Impact - DeDev - Michigan 7 2023 BFHGR

NEG
Space Col
2NC---Defense
Solving the climate crisis is a prerequisite to space colonization.
Adrian Johansen 22, contributor to Green Queen, Author at Biomimicry Institute, "Why the Space Race Isn’t the Answer to the Climate Crisis," 10/1/22, https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/space-race-climate-crisis/
Space Exploration Is Still Tethered to Earth
Space travel isn’t possible without a healthy Earth. While many space lovers and scientists romanticize the idea of living in colonies on other worlds, the fact is that it’s unlikely to happen in our lifetimes. Mars, for example, was theorized as a potential candidate for a future for human colonization. However, with further investigation, NASA is still indecisive about that theory due to a variety of factors, including the fact that Mars is vastly colder than Earth and has less oxygen.
In addition, when humans venture off-planet, they’re still dependent on food and supplies from Earth — and often staff members who remain grounded throughout their trip. If we prioritize space travel before solving our climate crisis, our planet and resources may be irreparably damaged long before we figure out how to move to space. This would leave our global citizens without the resources needed to reach space, and with no alternate solutions.
Leaving Earth behind isn’t just impossible at the moment. It’s also irresponsible. If we can’t protect our own planet from climate change — which is largely caused by human activity — there’s no telling if we can adequately protect a new planet at all.
Space col worsens the climate crisis, causing existential climate change before successful colonization.
Adrian Johansen 22, contributor to Green Queen, Author at Biomimicry Institute, "Why the Space Race Isn’t the Answer to the Climate Crisis," 10/1/22, https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/space-race-climate-crisis/
Space Travel Worsens Carbon Emissions
When you think of a rocket launch, you can probably envision the plumes of white smoke filling the air beneath the spacecraft. This smoke is created by millions of gallons of water vapor — although spacecraft consume many more natural resources and non-sustainable materials beyond that.
Reaching space even one time can make the climate crisis worse. In fact, one rocket launch can release 300 tons of carbon dioxide and cause it to stay in our upper atmosphere for years.
Humans aren't made for space. Colonization inevitably fails.
Adrian Johansen 22, contributor to Green Queen, Author at Biomimicry Institute, "Why the Space Race Isn’t the Answer to the Climate Crisis," 10/1/22, https://www.greenqueen.com.hk/space-race-climate-crisis/
Human Beings Are Designed to Live on Earth
Even if colonization becomes something we’re capable of, people simply aren’t built to live in space. After millions of years of evolution, human beings are physically and emotionally linked to the Earth. Without our home planet — and specifically, a healthy version of it — people will suffer major consequences to their health.
When people spend extended periods of time in space, they experience a variety of detrimental effects on their physical bodies. For instance, the optic nerve, which allows our brain to process the information from our eyes and see properly, swells and becomes damaged in space. This causes a disorder called spaceflight-associated neuro-ocular syndrome. NASA also reports increased risk of degenerative diseases and cancer for astronauts, which makes large-scale space colonization worrisome.
Humans are also mentally hardwired to live on Earth. In fact, our brains and bodies can suffer if we do not get enough nature in our daily lives. On the flip side, a number of studies have demonstrated that spending time outside and interacting with the wider world can serve as a treatment for anxiety and depression — and leaving for other worlds eliminates the relaxing, lush landscape we’re used to on Earth.
AT: Inevitable
The brink is now, but rapid action is required.
Fiona Harvey 23, Environment Editor for the Guardian, 3/20/2023, "Scientists deliver ‘final warning’ on climate crisis: act now or it’s too late," https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/mar/20/ipcc-climate-crisis-report-delivers-final-warning-on-15c
Scientists have delivered a “final warning” on the climate crisis, as rising greenhouse gas emissions push the world to the brink of irrevocable damage that only swift and drastic action can avert.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of the world’s leading climate scientists, set out the final part of its mammoth sixth assessment report on Monday.
The comprehensive review of human knowledge of the climate crisis took hundreds of scientists eight years to compile and runs to thousands of pages, but boiled down to one message: act now, or it will be too late.
The UN secretary general, António Guterres, said: “This report is a clarion call to massively fast-track climate efforts by every country and every sector and on every timeframe. Our world needs climate action on all fronts: everything, everywhere, all at once.”
In sober language, the IPCC set out the devastation that has already been inflicted on swathes of the world. Extreme weather caused by climate breakdown has led to increased deaths from intensifying heatwaves in all regions, millions of lives and homes destroyed in droughts and floods, millions of people facing hunger, and “increasingly irreversible losses” in vital ecosystems.
Monday’s final instalment, called the synthesis report, is almost certain to be the last such assessment while the world still has a chance of limiting global temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold beyond which our damage to the climate will rapidly become irreversible.
Kaisa Kosonen, a climate expert at Greenpeace International, said: “This report is definitely a final warning on 1.5C. If governments just stay on their current policies, the remaining carbon budget will be used up before the next IPCC report [due in 2030].”
More than 3bn people already live in areas that are “highly vulnerable” to climate breakdown, the IPCC found, and half of the global population now experiences severe water scarcity for at least part of the year. In many areas, the report warned, we are already reaching the limit to which we can adapt to such severe changes, and weather extremes are “increasingly driving displacement” of people in Africa, Asia, North, Central and South America, and the south Pacific.
All of those impacts are set to increase rapidly, as we have failed to reverse the 200-year trend of rising greenhouse gas emissions, despite more than 30 years of warnings from the IPCC, which published its first report in 1990.
The world heats up in response to the accumulation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, so every year in which emissions continue to rise eats up the available “carbon budget” and means much more drastic cuts will be needed in future years.
Yet there is still hope of staying within 1.5C, according to the report. Hoesung Lee, the chair of the IPCC, said: “This synthesis report underscores the urgency of taking more ambitious action and shows that, if we act now, we can still secure a livable sustainable future for all.”
Temperatures are now about 1.1C above pre-industrial levels, the IPCC found. If greenhouse gas emissions can be made to peak as soon as possible, and are reduced rapidly in the following years, it may still be possible to avoid the worst ravages that would follow a 1.5C rise.
We can still reverse the partial passing of tipping points.
Courtney Lindwall 22, Reporter for the NRDC, 11/15/2022, "Climate Tipping Points Are Closer Than Once Thought," https://www.nrdc.org/stories/climate-tipping-points-are-closer-once-thought
Why are scientists increasingly concerned about climate tipping points?
There are still many unknowns, but improved climate modeling and new observations create a clearer picture than we’ve had before. Most recently, a study published in Science concluded that we may have already crossed some tipping point thresholds with the 1.1 degrees Celsius of global warming that humans have caused so far. More will become likely if we surpass the 1.5-degree threshold. That’s a significant update to a prior assessment, which suggested we would need to hit 2 degrees Celsius before reaching this state.
Even the latest IPCC report, which has historically taken a more cautious view, warns that certain global tipping points could be triggered by emissions trajectories currently predicted as “very likely.” And the warmer it gets, the more probable triggering these tipping points becomes.
Can anything actually be done to avoid tipping points?
Some impacts may now be inevitable, but we can still take steps to avoid further accelerating the consequences of the tipping points we have likely passed or will pass. That’s why it’s crucial we prioritize and ramp up climate mitigation and climate adaptation.
On the mitigation front, it means doing all we can to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, which will require transformative global shifts led by the developed countries responsible for the majority of historical emissions. On the adaptation front, that means actively preparing for climate impacts coming down the pike and prioritizing resources for already-vulnerable communities.
The bottom line? We can still hasten positive change, like the use of renewables, which have already crossed a “mass adoption” threshold in 87 countries. So tipping points should only drive us to press for greater action—not to throw our hands up.
AT: Turnover
It’s inevitable.
Dr. Philippe Van Parijs 23, PhD in Social Sciences and Philosophy, Hoover Chair of Economic and Social Ethics at the University of Louvain, 4/1/2023, "Insecurity and the rise of populism," https://www.friendsofeurope.org/insights/insecurity-and-the-rise-of-populism/
Economic insecurity, whether generated by globalisation, digitalisation or any other cause, is not the sole culprit. Cultural insecurity also plays an important independent role. It is triggered when people feel that the identity of their community is threatened by the arrival, or the growth in numbers or power, of people who do not share their native language, cultural references, religious beliefs, civic customs, dress and other everyday practices. The upsurge in populism is sometimes strongest in places where a thriving labour market provides economic security, but where real, alleged or prospective immigration boosts cultural insecurity.
Both economic and cultural insecurity breed democratic disenchantment because of the feeling that democratic national governments, often bridled by international treaties or constitutional constraints, are unwilling or unable to address them effectively. Because of the largely unstoppable cross-border movement of capital, goods, services and people, and because of the need to keep pace with technological progress, governments often have to capitulate to market forces or resort to laborious supranational decision-making processes, more or less remote and more or less undemocratic. Faced with the impotence of democratic governments, the temptation to call for strong leaders and to embrace simplistic nationalist solutions can seem irresistible.
And wrong.
Havlik et al 17 – Jitka Doležalová is a PhD Student, Palacký University Olomouc. Vlastimil Havlík, Masaryk University, Department of Political Science. Antonín Slaný Faculty of Economics and Administration, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic. Petra Vejvodová, Faculty of Social Studies, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic ("Economic Factors and the Electoral Success of Far-right and Far-left Parties in the EU Countries," Society and Economy, Akadémiai Kiadó, Hungary, vol. 39(1), pages 27-48, March.)
4.3. Assessing the Robustness of the Results The robustness of the results obtained was assessed using alternative models.11 The GDP growth variable (gdp_%_it) was replaced by GDP per capita based on constant prices (gdp_pcap_%_it). This helped to shift the research focus from a country’s economic strength to its level of development. This variable reflects changes in the well-being of the population. The analysis was based on the assumption that a lower or negative growth in real GDP per capita promotes a higher vote share for far-right or far-left parties (Brückner – Grüner 2010). The unemployment rate variable (unemp_dif_it) was replaced by employment rate variable (emp_rate_dif_it). Low employment (see Hungary and Portugal) suggests that a significant part of the productive-age population is not able or willing to work. This economically inactive labour force may also comprise people who gave up trying to find a job after a long period submitting futile applications (i.e. discouraged workers). The third economic indicator used in the analysis is the share of general government gross debt in GDP (debt_gdp_it). Some of the EU countries included in this research became so severely hit by the economic crisis that they were unable to maintain a sustainable fiscal policy and were forced to ask international institutions (EU, IMF, and the World Bank) for a bailout. These countries recorded significant growth in indebtedness. The general government gross debt for all the EU countries included in the research in 2012 reached an average of 71.8% of GDP. The assumption is that growing indebtedness increases the vote share of far-right or far-left parties, due to either expected, or already implemented restrictive measures. The control variables (controlit) in the estimated models remained unchanged. The results of the alternative models were similar to the results of the models found in Table 1 and Table 3 in the case of the far-right parties. The models revealed that a deterioration in economic variables (represented by growth in GDP per capita, employment rate, and general government gross debt per GDP) did not result in a higher vote share (or share of seats) of far-right parties. The explanatory variable which influenced far-right voters was social benefits. In the Tobit model for vote share as a dependent variable, the immigration growth variable (immig_%_it) was statistically significant at a level of 10%. This proved that far-right voters feared competition from an immigrant labour force. On the other hand, a 1% decline in the employment rate increased the vote share of far-left parties by 1.68 percentage points. The share of seats for far-left parties increased by 2.63 percentage points. The growth in GDP per capita variable (gdp_pcap_%_it) and general government gross debt variable (debt_gdp_it) were not statistically significant in any specifications of the model. Far-left voters were sensitive to changes in the openness of the economy. The statistical significance of the openness of economy variable (open_econ_dif_it) was at a regularly sustained level of 5%. When far-left parties participated in elections in West European countries they usually won a higher vote share and entered the lower house. The legacy of communism prevented similar success for far-left parties in the former the Eastern bloc. However, the number of seats which western farleft parties gained in lower houses did not differ from that of far-left parties in post-communist countries. Decline in voter turnout increased the share of seats of far-left parties in the period observed. The mean value of the electoral district (mean_district_it) has always been without statistical significance. The results obtained can be considered to be robust. The analysis proved that far-right parties’ electorates were influenced by factors other than the main macroeconomic indicators, while those voting for far-left parties were sensitive to the situation in the labour market, as well as the development of international trade. Neither growth in GDP per capita, nor general government gross debt seemed to exercise an influence on electoral decisions on both sides of the ideological spectrum. The empirical analysis showed that economic performance in the set of EU countries influenced the electoral success of far-right and far-left parties in different ways. In the case of the far-right electorate, economic development measured by means of basic macroeconomic indicators proved to be of no significance.
AT: Breakthrough Institute
Reject the breakthrough institute---full of bias, lobbying and fraud.
BNI 20. Beyond Nuclear International. 9/28/2020. “Exposed!” https://beyondnuclearinternational.org/2020/09/28/exposed/
BREAKTHROUGH INSTITUTE
Shellenberger is co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute, a lobbying group masquerading as a “think tank”. The Breakthrough Institute has “a clear history as a contrarian outlet for information on climate change [which] regularly criticises environmental groups”, according to Paul Thacker. Breakthrough has also been described as a “program for hippie-punching your way to fame and fortune.”
Shellenberger co-founded the Breakthrough Institute with Ted Nordhaus, nephew of economist, William Nordhuas. William Nordhaus features in Merchants of Doubt – Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s examination of the PR strategies used both by the tobacco and fossil fuel industries. His interventions in the 1990s helped set back essential action on climate change by decades.
Other figures associated with Shellenberger and the Breakthrough Institute include:
Owen Paterson, one of the UK’s most prominent climate deniers who helped with the UK launch of the group’s Ecomodernist manifesto in 2015.
Matt Ridley, coal mine owner, once hereditary Conservative Peer and famous climate delayer / ‘lukewarmist’ who spoke at the UK launch event.
It’s historically corrupt and biased.
Paul Thacker 21, Former Investigator United States Senate, Former Fellow of the Safra Ethics Center of Harvard, 3/30/2021, "The New Denial Is Delay at the Breakthrough Institute (Part 3)," https://disinformationchronicle.substack.com/p/the-new-denial-is-delay-at-the-breakthrough-c97
Months after the Breakthrough Institute released their 2015 ecomodernist manifesto, the declaration’s ideological binding started coming unglued. Breakthrough’s Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger met ridicule trying to sell the manifesto at a public event in England, and the duo later parted ways, as Shellenberger founded a new organization called Environmental Progress to publicize nuclear energy. The split has been somewhat acrimonious as both try to break from a past that neither seems capable of escaping.
The event in England focused on restoring science to environmentalism, and it was there that they planned to sell ecomodernism to British reporters. Conservative MP Owen Paterson, a climate denier who almost halved the UK’s climate preparedness budget when he was environmental secretary, hosted the media event.
When announcing the press conference, Paterson called on the public to abandon the “relentless pessimism of the environmental movement” and warned in a Telegraph op-ed that “the Green Blob still infests the official bureaucracy with its influence.” Other conference panelists included Mark Lynas, a co-author of the the ecomodernist manifesto, and Matt Ridley, a British science writer noted for climate denial screeds.
British politician and climate denier Owen Paterson tweeted a photo of the 2015 ecomodernism event featuring Ted Nordhaus, Michael Shellenberger, Mark Lynas, and Matt Ridley
But after critics argued that the event provided a platform for climate denialists, DesmogBlog reported that Shellenberger dismissed those who warned the group not to participate in a press conference with Paterson.
“Fuck you all, we’re going to go to the press conference,” Shellenberger said. “Owen will say his thing, we’re going to say our thing, if people can’t deal with it, fuck ‘em. I’m done with the tribalism on this.”
Shellenberger’s cavalier attitude

Preview shortened. Download the file for the full document.