since shree is too busy doing homework ill post the 1nc. order is 6 off
first off plan flaw
interp: plan must be grammatically correct.
violation: he misspells algae in the plan text.
ground - he could spike out of 1nc arguments by saying "algal" means something different.
no solvency - wouldn't access case - no one knows what "algal" means.
voter for fairness and potential abuse - potential abuse is best - its easy to see what he could've done to win the debate. evaluate under competing interps.
second off extra T
interp: plans can't be outside the bounds of the resolution
violation: plan specifys where funding comes from.
1. predictability - forces an unpredictable burden to research things outside of the resolution.
2. jurisdiction - you have no jurisdiction to vote for things outside of the resolution.
3. education - we only get a topic on increasing incentives for alternative energy once in a life time - focusing on plan mechanisms outside the resolution distracts from topic education.
4. limits - theres limitless ways they can fund the plan and thousands of mechanisms they can include outside the rez.
voter for fairness and potential abuse - evaluate under competing interps.
third off Heidegger
Management of alternative energy reveals the world through particular, ordered ontologies, causing us to forget other and more subtle modes of being. This incomplete, ideologically framed knowledge causes nuclear war and environmental catastrophe, turning case.
LaDelle McWhorter, Professor of Philosophy, Northeast Missouri State, 1992, Heidegger and the Earth, ed. McWhorter.
What it most illustrative is often also what is most common. Today, on all sides of ecological debate we hear, with greater and greater frequency, the word management. On the one hand, business people want to manage natural resources so as to keep up profits. On the other hand, conservationists want to manage natural resources so that there will be plenty of coal and oil and recreational facilities for future generations. These groups and factions within them debate vociferously over which management policies are the best, that is, the most efficient and manageable. Radical environmentalists damn both groups and claim it is human population growth and rising expectations that are in need of management. But wherever we look, wherever we listen, we see and hear the term management. We are living in a veritable age of management. Before a middle class child graduates from high school she or he is already preliminarily trained in the arts of weight management, stress management, and time management, to name just a few. As we approach middle age we continue to practice these essential arts, refining and adapting our regulatory regimes as the pressures of life increase and the body begins to break down. We have become a society of managers - of our homes, careers, portfolios, estates, even of our own bodies - so is it surprising that we set ourselves up as the managers of the earth itself? And yet, as thoughtful earth-dwellers we must ask, what does this signify? In numerous essays - in particular the beautiful 1953 essay, "The Question Concerning Technology" - Heidegger speaks of what he sees as the danger of dangers in this, our age. This danger is a kind of forgetfulness – a forgetfulness that Heidegger thought could result not only in nuclear disaster or environmental catastrophe, but in the loss of what makes us the kind of beings we are, beings who can think and who can stand in thoughtful relationship to things. This forgetfulness is not a forgetting of facts and their relationships; it is a forgetfulness of something far more important and far more fundamental than that. He called it forgetfulness of 'the mystery.’ It would be easy to imagine that by 'the mystery' Heidegger means some sort of entity, some thing, temporarily hidden or permanently ineffable. But 'the mystery is not the name of some thing; it is the event of the occurring together of revealing and concealing. Every academic discipline, whether it be biology or history, anthropology or mathematics, is interested in discovery, in the 'revelation of new truths" Knowledge, at least as it is institutionalized in the modern world is concerned, then, with what Heidegger would call revealing, the bringing to light, or the coming to presence of things. However, in order for any of this revealing to occur, Heidegger says, concealing must also occur. Revealing and concealing belong together. Now, what does this mean? We know that in order to pay attention to one thing, we must stop paying close attention to something else. In order to read philosophy we must stop reading cereal boxes. In order to attend to the needs of students we must sacrifice some of our research time. Allowing for one thing to reveal itself means allowing for the concealing of something else. All revealing comes at the price of concomitant concealment. But this is more than just a kind of Kantian acknowledgment of human limitation. Heidegger is not simply dressing up the obvious, that is, the fact that no individual can undergo two different experiences simultaneously. His is not a point about human subjectivity at all. Rather, it is a point about revealing itself. When revealing reveals itself as temporally linear and causally ordered, for example, it cannot simultaneously reveal itself as ordered by song and unfolding dream. Furthermore, in revealing, revealing itself is concealed in order for what is revealed to come forth. Thus, when revealing occurs concealing occurs as well. The two events are one and cannot be separated. Too often we forget. The radiance of revelation blinds us both to its own event and to the shadows that it casts, so that revealing conceals itself and its self-concealing conceals itself, and we fall prey to that strange power of vision to consign to oblivion whatever cannot be seen. Even our forgetting is forgotten, and all races of absence absent themselves from our world. The noted physicist Stephen Hawking, in his popular book A Brief History of Time, writes, "The eventual goal of science is to provide a single theory that describes the whole universe.,'5 Such a theory, many people would assert, would be a systematic arrangement of all knowledge both already acquired and theoretically possible. lt would be a theory to end all theories, outside of which no information, no revelation could, or would need to, occur. And the advent of such a theory would be as the shining of a light into every corner of being. Nothing would remain concealed. This dream of Hawking's is a dream of power; in fact, it is a dream of absolute power, absolute control. It is a dream of the ultimate managerial utopia. This, Heidegger would contend, is the dream of technological thought in the modern age. We dream of knowing, grasping everything, for then we can control, then we can manage, everything. But it is only a dream, itself predicated, ironically enough, upon concealment, the self-concealing of the mystery. We can never control-the mystery the belonging together of revealing and concealing. In order to approach the world in a manner exclusively technological, calculative, mathematical, scientific, we must already have given up (or lost, or been expelled by, or perhaps ways of being such as we are even impossible within) other approaches or modes of revealing that would unfold into knowledges of other sorts. Those other approaches or paths of thinking must already have been obliterated; those other knowledges must already have concealed themselves in order for technological or scientific revelation to occur. The danger of a managerial approach to the world lies not then in what it knows nor in its planetary on into the secrets of galactic emergence or nuclear fission – but in what it forgets, what it itself conceals. It forgets that any other truths are possible, and it forgets that the belonging together of revealing with concealing is forever beyond the power of human management. We can never have, or know, it all; we can never manage everything.
Forgetting other modes of being destroys humanity’s essential nature and is a fate worse than extinction. Use of consistent meditative thought enables reconfiguring the way we dwell in the world, as well as use of technology without technological thought. We disagree with the gendered language used.
Martin Heidegger, 1966, Discourse on Thinking, p. 52-57
Is man, then, a defenseless and perplexed victim at the mercy of the irresistible superior power of technology? He would be if man today abandons any intention to pit meditative thinking decisively against merely calculative thinking. But once meditative thinking awakens, it must be at work unceasingly and on every last occasion—hence, also, here and now at this commemoration. For here we are considering what is threatened especially in the atomic age: the autochthony of the works of man. Thus we ask now: even if the old rootedness is being lost in this age, may not a new ground and foundation be granted again to man, a foundation and ground out of which man's nature and all his works can flourish in a new way even in the atomic age? What could the ground and foundation be for the new autochthony? Perhaps the answer we are looking for lies at hand; so near that we all too easily overlook it. For the way to what is near is always the longest and thus the hardest for us humans. This way is the way of meditative thinking. Meditative thinking demands of us not to cling one-sidedly to a single idea, nor to run down a one-track course of ideas. Meditative thinking demands of us that we engage ourselves with what at first sight does not go together at all. Let us give a trial. For all of us, the arrangements, devices, and machinery of technology are to a greater or lesser extent indispensable. It would be foolish to attack technology blindly. It would be shortsighted to condemn it as the work of the devil. We depend on technical devices; they even challenge us to ever greater advances. But suddenly and unaware we find ourselves so firmly shackled to these technical devices that we fall into bondage to them. Still we can act otherwise. We can use technical devices, and yet with proper use also keep ourselves so free of them, that we may let go of them any time. We can use technical devices as they ought to be used, and also let them alone as something which does not affect our inner and real core. We can affirm the unavoidable use of technical devices, and also deny them the right to dominate us, and so to warp, confuse, and lay waste our nature. But will not saying both yes and no this way to technical devices make our relation to technology ambivalent and insecure? On the contrary! Our relation to technology will become wonderfully simple and relaxed. We let technical devices enter our daily life, and at the same time leave them outside, that is, let them alone, as things which are nothing absolute but remain dependent upon something higher. I would call this comportment toward technology which expresses "yes" and at the s time "no," by an old word, releasement towards things. Having this comportment we no longer view things only in a technical way. It gives us clear vision and we notice that while the production and use of machines demands of us another relation to things, it is not a meaningless relation. Farming and agriculture, for example, now have turned into a motorized food industry. Thus here, evidently, as elsewhere, a profound change is taking place in man's relation to nature and to the world. But the meaning that reigns in this change remains obscure. There is then in all technical processes a meaning, not invented or made by us, which lays claim to what man does and leaves undone. We do not know the significance of the uncanny increasing dominance of atomic technology. The meaning pervading technology hides itself. But if we explicitly and continuously heed the fact that such hidden meaning touches us everywherein the world of technology, we stand at once within the realm of that which hides itself from us, and hides itself just in approaching us. That which shows itself and at the same time withdraws is the essential trait of what we call the mystery. I call the comportment which enables us to keep open to the meaning hidden in technology, openness to the mystery. Releasement towards things and openness to the mystery belong together. They grant us the possibility of dwelling in the world in a totally different way. They promise us a new ground and foundation upon which we can stand and endure in the world of technology without being imperiled by it. Releasement towards things and openness to the mystery give us a vision of a new autochthony which someday even might be fit to recapture the old and now rapidly disappearing autochthony in a changed form. But for the time being—we do not know for how long—man finds himself in a perilous situation. Why? Just because a third world war might break out unexpectedly and bring about the complete annihilation of humanityand the destruction of the earth? No. In this dawning atomic age a far greater danger threatens—precisely when the danger of a third world war has been removed. A strange assertion! Strange indeed, but only as long as we do not meditate. In what sense is the statement made valid? The assertion is valid in the sense that the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced asthe only way of thinking. What great danger then might move upon us? Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking – total thoughtlessness. And then? Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature—that he is a meditative being. Therefore, the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature. Therefore, the issue is keeping meditative thinking alive. Yet releasement toward things and openness to the mystery never happen of themselves. They do not befall us accidentally. Both flourish only through persistent, courageous thinking.
Alternative Text: Vote negative in favor of meditative thought.
You should ignore the aff’s siren call to action. The only way to escape the cycle of forgetting and ecological catastrophe is to stop and think. This unfolding allows the world to disclose itself to us.
LaDelle McWhorter, Professor of Philosophy, Northeast Missouri State, 1992, Heidegger and the Earth, ed. McWhorter.
When we attempt to think ecologically and within Heidegger's discourse (or perhaps better: when we attempt to think Heideggerly within ecological concerns), the paradoxical unfolds at the site of the question of human action. Thinking ecologically - that is, thinking the earth in our time - means thinking death; it means thinking catastrophe; it means thinking the possibility of utter annihilation not just for human being but for all that lives on this planet and for the living planet itself. Thinking the earth in our time means thinking what presents itself as that which must not be allowed to go on, as that which must be controlled, as that which must be stopped. Such thinking seems to call for immediate action. There is no time to lose. We must work for change, seek solutions, curb appetites, reduce expectations, find cures now, before the problems become greater than anyone's ability to solve them - if they have not already done so. However, in the midst of this urgency, thinking ecologically, thinking Heideggerly, means rethinking the very notion of human action. It means placing in question our typical Western managerial approach to problems, our propensity for technological intervention, our belief in human cognitive power, our commitment to a metaphysics that places active human being over against passive nature.For it is the thoughtless deployment of these approaches and notions that has brought us to the point of ecological catastrophe in the first place. Thinking with Heidegger, thinking Heideggerly and ecologically, means, paradoxically, acting to place in question the acting subject, willing a displacing of our will to action; it means calling ourselves as selves to rethink our very selves, insofar as selfhood in the West is constituted as agent, as actor, as controlling ego, as knowing consciousness. Heidegger's work calls us not to rush in with quick solutions, not to act decisively to put an end to deliberation, but rather to think, to tarry with thinking unfolding itself to release ourselves to thinking without provision or predetermined aim.
next off politics
LOST Will pass now. Political capital key
Dana, Portland Independent Media, http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2009/03/388210.shtml
The Democrats are now laying the groundwork to finally ratify LOST. Proponents view ratifying the treaty as an opportunity for the U.S. to further promote global security and stability. Critics maintain that under LOST, the U.S. would be forced to surrender more sovereignty to the UN.
The United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) is another one of those international agreements that the U.S. has yet to ratify. President Reagan rejected the treaty, but a revised version was signed by President Clinton in 1994. As a result of intense opposition, LOST was never brought before the Senate for a full vote. Several failed attempts were also later made by Bush administration to galvanize support for the treaty.
Energy is unpopular from both sides of the spectrum - spends political capital.
USA Today 3-6-09
["Obama veers from Bush's environmental course" http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science...nagenda_N.htm]
For now, the decisions are winning plaudits from green groups — "swift and strong leadership," the Natural Resources Defense Council gushed last month — but experts such as Christopher McGrory Klyza of Middlebury College say the Obama team's hard work is only beginning. The reversals undertaken "are the easiest things to move quickly on," says Klyza, co-author of a book on presidential environmental policy. The hard work, such as filling in the details of how Obama will keep his campaign pledge to cut global warming gases 80% by 2050, lies in front of the new administration. Christie Whitman, Bush's first chief of the Environmental Protection Agency, knows firsthand how hard that work can be, and she says it will be even harder for Obama. The time and political capital Obama will have to expend on the economic crisis will "make it much more complicated" for him to achieve his environmental and energy goals,They're hard enough anyway," she says. Although Obama has the advantage of a Democratic-controlled Congress, party affiliation counts less than regional politics on many of the issues he wants to tackle. Democrats from heavily industrial Midwestern states, for example, are less eager to sign on to legislation to combat global warming. "Whether they are Republicans or Democrats, they tend to be concerned about economic effects on their own states," says Reid Detchon of the non-partisan Energy Future Coalition, which promotes renewable energy. In the budget unveiled Feb. 26 and in numerous pronouncements by Cabinet officials, the Obama administration has started to sketch out its environmental platform, but details are in short supply. Whitman says. "
LOST is critical to hegemony.
Patrick Walsh, Vice Chief Naval Operations, Testimony, 9-27, 7, http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/di...ommis0.8075525
The Law of the Sea Convention is the bedrock legal instrument for public order in the world's oceans. It codifies, in a manner that only binding treaty law can, the navigation and overflight rights, and high seas freedoms that are essential for the global strategic mobility of our Armed Forces, including: 1. The Right of Innocent Passage, which allows ships to transit through foreign territorial seas without providing the coastal State prior notification or gaining the coastal State's prior permission. 2. The Right of Transit Passage, which allows ships, aircraft, and submarines to transit through, over, and under straits used for international navigation and the approaches to those straits. 3. The Right of Archipelagic Sealanes Passage, which, like transit passage, allows transit by ships and aircraft through, over, and under normal passage routes in archipelagic states, such as Indonesia. 4. The right of high seas freedoms, including overflight and transit within the Exclusive Economic Zone. Innocent Passage, Transit Passage, and Archipelagic Sealanes Passage are the crown jewels of navigation and overflight. These rights are vital not just to our Navy, but also to our Army, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. They make it possible to move vast quantities of war materiel through the Straits of Gibraltar, Singapore, Malacca, and Hormuz and into the Arabian Gulf to Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in Iraq.These rights permit us to move our submarine fleet through choke points to conduct all missions. They permit the United States Air Force to conduct global missions without requirement to overfly foreign national airspace. And they ensure the uninterrupted flow of commerce to and from our shores.
Heg solves every scenario for nuclear war(blue highlighted part)
Kagan – 7
Robert, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “End of Dreams, Return of History” Policy Review (http://www.hoover.org/publications/p...52512.html#n10)
Finally, there is the United States itself. As a matter of national policy stretching back across numerous administrations, Democratic and Republican, liberal and conservative, Americans have insisted on preserving regional predominance in East Asia; the Middle East; the Western Hemisphere; until recently, Europe; and now, increasingly, Central Asia. This was its goal after the Second World War, and since the end of the Cold War, beginning with the first Bush administration and continuing through the Clinton years, the United States did not retract but expanded its influence eastward across Europe and into the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. Even as it maintains its position as the predominant global power, it is also engaged in hegemonic competitions in these regions with China in East and Central Asia, with Iran in the Middle East and Central Asia, and with Russia in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, and the Caucasus. The United States, too, is more of a traditional than a postmodern power, and though Americans are loath to acknowledge it, they generally prefer their global place as “No. 1” and are equally loath to relinquish it. Once having entered a region, whether for practical or idealistic reasons, they are remarkably slow to withdraw from it until they believe they have substantially transformed it in their own image. They profess indifference to the world and claim they just want to be left alone even as they seek daily to shape the behavior of billions of people around the globe. The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible.Such order as exists in the world rests not only on the goodwill of peoples but also on American power. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even today Europe’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place. But that’s not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of most of China’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation — could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out.
Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal” or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future, no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path.
next off the counterplan
Text: The United States Federal Government should pass resolution S. 3268 Stop Excessive Oil Speculation. The United
States federal government should fund for the mass, complete purification, and removal of algae and algae excess from water in the united states and the fulf of mexico as per our medical news today evidence.
oil speculation reform is key to save the airline industry
AP 2008 [July 11. July 11. Airlines, others align to denounce oil speculation.
As oil prices soared to a new record-high today, the nation's airlines and shipping companies stepped up calls for a crackdown on financial speculation in energy markets, which they blame for pushing up fuel costs. The Stop Oil Speculation coalition of nearly 40 airlines, trucking companies and unions said at a press conference lawmakers must close loopholes that allow traders to skirt federal restrictions on the purchase of contracts for oil and other commodities. "This crisis deserves the full attention of Congress — now — not next week, not next month or next year," said James May, president of the Air Transport Association of America, which represents the nation's largest airlines. Oil prices spiked to a new record above $147 a barrel today, prompted in part by hostilities in the Middle East and another drop in the value of the dollar. The airline industry's main trade group expects companies to lose $10 billion this year — on par with their worst combined loss ever —solely because of soaring fuel costs.
we solve their first advantage
Medical News Today , 06 8-26 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/50390.php"Dangerous Freshwater Algae Toxins removed by water filitriation technique normally only used on agricultural chemicals."
A water filtration technique that normally cleans up agricultural chemicals is also effective at removing a toxin secreted by algae found in lakes and rivers, an Ohio State University study has found. Engineers here determined that the technique greatly outperformed other methods by removing at least 95 percent of a toxin secreted by Microcystis, a blue-green algae. Some water filtration plants around the country already use the technique, which couples activated carbon with membrane filters, said Hal Walker, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and geodetic science at Ohio State . Microcystis is native to freshwater lakes and rivers around the country, and secretes toxins that can cause liver damage in animals including humans. Worsening environmental pollution in Lake Erie during the last decade has caused algal blooms, the most recent of which began this August. Rather than invent a new technology for filtering microcystin-lr, Walker and his colleagues decided to test whether combining activated carbon with membrane filters would do the trick That technology has already proven effective for removing herbicides and pesticides from drinking water. "This toxin is an organic molecule, and we knew that activated carbon is good at removing organics," Walker said, "so we coupled the carbon with membranes. Together, they provide a way for water treatment plants to remove the toxin by basically upgrading the membrane system they already have." Water treatment plants that already had membranes in place could add carbon to their systems without purchasing new equipment, he added. Activated carbon is a highly porous form of charcoal that sticks to organic molecules. It's often used to filter water and clean up environmental spills, and it's even administered to poison victims to clean toxins from the digestive tract.
sixth off trade da
A. Uniqueness - Oil imports caused the deficit to rise in September and continue to make up the largest portion of our deficit
The Canadian Press, 09/17/08 “US current account deficit rises to $183.1 billion” http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5gXshPdF4zmw7q1pgtdQGUz6xI-UQ
The deficit in the broadest measure of American trade widened in the spring, reflecting a big jump in the country's foreign oil bill. The U.S. Commerce Department says the current account trade deficit increased by 4.3 per cent to US$183.1 billion in the April-June quarter, compared to a revised deficit of $175.6 billion in the first quarter. The current account is the broadest measure of America's dealings with the rest of the world because it includes not only trade in merchandise and services but also investment flows.
B. Link - Oil is the linchpin of our deficit and the key to ensuring liquidity in the world economy, driving investment and economic growth domestically. Dollars abroad pose no risk to our economy
Brockway, writer for The New Leader, 2001 (George P., “Why the Trade Deficit is a Blessing” The New Leader, August/July, Ebsco)
Those are pretty strong words; yet I am here to tell you there is exceedingly little chance that the ominous but unspecified disasters will befall us. Indeed, although I believe our trade deficit will continue to grow, I will argue that it is a blessing for us and for the world. My confidence is based on a simple reality: All the nations of the modern world need petroleum, and only a few have enough natural supplies to satisfy their needs. Art Buchwald once wrote that when the petroleum-producing Arabs sent their sons to the United States for higher education, we made the serious mistake of directing them to Harvard Business School instead of to Slippery Rock Teachers College, where they might have learned how to play basketball. As it happened, the second-generation petroleum producers somewhere learned to play OPEC. It is quite possible that their teachers were the Western oil companies and the Western central banks (including the Federal Reserve), who in the 1950s and '60s smugly rebuffed Arab pleas, first for rational drilling and pumping programs. and then (after the Arabs nationalized their oil fields) for rational terms for what their generally arid lands wanted to buy in Western markets. No doubt they were greedy. So were we. In the end they learned how to play the OPEC game very well.Their smartest move was to agree to sell their petroleum exclusively for dollars. At first glance this decision certainly seem s quixotic, given the coolness between them and us because of our support of Israel. On reflection we see that making the dollar the petroleum market international currency allowsthem to pose as modern men too businesslike to hold a grudge, and also enablesthem to avoid being skinned alive by the international money speculators. Under an open system, they would be in a continuous frenzy trying to determine how much each of the world's currencies was worth to them every minute of the day. Speculators would make (and no doubt occasionally lose) fortunes trying to outmaneuver them. Under the present system, they need worry solely about what a dollar is worth to them, or how many barrels of oil they have to sell today in order to get the dollars they need today. The dollar is uniquely qualified to play this role becauseour trade deficit means that there are many billions of dollars sloshing about in the world. No other currency can or will make that claim. The two economies large enough to think of doing it are Japan and the European Union (EU), and both are forbidden to attempt it by their economic theories. Let no one imagine that economic theory is just hot air. Japan, profusely praised by Wall Street for saving rather than consuming, has saved itself into a decade of stagnation that shows no sign of ending. As for the EU, it is run by bankers who pride themselves on tightly controlling all sorts of deficits. IN SHORT, if you want a truly international currency you cannot do better than the United States dollar. Our supply-siders have tried to charm us into becoming compulsive savers like the Japanese, and the neoclassical economists of the "Washington Consensus" continue to scold that we don't save enough, but we remain a nation of carefree spenders.Because we are the largest importers and the largest exporters in the world, dollars circulate widely around the globe. More to the point, we are the world's biggest importer of petroleum and possibly the biggest exporter of agricultural produce the petroleum-producing nations need, plus military material they think they must have.So the dollar was chosen, and the petroleum-thirsty nations found themselves having to harvest it--not merely for their day-to-day purchases, but also as reserves to help protect themselves from sudden assaults on their currencies, and to ensure that they can buy at least their share of petroleum until the Arabian sands run dry. At the moment the dollar reserves of these nations are slowly and surely reaching $1.5 trillion. Yes, the figure for our trade deficit is in the same ball park. In fact, if you add the foreign investments in our real estate and newspapers and book publishing and agribusiness and automobile manufacturing and the rest to the sum of foreigners' dollar reserves, you will find the total is actually on the same yard line as our trade deficit. Where else could it be? Aside from some of the deficit dollars being hidden in mattresses or mislaid in "statistical discrepancies," there is no place else for it. The mathematics is simple and indefeasible. Moreover, no country's finance minister is likely to tamper with his or her dollar reserves at the risk of collapsing the country's finances altogether. And if they all tried to tamper at once (as the Congressional commission's scenarios suggest), their mutual competition would result in their getting poor value for their money. Please note that this story is historically sound: Our trade deficits were few and insignificant before the 1970s, when OPEC first showed its power, and they have increased along with the world demand for petroleum, and hence for dollar reserves.
C. The US trade deficit provides critical liquidity for the world economy, a sudden reduction in the deficit would collapse the global economy
The Economist, 2002 “The Dollar and the deficit” 9/12 Print Edition
In the days of the gold standard, the volume of money and credit in circulation was tied to the amount of gold in a country's vaults. Economies laboured under the “tyranny” of the gold regime, booming when gold was abundant, deflating when it was scarce. The dollar standard is a more liberal system. Central banks retain the right to expand the volume of domestic credit to keep pace with the growth of the home economy. Eventually, however, growth in the world's economies translates into a growing demand for dollar assets. The more money central banks print, the more dollars they like to hold in reserve to underpin their currency.The more business is done across borders, the more dollars traders need to cover their transactions. If the greenback is the new gold, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, is the world's alchemist, responsible for concocting enough liquidity to keep world trade bubbling along nicely. But America can play this role only if it is happy to allow foreigners to build up a huge mass of claims on its assets—and if foreigners are happy to go along. Some economists watch with consternation as the rest of the world's claims on America outstrip America's claims on the rest of the world. As they point out, even a dollar bill is an American liability, a promise of ultimate payment by the US Treasury. Can America keep making these promises to foreigners, without eventually emptying them of value? According to Mr Davidson, the world cannot risk America stopping. America's external deficit means an extra $500 billion is going into circulation in the world economy each year. If America reined in its current account, international commerce would suffer a liquidity crunch, as it did periodically under the gold standard. Hence America's deficit is neither a “meaningless concept” nor a lamentable drain on world savings. It is an indispensable fount of liquidity for world trade.
D. Global economic collapse causes nuclear war and extinction
T.E. Bearden, LTC U.S. Army (Retired), 2k [“The Unnecessary Energy Crisis: How to Solve It Quickly,” http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3aaf97f22e23.htm, June 24]
History bears out that desperate nations take desperate actions. Prior to the final economic collapse, the stress on nations will have increased the intensity and number of their conflicts, to the point where the arsenals of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) now possessed by some 25 nations, are almost certain to be released. As an example, suppose a starving North Korea launches nuclear weapons upon Japan and South Korea, including U.S. forces there, in a spasmodic suicidal response. Or suppose a desperate China-whose long-range nuclear missiles (some) can reach the United States-attacks Taiwan. In addition to immediate responses, the mutual treaties involved in such scenarios will quickly draw other nations into the conflict, escalating it significantly. Strategic nuclear studies have shown for decades that, under such extreme stress conditions, once a few nukes are launched, adversaries and potential adversaries are then compelled to launch on perception of preparations by one's adversary. The real legacy of the MAD concept is this side of the MAD coin that is almost never discussed. Without effective defense, the only chance a nation has to survive at all is to launch immediate full-bore pre-emptive strikes and try to take out its perceived foes as rapidly and massively as possible. As the studies showed, rapid escalation to full WMD exchange occurs. Today, a great percent of the WMD arsenals that will be unleashed, are already on site within the United States itself. The resulting great Armageddon will destroy civilization as we know it, and perhaps most of the biosphere, at least for many decades.