinez-Alier recognize that the political economy of such a proposal
would be highly complex; but they do not take it upon themselves to examine any of these complexities. In the same issue of Ecological
Economics Peter Victor, author of Managing without Growth (2008), did develop a series of models for evaluating the relationship between
economic growth and co2 emissions for the Canadian economy. Under Victor’s baseline scenario, Canadian gdp would grow by an average of
2.3 per cent between 2005 and 2035, resulting in a doubling of per capita gdp, while co2 emissions would rise by 77 per cent. Victor then
presented both low-growth and degrowth scenarios for the same period. He reports that, under degrowth, greenhouse-gas emissions would
fall by 88 per cent, relative to the 2035 ‘business-as-usual’ growth scenario. But he also concludes that Canada’s per capita gdp under degrowth
would fall to 26 per cent of the business-as-usual scenario by 2035.footnote

Victor does not flesh out his results with actual data on the Canadian economy, but it is illuminating to do so. In 2005, Canada’s per capita gdp
was $53,336 (expressed in 2018 Canadian dollars). Thus, under the business-as-usual scenario, per capita gdp rises to about $107,000 as of
2035. Alternatively, under the degrowth scenario, Canada’s per capita gdp in 2035 would plummet to $28,000. This per capita gdp level for
2035 is 48 per cent below Canada’s actual per capita gdp for 2005. In other words, under Victor’s degrowth scenario, the emissions reduction
achieved over a 30-year period would be only modestly greater than what would be achieved under a clean-energy investment programme at
1.5 per cent of annual gdp, but with this fundamental difference: under the clean-energy investment project, average incomes would roughly
double, while under degrowth, average incomes would experience a historically unprecedented collapse. Victor doesn’t ask whether an
economic depression of this magnitude under degrowth, in Canada or elsewhere, is either economically or politically viable. He doesn’t
examine what impact
this loss of gdp would have in funding for health care, education or, for that matter,
environmental protection. Nor does he explain what policy tools would be deployed to force Canada’s gdp to halve within thirty
years. Victor’s article is further remarkable in that, in an analysis focused on the relationship between economic growth and climate change, it
includes only one brief mention of renewable energy and no reference whatsoever to energy efficiency.

Perhaps the most influential contemporary discussion on the economics of climate change and degrowth is Tim Jackson’s Prosperity without
Growth.footnote25 Jackson begins by emphasizing that a viable climate-stabilization path requires absolute decoupling between growth and
emissions on a global scale, not merely relative decoupling. This point is indisputable. Jackson then reviews data for 1965–2015, showing that
absolute decoupling has not occurred either at a global level or among, respectively, low-, middle- or high-income countries. Again, there is no
disputing this evidence—although, as noted above, several individual countries did achieve absolute decoupling between gdp growth and co2
emissions for 2000–14. In fact, there are only two major issues to debate with Jackson. The first is whether absolute decoupling is a realistic
possibility, moving forward. Jackson is dubious, writing that ‘the evidence that decoupling offers a coherent escape from the dilemma of growth
is, ultimately, far from convincing. The speed at which resource and emissions efficiencies have to improve if we are going to meet carbon
targets are at best heroic, if the economy is growing relentlessly.’footnote26

But is it really the case that absolute decoupling requires ‘heroic’ advances in building a clean-energy economy? It
is true that absolute
decoupling on a global scale is a highly challenging project. But we can be fairly precise in measuring the
magnitude of the challenge. As discussed above, it will require an investment level in clean renewables
and energy efficiency at about 1.5–2 per cent of global gdp annually. This amounts to about $1 trillion at
today’s global economy level and $1.5 trillion average over the next twenty years. These are large but
realistic investment goals which could be embraced by economies at all levels of development , in every
region of the globe. One reason why this is a realistic project is that it would support rising average living
standards and expanding job opportunities, in low-income countries in particular . For nearly forty years now, the
gains from economic growth have persistently favoured the rich. Nevertheless, the prospects for reversing inequality in all countries will be far
greater when the overall economy is growing than when the rich are fighting everyone else for shares of a shrinking pie. How sanguine, for
example, would we expect affluent Canadians to be over the prospect of their incomes being cut by half or more in absolute dollars over the
next thirty years? In
political terms, the attempt to implement a degrowth agenda would render the global
clean-energy project utterly unrealistic.

The second issue to raise with Jackson is still more to the point: does
degrowth offer a viable alternative to absolute
decoupling as a climate-stabilization project? As we have seen, the answer is ‘No.’ Jackson himself provides no
substantive discussion to demonstrate otherwise. Indeed, on the issue of climate stabilization, Jackson offers no basis for disputing Herman
Daly’s charactization of degrowth as a slogan in search of a programme. Overall, then, if
the left is serious about mounting a
viable, global, climate-stabilization project, it should not be losing time seeking to build an all-purpose,
broad-brush degrowth movement—which, for the reasons outlined, cannot succeed in actually
stabilizing the climate. This is even more emphatically the case when a fair and workable approach to
climate stabilization lies right before us, by way of the Green New Deal.

A Human rights framework protects the environment without rampant economic

destruction
Wesley J. Smith 18, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, 8/6/18,
“The return of nature worship,” https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-28-number-3/return-
nature-worship

Anti-capitalism and anti-corporatism provide the movement’s propellant . Nature rights would make us
trustees, rather than owners, of property. And here the truth begins to shine. The rights of nature is a Marxist concept, intended to destroy
free markets, thwart capitalistic enterprise, shrink economies, reduce wealth and depress living
standards while elevating the natural world to moral equivalence with human beings.
Why not “nature rights”?

Which brings us to the core reasons why granting

rights to nature would be not only profoundly subversive of Western values but
also highly destructive to human thriving.

Nature rights violates human exceptionalism:

Human exceptionalism, the essential insight undergirding Western civilization, has come under direct assault by the nature rights movement.
But what does that term mean? First, human beings have equal and inherent moral value simply and merely because we are human – a worth
that exceeds that of all other life forms – a concept known as the sanctity of life ethic.

But that description doesn’t tell the whole story. Human

exceptionalism also appeals to our exclusive capacity for
moral agency. Only human beings have duties – to ourselves, each other and our posterity – to be
responsible stewards of the environment and to leave a verdant world to those who come after us .
Recognizing our exceptional inherent nature, we understand that the world is not ours to turn into a
cesspool. Or to put it another way, if being human – in and of itself – isn’t what imposes the obligation
on us to be environmentally responsible, what does?

Nature rights activists see it differently. To them, the traditional hierarchy of life is a destructive concept.
In their view, we are no more important than any other species or life form and, it increasingly seems,
even non-animate features of the natural world. Or, to put it more colloquially, nature rights ideology
seeks to demote us from the exceptional species to just another animal in the forest .
Nature rights devalues the vibrancy of rights:

University of Michigan professor of philosophy Carl Cohen writes: “A right … is a valid claim, or potential claim, that may be made by a moral
agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim” (emphasis added). This means that for nature to possess
rights, it must also be capable of assuming concomitant duties or responsibilities toward others, a farcical notion.

Beyond that, granting rights to nature means that everything is potentially a rights-bearer. If everything has rights, one could say that nothing
really does. At best, nature rights would devalue the concept in much the same way that wild inflation destroys the worth of currency. Indeed,
if a squirrel or mushroom and all other earthly entities somehow possess rights, the vibrancy of rights withers.

Nature rights would cause profound harm to human thriving:

Granting rights to nature would bring economic growth to a screeching halt by empowering the most
committed and radical environmentalists – granted legal standing to act on “nature’s” behalf – to
impose their extreme views of proper environmental stewardship through the buzz saw of unending
litigation. Backed by well-funded environmentalist organizations and their lawyers, any and all large-
scale economic or development projects – from oil drilling, to housing developments, to mining, to
farming, to renewable energy projects, such as electricity-generating windmills that kill countless birds –
could face years of harassing lawsuits and extorted financial settlements . At the very least, liability insurance for
such endeavors would become prohibitively costly – indeed, if underwriters permitted policies to be issued for such projects at all. Of course,
that is the whole point.

Nature rights would be incapable of nuanced enforcement :

Christian and Jewish dogma hold that God assigned us the responsibility to be good stewards of his earth. But we are also commanded to thrive
off the bounties of nature. Such a view allows the natural world to be harnessed for human benefit mediated by our responsibilities to engage
in proper environmental policies and practices.

Granting rights to nature would shatter this nuanced approach to environmental husbandry. Take as one
quick example, the Endangered Species Act. The law provides that if an identified species becomes endangered, threatening human activity will
be prevented. But that doesn’t end the matter. Once populations of the endangered species return to healthy levels – the point of the law – its
designation will be changed, alleviating or removing the prior restraints on human activity.

In contrast, nature
rights would have all the nuance of handcuffs that could never be unlocked. Under such
a regime, nuanced husbandry practices would yield to the “right” of “nature” to “exist and persist.” The
human benefit from our use of the natural world would, at most, receive mere equal consideration to
the impacted aspect of nature’s rights – and this would be true no matter how dynamic and otherwise
thriving the potentially impacted aspects of nature might be.
Nature rights is unnecessary to proper environmental protection:

We can provide robust safeguards for the environment without the subversion of granting rights
outside the human realm. Yellowstone National Park, for example, is one of the great wonders of the world. It has been splendidly
protected since 1872, when made a national park, and in a manner that has both protected its pristine beauty and allowed people to enjoy its
incredible marvels – without declaring Old Faithful geyser a “person” entitled to enforceable rights.

Enough. When we dig to the intellectual core of the movement, we find that the controversy isn’t about “rights” at all. Rather, we are having an
epochal debate about the scope, nature and extent of our responsibilities toward the natural world. These obligations, it is important to add,
are predicated solely on our being human. In this sense, the nature rights controversy and the desire of some to maximally sacrifice our own
welfare to “save the planet” is ironic proof of the very human exceptionalism that nature rights environmentalists reject.

It’s time to splash some icy river water on our faces: The threat of nature rights can’t be ignored any longer. Unless we act to ensure that
only human beings and our associations and enterprises are the proper subjects of rights and legal
standing in courts of law, we face a darker and less prosperous human future.
 2NC

Overview: Instead of giving personhood to rivers the USFG should implement the
Green New Deal. This solves for climate changed and the environment better than
giving rights to rivers.

Only the counterplan solves the environment:

The aff’s blunt legal paradigm decimates nuanced environmental husbandry

Wesley J. Smith 18, senior fellow at the Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism, 8/6/18,
“The return of nature worship,” https://www.acton.org/religion-liberty/volume-28-number-3/return-
nature-worship

Nature rights would be incapable of nuanced enforcement :

Christian and Jewish dogma hold that God assigned us the responsibility to be good stewards of his earth. But we are also commanded to thrive
off the bounties of nature. Such a view allows the natural world to be harnessed for human benefit mediated by our responsibilities to engage
in proper environmental policies and practices.

Granting rights to nature would shatter this nuanced approach to environmental husbandry. Take as one
quick example, the Endangered Species Act. The law provides that if an identified species becomes endangered, threatening human activity will
be prevented. But that doesn’t end the matter. Once populations of the endangered species return to healthy levels – the point of the law – its
designation will be changed, alleviating or removing the prior restraints on human activity.

In contrast, nature
rights would have all the nuance of handcuffs that could never be unlocked. Under such
a regime, nuanced husbandry practices would yield to the “right” of “nature” to “exist and persist.” The
human benefit from our use of the natural world would, at most, receive mere equal consideration to
the impacted aspect of nature’s rights – and this would be true no matter how dynamic and otherwise
thriving the potentially impacted aspects of nature might be .

Nuanced integration of nature into human spaces is key to environmental

protection---“pristine nature” can’t be preserved
Michelle Marvier 12, professor in the Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences at Santa
Clara University, et al., 2/1/12, “Conservation in the Anthropocene,”
https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/issue-2/conservation-in-the-anthropocene
Ironically, conservation is losing the war to protect nature despite winning one of its hardest fought battles -- the fight to create parks, game
preserves, and wilderness areas. Even
as we are losing species and wild places at an accelerating rate, the
worldwide number of protected areas has risen dramatically, from under 10,000 in 1950 to over 100,000 by 2009.4
Around the world, nations have set aside beautiful, biodiverse areas where human development is restricted .
By some estimates, 13 percent of the world's land mass is protected, an area larger than all of South America.5

But while conservation has historically been locally driven -- focused on saving specific places such as Yosemite National Park and the Grand
Canyon, or on managing very limited ecological systems like watersheds and forests -- its more recent ambitions have become almost
fantastical. For example, is halting deforestation in the Amazon, an area nearly the size of the continental United
States, feasible? Is it even necessary? Putting a boundary around Yosemite Valley is not the same as attempting to do so around the
Amazon. Just as the United States was dammed, logged, and crisscrossed by roads, it is likely that much of the Amazon will be as well.

Only with the rapid transformation of the developing world -- from rural or pastoral cultures to urban and industrial nations -- and the
unmistakable domestication of our planet that has resulted has the paradox at the heart of contemporary conservation become apparent. We
may protect places of particular beauty or those places with large numbers of species, but even as we do, the
pace of destruction will likely continue to accelerate. Whether or not the developing world sets aside a large percentage of
its landscapes as parks or wilderness over the next hundred years, what is clear is that those protected areas will remain islands
of "pristine nature" in a sea of profound human transformations to the landscape through logging,
agriculture, mining, damming, and urbanization .
In the face of these realities, 21st century conservation is changing. Conservationists have taken steps to become more "people friendly" and to
attend more seriously to working landscapes. Conservation will likely continue to create parks and wilderness areas, but that will be just one
part of the field's larger goals. The
bigger questions for 21st century conservation regard what we will do with the
rest of it -- the working landscapes, the urban ecosystems , the fisheries and tree plantations , the vast swaths of
agricultural monocultures, and the growing expanses of marginal agricultural lands and second growth forests
that, as agriculture and forestry become more productive and intensive, are already returning to something that may not be wilderness, but is
of conservation value, nonetheless.

In answering these questions, conservation cannot promise a return to pristine , prehuman landscapes.
Humankind has already profoundly transformed the planet and will continue to do so.6 What
conservation could promise instead is a new vision of a planet in which nature -- forests, wetlands, diverse species,
and other ancient ecosystems -- exists amid a wide variety of modern, human landscapes. For this to happen,
conservationists will have to jettison their idealized notions of nature, parks, and wilderness -- ideas that
have never been supported by good conservation science -- and forge a more optimistic, human-friendly vision.

Human right to nature solves better and avoids job loss

Elia Apostolopoulou 19, Lecturer, Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, 4/23/19, “The
“right to nature” in the Anthropocene: A response to Chapron, Epstein and López-Bao,” Science, Vol.
363, No. 6434, DOI: 10.1126/science.aav5601

Chapron, Epstein, and López-Bao in their insight entitled “a rights revolution for nature” argue for the attribution of legal rights to
nature. On the question of how nature may claim its rights, they propose that “guardians with appropriate
expertise” could be appointed as nature’s representatives. The authors also argue that natural entities could become
rights holders based on “ecologically informed criteria”. They do not, however, specify who and how will decide who are
the appropriate guardian(s) of nature, who will define the proper criteria, and who will ensure that
these guardians actually defend the rights of nature.

Although we welcome Chapron’s et al. call for a radical rethinking of nature-society relationships, we believe that their
approach runs
the risk of reproducing the exact same conundrums that a rights-based approach to nature wishes to
address. We base this claim on our belief that as long as the crucial issue of agency – i.e. who should defend and
speak for nature- remains unaddressed it is highly unlikely to reverse the root causes of environmental
degradation.

In response to this, we put forward the concept of the “right to nature” (1), as people’s right to command
and control human-environment relations based on social needs. Several communities across the globe
currently experience the economic, social, public health and cultural impacts of environmental
degradation (2) but have been unable to defend their rights because existing laws and policies that may
protect particular species or habitats, do not protect people’s relationships to non-human nature. The
right to nature, as a new human right for the Anthropocene, is an environmental justice approach that
can refocus the discussion on who are the agents of the current destruction of nature, while
empowering the most vulnerable to live, work, enjoy, and conserve their surrounding environment.

Green new deal preserves waterways

Marc Yaggi 19, Executive Director of Waterkeeper Alliance, the largest and fastest-growing nonprofit
solely focused on clean water, 3/7/19, “The Green New Deal: What Does it Mean for Water?”
https://waterkeeper.org/news/green-new-deal-water/

The GND is modeled after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, which helped pull the U.S. out of the Great Depression and bring
economic stability back to Americans. The proposed 10-year plan aims to achieve “net-zero greenhouse gas
emissions” by moving America to 100 percent clean and renewable energy while creating jobs and
“economic prosperity for all.” The GND resolution’s goals would be achieved by a number of projects such as
building climate change-resilient infrastructure; meeting 100 percent of our energy needs from clean, renewable
power; building a smart grid; overhauling our food systems; expanding electric vehicle manufacturing ;
building high-speed rail systems; increasing forested areas; and more. The 14 aspiring infrastructure and industrial projects
identified in the resolution would, in turn, create a plethora of green jobs.

So, what does this all mean for the world’s waters?

Aside from the fact that clean

water is included in the GND’s goals, the answer to this question is simple when you realize that
climate change and water are interconnected. Climate change is altering the chemistry of our oceans,
the character of our coastlines, and the timing and intensity of rain and snow , wreaking havoc across
the planet. The impacts can be understood by hearing from the Waterkeepers we work with both in the United States and around the
world:

Our Waterkeepers in Louisiana have seen the government remove more than 40 names from places on maps because those places no longer
exist, except for in the memories of coastal residents who saw the land disappear.

In Ladakh, India, our Himalayan Glacier Waterkeeper will tell you that over the past decade things have turned upside down. It snows when it
shouldn’t and it doesn’t rain when it should. Some communities have relocated due to drought while others are forced to rebuild after
devastating floods.

In Mongolia, our Tuul River Waterkeeper reports how drought is forcing more and more people to migrate from the countryside into cities that
aren’t equipped to handle the population growth.

Puget Soundkeeper in Seattle sees ocean acidification threatening a $270 million year shellfish industry.

Our Waterkeepers in the Bahamas know there is a real risk that they will lose a majority of their land to sea level rise this century. They worry
for the security of their culture, their heritage, and their existence.

Those are just a few examples of many that demonstrate how climate change and water are intertwined. The GND reflects that access to and
availability of clean water is waning as a result of greenhouse gas emissions, whether it be through climate change or waterways polluted by
fossil fuels, and that low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous communities are disproportionately affected. The
resolution would
protect public lands, waters, and oceans and ensure “eminent domain is not abused,”
while restoring waterways and expanding sustainable farming and soil practices on agricultural land.

The framework for the Green New Deal is ambitious; it is a gigantic step toward combating climate change. While the current proposal
is a non-binding resolution, it sends a powerful message that the United States needs to take bold, decisive action now to mitigate the climate
crisis and create a better future for all. And at the end of the day, a Green New Deal also is a Blue New Deal for our waters.
Human rights framework is necessary to environmentally sustainable growth---the
plan is a blunt instrument
Micheline Ishay 20, Distinguished Professor of International Studies and Human Rights at the Josef
Korbel School of International Studies and University of Denver, April 2020, “Micheline Ishay
Comments,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 110, No. 4, p. 460-461

In their editorial, Chilton

and Jones (p. 459) alert us to a worldwide public health emergency associated with a
degrading ecosystem that fosters violence and undermines the less privileged . Their clarion call is warranted but
not always heard.

How do we get out of this situation? Chilton and Jones recommend elevating the rights of nature as a
more viable framework than human rights for addressing the crisis of public health on the basis of the
claim that human rights fail to include concerns for ecosystems and the biosphere . In addition, beyond legal
ordinances, they call for a worldwide collaboration and the reclamation of all that is public to promote a broader public health agenda.

Chilton and Jones's environmental concerns are real, as public health demands environmental protection. Their understanding of human rights,
however, is narrow with respect to ecological issues. Replaying
an old debate between biocentric (viewed as rights of
nature) and anthropocentric (understood as human rights) approaches, they pledge allegiance to the
former at the expense of the latter. Between these two stylized poles, they overlook that the human
rights movement and legal instruments have long incorporated competing yet inalienable rights,
including the right to health, the right to work, and the right to cleaner and sustainable environments.

Indeed, the
language of human rights remained for decades a rationale for critical global environmental
efforts responsive to the crisis of international public health . Revised international labor standards such as the 1989
Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention focused on the specific social, cultural, economic, and environmental conditions of indigenous
workers. From the 1992 environmental conference held in Rio and the 1997 Kyoto agreement to the 2015 Paris Climate Accord, a
human rights framework was reaffirmed to promote the rights of people disproportionately affected by
climate change.

Chilton and Jones insist on rights of nature as more inclusive than human rights. But
wouldn't extending rights to nature also
threaten human rights? Hasn't historical progress toward human rights depended in part on
constraining the threats posed by nature —from predation by other species to controlling floods, a
spectrum of dangers to which the wretched of the earth remain exposed? Should nature be entrusted with an
unconditional right, sui generis, unregulated by a human rights compass? In 1948, the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
understood rights as universal, inalienable, and indivisible. That principle leads directly to affirming that the human right to health is universal,
inalienable, and indivisibly connected with the right to a clean and sustainable environment. In that sense, the specific rights accorded to nature
(sustainable ecosystems, clean air and water) are derived from their necessity for sustaining universal human rights to life and health.

True, the consequences of heedless human interference with nature have been neglected at great cost to human rights. "Let us not flatter
ourselves overmuch on account of our human conquests over nature," warned Frederick Engels prophetically close to two centuries ago. "For
each such conquest takes its revenge on us."[ 1](pp179–180) But one could add, if
nature was accorded inalienable rights,
should a whimsical nature have the last word? Would it be guided by the sword? Providence? The
invisible hand? Or should it be regulated by strengthened national and international institutions? Legal
codifications may not be sufficient, Chilton and Jones correctly remind us, but they remain an important moral barometer for political action.
The public has a role, as they point out. But the public, one should add, can be confused if misinformed and disorganized.

Chilton and Jones are correct that the health hazards stemming from environmental degradation and
human-caused climate change need immediate response. Yet political support for that effort will
emerge from wider support for universal human rights to life, health, and sustainable economic
development, as well as civil rights, rather than from some transcendent right belonging to nature itself.
It is only on this basis that we can distinguish assaults on the natural world that endanger our basic
rights from constraints on nature that advance those rights.

AT Perm: Our CP is competitive we can’t perm. Our plan is mutually exclusive with
degrowth. It provides a framework without the economy destroying from complete
loss of control of rivers. However, this is the AFF’s plan to completely remove control
over rivers and give them personhood. Both cannot happen.

AT Solvency deficit:

AT Links to net benefit:

Disadvantages
 Politics DA:

Not Popular:

Farm lobbies oppose the 2015 Rule

Boudreau and Snider 19- Catherine Boudreau is a sustainability policy reporter for POLITICO and
Annie Snider covers water issues for POLITICO Pro, including battles over the scope of the Clean Water
Act, drought, water pollution and efforts to restore large ecosystems. (“Environmental rollbacks give
Trump rare win with farmers”. POLITICO. September 19 th, 2019.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/19/epa-rollbacks-trump-farmers-1504300) CF

Farmers have long seen the Environmental Protection Agency as one of their chief adversaries, but it
may now be one of the best friends they have in the federal government.

Amid President Donald Trump's ever-deepening trade wars, immigration crackdown and controversial
approach to ethanol policy, deregulation has provided a rare bright spot for farmers and ranchers over
the past two and a half years. EPA delivered its latest win this month when it  repealed an Obama-era
water pollution rule that had sparked years' of fierce opposition from the farm lobby, and is in the
midst of an even more sweeping effort to shrink the scope of the Clean Water Act. Trump’s EPA has also
defended the safety of two pesticides that some research has linked to cancer and damage to children’s
developing brains. And the agency tried to revise rules aimed at protecting farm workers from excessive
exposure to pesticides, an effort Congress ultimately blocked.

Plan kills the implementation of the infrastructure bill

Wall Street Journal, 21 – editorial board (“An Anti-Development Water Rule” Eastern edition; New
York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]12 June 2021: A.14. Proquest //DH

A small group of Senate Republicans and Democrats has reportedly reached a $1 trillion infrastructure
deal. Meantime, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to redo the Trump
Administration's Waters of the U.S. (Wotus) rule, which will make it harder to build infrastructure.

The EPA this week announced plans to revise the Trump Wotus rule "to better protect our nation's vital
water resources that support public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and
economic growth." Translation: The EPA is preparing a private land grab that will limit farming, fracking,
home building and economic activity.

Recall how the Obama-era Wotus rule expanded federal jurisdiction over "waters of the U.S." under the
1972 Clean Water Act, which authorized the feds to regulate "navigable waterways" like the Hudson
River. The Obama EPA claimed jurisdiction over any waterways with a "significant nexus" to "waters of
the U.S."

This included all land within a 100-year floodplain and 1,500 feet of the high-water mark or 4,000 feet of
waters already under its jurisdiction, as well as "ephemeral" ponds, ditches and creeks that occasionally
filled with storm runoff. The rule was intended to give the feds a veto over fossil-fuel development on
private land.

But it also meant that farmers would have to get permits to fill ditches. Road and highway construction
projects would need to undergo federal review if their storm runoff could affect waterways a mile or so
away. The Trump EPA sensibly revised the rule to exclude unnavigable bodies of waters, including those
that fill with water after a rainfall.

Now the Biden EPA complains the Trump regulatory rollback constrained its regulatory power too much,
particularly in arid states like New Mexico and Arizona, and eliminated federal permitting requirements
for 333 projects. Ergo, the agency plans to launch another amphibious assault on private land.

To recap: President Biden wants Congress to shovel out hundreds of billions of dollars for infrastructure,
which the EPA then will tie up in a permitting morass -- unless, of course, the projects advance climate
or social-justice goals. Republicans shouldn't agree to any infrastructure deal that doesn't include
permitting and regulatory efficiencies.

The Significant Nexus test is highly controversial—draws the ire of countless industries
Peterson and Golub 15 (Rafe Peterson and Daniel Golub, Holland and Knight Law, “Obama
Administration Issues Final Rule on "Waters of the United States"”, June 9 th 2015, Accessed 7/24/2021,
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2015/06/obama-administration-issues-final-rule-on-
waters-o)//KDS-JH

On May 27, 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (collectively, the
“agencies”) issued a final rule revising the regulatory definition of “Waters of the United States” under the
federal Clean Water Act (CWA).1 The rule, which replaces guidance issued by the Bush administration in 2007 and 2008, responds to
the confusion in the wake of the 2006 Supreme Court opinion in Rapanos v. United States 2 and
represents the most expansive interpretation of CWA jurisdiction since the law was enacted in 1972 . The
agencies’ implementation of this rule will be felt throughout the United States, particularly in the arid and semi-arid western states, such as
California. EPA and the Corps maintain that the new rule is narrower than under the existing regulation, an assertion strongly disputed by the
regulated community.3 At the same time, the agencies also estimate that the rule will increase the regulated waters by 3
percent and increase the cost to regulated entities and governments $162 million - $279 million per
year, largely through increased permitting costs. While the agencies claim that the rule provides more clarity as to the limits of the CWA,
there will be a great deal of uncertainty in its actual implementation. Due to vehement opposition from
industry groups, there is one certainty: there will be litigation in the future. Defining “Waters" Regulated by the Corps and EPA
Highly Controversial The CWA gives the Corps and EPA jurisdiction to regulate all “navigable waters,” which the law defines only as all
“Waters of the United States.”4 Understanding what constitutes the “Waters of the United States” is critical because it defines the scope of a
host of regulatory programs that compel landowners to seek permits from the federal government before undertaking various activities on
their land – specifically, programs under the following CWA sections: 311: oil spill program 401: water quality certification 402: NPDES discharge
program 404: dredged or fill material discharge permit program The final rule provides a revised definition of “Waters of the United States” and
culminates more than eight years of inconsistent administrative responses to an uncertain state of the law. A pair of Supreme Court cases, Solid
Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers,5 and Rapanos v. Army Corps of Engineers6 provided unclear guidance about
how broadly the federal government could regulate waters which have no surface connection to traditional “navigable” waterways. In a pivotal
concurring opinion in Rapanos, Justice Anthony Kennedy opined that waters have a sufficient “nexus” to traditional navigable waters to enable
regulation if the waters, “either alone or in combination with similarly situated lands in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical,
and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as ‘navigable.’”7 Since four other justices understood the federal
government’s jurisdiction to reach even further, Justice Kennedy’s opinion has been understood to be the “least common denominator”
establishing the necessary requirements for federal jurisdiction. The
final rule attempts to establish which types of waters
do, or could, have
the kind of “nexus” described in Justice Kennedy’s opinion . The agencies’ 2014 proposed rule
was highly controversial and elicited over one million comments from a huge range of stakeholders,
including public agencies, state and local governments, industry, mining, agriculture and other business
interests. While the agencies have made some important changes to provide clearer guidance of what waters will be regulated, the final
rule still sanctions broad federal regulation over vast areas of the American landscape and also leaves areas of major uncertainty. The final rule
will take effect 60 days from the date it is officially published in the Federal Register.

Every industry hates the plan

Snider 16 (Annie Snider, Politico, “The two words that rewrote American water policy”, May 25 th 2016,
Accessed 7/24/2021, https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/05/obama-wotus-wetlands-rule-
supreme-court-000131/)//KDS-JH

When the Obama administration released its sweeping new wetlands rule in early summer 2015, it detonated
across the American heartland like a bomb. Known by its nickname WOTUS, for Waters of the United States, the 75-page
document laid out a new and ambitious definition of what streams, rivers and wetlands are within
Washington’s mandate to protect—a change that could affect everyone from farmers to developers to
oil and gas producers. The fight began immediately and hasn’t let up since. Within hours of the rule appearing
in the Federal Register, the first lawsuit hit. A week later there were more than a dozen, and today the more
150 litigants in nearly 40 separate suits are duking it out over which court should hear the challenges
while an appellate court has put the rule on hold nationwide . The rule touched a particular nerve in
farm country, where producers already feel overregulated by Washington, and among developers, who
have to pay for expensive wetlands determinations and even more expensive mitigation schemes . The
battle over WOTUS is the latest, and perhaps the last, of the big fights over Obama’s late-term policy moves; it has already triggered
endless coverage, analysis, and even a viral spoof music video from the Missouri Farm Bureau, mocking
the government for trying to regulate dry ditches as waterways . Like the Clean Power Plan also released last summer,
the rule can be seen as a classic power struggle between environmentalists trying to solidify protections
and the industries—like agriculture, homebuilding and mining—who don't want their hands tied by out-
of-touch greens.

Popular:

Giving rights to water in the US is popular

Renner, 2021(Rebecca Renner, Freelance journalist, “In Florida, a river gets rights”, Sierra Club,
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2021-2-march-april/protect/florida-river-gets-rights) MA

In the summer of 2020, the Little Wekiva River appeared to die. In the span of less than two years, the creek north of downtown Orlando,

Florida, had dwindled from the width of a two-lane road to a muddy trickle. Then, in the midst of one of the rainiest hurricane seasons on

record, it ran dry. Locals walked the riverbed in befuddled dismay. It was as though the river had simply vanished. The mysterious

disappearance of the Little Wekiva River is an extreme example of the various plagues that bedevil Florida’s waterways. The Little Wekiva is a

tributary of the Wekiva River, which is choked by high levels of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution and the accompanying nuisance algae and

aquatic weeds. About 1 million pounds of nitrogen from septic tanks, water treatment plants, agricultural waste, and fertilizers on lawns and

golf courses leaches into Wekiva basin groundwater each year, and pollution also troubles the nearby Econlockhatchee River. In 2018, toxic

algal blooms in both Lake Okeechobee and coastal waters combined to endanger wildlife and local water sources, forcing biologists to measure

animal die-offs by the ton. Then came the November 2020 election—and local citizens’ response to the chronic
water pollution. Residents of Orange County, the home of Orlando’s theme parks as well as its
biologically rich wetlands, voted to amend their county charter to grant rights to the Econlockhatchee
and Wekiva Rivers. The Right to Clean Water Charter Amendment declares that “all Citizens of Orange County have a right to clean
water” and that the county’s waterways have a “right to exist, Flow, to be protected against Pollution, and to maintain a healthy ecosystem.”

The election outcome made Orange County the most populous jurisdiction in the United States to
recognize legal rights for nature. More than 500,000 people voted yes on the Right to Clean Water
Charter Amendment, making this seemingly esoteric legislation, which passed by a landslide margin of 89 to 11
percent, the most popular item on the ballot. “The Orange County law recognizes a human right to clean water,” says
Thomas Linzey, senior legal counsel for the Center for Democratic and Environmental Rights, who has spent much of the past 20 years crafting

similar rights-of-nature legislation around the globe. In 2008, Ecuador rewrote its constitution and included clauses that granted rights to

nature—provisions that businesses have since sought to challenge on dozens of occasions but that have survived legal assaults. In 2017,
New Zealand passed legislation to grant legal personhood to the Whanganui River, a victory for the
Indigenous Māori people, who had spent more than a century fighting for the river’s rights in court. Bolivia,
Colombia, and Bangladesh have also established laws recognizing, to various degrees, the rights of nonhuman nature. But Linzey’s efforts have

faced more resistance in the United States, including a federal court striking down Toledo, Ohio’s Lake Erie Bill of Rights. When Linzey gathered

with water defenders in a Florida living room in spring 2019, some local environmental activists viewed his legal strategies as a long shot. “I

looked at Thomas as a kind of fire extinguisher behind glass,” says Chuck O’Neal, the director of the water-protector group Speak Up Wekiva.

“Break in case of emergency.” In March 2020, Speak Up Wekiva and its supporters succeeded in getting the right-to-
clean-water measure on the county ballot. Then they had to make a compelling case to voters to pass it. “I thought of the guy
pouring the sidewalk outside,” says O’Neal, who owns a contracting business that refurbishes older homes. “How do I explain it to him—not to

make a pun—in concrete terms? If I said, ‘Would you vote for giving rights to the Wekiva River?’ that guy pouring cement would probably think

I was from Mars.” O’Neal and fellow advocates often promoted the measure using the plainest language, pointing out to voters that the

amendment would prohibit pollution of Orange County waters while also allowing any local citizen to sue polluters on behalf of the river.

Sometimes they made bigger appeals, such as arguing that since the US Supreme Court had recognized
legal personhood for corporations, shouldn’t rivers be people too? Eventually, some local politicians
started to embrace the proposed amendment. Nicole Wilson, an insurgent candidate who was trying to unseat an incumbent
county commissioner, hitched her campaign to the initiative. Local big businesses like SeaWorld poured money into her opponent’s campaign—

and then Wilson pulled off an upset victory. “They identified the work on the clean-water amendment as being radical,” Wilson says. “It really

backfired because it drove people to the website to read about it on their own.” On Election Day, the contest wasn’t even close. The clean-

water amendment’s passage marked a trans-partisan victory for the environment; according to county voting records, some 134,000 Trump

voters also thought the rivers should have legal rights. Now, Florida clean-water advocates are pivoting to ensure that the
county law remains in force and that state officials in Tallahassee don’t attempt to invalidate it. A year ago,
the Florida legislature passed a bill to help clean up the state’s notoriously polluted waterways—a law that some environmentalists described

as toothless and others applauded as at least a step forward. The bill included an amendment “prohibiting local governments from recognizing

or granting certain legal rights to the natural environment.” “The state has at its disposal the mechanisms to intervene politically should they

decide it’s worth their while,” says J.P. Brooker, the director of Florida conservation at the Ocean Conservancy. The question now is whether
state officials will try to enforce the provision or look the other way. It’s not inconceivable that Florida officials will try to dodge, Brooker says,

especially given that Governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, ran on a water-quality platform and that his pro-
environment promises “might have helped put him over the edge” in his extremely close 2018 election.  All
of which leaves the Central Florida river advocates playing a game of chicken with state officials—a high-stakes game that will determine

whether waterways like the Little Wekiva River will have a chance to come back to life.  
 2NC Extensions

Farming and development lobbies fight the plan

Blomain 19 – J.D. from Villanova Charles Widger School of Law and Executive Editor of the
Villanova Environmental Law Journal [Brian, 2019, “Trump Administration Makes a Splash:
The Altered Clean Water Act’s Rippling Effect on State and Federal Water Regulation”,
Villanova Environmental Law Journal, vol. 31 no. 1, p. 84-87, acc. HeinOnline] jmhe
I. GETTING YOUR SEALEGS: BACKGROUND SURROUNDING PRESIDENT

TRUMP'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CLEAN WATER ACT

President Trump fulfilled one of his campaign pledges by issuing Executive Order 13778, directing the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to publish the Clean Water Rule "for notice and comment" to
consider its amendment or revocation.7 The Executive Order also requested the reversion of the Clean
Water Rule to "a manner consistent with the opinion of Justice Antonin Scalia in Rapanos v. United
States"8 by interpreting "navigable waters" to mean "relatively permanent, standing or continuously
flowing bodies of water," and only cover wetlands with a "continuous surface connection" to such
relatively permanent waters.9

On December 11, 2018, President Trump announced his plan to drastically alter the CWA by retracting
the Obama Administration's definition of the WOTUS.' 0 Under this proposal, the CWA would no longer
federally protect nearly all American wetlands and thousands of miles of U.S. waterways." President
Trump's proposal aims to redefine the EPA's definition of the WOTUS, which the Obama Administration
changed.12

Additionally, this proposal limits water that falls under federal protection to "major waterways, their
tributaries, adjacent wetlands and a few other categories."' 3 The Administrator of the EPA, An drew
Wheeler, claims the change aims to benefit landowners in possession of the lands surrounding
waterways to "provide states and landowners the certainty they need to manage their natural resources
and grow local economies." 1 4

The proposed change runs afoul of the definition amended by the Obama Administration in 2015, which
broadened federal water protection to include waterways and their tributaries.1 5 Farming and
agricultural lobbyists, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, have pushed back against the
Obama Administration's regulation changes since they came to fruition in 2015, believing the Clean
Water Rule was used as a pretext to arbitrarily control portions of their farmland.' 6

In contrast, opponents of the Trump Administration's proposed change speculate that President Trump
is attempting to change the Obama-era rule to appease some of his constituents.' 7 From an
environmental standpoint, President Trump's most avid supporters and constituents include rural
farmers, real estate developers, and golf course owners because the Obama-era rule was more stringent
regarding bodies of water that affected land development projects, farms, and golf courses.18 The
Trump Administration prioritized the CWA's revision, rationalizing the proposed change by positing the
Clean Water Rule was a regulatory overreach and "one of the worst examples of federal regulation."",
Opponents believe that "[t] his proposal is reckless ... [g]iven the problems facing our lakes, streams and
wetlands from the beaches of Florida to the drinking water of Toledo. . . ."20 Some environmentalists
believe the proposed change will lead to increased pollution levels in American waters and threaten
public health.2 1 More specifically, an environmental advocacy group, the Natural Resources Defense
Council, believes the Trump Administration's proposal will "gut water protections nationwide," and
"limit the scope of the Clean Water Act, exempting many oil companies, industrial facilities and
developers from programs that aim to protect our rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands from
degradation."22 This Comment will discuss the potential implications of the Trump Administration's
repeal of the Obama Administration's water rules and regulations, including major changes to the
CWA.2 3 First, this Comment will provide background information on the CWA and EPA.2 4 Next, this
Comment will discuss whether the CWA is fulfilling its original intent or having a different effect than
intended.25 Finally, this Comment will discuss whether the CWA should be upheld and altered to
include wetlands and ephemeral streams under the WOTUS or if it should be repealed and replaced
with another piece of legislation.26

Plan’s a political hot potato that’s certain to draw massive opposition – the Biden
revision avoids the strongest opposition
Hannah Northey and Jeremy P. Jacobs, 21 - E&E News reporters (“Biden admin to dump Trump rule,
boost wetland protections” 6/9, https://www.eenews.net/stories/1063734581 //DH

The Biden administration today formally announced it would significantly change the definition of which
waterways qualify for federal protections, asking a court to let it take a crack at a controversial Trump-
era rule.

EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers asked a federal judge to remand former President Trump's
Navigable Waters Protection Rule, saying that "a broad array of stakeholders" are "seeing destructive
impacts" from it.

At the same time, EPA Administrator Michael Regan announced his agency would begin a new
rulemaking to restore the pre-2015 definition of what constitutes "waters of the U.S." — or WOTUS.

"After reviewing the Navigable Waters Protection Rule as directed by President Biden, the EPA and
Department of the Army have determined that this rule is leading to significant environmental
degradation," Regan said in a statement.

Regan said EPA is committed to establishing a durable definition based on Supreme Court precedent and
"drawing from the lessons learned from the current and previous regulations, as well as input from a
wide array of stakeholders, so we can better protect our nation's waters, foster economic growth, and
support thriving communities."
Biden on his first day in office ordered his administration to review the regulation, which took effect last
June and pulled back federal oversight of at least 51% of wetlands and 18% of streams — many of which
had been protected since the Reagan administration (Greenwire, Jan. 23, 2020).

EPA and the Army Corps also laid out guideposts for crafting a new WOTUS definition, including
protections consistent with federal law and based on the latest science and effects of climate change, as
well as the need for a rule that can be practicable and can be implemented by states and tribes.

The final rule will also reflect input from landowners, farmers, states, tribes and local officials, as well as
environmental groups and disadvantaged communities with environmental justice concerns, they said.

EPA is facing several lawsuits stemming from the Trump-era rule, forcing the Biden administration to
move more quickly in its Clean Water Act analysis than on other rules.

Today's announcement was driven by one of those cases, one brought by the Conservation Law
Foundation and other environmental groups in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

That case took issue with many aspects of Trump's Navigable Waters Protection Rule, saying that "many
streams, wetlands, and other waters excluded from the Rule's new definition of 'waters of the United
States' have been protected by the Clean Water Act for decades."

"The rule is thus a significant and unprecedented rollback of the protections afforded by the statute,"
the groups wrote.

Specifically, they criticized that the Trump rule did not cover streams fed by rain or snowfall, and
excluded wetlands, lakes and ponds that did not have a direct connection to other navigable waters via
surface flow.

The case also raised many procedural challenges, including alleging that the Trump EPA ignored relevant
scientific analysis.

The Biden administration, in its filing today, said that after reviewing the Trump regulation, it decided to
launch a new rulemaking to "revise or replace" the Trump policy.

Specifically, EPA and the Army Corps highlighted a lack of federal protections in arid states like New
Mexico, where, they said, "nearly every one of over 1,500 streams assessed has been found to be non-
jurisdictional." The agencies said they are also aware of 333 projects that would have required dredge-
and-fill Clean Water Act permits before the Navigable Waters Protection Rule but no longer do.

Challenges ahead

Defining what streams, wetlands and other water bodies qualify for the Clean Water Act's permitting
requirements has been one of the most vexing challenges facing EPA and the Army Corps for decades, as
well as a political hot potato that's drawn the ire of industry, ranching and agricultural interests .

Experts have said it could take considerable legal footwork and savvy to replace the rule, especially if the
Supreme Court addresses the reach of the Clean Water Act.

Any new rule is likely to see legal challenges, and the Biden camp would face the same dilemma that has
flummoxed other administrations — how to craft a WOTUS rule that will survive legal challenges
(Greenwire, Aug. 20, 2020).
"The question up to now has not been whether the Biden administration would do something to
redefine waters of the United States but what would they do," said Kevin Minoli, formerly EPA's acting
general counsel and top career lawyer. "Now, the question becomes, 'Can they write a definition that
will last beyond their time in office?'"

To achieve that legal durability, Minoli said Regan has to find areas of agreement among various factions
interested in WOTUS. Repealing the existing rule, he said, is going to be more difficult because EPA will
be starting from scratch as opposed to having a floor from the last administration.

The issue has reached the Supreme Court on multiple occasions and produced the famously muddled
2006 Rapanos decision.

Agricultural, property rights and other industry groups have continued to press the issue in court, and
some have said they will seek Supreme Court review again as soon as legally feasible (Greenwire, April
28).

By aiming to restore pre-2015 protections, the Biden administration is sidestepping the controversial
Obama-era Clean Water Rule definition of WOTUS, which was derided by conservatives and industry as
being too overreaching. Instead, EPA and the Army Corps are asking to return to regulations that were
first written in the 1980s and that have since been interpreted in 2008 guidance documents from the
George W. Bush administration.

And yet it was complaints about that guidance that prompted the Obama administration to write its
Clean Water Rule.

The guidance acknowledges that federal jurisdiction may not cover the same types of wetland features
in different areas, thus requiring regulators to slog through fields and examine isolated wetlands to
determine whether each warranted Clean Water Act protections. The Obama rule attempted to avoid
such a conclusion by drawing bright lines and saying that any wetlands located either within the 100-
year floodplain or 4,000 feet from a protected stream would automatically be protected, too.

Plan’s massively controversial – entrenched opposition

Hannah Northey, 20 - E&E News reporter “Biden would face slog to ditch Trump's WOTUS”
Greenwire, August 20, 2020, Greenwire database through Michigan libraries //DH

If Democrat Joe Biden wants to scrap the Trump administration's definition of which waters qualify for
federal protection, experts say he'll face a heavy legal lift, lengthy rulemaking, and an onslaught of
opposition from industry, ranching and agricultural interests .

Yet sources say the Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS, rule, which has riled both conservatives and
environmentalists, could be a top priority should the former vice president win the White House in
November — right after reinstating President Obama's Clean Power Plan and reining in President
Trump's revisions to a rule for National Environmental Policy Act compliance.
"I think there's going to be considerable pressure to deal with the Waters of the U.S. mess," said
Vermont Law School professor Pat Parenteau, referring to the regulation that defines the scope of the
Clean Water Act. "I think what he really has to do is what Trump did, in reverse, and flip the script."

The Trump administration's Navigable Waters Protection Rule took effect in June, pulling back federal
protection for millions of miles of streams and acres of wetlands.

Entrenched opposition to the Clean Water Rule proves

Konisky and Woods 16, David M. Konisky is an Associate Professor in the School of Public and
Environmental Affairs at the University of Indiana. Neal D. Woods is a Professor of Political Science at
University of South Carolina. “Environmental Policy, Federalism, and the Obama Presidency,” Publius:
The Journal of Federalism, Volume 46, Issue 3, Pages 366–391, 3/22/2016, https://academic-oup-
com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/publius/article-pdf/46/3/366/6867126/pjw004.pdf //pts

Another common source of friction between federal and state government is the extent of federal
jurisdiction under major environmental statutes. This friction materialized throughout the Obama
Administration, but is perhaps best illustrated by the controversy that erupted over the ‘‘Waters of the
United States’’ rule (also referred to as WOTUS, or the Clean Water Rule). The EPA and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers jointly issued the WOTUS rule in May 2015, with the aim of clarifying the bodies of water
subject to federal Clean Water Act (CWA) protection. The impetus for the rule was uncertainty about the
scope of waters protected by the CWA, resulting from U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 2001 and 2006.
Critics of the WOTUS rule, including most Republican (and some Democratic) governors, business
organizations, and agricultural groups, argue that the rule represents a regulatory overreach, while
supporters of the rule maintain that the rule is based on detailed scientific assessment that clarifies that
some water resources such as ponds, streams, and wetlands merit CWA protection. As was the case
with the Clean Power Plan, a large group of states sued the EPA to block the WOTUS rule, and the Sixth
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed a nationwide stay on the rule in October 2015, until it reaches a
decision on the merits.8
 Oil DA

Uniqueness: U.S. oil prices are on the brink of declining

EIA, 2022 (Energy Information Administration, statistics and analysis for US energy, “This Week in
Petroleum”, U.S. EIA, https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/weekly/) MA

Global oil consumption outpaced oil production for the six consecutive quarters ending with the fourth quarter
of 2021 (4Q21), which has led to persistent withdrawals from global oil inventories and significant increases
in crude oil prices. Crude oil production remained restrained as a result of curtailments by OPEC+ members, investment
restraint from U.S. oil producers, and other supply disruptions. In 1Q22, however, we forecast that global oil markets will
be balanced and that rising production will contribute to inventory builds in 2Q22 and continuing
through 2023. The inventory draws from 3Q20 to 4Q21 put upward pressure on crude oil prices. We
expect the forecast inventory builds from 2Q22 to 4Q23, conversely, to put downward pressure on crude oil prices. The price of
Brent crude oil averaged $71 per barrel (b) in 2021, and we forecast that the price will fall from the current price of around $80/b to
average $75/b in 2022 and $68/b in 2023

Link: Even small instances of rights of nature laws ripple across the oil and gas industry
Nobel 20 – M.A., Earth & Environmental Science, Columbia University, B.S., Earth & Ocean Sciences,
Duke University (Justin Nobel, 4-1-2020, "Nature Scores a Big Win Against Fracking in a Small
Pennsylvania Town," Rolling Stone, https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/rights-of-
nature-beats-fracking-in-small-pennsylvania-town-976159/)//kh

An unlikely crew of environmentalists who took on the powerful Pennsylvania fracking industry in a
David vs. Goliath battle to keep an injection well out of their community have notched an important
victory in their fight.

Using a novel strategy — seeking legal rights for nature itself — the rural western Pennsylvania
community of Grant Township has been battling for seven years to stop the permit for the injection well,
which would have brought a 24/7 parade of trucks carrying brine, a toxic byproduct of oil-and-gas
drilling that would be shot down the well and into a rock layer deep beneath the farms and woods in the
area.

Earlier this month, in a stunning reversal, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP), which in 2017 sued Grant Township for interfering with the agency’s authority to administer state
oil-and-gas policy, revoked the permit for the injection well.

“This decision is soooooo delicious,” says Stacy Long, a graphic designer and township supervisor who
together with her mother, Judy Wanchisn, a retired elementary-school teacher, helped lead the charge
to stop the well. “I am hopeful that the haters and naysayers will take note, and that communities will
be inspired with what’s just happened and run with it. Fights like ours should mushroom all around
Pennsylvania.”

Grant Township’s story, first covered by Rolling Stone in 2017, will also be featured in Invisible Hand, a
documentary on “rights of nature” produced by Oscar-nominated actor Mark Ruffalo, slated to premiere
at the 2020 Columbus International Film Festival in Ohio. “Grant Township has proven against all odds
that a community is capable of stronger protections for the environment than state or federal
governments,” says the film’s co-director Joshua Pribanic. “By taking a stand and winning, they’ve set a
new precedent worldwide on what the rights of nature can accomplish.”

At play in Grant Township was whether a corporation had the right to inject fracking waste in a resistant
community, or whether the community — and its streams, soils, and species — had the right to block
the corporation from depositing its waste. In the course of the fight, Grant adopted an ordinance that
established its right to local self-government, and later a home-rule charter, made possible by a 1972
state act that sought to give more power to municipal governments. According to their charter, injection
wells are illegal — and nature has rights.

The rights-of-nature idea comes from a paper by law professor Christopher D. Stone, “Should Trees
Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights for Natural Objects.” “The fact is, that each time there is a
movement to confer rights onto some new ‘entity,’ the proposal is bound to sound odd or frightening or
laughable,” wrote Stone. “This is partly because until the rightless thing receives its rights, we cannot
see it as anything but a thing for the use of ‘us’ – those who are holding rights at the time.” As Jon
Greendeer, the executive director of Heritage Preservation with the Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin
pointed out to Rolling Stone in 2017: “What the rights of nature does is translate our beliefs from an
indigenous perspective into modern legislation.”

The victory for Grant Township could potentially ripple across the fracking industry, already struggling
from global price wobbles, a push toward renewables in the face of climate change, increased criticism
over health harms to communities, and recent market fluctuations caused by the coronavirus.

The DEP’s decision to revoke the injection well permit was laid out in a March 19th letter to
Pennsylvania General Energy, the company that had originally applied for the permit. “Operation of the
injection well…would violate a local law that is in effect,” the DEP letter stated, citing the charter
enacted by Grant Township that banned “the injection of oil and gas waste fluids.” In 2017, the DEP
sued Grant over this charter’s language, so the decision to suddenly accept the terms of the charter was
significant. When asked by Rolling Stone to explain the agency’s shift in tone, DEP spokesperson Neil
Shader stated, “DEP cannot comment substantively regarding a matter in litigation.”

The litigation referred to is the suit DEP brought against Grant in 2017. That same year, Grant brought a
countersuit defending their charter, arguing it was necessary because the DEP had failed to do its job of
protecting the community’s environment. The case is presently in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court;
a decision issued in early March stated that “the Township seeks to prove that hydrofracking and
disposal of its waste is so dangerous to the environment as to be in violation of” a part of the
Pennsylvania Constitution called the Environmental Rights Amendment. This amendment states “The
people have a right to clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and
esthetic values of the environment.”

Essentially, the court is saying it wants to hear the township’s argument for why frack waste would
violate their constitutional rights, and the court is refusing to simply dismiss the case, as DEP had asked
it to do, says Chad Nicholson, an organizer with the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, the
Mercersburg, Pennsylvania-based law firm that served as Grant Township’s legal counsel and has
worked with communities around the country on rights-of-nature cases.
It is unclear just how the Commonwealth Court’s ruling may have affected DEP’s decision to revoke the
permit for the injection well.

Still, the ramifications for Pennsylvania communities that are fighting fracking may be significant. “One
extraordinary legal issue raised in the case presently before the Commonwealth Court is that fracking in
Pennsylvania may violate the community’s right to a clean environment and that communities adopting
laws that protect their environment could thus survive intact,” says Nicholson.

“DEP’s decision to revoke the permit is not just about Grant,” he adds. “It also recognizes that local laws
passed by other communities, whether related to fracking, pipelines, or injection wells, would also
authorize the DEP to deny permits. This is a huge step forward for local resistance to the oil-and-gas
industry in Pennsylvania.”

But when asked whether this meant that communities now had an effective legal pathway to show that
fracking violated their state constitutional rights, Nicholson checked his enthusiasm. “The courts and the
DEP have a history of not protecting the environment, which is why communities like Grant had to do
this in first place,” he says.

Regardless, the oil and gas industry was aghast at the DEP’s decision to revoke the permit . “This is truly
disappointing,” read an article published last week by the pro-industry Marcellus Drilling News. The DEP,
the site stated, has caved “to radicals.”

When Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association general counsel Kevin Moody was asked in
2017 by Rolling Stone what would happen if Grant Township prevailed, he replied: “Anarchy and chaos.”
People would “use local governments to create their own little areas of laws superior to state and
federal laws,” he said. “An impossible way for our country to function.” When asked last week to
comment on the ramifications of DEP’s decision to revoke the permit, Moody declined.

Impact: decline of oil industry will lead to global war

Mufson, 2020 (Steven Mufson, reporter for Washington post, “Oil price war threatens widespread
collateral damage”, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/oil-price-
war-threatens-widespread-collateral-damage/2020/03/09/3e42c9e2-6207-11ea-acca-
80c22bbee96f_story.html) MA

The oil price war Saudi Arabia launched against Russia sent crude prices into one of the steepest falls in
history. Monday, compounding depressed global demand from the coronavirus and causing casualties for oil field workers, U.S. shale drillers,
investors and members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries that rely on oil to make their budgets add up. Moscow’s
refusal to cut its oil output by a half-million barrels a day shattered the unusual three-year marriage of
OPEC, led by the Saudis, and major non-OPEC producers, led by Russia, as oil producers scrambled to find a way to respond to weakening
global demand resulting from the deepening crisis over the novel coronavirus. Saudi Arabia, angered by Moscow’s position, said Sunday
that it would open its spigots and drive down prices, making this oil price cycle the only one in nearly a
century to combine weak demand with a global price war.
 2NC

Overview: The oil prices are at the brink of declining and destroying the oil industry.
The plan causes this to tip over which leads to a global price war between countries
causing collateral damage.

Extensions:

Every time rights of nature have been protected, oil and gas or other businesses have
suffered
Diamond 19 – Orange County elected official to examine use of county resources (Phil, 8-9-2019,
“Protecting Nature - Rights of Nature Laws and Court Decisions,” Orange County Comptroller,
https://www.occompt.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/2019-08-08-Chuck-ONeal-Rights-
of-Nature-Laws-and-Court-Decisions.pdf)//kh

Today, there are laws and court decisions recognizing rights

of nature in a number of countries, including the United
States, Mexico, Ecuador, Colombia, Bolivia, Uganda, Bangladesh, and India. United States: The first rights of nature
laws in the world were enacted in local municipalities in the U.S. beginning in 2006. With more than three dozen rights of nature laws now
adopted in ten states, communities have stopped activities such as fracking, toxic waste dumping, and water
privatization. These communities are part of the more than 200 communities nationwide which have enacted “community rights” laws
prohibiting environmental threats, and are part of a growing movement to secure local democratic decision-making authority such that
communities are able to protect their hometowns and the environment. This includes: - Pittsburgh, PA: In 2010, the City Council
unanimously approved of a rights of nature law prohibiting fracking within the city limits. While fracking had been proposed
in the city prior to the law’s adoption, no fracking has occurred since enactment. Communities across Western
Pennsylvania have followed in Pittsburgh’s footsteps, adopting similar laws prohibiting fracking and
protecting the rights of nature. - Shapleigh, ME, and Newfield, ME: At Town Meeting gatherings in 2009, the people of
both towns approved of rights of nature laws which prohibited corporate water bottling activities. Nestlé had
already set up test wells within the communities. Following enactment, the company pulled out the wells and no
water bottling is occurring. Communities in New Hampshire have successfully enacted similar laws. - Lafayette, CO: In 2017, the
City Council adopted a “Climate Bill of Rights” law prohibiting extraction of coal, oil, and shale gas, as well as
disposal of drilling waste. While the state remains a center for fracking and drilling, no new fossil fuel development has
occurred in the city since adoption of the law . Ecuador: In 2008, Ecuador enshrined the rights of nature in its
constitution, the first country to do so. Numerous court cases have followed, in which violations of the rights of nature have been argued
by civil society and the government. Courts have ordered the end of activities such as construction which interfered with
the water quality and natural water flow of a river. Ecuador’s recently approved Organic Code on the Environment provides for executive
branch implementation of the rights of nature. The Code requires that environmental regulations and land use decisions
protect the rights of nature, and coastal and marine development be done in accordance with the rights of nature. Colombia: In 2016,
the Constitutional Court of Colombia issued a decision recognizing legal rights of the Atrato River , including
rights to conservation and protection. This came as the river ecosystem has long been degraded by illegal mining and
other activities. A court-ordered process is underway in which the national government and the indigenous peoples of the river basin are
working together to develop and implement steps to restore and protect the river.
Rights of nature would prevent millions in generated income for the oil industry –
Mora County empirically proves.
Alves 13 (Isabella Alves is the journal staff writer for Sante Fe in the Albuquerque Journal, “Mora
County bans oil, gas drilling”, Albuquerque Journal, 5/4/13, https://www.abqjournal.com/196063/mora-
county-bans-oil-gas-drilling.html, Accessed 7/20/21, JL)

Mora County has sent notice that the petroleum industry is not welcome , becoming the first county in
the nation to ban oil and gas drilling within its boundaries. On Monday, the county commission passed
a Community Water Rights and Local Self-Government ordinance, restricting the rights of corporations
and establishing a local Bill of Rights that gives the county full autonomy to protect its natural resources.
“We’re here as a county commission to protect the public welfare and the environment of our
community, and I think the ordinance does that,” said John Olivas, commission chairman . “Water is the most
precious resource we have, and water protection and the right to clean air is definitely something we were targeting.” The ordinance states in
part: “We believe that industrial use of water supplies in this county placing the control of water in the hands of a corporate few, rather than
the county would constitute abuse and usurpation; and that we are therefore duty bound to oppose such abuse and usurpation. That same
duty requires us to recognize that two centuries’ worth of governmental conferral of constitutional powers upon corporations has deprived
people of the authority to govern their own communities, and requires us to take affirmative steps to remedy that usurpation of governing
power … .” But others don’t see the commission’s action as being so noble. Karin Foster, executive director of the Independent Petroleum
Association of New Mexico, said such an ordinance will only hurt New Mexico. “The
obvious concern is that other county
commissions around the state and country can pick up on this,” she said. “It’s really sad that the first
county in (the) country is in the state of New Mexico where we’re so dependent on oil and gas. They
should know better.” Foster said $653 million was generated through oil and gas production on state
trust lands in New Mexico during fiscal year 2012, about $500 million of which supports public schools.
Other beneficiaries include universities, hospitals and penitentiaries. She also pointed out that revenues from trust
lands are used to retire bonds issued by the Interstate Stream Commission and fund irrigation projects. “It’s really interesting that Mora County
wants to protect water, yet they are taking money away from Interstate Stream Commission and the Office of the State Engineer,” she said.
Foster, who also serves as attorney for the IPA, said she doesn’t see how the ordinance could stand up to legal challenges. “I don’t know if
attorneys actually wrote it; it’s
extremely unconstitutional,” she said. “The person that wrote it doesn’t
understand constitutional law, doesn’t understand New Mexico law and doesn’t understand the
importance of state trust land to New Mexico and education.” The ordinance was drafted with the assistance of the
Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, public-interest law firm that has worked with more than 150
mostly East Coast communities in revising local laws. No one with the law firm returned phone calls from the Journal this week, but a press
release posted on its website celebrates the Mora commission’s vote, saying it represents a rejection of laws that elevate corporate rights over
community rights. “This vote is a clear expression of the rights guaranteed in the New Mexico Constitution which declares that all governing
authority is derived from the people,” the firm’s executive director, Thomas
Linzey, said. “With this vote, Mora is joining a
growing people’s movement for community and nature’s rights.” The firm also assisted the city of Las Vegas, N.M., in
drafting a similar ordinance passed by the city council last year. However, Mayor Alfonso Ortiz has refused to sign it, saying that it is
unconstitutional. The Mora County ordinance states the residents of Mora County have an inherent right to govern their own community, citing
the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the U.S. Declaration of Independence, the New Mexico Constitution and the Mora County
Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The ordinance also calls for the state Legislature to amend the state’s
constitution to explicitly secure a community right to local self-government, elevate community rights
above corporate property rights and recognize the rights of nature. Commissioner Paula Garcia cast the lone vote
against the ordinance, which passed 2-1.

Oil companies lose the arctic sector – tanks future oil production
Uldrich 21 (Jack Uldrich is a leading global futurist, best-selling author, and keynote speaker. He is also
the founder/CEO of The School of Unlearning, “How Businesses Can Prepare For The Upcoming Legal
Rights Of Nature” , Forbes, 1/2/21,
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/02/01/how-businesses-can-prepare-for-the-
upcoming-legal-rights-of-nature/?sh=617474bd5c9c, Accessed 7/21/21, JL)
The idea may sound ludicrous, but in the early part of the 19th century, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall wondered how non-
living entities such as corporations, universities and municipalities could, in spite of lacking consciousness, intelligence or cognition, exist only in
the eyes of the law. Today, it is an unquestioned principle that these structures are entitled to legal rights. In
the future, I believe nature will stand on equal — if not greater — judicial grounds than corporations
and property owners for the simple reason that society cannot exist without healthy water, land and
soil. To cite another historical example, today's society shudders at the Dred Scott decision in which the U.S. legal system classified one group
of humans “as a subordinate and inferior class of beings.” Might future generations find it repugnant that our current legal system today
subordinates the rights of nature to those of property owners? The answer is, yes. In 1972, Christopher Stone wrote a landmark article in the
Southern California Law Review entitled, “Should Trees Have Standing?” The article quickly found its way into the hands — and mind — of U.S.
Supreme Court Justice William Douglas who, in a dissenting opinion in a case seeking to halt the Disney Company from building a resort near
Sequoia National Park, cited the idea that the land itself had a right not to be despoiled. The
issue of rights for nature was then
broadly ignored for the next few decades until the parliament of New Zealand recognized the
Whanganui River as a legal person in 2017. In essence, the government declared that the river owned
itself. The same year, India accorded the Ganges River similar rights and, more recently, Ecuador has put
the rights of nature into its constitution. The issue is now gaining momentum in the U.S. By my calculations, around 36
communities in 10 states have already granted nature legal rights to a limited extent, and this past November, voters in Orlando passed an
The initiative was actively opposed by
amendment granting legal rights to the Wekiva and Econlockhatchee rivers.
homebuilders and developers who argued it would be bad for business and the local tax base, but the
citizens of Orange County felt otherwise and approved the charter amendment on an overwhelmingly
bipartisan vote of 89%. Many people and companies are now no longer ignoring or laughing at these
types of issues but are instead taking a more activist approach in opposing such measures. They are,
however, fighting an uphill battle. These early decisions on behalf of nature are the death knell for the unfettered rights of
corporations and property owners. The Best Practices For Businesses The once-fringe issue of “rights for nature” is poised to move rapidly into
the mainstream in the coming years as the public grows increasingly concerned over issues of environmental degradation, climate change and
intergenerational justice. The prudent business leader is advised to get out in front of this issue by conducting a thorough environmental audit
of how its products, supply chain and industry might be affected by the coming legal paradigm shift. •
Agribusinesses will need to
reassess their ability to siphon off large amounts of water from streams. • Plastics, chemical and
fertilizer companies must become more aware of the impact of pollution and run-off on the health of
rivers. • Hydroelectric utilities will need to be aware of a river’s right not to be dammed. • Shippers and
manufacturers will need to consider the full cost of discharging waste into waterways and oceans. •
Mining companies must brace for the reality that lakes and watersheds will have a legal right to not be
polluted. • Oil and gas corporations need to seriously evaluate the probability that their right to drill
in arctic refugees may soon be overturned. The extension of legal rights is always a bit unthinkable at first. In part, this is
because prior to a “thing” having rights it is easy to think of that “thing” as a resource to be exploited.
The world is changing and a growing number of people are awakening to the reality that the modern
economy is wholly dependent upon a healthy planet and that humanity’s long-term survival is
dependent upon the natural world’s ability to regenerate. For these reasons, nature will soon have its day in court.

Offshore arctic oil biggest untapped source of oil

Bryce 19 (Emma Bryce – Live Science Contributor, “Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?” , Live
Science, 8/3/19, https://www.livescience.com/66008-why-oil-in-arctic.html, Accessed 7/21/21, JL)
In 2007, two Russian submarines plunged down 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) into the Arctic Ocean and planted a national flag onto a piece of
continental shelf known as the Lomonosov Ridge. Rising
from the center of the Arctic Basin, the flag sent a clear
message to the surrounding nations: Russia had just laid claim to the vast oil and gas reserves contained
in this underwater turf. Russia's dramatic show of power had no legal weight — but it isn't the only nation that's trying to stake claims
to the Arctic's vast depository of oil and gas. The United States, Norway, Sweden, Finland and China are all trying to
cash in. It's no wonder: Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is
home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves . It's also estimated
to contain almost a quarter of untapped global gas resources . Most of the oil that's been located in this region so far is
on the land, just because it's easier to access. But now, countries are making moves to start extracting offshore,
where the vast majority — 84% — of the energy is believed to occur. But long before this oil race began,
how did the Arctic become so energy rich? [How Does Oil Form?]

Arctic refuge oil biggest onshore reserves of oil

Plumer and Fountain 20 (Brad Plumer is a climate reporter specializing in policy and technology
efforts to cut carbon dioxide emissions. He has also covered international climate talks and the changing
energy landscape in the United States for The New York Times, Henry Fountain covers climate change,
with a focus on the innovations that will be needed to overcome it. He also writes about other science-
related subjects, including earthquakes, hurricanes, mudslides, nuclear accidents and other natural and
human-caused disasters. For 10 years he wrote about research findings from across the world of science
in Observatory, a weekly column in Science Times. He is the author of “The Great Quake,” a book about
the 1964 Alaskan earthquake, “Trump Administration Finalizes Plan to Open Arctic Refuge to Drilling” ,
NYT, 8/17/20, Updated 5/27/21, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/17/climate/alaska-oil-drilling-
anwr.html, Accessed 7/21/21, JL)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Monday finalized its plan to open up part of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas development, a move that overturns six decades of
protections for the largest remaining stretch of wilderness in the United States. The decision sets the stage for
what is expected to be a fierce legal battle over the fate of the refuge’s vast, remote coastal plain, which is believed to sit atop billions of barrels
of oil but is also home to polar bears and migrating herds of caribou. The
Interior Department said on Monday that it had
completed its required reviews and would begin preparations to auction off drilling leases. “I do believe
there could be a lease sale by the end of the year,” Interior Secretary David Bernhardt said. Environmentalists, who have
battled for decades to keep energy companies out of the refuge, say the Interior Department failed to adequately consider the effects that oil
and gas development could have on climate change and wildlife. They and other opponents, including some Alaska Native groups, are expected
to file lawsuits to try to block lease sales. “We will continue to fight this at every turn,” said Adam Kolton, executive director of the Alaska
Wilderness League, in a statement. “Any oil company that would seek to drill in the Arctic Refuge will face enormous reputational, legal and
financial risks.” Though
any oil production within the refuge would still be at least a decade in the future,
companies that bought leases could begin the process of seeking permits and exploring for oil and gas .
President Trump has long cast an increase in Arctic drilling as integral to his push to expand domestic
fossil fuel production on federal lands and secure America’s “energy dominance.” Republicans have
prized the refuge as a lucrative source of oil and gas ever since the Reagan administration first
recommended drilling in 1987, but efforts to open it up had long been stymied by Democratic
lawmakers until 2017, when the G.O.P. used its control of both houses of Congress to pass a bill
authorizing lease sales. “ANWR is a big deal that Ronald Reagan couldn’t get done and nobody could get done,” Mr. Trump said in an
interview with Fox & Friends on Monday. It remains unclear how much interest there will be from energy companies at a time when many
countries are trying to wean themselves from fossil fuels and oil prices are crashing amid the coronavirus pandemic. Exploring and drilling in
harsh Arctic conditions remains difficult and costly. Nevertheless, by proceeding with the lease sales, the Trump administration has made the
Arctic refuge a potential issue in the presidential campaign, and the region’s fate may ultimately hinge on the election’s outcome. The
Democratic nominee for president, Joseph R. Biden Jr., has called for permanent protection of the refuge. However, even if he were to win the
White House, it could prove difficult for his administration to overturn existing lease rights once they have been auctioned to energy
companies. The administration’s push to open up the refuge has been backed by lawmakers in Alaska, as well as by local energy firms and other
Alaska Native groups, who have said that drilling could provide much-needed jobs and revenue for the state, where oil production has declined
since the 1980s. “Thousands of Alaskans are employed in our oil industry, and their livelihoods depend on the good-paying jobs created by our
state’s reserves,” said Senator Dan Sullivan, Republican of Alaska. “Today, we are one step closer to securing a bright future for these Alaskans
and their families.” The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge spans 19 million acres in northeastern Alaska. The
fight over drilling centers
on 1.5 million acres in the refuge’s coastal plain, which is believed to contain the largest onshore
reserves of oil in North America that remain untapped. Opponents say that opening the refuge to development would be
a step backward in an era when the world should be burning less oil in order to avoid drastic global warming. They also say drilling could harm
vulnerable wildlife in the area, including polar bears, which are already struggling because of climate change, and Porcupine caribou herds that
use the coastal plain as a calving area. “There’s no good time to open up America’s largest wildlife refuge to drilling and fracking, but it’s
absolutely bonkers to endanger this beautiful place during a worldwide oil glut,” said Kristen Monsell, a senior attorney with the Center for
Biological Diversity, an environmental group. For decades, Democrats in Congress had blocked proposals to open the refuge. But in 2017 the
Trump administration and Republicans in Congress included a section in a tax bill authorizing the Interior Department to establish a plan to sell
leases in the coastal plain. Under the law, the agency must conduct at least two lease sales of 400,000 acres each by the end of 2024. As part of
the process, the Department of Interior was required to conduct a review of the potential environmental effects of drilling. The
final
version of that environmental impact statement was released in September and recommended that oil
and gas leasing be allowed in the 1.5 million acres of the coastal plain. In its review, the agency said that activities
associated with oil and gas development — including new roads and truck traffic, as well as air, noise and water pollution — could potentially
harm wildlife. But it suggested that there were ways to blunt the effects, such as limiting the use of heavy equipment for one month of the year
during caribou calving season. Environmentalists have criticized the agency’s review as insufficient, saying it was largely based on older research
and failed to address several concerns. For instance, critics have noted, the environmental impact statement does not provide an estimate of
how many polar bears could potentially be killed or harmed by exploration in the coastal plain. Drilling opponents have also said that the
Interior Department downplayed the risks of climate change in its review. For
example, the agency estimated that the refuge
could produce as many as 10 billion barrels of oil over its lifetime , but argued that the effect on
greenhouse gas emissions would be minimal, since most of that oil would simply displace oil being
produced elsewhere in the country. In comments submitted to the agency, the attorneys general from 15 states, including New
York, called this displacement theory “completely unsupported.” Under pressure from environmental groups and the Gwich’in, an Alaska Native
group that opposes drilling because of the potential impact on caribou, several major banks, including Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase,
have said they would not directly finance any oil and gas drilling in the Arctic. The Trump administration’s efforts to open the refuge are part of
a broader push for development in Alaska. Earlier this year, the Interior Department proposed to open almost all of the National Petroleum
Reserve, far to the west of the refuge, to oil and gas development. And the Army Corps of Engineers is soon expected to decide whether to
allow the Pebble Mine project, a huge open-pit copper and gold mine in Southwest Alaska, to proceed. One big unknown is how many
companies will actually bid for rights to explore the Arctic refuge. “There’s no way to accurately predict how much interest there will be until
there’s an actual lease sale,” said Kara Moriarty, president and chief executive of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. “Companies simply do not
talk about where they intend to bid beforehand.” It is also unclear whether the lease sale program will generate much revenue for the federal
government as intended. Already an estimate by the Trump administration that it would produce a $1.8 billion windfall for the treasury has
been reduced by half. A New York Times analysis last year suggested it could be even lower, totaling just $45 million. One complicating factor is
that relatively little is known about exactly how much oil lies under the coastal plain. A Times investigation found evidence that the only well
ever drilled within the refuge’s boundaries was a disappointment. And the only seismic studies — which can give strong clues as to the location
and size of oil and gas reservoirs — were performed in the 1980s, when the technology was relatively primitive compared with today. A plan to
conduct a new, more sophisticated seismic study was shelved last winter. On Monday, Mr. Bernhardt said he did not see that as an obstacle. “I
think a lot of people will bid for leases without seismic data,” he said. Even if oil companies do decide to purchase leases, that is still just the
first step in a long, uncertain process. “You’ve got a lot of tripwires ahead,” said David Hayes, who served as a deputy interior secretary under
President Barack Obama and is now executive director of the State Energy and Environmental Impact Center at the New York University School
of Law. “Anyone buying a lease is potentially buying years of litigation along with that lease.”

AT Biden Thumper: Biden actions don’t thump – only a temporary moratorium,

greenlighted Willow Project, coastal plain drilling still allowed
Ambrose 21 (Jillian Ambrose is the Guardian's energy correspondent, “Biden suspends Trump-era oil
drilling leases in Alaska’s Arctic refuge” , The Guardian, 6/2/21, https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/2021/jun/01/biden-suspends-oil-drilling-leases-alaska-arctic-refuge-trump-era, Accessed 7/21/21,
JL)
The Biden administration has reversed plans approved by Donald Trump to allow companies to drill for oil and gas in Alaska’s Arctic national
wildlife refuge, a remote region that is home to polar bears, caribou – and 11bn barrels of oil. The
decision to suspend the oil
drilling licences follows the temporary moratorium on oil and gas lease activities imposed by Joe Biden
on his first day in the White House, and serves as a high-profile show of his climate credentials after
approving hundreds of requests to drill on federal lands in recent weeks. Biden used his 2020
presidential campaign to oppose drilling in the remote, 19.6m-acre Alaskan refuge, which is considered
sacred by the indigenous Gwich’in communities and is also home to polar bears, caribou, snowy owls
and other wildlife, including migrating birds from six continents. The region has long been an area of deep political
contention between Republicans and the oil industry, which have long been trying to open up the oil-rich refuge, and the Democrats,
environmental groups and some Alaska Native tribes which have been trying to block drilling since the mid-1990s. But after a decades-long
battle the first sale of the lease areas in the refuge earlier this year failed to attract interest from the oil industry’s biggest players, potentially
making the decision to suspend the oil drilling licences an easier option for Biden’s officials which last week angered environmental groups by
defending a major oil project on Alaska’s north slope. The US Department of Justice said the Trump-era decision to allow the project in the
National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska’s north slope was “reasonable and consistent” with the law and should be allowed to go ahead. It added
that opponents of the Willow project were seeking to stop development by “cherry-picking” the records of federal agencies to claim
environmental review law violations. The
decision to green light the Willow project, spearheaded by $78bn oil
company Conoco-Phillips, was heavily criticised by climate campaigners which claim that it flies in the
face of Biden’s pledges to address climate change. It has also raised concern that the Biden
administration is not willing to take a stand against US oil giants. The Arctic is heating up at three times the rate of
the rest of the planet and ConocoPhillips will have to resort to installing “chillers” into the Alaskan permafrost, which is rapidly melting due to
global heating, to ensure it is stable enough to host drilling equipment. By contrast, the suspension of oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic national
wildlife refuge is unlikely to be opposed by the oil industry after the the first sale of drilling rights raised less than $15m (£11m) from two small
oil drillers and failed to attract interest from companies including ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips. Kristen Miller, acting executive
director of the Alaska Wilderness League, hailed suspension of the Arctic leasing program, which she said was the result of a flawed legal
process under Trump. “Suspending these leases is a step in the right direction, and we commend the Biden administration for committing to a
new program analysis that prioritises sound science and adequate tribal consultation,” she said. More
action is needed, Miller
said, calling for a permanent cancellation of the leases and repeal of the 2017 law mandating drilling in
the refuge’s coastal plain. The drilling mandate was included in a massive tax cut approved by congressional Republicans during
Trump’s first year in office. Republicans said it could generate an estimated $1bn over 10 years, a figure Democrats call preposterously
overstated. Bernadette Demientieff, executive director of the Gwich’in Nation steering committee, thanked the president and the interior
secretary, Deb Haaland, and said that tribal leaders are heartened by the Biden administration’s “commitment to protecting sacred lands and
the Gwich’in way of life”.

RoN no fracking: Rights of nature is empirically used to block fracking

Kauffman and Martin 17 – Ph.D., Political Science, research focus on rights of nature @ University of
Oregon, director of graduate studies; Ph.D., political science, executive director of the United Nations
Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development, Fulbright Scholar grant recipient
to study in Ecuador (where RoN enacted) (Craig Kauffman and Pamela L. Martin, February 23, 2017,
“Comparing Rights of Nature Laws in the U.S., Ecuador, and New Zealand: Evolving Strategies in the
Battle Between Environmental Protection and ‘Development’,” International Studies Association Annual
Conference, Baltimore, USA, http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload472.pdf)//kh

Following GARN’s first meeting, in November 2010 Pittsburgh became the first major US city to pass an
ordinance recognizing RoN and banning shale gas drilling and fracking. Energized by the momentum,
GARN co-founders Linda Sheehan (Earth Law Center Executive Director) and Shannon Biggs (of Global
Exchange) began working with the city of Santa Monica to craft a Sustainability Rights Ordinance. They
enlisted CELDF attorneys to assist in the wording of the ordinance and to sponsor a 3-day Democracy
School workshop on community and Nature’s rights to strengthen local democratic governance (Biggs
2013). After three years, the ordinance passed in April 2013.
Unlike the Tamaqua ordinance, Santa Monica’s RoN ordinance was not in response to an immediate
threat to the community, but rather grew out of a local movement that initiated a Santa Monica
Sustainable City Plan in 1994 and had revised it over the years. Given the window of opportunity created
by the city plan and societal base of support, Linda Sheehan, Shannon Biggs, and Mark Gold (Chair of the
Santa Monica Task Force on the Environment) drafted various versions of an ordinance and presented
them to community members and the City Council in 2012. Ultimately, the version that unanimously
passed in April 2013 was drafted in coordination with City Attorney Marsha Jones Moutrie.

The text of Santa Monica’s ordinance acknowledges the influence of RoN norms diffusing through
transnational networks. It highlights this “new paradigm that recognizes the rights of the natural world
to exist, thrive and evolve” (City of Santa Monica 2013, 1). It cites as justification, precedents like the
2008 Ecuadorian Constitution and the December 2010 City of Pittsburgh Community Bill of Rights, which
bans natural gas drilling in city limits and “elevates the rights of people, the community and nature over
corporate rights” (City of Santa Monica 2013, 1). Similarly, it notes other RoN legislation emerging
around the US (e.g., Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maine, New Mexico) that recognize the
rights of natural communities and subordinate corporate rights to local sustainability efforts .

U.S. RoN recognition is followed by fracking bans – empirics

Kauffman and Martin 17 – Ph.D., Political Science, research focus on rights of nature @ University of
Oregon, director of graduate studies; Ph.D., political science, executive director of the United Nations
Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development, Fulbright Scholar grant recipient
to study in Ecuador (where RoN enacted) (Craig and Pamela L., February 23, 2017, “Comparing Rights of
Nature Laws in the U.S., Ecuador, and New Zealand: Evolving Strategies in the Battle Between
Environmental Protection and ‘Development’,” International Studies Association Annual Conference,
Baltimore, USA, http://files.harmonywithnatureun.org/uploads/upload472.pdf)//kh

Grant and Highland Townships are examples of a growing number of U.S. communities adopting RoN
ordinances to prevent environmental damage caused hydraulic fracturing (fracking). Concerned that
fracking would contaminate their water supply, Highland’s Water Authority spearheaded the drafting of
a Community Bill of Rights Ordinance in 2012. A local group, Citizen’s Advocating a Clean Healthy
Environment (CACHE) and CELDF assisted in the drafting (Nicholson 2016). Passed in 2013, the
ordinance expanded community rights, gave ecosystems in the county the right to exist and flourish,
and banned all activities of natural gas and fossil fuel extraction and waste water injection .

Similar action was taken by Grant Township, which relies entirely on private wells and springs for their
drinking water. After Pennsylvania Gas and Electric (PGE) filed for a permit to inject waste water into
one of its unused wells in the township, residents began to worry the injected wastewater would leak
into their drinking-water sources (Pryts 2016). While PGE has seven other wells, this was the first
wastewater injection well for the township. In response to what the community perceived as a threat to
their natural environment, on June 3, 2014, Grant Township adopted a Community Bill of Rights
Ordinance (created with CELDF support) that recognized RoN and prohibited depositing of oil and gas
waste materials in the township.
Kritiks
 Capitalism

Capitalism’s terminally unsustainable, it’s the root cause of every impact, and preserving it
leads to extinction.
Robinson 16 (William; 2016; professor of sociology, global studies and Latin American studies at the University of California at Santa
Barbara; Truthout; “Sadistic Capitalism: Six Urgent Matters for Humanity in Global Crisis”; http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35596-
sadistic-capitalism-six-urgent-matters-for-humanity-in-global-crisis)

In these mean streets of globalized capitalism in crisis, it has become profitable to turn poverty and
inequality into a tourist attraction. The South African Emoya Luxury Hotel and Spa company has made a glamorized spectacle of
it. The resort recently advertised an opportunity for tourists to stay "in our unique Shanty Town ... and experience
traditional township living within a safe private game reserve environment." A cluster of simulated shanties outside of Bloemfontein
that the company has constructed "is ideal for team building, braais, bachelors [parties], theme parties and an experience of a lifetime," read
the ad. The luxury accommodations, made to appear from the outside as shacks, featured paraffin lamps, candles, a battery-operated radio, an
outside toilet, a drum and fireplace for cooking, as well as under-floor heating, air conditioning and wireless internet access. A well-dressed,
young white couple is pictured embracing in a field with the corrugated tin shanties in the background. The only thing missing in this fantasy
world of sanitized space and glamorized poverty was the people themselves living in poverty. Escalating
inequalities fuel
capitalism's chronic problem of over-accumulation . The "luxury shanty town" in South Africa is a fitting metaphor for global
capitalism as a whole. Faced with a stagnant global economy , elites have managed to turn war, structural
violence and inequality into opportunities for capital, pleasure and entertainment. It is hard not to conclude that
unchecked capitalism has become what I term "sadistic capitalism," in which the suffering and deprivation generated
by capitalism become a source of aesthetic pleasure, leisure and entertainment for others. I recently had the opportunity to
travel through several countries in Latin America, the Middle East, North Africa, East Asia and throughout North America. I was on sabbatical to
research what the global crisis looks like on the ground around the world. Everywhere I went, social polarization and political
tensions have reached explosive dimensions. Where is the crisis headed, what are the possible outcomes and what does it tell
us about global capitalism and resistance? This crisis is not like earlier structural crises of world capitalism, such as in the 1930s or 1970s.
This one is fast becoming systemic. The crisis of humanity shares aspects of earlier structural crises of world capitalism, but there are
six novel, interrelated dimensions to the current moment that I highlight here, in broad strokes, as the "big picture" context in which
countries and peoples around the world are experiencing a descent into chaos and uncertainty. 1) The level of global
social polarization and inequality is unprecedented in the face of out-of-control, over-accumulated capital. In January 2016, the
development agency Oxfam published a follow-up to its report on global inequality that had been released the previous
year. According to the new report, now just 62 billionaires -- down from 80 identified by the agency in its January 2015 report -- control
as much wealth as one half of the world's population, and the top 1% owns more wealth than the other
99% combined. Beyond the transnational capitalist class and the upper echelons of the global power bloc, the richest 20 percent
of humanity owns some 95 percent of the world's wealth , while the bottom 80 percent has to make do with
just 5 percent. This 20-80 divide of global society into haves and the have-nots is the new global social
apartheid. It is evident not just between rich and poor countries, but within each country, North and South,
with the rise of new affluent high-consumption sectors alongside the downward mobility, "precariatization," destabilization and
expulsion of majorities. Escalating inequalities fuel capitalism's chronic problem of over-accumulation: The transnational capitalist
class cannot find productive outlets to unload the enormous amounts of surplus it has accumulated,
leading to stagnation in the world economy. The signs of an impending depression are everywhere. The
front page of the February 20 issue of The Economist read, "The World Economy: Out of Ammo?" Extreme levels of social polarization present a
challenge to dominant groups. They strive to purchase the loyalty of that 20 percent, while at the same time dividing
the 80 percent, co-opting some into a hegemonic bloc and repressing the rest. Alongside the spread of frightening
new systems of social control and repression is heightened dissemination through the culture industries and
corporate marketing strategies that depoliticize through consumerist fantasies and the manipulation of desire. As
"Trumpism" in the United States so well illustrates, another strategy of co-optation is the manipulation of
fear and insecurity among the downwardly mobile so that social anxiety is channeled toward scapegoated
communities. This psychosocial mechanism of displacing mass anxieties is not new, but it appears to be increasing
around the world in the face of the structural destabilization of capitalist globalization. Scapegoated
communities are under siege, such as the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Muslim minority in India, the Kurds in Turkey,
southern African immigrants in South Africa, and Syrian and Iraqi refugees and other immigrants in Europe. As with its 20th
century predecessor, 21st century fascism hinges on such manipulation of social anxiety at a time of acute capitalist
crisis. Extreme inequality requires extreme violence and repression that lend to projects of 21st century
fascism. 2) The system is fast reaching the ecological limits to its reproduction. We have reached several tipping
points in what environmental scientists refer to as nine crucial "planetary boundaries." We have already exceeded these
boundaries in three areas -- climate change, the nitrogen cycle and diversity loss. There have been five previous mass
extinctions in earth's history. While all these were due to natural causes, for the first time ever, human conduct is intersecting with and
fundamentally altering the earth system. We have entered what Paul Crutzen, the Dutch environmental scientist and Nobel
Prize winner, termed the Anthropocene -- a new age in which humans have transformed up to half of the world's
surface. We are altering the composition of the atmosphere and acidifying the oceans at a rate that
undermines the conditions for life. The ecological dimensions of global crisis cannot be understated. "We are deciding, without
quite meaning to, which evolutionary pathways will remain open and which will forever be closed," observes Elizabeth Kolbert in her best
seller, The Sixth Extinction. "No other creature has ever managed this ... The Sixth Extinction will continue to
determine the course of life long after everything people have written and painted and built has been ground
into dust." Capitalism cannot be held solely responsible. The human-nature contradiction has deep roots in civilization itself. The ancient
Sumerian empires, for example, collapsed after the population over-salinated their crop soil. The Mayan city-state network collapsed about AD
900 due to deforestation. And the former Soviet Union wrecked havoc on the environment. However, given
capital's implacable impulse
to accumulate profit and its accelerated commodification of nature, it is difficult to imagine that the environmental
catastrophe can be resolved within the capitalist system . "Green capitalism" appears as an oxymoron, as
sadistic capitalism's attempt to turn the ecological crisis into a profit-making opportunity, along with the conversion of
poverty into a tourist attraction. 3) The sheer magnitude of the means of violence is unprecedented, as is the
concentrated control over the means of global communications and the production and circulation of knowledge,
symbols and images. We have seen the spread of frightening new systems of social control and repression that have brought
us into the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought control. This real-life Orwellian world is in a
sense more perturbing than that described by George Orwell in his iconic novel 1984. In that fictional world, people were compelled to give
their obedience to the state ("Big Brother") in exchange for a quiet existence with guarantees of employment, housing and other social
necessities. Now, however, the corporate and political powers that be force
obedience even as the means of survival
are denied to the vast majority. Global apartheid involves the creation of "green zones" that are cordoned off in each
locale around the world where elites are insulated through new systems of spatial reorganization, social control and policing.
"Green zone" refers to the nearly impenetrable area in central Baghdad that US occupation forces established in the wake of the 2003 invasion
of Iraq. The command center of the occupation and select Iraqi elite inside that green zone were protected from the violence and chaos that
engulfed the country. Urban
areas around the world are now green zoned through gentrification, gated
communities, surveillance systems, and state and private violence. Inside the world's green zones, privileged strata avail
themselves of privatized social services, consumption and entertainment. They can work and communicate through internet
and satellite sealed off under the protection of armies of soldiers, police and private security forces. Green zoning takes on distinct forms in
each locality. In Palestine, I witnessed such zoning in the form of Israeli military checkpoints, Jewish settler-only roads and the apartheid wall.
In Mexico City, the most exclusive residential areas in the upscale Santa Fe District are accessible only by
helicopter and private gated roads. In Johannesburg, a surreal drive through the exclusive Sandton City area reveals
rows of mansions that appear as military compounds, with private armed towers and electrical and barbed-wire fences. In
Cairo, I toured satellite cities ringing the impoverished center and inner suburbs where the country's elite could live
out their aspirations and fantasies. They sport gated residential complexes with spotless green lawns, private leisure and shopping
centers and English-language international schools under the protection of military checkpoints and private security police. In other cities,
green zoning is subtler but no less effective. In
Los Angeles, where I live, the freeway system now has an express lane
reserved for those that can pay an exorbitant toll. On this lane, the privileged speed by, while the rest remain one
lane over, stuck in the city's notorious bumper-to-bumper traffic -- or even worse, in notoriously underfunded and
underdeveloped public transportation, where it may take half a day to get to and from work. There is no barrier separating this express lane
from the others. However, a near-invisible closed surveillance system monitors every movement. If
a vehicle without authorization
shifts into the exclusive lane, it is instantly recorded by this surveillance system and a heavy fine is
imposed on the driver, under threat of impoundment, while freeway police patrols are ubiquitous. Outside of the global
green zones, warfare and police containment have become normalized and sanitized for those not directly at the
receiving end of armed aggression. "Militainment" -- portraying and even glamorizing war and violence as
entertaining spectacles through Hollywood films and television police shows, computer games and corporate "news"
channels -- may be the epitome of sadistic capitalism . It desensitizes, bringing about complacency and indifference. In
between the green zones and outright warfare are prison industrial complexes, immigrant and refugee
repression and control systems, the criminalization of outcast communities and capitalist schooling. The omnipresent
media and cultural apparatuses of the corporate economy, in particular, aim to colonize the mind -- to
undermine the ability to think critically and outside the dominant worldview. A neofascist culture emerges
through militarism, extreme masculinization, racism and racist mobilizations against scapegoats. 4) We are
reaching limits to the extensive expansion of capitalism. Capitalism is like riding a bicycle: When you stop pedaling the bicycle, you fall over. If
the capitalist system stops expanding outward, it enters crisis and faces collapse. In each earlier structural crisis, the system went
through a new round of extensive expansion -- from waves of colonial conquest in earlier centuries, to the integration in the late 20th and early
21st centuries of the former socialist countries, China, India and other areas that had been marginally outside the system. There
are no
longer any new territories to integrate into world capitalism. Meanwhile, the privatization of education, health
care, utilities, basic services and public land are turning those spaces in global society that were outside of capital's control
into "spaces of capital." Even poverty has been turned into a commodity. What is there left to commodify? Where can the
system now expand? With the limits to expansion comes a turn toward militarized accumulation -- making
wars of endless destruction and reconstruction and expanding the militarization of social and political institutions so as to
continue to generate new opportunities for accumulation in the face of stagnation . 5) There is the rise of a
vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet of slums," alienated from the productive economy, thrown into the
margins and subject to these sophisticated systems of social control and destruction. Global capitalism has no
direct use for surplus humanity. But indirectly, it holds wages down everywhere and makes new systems of 21st
century slavery possible. These systems include prison labor, the forced recruitment of miners at gunpoint by
warlords contracted by global corporations to dig up valuable minerals in the Congo, sweatshops and exploited
immigrant communities (including the rising tide of immigrant female caregivers for affluent populations). Furthermore, the global
working class is experiencing accelerated "precariatization." The "new precariat" refers to the proletariat that
faces capital under today's unstable and precarious labor relations -- informalization, casualization, part-time, temp, immigrant
and contract labor. As communities are uprooted everywhere, there is a rising reserve army of immigrant labor. The
global working class is becoming divided into citizen and immigrant workers. The latter are particularly attractive to transnational capital, as the
lack of citizenship rights makes them particularly vulnerable, and therefore, exploitable. The
challenge for dominant groups is
how to contain the real and potential rebellion of surplus humanity, the immigrant workforce and the
precariat. How can they contain the explosive contradictions of this system? The 21st century megacities become the
battlegrounds between mass resistance movements and the new systems of mass repression. Some populations in
these cities (and also in abandoned countryside) are at risk of genocide, such as those in Gaza, zones in Somalia and
Congo, and swaths of Iraq and Syria. 6) There is a disjuncture between a globalizing economy and a nation-state-based system of
political authority. Transnational state apparatuses are incipient and do not wield enough power and authority to organize
and stabilize the system, much less to impose regulations on runaway transnational capital. In the wake of the
2008 financial collapse, for instance, the governments of the G-8 and G-20 were unable to impose transnational
regulation on the global financial system, despite a series of emergency summits to discuss such regulation. Elites
historically have attempted to resolve the problems of over-accumulation by state policies that can regulate the
anarchy of the market. However, in recent decades, transnational capital has broken free from the constraints
imposed by the nation-state. The more "enlightened" elite representatives of the transnational capitalist class are now
clamoring for transnational mechanisms of regulation that would allow the global ruling class to reign in the anarchy of the
system in the interests of saving global capitalism from itself and from radical challenges from below. At the same time, the
division of the world into some 200 competing nation-states is not the most propitious of circumstances for the global working class. Victories
in popular struggles from below in any one country or region can (and often do) become diverted and even undone by the structural power of
transnational capital and the direct political and military domination that this structural power affords the dominant groups. In Greece, for
instance, the leftist Syriza party came to power in 2015 on the heels of militant worker struggles and a mass uprising. But the party abandoned
its radical program as a result of the enormous pressure exerted on it from the European Central Bank and private international creditors. The
Systemic Critique of Global Capitalism A growing number of transnational elites themselves now recognize that any resolution to the global
crisis must involve redistribution downward of income. However, in the viewpoint of those from below, a neo-Keynesian redistribution
within the prevailing corporate power structure is not enough. What is required is a redistribution of power
downward and transformation toward a system in which social need trumps private profit. A global rebellion
against the transnational capitalist class has spread since the financial collapse of 2008. Wherever one looks, there is
popular, grassroots and leftist struggle, and the rise of new cultures of resistance: the Arab Spring; the
resurgence of leftist politics in Greece, Spain and elsewhere in Europe; the tenacious resistance of Mexican social
movements following the Ayotzinapa massacre of 2014; the favela uprising in Brazil against the government's World Cup and
Olympic expulsion policies; the student strikes in Chile ; the remarkable surge in the Chinese workers' movement ; the shack
dwellers and other poor people's campaigns in South Africa; Occupy Wall Street, the immigrant rights
movement, Black Lives Matter, fast food workers' struggle and the mobilization around the Bernie Sanders
presidential campaign in the United States. This global revolt is spread unevenly and faces many challenges. A number of these struggles,
moreover, have suffered setbacks, such as the Greek working-class movement and, tragically, the Arab Spring. What type of a transformation is
viable, and how do we achieve it? How we interpret the global crisis is itself a matter of vital importance as politics polarize worldwide between
a neofascist and a popular response. The
systemic critique of global capitalism must strive to influence, from this
vantage point, the
discourse and practice of movements for a more just distribution of wealth and power. Our
survival may depend on it.

Degrowth ideology misdiagnoses the root of social ills---trades off with socializing political
and economic power to mobilize anti-capitalist resistance---turns case
GÜNey IŞIkara, 1-5-20, Clinical Assistant Professor in Liberal Studies at New York University. "Is
Degrowth an Alternative to Capitalism?," Developing Economics,
https://developingeconomics.org/2020/01/05/is-degrowth-an-alternative-to-capitalism/

We have to be careful when setting the principles of the problem: capitalism

is a mode of production that is primarily
driven not by growth, but competition for profit where individual capitals are compelled to cut costs and increase scale.
Growth is an outcome, not the motive of this process. And it has nothing to do with morals or personal
intentions of capitalists who direct resources so as to make the highest possible profits and stay competitive.

When Kallis writes that “growth

is a particular need of capitalism – a system that requires a compounding of
profits” (p.36), he seems to be well aware of the systemic nature of this problem. Yet he keeps diverting to
culture as the primary realm of struggle. In fact, the degrowth literature at large swings like a pendulum
between these two takes: at times it focuses on structural limits pertaining to capitalism (that in fact
make degrowth impossible), and at other times, it retreats to a moral critique.
The distinction between boundary (or, limit – Grenze) and barrier (Schranke) found in Marx’s Grundrisse and Capital is illuminating in this
context. In the process of its expansion, capital turns every boundary into a barrier, an obstacle to be surmounted. This has two corollaries.
 capitalist growth cannot be questioned without challenging capitalism itself. Steady-state or degrowing
First,
capitalism is an oxymoron. Second, degrowth is not a substitute for capitalism, but rather a framework
that aims to overturn only one constitutive element of the system.  

The logical implication of advocating for an economic system that dispenses with the profit motive and
accumulation, and puts instead well-being and use values to the center is to challenge the capitalist market economy .
Only under social ownership of the means of production can we extend democracy to the realm where
resources are allocated and limits are defined , what Kallis perceives as ‘real democracy’. Yet the degrowth
literature at large becomes timid before the task of confronting capitalism as a mode of production,
instead it continuously problematizes its symptoms.

The final chapter of Limits discusses the limits of the book’s approach. Here, Kallis notes that self-limitationcannot be
conceptualized as a narrow project of individual or small-group change – it must be a universal political
ambition. As such, it requires the involvement of “the working class and all those who live within limits that are not of their own choosing”
(p.102). 

This is a crucial point since the question of the subject haunts one’s mind while reading the book. Who is to be addressed? Who could
challenge the relentless expansion of capital and thereby the capitalist system in its totality? Workers and
capitalists have different perceptions of their selves, have different tools and powers at their disposal, and employ substantially different
capacities when it comes to defining limits. And, above all, they have different interests!

Recognizing this fissure means to admit the contentious nature of the matter, and undermines the idea of the limitation of a universal self. If we
take carbon emissions as an example, it
is absurd to talk about the capacity for and necessity of self-limitation for
a considerable portion of the global population who barely consume and emit anything. From this viewpoint,
it is not a matter of collective self-limitation, but primarily the dethroning and limitation of those with
political and economic power. Hence, an undifferentiated, abstract ‘we’ cannot assume the role of the
subject of this change, but the exploited and oppressed. A radical change in the human-environment
relationship is not likely to occur without a concurrent change in the human-human relationship.

A final word on degrowth itself: I totally agree that questioning

capitalist growth is vital today to expose its destructive
character as well as the fact that it comes at the expense of working people’s living standards . Moreover, a
planned and coordinated degrowth of energy consumption (and output) in advanced countries in the short-to-medium-term is necessary at
least to avoid runaway climate change. Yet, this is not to say that degrowth should be applied to all spheres of the economy as well as all social
classes even in advanced countries. An
increase in the living standards of the poor and working classes through
expanded provision and decommodification of essential goods and services is the best way for political
mobilization to beat back the expansion of capital in the immediate short-run.

We need not lock ourselves into the false dichotomy of ‘growth vs. degrowth’ where subjectivities, and
the social and material content are barely perceptible. Once degrowth is institutionalized, it can easily
become as socially blind as capitalist growth. Kallis himself seems to sense this when he, inspired by Le Guin’s The
Dispossessed, mentions the risk associated with permanently renewing an initial commitment (p.112).

Hence, what is at stake is not replacing the straitjacket of growth (of capital) with that of degrowth, but
abolishing the social relation of capital, turning the issues of “growth/degrowth of what?”, “at what
cost?”, “under which circumstances?” into political questions. Avoiding ecological collapse is more
closely linked to the emancipation of the working classes than it appears.
 2NC Extensions

Green Cap can’t save us, only a revolution can avoid extinction
Trotskyist Fraction ’19 Trotskyist Fraction, 9/15/2019, "Capitalism Is Destroying the Planet—Let’s Destroy Capitalism!," Left Voice,
https://www.leftvoice.org/capitalism-is-destroying-the-planet-lets-destroy-capitalism/ The Trotskyist Fraction – Fourth International is a
political international of Trotskyist political organizations that claim to adhere to the political legacy of the Fourth International. It was formed
by groups which arose as the "Internationalist Bolshevik Faction" within the International Workers League in 1989

Capitalism has prospered for centuries by exploiting nature, either as an “inexhaustible” supply of resources to produce commodities, or as a
waste dump. But the earth’s ability to endure the destructive processes of capital is reaching its limit.
Capital’s need for constant growth has led to the interruption of a complex natural cycle that took millions of years to develop. This has created
a rift in the “metabolism” (to borrow Marx’s term) between society and nature.

Climate change and the crises of the biological cycles of carbon, water, phosphorus and nitrogen; the acidification of the oceans; the
accelerated loss of biodiversity; the changes in the quality of soil and chemical pollution by industry—these are some of the terrible expressions
of a completely unprecedented situation for humanity, namely the tendency toward the destruction of our natural conditions for production
and reproduction. This destructive tendency is directly related to the social and material deprivation of hundreds of millions of people who
suffer misery, unemployment and precarious employment, which capitalism needs to ensure its profitability and reproduction.

The barbarism represented by the recent fires in the Amazon—which were the product of incentives for
deforestation (and which were intensified by Brazil’s right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro), the relaxation of environmental
laws and the direct action of large landowners and ranchers who started the fires—is just another episode in the continual
process of environmental degradation and destruction. The phenomenon of uncontrolled forest fires is growing more
frequent, as shown by the fires ravaging Siberia and sub-Saharan Africa (which are more numerous, though less destructive than those in the
Amazon), as well as the fires in California last autumn and in many regions of Europe. Climate change and the thirst for profit are intensifying
them.

There is a broad scientific consensus that climate change is related to the dizzying increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as a result of
human activity. But the problem is not human activity in general. The problem is the activities carried out
within a capitalist mode of production. Since 1880, the average temperature on the earth’s surface has risen by almost 1 degree
Celsius, according to different investigative bodies. An increase in the global average temperature began during the
Industrial Revolution and has accelerated in the neoliberal era.
Projections by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) indicate that the average global surface temperature could increase by 2
to 5 degrees Celsius (3.6 and 9 degrees Fahrenheit) in the coming decades. Ocean levels could rise by 18 to 59 centimeters (7 to 23 inches). The
IPCC warns that past and future emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) will continue to contribute to warming for more than a millennium. At the
same time, CO2 particles in the atmosphere recently exceeded 400 parts for million (ppm), and may even reach 500 ppm in the coming
decades, levels never seen in human history.

According to the latest report by this UN agency (whose estimates are usually very conservative compared to other studies), emissions of
greenhouse gases would have to be reduced by 45% by the year 2030—in less than 11 years—in order to avoid hitting the critical threshold of
1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. Above this level, there will be a generalized increase in ocean levels, extreme weather events and food
shortages. The need for drastic measures against climate change is undeniable.

For many people, these estimates may seem abstract. But they become concrete when their real consequences are felt, in the form of the
stronger climate-related catastrophic phenomena, with increased duration and frequency. Uncontrollable fires sweeping through entire cities
around the globe (which is also associated with the spread of invasive species and forest management practices devoted to monoculture for
profit), extreme heat waves, massive floods or catastrophic droughts. According to the UN, there are currently more than 20 million climate
refugees. If the global temperature rises to more than 2 degrees, it is estimated that this number will grow to 280 million. Air pollution caused
by vehicles (gases and particles) and industrial production in large cities kills 9 million people a year—800,000 in Europe alone.

Global warming is one of the most devastating expressions of the destructive nature of the capitalist
system toward the environment. But it is not the only one. Capitalism also leads to the pollution of our air and
water, soil degradation, deforestation, and the destruction of biodiversity . According to one study, the size of
vertebrate populations has decreased by an average of 60 percent between 1970 and 2014. This trend will accelerate if the ecological crisis is
not halted, and could produce a mass extinction of the planet’s biodiversity .
The entire planet has been transformed into a
giant garbage dump for the household, industrial and agricultural waste generated by capitalist
production, distribution and consumption patterns .
Faced with the catastrophic scenario that global warming entails, the powers of international capitalism waver between two strategies: On the
one hand, there is a campaign to deny scientific evidence as a supposed ideology; on the other, there is a strategy to promote “green” or
“sustainable” capitalism. Green
capitalism defends farcical international agreements and proposes partial and
limited changes to productive systems, while strengthening the model of capitalist accumulation and
exploitation.
Among the climate denialists are Trump, the Republican Party and the Tea Party in the United States, Bolsonaro in Brazil, and a small minority
of scientists. But its driving force is the multinational corporations that bear the greatest responsibility for emitting greenhouse gases that cause
climate change. Yet while they are sponsoring climate denial campaigns, these large capitalist corporations are completely aware of the
consequences of climate change and its socio-political effects, and they are preparing to respond to its implications in the fields of security and
foreign policy. The most concentrated sectors of capital are proposing militarization as an instrument to adapt to climate change: more private
armies and security forces that will eventually be able to defend the islands of prosperity in oceans of misery and decay.

green capitalism, promoted by the U.S. Democratic Party, political leaders of the main European countries including
On the other side is
Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Pedro Sánchez, and various green parties. This list includes
many booming capitalist
corporations, international organizations and even environmental NGOs . This is an exercise in synergy between
neoliberalism and the “green economy.” They speak out against global warming and agree, in expensive climate summits, on environmental
measures and big targets for emission reduction. In all cases, these have been nothing more than diplomatic documents without practical
implications.

At the same time, they talk about fixing the environment. This would include limiting the production of toxic substances and the destruction of
natural resources, while simultaneously developing new “gentle” technologies. They argue that this would be a new source of economic
growth, since the capitalist corporations would extract hefty profits.

The Green Party in Germany, for example, proposes “saving the German economy” with measures for an ecological transition, while supporting
the militarization of German imperialism (they called for intervention in the conflict with Iran under European leadership). This is a policy of
“green imperialism” to solve the crisis of German capitalism.

One of the most recent measures of this kind, pushed forward by the Merkel government and the Green Party in Germany, but increasingly
adopted by other governments and environmental groups, seeks to implement a tax on CO2 emissions . This
would tax consumption of meat, gasoline and flights to finance the ecological transition of industry. This kind of tax would
lead to a rise
in prices and weaken the purchasing power of the working class, but it would not have a serious effect
on emissions. In short, the neoliberal strategy of green capitalism ends up being a sort of light denialism.
Capitalism’s very essence is the expansion of profit and accumulation at any cost, even if this includes the material destruction of the planet. As
China and the United States, together with the European Union, are producing most of the greenhouse gases that are annihilating the
troposphere, and the capitalists waver between denial and powerless summits to manage the environmental crisis, the rest of the world
continues to suffer the effects of climate change.

That is why green capitalism is a pipe dream. It claims to effectively eliminate the causes of the global environmental catastrophe
that threatens us and promote a sustainable development of humanity and the species that populate the planet. But it can do no such thing .
The solution to the global climate crisis cannot emerge from the system that created it.
There are a large number of environmental groups and NGOs in this field, including the IUCN, WWF, and even Greenpeace, that work together
with the evangelists of capitalist ecological efficiency: oil companies like Shell and Exxon, mining corporations like Barrick Gold and huge
behemoths like Walmart, Cargill and Monsanto. In this way, they provide a “green” cover for the plunder of natural resources all over the
planet.

On the spectrum of the defenders of green capitalism, there is a reformist variant that has gained a lot of attention recently: the Green New
Deal, which calls for a program with hints of neo-Keynesianism in order to face the crisis. In the United States, this policy is supported by some
candidates in the primaries of the Democratic Party, including Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and also by the self-styled democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The GND is also appearing in speeches and programs by European social-liberal parties like the PSOE or
neoreformist tendencies like Podemos.
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the GND would allow the U.S. to transition to 100% renewable energy within 10 years, while creating millions of
jobs linked to the construction of an efficient electrical grid throughout the country based on renewable technology, among other measures.
How? By subsidizing billion-dollar corporations, the ones responsible for the current ecological crisis, so they can develop infrastructure to get
us out of it. For this, they are to receive massive subsidies from the state.

The idea behind this perspective is that if the governments of the central industrialized countries in the world and the big multinational corporations become aware
of the situation, they will be able to adopt measures to preserve the environment. Both the Green
New Deal and similar proposals (like the UN
Agenda 2020), which are reference points for many “progressive” forces around the planet, are based on the idea that “ sustainable

capitalism” is possible and that the corporations that created the crisis can become the saviors of the
planet. But the illusion that the contradictions between capitalist interests and environmental preservation
—affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people—can be resolved is utopian and reactionary.

The capitalist mode of production is in total contradiction with nature and its processes of development. For capital, the determining factor in
this process is merely quantitative. Fierce competition forces each capitalist to constantly seek ways to replace workers with machines that
increase the productivity of labor and the mass of goods thrown onto the market. This increases the amount of natural resources needed to
produce them. The constant repetition of production and reproduction of capital ruthlessly eats up all resources, without taking into account
the time required for their natural production and regeneration.

The cause of this type of environmentally destructive development, rather than capitalist irrationality, is its inherent logic. It is the logical result
of an economic system whose engine is the capitalists’ thirst for profit.

On August 20, 2018, the young Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg stood in front of the Swedish parliament with a banner that read:
“School Strike for Climate.” This action inspired the movement “Fridays for Future” in European cities. Students skip classes and demonstrate
against the global environmental crisis under the slogan “There Is No Planet B.” This has gained more and more supporters, mobilizing
hundreds of thousands in hundreds of cities across the continent.

Other ecological movements have also developed, including “Ende Gelände” in Germany and “Extinction Rebellion” in the United Kingdom.
They have similar demands but different methods of struggle.

The first global climate strike was called for March 15. Hundreds of thousands of young people took to the streets in different cities around the
world as part of a student strike against climate change. In Madrid, Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Rome and other cities in Europe and the world, the
demonstrations were massive. On May 24, there was a new global call for a student strike, which mobilized millions. A new Global Climate
Strike will take place on September 20 and 27, with calls for the citizenry and other social organizations to join.

The organizers are demanding that governments declare a climate emergency and adopt urgent measures to stop an environmental crisis that
“is the result of a model of production and consumption that has proven to be inadequate for satisfying the needs of many people, that puts
our survival at risk, and unfairly impacts the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world.”

These measures include reducing net greenhouse emissions to zero and preventing global temperatures from rising above 1.5 degrees Celsius.
To this end, they propose actions aimed at abandoning fossil fuels and substituting them with renewable energies, actions such as blocking the
construction of new fossil fuel infrastructure, implementing a nonnuclear energy model and the reorganizing the production system.

These movements also point out the relationship between growing social inequality and the degradation of the environment. They propose
that the transition to an “eco-sustainable model” has to take into account the inequalities produced according to social class, sex, national
origin, etc. In the framework of this transition, they call for different areas of production, including energy, transport and food, to be
democratized and put under the control of citizen bodies.

The fact that young people are mobilizing against the barbarity of environmental destruction is enormously promising. In addition, the use of
strikes to make their demands heard, and the call on all organizations of civil society to join, is an innovation that has not been done before.
This gives more strength to the movement.

Faced with the “infernal powers” that capitalism has created, and whose consequences now seem inevitable, the young activists of Fridays for
Future and similar movements are increasingly aware of this reality. Although often in an abstract or indirect way, they name the capitalist
system as the cause of the current crisis.

They still lack, however, a defined program and strategy to overcome it. Their perspective is limited to denunciation. They demand that
capitalist politicians take urgent measures, or they have embraced the proposals of the so-called green parties, but without proposals to move
against the interests (and property) of those who bear the greatest responsibility for the current situation: the big multinational corporations.

Nor do they position themselves against “green” measures that threaten the majority of the working class and the poor masses, such as
consumption taxes. On the contrary, in many countries the movement is demanding the implementation of even higher taxes on CO2 emissions
than the capitalist parties are proposing. This would raise the prices of consumer goods for the majority of the population. In order for the
youth to win the working class for the fight against climate change, they need a program that clearly states that it is the capitalists, and not the
working masses, who must pay for the crisis.

In broad sectors of the movement, the dominant logic is that the key to solving the ecological crisis is changes in individual consumption,
focusing their attention on “irresponsible consumption.” Obviously, capitalist production, which generates consumption cycles that span the
globe, molds “consumers.” In this way, individual human behavior contributes to the ecological crisis, and it is desirable to encourage new
forms of consumption by creating environmental consciousness.

Yet changing individual behavior often has only a negligible effect on capitalism’s environmental consequences. Its effect is, moreover, highly
unequal. An Oxfam report from 2015 showed that the richest 10% of the planet causes half of CO2 emissions, while the poorest 50% (3.5 billion
people) is responsible for only 10%.

The logic of focusing the environmental movement on changes in individual behavior implies two strategic problems. First, it encourages an
individualist conception, blurring or directly obscuring the “center of gravity” that needs to be attacked, namely imperialist capitalism, the big
corporations and the capitalist states. Second, it strengthens the reactionary argument that “the people are responsible for the crisis,” which
leads to measures that force the working class and the poorest sectors of society to pay for the environmental crisis. This argument preserves
the system and benefits the capitalists, and it prevents the one social force that could confront capitalism from joining the struggle.

One of the lessons provided by the Yellow Vest movement in France—an immense social movement triggered by an increase in the gasoline tax
—is that the “ecological transition” cannot fall on the shoulders of the working class and poor masses. In the context of the ecological crisis, the
central problem is not the “division” between those who pollute and those who do not, but rather between the social majority that is already
paying the costs of the crisis and the capitalists that caused it.

The only way to confront the global environmental crisis caused by capitalism is for the majority of the population to join the struggle, with the
working class at the forefront. This is because the contradiction between capital and labor is not just one of capitalism’s many contradictions; it
is the contradiction that structures capitalism itself. If the relationship between society and nature is mediated by production, it is only by
revolutionizing production that the metabolism with nature can be rationally regulated. That is why the working class, which is the only
authentically productive class in society, can knit together a social alliance that can pull the “emergency break” on the coming disaster.

There are important examples of unity between the environmental movement and sectors of the working class. That was the case with the
Harland and Wolff shipyard in Ireland, where the Titanic was built. That shipyard was declared bankrupt, but the workers took over the plant
demanding its nationalization in order to produce clean energy. There have also been calls by workers for the unions to call a climate strike, for
example, in Portugal, Germany and Spain.

These initiatives are extremely important. In an intuitive yet correct way, they point to the “social subject” that can hegemonize the struggle for
an alternative to environmental destruction: the working class.

The need for the working class to join this movement with its own demands and its own methods of struggle (strikes, blockades and pickets) is
vital for developing the movement. It is necessary to help break down the prejudices that exist in wide sectors of the working class about the
environmental movement—prejudices often justified by policies supposedly in “defense of the environment” that attack the working class,
equating it with the polluting bosses and worsening its living conditions.

Above all, it is necessary to confront the reactionary role played by the majority of the bureaucratized trade unions. Especially in the sectors of
heavy industry and energy, the union bureaucracies act as the capitalists’ best partners. Many times they oppose any measures for ecological
transition, however superficial they may be, under the slogan of “saving jobs.” What they are really saving is the capitalists’ profits, tying the
destiny of the working class to the success of the bosses.

Facing the Climate Strike, the unions in Europe and the United States mostly oppose it—or in some cases, such as in Germany, they support it
demagogically while refusing to organize any actions that would supposedly be “illegal.” That is why, alongside the broadest self-organization of
the youth, it is necessary to denounce the reactionary positions of the bureaucratic unions, which for decades have ignored or played down
ecological problems. We must demand that they call a strike and put their organizations in the service of the struggle against the capitalists
responsible for the looming catastrophe that threatens us all.

The declaration in Germany by a group of rank-and-file trade union activists called ver.di aktiv (which is supported by RIO, the Revolutionary
Internationalist Organization) has received more than 500 signatures from trade unionists across the country and from different sectors. It
demands that the large trade unions call for a strike. This is a small but significant expression of that policy.

Faced with capitalism’s absolutely irrational perspective, the need for drastic and urgent measures is
evident. But these cannot depend on the good will of the governments of the imperialist powers that
are principally responsible for the current disaster. Nor can they depend on the new agendas promoted
by big corporations and bourgeois parties in the name of “green capitalism.”
The only solution to the catastrophe that threatens us is to take the present and the future into our hands by subjecting the world economy to
This will only be possible
a rational plan. Or, as Marx said, through “the introduction of reason into the sphere of economic relations.”
if the economy is in the hands of the only class that, as a result of its objective situation and material
interests, has an interest in preventing a catastrophe: the working class.

Capitalism exacerbates climate change- extinction becomes inevitable under the system
Marx ’20 Paris Marx, 10-19-2020, "Only Class War Can Stop Climate Change," Jacobin, https://jacobinmag.com/2020/10/class-war-climate-
change-overpopulation-carbon Paris Marx is a socialist writer and host of the Tech Won't Save Us podcast.

As fires rage in California, the permafrost melts in Siberia, heat waves strike Europe, and hurricanes and typhoons grow ever stronger , there
is an urgent need for ambitious climate action. The question is what it will look like, and who will bear the burden of a
transition to a more sustainable world.

For several decades now, the dominant environmental messaging to the public has been about individual
action. We were told that to solve the climate crisis, we needed to change our light bulbs, switch to energy-efficient appliances, buy hybrid or
electric vehicles, better insulate our homes, stop using plastic bags, and alter our personal consumption in other ways.

These things are undoubtedly positive changes, but they are not
enough to address the scale of the crisis we face, and
they can lead to perverse conclusions about where the blame for the climate crisis truly lies.
There is a growing argument that one of the driving forces of the climate crisis is the global population. The world is overpopulated, these
people say, and that is why emissions are so high. This view is most commonly expressed by eco-fascists, who believe a genocide is needed to
reduce the human population. But overpopulation has also been cited by leading liberal figures such as primatologist Jane Goodall and
naturalist Sir David Attenborough, helping to fuel misleading and troubling conclusions about what is fueling climate change.

While focusing on personal consumption places the responsibility on all of us somewhat equally, focusing on population growth shifts the
blame to countries in Africa and Asia where populations have continued growing in recent decades. Yet these people have among the lowest
carbon footprints in the world, and when we look at which jurisdictions have emitted the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet, the
answer is definitive: the United States and Europe.

But even blaming it wholly on Americans and Europeans is missing the bigger picture. A new Oxfam report finds that the richest 1
percent of people alone are responsible for double the emissions of the poorest 50 percent of the global
population. That means that even if the working class of the Global North took all the individual actions that are recommended or we
forced poor people in the Global South to stop having kids, that still wouldn’t solve the problem

Our remaining carbon budget is being sacrificed so the global elite can keep their lavish lifestyles, while
they take private jets to climate conferences so they can give the impression they care . Virgin founder Richard
Branson has been a leader in this billionaire greenwashing, making climate pledges he didn’t follow through on while expanding his airline
business. Similarly, Elon Musk claims to care about the climate to sell more automobiles, while criticizing public transit and trying to stop high-
speed rail projects.

But maybe the most prominent of these billionaires who greenwash their unsustainable activities is Jeff
Bezos. Earlier this year, the Amazon CEO was lauded in the press for his $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund —
he even bought the rights to rename a Seattle stadium after his climate pledge! But no grants have yet
been issued from the fund, while Amazon continues to help oil and gas companies more efficiently
extract fossil fuels.

These billionaires assert that capitalism can solve the climate crisis, and their investments are helping to
create a new form of “green capitalism” that will reduce emissions and usher in a sustainable future. Governments are
also falling for this myth and putting it at the center of their pandemic recovery plans.
In July, the British government announced a £350 million recovery plan to put the country at the forefront of “green innovation” — a drop in
the ocean of the investment needed. Predictably, it included no suggestion of taking on the emissions of the wealthy by reducing their wealth,
banning private jets, or winding down the polluting industries from which they profit.

Meanwhile, in the United States, President Donald Trump doesn’t have a climate plan, but even Joe Biden focuses on renewables and electric
cars, while promising new highways with charging stations and refusing to ban fracking. To their north, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent
throne speech promised to make climate action a “cornerstone” of Canada’s pandemic recovery, while centering on electric vehicles, mining
more components for them, and investing more in hydropower. He was silent on the environmental impacts of those initiatives.

Green capitalism will never facilitate the scale of action that is necessary to keep warming below
1.5ºC or even 2ºC because it refuses to take on the powerful people and industries that are fueling the
climate crisis in the first place. It continues to ensure the benefits flow to the top while hollowing out the middle class and
producing climate narratives that shift the burden of responsibility onto those who have little power to make the necessary changes: the public,
if not the global poor.

The kind of climate action we need requires taking on the wealthy and organizing around a vision for a
different kind of society. That means not just making the rich pay higher taxes, but actively dismantling the economic structures that
facilitate their wealth accumulation, treat the planet as an unlimited bounty of free raw materials, and generate all the emissions warming the
planet.

Either we take on capitalism and its victors, or we’ll be unable to stop runaway climate change , help the
climate refugees it will create, or stop the eco-fascist myth of overpopulation that will surge as a result. Our choice is socialism or barbarism, as
Rosa Luxemburg once said. Green capitalism won’t save us.

Climate change interventions and environmental protections are hindered by capitalism—

only by dismantling the 1% will there be meaningful change.
Paris Marx 20 (“Only Class War Can Stop Climate Change,” October 19th, 2020, Paris Marx is a socialist writer and host of the Tech
Won't Save Us podcast, https://jacobinmag.com/2020/10/class-war-climate-change-overpopulation-carbon)

A new report shows that the

world’s top 1 percent is responsible for double the emissions of the entire bottom
half of the planet. The message is clear: to fight climate change, we have to fight the ruling class. As fires rage in
California, the permafrost melts in Siberia, heat waves strike Europe, and hurricanes and typhoons grow ever stronger, there is an urgent need for ambitious climate
action. The question is what it will look like, and who will bear the burden of a transition to a more sustainable world. For
several decades now, the
dominant environmental messaging to the public has been about individual action[s]. We were told that to solve
the climate crisis, we needed to change our light bulbs, switch to energy-efficient appliances, buy hybrid or electric vehicles, better insulate our homes, stop using
plastic bags, and alter our personal consumption in other ways. These
things are undoubtedly positive changes, but they are
not enough to address the scale of the crisis we face, and they can lead to perverse conclusions about
where the blame for the climate crisis truly lies. There is a growing argument that one of the driving forces of the climate crisis is the
global population. The world is overpopulated, these people say, and that is why emissions are so high. This view is most commonly expressed by eco-fascists, who
believe a genocide is needed to reduce the human population. But overpopulation has also been cited by leading liberal figures such as primatologist Jane Goodall
and naturalist Sir David Attenborough, helping to fuel misleading and troubling conclusions about what is fueling climate change. While
focusing on
personal consumption places the responsibility on all of us somewhat equally, focusing on population
growth shifts the blame to countries in Africa and Asia where populations have continued growing in
recent decades. Yet these people have among the lowest carbon footprints in the world, and when we
look at which jurisdictions have emitted the greenhouse gases that are warming the planet, the answer
is definitive: the United States and Europe. But even blaming it wholly on Americans and Europeans is missing the bigger picture. A new
Oxfam report finds that the richest 1 percent of people alone are responsible for double the emissions of the

poorest 50 percent of the global population. That means that even if the working class of the Global North took all the individual actions
that are recommended or we forced poor people in the Global South to stop having kids, that still wouldn’t solve the problem. Our remaining carbon

budget is being sacrificed so the global elite can keep their lavish lifestyles , while they take private jets
to climate conferences so they can give the impression they care . Virgin founder Richard Branson has been a leader in this
billionaire greenwashing, making climate pledges he didn’t follow through on while expanding his airline business. Similarly, Elon Musk claims to care about the
climate to sell more automobiles, while criticizing public transit and trying to stop high-speed rail projects. But maybe the most prominent of these billionaires who
greenwash their unsustainable activities is Jeff Bezos. Earlier this year, the Amazon CEO was lauded in the press for his $10 billion Bezos Earth Fund — he even
bought the rights to rename a Seattle stadium after his climate pledge! But no grants have yet been issued from the fund, while Amazon continues to help oil and
gas companies more efficiently extract fossil fuels. These
billionaires assert that capitalism can solve the climate crisis, and
their investments are helping to create a new form of “green capitalism” that will reduce emissions and
usher in a sustainable future. Governments are also falling for this myth and putting it at the center of their pandemic recovery plans. In July, the
British government announced a £350 million recovery plan to put the country at the forefront of “green innovation” — a drop in the ocean of the investment
needed. Predictably, it included no suggestion of taking on the emissions of the wealthy by reducing their wealth, banning private jets, or winding down the
polluting industries from which they profit. Meanwhile, in the United States, President Donald Trump doesn’t have a climate plan, but even Joe Biden focuses on
renewables and electric cars, while promising new highways with charging stations and refusing to ban fracking. To their north, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s
recent throne speech promised to make climate action a “cornerstone” of Canada’s pandemic recovery, while centering on electric vehicles, mining more
components for them, and investing more in hydropower. He was silent on the environmental impacts of those initiatives. Green capitalism will
never facilitate the scale of action that is necessary to keep warming below 1.5ºC or even 2ºC because it
refuses to take on the powerful people and industries that are fueling the climate crisis in the first
place. It continues to ensure the benefits flow to the top while hollowing out the middle class and
producing climate narratives that shift the burden of responsibility onto those who have little power to
make the necessary changes: the public, if not the global poor. The kind of climate action we need requires taking on the
wealthy and organizing around a vision for a different kind of society. That means not just making the rich pay higher taxes, but actively dismantling

the economic structures that facilitate their wealth accumulation, treat the planet as an unlimited
bounty of free raw materials, and generate all the emissions warming the planet . Either we take on
capitalism and its victors, or we’ll be unable to stop runaway climate change , help the climate refugees
it will create, or stop the eco-fascist myth of overpopulation that will surge as a result . Our choice is socialism or
barbarism, as Rosa Luxemburg once said. Green capitalism won’t save us.

green cap/reforms creates falsehood of change, prevent any meaningful revolutionary

change from occuring
Mueller & Passadakis ‘9 (Tadzio Muller, Political scientist and climate justice activist working at the Rosa Luxemburg
Foundation with a Ph.D. in Sociology, Alexis Passadakis, Climate justice activist, “Green capitalism and the climate: It’s economic growth,
stupid!” Critical Currents no. 6, Contours of Climate Justice, *fc)

It is therefore quite conceivable, though at this point far from certain, that some kind of green
capitalist project (such as the GND)
might indeed be able to temporarily solve the economic and other crises. But what it certainly will not be able to do is to solve
the biocrisis – for it is at heart a project of capitalist renovation, which needs must perpetuate
capitalism’s dynamics, of which Marx wrote, long before the advent of the neo-liberal project that the Green New Deal Group falsely
sees as having caused the climate crisis (GNDG 2008: 2): ‘Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets’ (Marx 1971: 621).
Capital needs, or is, accumulation, and 200 years of actually existing capital accumulation has hitherto
always destroyed the environment. Why is that? Because money only becomes capital (rather than the coins and
bits of paper we have in our pockets to buy stuff in order to satisfy a concrete want, such as hunger) when it is invested in the
production of goods that are then sold in order to achieve a return on the initially invested capital. Or in
short: money – production – more money. This process involves a whole range of inputs and requirements, from
labour to raw materials, from machines to energy. And historically, although the relative resource intensity
of capitalist production might have decreased (that is, the same product can now be made with fewer inputs of raw materials),
in absolute terms, capitalist production has always required more and more and more inputs – wild-eyed
dreams of a capitalist utopia of ‘immaterial’ growth based on services and the ‘digital revolution’
notwithstanding (Guardian, 4 May 2009). Just as the antagonism between labour and capital cannot be solved within a capitalist
framework – it is, after all, the very constituent feature of the capitalist mode of production – the antagonism between capital
and life in relatively stable eco-social systems cannot be solved, because there is a necessary
contradiction between the infinite accumulation of capital, and life on a finite planet . Of course, some
might now respond that this argument , while possibly correct at a very general level of abstraction (in the infamous Marxist ‘last
instance’ – the one that never comes to pass), ignores some very concrete, positive steps that have been taken in the
environmental modernisation of capitalism, which have gone some way towards addressing some
concrete needs and urgencies – for example, concerning climate change. International climate negotiations at the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), however, have precious little to do with the climate,
and everything to do with haggling over percentage points of economic growth. Let us be quite clear on what
global climate change policies have achieved so far. First, ecologically: since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, not only have
total global greenhouse gas emissions increased, so, too, has their rate of increase. 2 In addition, a conference
held in Copenhagen in March 2009 agreed that the pace of global warming was accelerating more rapidly than hitherto predicted in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) worstcase scenarios (Guardian, 12 March 2009). If
progressive supporters of
the protocol now deploy the counterfactual argument that, without the treaty, things would have been
even worse, then this only reveals their utter strategic despair. We do not need counterfactual arguments, but real and
just emissions reductions! Second, politically: rather than address the full range of activities that negatively impact
the climate – say, trade, agriculture and most fundamentally, the ‘fossilistic’ industrial system – the
UNFCCC maintains and reinforces the illegitimate compartmentalisation of ecological concerns into a
separate and toothless regulatory regime, thus insulating other institutions such as the WTO from
scrutiny and critique. In fact, the WTO’s free trade policies, which usually lead to an expansion of
ecologically and socially destructive industrial agriculture and increase the volume of international trade,
have significantly more negative impacts on the climate than the UNFCCC’s policies have positive ones.
To date, the UNFCCC’s political effect appears to be one of legitimating a destructive and unjust economic
and regulatory system by channelling the attention of potentially critical environmental groups into
meaningless negotiations; and projecting the impression that ‘something is being done’ about climate
change, thus blunting the potential for more widespread, mass movements for climate justice to
emerge. Third, economically, which is where things get interesting. In very short: without the UNFCCC, the idea of emissions
trading would almost certainly not have become global ‘best practice’ in official climate politics as
quickly, or as universally (recall that the EU was initially opposed to emissions trading , but was convinced to
accept it by a man who would later receive a Nobel Prize for a slideshow). But given its relative lack of ecological utility, why has the system
become so attractive to so many players? Quite simply because it off ers a brilliant (if partial) short- and medium-term fi x
for the problem of over-accumulated financial capital: the ‘ecological’ consulting fi rm Point Carbon calculates that the
global market for emissions rights will grow from its current almost measly US$ 100 billion to US$ 2,000
billion by the end of this decade. Notwithstanding the uselessness of economic forecasting, particularly in a recession, that is a lot
of potential investment of dubious ecological but of defi nite economic value. There have, however, been two processes in
the last 30 years that have generated ecologically significant emissions reductions. Rather than
government intervention or green modernisation, these have been economic crises, that is, drastic reductions
in economic growth. First, this occurred during the breakdown of the growth-oriented economies of the
Eastern bloc, where a 40 per cent reduction in Soviet GDP coincided with a roughly 40 per cent reduction
in emissions (Harrison 2001: 3; Smith 2007: 22). Second, during the current global economic crisis : citing a report by
the International Energy Agency (IEA), the Financial Times (21 September 2009) writes that ‘CO2 emissions
from burning fossil fuels had undergone “a signifi cant decline ” this year – further than in any year in the
last 40…Falling industrial output is largely responsible for the plunge in CO2 ’. Of course, this is not meant to suggest that an uncontrolled
breakdown in the global economy, with all the social devastation this would wreak, is currently desirable. But it does point to the need
for a collectively managed, just process of degrowth of the global economy; of, particularly in the global
North, shrinking our overdeveloped economies.
Green capitalism causes violence and gentrification
Robinson ’16 (William; 2016; professor of sociology, global studies and Latin American studies at the University of California at Santa
Barbara; Truthout; “Sadistic Capitalism: Six Urgent Matters for Humanity in Global Crisis”; robinson
16http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/35596-sadistic-capitalism-six-urgent-matters-for-humanity-in-global-crisis)

Green capitalism" appears as an oxymoron, as sadistic capitalism's attempt to turn the ecological crisis into
a profit-making opportunity, along with the conversion of poverty into a tourist attraction. 3) The sheer magnitude of the means
of violence is unprecedented, as is the concentrated control over the means of global communications and the
production and circulation of knowledge, symbols and images. We have seen the spread of frightening new systems of social
control and repression that have brought us into the panoptical surveillance society and the age of thought
control. This real-life Orwellian world is in a sense more perturbing than that described by George Orwell in his iconic novel 1984. In that
fictional world, people were compelled to give their obedience to the state ("Big Brother") in exchange for a quiet existence with guarantees of
employment, housing and other social necessities. Now, however, the corporate and political powers that be force obedience
even as the means of survival are denied to the vast majority. Global apartheid involves the creation of "green
zones" that are cordoned off in each locale around the world where elites are insulated through new systems of spatial
reorganization, social control and policing. "Green zone" refers to the nearly impenetrable area in central Baghdad that US occupation
forces established in the wake of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The command center of the occupation and select Iraqi elite inside that green zone
were protected from the violence and chaos that engulfed the country. Urban
areas around the world are now green zoned
through gentrification, gated communities, surveillance systems, and state and private violence. Inside the world's
green zones, privileged strata avail themselves of privatized social services, consumption and entertainment. They can
work and communicate through internet and satellite sealed off under the protection of armies of soldiers, police and private security forces.
Green zoning takes on distinct forms in each locality. In Palestine, I witnessed such zoning in the form of Israeli military checkpoints, Jewish
settler-only roads and the apartheid wall. In
Mexico City, the most exclusive residential areas in the upscale Santa Fe
District are accessible only by helicopter and private gated roads. In Johannesburg, a surreal drive through the
exclusive Sandton City area reveals rows of mansions that appear as military compounds, with private armed
towers and electrical and barbed-wire fences. In Cairo, I toured satellite cities ringing the impoverished center and inner
suburbs where the country's elite could live out their aspirations and fantasies
 Settler Colonism

The AFFs Water Governance expands the Colonial grip of the settler state – reinforces the
water insecurity and control regime
Wilson 21, Nicole J., et al. Canada Research Chair in Arctic Environmental Change and Governance, Assistant Professor"Governing water
insecurity: navigating indigenous water rights and regulatory politics in settler colonial states." Water International (2021): 1-19.//KB

Mirroring the broader water insecurity literature, research about Indigenous peoples has often focused on
the material dimensions of household water insecurity including water access, quantity, quality and
affordability (Goldhar et al., 2013; Medeiros et al., 2017; Wright et al., 2017). As Jepson et al. (2017) note, such framings, while important,
fail to account for the influence of water–society relationships on water insecurity. This includes the complex and diverse ways
that water is accessed, valued and governed as well as the socio-political structures and processes that
shape these relationships (Linton, 2010). Accordingly, uneven power relations in water governance and
politics play a critical role in shaping water insecurity and well-being (Miller et al., 2020). Water insecurity
frameworks must account for the ways that water links Indigenous bodies to settler colonial
infrastructure and governance systems (Latchmore et al., 2018; Mitchell, 2019; Wilson & Inkster, 2018). To achieve this, we
engage with scholarship from the fields of Indigenous water governance and politics as well as critical Indigenous studies. [P]

Scholarship on Indigenous water governance and politics highlights how the expansion of settler colonial
States was, and continues to be, tied to the dispossession of Indigenous peoples through mechanisms
that include policy and law, ideology, and discourses about identity (Curley, 2019b; Daigle, 2018; Montoya, 2017;
Todd, 2018; Yazzie & Baldy, 2018). Indigenous water governance tends to centre on the understanding that water is
a more-than-human person or a living entity to which there are relational responsibilities , a principle central
to Indigenous sovereignty, livelihood and survival (e.g., Craft, 2018; McGregor, 2014). In contrast, settler colonial water governance
is rooted in Modern water – a concept used to describe frameworks that view water as a solely material substance or commodity,
something quantifiable, manageable and ultimately available for unsustainable human use (McGregor, 2014; Wilson & Inkster, 2018). These
modernist ideas of water, which are at the root of settler colonial State water governance, impose
significant ontological and material violence on Indigenous peoples as they permeate water law ,
infrastructures, and assessments of water insecurity and risk, to the exclusion of Indigenous cultural, spiritual and physical health as well as the
health of water itself (Wilson et al., 2019; see also Meehan et al., 2020).[P]

Critical Indigenous scholars raise concerns about the nature of the settler colonial States, which have
implications for water insecurity. Colonial understandings of sovereignty and jurisdiction assume that
States alone exercise the final authority over a given territory . Indigenous studies scholars continually encounter this
assumption, despite the recognition that increasing connections between domestic and international politics makes absolute sovereignty a
myth 

Apocalyptic scenarios justify more colonialism by covering up colonialism’s disproportionate

effect on the environment, masking ongoing violence, and reinscribes the settler logic of
colonizing more places because of a deteriorating environment.
Koch 21 [Natalie Koch – Department of Geography and the Environment; Whose apocalypse?
Biosphere 2 and the spectacle of settler science in the desert; Geoforum; 5-21-2021; Accessible Online
at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.05.015] DL 7-12-2021
2. Whose apocalypse? The desert, dystopia, and colonial mastery
Apocalyptic narratives have become a staple of Western discussions about climate change and
environmental futures that seem to pose an existential threat to human existence (Anson, 2020, Barker, 2020, Braun, 2015, Buell,
2010, Cassegård and Thörn, 2018, Fiskio, 2012; Garforth, 2018; Lilley et al., 2012, Mathews and Barnes, 2016, Skrimshire, 2010). As noted
above, Indigenous and decolonial scholars have forcefully shown how these narratives bolster colonial
logics that silence alternative views of harm, risk, danger, and the future (see also Davis and Todd, 2017, Erickson, 2020,
Gergan et al., 2020; Mitchell and Chaudhury, 2020). The challenge, Delf Rothe (2020: 146) notes, is that “ the idea of a (single) future
catastrophe and its underlying assumption that ‘we are all in this together’ conceals social antagonisms
in the present,” while disregarding the fact that huge portions of the world “have already lived through the
ecological catastrophe brought about by European colonialism and its repercussions.” These social and political divides
must therefore be at the core of any analysis of “the” apocalypse.
The dramatic idea of apocalypse was central to producing Biosphere 2′s spectacle, but so too was the Arizona desert where the facility was
built. Deserts hold a special place in Western imaginations as dystopias and places of extremes (Davis, 2016, Isenberg et al., 2019). They are
frequently treated as a metaphor for global warming and the future challenges of securing food, energy, and water in a changing environment.
Desert images thus index environmental collapse – perhaps the most cliched icon of climate change today is a photograph of a patch of parched
soil. Their visibly limited natural resources makes deserts easy icons for fearful visions of scarcity, but the same traits have also make deserts
popular places for scientists, state-builders and other colonial figures to showcase the marvels of modern science and human ingenuity in
overcoming extreme climates.

These reductive narratives are not new: deserts have long circulated as a trope, rather than places to be experienced and understood in their
full human and ecological complexity – reduced to barren wastelands, sparse in vegetation, and ostensibly depopulated. It is not surprising,
then, that the desert-as-trope also figures prominently in imaginaries of environmental apocalypse. But how does such a broadly consistent
coding come about? “In tracing how individual visions sometimes rise to the status of collectively held objectives,” Sheila Jasanoff (2015: 25)
suggests, we need to attend “not only the material instruments that reformers are able to accumulate but also their uses of symbolic and
cultural resources, such as images, texts, memories, metaphors, and language itself.” This multi-textual approach is needed because all
environmental imaginaries are inherently political: descriptions of desert landscapes are never as simple as they seem.

Through images and rhetorical constructions, deserts fit into diverse political storylines about how particular people relate to one another and
to the natural environment. This is especially apparent in how deserts are treated not only as dystopian, but also as otherworldly.
Otherworldliness is especially apparent in visual references to desert landscapes in discussions about the end of human life on Earth and the
need to travel and settle on other planets – and most specifically, Mars. On the one hand, environmental collapse or other forms of catastrophe
that are said to make Earth uninhabitable are visually cued through desert landscapes. On the other, Mars is currently the place most
commonly referenced as where humans should be preparing to settle when the apocalypse arrives. Yet Mars is consistently framed as a desert,
with its famous red-rock landscape serving as visual evidence (Lane 2011).

Beyond this drawing of parallels, the deserts of the U.S. Southwest have been treated as a testing ground for astronauts for decades. As early as
1960, NASA started sending teams of astronauts for desert survival training in Nevada and Arizona (Fulmer, 2018, Ranson, 2019). More
recently, a former NASA contractor and Mars Society president, Robert Zubrin, founded the Mars Desert Research Station in Utah. Funded by
donations from the likes of SpaceX founder and Mars enthusiast Elon Musk, the site has been developed on the basis of its desert landscape. As
Zubrin explained to the Los Angeles Times: “We wanted a large theater of operations uninhabited, unvegetated and geologically interesting
that we could explore” (quoted in Kelly, 2019). The newspaper’s feature on the facility includes images of people romping around the Utah
desert in space suits, with red rock formations in the backdrop, as if playing Mars – just like the astronauts 70 years before, themselves
preparing to romp across the moon.

Regardless of whether this romping is best classified as genuine training or simply playing dress-up, the mediated spectacle of it all ultimately
fuels a broader imaginary of Mars as a place to be colonized, which Jason Dittmer (2007) has noted in his analysis of media coverage of NASA’s
Mars missions. The parallels noted between Mars and places on earth are not passive descriptions: they are imperial claims that naturalize the
planet as a sphere of human activity and “part of a modern impulse to make nature conform to our desires” (Dittmer, 2007: 125; see also,
Dunnett et al., 2019, Lane, 2011, Kirsch, 2020). Beyond naturalizing a colonial perspective of Mars itself, projects like the Mars Desert Research
Station also naturalize colonialism in Utah and the United States. This is especially apparent in how they are constructed as laboratories for
modernist techno-science – outside time, depopulated, and “blank slates” outside politics (Koch, forthcoming-b). That is, if Utah is to represent
Mars, Mars is also imagined to be Utah: the romping white scientists are explorers of a foreign terrain ripe for colonial mastery.

But this is not Mars: here on Earth, and in the American West in particular, colonialmastery is not theater. It is history and present-
day reality. A detailed account of U.S. imperial expansion is outside the scope of this article, but suffice it to say that the desert Southwest
is not and never was a blank slate, but the homeland of numerous Indigenous groups. In imaginaries of the desert as an empty
wasteland, the human and spiritual presences are not just ignored, but actively erased – this being the
imperial project of American expansion. So if environmental imaginaries are inherently political, is
imperative to ask who is participating in constructing narrative constructions of the desert and what interests they are
advancing (knowingly or unknowingly), but also whose voices and visions are ignored, silenced, or sidelined. It is precisely here
that the imaginative violence of apocalyptic narratives meet the real violence of settler colonialism. If
these communities have already experienced and continue to experience apocalypse, then the important
question is whose apocalypse “we” are talking about.
Projects like the Mars Desert Research Station and, as we shall see, Biosphere 2, mobilize the desert aesthetic and its ostensible similarity to
Mars to bolster the claims they make to preparing for human exploration and habitation of Mars. In justifying such projects, advocates
constantly emphasize the need to “get ready now,” because of the impending environmental collapse of Earth.
For example, in the much-touted tract justifying Biosphere 2, Space Biospheres, two of the men behind the project suggest that
humanity faces a “historic imperative” of colonizing territories beyond Earth: “biospherics opens up, together with
astronautics, the ecotechnical possibilities, even the historic imperative, to expand Earth-life into the solar system and beyond that to the stars
and then in time’s good opportunity to the galaxies” (Allen and Nelson, 1987: 1). They were far off the mark when suggesting that this would be
possible by 1995, but regardless, thesurvivalist narrative is limited to a techno-fetishistic vision of colonizing an
elsewhere, while neglecting the colonialism of here: the settler colonial occupation of Indigenous lands
in the U.S. Southwest and the colonial origins of this environmental devastation (Curley, 2021, Curley and Lister,
2020, Voyles, 2015, Whyte, 2018). Rather than recognizing these ongoing challenges, Biosphere 2’s “ ecotechnical” storyline that
humans will simply have to “abandon ship” forecloses conversations about how contemporary colonial systems
actually perpetuate environmental ruin here on Earth.
Who, then, do promoters of projects like Biosphere 2 or the Mars Desert Research Station think will save us on this great adventure into our
neighboring celestial bodies? Predictably, their techno-fetishistic visions assume a particular kind of colonial hero: the
white male scientist. Now largely imagined in a white lab coat, the scientist-as-hero has long been an icon of
modernist science. Whatever his specific accoutrements may be, he is white, male, Anglo-European, and committed
to the principles of positivism and empiricism. In today’s genre of eco-catastrophism, this iconic scientist is not
only the privileged voice warning of environmental collapse, but also the one who is imagined to have the solutions. Eco-
catastrophism thus “draws on this universal subject position of ‘anthropos’ and rearticulates it through
the figure of the planetary manager: a ‘rational’, scientific subject that manages the different parts of the
Earth system on the basis of a comprehensive knowledge of the Earth system” (Rothe, 2020: 151). Like the Anthropocene and other related
environmental crisis narratives, the universal image of the Anthropos “is itself a colonial figure” that bolsters
“structures that privilege whiteness as the savior of our environmental future” (Erickson, 2020: 112; see also Cassegård and
Thörn, 2018, Gergan et al., 2020, Yuen, 2012). Like all securitizing discourses, this masculinist vision of techno-
expertise facing down environmental collapse comes with a pre-packaged set of solutions – what are today
loosely labeled “eco-modernism.”
 2NC Extensions

Settler colonialism necessitates genocide and symbolic death as war becomes a

permanent relation
Harting 6 – Associate Professor of English at the University of Montreal (Heike, “Global Civil War and Post-colonial Studies,” from the
Globalization and Autonomy Online Compendium, globalautonomy.ca/global1/servlet/Xml2pdf?fn=RA_Harting_GlobalCivilWar)

The Necropolitics of Global Civil War As with other civil wars, global
civil war affects society as a whole. It "tends," as Hardt and Negri argue,
"towards the absolute" (2004, 18) in that it polices civil society through elaborate security and surveillance systems,

negates the rule of law, militarizes quotidian space, diminishes civil rights to the degree in which it increases torture, illegal incarceration,
disappearances, and emergency regulations, and fosters a culture of fear, intolerance, and violent discrimination . Hardt and

Negri, therefore, rightly argue that war itself has become "a permanent social relation" and thereby the "primary

organizing principle of society, and politics merely one of its means or guises" (ibid., 12). What Hardt and Negri suggest is new about today's global
civil war is its biopolitical agenda. "War," they write, "has become a regime of biopower, that is, a form of rule aimed not only at controlling the population but
producing and reproducing all aspects of social life" (ibid., 13). For example, the biopolitics of war entails the production of particular economic and cultural
subjectivities, "creating new hearts and minds through the construction of new circuits of communication, new forms of social collaboration, and new modes of
interaction" (ibid., 81). The ambiguity of Hardt and Negri's notion of biopower subtly resides in their adaptation of the language of social and political revolution, for
it seems to be the regime of biopower, rather than the multitude, that absorbs and transvalues the revolutionary, that is, anti-colonial, spirit inscribed in the
rhetoric of "new hearts and minds." At the same time, they argue, that a
biopolitical definition of war "changes war's entire legal
framework" (ibid., 21-22), for "whereas war previously was regulated through legal structures, war has
become regulating by constructing and imposing its own legal framework " (ibid. 22). If none of this, at least in my mind,
is marked by a particular originality of thought, then this may have to do with Hardt and Negri's reluctance to address the historical continuities between earlier
wars of decolonization and contemporary global wars, the legacies of imperialism, and the imperative of race in orchestrating imperial, neo-colonial, and today's
global civil wars. In fact, while biopolitical
global warfare might be a new phenomenon on the sovereign territory of the United States of America,
specifically after 11 September 2001, it is
hardly news to "people in the former colonies, who," as Crystal Bartolovich points out,
"have long lived at the 'crossroads' of global forces" (2000, 136), violence, and wars. For example, in Sri Lanka global civil
war has been a permanent, everyday reality since the country's Sinhala Only Movement in 1956, and become manifest in the normalization of racialized violence as
a means of politics since President Jayawardene's election campaign for a referendum in 1982, which led to the state-endorsed anti-Tamil pogrom in 1983. Similarly,
according to Achille Mbembe, biopolitical warfare was intrinsic to the European imperial project in "Africa," where "war machines emerged" as early as "the last
quarter of the twentieth century" (2003, 33). In other words, although Hardt and Negri argue convincingly that it is the ubiquity of global war that restructures social
relationships on the global and local level, their concept tends to dehistoricize different genealogies and effects of global civil war. Indeed, not only do Hardt and
Negri refrain from reading wars of decolonization as central to the construction of what David Harvey sees as the uneven "spatial exchange relations" (2003, 31)
necessary for the expansion of capital accumulation and of which global war is an intrinsic feature, but they also dissociate global civil wars from the nation-state's
still thriving ability to implement and exercise rigorous regimes of violence and surveillance. As for the term's epistemological formation, global civil war has been
sanitized and no longer evokes the conventional association of civil war with "insurrection and resistance" (Agamben 2005, 2). Instead, it has become the effect of a
diffuse new sovereignty (i.e., Hardt and Negri's Empire), a sovereignty that no longer decides over but has itself become a disembodied, that is, denationalized and
normalized, state of exception. Yet, to talk about the disembodiment of global war not only reinforces media-supported ideologies of high-tech precision wars
without casualties, but it also represses narratives about the ways in which the modi operandi of global war come to be embodied differently in different sites of
war. In her short story "Man Without a Mask" (1995), the Sri Lankan writer Jean Arasanayagam describes the global dimensions of a war that is usually considered
an ethnic civil war restricted to internally competing claims to territorial, cultural, and national sovereignty between the country's Sinhalese and Tamil population.
Told by an elite mercenary who clandestinely works for the ruling members of the government and leads a group of highly trained assassins, the story follows the
thoughts of its narrator and contemplates the politicization of violence and death. As a mercenary and possibly an ex-SAS (British Special Air Service) veteran the Sri
Lankan Government hired after the failure of the Indo-Lankan Accord, the narrator signifies the "privatization of [Sri Lanka's] war" (Tambiah 1996, 6) and, thus, the
reign of a global free market economy through which the state hands over its institutions and services to private corporations, including its army, and profits from
the unrestricted global and illegal trade in war technologies. Like a craftsman, the mercenary finds satisfaction in the precision and methodical cleanliness of his
work, in being, as he says, "a hunter. Not a predator" in his ability to leave "morality" out of "this business" (Arasanayagam 1995, 98). He is an extreme and
perverted version of what Martin Shaw describes as the " 'soldier-scholar,'???the archetype of the new [global] officer" (1999, 60). As a self-proclaimed "scholar or
scribe" (ibid., 100), the mercenary plots maps of death. Shortly before he reaches his victim, a politician who underestimated the political ambition of his enemy, he
comments that bullet holes in a human body comprise a new kind of language: "The machine gun splutters. The body is pitted, pricked out with an indecipherable
message. They are the braille marks of the new fictions. People are still so slow to comprehend their meaning" (ibid., 100). These new maps or fictions of global war,
I suggest, describe what Etienne Balibar calls ultra-objective and ultra-subjective violence and characterize how global civil war both generates bare life and
manages and instrumentalizes death. According to Balibar, ultra-objective violence suggests the systematic "naturalization of asymmetrical relations of power"
(2001, 27) brought about, for instance, by the Sri Lankan government's prolonged abuse of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which, in the past plunged the country
into a permanent state of emergency, facilitated the random arrest of and almost absolute rule over citizens, and thus created a culture of fear and a reversal of
moral and social values. As the story clarifies, under conditions of systematic or ultra-objective violence, "corruption" becomes "virtue" and "the most vile" man
wears the mask of the sage and "innocent householder" (Arasanayagam 1995, 102). In this milieu, the mercenary has no need for a mask, because he bears a face of
ordinary violence that is "perfectly safe" (ibid., 102) in a society structured by habitual and systemic violence. But the logic of the "new fictions" of political violence
is also ultra-subjective because it is "intentional" and has a "determinate goal" (Balibar 2001, 25), namely the making and elimination of what Balibar calls
"disposable people" in order to generate and maintain a profitable global economy of violence. The logic of ultra-subjective violence presents itself through the
fictions of ethnicity and identity as they are advanced and instrumentalized in the name of national sovereignty. The mercenary perfectly symbolizes what Balibar
means when he writes that "we have entered a world of the banality of objective cruelty" (ibid.). For if the fictions of global violence are scratched into the tortured
bodies of war victims, the mercenary's detached behavior dramatizes a "will to 'de-corporation'," that is, to force disaffiliation from the other and from oneself ???
not just from belonging to the community and the political unity, but from the human condition" (ibid.). In other words, while global civil war
becomes embodied in those whom it negates as social beings and thereby reduces to mere "flesh," it remains a
disembodied enterprise for those who manage and orchestrate the politics of death of global war. It is
through the dialectics of the embodiment and disembodiment of global violence that the
dehumanization of the majority of the globe's population takes on a normative and naturalized state of
existence. Arasanayagam's short story also casts light on the limitations of Hardt and Negri's understanding of the biopolitics of global civil war, for the latter
can account neither for the new fictions of violence in former colonial spaces nor for what Mbembe calls the "necropolitics" (2003, 11) of late

modernity. Mbembe's term refers to his analysis of global warfare as the continuation of earlier and the
development of new "forms of subjugation of life to the power of death" and its attendant reconfiguration of the "the
relationship between resistance, sacrifice, and terror" (2003, 39). 4 Despite the many theoretical intersections of Hardt and Negri's and Mbembe's work, Mbembe's
notion of necropolitics sees contemporary warfare as a species of such earlier "topographies of cruelty" (2003, 40) as the plantation system and the colony. Thus, in
contrast to Hardt and Negri, Mbembe argues that the
ways in which global violence and warfare produce subjectivities
cannot be dissociated from the ways in which race serves as a means of both deciding over life and
death and of legitimizing and making killing without impunity a customary practice of imperial
population control. If global civil war is a continuation of imperial forms of warfare, it must rely on strategies of embodiment, that is, of politicizing and
racializing the colonized or now "disposable" body for purposes of self-legitimization, specifically when taking decisions over the value of human life. After all, on a
global level, race propels the ideological dynamics of ethnic and global civil war, while, on the local plane, it serves to orchestrate the brutalization and polarization
of the domestic population, reinforcing and enacting patterns of racist exclusion and violence on the non-white body. In contrast to Hardt and Negri, then, Mbembe
invites us to articulate imperial genealogies for the necropolitics of today's global civil wars. In other words, if imperialism was a form of perpetual low-intensity
global war, the biopolitics of imperialism aimed at creating different forms of subjectivization. For example, while in India, the imperial administration sought to
create a functional class of native informants, in Africa and the Caribbean, the British Empire created the figure of homo sacer. The latter, as Agamben argues, refers
to the one who can be killed but not sacrificed. Homo sacer, Agamben clarifies, constitutes "the originary exception in which human life is included in the political
order in being exposed to an unconditional capacity to be killed" (1998, 85). Thus, the native is included in the imperial order only through her exclusion, while,
simultaneously her humanity is stripped of social life and transformed into bare life, ready to be commodified on slavery's auction blocs and foreclosed from the
dominant imperial psyche. Agamben's understanding of bare life derives from his reading of the Nazi death camps as the paradigmatic space of modernity in which
the distinction between "fact and law" (ibid., 171), "outside and inside, exception and rule, licit and illicit" (ibid., 170) dissolves and in which biopolitics takes the
place of politics and "homo sacer" replaces the "citizen" (ibid., 171). While the notion of bare life is instrumental for theorizing biopolitics and the normalization and
legalization of state violence under the pretense of, for example, protective arrests and preemptive strikes, it also suggests that the human body can be read as pure
matter or in empirical terms. What goes unnoticed is to what extent the production of bare life depends on ideologies of race, that is, on the racialization of bodies,
citizenship, and the concept of the human. For instance, under imperial rule, bare life is subjected to death and its politics in ways slightly different from those
suggested by Agamben. More specifically, the killing of natives or slaves as bare life ??? then and today, as Rwanda's race-based genocide clarifies ??? not only
configures human life in terms of its "capacity to be killed" (Agamben 1998, 114), that is as homicide
and genocide outside of law and accountability,
but also measures the value of human life on grounds of race. The making of bare life is a racialized and racializing process rooted

within the necropolitics of colonialism. For, killing the native or slave presupposes the remaking of the human into bare life both through
ideologies of pseudo-scientific racism and by subjecting them to what Orlando Patterson calls the "social death" (1982, 38) of the slave, that is, to a

symbolic death of the human as a communal and social being that precedes physical death. 5 Thus, imperialism's
necropolitics involves the making of disposable lives through practices of zombification and the "redefinition of death" itself (Agamben 1998, 161). In this sense,
imperialism not only facilitated the extreme forms of racialized violence characteristic of global civil war,
but it also helped create the conditions for making bare life the acceptable state of being for the present
majority of the globe's population. Not unlike Jean Arasanayagam's short story, Mbembe's account of the Rwandan genocide and the Palestinian
intifada suggests that the new global subjectivities are not so much the networked multitude Hardt and Negri imagine. Rather, emerging from the "new fictions" of
global war, they are the suicide bomber, the mercenary, the martyr, the child soldier, the victim of mass rape, the refugee, the woman dispossessed of her family
and livelihood, the mutilated civilian, and the skeleton of the disappeared and murdered victims of global civil war. What these subjectivities witness is that, on one
hand, living under conditions of global civil war means to live in "permanent???pain" (Mbembe 2003, 39) and, on the other hand, they refer back to the dialectical
mechanisms of colonial violence. For under the Manichaean pressures of colonialism, colonial violence always inaugurates a double process of subjection and
subject formation. Frantz Fanon famously argues that anti-colonial violence operates historically on both collective and individual subject formation. For, on the one
hand, "the native discovers reality [colonial alienation] and transforms it into the pattern of this customs, into the practice of violence and into his plan for freedom"
(1963, 58), and on the other, a violent "war of liberation" instills in the individual a sense of "a collective history" (ibid., 93). Thus, as Robert Young suggests, anti-
colonial violence "functions as a kind of psychotherapy of the oppressed" (2001, 295). Yet, it seems that read through the necropolitics of imperialism, global civil
warfare no longer aims at the "pacification" of the colonial subject or the "degradation" of the "postcolonial subject" (ibid., 293) but, as I suggested earlier, at the
complete abolishment of the human per se. We may therefore say that if global civil war produces new subjectivities, it does so through, what I have referred to as
a process of zombification. Understood as sustained acts of negation, zombification ??? a term that harks back to Fanon ??? refers to a dialectical process of the
embodiment and disembodiment of global war. The former refers to the exercise of ultra-objective violence ??? that is, the systematic "naturalization of
asymmetrical relations of power" (Balibar 2001, 27) ??? in order to regulate, racialize, and extinguish human life at will, while the latter suggests the production of
narratives of "de-corporation" (ibid., 25) and detachment by those who manage and administrate global civil war. The notion of zombification, however, connotes
not only the exercise of, but also the exorcism of, the ways in which global war is scripted on and through the racialized body. Thus, a post-colonial understanding of
global war needs to think through the necropolitics of war, including the uneven value historically and presently assigned to human life and the politicization of
death. The latter issue will be addressed in the last section of this paper. The next section examines the cultural production and perpetuation of normative
narratives of global warfare. The Rhetoric of the Archaic and Michael Ondaatje's "Anil's Ghost" Published shortly after Sri Lanka's civil war became entangled with
the global politics of the South and the rise of the Sri Lankan nation-state to one of the war's principal and most corrupt actors, Ondaatje's novel Anil's Ghost
dramatizes both the transformation of the country's civil war into a permanent state of exception and the failure of global non-governmental organizations (NGOs)
to intervene in the war's rising human rights abuses and violent excesses. While the novel presents an extraordinary search for social justice through narrative and
seeks to understand the operative modes of violence beyond their historical and social configurations, it also tends to sublimate and aestheticize violence by
treating it as a normative element of human and, indeed, planetary life. My purpose here is to indicate that the novel's own project of dramatizing the complicity
between religious and secular, anti-colonial and nationalist agents of war, and civilians and global actors (i.e., NGOs) remains compromised by the novel's aesthetic
investment in a particular rhetoric of the archaic. The latter, I argue, unwittingly coincides with normative narratives of global war and facilitates the reader's
detachment from the ways in which the Global North has reconstructed global life as a permanent state of exception. Ondaatje's novel (2000) opens with an
Author's Note that locates the narrative at a time when "the antigovernment insurgents in the south and the separatist guerrillas in the north???had declared war
on the government" and "legal and illegal government squads were???sent out to hunt down" both groups. In this instance, the Hobbesian rhetoric of a "war of all
against all" is more than a clich??. In fact, it is symptomatic of the novel's ambiguous critique of the role of the Sri Lankan nation-state and its elaborate, modernist
discourse of violence. The Note foreshadows what the narrator later repeats on several occasions, namely that Sri Lanka's war is a war fought "for the purpose of
war" (ibid., 98) and for which "[t]here is no hope of affixing blame" (ibid., 17). In short, the "reason for war was war" (ibid., 43). At first glance, the narrative's
emphasis on the war's self-perpetuating dynamics implies a Hobbesian understanding of violence as the natural state of human existence. At the same time, it
translates the actual politics of Sri Lanka's war into the Deleuzean idiom of the "war machine." For, according to Deleuze and Guattari, armed conflict functions
outside the control and accountability of the "state apparatus???prior to its laws" (1987, 352), and beyond its initial causes. Although such an interpretation of Sri
Lanka's war reflects what the political scientist Jayadeva Uyangoda calls the "intractability of the Sri Lankan crisis" (1999, 158), its political and ethical stakes
outweigh its gains. 6 To begin with, the novel's leitmotif of "perpetual war" situates Sri Lanka's conflict within a general context of global war, because, as the
narrator reports, it is fought with "modern weaponry," supported by "backers on the sidelines in safe countries," and "sponsored by gun-and drug-runners"
(Ondaajte 2000, 43). In this scenario, the rule of law has deteriorated into "a belief in???revenge" (ibid., 56), and the state is either absent or part of the country's
all-consuming anarchy of violence. This absence suggests that the state no longer functions, in Max Weber's famous words, as "a human community that
(successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" (2002, 13). It is of course possible to argue that the novel's critique
of the Sri Lankan nation-state lies in its absence. It seems to me, however, that the narrative's tendency to locate the dynamics of Sri Lanka's
war outside the state and within a post-national vision of a new global order generates a normative narrative of global war.
On the one hand, it resonates with the popular ??? though misleading ??? notion that the "appearance of 'failed states',"
as Samuel Huntington argues in his controversial study The Clash of Civilizations, intensifies "tribal, ethnic, and religious conflict" and thus "contributes to

[the] image of a world in anarchy" (1996, 35). On the other, situating Sri Lanka's war outside the institutions of the
state re-inscribes a Hobbesian notion of violence that helps legitimize and cultivate structural violence
as a permissive way of conducting politics. Such a reading of violence, however, overlooks that in a global context violence has become
"profoundly anti-Hobbesian" (Balibar 2001, xi). Balibar usefully suggests that the twentieth century history of extreme violence has made it impossible to regard
violence as "a structural condition that precedes institutions." Instead, he maintains, "we have had to accept???that extreme violence is not post-historical but
actually post-institutional." It "arises from institutions as much as it arises against them" (ibid., xi). Thus, in such popular post-colonial narratives of war as Anil's
Ghost, the normalization of violence figures as a forgetting of the institutional entrenchment and historical use of violence as a state-sanctioned political practice. If
Ondaatje's novel presents Sri Lanka's war as an "inherently violent" event (Das 1998), it is also an event narrated through the symbolism and logic of archaic
primitivism. For example, in the novel's central passage on the nature of human violence, the narrator observes, "The most precisely recorded moments of history
lay adjacent to the extreme actions of nature or civilisation ???Tectonic slips and brutal human violence provided random time-capsules of unhistorical lives???A
dog in Pompeii. A gardener in Hiroshima" (Ondaatje 2002, 55). The symbolic leveling of the arbitrariness of primordial chaos and the apparently ahistorical
anarchism of violence create a rhetoric of the archaic that is characteristic, as Nancy argues, of "anything that is properly to be called war" (2000, 128). He
convincingly argues that archaic symbolism "indicates that [war] escapes from being part of 'history' understood as the progress of a linear/or cumulative time" and
can be rearticulated as no more than a "regrettable" remnant of an earlier age (ibid., 128). In that, Nancy's observation coincides with Hardt and Negri's that the

"war on terror" employs a medievalist rhetoric of just and unjust wars that moralizes rather than legitimizes the use of global
violence by putting it outside the realm of reason and critique . In Nancy's observation, however, two things are at stake. First,
what initially appears to be a postmodern critique of the grand narratives of history in fact demonstrates that a non-linear account of history may lend itself to the
transformation of extreme violence into exceptional events. In this way violence is normalized as a transhistorical category that
fails to address the unequal political and economic relations of power, which lie at the heart of global
wars. Second, Nancy rightly warns us against treating war as an archaic relic that is "tendentiously effaced in the progress and project of a global humanity"
(2000, 128). For not only does war return in the process of negotiating sovereignty on a global and local plane, but the representation of war in terms of archaic
images also repeats a primordialist explanation of what are structurally new wars. As theorists such as Appadurai and Kaldor have argued, the

primordialist hypothesis of global wars merely reinforces those mass mediated images of global violence
that dramatize ethnic wars as pre-modern, tribalist forms of strife . Huntington's notion of civilization or "fault-line" wars as
communal conflicts born out of the break-up of earlier political formations, demographic changes, and the collision of mutually exclusive religions and civilizations
presents the most prominent and politically influential version of a primordialist and bipolar conceptualization of global war. In contrast to Huntington's approach,
however, the narrative of Anil's Ghost contends that all forms of violence "have come into their comparison" (Ondaatje 2000, 203). Notwithstanding its
universalizing impetus, the novel thus insists on the impossibility to think the nation and a new global order outside the technologies of violence and modernity.
Indeed, in the novel's narrative it is the suffering of all war victims that "has come into their comparison" and suggests that the new wars breed a culture of violence
that shapes everyone's life yet for which no one appears to be accountable. On the one hand, then, the novel's self-critical humanitarian project seeks to initiate a
communal and individual process of mourning by naming, and therefore accounting for, in Anil's words, "the unhistorical dead" (ibid, 56). On the other hand, read
as its critical investment in the war's politics of complicity, the novel's humanitarian endeavor is countered by the narrator's tendency to articulate violence in
archaic and anarchistic terms. For, to revert to the symbolic language of "primitivism and anarchy" and "to treat [the new wars] as natural disasters," as Kaldor
observes (2001, 113), designates a common way of dealing with them. Thus the
rhetoric of the archaic not merely dehistoricizes
violence but contributes to the making of a normative and popular imaginary through which to make
global wars thinkable and comprehensible. Thus, their violent excesses appear to be rooted in primordialist
constructions of the failed post-colonial nation-state rather than a phenomenon with deep-seated roots in the
global histories of the present. Such a normative imaginary of global war is produced for the Global
North so as to dehistoricize its own position in the various colonial processes of nation formation and
global economic restructuring of the Global South. In this way, as Ondaatje's novel equally demonstrates, the Global North can detach
itself from the Global South and create the kind of historical and cultural distance needed to accept ultra-objective violence as a normative state of existence.
Conceptualizing war as a phenomenon of criminal and anarchistic violence, however, may do more than merely conform to the popular imagination about the
chaotic and untamable nature of contemporary warfare. Indeed, anarchistic notions of violence tend to compress the grand narratives and petite recits of history
into a total, singular present of perpetual uncertainty, fear, and political confusion and generate what the post-colonial anthropologist David Scott sees as Sri
Lanka's "dehistoricized" history. Given the important role the claiming of ancient Sinhalese and Hindu history played in the violent identity politics that drive Sri
Lanka's war, Scott suggests that devaluing or dehistoricizing history as a founding category of Sri Lanka's narrative of the nation breaks the presumably "natural???
link between past identities and the legitimacy of present political claims" (1999, 103). This strategy seems useful because it uncouples Sri Lanka's colonially shaped
and glorified Sinhalese past from its present claims to political power. We need to note, however, that, according to Scott, dehistoricizing the past does not suggest
writing from a historical vacuum. Rather, it refers to a process of denaturalizing and, thus, de-legitimizing the normative narratives of ethnicized and racialized
narratives of national identity. Anil's Ghost engages in this process of "dehistoricizing" by foregrounding the fictitious and fragmented, the elusive and ephemeral
character of history. Indeed, as the historian Antoinette Burton suggests, the novel offers "a reflection on the continued possibility of History itself as an exclusively
western epistemological form" (2003, 40). The latter clearly finds expression in what Sarath's brother, Gamini, condemns as "the last two hundred years of Western
political writing" (Ondaatje 2000, 285). Steeped in the imperial project of the West, such writing is facilitated by and serves to erase the figure of the non-European
cultural Other in order to produce and maintain what Jacques Derrida famously called the "white mythology" (1982, 207) of Western metaphysics. The novel
usefully extends its reading of violence into a related critique of knowledge production, so that the latter becomes legible as being complicit in the production of
perpetual violence and war. This critique is perhaps most articulated through the character of Palipana, Sarath's teacher and Sri Lanka's formerly renowned but now
fallen anthropologist. Once an agent of Sri Lanka's anti-colonial liberation movement, Palipana represents the generation of cultural nationalist who sought history
and national identity in an essentially Sinhalese culture and natural environment. Rather than employing empirical and colonial methods of knowledge production
and historiography, Palipana had left the path of scientific objectivity, tinkered with translations of historical texts, and "approached runes???with the pragmatic
awareness of locally inherited skills" (Ondaatje 2000, 82) until "the unprovable truth emerged" (ibid., 83). Now, years after his fall from scientific grace, Palipana
lives the life of an ascetic, following the "strict principles of" a "sixth-century sect of monks" (ibid., 84). To him, history and nature have become one, for "all history
was filled with sunlight, every hollow was filled with rain" (ibid., 84). Yet, Ondaatje's construction of Palipana and his account of the eye-painting ritual of a Buddha
statue ??? a ritual that assumes a central place in the novel's cosmopolitan vision of artisanship as a practice of cultural and religious syncretism in the service of
post-conflict community building ??? are themselves built on a number of historical texts listed in the novel's "Acknowledgment" section. As Antoinette Burton
astutely observes, "the orientalism of some of the texts on Ondaatje's list is astonishing, a phenomenon which suggests the ongoing suppleness of 'history' as an
instrument of political critique and ideological intervention" (2003, 50). Rather than effectively "dehistorizing" the character of Palipana, then, Ondaatje bases this
character and the eye-painting ceremony on a central Sri Lankan modernist text, Ananada K. Coomaraswamy's Mediaeval Sinhalese Art (1908/1956). Cont For Hardt
and Negri, then, the state of exception functions as the universal condition and legitimization of global civil war, while positioning the United States as a global
power, which transforms war "into the primary organizing principle of society" (2004, 12). They rightly observe that the state of exception blurs the boundaries
between peace and war, violence and mediation. Yet, curiously enough, Hardt and Negri's understanding of the state of exception largely emphasizes the concept's
regulatory and pragmatic politics, so that the United States emerges as a sovereign power on grounds of its ability to decide on the state of exception. By exempting
itself from international law and courts of law, protecting its military from being subjected to international control, allowing preemptive strikes, and engaging in
torture and illegal detention (ibid., 8), the United States instrumentalizes and maintains war as a state of exception in the name of global security and thus seeks to
consolidate its hegemonic role within Empire. Although Hardt and Negri openly disagree with Agamben's reading of the state of exception as defining "power itself
as a 'monopoly of violence' " (2004, 364), it seems to me that Agamben's theory of the state of exception, as put forward in Homo Sacer rather than in States of
Exception, might be usefully read alongside Hardt and Negri's crucial claim that global civil war as well as resistance movements depend on the "production of
subjectivity" through immaterial labour (2000, 66). What this argument overlooks is that, according to Agamben, the state of exception constitutes an abject space
or "a zone of indistinction between outside and inside, exclusion and inclusion" (1998, 181), where subjectivity enters a political and legal order solely on grounds of
its exclusion. Moreover, the sovereign ??? albeit a nation, sovereign power, or global network of power ??? can only transform the rule of law into the force of law
by suspending the legal system from a position that is simultaneously inside and outside the law. Through these mechanisms of exclusion and contradiction,
subjectivity is not so much created as it is deprived of its social and political relationships. Thus the "originary activity" of global civil war is the violent conflation of
political and social relationship and thereby the "production of bare life" (ibid., 83), of life that need not be accounted for, as is the case with the civilian casualties
of the US-led war against Iraq. The state of exception, however, also figures as a prominent concept in post-colonial theory, for it raises questions not only about the
ways in which we configure the human but also how we understand imperial or global war. In 1940, Benjamin famously wrote, "the tradition of the oppressed
teaches us that the 'state of emergency' in which we live is not the exception but the rule. We must attain to a conception of history that is in keeping with this
insight" (1968, 257). Benjamin's statement, as Homi Bhabha reminds us half a century later in his essay "Interrogating Identity," can be usefully advanced for a
critical analysis of the dialectical ??? if not revolutionary ??? relationship between oppression, violence, and anti-colonial historiography. Indeed, "the state of
emergency," as Bhabha says, "is also always a state of emergence" (1994, 41). Read in the context of today's global state of exception, namely the recurrence and
intensification of ethnic civil wars across the globe and the coincidence of democratic and totalitarian forms of political rule, Bhabha's statement entails a number of
risks and suggestions for a post-colonial historiography of global civil war. First, Bhabha's notion of emergency/emergence reflects his critical reading of Fanon's
vision of national identity and thus reconsiders the state of emergency as a possible site of "the occult instability where the people dwell" (Fanon 1963, 227) and
give birth to popular movements of national liberation. In this context, the state of exception might be understood as both constitutive to the alienation that is
intrinsic to liberation movements and instrumental for a radical euphoria and excessive hope that create and spectralize the post-colonial nation-state as a deferred
promise of decolonization. It is through this perspective that we can critically evaluate Hardt and Negri's endorsement of what they call "democratic violence"
(2004, 344). This kind of violence, they argue, belongs to the multitude. It is neither creative nor revolutionary but used on political rather than moral grounds.
When organized horizontally, according to democratic principles of decision making, democratic violence serves as a means of defending "the accomplishments" of
"political and social transformation" (ibid., 344). Notwithstanding the concept's romantic and utopian inflections, democratic violence also derives from Hardt and
Negri's earlier argument that "the great wars of liberation are (or should be) oriented ultimately toward a 'war against war,' that is, an active effort to destroy the
regime of violence that perpetuates our state of war and supports the systems of inequality and oppression." This, they conclude, is "a condition necessary for
realizing the democracy of the multitude" (ibid., 67). In one quick stroke, Hardt and Negri move anti-colonial liberation wars into their post-national paradigm of
Empire and divest them of their cultural and historical particularities. Moreover, translating explicitly national liberation movements into a universalizing narrative
of global pacifism precludes a critique of violence within its particular historical and philosophical formation. In contrast, a
post-colonial analysis of
global war must tease out the intersections between the ways in which r acialized violence constitutes
colonial and post-colonial processes of nation formation and helps construct an absolute enemy
through which to legitimize global war and to abdicate responsibility for the dehumanizing effects of
global economic restructuring. Second, while Bhabha's pun is symptomatic of the resisting properties that he sees as operative in the various
practices of colonial ambiguity, it also, despite Benjamin's opinion, draws attention to the possibility that oppression alters the linear flow of Western history and
challenges "the transparency of social reality, as a pre-given image of human knowledge" (Bhabha 1994, 41). Here, Bhabha rightfully asks to what extent do states of
emergency or acts of extreme violence constitute a historical rupture and, more importantly, call into question the nature of the human subject. It is at this point
that a post-colonial reading of the state of exception fruitfully coincides with Agamben's notion of exception. For in both cases, the
focus of inquiry is
the construction of disposable life through the logic of necropower and the collapse of social and
political relationships that enable the exercise of particularly racialized forms of violence, including
torture and disappearances. Third, Bhabha's notion of the double movement of emergency and emergence envisions an anti-colonialist
historiography in terms of a dialectical process of perpetual transformation. It is at this point, however, that the coupling of emergency or exception and emergence
becomes problematic for at least two reasons. First, combining
both terms prematurely translates the violence of the
political event into that of metaphor and risks erasing the micro- or quotidian narratives of violence ???
such as Arasanayagam's account of war ??? that both legitimate and are perpetuated by political and social states of

emergency. In order to examine the relationship between global and communal forms of violence, a critical practice of post-colonial studies, I suggest, must
reassess the term "transformation" and, concurrently, the assumption that acts of extreme global violence can be advanced in the service of "making history"
(Balibar 2001, 26). In other words, if, as Hannah Arendt argues, there has been a historical "reluctance to deal with violence as a separate phenomenon in its own
right" (2002, 25), it is time to examine the possibility of employing post-colonial studies in the service of a non-dialectical critique of global war. This kind of critique
must ask to what extent those on whose bodies extreme violence was exercised are a priori excluded from articulating any transformative theory of violence. How,
in other words, does bare life ??? if at all possible ??? attain the status of subjectivity within the dehumanizing logic of exception or global civil war? Fourth, like
Bhabha, we need to take seriously Benjamin's insight into the intrinsic relationship between violence and
the conceptualization of history. Notwithstanding Bhabha's pivotal argument that the violence of a "unitary notion of history" generates a
"unitary," and therefore extremely violent, "concept of man" (1994, 42), I wish to caution, alongside Benjamin's analysis of fascism, that what enables

today's global civil war is that even "its opponents treat it as a historical norm" (Benjamin 1968, 257). What is at stake,
then, in dominant as well as critical narratives of global civil war is their representation as natural rather than political phenomena, and the acceptance of
globalization as a political fait accompli. Both of these aspects, I believe, contribute to the proliferation of dehistoricized concepts of the global increase of racialized
violence and war. It seems to me, however, that theenormous rise of violence inflicted by global civil wars requires a
post-colonial historiography and critique of global war that questions notions of history based on
cultural fragmentation, rupture, and totalization . Instead, such a historiography must seek out patterns of
connection and connectivity. But more importantly, as I have argued in this paper, it must trace the post-colonial moment of global civil war
and begin to read contemporary war through the interconnected necropolitics of global and imperial
warfare. Thus, to understand the logic and practice of global war we need to develop a greater understanding precisely of those civil wars and national
liberation wars that do not appear to threaten the new global order. Furthermore, a post-colonial critique of global civil war should facilitate the decoding and
rescripting of both the normalizing narratives and racialized embodiment of global civil warfare.

Natives are living through dystopia now. Framing climate as an apocalyptic event
legitimizes violence now
Whyte 18 [Kyle P. Whyte – George Willis Pack Professor of Environment and Sustainability teaching
environmental justice; Indigenous science (fiction) for the Anthropocene: Ancestral dystopias and
fantasies of climate change crises; SAGE Journals; 5-30-2018; Accessible Online at
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2514848618777621] DL 7-12-2021
Some people see the Anthropocene as a coming period of irreversible destabilization of the global climate
system—an impending climate crisis. Academics, journalists, and artists have conjured apocalyptic and
dystopian portrayals of perilous futures of mass species extinctions, ecosystem degradation and social
upheaval (Cafaro and Primack, 2014; Methmann and Rothe, 2012; Mitchell, 2016; Skrimshire, 2010). In fiction portrayals, ranging from The
Bone Clocks to Carbon Diaries 2017, climate futures are dystopian times of rationing, government assistance, major extinctions, social unrest,
drastic measures, and defaced landscapes (Ignatius, 2014; Lloyd, 2011; Mitchell, 2014). Joni Adamson cites a trend for speculative
fiction to be written and used by academics to address dreaded futures tied to ‘‘climate change’’ and ‘‘global ecological
transformations’’ (Adamson, 2016: 216). In the United Nations’ deliberations on climate change, logics of apocalypse are present
through discourses of climate change as ‘‘catastrophic’’ and akin to ‘‘two world wars’’ (Methmann and Rothe,
2012). Audra Mitchell observes growing references to the thought that climate change could be a factor leading
to the extinction of all humans (Mitchell, 2016: 27). Scholar, writer, and artist Leanne Simpson, who recently authored the book As We
Have Always Done, observes how ‘‘.. focusing on imminent ecological collapse is motivating Canadians to change if you look at the spectrum of
climate change denial across society. It is spawning a lot of apocalypse movies...’’ (Klein, 2013; Simpson, 2017).1 Janet Fiskio’s (2012) study
confirms Simpson’s observations, showing that in literature, activism and the media ‘‘the narratives employed to describe climate change are
familiar: apocalyptic visions inflected by utopian, dystopian, and millenarian imaginaries drawn from speculative fiction, disaster films, and
biblical texts’’ (Fiskio, 2012: 13). In an article titled, ‘‘Climate Change is So Dire We Need a New Kind of Science Fiction to Make Sense of It,’’
Claire Evans writes that ‘‘we need an Anthropocene fiction. Since sci-fi mirrors the present, ecological collapse requires a new dystopian
fiction... a form of science fiction that tackles the radical changes of our pressing and strange reality...’’ (Evans, 2015).

As a Potawatomi scholar and activist, I feel that Indigenous peoples do not always share quite the same science fiction
imaginaries of dystopian or apocalyptic futures when they confront the possibility of a climate crisis (Whyte,
2017b). Candis Callison, relating to Arctic Indigenous peoples, writes that we need to recognize what ‘‘climate change
portends for those who have endured a century of immense cultural, political and environmental changes’’ (Callison,
2014: 42). Callison’s work recognizes that the hardships many non-Indigenous people dread most of the climate crisis are
ones that Indigenous peoples have endured already due to different forms of colonialism: ecosystem collapse,
species loss, economic crash, drastic relocation, and cultural disintegration.
In my many conversations in the last several years with Preston Hardison, a policy analyst for the Tulalip Tribes and advocate of the protection
of Indigenous knowledge, we often discuss how for many Indigenous peoples, the loss of local access to a culturally or economically significant
plant or animal due to colonial domination is comparable to that species becoming extinct (Hardison, 2017). Different forms of colonialism, of
course, whether through environmental destruction, land dispossession or forced relocation, have ended Indigenous peoples’ local
relationships to thousands of plants, animals, insects, and entire ecosystems. While these relationships often continue to be enacted through
Indigenous peoples’ living memories, heritage, ‘‘felt knowledges’’ (Million, 2013), social identities (e.g., clans), and philosophies, they have
stopped as relationships involving direct ecological interaction. As Audra Mitchell’s research shows, today’s global discourses of extinction are
often so focused on ‘‘species’’ that they cannot come to grips with Indigenous peoples’ experiences of having their relationships with
nonhumans greatly disrupted by colonialism (Mitchell, 2016).

Some Indigenous peoples, then, offer the idea that we confront climate change having already passed through environmental and climate
crises arising from the impacts of colonialism. Robin Kimmerer often tells the story of one of the Potawatomirelocation processes
from the Great Lakes region to Kansas and Oklahoma in the 19th century. The relocation process was literally a drastic change in
climate regions and the ending of many ancient relationships with the species and ecosystems of Potawatomi
homelands. Reflecting 226 Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 1(1–2) on today’s climate crisis as the experience of de´ja` vu,
Kimmerer says ‘‘Once again, we are in a situation of forced climate change adaptation’’ (Kimmerer, 2014). Dan Wildcat claims that Indigenous
vulnerability to climate change today is part of previous removals occurring as part of U.S. colonial expansion: ‘‘geographic’’ (displacement, e.g.,
Trail of Tears and the forced occupation of reservations); ‘‘social’’ and ‘‘psychocultural’’ (such as through removal of children to boarding
schools) (Wildcat, 2009: 4). Leanne Simpson discusses how ‘‘Indigenous peoples have always been able to adapt, and we’ve had a resilience.
But the speed of this—our stories and our culture and our oral tradition doesn’t keep up, can’t keep up... Colonial thought brought us climate
change’’ (Klein, 2013). In the epigraph, Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a former chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Council and recent author of the Right to Be
Cold, discusses in an interview how ‘‘Climate
change is yet another rapid assault on our way of life. It cannot be separated from
the first waves of changes and assaults at the very core of the human spirit that have come our way’’ (Robb, 2015; Watt-Cloutier,
2015).
In light of what was said in the previous paragraph, it
should not be surprising that Indigenous persons see our current
situation as already having been through a crisis that is ongoing. Lee Sprague, known most recently for his organizing the Michigan
Cold Water Canoe Rescue at Standing Rock, says that we already inhabit what our ancestors would have understood
as a dystopian future (Sprague, 2017; Whyte, 2017b). Larry Gross writes that ‘‘Native Americans have seen the end of
their respective worlds... Indians survived the apocalypse’’ (Gross, 2014, 33). Sprague’s and Gross’ framing of today’s
times comes out in Indigenous science fiction expression. Grace Dillon interprets Indigenous futurisms in literature and the arts as expressing
how Indigenous peoples are currently living in a ‘‘postNative Apocalypse’’ (Dillon, 2012: 10). Building on Dillon’s
research, Conrad Scott’s recent study discusses how ‘‘Indigenous literature, following the culturally destructive process of colonial
European advancement and absorption of what is now called the Americas , tends to narrate a sense of ongoing crisis rather
than an upcoming one’’ (Scott, 2016: 77).

Indigenous peoples then do not always approach the climate crisis as an impending future to be dreaded.
Heather Davis and Zoe Todd see an insidious irony in the different ways Indigenous and nonIndigenous persons approach the Anthropocene
and climate crisis. They describe colonialism as a seismic shockwave that ‘‘kept rolling like a slinky [as it worked] to compact and speed up time,
laying waste to legal orders, languages, place-story in quick succession. The fleshy, violent loss of 50 million Indigenous peoples in the Americas
is something we read as a ‘quickening’ of space-time in a seismic sense’’ (Davis and Todd, 2017: 771–772). They then point out that ‘‘ the
Anthropocene or at least all of the anxiety produced around these realities for those in Euro-Western contexts—is really the arrival
of the reverberations of that seismic shockwave into the nations who introduced colonial, capitalist
processes across the globe in the first half-millennium in the first place’’ (Davis and Todd, 2017: 774).2

The perspectives referenced in the last few paragraphs point to the idea that Indigenous peoples have already endured
harmful and rapid environmental transformations due to colonialism and other forms of domination. As Davis and
Todd articulate so clearly, these environmental transformations —‘‘the fleshy violent [losses]’’—seem actually a lot like
what many other people in the world fear will happen with climate destabilization when these same people
portray apocalyptic and dystopian science fiction futures.3 Given Indigenous experiences of, scholarly work on and testimonies about
colonialism, it
should not be hard to imagine why many Indigenous persons I know do not accept historical
narratives that privilege the idea that climate change and the Anthropocene raise the issue of how to
understand and stop a dreaded future movement from stability to crisis. Consider a brief history of
Anishinaabe/Neshnabe´ peoples, who include diverse Ojibwe, Odawa, Potawatomi, Mississauga and other peoples whose homelands are in the
Great Lakes region but also, through relocation, in places such as Oklahoma, Kansas, and North Dakota.

Anishinaabe/Neshnabe´ peoples often relate their histories through concepts of constant migration and
motion occurring at different scales. Historically, Anishinaabe peoples root themselves in a complex migration story through which their
societies changed homelands repeatedly as they moved from what is now called the Eastern U.S./Canada region to the Great Lakes region.
Within Anishinaabe heritage, Anishinaabe societies governed themselves using a seasonal round system. Part of the political philosophy guiding
this system is that government institutions and social identities should be organized to change and shift throughout the year to adjust to the
dynamics of ecosystems. So at different times during the year, different institutions and identities of political authority are active, which range
from clans, lodges, families, networks, bands, villages, among others. In these traditions, gender and sexuality are more fluid than the binary
gender system in many cultures in the U.S. Regarding gender, Anishinaabe heritage has more gender options, greater gender fluidity, and a
culture of respecting diverse leadership capacities and roles across different genders. Identity fluidity has an important role in these traditions,
where historical accounts show that people constantly transformed their identities in relation to other humans and nonhumans to form new
strategic kin connections and to take up the projects of ancestors who had walked on (Blaeser, 1999; Doerfler et al., 2013; Lyons, 2010; Noodin,
2014; Sinclair, 2016; Sleeper-Smith, 2001; White, 1991; Witgen, 2011).

I interpret speculatively the diverse work of historians Michael Witgen, Susan SleeperSmith, and Michael McDonnel as showing that our
Anishinaabe ancestors were likely to have been surprised when the U.S. settlers confronted them with the assumption that they had title to
Indigenous lands, made laws and took actions that sought to end Anishinaabe seasonal round systems, did not need to engage in the
transformational exercise of forging of kinship relationships and dismissed the leadership of women, for example, using sexist slurs and
assumptions (McDonnell, 2015; Sleeper-Smith, 2005; Witgen, 2011). As Indigenous peoples, some of us awaken to a situation that those
ancestors who were surprised by U.S. arrogance and domineering would have seen as a dystopian science
fiction scenario. Our collective agency is dominated by the U.S. Some Anishinaabe communities forcibly left the Great Lakes
region entirely, setting up their own nations in places like what is currently Oklahoma or Kansas or finding asylum with other Anishinaabe
peoples on the Canada side. The majority of U.S. citizens and arrivants have not even heard of Anishinaabe, nor do our histories show up fairly
or at all in state educational systems in the Great Lakes region. We
have lower health and wealth statistics compared to other
people who live here and have less capacities for protecting the environment around us, starting businesses and
trade relationships and having meaningful political representation through our own governing bodies and those of the
U.S. and its states. Like dystopian narratives, we find ourselves in a time our ancestors would have
interpreted as a portrayal of our societies with dramatically curtailed collective agency. They would have been
surprised and horrified to know in such a short period of time so much would have changed.

It ignores dystopias tribes are experiencing now.

Curley and Lister 20 [Andrew Curley – assistant professor at the University of Arizona, research
focuses on the everyday incorporation of Indigenous nations into colonial economies; Majerle Lister –
graduated from ASU with a major in Political Science and a minor in Philosophy; "Already existing
dystopias: tribal sovereignty, extraction, and decolonizing the Anthropocene"; Handbook on the
Changing Geographies of the State; 10-9-2020; Accessible Online at
https://www.elgaronline.com/view/edcoll/9781788978040/9781788978040.00035.xml] DL 7-14-2021
However, extractive industries have helped assuage some of the longstanding impacts of genocide, violent displacement, and forced
assimilation. For generations, Indigenous peoples were able to survive on their lands through strategic engagement with extractive industries
and capitalism. The legacies of these practices scar the landscape. They helped us survive on the land but also destroyed much of it in the
process. Withcolonization, Indigenous peoples saw their lands taken and lives permanently altered. This
constituted its own dystopia. Tribes later suffered through forced assimilation, continued land theft, and
the creation of tribal institutions with legal and political rights strongly associated with the expansion of
capitalism and extractive industries within and around Indigenous communities. Oil and gas fracking
around Indigenous lands have witnessed the abduction and murder of Indigenous women who are
ensnared into man camps. Coal created hundreds of jobs, a sense of economic dependency, and
eventual collapse. These multiple, overlapping, and current dystopias are lost on most commentaries on
climate change. To decolonize the Anthropocene requires attention to the more complicated landscape
of colonialism as they pertain to Indigenous peoples and nations.
On-Case
Advantage Frontlines
 Indigenous Food Soverignity

Essentialism Turn—Legal personhood homogenous native identity—independent

reason why they don’t solve for any of their advantage
Marshall, 2020 [Virginia, practising lawyer and the inaugural Indigenous Postdoctoral Fellow with the
Australian National University at the School of Regulation and Global Governance and the Fenner School
of Environment and Society, “REMOVING THE VEIL FROM THE ‘RIGHTS OF NATURE’: THE DICHOTOMY
BETWEEN FIRST NATIONS CUSTOMARY RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL PERSONHOOD,” 30 Sep
2020, Australian Feminist Law Journal, https://doi.org/10.1080/13200968.2019.1802154, accessed
7/22/2021, ddi-AJ]
During the past few years, I have presented at ‘rights of nature’ conferences and workshops to provide an Aboriginal perspective on the legal
and cultural impact of embracing legal
personhood for natural resources, and to draw attention to the colo- nial impact on
Indigenous peoples of Australia. Put simply, Indigenous peoples cannot simply be bundled into a
homogenous grouping – in spite of commonalties of a shared colonial history. I find it concerning that there is a general
silence from the proponents for the ‘rights of nature’ movement in relation to the fundamental
Indigenous doctrine of gendered relationships between all living things which exists to maintain balance
within the living environment.20 This silence also extends to the significance of Aboriginal women’s
inherent and crucial role in Aboriginal laws, customs, practices to maintain kinship obligations and the
sustainability of Country – and as healers of this land.21 The Australian Law Reform Commission during the late 1970s recognised the
importance of involving the voices and experiences of Aboriginal women in women only discussions during the fieldwork for the Commission’s
inquiry into the Recog- nition of Aboriginal Customary Laws because Aboriginal women were reluctant to speak in mixed groups at the Public
Hearings.22 Women’s business was rarely taken into account, and there was a lack of attention given to consulting Aboriginal women.23 At the
core of Aboriginal relationships is respect for culture and Country.24 The creation of the Aboriginal environment sometimes referred to as the
Dreamings, were in human, animal or other form but inevitably male or female.25 Aboriginal
people in Australia are the oldest
continuous living cultural group in the world,26 where the connection to Country is a source of health,
well-being and renewal. An Aboriginal concept of Country is antithetical to the concept of legal
personhood. The concept of personhood of river systems is foreign within Aboriginal ideology , where
there is no separation between land, water and Aboriginal cultural/ legal obligations that derive from the fundamental Aboriginal belonging to
the land and waters.27 It is a foreign concept to legally and spatially isolate Aboriginal peoples from any part of
Country, irrespective of the historic and revitalised connections that exist. The fol- lowing case clearly identifies a robust Aboriginal legal
system that has formalised own- ership, succession rights and obligations and trespass. In Gumana v Northern Territory (No 2)28 the Yolngu
Peoples of north-east Arnhem Land were applicants to a claim under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 and sought to
exclude third parties from fishing their traditional waters in certain sites of the inter-tidal zones and sea of Blue Mud Bay.29 Their
bark
paintings, admitted as evi- dence, detailed their relationship to Saltwater Country with the various clans
in the Bay. The Court acknowledged, among other things, that it was clear from the evidence that
Yolngu law provided for the succession of rights and obligations between clans.30

Turn—legal personhood invoked by wealthy elites—less likely to protect from

pollution
Eckstein et al, 2019 [Gabriel, Professor Texas A&M University School of Law, “Conferring legal
personality on the world's rivers: A brief intellectual assessment,” 44 Water Int'l 1, WATER
INTERNATIONAL, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1631558, accessed 7/23/2021, ddi-AJ]
Granting legal rights to rivers also places the responsibility of looking after, and representing, the environmental good or
resource in the appointed guardians, rather than elected officials. Without broader institutional and financial
support, this means that only wealthy or well-endowed representatives will be able to challenge decisions
and enter costly litigation, should a river wish to sue or find itself the subject of an individual or class action. Given the financial
burden of engaging in judicial process, perhaps it is not surprising that Ecuador – a country that granted all of nature legal rights in 2008
(Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador, 2008; Revkin, 2008) – has had only three cases of the rights of nature being successfully brought to
court by civil society (Kauffman & Martin, 2017). In the first case, two
American residents who live part- time in Ecuador
brought a case against the provincial government of Loja on behalf of the Vilcabamba River. The
plaintiffs owned property downstream of a road that was to be widened and that runs past the river.
The couple argued on behalf of nature that the new construction was adding debris to the river and thus
increasing the likelihood of floods that affected the riverside populations that use the river’s resources
(Daly, 2012). Admittedly, in the case of the rivers discussed here, nominated guardians have been appointed to speak on behalf of the rivers,
and in the case of the Whanganui River, a NZ$ 30 million contestable fund has been created for the purposes of improving Te Awa Tupua’s
health and well-being, as well as litigation purposes. However, in
the case of the Ganges and Yamuna Rivers, no financial
support has been provided, which limits the legitimacy and power of their legal rights, and that of the
guardians who represent them.

Climate Change is an alt cause to food sovereignty

Rall et al, 2020 [Katharina, senior researcher in the Environment and Human Rights division of Human
Rights Watch, “The Climate Crisis and First Nations’ Right to Food in Canada,” October 21, 2020, hrw.,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/21/my-fear-losing-everything/climate-crisis-and-first-nations-
right-food-canada#, accessed 7/24/2021, ddi-AJ]

Yet as global temperatures have risen as a result of climate change, the Koostachins’ way of life, and livelihood, have
become increasingly difficult to maintain, and the realization of their rights to food, health, and culture are at risk .
There are fewer caribou and geese migrating to the area. And it is harder—at times impossible—to hunt them because the ice and permafrost
they must travel over is no longer stable throughout the winter, while the waters they traverse in summer are unpredictably low. As the
climate continues to warm, these changes to their lands and environment will intensify, and their
traditional sources of sustenance could entirely disappear. Already, as a result of these changes, the
Koostachins have not been able to harvest the food they need to ensure an adequate diet, and, like many
northern and remote First Nations people in Canada, they lack a cost-effective, healthy alternative. If not enough food
can be harvested from the land—through hunting, fishing, and gathering wild plants—their only option
is to buy costly food imported from the [Canadian] “South.” An average family of four in Peawanuck must spend around 30
percent more to purchase a standard selection of healthy food each month compared to a family in Toronto. With their modest income, the
Koostachins said they cannot afford to buy healthy food such as vegetables at the store. While there are government subsidies
meant to make food shipped from the South more affordable, healthy imported food, particularly produce, remains inaccessible to many and is
becoming more expensive as a result of climate impacts on transport costs. Across Canada, Indigenous
families are already much
more likely to be “food insecure”—defined by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as not being able to
access food to meet dietary needs and food preferences—largely as a result of historic marginalization and the impacts of colonialism. Some
studies find nearly one in two households in First Nations are food insecure, compared with one out of nine white Canadian households. Food
poverty now risks reaching increasingly dangerous levels as climate change impacts across the country intensify and accelerate, undermining
First Nations’ access to food and worsening health outcomes, especially for adults and children with chronic health conditions such as diabetes.
Climate change is significantly impacting First Nations—and their livelihoods—across Canada, and there is evidence that the worst is yet to
come. Canada is warming by about twice the global average, and northern Canada is warming even faster. A 2019 government report,
commissioned by the federal climate ministry, projects increasingly warmer temperatures, shorter snow and ice cover seasons, and thawing
permafrost across the country. In fact, key sub-Arctic ecosystems that support many traditional sources of food are
already at risk of reaching climate tipping points , past which they will not be able to recover from the consequences of rapid
warming. This change, according to scientists, will contribute to carbon emissions. For example, climate change-induced
permafrost thaw and increased forest fires are pushing historic carbon sinks like Canada’s vast boreal
forest to the brink, causing them to become net carbon contributors .

Rights of Nature movement is deeply founded in naturalistic fallacies—focus on

human centric rights better saves the enviorment
ZGUR, 2020 [MATIJA, Research Fellow University deglistudi Roma Tre., “ALL THE EARTH'S LEGAL
CHILDREN SOME SCEPTICAL COMMENTS ABOUT NATURE'S LEGAL PERSONHOOD,” December, DIRITTO
& QUESTIONI PUBBLICHE, Hein Online, accessed 7/25/2021, ddi-AJ]

*EJ = Earth Jurisprudence

This brief and sketchy presentation of EJ's legal philosophy allows for several critical obser- vations to be made in reference to its basic tenets.
First, inreference to the purported nature of rights. It appears to me somewhat contentious to speak of
rights, indeed freedoms, whose func- tion is to allow some predetermined purpose of an entity to be
fulfilled. Customarily, we under- stand freedoms as allowing the freedom-holder certain choices with regard to performing, or not, of some
action. EJ-rights, on the other hand, "grant" the freedom to do something that ap- pears to be an inevitability. On
this view, for instance, a tree has a right to grow, a river the right to flow and a bird the right to fly . More broadly
speaking, it seems odd to speak of purpos- es of certain natural entities, especially sentient animals, save in
some religious context (e.g. "the purpose of man is to do good and worship God"). Man-made objects are more
comprehen- sibly spoken in such terms, but even they may be used for purposes unrelated to the one envis- aged by the author
(e.g. a knife can equally be used to cut food as well as for shaving a beard). But the reason why EJ is able to speak of rights and natural objects
in such deterministic terms is that it confounds the Is and the Ought, the descriptive and the normative. Thus, from the physical fact that rivers
flow, EJ deduces that they ought to flow and, in the final instance, that they have a right to flow. This, however, is quite clearly a case
of the naturalistic fallacy24 There is yet another curiosity with EJ-rights worth mentioning. Namely, it should be noted that the nature
of human rights on this account is quite different from the nature of the rights of all other rights-holders. While all other natural entities are
holders exclusively of freedoms, humans are the only ones who are duty-bearers as well. Against what Berry claimed
(see point 3, above), human rights seem to be the only kind of limited rights, opposed to rights of other
subjects that seem unlimited. It also follows that while other natural entities hold their rights against
human beings (but not against each other), the latter can only hold their rights in their mutual relations, but not
against other natural entities. Secondly, with regard to the class of rights-holders, EJ subscribes to an extensive
granting of rights to all individual instances of natural entities (e.g. individual birds, wolves, humans, rivers etc.), natural
groupings thereof (e.g. flocks of birds, packs of wolves etc.), as well as to the Earth itself (a collective of collectives). On the other
hand, it seems to reject the possibility of species holding these same rights ". This selective mix of potential rights-
holders and the hierarchical structuring of their rights may cause certain problems for human law-makers and law-appliers. For instance,
refusing species-rights greatly reduces the capacity of legal systems to regulate in advance and in abstractopermissible human behaviour in
relation to the environment. Laws have the greatest impact when they deal with abstract and general categories
(such as, for instance, an- imals, the bear population, freshwater fishes etc.), not with individualized, specific instances thereof .
Moreover, taking seriously the primacy of Earth's rights, would make adjudication in concrete cases a Herculean task. Consider, for instance,
that a proposal for building a dam on a river in Italy is challenged in an Italian court of law for purportedly violating the well-being of the Earth
community as such. Thesitting judge would have to consider all possible effects such a spatially circumscribed
interference into the ecosystem would have for the biosphere in general . It seems hardly plausible that
a single individual would possess sufficient information to perform such a balancing act in an informed
manner. Thus, it seems that in real-life, non-ideal circum- stances, decision-making concerning the well-being of the entire Earth community
is either des- tined to become a one-way affair with an ex ante predictable result, i.e. the well-being of the Earth would always prevail; or we
have to accept that fallible individuals will render sub-optimal deci- sions, potentially failing to provide sufficient legal protection for the
environment. Finally, it is unclear what the scope of EJ-informed law in legal systems ought to be . If EJ is limited to
the sphere of environment-related laws, the problem is that it gives rise to cohabita- tion of two utterly different systems of governance: one
arguing for the legal primacy of Earth- centred considerations, another based on the premise of the supremacy of the constitution. On
crucial problem in this regard is that there appears to be no criterion that would determine which
system's "rule of recognition" would (have to) prevail should the two clash. On the other hand, if EJ principles are to pervade all
areas of legal regulation, I struggle to see how certain exclusively human affairs could ever be guided by a system that primarily derives its
normative conclusions from observation of physical laws of nature. Indeed, practical coordination prob- lems (e.g. rules of traffic),
which usually require an arbitrary solution to be agreed upon, could not find guide in the laws of nature .
The above said leads me to conclude that the radical version of EJ as a legal theory is not a viable model for the legal
systems in the Constitutional State. Its radically different under- standing of the concepts of law, rights etc. makes it, in the final instance,
incompatible with the basic precepts of our existing governance models. It is therefore excluded from my further con- siderations in this essay.
 2NC Extensions

No Solvency and Turn—Legal Personhood causes less protection—empirics

Eckstein et al, 2019 [Gabriel, Professor Texas A&M University School of Law, “Conferring legal
personality on the world's rivers: A brief intellectual assessment,” 44 Water Int'l 1, WATER
INTERNATIONAL, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1631558, accessed 7/23/2021, ddi-AJ]
In 2017, mainstream environmental law experienced a seismic shift. Over 40 years after Christopher Stone’s (1972) provocative article, and
seven years after the most recent experiments in giving nature legal rights in Ecuador and Bolivia, courts and
legislatures around the world began to recognize rivers and other natural objects as legal persons
(O’Donnell & Talbot-Jones, 2017a). The impact of these radical legal reforms should not be overstated : Stone’s
original concept was the subject of open mockery (in verse, no less; see Burdon, 2010), and despite ongoing grass-roots campaigns run
tirelessly by environmental NGOs, prior to 2017, the concept of legal rights for nature remained well outside the legal mainstream. Since March
2017, legal rights have been extended to forests, glaciers, animals, mountains, and of course more rivers, and are now considered integral for
future environmental law reform, even in countries such as Australia, where legal rights for nature have not been formally created (Australian
Panel of Experts on Environmental Law, 2017). But in all the excitement, there
is emerging evidence that granting legal
rights and legal personality to rivers can actually lead to people being less willing to protect those rivers
(O’Donnell, 2018). This outcome can undermine the potential benefits of grant- ing rights to rivers in the first
place.

Climate change decks tribal sovereignty

Rall et al, 2020 [Katharina, senior researcher in the Environment and Human Rights division of Human
Rights Watch, “The Climate Crisis and First Nations’ Right to Food in Canada,” October 21, 2020, hrw.,
https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/10/21/my-fear-losing-everything/climate-crisis-and-first-nations-
right-food-canada#, accessed 7/24/2021, ddi-AJ]

Climate change threatens to decimate these food systems , risking further serious consequences for livelihoods and
health. In the three areas where Human Rights Watch conducted research, residents reported drastic reductions in the quantity of harvestable
resources available, and increased difficulty and danger associated with harvesting. They attributed this decline in part to changes in wildlife
habitat as a result of climate change, including changing ice and permafrost, wildfires, warming water temperatures, changes in precipitation
and water levels, and unpredictable weather. Numerous scientific studies support these observations and warn of
further devastating impacts as the climate crisis increasingly threatens the viability of and access to
traditional food sources. With less food to be harvested, households supplement their traditional diet
with more purchased food. First Nations in remote locations have a compounded risk of food poverty because higher transportation
costs drive food prices higher than elsewhere in the country. This cost differential has been increasing in part due to
climate-related changes in the local environment. For example, shorter, warmer winters mean shorter
periods in which winter roads can be used, and such roads enable more cost-effective delivery of
supplies from the South. This change means more people like Joseph and Helen choosing between going hungry or buying cheaper
foods they believe contribute to making them sick or sicker. It will get significantly worse if climate change continues unchecked. Healthy
foods, such as fruits and vegetables, in remote grocery stores are often cost-prohibitive. As a result, people
told Human Rights Watch they tend to eat more affordable, but less nutritious foods, compounding existing health disparities in northern
communities tied to historic marginalization and poor access to health care. In
particular, academic studies show that
increased dependence on processed, high-calorie, store-bought foods—often less expensive and with longer shelf-
lives—has contributed to serious diet-related health issues among First Nations , such as the growing and
disproportionate number of First Nations people affected by obesity and diabetes. In several of the communities where Human Rights Watch
conducted research, teachers and community members said that children come hungry to school. Older
people and people with
chronic diseases whose health conditions can make a healthy diet all-the-more critical said they find the
loss of harvested food impedes their ability to eat healthily. Medical providers told Human Rights Watch that people with
chronic diseases cannot afford to follow medically recommended diets due to their inability to obtain food from the land or to afford nutritious
foods sold in stores. Some of the relatively older people interviewed for this report said they have cut down on the number of meals they eat
per day. The impacts of climate change negatively affect Indigenous cultures. Limited access to traditional food
sources and decreased ability of First Nations to safely spend time on the land, threatens not only communities’ food supplies but also their
ability to engage in related cultural practices and ultimately maintain their cultural identities. First Nations’ land-based knowledge systems,
known as “Indigenous knowledge,” which communities use to pass information about harvesting techniques and other cultural knowledge
down through the generations, are also being challenged by climate change impacts. The
unpredictable weather and animal
patterns linked to climate change impacts inhibit the growth and adaptation of Indigenous knowledge,
and the transmission of cultural knowledge—which necessitates time spent on the land.

Human obligations better solve environmental issues—rights of nature stop real

solutions from emerging
ZGUR, 2020 [MATIJA, Research Fellow University deglistudi Roma Tre., “ALL THE EARTH'S LEGAL
CHILDREN SOME SCEPTICAL COMMENTS ABOUT NATURE'S LEGAL PERSONHOOD,” December, DIRITTO
& QUESTIONI PUBBLICHE, Hein Online, accessed 7/25/2021, ddi-AJ]

*EJ=Earth Jurisprudence

*GL = Great Law

Still another issue in which this version of EJ differs from the former account is the explicit acknowledgement that its scope is limited: EJ, on
this view, does
not seek to provide guidance for numerous areas of law (e.g. contract law), nor does it enter
ethical debates such as on gay marriage, abortion, euthanasia etc . Instead, argues Brudon, <Earth Jurisprudence is
concerned specifically with matters concerning human interaction and modification of the environ- ment 37 . In this sense, EJ will apply to
property law, environmental law, natural resource man- agement etc., but not to traffic rules, family law, or work safety regulations. Note also
that this strand of EJ does not fall victim to the problem of the "cohabitation" of two systems both claiming (legal) superiority mentioned
above3 8 . As I have just shown, in this version of EJ, hu- man laws (i.e. constitutional law) normally take precedence over GL . To sum
up, Burdon and others have attempted to show that it is possible to construct an EJ legal theory which is not incompatible with the main
precepts of contemporary legal systems. Their fundamental move in doing this is to integrate and subordinate EJ-inspired law to the positive
law. In this light, it is interesting to note that Burdon has recently argued that EJ's basic claim for rights
of Nature is the wrong
strategy for combating the environmental crisis. Rather, Burdon argues that we should focus on establishing
robust human obligations towards the environmen t. The bases for this claim are provided by the thinking that if
human beings are the cause of the current environmental crisis, it is there that the solutions to it should
be sought. In reference to the best approach to combat the ongoing ecological disasters, he argues that
[l]egal rights are ill-suited to this task . Rights enable us to externalise the problem and project concepts
onto nature. But the problem is not "out there". The problem is with us and we need to place human pow- er at the
centre of our legal and ethical frameworks. One way to do this is through obligations >>39 Burdon also claims
that obligations are prior to rights. Although he does not specify in what sense (logical, moral, some other?), his further discussion leads us to
conclude that this priority is moral. While I am personally convinced by his understanding of the root causes of the prob- lem, as well as his
argument for a human-centred solution, his argument from obligations does not address, let alone resolve, the conceptual problems
of this strand of EJ with the set of viable rights-holders. Thus, it is unclear whether this version of EJ deviates from the former one as potential
rights-holders are concerned. Another fundamental conceptual question that remains unaddressed in Burdon's account is whether he
subscribes to the idea that natural entities have rights-claims (as would follow from his argument that humans have, or ought to have, duties in
their confront) or merely liberties. I
emphasize the importance of this and other conceptual is- sues for a viable EJ
legal theory in the next section.
It’s all about us silly—ecocentric approaches to environment bad—focusing on
anthropocentrism good
ZGUR, 2020 [MATIJA, Research Fellow University deglistudi Roma Tre., “ALL THE EARTH'S LEGAL
CHILDREN SOME SCEPTICAL COMMENTS ABOUT NATURE'S LEGAL PERSONHOOD,” December, DIRITTO
& QUESTIONI PUBBLICHE, Hein Online, accessed 7/25/2021, ddi-AJ]

*EJ=Earth Jurisprudence

4. Conclusion. "It's all about us, silly" In this short essay, I presented and then commented upon several claims and proposals made by
EJ, conceived as a theory of law. First, I presented two elaborations of EJ qua legal theory - one more radical, another somewhat more modest. I
rejected the first as incompatible with the structure and content of contemporary legal systems. The second elaboration, on the other hand,
seems more plausible in the contemporary legal context. Then, I attempted to elaborate a set of issues that a theory of rights-for-Nature such
as EJ must address should it wish to provide a convincing defence of its claims. The problem of "who is law for", i.e. who can be a rights-holding
person in law, can be addressed on different levels. From a purely legal-technical point of view of the legislator, there seems to be very little, if
any, non-legal reasons preventing the legislator from ascribing rights to whichever type of entity, be it natural or fictional. As Dayan vividly
argues, at the hands of the legislator the law can become a magic-like instrument for changing the world: « Once the word "legal" is
attached to words such as conscience, intellect, or choice » Dayan argues, «they no longer mean what we
thought they meant. It is as if whenever "legal" is used, it erodes not just the customary and normal but the very
facts of existence>>". However, neither legal theory, nor legal practice will easily admit what some argue,
namely that «anything goes, anything or anyone can be endowed with rights and so become a legal
person, as long as it is compatible with the purpose of any particular law >> 6. At the theoretical level, as we have
seen, it is necessary that - among other things - the entity in question can sensibly be ascribed interests". At the practical level, the
problem of a radical and hasty expansion of legal personhood to new entities could risk a societal
backlash. As Pietrzykowski notes, equal recognition of personhood has been a long and painful process even in
reference to human beings 8 . The expan- sion of legal recognition to new entities should therefore always tread carefully and rather
than being a trailblazing activity should follow in the footsteps of scientific discovery, theoretical arguments and societal acceptance59. As far
as welcoming sentient animals into the family of persons is concerned, there is increasing scientific
evidence showing their cognitive similarity to some already recognized persons; there are also solid legal
theoretical arguments supporting rights-attribution ; finally, West- ern societies seem to be increasingly receptive of the idea
as well. On the other hand, all of the above is lacking in relation to the question of extending legal personhood to non-animal living entities, i.e.
Nature. The conclusion of this essay is, thus, that EJ fails to establish itself as a viable theory of rights for Nature . This,
however, doesn't mean that we are given a free pass in how we should treat the environment. This brings me to the last point I wish to make
here. As we have seen, EJ moves from the argument that anthropocentrism is at the root of the ecolog- ical disaster we are experiencing. In
consequence, it argues that our ethics, legal regulation and polit- ical practice ought to be informed by a non-anthropocentric, Eco-centric point
of view. The curious thing about these proposals is that they are in their very nature quite anthropocentric: they tell us how we should change
our laws, our political institutions, our way of life, how we should treat Na- ture6. Implicitly, then, it
seems that EJ already
recognizes what seems to be an obvious fact: that the problem begins and ends with us. As Burdon notes,
the existence of the Anthropocene itself is proof of the uniquely human capacity to influence the
environment in a profound manner. If man is the only one to blame for the current crisis, then man also can be its
cure. To conclude with Bur- don: «Rather than retreat into an ecological worldview and notions of inherent
value and legal rights, I contend that the Anthropocene encourages us to develop environmental ethics
and law that begin from and are ordered around human beings >>
 Legal

Water Personhood doesn’t spillover

Dvorsky, 2017 [George, founder and director of IEET, “India and New Zealand Were Wrong to Recognize
Rivers as Persons,” 3/24/17, Gizmodo, https://gizmodo.com/india-and-new-zealand-were-wrong-to-
recognize-rivers-as-1793612698, accessed 7/23/2021, ddi-AJ]

The measures taken in New Zealand and India also undermine ongoing efforts to grant personhood status to a
select group of nonhumans. The IEET’s Rights of Nonhuman Persons Program (full disclosure: I’m the founder and
director) is working to secure this special status for great apes, whales, dolphins, and elephants. These
animals are special in that they exhibit advanced cognitive traits —attributes such as self-awareness, the ability to
identify oneself in the mirror, a theory of other mind (i.e. the understanding that others have their own thoughts), self-control, planning
for the future, concern for others, curiosity, and so on. An emerging body of scientific evidence is
affirming the presence of many, if not all, of these traits in the animals proposed by the IEET . The like-minded
Nonhuman Rights Project is currently awaiting a decision from a New York judge about a chimpanzee personhood case, which would liberate
two chimps currently held in upstate New York in seemingly inhumane conditions. Steven Wise, who heads the group, is arguing for habeas
corpus, that is, the right to bodily autonomy. His argument is that chimps are mentally and emotionally sophisticated enough to warrant this
privilege, and that they, like humans, should be immune to confinement and experimentation. Designating rivers as persons
detracts from these seemingly related efforts. The arguments are fundamentally different, as are the objects/subjects in
question. Advocates of animal personhood take great pains to point out the remarkable cognitive and
emotional capacities of animals, while conservationists are simply trying to pull off a clever legal trick. Over time, the public may
become jaded about the conservationists’ efforts, and conflate the two different approaches. By declaring rivers persons, we’re diminishing
what it truly means to be a person, whether that person is a human, an animal, or even a sentient robot (eventually). Persons, by definition, are
self-aware, emotional creatures with a sense of the past and the future. And perhaps most importantly, they can suffer. Inanimate
objects can’t do any of these things, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise —even if doing so works to
protect our precious natural world.

Personhood doesn’t solve ecosystem collapse—Colorado proves

Spitz and Penalvert, 2021 [Laura, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law, and
Eduardo, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, “NATURE'S PERSONHOOD AND PROPERTY'S VIRTUES,”
Vol. 45, Harvard Environmental Law Review, HeinOnline, accessed 7/24/2021, ddi-AJ]

First, the Colorado

River plaintiffs overstated the dichotomy between per- sonhood and property law, simultaneously
exaggerating the potential for per- sonhood to bring meaningful change to the Colorado River's
existing co- management system and undervaluing the rich and varied property relation- ships
possible within the common law conception of ownership. In our view, the plaintiff displayed too little appreciation of
the potential of legal tools ex- isting within property law (e.g., conservation easements, trusts, etc.), and too much faith in
legal personhood to do the hard work of fundamentally changing how human beings interact with the Colorado River. This may have been a
litigation strategy, but the failure to acknowledge the potential for property law positioned the case as oppositional to progressive property law
litigation and 24 likely hurt the plaintiffs credibility with the court. Relatedly, the plaintiff and other rights of nature advocates in the United
States have consistently failed to acknowledge the ways in which property law doctrines continue to operate in jurisdictions where legal
personhood has been extended to natural objects.2 In the Whanganui River example in Aotearoa (New Zealand), Katherine Sanders observed
that: At its heart . . . property remains an organising principle of Te Awa Tupua legislation. The fee simple estate in the Crown-owned parts of
the bed of the Whanganui River vests in Te Awa Tupua [itself]. This land is inalienable, but an easement, lease, or licence may be granted on
behalf of Te Awa Tupua for a term of less than 35 years. While ownership of some minerals in the bed remains with the Crown, others vest in
Te Awa Tupua. The Act also preserves a range of ex- isting rights: public use and access rights and existing private property 26 rights, including
customary rights and title. Third, Deep Green Resistance ("DGR")-the organization that brought the plaintiffs claim-evinced no consideration for
the potential financial and jurisprudential costs of pursuing its strategy on behalf of the Colorado River. Environmental litigation is expensive in
terms of both time and money, and resources are obviously limited. A commitment of resources to one strategy
necessarily means those resources are not available for other strategies. Perhaps more significantly, however,
jurisprudential costs in this context are especially consequential . At best, the plaintiff and other rights of
nature advocates focus their arguments on the potential legal implications for the ecosystem itself, but
not on the larger legal, political, social and economic systems implicated by recognizing personhood for
nature. This is not a case where litigation strategies are complementary, however, as might be the case where two different groups of prison
reform activists challenge prison conditions through tort law on the one hand and constitutional law on the other. A determination that
something previously understood as property (a legal object) is a person (a legal subject) would have
significant legal consequences across all areas of law and, while it might open previously unavailable
legal arguments, it would necessarily fore- close others. Fourth, notwithstanding the rights enumerated by the plaintiff as
"inher- ent" to the river-such as the right to exist, flourish, regenerate, be restored, and naturally evolve 21- it is not immediately
obvious what legal entitlements would flow from personhood for a waterway or how a court would
determine those entitlements. It is certainly not self-evident from the plaintiffs case or broader rights of
nature discourse how and when a court should recognize any particular legal right as belonging to
nature. The evolution of constitutional rights in the context of corporations is instructive here. Corporations have been recognized as legal
persons for many years but courts-and society more broadly-continue to struggle with what that recognition means in terms of the scope of
corporate rights.28 Importantly, litigants and courts regularly admit the difficulty of this struggle and address arguments accordingly. Finally,
even ifwe were to acknowledge certain natural objects as rights- bearing persons, it is not clear that
modifying existing legal mechanisms- broadening standing doctrines or expanding conceptions of
benefits and harms, for example-could accomplish the goals that nature's rights activists hope to achieve. This is the question to which
we turn in the following sections of this Article. These practical questions about the work personhood does seem to
be particularly salient in a context like natural resources law , where the extension of personhood by a judge seems
unlikely to fundamentally change the locus of 29 decision-making about how natural resources are to be used or protected.

Legal personhood fails—too many moving parts for it to be successful—Squo solves

better
Spitz and Penalvert, 2021 [Laura, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law, and
Eduardo, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, “NATURE'S PERSONHOOD AND PROPERTY'S VIRTUES,”
Vol. 45, Harvard Environmental Law Review, HeinOnline, accessed 7/24/2021, ddi-AJ]

Often, the outcomes of conferring legal personhood on nonhumans are analyzed in terms of aggregate
utility or welfare. 75 But they can also be analyzed in terms of other kinds of consequences as well.76 For example, courts have
considered the impact of recognizing corporate rights on the ability of natural human beings to exercise
their personhood-rights. As the U.S. Supreme Court put it in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc : [I]t is important to keep in mind that
the purpose of this fiction [of recognizing rights in corporate persons] is to provide protection for human beings. A corporation is simply a form
of organization used by human beings to achieve desired ends. An established body of law specifies the rights and obligations of the people
(including sharehold- ers, officers, and employees) who are associated with a corporation in one way or another. When
rights, whether
constitutional or statutory, are extended to corporations, the purpose is to protect the rights of these people .
This kind of pragmatic, consequentialist analysis is indeed what many ad- vocates of nature seem to be engaging in, as we discuss at greater
length below. The question for these advocates is not whether a mountain or a river is a person in any philosophically defensible sense. It is
instead whetherrecognizing a mountain or a river as a person will guide the legal system to produce
"better" legal outcomes, where "better" is defined in terms of the consequences for human beings. But
we are doubtful that simply calling a river a "person" would-by it- self-make much difference for legal
outcomes. Recognition of personhood makes the greatest difference in legal proceedings when it changes the locus of decision-making
about actions that have an impact on the person. Recognizing a child as a separate person-as opposed to, say, treating children as the prop-
erty of their parents-can be the basis for removing decision-making authority from the parents and putting it in the hands of a guardian ad litem
who acts on behalf of the child's best interests.79 Similarly, recognizing
a fetus as a person could become the basis for
shifting decision-making about the fetus from the mother to some third party. The devil is in the details. The
real-world impact of conferring per- sonhood status on nonhuman entities would depend almost
entirely on the ma- trix of procedural and substantive rules built around that recognition. Although the law
recognizes children as persons, it defers to parental decision-making almost reflexively, stepping in only when
the parental relationship breaks down or when parental behavior is so extreme as to justify state
intervention. Recog- nizing trees as persons would have no impact on the treatment of trees located on private land unless some new rule
shifts decision-making about those trees from the private landowner to some third-party guardian. (We discuss the pos- sibilities for these sorts
of shifts below, in connection with the issue of standing.) Ultimately, then, an
impact-based analysis of the wisdom of
recognizing personhood in nonhuman entities turns on an analysis of these background procedural and
substantive rules. In this regard, we see two questions as para- mount. The first is: who is the relevant rule-maker? Most
discussions of confer- ring personhood on natural resources assume that the decision-maker who will determine the impact of that change in
status is a judge. The intuition seems to be that calling a river a person will yield different legal outcomes by forcing judges to entertain cases
that would otherwise flounder on standing grounds and by empowering (or requiring) judges to import into their evaluation of legal cases
doctrines that are drawn from other areas of the law. We set aside the undeniably important question of whether it is even desirable to confer
such unbounded discretion on judges.We turn to a discussion of the potential im- pacts-both procedural and substantive-of recognizing natural
resources as persons below in Parts III.A and III.B. Ultimately, our
view is that anything that could be accomplished
through recognition of personhood in nature could be accomplished using existing legal categories,
and the latter is an easier lift.

List of alt causes to ecosystem balance

1AC The World Counts, no date-“Everything relies on everything
else…”https://www.theworldcounts.com/stories/Impact-of-Ecosystem-Destruction

Disturbing the balance of an ecosystem can be disastrous for all the living things relying on it . Impacts every
living thing on the planet, which includes us. The impact of ecosystem destruction will be felt by everything
eventually. Our natural ecosystems are finding it hard to cope with the different pressures and are unable
to adjust. If we continue depleting resources and destroying our environment, soon it will be too late for them to
recover, even with our help. Like I mentioned, everything relies on everything else around it. Our planet is
alive and interconnected and we are part of that web. The impact of ecosystem destruction are the following:
Increased flooding due to the erosion of soil and lack of trees Rising of the sea levels due to the melting of the
glaciers, caused by Global Warming Disruption of the food chain when the apex predators become extinct Water
shortage - we only have a finite supply of fresh drinking water Food shortage as the lands become barren and the
oceans become fishless Loss of biodiversity as whole species of living things disappear due to deforestation
[unmanageable] Pollution will eventually become unmanageable and affect[ing] our health and Rising
temperatures may be too much for all living things on the planet we’re well on our way to our own
destruction, slowly and surely. Every aspect of our ecosystem is important – because when one goes, the rest
will follow. Imagine this scenario… When the global temperature continues to rise, the glaciers will melt. The sea
levels will rise and coastal cities will be inundated, killing millions of people. Economies will stop and will be
severely burdened in trying to sustain everyone. Farms will be flooded, there will be no food. It goes on.
Bio d is part of evolution, it’s better for the world and doesn’t make irreversible
climate change
Alexander Pyron, 11-22-2017, “We don’t need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of
evolution," Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/we-dont-need-to-save-
endangered-species-extinction-is-part-of-evolution/2017/11/21/57fc5658-cdb4-11e7-a1a3-
0d1e45a6de3d_story.html, Accessed: 7-23-2021, /Kent Denver-IT

But the impulse to conserve for conservation’s sake has taken on an unthinking, unsupported,
unnecessary urgency. Extinction is the engine of evolution, the mechanism by which natural selection
prunes the poorly adapted and allows the hardiest to flourish. Species constantly go extinct, and every
species that is alive today will one day follow suit. There is no such thing as an “endangered species,”
except for all species. The only reason we should conserve biodiversity is for ourselves, to create a stable
future for human beings. Yes, we have altered the environment and, in doing so, hurt other species. This
seems artificial because we, unlike other life forms, use sentience and agriculture and industry. But we
are a part of the biosphere just like every other creature, and our actions are just as volitional, their
consequences just as natural. Conserving a species we have helped to kill off, but on which we are not
directly dependent, serves to discharge our own guilt, but little else.
Climate scientists worry about how we’ve altered our planet, and they have good reasons for apprehension: Will we be able to feed ourselves?
Will our water supplies dry up? Will our homes wash away? But unlike those concerns, extinction does not carry moral significance, even when
we have caused it. And unless we somehow destroy every living cell on Earth, the sixth extinction will be followed by a recovery, and later a
seventh extinction, and so on.

Yet we are obsessed with reviving the status quo ante. The Paris Accords aim to hold the temperature to under two degrees Celsius above
preindustrial levels, even though the temperature has been at least eight degrees Celsius warmer within the past 65 million years. Twenty-one
thousand years ago, Boston was under an ice sheet a kilometer thick. We are near all-time lows for temperature and sea level ; whatever effort
we make to maintain the current climate will eventually be overrun by the inexorable forces of space and geology. Our concern, in other words,
should not be protecting the animal kingdom, which will be just fine. Within a few million years of the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, the
post-apocalyptic void had been filled by an explosion of diversity — modern mammals, birds and amphibians of all shapes and sizes.

This is how evolution proceeds: through extinction. The inevitability of death is the only constant in life,
and 99.9 percent of all species that have ever lived, as many as 50 billion, have already gone extinct. In
50 million years, Europe will collide with Africa and form a new supercontinent, destroying species
(think of birds, fish and anything vulnerable to invasive life forms from another landmass) by irrevocably
altering their habitats. Extinctions of individual species, entire lineages and even complete ecosystems
are common occurrences in the history of life. The world is no better or worse for the absence of saber-
toothed tigers and dodo birds and our Neanderthal cousins, who died off as Homo sapiens evolved.
(According to some studies, it's not even clear that biodiversity is suffering. The authors of another
recent National Academy of Sciences paper point out that species richness has shown no net decline
among plants over 100 years across 16,000 sites examined around the world.)

Conserving biodiversity should not be an end in itself; diversity can even be hazardous to human health.
Infectious diseases are most prevalent and virulent in the most diverse tropical areas. Nobody donates
to campaigns to save HIV, Ebola, malaria, dengue and yellow fever, but these are key components of
microbial biodiversity, as unique as pandas, elephants and orangutans, all of which are ostensibly
endangered thanks to human interference.

Humans should feel less shame about molding their environment to suit their survival needs. When
beavers make a dam, they cause the local extinction of numerous riverine species that cannot survive in
the new lake. But that new lake supports a set of species that is just as diverse. Studies have shown that
when humans introduce invasive plant species, native diversity sometimes suffers, but productivity —
the cycling of nutrients through the ecosystem — frequently increases.

Alt causes to water pollution – even if the plan resolves the pollution from mining it
fails to address the pollution from other sources that affect the same water sources
they are trying to fix.
Melissa Denchak 18 [May 14, 2018 Melissa Denchak, "Water Pollution: Everything You Need to
Know," NRDC, 5-14-2018, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/water-pollution-everything-you-need-know,
wcLH]

Groundwater

When rain falls and seeps deep into the earth, filling the cracks, crevices, and porous spaces of an
aquifer (basically an underground storehouse of water), it becomes groundwater—one of our least
visible but most important natural resources. Nearly 40 percent of Americans rely on groundwater,
pumped to the earth’s surface, for drinking water. For some folks in rural areas, it’s their only freshwater
source. Groundwater gets polluted when contaminants—from pesticides and fertilizers to waste leached
from landfills and septic systems—make their way into an aquifer, rendering it unsafe for human use.
Ridding groundwater of contaminants can be difficult to impossible, as well as costly. Once polluted, an
aquifer may be unusable for decades, or even thousands of years. Groundwater can also spread
contamination far from the original polluting source as it seeps into streams, lakes, and oceans.

Surface water

Covering about 70 percent of the earth, surface water is what fills our oceans, lakes, rivers, and all those
other blue bits on the world map. Surface water from freshwater sources (that is, from sources other
than the ocean) accounts for more than 60 percent of the water delivered to American homes. But a
significant pool of that water is in peril. According to the most recent surveys on national water quality
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nearly half of our rivers and streams and more than
one-third of our lakes are polluted and unfit for swimming, fishing, and drinking. Nutrient pollution,
which includes nitrates and phosphates, is the leading type of contamination in these freshwater
sources. While plants and animals need these nutrients to grow, they have become a major pollutant
due to farm waste and fertilizer runoff. Municipal and industrial waste discharges contribute their fair
share of toxins as well. There’s also all the random junk that industry and individuals dump directly into
waterways.

Ocean water

Eighty percent of ocean pollution (also called marine pollution) originates on land—whether along the
coast or far inland. Contaminants such as chemicals, nutrients, and heavy metals are carried from farms,
factories, and cities by streams and rivers into our bays and estuaries; from there they travel out to sea.
Meanwhile, marine debris—particularly plastic—is blown in by the wind or washed in via storm drains
and sewers. Our seas are also sometimes spoiled by oil spills and leaks—big and small—and are
consistently soaking up carbon pollution from the air. The ocean absorbs as much as a quarter of man-
made carbon emissions.

Point source

When contamination originates from a single source, it’s called point source pollution. Examples include
wastewater (also called effluent) discharged legally or illegally by a manufacturer, oil refinery, or
wastewater treatment facility, as well as contamination from leaking septic systems, chemical and oil
spills, and illegal dumping. The EPA regulates point source pollution by establishing limits on what can
be discharged by a facility directly into a body of water. While point source pollution originates from a
specific place, it can affect miles of waterways and ocean.

Nonpoint source

Nonpoint source pollution is contamination derived from diffuse sources. These may include agricultural
or stormwater runoff or debris blown into waterways from land. Nonpoint source pollution is the
leading cause of water pollution in U.S. waters, but it’s difficult to regulate, since there’s no single,
identifiable culprit.

Transboundary

It goes without saying that water pollution can’t be contained by a line on a map. Transboundary
pollution is the result of contaminated water from one country spilling into the waters of another.
Contamination can result from a disaster—like an oil spill—or the slow, downriver creep of industrial,
agricultural, or municipal discharge.

The Most Common Types of Water Contamination

Agricultural

Not only is the agricultural sector the biggest consumer of global freshwater resources, with farming
and livestock production using about 70 percent of the earth’s surface water supplies, but it’s also a
serious water polluter. Around the world, agriculture is the leading cause of water degradation. In the
United States, agricultural pollution is the top source of contamination in rivers and streams, the
second-biggest source in wetlands, and the third main source in lakes. It’s also a major contributor of
contamination to estuaries and groundwater. Every time it rains, fertilizers, pesticides, and animal waste
from farms and livestock operations wash nutrients and pathogens—such bacteria and viruses—into our
waterways. Nutrient pollution, caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in water or air, is the number-
one threat to water quality worldwide and can cause algal blooms, a toxic soup of blue-green algae that
can be harmful to people and wildlife.

Sewage and wastewater

Used water is wastewater. It comes from our sinks, showers, and toilets (think sewage) and from
commercial, industrial, and agricultural activities (think metals, solvents, and toxic sludge). The term also
includes stormwater runoff, which occurs when rainfall carries road salts, oil, grease, chemicals, and
debris from impermeable surfaces into our waterways

More than 80 percent of the world’s wastewater flows back into the environment without being
treated or reused, according to the United Nations; in some least-developed countries, the figure tops
95 percent. In the United States, wastewater treatment facilities process about 34 billion gallons of
wastewater per day. These facilities reduce the amount of pollutants such as pathogens, phosphorus,
and nitrogen in sewage, as well as heavy metals and toxic chemicals in industrial waste, before
discharging the treated waters back into waterways. That’s when all goes well. But according to EPA
estimates, our nation’s aging and easily overwhelmed sewage treatment systems also release more than
850 billion gallons of untreated wastewater each year.

Oil pollution

Big spills may dominate headlines, but consumers account for the vast majority of oil pollution in our
seas, including oil and gasoline that drips from millions of cars and trucks every day. Moreover, nearly
half of the estimated 1 million tons of oil that makes its way into marine environments each year
comes not from tanker spills but from land-based sources such as factories, farms, and cities. At sea,
tanker spills account for about 10 percent of the oil in waters around the world, while regular operations
of the shipping industry—through both legal and illegal discharges—contribute about one-third. Oil is
also naturally released from under the ocean floor through fractures known as seeps.

Radioactive substances

Radioactive waste is any pollution that emits radiation beyond what is naturally released by the
environment. It’s generated by uranium mining, nuclear power plants, and the production and testing of
military weapons, as well as by universities and hospitals that use radioactive materials for research and
medicine. Radioactive waste can persist in the environment for thousands of years, making disposal a
major challenge. Consider the decommissioned Hanford nuclear weapons production site in
Washington, where the cleanup of 56 million gallons of radioactive waste is expected to cost more than
$100 billion and last through 2060. Accidentally released or improperly disposed of contaminants
threaten groundwater, surface water, and marine resources.

Leadership doesn’t solve – Trump bent the nation through alliances, treaties, climate
denialism, and COVID
McCoy, 2021 [Alfred, J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
“American Hegemony Is Ending With a Whimper, Not a Bang,” The Nation, JANUARY 29, 2021,
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-biden-america/, accessed 7/19/2021, ddi-tmur]

Once in office, Trump soon bent the nation (but not the world) to his will, rupturing time-tested alliances, tearing
up treaties, denying incontrovertible climate science, and demanding respect for American authority
with a thundering, if largely empty, rhetoric that threatened military retaliation or economic reprisals
globally. Despite the manifest inanity of his policies, the Republican Party capitulated, corporate tycoons applauded, and nearly half the
American public cleaved to their newfound savior.

As with all sellout shows, the best was saved for last. When the Covid-19 pandemic struck with full force in March 2020, Trump
turned up at the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta, donning a MAGA hat, to proclaim
his “natural ability” when it
came to medical science, while distinguished doctors stood by like studio extras in mute testimony to his
otherwise risible claims. As the pandemic began climbing toward its terrible, still developing toll, Trump hijacked White
House briefings by medical experts to promote a succession of crackpot claims —wearing a mask was
merely “politically correct”; Covid-19 was just another flu that “becomes weaker with warmer weather”;
hydroxychloroquine was a cure; and shining ultraviolet “light inside of the body” or injecting
“disinfectant” were possible treatments. A surprising number of Americans started drinking bleach to protect themselves from
the virus, forcing months of public health warnings.

After nearly a century in which the United States had been a world leader in promoting public health, the Trump administration, to escape
blame for its own escalating failures, walked out of the World Health Organization. Lending the country the aura of a failed state, the
CDC itself, once the world’s gold standard in medical research, bungled the development of a coronavirus test and so
forfeited any serious, nationwide attempt to successfully track and trace the disease (the most effective
means of controlling it).
While smaller nations like New Zealand, South Korea, and even impoverished Rwanda effectively curbed Covid-19, by the end of Trump’s term
the United States already had experienced more than 400,000 deaths and 24 million infections —significantly
above any other developed nation’s death rate and a full quarter of the world’s total cases . Meanwhile,
Beijing mobilized a rigorous public health campaign that quickly contained the virus to just 4,600 deaths
in a population of 1.4 billion. In only four months, China virtually eliminated the virus (despite periodic new local
breakouts) and had its economy humming along with a 5 percent increase in gross domestic product, which accounted for 30
percent of global growth last year. Meanwhile, after 11 months of an incessant pandemic, the United States remained mired in a
crippling recession. This striking disparity in state performance only accelerated China’s quest to surpass the United States as the world’s
largest economy and, with all that financial clout, become its preeminent power.
 2NC Extensions

No modeling—legal personhood increases tensions—less likely to be viewed positively

Eckstein et al, 2019 [Gabriel, Professor Texas A&M University School of Law, “Conferring legal
personality on the world's rivers: A brief intellectual assessment,” 44 Water Int'l 1, WATER
INTERNATIONAL, https://doi.org/10.1080/02508060.2019.1631558, accessed 7/23/2021, ddi-AJ]

The debate on whether nature should have legal standing has been ongoing at least since 1972 (see the
dissenting opinion of US Justice William O. Douglas in Sierra Club v. Morton, 1972), but many questions remain open. The diversity of
approaches adopted in different countries does not help in bringing clarity to the topic . Is granting
rights to rivers a case of codification of customary law or practices? Are we moving from an anthropocentric viewpoint
to an eco-centric one, or are nature’s rights only a way to ensure that our biosphere remains inhabitable for future human generations? Further
questions include: Who or what is being granted legal personality: the river, the river basin, the freshwater ecosystem, or the environment as a
whole? Does the single fish or weed in the water have legal standing, or are we protecting aquatic
biodiversity? What about the riverbanks and the surrounding trees and bushes? Humans are also undoubtedly part of the ecosystem as
generally recognized. Does this mean that sustainable use is acceptable as long as the functioning of an ecosystem is maintained (relations
between its components), or do we need to protect the integrity of the natural object (the river) or process (the ecosystem)? If nature has
a bundle of substantive and procedural rights (to exist, thrive and evolve; to have water; to sue and be sued; to enter into
contracts; to hold property; to be compensated for damages; and so on), doesn’t it have duties too (to pay taxes, to be liable for
damages such as floods, to maintain water quality and quantity)? What is the difference between a national park or
protected area managed by a special-purpose body and a natural area declared to be a legal person ? Does
the ownership of the natural object or of the land where it lies have to be transferred to the new legal person (as in the Whanganui River Act)
or does the state retain ownership (as in the South American examples)? What type of law applies to the relations involving the new legal
person: public (constitutional, administrative, criminal) or private law? Would it be meaningful to introduce the crime of ecocide? Most
importantly, the new legal person needs to be made operational by clearly setting its defining features. What type of body is it? Is it a public
authority, a charity, a body corporate? Or is it treated differently under different laws (e.g., Whanganui River Act, Section 17)?
What are its exact scope and mandate? Are its boundaries clearly delimitated? What are the powers of its legal
representatives or guardians? Who are its members? How do we make sure that decisions are made in the best interest of
nature itself or of a given ecosystem? Is there a dissolution procedure? Finally, if a transbound- ary water body is granted
legal personality, the repercussions on the right of states to regulate the flow of international rivers
will need to be explored.

Alt cause – dead zone makes large areas unavailable for biodiversity
Moore, 2020 [Kirk, Associate Editor – National Fisherman, “Scientists forecast larger Gulf of Mexico
‘dead zone’ for summer 2020,” National Fisherman, June 16, 2020,
https://www.nationalfisherman.com/gulf-south-atlantic/scientists-forecast-larger-gulf-of-mexico-dead-
zone-for-summer-2020, accessed 7/23/2021, ddi-tmur]

The nutrients fertilize aquatic growth as they do crops on land, triggering

explosive growth of algae which eventually
die and decompose, using up oxygen in the water as they sink. Those conditions drive away or kill marine life.

“Not only does the dead

zone hurt marine life, but it also harms commercial and recreational fisheries and the
communities they support,” said Nicole LeBoeuf, acting director of NOAA’s National Ocean Service. “The annual dead zone
makes large areas unavailable for species that depend on them for their survival and places continued
strain on the region’s living resources and coastal economies .”
The annual prediction is based on river-flow and nutrient data compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey, profiling the river flows and nutrient
loads that come primarily from the Mississippi and Atchafalaya rivers discharging to the Louisiana coast.

While the spring 2020 high water was nowhere near the record-setting 2019 flood stages, the discharges were still 30 percent above long-term
averages recorded since 1980, according to NOAA.

The USGS estimates the May 2020 discharges carried 136,000 metric tons of nitrate and 21,400 metric tons of
phosphorus, for nitrate loads about percent above the long-term average, and phosphorus loads around 25 percent above the average.

"The annuallyrecurring Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone is primarily caused by excess nutrient pollution
occurring throughout the Mississippi River watershed," said Don Cline, associate director for the USGS Water Resources
Mission Area. “Information on where these sources contribute nutrients across the watershed can help guide management approaches in the
Gulf.”

No Solvency – Nobody will follow U.S. – American hegemony already lost its chance at
leadership – laundry list
SCRAFTON, 2021 [MIKE, regularly-published writer on Australian and international affairs, “Once was a
hegemon: Australia and the decline of the US,” Mike Scrafton’s Here & There, 3 June 2021,
https://mikescrafton.com/2021/06/03/hegemon-australia-decline-of-the-us/, accessed 7/19/2021, ddi-
tmur]

Hegemony is deep and pervasive. Michael Mazarr refers to indirect power, which “involves influencing how people think—how
they conceive their interests and very identities—rather than trying to coerce or bribe them into making a specific choice. It shapes what others
believe they want, and why”. This has been the flavour of American hegemony since the middle of last century.
America has shaped a weltanschauung and embedded norms and values among other political cultures, and its hegemony has come to be seen
as a legitimate, and an appropriate and rightful, use of its power. Any other organising framework for politics, society, or international relations
other than the US promoted market-based capitalism and its evangelising democracy has become unimaginable. Life in the American
hegemony has seemed natural and ordained, especially for Australians.

However, the democracyand capitalism America promoted have lost their lustre and Americans themselves
have lost the passion for promoting democracy abroad . Now majorities or very substantial minorities in the US, France,
Germany, and the UK believe their political systems need a major overhaul. In addition, half of all Americans, Germans, and British believe their
economic system requires major reform. That figure is 70% in France. The ideological engine of the hegemony is spluttering .

America now displays a seemingly irredeemable racism and growing anti-democratic illiberalism, in a
violent and divided nation where wealth is over-concentrated and poverty entrenched. Externally America
has established a record of military overreach and failed adventures , and is increasingly reduced to using
the coercive power of the dollar and sanctions where once it could have persuaded and relied on shared
views. Whether consciously or not, the slogans “Make America Great Again” and “Build Back Better” are
admissions of loss.

Europeans doubts have grown about the US’s willingness and capacity to come to their aid in a crisis
following the Trump interregnum and the American obsession with the Indo-Pacific . The US cannot commit to
the security of Europe and confront China at the same time, this will necessitate a significant reshaping of the strategic environment. This
unease is pronounced among both experts and the public; as seen in the recent increase in publications on European strategic autonomy (see
here, here, here, here, and here for example) and opinion polls. These concerns haven’t been alleviated by Joe Biden’s election.

That the US
is no longer the hegemon doesn’t mean it won’t be an important actor for a long time to
come, although history shows economic and military prominence can collapse relatively quickly. However,
America remains rich and powerful with enormous economic, military, and social capital. But its loss of capacity to
shape world events, deliver security and democracy, and determine the global order is on show on
Ukraine’s borders, and in the Black and Azov Seas, Venezuela, Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, Yemen,
and Tigray, where its influence is marginal.

No solvency—lack of Lorax means aff doesn’t do anything—Courts still consult current

parties
Spitz and Penalvert, 2021 [Laura, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law, and
Eduardo, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, “NATURE'S PERSONHOOD AND PROPERTY'S VIRTUES,”
Vol. 45, Harvard Environmental Law Review, HeinOnline, accessed 7/24/2021, ddi-AJ]

Assuming, arguendo, that a

court recognized an element of nature as a person with standing, such recognition
would be just the first step needed to make a difference for legal outcomes . Decision-makers would still
need to iden- tify someone to speak on nature's behalf. This raises questions about who de- cides who gets to speak on
behalf of nature. The decisions about both-who gets to speak, and who decides who gets to speak-will be highly contested. As the defendant
observed in the Colorado River case, the "Law of the [Colorado] River" implicates seven states, the Republic of Mexico, dozens of Native Amer-
ican Tribes, the federal government, and "water user, power and environmental groups throughout the southwestern United States," not to
mention millions of private landowners.103 This list does not even account for the multitude of mammals, birds, insects, trees, and other
elements of nature, each of which might have claims to standing in their own right on the plaintiffs theory. In such a complex environment ,
it
is not immediately obvious who should speak on behalf of the Colorado River Ecosystem, nor how that
determination would be made by a court. 04 Dr. Seuss made this question very easy in The Lorax.1 But in
the absence of a magical creature who announces to the world that he "speaks for the trees," courts
are likely to turn to the same parties who currently present themselves - landowners, neighbors, advocacy groups,
responsible government agencies- and ask which ones, in any given case, are the most appropriate to speak in court on behalf of some
particular natural resource. This
inquiry into who- among the many possible voices-should speak on behalf of
nature is very likely to recapitulate the kinds of inquiries raised in the standing context and perpetu- ate
one of the central problems the plaintiff presumably sought to solve, namely, the tendency to approach
environmental concerns from the relatively narrow perspectives of the parties before the court. In any
event, the ability to enter the courtroom to speak on behalf of natu- ral resources is itself only the first step. It is difficult to see how problems
of environmental degradation are assisted or solved by standing per se. Far
more impact would come from some change in
the rules of decision-making or in the substantive interests that courts (or other decision-makers) consider
when resolving the natural resources claims . Whether recognizing the personhood of natural resources has an impact on these
substantive questions is the issue to which we now turn."'

No Solvency – Trump crumbled the nation – capitol riot and Trump’s attempted coup
prove
McCoy, 2021 [Alfred, J.R.W. Smail Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison,
“American Hegemony Is Ending With a Whimper, Not a Bang,” The Nation, JANUARY 29, 2021,
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/trump-biden-america/, accessed 7/19/2021, ddi-tmur]
A TRAGICOMIC ENCORE

It was, however, President Trump’s bid for an encore that would prove truly extraordinary when it came to imperial decline. During its 70 years
as a global hegemon, Washington’s public promotion of democracy has been the signature program that has helped legitimate its global
leadership (no matter the CIA-style interventions it launched or the colonial-style wars it continually fought).

While the Cold War often compromised that commitment in particularly striking ways, following its end Washington has spent 30 years officially
promoting fair voting and democratic transitions, with leaders like former president Jimmy Carter flying off to capitals on five continents to
oversee and encourage free elections. Suddenly, the world watched in slacked-jaw amazement as, on January 6 on the White
House ellipse, the
president denounced a fair American election as fraudulent and sent a mob of 10,000
white nationalists, QAnon conspiracists, and other Trumpsters off to storm the Capitol, where Congress
was ratifying the transition to a new administration.

Adding to this failed-state aura, the country’s

once-formidable national security apparatus crumpled like a Third
World constabulary as right-wing militiamen breached the frail security cordon around the Capitol and
stormed its halls as if they were a lynch mob hunting for congressional leaders . House majority leader Steny
Hoyer’s desperate calls to a dawdling Pentagon and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan’s dangerously delayed mobilization of his state’s National
Guard, caused by the US military’s compromised chain of command, only seemed to echo the sort of tropical coup scenarios I witnessed in
Manila, the capital of the Philippines, during the 1980s.

When Congress was finally back in session, the Capitol

still rang with Republican calls , in the name of national unity,
for forgetting what the president had incited. In that way, Republican congressional representatives seemed to
echo the kind of impunity that has long protected fallen military juntas in Asia or Latin America from any accounting for their countless crimes.
This attempt, in other words, to
perpetuate a would-be autocrat’s power through a (failed) coup was the sort
of spectacle that many millions living in Asia, Africa, and Latin America have experienced in their own
fragile states but never expected to see in America.

Suddenly, our supposedly exceptional nation seemed tragically ordinary. The shimmering dome of the Capitol once
symbolized the vitality of this nation’s democracy, inspiring others to follow its principles or at least acquiesce to its power. This country
now looks tattered and tired, caught like others before it between forgetting in the name of unity or
demanding the powerful be held accountable for high crimes that will otherwise haunt the nation . Instead
of aspiring to America’s ideals or entrusting their security to its power, many nations will likely find their own way forward ,
cutting deals with all comers, starting with China.

No hegemony – norms, values, and institutions America spread killed any chance
SCRAFTON, 2021 [MIKE, regularly-published writer on Australian and international affairs, “Once was a
hegemon: Australia and the decline of the US,” Mike Scrafton’s Here & There, 3 June 2021,
https://mikescrafton.com/2021/06/03/hegemon-australia-decline-of-the-us/, accessed 7/19/2021, ddi-
tmur]

Most tellingly has been the inability

of the US to take a multilateral leadership role over the illegal Israeli actions
against Gaza, which will set back Middle East politics a generation, or to resolve the egregious human rights abuses and
destruction of democracy in Myanmar , a part of the ASEAN purported to be at the centre of the US’s Indo-Pacific strategy.
Multilateralism, democracy, and human rights are the banners of the Biden Administration.

The understanding of hegemony put forward by Clark, Florig, and Mazarr effectively excludes a succession of hegemony to China. Certainly
China aims for international pre-eminence and seeks the diminution of America’s dominant role in world affairs. But even were China’s
ambition to succeed the US as hegemon, which it is not, the
norms, values and institutions America has spread will
outlast its hegemony and act to stifle these prospects.

The waning of a hegemony is an unpredictably complex matter and it presents new and difficult foreign
policy challenges. There is a cognitive dissonance about the power shift in the current US Administration , and
a sense that replicating past actions and behaviours will restore the former situation. A mistaken belief that the hegemony can
be rehabilitated and that legitimacy can be regained . Cleaving too close to America will find Australia in awkward or
irretrievable positions.
 Rivers

Zero cohesive scientific consensus that errs AFF.

Valeria Andreoni 20, Student and Researcher at the Manchester Metropolitan University Business
School, All Saints Campus, Oxford Road, Manchester; “The Trap of Success: A Paradox of Scale for
Sharing Economy and Degrowth”; MDPI; 4-14-2020; https://www-mdpi-com.proxy.lib.umich.edu/2071-
1050/12/8/3153//SJ
5. Conclusions

The sharing economy and degrowth have often been framed as promises for a more equitable and sustainable
future. The feasibility and impacts of these alternative economic models, however, highlight a tension between the
promises proposed by theories and the outcomes of generated practices. Mapping the links existing
between sharing economy and degrowth and considering the main socio-economic and environmental
impacts generated by the sharing economy , this paper discusses the feasibility of alternative economic models. In particular, by
introducing a paradox of scale, where alternatives fail to deliver as a consequence of success, the present analysis provides
a contribution to the debate around the feasibility of sustainable transitions. As reported above, the main limitations of this paper relate to the
fact that sharing economy and degrowth are characterized by a broad system of practices, definitions, and goals. For this reason, the links and
contradictions existing between them are probably richer than those included in the present analysis. In addition, the lack
of clear data
and estimations about the consequences of sharing economy and degrowth , particularly for large-scale
applications, make it difficult to provide an exhaustive picture of the possible impacts. Being aware of that, the present
paper offers a comparative analysis of two of the main socio-economic alternatives presently included in the academic, political, and business
debates. In addition, by considering the sharing economy as an approximation of a large-scale application of degrowth, the present paper
contributes to the research line oriented to investigate the feasibility of alternative economic models. That said, further researches would be
needed to investigate the way in which the sharing economy and degrowth have been framed and the impacts generated by practices. A
further analysis would also be needed to investigate the role of governments and the ability to provide equality of access, disabilities support,
and nondiscriminatory policies in a context of sharing and degrowth. In addition, the possibility to develop an inclusive democracy based on
open access, sharing, and participation should also be investigated in line with the potentials and constraints imposed by the development of
information and communication technologies. As reported above, sharing platforms and online participatory initiatives could be useful to
promote the development of sustainable economic systems, only if supported by clear regulations and social
inclusiveness

Green growth is sustainable – green investment allows us to adjust for a loss of

natural resources
Lucreția Dogaru 21, Department of Law and Public Administration, Faculty of Economics and Law,
University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Sciences and Technology; “Green Economy and Green Growth—
Opportunities for Sustainable Development”; MDPI; 1-22-2021; https://www.mdpi.com/2504-
3900/63/1/70/htm//SJ

4. Final Conclusions
It is a reality that, during periods of economic growth more resources and energy are consumed and more waste is produced, affecting the
environment. Ideally, obtaining a higher economic value from a limited quantity of natural resources should generate a significantly higher
economic growth than the percentage of the use of national resources. This resource
efficiency is a topic related to the ability to
generate cost savings and implement new technologies that are able to streamline economic processes.
This approach goes beyond the scope of environmental protection and becomes a holistic
issue in synergy with industrial
policy, competitiveness policy, research and innovation but also with education. The green economy can
also be associated with the sharing economy, with peer-to-peer and mesh economy, as well as with no-growth economy, as a
policy strategy for responding to the limits of economic growth correlated with the decrease of natural
resources.

In view of such issues, this paper

seeks to provide some answers to the conceptual interrelationships between
the green economy, green growth and sustainable development, through a harmonious blend with
developments in the green economy at international, European and national levels. In order to better promote the green
economy in Romania, we tried to advance some policy recommendations related to certain sectors.

The green economy is closely linked to the circular economy and increasing competitiveness, bringing with it not only benefits but also
challenges for all stakeholders. In our opinion, the optimal use of natural resources also implies the existence of an electronic data transfer and
reporting system based on an efficient infrastructure collection. Moreover, identifying sustainable solutions for optimizing resource
consumption is an important goal at European level.

Developing collaborative partnerships and new sustainable business models that promote the efficient use of natural resources can also be the
key to a green national economy. A positive
signal that can be sent to the economic environment also aims to
encourage the development of new skills as well as to consult stakeholders in promoting the transfer of
human capital taxation to the taxation of natural resource consumption.

The green economy can determine opportunities for green and sustainable development , an aspect that
implies an active involvement at the level of public policy and at the level of implementation in the territory. We have shown that, for the
construction of a national model of green economy, the existing good practices at international and
community level play an essential role.
We also consider other important issues as being important, such as the increase of decision-making transparency and the involvement of
stakeholders through direct access to data and information, so that the creation of an electronic platform for industrial symbiosis could
contribute as an example of good practice. At the same time, for
the implementation of the green economy, a firm
political commitment on several levels is required. In other words, a central coordination and an involvement of all
public authorities and the private environment are necessary.

Growth is sustainable – dematerialization and innovation mitigate environmental

effects – food, water, soil, forestry
Michael M. Lokshin 21, Lead Economist with the Office of the Chief Economist for Europe and Central
Asia, having joined the team in June 2019.; “Dematerialization, degrowth, and climate change agenda”;
World Bank Blogs; 5-4-2021; https://blogs.worldbank.org/developmenttalk/dematerialization-
degrowth-and-climate-change-agenda//SJ
Longwood Gardens, about a two-hour drive from Washington DC, are worth visiting at any time of the year. Located in Chester Country,
Pennsylvania, these beautiful public gardens comprise intricate systems of fountains and ponds, meticulous flower beds, conservatories, and
remarkable architecture. But few of more than a million visitors who enjoy the gardens every year know that the 61 farms, neighboring this
former Pierre S. du Pont’s estate, produce 400 million pounds a year of mushrooms, almost half of total US production. Moving West, 80
percent of the 1.1 billion pounds of commercially grown pumpkins are cultivated within a 90-mile radius of Peoria, Illinois.

These are not isolated examples of the intensity of modern agriculture. The total crop tonnage in the United States
tripled since the 1970s, but the cropland area shrunk from about 472 million to 390 million hectares by the 2010s, saving an area
three times larger than the United States’ total urban area. Productivity gains in animal agriculture dramatically reduced the environmental
footprint of livestock production in the US. Similar reductions in farmland accompanied by large increases in output are seen in countries of
Europe, Latin America, and East Asia. The global footprint of agriculture has “started decreasing in size during the
past two decades.”
US agriculture, having a positive trade balance, consumes 25 percent less fertilizer than it did in 1999, and the
volume of water used for irrigation has decreased by 22 percent since then. Raising the average world farm
productivity to the levels seen among US farmers would allow enough food to be grown to feed 10
billion people an American-type diet on half the land currently used for farming. The land released would exceed the area
of Amazonia (7 million square kilometers).

Most developed countries are now in the stage of “ forest transition,” when a country gains forest area.
Europe is greener now than it was 100 years ago; the size of US forest resources remained constant over
the 20th century and increased over the last decade. China is adding almost 2 million hectares (about 1 percent) of
forests a year. And rates of global forest loss have been slowing since 1980.

At the same time, forestry has become more productive. Shifting wood harvest from the north to the southeast, where the
forests are twice as productive, decreased the United States’ logged area by 3.1 million hectares. Forest plantations are much more productive
than unmanaged forests: Brazilian eucalyptus plantations provide at least 10 times more timber per hectare per year than northern forests do.
The consumption of wood is also declining. Ships and railroads are no longer built of wood. Globally, the
use of wood for fuel and construction dropped sharply since the 1960s; the global demand for paper has
been stagnant, decreasing across the developed countries over the last two decades. The footprint of the developed world
on the planet, as an area occupied by human activities, is shrinking.

There has also been a marked decline in US consumption of the most economically important minerals. According to
the US Geological Survey (USGS), since the end of the 20th century, US consumption of metals has fallen by 15 percent for
steel, 30 percent for aluminum, and 40 percent for copper. The decline reflects increased efficiency. Aluminum soda cans
are six times lighter than they were in the early 1960s, and cars weigh 30 percent less than they did. The introduction of high-strength
steel framing, reinforced concrete, and stronger and lighter glass have reduced consumption of cement,
stone, sand, and gravel in construction. US energy use has plateaued for more than a decade. Similar trends are
observed in the UK, which began to reduce its consumption of physical resources between 2001 and 2003. Even
individual caloric intake is falling in the UK, mainly because of the decline in most environmentally damaging meat consumption.

Off-shoring could affect the local consumption of national resources. Country statistics, which rely on a territorial perspective of material use,
might fail to account for the global patterns of material consumption. What looks like “green growth” might be just an artifact of globalization.
For example, some intermediate metal consumption might be hidden in imported finished merchandise like cars or trucks. While these are valid
concerns, the reduction of materials used in agriculture, forestry, and construction appears to be largely isolated from such measurement
issues. Actual consumption of these materials in developed countries is dropping; whether the material is imported or not is irrelevant.

The concept of dematerialization refers to an absolute or relative reduction in the quantity of materials required to serve economic functions in
society. Unlike the traditional `end-of-pipe’ measures, dematerialization is an input-oriented strategy intended to reduce environmental
damage at the source. The production and consumption of products, the so-called “industrial” and “social metabolisms,” could harm the
environment. Reducing the volume of material and energy used to produce goods and services diminishes the
environmental impact. But in contrast with the degrowth movement, which is based on the premise that environmental damage rises
with population and economic growth, the proponents of dematerialization argue that societal metabolism might exhibit an
inverted U-shaped relationship with economic growth. A country’s environmental impact rises as its
national income grows but then declines after a (very) high level of GDP is reached. Similar argument is
made by the recent literature on growth and pollution conversions.

If we believe these trends, the reduction (both relative and absolute) of

material consumption observed in developed
countries might have important policy implications. Growth in developed countries might not necessarily
cause environmental distress and natural resource depletion. Advanced economies may be able to decouple
economic growth and growing volumes of resource use . The new technologies are making the economic
growth in developing countries greener and less material-intensive compared to the growth the now rich countries
experienced at comparable income levels decades ago.
Several factors drive dematerialization. Technological progress improves efficiency and reduces the
consumption of resources in manufacturing. The digital economy “swaps bits for atoms,” replacing physical goods and
services with their digital versions; 3D printing shifts technologies toward custom-designed components with little or no waste.
Competition encourages companies to cut costs and use less materials. Citizens and governments are
increasingly putting premiums on the environment, embracing policies to reduce social metabolism.

The promotion
of dematerialization will require substantial but feasible changes in models of mass production
and consumption. Industry needs to intensify the use of products currently considered as waste or byproducts—as the European Union’s
End-of-waste criteria do (EU plans to re-use at least 60 percent of municipal waste by 2030). New technologies can produce goods from
reusable, reconfigurable, and multifunctional materials (e.g., pace layering approach in architecture). Innovations can enhance
circular material flows and help to close the resource loop. Digitization and digitalization have already reduced
material consumption and will continue to do so (electronic books, streaming instead of physical DVDs, digital instead of
paper maps, tickets, or physical securities). As industries adopt a Product-as-a-Service (PaaS) approach, moving from selling products to selling
access to the outcomes these products deliver (people do not need washing machines, they need clean clothes), their environmental
footprint will decline. Models like that range from car-sharing services, circular business models by Rolls-Royce,
Xerox, Caterpillar, to services like Desso-Tarkett flooring company with a business model in which the company retains
ownership over the flooring and take care of it after usage.
Dematerialization through economic growth alone is not sufficient to achieve environmental goals within an acceptable timeframe, which
would require halving the average annual material use in the world from its current level of 12 tons per person. But dematerialization
has many advantages. Even people who maintain that growth may not be feasible or even necessarily desirable
—or, at the other end of the political spectrum, deny that global climate change exists— are likely to support measures that
improve the efficiency of processes; create lighter, smaller, and less polluting products ; and shift to an
economy in which products are replaced by services.

Defense doesn’t assume AI – it’s uniquely capable to ensure sustainability.

Owen Mulhernmar 21, Biologist with a specialisation in image analysis and a passion for satellite
imaging; “Artificial Intelligence: Can it help achieve Environmental Sustainability?”; Earth.Org; 03-01-
2021; https://earth.org/data_visualization/ai-can-it-help-achieve-environmental-sustainable///SJ

How AI Impacts Sustainable Development Goals

AI plays an important role in achieving not only environmental but all other Sustainable Development Goals-
from ending hunger and poverty to achieving sustainable energy and gender equality to protecting and
preserving biodiversity. The figures below illustrate the potential gains that can be realized in achieving SDG by adopting AI.
There are a total of 17 Sustainable Development Goals as defined by the United Nations, that can be grouped under three pillars: Environment,
Economy and Society. A study published in Nature Communications looked at how the development of AI could enable many advances, while
also hampering others.

The takeaway is that, while AI provides unprecedented opportunities , these may not always result in a positive outcome
depending on the framework in which they are used. For instance: a country with little ethical scrutiny, transparency and democratic measures
could lead to AI enabling nationalism, discrimination and undemocratic election results. Better regulatory bodies need to be set up to oversee
the development of AI, as its development will strongly influence the future of humanity.

AI to address Environmental Challenges: Opportunities

AI has the potential to accelerate global efforts to protect the environment and conserve resources by
detecting energy emission reductions, CO2 removal, helping develop greener transportation networks,
monitoring deforestation, and predicting extreme weather conditions. Below mentioned are examples of how AI
provides means to tackle the most pressing environmental challenges.
Climate Change

 Use of machinelearning to optimize energy generation and demand in real-time; better grid systems
with increased predictability and increased efficiency, and use of renewable energy.
 Smart sensors and meters can be deployed within buildings to collect data and monitoring, analyzing, and
optimizing energy usage in buildings.
 AI is already being used in smart transport eg: google maps and Waze, where Machine learning algorithms
are used to optimize navigation; increase safety and provide information regarding traffic flows and congestion
(e.g. Nexar).

Biodiversity and Conservation

 When combined with satellite imagery, AI can detect

changes in land use, vegetation, forest cover, and the
fallout of natural disasters.
 Invasive species can be monitored, identified and tracked using the technology above, identifying and tracking
their presence, and eliminating them is all done using machine learning and computer vision. A company called
Blue River Technology is using AI to detect the presence of invasive species and other biodiversity changes.
 Predictive softwares have been deployed to help anti-poaching units plan their patrol routes

Ocean Health

 AI can gather data from ocean locations that are hard or impossible to reach and thus, help protect
species and habitats. Illegal fishing can also be tracked using AI.
 AI-powered robots can be used to monitor ocean conditions such as pollution levels, temperature and pH.

Water Issues

 AI is widely used by water scientists to project water usage in a particular geographical area and
make weather forecasts to make informed policy decisions.
 AI along with satellite data can help to forecast weather, soil and subsurface water conditions and
predict droughts.

Healthy Air

 Air purifiers with AI can record air quality and environmental data in real-time and adapt the filtration
efficiency.
 AI-powered simulations can send warnings to people living in urban areas about the pollution levels of
their areas. There are tools that can detect the pollution sources quickly and accurately.
 Using data from vehicles, radar sensors and cameras AI can help improve air pollution .

Weather forecast and Disaster resiliency

 AI-powered predictive analytics along with drones, advanced sensor platforms and similar tools can
monitor tremors, floods, windstorms, sea-level changes, and other possible natural hazards. This
technology can help government and concerned agencies to take timely actions and the
availability of such information in real-time with automated triggers can enable early evacuations when
needed.
 Various meteorological companies, tech companies like IBM, Palantir, and insurance companies are
combining AI with traditional physics-based modelling methods to model the impact of extreme
weather events on infrastructure and on their other systems to advise the disaster risk management
strategies.
Degrowth would be the end of human progress
Phillips 19 [Leigh Phillips, Phillips is a science writer and EU affairs journalist. He is the author of
Austerity Ecology & the Collapse-Porn Addicts and The People's Republic of Walmart, “The degrowth
delusion”, openDemocracy, 30 August 2019,
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/degrowth-delusion/] @RA

In contrast to this unbounded expansion of freedom, degrowth imposes bounds, denounces this unceasing human
striving as "productivism". It says: "This much and no more. This far and no farther ." Degrowth asserts we
have enough, indeed already too much. Yet to perform more scientific research or engineer further technological
development presumes a lack, an insufficiency, a desire to know more and to do more . So if we already have
enough, then there can be no more development, no further scientific discovery, no additional
technological invention. It is the Amish-ification of the world. This is no philosophical sophistry. Imagine again a perfectly
equal and static economy as the degrowth advocates demand. In this society, if a researcher invents a new technology, a
widget that can solve a problem, then that widget would have to be produced in addition to all the
widgets already produced. It would therefore be an expansion of economic growth, and we have forbidden that. "Aha!" a degrowth
advocate might respond, "but what if that new widget replaces an old widget, and performs its function more efficiently, allowing production of
the old widget to be retired and replaced by the new widget? Surely that actually reduces overall production and allows some additional room
to grow within the overall hard limit?" This is indeed true. But this
is basically all that decoupling is. So such a response is just
another form of argument for the feasibility of decoupling. Thus an end to growth declares an end to technological
development, an end to science, an end to progress, an end to the open-ended search for freedom —
an end to history. So for these three reasons—that degrowth is not necessary to solve ecological challenges and is a distraction from
them, that degrowth is unjust, impoverishing and austerian, and that degrowth would bring progress to an end— the concept must be
rejected. Ultimately, climate change and the wider biocrisis are problems because they have the potential
to inhibit human flourishing; that is, the specific danger they pose is a retarding of the expansion of
freedom. So why would we impose an end to expansion of freedom in order to preserve the expansion of
freedom?

Growth is essential – leads to increased life expectancy, decreased unemployment,

and better quality of life
Pettinger 19 [Tejvan Pettinger, Pettinger studied PPE at LMH, Oxford University and
works as an economics teacher and writer for economics.help, “Benefits of economic
growth” Economics.help, 14 December 2019,
https://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/economic-growth/benefits-growth/] @RA

Economic growth means an increase in real GDP – an increase in the value of national output, income and expenditure. Essentially the
benefit of economic growth is higher living standards – higher real incomes and the ability to devote
more resources to areas like health care and education. Higher average incomes. Economic growth enables
consumers to consume more goods and services and enjoy better standards of living. Economic growth during the Twentieth Century
was a major factor in reducing absolute levels of poverty and enabling a rise in life expectancy. Lower unemployment. With higher output and
positive economic growth, firms tend to employ more workers creating more employment. UK
unemployment rises during a recession – falls during periods of economic growth. Lower government borrowing. Economic growth
creates higher tax revenues, and there is less need to spend money on benefits such as unemployment
benefit. Therefore economic growth helps to reduce government borrowing . Economic growth also plays a role in reducing
debt to GDP ratios. A long period of economic growth in the post-war period helped reduce the UK debt to GDP ratio. Improved public services.
Higher economic growth leads to higher tax revenues and this enables the government can spend more on
public services, such as health care and education e.t.c. This can enable higher living standards, such as increased
life expectancy, higher rates of literacy and a greater understanding of civic and political issues.
Money can be spent on protecting the environment. With higher economic growth a society can devote
more resources to promoting recycling and the use of renewable resources Investment. Economic growth
encourages firms to invest, in order to meet future demand. Higher investment increases the scope for future economic growth – creating a
virtuous cycle of economic growth/investment. Increased research and development. High economic growth leads to increased profitability for
firms, enabling more spending on research and development. Also, sustained economic growth increases confidence and
encourages firms to take risks and innovate. Economic development. The biggest factor for promoting economic development is
sustained economic growth. Economic growth in south-east Asia over the past few decades has played a major role in reducing
absolute levels of poverty – increasing life expectancy. More choice. In less developed economies, a large proportion of the population work
in agriculture/subsistence farming, economic growth enables a more diverse economy with people able to work in
service sector, manufacturing and having a greater choice of lifestyles.

No mindset shift – empirics and covid prove growth is here to stay

Barthold 20 [Corbin K. Barthold, Senior Litigation Counsel at the Washington Legal Foundation, “(Still)
Against Degrowth”, Forbes, April 29 2020, https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2020/04/29/still-against-
degrowth/?sh=754860525228] @RA

Past progress does not guarantee future progress . Those who want to halt growth are well within their rights to point this
out. But the pro-growth optimists have something the anti-growth pessimists emphatically lack—a solid
track record. McKibben praises the year 1978, when “the top 1 percent of Americans saw their share of the nation’s wealth fall to 23
percent.” Aside, perhaps, from its being a better time for someone bitten by envy, what’s so admirable about 1978? Was an American with
cancer more likely to survive then, or now? Conditions have improved not just in America, but almost everywhere.
Global poverty has plummeted, at the fastest rate ever, since 1978. The number of people living in extreme poverty has fallen by
more than half, even as the total number of people on earth has doubled. And the
dastardly neoliberal system doesn’t just
save lives; it makes life better. McKibben is free to opine that “a man with a phone more or less permanently affixed to his palm is
partway a robot already.” Much modern progressive thought stands on supposedly sophisticated people’s fear of change. Normal people are
not obliged to share such fears, and generally they don’t. Actually, change can be rather agreeable. Remember when laptops and cell phones
were “toys for the rich”? Nor
will normal people find much to like about life in a degrowth world . Aaron Timms
recently reported in The New Republic on his three-week stay at a French degrowth “summer school.” The “students”
there lived in a
commune without refrigeration, air conditioning, or Wi-Fi . They subsisted on leaves, legumes, grains, and bread. They
entertained themselves by talking “long into the night about capitalism and interspecies extinction.” At a seminar a Dutch man presented a
vision of the degrowth lifestyle. He lavished praise on the Amish and said that “it would be great to have more darkness.” Listeners from the
Global South were not impressed. A woman from Chile upbraided the speaker for idealizing the primitiveness of the past. “People in the
developing world are living in that past,” she said; “it’s called poverty.” “I’ve heard all my life about the need for personal limits and personal
sacrifice,” an Indian Ph.D. student added; “it feels like a regression to go back to that world .” The school’s only Chinese
attendee told Timms that no one in China would accept the school’s living conditions. “Everyone in the country wants to move to the city,” he
said, “and everyone in the city wants to copy the West.” The Chinese would know; they have tried degrowth on for size .
Although capitalism has yet to produce the kind of ruin Paul Ehrlich is always picturing, the Great Leap Forward, China’s sharp
departure from capitalism, did so to the last degree . Communal farming and rural industrialization—
deindustrialization, really—created the worst famine there has been. Equally tragic was the Khmer Rouge’s attempt
to turn Cambodia into an autarkic socialist agrarian utopia. This is not to say that every rigid environmentalist is an eco-fascist. (McKibben, for
his part, is laudably clear-eyed about the failures of Soviet autocracy and central planning.) It is simply to note that, on the few occasions it has
been implemented, abrupt, widespread, top-down degrowth has been a disaster. The world is too complex for centrally imposed formulas.
Planned degrowth would limit our options. It would purposely restrict our energy supply, cutting our
capacity to solve problems by literally reducing our output of ideas . (“It is naïve,” West writes, “to dissociate ideas
from energy—one cannot flourish without the other.”) Unplanned growth, by contrast, is a gigantic problem-solving machine. Such growth is
diversity itself. As Matt Ridley explains in The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge, innovation is the product of dispersed
experimentation; the process is “gradual, incremental, undirected, emergent and driven by natural selection among competing ideas.” Give
humans energy and freedom, and they will do the rest. Innovators must, in Ridley’s words, stay “one step ahead of the naysayers and the
nihilists and the protestors.” Maintaining
a one-step advantage will be that much harder amid the fear and
distrust, the suffering and disorder, that accompany a modern plague. COVID-19 is spreading death and
poverty. It may in time call forth political reactions and ideological zealotries of every sort. And already there are those who see
our closed shops and empty roads not as a calamity, but as something very like a triumph. They believe their hour is come.
Although the full significance of the coronavirus as an agent of change cannot yet be known, we may be sure the antimoderns will gladly ride
this catastrophe as far as it will carry them. Our duress is, in their view, a
grand opportunity for deep and lasting reversals .
But it is no such thing. Growth, Walter Russell Mead reminds us, is why we are not as helpless now “ as our
ancestors were in the times of the Black Death”; and it is likewise “going to be more important than ever
as the world recovers from the pandemic.” There is cause for hope. The great enrichment has been going for more than two centuries.
It has outpaced economic panics, global wars, and, indeed, other pandemics. Some aspects of the rise have persisted even in the thick of such
setbacks. Technological change, Ridley points out, was remarkably steady throughout the twentieth century , the
Great Depression included. Although this or that nation might for a time cast itself into the dark, as China and Cambodia once did,
and as some would have us now do, Ridley suspects that, overall and in the long run, we “could not stop the march of
technology even if we wanted to.” It is “a far more spontaneous phenomenon than we realize.” The proponents of
degrowth are, at bottom, reactionaries. They are religious fanatics in a post-religious world. It is, to be sure, no sin to be ill at
ease in a deconstructed society, a place where standards are contingent, meaning is fabricated, and instincts run in every direction. All
narratives are happening at once, and none is definitive. This can cause a lot of discomfort. But there
is no going back. The
unlocked mind cannot be taped shut. Scientists and artists will continue to question all assumptions , to
rattle all faiths, and to alter perceptions. Free thinkers, J.B.S. Haldane said, are “the wreckers of outworn empires and civilizations, doubters,
disintegrators, deicides.” They are the wielders of reason and imagination, irrepressible forces that improve lives but corrode values. We
are
doomed, if that is the word, to live in a time of increase and anxiety, a paradoxical age when rich harvests
sprout from rootless stalks. This is more than tolerable. The past was no traditionalist arcadia, and revolution is no path to
a bucolic future. Many policies merit consideration; someone who wants to impose taxes on carbon, limits on entitlements, racial quotas on
college admissions, or restrictions on abortion shouldn’t have a copy of The Road to Serfdom or The Handmaid’s Tale waved in her face. But
gross deviations, in whatever direction, would make any liberal country less free, less varied, and far more
miserable. It may be unsettling to accept that no story is complete, no truth absolute; that there is no one cause for which to fight; that life
is messy and confusing. But some psychological vertigo is a fair price to pay for the benefits of living in an open society. Nietzsche, in one of his
many fits of exuberance, announced that reality shows us a marvelous wealth of types. He warned against the prig who draws his own face on
the wall and exclaims, “Behold the man!” Smartphones make us less human, says Bill McKibben. Behold the man. “Doing stuff with your hands
is great fun,” says a Dutch primitivist; “that’s what’s missing in our lives.” Behold the man. One might say, turning the intended (and rotten)
meaning of Rousseau’s famous phrase on its head, that we are forced to be free. There being no general will to tap, we need the most dynamic
kind of thinking of all, the kind that embraces uncertainty, contradiction, and difference. So check your premises; do it often, and ask that
others do the same. Accept that you usually can’t tell strangers how to live , never mind how they’re supposed to want to live.
Curiosity and genuine toleration are the keystone of good citizenship in an evolving postmodern republic. The more spiritual among us can
catch a glimpse of the cosmic in the fact that our ancestors, our siblings, and, above all, our descendants need not see the world as we do.
Freeman Dyson knew a thing or two; take it from him. “Freedom,” he wrote, “is the divine spark that causes human children to rebel against
grand unified theories imposed by their parents.”

Without a mindset shift economic restart results in catastrophic climate change –

turns their impact
- Probably need to win no spillover for this to matter

Jeff McMahon 20, Senior Contributor at Forbes; “A Dirty Economic Restart Could Kill More People
Than The Coronavirus”; Forbes; 3-29-2020; https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/03/29/a-
dirty-economic-restart-risks-more-lives-than-the-coronavirus///SJ

The coronavirus lockdown hasn’t just slowed the march of COVID-19, it has reduced lethal air pollution and
the associated mortality risks we usually take for granted. But when the lockdown lifts, those risks of the status quo
might not just return to normal—they might worsen—as governments weaken environmental regulations
and pour billions of dollars into polluting industries .

“I think that in the long run this crisis will be a disaster for the climate,” said Francois Gemenne, director of The Hugo Observatory, a Belgium-
based research center. “Of course there are short-term effects on the environment: a substantial drop in air pollution, a fall in greenhouse gas
emissions, etc. But in the long term, these temporary effects will probably be insignificant.”
Air pollution, which causes an estimated 7 million deaths annually, has plunged worldwide during the coronavirus
lockdown as factories have closed, power demand dropped, and traffic evaporated.
The European Space Agency and NASA have documented drops in lethal pollution of 40 percent to 70 percent. One Stanford professor
projected that China’s two month lockdown saved up to 77,000 lives of children and the elderly—a number that dwarfs the 3,100 killed by the
coronavirus in that country over the same period.

Lethal air pollution comes from the same sources—power plants, factories and vehicles—as many greenhouse gases. The Centre for Research
on Energy and Clean Air estimates China’s lockdown reduced its CO2 emissions 25 percent.

Those numbers seem to bode well for the climate and climate-related mortality risks. The Climate Impact Lab has
projected climate mortality from status-quo emissions at 1.5 million additional deaths per year by 2100.

But Gemenne pointed to aspects of this economic restart that portend a worsening climate scenario:

• Emissions tend to bounce back after an economic collapse, as they already have in China, and as they did in
2008-09. Some call this the “rebound effect” or “revenge pollution.” Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst for the Centre said,
“The obvious point to make here is that China's ‘airpocalypse’—the horrendous smog of the winter 2012-13—was a
direct outcome of the smokestack stimulus started in 2008.”

• Governments are reviving their fossil-fuel industries and supporting polluters like airlines instead
of advancing low-carbon alternatives.

• Some governments, including the United States, are suspending

enforcement of environmental
regulations, unleashing polluters, and others are using the pandemic as an excuse to renege on
climate pledges.

• Climate
activists may be shooting themselves in the foot by promoting the politically
unpalatable idea that the climate crisis demands a similar economic shutdown.
 2NC Extensions

AI optimizes global economies to achieve sustainable development

Peter Martey Addo 21, Director of DataLab and data specialist at AFD; “Can artificial intelligence help
achieve sustainable development?”; ID4D; 06-17-2021; https://ideas4development.org/en/can-artificial-
intelligence-help-achieve-sustainable-development///SJ

Development practitioners are looking for ways to innovate rapidly how they make decisions and solve
problems in the quest to accelerate progress towards the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDG)
by 2030. Such innovations can be enabled by intelligences, born from innovative uses of new technology. One such promising
intelligences is artificial intelligence (AI) – technologies. AI aims at the automation of activities that are typically associated
with human thinking, such as learning, decision-making, or natural language processing, and uses algorithms to mimic
human learning and cognition, toward addressing narrowly specified tasks.

Artificial intelligence: a strong potential for solving global challenges

The field of AI has accelerated rapidly since around 2010. It has only been eight years since the modern era of deep learning began at the 2012
ImageNet competition. Progress in the AI field since then has
been breathtaking and relentless, driven by the growing
availability of large data sets being generated in all areas including agriculture, education, human health,
commerce, communications, and carried by continued advances in computational power and the
development of better machine learning algorithms and techniques.

Today, we have less than 10 years to achieve the SDGs and AI holds great promise. Responsible use of AI can lead to benefits for
the development practitioners and beneficiaries. For example, the child-growth monitor uses machine learning algorithms to
reliably detect malnutrition and further improve their performance as more data is collected. Processing such data and algorithm locally on
smartphone, and not on the cloud, could be useful in developing countries and contexts where internet access is limited, and improve privacy
protections. Hence, AI can fill gaps in information, identify patterns and relationships, and help foresee risks
and opportunities. It can contribute to enhancing knowledge and situational awareness.
Helping development practitioners make decisions and solve problems

New forms of impact assessment and prediction via the emerging uses of AI can also improve impact and identification of optimal
interventions. The Red Cross used AI technologies to fuse various data sources to predict overspills of the Nangbeto Dam in Togo. The better
forecasts decreased the impact of the overspills and corresponding floods and helped to prepare vulnerable communities.

AI can also open up new forms of smart service provision, humanitarian and environmental interventions, and
sources of income. A good example is the startup Apollo Agriculture in Kenya which uses satellite data to train machine learning models that
automatically build digital processes for, e.g., customer acquisition or collecting payments. Through these digital processes, Apollo then makes
its decisions about lending and credit provision.

Moreover, AI can offer ways to increase

individual skills and community capabilities through peer-to-peer
knowledge sharing and remote learning. Another example is M-Shule. This mobile platform delivers lessons based on the
national curriculum to each student via SMS. It adapts to children based on their skills and abilities using AI technology.

Lastly, emerging uses of AI can increase the agility and efficiency of interventions through automation,
freeing human operators for more complex tasks (e.g., analyzing large amounts of data). Machine learning can
analyze large amounts of data, which would take a human a long time, and recommend actions based on their
analysis. Poor road conditions are a hazard for drivers and a drag on transportation speed, which inhibits economic growth. In Tanzania, an
automated road condition survey project evaluated the quality of unpaved roads using satellite images and deep learning techniques. The
algorithm managed to assign images to road conditions with 73% accuracy, flagging images for which human judgement
was required.

But the uses of artificial intelligence are not without risks. Responsible use of AI can help achieve these values, which are important to
development efforts, but development practitioners must be careful. They should monitor for emerging negative externalities, and challenges
and consider whether they can be mitigated and at what cost.

Mitigating the risks associated with uses of emerging technologies

Given that AI rely on quality training data; gaining access to data does sometimes entail investment in data collection technologies or forging
partnerships with data-holding or data-generating collaborators. Lack of quality training data in term of diversity and representation can lead to
bias, discrimination, and erroneous conclusions that will not be useful in achieving development objectives. In addition, the failure to
incorporate ethical requirements within machine learning algorithms can also contribute to potential negative impacts of development
projects.

Although AI methods can increase efficiency of, for example, manufacturing companies, it may result in reduction of low-skilled labor.
Development practitioners can be key in efforts to ensure that the transition toward an increased adoption
of AI methods happens in an inclusive manner.

AI solves resource shortages through redistribution

Korinek et al. 21 (Anton Korinek is a Professor, Department of Economics and Darden School of
Business, University of Virginia, “IMF Working Paper” , IMF, June 2021,
https://www.imf.org/-/media/Files/Publications/WP/2021/English/wpiea2021166-print-pdf.ashx,
Accessed7/22/21, JL)

Another type of progress that is of great concern to some developing countries is resource saving technological
progress. This has gotten less attention than labor-saving progress so far (e.g., Solow, 2009), but AI and other
digital technologies have often been praised for their potential to produce more output with fewer natural
resources. For instance, they may help reduce the demand for depletable natural resources and lower
carbon emissions. Examples include algorithms that optimize efficiency in data centers or that make
transportation networks more efficient. Technologies that enable telework may also reduce the carbon footprint of workers.7
Thus, such resource-saving innovations may have adverse distributional effects on developing countries that have
a comparative advantage in natural resources, and that have specialized in exporting them . The impact on
exporters of different types of natural resources may be quite different – for example, exporters of carbon-based energy will fare differently
from exporters of rare earth metals. Consider
oil-exporting countries, which have already experienced many
developmental challenges while being resource-rich. Resource-saving AI, while saving the planet, would
make them resource-poor countries that still experience the same developmental challenges. The
challenges of addressing global inequality under such a scenario would be an order of magnitude larger than they are even today, posing a test
for the global community. A number of oil-exporting countries rely on their export revenue to buy food and other basic essentials—if they lose
their ability to export oil, the consequences would be dire. Thus,
as in the case of labor-saving technological progress,
the world as a whole may be better off—in this case by undoing resource scarcity and reducing climate
change—but not all countries would benefit.8

AI solves agriculture shortages

Ware 17 (Andrew Ware is an undergraduate student at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) in the
United States, graduating in December 2018 with degrees in Economics and Philosophy, “Does AI
Present the Potential to Mitigate Resource Scarcity?” , CRASSH. 12/7/17,
http://www.crassh.cam.ac.uk/blog/post/does-ai-present-the-potential-to-mitigate-resource-scarcity,
Accessed 7/22/21, JL)
As any undergraduate textbook will tell you, “economics is the study of how society allocates scarce
resources.” However, this age-old problem is increasingly being seen as less of an issue about markets, state plans, and
economic institutions, and more of a problem of the availability of data, the development of algorithms , and people’s
access to technology. While we have been aware of the potential for technology to bring about an age of abundance in technologically
advanced societies since at least the time of Keynes, most people live distant from such technological utopias, in both geographical and
economic terms. What impact is this shift having on such people, and how can we ensure that the development of technology helps solve ‘the
problem of scarcity’ for them too? One increasingly important technology for just about everyone is artificial
intelligence (AI), which can improve the allocation of resources by considering vastly more information
than human beings, and by greatly enhancing the quality of our decision making. The use of data collection and
processing for agricultural applications offers a useful illustration of this. In one case, telecommunications company Vodafone
launched an initiative to offer guidance to farmers in exchange for data regarding crops. The Vodafone Farmers’ Club aims to
improve the lives of farmers in Ghana who register for the service by providing useful information including weather updates, market prices,
Using data from farmers and where they are located, Vodafone is able to offer
and the ability to make calls.
advice that contributes to better-informed farming that leads to higher yield, less water usage, and
other benefits—indicating that even in very poor countries, the use of Big Data and algorithms can
create significant opportunities to improve the efficiency and security of agriculture and food systems.
In another example, Big Data has been processed using AI and machine learning algorithms to provide useful agricultural insight without the
need to collect data from or rely on farmers. The start-up Descartes Labs uses satellite images of corn fields including spectral information that
indicates chlorophyll levels to determine corn yield estimates and to offer a greater understanding to farmers and the agricultural industry.
Data inputs including frequently captured satellite images and advanced weather predictions are
analyzed by machine learning algorithms, and have allowed near real-time prediction of crop yield.
Ultimately, the ability to provide insight to farmers by analyzing data with machine learning algorithms without
requiring them to have access to advanced infrastructure, education, or technology could greatly increase agricultural
efficiency. Alongside such practical advances, AI could also provide useful insight into theoretical issues
such as how to best manage common resources like grazing land and fresh water. A DeepMind project offers a
new perspective which transcends existing economic and political solutions through a model of such ‘common-pool resource’ appropriation,
and indicates how management solutions relate to inequality. Instead of relying on non-cooperative game theory, which often leads to the
failure of agents to allocate resources with maximum efficiency, DeepMind used deep reinforcement learning to illustrate that trial-and-error
learning in common-pool resource management can lead to socially positive novel cooperative solutions. However, while AI presents promising
opportunities to improve resource distribution and access, it is a dual-use technology associated with several serious risks, and AI systems could
in fact make the problem of scarcity worse—the technology could be used to manipulate resources it is intended to manage. For example,
developers of such technology could use data and machine algorithms to justify the exploitation of the land of a region. If a system indicates an
‘optimal’ distribution can be achieved by growing economically lucrative crops rather than growing sustainable, nutritious foods that could
contribute to the mitigation of hunger, wealth and well-being disparity could dramatically increase. Therefore, the development of AI for
resource management must be carefully considered. One crucial issue is bias in data and algorithms. As algorithms use data that is historic,
outputs reflect past injustices and mistaken beliefs and might consequently be unable to overcome these. While there is the potential for AI
systems to lead to more ideal outcomes, there is also the risk that systems will benefit some interests more than others, and hence fail to
improve the conditions of the worst off. Machine learning algorithms can be trained with data that has social and political bias, and in the case
of resource management and distribution could be encouraged with data and by design to find particular patterns that might offer suggestions
regarding an allocation or guidance that is not broadly beneficial, even if this was never the intention of its designers. For instance, historical
data may reflect a reallocation of agricultural resources that benefits the most powerful individuals in communities, leading to guidance that
suggests a disproportionate distribution. If these leaders of communities are able to influence how machine learning algorithms develop over
time, there could be a prejudice toward individual interests—data could be presented that is aligned with these interests rather than data that
would lead to more equitable outcomes. What can be done to minimize bias? Development must be collaborative and cooperative, involving a
broad range of perspectives. Local stakeholders must be involved from the earliest stages of development and development must incorporate
insight from those who will be using these systems, or merely affected by them, as well as guidance from NGOs, international organizations,
data inputs and machine learning algorithms will offer evolving—and
academics, and policy- and law-makers. While
presumably improved—guidance over time, people must continually evaluate systems with consideration of effectiveness and
optimal operation according to the interests of all relevant perspectives. Further, there must be mechanisms in place for AI systems to be
modified in the future, allowing people to train these systems to accurately reflect and to respect existing social and economic structures,
values, and practices of their cultures, as well as future objectives of increased equality and sustainability. However, even if AI systems can
avoid biases and offer solutions that are generally beneficial to the worst off, they must also be trustworthy if they are to function effectively—
people must be willing to engage with these systems. It is challenging to accept guidance unless we believe it to be derived legitimately and
credibly, so suggestions offered by a system regarding resource management and distribution will likely not be considered if the foundational
basis of the output of a system is not expressed explicitly—as is often the case with AI. Neural networks, for example, function in a way that is
implicit and opaque, without clear reason offered that explains outputs. Further, as AI systems are being developed in societies historically
associated with colonialism, there is the potential that past exploitation might continue. Ultimately, a lack of awareness of the reasoning that
underlies suggestions made by an AI system implies a lack of trustworthiness, and therefore a lack of acceptance of the guidance that is offered.
How can we make AI systems more trustworthy? Onora O’Neill suggests that trustworthiness relies on three features—reliability, competency,
and honesty. As should be evident from the above, such systems could be competent and reliable. However, honesty is much
more challenging. If a system is to be honest, or even held to account, it needs to be meaningfully transparent—its guidance must be presented
in a way that emphasizes explainability.
Researchers are beginning to explore the potential of developing
algorithms to explain how systems make decisions, requiring evidence-based justification and offering
natural-language explanations. However, it should be noted that while explainability is necessary for transparency, it is not
sufficient to ensure honesty. This requires determining what people want to know and what it is important that they know—not just expressing
the truth. For AI systems to be ‘honest,’ developers must seek to understand how they will be perceived by the communities that will be using
the systems, and those using the systems must be educated not only to use them but also to continue to develop them, shaping guidance
offered to reflect current values as well as the future objective of greater abundance and well-being. Ultimately, while AI has enormous
positive potential to address the problem of resource scarcity , we cannot be led by utopianism. Just as transparency is
necessary to the development of trustworthy systems, an honest and thoughtful consideration of the benefits alongside the risks associated
with the development of these systems is required. While it may in some ways inhibit development, it is important to engage with what people
actually want and find useful—even if it may not be what we think is best.
In considering risks and benefits transparently
and honestly, we can foster trust throughout the development of AI for resource management
applications, improving the outcomes from development and ensuring that the technology contributes
to a better future.

AI solves resource shortages

Canuma 18 (Prince Canuma is a Computer Engineering student and a Web Dev. & AI/ML dev, “What
problems can we solve using AI?” , towards data science, 9/26/18,
https://towardsdatascience.com/what-problems-can-we-solve-using-ai-ec7131f8159b, Accessed
7/22/21, JL)
If you made it this far with me you must be motivated to start a project and actually solve some real-life problems; humanity is currently paying
the price of evolution, we crippled our giant blue marble and displeased immensely mother nature. But honestly, we had no choice! W hen I
say we had no choice I mean two things specifically. First, we couldn’t have invented electric cars nor
smartphones in the 1800’s it is all part of the evolution process, meaning we have to go through certain
phases in order to evolve and there is no going around it. Furthermore we are beings that were made
imperfect, what makes us think we can create or know true perfection because nothing is perfect in this
world, what we consider perfect just varies from person to person and it is not everlasting . The only example
of perfection is God. Second, from the begining of our human life we notice evolution taking place — we fall before we can walk or run. That’s
why I think everything happened the way it should have, we fell now we have the chance to stand-up with the helping hand of AI and walk or
run. Of
course, there will be more breakthroughs down the road and maybe something better than AI
might emerge but this is not think positive or wishful thinking, we shouldn’t live in the future, it is better
to imagine how we want to be and start where we are with what we have now (AI) and work towards
making that dream come true. Now, continuing the article. Had we not done what we did, we would not have evolved as fast as we
did and we would not have gotten where we are; at the dawn of a new era where we will have tireless AI-powered agents doing all the heavy
lifting for us and in the process pushing the boundaries of what is possible faster and further than ever before giving us the time spared to be
what we truly are, humans. How
can a fairly newborn technology like AI solve these complex problems that have
faster technological advancements. The more AI
been around for millennia? One of the advantages of artificial intelligence is
is used to research the faster it will learn to find patterns and results for many of the questions that the world is exploring.
Imagine having artificial intelligence that runs through thousands of simulations electronically in order
to find cures for many of life’s ailments. T his would free up researchers to devise new parameters and
objectives. Who knows someday with the help of artificial intelligence we might find the cure to cancer as well. What problems is
humanity facing currently & can AI help to solve them? We can stop ignoring them and actually take action. I’m not going
to list all of them. Most of the problems that are listed below are resource management and allocation
problems; leveraging AI we could monitor the usage resource, availability resource and have custom-fit solution to many of this problem.
Furthermore, we have some problems that are directly linked to the technology available at the moment. Let’s take energy, for
example, there is only a hand full of people in the world that can finance a large scale natural energy project like the
Gigafactory or rooftop solar panel tiles and the reality is that we need to democratize those solutions and make it available
worldwide especially in developing countries — the only solution is AI, because it can help us figure out how to
produce it in a cheap and an efficient way.

Energy

Environment

Transporation

Food and water

Disease and Human Suffering

Education

Population

I believe that all of this problems can be tackled using AI . Here are some actual facts that prove my statement: According to current
research projects show that artificial intelligence (AI) can also be used for the greater good. Here are five global problems that machine learning could help us solve.
Health For example, a recent ground-breaking discovery of the disease Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), was made
through a partnership between Barrow Neurological Institute and the artificial intelligence company IBM Watson Health. IBM
Watson, the artificial intelligence computer, reviewed thousands of pieces of research and was able to identify new genes linked to
ALS. Transportation According to a report by Stanford University, not only will self-driving cars reduce traffic-related deaths and injuries, but they could bring
about changes in our lifestyles as well. We will have more time to work or entertain ourselves during commutes. Education AI can transform how we learn. Last
year, students at Georgia Tech University in the US were startled to discover that their helpful teaching assistant had in fact been a robot all along. After initial
Google has used its artificial intelligence
teething problems, the robot started answering the students’ questions with 97% certainty. Energy

platform Deep Mind to predict when its data centres will get too hot. Cooling systems are only activated
when required. AI has saved Google around 40% in energy costs at its server farms.

Human ingenuity preserves sustainability

Bourne 18 [Ryan Bourne, occupies the R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics
at Cato, 10-6-2018, accessed 7-19-2021, The Earth's Resources Are Limited, but Human Ingenuity Is
Infinite, Cato Institute, https://www.cato.org/commentary/earths-resources-are-limited-human-
ingenuity-infinite]//AtulV

Sitting in the country’s ministry of energy, technology, science, climate change and environment, a
government scientist presented us with a two‐axis diagram. The lines represented “the natural world”
and “human activity.” As he laboured over all the environmental depletion we were purportedly
responsible for, I tentatively asked: “Do you assume, then, that human beings are just not part of the
natural world?” The silence spoke volumes.
Humanity faces huge challenges relating to our coexistence with wildlife, forms of pollution and risks
associated with a changing climate. As economists might say, our activities do indeed produce
“externalities”. But doomsday anti‐human thinkers, who see us as mere leeches on Earth, have been
utterly wrong in one crucial respect: the idea that growth is rapidly depleting natural resources.

Provided we maintain sound economic policies, worrying about humans depleting resources amounts to
unfounded hysteria.

The biologist Paul Ehrlich is perhaps the most famous proponent of this idea. In his 1968 bestselling
book, The Population Bomb, he advanced the idea of resource depletion. He renewed this attack at a
2017 Vatican conference, saying: “You can’t go on growing forever on a finite planet. The biggest
problem we face is the continued expansion of the human enterprise … Perpetual growth is the creed of
a cancer cell.” The Prince of Wales thinks similarly. He has lamented that Earth just doesn’t have the
capacity to “sustain us all” if more and more people consume natural resources at “Western levels”.

This notion, that humans are like pigs eating from a finite trough, is intuitive. The Earth, logically,
appears to have limited natural reserves. If one accepts this, it follows that bigger population or higher
consumption levels will deplete the Earth’s riches. The implications are obvious: first, infinite growth is
impossible due to these constraints on physical resources; second, to avoid the rapid depletion of the
Earth’s resources, we must limit population growth, reduce consumption, or both.

Such thinking is remarkably common among scientists. But it is uneconomic. What it ignores, as the
great University of Maryland economist Julian Simon highlighted, is the capacity of human ingenuity to
find new recipes and ideas. Anti‐human thinkers fail to appreciate that our brains are also a resource.
When toiling under the right institutions and market‐based incentives — i.e. prices — we constantly
dream up new ways of making or doing things, including new methods of discovery or means of
excavating raw materials.

Yes, consumption and population growth put pressure on resource availability. But markets provide us
with incentives to change our behaviour or innovate. High prices caused by higher demand encourage us
to shift to consuming substitutes in the short term. In the longer term they encourage us to seek out
new supply or to rethink our whole approach. If this second effect dominates, the prices of natural
resources could fall with population growth. More humans, after all, means a greater brain capacity for
ideas to engender abundance.

That is exactly what my Cato colleague Marian L Tupy, and Gale L Pooley of Brigham Young University,
find in a fascinating new paper. The facts speak for themselves. Looking at a basket of 50 global
commodities between 1980 and 2017, they find real prices fell by an average of 36pc. That happened
despite the global population increasing by 69pc over the same period.

A more accurate way to assess the “cost” to humans of these commodities is to calculate their “time
price” — the amount of time an average human must work to earn enough to buy them. On that metric,
the cost of these commodities fell much further — by a whopping 65pc. If it took 60 minutes of work to
buy this basket in 1980, it only took 21 minutes of work to afford them in 2017. A continuation of that
trend would see prices of these natural resources halve every 26 years.

This utterly refutes the anti‐human narrative and shows that Julian Simon was right. Population growth,
far from exhausting resources, seems to be making them more plentiful. In fact, our current situation
indicates a “super abundance”: prices (in terms of working time) are falling at a rate proportionally
faster than the increase in population.

How does this make sense, physically, on a planet of notionally fixed resources? Tupy and Pooley use a
beautiful analogy. They state: “The world is a closed system in the way that a piano is a closed system.
The instrument has only 88 notes, but those notes can be played in a nearly infinite variety of ways. The
same applies to our planet. The Earth’s atoms may be fixed, but the possible combinations of those
atoms are infinite. What matters, then, is not the physical limits of our planet, but human freedom to
experiment and reimagine the use of resources that we have.”

It is wrong, in other words, to think of human activity as a pure consumption of our physical inheritance.
Our existence, provided we are governed by sound institutions, encourages new and innovative ways to
fulfil wants and needs by combining and exploring the resources available to us. Earlier this year, for
example, scientists discovered a 16m‐ton patch of deep‐sea mud rich with “rare earths” almost 800
miles off the coast of Japan. They estimate it could serve the planet’s need for those rare earths for
between 400 and 800 years. The earth’s natural resources are neither fully known nor fixed in any
meaningful sense.

Neither, therefore, are the opportunities for growth. As former US president Ronald Reagan summarised
succinctly: “There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits to the human
capacity for intelligence, imagination and wonder.” Provided we maintain sound economic policies,
worrying about humans depleting resources amounts to unfounded hysteria.

Economic growth is sustainable – Innovation and human creativity

Zenghelis 3-19 [Dimitri Zenghelis, economist focusing on sustainable prosperity, 3-19-2021, accessed
7-21-2021, Sustainability Is Not Only Compatible With Growth, It Requires It – But Only With Targeted
Innovation, Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/dimitrizenghelis/2021/03/19/can-we-be-green-and-
grow/?sh=7ae9dec4ce01]//AtulV

Where a minimal public and private effort has been made to invest in new technologies, for example in
renewable energy and electric vehicles, great progress has been made towards decarbonising the
electricity and transport sectors. This relied heavily on taxpayer funded research and deployment
policies to kick start innovation. Moreover, once learning, experience and economies of scale in
production and discovery kicked in, these innovative new technologies turned out to be cheaper, more
efficient and more productive than the incumbents they replaced.

Exponential growth is not only possible, it is exactly what you’d expect in a world where you did not
increase your resource or greenhouse gas footprint. You’d learn to use resources smarter and get more
out of them. Investing in science, creativity and innovation can accelerate our ability to use fewer
resources. In this way, increasing returns to ideas overcome diminishing returns to factors, such as
labour and physical capital. This then generates more resources for further investment. Unlike material
resources, ideas are weightless. Knowledge begets knowledge and does not deplete when used.

Ideas can be weightless as well as priceless

The green transition can serve to accelerate this trend provided we steer innovation in a way that
enhances prosperity. The World Bank estimates that intangible capital—ideas, processes, software,
databases, new media libraries, creative copy-write and online services—now makes up between 60%
and 80% of total wealth in most developed countries.

GDP measures neither happiness nor well-being. Reported happiness does not rise in line with growing
GDP over time, even if it does across space. GDP certainly does not measure comprehensive wealth and
may not even go in the same direction. A dashboard of metrics should be used to complement GDP and
guide our measure of true prosperity.

‘Degrowth’ poses environmental risks too

But economic growth is strongly correlated with other, non-monetary things of value, such as
substantially lower child mortality, declines in preventable diseases, educational and scientific
prowess, equal opportunities, rule of law and financial security.

In poorer parts of the world, ‘degrowth’ risks condemning billions of people to endemic poverty. As an
illustration, one estimate suggests the world needs a 400% increase in output to eliminate poverty. In
rich countries, it is hard to imagine the prospect of large cuts in wages and salaries boosting popular
support for environmental measures? It would also choke off resources for vital innovation. Policy-
driven consumption reductions such as Allied rationing after World War Two and Soviet rationing in the
Cold War produced negative ecological outcomes. Just take a look at the satellite picture of the border
between Haiti and the Dominican Republic to see how low consumption relates to deforestation and
land degradation. Economic contraction would be among the most expensive abatement solutions,
costing US$2,000 per tonne of CO2 at current emissions per unit of output.

By contrast, non climate-related opportunities from dematerialisation are plentiful and include income
from efficiency savings, reduced urban pollution, improved public mobility and and diminished traffic
congestion as well as cost saving from better managing water, land and food. The Global Commission
on the Economy and Climate found that “at least half and possibly as much as 90%” of global emissions
reductions required to meet an ambitious climate target could generate net benefits to the economy.
The IMF recommends fossil fuel pricing on narrow economic as well as environmental grounds.
Efficiency opportunities are even available to squeeze out carbon in hard to abate sectors such as
aviation, shipping and industry.

Innovate and grow

In truth, neither growth nor ‘degrowth’ will alone deliver sustainability. Preventing dangerous climate
change means net emissions must fall close to zero. Without decoupling production from emissions,
GDP would have to fall to zero too, inducing mass starvation. By the same token, the only growth path is
the sustainable growth path, all the others will snuff themselves out.

Innovation is therefore necessary and we will have to change our material consumption. Yet tastes,
preferences and social norms are not fixed. As we get richer, we value personal services such as
performance art, care services and socialising over material goods. The ‘degrowthers’ are right:
prosperity does not rely on ever-increasing material consumption (despite its many flaws, real GDP is a
chain weighted value concept, so it will pick up our changing preferences for dematerialised existence,
albeit slowly and imperfectly).
In short, what matters is decarbonisation and dematerialisation, not ‘degrowth’. The primary route to
dematerialisation is through innovation. And this requires strong, clear and credible policy intervention.
There is no reason why the future cannot be cleaner, quieter and more secure as well as more efficient,
productive and innovative. We just need to design it that way. Our species developed effective vaccines
for COVID-19 in record time. For all our failings as stewards of the planet, innovation is one thing
humans excel at. We need more of it and of the right kind.

Their arguments describe the squo but innovation solves them – food proves
Bovet 18 [Colin Bovet, Leading all things growth, customer acquisition, and partnerships at Gregarious
Plant Labs, 12-23-2018, accessed 7-17-2021, The Infinite Resource, Medium,
https://medium.com/@colin.bovet/the-infinite-resource-ff0e2fe2bc05]//AtulV

The third section of The Infinite Resource is the most fascinating, powerful, and thought-provoking part
of the book. Naam takes the reader on a whirlwind tour of the technologies that are changing our world.
This is where I want to focus this essay.

Naam’s thesis is that while physical resources are limited, ideas are limitless. Once a barrel of oil has
been burned, it can never be used again. Ideas, on the other hand, can be perpetually used, reused,
shared, and altered. At the same time, ideas let us create more value from our finite resources. As he
writes,

“Physical resources matter. But the change in our knowledge resources — our science, our technology,
our continual generation of new useful ideas — has made far more impact over the course of history.
Knowledge acts as a multiplier of physical resources, allowing us to extract more value (whether it be
food, steel, living space, health, longevity, or something else) from the same physical resource (land,
energy, materials, etc.)”

Agriculture and energy are the two lenses that Naam uses throughout the book to show the interplay
between ideas and resources.

In the early 1970s, a series of seminal papers like The Population Bomb, Famine, 1975!, and The Limits
to Growth predicted that our rising population and consumption would quickly and irreversibly plunge
the world into famine. They had reason to be concerned: the global population in 1965 had soared to
3.3 billion people, versus just 1.6 billion in 1900. At the same time, much of the Earth’s arable land was
already being used for farming. If population continued to grow exponentially, how could our food
supply possibly keep up?

In fact, precisely the opposite effect happened. Since 1970 our global food supply has outpaced our
population growth, growing by a factor of 2.5 while population grew by a factor of two.

One of the most important innovations during this time came from a researcher named Norman
Borlaug. He developed a new strain of wheat that produced three times as much yield as conventional
wheat, and could be harvested twice a year. Borlaug’s wheat multiplied harvests by a factor of six in the
span of twenty years and prevented countless famines around the world, earning him a Nobel Peace
Prize.
In fact, throughout human history we’ve gotten better and better at producing food. When humans
were hunter-gatherers, it took a staggering 3,000 acres of land to feed one person. Through developing
and then improving agriculture over thousands of years, it now takes just 1/3 of an acre to feed each
person, a 10,000x improvement in efficiency.

Unlike hunting, which depletes existing resources, farming becomes more efficient the more we do it. It
doesn’t take four times the effort and resources to produce four times as much food. The same is true
for fishing: while catching fish depletes natural stocks, farmed fish are sustainable and the process gets
better over time.

Agriculture today is radically more efficient than in the past. Today’s American farmers use just half as
much water, fertilizer, and energy to grow our food as they did in 1948.

Like those 1970s doomsayers, our predictions about the future are often wrong because they assume
that limited physical resources (land area, raw materials, time) are the most important factor. In reality,
ideas are our limiting factor — our ability to innovate and solve the problems in front of us.

Today, many people are worried about genetically modified (GM) foods. However, these foods haven’t
been linked to health issues in decades of reputable studies, and the benefits far outweigh the costs.
GM crops allow farmers to be much more efficient and reduce usage of pesticides and fertilizers while
increasing yields to feed the world.

The founder of Greenpeace himself wrote about GM foods that “you can’t base your decisions today on
some unknown risk that’s never been seen. You have to weigh those unknowns against real issues,
against the lives of millions.”

As Naam writes,

Genetically modified foods could achieve many of the goals of organic agriculture. They could reduce
the amount of energy we need to use, the emission of greenhouse gasses, the amount of water drained
from rivers and aquifers, and the runoffs that enter the water. And they could do this while raising
yields, feeding more people, and sparing the world’s forests.

To wrap it up, there’s much room in the world for hope today. We’re making meaningful progress
towards important goals in food, energy, wealth, and waste. We can and should make choices and
invest in innovation that moves us towards a prosperous, clean, and more egalitarian future.
 Treatment

Desalination plants dump toxic brine into oceans – high salt concentration and
temperatures kill marine species
Gies 19 (Erica Gies – independent journalist specializing in the environment for the New Your
Times, Guardian, and Economist, MA San Francisco State University. “Slaking the World’s Thirst
with Seawater Dumps Toxic Brine in Oceans.” Scientific America. Feb 7, 2019,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/slaking-the-worlds-thirst-with-seawater-dumps-
toxic-brine-in-oceans/) sf
Growing populations and tightening water supplies have spurred people in many places—including the Middle East, Australia, California
desalination plants are energy
and China—to look to the oceans and other salty waters as a source of new drinking water. But
intensive and create a potentially environment-harming waste called brine (made up of
concentrated salt and chemical residues), which is dumped into the ocean, injected underground or
spread on land.

Despite the ecological threats, “there was no comprehensive assessment about brine—how much we produce, ”
says Manzoor Qadir, assistant director of the United Nations University Institute on Water, Environment and Health. So he and his
colleagues calculated that
figure and found it is 50 percent greater than the desalination industry’s
previous rough estimate. In fact, it is enough to cover Florida with 30 centimeters of brine
every year.

How much brine a desalination plant produces depends on its water source—such as seawater or brackish (semisalty) water—and on
the type of technology it employs, Qadir says. Reverse
osmosis, which pushes water through a membrane to strain out the salt, is
the most widely used technology today and produces
69 percent of the world’s desalinated water. When used on
seawater it creates an average of 42 percent water and 58 percent brine, for a “recovery ratio” of 0.42.
Two other methods, called “thermal” technologies, work by heating water to steam in order to separate the salt and produce
about 25 percent of global desalinated water—and much more brine waste. One such process, called “multistage flash
distillation” has a recovery ratio of just 0.22.

Because brine discharge had not been reported comprehensively, Qadir and his colleagues looked at the recovery ratios for various
combinations of water types and desalination technologies in the scientific literature. They also looked at salt levels in the water going
into and coming out of the small number of plants for which such data could be found. From these data points they were able to calculate
the average recovery ratios for more than 80 percent of the desalinated water produced worldwide. They found that instead of
creating one liter of brine for every liter of freshwater produced, as had generally been assumed,
desalination on average has a ratio closer to 1.5 to 1 . The researchers’ U.N.-backed study was published in
December in Science of the Total Environment.

Returning salt to the ocean might not seem like an environmental concern . People tend to think, “It’s
seawater. It came from there. Who cares?” says Heather Cooley, research director for the Pacific Institute, an independent water research
organization based in California. That attitude could be why there have been few studies of brine discharge effects in specific locations.
Still, some of the general impacts are clear.

Discharge from plants using thermal technologies can be much hotter than the ocean; this can be
“fatal for marine life and can cause a lasting change in species composition and abundance,”
according to a 2012 paper focused on the Arabian (aka Persian) Gulf, the epicenter of desalination. Reverse osmosis plants, on the
other hand, do not have much of a heat impact.
Chemicals—especially chlorines, which are lethal to many organisms—are generally neutralized prior to discharge. But brine waste
may contain residues of cleaning chemicals, reaction by-products and heavy metals from
equipment corrosion. Miki Tramer, vice president of sales and marketing at Israel-based IDE Technologies (a major
manufacturer of desalination technology), says the chemicals—at least from the company’s own plants—have a negligible influence. The
chemicals are treated and the water diluted before discharge, he says, so the amounts are very small. “This is not dumping buckets of
chemicals into the water,” he notes. Different desalination technologies, however, produce varied levels of
chemical pollution in their brine.

And even the desalination industry agrees concentrated

salt is a problem. Because it is heavier than seawater,
the brine tends to settle toward the bottom of the coastal areas where it is released —unless it is diluted.
The excess salt decreases dissolved oxygen in the water, suffocating animals on the seafloor.
Technologies exist to reduce brine waste prior to disposal or to mine pollutants out of the waste for commercial use—but this is
generally cost-prohibitive. Instead, plants use other strategies to minimize damage.

Desal plants are costly and harms the surrounding environment

Wheeler 18 (Sarah Ann Wheeler, Sarah is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and the
Associate Director of Research of the Centre for Global Food and Resources at the University of
Adelaide. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed outputs in the research areas of irrigated farming,
water economics, organic farming, water markets, water scarcity, crime, and gambling. Sarah is an
Associate Editor of four journals and on the board of another five journals., 8-6-2018, "Three reasons
why it’s a bad idea to ramp up Adelaide's desalination plant," Conversation,
https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-its-a-bad-idea-to-ramp-up-adelaides-desalination-
plant-100968)
Drought-affected farmers in New South Wales have called for South Australia to increase the use of its desalination plant to enable an increase
in water allocations for other users along the Murray River. The farmers’ argument is that if Adelaide in particular draws less water from the
river more will be available for agriculture in NSW and Victoria. The logic may sound appealing, but thereare three good reasons
why it’s not a good idea. Not only is desalination an incredibly expensive project, there are other
strategies – like water pricing – that can more effectively reduce water demand. It’s also important to remember
that the water flowing to South Australia is not “wasted” if it’s not diverted for industry. Stream flows are vital for keeping many
ecosystems alive, and there are already serious concerns about current levels . First, Adelaide uses a very small
amount of water from the River Murray. Over the past two decades, average diversions for metropolitan Adelaide and associated country areas
have been just over 100 gigalitres (GL). This represents an average 1.25% of the water diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. SA in general
(including irrigator use) has used an average 11% of water diversions over the past two decades. NSW has diverted 52% of surface water in the
Murray-Darling Basin over the same period. Hence, the reality is that ramping up SA’s desal plant will have very little actual impact on NSW
irrigators’ water allocations. South Australia (the grey line) receives much less water from the Murray River than other states. MDBA Water
Audit Monitoring reports, CC BY Desalination is expensive Second, increasing desalination has heavy financial and
environmental costs. The financial cost is why the plant has been run at only about 10% capacity (the
minimum needed to maintain its working condition). Previous economic analysis by consultants has
suggested the desalination plant should only be used to increase water allocations to SA irrigators when
temporary water market prices are above A$510 per megalitre (ML). Given that temporary water prices are now
trading around A$300/ML (albeit increasing due to increased water scarcity), we’re still a long way from a financial argument
for turning to the desal plant, let alone considering the cost of its negative environmental impacts.

There are alternative, cheaper ways to desalinate—their ev never says nuclear key
Conca 19 [James Conca, writes about nuclear, energy and the environment. 7-14-2019, "How 1,500
Nuclear-Powered Water Desalination Plants Could Save The World From Desertification," Forbes,
accessed 7-14-2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/07/14/megadroughts-and-
desalination-another-pressing-need-for-nuclear-power/?sh=4674787c7fde]

There are other technologies that have been, and are being, used as well, including the more
economical water reuse. The City of Redlands in California is using a membrane bioreactor technology
from GE that recycles over 6 million gallons/day of municipal wastewater.

Whatever technologies are selected, southern California needs to build the equivalent of 30 desalination
plants the size of Carlsbad’s to produce over a billion gallons a day, solving most of the water problems
of southern California. The Central Valley would need another 30 plants to deal with its agricultural
needs as its groundwater is becoming increasingly salty.

Powered by SMRs, these plants would more than pay for themselves by their own revenue, although a
small water tax would get them started faster.

California better get moving. It’s been a reasonable two years, but more MegaDroughts are on the way.

Desalination on the border results in biodiversity destruction, inefficiencies, US

dependency, and destruction of the tourism economy.
Harwood 16, "Lori Harwood, UA College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, UA Researchers Take a
Closer Look at the Future of Desalination," University of Arizona News,
https://news.arizona.edu/story/ua-researchers-take-closer-look-future-desalination//Warren
Even though desalination remains the most expensive water option on the table, its allure continues to increase, especially since costs have
decreased by about 50 percent in the last decade, said lead author Margaret Wilder, an associate professor in the UA School of Geography and
Development and the Center for Latin American Studies. Wilder
said that she and her colleagues felt they needed to
write the paper because desalination is often presented by agencies as an inevitability, but that
desalination needs to be examined more critically beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. Some use
terminology such as "It's an endless water supply," and "It's a drought-free water supply," Wilder
explained. However, political, social, economic and environmental implications must also be assessed.
Wilder's co-authors include UA colleagues Robert Varady, Robert Merideth and Adriana A. Zúñiga-Terán, researchers with the Udall Center for
Studies in Public Policy; Sharon Megdal, director of the Water Resources Research Center; and Christopher Scott, professor in the School of
Geography and Development and the Udall Center. Other authors are Ismael Aguilar-Barajas, professor at Tecnológico de Monterrey; Nicolás
Pineda-Pablos, professor at El Colegio de Sonora; and Jamie McEvoy, a former graduate student from the UA School of Geography and
Development who is now an assistant professor at Montana State University. The team conducted a case study of a proposed desalination plant
on the Mexican coast of the Gulf of California in Puerto Peñasco, Sonora. Wilder, along with Pineda-Pablos, Varady, McEvoy and Scott,
researched the proposed plant by interviewing water managers, conducting archival research and holding a workshop with local and state
stakeholders. The research was funded by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The work was also supported by
the Puentes Consortium of border universities, headquartered at Rice University, and also by the Lloyd's Register Foundation. Wilder
says
that efficiency is a concern, as about 40-50 percent of the water is "lost" in the delivery system in
Mexico compared to about 5 percent in the U.S. Improving efficiency, re-using water and other "soft-path" alternatives
should be employed before turning to desalination. In addition, although the U.S. and Mexico have a recent history of
amicable water sharing, relying on another country for water depends on sustained cooperation. "This
would hook us into path dependency," Wilder said. "Can we count on robust and sustained good
relations between Mexico and the U.S., as we have had in the last 30 years, over water?" One reason for
building a plant in Mexico is that the U.S. already has the conveyance system to transport the water from Mexico to the U.S. due to the
infrastructure already in place to make water deliveries to Mexico and to distribute Central Arizona Project water to cities. Environmental
regulations are stricter in the U.S., as well. Wilder believes it would be cheaper to build and run the plant in Mexico. The desalination
process is energy intensive, resulting in greenhouse gas emissions. Reverse osmosis uses approximately
10 times more energy than traditional treatment of an equal volume of surface water. But Wilder said
the biggest environmental concern is the large amount of brine concentrate created in the desalination
process. The most common disposal method of concentrated brine is dispersal back into the ocean,
which has an unknown impact on marine and terrestrial ecosystems. Speaking specifically about the
proposed plant in Puerto Peñasco, Wilder said "the Upper Gulf of California is an extremely biodiverse
environment; it has a lot of species so the environmental impact is extremely worrying. We are talking
about over 16 million gallons of brine concentrate per day potentially pumped into the Gulf." In addition to
fragile and protected ecosystems being affected, the plant would impact the local communities, raising the question of how and whether
Mexico would benefit from the arrangement. Local Mexican communities would likely benefit from the increasing
water supply, although the authors raised the prospect of unsustainable growth. Job creation, both in
the desalination plant and in the growing tourism industry as a consequence of more water, might offset
the loss of fisheries-related jobs. However, much of the area's tourism business is related to the
biodiversity of the Upper Gulf. Wilder emphasizes that the article should not be viewed as an opposition
to desalination, but rather as a call for transparent and accountable assessment of desalination and its
alternatives. "I think most of us feel it is going to happen at some point," Wilder said. "But is it going to happen on the coast of Mexico? Is it
going to happen with protection for the environment and with social protections so that we are not growing unsustainably?"

Desal plants are costly and harms the surrounding environment

Wheeler 18 (Sarah Ann Wheeler, Sarah is an Australian Research Council Future Fellow and the
Associate Director of Research of the Centre for Global Food and Resources at the University of
Adelaide. She has published over 100 peer-reviewed outputs in the research areas of irrigated farming,
water economics, organic farming, water markets, water scarcity, crime, and gambling. Sarah is an
Associate Editor of four journals and on the board of another five journals., 8-6-2018, "Three reasons
why it’s a bad idea to ramp up Adelaide's desalination plant," Conversation,
https://theconversation.com/three-reasons-why-its-a-bad-idea-to-ramp-up-adelaides-desalination-
plant-100968)
Drought-affected farmers in New South Wales have called for South Australia to increase the use of its desalination plant to enable an increase
in water allocations for other users along the Murray River. The farmers’ argument is that if Adelaide in particular draws less water from the
river more will be available for agriculture in NSW and Victoria. The logic may sound appealing, but thereare three good reasons
why it’s not a good idea. Not only is desalination an incredibly expensive project, there are other
strategies – like water pricing – that can more effectively reduce water demand. It’s also important to remember
that the water flowing to South Australia is not “wasted” if it’s not diverted for industry. Stream flows are vital for keeping many
ecosystems alive, and there are already serious concerns about current levels . First, Adelaide uses a very small
amount of water from the River Murray. Over the past two decades, average diversions for metropolitan Adelaide and associated country areas
have been just over 100 gigalitres (GL). This represents an average 1.25% of the water diversions in the Murray-Darling Basin. SA in general
(including irrigator use) has used an average 11% of water diversions over the past two decades. NSW has diverted 52% of surface water in the
Murray-Darling Basin over the same period. Hence, the reality is that ramping up SA’s desal plant will have very little actual impact on NSW
irrigators’ water allocations. South Australia (the grey line) receives much less water from the Murray River than other states. MDBA Water
Audit Monitoring reports, CC BY Desalination is expensive Second, increasing desalination has heavy financial and
environmental costs. The financial cost is why the plant has been run at only about 10% capacity (the
minimum needed to maintain its working condition). Previous economic analysis by consultants has
suggested the desalination plant should only be used to increase water allocations to SA irrigators when
temporary water market prices are above A$510 per megalitre (ML). Given that temporary water prices are now
trading around A$300/ML (albeit increasing due to increased water scarcity), we’re still a long way from a financial argument
for turning to the desal plant, let alone considering the cost of its negative environmental impacts.
 2NC Extensions

No solvency – desalination on the border causes environmental harms and is subject

to laxer regulations
Dibble 14, " Sandra Dibble, Master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University who covers the
border and Mexico for The San Diego Union Tribune, One desal plant, two countries?," San Diego Union-
Tribune, https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/border-baja-california/sdut-rosarito-mexico-
desalination-plant-binational-2014aug24-htmlstory.html//Warren
On a parallel track, the San Diego County Water Authority is participating in discussions with Mexican water agencies on the possibility of a publicly owned
binational desalination plant in Rosarito Beach. “We
know that a plant can be built,” said Dan Denham, the authority’s
Colorado River program manager. “The question is, what size the plant will be, is it going to meet just
Mexican demands or broader U.S. demands, and how is the water going to get across the border.” This
is not the first binational a water supply project proposed for the region. In the 1990s, the San Diego
County Water Authority was in discussions with the Baja California government over the possibility of
building a joint aqueduct to carry Colorado River water. The project never moved forward , but it set the stage for
another idea — a binational desalination plant. A 2005 study by the water authority considered locations on both sides of the border, including Rosarito Beach. A
preliminary feasibility study in 2010 “determined that yes, it would be feasible to have a desalination plant in Rosarito Beach,” said Sally Spener, spokeswoman for
the U.S. International Boundary and Water Commission. “The big questions are, how much would it cost, and who would pay
for it.” Now drought and growing demands on the Colorado River are adding urgency to these questions. A 2012 U.S.-Mexico agreement on the Colorado River
known as Minute 319 listed a binational desalination plant in Rosarito Beach as a potential new source of water. “We are studying the complex mosaic,” of
alternatives, said Roberto Espinosa, head of the Tijuana office of Mexico’s Comision International de Limites y Aguas. The commission and its counterpart, the IBWC,
are leading the binational discussion on the potential of a plant. On the table are questions such as costs, environmental
impacts, whether a future plant would be financed public, privately or with a combination of the two,
and whether it should be binational or exclusively Mexican , Espinosa said. By working together, “we could take advantage of
factors such as economies of scale where both countries participate in the project and both are able to benefit,” he said. One alternative on the

table would not entail pipelines at all — but rather an “exchange” consisting of U.S. water agencies
agreeing to fund a desalination plant in Mexico, in return for Mexico’s agreement to lease some of its
allocation of Colorado River water. But to to date there have been no such agreements. To support a Mexican plant, “we need Mexico to have a
clear path,” said “Bill Hasencamp, Colorado River program manager for the Metropolitan Water District, a consortium of 26 cities and water districts in southern
California. “We have to be able to say, ‘here is the path where we could potentially get some water if we partner with them.” Baja California’s first utility-scale
desalination plant is scheduled for completion in 2016: a plant in Ensenada that would produce 5.7 million gallons daily. Though Baja California’s strategic plan for
2013-2019 also lists a desalination plant in Rosarito Beach, “nothing has been determined, everything is on the table in an
analysis stage,” said Enrique Ruelas, head of the State Water Commission in Baja California, the agency responsible for planning the state’s future water
supply.For Mexico, “the attraction of a binational plant is that significant amounts of the funding could be generated by sources in the United States,” said Paul
Ganster, director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University. Investors favor a Mexico location “because the whole permit
process tends to move along quicker,” Ganster said. Critics contend that locating
south of the border opens the door for laxer
environmental regulation. Ganster said environmental groups on both sides of the border are likely to
keep a close watch on any environmental damage caused by the plant to marine life. “It would not fly,”
he said. “U.S. activists and others would stir up a ruckus to make sure we’re not importing water
produced by substandard methods.”

Desalination within Mexico is costly and environmentally damaging.

Godoy 21, "Emilio Godoy, Mexico-based correspondent who covers the environment, human rights
and sustainable development. He has been a journalist since 1996 and has written for various media
outlets in Mexico, Central America and Spain, Making Seawater Potable in Mexico Has High Costs and
Environmental Impacts," Inter Press Service, http://www.ipsnews.net/2021/01/making-seawater-
potable-mexico-high-costs-environmental-impacts//Warren

But in her conversation with IPS, she also underlined the disadvantages of these plants, such as high
energy requirements, aggravated if the energy comes from fossil sources; high costs; and the generation
of brine and wastewater. "Before considering desalination, measures such as water saving, investment
in green infrastructure, rainwater harvesting and the reuse of treated water should be a priority. We
must also compare the costs of building desalination plants versus alternatives.” -- Gabriela Muñoz To illustrate
the costs: one of the desalination plants authorised in 2014 by the National Water Commission (CONAGUA)
in the northern state of Baja California cost some 35 million dollars to process 250 litres per second (l/s).
Another plant with the same capacity, given final approval in October 2020 in the neighbouring state of
Baja California Sur, will require an investment of more than 55 million dollars. In Mexico “there are no
regulations regarding how to dispose of the brine. The most common thing to do is to dump it on the
beach. We have to be careful how we handle the brine because of the toxicity to ecosystems. Nor is
there installed capacity to treat all the wastewater. For specific areas, desalination should not be the first option,” said
Muñoz from the northern border city of Tijuana. Between 2012 and 2020, environmental authorities authorised at
least 120 desalination facilities, rejected six applications and another five are under evaluation, according to
data obtained by IPS through public information requests. Most of the new projects are located in three states with acute water shortages: the
northwestern states of Baja California and Baja California Sur, and the southeastern state of Quintana Roo.

AT Water wars: Water shortages don’t cause conflict.

Mehsud et al. ‘17 [MUHAMMAD IMRAM MEHSUD; Assistant Professor, Department of Political
Science and International Relations, Hazara University Mansehra; MANZOOR AHMAD; Chairman,
Department of Political Science, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan; ADIL KHAN; Lecturer, Department
of Pakistan Studies, Hazara University Mansehra; 2017; "When States Go Thirsty: A Critical Analysis of
Water War Thesis"; Global Strategic and Security Studies Review Vol. II, No. I;
https://gsssrjournal.com/papers/1%20When%20States%20Go%20Thirsty%20-%20Imran
%20Mehsud.pdf] KL 3-12-2021

This group argues that no doubt water is scarce and is unevenly distributed across planet earth. However, water
scarcity doesn’t
necessarily result
in war. In fact, water scarcity could create both conflict and cooperation. For Toynbee, such a scarcity
or challenge would create a cooperative environment whereas for Homer-Dixon such scarcity would generate conflicts. This
dichotomy of two divergent perspectives thus resulted in the creation of two different and contending schools of thought. The first school
which draws their argument from Toynbee is represented by the writings of Sandra I.Postel, and Aaron T.Wolf. This group is sanguine about the
peaceful resolution of water disputes.

Their claim is based on certain arguments. Firstly, it is argued that there

exist almost 3600 water treaties at different levels, and
nearly all of the disputed parties to water conflicts of one form or another have either managed to reach an
agreement or is in the process of charting a strategy to manage waters (Priscoli and Wolf 2008). Egypt-Sudan in 1959 over the Nile,
IndianPakistan in 1960 over Indus, Thailand-Vietnam, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic-Cambodia in 1995 over the Mekong, the eleven co-
riparian countries of the Danube River in 1994, India- Bangladesh in 1996 over the Ganges are few of the examples where water disputes have
been resolved through cooperative arrangements.

Secondly, most
of these treaties remained intact even when the parties to the agreement actually waged war
against one another. The functioning of the Indus Water Treaty between India and Pakistan amidst large scale wars between these two
nations and the smooth working of the Lebanese water supply system during Lebanese civil wars (Global Water Shortages1999) are cited as
solid examples in this regard. Thirdly, Wolf further augments the arguments in hand by arguing that historical
water disputes have
never turned violent and that water war is strategically irrational, hydrographically ineffective and
economically not viable (Chakraborty and Serageldin 2004). Fourthly, it is opined that increase in a number of water
dispute’s resolution mechanisms, the expanding international law of waters and positive role of third
parties in the resolution of water disputes have left no room for the water war thesis (Wolf 1998). Owing to the
aforementioned reasons, some of the analysts from Swedish Water House echoed that, “the loudest alarmist calls for future
“water wars” have died away” (Brennan 2008, 10).
Solvency Frontlines
 1NC

Establishment clause decks solvency

Spitz and Penalvert, 2021 [Laura, Professor of Law, University of New Mexico School of Law, and
Eduardo, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, “NATURE'S PERSONHOOD AND PROPERTY'S VIRTUES,”
Vol. 45, Harvard Environmental Law Review, HeinOnline, accessed 7/24/2021, ddi-AJ]

A different approach treats personhood as reflecting intrinsic moral value possessed by all members of a natural
kind that (as a kind) possesses certain characteristics that set it apart from others. As John Finnis puts it, " human
rights and the
justice of respecting them" are predicated on "all human per- sons . . . as beings each and all of whom
have the dignity of having the at least radical capacity of participating in the human goods that are picked out in prac- 5 tical reason's first
principles . . . and that make sense of all human intending."" Focusing the attribution of value on characteristics of the natural kind-as Fin- nis
does-similarly limits the utility of this approach to understanding per- sonhood claims in nature. Only natural kinds that are
capable of participating in "human goods" are deserving of "human rights." 66 The basis of moral value could also
be described in religious or spiritual terms that go beyond the observable characteristics of the natural kind . This kind of spiritual
claim does seem to lie behind at least some calls for certain natural entities-lakes, rivers, mountains,
etc.-to be treated as persons, despite their non-sentience . For example, many (though certainly not all) Indigenous
communities do recognize animacy in nonhuman beings and things and have translated that conceptualization into law. The White Earth Band
of Ojibwe, for example, adopted the Rights of Manoomin, or wild rice, in December 2018.67 More recently, the Yurok Tribe passed a resolution
allowing cases to be brought on behalf of the Klamath River in tribal court.68 While the Colorado River plaintiff invoked international
Indigenous examples in its claim,69 the
case is notable for its failure to explain significant differences between it
and those examples,70 to draw on Native American cultural and legal practices, or to consult any of the directly affected Native
American tribes.75 Without wading into the difficult and important debate over the limits of public reason and the correctness of basing public
policy on particular religious or spiritual commit- 72 ments, however, we simply note the thorny Establishment Clause
concerns that would arise in response to such an approach.73

Giving legal personhood to water fails—Bangladesh, Ecuador, LEBOR prove

Samuel, 19 (Sigal Samuel is a Senior Reporter for Vox's Future Perfect and Co-Host of the Future
Perfect podcast., 8-18-2019, accessed on 7-26-2021, Vox, "Bangladesh gave all its rivers legal rights",
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/18/20803956/bangladesh-rivers-legal-personhood-rights-
nature)jmd

Bangladesh is sometimes known as the “land of the rivers.” It’s got hundreds of them — and over the years, they’ve been getting more and more polluted. But as of early July, every single one of them has a remarkable new level of

protection: The Bangladeshi Supreme Court has given all rivers in the country legal rights. Now, people who damage a river can get taken to court by the government-appointed National River Conservation Commission. They’ll be

tried as if they’d harmed a living entity, because each river now has the right to life. That means the river’s government-designated human representatives can sue on its behalf when it’s being endangered. Bangladesh isn’t the first

place to pass such a law. In the US, Ohio voters in February granted Lake Erie the legal right to “exist, flourish, and naturally evolve,” and recent years have also seen national and state laws granting rights to rivers and forests from

New Zealand to India to Colombia. It’s all part of the nascent “rights of nature” movement, which argues that instead of viewing nature as property to be owned, we should recognize that it has its own inalienable rights similar to

the ones we enjoy. Activists in the movement want us to give the environment a more central place in humanity’s expanding moral circle — the imaginary boundary we draw around those we consider worthy of moral

, Bangladesh now stands out as having done something

consideration. But even among the countries that have embraced the rights of nature

unprecedented. “What’s unique about Bangladesh is that they declared all rivers to have this status,” said
Ben Price, the national director for the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a nonprofit public interest law firm that helps people facing threats to their local environment. By contrast, other countries have

granted rights only to individual bodies of water. “In Bangladesh, the river is considered as our mother,” Mohammad Abdul Matin, general secretary of the Dhaka-based environmental group Bangladesh Poribesh Andolon, told

NPR. “The river is now considered by law, by code, a living entity, so you’ll have to face the consequence by law if you do anything that kills the river.” The country already had fines in place to discourage people from harming the
waterways, but those penalties weren’t working well enough to prevent pollution, illegal dredging, and the encroachment of human settlements. The Supreme Court hopes its landmark ruling will change that. Noting that “water is

likely to be the most pressing environmental concern of the next century,” it called for rivers to be protected “at all costs.” That’s music to the ears of environmentalists, but others argue that granting rights to rivers does come

with real costs, and that they’re too high. With more communities getting interested in enshrining the rights of nature in law — Price said that activists in Europe, Asia, and Australia have reached out to CELDF for help — now is a

Three problems with enforcing the rights of nature Even as the

good time to explore the difficulties that are likely to arise as this movement spreads.

rights of nature movement has inspired new legislation around the world, it’s also made clear how ill-
equipped governments are to enforce it. For one thing, once a river gets rights, what happens to all the
people who live off it? In Bangladesh, millions — fishers, farmers, and their families — live in informal
settlements or slums alongside the rivers and depend on the waters for their livelihoods. Now some are
being evicted. “The government must take stock of poor communities who need resettlement or
protection from industries and real estate developers,” said Matin. “If enacted well, the verdict will be helpful in returning the rivers to the people who have
historically depended on them.” It’s also important to note that in some countries where these laws have been enacted, including

Bangladesh, nature may now enjoy more rights than some humans in those societies do. Bangladesh is currently hosting
hundreds of thousands of refugees who have been driven out of neighboring Myanmar; these refugees, many of them women and children, lack legal status in Bangladesh and are restricted from attending Bangladeshi schools or

working. The Bangladeshi government is also trying to find ways to get rid of the refugee population — through forced repatriation to Myanmar or sending refugees to a remote island accessible only by boat. Local officials have

A second problem is jurisdictional. Rivers don’t obey borders

sought to justify this by saying the refugees are destroying the local environment.

— they often traverse more than one country. If a certain country has granted rights to a river but
a neighboring country hasn’t, that makes it difficult to legally protect the waterway from
environmental harm. Bangladeshi environmental activists are already talking about how they won’t be able to compel India to comply with the new law on rivers. India itself dealt with this conundrum after
the high court in Uttarakhand state granted personhood status to the Ganges and Yamuna rivers in 2017, appointing the state government as the rivers’ legal guardian. The state government soon challenged this law in India’s

Supreme Court on the grounds that it was impractical because the river stretched far beyond Uttarakhand. The court agreed and stripped the rivers of their short-lived legal rights. A third, related
problem is that rights of nature laws tend to get tied up in court — and not everybody has the kind
of money required to file a lawsuit. The risk, then, is that whoever has the funding may get to
impose their will. We’ve already seen an example of this in Ecuador, where an NGO called the Global
Alliance for the Rights of Nature sued a construction company that wanted to build a road over a river.
The NGO won in court, but the company didn’t obey the ruling — and the NGO reportedly didn’t have
enough money to launch a second court case against the company. So the ruling wasn’t properly
enforced. In Ohio, the Lake Erie Bill of Rights — the groundbreaking legislation that allows citizens to
sue on behalf of the lake when it’s being polluted — is caught up in legal wrangling right now. The day
after Toledo residents passed the bill in a special election in February, a corporate firm representing
agribusiness interests filed a federal lawsuit against the city. “We expect this kind of pushback because there are competing interests: The community
needs healthy drinking water, while the business community has an interest in making money,” Price told me. The lake is currently experiencing severe algae blooms, and the city of Toledo just filed a new motion trying to get the

lawsuit against the bill of rights dismissed. How the rights of nature idea took off In 1972, the case of Sierra Club v. Morton came before the US Supreme Court, leading to a deliberation over whether nature should have its own

rights. The Court decided the answer was no, but Justice William O. Douglas dissented. “Contemporary public concern for protecting nature’s ecological equilibrium,” he wrote, “should lead to the conferral of standing upon

environmental objects to sue for their own preservation.” That same year, law professor Christopher Stone made a splash with an article titled “Should trees have standing?” It catalyzed other academics to write a slew of articles

and books considering whether natural environments ought to have rights enshrined in law. In 2006, that question left the ether of academia and came to bear directly on toxic sewage sludge, which had been dumped in Tamaqua,

Pennsylvania. Residents fought for — and won — the first rights of nature law in the world. Two years later, Ecuador became the first country to enshrine the rights of nature in its constitution, thanks in large part to the work of

indigenous activists. Since then, the victories have come fast and furious. In 2014, New Zealand recognized the legal rights of the Te Urewera forest. In 2017, it also declared the Te Awa Tupua river to have legal personhood. That

same year, Colombia granted rights to the Atrato River and India recognized the Ganges and Yamuna rivers as legal persons. In 2018, the Amazon rainforest got rights, and for the first time, so did a specific plant species: the wild

rice known as manoomin, one of the Anishinaabe people’s staple crops. And this February, Ohio voters passed the Lake Erie Bill of Rights. Granting the status of personhood to a natural environment may seem like a bizarre legal

fiction, but it’s no more bizarre than the idea that corporations should enjoy that same status, which has been with us since the 1880s. If we find it strange to view nature the way we view people, that may just be because we’ve

grown up in an anthropocentric intellectual tradition that treats the natural world as an object to be examined and exploited for human use, rather than as a subject to be communed with and respected. “The idea that we can be

separate from nature is really a Western reductionist way of looking at the world — we can trace it back to Francis Bacon and the scientific method,” said Price. He told me that just as women’s suffrage and the abolition of slavery

were once unthinkable but gradually became accepted and normalized, the rights of nature idea seems odd now but will eventually gain social currency. “For the rights of nature to be understood and become something we’re
comfortable with is going require a paradigm shift, just like the end of slavery did,” Price said. That paradigm shift may entail nothing less than a total rejection of capitalism, according to Eduardo Gudynas, the executive secretary

of the Latin American Center for Social Ecology in Uruguay. He argues that attempts to reduce environmental devastation while staying within a capitalism framework won’t be enough to address the climate crisis. “The debate

around the rights of nature is one of the most active frontlines in the fight for a non-market-based point of view,” Gudynas told me. “It’s a reaction against our society’s commodification of everything.” Sign up for the Future

Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply —

getting better at doing good. Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism? Millions turn to Vox to understand what’s happening in the news. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower through

understanding. Financial contributions from our readers are a critical part of supporting our resource-intensive work and help us keep our journalism free for all. Please consider making a contribution to Vox today from as little as

$3.

Granting water legal personhood is legally impossible.

Eckstein et al, 19 (Gabriel Eckstein of the Texas A&M University School of Law, ella D'Andrea, Virginia
Marshall, Erin O'Donnell, Julia Talbot-Jones, Deborah Curran, and Katie O'Bryan. July 2019, accessed on
7-26-2021, Scholarship.law.tamu, "Conferring legal personality on the world's rivers: A brief intellectual
assessment intellectual assessment", https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2307&context=facscholar)jmd

Critical questions remain ‘The debate on whether nature should have legal standing has been ongoing at
least since 1972 (see the dissenting opinion of US Justice William O. Douglas in Sierra Club v. Morton,
1972), but many questions remain open. The diversity of approaches adopted in different countries
does not help in bringing clarity to the topic. Is granting rights to rivers a case of codification of
customary law or practices? Are we moving from an anthropocentric viewpoint to an eco-centric one,
or are nature’s rights only a way to ensure that our biosphere remains inhabitable for future human
generations? Further questions include: Who or what is being granted legal personality: the river, the
river basin, the freshwater ecosystem, or the environment as a whole? Does the single fish or weed in
the water have legal standing, or are we protecting aquatic biodiversity? What about the riverbanks
and the surrounding trees and bushes? Humans are also undoubtedly part of the ecosystem as
generally recognized. Does this mean that sustainable use is acceptable as long as the functioning of an
ecosystem is maintained (relations between its components), or do we need to protect the integrity of
the natural object (the river) or process (the ecosystem)? If nature has a bundle of substantive and
procedural rights (to exist, thrive and evolve; to have water; to sue and be sued; to enter into contracts;
to hold property; to be compensated for damages; and so on), doesn’t it have duties too (to pay taxes,
to be liable for damages such as floods, to maintain water quality and quantity)? What is the difference
between a national park or protected area managed by a special-purpose body and a natural area
declared to be a legal person? Does the ownership of the natural object or of the land where it lies have
to be transferred to the new legal person (as in the Whanganui River Act) or does the state retain
ownership (as in the South American examples)? What type of law applies to the relations involving the
new legal person: public (constitutional, administrative, criminal) or private law? Would it be
meaningful to introduce the crime of ecocide? Most importantly, the new legal person needs to be
made operational by clearly setting its defining features. What type of body is it? Is it a public authority,
a charity, a body corporate? Or is it treated differently under different laws (e.g., Whanganui River Act,
Section 17)? What are its exact scope and mandate? Are its boundaries clearly delimitated? What are
the powers of its legal representatives or guardians? Who are its members? How do we make sure that
decisions are made in the best interest of nature itself or of a given ecosystem? Is there a dissolution
procedure? Finally, if a transbound- ary water body is granted legal personality, the repercussions on the
right of states to regulate the flow of international rivers will need to be explored.

Recreates every problem of modern environmental law

Jan DARPÖ 21, emeritus professor in environmental law at Faculty of Law, Uppsala Universitet, March
2021, “CAN NATURE GET IT RIGHT?,”
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/689328/IPOL_STU(2021)689328_EN.pdf

By now, the reader of this study is aware that I concur with those legal scholars who do
not share the view that RoN entails a
shift of paradigm in law that has the capacity to save the environment from the challenges we face
today. Many of the deficits that this movement criticises modern environmental law for having are
general problems that have been discussed for years and which will not be remedied by introducing new
labels in a system that still must be handled by humans. The dichotomy between RoN and modern European
environmental law is therefore partly artificial, a symbolic construct. Environmental law remains an instrument handled by
individuals and – as the history of RoN shows – any alternative discourse of thoughts faces the same
challenges as the old schools, most importantly; lofty legislation not adapted to the nature and
development of the environment, deferral to economic growth in decision-making, weak enforcement,
and lack of funding for environmental interests. When deconstructing the RoN concept, no radical new
instruments come to light compared with what we have today .
Even so, the RoN school of thought contains fresh insights in its critique of Western society and presents ideas that can be developed within our
conventional legal notions. At the heart of the concept lies the notion that law must adapt to ecological and scientific reality in order to
addressthe main challenges of today, such as climate change and large-scale losses of biodiversity. The
limiting factor for achieving
this is not, however,that nature does not have rights, or other basic flaws in our legal system, but the
lack of public support for a radical change, and the necessary political will. I cannot think of any reform that lies
beyond the present institutional or legal scope of the EU. Environmental and social reforms require decisions through political process, and
until the necessary shifts in public attitudes or values occur, the fundamental direction of society will not change.

“Substantial Injury” requirements

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of
Water Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197

The main purpose of granting personhood rights to a river or lake is to protect against injury. 103 From a
conservation perspective, if injury means any non-natural depletion, this legal theory is a brilliant idea
for water conservation. 104 However, if courts interpret injury to require a substantial injury, then
personhood rights might not be very helpful. 105 Regardless of the injury standard, the guardian of a personhood right will
ensure continued observation of a water body and planning for its sustainable future. 106 This guardianship sets personhood rights miles ahead
of not only the riparian and prior appropriation doctrines, but also ahead of the public trust doctrine in terms of water conservation because of
the much stricter standard of guardianship and the eradication of any property rights. 107 Guardians can rigorously oversee how water bodies
are used and can sue for potential injury whenever they deem it appropriate. 108
 2NC Extensions

Granting personhood doesn’t bypass standing

Matthew Miller, (2019) (University of New Hampshire School of Law, J.D. Candidate 2019; University
of Vermont, M.A. 2012; Providence College, B.A. 2009) Environmental Personhood and Standing for
Nature: Examining the Colorado River case, 17 U.N.H. L. Rev. 355//LaD
The other major challenge to standing for nature is administrative; many critics argue that allowing such suits would lead to an influx in
litigation brought on behalf of natural entities.153 However, as addressed above, recognizing environmental personhood does
not automatically grant standing for nature . The individual or organization bringing the suit on behalf of a natural entity
would be required to demonstrate Article III standing by showing injury, traceability, and
redressability.154 These requirements, especially as they have been construed by the U.S. Supreme Court, continue to
present significant barriers to environmental litigants .155 For example, even if the Colorado River’s right to
sue on its own behalf had been recognized, the deficient pleadings submitted by the plaintiffs would not
have survived the standing analysis . Additionally, the expense associated with environmental litigation
would discourage quixotic lawsuits. In order to make a showing to meet the standing requirements, the
natural entity’s next friends would need to commission studies and engage scientific or technical
experts. These practical challenges would prevent the courts from being overrun with frivolous actions while opening the door to
meritorious lawsuits where environmental devastation could be avoided or redressed through litigation.

Courts have historically not ruled in favor of the environment

Eurick, J. P. (1999). The constitutional right to healthy environment: Enforcing environmental
protection through state and federal constitutions. International Legal Perspectives, 11(2),
185-222.//LaD

In the 1970's, environmental

groups made several attempts at federal judicial recognition of the right to a
healthy environment.128 Congress also considered adding an environmental amendment to the constitution in 1968 and 1970.129
However, every attempt to recognize the right to a healthful environment was unsuccessful.

One of the first attempts at judicial recognition of the right to a healthful environment was Environmental Defense Fund
v. Corp of Engineers of the United States Army. 130 In this case the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) tried to enjoin
the construction of a dam on the Cossotot River by arguing the project violated the Fifth, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. EDF claimed that the right to "enjoy God's creation, and to
live in an environment that preserves the unquantified amenities of life is part of the liberty protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments" and that it is an unenumerated right retained by the people within the Ninth Amendment. 13' The
court held that the
Plaintiffs could not prove that their rights had been infringed under any of the Constitutional provisions.
The court did not dismiss the claims entirely, stating that "such claims, even under our present constitution, are not fanciful and may, indeed,
some day, in one way or another, obtain judicial recognition."132

Similarly,
in Ely v. Velde residents of a historical neighborhood argued that placing a prison in the
neighborhood violated their constitutional right to be free from the environmental degradation of their
neighborhood. 1 33 The court rejected their argument because the Plaintiffs could not provide sufficient
judicial precedent that equated environmental protection with constitutional rights. 34

In Tanner v. Armco Steel Corporation, the Plaintiffs claimed that exposure to air pollution caused by the
Defendants' petroleum refineries violated their due process rights of the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth
Amendment, and the penumbra protections of the Ninth Amendment.' 35 The court held that Plaintiffs had failed to allege
any judicially cognizable federal constitutional right. ' 36 Under the Ninth Amendment, the court felt
recognizing the right to a healthful environment would be a violation of separation of powers between
the judiciary and the legislative branch . 137 The court rejected the arguments made under the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments because those amendments serve as a restraint upon the national government
and the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, but do not apply to the actions of private
individuals. 38 Further, the court stated that the judicial process, through constitutional litigation, was "ill
suited" to solving problems of environmental control. 1

RoN is not a paradigm shift---it just recreates the problems of modern environmental
law but with new labels---RoN will be underenforced and underfunded AND society
will stay committed to growth AND lofty legislation will not be crafted with the nuance
necessary to address environmental harm---that’s Darpo

Ecuador and Bolivia prove

Erin L. O’Donnell 18, Senior Fellow at Melbourne Law School; and Julia Talbot-Jones, Visiting Fellow at
the Australian National University, 2018, “Creating legal rights for rivers: lessons from Australia, New
Zealand, and India,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 23, No. 1

Further, legalrights are only worth having if they can be enforced. To enforce legal rights for a river,
several practical factors must be accounted for . First, an individual or organization must be appointed to act on
a river’s behalf, to uphold the rights of, and speak for nature (Croley 1998, Stone 2010). Second, capacity in the forms of time,
money, and expertise may need to be made available so that the rights of the river can be upheld in
court. And third, river representatives and funding sources are likely to need some form of independence from
state and national governments, as well as sufficient real-world power to take action, particularly if
such action is politically controversial (O’Donnell 2012).

Historically, these factors have been absent in cases where legal rights have been granted to nature and, as
a result, legal rights for nature have been difficult to enforce (Whittemore 2011). For instance, in the examples of
Ecuador and Bolivia, few cases have been successfully upheld and even when the rights have been
recognized in court, local actors responsible for enforcement have lacked capacity to translate the legal
decision into effective outcomes on the ground (Daly 2012).

It’s indifferentiable from status quo environmental law

Julien Bétaille 19, Associate Professor of Public Law, University of Toulouse Capitole, 3/27/2019,
“Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World,” Journal for European Environmental &
Planning Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, https://brill.com/view/journals/jeep/16/1/article-p35_35.xml#affiliation0

*RoN = Rights of Nature

The main thesis of this paper is that RoN

will not do away with the main shortcoming of modern environmental
law, being the lack of proper enforcement. It is opined that merely acknowledging nature’s rights into
legislation will in itself not lead to a better protection of the eu’s endangered nature if not
complemented with a clear commitment for more strict enforcement . The added value of RoN needs to be measured
against the three main assumptions upon which it is based. In this respect, it is important to underline that a revision of modern environmental
law could, in itself, come forward to many of the prevailing criticism upon which RoN are based. In this article, it is substantiated that modern
environmental law is able to recognize the intrinsic value of Nature (1), second, that acknowledging RoN is not necessarily to be equated to
a “legal revolution” (2) and, third, that RoN might not live to its promise regarding saving the world (3).
Environmental Law Revisited: Reinforcing the Intrinsic Value of Nature?

The first assumption underlying the RoN’s theory is that environmental law is too anthropocentric to
take into account the intrinsic value of nature, whereas RoN would be more suitable to carry out the
task of reasserting this intrinsic value. In other words, RoN is founded upon the assumption that even modern environmental law
is not equipped to fully protect the intrinsic value of nature. This is a poignant point of departure . Often, RoN advocates submit
that modern environmental law is the result of Cartesian philosophy, reproducing the renowned Nature/Culture dualism. Accordingly,
environmental law would explicitly acknowledge that mankind is to be framed as the “master” of nature. For instance, pursuant to current
property law nature is to be treated an object. In contrast, however, RoN is often linked to ecocentric philosophy and therefore is more inclined
to approach nature as a subject of rights. However,
this dichotomy, while attractive from a philosophical point of
view, renders an objective legal critique of RoN challenging at best.

In my view, RoN supporters attach too much weight the above-depicted distinction. Indeed, it is possible to argue
that modern environmental law is less anthropocentric than it used to be (2.1), that property rights can be limited in
light of environmental interests (2.2) and that modern environmental law protects the intrinsic value of Nature (2.3),
which recently has led to the recognition of “pure” ecological harm in several legal instruments (2.4). Moreover,
on the procedural ground, access to justice has been broadened in environmental cases (2.5) and the burden of proof is no longer
an insurmountable hurdle in legal cases (2.6).

Empirics---conflicting laws and underenforcement make RoN ineffective

Julien Bétaille 19, Associate Professor of Public Law, University of Toulouse Capitole, 3/27/2019,
“Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World,” Journal for European Environmental &
Planning Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, https://brill.com/view/journals/jeep/16/1/article-p35_35.xml#affiliation0

4.2 Effectiveness, or a Lack Thereof, after All?

Whereas it remains relatively easy to posit that modern environmental law is failing to reach its
objective, the track-record of RoN is not much better. The first empirical studies regarding the
effectiveness of RoN in countries, such as Ecuador and Bolivia , clearly reveal the myriad of limitations to
be faced in this respect. For example, some authors have concluded that “Ecuador’s (RoN) amendments are more
likely to have an impact if Ecuador implements structural and procedural changes”.76 This should come
as no surprise. Simply granting legal personhood to nature will not make a big difference when it is not
supplemented with structural changes. For one, even when everybody can act as a guardian when
nature’s rights are encroached upon, nature will still disappear if no-one is effectively willing to take
manifest violations before court. Even when nature’s rights are explicitly protected in a constitution,
other provisions in the same constitution might still prioritize economic development and lead to
ongoing environmental destruction. In fact, most of it is linked to what Herbert Hart named “secondary
norms”.77
Whereas primary norms prescribe human beings to perform or abstain from certain behaviors, secondary norms ensure that new primary rules
are enforced whenever cases of non-compliance arise. In other words, simply endowing substantive rights upon nature might matter little if not
accompanied by strict enforcement commitments. Of course, one might admit that whenever RoN are included in the primary norms, this
might ultimately also influence the legislator when enacting secondary norms. In other words, implementing RoN in primary norms might
ultimately also trickle down in the body of secondary norms, which might be more centered on ensuring a better enforcement of the existing
rights.
Be that as it may, we always end up with the “effectiveness challenge” when contemplating new environmental norms. Even
if all
countries would immediately decide to implement RoN into their legislation, there exists no guarantee
that the environmental decline would be cured. One might submit that ensuring effectiveness has little to do with the legal
nature of the obligation towards nature. To put it bluntly: opting for a RoN approach might inflict additional harm the
environment if not properly enforced, especially when measured up against modern environmental statutes which are properly
applied in the field. It is well-known that both legal and extra-legal factors are to be addressed in order to ensure proper compliance with
environmental norms. And thus, if RoN advocates are really serious about “saving the world”, they ought to invest all their time and efforts in
finding solutions for the multitude of challenges when it comes to compliance. In this regard, the focus should be on the following items:
coherent legislation, strict sanctions, tackling corruption, impartiality of public authorities and judges, administrative inertia, regulators’
capture, access to justice, judges’ interpretation, execution of judicial decisions, etc.78

Court interpretation to require “substantial inury” dilutes the legal power of river
rights---that’s Blake. Trump stacked courts with conservative justices who have clear
interests in limiting the scope of the plan.

Fiat doesn’t solve---courts develop balancing tests

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of
Water Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197

Since giving personhood rights to natural resources is unprecedented, the repercussions of this unique
legal theory are difficult to predict. 117 The main issue is how to define injury for a body of water. 118 From
humans to river deltas, nearly everything needs water to survive so the policy choices guiding what amounts to
an injury would present interesting questions, especially for drought-stricken states . 119 Would injury be
based on a quantity of extracted water or reduced flow volume? 120 Would injury depend on the current
size of the river? 121 If legislatures do not particularly and quantitatively define injury, the courts would likely need to
formulate a balancing test to identify when a body of water is injured . 122 Although balancing tests for
injury exist in today's water law, a new test could pose a difficult challenge for courts.

That makes the plan the squo with added court costs
Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of
Water Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197

The riparian water rights doctrine allocates water among landowners who possess land abutting , or
touching, a natural watercourse and bases itself in absolute ownership . 30 In a riparian system, a landowner generally is

allowed to withdraw as much water as he wants, as long as it's not malicious or wasteful, for use on his riparian property. 31
Further, under the modified reasonable use theory, the withdrawal of water cannot injure a riparian's other riparian

neighbors. 32 Most states in the eastern half of the United States adhere to the riparian school of thought . 33

The riparian doctrine works really well in states without water shortage issues because it calls for
unrestricted, correlative, or reasonable water use rather than a quantified amount . 34 It generally requires much less
state administration and government [*201] involvement than the prior appropriation doctrine, and also encourages user freedom while enhancing private
property rights associated with the riparian parcel. 35 In turn, this reduces overall administrative costs. 36 On the other hand, the riparian doctrine causes confusion
and conflict during times of drought or water shortage because the court must undergo a balancing test to determine reasonable use or injury to other users. 37 As
water becomes scarcer over time, the riparian doctrine shrivels up when paralleled to other effective legal theories. 38
Compared to rights of personhood, the riparian doctrine does not effectively conserve water because
there is no quantified limit on use of water under the riparian doctrine. 39 Rights to personhood, on the other hand, may
give a guardian more control over consumption and use of a water supply based on injury to a water
body. 40 However, until a state's legislature clearly defines the term "injury," to include a quantitative
amount, courts will still need to undergo a balancing analysis, especially in times of drought. 41 For now, the
term is left open to interpretation, so like riparian rights, this might not be as helpful of an allocation
theory as originally anticipated. 42 Courts could quite possibly treat the right to personhood similar to
riparian rights by requiring only that the water use simply be reasonable to avoid liability for injury and
would, therefore, undergo a judicial balancing test. 43 This, in turn, could result in increased litigation costs,
time, and effort and have the same result as the riparian doctrine: uncertainty and water management
inefficiency in drought-ridden environments.

Or, it causes tragedy of the anticommons which exacerbates shortages

Emilie Blake 17, research assistant to the Center for Water Law and Policy, J.D. Candidate, Texas Tech
University School of Law, September 2017, “NOTE: Are Water Body Personhood Rights the Future of
Water Management in the United States?,” Texas Environmental Law Journal, 47 Tex. Envtl. L.J. 197

The tragedy of the anticommons is exactly what it sounds like - the exact opposite of the tragedy of the commons. 126
In essence, it means that a resource goes underutilized to the point of inefficiency and waste. 127 When there
are too many owners of a finite resource, each having a claim of right, a failure to cooperate means
"nobody can use the resource" and "everybody loses in a hidden tragedy of the anticommons ." 128
Accordingly, "while private ownership usually increases wealth, too much ownership has the opposite effect: it
wrecks markets, stops innovation, and costs lives." 129 The California Supreme Court has said that, as a matter of practical
reality, sometimes water use must be allowed even where it results in harm . 130 If courts construe injury
to mean any unnatural water depletion, then societies would soon face the tragedy of the anticommons
because no one could access the water resource. 131 This would cause populations to face water
shortages much faster than anticipated, and communities to fade away. 132 Therefore, [*211] states should
avoid polarizing water rights between unrestricted access and no access at all . 133 Because this is a
possible evolution of personhood rights in water bodies, such a system could render water property
rights too binary for effective water management and conservation. 134