1AC

1AC Plan + Solvency

The United States federal government should expand
renewable energy development cooperation with China
through involving private-sector partners in planning
discussions to establish joint renewable energy development.

Current cooperation fails because it cant offset high upfront

costs the plan resolves this
Yang 16, (CCS Team Lead in WRIs Climate Program. WRIs CCS team provides
strategic advice on the development of best practices, regulations, and standards
for CCS and participates in the development of national and international strategies
for CCS deployment, consistent with environmental and social integrity. WRI also
plays a leading role in communication and integration of the U.S.-China Clean
Energy Research Center Advanced Coal Technology Consortium, U.S.-CHINA CLEAN
ENERGY COLLABORATION: LESSONS FROM THE ADVANCED COAL TECHNOLOGY
CONSORTIUM,
www.wri.org/sites/default/files/US_China_Clean_Energy_Collaboration_lessons_from_t
he_Advanced_Coal_Technology_Consortium_1.pdf)
Clean energy technology innovation is the key not only to creating a
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
low-carbon global economy, but also to achieving international climate goals. The
International Energy Agencys 2015 edition of Energy Technology Perspectives indicates that renewables, carbon
capture and storage (CCS), fuel switching, and energy efficiency all have critical roles
to play over the next 35 years in contributing to achievement of the 2C scenario (IEA 2015).
Under this scenario, CCS alone is responsible for capturing and storing almost 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2 )
CCS and many other clean energy technologies
per year by 2050 in all sectors. However,
require global attention and support to reach the levels of deployment envisioned in
the IEA report, due to their high upfront costs and great technological
complexity. To help accelerate the development of clean energy technologies, major
economies are increasingly sharing knowledge and expertise, discussing policies
and regulations, and collaborating on research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) activities. To date, many multilateral initiatives have been formed to directly or indirectly encourage
clean energy technology development. They include the Clean Energy Ministerial, Sustainable Energy for All, the
Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum, the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership, and, most
recently, Mission Innovation. In addition, countries are building bilateral channels of cooperation on clean energy
technology development. One prominent example of this type of cooperation is the U.S.-China Clean Energy
Research Center (CERC), which was established in 2009 and renewed for another five years in 2014. The CERC is
composed of consortia that focus on building efficiency, clean energy vehicles, advanced coal technology, energy
efficiency of medium-duty to heavy-duty trucks, and the water-energy nexus in the two countries.1 With the
decisionmakers and
conclusion of Phase I (20112015) of CERC and the beginning of Phase II (20162020),
research collaboration practitioners urgently need a better understanding of CERCs
role in advancing clean energy technologies in order to improve its future
performance and, more generally, to inform future bilateral technology
cooperation between other countries. This working paper focuses on Phase I of CERCs
Advanced Coal Technology Consortium (ACTC), which aims to improve technology and practices for advanced coal
utilization, and carbon capture, utilization, and storage. This study is unique in that it uses a survey methodology to
explore both the rationale underlying the decisions of consortium and project leaders and researchers in the ACTC
Effective bilateral
to join the consortium, and the operation and the effectiveness of the consortium.
cooperation, particularly joint RD&D through public-private partnerships, can be
beneficial to the development of CCS in China and the rest of the world. This working paper
shows that effective cooperation will be difficult to achieve because of administrative, organizational, and technical
differences across national borders. This study offers recommendations for improving the
implementation and performance of CERC to produce more concrete achievements
in its second phase. CERC has helped the United States and China to build mutual trust in
the realm of climate change collaboration over the past five years and, as more solid
achievements are realized in the next five years, CERC can further boost U.S.-China
cooperation on climate change. To improve the performance of CERCACTC, this working
paper recommends: further engagement with the private sector during every
stage of the collaboration process; consolidation of resources to boost joint
RD&D activities; stronger focus on CCS demonstration projects; enhanced
communication and coordination at all levels and in all stages of cooperation; and
re-visioning the CERC as a more open platform to attract more resources.

The plan ensures success of Clean Energy Research

Collaboration it increases coordination, brings in the private
sector, and focuses on the most effective renewables crucial
to effective coop
Yang 16, (CCS Team Lead in WRIs Climate Program. WRIs CCS team provides
strategic advice on the development of best practices, regulations, and standards
for CCS and participates in the development of national and international strategies
for CCS deployment, consistent with environmental and social integrity. WRI also
plays a leading role in communication and integration of the U.S.-China Clean
Energy Research Center Advanced Coal Technology Consortium, U.S.-CHINA CLEAN
ENERGY COLLABORATION: LESSONS FROM THE ADVANCED COAL TECHNOLOGY
CONSORTIUM,
www.wri.org/sites/default/files/US_China_Clean_Energy_Collaboration_lessons_from_t
he_Advanced_Coal_Technology_Consortium_1.pdf)
6.1 Strengthen Communication at Several Levels At the consortium level, enhance communication
between directors and coordinate on project planning, funding allocation,
membership recruitment, and research progress through a stable communication
channel and regular two-way personal visits; allow flexibility in resource allocation among
tasks; assign a point of contact at the consortium level on both sides and hold regular check-in
meetings. At the project level, increase the frequency of communication (e.g. once
every two weeks); increase personal exchanges and work together in real time (inperson
workshop once a year in addition to the annual meeting); assign a point of contact at the project level. 6.2
Strengthen Private-Sector Participation Involve private-sector partners in the
initial discussions to set up the research agenda; understand the needs of the
private sector and present what the consortium can offer to help meet those needs;
involve private sector partners in establishing an IP framework that satisfies
stakeholders, based on the national law on IP issues; involve private-sector
participants in evaluating research performance. It may be useful to implement two
or three outreach events in Washington, DC and Beijing during the spring of 2016, in order to present ACTC
information to relevant companies, research institutions, and provincial government officials. This type of
roadshow could provide an opportunity for consortium and research leaders to present
Phase I achievements and spur interest in research topics for Phase II. 6.3 Strengthen
Joint RD&D Research should be centered on industrial-scale demonstration
projects; therefore, research resources need to be consolidated (there are currently
too many research projects and individual projects receive inadequate
resources). Resources should be prioritized toward projects that are of interest
to researchers in both countries and are truly collaborative. As our results show,
not all research tasks attract equal levels of interest from both sides. 6.4 Create Flexibility
in Changing Research Direction and Membership Identification of appropriate partners at all stages should be a
priority, and a mechanism for quick acceptance or withdrawal of membership should be considered; establish a
mechanism that allows new members to quickly join the collaborative
activities.6 CERCACTC can also serve as a platform to facilitate technology
advancement in clean coal, and could regularly hold workshops for public outreach
to attract new resources and members. 6.5 Barriers to Implementing the Recommendations The
CERCACTC has fundamental value in two areas: international politics and science and
technology development. CERC has clearly demonstrated its political value
through its role in bringing the United States and China together to mitigate climate
change. As Minister Wan Gang of MOST indicated in the 2015 CERC Steering Committee meeting, CERC has
greatly enriched the development of the new type of Great Power relationship
between the United States and China. Furthermore, both the 2014 and 2015 U.S.-China Presidential Joint
Announcements included CERC, and stated that the two countries will continue to support and expand this
Providing strong support to technology development
collaborative technology platform.
through CERC ACTC now will drive CCS technology learning to achieve
commercialization, ideally by 2030. In order to implement the recommendations above, it
will be key to convert CERCs political value to its technology motivation : a
collaborative platform, with high-level support and hundreds of leading scientists
and engineers in the United States and China, which can speed up the technology
learning process. One primary barrier to faster learning is lack of clarity about
each institutions role, including public research institutes and private players, in terms of who leads
demonstration and who supports research. The ideal situation for the CERCACTC type of
bilateral research platform may be that governments provide funding, private
companies lead demonstration projects, and public research institutes tackle the
scientific and engineering problems around the demonstration projects . Only with
mutually agreed-upon roles will this learning system create a united vision
and suitable plans to achieve it. A second barrier is lack of integration of
commercial and research interests, which was not achieved in the first phase of collaboration. With a
view to better integration, the U.S.-side ACTC plans to establish a council composed of private companies that will
provide strategic research guidance and evaluate the RD&D activities from the market perspective in 2016. Overall,
market-oriented climate mitigation is the only way forward for CCS technology.
The plan harmonizes cooperation unlocks an energy revolution
Forbes 14, (SENIOR ASSOCIATE, CLIMATE AND ENERGY PROGRAM WORLD
RESOURCES INSTITUTE, How U.S.-China Cooperation Can Expand Clean Energy
Development, www.wri.org/blog/2014/04/how-us-china-cooperation-can-expand-
clean-energy-development)
Finally, cooperation also occurs at the level of the U.S. and Chinese governments. This level of coordination is
essential to large-scale deployment of clean energy technologies and in helping companies and researchers
navigate the energy landscape. Along with the previously mentioned CERC, an example of government
collaboration includes the U.S.-China Renewable Energy Partnership. This initiative helps map renewable energy
deployments in each country, conducts an annual U.S.-China renewable energy forum, and fosters the sharing of
early initiatives are
best practices. 3 Ways to Bolster U.S.-China Collaboration on Clean Energy These
promising, and they already starting to yield some progress. But truly scaling up clean energy
in both nations at the level necessary to significantly reduce emissions
requires a greater, more sustained effort. For one, researchers, businesses, and
governments should collaborate rather than operate in their own, silo-ed
initiatives. The U.S. and China have had some success in encouraging multi-level
cooperationsuch as through the CERC and the U.S.-China Renewable Energy
Partnershipbut more needs to be done. Secondly, an important area of
expansion is into the realm of environmental policy. Historically, U.S.-China collaboration has
focused only on technology and not on the important interaction between technology
and policy. This approach fails to address the environmental impacts of technology
deploymentan important process when mapping out a sustainable energy future.
Future collaborative efforts should involve both technical and policy aspects of clean
energy deployment. One way to accomplish this would be for the United States and
China to initiate a platform for multi-agency /ministry dialogue that is focused
specifically on environmental policies needed for clean energy deployment, such as
national renewable energy plans. Finally, U.S.-China clean energy collaboration needs
to be more sustained and coordinated. The Climate Change Working Group
(CCWG)established by the United States and China in July of 2013 to is designed explicitly to bring
the relevant agencies and ministries together to pursue low-carbon development.
However, its scope is currently limited to collaboration on just five issue areas. The CCWG, or some
yet-to-be-established entity, needs the power to coordinate sustained, long-term clean
energy cooperation between the two countries. In a world where companies and
products are globally integrated, the benefits of U.S.-China cooperation on clean energy
innovation extends beyond either country. By leveraging and combining the
collective ingenuity of engineers and scientists, businesses, and governments in both
the United States and China, we can help unlock a clean energy revolution.

1AC Warming
Advantage One Warming:
Expanding renewable cooperation is crucial to global efforts to
stop climate change U.S. and Chinese leadership facilitates
global action
He 16, (writer @ China Daily, A lot rides on China-US energy cooperation: panel,
europe.chinadaily.com.cn/world/2016-04/08/content_24378480.htm)
China and the US need to cooperate more on matters of renewable energy not only for
the two countries' benefit but for the sake of the world, said US-China energy experts. "The energy
cooperation between US and China, not only important for these two countries, is also very helpful for the
whole world, because we are the biggest two countries in economic size , in energy
consumption and also in the oil industry as well," said Zhang Guobao, chairman of the
Advisory Committee of the National Energy Committee and former director of the National
Energy Administration. Zhang, who was also former vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform
Commission, was responsible for drafting energy-development programs, new energy development programs, and
mid- and long-term nuclear power development programs. Chen Weidong, former energy researcher, said that
China's demand for oil and gas will grow even as the economy slows down, which will further impact the US-China
relationship and influence the way the two countries cooperate. "Absolute demand will continue and go up. Just like
Zhang said, the two countries are so important not only for the cooperation on the oil industry, but on the Middle
East as well," he said on Thursday at a renewable-energy panel discussion hosted by the National Committee on
US-China Relations and the China Energy Fund Committee. The two countries established the US-China Renewable
Energy Partnership in 2009 to cooperate on clean-energy programs as part of a 10-year effort. Former President Hu
Jintao and US President Barack Obama signed the partnership as a way for the two countries to establish leadership
in the global transition to a clean-energy economy. Joanna Lewis, associate professor of science and technology at
the two countries' cooperation over the last six years has "really
Georgetown University, said that
been able to transform global action" on topics like climate change, which is the
"most well-known success story". The Paris Agreement would not have been
possible, she said, if President Xi Jinping and President Obama were not in a position to make
their November 2014 announcement, when China said it would peak its carbon emissions by around
2030, and the US said it would reduce emissions by 26 to 28 percent below its 2005 levels by 2025.
Current cooperation triggers their disad but expanding it is key to
design sharing that drives down the cost of renewables
Zhang 14, (Prof @ School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing
University, Potential cooperation in renewable energy between China and the United
States of America, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421514005072)
Coop between China and US on renewable energies started around 2000
2. Methods eration

and expanded around 2014 To

.1 Currently, such cooperation is at governmental, non-governmental and/or academic levels and may lead to green growth in the world economy.

reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions China and the US need to find , both

solutions in power generation, transportation, manufacturing and construction

the sectors

traditional energy supplies are limited and will be exhausted in

(Guo et al., 2010). In addition, coal and other

the future The costs of R&D are high the

, which further motivates both countries to seek solutions collaboratively (Gullberg et al., 2014). relatively , and

Chinese renewable industry is still in its early stages, without an effective

energy

mechanism for deployment of renewable energy the If R&D (Yuan et al., 2014 and Schuman and Lin, 2012). the

results in the US can be transferred to China, where the manufacturing base is

being built, it may be a win-win situation for both countries (Wan and Craig, 2013). In terms of the impacts of renewable
energy cooperation on the economy, one needs to develop an effective measure to gauge the outcome because there is no commonly agreed upon indicator in the literature. In this paper, two variables will be considered: the intra-
industry trade index (IIT) and energy efficiency index (EE) (Yoshida, 2013, Egger et al., 2007 and Algieri et al., 2011). IIT can measure a country s technology maturity level, such as the development and utilization of renewable
energy, and is related to economy scales, economic development levels, residents incomes, and their preferences, as follows: equation(1) View the MathML source Turn MathJax on where X is amount of exports of the renewable
energy industry and M is the amount of imports of the industry. Both X and M values are in US dollars. IIT values are between 0 and 1. When X is close to M, IIT will be close to one. The greater the IIT value, the greater the economic
cooperation between China and US is. For China, if the export amount (to US) equals the import amount (from US), cooperation with the US is at its highest. Identically, for the US, if the export amount (to China) equals the import
amount (from China), cooperation with China is at its highest. In this study, one IIT parameter is for China, and the other for the US. Unlike visible IIT, EE reflects potential benefits, which may not show an immediate impact at the
beginning of the cooperation but will gradually display long-lasting impacts as the cooperation continues. That is, as EE increases, manufacturing costs will be reduced and the economy may be improved. In this paper, EE is defined
as GDP per unit of energy consumption. One EE parameter is for China, and the other for the US. Based on IIT and EE, an index called RECI (renewable energy cooperation index) is introduced as follows: RECI=IITEE Turn MathJax on
Thus, both short-term and long-term benefits due to cooperation are considered here. One RECI variable is for China (RECIc), and the other for the US (RECIu). Vector autoregression (VAR) is a model used to reflect the linear
interdependencies among multiple time series. It is more general than the univariate autoregression (AR). For each endogenous variable, there exists a unique equation showing its evolution based on its own lags and the lags of
other variables. Typically, VAR requires a list of variables that may affect each other intertemporally. To establish a VAR model, in addition to RECIc and RECIu, we need other variables, including GDPc and GDPu, overall carbon
dioxide emissions (CO2) and international energy prices (EPRICE). Such variables can be found in the literature dealing with similar issues (Yoon et al., 2011, Liu et al., 2012 and Wang, 2013). The first five variables are treated as
endogenous variables because they directly affect renewable energy and vice versa. The last variable, EPRICE, is treated as the exogenous variable because it directly affects the renewable energy price but is not apparently
affected by the renewable energy price due to the limited utilization of renewable energy at this moment. For endogenous variables (RECIc, RECIu, GDPc, GDPu and CO2), an iterative matrix equation can be given as follows:
equation(2) Yt=C+A1Yt1++ApYtp+HXt+t Turn MathJax on where Yt is the endogenous variable matrix (51) for the present or most recent year (t), Yt1 is the matrix a year ago (t1), Yt-p is the matrix p years ago, Xt is the
exogenous variable (EPRICE) for the present time (t), t is the white noise matrix (51), C is the constant matrix (51), A1 is the coefficient matrix (55) for the previous year (t1), Ap is the coefficient matrix (55) p years ago, and
H is the weighing matrix (51) for the endogenous variable. The data cover a time series between 1985 and 2012, with EE, GDPc and GDPu (GDP in US dollars) values from the World Bank database; IIT values from the United
Nations data base; CO2 emission (in Megatons) values from the BP energy statistics yearbook; and International Energy Price (EPRICE, in US dollars per ton of oil equivalent) being weighted by the average price of coal, oil and
natural gas globally. 3. Results To ensure the validity of the VAR, the stationarity test is performed with three methods, including the ADF (Augmented DickeyFuller), PP (PhillipsPerron) and KPSS (KwiatkowskiPhillipsSchmidtShin)
methods.2 In Table 1, the order is zero for each variable with the KPSS method. As tested by the ADF and PP methods, after the first difference operation, each variable is stable. In other words, the order of integration can be one for
each of these five variables. Table 1. Stationarity test results. ADF PP KPSS Level First difference Level First difference Level First difference CO2 1.968 4.328 0.560 3.212 0.6695 0.131 GDPc 0.636 2.633 0.253 2.599
0.673 0.069 GDPu 2.126 3.030 1.800 3.030 0.660 0.322 RNCIc 0.821 5.110 0.821 5.140 0.341 0.293 RNCIu 2.483 4.488 2.415 4.482 0.245 0.188 EPRICE 0.651 7.173 0.454 7.202
0.480 0.281 RNCIU analyzed by KPSS being always stable. Denotes statistical significance at the 1% levels. Denotes statistical significance at the 5% levels. Denotes statistical significance at the 10% levels. Table options
The lag orders of this VAR model are estimated by three inspection methods, including the Log L (Log Likelihood), AIC (Akaike Information Criterion) and SC (Schwarz Information Criterion) methods, as illustrated in Table 2. The lag
order selected by both the AIC and SC methods is one, which is used in the following calculation. As illustrated in Fig. 1, the reciprocal values of the characteristic roots are all within the unit circle, indicating that VAR (1) is stable.
Thus, we can analyze impulse response and variance decomposition. Table 2. Lag orders of the VAR model. Lag Log L AIC SC 0 231.5572 18.12457 17.88080 1 291.5794 21.95478a 19.46370a 2 325.3011 21.02036
18.94256 a Lag order selected by the criterion. Table options Inverse roots of AR characteristic polynomial. Fig. 1. Inverse roots of AR characteristic polynomial. Figure options The economic indices (GDPc and GDPu) and total
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions may be affected by the renewable energy cooperation indices (RECIc and RECIu). In Fig. 2(a), the vertical axis is the impulse responses of DGDPc, and the horizontal axis is the lag time (year) after the
initial positive impacts are applied to DRECIc and DRECIu. The impact value of DRECIc or DRECIu is the respective standard deviation value in the data. As shown in Fig. 2(a), the renewable energy cooperation index (DRECIu) will
cause a positive response for DGDPc because US technology and trade will help Chinese GDP. However, the DRECIc index will cause negative response for DGDPc because China s initial domestic capital in renewable energy will
reduce its GDP. As the lag time approaches 100 years, both positive and negative impacts diminish. Cumulatively, the positive DGDPc response due to DRECIu is 0.10301, and the negative DGDPc response due to DRECIc is
0.27544, as tabulated in Table 3. Thus, the overall DGDPc response is slightly negative due to the large amount of Chinese capital at the beginning. That is, China needs to buy US manufacturing equipment and hire US experts to
accelerate its renewable energy deployment, which does decrease Chinese GDP. Apparently, one needs to address such concerns in China. Fig. 2(b) illustrates the impulse responses of DGDPu due to DRECIc and DRECIu. The
renewable energy cooperation index (DRECIu) may cause a negative impact on DGDPu initially but a positive impact after five years. In contrast, DRECIc may cause positive impact to DGDPu initially but a negative impact after two
years. As the lag time approaches 100 years, there will be no significant impacts. Cumulatively, the DGDPu responses due to DRECIu and DRECIc are 0.01674 and 0.06078, respectively, as tabulated in Table 3. Referring to Fig. 2(c)
and Table 3, DRECIc and DRECIu will eventually reduce the total CO2 emissions. Such an emission reduction is the main advantage of cooperation. Impulse responses: (a) Response of DGDPc, (b) response of DGDPu, and (c) ... Fig. 2.
Impulse responses: (a) Response of DGDPc, (b) response of DGDPu, and (c) response of DCO2 emission. Notes: The ordinate denotes the fluctuation (%) caused by One S.D. Innovations; the abscissa denotes period of fluctuation.
Figure options Table 3. Total impulse response. Response DCO2 DGDPc DGDPu Impulse RNCIc 0.05251 0.27544 0.06078 RNCIu 0.01843 0.10301 0.01674 Table options In Table 4, the first column is the individual contribution to
DGDPc from each of five variables, calculated with 100 lag years; both DRECIc and DRECIu contribute to Chinese GDP (DGDPc). Similarly, both DRECIc and DRECIu contribute to US GDP (DGDPu), as illustrated in the second column.
Furthermore, both DRECIc and DRECIu contribute to CO2 reductions (DCO2), as illustrated in the third column. In Fig. 3(a), the vertical axis is the individual contribution to Chinese GDP (DGDPc) due to each endogenous variable, and
the horizontal axis is the lag year. Table 4. Cumulative contributions to DGDPc, DGDPu and DCO2. DGDPc DGDPu DCO2 DGDPu 14.07318 33.64238 26.82101 DGDPc 68.95358 45.19165 47.76759 DRECIc 6.15995 10.64529 6.25194
DRECIu 3.96723 7.23153 4.20344 DCO2 6.84606 3.28915 14.95602 Table options Variance decomposition: (a) variance decomposition of DGDPc, (b) variance ... Fig. 3. Variance decomposition: (a) variance decomposition of DGDPc,
(b) variance decomposition of DGDPu, and (c) variance decomposition of DCO2. Notes: The ordinate denotes the contribution share of endogenous variable; the abscissa denotes period. Figure options As illustrated in the top portion
of Fig. 3(a), initially, DRECIu contributes more to DGDPc than the Chinese index (DRECIc). After a couple of years, the contributions from the cooperation indices become the same. Ultimately, DRECIc contributes more than DRECIu.
Thus, DRECIc will benefit DGDPc more than the US index (DRECIu) cumulatively, as illustrated in Table 4. In Fig. 3(b), DRECIc contributes more to US GDP (DGDPu) than DRECIu. At the beginning, DGDPu is mainly affected by itself.
However, 20 years later, DGDPc contributes more than DGDPu. As illustrated in Fig. 3(b) and Table 4, Chinas economic growth may contribute to the US economy in the long run. In Table 4, DRECIc generally contributes more to
DCO2 than DRECIu. In Fig. 3(c), initially, DGDPu contributes more to CO2 emission (DCO2) than DGDPc. After 10 years, DGDPc contributes more to DCO2 than DGDPu. The reason is that the US economy has been stabilised, and the
Chinese economy has been rapidly developing. In the long term, the Chinese economy (DGDPc) may contribute significantly to DGDPc, DGDPu and DCO2, as illustrated in Table 4 and Fig. 3. 4. Discussion As illustrated in Table 3 and
Fig. 2(a), the response of Chinese GDP (DGDPc) due to the US renewable energy cooperation index (DRECIu) is because US technology and resources will help the Chinese economy. Referring to Fig. 2(b), the initial response of US
GDP (DGDPu) due to the Chinese renewable energy cooperation index (DRECIc) is positive because US will gain access to Chinese markets. However, the long-term response of DGDPu due to DRECIc is negative if the cooperation
only stays at the initial level. Thus, it will be crucial to provide other impulses or stimulus after several years. Referring to Fig. 2(b), the initial response of DGDPu due to DRECIu is negative because US monetary resources will be
allocated to China. However, as illustrated in Fig. 2(b) and Table 3, the long-term and cumulative responses will be positive, and such long-term benefits may encourage the US to further develop cooperation with China. As illustrated
in Table 3 and Fig. 2(a), the response of DGDPc due to DRECIc is negative because China will use its own monetary resources to establish renewable energy manufacturing facilities. Based on this model, the benefits are not large
enough to counteract the substitutive cost in China. Thus, it will be important to explore other forms of impulses or stimulus so that the economic benefits to China are more visible. As illustrated in Table 3 and Fig. 2(c), the total CO2
emissions (DCO2) due to DRECIc are reduced, which may motivate China to develop renewable energy for environmental reasons alone. In Fig. 2(c), the total CO2 emission (DCO2) due to DRECIu increases for the first seven years,
which is caused by accelerating usage of traditional energy resources as China initially builds more manufacturing facilities. After seven years, DCO2 is decreased cumulatively as more renewable energy resources replace traditional
energy sources, as illustrated in Table 3 and Fig. 2(c). As far as sustainability is concerned, both countries should focus on the renewable energy industry. If economic growth can be sustained, profitability can be gained. It is mutually
beneficial to explore Chinese renewable energy markets and to utilize US technologies and management systems. Referring to Table 4, DRECIc contributes approximately 6.2% to DGDPc (second column), and DRECIu contributes

Conclusions and policy implications

approximately 7.2% to DGDPu (third column). Currently, we are focusing on the effects of the investments in an ongoing study. 5.

renewable energy cooperation between China and the US may stimulate

Based on the above analysis,

economic development and reduce carbon dioxide emissions. As the worlds first
and second leaders in economies, the countries share a common interest in
continuous economic growth while protecting the environment it is crucial to . Therefore,

further improve the bilateral trade cooperation in renewable energy products. To

encourage investment in renewable energy, both countries should develop
joint policies . If needed, such policies should be reviewed and revised every 38 years to continuously stimulate the economy, as illustrated in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3. Furthermore, China and the US should seek
renewable energy cooperation with other countries and encourage international banking systems to increase investments in renewable energy.

The plan solves warming the U.S. and China are the top
emitters and further coop drives down costs of global
renewables independently, warming spurs vast, structural
violence
Li 14 MA in Global Studies @ U Denver, Int'l Affairs Coordinator @ UN (Xiaoyu,
"China-US Cooperation: Key to the Global Future," China Institute of International
Studies,http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2014-01/13/content_6606656.htm)

Cooperation on climate change mitigation, adaptation, and consequence management.

China-US cooperation will be increasingly critical to the global response to
climate change. New scientific studies warn that the worst-case scenarios for
climate change impacts are the most likely outcomes. Scientific assessments also maintain that
anthropomorphic climate change is partly responsible for extreme weather events that
the world is already experiencing at an increasing rate, from the floods in Pakistan and the heat
wave in Russia to the melting glaciers and ice sheets and the superstorm Sandy that inflicted
unprecedented destruction on New York and New Jersey. It is highly likely
that global climate change will be a key issue in the coming two decades as the
world faces increasing climate-induced humanitarian disasters and
infrastructure destruction requiring immediate and expensive relief as well as costly, long-term
adaptation. Climate change likely will increase social and political instability in many areas of the world, including
emerging economies and developed countries. It also will likely renew political pressure for emissions reductions,
China-US cooperation in all
especially by China and the United States, the worlds two biggest emitters.
these areas will be critical to whether the world cooperates and how effective any
cooperation is in responding to the potentially existential threat posed by global
climate change. The two countries also can build on decades of bilateral
cooperation on energy and environment to seize opportunities for
lucrative joint energy technology development that would substantially
benefit Chinese and US businesses as well as lower costs and widely
disseminate clean energy technologies.

Warming is real and causes extinction its comparatively

more dangerous than nuclear war
Deibel 7Prof IR @ National War College (Terry, Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic
for American Statecraft, Conclusion: American Foreign Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well
as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future,
demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability
of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists worldwide
have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now,
and what was once a mere possibility has passed through probability to
near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate
change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003
doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. In legitimate scientific
circles, writes Elizabeth Kolbert, it is virtually impossible to find
evidence of disagreement over the fundamentals of global warming.
Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates
almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts brutal droughts, floods and
violent storms across the planet over the next century; climate change could literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge
portions of Alpine Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria; glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting
much faster than expected, andworldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago; rising sea temperatures
NASA scientists have
have been accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes;
concluded from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the
hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second; Earths warming
climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5
million illnesses each year as disease spreads; widespread bleaching from Texas to
Trinidadkilled broad swaths of corals due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. The world is slowly disintegrating, concluded
Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. They call it climate changebut we just call it breaking up.
From the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels in
At present they are
the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm).
accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about
double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a
century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow
their increase, we are thus in for significant global warming; the only
debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper
stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2
degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs
of plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of
low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the
Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level
of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolinas outer banks, swamp
the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the middle of
Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic thermohaline circulation that
keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the
damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-
26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse
warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in
the atmosphere that is both caused by and causes hotter surface
temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took
place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced
with this specter, the best one can conclude is that humankinds
continuing enhancement of the natural greenhouse effect is akin to
playing Russian roulette with the earths climate and humanitys life
support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New
York University, were just going to burn everything up; were going to
heat the atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when
there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will collapse.
During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of
nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied
States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but
possibly end life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War eras
equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably better
supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers from terrorism
and traditional military challenges to shame . It is a threat not only to the
security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the
continued existence of life on this planet

CO2 acidifies the ocean causing extinction its not too late to
solve
Romm 9 (Joe, a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress,
which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called "the indispensable blog" and
Time magazine named one of the 25 Best Blogs of 2010. In 2009, Rolling Stone
put Romm #88 on its list of 100 people who are reinventing America. Time named
him a Hero of the Environment and The Webs most influential climate-change
blogger. Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and
renewable energy in 1997, where he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and
deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress
and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT, Imagine a World without Fish: Deadly ocean
acidification hard to deny, harder to geo-engineer, but not hard to stop is
subject of documentary , http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/09/02/204589/a-sea-
change-imagine-a-world-without-fish-ocean-acidification-film/, AM)
Global warming is capable of wrecking the marine ecosystem and
depriving future generations of the harvest of the seas (see Ocean dead zones to
expand, remain for thousands of years). A post on ocean acidification from the new Conservation Law Foundation
blog has brought to my attention that the first documentary on the subject, A Sea Change: Imagine a World without
Fish, is coming out.Ocean acidification must be a core climate message, since it
is hard to deny and impervious to the delusion that geoengineering is the
silver bullet. Indeed, a major 2009 study GRL study, Sensitivity of ocean acidification to
geoengineered climate stabilization (subs. reqd), concluded: The results of this paper support
the view that climate engineering will not resolve the problem of ocean
acidification, and that therefore deep and rapid cuts in CO2 emissions are
likely to be the most effective strategy to avoid environmental damage
from future ocean acidification. If you want to understand ocean acidification better, see this BBC
story, which explains: Man-made pollution is raising ocean acidity at least 10
times faster than previously thought, a study says. Or see this Science magazine study,
Evidence for Upwelling of Corrosive Acidified Water onto the Continental Shelf (subs. req), which found Our
a large section of the North American continental
results show for the first time that
shelf is impacted by ocean acidification. Other continental shelf regions may also be impacted
where anthropogenic CO2-enriched water is being upwelled onto the shelf. Or listen to the Australias ARC Centre of
The worlds oceans are becoming more
Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, which warns:
acid, with potentially devastating consequences for corals and the marine
organisms that build reefs and provide much of the Earths breathable
oxygen. The acidity is caused by the gradual buildup of carbon dioxide
(CO2) in the atmosphere, dissolving into the oceans. Scientists fear it could be lethal
for animals with chalky skeletons which make up more than a third of the planets marine life. Corals and
plankton with chalky skeletons are at the base of the marine food web.
They rely on sea water saturated with calcium carbonate to form their
skeletons. However, as acidity intensifies, the saturation declines, making it
harder for the animals to form their skeletal structures (calcify). Analysis of coral
cores shows a steady drop in calcification over the last 20 years, says Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of CoECRS
and the University of Queensland. Theres not much debate about how it happens: put more CO2 into the air
above and it dissolves into the oceans. When CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach about 500 parts per million, you
put calcification out of business in the oceans. (Atmospheric CO2 levels are presently 385 ppm, up from 305 in
1960.) Id like to see an analysis of what happens when you get to 850 to 1000+ ppm because that is where were
headed (see U.S. media largely ignores latest warning from climate scientists: Recent observations confirm the
worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realised 1000 ppm). The CLF post notes: Dr.
Jane Lubchenco, Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warns that an acidic
ocean is the equally evil twin of climate change. Scott Doney, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution noted in a public presentation that New England is the most vulnerable region in the country to ocean
dozens of Academies of Science, including ours and Chinas,
acidification. In June,
issued a joint statement on ocean acidification , warned Marine food supplies
are likely to be reduced with significant implications for food production
and security in regions dependent on fish protein, and human health and
wellbeing and Ocean acidification is irreversible on timescales of at least
tens of thousands of years. They conclude: Ocean acidification is a direct consequence of
increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. To avoid substantial damage to ocean ecosystems,
deep and rapid reductions of global CO2 emissions by at least 50% by 2050, and much more
thereafter are needed. We, the academies of science working through the InterAcademy Panel on
 Acknowledge that ocean acidification is
International Issues (IAP), call on world leaders to:
a direct and real consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2
concentrations, is already having an effect at current concentrations, and
is likely to cause grave harm to important marine ecosystems as CO2
concentrations reach 450 ppm and above; Recognise that reducing the build up of CO2 in
the atmosphere is the only practicable solution to mitigating ocean acidification; Within the context of the
UNFCCC negotiations in the run up to Copenhagen 2009, recognise the direct threats posed by increasing
atmospheric CO2 emissions to the oceans and therefore society, and take action to mitigate this threat;
Implement action to reduce global CO2 emissions by at least 50% of 1990 levels by 2050 and continue to reduce
If we want to save life in the oceans and save ourselves,
them thereafter.
since we depend on that life the time to start slashing carbon dioxide
emissions is now.

It destabilizes states which is a threat multiplier and causes

nuclear war
Johnson 10bachelors degree in math and physics from Amherst College and
masters degree in geosciences from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
(Brad, 6 August 2010, Global Boiling Fuels Disasters in Nuclear Nations,
http://www.progressiverealist.org/blogpost/global-boiling-fuels-disasters-nuclear-
nations,)
Fueled by the buildup of fossil fuel pollution, the worlds out-of-control climate is destabilizing many of
the nations that control nuclear weapons, including Russia, China, North
Korea, India, and Pakistan. Thousands have died in fires and floods, millions left homeless, and crops failed in
the withering heat, the greatest the modern world has ever faced: RUSSIA Moscow has reached 102.2 F, after never before even
breaking the 100-degree mark in recorded history. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev have flooded the
airwaves in response to outrage over the wildfires and droughts caused by the global heat wave, as officials are forced to admit the
situation is out of control. The Russian government has recommended people evacuate Moscow, banned wheat exports, diverted
flights, fired senior military officers, and warned the fires could pose a nuclear threat if they reach areas contaminated by Chernobyl.
Medvedev called the linked disasters evidence of this global climate change, which means we need to change the way we work,
change the methods that we used in the past. CHINA The worst flooding ever recorded in northeast China, caused by weeks of
torrential rain with no end in sight, has caused nearly $6 billion in damage to water projects there, In addition, 52 people are
reported to have died and an additional 20 are missing following rain-triggered floods in central Chinas Henan Province. In the
southwestern province of Yunnan, at least 11 people died and 11 were missing following a landslide caused by heavy rain. INDIA
Record temperatures in northern India have claimed hundreds of lives in what is believed to be the hottest summer in the country
since records began in the late 1800s. The death toll in flashfloods that hit the remote mountainous region of Ladakh in Indian-
held Kashmir has risen to 103. NORTH KOREA Flooding last month caused serious damage in North Korea, destroying homes,
farms, roads and buildings and hurting the economy, the secretive dictatorship of North Korea admitted yesterday. About 36,700
acres of farmland was submerged and 5,500 homes and 350 public buildings and facilities were destroyed or flooded, the official
Korean Central News Agency said. The news agency had previously reported heavy rains fell in the country in mid- to late July, but
those earlier reports did not mention flooding or damage. State media in the impoverished, reclusive nation often report news days
or weeks after an event takes place. PAKISTAN Islamist charities, some with suspected ties to militants, stepped in on Monday to
provide aid for Pakistanis hit by the worst flooding in memory, piling pressure on a government criticized for its response to the
disaster that has so far killed more than 1,000 people. Thousands of people are fleeing Pakistans most populous areas as
devastating floods that have already affected more than 3 million people sweep towards the south. Fatima Bhutto, Benazir
Bhuttos niece, lashed out: The floods are just the latest, most tragic example of how inept the Pakistani state truly is. As
warming-fueled disasters grow more intense and more frequent, they put
greater pressure on the governments of these nuclear states. This threat to global security
was brought to the White Houses attention as far back as 1979, when top scientists warned that global warming would
threaten the stability of food supplies, and would present a further set of intractable problems to
organized societies. As the CNA Corporation wrote in 2007, climate change is a
threat multiplier in already fragile regions, exacerbating conditions that
lead to failed states the breeding grounds for extremism and terrorism.
The Pentagons 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review recognized that global warming impacts and disasters will act as
an accelerant of instability or conflict.

Specifically, it causes climate refugees they spur nuclear war

Campbell et al. 7 - Kurt M. Campbell is CEO and co-founder of the Center for a
New American Security and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asia
and the Pacific. Leon Fuerth is a research professor of international affairs at The
George Washington University, and former national security advisor to Vice
President Al Gore. Jay Gulledge, Ph.D., is the senior scientist and program manager
for science and impacts at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Alexander T. J.
Lennon is the editor-in-chief of CSISs flagship journal, The Washington Quarterly.
J.R. McNeill is a professor of history at Georgetown University. Derek Mix is a
research associate in the CSIS Europe Program. Peter Ogden is senior national
security analyst at the Center for American Progress. John Podesta is president and
CEO of the Center for American Progress and former chief of staff for President Bill
Clinton. Julianne Smith is the director of the CSIS Europe Program and the Initiative
for a Renewed Transatlantic Partnership. Richard Weitz is a senior fellow and director
of program management at Hudson Institute. R. James Woolsey is a vice president
for Booz Allen Hamilton and former director of the CIA. NOVEMBER 2007, The Age
of Consequences: The Foreign Policy and National Security Implications of Global
Climate Change, center for new American security
In the case of severe climate change, projected massive nonlinear events in the global environ-
ment give rise to massive nonlinear societal events. In this scenario, nations around the world will
be overwhelmed by the scale of change and perni- cious challenges, such
as pandemic disease and water and food shortages. The internal cohesion
of nations will be under great stress, including in the United States, due to
a dramatic rise in migration, changes in agricultural patterns and water avail- ability, and wealthier
members of society pulling away from the rest of the population. Protests, civil unrest, and
violent upheaval of governments are possible. The flooding of coastal communities around
the world, especially in the Netherlands, the United States, South Asia, and China, has the potential to challenge
Armed conflict between nations over resources
regional and even national identities.
and even territory, such as the Nile and its tributaries, is likely, and nuclear war is
possible.

1AC Relations
Advantage 2 Relations:
U.S.-China relations are about to crash new engagement
solves
Mayeda and Mohsin 5-23. (Andrew Mayeda, Global economy reporter for
Bloomberg News. Saleha Mohsin, MA Journalism, reporter for Bloomberg.
Complicated U.S.-China Dance Could Be Headed for Rough Turn. May 23, 2016.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-05-23/complicated-u-s-china-
dance-could-be-headed-for-rough-turn)
economic relations between the U.S. and China may be poised
Complicated in the best of times,
to enter a new period of turbulence. American presidential candidates are pledging
a tougher stand against the Communist-controlled nation, Chinas top central
banker is approaching retirement and the nations leaders are struggling to manage
a shift to a new growth model. A daunting set of challenges awaits the next American president, whether its
Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump: questions about Chinas commitment not to devalue its currency amid persistent capital outflows,
stalled negotiations on a trade deal that would make it easier for U.S. companies to invest in China, and concern about Chinese
piracy of U.S. intellectual property. Thats not to mention hostility toward China among both Republicans and Democrats in
Congress, and tensions on foreign-policy issues such as cyber-security and the military balance of power in the South China Sea.
Wrong Direction Theres definitely a clear momentum in the wrong direction, said Scott
 The level of trust is
Kennedy, a China scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
somewhere near scraping the bottom. Thats the backdrop for the Obama administrations last major
bilateral confab with China. Lew and Secretary of State John Kerry will travel to Beijing for talks June 6-7 under the Strategic and
Economic Dialogue, a forum for discussions between the two powers. Former president George W. Bush and then-Chinese leader Hu
Jintao started the dialogue in 2006, with a focus on economic relations. In 2009, Obama and Hu added a separate foreign-policy
track to the talks, led by State Department officials and their Chinese counterparts. Some observers say the talks appear to be
drifting. Theres no clear leader in the U.S. administration on U.S.-China relation s, said
David Loevinger, a former China specialist at the Treasury and now an analyst at fund manager TCW Group Inc. in Los Angeles.
Lews done a good job, Kerrys done a good job, but theres no point person. Such an assertion is wrong, said Wally Adeyemo,
The dialogue has
President Barack Obamas deputy national security adviser for international economics.
established Lew and Kerry as leaders of their respective tracks, and various people
have helped put us in a position to make progress with regard to the bilateral
relationship, Adeyemo said in an interview.
Climate coop is a model for broader cooperation it highlights dispute resolution
and mutual understanding
SCMP 6-6, (South China Morning Post, China, US cooperation on climate change a
model of how two nations can resolve differences, says Chinese negotiator, 6-6-
2016, www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/1967010/china-us-
cooperation-climate-change-model-how-two)
China and the United States cooperation in tackling climate change is an example of how
the two countries can work together to resolve their differences, Beijings top climate
change negotiator said on Monday. The way the two nations had cooperated on the issue was a
model example of a new type of power relations between the two countries that
Chinas President Xi Jinping is seeking, said Xie Zhenhua. Xie made his comments on the sidelines of the annual
strategic and economic dialogue between top US and Chinese leaders, which is now underway in Beijing. The two
sides are discussing a range of issues, including rising tensions between Beijing and Washington over Chinas
increasingly assertive territorial claims in the South China Sea. [ As
long as we can] increase mutual
understanding, build mutual trust and respect each others core interests and major
concerns, we can always find solutions to our differences, said Xie. The climate deal negotiator
dedicated a large part of his 30-minute briefing lauding how the two countries top leaders had worked together on
the issue. Their cooperation included three joint statements by Xi and Barack Obama since 2014 that laid some of
the foundations to secure a climate change deal in Paris last year. Ensuring that the Paris agreement goes into force
as soon as possible will be a major task for China and the US this year, said Xie. Cooperation
on climate
change between the two countries is a highlight in the new type of major power
relations, as well as an exemplar of a new global governance system, he said.
The two countries decided to bury the hatchet and stop challenging and blaming
each other during international climate talks after the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen climate summit to
reach a global deal. Since Xi took office three years ago he has repeatedly promoted the idea of a new type of
major power relations to govern China-US ties based on cooperation and mutual respect, receiving only a
lukewarm response from Washington.

The plan upgrades relations across the board its a singular issue of
convergence joint development is key
Hart 14, (Director for China Policy at the Center for American Progress, Energy
and Climate Change Exploring the Frontiers of U.S.-China Strategic Cooperation,
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2014/11/10/100761/energy
-and-climate-change/)
The United States and China have a unique window of opportunity to achieve
measurable progress on energy and climate change and to upgrade the U.S.-China
relationship across the board. The two nations currently share more interests in this
space than in any other. On military issues, for example, dialogue has improved
tremendously in recent years. But at a strategic level, the United States and China are still
primarily just trying to avoid destabilizing incidents in the Asia-Pacific. On cyber
security, the government-to-government working group under the Strategic and Economic Dialogue, or S&ED, has been
unable to even schedule meetings, much less think about actual policy deliverables.
On economic issues, commercial complaints are growing on both sides of the Pacific
and making it increasingly difficult to agree on anything new and concrete that
would deepen market integration in the near-to-medium term. If U.S. and Chinese
leaders want their meetings to produce something new and concrete, there is a
growing consensus in both capitols that energy and climate cooperation is
the only track that can reliably deliver. The range of energy and climate
deliverables rolled out thus far is truly breathtaking. Current bilateral projects include cooperation on advanced
vehicle technology, clean coal, building efficiency, greenhouse gas-emission monitoring, smart grid technology, shale gas development, and many others.
There is virtually no area of this domain where the two nations are not
cooperating in some way. Most importantly, this cooperation is in the form of real projects that
involve people from both sides getting together to actually do something. By any measure,
this area of the relationship has become a true action track, not an empty-talk track. At the
same time, however, it is important to make sure that this growing array of action-oriented projects eventually adds up to something more than a steady
stream of deliverables for high-level meetings. On climate change, in particular, bilateral cooperation will not be considered a true win unless those
activities have an impact that goes far beyond the bilateral relationship. Most importantly, other nations around the world are looking to the United States
and China to breakdown the current impasse between developed and developing countries and serve as the poles around which the rest of the world
could rally to form a new global climate agreement in 2015. Unfortunately, it is specifically on those big-picture issues where the United States and China
are still coming up short. Looking beneath the surface of this new action track, the two nations still do not see eye to eye on issues of principle such as
how to divide climate responsibility among nations or how to best structure global energy institutions. In October 2014, the Center for American Progress
convened a group of rising U.S. and Chinese scholars to discuss these and other difficult issues in the bilateral relationship. This essay collection presents
the views of the energy and climate experts who led the discussion on these issues. For more detail on critical themes that emerged from the closed-door
track II discussions, see Expanding the Frontier of U.S.-China Strategic Cooperation Will Require New Thinking on Both Sides of the Pacific. The scholars
in this essay collection all agree that, although recent progress in the energy and climate space has been admirable, that progress has focused primarily
on low-hanging fruit, and it is now time to kick cooperation up a notch and start chipping away at the truly difficult issues that still divide us. Melanie Hart,
director for China Policy at Center for American Progress, starts off this essay collection by arguing that the reason U.S.-China energy and climate
cooperation has been able to flourish at the bilateral level is because those projects primarily involve a transfer of knowledge or assistance to the Chinese,
with China playing the developing economy role it is most familiar with. When U.S. leaders try to carry that spirit of cooperation over to multilateral forums
for reducing greenhouse gas emission, they run into two problems. First, although Chinas economy is still developing, in a larger group, China looks like a
major power. That brings international demands for China to take on new responsibilities, which Chinese leaders are wary of at their current development
level, particularly since there are no clear models for what level of responsibility a major-power, but middle-income nation should have. Second, when the
goal is reducing greenhouse gas emissions, U.S. and Chinese leaders want to make sure any action they take at home is reciprocated abroad, and U.S. and
Chinese leaders are particularly suspicious of one another in this regard. Melanie recommends that the United States and China take near-term action to
fill in these information gaps. In the multilateral arena, the United States can utilize small-group forums such as the Arctic Council to help Chinese leaders
experiment with new models of climate responsibility, thus building up their comfort level for more ambitious action in larger-group, higher-impact forums
such as the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC. Melanie also recommends that U.S. and Chinese leaders launch a bilateral climate
WANG Ke,
impact assessment program to give both sides more information about their counterparts political interests in the climate space.

assistant professor at the Renmin University School of Environment and Natural

Resources and Research Fellow at the Renmin University National Academy of
Development and Strategy, points out that from a Chinese perspective, the biggest problem is not how to increase Chinas climate
leadership role but rather how to get the United States and other developed nations to recognize that they also need to do more. He argues that a
significant portion of Chinas carbon footprint comes from producing goods that are then exported to consumers in the United States and other developed
nations. In the globalized era, emissions and emission-reduction responsibilities cannot be perfectly divided among nations because the industrial
recommends more integrated emission-
processes that produce those emissions are part of a global supply chain. He

reduction approaches that include technology transfers and other forms of

assistance for emerging markets such as China since those nations are working to
reduce not only their own carbon footprints but those of the entire global value
chain. Joanna Lewis, associate professor of Science, Technology and International Affairs at the Georgetown
University Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, offers suggestions for how to better leverage the bilateral relationship between the United States
and China in order to influence both the outcome of the international climate negotiations and the likelihood that any targets pledged may actually be
argues that while the bilateral cooperation that has occurred to date in the clean energy and climate space has
achieved. She

facilitated constructive dialogue, it has been modest in scope , so far lacking the
types of commitments that could be truly game changing when viewed from an
international context. As a result, she thinks it is worth considering the types of high-
impact announcements that might be more politically and economically feasible
within the next year, that could get bilateral buy in from the two largest emitters,
and that could have global reverberations. Joanna recommends that U.S. and Chinese
leaders set up a joint clean energy research and development fund, expand
cooperation on climate adaptation and resilience, and look for opportunities
to link domestic implementation of national climate policies.
Deepening renewable cooperation expands China relations failure causes
collapse which dooms broader cooperation that filters their impacts
Holbrooke and Desai 9, (Asia Society Richard Holbrooke, Chairman Vishakha
Desai, President Initiative for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate, A
Roadmap for U.S.-China Cooperation on Energy and Climate Change,
e360.yale.edu/images/features/us-china-roadmap.pdf)
Catalyzing a Second Strategic Transformation China and the United States are closely
II.
linked through a vast web of economic, political, and security interests and social
networks that have deepened and broadened through government-to-government
collaboration and through the process of globalization. The result is an interdependent, bilateral
relationship in a world in which the fates of all nations are tied ever closer
together, as evidenced by the rapid internationalization of the 2008 financial crisis.
China and the United States face similar strategic challenges in seeking to strengthen
energy security, combat climate change, and ensure economic growth and
prosperity. However, neither can fully meet these challengesnor can the world
without the full engagement of the other. Nearly four decades ago, a historic rapprochement between
the United States and China set in motion the most far-reaching transformation of the international economic, political, and security
order since the aftermath of World War II. In opening the door to a new strategic relationship in 1972, China and the United States
overcame more than 20 years of mutual isolation, ideological rivalry, and intense hostility, inflamed by a hot war in Korea, a
nearconflict over Taiwan, and a proxy war in Vietnam. !e initial objective of this rapprochement was the containment and strategic
isolation of the Soviet Union, and one effect was, indeed, to hasten the peaceful demise of the Soviet Union and its Eastern
European empire, thereby ending the Cold War and creating the conditions for a more integrated world economy. !e subsequent
normalization of U.S.-China relations in 1979 created the international conditions for Chinas successful opening to the outside world
and its market-based economic reforms, leading not only to the extraordinary reemergence of China on the global stage, but to the
Despite periodic bilateral tensions and differences, the U.S.-China
acceleration of globalization.
relationship has contributed significantly to global economic growth and strategic
stability, as well as to solving many pressing political and security problems. As China has
grown immensely more powerful over the last thirty years, the United States and China have not engaged in a destabilizing strategic
leaders in both nations have recognized their increasing
competition for regional and global dominance. Rather,
strategic interdependence and have effectively collaborated to solve or manage
regional and global threats and challenges. For example, since 9/11, the two countries have
cooperated quietly and extensively on a wide range of counter-terrorism measures.
They have also engaged in sustained and effective collaboration on proliferation,
including the Six Party Talks, to eliminate North Koreas nuclear weapons
program; establishing collaborative bilateral and international measures,
stimulated by the 2003 SARS epidemic and the later emerging danger of avian
flu, to prevent and contain pandemics; and consulting at a high level on a daily
basis in response to the fall 2008 global financial crisis. In addition, they have effectively
handled the volatile Taiwan issue, leading to more hopeful prospects for long-term peace and stability in cross-Strait relations. In the
the United States and China now have a chance to catalyze another major
21st century,
transition in the international economic and political orderthis time to help
facilitate the emergence of a low-carbon global economy . While the European Union has taken the
lead, and other major powers are declaring a willingness to act, they will lack the
confidence and clout to effect a real global transformation without the
participation, leadership, and commitment of the United States and China. The reality is that
prospects for a comprehensive new climate agreement, whether later this year in Copenhagen or beyond, rest heavily on the
A new U.S.-China partnership on energy and climate
political will of the United States and China.
could also help preserve and strengthen Sino-American relations more
broadly. As the two economies have become increasingly intertwined, each has
become mutually vulnerable to developments within the other , leading to frequent
tensions over trade and financial issues. Against that backdrop, climate and energy issues
have given rise to further concerns about a loss of competitiveness in the United States
and a threat to continued development in China . In this atmosphere, a failure to
cooperate could lead to new recriminations over energy and climate
change, deepening suspicions of each others strategic intentions and
straining the bilateral relationship in new ways that harm the ability of the
two countries to work together on a wide range of issues. Conversely, if
managed successfully, joint U.S.-China stewardship of the climate challenge could
strengthen strategic ties by building mutual trust at a time when the American public is
becoming increasingly skeptical of the benefits of bilateral economic integration. If
U.S.-China cooperation on climate change is aligned constructively with other U.S. and Chinese objectives, it
will add a new common interest to the mix and thereby strengthen the Sino-
American relationship. Broadening and deepening areas of long-term,
mutually beneficial cooperation and strategic trust between the two countries can only
strengthen their ability to cooperate effectively in meeting the broad range of
strategic challenges of the 21st century.

Strong relations solve North Korean denuclearization

prevents war and broad prolif
Xiyu 15. (Yang Xiyu is Senior Research Fellow at China Institute of International
Studies. North Korean Nuclear Issue in China-U.S. Relations. July 10, 2015.
http://www.ciis.org.cn/english/2015-07/10/content_8062011.htm)
Cooperation and Disagreement on North Korean Nuclear Issue Between China and the United States As for their policies toward the
both China and the United States have demanded the complete
North Korean nuclear issue,
denuclearization of North Korea, and they share the same position and policy goal of
a nuclear-weapons-free Korean Peninsula. Moreover, since the Six-Party Talks were initiated by China, both
countries have stated that the talks are the only feasible approach to the settlement of the issue, so they have made close
that both China and the
communication and coordination with each other under and beyond the framework. Given
United States play unique roles in the efforts to achieve a peaceful settlement of
North Koreas nuclear issue through dialogue, the issue has become a vital subject
of their presidential meetings, the China-U.S. Strategic and Economic Dialogue, as
well as other diplomatic conferences and negotiations at all levels . Due to the
impact of North Koreas second nuclear test, the Cheonan incident, Yeonpyeong Island shelling and other crises, the issue has hit the
gridlock. Against this backdrop, both heads of state, after meeting with each other in January 2011, made a joint statement
reconfirming their further cooperation on the nuclear issue and reiterating their deep concerns over the uranium enrichment plan
announced by North Korea. They called for early resumption of the Six-Party Talks through necessary measures, so as to address the
The coordination and cooperation between China and the
issue and related ones.[17]
United States on the North Korean nuclear issue prevent it from spinning
out of control, avoid nuclear nonproliferation and the outbreak of
conflicts, and promise a peaceful settlement of the complicated security
issue through the Six-Party Talks. If we make a comparison between Chinas policies on the nuclear issue
with that adopted by the three U.S. presidents, it is not hard to see that the two nations have differences not only in the consistency
China has maintained consistency and
and stability of their policies, but also in substantive content. First,
stability on the issue throughout the past decade while the United States has
adopted different policies since the Clinton administration. These changes in policy
have not only hindered a smooth settlement of the issue, but also cooperation on it.
Second, China has always called for increasing mutual trust , narrowing disagreement
with the United States through dialogue, and gradually creating conditions for a
nuclear-free peninsula through political, security, economic and diplomatic
approaches; in comparison, the United States is over-dependent on imposing
pressure and sanctions on North Korea, seeking to force it to give up its nuclear
program unconditionally. Since the nuclear issue broke out again in October 2002, both the Republican Bush
administration and the Democratic Obama administration have refused official talks with North Korea. Each time when the United
States senses that it lacks measures to impose pressure on North Korea, it asks China to join the sanction club by taking
advantage of Chinas resources. Their different intentions and thinking, characterized by Chinas call for dialogue and the United
Chinas
States preference for imposing pressure, have led to growing mutual suspicion between the two countries. Third,
advocacy of denuclearization of North Korea is part of its efforts to secure a
peninsula that is free of nuclear weapons and its recognition that North Korea has
the same right to peaceful use of nuclear energy as other sovereign states . However,
since the Bush administration, the United States has called on North Korea to abandon its entire nuclear program, including the
This disagreement has not yet been solved. Nonetheless, the
peaceful use of nuclear energy.
common interests and agreement between China and the United States on
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula have fundamental and
strategic significance. This common ground is the basis of their long-term
cooperation on the issue as well as a vital field for cooperation in their
joint efforts to establish a new model of China-U.S. relations . China and
the United States Should Enhance Cooperation and Narrow Differences Since
the end of the Cold War, it seems that the Korean Peninsula has been trapped in a periodic loop of a crisis every four years. When
the first North Korean nuclear crisis broke out in 1994, the United States and North Korea were on the brink of war. The 1994 U.S.-
DPRK Agreed Framework helped ease the crisis and improved their relations, but four years later in 1998, North Koreas test launch
of a long-range ballistic missile triggered a second crisis, leaving the two countries in confrontation again. Thanks to hard but
substantial negotiations, their relationship was turned around, characterized by their first high-level exchange visits: In October
2000, Jo Myong-rok, Vice Marshal of the Korean Peoples Army, visited Washington as a special envoy, during which the two sides
signed the U.S.-DPRK Joint Communiqu in order to establish a new model for the relationship between the two countries in the 21st
century. After that, Albright, U.S. Secretary of State, paid a visit to Pyongyang and attended political meetings with Kim Jong-il.[18]
Given the transfer of power in the United States, the issue of North Koreas uranium enrichment touched off a third crisis four years
later at the end of 2002, but thanks to Chinas active mediation and efforts, the parties concerned initiated the Six-Party Talks. In
September 2005, they signed the historic September 19 Joint Statement, which not only resolved the crisis, but also put the nuclear
issue back on the right track of multilateral dialogue and negotiations. However, these efforts failed to end the crisis loop. In 2006,
North Korea conducted its first nuclear test regardless of strong opposition from the international community, leading to the fourth
crisis. Although the Six-Party Talks mechanism brought the parties concerned back onboard to resolve the crisis and facilitate the
launch of substantive disablement, worryingly, the crisis loop still exists and the cycle has been shortened to a more frequent
level: Three years after the fourth crisis in 2006, another crisis broke out on the Korean Peninsula; merely one year later in 2010, the
Cheonan incident and Yeonpyeong Island shelling ignited military confrontation. Three years after Yeonpyeong Island shelling, the
headquarters of the Korean Peoples Army (KPA) suddenly made an announcement, saying, The army groups on the front, ground
forces, the navy, air and anti-air units, strategic rocket units of the KPA, the Worker-Peasant Red Guards and the Young Red Guards
have launched an all-out action according to the operational plan finally signed by the dear respected Supreme Commander Kim
Jong Un. North Korean authorities also called on the staff in foreign embassies in Pyongyang and all civilians in Seoul to evacuate.
This announcement intensified the tensions between North and South Korea to the brink of war. Why cannot North Korea end the
loop of crisis more than two decades since the end of the Cold War? Though the causes of crises differ, the loop of crisis has
persisted for a profound reason, namely two continuing abnormal situations. First, the Korean Peninsula is still at war. The Korean
Armistice Agreement signed in July 1953 was only a ceasefire agreement, prescribing that the warring factions should sign a peace
agreement through negotiations so as to end the state of war. However, the parties concerned failed to reach a consensus to replace
Korean Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty in the 1954 Geneva Conference or the Geneva Four-Party Talks from 1997 to 1999.
Therefore, the north and south of the Korean Peninsula remain in a virtual state of war from a legal perspective, and clashes
between them frequently have occurred at the provisional Military Demarcation Line, as well as in waters off the controversial Five
West Sea Islands. Moreover, as the military ally of the ROK, the United States stations large military forces there, indicating that the
United States and North Korea are still at war. This is the fundamental reason why the Korean Peninsula can hardly sustain long-term
peace. Given that, the September 19 Joint Statement, as an outcome of the Six-Party Talks, emphatically pointed out, The directly
related parties will negotiate a permanent peace regime on the Korean Peninsula at an appropriate separate forum.[19] Second,
the Korean Peninsula is still in a cold war. Although the worldwide Cold War has long ended, the one on the peninsula has been
exacerbated. North Korea on one side and the U.S.-ROK alliance on the other are implementing similar deterrent strategies so that a
mutual deterrence structure has emerged. That is to say, the present peace and no war are based on mutual deterrence and
even a balance of threat that assures mutual destruction. This security structure, reminiscent of the Cold War, constitutes the
reason why North Korea insists on the development of nuclear weapons. The above two abnormal situations are the root causes of
the peninsulas constant state of crisis and the lack of peace and stability. If they remain unchanged, the North Korean nuclear issue
will not be solved and the peninsula will not be able to escape the vicious circle of periodic crises. Thus, any attempts to promote
the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and the settlement of the North Korean nuclear issue must take into consideration
China and the United States have common goals and
these two root causes. As mentioned above,
interests in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, while their respective
foreign policies are different due to their distinctive judgments on the root causes of
the issue and their responses accordingly. As a matter of fact, the North Korean nuclear issue covers more
than nuclear proliferation and nuclear threat; it is a product of the long-term military confrontation between North Korea and the
U.S.-ROK alliance, as well as an outcome of serious imbalance in the security structure of the peninsula since the end of the Cold
This complicated security issue shaped
War. For North Korea, the issue is basically about survival and security.
by the long-standing state of war in the form of a cold war cannot be addressed
simply by carrying out the model of denuclearization in exchange for
compensation, nor through isolation, sanctions or military strikes. Instead, the
relevant parties should agree on a package of plans in accordance with the September 19 Joint
Statement in order to build a new security relationship on the peninsula, realize the normalization of relations between the two
Only through these efforts can the
sides, and establish a peace and cooperation mechanism in Northeast Asia.
North Korean nuclear issue be solved and can the peninsula become a nuclear-free
area with long-term stability. Therefore, the point of departure of effective cooperation
between China and the United States on the issue is how to carry out a package of
plans to comprehensively resolve it and build a permanent peace regime according
to the commitment for commitment, action for action principle [20] included in the September
19 Joint Statement. These attempts will also provide basis for China and the U nited States
to narrow their differences and play more positive roles in achieving a peaceful
settlement of the issue. In fact, the framework of the Six-Party Talks serves as a
practical and effective platform for both countries to expand cooperation and
narrow differences on the North Korean nuclear issue.

That goes nuclear its unbound by global rules which dampen

other conflicts Chinas cooperation is vital
The Economist 5/26. (The Economist Data Team. The clear and present
danger of a nuclear North Korea. May 26, 2016.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/05/daily-chart-20)
NORTH KOREA is not bound by any global rules. Its hereditary dictator, Kim Jong Un,
imposes forced labour on hundreds of thousands of his people and threatens to
drench Seoul, the Souths capital, in a sea of fire. Nuclear weapons are central
to his regimes identity and survival. It has always been tempting for America
and other countries to put North Koreas nuclear ambitions on the back burner , in large
part because of a chronic absence of good options for dealing with them . The history of
unsuccessful responses to North Koreas nuclear ambitions began in 1993, when Mr Kims father, Kim Jong Il, threatened to pull out
of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (see timeline). So when in 2010 President Barack Obama made an impassioned plea for
a world without nuclear weapons, there were grounds for optimism. Although Mr Obama has made progress in many areas, from
non-proliferation deals with Russia and Iran, to international summits on nuclear security, on North Korea, his failure is glaring.
the countrys nuclear-weapons and missile programme has become
Under his watch
steadily more alarming. It is now thought to have a stockpile of around 20 devices.
Every six weeks or so it adds another. And this year the pace of ballistic missile testing has been
unprecedented. An underground nuclear detonation in January, claimed by the regime to be an H-bomb (but more likely a souped-up
A-bomb), has been followed by tests of the technologies behind nuclear-armed missiles. American and South Korean officials are
convinced that North Korea can already make a warhead small enough to fit on the
Nodong, which can reach targets in Japan and South Korea, including American
bases (see map). And there are worrying signs of progress in the development of its
longer-range missiles. Although three tests of an intermediate-range 4,000-kilometre (2,500-mile) Musadan missile
failed in April, North Korean engineers learn from their mistakes . Flight testing of the KN-08 intercontinental
ballistic missile could begin soon and sometime during the second term of Mr
Obamas successor, these are likely to be able to strike New York . America needs
worked-out plans to seize or destroy North Koreas nuclear missiles before they can be used. Chinas co-operation,
or at least acquiescence, will be vital. So clear and present is the danger
that even rivals who clash elsewhere in Asia must urgently find new ways
to work together.

It's the most dangerous country on earth miscalculation

ensures broad escalation
Steven Metz 13, Chairman of the Regional Strategy and Planning Department and
Research Professor of National Security Affairs at the Strategic Studies Institute,
3/13/13, Strategic Horizons: Thinking the Unthinkable on a Second Korean War,
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12786/strategic-horizons-thinking-the-
unthinkable-on-a-second-korean-war
North Korea is the most dangerous country on earth and the greatest threat to
Today,
U.S. security. For years, the bizarre regime in Pyongyang has issued an unending stream of claims that a U.S. and South
Korean invasion is imminent, while declaring that it will defeat this offensive just as -- according to official propaganda -- it overcame
the unprovoked American attack in 1950. Often the press releases from the official North Korean news
agency are absurdly funny, and American policymakers tend to ignore them as a result.
Continuing to do so, though, could be dangerous as events and rhetoric turn even more
ominous. In response to North Korea's Feb. 12 nuclear test, the U.N. Security Council recently tightened existing sanctions
against Pyongyang. Even China, North Korea's long-standing benefactor and protector, went along. Convulsed by anger,
Pyongyang then threatened a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the United States and
South Korea, abrogated the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War and cut off the North-South hotline
installed in 1971 to help avoid an escalation of tensions between the two neighbors. A spokesman for the North Korean Foreign
Ministry asserted that a second Korean War is unavoidable. He might be right; for the first time, an official statement from the North
Korean government may prove true. No American leader wants another war in Korea. The problem is
thatthe North Koreans make so many threatening and bizarre official statements and
sustain such a high level of military readiness that American policymakers might fail
to recognize the signs of impending attack . After all, every recent U.S. war began with
miscalculation; American policymakers misunderstood the intent of their opponents,
who in turn underestimated American determination. The conflict with North Korea
could repeat this pattern. Since the regime of Kim Jong Un has continued its predecessors tradition of responding
hysterically to every action and statement it doesn't like, it's hard to assess exactly what might push
Pyongyang over the edge and cause it to lash out. It could be something that the United States
considers modest and reasonable, or it could be some sort of internal power struggle within the North Korean regime invisible to the
outside world.While we cannot know whether the recent round of threats from Pyongyang is serious
or simply more of the same old lathering, it would be prudent to think the
unthinkable and reason through what a war instigated by a fearful and delusional North Korean regime might mean for U.S.
security. The second Korean War could begin with missile strikes against South Korean,
Japanese or U.S. targets, or with a combination of missile strikes and a major conventional invasion of the South --
something North Korea has prepared for many decades. Early attacks might include nuclear weapons , but
even if they didn't, the United States would probably move quickly to destroy any existing North Korean nuclear weapons and
ballistic missiles. The war itself would be extremely costly and probably long. North Korea is the most
militarized society on earth. Its armed forces are backward but huge. It's hard to tell whether the North Korean people, having been
fed a steady diet of propaganda based on adulation of the Kim regime, would resist U.S. and South Korean forces that entered the
North or be thankful for relief from their brutally parasitic rulers. As the conflict in Iraq showed, the United States and its allies
should prepare for widespread, protracted resistance even while hoping it doesn't occur. Extended guerrilla operations and
insurgency could potentially last for years following the defeat of North Korea's conventional military. North Korea would need
massive relief, as would South Korea and Japan if Pyongyang used nuclear weapons. Stabilizing North Korea and developing an
effective and peaceful regime would require a lengthy occupation, whether U.S.-dominated or with the United States as a major
contributor. The second Korean War would force military mobilization in the U nited States.
it would probably ultimately require a major
This would initially involve the military's existing reserve component, but
expansion of the U.S. military and hence a draft. The military's training infrastructure and the defense
industrial base would have to grow. This would be a body blow to efforts to cut government
spending in the United States and postpone serious deficit reduction for some time , even if
Washington increased taxes to help fund the war . Moreover, a second Korean conflict
would shock the global economy and potentially have destabilizing effects outside
Northeast Asia. Eventually, though, the United States and its allies would defeat the North Korean military. At that point it
would be impossible for the United States to simply re-establish the status quo ante bellum as it did after the first Korean War. The
Kim regime is too unpredictable, desperate and dangerous to tolerate. Hence regime change and a permanent ending to the threat
from North Korea would have to be America's strategic objective. China would pose the most pressing and serious challenge to
such a transformation of North Korea. After all, Beijing's intervention saved North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung after he invaded South
Korea in the 1950s, and Chinese assistance has kept the subsequent members of the Kim family dictatorship in power. Since the
second Korean War would invariably begin like the first one -- with North Korean aggression -- hopefully China has matured enough
as a great power to allow the world to remove its dangerous allies this time. If the war began with out-of-the-blue North Korean
missile strikes, China could conceivably even contribute to a multinational operation to remove the Kim regime. Still, China would
vehemently oppose a long-term U.S. military presence in North Korea or a unified Korea allied with the United States. One way
around this might be a grand bargain leaving a unified but neutral Korea. However appealing this might be, Korea might hesitate to
adopt neutrality as it sits just across the Yalu River from a China that tends to claim all territory that it controlled at any point in its
the result could easily be
history. If the aftermath of the second Korean War is not handled adroitly,
heightened hostility between the United States and China, perhaps even a new cold war. After all,
history shows that deep economic connections do not automatically prevent
nations from hostility and war -- in 1914 Germany was heavily involved in the
Russian economy and had extensive trade and financial ties with France and Great
Britain. It is not inconceivable then, that after the second Korean War, U.S.-China relations would be antagonistic and hostile at
the same time that the two continued mutual trade and investment. Stranger things have happened in statecraft.
A/T CAP K
 Cap Good
Capitalism self corrects itself making the rejection of
capitalism impossible
Walter Libby, 3-6-2016, "The End Game," No Publication,
http://theendpoint.blogspot.com/ , MRV)
So, was Marx right? Economically, that remains to be seen. But Marx, the
revolutionist, he's dead. Today, even if revolution was in the air, if workers were to
overthrow the system, they'd have to contend with modern armies: tanks, machines
guns and Apache helicopters. But that aside, the fact is, we live in a MAD world
where anarchy is in the air. In such an environment, if the global economy were to
collapse, there would be no revolution; only chaos and martial law . Here, the
nuclear powers go into their respective versions of DEFCON I: don't mess with us
while we try to clean up this mess. So hunkered down in their nuclear fortresses,
what's likely to rise from the wreckage is a quasi-Orwellian world where power for
the sake power rules: the eternal rule of Big Brother. So, even if Marx is right
economically, what is there to cheer about; a darkening cloud of uncertainty and
angst hangs over the global economy in a MAD world. So, let's cut to the source of
that uncertainty and angst. Capitalism and Marxism are ideologies that rose out of
the industrial revolution (the most significant event in human history), and as they
emerged, they brought forth an age of idiocy . These are matter over mind theories .
For them, it is the material base, the marketplace that determines history. And here,
both have put their faith and our fate in the hands of that marketplace god;
different prophets to be sure, but with the same belief: history is preordained. For
Marxists, it's simply this: the Industrial Revolution, as it winds its way through
history, constantly advances technology and so constantly replaces workers with
machines. Inevitability this process reaches a crisis stage wherein unemployment
reaches a critical mass, and pissed-off workers rise up and overthrow the existing
order, put in place a dictatorship of the proletariat who take hold of the productive
reins and once the process is complete, they turn to communism: from each
according to ability, to each according to need the end of history. With capitalism
it's all too simple: the marketplace in and of itself self-corrects; keeps everything in
balance end of story, end of history.
 War
Capitalism prevents war China has adopted a policy of peace
because of capitalism
J.R. Nyquist, 12-23-2013, (Expert in Geopolitics, "The Free Market's Path to
Peace," No Publication, http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/jr-nyquist/free-
market-path-peace , MRV)

Under the rule of law, with private property and competitive market structures,
modernity has arguably found a greater incentive to peace than to war . As McDonald
explains in his book, states that possess liberal political and economic institutions do not go to war with each
other. What does liberalism signify in this context? According to Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, The
essential teaching of liberalism is that social cooperation and the division of labor
can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production ,
i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. Mises and McDonald would both argue that
economic freedom, and the institutions which make this freedom possible, tend to
promote peace. McDonald offers a caveat, however. He warns that democracy is not the
guarantor of peace some have asserted it to be. The free market and free trade are
much stronger guarantors of peace. In the case of China today, McDonald argues that an
autocratic Chinese regime has adopted a policy of peace for the sake of economic
development. Because conflict or even the threat of it tends to disrupt normal
trading patterns, potentially large economic costs will deter dependent states from
using military force to solve their political conflicts . McDonald also noted: As commerce grows,
the incentives for plunder or conquest decrease simply because it is a more costly means of generating economic
growth. Not only does free market cooperation bring wealth to all the parties
involved, it displaces national loyalties and state rivalries. Of course, McDonald is well aware
that free trade and free markets can be overridden by democratic ideological imperatives. Simply put , if
economic liberalism signifies the disutility of war, democratic liberalism does no
such thing. According to McDonald, Even democratic leaders can exploit domestic institutional instability and
public fears of insecurity to construct broad swaths of public support for war. It is not the ballot box that assures
It is private property and free trade which binds nations and
peace, says McDonald.
peoples to the cause of peace, despite cultural and political differences .

Capitalism is a high contributor to international peace

Doug Bandow, 11-10-2005, (Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute,
specializing in foreign policy and civil liberties, "Spreading Capitalism Is Good for
Peace," Cato Institute, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/spreading-
capitalism-is-good-peace , MRV)

Todays corollary is that creating democracies out of dictatorships will reduce

conflict. This contention animated some support outside as well as inside the United
States for the invasion of Iraq. But Gartzke argues that the democratic peace is a mirage
created by the overlap between economic and political freedom . That is, democracies
typically have freer economies than do authoritarian states. Thus, while democracy is desirable for many reasons,
he notes in a chapter in the latest volume of Economic Freedom in the World, created by the Fraser Institute,
representative governments are unlikely to contribute directly to international
peace. Capitalism is by far the more important factor. The shift from statist
mercantilism to high-tech capitalism has transformed the economics behind war.
Markets generate economic opportunities that make war less desirable . Territorial
aggrandizement no longer provides the best path to riches. Free-flowing capital markets and other
aspects of globalization simultaneously draw nations together and raise the
economic price of military conflict. Moreover, sanctions, which interfere with economic prosperity,
provides a coercive step short of war to achieve foreign policy ends. Positive economic trends are not
enough to prevent war, but then, neither is democracy . It long has been obvious that
democracies are willing to fight, just usually not each other. Contends Gartzke, liberal political systems,
in and of themselves, have no impact on whether states fight. In particular, poorer
democracies perform like non-democracies. He explains: Democracy does not have a measurable
impact, while nations with very low levels of economic freedom are 14 times more prone to conflict than those with
very high levels.

Capitalism solves war by increasing democratic actions

Erik Gartzke, January 2007, (My primary area of study involves the impact of
information and institutions on war and peace. What leaders and others know or
believe is a key determinant of how nations behave and interact. International
politics is a minimally hierarchical environment in which negotiations and bargaining
are the primary form of political interaction. The study of international peace and
conflict amounts to identifying the sources of bargaining successes or failures
among nations and other groups, The Capitalist Peace, , Vol. 51, No. 1, Pp. 166
191)

The discovery that democracies seldom fight each other has led, quite reasonably,
to the conclusion that democracy causes peace , at least within the community of liberal polities.
Explanations abound, but a consensus account of the dyadic democratic peace has been surprisingly slow to
liberal peace based on capitalism and common interstate
materialize. I offer a theory of
interests. Economic development, capital market integration, and the compatibility
of foreign policy preferences supplant the effect of democracy in standard statistical
tests of the democratic peace. In fact, after controlling for regional heterogeneity, any one of these three
variables is sufficient to account for effects previously attributed to regime type in standard samples of wars,
If war is a product of incompatible
militarized interstate disputes (MIDs), and fatal disputes.1
interests and failed or abortive bargaining, peace ensues when states lack
differences worthy of costly conflict , or when circumstances favor successful
diplomacy. Realists and others argue that state interests are inherently incompatible, but this need be so only if
state interests are narrowly defined or when conquest promises tangible benefits. Peace can result from
at least three attributes of mature capitalist economies. First, the historic
impetus to territorial expansion is tempered by the rising importance of intellectual
and financial capital, factors that are more expediently enticed than conquered. Land does little to increase
the worth of the advanced economies while resource competition is more cheaply pursued through markets than by
means of military occupation.
At the same time, development actually increases the ability
of states to project power when incompatible policy objectives exist . Development affects
who states fight (and what they fight over) more than the overall frequency of warfare. Second, substantial overlap
in the foreign policy goals of developed nations in the postWorld War II period further limits the scope and scale of
Lacking territorial tensions, consensus about how to order the international
conflict.
system has allowed liberal states to cooperate and to accommodate minor
differences. Whether this affinity among liberal states will persist in the next century is a question open to
 the rise of global capital markets creates a new mechanism for
debate. Finally,
competition and communication for states that might otherwise be forced to fight .
Separately, these processes influence patterns of warfare in the modern world. Together, they explain the absence
of war among states in the developed world and account for the dyadic observation of the democratic peace. The
notion of a capitalist peace is hardly new . Montesquieu, Paine, Bastiat, Mill, Cobden, Angell, and
others saw in market forces the power to end war . Unfortunately, war continued, leading many
to view as overly optimistic classical conceptions of liberal peace . This study can be
seen as part of an effort to reexamine capitalist peace theory , revising arguments in
line with contemporary insights much as Kantian claims were reworked in response to evolving
evidence of a democratic peace. Existing empirical research on the democratic peace, while
addressing many possible alternatives, provides an incomplete and uneven
treatment of liberal economic processes . Most democratic peace research examines trade in goods
and services but ignores capital markets and offers only a cursory assessment of economic development (Maoz and
Russett 1992).Several studies explore the impact of interests, though these have
largely been dismissed by democratic peace advocates (Oneal and Russett 1999a; Russett and
Oneal 2001). These omissions or oversights help to determine the democratic peace result and
thus shape subsequent research, thinking, and policy on the subject of liberal
peace. This study offers evidence that liberal economic processes do in fact lead to peace, even accounting for
the well-documented role of liberal politics. Democracy cohabitates with peace. It does not, by itself, lead
nations to be less conflict prone, not even toward other democracies.

The connection between capitalism and peace is overwhelming

Allowing for a capitalist system increase global peace
JOHN MUELLER, 2010, (Professor at Ohio State University, Studies International
politics, foreign policy, defense policy, public opinion, democratization, economic
history, post-Communism, terrorism, musical theater, and dance history,
Capitalism, Peace, and the Historical Movement of Ideas,
http://politicalscience.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller//potsii2.pdf ,MRV)

that international war is unlikely if people come to accept three

Logic suggests, then,
additional ideas: they must take prosperity and economic growth as a dominant
goal; they must see peace as a better motor than war for development , progress,
and innovation; and they must come to believe that trade, rather than conquest, is
the best way to achieve their dominant goal. All three propositions have now gained wide currency, and,
although international war has hardly evaporated from the planet , it is worth noting
that the nations of the developed world have avoided war with each other for the
longest period of time in millenia and that, despite the great increase in the number of independent countries,
international war has become quite rare (Mueller 2009; see also Gleditsch 2008). This remarkable
development may at least partly be due to the increasing joint acceptance of the
capitalist/peace propositions. Over time, most countries in most areas of the world
have opted for peace and, not unrelatedly, for the banal pleasures of capitalist
economic development.7 But there is another consideration. One of the curiosities about the historical
movement of ideas is that over the last few centuries ideas that have successfully
filtered throughout the world have tended to do so in one direction from West to East.
Indeed, the process has often been called Westernization. Thus, Taiwan has become more like Canada than
Canada has become like Taiwan, Gabon more like Belgium than Belgium like Gabon (on this issue, see also
Nadelmann 1990:84). This means there is something of a standard geographic correlation or clustering:
countries that early embraced war aversion were also generally early to take up
democracy, capitalism, science, pornography, gay rights, and abortion, and early as well to abandon
slavery, monarchy, blood feuding, capital punishment, and the church. As suggested earlier, it may in general be
best to see each idea movement as an independent phenomenon rather than contingent on something else or on
another idea stream, rather in the way that skirt lengths are determined far more by fashion whims than by the
availability of cloth and thread. There will be a correlation between the acceptance of the ideas, but it may be
countries that come to embrace international peace in about the
essentially spurious:
same order as they embrace democracy and capitalism , but that should not be taken to imply
that democracy or capitalism necessarily lead to peace or that there is a democratic peace or a capitalist
relationship between capitalism, democracy, and
peace. In fact, it may well be that any causal
peace needs reexamination, and that the literature on the subject has it backwards .
Insofar as there is a causal relationship between the ideas, it may be best to see peace as an independent variable
not, as in the common approach, as a dependent one.

The Capitalist system promotes peace between different

regions, cultures, and people
Isaac Morehouse, 2012, (Isaac worked at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy
where he created and directed Students for a Free Economy. He also spent over
three years in the Michigan House of Representatives, was involved in a small
business startup, founded an international humanitarian nonprofit, and ran a local
taxpayer advocacy group, "Capitalism Is Peaceful," Values & Capitalism,
http://www.valuesandcapitalism.com/capitalism-is-peaceful/, MRV)

The simplest way in which capitalism is peaceful is by its abstention from direct acts
of violence. Free markets offer no positive prescription for what market participants
must do. A genuine capitalist system is one of free trade and voluntary association .
People are free to do, in the words of Leonard Read, Anything thats peaceful. There are no dos, and the only
real dont at bottom is, dont use force. All else is permitted, but there is no guarantee the market will sustain or
reward it.Capitalism is not a master plan or a system created ahead of time by
planners. It is really just the result of peaceful interaction s. It is what emerges if force
is only used in defense against force. The absence of violence results in secure
property rights, contracts and all of the other institutional trappings that are
commonly associated with capitalism. Every other economic system requires a
direct application of violence. Any regulation, fee, tax, trade barrier, licensing regime or mandate offered
in any kind of mixed or corporatist or socialist or fascist regime is backed by the threat of violence. Raising
the cost of violence Beyond the absence of force in individual actions, capitalism
promotes a much broader peace between people groups from different regions and
of different cultures and backgrounds. Self-interest begets trade; trade begets specialization;
specialization begets cooperation. Ricardos law of association demonstrates how much more productive we are
when we specialize and trade, which means that over time we come to rely on a vast network of trading partners
for our own well-being. Some people find this state of affairs troubling and you hear things like, What if X country
decides to withhold good Y from us? We rely too heavily on imports! There are plenty of natural and man-made
things to fear in the world if you wish to worry, but the cutting off of trade in a truly free market ought not to be one
of them. If a person genuinely wants to avoid all reliance on other people (not sure how this would work for a
newborn), they are free to live as long as they can only eat what they can find or grow on their own. Its not hard to
see that that kind of independence is far more risky than being part of an interdependent trade network. The
more people rely on trade with others, the greater the cost to all parties of a
conflict. If I grow apples and trade them to you for chickens, the last thing I want to do is tick you off and lose my
chicken supply and vice versa. On the flip side, if you have a lot of chickens and I have none, and there is no trade
between us, I will be tempted to try stealing some. Lack of trade builds enmity. There is a famous saying,
 In a free market, the cost of
attributed to Frederic Bastiat, If goods dont cross borders, armies will.
belligerence is very high. When governments come in and restrict trade or subsidize
violence by building up large militaries , the cost of belligerence is lowered, and the
benefits of peace are reduced. It is the state, not trade, which creates conflict. Friends,
not enemies Pretend you live in a free-market economy. You are friends with your neighbor, who works at a small
grocer in town. You find the selection to be limited and the prices high. A new supermarket chain is coming in to
town, and youre excited about it because the lower prices and better selection mean youll have better meals and
money left over for leisure activities with your family. Your neighbor is unhappy about the new store because it may
cost him his job. The store comes in. You shop there and save while also expressing your heartfelt empathy to your
neighbor whose store may soon shut down. You maintain your friendship, even though in the economic sphere you
cease to be trading partners. Now pretend you live in a heavily regulated economic system much like ours today.
You and your neighbor the grocer are still friends. This time the chain store is not free to sell in your town without a
government permission slip. It goes up for a vote. Your neighbor actively campaigns to restrain the store from
opening up, which will prevent you from buying better products for less money. He urges you to join his efforts and
put a No chain stores! sign in your yard. You tell him that you wont because you wouldnt mind the chain store. It
turns in to a bitter, possibly friendship-ending disagreement. Politics makes enemies out of friends. In a market, you
are free to express your varied preferences with your own actions and the expenditure of your own resources. If
someone sells something you dont like, you dont have to buy. But the very anonymity and absence of compulsion
in markets allows you to form community bonds quite separate from your trading choices. You can maintain
friendships with all kinds of people whose goods and services you do not necessarily value. You can befriend an
orchestral violinist without being a patron of the symphony. But when resources are allocated politically rather than
in a free market, that friendship is hard to maintain when you would vote against a tax to fund the symphony hall,
which she supports.
Capitalism allows our diverse tastes to be explored and expressed in
a way that doesnt restrict choices to zero-sum contests of your preferences over
others. A cornucopia of choice exists in the market, and this not only means better products, but also the
removal of artificially created conflict between choices A and B, such as those that
inevitably spring from government management. Three kinds of peace Capitalism
relies on voluntarism rather than violence in individual interactions . It also creates
cooperative networks that dramatically increase the incentive to get along and raise
the cost of conflict, while government intervention does just the opposite. Finally, capitalism allows
us to live in harmony despite our different tastes and sometimes conflicting
demands for limited resources, while political allocation always forces us to take
sides and go to battle against each othe r. If you want a more peaceful world,
promote capitalism.
 Tech
Capitalism is allowing for technological innovation key to
disease cures, solar panels, and networking
Chris Berg, 8-13, (Chris Berg is a research fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs
in Melbourne, Australia, Why Capitalism Is Awesome, Cato Institute,
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/julyaugust-2013/why-capitalism-awesome , MRV)

Everybody from Forbes to BusinessWeek hands out most innovative company awards. Theyre all pretty similar and
predictable. But these lists have a perverse effect. They suggest that the great success
of capitalism and the market economy is inventing cutting edge technology and
that if we want to observe capitalist progress, we should be looking for sleek design and popular
fashion. Innovation, the media tells us, is inventing cures for cancer, solar panels, and
social networking. But the true genius of the market economy isnt that it produces
prominent, highly publicized goods to inspire retail queues, or the medical
breakthroughs that make the nightly news. No, the genius of capitalism is found in the tiny things
the things that nobody notices. A market economy is characterized by an infinite succession
of imperceptible, iterative changes and adjustments. Free market economists have
long talked about the unplanned and uncoordinated nature of capitalist innovation .
Theyve neglected to emphasize just how invisible it is. One exception is the great Adam Smith. In his Wealth of
Nations, the example he used to illustrate the division of labor was a pin factory. He described carefully the complex
process by which a pin is made. Producing the head of the pin requires two to three distinct operations. To place
the head on the wire is a peculiar business. Then the pins have to be whitened. The production of a pin, Smith
concluded, is an 18-step task. Smith was making an argument about specialization, but just as important was his
choice of example. It would be hard to think of something less impressive, less consequential than a pin. Smith
wanted his contemporaries to think about the economy not by observing it from the lofty heights of the palace or
to recognise how a market economy is the
the lecture hall, but by seeing it from the bottom up
aggregate of millions of little tasks. Its a lesson many have not yet learned. We
should try to recognise the subtleties of the apparently mundane .
 Structural Violence
Capitalism has made poverty better has allowed for better
living conditions, innovation, and health improvements
Steven Horwitz, 6-9-2016,( Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of
Economics at St. Lawrence University and the author of Hayeks Modern Family:
Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions. "Capitalism Is Good for
the Poor," No Publication, https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-is-good-for-the-poor/ ,
MRV)

Critics frequently accuse markets and capitalism of making life worse for the poor .
This refrain is certainly common in the halls of left-leaning academia as well as in
broader intellectual circles. But like so many other criticisms of capitalism, this one ignores the
very real, and very available, facts of history. The biggest gains in the fight against
poverty have occurred in countries that have opened up their markets. Nothing has
done more to lift humanity out of poverty than the market economy. This claim is true
whether we are looking at a time span of decades or of centuries. The number of people worldwide living on less
The biggest gains in the
than about two dollars per day today is less than half of what it was in 1990.
fight against poverty have occurred in countries that have opened up their markets,
such as China and India. If we look over the longer historical period, we can see that
the trends today are just the continuation of capitalisms victories in beating back
poverty. For most of human history, we lived in a world of a few haves and lots of have-nots. That slowly began
to change with the advent of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. As economic growth took off and spread
throughout the population, it created our own world in the West in which there are a whole bunch of haves and a
few have-more-and-betters. For example, the percentage of American households below the poverty line who have
basic appliances has grown steadily over the last few decades, with poor families in 2005 being more likely to own
things like a clothes dryer, dishwasher, refrigerator, or air conditioner than the average household was in 1971. And
consumer items that didnt even exist back then, such as cell phones, were owned by half of poor households in
Capitalism has also made poor peoples
2005 and are owned by a substantial majority of them today.
lives far better by reducing infant and child mortality rates, not to mention maternal
death rates during childbirth, and by extending life expectancies by decades. We
spend a much smaller percentage of our lives working for pay, whether were rich or poor. Consider, too, the way
capitalisms engine of growth has enabled the planet to sustain almost 7 billion
people, compared to 1 billion in 1800. As Deirdre McCloskey has noted, if you multiply the gains in
consumption to the average human by the gain in life expectancy worldwide by 7 (for 7 billion as compared to 1
billion people), humanity as a whole is better off by a factor of around 120. Thats not 120 percent
better off, but 120 times better off since 1800. The competitive market process has also made
education, art, and culture available to more and more people . Even the poorest of
Americans, not to mention many of the global poor, have access through the Internet and
TV to concerts, books, and works of art that were exclusively the province of the
wealthy for centuries. And in the wealthiest countries, the dynamics of capitalism have begun to change the
very nature of work. Where once humans toiled for 14 hours per day at backbreaking outdoor labor, now an
Our workday and workweek have
increasing number of us work inside in climate-controlled comfort.
shrunk thanks to the much higher value of labor that comes from working with
productive capital. We spend a much smaller percentage of our lives working for pay, whether were rich or
poor. And even with economic change, the incomes of the poor are much less variable, as they are not linked to the
unpredictable changes in weather that are part and parcel of a predominantly agricultural economy long since
disappeared. Think of it this way: the fabulously wealthy kings of old had servants attending to their every need,
 The poor in largely capitalist countries have access
but an impacted tooth would likely kill them.
to a quality of medical care and a variety and quality of food that the ancient kings
could only dream of. Consider, too, that the working poor of London 100 years ago were, at best, able to
split a pound of meat per week among all of their children, which were greater in number than the two or three of
today. In addition, the whole family ate meat once a week on Sunday, the one day the man of the household was
home for dinner. That was meat for a week. These changes are not about technology. Compare that to today, when
we worry that poor Americans are too easily able to afford a meal with a quarter pound of meat in it every single
capitalism has made poor people
day for less than an hours labor. Even if you think that
overweight, thats a major accomplishment compared to the precapitalist norm of
constant malnutrition and the struggle even 100 years ago for the working poor to
get enough calories. The reality is that the rich have always lived well historically, as for centuries they
could commandeer human labor to attend to their every need. In a precapitalist world, the poor had no hope of
upward mobility or of relief from the endless physical drudgery that barely kept them alive. Today, the poor in
capitalist countries live like kings, thanks mostly to the freeing of labor and the
ability to accumulate capital that makes that labor more productive and enriches
even the poorest. The falling cost of what were once luxuries and are now necessities, driven by the
competitive market and its profit and loss signals, has brought labor-saving
machines to the masses. When profit-seeking and innovation became acceptable behavior for the
bourgeoisie, the horn of plenty brought forth its bounty, and even the poorest shared in that wealth. Once
people no longer needed permission to innovate, and once the value of new
inventions was judged by the improvements they made to the lives of the masses in
the form of profit and loss, the poor began to live lives of comfort and dignity . These
changes are not, as some would say, about technology. After all, the Soviets had great scientists but could not
And its not about natural resources,
channel that knowledge into material comfort for their poor.
which is obvious today as resource-poor Hong Kong is among the richest countries
in the world thanks to capitalism, while Venezuelan socialism has destroyed that
resource-rich country. Wealth is not about natural resources . Inventions only become
innovations when the right institutions exist to make them improve the lives of the masses. That is what capitalism
did and continues to do every single day. And thats why capitalism has been so good for the poor. Consider, finally,
what happened when the Soviets decided to show the film version of The Grapes of
Wrath as anticapitalist propaganda. In the novel and film, a poor American family is driven from their
Depression-era home by the Dust Bowl. They get in their old car and make a horrifying journey in search of a better
life in California. The Soviets had to stop showing the film after a short period because the Russian audiences were
astonished that poor Americans were able to own a car. Even anticapitalist propaganda cant help but provide
evidence that contradicts its own argument. The historical truth is clear: nothing has done more
for the poor than capitalism.
Cap-K Perm
 Perm
The perm solves - The education system is already rejecting
capitalism which means the aff doesnt make it net worse
B.K. Marcus, 5-23-2016, ( B.K. Marcus is a Contributing Editor of FEE.org.,
"Millennials Reject Capitalism in Name but Socialism in Fact," No Publication,
https://fee.org/articles/young-people-reject-capitalism-in-name-socialism-in-fact/ ,
MRV)

Notice the intimation that capitalism is the system we already have not, as pro-
capitalist philosopher Ayn Rand called it, the "unknown ideal." But Ehrenfreund
takes a half step back from the implication: "Capitalism can mean different things to
different people." Nevertheless, he concludes, " the newest generation of voters is
frustrated with the status quo, broadly speaking." So we're not entirely sure what
"capitalism" means to those surveyed, but we think it has something to do with the
system we currently live in. Young dissatisfaction with the status quo is probably a
good thing, but the labels used in simplistic survey questions and in headlines
just add ever more confusion to discussions of economic freedom. As I wrote about
my anti-capitalistic youth in "Why Students Give Capitalism an F," "Capitalism" was
just the word we all used for whatever we didn't like about the status quo,
especially whatever struck us as promoting inequality. I had friends propose to me
that we should consider the C-word a catchall for racism, patriarchy, and crony
corporatism. If that's what capitalism means, how could anyone be for it? But even
advocates of economic freedom are divided on the word capitalism. Some see it as
the correct name for the system we support, including individual liberty, private
property, and peaceful exchange. Of particular significance to Austrian economist
Ludwig von Mises, the term "refers to the most characteristic feature of the system ,
its main eminence, viz., the role the notion of capital plays in its conduct" (Human
Action, chapter 13). In other words, the profound abundance that the market has
produced for all of us is the result of private investment and economic calculation.
Others point out that the term was coined by the enemies of the free market, and
that it has too long a history as the designation for cozy business-government
partnerships and legal privilege for the rich and powerful. (See FEE contributor
Steven Horwitz's "Is the Name 'Capitalism' Worth Keeping?")
 Solvency
Cooperation over green tech is the first step towards improved
relations between the US and China coop over the environment
serves both interests, opens doors for other forms of coop
Tao 14 (Wang Tao, scholar on energy and climate, former program
director for the WWF, 8/8/14, Energy and Climate Collaboration Key to
US-China Relations?, http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/energy-and-climate-
collaboration-key-to-u-s-china-relations/, AKL)

Collaboration on energy and climate issues is the ideal bridge between the
two powers. While China is the worlds largest goods-exporting nation, excluding
energy; the U.S. remains the largest consumer. Meanwhile, the U.S. is set to become
the worlds largest oil producer by 2015 and China is the largest oil importer. These
twin pairs of trade connections have the potential to change the previous one-way
traffic, creating a new basis for the bilateral relationship. At the recent U.S.-China
Strategic and Economic Dialogue that took place in Beijing, nearly half of the 116
outcomes agreed were on issues related to energy, climate, and the environment.
This indicates the depth of connections in this area and provides a strong example
of cooperation. Chinas oil and gas import dependency is set to continue to
increase, and as it does its energy supply concerns will play an increasingly
important role in Chinas foreign policy. Domestic shale gas was hoped to offer an
alternative future, but as yet most of the shale gas pilots in China have not had
success. As a result, China is eyeing the opportunity of importing shale gas and
tight oil from the U.S. alongside technology cooperation in order to exploit resources
at home. China has invested heavily in shale gas and oil resources, infrastructure,
and business in North America, for example with CNOOCs acquisition of the
Canadian oil company Nexen for $15.1 billion in 2013. Climate change is an area
that should ultimately bring the two nations closer together even more
than cooperation on energy. If the worlds two largest economies, and two
most powerful nations, cant come together to address this very real
threat to human civilization, then what can they achieve together? The
level of understanding between the U.S. and China has improved
significantly since the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 when global leaders failed to
deliver on a much-anticipated international climate deal, which many attributed to
disagreement between the Washington and Beijing. Managed effectively, this new
dynamic offers a more promising outlook for future climate negotiations,
including the crucial Paris meeting in 2015 when nations will again gather to discuss
an international climate deal once more. This very real potential for greater
collaboration exists because energy and climate policies can serve
American interests, while at the same time helping the Chinese
government to address some of its burning domestic concerns. Near the
top of Chinas agenda is the air pollution and environmental degradation
being caused by its over-reliance on dirty and heavy industry for
continued economic growth. Reducing emissions from heavy duty trucks in
China is one potential significant outcome from collaboration. Through
collaboration in setting higher fuel standards in China and cleaner
technology transfer, U.S. companies can help China tackle a major
domestic problem, while at the same time enjoying an opening to the
grand market in China. Similar benefits could also be seen in the newly added
collaboration initiative in industrial boiler efficiency and fuel switch and the potential
collaboration on green ports. For real progress to be made there should be a strict
joint focus on a few priority topics. This offers greater prospects for progress than
taking on too many fronts simultaneously. These national initiatives can usefully be
supplemented by similar strategies at the sub-national level. For example, IBM
launched a collaboration initiative in July with the Beijing municipal government to
help monitor and address air pollution. A help in need is a help indeed. This is a
simple truth that both governments seem to start to understand in the context of
their bilateral relationship. Successful collaboration on energy and climate
matters may hold the key to unlocking the tight knot in wider U.S.-China
diplomatic relations.

Cooperation between the US and China is uniquely key to

solving many international issues including environmental
ones
Florick 15 (David Florick, masters candidate in East-West studies at
Creighton University, Summer 2015, Remapping U.S.-China Relations: A
Holistic Approach to Building Long-Term Confidence and Transparency
International Affairs Review - Volume XXIII, Number 3, http://www.iar-
gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/China%20Special%20Issue%20DOC%20C%20-
%2002%20Remapping%20US-China%20Relations%20-%20Florick%20and
%20Cronkleton.pdf, AKL)
The relationship between the United States and China is unique in the
annals of the international system. Holistically, never before have two states
with such different cultures emerged as leaders on the world stage. While
the United States and China have competing localized and short term interests, a
multitude of strategic incentives motivate them to cooperate, even in the
face of obstacles, because a number of critical problems that the planet and
individual nations face cannot be adequately addressed without Sino-
American collaboration, among them global economic growth, world
health, and environmental issues.1 Cooperation between the two is imperative
for the international community to move forward. The challenge is to preserve the
focus on strategic priorities despite the tantalizing prospect of pursuing operational
opportunities.
The impact of environmental degradation isnt selective the
US and China are the most important actors in the world of
energy and joint action by them spills over to other nations
Florick 15 (David Florick, masters candidate in East-West studies at
Creighton University, Summer 2015, Remapping U.S.-China Relations: A
Holistic Approach to Building Long-Term Confidence and Transparency
International Affairs Review - Volume XXIII, Number 3, http://www.iar-
gwu.org/sites/default/files/articlepdfs/China%20Special%20Issue%20DOC%20C%20-
%2002%20Remapping%20US-China%20Relations%20-%20Florick%20and
%20Cronkleton.pdf, AKL)
Perhaps no two countries have a greater impact on energy and
environmental security strategy than China and the United States. China
finds itself in an incredibly resource constrained environment without the necessary
environmental and resource management capabilities. Moreover, the
consequences of environmental degradation are not limited to any
particular location and must be solved multilaterally to shape not only the
United States and Chinas own domestic policies, but also those of their
global partners and allies. Beijing and Washingtons advocacy for things
such as resource preservation and environmental sustainability is vital to
raising awareness and funding. The long-term commitment required to
solve these systemic issues further necessitates U.S.-Chinese cooperation.
By developing joint resolutions, Beijing and Washington will stand a much
better opportunity of garnering international support for real, positive
change.