climate change affirmative - soulsvilleseniorenglish.com€¦ · web viewanswers to: paris...

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESTable of contents

Climate Change AffirmativeSummary.........................................................................................................................................3

Glossary..........................................................................................................................................4

First Affirmative Constructive (1AC)................................................................................................5

Science Diplomacy Advantage

Science Diplomacy (1/2)...............................................................................................................16

Science Diplomacy (2/2)...............................................................................................................17

Science Diplomacy Extension.......................................................................................................18

Climate Change Advantage- Extensions

Yes Climate Change is happening (1/2).......................................................................................19

Yes Climate Change is happening – (2/2)....................................................................................20

Answers to: Climate Science is Biased.........................................................................................21

Answers to: Paris Agreement Fails...............................................................................................22

Answers to: Paris Agreement Fails...............................................................................................23

Answers to: It’s too little change....................................................................................................24

Chinese Emissions Key to Climate (1/2).......................................................................................25

Chinese Emissions Key to Climate (2/2).......................................................................................26

Climate Impact – Comparatively Bigger.......................................................................................27

Climate Change hurts Agriculture.................................................................................................28

Answers To: CO2 helps Agriculture (1/2)......................................................................................29

Answers To: CO2 helps Agriculture (2/2)......................................................................................30

Climate Change kills Biodiversity..................................................................................................31

Climate Change causes War........................................................................................................32

Climate Change destroys Economy..............................................................................................33

Solvency Extensions

Answers to: US must reduce emissions........................................................................................34

Answers to: No Chinese Enforcement..........................................................................................35

Answers to: China can’t reduce emissions...................................................................................36

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESTable of contents

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESSummary/Glossary

Summary

In 2012, China and the U.S. are the two largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world and accounted for over 35% of global emissions. Cooperation between the two over climate change is critical to any successful approach to deal with global warming. The U.S. currently fears that economic concerns will prevent China from having an agenda focused on global warming.

The climate change advantage argues that if steps are not taken now to control carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions then the earth will heat up 8 degrees Fahrenheit which would cause devastating changes to the earth. That much heat would collapse ecosystems as well as make the earth unlivable for civilizations. Uncontrolled emissions cause warming because about 44% of CO2 released in the air stays there for a century or longer. Because of atmospheric transportation* CO2 envelopes the earth, like a blanket by trapping heat given off by the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere.

It is believed that by decreasing demand for and consumption of fossil fuels, there will also be a decrease in the release of carbon emissions; since China and the U.S. are the biggest world contributors to these emissions, any effort that does not involve the two countries will not affect emission enough to make a difference. Hence, the affirmative offers green technology as a means of cooperating on decarbonization. This green technology transfer incentivizes China because it creates an agenda for climate change while not interfering with their focus on growing their economy. Aside from bilateral cooperation on fixing climate issues, the plan creates a larger form of transparency between the U.S and China that makes for an easier transition to cleaner energy sources.

In addition, there is a Science Diplomacy advantage that highlights the importance of cooperation of U.S and China in areas like science has in other areas like how their militaries interact. This is especially important in the South China Sea, a region that many experts predict could be a source for conflicts in the near future. If cooperation occurs over the environment it will decrease the tensions rising from China’s expansion in the South China Sea. Furthermore, this model of cooperation creates a form of diplomacy between the U.S. and China that allows for better decision making, peace keeping, and global climate cooperation.

*Atmospheric transportation is the movement of pollutants caused by a time-averaged wind flow

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESSummary/Glossary

Glossary Atmospheric transportation- is the movement of pollutants caused by a time-averaged wind flow

Anthropogenic- environmental harm originating from human activity

Biodiversity- the variety of life in the world or in a particular habitat or ecosystem.

Biosphere- the regions of the surface, atmosphere, and hydrosphere of the earth

Climate Change- a change in the distribution of weather patterns that last over an extended period of

time

COP 21- UN negotiations aimed to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate

Decarbonization- the reduction of carbon (gaseous compounds) from the Earth’s atmosphere

Emissions- air pollutants

Existential- relating to existence, often used to describe the nature of a danger to the existence of the planet or the human species.

Global Warming- the calculation of the rise in the temperature of the Earth’s climate system

Green Energy- or renewable energy come from natural sources such as sunlight, wind, rain, tides,

plants, algae and geothermal heat.

Greenhouse Gas (GHG)- a gas that contributes to the greenhouse effect by absorbing infrared

radiation

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)- group formed by the United Nations to

assess the state of scientific knowledge about the human role in climate change.

Paris Agreement- an agreement within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC) governing greenhouse gases emissions mitigation

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESFirst Affirmative Constructive

1AC (1/11) Contention one—Inherency-The heat is on. Carbon dioxide emissions cause global climate change. Recent international agreements fail to address the problem. The United States and China can put a real dent in emissions if they cooperate to address the issue..Aldy, et al 2016 Joseph, Associate Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School. “Bilateral Cooperation between China and the United States: Facilitating Progress on Climate-Change Policy.” Harvard Project on Climate Agreements, February. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/harvard-nscs-paper-final-160224.pdf

China and the United States, the two largest greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters in the world, together accounted for 35% of global GHG emissions in 2012. While there are major socioeconomic and political differences between the two countries, it is widely acknowledged that action by China and the United States is necessary for the world to effectively address global climate change. Cooperation between China and the United States with regard to climate change was one important factor in the success of the Twenty-First Conference of the Parties (COP-21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). At COP-21, in Paris in December 2015, a major new international agreement to address climate change was concluded. For most purposes, the agreement will begin to be implemented in 2020.3

Domestic social, economic, and political changes have helped shape the manner in which China and the United States are dealing with climate change—using domestic policy (that is, a “bottom up” approach), in addition to working through the UNFCCC. As the Chinese society and economy have entered a new epoch, the significance of low-carbon development and energy-structure transformation have begun to draw attention. Under such circumstances, climate policy is regarded as a key strategy to encourage manufacturing industries to upgrade their technologies and improve energy efficiency.

Since 2013, China has been addressing climate problems raised in the Twelfth Five-Year Plan: implementing the action plan for controlling greenhouse gas emissions, adjusting the industrial structure, saving energy, increasing energy efficiency, optimizing energy infrastructure, increasing carbon sinks, adapting to climate change, and increasing institutional capacity. As a result of these actions—and of industrial modernization and structural changes in the economy—carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2013 were 4.3 percent lower than in 2012, and 28.6 percent lower than in 2005.

Also, energy consumption per unit of GDP was reduced by 3.7 percent in 2013 (as compared with 2012). In the first three years of the Twelfth Five-Year Plan period (2011-2013), energy consumption per unit of GDP was reduced by 9 percent; the equivalent of approximately 350 million tons coal equivalent was saved—that is, a reduction of more than 840 MtCO2 (million tons of carbon dioxide). These measures also bring collateral benefits in reducing air pollution in urban areas, which has become a significant threat to public health.

In the United States, the Obama Administration has taken several executive actions under existing statutory authority (primarily the Clean Air Act) that either have the immediate purpose of reducing GHG emissions or incidentally have that effect. In addition, the state of California, which by some measures would have the world’s eighth largest economy if it were a country,4 has


1AC (1/11)

implemented an ambitious, nearly economy-wide GHG emissions trading system (ETS) and other policies to reduce emissions.

Finally, the development and deployment of hydraulic fracturing technologies has very significantly increased the supply— and lowered the price—of natural gas in the United States, with the result that gas is replacing coal as the primary fuel for a significant portion of electricity generation. Since natural gas produces roughly half as much CO2 per unit of combustion heat compared to coal, this has led to a significant reduction in U.S. power-sector GHG emissions.5 On November 12, 2014, immediately following the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in Beijing, Presidents Xi Jinping and Barack Obama jointly announced their intentions to reduce each country’s CO2 emissions. In the announcement, the two governments also pledged to expand ongoing collaboration to develop and demonstrate clean-energy and carbon-capture-and-storage technologies; advance previous collaboration to reduce emissions of hydrofluorocarbons, a group of gases with very high warming potential; share best practices on low-carbon cities; and promote trade in “green goods.”6

The announcement states that China’s CO2 emissions would peak by “around 2030” (earlier, if possible) and China would “make best efforts” to increase the contribution from non-fossil sources to 20% of total energy consumption by the same year. The United States would cut economy-wide GHG emissions by 26% to 28% below the 2005 level by 2025 and would make “best efforts” to hit the high end of this range. The commitments in this China–U.S. bilateral announcement were included in nearly the same form in the Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) the two countries submitted to the UNFCCC in 2015, in preparation for COP-21 in Paris.7 (INDCs are the voluntary [“nationally-determined”] commitments that countries submitted for inclusion in the Paris Agreement.)8

China and the United States made a second joint announcement on September 25, 2015.9 In this statement, the two countries agreed to work together to ensure an ambitious international agreement in Paris in December 2015, enhance bilateral and multilateral cooperation on climate change, and advance domestic climate action in each country. China, among other things, announced plans to implement a national emissions trading system in 2017, provide significant financial support for climate action in developing countries, and lower carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 60% to 65% from the 2005 level by 2030. The United States, among other things, announced intentions to finalize its implementation approach for the Clean Power Plan in 2016 and finalize regulations for improved fuel efficiency in heavyduty trucks.10 Given that China and the United States are the world’s two largest GHG emitters; the momentum that already exists with respect to bilateral cooperation on climate change and clean energy technologies;11 and the completion of the Paris Agreement at COP-21—it is important to explore opportunities for and challenges to furthering this cooperation. Among other reasons, much work remains to be done to elaborate the Paris Agreement over the next five years—to specify rules, procedures, and guidelines for the various elements of the accord. China-U.S. collaboration will continue to be very important during this preparatory phase. More generally—beyond the UNFCCC process—it is important to explore how China–U.S. cooperation can facilitate multilateral cooperation in global efforts to address climate change.


1AC (3/11) Contention Two is Climate Change

Climate Change is real and caused by humans. Now is time to make efforts toward reducing climate change, once warming spikes over 8 degrees Fahrenheit--the effects are irreversible

Gillis, 2015,

Justin Gillis, Winner Oakes Award for Distinguished Environmental Journalism, New York Times reporter, "Short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change", New York Times, 11-28-2015, http://nyti.ms/1XnMRRr

1. How much is the planet heating up? 1.7 degrees is actually a significant amount. As of October 2015, the Earth had warmed by about 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, when records begin at a global scale. That figure includes the surface of the ocean. The warming is greater over land, and greater still in the Arctic and parts of Antarctica. The number may sound low, but as an average over the surface of an entire planet, it is actually high, which explains why much of the world’s land ice is starting to melt and the oceans are rising at an accelerating pace. The heat accumulating in the Earth because of human emissions is roughly equal to the heat that would be released by 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs exploding across the planet every day. Scientists believe most and probably all of the warming since 1950 was caused by the human release of greenhouse gases. If emissions continue unchecked, they say the global warming could ultimately exceed 8 degrees Fahrenheit, which would transform the planet and undermine its capacity to support a large human population. 2. How much trouble are we in? For future generations, big trouble. The risks are much greater over the long run than over the next few decades, but the emissions that create those risks are happening now. Over the coming 25 or 30 years, scientists say, the climate is likely to resemble that of today, although gradually getting warmer. Rainfall will be heavier in many parts of the world, but the periods between rains will most likely grow hotter and therefore drier. The number of hurricanes and typhoons may actually fall, but the ones that do occur will draw energy from a hotter ocean surface, and therefore may be more intense, on average, than those of the past. Coastal flooding will grow more frequent and damaging. Longer term, if emissions continue to rise unchecked, the risks are profound. Scientists fear climate effects so severe that they might destabilize governments, produce waves of refugees, precipitate the sixth mass extinction of plants and animals in Earth’s history, and melt the polar ice caps, causing the seas to rise high enough to flood most of the world’s coastal cities. All of this could take hundreds or even thousands of years to play out, conceivably providing a cushion of time for civilization to adjust, but experts cannot rule out abrupt changes, such as a collapse of agriculture, that would throw society into chaos much sooner. Bolder efforts to limit emissions would reduce these risks, or at least slow the effects, but it is already too late to eliminate the risks entirely.

http://nyti.ms/1XnMRRr


1AC (4/11)

And, action now is critical leaving these emissions unchecked guarantees existential threats to the biosphere.

Ramanathan 2015

Veerabhadran, Prof of Applied Ocean Sciences, University of California, San Diego. “Bending the Curve: Ten scalable solutions for carbon neutrality and climate stability, Executive Summary” http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/Bending_the_Curve_F5_spreads.pdf

Of the CO2 released to the air, 44 percent remains for a century or longer; 25 percent remains for at least a millennium. Due to fast atmospheric transport, CO2 envelopes the planet like a blanket. That blanket is growing thicker and warmer at an accelerating pace. It took us 220 years — from 1750 to 1970 - to emit about 1 trillion tons of CO2 . We emitted the next trillion in less than 40 years. Of the total 2 trillion tons humans have put into the atmosphere, about 44 percent is still there. At the current rate of emission – 38 billion tons per year and growing at a rate of about 2 percent per year – the third trillion will be added in less than 20 years and the fourth trillion by 2050. How does the CO2 blanket warm the planet? It works just as a cloth blanket on a cold winter night keeps us warm. The blanket warms us by trapping our body heat. Likewise, the CO2 blanket traps the heat given off by the Earth’s surface and the atmosphere. The surface and atmosphere absorb sunlight and release this solar energy in the form of infrared energy, some of which escapes to space. The human-made CO2 blanket is very efficient at blocking some of this infrared energy, and thus warms the atmosphere and the surface. How large? Each trillion tons of emitted CO2 can warm the planet by as much as 0.75 degrees Celsius. The 2 trillion tons emitted as of 2010 has committed the planet to warming by 1.5 degrees Celsius. The third trillion we would add under business-as-usual scenarios would commit us to warming by 2.25 degrees Celsius by 2030. How soon? A number of factors enter the equation. To simplify, we likely will witness about 1.5 degrees Celsius (or two-thirds of the committed warming) by 2050, mostly due to emissions already released into the atmosphere (although that amount of warming could come as early as 2040 or as late as 2070). By 2050, under a business-as-usual scenario, we will have added another trillion tons and the 2050 warming could be as high as 2 degrees Celsius – and the committed warming would be 3 degrees Celsius by 2050. What is our predicament? We get deeper and deeper into the hole as time passes if we keep emitting at present rates under business-as-usual scenarios. The problem is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere so long; the more that is there, the hotter Earth gets. If we wait until 2050 to stop emitting CO2 , there would be no way to avoid warming of at least 3 degrees Celsius because the thickness of the blanket covering Earth would have increased from 900 billion tons (as of 2010) to about 2 trillion tons (in 2050). Our predicament is analogous to stopping a fast-moving train: You have to put on the brakes well in advance of the point you need to stop; otherwise you will overshoot the mark. Unless we act within few years, 2 degrees Celsius warming will be upon on us by 2050. Unlike in a game of chess played with a compassionate opponent, we cannot take back our flawed moves when checkmate is imminent.

http://universityofcalifornia.edu/sites/default/files/Bending_the_Curve_F5_spreads.pdf


1AC (5/11)

Because China and the US are responsible for substantial greenhouse gas emissions, Chinese emissions reductions will dramatically increase the chances for averting catastrophic climate change.

Lopes, 2016,

Gabriela Russo Lopes, Intern Caribbean Program at Worldwatch Institute, "A changing China for a changing climate", GreenBiz, 5-5-2016, https://www.greenbiz.com/article/changing-china-changing-climate

What does China need to do? To achieve these goals, the Chinese government will need to implement existing national policies, particularly the National Program on Climate Change (2014–2020), as well as improve the evaluation and accountability of carbon targets. The financing of all of these measures will stem from budgetary increases, public-private partnerships, taxation policies, government procurement systems, green credit lines and the market in carbon emissions trading. The Chinese government will seek the broad participation of stakeholders and international cooperation on climate change. These commitments will have major impacts not only on greenhouse gas emissions, but also on future economic trends. If China successfully implements all of these policy measures, the new development model can lead to major global changes. Relevance of China’s actions Wherever China goes with its environmental policy, the world will be strongly influenced. If the INDC is implemented, China’s domestic market will drive the world’s economy to sustainable practices. If China continues to invest in renewable energy sources, these technologies will be available for quick scaling worldwide. Decreases in its carbon intensity will lead to a globally noticeable decrease in fossil fuel demand. Success in creating forest carbon sinks may create a stronger global market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions throughout the world. China is one of the few developing countries with a real capability to transition autonomously to a low-carbon future. The Chinese internal market can be a driver for greener production while maintaining its modest levels of individual-level carbon dioxide emissions. The country’s greatest assets are its extremely large scale and political influence, which give China the ability to fully reverberate its domestic actions in the international system.

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/changing-china-changing-climate

https://www.greenbiz.com/article/changing-china-changing-climate


1AC (6/11) And, cooperation between the US and China sustains momentum in support of the Paris Climate treaty, and is necessary for further global action.

Henderson and Joffe, 2016,

Geoffrey Henderson Project Specialist for ChinaFAQs within WRI’s Global Climate Program and Paul Joffe Senior Foreign Policy Counsel at WRI, "China And The United States: Leading On Climate Action--New Challenges, New Opportunities", Chinafaqs, 5-31-2016, http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/china-and-united-states-leading-climate-action-new-challenges-new-opportunities

Q: What is the benefit of the U.S. and China, and many other countries, taking action together? A: With countries acting together, each can have confidence its actions are part of a global effort to address climate change. Moving forward together yields increasing opportunities for all. The 2014 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report shows that the planet is already experiencing the impacts of climate change, and the effects are projected to become more severe unless serious action is taken soon. It is therefore in the interest of all countries to act to avoid huge costs. Countries might hesitate to act if each country saw everyone else stopping, but that is no longer an issue. The fact is that all major emitters are taking action, as evidenced by the international climate agreement reached in Paris in December 2015. This agreement represents the beginning of the longer term effort needed by all countries to rein in global average temperature rise. While the action commitments of 150 countries for the Paris Agreement represent an unprecedented global effort to tackle climate change, the world is not yet on track to reach the agreement’s stated aim—to limit global temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius and strive to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees—and avert the most dangerous impacts of climate change. As Presidents Obama and Xi stated in their vision for the Paris Agreement, there must be a longer-range effort ramping up ambition for low-carbon transformation over time. Countries are already taking steps to implement their commitments, which will be beneficial as countries not only avoid the worst climate change impacts, but reap such gains as improved health, economic growth, and the advantages of technological innovation. In April 2016, a record 175 countries gathered in New York to sign the Paris Agreement. The U.S. and China continue to demonstrate international leadership, jointly stating in March 2016 that both countries would take steps to formally join the agreement as soon as possible this year, and urge other countries to do the same. China has already begun to integrate its Paris pledges into its policy planning—as evidenced by the 13th Five Year Plan—while the U.S. is pressing forward with meeting its Paris target with measures such as regulations on power plants under the Clean Power Plan, tax credits for wind and solar power and standards on methane emissions from new oil and gas infrastructure.


1AC (7/11)

Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its engagement on decarbonization with the People’s Republic of China.


1AC (8/11)

Contention Three is Solvency –

First, US & Chinese cooperative action towards deep decarbonization is a necessary and effective step to resolve global climate change.

Teng & Williams, 15

Fei Teng: Associate professor in the Institute of Energy, Environment, and Economy at Tsinghua University. He is also a lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report, Working Group III. Jim Williams: Director of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project for the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network, headquartered at the Earth Institute, Columbia University. “What Would New Breakthroughs on Climate Change Mean for the U.S.-China Relationship? A ChinaFile Conversation” ChinaFile http://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-would-new-breakthroughs-climate-change-mean-us-china-relationship

A vital step going forward is a commitment by both countries to develop detailed long-term low-carbon transition plans. Deep emissions reductions require changes in the physical infrastructure and equipment that produce and use energy. Because the economic lifetimes of many key elements in the energy system—power plants, buildings, industrial boilers, freight trucks—are decades long, decisions made today have emissions consequences far into the future. A long-term plan that takes infrastructure inertia into account is an essential point of reference for all aspects of an effective climate strategy, from short-term policy to R&D priorities to sending the right signals to businesses and investors. Transparent sharing of such plans between countries is essential for trust-building and problem-solving. A model for this effort can be seen in the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP), an international collaboration among research teams from the sixteen highest-emitting countries, including the U.S. and China. The researchers—many of whom are key advisors to policy makers—have developed blueprints for sector-by-sector changes in their own countries’ energy systems out to the year 2050 needed to reduce emissions to a level consistent with limiting global warming to 2°C or less. These “deep decarbonization pathways,” which incorporate national goals for development and economic growth, provide clear insight into the physical changes, technologies, and investment that climate protection will ultimately require, and are a necessary complement to the prevailing focus on short-term policies and incremental reductions. Open sharing of these findings has already expanded the global knowledge base on what meaningful climate mitigation entails. For China and the U.S., transparently sharing low carbon transition plans has great value for bilateral cooperation in areas that have already been agreed on but whose implementation details remain fuzzy. For example, it provides an indispensable organizing principle for cooperation at the subnational level, among “early-peaking” cities or between states and provinces such as California and Guangzhou that have signed climate MOUs. For California itself, low carbon pathways studies have been central to developing its leading-edge climate policies.

http://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-would-new-breakthroughs-climate-change-mean-us-china-relationship



1AC (9/11)

And, scaling up US-China cooperation on clean energy will reduce emissions through innovation and coordination.

Forbes and Moch, 2014,

Sarah Forbes, Senior Associate, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute and Jonathan Moch, Graduate Student Harvard, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences "How U.S.-China Cooperation Can Expand Clean Energy Development", World Resources Institute, 4-25-2014, http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/04/how-us-china-cooperation-can-expand-clean-energy-development

These early initiatives are 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 cooperation—such as through the CERC and the U.S.-China Renewable Energy Partnership—but 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 deployment—an 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.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/04/how-us-china-cooperation-can-expand-clean-energy-development


1AC (10/11)

And with US help, China will be able to transition its economy to renewable energy.

Magill, 2015

Bobby Magill, Senior Science Writer for Climate Central, an independent organization of leading scientists and journalists researching and reporting the facts about our changing climate and its impact on the American public. "China can cut out most coal generation by 2050", EnergyPost.eu, 5-14-2015, http://www.energypost.eu/china-can-cut-coal-generation-2050/

From a climate change perspective, China’s carbon footprint is huge: It consumes nearly as much coal as every other country in the world combined. And it’s the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. But it may be possible for China to shake most of its reliance on fossil fuels, in part by producing more than 85 percent of its electricity and more than 60 percent of its total energy needs from renewables by 2050, according to a study published Monday. Showing that it’s feasible for China to fully embrace renewables to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions is critical as it heads into the Paris international climate negotiations in December, and as it works to achieve its emissions reductions goals under the climate pact China and the U.S. struck in November. Under the pact, China agreed to peak its greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and increase the use of non-fossil energy by 20 percent. The study, by the China National Renewable Energy Centre and a variety of other Chinese organizations with support from the U.S. Department of Energy, shows China can do a lot more than that. It’s both technologically and economically feasible for China to rely on renewables for more than 60 percent of its total energy needs, including transportation, by 2050, the study says. On the way there, China has the ability to reach the peak of both its fossil fuel consumption and carbon dioxide emissions by 2025. China in 2050 could get more than 85 percent of its total electricity from renewables, 64 percent of of which could be from wind and solar power. Under that scenario, only 7 percent of its power would come coal after having developed more than 200 gigawatts of electric power storage. “For this target, we need to work together, especially USA and China,” both of which have large populations and big economies, Li Junfeng, director general of China’s National Center for Climate Change Strategy and International Cooperation, said at a news conference in April announcing the report.

http://www.energypost.eu/china-can-cut-coal-generation-2050/


1AC (11/11)

Finally, China will say yes. They are committed to climate action.

Henderson and Joffe, 2016

Geoffrey Henderson Project Specialist for ChinaFAQs within WRI’s Global Climate Program and Paul Joffe Senior Foreign Policy Counsel at WRI, , "China And The United States: Leading On Climate Action--New Challenges, New Opportunities", Chinafaqs, 5-31-2016, http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/china-and-united-states-leading-climate-action-new-challenges-new-opportunities

Q: Do we have reason to believe that China will follow through on its commitments? A: Yes. China has already made progress on its energy and emissions targets and has strong reasons of national interest to build on its current efforts. From 2006 to 2011, China reduced the energy intensity of its economy by 19%. Over the past five years, according to official figures China exceeded its targets for energy intensity (down 18.2%) and carbon intensity (20%). Uncertainties remain, such as the future trajectory of energy-intensive industries, the rate of industrial energy efficiency gains, and the upward pressure on energy use from trends toward urbanization and increased vehicle ownership. As described above, however, China is taking action to address emissions from each of these sources, and is motivated to build on this action. In light of the action and progress mentioned above, some experts now think that China’s carbon emissions will likely peak before 2030, consistent with the government’s stated aim to make best efforts to peak early. China’s efforts to achieve its targets are driven by strong national interests. China is working to control coal use to address air pollution. Air pollution contributes to as many as 4,000 deaths in China per day-- and as of 2010, economic losses of about a tenth of its GDP—and has raised widespread public concern. In 2013 China announced a $277 billion investment over five years in curbing air pollution and banned new coal plants in key industrial regions, and in 2014 China adopted amendments to its Environmental Protection Law which charge daily fines for violators and hold local officials accountable for their environmental record. The New Climate Economy China case study estimates considerable economic benefit from reduced air pollution and enhanced energy security associated with peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030. China’s national report on climate change finds that it may “further intensify the occurrence of floods and droughts,” threaten agricultural productivity, and increase its lowlying coastal cities’ vulnerability to storms. China’s top weather official has said that the impacts of climate change are already damaging China’s economy. As China is a net importer of fossil fuels, China’s leaders are concerned with the country’s energy security, and China has already begun to see the economic benefits of clean energy. Further, many of China’s heavy industries are facing the problem of excessive production capacity, which hurts profits; China’s leaders recognize the need to shift away from energy-intensive industry toward services for economic growth to continue at a strong rate.

http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/china-and-united-states-leading-climate-action-new-challenges-new-opportunities

http://www.chinafaqs.org/library/china-and-united-states-leading-climate-action-new-challenges-new-opportunities

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILES

Science Diplomacy Add on

Science Diplomacy (1/2) (__)

(__) US-China cooperation on climate creates confidence and overcomes distrust, which lowers the risk of escalation in the South China Seas

Vorndick, 2015,

Wilson Vorndick, Commander in the U.S. Navy and MA Harvard The Diplomat, "Could Climate Change Cooperation Ease Tensions in the South China Sea? ", Diplomat, 11-14-2015, http://thediplomat.com/2015/11/could-climate-change-cooperation-ease-tensions-in-the-south-china-sea/

In a little more than a fortnight, over 25,000 delegates from almost 200 nations will arrive in Paris for the UN’s Climate Change Conference. The leaders of two of the globe’s largest emitters, China and the United States, will be on hand in Paris. Indeed, President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping’s commitment to take on climate change has already made global headlines — as have their nations’ respective maneuvers recently in the South China Sea. Both global powers have a keen interest in the territorial imbroglio engulfing the South China Sea, as do the other claimants (Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam). Likewise, each one also will be represented in Paris. The one thing that all of them agree on is the threat posed by climate change-induced sea-level rise (SLR), which is predicted to drown most of the features in the South China Sea and flood the sea’s surrounding low-lying littoral nations. Climate change has already brought together a myriad of Chinese and American interests to work cooperatively on mitigation and adaptation solutions – could the same strategy be used for those nations that bound the South China Sea? Could tying together each nations’ respective interests on climate change and the South China Sea positively affect their relations? SLR cooperation may offer a new avenue for confidence building among the claimants. This type of cooperation would be similar to humanitarian assistance and disaster relief cooperation that already exists in the region. At the very least, it opens the opportunity for the claimants to work constructively and cooperatively on an issue that affects their shared maritime commons.


Science Diplomacy Add on

Science Diplomacy (2/2)

(__) Disputes in the South China Seas could escalate to nuclear war.

Goldstein, 2013

Avery Goldstein is the David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania, “First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations,” International Security, Vol. 37, no 4, Spring, 2013, pp 49-89

In a crisis, the U.S. and Chinese interests at stake will be high, and either side could decide that the risk of escalation introduced by conventional, space, or cyberattacks was worth running. Even though no stake in a crisis would be high enough for either the United States or China to choose an unrestrained nuclear exchange, some stakes might be high enough for either one to choose to initiate military actions that elevate the risk of escalation to such a disastrous outcome.88 As discussed above, both China and the United States have important interests over which they could find themselves locked in a war threatening crisis in the Western Pacific. The recent pattern of pointed Chinese and U.S. statements about the handling of persistent disputes in the South China Sea, for example, suggests that both sides attach a high and perhaps increasing value to their stakes in this region. Whether that value is high enough to contribute to crisis instability is an empirical question that cannot be answered in advance. The most worrisome source of instability, however, is clear—the temptation to use nonnuclear strikes as a way to gain bargaining leverage, even if doing so generates an unknowable risk of nuclear catastrophe that both China and the United States will have incentives to manipulate.


Science Diplomacy Extensions

Science Diplomacy Extension

(__)

(__) Cooperation on climate change can be a confidence building measure in the South China Seas.Vorndick, 2015

Wilson Vorndick, Lt. Commander in the U.S. Navy and is assigned to the Pentagon and previously to the China Maritime Studies Institute at the U.S. Naval War College., "Confidence Building through Climate Change in the South China Sea", Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, 12-4-2015, http://amti.csis.org/confidence-building-through-climate-change-in-the-south-china-sea/

More than 190 nations have converged in Paris for the United Nations conference on climate change, or the 21st Conference of Parties (COP21). Their goal is to arrest global warming below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) through a legally binding and universal agreement. Scientists posit that temperature is a critical component of the climate change equation because as global temperatures increase, glacial run-off and the thermal expansion of the globe’s watery surfaces will result in 3 feet of sea-level rise by the end of the century. Experts such as David Caron and Clive Schofield have assessed the dire implications of rising seas on maritime boundaries. This will be especially problematic in the South China Sea because of its unique seasonal weather patterns, currents, and numerous low-lying features. All of the South China Sea claimants are on hand in Paris for the deliberations, and even if they disagree about their maritime boundaries, they all acknowledge the reality of climate change-induced sea level rise and should be aware of its effects in the South China Sea. For instance, even if China proceeds with fortifying the features on which it has sought to strengthen its claims via land reclamation (or terriclaiming), these projects will not be immune from the corrosive environment of the South China Sea due to predicted sea level rise. The same is true for the other claimants’ outposts in the South China Sea, as well as the danger to their coastlines. With such a commonly held threat, perhaps climate change cooperation on sea level rise could serve as a confidence building measure (CBM) between the parties? Adaptation Strategies as a CBM Cooperatively developing adaptation strategies for climate change, specifically sea level rise, would be an excellent cooperative CBM approach for the South China Sea claimants. Even though adaptation can be incredibly complex phenomena because of the diversity of interpretations and executions of different nations, adaptation strategies remain predominantly non-proprietary and low-tech. They can range from flood-resistant farming techniques to seawall construction to shared legal frameworks. Each country has taken on various adaptions plans in anticipation of sea level rise. But differences exist and one size does not necessarily fit all. This is why working cooperatively, while simultaneously building trust and confidence would benefit the claimants. For example, seawall construction may be too expensive or technical for some South China Sea nations to undertake independently, but may be completely within the capacity of others, like Singapore, in cooperation with partners or under the auspices of a larger grouping like ASEAN. A brief comparison between Singapore and Vietnam highlights this prospect.

http://amti.csis.org/confidence-building-through-climate-change-in-the-south-china-sea/

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESClimate Change Advantage Extensions

Yes Climate Change is happening (1/2) (__)

(__) There’s an overwhelming consensus of scientists who agree that Climate change is real and human-caused.

Cook, 4-1-2016, John Cook is the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland. PhD in cognitive psychology. "Yes, there really is scientific consensus on climate change", Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 4-1-2016, http://thebulletin.org/yes-there-really-scientific-consensus-climate-change9332

Now, we have a new resource to dispel the myth that there is a lack of scientific consensus on climate change. While a number of past studies have measured the level of scientific consensus on climate change, no one has published a summary of the many consensus estimates—until now. In a paper published in Environmental Research Letters on April 13, I collaborated with the authors of seven of the leading consensus studies to perform a meta-study of meta-studies synthesising the research into scientific consensus on climate change. (A meta-study combines the findings from multiple studies.) Among climate scientists, the estimates of consensus varied from 90 to 100 percent, with a number of studies converging on 97 percent, the very figure derided by Cruz, Santorum, and others opposed to action on global warming. A key finding from our meta-study was that scientific agreement was highest among scientists with the most expertise in climate science. This meant that groups with lower climate expertise showed lower agreement on climate change. The group with the lowest level of agreement—at only 47 percent—were economic geologists, who study metals and minerals that can be used for industrial and economic purposes. Conversely, the group with the highest level of agreement—at 97 percent—were climate scientists who were actively publishing climate research. In short, the greater the expertise, the greater the consensus. The dark side of this relationship is that it allows misinformers to cast doubt on consensus by selecting sub-groups of scientists with lower expertise in climate science, in order to argue that scientific agreement on human-caused global warming is low. Our study finds that multiple studies have found an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. The level of scientific agreement is overwhelmingly high because the evidence is overwhelmingly strong. The anti-science crowd has deployed the “fake experts” technique—using non-specialists to undermine what the most relevant experts say—to cast doubt on consensus. Our hope is that our new study will both improve public perception of consensus and inoculate people against misinformation. This won’t be the last word in the public controversy on consensus. Given its pivotal role as a gateway belief, consensus will continue to be the target of misinformation campaigns by opponents of climate action. This means the effort to increase climate literacy and counter misinformation will have to continue. More broadly, science communicators need to acknowledge the persistent reality of misinformation, and adjust their approach accordingly. It is just as perilous to ignore the empirical findings of social science on how to communicate on climate change as it is to deny the empirical findings of the science itself.


Yes Climate Change is happening – (2/2) (__)

(__) 97% of climate scientists think that global warming is real and caused by humans.Nuccitelli, 4-1-2016, Dana Nuccitelli, environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in Sacramento, contributor to the Guardian "It’s settled: 90–100% of climate experts agree on human-caused global warming", Guardian, 4-1-2016, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

In our paper, we show that including non-experts is the only way to argue for a consensus below 90–100%. The greater the climate expertise among those included in the survey sample, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming. Similarly, if you want to know if you need open heart surgery, you’ll get much more consistent answers (higher consensus) if you only ask cardiologists than if you also survey podiatrists, neurologists, and dentists. That’s because, as we all know, expertise matters. It’s easy to manufacture a smaller non-expert “consensus” number and argue that it contradicts the 97% figure. As our new paper shows, when you ask the climate experts, the consensus on human-caused global warming is between 90% and 100%, with several studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. There’s some variation in the percentage, depending on exactly how the survey is done and how the question is worded, but ultimately it’s still true that there’s a 97% consensus in the peer-reviewed scientific literature on human-caused global warming. In fact, even Richard Tol has agreed: The consensus is of course in the high nineties. Is the consensus 97% or 99.9%? In fact, some believe our 97% consensus estimate was too low. These claims are usually based on an analysis done by James Powell, and the difference simply boils down to how “consensus” is defined. Powell evaluated the percentage of papers that don’t explicitly reject human-caused global warming in their abstracts. That includes 99.83% of papers published between 1991 and 2012, and 99.96% of papers published in 2013. In short, 97% of peer-reviewed climate research that states a position on human-caused warming endorses the consensus, and about 99.9% of the total climate research doesn’t explicitly reject human-caused global warming. Our two analyses simply answer different questions. The percentage of experts and their research that endorse the theory is a better description of “consensus.” However, Powell’s analysis is useful in showing how few peer-reviewed scientific papers explicitly reject human-caused global warming. In any case, there’s really no question that humans are the driving force causing global warming. The experts are almost universally convinced because the scientific evidence is overwhelming. Denying the consensus by misrepresenting the research won’t change that reality. With all of the consensus authors teaming up to show the 90–100% expert consensus on human-caused global warming, and most finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists, this paper should be the final word on the subject.


Answers to: Climate Science is Biased (__)

(__) They have the bias argument backwards, if a scientist could prove that climate change wasn’t a threat they’d be crushing it.Cook 16, John Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, 5-12-2016, "The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/the-things-people-ask-about-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-59243

Q: It could be argued that climate scientists may be predisposed to seeing climate change as more serious, because they want more funding. What’s your perspective on that?

Any climate scientist who could convincingly argue that climate change is not a threat would:

1. be famous 2. get a Nobel prize 3. plus a squintillion dollars in funding4. a dinner date with the Queen 5. lifelong gratitude of billions of people.

So if there is any incentive, it’s for a scientist to show that climate change is not a threat.

(__) Climate science isn’t biased in favor of the consensus, the incentives to prove that climate change isn’t happening are far greater.Cook 16, John Climate Communication Research Fellow, Global Change Institute, The University of Queensland, 5-12-2016, "The things people ask about the scientific consensus on climate change," Conversation, https://theconversation.com/the-things-people-ask-about-the-scientific-consensus-on-climate-change-59243

Q: It’s very difficult to become/remain a well-respected climate scientist if you don’t believe in human-caused climate change. Your papers don’t get published, you don’t get funding, and you eventually move on to another career. The result being that experts either become part of the 97% consensus, or they cease to be experts.

Ask for evidence for this claim and enjoy the silence (since they won’t have any). As a scientist, the pressure actually is mostly reversed: you get rewarded if you prove an established idea wrong. I’ve heard from contrarian scientists that they don’t have any trouble getting published and getting funded, but of course that also is only anecdotal evidence. You can’t really disprove this thesis, since it has shades of conspiratorial thinking to it, but the bottom line is there’s no evidence for it and the regular scientific pressure is to be adversarial and critical towards other people’s ideas, not to just repeat what the others are saying.


Answers to: Paris Agreement Fails (__)

(__) Without the US and China working together there’s no chance of global action on climate change.Los Angeles Times, 12-13-2015, "China, U.S. relationship key in climate agreement", latimes, 12-13-2015, http://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-u-s-climate-20151213-story.html

Six years ago, “both of the biggest nations in the world were not ready to deal,” Pooley said. Now, “the dynamic between the U.S. and China has totally changed.... They used to blame each other for inaction. Now they’re encouraging each other toward more ambitious action.” In some ways, Washington and Beijing have been driven to find common ground on global warming because they have failed to see eye to eye on so many other issues, including trade and cyberattacks, as well as human rights and the South China Sea. “China and the United States need an area where they can cooperate,” said Nathaniel Keohane, a former Obama White House staffer and now vice president for global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Climate change is becoming that area.” Momentum soared in November 2014 when Obama attended the APEC summit in Beijing and announced with Xi that the countries would both pursue policies to cut carbon emissions. Obama pledged the U.S. would emit at least 26% less carbon in 2025 than it did in 2005. Xi vowed his country would “peak” its carbon emissions by 2030, if not sooner, and said solar, wind and other clean energy technology would account for 20% of China’s total power production by that year. Their bilateral agreement “sent a powerful signal to the rest of the world,” said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a veteran of climate negotiations. “If the world's two biggest emitters aren't serious about dealing with the problem, you can't deal with the problem.” Seeing them work together, he added, “gave people a sense of hope.”


Answers to: Paris Agreement Fails (__)

(__) The Paris agreement isn’t perfect but its good enough to avoid catastrophic climate change.Hamilton, 2016,

Clive Hamilton, Professor of Public Ethics, Centre For Applied Philosophy & Public Ethics (CAPPE), Charles Sturt University, "How Scared or Hopeful Should We Be in a Warming World?", Conversation, 5-12-2016, http://theconversation.com/how-scared-or-hopeful-should-we-be-in-a-warming-world-59314

When confronted with the basic facts of climate science, some people simply declare “I am an optimist”. But it is vacuous to be optimistic without defining the outcome you are optimistic about.

To put my assessment crudely, if the question is whether we can be optimistic that Paris and all of the changes happening around it can save us from serious and long-lasting climate change, then my answer is “no”. If the question is whether we can be optimistic that global emissions might peak early enough and decline fast enough to avoid catastrophic change in which large parts of the Earth become permanently uninhabitable, then my answer after Paris is “yes”.

Some worry that many nations will not honour their commitments at Paris so that even 3.5°C is optimistic. I think this misses the sea-change that has occurred. The post-Paris signs are good, with many key players working hard to build on progress. Deniers are losing their influence, while the global campaign for climate action has shifted to a much higher level over the last three or four years and will only gain strength through new avenues like the divestment campaign.


Answers to: It’s too little change (__)

(__) Only action now can hold off a 2C increase. The difference between 1.5C and 2C of warming matters.European Geosciences Union 16, Europe’s premier geosciences union, dedicated to the pursuit of excellence in the Earth, planetary, and space sciences for the benefit of humanity, worldwide, 4-1-2016, "1.5°C vs 2°C global warming – new study shows why half a degree matters," European Geosciences Union (EGU), http://www.egu.eu/news/230/15c-vs-2c-global-warming-new-study-shows-why-half-a-degree-matters/

European researchers have found substantially different climate change impacts for a global warming of 1.5°C and 2°C by 2100, the two temperature limits included in the Paris climate agreement. The additional 0.5°C would mean a 10-cm-higher global sea-level rise by 2100, longer heat waves, and would result in virtually all tropical coral reefs being at risk. The research is published today (21 April) in Earth System Dynamics, an open access journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), and is presented at the EGU General Assembly.

“We found significant differences for all the impacts we considered,” says the study’s lead author Carl Schleussner, a scientific advisor at Climate Analytics in Germany. “We analysed the climate models used in the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] Fifth Assessment Report, focusing on the projected impacts at 1.5°C and 2°C warming at the regional level. We considered 11 different indicators including extreme weather events, water availability, crop yields, coral reef degradation and sea-level rise.” The team, with researchers from Germany, Switzerland, Austria and the Netherlands, identified a number of hotspots around the globe where projected climate impacts at 2°C are significantly more severe than at 1.5°C. One of these is the Mediterranean region, which is already suffering from climate change-induced drying. With a global temperature increase of 1.5°C, the availability of fresh water in the region would be about 10% lower than in the late 20th century. In a 2°C world, the researchers project this reduction to double to about 20%.In tropical regions, the half-a-degree difference in global temperature could have detrimental consequences for crop yields, particularly in Central America and West Africa. On average, local tropical maize and wheat yields would reduce twice as much at 2°C compared to a 1.5°C temperature increase. Tropical regions would bear the brunt of the impacts of an additional 0.5°C of global warming by the end of the century, with warm spells lasting up to 50% longer in a 2°C world than at 1.5°C. “For heat-related extremes, the additional 0.5°C increase marks the difference between events at the upper limit of present-day natural variability and a new climate regime, particularly in tropical regions,” explains Schleussner.The additional warming would also affect tropical coral reefs. Limiting warming to 1.5°C would provide a window of opportunity for some tropical coral reefs to adapt to climate change. In contrast, a 2°C temperature increase by 2100 would put virtually all of these ecosystems at risk of severe degradation due to coral bleaching. On a global scale, the researchers anticipate sea level to rise about 50 cm by 2100 in a 2°C warmer world, 10 cm more than for 1.5°C warming. “Sea level rise will slow down during the 21st century only under a 1.5°C scenario,” explains Schleussner.

http://www.egu.eu/news/230/15c-vs-2c-global-warming-new-study-shows-why-half-a-degree-matters/


Chinese Emissions Key to Climate (1/2) (__)

(__) Without reductions in Chinese emissions there’s no chance of remaining under the 2 degree warming threshold.Darby, 1-18-2016, Megan Darby, News editor at @ClimateHome, "Barclays: China key to closing global emissions gap", Climate Home - climate change news, 1-18-2016, http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/01/18/28300/

At last month’s Paris climate summit, there was increasing focus on India’s development plans as a driver of greenhouse gas emissions growth. But China remains the key to meeting the internationally agreed goal of holding temperature rise “well below 2C”, say analysts at Barclays bank. The Asian powerhouse accounts for 33-40% of the emissions gap to 2030 between current trends and a 2C pathway, according to a research note. Beijing is targeting a CO2 emissions peak by 2030, 60-65% cut in emissions for each unit of GDP and 20% clean energy share. “China should be able to achieve or outperform all three of these targets,” wrote analysts. Even then, the projections “would still leave China significantly above the trajectory consistent with a 2C outcome for the world”. The calculations are based on International Energy Agency scenarios, adjusted to take account of the latest data. Barclays is also more pessimistic about the rate of carbon efficiency improvements in China, in line with the government’s own projections. Under the Paris climate agreement, countries recognised that existing policies would not be adequate to stay within the 2C threshold. They agreed to review national efforts every five years, with a view to ramping up ambition. Investment decisions on energy and industrial infrastructure made in China over the next 10-15 years will be “absolutely crucial”, Barclays concluded. Beijing is working on the country’s next five-year plan, with details due out in March. Officials say cutting excess production is a priority, with inefficient coal plants and steel mills likely to be closed.


Chinese Emissions Key to Climate (2/2) (__)

(__) China is the now the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide.Glaser & Funaiole, April 2016,Bonnie S. Glaser is a senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at CSIS, where she works on issues related to Chinese foreign and security policy. Matthew P. Funaiole is a fellow with the China Power Project at CSIS. “How is China's energy footprint changing?” Center for Strategic and International Studies, http://chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/

Decades of rapid economic growth have dramatically expanded China’s energy needs. China is now the world’s largest consumer of energy, the largest producer and consumer of coal, and the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Although China also generates more energy domestically than any other country, its consumption has long since outpaced domestic supply, forcing China’s leaders to increasingly rely on foreign sources of energy. China must secure its energy needs to fuel its ongoing development. In order to diversify its oil portfolio, Chinese leaders have constructed overland oil and gas pipelines. To further safeguard its energy needs, China has begun to stockpile a strategic petroleum reserve. China has also made significant investments in renewable forms of energy, which has transformed the country into a global leader in hydroelectric, solar, and wind power. Nevertheless, China still runs primarily on fossil fuels, the burning of which comes at a steep environmental cost. This question explores the intersection of China’s energy needs, its changing energy footprint, and the environmental impact of China’s rise. What’s fueling China? China’s large manufacturing-based economy is primarily fueled by coal. In 2014, 71 percent of China’s emissions came from coal, compared to just 31 percent in the United States and 33 percent in the European Union. From 2000 to 2014, China increased its coal consumption from 1,365 metric tons (Mt) to 3,473 Mt. China now consumes more coal than the rest of the world combined. China’s heavy reliance on coal for industrial power generation has significantly contributed to its urban air pollution problem. Making matters worse, China burns coal in a dirty and inefficient manner, as China maintains heavy investments in “subcritical” coal plants, which produce high levels of pollution. Coal and oil account for the vast majority of China’s energy consumption. According to a 2015 Energy Information Administration (EIA) study, 86 percent of China’s energy consumption in 2012 came from these two fossil fuels. The remaining 14 percent stemmed from a combination of natural gas and renewables.


Climate Impact – Comparatively Bigger (__)

(__) Climate change is comparatively more catastrophic than other impacts.

Wagner and Weitzman, 2015,

Gernot Warner - Lead senior economist, Environmental Defense Fund; Martin L. Weitzman, Professor of economics, Harvard University.; Ensia -- "How Does Climate Stack up against Other Worst-Case Scenarios?." 4/1/2015

http://ensia.com/voices/how-does-climate-stack-up-against-other-worst-case-scenarios/

What we know about climate change is bad. What we don’t know makes it potentially much worse. But climate change isn’t the only big problem facing society. Opinions differ on what should rightly be called an “existential risk” or planetary-scale “catastrophe.” Some include nuclear accidents or terrorism. Others insist only nuclear war, or at least a large-scale nuclear attack, reaches dimensions worthy of the “global” label. There are half a dozen other candidates that seem to make it on various lists of the worst of the worst, and it’s tough to come up with a clear order of which most demands our attention and limited resources. In addition to climate change, let’s consider asteroids, biotechnology, nanotechnology, nukes, pandemics, robots and “strangelets,” strange matter with the potential of swallowing the Earth in a fraction of a second. That might strike some as a rather short list. Aren’t there thousands of potential risks? One could imagine countless ways to die in a traffic accident alone. That’s surely the case. But there’s an important difference: While traffic deaths are tragic on an individual level, they are hardly catastrophic as a class. Every entry on our list has the potential to wipe out civilization as we know it. All are global, highly impactful and mostly irreversible in human timescales. Most are highly uncertain. … For one, only two on the list — asteroids and climate change — allow us to point to history as evidence of the enormity of the problem. For asteroids, go back 65 million years to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. For climate, go back a bit over 3 million years to find today’s concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and sea levels up to 20 meters (66 feet) higher than today. … If we could rank worst-case scenarios by how likely they are to occur, we’d have taken a huge step forward. If the chance of a strangelet or robot takeover is so small as to be ignorable, probabilities alone might point to where to focus. But that’s not all. The size of the impact matters, too. So does the potential to respond. What then, if anything, still distinguishes climate change from the others remaining: biotechnology, nanotechnology, nukes and pandemics? For one, the relatively high chance of eventual planetary catastrophe. In Climate Shock, we zero in on eventual average global warming of 6 °C (11 °F) as the final cutoff few would doubt represents a true planetary catastrophe. Higher temperatures are beyond anyone’s grasp. ... That, more than anything, should lead us to put the climate problem in its proper context. Climate is not the only “worst-case scenario” imaginable. Others, too, deserve more attention. But none of that excuses inaction on climate. And more importantly, there’s perhaps no other problem where the probability of disaster multiplied by the magnitude of disaster is as high as with climate.


Climate Change hurts Agriculture (__)

(__) Climate change will make food production impossiblePlumer, 5-25-2015,

Brad Plumer, Senior Editor at Vox Global warming, explained http://www.vox.com/cards/global-warming/4-degrees-global-warming

What happens if the world heats up more drastically — say, 4°C? The risks of climate change would rise considerably if temperatures rose 4° Celsius (7.2° Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels — something that's possible if greenhouse gas emissions keep rising at their current rate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says 4°C of global warming could lead to "substantial species extinctions," "large risks to global and regional food security," and the risk of irreversibly destabilizing Greenland's massive ice sheet. One huge concern is food production: a growing number of studies suggest it would become significantly more difficult for the world to grow food with 3°C or 4°C of global warming. Countries like Bangladesh, Egypt, Vietnam, and parts of Africa could see large tracts of farmland made unusable by rising seas. And humans could struggle to adapt to these conditions. Many people might think the impacts of 4°C of warming will simply be twice as bad as those of 2°C. But as a 2013 World Bank report argued, that's not necessarily true. Impacts may interact with each other in unpredictable ways. Current agriculture models, for instance, don't have a good sense of what will happen to crops if increased heat waves, droughts, new pests and diseases, and other changes all start combining. "[G]iven that uncertainty remains about the full nature and scale of impacts," the World Bank report said, "there is also no certainty that adaptation to a 4°C world is possible." Its conclusion was blunt: "The projected 4°C warming simply must not be allowed to occur."

(__) 2 degree warming creates a massive decline in the viability of crops critical for human survivalPearce 16, Fred, writer at the Guardian, 6-16-2016, "What would a global warming increase of 1.5C be like?," Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/16/what-would-a-global-warming-increase-of-15c-be-like

A few studies have tried to drill down to what the difference means for day-to-day lives. And the consequences for many will be stark. At two degrees, parts of southwest Asia, including well-populated regions of the Persian Gulf and Yemen, may become literally uninhabitable without permanent air conditioning.

Some researchers predict a massive decline in the viability of food crops critical for human survival. The extra half-degree could cut corn yields in parts of Africa by half, says Bruce Campbell of the International Center for Tropical Agriculture. Schleussner found that even in the prairies of the US, the risk of poor corn yields would double.

Two degrees, says Johan Rockström, director of the Stockholm Resilience Center, “contains significant risks for societies everywhere; 1.5 looks much more scientifically justifiable.”


Answers To: CO2 helps Agriculture (1/2) (__)

(__) Warmer temperatures stress crops, negating the positive benefits of CO2 for agriculture.Prentice 15,

Professor Colin Prentice, AXA Chair in Biosphere and Climate Impacts, 10-19-2015, "Carbon dioxide: the good and the bad, the right and the wrong," Grantham Institute, https://granthaminstitute.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/carbon-dioxide-the-good-and-the-bad-the-right-and-the-wrong/

The impressive improvements in crop yields over recent decades have not been primarily due to the CO2 They are simply too large to explain by CO2. Instead, technology has played a key role, and technological advances will continue to be required as agriculture has to adapt to an inevitably changing climate. A major international effort, the CGIAR Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, exists for just this purpose.

This point actually seems to be closely in line with Goklany’s thinking. Just as climate change is not a major (negative) driver of human wellbeing, CO2 has not been a major (positive) driver, either. Human agency remains paramount.

Rising CO2 is and will continue to be accompanied by a changing (warming) climate. (The true value of “climate sensitivity” – the long-term effect on global mean temperature of a CO2 doubling – continues to be controversial, but studies of past climates show that it is within the range predicted by climate models.) Along with the beneficial effects of CO2 on crops we can therefore expect more frequent heat stress events, which are a major cause of crop failure today. The most recent global assessment of crop yields in a changing environment found positive and negative effects for spring wheat and soybean – the positive effects mainly from rising CO2 and the negative effects mainly from heat stress. For maize, because it is already benefiting from internally concentrated CO2, the projection was all negative. Thus, the picture is mixed, and not all positive as Goklany’s report suggests.


Answers To: CO2 helps Agriculture (2/2)

(__)

(__) CO2 and warming help weeds, not agricultural crops. Naidu and Murthy, 2014, Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry; “Crop-weed interactions under climate change.” Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2014;46(1):61-5.

http://isws.org.in/IJWSn/File/2014_46_Issue-1_61-65.pdf

Spread of invasive weeds and wake up of sleeper weeds

Invasive weeds are usually non-native, whose introduction results in wide-spread economic or environmental consequences (e.g. Lantana camara in India). Many of these weeds have strong reproductive capability. In many cases the impacts of invasive species benefiting from climate change are likely to exceed the direct impacts of climate change. Invasive species generally benefit from habitat disturbances because they have characteristics that are likely to make them benefit from climate change. Recent evidence indicates that invasive weeds may show a strong response to recent increases in atmospheric CO2 (Ziska and George 2004). Spread of invasive weed Parthenium hysterophorus was reported to be due to its response to climate change especially elevated CO2 (Naidu 2013). Many invasive weeds are opportunistic breeders with wide climatic tolerance, whereas native communities may be more susceptible to climatic stress, making them vulnerable to invasion.

Also, some native species may become invasive where other anthropogenic influences also favour them. Responses to climate change will be specific to individual species and will depend on a range of interacting factors. For example, the potential distribution of Lantana under historical climate exceeded the current distribution in some areas of the world, notably Africa and Asia. Under future scenarios, the climatically suitable areas for L. camara globally were projected to contract (Taylor et al. 2012).

Climate change, as well as the interactions between climate change and other processes (such as land management and new crop/cultivar introductions), may also turn some currently benign species (both native and non-native) into invasive species and may lead to sleeper weeds becoming more actively weedy. Increasing temperature might also allow some sleeper weeds to become invasive. Huge environmental damage and control cost can be prevented if these weeds are eradicated before they become widespread.Indirect effects of climate change on weed menaceHigher temperatures and other factors are likely to increase pollinators, (insects) breeding cycles and provide more weed pollination there by increase the weed population. As animals, including invasive species, move into new areas in response to climate change, they are likely to spread weeds or create disturbance advantageous for weeds. Climate change will render native species more vulnerable to weeds either directly or indirectly, for example by facilitating the spread of the serious plant diseases. Importing of fodder and grain into drought prone areas can bring new weed problems to the region.


Climate Change kills Biodiversity (__)

(__) Climate change will result in a mass extinction of species.Glikson, 2016,

Andrew Glikson, earth and paleo-climate scientist in the School of Archaeology and Anthropology at the Australian National University, "Homo sapiens and the sixth mass extinction of species", Strategist, 3-1-2016, http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/homo-sapiens-and-the-sixth-mass-extinction-of-species/

To date, the combined release of carbon from combustion and land clearing exceeds 550 billion tons carbon (GtC). The extraction of recoverable estimated carbon reserves would lead to an atmospheric CO2 level above 1,000 ppm, similar to that of early Eocene levels some 50 million years ago. Mean global temperatures, which have already rose by approximately 1.5 degrees Celsius over the continents, would rise 4 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, at a rate threatening a mass extinction of species. At +2 degrees Celsius, under Pliocene conditions (5.3–2.6 million years ago) the sea level was some 25+/-12 meters higher than at present, inundating coastal plains and river valleys. As stated by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature: ‘But the rapid loss of species we are seeing today is estimated by experts to be between 1000 and 10,000 times higher than the ‘background’ or expected natural extinction rate (a highly conservative estimate). Unlike the mass extinction events of geological history, the current extinction phenomenon is one for which a single species—ours—appears to be almost wholly responsible. This is often referred to as ‘the sixth extinction crisis’, after the five known extinction waves in geological history.’ However, as industries are affected by global warming and extreme weather events, the scale of carbon emissions is likely to be self-limiting. It’s natural for people to worry about one issue at a time. In recent decades, it has been the threat of nuclear proliferation. Yet the nuclear danger hasn’t diminished, could only grow in a stressed world and, whereas the time table of global warming is difficult to project accurately, a nuclear event by accident or design may precede tipping points in the climate system. Thus the 2016 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists states: ‘It is still 3 minutes to midnight: Last year, the Science and Security Board moved the Doomsday Clock forward to three minutes to midnight, noting: ‘The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon. That probability has not been reduced. The Clock ticks. Global danger looms. Wise leaders should act—immediately.’ The magnitude of the consequences of Homo sapiens’ combustion and nuclear activities challenges every faith, philosophy and ideal. Ethical and cultural assumptions of free will on the scale of the individual rarely govern the behavior of societies or nations, let alone that of an entire species. What’s required are political systems and leaders which can take humanity back from the brink.


Climate Change causes War (__)

(__) Climate change is threat multiplier, vastly increasing the risks of war.Rüttinger, et al 2015 Lukas Rüttinger is a Senior Project Manager at adelphi. As a political science graduate, he specialises in the areas of Development and Security, and Resources and Governance “A New Climate for Peace Taking Action on Climate and Fragility Risks: Two Page Summary” https://www.newclimateforpeace.org/#report-top

Climate change is a global threat to security in the 21st century. We must act now to limit future risks to the planet we share and the peace we seek. Achieving a robust international agreement to reduce emissions is of paramount importance. Yet the relentless momentum of change means that, despite future emissions reductions, the physical impacts from anthropogenic climate change are already visible and will continue for decades to come. Climate change is the ultimate “threat multiplier”: it will aggravate fragile situations and may contribute to social upheaval and even violent conflict. The problem is the compound risks that emerge when the impacts of climate change interact with other problems that weak states already face. The combination can overburden them. The consequences of fragility may prevent those that are most vulnerable to climate change from adapting successfully to it, thus trapping them in a vicious cycle. But even seemingly stable states can be pushed towards fragility if the pressure is high enough or shock is too great. We all share the risks — and thus we share the responsibility for tackling them. “A New Climate for Peace: Taking Action on Climate and Fragility Risks”, an independent report commissioned by members of the G7, identifies seven compound climate- fragility risks that pose serious threats to the stability of states and societies in the decades ahead: 1. Local resource competition As the pressure on natural resources increases, competition can lead to instability and even violent conflict in the absence of effective dispute resolution. 2. Livelihood insecurity and migration Climate changes will increase the human insecurity of people who depend on natural resources for their livelihoods, which could push them to migrate or turn to illegal sources of income. 3. Extreme weather events and disasters Extreme weather events and disasters will exacerbate fragility challenges and can increase people’s vulnerability and grievances, especially in conflict-affected situations. 4. Volatile food prices and provision Climate change is highly likely to disrupt food production in many regions, increasing prices and market volatility, and heightening the risk of protests, rioting, and civil conflict. 5. Transboundary water management Transboundary waters are frequently a source of tension; as demand grows and climate impacts affect availability and quality, competition over water use will likely increase the pressure on existing governance structures. 6. Sea-level rise and coastal degradation Rising sea levels will threaten the viability of lowlying areas even before they are submerged, leading to social disruption, displacement, and migration, while disagreements over maritime boundaries and ocean resources may increase. 7. Unintended effects of climate policies As climate adaptation and mitigation policies are more broadly implemented, the risks of unintended negative effects – particularly in fragile contexts —will also increase.

https://www.newclimateforpeace.org/#report-top


Climate Change destroys Economy (__)

(__) Climate change would destroy the economy.

Holthaus, 12-9-2015, Eric Holthaus, meteorologist who writes about weather and climate for Slate’s Future Tense., "Economists: Buckle Up, Climate Change Is Going to Be a Rough Ride", Slate Magazine, 12-9-2015, http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/12/09/climate_change_has_huge_economic_impacts.html

Taking into account country-level pledges made during the runup to Paris (no new pledges have been offered at the Paris conference itself), the world is on pace for warming of between 2.7 and 3.6 degrees Celsius this century—not much different than the business-as-usual scenario the economists examined. That world, which we’re currently on pace for, could be economically catastrophic, the report warns. Most notably, the group of economists is much more convinced than the general American public that immediate and bold action on climate change is necessary—and essential—to secure continued economic growth. Economists are much more willing than the general American public to say immediate and bold action needs to be taken to combat climate change. A majority of the economists surveyed said that climate change will have a negative impact on the economy within the next 10 years. Contrary to Republican presidential candidates, a vast majority of economists surveyed said prompt U.S. action could compel other countries to increase their ambition on climate change. Economists surveyed expected that, on the current path, climate change will eventually account for a 10 percent annual reduction in GDP. Some economists were much more pessimistic—saying the economy could be cut in half. Trillions of dollars are on the line in the Paris negotiations as the world debates encouraging a shift of government and business funds from subsidizing fossil fuels toward subsidizing renewable energy. Though rich countries have pledged $100 billion of climate aid per year by 2020, a coalition of major developing economies this week said that, so far, the money that’s actually being allocated is vastly smaller. Results like these provide a strong rebuttal to recent claims by Republican presidential candidates that taking action on climate change will negatively impact the American economy. In fact, it’s becoming even more likely that the American economy may not be viable in a world wrecked by climate change.

China Climate Cooperation Affirmative NAUDL CORE FILESSolvency Extensions

Answers to: US must reduce emissions (___)

(__) US-China cooperation on clean energy creates innovation that reduces emission in both countires..Forbes and Moch, 2014,

Sarah Forbes, Senior Associate, Climate and Energy Program, World Resources Institute and Jonathan Moch, Graduate Student Harvard, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences "How U.S.-China Cooperation Can Expand Clean Energy Development", World Resources Institute, 4-25-2014, http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/04/how-us-china-cooperation-can-expand-clean-energy-development

At the researcher level, collaboration between Chinese and U.S. scientists and engineers is especially useful, because it allows for data and ideas to be shared across groups of individuals with different areas of expertise, and can lead to new discoveries. As an example, researchers at Huaneng Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Duke Energy have conducted carbon capture and storage (CCS) cost modeling on Duke’s Gibson Power Plant and Huaneng’s Shidonku plant. This collaboration among researchers has made it much easier to model the comparative advantages of CCS on the two power plants. For U.S. and Chinese businesses, collaboration allows the spreading of risk. It can help move technologies forward by vastly expanding market opportunities and helping a technology move down the development chain in a much more efficient manner. The LP Amina example shows how a potentially beneficial technology can get stuck in the development process due to lack of opportunities in a particular country. Cooperation, however, allows these types of obstacles—such as lack of opportunities for demonstrations—to be overcome. As another example of business collaboration, U.S. and Chinese companies like Boeing, Honeywell, PetroChina, and Air China have been collaborating to develop biofuels for passenger jets. In 2011, this effort led to a successful Chinese test flight of a Boeing 747 using a 50 percent blend of traditional jet fuel and the new biofuel. 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 best practices.


Answers to: No Chinese Enforcement (__)

(__) The cooperation on climate creates reform of the Chinese energy sector – that solves enforcement.Kahrl, 15Fredrich Kahrl is a Managing Consultant at Energy and Environmental Economics (E3), a San Francisco-based energy consulting firm. “What Would New Breakthroughs on Climate Change Mean for the U.S.-China Relationship? A ChinaFile Conversation” ChinaFile , 9/23/15 http://www.chinafile.com/conversation/what-would-new-breakthroughs-climate-change-mean-us-china-relationship

The pathway to lower-emissions electricity in China is currently beset by a number of “transition” obstacles. Since broader economic reforms in the 1980s, China’s central government has never comprehensively reformed the electricity sector. In an era of sustained double-digit economic expansion, this mattered little. Institutional pressures were concealed by growth, and government agencies made periodic piecemeal adjustments designed primarily to encourage investment. The results were remarkable. In a span of just over two decades, beginning in 1990, China built the equivalent of the entire U.S. electricity system.

However, as China’s economic growth slows, environmental pressures mount, and electricity supply and demand conditions become more complex, the lack of a rational economic basis for the sector is becoming more evident from both cost and environmental perspectives. High curtailment (discarding) of wind, solar, and hydropower generation, for example, are rooted in a combination of poor planning, misaligned incentives, and political economy. Cost-effectively addressing these challenges requires more fundamental reforms.

Riding the global wave of deregulation, China began an electricity reform process in the early 2000s that never proceeded beyond the separation of generation and grid companies. A new reform process, begun in early 2015, promises to make deeper progress. Following Chinese policymaking practice, however, reform documents released to date provide only high-level guidance and leave implementation questions unanswered. A series of provincial pilots, likely to begin next year, will provide fodder for national reform strategies.The U.S. government has never actively engaged China on “soft technology” issues in the electricity or energy sectors. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a memorandum of understanding with China’s National Energy Agency, but provides largely reactive assistance. The Department of Energy has a number of collaborative programs with China, mostly focused on hard technology R&D. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory actively engage Chinese counterparts on a wide range of energy issues, but this work is mostly foundation-supported. This is a missed opportunity. The revival of electricity reform at the same time that China and the U.S. have agreed to collaborate on climate creates a real opening for government-to-government engagement. Given the importance of institutional change in both the U.S. and China for meeting CO2 emission reduction goals, greater collaboration on soft technology issues between the two countries is as important, if not more important, than traditional R&D collaboration.




Answers to: China can’t reduce emissions (___)

(___) China’s regime can and will push environmental reformsGoldstein 2015

Lyle, associate professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute (CMSI), which was established at U.S. Naval War College in October 2006 to improve mutual understanding and maritime cooperation with China. “Toxic Embrace: The Environment and US-China Relations.” Meeting China Halfway. Georgetown University Press, pg 122. LM

Skeptics are likely to make the counterargument that a major turnaround in China’s environmental situation will only come about as a result of major changes in China’s current political system. However, it is worth noting briefly that some keen observers of environmental politics, such as Thomas Friedman, have actually argued the opposite point—suggesting that a Chinese government more insulated from populism and short-term economic interests could be more capable of creating and implementing green reforms.49 Still, there is little doubt that a fundamental weakness of China’s environmental policies has been the paucity of civil society. In other words, China has lagged in environmental protection because it lacks dynamic and successful green nongovernmental organizations, not to mention a free press to keep all parties honest. But interesting movement is now quite visible on this front, as the phenomenon of environmental protest movements, often inspired by local misdeeds, is catching fire in China, enabled by new social media technologies. What is just as intriguing and significant is that these protests are receiving quite extensive and favorable coverage in the Chinese press. For example, the August 2012 edition of 财经 (Finance and Economics) magazine carried an extremely detailed analysis of such green protests and concluded: “Enormous public opinion pressure, will garner the attention of the government and its officials, leading to a resolution of the problem.” Notably, the article adds that such resolutions may actually not be informed by scientific debate. Also interesting is the fact that the article discusses in detail the gradual development of the environmental protest movement in the United States.50 Shapiro also emphasizes the increasingly positive role that China’s journalists are playing in highlighting environmental causes, suggesting that, in combination with the “growing public clamor” that is now under way, a “‘green hurricane’ is cleaning up China.”51

climate change affirmative - soulsvilleseniorenglish.com€¦ · web viewanswers to: paris...

Documents