***1AC***
Contention 1: Inherency
No federal program for HSR
UPI Energy, 12
UPI Energy May 22, 2012 Tuesday 6:30 AM EST High-speed rail still a dream in U.S. BYLINE: MARA
GRBENICK, MEDILL NEWS SERVICE LENGTH: 1231 words DATELINE: WASHINGTON, May 22
Although comparisons between passenger railroads and the federal highway system are frequently
made, there is no official federal program for passenger rail with taxes or other mechanisms to fund it.
It's a harder sell to taxpayers since not as many people would benefit from a high-speed or even
passenger rail network as have benefitted from the high-way system. Opening more opportunities for
the private sector to compete with Amtrak could be a more feasible goal than a full government
program, a House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee representative said. Though some of
the advantages of rail are clear, more competition might lead to greater efficiency and lower costs, and
that could help to build more citizen good will around rail investments.
Plan: The United States federal government should substantially increase its
investment in a national network of inter-city high-speed passenger rail.
Advantage 1: Warming
First, transportation is the largest proximate cause of warming and pollution
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,” International Union of Railways,
http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
4.1 HSR has a lower impact on climate and environment than all other compatible transport modes. To
compare the overall environmental performance of HSR with other competitive transport modes, all
environmental impacts must be considered. These are, mainly: energy consumption and the combustion
of fossil fuels; air pollutant emissions and noise; and environmental damage like land use and resource
depletion. These impacts occur during the construction, operation and maintenance of HSR. The
following chapter focuses on the most significant, and on-going, phase, the operation of HSR, and shows
how HSR brings solutions to global challenges. 4.1.1 Energy consumption and GHG emissions. The
reality of global warming is commonly admitted among the scientific community. The works of the
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are unequivocal on the question that climate change is
happening and that human activities are largely responsible for it. Global warming is a consequence of
the well-known Greenhouse Effect, and the non-natural part of it especially is caused mainly by carbon
emissions due to human activity. Anthropogenic emissions have been growing continuously since the
19th century (see Figure 4). The IPCC predicts temperature rises of between 1° a nd 6° Centigrade from
current levels by 2100, depending on the levels of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. If the higher
estimates are accurate, there could be catastrophic consequences, so decisive action is required. The
Kyoto Protocol regulates five GHGs beside CO2: methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). International efforts
are now focused on reducing GHG emissions from the activities of modern society to avoid
unprecedented impacts from climate change. In March 2007, as part of a wide-ranging attempt to cut
emissions, European heads of state agreed to set legally binding targets to reduce Europe-wide GHG
emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 (increased to 30% with a strong global agreement), (EC,
2010) f . The European Commission has further stated that work must begin immediately on a longerterm target of a 50% cut in global emissions by 2050. In July 2008, the European Commission published
its ‘Greening Transport’ package which included a series of proposals to make the transport sector more
environmentally-friendly and to promote sustainable mobility. Yet the measures agreed so far are not
sufficient to contain the negative environmental effects of transport growth. Furthermore, there is still
no coherent ‘roadmap’ to reduce emissions from transport. Figure 5 shows total GHG emissions for the
EU 27 countries, including international maritime and aviation “bunkers” g , projected on linear
trajectory towards 80% and 95% reduction targets, alongside total transport emissions (including
bunkers) assuming current trends continue. This shows that if the current growth in transport emissions
continues, then even if all other sectors achieve a 100% reduction, targets for total emissions will be
exceeded by transport alone by 2050. Transport has a key role to play within solutions to climate
change as current transport structures are responsible for extreme pressures on energy resources and
ecosystems through a high dependence on fossil fuels (80% of energy consumption is derived from fossil
fuels). Producing 23% of all worldwide CO2 emissions, transport is the second largest source of manmade CO2, after energy production (see Figure 6). Among all sectors, the transport sector is the only
one in which emissions are continuing to increase in spite of all the technological advances. Moreover,
transport emissions, for instance in Europe, increased by 25% between 1990 and 2010. By contrast
emissions from the industrial and energy sectors are falling. 9 Reducing transport emissions is therefore
one of the most crucial steps in combating global warming and securing our future. In the interests of
people and the environment, the rail sector strongly recommends that transport policies in the EU and
elsewhere start to make more use of the energy efficiency of railways in order to progress towards the
2020 CO2 reduction targets Railways already offer the most energy efficient performance and are
constantly improving in terms of energy use per passenger km (pkm). HSR IS PART OF THE SOLUTION TO
FIGHT CLIMATE CHANGE The alarming performance of the transport sector is largely due to road traffic,
which accounts for 73% of global transport emissions (see Figure 7). If domestic and international
aviation is combined then it is the second largest emitter accounting for 13% of global transport
emissions. By contrast, the rail sector accounts for just 2% of total transport emissions. In Europe rail
accounts for only 1.6% of emissions, while it transports 6% of all passengers and 10% of all freight. 10
This is a clear indicator that railways can do more for less. A modal shift from road and air towards rail
is one obvious way to reduce CO2 emissions. There are three primary strategy responses to the
challenge of reducing the environmental impact of transport (Dalkmann and Brannigan, 2007): Avoid transport is reduced or avoided altogether; such as by land-use planning and public transport
integration in order to enable efficient interconnectivity and reductions in km travelled. Shift - journeys
are made by lower CO2 per passenger emitting modes such as public transport (including rail), walking
and cycling. Improve - efficiency of current transport modes is improved e.g. by innovations in
technology. 16 In the context of rail the two most relevant strategies are ‘shift’ and ‘improve’, however
rail does have a part to play in ‘avoid’ strategies within integrated land use and spatial planning. 12 HSR
IS MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT THAN ALL OTHER TRANSPORT MODES Rail in general is widely
acknowledged as the most carbon efficient form of mass transport as Figure 8 illustrates. Calculations
for HSR using the average European electricity mix, a 75% load factor and the electric consumption of a
Alstom AGV (0.033 kwh/seat.km) h show a crucial advantage in terms of carbon emissions over air and
road transport with around 17g CO2 per pkm. Although average emissions depend upon many factors
the graph indicates the benefits of railways. Thus, in addition to not being a significant contributor to
the transport sector’s problems in terms of emissions, rail needs to be given more attention because of
its crucial role as an important part of the solution. In particular, efficient, 100% electric HSR can play a
leading role in reducing transport related emissions and contribute to climate protection. HSR offers
the best performance in terms of energy consumption and materials use. HSR offers attractive
alternatives to short-haul flights and long distance car journeys. Replacing short haul flights with HSR
would release capacity constraints at airports, reduce the need for additional expansion whilst helping
to tackle the challenges of climate change.
AND, historic data proves that co2 causes warming
The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), staff, STRATEGIC SURVEY v. 107 n. 1,
September 2007, pp. 33-84
The link between CO2 concentration and temperature over the past 650,000 years is well
established both theoretically and empirically. It is reasonable to assume that the
unprecedented levels of and continued rise in CO2 and other greenhouse-gas concentrations
generated by human activity will cause a similarly unprecedented warming. However, because this is
uncharted territory, models or simulations of future climate have been developed. These can be run under various assumptions for the
rate and level of greenhouse gas emissions. Most projections, including those in the IPCC reports and the Stern Report, use a set of
standard scenarios published in the IPCC's Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). These scenarios incorporate different
assumptions about future population trends and development of the global economy.
Now is the key time-slowing warming is key to avoid positive feedbacks
James E. Hanson, Head, NASA Goddard Institute, Testimony before House Select Committee on
Energy Independnece and Global Warming, 6—23—08, www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf
Fast feedbacks—changes that occur quickly in response to temperature change—amplify the initial temperature change,
begetting additional warming. As the planet warms, fast feedbacks include more water vapor, which traps
additional heat, and less snow and sea ice, which exposes dark surfaces that absorb more sunlight. Slower feedbacks also exist. Due to
warming, forests and shrubs are moving poleward into tundra regions. Expanding vegetation, darker than tundra, absorbs sunlight and
warms the environment. Another slow feedback is increasing wetness (i.e., darkness) of the Greenland and West Antarctica
ice sheets in the warm season. Finally, as tundra melts, methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, is bubbling out. Paleoclimatic
records confirm that the long-lived greenhouse gases— methane, carbon dioxide, and nitrous oxide—all increase with the warming of oceans and land. These positive
feedbacks amplify climate change over decades, centuries, and longer. The predominance of positive feedbacks explains why Earth’s climate has historically undergone large
feedbacks work in both directions,
swings:
amplifying cooling, as well as warming, forcings. In the past, feedbacks have caused Earth to be whipsawed
between colder and warmer climates, even in response to weak forcings, such as slight changes in the tilt of Earth’s axis.2 The second fundamental property of Earth’s climate
system, partnering with feedbacks, is the great inertia of oceans and ice sheets. Given the oceans’ capacity to absorb heat, when a climate forcing (such as increased
greenhouse gases) impacts global temperature, even after two or three decades, only about half of the eventual surface warming has occurred. Ice sheets also change slowly,
although accumulating evidence shows that they can disintegrate within centuries or perhaps even decades. The upshot of the combination of inertia and feedbacks is that
additional climate change is already “in the pipeline”: even if we stop increasing greenhouse gases today, more warming will occur. This is sobering when one considers the
present status of Earth’s climate. Human civilization developed during the Holocene (the past 12,000 years). It has been warm enough to keep ice sheets off North America and
Europe, but cool enough for ice sheets to remain on Greenland and Antarctica. With rapid warming of 0.6°C in the past 30 years, global temperature is at its warmest level in the
Holocene.3 The warming that has already occurred, the positive feedbacks that have been set in motion, and the additional warming in the pipeline together have brought us to
. We are at the tipping point because the climate state includes large, ready
positive feedbacks provided by the Arctic sea ice, the West Antarctic ice sheet, and much of Greenland’s ice. Little additional forcing is
needed to trigger these feedbacks and magnify global warming. If we go over the edge, we will transition to an
environment far outside the range that has been experienced by humanity, and there will be no
return within any foreseeable future generation. Casualties would include more than the loss of
indigenous ways of life in the Arctic and swamping of coastal cities. An intensified hydrologic cycle will
produce both greater floods and greater droughts. In the US, the semiarid states from central Texas
through Oklahoma and both Dakotas would become more drought-prone and ill suited for agriculture,
people, and current wildlife. Africa would see a great expansion of dry areas, particularly southern
Africa. Large populations in Asia and South America would lose their primary dry season freshwater
source as glaciers disappear. A major casualty in all this will be wildlife.
the precipice of a planetary tipping point
These positive feedback loops ensure that climate change will be abrupt and rapid—
like flipping a switch—and makes ice and wars inevitable
John Carey, journalist, “Global Warming,” BUSINESS WEEK, 8—30—04, p. 48.
More worrisome, scientists have learned from the past that seemingly
small perturbations can cause the climate
to swing rapidly and dramatically. Data from ice cores taken from Greenland and elsewhere
reveal that parts of the planet cooled by 10 degrees Celsius in just a few decades about 12,700
years ago. Five thousand years ago, the Sahara region of Africa was transformed from a
verdant lake-studded landscape like Minnesota's to barren desert in just a few hundred
years. The initial push -- a change in the earth's orbit -- was small and very gradual, says geochemist Peter B. deMenocal of Columbia
University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. ``But the climate response was very abrupt -- like flipping a
switch.'' The earth's history is full of such abrupt climate changes. Now many scientists fear
that the current buildup of greenhouse gases could also flip a global switch. ``To take a
chance and say these abrupt changes won't occur in the future is sheer madness,'' says Wallace S.
Broecker, earth scientist at Lamont-Doherty. ``That's why it is absolutely foolhardy to let CO2 go up to 600 or 800 ppm.'' Indeed,
Broecker has helped pinpoint one switch involving ocean currents that circulate heat and cold (table, page 68). If
this so-called
conveyor shuts down, the Gulf Stream stops bringing heat to Europe and the U.S. Northeast.
This is not speculation. It has happened in the past, most recently 8,200 years ago. Can it happen
again? Maybe. A recent Pentagon report tells of a ``plausible...though not the most likely'' scenario, in which the conveyor shuts off.
``Such
abrupt climate change...could potentially destabilize the geopolitical environment,
leading to skirmishes, battles, and even war,'' it warns.
Warming causes extinction
Bill Henderson, 8-19-2006, Counter Currents, http://www.countercurrents.org/cchenderson190806.htm
The scientific debate about human induced global warming is over but policy makers - let alone the happily shopping general public still seem to not understand the scope of the impending tragedy. Global
warming isn't just warmer temperatures,
heat waves, melting ice and threatened polar bears. Scientific understanding increasingly
points to runaway global warming leading to human extinction. If impossibly Draconian security
measures are not immediately put in place to keep further emissions of greenhouse gases out
of the atmosphere we are looking at the death of billions, the end of civilization as we know it and in all
probability the end of man's several million year old existence, along with the extinction of most flora and fauna beloved to man in the
world we share.
Advantage 2: Economic Competitiveness
U.S. competitiveness decreasing in the SQ—multiple factors
Babu et all February 2011 Suresh & 10 others, including reps from NASA, GE, and EWI “strengthening
manufacturing competitiveness” Online
Alarming Trends There is an unfortunate gathering of alarming trends in manufacturing that must be
recognized and reversed
asing R&D Funding: U.S. growth in R&D has averaged only
about 1% per year in real terms since 2000.(13) This is of great concern considering that R&D
investment drives innovation, and innovation is thought by many to be the critical strategic
imperative to a healthy economy
percentage of U.S. GDP has decreased. From 1996 to 2007, manufacturing’s share of GDP has fallen
from 15.5 to 11.7%.(12) Furthermore, manufacturing output since the last recession lags that of earlier
economic recoveries ― it has only grown 15%, which is half the pace averaged in recoveries of the
past half century
The ultimate metric of manufacturing strength, that of
jobs, is the most alarming of the trends. The manufacturing employment base has declined by 4
million jobs in the past 10 years, as shown in Figure 1, and is suffering severe losses in the current
economy.(12) While improved productivity accounts for some job reductions, the major impact is from
factory shutdowns and the exporting of manufacturing overseas. As previously noted, manufacturing
jobs generally earn higher wages than other sectors. However, job erosion in the manufacturing sector is
difficult to recover and permanently scars the standard of living.
The U.S. manufacturing sector is at the tipping point – now’s key to revive the linchpin
of the economy
Arvind Kaushal, Thomas Mayor, and Patricia Riedl Autumn 2011 “Manufacturing’s
Wake-Up Call” All authors are senior executives at booz&co, a leading global consulting firm.
A debate over the future of U.S. manufacturing is intensifying. Optimists point to the relatively cheap dol- lar and the shrinking wage gap
between China and the U.S. as reasons the
manufacturing sector could come back to life, boosting U.S.
competitiveness and reviving the fortunes of the American middle class. Whenever production statistics in the
U.S. surge, it seems to bol- ster that hope; as New York Times columnist and Nobel laureate Paul Krugman put it in May 2011, “Manufacturing is one of the bright spots of a generally disap- pointing recovery.” But then when disappointing economic growth in- dicators are
released, the pessimists weigh in. They ar-
gue that the U.S. has permanently lost its manufactur- ing
competitiveness in many sectors to China and other countries, that the sector is still declining after years of offshoring and neglect,
and that it might never return to its role as the linchpin of the U.S. economy. Both the optimists
and the pessimists are partially correct. U.S. manufacturing is at a moment of truth. Currently, U.S.
factories competitively produce about 75 percent of the products that the nation consumes. A series of identifiable smart
actions and choices by busi- ness leaders, educators, and policymakers could lead to a robust,
manufacturing-driven economic future and push that figure up to 95 percent. Alternatively, if the U.S.
manufacturing sector remains neglected, its output could fall by half, meeting less than 40 percent
of the nation’s demand, and U.S. manufacturing capa- bilities could then erode past the point of no
return.
Employment rates are stagnant now – key to the economy
AP 6/15/2012 “Unemployment rates rose or were unchanged in two-thirds of US states in May”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/unemployment-rates-rose-or-were-unchanged-in-two-thirdsof-us-states-in-may/2012/06/15/gJQADtELfV_story.html
Unemployment rates rose in 18 U.S. states in May, the most in nine months. Increasing
unemployment in more than a third of U.S. states is the latest evidence of a weaker job market. The
Labor Department said that unemployment rates fell in only 14 states. That’s fewer than the previous month, when rates fell in 37 states.
Rates were unchanged in 18 states. 0 Comments Weigh InCorrections? Personal Post Nationally, the rate rose to 8.2 percent in May from
8.1 percent in April, the first increase in almost a year. Employers added only 69,000 jobs, the fewest in 12 months.
Still, 27 states added jobs in May. California gained the most, adding 33,900. Ohio was next with 19,600. North Carolina reported the
biggest loss, shedding 16,500 jobs. It was followed by Pennsylvania, which lost nearly 10,000. Nevada had the nation’s highest
unemployment rate, at 11.6 percent, followed by Rhode Island’s 11 percent and California’s 10.8 percent. North Dakota, meanwhile,
reported the nation’s lowest rate of 3 percent. Nebraska had the next lowest, at 3.9 percent. Despite the slowdown in hiring in recent
months, some of the hardest-hit states have seen substantial improvement in the past year. Michigan and Nevada have both seen their
unemployment rates fall 2.1 percentage points in the past 12 months. Both states still have higher unemployment rates than the national
average. But Michigan’s rate was 8.5 percent last month, down from 10.6 percent in May 2011. Florida and Mississippi have seen their
rates fall 2 percentage points in the past 12 months. Florida’s rate was 8.6 percent, down from 10.6 percent in the same month last year.
Mississippi’s is 8.7 percent, down from 10.7 percent in May 2011. Some of those declines reflect more hiring. The
nation has
gained more than 1 million jobs in the past six months. But the lower rates also are a result of
more people becoming discouraged and dropping out of the work force. The government only counts people
as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.
Bolstering manufacturing is key to the economy and global competitiveness
Clyde Prestowitz founder and president of the Economic Strategy Institute. Prior to founding ESI, he
served as counselor to the Secretary of Commerce in the Reagan Administration. YaleGlobal, 13 April
2012 “US Battle to Revive Manufacturing – Part II” http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/us-battle-revivemanufacturing-part-ii
In his State of the Union address, President Barack Obama called for revitalization of manufacturing as the basis of an American economy
“built to last.” He proposed a number of measures such as special tax credits for investment that creates high valued-added manufacturing
jobs in America and greater government support of R&D in manufacturing. Even more telling was another speech given on March 27 at the
Washington Manufacturing Conference by National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling, the president’s top economic adviser since
Larry Summers returned to Harvard. For those accustomed to Summers’ tight embrace of market fundamentalism and rejection of
anything that might smack of government intervention in the market, the speech represented a surprising 180-degree shift. Long Summers’
trusty acolyte, Sperling turned his back on virtually everything the master had preached. Wasn’t
it wrong to single out one
sector of the economy for special attention? Not necessarily, because if that sector is
manufacturing, it accounts for over two thirds of all private R&D spending and a higher than
average proportion of productivity gains and innovation. So, if manufacturing contributes
disproportionately to economic welfare, perhaps it deserves disproportionate attention. Obama’s
instincts are similar to those of most Americans who wonder why so much of what they buy is made in China. But wouldn’t such
attention distort markets and cause inefficiencies and misallocation of resources? Well, no, not
necessarily, because economic studies have shown that there are positive spillovers, gains for the
overall economy that cannot always be captured by one firm and won’t be developed without
some public support. These arguments are not at all new. As a member of the Reagan administration, I had this same discussion
30 years ago with a member of the Council of Economic Advisers. The arguments are as valid now as they were then. But they were buried
by successive waves of hate-government-intervention-of-any-kind Republican economists and love-rational-expectations-econometricmodels-of any-kind Democratic economists. So the arguments are now being exhumed. The reasons are twofold. At one level, it’s simple.
The president is asking some fundamental questions. At a White House meeting which I attended more than a year ago, he asked: “Why
can’t we build high-speed trains in America? Why can’t we make batteries in America?” So Obama’s instincts are not so
different from those of most ordinary Americans who wonder why everything they buy is made in China, Japan or Germany. His questions
trigger a search for answers. At a more fundamental level, the
president is asking these questions because he knows
that America is not paying its way in the world and that its productive base is no longer generating
sufficient wealth to maintain America’s far-flung geopolitical commitments while also delivering
the American dream to future generations. The president knows that if he can’t revitalize the
productive base, he and the country will both fail. And in the search for answers, his advisers have inevitably been
driven to industrial policy.
Global economic crisis causes war---strong statistical support—also causes great
power transitions
Royal 10 – Jedediah Royal, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of
Defense, 2010, “Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises,” in
Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p.
213-214
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict . Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence
behaviour of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable
contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory,
finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of pre-eminent power
and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks
such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 10981) that leads
to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon, 1995). Alternatively,
even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for
conflict as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Seperately, Polllins (1996)
also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium,
and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions
remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996,2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that ‘future expectation of
trade’ is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent
states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future
trade relations. However, if the expectation of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace items such as
energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases , as states will be inclined to use force to gain
access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations
either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between
economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg
and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation
between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn.
They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends
to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the
extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg & Hess, 2002,
p.89). Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, & Weerapana, 2004), which
has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting
government. ‘Diversionary
theory’ suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic
decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to create a ‘rally round the flag’ effect. Wang
(1996), DeRouen (1995), and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force
are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997) Miller (1999) and Kisanganie and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards
diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more
susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods
of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak presidential popularity, are statistically linked to
an increase in the use of force..
US dominance is key to solve multiple hotspots that escalate to global war
Robert Kagan (Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Senior
Transatlantic Fellow at the German Marshall Fund) 2007 “End of Dreams, Return of History,” Hoover
Institution, No. 144, August/September, http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/article/6136
The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new postCold War international system. Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power,
influence, honor, and status. American
predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying — its regional as
well as its global predominance. Were the United States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the
strongest power, the other
nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes
wars of varying scope, intensity, and
destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear
weapons. That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make them more catastrophic.It is easy
but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability
in the world even as it also disrupts stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that
other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or grudgingly allow the United
States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international
access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role
as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete
through diplomacy and accommodation but often through confrontation and
for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as
well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind used in World War i and other major conflicts, would disrupt trade flows
in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of peoples but on a foundation provided
by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it
the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the
thought, but even today Europe ’s stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary, that the United States
could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world, that
would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would
be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys
today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of
international order that they like would remain in place. But that ’s not the way it works. International
order does not rest on ideas
shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of
power in the world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar
world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order,
with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a
hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it would. But it is doubtful
and institutions. It is
that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from
perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world ’s great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity,
regional conflicts involving the large powers may erupt. War
could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in
both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European
allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan
remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too,
could draw in other great powers, including the United States. Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter
what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or
withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia, where most
nations agree that a reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is
certainly the view of most of China ’s neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the dominant
power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In
Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene — even if it remained the world’s most powerful nation —
could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful
approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of
the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent
American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the
United States withdrew from Europe — if it adopted what some call a strategy of “offshore balancing” — this
could in time increase
the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in
under unfavorable circumstances. It is also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the
assumption of a more passive, “offshore” role would lead to greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil
and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would
stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more “even-handed” policy toward Israel, which
some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel ’s aid if its
security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the
world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of
American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for
influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn
’t change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between
Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in
the region is not balance and peace. It is further competition. The region and the states within it remain relatively weak. A
diminution
of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One
could expect deeper involvement by both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could
also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is
doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further
toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn ’t changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to “normal”
or to a new kind of stability in the region. It
back in again.
will produce a new instability, one likely to draw the United States
Contention 2 Solvency
High speed rail is key to economic growth – urban markets, employment, wages,
productivity, and local economies
PETRA TODOROVICH, DANIEL SCHNED, AND ROBERT LANE “High-Speed Rail
International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers” 2011 Lincoln Institute of Land Policy Policy Focus Report,
https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1948_1268_High-Speed%20Rail%20PFR_Webster.pdf
High-speed rail’s ability to promote economic growth is grounded in its capacity to increase access
to markets and exert positive effects on the spatial distribution of economic activity (Redding and Sturm
2008). Transportation networks increase market access, and economic development is more likely to
occur in places with more and bet- ter transportation infrastructure. In theory, by improving access to
urban markets, high- speed rail increases employment, wages, and productivity; encourages
agglomeration; and boosts regional and local economies. Empirical evidence of high-speed rail’s impact around the world
tends to support the following theoretical arguments for high-speed rail’s economic benefits. Higher wages and productivity: The time
savings and increased mobility offered by high-speed rail enables workers in the service sector and
in information- exchange industries to move about the megaregion more freely and reduces the
costs of face-to-face communication. This enhanced connectivity boosts worker pro- ductivity and
business competitiveness, leading to higher wages (Greengauge 21 2010). Deeper labor and employment markets: By
connecting more communities to other population and job centers, high- speed rail expands the overall commuter shed of the megaregion.
The deepened
labor markets give employers access to larger pools of skilled workers, employees
access to more employment options, and workers access to more and cheaper hous- ing options
outside of expensive city centers (Stolarick, Swain, and Adleraim 2010). Expanded tourism and visitor spending: Just as
airports bring visitors and their spending power into the local economy, high-speed rail stations attract new tourists and business travelers
who might not have made the trip otherwise. A study by the U.S. Conference of Mayors (2010) concluded that
building high-speed rail would increase visitor spending annually by roughly $225 million in the
Orlando region, $360 million in metropolitan Los Angeles, $50 million in the Chicago area, and $100 million in Greater Albany, New
York. Direct job creation: High-speed rail creates thousands of construction-related jobs in design, engineering,
planning, and construction, as well as jobs in ongoing maintenance and operations. In Spain, the expansion of the
high-speed AVE system from Malaga to Seville is predicted to create 30,000 construction jobs (Euro Weekly 2010). In China, over
100,000 construction work- ers were involved in building the high-speed rail line that connects
Beijing and Shanghai (Bradsher 2010). Sustained investment could foster the development of new manu- facturing industries for
rail cars and other equipment, and generate large amounts of related employment. Urban regeneration and station area development:
High-speed rail can generate growth in real estate markets and anchor investment in commercial
and resi- dential developments around train stations, especially when they are built in
coordination with a broader set of public interventions and urban design strategies (see chapter 3). These
interventions ensure that high-speed rail is integrated into the urban and regional fabric, which in turn ensures the highest level of
ridership and economic activity. For example, the city of Lille, France, experi- enced greater than average growth and sub- stantial office
and hotel development after its high-speed rail station was built at the crossroads of lines linking London, Paris, and Brussels (Nuworsoo
and Deakin 2009). Spatial agglomeration: High-speed
rail enhances agglomeration economies by creating
greater proximity between business locations through shrinking time distances, especially when the
locations are within the rail-friendly 100 to 600 mile range. Agglom- eration economies occur when firms benefit from locating close to
other complementary firms and make use of the accessibility to varied activities and pools of skilled labor. High-speed
rail has
also been described as altering the economic geography of megaregions. By effectively bringing
eco- nomic agents closer together, high-speed rail can create new linkages among firms, suppliers, employees, and consumers that, over time, foster spatial concentration within re- gions
(Ahlfeldt and Feddersen 2010). This interactive process creates net economic gains in addition to the other economic benefits described
here.
Investing in high speed rail key to bolster manufacturing – jobs and R&D
Susan J. Demas June 5 2009 Syndicated columnist, political analyst “Commerce Secretary Locke: Rail
Can Revive Auto Industry” http://www.mirsnews.com/capsule.php?gid=3092#20542
During last year's Michigan presidential primary, John McCain made the mistake of saying that the hundreds of thousands of lost auto jobs
weren't coming back. Mitt Romney then blathered something about the triumph of the American spirit and promptly pulled off a 9-point
win. A
little more than a year later, with Chrysler and GM in bankruptcy, no one could credibly claim
that jobs will be flooding back to the industry. So what now for the Rust Belt? On Wednesday, U.S.
Commerce Gary Locke was at a town hall in Holt, Michigan. That day, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Vice President Joe Biden
were busy meeting with Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm in Washington about a Detroit-Pontiac-Chicago high-speed rail line. So I asked
Locke if rail was an area for the auto industry to expand into. He gave his enthusiastic endorsement. "Oh, yeah," he told me. "As
you
see more construction of rail cars, high-speed cars, it's going to require new engineering, new
products and services and that's the natural fit and extension for automotive dealers and suppliers
and manufacturers." Six hundred miles away in Washington, Granholm was on the same page. "We have lots of capacity in
Michigan and workers who know how to make things," she said. It's a bit of an ironic partnership, sure, since GM killed Detroit's street cars
in the 1950s and is a key reason why it is the only one in the top 20 cities lacking a decent transit system. But the days of Charles Erwin
Wilson musing that "for years I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa" are long gone.
Linking up with rail makes perfect sense for a contracting industry, at a time when environmental
and economic factors make expanding public transit a necessity. Former U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz (R-Battle Creek),
who has been in the running for a White House job, is perhaps Michigan's foremost authority on railroads. He could be the logical person
to help spearhead the autos' transition to rail. He notes the United States is behind the curve on high-speed rail,
with countries like France, Italy, Germany, Spain and Japan establishing lines decades ago. But he said even with a White House push, it's
still an uphill battle. "It will take a real will on the part of the states and the Congress to get it done. Members of Congress from non-highspeed rail states will fight it," Schwarz predicted. Light-rail would particularly benefit New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Washington, D.C., Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Texas, California, Washington, Oregon
and Missouri, he said. If
the feds do subsidize the Detroit-Chicago line, Schwarz said, it will be a massive
undertaking, but an opportunity to create a lot of jobs in construction and manufacturing. The
project will require ballast, tie, track repair and replacement, regrading some curves to
accommodate higher speed trains, modern signaling equipment, emergency stop capability for
trains that miss signals, dedicated high-speed right of way, new passenger car with special wheels
and brakes and new locomotives capable of 135 mph and above. New stations will be required in
some cities, as well. "This is a multi-multi billion dollar two decade project that should have been
done long ago," Schwarz said.
Federal action key to certainty and implementation
Todorovich, Schned and Lane 2011 (Petra Todorovich, director of America 2050, Daniel Schned, associate planner for America
2050, and Robert Lane, High-Speed Rail: International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers, Policy Focus Report, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p. 4647)
Even though PRIIA is authorized through 2013, stakeholders in
the rail industry, including one of the drafters of PRIIA, have
remarked on the need to adjust federal rail policy to respond to current circumstances, including greater political
instability in the Middle East and its implications for America’s dependence on foreign oil; growing international and private sector interest in
helping to finance high-speed rail in the United States; and the president’s own ambitious proposals for a national high-speed rail network to
give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed
rail over the next 25 years (Gardner 2011). Such a vision requires a stronger
and more active federal commitment that must start with secure funding . The most recent setback
of zero funding for high-speed rail in the FY 2011 budget underscores the need for a sustainable revenue
source as reliable as funding for highway and transit programs in the past. President Obama’s proposal to include a $53
billion, six-year high-speed rail program as part of the surface transportation bill would help to achieve this kind of equity among
transportation modes. In conjunction with a funding strategy, the role of high-speed rail in America’s larger transportation network needs to
be better defined (U.S. GAO 2009). A sharper,
more narrowly focused program directed at corridors that meet
clearly articulated objectives for high-speed rail service would address criticisms that the program is diffuse,
ineffective, and dependent on ongoing subsidies. Nationally available data could help to evaluate the most promising regions
for attracting ridership and enhancing economic and other benefits. A phasing plan and funding allocation strategy could help develop the full
build-out of a national network by helping states secure rights-of-way for high-speed rail corridors. Another challenge is to clarify the
differences between conventional and high-speed rail corridors. PRIIA provides federal grants for both conventional passenger rail and new
high-speed corridors, although the media has tended to focus on the high-speed program. Neither PRIIA nor ARRA specified the share of
federal funding to be used for high-speed Core Express corridors versus conventional passenger rail. In fact, the dearth of high-speed rail
projects in the planning pipeline means that grants will be shared among various types of rail projects. A
more active role by the
federal government could help clarify the respective roles of high-speed Core Express corridors and conventional
Regional and Emerging/Feeder routes, including funding them through separate programs and clearly defining the
objectives for each type of rail service. Funding for maintaining and upgrading existing rail corridors could be provided through formula
funds based on passenger train movements, track miles, or ridership. President Obama’s FY 2012 budget proposal for the Department of
Transportation moved in this direction by establishing different competitive grant programs, including network development for constructing
new corridors and system preservation for maintaining safety and reliability on existing corridors (White House 2011).
***Inherency***
No federal HSR now
No US Federal Gov. plan for HSR
MCARDLE, 10 (11/22/10, MEGAN MCARDLE., The Atlantic, “Why the U.S. Will Not Get China's High
Speed Rail,” http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/11/why-the-us-will-not-get-chinashigh-speed-rail/66863/)
Moreover, the Chinese government does not have to worry unduly about things like environmental
impact and acquiring the right of way. For truly high speed rail, you need a long straightaway with few
curves or inclines. That means it's very important to lay the rail in the best possible path, or near
it. Trying to do this between, say, New York and Chicago would mean approximately a century of
court battles with homeowners, environmental groups, local NIMBYs, and sundry others. Moreover,
many desirable routes are occupied by our enormous network of highways, and only someone with a
very rich fantasy life could believe that we are going to rip out the highways to put in a rail network.
High speed rail developments very slow
Eastham 07 – (05/22/07, Transportation Research Board, “High speed rail: another golden age?”
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=450768, NKK)
Neglected in North America but nurtured in Europe and Japan, high-speed rail systems are a critical
complement to jets and cars. In many advanced countries, trains will be playing a very
important role. In these regions, rail services have been dramatically enhanced through
an evolution of systems and technologies in societies that have never relied on the
automobile in quite the same way most in North America have. In many parts of Europe
and Asia, trains, rather than airplanes, are now the preferred means of travel on routes
of about 200 to 600 kilometers. In North America, the implementation of high-speed
rail has been frustratingly slow. Interurban and commuter rail services now account
for less than 2 percent of passenger miles per year. Sustaining mobility and economic
development will demand a more balanced combination of rail, air and road travel.
Obama’s Dream for High Speed Railraod is Failing
Cavanaugh, 9 – Managing Editor at Reason.com (1/19/12, Tim C., Reason.com, “End of the Line for
the Bullet Train,” http://reason.com/archives/2012/01/19/end-of-the-line-for-the-bullet-train)
The way high-speed rail projects have been collapsing around the world, you’d think they were
corrupt, outrageously expensive, fiscally ruinous, poorly planned government efforts to build a
19th century means of transportation for which there’s no demand.The Obama Administration’s
bullet-train dream is dead. Florida Gov. Rick Scott last year rejected $2 billion in federal funds
rather than commit the Sunshine State to such an expensive project. California’s high-speed rail
effort is in turmoil, recently suffered a purge of top management, and is unlikely to meet its
September deadline to break ground on a federally mandated leg universally termed the “train to
nowhere.” New York State’s effort to build a Buffalo-New York City line is also stalling out. Sen. Chuck
Schumer (D-New York) trekked out to the village of Bergen in Genesee County the other day only to face
hostile questioning from reporters and the local mayor. Schumer’s photo opp by the side of an existing
CSX track highlighted a trait the Empire State’s project shares with California’s: It proposes to destroy a
proven business – freight rail – to make room for a bullet train that would not be self-supporting even
according to the rosiest Bullet trains are having even less luck outside the United States – where, the
cognoscenti never tire of reminding us, international sophisticates are way ahead of us Yankee
bumpkins. Spain’s high-speed rail system, until recently a model for new bullet train construction (and,
to be fair, a line that replaced one of the slowest railways in Europe), is sinking under low ridership and
dragging that kingdom even deeper into a swamp of bad public debt.
President Obama Calls for a High Speed Railroad
Hong, 12 (7/9/12, NY Times., NY Times, “High-Speed Rail,”
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/high_speed_rail_proje
cts/index.html)
While high-speed trains have been zooming commuters across the continents of Europe and
Asia for decades, the United States has yet to embrace the idea of the bullet train. President
Obama, in his 2011 State of the Union speech, called for a high-speed rail system over the next 25
years. However, Mr. Obama’s proposal to spend $53 billion on high-speed rail over the next six
years, part of his budget deal in April, hit a roadblock when Congressional Republicans eliminated
money for that plan for the year. The year before, newly elected Republican governors in Florida,
Ohio and Wisconsin turned down federal money their Democratic predecessors had won for
new rail routes, lest their states have to cover most of the costs for trains that would draw few
riders. The cuts will not halt the rail program since unspent money remains that can be used on
new projects. But they leave the future of high-speed rail in the United States unclear. So far
roughly $10 billion has been approved for high-speed rail, but it has been spread to dozens of
projects around the country.
There is not Enough Money to Make a Working Railroad
Slate, 12/7(Will Oremus, 12/7/11, “Requiem for a Train”,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_
should_we_mourn_it_.html, JH)
Though Republicans’ outright rejection of high-speed rail is short-sighted, so were many of the plans
themselves. Rather than focus on the few corridors that need high-speed rail lines the most, the Obama
administration doled out half a billion here and half a billion there, a strategy better-suited to currying
political support than to addressing real infrastructure problems. Spread across 10 corridors, each
between 100 and 600 miles long, Obama’s rail system would have been, at best, a disjointed
patchwork. The nation’s most gridlocked corridor, along the East Coast between Washington, D.C. and
Boston, was left out of the plans entirely. Worse, much of the money was allocated to projects that
weren’t high-speed rail at all.
High-speed rail isn’t happening in America
Oremus, 11 – Writer (December 2011, Will, “High-speed rail is dead in America. Should we mourn it?”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_
should_we_mourn_it_.html, NMK)
High-speed rail isn’t happening in America. Not anytime soon. Probably not ever. The questions
now are (1) what killed it, and (2) should we mourn its passing? There was a brief burst of enthusiasm
around the future of high-speed rail in January 2010, when President Obama announced $8 billion
in federal stimulus spending to start building “America’s first nationwide program of highspeed intercity passenger rail service.” Since then, however, the project’s chances of success have
been heading in one direction: downhill. First, Tea Party conservatives in Florida and wealthy
liberal suburbanites in the Bay Area began questioning their states’ plans. Then, just as Joe
Biden was calling for $53 billion in high-speed-rail spending over the next six years, a crop of
freshly elected Republican governors turned down billions in federal money for lines in
Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida. Finally, Republicans in Congress zeroed out the federal highspeed rail budget last month.
Obama pushing HSR
Obama Supports HSR
Peek, 12(6/18/12, Liz Peek, The Fiscal Times, “Obamanomics 101: A Reckless Risk on
High Speed Rail,” http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2012/07/18/Obamanomics101-A-Reckless-Risk-on-High-Speed-Rail.aspx#page1)
Both projects would provide construction jobs – and both were sought by organized labor, which
normally attracts Mr. Obama ‘s backing. But while the president turned down the Keystone Pipeline -- a
privately-funded for-profit venture that would be self-sustaining and add to federal coffers -- he
embraces bullet trains that will almost surely land on eternal government life-support. Think of highspeed rail as the Julia of public works projects. The President threw $8 billion into the 2009 stimulus
pot for high-speed rail. Most of the proposed initial projects were rejected by Republican governors
who saw them as impractical boondoggles the country (and their states) could ill afford. In Florida, the
planned bullet train was to run between Orlando and Tampa, cities that the New York Times described
as “virtually un navigable without cars” and that are so close that the high-speed train would have been
no quicker than driving. Most recently, though, California – a state that just took an ax to its education
and anti-poverty programs to close a $15.7 billion deficit – decided to go ahead with a high speed train,
with President Obama’s blessing. Go figure.
Investing Money in HSR Will Create a More Productive, Wealthier America.
(Catherine L. Ross, 2011, “Policy & Practice: Transport and Megaregions: High-Speed Rail in the
United States,” http://gds12.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ross+-+Town+Planning+Review++2012.pdf, LT)
The success of these initial ventures will have a tremendous influence on the rate of adoption
of HSR transportation in the US and on the development of a truly national high-speed rail
program. The international experience includes both successes and failures, including the
recent necessity for the Taiwanese government to take over Taiwan high-speed rail after a
short three years in operation. This is similar to the European Union’s decision to allow the UK
to bail out London & Continental’s Railways and the government’s efforts to develop a public
private partnership (Freemark, 2009).The government of the United States has signaled its
commitment to the development of high-speed rail with the announcement of new real initiatives in
2010. President Obama shared his vision and allocated $8 billion in federal money as a ‘down
payment’ on creating speedier passenger train service. ‘High-speed rail is long overdue, and this plan
lets American travelers know that they are not doomed to a future of long lines at the airports or
jammed cars on the highways,’ Obama said (Allen, 2010). Table 1 shows the awards made by the
federal government for high-speed rail construction projects in the United States.
Obama remains supportive of HSR as congresses interest fades
Laing, 12 (06/04/12, The Hill Newspaper, “DOT official: Obama support of high speed rail remains ‘as
strong as ever,’” http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/230777-dot-official-obamasupport-of-high-speed-rail-remains-as-strong-as-ever, NKK)
Speaking a conference held by the American Public Transportation Conference in Dallas,
Szabo said Obama's support for rail "remains as strong as ever. “His fiscal year 2013
budget requests $2.5 billion combined with $6 billion in immediate transportation
investments – a total of $8.5 billion for the continued development of high-speed and intercity
passenger rail projects," Szabo said. "America’s rail renaissance is well underway." Support
for high-speed rail in Congress has ebbed to a definitive low since Republicans came to power in the
House in 2010. Money from the 2009 economic stimulus package for railways that was offered by the
Obama administration was rejected by three prominent Republican governors, and GOP members in
the House moved successfully last year to eliminate future funding for high-speed rail.
Obama wants high speed rail but GOP disagrees
Derrick Z. Jackson, 2011 (“Blocking High Speed Rail”, Boston Globe,
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/01/29/blocking_high_spee
d_rail/)
WHEN PRESIDENT Obama proposed in his State of the Union address that 80 percent of Americans
should have access to high-speed rail within 25 years, he drew laughter by saying, “For some trips, it
will be faster than flying — without the pat-down.’’ It will be much faster if we end the political patdown for high-speed rail itself. One promising hallmark of the Obama administration was the $8 billion
in stimulus funds and $2.5 billion in subsequent grants to jump start high-speed rail projects. Several
key Republicans support high speed rail in principle, even if they disagree with Obama and the
Democrats on funding mechanisms and focus. In a hearing this week, Republican Representative John
Mica of Florida, the new chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and Republican
Representative Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, chairman of the subcommittee on railroads, pipelines, and
hazardous materials, called for massive public-private partnerships way beyond federally subsidized
Amtrak to bring true high-speed rail to the Boston-to-Washington Northeast Corridor. Shuster even
used the “I-word’’ currently being flayed by many Republicans: “Failing to invest in the critical Northeast
Corridor will ensure continued congestion.’’ But too many other Republicans want to derail everything.
The new governors of Ohio and Wisconsin gave back $1.2 billion in stimulus funds for high-speed rail
projects, campaigning against them as taxpayer waste. The Republican Study Committee, a caucus of
175 House Republican conservatives, wants to completely de-fund Amtrak and high-speed rail. Caucus
chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio asked in 2009, “Why should we subsidize an industry that will directly
compete with the automobile industry, which is so critical to our area?’’
Obama wants High Speed Rail
Ami Cholia, 2011 (Transportation Policy: “Obama Wants High-Speed Rail And Clean Energy; Financing Is
Still Up In The Air”, altTransport http://alttransport.com/2011/01/obama-wants-high-speed-rail-andclean-energy-financing-is-still-up-in-the-air/)
As expected, President Obama dedicated a large part of his State of the Union speech yesterday to
infrastructure and clean energy. He said that by 2035 he wanted 80 percent of America’s electricity to
come from clean sources. Unfortunately, he didn’t lay out a financial plan to make this vision into a
reality. “Clean-energy breakthroughs will only translate into clean-energy jobs if businesses know
there will be a market for what they’re selling,” Obama said. “Some folks want wind and solar. Others
want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all. And I urge
Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.” Obama also set an agenda to rebuild
America’s infrastructure, telling Congress it needed to double its efforts to repair roads and bridges, and
provide 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail in 25 years. “To attract new businesses to our
shores, we need the fastest, most reliable ways to move people, goods, and information — from highspeed rail to high-speed internet. Our infrastructure used to be the best — but our lead has slipped. …
Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building
faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation’s
infrastructure, they gave us a “D.” … Within 25 years, our goal is to give 80% of Americans access to
high-speed rail, which could allow you go places in half the time it takes to travel by car. For some trips,
it will be faster than flying — without the pat-down. As we speak, routes in California and the Midwest
are already underway.”
Obama Strongly Pushes for a High Speed Railroad with Billions of Dollars
Grunwald, 10 (2/09/11, Times, “Obama’s Big, Bold Bet on High-Speed Rail,”
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2047110,00.html)
Six weeks ago, I warned that President Obama's much maligned high-speed-rail program was
becoming a " high-stakes gamble." Well, the President just went all in. On Tuesday, Vice
President Joe Biden announced a six-year, $53 billion plan to expand high-speed passenger trains, a
surprisingly aggressive boost for Obama's fledgling effort to change the way we move around
the country. Last year, the President requested just $1 billion for the program from a
Democratic Congress; now that Republicans control the House and have vowed to slash
spending in general and high-speed rail in particular, he's requesting $8 billion for next year.
Obama envisions a United States with HSR
Politico, 2/17 (David Rogers, 2/17/09, “Obama Plots Huge Railroad Expansion”,
http://docabroad.org/sites/default/files/download/Obama.pdf, JH)
It’s a sum that far surpasses anything before attempted in the United States — and more is coming.
Administration officials told Politico that when Obama outlines his 2010 budget next week, it will ask
for $1 billion more for high-speed rail in each of the next five years. Yet for all the high stakes, the
pieces didn’t fall into place until the end of deliberations on the recovery bill. And the way in which they
did is revealing of the often late-breaking decisions— and politics — that shaped the final package. As a
candidate for president, Obama spoke of high-speed rail as part of his vision of “rebuilding America.”
Campaigning in Indiana, he talked of revitalizing the Midwest by connecting cities with faster rail
service to relieve congestion and improve energy conservation. “The time is right now for us to start
thinking about high-speed rail as an alternative to air transportation connecting all these cities,” he said.
“And think about what a great project that would be in terms of rebuilding America.”
Obama pushing High speed rail
Alperovitz, Howard, Williamson, 10 (The Nation, “The Cleveland Model,”
http://reimaginingwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/thenation.pdf)
President Obama has endorsed a strategy for making high-speed rail a priority in the
United States. In a January 28 appearance in Florida he announced support for rail
expansion in thirteen corridors across the nation based on an $8 billion “down
payment” for investments in high-speed rail included in last year’s stimulus package.
The administration plans an additional $5 billion in spending over the next five years.
Interest at the state level is also strong; in November 2008 voters in California approved
a $10 billion bond to build high speed rail.
Obama wants high speed rail accessible to all Americans
Cooper 11 (8/2/11), The New York Times, “Admininstration pitches big rail projects,”
http://teamsters952.org/Administration_Pitches_Big_Rail_Projects__NYTimes.com.pdf
The Obama administration, whose efforts to bring high-speed rail to the United States were sidetracked
by Republican governors in a couple of states, pressed ahead with its vision of building a national rail
network osn Tuesday when it called for spending $53 billion on passenger trains and high speed rail
projects over the next six years. The proposal, made by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at 30th Street
Station in Philadelphia, would move the country closer to the president’s goal of making high-speed
rail accessible to 80 percent of Americans within 25 years. But it comes as President Obama’s efforts to
bring bullet trains to America have gone from the “Yes We Can” optimism of his campaign slogan to the
less certain “I think I can, I think I can” of a certain storybook train engine. Newly elected Republicans
governors have halted new rail projects, and a new Republican majority in the House has questioned the
administration’s rail strategy. Many rail proponents cheered the proposal, especially the idea of making
rail a regular part of the nation’s transportation program so that long-term projects could be planned
without uncertainty over whether money would be available later. Mr. Biden cast it as an investment in
the future. “As a longtime Amtrak rider and advocate,”
Obama supports the concept and development of HSR
Albalate & Bel, 10 - * Ph.D. in Economics at University of Barcelona AND ** Professor of Economics at
the Universitat de Barcelona (3/10, Ph.D. in Economics at University of Barcelona, “High-Speed Rail:
Lessons for Policy Makers from Experiences
Abroad,”
http://danbyles.co.uk/conservatives/files/dan_byles/4.%20High%20Speed%20Rail%20Study%20%20Barcelona%20Research%20Institute%20of%20Applied%20Economics.pdf, NMK)
In the United States, on 17 February 2009, President Obama signed the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act, which included funds ($US 8 billion and $US 1 billion yearly during at least five
years) for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to be devoted to intercity and high speed rail
projects. Two months later, on April 16, 2009, the President unveiled his administration's blueprint for
a national network of high-speed passenger rail lines. The purpose of this plan, as stated by President
Obama, is to reduce traffic congestion, cut dependence on foreign oil and foster urban and rural
livable communities. Indeed, the existing infrastructure is deemed to be insufficient to handle the
nation’s future passenger and freight mobility demands (FRA, 2009). Official reports contemplate ten
high-speed rail corridors, ranging between 100 and 600 miles in length, as potential recipients (see
Figure 1),4 although the FRA has received demands from 40 States totaling more than $US 100 billion.
Two types of project are included: one devoted to building world-class HST corridors as in Europe, and
another aimed at making conventional services faster. Consequently, different investment strategies are
envisaged: the promotion of new express services (on dedicated track operating at speeds over 150
mph), the development of emerging and regional services (operating at up to 150 mph on shared and
dedicated track), and the upgrading of reliability and service on conventional rail services (operating at
speeds up to 90 mph).
Obama and Biden have advocated for a federal HSR program
Grunwald, Feb. 9, 2011, “Obama’s Big, Bold Bet on High Speed Rail”, Time Magazine, MW
Six weeks ago, I warned that President Obama's much maligned high-speed-rail program was becoming a " high-stakes gamble."¶ Well, the
President just went all in.¶ On Tuesday, Vice President Joe
Biden announced a six-year, $53 billion plan to expand
high-speed passenger trains, a surprisingly aggressive boost for Obama's fledgling effort to change the way we move around the
country. Last year, the President requested just $1 billion for the program from a Democratic Congress;
now that Republicans control the House and have vowed to slash spending in general and high-speed rail in particular, he's requesting $8 billion
for next year. (Can high-speed rail help make America green?)¶ Judging from the reaction of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee chairman, John Mica, who is actually one of the more supportive Republicans when it comes to rail, Obama shouldn't count his
winnings yet. "This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio," Mica said.¶ Still, the
announcement at Philadelphia's 30th Street Amtrak station — a key link in the popular and profitable Acela line, which is America's
closest current approximation of a bullet-train service — made it clear that Obama intends to fight for one of his
signature initiatives even though it's had a run of bad press. He announced in his State of the Union address that
he wants high-speed rail to serve 80% of the population by 2025, as part of his new push for
infrastructure investments to promote American competitiveness and help "win the future." But now he's
really putting his money — or at least his budget proposal — behind the program.¶ Biden, who has ridden Amtrak nearly 8,000 times between
Washington and Wilmington, Del., predicted that a national network of faster trains would help create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil
and relieve congestion in highways and airports, while upgrading the long-term efficiency and productivity of the U.S. economy. Just one day
after Amtrak announced it was resurrecting a recently killed commuter-rail tunnel to send more Acela trains into Manhattan, Biden said the
Administration was proposing the largest rail investment since Abraham Lincoln began the intercontinental railroad — and promised a similar
impact.¶ "If we don't seize this future, how will America ever have the opportunity to lead the world in the 21st century?" Biden asked.¶ In
2009, Obama launched high-speed rail by slipping $8 billion into his stimulus package, even though few
potential projects were shovel-ready enough to provide real stimulus. Eager governors from both parties made $55 billion worth of requests for
the cash, a reflection of pent-up demand, and in last year's State of the Union, Obama described the program as a matter of not just mobility
but also of national pride as well. (See photos of China's high-speed-rail system.)¶ U.S. passenger trains are, quite simply, a global
laughingstock. Most of them travel at speeds that were common a century ago. Meanwhile, bullet trains have been zipping around Western
Europe and East Asia for years, China is building more high-speed rail than the rest of the world combined, and even countries like Morocco and
Brazil are getting into the game. "It works everywhere else in the world," says Alstom Transport vice president Chuck Wochele, whose French
firm is one of 30 train manufacturers that have pledged to build or expand U.S. factories if they land high-speed contracts. "Unfortunately, it's
been politicized in the U.S."¶ That's putting it mildly. Just about everything in the Obama era has been politicized, especially the contents of the
stimulus. But high-speed rail has endured an inordinate share of high-profile attacks, even though construction has only begun in a handful of
states. The new GOP governors of Wisconsin and Ohio recently shut down projects they had denounced as boondoggles on the campaign trail,
forcing the Administration to redistribute their money. In Florida, which has received $2.4 billion to build the nation's first real bullet route
between Tampa and Orlando, Governor Rick Scott has sent ominous signals that he might cancel that showcase project as well; at a Tea Party
rally on Monday, he asked whether anyone actually intended to ride the train. No hands were raised.¶ Meanwhile, negotiations with freight
railroads have delayed efforts to upgrade Amtrak routes in North Carolina, Virginia and Washington. And the nation's most ambitious and
important project, a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, has been a political nightmare. Its problems include well-financed local
opposition, questionable ridership studies and cost estimates, and complaints that its first planned segment in the sparsely populated Central
Valley would be a train to nowhere.¶ Mica represents Orlando, but he has argued that the Obama Administration should focus instead on
upgrading Acela service in the Northeast Corridor, which got almost none of the high-speed money. He's supported true high-speed rail on
dedicated tracks, but he's mocked grants to increase speeds on much slower Amtrak routes that share tracks with plodding freight trains. And
like many Republicans, he really hates Amtrak, the government's passenger-train operator, which has a role in almost every project. Mica and
the House Railroads Subcommittee chairman, Bill Shuster of Pennsylvania, already planned to investigate the Administration's previous funding
decisions — and they're not happy with this one. "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different
result, and that is exactly what Vice President Biden offered today," Shuster said. "If the Obama Administration is serious about high-speed rail,
they should stop throwing money at projects in the same failed manner." (See a brief history of high-speed rail.)¶ In fact, after the initial $8
billion down payment in the stimulus, Obama had seemed a bit reluctant to throw more money at high-speed rail. A true national network of
200-m.p.h. bullet trains would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, but Obama requested only $1 billion for 2010. Irritated congressional
Democrats gave him $2.5 billion, grumbling that he didn't seem serious. When Republican appropriators threatened to rescind all unspent rail
money after the November elections, some train supporters feared that Obama would fold.¶ Instead, after slow-playing his hand for two years,
In Philadelphia, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood predicted that Obama and
Biden would be remembered for high-speed rail the way Dwight Eisenhower is for the interstate
he's raising the stakes.
highways and Lincoln is for the transcontinental railroad. "They will go down in history as the railmen
of the 21st century," LaHood said
Congress not going to pass HSR
Obama is behind HSR but Congress will not pass HSR
Oremus, 11 (12/7/11 Will Oremus, Slate , “Requiem for a Train¶ High-speed rail is dead in America.
Should we mourn it?”
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technocracy/2011/12/high_speed_rail_is_dead_in_america_
should_we_mourn_it_.html)
There was a brief burst of enthusiasm around the future of high-speed rail in January 2010, when
President Obama announced $8 billion in federal stimulus spending to start building “America’s first
nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service.” Since then, however, the project’s
chances of success have been heading in one direction: downhill. First, Tea Party conservatives in
Florida and wealthy liberal suburbanites in the Bay Area began questioning their states’ plans. Then,
just as Joe Biden was calling for $53 billion in high-speed-rail spending over the next six years, a crop of
freshly elected Republican governors turned down billions in federal money for lines in Wisconsin,
Ohio, and Florida. Finally, Republicans in Congress zeroed out the federal high-speed rail budget last
month.
No High Speed Rail as long as GOP holds house
Michael Grunwald, July, 2012 (Infrastructure: “Big News: Obama’s California Bullet Train Is Still on
Track” http://swampland.time.com/2012/07/10/big-news-obamas-california-bullet-train-is-still-ontrack/)
The high-speed program was mostly about higher-speed rail, not just 200 m.p.h. bullet trains, and it’s
already promoting faster and more reliable train service in 31 states. But Obama has hyped the program
as a chance for Americans to experience the wow machines that are already whipping travelers around
Europe and Asia. A planned Tampa-to-Orlando bullet train was supposed to be under construction by
now, but Florida Governor Rick Scott, a Tea Party Republican, killed it after taking office. (GOP
governors also killed a worthy project in Wisconsin and a dubious project in Ohio.) The California plan
is not as shovel-ready as Florida’s—the route for the first 130 miles of track through the Central Valley
hasn’t even been finalized—but it has the support of Democratic Governor Jerry Brown. Like electric
cars, solar power, and other stimulus-funded causes, high-speed rail was once bipartisan; former
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is an avid supporter, as are local Republicans like Fresno
Mayor Ashley Swearingen. But ever since high-speed rail became an Obama priority, Washington
Republicans have turned against it en masse. House Government Operations Chairman Darrell Issa
has vowed to investigate the California project, and his fellow California Republican, Jeff Denham,
wants to strip its funding. There was no new high-speed cash this year, and there probably won’t be
as long as the GOP holds the House.
No High Speed Rail as long as GOP holds house
Fawn Johnson, 2012, (Transportation, “High Speed Rail in a Coma”
http://transportation.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/highspeed-rail-in-a-coma.php)
Policymakers' appetite for high-speed rail seems to be dwindling to almost nothing. It is old news that
congressional Republicans are not fans of President Obama's high-speed rail initiative. They view it as
a waste of taxpayer dollars at a time when belt-tightening is of the highest order. The national
conversation has not advanced much beyond that point, perhaps because the biggest fans of highspeed rail are distracted by other problems. Democrats in Congress raised only a faint protest when the
fiscal 2012 appropriations bill cut funding for the Transportation Department's high-speed rail program.
Republicans who ostensibly like high-speed rail said the cuts will allow rail enthusiasts to start over from
scratch. The problems continue at the state level, particularly in California. The California High Speed
Rail Peer Review Group recently refused to recommend that bond money be devoted to the state's
high-speed rail plan. The review group said the state's business plan lacked "credible sources of
adequate funding" that posed "an immense financial risk" to California. Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown
proposed folding the California High-Speed Rail Authority into a broader transportation agency to save
money. That move could potentially take some steam out of the state's high-speed rail initiatives as they
get lumped in with other transportation priorities. Even so, more than $3.5 billion in federal funding
could be at risk if the state Legislature doesn't approve funds for a high-speed rail line, according to
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Republicans Halt the Investments for the High Speed Railroad
Schaper, 10 (11/12/10, NPR, “Not so Fast: Future For High-Speed Rail Uncertain,”
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/10/131223230/not-so-fast-future-for-high-speed-railuncertain)
High-speed rail may be among the casualties of last week's midterm elections. The governorselect of Wisconsin and Ohio say they will reject hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding
intended to start up new high-speed passenger rail service in their states, even though the
projects require their states to pay nothing upfront. Florida's governor-elect may do the same.
The moves to oppose the Obama administration's efforts to get high-speed trains whisking
through some parts of the country appear to be the first of many fights between Democrats
and newly elected Republicans who campaigned on promises to rein in spending. And even
states such as Illinois that want high-speed rail and tout its benefits could face a day of
reckoning with the changing of the guard on Capitol Hill. Rep. John Mica (R-FL), who is in line to
be chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, says he wants to
re-examine all $10 billion worth of high-speed-rail grants already awarded around the country.
"That train is dead," announced Republican John Kasich at his first press conference as Ohio's
governor-elect. "I said it during the campaign: It is dead. We are not gonna have it." Kasich has
said he will reject $400 million in federal funds meant to establish passenger rail service from
Cleveland to Columbus and Cincinnati. In Florida, Republican Gov.-elect Rick Scott suggests he
might not take $2 billion for high-speed rails linking Tampa to Orlando and Miami. Ohio Gov.elect John Kasich (left) answers questions during a news conference. Kasich says he will reject
$400 million in federal funds meant to establish high-speed passenger rail service from
Cleveland to Columbus and Cincinnati. Ohio Gov.-elect John Kasich (left) answers questions
during a news conference. Kasich says he will reject $400 million in federal funds meant to
establish high-speed passenger rail service from Cleveland to Columbus and Cincinnati. And
Wisconsin's Republican Gov.-elect Scott Walker says he will turn down more than $800 million
in federal funds for high-speed trains between Milwaukee and Madison."The bottom line is,
right now, I've seen no scenario where the taxpayers of the state of Wisconsin aren't gonna be
on the hook for millions of dollars," Walker says. "And to me, unless there was an ironclad
agreement that showed me otherwise, I'm not interested, and I think the majority of voters
made that very clear in the election."Riding the wave of anti-big-government sentiment that
swept them into office, Walker and other Republicans have been slamming the Obama
administration's stimulus-funded high-speed-rail projects around the country as $10 billion in
boondoggles that would benefit too few travelers. "Maybe it's time for the administration to
reconsider the billions of dollars spent on high-speed rail," Walker says, "and instead, put those
funds into the use for roads and bridges, not only [in] Wisconsin, but across the country."
Republicans in the House prevent the HSR program from being implemented.
Warner, Tue Feb 8, 2011 3:59pm EST, “U.S. plans to inject $53 billion into passenger rail”
Reuters. MW
Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday announced an ambitious $53 billion U.S.
program to build new high-speed rail
networks and make existing ones faster over the next six years.¶ But the plan drew immediate fire from majority
Republicans in the House of Representatives, who said building high-speed rail requires private investment rather than
a government plan.¶ Biden, who estimated he has ridden Amtrak trains between Washington and his home in Wilmington, Delaware, some
7,900 times, made a strong pitch for rail transportation to enable the United States to compete and lead internationally.¶ "This is about seizing
the future," he said, making the announcement at Philadelphia's busy 30th Street station with U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.¶ The
United States should follow the example of Japan and China and build high-speed rail, Biden said. "If we do not, you tell me how America is
going to be able to lead the world in the 21st century," he said.¶ President Barack Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012, to be unveiled next
week, includes $8 billion for the plan. The rest of the money would be allocated over the six-year time period.¶ Obama
has said he
wants to target investments in areas such as infrastructure while reducing spending to tackle the budget
deficit.¶ Under the initiative, the Department of Transportation would choose corridors for new
projects and increase U.S. use of the passenger rails.¶ Republicans in the House criticized the
program and suggested it could face problems getting legislative approval .¶ In a joint statement,
Transportation Committee Chairman John Mica and Railroads Subcommittee Chairman Bill Shuster expressed "extreme reservations" regarding
the plan.¶ "This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at handling your investment portfolio," Mica said in the statement on the
Transportation Committee's website, referring to the financier serving a 150-year prison sentence for running an estimated $65 billion Ponzi
scheme.¶ Shuster said an unsound rail project "just prolongs the inevitable by subsidizing a failed Amtrak monopoly that has never made a
profit or even broken even.¶ "Government won't develop American high-speed rail. Private investment and a competitive market will."¶
Biden's announcement follows Monday's news that Amtrak, the United States' largest passenger rail service, plans a $13.5 billion commuter rail
project connecting New York City and New Jersey, reviving an idea rejected late last year by New Jersey's Republican governor, Chris Christie, as
too expensive.¶ The project became a lightning rod in the run-up to the November 2010 election,
pitting those calling for more federal infrastructure spending against those who said such projects were too costly.¶ Advocates say U.S.
investment in high-speed rail lags many other countries and point to China, which plans to invest $451 billion to $602 billion in its high-speed
rail network between 2011 and 2015, according to the China Securities Journal.
Congress refuses to pass Obama’s HSR plan
Winter, 11/17/2011, “Congress Kills Funding for Obama HSR Plan”, USA Today, MW
Congress voted today to eliminate most of the $8 billion that President Obama sought next year for
his vision of nationwide high-speed rail.¶ Republicans trumpeted what they said was the death of the president's six-year, $53
billion plan, saying the future of fast trains lies along the Northeast Corridor, The Hill writes. The funding was eliminated in a deal with
Democrats on a spending bill for the Transportation Department and other agencies. The measure cleared the House by 298-121 and the
Senate by 70-30 on its way to Obama's desk.¶ "Today's
vote marks the end to President Obama's misguided high-
speed rail program, but it also represents a new beginning for true intercity high-speed passenger rail service in America," Rep. Bill
Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials, said in a statement.¶ The Associated
Press points out, however, that "billions of dollars still in the pipeline will ensure work will continue on some projects. And it's still possible
money from another transportation grant program can be steered to high-speed trains."¶ California was hoping for several billion dollars to
keep its plans on track for what could be the nation's first genuine bullet-train network, with trains reaching 220 mph. Construction on the first
phase, between Fresno and Bakersfield, is expected to start next year and be finished in three to five years, the San Francisco Chronicle notes.
The price tag is $6 billion: $3.3 billion from Washington and $2.7 billion in state bonds.
****Warming***
Transportation causes warming
Transportation is the main cause of warming
Doyle Rice, 08, (“Study looks at transportation’s effects on global warming”, USA Today,
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-01-08-transportation-co2_N.htm)
A new study released Monday reports that 15% of the manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Earth's
atmosphere comes from cars, trucks, airplanes, trains, and ships. This is the first study to specifically
measure the impact of transportation on global greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 85% of
atmospheric CO2 comes from industry, buildings and agriculture, the report said. The study was led
by Jan Fuglestvedt and other scientists at the Center for International Climate and Environmental
Research in Oslo. The scientists reported that within the transport sector, road transportation (cars,
buses and trucks) contribute the most greenhouse gases, which includes CO2, ozone, methane, and
others. And while the transport sector is responsible for a growing share of global emissions, many of
the gases emitted by transportation aren't covered by regulations from the Kyoto Protocol. The study
was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Elisabeth Holland, a senior
scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, who was not part of the study, was
impressed with the research: "This is a comprehensive study," she says, "that takes a careful look at how
all the emissions from the transport sector are handled."
U.S. transportation sector largely responsible for greenhouse gas emissions
Greene & Plotkin, 11 - * Ph.D., Geography and Environmental Engineering AND ** Senior
Environmental Analyst (David and Steven, Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from U.S.
Transportation, p. vii, http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/reducing-transportation-ghg.pdf, NMK)¶ This
report examines the prospects for substantially reducing the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the
U.S. transportation sector, which accounts for 27 percent of the GHG emissions of the entire U.S.
economy and 30 percent of the world’s transportation GHG emissions. Without shifts in existing
policies, the U.S. transportation sector’s GHG emissions are expected to grow by about 10 percent by
2035, and will still account for a quarter of global transportation emissions at that time. If there is to
be any hope that damages from climate change can be held to moderate levels, these trends must
change. This report shows that through a combination of policies and improved technologies, these
trends can be changed. It is possible to cut GHG emissions from the transportation sector costeffectively by up to 65 percent below 2010 levels by 2050 by improving vehicle efficiency, shifting to
less carbon intensive fuels, changing travel behavior, and operating more efficiently. A major cobenefit of reducing transportation’s GHG emissions is the resulting reductions in oil use and
improvements in energy security. This report develops three scenarios of improved transportation
efficiency and reduced GHG emissions through 2050, with both technological progress and policy
ambition increasing from the first to the third scenario. The three scenarios show GHG reductions of 17,
39, and 65 percent from 2010 emissions levels in the year 2050.
The United States is addicted to oil
Lovaas & Horner, 11 – * Federal Transportation Policy Director for NRDC AND ** Policy Analyst for
NRDC (5/11, Federal Transportation Policy Director for NRDC, “Fighting Oil Addiction,”
http://www.pbn.com/uploads/files/ee727072e2.pdf, NMK)
America’s dependence on oil is problematic in several ways, including the following:
The United States uses several times more oil than it possesses. The United States produces about 11
percent of total world petroleum supplies and has less than 2 percent of the world’s proved oil
reserves—but is responsible for about 22 percent of the world’s petroleum consumption. We
currently import more than half of our crude oil supply, and more and more of the world’s future
production will likely come from regions that are either politically unstable or unfriendly to U.S.
interests.Our unstable supply of oil threatens our national economy, particularly since about 94
percent of our transportation system is fueled by oil. Oil consumption is a leading contributor to the
carbon dioxide pollution that causes global climate change. In the United States, the oil-based
transportation system is responsible for roughly one-third of carbon dioxide pollution. Our national
addiction to oil affects every American in every state. However, the rankings in Table 1 (mapped in
Figure 1) clearly show that oil dependence hits the drivers of certain states harder than it does others.
These rankings reflect the proportion of the average driver’s income spent on gasoline in each state in
2010. The most vulnerable state (Mississippi) and least vulnerable state (Connecticut) are again
unchanged from prior years. (Appendix A contains the state vulnerability rankings for the past five
years.) Citizens in Mississippi spent more than 7 percent of their income on gasoline, while citizens in
Connecticut spent less than 3 percent of theirs.
Transportation causes global warming
M A DeLuchi. 91 (Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity,
November 1991. <http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/5457338-KUU93T/5457338.pdf>
To obtain the results for the analysis discussed in this report, I used an energy and emissions model. It
calculates the emissions of direct (CO 2, CH 4, and N20) and indirect (NOx, CO, and NMOCs)
greenhouse gases that result from the electricity and transportation fuel cycles. A particular fuel cycle
usually consists of several of the stages that are listed below:
• End use: When a finished fuel product, such as gasoline, is used by consumers.
• Compression or liquefaction: When gaseous transportation fuels are compressed or liquefied.
• Fuel distribution: When a finished fuel product is transported to end users; for example, when
gasoline is shipped by truck to a service station.
• Fuel production: When a primary resource, such as crude oil or coal, is transformed into a finished fuel
product or energy carrier, such as gasoline or electricity.
• Feedstock transport: When a primary resource is transported to a fuel production facility; for
example, when crude oil is transported from the wellhead to a petroleum refinery.
• Feedstock recovery: When a primary resource, such as crude oil or coal, is extracted.
• Manufacturing for automotive industry: When the materials used inprivate motor vehicles are
manufactured and the vehicles themselves are assembled.
• Support for transport: When building, servicing, and administrative support are provided for transport
and distribution modes, such as large, crude-carrying tankers or unit coal trains.
• Manufacturing for energy utilities: When materials for major energy facilities, such as petroleum
refineries, corn-to-ethanol plants, and coal-burning power plants, are manufactured.
• Changes in land use: When changes in land use result from the development of a primary resource;
for example, when rangeland is cleared to plant corn to make ethanol.
At each of these stages of a fuel cycle., greenhouse gases can be produced or emitted in
several different ways:
• From the combustion of fuels that provide process energy (for example, the burning of bunker fuel in
the belier of a supertanker or the combustion of refinery gas in a petroleum refinery);
• From the evaporation or leakage of energy feedstocks and finished fuels (for example, the
evaporation of NMOCs from gasoline storage terminals); or
• From the venting, leaking, or flaring of gas mixtures that contain greenhouse gases (for example, the
venting of coal-bed gas from coal mines); or from chemical transformations not associated with
burning process fuels (for example, the curing of cement, which produces CO2; the denitrification of
nitrogenous fertilizers, which produces N20; or the scrubbing of sulfur oxides from the flue gas of coalfired power plants, which can produce CO2).
Transportation is the primary cause for global warming
Nadine Unger. 10 (Road Transporation Emerges as Key Driver of Warming, Feb. 18 2010.
<http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100218a/>
For decades, climatologists have studied the gases and particles that have potential to alter Earth's
climate. They have discovered and described certain airborne chemicals that can trap incoming sunlight
and warm the climate, while others cool the planet by blocking the Sun's rays.
Now a new study led by Nadine Unger of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New
York City offers a more intuitive way to understand what's changing the Earth's climate. Rather than
analyzing impacts by chemical species, scientists have analyzed the climate impacts by different
economic sectors.
Each part of the economy, such as ground transportation or agriculture, emits a unique portfolio of
gases and aerosols that affect the climate in different ways and on different timescales.
"We wanted to provide the information in a way that would be more helpful for policy makers," Unger
said. "This approach will make it easier to identify sectors for which emission reductions will be most
beneficial for climate and those which may produce unintended consequences."
In a paper published online on Feb. 3 by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Unger
and colleagues described how they used a climate model to estimate the impact of 13 sectors of the
economy from 2000 to 2100. They based their calculations on real-world inventories of emissions
collected by scientists around the world, and they assumed that those emissions would stay relatively
constant in the future.
In their analysis, motor vehicles emerged as the greatest contributor to atmospheric warming now
and in the near term. Cars, buses, and trucks release pollutants and greenhouse gases that promote
warming, while emitting few aerosols that counteract it.
HSR Most Sustainable Tranportation
HSR is the most sustainable for of transportation
White, 09
(Christopher White, 12/9/10, “Planning for High - Speed Rail in the United States”,
http://www.design.upenn.edu/hsr2011/planningforhsr.pdf)
The energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century will require investment in a¶ new
low-carbon transportation infrastructure, and high-speed rail (HSR) has several¶ advantages
which, of best practices are followed, make it uniquely suited to fulfill this¶ critical role in
America’s future. HSR is often cited as having potential to be a sustainable¶ medium-to-longdistance transportation option, or at least a more sustainable and energy efficient¶ option than
modes such as the automobile and, especially, the airlines. The¶ concept of rail as sustainable
transportation has two aspects that are distinct but closely¶ related: energy security and
efficiency, and climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions.¶ The first problem is that the
dominant modes of transport in America today, the¶ automobile and the airline, both run on
the non-renewable resource petroleum, a fossil fuel¶ of which the United States has to import
3.5 billion barrels (and rising) each year36, often¶ from hostile or unstable regions of the globe.
Oil production is finite, and there are signs¶ that we have reached maximum production: world
oil reserves fell for the first time in 10¶ years, leaving only 42 years worth of proven reserves at
current exploitation levels, and production has been holding steady for the past few years, not
keeping pace with demand If production cannot in fact keep up with demand, the result will be
drastically increased¶ fuel prices and shortages of a nature prefigured by the $130/barrel oil in
the summer of¶ 2008 which threatened to bankrupt many major air carriers and return rapid
intercity¶ transit to a scarce, extraordinarily expensive commodity. With airlines spending an ¶
additional $30 billion per year on jet fuel, some observers called for drastic action to¶ reduce
fuel prices40¶ ; however, given the finite nature of the world’s oil reserves, such action ¶ would be
a short-sighted, ineffective bandage at best: petroleum reserves will necessarily¶ dwindle, and
prices will necessarily increase.
HSR emits less CO2 emissions than other forms of Transportation
White, 09
(Christopher White, 12/9/10, “Planning for High - Speed Rail in the United States”,
http://www.design.upenn.edu/hsr2011/planningforhsr.pdf)
Rail systems in general, and HSR in particular, can accrue CO2 savings over automobile and
air travel in two ways. First, if their load factor45 is assumed to be sufficiently high, rail
travel has the potential to be the most energy-efficient form of transportation. Even at
Amtrak’s current low levels of utilization, the Department of Energy has calculated that rail has
a lower BTU46 per passenger mile than any mode of transit except for motorcycles.
Intercity rail currently expends 2,516 BTU per passenger mile, more efficient than 3,103
for commercial aviation or 3,514 for automobiles and 3,946 for personal trucks. The only
form of mechanized transport more efficient than rail is the motorcycle, at 1,853 BTU per
passenger mile 47 . In addition, if the rail system runs on electric power, then its carbon
output is equivalent to the energy mix of the wider grid’s electricity generation, which has
the potential to emit less CO2 per BTU than petroleum-based transportation options (whichinclude
diesel trains, as well as all aircraft). While petroleum-based fuels tend to emit approximately
160 pounds of CO2 per millionBTUs, an electricity grid which is powered with large amounts of
natural gas (115-117 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs), nuclear power (zero CO2 emissions) or
renewables suchas hydro, solar, and wind power (zero CO2 emissions) will produce less climatewarming CO2 for the same amount of transportation power. Conversely, however, if the energy
mix high in coal (America’s most abundant fossil fuel), it will actually have a detrimental effect,
as coal is a “dirtier” fuel, producing up to 227 pounds of CO2 per million BTUs48.
HSR saves energy
White, 09
(Christopher White, 12/9/10, “Planning for High - Speed Rail in the United States”,
http://www.design.upenn.edu/hsr2011/planningforhsr.pdf)
HSR has the potential to improve upon the energy advantage of conventional rail in two ¶ main
ways: first, as HSR would presumably be more attractive to riders than slower,¶ conventional
intercity rail, each train could see an increase in average number of¶ passengers, increasing the load
factor and therefore decreasing the energy cost necessary¶ per individual. The advantage of high
speeds would be especially important in replacing¶ airline travel, which in contradiction to the
Department of Energy’s BTU per passenger mile¶ figures is the mode which will face the deepest
structural problems in an energy-sensitive¶ future.¶ Jet airplanes emit their greenhouse gases
directly into the stratosphere, where the CO2 has¶ a disproportionate effect on global warming49,
which makes reducing airline travel an¶ imperative in the effort against climate change. In addition,
even without any¶ governmental intervention, the airlines’ absolute dependence on plentiful,
cheap¶ petroleum means that an oil shortage, or even a prolonged price spike similar to what
the¶ world experienced in the summer of 2008, could very well lead to the bankruptcy and/or¶
liquidation of multiple carriers, severing vital transportation links. Automobile travel, on ¶ the
other hand, can take advantage of new technologies such as plug-in hybrids and electric¶
vehicles, as well as behavioral changes such as carpooling, to increase their efficiency50¶ . Air¶
travel is the mode of transportation likely to face the greatest problems in the years and ¶
decades ahead, and it is therefore imperative that we direct our efforts into an alternative ¶
mode of long-distance mass transit which is more energy-secure and less harmful the¶ climate.
HSR has the potential to be that mode.¶ In addition, the vast majority of HSR systems are electrified,
and electric traction systems¶ display significant carbon and energy savings in comparison to dieselpowered systems. A¶ newly-electrified line would be able to take advantage of any carbon savings
inherent in¶ the energy mix of the electrical grid, providing another dimension of carbon savings.
This¶ is not only crucial to curbing the spread of greenhouse gas emissions, but which would¶
crucially allow for a long-distance transportation infrastructure which could function in a ¶ lowor post-hydrocarbon world, should sufficient renewable and nuclear generating¶ capacity be
constructed. In addition, electric power allows for several further energysaving¶ technologies.
Foremost among these is regenerative braking, in which the train’s¶ motor is converted to a
generator when braking, and the generated electricity is returned.
HSR saves 6 billion pounds of CO2 per year
Center for Clean Air Policy, 06- “High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the
U.S.,”http://www.ccap.org/docs/resources/962/High_Speed_Rail_Emissions.)
To estimate high speed rail’s net emissions impact, we calculated the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
saved from passengers switching to high speed rail from other modes (air, conventional rail, automobile
and bus) and subtracted the estimated emissions generated by high speed rail. Our calculations were
based on passenger projections and diversion rates for each corridor and typical emissions rates for
each mode of travel, including several different high speed rail technologies.
Current projections show that passengers would take 112 million trips on high speed rail in the U.S. in
2025, traveling more than 25 billion passenger miles. This would result in 29 million fewer automobile
trips and nearly 500,000 fewer flights. We calculated a total emissions savings of 6 billion pounds of
CO2 per year (2.7 MMTCO2) if all proposed high speed rail systems studied for this project are built.
Savings from cancelled automobile and airplane trips are the primary sources of the emissions savings;
together these two modes make up 80 percent of the estimated emissions savings from all modes.
HSR better alternative to solving environmental problems
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
In this context, sustainable mobility is also about combining different transport modes in a “smart”
system - where all modes contribute with what they are best at. Sustainability in terms of the UIC, and
its member railway companies, means to meet the expectations of society and customers and sustain
business by responsible leadership. This study, therefore attempts to address, and illustrate, all aspects
related to HSR operation and its particular environmental and sustainability advantages. The study gives
broad information about the contribution of HSR toward sustainable mobility and a sustainable society
in terms of its wider impacts on economic development. While HSR is usually designed for passenger
travel, some HSR systems also carry some kind of freight service. For instance, the French mail service
La Poste owns a few special TGV trains for carrying postal freight. A more significant impact of
HSR on freight movement by train is that where new high speed lines are created for passenger
transportation existing conventional lines have greater capacity for freight.
However, this study concentrates on passenger transport as freight is still of minor importance for HSR
compared to passenger transport.
The study will show that the decades when planes and cars have been quicker, more convenient, and
usually more reliable ways to transport people are gone. Better HSR technologies have made the train
an increasingly attractive alternative, and especially a “green” one.
HSR is an efficient and effective solution to CO2 emissions
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Any human activity causes damage to the natural environment. Mobility is a particular contributor to
this through local pollution, extensive use of resources, landscape intrusion, habitat fragmentation,
wildlife mortality, pressure over biodiversity, noise generation etc. Given this, dealing with increasing
travel demands and increasing needs for mobility, as well as accommodating protection of the physical
environment, appears to be a tricky issue. HSR, nevertheless, has characteristics that make it an
efficient, and effective, solution to mitigate the impact of transportation on the environment, and
climate, and make it an essential part of sustainable mobility systems. In addition, transport energyrelated CO2 emissions are predicted to increase by 1.7% a year from 2004 to 2030. The significant
proportion of global emissions from transport indicates that the sector and HRS in particular can play
a key role within the challenge of tackling climate change and sustainable development.
Studies show that HSR can help reduce carbon footprints
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
HSR offers attractive alternatives to short-haul flights and long distance car journeys.
Replacing short haul flights with HSR would release capacity constraints at airports, reduce the need
for additional expansion whilst helping to tackle the challenges of climate change. On four routes
analysed in detail HSR was the most energy efficient transport mode with the lowest carbon footprint,
e.g. between Valence and Marseille in France (250 km) with only 2.75 kg CO2 per passenger (Car: 31.8
kg CO2) or in Taiwan between Taipei-Kaohsiung (345 km) with only 18.2 kg CO2 per passenger (Plane:
56.6 kg CO2). Studies into the Madrid to Seville AVE line have revealed that without the AVE an
additional 48,000 tonnes of CO2 would be produced on this route every year. Rail held 48% of the
market share during these first 50 days, compared to 39% for air transport and 13% for road. The modal
shift to rail translates to savings of 30,000 CO2 tonnes per year. Another example is the “LGV
Mediterranée” built in the year 2004: According to the analysis of the carbon footprint, the
environmental benefit of HSR can be calculated as about 237,000 t of saved CO2 per year. In 2009 the
new line from Firenza to Bologna, in Italy, opened, reducing the Rome to Milan journey time by an
additional 30 minutes, and it is estimated that the 46 HSR trains connecting Rome and Milan daily will
absorb 60% of the transport demand from air (according to company estimates)
Energy consumption of HSR is low compared to other transport modes
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
A common objection to HSR is that energy consumption of trains increases non-linearly with speed,
because of increasing air resistance, so that the energy required to power a high speed train is much
greater than that needed at conventional speed. However if energy use per passenger kilometre (pkm)
is compared, then HSR trains can be just as energy efficient as, or even better than conventional
trains. The total energy consumption of HSR trains when in operation is higher, yet the additional
necessary energy is compensated due to several factors HSR is a system where each part contributes:
the rolling stock, the electric power system, the infrastructure and the operation system
The most important reason that can make HSR a more energy efficient means of transport than
conventional trains is the higher capacity utilization (load factor), the number of passenger-kilometres
travelled as a percentage of the total seat-kilometres available. Higher speeds mean shorter travel
duration and thus higher attractiveness for travellers in comparison with other modes. With a good
load factor, the energy consumption per passenger can be smaller than that achieved on conventional
trains. The higher load factor has already been proved from experience in France, Germany and Japan
HSR trains: The higher permitted speed in the downhill phase leads to lighter braking. Less kinetic
energy is lost during braking and thus less energy is needed to maintain speed on following level or
climbing sections. Raising the speed from 300 to 350 km/h in the HSR Madrid-Barcelona line (gradient
2.5 mm/m) means a possible reduction in energy consumption in the downhill phases by 11%. In
some cases the distance between two stations on HSR routes is shorter and more direct than on
conventional lines. This means a reduction in the energy consumption per passenger. In Spain, for
example, the average distance of HSR lines is 13% shorter than that of the conventional lines between
the same points, if measured in static terms (as a simple average of the route coefficients), and 12% if
the effective route coefficient is measured (the coefficients weighted by the anticipated pkm on each
route). On some routes (e.g. HSR line Madrid - Segovia) the distance is as much as 23% shorter.
However many HSR lines are not shorter or more direct and actually take a more circuitous route to the
destination, such as in France or on the proposed UK HS2route. However as speeds are higher and
passengers can reach their destination in a short time the actual energy per passenger is still relatively
low. Another aspect relates to energy consumed by auxiliary services of the train. These services are
systems that consume energy for technical purposes (such as compressors, ventilators, etc.), and for
the comfort of passengers (heating, air conditioning, lighting, etc.).
Energy consumption from these services is proportional to the operating time and therefore, in the
same proportion to the average speed increases, the consumption per kilometre decreases. This energy
consumption is not directly related to the speed; thus, in the verification of a typical high speed case,
a 50% increase in the average speed means a 29% reduction in the energy consumed by the auxiliary
services.
Warming is human induced (anthropogenic)
Human fingerprints in Global Warming
Melanie Fitzpatrick, 06 (Union of Concerned Scientists, “Human Fingerprints”,
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/global-warming-human.html)
Earth's surface has undergone unprecedented warming over the last century, particularly over the last
two decades. Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on
record.[1,2] The natural patterns of climate have been altered. Like detectives, science sleuths seek the
answer to "Whodunnit?" — are humans part of the cause? To answer this question, patterns observed
by meteorologists and oceanographers are compared with patterns developed using sophisticated
models of Earth's atmosphere and ocean. By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists
can now positively identify the "human fingerprints" associated with the changes. The fingerprints that
humans have left on Earth's climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the
ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface. In its 2001 report, the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change stated, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over
the last 50 years is attributable to human activities." [3] Carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning and
land clearing has been accumulating in the atmosphere, where it acts like a blanket keeping Earth
warm and heating up the surface, ocean, and atmosphere. As a result, current levels of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere are higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years. Climate is influenced by
many factors, both natural and human. [7] Things that increase temperature, such as increases in heattrapping emissions from cars and power plants or an increase in the amount of radiation the sun emits,
are examples of "positive" forcings or drivers. Volcanic events and some types of human-made
pollution, both of which inject sunlight-reflecting aerosols into the atmosphere, lower temperature and
are examples of "negative" forcings or drivers. Natural climate drivers include the sun's energy output,
aerosols from volcanic activity, and changes in snow and ice cover. Human climate drivers include heattrapping emissions from cars and power plants, aerosols from pollution, and soot particles. Much as
the Air Force develops computer programs to simulate aircraft flight under different conditions, climate
scientists develop computer programs to simulate global climate changes under different conditions.
These programs use our knowledge of physical, chemical, and biological processes that occur within
Earth's atmosphere and oceans and on its land surfaces. Mathematical models allow scientists to
simulate the behavior of complex systems such as climate and explore how these systems respond to
natural and human factors. Fingerprint 1: The Ocean Layers Warm The world's oceans have absorbed
about 20 times as much heat as the atmosphere over the past half-century, leading to higher
temperatures not only in surface waters but also in water 1,500 feet below the surface. [8,9] The
measured increases in water temperature lie well outside the bounds of natural climate
variation. Fingerprint 2: The Atmosphere Shifts Recent research shows that human activities have
lifted the boundary of Earth's lower atmosphere. Known as the troposphere (from the Greek tropos,
which means "turning"), this lowest layer of the atmosphere contains Earth's weather. The stable
layer above is called the stratosphere. The boundary that separates the two layers, the tropopause, is as
high as nine miles above the equator and as low as five miles above the poles. In an astounding
development, a 2003 study showed that this tropopause has shifted upward over the last two decades
by more than 900 feet. [10] The rising tropopause marks another human fingerprint on Earth's climate.
In their search for clues, scientists compared two natural drivers of climate (solar changes and volcanic
aerosols) and three human drivers of climate (heat-trapping emissions, aerosol pollution, and ozone
depletion), altering these one at a time in their sophisticated models. Changes in the sun during the
twentieth century have warmed both the troposphere and stratosphere. But human activities have
increased heat-trapping emissions and decreased stratospheric ozone. This has led to the troposphere
warming more because the increase in heat-trapping emissions is trapping more of Earth's outgoing
heat. The stratosphere has cooled more because there is less ozone to absorb incoming sunlight to heat
up the stratosphere. Both these effects combine to shift the boundary upward. Over the period 19791999, a study shows that human-induced changes in heat-trapping emissions and ozone account for
more than 80 percent of the rise in tropopause height. [10] This is yet another example of how science
detectives are quantifying the impact of human activities on climate. Fingerprint 3: The Surface Heats
Measurements show that global average temperature has risen by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit in the last
100 years, with most of that happening in the last three decades. [1,2] By comparing Earth's
temperature over that last century with models comparing climate drivers, a study showed that, from
1950 to the present, most of the warming was caused by heat-trapping emissions from human
activities [3]. In fact, heat-trapping emissions are driving the climate about three times more strongly
now than they were in 1950. The spatial pattern of where this warming is occurring around the globe
indicates human-induced causes. Even accounting for the occasional short-lived cooling from volcanic
events and moderate levels of cooling from aerosol pollution as well as minor fluctuations in the sun's
output in the last 30 years, heat-trapping emissions far outweigh any other current climate driver.
Once again, our scientific fingerprinting identifies human activities as the main driver of our warming
climate.
Humans are the Cause of Global Warming
Science, 1997 (J.D. Mahlman, 11/21/97, “Uncertainties in Projections of Human-Caused Warming”, JH)
Mankind's activities have increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This increase has the
potential to warm the earth's climate by the "greenhouse effect" (1) in which CO2 absorbs infrared
radiation and then re-radiates it back toward the surface of the planet. Other gases also act as
greenhouse gases and may warm the climate even further (2), although human-produced airborne
sulfate particles can cause cooling that offsets some of the warming (3). Computational models that
include these factors predict that the climate will warm significantly over the next century.
Global Warming is caused by human CO2 emissions
Cox et all, Nov. 9 2000, Letters to Nature, “Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle
feefdbacks in a coupled climate model.” MW
The continued increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide due to
anthropogenic emissions is predicted to lead to significant changes in climate . About half of the
current emissions are being absorbed by the ocean and by land ecosystems, but this absorption is sensitive to climate as
well as to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations, creating a feedback loop. General circulation models have generally excluded
the feedback between climate and the biosphere, using static vegetation distributions and CO2 concentrations from simple carbon-cycle
models that do not include climate change. Here we present results from a fully coupled, three-dimensional carbon±climate model, indicating
that carbon-cycle
feedbacks could significantly accelerate climate change over the twenty-first
century. We and that under a `business as usual' scenario, the terrestrial biosphere acts as an overall carbon sink until about 2050, but
turns into a source thereafter. By 2100, the ocean uptake rate of 5 Gt C yr-1 is balanced by the terrestrial carbon source, and atmospheric CO2
concentrations are 250 p.p.m.v. higher in our fully coupled simulation than in uncoupled carbon models2, resulting in a global-mean warming
of 5.5 K, as compared to 4 K without the carbon-cycle feedback.
Humans pollute environment with CO2
Alley et all, 6/07/2007, “Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis”, Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, MW
Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have
increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed preindustrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure
SPM-1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and landuse change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3} Carbon dioxide is the
most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM-2). The global atmospheric
concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm
to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural
range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration
growth-rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995 – 2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous
direct atmospheric measurements (1960 – 2005 average: 1.4 ppm pe r year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3,
7.3}The primary source of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period results from fossil fuel use,
with land use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. Annual fossil carbon dioxide emissions4 increased from an average
of 6.4 [6.0 to 6.8] 5 GtC
Mankind increases the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere
Mahlman, 1997
(J. D. Mahlman – American Meteorologist and Climatologist, Professor at Princeton University,
(November 21, 1997, 11/21/1997, “Uncertainties in Projections of Human-Caused Climate Warming"
,Science, Vol 278, Issue 5342, 1416-1417) Mankind's activities have increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in
the atmosphere. This increase has the potential to warm the earth's climate by the "greenhouse effect"
(1) in which CO2 absorbs infrared radiation and then re-radiates it back toward the surface of the planet.
Other gases also act as greenhouse gases and may warm the climate even further (2), although humanproduced airborne sulfate particles can cause cooling that offsets some of the warming (3).
Computational models that include these factors predict that the climate will warm significantly over
the next century. ¶ These forecasts of likely climate changes have forced a realization that it is
necessary to reduce human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases. But because of the potential social
disruptions and high economic costs of such reductions, vigorous debate has arisen about the size and
nature of the projected climate changes and whether they will actually lead to serious impacts.
Humans are the Cause of Global Warming
Science, 1997 (J.D. Mahlman, 11/21/97, “Uncertainties in Projections of Human-Caused Warming”,
JH)
Mankind's activities have increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. This increase has the
potential to warm the earth's climate by the "greenhouse effect" (1) in which CO2 absorbs infrared
radiation and then re-radiates it back toward the surface of the planet. Other gases also act as
greenhouse gases and may warm the climate even further (2), although human-produced airborne
sulfate particles can cause cooling that offsets some of the warming (3). Computational models that
include these factors predict that the climate will warm significantly over the next century.
B3: Warming is caused by CO2
Global Warming caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions
Juerg Rohrer, 07 (“CO2 – the major cause of global warming”, http://timeforchange.org/CO2-causeof-global-warming)
Global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases . 72% of the totally emitted
greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide (CO2), 18% Methane and 9% Nitrous oxide (NOx). Carbon dioxide
emissions therefore are the most important cause of global warming. CO2 is inevitably created by
burning fuels like e.g. oil, natural gas, diesel, organic-diesel, petrol, organic-petrol, ethanol. The
emissions of CO2 have been dramatically increased within the last 50 years and are still increasing by
almost 3% each year, see graph below: The carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere where it
remains for 100 to 200 years. This leads to an increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in our
atmosphere (see above on the right hand side), which in turn causes the average temperature on Earth
to raise (see graph below). Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes
in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A
warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts
per million) in the atmosphere.
Warming caused by Carbon Dioxide emissions
John Cook, 09 (Skeptical Science, “How do we know CO2 is causing warming?”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/how-do-we-know-co2-is-causing-warming.html)
We've just perused the empirical evidence that humans are raising atmospheric CO2 levels. In earlier
posts, we noted that tallying up the planet's heat content shows that our climate is accumulating heat,
proof of global warming. But is there any evidence that links the two? Is there empirical data proving
that increased CO2 contributes to the energy imbalance that causes global warming? The greenhouse
gas qualities of CO2 have been known for over a century. In 1861, John Tyndal published laboratory
results identifying CO2 as a greenhouse gas that absorbed heat rays (longwave radiation). Since then,
the absorptive qualities of CO2 have been more precisely measured and quantified by laboratory results
and radiative physics theory (Herzberg 1953,Burch 1962, Burch 1970, etc).Satellite measurements of the
change in outgoing longwave radiation. So according to lab results and radiative physics, we expect that
increasing atmospheric CO2 should absorb more longwave radiation as it escapes back out to space.
Has this effect been observed? The paper Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing
longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997 (Harries 2001) attempts to find out. In 1970,
NASA launched the IRIS satellite that measured infrared spectra between 400 cm-1 to 1600 cm-1. In
1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations.
Harries 2001 compared both sets of data to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year
period. The resultant change in outgoing radiation was as follows: What they found was a drop in
outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4)
absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation over CO2 bands was consistent with theoretical
expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the
Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using the latest
satellite data. Griggs 2004compares the 1970 and 1997 spectra with additional satellite data from the
NASA AIRS satellite launched in 2003. Chen 2007 extends this analysis to 2006 using data from the AURA
satellite launched in 2004. Both papers found the observed differences in CO2 bands matched the
expected changes based on rising CO2 levels. Thus we have empirical evidence that increased CO2 is
preventing longwave radiation from escaping out to space. Measurements of downward longwave
radiation. What happens to longwave radiation that gets absorbed by greenhouse gases? The energy
heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates longwave radiation. This re-radiated energy goes in all
directions. Some of it makes its way back to the surface of the earth. Hence we expect to find
increasing downward longwave radiation as CO2 levels increase. Philipona 2004 finds that this is
indeed the case - that downward longwave radiation is increasing due to an enhanced greenhouse
effect. Evans 2006 takes this analysis further. By analysing high resolution spectral data, the increase in
downward radiation can be quantitatively attributed to each of several anthropogenic gases. The
results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by
skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in
the atmosphere and global warming."So we have multiple lines of empirical evidence for CO2 warming.
Lab tests show CO2 absorbing longwave radiation. Satellite measurements confirm that less longwave
radiation is escaping to space. Surface measurements detect increased longwave radiation returning
back to Earth at wavelengths matching increased CO2 warming. And of course the result of this
energy imbalance is the accumulation of heat over the last 40 years.
CO2 and Trace Gases causes Global Warming
Nature 1990 (Daniel Lashof and DilipAhuja, 4/5/90, “Relative contributions of greenhouse gas
emissions to global warming”,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html, JH)
In the past few years, many workers have noted that the combined effect on climate of increases in the
concentrations of a large number of trace gases could rival or even exceed that of the increasing
concentration of carbon dioxide. These trace gases, principally methane, nitrous oxide and
chlorofluorocarbons, are present at concentrations that are two to six orders of magnitude lower than
that of carbon dioxide, but are important because, per molecule, they absorb infrared radiation much
more strongly than carbon dioxide. Indeed a recent study shows that trace gases are responsible for
43% of the increase in radiative forcing from 1980 to 1990.An index to compare the contribution of
various 'greenhouse' gas emissions to global warming is needed to develop cost-effective strategies for
limiting this warming. Estimates of relative contributions to additional greenhouse forcing during
particular periods do not fully take into account differences in atmospheric residence times among the
important greenhouse gases. Here we extend recent work on halocarbons by proposing an index of
global warming potential for methane, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and CFCs relative to that of
carbon dioxide. We find, for example, that methane has, per mole, a global warming potential 3.7
times that of carbon dioxide. On this basis, carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of the
contribution to global warming of current greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 57% of the
increase in radiative forcing for the 1980s.
Co2 emissions causes global warming
Schneider, Research, Policy Analysis, and Outreach in Climate Change, 89 (February 1989, “The
Greenhouse Effect: Science and Policy,” http://www.sciencemag.org/content/243/4892/771.full.pdf,
NMK)
Global warming from the increase in greenhouse gases has become a major scientific and political
issue during the past decade. That infrared radiation is trapped by greenhouse gases and particles in a
planetary atmosphere and that the atmospheric CO2 level has increased by some 25 percent since
1850 because of fossil fuel combustion and land use (largely deforestation) are not controversial;
levels of other trace greenhouse gases such as methane and chlorofluorocarbons have increased by
even larger factors. Estimates of present and future effects, however, have significant uncertainties.
There have also recently been controversial claims that a global warming signal has been detected.
Results from most recent climatic models suggest that global average surface temperatures will
increase by some 20 to 60C during the next century, but future changes in greenhouse gas
concentrations and feedback processes not properly accounted for in the models could produce greater
or smaller increases. Sea level rises of 0.5 to 1.5 meters are typically projected for the next century,
but there is a small probability of greater or even negative change. Forecasts of the distribution of
variables such as soil moisture or precipitation patterns have even greater uncertainties. Policy
responses range from engineering countermeasures to passive adaptation to prevention and a "law of
the atmosphere." One approach is to implement those policies now that will reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases and have additional societal benefits.
The Transportation system is a major source of GHG
David L. Greene, Howard H. Baker, Jr. Steven E. Plotkin, Center for Public Policy
Argonne National Laboratory, January 2011. http://www.c2es.org/docUploads/reducing-transportationghg.pdf
The U.S. transportation system is a major source of GHG emissions. It was responsible for 31 percent
of global transportation energy use and GHG emissions in 2006. In 2030, the U.S. transportation sector
is expected to use one quarter of global transportation energy, even though the U.S. transportation
sector is expected to grow at only a fraction of the rate of growth of non-OECD countries.The United
States has the world’s largest transportation system. In 2006, Americans traveled 5.2 trillion personmiles in vehicles and moved 4.6 trillion ton-miles of freight (BTS, 2009b, Tables 4-3 and 4-4). This travel
consumed 28.6 quads of energy (EIA, 2009a, Table F3), all but about 4 percent in the form of petroleum
products (EIA, 2009b, Table A2)—more energy than used in that year by the entire economies of all but
two nations, China (73.8 quads) and Russia (30.6 quads) Substantial improvements in fuel economy and
GHG emission performance are achievable today just through greater utilization of existing technology.
By 2035, the fuel efficiency of the U.S. light-duty fleet can improve dramatically (50 mpg for
conventional gasoline vehicles and 75 mpg for hybrid vehicles)—if new standards and/or market
pressures push vehicle designers to do so. Using a fuel mix of electricity, biofuels, and hydrogen could
significantly reduce the number of gasoline-powered passenger vehicles on the road by 2050.
Technological advances in other vehicles including trucks, buses, and airplanes could improve the
efficiency of those modes substantially. In fact, technologies exist today to reduce GHG emissions from
freight trucks by 30 to 50 percent, with even greater reductions achievable over the next several
decades.
CO2 and Trace Gases causes Global Warming
Nature 1990 (Daniel Lashof and DilipAhuja, 4/5/90, “Relative contributions of greenhouse gas
emissions to global warming”,
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v344/n6266/abs/344529a0.html, JH)
In the past few years, many workers have noted that the combined effect on climate of increases in the
concentrations of a large number of trace gases could rival or even exceed that of the increasing
concentration of carbon dioxide. These trace gases, principally methane, nitrous oxide and
chlorofluorocarbons, are present at concentrations that are two to six orders of magnitude lower than
that of carbon dioxide, but are important because, per molecule, they absorb infrared radiation much
more strongly than carbon dioxide. Indeed a recent study shows that trace gases are responsible for
43% of the increase in radiative forcing from 1980 to 1990.An index to compare the contribution of
various 'greenhouse' gas emissions to global warming is needed to develop cost-effective strategies for
limiting this warming. Estimates of relative contributions to additional greenhouse forcing during
particular periods do not fully take into account differences in atmospheric residence times among the
important greenhouse gases. Here we extend recent work on halocarbons by proposing an index of
global warming potential for methane, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and CFCs relative to that of
carbon dioxide. We find, for example, that methane has, per mole, a global warming potential 3.7
times that of carbon dioxide. On this basis, carbon dioxide emissions account for 80% of the
contribution to global warming of current greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with 57% of the
increase in radiative forcing for the 1980s.
Climate change Fast
Human-induced global warming is destroying the environment at a rapid pace
Gore, 06 – Author and Environmental Activist, and Former Vice President (Al, An Inconvenient Truth:
The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, p. 8,
http://books.google.com/books?id=93M6C24ac9MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r
&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, NMK)
Time has not stood still for the global environment. The pace of destruction has worsened and
the urgent need for a response has grown more acute.The fundamental outline of the climate crisis
story is much the same now as it was then. The relationship between human civilization and the Earth
has been utterly transformed by a combination of factors, including the population explosion, the
technological revolution, and a willingness to ignore the future consequences of our present actions.
The underlying reality is that we are colliding with the planet’s ecological system, and its most
vulnerable components are crumbling as a result.I have learned much more about this issue over the
years. I have read and listened to the world’s leading scientists, who have offered increasingly dire
warnings. I have watched with growing concern as the crisis gathers strength even more rapidly than
anyone expected.In every corner of the globe – on land and in water, in melting ice and disappearing
snow, during heat waves and droughts, in the eyes of hurricanes and in the tears of refugees – the
world is witnessing mounting and undeniable evidence that nature’s cycles are profoundly changing. I
have learned that, beyond death and taxes, there is at least one absolutely indisputable fact. Not only
does human-caused global warming exist, but it is also growing more and more dangerous, and at a
pace that has now made it a planetary emergency.
The climate is changing fast
B. VAN GEEL, J. BUURMAN2, H. T. WATERBOLK, 19 JAN 2007, Journal of Quaternary
Science. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/(SICI)10991417(199611/12)11:6%3C451::AID-JQS275%3E3.0.CO;29/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+5+Nov+from+1012+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance
A sudden and sharp rise in the 14C content of the atmosphere, which occurred between ca. 850
and 760 calendar yr BC (ca. 2750–2450 BP on the radiocarbon time-scale), was
contemporaneous with an abrupt climate change. In northwest Europe (as indicated by
palaeoecological and geological evidence) climate changed from relatively warm and
continental to oceanic. As a consequence, the ground-water table rose considerably in
certain low-lying areas in The Netherlands. Archaeological and palaeoecological
evidence for the abandonment of such areas in the northern Netherlands is interpreted
as the effect of a rise of the water table and the extension of fens and bogs. Contraction of
population and finally migration from these low-lying areas, which had become marginal for
occupation, and the earliest colonisation by farming communities of the newly emerged
salt marshes in the northern Netherlands around 2550 BP, is interpreted as the consequence
of loss of cultivated land. Thermic contraction of ocean water and/or decreased velocity and pressure
on the coast by the Gulf Stream may have caused a fall in relative sea-level rise and the emergence of
these salt marshes. Evidence for a synchronous climatic change elsewhere in Europe and
on other continents around 2650 BP is presented. Temporary aridity in tropical regions
and a reduced transport of warmth to the temperate climate regions by atmospheric
and/or oceanic circulation systems could explain the observed changes. As yet there is
no clear explanation for this climate change and the contemporaneous increase of 14C in
the atmosphere. The strategy of 14C wiggle-match dating can play an important role in the precise
dating of organic deposits, and can be used to establish possible relationships between changing 14C
production in the atmosphere, climate change, and the impact of such changes on hydrology,
vegetation, and human communities.
Co2 levels are rising fast
Betsy Herbert May 31, 2007, Memo to directors
http://www.slvwd.com/agendas/Full/2007/06-07-07/Item%2010b.pdf
The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a preindustrial value of
about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and is 1774 ppb in 2005. The atmospheric
concentration of methane in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range of the last 650,000 years (320 to
790 ppb) as determined from ice cores. Growth rates have declined since the early
1990s, consistent with total emissions (sum of anthropogenic and natural sources) being
nearly constant during this period. It is very likely that the observed increase in methane
concentration is due to anthropogenic activities, predominantly agriculture and fossil fuel use, but
relative contributions from different source types are not well determined.
The U.S. needs to act now and set a model for the rest of the world to combat the
pressing issue of global warming.
McKibben,Bill, Oct. 2007, National Geographic, “Carbon’s New Math.” MW
No matter what we do now, that warming will increase some—there's a lag time before the heat fully plays
out in the atmosphere. That is, we can't stop global warming. Our task is less inspiring: to contain the damage, to keep
things from getting out of control. And even that is not easy. For one thing, until recently there's been no clear data
suggesting the point where catastrophe looms. Now we're getting a better picture—the past couple of years have seen a
series of reports indicating that 450 parts per million CO2 is a threshold we'd be wise to
respect. Beyond that point, scientists believe future centuries will likely face the melting of
the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and a subsequent rise in sea level of giant
proportion. Four hundred fifty parts per million is still a best guess (and it doesn't include the witches' brew of other, lesser, greenhouse
gases like methane and nitrous oxide). But it will serve as a target of sorts for the world to aim at. A target that's moving, fast. If
concentrations keep increasing by two parts per million per year, we're only three and a half
decades away. So the math isn't complicated—but that doesn't mean it isn't intimidating. So
far only the Europeans and Japanese have even begun to trim their carbon emissions, and they may
not meet their own modest targets. Meanwhile, U.S. carbon emissions, a quarter of the world's total, continue
to rise steadily—earlier this year we told the United Nations we'd be producing 20 percent
more carbon in 2020 than we had in 2000. China and India are suddenly starting to produce huge quantities of CO2 as
well. On a per capita basis (which is really the only sensible way to think about the morality of the situation), they aren't anywhere close to
American figures, but their populations are so huge, and their economic growth so rapid, that they make the prospect of a worldwide decline in
emissions seem much more daunting. The Chinese are currently building a coal-fired power plant every week or so. That's a lot of carbon.¶
Everyone involved knows what the basic outlines of a deal that could avert catastrophe
would look like: rapid, sustained, and dramatic cuts in emissions by the technologically
advanced countries, coupled with large-scale technology transfer to China, India, and the rest
of the developing world so that they can power up their emerging economies without
burning up their coal. Everyone knows the big questions, too: Are such rapid cuts even possible? Do we have the political will to
make them and to extend them overseas?
Global Warming is now and real
Vitousek, Oct. 1994, Ecological Society of America, “Global Warming: Ecology and Global Change”,
NW
global environmental change is with us now.
Ultimately, it is driven by the rapidly growing human population and our high rates of
resource con sumption; proximately, global environmental change occurs as a number of interacting components that alter the
structure and function of Earth as a system. There is strong public and governmental focus on one of these components,
I will make two major points in this paper. First, human-caused
climate change or (simplistically) global warming, and many ecologists are involved in analyz- ing the likely implications of climate change for
natural and managed organisms, populations, communities, and ecosystems (e.g., Peters and Lovejoy 1992, Karei-¶ va et al. 1993). However,
climate change is not the best known, not currently the most significant, and not the most permanent of the components of anthropo- genic
global change. Many of the other components of global change, and most of their consequences, lie part- ly or largely within ecological
systems. Indeed, one of the fundamental causes of global change-human pop- ulation growth-is an ecological phenomenon. As ecol- ogists, we
should recognize that addressing global change will require active collaborations with a wide range of scientists outside our field and with
researchers outside the natural sciences, but we also should recognize that it is our responsibility to take the lead in dealing with major
components of global environmental change.¶ Second,
we will have to learn how to deal more effectively
with certainty. Ecologists who address pub- lic policy or globally significant issues often are advised to learn to deal with uncertainty,
because generally neither policy recommendations nor global extrapo- lations are amenable to statistical "certainty" at the 0.05 or 0.01 level.
However, most of what I will discuss in this paper is both globally significant and not at all controversial, yet much
of the educated public believes that our understanding of global environmental change is both uncertain and highly contentious. There are
uncertainties, but there is also a substantial core of¶ knowledge, and it is our responsibility to see that it reaches policy makers and the public.¶
In this paper, I will summarize three components of¶ global environmental change that have several features¶ in common. All are welldocumented, ongoing changes whose existence and global nature are beyond serious dispute; their proximate causes have been identified
causal connections to global climate change and/or the loss of biological diversity. The
three that I have selected (drawn from a longer list of equally certain global changes) are: (1) the increasing concentration of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; (2) alteration of the global nitrogen cycle; and (3) change in land cover
and/or land use. For each component, I will describe how and why it is changing globally, and some of the known or likely ecological
clearly; and all have direct
consequences of change. I will then describe how these and other equally certain components of global envi- ronmental change drive global
changes in climate and biological diversity (Fig. 1) and briefly discuss the prox- imate and ultimate causes of change. Finally, I will suggest
several steps that we can take to influence the course of global change.
C02 Levels are Increasing Rapidly.
Berwyn 7/12, " Global CO2 emissions hit new high in 2011””
http://summitcountyvoice.com/2012/07/22/globalco2-emissions-hit-new-high-in-2012/,AM)
Global carbon dioxide emissions hit an all-time record high of 34 billion tons in 2011, with the biggest
jump coming in China, where per capita emissions are now at European levels of about 7.2 tons per
person. Overall, Chinese CO2 emissions increased by 9 percent.¶ That puts China within the range of 6 to
19 tons of per capita emission, similar to rates in most major industrialized countries. European Union
CO2 emissions dropped by 3 percent in 2011, to 7.5 ton per capita. The United States remain one of the
largest emitters, at about 17.3 tons per capita, despite a decline due to the recession in 2008-2009,
high oil prices and increased use of natural gas. The latest figures were released as part of the annual
‘Trends in global CO2 emissions’, report, released last week by the European Commission’s Joint
Research Centre and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. Global CO2 emissions
continued to grow in 2011, despite reductions developed countries. A shaky economy, mild winter and
reductions in use attributed to high energy prices drove emissions down by 3 percent in the European
Union and 2 percent in the U.S. and Japan. The world’s most-developed countries now account for only
one third of global CO2 emissions — the same share as that of China and India combined, where
emissions increased by 9 percent and 6 percent, respectively, in 2011. Economic growth in China led to
significant increases in fossil fuel consumption, driven by construction and infrastructure expansion. The
growth in cement and steel production caused China’s domestic coal consumption to increase by 9.7
percent. The 3 percent increase in global CO2 emissions in 2011 is above the past decade’s average
annual increase of 2.7 percent, with a decrease in 2008 and a surge of 5 percent in 2010. The top
emitters contributing to the 34 billion tons of CO2 emitted globally in 2011 are: China (29 percent), the
United States (16 percent), the European Union (11 percent), India (6 percent), the Russian Federation
(5 percent) and Japan (4 percent). An estimated cumulative global total of 420 billion tons of CO2 were
emitted between 2000 and 2011 due to human activities, including deforestation. Scientific literature
suggests that limiting the rise in average global temperature to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial
levels is possible only if cumulative CO2 emissions from 2000 to 2050 do not exceed 1,000 to 1,500
billion tons. If the current global trend of increasing CO2 emissions continues, cumulative emissions will
surpass this limit within the next two decades.
Climate change is fast.
IRIN News 7/21 (7/21/12, " CLIMATE CHANGE: Himalayan glaciers melting more rapidly” Excerpt
” http://www.irinnews.org/Report/95917/CLIMATE-CHANGE-Himalayan-glaciers-melting-more-rapidly/,
AM)
The Himalayan glaciers that feed major south Asian rivers like the Indus, the Brahmaputra and the
Ganges are melting more rapidly, reveals a major new study which says that soaring global
temperatures are not the only reason. The scientists studied 30 years of data from the field, and
satellite and weather records to examine the retreat of 82 glaciers, the area reduction of 7,090
glaciers, and mass-balance change - the difference between the accumulation and loss of ice of 15
glaciers in the seven larger regions of the Himalayas, the Tibetan Plateau and the Pamir Mountains.
Glaciers in this region give birth to major rivers across Southeast Asia and the Far East, from the Ganges
to the Mekong, the Yellow and the Yangtze, which provide water to 20 percent of the world's
population. A number of studies between 1999 and 2001 have backed the link between climate change
and glacier melting. A joint study by the International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
(ICIMOD), a Nepal-based research centre supported by eight governments in the region and the UN
Environment Programme (UNEP), said, "The Himalayan glaciers have retreated by approximately a
kilometre since the Little Ice Age [from 1350 to 1900]."
Animals will not be able to outrun fast climate change
University of Washington. "Nearly one tenth of hemisphere's mammals unlikely to outrun climate
change.", May 14, 2012. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514153115.htm>
A safe haven could be out of reach for 9 percent of the Western Hemisphere's mammals, and as much
as 40 percent in certain regions, because the animals just won't move swiftly enough to outpace
climate change.
Western Hemisphere primates, for example, take several years before they are sexually mature. That
contributes to their low-dispersal rate and is one reason they look especially vulnerable to climate
change, Schloss said. Another reason is that the territory with suitable climate is expected to shrink
and to reach the new areas animals in the tropics must generally go farther than in mountainous
regions, where animals can more quickly move to a different elevation and a climate that suits them.
Those factors mean that nearly all the hemisphere's primates will experience severe reductions in
their ranges, Schloss said, on average about 75 percent. At the same time species with high dispersal
rates that face slower-paced climate change are expected to expand their ranges.
Fast climate change bad
Global warming must be prevented – the time is now
Gore, 06 – Author and Environmental Activist, and Former Vice President (Al, An Inconvenient Truth:
The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It, p. 10,
http://books.google.com/books?id=93M6C24ac9MC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r
&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, NMK)
The climate crisis is, indeed, extremely dangerous. In fact it is a true planetary emergency. Two
thousand scientists, in a hundred countries, working for more than 20 years in the most elaborate and
well-organized scientific collaboration in the history of humankind, have forged in an exceptionally
strong consensus that all the nations on Earth must work together to solve the crisis of global
warming.The voluminous evidence now strongly suggests that unless we act boldly and quickly to deal
with the underlying causes of global warming, our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes,
including more and stronger storms like Hurricane Katrina, in both the Atlantic and the Pacific.We are
melting the North Polar ice cap and virtually all of the mountain glaciers in the world. We are
destabilizing the massive mound of ice on Greenland and the equally enormous mass of ice propped
up on top of islands in West Antarctica, threatening a worldwide increase in sea levels of as much as
20 feet.The list of what is now endangered due to global warming also includes the continued stable
configuration of ocean and wind currents that has been in place since before the first cities were built
almost 10,000 years ago.We are dumping so much carbon dioxide into the Earth’s environment that
we have literally changed the relationship between the Earth and the Sun. So much of that CO2 is being
absorbed into the oceans that if we continue at the current rate we will increase the saturation of
calcium carbonate to levels that will prevent formation of corals and interfere with the making of
shells by any sea creature.
Climate change forces species to move
Scott R. Loarie1, Philip B. Duffy1,2, Healy Hamilton3, Gregory P. Asner1, Christopher B.
Field1 & David D. Ackerly, November 2009, Nature journal
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/full/nature08649.html
The ranges of plants and animals are moving in response to recent changes in climate. As
temperatures rise, ecosystems with ‘nowhere to go’, such as mountains, are considered
to be more threatened. However, species survival may depend as much on keeping pace with
moving climates as the climate’s ultimate persistence. Here we present a new index of the
velocity of temperature change (km yr-1), derived from spatial gradients (°C km-1) and
multimodel ensemble forecasts of rates of temperature increase (°C yr-1) in the twentyfirst century. This index represents the instantaneous local velocity along Earth’s surface
needed to maintain constant temperatures, and has a global mean of 0.42 km yr-1 (A1B
emission scenario). Owing to topographic effects, the velocity of temperature change is
lowest in mountainous biomes such as tropical and subtropical coniferous forests
(0.08 km yr-1), temperate coniferous forest, and montane grasslands. Velocities are
highest in flooded grasslands (1.26 km yr-1), mangroves and deserts. High velocities
suggest that the climates of only 8% of global protected areas have residence times exceeding
100 years. Small protected areas exacerbate the problem in Mediterranean-type and
temperate coniferous forest biomes. Large protected areas may mitigate the problem in
desert biomes. These results indicate management strategies for minimizing biodiversity
loss from climate change. Montane landscapes may effectively shelter many species into
the next century. Elsewhere, reduced emissions, a much expanded network of protected
areas, or efforts to increase species movement may be necessary.
Global Warming is rapid and destroys sealife, thus hurting the economy.
Eric Peterson, Maria Beger, and Zoe Richards. 08 (Thinking Outside the Reef, March 2008.
<http://www.sciencemag.org/content/318/5857/1737.short>
Coral reefs are among the most biologically diverse and economically important ecosystems on the
planet, providing ecosystem services that are vital to human societies and industries through fisheries,
coastal protection, building materials, new biochemical compounds, and tourism (1). Yet in the
decade since the inaugural International Year of the Reef in 1997 (2), which called the world to action,
coral reefs have continued to deteriorate as a result of human influences (3, 4). Rapid increases in the
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]atm), by driving global warming and ocean
acidification, may be the final insult to these ecosystems. Here, we review the current understanding
of how anthropogenic climate change and increasing ocean acidity are affecting coral reefs and offer
scenarios for how coral reefs will change over this century. The scenarios are intended to provide a
framework for proactive responses to the changes that have begun in coral reef ecosystems and to
provoke thinking about future management and policy challenges for coral reef protection.
Global warming leads to extinction
Global warming can lead to extinction
Peters & Lovejoy, 92 – * Author AND ** University Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at
George Mason University (Robert and Thomas, Global Warming and Biological Diversity, p. 15,
http://books.google.com/books?id=ERV269gD_gC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false, NMK)
We can infer how the biota might respond to climate change by observing present and past distributions
of plants and animals, which are largely determined by temperature and moisture patterns. For
example, one race of the dwarf birch (Betula nana) can grow only where the temperature never
exceeds 22°C (Ford 1982), suggesting that it would disappear from those areas where global warming
causes temperatures to exceed 22°C. Recent historical observations of changes in range or species
dominance, such as the gradual replacement of spruce (Picea rubens) by deciduous species during the
past 180 years in the eastern United States, can also suggest future reponses (Hamburg and Cogbill
1988). Insight into long-term responses to large climatic changes can be gleaned from studies of fossil
distributions of, particularly, pollen (Davis 1983; see also chapters 5 and 22) and small mammals
(Graham 1986; chapter 6). Such observations tell us that plants and animals are very sensitive to
climate. Their ranges move when the climate patterns change – species die out in areas where they
were once found and colonize new areas where the climate becomes newly suitable.
We can expect similar responses to projected global warming during the next 50 to 100 years, including
disruption of natural communities and extinction of populations and species. Even many species that
are today widespread will experience large range reductions. Efficient dispersers may be able to shift
their ranges to take advantage of newly suitable habitat, but most species will at best experience a
time lag before extensive colonization is possible and hence in the short term will show range
diminishment (see chapter 5 for a discussion of vegetation-climate disequilibrium). At worst, many
species will never be able to recover.
Climate change drives species to extinction
By Micheal D. Lemonick Thursday, Dec. 24, 2009
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1949869,00.html#ixzz2182SIU5f
According to the velocity maps that Loarie and his colleagues put together, only 8% of the
world's national parks and other preserves will retain their current climate over the next century,
compounding the problem of how to keep species from going extinct. One way to do that
is simply to move them. But that's not only extraordinarily difficult, it can also backfire — just ask
anyone in the southeastern U.S. about the inexorable advance of the imported invasive
species the kudzu vine. "For some species on the brink of extinction, physically moving them
might be our only option," says Loarie, "but setting aside connected, heterogeneous
landscapes that allow natural movement will almost certainly be an better use of
conservation dollars.
CO2 trades off with O2
Global Warming depletes oxygen in the ocean and air
Plattner, G.-K., F. Joos, and T. F. Stocker, Revision of the global carbon budget due to changing
air-sea oxygen fluxes, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(4), 1096, doi:10.1029/2001GB001746,
2002.
[1] Carbon budgets inferred from measurements of the atmospheric oxygen to nitrogen ratio (O2/N2) are revised considering sea-to-air fluxes
of O2 and N2 in response to global warming and volcanic eruptions. Observational estimates of changes in ocean heat content are combined
with a model-derived relationship between changes in atmospheric O2/N2 due to oceanic outgassing and heat fluxes to estimate ocean O2
outgassing. The inferred terrestrial carbon sink for the 1990s is reduced by a factor of two compared with the
most recent
estimate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). This also improves the agreement
between calculated ocean carbon uptake rates and estimates from global carbon cycle models, which indicate a higher ocean carbon
uptake during the 1990s than the 1980s. The simulated decrease in oceanic O2 concentrations is in qualitative agreement
with observed trends in oceanic O2 concentrations. INDEX TERMS: 1635 Global Change: Oceans (4203); 1615 Global Change: Biogeochemical
processes (4805); 4806 Oceanography: Biological and Chemical: Carbon cycling; 4805 Oceanography: Biological and Chemical: Biogeochemical
cycles (1615); 4842 Oceanography: Biological and Chemical: Modeling; [2] A quantitative understanding of the carbon cycle is important to
develop global warming mitigation strategies. The conventional method, applying an ocean model to estimate the partitioning of
anthropogenic carbon between the global terrestrial and ocean carbon sinks [Siegenthaler and Oeschger, 1987] has
been
complemented by various data-based methods to assess the strength of the terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks
[Keeling et al., 1989; Tans et al., 1990; Keeling and Shertz, 1992; Quay et al., 1992; Heimann and Maier-Reimer, 1996; Peng et al., 1998; Prentice
et al., 2001]. Regional estimates of the carbon sinks [e.g., Enting and Mansbridge, 1991; Rayner et al., 1999; Gruber and Keeling, 2001] are
constrained by the global estimates. Here we investigate how global
warming and volcanic eruptions affect sea-to-air
oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) fluxes and, in turn, the carbon budgets for the last 2 decades
deduced from the observed trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and O2; the latter estimated
from measurements of the ratio of oxygen to nitrogen (O2/N2) in air [Keeling et al., 1996; Battle et al., 2000; Manning, 2001; Prentice et al.,
2001].
[3] The terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks are estimated by solving the atmospheric budgets of O2 and CO2 (Figure1). The
observed
increase in atmospheric CO2 [Keeling and Whorf, 2000] equals the known amount of carbon released
by fossil fuel burning [Marland et al., 1995] minus the carbon that has been taken up by the ocean and the land biosphere. For
each mol CO2 released by fossil fuel burning, about 1.39 mol O2 are consumed [Manning, 2001]. In
turn, about 1.1 mol O2 are released for each mol CO2 taken up by the biosphere [Severinghaus, 1995], whereas CO2 uptake by the ocean does
not alter atmospheric O2. The basic assumption has been that sea-to-air O2 fluxes are negligible on a multiannual timescale, and thus the effect
of oceanic O2 outgassing on the atmospheric O2 budget has typically been omitted [Keeling et al., 1996; Bender and Battle, 1999; Battle et al.,
2000]
[4] Theatmosphericandmarineinventoriesofgaseousor dissolved O2 are coupled through air-sea gas exchange. O2 may be released to the
atmosphere by a number of processes. First, the solubility of O2 is reduced in a warming ocean. Second, concentrations of dissolved O2 are
altered by changes in the balance between O2 transported to depth and O2 consumed during the remineralization of organic material. A
slowed circulation or an increased export pro- duction of organic material leads to lower O2 concentrations at depth and increased O2
outgassing. And third, increasing storage of organic carbon in dissolved organic matter or in sediments would tend to increase oceanic O2
inventories. Simulations with coupled atmosphere-ocean biogeochemi- cal models yield a reduced ocean circulation and a decrease in the
oceanic O2 inventory under global warming [SarBudgets of atmospheric O2, expressed as atmo- spheric O2/N2 ratio, and CO2 (adapted from Prentice et al. [2001]). The diagram schematically
illustrates the principles of the partitioning of fossil fuel carbon using measurements of atmospheric O2 and CO2, by considering simultaneously
changes in atmospheric CO2 (horizontal axis) and O2 (vertical axis) [Keeling et al., 1996]. The arrow labeled ‘‘fossil fuel burning’’ denotes the
effect of the combustion of fossil fuels assuming that 1.39 mol O2 are consumed for 1 mol CO2 released [Manning, 2001]. The arrow labeled
‘‘outgassing’’ indicates O2 changes from oceanic outgassing primarily due to changes in the marine biogeochemical cycle; its size is estimated
from data of ocean heat uptake [Levitus et al., 2000] and a model-derived relationship between ocean heat fluxes and atmospheric O2/N2
changes due to out- gassing. Carbon uptake by land and ocean is constrained by the known O2:CO2 stoichiometric ratios of these processes
[Severinghaus, 1995; Keeling et al., 1996; Battle et al., 2000; Manning, 2001], defining the slopes of the respective arrows, and the observed
changes in atmospheric CO2 [Keeling and Whorf, 2000] and O2. The trend in atmospheric O2 is established from measurements of the ratio of
O2 to N2 in air (solid circles: Keeling et al. [1996] and Manning [2001]; solid triangles: Battle et al. [2000]). Changes in atmospheric O2/N2 are
usually given in units of per meg. A per meg corresponds to a relative difference in the O2/N2 ratio of two samples of 10�6 [Keeling et al.,
1996].
Warming hard to assign a probability, but more likely then nuclear war
Furio, 07 Professor of political philosophy (Global Challenges For Leviathan, p 29)
The probability of the worst outcome (extinction of the human kind or annihilation of a great part
of it by nuclear war or catastrophic environmental changes) can by no means be assessed in
such a way as to assign numerical values to the various degrees of probability, in correspondence
to various courses of action. Tendencies in global warming can be to an extent predicted by
extrapolating present figures of energy consumption and related phenomena, these
predictions are still far from certain, as we shall see further in chapter four. Insofar as
they do not involve merely physical development but also political actions that may unleash or
moderate them, all numeric approaches to prediction and probability lose credibility, making it more
likely than extinction by nuclear war, because of the unquantifiable nature of complex
political processes.
Warming extremely deadly for biodiverse life
Tonn, 07 (4/7/07, Futures, “Futures Sustainability”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016328707000730)
There are also numerous natural threats to biodiversity. Naturally occurring viruses and other
pathogens could become more virulent and uncontrollable and could threaten
numerous flora and fauna alike. However, long-term threats to biodiversity mostly stem from
extreme climate change. Volcanic eruptions, collisions with asteroids, plate tectonics,
changes in ocean currents, and even minute changes in the energy output of the sun
could cause rapid global cooling. Cooling could not only spread ice over most of the
earth's surface again, killing the majority of species outright, but could also lower sea
floors enough to foster massive oxidation, thereby reducing oxygen levels enough in the
atmosphere to asphyxiate all oxygen breathing species [17].
All of the threats mentioned above at least indirectly threaten humans if one believes that a
massive extinction of species would also lead to the extinction of humans. Many of these threats
also directly threaten humans. Nuclear war could cause widespread loss of human life, but is not
as likely considering political standings. Runaway global warming and reduction of oxygen in
the atmosphere could almost certainly lead to the extinction of humans.
CO2 causes Warming
Solomon and Friedlingstein, 05
Soloman and Friedlingstein, 05 - *NOAA ESRL Chemical Sciences Division Chemistry & Climate Processes,
NOAA professional, AND ** Chair in Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems (6/7/2005,
“Contributions of past and present human generations to committed warming caused by carbon
dioxide” http://www.pnas.org/content/102/31/10832.full)
We developed a highly simplified approach to estimate the contributions of the past and present
human generations to the increase of atmospheric CO2 and associated global average temperature
increases. For each human generation of adopted 25-year length, we use simplified emission test cases to estimate the
committed warming passed to successive children, grandchildren, and later generations. We estimate that the last
and the current generation contributed approximately two thirds of the present-day CO2-induced
warming. Because of the long time scale required for removal of CO2 from the atmosphere as well as the time delays
characteristic of physical responses of the climate system, global mean temperatures are expected to increase by several
tenths of a degree for at least the next 20 years even if CO2 emissions were immediately cut to zero; that is, there is a
commitment to additional CO2-induced warming even in the absence of emissions. If the rate of increase of CO2
emissions were to continue up to 2025 and then were cut to zero, a temperature increase of ≈1.3°C
compared to preindustrial conditions would still occur in 2100, whereas a constant-CO2-emissions
scenario after 2025 would more than double the 2100 warming. These calculations illustrate the manner in
which each generation inherits substantial climate change caused by CO2 emissions that occurred previously, particularly
those of their parents, and shows that current CO2 emissions will contribute significantly to the climate change of future
generations.
Energy prices not key to renewable transition
People still using oil despite rising prices, government incentives needed
David Gardiner & Associates, LLC, May 2011 (“Fighting Oil Addiction” NRDC Issue Paper,
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/states/)
Unrest in the Middle East has raised concerns about how dependent the United States is on foreign oil.
The price of gasoline has been skyrocketing. And the recession has continued to make many
Americans feel more economically vulnerable. Americans continued to feel the painful pinch of
gasoline prices in 2010 – and they still do today. This report updates the Natural Resources Defense
Council’s (NRDC) 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 research identifying the states whose citizens feel the
greatest economic pain from gasoline prices — and those states that are doing the most to break their
addiction to oil. Like the previous editions, this report again ranks U.S. states in two critical areas related
to our nation’s continuing addiction to oil. First, it calculates gasoline price vulnerability – how heavily
each state’s drivers are affected by increases in gasoline prices. Second, it ranks states based on their
adoption of solutions to reduce their oil dependence – measures they are taking to lessen their
vulnerability and to bolster America’s security. The data yield some clear conclusions: Oil dependence
affects all states, but some states’ drivers are hit harder economically than others. Drivers in almost
every state in 2010 spent a higher percentage of their income on gasoline than they did in 2009, and
drivers in the most vulnerable states spent more than twice as large a percentage of their income on
gasoline as drivers in the least vulnerable states. Drivers are being hit even harder right now than they
were in 2010. While some states are pioneering solutions and many are taking some action, many states
are still taking few (if any) of the steps listed in this report to reduce their oil dependence. To curb
America’s perilous oil addiction, we need effective government policies that will increase the
availability and use of efficient vehicles and clean fuels, as well as promote smart growth and public
transit.
The United States must reduce its dependence on oil in a direct manner
Lovaas & Horner, 11 – * Federal Transportation Policy Director for NRDC AND ** Policy Analyst for
NRDC (5/11, Federal Transportation Policy Director for NRDC, “Fighting Oil Addiction,”
http://www.pbn.com/uploads/files/ee727072e2.pdf, NMK)
Oil is a global commodity. America’s oil reserves are not big enough to ever really affect the price of oil
by increasing production. Swings in oil prices will continue to affect the U.S. economy as long as our
economy is so reliant on oil. Looking to Canada shows how beholden we are to a global marketplace—
despite Canada having about nine times U.S. proven reserves and producing 1.5 times what they
consume, Canadian prices at the pump track the global price of oil just as American prices do. The key
solution is to reduce our dependence on oil. By promoting cleaner and more efficient vehicles, clean
fuels, smart growth, and public transit, state governments can play an important role in putting an
end to an unhealthy addiction that threatens our citizens’ wallets, our coastlines, our national
security, our economy, and our environment.
Miscellaneous
HSR is beneficial to the environment in multiple ways
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Transport systems bring enormous benefits to society providing access and mobility that are essential
for modern societies and economic growth. However, transport activities have many undesirable
external impacts as well, such as CO2 emissions, congestion, accidents, land use and many more. At
the same time, the transport sector will face many challenges in the future such as demographic
development, urbanization, and the scarcity of natural resources, as well as increases in oil and energy
prices. Meanwhile, the increase in travel demand could lead to overcrowded airports, delayed flights
and congested roads. The urge to fight these challenges is therefore pushing economies toward more
efficient, and sustainable, solutions. Rail, and particularly High Speed Rail (HSR), is an important means
to meeting these challenges and contribute to sustainable mobility development.
HSR offers tangible advantages over other transport modes such as air, conventional rail and the car
for medium to long distance journeys. Considering the evaluation of the complete life cycle it is in terms
of sustainability the most efficient mode of transport. At the same time it combines many of the
attributes that we most desire while travelling such as speed, reliability, comfort and safety. HSR’s
ability to compete with domestic air travel in terms of time and comfort has made a modal shift
possible.
By not only encouraging a shift from air but also from traditional road transport for lengthy journeys in
either cars or coaches HSR is contributing to congestion reduction and its associated pollution. By
providing a suitable alternative for traditional transport modes travel which is greener and more
energy efficient per passenger-kilometre it is contributing to the transport industries’ need to reduce
carbon emissions.
Furthermore, HSR, which is only operating on the electrified network, is today’s only mode of transport
that directly benefits from the “greening” of the energy supply sector towards low carbon electricity.
Electricity from renewable sources can be HSR’s main power supply without the need to develop
specific and completely new technologies. Compared to aviation and road transport, which will be
highly dependent on fossil fuels for many years, this is one of the main competitive advantages of
HSR. The carbon intensity of HSR can even be further reduced by increasing the share of renewable
energies.
A background paper to this report clearly shows that HSR is still more environmentally friendly even
when considering the construction of the tracks and rolling stock in a full life cycle perspective. Thus,
estimating the impacts during the full life cycle doesn’t change the low environmental impact of the HSR
compared to other transport infrastructure or transport modes.
***Competitiveness***
U.S. competitiveness decreasing in SQ
China gaining ground on US in economics
Shor 12 (Francis Shor, January 2012, “Declining US Hegemony and Rising Chinese Power: A
Formula For Conflict”, Perspectives on Global Development and
Technology,http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/pgdt/2012/00000011/00000001/art00013)
While the United States no longer dominates the global economy as it did during the first two decades
after WWII, it still is the leading economic power in the world. However, over the last few decades
China, with all its internal contradictions, has made enormous leaps until it now occupies the number
two spot. In fact, the IMF recently projected that the Chinese economy would become the world’s
largest in 2016. In manufacturing China has displaced the US in so many areas, including becoming the
number one producer of steel and exporter of four-fifths of all of the textile products in the world and
two-thirds of the world’s copy machines, DVD players, and microwaves ovens. Yet, a significant
portion of this manufacturing is still owned by foreign companies, including US firms like General Motors
(Gulick 2011:17).
On the other hand, China is also the largest holder of US foreign reserves, e.g. treasury bonds. This
may be one of the reasons mitigating full-blown conflict with the US now since China has such a large
stake in the US economy, both as a holder of bonds and as the leading exporter of goods to the US.
Nonetheless, “the US has blocked several large scale Chinese investments and buyouts of oil companies,
technology firms, and other enterprises” (Petras 2010a). In effect, there are still clear nation-centric
responses to China’s rising economic power, especially as an expression of the US governing elite’s
ideological commitment to national security.
At the same time, China is now the world’s largest consumer of essential metals (copper, zinc,
platinum) and one of the most voracious importers of hydrocarbons. Essential investment and trade by
China in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela, plus engagement with a host of Central Asian countries,
indicates China’s growing need for oil and natural gas, as well as its growing challenge to US geostrategic
interests in these aforementioned countries and regions.3 With China’s energy consumption
approaching twenty percent of the world’s total, it may well overtake the US as the largest hydrocarbon
consumer in the next decade or so. It is already the number one producer of greenhouse gasses,
although the US is still the per capita leader. Nonetheless, as Michael Klare (2009) points out, the
scramble for more oil will lead to extracting what he calls “tough oil,” resulting in more expensive and
environmentally destructive production.
US losing dominance, becoming vulnerable even with currency
Du Boff 07 ( Richard B. Du Boff, December 2003, “U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline,
Enduring Danger”, Monthly Review, http://monthlyreview.org/2003/12/01/u-s-hegemonycontinuing-decline-enduring-danger)
In global finance, the United States is not only less dominant, but vulnerable. The weak link is the
dollar, whose status as the world’s key currency has been eroding since the 1970s, irregularly and with
periodic revivals. Between 1981 and 1995, the share of private world savings held in European
currencies increased from 13 percent to 37 percent, while the dollar’s share fell from 67 to 40 percent.
Forty-four percent of new bonds have been issued in euros since the new currency was introduced in
1999, closing in on the 48 percent issued in dollars. Half the foreign exchange reserves held by the
world’s central banks were composed of dollars in 1990 compared to 76 percent in 1976; the proportion
rose back to 68 percent in 2001 because of the phasing out of ecus (reserves issued to European banks
by the European Monetary Institute) to make way for the euro. For the first time since the Second
World War there is another source of universally acceptable payment and liquidity in the world
economy—at a moment when the U.S. balance of international payments is chalking up record
deficits.
U.S. economy getting weaker, especially with deficits
Du Boff 07 ( Richard B. Du Boff, December 2003, “U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline,
Enduring Danger”, Monthly Review, http://monthlyreview.org/2003/12/01/u-s-hegemonycontinuing-decline-enduring-danger)
Since 1971, when the United States had a deficit in its trade in goods (merchandise) for the first time
in seventy-eight years, exports have exceeded imports only in 1973 and 1975. A nation can run deficits
in its trade in goods and still be in overall balance in its dealings with foreign countries. Deficits in trade
in goods can be offset by having a positive balance in sales of services abroad (financial, insurance,
telecommunications, advertising and other business services) and/or income from overseas investments
(profits, dividends, interest, royalties, and the like). But the U.S. merchandise deficit has become too
big to be paid for by services sold to foreigners plus remittances on investments. The U.S. current
account (the sum of the balances in trade in goods and services plus net income from overseas
investment), almost constantly in surplus from 1895 to 1977, is now deteriorating sharply; the
merchandise deficit has become too big to be paid for by services sold to foreigners. And since 1990,
the positive balance on investment income has been shriveling as foreign investment in the United
States has grown faster than U.S. investment abroad. In 2002, the balance turned negative: for the
first time the United States is paying foreigners more investment income from their holdings here
than it receives from its own investments abroad.
Like most gaps between income and expenses, the current account deficit is covered by borrowing. In
2002, the United States borrowed $503 billion from abroad, a record 4.8 percent of GDP. When
foreigners receive dollars from transactions with U.S. residents (individuals, companies, governments),
they can use them to buy American assets (U.S. Treasury bonds, corporate bonds and stocks,
companies, and real estate). This is how the United States turned into a debtor nation in 1986; foreignowned assets in the United States are now worth $2.5 trillion more than U.S.-owned assets abroad. By
mid-2003, foreigners owned 41 percent of U.S. Treasury marketable debt, 24 percent of all U.S.
corporate bonds, and 13 percent of corporate stock. U.S. companies are continuing to invest abroad, but
unlike the British Empire in the decades before the First World War, the United States is unable to
finance those investments from its current account. By contrast, Great Britain’s current account was in
surplus, averaging 3 to 4 percent of GDP every year from 1850 to 1913, when income from services and
foreign investment was larger than its merchandise trade deficits.3
So far the global investor class has seemed willing to finance America’s external deficits, but it may
not be forever. The deficits are exerting a downward drag on the dollar, arousing suspicion that the
United States favors a cheaper dollar to help pay off its ballooning trade deficit. As the dollar declines
in value, the return to foreign investors on dollar-denominated assets falls. German investments in
choice office properties in New York, San Francisco, and elsewhere were cut back sharply in 2003. While
the buildings were becoming cheaper in euros, rents were shrinking when converted from dollars back
home. “We can get the same return in Britain and the Nordic countries, so why go to the United
States, where the currency risk is greater?” asked the chief investment officer of a Munich-based
property fund.4 Until recently all Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) sold their oil for
dollars only; Iraq switched to the euro in 2000 (presumably terminated with extreme prejudice in March
2003), and Iran has considered a conversion since 1999. In a speech in Spain in April 2002, the head of
OPEC’s Market Analysis Department, Javad Yarjani, saw little chance of change “in the near
future…[but] in the long run the euro is not at such a disadvantage versus the dollar. The Euro-zone
has a bigger share of global trade than the US and…a more balanced external accounts position.”
Adoption of the euro by Europe’s principal oil producers, Norway and Britain, could create “a
momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros.” Thus, concluded Yarjani, “OPEC will not discount
entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future.”5
If foreign investors get cold feet, ceasing to invest in U.S. industries or selling off their dollar holdings,
the dollar would start falling faster. Interest rates in the United States might surge, borrowing money
would become harder, and consumers would pay more for imported goods, draining income from
other purchases and dampening the economy. A dollar rout could cause skittish investors to dump
U.S. stocks and bonds, sending Wall Street into a dive. In any event the dollar is now perceived to be
as risky an asset as the euro and possibly two or three other currencies (yen, sterling, Swiss franc).
Our economy is declining, and other countries know it too
Du Boff 07 ( Richard B. Du Boff, December 2003, “U.S. Hegemony: Continuing Decline,
Enduring Danger”, Monthly Review, http://monthlyreview.org/2003/12/01/u-s-hegemonycontinuing-decline-enduring-danger)
The long-run decline in the relative economic might of the United States was obscured for awhile by the
rapid expansion of the late 1990s. But when the economy sank into recession in March 2001, amidst
the wealth-destroying collapse of the stock market bubble, the veil was blown away. Renewed rustlings
of U.S. decline can be heard.
China is “eroding more than 50 years of American [economic] dominance in Asia,” as it pulls in much
of the area’s new foreign investment, exports cheap manufactured goods, imports higher-tech
products from Singapore and Japan, and launches diplomatic efforts to establish a free trade zone in
East Asia, now the fastest growing trading region in the world. “The policy leverage of the United
States as the great market is sure to decline,” observes James Castle, longtime leader of the American
Chamber of Commerce in Indonesia. Europe is challenging the United States in its own backyard—Latin
America. Of the twenty-five largest foreign companies in Latin America in 2000, fourteen were
European, eleven American, and inflows of investment from Europe were beginning to surpass those
from el Norte.11 In another diversion of trade away from multilateralism, the United States is seeking
bilateral pacts, one by one, with Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and the five Central American
countries to bully its way toward its own Alaska-to-Cape-Horn Free Trade Area of the Americas by 2005.
But the two largest South American economies, Brazil and Argentina, with Paraguay and Uruguay,
formed their own regional trade bloc in 1991, Mercosur (Mercado Común del Sur). Now the world’s
third-largest trade group (after the EU and NAFTA), Mercosur has been reaching out to negotiate
trade arrangements with the EU, and is working to form a South American free trade area to give the
entire continent greater economic leverage against the United States.
In the late 1990s, many Europeans believed that U.S. corporations had undergone a successful twodecade restructuring, to become dominant in so many industries in terms of technology, productivity,
and return on capital that Europe was falling hopelessly behind. But with the “new economy” shrinking
down to bare bones—a cyclical upturn in productivity growth, faster diffusion of information
technologies in workplaces and production facilities, homes and schools—and with financial scandals,
accounting frauds, and bankruptcies spreading among its legions, corporate America is looking less
than impregnable. In high technologies, a Japanese laboratory has built a computer matching the
processing power of the twenty fastest American computers combined. It far outstrips the previous
leader (an IBM machine) and has scientific and practical applications that reflect “a level of will that we
haven’t achieved,” according to California Institute of Technology supercomputer designer Thomas
Sterling. “These guys are blowing us out of the water, and we need to sit up and take notice.” In the
growth of the internet, the United States has lower percentages of broadband users than Canada, Japan,
South Korea, Taiwan, and the Scandinavian countries and trails ten countries in internet use per capita.
For less than twenty-five dollars a month, half the cost in the United States, customers in Japan and
South Korea connect to the internet at a speed of ten megabits a second—ten times as fast as the
typical broadband service in the United States.12
Ongoing trouble for the U.S. economy comes from the attack on the federal government, starting with
the Reagan administration in the 1980s and reaching unprecedented ferocity in the reign of Bush II.
Three tax cuts since 2001, loaded toward the rich, have helped to eliminate the federal budget surpluses
of 1998–2001 and produce deficits of $374 billion for 2003 and upwards of $450 billion for 2004–2006.
The problem is not the deficits themselves: were they spent on education, transportation, the
environment, and health care they would not only produce a stronger and more stable economy but
vastly improve the well-being of the bottom four-fifths of the income scale. But these are precisely what
Bush and company want to destroy: the tax cuts are aimed at starving the federal government of
resources and forcing it to slash spending on everything except the military.
These policies are feeding into a “perfect fiscal storm.” The exploding budget deficits reduce national
saving, deepening the country’s international deficit and increasing its dependence on foreign capital
to pay for domestic consumption and investment. The damage at home comes from the fiscal squeeze
on state and local government (SLG), the worst since the 1930s. Cutbacks in federal aid to SLGs, on the
heels of the end of revenue-sharing in 1986, have come at a time when the federal government is
dumping heavier fiscal responsibilities on SLGs, chiefly for Medicaid, Social Security Insurance for lowincome households, and new domestic security measures in the wake of 9/11. State governments now
face deficits totaling $60 to $85 billion over the next year—13 to 18 percent of state expenditures.
Since all states except Vermont are required by constitution or statute to run balanced budgets, the
deficits are forcing SLGs to make deep cuts in spending on education, public safety, libraries, and
parks and hike taxes in the face of recession—the opposite of what the doctor ordered. Thus,
discordant, even contradictory policies are adopted by the different levels of government, resulting in
impairment of the functioning of the economic system as a whole. If hegemony runs on economic
efficiency, the American system of government leaves something to be desired, and the manipulation
of it by the radical right-wing oligarchy now in power amounts to “lunacy,” as one voice of global
capital, the Financial Times, calls it.13
US hegemony is declining and will continue to decline so we should do HSR
Chomsky 08 (Noam Chomsky, December 2008, “US hegemony will continue to decline,
says Chomsky”, Share the World’s Resources, http://www.stwr.org/united-states-ofamerica/us-hegemony-will-continue-to-decline-says-chomsky.html)
I think that US hegemony will continue to decline as the world becomes more diverse. That process
has been underway for a long time. US power peaked at the end of World War II, when it had literally
half the world's wealth and incomparable military power and security. By 1970, its share of global
wealth had declined by about half, and it has remained fairly stable since then. In some important
respects, US domination has weakened. One important illustration is Latin America, Washington's
traditional "backyard." For the first time since European colonization 500 years ago, South America is
making significant progress towards integration and independence, and is also establishing South-South
relations independent of the US, specifically with China, but elsewhere as well. That is a serious matter
for US planners. As it was discussiCng the transcendent importance of destroying Chilean democracy in
1971, Nixon's National Security Council warned that if the US cannot control Latin America, it cannot
expect "to achieve a successful order elsewhere in the world" -- that is, to control the rest of the
world. Controlling Latin America has become far more difficult in recent years.
Even Iran says US power is declining
UPI ’10 (UPI, February 2010, “U.S. Hegemony declining, Iran Says”, UPI,
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/02/18/US-hegemony-declining-Iran-says/UPI45511266515045/)
U.S. supremacy in the Middle East is on the decline because of failed Washington strategies, said
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad during meetings in Tehran with Belarusian officials said the U.S. influence in the region
was on the decline, the official Islamic Republic News Agency reports.
"The U.S. supremacy is melting away just like snow in front of the sun," the Iranian president said.
US competitiveness is decreasing
(BRIAN C. ZHANG , January 20, 2012, “HBS Survey Reveals Decreasing U.S. Competitiveness in
Global Economy”, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/20/HBS-US-Competitiveness-problem/
, AAW)
A survey of nearly 10,000 Harvard Business School alumni revealed a stark lack of confidence in
America’s competitiveness in the global economy. According to the survey, conducted by two HBS
professors, 66 percent of the HBS alumni polled believe that the U.S. is falling behind emerging
markets, while just 8 percent see it advancing. HBS Dean Nitin Nohria and professors Michael E.
Porter and Jan W. Rivkin, who led the survey, presented the findings at the National Press Club
in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Respondents came from 49 states and 121 foreign
countries, and more than a quarter of the alumni said that they hold a senior leadership
position.The survey asked whether these business leaders had been personally involved in relocation
decisions within the past year. Of 1,767 alumni who had faced such situations, 57 percent were
debating whether to move their business activities out of the U.S. Just 9 percent were mulling a
relocation into the U.S. The most common offshore locations considered were China, which 42
percent of those alumni said they had considered, and India, which 38 percent said they had
considered. Brazil, Mexico, and Singapore were also frequently considered as new business
destinations.“The U.S. is losing out on business location decisions at an alarming rate,” Porter said in
a press release. “However, the U.S. retains its core strengths in a number of important areas
such as university education, innovation, and entrepreneurship, which means that we have the
resources to reverse this trend.” Respondents cited government regulation and taxes, as well as the
cost of hiring workers in America and concerns about immigration issues, as factors that hindered
their firms from creating jobs stateside. “One of the most important aspects of this survey was its
effort to pinpoint the roots of the country’s competitiveness problem,” Rivkin said in the press
release. “This provides important insight for leaders who are seeking ways to boost America’s
long-run prosperity.” In a summary of the survey's results which was released online, Porter and
Rivkin wrote, “A fundamentally weakened U.S. economy is not only an American problem but a global
risk.” Their survey is part of the Business School’s U.S. Competitiveness Project. Its results will
be published in the Harvard Business Review in March along with data gathered by other
researchers involved in the initiative who are analyzing factors that affect the nation’s
competitive standing internationally.
U.S Lagging Behind in Transportation
(Robert Puentes, 11. Infrastructure investment and u.s competitiveness, http://www.cfr.org/unitedstates/infrastructure-investment-us-competitiveness/p24585 LT)
China, India, and European nations are spending--or have spent--the equivalent of hundreds of billions
of dollars on efficient public transportation, energy, and water systems. Meanwhile, the American
Society of Civil Engineers estimated in 2005 that it would take $1.6 trillion simply to make U.S.
infrastructure dependable and safe. The obvious, negative impact of this situation on our global
competitiveness, quality of life, and ability to create American jobs is a problem we no longer can
ignore.
Survey Reveals Decreasing Global Competiveness In World Economy
Zhang 2012
http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2012/1/20/HBS-US-Competitiveness-problem/
By BRIAN C. ZHANG, CRIMSON STAFF WRITER
Published: Friday, January 20, 2012
A survey of nearly 10,000 Harvard Business School alumni revealed a stark lack of confidence in
America’s competitiveness in the global economy. According to the survey, conducted by two HBS
professors, 66 percent of the HBS alumni polled believe that the U.S. is falling behind emerging
markets, while just 8 percent see it advancing. HBS Dean Nitin Nohria and professors Michael E. Porter
and Jan W. Rivkin, who led the survey, presented the findings at the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. Respondents came from 49 states and 121 foreign countries, and
more than a quarter of the alumni said that they hold a senior leadership position. The survey asked
whether these business leaders had been personally involved in relocation decisions within the past
year. Of 1,767 alumni who had faced such situations, 57 percent were debating whether to move
their business activities out of the U.S. Just 9 percent were mulling a relocation into the U.S. The
most common offshore locations considered were China, which 42 percent of those alumni said
they had considered, and India, which 38 percent said they had considered. Brazil, Mexico, and
Singapore were also frequently considered as new business destinations.“The U.S. is losing out on
business location decisions at an alarming rate,” Porter said in a press release. “However, the U.S.
retains its core strengths in a number of important areas such as university education, innovation,
and entrepreneurship, which means that we have the resources to reverse this trend.Ӧ
Respondents cited government regulation and taxes, as well as the cost of hiring workers in
America and concerns about immigration issues, as factors that hindered their firms from creating
jobs stateside. “One of the most important aspects of this survey was its effort to pinpoint the roots
of the country’s competitiveness problem,” Rivkin said in the press release. “This provides
important insight for leaders who are seeking ways to boost America’s long-run prosperity.” In a
summary of the survey's results which was released online, Porter and Rivkin wrote, “A fundamentally
weakened U.S. economy is not only an American problem but a global risk.” Their survey is part of
the Business School’s U.S. Competitiveness Project. Its results will be published in the Harvard
Business Review in March along with data gathered by other researchers involved in the initiative
who are analyzing factors that affect the nation’s competitive standing internationally
America soft power is declineing
Nye,2004- Assistant secretary of defense, PL, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-snye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-soft-power#
Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to
attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a
result. According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies have had
a negative effect on their view of the United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a majority of Europeans believes
that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes
undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the United States to achieve its goals without resorting to
coercion or payment.
United State's Soft Power is Declining
(JOSHUA KURLANTZICK, 2006, “The Decline of American Soft Power”
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/Kurlantzick.pdf “)
A study released in August by Anholt-GMI, an organization that ranks the “brands” of nations, found that respondents from a range of
countries ranked the United States only eleventh overall in terms of its cultural, political, popular, and business attractiveness. The United
States was last in the rating for cultural heritage, which the survey’s author said reflected widespread skepticism about Americans’ “wisdom,
intelligence, and integrity.” America’s “governance, its cultural heritage, and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the
world,” Simon Anholt, the author, bluntly told the Financial Times. “Foreigners are transferring anger at the US government to anger at the
United States and anger at US business,” agreed Keith Reinhard, head of a coalition of companies, Business for Diplomatic Action, that is
concerned about America’s declining image. This anger can prove fatal: in Karachi, irate Pakistanis have attacked a Kentucky Fried Chicken
outlet, an American symbol, four times in the past four years. In the most brutal attack, a mob stormed the KFC and burned it to the ground,
killing six people inside. Other studies have revealed similar results. Although a recent Pew survey showed slight improvement in America’s
standing in the world, the downward trend remains unmistakable. In a survey this year of 21 nations by the British Broadcasting Corporation
(BBC), only one-third of those polled wanted American values to spread in their nation. Even as US military power has surpassed that of all
rivals, America’s vital soft power may be disintegrating.
Now is key time to revive economy
The US should fund HSR since China’s economy is rising
Shor 12 (Francis Shor, January 2012, “Declining US Hegemony and Rising Chinese
Power: A Formula For Conflict”, Perspectives on Global Development and Technology,
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/download;jsessionid=555ilcg63srpe.alexandra?pub=infobike%
3a%2f%2fbrill%2fpgdt%2f2012%2f00000011%2f00000001%2fart00013&mimetype=text%2fhtml&exitTa
rgetId=1342820432062)
Compounding the energy strains and resource competition are additional environmental catastrophes in
the form of global warming and desertification. As Gulick (2011), in a skeptical analysis of China’s rise,
warns:
By impinging on the very process of world-systemic reproduction itself, the mutually interpenetrating
character of energy resource bottlenecks and extreme climate perturbations should make an already
unlikely transition in world-systemic leadership between a declining US and a rising China even more
inconceivable—especially considering these bottlenecks and perturbations will both compound China’s
well-documented explosion of peasant and worker protests and hamstring the capacity of the Chinese
state to respond to myriad crises. (p. 25)
Employment rate key to economy
Unemployment causes war and hurts the economy
Auslin and Lachman, 09
(Michael, AEI's [American Enterprise Institute] director of Japan Studies, was an associate professor of
history and senior research fellow at the MacMillan Center, and Desmond, AEI fellow, former deputy
director in the International Monetary Fund's Policy Development and Review Department, “The Global
Economy Unravels” Forbes, 3-6, http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/06/global-economy-unravelsopinions-contributors-g20.html Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to
put down riots in its Far East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated
on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's bargain falls apart, then
wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's
neighbors, is likely. Even apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or
possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the
country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of
temporary employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's
unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010; Spanish unions are already
protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the
country. Meanwhile, in Greece, workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face
dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim
nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million
immigrants since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including
almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not bode well for the rest of Europe.
A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these
countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic
and territorial disputes in all regions of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually
know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small explosions that coalesce into a big
bang.
Manufacturing sector key to economy
Manufacturing is key to economic growth ad world policy-makers
Mathuros, 12- Director of World Economic Forum (Fon, Talent is Key to Future of Manufacturing Industry, JKT,
http://www.weforum.org/news/talent-key-future-manufacturing-industry)
Talent, the ability to innovate and the strategic use of public policy will play a significant role in
defining the manufacturing sector’s competitiveness in developed and emerging economies, according
to the The Future of Manufacturing report released today by the World Economic Forum.
Written in collaboration with Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, the study finds that the global
manufacturing ecosystem is undergoing a dramatic transformation, with many emerging economies
developing significant manufacturing and innovation capabilities, enabling them to produce
increasingly complex products and leading to the globaliza tion of manufacturing supply chains. Fading
labour rate arbitrage, exposure to currency volatility, sovereign debt pressures and emerging
protectionist policies will be countervailing forces to further globalization of manufacturing value chains.
The report highlights key trends that will define manufacturing competition over the next 20 years and
which will require the attention and collaboration of policy-makers, civil society and business leaders.
With an estimated 10 million manufacturing jobs worldwide that cannot be filled today due to a growing
skills gap, the report identifies talent as one of the key differentiators that will define the future of the
sector.
Despite the high unemployment rate in many developed economies, companies are struggling to fill
manufacturing jobs with the right talent. Several countries are taking action. India, for example, has
created the National Skill Development Corporation (NSDC), a public-private partnership set up to
identify and fund vocational education businesses. To date, NSDC has approved US$ 150 million in
funding for 29 ventures that will train 40 million youth in diverse trades over the next 10 years.
“Manufacturing is a critical driver of economic growth and job creation in emerging economies such as
Brazil, China and India,” said John Moavenzadeh, Senior Director, Mobility Industries, World Economic
Forum. “Developed countries are increasingly recognizing the importance of coordinated policies that
enhance the high value-added components of manufacturing supply chains.”
The other top differentiators identified in the report include the strategic use of public policy and the
ability to innovate. The report also shows that the strategic use of public policy as an enabler of
economic development will intensify, resulting in a competition between nations for policy
effectiveness and placing a premium on collaboration between policy-makers and business leaders to
create win-win outcomes.
Manufacturing is a part of the American Economy and is starting to go away
Ettlinger, Gordon 11- Center for American Progress (Micheal, Kate, “The Importance and Promise of American Manufacturing,”
JKT, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/manufacturing.html)
Manufacturing is critically important to the American economy. For generations, the strength of our
country rested on the power of our factory floors—both the machines and the men and women who
worked them. We need manufacturing to continue to be a bedrock of strength for generations to come.
Manufacturing is woven into the structure of our economy: Its importance goes far beyond what
happens behind the factory gates. The strength or weakness of American manufacturing carries
implications for the entire economy, our national security, and the well-being of all Americans.
Manufacturing today accounts for 12 percent of the U.S. economy and about 11 percent of the
private-sector workforce. But its significance is even greater than these numbers would suggest. The
direct impact of manufacturing is only a part of the picture. First, jobs in the manufacturing sector are
good middle-class jobs for millions of Americans. Those jobs serve an important role, offering
economic opportunity to hard-working, middle-skill workers. This creates upward mobility and
broadens and strengthens the middle class to the benefit of the entire economy. What’s more, U.S.based manufacturing underpins a broad range of jobs that are quite different from the usual image of
manufacturing. These are higher-skill service jobs that include the accountants, bankers, and lawyers
that are associated with any industry, as well as a broad range of other jobs including basic research and
technology development, product and process engineering and design, operations and maintenance,
transportation, testing, and lab work. Many of these jobs are critical to American technology and
innovation leadership. The problem today is this: Many multinational corporations may for a period
keep these higher-skill jobs here at home while they move basic manufacturing elsewhere in response
to other countries’ subsidies, the search for cheaper labor costs, and the desire for more direct access
to overseas markets, but eventually many of these service jobs will follow. When the basic
manufacturing leaves, the feedback loop from the manufacturing floor to the rest of a manufacturing
operation—a critical element in the innovative process—is eventually broken. To maintain that feedback
loop, companies need to move higher-skill jobs to where they do their manufacturing.
Manufacturing decreases the trade deficit making the US economy stronger
Helper, Krueger, Wail 12- Metropolitain Policy Program Brookings (Susan, Timothy, Howard, “Why Does Manufacturing
Matter? Which Manufacturing Matters? A Policy Framework,” JKT, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research)
The nation has had a trade deficit in every year since 1976 but that deficit has been extraordinarily high
during the early 21st century. It has been at least 2.7 percent of GDP in every year since 1999. (Before
1999, the trade deficit reached 2.7 percent or more only during 1984-87.) Before the Great Recession
began in 2007, the trade deficit had been increasing steadily since the late 1990s, reaching a record high
of 5.6 percent of GDP before falling during the recession. However, it began rising again after the
recession, increasing from 2.7 percent of GDP in 2009 to 3.9 percent in the second quarter of 2011—a
percentage that was still higher than in any year after 1999. The trade deficit matters for two reasons.
First, it reduces national income and employment in both the short term and the long term. In the short
term a large trade deficit makes the still sluggish eco- nomic recovery even more so, because imports
create fewer jobs in the United States than do goods or services provided domestically. In the long term
the trade deficit can gradually erode the ability of the United States to have a dynamic, innovationdriven economy because Americans can lose the ability to innovate if they buy innovative products
from abroad rather than make them at home. The trade deficit also matters because it adds to the
nation’s indebtedness to other nations. A trade deficit has to be paid for by borrowing from abroad.
That debt must eventually be repaid out of future U.S. income. A small trade deficit is easy for the
nation to handle if long-term economic growth is mod-est or better. That was the situation from 1976
through 1998, when the trade deficit averaged only 1.5 percent of GDP and inflation-adjusted GDP grew
at a 3 percent annual rate. However, a persistent, large trade deficit could cause the nation’s future
standard of living to fall below today’s level. That is the danger the nation faces today, with a trade
deficit of more than 3 percent of GDP and inflation- adjusted GDP growth at only 1.6 percent from the
second quarter of 2010 through the second quarter of 2011.51
America Needs to Build HSR to Have Our Transportations be Great Again
(Elizabeth Dovell, 12. U.S rail infrastructure, http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-railinfrastructure/p27585 LT)
Rail is an essential component of a balanced national transportation (PDF) system and a globally
competitive economy. The American Society of Civil Engineers, which graded U.S. rail infrastructure with
a C-, notes that the rail industry requires $200 billion in investment by 2035 to meet projected future
demand. In the United States, modern freight and passenger rail systems share the same corridors and
infrastructure. But while privately owned U.S. freight has succeeded in remaining competitive with other
transportation modes, federally run passenger rail has struggled. Experts say the continued success of
freight rail will require billions in new funding to avoid congestion, particularly if plans for expanding
passenger rail proceed.
Funding for the upkeep and expansion of passenger rail--which receives significantly less in federal
subsidies than other transportation modes--has remained a controversial issue in Washington. The
Obama administration's plan to expand high-speed rail (sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per
hour) faces fierce opposition. Supporters cite the unique benefits of high-speed rail, including energy
savings, more efficient mobility, and greater manufacturing opportunities for U.S. companies. Moreover,
many U.S. economic competitors in Asia and Europe are making significant investments in HSR
(WashPost). Opponents argue the economic benefits of HSR rarely surpass the costs, and point out that
most systems do not turn a profit and rely heavily on government subsidies.
Collapse of oil economy leads to war
The world's oil crisis will lead to economic collapse
Stephen Leeb, Glen Strathy. 06 (The Coming Economic Collapse: How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs
$200 a Barrel, April 2006, "The Bursting of the Tech Bubble: Did Our Most Recent Brush with Disaster
Teach Us Anything?",
<http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=cpz7J6Lwf5UC&oi=fnd&pg=PP&dq=oil+economic+colla
pse&ots=VjXnKweclz&sig=LhS6vLtqif4GSbIFfa5qnTLjX0#v=onepage&q=oil%20economic%20collapse&f=false>
An economic crisis is near at hand in America today, the kind of dramatic earth shattering crisis that
periodically threatens the very survival of civilization. More specifically, it is an energy crisis brought
about by the conflict between rising global demand for energy and our growing inability to increase
energy production.
I first drew attention to this crisis in 2004 book, The Oil Factor. The book was controversial, particularly
because of its prediction that oil prices would reach $100 a barrel by the end of this decade. Since its
publication, oil, gasoline, and natural gas prices have hit historic highs. Meanwhile, energy
supply/demand fundamentals have worsened to the point that it now appears $200 a barrel by the
end of the decade is entirely probable. Naturally, the negative impact this will have on our economy,
not to mention your pocketbook, will be considerable.
However, what alarms us most about this crisis is the extent to which our nation's leaders and experts
remain in denial concerning it. Most authorities continue to reassure the public that today's soaring
energy prices are temporarty that oil reserves are virtually limitless, and that production will outpace
demand for the remainder of our lives. This is an outright contradiction of the facts. The trends in place
for the last thirty years show declining returns from oil exploration, peaking or declining oil production
everywhere but in a few OPEC nations, and increasing demand for energy, especially among the world's
largest developing nations.
HSR reduces oil dependency
Most energy efficient and sustainable form of transportation, HSR can end oil
dependency
US High Speed Rail Association
Capitol Hill Office at Union Station
<http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/energysecurity.html
Building an electrically-powered national high speed rail network across America is the single most
powerful thing we can do to get the nation off oil and into a secure, sustainable form of mobility. A
national network of high speed trains can be powered by a combination of renewable energy
sources including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal energy.
If America keeps depending on oil they will soon economically crash
US High Speed Rail Association
Capitol Hill Office at Union Station
<http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/energysecurity.html
As the world oil supply begins to peak and then irreversibly declines, prices will rise faster, and the
situation will get far worse for America if we don't quickly reduce our national oil dependency. This
dependency cuts across our entire society and affects our daily survival. Oil provides 95% of the energy
to grow, process and deliver food to the nation. Our entire national transportation system is
powered mostly by oil. Numerous daily products we use are made from oil. We use 20 million barrels
of oil every day - just in America - 70% of it for transportation. Of the 20 million barrels we consume,
we import 2/3 of this oil (13 million barrels per day) from foreign sources, many in unstable places. No
combination of drilling off our coasts, hydrogen fuel cells, natural gas, biofuels, and used french fry oil
will solve this and carry 300 million Americans into the future. None of these fuels can be scaled up to
anywhere near the amount of liquid fuel we use daily in any practical, economical, or sustainable way.
America heavily relies on oil and uses the most oil in inefficient way of their
transportation system
US High Speed Rail Association
Capitol Hill Office at Union Station
<http://www.ushsr.com/benefits/energysecurity.html
America's dependency on oil is the most severe in the world, and inevitably pulls us into
costly resource wars. It also pushes us into exploring for oil in extreme locations such as 10,000 feet
deep below the Gulf of Mexico. We use 25% of the entire world's oil supply, yet we only have 5% of
the world's population. We use 8-10 times more oil per person per day than Europeans, and they have
faster, easier and better mobility than we do. The extremely high daily oil consumption of Americans is
not due to a higher standard of living, but because of the extremely inefficient nature of our national
transportation system �based on individual vehicles powered by internal combustion engines,
combined with our sprawling community designs that force people into cars for every trip.
HSR decreases oil consumption by more than 50%
Magee, 12- Department of defense and treasury and writer for TBQY (Erin Kent, High Speed Rail: The Time is Now, JKT,
http://tbqy.com/?p=2236)
Since increasing oil supply is proving to be practically impossible, reducing demand is the only viable
solution. Ramping up forms of transportation that consume little or no oil is the heart of the solution.
Creating a national transportation network based on a system of electric trains throughout the country
will take a huge bite out of our unsustainable appetite for oil, while increasing mobility, efficiency, global
competitiveness and national security. In conjuction with butanol production, High-Speed Rail will
reduce our dependence on foreign oil by more than 50% (2,3) High-Speed Rail is the large-scale,
comprehensive solution to the oil supply problem, and is the most significant way to reduce our daily
consumption of oil quickly and efficiently while maintaining our prosperity and economic growth.
Economic collapse leads to war
Economic downturn, or recession, leads to war
Shamus Cooke. 12 (Global Research.ca, July 20, 2012. "How Economic Recessions Cause Wars and
Revolutions", <http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19080>
When the world market shrinks during a recession — since consumers can afford to buy fewer goods
— the urge to dominate markets via war increases dramatically. These same shrinking markets compel
international corporations, based in different nations, to insanely compete for markets, raw materials,
and cheap labor. War is a very logical outcome in such circumstances. President Obama reminds us:
“The world’s fastest-growing markets are outside our borders. We need to compete for those
customers because other nations are competing for them.” Having a giant military establishment to
back them up enables U.S. corporations to be better “competitors” than other nations.
War also serves as a valuable distraction to an angry public which is demanding jobs, higher wages,
health care, well funded public education, and taxes on the wealthy. Better to channel this anger into
hatred toward a “foreign enemy.”
The above issues are the ones certain to dominate major events in the coming years. The class war that
is erupting as a result of the global depression will effect the majority of people in many nations,
through joblessness, shrinking wages, the destruction of government services, or war. As working
people in the U.S. begin a fight against these policies, the corporate elite will stop at nothing to
implement them, and the social unrest in Europe will be transferred to the U.S. More working people
will come to the realization that an economic system owned by giant corporations — themselves owned
by very wealthy individuals — is irrational, and needs to be replaced.
Economic collapse leads to war
(Justin Raimundo, NOVEMBER 5, 2011, “When economic collapse leads to war...”,
http://concarlitos.com/2011/11/05/when-economic-collapse-leads-to-war/ , AAW)
The War Party, however, has another problem, and that is the objective factors which militate against
another war at this time, number one being the imminent collapse of the world economic system, and
specifically the instability of the banks. As the dominoes of the Euro-zone fall one upon the other, and
the US banking system itself comes under threat, the question of how to finance this war, even while
its economic consequences – starting with $200 a barrel oil prices – are visited upon our heads.
This problem can be solved, however, if the political consequences of this “perfect storm” of
war and economic implosion line up with the stars. With America at war, the economic privations
we will have endured anyway will be masked by the general numbness induced by the atmosphere of
crisis. Your home has been foreclosed? You’ve lost your job, or you can’t get to your job because it
costs $100 in gas to travel one way? Blame it on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the “nuclear madman” of
the Middle East.
The very real financial crisis of the West will be resolved by the introduction of yet another crisis, in
this case a completely manufactured and ginned up one. Imbued with new authority, the Obama
administration will take full advantage of the wartime atmosphere to impose “emergency”
economic measures, commandeering the economy in the name of “national security” and
getting the Republicans to go along with it on “patriotic” grounds. We’ll be subjected to endless
demands for bipartisan “unity” in the face of a foreign “threat,” with both “left” and “right”
factions of the War Party inundating the air waves and the blogosphere with war propaganda.
Can it be stopped? Looming economic disaster can’t be forestalled much longer: no matter how
many band-aids they put on the cancer, the only cure for the underlying illness is the shock of
deflation – and a meteoric plunge in the standard of living. The social and political consequences of
such a descent would threaten the very foundations of our political system, and tear the fabric of
society apart: war, in such a circumstance, is a unifying factor, one that directs the energy and
anger of the populace outward, at some fake foreign “enemy,” rather than at the real enemy,
which is right there in Washington, D.C.
In the face of this, the supposedly “anti-government” ideology of the Republican “tea party” would
vanish overnight, and aside from criticizing the President for not prosecuting the war with sufficient
militance, the GOP would line up behind the commander-in-chief. A new comity would come to
Washington. Cut the budget? Not in wartime! The only way the Republicans are going to allow a
tax hike, which the Obamaites have been yearning for – and which Occupy Wall Street supports
in the form of a “transaction tax” – will be if they call it a “war tax,” or a “kill the Muslims tax.”
Such a meeting of the minds is in the works.
As both parties march us off to war with Iran, the reality of who holds the power in this country
comes ever clearer in focus: the “team of rivals” that binds the Obamaites to the Clintons also
includes to the Republican party establishment when it comes to the question of war and
peace. All these factions compete with each other in seeing how low they can kowtow to the
Israel lobby: Pat Buchanan’s quip that Washington is “Israeli-occupied territory” is right on the
mark.
U.S. softpower prevents war
Soft Power creates alliances with others through benevolence rather than fear
Nye ’04 ( Joseph S. Nye Jr., August 2004, “The Benefits of Soft Power”, Working
Knowledge, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html)
Soft power rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others. In the business world, smart
executives know that leadership is not just a matter of issuing commands, but also involves leading by
example and attracting others to do what you want. Similarly, contemporary practices of communitybased policing rely on making the police sufficiently friendly and attractive that a community wants to
help them achieve shared objectives.
Political leaders have long understood the power that comes from attraction. If I can get you to want
to do what I want, then I do not have to use carrots or sticks to make you do it. Soft power is a staple of
daily democratic politics. The ability to establish preferences tends to be associated with intangible
assets such as an attractive personality, culture, political values and institutions, and policies that are
seen as legitimate or having moral authority. If a leader represents values that others want to follow,
it will cost less to lead.
Soft power is not merely the same as influence. After all, influence can also rest on the hard power of
threats or payments. And soft power is more than just persuasion or the ability to move people by
argument, though that is an important part of it. It is also the ability to attract, and attraction often
leads to acquiescence. Simply put, in behavioral terms, soft power is attractive power. Soft power
resources are the assets that produce such attraction.
If I am persuaded to go along with your purposes without any explicit threat or exchange taking place—
in short, if my behavior is determined by an observable but intangible attraction—soft power is at work.
Soft power uses a different type of currency—not force, not money—to engender cooperation. It uses
an attraction to shared values, and the justness and duty of contributing to the achievement of those
values.
Soft Power should be emphasized as a key element in leadership
Nye ’04 ( Joseph S. Nye Jr., August 2004, “The Benefits of Soft Power”, Working
Knowledge, http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/4290.html)
Soft power has always been a key element of leadership. The power to attract—to get others to want
what you want, to frame the issues, to set the agenda—has its roots in thousands of years of human
experience. Skillful leaders have always understood that attractiveness stems from credibility and
legitimacy. Power has never flowed solely from the barrel of a gun; even the most brutal dictators
have relied on attraction as well as fear.
When the United States paid insufficient attention to issues of legitimacy and credibility in the way it
went about its policy on Iraq, polls showed a dramatic drop in American soft power. That did not
prevent the United States from entering Iraq, but it meant that it had to pay higher costs in the blood
and treasure than would otherwise have been the case. Similarly, if Yasser Arafat had chosen the soft
power model of Gandhi or Martin Luther King rather than the hard power of terrorism, he could have
attracted moderate Israelis and would have a Palestinian state by now. I said at the start that leadership
is inextricably intertwined with power. Leaders have to make crucial choices about the types of power
that they use. Woe be to followers of those leaders who ignore or devalue the significance of soft
power.
A lessening amount of soft power increases the threat of terrorism
Joseph S. Nye Jr. 04 (The Deline of America's Soft Power - Why Washington Should Worry, June 2004,
"The Decline of America's Soft Power",
<http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/fora83&div=43&g_sent=1&collection=journals>
The United States cannot confront the new threat of terrorism without the cooperation of other
countries. Of course, other governments will often cooperate out of self interest. But the extent of their
cooperation often depends on the attractiveness of the United States.
Soft power, therefore, is not just a matter of ephemeral popularity. It is a means of obtaining
outcomes the US wants. When Washington discounts the importance of its attractiveness abroad it
pays a steep price. When the US becomes so unpopular that being pro-American is akiss of death in
other countries' domestic politics, foreign political leaders are unlikely to make helpful concessions
(witness the defiance of Chile, Mexico, and Turkey in March 2003). And when US policies lose their
legitimacy in the eyes of others, distrust grows, reducing US leverage in international affairs.
Some hard-line skeptics might counter that, whatever its merits, soft power has little importance in the
current war against terrorism; after all, Osama bin Laden and his followers are repelled, not attracted,
by America culture and values. But this claim ignores the real metric of success in the current war,
articulated in Rumsfeld's now-famous memo that was leaked in February 2003: "Are we capturing,
killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics
are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
The current struggle against Islamist terrorism is not a clash of civilizations; it is a contest closely tied
to the civil war raging within Islamic civilization between moderates and extremists. The US and its
allies will win only if they adopt policies that appeal to those moderates and use public diplomacy
effectively to communicate that appeal. Yet the world's only superpower, and the leader in the
information revolution, spends as little on public diplomacy as does France or the United Kingdom - and
is all too often outgunned in the propaganda war by fundamentalists hiding in caves.
Effective US leadership can prevent nuclear war
Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay Khalilzad, Spring 1995, “The United States and the world after
the Cold War, Washington Quarterly)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the
rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best
long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a
world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the
global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free
markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing
cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional
hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the
rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global
cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership
would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power
system.
US retrenchment leads to war and instability
Thayer 06 (Bradley A. Thayer, November 2006, “In Defense of Primacy”, The National
Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/article/in-defense-of-primacy-1300)
A grand strategy based on American primacy means ensuring the United States stays the world's
number one power-the diplomatic, economic and military leader. Those arguing against primacy claim
that the United States should retrench, either because the United States lacks the power to maintain
its primacy and should withdraw from its global commitments, or because the maintenance of
primacy will lead the United States into the trap of "imperial overstretch." In the previous issue of The
National Interest, Christopher Layne warned of these dangers of primacy and called for retrenchment.1
Those arguing for a grand strategy of retrenchment are a diverse lot. They include isolationists, who
want no foreign military commitments; selective engagers, who want U.S. military commitments to
centers of economic might; and offshore balancers, who want a modified form of selective
engagement that would have the United States abandon its landpower presence abroad in favor of
relying on airpower and seapower to defend its interests.
But retrenchment, in any of its guises, must be avoided. If the United States adopted such a strategy, it
would be a profound strategic mistake that would lead to far greater instability and war in the world,
imperil American security and deny the United States and its allies the benefits of primacy.
US hegemony is globally effective if power is not abused
Min 05 (Min Ye, Jan 2005, “The U.S. Hegemony and Implication for China”, Princeton
University, http://www.chinaipa.org/cpaq/v1i1/Paper_Ye.pdf)
Finally, as John Ikenberry and other scholars observed, the U.S unipolarity is a hegemony based on
“constitutional order”. At the end of the World War II, alongside its supremacy in power, the U.S also
established the UN, IMF, World Bank, and other institutions in dealing with weapons proliferation and
managing relations with allies. U.S exercise of power was self-restraint through its memberships in the
international institutions. Consequently, the other nations in the world can not only benefit from this
constitutional order but to an extent exercise checks on the sole superpower and feel safer even in
the unipolar world.
Use HSR to increase currently declining US hegemony
Slaten 09 (Kevin Slaten, Winter 2009, “The Decline of U.S. Hegemony: Regaining
International Consent”, Journal of Politics and International Affairs,
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/2009/03/15/decline-of-u.s.-hegemony-regaining-internationalconsent/bn9t)
This essay argues that during the Clinton Administration, the U.S. possessed a significant amount of
authority over most NATO countries- enough authority that America lead hegemony among those
states- and those states consented to American actions in international relations. Additionally, the
study shows that this authority declined significantly due to policy changes during the Bush
Administration.
Soft Power is crucial to success in world politics
(Joseph S. Nye, Jr., May/June 2004 , “Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics”,
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59732/g-john-ikenberry/soft-power-the-means-to-success-inworld-politics , AAW)
Coined by Nye in the late 1980s, the term "soft power" -- the ability of a country to persuade others to
do what it wants without force or coercion -- is now widely invoked in foreign policy debates. This
short book reintroduces the idea and argues for its relevance in forming post-September 11
U.S. foreign policy. Nye argues that successful states need both hard and soft power -- the ability to
coerce others as well as the ability to shape their long-term attitudes and preferences. The United
States can dominate others, but it has also excelled in projecting soft power, with the help of its
companies, foundations, universities, churches, and other institutions of civil society; U.S. culture,
ideals, and values have been extraordinarily important in helping Washington attract partners and
supporters. Nye acknowledges the limits of soft power: it tends to have diffuse effects on the
outside world and is not easily wielded to achieve specific outcomes. Indeed, societies often
embrace American values and culture but resist U.S. foreign policies. But overall, Nye's message is
that U.S. security hinges as much on winning hearts and minds as it does on winning wars.
US soft power prevents war
(JOSEPH S. NYE JR., 2011, “The War on Soft Power”,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/04/12/the_war_on_soft_power , AAW)
Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama and Congress struggled until the 11th hour to agree on budget
cuts that would avert a government shutdown. The United States' budget deficit is a serious problem,
and there have been serious proposals to deal with it, such as those by the bipartisan Bowles-Simpson
Commission. But last week's efforts were not a serious solution. They were focused solely on the 12
percent of the budget that is non-military discretionary expenditure, rather than the big-ticket items of
entitlements, military expenditure, and tax changes that increase revenue. Yet while last week's cuts
failed to do much about the deficit, they could do serious damage to U.S. foreign policy. On Tuesday,
the axe fell: The State Department and foreign operations budget was slashed by $8.5 billion -- a
pittance when compared to military spending, but one that could put a serious dent in the United
States' ability to positively influence events abroad. The sad irony is that the Obama administration
had been moving things in the right direction. When Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, she
spoke of the importance of a "smart power" strategy, combining the United States' hard and softpower resources. Her Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, and her efforts (along with
USAID chief Rajiv Shah) to revamp the United States' aid bureaucracy and budget were important steps
in that direction. Now, in the name of an illusory contribution to deficit reduction (when you're talking
about deficits in the trillions, $38 billion in savings is a drop in the bucket), those efforts have been set
back. Polls consistently show a popular misconception that aid is a significant part of the U.S. federal
budget, when in fact it amounts to less than 1 percent. Thus, congressional cuts to aid in the name of
deficit reduction are an easy vote, but a cheap shot. In 2007, Richard Armitage and I co-chaired a
bipartisan Smart Power Commission of members of Congress, former ambassadors, retired military
officers, and heads of non-profit organizations at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in
Washington. We concluded that America's image and influence had declined in recent years and that
the United States had to move from exporting fear to inspiring optimism and hope. The Smart Power
Commission was not alone in this conclusion. Even when he was in the George W. Bush administration,
Defense Secretary Robert Gates called on Congress to commit more money and effort to soft-power
tools including diplomacy, economic assistance, and communications because the military alone cannot
defend America's interests around the world. He pointed out that military spending then totaled nearly
half a trillion dollars annually, compared with a State Department budget of just $36 billion. In his
words, "I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better
integrating it with hard power." He acknowledged that for the secretary of defense to plead for more
resources for the State Department was as odd as a man biting a dog, but these are not normal times.
Since then, the ratio of the budgets has become even more unbalanced.This is not to belittle the
Pentagon, where I once served as an assistant secretary. Military force is obviously a source of hard
power, but the same resource can sometimes contribute to soft-power behavior. A well-run military can
be a source of prestige, and military-to-military cooperation and training programs, for example, can
establish transnational networks that enhance a country's soft power. The U.S. military's impressive
performance in providing humanitarian relief after the Indian Ocean tsunami and the South Asian
earthquake in 2005 helped restore the attractiveness of the United States; the military's role in the
aftermath of the recent Japanese earthquake and tsunami is having a similar effect. Of course, misusing
military resources can also undercut soft power. The Soviet Union had a great deal of soft power in
the years after World War II, but destroyed it by using hard power against Hungary and
Czechoslovakia. Brutality and indifference to just-war principles of discrimination and proportionality
can also eviscerate legitimacy. Whatever admiration the crisp efficiency of the Iraq invasion inspired in
the eyes of some foreigners, it was undercut by the subsequent inefficiency of the occupation and the
scenes of mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Smart power is the ability to combine the hard
power of coercion or payment with the soft power of attraction into a successful strategy. U.S. foreign
policy has tended to over-rely on hard power in recent years because it is the most direct and visible
source of American strength. The Pentagon is the best-trained and best-resourced arm of the U.S.
government, but there are limits to what hard power can achieve on its own. Democracy, human rights,
and civil society are not best promoted with the barrel of a gun. It is true that the U.S. military has an
impressive operational capacity, but the practice of turning to the Pentagon because it can get things
done leads to the image of an over-militarized foreign policy. Moreover, it can create a destructive cycle,
as the capacity of civilian agencies and tools gets hollowed out to feed the military budget. Today, the
United States spends about 500 times more on its military than it does on broadcasting and exchanges
combined. Congress cuts shortwave broadcasts to save the equivalent of one hour of the defense
budget. Is that smart? It sounds like common sense, but smart power is not so easy to carry out in
practice. Diplomacy and foreign assistance are often underfunded and neglected, in part because of the
difficulty of demonstrating their short-term impact on critical challenges. The payoffs for exchange and
assistance programs is often measured in decades, not weeks or months. American foreign-policy
institutions and personnel, moreover, are fractured and compartmentalized, and there is not an
adequate interagency process for developing and funding a smart-power strategy. Many official
instruments of soft or attractive power -- public diplomacy, broadcasting, exchange programs,
development assistance, disaster relief, military-to-military contacts -- are scattered around the
government, and there is no overarching strategy or budget that even tries to integrate them. The
obstacles to integrating America's soft- and hard-power tool kit have deep roots, and the Obama
administration is only beginning to overcome them, by creating a second deputy at State, reinvigorating
USAID, and working with the Office of Management and Budget. Increasing the size of the Foreign
Service, for instance, would cost less than the price of one C-17 transport aircraft, yet there are no good
ways to assess such a tradeoff in the current form of budgeting. Now, that progress may be halted.
Leadership in a global information age is less about being the king of the mountain issuing commands
that cascade down a hierarchy than being the person in the center of a circle or network who attracts
and persuades others to come help. Both the hard power of coercion and the soft power of attraction
and persuasion are crucial to success in such situations. Americans need better to understand both
these dimensions of smart power. Nowhere is this more true than on Capitol Hill. While Gates and Adm.
Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have spoken about the importance of soft power,
they do not have to face the American electorate. As a friend in Congress once told me, "You are right
about the importance of combining soft power with hard power, but I cannot talk about soft power and
hope to get re-elected." The defense budget affects almost all congressional constituencies in the
United States; the budgets for State and USAID do not. The result is a foreign policy that rests on a
defense giant and a number of pygmy departments. For example, when Gates and Clinton recently
agreed to transfer an aid program from the Pentagon to the State Department, the program's budget
was cut in half. And now, Foggy Bottom faces cuts across the board.
Congress needs to be serious about deficit reduction, and it also needs to be serious about foreign
policy. The events of the past week suggest it is serious about neither.
Unemployment low now
Unemployment is still low
AP July 5, 2012
“Another weak month for US economy: 80,000 jobs added in June; unemployment stuck at 8.2 pct”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/markets/hiring-outlook-improves-after-jobless-aidapplications-fall-private-survey-shows-job-gains/2012/07/05/gJQAdCzoQW_story.html
The American job machine has jammed. Again. The economy added only 80,000 jobs in June, the
government said Friday, erasing any doubt that the United States is in a summer slump for the third year
in a row. “Let’s just agree: This number stinks,” said Dan Greenhaus, chief global strategist at the
investment firm BTIG. It was the third consecutive month of weak job growth. From April through June,
the economy produced an average of just 75,000 jobs a month, the weakest three months since
August through October 2010. The unemployment rate stayed at 8.2 percent — a recession-level
figure, even though the Great Recession has technically been over for three years. The numbers could
hurt President Barack Obama’s odds for re-election. Mitt Romney, the presumed Republican nominee,
said they showed that Obama, in three and a half years on the job, had not “gotten America working
again.” “And the president is going to have to stand up and take responsibility for it,” Romney said in
Wolfeboro, N.H. “This kick in the gut has got to end.” Obama, on a two-day bus tour through the
contested states of Ohio and Pennsylvania, focused on private companies, which added 84,000 jobs in
June, and took a longer view of the economic recovery. “Businesses have created 4.4 million new jobs
over the past 28 months, including 500,000 new manufacturing jobs,” the president said. “That’s a step
in the right direction.” The Labor Department’s report on job creation and unemployment is the most
closely watched monthly indicator of the U.S. economy. There are four reports remaining before
Election Day, including one on Friday, Nov. 2, four days before Americans vote.
Miscellaneous
Oil Prices are rising
Kunz, 11
(andy kunz, 5,10,11, ”U.S. High-Speed Rail: Time to Hop Aboard or Be Left Behind”,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/us_high-speed_rail_time_to_hop_aboard_or_be_left_behind/2378/)
The reasons that so many disparate interests support the creation of a national high-speed rail network
are glaringly obvious, and are becoming more so by the day. The United States has become far too
dependent on foreign oil, with Americans consuming six times more oil per capita than Europeans,
who enjoy better, faster, and cheaper mobility. The U.S now spends up to $700 billion a year to
import foreign oil, 70 percent of which is consumed by cars, trucks, and airplanes. Now, for the second
time in less than three years, the price of oil has shot up past $100 a barrel, threatening the fragile
economic recovery. And most experts agree that the world has passed the point of peak oil, which
means that as demand soars and supplies dwindle, oil prices could hit $300 per barrel this decade.
Enhancing U.S. energy security is just one reason the country needs a state-of-the-art high-speed rail
system, which by 2030 could transport millions of people each day between America’s cities. A national
high-speed rail system would generate millions of jobs; help revive the country’s manufacturing sector
by creating a new industry producing the trains, steel, and related components; alleviate pressure on
a crumbling transportation infrastructure; and lessen the ever-worsening congestion on America’s
highways and at its airports, where delays cause an estimated $156 billion in losses to the U.S.
economy annually. And then there is climate change and the large-scale reduction of CO2 emissions
that would result from the creation of an interstate high-speed rail system and the expansion of regional
commuter rail systems.
As a high-speed rail network spreads across the U.S. in the coming decades, the costs of operating the
national transportation system will decline each year to the point where the savings will eventually
exceed the estimated $600 billion cost of building the rail system. Although public funds will be used to
cover much of the construction costs, the network will perform best if operated by private companies.
America's soft power is declining
Joseph S. Nye Jr. 04 (Foreign Affairs, June 2004, "The Decline of America's Soft Power",
<http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59888/joseph-s-nye-jr/the-decline-of-americas-soft-power>
Anti-Americanism has increased in recent years, and the United States' soft power -- its ability to
attract others by the legitimacy of U.S. policies and the values that underlie them -- is in decline as a
result. According to Gallup International polls, pluralities in 29 countries say that Washington's policies
have had a negative effect on their view of the United States. A Eurobarometer poll found that a
majority of Europeans believes that Washington has hindered efforts to fight global poverty, protect
the environment, and maintain peace. Such attitudes undercut soft power, reducing the ability of the
United States to achieve its goals without resorting to coercion or payment.
Skeptics of soft power (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld professes not even to understand the
term) claim that popularity is ephemeral and should not guide foreign policy. The United States, they
assert, is strong enough to do as it wishes with or without the world's approval and should simply accept
that others will envy and resent it. The world's only superpower does not need Rumsfeld.permanent
allies; the issues should determine the coalitions, not vice-versa, according to
But the recent decline in U.S. attractiveness should not be so lightly dismissed. It is true that the
United States has recovered from unpopular policies in the past (such as those regarding the Vietnam
War), but that was often during the Cold War, when other countries still feared the Soviet Union as the
greater evil. It is also true that the United States' sheer size and association with disruptive modernity
make some resentment unavoidable today. But wise policies can reduce the antagonisms that these
realities engender. Indeed, that is what Washington achieved after World War II: it used soft-power
resources to draw others into a system of alliances and institutions that has lasted for 60 years. The
Cold War was won with a strategy of containment that used soft power along with hard power.
HSR will offer fair prices also
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Offering mobility for everyone also means offering fair ticket prices. Any comparison of prices is very
dependent on the context as regulation, taxes, pricing management and other influencing factors that
can change according to the country and the companies involved. Nevertheless, HSR can compete, or
even be cheaper than travelling as one single person by car. With more than one passenger the results
are more uncertain depending on the level of charging. If trips involve more people, the road transport
advantage becomes more significant. Nevertheless, it can be noted that the costs of using cars has
risen significantly over the past decades and will increase in the future (due to increases in oil prices,
the introduction of road charges, etc.). HSR is, in many cases, less expensive than air transport
according to several examples in France, South Korea and Japan. Nevertheless low cost airline
companies can compete with HSR in terms of fares by proposing “loss-leader”prices. These loss-leader
prices do not reflect the average cost that is perceived by passengers. As “yield management”is used
both by air and railway companies, the calculation of average prices has become very difficult. Ranges of
prices reveal air transport fares are more variable and can be higher, even for a low cost company.
***Solvency***
HSR key to economic growth and recovery
HSR Helps Economic Growth
Sands, 93 (Brian D. Sands, April 1993, “The Development Effects of High-Speed Rail Stations and
Implications for California,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/115.pdf, LT Page iv)
In California, high-speed rail would reinforce existing population and employment
patterns and future growth trends. In order to fully exploit station development
opportunities and ensure ridership, the agency responsible for developing a high-speed rail
system in California must take an active role in station area development and coordinate its
activities with local transportation agencies.
Investments Such as HSR are Necessary for Improving the Economy.
Sands, 93 (Brian D. Sands, April 1993, “The Development Effects of High-Speed Rail Stations and
Implications for California,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/115.pdf, LT p. 50)
The current recession will reduce all development effects, from the regional to station level.
The importance of the economy for development to occur has been repeatedly
highlighted in the preceding sections. However, considering the amount of time
necessary to plan and construct such a system, the state will probably be well on the way to
recovery by the time operations begin. In fact, according to one theory, infrastructure
investments at the scale of a high-speed rail system may be required for
economic recovery. According to the Center for the Continuing Study of the California
Economy(1992), California will add an additional three million jobs and six million
residents during the 1990s, increases of approximately 20 percent each, despite
the fact that the recession is more severe in California than in the rest of the
nation. Although the state will experience numerical growth, prosperity and quality of life may
suffer if the state does not take action to increase investment by the public and private sectors
in education, production facilities, research and development, and infrastructure.
High speed Rail helps the economy.
Brian D. Sands “The Development Effects of High-Speed Rail Stations
and Implications for California” 1993
The University of California Transportation Center
University of California at Berkeley http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/115.pdf
A high-speed rail system would increase population and employment growth rates in the regions it serves above the statewide
average. Actually, according to the Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (1992), the regions that such a
system would serve have been and will continue to be the fastest-growing in the state. The Center divides the state into economic
regions similar to those identified by the CalSpeed study (Figure 5.2). In the 1980s, the Sacramento and San Diego regions led the
state in population growth rates, and they will do so again in the 1990s, followed closely by the San Joaquin Valley, which
dominates growth in the "Rest of State" group (Table 5.2). The Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Areas will grow more
slowly, but will still account for 60 percent of the state’s absolute population gain during the next decade. The situation for
employment growth is similar, although the "Rest of State" group experienced below average job growth during the 1980s. This
trend is expected to reverse as employment growth in the major regions spills out into the San Joaquin Valley. These trends are
likely to continue into the following decade. A high-speed rail system would reinforce this growth and channel it within regions to
cities with stations, which would then have significant advantages in accessibility over their neighbors and be in a better position
to attract growth. Once this point was recognized, competition for a high-speed rail station would probably be fierce between cities
within a region. 3. Employment growth rates will be highest in those regions with large concentrations of information-related
economic activities and centers of higher education. The information-related sector is the fastest-growing sector of the economy,
accounting for one million new basic jobs (exporting products/services outside of California) during the period 1979-89, approximately
percent of total basic job growth in the state. During the period 1989-2000, this sector is expected to provide approximately 0.8
million new basic jobs, over 90 percent of the new basic jobs in California (Center for the Continuing Study of the California
Economy, 1991: Peg 16). The majority, of these types of jobs will be found in the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Area,
thereby further reinforcing their economic advantages in these sectors. However, this effect will be mitigated somewhat by the
dispersion of "back-office" information-related activities out of these two regions to others where there are lower land and labor
costs. 4. Increases in employment and economic activity in the accommodation, retail, and wholesale sectors would be dispersed
across the system. However, regional activities would concentrate in cities with stations.
HSR can help sustain the economy
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Sustainable economic development requires a stable and healthy economy but also a healthy
environment and social welfare. The benefits HSR brings to society, the environment as well as
individuals were widely illustrated in chapters 3 and 4. Moreover HSR contributes to sustainable
economic development by improving inter-regional connectivity, labour mobility, business efficiency
and local attractiveness. Certainly, investments in the transport system support the economy in
general; however, HSR supports a more efficient economic system thanks to lower external costs
compared to its competitors. HSR provides numerous benefits for the environment, society as well as
individuals as shown in the previous chapters. Yet, there is a financial counterpart in terms of the high
investment cost (i.e. construction, maintenance and operation). However, this should be seen in a
positive relation to the numerous advantages of HSR.
Building new HSR infrastructure involves three major types of costs:
Planning and land costs (e.g. feasibility studies, technical design, land acquisition etc.)
Infrastructure construction costs (e.g. terrain preparation and platform building)
Superstructure costs (e.g. tracks and sidings along the line, signalling systems, catenary and
electrification mechanisms, communications and safety installations). The infrastructure construction
costs are the most important costs for a HSR project. A deeper analysis of HSR experiences over the
world reveals that they are extremely variable depending on many factors such as:
Radius of sharpest bends that influence the maximum speed
Geographic obstacles (need of singular solutions such as viaducts, bridges or tunnels)
Length of route
Number of stations to construct, and so on.
The costs of building HSR lines do vary from country to country. Where lines are built in densely
populated areas it tends to be more expensive. In addition construction procedures are often
different. Therefore caution must be used when comparing construction costs between countries
HSR is beneficial both economically and environmentally
Jehanno 11 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
HSR has many characteristics that make it an ideal industry for a new creed in green economics: While
being far less polluting and resource consuming than current dominant transport modes, HSR has
proved over the past decades that it could compete with other mass transit high speed modes. As
green activities heavily rely on resource efficiency, the domain of green sectors is evolving with
technology. HSR has the potential to be even more efficient and be an environmentally proactive
sector. HSR fits perfectly with the evolution of economies with increasing needs for mobility and the
expansion of the service sector. HSR is a labour intensive sector that provides environmentally sound
jobs.
Regarding the latter point, the railway sector, which is very labour intensive, contributes significantly to
employment. According to the European Union, the rail sector represents 11% of employment in
European transportation. By comparison, air transport represents 5% and road transport more than 50%
of total employment in transportation but represents 95% of all transport routes in Europe. A study
carried out by the Worldwatch Institute for UNEP reveals that regarding investments in Europe, the
construction of highways generates fewer jobs than any other public infrastructure investment.
Investment in HSR generates employment during the whole life cycle of the infrastructure (see Figure
56). These can be permanent or temporary (e.g. during construction phase).A further study stated that
10 new direct rail jobs generate 14 new indirect and induced jobs, while creating 10 direct jobs in the
road sector only creates 5 indirect and induced jobs. For every £1.00 invested by the government, the
industry invests £1.30. Thus, for £2.3Bn invested, 52,000 jobs could be created. Once again France is a
good example for showing that construction of a new HSR lines requires numerous jobs. According to
the rail network manager RFF (Réseau Ferré de France) the number of jobs created or saved for the 6
years of construction for the LGV East (Ligne à Grande Vitesse Est) reaches 63,000, partially due to the
demand of civil works enterprises. The Madrid-Valencia HSR line has created more than 100,000
direct jobs during the construction period from 2004-2010 while during the first five years of service
even 135,000 permanent jobs were created. HSR also generates permanent jobs in many sectors. For
instance, the SNCF assessed that the LGV East enabled to create or save 3,200 permanent jobs due to
rolling stock construction.
HSR Is Key To Economic Recovery
LaHood, 12(February 29, 2012, Ray LaHood, Department of Transportation, “High-speed
rail is essential for economic growth and opportunity,”
http://fastlane.dot.gov/2012/02/high-speed-rail-essential-to-creating-economicgrowth-and-opportunity.html#.UAyKFI749No)
Already, companies around America who are investing in high-speed rail are leading the remarkable
recovery in our manufacturing sector. One of these companies is Progress Rail in Muncie,
Indiana, which recently opened a brand new 700,000 square foot factory, and is on track
to hire 300 new workers.
Progress Rail isn’t the only company experiencing success – this is a story that is
repeating itself across the country. To date, 30 rail companies from around the world
have pledged that, if selected for high-speed rail contracts, they’ll hire American
workers and expand their bases of operations in the United States. And once track is laid
and stations constructed, high-speed rail will spur economic development. It will generate quality
jobs at small businesses all along its corridors. Simply put, over the long-run, high-speed rail will
bolster America’s economic competitiveness. Our parents and grandparents sacrificed so we
might have the chance to lead the lives that we do. Today, we can do the same by
giving our children and grandchildren a transportation alternative that connects them
with a new century of opportunity.
At the end of the day, that is what President Obama’s plan for high-speed rail is all
about, and I am thrilled that there are American businesses and American leaders who
are working to make it happen. Together, our legacy will be more than trains, tracks,
and ties – it will be an America built to last.
HSR key to economic growth.
Todorovich, Schned, and Lane, 2011 (2011, High-Speed Rail International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers,
https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1948_1268_High-Speed%20Rail%20PFR_Webster.pdf)
High-speed rail’s ability to promote economic growth is grounded in its capacity to increase access to
markets and exert positive effects on the spatial distribution of economic activity (Redding and
Sturm 2008). Transportation networks increase market access, and economic development is more
likely to occur in places with more and better transportation infrastructure. In theory, by
improving access to urban markets, high speed rail increases employment, wages and
productivity; encourages agglomeration; and boosts regional and local economies. Empirical
evidence of high speed-rail’s impact around the world tends to support the following
theoretical arguments for high speed rail’s economic benefits.
HSR stimulates economic growth.
American High Speed Rail Alliance, 2009 (2009, The Economic Benefits of High Speed Rail,
http://eunicecorbin.com/sample/advocacy/growth.html)
The report found that jobs, wages, business sales and overall added value to the economy will
significantly increase with the introduction of HSR. For larger cities, HSR service will improve access to
labor markets and consolidate higher-end business, financial and cultural/tourism services. For midsized and smaller cities, HSR service will expand access to specialized regional talent and help leverage
local investments for accessing larger markets see: Economic Impacts of High-Speed Rail on Cities and
their Metropolitan Areas.
In another report, the Economic Development Research Group estimates that 24,000 jobs are
made each year for every billion dollars that are invested into HSR. Not only will the implementation of
HSR offer immediate jobs to help rebuild a slumping economy, it will provide long term benefits to
society as a whole. Both new and rebuilt train terminals can become the focal points for increased
commercial and residential development while boosting tourism, improving travel and easing the
everyday business traveler’s commute.
HSR stations located in suburban areas will bring a sense of vitality and life to the surrounding
communities. These newly developed stations can provide such user friendly features like bike trails and
walking paths that will invite people to be both active and environmentally savvy. Stations will also add
to the property value of the neighboring area. Research shows, for example, that family residences
located near commuter rail stations in Boston have a 6.7 percent premium over homes located
elsewhere.
According to the Environmental Law and Policy Center, the economic value of the improved
mobility from HSR has been valued at $13.2 billion through 2030. HSR will provide $1.3 billion in
highway congestion relief and $700 million in airport congestion relief. In fact, a single railroad track
can carry as many people as a ten-lane highway at a fraction of the cost. HSR can pull together regional
economies around America and is the unique solution to providing interconnectivity to all forms of
travel, benefiting all Americans.
The American High Speed Rail Alliance keeps Members of Congress and federal agencies
informed regarding the economic impact of high speed rail investments across the country, not only
about the increased economic activity it will bring to our nation, but also the private sector and rail
industry jobs created in engineering/design, urban planning, operations, construction, signaling,
suppliers and rolling stock.
HSR has short term impact on economy
High Speed Rain has a short term impact on economy
David Levinson, Jean Michel Mathie, David Gillen, Adib Kanafani, 1997 - Institute of Transportation Studies The full cost of high-speed rail: an
engineering approach, PL http://nexus.umn.edu/papers/HighSpeedRail.pdf
Our general model of full costs includes several categories of user costs, including user capital costs, user operating costs,
user time costs, and user delay costs, as well as user transfers. Because we are dealing with a rail system, users are assum
to have no net additional capital costs, unlike a highway system. In our modeling analysis, we have excluded access costs
the high-speed rail stations, just as in the analyses of competing air and highway modes, we exclude access costs to airpo
and the intercity highway system, which are comparable. User operating costs are thus the fares users pay to the rail carr
which can be considered entirely a transfer, and are thus not included in the final calculation of costs. The fares we have
assumed are given in Table 1 earlier in the paper. User time and congestion is worth some discussion. The non-stop trave
times between points are given in Table 7, which needs to be coupled with a 10 min stop at each station for local trains.
User cost of time depends on the speed of service, the expected speed of service for the various markets analyzed is give
Table 7. We also need to assume a value of time, for exposition we take the conservative value of $ 10/h, recognizing tha
the value of time varies widely across individuals depending on numerous factors, and that through the literature a large
range is found, a summary of values of time is given in Levinson et al (1996). The resulting costs per passenger kilometer
traveled are given in Table 7. The user time cost in $ /pkt ranges from $ 0.03–$ 0.08, with the highest time cost on the t
with the slowes trains. The value of $ 0.04/pkt, found on the non-stop market from Los Angeles to San Francisco, is the o
most users will experience. We are assuming that there are no congestion costs on the rail system, that trains do not dela
each other.
HSR stimulates growth and creates jobs
The Amount of Jobs Produced, Land Value Increase and Environmental Cleanliness
Easily Make Up for the Initial Cost of the Rail.
Sands, 93 (Brian D. Sands, April 1993, “The Development Effects of High-Speed Rail Stations and
Implications for California,” Institute of Urban and Regional Development,
http://www.uctc.net/research/papers/115.pdf, LT p.54)
This sector is expected to provide approximately 0.8 million new basic jobs, over
90 percent of the new basic jobs in California (Center for the Continuing Study of the
California Economy,1991: Peg 16). The majority, of these types of jobs will be found in
the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Area, thereby further reinforcing their
economic advantages in these sectors. However, this effect will be mitigated somewhat
by the dispersion of "back-office" information related activities out of these two regions to
others where there are lower land and labor costs. 4. Increases in employment and
economic activity in the accommodation, retail, and wholesale sectors would be
dispersed across the system. However, regional activities would concentrate in cities with
stations.5. Ridership would be poor at stations without adequate transportation network
connections, specifically an urban rail link directly to the local city center. Given that
systems already exist or are under construction in the Los Angeles Basin, the
San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, and Sacramento, it would be possible to
connect high-speed rail to these systems. These connections would likely
increase ridership on both the local and high-speed rail networks and increase
development around the stations.6. Land value premiums on the order of 20
percent might occur around stations if adequate transportation infrastructure
were provided and development were supported by public agencies.
HSR Stimulates Growth and Creates Jobs
(Brian D. Sands, 1993, “The Development Effects of High-Speed Rail Stations and Implications for
California”, http://uctc.net/research/papers/115.pdf , AAW)
The CalSpeed research group at the Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of
California at Berkeley, has developed a detailed proposal for a high-speed rail system in California
(Hall et al., 1992). This system is designed primaxily to serve the Los Angeles Consolidated Metro
Area and the San Francisco Bay Area (Figure 5.1). According to the 1990 Census,these areas have a
combined population of approximately 20.5 million (Table 5.1). In addition,the system would serve
the next group of medium-size metropolitan areas, those with populationsof 0.4-2.5 million,
including San Diego (2.5 million), Bakersfield (0.54 million), Fresno (0.67 million), Stockton (0.48
million), and Sacramento (1.5 million). The CalSpeed high-speed rail system is based on steel-wheelon-rail trains capable of speeds up to 200 mph (322 kmh). It would be able to achieve
approximately the following express traveltimes from Los Angeles: Bakersfield, 0:50; Fresno,
1:20; San Jose, 2:05; Sacramento, 2:30; and SanFrancisco, 2:55. Anticipated Development Effects As
a review of high-speed rail systems in Japan, France, and Germany, has indicated, the development
effects of high-speed rail are highly variable and depend on a range of factors, making it difficult,
without detailed analysis, to specify development effects by location. However, a number of general
statements about the potential development effects of a high-speed rail system in California are
possible.1. The current recession will reduce all development effects, from the regional to station
level. The importance of the economy for development to occur has been repeatedly highlighted
in the preceding sections. However, considering the amount of time necessary to plan and
construct such a system, the state will probably be well on the way to recovery by the time
operations begin. In fact, according to one theory, infrastructure investments at the scale of a
high-speed rail system may be required for economic recovery. According to the Center for the
Continuing Study of the California Economy (1992), California will add an additional three million
jobs and six million residents during the 1990s increases of approximately 20 percent each, despite
the fact that the recession is more severe in California than in the rest of the nation. Although
the state will experience numerical growth, prosperity and quality of life may suffer if the state
does not take action to increase investment by the public and private sectors in education,
production facilities, research and development, and infrastructure. 2. A high-speed rail system
would increase population and employment growth rates in the regions it serves above the
statewide average. Actually, according to the Center for the Continuing Study of the California
Economy (1992), the regions that such a system would serve have been and will continue to be
the fastest-growing in the state. The Center divides the state into economic regions similar to
those identified by the CalSpeed study (Figure 5.2). In the 1980s, the Sacramento and San Diego
regions led the state in population growth rates, and they will do so again in the 1990s,
followed closely by the San Joaquin Valley, which dominates growth in the "Rest of State" group
(Table 5.2). The Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Areas will grow more slowly, but will
still account for 60 percent of the state’s absolute population gain during the next decade. The
situation for employment growth is similar, although the "Rest of State" group experienced below
average job growth during the 1980s. This trend is expected to reverse as employment growth in
the major regions spills out into the San Joaquin Valley. These trends are likely to continue into
the following decade. A high-speed rail system would reinforce this growth and channel it within
regions to cities with stations, which would then have significant advantages in accessibility over
their neighbors and be in a better position to attract growth. Once this point was recognized,
competition for a high-speed rail station would probably be fierce between cities within a region.
3. Employment growth rates will be highest in those regions with large concentrations of
information-related economic activities and centers of higher education. The information-related
sector is the fastest-growing sector of the economy, accounting for one million new basic jobs
(exporting products/services outside of California) during the period 1979-89, approximately
percent of total basic job growth in the state. During the period 1989-2000, this sector is
expected to provide approximately 0.8 million new basic jobs, over 90 percent of the new basic
jobs in California (Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy, 1991: Peg 16). The
majority, of these types of jobs will be found in the Los Angeles Basin and San Francisco Bay Area,
thereby further reinforcing their economic advantages in these sectors. However, this effect will
be mitigated somewhat by the dispersion of "back-office" information-related activities out of
these two regions to others where there are lower land and labor costs. 4. Increases in
employment and economic activity in the accommodation, retail, and wholesale sectors would be
dispersed across the system. However, regional activities would concentrate in cities with
stations.5. Ridership would be poor at stations without adequate transportation network
connections, specifically an urban rail link directly to the local city center. Given that systems
already exist or are under construction in the Los Angeles Basin, the San Frandsco Bay Area, San
Diego and Sacramento, it would be possible to connect high-speed rail to these systems. These
connections would likely increase ridership on both the local and high-speed rail networks and
increase development around the stations. 6. Land value premiums on the order of 20 percent
might occur around stations if adequate transportation infrastructure were provided and
development were supported by public agencies.
California’s train will not create 400,000 new jobs
LA Daily , 12( Los Angeles Daily News, 7/18/12, “How many jobs, really, can high speed rail create,”
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_21102624/how-many-jobs-really-can-high-speed-rail)
Today's milestone in the fraught history of the high-speed-rail plan comes as more and more attention is
being paid to a UCLA study showing its proponents' promise of 400,000 new jobs is unrealistic. The
study drew that conclusion by looking at Japan's famous Shinkansen bullet train and how it affected the
economy. Study authors wrote: "The evidence suggests high-speed rail simply moves jobs around the
geography without creating significant new employment or economic activity." The authors note that
this alone is not a reason to oppose the bullet train, which would link the Los Angeles and San Francisco
areas at 220 mph. But doubts about the economic benefits add to the qualms that many Californians
share about undertaking a (at last projection) $68 billion project at a time of such economic trouble for
the state.
China’s bullet train employs 100,000 people
New York Times, 12- (New York Times, JKT, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/)
Elsewhere, an ambitious rail rollout in China is helping integrate the economy of a sprawling, populous
nation. Work crews of as many as 100,000 people per line have built about half of the 12,000-mile
network in just six years, in many cases ahead of schedule — including a Beijing-to-Shanghai line that
was not originally expected to open until 2012. The entire system is on course to be completed by 2020.
But a collision on a high-speed rail line in eastern China in July 2011 that killed 39 people and injured 210
others has raised fresh doubts about the safety of one of the largest, most expensive public works
projects ever undertaken.
California HSR creates 100,000 jobs.
New York Times, 12- (New York Times, JKT, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/h/)
The California High-Speed Rail Authority has projected that the bullet train would create 100,000 jobs.
The authority has proposed that the project be built in phases, and that no phase be started until all the
financing was in place. Yet there is widespread skepticism that the train would ever attract the promised
ridership, in no small part because unlike, say, the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, the bullet train would go
into cities that do not have particularly extensive public transit networks, forcing people to rent cars
once they arrive.
California’s high speed rail bill creates jobs.
Steve Falk, 12,( San Francisco Reporter, High-Speed rail is the right plan at the right time, 7-18-12,
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/07/high-speed-rail-right-plan-right-time, JKT)
Earlier this month, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 1029, authorizing the issuance of $2.7 billion
in state bonds to begin construction of the nation’s largest transportation project — California highspeed rail — as well as authorizing an additional $2 billion in bonds to match local and federal funds for
related projects. This bold legislative action unlocks $3.2 billion in matching federal high-speed rail
dollars, creates thousands of jobs and ushers in a new era of mobility for California. At a time when
statewide unemployment continues to linger at 11 percent, high-speed rail is the right plan for
California. The revised business plan to build the system will create immediate jobs in an area where
they are needed most. Construction of the first segment of the train in the Central Valley is projected
to generate the equivalent of 20,000 full-time jobs annually. Building the segment of the system from
the Bay Area to Southern California will create an estimated 66,000 jobs annually and directly employ
2,900 people.
Millions of jobs are created
Peterka, 10 (Amanda , E&E reporter, TRANSPORTATION: U.S. transit spending key to boosting manufacturing economy – report, 10-2010, http://unitedstreetcar.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Transportation-Report.pdf
The Apollo Alliance is urging the federal government to invest $30 billion a year in public transit and
$10 billion a year in high-speed rail to create 3.7 million jobs within six years, the group estimates in its
Transportation Manufacturing Action Plan. More than 600,000 jobs would be in the manufacturing
sector, the report says, as more investment in transit would create the need for more homegrown
transit vehicles, track and supporting equipment.
Train in Albany creates 21,000 jobs
Vaidyanathan, 10- Greenwire author (Gayathri, “High-Speed Rail Will Spur Growth in Hub Cities, Says Mayors Report:” JKT,
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/14/14greenwire-high-speed-rail-will-spur-growth-in-hub-cities)
If the network does goes up, the report states that it would create $2.5 billion in new business in
Albany and would add 21,000 jobs. It would increase gross regional product, a measure of the size of
the local economy, by $1.4 billion. The train station would spur development, with new additions,
hotels and other mixed-use projects coming up in the area, said Fitzroy.
HSR helps economy through creating jobs
Max Taves, July 18, 2012 Long Waits for the Arrival of Transit Upgrade,
PLhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577529303580431244.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"There's no question this is a major infusion of capital and jobs in the Bay Area at a time when it's badly needed, especially in the
construction industry," says Jim Wunderman, head of the Bay Area Council, a business advocacy group. In a study, the council projects that
modernizing Caltrain
will directly create 8,800 full-time jobs, mostly in construction. The indirect effects are set to
be even greater, according to the council, which says Caltrain improvements can generate $1.4
activity over four years of construction and as much as a $1.
HSR has economic benefits
Alexander, 09
billion in new economic
(Christopher Alexander, 12/9/10, “Planning for High - Speed Rail in the United States”,
http://www.design.upenn.edu/hsr2011/planningforhsr.pdf)
HSR systems have been in operation for nearly half a century in Japan and for more than a ¶
quarter of a century in Europe. Based on these examples, there is evidence that HSR can¶ deliver
economic returns at several scales, from station area development, to the scale of¶ the city, the
metropolitan region, the megaregion and ultimately, at the national scale.¶ Perhaps the greatest
economic potential for HSR exists at the megaregion scale, since HSR¶ is the mode of choice to
link metropolitan regions within congested megaregions that¶ extend from 200 and 600 miles
across, the ideal distance for HSR services. Megaregions are¶ too large to be accessible by
automobiles and too small to be accessible by air. And in most¶ U.S. megaregions the Interstate
highways and airports linking cities are already highly¶ congested.¶ HSR has the potential to create
¶
economic agglomerations within megaregions by¶ strengthening the transportation and economic
ties between their component metro¶ regions. In some cases similar synergies can also be created
between adjoining¶ megaregions, for example where the proposed California HSR system will
link the¶ Southwest Megaregion around Los Angeles and the Northern California megaregion
around¶ San Francisco. Fast, frequent, reliable and well-priced HSR services can expand workforces¶
and strengthen networks of researchers and entrepreneurs and buyer-supplier networks¶ across
megaregions.¶ These are the underlying economic arguments behind HSR projects such as HS2,
the¶ proposed new HSR line linking London with the North of England and Central Scotland. In¶
this case formerly isolated metro regions will be linked by HSR to Greater London and¶ Southeast
England, the economic drivers of the UK economy, and to the vibrant metro¶ economies of Northwest
Europe. Similar economic advantages are being touted for¶ proposed HSR links in the U.S., for
example, the Chicago Hub HSR network linking Chicago’s¶ strong regional economy with
underperforming regions, such as St Louis, Milwaukee,¶ Detroit and Cleveland. These and other case
studies are described below.
HSR is good for the economy
Alexander, 09
(Christopher Alexander, 12/9/10, “Planning for High - Speed Rail in the United States”,
http://www.design.upenn.edu/hsr2011/planningforhsr.pdf)
As the only developed country in the world experiencing notable population growth, the ¶
United States will likely add another 100-120 million people to its population by the year¶
2050.74¶ With road and air infrastructure operating at capacity (and in some cases beyond ¶
capacity), the need for new infrastructure and improvement of existing infrastructure is¶ clear.
This puts the U.S. in a unique position to gain significantly from the development of ¶ an
interconnected HSR network. The demand for efficient, quick means of travel between ¶ the
country’s metropolitan areas is well beyond the supply of infrastructure that currently¶ exists.
Ridership volume in excess of minimums suggested by both research and case ¶ studies is all but
guaranteed in several megaregions throughout the country. And most ¶ importantly, cities,
states, and regions are mobilizing to capitalize on the possibility of HSR¶ linking them together
by providing both HSR system plans and incentives for development.¶ While the U.S. is still by far
the largest economy in the world (discounting the combined EU¶ economy), its continued economic
growth is jeopardized without significant improvement¶ in its transportation infrastructure. HSR
provides a means to achieve a more robust¶ national transportation system that can sustain the type
of economic growth that will allow¶ the U.S. to remain the world’s economic leader.
HSR improves and stabilizes the economy
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Sustainable economic development requires a stable and healthy economy but also a healthy
environment and social welfare. The benefits HSR brings to society, the environment as well as
individuals were widely illustrated in chapters 3 and 4. Moreover HSR contributes to sustainable
economic development by improving inter-regional connectivity, labour mobility, business efficiency
and local attractiveness. Certainly, investments in the transport system support the economy in
general; however, HSR supports a more efficient economic system thanks to lower cexternal costs
compared to its competitors.
HSR benefits local economies and modernizes quality
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Different studies have proved that positive impacts on local development were to be expected
from HSR projects, even if these impacts are sometimes difficult to isolate and quantify. HSR
appears to be a real accelerator of beneficial trends. The positive impacts on local economies
are diverse, dealing with employment, tourism, congress and business activities as well as
synergies with other transportation networks. Bringing along an image of modernity and state of the
art technology, HSR constitutes a great asset for urban marketing. Indeed, becoming part of the HSR
network enables metropolitan areas to be associated with state-of-the-art technology and are
therefore attractive for people in the metropolitan area and, as well, for the area to get wellpositioned against international competition for investments. HSR contributes to the image of a
development vision and represents the opportunity to gather social and institutional support,
necessary to the success of urban projects.
HSR will create jobs, effectively boosting the economy
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
A sustainable economic system needs sustainable companies. As for the rail industry the
benefits of rail travel, and particularly HSR, towards sustainable economic development were
shown in the previous chapters. But also the companies themselves are responsible for a
sustainable business and can effect a change toward sustainability. Rail companies all over
the world have signed the UIC Declaration on Sustainable Mobility and Transport, which
commits to the ten principles of the UN Global Compact with respect for human rights, labour,
environment and anti-corruption. With this commitment, the UIC members express their intent
to advance these principles within their sphere of influence, and will make a clear statement of
this commitment to their stakeholders and the general public.
UIC members companies that signed the Declaration strive to: deliver a transport mode with a strong
sense of responsibility, raise the levels of customer satisfaction through meeting the needs and
expectations of the end-users, become an increasingly preferred transportation mode, improve safety,
reliability, punctuality, cleanliness, comfort, and environmental advantage, enhance technological
innovation, conduct joint research into the best practices and procedures, contribute towards
national and global reductions of CO2 emissions, provide opportunities for modal shift from other
transport modes, increase the energy efficiency of the railways, reduce the noise and other impacts -
not only from railway operation, but also from all facilities including; stations, factories, back offices, and
other activities
Investment in Infrastructure Creates Jobs-Leads to better Economy.
(Ross DeVol and Perry Wong, January 2010, “Jobs for America-Investments and policies for
economic growth and competitiveness” http://www.milkeninstitute.org/pdf/JFAFullReport.pdf, SS)
Investing in transportation infrastructure is vitally important: It boosts commerce, increases public safety, and enhances quality of life across
the socioeconomic spectrum. But its contributions are broad and difficult to quantify, making infrastructure investment a public good that
calls for government intervention. Public infrastructure requires federal support specifically because it is capital intensive and because
transportation systems cannot be financially supported by states and cities alone. Recognizing that, Congress created the Highway Trust Fund
in 1956, using federal fuel taxes to help build and maintain the Interstate Highway System. However, the system is antiquated and not easily
adaptable to the changes in demand and technology.112 For example, the technology responsible for the growth in hybrid car sales113 will
distort the road usage data that is gathered to justify funding the Highway Trust Fund. Add to
that the fact that more than 20 percent of the nation’s bridges are rated structurally deficient and functionally obsolete and it is clear that a
better funding solution is imperative.114 There is also interest in extending federal assistance to improve the surface transportation
network.115 Improvements to the freight and passenger rail infrastructure, for example, would increase accessibility to various markets and
could revitalize certain areas while offering an environmentally conscious option akin to carpool lanes. Continued funding of the federal
Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant116 for such issues as bridge construction, port infrastructure
investments, and passenger and freight rail projects has also been brought before key congressional decisionmakers.117 A proposed $225
billion investment as part of a multi-year surface transportation authorization is under consideration, with the majority of the funds allocated
for construction.118 The direct impacts of that investment would total more than 2.1 million construction-related jobs and almost $86 billion
in earnings. When the broader economic ripple effects are considered, the total impact will be nearly 6.2 million jobs and more than $238
billion in earnings and $775 billion in output. That is, for every $1 billion invested in highway and transit,
more than 27,400 jobs are created across all sectors. Assuming the impacts of a $225 billion investment occur over a three-year period, the
average increase would be about 2 million jobs per year. 44 Note: Total economic impact is an accumulated statistic over the three-year
period. For example, total employment translates to an annual average of 2,060,000 jobs. Contractors would require various raw materials
such as asphalt, cement, and metals as well as the production of commercial and industrial equipment, boosting economic activity in such
sectors as manufacturing, trade, and mining. Specialty trades and various engineering occupations would also benefit. From 2007 to 2009, the
subsector of highway and bridge construction lost 46,000 jobs—over 13 percent of its employment base. A boost in infrastructure spending
would help revitalize the industry and create additional economic benefits across the nation. Additionally, highway and transit investments
would decrease transportation costs, lead to improved productivity among businesses, and better link regional economies across the nation.
HSR Will Create Jobs
Falk, 12(7/18/12, Steve Falk, SF Examiner, “High-speed rail is the right plan at the right
time,” http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2012/07/high-speed-rail-rightplan-right-time)
Earlier this month, the state Legislature passed Senate Bill 1029, authorizing the
issuance of $2.7 billion in state bonds to begin construction of the nation’s largest
transportation project — California high-speed rail — as well as authorizing an
additional $2 billion in bonds to match local and federal funds for related projects. This
bold legislative action unlocks $3.2 billion in matching federal high-speed rail dollars, creates
thousands of jobs and ushers in a new era of mobility for California. At a time when statewide
unemployment continues to linger at 11 percent, high-speed rail is the right plan for California.
The revised business plan to build the system will create immediate jobs in an area where
they are needed most. Construction of the first segment of the train in the Central Valley is
projected to generate the equivalent of 20,000 full-time jobs annually. Building the segment of the
system from the Bay Area to Southern California will create an estimated 66,000 jobs annually and
directly employ 2,900 people.
Investing in the High Speed Railroad Will Keep the U.S. more competitive, resulting in
a better economy
WSP, 9 (2/08/11, Ahsley Halsey III, Washington Post, “Investing More in High-Speed
Rail Will Keep U.S. Competitive,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2011/02/08/AR2011020805920.html)
PHILADELPHIA - The Obama administration wants to invest $53 billion in high-speed and
intercity rail service in the next six years, expanding a signature transportation initiative it
already has targeted with $10.5 billion. The plan to spend billions more on a vast high-speed-rail
network was cast by the administration as vital to keeping the United States competitive with world
markets that already use the technology. "Public infrastructure investment raises private-sector
productivity," Vice President Biden said Tuesday, continuing a theme struck by the president in
his State of the Union speechlast month. "They literally are the veins and arteries of
commerce." Biden and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood announced the plan Tuesday in
Philadelphia's majestic 30th Street Station. Obama's budget for fiscal 2012, which will be sent
to Congress next week, includes $8 billion for the plan.There is bipartisan support for
construction of high-speed rail but sharp disagreement on whether it should be funded with tax
dollars or through private investment.The proposal drew immediate criticism from House
Transportation Committee Chairman John L. Mica (R-Fla.), who favors construction of highspeed rail largely with private funds. "This is like giving Bernie Madoff another chance at
handling your investment portfolio," Mica said in a statement. "With the first $10.5 billion in
administration rail grants, we found that . . . what the administration touted as high-speed rail
ended up as embarrassing snail-speed trains to nowhere."Although Biden spoke in more
modest terms, high-speed advocates envision a network of 17,000 miles of rail capable of
handling trains traveling at 220 mph. The U.S. High Speed Rail Association has estimated the
price tag at $600 billion over the next 20 years, a cost that critics say the nation cannot afford.
The White House push for high-speed rail construction was launched with $8 billion in stimulus
act funding. Later LaHood added $2.5 billion to boost the effort in 23 states. California has
received the bulk of the awards - about $3 billion total.Virginia received $45.4 million in the last
round of funding to help pay for studies and preliminary engineering to improve service
between Richmond and Washington. But more than half that money went for trains that travel
much slower than the 150 to 220 mph common in Europe and Japan.The proposal to allocate
$8 billion in the next fiscal year spreads the money across three types of train travel:
construction of high-speed corridors, creation of regional systems for trains capable of speeds
from 90 to 125 mph and provisions for slower feeder lines into the high-speed network.Critics
have argued that a car-loving nation will not be won over to train travel in sufficient numbers to
justify the federal investment. Two recently elected GOP governors, Scott Walker of Wisconsin
and John Kasich of Ohio, plan to forgo $1.3 billion in federal high-speed-rail funding and focus
instead on highway improvement."I'm not in favor of additional monies that we don't have
to be spent on those projects and would certainly look for ways to leverage the private
sector to get it involved," Cantor said. In announcing the plan Tuesday, Biden twice
mentioned that he took more than 7,900 round trips on Amtrak trains between
Washington and his home in Delaware during his years in the Senate. He said
transforming rail service to match the high-speed lines proliferating in China and Europe
is essential to continued prosperity.He said the United States "taught the world" about
transportation in the 19th and 20th centuries."If we don't get a grip, folks, they're going to be
teaching us," he said. "They're going to own our kids."Biden said building rail lines would relieve
highway congestion on the East and West coasts, where most Americans live, and put people
back to work."Right now, nobody makes these [trains] in America," he said. "Our long-term
commitment is going to give birth to a new industry."The American Public Transportation
Association endorsed the administration's plan to invest more in high-speed rail."Investing in
our country's transportation infrastructure is vital for economic growth, competitiveness and quality
of life," said William Millar, president of the public transportation association. "In addition, the
formation of a high-speed-rail network that connects to public transportation will relieve both
highway and aviation congestion."Mica urged the administration Tuesday to focus its spending on
the crowded Northeast rail corridor and not to "squander limited taxpayer dollars on marginal
projects."Last fall Amtrak announced a 30-year plan to invest $117 billion in developing highspeed rail in the Northeast corridor. Amtrak President Joseph Boardman has said the system
would reduce the travel time between Washington and New York City from 162 minutes to 96
minutes and the New York-Boston time from 215 minutes to 84.However, Mica's disdain for
Amtrak is as well established as Biden's love for it."Amtrak's Soviet-style train system is not the
way to provide modern and efficient passenger rail service," Mica said.
Investment in HSR benefits the economy and can create jobs.
Economic Development Research Group, Inc., 2009 (2009, The Economic Impact of High-Speed Rail on
Cities and their Metropolitan Areas, http://www.usmayors.org/highspeedrail/documents/report.pdf)
HSR service can help expand visitor markets and generate additional spending. In all four
cities (Los Angeles, Chicago, Orlando, and NY), ridership increases are projected by
implementing HSR service. A portion of the riders will be local residents traveling to outside
locations. Another includes outsiders who already come to these cities via car or airplane but will shift
to use of new high-speed rail. An additional portion represents new tourism, conference, and business
trips to the case study cities. These travelers will generate spending at local hotels, restaurants, and
retail stores. That new spending will grow over time. Projections show that by 2035, HSR can
annually add roughly $255 million in the Orland area; $360 million in the Los Angeles
area; $50 million in the Chicago area; $360 million in the Los Angeles area; $50 million in
the Chicago area; and more than $100 million in the greater Albany area.
HSR service can broaden regional labor markets. Expanding the distances that people can
travel in a two-to-three hour trip provides businesses with access to more workers with specialized
skills, while skilled workers can access employers with more specialized needs. These expanded
markets offer important new opportunities, especially in an era of flexible work schedules
where daily commuters are not required. In Los Angeles, high-speed rail is anticipated to
increase such commuting from outlying areas such as Palmdale and business trips from
the Central Valley and San Diego. In Orlando, high-speed rail will enable commuting
from the Milwaukee area and day trips from cities such as Madison.
High-speed intercity rail service will create significant economic development opportunities
for all types of cities. Jobs, wages, business sales and value-added will significantly increase with the
introduction of high-speed rail services. For larger cities, HSR service will improve access to labor
markets and consolidate higher-end business, financial, and cultural/tourism services. For mid-sized
and smaller cities, high-speed rail service will expand access to specialized regional talent and help
leverage local investments for accessing larger markets.
HSR tech exists now and can happen in U.S.
Technology for HSR Exists now and is Being Implemented
(Catherine L. Ross, 2011, “Policy & Practice Transport and Megaregions: High-speed Rail in the United
States”, http://gds12.wikispaces.com/file/view/Ross+-+Town+Planning+Review+-+2012.pdf , AAW)
High-speed rail may enhance the potential advantages of cities of all sizes. It increases accessibility
and stimulates economic activity within the geographic boundaries and may well serve as a primary
lever to reposition the economy of cities and regions. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
launched the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program in June 2009. The HSIPR Program in
the United States is designed to connect communities end-to-end through the construction of an
efficient network of passenger rail corridors. The Program includes the construction of new HSR
corridors to improve passenger transportation, upgrade existing intercity passenger service and build
the foundation for future HSR services through planning studies and selected projects in the short term.
In the long term it will connect major population centres 100–600 miles apart. This will entail extensive
collaboration between the federal government, the states, railroads and other key stakeholders (FRA,
2010). While there are not many, there have been some studies that examine travel demand modelling
on a higher scale than the metropolitan level. For example, Zhang and Chen (2009) used a megaregion
approach to project future travel demand and choice of transportation modes in the Texas Triangle and
included four metropolitan areas. The model was based on behavioural assumptions related to income
growth and the demand for mobility, per-capita time and income budgets individuals allocate to travel.
The authors forecast growth in total mobility demand in the Texas Triangle region between 2000 and
2050. The analysis included highway, HSR and airline modes. They recommended investment in HSR.
Vovsha and Bradley (2006) have presented an activity-based model for the New York megaregion
suggesting that large detailed transportation models may be successfully built as activity-based models.
These efforts offer future directions for the modelling and travel forecasting that must undergird
passenger projections and planning for HSR. High-speed rail is the most visible form of new technology
accompanying the transformation to an information-based economy, and it is likely to have the
greatest impact on spatial development. Since high-speed rail is a relatively new technology, the full
range of benefits and effects of the service level and station locations are not readily identified. The
volume of material explicitly documenting economic benefits is also somewhat limited. However, this
paucity of definitive economic information is not so different than that confronting the US when it
made the decision in 1947 to invest in a vast interstate highway system. None will deny that investment
has spurred the tremendous economic success and competitive advantage enjoyed by the United
States. The experience in other countries suggests a significant role for HSR given its propensity to
increase property value, enhance mobility and expand and enhance employment and economic activity
in addition to reinforcing existing economic nodes and spatial configurations. The United States now
finds itself in the position of having to redevelop its economy, focusing on clean energy, green jobs,
sustainability and competitiveness. Development effects and possibilities associated with high-speed
rail are well-suited as a primary lever in accomplishing these objectives. The development effects of
HSR stations are most clearly associated with a strong regional economy and good links with other
transportation modes. A number of cities and regions are providing leadership and embracing
highspeed rail above and beyond the direction and resources that are being put forth by the national
government. For example, regional agencies in the western half of the United States have formed an
alliance to develop a corridor between Denver and Los Angeles including Las Vegas, Salt Lake City and
Phoenix. In California, Proposition 1A – The Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the
21st Century – was passed, authorising the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to
partially fund a $40-billion, 800-mile high-speed train under the supervision of the California High Speed
Rail Authority. High-speed rail may enhance the potential advantages of cities of all sizes because it
increases accessibility and stimulates economic activity within the geographic boundaries and may
well serve as a primary lever to reposition the economy of cities and regions. The full range of
benefits and effects of the service level and station locations are not readily identified.These and other
anticipated links are the result of initiatives taken by multiple jurisdictions to invest in HSR based on a
common commitment to connectivity. In Washington state, money is being invested in the Portland–
Seattle–Vancouver corridor and Florida is investing 2.1 billion in the Miami–Orlando–Tampa corridor.
The South Eastern High-Speed Rail (SEHSR) project corridor now extends approximately 168 miles from
Richmond, Virginia, to Raleigh, North Carolina, as a result of the FRA requesting that the Tier II
environmental document include the Richmond (at Main Street Station)–Petersburg portion of the
corridor. The extension is being funded by local funds the Virginia Rail Enhancement Fund Grants. The
success of these initial ventures will have a tremendous influence on the rate of adoption of HSR
transportation in the US and on the development of a truly national high-speed rail programme. The
international experience includes both successes and failures, including the recent necessity for the
Taiwanese government to take over Taiwan high-speed rail after a short three years in operation. This is
similar to the European Union’s decision to allow the UK to bail out London & Continental’s Railways
and the government’s efforts to develop a public private partnership (Freemark, 2009). The government
of the United States has signalled its commitment to the development of high-speed rail with the
announcement of new real initiatives in 2010. President Obama shared his vision and allocated $8
billion in federal money as a ‘down payment’ on creating speedier passenger train service. ‘Highspeed rail is long overdue, and this plan lets American travellers know that they are not doomed to a
future of long lines at the airports or jammed cars on the highways,’ Obama said (Allen, 2010). Table 1
shows the awards made by the federal government for highspeed rail construction projects in the
United States.
HSR tracks and tech already exist.
Todorovich, Schned, and Lane, 2011 (2011, High-Speed Rail International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers,
https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1948_1268_High-Speed%20Rail%20PFR_Webster.pdf)
Major Operational Models
Over the last half century, four different operational models of high-speed rail have emerged,
consisting of various combinations of new train and track technology (Campos and de Rus 2009;
UIC 2010c).
1. Dedicated: The world’s first operational high-speed rail model is Japan’s Shinkansen (“new trunk
line”), which has separate high-speed tracks that serve high-speed trains
exclusively. The system was developed because the existing rail network was heavily
congested with conventional passenger and freight trains and the track gauge did not
support the new high-speed trains.
2. Mixed high-speed: Exemplified by France’s TGV (Train à Grande Vitesse), this model includes both
dedicated, high-speed tracks that serve only high-speed trains and upgraded, conventional tracks that
serve both high-speed and conventional trains.
3. Mixed conventional: Spain’s AVE (Alta Velocidad Espanola) has dedicated, high-speed, standardgauge tracks that serve both high-speed and conventional trains equipped with a gauge-changing
system, and conventional, nonstandard gauge
tracks that serve only conventional trains.
4. Fully mixed: In this model, exemplified by Germany’s ICE (Inter-City Express), most of the tracks are
compatible with all high-speed, conventional passenger, and freight trains.
HSR models already exist and some can be adapted to conventional tracks.
Todorovich, Schned, and Lane, 2011 (2011, High-Speed Rail International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers,
https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1948_1268_High-Speed%20Rail%20PFR_Webster.pdf)
Two of the most notable high-speed rail technologies developed over the last few decades are
known as a tilting mechanism and magnetic levitation (maglev).
In regions where high-speed trains must run on the conventional rail network, sharp curves
can create centrifugal forces that cause significant discomfort to passengers. To solve this problem,
rail engineers developed a mechanism that counteracts these forces by slightly tilting the trains as
they slow down to enter the curves. Many Swedish and Italian high-speed trains, as well as
Amtrak’s Acela Express and Cascades services, use this tilting technology while running
on conventional tracks. This alternative avoids the high costs of constructing new, dedicated highspeed tracks in areas without sufficient demand to justify such an investment (Givoni 2006).
Maglev technology is completely different from traditional steel-wheel-on-steel-rail
technology. It involves using an electromagnetic force stored in very powerful magnets embedded in
the guideways and underbody of the trains that cause the train to hover and propel it forward at
extremely high velocities. Test maglev trains in Japan have achieved speeds over 360 mph
(Takagi 2005). This dedicated track technology means that maglev trains are
incompatible with other passenger and freight rail tracks, and conventional and freight
trains are incompatible with the maglev guideways. China is currently the only country
with an existing maglev train in commercial operation (Givoni 2006).
HSR has proven to be a successful transition for transportation in other countries, thus
leading to future very plausible prospects for a HSR system in the US.
Todorovich, Schned, and Lane, 2011 (2011, High-Speed Rail International Lessons for U.S. Policy Makers,
https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1948_1268_High-Speed%20Rail%20PFR_Webster.pdf)
High-speed rail in the United States is a story that, until recently, has been limited to the
Northeast Corridor, where Amtrak began operating the Acela Express service in 2000. Its trains reach
top speeds of 150 mph and average around 75 mph. Federal investments being made in the south end
of the corridor, where trains average 86 mph, will soon bring top speeds to 160 mph. The Northeast
Corridor is the country’s largest segment of publicly owned passenger rail infrastructure, which has
contributed to its relative success. Most other passenger rail services nationwide operate on tracks
owned by private freight railroads. The challenges of balancing freight and passenger operations in a
single corridor restrict the ability to develop passenger rail speed, frequency, and reliability.
Despite a history of disinvestment in rail passenger service by previous administrations and
Congresses, the Obama administration is now moving ahead to build and improve conventional
passenger rail service and develop selected high-speed rail corridors simultaneously. Most other
countries historically have built and improved their conventional rail networks over decades and then
made the leap to dedicated, high-speed corridors as the conventional lines reached capacity and
required upgrades. In contrast, the case of California represents a leap from minimal existing
passenger rail service today to a statewide high-speed rail system, similar to new corridor investments
in Spain and China.
Miscellaneous
America's investment in HSR low Compared to Other Countries
Michael Renner, Gary Gardner “Global Competitiveness in the Rail and Transit Industry” 2010
http://www.worldwatch.org/system/files/GlobalCompetitiveness-Rail.pdf
The United States currently invests a much smaller amount in rail and transit, relative to the size of its population and territory, than many
countries in Europe and parts of Asia. But proponents of expanded rail and transit systems have ambitious plans for the future, and the
Obama administration’s stimulus program has triggered hopes of substantially larger public investments in coming years. There is so much
pent-up demand for federal funding from state and local authorities that the sums that are currently available are but a fraction of what is
needed both to bring existing systems to a good state of repair and to expand them to keep up with increasing ridership. Rising U.S. spending
on rail and transit systems is certainly in line with broad global trends. The global passenger rail industry emerged from the recent economic
crisis relatively unscathed, and worldwide demand for rail vehicles is projected to grow strongly in coming years. Comparing National
Investment Levels Many countries in Europe and Asia have embraced effective policies and invested significant funds in their rail and transit
sectors. Especially for intercity passenger rail, U.S. spending on rail and transit relative to gross domestic product (GDP) and population lags
far behind that of these global competitors. Relative to the size of its economy, China's investments dwarf those of all other countries, at
$12.50 per $1,000 of GDP in 2008. Several European countries, including Switzerland, Austria, and the United Kingdom, are also making major
commitments.1 (See Figure 1.) Although Germany has historically had one of the most extensive rail systems in the world, it currently spends a
relatively small $1.50 per $1,000 of GDP. In the United States, even combining rail and all other public transit infrastructure, the figure is a
comparatively tiny $0.78. If private rail infrastructure (mostly for freight purposes) is included, the number rises to a still modest $1.40.2 Similar
disparities between the United States and other countries are also evident in comparing combined capital and operations spending. For
intercity purposes, China spent $66 per capita in 2009, Germany $156, France $141, the United Kingdom $112, and Italy $87. By contrast, the
United States spent only $9, although the stimulus funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) temporarily
raised this figure to nearly $36.3 For urban transit infrastructure, Germany has spent $52 per capita in recent years and France plans to
spend $57 in the coming decade, compared with a 2010 figure of $40 for the United States. China spends $28 per capita on subway
infrastructure alone. For transit vehicle purchases, Germany spends $36, or twice as much as the United States.
HSR can have quicker procedures and more opportunities for productive use of time
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
In today’s hectic world quality time for oneself and chances to relax are precious for each individual.
When travelling by rail, travellers gain time which they can use to do things they could not do if
travelling by car or plane. Regarding quality time as uninterrupted time – which is not reserved for
transfer (using public transport/taxi/walking), waiting, security screenings or time when use of
electronic equipment is not allowed – HSR has a significant advantage to air and car travel. The total of
travel time is comparable between air and rail, yet time allocation is at the advantage of HSR because
customers benefit from a less fragmented journey. Travel time on a train can be more productive due
to fewer interruptions. Even when journey times are slightly longer than air travel, HSR still attracts
customers, which is reflected in the high market shares it achieves. With HSR, time spent travelling is
not wasted time. During travel one can mix business with pleasure: reading, playing, sleeping, and
working, watching videos or the landscape. Some half of business rail journey time is used for working
or studying; by comparison with other modes. HSR journeys can be highly productive journeys.
In a car, both for passengers and driver, activities able to be carried out are more limited, firstly due to
the space and secondly to safety reasons. On airplanes, check-in and -out procedures leave a smaller
time slot. Time for constructive use is more fragmented. Although, on some HSR routes security
screenings are developed, e.g. Madrid-Seville, Madrid-Barcelona or London-Paris/Brussels, they remain
far less time consuming than air controls. Depending on the location of the station HSR can be much
quicker than other modes for example requiring shorter access time, fewer security checks and
greater useable time on than fragmented journeys such as flying.
HSR is more reliable and punctual
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
In business and private life people need reliability to plan their time effectively. A reliable railway is
one of the most important requirements of passengers. Travelling by rail supports this goal by being
more reliable than other transport modes. Improved reliability can also help increase capacity. More
services can be run on a given line if all trains run precisely to their allotted timetables. This will be
facilitated by new radio-based signalling technology, which has the additional benefit of reducing the
disruption caused by maintenance works on the infrastructure. Passenger expectations of reliability are
likely to increase as personal incomes grow and people value their time higher. HSR is ready for a future
in which people are less tolerant of delays and unproductive use of their time and place more
importance on the end-to-end journey, interchange at stations, ease of ticket purchase and the
quality of “on the spot” real-time information. According to UIC punctuality is defined as percentage of
trains arriving on time or within 5 minutes from schedule. The punctuality rate of several HSR
companies throughout the world shows a very high quality level of service as shown in Figure 32
below.
HSR is also more comfortable for people
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Trains, and especially HSR, provide comfort for the passenger which is not always available on other
modes. For example, booked seats give each passenger their own space and the limited number of
stops compared to conventional train travel mean that passenger turnover is low and journeys are
less interrupted. Space to walk around in the train also enhances the quality of travel in comparison
to other modes.
The following five indicators can be taken into account for intermodal comparisons:
Distance between seats
Mobility within coaches (see Figure 35)
Services on board
Potential impacts on health during travel time
Exposure to noise disturbances onboard.
As shown in the Figure 35 below, HSR provides the best conditions concerning the “distance between
seats”. Besides, it is necessary to note that distances for HSR rolling stock are fixed whereas they are
variable for cars and rarely reach the maximum desirable measures.
More benefits are starting to show for HSR
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Mobility within coaches is also an important indicator of comfort. When comparing air, car and high
speed, HSR rolling stock characteristics enable the most mobility. During HSR journeys it is not
necessary to fasten any seat belt, unlike for plane and car trips. Thus, HSR users benefit from more
freedom of movement and can easily go from one coach to another without hindrance. On airplanes,
this mobility is largely hindered, first during the take-off and landing phases, on board service and air
turbulence. Within a car, this mobility is completely hindered.
When onboard services are considered, the comparison is slightly more balanced. Indeed, all
constructors and operators in case of HSR and air transportation have developed new possibilities for
on-board services. Thus, the possibilities of service are different for each mode and for each commercial
profile. In cars, as an individual mode, services are limited to car options, such as GPS or on-board
video. For HSR and air transportation on-board services are both facilitated by construction options
and commercial offers: Access to the Internet is now spreading especially on HSR trains (e.g. Thalys).
For airplanes, access to the Internet is possible but still with the same constraints linked to the takeoff and landing phases. Catering (requiring payment on HSR trains and low cost air flights, but free on
regular airplanes) Video on board (only on medium and long distance flights, some HSR companies are
proposing such a service as an option).
Once more, HSR proves to be the best on the indicator “Potential impacts on health”.
Impacts on health can be significant on airplanes due to stress, possible injuries due to air turbulence,
and side effects due to the modification of the barometric pressure and lack of personal movement
(e.g. deep vein thrombosis). By contrast the impacts on health are very limited on HSR trains. For cars,
the main side effects and inconvenience is due to the lack of personal movement.
When considering “noise disturbances on-board” HSR also offers an advantage as shown in Figure 36
below. Minimum measures of on-board noise in airplanes and cars at a comparable speed are above
the maximum noise measured in HSR trains.
HSR is more efficient and has more opportunities
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
HSR enables links between the main political and economic centres and facilitates exchange. HSR
networks open up new opportunities for interoperability and interconnectivity. HSR strengthens the
transportation system and improves related infrastructures. The entire organization of other, related,
transport networks is modernized, updated and has higher efficiency. A good example is in France,
where the arrival of TGV East has been anticipated and accompanied by a reorganization of the regional
train services. The regional train supply has been augmented up to +17% in the concerned regions (630
trains a day for weekdays, previously 550) to “diffuse” the effect of the TGV. The introduction of TGV
considerably improved the accessibility of the Alsace Region to the rest of France as shown in Figure 38
below. In Spain the improvement in accessibility according to the national infrastructure master plan will
provide the following results: In 2009 40% of the population has a HSR station within a 50 km radius; in
2012 it will be 55% and in 2030 90%.
Mobile access become easier through HSR
Jehanno 2011 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Mobility is essential for participating actively in life. HSR enables people to travel independently and
offers them a wide range of services, e.g. for elderly people or for those with disabilities/ with
reduced mobility?. Along with interconnections with other public modes HSR enables maximum
autonomy for everyone. By comparison, travelling by plane generally requires systematic human
intervention several times during the trip. Travelling by car requires the possession of a vehicle and
driver’s license or at least of someone able to drive. Easy access to mobility can be divided into three
main parts:
Access to travel information, tickets and other services before, during and after travel
Physical access to stations linking to other transport modes (by foot, bike, public transport, car or
plane) with emphasis on the qualities of barrier free travel directly to and from work, leisure
activities, holidays, as well as between city centres etc.
Services for dedicated groups with special needs, e.g. business people, commuters, students,
children/families, elderly people, the disabled/ with reduced mobility? There will be a significant
increase in pressure to make the transport system more accessible to those with mobility
impairments, both as a result of changing attitudes to disability and as a result of the ageing population.
For instance, around one in ten of the UK working population is estimated to have a disability, a figure
typical for many other European countries. Although age is not a perfect predictor of mobility problems,
on average mobility problems increase with age as a result of declining levels of physical function.
Physical accessibility is facilitated today by programs e.g. “Acces plus” launched by the
French SNCF for people with disabilities or the German DB’s program “barrier-free travel”. These
programs not only mean installing elevators, moving stairways or tactile guidance systems (see Figure
39). It is also about offering assistance e.g. when entering the train or being in dialogue with institutions,
e. g. disability organizations. In 2009 Renfe and Adif, extended the coverage of customer care services to
disabled persons, called Atendo, to more than 240 stations. During the year, assistance was provided on
235,571 occasions, an increase of 109.2% compared to the previous year.
Positive impacts can be expected from HSR
Jehanno 11 (Aurélie Jehanno, November 2011, “High Speed Rail and Sustainability,”
International Union of Railways, http://goo.gl/6mQfM)
Different studies have proved that positive impacts on local development were to be expected from
HSR projects, even if these impacts are sometimes difficult to isolate and quantify. HSR appears to be
a real accelerator of beneficial trends. The positive impacts on local economies are diverse, dealing
with employment, tourism, congress and business activities as well as synergies with other
transportation networks. Bringing along an image of modernity and state of the art technology, HSR
constitutes a great asset for urban marketing. Indeed, becoming part of the HSR network enables
metropolitan areas to be associated with state-of-the-art technology and are therefore attractive for
people in the metropolitan area and, as well, for the area to get well-positioned against international
competition for investments. HSR contributes to the image of a development vision and represents the
opportunity to gather social and institutional support, necessary to the success of urban projects
HSR Reduces Noice
Aerodynamic design of HSR reduces noise sources
Aurelie Jehanno 2011
<Http://Ulc.org/IMG/pdf/hsr_sustainability_main_study_final.pdf
The main effort for HSR trains has been in the aerodynamic design of whole train sets, and especially
of the pantographs (see Figure 16). The optimisation of the pantograph includes both its form, the
design of the contact strip and may include shielding of the pantograph on the roof. Furthermore the
number of pantographs needed to collect the current for the train set could be reduced, resulting in
less aerodynamic noise sources.
Road and rail traffic also generate vibration, and the population often becomes more aware of these
vibrations when noise abatement has taken place. In the case of railways, vibration is caused by the
dynamic forces created by the interaction of the wheels and the rails; they increase with the unsprung
mass of the wheel set, with the weight of axles and also with the speed of train
Previous studies of HSR show that it reduces noise
Aurelie Jehanno 2011
<Https://Ulc.org/IMG/pdf/hsr_sustainability_main_study_final.pdf
As the first country to introduce HSR, Japan early took measures to tackle noise pollution resulting from
the Shinkansen railways. In 1975, the Environment Agency established a new environmental standards
directive for HSR services. It fixed a limit for noise levels at 70 dB(A) (LAeq) for residential areas and
75 dB(A) for areas with industrial and commercial activities, and a clear methodology for measurement
was created. The directive granted railways a period of time to comply with these new standards. The
railways adopted solutions to reduce noise that proved to be efficient, as shown in the following
charts.