Nuke Power Strat – GT Labriola Kunst
  • Prolif good
  • Warming good
  • Security k J
  • States
  • Politics
  • T renewables
  • Aspec JJ
  • EU Trade DA

Prolif Good Frontline

Turn – a proliferation is crucial to preventing future conflicts and global wars.

Dean Haggerty, lecturer of International Politics at the University of Illinois, The Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation: Lessons of South Asia. 1998.

Twenty five years have now passed since the last Indo-Pakistani war. During that period, both New Delhi and Islamabad have moved steadily down the path opaque nuclear weaponization. South Asia’s long transition to nuclear weapons has seen two crises and several additional instances of serious tension between India and Pakistan. A quarter-century of peaks and valleys in one of the contemporary world’s most volatile relationships is enough time to begin drawing some meaningful conclusions about the effects of nuclear proliferation South Asia, and about how well this empirical evidence matches the two logics that I surveyed and analyzed in Chapter 1. As I noted in this chapter's introduction, the Indo-Pakistani experience with nuclear weapon capabilities lends more support to the logic of nuclear deterrence than to its competitor, the logic of non-proliferation. All but a handful of proliferation analysts would expect that South Asia's small, crude nuclear forces; intense, high-stakes political conflicts, history of warfare, and possibly irrational decision making should add up to a formula for nuclear disaster on the subcontinent. Indeed, for those analysts persuaded by the logic of nonproliferation, the Indo-Pakistani nuclear security competition could serve as a paradigm for every conceivable calamity that might ensue from the spread of nuclear weapons to Third World countries. However, contrary to these grim expectations, nuclear weapons evidently deter war in South Asia, much as they did between the United Slates, the Soviet Union, and China during the Cold War. As in the U.S. Soviet, Sino-U.S., and Sino-Soviet cases, preventative nuclear strikes were early on considered and rejected, first-strike uncertainty has dampened the "reciprocal fear of surprise attack," and loose nuke fears have gone unrealized. Furthermore, Indian and Pakistani decision makers appear to be no less deterrable than their U.S., Russian, and Chinese counterparts These two -and-a-half decades of sub continental peace stand in stark contrast to the first twenty-five years of Indo-Pakistani relations, which saw war erupt on three different occasions over Kashmir.

Prolif stops gigantic conventional wars

David Karl, Ph.D. International Relations at the University of Southern California, "Proliferation Pessimism and Emerging Nuclear Powers," International Security, Winter, 1996/1997, JSTOR

Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.

These would trump the effects of a nuclear war and make World War II look minuscule.

Andrew Hanam, International Relations Department at San Francisco State University, Armed Forces Society, vol 23 Issue 1, Fall 1996

A zero-nuclear weapons world would tend to level the military playing field. It could also reinvite a series of large conventional wars with enhanced killing power, relying on today's conventional technologies that might dwarf World War II levels since the pacee of wars may suddenly seem more palatable to some. The one or two nuclear events that destroy a location are indeed a holocaust but constitute a smaller scale phenomenon more likely to create peace rather than further war in its aftermath. The nuclear “demonstration effect,” as Paula Fleming has shown, is a self-limiting character, and will serve to remind states to probe cautiously in foreign affairs and quickly retreat when in doubt. Certain geographical locations may be sacrificed in the nuclear age, but general war would be avoided. The key difference is that limited use of nuclear weapons will not destroy the prevailing distribution of war across the international system. General conventional war in a nuclear-free world could successively award global hegemonic leadership to the bold, the vigilant, the desperate, the prepared and most determined. It would raise the temperature of the international security thermometer just as nuclear weapons have cooled them. Japan, and the entire West, have benefited from the presence of American nuclear power held in reserve.

Their huge nuclear war scenarios ARE the link – states wouldn’t use nukes for fear of total destruction – even small nuke wars are out of question.

Lawrence Freedman, Professor of War Studies at King's College, "Great Powers, Vital Interests and Nuclear Weapons," Survival, v36 n4, Winter, 1994

Whenever there is a possibility of a nuclear detonation, a vital interest is created. Whatever the prior security commitments or stakes in a particular conflict, few events would rock national, regional or global society more than even one nuclear detonation. While a war involving small nuclear powers need not necessarily raise such apocalyptical scenarios as those developed for a superpower war, with the spectre of a true end to history, the concept of a 'small' nuclear war has yet to be developed. Any nuclear use still moves us into the area of unimaginable catastrophe. Nuclear fallout does not recognise international borders. Chernobyl still bears eloquent testimony to the vulnerability of innocent locations to nuclear detonations. The disproportionate character of nuclear explosions guarantees some deterrent effect whenever there is the slightest chance of the employment of nuclear weapons. For this reason, the presence of nuclear weapons has been considered beneficial in consolidating a territorial status quo. Nuclear weapons provide an ultimate guarantee of security against external aggression and thus, in principle, can potentially protect the most vital interests in the most hostile environments, while avoiding dependence upon allies.

Prolif is crucial to deterring possibilities of war.

Kenneth Waltz, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University, past President of the American Political Science Association, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2003, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate”

Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.

Prolif deters war – the incentive is too low, states act with more care, and nukes provide adequate security.

Kenneth Waltz, Emeritus Professor of Political Science at UC Berkeley and Adjunct Senior Research Scholar at Columbia University, past President of the American Political Science Association, and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2003, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate”

Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.

Your browser may not support display of this image.
Your browser may not support display of this image.

Warming Good (cards in generic)

A. Unique Link – C02 is the lifeblood of plants – it increases their water use efficiency, enhances stomatas, allows for plants and animals to live in uninhabitable places, prevents soil erosion, solves all sorts of environmental stress, and solves worldwide starvation

All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 37] 9/10/03

B. Impacts –
  1. Decrease in crops yields cause resource wars, mass starvation, atrocity, and World War III.

William H. Calvin (Theoretical Nuerophysicist at the University of Washington in Seattle, 1/98"The great climate flip-flop," The Atlantic Monthly 281:47-64)
  1. C02 increases the ability of plants to act as sinks which solves warming

All the Idsos [Sherwood Idso, Keith Idso, and Craig Idso] [C02 science magazine Volume 6, Number 42] 10/15/03

Security k (cards on wiki)

Our fear of the “inevitable attack” on the US allows descisons to be made on lies and deception to instill fear into the public justifying our actions in the name of national security
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.
The paranoia of inevitable annihilation associated with superpower syndrome – legitimizes violence under the mask of “security”.
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.
America’s obsession with trying to prevent and stop conflict – fueled by the fear of vulnerability and the unknown legitimizes violent acts to take place in the name of security eventually leading to inevitable extinction.
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.
The Alternative is to vote negative – the text is to begin our interrogations of security by refusing the affirmative’s quest for stability.
Accepting and living with ambiguity and vulnerability is key to preventing violence.
Robert Jay Lifton, American psychiatrist and author, chiefly known for his studies of the psychological causes and effects of war and political violence and for his theory of thought reform. He was an early proponent of the techniques of psychohistory, 2003, Superpower Syndrom: America’s Violent Confrontation with the World, book ocr.

Politics DA (cards from the generic)

Obama is winning because he can control the framing on energy
Andrew Ward, 6-22-08
The plan dooms Obama. McCain will pounce on a new energy policy to revitalize the GOP brand – it will tip the election
(Theo Caldwell, President of Caldwell Asset Management, Inc/ investment advisor in the United States and Canada, 6-17-08, “Theo Caldwell: If the Republicans promise to cut fuel costs, 2008 could be their year”, http://network.nationalpost. com/np/blogs/fullcomment/ archive/2008/06/17/theo- caldwell-if-the-republicans- promise-to-cut-fuel-costs- 2008-could-be-their-year.aspx, [Ian Miller])

McCain will attack Iran
David Edwards & Muriel Kane 1/28/08 (“Buchanan: McCain win would mean war with Iran”, Buchanan_McCain_win_means_war_ with_0128.html)

Global nuclear war
Jorge Hirsch, a professor of physics at the University of California San Diego. He is one of the originators of the physicists' petition on nuclear weapons policies started at the UCSD, 1/3/2006, America's nuclear ticking bomb, uniontrib/20060103/news_ mz1e3hirsch.html

States CP (cards in generic)

Text: The state and federal territorial governments should offer businesses in the United States substantial positive financial incentives for the production and use of nuclear power plants with Gas Turbine-Modular Helium Reactors.
States are offering cost incentives that nuclear power companies are key to their decision to build
MarketWatch 5/21/07 “States Maneuver to Lure New Nuclear Power Plants” **__ pipermail/nukenet_ 002037.html__**

A. Interpretations:
Incentives in the context of USFG policy is 5 things
Tom, Dedeurwaerdere, Centre for Philosophy of Law, Université Catholique de Louvain 3- “Bioprospection: From the Economics of Contracts to Reflexive Governance,” paper/Dedeurwaerdere.doc__)
Here I employ the broad definition of incentives used in the OECD handbook on incentive measures, covering both direct and indirect incentives: “The incentive measures presented can be roughly categorised in the following eight groups: fees, charges and environmental taxes; market creation and assignment of well-defined property rights; reform or removal of adverse subsidies; regulations and access restrictions; environmental funds and public financing; information provision and capacity building; economic valuation of environmental benefits and costs; and stakeholder involvement and institution building. Only the first five groups actually comprise “incentive measures” as traditionally understood, i.e. the implementation or abolition of an administrative act by an authority, usually the central government, with a legal grounding and the explicit objective to induce a certain behaviour” (OECD, 1999, p. 73). In this discussion, I have included information provision, stakeholder involvement, economic valuation, and capacity and institution building under the evolutionary approaches to incentive politics, while other approaches might have chosen to group them under framework building (OECD, 1999, p. 97) or reflexive implementation processes (Ibid, p. 14; p. 73).

2. Alternative energy are 9 things, that exclude fossil and nuclear energy
Republic of Korea, 97 (“Act on the Promotion of the Development and Use of Alternative Energy.”, __ texts/kor51024.doc__)

1.The term "alternative energy" means other energy resources than petroleum, coal, atomic energy, or natural gas, which fall under one of the following subparagraphs:
(a) Solar energy;
(b) Bio energy;
(c) Wind force;
(d) Small hydraulic power;
(e) Fuel cells;
(f) Energy from liquefied or gasified coal, and from gasified heavy residual oil;
(g) Energy from the ocean;
(h) Energy from waste treatment;
(i) Geothermal energy

Violatio: plan gives financial incentives for nuclear energy.
EU Trade DA (cards from generic)
A. The EU is holding off on trade barriers because they believe the Us will increase c02 regulations
Stephen Boucher, Former Advisor on European Affairs for the Belgian Deputy PM - Prof. @ Science Po in Paris, 4/4/’8 [Clinton, Obama, McCain - Europe’s Best Hope for Fighting Climate Change, uploads/tx_publication/ Policypaper34-SBoucher- ClimateChange-en.pdf]
What EU governments and institutions can do in the forthcoming months in relation to US plans for climate change can only be modest in the context of an electoral campaign. However, with the promising trends described above, an unprecedented opportunity has arisen to form a transatlantic alliance to lead efforts to fight global warming. Climate change could now be seen as a common cause for the EU and the USA, rather than an issue that pits both sides of the Atlantic against each other. There is the possibility to help drive the world towards an international agreement that seriously tackles the issue of global warming. In light of these objectives, EU policy-makers should, more specifically: •Maintain high standards; • Monitor closely US efforts and debates and engage in discussions over precise mechanisms in order to address competitiveness concerns jointly; • Encourage common thinking on China and India.45 These tasks will fall primarily to the French administration under its presidency of the EU in the second half of 2008, to European Commission officials, and to the Swedish presidency, in the second half of 2009, as the Czech government has clearly indicated that climate change will not be a priority, unlike for the French and Swedish governments. Despite Czech President Vaclav Klaus’ skepticism regarding climate change, the Czech government has nevertheless indicated informally to its French partners that it will not hinder France’s efforts to conclude legislative negotiations on the Commission’s proposals by the end of 2008. 3.2 Maintain high standards If the EU wishes to play an active role, it should not provide ammunition for those in the USA seeking to lower long-term objectives nor weaken future US legislation. This could happen with the current dilution of goals indicated by the fact that the EU had committed to a reduction by 25- 40% in Bali. The EU environment commissioner, as mentioned above, has talked of an insufficient goal of 50% emissions reduction below 1990 levels by 2050. This goal was in fact endorsed at the June 2007 G8 meeting in Heiligendamm. This sends the wrong signal. A weakening of EU resolve has also been noticed concerning auctioning rules. Emphatic talk about the EU’s leadership should not hide this. At present, the best thing the EU can do in 2008 is therefore to put its own house in order. This would mean reaching a preliminary agreement between the Council and the Parliament by the end of 2008 and sticking as closely as possible to the Commission’s proposal. This will require resisting national industry lobbying on a number of dimensions. European policy makers should also consider enforcing the 30% emissions reduction target by 2020 even before an international agreement is reached. If Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is elected, this will help them stick to the more demanding plans they have backed. If McCain is elected, this will help him go higher than the 65% reduction goal by 2050 he has announced, considered insufficient, and at least not go lower. On the other hand, one should be wary of letting the current US administration’s recalcitrance push Europe to make counter-proposals that are too bold. A careful balance needs to be found between proposing anything too radical, while keeping the pressure on, and preparing for quick movement in January 2009. 3.3 Initiate discussion on mechanisms Two striking observations can be made regarding the current situation. First, for the first time, legislative proposals seeking to address climate change happen to be under discussion in parallel on both sides of the Atlantic and may come to fruition in 2009. Second, as seen above, while there are real similarities between US and EU plans, the United States may possibly go further than the EU on a number of aspects, and vice versa. The opportunity is thus ripe for Europe to engage the United States in climate policy deliberations and for EU discussions to benefit from US plans. Whether with each campaign individually, or the US policy arena collectively, the most important thing is for Europe to engage Americans actively on the climate issue. The American mainstream is fast becoming aware of the climate problem, and could benefit from learning of Europe’s experience in tackling the issue. Also, it is crucial that both US and EU policies trend towards harmonization and integration, especially for the functioning of carbon markets. Therefore, at this formative stage, the European Union, the United States, and the world would benefit from a closer alignment of climate policies across the Atlantic. Efforts should be focused on finding common legislative ground, so as to increase the likelihood that the US outcome can work with the EU regime, and vice versa. Until the future tells us who becomes the next US President, EU policymakers would therefore be well advised to follow closely discussions and legislative progress on climate change in the USA. They should continue carrying out negotiations with the Bush administration while remembering that a more climate-ambitious administration will be coming soon. Pursuing informal channels of diplomacy is also in order. Making contact with the staff of all three candidates would be wise. Informal diplomacy, with the help of relevant EU and US think tanks and officials would not be time wasted. Engaging private sector stakeholders across the two sides of the Atlantic is also important, to foster common thinking and support. 3.4 Encourage common thinking on China, India and other major emitters The critical issue moving forward is treatment of BRICs and differentiated responsibility. This is the stated reason of the Byrd-Hagel resolution opposing the Kyoto treaty in 1997, and could ultimately derail - or at least stymie and delay - US climate policy action. Therefore, addressing this issue is essential for ensuring US action, no matter who the President-elect is. Europe has a vital and important role to play in facilitating these difficult discussions, as it did in Bali. Also, the EU and the future US President will agree that the best way to tackle global warming while limiting the impact on their


competitiveness is by involving as many countries as possible under the principle of common but differentiated responsibility. This requires bringing in developing countries, if necessary starting from relatively limited emission cuts. There will be no Congress backing if the BRICs are not seriously committed. However, the current bill moving through Senate requires “comparable” action from developing countries, indicating that it may become more flexible on the issue. Considering the outcome of the December UNFCCC Bali meeting, it
would seem that China is ready to play a more constructive role. China and other emerging countries agreed for the first time in Bali to try to make “measurable, reportable and verifiable” emissions cuts.46 However, they did not appear to be ready to agreeing to any mandatory restrictions in the near future. Their priority remains economic development. Both the EU and the USA should therefore seek jointly to make use of these positive signals for a global climate treaty, while engaging in discussions with all major emitters with an open mind. Most importantly, they should not talk unwisely of “border adjustments”47 and tariffs on imported goods from countries without carbon pricing. Rightly so, EU Commission President Barroso said that this issue would only be reviewed in 2010 in the light of international negotiations. EU government should adhere to this discipline. This is true also for the USA, where import tariffs have been requested by a number of business interest groups.
Europe should already start looking beyond the Bush Administration and begin to engage alternative and emerging policy leaders. This is a crucial period in US climate policy formulation and Europe has a rare and fleeting opportunity to help inform US climate policy development. For those in Europe who assume that a Democrat as President of the USA would be more inclined to join forces with Europe to lead the global fight against climate change, this paper suggests that there is in fact a unique opportunity lying ahead to join forces with the forthcoming US administration, no matter who wins the November election. However, it also argues that the resolve of any of the three could be dampened if faced with resistance. Or, possibly, with Europe’s own lack of ambition EU policy makers today should be governed by an exceptional sense of urgency. If Europe adopts clear legislation, it could bolster efforts by those in the USA who have similar goals. They should also be governed by the notion that convergence is desirable, as opposed to a form of beauty contest some seem to believe the EU is engaged in with the United States. This could lead to the creation before the end of 2009 of a transatlantic consensus helping shape a successor treaty to the Kyoto treaty. As Europe wrestles with the difficulty of being leader and worries about the impact on its economy, its best hope today is to prepare to join forces with the next US administration, setting bold long term emissions targets and encouraging cooperation with developing countries.

The Plan Will be Percieved as a Trojan Horse to Block US Cap and Trade - Ensuring EU Backlash
Time Magazine, staff writer Andrew Purvis, 6-4-07, Europe vs. Bush on global warming, __ world/article/0,8599,1628024, 00.html__ [Barber]
The targets require taking steps to ensure that average temperatures on the planet increase by no more than 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century, and to slash greenhouse gas emissions to 50% of the 1990 level before 2050. But when the German draft was circulated two weeks ago in Washington, U.S. negotiators declared, in a document leaked shortly afterwards, that the German draft "crossed multiple 'red lines'" and that "there is only so far we can go, given our fundamental opposition to the German position." Then, on May 31, President George W. Bush announced his own climate change inititiative, which calls on the leaders of the 15 leading producers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term voluntary emission-reduction goals. The proposal, notably short on specfics, raised concern in Europe that Bush was trying to make an end-run around the existing United Nations process for addressing climate change, which includes the Kyoto agreement. The German environment minister warned of a possible "trojan horse" designed to sidestep an agreement in Heiligendamm and "torpedo the international climate protection process." Underlying the increasingly testy exchange are fundamental differences over how the climate crisis is to be addressed. The biggest worry in Europe is that the Bush Administration approach of stressing technology and voluntary targets will weaken the global effort under U.N. auspices to set mandatory targets. "America increasingly wants to use new technologies and in this way test how much carbon dioxide emissions can be decreased," Angela Merkel told the newsmagazine Der Spiegel. "We Europeans find it more compelling to agree on goals on an international level, and direct our efforts accordingly." She added: "I encourage [President Bush] to be courageous and lead the way with concrete climate protection goals." Sigmar Gabriel, the German Environment Minister, added: "What we need now is a worldwide climate change regime. We need clear aims and we have to be able to check if the contracting partners stick to the goals." Defenders of the Bush plan contend that it would actually help the U.N. process by bringing in countries such as China and India, along with the U.S., that have been reluctant to sign on to a more top-down approach. And tempers appear to be cooling as the G8 summit draws near. Merkel announced over the weekend that the U.S. President's proposals of May 31 were, in fact, "very welcome ... if they are channeled into the framework of [U.N. treaty negotiations]." Blair, speaking afterward, agreed that "it is good that the U.S. has made these commitments," while adding, "We need to make sure that we keep these targets within the U.N. agreement." Still, the U.S. and the Europeans are unlikely to resolve differences when their leaders meet this week. Though there's a chance the Europeans could water down the communique by agreeing to remove concrete targets, Merkel insisted last weekend that she would not do so. No European leaders are going to suffer politically for standing up to the Bush Administration on global warming. But they point to President Bush's recent acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a reality as a sign of progress — and sufficient reason for avoiding a head-on collision, at least for now. Administration on global warming. But they point to President Bush's recent acknowledgement that man-made global warming is a reality as a sign of progress — and sufficient reason for avoiding a head-on collision, at least for now.
EU Climate Trade Sanctions Spills Over to Collapse the WTO
Euractiv '8 [January 28, EU Warned of Trade War Over Climate Measures, __ DocSearch/details.asp?type= DocDet&ObjectId=MjgyNjc__]
The Commission's threat of climate-related trade sanctions aimed at putting EU and third country producers on a level footing appears mainly targeted at convincing governments in Washington and Beijing to adhere to a global deal on climate change. Indeed, the EU executive has confirmed that it will not decide on the introduction of any such measures before 2011. However, the mere fact that the EU is considering such action has already caused outrage among its trade partners. The United States has warned it would "vigorously" resist any move to introduce a tax on American products based on its position in. Last week , US Trade Representative Susan Schwab accused the EU of using the climate as an excuse for protectionism. Legal experts remain divided on whether the EU's proposed measures would be compatible with international trade regulations, as the WTO has no clear provisions on the subject. On the one hand, border adjustment measures could be considered to contravene WTO rules prohibiting discrimination between countries or between "like products". On the other, WTO law also states that countries may deviate from these rules if it is for the protection of animal, plant or human health or for the conservation of natural resources. Positions Commission President José Manuel Barroso said: "There would be no point in pushing EU companies to cut emissions if the only result is that production, and indeed pollution, shifts to countries with no carbon disciplines at all." A spokesman from the US Mission to the EU told EurActiv that while the US was encouraged to see that the EU's new climate package does not introduce any trade-restrictive action on imports, the US would be "vigorous in resisting calls for any form of trade protectionism as a response to climate change." Furthermore, the US appears to have won British support. "We are against any measures which might look like trade barriers […] There is always the danger that the protectionists in Europe - and they do exist - could use this as a kind of secret weapon to bring about protectionism," British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks told the BBC. France, however, is continuing to push for protection against unfair international competition to avoid massive delocalisation of EU companies. The establishment of a border adjustment mechanism is a "fundamental element" of the package and France will work "very closely" with the European Commission between now and 2011 on proposals to set up the scheme, insisted French Minister of Ecology and Sustainable Development Jean-Louis Borloo . According to the Financial Times, Ujal Singh Bhatia, India's ambassador to the WTO , warned against the risk of retaliation and litigation from the EU's trade partners if it goes ahead with trade restrictive measures. He said: "Unilateral measures at this stage would create contentiousness and lead to charges of protectionism […] If the countries imposing such measures invoke Gatt provisions to justify them, the dispute settlement mechanism in [the] WTO would face serious challenges and create divisions along North-South lines." However, British Liberal MEP Chris Davies welcomed the idea of tariffs, saying they would create a level-playing field for business: "It makes more likely an emissions trading scheme on a worldwide basis, if manufacturers in China know they are not going to gain entry." But business leaders fear that imposing "climate tariffs" could provoke trade retaliation. Folker Franz, a senior policy adviser at BusinessEurope, the European employers' organisation , said: "If you impose import measures on others, the others might do the same." As an alternative, he said the EU should promote the clean development mechanism – a scheme which allows European companies to invest in carbon-reduction projects in the developing world.


Nuclear Extinction
Copley News ’99 [12/1, Commentary, ln]
For decades, many children in America and other countries went to bed fearing annihilation by nuclear war. The specter of nuclear winter freezing the life out of planet Earth seemed very real. Activists protesting the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle apparently have forgotten that threat. The truth is that nations join together in groups like the WTO not just to further their own prosperity, but also to forestall conflict with other nations. In a way, our planet has traded in the threat of a worldwide nuclear war for the benefit of cooperative global economics. Some Seattle protesters clearly fancy themselves to be in the mold of nuclear disarmament or anti-Vietnam War protesters of decades past. But they're not. They're special-interest activists, whether the cause is environmental, labor or paranoia about global government. Actually, most of the demonstrators in Seattle are very much unlike yesterday's peace activists, such as Beatle John Lennon or philosopher Bertrand Russell, the father of the nuclear disarmament movement, both of whom urged people and nations to work together rather than strive against each other. These and other war protesters would probably approve of 135 WTO nations sitting down peacefully to discuss economic issues that in the past might have been settled by bullets and bombs. As long as nations are trading peacefully, and their economies are built on exports to other countries, they have a major disincentive to wage war. That's why bringing China, a budding superpower, into the WTO is so important. As exports to the United States and the rest of the world feed Chinese prosperity, and that prosperity increases demand for the goods we produce, the threat of hostility diminishes. Many anti-trade protesters in Seattle claim that only multinational corporations benefit from global trade, and that it's the everyday wage earners who get hurt. That's just plain wrong. First of all, it's not the military-industrial complex benefiting. It's U.S. companies that make high-tech goods. And those companies provide a growing number of jobs for Americans. In San Diego, many people have good jobs at Qualcomm, Solar Turbines and other companies for whom overseas markets are essential. In Seattle, many of the 100,000 people who work at Boeing would lose their livelihoods without world trade. Foreign trade today accounts for 30 percent of our gross domestic product. That's a lot of jobs for everyday workers. Growing global prosperity has helped counter the specter of nuclear winter. Nations of the world are learning to live and work together, like the singers of anti-war songs once imagined. Those who care about world peace shouldn't be protesting world trade. They should be celebrating it.