AC - OST priv entities can't put space junk NC - theory innovation everything else on case and stuff
Emory
3
Opponent: Presentation AB | Judge: Shazar, Aashril
larp round
Harvard
2
Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Anderson, Sam
ac - psycho k theory adv nc - fw theory everyting else was t
Harvard
3
Opponent: Tampa-Jesuit MH | Judge: Stevens, Greg
ac - kant property space wars nc - util innovation everything else on case
Isidore Newman
1
Opponent: Montgomery CH | Judge: Ciocca, Amanda
AC - China NC - Econ inovation military strikes everything else was on case
Isidore Newman
3
Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Coates, David
AC - Prisoners NC - Spec T Work to rule CP everything was on case
Isidore Newman
6
Opponent: Little Rock Central MG | Judge: Chen, Victor
AC - asian k NC - ROB T everything else was on case
Scarsdale
5
Opponent: Prospe ST | Judge: Hang, Chianli
AC - Policy V2 NC - lay all was on case
Scarsdale
4
Opponent: SouEug KS | Judge: Das, Sreyaash
1ac- india 1nc- hospitals da econ da 1ar- all 2nr- all
Scarsdale
2
Opponent: Lexton AA | Judge: Siegal, Zach
AC - util disclosure t adv NC - advocacy t da 1AR - t 2NR - t da 2ar - t
To modify or delete round reports, edit the associated round.
Cites
Entry
Date
0 - Contact
Tournament: any | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any Hi! My name is Ilias, if you want me to disclose my case you can contact me with the information below:
Tournament: any | Round: 2 | Opponent: any | Judge: any If a round doesn't have a cite it's because cites were down and I never got a chance to submit it or it's the same case that already has a cite
SepOct: I lost my computer w all my documents so I never had the chance to disclose my sepoct cases but I do have the general file I used so that checks back against evidence ethics or whatever disclosure theory you wanna run
12/11/21
G - Larp ROB
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 2 | Opponent: Scripps Ranch AS | Judge: Anderson, Sam Debate’s focus shouldn’t solely be the production of ethical subjectivities. Rather, taking stances on global issues is necessary to develop accountability to global violence. Chandler 9 David Chandler, 2009. Professor of international relations, University of Westminster. “Questioning Global Political Activism,” in What is Radical Politics Today? https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bfm3A978-0-230-25114-42F1.pdfed. Jonathan Pugh 81-4. But the most dangerous trends in the discipline today are those frameworks which have taken up Critical Theory and argue that focusing on the world as it exists is conservative problem-solving while the task for critical theorists is to focus on emancipatory alternative forms of living or of thinking about the world. Critical thought then becomes a process of wishful thinking rather than one of engagement, with its advocates arguing that we need to focus on clarifying our own END PAGE 81 ethical frameworks and biases and positionality, before thinking about or teaching on world affairs. This becomes 'me-search' rather than research. We have moved a long way from Hedley Bull's (1995) perspective that, for academic research to be truly radical, we had to put our values to the side to follow where the question or inquiry might lead. The inward-looking and narcissistic trends in academia, where we are more concerned with our reflectivity- the awareness of our own ethics and values - than with engaging with the world, was brought home to me when I asked my IR students which theoretical frameworks they agreed with most. They mostly replied Critical Theory and Constructivism. This is despite the fact that the students thought that states operated on the basis of power and self-interest in a world of anarchy. Their theoretical preferences were based more on what their choices said about them as ethical individuals, than about how theory might be used to understand and engage with the world. Conclusion I have attempted to argue that there is a lot at stake in the radical understanding of engagement in global politics. Politics has become a religious activity, an activity which is no longer socially mediated; it is less and less an activity based on social engagement and the testing of ideas in public debate or in the academy. Doing politics today, whether in radical activism, government policy-making or in academia, seems to bring people into a one-to-one relationship with global issues in the same way religious people have a one-to-one relationship with their God. Politics is increasingly like religion because when we look for meaning we find it inside ourselves rather than in the external consequences of our 'political' acts. What matters is the conviction or the act in itself: its connection to the global sphere is one that we increasingly tend to provide idealistically. Another way of expressing this limited
2/19/22
JANFEB - DA - Innovation v2
Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Tampa-Jesuit MH | Judge: Stevens, Greg 1 - Innovation Competition in space between private entities is key because it lowers costs and barriers of entry for other companies while also increasing technological innovation Lizzy Gurdus, FEB 27 2021, CNBC, “Private companies such as SpaceX are driving costs down for everyone in the space race, says man behind UFO ETF”, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/27/private-companies-like-spacex-are-driving-industry-costs-down-ceo.html ahs ja Private space companies are paving the industry’s path to profits, says the man behind the Procure Space ETF (UFO). By taking part in the rapidly developing “space race,” billionaire-backed entities such as Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin are lowering costs across the board, ProcureAM CEO Andrew Chanin told CNBC’s “ETF Edge” this week. “They’re able to get the cost of launch down and that’s going to allow more companies to send things into outer space cheaper,” Chanin said in the Wednesday interview. “They’re really opening up the entire environment for space companies and future would-be space companies to lower those barriers of entry.” They’re also lowering costs for government-sponsored space programs by competing amongst themselves for NASA contracts, Chanin said. “They’re actually freeing up more of NASA’s budget to be able to invest in other areas of space, he said. “This competition I think is very healthy. Not necessarily every company’s going to be a winner, but hopefully this competition can drive down prices and also let the best technologies win.” NASA now also has contracts with more than 300 publicly traded U.S. companies, said Chanin, whose UFO ETF counts Loral Space and Communications and Gilat Satellite Networks as its top two holdings. “It’s not just necessarily a pure-play space company that might get a contract,” the CEO said. “It’s really opening up opportunities for everyone.” That’s why it’s important to look beyond name recognition in this particular area of investing, Matthew Bartolini, State Street’s head of SPDR Americas research, said in the same “ETF Edge” interview. State Street offers the SPDR SandP Kensho Final Frontiers ETF (ROKT), the first space ETF to hit the market. The fund’s top three holdings are Maxar Technologies, Virgin Galactic and Aerojet Rocketdyne. Bartolini recommended “to not just look at the high-flying names like SpaceX or Blue Origin that are in the private markets, but showcase what companies in the public markets help supply them.” Aerojet Rocketdyne, which defense giant Lockheed Martin is buying in hopes of competing with private space companies, played a key role in Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket launch, Bartolini said. “You can see the derivative effects of a private company impacting the public markets just from that one example of Lockheed and Aerojet,” he said. “It helps underscore the opportunity that you’re seeing in space.” As space companies embrace greater efficiency, more government support and more commercial applications on Earth in areas such as satellite technology, that opportunity is likely to grow and continue to filter into public markets, Bartolini said. Morgan Stanley has said the global space industry could produce revenues of over $1 trillion by 2040. Current global revenues are roughly $350 billion. UFO and ROKT both fell by more than 1 on Friday. UFO is up over 14 year to date, while ROKT is up nearly 2. This innovation is happening right now– the aff only harms progress Seetha Raghava, August 4th 2021, UFC TODAY, “The Impact of Innovation in the New Era of Space Exploration”, https://www.ucf.edu/news/the-impact-of-innovation-in-the-new-era-of-space-exploration/ ahs ja Every once in a while, a confluence of discoveries, events and initiatives results in a breakthrough so significant that it propels the entire world to a higher level, redefining what is possible in so many different fields. This breakthrough is taking centerstage now, as the new era of space exploration — catalyzed by increasing launch access — dawns upon us. The surge of innovation that comes with this will create new opportunities and inspire the next generation of doers. When this happens, boundaries between scientific and social impact are blurred. Innovation leading to scientific discovery can benefit society in the same way that social innovation can diversify and support scientific innovators, who can contribute to global progress. To ride this wave of progress, we must all participate and innovate in the new era of space exploration. The intersection of space exploration, innovation and impact isn’t a new phenomenon. In the past, technology developments and spin-offs from space research have consistently found their way into communities worldwide sometimes with lifesaving benefits. The International Space Station supports experiments that have led to discoveries and inventions in communication, water purification, and remote guidance for health procedures and robotic surgeries. Satellite-enabled Earth observation capabilities that monitor natural disasters, climate and crops often support early warnings for threats and mitigation strategies. Space exploration has always been relevant to everyone no matter the discipline or interest. Commercialization of space has been key in many ways to the current boost in “firsts” over the last few years. It has spurred innovation in launch vehicles and related technologies that led to firsts in vertical-takeoff-vertical landing rocket technology, reusability of rocket boosters and privately developed crewed missions to orbit. Concurrently, NASA has continued to captivate our imagination with the first flight of a helicopter in another world, a mission to return an asteroid sample to Earth and sending a probe to make the closest ever approach to the sun. While we celebrate the scientific progress, there is a vastly important question that we all need to focus on: How can we drive the surge in innovation offered by increased access to space, to benefit humankind? Access to low-Earth orbit, and eventually human exploration of space, is a portal to achieve many impactful outcomes. The numbers and completion rate of microgravity experiments conducted by scientists will be greatly increased as a range of offerings in suborbital flights provide more opportunities to advance critical research in health, agriculture, energy, and more. Lunar, planetary, and even asteroid exploration may lead to discoveries of new materials — busting the limitations now imposed on capabilities for energy, transportation, and infrastructure or creating new sensors and devices that enhance safety on Earth. Space tourism —one can hope — has the power to potentially create an awareness of our oneness that may lead to social change. But much like all scientific endeavors, we cannot ignore the importance of pre-emptively identifying and mitigating negative impacts of new ventures some of which may have already taken shape. We need to consider space debris that threatens the very access that facilitates it, safety and rescue readiness to support increased crewed missions and space tourism, national security, and effects of light pollution on astronomy. Much of these can be approached and mitigated with new concepts and ideas that have already been set in motion. One thing is for certain, space has always been the inspiration for the next generation of innovators and creative thinkers. Architects of new ideas in this era will inspire many more. Ingenuity must also come from academic and research institutions building a new space-ready generation through innovative curriculum, scholarships, and research opportunities for key fields at all levels. Most of all, engaging participation is a responsibility anyone can take by steering the conversation and gathering ideas on how we can make this era one of positive benefit for all, while making opportunities inclusive to all. Stronger Innovation solves Extinction. Matthews 18 Dylan Matthews 10-26-2018 “How to help people millions of years from now” https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/10/26/18023366/far-future-effective-altruism-existential-risk-doing-good (Co-founder of Vox, citing Nick Beckstead @ Rutgers University)Re-cut by Elmer If you care about improving human lives, you should overwhelmingly care about those quadrillions of lives rather than the comparatively small number of people alive today. The 7.6 billion people now living, after all, amount to less than 0.003 percent of the population that will live in the future. It’s reasonable to suggest that those quadrillions of future people have, accordingly, hundreds of thousands of times more moral weight than those of us living here today do. That’s the basic argument behind Nick Beckstead’s 2013 Rutgers philosophy dissertation, “On the overwhelming importance of shaping the far future.” It’s a glorious mindfuck of a thesis, not least because Beckstead shows very convincingly that this is a conclusion any plausible moral view would reach. It’s not just something that weird utilitarians have to deal with. And Beckstead, to his considerable credit, walks the walk on this. He works at the Open Philanthropy Project on grants relating to the far future and runs a charitable fund for donors who want to prioritize the far future. And arguments from him and others have turned “long-termism” into a very vibrant, important strand of the effective altruism community. But what does prioritizing the far future even mean? The most literal thing it could mean is preventing human extinction, to ensure that the species persists as long as possible. For the long-term-focused effective altruists I know, that typically means identifying concrete threats to humanity’s continued existence — like unfriendly artificial intelligence, or a pandemic, or global warming/out of control geoengineering — and engaging in activities to prevent that specific eventuality. But in a set of slides he made in 2013, Beckstead makes a compelling case that while that’s certainly part of what caring about the far future entails, approaches that address specific threats to humanity (which he calls “targeted” approaches to the far future) have to complement “broad” approaches, where instead of trying to predict what’s going to kill us all, you just generally try to keep civilization running as best it can, so that it is, as a whole, well-equipped to deal with potential extinction events in the future, not just in 2030 or 2040 but in 3500 or 95000 or even 37 million. In other words, caring about the far future doesn’t mean just paying attention to low-probability risks of total annihilation; it also means acting on pressing needs now. For example: We’re going to be better prepared to prevent extinction from AI or a supervirus or global warming if society as a whole makes a lot of scientific progress. And a significant bottleneck there is that the vast majority of humanity doesn’t get high-enough-quality education to engage in scientific research, if they want to, which reduces the odds that we have enough trained scientists to come up with the breakthroughs we need as a civilization to survive and thrive. So maybe one of the best things we can do for the far future is to improve school systems — here and now — to harness the group economist Raj Chetty calls “lost Einsteins” (potential innovators who are thwarted by poverty and inequality in rich countries) and, more importantly, the hundreds of millions of kids in developing countries dealing with even worse education systems than those in depressed communities in the rich world. What if living ethically for the far future means living ethically now? Beckstead mentions some other broad, or very broad, ideas (these are all his descriptions): Help make computers faster so that people everywhere can work more efficiently Change intellectual property law so that technological innovation can happen more quickly Advocate for open borders so that people from poorly governed countries can move to better-governed countries and be more productive Meta-research: improve incentives and norms in academic work to better advance human knowledge Improve education Advocate for political party X to make future people have values more like political party X ”If you look at these areas (economic growth and technological progress, access to information, individual capability, social coordination, motives) a lot of everyday good works contribute,” Beckstead writes. “An implication of this is that a lot of everyday good works are good from a broad perspective, even though hardly anyone thinks explicitly in terms of far future standards.” Look at those examples again: It’s just a list of what normal altruistically motivated people, not effective altruism folks, generally do. Charities in the US love talking about the lost opportunities for innovation that poverty creates. Lots of smart people who want to make a difference become scientists, or try to work as teachers or on improving education policy, and lord knows there are plenty of people who become political party operatives out of a conviction that the moral consequences of the party’s platform are good. All of which is to say: Maybe effective altruists aren’t that special, or at least maybe we don’t have access to that many specific and weird conclusions about how best to help the world. If the far future is what matters, and generally trying to make the world work better is among the best ways to help the far future, then effective altruism just becomes plain ol’ do-goodery.
2/19/22
NOVDEC - CP - Work to Rule
Tournament: Isidore Newman | Round: 3 | Opponent: Harrison JC | Judge: Coates, David Work To Rule CP
CP Plan Text: Prisoners ought to make “work to rule” the primary method of collective bargaining
Working to rule is defined as “a form of industrial action where the employee will follow the rules and hours of their workplace exactly in order to reduce their efficiency and output; doing no more than their contractual agreement requires.” By The Union of Educational Professionals
Work to Rule is a powerful alternative to striking Labor Notes 19’ Ways to Not Quite Strike https://www.labornotes.org/2019/10/ways-not-quite-strike Labor Notes is a media and organizing project that has been the voice of union activists who want to put the movement back in the labor movement since 1979. Strikes are the most powerful tool in labor’s arsenal, but they’re not always the right tool WORK TO RULE In 2003, Verizon was ready for a strike. The company was already on the hook for extra security, 30,000 scabs, and eight months of hotel rooms… when the unions decided to work to rule instead of walking out. Work to rule means adhering literally to the rules set out in the contract or the company handbook. It means skipping all the daily shortcuts and extras that you know the boss relies on to get the work done. The union distributed a fact sheet that instructed workers, “Never go by memory, check your reference material” and “Never use your own judgment—ask!” Every morning, technicians delayed the start of their day with the required 20-minute truck safety check that required two people. They refused to take trucks out without all the cones, signs, and flags required by state and federal regulations. They followed the company protocol requiring “five points of contact” with customers before, during, and after the job—even if that meant driving back and forth between the customer’s home and the location of the problem, to give updates. They completed their paperwork in detail. They spent extra time looking for legal parking places in busy cities where they typically parked in loading zones. Instead of borrowing a ladder from the customer, they waited for one to be delivered. Instead of making do, they drove back to the garage to pick up the special hammer they were supposed to use for a particular job. They called their managers about anything slightly tricky. The advantages over a strike were obvious. Workers kept getting their paychecks and kept building their public campaign about on Verizon’s greed and its threat to “hometown jobs” and quality service. Work To Rule solves better than striking by avoiding deductions in pay and guarantees the retention of jobs Union of Educational Professionals No Date Voice is the education and early years section of Community. We work tirelessly to represent those working in education and the early years to ensure that our members have the support, guidance and representation of a strong and approachable union. https://www.voicetheunion.org.uk/working-rule
Whilst there is no clear legal definition of industrial action, but it is best described as a concerted action taken by employees against their employer and thus Working to Rule, does constitute industrial action. Almost everyone working in education does far longer hours and greater workload than laid out in their contract, thus working to rule is done to put pressure on the employer in an attempt to achieve a goal without taking strike action. Strike action is a breach of contract as employees will collectively withdraw their labour, but it is not always clear whether other forms of industrial action are a breach of contract. When an employee works to rule, they are working within their contract, but to a minimum e.g. working strictly to a schedule and within their contracted hours, which purposely causes a slowdown in productivity. This is considered less disruptive than other forms of industrial action, and it will make an employee less susceptible to disciplinary action. If an employee works to rule by refusing to carry out their contractual duties, they will be in breach of contract. As certain tasks undertaken by education professionals may not be expressly stated in their contract, but simply implied, it may not be clear if the employee is in breach of contract if they refuse to do those tasks. Refusal to carry out genuinely voluntary duties is not a breach of contract, but it may nevertheless amount to a form of industrial action. Whether or not there is a breach of contract, it is important in relation to pay deductions. If an employee is in breach of contract, their pay will be affected. The general principles are that employees are not entitled to pay for the duration of their strike and that an employee taking industrial action short of a strike, but is in breach of contract have: no entitlement to pay if the employer decides to refuse to accept a partial performance of the contract and tells employees that that they should attend work only when they are prepared to comply fully with their contract, and until they do so, they will not be paid. The employer has to show that the partial performance of the employee has a fundamental impact on their job to do this; and an entitlement to pay where the employer allows them to carry on working and instead makes an appropriate and reasonable deduction from the employee’s pay.
Economy DA Global Economy rising now due to stabilizing effects but COVID still means that it’s on the brink. Strikes hurt the economy since 1 they hurt core business industries like automobiles which can have cascading effects and 2 unstable labor relations can deter investment opportunities which wrecks growth. The Global Economy is stabilizing and set for increases in 2021 but is still vulnerable to shocks World Bank 6-8 6-8-2021 "The Global Economy: on Track for Strong but Uneven Growth as COVID-19 Still Weighs" https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/06/08/the-global-economy-on-track-for-strong-but-uneven-growth-as-covid-19-still-weighs A year and a half since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economy is poised to stage its most robust post-recession recovery in 80 years in 2021. But the rebound is expected to be uneven across countries, as major economies look set to register strong growth even as many developing economies lag. Global growth is expected to accelerate to 5.6 this year, largely on the strength in major economies such as the United States and China. And while growth for almost every region of the world has been revised upward for 2021, many continue to grapple with COVID-19 and what is likely to be its long shadow. Despite this year’s pickup, the level of global GDP in 2021 is expected to be 3.2 below pre-pandemic projections, and per capita GDP among many emerging market and developing economies is anticipated to remain below pre-COVID-19 peaks for an extended period. As the pandemic continues to flare, it will shape the path of global economic activity. Strikes hurt the Economy – two warrants: 1 They hurt critical core industries that is necessary for economic growth McElroy 19 John McElroy 10-25-2019 "Strikes Hurt Everybody" https://www.wardsauto.com/ideaxchange/strikes-hurt-everybody (MPA at McCombs school of Business) This creates a poisonous relationship between the company and its workforce. Many GM hourly workers don’t identify as GM employees. They identify as UAW members. And they see the union as the source of their jobs, not the company. It’s an unhealthy dynamic that puts GM at a disadvantage to non-union automakers in the U.S. like Honda and Toyota, where workers take pride in the company they work for and the products they make. Attacking the company in the media also drives away customers. Who wants to buy a shiny new car from a company that’s accused of underpaying its workers and treating them unfairly? Data from the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, MI, show that GM loses market share during strikes and never gets it back. GM lost two percentage points during the 1998 strike, which in today’s market would represent a loss of 340,000 sales. Because GM reports sales on a quarterly basis we’ll only find out at the end of December if it lost market share from this strike. UAW members say one of their greatest concerns is job security. But causing a company to lose market share is a sure-fire path to more plant closings and layoffs. Even so, unions are incredibly important for boosting wages and benefits for working-class people. GM’s UAW-represented workers earn considerably more than their non-union counterparts, about $26,000 more per worker, per year, in total compensation. Without a union they never would have achieved that. Strikes are a powerful weapon for unions. They usually are the only way they can get management to accede to their demands. If not for the power of collective bargaining and the threat of a strike, management would largely ignore union demands. If you took away that threat, management would pay its workers peanuts. Just ask the Mexican line workers who are paid $1.50 an hour to make $50,000 BMWs. But strikes don’t just hurt the people walking the picket lines or the company they’re striking against. They hurt suppliers, car dealers and the communities located near the plants. The Anderson Economic Group estimates that 75,000 workers at supplier companies were temporarily laid off because of the GM strike. Unlike UAW picketers, those supplier workers won’t get any strike pay or an $11,000 contract signing bonus. No, most of them lost close to a month’s worth of wages, which must be financially devastating for them. GM’s suppliers also lost a lot of money. So now they’re cutting budgets and delaying capital investments to make up for the lost revenue, which is a further drag on the economy. According to CAR, the communities and states where GM’s plants are located collectively lost a couple of hundred million dollars in payroll and tax revenue. Some economists warn that if the strike were prolonged it could knock the state of Michigan – home to GM and the UAW – into a recession. That prompted the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, to call GM CEO Mary Barra and UAW leaders and urge them to settle as fast as possible. So, while the UAW managed to get a nice raise for its members, the strike left a path of destruction in its wake. That’s not fair to the innocent bystanders who will never regain what they lost. John McElroyI’m not sure how this will ever be resolved. I understand the need for collective bargaining and the threat of a strike. But there’s got to be a better way to get workers a raise without torching the countryside. 2 Strikes create a stigmatization effect over labor and consumption that devastates the Economy Tenza 20, Mlungisi. "The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa." Obiter 41.3 (2020): 519-537. (Senior Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal) When South Africa obtained democracy in 1994, there was a dream of a better country with a new vision for industrial relations.5 However, the number of violent strikes that have bedevilled this country in recent years seems to have shattered-down the aspirations of a better South Africa. South Africa recorded 114 strikes in 2013 and 88 strikes in 2014, which cost the country about R6.1 billion according to the Department of Labour.6 The impact of these strikes has been hugely felt by the mining sector, particularly the platinum industry. The biggest strike took place in the platinum sector where about 70 000 mineworkers’ downed tools for better wages. Three major platinum producers (Impala, Anglo American and Lonmin Platinum Mines) were affected. The strike started on 23 January 2014 and ended on 25 June 2014. Business Day reported that “the five-month-long strike in the platinum sector pushed the economy to the brink of recession”. 7 This strike was closely followed by a four-week strike in the metal and engineering sector. All these strikes (and those not mentioned here) were characterised with violence accompanied by damage to property, intimidation, assault and sometimes the killing of people. Statistics from the metal and engineering sector showed that about 246 cases of intimidation were reported, 50 violent incidents occurred, and 85 cases of vandalism were recorded.8 Large-scale unemployment, soaring poverty levels and the dramatic income inequality that characterise the South African labour market provide a broad explanation for strike violence.9 While participating in a strike, workers’ stress levels leave them feeling frustrated at their seeming powerlessness, which in turn provokes further violent behaviour.10 These strikes are not only violent but take long to resolve. Generally, a lengthy strike has a negative effect on employment, reduces business confidence and increases the risk of economic stagflation. In addition, such strikes have a major setback on the growth of the economy and investment opportunities. It is common knowledge that consumer spending is directly linked to economic growth. At the same time, if the economy is not showing signs of growth, employment opportunities are shed, and poverty becomes the end result. The economy of South Africa is in need of rapid growth to enable it to deal with the high levels of unemployment and resultant poverty. One of the measures that may boost the country’s economic growth is by attracting potential investors to invest in the country. However, this might be difficult as investors would want to invest in a country where there is a likelihood of getting returns for their investments. The wish of getting returns for investment may not materialise if the labour environment is not fertile for such investments as a result of, for example, unstable labour relations. Therefore, investors may be reluctant to invest where there is an unstable or fragile labour relations environment. 3 THE COMMISSION OF VIOLENCE DURING A STRIKE AND CONSEQUENCES The Constitution guarantees every worker the right to join a trade union, participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union, and to strike. 11 The Constitution grants these rights to a “worker” as an individual.12 However, the right to strike and any other conduct in contemplation or furtherance of a strike such as a picket13 can only be exercised by workers acting collectively.14 The right to strike and participation in the activities of a trade union were given more effect through the enactment of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 199515 (LRA). The main purpose of the LRA is to “advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace”. 16 The advancement of social justice means that the exercise of the right to strike must advance the interests of workers and at the same time workers must refrain from any conduct that can affect those who are not on strike as well members of society. Even though the right to strike and the right to participate in the activities of a trade union that often flow from a strike17 are guaranteed in the Constitution and specifically regulated by the LRA, it sometimes happens that the right to strike is exercised for purposes not intended by the Constitution and the LRA, generally. 18 For example, it was not the intention of the Constitutional Assembly and the legislature that violence should be used during strikes or pickets. As the Constitution provides, pickets are meant to be peaceful. 19 Contrary to section 17 of the Constitution, the conduct of workers participating in a strike or picket has changed in recent years with workers trying to emphasise their grievances by causing disharmony and chaos in public. A media report by the South African Institute of Race Relations pointed out that between the years 1999 and 2012 there were 181 strike-related deaths, 313 injuries and 3,058 people were arrested for public violence associated with strikes.20 The question is whether employers succumb easily to workers’ demands if a strike is accompanied by violence? In response to this question, one worker remarked as follows: “There is no sweet strike, there is no Christian strike … A strike is a strike. You want to get back what belongs to you ... you won’t win a strike with a Bible. You do not wear high heels and carry an umbrella and say ‘1992 was under apartheid, 2007 is under ANC’. You won’t win a strike like that.” 21 The use of violence during industrial action affects not only the strikers or picketers, the employer and his or her business but it also affects innocent members of the public, non-striking employees, the environment and the economy at large. In addition, striking workers visit non-striking workers’ homes, often at night, threaten them and in some cases, assault or even murder workers who are acting as replacement labour. 22 This points to the fact that for many workers and their families’ living conditions remain unsafe and vulnerable to damage due to violence. In Security Services Employers Organisation v SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU),23 it was reported that about 20 people were thrown out of moving trains in the Gauteng province; most of them were security guards who were not on strike and who were believed to be targeted by their striking colleagues. Two of them died, while others were admitted to hospitals with serious injuries.24 In SA Chemical Catering and Allied Workers Union v Check One (Pty) Ltd,25 striking employees were carrying various weapons ranging from sticks, pipes, planks and bottles. One of the strikers Mr Nqoko was alleged to have threatened to cut the throats of those employees who had been brought from other branches of the employer’s business to help in the branch where employees were on strike. Such conduct was held not to be in line with good conduct of striking.26 These examples from case law show that South Africa is facing a problem that is affecting not only the industrial relations’ sector but also the economy at large. For example, in 2012, during a strike by workers employed by Lonmin in Marikana, the then-new union Association of Mine and Construction Workers Union (AMCU) wanted to exert its presence after it appeared that many workers were not happy with the way the majority union, National Union of Mine Workers (NUM), handled negotiations with the employer (Lonmin Mine). AMCU went on an unprotected strike which was violent and resulted in the loss of lives, damage to property and negative economic consequences including a weakened currency, reduced global investment, declining productivity, and increase unemployment in the affected sectors.27 Further, the unreasonably long time it takes for strikes to get resolved in the Republic has a negative effect on the business of the employer, the economy and employment. 3 1 Effects of violent and long strikes on the economy Generally, South Africa’s economy is on a downward scale. First, it fails to create employment opportunities for its people. The recent statistics on unemployment levels indicate that unemployment has increased from 26.5 to 27.2. 28 The most prominent strike which nearly brought the platinum industries to its knees was the strike convened by AMCU in 2014. The strike started on 23 January 2014 and ended on 24 June 2014. It affected the three big platinum producers in the Republic, which are the Anglo American Platinum, Lonmin Plc and Impala Platinum. It was the longest strike since the dawn of democracy in 1994. As a result of this strike, the platinum industries lost billions of rands.29 According to the report by Economic Research Southern Africa, the platinum group metals industry is South Africa’s second-largest export earner behind gold and contributes just over 2 of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).30 The overall metal ores in the mining industry which include platinum sells about 70 of its output to the export market while sales to local manufacturers of basic metals, fabricated metal products and various other metal equipment and machinery make up to 20. 31 The research indicates that the overall impact of the strike in 2014 was driven by a reduction in productive capital in the mining sector, accompanied by a decrease in labour available to the economy. This resulted in a sharp increase in the price of the output by 5.8 with a GDP declined by 0.72 and 0.78.32 Err Negative – over-estimate the effect on Strikes on the economy since traditional economic measures underestimate the damage. Babb No Date Katrina Babb "Chapter 11: The Economic Impact of Unions" http://isu.indstate.edu/conant/ecn351/ch11/chapter11.htm (Professor of Economic at Indiana State) Strikes Simple statistics on strike activity suggest that strikes are relatively rare and the associated aggregate economic losses are relatively minimal. Table 11-3 provides data on major work stoppages, defined as those involving 1000 or more workers and lasting at least one full day or one work shift. But these data can be misleading as a measure of the costliness of a strike. On the one hand, employers in the struck industry may have anticipated the strike and worked their labor force overtime to accumulate inventories to supply customers during the strike period, so that the work lost data overstates the actual loss. On the other hand, the amount lost can be understated by the data if production in associated industries ( those that buy inputs from the struck industry or sell products to it) is disrupted. As a broad generalization, the adverse effects of a strike on nonstriking firms and customers are likely to be greater when services are involved and less when products are involved. Remember, that strikes are the result of the failure of both parties to the negotiation, so it is inaccurate to attribute all of the costs associated with a strike to labor alone. Economic Collapse goes Nuclear. Tønnesson 15, Stein. "Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace." International Area Studies Review 18.3 (2015): 297-311. (the Department of Peace and Conflict, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Peace research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Norway) Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly, i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious. If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility: one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.
Hospital DA
Hospital Strikes are devastating to public health infrastructure and patient care and sky-rocket costs – hospital strikes are relatively low now but the Plan green-lights more aggressive Strike actions. Masterson 17 Les Masterson 8-15-2017 "Nursing strikes can cause harm well beyond labor relations" https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/nursing-strikes-can-cause-harm-well-beyond-labor-relations/447627/ (Senior Managing Editor at Quinstreet)Elmer Officials said the lockout was required because they needed to give at least five-day contracts to 320 temporary nurses brought in to fill the gap. The nurses are back on the job now without a new contract, but the strike and subsequent lockout got the public’s attention. Hospital strikes aren't that common — usually, the sides agree to a new contract. Strikes or threatened strikes in recent years have typically involved conflicts over pay, benefits and staff workloads. When strikes do happen, however, they can hurt a hospital’s reputation, finances and patient care. Strike’s effect on patient safety A study on nurses’ strikes in New York found that labor actions have a temporary negative effect on a hospital’s patient safety. Study authors Jonathan Gruber and Samuel A. Kleiner found that nurses’ strikes increased in-patient mortality by 18.3 and 30-day readmission by 5.7 for patients admitted during the strike. Patients admitted during a strike got a lower quality of care, they wrote. “We show that this deterioration in outcomes occurs only for those patients admitted during a strike, and not for those admitted to the same hospitals before or after a strike. And we find that these changes in outcomes are not associated with any meaningful change in the composition of, or the treatment intensity for, patients admitted during a strike,” they said. They said a possible reason for the lower quality is fewer major procedures performed during a strike, which could lead partially to diminished outcomes. The study authors found that patients that need the most nursing care are the ones who make out worst during strikes. “We find that patients with particularly nursing-intensive conditions are more susceptible to these strike effects, and that hospitals hiring replacement workers perform no better during these strikes than those that do not hire substitute employees,” they wrote. Allina Health’s Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis faced a patient safety issue during a strike last year that resulted in the CMS placing the hospital in “immediate jeopardy” status after a medication error. A replacement nurse administered adrenaline to an asthmatic patient through an IV rather than into the patient’s muscle. The patient, who was in the emergency room (ER), wound up in intensive care for three days because of the error. Allina said the error was not the nurse’s fault, but was the result of a communication problem. The CMS accepted the hospital plan of correction, which included having a nurse observer when needed and retraining ER staff to repeat back verbal orders. A strike’s financial impact Hospitals also take a financial hit during strikes. Even the threat of a one- or two-day nurse strike can cost a hospital millions. Bringing in hundreds or thousands of temporary nurses from across the country is costly for hospitals. They need to advertise the positions, pay for travel and often give bonuses to lure temporary nurses. The most expensive recent nurse strike was when about 4,800 nurses went on strike at Allina Health in Minnesota two times last year. The two strikes of seven days and 41 days cost the health system $104 million. The hospital also saw a $67.74 million operating loss during the quarter of those strikes. To find temporary replacements, Allina needed to include enticing offers, such as free travel and a $400 bonus to temporary nurses. Even the threat of a strike can cost millions. Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston spent more than $8 million and lost $16 million in revenue preparing for a strike in 2016. The 3,300-nurse union threatened to walk out for a day and much like Tufts Medical Center, Brigham and Women’s said the hospital would lock out nurses for four additional days if nurses took action. At that time, Dr. Ron Walls, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the hospital spent more than $5 million on contracting with the U.S. Nursing Corp. to bring on 700 temporary nurses licensed in Massachusetts. The hospital also planned to cut capacity to 60 during the possible strike and moved hundreds of patients to other hospitals. They also canceled procedures and appointments in preparation of a strike. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and Brigham and Women’s were able to reach a three-year agreement before a strike, but the damage was already done to the hospital’s finances. Richard L. Gundling, senior vice president of healthcare financial practices at Healthcare Financial Management Association, told Healthcare Dive that healthcare organizations need to plan for business continuity in case of an event, such as a labor strike, natural disaster or cyberattack. “Business continuity is directly related to the CFO’s responsibility for maintaining business functions. The plan should include having business continuity insurance in place to replace the loss associated with diminished revenue and increased expenses during the event,” Gundling said. These plans should provide adequate staffing, training, materials, supplies, equipment and communications in case of a strike. Hospitals should also keep payers, financial agencies and other important stakeholders informed of potential issues. “It’s also key to keep financial stakeholders well informed; this includes insurance companies, bond rating agencies, banks, other investors, suppliers and Medicare/Medicaid contractors,” he said. “Business continuity is directly related to the CFO’s responsibility for maintaining business functions. The plan should include having business continuity insurance in place to replace the loss associated with diminished revenue and increased expenses during the event." Richard Gundling Senior vice president of healthcare financial practices, Healthcare Financial Management Association Impact to a hospital’s reputation Hospital strikes, particularly nurses’ strikes, can also wreak havoc on a hospital’s reputation. Nurses are a beloved profession. They work hard, often long hours and don’t make a fortune doing it. The median registered nurses’ salary is about $70,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Strikes endanger patients and violates moral duties to others AND hurts trust between patients and doctors Campbell 16 Denis Campbell 4-9-2016 "All-out junior doctors’ strike unethical and reckless, says NHS chief" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/09/doctors-strike-nhs-chief-england (Denis Campbell is health policy editor for the Guardian and the Observer. He has written about the NHS, public health and medicine since 2007 and shares health-writing duties with Sarah Boseley, the health editor) JG
A total withdrawal of labour, scheduled for later this month, will threaten hospitals’ ability to deliver safe care in areas such as AandE, childbirth and intensive care, according to Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, the national medical director of NHS England. In a strongly worded article in the Observer, Keogh writes that such an escalation of the dispute with the government would be reckless, unethical, a breach of the medical profession’s fundamental duty to “do no harm” and a move that will destroy the public’s trust in doctors. “Despite the fact that consultants will do their best to cover, the fact is that junior doctors are key to the safe and effective running of our NHS. So this new action will put additional, significant strain on AandE, intensive care and maternity services, particularly in smaller hospital,” Keogh explains. “I worry that withdrawal of emergency cover will put our sickest and most vulnerable patients at greater risk. This challenges the ethical framework on which our profession is founded and runs against the grain of our NHS and our personal and professional values”, he adds. Junior doctors are due to refuse to work in any medical setting at all between 8am and 5pm on 26 and 27 April as part of their campaign of industrial action in the bitter and long-running row with Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, over the new contract he intends to impose on them from August. The British Medical Association reacted angrily to Keogh’s intervention. Johann Malawana, the BMA’s junior doctor chair, said: “No junior doctor wants to take this action but we have been left with no choice. They have already done everything else in their power to make their voices heard - protests, marches, petitions, emergency care only strikes. By continuing to ignore them, the government has left them left with no choice. “We regret any disruption caused to patients and have given trusts enough notice for them to plan ahead, and to ensure that senior hospital doctors, GPs and other NHS staff will continue to provide excellent care for patients. Please be assured that should someone need emergency care on a day of action, they will receive it. “It is disappointing that Bruce Keogh is attacking frontline doctors rather than echoing calls, from patients’ groups to senior NHS managers, for the government to get back around the table and end this dispute through talks. In his article, Keogh argues that the continuing series of strikes have caused too much “distress, anxiety and confusion” to patients already through the cancellation of almost 25,000 operations, as a result of four walkouts since January. He says an all-out strike would be “a watershed moment for the NHS”. Keogh is the first senior doctor to articulate in public the warnings that many leaders of the profession have recently given the BMA privately about the danger of patients dying because too few doctors were on duty. Many of the medical royal colleges, which represent different types of doctors professionally, are torn between support for their striking trainees and fear that doctors’ high standing with the public could be ruined if a total withdrawal of cover is seen as a step too far.
Hospitals are the critical internal link for pandemic preparedness. Al Thobaity 20, Abdullelah, and Farhan Alshammari. "Nurses on the frontline against the COVID-19 pandemic: an Integrative review." Dubai Medical Journal 3.3 (2020): 87-92. (Associate Professor of Nursing at Taif University) The majority of infected or symptomatic people seek medical treatment in medical facilities, particularly hospitals, as a high number of cases, especially those in critical condition, will have an impact on hospitals 4. The concept of hospital resilience in disaster situations is defined as the ability to recover from the damage caused by huge disturbances quickly 2. The resilience of hospitals to pandemic cases depends on the preparedness of the institutions, and not all hospitals have the same resilience. A lower resilience will affect the sustainability of the health services. This also affects healthcare providers such as doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals 5, 6. Despite the impact on healthcare providers, excellent management of a pandemic depends on the level of preparedness of healthcare providers, including nurses. This means that if it was impossible to be ready before a crisis or disaster, responsible people will do all but the impossible to save lives.
New Pandemics are deadlier and faster are coming – COVID is just the beginning Antonelli 20 Ashley Fuoco Antonelli 5-15-2020 https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/05/15/weekly-line "Weekly line: Why deadly disease outbreaks could become more common—even after Covid-19" (Associate Editor — American Health Line) Contagious during the so-called "incubation period"—the time when people are infected with a pathogen but are not yet showing symptoms of the infection or are showing only mild symptoms; and Resistant to any known prevention or treatment methods. The researchers also concluded that such a pathogen would have a "low but significant" fatality rate, meaning the pathogen wouldn't kill human hosts fast enough to inhibit its spread. As Amesh Adalja—a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who led the report—told Live Science's Rachael Rettner at the time, "It just has to make a lot of people sick" to disrupt society. The researchers said RNA viruses—which include the common cold, influenza, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (or SARS, which is caused by a type of coronavirus)—fit that bill. And even though we had a good bit of experience dealing with common RNA viruses like the flu, Adalja at the time told Rettner that there were "a whole host of viral families that get very little attention when it comes to pandemic preparedness." Not even two years later, the new coronavirus, which causes Covid-19, emerged and quickly spread throughout the world, reaching pandemic status in just a few months. To date, officials have reported more than 4.4 million cases of Covid-19 and 302,160 deaths tied to the new coronavirus globally. In the United States, the number of reported Covid-19 cases has reached more than 1.4 million and the number of reported deaths tied to the new coronavirus has risen to nearly 86,000 in just over three months. Although public health experts had warned about the likelihood of a respiratory-borne RNA virus causing the next global pandemic, many say the world was largely unprepared to handle this type of infectious disease outbreak. And as concerning as that revelation may be on its own, perhaps even more worrisome is that public health experts predict life-threatening infectious disease outbreaks are likely to become more common—meaning we could be susceptible to another pandemic in the future. Why experts think deadly infectious disease outbreaks could become more common As the Los Angeles Times's Joshua Emerson Smith notes, infectious disease experts for more than ten years now have noted that "outbreaks of dangerous new diseases with the potential to become pandemics have been on the rise—from HIV to swine flu to SARS to Ebola." For instance, a report published in Nature in 2008 found that the number of emerging infectious disease events that occurred in the 1990s was more than three times higher than it was in the 1940s. Many experts believe the recent increase in infectious disease outbreaks is tied to human behaviors that disrupt the environment, "such as deforestation and poaching," which have led "to increased contact between highly mobile, urbanized human populations and wild animals," Emerson Smith writes. In the 2008 report, for example, researchers noted that about 60 of 355 emerging infectious disease events that occurred over a 50-year period could be largely linked to wild animals, livestock, and, to a lesser extent, pets. Now, researchers believe the new coronavirus first jumped to humans from animals at a wildlife market in Wuhan, China. Along those same lines, some experts have argued that global climate change has driven an increase in infectious diseases—and could continue to do so. A federally mandated report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 2018 warned that warmer temperatures could expand the geographic range covered by disease-carrying insects and pests, which could result in more Americans being exposed to ticks carrying Lyme disease and mosquitos carrying the dengue, West Nile, and Zika viruses. And experts now say continued warming in global temperatures, deforestation, and other environmentally disruptive behaviors have broadened that risk by bringing more people into contact with disease-carrying animals. Further, experts note that infectious diseases today are able to spread much faster and farther than they could decades ago because of increasing globalization and travel. While some have suggested the Covid-19 pandemic could stifle that trend, others argue globalization is likely to continue—meaning so could infectious diseases' far spread.
Economy Disadvantage Global Economy rising now due to stabilizing effects but COVID still means that it’s on the brink. Strikes hurt the economy since 1 they hurt core business industries like automobiles which can have cascading effects and 2 unstable labor relations can deter investment opportunities which wrecks growth. The Global Economy is stabilizing and set for increases in 2021 but is still vulnerable to shocks World Bank 6-8 6-8-2021 "The Global Economy: on Track for Strong but Uneven Growth as COVID-19 Still Weighs" https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2021/06/08/the-global-economy-on-track-for-strong-but-uneven-growth-as-covid-19-still-weighs A year and a half since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the global economy is poised to stage its most robust post-recession recovery in 80 years in 2021. But the rebound is expected to be uneven across countries, as major economies look set to register strong growth even as many developing economies lag. Global growth is expected to accelerate to 5.6 this year, largely on the strength in major economies such as the United States and China. And while growth for almost every region of the world has been revised upward for 2021, many continue to grapple with COVID-19 and what is likely to be its long shadow. Despite this year’s pickup, the level of global GDP in 2021 is expected to be 3.2 below pre-pandemic projections, and per capita GDP among many emerging market and developing economies is anticipated to remain below pre-COVID-19 peaks for an extended period. As the pandemic continues to flare, it will shape the path of global economic activity. Strikes hurt the Economy – two warrants: 1 They hurt critical core industries that is necessary for economic growth McElroy 19 John McElroy 10-25-2019 "Strikes Hurt Everybody" https://www.wardsauto.com/ideaxchange/strikes-hurt-everybody (MPA at McCombs school of Business) This creates a poisonous relationship between the company and its workforce. Many GM hourly workers don’t identify as GM employees. They identify as UAW members. And they see the union as the source of their jobs, not the company. It’s an unhealthy dynamic that puts GM at a disadvantage to non-union automakers in the U.S. like Honda and Toyota, where workers take pride in the company they work for and the products they make. Attacking the company in the media also drives away customers. Who wants to buy a shiny new car from a company that’s accused of underpaying its workers and treating them unfairly? Data from the Center for Automotive Research (CAR) in Ann Arbor, MI, show that GM loses market share during strikes and never gets it back. GM lost two percentage points during the 1998 strike, which in today’s market would represent a loss of 340,000 sales. Because GM reports sales on a quarterly basis we’ll only find out at the end of December if it lost market share from this strike. UAW members say one of their greatest concerns is job security. But causing a company to lose market share is a sure-fire path to more plant closings and layoffs. Even so, unions are incredibly important for boosting wages and benefits for working-class people. GM’s UAW-represented workers earn considerably more than their non-union counterparts, about $26,000 more per worker, per year, in total compensation. Without a union they never would have achieved that. Strikes are a powerful weapon for unions. They usually are the only way they can get management to accede to their demands. If not for the power of collective bargaining and the threat of a strike, management would largely ignore union demands. If you took away that threat, management would pay its workers peanuts. Just ask the Mexican line workers who are paid $1.50 an hour to make $50,000 BMWs. But strikes don’t just hurt the people walking the picket lines or the company they’re striking against. They hurt suppliers, car dealers and the communities located near the plants. The Anderson Economic Group estimates that 75,000 workers at supplier companies were temporarily laid off because of the GM strike. Unlike UAW picketers, those supplier workers won’t get any strike pay or an $11,000 contract signing bonus. No, most of them lost close to a month’s worth of wages, which must be financially devastating for them. GM’s suppliers also lost a lot of money. So now they’re cutting budgets and delaying capital investments to make up for the lost revenue, which is a further drag on the economy. According to CAR, the communities and states where GM’s plants are located collectively lost a couple of hundred million dollars in payroll and tax revenue. Some economists warn that if the strike were prolonged it could knock the state of Michigan – home to GM and the UAW – into a recession. That prompted the governor of Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer, to call GM CEO Mary Barra and UAW leaders and urge them to settle as fast as possible. So, while the UAW managed to get a nice raise for its members, the strike left a path of destruction in its wake. That’s not fair to the innocent bystanders who will never regain what they lost. John McElroyI’m not sure how this will ever be resolved. I understand the need for collective bargaining and the threat of a strike. But there’s got to be a better way to get workers a raise without torching the countryside. 2 Strikes create a stigmatization effect over labor and consumption that devastates the Economy Tenza 20, Mlungisi. "The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa." Obiter 41.3 (2020): 519-537. (Senior Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal) When South Africa obtained democracy in 1994, there was a dream of a better country with a new vision for industrial relations.5 However, the number of violent strikes that have bedevilled this country in recent years seems to have shattered-down the aspirations of a better South Africa. South Africa recorded 114 strikes in 2013 and 88 strikes in 2014, which cost the country about R6.1 billion according to the Department of Labour.6 The impact of these strikes has been hugely felt by the mining sector, particularly the platinum industry. The biggest strike took place in the platinum sector where about 70 000 mineworkers’ downed tools for better wages. Three major platinum producers (Impala, Anglo American and Lonmin Platinum Mines) were affected. The strike started on 23 January 2014 and ended on 25 June 2014. Business Day reported that “the five-month-long strike in the platinum sector pushed the economy to the brink of recession”. 7 This strike was closely followed by a four-week strike in the metal and engineering sector. All these strikes (and those not mentioned here) were characterised with violence accompanied by damage to property, intimidation, assault and sometimes the killing of people. Statistics from the metal and engineering sector showed that about 246 cases of intimidation were reported, 50 violent incidents occurred, and 85 cases of vandalism were recorded.8 Large-scale unemployment, soaring poverty levels and the dramatic income inequality that characterise the South African labour market provide a broad explanation for strike violence.9 While participating in a strike, workers’ stress levels leave them feeling frustrated at their seeming powerlessness, which in turn provokes further violent behaviour.10 These strikes are not only violent but take long to resolve. Generally, a lengthy strike has a negative effect on employment, reduces business confidence and increases the risk of economic stagflation. In addition, such strikes have a major setback on the growth of the economy and investment opportunities. It is common knowledge that consumer spending is directly linked to economic growth. At the same time, if the economy is not showing signs of growth, employment opportunities are shed, and poverty becomes the end result. The economy of South Africa is in need of rapid growth to enable it to deal with the high levels of unemployment and resultant poverty. One of the measures that may boost the country’s economic growth is by attracting potential investors to invest in the country. However, this might be difficult as investors would want to invest in a country where there is a likelihood of getting returns for their investments. The wish of getting returns for investment may not materialise if the labour environment is not fertile for such investments as a result of, for example, unstable labour relations. Therefore, investors may be reluctant to invest where there is an unstable or fragile labour relations environment. 3 THE COMMISSION OF VIOLENCE DURING A STRIKE AND CONSEQUENCES The Constitution guarantees every worker the right to join a trade union, participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union, and to strike. 11 The Constitution grants these rights to a “worker” as an individual.12 However, the right to strike and any other conduct in contemplation or furtherance of a strike such as a picket13 can only be exercised by workers acting collectively.14 The right to strike and participation in the activities of a trade union were given more effect through the enactment of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 199515 (LRA). The main purpose of the LRA is to “advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace”. 16 The advancement of social justice means that the exercise of the right to strike must advance the interests of workers and at the same time workers must refrain from any conduct that can affect those who are not on strike as well members of society. Even though the right to strike and the right to participate in the activities of a trade union that often flow from a strike17 are guaranteed in the Constitution and specifically regulated by the LRA, it sometimes happens that the right to strike is exercised for purposes not intended by the Constitution and the LRA, generally. 18 For example, it was not the intention of the Constitutional Assembly and the legislature that violence should be used during strikes or pickets. As the Constitution provides, pickets are meant to be peaceful. 19 Contrary to section 17 of the Constitution, the conduct of workers participating in a strike or picket has changed in recent years with workers trying to emphasise their grievances by causing disharmony and chaos in public. A media report by the South African Institute of Race Relations pointed out that between the years 1999 and 2012 there were 181 strike-related deaths, 313 injuries and 3,058 people were arrested for public violence associated with strikes.20 The question is whether employers succumb easily to workers’ demands if a strike is accompanied by violence? In response to this question, one worker remarked as follows: “There is no sweet strike, there is no Christian strike … A strike is a strike. You want to get back what belongs to you ... you won’t win a strike with a Bible. You do not wear high heels and carry an umbrella and say ‘1992 was under apartheid, 2007 is under ANC’. You won’t win a strike like that.” 21 The use of violence during industrial action affects not only the strikers or picketers, the employer and his or her business but it also affects innocent members of the public, non-striking employees, the environment and the economy at large. In addition, striking workers visit non-striking workers’ homes, often at night, threaten them and in some cases, assault or even murder workers who are acting as replacement labour. 22 This points to the fact that for many workers and their families’ living conditions remain unsafe and vulnerable to damage due to violence. In Security Services Employers Organisation v SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU),23 it was reported that about 20 people were thrown out of moving trains in the Gauteng province; most of them were security guards who were not on strike and who were believed to be targeted by their striking colleagues. Two of them died, while others were admitted to hospitals with serious injuries.24 In SA Chemical Catering and Allied Workers Union v Check One (Pty) Ltd,25 striking employees were carrying various weapons ranging from sticks, pipes, planks and bottles. One of the strikers Mr Nqoko was alleged to have threatened to cut the throats of those employees who had been brought from other branches of the employer’s business to help in the branch where employees were on strike. Such conduct was held not to be in line with good conduct of striking.26 These examples from case law show that South Africa is facing a problem that is affecting not only the industrial relations’ sector but also the economy at large. For example, in 2012, during a strike by workers employed by Lonmin in Marikana, the then-new union Association of Mine and Construction Workers Union (AMCU) wanted to exert its presence after it appeared that many workers were not happy with the way the majority union, National Union of Mine Workers (NUM), handled negotiations with the employer (Lonmin Mine). AMCU went on an unprotected strike which was violent and resulted in the loss of lives, damage to property and negative economic consequences including a weakened currency, reduced global investment, declining productivity, and increase unemployment in the affected sectors.27 Further, the unreasonably long time it takes for strikes to get resolved in the Republic has a negative effect on the business of the employer, the economy and employment. 3 1 Effects of violent and long strikes on the economy Generally, South Africa’s economy is on a downward scale. First, it fails to create employment opportunities for its people. The recent statistics on unemployment levels indicate that unemployment has increased from 26.5 to 27.2. 28 The most prominent strike which nearly brought the platinum industries to its knees was the strike convened by AMCU in 2014. The strike started on 23 January 2014 and ended on 24 June 2014. It affected the three big platinum producers in the Republic, which are the Anglo American Platinum, Lonmin Plc and Impala Platinum. It was the longest strike since the dawn of democracy in 1994. As a result of this strike, the platinum industries lost billions of rands.29 According to the report by Economic Research Southern Africa, the platinum group metals industry is South Africa’s second-largest export earner behind gold and contributes just over 2 of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).30 The overall metal ores in the mining industry which include platinum sells about 70 of its output to the export market while sales to local manufacturers of basic metals, fabricated metal products and various other metal equipment and machinery make up to 20. 31 The research indicates that the overall impact of the strike in 2014 was driven by a reduction in productive capital in the mining sector, accompanied by a decrease in labour available to the economy. This resulted in a sharp increase in the price of the output by 5.8 with a GDP declined by 0.72 and 0.78.32 Err Negative – over-estimate the effect on Strikes on the economy since traditional economic measures underestimate the damage. Babb No Date Katrina Babb "Chapter 11: The Economic Impact of Unions" http://isu.indstate.edu/conant/ecn351/ch11/chapter11.htm (Professor of Economic at Indiana State) Strikes Simple statistics on strike activity suggest that strikes are relatively rare and the associated aggregate economic losses are relatively minimal. Table 11-3 provides data on major work stoppages, defined as those involving 1000 or more workers and lasting at least one full day or one work shift. But these data can be misleading as a measure of the costliness of a strike. On the one hand, employers in the struck industry may have anticipated the strike and worked their labor force overtime to accumulate inventories to supply customers during the strike period, so that the work lost data overstates the actual loss. On the other hand, the amount lost can be understated by the data if production in associated industries ( those that buy inputs from the struck industry or sell products to it) is disrupted. As a broad generalization, the adverse effects of a strike on nonstriking firms and customers are likely to be greater when services are involved and less when products are involved. Remember, that strikes are the result of the failure of both parties to the negotiation, so it is inaccurate to attribute all of the costs associated with a strike to labor alone. Economic Collapse falls out into an all-out international conflict. Tønnesson 15, Stein. "Deterrence, interdependence and Sino–US peace." International Area Studies Review 18.3 (2015): 297-311. (the Department of Peace and Conflict, Uppsala University, Sweden, and Peace research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Norway) Several recent works on China and Sino–US relations have made substantial contributions to the current understanding of how and under what circumstances a combination of nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence may reduce the risk of war between major powers. At least four conclusions can be drawn from the review above: first, those who say that interdependence may both inhibit and drive conflict are right. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict for all sides but asymmetrical or unbalanced dependencies and negative trade expectations may generate tensions leading to trade wars among inter-dependent states that in turn increase the risk of military conflict (Copeland, 2015: 1, 14, 437; Roach, 2014). The risk may increase if one of the interdependent countries is governed by an inward-looking socio-economic coalition (Solingen, 2015); second, the risk of war between China and the US should not just be analysed bilaterally but include their allies and partners. Third party countries could drag China or the US into confrontation; third, in this context it is of some comfort that the three main economic powers in Northeast Asia (China, Japan and South Korea) are all deeply integrated economically through production networks within a global system of trade and finance (Ravenhill, 2014; Yoshimatsu, 2014: 576); and fourth, decisions for war and peace are taken by very few people, who act on the basis of their future expectations. International relations theory must be supplemented by foreign policy analysis in order to assess the value attributed by national decision-makers to economic development and their assessments of risks and opportunities. If leaders on either side of the Atlantic begin to seriously fear or anticipate their own nation’s decline then they may blame this on external dependence, appeal to anti-foreign sentiments, contemplate the use of force to gain respect or credibility, adopt protectionist policies, and ultimately refuse to be deterred by either nuclear arms or prospects of socioeconomic calamities. Such a dangerous shift could happen abruptly, i.e. under the instigation of actions by a third party – or against a third party. Yet as long as there is both nuclear deterrence and interdependence, the tensions in East Asia are unlikely to escalate to war. As Chan (2013) says, all states in the region are aware that they cannot count on support from either China or the US if they make provocative moves. The greatest risk is not that a territorial dispute leads to war under present circumstances but that changes in the world economy alter those circumstances in ways that render inter-state peace more precarious. If China and the US fail to rebalance their financial and trading relations (Roach, 2014) then a trade war could result, interrupting transnational production networks, provoking social distress, and exacerbating nationalist emotions. This could have unforeseen consequences in the field of security, with nuclear deterrence remaining the only factor to protect the world from Armageddon, and unreliably so. Deterrence could lose its credibility: one of the two great powers might gamble that the other yield in a cyber-war or conventional limited war, or third party countries might engage in conflict with each other, with a view to obliging Washington or Beijing to intervene.
Hospital DA
Hospital Strikes are devastating to public health infrastructure and patient care and sky-rocket costs – hospital strikes are relatively low now but the Plan green-lights more aggressive Strike actions. Masterson 17 Les Masterson 8-15-2017 "Nursing strikes can cause harm well beyond labor relations" https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/nursing-strikes-can-cause-harm-well-beyond-labor-relations/447627/ (Senior Managing Editor at Quinstreet)Elmer Officials said the lockout was required because they needed to give at least five-day contracts to 320 temporary nurses brought in to fill the gap. The nurses are back on the job now without a new contract, but the strike and subsequent lockout got the public’s attention. Hospital strikes aren't that common — usually, the sides agree to a new contract. Strikes or threatened strikes in recent years have typically involved conflicts over pay, benefits and staff workloads. When strikes do happen, however, they can hurt a hospital’s reputation, finances and patient care. Strike’s effect on patient safety A study on nurses’ strikes in New York found that labor actions have a temporary negative effect on a hospital’s patient safety. Study authors Jonathan Gruber and Samuel A. Kleiner found that nurses’ strikes increased in-patient mortality by 18.3 and 30-day readmission by 5.7 for patients admitted during the strike. Patients admitted during a strike got a lower quality of care, they wrote. “We show that this deterioration in outcomes occurs only for those patients admitted during a strike, and not for those admitted to the same hospitals before or after a strike. And we find that these changes in outcomes are not associated with any meaningful change in the composition of, or the treatment intensity for, patients admitted during a strike,” they said. They said a possible reason for the lower quality is fewer major procedures performed during a strike, which could lead partially to diminished outcomes. The study authors found that patients that need the most nursing care are the ones who make out worst during strikes. “We find that patients with particularly nursing-intensive conditions are more susceptible to these strike effects, and that hospitals hiring replacement workers perform no better during these strikes than those that do not hire substitute employees,” they wrote. Allina Health’s Abbott Northwestern Hospital in Minneapolis faced a patient safety issue during a strike last year that resulted in the CMS placing the hospital in “immediate jeopardy” status after a medication error. A replacement nurse administered adrenaline to an asthmatic patient through an IV rather than into the patient’s muscle. The patient, who was in the emergency room (ER), wound up in intensive care for three days because of the error. Allina said the error was not the nurse’s fault, but was the result of a communication problem. The CMS accepted the hospital plan of correction, which included having a nurse observer when needed and retraining ER staff to repeat back verbal orders. A strike’s financial impact Hospitals also take a financial hit during strikes. Even the threat of a one- or two-day nurse strike can cost a hospital millions. Bringing in hundreds or thousands of temporary nurses from across the country is costly for hospitals. They need to advertise the positions, pay for travel and often give bonuses to lure temporary nurses. The most expensive recent nurse strike was when about 4,800 nurses went on strike at Allina Health in Minnesota two times last year. The two strikes of seven days and 41 days cost the health system $104 million. The hospital also saw a $67.74 million operating loss during the quarter of those strikes. To find temporary replacements, Allina needed to include enticing offers, such as free travel and a $400 bonus to temporary nurses. Even the threat of a strike can cost millions. Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston spent more than $8 million and lost $16 million in revenue preparing for a strike in 2016. The 3,300-nurse union threatened to walk out for a day and much like Tufts Medical Center, Brigham and Women’s said the hospital would lock out nurses for four additional days if nurses took action. At that time, Dr. Ron Walls, executive vice president and chief operating officer at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said the hospital spent more than $5 million on contracting with the U.S. Nursing Corp. to bring on 700 temporary nurses licensed in Massachusetts. The hospital also planned to cut capacity to 60 during the possible strike and moved hundreds of patients to other hospitals. They also canceled procedures and appointments in preparation of a strike. The Massachusetts Nurses Association and Brigham and Women’s were able to reach a three-year agreement before a strike, but the damage was already done to the hospital’s finances. Richard L. Gundling, senior vice president of healthcare financial practices at Healthcare Financial Management Association, told Healthcare Dive that healthcare organizations need to plan for business continuity in case of an event, such as a labor strike, natural disaster or cyberattack. “Business continuity is directly related to the CFO’s responsibility for maintaining business functions. The plan should include having business continuity insurance in place to replace the loss associated with diminished revenue and increased expenses during the event,” Gundling said. These plans should provide adequate staffing, training, materials, supplies, equipment and communications in case of a strike. Hospitals should also keep payers, financial agencies and other important stakeholders informed of potential issues. “It’s also key to keep financial stakeholders well informed; this includes insurance companies, bond rating agencies, banks, other investors, suppliers and Medicare/Medicaid contractors,” he said. “Business continuity is directly related to the CFO’s responsibility for maintaining business functions. The plan should include having business continuity insurance in place to replace the loss associated with diminished revenue and increased expenses during the event." Richard Gundling Senior vice president of healthcare financial practices, Healthcare Financial Management Association Impact to a hospital’s reputation Hospital strikes, particularly nurses’ strikes, can also wreak havoc on a hospital’s reputation. Nurses are a beloved profession. They work hard, often long hours and don’t make a fortune doing it. The median registered nurses’ salary is about $70,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Strikes endanger patients and violates moral duties to others AND hurts trust between patients and doctors Campbell 16 Denis Campbell 4-9-2016 "All-out junior doctors’ strike unethical and reckless, says NHS chief" https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/09/doctors-strike-nhs-chief-england (Denis Campbell is health policy editor for the Guardian and the Observer. He has written about the NHS, public health and medicine since 2007 and shares health-writing duties with Sarah Boseley, the health editor) JG
A total withdrawal of labour, scheduled for later this month, will threaten hospitals’ ability to deliver safe care in areas such as AandE, childbirth and intensive care, according to Prof Sir Bruce Keogh, the national medical director of NHS England. In a strongly worded article in the Observer, Keogh writes that such an escalation of the dispute with the government would be reckless, unethical, a breach of the medical profession’s fundamental duty to “do no harm” and a move that will destroy the public’s trust in doctors. “Despite the fact that consultants will do their best to cover, the fact is that junior doctors are key to the safe and effective running of our NHS. So this new action will put additional, significant strain on AandE, intensive care and maternity services, particularly in smaller hospital,” Keogh explains. “I worry that withdrawal of emergency cover will put our sickest and most vulnerable patients at greater risk. This challenges the ethical framework on which our profession is founded and runs against the grain of our NHS and our personal and professional values”, he adds. Junior doctors are due to refuse to work in any medical setting at all between 8am and 5pm on 26 and 27 April as part of their campaign of industrial action in the bitter and long-running row with Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, over the new contract he intends to impose on them from August. The British Medical Association reacted angrily to Keogh’s intervention. Johann Malawana, the BMA’s junior doctor chair, said: “No junior doctor wants to take this action but we have been left with no choice. They have already done everything else in their power to make their voices heard - protests, marches, petitions, emergency care only strikes. By continuing to ignore them, the government has left them left with no choice. “We regret any disruption caused to patients and have given trusts enough notice for them to plan ahead, and to ensure that senior hospital doctors, GPs and other NHS staff will continue to provide excellent care for patients. Please be assured that should someone need emergency care on a day of action, they will receive it. “It is disappointing that Bruce Keogh is attacking frontline doctors rather than echoing calls, from patients’ groups to senior NHS managers, for the government to get back around the table and end this dispute through talks. In his article, Keogh argues that the continuing series of strikes have caused too much “distress, anxiety and confusion” to patients already through the cancellation of almost 25,000 operations, as a result of four walkouts since January. He says an all-out strike would be “a watershed moment for the NHS”. Keogh is the first senior doctor to articulate in public the warnings that many leaders of the profession have recently given the BMA privately about the danger of patients dying because too few doctors were on duty. Many of the medical royal colleges, which represent different types of doctors professionally, are torn between support for their striking trainees and fear that doctors’ high standing with the public could be ruined if a total withdrawal of cover is seen as a step too far.
Hospitals are the critical internal link for pandemic preparedness. Al Thobaity 20, Abdullelah, and Farhan Alshammari. "Nurses on the frontline against the COVID-19 pandemic: an Integrative review." Dubai Medical Journal 3.3 (2020): 87-92. (Associate Professor of Nursing at Taif University) The majority of infected or symptomatic people seek medical treatment in medical facilities, particularly hospitals, as a high number of cases, especially those in critical condition, will have an impact on hospitals 4. The concept of hospital resilience in disaster situations is defined as the ability to recover from the damage caused by huge disturbances quickly 2. The resilience of hospitals to pandemic cases depends on the preparedness of the institutions, and not all hospitals have the same resilience. A lower resilience will affect the sustainability of the health services. This also affects healthcare providers such as doctors, nurses, and allied health professionals 5, 6. Despite the impact on healthcare providers, excellent management of a pandemic depends on the level of preparedness of healthcare providers, including nurses. This means that if it was impossible to be ready before a crisis or disaster, responsible people will do all but the impossible to save lives.
New Pandemics are deadlier and faster are coming – COVID is just the beginning Antonelli 20 Ashley Fuoco Antonelli 5-15-2020 https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2020/05/15/weekly-line "Weekly line: Why deadly disease outbreaks could become more common—even after Covid-19" (Associate Editor — American Health Line) Contagious during the so-called "incubation period"—the time when people are infected with a pathogen but are not yet showing symptoms of the infection or are showing only mild symptoms; and Resistant to any known prevention or treatment methods. The researchers also concluded that such a pathogen would have a "low but significant" fatality rate, meaning the pathogen wouldn't kill human hosts fast enough to inhibit its spread. As Amesh Adalja—a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, who led the report—told Live Science's Rachael Rettner at the time, "It just has to make a lot of people sick" to disrupt society. The researchers said RNA viruses—which include the common cold, influenza, and severe acute respiratory syndrome (or SARS, which is caused by a type of coronavirus)—fit that bill. And even though we had a good bit of experience dealing with common RNA viruses like the flu, Adalja at the time told Rettner that there were "a whole host of viral families that get very little attention when it comes to pandemic preparedness." Not even two years later, the new coronavirus, which causes Covid-19, emerged and quickly spread throughout the world, reaching pandemic status in just a few months. To date, officials have reported more than 4.4 million cases of Covid-19 and 302,160 deaths tied to the new coronavirus globally. In the United States, the number of reported Covid-19 cases has reached more than 1.4 million and the number of reported deaths tied to the new coronavirus has risen to nearly 86,000 in just over three months. Although public health experts had warned about the likelihood of a respiratory-borne RNA virus causing the next global pandemic, many say the world was largely unprepared to handle this type of infectious disease outbreak. And as concerning as that revelation may be on its own, perhaps even more worrisome is that public health experts predict life-threatening infectious disease outbreaks are likely to become more common—meaning we could be susceptible to another pandemic in the future. Why experts think deadly infectious disease outbreaks could become more common As the Los Angeles Times's Joshua Emerson Smith notes, infectious disease experts for more than ten years now have noted that "outbreaks of dangerous new diseases with the potential to become pandemics have been on the rise—from HIV to swine flu to SARS to Ebola." For instance, a report published in Nature in 2008 found that the number of emerging infectious disease events that occurred in the 1990s was more than three times higher than it was in the 1940s. Many experts believe the recent increase in infectious disease outbreaks is tied to human behaviors that disrupt the environment, "such as deforestation and poaching," which have led "to increased contact between highly mobile, urbanized human populations and wild animals," Emerson Smith writes. In the 2008 report, for example, researchers noted that about 60 of 355 emerging infectious disease events that occurred over a 50-year period could be largely linked to wild animals, livestock, and, to a lesser extent, pets. Now, researchers believe the new coronavirus first jumped to humans from animals at a wildlife market in Wuhan, China. Along those same lines, some experts have argued that global climate change has driven an increase in infectious diseases—and could continue to do so. A federally mandated report released by the U.S. Global Change Research Program in 2018 warned that warmer temperatures could expand the geographic range covered by disease-carrying insects and pests, which could result in more Americans being exposed to ticks carrying Lyme disease and mosquitos carrying the dengue, West Nile, and Zika viruses. And experts now say continued warming in global temperatures, deforestation, and other environmentally disruptive behaviors have broadened that risk by bringing more people into contact with disease-carrying animals. Further, experts note that infectious diseases today are able to spread much faster and farther than they could decades ago because of increasing globalization and travel. While some have suggested the Covid-19 pandemic could stifle that trend, others argue globalization is likely to continue—meaning so could infectious diseases' far spread.
1NR
Indopak
The India-Pakistan conflict will never escalate to nuke war despite their brutal past Kadir 19 Jawad Kadir, UK-based Pakistani PhD Scholar. Area of research includes Pakistan-India relations, “India and Pakistan Won’t Fight to Death Because They Need Each Other Alive”, The Globe Post, 6/3/19, https://theglobepost.com/2019/03/06/india-pakistan-conflict/, DOA: 1/25/20TT These developments have the international community worried about the possibility of an all-out conflict, which would seriously challenge security in the Asian subcontinent. However, there also prevails a popular narrative that the elites in both countries use the flare-ups to serve their political agenda. A recent book, written by the former intelligence chiefs of India and Pakistan, goes further and claims that the governments sometimes accommodate each other. At times Pakistan has even allowed India to drop a couple of bombs at harmless places in Pakistan, just to satisfy the Indian public’s opinion. Since the violent 1947 partition of British India in India and Pakistan, both countries have pursued policies that diametrically oppose each other. Pakistan’s military even owes its powerful role in politics to the popular “desire” for competing/defeating India at any cost. The majority of Pakistanis see the military as the only powerful institution that can compete with India. To secure the popular votes, all the political parties in Pakistan currently seem to be on the same anti-Indian page. The scenario is not much different in India, where Prime Minister Narendra Modi is said to have ignited anti-Pakistani sentiments in light of the upcoming elections. Prestige Competition In India and Pakistan, it is the popular sentiment to undermine the other that determines policies. After the recent incident in Kashmir, one can easily notice an ongoing prestige competition on social media, engaging people in all classes from both countries. Even during times of peace, the nations are electronically belittling each other; be it during a sports event or because of a victory in the technological field. A recent visit of the Saudi Crown prince to both countries started a debate about which of the states was more respected by the visitor. This prestige factor has always been present in India-Pakistan relations. After India conducted five nuclear tests in 1998, Pakistan responded with six tests to satisfy the nation psychologically and to prove to the world that “we are no less than India.” This act was in line with the local idiom “Pagg Uchi ho jaye” (the turban must stay high) and implies that Pakistan’s policies revolve around acquiring prestige, with India as a reference point. Humiliation over Elimination It is also worthy to mention that it is humiliation and not elimination that matters in India-Pakistan relations. The two each need their counterpart alive, just to let the other down again and again, and to prove their superiority to the international community. For this reason, the obvious numerical and military might of India is persistently challenged by Pakistan in spite of having lesser capabilities, which always hurts India’s prestigious stance. India suffers from an “I am not respected” syndrome, while Pakistan feels it is not given a proper status. Naturally, when both countries feel they have proven their prestige, tension starts to de-escalate. This appears to be the current stage the states are at after Pakistan returned the Indian pilot the country captured. This is why clashes never lead to the point of no return, despite having had three major wars and several armed conflicts. Even during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, India captured over 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war only to return them safely after India’s prestige had been satisfied. Both nations will continue to compete with the purpose of maximizing their prestige against each other, but it is not likely they will eliminate each other. India and Pakistan need each other as a part of their psychological integrity. Because an all-out conflict would endanger the other’s existence, this is a questionable scenario. Nuke War Small arsenals and tests prove no extinction from nuke war Frankel et al. 15 Dr. Michael J. Frankel is a senior scientist at Penn State University’s Applied Research Laboratory, where he focuses on nuclear treaty verification technologies, is one of the nation’s leading experts on the effects of nuclear weapons, executive director of the Congressional Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, led development of fifteen-year global nuclear threat technology projections and infrastructure vulnerability assessments; Dr. James Scouras is a national security studies fellow at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory and the former chief scientist of DTRA’s Advanced Systems and Concepts Office; Dr. George W. Ullrich is chief technology officer at Schafer Corporation and formerly senior vice president at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), currently serves as a special advisor to the USSTRATCOM Strategic Advisory Group’s Science and Technology Panel and is a member of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board. 04-15-15. “The Uncertain Consequences of Nuclear Weapons Use.” The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory. DTIC. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a618999.pdf Justin Scientific work based on real data, rather than models, also cast additional doubt on the basic premise. Interestingly, publication of several contradictory papers describing experimental observations actually predated Schell’s work. In 1973, nine years before publication of The Fate of the Earth, a published report failed to find any ozone depletion during the peak period of atmospheric nuclear testing.26 In another work published in 1976, attempts to measure the actual ozone depletion associated with Russian megaton-class detonations and Chinese nuclear tests were also unable to detect any significant effect.27 At present, with the reduced arsenals and a perceived low likelihood of a large-scale exchange on the scale of Cold War planning scenarios, official concern over nuclear ozone depletion has essentially fallen off the table. Yet continuing scientific studies by a small dedicated community of researchers suggest the potential for dire consequences, even for relatively small regional nuclear wars involving Hiroshimasize bombs. Nuclear Winter The possibility of catastrophic climate changes came as yet another surprise to Department of Defense scientists. In 1982, Crutzen and Birks highlighted the potential effects of high-altitude smoke on climate,29 and in 1983, a research team consisting of Turco, Toon, Ackerman, Pollack, and Sagan (referred to as TTAPS) suggested that a five-thousand-megaton strategic exchange of weapons between the United States and the Soviet Union could effectively spell national suicide for both belligerents.30 They argued that a massive nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union would inject copious amounts of soot, generated by massive firestorms such as those witnessed in Hiroshima, into the stratosphere where it might reside indefinitely. Additionally, the soot would be accompanied by dust swept up in the rising thermal column of the nuclear fireball. The combination of dust and soot could scatter and absorb sunlight to such an extent that much of Earth would be engulfed in darkness sufficient to cease photosynthesis. Unable to sustain agriculture for an extended period of time, much of the planet’s population would be doomed to perish, and—in its most extreme rendition—humanity would follow the dinosaurs into extinction and by much the same mechanism.31 Subsequent refinements by the TTAPS authors, such as an extension of computational efforts to three-dimensional models, continued to produce qualitatively similar results. The TTAPS results were severely criticized, and a lively debate ensued between passionate critics of and defenders of the analysis. Some of the technical objections critics raised included the TTAPS team’s neglect of the potentially significant role of clouds;32 lack of an accurate model of coagulation and rainout;33 inaccurate capture of feedback mechanisms;34 “fudge factor” fits of micrometer-scale physical processes assumed to hold constant for changed atmospheric chemistry conditions and uniformly averaged on a grid scale of hundreds of kilometers;35 the dynamics of firestorm formation, rise, and smoke injection;36 and estimates of the optical properties and total amount of fuel available to generate the assumed smoke loading. In particular, more careful analysis of the range of uncertainties associated with the widely varying published estimates of fuel quantities and properties suggested a possible range of outcomes encompassing much milder impacts than anything predicted by TTAPS.37 Aside from the technical issues critics raised, the five-thousand-megaton baseline exchange scenario TTAPS envisioned was rendered obsolete when the major powers decreased both their nuclear arsenals and the average yield of the remaining weapons. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the nuclear winter issue essentially fell off the radar screen for Department of Defense scientists, which is not to say that it completely disappeared from the scientific literature. In the last few years, a number of analysts, including some of the original TTAPS authors, suggested that even a “modest” regional exchange of nuclear weapons—one hundred explosions of fifteenkiloton devices in an Indian–Pakistani exchange scenario—might yet produce significant worldwide climate effects, if not the full-blown “winter.”38 However, such concerns have failed to gain much traction in Department of Defense circles. Empirics – we’ve nuked ourselves 2,000 times and the largest event was only 1/1000th as powerful as natural disasters Eken 17 Mattias Eken - PhD student in Modern History at the University of St Andrews. “The understandable fear of nuclear weapons doesn’t match reality”. 3/14/17. https://theconversation.com/the-understandable-fear-of-nuclear-weapons-doesnt-match-reality-73563 Re-Cut Justin Nuclear weapons are unambiguously the most destructive weapons on the planet. Pound for pound, they are the most lethal weapons ever created, capable of killing millions. Millions live in fear that these weapons will be used again, with all the potential consequences. However, the destructive power of these weapons has been vastly exaggerated, albeit for good reasons. Public fear of nuclear weapons being used in anger, whether by terrorists or nuclear-armed nations, has risen once again in recent years. This is in no small part thanks to the current political climate between states such as the US and Russia and the various nuclear tests conducted by North Korea. But whenever we talk about nuclear weapons, it’s easy to get carried away with doomsday scenarios and apocalyptic language. As the historian Spencer Weart once argued: “You say ‘nuclear bomb’ and everybody immediately thinks of the end of the world.” Yet the means necessary to produce a nuclear bomb, let alone set one off, remain incredibly complex – and while the damage that would be done if someone did in fact detonate one might be very serious indeed, the chances that it would mean “the end of the world” are vanishingly small. In his 2013 book Command and Control, the author Eric Schlosser tried to scare us into perpetual fear of nuclear weapons by recounting stories of near misses and accidents involving nuclear weapons. One such event, the 1980 Damascus incident, saw a Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile explode at its remote Arkansas launch facility after a maintenance crew accidentally ruptured its fuel tank. Although the warhead involved in the incident didn’t detonate, Schlosser claims that “if it had, much of Arkansas would be gone”. But that’s not quite the case. The nine-megaton thermonuclear warhead on the Titan II missile had a blast radius of 10km, or an area of about 315km². The state of Arkansas spreads over 133,733km², meaning the weapon would have caused destruction across 0.2 of the state. That would naturally have been a terrible outcome, but certainly not the catastrophe that Schlosser evokes. Claims exaggerating the effects of nuclear weapons have become commonplace, especially after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001. In the early War on Terror years, Richard Lugar, a former US senator and chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to the Western way of life. What he failed to explain is how. It is by no means certain that a single nuclear detonation (or even several) would do away with our current way of life. Indeed, we’re still here despite having nuked our own planet more than 2,000 times – a tally expressed beautifully in this video by Japanese artist Isao Hashimoto). While the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty forced nuclear tests underground, around 500 of all the nuclear weapons detonated were unleashed in the Earth’s atmosphere. This includes the world’s largest ever nuclear detonation, the 57-megaton bomb known as Tsar Bomba, detonated by the Soviet Union on October 30 1961. Tsar Bomba was more than 3,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. That is immense destructive power – but as one physicist explained, it’s only “one-thousandth the force of an earthquake, one-thousandth the force of a hurricane”. The Damascus incident proved how incredibly hard it is to set off a nuclear bomb and the limited effect that would have come from just one warhead detonating. Despite this, some scientists have controversially argued that an even limited all-out nuclear war might lead to a so-called nuclear winter, since the smoke and debris created by very large bombs could block out the sun’s rays for a considerable amount of time. To inflict such ecological societal annihilation with weapons alone, we would have to detonate hundreds if not thousands of thermonuclear devices in a short time. Even in such extreme conditions, the area actually devastated by the bombs would be limited: for example, 2,000 one-megaton explosions with a destructive radius of five miles each would directly destroy less than 5 of the territory of the US. Of course, if the effects of nuclear weapons have been greatly exaggerated, there is a very good reason: since these weapons are indeed extremely dangerous, any posturing and exaggerating which intensifies our fear of them makes us less likely to use them. But it’s important, however, to understand why people have come to fear these weapons the way we do. After all, nuclear weapons are here to stay; they can’t be “un-invented”. If we want to live with them and mitigate the very real risks they pose, we must be honest about what those risks really are. Overegging them to frighten ourselves more than we need to keeps nobody safe. Analysis of historical volcano activity disproves nuclear winter – an eruption 5 times the size of a regional nuclear exchange dissipated in just 2 years Reisner et al. 18 Jon Reisner, atmospheric researcher at LANL Climate and Atmospheric Sciences; Gennaro D'Angelo, UKAFF Fellow and member of the Astrophysics Group at the School of Physics of the University of Exeter, Research Scientist with the Carl Sagan Center at the SETI Institute, currently works for the Los Alamos National Laboratory Theoretical Division; Eunmo Koo, scientist in the Computational Earth Science Group at LANL, recipient of the NNSA Defense Program Stockpile Stewardship Program award of excellence; Wesley Even, RandD Scientist at CCS-2, LANL, specialist in computational physics and astrophysics; Matthew Hecht is a member of the Computational Physics and Methods Group in the Climate, Ocean and Sea Ice Modelling program (COSIM) at LANL, who works on modeling high-latitude atmospheric effects in climate models as part of the HiLAT project; Elizabeth Hunke, Lead developer for the Los Alamos Sea Ice Model, Deputy Group Leader of the T-3 Fluid Dynamics and Solid Mechanics Group at LANL; Darin Comeau, Scientist at the CCS-2 COSIM program, specializes in high dimensional data analysis, statistical and predictive modeling, and uncertainty quantification, with particular applications to climate science; Randall Bos is a research scientist at LANL specializing in urban EMP simulations; James Cooley is a Group Leader within CCS-2. 03/16/2018. “Climate Impact of a Regional Nuclear Weapons Exchange: An Improved Assessment Based On Detailed Source Calculations.” Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, vol. 123, no. 5, pp. 2752–2772 Re-Cut Justin To quantitatively account for natural and forced variability in the climate system, we created two ensembles, one for the natural, unforced system and a second ensemble using a range of realistic vertical profiles for the BC aerosol forcing, consistent with our detailed fire simulation. The control ensemble was generated using small atmospheric temperature perturbations (Kay et al., 2015). Notably, the overall spread of anomalies in both ensembles is very similar. These ensembles were then used to create “super ensembles” using a statistical emulator, which allows a robust statistical comparison of our simulated results with and without the carbon forcing. Our primary result is the decreased impact on global climate indices, such as global average surface temperature and precipitation, relative to standard scenarios considered in previous work (e.g., Robock et al., 2007a; Stenke et al., 2013; Mills et al., 2014; Pausata et al., 2016). With our finding of substantially less BC aerosol being lofted to stratospheric heights (e.g., over a factor of four less than in most of the scenarios considered by previous studies), these globally averaged anomalies drop to statistically insignificant levels after the first several years (Figures 14 and 16). Our results are generally comparable to those predicted by other studies that considered exchange scenarios in which only about 1 Tg of soot is emitted in the upper troposphere (Robock et al., 2007a; Mills et al., 2008; Stenke et al., 2013). There are more subtle suggestions of regional effects, notably in the extent of the region over which sea surface temperature differences between ensembles remain significant in the final years of simulation (Figure 17). Further work is required to adequately analyze these and other potential regional effects. Historical analysis of several large volcanic eruptions and a recent large fire also supports this result. For example, Timmreck et al. (2010) claim that nonlinear aerosol effects of the Toba Tuff eruption 74,000 years ago helped limit significant global cooling impacts to a two-year time period and that any cooling beyond this time period could be due to other effects. It should be noted that this eruption was estimated to have produced 106 Tg of ash and comparable amounts of other gases, such as sulfur dioxide (SO2), while the estimated amount of soot produced by a regional exchange is on the order of 10 Tg, or 5 orders of magnitude smaller than the ash (not including gases) produced by the Toba eruption. Noting that a nuclear exchange is not identical to volcanic events, it has been asserted that BC particles produced by fires should have a greater impact on absorbing solar radiation than even has the significantly larger amounts of ash and various gases produced by large eruptions (e.g., Robock and Toon 2010). Likewise, recent work in analyzing BC emissions from large fires suggests that in such fires, similar to large volcanic eruptions, coating of soot particles with other particles in convective eddies tends to increase their size and hence increase their subsequent rainout (China et al., 2013) before they can reach the stratosphere. In fact, the recent study of Pausata et al. (2016) found that growth of BC aerosol via coagulation with organic carbon significantly reduce the particles’ lifetime in the atmosphere
Climate Change
Link turn – strikes hurt the economy which affects all industries: including the green energy sector which is key to solving climate change 1 Strikes hurt the economy which also affects the green energy sector Tenza 20, Mlungisi. "The effects of violent strikes on the economy of a developing country: a case of South Africa." Obiter 41.3 (2020): 519-537. (Senior Lecturer, University of KwaZulu-Natal) When South Africa obtained democracy in 1994, there was a dream of a better country with a new vision for industrial relations.5 However, the number of violent strikes that have bedevilled this country in recent years seems to have shattered-down the aspirations of a better South Africa. South Africa recorded 114 strikes in 2013 and 88 strikes in 2014, which cost the country about R6.1 billion according to the Department of Labour.6 The impact of these strikes has been hugely felt by the mining sector, particularly the platinum industry. The biggest strike took place in the platinum sector where about 70 000 mineworkers’ downed tools for better wages. Three major platinum producers (Impala, Anglo American and Lonmin Platinum Mines) were affected. The strike started on 23 January 2014 and ended on 25 June 2014. Business Day reported that “the five-month-long strike in the platinum sector pushed the economy to the brink of recession”. 7 This strike was closely followed by a four-week strike in the metal and engineering sector. All these strikes (and those not mentioned here) were characterised with violence accompanied by damage to property, intimidation, assault and sometimes the killing of people. Statistics from the metal and engineering sector showed that about 246 cases of intimidation were reported, 50 violent incidents occurred, and 85 cases of vandalism were recorded.8 Large-scale unemployment, soaring poverty levels and the dramatic income inequality that characterise the South African labour market provide a broad explanation for strike violence.9 While participating in a strike, workers’ stress levels leave them feeling frustrated at their seeming powerlessness, which in turn provokes further violent behaviour.10 These strikes are not only violent but take long to resolve. Generally, a lengthy strike has a negative effect on employment, reduces business confidence and increases the risk of economic stagflation. In addition, such strikes have a major setback on the growth of the economy and investment opportunities. It is common knowledge that consumer spending is directly linked to economic growth. At the same time, if the economy is not showing signs of growth, employment opportunities are shed, and poverty becomes the end result. The economy of South Africa is in need of rapid growth to enable it to deal with the high levels of unemployment and resultant poverty. One of the measures that may boost the country’s economic growth is by attracting potential investors to invest in the country. However, this might be difficult as investors would want to invest in a country where there is a likelihood of getting returns for their investments. The wish of getting returns for investment may not materialise if the labour environment is not fertile for such investments as a result of, for example, unstable labour relations. Therefore, investors may be reluctant to invest where there is an unstable or fragile labour relations environment. 3 THE COMMISSION OF VIOLENCE DURING A STRIKE AND CONSEQUENCES The Constitution guarantees every worker the right to join a trade union, participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union, and to strike. 11 The Constitution grants these rights to a “worker” as an individual.12 However, the right to strike and any other conduct in contemplation or furtherance of a strike such as a picket13 can only be exercised by workers acting collectively.14 The right to strike and participation in the activities of a trade union were given more effect through the enactment of the Labour Relations Act 66 of 199515 (LRA). The main purpose of the LRA is to “advance economic development, social justice, labour peace and the democratisation of the workplace”. 16 The advancement of social justice means that the exercise of the right to strike must advance the interests of workers and at the same time workers must refrain from any conduct that can affect those who are not on strike as well members of society. Even though the right to strike and the right to participate in the activities of a trade union that often flow from a strike17 are guaranteed in the Constitution and specifically regulated by the LRA, it sometimes happens that the right to strike is exercised for purposes not intended by the Constitution and the LRA, generally. 18 For example, it was not the intention of the Constitutional Assembly and the legislature that violence should be used during strikes or pickets. As the Constitution provides, pickets are meant to be peaceful. 19 Contrary to section 17 of the Constitution, the conduct of workers participating in a strike or picket has changed in recent years with workers trying to emphasise their grievances by causing disharmony and chaos in public. A media report by the South African Institute of Race Relations pointed out that between the years 1999 and 2012 there were 181 strike-related deaths, 313 injuries and 3,058 people were arrested for public violence associated with strikes.20 The question is whether employers succumb easily to workers’ demands if a strike is accompanied by violence? In response to this question, one worker remarked as follows: “There is no sweet strike, there is no Christian strike … A strike is a strike. You want to get back what belongs to you ... you won’t win a strike with a Bible. You do not wear high heels and carry an umbrella and say ‘1992 was under apartheid, 2007 is under ANC’. You won’t win a strike like that.” 21 The use of violence during industrial action affects not only the strikers or picketers, the employer and his or her business but it also affects innocent members of the public, non-striking employees, the environment and the economy at large. In addition, striking workers visit non-striking workers’ homes, often at night, threaten them and in some cases, assault or even murder workers who are acting as replacement labour. 22 This points to the fact that for many workers and their families’ living conditions remain unsafe and vulnerable to damage due to violence. In Security Services Employers Organisation v SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (SATAWU),23 it was reported that about 20 people were thrown out of moving trains in the Gauteng province; most of them were security guards who were not on strike and who were believed to be targeted by their striking colleagues. Two of them died, while others were admitted to hospitals with serious injuries.24 In SA Chemical Catering and Allied Workers Union v Check One (Pty) Ltd,25 striking employees were carrying various weapons ranging from sticks, pipes, planks and bottles. One of the strikers Mr Nqoko was alleged to have threatened to cut the throats of those employees who had been brought from other branches of the employer’s business to help in the branch where employees were on strike. Such conduct was held not to be in line with good conduct of striking.26 These examples from case law show that South Africa is facing a problem that is affecting not only the industrial relations’ sector but also the economy at large. For example, in 2012, during a strike by workers employed by Lonmin in Marikana, the then-new union Association of Mine and Construction Workers Union (AMCU) wanted to exert its presence after it appeared that many workers were not happy with the way the majority union, National Union of Mine Workers (NUM), handled negotiations with the employer (Lonmin Mine). AMCU went on an unprotected strike which was violent and resulted in the loss of lives, damage to property and negative economic consequences including a weakened currency, reduced global investment, declining productivity, and increase unemployment in the affected sectors.27 Further, the unreasonably long time it takes for strikes to get resolved in the Republic has a negative effect on the business of the employer, the economy and employment. 3 1 Effects of violent and long strikes on the economy Generally, South Africa’s economy is on a downward scale. First, it fails to create employment opportunities for its people. The recent statistics on unemployment levels indicate that unemployment has increased from 26.5 to 27.2. 28 The most prominent strike which nearly brought the platinum industries to its knees was the strike convened by AMCU in 2014. The strike started on 23 January 2014 and ended on 24 June 2014. It affected the three big platinum producers in the Republic, which are the Anglo American Platinum, Lonmin Plc and Impala Platinum. It was the longest strike since the dawn of democracy in 1994. As a result of this strike, the platinum industries lost billions of rands.29 According to the report by Economic Research Southern Africa, the platinum group metals industry is South Africa’s second-largest export earner behind gold and contributes just over 2 of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP).30 The overall metal ores in the mining industry which include platinum sells about 70 of its output to the export market while sales to local manufacturers of basic metals, fabricated metal products and various other metal equipment and machinery make up to 20. 31 The research indicates that the overall impact of the strike in 2014 was driven by a reduction in productive capital in the mining sector, accompanied by a decrease in labour available to the economy. This resulted in a sharp increase in the price of the output by 5.8 with a GDP declined by 0.72 and 0.78.32
2 If there is any change at solving climate change, we need green energy to be able to replace fossil fuel electricity generation but strikes hurt those industries Conca 7/21 What’s Happening? Global Emissions Are Still Rising / https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2021/07/23/whats-happening-global-emissions-are-still-rising/?sh=f498d4b77ec8 / been a scientist in the field of the earth and environmental sciences for 33 years, specializing in geologic disposal of nuclear waste, energy-related research, planetary surface processes, radiobiology and shielding for space colonies, subsurface transport and environmental clean-up of heavy metals. After the world has spent a few trillion dollars over the last ten years trying to decarbonize, $503 billion in 2020 alone, carbon emissions are still increasing. Even as the pandemic slowed that growth for a bit during 2020-2021, emissions in 2022-2023 will break all records and exceed 55 billion tons/year by more than a little. According to the International Energy Agency, global electricity demand will increase by 5 in 2021 and 4 in 2022, and half of this increase will be from fossil fuels, particularly new coal in the developing world. CO2 emissions from the power sector will rise to record levels in 2022, exceeding 34 billion tons. After dropping 4 in 2020, nuclear power generation is forecast to grow, but only by 1 in 2021. This is one important reason why carbon emissions will grow so much during this period. PROMOTED Renewable electricity generation, which grew 7 in 2020, will continue to rise, but cannot keep up with increasing demand, not by half. Until growth in renewables and nuclear exceeds that of fossil fuels, and by a lot, we will make no headway against the environmental problems we need to solve in the next three decades. Renewables and fully electric vehicles aside, all fossil fuels are increasing worldwide primarily because of economic growth in the developing world. Even coal is increasing worldwide, producing more power than hydro, nuclear and renewables combined. This not because coal is cheapest – it’s not. Of all energy sources, coal is merely the easiest to set up in a poor or developing country that has little existing infrastructure. It is the easiest to transport – by ship, rail or truck. It is straightforward to build a coal-fired power plant. And to operate it. Thus, fossil fuel will keep increasing. "Our analyses show that the short-term trend in global electricity markets is not consistent with a zero emissions pathway," the IEA said. While emissions go down a bit in the developed world, they keep increasing in the developing world. EIA While there plenty of Roadmaps to Net Zero by 2050, there are no actual projections that this will happen. No serious projections even have global emissions much lower than 30 billion tons/year by 2050. That’s because the use of oil and natural gas keep increasing and only flatten by about 2040 They don’t ever decrease until the second half of this century. And coal decreases by only 15 or so. This is not the trend that’s going to get us to a low-carbon future. In fact, the only things that will get us to net-zero must include some form of the following , although other issues like infrastructure needs will also be essential: - stop building any new fossil fuel plants as soon as possible; once built you’re locked into that fossil fuel for at least 40 years - stop closing perfectly performing and safe nuclear plants that have already been relicensed for another 20 or 40 years - install 3,500,000 of new MW of wind turbines (12 trillion kWhs/year) - install 1,400,000 MW of new nuclear reactors, particularly SMRs that are especially ideal for load-following renewables (11 trillion kWhs/year) - install 2,100,000 MW of new solar (7 trillion kWhs/year) - install 1,200,000 new MW of hydro w/80,000 MW existing (7 trillion kWhs/yr) - secure sources of Li, Co, Nd, Fe and other metals needed to build these alternatives, especially to build the batteries for enough fully electric vehicles to replace oil. - build a fleet of 3 billion fully electric vehicles by 2050, much fewer will not sufficiently drop our consumption of oil. It turns out that the cost of this new low-carbon energy mix is about the same as business-as-usual, $65 trillion versus $63 trillion, over about 30 years. It’s just that more of the total cost is in up-front capital costs instead of fuel costs - $28 trillion versus $11 trillion. It will take over 12 billion tons of steel alone for that much renewables (annual global output of steel is presently 1.6 billion tons). Cost estimates by the International Renewable Energy Agency for decarbonizing the world, all sectors not just energy, top $100 trillion by 2050. In a recent McKinsey report, the estimated cost of decarbonizing just the industrial sector would be about $21 trillion between now and 2050, although both could be significantly lower if technologies and efficiencies continue to advance. But it’s the lack of nuclear that really puts the stake in the heart of the decarbonization dream. The Mochovce 3 nuclear unit in the Slovak Republic is expected to start commercial operation this year, but the retirement of the Fessenheim nuclear plant in France and Ringhals in Sweden in 2020 negates that. With the retirement of 4.3 GW of nuclear in Germany, 2 GW in the U.K. and 1 GW in Belgium before the end of 2022, nuclear electricity generation is likely to drop again in 2022, by 3, even if the Olkiluoto 3 EPR in Finland starts commercial operation. Aerial view of the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Like many nuclear power plants in America and a few other developed countries, Diablo Canyon in San ... + MARK RALSTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES In the U.S., EIA predicts that 9.1 GW of nuclear capacity will be added by 2050, as well as another 4.7 GW of added nuclear capacity resulting from uprates - operational changes that allow existing plants to produce more electricity. However, more than offsetting this additional capacity, are projected retirements of 29.9 GW of nuclear capacity through 2050, especially those expected to close by 2026. Indian Point’s foolish closing recently has erased most of New York’s progress in lowering their carbon footprint with renewables. China is planning 180 GW of new nuclear plants, big ones, by 2035. If the rest of the world followed suit in proportion, we would have a chance. So, if you think we’ve been doing a reasonable job of curbing fossil fuel use, even after spending some trillions of dollars, you are sadly mistaken. It’s nice to have a plan, but if it’s not based in reality, it’s not going to happen. The chances of a robust shift to green energy is unlikely by ~, but strikes exacerbate these concerns
12/10/21
SEPOCT - Stock NC
Tournament: SEPOCT | Round: 1 | Opponent: any | Judge: any Stock NC
I negate the resolution, Resolved: The member nations of the World Trade Organization ought to reduce intellectual property protections for medicines. IPR DA
Reducing patents doesn’t aid in the accessibility of cheap, generic drugs Cullet 03 Philippe Cullet. “Patents and Medicine: The Relationship between TRIPS and the Human Right to Health.” International Affairs. 01/2003. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3095545
Access to drugs is one of the fundamental components of the human right to health. It is of specific importance in the context of the introduction of patents on drugs, because patents have the potential both to improve access, by providing incentives for the development of new drugs, and to restrict access, because of the comparatively higher prices of patented drugs. Accessibility generally refers to the idea that health policies should foster the availability of drugs, at affordable prices, to all those who need them. This implies a strong link between lack of access to drugs and poverty. About one-third of the world's population does not have access to basic drugs, a proportion which rises above one-half in the most affected regions of Africa and Asia. Furthermore, a large proportion of people in developing countries do not have access to medical insurance and more often than not pay for drugs themselves. Since price is a major issue in access, it is significant that patented drugs are more expensive than generics. However, patents are not the only factor influencing access, since even cheap generic drugs may not be affordable for people below the poverty line. In these situations access can be ensured only through further measures such as public subsidies or price control measures. The sheer scale of the problem of access to drugs is only too clear in the context of HIV/AIDS. A consortium of international organizations has estimated that fewer than 10 per cent of the people living with HIV/AIDS in developing countries have access to antiretroviral therapy. This proportion goes down to about 0.I percent in Africa. The links among patents, the price of medicines and access to drugs have been taken into consideration by various countries in developing their legal and policy framework in the health sector. India is particularly noteworthy in this respect. As noted above, India adopted patent legislation which prohibited product patents for medicines, and this constituted one of the major incentives for the development of a relatively strong pharmaceutical industry. In the first 25 years after independence, the domestic pharmaceutical industry remained relatively small, and by I970 (the year in which the Patents Act was passed) accounted for only about 25 per cent of the domestic market; but thereafter the restrictions on product patents, prices and foreign investment contributed to the rapid development of the industry, which now accounts for 70 per cent of bulk drugs and meets nearly all the demand for formulations. One of the most important impacts of the Indian Patents Act, prior to its recent TRIPS-related amendments, and the resulting development of a generic pharmaceutical industry has been significantly lower prices for drugs compared to other countries. Indeed, while drug prices in India were among the highest in the world in the initial stages of development, they are now among the lowest. This is not to say that access to drugs is universal-millions still cannot afford basic generic medicines- but the trend since 1970 has definitely been in the right direction. Apart from the exclusion of product patents, the Indian Patents Act introduced further measures to foster access to drugs. With regard to the duration of patent protection, the Act provided specific restrictions in the health sector. While normal patents were granted for 14 years, process patents on drugs or food were granted for only seven years. The Act also provided a strict compulsory licensing regime which included not only compulsory licences but also licences of right.
In addition to functioning as a tool to maintain constant innovation in the industry, IP helps reducing counterfeit medicines because medicines that have better technologies and ingredients are more difficult to copy. This means that, through market incentives, the industry manages to have high quality infrastructure, new technology and trained personnel, to create specialized and specific medicines and therapies, which is why they are difficult to replicate. On the other hand, political will functions as another important axis, as it must prosecute those who are making counterfeit medicines. This is achieved through a constant conversation between industry and governments. Therefore, it will be absolutely clear how to identify the authenticity of medicines. In short, IP allows quality standards to be clearer and stricter, and regulators to have greater knowledge and traceability of each product that enters the market. Through IP, you can establish a record of all products globally, which makes it easier to find possible counterfeit medicines. Consequently, the best way to fight counterfeit medicines is through accessing the best quality medicines and for this to happen, an ecosystem between countries, regulators and industry is needed. This ecosystem shall take into account the structural deficiencies of each country and addresses them in a holistic manner, to provide the best quality medicines. In the end, with the Intellectual Property associated with the creation of the product, there are also associated standards of transparency and detailed information that every regulatory agency can access. Moreover, the value chains will receive all this information in order to be aware of the appearance of products that are not registered with the standards of a product protected by IP. Also,IP helps to combat counterfeit medicines internationally, since there are laws that cover all member countries of the United Nations and punish more severely those who commit this crime. Likewise, these laws provide countries with the necessary mechanisms to take concrete action once a counterfeit medicine is discovered. This, of course, must go hand in hand with the political will of each country, because only with collaboration between different actors will it be possible to prosecute the entire chain of counterfeit medicines. Plus, IP owners can receive electronic notifications worldwide more quickly and can take direct communication actions. In a nutshell, IP allows the industry to show the public almost immediately that there is a counterfeit medicine in a country or that a website is selling counterfeit medicines. This is because legally infringing a product protected by IP allows action to be taken to prosecute the counterfeit products. This is especially important for those consumers or small organizations that do not have access to information like a hospital or public health center has. However, it is necessary to involve other actors of the health system so that information about counterfeit medicines reaches remote regions or places, which do not have an internet connection. On the other hand, thanks to IP, the industry is creating specialized safety technology in order for each country to easily identify a drug that comes with a brand but does not belong to that brand. The industry has also used mobile laboratories to test samples of suspected medicines and report them quickly to the value chain. Thus, technology is becoming an important element in fighting this problem. Counterfeit medicines have a wide range of negative effects for different actors and especially for the people who fall victim of them. However, more and more governments and industries are creating concrete actions to pursue the entire chain of counterfeiters, as this is the only way to eradicate the problem all together. The tools to combat counterfeiting exist, the important thing is that actors know how to use them for the benefit of the greatest number of people in the world.
The global economy, including developed and developing nations alike, is becoming more innovation-driven—powered by knowledge, creativity, and technology, each of which is fundamentally supported by intellectual property (IP) and intellectual property rights (IPR) protections. And yet, over the past two decades, the policy debate over IP’s role has come under an increasingly active and coordinated attack, driven by IPR skeptics and opponents hailing from a variety of academic and multilateral institutions, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and some developing nations and policymakers therein. They have done much to advance a false narrative that strong and effective IP is a win-lose, buy-sell proposition, which only helps the developed “North” (as opposed to the underdeveloped “South”). Yet if the international community is going to maximize global innovation—something that is critical if we are to make faster progress on commonly shared global challenges such as climate change, disease prevention and treatment, and economic growth—we will need a stronger and more wide-ranging consensus on the importance of IP to every country throughout the world. To maximize the role intellectual property can play in enabling innovation across the world, the countries that best recognize the essential link between the two—including the United States, Commonwealth nations, European Union members, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and others—need to revise and amplify efforts to build out and strengthen the international framework of intellectual property rules, norms, and cooperation. IP incentives innovation Ezell and Cory 19 Stephen Ezell and Nigel Cory. 4-25-2019, "The Way Forward for Intellectual property Internationally," Information Technology and Innovation Foundation https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally
Intangible assets, such as IP rights, comprised approximately 84 percent of the corporate value of SandP 500 companies in 2018.4 For start-ups, this means much of the capital needed to operate is directly related to IP (see Teal Bio case study for more on this). IP also plays an especially important role for RandD-intensive industries. To take the example of the biopharmaceutical industry, it is characterized by high-risk, time-consuming, and expensive processes including basic research, drug discovery, pre-clinical trials, three stages of human clinical trials, regulatory review, and post-approval research and safety monitoring. The drug development process spans an average of 11.5 to 15 years. For every 5,000 to 10,000 compounds screened on average during the basic research and drug discovery phases, approximately 250 molecular compounds, or 2.5 to 5 percent, make it to preclinical testing. Out of those 250 molecular compounds, approximately 5 make it to clinical testing. That is, 0.05 to 0.1 percent of drugs make it from basic research into clinical trials. Of those rare few which make it to clinical testing, less than 12 percent are ultimately approved for use by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition to high risks, drug development is costly, and the expenses associated with it are increasing. A 2019 report by the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions concluded that since 2010 the average cost of bringing a new drug to market increased by 67 percent. Numerous studies have examined the substantial cost of biopharmaceutical RandD, and most confirm investing in new drug development requires $1.7 billion to $3.2 billion up front on average. A 2018 study by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness found similar risks and figures for vaccines, stating, “In general, vaccine development from discovery to licensure can cost billions of dollars, can take over 10 years to complete, and has an average 94 percent chance of failure.” Yet, a 2010 study found that 80 percent of new drugs—that is, the less than 12 percent ultimately approved by the FDA—made less than their capitalized RandD costs. Another study found that only 1 percent (maybe three new drugs each year) of the most successful 10 percent of FDA approved drugs generate half of the profits of the entire drug industry. To say the least, biopharmaceutical RandD represents a high-stakes, long-term endeavor with precarious returns. Without IP protection, biopharmaceutical manufacturers have little incentive to take the risks necessary to engage in the RandD process because they would be unable to recoup even a fraction of the costs incurred. Diminished revenues also result in reduced investments in RandD which means less research into cancer drugs, Alzheimer cures, vaccines, and more. IP rights give life-sciences enterprises the confidence needed to undertake the difficult, risky, and expensive process of life-sciences innovation secure in the knowledge they can capture a share of the gains from their innovations, which is indispensable not only to recouping the up-front RandD costs of a given drug, but which can generate sufficient profits to enable investment in future generations of biomedical innovation and thus perpetuate the enterprises into the future. IP Protections for biopharmaceuticals are essential to encouraging innovation and ensuring that firms will continue to invest in them Grabowski and DiMasi, 15 Henry G. Grabowski (grabow@ econ.duke.edu) is a professor of economics at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. Joseph A. DiMasi is director of economic analysis at the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University, in Boston, Massachusetts. Genia Long is a senior advisor at the Analysis Group, in Boston, Massachusetts. “The Role of Patents and Research and Development Incentives in Biopharmaceutical Innovation” Health Affairs, 34, no.2 (2015):302-310 Technological innovation is widely recognized as a key determinant of economic and public health progress.1,2 Patents and other forms of intellectual property protection are generally thought to play essential roles in encouraging innovation in biopharmaceuticals. This is because the process of developing a new drug and bringing it to market is long, costly, and risky, and the costs of imitation are low. After a new drug has been approved and is being marketed, its patents protect it from competition from chemically identical entrants (or entrants infringing on other patents) for a period of time. For firms to have an incentive to continue to invest in innovative development efforts, they must have an expectation that they can charge enough during this period to recoup costs and make a profit. After a drug’s patent or patents expire, generic rivals can enter the market at greatly reduced development cost and prices, providing added consumer benefit but eroding the innovator drug company’s revenues. The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (commonly known as the Hatch-Waxman Act) was designed to balance innovation incentives and generic price competition for new drugs (generally small-molecule chemical drugs, with some large-molecule biologic exceptions) by extending the period of a drug’s marketing exclusivity while providing a regulatory framework for generic drug approval.
Covid DA Covid vaccines were built on intellectual property rights Stevens and Schultz 21 Philip Stevens and Mark Schultz, the executive director of Geneva Network and Director of the Intellectual Property and Technology Law Program at the University of Akron School of Law. “Why intellectual property rights matter for COVID-19” 1/14/2021. https://geneva-network.com/research/why-intellectual-property-rights-matter-for-covid-19/
IP is the bedrock upon which today’s COVID-19 vaccines have been built. The technologies they are based on did not come out of thin air at the beginning of the pandemic, but had been under development for decades, with substantial research in academic labs followed by years of risky investment by commercial start-ups. Consider the messenger RNA (mRNA) technology that is the basis for two of the first vaccines approved in Western countries. Scientists discovered in 1961 that mRNA could be used to “reprogram” cells to battle disease. It took decades of lab research and private sector-funded development by startups BioNTech and Moderna to overcome major difficulties and turn the technology into an effective vaccine that can be safely given to patients. Both companies and their investors have spent billions of dollars on mRNA research prior to the pandemic. While academic research is fundamental, the end result would not have been possible without the private sector, which depends on intellectual property rights. Shortly before the pandemic started, we spoke to Dr. Derrick Rossi, the academic founder of Moderna. When asked whether the treatments could be brought from the academic lab to patients without the help of the private sector, Dr. Rossi’s reply was categorical: “Not a chance. Academics are good at academia and fundamental science. They are not good at developing drugs for patients.” Dr. Rossi explains that bringing a drug to market takes many professionals, sharing their labour and diverse expertise. “This industry of professionals is out there… The more people that are involved in the chain, post-academic discovery, the more you have pros involved — all the way from IP filings to VCs to due diligence to assembling a team,” the more likely you are to develop a viable treatment. Developing a practical application for a great academic insight takes vast sums, and investors need some prospect of a return on that investment. As Dr. Rossi explains, “you can be working on the coolest thing, but investors need to know that there is some protection for their investment, plain and simple.” The other claim frequently heard at the beginning of the pandemic was that IP poses a barrier to collaboration and knowledge-sharing, so in a time of emergency any related IP should be open licensed or pooled. In reality, the IP system encouraged the rapid establishment of dozens of partnerships around COVID-19-19, with even commercial rivals prepared to cooperate and share capital and proprietary intellectual resources such as compound libraries. Examples of consortia between the private sector and research centres include the COVID-19-19 Therapeutics Accelerator to evaluate new and repurposed drugs and biologics, the EU-backed Swift COronavirus therapeutics REsponse, Corona Accelerated RandD in Europe (CARE) as well as dozens of bilateral agreements between companies. Indeed, the Pfizer vaccine is the result of its collaboration with BioNtech, where partners shared and combined know-how and proprietary knowledge to create the first vaccine authorized in the U.S. Far from being a barrier to such collaborations, IP is fundamental. Because patent rights require public disclosure, they enable drug developers to identify partners with the right intellectual assets such as know-how, platforms, compounds and technical expertise. Without patents most of this valuable proprietary knowledge would be kept hidden as trade secrets, making it impossible for researchers to know what is out there. Second, the existence of laws protecting intellectual property helps rights-holders make the decision to collaborate in the first place. By allaying concerns about confidentiality, IP enables companies to open up their compound libraries, and to share platform technology and know-how without worrying they are going to sacrifice their wider business objectives or lose control of their valuable assets. For instance, rights holders might contribute IP that is useful for entirely different diseases to COVID-19 collaborations. IP rights and licensing ensure those rights can only be used for the agreed reason, preventing competitors freeriding to gain an unfair advantage in other areas. As the former Director General of WIPO noted in June 2020, the main challenge at the time was “not access to vaccines, treatments or cures for COVID-19-19, but the absence of any approved vaccines, treatments or cures to have access to. The policy focus of governments at this stage should therefore be on supporting science and innovation”. During this initial phase of the pandemic, the majority of governments followed this advice, especially by not threatening to remove IP of products yet to be invented. No government from a country with a significant life-science RandD industry, for instance, backed the WHO’s “Solidarity Call to Action” in which companies were asked to unilaterally cede IP and data related to COVID-19 to its new technology and IP pool, C-TAP. The WHO embarked on this initiative with no evidence that IP would stand in the way of RandD and access efforts, distracting efforts away from more practical initiatives that stood greater chance of success. IPPs were crucial to the medicine effort against Covid. EFPIA 21’ (The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations) https://www.efpia.eu/about-medicines/development-of-medicines/intellectual-property/
Intellectual property has the power to bring about vital medical innovation. It creates access to new treatments which in turn creates healthy populations. It can support people’s lives and their livelihoods. IP is the key driver of innovation. It has enabled unprecedented collaborations between biopharmaceutical innovators and governments, universities and other research partners to speed up progress on hundreds of potential COVID-19 treatments, diagnostics and vaccines for patients. It is only because of IPP that we have over 300 treatments and more than 200 vaccines currently being explored for use against COVID-19. Fostering a research eco-system that can deliver that innovation rather than undermining it through challenges to IP, is the best way to protect citizens across Europe and around the world. Every new treatment or cure starts with the spark of an idea. Protecting that spark can involve ensuring funding for early-stage development of a new therapy, it can be creating the right environment for collaboration between research partners, it can be evolving the regulatory framework to keep pace with rapidly advancing science and protecting the spark means having a strong and effective intellectual property framework. Pharmaceutical intellectual property (IP) – incentives and rewards are the foundation on which innovation is built: they encourage and protect innovation, driving research and development investments into areas of unmet medical need. Direct government support would be more effective than IPR in battling public health crises Lindsey 21 Brink Lindsey, vice president at the Niskanen Center. “Why intellectual property and pandemics don’t mix.” The Brookings Institution. 6/3/2021. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/06/03/why-intellectual-property-and-pandemics-dont-mix/
What approach to encouraging innovation should we take instead? How do we incentivize drug makers to undertake the hefty RandD costs to develop new vaccines without giving them exclusive rights over their production and sale? The most effective approach during a public health crisis is direct government support: public funding of RandD, advance purchase commitments by the government to buy large numbers of doses at set prices, and other, related payouts. And when we pay drug makers, we should not hesitate to pay generously, even extravagantly: we want to offer drug companies big profits so that they prioritize this work above everything else, and so that they are ready and eager to come to the rescue again the next time there’s a crisis. It was direct support via Operation Warp Speed that made possible the astonishingly rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines and then facilitated a relatively rapid rollout of vaccine distribution (relative, that is, to most of the rest of the world). And it’s worth noting that a major reason for the faster rollout here and in the United Kingdom compared to the European Union was the latter’s misguided penny-pinching. The EU bargained hard with firms to keep vaccine prices low, and as a result their citizens ended up in the back of the queue as various supply line kinks were being ironed out. This is particularly ironic since the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was developed in Germany. As this fact underscores, the chief advantage of direct support isn’t to “get tough” with drug firms and keep a lid on their profits. Instead, it is to accelerate the end of the public health emergency by making sure drug makers profit handsomely from doing the right thing. Patent law and direct support should be seen not as either-or alternatives but as complements that apply different incentives to different circumstances and time horizons. Patent law provides a decentralized system for encouraging innovation. The government doesn’t presume to tell the industry which new drugs are needed; it simply incentivizes the development of whatever new drugs that pharmaceutical firms can come up with by offering them a temporary monopoly. It is important to note that patent law’s incentives offer no commercial guarantees. Yes, you can block other competitors for a number of years, but that still doesn’t ensure enough consumer demand for the new product to make it profitable. The situation is different in a pandemic. Here the government knows exactly what it wants to incentivize: the creation of vaccines to prevent the spread of a specific virus and other drugs to treat that virus. Under these circumstances, the decentralized approach isn’t good enough. There is no time to sit back and let drug makers take the initiative on their own timeline. Instead, the government needs to be more involved to incentivize specific innovations now. As recompense for letting it call the shots (pardon the pun), the government sweetens the deal for drug companies by insulating them from commercial risk. If pharmaceutical firms develop effective vaccines and therapies, the government will buy large, predetermined quantities at prices set high enough to guarantee a healthy return. For the pharmaceutical industry, it is useful to conceive of patent law as the default regime for innovation promotion. It improves pharmaceutical companies’ incentives to develop new drugs while leaving them free to decide which new drugs to pursue – and also leaving them to bear all commercial risk. In a pandemic or other emergency, however, it is appropriate to shift to the direct support regime, in which the government focuses efforts on one disease. In this regime, it is important to note, the government provides qualitatively superior incentives to those offered under patent law. Not only does it offer public funding to cover the up-front costs of drug development, but it also provides advance purchase commitments that guarantee a healthy return. It should therefore be clear that the pharmaceutical industry has no legitimate basis for objecting to a TRIPS waiver. Since, because of the public health crisis, drug makers now qualify for the superior benefits of direct government support, they no longer need the default benefits of patent support. Arguments that a TRIPS waiver would deprive drug makers of the incentives they need to keep developing new drugs, when they are presently receiving the most favorable incentives available, can be dismissed as the worst sort of special pleading. That said, it is a serious mistake to try to cast the current crisis as a morality play in which drug makers wear the black hats and the choice at hand is between private profits and public health. We would have no chance of beating this virus without the formidable organizational capabilities of the pharmaceutical industry, and providing the appropriate incentives is essential to ensure that the industry plays its necessary and vital role. It is misguided to lament that private companies are profiting in the current crisis: those profits are a drop in the bucket compared to the staggering cost of this pandemic in lives and economic damage.
Waiving IP protections for medicines such as the Covid-19 vaccine undermines responses to combat the disease Ubl, 21 Stephen J. Ubl is president and chief executive officer of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), which represents America’s leading biopharmaceutical research companies. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) represents the country’s leading innovative biopharmaceutical research companies, which are devoted to discovering and developing medicines that enable patients to live longer, healthier and more productive lives. Since 2000, PhRMA member companies have invested nearly $1 trillion in the search for new treatments and cures, including an estimated $83 billion in 2019 alone.“PhRMA Statement on WTO TRIPS Intellectual Property Waiver” https://www.phrma.org/coronavirus/phrma-statement-on-wto-trips-intellectual-property-waiver May 5, 2021 “In the midst of a deadly pandemic, the Biden Administration has taken an unprecedented step that will undermine our global response to the pandemic and compromise safety. This decision will sow confusion between public and private partners, further weaken already strained supply chains and foster the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines. “This change in longstanding American policy will not save lives. It also flies in the face of President Biden’s stated policy of building up American infrastructure and creating jobs by handing over American innovations to countries looking to undermine our leadership in biomedical discovery. This decision does nothing to address the real challenges to getting more shots in arms, including last-mile distribution and limited availability of raw materials. These are the real challenges we face that this empty promise ignores. “In the past few days alone, we’ve seen more American vaccine exports, increased production targets from manufacturers, new commitments to COVAX and unprecedented aid for India during its devastating COVID-19 surge. Biopharmaceutical manufacturers are fully committed to providing global access to COVID-19 vaccines, and they are collaborating at a scale that was previously unimaginable, including more than 200 manufacturing and other partnerships to date. The biopharmaceutical industry shares the goal to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible, and we hope we can all re-focus on that shared objective.”
Compulsory Licenses DA Compulsory licenses present a viable alternative to intellectual property rights Wise 14 Jacqui Wise. “Patent wars: affordable medicines versus intellectual property rights.” British Medical Journal. 2/17/2014-2/23/2014. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26514007
The pharmaceutical industry is increasingly looking towards emerging markets, where demand for new drugs is rising rapidly alongside rates of chronic disease. But in recent years India, known as the “pharmacy of the developing world,” has led the battle for affordable drugs, using legal mechanisms to overturn patents so that its generic drug companies (which produce a fifth of the world’s generic drugs) can undercut the Western giants. Developing countries have followed India’s example, and battles over patent protection and prices have broken out from Indonesia to Brazil. The fight echoes the one over access to treatments for HIV infection a decade or two ago, but it is now being fought over a far wider range of drugs with greater financial implications for Western drug companies. In a series of high profile court cases, India has rejected several patent claims for cancer drugs and Roche decided in August not to pursue a patent application for its breast cancer drug trastuzumab (Herceptin) because it viewed it as a losing battle in India’s current intellectual property environment. A key decision came in 2012, when India issued a compulsory licence for Bayer’s cancer drug sorafenib (Nexavar), allowing a local company Natco to produce a generic version. A compulsory licence allows a company to produce a patented product without the consent of the patent owner. Under the World Trade Organization’s trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS) agreement countries are free to grant compulsory licences in the interest of public health; however, there is much argument about how this is defined. The Indian courts ruled that the costs of $4500 (£2700; €3300) a month for sorafenib were unaffordable to the Indian government. A generic version of the drug is now available for $175 a month. Since that decision a further two applications for compulsory licences have been rejected. But the Indian government has set up an expert committee to review drug patents and identify whether any additional compulsory licences should be issued. The drug industry fears that the floodgates will open and that this will create an “innovation crisis.” Andrew Jenner, executive director of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations, said: “Increased use of compulsory licensing provisions will reduce the incentive to invest in the research and development of new medicines in India and should be seen as a last resort as open discussions with patent holders often lead to successful outcomes.”