Aff Consumption K 7WK

8/22/2019 Aff Consumption K 7WK

1/24


2/24

Aff Answers


3/24

Alt Causes To Warming


4/24

Alt causesReay 05 Marine Biology at Liverpool University, a PhD with the British Antarctic Survey and Essex University, Led MultipleStudies on Greenhouse Gases (Dave, 2005, Climate Change Begins at Home, pg. 26)//DR. H

Energy use at home is the next big hitter, accounting for over a third of emissions. Nearly half of

this is due to the heating and cooling of our homes. Refrigerators, freezers and all the otherappliances and gadgets come a close second. These appliance-related emissions are increasing, aswe fill our kitchens with ice-cream makers and giant refrigerators, our living rooms with huge plasma TV screens andour shelves with music centres and computers. Next comes water heating at about 15% of householdemissions, depending on the fuel used. Gas, for instances leads to far less carbon dioxide than does electricity from acoal-fired power station. Lighting comes in at 5-10% - more for those with a penchant for floodlighting their property.Cooking and clothes washing complete the picture. Food makes up another large slice of our total greenhousegas pie. The expectation of year-round availability of every-thing from kumquats to lemon grass, via salmon,tiger prawns and wild boar, means that the items of food in an average shopping basket can collectivelyhave travelled 240,000 km, giving them a huge climate change tag. Add to this the methaneemissions from belching cows and the miasma of nitrous oxide rising from fertilizer-soakedfarmland, and food is responsible for 10-20% of our impact on the climate.Waste is responsible for

between 5% and 10% of our green-house gas emissions. Primarily this is because old food and newspapers transported tolandfill sites rot down to produce the powerful greenhouse gas methane. But every shampoo bottle, drinks can andtoothpick that goes into our bins also took energy to produce it, and so represents even more green-housegas.


5/24

Turn


6/24

Turn Individualization Results in Ineffective SolutionsKibert et al. 12 Charles J. Kibert (Charles J. Kibert is a Professor and Director of the Powell Centerfor Construction and Environment at the University of Florida. He is co-founder and President of theCross Creek Initiative, a non-profit industry/university joint venture seeking to implement sustainabilityprinciples into construction. He has been vice-chair of the Curriculum and Accreditation Committee of

the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and helped create the first ever student chapter of the USGBCfor which he serves as faculty advisor.), Leslie Thiele (teaches political theory and serves as Director ofSustainability Studies at the University of Florida. His interdisciplinary research focuses on sustainabilityissues and the intersection of political philosophy and the natural sciences. His central concerns are theresponsibilities of citizenship and the opportunities for leadership in a world of rapid technological, social,and ecological change. ), Anna Peterson, (Department of Religion at the University of Florida. Shereceived her PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School. Her main research and teaching areasare environmental and social ethics, religion and politics, and religion in Latin America.), and MarthaMonroe (Professor of Environmental Education and Extension, at the School of Forest Resources and

Conservation of the University of Florida), The Ethics of Sustainability,http://www.cce.ufl.edu/current/ethics/Ethics%20of%20Sustainability%20Textbook.pdf)//EAAnother helpful category from environmental studies scholarship on consumption is individualization, whichrefers to the tendency to think of social problems, including environmental harm,

as essentially individual in both their causes and potential solution (Princen, Maniates, andConca, 2002b: 15). Individualization means, in practical terms, that people often believethat small scale actions such as planting a tree or riding a bike can makeenough difference to save the world (Maniates 2002: 43). When we individualizeresponsibility for environmental problems, we ignore the ways that largescalepatterns and institutions, including economic systems and the nature and exerciseof political power affect individual consumption patterns (Maniates 2002: 45).We thinkthat the decision about, for example, whether or not to drive to work alone reflectsonly private factors, such as personal preferences, family lifestyle, and economiccircumstances. Further analysis, however, quickly reveals that such decisions are also heavily influenced by structuralfactors such as the availability of public transportation, the safety and accessibility of pedestrian and bicycle routes, and the location

ofbusinesses and other public and private facilities. The failure to take seriously the larger social

forces that shape purchasers decisions often leads to wrong diagnoses of causesand ineffective efforts at solutions. We may think that educating people about theconsequences of a particular action is all that is necessary to achieve lastingchange. This is wrong for at least two reasons. First, individual behavior is heavilyshaped by social and institutional factors, including ease of access, peer supportand pressure, and the presence of good examples. Individual factors such as theamount of information or education that a person receives, or even personal

values and convictions, do not by themselves motivate changed behavior (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999).When we individualize responsibility, in other words, wemisunderstand what motivates, facilitates, and sometimes obstructs practices.Further, and perhaps more important, even when individual behavior does change, the scale is not adequate to address the major

environmental (or social or economic) problems that we face. Thus in addition to changed individualbehaviors, such as using public transportation or eating locally, environmental

and social problems require changes in regional and national policies andinstitutions. Such changes might include increased miles per gallon standards for cars, greater funding for publictransportation, and an end to the perverse subsidies that encourage environmentally damaging agricultural production, amongmany others. This is not to say that individual behavioral changes are not necessary and important they are, as we will discuss at

more length later in this chapter. However, we cannot make our personal practices matterunless we understand them in larger contexts. Like distancing, individualizationis a problem not only in relation to the environmental impacts of consumption butalso for sustainability more broadly. There are no purely individual solutions tosocial problems such as racial and gender inequality or homelessness, nor to


7/24

economic problems, including the banking, housing, and employment crises that appeared in 2008.Whileindividual practices can contribute to these problems or to their solutions,individuals as individuals can neither cause them nor end them. This is true for allthe social, economic, and environmental dimensions of sustainability, which is acollective goal that can be achieved only by collective efforts. Such efforts must include large-scale changes in public policy, infrastructure, land use, and economic institutions, among other factors. If we think about

these problems as distant from us, or as merely personal issues, we fail tounderstand their causes and potential solutions.While we should not think aboutindividual actions in isolation, individual and personal practices are importantand necessary in order to support institutional changes, in the marketplace, incommunity and civic organizations, and in government from local to nationallevels. They can also be valuable in a host of other, perhaps less tangible ways,including setting examples, showing possibilities, and creating community.Again,seeking sustainability is always a multi-faceted and challenging task. It involvesthinking about environmental, social, and economic issues. It requires thinkingabout different geographic scales, from the local to the global. It entails thinkingabout individual actions as well as their systemic and structural contexts. Perhapsmost of all, understanding and seeking sustainability demands that we think

about the relations among these various dimensions, scales, and levels.


8/24

No Alt Solvency


9/24

Theres a HUGE gap between Wanting change andcreating change. Prefer the Aff because it makes a policychoice.Kibert et al. 12 Charles J. Kibert (Charles J. Kibert is a Professor and Director of the Powell Centerfor Construction and Environment at the University of Florida. He is co-founder and President of theCross Creek Initiative, a non-profit industry/university joint venture seeking to implement sustainabilityprinciples into construction. He has been vice-chair of the Curriculum and Accreditation Committee ofthe U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and helped create the first ever student chapter of the USGBCfor which he serves as faculty advisor.), Leslie Thiele (teaches political theory and serves as Director ofSustainability Studies at the University of Florida. His interdisciplinary research focuses on sustainabilityissues and the intersection of political philosophy and the natural sciences. His central concerns are theresponsibilities of citizenship and the opportunities for leadership in a world of rapid technological, social,and ecological change. ), Anna Peterson, (Department of Religion at the University of Florida. Shereceived her PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School. Her main research and teaching areasare environmental and social ethics, religion and politics, and religion in Latin America.), and MarthaMonroe (Professor of Environmental Education and Extension, at the School of Forest Resources and

Conservation of the University of Florida), The Ethics of Sustainability,

http://www.cce.ufl.edu/current/ethics/Ethics%20of%20Sustainability%20Textbook.pdf)//EAOne critical element of adopting a new practice is information . People need to knowwhat,how, and sometimes why before they can make a change. Information enables people to form beliefs about behaviors, the process of

conducting a behavior, and the consequences of their actions. But having beliefs about the consequencesof theirbehavior doesnt always mean people will act appropriately(as demonstrated bythe still numerous environmentalists who fly to annual conferences) and beliefs that prompt action may not

be based on current information (such as those who shun aerosol cansbecause they believe they contain CFCs).Thus information is not the only importantvariable in forming beliefs, and beliefsare not the only component of behavior. Researchers hunting for the ultimate answer to the question ofwhat changes behavior then turned to attitudes. Attitudes have two elements: a positive or negative emotional response coupled to

a belief. An attitude predisposes someone toward or away from an action.A behavior often includes severalattitudes, each a combination of a belief and affective element. They need not be equal. Aconference attendee could acknowledge the negative consequences of flying and feel bad about her behavior, but hold a stronger

positive attitude about the benefit of attending the conference for her work. Indeed, how people feel about theinformation and the behavior often have some bearing on whether they adopt thenew practice, but the combination of attitudes an individual holds, such as forhealth, status, job security, or family well-being may not all support the same

behavior, and as a result we either tolerate the dissonance or convince ourselvesthat some factors are not very important. Martin Fishbein and Izak Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior2suggests that attitudes are one important factor that help determine our actions. There are two other factors,subjective norms and perceived control, and taken together, these three elementsdo a fairly good job of predicting whether people will adopt or change a behavior.Subjective norm is one of the determinants of behavior because people care about

what other people think. This social influence is not awarded to everyone, but rather to thosewhom the individualchooses to care about.When a company president releases a statement about the ethics of

sustainability, for example, those who care about winning the presidentsapproval may be motivated to value sustainability. If the janitorial staff do not care about thepresidents new-fangled ideas nor see how it affects them, they will forget it. So this second element is aproduct of what a person whose opinion matters to me thinks about me adoptingthe behavior and the degree I care about how that personwill feel. An employer who wishesto use this element to sway someones behavior may not leave an interpretation of his desires to chance. Instead of a blanket

message about thevalue of sustainability, a savvy leader might say, This company will lead ourcompetitors in sustainability and I will be paying attention to where the best ideasare generated. For employees who care about how their supervisor perceives their work, there would be no doubt what the


10/24

supervisor values. The third component is perceived control. The best information, most positiveattitudes, and most supportive subjective norm will not change behavior if people

believe they are not able to perform the behavior. Some environments are simplynot conducive to installing solar technology. Some stores do not carry fair tradechocolate . Wanting to adopt these behaviors will not be enough to make it happen .Even when the behavior is possible, if an individual does not have the confidence

in his or her ability to perform the action, the lack of perceived control mayprevent the behavior from occurring. If previous experience with suggesting a new idea results in anindividual feeling foolish, an employee may stifle new ideas or may route them through individuals who are more likely to be

applauded for their innovative ideas. The latter would be a case of having enough perceivedcontrol to understand who would be a better conveyor of the idea . In the personal realm, ifcommuters believe bicycling to work is more strenuous than it actually is, being supported to try a behavior may enable them tobuild enough confidence in their own abilities to overcome their original perception.


11/24

Alt cant solvewere addictedReay 05 Marine Biology at Liverpool University, a PhD with the British Antarctic Survey and Essex University, Led MultipleStudies on Greenhouse Gases (Dave, 2005, Climate Change Begins at Home, pg. 27)//DR. H

Cutting emissions, as with all addictive habits, takes awareness and willpower. You're a smoker

and you like smoking, but you also know that if you carry on smoking it will probably kill you, soyou'd like to give up. Going overnight from a twenty-a-day user to a gibbering cold turkeydoesn't appeal to most people, and often doesn't work in the long run. instead, you cut down more gradually, you chewgum, put on patches, avoid the pub, whatever makes the transition easier. Then one day you get to a stage where thefirst thing you think of when you wake up isn't a cigarette, and you know you can do it.Some lifestyle changes may seem so small as to be irrelevant, and on their own they are, but theyrepresent that firstnicotine patch a start. Right now we live in a car-dominated culture with very limited publictransport. It's very difficult for most of us to simply forgo cars altogether and a fantasy to believethat, like the cold turkey smoker,we can all just kick our car habit overnight. Try telling a harassed mother ofthree, lugging her shopping bags and children a mile home from the nearest bus stop through driving rain, that it's OK because she'sdoing her bit for the planet.


12/24

Consumption Good


13/24

Consumerism is goodJohnson 05 - completed his undergraduate degree at Brown University, where he studied semiotics,a part of Brown's modern culture and media department.He also has a graduate degree from ColumbiaUniversityin English literature, the author of seven books on the intersection of science, technology andpersonal experience. He has also co-created three influential web sites: the pioneering online

magazine FEED, the Webby-Award-winning community site, Plastic.com, and most recently the hyperlocal media site outside.in. A contributing editor to Wired, he writes regularly for The New YorkTimes, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, and many other periodicals. Johnson also serves onthe advisory boards of a number of Internet-related companies, including Meetup.com, Betaworks, andNerve. (Steven, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making UsSmarter, May 2005, http://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdf) MSD

The most debased forms of mass diversion video games and violent televisiondramas and juvenile sitcoms - turn out to be nutritional after all. For decades,

we've worked under the assumption that mass culture follows a steadily decliningpath toward lowest-common-denominator standards, presumably because the"masses" want dumb, simple pleasures and big media companies want to give themasses what they want. But in fact, the exact opposite is happening: the culture isgetting more intellectually demanding, not less. Most of the time, criticism thattakes pop culture seriously involves performing some kind of symbolic analysis,decoding the work to demonstrate the way it represents some other aspect ofsociety. You can see this symbolic approach at work in academic cultural studiesprograms analyzing the ways in which pop forms expressed the struggle of variousdisenfranchised groups: gays and lesbians, people of color, women, the third

world. You can see it at work in the "zeitgeist" criticism featured in media sectionsof newspapers and newsweeklies, where the critic establishes a symbolicrelationship between the work and some spirit of the age: yuppie self-indulgence,say, or post-9/11 anxiety.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semioticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_Magazinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic.comhttp://outside.in/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Financial_Timeshttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semioticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_Magazinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic.comhttp://outside.in/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Financial_Timeshttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_University


14/24

Consumerism makes us SmarterJohnson 05 - completed his undergraduate degree at Brown University, where he studied semiotics,a part of Brown's modern culture and media department.He also has a graduate degree from ColumbiaUniversityin English literature, the author of seven books on the intersection of science, technology andpersonal experience. He has also co-created three influential web sites: the pioneering online

magazine FEED, the Webby-Award-winning community site, Plastic.com, and most recently the hyperlocal media site outside.in. A contributing editor to Wired, he writes regularly for The New YorkTimes, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, and many other periodicals. Johnson also serves onthe advisory boards of a number of Internet-related companies, including Meetup.com, Betaworks, andNerve. (Steven, Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making UsSmarter, May 2005, http://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdf) MSD

But to see the virtue in this form of positive brainwashing, we need to begin bydoing away with the tyranny of the morality play. When most op-ed writers and talk show hosts discussthe social value of media, when they address the question of whether today's media is or isn't good for us, the underlying assumptionis that entertainment improves us when it carries a healthy message. Shows that promote smoking or gratuitous violence are bad for

us, while those that thunder against teen pregnancy or intolerance have a positive role in society. Judged by thatmorality play standard, the story of popular culture over the past fifty years if not

five hundred - is a story of steady decline: the morals of the stories have growndarker and more ambiguous, and the anti-heroes have multiplied. The usualcounterargument here is that what media has lost in moral clarity it has gained inrealism. The real world doesn't come in nicely pack aged public serviceannouncements, and we're better off with entertainment that reflects that fallenstate with all its ethical ambiguity. I happen to be sympathetic to that argument,

but it's not the one I want to make here. I think there is another way to assess thesocial virtue of pop culture, one that looks at media as a kind of cognitive workout,not as a series of life lessons. Those dice baseball games I immersed myself in didn't contain anything resemblingmoral instruction, but they nonetheless gave me a set of cognitive tools that I continue to rely on, nearly thirty years later. Theremay indeed be more "negative messages" in the media sphere today, as the ParentsTelevision Council believes. But that's not the only way to evaluate whether our

television shows or video games are having a positive impact. Just as important - ifnot more important - is the kind of thinking you have to do to make sense of acultural experience. That is where the Sleeper Curve becomes visible. Today'spopular culture may not be showing us the righteous path. But it is making ussmarter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semioticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_Magazinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic.comhttp://outside.in/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Financial_Timeshttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semioticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Universityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_Magazinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic.comhttp://outside.in/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wired.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nytimes.comhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wall_Street_Journalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Financial_Timeshttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdfhttp://users.rowan.edu/~kopp/Everything%20Bad%20is%20Good%20for%20You.pdf


15/24

Consumption Inevitable


16/24

Investment in Consumption is Key to sustainabilityEHRLICH and GOULDER 07 - American biologist and educator who is the BingProfessor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford Universityand president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology and Professor of Environmentaland Resource Economics, (Paul and Lawrence, Is Current Consumption Excessive? A GeneralFramework and Some Indications for the United States, Stanford, 2007,http://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdf)Investment plays a central role in achieving sustainability. It is needed to maintain capital assetsand thus a societys ability to provide goods and services. Investment helps maintain capitalthree ways. First, it yields new capital that replaces worn out or retired old capital. Reproduciblecapital physically depreciates with time and use, and investment in its repair or replacement canhelp maintain or augment its current effective quantity. Similarly, a societys stock of employedhuman capital would also decline in the absence of investments in education because workersage and retire. Educating new and younger workers offsets what otherwise would be a reductionin human capital.
http://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdf


17/24

Consumption is SustainableEHRLICH and GOULDER 07 - American biologist and educator who is the BingProfessor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford Universityand president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology and Professor of Environmentaland Resource Economics, (Paul and Lawrence, Is Current Consumption Excessive? A GeneralFramework and Some Indications for the United States, Stanford, 2007,http://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdf)

Although society cannot produce new stocks of, say, petroleum, it has the potential to maintainits overall productive capacity and offset the decline in this asset by expanding the stocks ofother capital assets (e.g., solar-hydrogen energy systems, or wind farms). Thus, investment in adifferent type of capital can potentially offset the loss of natural capital stocks.
http://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdfhttp://www.stanford.edu/~goulder/Ehrlich-Goulder%20Consumption%20Paper%20-%20Cons%20Biol%2021(5).pdf


18/24

Consumption is SustainableFriedman 57 An American economist, statistician, and author who taught at theUniversity of Chicago for more than three decades. (Milton, A THEORY OFTHE CONSUMPTION FUNCTION, Princeton University Press, 1957,http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4403.pdf) MSDKeynes took it for granted that current consumption expenditure is a highlydependable and stable function of current income.that "the amount of aggregateconsumption mainly depends on the amount of aggregate income (both measuredin terms of wage units)." He termed it a "fundamental psychological rule of anymodern community that, when its real income is increased, it will not increase itsconsumption by an equal absolute amount," and stated somewhat less definitelythat "as a rule, . . . a greater proportion of income. . . (is) saved as real incomeincreases."
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4403.pdfhttp://www.nber.org/chapters/c4403.pdf


19/24

Consumption is SustainableFriedman 57 An American economist, statistician, and author who taught at theUniversity of Chicago for more than three decades. (Milton, A THEORY OFTHE CONSUMPTION FUNCTION, Princeton University Press, 1957,http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4403.pdf) MSDThe doubts about the adequacy of the Keynesian consumption function raised bythe empirical evidence were reinforced by the theoretical controversy aboutKeynes's proposition that there is no automatic force in a monetary economy toassure the existence of a full-employment equilibrium position. A number of

writers, particularly Haberler and Pigou,8 demonstrated that this analyticalproposition is invalid if consumption expenditure is taken to be a function not onlyof income but also of wealth or, to put it differently, if the average propensity toconsume is taken to depend in a particular way on the ratio of wealth to income.This dependence is required for the so-called "Pigou effect." This suggestion was

widely accepted, not only because of its consistency with general economic theory,but also because it seemed to offer a plausible explanation for the high ratioconsumption to income in the immediate postwar period. One empirical study, by

William Hamburger, finds that the ratio of wealth to income is closely correlatedwith the ratio of consumption to income, as judged by aggregate time series datafor the interwar and post-World War II period.9 Other studies, particularly some

by Klein, have used budget data to investigate the role of particular kinds ofwealth, especially liquid assets
http://www.nber.org/chapters/c4403.pdfhttp://www.nber.org/chapters/c4403.pdf


20/24

Developed Technologies if Transferred to the ThirdWorld, SolvesButler 3 phD Philosophy (Colin David Butler, Overpopulation, overconsumption andeconomics,

http://anu.academia.edu/ColinButler/Papers/814864/Overpopulation_overconsumption_and_economics)//EAThose in the developed world may watch with horror the explosion of numbers ofthird world poor if followed by closer of the demographic trap through war,epidemics, famine, or all three. They and their political leaders may hope thatthese catastrophes will not threaten Northern security. However, if millions ofecological refuges were to find the means to migrate to the North a very realsecurity threat would be perceived. Similarly, the technological impact of billions of21st century Third World subsistence farmers may create little Northern strategicconcern provided the per caput environmental impact of the South remains low.However, if the South gains widespread access to 20th century technologies withsufficient fossil fuel supplies, affluent countries will be threatened by at least two

other traps the energy trap and the technology trap. We in the North have amoral imperative to allow less developed countries the same technological benefitsthat we enjoy. This issue is also of strategic concern, as recognized by politicians such as US Vice-President Al Gore.Development of new generations of environmentally sustainable technology must

be achieved and transferred as quickly as possible to developing nations so thatthey can leap-frog pollution 20th century technologies. Technology transfer fromthe First to the Third World must not stop at vaccination or oral rehydrationtechniques. Nor should such transfer be coca-colonisation: or the selling of the latest military hardware. The resourcedemand index (RDI) of the average US citizen is 67 times that of the average Indonesian. The US and otherNorthern countries must devise ways to maintain their living standards with lowerenvironmental impact, and the technologies developed to so this must betransferred urgently to the South. Transfer of technology must go hand in hand

with promotion of family planning. The carrying capacity of our planet will bestretched to the limit if Indonesia and other Southern countries achieve anythinglike the existing Northern per caput RDI. If this occurs with a rapidly growing population, human survivalwill be jeopardised. The Clinton administrations reversal of the Bush policy to surtail funding for Third World family planning outof deference to domestic pro-life lobby is a welcome sign of change. However, Australia lately suspended A$130 million (US $87

million) family planning aid programme at the behest of a single Catholic senator. Planners and politiciansdiscount events in the distant future . In the same way that 1000 deaths in theSouth approximate one death in our immediate (Northern) neighbourhood, a faminepredicted for 2050 is deemed of minor concern, and further discounted if wedistrust the prediction. Altruism, though a powerful force, is unlikely to changeour existing consumption patterns, especially when results take years to manifest.However, self-preservation is a very powerful motivator of behavioural change.Lobbyist for sustainable development must prove that in the self-interest of the

Norths and religious institutions to take these concerns seriously.


21/24

Permutation


22/24

The Time for The Alt has Passed. Only Politicalaction Solves. PERM DO THE PLAN/ PERM DOBOTH

Voynet 7 , Co-Founder of the Ecologist political party Les Verts, Minister ofEnvironment of Land Planning Policies (1997-2001), Mayor of Montreuil (Dominque, Whatlimits and what kind of development?,Making Peace with the Earth)//EA

We know the diagnosis, and we are sometimes daunted by the scale of thechallenges and the task of addressing them. It is a global challenge. But how canwe ask the emerging powers to be more moderate? How can we dream of asking a billion human beings who lack the bare necessities

of life to make an effort that we ourselves are incapable of making? The situation is wholly new, and itwill lead to increasing demands on political decision-makers in France, Europe and therest of the world, as catastrophes and tensions manifest themselves. Dennis Meadows was right to point to a general tendency on thepart of politicians to make decisions with an eye to the next elections. We also suffer from the fact that we have to meet theparadoxical demands of citizens who know that everything must be changed but ask us not to alter anything that affects their daily

way of life. So the business of becoming aware, denouncing, and alerting is over.The task now is to change things . But beware: this does not mean promising to recover what is already lostforever. It is illusory to think we can go on living as we do at present; we knowthat our way of life is not exportable, not only because that would caseincreasing damage and jeopardize the survival of humanity in the long term

but also because it is simply impossible in terms of energy resources. The wayout will involve greater awareness that the planet is finite and that all its inhabitants are making a common journey. This is

vital if we wish to cope with the shock of future ecological migrations, withthe clash of civilizations. We need more effective governance, a strongerdemocracy. The necessary changes will be achieved not by decree butthrough the support of the public at large.This is not a technologicalquestion. We have long been accustomed to reason that every problem willfind its solution in technological innovation, and that has always justified

forgoing ahead regardless. Essentially, we already know the solutions : we knowvery well how to construct houses that do not consume energy at all; we know very well how to introduce more effective energysystems and forms of agriculture that are less harmful to the soil and safer for consumers. It is no longer a question of how manyinhabitants the Earth could feed: we can feed 9 billion people by 2050 so long as we do not imagine that we can develop competingenergy cultures and we recognize that the diet of Europeans and Americans is too meat-reliant and too rich to be exported, and somust be changed.


23/24

The Negs Framing Of the Aff and the Alt as mutuallyExclusive restricts the possibility of change. Only thePermutation Solves.Kibert et al. 12 Charles J. Kibert (Charles J. Kibert is a Professor and Director of the Powell Centerfor Construction and Environment at the University of Florida. He is co-founder and President of theCross Creek Initiative, a non-profit industry/university joint venture seeking to implement sustainabilityprinciples into construction. He has been vice-chair of the Curriculum and Accreditation Committee ofthe U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) and helped create the first ever student chapter of the USGBCfor which he serves as faculty advisor.), Leslie Thiele (teaches political theory and serves as Director ofSustainability Studies at the University of Florida. His interdisciplinary research focuses on sustainabilityissues and the intersection of political philosophy and the natural sciences. His central concerns are theresponsibilities of citizenship and the opportunities for leadership in a world of rapid technological, social,and ecological change. ), Anna Peterson, (Department of Religion at the University of Florida. Shereceived her PhD from the University of Chicago Divinity School. Her main research and teaching areasare environmental and social ethics, religion and politics, and religion in Latin America.), and MarthaMonroe (Professor of Environmental Education and Extension, at the School of Forest Resources and

Conservation of the University of Florida), The Ethics of Sustainability,

http://www.cce.ufl.edu/current/ethics/Ethics%20of%20Sustainability%20Textbook.pdf)//EAEthical traditions, both religious and secular, provide tools for thinking about difficultissues in a complicated world. They are thus a vital element of effective andsuccessful decision-making processes. This is especially important forsustainability, which seeks to integrate diverse and sometimes conflicting ethicaland practical goals. Sustainable decision-making involves a number of factors, many of which arediscussed in detail in the next chapter. In this chapter, we look at the distinctive contributions to that

decisionmaking process that might come from ethics as a philosophical subfield. Ethics can helppeople identify the values that are most important to them and analyze possibleactions or outcomes in relation to these values. However, ethics is not simplyabout applying pre-established rules to clear-cut situations. First of all, multiple

values are involved in many decisions, and certainly in those that aim toward

sustainability. Thus the choice is never just between good or evil but rather amongvarious goods. Further, the relationship among different goods is almost alwayscomplex. Rarely do genuine goods stand in such stark opposition to each otherthat the choice is a simple onebetween, for example, jobs or endangered species.

Anyone who frames complicated decisions in such dualistic terms is usuallyobscuring or ignoring important pieces of the problem. The issue of how to frameethical problems in constructive and fruitful ways is vital but underappreciated it is especiallyrelevant for problems of sustainability, where popular discourse often definesproblems as stark choices between economic or environmental goods. In suchsituations, one of the most important tasks of ethics is asking questions that helplead to good solutions. The philosopher Anthony Weston notes that if we are to find the

best solutions to our ethical problems, we first need to find the best problems.6

Better framing of ethical issues makes it possible to avoid obstacles that

frequently prevent people from arriving at solutions that maximize diverse goods.One of the most common obstacles, in both popular and scholarly ethics, is the tendencyto conceive of decisions as dilemmas with only two mutually exclusive andopposed solutions. When people stop thinking in terms of dualistic choices, theymay engage in creative searches for alternative solutions that do not require thesacrifice of importantvalues. In searching for sustainability it may be possible

both to preserve wildlife habitat and to increase economic security for localresidents, for example, by thinking creatively about developing more sustainable


24/24

kinds of jobs, adopting different farming methods, or protecting land throughinnovate means such as wildlife corridors. Such expansive solutions will not bepossible, however, if decision makers understand economic and environmentalgoods as mutually exclusive and thus see their moral choices as between twodiametrically opposed alternatives.

Aff Consumption K 7WK

Documents

Transcript of Aff Consumption K 7WK