Green Jobs Guarantee AFF

Argument Outline / Guide

 1ac
Plan text: The United States Federal Government Should Adopt the Green Jobs
Guarantee provision of the Green New Deal
 Inherency

1. The Green new deal will not pass the senate now
Deppisch, B. 2023, April 21 Washington Examiner. Washington Examiner. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/energy-
environment/democrats-re-introduce-green-new-deal-with-new-goals

Congressional Democrats on Thursday reintroduced

the "Green New Deal" resolution and published a new guidance
aimed at shaping the billions of dollars in clean energy spending under the Inflation Reduction Act, in an effort to
breathe new life into their ambitious climate goals. The authors of the original Green New Deal resolution, Sen. Edward Markey (D-MA) and
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), said their goals have changed in the four years since they introduced the lofty plan in 2019. They
acknowledged that the federal government has made major strides on renewable energy and clean energy spending, largely through last year's
passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which included $369 billion aimed at boosting clean energy. That's where the new "Implementation
Guide" comes in.
The 94-page document, published yesterday, seeks to help ensure the federal government
is spending the billions of clean energy measures in a way that aligns with that lawmakers described as
the "core values" of the Green New Deal. "We're hoping that this guide will provide cities, states, tribes, nonprofits, businesses,
and individuals with the tools to take full advantage of what is in here," Ocasio-Cortez said at a press conference outside the Capitol on
Thursday. Markey also joined Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) to introduce the "Green New Deal for Health," new legislation that will enable the
healthcare system to respond to climate disasters and provide aid to the people and communities affected. "We have a consensus that when
there are natural disasters, when there are storms, we need the government to act," Khanna said. "You don't have to even understand all the
climate science to say that people should have healthcare when you have climate adverse events. And that's all this is," he added. The
revived Green New Deal resolution is essentially the same as the 2019 version, and won't pass in the
Republican-led House. But Markey and Ocasio-Cortez made clear they do not see the IRA as it stands today as going far enough on
fighting climate change. Though it was never intended to "replace" the Green New Deal, which was more a declaration of progressive principles
than an actual legislative text, the IRA is the biggest federal investment in clean energy and renewable energy spending in U.S. history. Still,
much daylight remains between the two proposals.
 Advantage 1 – Economy
1. Uniqueness - Unemployment High now
CBS News. (2023, June 8). Unemployment aid applications jump to highest level since October 2021. CBS News.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/unemployment-applications-jumped-261000-economy-2023-06-08/

The number of Americans applying for unemployment benefits last week jumped to its highest level
since October 2021, even as the labor market remains one of the healthiest parts of the U.S. economy.
Applications for jobless claims rose to 261,000 for the week ending June 3, an increase of 28,000 from
the previous week's 233,000, the Labor Department reported Thursday. The four-week moving average
of claims, which evens out some of the weekly variations, rose by 7,500 to 237,250. "Weekly claims are
up from exceptionally low levels throughout 2022 which sometimes dipped below 200,000 per week,"
Stuart Hoffman, senior economic advisor at PNC, said in a note. "Job losses have begun to spread from
the tech and finance industries that had dominated headlines through the end of last year and into the
first five months of 2023. Headline-grabbing layoff announcements, however, typically take some time
to be put into effect." The U.S. economy has added jobs at a furious rate since the pandemic purge of
more than 20 million jobs in the spring of 2020. However, a number of high-profile layoff
announcements from technology and finance firms indicate the job market, especially for white-collar
workers, is cooling from its red-hot state earlier in the pandemic. Though the labor market remains
strong, there have been notable high-profile layoffs recently, mostly in the technology sector, where
many companies now acknowledge overhiring during the pandemic.

2. Solvency - The Green New Deal lays a framework for a sustainable economy built on
clean energy job
Greenpeace USA. (2021, April 20). Greenpeace USA. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/the-green-new-deal/

The Green New Deal is a framework for mobilizing the federal government to create millions of family-sustaining,
union jobs and fight the climate crisis at the same time. It’s built on the vision that our struggles — from climate
change to systemic racism to unemployment — are all connected. By harnessing the full power of the federal
government to build an inclusive, renewable energy economy, we have the chance to navigate out of multiple
crises at once. The Green New Deal is both a policy and an idea. It’s a Congressional resolution introduced by
Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey — first in 2019 then again in 2021 — with the
support of more than 100 cosponsors. This resolution lays out goals for upgrading our crumbling infrastructure,
modernizing cities, and overhauling energy, transportation, industrial, and agriculture systems to get to 100
percent renewable energy as soon as possible. It includes proposals for how to clean up our air and water and free
communities from toxic pollution. And it’s a roadmap for creating high-quality jobs with good wages and benefits,
worker protections, and the right to form a union. The Green New Deal is more than just a policy framework. It’s a
vision for a future that puts people before polluters — a world in which workers’ rights, community health, and our
shared climate come before oil company profits. And it’s up to our movement to make the Green New Deal vision
a reality.
3. Solvency - A federal Job guarantee will solve unemployment
Paul, M., Darity, W., Jr, & Hamilton, D. (2018). The Federal Job Guarantee - A Policy to Achieve Permanent Full
Employment. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities1] Mark Paul is a Postdoctoral Associate at the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity
at Duke University. [2] William Darity Jr. is the Samuel DuBois Cook Professor of Public Policy, African and African-American Studies and
Economics and the Director of the Samuel DuBois Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. [3] Darrick Hamilton is Professor of
Economics and Urban Policy at the Milano School of International Affairs, Management and Urban Policy and Department of Economics at the
New School for Social Research, and Director of the Doctoral Program in Public and Urban Policy at The New School.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/full-employment/the-federal-job-guarantee-a-policy-to-achieve-
permanent-full
Although the federal government has established full employment as a national goal in the past—via the
Employment Act of 1946 and the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978—it has failed to achieve these
goals through macroeconomic stabilization policies, monetary or fiscal. The only time the United States was
operating near full employment was during World War II. From 1943 to 1945, the U.S. operated at an average
unemployment rate under 1.7 percent.[14] Thus, this paper proposes the creation of a National Investment
Employment Corps to achieve permanent full employment in the U.S. economy through large-scale, direct hiring
by the federal government.[15] We argue that not only would such a policy bring the economy to sustained full
employment, but it also would constitute a sizable restructuring of the labor market.[16] The federal job
guarantee would provide a job, at non-poverty wages, for all citizens above the age of 18 that sought one.[17] The
minimum wage rate in the program is $11.83 an hour, equivalent to $24,600 per year for full-time workers, which
is the current poverty line for a family of four. This rate would be indexed to inflation, ensuring that workers’
purchasing power is maintained over time.[18] The program would incorporate wage variation based on time and
performance in the program, a worker’s previous experience, education, and region of residence; thus, we
estimate a mean annual wage for all employees at approximately $32,500.[19] The permanent establishment of
the NIEC would eliminate persistent involuntary unemployment in the economy, ensuring that the United States
lives up to the unfunded mandate to achieve and maintain full employment as outlined in the Full Employment
and Balanced Growth Act of 1978. But we know that a job is not sufficient for workers to live a life of decency and
guard against poverty. To provide an adequate living for workers and keep them and their families financially
stable, workers will receive a benefits package in addition to a non-poverty wage as part of their compensation.
[20] At this time, we estimate additional expenditures of $10,000 per full-time worker per year to provide
adequate health insurance and benefits. Since workers would be public employees, the insurance would be
comparable to current health insurance plans offered to civil servants, including members of Congress.[21] Other
fringe benefits will also be provided to workers, including paid family and sick leave and one-week paid vacation
per three months worked.
4. Solvency/Internal Link - A jobs guarantee would be effective at creating full
employment
Mathew Forstater, July 2006 Sci-Hub | Dr. Mathew Forstater is a professor in Economics and the Research Director of the Binzagr
Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. Green Jobs: Public Service Employment and Environmental Sustainability | 10.2307/40722393. (n.d.).
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40722393

The PSE program that I propose has been referred to as an "employer of last resort" or "job guarantee"
government program (Mitchell 2000; Wray 1998). The federal government would offer a PSE job to
anyone ready and willing to work for a basic PSE wage-benefits pack- age. Program expenditures would
be permitted to increase the size of the federal government's budget deficit; i.e., the budget would be
managed according to the principles of functional finance (Lerner 1943; Nell and Forstater 2003). This
approach requires a "modern money" system, i.e., a national fiat currency not fixed to a commod- ity or
another country's currency (no gold standard, currency board, "pegged" currency, or monetary union) in
other words, a floating exchange rate regime. By creating an infinitely elastic demand curve for labor,
the PSE program acts as a strong countercyclical fiscal stabilizer- the deficit grows when the economy
contracts, and it shrinks when the economy expands. Aggregate demand is maintained at full, or nearly
full, em- ployment, with only the proportion of PSE to private- and regular public-sector employment
changing over the business cycle. The program thereby addresses the effective demand problem.
Successfully solving the effective demand problem can exacerbate the structural change problem,
however. High levels of employment and capacity utilization can result in production bottlenecks and
other structural problems and heighten inflationary pressures. This effect is the reason that central
banks, national governments, and international organizations resist policies that promote full
employment and try to maintain a certain amount of excess capacity and a reserve army of unemployed
by, for example, raising interest rates.
5. Internal Link- The Green New Deal creates millions of new jobs over the next three
decades in the green energy sector
Ahmadi, M. a. B. (2019, December 17). Would a Green New Deal Add or Kill Jobs? Marilyn A. Brown is
a professor of sustainable systems at the Georgia Institute of Technology's School of Public Policy. She is
co-author of Empowering the Great Energy Transition: Policy for a Low-Carbon Future Scientific
American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/would-a-green-new-deal-add-or-kill-jobs1/
We estimate that the more conservative $25 carbon tax would boost U.S. employment by 1.4 million jobs each
year between 2020 and 2030, which is nearly a 1 percent increase above the reference–case forecast of
160 million jobs in 2030. As the economy expands and the tax increases, job growth from the GND would
accelerate, creating, on average, 3.4 million new jobs each year between 2040 and 2050—a nearly 2 percent
increase above the 182 million jobs forecast for the U.S. in 2050. Overall, it is estimated that 72 million job
years would be created over the three decades with a $25 carbon tax. (Note that if one job continues after one
year for another 12 months, it represents two job years.) With the more aggressive $60 carbon tax, U.S.
employment would still exceed the reference-case forecast, but the increase would be less than that of
the $25 tax. The higher tax causes much larger supply-side job losses, but they are still smaller than the gains in
energy-efficiency jobs motivated by higher energy prices. Overall, 35 million job years would be created
between 2020 and 2050, with net job increases in almost all regions. According to the latest data, in
2018 about 9.2 million Americans (5.7 percent of the U.S. workforce of roughly 162 million at the time)
were employed in an energy industry. Nearly half of these jobs (about 4.3 million) made up the
traditional supply-oriented categories: fuels, including petroleum, natural gas, coal and woody biomass
(1.1 million); electric power generation (900,000); and transmission, distribution and storage (2.3
million). The motor-vehicle-related industries employed 2.5 million, and energy efficiency employed 2.4
million. The GND would cause traditional supply-oriented jobs to decrease, but energy-efficiency jobs would more
than compensate for the losses. New jobs from energy-efficiency investments would be significant, totaling 1.8
million in 2030 and 4.2 million in 2050. These estimates reflect the labor-intensity of jobs in construction, which
account for more than half of the energy-efficiency workforce in 2018. Other large gains would be associated with
heating, ventilation, air-conditioning and refrigeration systems—the largest share of energy-efficiency investments
in the residential and commercial sectors. In industry, the greatest investments estimated would be in
energy and environmental management and smart controls, followed by industrial-machinery
manufacturing such as that of high-efficiency motors and variable-speed drives. The result would be job
growth across all nine Census divisions of the U.S., in all three decades with a $25 carbon tax. The $60 tax would
boost job growth in the U.S. overall and across a majority of its nine Census divisions and three decades.
6. Internal link - High Levels of unemployment are detrimental to all levels of society,
economy, and harm individuals well being
Simpson, S. D. (2022). The Cost of Unemployment to the Economy. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0811/the-cost-of-unemployment-to-the-economy.aspx
The costs of unemployment to the individual are not hard to imagine. When a person loses their job, there is often
an immediate impact on their standard of living. Before the Great Recession, the average savings rate in the U.S.
had been drifting down toward zero (and sometimes below). There are anecdotal reports that the average person
is only a few weeks away from serious financial trouble without a paying job.45 Even those eligible for
unemployment benefits and other forms of government assistance find it is not enough as these benefits often
only replace 50% or less of their regular income. That means these people are consuming far less than usual.
However, the economic consequences can go beyond just less consumption. Many people will turn to retirement
savings in a pinch, and draining these savings has long-term ramifications. Prolonged unemployment may lead to
an erosion of skills, basically robbing the economy of otherwise useful talents. At the same time, the experience of
unemployment (either direct or indirect) may alter how workers plan for their futures—prolonged unemployment
can lead to greater skepticism and pessimism. On a similar note, the absence of income created by unemployment
can force families to deny educational opportunities to their children and deprive the economy of those future
skills. Last but not least, there are other costs to the individual. Studies have shown that prolonged unemployment
harms workers' mental health and can worsen physical health, and shorten lifespans.67 The social costs of
unemployment are difficult to calculate but no less real. When unemployment becomes a pervasive problem,
there are often increased calls for protectionism and severe restrictions on immigration.8 Protectionism can not
only lead to destructive tit-for-tat retaliation among countries but reductions in trade harm the economic well-
being of all trading partners. Other social costs include how people interact with each other. Studies have shown
that times of elevated unemployment may correlate both with less volunteerism and higher crime.9 The
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act expanded unemployment benefits to self-employed
and part-time workers and helped keep individuals and families solvent during a global pandemic.10 The economic
costs of unemployment are probably more obvious when viewed through the lens of the national checkbook.
Unemployment may lead to higher payments from state and federal governments for unemployment benefits,
food assistance, and Medicaid. Unemployment is also a dangerous state for the U.S. economy. Almost 70% of what
the U.S. economy produces goes to personal consumption and unemployed workers.11 Even those receiving
government support cannot spend at prior levels. The production of those workers leaves the economy, which
reduces the gross domestic product (GDP) and moves the country away from the efficient allocation of its
resources. For those who subscribe to Jean-Baptiste Say’s theory that the production of goods creates its own
demand, that is a serious issue.12 It is also worth noting that companies pay a price for high unemployment as
well. Unemployment benefits are financed largely by taxes assessed on businesses.13 A high unemployment rate
affects the economy in many ways. Unemployed people tend to spend less, may accrue more debt, and
unemployment may lead to higher payments from state and federal governments for things like food stamps.
7. Impact - Job loss is a threat to workers - causes mass stress and unfair labor
conditions
Pratap et. al. 21(Preethi Pratap 1, Alison Dickson 2 , Marsha Love 1 , Joe Zanoni 1 , Caitlin Donato 1 ,
Michael A. Flynn 3 and Paul A. Schulte 3 . 1-School of Public Health, University of Illinois Chicago, 2-
Champaign School of Labor and Employment Relations, University of Illinois Urbana, 3-National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health. Published 9/23/21. “Public Health Impacts of Underemployment
and Unemployment in the United States: Exploring Perceptions, Gaps and Opportunities” International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. FIGURES OMITTED. ) //Ulven
3. Results The findings presented in this section highlight the four overarching themes and several subthemes
emerging from the crosswalk of themes from the review of 74 peer reviewed and gray literature publications and
the nine key informant interviews. These themes describe the landscape of unemployment,
underemployment, and the impact on health outcomes. 3.1. Large Macro-Level Issues Are Driving
the Underemployment and Unemployment Narrative A number of convergent themes emerged from the
literature review and discussion around the significant drivers of underemployment and unemployment. While
the cyclical nature of the labor market and recession were commonly reported drivers of
underemployment and unemployment, a number of other factors, (Figure 1) including the changing
nature of work [40], a lack of quality jobs [41], the devaluing of workers, depressed wages,
disinvestments by both the public and private sectors on worker education and training [6], a dynamic labor
market, and inequalities in the distribution of public funding/resources emerged in both the literature
and key informant interviews. Fenwick and Tausig [42] argued that we need to address the role that
macroeconomic changes have had on the structure of work. As economic changes transformed the
organization of work, they modified the work environment, subjecting employees to stressful work
conditions. They also linked the economic stress and work stress approaches by arguing that “macroeconomic
and economic changes affect exposure to life events such as unemployment as well as the level of stress from
changing work roles and the structure of the workplace” [42,43]. Ferman and Gordus [44] proposed a model in
which economic change resulted in displacement and loss of work for some groups. In their study, they
observed that “displaced individuals may accept employment with fewer economic and other benefits
including protection from unfair work practices, or lower status positions . . . ” and that “career patterns of
these individuals may change, as they find immediate reemployment, move from job to job, or remain
unemployed, and this was argued to cause stress and instability” [44].
8. Internal link -Rising Unemployment leads to higher levels of populism and
xenophobia
Guriev 18 (Guriev, Sergei. Prof. of Economics at the Paris Institute of Political Studies. He has alot of
degrees and is really smart (I’m not joking, check his wikipedia he has a bizarre amount of quals)
“Economic Drivers of Populism” AEA Papers and Proceedings. Published 2018, Accessed 2/18/2023.)
//Ulven
European Crisis and the Rise of Populism In Algan et al. (2017) we track the change in unemployment and the
vote for populist parties before and after the Great Recession in 240 subnational regions in 26 European countries
in 2000–2017. Unlike other studies (Inglehart and Norris 2016; Guiso, Herrera, and Morelli 2017; and Dustmann et
al. 2017) that study self-reported voting from the individual-level survey data, we look at the actual region-level
voting outcomes. We find that controlling for regional fixed effects, an increase in unemployment is
associated with the rise in populist vote. The effect’s magnitude is large: a 1 percentage point change in
unemployment implies 1 percentage point change in the populist vote. In order to identify the causal effects, we
instrument the increase in unemployment by the precrisis composition of the regional economy. We find that
instrumental variable results imply even a larger magnitude of the effect: 1 percentage point increase in
unemployment leads to 2 percentage points increase in populist vote. The effects that we find are larger
than those found in other studies. This is likely to be driven by the fact that the other studies measure the
relationship between individual-level employment status and his/her vote. We study the region-level relationships
and thus can better identify the impact of economic insecurity. Indeed, an increase in regional
unemployment raises economic insecurity and undermines the confidence in the system even for
those voters who are currently employed. Indeed, even those who have a job are concerned with
higher unemployment—as they face higher risks of losing their jobs and are less likely to see significant
wage increases. To identify the mechanism, we study the relationship between the change in unemployment
and change in political trust. We find that the increase in unemployment causes the decline in trust in
European and national political institutions and alienation from existing parties. At the same time there is
no, or almost no, impact on the generalized social trust, on the trust in police, or on the trust in church—or on the
trust in the United Nations. In order to understand the role of identity politics, we also study the change in
attitudes to immigration. We find that an increase in unemployment results in a more negative attitude to
immigrants for economic reasons—but there is no impact on the attitude to migrants for cultural reasons.
It may well be that the survey respondents are ashamed to admit their adherence to identity politics and
ascribe cultural aversion to immigration to an economic one .
9.Impact - Populism drives down domestic and global economies
Allianz et al, 18, 3-6-2018, Allianz Global Investors is a leading active asset manager with over 730
investment professionals in 24 offices worldwide and managing more than EUR 500 billion in assets for
individuals, families and institutions, "The Economics Of Populism: Why It Matters For Growth And
Markets", [https://seekingalpha.com/article/4153649-economics-populism-matters-growth-markets],
AVD
This begs the question of what could happen today if major economies, notably the US and the UK, began trying to
turn back time and pursue anti-globalization policies. Would the results be as positive as the ones shown in this
study? We believe that if today’s populist trends turn into policy, we could see several negative
economic and market implications – some of which may be severe. 1. Closed borders could hurt growth Anti-
trade and anti-immigration policies are generally detrimental to productivity, which is the key driver
of economic growth in the long run. Various academic studies clearly show that free trade is conducive to
growth. This is not only because free trade enhances productivity gains through a better division of labour on an
international level, but also because it enables a transfer of know-how. In the same vein, migration is a
productivity-enhancing activity – particularly, but not exclusively, when a foreign labour force with
different skills is being added to a local workforce. Moreover, almost all advanced economies are facing
labour shortages in the coming decades, and migration would help to alleviate this problem. As a result, erecting
walls is – at least from an economic point of view – the opposite of what is required to stimulate growth.
Unfortunately, the number of walls at national borders worldwide has increased more than threefold since the
financial crisis, according to the Financial Times. Consequently, as populist parties increasingly implement their
agendas, trend growth – a country’s long-term average economic growth rate – is likely to be limited in advanced
economies. Against this backdrop, the US administration’s ambition to lift trend real GDP growth to more than 3
per cent each year is inconsistent with the results it should expect from implementing its anti-globalization agenda.
2. Protectionism could cause inflation Anti-globalization policies become inflationary as
imported goods become more expensive – for example, because of tolls or tariffs. Alternatively, prices may rise
implicitly if domestic goods are preferred over imported goods at same prices – even if the quality is lower. As a
result, we believe that rising populism globally means that inflation premia are set to rise . 3. Rising
wages could hurt risk assets The wage share is likely to rise and the profit share set to decline in a world
governed by populists.
10. impact -There is an impact: risk of rising populism and nationalism
from economic decline [134]
Sundaram & Popov, economists, ’19 [Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former economics professor and U.N. Assistant
Secretary-General for Economic Development and Vladimir Popov, former senior economics researcher and current Research
Director, Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, “Economic Crisis Can Trigger World War,” INTER PRESS SERVICE, 2—12—
19, http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/02/economic-crisis-can-trigger-world-war/, accessed 7-2-21]

Economic recovery efforts since the 2008-2009 global financial crisis have mainly depended on
unconventional monetary policies. As fears rise of yet another international financial crisis, there are
growing concerns about the increased possibility of large-scale military conflict. More worryingly,
in the current political landscape, prolonged economic crisis, combined with rising economic
inequality, chauvinistic ethno-populism as well as aggressive jingoist rhetoric, including threats,
could easily spin out of control and ‘morph’ into military conflict, and worse, world war . Crisis
responses limited The 2008-2009 global financial crisis almost ‘bankrupted’ governments and caused
systemic collapse. Policymakers managed to pull the world economy from the brink, but soon switched
from counter-cyclical fiscal efforts to unconventional monetary measures, primarily ‘quantitative easing’
and very low, if not negative real interest rates. But while these monetary interventions averted realization
of the worst fears at the time by turning the US economy around, they did little to address underlying
economic weaknesses, largely due to the ascendance of finance in recent decades at the expense of the
real economy. Since then, despite promising to do so, policymakers have not seriously pursued, let alone
achieved, such needed reforms. Instead, ostensible structural reformers have taken advantage of the
crisis to pursue largely irrelevant efforts to further ‘casualize’ labour markets. This lack of structural reform
has meant that the unprecedented liquidity central banks injected into economies has not been well
allocated to stimulate resurgence of the real economy. From bust to bubble Instead, easy credit raised
asset prices to levels even higher than those prevailing before 2008. US house prices are now 8% more
than at the peak of the property bubble in 2006, while its price-to-earnings ratio in late 2018 was even
higher than in 2008 and in 1929, when the Wall Street Crash precipitated the Great Depression. As
monetary tightening checks asset price bubbles, another economic crisis — possibly more severe than
the last, as the economy has become less responsive to such blunt monetary interventions — is
considered likely. A decade of such unconventional monetary policies, with very low interest rates, has
greatly depleted their ability to revive the economy. The implications beyond the economy of such
developments and policy responses are already being seen. Prolonged economic distress has
worsened public antipathy towards the culturally alien — not only abroad, but also within. Thus,
another round of economic stress is deemed likely to foment unrest, conflict, even war as it is
blamed on the foreign. International trade shrank by two-thirds within half a decade after the US passed
the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, at the start of the Great Depression, ostensibly to protect American
workers and farmers from foreign competition!
11. Impact - Rising Populism and national lead to war
Sundaram & Popov, economists, ’19 [Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former economics professor and U.N. Assistant
Secretary-General for Economic Development and Vladimir Popov, former senior economics researcher and current Research
Director, Dialogue of Civilizations Research Institute, “Economic Crisis Can Trigger World War,” INTER PRESS SERVICE, 2—12—
19, http://www.ipsnews.net/2019/02/economic-crisis-can-trigger-world-war/, accessed 7-2-21]
Liberalization’s discontents Rising economic insecurity, inequalities and deprivation are expected to
strengthen ethno-populist and jingoistic nationalist sentiments, and increase social tensions and
turmoil, especially among the growing precariat and others who feel vulnerable or threatened.
Thus, ethno-populist inspired chauvinistic nationalism may exacerbate tensions, leading to conflicts and
tensions among countries, as in the 1930s. Opportunistic leaders have been blaming such misfortunes on
outsiders and may seek to reverse policies associated with the perceived causes, such as ‘globalist’
economic liberalization. Policies which successfully check such problems may reduce social tensions, as
well as the likelihood of social turmoil and conflict, including among countries. However, these may also
inadvertently exacerbate problems. The recent spread of anti-globalization sentiment appears correlated
to slow, if not negative per capita income growth and increased economic inequality. To be sure,
globalization and liberalization are statistically associated with growing economic inequality and rising
ethno-populism. Declining real incomes and growing economic insecurity have apparently strengthened
ethno-populism and nationalistic chauvinism, threatening economic liberalization itself, both within and
among countries. Insecurity, populism, conflict Thomas Piketty has argued that a sudden increase in
income inequality is often followed by a great crisis. Although causality is difficult to prove, with wealth
and income inequality now at historical highs, this should give cause for concern. Of course, other factors
also contribute to or exacerbate civil and international tensions, with some due to policies intended for
other purposes. Nevertheless, even if unintended, such developments could inadvertently catalyse future
crises and conflicts. Publics often have good reason to be restless, if not angry, but the emotional
appeals of ethno-populism and jingoistic nationalism are leading to chauvinistic policy measures
which only make things worse. At the international level, despite the world’s unprecedented and still
growing interconnectedness, multilateralism is increasingly being eschewed as the US increasingly
resorts to unilateral, sovereigntist policies without bothering to even build coalitions with its usual allies.
Avoiding Thucydides’ iceberg Thus, protracted economic distress, economic conflicts or another
financial crisis could lead to military confrontation by the protagonists, even if unintended. Less
than a decade after the Great Depression started, the Second World War had begun as the Axis powers
challenged the earlier entrenched colonial powers. They patently ignored Thucydides’ warning, in
chronicling the Peloponnesian wars over two millennia before, when the rise of Athens threatened the
established dominance of Sparta! Anticipating and addressing such possibilities may well serve to help
avoid otherwise imminent disasters by undertaking pre-emptive collective action, as difficult as that may
be. The international community has no excuse for being like the owners and captain of the Titanic,
conceitedly convinced that no iceberg could possibly sink the great ship.
 Advantage 2 – Climate
1. Uniqueness: Climate change is happening NOW and is changing the earth for the
worse
Rebecca Hersher 5-26, journalist, “Earth Is Barreling Toward 1.5 Degrees Celsius Of
Warming, Scientists Warn,” 5-26-2021, NPR,
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/26/1000465487/earth-is-barreling-toward-1-5-degrees-celsius-of-
warming-scientists-warn, accessed 10-5-2021.
The average temperature on Earth is now consistently 1 degree Celsius hotter than it was in the
late 1800s, and that temperature will keep rising toward the critical 1.5-degree Celsius
benchmark over the next five years, according to a new report from the World Meteorological Organization.
Scientists warn that humans must keep the average annual global temperature from lingering at
or above 1.5 degrees Celsius to avoid the most catastrophic and long-term effects of climate
change. Those include massive flooding, severe drought and runaway ocean warming that fuels tropical storms and drives mass
die-offs of marine species. The new report from the WMO, an agency of the United Nations, finds that global temperatures are
accelerating toward 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. The authors of the new report predict there is a 44% chance that
the average annual temperature on Earth will temporarily hit 1.5 degrees Celsius of
warming at some point in the next five years. That likelihood has doubled since last year. "We're seeing
accelerating change in our climate," says Randall Cerveny, a climate scientist at Arizona State University and a World
Meteorological Organization rapporteur who was not involved in the report. Annual temperatures on Earth fluctuate according to
short-term climate cycles, which means some years are much hotter than others, even as the overall trend line goes up steadily. As
climate change accelerates, it gets more and more likely that individual years will exceed 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming. "We had
had some hopes that, with last year's COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel [and] the lack of industry might act as a little bit of
a brake," Cerveny says. "But what we're seeing is, frankly, it has not." Years with record-breaking heat offer a glimpse of the future.
For example, 2020 was one of the hottest years on record. Last year, global temperatures were about 1.2
degrees Celsius hotter than the late 1800s, according to the WMO. Millions of people suffered immensely as a
result. The U.S. experienced a record-breaking number of billion-dollar weather
disasters, including hurricanes and wildfires. Widespread droughts, floods and heat
waves killed people on every continent except Antarctica. Recent climate disasters underscore the
extent to which a couple degrees of warming can have enormous effects. For example, during the last ice age the Earth was only
about 6 degrees Celsius colder than it is now, on average. An increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius "is a very, very, very, very big
number," Cerveny says. "We need to be concerned about it." The goal of the Paris climate accord is to keep the increase in global
temperatures well below 2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels, and ideally try to limit warming to 1.5 degrees
Celsius. Those thresholds refer to temperature on Earth over multiple years. Exceeding 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming in a single
year wouldn't breach the Paris Agreement. But with every passing year of rising greenhouse gas emissions, it becomes more and
more likely that humans will cause catastrophic warming. The report estimates there's a 90% chance that one of the next five years
will be the warmest year on record. "It is yet another wakeup call that the world needs to fast-track
commitments to slash greenhouse gas emissions and achieve carbon neutrality," WMO Secretary-
General Petteri Taalas said in a statement accompanying the report. The United Nations warns that, as of late 2020, humans were
on track to cause more than 3 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century. If the U.S. follows through on
new promises to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, it would help limit global
warming to some extent, although other countries including China would also need to reduce their emissions
dramatically in the next 10 years.
2. Solvency: A federal jobs guarantee in the clean energy sector is key to a sustainable
economy
Mathew Forstater, July 2006 Sci-Hub | Dr. Mathew Forstater is a professor in Economics and the Research Director of the Binzagr
Institute for Sustainable Prosperity. Green Jobs: Public Service Employment and Environmental Sustainability | 10.2307/40722393. (n.d.).
https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40722393

A PSE program can promote environmental sustainability in two important ways. First, since PSE
activities do not seek profits, the activities are designed and evaluated according to social, macro, or
environmental efficiency criteria rather than cost-minimizing efficiency criteria of the private sector. My
suggestion is akin to E.F. Schumacher's (1973) "appropriate technology": more labor-intensive methods
of production may make sense even when more capital-intensive methods are available. PSE activities
can be designed to use fewer natural resources, cause less pollution, and reduce ecological damage.
Even if the activities were environmentally neutral, the outcome would be more sustainable than a
private sector stimulated to full employment. Moreover, PSE activities can be designed to perform
environmental Challenge. For example, a Green Jobs Corps could sustain the ecology in a variety of
ways: community and industrial recycling, improved insulation for residential and commercial
structures, carpooling, rooftop gardening and urban landscaping, solar energy applied to the public
infrastructure (e.g., streetlights, schools, construction warn- ing signs, billboards), monitoring and
enforcement, environmental education, and research support. Most activities do not require highly
specialized skills, and the "learning by doing" effects could be considerable, as skills acquired by
participants could be applied in the private sector, and this suc- cession would further promote
sustainability. In addition, increased awareness of environmental and ecological issues on the part of
both participants and the public could change consumption patterns, which is vital for long-term
sustainability

2. Internal link / Impact The energy grid is vulnerable to climate change now (need
a grid collapse card?)
Climate Change Impacts on Energy | US EPA. (2023, May 19). US EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/climateimpacts/climate-change-impacts-energy

The U.S. energy system consists of all the infrastructure needed to collect, produce, distribute, store,
and consume power for our homes, for our businesses, and while we are on the go. From manufacturing
to agriculture, and health care to transportation, the nation depends on a stable energy supply. Our
energy system is vulnerable to a wide range of climate change impacts. These include rising
temperatures and heat waves, cold and snow events, severe drought, intense rainfall, sea level rise,
hurricanes, and wildfires. While these impacts differ from one region to another, they will continue to
affect all areas of the country.1 Moreover, impacts to one part of the energy system or in one region can
affect other parts of the system or other areas. In addition, energy interacts with and depends on other
sectors of the economy, such as water resources and transportation. Therefore, climate impacts on
these sectors can affect the energy system.
4. Solvency - Green energy is THE cornerstone solution for climate change
United Nations. (n.d.). Renewable energy – powering a safer future | United Nations.
https://www.un.org/en/climatechange/raising-ambition/renewable-energy

A large chunk of the greenhouse gases that blanket the Earth and trap the sun’s heat are generated
through energy production, by burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and heat. Fossil fuels, such as
coal, oil and gas, are by far the largest contributor to global climate change, accounting for over 75
percent of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions. The
science is clear: to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, emissions need to be reduced by almost
half by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. To achieve this, we need to end our reliance on fossil fuels and
invest in alternative sources of energy that are clean, accessible, affordable, sustainable, and reliable.
Renewable energy sources – which are available in abundance all around us, provided by the sun, wind,
water, waste, and heat from the Earth – are replenished by nature and emit little to no greenhouse
gases or pollutants into the air. Fossil fuels still account for more than 80 percent of global energy
production, but cleaner sources of energy are gaining ground. About 29 percent of electricity currently
comes from renewable sources. Here are five reasons why accelerating the transition to clean energy is
the pathway to a healthy, livable planet today and for generations to come. 1. Renewable energy
sources are all around us About 80 percent of the global population lives in countries that are net-
importers of fossil fuels -- that’s about 6 billion people who are dependent on fossil fuels from other
countries, which makes them vulnerable to geopolitical shocks and crises. In contrast, renewable energy
sources are available in all countries, and their potential is yet to be fully harnessed. The International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) estimates that 90 percent of the world’s electricity can and should
come from renewable energy by 2050. Renewables offer a way out of import dependency, allowing
countries to diversify their economies and protect them from the unpredictable price swings of fossil
fuels, while driving inclusive economic growth, new jobs, and poverty alleviation. 2. Renewable energy is
cheaper Renewable energy actually is the cheapest power option in most parts of the world today.
Prices for renewable energy technologies are dropping rapidly. The cost of electricity from solar power
fell by 85 percent between 2010 and 2020. Costs of onshore and offshore wind energy fell by 56 percent
and 48 percent respectively. Falling prices make renewable energy more attractive all around – including
to low- and middle-income countries, where most of the additional demand for new electricity will
come from. With falling costs, there is a real opportunity for much of the new power supply over the
coming years to be provided by low-carbon sources. Cheap electricity from renewable sources could
provide 65 percent of the world’s total electricity supply by 2030. It could decarbonize 90 percent of the
power sector by 2050, massively cutting carbon emissions and helping to mitigate climate change.
Although solar and wind power costs are expected to remain higher in 2022 and 2023 then pre-
pandemic levels due to general elevated commodity and freight prices, their competitiveness actually
improves due to much sharper increases in gas and coal prices, says the International Energy Agency
(IEA). 3. Renewable energy is healthier According to the World Health Organization (WHO), about 99
percent of people in the world breathe air that exceeds air quality limits and threatens their health, and
more than 13 million deaths around the world each year are due to avoidable environmental causes,
including air pollution. The unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide originate
mainly from the burning of fossil fuels. In 2018, air pollution from fossil fuels caused $2.9 trillion in
health and economic costs, about $8 billion a day. Switching to clean sources of energy, such as wind
and solar, thus helps address not only climate change but also air pollution and health. 4. Renewable
energy creates jobs Every dollar of investment in renewables creates three times more jobs than in the
fossil fuel industry. The IEA estimates that the transition towards net-zero emissions will lead to an
overall increase in energy sector jobs: while about 5 million jobs in fossil fuel production could be lost by
2030, an estimated 14 million new jobs would be created in clean energy, resulting in a net gain of 9
million jobs. In addition, energy-related industries would require a further 16 million workers, for
instance to take on new roles in manufacturing of electric vehicles and hyper-efficient appliances or in
innovative technologies such as hydrogen. This means that a total of more than 30 million jobs could be
created in clean energy, efficiency, and low-emissions technologies by 2030. Ensuring a just transition,
placing the needs and rights of people at the heart of the energy transition, will be paramount to make
sure no one is left behind. 5. Renewable energy makes economic sense About $5.9 trillion was spent on
subsidizing the fossil fuel industry in 2020, including through explicit subsidies, tax breaks, and health
and environmental damages that were not priced into the cost of fossil fuels. In comparison, about $4
trillion a year needs to be invested in renewable energy until 2030 – including investments in technology
and infrastructure – to allow us to reach net-zero emissions by 2050

5. Impact: Unchecked climate changes risks widespread instability—threatens human

survival
Scott, University of New South Wales Associate Professor, ’15
[Shirley V. Scott, Associate Professor, University of New South Wales, “Implications of Climate Change for the UN Security Council:
Mapping the Ragne of Potential Policy Responses,” INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS v. 91 n. 5, 2015, pp. 1317-1333, p. 137]
The potential impacts of climate change on international peace and security are many and
varied. From its structured review of the scientific literature on climate change and security, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fifth Assessment Report found there to be robust evidence and high
agreement that ‘human security will be progressively threatened as the climate changes ’.1
Although scholars remain divided as to the possibility of proving a causal link between climate change and conflict,2 it is difficult to
deny that forecast phenomena such as rising sea levels, shortages of fresh water and intense
storms could reasonably be expected to exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and have the
gravest impact in societies where there is political instability. Indeed, ecological imbalances
threaten unforeseeable consequences for the security of the planet as a whole;3 the magnitude
of the challenge is now such that some scientists talk in terms of a threat to human survival.
A2 Federalism Disadvantage
A2 50 States Counterplan
A2 Capitalism Kritik
 A2 Funding Offsets Disadvantage
The jobs and market growth created by the green energy sector boom will pay off the
program and then some
Pettifor, A. (2019, September 17). The beauty of a Green New Deal is that it would pay for itself | Ann
Pettifor. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/17/green-new-deal-
climate-disaster

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate
cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group
has one quibble. Big transformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot
wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from
big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US
debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon
levy will fall instead on their shoulders. So where should the money come from? There are
fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying
for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings. To raise the money for a green deal,
governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to
take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the
income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay
for itself. First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our
credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the
future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is
why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits
and savings accounts. When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment
and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both
employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of
spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to
finance that investment. During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the
government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts.
The Biden administration is still planning to ramp up social spending even as other
expenditures increase.
Kanno-youngs, Z., & Rappeport, A. (2022, March 28). Biden aims to boost military and social
spending in 2023 budget. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/us/politics/biden-budget.html

The White House will for the first time propose that Veterans Affairs medical funding be given its own
discrete stream of funding. The administration plans to use the budget proposal to send a message to
Congress that funding for veterans deserves the same sense of urgency as investments in national
security, according to officials familiar with the matter. The proposal also aims to cut federal deficits by a
total of more than $1 trillion over the next decade, according to a White House document released on
Saturday. As part of that plan, the budget will outline a minimum tax on billionaires, which would
require that American households worth more than $100 million pay a rate of at least 20 percent on
their income as well as unrealized gains in the value of their liquid assets, such as stocks and bonds,
which can accumulate value for years but are taxed only when they are sold. That revenue could also be
directed toward the president’s broader agenda. Cecilia Rouse, the chair of the White House’s Council of
Economic Advisers, said last week that Mr. Biden still wanted to invest in improving access to child care,
prescription drugs and health care as well as combating climate change, without adding to the federal
deficit. “The president isn’t just looking to make these kinds of investments as stimulus, meaning that
they’re deficit financed, he is committed to deficit reduction along the way as well,” Ms. Rouse said at
the National Association for Business Economics conference. “And that’s what will be reflected in his
budget.”

No Link: No increase to the deficit means no trade off with social programs
Jordan, R. (2019, April 3). Strengths and weaknesses of the green new deal. Stanford News.
https://news.stanford.edu/2019/03/28/strengths-weaknesses-green-new-deal/

Approximately how much would it cost to institute a GND, and how could we pay for it? Jacobson:
Rather than increasing costs, the GND reduces costs substantially. The upfront capital cost of a 100
percent wind-water-solar electric power generation system is about $9.5 trillion. However, this cost is
spread out over many years and will pay itself off over time through electricity sales. Further, a wind-
water-solar system uses half the energy as a fossil fuel system and also eliminates health and climate
costs due to fossil fuels. As such, U.S. consumers will pay only $1 trillion per year in energy costs with
the GND, whereas under a fossil fuel system, they will pay $2 trillion per year in energy costs and $600
billion per year in air pollution health costs, and will incur $3.3 trillion per year in global climate costs
due to U.S. emissions, for a total economic cost of $5.9 trillion per year. Thus a wind-water-solar system
costs society one-sixth that of a fossil fuel system.
 A2 Economy Disadvantage
No Risk of Default now or in the future, the US takes loans out in its own currency
putting the government in a uniquely strong position to never default.
Wolff-Mann, E. (2020, May). Warren Buffett explains the simple reason why the US will never default
on its debt. Yahoo! Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/warren-buffett-explains-the-simple-
reason-why-the-us-will-never-default-on-its-debt-185105213.html?
guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20v&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC-
RgsLU_fQTYgakjBz3kBLrRiLjRoE4ybJcIOUTpm7NNubDJBe52ljgNDNRkzJIB_vb91vhRonvAYuRKLcf9W8d9fL
0OncBZm-Xy2BiVrVprbDWBqkykH-fOFRZ05laU5CdGRrYEBq38CUIrMtuxIjvtoy7ZnBl1XbI3aDiTpKA

Over the years, many have worried about the growing national debt as tax cuts and spending have
created an ever-widening gap between revenue and outflows. But in his explanation, Buffett highlighted
the distinctions that make the U.S. Treasury much different than your personal checkbook. Mainly, the
government owns the printing press to pay the money to the holders of its debt. “It is very painful to
owe money in somebody else’s currency,” said Buffett. “If I could issue a currency Buffett bucks, and I
had a printing press and I could borrow money, I would never default.” This is a common refrain of
Modern Monetary Theory as well as longtime Fed Chair Alan Greenspan, who once said something
similar: "The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So
there is zero probability of default." The chief worry about just printing money to pay obligations is
inflation. “What you end up getting in terms of purchasing power can be in doubt,” Buffett said. But
whether the U.S. can pay the dollars that it owes is not in doubt. The Oracle of Omaha noted back to
when Standard & Poor’s downgraded the U.S.’s credit rating in 2011. “To me that did not make sense,”
he said. “How you can regard any corporation as stronger than a person who can print the money to pay
you, I just don’t understand. So don’t worry about the government defaulting.” Buffett then addressed
the frequent government shut-downs that happen over partisan arguments about raising the debt
ceiling. “I think it’s kind of crazy incidentally...to have these limits on the debt,” he said. “And then [the]
stopped government, arguing about whether it’s going to increase the limits. We’re going to increase
the limits on the debt.” Buffett pointed out that the debt “isn’t going to be paid, it’s going to be
refunded,” and referenced the period in the 1990s when the debt came down and the country simply
created more. “When the debts come down a little bit, the country’s going to print more debt. The
country is going to grow in terms of its debt-paying capacity,” he said. “But the trick is to keep borrowing
in your own currency.”
The jobs and market growth created by the green energy sector boom will pay off the
program and then some
Pettifor, A. (2019, September 17). The beauty of a Green New Deal is that it would pay for itself | Ann
Pettifor. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/sep/17/green-new-deal-
climate-disaster

Sanders is vague about his financing plans. He suggests that cuts in military spending could generate
cash, but also proposes a rise in tax for big corporations. These are welcome proposals, but our group
has one quibble. Big transformational projects are not financed from taxation. Kennedy’s moonshot
wasn’t, nor is Britain’s HS2 rail project. Suggesting that the deal can be paid for through tax (even from
big corporations) will rightly raise suspicions. Ordinary taxpayers will assume – as they did during the US
debate about inheritance tax (reframed by the right as “death taxes”) – that the burden of such a carbon
levy will fall instead on their shoulders. So where should the money come from? There are
fundamentally only two sources of financing. The first is borrowing (credit). This is achieved by applying
for a loan, or issuing a bond. The second is existing savings. To raise the money for a green deal,
governments would have to draw on their equivalent of a giant credit card, but would also be able to
take advantage of investment by savers. Thankfully, the creation of millions of jobs will generate the
income and tax revenues needed to repay any borrowing. As Sanders argues, the whole thing will pay
for itself. First, the borrowing: credit issued by a commercial bank, as we all know from spending on our
credit cards, does not draw on our existing deposits or savings. Instead it is a promise to pay in the
future. OECD governments (backed by millions of taxpayers) are the most trusted borrowers, which is
why their promises (bonds) are in such demand. Savings, by contrast, already exist – in bank deposits
and savings accounts. When a government borrows, as it has for financing HS2, that leads to investment
and the creation of paid jobs in public and private sectors, and to private sector profits. Both
employment income and profits generate tax revenues. Tax revenues are, therefore, a consequence of
spending or investment – and can be used to pay back the borrowing. They need not be used directly to
finance that investment. During the second world war commercial banks provided credit to the
government in the form of Treasury deposit receipts.
Impact Defense: No Collapse, there is no suitable reserve currency to replace the US
Dollar
Annina KALTENBRUNNER Lecturer in the Economics of Globalisation and the International Economy @
Leeds AND Photis LYSANDROU research Professor @ City University Political Economy Research Centre
(CITYPERC) ’17 “The US Dollar’s Continuing Hegemony as an International Currency: A Double-matrix Analysis” Development and Change
48 (4) p. 663-664

The current hegemonic position of the US dollar in the international currency system is not in doubt.
What is in doubt is whether the US dollar will continue to maintain its position in the foreseeable future.
Had this particular question been resolved, then so too would have been the question as to why there is
no other currency that can seriously challenge the dollar in the international arena, for this is simply the
same question in reverse. That there is no sign of any such resolution is evidenced by a recent collection
of academic articles debating the present state of the international currency system.1 In his introductory
overview of these articles, Jonathan Kirshner observes that while all of the authors agree that the one
remaining pillar holding up the dollar’s leading position in the system was ‘the lack of plausible
alternatives’, no agreed explanation could be offered as to why this was the case. As Kirshner (2014:
1014) put it: ‘If not the dollar, what? At the moment, there remains no satisfactory answer to this
question’. This article attempts to provide the kind of satisfactory answer that is required. It does this by
addressing what we consider to be a major shortcoming in the current debate on the international
currency question, namely, the acceptance of the conventional view of bonds as being only a type of
‘debt’. On this view, it must follow that the growth in size of the US government and corporate bond
markets, which are at the heart of the US capital markets, may reach a point where foreign agents begin
to doubt the ability of the US to service its debt. This could lead them to switch to another currency
belonging to a country or region with stronger economic fundamentals and thus with more easily
serviceable levels of debt. Our core argument is that bonds are not only a type of debt but have also
become a type of ‘commodity’ whose use value to the world’s large investors, along with that of
equities, is to serve as a portable store of value. What follows from this argument is that the huge size of
the US capital markets is the critical factor that not only binds foreign agents to the dollar in the present
but will also continue to do so long into the future, because it will be long before any other national or
regional capital markets can reach a comparable size.
Alt Cause – inflation.
Bartash ’21 [Jeffry. Jeffry Bartash is a reporter for MarketWatch in Washington. “The U.S. economy is
ready to surge again. So is inflation.”. 3/7/21. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-u-s-economy-
is-ready-to-surge-again-so-is-inflation-11614978098]

The U.S. added a robust 379,000 jobs in February, and the economy is primed to take off, but improved
growth prospects might come with a cost in the short run. In a word: inflation. Make no mistake.
Inflation is still very low right now, and it has been for the past decade. The coronavirus pandemic
squelched inflation early last year, and, even now, prices are rising less than 2% a year. The loss of so
many jobs during the pandemic — nearly 10 million are still missing — and resulting drop in demand is
also helping to keep a lid on inflation. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to generate sustained inflation and
higher inflation expectations when the economy is still so far away from full employment,” said chief
economist Scott Anderson of Bank of the West. That could change in the coming months. How come?
Rising oil prices. Shortages of raw materials and other key supplies such as lumber and semiconductors.
And another round of massive government financial aid to Americans. After falling near zero last May,
the yearly increase in the consumer-price index rose to 1.4 % in January — and it’s expected to keep
going up. The CPI is the government’s main tool for tracking the cost of living and determining how
much to increase Social Security benefits every year, among other things. Economists predict the CPI will
increase 0.3% in February, nudging the yearly rate up to as high as 1.7%. The report, which comes out
Wednesday, is the highlight of the week on a light economic calendar. By summer, many economists
estimate the cost of living will be up 2% on a yearly basis and likely push past the Federal Reserve’s 2%
target. The evidence of rising prices is mounting. A pair of purchasing-managers reports last week, for
example, showed that companies are paying sharply higher prices for a wide array of supplies they need
to produce goods and services. One price barometer for business supplies soared to a 10-year peak,
leading a wholesale executive to fret about “an ongoing influx of price increases due to raw-material
shortages, labor shortages and transportation delays.” Then there are oil prices. The cost of petroleum
has jumped 25% since early January after Saudi Arabia and other providers outside the U.S. slashed
production. That’s also feeding into higher prices. Throwing fuel on the fire is nearly $2 trillion in new
financial aid from Washington just as the economy appears to be speeding up. The House is expected to
again pass the bill, with the Senate’s adjustments, in a matter of days, with President Joe Biden signing
the legislation quickly. The upshot is that inflation is all but sure to rise in the months ahead. The big
question: Will it be a temporary phenomenon tied to a full reopening of the economy? Or something
worse that will persevere? Fed Chairman Jerome Powell and most senior central-bank officials are
betting the price increases won’t last. Powell has repeatedly predicted the expected burst of inflation
will peter out and not pose a threat to the economy. The danger, some economists warn, is that a spike
in inflation will create more uncertainty among investors, drive interest rates higher and potentially sap
the economic recovery. Home sales, automobile sales, and many other consumer and business activities
have benefited greatly from rock-bottom interest rates. And that’s not to mention record stock-market
gains that some Fed critics tie to the central bank’s easy-money strategy.
Green New Deal Neg
 Case Neg
1. A2 Green Energy Solvency: Green energy insufficient to solve climate crisis
Clemente, J. (2019, April 29). Five Practical Problems For The “Green New Deal.” Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2019/04/29/five-practical-problems-for-the-green-new-deal/?sh=4b01f0503e8a

Spacing Modern wind and solar farms require huge swaths of land. Giant windmills, for instance, get
spaced a half-mile apart or more. Since “density is green,” this lowers their “green credentials,” while
making compact modern natural gas plants, for instance, more environmentally sound. The 550 MW
Topaz Solar Farm in California occupies 4,600 football fields worth of land. In contrast, the state’s 850
MW gas-powered Delta Energy Center takes up about 15 football fields (20 acres). These unintended
consequences of renewables can’t be ignored. Harvard study: “Wide-scale US wind power could cause
significant warming.” This spacing issue for wind and solar coincides with their underreported “sweet
spot problem.” Not all locations have the same prospects for renewables, justifying why wind-deprived
southeastern states haven't installed Renewable Portfolio Standards. The Midwest, for instance, is great
for wind but building the hundreds of miles of high-voltage power lines to connect distant consuming
areas has proven as difficult and costly as it sounds. Ultimately, the number of places to put a big wind
and solar farm is finite, which is why the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) actually projects that gas will
add nearly 10 times more generation capacity than wind and 34% more than solar additions in the
decades ahead. With prospects based on geography, it’s as obvious as you think: wind and solar builds
will be forced to flatten out at some point. Intermittency The reality is that wind and solar power are
usually only available some 30% of the time, as DOE shows. California’s giant Alta Wind Energy Center,
for instance, has an average capacity factor of just 24%, meaning that 76% of the time it is not producing
the electricity that it could be. It is typically a peaking natural gas plant that compensates for the
intermittency of Mother Nature. In fact, this gas backup is an added practical cost (from both a money
and environmental perspective) for wind and solar that usually doesn’t get factored into their cost
analysis, making them appear cheaper in studies than reality ultimately proves out. Now we know that
storage batteries are advancing to help this intermittency problem for wind and solar, but large-scale
batteries have been promised to us for decades. MIT Technology Review puts it bluntly: batteries are
“far too expensive to play a major role.” And remember that wind and solar are strictly sources of
electricity, meaning that they only compete in ~40% of our total energy demand market. Developing
Nations Howard Schultz is right, the Green New Deal is “immoral,” but for more than he offered The
most telling part of “the value of fossil fuels” is that they supply over 80% of the energy used in the
richest nations on Earth with the healthiest people
2. Jobs Guarantee programs destabilize the labor market and displace low wage
workers(bad forbes article prob will cut later)
Ozimek, A. (2018, April 24). Yes, The Jobs Guarantee Is Absurd. Forbes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/modeledbehavior/2018/04/24/yes-the-jobs-guarantee-is-absurd/?
sh=1f3767adafd0

If the job guarantee ends up with 20, 30, or 40 million instead of the 10 million they expect than that's
not really a problem because massively expanding the size of government isn't really a big deal. But it
would be. The first problem is you lose the output those workers were producing. In that sense, their
production is nationalized quite like when the government takes over an industry, except in this case
they are taking over the labor instead of the capital. What's more, when employers of low skilled
workers go out of business this will also harm the high skilled workers they employ. The second problem
is what this will do to the size of government. Righ now there are about 21 million federal, state, and
local government workers in the U.S. By the authors' calculations, the 10 million more jobs would
increase government employment by a whopping 50%. If only 10 million private sector jobs are crowded
out it would double the size of government. We are going to put to work 50% to 100% more
government workers than we already do, and we should expect that the bill will approximately double
as well. This brings me to the issue of what all of these people will do. It's alleged that there is a ton of
work for government workers to do that isn't being done. Here is my challenge to the people who claim
this: first have all the police officers, teachers, and other public sector workers who are allowed to retire
at age 55 do this work instead of retiring.
3. Populism hasn’t changed economic patterns significantly
Tom Orlik & Justin Jimenez, 19, 5-24-2019, "The People's Economy: The Rise Of Populism And Risk To
Growth", [https://www.fa-mag.com/news/the-people-s-economy--the-rise-of-populism-and-risk-to-
growth-40240.html], AVD
Consider the Group of 20. Establishment political parties in those countries, the avatars of Western
democracy, have seen their share of the G-20’s total economic output shrink in recent years. The most
striking countertrend has been the rise of populism. Populist parties—claiming to defend the common
man against corrupt elites, valuing national unity above cosmopolitan inclusion, and offering simplistic
solutions against complex policy debate—have been gaining strength since the global financial crisis a
decade ago. President Donald Trump in the U.S. is one prominent example. Italy is another. The
Northern League and Five Star Movement swept into power there this year. Populists, according to our
classification, now manage the largest bloc of the G-20 economies. = Here’s how we broke it down: Each
year from 1980, we sorted the governments of the G-20 countries plus Spain into four categories—
establishment democracy, populist democracy, weak democracy, and authoritarian—and tracked what
portion of the G-20’s total gross domestic product they oversaw. A couple of things emerge from this
analysis. First, the populist category jumped in 2016. That reflects our decision to characterize the U.S.
as “populist” after Trump’s election and to shift the world’s largest economy into the category. Second,
the rise of China means that authoritarian regimes, with strong central power and limited political
freedom, play an expanded role. That’s a significant shift in how the world economy is run. So far it
hasn’t had a major negative impact on growth and financial stability . Is it only a matter of time? A
deeper look at the relationship of governance to growth reveals some nuance about what’s likely to be
important in that regard. To put some numbers to it: When you add up the nominal output of the G-20
states plus Spain, their combined GDP is about $64 trillion. Populist governments now control 41
percent of that. By contrast, in 2007, before the crisis roiled the world, the figure was only 4 percent.
Mainstream democratic parties, which typically occupy the center of the political spectrum, have gone
from dominance to minority. They preside over only 32 percent of the G-20 output. In 2007 they
accounted for 83 percent.
4. Populism has benefited the US economy
Paul Solman, 18, 5-10-2018, "How American populism is reshaping economic policy",
[https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-american-populism-is-reshaping-economic-policy], AVD
If President Trump has had one consistent message since the beginning of his campaign, it's that
America is getting a raw deal in the global economy. Policy changes like import tariffs and reworking
NAFTA, and the people who support them, are all part of a rising wave of populism. What’s fueling the
fire? Economics correspondent Paul Solman reports. Read the Full Transcript John Yang: During his
presidential campaign in 2016, President Trump often spoke about changing trade policies, including
revamping the North American Free Trade Agreement and imposing tariffs on imports. He argued these
changes would protect American jobs and the economy. That populist message struck a chord with
many voters, but why? Our economics correspondent, Paul Solman, has a look at how growing public
discontent has turned into a major political force. It's part of his weekly series, Making Sense. President
Donald Trump: We have rebuilt China. They have taken so much money out of our country. Paul Solman:
If President Trump has had one consistent message since the beginning of his campaign, it's been that
America is getting a raw deal in the global economy. President Donald Trump: Our factories were
shuttered. Our steel mills closed down, and our jobs were stolen away and shipped far away to other
countries, some of which you have never even heard of. Paul Solman: Now manufacturing jobs are
ticking up, the president has imposed a host of tariffs, that is, taxes, on imports and threatened more.
And reworking NAFTA, the agreement that regulates trade with Canada and Mexico, is also on his
economic agenda. President Donald Trump: We're going to get it opened up, or we're not doing
business with these other countries, right? Paul Solman: It's playing well with the president's base, as
evidenced by a recent rally in Michigan. Woman: He's brought the awareness to getting that trade back
from China. Man: And then we're going to see undeniable results. Paul Solman: The policy changes and
the people who support them are all part of an ideology known as populism. Raghuram Rajan:
Populism is generally a sense that the elite are corrupt and that there is a group which stands for the will
of the people. Paul Solman: Former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and later the
head of India's Central Bank, Raghuram Rajan, thinks the recent populist wave has an economic basis,
which, he says- Raghuram Rajan: Reflects to some extent a frustration with the pace of economic
growth.
5. Economic downturns don’t cause conflict
Clary 15 (Ph.D. in Political Science from MIT, Postdoctoral Fellow, Watson Institute for International
Studies, Brown University, “Economic Stress and International Cooperation: Evidence from International
Rivalries,” April 22, 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2597712)
Do economic downturns generate pressure for diversionary conflict? Or might downturns encourage
austerity and economizing behavior in foreign policy? This paper provides new evidence that economic
stress is associated with conciliatory policies between strategic rivals. For states that view each other as
military threats, the biggest step possible toward bilateral cooperation is to terminate the rivalry by
taking political steps to manage the competition. Drawing on data from 109 distinct rival dyads since
1950, 67 of which terminated, the evidence suggests rivalries were approximately twice as likely to
terminate during economic downturns than they were during periods of economic normalcy. This is true
controlling for all of the main alternative explanations for peaceful relations between foes (democratic
status, nuclear weapons possession, capability imbalance, common enemies, and international systemic
changes), as well as many other possible confounding variables. This research questions existing
theories claiming that economic downturns are associated with diversionary war, and instead argues
that in certain circumstances peace may result from economic troubles.
6. Economic decline doesn’t cause war, 08 would have ended the world if so
Drezner 14 (Daniel Drezner, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during
the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164)
The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn't barked: the effect of the Great Recession on
cross-border conflict and violence. During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that
the financial crisis would lead states to increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.42 They
voiced genuine concern that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict—
whether through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great
power conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the
disruptions of the Occupy movement fueled impressions of a surge in global public disorder. The
aggregate data suggest otherwise, however. The Institute for Economics and Peace has concluded that
"the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as it was in 2007."43 Interstate
violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis, as have military expenditures in
most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any increase
in violent conflict, as Lotta Themner and Peter Wallensteen conclude: "[T]he pattern is one of relative
stability when we consider the trend for the past five years."44 The secular decline in violence that
started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed. Rogers Brubaker observes that "the crisis
has not to date generated the surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have
been expected."43

7. Warming doesn’t cause extinction.

Farquhar et al. 17 Sebastian Farquhar, DPhil student at Oxford specializing in Cyber Security and AI.
John Halstead, doctorate in political philosophy. Owen Cotton-Barratt, DPhil in pure mathematics. Stefan
Schubert, Oxford's department of experimental psychology. Haydn Belfield, degree in Philosophy,
Politics and Economics from Oriel College. Andrew Snyder-Beattie, Director of Research at the Future of
Humanity Institute, University of Oxford, MS in biomathematics. [Existential Risk: Diplomacy and
Governance, Global Priorities Project 2017]
The most likely levels of global warming are very unlikely to cause human extinction.15 The existential
risks of climate change instead stem from tail risk climate change – the low probability of extreme
levels of warming – and interaction with other sources of risk. It is impossible to say with confidence at
what point global warming would become severe enough to pose an existential threat. Research has
suggested that warming of 11-12°C would render most of the planet uninhabitable,16 and would
completely devastate agriculture.17 This would pose an extreme threat to human civilisation as we
know it.18 Warming of around 7°C or more could potentially produce conflict and instability on such a
scale that the indirect effects could be an existential risk, although it is extremely uncertain how likely
such scenarios are.19 Moreover, the timescales over which such changes might happen could mean that
humanity is able to adapt enough to avoid extinction in even very extreme scenarios.
8. Russia outweighs US
Gerretsten 21 (Isabelle, “Methane emissions from Russian pipelines surged during the coronavirus pandemic,” Climate Change News,
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/03/04/methane-emissions-russian-pipelines-surged-coronavirus-pandemic/)//BB

The International Energy Agency (IEA) reported in January that Russia is the world’s largest methane
emitter. Last year the country produced 13,953 kt of methane emissions, almost 20% of the 70 Mt of
methane released into the atmosphere worldwide last year. After Russia, the biggest emitters were the
US, Iran and Turkmenistan. “We have no chance of meeting our climate targets or targets for
decarbonisation if we don’t start to deal with methane emissions in countries that produce large
amounts of oil and gas like Russia,” Banks told Climate Home News.
Funding Offsets Disadvantage
50 States Counter Plan
Federalism Disadvantage
Capitalism Kritik