Wraith Leader 1nc

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 1 of 12

Road map is T (1), T-Spec (2), E-Spec (3), Global warming (4-5), heg (6), nasa (7-12)

T – A. INTERPRETATION EP has to be defined by the phrase. Aff action must equal the phrase.

B. STANDARD Legal contextuality, or substitution. When people think of “Capital Punishment” they think the death penalty; they don’t think of economic sanctions (“capital” “punishment”).

C. VIOLATION Carbon tax is an environmental tax. Baumert 98 Kevin Baumert [Senior Associate at the World Resources Institute’s Climate and Energy, and Pollution Program. His research focuses on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change policy instruments. Since joining WRI in 1998, Mr. Baumert has authored numerous WRI reports and professional journal articles. He was lead editor of "Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate," published in 2002, and is presently the project manager for the Climate Analysis Indicators Tool (CAIT) work. Prior to joining WRI, he received a B.A. in Economics from the University of Notre Dame and a Masters degree from Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs], "Carbon Taxes vs. Emissions Trading", Global Policy Forum [an independent policy watchdog that monitors the work of the UN], Copyright © 2005 - 2009 Global Policy Forum, April 17, 1998, http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/216/45883.html Carbon taxes, and all environmental taxes, are "priced-based" policy instruments. Taxes increase the prices of certain goods and services, thereby decreasing the quantity demanded. This is called the "price effect." Tradable permits, or emissions trading, is considered a "quantity-based" environmental policy instrument. Although both policy approaches are "market-based," they operate differently - carbon taxes fix the marginal cost for carbon emissions and allow quantities emitted to adjust, while tradable permits fix the total amount of carbon emitted and allow price levels to fluctuate according to market forces.

D. VOTERS A priori Topicality is an issue that is evaluated before any other contention is addressed. If they aren’t topical, you should vote negative without considering any other issue.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 2 of 12

TIMELINE-SPEC – A. INTERP Aff has to specify a timeline in their plan.

B. VIOLATION He doesn't.

C. HE SHOULD LOSE 1. that’s not cool Without knowing the timeline, I could potentially lose all my ptx ground I thought I had, in addition to PICs, some Masking DAs, that really cool Afghan ptx disad, and agent counterplans. 2. Prima Facie It’s their burden to present a PF case; by not including a timeline, they haven’t. If no one will uphold the burden of affirmative proof you should vote for the negative’s burden of rejoinder, which you have.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 3 of 12

E-SPEC – A. INTERP Aff has to specify enforcement. The government consists of three branches PLUS delegation. “Resolved” is defined as “to reach a decision or make a determination” (American Heritage Dictionary, 2000)

B. VIOLATION He didn’t.

C. WHY HE SHOULD LOSE 1. Infinitely Regressive. They're aff, they have burden of proof to read cards on what their plan would do. Without it their enforcement is infinitely regressive. 2. Upredictable. Aff could just read clarifications of enforcement in the 1AR; that’s as bad as an advocacy shift and skews negative strategy. 3. Destroys ground. Aff can dodge out of enf arguments and effectively moot the consequential negative speech, which destroys negative ground. 4. Masks Failures. Enforcement is 90% of policy. Elmore ‘80 Elmore, Prof. Public Affairs at University of Washington, PolySci Quarterly 79-80, p. 605, 1980 The emergence of implementation as a subject for policy analysis coincides closely with the discovery by policy analysts that decisions are not self-executing. Analysis of policy choices matter very little if the mechanism for implementing those choices is poorly understood in answering the question, "What percentage of the work of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic alternative has been identified?" Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about 10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm of implementation. 5. Not real world. Congress has to specify enforcement in their bills, so should aff.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 4 of 12

GW – A. AIN’T NO MO’ WARMING There hasn’t been any warming since satellite readings began 23 years ago. Bast 03 Joseph L. Bast [President and CEO of The Heartland Institute (a nonprofit, nonpartisan center for public policy research), Founding Director, officer, and member of the executive committee, State Policy Network, 1991-1997. Board of Advisors, Advocates for Self-Government, 2003 - current. Board of Advisors, Illinois Policy Institute, 2004 - current. Board of Advisors, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, 2005 - current. Board of Directors, American Conservative Union, 2007 - current. Honors: 1996 Sir Antony Fisher International Memorial Award for Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism (with coauthors), Elected to the Board of Directors of American Conservative Union in 2007], “Eight Reasons Why 'Global Warming' Is a Scam”, Published by The Heartland Institute, February 1, 2003, http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/news/global_warming_is_a_scam.pdf (HEG) 2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01*C, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

B. BLAST FROM THE PAST There’s no data supporting anthropogenic climate change; the past proves – we’ve had warming without industrial emissions. Robinson, Robinson, & Soon 07 ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, [Educated at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California at San Diego, UCSD, Dr. Robinson served as a faculty member of UCSD until co-founding the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine], NOAH E. ROBINSON, [Educated at Southern Oregon University and the California Institute of Technology, Dr. Noah Robinson is principle author of numerous research papers on the deamidation of peptides and proteins], & ANDWILLIE SOON [astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, science director and contributor at Tech Central Station, and a fellow with the George C. Marshall Institute] [all from Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine], “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide”, Copyright 1998-2008 © OISM, The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine [a non-profit research institute established in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life. Research in the Institute's laboratories includes work in protein biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging. The Institute also carries out work on the improvement of basic education and emergency preparedness. The Institute is entirely supported by donations and grants from private individuals and foundations and by the independent earnings and resources of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds. The Institute has a modest endowment, no debts, and a policy of incurring none. It is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 public foundation. The Institute currently has six faculty members, several regular volunteers, and a larger number of other volunteers who work on occasional projects. Most of the Institute's work is carried out in a modern 7,000 square foot research laboratory, which includes a full complement of

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 5 of 12

equipment for work in biochemistry and molecular biology and some specialized equipment including a Bruker ion cyclotron resonance Fourier transform mass spectrometer for work on protein deamidation. Several members of the Institute's staff are also well known for their work on the Petition Project, an undertaking that has obtained the signatures of more than 31,000 American scientists opposed, on scientific grounds, to the hypothesis of "human-caused global warming" and to concomitant proposals for world-wide energy taxation and rationing. The Petition Project does not utilize any Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine resources or funds. It also has no funding from energy industries or other parties with special interests in the "global warming" debate. Funding for the project comes entirely from private donations by interested individuals, primarily readers of the newsletter Access to Energy that is independently published], 2007, http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm (HEG) CONCLUSIONS There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed (82,83,97,123). We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from below ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 increase. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

C. COPENHAGEN DEBACLE; BURDEN-SHIFT Evaluate warrants above claims. My evidence has given extensive warrant; his evidence only made claims about deaths, water scarcity, wars, and biodiversity loss but hasn’t shown why that would happen.

D. DEATH? Cross-apply the past; if we’ve had that much warming before, we’re not going to go extinct from less.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 6 of 12

HEG – A. BACKFIRES Environmental leadership would pressure China and India to cut emissions, causing them to backlash and counterbalance the US. Spencer & Foster 07 Richard Spencer in Beijing and Peter Foster [in New Delhi, reporters], "China and India reject climate change deaL", Telegraph (UK), June 9, 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1554055/China-and-India-reject-climate-change-deal.html China and India yesterday poured cold water on the climate change deal reached at the G8. They both rejected attempts by America to make environmental targets dependent on their willingness to follow suit. China gave a studied, neutral response to the deal in Germany to move towards cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. India reiterated that it had not changed its attitude that it was up to the developed world to take the initiative. In theory, both should have been pleased that there was no attempt to set specific targets for their own greenhouse gas emissions, which they have refused to consider. But G8 leaders implied that when negotiations on specific details began, they would have to involving developing countries, including China and India. In an ominous response, state media in China stressed the growing closeness of the two rising economic giants of Asia on the issue. "China, India agree to work more closely," said the headline in China Daily, the international voice of the ruling Communist Party.

B. FALSE IMPRESSIONS China perceives environmental leadership as an effort at domination in step with military containment. Drifte 05 Reinhard Drifte [emeritus prof. of Japanese politics], The London School of Economics and Political Science [a School of the University of London], 2005, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/asiaResearchCentre/pdf/WorkingPaper/ARCWP12ReinhardDRIFTE20 03.pdf The political, economic and social diversity of East Asia is a major obstacle for regional approaches to cope with environmental degradation. Bilateral relations are burdenend with issues of the past (JapanChina), territorial disputes (Japan-China, Korea-China, Japan-Korea) and, as we have seen, even naming of geographic area. Japan and China are increasingly becoming political and economic rivals in East Asia. The rivalry for regional leadership works against Japan being supported by China in taking environmental leadership in East Asia, a natural role for a country which is the biggest economic power and ODA donor in the region. Instead China is inclined to perceive Japan‘s environmental leadership as yet another indication for Japan trying (again) to dominate the region, putting it next to Tokyo‘s reinforced military relationship with the US, its increaslingly realist security policy and its quest for a permanent UN Security Council seat. Japan, on the other hand, sees its environmental leadership role as a means to create a politically and economically stable regional environment, to respond in a nonmilitary way to calls for international contribution, to complete its engagement policy towards China, and to promote the interests of its export industry.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 7 of 12

NASA – A. PC IS KEY TO CLIMATE LEGISLATION 1. Obama leadership key to climate change legislation. Seidel 09 STEVE SEIDEL [Vice president for policy analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change], "Hope for Cap-and-Trade?" Washington Post, August 23, 2009, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082102312.html Success in the Senate is a more difficult challenge. It will require true bipartisan engagement, compromise and far more active leadership by the Obama administration. Given that 10 Republican senators have written, co-sponsored, voted for or spoken in favor of mandatory greenhouse gas reductions in the recent past, bipartisan engagement should be possible, though it's not easy in today's political environment. The Senate will need to address outstanding concerns such as the issue of nuclear power as a potential "clean energy" option and enhancing the effectiveness of provisions to contain costs. Strong leadership by the White House will be critical to merging the disparate perspectives of different Senate committees into a package that can achieve broad support. Reaching agreement on a comprehensive climate and clean-energy bill will take time and may not happen until next year. 2. PC is key for climate action. Global Warming News 09 Global Warming News, "Greenpeace chief urges Obama to use 'political capital' to agree climate deal", Re-published from the Guardian [British newspaper], November 19, 2009, http://globalwarmingnews.posterous.com/greenpeace-chief-urges-obama-to-use-political The new head of Greenpeace has challenged Barack Obama to agree a binding treaty at the UN Copenhagen climate summit or risk inflaming anti-American sentiment around the world. Dr Kumi Naidoo, the first African to lead the environmental activist group, said he was not prepared to tolerate "spin and trickery" from negotiators at the crucial meeting. "It's not to say one is insensitive to the political situation that Obama finds himself in, but we would say he needs to use more of his political capital with the American people," Naidoo told the Guardian in an interview in Johannesburg, South Africa.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 8 of 12

B. OBAMA HAS IT NOW; AFF PUSHES NASA OVER THE EDGE 1. Status quo gives Obama the necessary political cover to hold the line on NASA. Powell 09 Stewart M. Powell [reporter], “NASA worried about program’s future”, Copyright 2009 Houston Chronicle, June 11, 2009, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6473816.html (HEG) “It’s basic human instinct to wonder and perhaps worry about the future when this type of review is being conducted,” says Rep. Pete Olson, R-Sugar Land, whose district includes Johnson Space Center. The best-case scenario for Texas interests is that the independent panel, headed by former Lockheed Martin CEO Norm Augustine, will provide Obama political cover to adopt President George W. Bush’s previous NASA road map. The Bush plan for the Constellation program would unite the Ares rocket system and the Orion crew capsule to reach the orbiting International Space Station beyond 2015 and the moon by 2020. 2. The absence of C makes NASA always an easy target and the first thing to get cut. Brooks 08 Jeff Brooks [founder and director of the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration], “Introducing the Committee for the Advocacy of Space Exploration”, April 14 2008, http://thespacereview.com/article/1102/1 (HEG) For far too long, space exploration has been an invisible issue on the political campaign trails of America. While the 2008 election cycle has seen more discussion of space issues than we have seen in previous years, it still ranks very far down the list of priorities when compared to nearly every other issue. Not surprisingly, candidates tend to avoid the subject of space exploration on the campaign trail, either through simple disinterest or to avoid giving their opponents an opportunity to accuse them of fiscal extravagance. Since space exploration is not an important subject on the campaign trail, there is not much incentive to make it a major issue in Congress. This disastrous political cycle is the main reason why we were not on Mars two decades ago and why ships with human crews are not voyaging into the outer solar system today. The lack of a fully-empowered political action committee has been a major contributing factor in the lack of strong political leadership on space exploration. Politicians must be made to know that they will gain by supporting space exploration and will suffer if they don’t. Until the space advocacy movement learns to play political hardball, its efforts will continue to be largely ineffectual. After all, if there were no such thing as the National Rifle Association, how many politicians would care about gun control?

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 9 of 12

IMPACT 1: ECON. FIRST, NASA FUNDING KEY TO ECONOMY NASA funding is key to the economy. InformationWeek 09 K.C. Jones, “Proposed NASA Cuts Draw Fire”, InformationWeek, June 8, 2009, http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/federal/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=217800116 (HEG)

Democratic Congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas and Republican Congressman Bill Posey sent a letter to their colleagues Monday urging restoration of the funds. Both representatives are from Florida, where NASA's Kennedy Space Center has a major impact on jobs and the economy. "Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in our state and across the nation," they wrote. "In 2008, the U.S. space industry contributed approximately $100 billion to the U.S. economy and directly employed more than 262,000 people in 41 states at skill levels and pay scales far above national averages according to the Department of Labor." They said that, in Florida, every NASA job translates into 2.82 more jobs, which, in fiscal year 2008 gave Florida $4.1 billion in output, $2.1 billion of household income, and 40,802 jobs. "With the second-highest job loss numbers in the nation in 2008, maintaining current jobs in Florida and ensuring future work at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) represents a road to economic recovery for Florida and our nation," they said.

SECOND, ECON COLLAPSE IS BAD STUFF KIDS Economic collapse will likely trigger nuclear conflict, Mead 92 Walter Russell Mead [Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations], New Perspective Quarterly, p. 30, Summer 1992 (HEG) The failure to develop an international system to hedge against the possibility of worldwide depressionwill open their eyes to their folly. Hundreds of millions-billions-of people around the world have pinned their hopes on the international market economy. They and their leaders have embraced market principles-and drawn closer to the West-because they believe that our system can work for them. But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates, or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia. China. India-these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the 1930's.

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 10 of 12

IMPACT 2: SPACE COLONIZATION. FIRST, NASA IS KEY TO THIS STUFF NASA is key to accessing international cooperation on space colonization and the space market. CGCC 07 Canwest Global Communications Corp. [Canada's largest media company], "Tourism, mining out of this world", © (c) CanWest MediaWorks Publications Inc., June 1, 2007, http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=a903ff6c-e58c-400b-b492-72a29c9bbc40 (HEG) The Global Exploration Strategy, released Thursday by the Canadian Space Agency and 13 other organizations, spells out what officials are calling their shared vision for space exploration and colonization. The strategy makes no mention of the enormous costs involved, but says agency officials have agreed after months of negotiation to co-ordinate their ambitious plans. "With increasing intent and determination, we are resolved to explore our nearest companions -- the Moon, Mars and some nearby asteroids," the strategy says. "Our goal is not a few quick visits, but rather a sustained and ultimately self-sufficient human presence beyond Earth supported by robotic pathfinders." The document outlines the rationale for returning to the Moon and exploring Mars, noting it is fundamental human nature to explore the unknown. The agencies, notorious for incurring cost overruns on such projects as the international space station, also make reference to economic opportunities related to the plan. "Already, far-sighted entrepreneurs are thinking about further commercial expansion into space," says the report, pointing to opportunities for companies to provide crew and cargo transportation services, telecommunications and navigation systems, and space-based resource extraction and processing capabilities. Moon rocks are rich in oxygen that might be exploited to provide life-support systems for lunar operations, and be used to produce liquid oxygen rocket propellant, which might be more economical to manufacture in space than to ship from Earth. Mining the Moon might also yield titanium, a strong light metal favoured for high-end aerospace applications, and helium-3, which could prove valuable if fusion reactors ever become feasible, it says. The agencies also foresee plenty more opportunity for commercial space tourism, both real and virtual. "New telecommunications and robotic innovations create the prospect of offering customers on Earth a 'virtual presence' on the Moon or Mars," it says. "For those who yearn to experience the real thing, sub-orbital spaceflight is on the verge of becoming reality. The future may also hold Earth-orbiting space hotels and excursions to the Moon." The report describes the Moon as a "second home" in the solar system. "Just three days from Earth, the Moon has low gravity and natural resources that make it an ideal location to prepare people and machines for venturing farther into space." But Mars, with both water and other similarities to Earth, "is the place in the solar system where human life could most likely be sustained in the future," says the report, noting the decision to attempt a human journey to Mars is still years away. The agencies have agreed to try to establish a framework for co-ordinating the implementation of the space exploration strategy and to exchange information and identify gaps, duplication and potential areas for collaboration. NASA, the U.S. space agency, describes it as "an important step in an evolving process towards a comprehensive global approach to space exploration."

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 11 of 12

SECOND, THIS STUFF IS AWESOME. The future of an earthbound human race holds a bleak future of inevitable extinction – only colonizing space enables the possibility of surviving in the long term – it’s do or die. Matheny 07 Jason G. Matheny [Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, MBA is a Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. Previously he worked for the World Bank, the Center for Global Development, and the Packard Foundation, evaluating public health projects. He is a Sommer Scholar and PhD student in Health Economics at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received a BA from the University of Chicago, an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published on health economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics], "Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction", Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1335 - 1344, Published Online: 7 Dec 2007, ©2009 Society for Risk Analysis [An international journal; an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis], DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00960.x (HEG) 2. HUMANITY'S LIFE EXPECTANCY We have some influence over how long we can delay human extinction. Cosmology dictates the upper limit but leaves a large field of play. At its lower limit, humanity could be extinguished as soon as this century by succumbing to near-term extinction risks: nuclear detonations, asteroid or comet impacts, or volcanic eruptions could generate enough atmospheric debris to terminate food production; a nearby supernova or gamma ray burst could sterilize Earth with deadly radiation; greenhouse gas emissions could trigger a positive feedback loop, causing a radical change in climate; a genetically engineered microbe could be unleashed, causing a global plague; or a high-energy physics experiment could go awry, creating a "true vacuum" or strangelets that destroy the planet (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farther out in time are risks from technologies that remain theoretical but might be developed in the next century or centuries. For instance, self-replicating nanotechnologies could destroy the ecosystem; and cognitive enhancements or recursively self-improving computers could exceed normal human ingenuity to create uniquely powerful weapons (Bostrom, 2002 ; Bostrom & Cirkovic, 2007 ; Ikle, 2006 ; Joy, 2000 ; Leslie, 1996 ; Posner, 2004 ; Rees, 2003 ). Farthest out in time are astronomical risks. In one billion years, the sun will begin its red giant stage, increasing terrestrial temperatures above 1,000 degrees, boiling off our atmosphere, and eventually forming a planetary nebula, making Earth inhospitable to life (Sackmann, Boothroyd, & Kraemer, 1993 ; Ward & Brownlee, 2002 ). If we colonize other solar systems, we could survive longer than our sun, perhaps another 100 trillion years, when all stars begin burning out (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ). We might survive even longer if we exploit nonstellar energy sources. But it is hard to imagine how humanity will survive beyond the decay of nuclear matter expected in 1032 to 1041 years (Adams & Laughlin, 1997 ).3 Physics seems to support Kafka's remark that "[t]here is infinite hope, but not for us." While it may be physically possible for humanity or its descendents to flourish for 1041 years, it seems unlikely that humanity will live so long. Homo sapiens have existed for 200,000 years. Our closest relative, homo erectus, existed for around 1.8 million years (Anton, 2003 ). The median duration of mammalian species is around 2.2 million years (Avise et al., 1998 ).

Will Malson

WraithLeader 1NC

Page 12 of 12

IMPACT 3: COMETS, NUCLEAR THREATS, NUKES, BIOTERRORISM, AN AGING SUN, CHRISTMAS TREES AT HANNAKUH (kidding ‘bout the last one) NASA is key to prevent extinction: comets, nuclear threats, nukes, bioterrorism, an aging sun. Mathey 07 Jason G. Matheny [Department of Health Policy and Management, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, MBA is a Consultant to the Center for Biosecurity of UPMC. Previously he worked for the World Bank, the Center for Global Development, and the Packard Foundation, evaluating public health projects. He is a Sommer Scholar and PhD student in Health Economics at Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public Health. He received a BA

from the University of Chicago, an MPH from Johns Hopkins University, and an MBA from Duke University. He has published on health economics, risk analysis, biotechnology, and bioethics], "Reducing the Risk of Human Extinction", Risk Analysis, Volume 27, Issue 5, Pages 1335 - 1344, Published Online: 7 Dec 2007, ©2009 Society for Risk Analysis [An international journal; an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis], DOI: 10.1111/j.15396924.2007.00960.x (HEG)

4. REDUCING EXTINCTION RISK We already invest in some extinction countermeasures. NASA spends $4 million per year monitoring near-Earth asteroids and comets (Leary, 2007 ) and there has been some research on how to deflect these objects using existing technologies (Gritzner & Kahle, 2004 ; NASA, 2007 ). $1.7 billion is spent researching climate change and there are many strategies to reduce carbon emissions (Posner, 2004 , p. 181).

There are policies to reduce nuclear threats, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, as well as efforts to secure expertise by employing former nuclear scientists. Of current extinction risks, the most severe may be bioterrorism. The knowledge needed to engineer a virus is modest compared to that needed to build a nuclear weapon; the necessary equipment and materials are increasingly accessible and because biological agents are self-replicating, a weapon can have an exponential effect on a population (Warrick, 2006 ; Williams, 2006 ). 5 Current U.S. biodefense efforts are funded at $5 billion per year to develop and stockpile new drugs and vaccines, monitor biological agents and emerging diseases, and strengthen the capacities of local health systems to respond to pandemics (Lam, Franco, & Shuler, 2006 ). There is currently no independent body assessing the risks of high-energy physics experiments. Posner (2004) has recommended withdrawing federal support for such experiments because the benefits do not seem to be worth the risks. As

for astronomical risks, to escape our sun's death, humanity will eventually need to relocate. If we survive the next century, we are likely to build self-sufficient colonies in space. We would be motivated by selfinterest to do so, as asteroids, moons, and planets have valuable resources to mine, and the technological requirements for colonization are not beyond imagination (Kargel, 1994 ; Lewis, 1996 ). Colonizing space sooner, rather than later, could reduce extinction risk (Gott, 1999 ; Hartmann, 1984 ; Leslie, 1999 ), as a species' survivability is closely related to the extent of its range (Hecht, 2006 ). Citing, in particular, the threat of new biological weapons, Stephen Hawking has said, "I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet" (Highfield, 2001 ). Similarly, NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin (2006) , recently remarked: "The history of life on Earth is the history of extinction events, and human expansion into the Solar System is, in the end, fundamentally about the survival of the species." Perhaps more cost effective than building refuges in space would be building them on Earth. Elaborate bunkers exist for government leaders to occupy during a nuclear war (McCamley, 2007 ). And remote facilities are planned to protect crop seeds from "nuclear war, asteroid strikes, and climate change" (Hopkin, 2007 ). But I know of no self-sufficient, remote, permanently occupied refuge meant to protect humanity from a range of possible extinction events. Hanson (2007) argues that a refuge permanently housing as few as 100 people would significantly improve the chances of human survival during a range of global catastrophes. The Americas and Polynesia were originally populated by fewer than 100 founders (Hey, 2005 ; Murray-McIntosh et al., 1998 ). Although it would take thousands of years for 100 people to repopulate Earth, this would be a small setback compared to extinction.