1

T not an increase
The plan is not an increase it's creation
Increase means make greater
Meriam Webster 13 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/increase

increase verb \in-krs, in-\

increasedincreasing
Definition of INCREASE intransitive verb
1: to become progressively greater (as in size, amount, number, or
intensity)
2: to multiply by the production of young
transitive verb
1: to make greater : augment
2 obsolete : enrich
The plan creates a whole new area of exploration / development. Increase
does not include create
Words and Phrases '59

vol 20A p 381

Increased, as used in Wests Ann.Cal. Const. art 12, 11, providing

that the stock and bonded indebtedness of corporations shall not be
increased without the consent of the person holding the larger amount of
the stock, does not include or apply to the first creation of bonded
indebtedness. To give it such a meaning would be to inject into the
provision the word create. Union Loan & Trust Co. v. Southern
California Motor Road Co., 51 F 840,850
The affirmative interpretation is bad for debate
Limits are necessary for negative preparation and clash. Adding to existing
efforts provides a finite set of cases. Creation unlimits. There are limitless
possibilities.
Swaminathan 3
Dr K V Swaminathan, Waterfalls Institute of Technology Transfer (WITT) February 2003 Ocean
Vistas http://www.witts.org/Ocean_wealth/oceanwealth_01_feb03/wista_oceanwealth_feture.htm

The oceans cover nearly two-thirds of the world's surface area and
have profoundly influenced the course of human development. Indeed the
great markers in mans progress around the world are in a large measure
the stages in his efforts to master the oceans. Nations and people who
are conscious of the almost limitless potential of the oceans. Those
who have sought to comprehend its deep mysteries, processes and
rhythms and have made efforts to explore and utilize its resources, stand

in the van of progress, while those who have been indifferent to the
critical role that oceans play in human life and its development, have
remained mired in stagnation and backwardness.
C. T is voter because it's necessary for good, well-prepared debating

2
Desalination is a bourgeois solution to the water crisis it produces
environmental destruction and displaces true attempts at fostering water
democracy
Wharton 13, Billy Wharton- an American democratic socialist politician and co-chair of the Socialist Party USA. He is also
the former editor of The Socialist and the current editor of the Socialist WebZine, February 19, 2013, Water Democracy and the
Politics of Desalination, http://socialistwebzine.blogspot.com/2013/02/water-politics-may-be-next-big-thing-on.html

The most recent attempt to by-pass the crisis of fresh water in capitalism relies on a
combination of childhood naivete and advanced science. Why don't we just use the ocean
water? Science has provided an answer to this through the process of reverse osmosis. Water is run through a series of filters which serve to
desalinate (take out the salt) by removing microorganisms and sedimentation. The result of the process is clean fresh drinking water. An easy solution,

Like any attempt by humans to insert themselves into a natural process, there are
unintended bad outcomes. Once the ocean water is pumped into the desalination plant
the natural composition of the water is transformed during each stage of processing,
making it less and less organic. Of the 300 million gallons of sea water pulled into the plant
each day, only 100 gallons makes it to the desalination process and then only half of that
becomes fresh water. The rest is left as a lifeless muck - remember the process kills the
micro-organisms in the water - that is two times saltier than ocean water. This waste water
then has to be rehabilitated before it is discharged into the sea. No easy solutions offered by
desalination, but an awful lot of big capital is tied up in plant construction. Poseidon Resources, the
operator of the new desalinization plant in San Diego has all the trappings of green
capitalism. They put forward claims of "environmental stewardship" while attempting to
balance maximizing efficiency with enhanced compliance. This pitch earned the privately held company a contract
to finance the $922 million plant that is expected to generate between $3 and $4 billion a year in revenue from water contracts. Going green
means serious profits for Poseidon despite the complicated environmental impact
desalination brings with it. Not surprisingly, Poseidon has also begun to engage with
national politics through its lobbying arm which has sought to influence green capitalist
legislation in Washington. One key bill was the 2005 Clean Water Investment and Infrastructure Security Act which sought to lift the
right?

cap on tax exempt bonds issued for private investments in water and sewage facilities. Poseidon executives have also made initial contributions to the

This is no shining
progressive venture. Poseidon is straight capitalist enterprise. As the struggles over water intensify, it is
important to be able to see the differences between efforts to capitalize on the profits offered
by the environmental crisis and efforts to strike out for a new equilibrium between nature
and humanity. Such differences make work by activists such as Shiva critical since they provide a theoretical guide from which delineate
between strategies that offer long term sustainability and those that provide short term fixes that may do more harm than
good. Scratch beneath the surface of the short term fixes and you are sure to find a profit
motive. Examine water democracy more closely and see a hope for the survival of our
species and the planet that hosts us.
newly formed Reclaim America PAC which was established by Florida Republican Marco Rubio in 2012.

Contemporary capitalism requires permanent war to maintain the economic

system
Samir Amin, director of the Third World Forum in Senegal, 2004, The Liberal Virus, pg.
23-4
In fact, the

global expansion of capitalism, because it is polarizing, always

implies the political intervention of the dominant powers, that is, the states of the

systems center, in the societies of the dominated periphery.

This expansion cannot occur

by the force of economic laws alone; it is necessary to complement that with political support (and
military, if necessary) from states in the service of dominant capital. In this sense, the expansion is
always entirely imperialist even in the meaning that Negri gives to the term (the projection of
national power beyond its frontiers, on condition of specifying that this power belongs to capital). In this sense,
the contemporary intervention of the United States is no less imperialist than were the colonial conquests of the
nineteenth century Washingtons objective in Iraq, for example, (and tomorrow elsewhere) is to put in place a
dictatorship in the service of American capital (and not a democracy), enabling the pillage of the countrys

globalized liberal economic order requires

permanent warmilitary interventions endlessly succeeding one
anotheras the only means to submit the peoples of the periphery to its
demands.
natural resources, and nothing more. The

Alt- We must completely reject capitalism in our daily lives

Herod 4 (James, University of Massachusetts Boston,
http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/06.htm)
Thus capitalist structures (corporations, governments, banks, schools, etc.) are not seized so much as
simply abandoned. Capitalist

relations are not fought so much as they are

simply rejected. We stop participating in activities that support (finance,
condone) the capitalist world and start participating in activities that build a
new world while simultaneously undermining the old. We create a new pattern of
social relations alongside capitalist relations and then we continually build and strengthen our new
pattern while doing every thing we can to weaken capitalist relations. In this way our new democratic,
non-hierarchical, non-commodified relations can eventually overwhelm the capitalist relations and
force them out of existence. This is how it has to be done. This is a plausible, realistic strategy. To

think that we could create a whole new world of decent social

arrangements overnight, in the midst of a crisis, during a so-called
revolution, or during the collapse of capitalism, is foolhardy. Our new
social world must grow within the old, and in opposition to it, until it is
strong enough to dismantle and abolish capitalist relations. Such a revolution
will never happen automatically, blindly, determinably, because of the inexorable, materialist laws of
history. It will happen, and only happen, because we want it to, and because we know what were
doing and know how we want to live, and know what obstacles have to be overcome before we can live
that way, and know how to distinguish between our social patterns and theirs. But we must not think
that the capitalist world can simply be ignored, in a live and let live attitude, while we try to build new
lives elsewhere. (There is no elsewhere.) There is at least one thing, wage-slavery, that we cant simply
stop participating in (but even here there are ways we can chip away at it). Capitalism

must be
explicitly refused and replaced by something else. This constitutes War,
but it is not a war in the traditional sense of armies and tanks, but a war
fought on a daily basis, on the level of everyday life, by millions of people. It is a war

nevertheless because the accumulators of capital will use coercion, brutality, and murder, as they have
always done in the past, to try to block any rejection of the system. They have always had to force
compliance; they will not hesitate to continue doing so. Nevertheless, there are many concrete ways
that individuals, groups, and neighborhoods can gut capitalism, which I will enumerate shortly .

3
Counter Plan Text: The government of Japan should fund substantial
number of demonstration projects to support non-military desal projects
Japan needs to increase environmental technology to become an
environmental leader
Kyodo News, 2/18/08, WWF head urges stronger leadership from Japan on climate
change
Leape noted that Japanese

officials have discussed halving global greenhouse gas

emissions from present levels by 2050. But he emphasized that Japan must lead other
industrialized nations in the setting of medium-term emissions reduction goals. Japan
has yet to notably demonstrate its leadership ''the way one would expect,'' Leape said. ''We have to
start emissions reduction from now and get some serious reductions, 25 to 40 percent reductions by
2020,'' Leape said. ''What we are looking for is real leadership from Japanese government toward
that end'' as chair of the G-8 summit, he said.

Japanese environmental leadership is key to its soft power.

Taizo Vakushiji, Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Keio
University, 1994, Japan's International Agenda: Technology and the Setting for Japan's
Agenda, p. 78-79
If an argument based on soft resources is extended to the level of international politics, there emerges a new concept
of "soft power." Joseph S. Nye. Jr.. writes. The changing nature of international politics has also made intangible
forms of power more important.... Power is

becoming less transferable, less coercive, and less

tangible.... Cooptive power is the ability of a country to structure a situation so that other countries develop
preferences or define their interests in ways consistent with its own. This power tends to arise from such resources as
cultural and ideological attraction as well as rules and institutions of international regimes. The United States has
more cooptive power than other countries. 7 Whether the U.S. is a soft-power giant is worth debating, but the
importance of soft power itself is not questionable. How

can Japan gain soft power? Currently. Japan

has neither an internationally acknowledged ideology nor a worldwidepenetrating
culture. But as Richard Rosecrance puts it. Japan is a trading state. Moreover, she is a technological
state, top, where two conspicuous technologies, namely manufacturing technology and
environmental and/or energy-saving technology, enjoy world preeminence. Among these three
kinds of Japanese preeminence, trading power and manufacturing power are classified as types of hard power, so
that they would not help Japan elevate its soft-power capability in the post-Cold War era. Therefore, let

us focus
on the third area. that is, environmental and/or energy saving technologies. Today,
environmental issues such as deforestation, greenhouse effects, ozone holes, desertification, and the loss of
biological diversity are becoming more and more globalized. As Jessica Tuchman Mathews puts it. The
assumptions and institutions that have governed international relations in the postwar era are a poor fit with new
realities. Environmental strains

that transcend national borders are already beginning to

break down the sacred boundaries of national sovereignty, previously rendered porous by the

information and communication revolutions and the instantaneous global movement of financial capital. The

once

sharp dividing line between foreign and domestic policy is blurred, forcing
governments to grapple in international forums with issues that were contentious
enough in the domestic arena.' Japan is a leading country in both environmental
legislation and technology. Admittedly. Japan is not a political superstate. But even as a political
dwarf, Japan might be able to gain political leverage if it mote actively engages in the
international politics of the global environment, departing from hitherto passive attitudes of
following a conservative course taken by the United States, the United Kingdom, and other industrialized countries. It
is quite noteworthy that Germany recently showed, at the 1990 Houston Summit, a more assertive stance with
respect to the global environment. If

Japan plays a major role in singlehandedlv giving her

superior environmental and/or energy-saving technologies to countries who are
seriously suffering from both security and economic threats caused bv deforestation,
desertification, acid rain, etc.. Japan would be able to fulfill two prerequisites to
becoming a "soft hegemon." that is. a hegemon capable of exercising co-optive power.

Stable Japanese soft power prevents nuclear rearmament and establishes

a nuclear free Asia.
Richard Samuels, Director of the Center for International Studies at M.I.T., Autumn,
2006, Japans Goldilocks Strategy, The Washington Quarterly 29.4
A third choice, the one preferred by the middle-power internationalists, would be to achieve prestige
by increasing prosperity. Japans exposure to some of the more difficult vicissitudes of world politics would
be reduced but only if some of the more ambitious assaults on the Yoshida Doctrine were reversed. Japan would
once again eschew the military shield in favor of the mercantile sword. It would bulk
up the countrys considerable soft power in a concerted effort to knit East Asia together
without generating new threats or becoming excessively vulnerable. The Asianists in
this group would aggressively embrace exclusive regional economic institutions to
reduce Japans reliance on the U.S They would not abrogate the military alliance but would resist U.S.
exhortations for Japan to expand its roles and missions. Open, regional economic institutions as a
means to reduce the likelihood of abandonment by the United States and would seek
to maintain the United States protective embrace as cheaply and for as long as
possible. The final, least likely choice would be to achieve autonomy through prosperity.
This is the choice of pacifists, many of whom today are active in civil society through nongovernmental organizations
that are not affiliated with traditional political parties. Like the mercantile realists,

they would reduce

Japans military posture, possibly even eliminate it. Unlike the mercantile realists, they would
reject the alliance as dangerously entangling. They would eschew hard power for soft power,
campaign to establish Northeast Asia as a nuclear-free zone, expand the defensivedefense concept to the region as a whole, negotiate a regional missile-control regime,
and rely on the Asian Regional Forum of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for security. 19 Their
manifest problem is that the Japanese public is unmoved by their prescriptions. In March 2003, when millions took to
the streets in Rome, London, and New York City to protest the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only several thousand rallied in
Tokyos Hibiya Park. 20 Pacifist ideas about prosperity and autonomy seem relics of an earlier, more idealistic time
when Japan could not imagine, much less openly plan for, military contingencies.

Proliferation in Asia quickly escalates to global nuclear war.

Joseph Cirincione, Senior Associate and Director of Non-Proliferation Studies at the
Carnegie Endowment, 2K,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=10
&prog=zgp&proj=znpp
The blocks would fall quickest and hardest in Asia, where proliferation pressures are
already building more quickly than anywhere else in the world. If a nuclear breakout takes place
in Asia, then the international arms control agreements that have been painstakingly
negotiated over the past 40 years will crumble. Moreover, the United States could find
itself embroiled in its fourth war on the Asian continent in six decades--a costly rebuke to
those who seek the safety of Fortress America by hiding behind national missile defenses. Consider what is already
happening: North

Korea continues to play guessing games with its nuclear and missile
programs; South Korea wants its own missiles to match Pyongyang's; India and
Pakistan shoot across borders while running a slow-motion nuclear arms race; China
modernizes its nuclear arsenal amid tensions with Taiwan and the United States; Japan's
vice defense minister is forced to resign after extolling the benefits of nuclear weapons; and Russia--whose
Far East nuclear deployments alone make it the largest Asian nuclear power--struggles to
maintain territorial coherence. Five of these states have nuclear weapons; the others are capable of constructing
them. Like neutrons firing from a split atom, one nation's actions can trigger reactions throughout the region, which
in turn, stimulate additional actions. These

nations form an interlocking Asian nuclear reaction

chain that vibrates dangerously with each new development. If the frequency and intensity of
this reaction cycle increase, critical decisions taken by any one of these governments could
cascade into the second great wave of nuclear-weapon proliferation, bringing regional
and global economic and political instability and, perhaps, the first combat use of a nuclear
weapon since 1945.

US-Japanese ocean leadership is zero-sum gains made by Japan

undercut the US
Kinane 2007 (Sean Kinane, writer for WMNF, June 11, 2007. Ed Begley, Jr. and Phillipe Costeau mark World
Ocean Day. http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/4386)//NR
Dr. Frank Muller-Karger is a professor of Biological Oceanography in USFs College of Marine Science and serves on the
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. He listed several changes that need to be made to the nations emphasis on science

in order to remain a world leader. We need to strengthen education, especially ocean

education, science education. We are falling behind Europe; we are falling behind people in China and
Japan . They are generating more PhDs than we are. We need to incorporate science in decisionmaking. Scientists do their own thing at academic institutions and managers of resources do their own thing in their
structures in government. All of this really needs money. And thats really where

our government is falling

flat . Because we are funding oceanography and ocean science at the same levels that

we did thirty years ago

and in the past three or four years, that actually has gone down. And

we cannot

allow that to happen any further.

Critical for Japan to be self sustainableacting alone is the only

way to ensure that
Schoff, a senior associate in the Carnegie Asia Program. His research focuses on
U.S.-Japanese relations and regional engagement, Japanese politics and security, and
the private sectors role in Japanese policymaking, 14 (James L. 3/14, The Global Think
Tank, "U.S. Reassurance and Japanese Defense Reforms Can Improve Security in East
Asia", carnegieendowment.org/2014/03/13/u.s.-reassurance-and-japanese-defensereforms-can-improve-security-in-east-asia/h85m?reloadFlag=1, 7/5/14, aven)
It has been clear for some time that the regional security equation in Asia is tilting
against Japan. A variety of defense and foreign policy decisions by Tokyo in recent years
reflect the governments attempt to grapple with this slide into a security deficit.2 For
Japan, the perception of vulnerability and growing threat (particularly vis--vis China but
including North Korea) is multifaceted and includes security, economic, and diplomatic
concerns. It is not an immediate crisis, but for a country that prioritizes stability,
openness and access in the region, current trends do not bode well for the future.3
Japan is a highly industrialized global trading power with relatively few indigenous
natural resources, but a highly skilled workforce and a strong technology knowledge
base. Open and stable global trade is critical for Japan, as it relies on imports for about
92 percent of its primary energy supply and 64 percent of its calorie intake.4 National
wealth is generated by adding value in the manufacturing and service sectors and
thereby earning more through exports than is paid for imports, and investing the surplus
domestically and overseas for productivity gains, investment return, manufacturing
diversification, and risk mitigation. This strategywhich has worked so well for
decadeshas been faltering recently. A weakening Yen and rising fossil fuel imports (to
compensate for the shutdown of its nuclear energy industry) have pushed Japan into
trade deficits.5 Japan is the worlds third largest oil importing country (after the United
States), the third largest oil consumer, and the fourth largest electricity consumer. While
Japans population has increased by about 50 percent since 1950, its consumption of
energy has soared by nearly 300 percent, underscoring the vital role that energy plays in
Japans modern economy.6 Japan has a strong position in terms of foreign currency
reserves (over $1.2 trillion), but due to persistent fiscal deficits the countrys public debt
is now 224 percent of GDP, and debt service consumes almost a quarter of the annual
general account budget.7 The Japanese government faces significant fiscal constraints.
Because the bulk of Japans trade is conducted by ship, freedom of navigation is
critical for Japan to sustain itself. Although Japan is a small country in terms of land
area (ranked sixty-first globally), its recognized territorial waters and exclusive economic

zone (EEZ) are the sixth largest in the world at nearly 4.5 million square kilometers, so it
has a lot of area to both exploit and patrol.8 Maritime chokepoints outside of the EEZ,
such as the Strait of Malacca and the Strait of Hormuz, are also strategically important
to Japan. Any major disruptions there would quickly force time-consuming and
expensive rerouting of vital shipments. Although North Korea remains a significant and
unpredictable security concern for Japan, it is Chinas growing military capabilities and
willingness to brandish them to press claims and expand its influence in the East China
Sea and beyond that are prompting a Japanese reaction.9 The situation is most acute
around the Japanese-administered Senkaku Islands, which Beijing insists belong to
China, but it extends to disputed EEZ demarcations in the East China Sea and claims to
associated seabed resources. Japans sense of vulnerability is exacerbated by elements
of economic dependence (including extensive direct investments in China and
dependence on certain imports such as rare earth metals and food products) and even
exposure to drifting air pollution from China.

4
NASAs budget is stable but the fiscal environment is tight
Casey Dreier, 5/30/2014, The Planetary Society, The House Passes a $435
million increase to NASAs budget, http://www.planetary.org/blogs/caseydreier/2014/0529-the-house-just-passed-an-increase-to-nasas-budget.html
After a multi-day floor debate, the House of Representatives passed its 2015 funding bill for Commerce,

NASA, which is included in this bill, is

provided with $17.9 billion$435 million above the President's 2015 request and $250
million above its 2014 level. The accompanying committee report also directs the Planetary
Justice, Science, and related agencies by a vote of 321-87.

Science Division of NASA to receive a very strong $1.45 billion, nearly $185 million above the budget
proposed by the President and very close to The Planetary Society's goal of $1.5 billion per year. Marcia
Smith at Space Policy Online has more details about the bill, including highlighting the four amendments
that tried to take money away from NASA: Four NASA-related amendments were defeated, three by
voice vote and one by recorded vote. Kildee (D-MI), reduce NASA's Exploration account by $10 million
and shift the funds to the Interagency Trade Enforcement Center: defeated by voice vote. Kildee (D-MI),
reduce NASA's Exploration account by $15 million and shift the funds to Violent Crime Reduction
Partnership Program: defeated by voice vote. Cicilline (D-RI), reduce NASA's Construction account by
$8.5 million and shift the funds to Safe Neighborhoods Program (crime prevention): defeated 196-212.
Kilmer (D-WA), reduce NASA's Aeronautics account by $2 million and shift the funds to Economic High
Tech and Cyber Crime Prevention Program: defeated by voice vote. CJS committee chairman Frank Wolf
(R-VA) and ranking member Chaka Fattah (D-PA) opposed all of them because they would have cut NASA
funding, not because they disagreed with the alternative priorities advocated by the amendments'
sponsors. I think we can all agree with the motivations here, but we need to avoid raiding one of the
few truly long-term, optimistic goals of the U.S. government. A proposal for a 1% across the board cut to
all agencies, proposed by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), was also defeated, fortunately. The Senate has
yet to release details about its proposed NASA budget for 2015, though it looks like we'll see the first
draft next week. The full Senate must pass its own version of the budget and then reconcile it with the
House, so there is still a ways to go, but so far things are looking quite good for Planetary Science and for
NASA. We should take a moment to appreciate what happened today.

NASA got an increase (a

small one, but an increase nonetheless) within the context tight fiscal policies in
government. The CJS committee, led by Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), made the NASA pie a little
bigger, which supported an increase to NASA science, particularly planetary science. This is not a perfect
bill (Commercial Crew receives too little funding in my opinion) but overall

the House funded

NASA at a stronger level than anyone predicted. It's easy to get angry at Congress for a
lot of things, but we should also make sure to acknowledge when they do something good. Today is a
good day for space advocates, NASA, and space science, and I hope it's the
start of a trend leading into the future.

Ocean and space funding are zero-sum the plan causes a

tradeoff
Katherine Mangu-Ward, 9/4/2013, Slate Magazine, Is the Ocean the Real
Final Frontier?
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_spac
e_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html

the fight probably comes down to money. The typical American believes that
NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents
As usual,

pinned that figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a

$17 billion, government-funded space exploration

accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric AdministrationNASAs soggy counterpartgets much less, a bit more than $5
billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more diverse. But the way Shnlein tells the story,
this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For
Jenny Craigsized portion of the pie. At about

most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the
most famous examples of state-backed explorationChristopher Columbus long petitioning of Ferdinand
and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillarys quest to climb to the top of Everestwere
actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits. But that changed with
when the race to the moon

was fueled by government money

the Cold War,

and gushers of defense

spending wound up channeled into submarine development and other oceangoing tech. That does

lead to an either/or mentality. That federal money is taxpayer money which has to be
accounted for, and it is a finite pool that you have to draw from against competing
needs, against health care, science, welfare, says Shnlein. In the last 10 to 15 years, we are seeing
a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space side we call it New Space, on the
ocean side we have similar ventures. And the austerity of the current moment doesnt hurt. The private
sector is stepping up as public falls down. Were really returning to the way it always was.

Mars colonization is NASAs top priority

RT News, 6/23/2014, NASA plans to colonize Mars,
http://rt.com/usa/167944-nasa-plans-colonize-mars/
the agencys top
scientist said colonizing the planet is a key part of its agenda as well as its
search for extraterrestrial life. In a wide-ranging interview with the Guardian, NASAs chief
scientist Dr. Ellen Stofan emphasized that the quest to find alien life is focused primarily on our
own solar system, where potential targets include Mars, Jupiters moon Europa, and Saturns moon
NASA may not be planning to put a human on Mars until the 2030s, but

Titan. In order to most effectively survey Mars for signs of life, though, Stofan said putting humans on the
ground, and establishing a presence there, is a big priority. In response to a question
about whether or not NASA plans to bring back astronauts that reach the Red Planet, Stofan said, We
would definitely plan on bringing them back. We like to talk about pioneering Mars rather than just
exploring Mars, because once we get to Mars we will set up some sort of permanent presence."

NASA

has expressed such interest before, most recently proposing to send a small
greenhouse to the planet in order to experiment with cultivating plant life something
that would be essential to establishing a permanent colony in the future.

Mars colonization solves extinction

Geranios 10 (Nicholas, MSNBC, 11/15/2010, Scientists propose one-way
trips to Mars,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40194872/ns/technology_and_sciencespace/t/scientists-propose-one-way-trips-mars/) SW

human travel
to Mars could happen much more quickly and cheaply if the missions are made oneway. They argue that it would be little different from early settlers to North America, who left Europe with little
Invoking the spirit of "Star Trek" in a scholarly article entitled "To Boldly Go," two scientists contend

expectation of return. "The main point is to get Mars exploration moving," said Dirk Schulze-Makuch of Washington
State University, who wrote the article in the latest "Journal of Cosmology" with Paul Davies of Arizona State
University. The colleagues state in one of 55 articles in the issue devoted to exploring Mars that humans must

begin colonizing another planet as a hedge against a catastrophe on Earth. Mars is a

six-month flight away, possesses surface gravity, an atmosphere, abundant water,
carbon dioxide and essential minerals. They propose the missions start by sending two two-person
teams, in separate ships, to Mars. More colonists and regular supply ships would follow. The technology already exists,
or is within easy reach, they wrote. An official for NASA said the space agency envisions manned missions to Mars in
the next few decades, but that the planning decidedly involves round trips. President Obama informed NASA last April
that he "`believed by the mid-2030s that we could send humans to orbit Mars and safely return them to Earth. And that a
landing would soon follow,'" said agency spokesman Michael Braukus. No where did Obama suggest the astronauts be
left behind. "We want our people back," Braukus said. Retired Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell, who walked on the
Moon, was also critical of the one-way idea. "This is premature," Mitchell wrote in an e-mail. "We aren't ready for this
yet." Davies and Schulze-Makuch say it's important to realize they're not proposing a "suicide mission." "The astronauts
would go to Mars with the intention of staying for the rest of their lives, as trailblazers of a permanent human Mars
colony," they wrote, while acknowledging the proposal is a tough sell for NASA, with its intense focus on safety. They
think the private sector might be a better place to try their plan. "What we would need is an eccentric billionaire,"
Schulze-Makuch said. "There are people who have the money to put this into reality." Indeed, British tycoon Richard
Branson, PayPal founder Elon Musk and Amazon.com Inc. CEO Jeff Bezos are among the rich who are involved in
private space ventures. Isolated humans in space have long been a staple of science fiction movies, from "Robinson
Crusoe on Mars" to "2001: A Space Odyssey" to a flurry of recent movies such as "Solaris" and "Moon." In many of the
plots, the lonely astronauts fall victim to computers, madness or aliens. Psychological profiling and training of

the astronauts, plus constant communication with Earth, will reduce debilitating
mental strains, the two scientists said. "They would in fact feel more connected to home
than the early Antarctic explorers," according to the article. But the mental health of humans who spent
time in space has been extensively studied. Depression can set in, people become irritated with each other, and sleep can
be disrupted, the studies have found. The knowledge that there is no quick return to Earth would likely make that worse.
Davies is a physicist whose research focuses on cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He was an early
proponent of the theory that life on Earth may have come from Mars in rocks ejected by asteroid and comet impacts.
Schulze-Makuch works in the Earth Sciences department at WSU and is the author of two books about life on other
planets. His focus is eco-hydrogeology, which includes the study of water on planets and moons of our solar system and
how those could serve as a potential habitat for microbial life. The peer-reviewed Journal of Cosmology covers
astronomy, astrobiology, Earth sciences and life. Schulze-Makuch and Davies contend that Mars has abundant

resources to help the colonists become self-sufficient over time. The colony should
be next to a large ice cave, to provide shelter from radiation, plus water and
oxygen, they wrote. They believe the one-way trips could start in two decades. "You would send a little bit
older folks, around 60 or something like that," Schulze-Makuch said, bringing to mind the aging heroes who save the day
in "Space Cowboys." That's because the mission would undoubtedly reduce a person's lifespan, from a lack of medical
care and exposure to radiation. That radiation would also damage human reproductive organs, so sending people of
childbearing age is not a good idea, he said. There have been seniors in space, including John Glenn, who was 77 when
he flew on the space shuttle in 1998. Still, Schulze-Makuch believes many people would be willing to make the sacrifice.
The Mars base would offer humanity a "lifeboat" in the event Earth becomes uninhabitable, they said. " We are on a

vulnerable planet," Schulze-Makuch said. "Asteroid impact can threaten us, or a supernova
explosion. If we want to survive as a species, we have to expand into the solar
system and likely beyond."

Solvency
The status-quo solves
Pappas, 2011 Forrester Fellow and Instructor in Legal Writing at Tulane Law School
*Michael, Unnatural Resource Law: Situating Desalination in Coastal Resource and Water Law
Doctrines,
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2223&context=fac_pubs
]//AS
Despite its costs, desalination is on the rise, both globally and domestically. As of 2000,
worldwide desalination facilities produced 6900 million gallons per day (mgd), which
represented roughly 0.3% of the world's freshwater use at the time/'' Despite this relatively
small contribution to the worldwide water portfolio, desalination is a major contributor to the
water supplies of some nations, with a number of countries in the Middle Fast relying on
desalination for substantial portions of their water use and some island nations drawing nearly
all of their freshwater supplies from desalination.40 For example, Saudi Arabia has 18% of the
world's desalination capacity, and the island of Curacao relies on desalination for 100% of its
water." Further, the worldwide role of desalination will likely expand as nations increasingly
look to desalination as a major component of future water supplies. For example, Australia's
five largest cities are spending $13.2 billion on seawater desalination plants, and by 2012,
desalination is projected to provide 30% of the water for these major cities.*' Even London,
which is not commonly considered a water- scarce city, has recently constructed a $370 million
desalination plant that processes a combination of scawater and river water from the Thames."
Desalination has actually existed in the United States for decades and is now poised to expand
on a large scale." Currently, there are desalination plants in every state of the United States,"
and the United States has a total capacity of 1600 mgd, which is less than 0.4% of the total
domestic water use." According to a 2005 study, the United States possessed roughly 17% of
the worlds desalination capacity," with Florida, California, Texas, and Arizona holding the
greatest installed capacity.4*

No adaptive potential for desalination and no model spillover may actually

exacerbate consumption.

Wilder et al in 10 (Margaret, Christopher A Scott, Nicolas Pineda Pablos, Robert G Varady,

Gregg M Garfin, and Jamie McEvoy; Latin American Studies and Udall Center for Studies in
Public Policy U of Arizona, School of Geopgraphy and Development and Udall Center U of
Arizona, Public Policy Studies El Colegio de Sonora, Udall Center U of Arizona, Institute of the
Environment and School of Natural Resources and Environment U of Arizona, and School of
Geography and Development U of Arizona; Adapting Across Boundaries: Climate Change, Social
Learning, and Resilience in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers 100(4); Scholar)
Overall, then, we assess the augmentation strategies of desalination to be of low adaptive potential.
Assessed against the identified indicators, the desalination proposals do not involve structured
opportunities for social learning or changes in institutional culture or policy priorities. Data
sharing would be in the context of formal contract-based exchanges, rather than more permeable,

fluid, relational kinds of knowledge

exchanges such as those identified by Cash et al. (2003). New

communities of practice are not anticipated to emerge from desalination strategies and
binational relationships will be straitjacketed within a bounded legal framework. The
desalination strategies are not only unlikely to add to adaptive capacity, but they could lead
to more of the entrenched, legalistic relations that have sometimes hampered cooperative,
binational water management in the past. Absent a conservation strategy, these strategies
enable a status quo water culture that views desalinated seawater as a limitless substitute
for fresh water. Ironically, increased interdependence will ensue under the proposed desalination
strategies, requiring improved cooperation between the United States and Mexico, yet these strategies
do little to foster better communication and enhanced collaboration and therefore could
actually increase vulnerability.

Desal cant solve all instances and leads to irresponsible use of water, if it fails
the problem will be even worse

EarthTalk 2013 Can Ocean Desalination Solve the World's Water Shortage?,
http://environment.about.com/od/biodiversityconservation/a/desalination.htm
Food & Water Watch advocates instead for better fresh water management practices. "Ocean
desalination hides the growing water supply problem instead of focusing on water
management and lowering water usage," the group reports, citing a recent study which found that
California can meet its water needs for the next 30 years by implementing cost-effective
urban water conservation. Desalination is "an expensive, speculative supply option that
will drain resources away from more practical solutions," the group says. Despite such arguments, the
practice is becoming more common. Ted Levin of the Natural Resources Defense Council says that more than 12,000
desalination plants already supply fresh water in 120 nations, mostly in the Middle East and Caribbean. And analysts expect the
worldwide market for desalinated water to grow significantly over the coming decades. Environmental advocates may just
have to settle for pushing to "green" the practice as much as possible in lieu of eliminating it altogether.

Desalination burns fossil fuels and takes a heavy toll on marine

biodiversity
Scientific American 09["Solar-Powered Desalination an Alternative for
Treating Farm Runoff | KQED." The California Report. N.p., 20 Jan. 2009. Web.
26 June 2014. <http://www.californiareport.org/archive/R201405090850/b>.]
The relationship between desalinization and climate change is complex. Global warming has increased droughts around
the world and turned formerly verdant landscapes into near deserts. Some long held fresh water sources are simply no
longer reliably available to hundreds of millions of people around the world. Meanwhile, expanding populations in desert
areas are putting intense pressure on existing fresh water supplies, forcing communities to turn to desalinization as the

most expedient way to satisfy their collective thirst. But the

process of desalinization burns up many more

fossil fuels than sourcing the equivalent amount of fresh water from fresh water bodies. As
such, the very proliferation of desalinization plants around the world some 13,000 already supply fresh water in 120
nations, primarily in the Middle East, North Africa and Caribbean, is both a reaction to and one of many contributors to
global warming. Beyond

the links to climate problems, marine biologists warn that widespread

desalinization could take a heavy toll on ocean biodiversity; as such facilities' intake pipes
essentially vacuum up and inadvertently kill millions of plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae and
other microbial organisms that constitute the base layer of the marine food chain. And,
according to Jeffrey Graham of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography's Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine ,
the salty sludge leftover after desalinization for every gallon of freshwater produced,
another gallon of doubly concentrated salt water must be disposed of can wreak havoc on
marine ecosystems if dumped willy-nilly offshore. For some desalinization operations, says
Graham, it is thought that the disappearance of some organisms from discharge areas may be related
to the salty outflow.

ADV
Econ decline wont cause war the 2008 crash disproves their claim.
Drezner 12 (Daniel W. Drezner is professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts
University, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and a blogger for the Washington Post. He has previously held
positions with University of Chicago, Civic Education Project, the RAND Corporation, and the US Department of the Treasury. THE
IRONY OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE: THE SYSTEM WORKED This publication is part of the International Institutions and Global
Governance program October 2012 http://i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/IIGG_WorkingPaper9_Drezner.pdf)

The final outcome addresses a dog that hasnt barked: the effect of the Great Recession on
crossborder 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.19 Whether
through greater internal repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great
power conflict, there were genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead
to an increase in conflict. Violence in the Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea,
and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global public disorder. The
aggregate data

suggests otherwise, however. A fundamental conclusion

from a recent report by the Institute for

Economics and Peace is

that the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as

it was in 2007.20 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial
crisisas have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession
has not triggered any increase in violent conflict; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the
Cold War has not been reversed.

Global econ is resilient

FSB 14 (The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global
financial system FSB Plenary meets in London 31 March 2014

http://www.financialstabilityboard.org/press/pr_140331.htm)

The global economy has been improving, and monetary policy in the US is in the early stages of
a normalisation process, after an extended period of exceptional accommodation. A comprehensive programme
of regulatory reforms and supervisory actions since the crisis has made the global financial
system more resilient . Currently, European authorities are putting in place a comprehensive set of measures to
strengthen further the region's financial system. Emerging

markets have coped relatively well to date with

occasional bouts of turbulence, in part reflecting the positive impact of both past and more recent
reforms.