OCS AFF
Drilling
1ac – inherency
Oil search green lit in the Atlantic OCS, but 2017 moratorium prevents any drilling
Michael Wines 2/27/14 “U.S. Moves Toward Atlantic Oil Exploration, Stirring Debate Over Sea Life”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/us/us-moves-toward-atlantic-oil-exploration-stirring-debateover-sea-life.html?_r=1
The Interior Department opened the door on Thursday to the first searches in decades for oil and gas off the
Atlantic coast, recommending that undersea seismic surveys proceed, though with a host of safeguards to shield marine life from much of
their impact.¶ The recommendation is likely to be adopted after a period of public comment and over objections by
environmental activists who say it will be ruinous for the climate and sea life alike.¶ The American Petroleum Institute called
the recommendation a critical step toward bolstering the nation’s energy security, predicting that oil and gas
production in the region could create 280,000 new jobs and generate $195 billion in private investment.¶ Activists were livid. Allowing
exploration “could be a death sentence for many marine mammals, and is needlessly turning the Atlantic Ocean into a blast zone,” Jacqueline
Savitz, a vice president at the conservation group Oceana, said in a statement on Thursday.¶ Oceana and other groups have campaigned for
months against the Atlantic survey plans, citing Interior Department calculations that the intense noise of seismic exploration could kill and
injure thousands of dolphins and whales. ¶ But while the assessment released on Thursday repeats those estimates, it also largely dismisses
them, stating that they employ multiple worst-case scenarios and ignore measures by humans and the mammals themselves to avoid harm.¶
Many marine scientists say the estimates of death and injury are at best seriously inflated. “There’s no argument that some of these sounds can
harm animals, but it’s blown out of proportion,” Arthur N. Popper, who heads the University of Maryland’s laboratory of aquatic bioacoustics,
said in an interview. “It’s the Flipper syndrome, or ‘Free Willy.’ ”¶ How the noise affects sea mammals’ behavior in the long term — an issue
about which little is known — is a much greater concern, he said.¶ A formal decision to proceed with surveys would reopen a swath off the
East Coast stretching from Delaware to Cape Canaveral, Fla., that has been closed to petroleum exploration since the early 1980s.¶ Actual
drilling of test wells could not begin until a White House ban on production in the Atlantic expires in 2017,
and even then, only after the government agrees to lease ocean tracts to oil companies, an issue officials
have barely begun to study.¶ The petroleum industry has sunk 51 wells off the East Coast — none of them successful enough to begin
production — in decades past. But the Interior Department said in 2011 that 3.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 312 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas could lie in the exploration area, and nine companies have already applied for permits to begin surveys.¶ President Obama
committed in 2010 to allowing oil and gas surveys along the same stretch of the Atlantic, and the
government had planned to lease tracts off the Virginia coast for exploration in 2011. But those plans collapsed after the
Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster in April 2010, and the government later banned activity in the area
until 2017.
U.S. production levels slowing – no OCS development
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
Total U.S. oil and natural gas production has increased in recent years . However, this was due mostly to r
ising production f rom shale gas and tight oil formations. The dramatic increase in o nshore unconventional oil and
natural development has been a major contributor in increasing U . S . energy security as well as a significant contributor to the economic
recovery in a number of U.S. states. U.S.
offshore oil and natural gas production, predominately from the Gulf of Mexic o, has
recently declined. Currently, there is no oil or natural gas production from the Atlantic OCS . (Figure 6)
Inherency
Federal moratorium freezes leasing and development of oil in the Atlantic OCS
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
Oil and natural gas account for over 60 percent of U.S. primary energy consumption. Oil and natural gas exploration
and
production is also a key driver of economic and employment growth in the United States. Despite the benefits of
oil and natural gas development , a significant portion of the oil and natural gas resources of the United States are
inaccessible to operators , most notably 85 percent of the U.S. outer continental shelf (OCS) . These offshore
areas are inaccessible to operators due to a lack of lease sales by the Federal government or outright
moratoriums. 5 Drilling restrictions in t he Atlantic OCS of the United States were l ifted in 2008 . However, since no Federal lease
sales have occurred, there has been no oil and natural gas development in the Atlantic OCS . A lease sale off of
the coast of Virginia was scheduled for November 2011, but was subsequently canceled. The current 2012 to 2017 schedule of
Federal offshore leasing does not include any proposed leases off of the U.S. Atlantic coast. Therefore
the earliest leasing could begin in the Atlantic OCS , without changing the current leasing schedule,
would be late 2017 . The lack of lease sales in the Atlantic OCS prevents oil and gas operators from
exploring and producing oil and gas from one of the key untapped energy resources in the country.
Allowing safe, well regulated exploration and production from this area would furt her enhance the
nation’s energy security, enhance America’s trade balance, and provide significant employment and
economic benefits both to the affected region as well as the country as a whole.
Solvency
Solvency 1ac
Development of OCS oil jump-starts economic growth and domestic energy
production
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
5. 1 – Conclusions The offshore U.S. oil and natural gas industry is
a vital component to the nation’s energy supply, as
well a significant source of employment, economic activity, and government revenue throughout the
nation . However, large portions of the nations’ federal waters are currently inaccessible to oil and gas
operators, including the Atlantic OCS area which shows strong potential for offshore oil and natural gas
activity. Allowing oil and gas operators access to Atlantic OCS offshore reserves is expected to benefit oil
and natural gas production, employment, the national economy, and government revenue. • If leasing in the
Atlantic OCS began in 2018 and seismic in 2017, annual capital investment and other spending due to offshore oil and
natural gas development would be projected to grow from nearly $7 billion per year in 2025 to nearly $20
billion per year in 2035. Cumulative capital investments and other spending from 2017 to 2035 are projected at about $195 billio n. •
Atlantic coast OCS oil and gas activities could create nearly 80 thousand jobs by 2025, of which nearly 40 thousand
would be in the Atlantic coast s tates. • By 2035, total national employment due to Atlantic OCS oil and gas
exploration and production would reach nearly 280 thousand jobs, with 215 thousand of these jobs in Atlantic coast
states. • Development of the Atlantic coasts’ offshore oil and natural g as reserves would lead to production
of over 1.34 million barrels of oil equivalent per day by 2035. • Atlantic OCS offshore activity would
contribute nearly $6.5 billion per year to the national economy in 2025, with Atlantic coast states receiving contrib
utions of over $3 billion per year . • In 2035 total national contributions to the economy could reach $23.5 billion per year , with Atlantic coast
states receiving combined contributions of $18 billion per year . • Combined
state and federal revenues from bonuses,
rents and royalties are projected to reach about $645 million per year in 2025, with these revenues
projected to grow to nearly $ 12.2 billion per year in 2035. • If a legislated state / f ederal revenue sharing agreement is
enacted, t he Atlantic coast states could see significant gains to their s tate budgets. With a 37.5 percent sharing agreement, s tate revenues are
projected to be around $250 million per year by 2025, with these revenues expected to grow to over $4.5 billion per year by 2035, leading to
further increases in economic activity and employment. 19 If a different revenue perc entage were enacted, projected s tate revenues should
be adjusted proportionally. Under the development scenario put forth by Quest Offshore Resources, it
is clear that the Atlantic OCS
displays significant potential to grow the American economy within a multitude of industries and
locations. Allowing access to the Atlantic OCS for oil and gas exploration and production activities is
likely to lead to large capital investments and operational spending by oil and gas operators to
develop the ar eas reserves. This spending would likely lead to large increases in employment and
economic activity both in the directly affected states and nationally. Additionally, this activity is
projected to lead to a large increase in domestic energy production and the royalties plus other
revenues received are expected to lead to healthy increases in revenues to state and federal
governments.
Significant oil production would come online quickly
IER 09 (2/11/09, “Offshore Energy Exploration: Myth vs. Fact” Institute for Energy Research)
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/02/11/offshore-energy-exploration-myth-vs-fact-2/
Further, while
there may be areas along the Atlantic coast without the significant build-out of
infrastructure needed to facilitate quick energy production, other currently unexplored areas do have
that infrastructure in place, such as the eastern Gulf of Mexico. No serious observer has ever suggested
that it would take anywhere close to ten years to access those energy resources and deliver them to American
consumers. Furthermore, in places like California, where an infrastructure is already in place and the local
community supports offshore exploration, those resources could be available in a significantly shorter
period of time.
Solvency – OCS – Oil Production/Econ
OCS development dramatically increases oil production, jobs, and overall growth
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
This report quantifies the significant potential benefits to the U.S. economy that would stem from
opening the Atlantic o uter c ontinental s helf to oil and natural gas exploration. Federal offshore lease sales
under existing U . S . law would be expected to lead to high levels of offshore oil and natural gas activity.
This activity would require large amounts of investment and operational spending by oil and gas operators, an estimated $195 billion
cumulative between 2017 and 2035, w hich would be primarily spent inside the U . S . and the Atlantic coast states. If seismic activity were to
begin in 2017 and lease sales in 2018, first production could be expected as early as 2026. By 2035, offshore oil and natural gas
development could produce an incremental 1.3 million barrels of oil equivalent per day (MMboe/d) , generate
nearly 280,000 jobs , contribute up to $23.5 billion per year to the U.S. economy, and generate $ 51 billion
in cumulative government revenue (Table 1), Most of the benefit s would be accrued to states along the east c oast (Table 2) but
the economic impacts would be felt throughout the U.S. Th e amount of revenue accrued to s tate governments would
be dependent on legislated federal/s tate sharing agreements. 1
ADV Economy – production
ADV Economy 1ac – production
Plan is key to economic growth – we will isolate 4 internal links
FIRST – unemployment
Despite a small drop in the unemployment level the pace is NOT fast enough to relieve
the jobless backlog
Nelson D. Schwartz April 4 2014 (1995 graduate of the University of Chicago - studied Russian and
American history, covers economy and economics for the The New York Times) “Hiring Rises, but
Number of Jobless Stays High”, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/business/economy/jobs-report-for-march.html?_r=0
Employers are hiring at a more aggressive pace again after a winter cold snap, but the pace of job gains is only
slowly making up for years of lost ground in the labor market.¶ Nearly five years after the end of the Great
Recession, the total number of private sector jobs is finally back to where it was as the downturn began in early 2008, the Labor
Department reported on Friday.¶ But that level is still far below what is needed to fully accommodate the
millions of people who have joined the work force since then , or relieve the backlog of jobless workers
anytime soon .¶ Still, the addition of 192,000 jobs last month, all from private employers, represented an uptick from the anemic rate of
job creation recorded at the turn of the year. That encouraged optimists, who foresee a slight strengthening as the wintry weather in many
parts of the country in late 2013 and early 2014 yields to a more inviting spring.¶ In addition, while the unemployment rate remained flat at
6.7 percent in March, an increase in the number of Americans looking for work also offered up some modest hope that better times could lie
ahead in 2014. So too did an upward revision in the number of jobs that government statisticians estimate were added in January and
February.¶ “We’ve gotten back to where we were before the winter slowdown in terms of job creation — as well as where we expect to be
going forward,” said Dean Maki, chief United States economist at Barclays. “This gets us back on trend.”¶ Statistically speaking, the estimated
rate of job creation in March was nearly identical to the average monthly gain of 183,000 jobs recorded over the last 12 months.¶ The
latest numbers are likely to be revised significantly as more information flows into the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Even so, they suggest
that the economy is not achieving what economists call escape velocity, something that policy makers have long sought.
Neither is it falling into the rut some pessimists feared was developing early in 2014.¶ “Growth-wise, in terms of the economy and the labor
market, we think 2014 will look a lot like 2013 and 2012 did,” said Guy Berger, United States economist at RBS Securities. “In all likelihood, we
will see average monthly job gains of a little north of 200,000 this year.Ӧ While that
pace of job creation would gradually
bring the unemployment rate down, it would take until nearly the end of the decade before the labor
market returned to the level of robustness that prevailed in the mid-2000s, let alone the 1990s.¶ Experts
with the Hamilton Project, a research group that is associated with the Brookings Institution in Washington, estimate that at the
current rate it will take until early 2019 for the economy to accommodate new entrants into the work force
and get back to where it was before the recession. While the Labor Department data showed that private payrolls in March
stood at 116.09 million — compared with 115.98 million as the recession began in January 2008 — the size of the American work force has
jumped by more than two million over the same period.¶ Moreover, even
as people joined the work force, millions of other
Americans dropped out of it entirely in the last five years, having given up the search for work, and the question of just
how many of them will ever return to full- or even part-time jobs is now being hotly debated in economic circles.¶ The participation rate did
edge up in March as more workers returned to the labor market amid increased openings, a central reason the unemployment rate remained
flat even as a survey of households suggested that nearly half a million people found new jobs last month. The
return of Americans
to the job hunt not only underscores just how much slack remains in the economy but also means that the unemployment
rate is unlikely to keep falling as sharply as it has in the last two years. That’s because people who are again looking for work are
counted as unemployed, while those who have given up and dropped out of the labor force are not.
Slow employment rates makes the US economy vulnerable to outside shocks –
domestic oil production ONLY way to provide enough jobs at a fast pace
Morici 12 (Peter, economist and professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland,
8/3/12, “Unemployment Rises, Hundreds of Thousands Quit Looking” Fox)
http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2012/08/03/unemployment-rises-hundreds-thousands-quitlooking/
The financial crisis in Europe and mounting problems in China’s economy worry U.S. businesses about a second major recession and discourage
new hiring. The
U.S. economy continues to expand at a torturously slow pace , and is quite vulnerable to
shock waves from crises in Europe and Asia. Factoring in those discouraged adults and others
working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is 15%. Prospects for
substantially lowering the headline unemployment rate are slim, because so many folks who left the labor force would likely return if economic
conditions improved. The economy would have to add about 13.3 million jobs over the next three years — about 370,000 each month — to
bring unemployment down to 6%. Growth in the range of 4-5% is necessary to accomplish that. Growth is weak and jobs are in jeopardy,
because temporary tax cuts, stimulus spending, large federal deficits, expensive but ineffective business regulations, and costly health care
mandates do not address structural problems holding back dynamic growth and jobs creation — the huge trade deficit and dysfunctional
energy policies. Oil and trade with China account for nearly the entire $600 billion trade deficit. Dollars sent abroad that do not return to
purchase U.S. exports, are lost purchasing power. Consequently, the
U.S. economy is expanding at 2% a year instead of
the 5% pace that is possible after emerging from a deep recession and with such high unemployment.
Without prompt efforts to produce more domestic oil , redress the trade imbalance with China, relax burdensome
business regulations, and curb health care mandates and costs, the
U.S. economy cannot grow and create enough jobs .
OCS drilling would create millions of new jobs
Mason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance, University of Illinois, February 2011, “The Economic Contribution
of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies” American
Energy Alliance) http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf
An economic
expansion tied to increased OCS resource production would also create millions of new
jobs both in the extraction industry and in other sectors that serve as suppliers or their employees. The
analysis below estimates employment increases that can be expected from opening up previously unavailable OCS Planning Areas. As before,
effects are estimated for coastal states and the nation using the applicable BEA multipliers. Following that analysis, the paper compares the
types of jobs that will be created in terms of the wage structure and seasonality relative to other existing jobs in coastal states. 1. BEA Multiplier
Analysis As above, the analysis estimates both the immediate and the total economic effects associated with increased OCS oil and gas
production. Using the investment
multipliers (denominated in job-years per $1 million change in final demand) in Table A3 and total
investment costs in Table 3, the expected coastal state changes in employment are represented in Table 9. 51 The annual increase in
coastal state employment from initial investments in previously unavailable OCS planning areas and
additional refining capacity is estimated to be 185,320 fulltime jobs per year. Again, this number does not
consider the secondary effects of investment in productive capacity and refining to other U.S. states. To estimate the total increase in
employment tied to production in previously unavailable OCS Planning Areas, the BEA’s final-demand employment multiplier is applied to the
estimated total resource value estimates in Table 4. The
total increase in U.S. employment from the investment
phase is approximately 271,570 full-time jobs per year. Applying the BEA multipliers to the estimated production value
results in the employment estimates in Table 10. 52 According to Table 10, approximately 870,000 coastal state jobs would be created in
addition to the jobs created during the initial investment phase. Again, the state BEA multipliers do not account for increases in employment
outside of the target state. As a result, secondary
jobs created in one state based on OCS production in another
state are omitted from the totals in Table 10. The total increase in U.S. employment in all states that
results from increased OCS production is estimated by applying the overall U.S. employment
multiplier (10.4152 job-years per $1 million) to the total value of the additional OCS resources ($3,427,667,487,135),
suggesting that approximately 35,700,000 total job-years would be created over the course of
production in newly opened OCS Planning Areas. If we again assume a 30 year production horizon,
approximately 1,190,000 jobs would be sustained for the entire production period, approximately 340,000 of
which are secondary jobs outside the coastal regions.
And, drilling has a multiplier effect that will boost our economy significantly
Mason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance, University of Illinois, February 2011, “The Economic Contribution
of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies” American
Energy Alliance) http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf
The broadest measure of the incremental effect of increased OCS oil and natural gas extraction is the effect on
total economic output. Output is generally expressed as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures the total
production of goods and services in a given country. The corollary at the state level is known as Gross State Product (GSP). BEA’s final demand
output multipliers can be used to perform two analyses. First, the multipliers are
applied to initial investment costs in Table
the multipliers
3 to determine the likely annual benefits that would accrue in the first years the OCS is open to development. Then,
are applied to the resource value estimates in Table 4 to measure the expected total increase in output over the lifetime of
the projects. Estimates are provided for both coastal states and the U.S., as a whole. In total, the investment and production
phases together can be expected to contribute over $11 trillion in GDP over the project lifespan. Until
OCS production begins, onshore communities will realize only the benefits associated with offshore
investment. These benefits take two forms: (1) the development of the offshore facilities themselves
and (2) the expansion of onshore refining capacity. These two effects, taken together, provide a rough
approximation of the additional output that would be created by allowing greater access to offshore
resources. Using the investment estimates from Table 3 and Table 6 and BEA multipliers in Table A3 above, the estimated increase in
coastal state economic output is presented in Table 7. The figures in Table 7 only provide the increase in output that is generated in the same
state as the increase in production. As
an integrated economy, however, output in one state is tied to output in
other states . For example, Alabama workers building a facility off the Alabama shore might use steel
produced in Illinois and fabricated into pipes in Missouri. These effects may be considered
“secondary” effects because they spread from one state to other states. Using the individual multiplier for
Alabama would thus under-report the total effect associated with production off the coast of Alabama. Using the total U.S.
multipliers (2.2860 for refining and 2.3938 for extraction), the total increase in U.S. output is estimated to be about
$0.5 trillion, or approximately $73 billion per year for the first seven years the OCS is open. For
comparative purposes, a $73 billion stimulus amounts to approximately 0.5 percent of total U.S.
output (GDP) per year. 49 Of course, the investment expenditures and resulting output estimated above is only made to facilitate oil and gas
extraction. Once extraction begins, additional economic activity continues for the lifetime of the oil and
natural gas resources. Applying the BEA multipliers for “Oil and Gas Extraction” in Table A3 to the estimates of the total value of the oil
and gas resources in Table 4 yields the total increases to coastal state output from oil and gas extraction in Table 8. Table 8 indicates that
increased OCS oil and gas extraction would yield approximately $192 billion per year in new coastal
state output, or $5.75 trillion over the lifetime of the fields. Because the OCS areas are currently unavailable, the entire
amount — $5.75 trillion — is additional output created by a change in policy allowing resource extraction in additional OCS Planning Areas. To
approximate the total increase in output associated with increasing offshore resource production, including the associated secondary effects,
the overall United States output multiplier is applied (2.3938) to the total value of the applicable OCS resources ($3,427,667,487,135). Note
that the multiplier for the United States captures sec ondary effects, being greater than any of the individual state multipliers. 50 As a result,
the state-by-state analysis in Table 8 misses approximately $2.45 trillion in secondary output. The
total increase in output in the
United States is estimated to total approximately $8.2 trillion or about $273 billion per year, which
amounts to just over two percent of GDP.
SECOND – trade deficits:
Drilling would solve the trade deficit
Sanandaji 12 (Tino, Post-Doc at the University of Chicago and a Research Fellow at the Institute of
Industrial Economics, 5/5/12, “Drill away the Trade Deficit”) http://supereconomy.blogspot.com/2012/05/debate-about-domestic-drilling-has.html
The debate about domestic drilling has focused on the effect on the price of oil. But even
if American domestic energy
production doesn’t reduce oil prices much, it will reduce net imports. Than at least the funds will not
flow out of the country. Following the crash, U.S manufacturing recovered some and the trade deficit declined, in part because the
weak dollar made exports cheaper and in part due to a collapse in domestic demand. This reduced the massive U.S trade deficit. But the
higher price of imported oil has eaten away some of these gains. Today, more than half the U.S trade
deficit is due to net petroleum imports. The trade deficit basically means each year Americans give
away ownership of a piece of the U.S to foreign owners in order to finance more imports than
foreigners bought stuff from you. At best those imports will be used for domestic investment (and even
here the investment could have been financed by Americans), but mainly its used for consumption. This is not a
problem in the standard economic textbook model, just a source of mutual gain, so economists rarely discuss the trade deficit
anymore. But in a more sophisticated framework financial market imperfections, government overborrowing or a bubble in consumer spending may cause the country to under-save. In that case it may
not be in the U.S best long run interest to have foreign rivals like China finance the spending binge
with cheap capital, slowly taking control over much of the U.S economy. The United States has massive amounts
of gas and non-conventional oil, probably more than Saudi Arabia. Drilling is a straightforward, fool-proof way to reduce
or even reverse the outward flow of capital.
Trade deficit reduction is critical to sustained growth
Tonelson 11 (Alan, Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation, July 29,
2011, “Trade Deficit Reduction -- America's Only Way Out”,
http://americaneconomicalert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=4658
This morning’s dismaying report from the government on gross domestic product confirms that economic
growth is virtually
dead in the water. It also reveals that none of the recovery strategies dominating the headlines, and none of the
issues being debated during the current budget crisis, by themselves can generate desperately needed output and
hiring without boosting America’s already dangerous levels of debt. Literally trillions of dollars of stimulus from the
Fed and the last two administrations obviously have flunked this test since the crisis began. And major tax cuts plus more Fed stimulus flunked
it in the pre-crisis years, producing the weakest U.S. expansion until the present. The message to the President and Congress, and Republicans,
Democrats, and Tea Partyers alike couldn’t be clearer: America’s
damaged economy will never be healed unless
recovery programs emphasize slashing the nation’s still-massive and chronic trade deficits. Greatly
narrowing the gap between exports and imports represents the only realistic way to foster growth without
artificially boosting anemic domestic demand further – whether through more government spending or more tax cuts. As
a result, it’s the realistic way to promote output and job-creation without plunging the economy even
deeper into the red financially. The new government report revised the economy’s growth figures going back to 2003, and thus
included an update on U.S. performance from the last recession’s official onset at the end of 2007. Its verdict: the downturn, which officially
ended in mid-2009, was considerably worse than originally estimated. Rather than growing at an average annual rate of 0.1 percent between
2007 and 2010 (after inflation), the government now says the economy shrunk by an average annual rate of 0.3 percent in real terms. This
year’s “soft patch” in growth, moreover, is looking more worrisome, too, as a result of the revisions. Rather than expanding at a 1.9 percent
annualized rate in real terms during the first quarter of 2011, growth was only 0.4 percent – barely measurable. Preliminary figures for secondquarter annualized growth were better, but still sickly at 1.3 percent. Real growth for 2010 was revised upward slightly, from 2.9 to 3 percent.
But the new data also showed that the second half of last year saw a sharper-than-reported slowdown in real growth, with the fourth quarter
number being slashed from 3.1 percent to 2.3 percent. As this morning’s report showed, a
greater worsening of the trade
deficit than originally estimated dragged down first quarter growth this year much more than either
weaker consumption, business investment, or government spending. Although the new data peg export growth
during the quarter at an annualized 7.9 percent rather than 7.3 percent, they also show a much greater rise in imports – from an annualized 5.1
percent increase to 8.3 percent According to preliminary figures, moreover, the
trade deficit’s shrinkage made the private
sector‘s biggest contribution to the modest growth speed-up in the second quarter. But these new
government numbers also demonstrate that the way the trade deficit is narrowed matters greatly.
Since the economic crisis broke out in the summer of 2007, the only significant progress on this front
has come when domestic demand has nosedived, and sharply depressed imports. Trade deficit reduction
strategies must emphasize replacing imports with domestically produced goods and services on a massive scale. Only this way can
growth be accelerated without inflating current levels of demand – and indebtedness. In fact, trade
deficit reduction can boost growth even if domestic demand falls. Increasing U.S. exports, as President Obama has
proposed, can help of course. But as the U.S. Business and Industry Council keeps reminding him, export
expansion per se can only increase growth and job-creation on net if it’s great enough to reduce the
trade deficit. And given today’s world of still-formidable foreign trade barriers and slowing growth,
that’s clearly a pipe dream. These conditions, of course, also further undermine the weak case for the Colombia, Korea, and Panama
trade agreements as American growth and employment bonanzas. Bottom line: Without tight curbs on imports, such as those the
Council has long urged, the U.S. economy will be stuck in a slow-growth/high-unemployment mode for years.
And that’s the most optimistic scenario.
THIRD – price volatility
Increasing domestic oil production mitigates the impact of price volatility
Weidenmier 10 (Mark, adjunct scholar at AEI, 4/1/10, “Drill, Baby, Drill” American Enterprise
Institute) http://www.aei.org/article/energy-and-the-environment/conventional-energy/drill-baby-drill/
Increasing U.S. domestic petroleum will not likely lower world oil prices--most experts believe that U.S. oil reserves
are small in relation to the rest of the world. But it will help the U.S. offset the negative economic impact of a
large increase in oil prices. For example, the economies of Alaska and Texas fare much better than nonenergy producing states when oil prices rise by 50% or 100%. Oil- and natural-gas-producing states
experience smaller increases in unemployment and a smaller decline in non-farm employment during
a peak oil shock. The reason for this is simple; the size of the energy sector expands during a period
when oil prices rise while the rest of the economy shrinks. The growing energy sector helps prop up
other areas in the economy by increasing the demand for goods and services in non-oil industries.
Price volatility can collapse the U.S. economy – biggest internal link
Conway 13--former commandant of the United States Marine Corps and president of the Marine
Corps University (General James, As the senior operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was the
principle advisor on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the president of the United States, the National
Security Council and the secretary of defense, “GEN. JAMES CONWAY: Oil dependence limits U.S.
military options,”, July 29, http://rare.us/story/gen-james-conway-oil-dependence-limits-u-s-militaryoptions/)
Oil markets are also highly volatile because there is very little flexibility at any point in time. In a very real sense,
oil dependence tethers the fate of our economy to the vacillations of the global oil market. Political
instability, terrorism, war – even weather events – in a far-flung corner of the globe can send
shockwaves that affect Americans at home. Because we lack substitutes to oil (particularly in the transportation sector,
which relies on oil for 93 percent of its fuel), U.S. consumers and businesses have no choice but to pay higher energy prices when the volatile
price of oil moves higher. Needless to say, being
forced to pay higher energy costs is extremely damaging to our
economy. It breaks budgets, costs jobs and even worsens our fiscal nightmare because it dampens
overall economic growth. It is no coincidence that every U.S. recession for the past 40 years has coincided
with a spike in oil prices . This economic vulnerability directly weakens national security. Because of
America’s dependence on oil, the U.S. military is forced to shoulder the tremendous burden – both in
dollars and military resources – of guarding against oil supply disruptions across the globe.
Fourth – manufacturing
Despite headlines the US manufacturing sector is at a crossroads – NO political or
business motivation to support renewed investment – risk collapse
Mike Collins (Author, Saving American Manufacturing) 10/18/2013 “Are We in a Manufacturing
Renaissance?”, http://www.pddnet.com/blogs/2013/10/are-we-manufacturing-renaissance
Since the last article there have been even more optimistic articles about American manufacturing with titles like:¶ “Comeback: Why the U.S.
Sits at the Brink of a New Boom”- PBS NEWSHOUR¶ “Made in the USA: Is America Making a Manufacturing Comeback? Huffington Post¶
“Made in the USA” -TIME MAGAZINE¶ “U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Begin the Long March Back From China” Business News¶ The
media has
jumped on the American Manufacturing story because it is a good story and it projects hope in a poor economy.
But one must look deeper into the critical factors that drive manufacturing to see a realistic picture.¶ 1.
Manufacturing jobs and secondary jobs – If job creation is a good measurement of success then we have barely
turned the corner . Since the recession began we have only created 500,000 jobs as of the end of 2012. We have lost almost 6 million
jobs since year 2000, so we need to create millions not thousands of jobs.¶ The latest press release from the Boston Consulting Group is that
reshoring will bring back 2.5 to 5 million jobs by year 2020.[1] Their projection is based on a survey of the future intentions of manufacturers
larger then $1 billion in sales. But there is a big “catch”. According to many other surveys these manufacturers don’t want any of the low skilled
employees that were laid off – they want multi-skilled workers which require a big training investment, which so far they have avoided.¶ A
second problem is that they may bring the product line or the production operation back but it doesn’t necessarily mean jobs. These large
manufacturers have done very well in lowering labor costs and eliminating jobs with automation such as 3-d printing, robots, advanced
software and a host of other labor saving devices and machines.¶ A third problem is that the large companies may decide to bring jobs back
but they will want lower wages. A good example is General Electric who decided to bring back their water heaters from China and make them in
their appliance park in Louisville Kentucky¶ But they have implemented a two tier wage system with the union and 70% of the workers make
$13.50 and hour - $8 per hour less then the original wage.¶ And another problem is that large
corporations continue to
offshore jobs. In 2012 General Electric, Honeywell, Delphi Automotive, Eaton Corp, IBM, Hewlett Packard Eli Lilly, Motorola, and Boeing
were only some of the manufacturers sending jobs overseas. You can trace many of the lost jobs through the Trade Adjustment Assistance
program where these companies must make applications for training for the displaced workers. There is a summary of trade Adjustment
applications on the Labor Department database-www.doleta.gov. A summary of these applications this year shows 77 different companies
applying for TAA assistance. The records for 46 of these companies showed 7,883 jobs were off shored.[2]¶ The BCG projection of jobs is about
the potential of reshoring jobs. But there are many reasons why reshoring won’t happen in the numbers projected.¶ 2. Manufacturing
locations – Since year 2000 we have lost 58,000 manufacturing locations in the U.S. If we are about to see a huge reshoring initiative that will
bring back millions of jobs then America will have to immediately expand the supply chain of small and midsize manufacturers to manufacture
the parts. Also if the strategy is all about innovation then one would think there would be an accommodating trend of start-up companies. The
numbers on locations for 2012 have not been released but as of 2011 the number of locations is still declining.¶ 3. Manufacturing R&D – If the
primary strategy of American Manufacturing is innovation through expanded R&D investments, then the total public/private investment in R&D
should be increased from its stable position of 2.5% of GDP per year. To do this the government must increase its contribution to basic research
and direct it more to the physical sciences rather then health care. But there is a little chance this could happen with the current Congress.¶
Second the trend for the huge manufacturers over $1 billion in sales has been to increase spending of part of their R &D budgets overseas
(about 20%).I don’t believe the big manufacturers will reverse these trends in foreign investment of R&D as long as they have production plants
serving foreign markets. I see the chances of increasing overall R&D spending in the U.S. as very slim.¶ 4. Trade Deficit – I view the ongoing
trade deficit problem as the most important factor in creating manufacturing jobs. A new study by the “Economic Policy Institute finds that the
growing trade deficit with China has cost the U.S. billions of dollars in lost wages. In 2011 alone, unbalanced trade with the People’s Republic
resulted in lost wages of $37 billion. The EPI study cites 2.7 million jobs lost between 2001 and 2011 due to the trade gap with China, and over
2.1 million of those jobs were in the manufacturing sector¶ Most people do not understand that the trade deficit is directly connected to
manufacturing jobs. The author of the report Robert E Scott says,”Allowing the U.S. China trade deficit to continue growing would eliminate
many more jobs in manufacturing bedrock of the U.S. economy – and further erode wages of U.S. workers.”[3] But as critical as the trade deficit
problem is, it is largely ignored by the government, media, and big business.¶ 5. Manufacturing Exports - The solution to the problems of
increasing exports is clearly a reliance on manufacturing, because manufactured products have always been 70% of all exports. President
Obama’s goal of doubling exports from $1.56 trillion December 2009 to $3.12 trillion in December 2014. At the end of 2012 we reached $2.2
trillion in exports which is 29% growth, but the problem is that imports are growing faster then exports.¶ Rather than doubling exports, a more
practical goal would be to reduce the trade deficit of $534 billion in 2012 and move toward a surplus. This would require convincing China and
Japan to quit manipulating their currencies, which is a political problem that the administration carefully avoids. Reducing currency
manipulation would not only reduce the trade deficit but would increase manufacturing costs in China and other Asian countries. This could
lead to the projected big increase in reshoring and new jobs in America. But increasing
exports, reshoring and job creation
are based on political decisions and have a low probability of success at this time.¶ 6. Advanced Technology
products -If innovation is the strategy that will allow America to compete in a globalized world, then advanced technology products are the
point of our competitive spear. America has always led the world in innovation with products like robots, semiconductors, personal computers,
the internet and hundreds more. But the idea of invent it here but make it overseas is simply not working to our advantage. We went from a
$30 billion surplus of electronics products to a $56 billion deficit in 10 years. ¶ Offshoring both technology products and R&D as well as the
Asian ability to copy, steal, or learn our new technologies by building the products for U.S. manufacturers is killing our advantage in innovation
and advanced technology products. The only way I see us having an innovation advantage is to convince America’s flagship manufacturers to
bring back their overseas R&D and for government to step up enforcement and protection of our technologies. ¶ 7. Reshoring vs. offshoring –
According to the Hackett Consulting Group, “the number of firms who have actually “reshored” their manufacturing operation to America is
less than 100 so far.”[4] At the Reshoring Summit in Cleveland in March 2013, the leaders said that 50,000 jobs returned to the United States
from 2009 to 2012.” This is approximately 20% of the 500,000 new jobs that have been created. If more than ½ of manufacturers over $1 billion
are planning to bring back production to the U.S. from China to create 5 million new jobs, then reshoring is getting a very slow start.¶ I think
that Boston Consulting Group’s fundamental assumption that reshoring may happen because of rising Chinese labor costs is a marginal
assumption at best. To really get Chinese labor costs up to the point that would get the large American companies to reshore product lines will
probably require forcing the Chinese to quit manipulating their currency by filing a claim with the WTO. But neither the government nor the
large companies are willing to do it.¶ 8. Training and Education – If we assume that millions of new manufacturing jobs could be created and
manufacturers want multi-skilled employees- the big question is how the new employees will be trained? The community college system does a
good job of teaching the basics, but I think what manufacturers really need are journeyman skills that come from long apprentice programs.
With few exceptions this kind of training doesn’t exist in the big companies, and there are 3 big obstacles to create it.¶ The Obama
administration has
committed to revitalize manufacturing by suggesting the development of a $7 billion system of innovation
hubs which includes 25 manufacturing innovation institutes and lowering the tax rates for manufacturers to 25%. But the reality is that
Congress is not in the mood to fund any programs suggested by Obama.¶ The same large companies that
were surveyed about reshoring and bringing back production, have so far been unwilling to invest in long term
training like apprenticeship training. It is difficult to see how they are going to get the multi-skilled employees they will need unless they just
steal them from their suppliers.¶ An even bigger problem is that most surveys I have seen show that young people are not interested in
manufacturing. They are interested in the journeyman electrician program where they train for hundreds of hours but can make $38 per hour
as a journeyman. I think to get bright people into large manufacturing companies is going to take a lengthy apprentice program that pays them
for skills completed and guarantees their employment during the training program. I don’t see this happening because the large American
companies are still in the labor cost reduction mode.¶ 9. Manufacturing is the key to our defense – This is a very critical issue, particularly with
the build up of the Chinese Communist military budget and their goals of being a force in the Pacific. But the problems of espionage, stealing
technologies and sourcing critical components from China can only be addressed by our government. Based on government’s response to these
problems in the last decade, I am not encouraged that anything will change.¶ I enjoy
the happy talk about the future of
manufacturing as much as anyone and would consider it a victory if only 1 million manufacturing jobs were created in the U.S. from
reshoring. But the headlines are about creating 5 million of jobs, doubling exports, continuing to be the innovation leader,
and the re-industrialization of America. Jobs are one measure of manufacturing growth. But , if you look at what is happening
with the trade deficit, imports, training, investment in R&D, loss of advanced technologies, and the protection of our
national defense it is a sobering but more realistic assessment .
Offshore drilling key US manufacturing sector rebound
Ostermayer 11 (Jeff, senior media strategist for the National Association of Manufacturers, 8/5/11,
“Offshore Drilling Critical to Manufacturing Growth” Shopfloor) http://www.shopfloor.org/tag/ocs
Deepwater drilling provides a significant economic impact to the entire general economy as suppliers
and others are impacted when permitting is stalled. A recent study by Northern Economics and the University of
Alaska Anchorage’s Institute of Social Economic Research estimates that as many as 91,500 new jobs would be created
by O uter C ontinental S helf related development and production in Alaska. The study also estimates
that workers in Alaska will benefit with the addition of $62 billion to payrolls and workers in the rest
of the U.S. will see $82 billion added to payrolls. This statistic illustrates the ripple effect of how
drilling in Alaska will impact the economy throughout the nation. The bottom line is that additional
deepwater drilling permitting is vital to our energy security and manufacturers’ global
competiveness and job creation.
Manufacturing is the biggest internal link to the economy
Cooper 08 (Horace Cooper, research fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, 2008
“Making It in America”) http://www.aamfg.org/articles/making-it-america
Why should those who support limited government and liberty care about what happens to manufacturing in America? Because
manufacturing is a crucial component of who we are as a country. As far back as Alexander Hamilton, our founders
understood that America’s merchants and industrialists would shape American society directly by providing jobs and indirectly by
enhancing our nation’s economic might. Today manufacturing continues to play that role as part of a maturing and stable
manufacturing sector. Additionally this key sector of the economy continues to provide Americans with
better jobs and a greater quality of life. And despite what you may think, manufacturing today isn’t a small part
of our economy. It is the key engine . If American manufacturing was its own country, it would have
the world’s 8th largest economy. With a manufacturing output nearly as great as the entire GDP of China and more than the
economies of Australia, Belgium and Brazil combined, "made in America" is more than a slogan, it’s the American way. Yes, America is the
world’s number one manufacturer, its activities accounting for a staggering one-quarter of all
manufacturing on the planet as recently as 2004. As significant as it is worldwide, it is its effects on our economy at home which are
more noteworthy. Domestic manufacturing is vital to the rest of our economy. Nearly 14.5 million
Americans work directly in the manufacturing industry and another 8 million do so in related
industries such as wholesaling and finance. A phenomenon economists refer to as the multiplier effect
causes the growth and expansion in the manufacturing sector to generate significant salutary effects
on other sectors resulting in more jobs, investment and innovation in those sectors as well. Today the
manufacturing sector is responsible for 70 percent of all U.S. private-sector r esearch and d evelopment.
And more than half of all U.S. exports stem from domestic manufacturing. Much of America’s energy
conservation activity is found here as well as American manufacturing is the center for a range of innovative technologies that reduce energy
use and promote a cleaner environment.
Letting this powerful engine slip away would be disastrous.
US growth is key to global economic recovery
Caploe 09 (David, PhD in International political economy from Princeton, “Focus still on America to
lead global recovery,” The Straits Times, 8/2/12)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by
United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The
world has
become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of
economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as
the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the
global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan,
Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the
US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented
benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and
later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep interconnection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively
small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's
ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To
put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six
decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are
critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems
to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so
perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have
pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable
credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies
at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If
the US can't or won't or doesn't
want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is
unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically
any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to
complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the
US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its
economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China,
however, is a poor country, with low per
capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy. There are real
possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful
Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale. Finally,
the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of
the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve
currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without
going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of
exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for
America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the
yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems
that the US has grappled with for decades. Given
all this, the US will remain the engine of global economic
recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis began
Global economic decline causes nuclear war
Ockham Research 08 (Ockham Research, Economic Distress and Geopolitical Risks by: Ockham
Research, Ockham Research Staff November 18, 2008????Ockham Research Ockham Research is an
independent research provider based in Atlanta, Georgia providing security analysis)
The hardship and turmoil which impacted the world during the Great Depression provided fertile ground for the rise of fascist, expansionist
regimes in Germany, Italy and Japan.?Hard times also precluded the Western democracies from a more muscular response in the face of
growing belligerence from these countries.?The United States largely turned inward during the difficult years of the 1930s.?The
end result
was a global war of a size and scale never seen by man (SIC) either before or since.?Economic hardship is distracting. It can
cause nations to turn their focus inward with little or no regard for rising global threats that inevitably build in
tumultuous times.?Authoritarian regimes invariably look for scapegoats to blame for the hardship affecting their populace.?This enables them
to project the anger of their citizenry away from the regime itself and onto another race, country, ideology, etc.??Looking at the world today,
one can certainly envision numerous potential flashpoints that could become problematic in a protracted
economic downturn.?Pakistan, already a hotbed of Islamic extremism and armed with atomic
weapons, has been particularly hard hit by the global economic crisis.?An increasingly impoverished Pakistan will be harder and harder for
its new and shaky democratically-elected government to control.?Should Pakistan’s economic troubles cause its political situation,
spin out of control, this would be a major setback, in the global war on terror.??Russia,
could become increasingly
problematic if faced with a protracted economic downturn.?The increasingly authoritarian and aggressive Russian regime is already
always chaotic, to
whose economy, stock markets and financial system have literally imploded over the past few months,
showing signs of anger projection. Its invasion of Georgia this summer and increasing willingness to confront the West reflect a desire to stoke
the pride and anger of its people against foreign powers?particularly the United States. It is no accident that the, Russians,
announced
a willingness to deploy tactical missile systems?to Kaliningrad the day after Barack Obama?s election in the U.S.?This was a
clear ?shot across the bow? of the new administration and demonstrates Russian willingness to pursue a much more confrontational foreign
policy going forward. Furthermore, the collapse in the price of oil augers poorly for Russia?s economy. The Russian budget reputedly needs oil
at $70 per barrel or higher in order to be in balance. Russian foreign currency reserves, once huge, have been depleted massively over the past
few months by ham-fisted attempts to arrest the slide in both markets and the financial system.Bristling with nuclear weapons and nursing an
ego still badly bruised by the collapse of the Soviet Union and loss of superpower status, an impoverished and unstable Russia would be a
dangerous thing to behold.??China too is threatened by the global economic downturn.?There is no doubt that China
has emerged during the past decade as a major economic power. Parts of the country have been transformed by its meteoric growth. However,
in truth, only about a quarter of the nation’s billion plus inhabitants?those living in the thriving cities on the coast and in Beijing, have truly felt
the impact of the economic boom. Many of these people have now seen a brutal bear market and are adjusting to economic loss and
diminished future prospects.?However, the vast majority of China?s population did not benefit from the economic boom and could become
increasingly restive in an economic slowdown.?Enough
economic hardship could conceivably threaten the stability of
the regime and would more than likely make China more bellicose and unpredictable in its behavior, with
dangerous consequences for the U.S. and the world.
Econ ADV – 2ac overview
The economy is on the brink of a double-dip recession now—only drilling can solve it
by boosting job growth, lowering the trade deficit, rebuilding the manufacturing
sector, and reducing price volatility. Economic decline causes multiple scenarios for
nuclear war—Russia, China, and Pakistan will become unstable in the effect of an
economic collapse and war will ensure—that’s Ockham Research.
Econ ADV – 2ac Impact Calc
Econ decline causes war – all major hotspots will erupt, ensuring war – that’s Ockham
Research
Economic decline causes war – studies prove
Royal, Department of Defense Cooperative threat reduction director, 2010 [Jedediah, Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, p.213-4]
Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant
variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour 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 items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources.Crises couldpotentially
be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist
moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
external armed conflict at a national level. Bloomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Bloomberg & Hess, 2002, p.89) Economic decline has also been linked with
an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, &Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to
external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary
theory’ suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflictsto create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and
Bloomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly
correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater
for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from
office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods
of weak economic
performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in
the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external
conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured
prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Prolonged recession causes war – history proves – collapses the EU and WTO, causes
nationalism and trade and resource wars
John B. Judis 2011, senior editor of The New Republic and Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace, 8/8/11, “Liberals’ Strange Retreat on Government Spending”,
http://www.tnr.com/article/john-judis/93287/obama-administration-economy-recession
The first consideration has to do with the sheer gravity of the situation. What is at stake goes beyond an abstract rate of unemployment, or the
prospect of a Republican White House in 2012, or even the misery of the long-term unemployed. From the beginning, this recession
has
been global. Germany has to take leadership in Europe, but the United States is still the world’s largest economy,
the principal source of consumer and investment demand, and the banking capital of the world. If the
United States fails to revive its economy, and to lead in the restructuring of the international economy, then it’s unlikely
that other economies in the West will pull themselves out of the slump. And as the experience of the
1930s testified, a prolonged global downturn can have profound political and geopolitical
repercussions. In the U.S. and Europe, the downturn has already inspired unsavory, right-wing populist
movements. It could also bring about trade wars and intense competition over natural resources, and
the eventual breakdown of important institutions like European Union and the World Trade
Organization. Even a shooting war is possible . So while the Obama administration would face a severe challenge in trying to
win support for a boost in government spending, failing to do so would be far more serious than the ruckus that Tea Party and Republican
opposition could create over the next year.
EU is key to solve multiple scenarios for extinction
Brunton 01 (John, Deputy – Joint Committee on European Affairs, The Future of the European Union,
10, www.irlgov.ie/committees-02/c-europeanaffairs/future/page1.htm)
As the Laeken Declaration put it, "Europe needs to shoulder its responsibilities in the governance of globalisation" adding that
Europe must exercise its power in order "to set globalisation within a moral framework, in other words to anchor it in solidarity and sustainable
development". 2.6 Only a strong European Union is big enough to create a space, and a stable set of rules,
within which all Europeans can live securely, move freely, and provide for themselves, for their families and for their old age. Individual states
are too small to do that on their own. Only
a strong European Union is big enough to deal with the globalised human
diseases, such as AIDS and tuberculosis. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalised criminal
conspiracies, like the Mafia, that threaten the security of all Europeans. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with
globalised environmental threats, such as global warming, which threaten our continent and generations of its
future inhabitants. Only a strong European Union is big enough to deal with globalised economic forces, which could spread
recession from one country to another and destroy millions of jobs. Only a strong European Union is big enough to regulate, in
the interests of society as a whole, the activities of profit seeking private corporations, some of which now have more spending power than
many individual states. 2.7 These tasks are too large for individual states. 2.8 Only by coming together in the European Union can we ensure
that humanity, and the values which make us, as individuals, truly human, prevail over blind global forces that will otherwise overwhelm us.
WTO solves great power wars and global stability – there’s no alternative
Panitchpakdi 4 (Supachai Panitchpakdi, secretary-general of the UN Conference on Trade and
Development, 2/26/2004, American Leadership and the World Trade Organization,
http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/spsp_e/spsp22_e.htm
The second point is that strengthening the world trading system is essential to America's wider global objectives. Fighting
terrorism,
China and other countries in the global economy — all of these issues are
linked, in one way or another, to world trade. This is not to say that trade is the answer to all America's
economic concerns; only that meaningful solutions are inconceivable without it. The world trading
system is the linchpin of today's global order — underpinning its security as well as its prosperity. A
reducing poverty, improving health, integrating
successful WTO is an example of how multilateralism can work. Conversely, if it weakens or fails, much else could fail with it. This is something
which the US — at the epicentre of a more interdependent world — cannot afford to ignore. These priorities must continue to guide US policy
— as they have done since the Second World War. America has been the main driving force behind eight rounds of multilateral trade
negotiations, including the successful conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the creation of the WTO. The US — together with the EU — was
instrumental in launching the latest Doha Round two years ago. Likewise, the recent initiative, spearheaded by Ambassador Zoellick, to reenergize the negotiations and move them towards a successful conclusion is yet another example of how essential the US is to the multilateral
process — signalling that the US remains committed to further liberalization, that the Round is moving, and that other countries have a tangible
reason to get on board. The reality is this: when
the US leads the system can move forward; when it withdraws,
the system drifts. The fact that US leadership is essential, does not mean it is easy. As WTO rules have expanded, so too has as the
complexity of the issues the WTO deals with — everything from agriculture and accounting, to tariffs and telecommunication. The WTO is also
exerting huge gravitational pull on countries to join — and participate actively — in the system. The WTO now has 146 Members — up from
just 23 in 1947 — and this could easily rise to 170 or more within a decade. Emerging powers like China, Brazil, and India rightly demand a
greater say in an institution in which they have a growing stake. So too do a rising number of voices outside the system as well. More and more
people recognize that the WTO matters. More non-state actors — businesses, unions, environmentalists, development NGOs — want the
multilateral system to reflect their causes and concerns. A decade ago, few people had even heard of the GATT. Today the WTO is front page
news. A more visible WTO has inevitably become a more politicized WTO. The sound and fury surrounding the WTO's recent Ministerial
Meeting in Cancun — let alone Seattle — underline how challenging managing the WTO can be. But these challenges can be exaggerated. They
exist precisely because so many countries have embraced a common vision. Countries the world over have turned to open trade — and a rulesbased system — as the key to their growth and development. They agreed to the Doha Round because they believed their interests lay in freer
trade, stronger rules, a more effective WTO. Even in Cancun the great debate was whether the multilateral trading system was moving fast and
far enough — not whether it should be rolled back. Indeed, it is critically important that we draw the right conclusions from Cancun — which
are only now becoming clearer. The disappointment was that ministers were unable to reach agreement. The achievement was that they
exposed the risks of failure, highlighted the need for North-South collaboration, and — after a period of introspection — acknowledged the
inescapable logic of negotiation. Cancun showed that, if the challenges have increased, it is because the stakes are higher. The bigger challenge
to American leadership comes from inside — not outside — the United States. In America's current debate about trade, jobs and globalization
we have heard a lot about the costs of liberalization. We need to hear more about the opportunities. We need to be reminded of the
advantages of America's openness and its trade with the world — about the economic growth tied to exports; the inflation-fighting role of
imports, the innovative stimulus of global competition. We need to explain that freer trade works precisely because it involves positive change
— better products, better job opportunities, better ways of doing things, better standards of living. While it is true that change can be
threatening for people and societies, it is equally true that the vulnerable are not helped by resisting change — by putting up barriers and
shutting out competition. They are helped by training, education, new and better opportunities that — with the right support policies — can
flow from a globalized economy. The fact is that for every job in the US threatened by imports there is a growing number of high-paid, high skill
jobs created by exports. Exports supported 7 million workers a decade ago; that number is approaching around 12 million today. And these
new jobs — in aerospace, finance, information technology — pay 10 per cent more than the average American wage. We especially need to
inject some clarity — and facts — into the current debate over the outsourcing of services jobs. Over the next decade, the US is projected to
create an average of more than 2 million new services jobs a year — compared to roughly 200,000 services jobs that will be outsourced. I am
well aware that this issue is the source of much anxiety in America today. Many Americans worry about the potential job losses that might arise
from foreign competition in services sectors. But it’s worth remembering that concerns about the impact of foreign competition are not new.
Many of the reservations people are expressing today are echoes of what we heard in the 1970s and 1980s. But people at that time didn’t fully
appreciate the power of American ingenuity. Remarkable advances in technology and productivity laid the foundation for unprecedented job
creation in the 1990s and there is no reason to doubt that this country, which has shown time and again such remarkable potential for
competing in the global economy, will not soon embark again on such a burst of job-creation. America's openness to service-sector trade —
combined with the high skills of its workforce — will lead to more growth, stronger industries, and a shift towards higher value-added, higherpaying employment. Conversely, closing the door to service trade is a strategy for killing jobs, not saving them. Americans have never run from
a challenge and have never been defeatist in the face of strong competition. Part of this challenge is to create the conditions for global growth
and job creation here and around the world. I believe Americans realize what is at stake. The process of opening to global trade can be
disruptive, but they recognize that the US economy cannot grow and prosper any other way. They recognize the importance of finding global
solutions to shared global problems. Besides, what is the alternative to the WTO? Some argue that the world's only superpower
need not be tied down by the constraints of the multilateral system. They claim that US sovereignty is compromised by international rules, and
that multilateral institutions limit rather than expand US influence. Americans should be deeply sceptical about these claims. Almost none of
the trade issues facing the US today are any easier to solve unilaterally, bilaterally or regionally. The reality is probably just the opposite. What
sense does it make — for example — to negotiate e-commerce rules bilaterally? Who would be interested in disciplining agricultural subsidies
in a regional agreement but not globally? How can bilateral deals — even dozens of them — come close to matching the economic impact of
agreeing to global free trade among 146 countries? Bilateral
and regional deals can sometimes be a complement to the
multilateral system, but they can never be a substitute . There is a bigger danger. By treating some countries
preferentially, bilateral and regional deals exclude others — fragmenting global trade and distorting
the world economy. Instead of liberalizing trade — and widening growth — they carve it up. Worse, they have a domino
effect: bilateral deals inevitably beget more bilateral deals, as countries left outside are forced to seek their own
preferential arrangements, or risk further marginalization. This is precisely what we see happening today. There are already over two hundred
bilateral and regional agreements in existence, and each month we hear of a new or expanded deal. There is a basic contradiction in the
assumption that bilateral approaches serve to strengthen the multilateral, rules-based system.
Even when intended to spur free
trade, they can ultimately risk undermining it. This is in no one's interest, least of all the United States. America led in the
creation of the multilateral system after 1945 precisely to avoid a return to hostile blocs — blocs that had done so much
to fuel interwar instability and conflict. America's vision, in the words of Cordell Hull, was that “enduring peace and the welfare
of nations was indissolubly connected with the friendliness, fairness and freedom of world trade”. Trade would bind nations
together, making another war unthinkable. Non-discriminatory rules would prevent a return to preferential deals and closed
alliances. A network of multilateral initiatives and organizations — the Marshal Plan, the IMF, the World Bank, and the GATT, now the WTO —
would provide the institutional bedrock for the international rule of law, not power. Underpinning all this was the idea that freedom — free
trade, free democracies, the free exchange of ideas — was essential to peace and prosperity, a more just world. It is a vision that has emerged
pre-eminent a half century later. Trade has expanded twenty-fold since 1950. Millions in Asia, Latin America, and Africa are being lifted out of
poverty, and millions more have new hope for the future. All
the great powers — the US, Europe, Japan, India, China and soon Russia
part of a rules-based multilateral trading system, greatly increasing the chances for world prosperity
and peace. There is a growing realization that — in our interdependent world — sovereignty is constrained, not by multilateral rules, but by
— are
the absence of rules.
Econ ADV – Unemployment – 2ac o/v
High unemployment is a national crisis, this is the weakest recovery since the Great
Depression. Low employment makes the US uniquely vulnerable to economic shocks,
must boost drilling to solve – that’s Morici.
OCS drilling would create millions of jobs necessary to reverse this trend – that’s
Mason.
Econ ADV – Unemployment – key economy
Unemployment will destroy the recovery—it’s the worst since the Great Depression
Wiseman 12 (Paul, 8/15/12, “Economic Recovery Is Weakest Since World War II” Real Clear Politics)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/15/economic_recovery_is_weakest_since_world_w
ar_ii_115124.html
The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment
hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost
jobs, by far the worst performance since World War II . In the previous eight recoveries, the economy had
regained more than 350 percent of the jobs lost, on average. During the 1981-82 recession, the U.S. lost 2.8 million
jobs. In the three years and one month after that recession ended, the economy added 9.8 million — replacing the 2.8 million and adding 7
Never before have so many Americans been unemployed for so long three years into a
recovery. Nearly 5.2 million have been out of work for six months or more. The long-term unemployed account
million more.
for 41 percent of the jobless; the highest mark in the other recoveries was 22 percent. Gregory Mann, 58, lost his job as a real estate appraiser
three years ago. "Basically, I am looking for anything," he says. He has applied to McDonald's, Target and Nordstrom's. "Nothing, not even a
rejection letter," he says. His wife, a registered nurse, has lost two jobs in the interim — and just received an offer to work reviewing medical
records near Atlanta. "We are broke and nearly homeless," he says. "If this job for my wife hadn't come through, we would be out on the street
come Sept. 1 or would have had to move in with relatives." Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called long-term unemployment a
"national crisis." The longer people remain unemployed, the harder it is to
erode, and people lose contact with former colleagues who could help with the job search.
find work, Bernanke has said. Skills
Econ ADV – Unemployment – OCS Solves
Ending offshore drilling will negatively impact the US economy—trillions in economic
losses because of higher energy costs
David W. Kreutzer 2010, PhD and senior fellow, Heritage Foundation, and John L. Ligon, policy
analyst, Heritage Foundation, “The Economic IMpactof an Offshore Drilling Ban,” WEBMEMO, 7-1-10,
http://heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/06/The-Economic-Impact-of-an-Offshore-Drilling-Ban,
Since energy is a critical input for so many things, raising its cost will increase production costs throughout the economy. Though producers will
pass most of the costs on to consumers, consumers will not be able to buy as much at these higher prices. Therefore, the higher energy prices
cut the demand for all the other inputs, such as labor. As the higher costs for petroleum and natural gas ripple through the economy, there may
be a few bright spots (such as suppliers of more energy-efficient capital goods), but the overall impact is decidedly negative. An
offshore
drilling ban cuts domestic energy production, raises energy costs, and shrinks the nation’s economic
pie. The broadest measure of economic activity, gross domestic product (GDP), drops $5.5 trillion over
the period 2011–2035. Employment levels fall below those projected to occur without a ban in place.
By 2020, employment would be 1.4 million jobs lower than without the ban. By 2030, the projected
gap reaches 1.5 million jobs. Of course, shrinking the economy makes families poorer. By 2020 the annual reduction in disposable
income for a family of four exceeds $2,000. This lost income exceeds $3,000 per year in 2030 and is over $4,000
per year in 2035. Pulling the Rug Out Petroleum and natural gas play a vital role in the U.S. economy and are
likely to remain critical to economic activity for decades to come. The Department of Energy expects offshore
production to be a bigger supplier of the nation’s energy needs in the years ahead. If a total ban on offshore drilling is
implemented by 2011, then by 2035 Americans could expect national income (GDP) to drop by $5.5
trillion, total costs of imported oil to rise by $737 billion, total disposable income to decrease $54,000
per family of four, and job losses to exceed 1.5 million. A total ban on offshore drilling would pull the
rug out from the economy’s incipient recovery.
OCS drilling is key to job growth and the economy in general
Lucas 09 (Frank, Oklahoma GOP House representative, 9/30/09, “Expanding Offshore Drilling Boosts
American Economy, Creates Jobs (Rep. Frank Lucas)” The Hill) http://thehill.com/blogs/congressblog/energy-a-environment/60985-expanding-offshore-drilling-boosts-american-economy-creates-jobsrep-frank-lucas
Last year, following a dramatic price spike in gas prices and very vocal call by the American people to increase American-made energy, Congress
and then-President George W. Bush ended a decades-long ban on offshore drilling. Even though the Department of the Interior has jurisdiction
over our coasts, Congress had used its power to spend to eliminate offshore drilling by restricting the funds necessary to develop offshore
drilling. After President George W. Bush lifted the Executive Order banning offshore drilling in July, Congress followed suit by no longer
restricting funding for offshore drilling projects in the appropriations packages. However, more than a year later, we have still not progressed
on this because of delays imposed by the Obama Administration. In March, President Obama announced that he would extend the comment
period another six months. That comment period ended on September 21st, but in a move signaling what could be an indefinite delay, Interior
Secretary Ken Salazar announced that it could be 2012 before the administration decided whether or not it would allow offshore drilling. The
American people, the United States Congress, and the White House made it very clear last summer they wanted to develop the energy
resources off our coasts. Instead of following the will of the people and this Congress, however, the Obama Administration has used one stall
tactic after another to delay drilling as long as possible. Drilling
in the outer-continental shelf will not only decrease the cost
American families pay for energy, it will also create jobs, encourage economic growth, bring in much-needed
revenues to many coastal states, and will help us break our dangerous reliance on foreign oil. According
to the American Energy Alliance Report, drilling in the outer-continental shelf would generate $8
trillion in economic output and 1.2 million jobs annually across the country. At a time when unemployment is
near 10% and our dependency on foreign oil continues to cost Americans money, jobs, and national security, we cannot turn our
backs on offshore drilling. Now is the time to begin expanding all our American-made energy options,
and that includes drilling on the outer-continental shelf.
OCS drilling provides a long-term stimulus
Mason 09 (Joseph, Ph.D. in Finance, University of Illinois, February 2011, “The Economic Contribution
of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies” American
Energy Alliance) http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf
Apart from national energy concerns, however, economic considerations also favor increased
development of OCS energy resources. Specifically, the boost provided to local onshore economies by
offshore production would be particularly welcome in the present economic climate. Similar to fiscal
alternatives currently being pursued, OCS development would provide a long-run economic stimulus to the U.S.
economy because the incremental output, employment, and wages provided by OCS development
would be spread over many years. Unlike those policies, however, this stimulus would not require
government expenditures to support that long-term growth.
Econ ADV – Unemployment – A2 can’t solve
Plan creates millions of jobs across multiple sectors – the total will be over 35 million
jobs – over 1 million jobs will be created immediately, that’s necessary to boost the
economy – that’s Mason
OCS job growth has a multiplier effect - Manufacturing and construction requirements
have a spillover effect – plan boosts over $70 billion immediately and almost $200
billion a year – that’s Mason
Econ ADV – Unemployment – A2 no impact
High unemployment is a national crisis—this is the weakest recovery since the Great
Depression. Low employment makes us uniquely vulnerable to economic shocks
elsewhere—must boost drilling to solve—that’s Morici
Unemployment will destroy the recovery—it’s the worst since the Great Depression
Wiseman 12 (Paul, 8/15/12, “Economic Recovery Is Weakest Since World War II” Real Clear Politics)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/15/economic_recovery_is_weakest_since_world_w
ar_ii_115124.html
The economy shed a staggering 8.8 million jobs during and shortly after the recession. Since employment
hit bottom, the economy has created just over 4 million jobs. So the new hiring has replaced 46 percent of the lost
jobs, by far the worst performance since World War II . In the previous eight recoveries, the economy had
regained more than 350 percent of the jobs lost, on average. During the 1981-82 recession, the U.S. lost 2.8 million
jobs. In the three years and one month after that recession ended, the economy added 9.8 million — replacing the 2.8 million and adding 7
Never before have so many Americans been unemployed for so long three years into a
recovery. Nearly 5.2 million have been out of work for six months or more. The long-term unemployed account
million more.
for 41 percent of the jobless; the highest mark in the other recoveries was 22 percent. Gregory Mann, 58, lost his job as a real estate appraiser
three years ago. "Basically, I am looking for anything," he says. He has applied to McDonald's, Target and Nordstrom's. "Nothing, not even a
rejection letter," he says. His wife, a registered nurse, has lost two jobs in the interim — and just received an offer to work reviewing medical
records near Atlanta. "We are broke and nearly homeless," he says. "If this job for my wife hadn't come through, we would be out on the street
come Sept. 1 or would have had to move in with relatives." Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has called long-term unemployment a
"national crisis." The longer people remain unemployed, the harder it is to
erode, and people lose contact with former colleagues who could help with the job search.
find work, Bernanke has said. Skills
Econ ADV – trade deficit – 2ac o/v
America’s economy will never recover unless we can reverse the trade deficit—it’s the
only way to provide fast-growth necessary to take us out of the recession—that’s
Tonelson. Domestic drilling will reverse this trend because we won’t have to import
oil—that’s Sanandaji.
Econ ADV – trade deficit – Drilling Solves
Drilling is key to solve the trade deficit
May 10 (Caroline, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research, November 2010,
“Drilling as a Real Stimulus: Hundreds of Thousands of Jobs Could Be "Saved or Created" By Easing
Restrictions on Domestic Energy Development”) http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA615.html
The best economic stimulus package is one that is free. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs
could be "saved or created" while slashing both the budget and trade deficit by simply easing
restrictions on domestic energy development. We don't need more alternative energy. What we need is more energy
alternatives. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report released late last year, America has an ample supply of
energy options if we choose to take advantage of them. Far from the previously assumed 21 billion barrels of oil, Americans are
sitting on an estimated 167 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 1,154 billion barrels of oil equivalent (in the form of
accessible natural gas and coal).1 "America's combined recoverable natural gas, oil, and coal endowment is the largest on Earth,"2 said Senator
James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee, and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), ranking
member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, in a joint statement. Despite such potential wealth, the country has tapped
into only 13% of these valuable resources, leaving the remaining 87% untouched.3 Liberals blocking retrieval of this energy envision a country
fueled by green renewables. America is, however, decades away from large-scale green energy alternatives to carbon based fuels.4 Artificially
limiting the country's current energy supplies and instead subsidizing unreliable and costly renewable technologies is no strategy for prosperity.
A report released in February 2010 by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners found that if current drilling bans remain in
place, by the year 2030, the number of available jobs in "energy intensive industries" will decrease by nearly 13 million (an average reduction of
.36% a year), the U.S. will suffer a cumulative GDP loss of $2.36 trillion (an average loss of .52% a year), and energy prices will increase by up to
Easing restrictions on domestic development of natural energy resources would be an
unqualified boon to the economy and cost taxpayers nothing. According to a recent study by ICF International, the
administration could create 160,000 new jobs, generate $1.7 trillion in tax revenue, and reduce
America's dependence on rogue nations merely by allowing additional energy development in the
Outer Continental Shelf, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the Rockies.6 That same study estimated
17%.5
that drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf would increase domestic oil production by 1 million barrels a day. Further, if new onshore areas were
also opened, that number could double to 2 million barrels a day by the year 2030, a 36% increase in domestic crude oil production.7 Although
President Obama recently unveiled a plan that he claims would open more of the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, it would in reality do just
the opposite. His plan called for canceling five drilling lease sales off the coast of Alaska that had been planned for 2011 and 2012. The plan also
further delayed a Virginia lease sale that had been planned for next year.8 Further, according to Representative Doc Hastings (R-WA), ranking
member of House the House Natural Resources Committee, the President's plan "explicitly locks up over 360 million acres, or 60 percent, of the
The United States is currently running a hefty trade deficit, totaling
$380.7 billion last year.10 Petroleum imports are responsible much of this imbalance, consistently
making up 50% of all the goods and services we import.11 The production of two million additional
barrels per day – as ICF International estimates is possible – is equal to about one-fifth of the U.S.'s
current oil imports.12,13 Allowing access to America's vast wealth of natural resources also would
help end our dependence on terrorist-sponsoring nations for our energy needs. Senator Inhofe notes that the
CRS's 167 billion barrel oil estimate "is the equivalent of replacing America's current imports from OPEC for more than 75 years… To remain
competitive, we need access to this resource base, which will help fuel our economic recovery and
create thousands of jobs."14 America is sitting on trillions of dollars in actual energy and wealth. It is woefully negligent for the
OCS in the lower 48 for energy production."9
Obama administration to prevent its use at a time when so many Americans are suffering under the weight of a poor economy.
Econ ADV – trade deficit – key economy
Fixing the trade deficit is key to the economy—drilling is vital
Morici 11 (Peter, professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former
Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, 7/11/11, “Tackle the trade deficit to create
jobs”) http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/21990
(AXcess News) College Park, MD - Tuesday, the Commerce Department was expected to report the deficit on international trade in goods and
services was $48.0 billion in June. The
trade deficit is the most significant barrier to jobs creation and growth in
the U.S. economy. Simply, the U.S. economy suffers from too little demand for what Americans make,
and every dollar that goes abroad to purchase oil or Chinese consumer goods that does not return to
purchase exports is lost purchasing power that could be creating jobs. Halving the nearly $600 billion annual
trade deficit would create at least 5 million jobs. Jobs Creation Oil and Chinese imports account for
virtually the entire trade deficit. The failure of both the Bush and Obama Administrations to develop
abundant domestic oil and gas resources, and address subsidized Chinese imports are major barriers to pulling
down unemployment to acceptable levels. The economy added only 117,000 jobs in June; whereas, 386,000 jobs must be added each
month for the next 36 months to bring unemployment down to 6 percent. With federal and state government cutting payrolls, the private
sector must add about 410,000 per month to accomplish this goal. Too
many dollars spent by Americans go abroad to
purchase Middle East oil and Chinese consumer goods that do not return to buy U.S. exports. This
leaves U.S. businesses with too little demand to justify new investments and hiring, too many
Americans jobless and wages stagnant, and state and municipal governments with chronic budget
woes. Economic Growth The first half of 2011, GDP growth has averaged about 0.8 percent, well below the
3 percent needed just to keep up with productivity and labor force growth and keep unemployment
from rising. In 2010, consumer spending, business technology and auto sales added strongly to demand and growth, and exports have
done quite well. However in 2011, the soaring cost of imported oil and subsidized Chinese manufactures into U.S. markets
pushed up the trade deficit and offset those positive trends. Now consumer pessimism is pushing
down retail sales and home prices, and discouraging new home construction and business investment.
Administration imposed regulatory limits on conventional oil and gas development are premised on
false assumptions about the immediate potential of electric cars and alternative energy sources, such
as solar panels and windmills. In combination, Administration energy policies are pushing up the cost
of driving, making the United States even more dependent on imported oil and overseas creditors to
pay for it, and impeding growth and jobs creation. Oil imports could be cut in half by boosting U.S.
petroleum production by 4 million barrels a day, and cutting gasoline consumption by 10 percent through better use of
conventional internal combustion engines and fleet use of natural gas in major cities.
Econ ADV – trade deficit – A2 can’t solve
Domestic drilling solves – oil imports make up half of the trade deficit —that’s
Sanandaji.
We don’t have to end the trade deficit, but reducing it is the best way to promote
growth because it keeps capital in the country – that’s Tonelson
Specific evidence in the context of drilling – it’s sufficient to solve the impact of the
trade deficit on the economy
Morici 11 (Peter, professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School, and former
Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission, 7/11/11, “Tackle the trade deficit to create
jobs”) http://axcessnews.com/index.php/articles/show/id/21990
AXcess News) College Park, MD - Tuesday, the Commerce Department was expected to report the deficit on international trade in goods and
services was $48.0 billion in June. The
trade deficit is the most significant barrier to jobs creation and growth in
the U.S. economy. Simply, the U.S. economy suffers from too little demand for what Americans make,
and every dollar that goes abroad to purchase oil or Chinese consumer goods that does not return to
purchase exports is lost purchasing power that could be creating jobs. Halving the nearly $600 billion annual
trade deficit would create at least 5 million jobs. Jobs Creation Oil and Chinese imports account for
virtually the entire trade deficit. The failure of both the Bush and Obama Administrations to develop
abundant domestic oil and gas resources, and address subsidized Chinese imports are major barriers to pulling
down unemployment to acceptable levels. The economy added only 117,000 jobs in June; whereas, 386,000 jobs must be added each
month for the next 36 months to bring unemployment down to 6 percent. With federal and state government cutting payrolls, the private
sector must add about 410,000 per month to accomplish this goal. Too
many dollars spent by Americans go abroad to
purchase Middle East oil and Chinese consumer goods that do not return to buy U.S. exports. This
leaves U.S. businesses with too little demand to justify new investments and hiring, too many
Americans jobless and wages stagnant, and state and municipal governments with chronic budget
woes. Economic Growth The first half of 2011, GDP growth has averaged about 0.8 percent, well below the
3 percent needed just to keep up with productivity and labor force growth and keep unemployment
from rising. In 2010, consumer spending, business technology and auto sales added strongly to demand and growth, and exports have
done quite well. However in 2011, the soaring cost of imported oil and subsidized Chinese manufactures into U.S. markets
pushed up the trade deficit and offset those positive trends. Now consumer pessimism is pushing
down retail sales and home prices, and discouraging new home construction and business investment.
Administration imposed regulatory limits on conventional oil and gas development are premised on
false assumptions about the immediate potential of electric cars and alternative energy sources, such
as solar panels and windmills. In combination, Administration energy policies are pushing up the cost
of driving, making the United States even more dependent on imported oil and overseas creditors to
pay for it, and impeding growth and jobs creation. Oil imports could be cut in half by boosting U.S.
petroleum production by 4 million barrels a day, and cutting gasoline consumption by 10 percent through better use of
conventional internal combustion engines and fleet use of natural gas in major cities.
Econ ADV – trade deficit – A2 no impact
America’s economy will never recover unless we can reverse the trade deficit—it’s the
only way to provide fast-growth necessary to take us out of the recession—that’s
Tonelson.
Econ ADV – trade deficit – A2 decoupling
No decoupling
Clyde Prestowitz 2012 President, Economic Strategy Institute, "The End of Decoupling," FOREIGN
POLICY, 7--19--12, http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/19/the_end_of_decoupling
For the past week, I've been participating in conferences in Singapore, Nanning, and Hong Kong on the future of China and the Asian economies
in which I have been subjected to endless repetition of a mantra. Speaker after speaker has risen to declare that China is her or her country's
largest trading partner. Left unspoken but understood by all is the fact that just a few years ago the largest trading partner of all these countries
was either the United States or the EU. So the clear understanding is that China has displaced America and Europe as the main customer and
engine of growth. The declaration is often made with a certain air of excitement, almost as if many of the speakers can't quite believe what
they are saying. And the truth is that they shouldn't. Even as we discussed these trade numbers at the Pan Beibu Gulf conference in Nanning,
the Chinese government released its latest growth
figures showing a dramatic slowdown to 7.6 percent of GDP which was
in large part because China's exports are
performing poorly in the face of the Euro crisis and a relentlessly slowing U.S. economy. China's growth is also slowing
somewhat below the already lowered target. This slowdown is occurring
because the enormous stimulus spending the country undertook to offset the impact of the recent Great Recession created its own inflationary
and excess debt and capacity problems that Beijing has been trying to control by cutting back on the stimulus. This is the subject of a second
mantra which is that China is rebalancing by shifting away from investment and export led growth to domestic consumption led growth. So the
hope has been that structural reform will make China a major end consumer and that consumption led growth will take up the slack of
relatively declining export led growth. Well, none of it is happening. Or, at least, it's not happening fast enough. The truth is that China is only
the largest trading partner of many Asian countries in the sense that they ship goods to China. But China
is merely a stop on the
supply chain that eventually ends in the United States or Europe or, sometimes, in Japan. It is not usually the end
customer unless the goods being shipped are raw materials, oil, and agricultural commodities. Most of what is happening is the shipment of
parts and components from an Asian country to China where they are assembled into final products and then shipped on to the final U.S. and
European customers. The weaknesses of the whole global system are now becoming excruciatingly apparent. China has been urged by the G-20
and has committed to rebalancing and focusing on domestic consumption led growth. But consumption accounts for only 35 percent of China's
GDP and is not large enough to be an engine of growth in the short term. As growth has slowed dramatically, Chinese officials are talking more
and more of another round of investment and infra-structure stimulus. Understandable as a short run measure, this only threatens to
exacerbate the longer run problems. Moreover, another round is unlikely to be as effective as the first round was because of the unresolved
distortions remaining from that effort. In any case, reform looks like it will not happen quickly if at all. Further, China has backed away from
allowing the yuan to strengthen and has put renewed effort behind exports, but the crisis in Europe and the slowing
of the U.S.
economy are having a huge negative impact and belying all the happy talk of decoupling. Meanwhile,
Europe seems determined to commit suicide by austerity and the death of a thousand all night Brussels summits. The Euro-zone needs some
kind of growth agreement to complement the new fiscal pact as well as a banking union and some degree of common debt sharing through
Eurobonds. But all this is unlikely, and certainly unlikely in the required time frame in the face of German opposition. The U.S. situation is
objectively the least dire in that its enormous trade deficit gives it the potential to grow by importing relatively less and producing and
exporting relatively more. But no serious effort is being made in this direction, and political gridlock and the looming debt cliff are likely to
continue to erode confidence and U.S. growth prospects. The consequences of all this are that there is not going to be a global growth engine in
the foreseeable future. China
is not likely to rebalance by making the shift from investment and export led
growth to consumption led growth, and the collapse of the euro and break-up of the EU is becoming a reasonable bet. Aside from
that, everything's okay. Have a good day.
Econ ADV – trade deficit – A2 dutch disease
Revenue solves Dutch disease—and no commodity dependence
Holland 12 (Andrew, senior fellow at the American Security Project, 6/7/12, “Will Dutch Disease
Follow the American Energy Boom?” American Security Project)
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2012/will-dutch-disease-follow-the-american-energy-boom/
Another strategy for avoiding the disease is to increase national savings across the economy — and
the best way for government to do that is to run a budget surplus. Looking to our deficit projections, I would say that
a surplus looks very unlikely, but increased revenue from commodity production — whether taxes or royalties — can (and should) be
used to pay down America’s long term deficits. Fortunately, the U.S. economy is big and diverse; we
are unlikely to become completely dependent upon commodities exports. And, fortunately for me, an
appreciating dollar would be good for me: allowing me to drink more French wine and travel more frequently. Whether it is a good thing for a
slowly recovering U.S. economy and manufacturing sector is another question. As the U.S. prepares export terminals for natural gas and
continues to enjoy its boom in energy production, is there anything else that the government should do to alleviate or avoid a currency
appreciation that harms manufacturing?
No impact to Dutch disease—multiple reasons
Carney 12 (Mark, governor of the Bank of Canada, 9/7/12, “Dutch Disease” Bank of Canada)
http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2012/09/speeches/dutch-disease/
Why We Expect Commodity Prices to Remain Elevated Given the strains on global growth, commodity prices have fallen 13 per cent since their
peak in April of last year and can be expected to remain volatile. Nonetheless, prices are still about 25 per cent above their longer-term
averages in real terms. In fact, real prices for energy and metals have been well above their long-term averages for more than 7 years, and real
Throughout the current, decade-long boom, the scale of
price increases has been higher, and the range of affected commodities broader, than in previous
upturns. Since 2002, prices for metals and grains have more than doubled, while crude oil prices almost quadrupled. The question is
whether such strength will persist. The Bank’s view is that a large, sustained increase in demand is the primary driver
of elevated prices. The breadth and durability of the commodity rally underscore this conclusion. Rapid urbanisation underpins this
food prices are now at their highest level in 35 years (Chart 2).
growth. Since 1990, the number of people living in cities in China and India has risen by roughly 500 million, the equivalent of housing the entire
population of Canada every 18 months (Chart 3). Despite
the current, sharp cyclical slowdowns in China and India,
this secular process can be expected to continue for decades. So, even though history teaches that all
booms are finite, with convergence to Western levels of consumption still a long way off, the demand
for commodities can be expected to remain robust and prices elevated. In Canada, the impact of rising commodity
prices has been reinforced by strong growth in the supply of some commodities. Oil is now our most important commodity by value (Chart 4),
with its share rising over the past 15 years from 18 per cent to 46 per cent of total Canadian commodity production. The Declining Importance
Coinciding with this period of elevated commodity prices, the share of the manufacturing
sector in Canadian GDP has declined since the turn of the century from 18 per cent to around 11 per
cent. For the promoters of Dutch Disease, this is the “a-ha” fact, with the coincidental relationship
described as causal. With a broader view, however, it is evident that the decline in manufacturing is only
partially in response to the rising exchange rate and, in fact, is part of a broad, secular trend across the
advanced world (Chart 5). Major forces of globalisation and technological change have dispersed
manufacturing activity across borders, increasingly concentrating the highest value-added stages of
production in advanced economies. In 1970, Canada’s manufacturing-to-GDP ratio was 6 percentage points below the average of
of Manufacturing
members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Today, it is 3 percentage points behind. Likewise, the share
of jobs in manufacturing has declined, but not as steeply as it has in our commodity-importing neighbour to the south (Chart 6). Although the
adjustment has been difficult, it has occurred over a longer period of time than the boom in commodity prices and, in general, Canada
has
not lost ground relative to other advanced economies. What Drives the Currency? The coincident strength of
commodity prices and the Canadian dollar in recent years has been treated by some as prima facie
evidence of Dutch Disease in Canada. But this diagnosis ignores the fact that the Canadian dollar is
influenced by a diverse set of factors. Commodity prices do play a role. Canada is a net exporter of commodities
while our main trading partner, the United States, is a net importer. This causes our respective terms of trade to move in opposite directions in
response to commodity-price changes. As a result, the Canada-U.S. exchange rate tends to appreciate when global commodity prices rise (Chart
7).2 But this is just the beginning of the story, accounting for about one-half of the appreciation of our currency over the past decade. Other
factors also play important roles. Since 2002, the U.S. dollar has depreciated against many currencies, including those of both commodity
exporters and importers. The Canadian dollar has appreciated against the U.S. dollar by an amount similar to that of the currencies of two
major commodity importers, Japan and the euro area (Chart 8). Overall, the Bank estimates that about 40 per cent of the appreciation of the
Canadian dollar since 2002 is due to the multilateral depreciation of the U.S. dollar. The balance of the appreciation reflects forces other than
U.S.-dollar weakness and commodity prices. In particular, a variety of attributes make Canada an attractive investment destination, including
our sound public finances, resilient financial system, and credible monetary policy. These strengths limit the downside risk associated with
Canadian assets, making Canada a rare safe haven in a risky world. This status is reflected in the behaviour of Canadian 10-year yields, which
tend to decline at the same time as risky assets such as global equity prices. This correlation suggests that money flows into Canadian bonds in
response to increases in perceived risk. Indeed, by this measure, Canada’s safe-haven status is second only to the United States and the United
Kingdom (Chart 9). This was not always the case. During the Great Moderation, this correlation was essentially zero (Chart 10). How
Commodity Revenues Affect Our Economy The symptoms we are seeing are not those of Dutch Disease but rather of structural changes in the
global economy to which Canada must adjust. Although these changes create pressure, their overall impact is positive. Analysis using the Bank
of Canada’s main projection model-the Terms-of-Trade Economic Model (ToTEM)-illustrates how different types of shocks to the supply and
demand for commodities impact the Canadian economy.3 Regardless of the cause of a commodity-price increase, Canada’s improved terms of
trade cause income, wealth and GDP to rise (Chart 11). In all cases, the Canadian dollar appreciates, but its adverse impact on our noncommodity exports is partially offset by the fact that a stronger currency reduces the cost of productivity-enhancing machinery and equipment
and imported inputs to production. Consider three different cases that cause energy prices to rise 20 per cent, or roughly the increase that
occurred between mid-2010 and 2011. When the source of the commodity-price increase is stronger U.S. demand,4 the impact on Canadian
GDP is greatest: just over a 3 per cent increase after five years, equivalent to about $57 billion. This is because the improvement in Canada’s
terms of trade is strongly reinforced by greater demand for our non-commodity exports. In fact, this additional demand more than offsets the
competitiveness losses in manufacturing and services stemming from higher wages, higher resource prices and a stronger dollar. This scenario
is the commodity cycle as we used to know it. It is fast becoming a historical artefact. When, as is now the case, stronger demand from
emerging Asia is the cause of the rise in energy prices, the net increase in GDP is about 1 per cent after five years, or one-third of the impact of
the U.S. demand shock. This more muted response is because Canada has relatively little direct exposure to these export markets. Therefore,
there is less additional demand to offset the competitiveness effects. Finally, an increase in commodity prices driven by a transitory reduction
in commodity supply generates the smallest GDP benefits, about 0.2 per cent in the first year. In this case, the adverse impact of the
appreciation is reinforced by the decline in economic activity in the rest of the world caused by the supply disruption. The run-up in oil prices in
the past few weeks is an example of a commodity shock that provides only marginal benefit to Canada. In all three cases, the impact of
increased economic activity in Canada on underlying inflation is largely offset by an appreciation of our exchange rate. This helps limit the direct
impact of higher commodity prices on the prices all Canadians pay for food, gas and other commodity-intensive goods. When commodity
prices increase, revenues from the resource sector spread through the Canadian economy via three channels: fiscal redistribution, especially by
the federal government; personal wealth increases, through income and ownership of stock; and interprovincial trade. It is important to
recognise that, for almost all the provinces, trade
inside Canada has grown fast enough to offset a significant
portion of the declines in international trade. Central Canada, for instance, suffered a real decline in international exports of
$18 billion between 2002 and 2008, which was almost entirely offset by increases in interprovincial exports of $16 billion. Some of this reflects
Much of
the gains in interprovincial trade volumes were in services rather than goods, which was where most
of the declines in international exports occurred. Well-paid services, such as professional, mining, and
financial services, play a significant role in increased trade between Central Canada and Alberta (Charts 12 and 13).
increased sales to Western Canada from Central Canadian machinery makers, primary metal producers, and chemical companies.
Econ ADV – Volatility – 2ac o/v
Domestic oil production can mitigate the impact of price volatility – since the rapid
upward swings will result in profits for domestic industries, those markets can keep
our economy afloat even if other sectors suffer – that’s Weidenmier.
Absent a backup engine, price volatility will have a major impact on our economy—it
messes with business planning and government revenue projections – that’s Conway
Econ ADV – Volatility – key economy
Volatility kills the economy – undermines long-term planning, investment
Ward 09 (CNA Military Advisory Board, General Charles F. Ward, General, USAF (ret.), chair,
POWERING AMERICA’S DEFENSE: ENERGY AND THE RISKS TO NATIONAL SECURITY, 5—09, p. 11-12.
The volatile fossil fuel markets have a major impact on our national economy, which in turn affects national
security. Upward spikes in energy prices—tied to the wild swings now common in the world’s fossil fuel
markets—constrict the economy in the short-term, and undermine strategic planning in the longterm. Volatility is not limited to the oil market: the nation’s economy is also wrenched by the increasingly
sharp swings in price of natural gas and coal. This volatility wreaks havoc with government revenue projections,
making the task of addressing strategic and systemic national security problems much more challenging.
It also makes it more difficult for companies to commit to the long-term investments needed to develop
and deploy new energy technologies and upgrade major infrastructure.
Price volatility hurts the economy
Sauter and Awerbuch 03 (Raphael, research assistant at the IEA and Master’s Degree in Political
Science, Shimon, Senior Advisor¸ Energy Economics, Finance and Technology, August 2003, “OIL PRICE
VOLATILITY AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY: A SURVEY AND LITERATURE REVIEW” IEA Research Paper)
More recently, the research emphasis has broadened to include not only the effects of changes in oil price level (mean price in a given period),
but also the effects of price volatility (standard deviation in a given period) as well. The evidence confirms
that volatility has a
considerable influence on economic output.
For example, recent US EIA estimates blamed oil price volatility between 1999
and 2001 for a loss of 0.7 percentage points of GDP growth in the U.S. economy. This translates to losses that potentially range in the tens and
The idea that rising oil prices and price volatility serve to stifle economic activity
and reduce asset values has by now become widely accepted in the literature and seems virtually
axiomatic. For example, Yang, Hwang and Huang (2002) flatly state that "Higher [oil] prices [yield] subsequent recessions in oil consuming
even hundreds of billions.
nations, as oil prices are negatively correlated to economic activities." The negative relationship between oil prices and asset values suggests
that the financial risk of oil price fluctuations should be observable. Beta, a standard finance risk indicator, measures the covariance between
fluctuations in an asset's value and fluctuations in the value of a widely diversified asset portfolio. A
number of researchers, using
different data and different estimation procedures, find that the estimated Beta for oil (and natural
gas) is negative, which implies a strong negative covariance risk with a widely diversified asset
portfolio. This has several implications. First, it implies that traditional electricity generating cost estimates significantly understate the
cost of fossil-based generation. Further, a negative beta for fossil fuels clearly suggests that fossil fuel price spikes have a double
whammy effect for consumers. They not only drive up the cost of everything from driving to switching
on the lights, but they also produce measurable declines in consumers' wealth–– higher energy prices
eventually lower their incomes and the value of their homes and other assets.
Econ ADV – Volatility – Drilling Solves
Drilling is the best way to solve volatility
Loris 12 (Nicholas, Energy Policy Analyst and Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation,
3/19/12, “How to Handle Oil Price Volatility” Council on Foreign Relations) http://www.cfr.org/unitedstates/handle-oil-price-volatility/p27667
The most effective response to oil price volatility is simply to allow markets to work. Government
restrictions and regulations impede the market's effectiveness in responding to changes in oil prices. Further,
attempts to reduce our dependence on oil by subsidizing alternative fuels or creating fuel efficiency standards waste taxpayer dollars and do
little to reduce dependence on oil. Producers and consumers respond to changes in prices because these changes communicate information.
As the price of oil goes up, producers explore and drill for more. Creating an efficient permitting process and reducing the time frame in which
environmental groups delay new energy projects by filing endless administrative appeals and lawsuits would bring more oil onto the market
quicker. And if President Obama passed the Keystone XL Pipeline at the end of 2011, up to 830,000 barrels of oil would reach the market in
Opening access and removing mandates and subsidies is the most effective, market-driven
approach the United States can take to responding to oil price volatility. We are the only country in
the world that places a majority of its territorial waters off limits to oil and gas exploration. Congress
should open areas that are off limits: the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, Alaska's offshore, the Alaska
2013.
National Wildlife Refuge, and lands out west. If access to areas that are currently off limits is increased, it will take time to explore and extract
that oil. But that does not change the fact that the nation needs it today and also in the future.
When these areas are up and
running, the United States could become a significant player in oil supply. As the price of gas increases,
consumers would switch to more fuel-efficient cars without any need to mandate more fuel-efficient trucks and cars. But consumers consider a
lot of factors when buying a car, and the government shouldn't obligate consumers to make sacrifices elsewhere, whether in size or safety.
What hasn't and won't work is subsidizing alternative fuels such as biofuels, electricity, or natural gas. The global oil market is a multi-trillion
dollar one. If producers have an economically viable technology, then they shouldn't need taxpayer-funded handouts. Venture capitalists will
Opening access and removing
mandates and subsidies is the most effective, market-driven approach the United States can take to
responding to oil price volatility.
be foaming at the mouth. When the government gets involved, lobbyists start foaming at the mouth.
Domestic drilling solves the economic impact of volatility
McNally 12 (Robert, Founder and President, Rapidan Group, 3/19/12, “How to Handle Oil Price
Volatility” Council on Foreign Relations) http://www.cfr.org/united-states/handle-oil-pricevolatility/p27667
Second, encourage
more supply domestically, in our hemisphere, and around the world. While the United States cannot escape
oil price volatility emanating from a global, fungible, and widely traded market, reduced import dependence will strengthen
economic resilience to price shocks and diversification of oil production outside the volatile Middle
East, and will help reduce the frequency and amplitude of geopolitically driven price swings.
Increasing domestic drilling decreases price volatility
Hunt 12 (Gary, President, Scalable Growth Strategy Advisors, an independent energy technology and
information services adviser and a partner in Tech & Creative Labs, 4/17/12, “How the U.S. Could
Protect Itself Against Volatile Oil and Gas Prices” Oil Price) http://oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Prices/Howthe-U.S.-Could-Protect-Itself-Against-Volatile-Oil-and-Gas-Prices.html
The US government is engaged in a relentless regulatory push to undermine the economics of fossil
fuels in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While US EPA issues rule after proposed rule to limit the use of coal, and the
government slow walks oil E&P permits offshore and on public lands, it has not yet found a way to stop horizontal drilling and hydraulic
The major oil companies made big bets in
deep water drilling but the BP spill and government energy policy bias against fossil fuels left them
fracturing use on private lands that are subject to the regulation of the states.
vulnerable to Federal control of off-shore drilling and E&P permitting on public lands.
Meanwhile, onshore
in the shale plays North Dakota has become the fourth largest oil producing state in the Bakken shale and on target to take third place from
California. Production growth continues in the Barnett, Eagle Ford and Haynesville shales in Texas and the Gulf coast. The reassessment of
recoverable shale potential in other plays such as the Monterrey Shale in California, the Niobrara shale in Colorado, Kansas and Nebraska and in
the Marcellus Shale in the East that together suggests that America could
also be a game changer in oil production in
global markets again. Will America put its ‘spare capacity in oil to good use? Spare oil capacity is that
small amount of oil at the margins of global market equilibrium that sets the trading price of oil and
gives producers, buyers and speculators the signal about price movements. How much swing capacity
does it take to push the price of oil up or down? Much less than you think! The pricing power of OPEC has
traditionally been exercised by the ability of Saudi Arabia to expand or withhold about five million barrels of oil per day in spare swing capacity.
We have seen this pricing power again recently as global markets got nervous about the loss of oil from Libya. So the Saudi’s said they would
make it up. But while Saudi Arabia can increase production fast if needed it will not do so for long to protect its dominant role in the oil
markets over time. But what
if America’s domestic energy production growth could double or triple the
spare capacity in global markets? Would OPEC simply withhold capacity to drive the price back up?
Current 2% per day and demonstrate that domestic US oil production growth will more quickly reduce
America’s oil imports that we would see world oil prices fall dramatically. The last thing a cartel like
OPEC wants is competition. But America has the capacity to insure itself against oil price spikes by
creating our own spare capacity market and put it to work to balance the cartel behaviour of OPEC
and discipline the bad boys of the Middle East that use high oil price wealth to fund terrorism and other mischief.
Econ ADV – Volatility – A2 high prices
Volatility outweighs high prices
Schwartz 11 (Shelly, staff writer, 6/13/11, “Oil-Price Volatility Bedevils Business and Consumers”
CNBC) http://www.cnbc.com/id/43138643/Oil_Price_Volatility_Bedevils_Business_and_Consumers
Energy prices may be partly to blame for driving the global economy into recession, but it’s the
uncertainty surrounding price direction that prevents a sustained recovery from taking hold, analysts
say. Indeed, since July 2008, the price of crude oil has fluctuated between a record high of $145 and $30 per
barrel, hovering today at around the $100 mark. The resulting yo-yo effect on fuel prices for the last
three years has made it hard for consumers and businesses to loosen their purse strings enough to
jump start the lackluster economy, says Kay Smith, head of macroeconomic analysis for the U. S. Energy Information
Administration, EIA. “There’s a lot of headwind in the U.S. economy right now, but I think we’re just really
uncertain,” says Smith . “It’s the volatility of oil prices that will impact the economy more than any
particular pricing point.”
Econ ADV – Volatility – A2 can’t solve
Plan doesn’t have to lower or affect prices
Domestic oil production can mitigate the impact of price volatility—since the rapid
upward swings will result in profits for domestic industries, those markets can keep
our economy afloat even if other sectors suffer—that’s Weidenmier.
Econ ADV – Manufacturing – 2ac o/v
Now is the moment of truth for the manufacturing sector, without prompt action by
policymakers to revive the industry, it will fall into irreversible decline—that’s Collins.
This would be devastating for our economy—manufacturing is the single-most
important engine for growth—that’s Cooper. OCS drilling is key to boost this sector—it
creates demand for manufacturing products and has a ripple effect throughout the
economy—that’s Ostermayer.
Econ ADV – Manufacturing – brink
Now is the moment of truth for the manufacturing sector, without prompt action by
policymakers to revive the industry, it will fall into irreversible decline – that’s Collins.
Provide additional warrants from Collins evd….
US manufacturing sector is on the brink of irreversible decline
Kaushal et al 11 (Arvind, partner with Booz and Co, Thomas Mayor, senior executive advisor, Patricia
Riedel, principal at Booz and Co. Fall 2011, “Manufacturing’s Wake-Up Call”)
http://booz.com/media/file/sb64-11306-Manufacturing's-Wake-Up-Call.pdf
Both the optimists and the pessimists are partially correct. U.S.
manufacturing is at a moment of truth . Currently, U.S.
factories competitively produce about 75 percent of the products that the nation consumes. A series of
identifiable smart actions and choices by business leaders, educators, and policymakers could lead to a robust,
manufacturing-driven economic future and push that figure up to 95 percent. Alternatively, if the U.S.
manufacturing sector remains neglected, its output could fall by half, meeting less than 40 percent of
the nations demand, and U.S. manufacturing capabilities could then erode past the point of no
return .
Manufacturing is at a critical juncture
Booz 11 (9/5/11, Booz & Co. “U.S. Manufacturing Competitiveness at a Critical Crossroads, Says New
Report by Booz & Company” http://www.booz.com/global/home/press/article/49740178
NEW YORK, September 6, 2011 – While
the debate over American manufacturing competitiveness intensifies, a
new study shows that the sector is at a critical moment where it could either prosper and help bring
economic recovery , or decline to where the U.S. may never fully recover its manufacturing prowess.
The study, conducted by global management consulting firm Booz & Company with the University of Michigan’s Tauber Institute for Global
Operations, found that the future of U.S. manufacturing depends on decisions that are currently being
made by the private and public sectors. Today, U.S. manufacturers provide about 75% of the products that Americans
consume. But that number could soar to 95% within a few years, if business and government leaders take the right actions. Conversely, if the
sector remains neglected, that output could fall by half, meeting less than 40% of U.S. demand. The
report is based on a sector-by-sector analysis of U.S. industrial competitiveness, along with a survey of 200 manufacturing executives and
experts. “As labor costs and currency rates play a smaller part in manufacturing decisions, there
is an opportunity for U.S.
business leaders and policymakers to rise to the challenge and create conditions that support
manufacturing,” said Arvind Kaushal, Booz & Company Partner. “ The potential for a rebound is there , but only if the
right actions are taken.”
Econ ADV – Manufacturing – key economy
Manufacturing is key to growth
A. Huge portion of GDP
Kaushal et al 11 (Arvind, partner with Booz and Co, Thomas Mayor, senior executive advisor, Patricia
Riedel, principal at Booz and Co. Fall 2011, “Manufacturing’s Wake-Up Call”)
http://booz.com/media/file/sb64-11306-Manufacturing's-Wake-Up-Call.pdf
As trade policy expert Clyde Prestowirz points out, manufacturing
is critical to prosperity for several reasons: its
economies of scale, impact on innovation, and multiplier effect on the rest of the economy. (See "The Case
for Intelligent Industrial Policy," by Art Kleiner, Arvind Kaushal, and Thomas Mayor, s*b, Autumn 2011.) In the U.S., manufacturing
directly accounts for 11 percent of the nations GDP: an absolute figure of USS1.47 trillion, larger than
Spain's entire domestic product. When all economic activity expressly linked to manufacturing is
accounted for — including equipment maintenance, transportation, scientific and technical services, and construction — the share of
GDP attributable to manufacturing grows to 15 percent. That means one in seven U.S. private-sector jobs, or 13-5
percent, is directly linked to manufacturing. The sector's share of GDP increases ro as much as 25 percent when second-order linkages such as
retail sales near plants, systems development, and legal services are included.
B. Trade deficit
Kaushal et al 11 (Arvind, partner with Booz and Co, Thomas Mayor, senior executive advisor, Patricia
Riedel, principal at Booz and Co. Fall 2011, “Manufacturing’s Wake-Up Call”)
http://booz.com/media/file/sb64-11306-Manufacturing's-Wake-Up-Call.pdf
Historically, manufactured goods are more trade-able than other categories. Thus, a strong
manufacturing base is essential to reducing the U.S. trade deficit, which hit $497 billion in 2010 and is an unnerving
drag on GDP. Unless steps are taken to revitalize manufacturing, up to 50 percent of the "value add" of
the U.S. economy — the value of manufactured goods beyond their raw material costs — is at risk of disappearing. If that
happened, the U.S. trade deficit would top 51 trillion, a troubling level for any country seeking
economic growth.
C. Innovation
Kaushal et al 11 (Arvind, partner with Booz and Co, Thomas Mayor, senior executive advisor, Patricia
Riedel, principal at Booz and Co. Fall 2011, “Manufacturing’s Wake-Up Call”)
http://booz.com/media/file/sb64-11306-Manufacturing's-Wake-Up-Call.pdf
Perhaps the
least understood benefit of manufacturing is how closely it is related to innovation in
design, product development, quality control, and factory processes. In 2008, 67 percent of all privatesector R&D was conducted by manufacturing companies, according to the National Science Foundation. And from 2006
to 2008, 22 percent of U.S. manufacturing companies reported a new or significantly improved product, service, or process, compared with 8
percent of nonmanu-facturing companies. Innovation
propels improvements in worker output, capital flow, usage
of materials and energy, energy conservation, and other components of productivity. Increased
productivity, in turn, leads to faster economic growth and a higher standard of living. Between 1987 and
2008, productivity grew in the U.S. manufacturing sector 65 percent faster than in business as a whole. (See Exhibit 1.)
D. Empirically proven
NIST 11 (2/14/11, “Tools for Manufacturing Competitiveness: Building Prosperity through Innovation
(+$120.5 million)” National Institute of Standards and Technology, US Department of Commerce)
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/comp_manuf2012.cfm
America’s future prosperity depends on our nation’s innovation performance—on the collective ability of the
private and public sectors to generate new knowledge and to be first to put it to work in new products, services, processes, and organizational
capabilities. In
a recent analysis, U.S. Department of Commerce economists estimate that technological
innovation helped to drive three-quarters of the nation’s economic growth since World War II.
Turning research results into economy-building, job-creating insights and then into novel or superior
commercial products continues to require a strong, diversified manufacturing base.
Econ ADV – Manufacturing – OCS Solves
Offshore drilling is vital to the manufacturing sector
Streeter 10 (Erin, staff writer for the National Association of Manufacturers, 9/30/10, “Manufacturers
Call on Administration to Lift Offshore Drilling Moratorium” NAM)
http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2010/09/Lift-Offshore-Drilling.aspx
WASHINGTON, DC, 09/30/10 - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President John Engler issued a statement today following the
Department of Interior’s announcement of new rules for offshore exploration and development and the continued offshore drilling
moratorium: “Manufacturers
continue to call on the Administration to lift the offshore drilling
moratorium. Every day the moratorium continues costs our nation’s economy, manufacturers and
hard-working Americans. We are alarmed by Interior officials’ recent comments indicating that once the formal moratorium is
lifted, it will take weeks and months for permits to be issued. This will not only create an unpredictable approval process, it will increase costs
and place even more uncertainty on our already struggling economy. By dragging out the permitting process, our nation will be forced to rely
even more on foreign producers, which will only discourage new investment in new projects and stifle job creation.
Our nation
already faces a high unemployment rate, and estimates show that in the short term this moratorium could cost 46,200 jobs and
more than $2.7 billion in economic activity. Manufacturers who make and supply equipment, services, engines,
boats and materials such as steel and concrete will suffer massive economic consequences as a result
of the President’s overly broad moratorium. The development of the Outer Continental Shelf is
vital to affordable, reliable energy, the long-term health of our economy and the prosperity of
American workers. Manufacturers will continue to work with the Administration and Congress to lift this moratorium that is hurting
our economy and our ability to create jobs.”
Econ ADV – Manufacturing – A2 can’t solve
OCS drilling is key to boost manufacturing—it creates demand for manufacturing
products and has a ripple effect throughout the economy—that’s Ostermayer.
Offshore drilling is vital to the manufacturing sector
Streeter 10 (Erin, staff writer for the National Association of Manufacturers, 9/30/10, “Manufacturers
Call on Administration to Lift Offshore Drilling Moratorium” NAM)
http://www.nam.org/Communications/Articles/2010/09/Lift-Offshore-Drilling.aspx
WASHINGTON, DC, 09/30/10 - The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) President John Engler issued a statement today following the
Department of Interior’s announcement of new rules for offshore exploration and development and the continued offshore drilling
moratorium: “Manufacturers
continue to call on the Administration to lift the offshore drilling
moratorium. Every day the moratorium continues costs our nation’s economy, manufacturers and
hard-working Americans. We are alarmed by Interior officials’ recent comments indicating that once the formal moratorium is
lifted, it will take weeks and months for permits to be issued. This will not only create an unpredictable approval process, it will increase costs
and place even more uncertainty on our already struggling economy. By dragging out the permitting process, our nation will be forced to rely
Our nation
already faces a high unemployment rate, and estimates show that in the short term this moratorium could cost 46,200 jobs and
more than $2.7 billion in economic activity. Manufacturers who make and supply equipment, services, engines,
boats and materials such as steel and concrete will suffer massive economic consequences as a result
of the President’s overly broad moratorium. The development of the Outer Continental Shelf is
vital to affordable, reliable energy, the long-term health of our economy and the prosperity of
American workers. Manufacturers will continue to work with the Administration and Congress to lift this moratorium that is hurting
even more on foreign producers, which will only discourage new investment in new projects and stifle job creation.
our economy and our ability to create jobs.”
Econ ADV – OCS solves – all sectors
OCS development causes job growth in every sector of the economy
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
Employment Atlantic
OCS oil and natural gas development is expected to lead to significant employment
gains , both along the east c oast and nationally. Employment impacts are expected to grow throughout the
forecast period, with total incremental U.S. employment reaching nearly 280 thousand jobs by 2035 . 4
Total Atlantic coast employment in 2035 is projected to reach over 215 thousand jobs with employment spread across the region. States
outside the region are projected to see employment gains of nearly 65 thousand jobs in 2035. The largest employment impact of Atlantic OCS
oil and natural gas activity is projected in the Mid - Atlantic s tates of North and South Carolina and Virginia. North Atlantic states such as
Massachusetts, Maine, and New Yor k are all also projected to see employment increases of at least 10 thousand jobs by 2035. The share of
incremental employment within the Atlantic coast region is anticipated to steadily grow as the proportion of goods and services that are
supplied locally increases. (Figure 3) The
resulting impact of Atlantic OCS development upon the economy will be
widespread among industries. Industries which are directly involved in oil and natural gas activities such
as the mining sector ( which includ es oil and gas development ), manufacturing, professional, scientific, and technical s
ervices ( engineering), and c onstruction (installation) are expected to see the largest employment effects with
a combined 125 thousand jobs in 2035. Of that total, employment in the oil and gas sector is projected to be 45 thousand jobs.
By 2035 , the manufacturing sector which includes businesses that manufacture and fabricate oil and
gas equipment, platforms and otherwise produce the goods required to develop oil and natural gas
fields is projected at around 30 thousand jobs, of which over 20 thousand of these jobs are expected
in the Atlantic coast states. The p rofessional, scientific, and technical service sector, which includes
engineering employment, is expected to see employment in excess of 32 thousand additional jobs.
Employment in the construction sector which includes offshore installation employment is p rojected
to be around 19 thousand jobs in 2035. Sectors not directly related to oil and gas development or the
supply chain will also see impacts, mainly due to a general increase of income in the economy. Retail
sector employment is projected to increase by over 20 thousand jobs in 2035 due to Atlantic OCS
development. H ealth care and social assistance could increase by nearly 19 thousand jobs,
administrative and waste management services by over 18 thousand jobs, food services and drinking
places by over 13 thousand jobs, and finance and insurance, and real estate, rental, and leasing are
both projected to see the creati on of over 11 thousand jobs in each sector by 2035 .
Econ ADV – OCS solves – trade deficit
Production directly linked to growth, jobs, and lower trade deficit
Furman 13 (Jason Furman is Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Gene Sperling is the
Director of the National Economic Council, “Reducing America’s Dependence on Foreign Oil As a
Strategy to Increase Economic Growth and Reduce Economic Vulnerability,” Aug 29,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/08/29/reducing-america-s-dependence-foreign-oil-strategyincrease-economic-growth-and-redu)
But among its greatest effects are economic. Every
barrel of oil or cubic foot of gas that we produce at home instead of
importing from abroad means: More jobs . Creates American jobs, adds to our national income, and reduces our trade deficit.
Nearly 35,000 jobs have been created over the past four years in oil and gas extraction alone, with
more jobs along the crude oil supply chain. North Dakota, for instance, has achieved the lowest unemployment rate in the
nation (3.1 percent in June), while developing into a center of the resurgence of domestic oil production. Faster growth . Increasing
productivity through new techniques and technologies raises national income and increases growth.
And improving the terms-of-trade by reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and increasing our
net exports shows up in higher standards of living and also higher growth rates. Most recently, revised net
export numbers—including a substantial contribution from petroleum products—played a large role in the upward
revision of GDP growth in Q2. A lower trade deficit . The oil and gas boom has also substantially reduced the
trade deficit. The real (inflation-adjusted) trade deficit in petroleum products fell to a record monthly low in June. The chart below shows
that through the first six months of 2013, the petroleum deficit is on pace to set a new annual low this year, after adjusting for price changes.
And through June 2013, the petroleum share of the real trade deficit in goods has fallen from over 40 percent in 2009 to 25 percent since then,
a pattern that will improve as foreign imports continue to fall and domestic production continues to rise (see chart). Economic
this is just one more reason for us to celebrate the resurgence of domestic oil and gas production.
news like
Econ ADV – OCS solves – Manufacturing
OCS projects spur widespread growth of US manufacturing base
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
The supply chain required to develop an offshore oil and natural gas project is incredibly complex, with
suppliers located throughout the country and often the world. Certain activities, such as specialized
manufacturing of equipment components often take place far from the area of exploration and
production, while other work must take place within the region. Especially in an area that is new to oil
and gas development, a significant amount of spending on fabrication and manufacturing normally takes
place outside the region due to the undeveloped nature of the local supply chain and knowledge base.
Overtime, suppliers of offshore oil and natural gas equipment begin to produce a more significant share of
equipment locally. In an area with the high - tech manufacturing capabilities, knowledge base, and
extensive maritime infrastructure of the Atlantic coast states, this trend would be expected to
continue
. This study projects that the percentage of spending that will take place in the Atlantic coast states will progress from 48 percent
in the first five year s of activity to 64 percent in the last five years. Spending in the Atlantic coast st ates is projected to vary based on the
location of the individual states relative to offshore oil and natural gas reserves, projects, and production ; as well as the makeup of the
individual state’s economies.
Econ ADV – OCS solves – Process
Initiation of project alone enhances economic activity
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
Projects Offshore
project development is the key factor in oil and natural gas production . It is also the main
factor in the capital and operational expenditures that lead to increases in employment and economic
activity. Offshore projects are complex, requiring a multitude of diverse engineers, contractors , and
equipment suppliers working over a number of years prior to the start of production. For the purposes of this
study, offshore project development was generalized into six project types based on project size and water depth. This study estimates that if
there were regular lease sales and no regulatory restraints to development, 69 projects would begin oil and natural gas production in the
Atlantic OCS betwee n 2017 and 2035, of which 52 would be deepwater projects and 17 would be shallow water projects.
Econ ADV – OCS solves – Revenue
OCS development enhances state and federal revenue streams
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
Contributions to the Economy and Government Revenues Spending
by the oil and gas industry, as well as the impact of
increased revenues to state governments is expected to lead to a significant increase of the nation’s
GDP . Total contributions to the economy are projected to be nearly $23.5 billion per year in 2035, with
roughly 75 percent of the total expected impact to occur in Atlantic coast states and 25 percent in the rest of the U. S. The largest contributions
to states’ economies are expected to be seen in the Mid - Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia as well as North Atlantic
states such as Massachusetts, New York and Maine. (Figure 4 ) Atlantic
OCS oil and natural gas development has the
potential to significantly increase government revenue from royalties, bonus bids, and rents on leases,
a cumulative $ 51 billion from 2017 to 2035. Total government revenues are projected to reach over
$12 billion dollars per year in 2035 and are projected to grow beyond the forecast. The majority of cumulative
revenues are from royalties on produced oil and natural gas at $40 billion, leasing bonus bids are projected to account for around $9 billion,
while rental income from offshore blocks is expected to account for a cumulative amount of $2 billion. This report assumes that associated
government revenue is split 37.5 percent to the coastal states and 62 .5 percent to the Federal government . This is similar to the arrangement
in the Gulf of Mexico without an associated cap on state government revenue . Actual revenue proportion going to state governments, if any,
would be determined by future legislation . Combined
state revenues for the Atlantic coast states would reach
approximately $4. 5 billion per year by 2035, given that assumption. (Figure 5) State Results Although the impacts of Atlantic
OCS oil and natural gas development would be felt nationwide, the majority of the employment, economic, and revenue effects of increased
access benefits would be expected to go to the states along the east coast . Although some states such as the Carolinas, Virginia,
Massachusetts, New York and Maine are expected to see larger benefits, the effects of offshore oil and natural gas activity are expected to be
felt all along the Atlantic coast . Each state is expected to see annual spending by the industry of over $100 million dollars per year by 2028,
with spending continuing to increase on average through 2035. Each state
is also expected to see between three
thousand five hundred and 55 thousand jobs created by 2035, and contributions to their economies
ranging from $3 15 million to over $ 4 billion per year . Additionally, state governments have the potential
to receive large increases in revenues if state/Federal revenue sharing legislation is enacted. A 37.5
percent sharing agreement would produce cumulative state government revenues of $ 330 million to $ 4
billion. (Table 3 )Allowing access to the Atlantic OCS for oil and natural gas exploration and production
activities would increase employment, economic activity, and government revenues over the long term with comparatively little additional spending required by federal and state governments. The
nation as a whole, but especially the Atlantic coast states would likely see large employment increases, increased
economic activity and increased government revenue as well as increased domestic oil and natural gas
production , increasing the nation’s energy security.
Econ ADV – OCS solves – Florida
Florida economy
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
6 .8 - Florida Florida is
expected to see annual spending near $460 million per year due to the offshore
Atlantic oil and natural gas industry in 2035, with spending primarily focused on operational expendi tures and
engineering. (Figure 49 ) Spending on operation expenditures is projected to reach over $160 million per year in 2035, with engineering
spending at nearly $100 million per year . Florida is already host to major oil and natural gas industry suppliers such as
Crowley, one of the largest oper ators of large offshore tugs used for the transportation of drilling rigs and production units and Oceaneering’s
Panama City umbilical plant which is one of the largest facilities of its type in the world. Employment
in Florida due to spending
by the Atlan tic offshore oil and natural gas industry is projected to reach over nine thousand jobs in 2035.
Direct employment due to offshore oil and natural gas exploration and production is expected to reach over three thousand jobs in 2035, with
indirect and induc ed employment of over six thousand jobs expected in the same year. (Figure 50 ) Contributions
to Florida’s state
economy due to spending by the Atlantic OCS oil and natural gas i ndustry are projected to be nearly $7 00
million per year by 2035. (Figure 51 ) With an assumed 37.5 percent revenue sharing agreement in place, Atlantic OCS oil and
natural gas activities are projected to contribute $265 million per year to the Florida’s budget in 2035,
cumulative contributions from 2017 to 2035 are proj ected to be over $ 1 billion. If a different revenue perc
entage were enacted, projected s tate revenues should be adjusted proportionally.
Econ ADV – OCS solves – Virginia
Virginia economy
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
6 .4 - Virginia Virginia
would be projected to receive the third highest levels of spending, employment and
gross domestic product due to Atlantic offshore oil and natural gas development . Annual spending from
Atlantic OCS oil and natural gas activity in Virginia is projected to peak at the end of the study period in
2035 at nearly $1.8 billion per year . Virginia is expected to see high spending levels due to the
significant oil and gas development activity in the resour ce rich waters around the state . Spending driven
by projects , and mainly due to state’s large estimated resource base, include operational expenditures (projected to be just
over $ 665 million per year in 2035), drilling spending ($ 330 million per year in 2 035), and installation spending ( over $ 135
million per year ). (Figure 37 The makeup of Virginia’s economy, as well as the large amount of development activity projected off its coast is
expected to lead to high levels of engineering activity in the state , with spending projected to r each nearly $ 400 million dollars a year in 2035.
Virginia possesses a strong marine background, hosting major offshore industry supplier Oceaneering’s marine service division in Chesapeake,
as well as one of the largest dry docks in the U . S . at Newport News Shipbuilding. Other existing industry suppliers in Virginia include Bauer
Compressors in Norfolk who supplies compression equi pment for use on offshore platforms, PaR Marine Services which provides cargo
handling equipment for offshore vessels and platforms, and Strongwell of Bristol which provides high - tech building materials used in the
construction of floating production units . Virginia
employment due to Atlantic OCS oil and gas exploration and
development activities is projected to reach nearly 25 thousand jobs in 2035, with a direct
employment level due to development activity of nearly nine thousand jobs and an indirect and induc
ed employment level of nearly 16 thousand jobs. (Figure 38 ) Atlantic OCS oil and natural gas production is also
expected to contribute significant sums to the Virginia state economy. In 2035, the contributions of this activity are
projected to reach nearly $2.2 billion per year . (Figure 39 ) Potential s tate government revenue from offshore
development would be dependent on any future legislated revenue shari ng agreements. Under a similar s
tate percentage of revenue sharing as in the Gulf of Mexico at 37.5 percent, Virginia state revenues are projected to reach $ 400 million per
year by 2035 at the end of the study period, with the cumulative effects on the state budget from 2017 to 2035 projected to reach nearly $ 1.9
billion. If a different revenue perc entage were enacted, projected s tate revenues should be adjusted proportionally.
Econ ADV – turns DA – environment
Economic decline leads to environmental collapse
Richard 2008 Michael Graham, staff writer, Tree Hugger, 2/4/8,
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/02/4_reasons_recession_bad_environment.php
As a counter-point to Lloyd's tongue-in-cheek post about 10 Ways the Recession Can Help the Environment, here are some eco-reasons why we
should wish a speedy recovery (we won't get into non-green reasons here): Firstly,
when squeezed, companies will reduce
their investments into research & development and green programs. These are usually not short-term profit
centers, so that is what's axed first. Some progress has been made in the past few years, it would be sad to lose ground now. Secondly,
average people, when money is tight, will look for less expensive products (duh). Right now, that
usually means that greener products won't make it. Maybe someday if we start taxing "bads" instead of "goods"
(pollution, carbon, toxins instead of labor, income, capital gains) the least expensive products will also be the greenest, but right now that's not
Thirdly, there's less money going into the stock markets and bank loans are harder to get,
which means that many small firms and startups working on the breakthrough green technologies of
tomorrow can have trouble getting funds or can even go bankrupt, especially if their clients or backers decide to
make cuts. Fourthly, during economic crises, voters want the government to appear to be doing
something about the economy (even if it's government that screwed things up in the first place). They'll accept all kinds
of measures and laws, including those that aren't good for the environment. Massive corn subsidies
anyone? Don't even think about progress on global warming...
the case.
Econ ADV – turns DA – hegemony
Econ decline collapses heg – nuke war
Harris and Burrows 9 Mathew, PhD European History @ Cambridge, counselor in the National
Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the
Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf Increased Potential for Global
Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of intersecting
and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended
consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever. While we continue
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include the
harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and
1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is
no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century.
For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a
constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the report
to believe that the
stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the international agenda.
Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle East and youth
unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the diffusion of technologies and
scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach. Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be
a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures, command and control processes, and training
procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an
economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S.
military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable,
worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements
with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own nuclear
ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War
would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear
umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved
are not well established. The close proximity of potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance
capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications
and warning of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile
flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense,
potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources,
could reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices.
Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst
case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy
resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short
of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups and
modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus focus for these
countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be military. Buildup of
regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and counterbalancing moves , but it
also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in
Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water resources is likely to be increasingly
difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.
Econ ADV – turns DA – trade
Econ collapse causes protectionism
Aaron Friedberg, professor of politics and international relations at Princeton University's Woodrow
Wilson School, and Gabriel Schoenfeld 2008, senior editor of Commentary and visiting scholar at the
Witherspoon Institute, 10/21/08, “The Dangers of a Diminished America”,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455074012352571.html?mod=djemEditorialPage, umn
Protectionist sentiments are sure to grow stronger as jobs disappear in the coming slowdown. Even
before our current woes, calls to save jobs by restricting imports had begun to gather support among many
Democrats and some Republicans. In a prolonged recession, gale-force winds of protectionism will blow.
Econ ADV – turns DA – China Relations
Economic decline kills US-China relations
WSJ 09 - Wall Street Journal, “Chinese Premier Blames Recession on U.S. Actions,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318934318826787.html, 1-29-09
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao squarely blamed the U.S.-led financial system for the world's deepening
economic slump, in the most public indication yet of discord between the U.S. government and its
largest creditor. Leaders in China, the world's third-largest economy, have been surprised and upset over how much
the problems of the U.S. financial sector have hurt China's holdings. In response, Beijing is reexamining its U.S. investments, say people familiar with the government's thinking. Mr. Wen, the first Chinese premier to visit
the annual global gathering of economic and political leaders in Davos, Switzerland, delivered a strongly worded indictment of
the causes of the crisis, clearly aimed largely at the U nited S tates though he didn't name it. Mr. Wen blamed
an "excessive expansion of financial institutions in blind pursuit of profit," a failure of government supervision of the
financial sector, and an "unsustainable model of development, characterized by prolonged low savings and high
consumption." Chinese leaders have felt burned by a series of bad experiences with U.S. investments they
had believed were safe, say people familiar with their thinking, including holdings in Morgan Stanley, the collapsed Reserve Primary Fund and
mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As
a result, the people say, government leaders decided not to make
new investments in a number of U.S. companies that sought China's capital. China's pullback from Fannie and Freddie debt helped push
up rates on U.S. mortgages last year just as Washington was seeking to revive the U.S. housing market. To be sure, China's economy now is so
closely intertwined with the U.S.'s that major, abrupt changes are unlikely. The U.S.-China economic relationship has become arguably the
world's most important. China has been recycling its vast export earnings by financing the U.S. deficit through buying Treasurys, helping to keep
U.S. interest rates low and give American consumers more spending power to buy Chinese exports. China now has roughly $2 trillion in foreign
exchange reserves, and has continued to buy U.S. government debt -- surpassing Japan in September as the biggest foreign holder of Treasurys,
by one official U.S. measure. China must continue to recycle its trade surplus if it doesn't want its currency to appreciate too quickly. Still, the
relatively smooth financial ties between the two powers that underpinned the global economic boom
of recent years are being tested. As both sides survey the wreckage of the U.S. housing bubble and
credit crunch, mutual recriminations are raising doubts about the relationship . The Chinese premier's remarks
came a few days after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner fanned the flames when he accused China of
"manipulating" its currency during his confirmation process. That was widely seen as an escalation of longstanding U.S. complaints that China artificially depresses the value of the yuan to bolster its exports,
and prompted strong denials from Beijing. The Obama administration has since played down the statement's significance.
Nuclear war
Adhariri 99 - Eschan Adhariri, Armed Forces college national security professor, August 1, 1999 (Jane’s
Intelligence Review, online)
Looking ahead, a
continued deterioration of Sino-US ties does not bode well for the regional stability of
the very large and equally important Asia Pacific. Yet this regional stability might be negatively affected for a long time if Washington and
Beijing fail to bounce back from this fiasco and assiduously work to improve their strategic relations. In the meantime, the issue of
immediate concern for the USA is nuclear non-proliferation. Immediate work has to be done by both sides to minimize damages on
this issue. The PRC, armed with the knowledge of America's premier nuclear programs, is likely to be a
much more sought after sources for nuclear proliferation than it has ever been in the past by those countries keenly
interested in enhancing the sophistication of their extant nuclear programs and by those who have
not yet developed indigenous nuclear know-how but desire to purchase it. China, along with Russia, has an
established record proliferating nuclear technology. This reality is not likely to change in the foreseeable future,
much to the continued consternation of now-nuclear India. The increased nuclear sophistication on the
troubled subcontinent carries with it the risk of a potential nuclear holocaust. The Kashmir issue still
remains unresolved and very explosive given the continued intransigence of both India and Pakistan to amicably resolve it.
Econ ADV – turns DA – Disease
Economic decline kills disease research
MSNBC 09, Recession may worsen spread of exotic diseases,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29599786/, Krishy D
A significant amount of the CDC funding for emerging diseases goes to salaries and state and local
health departments, explained Dr. Ali Kahn, deputy director of the National Center for Zoonotic, Vector-Borne and Enteric
Diseases at the CDC, “There is no doubt we could do a lot more in the U.S. and worldwide with additional funds,” said
Kahn. The recession has weakened the government's ability to develop better treatments, vaccines
or prevent an epidemic, experts said. “States do not have resources to keep people on board and
these people are monitoring diseases, the epidemiologists doing shoe leather investigations,” said
Jeffrey Levi, executive director of Trust for America’s Health. “You cannot turn them on and off with a switch. If you lose them
you’ve lost them forever.”
Extinction
Steinbruner 98 - John D. Steinbruner, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, “Biological Weapons: A
Plague Upon All Houses,” FOREIGN POLICY n. 109, Winter 1997/1998, pp. 85-96, ASP.
It is a considerable comfort and undoubtedly a key to our survival that, so far, the main lines of defense against this threat have not depended
on explicit policies or organized efforts. In the long course of evolution, the human body has developed physical barriers and a biochemical
immune system whose sophistication and effectiveness exceed anything we could design or as yet even fully understand. But evolution is a
sword that cuts both ways: New diseases emerge, while old diseases mutate and adapt. Throughout history, there have been epidemics during
which human immunity has broken down on an epic scale. An infectious agent believed to have been the plague bacterium killed an estimated
20 million people over a four-year period in the fourteenth century, including nearly one-quarter of Western Europe's population at the time.
Since its recognized appearance in 1981, some 20 variations of the HIV virus have infected an estimated 29.4 million worldwide, with 1.5 million
people currently dying of AIDS each year. Malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera - once thought to be under control - are now making a comeback.
changing conditions have enhanced the potential for widespread
contagion. The rapid growth rate of the total world population, the unprecedented freedom of movement across international borders,
As we enter the twenty-first century,
and scientific advances that expand the capability for the deliberate manipulation of pathogens are all cause for worry that the problem might
be greater in the future than it has ever been in the past. The
threat of infectious pathogens is not just an issue of
public health, but a fundamental security problem for the species as a whole.
Econ ADV – turns DA – Racism
Econ decline causes racism
Knight 09 - Lesley-Anne Knight, secretary-general of Caritas Internationalis, one of the largest
advocacy networks dedicated to solving inequality and poverty, “Italy: More attention needed for
forgotten migrants and refugees,” http://www.jrs.net/reports/index.php?lang=en&sid=4484
The effect of the economic crisis has been to increase the proportion of international migration that is
irregular and unauthorised, leaving migrants even more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation. Lack of legal status
leaves them reluctant to seek police protection, means to redress or access to justice. Trafficking and migrant smuggling are on
the rise in parallel with increasing obstacles to legal migration. Migrants are considered to be
'removable' when domestic unemployment rises or when rising political tensions prompt the
targeting of scapegoats. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay has noted that migrant workers are already being
affected in many countries, and that there is a clear risk of increased xenophobia as a result of the global
financial crisis.
Migrants will be the first to lose their jobs, not only because their status is called into question, but also because they are
employed in sectors that are particularly affected by the economic crisis. Recession
also leads to greater xenophobia,
discrimination and even attacks against migrant workers and their families4. Examples of antiforeigner hostility are being reported around the world. These include exclusion, hostility and
violence based on migrants perceived status as foreigners, as well as discrimination in employment,
housing or health care. In the Middle East there has been a large influx of women service workers from
countries such as Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Indonesia and the Philippines. Migration has often been encouraged by Asian
governments as a source of foreign income in the form of remittances. Asian female live-in domestic workers in Middle Eastern countries
often live under conditions close to slavery. There is widespread abuse of these women, who suffer violence,
sexual abuse, torture, restriction of movement and exploitative employment5. On a visit to Sri Lanka last year I
met a woman who had been burnt with an iron by her employer and thrown out of an upstairs window. Another woman told me she was
In Latin America,
migrant workers from Bolivia, Paraguay and Peru now make up 80 per cent of the foreigners living in Argentina.
Most of them are women, who have travelled alone, often leaving their children behind. Increased migration has unleashed a
wave of xenophobia against immigrants from within the Latin American region, who are seen as a
threat to Argentina's 'European' identity6. In Africa, refugees from Somalia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda, Ethiopia, and the
Democratic Republic of Congo, were subjected to violent attacks when poor South Africans struggling to
survive turned against their foreign neighbours, accusing them of stealing jobs and committing crimes.
More than 60 people were killed and tens of thousands fled their homes7. And finally, in Europe a survey carried out in 12
countries, found that 30 per cent of respondents had experienced discrimination in their employment. A
quarter reported discrimination by the police and in education. Twenty-nine per cent reported
discrimination in commercial transactions8. And eighty-six per cent of respondents who had experienced discriminatory
desperately trying to trace her daughter who had gone abroad to work and had not been heard of for two years.
practices did not report their experience to any authority.
Econ ADV – turns DA – Russia Relations
Economic decline kills US-Russia relations
WSJ 09 - Wall Street Journal, “Chinese Premier Blames Recession on U.S. Actions,”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318934318826787.html, 1-29-09
The premiers of Russia and China slammed the U.S. economic system in speeches Wednesday, holding it
responsible for the global economic crisis. Both focused on the role of the U.S. dollar, with China's Premier
Wen Jiabao calling for better regulation of major reserve currencies and Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin calling over-reliance
on the dollar "dangerous." Speaking on the opening day of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, they both urged more
international cooperation to escape the downturn. They also talked up the abilities of their own economies to ride out the recession. Mr. Wen
said he was "confident" China would hit its 8% growth target for this year even though that was "a tall order." (See the full text.) The
Russian and Chinese leaders also called for cooperation with U.S. President Barack Obama, but it was a chilly
reception for the new administration that reflected growing anger in economies that are now getting
hit hard by a financial crisis that began with subprime mortgages sold in the U.S. Mr. Putin was
characteristically blunt. He called for the development of multiple, regional reserve currencies in addition
to the dollar. "Excessive dependence on a single reserve currency is dangerous for the global
economy," Mr. Putin said. (See the full text.) The Russian leader mocked U.S. businessmen who he said had
boasted at last year's Davos meeting of the U.S. economy's fundamental strength and "cloudless"
prospects. "Today, investment banks, the pride of Wall Street, have virtually ceased to exist," he said.
Econ ADV – A2 US resilient
No resiliency—we’ve pulled out all the stops—recession now will trigger a depression
Chris Isidore, CNN Money, 8/10/11, “Recession 2.0 would hurt worse”, lexis,
The risk of double dip recession is rising. And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S. economy is to fall into
another downturn, they generally agree on one thing -- a new recession would be worse than the last and very
difficult to pull out of. "Going back into recession now would be scary, because we don't have the
resources or the will to respond, and our initial starting point is such a point of weakness," said Mark Zandi, chief
economist at Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It would likely feel like a
depression." Zandi said the recent sell-off in stocks have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25% only 10 days
ago. Other economists surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an average chance of a new
recession to be about 25%, up from a 15% chance only three months ago. Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have joined
Zandi in increasing their estimates in just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S.
credit rating is another concern. "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession due to the negative hit to wealth and confidence,"
said Sal Guatieri, senior economist for BMO Capital Markets. Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow Jones industrial average Tuesday
following the Federal Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock indexes have lost more than 11% of their value over the last 12 trading days. A plunge
in stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession. The economy avoided a recession after the stock market crash of 1987. "Stock price
declines are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David Berson, chief economist of BMI Group. But with
the economy
already so fragile, the shock of anotherstock marketdrop and resulting loss of wealthcould be the tipping
point. "It really does matter where the economy is when it gets hit by these shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a
prescription for a long, painful recession," he said. Most economists say they aren't worried that S&P's downgrade makes recession more likely,
although a few said any bad news at this point increases the risk. "The downgrade has a psychological impact in terms of hurting consumer
confidence," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist with the National Association of Realtors. On shakier ground Another
recession
could be even worse than the last one for a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable
than it was in 2007 when the Great Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession
much weaker than the start of any other downturn since the end of World War II. Unemployment
currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before the start of the Great Recession, it was just
4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for work in the last few years has left the percentage of the population
with a job at a 28-year low. Various parts of the economy also have yet to recover from the last recession and
would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home values continue to lose ground and are projected
to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two years, industrial production is still 18% below pre-recession
levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the
Great Recession took hold. But what
has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used to try
to jumpstart an economy teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around."The
reason we didn't go into a depression three years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed,"
said Dan Seiver, a finance professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and
2010, Congress approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt
ceiling battle and credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the federal government has
shown little inclination to move in that direction. So this new recession would likely have virtually no
policy effort to counteract it.
If oil is “just another commodity,” then there shouldn’t be any connection between oil prices, debt
levels, interest rates, and total rates of return. But there clearly is a connection.
On one hand, spikes in oil prices are connected with recessions. According to economist James
Hamilton, ten out of eleven post-World War II recessions have been associated with spikes in oil
prices. There also is a logical reason for oil prices spikes to be associated with recession: oil is used in
making and transporting food, and in commuting to work. These are necessities for most people. If
these costs rise, there is a need to cut back on non-essential goods, leading to layoffs in discretionary
sectors, and thus recession.
On the other hand, the manipulation of interest rates and the addition of governmental debt (by
spending more than is collected in tax dollars) are the primary ways of “fixing” recession. According to
Keynesian economics, output is strongly influenced by aggregate demand–in other words, total
spending in the economy. Any approach that can increase total spending–either more debt, or more
affordable debt will increase economic output.
What is the Direct Connection Between Increased Debt and Oil Prices?
The economy doesn’t just grow by itself (contrary to the belief of many economists). It grows because
affordable energy products allow raw materials to be transformed into finished products. Increased
debt helps energy products become more affordable.
Econ Adv: A2 Resilient
The economy isn’t resilient – tapped out fiscal policy and high unemployment mean
the economy is uniquely vulnerable to coming shocks like the European and Asian
debt crises – that’s Morici and Isidore
We’re on the brink of collapse – all previous declines have been leading up to this
Christopher Clarke 2012, senior lecturer in accounting and finance at Nottingham Business School,
9/18/12, “World Economy: The Brink of Disaster”, lexis, mnrs
There's no doubt about it: the
world is hovering on the brink of economic disaster and few, if any, of the world's
leaders seem to want to acknowledge the situation. In fact, it's hard to believe just how grave the
current situation is. The chattering classes should be worried in the same way that they should have
been worried during the three major crises of the 20th century: In 1914 when the French, German and Russian armies
were mobilised and a catastrophic war became inevitable; in 1936 when Hitler's true intentions became apparent ; and in 1962 when the
USSR sent nuclear missiles to Cuba. During the first two of these crises, world leaders failed to act and disaster
ensued - the third of crisis was only resolved at the eleventh hour, narrowly averting nuclear war
between America and the Soviet Union. The current economic crisis was been building for over 50 years, based largely
on unrestrained consumerism and the closely associated allegiance of Western governments to Keynesian economics. This has resulted,
inevitably, in mountains of debt which can only be repaid, according to economists, through more "economic
growth" - in other words, more of the same nonsense. It appears that no other solution can be contemplated because any attempt to revert
to common sense and sustainability would be instantly rejected by the electorate. Thus, the crisis will be allowed to grind on
until it reaches the point of total economic collapse .
Economy is not resilient—will crash without fixing employment
Susanna Kim 2012, ABC News, 9-15-12. “U.S. Economy Still at 'Grave Risk' on 4-Year Anniversary of
Lehman Brothers Collapse” http://abcnews.go.com/Business/us-economy-grave-risk-year-anniversarylehman-brothers/story?id=17237918#.UFSs_rKPWWF
authors focused on four categories of cost: unemployment, destroyed household wealth,
government bailouts and support, and human suffering. They chose to use the estimated lost Gross Domestic Product from 2008 to 2018,
The
including projections of U.S. GDP before the crisis took place, from the Congressional Budget Office. The estimated lost GDP is $7.6 trillion. The report also estimates "avoided GDP loss" from
the estimated additional amount of GDP loss that was prevented only
by extraordinary fiscal and monetary policy actions." That figure is based on a model created by economists Alan Blinder and Mark Zandi, of
2008 to 2012 at $5.2 trillion, saying that figure describes "
Princeton University and Moody's Analytics, respectively, who wrote the paper "How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End." "You can end up running down rabbit holes like 'Alice in
Wonderland' trying to understand," Kelleher said. "We wanted to find something robust and real with standard methodology but could also be understood." Kelleher said he agrees "on a
the United States is at
" grave risk" of another financial crisis despite the Wall Street financial overhaul implemented by the
Dodd-Frank Act. "The problem is when you have such a massive crisis like this, it requires passing a law that is equal to the crisis. It just takes time to implement laws," he said.
theoretical level" that some of the lost GDP is not attributable to the financial crisis. "The problem is there is no data on it," he said. Kelleher said
Using a baseball metaphor to describe the status of U.S. financial overhaul, Kelleher said "we're probably in fourth or fifth inning ... because there are so many parts of it." J.D. Foster, a senior
fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said any figure to calculate the cost of the financial crisis would be "suggestive but not definitive." "The financial crisis was a global financial
putting in place
more regulations will not necessarily prevent a future financial crisis and Dodd-Frank would not have prevented the last disaster,
crisis," Foster said. "It cost a lot of money and hardship in the U.S. and around the world. Because it was a global event, it also had global causes." Foster said
nor could it at this point prevent contagion from a future crisis in Europe. "The one thing we know works is requiring financial institutions to hold substantial amounts of capital," Foster said.
But the Basel capital requirements, from the global Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, have become too convoluted, even for regulators. "Rather than trying to be sophisticated about
the collapse of Lehman
Brothers was one trigger of the recession. "There have been huge economic policy mistakes that have
occurred since 2008," Gattuso said. Gattuso said the report fails to fully account for the costs of over-regulation, increased debt and overspending. "To isolate the effects of
risk weighting, just require capital," Foster urged. James Gattuso, a senior fellow in regulatory policy at the Heritage Foundation, said
the banking crisis and the other bad economic policies is essential if you're going to estimate the cost of the banking crisis," he said. Gattuso said the United States needs a "properly
functioning bankruptcy system" and a "financial industry that works, where failure is punished and success is rewarded." Kelleher agreed on that point, saying his report's objective was to
start a discussion in light of the still-troubled U.S. economy. "
There are 23.1 million Americans who cannot find work and 11 million
homeowners, almost one in four, saddled with mortgages higher than their homes, so-called underwater mortgages," Kelleher said.
Econ ADV – A2 no econ war – Diversionary Theory
Diversionary theory is true - the 1930s prove
Lind 2010 New America Foundation Economic Growth Program Policy Director, 5/11/10 [Michael,
"Will the great recession lead to World War IV?,"
http://www.salon.com/news/economics/index.html?story=/opinion/feature/2010/05/11/great_recessi
on_world_war_iv]
an era of global economic stagnation will help the nationalist and populist right, at the
expense of the neoliberal and cosmopolitan/multicultural left. During the Long Depression of the late
19th century, which some historians claim lasted from 1873 to 1896, the nations of the West adopted protectionist
measures to promote their industries. Beginning with Bismarck’s Germany, many countries also adopted social reforms like
If history is any guide,
government pensions and health insurance. These reforms were often favored by the nationalist right, as a way of luring the working class away
from the temptations of Marxism and left-liberalism. By and large the strategy worked. When
World War I broke out, the
working classes and farmers in most countries rallied enthusiastically around their respective flags.
The Great Depression of the 1930s similarly led to the rise of one or another version of the
authoritarian, nationalist right in Europe. Only in a few societies with deeply established liberal
traditions, like the English-speaking countries and Scandinavia, did liberals or liberal conservatives hold on. And
Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal Democratic Party, a coalition that included racist Southerners and traditionalist
Catholic immigrants, was not particularly liberal by today’s standards. In both eras of depression, great-power
rivalry for resources and markets intensified and ultimately led to a world war. Following World War II, the U.S.
sought to avert a repetition of that pattern, by creating a global market secured by a global great-power concert in the form of the Security
Council. But the project of economic disarmament and security cooperation broke down almost immediately after 1945 and the split between
the Soviets and the Anglo-Americans produced the Cold War. The second attempt at a global market that began after the Cold War may be
breaking down now, as the most important economic powers pursue their conflicting national interests. A functioning global market system can
work only if its members abandon mercantilism -- the policy of trying to enjoy perpetual trade surpluses, by fair means or foul. However, the
nations with the three largest economies after the U.S. -- China, Japan and Germany -- all want to enjoy never-ending merchandise trade
surpluses. All three have used "currency mercantilism" to help their export industries, to the detriment of the global economic system. China
and Japan, by different methods, have deliberately undervalued their currencies, to help their exports and keep imports out of their markets.
Germany accomplished something similar, by persuading its trade partners to give up independent currencies that they were able to revalue
for the crippling straitjacket of the euro. The system worked only as long as Americans borrowed to pay for imports from Japan and China,
while southern Europeans borrowed to pay for imports from Germany. But the consumers are tapped out and neither Americans nor southern
Europeans are in a mood for austerity measures in the middle of a near-depression. Unless the Chinese, Japanese and Germans turn into credithappy consumer societies the global economy may be in for prolonged stagnation. Instead of changing their ways, however, the surplus
countries are denouncing their own customers for their profligacy in buying their goods and insisting that the same customers be penalized by
austerity programs. This will not end happily. As the oversold promise of free-market globalization fades, countries large and small
may turn increasingly toward state capitalism. At home, this would mean permanent state support of troubled industries like banking and the
automobile industries, which all of the major industrial countries have bailed out. In trade, this would mean a retreat from global trade areas
toward regional blocs and bilateral deals. Examples include agreements between energy-hungry governments like those of China and Japan and
the state-owned oil or natural gas companies of Saudi Arabia and Russia. In a world of diplomatic rivalries among great powers to win contracts
with state-owned corporations, the distinctions between geoeconomics and geopolitics would erode, with potentially dangerous
Direct war between great powers seems unlikely, but if the Cold War was World War III,
then a cold World War IV resembling Orwell’s shifting coalitions of Eurasia, Eastasia and Oceania in
1984 is all too easy to imagine.
consequences.
Econ ADV – Add-on – food prices
High oil prices driver higher food prices
Tverberg13 (Gail, M. S. from the University of Illinois, Chicago in Mathematics, and Fellow of the
Casualty Actuarial Society and a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries, oil expert, 1/8/13,
“Why 2013 Will End in a Severe Recession” Oil Price)
This recession is likely be very long term. In fact, based on my view of the reasons for the recession, it may never be possible to
exit from it completely. I base the foregoing views on several observations: 1. High oil prices are a major cause of the United
States Federal Government’s current financial problems. The financial difficulties occur because high oil prices tend to
lead to unemployment, and high unemployment tends to lead to higher government expenditures
and lower government revenue. This is especially true for oil importers. 2. The United States and world’s oil problems have not
been solved. While there are new sources of oil, they tend to be sources of expensive oil, so they don’t solve the problem of high-priced oil.
Furthermore, if our real economic problem is high-priced oil, and we have no way of permanently reducing oil prices, high oil prices can be
expected to cause a long-term drag on economic growth.3. A cutback in discretionary spending is likely. US workers are
already struggling with wages that are not rising as fast as GDP (Figure 2). Starting in January, 2013, US workers have the additional problem of
rising Social Security taxes, and later this year, a likely cutback in government expenditures. The combination is likely to lead to a cutback in
discretionary spending. 4. The size of our current financial problems, both in terms of US government income/outgo imbalance and debt level,
If high oil prices present a permanent drag on the economy, we cannot expect economic
growth to resume in a way that would fix these problems. 5. The financial symptoms that the US and many other oil
is extremely large.
importers are experiencing bear striking similarities to the problems that many civilizations experienced prior to collapse, based on my reading
of Peter Turchin and Sergey Nefedov’s book Secular Cycles. According to this analysis of eight collapses over the last 2000 years, the collapses
did not take place overnight. Instead, economies moved from an Expansion Phase, to a Stagflation Phase, to a Crisis Phase, to a
Depression/Intercycle Phase. Timing varies, but typically totals around 300 years for the four phases combined. It appears to me that the
corresponding secular cycle for the US began in roughly 1800, with the ramp up of coal use. Later other modern fuels, including oil, were
added. Since the 1970s, the US has mostly been experiencing the Stagflation Phase. The Crisis Phase appears to be not far away. The Turkin
analysis started with a model. This model was verified based on the experiences of eight agricultural civilization (beginning dates between 350
BCE and 1620 CE). While the situation is different today, there may be lessons that can be learned. Below the fold, I discuss these observations
further. Issue 1. High oil prices tend to lead to government financial problems .
Food prices tend to rise at the same time
as oil prices , partly because oil is used in the production of food(for example, plowing, irrigation, herbicides and
insecticides, harvesting, transport to market). Also, because oil is in short supply, corn is now being grown for use as
ethanol to be used as a gasoline-extender. Growing additional corn puts pressure on food prices,
because it drives up the price of land and encourages farmers to put more land into corn production,
and less into other crops. The reason governments are affected by high oil and food prices is as follows. When oil and food
prices rise, buyers cut back in discretionary spending, so as to have enough for “basics,” including food and
commuting expenses. Workers are laid off in discretionary industries, such as vacation travel and restaurants. These laid offworkers pay less taxes, and sometimes default on loans. Governments are quickly drawn into these problems, for two reasons: 1. Their tax
revenue is lower, because of layoffs in discretionary sectors. 2. Their expenditures are higher, because of the need to pay more
Oil importers are especially affected, because
they are also paying out funds to oil exporters. The countries with well-publicized financial problems (including several
unemployment benefits, provide economic stimulus, and bail out banks.
European countries, the United States, and Japan) tend to be major oil importers. Oil exporters are not adversely affected to the same extent,
because they have additional revenue from higher prices on oil they are exporting. They may still be somewhat affected because of rising food
prices, and the fact that higher oil revenues do not necessarily go to those buying food. A recent study shows that food shortages helped trigger
the Arab Spring protests.
Part of the reason that the impact of high oil prices is as severe as it is, is because
there are many follow-on effects. For example, if oil prices rise, the price of shipping goods of all types
rises. If businesses are able to pass through these higher costs, discretionary income of buyers for
other goods falls. If not, businesses find that their higher costs lead to lower profits.To bring profit margins
back up to an acceptable level, businesses may lay off workers. As another example, prices of homes are likely to be adversely affected by high
oil prices, because a family with inadequate discretionary income will forgo moving to a larger home, and may even default on a mortgage. It
should be noted that the impact of high oil prices doesn’t completely go away unless oil prices go down and stay down. Businesses can partly
mitigate the impact of high oil prices by laying off workers in discretionary segments. Some businesses will fail completely,
however. Replacement may be by an overseas company, with a lower cost structure that uses less oil. See my post on energy leveraging.
Workers generally must permanently adjust their budgets to higher food and oil prices. This is often difficult to do.The
lack of jobs is a
particular problem–something that workers cannot fix by themselves. Government programs can
mitigate the job shortfall, by paying benefits to unemployed workers and by reducing interest rates,
so that businesses can more easily make investments that will lead to more employment. These
programs are costly, though, and are a major cause of the current mismatch between government
income and expense.
Food price spikes risk internal revolts in Russia, China, and India
Global Torchlight 2012 (Global Torchlight, specialised consultancy advising on a full spectrum of
international political and security issues, founding members include John C. Amble, former intelligence
officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency, and David J. Chmiel, MA from the War Studies Department at
King’s College London, "Drought, Rising Food Prices, and Political Instability," 8--20--12,
http://globaltorchlight.com/?p=2289
Adverse climatic conditions this year in regions such as the United States, the Black Sea, and India are
combining to generate lower than average crop yields and put upward pressure on food prices that
will last well into 2013. While those with international business interests will be attuned to the economic and financial consequences
of such price increases, equal attention should be paid to their potential impact on the political and security
risk environment in emerging and developing markets over the coming months. Such risks could take many
forms, but three warrant particular mention. First, substantial and sustained rises in food prices are likely to place
pressure on governments in many emerging markets to subsidise the prices of staple foods. As has been
noted in previous analysis on globaltorchlight.com, such subsidies often do more harm than good to an economy in
the long run. They distort market mechanisms and give rise to increased potential for fraud and
corruption in how the program is administered. Nevertheless, when confronted with prospects of civil unrest relating to
rising food prices, political leaders may judge subsidies the easiest means of placating a restive population. Second, this will also mean
that existing subsidy programs will likely remain in place while food prices continue to rise. In the
past couple of years, countries as disparate as Bolivia, Nigeria, and Tunisia have experienced civil
unrest following decisions to reduce or eliminate subsidies on food, fuel, and other staples. The prospects of
similar disruption to internal security will be fresh in the minds of many governments. Countries that
do choose to abolish subsidies are likely to confront considerable resistance when doing so. Finally,
the effects of this issue are not limited to smaller developing economies but could generate political
upheaval in some of the world’s most important economies, including China, Russia, and India . It is
widely acknowledged that food price inflation is an issue of significant political sensitivity in China and
any sustained increase in food prices could cause grave concern in China’s Communist government. In
Russia, similar inflationary trends could impact hardest upon the rural and poorer parts of the country
on which President Vladimir Putin traditionally relies for support. Protest movements against Putin
have previously lacked momentum due to his ongoing support in Russia’s hinterland; however, an
erosion in support for his government in those parts of the country could alter that dynamic. However,
the potential consequences of food price insecurity would perhaps be most deeply problematic for
India, whose government is already struggling with the challenge of restoring order following the
eruption of sectarian violence in the north-eastern Assam state. Any civil unrest related to rising food prices would present the
government with a further substantial challenge to its attempts to sustain the country’s economic growth and attract further foreign
investment capital.
Russian instability causes global nuclear war
DimitriSimes, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, “The Return of Russian
History,” FOREIGN AFFAIRS, January/February 1994, p. 67+, LN.
For the United States, neither Yeltsin's political future nor even the future of Russian democracy should be ends in themselves. What the United
States needs most in its greatly weakened but still potentially formidable superpower rival is a combination of domestic stability and a system
of checks and balances.Stability
is important for a nation with thousands of nuclear weapons and continuing
territorial tensionswith its newly independent neighbors.Too much disunity in Russia (as appealing as it is to those who
"love" that country so much that they would prefer to see several Russias) increases the likelihood of a civil war that could
easily engulf most, if not all, of the post-Soviet states, creating not only nuclearand environmentaldisasters
but a grave threat to world peace as well. Thus, it is in the U.S. interest to have a government in Moscow that is strong and
determined enough to draw the line and to prevent centrifugal, separatist trends from going out of control.Conversely, the more stable the
Russian government, the more the United States should be interested in seeing that there are meaningful checks and balances to prevent the
reemergence of a unitary authoritarian state. Without such checks and balances, there would be no assurance that Russia would not again
become a threat to its neighbors and a destabilizing factor in world politics. The United States has a vested interest in seeing Russian
governments rely more on democratic legitimacy than on the support of the military and security services.
ADV Economy – oil prices
ADV Economy 1ac – oil prices
Oil demand and prices to remain high – supply risk remain high and current
production does not offset it
Prairie Business 7/11/2014 “IEA: U.S. oil boom to extend into 2015, supply risks strong”,
http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/19949/#sthash.rxdUyE8k.dpuf”
LONDON — Global
oil demand growth will accelerate next year as the world economy expands and will again be
met by rising supplies from the United States and Canada, further eroding OPEC’s market share, the West’s energy watchdog said on Friday.¶
But the International Energy Agency said in its monthly report that risks to oil production in several regions remained
acute.¶ “Supply risks in the Middle East and North Africa, not least in Iraq and Libya, remain
extraordinarily high ,” the IEA said. “Oil prices remain historically high and there is no sign of a turning of
the tide just yet.”¶ “Whether in crude or product markets, there is little room for complacency ,” it added.¶ North Sea Brent
crude oil hit a nine-month high above $115 a barrel in June as a Sunni Islamist insurgency swept across northwestern Iraq, taking control of
large parts of the oil producing country and shutting down its largest refinery.¶ The
oil market has weakened over the last month but
remains nervous about further supply shocks. Brent was trading at around $108.20 a barrel early on Friday.¶ Making its
first forecasts for 2015 in a monthly report, the IEA which advises major consuming nations on energy policy, said it expected
global oil demand to grow by 1.4 million barrels per day (bpd) next year, up from 1.2 million this year.¶ “Newly
industrialized and emerging market economies are once again forecast to lead the gains,” it said.¶ The world’s
second largest oil consumer, China, will see oil demand growing by 4.2 percent, up from 3.3 percent this year, while the
largest oil user, the United States, will only see gains of 0.2 percent to 19.1 million barrels per day, up from a growth of 0.6 percent this year.¶
North America leads supply gains¶ The IEA said it expected non-OPEC supply growth to average 1.2 million bpd next year, in line with increases
in 2013 and 2014.¶ “The U.S. and Canada remain the mainstays for growth, but sources are expected to be more diverse than in 2014,” said
the IEA, naming Brazil, Britain, Vietnam, Malaysia, Norway and Columbia among countries which will grow output in 2015. ¶ North America will
remain the leader in 2015, contributing about two-thirds of the net non-OPEC supply increase compared to 85 percent in 2014.¶ U.S. light tight
oil, mostly from North Dakota and Texas, as well as Canadian bitumen, represent well over half of 2014 non-OPEC supply growth, the IEA said.¶
It added that the Eagle Ford Shale Play in south Texas will remain one of the most dynamic oil provinces with output growing by 34 percent to
1.4 million bpd this year and exceeding 1.6 million next year.¶ “Certain OPEC countries have experienced severe disruptions, so North America
has made the difference in terms of avoiding severely constrained global supply,” the IEA said.¶ Iraqi bloodshed¶ The U.S. shale oil boom has
eroded the market share of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and the trend will likely continue next year, it said.¶ The IEA
forecast demand for OPEC crude would edge down in 2015 to 29.8 million bpd, from 29.9 million this year. That is slightly below the level
pumped by the group in June at just over 30 million bpd.¶ Insurgency
in Iraq remains among the main threats to OPEC’s
production targets with output down by 260,000 bpd in June alone to 3.17 million bpd after an assault by radical Islamist militants
forced the closure of the Iraq’s biggest refinery at Baiji and cut production from the giant Kirkuk field.¶ “A month-long military campaign by
radical militants has shaken Iraq’s foundation and threatened oil operations in the north of the country, but the prized oil fields in the south are
so far insulated from the fighting,” the IEA said.¶ It added that exports from Iraq’s giant southern fields were down in June mostly due to
logistical snags and maintenance works at the Gulf Basra terminal.¶ “Prolonged
sectarian bloodshed may shake investor
confidence and set back longer-term growth in the country that had been poised to provide the
biggest source of new OPEC capacity over the next decade,” the IEA said.
US economy is ticking up, but energy shortages can reverse gains and cause a crash
InterNations February 6 2014 “The US Economy”, http://www.internations.org/usaexpats/guide/16293-economy-finance/the-us-economy-16281
After the recent financial crisis and global recession, the US economy is gradually making a comeback.
Read this InterNations article to find out which industries are expected to play an important role in the coming years and what long-term
problems the US economic system still faces.¶ Introduction¶ The
United States has the world’s largest and most powerful
economy. It has a GDP of USD 15.94 trillion, and a per capita GDP of USD 49,800. In this market-oriented system, private companies and
powerful businessmen and women make the important decisions. As opposed to Western Europe and Japan, US businesses enjoy more
flexibility in terms of the power to make decisions to develop new products, expand capital, and lay off surplus workers. US companies are
market leaders when it comes to technological advances in the medical, computer, aerospace, and military equipment fields.¶ When the GDP
is broken into sectors, the service sector comes out overwhelmingly on top, with 79.7% of the total. In comparison, the secondary sector only
accounts for 19.2% of the GDP and the primary sector only a miniscule 1.1%.¶ The United States has a labor force of 155 million, with 37.3%
working in managerial, professional, and technical fields. Then come sales and office positions, which account for 24.2% of the workforce,
followed closely by 20.3% with jobs in the fields of manufacturing, extraction, transportation, and crafts. The remaining 18.3% of the labor force
are employed either in farming, forestry, and fishing (0.7%) or positions in the service sector not covered by the previous categories.¶ Financial
Crisis and Recession¶ Between 2001 and 2006, crude oil prices rose significantly, which caused hardships for
many Americans, as imported oil accounts for 55% of US consumption. When home prices also peaked in 2006, many Americans fell behind in
their mortgage payments. Crude
oil prices continued to climb another 50% over the next two years, and this
period also saw the collapse of the US housing bubble, which resulted in the doubling of bank foreclosures on homes. The
sub-prime mortgage crisis, falling home prices, investment bank failures, tight credit, and the resultant global economic
downturn, all united to push the US economy into recession by the middle of 2008.¶ The GDP continued to contract until the third quarter
of 2009, making this the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression in the 1930s. With financial help from the government to
stimulate the economy and the passing of acts to promote financial stability through improved accountability and transparency in the financial
system, as well as stricter regulations for banks, steady improvement started to be made as of 2010.¶ Economic Outlook¶ The
US
economy has experienced slow and gradual growth since the official end of the recession in mid-2009.
Unemployment has decreased from 10% at the high point of the recession to 7.3% in October 2013, although part of this is due to
the fact that many people have stopped looking for jobs and dropped out of the labor force altogether. In 2013, sequestration and the
government shutdown in October impeded further growth, but with a budget deal reached by the House and Senate, faster
growth can be expected in 2014.¶ Continuing and long-term problems that still face the US economy are the
rapidly increasing medical and pension costs of an aging population, energy shortages, the stagnation of the salaries for low-income
families, inadequate investment in the deteriorating infrastructure, and large budget deficits.
Plan sends a signal to oil markets that immediately brings down prices
Peter Ferrera 2011, Director, Entitlement and Budget Policy, Heartland Institute, "Obama's War on
Oil," AMERICAN SPECTATOR, 5--4--11, http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/04/obamas-war-on-oil
Supply down, prices up. That should not be too hard to understand even for a grassroots Democrat. But highly skilled Obama
propagandists say, hold on, domestic oil production for 2009 and 2010 is up, not down. President Obama cited the figures himself, saying, “So
any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political sound bite, but it doesn’t match up with
reality.” But the reality is that just as
the economy grows over time, oil production is supposed to grow with it.
theObamaAdministration has taken to shut down oil production means
unambiguously that oil production is now or soon will be lower than it would have been otherwise. Which
means prices are higher than they would have been otherwise. Moreover, oil is not produced by flipping a switch. It takes years of
All of the above actions
development. Which means the increasing oil production in 2009 and 2010 that Obama and his propagandists cite is due to the policies of the
Bush Administration. The impact of the policies adopted by the Obama Administration over the last two years, as part of its War on Oil, will be
seen in oil production figures in the years ahead. Already the Energy Department projects that oil production in the Gulf will be down 20% just
this year. That translates into a loss of 375,000 much needed, good paying jobs. The Department further projects that domestic oil production
overall will drop sharply over the next two years. In addition, oil
markets today are not blind to what is coming down the
pike. Today’s oil price reflects the outlook for tomorrow. And constrained supplies tomorrow mean
higher prices today. Opening up new oil supplies for tomorrow will similarly mean lower prices today.
OCS development ensures huge employment gains in numerous sectors throughout
the country
Hillegeist 13—President & COO @ Quest Offshore (Paul, “The Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S.
Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December, http://www.noia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/12/The-Economic-Benefits-of-Increasing-US-Access-to-Offshore-Oil-andNatura....pdf)
4.6 – Employment Spending
on goods and services to develop oil and natural gas in the Atlantic OCS is expected
to provide large employment gains both nationally and regionally. Employment generally follows spending patterns.
Employment effects are expected to steadily grow, reaching nearly 280 thousand jobs in 2035. Total Atlantic
coast employment in 2035 is projected to reach over 215 thousand jobs in 2035, with employment spread across the r egion. U.S. states outside
the e ast coast region are projected to see employment of approximately 65 thousand jobs in 2035, down from a peak of a round 85 thousand
jobs in 2030 as more employment shifts into the Atlantic coast region. (Figure 20 ) The largest impact on employment by number of jobs is
expected to be seen in the M id - Atlantic states of North and South Carolina and Virginia, while North Atlantic states such as Massachusetts,
Maine, and New York are all also projected to see employment of over 10 thousand jobs by 2035. Over 10 thousand jobs in Atlantic coast states
will be created by 2022. As
the Atlantic OCS is developed, the oil and gas industry is expected to take advantage
of the skilled workforce and extensive infrastructure in place within the region. The mix between east coast and
other U.S. state employment effects are projected to be highly dependent on the type of activity taking place in a given year, as well as the
projected in region supply chain shift over time. In the early years of the forecast period from 2017 to 2021, prior to the beginning of significant
project development, an average of 53 percent of employment benefits are expected to accrue to the Atlantic coast region. As spending on
items such as SURF equipment and platforms that will initially be produ ced outside the region increases, the percentage of overall employment
effects in Atlantic coast states is expected to fall as low as 42 percent in 2023, albeit with overall employment in the region still growing rapidly.
By 2035, the Atlantic coast states are projected account for 77 percent of the employment effects of Atl antic OCS development. (Figure 21 )
The opening of the Atlantic OCS to offshore oil and natural gas production is expected to increase
employment not only through direct employment in the industry, but also indirectly. Indirect
employment occurs through the purchases of needed goods and services and the induced
employment impact of greater income in the economy. Direct employment by oil and natural gas
companies and their suppliers is projected to reach nearly 95 thousand jobs in 2035 . Jobs generated
through the purchase of goods and servic es coupled with the income effects of increased
employment are expected to contribute a further 185 thousand jobs . (Figure 22 ) Offshore oil and natural gas
development in the Atlantic OCS is expected to benefit a diverse spectrum of industries both
nationally and in Atlantic coast states. Industry sectors which are directly involved in oil and natural gas
activities such as mining , which includes the oil and gas industry, manufacturing, professional, scientific, and
technical Services (engineering), and Construction (installation) are expected to see the largest employment
impacts with a combined 125 thousand jobs in 2035. Additionally, employment impacts expected to be significant for a
variety of other industries outside oil and gas, with 155 thousand jobs projected outside of these four categories in 2035. (Figure 23 ) The
manufacturing sector includes those businesses that manufacture and fabricate oil and gas
equipment, platforms and otherwise produce the goods required to develop oil and natural gas fields.
Manufacturing is projected to see some of the largest gains due to Atlantic OCS offshore oil and natural
gas production, with around 30 thousand jobs created by 2035, with over 20 thousand jobs in Atlantic
coast states and over nine thousand in the res t of the U. S. (Figure 24 ) Employment in the mining sector,
which includes oil and gas, is also expected to see significant growth. In 2035 total employment is projected to reach around 45
thousand jobs representing 39 thousand jobs expected in the Atlantic coast states and over six thousand jobs in the rest of the U . S. (Figure 25 )
Another employment sector expected to see large gains as a result of Atlantic OCS offshore oil and natural gas activity is
the professional, scientific, and technical service sector which includes high value engineering
employment . This sector is projected to see in excess of 32 thousand additional jobs in 2035, with nearly 24 thousand jobs in the Atlantic
coast states and over eight thousand jo bs in other U . S . states. (Figure 26 ) The construction sector, which includes industrial
construction activities such as offshore installation and construction of natural gas processing infrastructure, is also expected to see
large employment gains. Due to the cyclical nature of installation, construction employment is expected to be more variable than
most other sectors. After 2027, employment in the construction sector is expected to fluctuate between 15 thousand and 30 thousand jobs
though in 2035. (Figure 27 ) Many
employment sectors of the economy outside oil and gas development or the
also be impacted , mainly due to greater income in the economy. The most affected
sectors are projected to be retail with over 20 thousand jobs created in 2035, health care and social assistance
direct supply chain will
with nearly 19 thousand jobs created, administrative and waste management services with over 1 7 thousand jobs, food services and drinking
places with over 13 thousand jobs, and finance and insurance, and real estate, rental and leasing with both industries individually projec ted to
see the creation of over 11 thousand jobs by 2035. As production in creases along the coastline of the Atlantic OCS, employment relating to oil
and gas production is expected to migrate towards the Mid - Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia with employment
reaching around 5 5 thousand, 35 thousand, and 25 thousand jobs respectively in 2035. Large employment gains are also expected in the North
Atlantic states of Massachusetts, New York, and Maine where employment in 2035 is projected to reach 15 thousand, 12 thousand and 10
thousand jobs respectively . (Table 10 )
Plan creates a ripple effect, driving economic growth
Mark P. Mills, fellow, Manhattan Institute, "Jobs in a Ripple-Out Economy Come from Oil, Gas, Coal,
and then the Cloud," FORBES, 10--24--12, www.manhattaninstitute.org/html/miarticle.htm?id=8673#.UOPIgW_Ad8E
The nation stands to gain more than 4 million jobs in the near future from expanding hydrocarbon production – oil, natural
gas and coal. (For more on the state-by-state numbers, see Prime the Jobs Pump.) Consider the context. Over 8 million Americans
lost jobs between February 2008 and 2010. Since then, through August 2012, barely more than 4 million jobs have been
created. We need a lot more jobs, and quickly . Why not embrace the hydrocarbon boom that began,
quietly, unbidden, and even accelerate it? (To drill deeper on the facts that make this possible, see Unleashing the North
American Energy Colossus, and from the U.S. Chamber we welcome the additional perspective of a new report with a full-throated embrace of
this paradigm.) The
hydrocarbon boom is galloping along despite regulatory headwinds bemoaned by everyone on
oil output has risen more than anywhere else in the
the front lines, and without specific federal incentives. America’s
world, with domestic production reversing a four-decade decline. There’s so much oil that we’re shipping it around the country by truck and
rail for goodness sake, awaiting new more cost-effective pipelines. Natural gas production has soared so much that there’s a glut, and a back-up
in applications to export it. And coal exports are soaring to meet world demand, also in spite of bottlenecks in getting export facilities
expanded. This
boom can be squelched by oppressive regulation, or it can embraced, with attendant job
acceleration in dozens of states. And while there are a lot of old-fashioned hard-hat jobs in this boom, that’s not what this is all
about. For every direct hydrocarbon job created in the field, another six jobs are created in the economy
from manufacturing and education, to health care and information services. The economic boom
leads to enhanced royalties and taxes that help to fund social programs, research and education. It’s
how a ripple-out economy works. Employment from expanded domestic oil, gas and coal output– and,
importantly, exports –is associated with over $2 trillion in total economic benefits to our society from all the
hydrocarbon production. We don’t need stimulus funds to create such jobs, so taxpayers are off the hook. Hydrocarbon employment creates a
net societal benefit of $500,000 per job. The broad economic benefits show up not just in jobs and incomes, but also in huge reductions in
imports and our trade deficit, as well as reductions in both state and federal debt. All we need to do is ensure that regulations meet the intent
of the rules and are not punitive or obfuscatory.
US is key to the global economy
Caploe9 (David, PhD in International political economy from Princeton, “Focus still on America to lead
global recovery,” The Straits Times, 8/2/12)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by
United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The
world has
become accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of
economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as
the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the
global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan,
Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell tocountries that sell to the
US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented
benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and
later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity.At the same time, this deep interconnection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a relatively
small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's
ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To
put it simply, Mr Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six
decades. If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are
critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems
to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so
perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have
pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable
credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to acknowledge the extent to which its policies
at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If
the US can't or won't or doesn't
want to be the global economic engine, which country will?The obvious answer is China. But that is
unrealistic for three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically
any other country in the world. Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its own economy to
complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the
US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its
economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China,
however, is a poor country, with low per
capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest economy . There are real
possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is doubtful if even a successful
Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale. Finally,
the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of
the world economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve
currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without
going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of
exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for
America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the
yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems
that the US has grappled with for decades. Given
all this, the US will remain the engine of global economic
recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help.
Economic decline causes war—studies prove
Royal, Department of Defense Cooperative threat reduction director, 2010 [Jedediah, Economic
Integration, Economic Signaling and the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, p.213-4]
Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland's (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant
variable in understanding economic conditions and security behaviour 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 items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict
increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources.Crises couldpotentially
be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist
moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
external armed conflict at a national level. Bloomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal
conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages
between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic
conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to
which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other (Bloomberg & Hess, 2002, p.89) Economic decline has also been linked with
an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess, &Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to
external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. ‘Diversionary
theory’ suggests
that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased
incentives to fabricate external military conflictsto create a 'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995), and
Bloomberg, Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly
correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater
for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from
office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods
of weak economic
performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked to an
increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in
the frequency of economic crises, whereas political
science scholarship links economic decline with external
conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels.5 This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured
prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
US economic collapse emboldens adversaries – ensures global warfare
Lieberthal and O'Hanlon, Director of the China center and Director of research at Brookings, 12
(7/10, The Real National Security Threat: America's Debt,
www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2012/07/10-economy-foreign-policy-lieberthal-ohanlon)
Lastly, American
economic weakness undercuts U.S. leadership abroad. Other countries sense our
weakness and wonder about our purported decline. If this perception becomes more widespread, and
the case that we are in decline becomes more persuasive, countries will begin to take actions that reflect their
skepticism about America's future. Allies and friends will doubt our commitment and may pursue
nuclear weapons for their own security, for example; adversaries will sense opportunity and be less restrained in
throwing around their weight in their own neighborhoods. The crucial Persian Gulf and Western Pacific regions will
likely become less stable. Major war will become more likely. When running for president last time, Obama
eloquently articulated big foreign policy visions: healing America's breach with the Muslim world, controlling global climate
change, dramatically curbing global poverty through development aid, moving toward a world free of nuclear weapons. These were, and
remain, worthy if elusive goals. However,
for Obama or his successor, there is now a much more urgent big-picture
issue: restoring U.S. economic strength. Nothing else is really possible if that fundamental prerequisite
to effective foreign policy is not reestablished.
Econ ADV – UQ – Yes high prices
Oil prices will continue climb – unrest in Iraq and Africa keeps supply tight
EIA 7/8/2014 “SHORT-TERM ENERGY OUTLOOK”,
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/
Unrest in Iraq put upward pressure on world oil prices last month, helping North Sea Brent crude oil spot prices
reach their highest daily level of the year at just over $115/barrel (bbl) on June 19. North Sea Brent crude oil spot prices
increased from a monthly average of $110/bbl in May to $112/bbl in June. This was the 12th consecutive month in which the average Brent
crude oil spot price ranged between $107/bbl and $112/bbl. EIA projects Brent crude oil prices to average $110/bbl in 2014 and $105/bbl in
2015, $2/bbl and $3/bbl higher than projected in last month's STEO, respectively. The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil price discount to
Brent is expected to average $9/bbl and $10/bbl in 2014 and 2015, respectively.¶ During this year's April-through-September summer driving
season, regular gasoline retail prices are forecast to average $3.66/gallon (gal), 8 cents higher than last year. Regular gasoline retail prices are
projected to fall from an average of $3.68/gal during the second quarter to $3.64/gal during the third quarter as lower refinery margins more
than offset higher crude oil prices. EIA expects regular gasoline retail prices to average $3.54/gal in 2014 and $3.45/gal in 2015, compared with
$3.51/gal in 2013.¶ U.S.
total crude oil production, which averaged 7.4 million barrels per day (bbl/d) in 2013, is expected to
average 8.5 million bbl/d in 2014 and 9.3 million bbl/d in 2015. ¶ The 2015 forecast represents the highest annual
average level of oil production since 1972. Natural gas plant liquids production increases from an average of 2.6 million bbl/d
in 2013 to 3.0 million bbl/d in 2015. The growth in domestic production has contributed to a significant decline in petroleum imports. The share
of total U.S. liquid fuels consumption met by net imports fell from 60% in 2005 to an average of 33% in 2013. EIA expects the net import share
to decline to 22% in 2015, which would be the lowest level since 1970.
Econ ADV – UQ – Oil Shock vulnerability
U.S. highly vulnerable to oil shocks—collapses the U.S. economy—biggest internal link
Conway 13--former commandant of the United States Marine Corps and president of the Marine
Corps University (General James, As the senior operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was the
principle advisor on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the president of the United States, the National
Security Council and the secretary of defense, “GEN. JAMES CONWAY: Oil dependence limits U.S.
military options,”, July 29, http://rare.us/story/gen-james-conway-oil-dependence-limits-u-s-militaryoptions/)
Oil markets are also highly volatile because there is very little flexibility at any point in time. In a very real sense,
oil dependence tethers the fate of our economy to the vacillations of the global oil market. Political
instability, terrorism, war – even weather events – in a far-flung corner of the globe can send
shockwaves that affect Americans at home. Because we lack substitutes to oil (particularly in the transportation sector,
which relies on oil for 93 percent of its fuel), U.S. consumers and businesses have no choice but to pay higher energy prices when the volatile
price of oil moves higher. Needless to say, being
forced to pay higher energy costs is extremely damaging to our
economy. It breaks budgets, costs jobs and even worsens our fiscal nightmare because it dampens
overall economic growth. It is no coincidence that every U.S. recession for the past 40 years has coincided
with a spike in oil prices . This economic vulnerability directly weakens national security. Because of
America’s dependence on oil, the U.S. military is forced to shoulder the tremendous burden – both in
dollars and military resources – of guarding against oil supply disruptions across the globe.
Econ ADV – UQ – Yes Supply Disruptions
High risk of supply disruptions—ensures high risk of economic shocks
Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, “Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policy in an Era of
Domestic Oil Abundance,” Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/oil-security-2025report-us-remains-vulnerable
Nevertheless, today
the United States still consumes more oil than China, Japan, and Russia combined.308
they are declining, imports—particularly of crude oil—still account for a meaningful
portion of supplies. Imported crude accounted for slightly more than 50 percent of U.S. supplies in
2013.309 Even more importantly, the impact of U.S. oil dependence has risen in recent years as oil
prices have reached new highs, thereby limiting U.S. economic growth . Thus, despite rising effi ciency and
Moreover, although
rising domestic oil production, the United States remains vulnerable to price fl uctuations in the shortto-medium term. The two recommendations below will strengthen the U.S. economy’s resistance to and
resilience in the face of high and volatile prices, with sizeable economic and national security benefi ts.
Supply risk remain high – will keep market tight – risk shocks
Jenny Cosgrave 7/11/2014 “Oil supply risks for 2015 'extraordinarily high'”,
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101828921
Oil prices are heading for their third consecutive weekly loss as tensions in the Middle East and North
Africa ease, but supply risks in the region for next year remain "extraordinarily high ", the International
Energy Agency (IEA) warned.¶ Markets are "more optimistic" about future supply, the energy watchdog said in its July report on Friday, as it
predicted that global demand was set to climb to 1.4 million barrels a day (mb/d) in 2015, from 1.2 million mb/d in
2014.¶ But it warned that geopolitical uncertainty would remain very much in focus for the year ahead .¶
"The global economy is still expected to gain momentum in 2015. Supply risks in the Middle East and North Africa, not
least in Iraq and Libya, remain extraordinarily high ," IEA said, making its first forecasts for next year.¶ "The risks associated
with the 2015 forecast are particularly high. Notably, geopolitical uncertainty in Iraq, Ukraine, Libya,
Nigeria and Venezuela bring with them macroeconomic uncertainty."¶ Oil futures climbed to a nine
month high of more than $115 per barrel in June amid the Iraq crisis, but Brent prices have since fallen to around $108
dollars a barrel, as supply concerns eased.¶ Commodity analysts at Commerzbank said that Brent's fall below $108 on Thursday - after nine
straight days of falls, as geopolitical tensions cooled - was the longest losing streak for over four years.¶ "The continuing prospect of increased
oil supplies from Libya in the wake of operations resuming at a major oilfield and the two biggest oil ports are a negative factor for prices,"
Eugen Weinberg, head of commodity research at Commerzbank, said in a note Thursday.¶ "Another setback came (Wednesday) with the
announcement of China's crude oil imports. According to the customs authorities, China imported 5.67 million barrels of crude oil a day in June,
almost 8 percent less than in May." ¶ Oil
demand in 2015 will be led by the non-OECD sector, the IEA said. Demand in
this region overtook the OECD's in 2014, and it is expected to widen its lead in 2015.¶ Read MoreOil is not Nigeria's future: Finance Minister¶
"Many non‐OECD
economies are entering a stage of development where rising household incomes and
expanding industrial activity typically fuel relatively fast oil consumption growth," according to the group.
ADV Geopolitics
ADV Geopolitics 1ac
Oil dependence constrains the US military credibility, it locks in intervention and
constrains options – Alleviating oil dependence key to U.S. credibility
Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, “Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policy in an Era of
Domestic Oil Abundance,” Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/oil-security-2025report-us-remains-vulnerable
The national security, foreign policy, and geopolitical impacts of U.S. oil abundance are more nuanced
and less understood. A wide range of market observers, policymakers, and other stakeholders have suggested that
today’s shifts in energy market dynamics, extrapolated to the future, will result in major changes in global
economics and regional security dynamics—particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA)—with attendant benefi ts
for the United States. For example, as reliance on foreign oil supplies decreases, it is often suggested that the United
States could disengage militarily from volatile oil-producing regions, clearing the way for a larger
security role and increased burden-sharing by energy-hungry emerging economies, especially China and
India. Although there may one day be some truth to such assertions, very little of this analysis is based on a rigorous framework for
understanding energy market dynamics, and much of it ignores the potential for wide ranging uncertainty in current forecasts. Nonetheless,
shifts in U.S. energy supply are likely to have unexpected consequences for global energy suppliers, consumers, and even prices. For example,
many long-time U.S. oil suppliers (such as Algeria, Angola, and Nigeria) have already begun to turn to new markets as U.S. demand for their oil
declines, incurring substantial transaction costs and losing revenue in the process. Such changes could, in turn, have important social, political,
and economic impacts in these and other countries. While navigating such changes, the
United States will need to balance a
combination of sometimes competing interests—diplomatic, military, and economic. To best serve the national
interest, it will be critical for U.S. policymakers to consider the potential of the various impacts and
implications of U.S. oil abundance to initiate major changes in the global political and security
environment. The lack of a robust framework for examining these impacts stands out as a major gap in long-term policy planning. This
report presents a scenario-based analysis through 2025 to help explore the likely impacts of rising U.S. oil production on a host of countries and
regions across the globe—specifi cally, the Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, and China. The scenarios comprise a
combination of low and high cases for global oil demand and global oil supply, allowing rising U.S. oil production to be analyzed within the
appropriate context of a global oil market. A
group of “ wildcards ”—difficult-to-predict developments that could
have a significant impact on either global oil supply or demand—are presented alongside the scenarios. The
results of this scenario analysis show that the global impacts of rising U.S. oil production depend greatly upon the assumptions made regarding
the global oil demand and supply outlook. The most important potential implications for U.S. policymakers are highlighted in detail, and a suite
of policy recommendations are outlined. Regardless of the direction the global oil market ultimately takes, the
importance of oil to
the U.S. economy and the global economy will remain beyond dispute . The Commission’s recommendations
aim to better position the United States in the future by focusing on policy changes in the national security, diplomacy, and energy
spheres that will strengthen the country’s capability to minimize global oil supply disruptions, enhance
its resiliency in the face of any such disruption, and bolster its response capabilities.
The plan sends a signal of strength which is key to credibility
Manjarres 09 (Javier, political writer, 9/22/9, “Offshore Drilling is an Essential Step Towards Energy
Independence” Red County) http://www.redcounty.com/node/32160
Modern oil extraction technology is safe and efficient, with enormous advances having been made
over the last 30 years. Combined with more effective modern response techniques for oil spills, the opposition to offshore oil drilling is
quick to resort to the same old alarmist rhetoric that is intended to spread fear rather than educate the public. We can immediately begin
decreasing our dependency off foreign oil and provide Florida with an enormous economic boost if we were to open the coast of Florida to
Aside from the tangible beneficial effects that offshore drilling would bring to our
economy, we must also consider the symbolic message that it would send to the rest of the world. If
drilling immediately.
we are being perceived by other developing nations as indecisive and weak — unable to marshal
energy resources right off our own shores— are we going to continue to pretend that other nations
will not attempt to extract those same energy resources from right under our noses? Will opponents
of offshore drilling continue to exude a false sense of moral superiority to the global community
simply because we refuse to open our own coastlines to drilling— even as other nations begin to drill
within 50 miles of our own shores? The answer is simple— we need to send a clear signal to the
world that we can and will responsibly explore and manage the energy resources both within our
borders and along our shorelines, thereby encouraging our global competitors to take their energy
exploration efforts elsewhere. There are always critical junctures in a nation’s history when a people need
to move past dialogue for its own sake and into meaningful action, and we are at that juncture now, especially in the securityconscious post 9/11 era. Clear majorities of people believe that the merits of offshore drilling are essential to
our nation’s progress and security. For those who claim that the proponents of offshore drilling are “rushing” into the endeavor,
they should be reminded that our nation has been effectively dealing with offshore drilling bans emanating from different levels of government
for over 30 years— it is only recently that majorities of people understand the full ramifications of continuing on with a self-defeating national
energy policy. We encourage the requisite players in the oil industry to be as transparent and forthcoming with the American people as
possible as we begin to throw the chains off our national energy policy. Just as fear and ignorance in the ‘70s and ‘80s stalled the development
of nuclear power in this country, similar public relations challenges confront the oil and gas industry. Informing
and instructing the
public about the necessity of oil exploration and drilling is an ongoing process that needs to continue
until it achieves a consensus so broad that it will force our legislators to abandon their inaction and
obstruction on a matter of critical importance to our nation’s future.
Failed leadership causes extinction—no alternative to hegemony
Brzezinski 12 Zbigniew K. Brzezinski (CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS Advisory Board,
holds honorary degrees from Georgetown University, Williams College, Fordham University, College of
the Holy Cross, Alliance College, the Catholic University of Lublin, Warsaw University, and Vilnius
University. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards) February 2012 “After America”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=0,0
For if
America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a single preeminent successor -- not even China. International
uncertainty, increased tension among global competitors, and even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a
sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -- would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to
global political and economic disorder,
a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or endlessly widening warfare
with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor. No single power will be ready by
then to exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new,
globally cooperative world order. More
probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive
realignments of both global and regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers, in a
setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially fatal risks to global well-being . Rather than a
world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security based on varying fusions of authoritarianism,
nationalism, and religion could ensue. RELATED 8 Geopolitically Endangered Species The leaders of the world's second-rank powers, among
them India,
Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of
U.S. decline on their respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be
thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case
America falters and China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain
prospects, will
almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union.
Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of
commercial interests, France and insecure Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a
balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship with a declining United States. Others
may move more rapidly to
carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in the Southern Hemisphere, and so
forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial,
technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably
mentioned as America's prospective successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both
of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing
international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's
dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the basic reality is that China
is not yet
ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every
important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several
decades from now, significantly behind not only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the
major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been
restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage, however, a more assertive
Chinese nationalism could arise and damage China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing
would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India,
Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place on the global totem pole. They might even seek
support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional scramble
could become intense, especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors.
A phase of acute international tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to
resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and bloodthirsty . At the same time, the security of a
number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends on the international
status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion
to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine,
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most
endangered species. Their fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind
by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving and expansionist.
A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's
economic resilience and political stability have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as
economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A
decline in American power, however, would likely
undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political systems. A waning United
States would likely be more nationalistic, more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid
about its homeland security, and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others'
development. The worsening of relations between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a
particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by
history and ignited by cross-border incidents. Another
consequence of American decline could be a corrosion of the
generally cooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea lanes, space,
cyberspace, and the environment, whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the
global economy and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability. In almost every case, the potential
absence of a constructive and influential U.S. role would fatally undermine the essential
communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of American power creates
order where there would normally be conflict. None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that America's
decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an
argument for U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But
those dreaming today of America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the
world after America would be
increasingly complicated and chaotic, it is imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign
policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into global turmoil.
Effective OCS drilling critical to energy access
Mills 12 (Mark, physicist, is an adjunct fellow with the Manhattan Institute and Forbes Energy
Intelligence columnist, served in President Ronald Reagan’s White House Science Office, 7/25/12, “U.S.
can become an energy export nation” Politico)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78978_Page2.html
A number of recent detailed forecasts predict that the U.S. could close in on zero imports if current
trends continue. We could finally realize that elusive goal of energy “independence.” In the process, we could
add nearly $1 trillion in cumulative federal, state and local government tax revenues and generate 2 to 4 million new jobs. But
independence misses the point in a world craving fuel. We need to become an exporter . The U.S. could, in
collaboration with Canada and Mexicosimilar to the North American Free Trade Agreement, forge policies to encourage hydrocarbon
That would reset geopolitics. And just starting down that path would really light a
fire under job and economic growth. We know sufficient geophysical resources exist to support an
export-nation policy. U.S. Geological Survey data reveal that this continent has more than 10,000
billion barrels of oil-equivalent in natural gas, oil and coal. That’s more than four times the resources
of the Middle East. We consume only 20 billion of that a year. If we maximized North American
hydrocarbon potential, our energy exports to the world could exceed those from the Middle East by
2030. This would add something like $7 trillion to our economies, spur manufacturing as well as research
and development investment from the largesse and stimulate millions more high-paying jobs. And it
production and export.
would send tremors through the fields of the Middle East and Russia.The key to converting resources to producible “reserves” for export lies in
advancing technology. We might even embrace the shocking idea of subsidizing this. But we
cannot be an export nation
without moving beyond a ball-and-chain regulatory system — including access to the vast swaths of
resources under off-limits federal lands. There is no doubt the world will use vastly more
hydrocarbons in the future. The only real variables are who will supply all that fuel — and thus who will
enjoy the economic and geopolitical benefits. We have the potential to be that leader. If we don’t
grab that chance, others will. Expanding North American hydrocarbon production for export may be
our most important opportunity for growth — as well as for long-term peace.
Geopolitics ADV – constrains US leadership
Oil dependence causes strategic overstretch of the U.S. military and undermines
overall foreign policy effectiveness
Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, “Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policy in an Era of
Domestic Oil Abundance,” Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/oil-security-2025report-us-remains-vulnerable
Oil dependence challenges the u.s. military and undermines foreign policy Throughout the 20th century and into
the 21st, the United States has been the only country with the capacity to protect vulnerable energy
infrastructure and maritime supply routes across the globe. This capability, combined with the critical
importance of oil to the U.S. economy, has forced the country to accept the burden of securing the
world’s oil supply. Notably, much of the infrastructure that delivers oil to the world market each day is
exposed and susceptible to attack in unstable regions. More than 50 percent of the world’s oil supplies
must transit through one of six maritime chokepoints, narrow shipping channels like the Strait of Hormuz between
Iran and Oman.41 Even a failed attempt to close one of these strategic passages could cause global oil
prices to rise rapidly from current levels. A successful and extended closure could result in severe
negative economic consequences . 40 SAFE analysis based on data from: DOC, BEA 41 U.S. EIA, World Oil Transit Chokepoints, last
updated August 22, 2012 To
mitigate this risk, U.S. armed forces expend enormous resources patrolling oil
transit routes and protecting chronically vulnerable infrastructure in hostile corners of the globe. This
engagement benefi ts all nations, but comes primarily at the expense of the American military and ultimately
the American taxpayer. A 2009 study by the RAND Corporation placed the cost of this defense burden at between
$67.5 billion and $83 billion annually, plus an additional $8 billion in military operations.42 In proportional terms, these costs suggested
that between 12 and 15 percent of the 2008 defense budget was devoted to guaranteeing the free flow
of oil.43 And that is to say nothing of the grave responsibility of putting American military personnel in
harm’s way. Fuel consumption by the armed forces has also increased substantially over time. Between
the Vietnam War and the 21st century confl icts in Iraq and Afghanistan, there has been a 175 percent increase in
fuel used per U.S. soldier per day, to approximately 22 gallons per day—an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent
over 40 years.44 Combine this with generally higher oil prices over the past decade, and the result is
substantially higher fuel costs at the Department of Defense (DOD). In 2011, DOD spent $17.5 billion on fuel for vehicles and
other equipment, up from just $4.6 billion in 2005.45 Jet fuel was the military’s largest fuel requirement, accounting for 53 percent of total
DOD energy demand.46 These military
costs are indisputably sizeable . However, they do not completely encapsulate the
entire national security costs of the country’s vulnerability to global oil market dynamics. The stranglehold that oil has on the
U.S. and global economies has also historically undermined the country’s ability to deal with difficult
foreign policy challenges , including Iran. Here again, Iran’s strategic importance from an energy perspective emanates from its role
in the global oil market. A strong case can be made that eff ective implementation of sanctions on the Iranian oil industry as far back as 2005
were seriously undermined by the impact such sanctions would have on global oil prices—and, therefore, the economies of major oil
consumers. Notably, the surge in non-OPEC oil production in 2011 and 2012—led by the United States—aff orded the international community
the requisite fl exibility to tighten sanctions on Iran in 2012. However, the eff ectiveness of this initiative continues to be undermined by shifting
oil market dynamics, primarily rising oil demand in countries like China and India, and new disruptions to supply in Libya, Nigeria, and other
countries. These dynamics have acted to tighten
approach to still tighter sanctions a diffi cult one.
the market balance and reduce OPEC spare capacity, making the
Geopolitics ADV – internal – dependence undermines heg
Market volatility ensures oil dependence undermines U.S. military and foreign policy
Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, “Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policy in an Era of
Domestic Oil Abundance,” Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/oil-security-2025report-us-remains-vulnerable
Conclusion Despite a revival in domestic oil production and a decline in imports, American
oil dependence continues to
constrain U.S. foreign policy and burden a military that stands constantly ready as the protector of
the world’s vital oil arteries. The implications of domestic oil abundance for U.S. foreign policy and national security will continue to
be nuanced, and hard to predict and clearly quantify. Some global impacts, for example, may not endure over the long term due to
shifting market dynamics, but they have nonetheless been very real. The surge in production of 2011 and 2012 that helped provide the
international community the necessary fl exibility to tighten sanctions on Iran is a notable example. Changing trade patterns and relationships,
highlighted by a steady decline in U.S. oil imports from Africa—and the subsequent search for new markets by several countries in the region—
may be more long-lasting impacts. Today and into the foreseeable future, global
oil market dynamics show few signs of a
fundamental break from this “new normal” of high and volatile prices as global oil demand continues to
grow rapidly in emerging economies and global oil supply—significant bright spots notwithstanding—remains constrained due to geology,
economics, or politics, or some combination of all three. However, important shifts in both supply and demand trends are
almost certain to occur. While it is impossible to know which of the market scenarios explored in Oil Security 2025 might play out in
whole or in part, it is clear that global and regional trends in oil production and consumption will have
significant impacts on—and themselves be impacted by—the prevailing political, security, and economic conditions
of the coming years.
Oil dependence ensures U.S. military overstretch and global hostility—ending that key
to enhanced military capability
Blair 14 (Admiral Dennis C. Blair, U.S. Navy (Ret.) Former Director of National Intelligence and Former
Commander-in-Chief, U.S. Pacific Command, “Oil Security 2025 U.S. National Security Policy in an Era of
Domestic Oil Abundance,” Jan 22, http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-22/oil-security-2025report-us-remains-vulnerable
Oil dependence has contributed to U.S. involvement in regions of the world that are often unstable
and sometimes hostile to American interests. Domestic oil abundance will not end these involvements, largely due to the
enduring importance of oil to the U.S. economy and transportation sector in particular. As such—and contrary to some predictions—instability
in the Middle East will continue to pose economic risk for the United States, a fact that will infl uence national security policy. In fact, no matter
how close the country comes to oil self-suffi ciency, volatility in the global oil market will remain a serious concern. However, the Commission
does believe that rising
domestic oil production and greater self-sufficiency could create opportunities to
strengthen America’s national security and economic prosperity in the future, particularly if this newfound
abundance is augmented by smart policy. The Commission’s global and regional recommendations in this report are focused on the paramount
goals of safeguarding the free fl ow of oil across the globe, promoting stability in key oil producing regions such as the Middle East, and
expanding cooperation with major consumers toward meeting global demand needs and better responding to supply disruptions. Perhaps most
importantly, domestic
oil abundance will allow the United States to pursue policy changes in two key
epicenters in global oil: the Middle East and China. In the Middle East, following two decades of heavy military and
intelligence operations, the Commission recommends returning to a diplomacy-led framework, with more flexible
military deployments
supporting strong bilateral and regional initiatives and support for institution building. Regarding China, with
whom the United States shares a common interest in ensuring the robust global supply of oil, the Commission recommends closer coordination
on a variety of eff orts, including shale oil development, supply disruption response initiatives, and maritime security. Finally, the Commission
endorses greater diversifi cation of energy sources in the U.S. transportation sector in order to decrease the economy’s exposure to the global
oil market.
Geopolitics ADV – internal – Intervention
Oil distorts and constrains US hegemonic strategy by forcing interventionism
Electrification Coalition, ELECTRIFICATION ROADMAP: REVOLUTIONIZING TRANSPORTATION AND
ACHIEVING ENERGY SECURITY, 11—09, p. 30.
The importance of oil in the U.S. economy has given it a place of prominence in foreign and military policy. In
particular, two key issues related to oil affect national security. First, the vulnerability of global oil supply
lines and infrastructure has driven the U nited S tates to accept the burden of securing the world’s oil
supply. Second, the importance of large individual oil producers constrains U.S. foreign policy options
when dealing with problems in these nations. A crippling disruption to global oil supplies ranks among
the most immediate threats to the U nited S tates today. A prolonged interruption due to war in the Middle
East or the closure of a key oil transit route would lead to severe economic dislocation. U.S. leaders have
recognized this for decades, and have made it a matterof stated policy that the U nited S tates will
protect the free flow of oil with military force. Still, policy alone has consistently fallen short of
complete deterrence, and the risk of oil supply interruptions has persisted for nearly 40 years. To mitigate
this risk, U.S. armed forces expend enormous resources protecting chronically vulnerable infrastructure in hostile corners of the globe and
patrolling oil transit routes. This engagement benefits all nations, but comes primarily at the expense of the American military and ultimately
the American taxpayer. A 2009 study by the RAND Corporation placed the ongoing cost of this burden at between $67.5 billion and $83 billion
annually, plus an additional $8 billion in military operations. 33 In proportional terms, these costs suggest that between
12 and 15
percent of the current defense budget is devoted to guaranteeing the free flow of oil. Foreign policy
constraints related to oil dependence are less quantifiable, but no less damaging. Whether dealing with
uranium enrichment in Iran, a hostile regime in Venezuela, or an increasingly assertive Russia,
American diplomacy is distorted by our need to minimize disruptions to the flow of oil. Perhaps more
frustrating, the importance of oil to the broader global economy has made it nearly impossible for the
United States to build international consensus on a wide range of foreign policy and humanitarian
issues.
Geopolitics ADV – internal – hegemony
That’s key to benevolent hegemony
Schwark 12 (Sebastian, associate director of Hill-Knowlton strategies, communications Strategist,
Energy Specialist, 8/13/12, “e-Ideas (1): Politics and Walter Russell Mead’s Looming Energy Revolution”
The Energy Collective) http://theenergycollective.com/sebastian-schwark/102696/e-ideas-1-politicsand-walter-russell-mead-s-looming-energy-revolution
This geopolitical shift will stabilize the liberal global order, stimulate global economic growth, and
allow the potential rivalry between the U.S. and China to become ever more cooperative. Because
energy was critical to the first American century, Mead continues, and since the energy abundance that
propelled the U.S. to global leadership is back, a new American century is in the making. A less Middle
East-centric foreign policy will allow the U.S. to become more of the benevolent hegemon it has been
after World War II, securing the liberal capitalist global order, rather than fighting wars in the sands
Iraq.
Solves extinction
Thomas P.M. Barnett 2011 (chief analyst, Wikistrat) “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S. and
Globalization, at Crossroads,” WORLD POLITICS REVIEW, 3—7—11,
www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-andglobalization-at-crossroads
Events in Libya are a further reminder forAmericans that we stand at
a crossroads in our continuing evolutionas the world's sole
full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from risk because we are tired of the
responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem. Instead of leading us, he explains to us.
Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that
he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in
a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its
relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because
if we do take the step to prevent larger-scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined
global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of systemadministering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the
guardian of globalization,
the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has ever known.
Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would
have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear
weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of perpetual war.
Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace.
We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its
spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human
rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and
persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered. Please
remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global disorder
instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything but. Just watch
who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine ourselves the status quo
power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our military-industrial complex, again, let's
examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last great period of global structural change was the
first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million
deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an
average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these
calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and a 99 percentrelative drop in deaths due to war. We
areclearlyheaded for a world order characterized by multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed
to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure,we
would
do well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the historical survey,
after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil war, the U.S. emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of
globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than colonialism. America then successfully replicated globalization further in East Asia
over the second half of the 20th century, setting the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.
Geopolitics ADV – iran internal
Oil dependence ensures failure of nuclear negotiations with Iran and overall U.S.
foreign policy—causes defense overstretch, limits flexibility, and emboldens
adversaries—new production key
Conway 13--former commandant of the United States Marine Corps and president of the Marine
Corps University (General James, As the senior operations officer on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he was the
principle advisor on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to the president of the United States, the National
Security Council and the secretary of defense, “GEN. JAMES CONWAY: Oil dependence limits U.S.
military options,”, July 29, http://rare.us/story/gen-james-conway-oil-dependence-limits-u-s-militaryoptions/)
Decker: What are the military and national-security implications of the energy debate? Conway: To provide more depth on this question, which
I touched on above, I
would categorize the military and national-security implications of oil dependence as
direct and indirect. First, there is the direct cost to our military of mitigating the risk of oil supply
disruptions, a tremendous burden that we have been forced to shoulder because of oil dependence. A
RAND Corporation study estimated the cost at between $67.5 billion and $83 billion annually. Also, as global oil prices
have increased, Defense Department spending on petroleum fuel has risen from an average of $3.75
billion between 1999 and 2003 and $17.5 billion in 2011. It goes without saying that this has been a disaster
for defense budgets. Second, oil dependence has a negative impact on foreign and defense policies
because it distorts priorities and limits options . It also empowers hostile foreign actors . Further, it
provides members of the OPEC cartel and other major producers – and even lesser producers and non-producers in
critical regions, such as the Middle East – with leverage over the U.S., as they know that any actions causing oil prices to
spike will hurt America. For instance, in the case of preventing a nuclear Iran – one of our top national-security priorities
– it is clear that our dependence on oil weakened the resolve to impose crippling sanctions to deprive
the regime from acquiring nuclear capabilities . The recent oil boom in non-OPEC countries and relative
slowdown in global oil demand has strengthened this resolve to a certain degree, but it’s unambiguously clear that our
oil dependence undermines our national security and limits our foreign policy options. Had we been
less dependent on oil , we could have imposed devastating sanctions earlier and possibly not be in the
position we find ourselves in now with regard to Iran. When I was on the joint chiefs, we frequently discussed and weighed
how our defense decisions could potentially impact the U.S. economy and oil prices for American consumers. Until we reduce our consumption
and dependence on oil, that factor will continue to influence our foreign policy decisions. Decker: What do you think is the most imminent
threat facing America today, and what should be done to address the problem? In other words, what keeps you up at night? Conway: Outside
of pinnacle threats such as nuclear war or terrorists getting their hands on and using weapons of mass destruction, oil
dependence is
among the very most severe problems facing our nation right now. Our future prosperity and security
will be significantly determined by how we handle the oil dependence crisis. We must implement a national,
long-term strategy for achieving energy security.
Congress should develop a plan to take advantage of our
incredible supply of natural resources – and mitigate our over-dependence on imported oil .
Oil dependence kills U.S. leverage over Iran
Luft 05 – DR. GAL LUFT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR @ INSTITUTE FOR THE ANALYSIS OF GLOBAL SECURITY
(IAGS), CO-CHAIR @ SET AMERICA FREE COALITION, “America’s oil dependence and its implications for
U.S. Middle East policy,” SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON NEAR EASTERN AND SOUTH
ASIAN AFFAIRS, 10-20-05. http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/LuftTestimony051020.pdf.
LAP
The growing economic power of OPEC producers enables them to resist U.S. pressure on a variety of
issues from human rights to nuclear proliferation. As the second largest oil producer and holder of 10 percent of the
world’s proven oil reserves Iran is fully aware of the power of its oil . Its supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
warned in 2002: “If the west did not receive oil, their factories would grind to a halt. This will shake the world!"
The Iranians also know that oil is their insurance policy and that the best way to forestall U.S. efforts in
the UN is by bedding themselves with energy hungry powers such as Japan and the two fastest growing energy
consumers—China and India. After securing the support of a third of humanity the Iranians are unfazed by the pressure coming from the U.S.
and the EU. Last month Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that Iran could wield the oil weapon if Tehran's case was sent to the
Security Council for possible sanctions. Mr. Chairman, Four years after September 11 it is essential that we view our geopolitical situation in the
context of our oil dependence and realize that it
will be extremely difficult to win the war on terror and spread
democracy around the world as long as we continue to send petrodollars to those who do not share our
vision and values. As long as the U.S. remains dependent on oil to the degree that its does today, its dependence on the Middle East will
grow. The U.S. can no longer afford to postpone urgent action to strengthen its energy security and it must begin a bold process toward
reducing its demand for oil.
Geopolitics ADV – iran impact
Iran prolif causes extinction
Rubin 2009 – (Barry, Prof @ the Interdisciplinary Center, Director of the Global Research in
International Affairs, Research Director of the IDC's Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy, and
Strategy, “What if Iran gets a working nuclear weapon? How Middle East crisis would hit U.S.,”
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/03/09/2009-0309_what_if_iran_gets_a_working_nuclear_weap.html)
If and when Iran gets nuclear weapons it would set off a global nightmare .
Most obviously, Iran
could use
nuclear arms to attack Israel. It’s easy to say that Iran’s leaders would be cautious, but what if ideology, error, or an
extremist faction decides to wipe the Jewish state off the map? Even a 10-percent chance of nuclear
holocaust is terrifying. And if Israel decides its existence is at risk, it would launch a preemptive attack that would
also produce a big crisis. That’s just for starters. Once Iran has nuclear weapons, every Arab state, with the exception of Iran’s
ally Syria, would also be imperiled. Those countries would beg for U.S. protection . But could they depend on
America, under the Barack Obama administration, to go to war – especially a nuclear one – to shield them? Uncertain of U.S. reliability, these
governments would rush to appease Iran. To survive, the Arab
states will do whatever Iran wants – which would come at high
cost for America: alliances would weaken and military bases would close down. No Arab state would dare support
peace with Israel, either. But Arab states wouldn’t feel safe with just appeasement. An arms’ race would
escalate in which several other countries would try to buy or build nukes of their own. Tension, and
chance for nuclear war , whether through accident or miscalculation, would soar. The U nited S tates
would eventually have to get dragged in. European allies would also be scared. As reluctant as they are to help America in the
Middle East, that paralysis would get worse. As willing as they are to appease Tehran, they’d go far beyond that. Meanwhile, an
emboldened Iran would push to limit oil and gas production and increase prices. Other oil producers would feel
compelled to move away from their former, more responsible practices. Consumers’ fears would push up the prices further. Yet there’s worse.
Flush with a feel of victory, Iran
and its allies — Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi insurgents — would recruit more
members to its cause. These terrorist groups would interpret the retreat of more moderate Arab countries and the
West as signs of weakness and use it to fuel more aggression . Such a terrible scenario is likely even if
Iran never actual uses a nuclear weapon on another country. This new era in the Middle East would bring
risks and the probability of war for America that would dwarf all the region’s current troubles and the crises
faced by the U nited S tates in the whole world. And that’s why it’s so important to avoid Iran getting nuclear weapons in the first place.
Nuclear Iran can’t be deterred—demographic decline means no rational self-interest
Goldman 211 – Interview between Front Page Magazine and David P. Goldman, “How Civilizations
Die,” FRONT PAGE MAGAZINE, 11-14-11. http://frontpagemag.com/2011/jamie-glazov/howcivilizations-die/
Goldman: With a hard hand, in the case of Iran. The foreign policy establishment has always seen Iran as
a rational player. That was the view that Robert Gates brought into the Bush administration, and the
reason that the Obama administration refused, disgracefully, to support the democracy movement that
erupted in Iran in the summer of 2009.¶ An individual, or a country, that knows it has no future has no
rational self-interest. You can’t invert the population pyramid in a poor country within a single
generation without economic collapse. Iran knows its time is running out. Ahmadinejad is giving speeches calling
the low birth rate a “genocide against the Iranian nation,” and Iran’s press is warning of a “tidal wave of elderly.” That
feeds the apocalyptic impulse of Iran’s leaders. There weren’t a lot of Communists in Russia outside the Politbureau, we
discovered in 1989, and there may not be a lot of Muslims in Iran. But the Russian danger peaked in the early 1980s when the Politbureau
realized that time was running out to make their move.¶ Demographic
decline tells the ayatollahs that their window of
opportunity is closing. But there’s a big difference. Deterrence worked with a nuclear-armed Russia. It won’t work
with the apocalyptic Shi’ite leadership of Iran.
weapons, no matter how great the cost.
As a practical matter, we
must stop Iran from getting nuclear
Geopolitics ADV – impact – US/China war
Offshore drilling is necessary to curb competition with China over resources
DiMicco and Pickens 10 (Dan DiMicco is chairman and chief executive officer of Nucor Corp. T.
Boone Pickens is chief executive officer of BP Capital. 7/21/10, “No need to end offshore drilling”
Politico) http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39977.html
The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has led some people to call for a reversal of the decision to expand offshore drilling in our country, while
others now want an end to offshore drilling entirely. We believe this would be a mistake. We need a vigorous examination to determine the
cause of the spill and ensure that such a disaster never happens again. But we
cannot lose sight of the important role that
offshore drilling — along with other domestic energy resources — plays in increasing U.S. energy and economic
security. We need to develop traditional energy resources even as we build the necessary
infrastructure for alternative energy use. We are both concerned about America’s future prosperity. Our nation seems
to be going down a road that puts our energy and economic security at risk. While the recession has
cut energy use here, it is growing in many developing countries, particularly China. A global race for
energy resources is on — and China is way out front. China’s state-owned oil companies are now
maneuvering to control a substantial amount of oil and natural gas in Africa, Asia and South America.
China’s energy investments are also in our own backyard. Beijing has invested in five oil sands projects
in Alberta, Canada, and signed agreements with Cuba to explore for oil on land and offshore. China
could soon be drilling closer to U.S. shores than we are.
China has deals in more than 21 countries, through direct oil
and natural gas purchases as well as “loans for energy” — in which China builds energy infrastructure in exchange for the resource. These deals
As with manufacturing, aggressive government
intervention fuels China’s growing dominance in energy. Beijing maintains direct ownership of oil
companies and finances deals through state-owned banks. Why should we care about China’s energy
play? Because the U nited S tates is already too dependent on other countries for its energy needs.
The United States imports nearly two-thirds of the oil it uses daily — 12 million barrels per day, much of it from
could potentially deliver more than 7.8 billion barrels of oil to China.
nations hostile to our interests. Forty years ago, 85 percent of the world’s oil reserves were open to private investment. Today, only 20 percent
are open, with the remaining 80 percent state-owned or controlled. We
are nearing a day when oil sales are dictated less
by commercial purposes and instead by political or military considerations. While China is
aggressively securing energy resources, Washington is paralyzed by a political system unable to
address our long-term economic and energy security needs. This is why we are concerned about the political backlash
against offshore drilling. Our political system is increasingly short-term in its outlook and driven by the 24-hour news cycle.
US-China scramble for resources causes war
Gaffney 07 - Frank Gaffney, President and CEO, Center for Security Policy, Testimony before the House
Select Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee, CQ CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONY, 7—
12—07, lexis.
At the risk of stating the obvious, no
nation can afford its people the quality of life, let alone the economic and
security benefits, associated with being an advanced 21" Century society without assured and costeffective access to energy. Today, for the United States and most of the rest of the world - including, increasingly,
Communist China - that means having access to reliable sources of imported oil ... China is mindful of the
lessons of the 20th Century with respect to energy insecurity. Imperial Japan's thirst for imported oil
was a principal catalyst for its war with the U nited S tates. For the moment, the PRC is neither able
nor willing to emulate the violent seizure by Japan some sixty-four years ago of petroleum and other natural resources in
East Asia. We ignore at our peril, however, the fact that Beijing is engaged in an even-more- ambitious
effort to acquire legal title to energy resources, not only in the Western Pacific - where much of
Unocal's reserves of 650 million barrels of oil are to be found - but literally around the world. What is
particularly worrisome is that Chinese deals being struck from Siberia to Venezuela, from Indonesia to Sudan, from Iran to Canada, from
Azerbaijan to Cuba appear not only designed to secure oil to meet Chinese needs. In
a world in which such resources are
certainly finite, and possibly contracting, they also have the effect of taking them off a global market
upon which the U nited S tates is increasingly dependent. Jim Woolsey, Robert McFarlane and a number of other
national security minded individuals and organizations have joined the Center for Security Policy in advancing a plan for energy security we call
the "Set America Free" blueprint. (The blueprint can be viewed at http://www.SetAmericaFree.oriz.) It offers practical
steps that can be taken immediately to begin reducing the Nation's need for imported oil. Unless such
steps are taken, it would appear that, as a practical matter, we will inevitably find ourselves on a
collision course with Communist China, particularly if world-wide demand for oil approaches anything like the projected 60%
growth over the next two decades...
Extinction
Cheong 01 - China Cheong, journalist, WILL TAIWAN BREAK AWAY: THE RISE OF TAIWANESE
NATIONALISM, 2001, p. 7.
The US estimates that China
possesses about 20 nuclear warheads that can destroy major American cities .
Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option. A Chinese military official disclosed recently
that Beijing was considering a review of its “non first use” principle regarding nuclear weapons.
Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson
International Centre for Scholars in Washington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong
pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons
mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said
that should that come to pass, we would see the destruction of civilisation. There would be no victors
in such a war. While the prospect of a nuclear Armaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it
cannot be ruled out entirely, for China puts sovereignty above everything else.
ADV countries
ADV China 1nc
High prices oil undermines Chinese growth
Jeff Rubin 2012 former chief economist, CIBC World Markets, "How High Oil Prices Will Permanently
Cap Economic Growth," BLOOMBERG, 9—23—12, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-23/howhigh-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth.html
For most of the last century, cheap
oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil has
quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world’s economies.
The countries guzzling the most oil are taking the biggest hits to potential economic growth. That’s sobering news for the U.S., which consumes
almost a fifth of the oil used in the world every day. Not long ago, when oil was $20 a barrel, the U.S. was the locomotive of global economic
growth; the federal government was running budget surpluses; the jobless rate at the beginning of the last decade was at a 40-year low. Now,
growth is stalled, the deficit is more than $1 trillion and almost 13 million Americans are unemployed. And the U.S. isn’t the only country
getting squeezed. From Europe to Japan, governments are struggling to restore growth. But the economic remedies
being used are doing more harm than good, based as they are on a fundamental belief that economic growth can return to its former strength.
Running huge budget
deficits and keeping borrowing costs at record lows are only compounding current problems. These
policies cannot be long-term substitutes for cheap oil because an economy can’t grow if it can no
longer afford to burn the fuel on which it runs. The end of growth means governments will need to radically change how
Central bankers and policy makers have failed to fully recognize the suffocating impact of $100-a-barrel oil.
economies are managed. Fiscal and monetary policies need to be recalibrated to account for slower potential growth rates. Energy Source Oil
provides more than a third of the energy we use on the planet every day, more than any other energy source. And you can draw a straight line
between oil consumption and gross-domestic- product growth. The more oil we burn, the faster the global economy grows. On average over
the last four decades, a 1 percent bump in world oil consumption has led to a 2 percent increase in global GDP. That means if GDP increased 4
percent a year -- as it often did before the 2008 recession -- oil consumption was increasing by 2 percent a year. At $20 a barrel, increasing
annual oil consumption by 2 percent seems reasonable enough. At $100 a barrel, it becomes easier to see how a 2 percent increase in fuel
consumption is enough to make an economy collapse. Fortunately, the reverse is also true. When our economies stop growing, less oil is
needed. For example, after the big decline in 2008, global oil demand actually fell for the first time since 1983. That’s why the best cure for high
oil prices is high oil prices. When prices rise to a level that causes an economic crash, lower prices inevitably follow. Over the last four decades,
each time oil prices have spiked, the global economy has entered a recession. Consider the first oil shock, after the Yom Kippur War in 1973,
when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries’ Arab members turned off the taps on roughly 8 percent of the world’s oil supply by
cutting shipments to the U.S. and other Israeli allies. Crude prices spiked, and by 1974, real GDP in the U.S. had shrunk by 2.5 percent. The
second OPEC oil shock happened during Iran’s revolution and the subsequent war with Iraq. Disruptions to Iranian production during the
revolution sent crude prices higher, pushing the North American economy into a recession for the first half of 1980. A few months later, Iran’s
war with Iraq shut off 6 percent of world oil production, sending North America into a double-dip recession that began in the spring of 1981.
Kuwait Invasion When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait a decade later, oil prices doubled to $40 a barrel, an unheard-of level at the time. The
first Gulf War disrupted almost 10 percent of the world’s oil supply, sending major oil-consuming countries into a recession in the fall of 1990.
Guess what oil prices were doing in 2008, when the world fell into the deepest recession since the 1930s? From trading around $30 a barrel in
2004, oil prices marched steadily higher before hitting a peak of $147 a barrel in the summer of 2008. Unlike past oil price shocks, this time
there wasn’t even a supply disruption to blame. The spigot was wide open. The problem was, we could no longer afford to buy what was
flowing through it. There are many ways an oil shock can hurt an economy. When prices spike, most of us have little choice but to open our
wallets. Paying more for oil means we have less cash to spend on food, shelter, furniture, clothes, travel and pretty much anything else.
Expensive oil, coupled with the average American’s refusal to drive less, leaves a lot less money for the rest of the economy. Worse, when oil
prices go up, so does inflation. And when inflation goes up, central banks respond by raising interest rates to keep prices in check. From 2004 to
2006, U.S. energy inflation ran at 35 percent, according to the Consumer Price Index. In turn, overall inflation, as measured by the CPI,
accelerated from 1 percent to almost 6 percent. What happened next was a fivefold bump in interest rates that devastated the massively
leveraged U.S. housing market. Higher rates popped the speculative housing bubble, which brought down the global economy. Unfortunately,
this pattern of oil-driven inflation is with us again. And world food prices are being affected. According to the food-price index tracked by the
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the cost of food rose almost 40 percent from 2009 to the beginning of 2012. And since 2002,
the FAO’s food-price index, which measures a basket of five commodity groups (meat, dairy, cereals, oils and fats, and sugar), is up about 150
double whammy of rising oil and food prices means inflation will be here sooner than
anyone would like to think. Rising inflation rates in China and Indiaare a clear signal that those economies are growing at an
unsustainable pace. China has made GDP growth of more than 8 percent a priority but needs to recalibrate
its thinking to recognize the damping effects of high oil prices. Growth might not stall entirely, but clocking double-digit
gains is no longer feasible, at least without triggering a calamitous increase in inflation . If China and
India, the new engines of global economic growth, are forced to adopt anti-inflationary monetary
policies, the ripple effects for resource-based economies such as Canada, Australia and Brazil will be
percent. Food PricesA
felt in a hurry. Triple-digit oil prices will end the lofty economic hopes of India and China,
which are
looking to achieve the same sort of sustained growth that North America and Europe enjoyed in the postwar era. There is an unavoidable
obstacle that puts such ambitions out of reach: Today’s oil isn’t flowing from the same places it did yesterday. More importantly, it’s not
flowing at the same cost.
Chinese economy is vulnerable – next shock could trigger a collapse
Roach 13 (Stephen, senior fellow at Yale University’s Jackson Institute of Global Affairs, 1/29/13,
“China’s Last Soft Landing” Project Syndicate) http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/chineseeconomic-resilience-is-weakening-by-stephen-s--roach
Since then,
many of China’s inherent strengths have been sapped by all-too-frequent external
shocks. The banking sector is still digging out from the bad loans extended in the aftermath of the global
meltdown in 2008.Finding affordable housing has become an increasingly serious problem for those
relocating to cities for the first time. And corruption scandals and the related risks of political turmoil were
unsettling, to say the least, in the months prior to last year’s Communist Party leadership transition. In other
words, the vulnerability implied by Wen’s “Four Uns” has increased significantly. China’s economy has certainly
become more unstable, with major slowdowns in real GDP growth in 2009 and again in 2012. Its
imbalances have gotten worse as well, with the investment share of GDP approaching 50% and private consumption falling
below 35% of GDP. Similarly, China has become more uncoordinated, or fragmented, as its income
disparities have continued to widen. And sustainability is being jeopardized by environmental
degradation and pollution, which pose a growing threat to the country’s atmosphere and water
supply.In short, China’s growth model has been stretched as never before . And, like a piece of fabric,
the longer it remains stretched, the longer it will take to return to its former resilient state – and the
greater the possibility that it will not spring back the next time something goes wrong.The message to
China’s new leadership is unmistakable: There has never been a more urgent time to get on with the heavy lifting of rebalancing and reform.
Now is the time to implement the measures that will accelerate the transition to a more consumer-led economy. The agenda is long, but it is
hardly a secret. It includes developing the services sector, funding the social safety net, liberalizing an antiquated residential-permit system
(hukou), reforming state-owned enterprises, and ending financial repression on households by lifting artificially low interest rates on savings.
Failure to act quickly on this program would leave China far too vulnerable to the inevitable next shock in a crisis-battered world. In the absence
of rebalancing, any one of several potential tipping points could seriously compromise the economy’s ability to pull off another soft landing:
deteriorating credit quality in the banking system; weakening export competitiveness as wages rise; key environmental, governance, and social
problems (namely, pollution, corruption, and inequality); and, of course, foreign-policy missteps, as suggested by escalating problems with
Japan. The
Chinese economy has come through two major global crises in the past four years. On the
surface, its resilience has been impressive – the first to recover, as Chinese leaders always want to remind the rest of the
world. But, beneath the surface, an unbalanced, unstable, uncoordinated, and unsustainable economy
risks losing its capacity for resilience. Without rebalancing and reforms, the days of the automatic
Chinese soft landing may be over.
Stalled growth causes internal Chinese collapse
Lewis 2007 Research Director of the Economic Research Council, 07 (Dan, April 19, “The nightmare of
a Chines economic collapse” World Finance,
http://www.worldfinance.com/news/137/ARTICLE/1144/2007-04-19.html)
A reduction in demand for imported Chinese goods would quickly entail a
decline in China’s economic growth rate. That is
alarming. It has been calculated that to keep China’s society stable – ie to manage the transition from a rural to an urban
society without devastating unemployment - the minimum growth rate is 7.2 percent. Anything less than that and
unemployment will rise and the massive shift in population from the country to the cities becomes
unsustainable. This is when real discontent with communist party rule becomes vocal and hard to ignore. It doesn’t end there. That
will at best bring a global recession . The crucial point is that communist authoritarian states have at least had some success in
keeping a lid on ethnic tensions – so far. But when multi-ethnic communist countries fall apart from economic
stress and the implosion of central power, history suggests that they don’t become successful democracies
overnight. Far from it. There’s a very real chance that China might go the way of Yugoloslavia or the Soviet Union –
chaos, civil unrest and internecine war . In the very worst case scenario, a Chinese government might seek to
maintain national cohesion by going to war with Taiwan– whom America is pledged to defend.
Chinese collapse causes a civil war that goes nuclear
Yee and Storey 02 [Professor of Politics and International Relations at the Hong Kong Baptist
University and Storey, Lecturer in Defence Studies at Deakin University, Herbert Yee, Professor of
Politics and International Relations at the Hong Kong Baptist University and Ian Storey, Lecturer in
Defence Studies at Deakin University, 2002, “The China Threat: Perceptions, Myths and Reality,” p5]
The fourth factor contributing to the perception of a China threat is the fear of political and economic
collapse in thePRC, resulting in territorial fragmentation, civil war and waves of refugees pouring into
neighbouring countries. Naturally, any or all of these scenarios would have a profoundly negative
impact on regional stability. Today the Chinese leadership faces a raft of internal problems, including
the increasing political demands of its citizens, a growing population, a shortage of natural resources
and a deterioration in the natural environment caused by rapid industrialisation and pollution. These
problems are putting a strain on the central government's ability to govern effectively. Political
disintegration or a Chinese civil war might result in millions of Chinese refugees seeking asylum in
neighbouring countries. Such an unprecedented exodus of refugees from a collapsed PRC would no
doubt put a severe strain on the limited resources of China's neighbours. A fragmented China could also
result in another nightmare scenario—nuclear weapons falling into the hands of irresponsible local
provincial leaders or warlords.12 From this perspective, a disintegrating China would also pose a
threat to its neighbours and the world.
Lack of growth causes the CCP to revert to nationalism and war
Innocent 09 (Malou, foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute, 2/26/09, “Outlook on China: Peaceful
Partner or Warmonger?” Christian Science Monitor)
For more than 30 years, free and open markets have propelled China's labor-driven growth and lifted more than 200 million of its citizens out of
rural poverty. But America's recent economic downturn has hit China hard. Exports from its booming trade sector dropped 17.5 percent in
January from a year ago. In the past several months, an estimated 20 million rural Chinese migrant workers have lost their jobs. China's rising
unemployment could lead to increased social unrest, and challenge the authority of the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Throughout 30
years of liberal reform, the
CCP has justified its authoritarian grip through the promise of economic advancement. If
it can't maintain the steady growth it's promised, experts fear the country's leaders might bolster their
legitimacy by other means, such as exploiting Chinese nationalism and directing popular discontent toward
outside targets. Given the severity of the financial crisis, China will be entering a stressful and possibly turbulent period. America must be
careful not to adopt policies that risk making the history of great power conflict come to fruition. One fear is
that as China's military strength grows, Beijing may pursue more aggressive geopolitical strategies in
the South China Sea, one of the largest and most heavily trafficked shipping routes in the world. For example, China has expressed its
desire to recapture the Malampaya and Camago natural gas fields from the Philippines, among other islands that offer strategic importance
and/or natural resources to quench China's thirst for energy. It's a desire that's been acted on before. In 1988, China's Navy destroyed
Vietnamese battleships in skirmishes over the Spratly archipelago. And in 1995, Beijing successfully took control of Mischief Reef, previously
claimed by the Philippines, building structures that critics said were of a military nature. (China said they were necessary to protect its
fishermen.) It's no wonder that East Asian capitals are uneasy about China's growing maritime clout. "Few in Asia doubt that having succeeded
once, China will try again," explains Arthur Waldron, a professor of international relations at the University of Pennsylvania. China's military
modernization also has implications for US national security. Rising powers have historically brought greater instability to the international
system.
In a comprehensive examination of the causes of major wars, A.F.K. Organski and JacekKugler suggest in "The
War Ledger" that as a country's power increases, its willingness to seek change in the international system will be heightened.
"It is this
shift that destabilizes the system and begins the slide toward war," they write.
While there is some evidence to
support the presumption that China will become adversarial, others see China becoming a status quo power seeking peaceful relations with the
rest of the global community. For these experts,the potential
for hostile US-China relations is all the more reason to
encourage Beijing's integration into the global economic and trading system, which may undermine
China's propensity to base its interests simply in military terms. To put a twist on the old saying, so long as
goods cross borders, soldiers won't.
Lash out kills billions
Rexing 05 (San, Staff – Epoch Times, The CCP’s Last Ditch Gamble: Biological and Nuclear War, 8-5,
http://english.epochtimes.com/news/5-8-5/30975.html)
Since the Party’s life is “above all else,” it would not be surprising if the CCP resorts to the use of
biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons in its attempt to extend its life. The CCP, which disregards
human life, would not hesitate to kill two hundred million Americans, along with seven or eight
hundred million Chinese, to achieve its ends. These speeches let the public see the CCP for what it really is. With evil filling its
every cell the CCP intends to wage a war against humankind in its desperate attempt to cling to life. That is the main theme of the speeches.
This theme is murderous and utterly evil. In China we have seen beggars who coerced people to give them money by threatening to stab
themselves with knives or pierce their throats with long nails. But we have never, until now, seen such a gangster who would use biological,
chemical, and nuclear weapons to threaten the world, that they will die together with him.
This bloody confession has
confirmed the CCP’s nature: That of a monstrous murderer who has killed 80 million Chinese people
and who now plans to hold one billion people hostage and gamble with their lives.
China ADV – SCS scenario
Tensions are at an all-time high over access to oil in the South China Sea—
miscalculation and conflict are likely
Kleine-Ahlbrandt 12 (Stephanie, Beijing-based China and Northeast Asia project director for the
International Crisis Group, 7/30/12, “High Stakes in the South China Sea” The Diplomat)
http://thediplomat.com/flashpoints-blog/2012/07/30/high-stakes-in-the-south-china-sea/
Coverage of the South China Sea territorial dispute has tended to paint the story as that of a giant China flexing its muscle over a handful of
smaller Southeast Asian states. But while China’s increasingly assertive behavior shows its willingness to exploit the weaknesses of other
claimants, the picture is not as simple as it is often portrayed. Vietnam
and the Philippines are pushing back against
China, and many countries are stoking tensions in the sea. Together, their actions leave plenty of room for
open conflict to break out . Vietnam and the Philippines are no strangers to confronting China over the South China Sea.
Vietnam and China fought two wars in the 1970s and 1980s over the Paracels, while China occupied a
Philippine-claimed reef in the mid-1990s in the Spratlys. Tensions have run high again in recent years,
driven by resource and strategic interests. Beijing is more determined than ever to ensure that its
Southeast Asia rivals do not come between it and its territorial claims. In the face of Beijing’s growing
confidence, Hanoi and Manila are actively enlisting the aid of ASEAN and the U nited S tates. Vietnam had
some early success. Hanoi deftly outmaneuvered China, much to Beijing’s embarrassment, by championing the sovereignty issue on ASEAN’s
agenda during its chairmanship of the organization in 2010. Its efforts culminated in U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s landmark speech
that declared that the South China Sea was a U.S. “national interest.” The phrase was a rude awakening for China and, according to a
Vietnamese diplomat, was a major reason that Beijing started taking Hanoi more seriously. However, Hanoi
and Manila’s efforts
are now failing to convince China to tread more lightly. Beijing has simply upped the ante in response.
The Philippines has also responded to China’s claims by leaning on its military alliance with Washington, even going so far as to advocate
interpreting the 1951 Mutual Defense Treaty in a way that includes the South China Sea—a position the United States has yet to endorse. Nor
do bold steps always produce a persuasive show of force. Manila’s
deployment of a warship to intercept Chinese
vessels poaching in the disputed Scarborough Shoal in April began a standoff that was only broken by
a typhoon. Hanoi’s passage of a maritime law in June, requiring foreign naval ships entering the disputed areas to notify Vietnamese
authorities, was countered by Beijing’s creation of a centrally administered outpost in the South China Sea, Sansha City, complete with its own
military garrison. In
this game of tit-for-tat, Vietnam and the Philippines are clearly vulnerable. ASEAN has
been too divided as of late to be of much help. The diverging interests of individual ASEAN states have stalled negotiations over a
code of conduct agreement with China. The end result was a diplomatic deadlock at this month’s foreign
ministers’ meeting in Phnom Penh, the first time in the organization’s 45-year history that ASEAN
members failed to issue a joint statement. With no mechanisms to manage tensions and the
prospects of a resolution diminishing, directly pushing back against Beijing seems to be an ever
escalating gamble for Hanoi and Manila. But domestic demand in Vietnam and the Philippines for
hydrocarbon and fish stock is eroding the longstanding restraints on conflict. Furthermore, rising nationalism
and a reluctance to appear weak before their respective domestic audiences are nudging them
towards greater confrontation with China as the latter enlarges its maritime footprint. High stakes
coupled with an increase of tensions means that a misstep by either China or Southeast Asian
claimants can all too easily escalate the dispute to irreversible levels.
China will escalate the conflict militarily—ultra-hardliners are gaining sway
Lague 12 (David, reporter, 7/25/12, “China's hawks gaining sway in South China sea dispute” Reuters)
http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-hawks-gaining-sway-south-china-sea-dispute-210711501.html
HONG KONG (Reuters) - China
has adopted a more aggressive stance in recent weeks on territorial disputes in the
South China Sea as hard-line officials and commentators call on Beijing to take a tougher line with rival
claimants. China's supreme policymaking body, the Politburo Standing Committee, is made up entirely
of civilians, but outspoken People's Liberation Army (PLA) officers, intelligence advisers and maritime agency
chiefs are arguing that Beijing should be more forceful in asserting its sovereignty over the sea and the
oil and natural gas believed to lie under the sea-bed. Most of them blame the United States' so-called strategic "pivot" to Asia for
emboldening neighboring countries, particularly the Philippines and Vietnam, to challenge China's claims. "China now faces a whole pack of
aggressive neighbors headed by Vietnam and the Philippines and also a set of menacing challengers headed by the United States, forming their
encirclement from outside the region," wrote Xu Zhirong, a deputy chief captain with China Marine Surveillance, in the June edition of China
Eye, a publication of the Hong Kong-based China Energy Fund Committee. "And, such a band of eager lackeys is exactly what the U.S. needs for
its strategic return to Asia," he wrote. Most Chinese and foreign security policy analysts believe China wants to avoid military conflict across sea
lanes that carry an annual $5 trillion in ship-borne trade, particularly if it raises the prospect of U.S. intervention. However, they say Beijing
is increasingly determined to block any unified effort from rival claimants to negotiate over disputes,
preferring instead to isolate much smaller and weaker states in direct talks. There was evidence of this harder
line at an annual foreign ministers' meeting of the 10-member Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc earlier this month where
diplomats said China's influence behind the scenes led to an unprecedented breakdown in the grouping's traditional preference for maintaining
an appearance of harmony and unity. The meeting in Phnom Penh ended in disarray without progress on a proposed code of conduct that was
aimed at minimizing the risk of conflict in the South China Sea or issuing a concluding communique. China's close ally Cambodia, the meeting's
host, blocked every attempt to include tensions in the South China Sea on the agenda, said the diplomats from other member nations. THE
GARRISON On
the military front, China's powerful Central Military Commission has approved the formal
establishment of a military garrison for the South China Sea. The move, announced this week, is
essentially a further assertion of China's sovereignty claims after it last month raised the administrative status of the
seas to the level of a city, which it calls Sansha. The official Xinhua news agency said the Sansha garrison would be responsible for "national
defense mobilization ... guarding the city and supporting local emergency rescue and disaster relief" and "carrying out military missions". The
city government is located on the 2.13-square km Yongxing Island, according to Xinhua, which contains a small military airport, a sea port,
roads, a clinic, a post office and an observatory. This is in the Paracels, a group of islands also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan. A ship calls twice
in a month from nearby Hainan province to serve its 613 residents. Xu, a regular commentator on maritime security issues, is one of many
analysts arguing that recent tensions are a direct result of the Obama administration's announcement late last year of a strategic shift which
would eventually see 60 per cent of the U.S. navy's warships deployed to the Asia Pacific, up from the current 50 per cent. The U.S. move is
widely seen as a response to China's growing military power and increasingly assertive behavior in dealing with contested territory. China's
recent rows with the Philippines over the Scarborough Shoal and Vietnam over oil exploration rights
have heightened regional fears that tension in the South China Sea could lead to armed conflict. One
of China's most hawkish army officers, Major General Zhu Chenghu, an influential teacher and strategy
researcher at Beijing's National Defence University, has dismissed the entitlement of these rivals to
the disputed waters. UNREASONABLE AND ILLEGAL In a speech to the World Peace Forum in Beijing earlier this month, Zhu said it
was "unreasonable and illegal" for the Philippines and Vietnam to claim territory that historically
belonged to China. He said there had been no disputes in the South China Sea before the 1970s when maps published by rival claimants
also acknowledged it was Chinese territory. "Relevant countries did not begin to lay claim to islands and sea waters
in the area until the discovery of large amounts of oil and gas reserves in the South China Sea," he said,
according to an extract of his speech published in the official Global Times newspaper last week. Zhu also blamed U.S. "meddling" for
prolonging the current tension. The retired general is best known for his assertion in 2005 that China should use
nuclear weapons against the U nited S tates if American forces intervened in a conflict over Taiwan. He
escaped any serious censure over what he stressed at the time were his personal views and has since become a regular member
of high-level Chinese military delegations in security talks with U.S. counterparts. Other officials calling for a
tougher line include Cui Liru, president of the China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations, a Beijing think-tank closely
linked to China's intelligence services, and Major General Luo Yuan, a retired army officer who is well known for
his hard-line views and provocative media commentaries. It is unclear how much sway these blunt speaking officials exercise over
foreign and military policies or whether their views reflect official thinking. But for the PLA, the persistent territorial disputes undermine a
carefully-honed image as a force that will never allow foreign powers to encroach on Chinese territory as they did in the colonial period. "The
South China Sea situation is certainly highly frustrating for Chinese military officers," said Sun Yun, a
Washington-based China security policy expert and a former analyst with the International Crisis Group in Beijing. "If the PLA cannot even
defend China's own territory at its doorstep, what capacity or legitimacy does it have to cruise around the world?"
Conflict over the South China Sea causes nuclear war—improved US-China relations
over the area are necessary to avert a global catastrophe
Wittner 11 (Lawrence, Ph.D. in History from Columbia, award-winning foreign policy writer and
author, 11/28/11, “COMMENTARY: Is a Nuclear War with China Possible?” Huntington News)
http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446
While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used. After all, for centuries
national conflicts have led to wars, with nations employing their deadliest weapons. The current
deterioration of U.S. relations with China might end up providing us with yet another example of this
phenomenon. The gathering tension between the United States and China is clear enough. Disturbed by China’s growing
economic and military strength, the U.S. government recently challenged China’s claims in the South China
Sea , increased the U.S. military presence in Australia, and deepened U.S. military ties with other nations in the Pacific region. According to
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States was “asserting our own position as a Pacific power.” But
need this lead to
nuclear war? Not necessarily. And yet, there are signs that it could . After all, both the U nited S tates and
China possess large numbers of nuclear weapons. The U.S. government threatened to attack China
with nuclear weapons during the Korean War and, later, during the conflict over the future of China’s offshore
islands, Quemoy and Matsu. In the midst of the latter confrontation, President Dwight Eisenhower declared publicly,
and chillingly, that U.S. nuclear weapons would “be used just exactly as you would use a bullet or anything
else.” Of course, China didn’t have nuclear weapons then. Now that it does, perhaps the behavior of national leaders will be more temperate.
But the
loose nuclear threats of U.S. and Soviet government officials during the Cold War, when both nations
had vast nuclear arsenals, should convince us that, even as the military ante is raised, nuclear saber-rattling
persists. Some pundits argue that nuclear weapons prevent wars between nuclear-armed nations; and,
admittedly, there haven’t been very many—at least not yet. But the Kargil War of 1999, between nuclear-armed India
and nuclear-armed Pakistan, should convince us that such wars can occur. Indeed, in that case, the conflict
almost slipped into a nuclear war. Pakistan’s foreign secretary threatened that, if the war escalated, his country felt free to use
“any weapon” in its arsenal. During the conflict, Pakistan did move nuclear weapons toward its border, while
India, it is claimed, readied its own nuclear missiles for an attack on Pakistan. At the least, though, don’t nuclear
weapons deter a nuclear attack? Do they? Obviously, NATO leaders didn’t feel deterred, for, throughout
the Cold War, NATO’s strategy was to respond to a Soviet conventional military attack on Western
Europe by launching a Western nuclear attack on the nuclear-armed Soviet Union. Furthermore, if
U.S. government officials really believed that nuclear deterrence worked, they would not have
resorted to championing “Star Wars” and its modern variant, national missile defense. Why are these vastly
expensive—and probably unworkable—military defense systems needed if other nuclear powers are deterred from attacking by U.S. nuclear
might? Of course, the bottom line for those Americans convinced that nuclear weapons safeguard them from a Chinese nuclear attack might be
that the U.S. nuclear arsenal is far greater than its Chinese counterpart. Today, it is estimated that the U.S. government possesses over five
thousand nuclear warheads, while the Chinese government has a total inventory of roughly three hundred. Moreover, only about forty of these
Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the United States. Surely the United States would “win” any nuclear war with China. But what would that
“victory” entail? A
nuclear attack by China would immediately slaughter at least 10 million Americans in a
great storm of blast and fire, while leaving many more dying horribly of sickness and radiation
poisoning. The Chinese death toll in a nuclear war would be far higher. Both nations would be reduced
to smoldering, radioactive wastelands. Also, radioactive debris sent aloft by the nuclear explosions
would blot out the sun and bring on a “nuclear winter” around the globe—destroying agriculture,
creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. Moreover, in another decade the extent of this
catastrophe would be far worse. The Chinese government is currently expanding its nuclear arsenal, and by the
year 2020 it is expected to more than double its number of nuclear weapons that can hit the U nited
S tates. The U.S. government, in turn, has plans to spend hundreds of billions of dollars “modernizing” its
nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities over the next decade. To avert the enormous disaster of a U.S.-
China nuclear war, there are two obvious actions that can be taken. The first is to get rid of nuclear weapons, as the
nuclear powers have agreed to do but thus far have resisted doing. The second, conducted while the nuclear disarmament process is occurring,
improve U.S.-China relations . If the American and Chinese people are interested in ensuring their
survival and that of the world, they should be working to encourage these policies.
is to
Plan solves US-China relations and prevents war—by increasing energy abundance
worldwide, it eliminates the cause of conflict and reduces nationalism
Mead 12 (Walter Russell, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard
College, 7/18/12, “Energy Revolution 3: The New American Century” The American Interest)
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/18/energy-revolution-3-the-new-americancentury/
On the whole, a
world of energy abundance should be particularly good for U.S.-China relations. If both China
new discoveries globally are making energy more
abundant, there is less chance that China and the U.S. will compete for political influence in places like
the Middle East. More energy security at home may also lessen the political pressure inside China to
build up its naval forces. Oil may calm the troubled waters around China’s shores . The maritime
disputes now causing trouble from Korea and Japan to Malaysia and the Philippines will be easier to manage if the
potential undersea energy resources are seen as less vital to national economic security. Nationalist passion
will still drive tough stands on the maritime issues, but nationalism is a much stronger force when powerful
and the United States have large energy reserves at home, and if
economic arguments share the agenda of radical nationalist groups. If the South China Sea issue is
seen as both a question of national pride and, because of perceived energy supply issues, a vital national interest,
Chinese policy will be much tougher than if it is simply a question of pride.
China ADV – impact – economy
Chinese slowdown hurts global growth
Financial Times 12 (10/17/12, “Global economy: When China sneezes”)
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/8514c0dc-17af-11e2-9530-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2JszMjBof
More than 50 years later, China
is so integrated into the global economy that even relatively minor shifts
in its domestic production or spending can have a big impact on the other side of the world.“China can
transmit real shocks widely,” the International Monetary Fund said in a recent report, “whether these
originate domestically or elsewhere.” Beijing is scheduled to publish quarterly figures today that are likely to show the economy slowed for the
seventh consecutive quarter. Many expect growth of less than 7.5 per cent from the same period a year earlier. While still fast by the standards
of most developed countries, this would represent a significant slowdown for an economy that was growing at nearly 12 per cent as recently as
the start of 2010. China’sdeceleration has affected a diverse range of industries and trading partners to varying degrees – and, in recent
months, its economic
prospects have become almost as big a concern for global investors as the fate of
crisis-hit Europe and the trudging US economy.Given how rapidly China has come to dominate many global commodities
markets, particularly in the past decade, these have been the most obvious victims. To cite a statistic that would have warmed Mao’s heart,
China now produces seven times more steel than the UK and the US combined, and accounts for
nearly half of global output of the metal. The country’s share of global imports of iron ore, a crucial steelmaking ingredient, has
increased from less than 10 per cent in the early 1990s to about 65 per cent now. But in response to slowing demand from China, prices of
commodities such as iron ore, copper and coal have fallen dramatically this year. This is already having an impact on the economies of Australia,
Brazil, Indonesia, parts of Africa and other exporters. RicDeverell of Credit Suisse says the prices of iron ore and other commodities could fall in
the long run below their current levels. “The ingredients are building for a train wreck. I think [iron ore prices] are more likely to be $70 in 2015
than $150.” China is increasingly important to a broad range of other industries and exporters, too. The IMF
says it is now the first- or second-largest trading partner of 78 countries, which account for 55 per cent of global gross domestic product. In
2000, it was the first- or second-largest trading partner of just 13 countries, accounting for 15 per cent of global GDP. The Chinese slowdown
has so far been gradual, but the fall in investment and infrastructure spending has affected demand for the types of machinery and capital
goods in which producers such as Japan and Germany are particularly strong. Consumer-oriented sectors, such as electronic components and
luxury goods, have proved more resilient, although here too some weaker brands are suffering. The
rapid integration that has
made China a driver of the global economy also means that a fall in the breakneck pace of growth will
have a profound effect on the rest of us. Just half a century ago, 36m people died in the country and few outsiders heard about
it. Today, when China’s nouveaux riches buy fewer cars and handbags, the rest of the world pays
attention.
China ADV – internal – oil prices
High oil prices spark protests against the regime
VOA 12 (3/21/12, “China: High Oil Prices Could Cause Social Unrest” Voice of America)
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/03/21/china-high-oil-prices-could-cause-social-unrest/
China is warning that rising domestic oil prices could threaten social stability, after Beijing raised the
price of retail gasoline for the second time in two months. The government said earlier this week that it was raising gas prices by 6.5
percent and diesel by 7 percent — the biggest price hike in China in nearly three years. Retail pump prices are set in China by central
authorities, in part to maintain social stability. The Communist Party-affiliated Global Times newspaper acknowledged Wednesday the
move is “unpopular with the public,” warning that rising oil prices have sparked recent protests
around the world.
The U.S.-based American Automobile Association says Chinese motorists now pay around $1.20 per liter for fuel.
That represents an increase of nearly 50 percent since 2009. Global Times said the majority of the
Chinese public blames high oil
prices on the monopoly of the country's state-owned petroleum corporations — Sinopec and CNPC. It said
because of their relationship to the government, public anger could soon spill over. China Central Television this week quoted one car owner
complaining about the spike in prices. “The
National Development and Reform Commission reacts slowly when the
international oil prices lower. But it reacts so swiftlyto keep pace with the rise of the international oil prices.” The
unidentified car owner said authorities are quick to raise pump prices when world prices go up, but slow to reduce them when world prices
come down. The Global Times editorial said Beijing should work to improve transparency and dispel rumors of corruption within Sinopec and
CNPC, acknowledging that the two organizations are notorious for “opaque operation” and bad public relations. The paper said high
prices could be effective in curbing energy consumption, but warned they could also
oil
slow economic growth and trigger
massive inflation.
High oil prices hurt Asian growth
Taipei Times 12 (3/14/12, “Higher oil prices start to pinch Asians” Taipei Times)
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2012/03/14/2003527717
Surging oil prices are starting to pinch the pocketbooks of Asian consumers and could quicken
inflation and slow economic activity in a region that has led global growth in recent years. The jump in
crude — the US benchmark is trading near a 10-month high of US$107 a barrel from US$75 in October — has sent fuel prices
higher across Asia, where only Malaysia is a net oil exporter among the major economies. In Singapore, for instance, a liter of 92 octane
gasoline at ExxonMobil stations has risen 6 percent this year to S$2.15 (US$1.71) a liter. Higher oil prices have already made
Asian policymakers think twice about cutting lending rates and implementing other stimulus
measures designed to boost economic growth as shockwaves from Europe’s debt crisis spread. If
crude gets much higher, it could force central bankers to raise rates, sacrificing growth to tame
inflation. The backbone of Asia’s economy has traditionally been exports to the US and Europe, but a growing middle class and a boom in
purchasing power in recent years in countries such China and Indonesia have made Asian consumer demand increasingly vital to the global
economy. “I spend most of my day on the road driving clients around to see properties,” said 27-year-old Singapore real-estate agent Timothy
Chen, who switched last week to a less expensive, lower-octane gasoline to help stem his rising fuel bill. “It’s frustrating because I’m paying
more for petrol, but I’m not making more money.” Some in the region, such as Singapore and Hong Kong, import all of their crude and are
particularly exposed to higher energy prices, which boost transport and production costs, and therefore the cost of most goods. The cost of
crude has spiked recently amid investor optimism that an improving US economy will boost demand and fears that rising tensions over Iran’s
nuclear program could lead to global supply disruptions. “Rising
oil prices appear more like a tax on global growth,
eating into spending power in the US and Europe, and hitting many Asian economies at a time when
they are slowing,” Standard Chartered Bank chief economist Gerard Lyons said. “ The impact of oil prices on the global
economy can never be underestimated . Rising oil prices are usually the biggest threat to continued
global growth.” Asia’s strong trade and government surpluses have so far helped it absorb higher global oil prices without a significant
impact on the region’s inflation and economic growth. The IMF is forecasting GDP in Asia will expand 6.7 percent this year from 6.3 percent last
year. However, GDP forecasts will not take the sting out of higher fuel costs, especially for the region’s poor.
Even if the most recent
data suggest inflation remains largely in check, Asia might still be hurt by the recent surge in oil prices,
since it can take months or years for higher energy costs and tighter monetary policies to work their
way through an economy, said Sean Darby, chief global equity strategist with Jeffries in Hong Kong. “Well after the oil shock
occurs, the economy will still be impacted,” Darby said.
China’s economy is vulnerable to oil price hikes
Stephen 12 (Craig, advisory consultant in China specializing in media and telecoms, 4/15/12, “Is high
oil price behind China’s slowdown?” MarketWatch) http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-high-oilprice-behind-chinas-slowdown-2012-04-15
Here, China’s
growing dependence on oil is worth highlighting, as its consumers face steep price hikes. As the secondlargest consumer of oil after the U.S., the mainland Chinese economy is increasingly exposed to higher crude
prices. China is also steadily increasing the amount of oil it imports, which reached 5.57 million barrels a day in
March, up 8.7% from a year earlier Last month, China’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) instigated its second fuel-price
hike in less than five weeks, raising gasoline and diesel prices by 600 yuan ($95) per ton. This led to gasoline and diesel at the retail level
increasing by between 6.5% to 7%. Read report on Chinese fuel-price increase. The price of gasoline has now reached 8 yuan a liter, or over
$4.80 a gallon, while in southern Guangdong province, it was reported prices had even reached the 9-yuan-a-liter mark. Next to the U.S.
average of around $3.94 a gallon this looks pricy, especially when you consider Chinese mainlanders have seen the price of gas at the pump
double since 2005 from 4 yuan a liter. This is likely to come as a shock to the new generation of mainland Chinese motorists, who last year
surpassed 100 million, and according to some forecasts will reach 200 million by 2020. Anecdotally, it is already possible to notice the higher
prices when catching a taxi over the border from Hong Kong. Fares are considerably higher than even a few years ago, and taxi drivers are less
willing to bargain. As well as pinching motorists, higher fuel prices also feed through to wider inflation.
As petroleum-based
fertilizers are used in agriculture, and gasoline is needed to transport goods, these higher prices will
have a knock-on effect. This is one reason, it is argued, China is facing structurally higher inflation.
China ADV – internal – decline = war
Chinese economic decline triggers social unrest that collapses the CCP – causes great
power war
Kane 01 [Thomas Kane, PhD in Security Studies from the University of Hull & Lawrence Serewicz,
Autumn, www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/01autumn/Kane.htm
Despite China's problems with its food supply, the Chinese do not appear to be in danger of widespread starvation. Nevertheless, one cannot
rule out the prospect entirely, especially if the earth's climate actually is getting warmer. The consequences of general famine in a country with
over a billion people clearly would be catastrophic. The effects of oil shortages and industrial stagnation would be less lurid, but economic
collapse would endanger China's political stability whether that collapse came with a bang or a whimper. PRC society
has become dangerously fractured. As the coastal cities grow richer and more cosmopolitan while the rural
inland provinces grow poorer, the political interests of the two regions become ever less compatible. Increasing
the prospects for division yet further, Deng Xiaoping's administrative reforms have strengthened regional potentates at the
expense of central authority. As Kent Calder observes, In part, this change [erosion of power at the center] is a conscious devolution, initiated
by Deng Xiaoping in 1991 to outflank conservative opponents of economic reforms in Beijing nomenclature. But devolution has fed on itself,
spurred by the natural desire of local authorities in the affluent and increasingly powerful coastal provinces to appropriate more and more of
the fruits of growth to themselves alone. [49] Other social and economic developments deepen the rifts in Chinese society. The one-child
policy, for instance, is disrupting traditional family life, with unknowable consequences for Chinese mores and social cohesion. [50] As families
resort to abortion or infanticide to ensure that their one child is a son, the population may come to include an unprecedented preponderance
of young, single men. If common gender prejudices have any basis in fact, these males are unlikely to be a source of social stability. Under these
circumstances, China is vulnerable to unrest of many kinds. Unemploymentor severe hardship, not to mention actual starvation, could
easily trigger popular uprisings. Provincial leaders might be tempted to secede, perhaps openly or perhaps by
quietly ceasing to obey Beijing's directives. China's leaders, in turn, might adopt drastic measures to forestall such
developments. If faced with internal strife, supporters of China's existing regime may return to a more overt form of communist
dictatorship.The PRC has, after all, oscillated between experimentation and orthodoxy continually throughout its existence. Spectacular
examples include Mao's Hundred Flowers campaign and the return to conventional Marxism- Leninism after the leftist experiments of the
Cultural Revolution, but the process continued throughout the 1980s, when the Chinese referred to it as the "fang-shou cycle." (Fang means to
loosen one's grip; shou means to tighten it.) [51] If order broke down, the Chinese would not be the only people to suffer. Civil
unrest in
the PRC would disrupt trade relationships, send refugees flowing across borders, and force outside
powers to consider intervention. If different countries chose to intervene on different sides, China's
struggle could lead to major war. In a less apocalyptic but still grim scenario, China's government
might try to ward off its demise by attacking adjacent countries
China ADV – internal – nationalism module
Economic downturn causes a surge in Chinese nationalism
Stratint Forum 08 [Strategic Intelligence Forum, “Abiding US Suspicions of China,” 3-13,
http://www.courcyint.com/CIF/CIF17233.asp]
The Pentagon goes on to argue that the CCP has come to rely on economic performance and nationalism “as a substitute for the failure of
communist ideology to unify the population and mobilize political support”. The danger is that if
economic growth falters, an
even higher reliance on nationalism will be necessary. It also clearly believes that economic performance will
indeed falter because of underlying weaknesses such as non-performing loans, inefficient state-owned
enterprises, and economic disparity between urban and rural areas. The report warns: “Economic shocks,
setbacks, or even modestly slower growth could lead to higher unemployment, inflation, and
significant unrest, potentially giving rise to greater reliance on nationalism to maintain popular
support for the CCP.” One interesting point the Pentagon report makes on a potential economic crisis is the fact that China’s leaders
have limited experience in dealing with a correction or recession in a complex market economy, and “it is not certain whether their responses
would ease or exacerbate temporary dislocations”.
Nationalism will force Chinese aggression over Taiwan
Manicom 07 James Manicom, Ph.D Research Fellow in the Asian Institute at the University of Toronto,
February 2007, “Near-term Instability in the Taiwan Strait?” Security Challenges, Volume 3 Number 1,
http://www.securitychallenges.org.au/ArticlePDFs/vol3no1Manicom.pdf
This article illustrates how growing
nationalist pressures in Chinese government and society could pressure
governing elites into a demonstration of force in the Taiwan Strait in the near future. In doing so, it
challenges the two prevailing orthodox assessments of cross-Strait security. The first views the cross-Strait relationship as tense but stable, the
second views war between the US and China in the Strait as inevitable in the long term. In contrast, this article contends that a
military
crisis is possible in the short term as a result of internal domestic pressures on the leadership . In a crisis
over Taiwan, Chinese leadership elites will be under pressure from three domestic sources that could
inhibit their ability to pursue a conciliatory solution. These three sources are: hardline elements of the
PLA, remaining Third Generation elites, and nationalist segments of the population. It concludes with an
examination of the policy implications for all actors in the Strait. In short, it is imperative that the Fourth Generation’s Taiwan policy appears to
be making progress towards reunification.
Growth Good
Growth good – 2ac
Growth is sustainable
Indur M. Goklany 2007, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of
the Interior, 2007, “The improving state of the world”, p. 97-100, google boks
It may be argued that the improvements in human well-being have been obtained through massive and unsustainable depredation of the
earth's nonrenewable resources and degradation of its environment. While deferring the latter issue to subsequent sections, in the following 1
will address the issue of nonrenewable resources. This discussion is brief because it has been addressed comprehensively in Julian L. Simon's
The State of Humanity, as well as elsewhere, and the general finding is that we
are not likely to run out of critical energy
and mineral resources any time soon, if at all.52 The contention that we are depleting "nonrenewable"
resources stems from a static view of what a "resource" is. For example, while every atom of copper is a potential
resource for humanity, it is not a usable resource unless it is accessible at an affordable price. But what is
accessible and affordable depends on technology, which, as we have already seen, is constantly
advancing. Economic geologists classify the amount of resources that can be extracted profitably at current prices as current, proven, or
economic reserves. However, at any time, there will be resources that can be extracted using current
technology, but which could not then be sold profitably. Such resources are classified as potential
reserves, and they are a function of current prices and technology. Consider, for instance, that technology limited us
to bore a hole no deeper than a thousand feet. All the copper beyond that, even if it comprised 99 percent of the earth's total resource
endowment of copper, would be inaccessible. Therefore, the price of copper (assuming free markets and good information) would not consider
the 99 percent that would be inaccessible. But if technology advances so that we can access copper beyond that thousand feet and be able to
sell that additional amount at a profit, its price would drop in recognition of the expansion of the resource base. In fact, it is not necessary for a
technology to actually be functioning for markets to factor it into prices. The
likelihood that a technology may increase
economic reserves itself would be considered in the pricing. The greater the likelihood, the lower
prices would drop in anticipation. Thus, prices are always changing in response to short- and longterm prospects for accessing and using a commodity. In a free market system, the fact that prices are attached to
commodities means that suppliers are in a constant quest to increase supplies so that they can sell more while at the same time reducing prices
so that they are not undersold. Meanwhile, direct and indirect users of the commodities are on their own quest to reduce consumption so that
thev can reduce their costs. The
higher the price of a resource, the greater the response from both suppliers
and consumers. This response can take the form of greater penetration of improved-but-less-used technologies, as well as research,
development, and adoption of brand new technologies. For suppliers, this leads to technological change in the search for
more efficient methods to locate, extract, and refine the resource. For consumers, higher prices stimulate
technological change in the reuse, recycling, and conservation of that resource. Thus, today with global steel
demand at record heights (around a billion tonnes annually), more than a third of the steel produced each year comes from recycled scrap,
which is a $100 billion per year business." High prices also intensify the search for substitutes for that resource. And sometimes those
substitutes can drive out the "original" resource. To paraphrase Bjorn Lomborg,
the stone age didn't end because we ran out
of stones, the iron age because we ran out of iron, or the bronze age because we ran out of bronze.'"1
As a result of this dynamic, technology increases the amount of resources that can be used or there is
increased substitution, which would stabilize if not reduce prices. Alternatively, if these efforts fail to
reduce prices, its usage would drop and efforts to find substitutes would increase until they are, in
fact, found. Consider whale blubber. Once it was the preferred fuel used to light households. It became
scarce, prices went up, and substitutes were found. Today, although there might be a niche for whale blubber somewhere,
it no longer has an international market as a lighting fuel. So although reportedly you can get a pound of whale blubber for half-a-penny in
Norway (down from 15 cents per pound in 1999), its current price is irrelevant/'5 Thus, it is hardly surprising that despite
short-term
fluctuations, the long-term price trend of virtually every commodity that is used today has been
downward over the past two centuries not only in terms of "real," inflation-adjusted dollars but also
more importantly in terms of the amount of effort an average individual has to expend to obtain or to
purchase a given mass of that commodity.^ As one illustration of this general phenomenon, figure 4.4 shows that, despite a
recent upturn in prices probably because of increased demand in Asia, there has been a long-term decline in the price of 13 metals relative to
wages.57 On that basis, in 2005, the price of copper was an l/80th of its 1800 level, aluminum dropped to a 1/ 40th of its 1900 price, silver
declined to a l/40th of its 1860 level, and tin to a l/7th of its price in 1880. These long-term declines in prices indicate that those commodities
are not getting any scarcer. In fact, the only metal that had a price-relative-to-wages higher in 2005 than in 1900 was platinum: in 2005, it was
35 percent more expensive that it was in 1900, but its price had peaked around 1920, at a level three and one-half times higher than today's.
Given that commodity prices have, by and large, dropped, it is interesting to ponder on the etymology of the phrase
"searching for a needle in a haystack." Before the industrial revolution when metals were scarcer than they are today and needles, therefore,
more costly, it might have made sense to search a haystack for a lost needle. But today that would be a sheer waste of time and energy. Finally,
in recent years there have been a spate of books and articles trumpeting the imminent end of oil.** As
Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute notes, "Fortunately, the debate over the likelihood of declining production is in a
sense irrelevant." ' Perhaps the end of oil will come about sometime in the future but whenever it
comes, it will only be a footnote to history, just as the end of blubber is today. The end of oil does not mean an
end to energy production. Even today we have a number of technologies waiting in the wings ranging
from "clean coal" to nuclear as a substitute for fossil fuels to different forms of renewables that could
generate electricity for ultimate use in the home, workplace, and even in transportation. And when
the price is right, they will step in, either because oil becomes more expensive as it becomes scarcer
or technological innovation reduces the price of substitutes.
Space solves scarcity
John Carl Villanueva, 3/30/10, “Space Colonization”, http://www.universetoday.com/61085/spacecolonization/, umn-rks
Although Earth
is abundant with natural resources, these natural resources are not unlimited. This is why
practically all space programs include space colonization among their long-term goals. Space colonization refers to the setting
up of a self-sufficient human habitat outside planet Earth. The nearest candidate is the Moon. This is followed by Mars
and then perhaps somewhere in the neighborhood of Proxima Centauri, the nearest star from our Sun. Signs that the Earth is
feeling the pressure of the ever mushrooming population are everywhere. Depleted rain forests, deteriorating
ozone layer, uninhabitable rivers, and Global Warming are evidences of a stressed-out planet. Sure, there are solutions to these problems. But
the fact remains that, pretty soon, the demands of our growing population would be too much for this planet to handle. The
Apollo
Program has shown us that it is possible to land and even walk on the Moon. Building structures there
is not an impossible task. However, there is one main concern – the presence of water. For the Moon or any celestial body to be
habitable, it has to have water. If possible, that water has to be in liquid form. With water, people can grow plants, which
can then serve as sources of food. Energy is not a problem since Solar energy is readily available on the Lunar
surface. Since there is no atmosphere on the Moon, energy from the Sun can reach solar panels unhindered. Solar panels are already being
used to power satellites and even the Mars exploration rovers Spirit and Opportunity, so there’s no question to their reliability. Spirit and
Opportunity are two mobile robots that are currently exploring the surface of the Red Planet. As with
regards to the water
problem, a possible solution may lie in the water ice deposits found in some polar craters on the
Moon. Data gathered by the LCROSS lunar impact mission presented proofs of the presence of water ice there. If
space colonization on the Moon is not possible, then there’s always Mars. Mars possesses many attributes that
make it a very good candidate for colonization. Mars has a similar axial tilt to the Earth’s, giving it seasons similar to ours. It has a thin
atmosphere that can partially shield inhabitants from solar and cosmic radiation. Best of all, like the Moon, Mars also has water ice deposits on
its surface.
No extinction from biodiversity loss
Moore 98 (Senior Fellow – Hoover Institute, Climate of Fear, Pg. 99)
Nevertheless,
the loss of a class of living being does not typically threaten other species. Most animals
and plants can derive their nutrients or receive the other benefits provided by a particular species
from more than a single source. If it were true that the extinction of a single species would produce a
cascade of losses, then the massive extinctions of the past should have wiped out all life. Evolution
forces various life forms to adjust to change. A few may not make the adaptation but others will mutate to meet the new
conditions. Although a particular chain of DNA may be eliminated through the loss of a species, other animals or plants adapting to the same
environment often produce similar genetic solutions with like proteins. It
that, if eliminated, would threaten us humans.
is almost impossible to imagine a single species
Pre-industrial lifestyles devastate the environment
Democratic Socialist Party 2004, “Chapter II: Symptoms and Causes of the Environmental Crisis,”
ENVIRONMENT, CAPITALISM, AND SOCIALISM, online edition, 2004. Available from the World Wide Web
at: www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter2.htm
Lastly, a return to a pre-industrial, agrarian society would not even provide an automatic guarantee
against environmental destruction. The advocates of this solution often have a romanticised view of
pre-industrial societies as simple, natural and harmoniously integrated with nature. But pre-industrial
societies often caused severe environmental problems. For example, hunter-gatherer tribes in Africa,
North America and Australia destroyed vast areas of woodland through repeated burning in order to
increase pasture for the animals they hunted. Burning was also one of their techniques of hunting.
Primitive pastoral communities inflicted even greater damage. Not possessing any means of transportation, afraid of
wild animals preying on their herds from the shelter of forests, the primitive pastoralists tried to keep domesticated animals as close as possible
to their settlements. In addition, these patriarchal societies measured a man's social status by the size of his herds. As a consequence of these
two factors, pastures were overgrazed, forests were cut down to create new pasture and to provide firewood. The
degradation and
even desertification of the vast open spaces of Central Asia and the Middle East is to a considerable
extent the result of the activities of herdsmen over thousands of years. It is justifiably said that the nomad is not so
much the son of the desert as its father.
Alt would cause the starvation of billions
Democratic Socialist Party 2004, “Chapter II: Symptoms and Causes of the Environmental Crisis,”
ENVIRONMENT, CAPITALISM, AND SOCIALISM, online edition, 2004. Available from the World Wide Web
at: www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter2.htm
The power and environmental impact of modern technology is so intense and wide-ranging that its
shortsighted application to nature can have, and is having, catastrophic results. This has led some
environmentalists to urge the abandonment of industrial technology and a return to a pre-industrial,
self-sufficient, agrarian, village-based economy as the only way to preserve the natural equilibrium of
the biosphere. Such a proposal is not only reactionary in the most literal sense of the term, but also
totally untenable. Firstly, it would mean the death, through starvation alone, of much of the world's
current population. Modern industrialised agriculture produces cereal crop yields of 6000-8000 kilograms per hectare. Using such
industrial farming techniques, each hectare of cultivated land can support 25-35 people at the minimum level of 230 kilograms per capita.
Non-industrial farming techniques produce only enough to support about one person per hectare.
Using currently cultivated land, pre-industrial methods of cereal production would be sufficient to
provide the minimum daily calorie requirements for about 1400 million people, that is, less than onethird of the world's present population. Indeed, prior to industrialisation, the world's population reached a maximum of 600
million, one-eighth its present number.
Alt requires facism and wars
Democratic Socialist Party 2004, “Chapter II: Symptoms and Causes of the Environmental Crisis,”
ENVIRONMENT, CAPITALISM, AND SOCIALISM, online edition, 2004. Available from the World Wide Web
at: www.dsp.org.au/dsp/ECS/Chapter2.htm
Secondly, the great majority of the world's population would not voluntarily submit to death by
starvation. Nor is it likely that the few hundred millions who would be able to survive would be
content to eat just enough to appease their hunger, let alone willingly forego the general quality of life that modern
industry, science and technology makes possible. Deindustrialisation would therefore require the global imposition
of a permanent totalitarian regime so malevolently inhuman it would make Pol Pot's genocidal
tyranny in Cambodia appear benign by comparison. In the face of massive popular resistance, including
from the highly skilled and organised workers of the industrialised countries, such
a regime could only come to power and
maintain itself by using the fiendish weapons and technical instruments of social control that
industrial production and technology make possible, thus defeating the very rationale for its own
existence.
Growth good – solves war
Economic growth causes international cooperation which solves war
Mead 12 (Walter Russell, James Clarke Chace Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard
College, 7/18/12, “Energy Revolution 3: The New American Century” The American Interest)
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/18/energy-revolution-3-the-new-americancentury/
Abundant energy will also promote global economic growth, an effect that strengthens and stabilizes
the world system. It is easier for countries to cooperate when their economies are doing well. There is
less nationalist pressure inside countries driving political leaders to take confrontational stands, and it
is easier to negotiate win-win solutions and build functioning international institutions when all parties
arerelativelyoptimistic about their prospects.