Arctic Aff
Dan, ian, and spencer
The plan implements deepwater arctic port(s) in the area around the Chukchi and Beaufort seas because
oil leases are growing in the area and there is no infrastructure or supply lines capable of providing an
organized response to the spill
1AC
Plan
Plan: The United States federal government should fund the development of deepwater Arctic ports in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in Alaska’s North Coast
Alaskan senators are pushing Arctic ports now but they’re failing- federal investment
is key to effective deep-water port implementation
Forgey 14 (Pat, staff writer for Alaska dispatch news, “Despite shrinking funds, Alaska legislators make
push for investment in Arctic port”, http://www.adn.com/article/20140127/despite-shrinking-fundsalaska-legislators-make-push-investment-arctic-port)
Arctic development opportunities are opening at a time when Alaska is running out of money, but legislators are trying
to find new ways to get investment to fill the gap. Sen. Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage, said it is becoming clear that
the state couldn't do it all and that there was a crunch coming. "I could see the writing on the wall in 2009, there
was going to be more money in infrastructure needs than we were going to be able to give out ," she said.
And despite Alaska making the U.S. an Arctic nation, it's unlikely there will be much help from the federal government. Polar-class icebreakers
are being built around the Arctic, even by China, but the
state's congressional delegation hasn't been able to get a
new U.S. icebreaker built. "We have not been able to get the attention of the federal government, they just do not think like an Arctic
nation," McGuire said. Now McGuire and Rep. Bob Herron, D-Bethel, are trying a new tack with a combination of state funding and private
investment. Herron and McGuire also co-chair the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission. On Monday, McGuire introduced Senate legislation to
create a state Arctic infrastructure fund, and Herron is planning Arctic port legislation in the House, with both co-sponsoring companion
legislation. Alaska needs to get involved in the Arctic before others do, Herron said. "The Russians don't actually have much Arctic
infrastructure, but they have more than we do," he said. Ports aren't the only thing Alaska needs, but
a northern deep-water port
will be key , he said. At the same time, there also needs to be an enclosed place in the Arctic that can accommodate a C-130 during the
winter, he said. "They've got to go inside. They have to be inside a hangar in those conditions," Herron said. McGuire and Herron say that
bringing in private investors can help, even if the state has to play a role. "I've met with Guggenheim Partners, Carlyle Group, Citibank Energy,"
McGuire said. "There's nearly $100 billion in development planned, but it may not come to Alaska." What
McGuire wants to do is create a new Arctic infrastructure fund to be managed by the successful Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority. It would be modeled after a similar fund that helps provide utility infrastructure. Such a fund would probably need to start with $1-2
billion, she said. McGuire said she knows that she'll
have some challenges in convincing other legislators in times of
tight money in making such a hefty investment. "Many people go back into history, bringing up grain silos, seafood plants,
and other (Alaska megaprojects) -- and rightfully so," McGuire said. Her proposal is structured so that any investments made by the fund would
have to get through vetting, including providing no more than one-third of the total cost of a project. That would mean that other private
investors would have to vet projects and invest their own money , which would be at risk as well.
Spills
Arctic drilling is inevitable and coming now- current lack of ports means response
capabilities are nonexistent
Gramling 4/23/14 (Carolyn Gramling, staff writer and editor of AAAS magazine, “Panel says U.S. Not
Ready For Inevitable Arctic Oil Spill”)
As eagerness to explore the Arctic’s oil and gas resources grows, the threat of a major Arctic oil spill
looms ever larger—and the United States has a lot of work to do to prepare for that inevitability , a panel convened
by the National Research Council (NRC) declares in a report released today. The committee, made up of members of
academia and industry, recommended beefing up forecasting systems for ocean and ice conditions, infrastructure
for supply chains for people and equipment to respond,
field research on the behavior of oil in the Arctic environment,
and other strategies to prepare for a significant spill in the harsh conditions of the Arctic. The report “identifies the different pieces that need to
come together” to have a chance at an effective oil spill response, says Martha Grabowski, a researcher in information systems at Le Moyne
Even in the absence of oil and gas exploration, the
Arctic’s rapidly intensifying traffic—whether from barges, research ships, oil tankers, or passenger
cruises—makes oil spills increasingly likely. So “the committee felt some urgency” about the issue, says geologist
Mark Myers, vice chancellor for research at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. The report, sponsored by 10 organizations ranging from the
American Petroleum Institute to the Marine Mammal Commission, focused primarily on the United States’ territorial
waters north of the Bering Strait, including the Chukchi and Beaufort seas. Cleaning up oil in the Arctic
is particularly tricky for a number of reasons, the committee notes. The extreme weather conditions are one problem. The lack of many
College in Syracuse, New York, and chair of the NRC committee.
kinds of data—high-resolution topography and bathymetry along the coasts; measurements of ice cover and thickness; distributions in space
and time of the region’s fish, birds, and marine mammals—is another. And if
an emergency happens, there’s no
infrastructure in place—no consistent U.S. Coast Guard presence and no reliable supply chains to support a rapid
response. On top of that, there is little real-world information about how the Arctic’s own oil (rather than an amalgam from an oil pipeline,
as is now tested) will behave in the Arctic’s heavily stratified water column, which could prevent deep spills from reaching the surface. Then
there’s the lingering question of how effective chemical dispersants or oil-munching microbes are in the frigid Arctic environment. And virtually
nothing is known about how oil and sea ice will interact. “Ice really changes everything,” Myers says. Some oil might make its way into the ice,
only to later become liquid again when the ice melts; some might remain trapped beneath it, moving with the ice—or possibly not. “We have
very few observations of the under-ice environment,” he says. The report calls for upgrading oil spill response infrastructure, additional studies,
and more coordination between agencies, industry, academia, and other Arctic nations. Grabowski also emphasized the need for
standardization—of data collection and sharing, of oil spill exercises and responses. Who would coordinate all of this and who would pay for it
remain unsettled questions. Grabowski notes that she and her panel members recommend public-private partnerships, interagency
coordination, and working with, for example, local communities to develop trained response teams in local villages. “But in terms of an overall
framework,” she says, “I think that that is a wide-open question. And obviously connected to that is a resource question. We can identify lots of
ideas for a framework but without adequate resources that causes a real difficulty.”
Ports are specifically key- they provide critical infrastructure and allow for organized
response to spills
Dlouhy 4/25 (Jennifer Dlouhy, writer for Houston Chronicle, Congressional quarterly, and San Antonio
Express-News, “US Ill-Prepared for an Arctic Oil Spill, Report Says”, 4/25/14)
The United States is ill prepared to tackle oil spills in the Arctic, whether from drilling or from cargo and cruise ships
traveling through newly passable waterways once clogged with ice, the National Research Council reported Wednesday. Extreme weather
conditions and
sparse infrastructure in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas — more than 1,000 miles from the
nearest deep-water port
— would
complicate any broad emergency response. Ice in those remote oceans can
trap pockets of oil, locking it beyond the reach of conventional cleanup equipment and preventing it from naturally breaking down over time.
" The
lack of infrastructure
in the Arctic would
be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill,"
scientists said in a 198-page National Research Council report requested by the American Petroleum Institute, the Coast Guard, the federal
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement and five other entities. "It is
unlikely that responders could quickly react
to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access , stronger supply chains and increased
capacity to handle equipment, supplies and personnel." The report offers more than a dozen recommendations for what
regulators, the oil industry and other stakeholders need to do to boost their ability to tackle a crude oil or fuel spill at the top of the globe, as
retreating sea ice spurs new energy development and ship traffic there.
Two impacts- first- Spill now destroys Arctic biodiversity-high concentration of critical
species
CBD 14 (Center for Biological Diversity, large agency that works to give attention to species in danger,
“Catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico: Devastation Persists”, 2014)
The Gulf of Mexico has by far the largest, best-equipped, most experienced oil spill-containment
system in the nation. It has hundreds of experienced volunteer fishing boats at its disposal. The water is warm year round and relatively
calm except in hurricane season. Wildlife rehab and cleanup crews have access to a road system in close proximity to much of the shoreline.
Yet with all these advantages, the government and the oil industry were unable to contain the spill.
Imagine what would happen if a similar spill occurred in the Arctic — 140 miles from land. In subzero
temperatures. With miles of sea ice to hack through, ship-killing icebergs in all directions, and darkness for 20 hours a day in the winter. It
would be a disaster many magnitudes worse than what we’re suffering in the Gulf of Mexico. There’s no
way to clean up a massive oil spill in the broken-ice conditions that prevail in these Arctic areas for much of the year. In fact, the ice-free drilling
season is so short in the Arctic — July to early October — that leaking oil from a similar accident there could continue to gush for an entire
winter while efforts to drill a relief well were necessarily postponed. The Arctic and its wildlife got an important reprieve in early 2011 when
Royal Dutch Shell announced it would not go forward with plans to drill in the summer of 2011 in polar bear critical habitat in Alaska. The plans
to drill in the Beaufort Sea had long been opposed by the Center and other conservation groups. But in 2012, Shell started enacting its drilling
plans. The Center is calling on the Department of the Interior to permanently take that area out of consideration for future drilling. Meanwhile,
BP has suspended its controversial and dangerous “Liberty” project that was exposed The New York Times. The
oil company, relying
on untested technologies, was planning to drill the world’s largest horizontal well off the Alaska coast .
The project is now on hold and the Center is urging that it be taken off the table permanently. It’s imperative that drilling never go
forward if we’re to prevent an Arctic oil-spill catastrophe that could be even worse than the Gulf disaster,
threatening the polar bear, Pacific walrus; ringed, spotted, bearded, and ribbon seals; cetaceans like
the North Pacific right whale, bowhead whale and Cook Inlet beluga; migratory birds; and many other
species.
Arctic environment collapse goes global- causes extinction
WWF 10 (World Wildlife Fund, hippies, “Drilling for Oil in the Arctic:
Too Soon, Too Risky”, 12/1/2010)
The Arctic and the subarctic regions surrounding it are important for many reasons. One is their enormous
biological diversity: a kaleidoscopic array of land and seascapes supporting millions of migrating birds
and charismatic species such as polar bears, walruses, narwhals and sea otters. Economics is another: Alaskan fisheries are
among the richest in the world. Their $2.2 billion in annual catch fills the frozen food sections and seafood counters of supermarkets across the
nation. However, there is another reason why the Arctic is not just important, but among the most important places on the face of the Earth. A
keystone species is generally defined as one whose removal from an ecosystem triggers a cascade of
changes affecting other species in that ecosystem . The same can be said of the Arctic in relation to
the rest of the world.
With feedback mechanisms that affect ocean currents and influence climate patterns,
the Arctic
functions like a global thermostat. Heat balance, ocean circulation patterns and the carbon cycle are
all related to its regulatory and carbon storage functions. Disrupt these functions and we effect farreaching changes in the conditions under which life has existed on Earth
for thousands of years.
Second- Spill now causes runaway polar warming
Oke 10 (Chris, writer for the Yukon news, “Researcher suggests Arctic oil spill would have dire
consequences”, http://www.yukon-news.com/news/researcher-suggests-arctic-oil-spill-would-havedire-consequences)
The environmental disaster currently taking place in the Gulf of Mexico has a lot of Canadians worried about
drilling at home, especially in the fragile Arctic. “There should be a moratorium on deep-sea drilling in the Arctic,” according
to Dr. William Adams, who has a PhD in physical chemistry and was a past chair of the defence science advisory board Adams was part of the
most comprehensive study of oil pollution in the Arctic to date, the Beaufort Project. This large-scale project was conducted in the 1970s as a
joint study between the Canadian government and the oil industry. In today’s dollars, $50 million was spent on the study. Scientists
pumped 59,200 litres of oil under the ice in a remote bay in the Beaufort Sea and spent two years
watching what happened. They studied wildlife, marine life, oceanography, meteorology, sea ice and oil spill countermeasures. They also
looked at consequences of a possible oil spill and methods of oil spill cleanup in ice-choked waters. They found that the oil caused
adverse effects on the entire biological food chain . It also led to a massive growth in algae that
destroyed the ecosystem and heated up the water and ice . It turns out burning oil isn’t the only
way to contribute to global warming. An oil spill similar to the one in the Gulf of Mexico would have huge impacts
on the climate. “It would not only be a catastrophe for Canada and the Inuit that live up there, but it would be potentially
a
massive global climatic catastrophe ,” said Adams. “We can’t even begin to model at this stage
what the consequences would be.” The artificial spill that Adams and his peers conducted left about one
centimetre of oil under the ice. The test mimicked a spill of about 1,000 barrels a day. The official line from British
Petroleum and the US government is that the Gulf disaster is spilling 5,000 barrels a day. However,
independent experts estimate that it might be spewing more than 70,000 barrels a day into the Gulf of Mexico. To clean up a mess like this, one
would need technology for operating at long periods of time under the ice, said Adams. “It’s coming along, but it’s not ready yet.”
Unfortunately, a lot of the knowledge collected in the study is being forgotten. “Some of us are getting old,” said Adams, now 69 years old and
one of the younger members of the project. “The institutional memory isn’t there. People that were in government at the time are now long
gone.” More work needs to be done between industry and government to research the effects of an oil spill and how to clean it up, said Adams.
“Until then, there should be a moratorium on deep-sea drilling in the Arctic.” Every year,
the chances of an oil spill the Arctic
rise due to the increase in oil and gas exploration and increased shipping because the ice cover is
melting off. The earliest that Arctic drilling could happen in Canada would be in 2014 in the Beaufort Sea, according to the National Energy
Board. More urgent right now are the plans of Canada’s neighbours. This summer, Shell plans to begin exploratory drilling in the Beaufort off of
the Alaska coast. And in the Davis Strait, an area known as “Iceberg Alley,” Greenland is planning to drill just beyond the Canadian border. Cairn
Energy, a Scottish Corporation with no experience in the Arctic, is planning to brave the slushy waters in search of oil. Its lack of experience isn’t
about to sway Greenland. The island is hoping to use its oil reserves to achieve financial and political independence from Denmark, under which
it is currently an autonomous province. A 2008 study by the US Geological Survey estimated that 50 billion barrels of crude lie offshore of
Greenland. The National Energy Board has been holding a review of Arctic safety and environmental requirements in light of what happened in
the Gulf of Mexico. The review looked into requirements, such as making company’s drill relief wells at the same time as their primary wells.
However, industry is saying that it’s impossible to drill the secondary wells in the same year, because of the short drilling season in the Arctic.
“So we could have oil spilling out into the Arctic for more than a year,” said Yukon MP Larry Bagnell, Liberal critic for Arctic Issues and Northern
Development. “And no one from government has been able to tell me if there is any way an oil spill could be contained if it got under ice.”
According to Adams, there is no way. The National Energy Board hearings have since been postponed, said Bagnell. “They’re waiting to see
what will happen in the Gulf.”
Polar warming melts the Arctic layer of permafrost
Koch 13 (Wendy, writer and climate specialist for USA today, “Alaska sinks as Arctic melt thaws permafrost”,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/08/alaska-sinks--climate-change-thaws-permafrost/2794255/)
Bad news for Richard — and, for the rest of us. Warmer temperatures are thawing the surface layer of land that
covers most of Alaska and is known as permafrost
(frozen below for at least two years in a row.) This thawing not only
damages roads, buildings and airport runways, but also releases vast amounts of greenhouse gases that further warm the atmosphere — not
just over Richard's house but worldwide. The
nation's last frontier is — in many ways — its ground zero for
climate change. Alaska's temperatures are rising twice as fast as those in the lower 48, prompting more sea ice to
disappear in summer. While this may eventually open the Northwest Passage to sought-after tourism, oil exploration and trade, it
also spells trouble
as wildfires increase, roads buckle and tribal villages sink into the sea.
Permafrost melt leads to methane eruptions and fast extinction
Ryskin 3 (Gregory, dept. of chemical engineering at Northwestern, “Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions”,
https://pangea.stanford.edu/research/Oceans/GES205/methaneGeology.pdf)
The consequences of a methane-driven oceanic eruption for marine and terrestrial life are likely to
be catastrophic . Figuratively speaking, the erupting region ‘‘boils over,’’ ejecting a large amount of methane
and other gases (e.g., CO2, H2S) into the atmosphere, and flooding large areas of land. Whereas pure methane is lighter than air,
methane loaded with water droplets is much heavier, and thus spreads over the land, mixing with air in the process (and losing water as rain).
The airmethane mixture is explosive at methane concentrations between 5% and 15%; as such mixtures form in
different locations near the ground and are ignited by lightning, explosions2 and conflagrations destroy most of the
terrestrial life, and also produce great amounts of smoke and of carbon dioxide. Firestorms carry smoke and dust into the
upper atmosphere, where they may remain for several years (Turco et al., 1991); the resulting darkness and
global cooling may provide an additional kill mechanism. Conversely, carbon dioxide and the remaining methane
create the greenhouse effect, which may lead to global warming. The outcome of the competition between the
cooling and the warming tendencies is difficult to predict (Turco et al., 1991; Pierrehumbert, 2002). Upon release of a significant portion of the
dissolved methane, the ocean settles down, and the entire sequence of events (i.e., development of anoxia, accumulation of dissolved
methane, the metastable state, eruption) begins anew. No external cause is required to bring about a methane-driven eruption—its mechanism
is self-contained, and implies that eruptions are likely to occur repeatedly at the same location. Because
methane is isotopically
light, its fast release must result in a negative carbon isotope excursion in the geological record.
Knowing the magnitude of the excursion, one can estimate the amount of methane that could have
produced it. Such calculations (prompted by the methane-hydrate-dissociation model, but equally applicable here) have been performed
for several global events in the geological record; the results range from ;1018 to 1019 g of released methane (e.g., Katz et al., 1999; Kennedy et
al., 2001; de Wit et al., 2002). These are very large amounts: the total carbon content of today’s terrestrial biomass is ;2 3 1018 g. Nevertheless,
relatively small regions of the deep ocean could contain such amounts of dissolved methane; e.g., the Black Sea alone (volume ;0.4 3 1023 of
the ocean total; maximum depth only 2.2 km) could hold, at saturation, ;0.5 3 1018 g. A similar region of the deep ocean could contain much
more (the amount grows quadratically with depth3). Released in a geological instant (weeks, perhaps), 1018 to 1019 g of methane could
destroy the terrestrial life almost entirely. Combustion and explosion of 0.75 3 1019 g of methane would liberate energy equivalent to 108 Mt
of TNT, ;10,000 times greater than the world’s stockpile of nuclear weapons, implicated in the nuclear winter scenario (Turco et al., 1991).
Defense doesn’t apply- all it takes is one major spill
National Academy of Engineering 3 (writing for American National Academies, “Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil
and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope”, 2003; http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/north_slope_final.pdf)
Alaska’s North Slope is underlain by permafrost— a thick layer of earth material that stays frozen year round. The permafrost is covered by a
thin active layer that thaws each summer and supports plant growth for a brief period. If permafrost thaws, the ground surface and the
structures it supports will settle. To minimize disruption to the ground surface, the North Slope industrial infrastructure is specially built—
pipelines are generally elevated rather than buried, and roads and industrial facilities are raised on thick gravel berms. For a variety of reasons,
nearly all of the roads, pads, pipelines and other infrastructure ever built are still in place. The environmental
effects of such
structures on the landscape, water systems, vegetation, and animals are manifest not only at the
“footprint” itself (physical area covered by the structure) but also at distances that vary depending on the
environmental component being affected. The petroleum industry continues to introduce technological
innovations to reduce its footprint, for example, directional drilling and the use of ice roads and pads, drilling platforms, and new kinds of
vehicles. For some areas of concern, the committee found no evidence that effects have accumulated. For example, despite widespread
concern regarding the damaging effects of frequent oil and saltwater spills on the tundra, most spills to
date have been small and have had only local effects . Moreover, damaged areas have recovered before they have been
disturbed again.
However, a large oil spill in marine waters would likely have substantial
accumulating effects
on whales and other receptors because current cleanup methods can remove only a small fraction of spilled oil,
especially under conditions of broken ice.
Response time is important- every hour means more damage- that’s why
infrastructure is key
O’Rourke 12 (Ronald, specialist in naval affairs, writing for the congressional research service, “Changes in the Arctic: Background and
Issues for Congress”, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41153.pdf)
Response time is a critical factor for oil spill recovery. With each hour, spilled oil becomes more difficult
to track, contain, and recover, particularly in icy conditions , where oil can migrate under or mix with
surrounding ice.96 Most response techniques call for quick action, which may pose logistical challenges in areas without
prior staging equipment or trained response professionals. Many stakeholders are concerned about a “response gap” for oil spills in the Arctic
region.97 A
response gap is a period of time in which oil spill response activities would be unsafe or
infeasible. The response gap for the northern Arctic latitudes is likely to be extremely high compared to
other regions.
Shipping
It’s impossible now- lack of ports means shipping capabilities are nonexistent
Kroh, Conathan, and Huvos 12 (Kiley Kroh, co-editor of Climate Progress magazine, energy policy
worker at American Progress, Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy at American Progress and
Senate committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation staffer, and Emma Huvos, staff writer,
“Putting a Freeze on Arctic Drilling”)
NOAA’s United States Coast Pilot notes that “there are few harbors, port facilities, or aids to navigation along the
Arctic coast.”51 While there are no major ports on the North Slope of Alaska, there are small boat anchorages in both Prudhoe Bay and
Wainwright, as well as docking facilities associated with the existing drilling operations in Prudhoe Bay.52 Additional small boat ramps can be
found in some North Slope communities, but these would be inadequate for a large-scale spill response. The closest major public port, Dutch
Harbor, is 1,167 nautical miles away from Barrow in Unalaska. 53 Other Alaskan ports of significance are
located in Anchorage, Valdez, and Homer. As the accompanying map indicates, there is a shallow-water port in Kivalina, but it
is privately owned and operated by Red Dog zinc mine. 54, 55 Alaska has no deep-water offshore port or harbor along
its western coastline or North Slope . In comparison, Louisiana alone has 26 public ports, including the Port of South Louisiana,
the largest port by tonnage in the United States, as well as numerous private harbors and marinas.56, 57 Thirty-five of the 150 principal ports
by tonnage in the United States are located within a 500-mile radius of the Deepwater Horizon spill site.58 There are none along the North
Slope. The Gulf Coast’s highly developed port infrastructure played a crucial role in facilitating cleanup and recovery following the BP blowout, a
massive mobilization effort that utilized 9,700 vessels at peak response.59 Facilities
such as ports, fueling stations,
offloading equipment, and infrastructure support such as roads and rail systems on a comparable scale simply do
not exist on Alaska’s North Slope.
(See sidebar on page 17) The Arctic region has its own oil spill response cooperative, similar to
those that exist in the Gulf. Founded in 1979, Alaska Clean Seas runs an emergency operations center at its base in Deadhorse.63 Four
additional emergency operations centers in the North Slope region are available to members through a mutual aid agreement. Few ports in a
storm Residents
of Nome, a city located on the western coast of Alaska 520 miles south of Barrow, rely on tanker barges to
deliver home heating fuel, gasoline, and diesel for the winter months. November’s “monster storm”
disrupted this delivery, however, and thick ice prevented the barge from reaching port . In a bid to avoid the $9a-gallon gasoline that would likely result from flying fuel into the isolated city by plane, the Nome-based Sitnasuak Native Corporation signed a
contract to have a double-hulled Ice Classed Russian tanker deliver the 1.3 million gallons of fuel. 60 The trip required a 10-day journey from
the Aleutian Islands, with the nation’s only operating icebreaker forging a path for the Russian ship, with progress continually impeded by wind,
brutal cold, and ice. The mission, which was ultimately successful, will shield Nome residents from extreme fuel price spikes for the winter
season. Yet it’s also a stark illustration of the unpredictable weather conditions characteristic of the Arctic region, the difficulties in transporting
critical supplies to isolated areas, and the shortcomings of the United States’ woefully inadequate icebreaking capacity. 61 The
unprecedented effort also raises serious questions about the lack of infrastructure necessary for
managing increased activity in the Arctic.62 While Alaska Clean Seas owns and operates a large inventory of response equipment,
much of this technology is compromised in ice-covered waters, and the region’s unpredictable weather makes rapid response much more
difficult.
Arctic trade is key to US commerce- opportunities are increasing now
Papp 12 (US Coast Guard Admiral and current commandant of the US Coast Guard, Head of largest
component of US Department of Homeland Security. MA in National Security and Strategic Studies from
US Naval War College, Admiral Robert J, “The Emerging Arctic Frontier,” February 2012,
usni.org/magazines)
As a maritime nation, the United States relies on the sea for our prosperity, trade, transportation, and
security. We are also an Arctic nation. The Arctic region—the Barents, Beaufort, and Chukchi seas and the Arctic Ocean—
is the emerging maritime frontier, vital to our national interests, economy and security . The Arctic
Ocean, in the northern region of the Arctic Circle, is changing from a solid expanse of inaccessible ice fields into a
growing navigable sea, attracting increased human activity and unlocking access to vast economic
potential and energy resources. In the 35 years since I first saw Kotzebue, Alaska, on the Chukchi Sea as a junior officer, the sea ice has
receded from the coast so much that when I returned last year the coastal area was ice-free. The
shipping, oil-and-gas, and
tourism industries continue to expand with the promise of opportunity and fortune in previously
inaccessible areas. Experts estimate that in another 25 years the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free during the summer months. 2 This
change from “hard” to “soft” water, growing economic interests and energy demands, and increasing use of the seas for maritime activities by
commercial, native, and recreational users demands a persistent, capable U.S. Coast Guard presence in the Arctic region. Our mandate to
protect people on the sea, protect people from threats delivered by sea, and protect the sea itself applies in the Arctic equally as in the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans and Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. The difference is that in the rest of the maritime domain, we have an established
presence of shore-based forces, small boats, cutters, and aircraft supported by permanent infrastructure and significant operating experience.
Although the Coast Guard has operated in southern Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and Bering Sea for much of our history, in the higher latitudes we
have little infrastructure and limited operating experience, other than icebreaking. Historically, such capabilities were not needed. Year-
round ice, extreme weather, and the vast distances to logistical support, prevented all but
icebreakers or ice-strengthened ships from operating there. As a result, commercial enterprise on any significant scale
was nonexistent. But the Arctic is emerging as the new maritime frontier , and the Coast Guard is challenged in
responding to the current and emerging demands.
The economy is faltering now- low consumer confidence, demand, and disruptionsaction now is key
House 14 (Jonathan, writing for the WSJ, “U.S. Economy Shrinks by Most in Five Years”, http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-gdpcontracted-at-2-9-pace-in-first-quarter-1403699600)
Weather disruptions
at home and weak demand abroad caused a contraction of rare severity in the U.S.
economy in the first quarter, renewing doubts about the strength of the nation's five-year-old
recovery. Gross domestic product, the broadest measure of goods and services produced across the economy, fell at a seasonally
adjusted annual rate of 2.9% in the first quarter, the Commerce Department said in its third reading of the data Wednesday. That
was a sharp downward revision from the previous estimate that output fell at an annual rate of 1%. It also represented
the fastest rate of decline since the recession , and was the largest drop recorded since the end of
World War II that wasn't part of a recession. To be sure, many signs since March, including reports of growth in consumer
spending, business investment and hiring, indicate the first quarter doesn't mark the start of a new recession. And revisions in future years
could alter the first-quarter figure. J.P. Morgan Chase economist Michael Feroli described the decline as "mostly a confluence of several
negative, but mostly one-off, factors." But the
severity of the drop, he said, "calls into question how much vigor
there is in the pace of activity" going forward. One factor in the government's revision of first-quarter output was difficulty in
estimating the impact of the Affordable Care Act on health-care expenditures. Actual health spending came in substantially lower than
expected based on ACA enrollments and Medicaid data, declining at a 1.4% annualized pace in the period compared with an earlier estimate of
a 9.1% increase. Beyond that, consumer spending on goods, business outlays on equipment and housing investment were all soft, a weakness
that economists have attributed, at least in part, to unusually harsh winter weather. Overall
services, which accounts for more than two thirds of economic output, increased
consumer spending on goods and
at an annual rate of 1%, off from the
earlier estimate of 3.1% growth. The Commerce report showed businesses sharply drawing down inventories in the first quarter
after building them up to levels deemed unsustainable by economists late last year. The move subtracted 1.7 percentage
points from growth. Exports in the period fell by nearly 10%, a new sign of a challenging global economic environment. The severity of
the first-quarter downturn is at odds with other data showing greater strength in the economy, especially a recent pickup in job creation. Since
World War II, there have been 15 other quarters during which GDP contracted by this amount or more. In 14 of those 15 quarters, hiring
contracted along with output. Meanwhile, early data from the second quarter indicate the economy has improved this spring, as warmer
weather has helped release pent-up demand. Sales of new homes surged to a six-year high last month, while existing-home sales rose to their
highest level since October, data released earlier this week showed. "Things are looking very strong here in Naples," said Anthony Solomon,
owner of The Ronto Group, a land developer in Naples, Fla. "In all our communities, we're seeing great appetite from home builders and from
end buyers." Still, the
depth of the first-quarter decline in output means growth during the first half of the
year likely will fall below the economy's average rate of just over 2% since it emerged from recession in June 2009.
Construction of deep water ports increases economic power and locks in strong Arctic
trade
Lowther 12 (Arctic Deep Water Port BY PAULA LOWTHER Posted: January 4, 2012 This article
originally appeared in the January 2012 print edition of Alaska Business Monthly magazine.
http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/January-2012/Arctic-Deep-Water-Port/)
There has been discussion about the viability of an Arctic deep water port in the United States, but those talks
took a serious turn when Senator Lisa Murkowski joined Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Nuuk, Greenland for a
meeting of the Arctic Council last May. The Arctic Council, a high-level intergovernmental forum that addresses the issues facing Arctic countries, is
made up of foreign affairs ministers and leaders from the U.S., Canada, Russia, Norway, Iceland, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. INCREASED MARINE TRAFFIC
Shrinking sea ice in the Arctic has contributed to increased marine traffic, raising concerns over
whether northern nations are prepared to respond to Arctic emergencies such as search and rescue
and environmental spill response. During the Arctic Council’s bi-annual ministers’ meeting, an international treaty was signed by all Arctic
Council nations that would require coordination of emergency response efforts in the event of a plane crash, cruise ship sinking or other major disaster. This legally
binding treaty puts significant responsibility on each country to fulfill its obligations under the agreement. Days after the Arctic Council treaty was signed, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers partnered with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to host the Arctic Deep-Draft Ports Planning Charrette in
Anchorage. The purpose of this planning session was to bring together representatives from state and federal agencies and organizations to begin the process of
joint planning for potential U.S. ports in the Arctic regions of Alaska. Involved agencies included the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Coastal and
Ocean Management, Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority, Denali Commission, Northern Waters Task Force, NORAD, U.S. Arctic Research
Commission, Arctic Council, Institute of the North, Marine Exchange of Alaska, Committee of the Arctic Maritime Transportation System, and the U.S. Navy.
MAINTAINING SOVEREIGNTY Alaskan leaders have long recognized the need for Arctic port development on a national
and state level. Senator Mark Begich introduced seven pieces of legislation in 2009 known as the Inuvikput Package that urged lawmakers to take the necessary
steps in maintaining sovereignty in light of increased Arctic traffic and activity while expanding and diversifying Alaska’s economy. Also in 2009, Murkowski
introduced legislation that would require the U.S. to undertake a detailed study of the feasibility of establishing a deep water sea port in the Arctic. While the Arctic
Deep Water Sea Port Act of 2009 did not become law, Murkowski
has continued to lead the national conversation about
the strategic importance of the Arctic to the U.S. In a press release dated May 16, 2011, Murkowski states, “It is an exciting and
unprecedented time in the Arctic. We know that the environmental changes occurring in the region are happening at a dramatic rate, but the political response has
been much slower.” In 2010, Representative Don Young followed up Murkowski’s proposed legislation by introducing the bill H.R. 4576: Arctic Deep Water Sea Port
Act of 2010. It also failed to gain traction in Congress. Since the U.S. purchased Alaska in 1887, it has sought to protect its interests in the Arctic. President George
W. Bush
signed the National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD)-66 on Arctic Region Policy in January 2009,
stating goals as: “Meet national security and homeland security needs relevant to the Arctic region;
Protect the Arctic environment and conserve its biological resources; Ensure that natural resource
management and economic development in the region are environmentally sustainable; Strengthen
institutions for cooperation among the eight Arctic nations; Involve the Arctic’s indigenous
communities in decisions that affect them; and, Enhance scientific monitoring and research into local,
regional and global environmental issues.” LONG-TERM ASSET The only state in the Arctic region, Alaska bears a lot of the responsibility for
meeting this mandate. At the USACE/DOT &PF intense planning session last May, Young acknowledged there has been significant interest in the Arctic by the U.S. as
well as other Arctic nations. “The U.S. is an Arctic nation because of Alaska, and Alaska will provide the gateway to our nation’s future,” Young said. “We have the
opportunity now to address the prospects of industry years down the road and how we can use changing Arctic conditions to our advantage. Now
is the
time to be investing in our infrastructure and laying the groundwork. “ Beyond national security and resource
development on the national scale, Alaska stands to benefit greatly from the construction of one or more deep
water ports along Alaska’s coastline. This major infrastructure asset would provide a direct shipping point for resources developed in western and northern
regions and could support future oil and gas development in the Arctic. Mark Luiken, commissioner of DOT&PF stated in a press release, “A deep draft
port would be a long-term national asset. It is vital to project U.S. presence, to open up opportunities
for economic growth, aid in mineral research and development, and to support continued scientific
studies.” The State of Alaska has defined the purpose for the future port as: “To promote economic development, employment,
job training and education in the state of Alaska, including areas of rural Alaska was historically high
rates of unemployment, through the development and construction of an Arctic port that will attract
new industry, expand international trade opportunities, and broaden and diversify the economic base
in Alaska in a safe, reasonable and efficient manner.” PRIVATE INDUSTRY The planning charrette underscored that while generating
national interest is vital to securing federal funding for any deep water port in the Arctic, economic development of resources and
private industry will most likely be the driving force behind progress. Recently, Sitnasuak Native Corp. of Nome signed a
contract with Vitus Marine LLC to deliver 1.5 million gallons of petroleum products to Nome via marine tanker to replace the fuel that was not able to be delivered
to the town due to early winter storms. This contract marks the first time fuel has been scheduled for delivery to a western Alaska community during the winter
months, according to Sitnasuak officials. Although the double-hulled ice-classed Russian tanker is certified to travel through four feet of ice, the use of the Coast
Guard icebreaker Healy may be needed to ensure the delivery makes it to Nome, the company stated. The Nome fuel crisis demonstrated the need for additional
infrastructure in Arctic regions of Alaska. Clearly a deep water port could not have ensured fuel delivery for Nome, but increased
infrastructure in
the area would entice larger vessels to bring goods and services to the northwestern communities of Alaska. Infrastructure
identified in the intense planning session last May that is needed to make the Arctic deep water port economically viable include an airport, helicopter facility,
marine support services, billeting, warehousing, stores, potable water, sewage facilities, fuel and public services such as hospitals and schools.
Best studies and correlation proves decline increases risk of war, miscalc, and power
grabs
Royal 10 (Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, “Economics of War and
Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives,” pg 213-215)
Less intuitive is how periods
of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict.
Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of
interdependent states. Research
in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels.
Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work
on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a
pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such,
exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981)
that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon 1995).
Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflicts as a rising power may seek
to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel
leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remains unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggest that “future expectation of trade” is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic
view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace item such as energy
resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could
potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers
protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn . They write, The linkages
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing . Economic conflict
tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends
to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg and
Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism
(Blomberg, Hess and Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises
generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary
theory” suggests that, when facing
unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to
fabricate external military conflicts to create a “rally around the flag” effect.
Independently, China wants to militarize the Arctic and is looking to confront the US
now
Wright 11 (Curtis, Prof. of history at the University of Calgary, studies China, writing for the US Navy
War College, “The Dragon Eyes The Top Of The World”, https://www.usnwc.edu/Research--Gaming/China-Maritime-Studies-Institute/Publications/documents/China-Maritime-Study-8_TheDragon-Eyes-the-Top-of-.pdf)
It seems almost obligatory in Chinese articles on the nation’s interests in the Arctic to include the
introductory observation that the Arctic, hitherto almost universally seen as bleak, frigid, and forbidding, is now
regarded with the covetous eyes and glowering visages of major powers who long to control access to its waters,
militarize its islands, and secure legal rights to its wealth in oil, natural gas, minerals, and seafood. A
prime example is an article
published in 2010 in the prestigious Guoji Guanxi Xueyuan xuebao (Journal of the University of International Relations) by Xu
Zhenwei (of Nankai Univer- sity’s Zhou Enlai School of Government and Management in Tianjin) and Xu Yuanyuan (of Qingdao University’s
School of Economics in Qingdao, Shandong Province). It
points out (perhaps unwittingly) that China covets the same Arctic
assets that the United States, Canada, and Russia do: “What, after all, is so alluring about the ice-in-the- sky, snow-on-the-earth
Arctic that it makes the three great and powerful countries the U.S., Canada, and Russia contentious to the point that they don’t know what to
do? After reading through many materials we have discovered [the reasons]: resources, sea
routes, and strategic
significance. These three resplendent jewels attract covetous stares from the three great and powerful countries.”10 That the
Arctic might emerge in the future as the theater for regional and perhaps even global conflict is a
possibility entertained with
some
seriousness in China today . An article published in 2010 in the influential popular
magazine Dangdai haijun (Modern Navy) notes that the United States is currently procuring more warm clothing for naval personnel and is, in
accordance with the U.S. Navy’s Arctic Roadmap, preparing for the construction and deployment of an Arctic surface fleet, a project slated for
the years 2011 through 2015.11
A senior colonel in the People’s Liberation Army noted in 2008 that use of
force in the Arctic over issues of sovereignty could not be ruled out .12 In an article published in 2009, Li Zhenfu,
associate professor in the College of Transportation Management at Dalian Maritime University in Dalian, Liaoning Province, argues that the
ultimate resolution of Arctic issues will have direct bearing on world security.13
US-Sino war goes nuclear. Crisis management won’t check
Lowther 13 (William Lowther, Washington DC staff writer for that organization and he is citing a
report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, 3-16-2013, “Taiwan could spark nuclear
war: report,” Taipei Times,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211)
“Although Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military
Maritime Consultative Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the bases for
miscommunication and misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historical reservoirs of
suspicion ,” the report says. For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions
would result in a military or even nuclear response by the other party. To make things worse, “neither side seems to
believe the other’s declared policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very
uncertain endeavor, could be especially difficult in any conflict,” it says. Although conflict “mercifully” seems unlikely at this point, the report
concludes that “it cannot be ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we are unwise or unlucky.” The report says: “ With both sides
possessing and looking set to retain formidable nuclear weapons arsenals, such a conflict would be tremendously
dangerous and quite possibly devastating.”
The plan solves- providing critical infrastructure like ports helps build frameworks for
cooperation that drastically decrease chance of conflict- infrastructure is China’s only
barrier to exploration
France-Presse 13 (Agence France-Presse, international news agency, “New Shipping Route Shows China’s Arctic Ambitions”,
http://www.industryweek.com/transportation/new-shipping-route-shows-chinas-arctic-ambitions, 8/16/12)
SHANGHAI -- The
maiden voyage to Europe by a Chinese merchant ship through the "Northeast Passage" will help the world's
a symbol of Beijing's strategic ambitions in the Arctic. The emerging
Arctic Ocean shipping route north of Russia has been opened up by global warming and cuts thousands of miles -- and
biggest exporter speed goods to market and is
many days -- off the journey from China to its key European market. A vessel owned by Chinese state shipping giant COSCO left the
northeastern port of Dalian last week bound for Rotterdam in the Netherlands, on a 3,380-mile voyage which state media said would take just
over 30 days. That is up to two weeks faster than the traditional route between Asia and Europe through the Suez Canal, according to COSCO.
"It's potentially going to change the face of world trade," said Sam Chambers, editor of SinoShip magazine. "The
Chinese will use the
Arctic route in a very big way. It's all about having options, having alternatives in case of emergency," he said. But China is also
eyeing the Arctic for better access to resources to fuel the world's second largest economy, such as
the natural gas reserves held by political ally Russia in the region. China -- which does not border the Arctic and has no territorial
claim to any of it -- also recognizes the area's potential for scientific research and its strategic value as what one
Chinese analyst who did not want to be named called "military high ground." The commercial shipping route is currently only open for about
four months a year as polar ice melting as a result of global warming makes it more accessible. Three months ago, China gained observer status
in the Arctic Council, a group of nations with interests in the region which is believed could hold rich mineral and energy resources. The
council's eight full member states are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States. "The opening of the
new shipping route indicates China is participating more in Arctic Ocean affairs," said Zhang Yongfeng, a researcher at the Shanghai
International Shipping Institute. The European Union is China's biggest export destination with 290 billion euros (US$385 billion) in goods sold
last year and COSCO, China's largest shipper, described the new service in purely commercial terms, saying it will slash shipping times, thus
cutting costs and fuel consumption. "The Arctic route can cut 12-15 days from traditional routes so the maritime industry calls it the 'Golden
Waterway'," COSCO said in announcing the journey. The
company's 19,000-ton ship Yong Sheng -- which is carrying a
mixed cargo, including heavy equipment and steel -- is expected to pass through the Bering Strait later
this month and dock in Rotterdam in September, it said. "It will change the market pattern of the global shipping industry
because it will shorten the maritime distance significantly among the Chinese, European and North American markets," Dalian Maritime
University professor Qi Shaobin told state media. But analysts
said developing the route would take time -- while
lack of infrastructure raised worries over contingencies for potential emergencies. " In the near term, the
economic value for shipping is definitely not big," said Zhang, of the Shanghai International Shipping
Institute.
"The navigable period of the passage is relatively short...
the route is incomplete."
while the port and pier infrastructure along
China is seeking to grow markets in southeast Asia and Africa, so more trade might flow to the south,
lessening the importance of the Arctic route, he added. China's total foreign trade volume was $3.87 trillion last year. But some Chinese
estimates claim between 5% and 15% of the country's international trade could use the Arctic route within a mere seven years.
China will cooperate- recent work on trade and economic policy proves the plan steps
away from competition in the Arctic
Zhang and Shi 13 [Yuhan Zhang is an energy professional in a multinational energy company based in the United States and a former
researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Lin Shi is an energy professional in a multinational energy company based in the
United States and a former consultant at the World Bank. “Conflict between China and the US is not inevitable,” East Asia Forum, 4/13/2013,
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/13/conflict-between-china-and-the-us-is-not-inevitable/]
President Xi Jinping’s official visit to the United States in February 2012 — as China’s then vice president — suggests that conflict between the two states is not inevitable. This goes against the
ideas of American offensive realists, who have publicly argued that conflict is an unavoidable consequence of the will to survive, which requires large states to maximise power and pursue
But Xi’s visit saw China and the United States reach consensus on a number of
important issues. They agreed to prioritise shared interests and mutual respect as a means of ushering
in an era of win–win cooperation between China and the United States.¶ Xi’s visit had three main goals: first, to strengthen trust
hegemony in their own regions.
between the two powers through an official visit; second, to familiarise American leaders with the basic political, economic, ideological and diplomatic style of China’s next leader; and, third,
The timing of Xi’s visit coincided with the 40th anniversary of President Nixon’s
visit to China and the publication of the Sino–US joint communiqués, which played a critical role in normalising relations between
to consolidate Sino–US trade relations.¶
the two states. Upon his arrival, Xi met with a number of former secretaries, including former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and Madeleine Albright and former secretary of the Treasury
His visit laid a good foundation for
the positive development of China-US political and economic relations for at least the next decade. There
Henry Paulson. Xi also met with many policy makers from the current administration, including President Barack Obama.¶
are two key reasons for this. The first is that the visit successfully delivered the message that China is willing to engage in political communication and economic cooperation with the United
States. During meetings with current and former politicians, business people and the media, Xi repeatedly stressed the importance of cooperation and friendship between China and the
United States.¶ This message is necessary to reduce the possibility of future strategic misunderstandings, especially because the United States, as a representative Western capitalist power,
has been seen as ideologically prejudiced against China since the Cold War.¶ It is also timely because China’s rapid economic growth in the past decades has arguably aroused envy and fear in
the United States and some European countries, which have been suffering from the consequences of the global financial crisis and the European debt crisis. These anxieties have hardly been
assuaged by statements from a growing pool of commentators who predict that China will soon equal the United States in economic power, and will eventually supplant its hegemony.¶ But
this prediction fails to account for the philosophical grounding of Chinese leaders, which indicates that China has neither the intention nor the capacity to challenge America’s hegemony. As
Mao Zedong pointed out in the early 1960s, ‘We [China] are a socialist country. We do not invade other countries, not in 100 years or 1000 years’. Mao’s successors have consistently
reiterated this principle and repeated many times that China will never seek hegemony. Xi’s visit served as another reminder that China’s and America’s interests are in many ways aligned, and
Secondly, Xi’s visit
helped to further China-US trade and economic relations. In recent years, as part of China’s ‘going out’
strategy, more and more state-owned enterprises and private companies in China have engaged in
mergers and acquisitions activities in North America and Europe, with the intention of absorbing Western advanced technologies and
management techniques.¶ After Xi’s visit to the US, hundreds of accompanied Chinese entrepreneurs have now
moved closer to possessing an accurate understanding of local policies and the investment environment in America. This
that there is considerable scope for the largest advanced economy and the largest emerging economy in the world to establish a new type of partnership.¶
deepening of China-US relations will encourage more Chinese enterprises to invest in the United
States. High-tech, clean energy and manufacturing industries are bound to become new hotbeds of bilateral cooperation in the next few years. The trade orders signed in Iowa and
California by Xi’s team also included preferential agricultural policies for American farmers, which have been welcomed and endorsed by the federal government, state governments and the
American public.¶ Admittedly, the 2012 US presidential election campaign saw candidates from both the Democratic and the Republican parties score political points by criticising many of
, Xi’s visit indicated that the future of China-US relations under
his presidency will be shaped by cooperation, despite the intrusion of domestic politics.
China’s policies, including its exchange rate and trade policies. But, overall
Solvency
Preliminary studies conclude that now is key for federal port investment
Army Corps of Engineers 13 (Branch of the army responsible for determining feasibility of
construction projects, “ALASKA DEEP-DRAFT ARCTIC PORT SYSTEM STUDY”, published by the Alaska
Department of Transportation, March 2013)
There is a need to invest further in port development for the Alaskan Arctic to be able to respond to
the changes in conditions noted below. • Large-vessel traffic past Alaska shores is increasing and more than
60 percent of these vessels are foreign flagged. • Increased interest in the Arctic is documented daily
in the global media, and the number of international meetings focused on Arctic marine traffic and resources. • Foreign trade and
resource development in international waters highlight the need to support federal sovereignty . • The
U.S. entered into an international agreement on May 12, 2011 through the Arctic Council to support Search and Rescue in the Alaskan Arctic. •
Increased traffic means increased risk of incidents calling for response by the U.S. Coast Guard and other available
vessels. • Environmental protection is important as marine traffic increases and oil and gas development
grows in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. • Community resupply costs are high due to lightering, fuel costs,
limited infrastructure and multiple handling. At the same time, rural communities are reliant on a subsistence lifestyle. Food resources could be
jeopardized by increased traffic. • The
State of Alaska policy calls for increased development of mineral and oil
and gas resources in the Arctic. • The U.S. has expressed interest in more national sufficiency in energy
resources and has selected the Arctic offshore region as one answer to this quest.
NOAA action now solves- most experienced with Arctic infrastructure
NOAA 8 (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, federal agency, “Transportation: A
Strategy for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration” 7/20/2008)
NOAA is a leader in providing quality MTS products and services. Applying the range of NOAA skills developed
for the contiguous U.S. to the ever-more accessible Alaskan north and Arctic, where there is an urgent need for the
infrastructure and information NOAA provides, is a natural and essential path to take. Loss of sea ice and
permafrost, rising sea levels and eroding coasts are all occurring at unprecedented rates, and the status quo – limited NOAA service
delivery to the region -- is no longer acceptable. A modest investment – on the order of $15M in FY2011 - in the
geospatial infrastructure that the rest of the nation takes for granted will enable both the economic promise of
the region and environmental protections to unfold . From accurate positioning capability to accurate maps and nautical
has the opportunity to apply the skills of its oldest, most
fundamental missions to maximum return in Alaska and the Arctic. Investing in this suite of services will add
charts, marine weather forecasts and spill response, NOAA
immediate benefit to a host of other federal missions dependent upon the same infrastructure to achieve their goals, including Homeland
Security, coastal and ocean management, fisheries stewardship, climate change monitoring, and tsunami/storm surge readiness. The
first
and most critical step – an improved geo-spatial framework -- will enable NOAA and its partners to
monitor and describe the physical changes impacting the natural and socioeconomic environment and aid coastal communities with
decisions on flood protection infrastructure; harden roads, bridges and observing systems; ensure safe and efficient marine
transportation; plan evacuation routes; model storm surge; and monitor sea-level. Improving the vertical geospatial infrastructure will
eliminate meter errors in heights and allow efficient, centimeter-level measurement of heights using GPS. NOAA's 1998 Height Modernization
Report to Congress estimated a $12 billion constituent benefit from national height modernization, including $9.6 billion for maritime safety;
this investment will realize similar benefits for Alaska. Further, GPS-based coastal mapping will be tied more accurately to true elevation
(orthometric heights), allowing production of more accurate coastline delineations and map products and improved modeling of storm surge
and coastal erosion. Tsunami inundation models and wild fire predication/ control will also be improved through this accurate positioning
framework. Active mining claims currently cover 3.6 million acres of land in Alaska. The
improved geospatial infrastructure
will allow precision mining and increased efficiencies in tapping Alaska’s zinc, lead, gold, silver, and coal reserves.
Eliminating the large gaps in shoreline, hydrography, tide and current information, and other MTS geospatial data sets will greatly advance
NOAA’s ability to fulfill its statutory responsibilities to support safe navigation in the emerging Arctic marine transportation corridor through
accurate, timely and reliable products and services such as charts, tidal datums, and precise marine boundaries.
2AC
Warming is bad
There’s a delineation between polar warming and regular warming-
Growth is Good
Drilling inevitable
Spills in the Arctic coming now- new drilling makes them inevitable
Kroh, Conathan, and Huvos 12 (Kiley Kroh, co-editor of Climate Progress magazine, energy policy
worker at American Progress, Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy at American Progress and
Senate committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation staffer, and Emma Huvos, staff writer,
“America’s Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic”, 2/3/2012)
When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in the early morning hours of April 20, 2010 it
spawned one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. BP Plc’s Macondo well blowout lasted 89 days,
spewing nearly 5 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, and taking the lives of 11 men. The catastrophe showed the clear need for a
massive, well-coordinated response when disaster strikes. Though the refrain “never again” was echoed time and again in the wake of the BP
oil catastrophe, we are now facing a new oil spill threat. After
spending over five years and $4 billion on the process,
the Royal Dutch Shell Group is on the cusp of receiving the green light to begin exploratory drilling in
Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi Seas
next summer. Though Shell emphasizes it would drill exploratory wells in shallow water
rather than establishing deep-water production wells like Macondo, the
fundamental characteristics of the vastly
unexplored and uninhabited Arctic coastline may increase the likelihood of a spill and will certainly hamper
emergency response capability. The decision to move forward with drilling in some of the most extreme conditions on Earth has deeply divided
Alaska Native communities, drawn stark criticism from environmental groups, and caused other federal agencies such as the U.S. Coast Guard
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, to raise concerns about the glaring absence of sound science in the
region. This is highlighted in a recent letter to the Obama administration, signed by nearly 600 scientists from around the world, calling on the
president and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to follow through on their commitment to science and enact recommendations made by the
U.S. Geological Survey before approving any drilling activity in the Arctic. In addition to the lack of a scientific foundation,
the Arctic has
inadequate infrastructure to deal with an oil spill , and response technologies in such extreme environmental conditions
remain untested.
Drilling is inevitable- multiple agencies
Kroh, Conathan, and Huvos 12 (Kiley Kroh, co-editor of Climate Progress magazine, energy policy
worker at American Progress, Michael Conathan, director of ocean policy at American Progress and
Senate committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation staffer, and Emma Huvos, staff writer,
“America’s Inability to Respond to an Oil Spill in the Arctic”, 2/3/2012)
Much of the Arctic region quite simply remains a mystery, largely untouched by human activity. Yet other Arctic countries are
moving forward with oil and gas exploration—Russia signed a $7.9 billion exploration deal with BP
last year and Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. are both expected to drill off Greenland over the next few
years. Last year Norway rejected plans to drill in some areas north of the Arctic Circle, but has indicated
it intends to ramp up production in the Barents Sea, a region it shares with neighboring Russia.
Setbacks to drilling are minor and it will continue with other companies – most recent
analysis
Tom Anderson 7/1/14, Editor of Alaska Politics and Elections. “Recent Drilling Setbacks Will Not End
Appeal of Arctic Energy” APE online 7/1/14. http://apeonline.org/?p=586..
While recent setbacks for Arctic oil and gas exploration will convince some Western companies to give
up trying to develop the region’s potentially huge energy reserves, other energy firms are expanding
their investments . Russia also is determined to press ahead with Arctic energy exploration.¶ The
bottom line is that America needs better leadership and planning to deal with issues related to Arctic
energy, trade and security.¶ The area north of the Arctic Circle holds an estimated 90 billion barrels of
recoverable oil and 1,670 trillion cubic feet of gas, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. Experts
estimate that the Arctic accounts for about 22 percent of undiscovered technically recoverable energy
resources on earth.¶ Norwegian firm Statoil last week announced it is delaying an Arctic oil production
effort in the Barents Sea after drilling found significantly less oil than was expected in the Johan
Castberg field, located off the coast of Norway.¶ In February, Statoil abandoned exploration of a nearby
natural gas field after only a modest amount of gas was found.¶ Statoil, BP, and ExxonMobil pulled out of
oil exploration off the Greenland coast over the last six months due to a failure to find any oil, a
disappointing scientific report, and a need to develop new technology to tackle challenging conditions,
including extreme sub-zero temperatures, icebergs and year-round ice.¶ Numerous problems have also
delayed Arctic energy exploration in Alaskan waters. Royal Dutch Shell called off exploration scheduled
for this summer in the Chukchi and Beauford Seas, located off Alaska’s northwest and northeast coasts,
because of a court decision faulting a U.S. government assessment of the environmental risks to the
region from oil drilling. Shell also called off energy exploration in 2013 after its 2012 efforts were
plagued by a series of mishaps and mechanical failures.¶ Imperial Oil Canada, Exxon Mobil and BP plan
to drill at least one well in the Beauford Sea off the coast of Canada’s Northwest Territories. The
exploration will not begin between 2016 and 2020 due to the need to develop vessels and equipment
that can operate in the region’s severe environment.¶ Other Western oil companies are pressing
forward with Alaskan energy production and exploration. BP, which operates Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay oil
field, is investing in technology to coax more oil out of the aging field, North America’s largest.
ConocoPhillips, which operates the Alpine and Kuparuk fields along Alaska’s North Slope, is engaged in
similar projects and plans to drill more wells in these fields.
Inherency/USFG Key?
Current arctic port plans are too slow and too expensive – USFG action is required
Restino 2/15 (Study on Arctic port for Alaska delayed Carey Restino The Arctic Sounder February 15,
2014 http://www.adn.com/article/20140215/study-arctic-port-alaska-delayed)
The Arctic port, identified by state and federal policymakers as one of the most critical pieces to the
quickly-developing Arctic, started several years ago as a partnership between the state and federal
agencies. The Corps of Engineers had narrowed the list of possible ports to three locations -- Nome;
Point Spencer, which is north of Nome on a narrow sandbar off the bay of Port Clarence; and Cape Riley,
located on the eastern side of the same bay. But those studying Alaska’s Arctic port needs quickly
realized no single port was likely going to be sufficient. Instead, it was prudent to consider a
combination of several ports that together would provide the needed infrastructure to serve the region,
said Cordova. Unfortunately, having to study multiple ports at once has slowed the process, she said.
Each of those ports could have a variety of different configurations -- how deep a draft to dig, what
infrastructure is added shoreside, and whether roads should connect the ports, for example, offered
many variables for those studying the problem to consider. “The process is not working as well as I
would like,” Cordova told legislators at a recent Joint Transportation Committee meeting. “We are now
up to 23 alternatives we are looking at. Rather than narrowing it down, we have somehow managed to
make it bigger.” That’s going to push the planned March deadline for releasing a final recommendation
back several months, she said. Now, the corps hopes to have narrowed down the possible port
variations to a single recommendation by March so that they can proceed with the final pieces of their
study, such as estimating real estate costs and final figures of construction estimates. But Cordova did
say the cost estimate is likely to be in the hundreds of millions of dollars for the project, a cost that
will likely be shared between the federal government and the state. Costs for the construction of the
actual ports is typically shared, with federal coffers footing 65 percent of the bill while the state pays
for 35 percent. But that’s an oversimplified explanation, Cordova said, and doesn’t include the cost of
infrastructure on land, such as improvements to airport landing strips, road construction or other
facilities, the cost of which is generally not federally funded. Legislators also asked Cordova to estimate
when she could imagine the first ship pulling into this Arctic port. If everything went perfectly from here
on out, the study is based on a completion date of 2020, she said. But that is unlikely. “The stars would
really have to be aligned for 2020 to occur,” she said. “The more pessimistic side of me would put it
out at 2030.”
The USFG has jurisdiction over and can develop Alaska’s state waters
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century. Final Report.
Washington, DC, 2004 ISBN#0–9759462–0–X
The federal government retains the power to regulate commerce, navigation, power generation,
national defense, and international affairs throughout state waters. However, states are given the
authority to manage, develop, and lease resources throughout the water column and on and under the
seafloor. (States have similar authorities on the land side of the baseline, usually up to the mean high
tide line, an area known as state tidelands.) In general, states must exercise their authority for the
benefit of the public, consistent with the public trust doctrine. Under this doctrine, which has evolved
from ancient Roman law and English common law, governments have an obligation to protect the
interests of the general public (as opposed to the narrow interests of specific users or any particular
group) in tidelands and in the water column and submerged lands below navigable waters. Public
interests have traditionally included navigation, fishing, and commerce. In recent times, the public has
also looked to the government to protect their interests in recreation, environmental protection,
research, and preservation of scenic beauty and cultural heritage.
AT: Environmental Justice K
Oil spills are the single worst thing for an interconnected community like those of
Alaskan natives – it disrupts deep ecological connections which hurt every facet of
their lives
(EVOS = exxon valdez oil spill)
J. Steven Picou and Cecelia G. Martin. April, 2007. Department of Sociology, Anthropology and
Social Work ¶University of South Alabama “Long-Term Community Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill:
¶Patterns of Social Disruption and Psychological Stress ¶ Seventeen Years after the Disaster”
http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/B/243478793.pdf
Communities directly impacted by the EVOS derive their economic and cultural base ¶ from the local
biophysical environment. As such, they are unique communities in that they are ¶ intimately linked to
the natural environment, that is, they are “renewable resource communities” ¶ (RRCs) (Picou and Gill
1996:6). RRCs are defined as “a population of individuals who live ¶ within a bounded area and whose
primary cultural, social and economic existences are based on ¶ the harvest and use of renewable natural
resources.” The social structure of these communities ¶ are based on mediating symbolic
interpretations and resource exchange between culture and the ¶ biophysical environment. Toxic
contamination from the EVOS severed many traditional ¶ relationships between these renewable
resource communities and seasonal harvest activities. ¶ Viewed from the ecological-symbolic
framework in environmental sociology, this intrusion of ¶ contamination altered residents’ perception
of “lifescape,” or personal safety and security within ¶ their immediate biophysical environment,
resulting in social disruption, psychological stress and ¶ loss of institutional trust (Kroll-Smith and
Couch 1993; Edelstein 1988; Erikson 1994; ¶ Freudenburg 1997). ¶ Picou and Marshall (2002:302-303)
have refined the scope of the ecological-symbolic ¶ framework to include “resource-dependency
theory,” that is, rather than focusing on invisible, ¶ chronic risks to human health, concern is directed to
“threats to natural resources which ¶ undermine” the economic and cultural linkages of RRCs to their
biophysical environment. ¶ These linkages include resource harvests that are economically structured
on a subsistence or ¶ cash basis and culturally significant because values, behaviors and traditional
knowledge (Picou ¶ 3and Gill 1996). Economically, a wide variety of work roles in RRCs were negatively
impacted ¶ by the EVOS. Not only were commercial fishermen impacted, but many support
occupations ¶ such as deck-hands, net-menders, cannery workers, electronic specialists and other
types of boatrepair occupations were severely disrupted and/or eliminated. The fact that such RRCs
are often ¶ geographically isolated and are characterized by little occupational diversification makes
the ¶ impacts of resource contamination even more severe. ¶ Cultural linkages to the biophysical
environment are particularly salient for subsistence ¶ harvest of Alaska Natives, but are also relevant
for non-Native residents of fishing communities. ¶ Traditional cultural values of Alaska Natives are
intimately linked to the seasonal harvests of ¶ salmon, clam, seal and other marine wildlife. Such
subsistence harvests provide a collective ¶ value set that links spiritual themes, conceptions of self
and traditional knowledge and seasonal ¶ rituals and behaviors to the biophysical environment.
Subsistence harvests were severely ¶ disrupted by the EVOS, severing the cultural infrastructure of
Alaska Natives from the ecology, ¶ thereby producing negative impacts to cultural traditions and
meaningful seasonal behavior (Fall ¶ and Field 1996; Dyer et al. 1993; Dyer 1993). Such impacts from the
massive ecological ¶ contamination and destruction of ecological resources resulted in “collective
trauma” for Alaska ¶ Natives, thereby generating a host of pathological behaviors (Palinkas et al.
1992; 1993; Picou et ¶ al. 1992; Russell et al. 1996; Dyer 1993; Dyer et al. 1992).
Environmental justice is an impractical distraction—instrumental energy policy is
more effective and key to their activism
Foreman ’13 Chris Foreman, nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, director of the
social policy program at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy, “On Justice Movements,”
Breakthrough Journal, Issue 3, Winter 2013, http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/journal/issue-3/onjustice-movements/
The theory of climate justice tells us that the gap between rich and poor and the looming threat of
catastrophic climate change are not simply unfortunate circumstances that demand our attention and action, but rather the
result of active efforts on the part of rich nations, wealthy elites, and powerful corporations to profit on
the backs of the global poor and the environment. In this telling, the failure to deploy plentiful renewable energy in the developing world is the
fault of the developed world. There is, of course, no shortage of injustices that have been visited upon the global poor for which the wealthy
developed world bears some responsibility. But denying impoverished people their rightful access to clean renewable energy is not among
them. Many parts of the developing world are indeed blessed with abundant wind and sunlight. But solar
and wind energy are still
intermittent, difficult to scale, and substantially more costly than fossil energy, which is why they
require significant subsidies. Demands for climate justice too often ignore basic practicalities of
energy, poverty, and climate change, directing our gaze away from the issues that really matter to the
future prospects of both the global poor and the planet and toward issues that don’t. Huge swaths of
the world have been developing over the last three decades at an unprecedented pace and scale. That
remarkable transformation has come not from the forced redistribution of global wealth or renewable
energy but instead from the rapid growth of the global economy fueled by cheap fossil energy. China,
India, and Brazil have become the manufacturers, farmers, and phone centers to the world, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty
in the process. Contemporary
demands for climate justice have been, at best, indifferent to these rather
remarkable developments and, at worst, openly hostile. Some activists reject development and
modernization altogether, lauding poor indigenous communities for living a simpler, more virtuous life in a closer relationship with
nature. Others almost unavoidably find themselves reinventing archaic international socialist tropes in
the name of sustainability. Neither posture offers much succor to the global poor. While our inclination to slap
the label “justice” on any problem that affects rich and poor differently offers tempting rhetorical possibilities, it is not clear that
transforming issues of equity (defined as a desire to lessen economic and other disparities between rich and poor) into issues
of justice (understood as a demand for retribution and reparations) does much for constituencies in desperate need of
economic development and affordable energy. The technological, social, and institutional innovations
that will be necessary to expand access to energy and modern living standards while mitigating global
carbon emissions will require more development, more engagement with world markets for the
global poor, and greater cooperation between governments and corporations. That is the struggle
that really matters for the poor, and while climate justice serves a range of discursive purposes for the
international Left, it is not always clear which side of that struggle the movement is actually on.
AT: T- Military
We meet- plan does not use Army Corps for creation of the plan
They misread our evidence- the Army Corps of engineers were given funding for a
study only- the development and creation of the port is exclusively civilian- it’s done
by the Denali Commission in the federal government
Ruckel 7/18 (Jenn, works for Know Radio Mission, reports on lots of local stuff for the North Alaska region, “For now, funding safe for
federal agency serving rural Alaska”, http://www.knom.org/wp/blog/2014/07/18/for-now-funding-safe-for-federal-agency-serving-ruralalaska/)
Despite attacks from fiscal conservatives in Congress, funding for an independent federal agency working in rural Alaska has been secured for
2015. But Congressman Don Young said threats to the Denali Commission are certain to continue. “Oh, I think it’ll come under threat
continually. Remember, we’re far away and out of sight, and they don’t realize the good the Denali Commission has done,” said Young. The
Denali Commission was formed in 1998 to promote rural development with federal funds. It’s a small
federal agency that works directly with prospective grantees—including tribes, municipalities and nonprofits. They now have about $80 million
in active projects. Last Friday, the commission was threatened by an amendment tacked onto the House of Representative’s Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill. However, APRN’s Liz Ruskin reports that the proposed $10 million cut failed. Federal Co-Chair of the Denali Commission Joel
Neimeyer says they provided for planning, design and preconstruction activities for the Nome hospital—and lighting for the breakwater in the
Nome Harbor facility. But they
do much more in dozens of communities across the state. “We fund bulk fuel
projects, power plant projects, clinics, roads, ports, harbors—that sort of thing . Many of the clinics in your region we’ve funded.
Critic infrastructure needs
for rural Alaska ,” said Neimeyer. The proposed $10 million cut would have taken money away from the 100
communities the commission serves, and the 50 communities waiting to be served, through funding for bulk fuel farms. $10 million could fund
about three good-sized energy projects. But, Neimeyer said, due to the scope of the Denali Commission’s involvement, the impact would be
much greater. “So in reality, 50 would have to go find funding from some source to address this concern about lack of code-compliant tanks. So
it’s a much bigger question than just three communities not getting them,” said Neimeyer.
AT: Env. Security
AT: Military CP
AT: Political capital tradeoff DA
AT: Alaska CP
AT: Anthro
AT: Instrumentalization
AT: Cap
Case Neg
Shipping
1NC Frontline
There’s no way China cooperates in the Arctic- their interests are driven by a desire to
exploit the Arctic in any way possible- if anything the plan is perceived as incursion
Economy 14 (Elizabeth, this is actually her name, specialist on us-china relations for Forbes, “The Four Drivers of Beijing’s emerging
Arctic play and what the world needs to do”, http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2014/04/04/the-four-drivers-of-beijingsemerging-arctic-play-and-what-the-world-needs-to-do/)
While no one of these policies is of overwhelming consequence, together they suggest a more
significant drive to assert Chinese interests in the region. As the United States assumes the two-year
chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, it needs to begin its tenure prepared with its own strategy for the region;
and at least in part, this means determining what matters and what doesn’t in terms of Chinese engagement in the Arctic. First, the United
States should work to ensure that the observer states, such as China, do not politicize the Arctic
Council: allowing China to become the spokesperson for most of the rest of the world that does not have a direct stake in the Arctic, for
example, would be a mistake. Reinforcing the position of observer status as necessarily recognizing the Arctic states’ sovereignty and
jurisdiction in the Arctic, as well as the law of the sea, is a good place to start.
jurisdiction of a United Nations tribunal
China has already refused to recognize the
on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea in a dispute with the Philippines in the
South China Sea. Second, the United States should help ensure that Chinese investment in the region is encouraged but also managed in a
sustainable manner.
The Chinese are already aware that their investment will be viewed with some
suspicion: as Chinese scholar Jia Xiudong has noted, “China’s interest and involvement in the Arctic are more for having options in case of
emergency rather than resource plundering.” Moreover, while Greenland is resource rich but population poor, the country’s deputy foreign
minister has taken great pains to reassure the world of its political capacity: “We are, in mining terms, a frontier country. But we are not a
frontier country like frontier countries in Africa or South America. …We have evolved over 300 years a solid legal framework, a well-educated
population, rules, democratic institutions and a strong society.” If useful to Greenland, the United States–as an Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative candidate country–could use its leadership of the Arctic Council to offer assistance to ensure that Greenland has the
tools necessary to protect its environment as multinationals from around the world seek to exploit its resources. Third, U.S. secretary of state
John Kerry has legitimate credentials as an international voice on climate change. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council offers a unique
opportunity to link the changing Arctic to the need for the United States and China to do more to address the challenge of climate change.
Research in the Arctic should be a cooperative and collaborative effort among the interested parties and should not become yet another arena
for competition between the two countries. China
has begun the process of engaging in the Arctic through research,
investment and diplomacy. For now it has only dipped its toe in the Arctic waters, but it is ready to plunge in. The rest of the world
needs to be prepared.
No escalation to war with China
Dobbins ’12 (James Dobbins, directs the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, previously served as
American Ambassador to the European Community and Assistant Secretary of State, August/September 2012, “War with China,” Survival, Vol.
54, No. 4, p. 7-24)
China is seeking neither territorial aggrandisement nor ideological
sway over its neighbours. It shows no interest in matching US military expenditures, achieving a
comparable global reach, or assuming defence commitments beyond its immediate periphery. Such
intentions might change, but if so, the United States would probably receive considerable warning, given the
lead times needed to develop such capabilities. Despite cautious and pragmatic Chinese policies, the risk of conflict with the United States remains,
and this risk will grow in consequence and perhaps in probability as China’s strength increases. Among the sources of conflict most likely to
occasion a China–US military clash over the next 30 years, listed in descending order of probability, are changes in the status of North Korea and
Taiwan, Sino-American confrontation in cyberspace, and disputes arising from China’s uneasy relationships with Japan and India. All these sources are on China’s
immediate periphery, where Chinese security interests and capabilities seem likely to remain focused. It is important to stress that a China–US
It is important to begin any such analysis by recognising that
military conflict is not probable in any of these cases , but that judgement is based on the view that the United States will retain the capacity to
deter behaviour that could lead to such a clash throughout this period.
No armed conflict in the Arctic
Navy 14 (United States Navy Task Force, February 2014, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap
for 2014 to 2030, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf)
Since the end of the Cold War, the military threat environment in the Arctic Region has diminished
significantly and the risk of armed conflict in the Arctic Region is projected to remain low for the
foreseeable future .26 As opposed to combat-related missions, Navy forces are far more likely to be employed in
the Arctic Region in support of Coast Guard search and rescue, disaster relief, law enforcement, and
other civil emergency/civil support operations.27 There is a willingness among Arctic Region nations to
manage differences through established international mechanisms. The Arctic Council consists of
representatives from the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark (representing Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States. It serves as a useful forum for promoting
cooperation, coordination, and interaction. Arctic nations have a strong economic incentive to
preserve this historically stable, non-contentious environment for commercial development. Though the
United States has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United States has long considered its
provisions related to traditional ocean uses as reflecting customary international law. It serves as the legal framework for important rights and
obligations in the Arctic Ocean including the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf, protection of the marine environment,
freedom of navigation, military survey, and marine scientific research for the region.
In May 2008, the states bordering the Arctic Ocean (the United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and the Russian
Federation) signed the Ilulissat Declaration which concluded that the Convention was the appropriate
legal framework for international cooperation and peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in the
Arctic.28 In May 2011, the Arctic Council signed the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement29 and in May 2013, the Council states signed an
Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, 30 demonstrating cooperative behavior to
improve safety and environmental procedures in the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, the number of nations and other organizations requesting
observer status on the Arctic Council is increasing, showing a growing international interest in the Region and the expanding importance of the
Arctic Council
Even if ports are implemented, Arctic shipping is still a pipe dream- not safe
LMA 14 (Lloyd’s Market Association, market analysts, writing in a press release, “Arctic conditions
demand care and attention says LMA”,
http://www.lmalloyds.com/Web/News_room/Releases/PR_2014/Arctic_conditions.aspx)
Underwriters at the Lloyd's of London insurance market would not be surprised to see proposals for
cruise ships transiting Arctic routes to travel in pairs, the Lloyd's Market Association (LMA) said this week. The reducing
extent of the area permanently under ice is of great commercial interest and an increase in the number of vessels using Artic
shipping routes will inevitably focus Lloyd’s underwriters’ minds on the safety issues. In particular, the
market has concerns that the rate at which maritime traffic is increasing in Arctic waters is
outstripping policymakers’ ability to create a legislative framework in the high north. The International
Maritime Organisation is only making slow progress with its Polar Code and none on its 1974 instrument dealing with liabilities for oil pollution
from exploration and exploitation of seabed mineral resources. In the meantime, industry has to improvise. A recent Royal United Services
Institute conference, aptly titled Poles Apart, highlighted the growing interest in the region together with the differences between north and
south. Attendees were also advised that Asian countries were very concerned by the threat of rising waters from ice-melt and classified it
above defence as a strategic priority. Both polar areas are tourist attractions, but the south has seen more activity. In late 2007, over 150
passengers and crew had to be rescued after the sinking of the M/S Explorer, which was holed by ice near the South Shetland Islands.
Fortunately for them, another cruise ship was relatively nearby and all were rescued from the open lifeboats within five hours. More recently,
an international operation had to be mounted off northern Antarctica to rescue passengers from the ice-bound research vessel Akademik
Shokalskiy. Opting to sail across the north of Russia can reduce the transit times for charters by over a week. 60 vessels were reported as using
the trans-Arctic route in 2013, up from 46 in 2012 but this number was only a fraction of the 325 transit licenses granted. Of those 60 transits,
the risks to shipping in Arctic waters remain extreme . Satellite navigation does
not function properly and there is a lack of rescue infrastructure should a ship encounter problems. Accurate
marine charts are almost impossible to obtain but despite the obvious hazards, the market frequently
receives intelligence about vessels with inadequate ice-class operating around the fringes of the Arctic
20 took place in October. However,
ice sheet. Insurers believe they can cover voyages in the high north but will need to be satisfied about the vessel's adequacy, and risk mitigation
preparations. The Joint Hull's Navigating Limits Committee provides an information webpage about the ice areas as a support to underwriters in
this specialised field.
Econ resilient
E.I.U. ’11 (Economist Intelligence Unit – Global Forecasting Service,
11/16/’11(http://gfs.eiu.com/Article.aspx?articleType=gef&articleId=668596451&secID=7)
The US economy, by any standard, remains weak, and consumer and business sentiment are close to 2009 lows. That said, the
been surprisingly resilient in the face of so many shocks. US real GDP expanded by a relatively
robust 2.5% in the third quarter of 2011, twice the rate of the previous quarter. Consumer spending rose by 2.4%, which is
impressive given that real incomes dropped during the quarter (the savings rate fell, which helps to explain the anomaly.)
Historically, US consumers have been willing to spend even in difficult times. Before the 2008-09 slump,
personal spending rose in every quarter between 1992 and 2007. That resilience is again in evidence: retail sales in September
were at a seven-month high, and sales at chain stores have been strong. Business investment has been even more
buoyant: it expanded in the third quarter by an impressive 16.3% at an annual rate, and spending by companies in September on
conventional capital goods (that is, excluding defence and aircraft) grew by the most since March. This has been
made possible, in part, by strong corporate profits. According to data compiled by Bloomberg, earnings for US companies in
economy has
the S&P 500 rose by 24% year on year in the third quarter. All of this has occurred despite a debilitating fiscal debate in
Washington, a sovereign debt downgrade by a major ratings agency and exceptional volatility in capital
markets. This reinforces our view that the US economy, although weak, is not in danger of falling into a recession
(absent a shock from the euro zone). US growth will, however, continue to be held back by a weak labour market—the unemployment rate has
been at or above 9% for 28 of the last 30 months—and by a moribund housing market.
No diversionary theory – it’ll be small scale if it happens
Harrison ‘11 (Mark, Department of Economics, University of Warwick, Centre for Russian and East European Studies, University of
Birmingham, Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace, Stanford University, “Capitalism at War” Oct 19
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/academic/harrison/papers/capitalism.pdf)
Diversionary wars In
the concept of diversionary wars, political leaders seek and exploit conflict with external
adversaries in order to rally domestic support. The idea is well established in the literature, perhaps because the theoretical case is quite
intuitive, and narrative support is not hard to find. In fact, it may be too easy; as Jack Levy (1989) pointed out, few wars have not been attributed to political leaders’
desire to improve domestic standing. The
idea of diversionary wars is directly relevant to a discussion of capitalism
only if it can be shown that capitalist polities are more likely to exploit foreign adventures. One reason might be
advanced from a Marxist perspective: perhaps capitalist societies, being class-divided, are more likely to give rise to wars
intended to divert the workers from the cause of socialism. A longstanding interpretation of the origins of World War I in domestic
German politics conveys exactly this message (Berghahn 1973). This view does not sit well with the equally traditional idea that
a class-divided society is less able to go to war. The official Soviet histories of World War II used to claim
that, under capitalism, divided class interests made the working people reluctant to fight for the nation.
Because of this, the workers could be motivated to take part only by “demagogy, deception, bribery,
and force” (Grechko et al., eds 1982, vol. 12, p. 38; Pospelov et al., eds 1965, vol. 6, pp. 80-82). Quantitative empirical work has lent little support to the idea
(Levy 1989). Exceptions include studies of the use of force by U.S. and British postwar governments by Morgan and Bickers (1992) and Morgan and Anderson (1999).
They conclude that the use
of force is more likely when government approval is high but the government’s
supporting coalition is suffering erosion. They also suggest that force is unlikely to be used at high intensities
under such circumstances (because likely costs are high, eroding political support) or when domestic
conflict is high (because conflict would then be polarizing rather than consolidate support). Another line of
research suggests that new or incompletely established democracies are particularly vulnerable to risky adventures in nation-building (Mansfield and Snyder 2005).
One inspiration for this view was the record of the new democracies born out of the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. More recently, Georgia seems to have
provided out-of-sample confirmation. Suppose
diversionary wars exist. Is capitalism somehow more internally
conflicted than other societies, and so disproportionately likely to externalize conflict? As a comparator, the
case of fascism seems straightforward. Fascism did not produce diversionary wars because, for fascists,
war was not a diversion; it was the Schwerpunkt. The more interesting case is that of communism. Communists
do not seem to have pursued diversionary wars. But the domestic legitimacy of Soviet rule visibly relied
on the image of an external enemy, and thrived on tension short of military conflict. Soviet leaders used
external tension to justify internal controls on movement, culture, and expression, and the associated apparatus of secrecy, censorship, and
surveillance. When they tolerated trends towards détente in the 1970s, they subverted their own controls. An
East German Stasi officer told his boss, repeating it later to Garton Ash (1997, p. 159): “How can you expect me to prevent [defections and revelations], when we’ve
signed all these international agreements for improved relations with the West, working conditions for journalists, freedom of movement, respect for human
rights?” If Soviet foreign policy was sometimes expansionist, it sought expansion only up to the point where the desired level of tension was assured. Bolsheviks of
the 1917 generation knew well that too much too much conflict abroad encouraged defeatist and counter-revolutionary sentiments at home. Oleg Khlevniuk (1995,
p. 174) noted: “The complex relationship between war and revolution, which had almost seen the tsarist regime toppled in 1905 and which finally brought its
demise in 1917, was a relationship of which Stalin was acutely aware. The lessons of history had to be learnt lest history repeat itself.” Stalin did all he could to avoid
war with Germany in 1941 (Gorodetsky 1999). Postwar Soviet leaders risked war by proxy, but avoided direct conflict with the “main adversary.” Faced with
unfavourable odds, they tended to withdraw (from Cuba) or do nothing (in Poland) or accepted them with great reluctance (in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and
Afghanistan). Diversionary
tension must fall short of diversionary war. From this follows an acceptance that
capitalism, because of its tendency to give rise to democratic structures and political competition, has
been more open to diversionary wars than other systems. But the empirical research and analysis that underpin
this conclusion also imply that such wars would generally be small scale and short lived, and the
circumstances that give rise to them would be exceptional or transient. We should place this in the
wider context of the “democratic peace.” As Levy (1988) wrote: “Liberal or democratic states do not fight each
other … This absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to an empirical
law in international relations.” Since all liberal democracies have also been capitalist on any definition, it is
a finding of deep relevance.
Decline doesn’t cause war
Barnett 9 (Thomas P.M Barnett, senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC, contributing editor/online columnist for Esquire,
8/25/’9 – “The New Rules: Security Remains Stable Amid Financial Crisis,” Aprodex, Asset Protection Index, http://www.aprodex.com/the-newrules--security-remains-stable-amid-financial-crisis-398-bl.aspx)
When the global financial crisis struck roughly a year ago, the blogosphere was ablaze with all sorts of scary
predictions of, and commentary regarding, ensuing conflict and wars -- a rerun of the Great Depression leading to
world war, as it were. Now, as global economic news brightens and recovery -- surprisingly led by China and emerging
markets -- is the talk of the day, it's interesting to look back over the past year and realize how globalization's first
truly worldwide recession has had virtually no impact whatsoever on the international security landscape.¶ None
of the more than three-dozen ongoing conflicts listed by GlobalSecurity.org can be clearly attributed to the
global recession. Indeed, the last new entry (civil conflict between Hamas and Fatah in the Palestine) predates
the economic crisis by a year, and three quarters of the chronic struggles began in the last century. Ditto for the 15 low-intensity
conflicts listed by Wikipedia (where the latest entry is the Mexican "drug war" begun in 2006). Certainly, the Russia-Georgia conflict last
August was specifically timed, but by most accounts the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was the
most important external trigger (followed by the U.S. presidential campaign) for that sudden spike in an almost twodecade long struggle between Georgia and its two breakaway regions.¶ Looking over the various databases, then, we see
a most familiar picture: the usual mix of civil conflicts, insurgencies, and liberation-themed terrorist
movements. Besides the recent Russia-Georgia dust-up, the only two potential state-on-state wars (North v. South Korea,
Israel v. Iran) are both tied to one side acquiring a nuclear weapon capacity -- a process wholly unrelated to global
economic trends.¶ And with the United States effectively tied down by its two ongoing major interventions (Iraq and
Afghanistan-bleeding-into-Pakistan), our involvement elsewhere around the planet has been quite modest, both leading up
to and following the onset of the economic crisis: e.g., the usual counter-drug efforts in Latin America, the usual military exercises
with allies across Asia, mixing it up with pirates off Somalia's coast). Everywhere else we find serious instability we pretty
much let it burn, occasionally pressing the Chinese -- unsuccessfully -- to do something. Our new Africa Command,
for example, hasn't led us to anything beyond advising and training local forces.
2NC Extension- No china War
China can’t challenge the US
Kaplan & Kaplan ’11 (Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Stephen S. Kaplan, former
vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, March/April 2011, “America Primed,” National Interest,
http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/america-primed-4892 )
AMERICA’S MACROSTRATEGIC environment is chockablock with assets unavailable to any other
country. If nothing else, the United States has an often-overlooked and oft-neglected bulwark of allies: the Anglosphere. This is
Washington’s inner circle of defense ties, and it finds no equivalent in its competitor nations’ strategic
arsenals. The Anglosphere is perennially—and incorrectly—declared dead or in decline by the media and politicians.
Nevertheless, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and the United States remain extremely close in their military and intelligence relations and exchange vast volumes of
sensitive information daily, as they have for decades. On terrorism, virtually anything and everything is shared. The National Security Agency and Britain’s
Government Communications Headquarters have been nearly inextricable since World War II. The same is largely true of the CIA and Britain’s Secret Intelligence
Service. The various English-speaking nations, in practical terms, even assign individual parts of the world to each other, and each worries about the others’ security
equities. The linguistic and other cultural links between the United States and these other English-speaking countries are so deep that the sharing of sensitive
information 24-7 is practically an afterthought, even as the media and politicians highlight the narcissism of comparatively small differences. Of course, the values
and national purposes of the individual countries are unique, owing to different geographies and historical experiences; yet that is something America can quietly
manage. Given how close the United States is to the Anglosphere in most ways, when these allies resist what America is attempting to do, that should constitute a
warning that perhaps the policy coming out of Washington is either outright wrong or needs adjustment. (Canada’s balking in the face of U.S. bullying to hop on
board the Iraq War train is an obvious case in point.) The Anglosphere, in addition to everything else it provides, is a reality check that can facilitate American policy
making. With a combined population of 420 million, with
strategic locations off the continent of Europe (Great Britain), near the
intersection of the Indian Ocean and western Pacific sea-lanes (Australia), and in the Arctic and adjacent to
Greenland’s oil and gas (Canada), the Anglosphere, if not abused or ignored, will be a substantial hard-power asset for the
United States deep into the twenty-first century. China and Russia enjoy nothing comparable.
2NC Extension- No China Co-op
China is not cooperating - even if they are, suspicion overwhelms
Tulupov 13 (Dmitry, writer for Russia Direct, “Time for Russia and China to chill out over the Arctic” http://www.russiadirect.org/content/time-russia-and-china-chill-out-over-arctic)
China’s debut in Arctic politics has been far from smooth. The statement made by Chinese Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo, who
in May 2010 allegedly said that the Arctic should belong to everyone, caused a lot of commotion, especially
as the media spread this message to different countries. That was enough for a notion of "China threat" in
the Arctic
to be formed among experts and politicians.
2NC Extension- No decline =war
War is never a response to decline
Jervis 11 (Robert, Professor PolSci Columbia, December, “Force in Our Times” Survival, Vol 25 No 4, p 403-425)
Even if war is still seen as evil, the security community could be dissolved if severe conflicts of interest were to arise. Could the more peaceful
world generate new interests that would bring the members of the community into sharp disputes? 45 A zero-sum sense of status would be
one example, perhaps linked to a steep rise in nationalism. More likely would be a worsening
of the current economic difficulties,
back old-fashioned beggar-my-neighbor
economic policies. While these dangers are real, it is hard to believe that the conflicts could be great enough to
lead the members of the community to contemplate fighting each other. It is not so much that economic
which could itself produce greater nationalism, undermine democracy and bring
interdependence has proceeded to the point where it could not be reversed – states that were more internally interdependent than anything
seen internationally have fought bloody civil wars. Rather it is that even
if the more extreme versions of free trade and
economic liberalism become discredited, it is hard to see how without building on a preexisting high
level of political conflict leaders and mass opinion would come to believe that their countries could
prosper by impoverishing or even attacking others. Is it possible that problems will not only become severe, but that
people will entertain the thought that they have to be solved by war? While a pessimist could note that this argument does not appear as
outlandish as it did before the financial crisis, an optimist could reply (correctly, in my view) that the
very fact that we have seen
such a sharp economic down-turn without anyone suggesting that force of arms is the solution shows
that even if bad times bring about greater economic conflict, it will not make war thinkable.
2NC Extension- No diversionary theory
Countries don’t employ diversionary theory
Boehmer 7 (Charles, political science professor at the University of Texas, Politics & Policy, 35:4, “The Effects of Economic Crisis,
Domestic Discord, and State Efficacy on the Decision to Initiate Interstate Conflict”)
This article examines the contemporaneous effect of low economic growth and domestic instability on the threat of regime change and/ or
involvement in external militarized conflicts. Many studies
of diversionary conflict argue that lower rates of economic
growth should heighten the risk of international conflict. Yet we know that militarized interstate conflicts, and especially
wars, are generally rare events whereas lower rates of growth are not. Additionally, a growing body of literature shows that regime changes are
also associated with lower rates of economic growth. The question then becomes which event, militarized interstate conflict or regime change,
is the most likely to occur with domestic discord and lower rates of economic growth? Diversionary
theory claims that leaders
seek to divert attention away from domestic problems such as a bad economy or political scandals, or to garner
increased support prior to elections. Leaders then supposedly externalize discontented domestic sentiments onto other nations, sometimes as
scapegoats based on the similar in-group/out-group dynamic found in the research of Coser (1956) and Simmel (1955), where foreign countries
are blamed for domestic problems. This process is said to involve a “rally-round-the-flag” effect, where a leader can expect a short-term boost
in popularity with the threat or use of force (Blechman, Kaplan, and Hall 1978; Mueller 1973). Scholarship on diversionary conflict has focused
most often on the American case1 but recent studies have sought to identify this possible behavior in other countries.2 The Falklands War is
often a popular example of diversionary conflict (Levy and Vakili 1992). Argentina was reeling from hyperinflation and rampant unemployment
associated with the Latin American debt crisis. It is plausible that a success in the Falklands War may have helped to rally support for the
governing Galtieri regime, although Argentina lost the war and the ruling regime lost power. How many other attempts to use diversionary
tactics, if they indeed occur, can be seen to generate a similar outcome? The goal of this article is to provide an assessment of the extent to
which diversionary strategy is a threat to peace. Is
this a colorful theory kept alive by academics that has little
bearing upon real events, or is this a real problem that policy makers should be concerned with? If it is a strategy readily available to
leaders, then it is important to know what domestic factors trigger this gambit. Moreover, to know that requires an understanding of the
context in external conflict, which occurs relative to regime changes. Theories
of diversionary conflict usually emphasize
the potential benefits of diversionary tactics, although few pay equal attention to the prospective
costs associated with such behavior. It is not contentious to claim that leaders typically seek to remain in office. However, whether they
can successfully manipulate public opinion regularly during periods of domestic unpopularity through their states’
participation in foreign militarized conflicts—especially outside of the American case—is a question open for debate. Furthermore,
there appears to be a logical disconnect between diversionary theories and extant studies of domestic conflict and regime change. Lower rates
of economic growth are purported to increase the risk of both militarized interstate conflicts (and internal conflicts) as well as regime changes
(Bloomberg and Hess 2002). This implies that if
leaders do, in fact, undertake diversionary conflicts, many may still be
thrown from the seat of power—especially if the outcome is defeat to a foreign enemy. Diversionary conflict would thus
seem to be a risky gambit (Smith 1996). Scholars such as MacFie (1938) and Blainey (1988) have nevertheless questioned the validity of the
diversionary thesis. As noted by Levy (1989), this perspective is rarely formulated as a cohesive and comprehensive
theory, and there has been little or no knowledge cumulation. Later analyses do not necessarily build on past studies and the discrepancies
between inquiries are often difficult to unravel. “Studies have used a variety of research designs, different dependent
variables (uses of force, major uses of force, militarized disputes), different estimation techniques, and different data sets covering
different time periods and different states” (Bennett and Nordstrom 2000, 39). To these problems, we should add a lack of theoretical precision
and incomplete model specification. By a lack of theoretical precision, I am referring to the linkages between economic conditions and domestic
strife that remain unclear in some studies (Miller 1995; Russett 1990). Consequently, extant studies are to a degree incommensurate; they offer
a step in the right direction but do not provide robust cross-national explanations and tests of economic growth and interstate conflict. Yet a
few studies have attempted to provide deductive explanations about when and how diversionary tactics might be employed. Using a Bayesian
updating game, Richards and others (1993) theorize that while the use of force would appear to offer leaders a means to boost their popularity,
a poorly performing economy acts as a signal to a leader’s constituents about his or her competence. Hence, attempts
to use
diversion are likely to fail either because incompetent leaders will likewise fail in foreign policy or
people will recognize the gambit for what it is. Instead, these two models conclude that diversion is likely to be undertaken
particularly by risk-acceptant leaders. This stress on a heightened risk of removal from office is also apparent in the work of Bueno de Mesquita
and others (1999), and Downs and Rocke (1994), where leaders may “gamble for resurrection,” although the diversionary scenario in the
former study is only a partial extension of their theory on selectorates, winning coalitions, and leader survival. Again, how often do leaders fail
in the process or are removed from positions of power before they can even initiate diversionary tactics? A few studies focusing on leader
tenure have examined the removal of leaders following war, although almost no study in the diversionary literature has looked at the effects of
domestic problems on the relative risks of regime change, interstate conflict, or both events occurring in the same year.3
2NC Extension- Econ Resilient
2008 recovery proves
Drezner 12 (Daniel, Professor International Politics Tufts University, October, “The Irony of Global Economic Governance: The System
Worked” Council on Foreign Relations International Institutions and Global Governance)
In looking at outcomes, the
obvious question is how well the global economy has recovered from the 2008
crisis. The current literature on economic downturns suggests two factors that impose significant barriers to a strong recovery from the Great
Recession: it was triggered by a financial crisis and it was global in scope. Whether measuring output, per capita
income, or employment, financial crashes trigger downturns that last longer and have far weaker recoveries than standard
business cycle downturns.10 Furthermore, the global nature of the crisis makes it extremely difficult for countries
to export their way out of the problem. Countries that have experienced severe banking crises since World War II have usually
done so when the global economy was largely unaffected. That was not the case for the Great Recession. The global economy has
rebounded much better than during the Great Depression. Economists Barry Eichengreen and Kevin O’Rourke have
compiled data to compare global economic performance from the start of the crises (see Figures 1 and 2).11 Two facts stand out in their
comparisons. First, the
percentage drop in global industrial output and world trade levels at the start of the
2008 financial crisis was more precipitous than the falloffs following the October 1929 stock market
crash. The drop in industrial output was greater in 2008 nine months into the crisis than it was eighty years earlier after the same amount of
time. The drop in trade flows was more than twice as large. Second, the post-2008 rebound has been far more robust. Four years after the
onset of the Great Recession, global
industrial output is 10 percent higher than when the recession began. In
contrast, four years after the 1929 stock market crash, industrial output was at only two-thirds of
precrisis levels. A similar story can be told with aggregate economic growth. According to World Bank figures, global economic
output rebounded in 2010 with 2.3 percent growth, followed up in 2011 with 4.2 percent growth. The global growth rate in
2011 was 44 percent higher than the average of the previous decade. Even more intriguing, the growth continued to be poverty reducing.12
The World Bank’s latest figures suggest that despite the 2008 financial crisis, extreme poverty continued to decline across all the major regions
of the globe. And the developing world achieved its first Millennium Development Goal of halving the 1990 levels of extreme poverty.13 An
important reason for the quick return to positive economic growth is that cross-border
flows did not dry up after the 2008
crisis. Again, compared to the Great Depression, trade flows have rebounded extremely well.14 Four years after the 1929
stock market crash, trade flows were off by 25 percent compared to precrisis levels. Current trade flows, in contrast, are more than 5 percent
higher than in 2008. Even compared to other postwar recessions, the current period has seen robust crossborder exchange. Indeed, as a report
from CFR’s Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies concluded in May 2012, “The
growth in world trade since the
start of the [current] recovery exceeds even the best of the prior postwar experiences.”15 Other crossborder flows have also rebounded from 2008–2009 lows. Global foreign direct investment (FDI) has returned to robust levels. FDI inflows rose
by 17 percent in 2011 alone. This put annual FDI levels at $1.5 trillion, surpassing the three-year precrisis average, though still approximately 25
percent below the 2007 peak. More generally, global foreign investment assets reached $96 trillion, a 5 percent increase from precrisis highs.
Remittances from migrant workers have become an increasingly important revenue stream to the developing world—and the 2008 financial
crisis did not dampen that income stream. Cross-border remittances to developing countries quickly rebounded to precrisis levels and then rose
to an estimated all-time high of $372 billion in 2011, with growth rates in 2011 that exceeded those in 2010. Total cross-border remittances
were more than $501 billion last year, and are estimated to reach $615 billion by 2014.16 Another salient outcome is mass public attitudes
about the global economy. A
general assumption in public opinion research is that during a downturn, demand for
greater economic closure should spike, as individuals scapegoat foreigners for domestic woes . The
global nature of the 2008 crisis, combined with anxiety about the shifting distribution of power,
should have triggered a fall in support for an open global economy. Somewhat surprisingly, however, the
reverse is true. Pew’s Global Attitudes Project has surveyed a wide spectrum of countries since 2002, asking people about their opinions
on both international trade and the free market more generally.17 The results show resilient support for expanding trade
and business ties with other countries. Twenty-four countries were surveyed both in 2007 and at least one year after 2008,
including a majority of the G20 economies. Overall, eighteen of those twenty-four countries showed equal or greater support for trade in 2009
than two years earlier. By 2011, twenty of twenty-four countries showed greater or equal support for trade compared to 2007. Indeed,
between 2007 and 2012, the unweighted average support for more trade in these countries increased from 78.5 percent to 83.6 percent.
Contrary to expectation, there has been no mass public rejection of the open global economy. Indeed, public support for the open trading
system has strengthened, despite softening public support for free-market economics more generally.18 The
final outcome
addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the Great Recession on crossborder conflict and violence.
During the initial stages of the crisis, multiple analysts asserted that the financial crisis would lead states to
increase their use of force as a tool for staying in power.19 Whether through greater internal
repression, diversionary wars, arms races, or a ratcheting up of great power conflict, there were
genuine concerns that the global economic downturn would lead to an increase in conflict. Violence in the
Middle East, border disputes in the South China Sea, and even the disruptions of the Occupy movement fuel impressions of surge in global
The aggregate data suggests otherwise , however. A fundamental conclusion from a recent report by the
Institute for Economics and Peace is that “the average level of peacefulness in 2012 is approximately the same as
it was in 2007.”20 Interstate violence in particular has declined since the start of the financial crisis —as
have military expenditures in most sampled countries. Other studies confirm that the Great Recession has not triggered any
public disorder.
increase in violent conflict ; the secular decline in violence that started with the end of the Cold War has not been reversed.21
Spills
1NC Frontline
Marine ecosystems are resilient
Kennedy 2 (Victor Kennedy, PhD Environmental Science and Dir. Cooperative Oxford Lab., 2002, “Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and
Global Climate Change,” Pew, http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine.cfm)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems
are resilient to environmental change. Steele (1991) hypothesized that
the biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical factors, allowing them to
respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them ecologically adaptable. Some
species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow for adaptation to
climate change.
No drilling- Shell called off main exploration
Rosen 14 (Yereth Rosen, writer for Alaska dispatch News, “Shell calls off 2014 oil exploration in
Alaska's Arctic waters”, http://www.adn.com/article/20140130/shell-calls-2014-oil-exploration-alaskasarctic-waters)
Royal Dutch Shell’s new chief executive said Thursday the company is shelving its Alaska exploration
program, at least for this year. An appeals court ruling that faulted federal regulators’ environmental analysis of Chukchi Sea oil
development has created “substantial obstacles” to Shell’s plan to drill exploration wells this year in
that remote region off northwestern Alaska, the company said in a statement. “This is a disappointing outcome,
but the lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further resources for drilling
in Alaska in 2014,” Shell’s new CEO, Ben van Beurden, said in the statement. “We will look to relevant agencies and the court to resolve their
open legal issues as quickly as possible.” Suspension of Alaska exploration was
described by Shell as part of a strategy to
cut costs and focus on improved return on investments. The company said it plans to reduce capital spending in 2014 to
$37 billion from the $46 billion spent in 2013. The company also said it will “increase the pace” of its asset sales,
expected to total $15 billion in 2014 and 2015. Shell also suspended drilling in Alaska's Arctic in 2013, not long after a series
of mishaps with its drill rig Kulluk. Yet to be determined is what Shell will do in Alaska this year while it waits for
questions about the lease sale to be resolved. “Unfortunately, we don’t expect we’re going to be able to do
much work in 2014,” said Megan Baldino, the company’s spokeswoman in Anchorage. “It’s a disappointment for Shell and for many
Alaskans who have been able to work with us for many seasons.” During exploration and drilling two years ago, the company employed nearly
2,000 people in Alaska, including company employees and contractors, Baldino said. That dropped significantly last year when the company
pulled back. Last year, even though it deferred its planned 2013 drilling, Shell made some progress on its Alaska exploration program. The
company conducted marine surveys around its Chukchi leases, arranged for a contracted drill ship to replace the damaged Kulluk drill ship and
completed substantial revisions to its formal drilling plan. Shell's decision will have an economic impact in the state. In 2012, the year Shell
drilled in the Chukchi, "just shy of 2,000 people," both Shell employees and contractors, had jobs in Shell's Alaska exploration program, Baldino
said. Of those, "nearly 800" were Alaskans. Baldino wasn't able to provide totals for 2013 but said the number would be much lower than 2012
because the need for contractors was significantly reduced from the prior year. John Days, harbormaster in the Aleutian port of Unalaska, said
Shell's decision won't significantly affect business at the port. Even though Unalaska was a vessel mobilization site for Shell in 2012, the port has
abundant business from the commercial fishing industry, he said. "It won't impact us because we're plenty busy here," he said.
No risk of permafrost melt- alarmism
Gosslein 12 (Peter, German climate writer, “Permafrost Far More Stable Than Claimed…German
Expert Calls Danger Of It Thawing Out Utter Imbicility!”,
http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/01/permafrost-far-more-stable-than-claimed-german-expert-callsdanger-of-it-thawing-out-utter-imbicility/)
Some alarmist scientists claim melting permafrost could lead to a dangerous “tipping point” as methane and CO2 released would act to
enhance global warming further, which in turn would cause more permafrost to melt, thus accelerating global warming until it careens out of
control. Just in time for Doha, this disaster scenario has once again been hyped up, with Kevin Schaefer of the National Snow and Ice Data
Center recently sounding the alarms. So has UNEP. Kulke writes, however, that the permafrost is much more stable than claimed and that
studies have been conducted on permafrost – since decades. Kulke writes: I remember a seminar in Bad Honnef in the spring of 2008 where
geoscientist and permafrost expert Georg Delisle from Hanover presented his research. He studied time periods from the last 10,000 years
when the global temperature was warmer than today for several thousand years by as much as 6°C. Ice cores that had been extracted from
Antarctica and Greenland provide exact information about the composition of the atmosphere during the these warm periods. His conclusion:
‘The ice cores from both Greenland and Antarctica provide no indication of any elevated release of greenhouse gases at any time even though
back then a deep thawing of the permafrost when compared to today would have been the case.’ This was clear to see on the poster he used
for his presentation. Obviously CO2 and methane are much more stable in the ground also when it thaws, Poster Bad Honnef.” Delisle is an
expert on permafrost. What does he think about the claims being made that there’s a risk it will thaw out and release lots of climate-shattering
gas? Kulke tells us what Delisle said emphasis added: ‘…it is utter imbecility to suppose that the entire permafrost could thaw out by the end of
the century. It would take thousands of years.‘ His study ‘Near-surface permafrost degradation: How severe during the 21st century?’ was the
basis for his presentation. It had been peer reviewed and has not to my knowledge been refuted to this day. 2007GL029323.” Kulke writes that
it would be nice if the IPCC took such research into account, the same applies for the sun as a factor as well. By the way, the Poster Bad Honnef
concludes: • Permafrost in the Arctic will remain mostly intact in the 21st century. • When making a comparison to other earlier warm periods,
the massive release of greenhouse gases from disintegrating permafrost is considered improbable. Another global warming myth debunked.
Now bring on the “melting ice caps”. - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2012/12/01/permafrost-far-more-stable-than-claimed-germanexpert-calls-danger-of-it-thawing-out-utter-imbicility/#sthash.qIjXiWcH.dpuf
Increase in shipping vastly increases the risk of invasive species – turns bioD
Jillian Rogers, 6/7/14 “With increase in shipping, Arctic braces for influx of invasive species”
correspondent for The Arctic Sounder. Alaska Dispatch News.
http://www.adn.com/node/1592511?sp=/99/188/
There are millions of stowaways headed for a Arctic.¶ Sea-dwelling organisms that could wreak
massacre on Arctic ecosystems are stealing in and on ships that increasingly are regulating shipping
routes in a North.¶ A news published by Whitman Miller, an ecologist during a Marine Invasions
Research Laboratory during a Smithsonian Environmental Research Center, says that invasive class are
unfailing for a Arctic with a glass of vessels.¶ Melting sea ice has non-stop routes in a Arctic — a
Northwest Passage and a Northern Sea Route — creation a quicker trail from one side of a universe to a
other.¶ “The mercantile pull of a Arctic is enormous,” Miller wrote in a report. “Whether it’s larger
entrance to a region’s abounding healthy apparatus pot or cheaper and faster inter-ocean blurb trade,
Arctic shipping will reshape universe markets.¶ “If unchecked, these activities will vastly change a sell of
invasive species, generally opposite a Arctic, north Atlantic and north Pacific oceans.Ӧ Organisms from
ports can adhere to a undersides of a ship’s carcass or seat down in a vast tanks of seawater inside a
ship.¶ “Ships are relocating over a Arctic and can lift a extensive series of class in their counterbalance
H2O … joining ports in a approach that they have not been connected before,” Miller pronounced
recently.¶ The risk lies in a contingency of these critters holding over their new sourroundings and
murdering off local species.¶ NATIVE SPECIES AT RISK¶ Miller pronounced that for a past century or so,
ships trafficked between oceans by a Panama or Suez canals. Both offering warm, pleasant water, and
heat highlight mostly killed or break hangers-on.¶ “In a Panama Canal, class on a hulls of ships also had to
cope with a pointy change in salinity, from sea to totally uninformed water,” a news said. “The Arctic
passages enclose usually cold, sea water.Ӧ If class are means to tarry cold temperatures, a contingency
of flourishing in a Arctic are good.¶ Water in counterbalance tanks is used to change and stabilise ships.
Ocean glass is sucked in and separate out accordingly, organisms and all, depending on a ship’s bucket
and conditions.¶ “Typically this is finished in coastal waters and in ports where you’re offloading or
loading cargo, and in doing so, you’re not only holding water, you’re holding all a biological and
planktonic communities with that water,” Miller said.¶ “The intensity biological cocktail that we can
order is flattering staggering,” Miller said.¶ Ballast tanks on vast ships can reason adult to 100,000
metric tons of water, Miller said. And once we start augmenting that by a series of vessels streamer
north, a volume of H2O and vital organisms exchanged is enormous.¶ When a class arrives in a new
environment, it has no determined predators, pronounced Gary Freitag, a sea biologist with a Marine
Advisory Program in Ketchikan.¶ “They have a bent to chase on a local species, eat a food of a local
class and take over medium of a local species,” he said. “And in many cases, they’re a small some-more
volatile since if they’re means to settle in an unknown habitat, they’re flattering stretchable critters.”¶ If
left unchecked, invasive class widespread rapidly; they can be formidable to detect until a repairs is
done.¶ “We don’t utterly know what will occur in a Arctic since we haven’t gifted invasive class
unequivocally in a Arctic yet,” Freitag said.¶ A few years ago, Freitag trafficked to a North Slope to collect
information from a waters off Point Barrow. The bid was stymied by a storm, he said, though he is
formulation some-more work in a North.¶ A stream hazard in other tools of Alaska is a European
immature crab, a audacious crustacean that can flower in a accumulation of climates.¶ Other crabs and
tunicates — a many common called “rock vomit” — are also on a list of invasive class infecting Alaska
waters.¶ Some of a most-wanted are found sticking to a ship’s hulls, while others float in counterbalance
tanks.¶ In a year, 50 to 60 million metric tons of H2O comes to a U.S. from abroad around
counterbalance water.
Alaska is particularly vulnerable to invasive species – shipping increase risks
ecosystem collapse
Danielle E. Verna ¶April 2014 “INFLUENCES OF POLICY AND VESSEL BEHAVIOR ON THE RISK OF
BALLAST-BORNE MARINE SPECIES INVASIONS IN COASTAL ALASKA” Master of Science in Environmental
Science from Alaska Pacific University.
http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3317211351/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=n63AEveAdxqFeE
UbS9WahtWH1YE%3D
Marine species have been transported globally since the days of sailing ships. ¶ Organisms were attached
to or buried inside wooden hulls or stowed away on dry ballast ¶ such as coastal rocks, sand or gravel. As
shipping evolved into a prominent means of ¶ transportation and exploration, the number, size and
speed of vessels transiting the ¶ oceans rose dramatically, increasing opportunities for marine
hitchhikers. The ¶ development of steam technology and steel-hulled vessels signified yet another major
¶ turning point in the transport of marine species – seawater as ballast. From a shipping ¶ standpoint,
ballast water is logistically simple, efficient, and universally available. Yet for ¶ its advantages, ballast
water quickly became a primary vector for the relocation of ¶ marine species (Carlton & Geller, 1993).
The introduction of alien marine species via ¶ ship ballast has had biological, economic and social
consequences on ecosystems ¶ worldwide (Ruiz et al., 2000, Pimentel et al., 2005, Pysek & Richardson,
2010). ¶ Unfortunately, although recognized as a problem for at least the past 100 years, the ¶
management of ballast water for the prevention of marine invasive species was and ¶ continues to be a
slow and reactionary process (Firestone & Corbett, 2005, Gollasch et ¶ al., 2007). ¶ In the United States,
ballast water management (BWM) regulations evolved from ¶ limited and voluntary to widespread and
mandatory (Figure 1.1). As global and national ¶ awareness of the hazards associated with marine
invasive species rose, in addition to ¶ the risks posed by continued invasions, so did the strength and
reach of BWM ¶ requirements for the shipping industry. However, exemptions to policy allowed specific ¶
vessel types and vessel transits to elude these requirements, affecting some port ¶ systems more than
others. ¶ In particular the state of Alaska has seen firsthand the implications of these ¶ policy
exemptions. The majority of ballast water discharged in Alaska has historically ¶ been unmanaged –
compounded by young age and uneven spatial distribution of ¶ discharge locations. Ballast reporting
data suggest a relationship between policy and ¶ vessel practices. However, Alaska-bound vessel traffic
patterns and ballast management ¶ efforts have not been analyzed since 2004 (McGee et al., 2006).
Since then, there have ¶ been significant improvements in data quality, quantity and continuity allowing
for a more ¶ thorough assessment of ballast water discharge and management practices in ports and ¶
places throughout the state.]
Ecosystems are historically resilient – little extinction despite massive ecosystem
disruptions.
Eldredge 2k (Niles Eldredge, Curator-in-Chief of “Hall of Biodiversity” American Museum of Natural
History,2000, Species, Speciation and the Environment, October,
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html)
Instead of prompting adaptive change through natural selection, environmental change instead causes
organisms to seek familiar habitats to which they are already adapted. In other words, "habitat tracking," rather
than "adaptation tracking" is the most expected biological reaction to environmental change -- whichis now understood to be inevitable. For
example:During
the past 1.65 million years, there have been four major, and many minor, episodes of
global cooling resulting in the southward surge of huge fields of glacial ice in both North America and Eurasia.Yet,
despite this rhythmically cyclical pattern of profound climate change, extinction and evolution
throughout the Pleistocene was surprisingly negligible .Instead, ecosystems (e.g., tundra, boreal forest, mixed
hardwood forest, etc.) migrated south in front of the advancing glaciers. Though there was much disruption, most plant species
(through their seed propagules) and animal species were able to migrate, find "recognizable" habitat, and survive
pretty much unchanged throughout the Pleistocene Epoch. Botanist Margaret Davis6 and colleagues, and entomologist G. R. Coope7
have provided especially well-documented and graphic examples of habitat tracking as a source of survival of species throughout the
Pleistocene.
Spills don’t collapse biodiversity- deepwater horizon proves that bio-doversity isn’t
affected to the point of extinction
Redundancy means biodiversity loss won’t escalate to extinction
Marxen 3 (Crain Marxen, assoc. prof. of economics at Univ. of Nebraska, Winter 2003 “The
Independent Review”, Vol. VII, No. 3, http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_07_3_marxsen.pdf)
Carlos Davidson (2000), a biologist with an economics background, takes issue with what he perceives as
Sagoff’s agnosticism concerning the existence of significant environmental destruction relevant to humankind’s well-being. He
perceives that Sagoff risks overstatement of the environment’s robustness, and he argues that human
activities clearly damage the environment, but not in a way that is likely to lead to catastrophe.
According to Davidson, environmental damage is not so much like pulling rivets out of anairplane as it is like
pulling threads out of a tapestry. The tapestry becomes more and more threadbare and damaged
looking, but it never reaches some critical threshold of cataclysmic failure.
The ecosystem is brimming with
redundancy, and problems such as reductions in biodiversity do not threaten the viability of the simpler system that results. Like an old
carpet,an increasingly damaged and dirty environment would show no tendency to resolve the deterioration trend catastrophically.
2NC extension- no drilling
Conoco canceled plans too- there are no companies pushing to drill- regulatory
frameworks deincentivize companies
Hobson 14 (Margaret, reporter for E&E news, writing for EnergyWire, “Interior under fire as another
oil major cancels exploration plans”, http://www.eenews.net/energywire/stories/1059979252)
The Interior Department came under attack from Alaska officials yesterday after ConocoPhillips said
regulatory uncertainty played a major role in persuading the company to cancel its 2014 Arctic oil
drilling plans . ConocoPhillips specifically took aim at a recent assessment of Royal Dutch Shell PLC's trouble-filled 2012 oil exploration
program. In the report, the Interior Department set tough new controls that Shell must meet for future drilling projects and recommended
development of Arctic-specific operating standards (EnergyWire, March 15 ).
The report focused on the weather delays,
operational mishaps and regulatory violations that Shell faced last summer
as it sought to explore for oil in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas. The company's problems continued after the season was over when one of its drill rigs ran aground and a second rig
came under investigation for federal air pollution and operational violations. In the aftermath, Shell
scrapped its 2013 drilling
program and sent its rigs to Asia for repairs. Statoil ASA has also postponed its oil development plans until 2015 at the earliest.
ConocoPhillips officials said they are willing to work with the administration and industry to draft new Arctic drilling standards. Until those
regulations are finalized, however, the company's Alaska offshore drilling plans are on hold. "Once those
requirements are understood, we will re-evaluate our Chukchi Sea drilling plans," said Trond-Erik Johansen, president of ConocoPhillips Alaska.
"We believe this is a reasonable and responsible approach given the huge investments required to
operate offshore in the Arctic." In response to ConocoPhillips' announcement, Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski accused the
Obama administration of discouraging oil development in Alaska's Arctic waters. "Companies can't be expected to invest billions of dollars
without some assurance that federal regulators are not going to change the rules on them almost continuously," said Murkowski, who is the
ranking member on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Alaska Gov. Sean Parnell (R) blamed
the Interior
Department for creating an "unstable regulatory environment" that is reducing job opportunities in Alaska and
hurting the state's economy. "I am disappointed that the federal government has led Conoco to make this business decision," Parnell said in a
statement. Lower risks, lower costs in lower 48 But energy industry analysts said ConocoPhillips' decision was also affected by the lower-cost oil
and gas that's being produced at unconventional shale plays in the lower 48 states. "There's a lot of enthusiasm surrounding the shale and
unconventional production that's happening in the Bakken and the Eagle Ford," noted analyst Kevin Book, managing director of ClearView
Energy Partners. "The unconventional resources are growing at a lower risk-adjusted price point than the conventional resource in Alaska."
Book noted that Shell and ConocoPhillips began their recent Arctic oil programs before the unconventional oil boom began in America. At that
point, the Alaskan Arctic and Gulf of Mexico offered the nation's most promising oil and gas reserves
2NC Extension- invasive species
Arctic safe from invasive species now – plan increases tanker traffic in Alaska –
spreads new species which cannot be contained
Danielle E. Verna ¶April 2014 “INFLUENCES OF POLICY AND VESSEL BEHAVIOR ON THE RISK OF
BALLAST-BORNE MARINE SPECIES INVASIONS IN COASTAL ALASKA” Master of Science in Environmental
Science from Alaska Pacific University.
http://media.proquest.com/media/pq/classic/doc/3317211351/fmt/ai/rep/NPDF?_s=n63AEveAdxqFeE
UbS9WahtWH1YE%3D
¶ Marine invasive species have the potential to cause significant harm worldwide, ¶ ¶ but are a
particular concern to coastal Alaska, which has remained relatively un-invaded. ¶ ¶ The management of
ballast water to reduce introductions of marine invasive species has ¶ ¶ progressed substantially since
efforts first began nearly 25 years ago, but exemptions ¶ ¶ from management and reporting practices for
crude oil tankers involved in coastwise ¶ ¶ trade allowed for unnecessary risk to Alaska. To effectively
manage this risk we (1) ¶ ¶ reviewed the history and drivers of ballast water management policy, (2)
assessed how ¶ ¶ changes to policy in turn influenced vessel behavior, and (3) analyzed how vessel ¶ ¶
behavior influenced risk of invasion. ¶ ¶ An analysis of vessel traffic patterns and ballast water
management and ¶ ¶ discharge data for Alaska from 2005 through 2012 describes the tremendous impact
that ¶ ¶ the Environmental Protection Agency’s Vessel General Permit had on tanker reporting ¶ ¶ effort
between 2008 and 2009. Refining the analysis to post-VGP data (2009 through ¶ ¶ 2012) reveals general
trends of vessel types, source locations and management rates ¶ ¶ that influence the risk of species
invasions to Alaska. Tankers, the dominant vessel type ¶ ¶ discharging ballast water in Alaska, tend to
discharge relatively young, unmanaged ¶ ¶ ballast sourced from locations on the west coast of North
America with high ballastborne invasive species richness. Bulkers, the second most dominant vessel
type to ¶ ¶ discharge ballast water in Alaska, tend to discharge relatively older, managed ballast ¶ ¶ water
sourced from overseas locations with relatively low invasive species richness. ¶ ¶ A specific look at the
top 15 ports with the highest ballast discharge volume of ¶ ¶ Alaska shows that ports at greatest risk of
ballast-borne species invasions tend to ¶ ¶ receive a high volume of relatively young and unmanaged
ballast water from source ¶ ¶ ports with similar environmental conditions known to host invasive species.
Our multifactor vector based risk matrix revealed that Valdez, Drift River Terminal, Nikiski, and ¶ ¶ Dutch
Harbor may be hotspots for potential invasion whereas Klawock and Tolstoi Bay ¶ ¶ have relatively low
risk. Our risk assessment of coastal Alaska has identified those ports ¶ ¶ in greatest need of management
attention. Compounded by expected increases in ¶ ¶ vessel traffic and potential influences of climate
change, managing this risk is vital to ¶ ¶ reducing the potential impacts of marine invasive species in
the state.
2NC extension- redundancy
Redundancy checks environmental collapse.
Davidson 2K (Carlos Davidson, conservation biologist, 5-1-2k “Bioscience”, Vol. 50, No. 5, lexis)
Biodiversity limits.
The original rivet metaphor (Ehrlich and Ehrlich 1981) referred to species extinction and biodiversity loss as a limit
to human population and the economy. A
wave of species extinctions is occurring that is unprecedented in
human history(Wilson 1988, 1992, Reid and Miller 1989). The decline of biodiversity represents irreplaceable and incalculable losses to
future generations of humans. Is biodiversity loss a case of limits, as suggested by the rivet metaphor, or is it a continuum of degradation with
local tears, as suggested by the tapestry metaphor? In the rivet metaphor, it is not the loss of species by itself that is the proposed limit but
rather some sort of ecosystem collapse that would be triggered by the species loss. Butit
is unclear that biodiversity loss will
lead to ecosystem collapse. Research in this area is still in its infancy, and results from the limited experimental studies are mixed.
Some studies show a positive relationship between diversity and some aspect of ecosy stem function,
such as the rate of nitrogen cycling (Kareiva 1996, Tilman et al. 1996). Others support the redundant species
concept (Lawton and Brown 1993, Andren et al. 1995), which holds that above some low number, additional
species are redundant in terms of ecosystem function. Still other studies support the idiosyncratic species model (Lawton
1994), in which loss of some species reduces some aspect of ecosystem function, whereas loss of others may increase that aspect of ecosystem
function. The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem function is undoubtedly more complex than any simple metaphor. Nonetheless,
I believe that the tapestry metaphor provides a more useful view of biodiversity loss than the rivet metaphor. A species extinction is
like a thread pulled from the tapestry. With each thread lost, the tapestry gradually becomes
threadbare. The loss of some species may lead to local tears. Although everything is linked to everything else , ecosystems are not
delicately balanced, clocklike mechanisms in which the loss of a part leads to collapse . For example, I study
California frogs, some of which are disappearing. Although it is possible that the disappearances signal some as yet unknown threat to humans
(the miner's canary argument),the loss of the frogs themselves is unlikely to have major ecosystem effects. The
situation is the same for most rare organisms, which make up the bulk of threatened and endangered species. For example, if the black toad
(Bufo exsul) were to disappear from the few desert springs in which it lives, even careful study would be unlikely to reveal ecosystem
changes.To argue that there are not limits is not to claim that biodiversity losses do not matter. Rather, in calling for a stop to the destruction, it
is the losses themselves that count, not a putative cliff that humans will fall off of somewhere down the road.
Military Turn
1NC
US intends to expand its military presence in the Arctic
Arctic Info 3-11-14 (Arctic Info, March 11, 2014, The “Cold War” in the Arctic and the Socio-Economic
Development of the Polar Region (Federal Media Monitoring: March 3-10, 2014), http://www.arcticinfo.com/FederalMonitoringMedia/Page/the--cold-war--in-the-arctic-and-the-socio-economicdevelopment-of-the-polar-region--federal-media-monitoring--march-3-10--2014--)
A report issued by the US Navy with a “road map” of the expansion of its military presence in the Arctic has turned into another opportunity for
the press to discuss the need to protect Russian interests in the region. Along with the issues of security, the problems of the socio-economic
development of the regions of the Arctic, which will require extremely high levels of investment, are very much in focus. Plans to develop the
Arctic are facing lengthy periods of coordination with government departments, which has meant that the borders of the Arctic and the sources
of funding for its development remain undetermined. Last week, the federal media attention was engaged by the following events: The
discussion of the US Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030 report which was posted on the website of the US
Navy in late February. It is a road map of the expansion of the US military in the Arctic ; A round table on the
problems of implementing Russia’s state policy in the Arctic held at the permanent representative office of the Russian President in the NorthWest Federal District; A complaint made by the Dutch shipowner Stichting Phoenix and Greenpeace at St Petersburg Primorsky Court against
the Investigative Committee’s refusal to allow technical specialists access to the Arctic Sunrise vessel. Last week, information regarding the
Arctic agenda was sparse. This was most likely due to the media attention on the Ukrainian crisis, with all other subjects remaining on the
periphery of the public information space. As a result of this, the publication of the
US Arctic Roadmap 2014-2030 report, for
example, which outlines a plan for increased US military presence in the Arctic , was only discussed in specialized
publications. On the other hand, this is also due to the fact that the report does not say anything new compared to the statements of the head
of the navy, Admiral Jonathan Greenert, which were widely discussed in January this year. Therefore, in the Russian press everything was
limited to the usual statements about the threat of militarization of the Arctic from the US, which Russia must adequately respond to in order
to, among other things, protect its economic interests in the region. At the same time, Russian official media publications are indicating that
Russia and the US are not only rivals in the Arctic, but also partners. In particular, Russian icebreakers are helping American companies to
transport oil, save their vessels from ice captivity, etc. These articles not only demonstrate Russia’s technological advantages in the Arctic, but
also present the idea that the severance of relations due to the Ukrainian crisis will be detrimental to both countries. In other words, the report
presents the new US strategy to expand the American military presence in the Arctic. It also sets out specific objectives for the US Navy to
prepare for greater involvement in its operations in the Arctic in the near term (2014-2020), mid term (2020-2030) and long term (after 2030).
"As
the perennial ice melts and open water is available for longer periods of time, we are committed
to expanding our Arctic capabilities," said US Navy Oceanographer Rear Admiral Jonathan White,
commenting on the report. He said Washington does not believe that he will have to fight in the Arctic, but he wants to be prepared
for any possible scenario (The Pentagon is preparing for a war over the Arctic, Krasnaya Zvezda, 4.03.2014). The US is
preparing for the militarization of the Arctic Ocean and, as admitted by naval commanders, in the
coming 15 years it intends to establish itself in the region militarily, politically and economically . It is
obvious that the US wants to "bite off" a huge chunk of territory that rightfully should belong to
Russia: Washington is unlikely to go after the territorial waters of Canada or Norway, for example, which are allies of the US. The US
objective is to achieve absolute dominance in the Arctic Ocean, which is so rich in natural resources
(The Arctic problem is becoming increasingly serious, Voennoe Obozrenie, 6.03.2014). The Russian icebreakers Krasin and Admiral Makarov
have begun escorting large tankers in the Tatar Strait. Ice navigation this winter started one month later than in previous years. <...> In the
North, however, there are situations in which money and major politics take a back seat. In 2012, the town of Nome in Alaska nearly became
ice-locked. American ships carrying fuel were not able to get through. A Russian tanker came to the rescue. All the States followed the rescue
operation. Upon its return to Vladivostok, the crew of the tanker received a thank you card and the hand prints of children from the town of
Nome. It was given to the now ex-United States Consul General in Vladivostok, Sylvia Curran. <...> So
far, the only country in the
world that already has 6 nuclear-powered and 20 diesel-electric-powered icebreakers is Russia, where,
incidentally, time is not standing still. As they say in the Navy, most of the ice vessels are now very "grown up". Admiral Makarov will be
celebrating its 39th birthday this year. But, firstly, its crew has said that the icebreaker will serve for another 39 years, and secondly, new
shipbuilding projects will soon be underway (Russian icebreaker escorts American tanker to clear water, Vesti.ru, 8.03.2014). Press materials,
and statements made by officials and experts suggest that there are serious problems associated with the socio-economic development of the
Arctic regions. At a round table in St Petersburg on these issues, representatives of the Ministry of Regional Development quoted the enormous
amount of funding necessary for the development of the Russian Arctic - 562 trillion roubles. The borders of the Arctic have not yet been
conclusively determined, and in the federal budget to 2016, funding has not been included for state programmes for the development of Arctic
territories. Officials have explained that the lack of a qualitative advance is due to the fact that the high level of expenditure was not supported
by sources of income for the implementation of the programme. However, from these statements it is not very clear what and who is hindering
the creation of a document to raise the level of income for the Arctic development strategy. As a result of this, Arctic regions are trying to solve
their problems on their own. In particular, the Government of the Murmansk Region has reduced electricity rates, and is trying to alter the
Special Economic Zone (SEZ) to allow for the development of the fishing industry cluster, but experts doubt that their efforts will be successful.
[Insert militarization leads to US-Russia war]
US military expanding in the Arctic now
RT 13 (RT, November 22, 2013, “US military set to increase presence in ‘melting’ Arctic,”
http://rt.com/usa/us-wants-arctic-resources-154/)
The US wants to be “very involved” in Arctic waters, as melting ice caps open opportunities for sea routes, US Defense
Secretary Chuck Hagel has said. However, unlike other Arctic nations such as Russia, the Americans still lack the
necessary hardware. As the melting ice in the Arctic opens a new polar sea lane, the issues of claiming and tapping energy resources, as
well as related security and environmental problems will continue to grow in importance, Hagel told journalists en route to a security
conference in Halifax on Thursday. “That’s going to give many new opportunities to countries, to the world. That will come with new challenges
as well. So the United States needs to be very active in this group and be very involved,” Hagel was quoted as saying by AP. The US has been
tempted by what it has estimated to be 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30 percent of undiscovered gas deposits in the
Arctic. The areas with potential resources have until recently been covered by an ice cap, which is beginning to shrink. According to experts
quoted by AP, Arctic waters could see largely ice-free summers as early as 2030, and there could be a whole month of ice-free conditions by the
mid-2020s. Ice-free is understood to mean less than 10 percent coverage. The
prospect has prompted the US military to
develop plans for expanding communications, developing sturdy icebreakers, and negotiating
international agreements for tracking traffic in the Arctic and conducting search-and-rescue
operations. The US Navy said it will complete the plans by the end of this year, with no budget
estimates currently available. The director of the Navy’s task force on climate change, Rear Adm. Jonathan White, said the US needs
to step up its planning efforts if it wants to operate ships and aircraft in the region by 2025, as even the basic research and development plan
has not yet been outlined. “What do I have to start thinking about now – about research, planning, making long-term investments for things
like hull strengthening or bridge insulation, even how we conduct routine operations like ship and aircraft refueling?” White speculated,
speaking at his office in the US Naval Observatory. The US Coast Guard currently has just two working icebreaker ships in service, and even
those need to be fitted with hardened hulls and better insulation if they are to operate in the icy waters of the Arctic.
should be foremost for the US and other nations operating in the Arctic,
Security concerns
White argued. “We’re looking at a pretty
dramatic increase in shipping, and that brings into play the concern by the Arctic nations – how do they respond to emergencies, search and
rescue and people that get into trouble up there,” he said. The maritime traffic through the Bering Strait rose by about 50 percent between
2005 and 2012, with 483 ships moving through the strait last year. Some of those vessels relied on the help of the Russian ice breakers to travel
across the so-called Northern Sea Route. Russia, which has been exploring the Arctic for centuries, is still the only nation in the world operating
a fleet of nuclear icebreakers. The apparent advantages of nuclear ships for operations in the Arctic include the absence of the need for regular
refueling – which currently is not an easy task in most of the region. Russian President Vladimir Putin recently stressed the Arctic was essential
for the country’s economic and security interests. peaking at the “Arctic – Territory Of Dialogue” forum in September, Putin pledged to
considerably increase the Arctic area protected by the Russian government for its environmental importance, and said about $44.5 million has
been allocated for cleaning up pollution already present in the region. Putin stressed that the right to extract oil in the Arctic “will only be given
to operators, who have tried methods to clean oil spills under ice.” The environmental activists opposing any oil extraction in the region have,
however, claimed no reliable cleanup methods exist. At the same time, the
Russian President indicated the country has
been readying to defend its interests in the Arctic, beefing up its military presence in the region for
the worst-case scenario by reviving former Soviet military bases there. Other than Russia and the US, the nations
that may lay their claim on potential Arctic resources include Canada, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark (through its territory of
Greenland). Those have been joined by China that sent its first icebreaker ship through the Arctic last year and signed several agreements with
Arctic states. President
Barack Obama in May unveiled a 13-page US strategy for the Arctic, asserting that
nations must protect the region's fragile environment and keep it free from conflict. However, the
plan also made it clear the US does not want to be left behind as the other countries eye natural
resources and exploiting potential new sea routes. The already existing North Sea Route, which lies in Russia’s sector of the
Arctic, has been experiencing a revival, and China has shown interest in using it to reach European markets. The route offers an alternative way
from the Pacific to Europe, which is shorter, faster and safe from pirates compared to the traditional transit through the Indian Ocean and via
the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean. However, navigation in the Arctic Ocean depends on the seasonal changes of ice coverage.
No Arctic War Tho
The Arctic is a conflict-free zone – empirics and status quo cooperation
Navy 14 (United States Navy Task Force, February 2014, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap
for 2014 to 2030, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf)
The United States’ overarching strategic national security objective for the Arctic Region is a stable
and secure region where the national interests of the United States are safeguarded and the
homeland is protected.5 The Navy’s primary goal in support of National and Department of Defense
aims is to contribute to a peaceful, stable, and conflict-free Arctic Region . The Arctic Ocean comprises a roughly
circular basin and covers an area of about 5.4 million square miles, almost 1.5 times the size of the United States. Today, much of the Arctic
Region is ice covered, limiting human access to particular times of the year. The expected continued reduction of multi-year6 Arctic sea ice over
the coming decades will result in increased human activity in the Arctic Ocean. How much of an increase, and in what types of activities,
remains to be seen. The
rate of opening of the geography, the short commercial shipping season, the
environmental complexities and limitations of operating in the Arctic Ocean, and present geopolitical
trends in the Arctic Region lead intelligence assessments to predict it is unlikely the Region will be the
site of state-on-state armed conflict. Disputes between Arctic Region nations can be resolved
peacefully and without military force, as demonstrated by the Russia-Norway Barents Sea
agreement. 7 While the Arctic Region is expected to remain an area of low threat, the United States does have standing security interests
in the Region, including threat early warning systems; freedom of navigation and overflight through the region; preventing terrorist attacks
against the homeland; combined security obligations with Canada; and deployment of sea and air forces as required for deterrence, maritime
presence, and maritime security operations. As the Arctic Ocean opens, the Bering Strait will have increased strategic importance. This 51- mile
wide strait between Russia and the United States, with a depth varying between 98 to 160 feet, represents an important chokepoint for surface
and subsurface vessels entering or departing the Arctic Ocean. The Bering Strait and access to and through the Arctic Ocean will become a more
important security planning consideration as maritime activity continues to increase. Partnership building opportunities exist for the United
States to cooperate with maritime nations as economic activity increases north of the Bering Strait. The Strait has special significance for Russia
since it allows Russia to connect her Asian and European naval forces. As the Pacific gateway for Russia’s Northern Sea Route, the Bering Strait
will become increasingly important for seaborne trade between Europe and Asia. The
anticipated increase in traffic through
the Strait provides opportunity for the United States to strengthen ties with Russia, promoting
maritime security and safety in the region.8 For decades, Canada and the United States have been
partners in the defense of North America, cooperating within the framework of such instruments as
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). Homeland defense and homeland security are top priorities for the governments of Canada
and the United States. The Navy will work with the Royal Canadian Navy to ensure common Arctic
Region interests are addressed in a complementary manner. The Navy will continue to support
NORAD's missions for aerospace warning and control, and maritime warning for threats against the
United States and Canada. This unique and enduring partnership between the United States and Canada in defense cooperation is
important to our mutual security interests in the Arctic Region. The Navy and Coast Guard have a decades-long history
of cooperation and collaboration. The two services have worked together in close partnership during
times of war and peace to protect our Nation’s ports and waterways and to promote our maritime
security interests overseas. The history of this collaboration between the two sea services acknowledges the distinctive missions,
competencies, and cultures of each service. The combined efforts of the Navy and the Coast Guard in the Arctic Ocean will reflect this historic
relationship. The Coast Guard and Navy are committed to ensuring safe, secure, and environmentally responsible maritime activity in Arctic
Ocean waters and to promoting our other national interests in the Region
No armed conflict in the Arctic
Navy 14 (United States Navy Task Force, February 2014, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap
for 2014 to 2030, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf)
Since the end of the Cold War, the military threat environment in the Arctic Region has diminished
significantly and the risk of armed conflict in the Arctic Region is projected to remain low for the
foreseeable future .26 As opposed to combat-related missions, Navy forces are far more likely to be employed in
the Arctic Region in support of Coast Guard search and rescue, disaster relief, law enforcement, and
other civil emergency/civil support operations.27 There is a willingness among Arctic Region nations to
manage differences through established international mechanisms. The Arctic Council consists of
representatives from the eight Arctic nations: Canada, Denmark (representing Greenland and the Faroe Islands), Finland,
Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States. It serves as a useful forum for promoting
cooperation, coordination, and interaction. Arctic nations have a strong economic incentive to
preserve this historically stable, non-contentious environment for commercial development. Though the
United States has not acceded to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United States has long considered its
provisions related to traditional ocean uses as reflecting customary international law. It serves as the legal framework for important rights and
obligations in the Arctic Ocean including the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf, protection of the marine environment,
freedom of navigation, military survey, and marine scientific research for the region.
In May 2008, the states bordering the Arctic Ocean (the United States, Canada, Greenland, Norway, and the Russian
the Ilulissat Declaration which concluded that the Convention was the appropriate
legal framework for international cooperation and peaceful resolution of maritime disputes in the
Federation) signed
Arctic.28 In May 2011, the Arctic Council signed the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement29 and in May 2013, the Council states signed an
Agreement on Cooperation on Marine Oil Pollution Preparedness and Response in the Arctic, 30 demonstrating cooperative behavior to
improve safety and environmental procedures in the Arctic Ocean. Moreover, the number of nations and other organizations requesting
observer status on the Arctic Council is increasing, showing a growing international interest in the Region and the expanding importance of the
Arctic Council
It’s the Navy’s responsibility to examine operation energy in the region
Navy 14 (United States Navy Task Force, February 2014, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap
for 2014 to 2030, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf)
Based on the drivers, trends, and predictions noted above, and in alignment with higher level guidance, the Navy strategic objectives for the
Arctic Region are: • Ensure United States Arctic sovereignty and provide homeland defense; • Provide ready naval forces to respond to crisis
and contingencies; • Preserve freedom of the seas; and • Promote partnerships within the United States Government and with international
allies. Ensure United States Arctic sovereignty and provide homeland defense.
A primary Navy responsibility is to protect the
homeland, its citizens, and critical infrastructure. The changing environment may create new opportunities and security
challenges in the “high north.” The Navy will protect American sovereign rights and jurisdiction through
flexible, periodic presence, and contribute to homeland defense in conjunction with the Joint Force.
The Navy will ensure it remains prepared to operate in the Arctic Region to counter any threats to the
homeland that may arise.
Provide ready naval forces to respond to crisis and contingencies. Environmental information, safety at sea and in the air, communication and
data challenges, infrastructure, and regional expertise are some, but not all, of the current gaps and seams that must be overcome to operate
in the Arctic Region. The Navy’s Arctic Roadmap identifies the capabilities required to operate in Arctic conditions and develops the plan to
overcome these gaps and seams. The Navy will further develop doctrine, operating procedures, and tactics, techniques, and procedures to
specifically guide operations in the Arctic environment. The Roadmap directs review and identification of requirements for improvements to
platforms, sensors, and weapons systems that facilitate sustained, safe operations in the Region. This includes cold-weather training, a better
communications architecture, and logistical support. The geography and climate of the Arctic Region will pose challenges to naval logistics.
The Navy must examine the role and limitations of operational energy access including: how fuel will
be distributed to the Region, to air and surface platforms, and how naval personnel deployed to the
Region will be trained in energy conservation and environmentally sustainable practices . An increased
knowledge of the physical environment will help the Navy better predict ice conditions, shifting navigable waterways, and weather patterns to
aid in safe navigation and operations at sea. The Navy will grow Arctic expertise and experience through increased research and information
sharing among our allies and partners. Finally, improvement in operational readiness through education, knowledge, training, and research will
allow the Navy to provide a quick response to Arctic Region contingency operations. Preserve freedom of the seas. Access to the global
commons and freedom of the seas are a national priority. The
Navy will support access for the safe, secure, and free
flow of resources and commerce in the Region. Strategic resources and trade routes will be a primary
driver for Arctic and non-Arctic nations alike to seek economic prosperity. The Navy will contribute to
stability and security as economic activity increases.
Promote partnerships within the United States Government and with international allies in support of security and safety. The Arctic Region
poses unique operational challenges beyond the weather to include communications and navigational hazards. These challenges provide
opportunities to cooperate with interagency partners and international allies, sharing limited resources to improve situational awareness and
develop a Common Maritime Picture (CMP) of the Arctic Ocean. In conjunction with interagency and international partners, the Navy will seek
to improve Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA), information sharing, and communications. Currently, Arctic MDA is assessed as adequate.
However, as traffic and Regional activity rise in the coming decades, the Navy will seek to improve overall MDA capability. To build the ties of
trust and confidence that underpin strong alliances and partnerships, it is essential to operate and train together. Multilateral training,
operations, and exercises in the Arctic Ocean such as NORTHERN EAGLE32 and NANOOK33 will improve knowledge of the Region and provide a
positive foundation for future missions.
General
Solvency
One port cannot solve and the port wont be ready for at least 16 years, too long to
solve.
Carey Restino 2/15 , “Study on Arctic port for Alaska delayed” The Arctic Sounder. Alaska Dispatch
News. http://www.adn.com/article/20140215/study-arctic-port-alaska-delayed. February 15, 2014
But those studying Alaska’s Arctic port needs quickly realized no single port was likely going to be
sufficient. Instead, it was prudent to consider a combination of several ports that together would
provide the needed infrastructure to serve the region , said Cordova.¶ Unfortunately, having to study
multiple ports at once has slowed the process, she said. Each of those ports could have a variety of
different configurations -- how deep a draft to dig, what infrastructure is added shoreside, and whether
roads should connect the ports, for example, offered many variables for those studying the problem to
consider.¶ “The process is not working as well as I would like,” Cordova told legislators at a recent Joint
Transportation Committee meeting. “We are now up to 23 alternatives we are looking at. Rather than
narrowing it down, we have somehow managed to make it bigger.”¶ That’s going to push the planned
March deadline for releasing a final recommendation back several months, she said. Now, the corps
hopes to have narrowed down the possible port variations to a single recommendation by March so that
they can proceed with the final pieces of their study, such as estimating real estate costs and final
figures of construction estimates.¶ But Cordova did say the cost estimate is likely to be in the hundreds
of millions of dollars for the project, a cost that will likely be shared between the federal government
and the state. Costs for the construction of the actual ports is typically shared, with federal coffers
footing 65 percent of the bill while the state pays for 35 percent. But that’s an oversimplified
explanation, Cordova said, and doesn’t include the cost of infrastructure on land, such as
improvements to airport landing strips, road construction or other facilities, the cost of which is
generally not federally funded.¶ Legislators also asked Cordova to estimate when she could imagine the
first ship pulling into this Arctic port. If everything went perfectly from here on out, the study is based
on a completion date of 2020, she said. But that is unlikely.¶ “The stars would really have to be aligned
for 2020 to occur,” she said. “The more pessimistic side of me would put it out at 2030.”
Lack of other key infrastructure means no shipping increase
Liz Ruskin, 5/ 7, 2014 “Arctic May Not Be That Busy, Report Says”
APRN. Alaska Public Correspondent. http://www.alaskapublic.org/2014/05/07/arctic-may-not-be-thatbusy-report-says-2/
As the ice goes out in the Arctic, many people predict more ships will be drawn through the Bering
Straits to take advantage of a shortcut between Asia and Europe. But, a recent government report
suggests less ice may not mean more ships .¶ Vm P¶ Sen. Lisa Murkowski has made it her mission to
remind Washington the Arctic is opening up. In speeches and at hearings with top officials, she aims to
instill a sense of urgency about preparing for an increase in ship traffic and new economic
opportunities.¶ “The time to development the infrastructure and support capacity to handle this growing
amount of traffic is now. Actually, it was yesterday,” Murkowski said on the Senate floor last month.¶ A
recent report from the Government Accountability Office runs counter to her message. The report
authors interviewed dozens of stakeholders, including executives at cargo companies, mining companies
and cruise lines about their plans to send more ships into the Arctic.¶ “We came to the conclusion that it
was going to be limited,” Lorelei St. James, team leader on the GAO report, said.¶ Two big caveats: The
GAO report looked only at commercial activity in the American Arctic,¶ and only over the next decade,
but St. James found that just because ships can traverse the Arctic for part of the year doesn’t mean
they will.¶ “There’s just some fundamental geographic reasons that make it more difficult to operate
in the U.S. Arctic,” St. James said.¶ While an over-the-top route can be 40 percent shorter than the
traditional voyage between Asia and Europe, the GAO found container shipping companies aren’t
interested. To them, speed is less important than reliability. The business is largely driven by the need
for components to move steadily around the globe, from factories to assembly plants to markets.
Nobody wants¶ inventory to pile up, so if ships are late, St. James says, a factory might have to halt
production.¶ “They’re very concerned about on-time, and with the unpredictability of some of the
weather patterns up there, it just made the shipping companies we talked to less, the U.S. Arctic less
attractive to them,” St. James said.¶ Time is also a big factor for cruise lines in the Arctic, the GAO
learned.¶ “We were told that even if there were deep water ports or ports that the cruises could stop
at, that it just takes so long to go through the U.S. Arctic that there’s just a lack of demand from the
mainstream for that type of cruise,” St. James said.¶ While the Arctic lacks deepwater ports and the U.S.
has only two working ice breakers, better maritime infrastructure would not really boost shipping or
tourism , St. James says, although miners told the GAO they could use a new dock.¶ “Right now the zinc
that the Red Dog Mine has is lighter than copper, so the copper industry would need a deeper water
port but officials told us that they were not prepared to pay for that type of … infrastructure,” St. James
said.¶ Admiral Thomas Ostebo, commander of the Coast Guard in Alaska, says he agrees with the GAO
report and the cautionary note it strikes on building maritime infrastructure.¶ “Based on what we know
now … it’s too early to tell, what infrastructure we need where we would need it and how big it
should be,” Ostebo said.¶ Get those answers wrong and you waste a lot of money. Ostebo says the
perceived need for more icebreakers goes up and down, but the Coast Guard is in the very early stages
of possibly acquiring a new one. Meanwhile, though, Ostebo says the clearest need in Arctic waters is
for things like better maps and charts, improved communication technology and new¶ environmental
surveys.
Topicality
1NC – Must be Civilian
A. Interpretation - Non-military means they can’t be associated with the armed
forces in any way
Oxford Dictionaries, 14 (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/non-military)
non-military
Line breaks: non-military
Pronunciation: /nɒnˈmɪlɪt(ə)ri /
ADJECTIVE
Not belonging to, characteristic of, or involving the armed forces; civilian:
the widespread destruction of non-military targets
B. Violation – Using the Army Corps of Engineers in a non-combat role isn’t nonmilitary because it still operates within military structure
Brown, 12 - PhD Thesis. SOAS, University of London (Sylvia, Youths in non-military roles in an armed
opposition group on the Burmese-Thai border. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/15634)
a) Definition of key terms
The term ‘youth’ is understood in this study to be a socially constructed emic term which, like all social
constructions, is not static, but continually re-defined by society based on the social context of the time.
The term ‘non-military’ is used here to refer to roles which are not located within army or militia
structures. Since roles within military structures involve both combat and non-combat roles (army
cooks, porters, signallers and engineers, for example ), the term ‘non-combat’ can be used to refer to
ancillary roles within a military, which are not the focus of this study. This study is concerned with
participants outside the armed wing of an armed opposition group entirely, for instance, within its
administrative apparatus or mass organisations.
C. Voting issue –
1. Limits – allowing the military explodes the literature base and our research burdens – there are
dozens of noncombat roles like anti-piracy, counterterrorism or counternarcotics that could all
facilitate development – it could be its own topic
2. Predictability – their interpretation makes the word ‘non-military’ meaningless – if military only
means formal combat roles, ‘exploration’ and ‘development’ are incoherent in that context.
2nc – Must be Civilian
They’re a non-aggressive use of the military – that’s substantially broader than ‘nonmilitary’ – international law establishes a brightline
Benko et al, 85 – served as the legal adviser to the German Delegation in the UN Committee on the
Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (UNCOPUOS) from 1979-2013; teaches space law & policy at Aachen
University of Applied Sciences (Faculty of Aerospace Engineering)(Marietta, Space Law in the United
Nations, p. 176)
The vast literature on the subject shows, in space law, two major interpretations of'peaceful': that of
non-military and that of non-aggressive53. In international law 'non-military’ is defined as the
prohibition to use outer space for military activities in times of peace, whereas 'non-aggressiveness'
refers to the permission to use at least partial military precautions. The term 'non-aggressiveness'
includes the possibility to apply military activities in outer space law-fully as long as those activities do
not aim at direct attack in the sense of the United Nations definition of 'aggression'.
The concept of non-aggressiveness is, from the political point of view, therefore a much broader one
than the non-military one : it permits among other things almost all present activities in outer space
such as those of 'spy' satellites, interceptor satellites, remote sensing satellites of a certain type as well
as laser beam experiments and the use of nuclear power in outer space.
At this point it begins to be difficult for those among us who are in favour of peace on Earth as well as in
the rest of outer space, because many outer space activities, scientific or not, have up to now been
executed by military personnel*; so that, if we had to get rid of the 'non-military', this would mean
that space research as it stands would become impossible. But it would be difficult, if not impossible,
to discontinue space research, the more so since international law, and, to a smaller degree space law,
do not forbid the use of outer space for military purposes.
Including military operations other than war makes ‘non-military’ meaningless and
explodes the topic
Stepanova, 2 - Candidate of Historical Sciences (E.A., Military Thought: A Russian Journal of Military
Theory and Strategy, “MILITARY OPERATIONS OTHER THAN WAR (THE U.S. VIEW)”
http://eastviewpress.net/Files/MT_FROM%20THE%20ARCHIVES_No.%203_2010_small.pdf)
The term “operations other than war”* itself is formulated by the rule of contraries, stressing their
specifics as opposed to conventional military operations. The change of terminology was also supposed
to symbolize the difference of the new concept, which placed a special thrust on the non-military
character of humanitarian, peacekeeping, and other suchlike operations, from the 1970s-1980s theory
of low-intensity conflicts where they were regarded as less intensive military operations. The concept of
operations other than war is by definition rather blurry : In U.S. society itself, there are plenty of
versions of their definition and classification, as reflected in the relevant documents by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, the Department of Defense, U.S. Army field manuals, and so forth.2 The U.S. military doctrine
specifies the following main types of operations other than war:
Humanitarian operations in crisis zones that for their part include the following: assistance in natural
disasters and other emergencies (say, man-made disasters); assistance to refugees and displaced
persons; ensuring the security of humanitarian operations (facilitating access for international
humanitarian organization and service officers to disaster areas, and protection of humanitarian
personnel, columns of refugees and areas of their temporary accommodation, humanitarian aid convoys
and depots as well as seaports and airports used to deliver humanitarian aid); and technical support—
say, in “humanitarian mine-clearing” (not directly connected with military necessity).
Peace support operations: peacekeeping operations, contingent on consent by the belligerents to the
presence of peacekeeping forces as well as non-use of force to the extent possible, even in selfdefense—say, the UN operation in Cyprus (since 1964) or Cambodia (1991-1992 and 1992-1993); and
peace enforcement operations, with none of the aforementioned limitations—e.g., NATO operations in
Bosnia (since 1995) and Kosovo (since 1999).
Counterinsurgency and nation assistance (assistance in creating local (national) security agencies—
training, arming, technical and information support; humanitarian and other non-emergency assistance,
etc.).
Support for insurgency (guerrilla) movements in other countries (support by the U.S. military-political
leadership for the mujahedin in Afghanistan in 1979-1989).
Noncombatant evacuation operations in zones of conflict or man-made disaster (e.g., 1991 operations
to evacuate U.S. and other citizens from Somalia and Zaire).
Sanctions enforcement (e.g., the 1993 operation along the Haitian coast) and no-fly zone
enforcement—in Iraq (since 1992) and in Bosnia (since 1993).
Show of force (patrolling by U.S. Air Force of insurgency bases in the course of a coup attempt in the
Philippines in 1989).
Non-combat operations also include short-term actions to deliver pinpoint strikes, controlling
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms control (inspections), and interagency military
contacts.3
Although U.S. military doctrine provides for military participation in operations other than war mainly
abroad, it allows for the use of armed forces in operations other than war also domestically. This
includes support for civilian authorities—in dealing with strikes, emergencies and natural disasters as
well as in search-and-rescue, humanitarian, and other operations; law enforcement agencies—in
restoring public order (in the event of mass riots), protection of sensitive installations (e.g., electric
power and water intake stations, transport and communication nodes, and so forth) as well as in
counterdrug and counterterrorism operations.
Whereas some types of operations other than war provide for the use of force (say, peace
enforcement), others (humanitarian or “traditional” peacekeeping operations) do not. Oftentimes both
types of operation are conducted simultaneously: Humanitarian operation combined with peace
enforcement (as in Bosnia, Kosovo, etc.) is becoming standard practice. Finally, operations other than
war can be both multilateral (multinational) and unilateral—i.e., conducted by one or several countries.
The most common types of operations other than war are peacekeeping and humanitarian operations.
For all the diversity of operations other than war, they have something in common, which sets them
apart from military (combat) operations per se—namely, their predominantly political character.
Regardless of the role that armed forces play in an operation other than war, it serves above all political,
not military, tasks and objectives. Although military operations are in the final analysis also dictated by
political considerations, in operations other than war, political considerations prevail over all other
considerations. These operations are designed not to achieve military victory, but to avert, limit, and
settle conflicts; keep the peace and provide support to civilian authorities in internal crises; maintain
and assert influence in a particular region, and so forth—naturally, in accordance with national
interests.4 They do not include such goals as effective engagement or physical elimination of an
adversary; they are called upon to, among other things, create conditions for electoral victory by local
political forces loyal to the “international community” or national authorities. Operations other than war
are literally permeated with political interests and considerations on all levels while their objectives are
always limited (that is to say, are not related to the vital interests of participating countries) and can
change often and quickly—contingent on the prevailing situation. Although in theory, specific tasks
addressed by armed forces at a particular stage of an operation (say, forcible separation of belligerents)
should be subordinated to its general political tasks, in practice it is often the case that political
considerations not only do not coincide with military needs at given moment but even are in conflict
with them.
Alaska CP
1NC
1. CP Text: Alaska should fund the development of deep-water Arctic ports in the
Beaufort and Chukchi seas on its North Coast
2. Alaska can do the counterplan independently – it already has and maintains a
deep water port
Port of Alaska ’14 (Port of Alaska, official website of the Port of Anchorage, Port of Anchorage,
Alaska's Port, 2014, http://www.portofalaska.com/)
The Port of Anchorage (POA) is a deep-water port located in Anchorage, Alaska with 4 bulk carrier
berths and two petroleum berths. The Port of Anchorage is an enterprise department under the
Municipality of Anchorage. As an enterprise, the Port is distinguished from other types of municipal
departments, largely because it creates enough revenue to support its operations along with paying
annual fees to the municipality. The Port Director is appointed by the Mayor and reports to the
Municipal Manager. In many ways, despite its enterprise distinction, the Port acts as a standard
municipal department with the Assembly approving the annual budget and with contract services,
financial support and other day-to-day activities managed by the appropriate municipal department and
subject to all municipal code.
Natives Updates
Oil spills are the single worst thing for an interconnected community like those of
Alaskan natives – it disrupts deep ecological connections which hurt every facet of
their lives
(EVOS = exxon valdez oil spill)
J. Steven Picou and Cecelia G. Martin. April, 2007. Department of Sociology, Anthropology and
Social Work ¶University of South Alabama “Long-Term Community Impacts of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill:
¶Patterns of Social Disruption and Psychological Stress ¶ Seventeen Years after the Disaster”
http://www.arlis.org/docs/vol1/B/243478793.pdf
Communities directly impacted by the EVOS derive their economic and cultural base ¶ from the local
biophysical environment. As such, they are unique communities in that they are ¶ intimately linked to
the natural environment, that is, they are “renewable resource communities” ¶ (RRCs) (Picou and Gill
1996:6). RRCs are defined as “a population of individuals who live ¶ within a bounded area and whose
primary cultural, social and economic existences are based on ¶ the harvest and use of renewable natural
resources.” The social structure of these communities ¶ are based on mediating symbolic
interpretations and resource exchange between culture and the ¶ biophysical environment. Toxic
contamination from the EVOS severed many traditional ¶ relationships between these renewable
resource communities and seasonal harvest activities. ¶ Viewed from the ecological-symbolic
framework in environmental sociology, this intrusion of ¶ contamination altered residents’ perception
of “lifescape,” or personal safety and security within ¶ their immediate biophysical environment,
resulting in social disruption, psychological stress and ¶ loss of institutional trust (Kroll-Smith and
Couch 1993; Edelstein 1988; Erikson 1994; ¶ Freudenburg 1997). ¶ Picou and Marshall (2002:302-303)
have refined the scope of the ecological-symbolic ¶ framework to include “resource-dependency
theory,” that is, rather than focusing on invisible, ¶ chronic risks to human health, concern is directed to
“threats to natural resources which ¶ undermine” the economic and cultural linkages of RRCs to their
biophysical environment. ¶ These linkages include resource harvests that are economically structured
on a subsistence or ¶ cash basis and culturally significant because values, behaviors and traditional
knowledge (Picou ¶ 3and Gill 1996). Economically, a wide variety of work roles in RRCs were negatively
impacted ¶ by the EVOS. Not only were commercial fishermen impacted, but many support
occupations ¶ such as deck-hands, net-menders, cannery workers, electronic specialists and other
types of boatrepair occupations were severely disrupted and/or eliminated. The fact that such RRCs
are often ¶ geographically isolated and are characterized by little occupational diversification makes
the ¶ impacts of resource contamination even more severe. ¶ Cultural linkages to the biophysical
environment are particularly salient for subsistence ¶ harvest of Alaska Natives, but are also relevant
for non-Native residents of fishing communities. ¶ Traditional cultural values of Alaska Natives are
intimately linked to the seasonal harvests of ¶ salmon, clam, seal and other marine wildlife. Such
subsistence harvests provide a collective ¶ value set that links spiritual themes, conceptions of self
and traditional knowledge and seasonal ¶ rituals and behaviors to the biophysical environment.
Subsistence harvests were severely ¶ disrupted by the EVOS, severing the cultural infrastructure of
Alaska Natives from the ecology, ¶ thereby producing negative impacts to cultural traditions and
meaningful seasonal behavior (Fall ¶ and Field 1996; Dyer et al. 1993; Dyer 1993). Such impacts from the
massive ecological ¶ contamination and destruction of ecological resources resulted in “collective
trauma” for Alaska ¶ Natives, thereby generating a host of pathological behaviors (Palinkas et al.
1992; 1993; Picou et ¶ al. 1992; Russell et al. 1996; Dyer 1993; Dyer et al. 1992).
Bering Straits Native Corporation approves port development- brings commerce to the
region- reaction to proposed Port Clarence proves
BSNC 14 (Bering Straits Native Corporation, they represent Alaskan native groups, “Port Clarence”,
http://beringstraits.com/northriver/wb/pages/port-clarence.php)
Bering Straits Native Corporation completed an economic feasibility analysis of Port Clarence, a natural deep-water port located on the Bering
Strait near the 50-mile-wide expanse between Russia and Alaska. The analysis was completed by economic and engineering consultants familiar
with arctic maritime needs, and determined that development of Port Clarence would be economically feasible if development occurred in
conjunction with development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. The study determined that port development can be viably achieved with
private investment and that Port Clarence would be an ideal staging area for oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. BSNC
determined that a basic deep-water port and man-camp at Port Clarence could be operational within four years of oil and gas industry decision
to pursue resource development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf. Development of Port Clarence would occur with minimal dredging, minor
marine disturbance, little impact to subsistence harvests, and no required maintenance dredging. Furthermore, to support the report's concept
of private development, BSNC has been approached by numerous private entities interested in partnering in financing development of Port
Clarence. "The growing potential of the arctic is a high priority for us," said BSNC President & CEO Gail Schubert. "I believe that in addition to
supporting oil and gas industry needs, Port Clarence is going to positively contribute to sustainable economic growth in the BSNC region." BSNC
management is pursuing title to Point Spencer. BSNC selected land on Point Spencer, commonly called Port Clarence, in 1976 for conveyance
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act should the lands become available. Point Spencer was traditionally used by local residents and
served as the venue for an annually occurring indigenous, inter-continental, trade fair.