1
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexico Grid Aff
2
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
1AC
3
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Plan – 1AC
Text: The United States Federal Government should increase renewable [non-hydrocarbon]
energy integration with the United Mexican States
4
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Climate Change Advantage – 1AC
Warming is real and human caused – an overwhelming amount of scientific evidence
Rahmstorf 8 (Stefan, Professor at the Postdam Institute for Climate Research, "Anthropogenic Climate Change:
Revisiting the Facts," http://www.pikpotsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Book_chapters/Rahmstorf_Zedillo_2008.pdf) WZ
This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on
climate, finding that this anthropogenic increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a
CO2 effect on climate of 3°C ± 1.5°C global warming for a doubling of concentration . (This is the classic IPCC range; my
personal assessment is that, in the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment Report, the
uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to 3°C ± 1°C.) This is based on consistent results from
theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence of any computer models, the same result
would still hold based on physics and on data from climate history alone. Considering the plethora of
consistent evidence, the chance that these conclusions are wrong has to be considered minute. If the
preceding is accepted, then it follows logically and incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2
concentration will lead to further warming. The magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior,
but the climatic response to various emissions scenarios can be computed from the information
presented here. The result is the famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 36.50 Two additional steps are involved in these computations: the consideration of anthropogenic
forcings other than CO2 (for example, other greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of
concentrations from the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here, although they are important to
get quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning concentrations, the
scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This
could turn out to be an optimistic assumption; some models indicate the possibility of a positive
feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon source rather than a sink under growing climatic
stress.51 It is clear that even in the more optimistic of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global
temperature would rise by 2–3°C above its preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a
paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely
unprecedented in at least the past 100,000 years. As far as the data show, we would have to go back
about 3 million years, to the Pliocene, for comparable temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is
important for the ability of ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time.
The last major global warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000 and
10,000 years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1°C per
century.52 The expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come with major risks and impacts in
terms of sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 25–35 meters higher than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice
sheets), extreme events (for example, hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss.53
The second part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed
what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured and well-established fact,
not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most of the observed warming of the past fifty years was
caused by human activity. Above all, this warming is exactly what would be expected given the anthropogenic rise in
greenhouse gases, and no viable alternative explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific literature. Taken
together, the very strong evidence, accumulated from thousands of independent studies, has over the past decades convinced
virtually every climatologist around the world (many of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that
anthropogenic global warming is a reality with which we need to deal.
5
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Grid integration stimulates investment in Mexican renewables and energy trade
Markey, lawyer practicing in LA focusing on the renewable energy sector, 2010
(David, February 2010, “Cross-Border Renewables — Baja to California,” Project Finance Newswire, p.
40, EB)
By a fortunate coincidence, Baja California, as the Mexican side of the Baja peninsula is called, has excellent potential for wind, solar and
geothermal projects. In the near term, the geothermal assets at Cierro Prieto will be used to satisfy demand in the Baja region itself, and solar energy
seems prohibitively expensive to export due to the high cost to generate solar electricity compared to other types of power and the inability of solar projects
on the Mexican side of the border to benefit from the 30% investment tax credit or cash grant that can be claimed on solar projects in the United States.
Therefore, most of the attention in Baja is focused on wind. The La Rumorosa region in particular shows strong wind potential. The “renewable energy
transmission initiative” noted in its January 2009 report that wind resources in Mexico look particularly promising. The report suggests a potential
for 5,000 megawatts of border region wind projects. (The initiative is a collaborative stakeholder planning process initiated as a joint effort among the
California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission and the California Independent System Operator.) Its subsequent December 2009
report contains further analysis of the energy potential in Baja, comments favorably on the potential to use that potential to meet part of the demand in
California for renewable energy and suggests that additional work will be done by the state to evaluate delivery of energy from Baja to Los Angeles.
The Challenge of Transmission The lack of transmission is a major challenge facing developers, and it presents itself in two forms. First, there
is the challenge of finding enough transmission on the Mexican side of the border to move the power north into California to an
interconnection point for the California grid. Second, once the power crosses the border, the grid itself has problems with congestion. It is not easy
to move electricity within California to highly populated urban areas. Existing cross-border transmission is limited. There currently exists
only 800 megawatts of transmission capacity between Baja California and California. This occurs through two 230-kV lines jointly referred
to as Western Electricity Coordinating Council Path 45. On the Mexican side, the lines are owned by the Commission Federal de Electricidad,or CFE, and on the
California side, they are owned by San Diego Gas & Electric. On the California side of the border, Path 45 interconnects with the Southwest Powerlink in the
Imperial Valley. Much of this 800 megawatts is apparently unused and could be used to transport renewable energy from Baja to California. This leaves a
developer with two options. First, it can connect to Path 45, which is operated on the Mexican side of the border by the CFE, and contract with the CFE to
carry the power to an interconnection point with the California grid. This is permitted in Mexico once a project has been issued with an export permit (the
process for which is described below). Wheeling charges would add to the cost of the exported energy. The second option is to finance and construct its
own transmission to an interconnection point within California grid territory. Although no renewable energy projects connect
directly into California currently, two merchant-owned gas-fired plants in Mexico connect directly to the California grid at Imperial Valley. In a similar
way, renewable energy projects could construct their own transmission trunk line from Baja to a substation in California such as the Imperial Valley
substation. These trunk lines could also be used by future projects in the same area. Developers attempting to pursue this second option are
unlikely to receive assistance from the Mexican government. Since all public transmission is owned and operated by the CFE, there are no
government incentives for private expansion of the transmission grid. Further, the CFE itself is likely to be constrained in constructing
transmission lines to export electricity because its primary function and responsibility are the transmission and distribution for public service within Mexico.
There are positive signs that additional cross-border transmission capability will be added over the coming years. Sempra has applied to the US Department of
Energy for a federal permit to allow it to build a cross-border transmission line connecting wind projects at La Rumorosa to the Southwest Powerlink in
southern Imperial County and potentially carrying 1250 megawatts. A further possibility would be a cross-border tie-in to the Imperial Irrigation District.
Power could then be wheeled to Southern California Edison or Los Angeles Department of Water and Power territory (although transmission to the later
would be dependent on completion of proposed transmission upgrades). If additional transmission capacity is built by pioneering
developers, this could be made available to future wind projects and make connecting to the California grid easier and less
costly, further incentivizing development. The second challenge for developers is how to transport the electricity to energy hungry urban areas
once it has arrived in California. Existing cross-border transmission lines connect to the California grid in the Imperial Valley. Cross-border links from the La
Rumorosa area could also tie into the California grid near this point. If this is the case, then the question of how this energy will make it to urban areas needs
to be addressed. Upgrades to the California transmission system are currently under review, and a “regional energy transmission initiative” is underway in
California to identify major upgrades that are needed to the California grid to allow the state to meet its renewable portfolio targets. If Baja is identified
as an important competitive renewable energy zone, this could lead to significant transmission upgrades ensuring Mexico
renewable energy reaches the utilities that need the electricity in California. There are already signs that California transmission will
improve in ways that will benefit projects located in Baja. The Sunrise Powerlink project was approved by the California Public Utilities Commission in
December 2008.This project involves construction of a new 500-kv line from the Imperial Valley to SDG&E service territory. This has been seen as a significant
boost for those wishing to export energy from Baja to California.
Cooperation with Mexico on climate change gets modeled globally
Selee, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute, and Wilson, associate with
the
Mexico Institute, 2012
(Andrew and Christopher, November, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “A New Agenda
With Mexico,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf,
accessed 7-6-13, EB)
Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments have expanded beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on
global issues, from climate change to international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of
the opportunities this creates for joint problem-solving. Mexico’s active participation in the G-20, which it hosted in 2012, and in
the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into
the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The two countries also coordinate more extensively than ever before
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
6
on diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in Honduras to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mexico is likely to play an
increasingly active role on global economic and environmental issues, areas where the country has significant expe - rience, and through
cooperative efforts the U.S. can take advantage of Mexico’s role as a bridge between the developed and developing
worlds, and between North America and Latin America.
Warming causes extinction - a preponderance of evidence proves it's real, anthropogenic, and
outweighs other threats
Deibel 7 (Terry, "Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic of American Statecraft," Conclusion: American Foreign
Affairs Strategy Today)
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a nonviolent nature, which, though
far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly
life depends. Scientists worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was once
a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more than 900 articles on climate
change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003 doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In
legitimate scientific circles,” writes Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort accumulates almost weekly,
as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across
the planet over the next century”; climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine
Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in Greenland are melting much faster than
expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been
accompanied by a significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded from direct
temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a close second”; “Earth’s warming climate
is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease
spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree
rise in sea temperatures. “The world is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who
lives 30 miles from the Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From
the founding of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels
in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million (ppm). At present they are accelerating toward
400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm, about double pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts
about a century, so there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for significant
global warming; the only debate is how much and how serous the effects will be. As the newspaper stories quoted above show,
we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of
plants and animals, species extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati and
the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets could disintegrate, leading to a
sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate
Manhattan up to the middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic
thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude would otherwise allow.
Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6
percent of GDP annually; severe warming could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway
greenhouse warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is both caused by
and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with only 5-10 degree changes in average global
temperatures, took place in just decades, even though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the
atmosphere. Faced with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the natural
greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and humanity’s life support system. At worst,
says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to het the
atmosphere to the temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then everything will
collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of nuclear winter to describe how a
thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet Union would not only destroy both countries but possible end
life on this planet. Global warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and considerably
better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism and traditional military challenges to shame.
It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on
this planet.
7
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Relations Advantage – 1AC
Cooperation between the US and Mexico is low, and now is key to reshape the partnership
Stratfor Global Intelligence, a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis organizations
around the world, 2013
(Stratfor Global Intelligence, May 2, Stratfor, “Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit,” accessed
07/05/13, CBC)
U.S.-Mexican relations are strategically important to both countries, and Mexico's period of transition has created
opportunities for each to reshape the partnership. And although U.S. media attention has focused primarily on bilateral security issues ahead of
Obama's visit -- namely cooperation in Mexico's drug war -- the Pena Nieto administration is working with Washington to re-orient the cross-border
conversation to one centered primarily on mutual economic possibility. ¶ As the first member of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party to win the
presidency this century, Pena Nieto has set about reconsolidating the party's control over the government while attempting to turn attention away from the
country's entrenched security issues and toward its economic opportunities. The pace of reform and political cooperation since the new government was
elected July 1 has been unusually high for Mexico.¶ Labor and education overhauls passed through the legislature relatively easily, and banking reforms
intended to broadly increase access to credit are set to be proposed once the legislature reconvenes in September. The administration still has an aggressive
to-do list remaining, with planned overhauls ranging from the telecommunications and energy sectors to issues such as taxation. The majority of the reforms
has been structural in nature and driven by economic imperatives, representing a notable shift in tempo and character from the previous government, which
saw its legislative efforts largely stall for years prior to the 2012 election. ¶ Domestic political factors will determine the success of the pending overhauls. But
the labor reform could improve bilateral commerce and investment with the United States, as would a successful liberalization of the country's energy sector
in the coming years. Mexico is already the United States' third-largest trading partner, and economic coordination between the two countries has become a
routine matter at the ministerial level, but there is still a need to ease bureaucratic trade and investment barriers. ¶ Pena Nieto's predecessor,
the National Action Party's Felipe Calderon, focused heavily on Mexico's security challenges and oversaw the sustained military offensive against criminal
organizations throughout the country. Pena Nieto has yet to elaborate much on his plans to address the security issues, but he has emphasized the need
to combat street violence and kidnappings, while playing down the importance of combating drug trafficking -- a U.S. priority.¶
But ahead of Obama's visit, certain details have emerged indicating that the Pena Nieto administration intends to change the nature of intelligence cooperation
between the United States and Mexico. Until now, the two countries' various law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been able to interact directly, but
Mexico's interior ministry will begin overseeing all intelligence collaboration. ¶ This centralization effort has not been isolated to cooperation with the United
States. The Mexican Interior Ministry has also taken charge of the federal police, and Pena Nieto intends to eventually create a national gendarmarie under the
interior secretariat in order to fill the role in the drug wars currently played by the Mexican military with a security body better equipped with law
enforcement training.¶ Thus, the extent and manner to which this centralization will affect security cooperation with the United States is unclear. But the
changes are primarily designed to give Mexico greater control over the intelligence process involved in combating the country's violent gangs. The intention is
not to block U.S. collaboration and assistance, but rather to reform existing structures. ¶ While Mexico reorients its internal focus to structural changes that its
leaders hope will lay foundations for economic development, the country could also be affected by domestic issues under debate in the United States. For
years, Mexico has been pressing the United States to enact stricter gun laws. Though a prominent gun control bill failed in the U.S. Senate on April 17, the issue
will likely re-emerge later in 2013, and at least some gun control measures currently enjoy broad popular support. Meanwhile, demographic changes in the
United States are driving a debate about immigration reform that, if implemented, would require collaboration with Mexico, many of whose citizens would
seek to legalize their residential status in the United States. ¶ Though the passage of these reforms will similarly be determined solely by U.S. domestic political
factors, their success would be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for Obama and Pena Nieto, the effects each feel of the other's
policy decisions will be magnified by the unique demographic, geographic and economic ties binding their countries. Yet, the domestic environment and
political calculations in each country will ultimately shape the effects of this period of political change. ¶ The U.S. political decision-making process
is largely isolated from international influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key
policy areas under Mexican control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still, Mexico's steady emergence as an economic power in North America
sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much more heavily focused on opportunities for economic cooperation.¶
Now is key --- certainty establishes better relations
Reyes, member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, 2013
(Raul, April 29, NBC Latino, “Opinion: President Obama has the chance to improve US/Mexico relations,”
http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-president-obama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexicorelations/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
The U.S. and Mexico are as tightly bound as siblings, and often just as dysfunctional. While both
governments are concerned with immigration and drug violence, President Obama must forge a more positive,
productive partnership. Mexico is enjoying remarkable economic growth, and Obama neglects our southern neighbor at his
own peril.
8
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Obama will arrive in Mexico with good and bad news. On the positive side, he can highlight the progress
his administration has made towards overhauling our immigration system. The border is more secure
than ever, and the Senate has unveiled a proposal that creates new pathways for legal immigration. On
the negative side, Obama bears responsibility for his failure to reform U.S. gun laws. ThinkProgress
reports that the expiration of the assault weapons ban has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans
in cartel violence. Even worse, America’s demand for illegal drugs fuels the growth of these cartels.
However, Obama would be wise to recognize that relations with Mexico should not center on these issues
alone. As president-elect, Peña Nieto wrote in The Washington Post that, “It is a mistake to limit our bilateral
relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be
restricted in this short-sighted way.” He wants a deeper relationship, one that is defined by shared economic goals.
That’s the smart way forward. Since 2008, Mexico has seen steady economic growth, which has been a net benefit to
the U.S. The U.S. exports more to Mexico than to China and Japan combined, and U.S./Mexico trade hit
almost $500 billion in 2012. Obama should build on these ties to create greater economic integration. If he and Peña
Nieto were to collaborate on ways of matching Mexico’s young labor force with American technology and training, it would be
a recipe for a regional economic boom. Greater U.S. investment in Mexico will make the country safer, as the cartels generally
leave multinational operations alone.
Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged
with Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not
recognized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on
April 19. So Mexico is not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps with more attention
from the Obama administration, Peña Nieto could be persuaded to be more supportive of U.S. policies for the region.
True, there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico
has historically been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared
spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence
on the U.S. side of the border have proved largely unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging more
communication and cooperation with Mexico. Already, Peña Nieto favors opening Mexico’s energy sector to private
investment, and he may even allow foreign investment in its state oil company.
President Obama has the chance to turn a page in U.S./Mexico relations, and he should not miss it. It’s time for a foreign
policy with Mexico based on its potential, not on its problems.
Oil cooperation is unsustainable – must shift toward renewables to avert relations collapse
Donnelly, Program Associate, Mexico Institute, ‘10
(Robert, 5/24/10, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/us-mexico-cooperation-renewable-energybuilding-green-agenda, “U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Renewable Energy: Building a Green Agenda”, js)
Wood cited recent developments that have encouraged renewable energy investment in Mexico. Mexico's oil fields are in
long-term and, in some cases, precipitous decline, and the country is plotting a "future as a green nation," shifting the
policy focus toward alternative energy development. Additionally, a U.S.-Mexico taskforce on renewables was recently
formed—its announcement timed with President Felipe Calderon's May 2010 state visit to Washington—
and there has been high-level engagement on the issue by both administrations. Mexico also will host the next U.N.
Climate Change Conference, to be held in Cancún in fall 2010. Further encouraging investment in renewables,
there are not the blanket prohibitions on private ventures that exist in the hydrocarbons sector , and regulatory
adjustments over the past few administrations have enabled a more robust private stake in electricity
generation and transmission. Collaboration between Mexico and U.S. government agencies, such as the Department of
Energy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, through the framework of the Mexico
Renewable Energy Program, have enabled the richer development of Mexico's renewable resources while at the same
time promoting the electrification and greater general economic development of parts of rural Mexico, Wood said.
Impulses to develop Mexico's renewables sector further align with regional efforts to make North America energy
interdependent. Discussant Joe Dukert pointed out that U.S.-Mexico cooperation on renewables is a little-acknowledged
area of binational cooperation, and he stressed the economic complementarities that exist between the two countries on
9
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
the issue. For example, he noted that Mexico was well-positioned to help furnish the power from renewable sources
that must account for up to a third of all electricity used in California by 2020, as dictated by the state's
renewable power standard (RPS). "Mexico can help them reach these (renewable energy) targets," he
said. Yet at the same time, Dukert said that Mexico needs to do more to enhance its profile as a
renewable-energy supplier, and specifically suggested that energy attaches be assigned to the embassy
and consulates
Spills over
Taylor, State Department correspondent. for the Washington Times, ‘13
(Guy, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/28/energy-links-seen-boosting-us-tiesmexico/, 2/28/13, “Energy links seen boosting U.S. ties to Mexico”, js)
A senior Obama administration official voiced optimism about the growing economic relationship between the U.S. and
Mexico, stressing that energy sector ties between the two nations have “enormous potential for progress.” Assistant
Secretary of State Roberta S. Jacobson told a congressional hearing Thursday that Washington’s overall
approach to Latin American ties “is as much about seizing opportunities as it is about countering threats.”
Her remarks during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs dovetailed with comments this
week from a top Mexican official, who expressed optimism that the nation’s state-run oil monopoly, long
managed as a closely held national asset, is on the verge of opening up to billions of dollars in foreign investment.
Emilio Lozoya, the newly tapped chief of the monopoly — known as Pemex — told the Financial Times
that he expects Mexican lawmakers to sign off as early as this summer on landmark changes to the sector
proposed by recently elected Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Pemex is already ranked seventh on
the list of the world’s most productive oil producers, with sales of more than $100 billion a year. The
proposed reforms could pave the way for U.S. oil companies to begin tapping that market and helping it
grow. According to Mr. Lozoya, the changes would allow the monopoly to begin working for the first time
in more than 50 years with the world’s largest oil companies. Several such companies are based in Texas,
just north of the border. The potential for foreign firms to become more deeply involved in Mexico’s economic future
could signal a significant shift in the narrative of crime and illegal immigration that has dominated
relations between the U.S. and its southern neighbor — particularly since nearly 60,000 people were killed in
drug-related violence in Mexico during recent years.
Economic cooperation between the US and Mexico is key to the global economy
Schiffer, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, 2013 (Michael Schiffer, February, “A More Ambitious Agenda: A Report of the
Inter-American Dialogue’s commission on Mexico-US relations.” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf
Date Accessed 7-5-2013, BK)
The first is to reinforce and deepen economic cooperation. That includes increasing the productivity and international
competitiveness of both nations, opening opportunities for longterm growth and job creation, and setting the stage for
further economic integration. In a world of persistent, widespread economic insecurity, the more the United States and Mexico
coordinate and integrate their economies, the more ably they can compete for global markets . Their economic cooperation is
more vital than ever as drivers of the global economy falter—as the European financial crisis persists, as China enters a period
of slower growth, as Japan remains stalled, and as many emerging markets appear increasingly vulnerable . Among the
concrete objectives the two countries should consider are development of a framework to make their
shared labor markets more efficient and equitable; formation of a coherent North American energy
market (which could help meet the needs of energy-poor Central America); and coordination among the
United States, Mexico, and Canada in negotiations toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Economic downturn causes great power wars and extinction.
10
AUSLIN ‘9 - scholar at American Enterprise Institute (Michael, “The global Economy Unravels” American
Enterprise Institute, http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.29502/pub_detail.asp)
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and global chaos followed hard on
economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible, economically sound recovery
plans suggests that they do not know what to do and are simply hoping for the least disruption. Equally worrisome is the adoption of more statist economic
programs around the globe, and the concurrent decline of trust in free-market systems. The threat of instability is a pressing concern. China, until
last year the world's fastest growing economy, just reported that 20 million migrant laborers lost their jobs. Even in the flush times of recent years, China
faced upward of 70,000 labor uprisings a year. A sustained downturn poses grave and possibly immediate threats to Chinese internal
stability. The regime in Beijing may be faced with a choice of repressing its own people or diverting their energies outward,
leading to conflict with China's neighbors. Russia, an oil state completely dependent on energy sales, has had to put down riots in its Far
East as well as in downtown Moscow. Vladimir Putin's rule has been predicated on squeezing civil liberties while providing economic largesse. If that devil's
bargain falls apart, then wide-scale repression inside Russia, along with a continuing threatening posture toward Russia's neighbors, is likely. Even
apparently stable societies face increasing risk and the threat of internal or possibly external conflict. As Japan's exports have
plummeted by nearly 50%, one-third of the country's prefectures have passed emergency economic stabilization plans. Hundreds of thousands of temporary
employees hired during the first part of this decade are being laid off. Spain's unemployment rate is expected to climb to nearly 20% by the end of 2010;
Spanish unions are already protesting the lack of jobs, and the specter of violence, as occurred in the 1980s, is haunting the country. Meanwhile, in Greece,
workers have already taken to the streets. Europe as a whole will face dangerously increasing tensions between native citizens and
immigrants, largely from poorer Muslim nations, who have increased the labor pool in the past several decades. Spain has absorbed five million immigrants
since 1999, while nearly 9% of Germany's residents have foreign citizenship, including almost 2 million Turks. The xenophobic labor strikes in the U.K. do not
bode well for the rest of Europe. A prolonged global downturn, let alone a collapse, would dramatically raise tensions inside these
countries. Couple that with possible protectionist legislation in the United States, unresolved ethnic and territorial disputes in all regions
of the globe and a loss of confidence that world leaders actually know what they are doing. The result may be a series of small
explosions that coalesce into a big bang
US –Mexico relations key to heg
Pastor, former US national security advisor, 2012
(Robert, July/August 2012, The American Interest, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” http://www.theamerican-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269, accessed 7/10/13, CBC)
The best strategy to compete against China, double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration
with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart. Unfortunately, the latter approach has prevailed since
NAFTA. The three leaders mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North
American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and pledged to meet annually, but they
missed the next two years. On April 2, 2012, Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their
“Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic, historical, cultural, environmental, and societal ties”, but
their initiatives remained packaged in two separate bilateral compartments.¶ The Presidents of the United
States and Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada should seek to construct a North American Community that would
invigorate their economies and improve the region’s competitiveness with Asia and Europe, enhance continental and public
security, address more effectively the new transnational agenda, and design lean but effective trinational institutions for the
21st century. ¶ Such a Community would advance the principal goals of each country. For Mexico, it would narrow the
development gap and lift its people to First-World status. For Canada, it would create institutions that would bind
the three nations to agreed standards. For the United States, it would create a new style of leadership more
aligned with long-term goals than with short-term special interests. For all three countries, it would allow a more
cooperative and effective approach to transnational issues like transportation, infrastructure, immigration, anti-narcotics
policies and the environment.
Effective hegemony prevents nuclear war
11
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Barnett ’11 [Thomas Barnett, Professor, Warfare Analysis and Research Dept – U.S. Naval War College,
3/7/11, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads,”
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-andglobalization-at-crossroads]
Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as 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 system-administering 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 percent relative drop in deaths due to war . We are clearly headed 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.
12
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexico Econ Advantage – 1AC
Renewables key to maintain Mexico’s power economy
Business Monitor International, political risk analysis organizations that which monitors the political and
economic stability of 175 sovereign countries, according to ratings agencies and market experts.,2013
(May 2013,Mexico Power Report Q3
2013,http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/682124005cp.shtml,SB)
Mexico's electricity generating capacity is struggling to keep pace with domestic demand - a fact acknowledged by the staterun Federal Electricity Commission in April 2013. While the government has pinpointed renewable sources of energy as a
target area to fill this gap and has also brought the issue of nuclear power back to the table, we believe that the low price
of gas and the prospect of shale gas discoveries on Mexican soil mean that gas will continue to play a
central role in the country's electricity production. The government's 2013-2017 National Energy
Strategy also addresses the issue of electricity tariffs - there are plans to make them cheaper for
industrial clients as a means of boosting investment and raising productivity. Local governments have
also asked that they become eligible for these lower tariffs; the details of these lower tariffs have yet to be
published.We remain of the view that an estimated robust 3.96% year-on-year (y-o-y) growth for power
consumption in 2012 will give way to a slightly less positive performance in 2013. With increased
uncertainty as a result of a slowdown in the Mexican economy weighing on the sector, we believe that
consumption growth will come in at a more modest 2.44% y-o-y in 2013. Mexico's low per capita consumption
and relatively high energy intensity suggest that risks for long-term electricity demand are on the upside; the Comision
Federal de Electricidad (CFE) admitted in April 2013 that it was working at maximum capacity, with
shortages of natural gas and poor maintenance of power plants two reasons behind outages . In February 2013, the new
National Energy Council of Mexico presented its first National Energy Strategy, outlining energy policy for 2013-2027.
Renewables are expected to take a key role, while nuclear energy is also under consideration. We forecast that it
will be gas that makes the greatest gains; however, not least given that the government is keen to invest
in shale gas exploration. We forecast that electricity generated by gas-fired power plants will increase at
a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.43% between 2013 and 2022, and will represent 59.1% of
electricity generation capacity by 2022.
Mexico’s econ is declining now – Solving Mexican energy production key to solve root problems
O’Sullivan ’12 – professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
(Meghan, served on the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007, and was deputy national security
advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, “Mexican Oil Reforms Are Vital on Both Sides of the Border”, reprinted
from CFR at Bloomberg, 7-30-2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-30/mexican-oilreforms-are-vital-on-both-sides-of-the-border.html)
In recent days a coalition of Mexican advocacy groups has been protesting in front of Televisa, the
country’s largest TV network, to contest the legitimacy of President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto’s July 1
victory. These protests are the second in a string of such demonstrations scheduled before Pena Nieto
takes office in December. They bode ill for Mexico’s near-term political future, pointing to a rocky
transition at a time when the challenges facing the country are anything but modest. Americans might assume
that tackling the drug trade that has resulted in more than 47,000 deaths since 2006 would top the agenda. But a strong case
can be made that energy reforms are at least as urgent , for if Mexico can’t stem its sharply deteriorating energy
situation, its ability to tackle other systemic problems will be severely compromised. Despite some
recent progress in diversifying its economy, Mexico still relies on oil for 30 percent of its fiscal revenue.
Yet oil production
has plummeted from 3.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 2.5 million in 2011, with most experts
predicting a continuing decline over the next decade. Absent changes, Mexico could be a net importer of oil by 2020,
ceasing exports to the U.S. altogether.
13
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexican Stability is Critical to U.S. Hegemony
Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst at Stratfor, 12 [Kaplan, March 2012, Stratfor, “With the Focus on
Syria, Mexico Burns,” http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns, accessed
7/5/13, AR)
While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United States -- more than 47,000
people have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a demographic and economic giant on the
United States' southern border, Mexico will affect America's destiny in coming decades more than any state or combination of
states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future. Certainly, while the
Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in
Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages. Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow
to Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian
rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime
equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk.
Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention,
while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not
always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but Mexico ultimately
matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount written on these subjects . I
am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy for pundits to have a fervently
interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would carry far greater
consequence. For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the
media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk. It may also be
that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the
crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the Middle East certainly
seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the
cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities. Yet , the fate of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States' cultural
and demographic future rests. U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and nothing will affect its
society more than the dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By 2050, as much as a third of the American population
could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing demographic and economic powerhouse with which the
United States has an inextricable relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern
neighbor. Mexico's population of 111 million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of
the United States. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United
States, even as half of Central America's trade is with the United States . While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the
aging tendency of the U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for example).
In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of
continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to
megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940,
Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than
a third. Mexico's population is now more than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern
Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drug-related homicides in this current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of
Mexico's 32 states, mostly in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in
the city of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartels launched
by conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to cutting deals with the
cartels, then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north , with concrete implications for the southwestern
United States. One might argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United States can coexist with a dysfunctional and
somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is mainly true in the short run. Looking deeper into the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of
History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed one will not attain an equilibrium but
will advance in the more backward society's favor. Thus, helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options
may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than stabilizing societies
in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy melding of the two
societies will quicken to the benefit of both. Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain in the vicinity of the Mexican frontier and
reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of
course, in full cooperation with the Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But
the legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century posse comitatus laws on
the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins
are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with which the United States shares a long land border, that verges on partial chaos in some of its
northern sections, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mexico, in addition to the obvious challenge of
China as a rising great power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will partly determine what kind of
society America will become, and what exactly will be its demographic and geographic character, especially in the Southwest.
The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any other individual bilateral relationship in terms of determining the United States' place in the world,
especially in the economically crucial Pacific. If policymakers in Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding those two critical countries, then the
United States will have power to spare so that its elites can continue to focus on serious moral questions in places that matter less.¶
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Effective hegemony prevents nuclear war
14
Barnett ’11 [Thomas Barnett, Professor, Warfare Analysis and Research Dept – U.S. Naval War College,
3/7/11, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S., and Globalization, at Crossroads,”
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-andglobalization-at-crossroads]
Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as 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 system-administering 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 percent relative drop in deaths due to war . We are clearly headed 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.
Economic decline would destabilize immigration flows – causes terrorism
Brown, Undersecretary for the DHS, 09 (Michael Brown, Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Department of
Homeland Security, “Border Control: Collapse of Mexico Is A Homeland Security & National Security Issue,” January 14th 2009,
<http://www.michaelbrowntoday.com/2009/01/border-control-collapse-of-mexico-is-a-homeland-security-national-security-issue/> Date Accessed: 7-92013, BK)
In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states
bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. The Mexican possibility may
seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under
sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the
next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would
demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. This is the border crossing
at San Ysidro, California and Tijuana, Mexico. On a good day. This is the border along the Arizona-Mexico
boundary line. By failing to secure the borders and control immigration, we have opened ourselves up to a frightening
scenario. The United States could face a flood of refugees from Mexico if it were to collapse, overwhelming state and local
governments along the U.S.-Mexico border. During a time of economic duress, the costs would be overwhelming and would
15
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
simply add to the already burgeoning costs at the federal level. Immigration and border control never
was nor should it ever be about racism. Immigration and border control are national security and homeland security
issues. Sleeper cells from numerous terrorist groups could, and probably already have, infiltrated the United States, just laying
in wait to attack at an appropriately vulnerable time.
Terrorism on the border culminates in a biological and/or nuclear attack on the United States
Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, 10 (Ken Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, “FBI Director Mueller: Al-Qaida Still Wants
Nuclear Bomb,” 3-18-2010, <http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/mueller-fbi-alqaida-nuclear/2010/03/18/id/353169> Date Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida efforts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction to attack the United States. “Al-Qaida remains committed to its goal of conducting attacks inside the
United States,” Mueller told a House appropriations subcommittee. “Further, al-Qaida’s continued efforts to
access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat to the United States.” To accomplish its
goals of new attacks on the American homeland, al-Qaida “seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no
known nexus to terrorism into the United States using both legal and illegal methods of entry,” Mueller said. In
February, Sheikh Abdullah al-Nasifi, a known al-Qaida recruiter in Kuwait, boasted on al Jazeera television that Mexico’s
border with the United States was the ideal infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America. “Four pounds of anthrax
– in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000
Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there,” al-Nasifi said. "There is no
need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax,
will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this 'confetti' all over them, and then will do these cries
of joy. It will turn into a real 'celebration,'" al-Nasifi said. "9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right?"¶
Mueller echoed those threats in his congressional testimony Wednesday, reminding lawmakers that a
2008 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat of a terrorist WMD attack “concluded that it remains the
intent of terrorist adversaries to seek the means and capability to use WMD against the United States at home and abroad. Ӧ
Citing the final report of the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and
Terrorism issued in December 2008, he warned that “the risks are growing faster than our multilayered defenses”
to prevent such an attack.¶ The WMD commission report warned that without urgent and decisive action, “it was
more likely than not that terrorists would attack a major city somewhere in the world with a weapon of mass destruction
by 2013.Ӧ Although not discounting a possible terrorist nuclear attack, the commission concluded that
“terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon,” and noted that this
“conclusion was publicly affirmed by then Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.” “Osama bin Laden has said that
obtaining WMDs [sic] is a 'religious duty' and is reported to have sought to perpetrate a 'Hiroshima' on United States soil ,”
Mueller told lawmakers. “Globalization makes it easier for terrorists, groups, and lone actors to gain access to and
transfer WMD materials, knowledge, and technology throughout the world.”
The US would retaliate, causing nuclear war
Ayson 10 - Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at
the Victoria University of Wellington (Robert, July. “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic
Effects.” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 33, Issue 7. InformaWorld.)
But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just
possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a
massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist
groups might assume the place allotted during the early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the
risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s
and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation, the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an
especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist
nuclear attack on the United States, it might well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because
they seem unlikely to be fingered as the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
16
in supporting that sort of terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For
example, how might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear terrorism had come from Russian
stocks,40 and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity? The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country
might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread
over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its
analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively,
if the act of nuclear terrorism came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or
responsible at all) suspicion would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably
Israel and India as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and
possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia and/or China, and at a
time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not be tempted to
assume
the worst ? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already involved in some sort of limited armed
conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war, as unlikely as these developments may seem at the
present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even
limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible
perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility
of an unwanted (and nuclear aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath
of the terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a
higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that Moscow
and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear force) against them. In that
situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any preemption would probably still meet with a
devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant
conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on
the identity and especially the location of these targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and
potentially as an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario might stem
from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya, perhaps in connection
with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure on that part of the world would
almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling
to provide. There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear terrorism on another member of that special club. It
could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States, bothRussia and China would extend immediate sympathy and
support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of
Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate
against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason, Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or
against us”) might it also suspect that they secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major
exchange. If the terrorist group had some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway,
and if Washington felt that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their
culpability
17
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Solvency
Status quo trade initiatives fail because they’re focused towards Asia- economic integration on
renewable energy solves
Barry, director of the TransBorder Project at CIP, ‘13
(Tom, “Changing Perspectives on U.S.-Mexico Relations”, May 2, 2013,
https://nacla.org/news/2013/5/2/changing-perspectives-us-mexico-relations, js)
Both Mexico and the United States are currently engaged in another economic liberalization initiative called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),
involving more than a dozen other nations, mostly Asian but also including Chile and Canada. Many of the concerns and criticisms about the corporate-driven
character of NAFTA are also highly relevant to the TPP negotiations. However, the main problem of the new, Asia-oriented focus of U.S. and Mexican
trade/investment initiatives is the failure to appreciate, leverage, and improve the highly integrated North American economy. The Obama
and Peña Nieto trade teams should recognize the mutual benefits of including Canada in talks about smart borders, trade infrastructure, educational visas,
security perimeters, immigration, and further economic liberalization—as should the Canadian government. Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto should
embrace the concept—and the reality—of a North American community (a concept heralded by Robert Pastor and other scholars and visionary
policy analysts) shaped by demographic trends and economic integration. Whether structured or not by new regulations and institutions, the
emergence of a North American community is evident in existence of some 30 million Mexican Americans in the United States. The NAFTA institutions such as
the North American Development Bank and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation as well as such important bilateral initiatives as
Border 2020 (which emerged from the 1983 La Paz environmental agreement) should not be left to wither away, but seized upon as the building blocks of a
more sustainable regional community that extends beyond economic liberalization. Such institutions are among the first steps of recognizing and shaping the
south-north community. Focusing on Asia is looking away from our own region’s complementarity and common future. Both governments will surely
point to fundamental importance of the two nations as trading partners . Yet the trade and investment numbers fall far short in
defining the identity, advantages, and challenges of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. More than economic partners, the United States and Mexico
are next-door neighbors and all that this proximity implies for the future welfare of both nations. Governance measures on such
issues as energy, environmental standards, immigration flows, weapons, illegal drugs, and labor standards need to follow and shape economic
integration. If there is to be a sustainable North American community, the framework of economic integration must necessarily address the
stark regional imbalances in Mexico’s economic growth and development—with Mexico’s southern states left further and further behind. Similarly,
cheaper consumer goods made possible by liberalized trade and investment do not compensate for stagnation of Mexican wages—averaging just over $2 an
hour.
Grid integration between Mexico and the U.S. would solve transmission efficiency to spur
renewable energy developments, a strong bilateral, executive agenda on both ends is possible and
necessary to solve for renewables and relations.
Wood, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Full Professor, Director of the Program in
International Relations and Director of the¶ Canadian Studies Program at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City, 10’ (Duncan, “Environment, Development and Growth: ¶
U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable
energies,.,http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_
Energies.pdf, accessed 7/1/13, LLM).”
The need for integration of North American renewable energy markets is real and immediate. Although¶ the region
has extensive renewable energy resources, their geographic distribution, and their nature¶ (intermittent and of
variable strength), mean that it makes sense to integrate both supply and¶ distribution across national borders .
This has long been the case with energy; electricity grids have seen¶ extensive integration across the US
northern border, and pipelines have brought Canadian natural gas¶ and oil to the United States for a long
time. As US demand for renewable energy increases, satisfying¶ that demand will require importing energy from its
neighbors, and Mexico offers a reliable and relatively¶ low‐cost supply from its wind energy farms in the north.¶ The
history of cooperation between Mexico and the United States in renewable energy is surprisingly¶ long and multi‐faceted
and it has been a vital, albeit unheralded, dimension to bilateral relations and a¶ significant boost to rural and later
national development for over 18 years. Cooperation in some areas¶ goes back even further than that, with
geothermal energy collaboration extending back to the 1970s.¶ Although it is now seen as crucial in the
context of efforts to mitigate climate change, renewable energy¶ in Mexico has and always has been seen as a
development tool, helping to bring energy and¶ employment to marginalized areas that are not connected to the national
18
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
electricity grid. Further, this report argues that one of the factors that currently prevent the realization of the
potential¶ for integration of renewable energy markets is the absence of a comprehensive
bilateral agenda for¶ developing renewable energy on the border . Although the Border Governors
Conference and the North¶ American Development Bank have made efforts in this direction, it will require
meaningful executive¶ leadership on this issue to make meaningful progress. The emphasis by the US Department of
State on a¶ “New Border Vision”, announced in March 2010, provides an opportunity to do just that. In
addition to the report’s numerous recommendations specifically focusing on geothermal, wind, solar¶ and
biofuels, two general recommendations stand out. First, it is vital that financing opportunities are¶ increased for
renewable energy projects. This can be achieved through bilateral mechanisms at the¶ border, through
international mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and through¶ the Mexican
government’s renewable energy fund, announced in November 2008. Renewable energy stands out as one of the
most positive items on the bilateral agenda between Mexico¶ and the US today. Whereas the media coverage of Mexico
is dominated by drugs, migration and¶ violence, the potential for Mexican renewable energy to contribute to
development, employment and¶ growth there, as well as helping to satisfy growing demand for clean energy in the US, should
be seen as¶ a truly positive example of what can be achieved through sustained and well‐thought‐out bilateral ¶ cooperation.
With continued attention from agencies and firms on both sides of the border, the ¶ Mexican renewable energy sector holds
enormous potential to contribute even more in the future . In April of 2009, however, Presidents Obama and
Calderon, of the United States and Mexico¶ respectively, signed the U.S.‐Mexico Bilateral Framework on
Clean Energy and Climate Change. The two¶ leaders agreed on the importance of promoting clean energy, combating
climate change and the value¶ of collaborating to reach these goals. Some observers in the US may have
been surprised by this¶ development because the energy issue of which most foreign observers
immediately think with regards¶ to Mexico is, of course, oil. The continuing problems of PEMEX and
declining production from its mature¶ fields have been one of the most important issues coming out of the
country in recent years.¶ The argument of this paper is that, though many of the opportunities created by bilateral
cooperation in¶ the past have gone unexploited by US actors, the long‐term impact of this cooperation has been highly¶
beneficial, both for Mexico as a country, producing jobs, new sources of alternative energy, and¶ economic opportunities .
For the United States, the development of the RE sector in Mexico offers hope¶ to states such California as
they seek to satisfy growing demand for renewable energy. Continued¶ cooperation in the areas of geothermal
wind, solar, and biofuels are therefore vital if Mexico’s true¶ potential is to be fully realized.
19
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
***Inherency
20
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Inh – Renewables Now
U.S. Mexico cooperation on renewables exists now but it’s not enough
Donnelly, Writer for the Wilson Center, 2010 (Robert, June 28th, News Security Beat, U.S. Mexico Cooperation on Renewable
Energy: Building a Green Agenda”, http://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2010/06/u-s-mexico-cooperation-on-renewableenergy-building-a-green-agenda/#.Udc-aPnVBsk, accessed 7/5/2013, J.Y.)
A U.S.-Mexico taskforce on renewables was recently formed—an announcement timed to coincide with President
Felipe Calderon’s April 2010 state visit to Washington—and there has been high-level engagement on the issue by
both administrations. Collaboration between Mexico and U.S. government agencies through the Mexico
Renewable Energy Program has enabled richer development of Mexico’s renewable resources while promoting
the electrification and economic development of parts of rural Mexico. Joe Dukert, an independent energy analyst
affiliated with the Center for Strategic & International Studies, pointed out that U.S.-Mexico collaboration on renewables is
a little-acknowledged area of bilateral cooperation, and stressed the economic complementarities that exist between the
two countries on the issue. He noted, for example, that Mexico was well-positioned to furnish power to help California
meet its Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) by 2020. “Mexico can help them reach these [renewable energy] targets,”
Dukert said. Yet at the same time, he said that Mexico needs to do more to enhance its profile as a renewable-energy
supplier, and specifically suggested that energy attaches be assigned to the embassy and consulates. Johanna
Mendelson Forman, a senior associate with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies,
emphasized the linkages connecting climate change, energy, and economic development. Forman warned that Mexico’s
inadequate energy stocks are a problem for the United States, adding that “energy poverty is a real issue in Mexico.”
Energy development and climate change—which are perceived as less polemical than other issues—are good entry points
for a broader U.S.-Mexico dialogue, she remarked.
21
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Inh – No Grid Integration Now
Status quo projects will fail absent the plan
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of the International
Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research
focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, “Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico
Energy Cooperation”, January 2013)
In order to get electricity from Texas to Mexico, however, some major investments must take place in the area of
transmission . At the present time the cross - border transmission infrastructure is highly limited and talks
between the two countries aimed at facilitating new cross - border projects have achieved little real progress since
2010. Nine cross - border in terconnections exist at the time of writing, with new transmission capacity
last added in 2007, with the opening of the Sharyland McAllen - Reynosa 150MW connection. Of course
transmission not only affects the prospects for electricity imports into Mexico from Texas, but also
exports from Baja Ca lifornia to California, particularly of electricity from renewable sources such as wind (see
below). Mexico and the United States will need to deepen their cooperation in the area of transmission if these projects
are to be brought to fruition.
22
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
***Solvency
23
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Generic
Grid integration between Mexico and the U.S. would solve transmission efficiency to spur
renewable energy developments, a strong bilateral, executive agenda on both ends is possible and
necessary to solve for renewables and relations.
Wood, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Full Professor, Director of the Program in
International Relations and Director of the¶ Canadian Studies Program at the Instituto Tecnológico
Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City, 10’ (Duncan, “Environment, Development and Growth: ¶
U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable
energies,.,http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_
Energies.pdf, accessed 7/1/13, LLM).”
The need for integration of North American renewable energy markets is real and immediate. Although¶ the region
has extensive renewable energy resources, their geographic distribution, and their nature¶ (intermittent and of
variable strength), mean that it makes sense to integrate both supply and¶ distribution across national borders .
This has long been the case with energy; electricity grids have seen¶ extensive integration across the US
northern border, and pipelines have brought Canadian natural gas¶ and oil to the United States for a long
time. As US demand for renewable energy increases, satisfying¶ that demand will require importing energy from its
neighbors, and Mexico offers a reliable and relatively¶ low‐cost supply from its wind energy farms in the north.¶ The
history of cooperation between Mexico and the United States in renewable energy is surprisingly¶ long and multi‐faceted
and it has been a vital, albeit unheralded, dimension to bilateral relations and a¶ significant boost to rural and later
national development for over 18 years. Cooperation in some areas¶ goes back even further than that, with
geothermal energy collaboration extending back to the 1970s.¶ Although it is now seen as crucial in the
context of efforts to mitigate climate change, renewable energy¶ in Mexico has and always has been seen as a
development tool, helping to bring energy and¶ employment to marginalized areas that are not connected to the national
electricity grid. Further, this report argues that one of the factors that currently prevent the realization of the
potential¶ for integration of renewable energy markets is the absence of a comprehensive
bilateral agenda for¶ developing renewable energy on the border . Although the Border Governors
Conference and the North¶ American Development Bank have made efforts in this direction, it will require
meaningful executive¶ leadership on this issue to make meaningful progress. The emphasis by the US Department of
State on a¶ “New Border Vision”, announced in March 2010, provides an opportunity to do just that. In
addition to the report’s numerous recommendations specifically focusing on geothermal, wind, solar¶ and
biofuels, two general recommendations stand out. First, it is vital that financing opportunities are¶ increased for
renewable energy projects. This can be achieved through bilateral mechanisms at the¶ border, through
international mechanisms such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and through¶ the Mexican
government’s renewable energy fund, announced in November 2008. Renewable energy stands out as one of the
most positive items on the bilateral agenda between Mexico¶ and the US today. Whereas the media coverage of Mexico
is dominated by drugs, migration and¶ violence, the potential for Mexican renewable energy to contribute to
development, employment and¶ growth there, as well as helping to satisfy growing demand for clean energy in the US, should
be seen as¶ a truly positive example of what can be achieved through sustained and well‐thought‐out bilateral ¶ cooperation.
With continued attention from agencies and firms on both sides of the border, the ¶ Mexican renewable energy sector holds
enormous potential to contribute even more in the future . In April of 2009, however, Presidents Obama and
Calderon, of the United States and Mexico¶ respectively, signed the U.S.‐Mexico Bilateral Framework on
Clean Energy and Climate Change. The two¶ leaders agreed on the importance of promoting clean energy, combating
climate change and the value¶ of collaborating to reach these goals. Some observers in the US may have
been surprised by this¶ development because the energy issue of which most foreign observers
immediately think with regards¶ to Mexico is, of course, oil. The continuing problems of PEMEX and
declining production from its mature¶ fields have been one of the most important issues coming out of the
24
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
country in recent years.¶ The argument of this paper is that, though many of the opportunities created by bilateral
cooperation in¶ the past have gone unexploited by US actors, the long‐term impact of this cooperation has been highly¶
beneficial, both for Mexico as a country, producing jobs, new sources of alternative energy, and¶ economic opportunities .
For the United States, the development of the RE sector in Mexico offers hope¶ to states such California as
they seek to satisfy growing demand for renewable energy. Continued¶ cooperation in the areas of geothermal
wind, solar, and biofuels are therefore vital if Mexico’s true¶ potential is to be fully realized.
25
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Solvency Advocate
The plan creates energy cooperation between Mexico and the US
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ‘10
[Duncan, May 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.p
df, accessed 7-1-2013, js]
Further barriers to the cross‐border trade in wind power (and of course, all other forms of renewable sourced electricity) that were
identified by the report include the fact that in California, wind power receives a subsidy whereas in Mexico no such subsidy currently exists. This clearly
reduces the competitiveness of Mexican wind power, although it may be possible for Mexican producers to access the $250 million fund set up under the 2008
LAERFTE. The regulatory burden will also be a complex barrier to overcome: cross‐border wind power will have to meet environmental requirements in both
Mexico and the US. The USAID report suggested that harmonization of standards between US and Mexican authorities would go a long way towards reducing
that burden.42 The development of this market and overcoming existing regulatory, economic and infrastructure barriers has now
become a priority in bilateral relations. The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Mexico Institute, working with USAID and the US Embassy in Mexico,
and recognizing the potential impact of the RPS on the energy sector in Mexico, called together key stakeholders and analysts to a meeting in
Washington DC in January of 2010 to discuss barriers and incentives to the export of clean energy from Baja California to California. One way to overcome the
transmission barrier would be to repeat the experience of the Oaxacan wind projects. In order to meet transmission requirements there, the state government
issued an “open season” for wind energy development wherein firms register their plans for constructing wind parks, establishing the extent of demand for
transmission. This would then allow infrastructure firms to evaluate the economic and technical feasibility of building the transmission lines. Of course
administering the transmission line would be much more complicated than in Oaxaca due to the crossborder dimension, but this is where cross‐border inter‐
institutional cooperation becomes vital. The common theme that emerged from all sides at the meeting was that there is a need to
work bilaterally on the infrastructure needed to transmit electricity from Mexico to the U nited States, although the appropriate way
forward has not yet been decided. The report from USAID that came out of this meeting stated: An integrated approach to creating an energy
region must look beyond generating power to export. Linking RE generation to economic development in Mexico requires a focus on value chain
creation for providers and services. Information needs to flow from developers to universities and authorities to develop training and certifications for
technicians and engineers. Already local enterprises have responded to an expanding market but there is far greater potential.43
Status quo trade initiatives fail because they’re focused towards Asia- economic integration on
renewable energy solves
Barry, director of the TransBorder Project at CIP, ‘13
(Tom, “Changing Perspectives on U.S.-Mexico Relations”, May 2, 2013,
https://nacla.org/news/2013/5/2/changing-perspectives-us-mexico-relations, js)
Both Mexico and the United States are currently engaged in another economic liberalization initiative called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP),
involving more than a dozen other nations, mostly Asian but also including Chile and Canada. Many of the concerns and criticisms about the corporate-driven
character of NAFTA are also highly relevant to the TPP negotiations. However, the main problem of the new, Asia-oriented focus of U.S. and Mexican
trade/investment initiatives is the failure to appreciate, leverage, and improve the highly integrated North American economy. The Obama
and Peña Nieto trade teams should recognize the mutual benefits of including Canada in talks about smart borders, trade infrastructure, educational visas,
security perimeters, immigration, and further economic liberalization—as should the Canadian government. Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto should
embrace the concept—and the reality—of a North American community (a concept heralded by Robert Pastor and other scholars and visionary
policy analysts) shaped by demographic trends and economic integration. Whether structured or not by new regulations and institutions, the
emergence of a North American community is evident in existence of some 30 million Mexican Americans in the United States. The NAFTA institutions such as
the North American Development Bank and the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation as well as such important bilateral initiatives as
Border 2020 (which emerged from the 1983 La Paz environmental agreement) should not be left to wither away, but seized upon as the building blocks of a
more sustainable regional community that extends beyond economic liberalization. Such institutions are among the first steps of recognizing and shaping the
south-north community. Focusing on Asia is looking away from our own region’s complementarity and common future. Both governments will surely
point to fundamental importance of the two nations as trading partners . Yet the trade and investment numbers fall far short in
defining the identity, advantages, and challenges of the U.S.-Mexico relationship. More than economic partners, the United States and Mexico
are next-door neighbors and all that this proximity implies for the future welfare of both nations. Governance measures on such
issues as energy, environmental standards, immigration flows, weapons, illegal drugs, and labor standards need to follow and shape economic
integration. If there is to be a sustainable North American community, the framework of economic integration must necessarily address the
stark regional imbalances in Mexico’s economic growth and development—with Mexico’s southern states left further and further behind. Similarly,
cheaper consumer goods made possible by liberalized trade and investment do not compensate for stagnation of Mexican wages—averaging just over $2 an
hour.
26
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
No DA’s/Mexico Says Yes
Nieto is looking to integrate economies through private investment in renewable energy --this ev
is from the President of Mexico
Nieto, president of Mexico, ‘12
(Enrique, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-23/opinions/35511831_1_energyindependence-renewable-energy-energy-resources, 11/23/12, “U.S., Mexico should build on their
economic ties”, js)
Both Mexico and the United States held presidential races this year, and the results offer an opportunity to redirect our countries’ bilateral
relationship. The U.S. election demonstrated the growing demographic bonds that connect our countries’ futures. The election in Mexico
heralded a new era of change and reform, as much as a new style of governing, based on pragmatism and results. To build a more prosperous future for our
two countries, we must continue strengthening and expanding our deep economic , social and cultural ties. It is a mistake to limit our
bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this
short-sighted way. When I meet with President Obama on Tuesday — just days before my inauguration — I want to discuss the best way to
rearrange our common priorities. After all, our agenda affects millions of citizens in both countries. Perhaps the most important issue is finding
new ways to bolster our economic and trade relationship to attain common prosperity in our nations. The United States is already Mexico’s largest
trading partner. As a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), our economic ties have grown to an unprecedented degree. NAFTA links
441 million people producing trillions of dollars in goods and services annually, making it the largest trading bloc in the world. Consequently, in NAFTA we
have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater investments in finance, infrastructure, manufacturing and
energy. Together, we must build a more competitive and productive region. Another relevant bilateral issue relates to Mexico’s status as an
increasingly desirable and dependable manufacturing location. My country is the second-largest supplier of electronic goods to the United States. Coca-Cola,
DuPont, GM, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Audi and many others are seizing the opportunity to manufacture within our borders. We seek to continue offering U.S.
consumers better products and better prices. Energy production is another emerging area that can enhance our nations’ potential . I plan to
open Mexico’s energy sector to national and foreign private investment. Mexico holds the fifth-largest shale gas reserve in the world, in addition
to large deep-water oil reserves and a tremendous potential in renewable energy. We will not surrender Mexico’s ownership over its energy resources, and
we will not privatize our state-run oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex). We will, however, welcome new technologies, new partnerships
and new investments. Together with the United States and Canada, this may well contribute to guaranteeing North American energy
independence — something from which we would all greatly benefit. Above all, our mutual interest lies in our intertwined peoples. More than 1 million
U.S. citizens live in Mexico, and my country remains the largest source of immigrants to the United States. Some analysts detect new momentum for
comprehensive immigration reform since the U.S. presidential election. All Mexicans would welcome such a development. Both of our nations are seriously
affected by organized-crime activities and drug trafficking. Working against them must be a shared responsibility. I will continue the efforts begun by
President Felipe Calderón, but the strategy must necessarily change. I set as a public goal slashing violent crime significantly, proposing a sizable increase in
security spending and doing away with redundant police levels. I will improve coordination among crime-fighting authorities, expand the federal police by at
least 35,000 officers and bolster intelligence-gathering and analysis. It is also important that our countries increase intelligence-sharing and crime-fighting
techniques and promote cooperation among law enforcement agencies. I am visiting Washington and President Obama because our nations share a
long-standing and important relationship. The 2012 elections mark the beginning of a new era for the United States and Mexico. This is a great
time to join efforts and capitalize on that momentum. We must build a more prosperous North America, on the basis of an
alliance for a further competitive and productive integration of our economies.
Mexico Says yes-Nieto pushing for economic cooperation
Schoichet, Senior Analyst for CNN on Latin America and immigration issues, 13’, (Catherine E., May 02, 2013, “U.S., Mexican presidents
focus on economy”, http://www.kcra.com/news/national/us-mexican-presidents-focus-on-economy/-/11797450/19992292/-/gu4mknz//index.html#ixzz2YJvxtECg, accessed 7/6/13, LLM)
Speaking to reporters after his meeting with Obama on Thursday, Peña Nieto emphasized the importance of
reducing violence, and also the importance of Mexico's relationship with the United States extending beyond the drug
war.¶ "We don't want to make this relationship targeted on one single issue," he said. "We want to place
particular emphasis on the potential in the economic relationship between Mexico and the United States." ¶ To achieve that
goal, Peña Nieto said, the presidents agreed to create a new high-level group to discuss economic and trade relations between
the two nations. The group, which will include Cabinet ministers from both countries and U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, will
have its first meeting this fall, Peña Nieto said.¶ Imports and exports between the United States and Mexico totaled nearly $500
billion last year, and before Obama's arrival officials on both sides of the border said economic relations would be a focal
point during the U.S. president's visit.¶ "When the economy in Mexico has grown, and people have
opportunity, a lot of our problems are solved, or we have the resources to solve them," Obama said
Thursday.
27
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexico would say yes- clean energy initiative and Nieto’s domestic capital was safeguarded from
the previous administration
Werz, Senior Fellow of the Center for American Progress and Expert on trans-Atlantic Foreign Policy, 12’
(Michael, “The United States and Mexico: The Path Forward” ,He is a graduate of Frankfurt University’s Institute for Philosophy and was
professor at Hannover University in Germany. He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s BMW Center for German and
European Studies, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/news/2012/11/30/46430/the-united-states-and-mexico-the-pathforward/, accessed 7/6/13, LLM)
Working together, the National Action Party executive and the Institutional Revolutionary Party-controlled legislature
have joined to give the incoming Peña Nieto government a strong tailwind toward economic opening and greater competition,
without having to pay the political cost that labor reform might otherwise have entailed. At the same time, north of the border,
President Barack Obama has spoken clearly of his desire for meaningful immigration reform this year, which would provide another
significant political and economic boost to the new Mexican president.¶ With labor reform out of the way, attention turns to the three policy
fields that Peña Nieto has promised to address, perhaps all at once: energy reform, tax reform, and Social Security reform. Should he succeed
in addressing these issues effectively, he will have restructured a significant part of Mexico’s economy, preparing Mexico for an economic
takeoff that could rival Asian economies.¶ On the economic front, the success of the new Mexican administration’s economic reform
and growth agenda is a core interest of the United States. A number of policy fields will be crucial to create a successful North
American growth model and will elevate the transactional partnership with Mexico to a strategic relationship much like the United States
enjoys with Canada. To achieve this goal, both countries must address a number of issues simultaneously. Mexican states along
the U.S. border are official observers in the Western Climate Initiative, joining California and four Canadian provinces. The federal
governments in both the United States and Mexico should take aggressive steps to make it more feasible for these Mexican
states to become full partners in the initiative to achieve meaningful reductions in carbon pollution and move toward greater
U.S.-Mexican cooperation on future North American pollution cuts.
Obama and Nieto want to cooperate with energy and the economy
Rueda, Latin American Correspondent for ABC News, 2013 (Manuel, May 3rd, ABC News, “Here’s What Obama Promised
During His Trip to Mexico”, http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/News/obama-achieve-trip-mexico/story?id=19104905,
accessed 7/6/13, J.Y.)
Repeatedly during this visit, Obama and Peña Nieto said that the U.S.-Mexico relationship should go much further than
just immigration and security, which were the main themes tackled by both countries under Mexico's previous president
Felipe Calderón. Obama and Peña Nieto also announced a couple of new initiatives that should help to facilitate economic
integration.¶ The initiatives:¶ --Top economic policy advisors from both countries plan to meet in the fall.¶ --The U.S. and
Mexico will create a bi-national group that will provide support to companies that want to do business in both
nations.¶ -- Obama suggested that both countries invest in infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border in order to
expand trade.¶ -- Obama said that he want to finsih off an agreement on the Trans Pacific Partnership this year. This is a freetrade deal between countries in North America, South America and Asia that would give the U.S. and Mexico greater access to
emerging markets in the Asia-Pacific region.¶ 3. Education¶ In their joint press conference, Obama and Peña Nieto said that
they would create a "bilateral forum on higher education, innovation and research." This group will be made up of education
officials from the U.S. and Mexico, who would find research projects that both countries could collaborate on.¶ Obama also
said on Friday that he wants to create programs that would allow 100,000 Latin American students to study in U.S.
universities, and 100,000 American students to study in Latin American universities. He said these programs would focus on
students studying science, engineering and math. Sorry, liberal arts majors.¶ 4. Energy¶ Without going into details, Obama
said that the U.S. and Mexico should develop "clean energy partnerships."¶ "Let's keep investing in green buildings
and smart grid technologies so we're making our planet cleaner and safer for future generations," Obama said in a
speech at the National Anthropology Museum in Mexico City.¶ Obama also mentioned that the U.S. and Mexico should find
ways to sell electricity to each other when the conditions are appropriate for such deals.¶ Peña Nieto is also trying to
reform Mexico's energy laws, to allow foreign companies to invest more in oil and gas exploration. But it could be months
or years before such reforms are passed by Mexico's Congress since this is a sensitive issue in Mexico.
President Nieto wants the plan
Nieto, The 57th President of Mexico, 2012 (Enrique Peña, November 23rd, The Washington Post, “U.S. Mexico should build
on their economic times”, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-23/opinions/35511831_1_energy-independencerenewable-energy-energy-resources, accessed 7/5/2013, J.Y.)
Both Mexico and the United States held presidential races this year, and the results offer an opportunity to redirect our
countries’ bilateral relationship. The U.S. election demonstrated the growing demographic bonds that connect our
countries’ futures. The election in Mexico heralded a new era of change and reform, as much as a new style of
governing, based on pragmatism and results. ¶ To build a more prosperous future for our two countries, we must
continue strengthening and expanding our deep economic, social and cultural ties. It is a mistake to limit our
bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this
short-sighted way. When I meet with President Obama on Tuesday — just days before my inauguration — I want to
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
28
discuss the best way to rearrange our common priorities. After all, our agenda affects millions of citizens in both
countries.¶ Perhaps the most important issue is finding new ways to bolster our economic and trade relationship
to attain common prosperity in our nations. The United States is already Mexico’s largest trading partner. As a result of
the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), our economic ties have grown to an unprecedented degree. NAFTA
links 441 million people producing trillions of dollars in goods and services annually, making it the largest trading bloc in
the world. Consequently, in NAFTA we have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater
investments in finance, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy. Together, we must build a more competitive and
productive region.¶ Another relevant bilateral issue relates to Mexico’s status as an increasingly desirable and dependable
manufacturing location. My country is the second-largest supplier of electronic goods to the United States. Coca-Cola,
DuPont, GM, Nissan, Honda, Mazda, Audi and many others are seizing the opportunity to manufacture within our borders.
We seek to continue offering U.S. consumers better products and better prices.¶ Energy production is another
emerging area that can enhance our nations’ potential. I plan to open Mexico’s energy sector to national and
foreign private investment. Mexico holds the fifth-largest shale gas reserve in the world, in addition to large deepwater oil reserves and a tremendous potential in renewable energy. We will not surrender Mexico’s ownership
over its energy resources, and we will not privatize our state-run oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex). We
will, however, welcome new technologies, new partnerships and new investments. Together with the United States
and Canada, this may well contribute to guaranteeing North American energy independence — something from which we
would all greatly benefit.
Mexico wants to engage with the US in other areas than immigration, security, and the drug war,
specifically, their energy industry
Reyes, Attorney and member of the USA Today Board of Contributors 2013 (Paul A. April 29th, 2013. NBC
Latino “Opinion: President Obama has the chance to improve US/Mexico relations”
http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-president-obama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexicorelations/ NMS)
Obama will arrive in Mexico with good and bad news. On the positive side, he can highlight the progress his
administration has made towards overhauling our immigration system. The border is more secure than ever, and the
Senate has unveiled a proposal that creates new pathways for legal immigration. On the negative side,
Obama bears responsibility for his failure to reform U.S. gun laws. ThinkProgress reports that the expiration of the
assault weapons ban has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans in cartel violence. Even worse,
America’s demand for illegal drugs fuels the growth of these cartels. ¶ However, Obama would be wise to
recognize that relations with Mexico should not center on these issues alone. As president-elect, Peña Nieto wrote in The
Washington Post that, “It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual
interests are too vast and complex to be restricted in this short-sighted way.” He wants a deeper relationship, one that is
defined by shared economic goals.¶ That’s the smart way forward. Since 2008, Mexico has seen steady
economic growth, which has been a net benefit to the U.S. The U.S. exports more to Mexico than to China
and Japan combined, and U.S./Mexico trade hit almost $500 billion in 2012. Obama should build on these
ties to create greater economic integration. If he and Peña Nieto were to collaborate on ways of matching Mexico’s
young labor force with American technology and training, it would be a recipe for a regional economic boom . Greater U.S.
investment in Mexico will make the country safer, as the cartels generally leave multinational operations alone.¶
Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged
with Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not
recognized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on
April 19. So Mexico is not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps with more attention
from the Obama administration, Peña Nieto could be persuaded to be more supportive of U.S. policies for the region. ¶ True,
there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico has
historically been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared
spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence on
the U.S. side of the border have proved largely unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging
more communication and cooperation with Mexico. Already, Peña Nieto favors opening Mexico’s
energy sector to private investment, and he may even allow foreign investment in its state oil
29
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
company .¶ President Obama has the chance to turn a page in U.S./Mexico relations, and he should not miss it. It’s time for
a foreign policy with Mexico based on its potential , not on its problems.
30
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
***Warming Adv
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
31
Warming – Internal links - Renewables
Grid integration stimulates investment in Mexican renewables and energy exportation to
California
Markey, lawyer practicing in LA focusing on the renewable energy sector, 2010
(David, February 2010, “Cross-Border Renewables — Baja to California,” Project Finance Newswire, p.
40, EB)
By a fortunate coincidence, Baja California, as the Mexican side of the Baja peninsula is called, has excellent
potential for wind, solar and geothermal projects. In the near term, the geothermal assets at Cierro Prieto will be
used to satisfy demand in the Baja region itself, and solar energy seems prohibitively expensive to export
due to the high cost to generate solar electricity compared to other types of power and the inability of
solar projects on the Mexican side of the border to benefit from the 30% investment tax credit or cash
grant that can be claimed on solar projects in the United States. Therefore, most of the attention in Baja is
focused on wind. The La Rumorosa region in particular shows strong wind potential. The “renewable
energy transmission initiative” noted in its January 2009 report that wind resources in Mexico look
particularly promising. The report suggests a potential for 5,000 megawatts of border region wind projects.
(The initiative is a collaborative stakeholder planning process initiated as a joint effort among the
California Public Utilities Commission, the California Energy Commission and the California Independent
System Operator.) Its subsequent December 2009 report contains further analysis of the energy potential
in Baja, comments favorably on the potential to use that potential to meet part of the demand in California for
renewable energy and suggests that additional work will be done by the state to evaluate delivery of energy
from Baja to Los Angeles. The Challenge of Transmission The lack of transmission is a major challenge facing
developers, and it presents itself in two forms. First, there is the challenge of finding enough transmission on the
Mexican side of the border to move the power north into California to an interconnection point for the California grid.
Second, once the power crosses the border, the grid itself has problems with congestion. It is not easy to
move electricity within California to highly populated urban areas. Existing cross-border transmission is limited.
There currently exists only 800 megawatts of transmission capacity between Baja California and California. This occurs
through two 230-kV lines jointly referred to as Western Electricity Coordinating Council Path 45. On the
Mexican side, the lines are owned by the Commission Federal de Electricidad,or CFE, and on the
California side, they are owned by San Diego Gas & Electric. On the California side of the border, Path 45
interconnects with the Southwest Powerlink in the Imperial Valley. Much of this 800 megawatts is
apparently unused and could be used to transport renewable energy from Baja to California. This leaves a
developer with two options. First, it can connect to Path 45, which is operated on the Mexican side of the
border by the CFE, and contract with the CFE to carry the power to an interconnection point with the
California grid. This is permitted in Mexico once a project has been issued with an export permit (the
process for which is described below). Wheeling charges would add to the cost of the exported energy.
The second option is to finance and construct its own transmission to an interconnection point within California grid
territory. Although no renewable energy projects connect directly into California currently , two merchant-owned gasfired plants in Mexico connect directly to the California grid at Imperial Valley. In a similar way,
renewable energy projects could construct their own transmission trunk line from Baja to a substation in
California such as the Imperial Valley substation. These trunk lines could also be used by future projects
in the same area. Developers attempting to pursue this second option are unlikely to receive assistance from the
Mexican government. Since all public transmission is owned and operated by the CFE, there are no
government incentives for private expansion of the transmission grid. Further, the CFE itself is likely to be
constrained in constructing transmission lines to export electricity because its primary function and
responsibility are the transmission and distribution for public service within Mexico. There are positive
signs that additional cross-border transmission capability will be added over the coming years. Sempra
has applied to the US Department of Energy for a federal permit to allow it to build a cross-border
32
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
transmission line connecting wind projects at La Rumorosa to the Southwest Powerlink in southern
Imperial County and potentially carrying 1250 megawatts. A further possibility would be a cross-border
tie-in to the Imperial Irrigation District. Power could then be wheeled to Southern California Edison or
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power territory (although transmission to the later would be
dependent on completion of proposed transmission upgrades). If additional transmission capacity is built by
pioneering developers, this could be made available to future wind projects and make connecting to the California grid easier
and less costly, further incentivizing development. The second challenge for developers is how to transport the
electricity to energy hungry urban areas once it has arrived in California. Existing cross-border
transmission lines connect to the California grid in the Imperial Valley. Cross-border links from the La
Rumorosa area could also tie into the California grid near this point. If this is the case, then the question
of how this energy will make it to urban areas needs to be addressed. Upgrades to the California
transmission system are currently under review, and a “regional energy transmission initiative” is
underway in California to identify major upgrades that are needed to the California grid to allow the state
to meet its renewable portfolio targets. If Baja is identified as an important competitive renewable energy zone, this
could lead to significant transmission upgrades ensuring Mexico renewable energy reaches the utilities that need the
electricity in California. There are already signs that California transmission will improve in ways that will
benefit projects located in Baja. The Sunrise Powerlink project was approved by the California Public
Utilities Commission in December 2008.This project involves construction of a new 500-kv line from the
Imperial Valley to SDG&E service territory. This has been seen as a significant boost for those wishing to
export energy from Baja to California.
Renewables transmission is key to reduce CO2 emissions
Gramlich et al, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association, 2009
(Rob, Michael Goggin and Katherine Gensler, February, American Wind Energy Association and the Solar
Energy Industries Association, “Green Power Superhighways: Building a Path to America’s Clean Energy
Future,” http://www.awea.org/documents/issues/upload/GreenPowerSuperhighways.pdf, EB)
Without a more robust transmission grid, our country will fail to realize the immense environmental, economic, and energy
security benefits that would come from putting our country’s renewable resources to use. The DOE’s report
estimated that obtaining 20 percent of U.S. electricity from wind would reduce carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions by 7.6
billion tons between now and 2030. CO2 emissions would be reduced by 825 million tons in the year 2030 alone, an
amount equal to 25 percent of all electric sector CO2 emissions in that year or the equivalent of taking 140
million cars off the road. These benefits stem from the fact that the use of renewable energy offsets the use of fossil
fuels. The DOE study estimated that the 20 percent wind scenario would reduce electric sector coal use by
18 percent, electric sector natural gas use by 50 percent, and avoid the construction of 80,000 MW of new
coal-fired power plants.5 Similar penetrations of solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, and other renewable technologies
would displace comparable amounts of emissions and fuel use – if this power can be transported to where it is needed.
Renewable energy also avoids the other harmful environmental effects of fossil fuel use, including
emissions of SO2, NOX , mercury, and particulate matter; habitat destruction caused by the mining and
drilling of fossil fuels; and massive water use in power plant cooling systems. In fact, DOE’s report
estimated that the 20 percent wind scenario would save 4 trillion gallons of water between now and
2030 by displacing power from fossil fuel plants with wind energy, with one-third of these water savings
occurring in the arid West. Within the environmental community, there is growing recognition that new
transmission is critical to solving our pressing environmental problems. As the environmental group
Western Resource Advocates concluded in their recent report, “Smart Lines: Transmission for the
Renewable Energy Economy:” Efficiency and local generation won’t be enough to satisfy future demand, let alone
provide the capacity that will be needed to retire older coal facilities in order to make a dent in U.S. carbon
emissions. Renewable energy at the utility scale will be required, and in the West, the resources that can
provide this type of power are often far from population centers. That means significant new transmission
capacity will be needed to tap these resources.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
33
Warming – Internal links – Cali gets modeled
California gets modeled globally – empirics prove
Hertsgaard, Fellow of the New America Foundation, 2012
(Mark, 3-8-12, Yale Environment 360, “California Takes the Lead With New Green Initiatives,”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/california_takes_the_lead_with_new_green_initiatives/2504/, accessed 7-713, EB)
California, long America’s environmental trendsetter, is about to push the envelope once again. On May 1, the state
will hear from some of the nation’s largest insurance companies about the financial risks climate change
poses, not only to the companies but also to their customers and investors. Some 300 firms, representing
the vast majority of the U.S. insurance industry, are expected to reply to a survey that includes such
questions as “how do you account for climate change in your risk management?” and “has the company
altered its investment strategy in response to [climate change]?” The companies’ replies will then be
posted on the California Insurance Commission’s website for all to see, including regulators from all 50
states and overseas. “What all of us will learn is the extent to which companies are incorporating climate
risk as they make investment decisions, underwriting decisions and business operations decisions,” Dave
Jones, the California insurance commissioner, told Yale Environment 360. Jones emphasized that the
survey is “not prescriptive.” But analysts predicted the exercise “will inevitably cause the [insurance] industry
to do things differently,” in the words of Andrew Logan of Ceres, a group of investors and NGOs that helped
develop the survey. “What [insurance companies] choose to cover and not to cover, and what they invest
in, has great influence over individual and corporate behavior.” The insurance initiative is but the latest
example of California’s far-reaching policies to confront climate change. On Aug. 15, the state will sponsor its first auction
of emissions allowances, as mandated by the Global Warming Solutions Act passed in 2006. Often referred to
as AB 32 (for Assembly Bill 32), the law commits California to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels
by 2020 and to cut them 80 percent by 2050, the amount scientists say is necessary for there to be a
reasonable chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. To achieve these
reductions, AB 32 relies largely on cap-and-trade, the same mechanism Republicans in Congress derided
as “cap-and-tax” when they rejected President Obama’s climate legislation in 2010. California’s law caps
the amount of greenhouse gases a given economic sector may emit at 90 percent of the previous year’s
emissions. Companies then bid for emissions allowances, with the price established by an electronic
auction. Those companies that subsequently cut emissions by more than required can trade their excess
allowances to those that do not cut enough. The auction, scheduled for August, will include power plants,
refineries, and cement plants, which must begin cutting emissions in 2013. Emissions cuts for
manufacturers of transportation fuels begin in 2015. California Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, is
counting on the auctions to raise $500 million a year — welcome funds for a state government in chronic
budget deficit. But the California Air Resources Board, which administers the cap-and-trade program,
projects that revenues could easily be twice as large. “We project $550 to $1 billion during the 2012-2013
fiscal year, and that’s on the basis of a price of $10 per share, which is very conservative,” said David
Clegern, a board spokesman. “The futures market is currently at $18 per share.” The state’s goal, Clegern
said, is not only to reduce emissions but to foster an economy where sustainability is profitable. Ken Alex, a senior
policy adviser to Governor Brown, argues that such an economy is already taking shape in California, in
part due to the policies of Brown’s predecessor, Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger. The “Million Solar
Roofs” program, which began under Schwarzenegger but will “reach completion” under Brown, has
reduced the price of photovoltaic solar power units by 30 to 60 percent, said Alex, who noted that “the
companies installing them are the fastest growing in the state.” California already has the most aggressive
renewable portfolio standard in the U.S. ; it requires 33 percent of the state’s electricity to be generated from
renewable sources by 2020. California is ahead of schedule to meet that target, Alex asserted, thanks not
only to the Million Solar Roofs program but also the installation of 4,242 megawatts of large-scale solar
34
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
plants in the deserts in the southern part of the state. Governor Brown “has said 33 percent should be a
floor, not a ceiling, and we need to think about how we get to 40 percent and even 50 percent,” according
to Alex. California is also poised to transform its vehicle fleet, which in turn promises to bring greener
cars and trucks to the U.S. as a whole. As directed by AB 32, the Air Resources Board has required
automakers to increase the amount of so-called Zero Emission Vehicles [ZEVs] — electric cars, hybrids,
hybrid-electrics and hydrogen-fueled vehicles — sold in California by 15 percent by 2025, as board chair
Mary Nichols explained in an interview with Yale Environment 360. This policy is projected to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 52 million tons a year by 2025, the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off
the road. Clegern emphasized that the new regulations were adopted after close consultation with the
world’s automakers. “After years of fighting us about our regulations, [automakers] are coming to realize
there’s a big market [for ZEVs],” said Clegern. If history is any guide, California’s vehicle policies will have a
powerful ripple effect. Seatbelts, unleaded gasoline, and hybrid vehicles are but some of the vehicle
innovations that spread throughout America after being introduced in California. In the 1960s, choking
under the worst smog in the nation, California got federal approval to start setting its own, tougher clean
air standards. Automakers fought California’s efforts to require catalytic converters and other cleaner
technology on cars sold in the state, but they eventually surrendered and even added the technology to
all the cars they produced.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
35
Warming – Internal links – Mexico Modeling
Cooperation with Mexico on climate change gets modeled globally
Selee, Vice President for Programs and Senior Advisor to the Mexico Institute, and Wilson, associate with
the
Mexico Institute, 2012
(Andrew and Christopher, November, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “A New Agenda
With Mexico,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/a_new_agenda_with_mexico.pdf,
accessed 7-6-13, EB)
Over the past few years, the U.S. and Mexican governments have expanded beyond the bilateral agenda to work closely together on
global issues, from climate change to international trade and the economic crisis. The U.S. government should continue to take advantage of
the opportunities this creates for joint problem-solving. Mexico’s active participation in the G-20, which it hosted in 2012, and in
the U.N. Framework on Climate Change, which it hosted in 2010, have helped spur this collaboration, and the recent accession of Mexico into
the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations provides one obvious avenue to continue it. The two countries also coordinate more extensively than ever before
on diplomatic issues, ranging from the breakdown of democratic order in Honduras to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mexico is likely to play an
increasingly active role on global economic and environmental issues, areas where the country has significant expe - rience, and through
cooperative efforts the U.S. can take advantage of Mexico’s role as a bridge between the developed and developing
worlds, and between North America and Latin America.
Mexico is a global leader in climate change legislation
IDLO, 2012
(International Development Law Organization, “Legal Analysis Of Mexico General Law On Climate
Change,” http://www.idlo.int/english/WhatWeDo/Programs/ClimateFinance/Pages/Mexico.aspx,
accessed 7-6-13, EB)
Mexico passed the General Law on Climate Change on April 19, 2012, establishing a new leading global legal best
practice to address climate change and transition to a green economy. The new Law, only the second climate change
law in the world, removes the challenge from the whims of political parties and electoral cycles, declaring
it to be a long-term priority of the Mexican State. It represents a major step forward for Mexico, and for those
countries that choose to learn from it. Since 2009, IDLO has provided legal research, analysis, engagement and
technical assistance to both the Mexican Federation and several Mexican States on climate change issues.
IDLO's partnership with the Mexican Government on these issues continues, with continued funding from IFAD,
to spread the lessons learned in Mexico to Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala as well as other countries in the
Latin American and Caribbean region. Mexico has firmly established itself as a global leader in setting a strong
regulatory framework to move to a low-carbon emission economy. As a new global legal best practice for
climate change, many lessons can be learned from Mexico's bold actions, as outlined IDLO's legal analysis of the
innovative new institutions and mechanisms established by the new Law. IDLO remains committed to providing the
technical assistance and the sharing platform of international best practices for countries to pass their own
tailored laws and institutions to actively address climate change.
Mexico is a pioneer of low-emissions plans – it sends a signal
GEF, 2009
(Global Environment Facility, 6-15-09, “Mexico seeking a low-carbon growth path,”
http://www.thegef.org/gef/node/2213, accessed 7-7-13, EB)
15 JUNE 2009 | WASHINGTON DC - Mexico boosted its image as a global leader in climate change in December
2008, when it announced it had set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 50% below 2002 levels by
2050. Now Mexico is embarking on a comprehensive strategy to cut emissions and reduce energy use
while also potentially putting the Mexican economy on a low carbon growth path. The plan will get a $500 million
boost from a new Clean Technology Fund supported by eight governments, managed by the World Bank, and
administered by the World Bank Group and other multilateral development banks. Mexico is among the first
36
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
countries to tap the $5.2 billion fund that provides grants and low-interest financing to pilot and scale up
low carbon technologies and make other changes that reduce energy use and pollution. On June 5, during the
celebration of World Environment Day in Mexico, President Calderon launched the Special Climate
Change Program (Programa Especial de Cambio Climático – PECC). As with all government programs, the
PECC is considered part of the 2007-2012 National Development Plan (NDP), and in particular, part of
the environmental sustainability pillar of the NDP. The PECC establishes a low-carbon development
scenario for Mexico, identifying priorities and financing sources, both domestic and international. “Mexico
has recognized it will be heavily impacted by the effects of climate change,” says Ricardo Ochoa, Head of the
International Affairs Unit of the Ministry of Finance. “The good news is it has decided to act accordingly.
That means that despite not being a significant contributor to greenhouse gas emissions globally, it wants
to send a signal it’s important to take action.”
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
37
Warming – Internal links - Deforestation
Alternative energy resolves cost and tech barriers to stopping South American deforestation
Cárdenas, Minister of Energy for Colombia, director of the Latin America Initiative at Brookings, 2009
(Mauricio, 10-23-9, Bookings, “Climate Change and Latin America: The Long Way to Copenhagen,”
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/10/23-climate-change-latin-america-cardenas,
accessed 7-8-13, EB)
To make matters worse, the last 20 years of deforestation should be a matter of concern. Emissions from
land-use change and forestry represent a quarter of greenhouse gas emissions in middle-income countries and 50 percent
in low-income countries. In Latin American alone, 686,000 square kilometers of forest were lost between
1990 and 2005. By a large margin, Latin America is the world’s region where more forests have been
destroyed since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992. Although there is some hope based on the recent actions adopted by Brazil and Mexico to
curb deforestation, this remains Latin America’s top environmental challenge. The region is still a long way to
reverse the trend and begin making positive contributions by gaining and not losing forest areas.
Widespread deforestation can bring problems in other areas apart from the environment. The U.S.
Congress is considering a border tax on goods produced in countries that do not observe environmental
standards. Although many question these measures as disguised protectionism—the idea is appealing to
some politicians who worry about the costs U.S. firms will face resulting from the new climate change
legislation. Keeping out competitors who do not adopt similar environmental practices seems to be the
logical thing to do. Others worry about the lack of enforcement mechanisms in international agreements.
Here again, tariffs seem to be the magic bullet. This should be a serious concern for Latin America—a
region that depends heavily on trade with the U.S.—mainly because the track record in terms of
emissions control is not favorable to the region. But U.S. legislation also provides opportunity. The
proposed U.S. Senate legislation—as well as the bill that was passed by the House this past summer—
includes provisions regarding international offsets to control costs (the estimates indicate that without
offsets, carbon prices will double). This is a key mechanism that could allow Latin America to tap
additional resources needed for climate change mitigation and adaptation. But how offsets will work is
far from clear at this point. One of the few things that is known is that international offsets will have less
value than domestic ones—1 unit of reforestation in the U.S. will count the same as 1.25 units abroad.
Foreign governments should oppose this provision, which is at odds with the fact that the environment is
truly a global public good. Latin America will not be heard in the U.S. Congress or in international
deliberations in Copenhagen unless it forms a solid bloc and pushes for greater equity in the allocation of
commitments and resources to deal with climate change. Finally, the costs of limiting environmental degradation
can be significantly reduced if clean technologies are developed. Innovation in the North will be insufficient to prevent an
environmental disaster unless those technologies are readily available in the South. Coordination and cooperation is critical if
Latin America wants to play a role in the development of technologies that use renewable sources of energy.
The region is in a unique position to supply biomass and geothermal energy. There is no compelling
reason for duplicating efforts at the national level, when a regional solution could be more effective. A
regional laboratory, funded in part by the U.S. would be the right way to go. This will allow countries of
the hemisphere to find ways to produce wind, solar, and cellulosic biomass energy more efficiently.
Climate change can’t be halted without halting Amazonian deforestation, but climate partnerships
with the developing countries solves
Zaleski, Undersecretary of State, Ministry of the Environment, Poland, 2008
(Janusz, 12-6-8, Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe, “Forests for Climate,”
http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/cop/cop14/presentations/02/side_event_materials.pdf,
accessed 7-8-13, EB)
38
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Regrettably, according to FAO statistical data, about 13 million hectares of forests are being deforested every
year causing an increase of carbon dioxide emissions. These represent 20% of the global emission and exceed the
total emission of all European Union states taken together. The reduction of carbon dioxide emissions caused by deforestation
is one of our principal challenges. At the same time, this will help increase biological diversity and improve
the living conditions of the people inhabiting the forested regions of Africa, Asia and South America. It is impossible
to reduce temperature rise on our planet to below 2o C by 2050 without stopping deforestation. Deforestation was an
important point in the Action Plan adopted at the Bali Conference. Moreover, the European Union
proposed to stop the loss of forest area by 2030 and introduce instruments enabling deforestation
reduction, such as establishing a Global Forest Carbon Mechanism and inclusion of deforestation in
carbon markets. The funds obtained from forest emission trading could be used to finance the policy of
counteracting deforestation. The introduction of the Global Forest Carbon Mechanism should be planned
in a moderate term of years, between 2012 and 2020. The possible inclusion of deforestation in carbon
markets is a longerterm task. Today, we still lack monitoring of changes to forest cover, as well as carbon
dioxide storage and carbon dioxide emissions resulting from deforestation. Strengthening of institutional
systems in the countries that will accept deforestation reduction targets is indispensable. In the first
place, we need high-quality information and systemic monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of our
actions. It is clear that only the combined efforts of developed and developing countries can help stop deforestation. It is
worth mentioning that demand for timber is responsible, among other things, for the cutting of tropical
forests, and that 16% of timber on the European Union market comes from forests which are not
managed on a sustainable basis. We also need to remember that 1.6 million people live from forests and
60 million can exist only in the forest environment. Deforestation poses a threat to their lives. Sustainable
forestry taking into account the needs of all those whose sustenance and work is associated with forests
can be an answer to these questions. Sustainable forest management is also a method of carbon
sequestration and counteracting global warming. Sustainable forest management has for many years been a
dominant European forestry model. It is hard to transfer our experience directly into other parts of the
world, yet it can help avoid mistakes and select strategies counteracting deforestation and reducing
emissions.
South American deforestation is critical, but they need economic incentives
Moutinho et al, Ph.D. in Ecology, Executive Director of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, 2005
(Paulo, Stephan Schwartzman, And Marcio Santilli, Amazon Institute for Environmental Research,
“Tropical Deforestation and Climate Change,”
http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf, p. 8, EB)
The continuity, and effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, will depend on Annex I countries adopting more
stringent reductions after 2012 than were agreed for the first commitment period. To this end,
mechanisms to facilitate broader participation of developing countries in global emissions reduction efforts will be
necessary. The concept of “compensated reduction” of tropical deforestation – the idea that tropical countries
might reduce national deforestation under an historical baseline and be allowed internationally tradable
carbon offsets having demonstrated reductions – emerged out the polemical debates surrounding forests
between the approval of Kyoto and the Marrakech accords. All perspectives in this debate have
contributed to considerable growth and development in our understanding and analysis of forest-climate
relationships, as the appearance of this book, and most particularly the diverse list of distinguished
international scientists and experts who contributed to it, attests. There is now broad consensus on some
previously contentious or unclear issues. The importance of addressing emissions from tropical deforestation, as
distinct from the sequestration of carbon in “sinks”, is widely accepted. Scientists, policy makers and environmentalists
agree that reducing tropical deforestation is a critical piece of any international emissions reduction regime, in
particular if atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are to remain below the often-cited figure of 450 ppm. There is
broad agreement that tropical nations need some form of economic incentive to reduce deforestation, and that
developed countries should compensate countries that control deforestation. Most importantly, a group
39
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
of tropical nations led by Papua New Guinea have put deforestation on the agenda of the 11th Conference
of the Parties, and are calling for means to address the issue in the context of the UNFCCC. The Brazilian
Foreign Ministry, formerly reluctant to engage the issue, has declared its intention of beginning
substantive discussions on it within the Convention.
Deforestation causes over a quarter of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions annually
Houghton, Ph.D in biology, Senior Scientist Woods Hole Research Center, 2005
(Richard A., edited by Paulo Moutinho and Stephan Schwartzman, Amazon Institute for Environmental
Research, “Tropical deforestation as a source of greenhouse gas emissions,”
http://www.edf.org/sites/default/files/4930_TropicalDeforestation_and_ClimateChange.pdf, p. 13, EB)
Tropical deforestation, including both the permanent conversion of forests to croplands and pastures and the
temporary or partial removal of forests for shifting cultivation and selective logging, is estimated to have
released on the order of 1-2 PgC/yr (15-35% of annual fossil fuel emissions) during the 1990s. The
magnitude of emissions depends on the rates of deforestation, the biomass of the forests deforested, and other
reductions in biomass that result from forest use. If, in addition to carbon dioxide, one considers the
emissions of methane, nitrous oxide, and other chemically reactive gases that result from deforestation
and subsequent uses of the land, annual emissions during the 1990s accounted for about 25% of the total
anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Trends in the rates of tropical deforestation are difficult to predict,
but at today’s rates, another 85 to 130 PgC will be released over the next 100 years, the emissions declining only as tropical
forests are eliminated. Introduction One of the consequences of deforestation is that the carbon originally held in
forests is released to the atmosphere, either immediately if the trees are burned, or more slowly as unburned
organic matter decays. Only a small fraction of the biomass initially held in a forest ends up stored in houses
or other long-lasting structures. Most of the carbon is released to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, but small
amounts of methane and carbon monoxide may also be released with decomposition or burning. Cultivation also
oxidizes 25-30% of the organic matter in the upper meter of soil and releases that to the atmosphere.
Reforestation reverses these fluxes of carbon. While forests are regrowing, they withdraw carbon from
the atmosphere and accumulate it again in trees and soil. Although deforestation, itself, may not release
significant quantities of methane or nitrous oxide, these gases are often released as a consequence of using the
cleared land for cattle or other ruminant livestock, paddy rice, or other crops, especially those fertilized with
nitrogen. This paper reviews the contribution of tropical deforestation and subsequent land use to
emissions of greenhouse gases. The emphasis is on carbon (principally, CO2 ).
40
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
AT: Cali CP
California can’t solve alone – lacks expertise, budget, and Mexico’s consent
Shatz, Senior economist at RAND, and López-Calva, World Bank representative, 2004
(Howard J. and Luis Felipe, Public Policy Institute of California, “The Emerging Integration of the
California-Mexico Economies,” http://web.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_804HSR.pdf, EB)
California financing of border infrastructure—on both sides of the border—has been part of Sacramento policy
discussions for several years. In 2002, the legislature passed, but the governor vetoed, a bill to establish a
California and Mexico Border Economic Infrastructure Financing Authority that could finance projects within 100
kilometers of the border on either side of the line.16 In his veto message, Governor Gray Davis noted that
other infrastructure financing mechanisms existed, and that the bill did not provide Mexicans with equal
participation in decisions about infrastructure funding —particularly important for projects in Mexico.17 A third
policy option that has been considered is to provide development assistance to Mexico. This option came
up on the Sacramento agenda in 2002 when the legislature passed a bill to establish an advisory
committee to “conduct a study with respect to the establishment of a California-based international
development program with Mexico that can provide assistance and coordination to community-based
organizations to perform economic development projects in Mexican migrant regions.”18 The bill passed
the Assembly 75-2 and the Senate 24-10 but was vetoed by the governor. For a number of reasons, this
may not be a good idea for future legislatures to pursue. First, there is no reason to think that California state government has
any ability to help another country develop. State officials’ knowledge of the international economy is limited. During the
recent budget troubles, the state largely gutted its staff involved with the international economy and economic strategy and
planning. If it is not a priority for the state to focus on its own economy, it is difficult to see why it should be a priority for the
state to help develop the Mexican economy. Second, it is not clear that Mexico would welcome this assistance. It agreed
only in 2002 to start admitting U.S. Peace Corps volunteers after a long history of suspicion or rejection of
U.S. aid. Third, Mexico already has highly trained and talented government officials and business leaders. Many have
advanced degrees from American universities, extensive business experience, or both. And many have a
clear idea of the major reforms needed in Mexico. Aside from Mexican government officials, there are
already many highly trained specialists, including large contingents from the World Bank and American
universities, working on these issues. Fourth, some of what Mexico most desires and needs for its own development
involves cooperation with the United States at the national rather than the state level. For example, at a meeting of the
U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Prosperity in San Francisco in June 2003, Mexican business leader Hector
Rangel suggested the establishment of a customs union, the interconnection of energy markets, and the
elimination of U.S. agricultural subsidies as among the ways that the United States and Mexico could
cooperate. Regarding Mexican action, he recommended strengthening the rule of law and reforming the
country’s laws regarding energy, tax policy, and labor markets.19 In his veto message of the Assembly
Bill aiming at a development program, Governor Davis noted, “the issue of development in foreign countries, even
those that neighbor California, is a federal, not state, responsibility.”
41
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
AT: SQUO solves
Only new transmission investment solves for US renewable energy
Gramlich et al, senior vice president for public policy at the American Wind Energy Association, 2009
(Rob, Michael Goggin and Katherine Gensler, February, American Wind Energy Association and the Solar
Energy Industries Association, “Green Power Superhighways: Building a Path to America’s Clean Energy
Future,” http://www.awea.org/documents/issues/upload/GreenPowerSuperhighways.pdf, EB)
The renewable energy industry cannot continue to grow without a renewed investment in our country’s transmission
infrastructure. In its recently released report, “20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030,” the U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) identified transmission limitations as the largest obstacle to realizing the enormous economic,
environmental, and energy security benefits of obtaining 20 percent of our electricity from the wind.1 The
renewable industry recognizes the primary importance of transmission as well: a poll conducted at the
WINDPOWER 2008 Conference and Exhibition in June in Houston, Texas, found that participants saw
transmission as the largest roadblock to the continued development of wind energy in the U.S.2 This level
of concern is shared by members of the solar, geothermal, and hydropower industries as well. There are more than 4,000
megawatts (MW) of large solar power plants scheduled for construction in the next five years , most of which require new
or significant upgrades to the existing transmission grid. The California Public Utilities Commission has identified
lack of adequate transmission as the primary barrier utilities face in meeting their Renewable Portfolio
Standard.3 Even when the utilities have signed contracts with renewable generators, the lack of transmission
can delay or prevent projects from being built. Similarly, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management has set a goal of developing
10,000 MW of renewable energy on federal lands by 2015.4 However, this goal will not be met if the transmission grid does
not reach those renewable generators.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
42
43
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
***Mexican Econ Adv
44
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Down
The Mexican economy is currently failing as its imports increase
Focus Economics 6/19/13 Economic Forecasts from the World’s Leading Economists (Focus
Economics, “Mexico-GDP: Economic growth slows down markedly in first quarter” June 19, 2013
http://www.focus-economics.com/en/economy/news/Mexico-GDP_Type
Economic_growth_slows_down_markedly_in_first_quarter-2013-06-19”
In the first quarter, GDP increased 0.8% over the same quarter last year, which represents a notable
deceleration compared to the 3.2% expansion observed in the final quarter of 2012. The reading marks,
in fact, the slowest pace observed since the last quarter of 2009. The reading was the result of a
deterioration in both domestic demand and the external sector. On the domestic front, total
consumption decelerated from a 3.1% increase in Q4 to a 2.1% expansion in Q1, reflecting a
slowdown in private consumption (Q4 2012: +3.6% year-on-year; Q1 2013: +2.6% yoy) and a
deterioration in government spending (Q4: +0.2% yoy; Q1: -0.7% yoy). In addition, gross fixed
investment swung form a 4.1% expansion in the fourth quarter to a 0.1% contraction in the first. Exports
of goods and services contracted 0.3% in Q1, which contrasts the 4.7% expansion tallied in the fourth
quarter, while imports grew 1.3% in Q1, slower than the 5.0% increase registered in Q4. As a result,
the net contribution from the external sector to overall economic growth deteriorated from
minus 0.2 percentage points in the fourth quarter to minus 0.5 percentage points in the first. On a
sequential basis, GDP increased a seasonally adjusted 0.5% in the first quarter, which came in below the
0.7% expansion registered in the final quarter of 2012. In its latest inflation report from May, the Central
Bank maintained its forecasts of the economy growing between 3.0% and 4.0% this year and between
3.2% and 4.2% in 2014. LatinFocus Consensus Forecast panellists share the Bank’s assessment and see
the economy increasing 3.1% this year, which is down 0.2 percentage points from last month’s forecast.
For next year, the panel expects growth to pick up to 4.0%.
Mexican economy is stagnating now
Roth 5/17/13 Latin America journalist at Dow Jones (Charles Roth, “Mexico’s First Quarter GDP Down,
But Far From Out” May 17, 2013 http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/05/17/mexicos-first-quartergdp-down-but-far-from-out/)
Mexico’s first quarter economic data suggest the rug has been yanked out from under Latin America’s
second-largest economy. Although it clearly stumbled in the opening months of 2013, it’s poised to
quickly recover its footing, if not to run as fast this year as originally expected. Mexico economy’s
expanded just 0.8% on the year in the first three months of 2013, far less than the 3.2% growth in the
preceding quarter or the 1.2% consensus increase economists had expected. It was the weakest
performance since the last quarter of 2009. In seasonally adjusted terms, it advanced just 0.5% in January
through March from the lat three months of 2012, making for annualized growth of just 1.8%. But a good
part of what drove last quarter’s downturn was transitory. The Easter holiday was in March this year, so
there were fewer working days this time around, as Holy Week fell in April last year. Also, public
spending dipped 10% after PresidentEnrique Peña Nieto’s administration took over in December,
needing a few months to get a handle on disbursements. A 4.2% gain in the peso against the dollar in the
quarter and weak external demand conspired to undercut Mexico’s key manufacturing sector, and led to
miserableindustrial production data in March. That same month, the country’s central bank, no doubt
sensing the weakness and wanting to lower the attractiveness of Mexican peso yields, cut its lending rate
half a point to a record-low 4%. Most observers expect another rate cut later this year, once above-target
inflation starts moving back into the official 2%-to-4% tolerance range in the months ahead. Cheaper
credit will go hand-in-glove with a pending banking sector reform designed to encourage lending by
45
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
facilitating borrower credit risk assessments and easing collateral seizures for banks. Telecoms
competition and education reforms have already been passed, and prospects look good for long-needed
energy sector reform, given an agreement between Mexico’s three main political parties to advance the
structural reforms. Mexico’s neighbor to north might also help out more in what remains of the year. The
U.S., which absorbs around four-fifths of Mexico’s exports, is forecast to grow about 2.4% in 2013—not
great, but better than the last couple years. Indications that Mexico’s manufacturing data should pick up
are also evident. Auto production last month jumped 16% from April last year, with output hitting a
record for the month. April auto exports were at a record high, as well. A leap in the latest U.S.
building permits data also bode well for Mexico’s building materials segment. Last week, Fitch
raised its sovereign rating on Mexico to triple B-plus, citing Mexico’s solid economic and financial
fundamentals, inflation targeting, flexible foreign exchange rate policy and the structural reform
momentum. To be sure, Friday’s data disappointed, prompting Mexico’s government to cut its 2013
growth forecast to 3.1%, down from 3.5% previously. But not everyone is ready to start slashing
forecasts. “Although annual GDP growth was much slower than we had initially anticipated in Q1, it
should quickly rebound as the working day effects even out and underlying growth accelerates,”
Capital Economics says in a note. “As a result, we remain relatively upbeat on the outlook and
continue to expect GDP to expand by about 3.5% this year and by a further 4.0% in 2014.”
Consumer, business, and investor confidence is plummeting in Mexico
Mexico National Statistical Institute 7-3, (Mexico National Statistical Institute (INEGI), “Consumer confidence falls to 18-month low” July
3rd 2013, <http://www.focus-economics.com/en/economy/news/Mexico-Consumer_Confidence-Consumer_confidence_falls_to_18_month_low-2013-07-03>
Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
In June, the unadjusted index of consumer confidence published by the statistical institute (INEGI) fell to 93.3 points from 95.2 points
in May. The reading contrasted market expectations , which had the index improving to 95.4 points and marks the weakest level seen since
December 2011. Compared to the same month last year, the index dropped 2.4%, which is double the 1.2% drop observed in May.¶ The
deterioration was broad-based, with all sub-components registering lower levels compared to the previous month, in
particular consumers’ assessment about their current household situation as well as of their future household prospects,
which recorded lows not seen since December 2011. ¶ Compared to the previous month, consumer sentiment dropped 1.9% in
seasonally adjusted terms, which contrasts the revised 0.7% drop recorded in the previous month (previously reported: -0.5% month-on-month).
Massive housing gap in Mexico is devastating to the people and therefore the economy
Eulich and Villigran, Journalists, 6-26, (Whitney Eulich, Lauren Villagran, Christian Science Monitor Journalists, “In Mexico, low-income
homeowners watch their dreams crumble” 6-26-2013, <http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130626/mexico-low-income-homeowners-watch-theirdreams-crumble> Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
Mexico has one of the largest housing gaps in Latin America: More citizens need quality homes with access to infrastructure and services than currently
exist. As more people move to urban areas in search of a middle class life, Mexico will need to build 8.5 million new homes over
the next 12 years in order to meet demand, according to the Inter-American Development Bank.¶ So why, then, do so many homes in Mexico sit empty?¶ A drive for
affordable living¶ Twelve years ago, this seemed like an unlikely outcome. The government was on a campaign to construct more affordable homes, with an
eye toward expanding home ownership, boosting social mobility, and stimulating the economy. As a result, millions of homes were built. Some 4.3 million mortgages were issued by
the government-backed lender, Infonavit, and its partners between 2001 and 2011.¶ But there was a catch: Many
of the homes bought with these loans were
constructed on the fringe of urban areas and failed to meet minimum standards. ¶ “The problem [in Mexico] is homes built far
away from jobs and city centers,” says José Landa, the CEO of Montes de Mexico who spent 20 years working in the housing industry. ¶ In some cases,
transportation costs suddenly absorbed more of a family’s income than actual mortgage payments, Mr. Landa says. “What do people do? They leave and
crunch in with relatives. They live with them and to heck with the home.” Indeed, the number of vacant homes soared, going from 2.4 percent of
housing in 2005 to nearly 14 percent in 2010, according to census data. Some 5 million homes were classified as abandoned across the country in 2010,
according to the latest census, with many buyers wondering if continuing to pay for them was worth the pride of ownership. And some of the homebuilders that
benefited from the low-income housing boom are now facing cancelled credit lines and lawsuits by their lenders.
46
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Plan Key
Solving Mexican energy production key to solve root problems
O’Sullivan ’12 – professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government
(Meghan, served on the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007, and was deputy national security
advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, “Mexican Oil Reforms Are Vital on Both Sides of the Border”, reprinted
from CFR at Bloomberg, 7-30-2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-30/mexican-oilreforms-are-vital-on-both-sides-of-the-border.html)
In recent days a coalition of Mexican advocacy groups has been protesting in front of Televisa, the
country’s largest TV network, to contest the legitimacy of President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto’s July 1
victory. These protests are the second in a string of such demonstrations scheduled before Pena Nieto
takes office in December. They bode ill for Mexico’s near-term political future, pointing to a rocky
transition at a time when the challenges facing the country are anything but modest. Americans might assume
that tackling the drug trade that has resulted in more than 47,000 deaths since 2006 would top the agenda. But a strong case
can be made that energy reforms are at least as urgent , for if Mexico can’t stem its sharply deteriorating energy
situation, its ability to tackle other systemic problems will be severely compromised. Despite some
recent progress in diversifying its economy, Mexico still relies on oil for 30 percent of its fiscal revenue.
Yet oil production
has plummeted from 3.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 2.5 million in 2011, with most experts
predicting a continuing decline over the next decade. Absent changes, Mexico could be a net importer of oil by 2020,
ceasing exports to the U.S. altogether.
US engagement in Mexican energy infrastructure key to solidify energy partnership
Wood ’13 (Duncan Wood, the Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars, For 17 years, Dr. Wood was a professor and the director of the International
Relations Program at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM) in Mexico City, His research
focuses on Mexican energy policy and North American relations, “Growing Potential for U.S. - Mexico
Energy Cooperation”, January 2013)
Looking ahead to the next six years of interaction between governments of Mexico and the United States, there is the potential
for an enormously fruitful relationship in energy affairs. Much of this depends on two key factors, political will and
the internal changes that are underway in Mexico’s energy sector. In the past, political sensitivities concerning U.S.
involvement in the Mexican hydrocarbons industry have limited the extent of collaboration in the oil and
gas sectors. This continues to be a cause for concern in any U.S. - based discussion (from either the public
or private sectors) of Mexican energy policy and the potential for collaboration, but in recent years there has
been a relaxation of sensitivity in this area. Partly in response to the perceived need for international assistance
in resolving Mexico’s multiple energy challenges, and partly as a result of a productive bilateral
institutional relationship between federal energy agencies, there is now a greater potential for engagement than at
any time in recent memory. We can identify three main areas in which bilateral energy cooperation holds great promise in the
short - to medium - term. First, given the importance of the theme for both countries, there is great potential in
the oil and gas industries. This lies in the prospects for investment, infrastructure and technical collaboration. Second, we can
point to the electricity sector, where the creation of a more complete cross - border transmission network and working
towards the creation of a market for electric power at the regional level should be priorities for the two countries. Third, in
the area of climate change policy, existing cooperation on renewable energies and the need for a strategic dialogue on
the question of carbon - emissions policy are two issues can bring benefits for both partners. Underlying all three of these
areas are broader concerns about regional economic competitiveness and the consolidation of economic development in
Mexico. The first of these concerns derives from the hugely important comparative advantage that the North
American economic region has derived in recent years from low - cost energy, driven by the shale revolution. In order to
maintain this comparative advantage, and to ensure that the integrated manufacturing production platform in all three
countries benefits from the low - cost energy, the gains of recent years must be consolidated by fully developing Mexico’s
energy resources. With regards to the second concern, economic development, a number of commentators,
analysts and political figures in Mexico have identified energy reform as a potential source for driving long - term economic
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
47
growth and job creation, and the potential opportunities for foreign firms are consider able. While the United States
cannot play an active role in driving the reform process, the implementation of any future reform will benefit from
technical cooperation with the U.S. in areas such as pricing, regulation and industry best practices.
48
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Internals – Energy
Renewables key to maintain Mexico’s power economy
Business Monitor International, political risk analysis organizations that which monitors the political and
economic stability of 175 sovereign countries, according to ratings agencies and market experts.,2013
(May 2013,Mexico Power Report Q3
2013,http://www.clickpress.com/releases/Detailed/682124005cp.shtml,SB)
Mexico's electricity generating capacity is struggling to keep pace with domestic demand - a fact acknowledged by the staterun Federal Electricity Commission in April 2013. While the government has pinpointed renewable sources of energy as a
target area to fill this gap and has also brought the issue of nuclear power back to the table , we believe that the low price
of gas and the prospect of shale gas discoveries on Mexican soil mean that gas will continue to play a
central role in the country's electricity production. The government's 2013-2017 National Energy
Strategy also addresses the issue of electricity tariffs - there are plans to make them cheaper for
industrial clients as a means of boosting investment and raising productivity. Local governments have
also asked that they become eligible for these lower tariffs; the details of these lower tariffs have yet to be
published.We remain of the view that an estimated robust 3.96% year-on-year (y-o-y) growth for power
consumption in 2012 will give way to a slightly less positive performance in 2013. With increased
uncertainty as a result of a slowdown in the Mexican economy weighing on the sector, we believe that
consumption growth will come in at a more modest 2.44% y-o-y in 2013. Mexico's low per capita consumption
and relatively high energy intensity suggest that risks for long-term electricity demand are on the upside; the Comision
Federal de Electricidad (CFE) admitted in April 2013 that it was working at maximum capacity, with
shortages of natural gas and poor maintenance of power plants two reasons behind outages . In February 2013, the new
National Energy Council of Mexico presented its first National Energy Strategy, outlining energy policy for 2013-2027.
Renewables are expected to take a key role, while nuclear energy is also under consideration. We forecast that it
will be gas that makes the greatest gains; however, not least given that the government is keen to invest
in shale gas exploration. We forecast that electricity generated by gas-fired power plants will increase at
a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.43% between 2013 and 2022, and will represent 59.1% of
electricity generation capacity by 2022.
49
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Internals – Laundry List
Low energy prices solve the economy
Porter 6/3 U.S. Works with Latin America to Expand Electric Grid, IIP digital
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/07/20130703278096.html#axzz2YDRsMqNY
The June 27–28 meeting was the second chapter in Connect 2022, an initiative put forth by Colombia at
the Summit of the Americas in 2012. With support from the U.S. secretary of state, the nations agreed to a “hemispheric
initiative, which establishes a decade-long goal to achieve universal access to electricity through enhanced electrical
interconnections, power sector investment, renewable energy development and cooperation ,” the State Department
said.¶ Affordability of electric service for average-income people is a major goal in this electrification campaign. U.S. Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman emphasized the importance of fairly priced power when she spoke
to the ministers June 27. She said consumers in Central America and the Caribbean pay two to five times more for
electricity than consumers in the affluent Washington area.¶ “Expensive electricity hurts competitiveness, undermines
investment, slows job growth, and ultimately undercuts the welfare and security of households,” Sherman said.¶ At the same
time, these governments are keeping an eye on the environmental concerns that can stem from increased energy use.¶
50
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Internals – Dutch Disease
Energy inhibits Mexican economic stability and the plan would be key to long-term recovery and
reduce dependence on the oil industry
Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade, 12 (M. Angeles Villarreal, Specialist in International Trade and
Finance, August 9, 2012, “U.S.-Mexico Economic Relations: Trends, Issues, and Implications”,
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32934.pdf, Date Accessed: 7-6-2013, BK)
Mexico’s long-term economic recovery and stability partially depend upon what happens in the oil industry. In 2010,
Mexico was the seventh-largest producer of oil in the world and the third largest in the Western
Hemisphere. 39 The Mexican government depends heavily on oil revenues, which provide 30% to 40% of the government’s
fiscal revenues, but oil production in Mexico is declining rapidly. Many industry experts state that Mexican oil production has
peaked and that the country’s production will continue to decline in the coming years. 40 The Mexican
government has used oil revenues from its state oil company, Pétroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), for
government operating expenses, which has come at the expense of needed reinvestment in the company
itself. Because the government relies so heavily on oil income, any decline in production has major fiscal implications. In
2008, the government enacted new legislation that sought to reform the country’s oil sector, which was
nationalized in 1938, 41 and to help increase production capability. The reforms permit Pemex to create
incentive-based service contracts with private companies. Some analysts contend, however, that the
reforms did not go far enough and that they do little to help the company address its major challenges.
Economic collapse by 2020 absent plan because of the Mexican economies massive reliance on
oil…(Reforming energy is a prerequisite to tackling other problems like the drug war)
O’Sullivan, professor of international affairs, 12 (Meghan O’Sullivan, Professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of
Government, served on the National Security Council from 2004 to 2007, and was deputy national security advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan, 7-30-2012
“Mexican Oil Reforms Are Vital on Both Sides of the Border”, Bloomberg News, <http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-30/mexican-oil-reforms-arevital-on-both-sides-of-the-border.html> Date Accessed: 7-6-2013, BK)
In recent days a coalition of Mexican advocacy groups has been protesting in front of Televisa, the
country’s largest TV network, to contest the legitimacy of President-elect Enrique Pena Nieto’s July 1
victory. These protests are the second in a string of such demonstrations scheduled before Pena Nieto
takes office in December. They bode ill for Mexico’s near-term political future, pointing to a rocky
transition at a time when the challenges facing the country are anything but modest. Americans might
assume that tackling the drug trade that has resulted in more than 47,000 deaths since 2006 would top
the agenda. But a strong case can be made that energy reforms are at least as urgent, for if Mexico can’t stem
its sharply deteriorating energy situation, its ability to tackle other systemic problems will be severely compromised. Despite
some recent progress in diversifying its economy, Mexico still relies on oil for 30 percent of its fiscal revenue. Yet oil
production has plummeted from 3.4 million barrels a day in 2004 to 2.5 million in 2011, with most experts
predicting a continuing decline over the next decade. Absent changes, Mexico could be a net importer of oil by 2020, ceasing
exports to the U.S. altogether.
US needs to cooperate with Mexico in order to stop the massive “Dutch disease” the economy faces
with the oil industry especially with production declining
Barnes, Fellow at the Baker Institute, 11 (Joe Barnes, Bonner Means Baker, “Oil and U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Relations”, James A. Baker
Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, April 2011 <http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/EF-pub-BarnesBilateral-04292011.pdf> Date Accessed:
7-6-2013 BK)
In summary, the slow decline of Mexican oil production, in and of itself, is unlikely to have a dramatic impact on
international petroleum markets or prompt any dramatic response from the United States. There is,
however, one set of circumstances which this decline would capture Washington’s attention. That is the extent to
which it contributes to significant instability in Mexico. There is already a short- to medium-term risk of substantial instability
in Mexico. As noted, the country is enduring extremely high levels of drug-related violence. Even if the
51
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexican government eventually succeeds in its efforts to suppress this violence, the process is likely to be
expensive, bloody, and corrosive in terms of human rights. A period of feeble economic growth, combined with a
fiscal crisis associated with a drop in revenues from Pemex, could create a “perfect storm” south of the border. If this were
to occur, Washington would have no choice but to respond. In the longer-term, the United States has a clear
interest in robust economic growth and fiscal sustainability in Mexico.
52
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Internals – Jobs
U.S.-Mexico renewable energy cooperation improves rural standards of living, produces jobs and
economic opportunity.
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ‘10
(Duncan, May 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.p
df, accessed 7-1-2013, SB)
This study examines one of the most important and potentially lucrative dimensions of the growth of the
renewable energy sector in Mexico, namely bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States.
The 2009 bilateral framework should be seen in the context of an emerging trend in Mexico towards renewable energy, and
as recognition of the need for the United States to take advantage of this if it is to meet its own carbon emissions reduction
goals. The long border shared by the two countries, so often seen as a point of conflict due to the thorny issues of
migration, drugs and security, holds the potential to benefit both states through the trade in renewable energy from wind,
geothermal, biomass and solar sources. But the promise of collaboration in the sector goes far beyond the border. The US has
been engaged with Mexico in RE issues for over 15 years now on multiple levels, and this has brought tangible results that
have had a significant impact on both Mexico and on bilateral relations. US engagement with Mexico in the area of
renewable energy has been driven by three main concerns. First, the US government has focused much of its efforts over
the last 15 years on using renewable energy applications to improve living standards and business opportunities for
Mexicans living in rural areas. Second, the contribution of RE to climate change mitigation strategies has become a central
pillar in US work in the area. Mexico’s impressive potential for RE offers great hope for the reduction of current dependence on
fossil fuels. Third, the possibility of satisfying the US growing demand for RE from Mexican sources has not been lost on
decision‐makers in both countries, and collaborative work has progressed toward this goal. Although the second
and third of these concerns have been dominant in recent discussions of renewable energy, the first
should not be overlooked. In fact it has played a much more important role in the history of cooperation
in renewable energy and has had a profound impact on the lives of Mexicans. Renewable energy technologies
can give access to electricity to rural communities that lack connections to the national grid. Such access is fundamental in
many ways to granting a basic standard of living, but it is particularly important in enhancing the prospects for small
and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Providing electricity to a small farmer can give him the capacity to better irrigate
his fields, to work later into the evening once he has electric light, to refrigerate perishable goods such as fruits,
fish and meat so that he does not have to take his goods to market each and every day, and allows the farmer to think
beyond the mere harvest of produce to products that have a higher degree of value added. The argument of this
paper is that, though many of the opportunities created by bilateral cooperation in the past have gone unexploited
by US actors, the long‐term impact of this cooperation has been highly beneficial, both for Mexico as a country, producing jobs,
new sources of alternative energy, and economic opportunities. For the United States, the development of the RE sector in
Mexico offers hope to states such California as they seek to satisfy growing demand for renewable energy. Continued
cooperation in the areas of geothermal wind, solar, and biofuels are therefore vital if Mexico’s true potential is to be fully
realized.
Renewable energy improves Mexican money- Job access and US investment
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ‘10
(Duncan, May 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.p
df, accessed 7-1-2013, SB)
The project facility, originally named SES Solar Two but now renamed Imperial Valley Solar, will have an
installed capacity of 750 MW, and would be constructed in two phases, costing $2.2 billion . Phase I employs 12,000
SunCatchers, with a generating capacity of 300 MW. Phase II would consist of around 18,000
53
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
SunCatchers, to produce the final 750 MW capacity. The project is located on over 6000 acres of Federal
(Bureau of Land Management) land 14 miles west of El Centro and close to the border with Arizona and
Mexico. This project will take advantage of the Sunrise Power link when it is completed, to transport its
electricity to markets in western California. San Diego Gas and Electric has already contracted to
purchase 300 MW of this electricity. 48 Cheyey, Tom, “A tale of two moduling plants: Kyocera, Heliene
pursue different paths to tap North American market”, http://www.pv‐
tech.org/chip_shots/_a/atale_of_two_moduling_plants_kyocera_heliene_take_different_paths_to_tap_n/
36 Photo: Sterling Energy System’s SunCatcher Solar Energy Generator (reproduced by permission of
Stirling Energy Systems, inc. and Tessera Solar) Although the project had to be cut back from 900 to 750
MW because of “cultural resources” located at the eastern end of the site, it is still a massive solar energy
plant. The success of the Imperial Valley Solar projects raises the possibility of expansion across the border into Mexico,
where land costs are much lower and construction costs should decrease. This would allow for greater economies of
scale, provided the electricity could be transmitted across the border. The proximity of the site to Mexicali
means that there is a source of labor, and the nearness of La Rumorosa is intriguing. If authorities begin to think about the full
potential of combined renewable energy generating capacity in the region, the logic for a cross border transmission link
becomes much clearer. The benefits for the local Mexican community would be enormous in terms of employment and
investment. Looking at the Imperial Valley Solar project, between 300‐700 construction jobs will be created over a
3‐4 year period, injecting more than US$ 60,000,000 into the local economy in the form of payroll .49 The project also
promises to create jobs in the automobile sector, as the four‐cylinder engines that are used are produced
in automotive plants. Beyond construction, around 160 permanent jobs will be created through the project.
Renewables create “green” jobs
Hernandez et al,Department of Industrial Engineering and Operations,
Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México,2012 (Sergio,Bernardo Duarte Rodríguez-Granada,Omar
Romero-Hernandez,Duncan Wood, “Solar Energy Potential
in Mexico’s Northern Border
States”,http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Border_Solar_Romero_0.pdf, SB)
The development of clean energy creates many local jobs. In fact, according to the United Nations Environment Programme
report on green jobs, non-fossil fuel technologies create more jobs per unit of capacity installed than coal and natural gas .25
Green jobs, which are jobs that play a direct role in reducing the negative environmental impact of enterprises and economic
sectors, can also protect the economy from the political and economic risks associated with over-reliance on a limited array of
energy technologies and fuels. Because Solar Energy Projects are new to Mexico, they are hard to establish,
finance and develop. Accurate calculations of the potential of these projects for job creation can help overcome these
obstacles since reducing poverty levels and raising employment rates is a major goal throughout Mexico. Government and
private companies are equally interested in fulfilling this objective, along with raising GDP and income.
The development of a solar industry can be analyzed from three perspectives: 1) the manufacturing of
the equipment (either thermal or photovoltaic), 2) their suppliers, and, 3) the installation and use of the
solar solutions. These three are generally assumed to be independent systems, each with their own
supply chain, suppliers, workforce, logistics, etc. For instance, the copper provider making the strips in a
PV panel is different from the copper provider who manufactures connecting wires. Another example is a
photovoltaic manufacturing plant that produces several models of panels and uses local manpower and
energy sources. Their suppliers provide the required goods to produce the panel and its packaging (cells,
copper strips, chemicals, EVA, glass, electronics, aluminum profiles for the frame, cardboard, packaging
supplies, etc.). While some of these suppliers will be located in the vicinity of the manufacturing plant, the
selection of suppliers cannot be based solely on the proximity to the plant or the cost; there are other
important dimensions to be taken into account. In a specialized product such as PVs, quality is of
paramount importance since the products are made to be long-lasting, with warranties in the order of
20–25 years.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Renewables help the Mexican economy
54
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ‘10
(Duncan, May 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.p
df, accessed 7-1-2013, SB)
Economic spillover: It is clear that the development of renewable energy projects brings economic benefits to the areas in
which they are located, not merely through the generation of electricity or the production of fuel, but also through the
spillover effect in terms of employment, infrastructure spending, services, and the potential for creating industries focused on
manufacturing equipment and components. Renewable energy technologies tend to create more jobs per
unit of energy generated than their conventional energy counterparts . This is because the RE
sector tends to create jobs not only in the generation of electricity and fuel and in the manufacture of equipment and parts, but
also indirectly in the form of maintenance, repairs and services . It is estimated that more than three million people are
employed in the RE sector worldwide, and in Mexico the government has suggested that the sector could employ
up to 100, 000 people if it were implemented alongside a complementary industrial policy.3 A second
level of economic benefit stems from the potential for energy cost savings for local authorities who decide to purchase their
electricity from renewable energy sources. In Mexico, for example, the lower cost of wind energy in relation to power
generated through conventional means by the Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), has encouraged municipal authorities
to purchase wind energy for public lighting and buildings. These cost savings mean that the government has the opportunity
to use those funds for other public purposes. If public authorities such as state governments are themselves
partners in green energy generation projects, the resulting profits may be employed as a way of
providing subsidies to the local population. This will help to secure local approval of RE projects. Lastly,
we should point to the significant infrastructure investments that often accompany renewable energy projects. As wind
and solar plants are often located in remote areas, it may be necessary to build roads and bring in water supplies to make
them viable. Of course transmission lines will also be needed to transport the electrons generated to
market. All of this infrastructure spending is another potential source of employment and income for local citizens and
businesses, but also implies a potential obstacle due to financing limitations.
Renewable energy cooperation with Mexico would reduce costs to the United States as well as
provide jobs and inject money into the Mexican economy
Wood, Senior associate at CSIS, 10, (Director of the Program in International Relations at the Instituto Tecnológico Autónomo de México (ITAM). PhD in Political Studies from
Queen’s University. He was technical secretary of the Red Mexicana de Energia, experts in the area of energy policy in Mexico. He is a Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
May 2010, Duncan, “Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies” Accessed 7-5-2013, BK)
Although the project had to be cut back from900 to 750 MW because of “cultural resources” located at¶ the
eastern end of the site, it is still a massive solar energy plant. The success of the Imperial Valley Solar ¶ projects raises the
possibility of expansion across the border into Mexico, where land costs are much¶ lower and construction costs
should decrease. This would allow for greater economies of scale, provided¶ the electricity could be transmitted across the
border. The proximity of the site to Mexicali means that ¶ there is a source of labor, and the nearness of La Rumorosa is
intriguing. If authorities begin to think¶ about the full potential of combined renewable energy generating capacity in the
region, the logic for a¶ cross border transmission link becomes much clearer.¶ The benefits for the local Mexican community
would be enormous in terms of employment and¶ investment. Looking at the Imperial Valley Solar project, between 300‐
700 construction jobs will be¶ created over a 3‐4 year period, injecting more than US $60,000,000 into the local economy
in the form¶ of payroll.49 The project also promises to create jobs in the automobile sector, as the four‐cylinder¶
engines that are used are produced in automotive plants. Beyond construction, around 160 permanent¶ jobs will
be created through the project.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
55
Economic Integration – Impacts – Global Econ
Economic cooperation between the US and Mexico is key to the global economy, China and Japan
can’t sustain.
Schiffer, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, 2013 (Michael Schiffer, February, “A More Ambitious Agenda: A Report of the
Inter-American Dialogue’s commission on Mexico-US relations.” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf
Date Accessed 7-5-2013, BK)
The first is to reinforce and deepen economic cooperation. That includes increasing the productivity and international
competitiveness of both nations, opening opportunities for longterm growth and job creation, and setting the stage for
further economic integration. In a world of persistent, widespread economic insecurity, the more the United States and Mexico
coordinate and integrate their economies, the more ably they can compete for global markets . Their economic cooperation is
more vital than ever as drivers of the global economy falter—as the European financial crisis persists, as China enters a period
of slower growth, as Japan remains stalled, and as many emerging markets appear increasingly vulnerable . Among the
concrete objectives the two countries should consider are development of a framework to make their
shared labor markets more efficient and equitable; formation of a coherent North American energy
market (which could help meet the needs of energy-poor Central America); and coordination among the
United States, Mexico, and Canada in negotiations toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
56
Economic Integration – Impacts – Competitiveness
Economic cooperation between the US and Mexico is key to the global economy, China and Japan
can’t sustain.
Schiffer, President of the Inter-American Dialogue, 2013 (Michael Schiffer, February, “A More Ambitious Agenda: A Report of the
Inter-American Dialogue’s commission on Mexico-US relations.” http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD9042_USMexicoReportEnglishFinal.pdf
Date Accessed 7-5-2013, BK)
The first is to reinforce and deepen economic cooperation. That includes increasing the productivity and international
competitiveness of both nations, opening opportunities for longterm growth and job creation, and setting the stage for
further economic integration. In a world of persistent, widespread economic insecurity, the more the United States and Mexico
coordinate and integrate their economies, the more ably they can compete for global markets . Their economic cooperation is
more vital than ever as drivers of the global economy falter—as the European financial crisis persists, as China enters a period
of slower growth, as Japan remains stalled, and as many emerging markets appear increasingly vulnerable . Among the
concrete objectives the two countries should consider are development of a framework to make their
shared labor markets more efficient and equitable; formation of a coherent North American energy
market (which could help meet the needs of energy-poor Central America); and coordination among the
United States, Mexico, and Canada in negotiations toward the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).
57
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexican Stability – Impacts – Heg
Mexican Stability is Critical to U.S. Hegemony
Kaplan, Chief Geopolitical Analyst at Stratfor, 12 [Kaplan, March 2012, Stratfor, “With the
Focus on Syria, Mexico Burns,” http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/focus-syria-mexico-burns,
accessed 7/5/13, AR)
While the foreign policy elite in Washington focuses on the 8,000 deaths in a conflict in Syria -- half a world away from the United States -- more than 47,000
people have died in drug-related violence since 2006 in Mexico. A deeply troubled state as well as a demographic and economic giant on the
United States' southern border, Mexico will affect America's destiny in coming decades more than any state or combination of
states in the Middle East. Indeed, Mexico may constitute the world's seventh-largest economy in the near future. Certainly, while the
Mexican violence is largely criminal, Syria is a more clear-cut moral issue, enhanced by its own strategic consequences. A calcified authoritarian regime in
Damascus is stamping out dissent with guns and artillery barrages. Moreover, regime change in Syria, which the rebels demand, could deliver a pivotal blow
to Iranian influence in the Middle East, an event that would be the best news to U.S. interests in the region in years or even decades. Nevertheless, the Syrian
rebels are divided and hold no territory, and the toppling of pro-Iranian dictator Bashar al Assad might conceivably bring to power an austere Sunni regime
equally averse to U.S. interests -- if not lead to sectarian chaos. In other words, all military intervention scenarios in Syria are fraught with extreme risk.
Precisely for that reason, that the U.S. foreign policy elite has continued for months to feverishly debate Syria, and in many cases advocate armed intervention,
while utterly ignoring the vaster panorama of violence next door in Mexico, speaks volumes about Washington's own obsessions and interests, which are not
always aligned with the country's geopolitical interests. Syria matters and matters momentously to U.S. interests, but Mexico ultimately
matters more, so one would think that there would be at least some degree of parity in the amount written on these subjects. I
am not demanding a switch in news coverage from one country to the other, just a bit more balance. Of course, it is easy for pundits to have a fervently
interventionist view on Syria precisely because it is so far away, whereas miscalculation in Mexico on America's part would carry far greater
consequence. For example, what if the Mexican drug cartels took revenge on San Diego? Thus, one might even argue that the very noise in the
media about Syria, coupled with the relative silence about Mexico, is proof that it is the latter issue that actually is too sensitive for loose talk. It may also be
that cartel-wracked Mexico -- at some rude subconscious level -- connotes for East Coast elites a south of the border, 7-Eleven store culture, reminiscent of the
crime movie "Traffic," that holds no allure to people focused on ancient civilizations across the ocean. The concerns of Europe and the Middle East certainly
seem closer to New York and Washington than does the southwestern United States. Indeed, Latin American bureaus and studies departments simply lack the
cachet of Middle East and Asian ones in government and universities. Yet , the fate of Mexico is the hinge on which the United States' cultural
and demographic future rests. U.S. foreign policy emanates from the domestic condition of its society, and nothing will affect its
society more than the dramatic movement of Latin history northward. By 2050, as much as a third of the American population
could be Hispanic. Mexico and Central America constitute a growing demographic and economic powerhouse with which the
United States has an inextricable relationship. In recent years Mexico's economic growth has outpaced that of its northern
neighbor. Mexico's population of 111 million plus Central America's of more than 40 million equates to half the population of
the United States. Because of the North American Free Trade Agreement, 85 percent of Mexico's exports go to the United
States, even as half of Central America's trade is with the United States. While the median age of Americans is nearly 37, demonstrating the
aging tendency of the U.S. population, the median age in Mexico is 25, and in Central America it is much lower (20 in Guatemala and Honduras, for example).
In part because of young workers moving northward, the destiny of the United States could be north-south, rather than the east-west, sea-to-shining-sea of
continental and patriotic myth. (This will be amplified by the scheduled 2014 widening of the Panama Canal, which will open the Greater Caribbean Basin to
megaships from East Asia, leading to the further development of Gulf of Mexico port cities in the United States, from Texas to Florida.) Since 1940,
Mexico's population has increased more than five-fold. Between 1970 and 1995 it nearly doubled. Between 1985 and 2000 it rose by more than
a third. Mexico's population is now more than a third that of the United States and growing at a faster rate. And it is northern
Mexico that is crucial. That most of the drug-related homicides in this current wave of violence that so much dwarfs Syria's have occurred in only six of
Mexico's 32 states, mostly in the north, is a key indicator of how northern Mexico is being distinguished from the rest of the country (though the violence in
the city of Veracruz and the regions of Michoacan and Guerrero is also notable). If the military-led offensive to crush the drug cartels launched
by conservative President Felipe Calderon falters, as it seems to be doing, and Mexico City goes back to cutting deals with the
cartels, then the capital may in a functional sense lose even further control of the north , with concrete implications for the southwestern
United States. One might argue that with massive border controls, a functional and vibrantly nationalist United States can coexist with a dysfunctional and
somewhat chaotic northern Mexico. But that is mainly true in the short run. Looking deeper into the 21st century, as Arnold Toynbee notes in A Study of
History (1946), a border between a highly developed society and a less highly developed one will not attain an equilibrium but
will advance in the more backward society's favor. Thus, helping to stabilize Mexico -- as limited as the United States' options
may be, given the complexity and sensitivity of the relationship -- is a more urgent national interest than stabilizing societies
in the Greater Middle East. If Mexico ever does reach coherent First World status, then it will become less of a threat, and the healthy melding of the two
societies will quicken to the benefit of both. Today, helping to thwart drug cartels in rugged and remote terrain in the vicinity of the Mexican frontier and
reaching southward from Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) means a limited role for the U.S. military and other agencies -- working, of
course, in full cooperation with the Mexican authorities. (Predator and Global Hawk drones fly deep over Mexico searching for drug production facilities.) But
the legal framework for cooperation with Mexico remains problematic in some cases because of strict interpretation of 19th century posse comitatus laws on
the U.S. side. While the United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars to affect historical outcomes in Eurasia, its leaders and foreign policy mandarins
are somewhat passive about what is happening to a country with which the United States shares a long land border, that verges on partial chaos in some of its
northern sections, and whose population is close to double that of Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Mexico, in addition to the obvious challenge of
China as a rising great power, will help write the American story in the 21st century. Mexico will partly determine what kind of
society America will become, and what exactly will be its demographic and geographic character, especially in the Southwest.
The U.S. relationship with China will matter more than any other individual bilateral relationship in terms of determining the United States' place in the world,
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
58
especially in the economically crucial Pacific. If policymakers in Washington calculate U.S. interests properly regarding those two critical countries, then the
United States will have power to spare so that its elites can continue to focus on serious moral questions in places that matter less.¶
59
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexican Econ – Impacts – Terrorism
Economic decline would massively increase Immigration and increase Terrorism.
Brown, Undersecretary for the DHS, 09 (Michael Brown, Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Department of
Homeland Security, “Border Control: Collapse of Mexico Is A Homeland Security & National Security Issue,” January 14 th 2009,
<http://www.michaelbrowntoday.com/2009/01/border-control-collapse-of-mexico-is-a-homeland-security-national-security-issue/> Date Accessed: 7-92013, BK)
In terms of worse-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large and important states
bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. The Mexican possibility may
seem less likely, but the government, its politicians, police and judicial infrastructure are all under
sustained assault and press by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the
next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos would
demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone. This is the border crossing
at San Ysidro, California and Tijuana, Mexico. On a good day. This is the border along the Arizona-Mexico
boundary line. By failing to secure the borders and control immigration, we have opened ourselves up to a frightening
scenario. The United States could face a flood of refugees from Mexico if it were to collapse, overwhelming state and local
governments along the U.S.-Mexico border. During a time of economic duress, the costs would be overwhelming and would
simply add to the already burgeoning costs at the federal level. Immigration and border control never
was nor should it ever be about racism. Immigration and border control are national security and homeland security
issues. Sleeper cells from numerous terrorist groups could, and probably already have, infiltrated the United States, just laying
in wait to attack at an appropriately vulnerable time.
Mexican economic decline causes a flood of refugees, resulting in terrorism.
Brown ‘9 (Michael Brown, Undersecretary of Emergency Preparedness and Response in the Department
of Homeland Security, “Border Control: Collapse of Mexico Is A Homeland Security & National Security
Issue,” 1/14/2009, http://michaelbrowntoday.com/journal/2009/1/15/border-control-collapse-ofmexico-is-a-homeland-security-nat.html)
By failing to secure the borders and control immigration, we have opened ourselves up to a frightening
scenario. The United States could face a flood of refugees from Mexico if it were to collapse,
overwhelming state and local governments along the U.S.-Mexico border. During a time of economic
duress, the costs would be overwhelming and would simply add to the already burgeoning costs at the
federal level. Immigration and border control never was nor should it ever be about racism. Immigration and border control are national security and
homeland security issues. Sleeper cells from numerous terrorist groups could, and probably already have,
infiltrated the United States, just laying in wait to attack at an appropriately vulnerable time.
Terrorism on the border culminates in a biological and/or nuclear attack on the United States
Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, 10 (Ken Timmerman, Newsmax correspondent, “FBI Director Mueller: Al-Qaida Still Wants
Nuclear Bomb,” 3-18-2010, <http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/mueller-fbi-alqaida-nuclear/2010/03/18/id/353169> Date Accessed: 7-9-2013, BK)
FBI Director Robert Mueller warned Congress on Wednesday of ongoing al-Qaida efforts to acquire weapons of mass
destruction to attack the United States. “Al-Qaida remains committed to its goal of conducting attacks inside the
United States,” Mueller told a House appropriations subcommittee. “Further, al-Qaida’s continued efforts to
access chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious threat to the United States.” To accomplish its
goals of new attacks on the American homeland, al-Qaida “seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no
known nexus to terrorism into the United States using both legal and illegal methods of entry,” Mueller said. In
February, Sheikh Abdullah al-Nasifi, a known al-Qaida recruiter in Kuwait, boasted on al Jazeera television that Mexico’s
border with the United States was the ideal infiltration point for terrorists seeking to attack America. “Four pounds of anthrax
– in a suitcase this big – carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S., are guaranteed to kill 330,000
Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there,” al-Nasifi said. "There is no
need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on. One person, with the courage to carry four pounds of anthrax,
will go to the White House lawn, and will spread this 'confetti' all over them, and then will do these cries
60
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
of joy. It will turn into a real 'celebration,'" al-Nasifi said. "9/11 will be small change in comparison. Am I right?"¶
Mueller echoed those threats in his congressional testimony Wednesday, reminding lawmakers that a
2008 National Intelligence Estimate on the threat of a terrorist WMD attack “concluded that it remains the
intent of terrorist adversaries to seek the means and capability to use WMD against the United States at home and abroad. Ӧ
Citing the final report of the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and
Terrorism issued in December 2008, he warned that “the risks are growing faster than our multilayered defenses”
to prevent such an attack.¶ The WMD commission report warned that without urgent and decisive action, “it was
more likely than not that terrorists would attack a major city somewhere in the world with a weapon of mass destruction
by 2013.Ӧ Although not discounting a possible terrorist nuclear attack, the commission concluded that
“terrorists are more likely to obtain and use a biological weapon than a nuclear weapon,” and noted that this
“conclusion was publicly affirmed by then Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell.” “Osama bin Laden has said that
obtaining WMDs [sic] is a 'religious duty' and is reported to have sought to perpetrate a 'Hiroshima' on United States soil ,”
Mueller told lawmakers. “Globalization makes it easier for terrorists, groups, and lone actors to gain access to and
transfer WMD materials, knowledge, and technology throughout the world.”
61
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
US Econ Key to Global Econ
US econ key to the global econ
Marr, notable author and omniscientific cosmologist, 2012
(Anthony, Nov. 13, Cyrano’s Journal Today, “Global Effect of U.S. ECONOMIC COLLAPSE and FISCAL
CLIFF,” http://www.cjournal.info/2012/11/23/global-effect-of-u-s-economic-collapse-and-fiscal-cliff/,
accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
This is about the global effects in the event of a likely ECONOMIC COLLAPSE in the U.S. around 2014-2015 versus the planned
FISCAL CLIFF to be implemented in January 2013. This is not just economic theory. It concerns the daily lives of each and
every one of us.¶ First let me define these in layman’s terms:¶ “ECONOMIC COLLAPSE” means first and foremost
HYPERINFLATION, where the currency value plunges significantly if not totally over a short time period, which would be
caused primarily by the exponentially burgeoning national debt load, currently standing at $16 Trillion, where the interest
alone could out-weigh the entire national revenue, plus the loss of confidence in the said currency on a global basis. To
illustrate this, the world has seen 57 bouts of hyperinflation in history. The 5th most severe one was in Germany in 1923,
when prices doubled every 4.7 DAYS, which led to the rise of Hitler, the Nazis, the Jewish persecution, WW2 and the Holocaust.
The top two most severe were in Hungary in 1946 and in Zimbabwe in 2008, when the prices doubled every 15 HOURS. Prices
doubling means the currency value halving. So, if prices double in the U.S. once every month, then the U.S. Dollar’s value would
be halved once every month. Your pay check, or pension check, would still show the same number of dollars, but your
purchasing power would shrink accordingly. Lay-offs and home foreclosures would be rampant, numerous companies would
fold, and unemployment would skyrocket. If the Dollar falls, say, to 20 cents of today’s value, a gallon of gasoline would cost
$40, for starters. This would cause the transportation system, for one, to grind to a halt, leading to shortages and outrages of a
full range of goods and services, including food, fuel, medicines, manufacturing parts, etc. People not laid-off would leave their
jobs in droves, and all kinds of systems would fail, including electricity, water, even police and the military. By the German
example, the social effects could be horrendous. This could happen any time; the latest estimate I have come across is 2015. ¶
The “FISCAL CLIFF”, planned to take effect as of 2013. This is basically a self-administered austerity measure, or “belttightening”, towards reducing the burgeoning of the national debt. Instead of the nation borrowing more and more to maintain
its standard of living and the facade of prosperity, it raises revenue, mostly by taxes increases to the tune of some $500 Billion,
and expenditure reduction by about $110 Billion, mostly in cuts of non-essential social programs and the military, about
50/50. By these measures, the national could pull upwards of $600 Billion from the economy, thus alleviating the need to
borrow the same amount. The result, of course, would be a diminished economy, where the purchasing power of the average
consumer, and thus consumer goods transactions, would be reduced, and lay-offs, business closure and home foreclosures
would rise. A new recession would descend across the land, and many would suffer, but this would hopefully forestall a full
scale depression, and hopefully postpone it indefinitely.¶ Now what would the global effects of this FISCAL CLIFF be?
Considering that the U.S. is the largest consumer of imported good, all nations exporting their goods to the U.S. would be
drawn into the recession. Canada comes to mind, since the U.|S. is its biggest trading partner. If American demand for fuel
decreases, Canadian oil exports will be dealt a blow – which from an environmental view point is a good thing.
China is the largest exporter of consumer goods to the U.S. – check the labels of most items in Wal-Mart or Costco. If Americans
buy less, China will export less. Chinese manufacturing will decline, and fall back on domestic consumption. But if the
manufacturing sector shrinks, there will likewise be corresponding lay-offs in China, and the purchasing power of Chinese
consumers will likewise decline, and so will the Chinese economy. The E.U. is already in serious economic turmoil, and any
reduction of European exports to the U.S. will deal the European economy a serius blow.¶ And in the case of an American
ECONOMIC COLLAPSE? Its global effects will that as depicted in the above paragraph times 10 or more. So, all in all, the FISCAL
CLIFF and the ECONOMIC COLLAPSE are lose-lose proposition. Our decision is in whether we want to lose medium, or lose
huge.
62
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
AT: Econ Sustainable
Mexican collapse is likely- laundry list
Debusmann, journalist for the New York Times: America, 9
(Bernd, January 9, 2009, New York Times: America, “Among top U.S. fears: A failed Mexican state”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/world/americas/09iht-letter.1.19217792.html, accessed
7/9/13, JA)
What do Pakistan and Mexico have in common? They figure in the nightmares of U.S. military planners trying to peer into the
future and identify the next big threats.¶ The two countries are mentioned in the same breath in a just-published study by
the United States Joint Forces Command, whose jobs include providing an annual look into the future to prevent the U.S.
military from being caught off guard by unexpected developments.¶ "In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint
Force and indeed the world, two large and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan
and Mexico," says the study - called Joint Operating Environment 2008 - in a chapter on "weak and failing
states." Such states, it says, usually pose chronic, long-term problems that can be managed over time.¶
But the little-studied phenomenon of "rapid collapse," according to the study, "usually comes as a surprise, has a
rapid onset, and poses acute problems." Think Yugoslavia and its disintegration in 1990 into a chaotic tangle of
warring nationalities and bloodshed on a horrific scale.¶ Nuclear-armed Pakistan, where Al Qaeda has
established safe havens in the rugged regions bordering Afghanistan, is a regular feature in dire
warnings. Thomas Fingar, who retired as the chief U.S. intelligence analyst in December, termed Pakistan
"one of the single most challenging places on the planet."¶ This is fairly routine language for Pakistan, but not
for Mexico, which shares a 2,000-mile, or 3,200-kilometer, border with the United States.¶ Mexico's mention beside
Pakistan in a study by an organization as weighty as the Joint Forces Command, which controls almost all
conventional forces based in the continental United States, speaks volumes about growing concern over what is
happening south of the U.S. border.¶ Vicious and widening violence pitting drug cartels against each other and
against the Mexican state have left more than 8,000 Mexicans dead over the past two years. Kidnappings
have become a routine part of Mexican daily life. Common crime is widespread. Pervasive corruption has
hollowed out the state.¶ In November, in a case that shocked even those (on both sides of the border)
who consider corruption endemic in Mexico, the former drug czar Noé Ramírez was charged with
accepting at least $450,000 a month in bribes from a drug cartel in exchange for information about police
and anti-narcotics operations.¶ A month later, a Mexican army major, Arturo González, was arrested on
suspicion that he sold information about President Felipe Calderón's movements for $100,000 a month.
González belonged to a special unit responsible for protecting the president.¶ Depending on one's view,
the arrests are successes in a publicly declared anticorruption drive or evidence of how deeply criminal
mafias have penetrated the organs of the state.¶ According to the Joint Forces study, a sudden collapse in
Mexico is less likely than in Pakistan, "but the government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under
sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several
years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican state."¶ It added: "Any descent by Mexico into chaos would
demand an American response based on the serious implications for homeland security alone."¶ What form such a response
might take is anyone's guess, and the study does not spell it out, nor does it address the economic implications
of its worst-case scenario. Mexico is the third biggest trade partner of the United States (after Canada and
China) and its third-biggest supplier of oil (after Canada and Saudi Arabia).¶
63
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
***Relations Adv
64
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
UQ – Relations Down Now
The US and Mexico are rivals – relations are tense
Madhani, White House Correspondent, 2013
(Aamer, May 29, National Journal, “With U.S.-Mexican Relations Tense, Calderon and Obama Talk,”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/whitehouse/with-u-s-mexican-relations-tense-calderon-and-obamatalk-20110303, accessed 07/05/13, CBC)
With relations between their two nations at their most fraught in recent years, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and
President Obama will sit down at the White House today for talks.¶ Calderon’s visit comes a little more than two weeks
after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata was gunned down on a highway in northern Mexico.
The relationship had already been muddled by U.S. diplomatic cables unearthed by WikiLeaks showing American officials
lacking confidence in Calderon’s handling of Mexico’s interminable drug war. And before Calderon’s visit was announced by
the White House last week, the Mexican president vented his frustration with efforts by the Drug Enforcement
Administration, CIA, and, ICE to stymie Mexico’s drug trade.¶ "The reality is that they don't coordinate with each other,
they're rivals," Calderon said in an interview last week with El Universal, a Mexico City newspaper.
Relations low now – Obama realizes that building the strained relations is a top priority
Tuckman, correspondent in Mexico for the Guardian, 2013
(Jo, May 3, the Guardian, “Barrack Obama Calls for ‘New Realities’ and Improved US – Mexico Relations,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/03/barack-obama-mexico-enrique-pena-nieto, accessed
07/05/13, CBC)
"It is time to put old mind sets aside and time to recognize new realities," Obama said, in a speech to hundreds of
Mexican students interspersed with political leaders. The relationship, he said, should not be defined by threats but
by shared prosperity.¶ This message of mutual respect, partnership and economic potential has dominated Obama's twoday visit to Mexico, which began on Thursday with a meeting with the country's new president, Enrique
Peña Nieto.¶ In the press conference that followed, the emphasis on the economy dovetailed with an effort to defuse
underlying tensions over America's role in Mexico's drug wars , by stressing that US collaboration would be
respectful of the new government's promise to prioritize reducing violence rather than going after the
cartels.¶ Obama's speech, which was delivered in the impressive setting of the National Anthropology
Museum, was filled with eulogies to Mexican cultural and historical figures, from the painter Frida Kahlo
to the Independence hero Miguel Hidalgo. Periodic phrases delivered in Spanish – such as "Es un placer
estar entre amigos," or "It is a pleasure to be among friends" – earned cheers.¶ But the speech also
contained much that seemed designed to convince the president's domestic audience that Mexico's
economic potential should allay fears generated by the bipartisan initiative on immigration reform that is
currently making its way through Congress. Obama said he was "absolutely convinced" that reform could
be passed this year.¶ While the president called on Mexicans to put aside their traditional vision of the US as either
disrespectful of national sovereignty or isolationist, he put most stress on the need for the US to go beyond the perceptions
created by headlines about violence and concerns about border security. ¶
Cooperation between the US and Mexico is low, and now is key to reshape the partnership
Stratfor Global Intelligence, a geopolitical intelligence firm that provides strategic analysis organizations
around the world, 2013
(Stratfor Global Intelligence, May 2, Stratfor, “Evolving U.S.-Mexico Relations and Obama's Visit,” accessed
07/05/13, CBC)
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
65
U.S.-Mexican relations are strategically important to both countries, and Mexico's period of transition has created
opportunities for each to reshape the partnership. And although U.S. media attention has focused primarily on bilateral security issues ahead of
Obama's visit -- namely cooperation in Mexico's drug war -- the Pena Nieto administration is working with Washington to re-orient the cross-border
conversation to one centered primarily on mutual economic possibility. ¶ As the first member of Mexico's Institutional Revolutionary Party to win the
presidency this century, Pena Nieto has set about reconsolidating the party's control over the government while attempting to turn attention away from the
country's entrenched security issues and toward its economic opportunities. The pace of reform and political cooperation since the new government was
elected July 1 has been unusually high for Mexico.¶ Labor and education overhauls passed through the legislature relatively easily, and banking reforms
intended to broadly increase access to credit are set to be proposed once the legislature reconvenes in September. The administration still has an aggressive
to-do list remaining, with planned overhauls ranging from the telecommunications and energy sectors to issues such as taxation. The majority of the reforms
has been structural in nature and driven by economic imperatives, representing a notable shift in tempo and character from the previous government, which
saw its legislative efforts largely stall for years prior to the 2012 election. ¶ Domestic political factors will determine the success of the pending overhauls. But
the labor reform could improve bilateral commerce and investment with the United States, as would a successful liberalization of the country's energy sector
in the coming years. Mexico is already the United States' third-largest trading partner, and economic coordination between the two countries has become a
routine matter at the ministerial level, but there is still a need to ease bureaucratic trade and investment barriers. ¶ Pena Nieto's predecessor,
the National Action Party's Felipe Calderon, focused heavily on Mexico's security challenges and oversaw the sustained military offensive against criminal
organizations throughout the country. Pena Nieto has yet to elaborate much on his plans to address the security issues, but he has emphasized the need
to combat street violence and kidnappings, while playing down the importance of combating drug trafficking -- a U.S. priority.¶
But ahead of Obama's visit, certain details have emerged indicating that the Pena Nieto administration intends to change the nature of intelligence cooperation
between the United States and Mexico. Until now, the two countries' various law enforcement and intelligence agencies have been able to interact directly, but
Mexico's interior ministry will begin overseeing all intelligence collaboration. ¶ This centralization effort has not been isolated to cooperation with the United
States. The Mexican Interior Ministry has also taken charge of the federal police, and Pena Nieto intends to eventually create a national gendarmarie under the
interior secretariat in order to fill the role in the drug wars currently played by the Mexican military with a security body better equipped with law
enforcement training.¶ Thus, the extent and manner to which this centralization will affect security cooperation with the United States is unclear. But the
changes are primarily designed to give Mexico greater control over the intelligence process involved in combating the country's violent gangs. The intention is
not to block U.S. collaboration and assistance, but rather to reform existing structures. ¶ While Mexico reorients its internal focus to structural changes that its
leaders hope will lay foundations for economic development, the country could also be affected by domestic issues under debate in the United States. For
years, Mexico has been pressing the United States to enact stricter gun laws. Though a prominent gun control bill failed in the U.S. Senate on April 17, the issue
will likely re-emerge later in 2013, and at least some gun control measures currently enjoy broad popular support. Meanwhile, demographic changes in the
United States are driving a debate about immigration reform that, if implemented, would require collaboration with Mexico, many of whose citizens would
seek to legalize their residential status in the United States. ¶ Though the passage of these reforms will similarly be determined solely by U.S. domestic political
factors, their success would be a significant boon for bilateral relations with Mexico. Indeed, for Obama and Pena Nieto, the effects each feel of the other's
policy decisions will be magnified by the unique demographic, geographic and economic ties binding their countries. Yet, the domestic environment and
political calculations in each country will ultimately shape the effects of this period of political change. ¶ The U.S. political decision-making process
is largely isolated from international influence, and the Pena Nieto administration likewise appears to be consolidating key
policy areas under Mexican control at the expense of U.S. influence. Still, Mexico's steady emergence as an economic power in North America
sets the stage for a bilateral relationship much more heavily focused on opportunities for economic cooperation. ¶
The US and Mexico need to address their declining relations, and energy reform in Mexico is key
to the revival of their relations
Castaneda, New York University International Relations professor and past Foreign Secretary of Mexico,
2010
(Jorge, May 17, The Washington Post, “Time for a reset in U.S.-Mexican relations,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/16/AR2010051602951.html,
accessed 7/5/13, CBC)
Mexico should propose, and Obama should welcome, a new stage in bilateral relations whose purpose would be to build what
NAFTA left out and to reduce the development gap -- in income, welfare, technology, security, rule of law, health and education
-- between Mexico and its wealthier North American partners. The label is secondary to the substance: The concept
must include immigration reform in the United States; energy reform in Mexico; security concerns in both
countries but also convergence of standards and regulations; and legitimate security and border issues
across the region, but addressed honestly. For instance, Arizona's crime rates have dropped since
immigration from Mexico began to rise in the late 1990s. It should strive to coordinate policies so that
crisis in one country -- say, swine flu in Mexico or Lehman Brothers in the United States -- affects the
other only proportionately.
A prosperous, democratic and equitable Mexico is greatly in U.S. interests. If the United States is to rebuild its manufacturing
base, it will need Mexico. If it is going to compensate for its aging population, enhance security and concentrate on real
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
66
threats without worrying about its borders, it will need Mexico. If it hopes to establish different relationships with less
affluent nations, by preaching through example and constructing one next door, it will need Mexico.
And Mexico needs the United States if it aspires to become a consolidated middle-class society, achieve needed economic
growth, and provide security and the rule of law for citizens and visitors. All of this will not be achieved overnight, but
it can be accomplished in less than a generation if we begin today. Calderón's meeting with Obama could
be the "big idea" moment that starts us off.
Mexico is seen as a “problem” instead of a partner by the United States – problems like
immigration are preventing bilateral relations
Montealegre, Diplomatic Courier Contributor, 2013
(Oscar, Jan 24, Diplomatic Courier, “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor,”
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
It is not common knowledge that Mexico is the United States’ third largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. Every day, at
least a billion dollars of goods flows across the border. Yet, Mexico is frequently negatively caricaturized, primarily with images of
migrants illegally crossing the border into the U.S. and stealing U.S. jobs. Instead of viewing Mexico as a valuable partner that
can benefit the U.S. in many facets, it is perceived as a liability, a region that cultivates corruption and violence and is the root of
the current U.S. immigration ‘problem’ that has spurred controversial rogue measures like Arizona’s SB 1070. ¶ In matters of foreign
policy, Mexico is an afterthought—our attention and resources are diverted to the Middle East or to grand strategies based on
‘pivoting’ our geopolitical and economical capacity towards Asia. With the U.S. economy performing at a snail-like pace, an emphasis
on exports has re-emerged, but the bulk of the exporting narrative revolves around Asia. This is unfortunate, because our neighbor to
the south has quietly positioned itself to be the next jewel in the emerging markets portfolio. ¶ For example, Market Watch (a Wall Street
Journal subsidiary) recently published a bullish article on Mexico with the following headline: “Mexico: Investor’s New China”. The
Economist published an opinion piece titled “The Global Mexican: Mexico is open for business”, highlighting Mexican companies that
are investing locally and in the U.S. and arguing that Mexico is fertile ground for more investment, especially in the manufacturing
sector. And according to The Financial Times, BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) are no longer the flavor of the month;
Mexico is now taking over that distinction.¶ In essence, immigration and the drug trade will no longer anchor the relationship between
the U.S. and Mexico; instead, economics, finance, trade, and commerce will dictate the terms between the neighboring countries. ¶
However, in order to move forward, undoubtedly the elephant in the room must be addressed promptly. Immigration—
although the topic is polarizing, it is imperative that President Obama tackles this issue steadfastly and in the most bi-partisan
manner possible. It can be seen as one-sided that the onus is on the U.S., while Mexico gets carte blanche in its contradictory policy
with their border patrol methods towards Central American migrants entering through Guatemala. True, but when you are world’s super
power, not all is fair in love and war.¶ Fortifying borders, beefing up security, creating walls that divide the two countries that mimic
uncomfortable parallels between Israel and Palestine should not be the main focus. With the world becoming more flat, the emphasis in
tackling the immigration quagmire should be trade and commerce. Engagement, interaction, and the exchange of ideas should be the
picture we want to paint. We should not foster the argument that an open border policy and a global business paradigm will
compromise American jobs and bite into our distinctive American competitiveness. ¶ The reason Mexicans cross the border illegally into
the U.S. is because of one desire: opportunity. If Mexico develops a lasting robust economy, Mexicans will no longer desire to come to
the U.S. in such droves. According to Nelson Balido, President of the Border Trade Alliance, this already occurring: “Mexico’s economy
has, for the most part, weathered the worst of the economic downturn, meaning that more young Mexicans can reasonably seek and
find work in their patria rather than heading north.Ӧ A strong American economy is extremely favorable for Mexico. Turn the tables
a bit, and ponder what it means for the U.S. when a Mexican economy is robust and stable—more export possibilities for the
U.S.; more investment from the U.S. to Mexico, and vice versa, creating a win-win situation. Less need for Mexicans to leave
their homeland and look for jobs in the U.S.¶ Sounds familiar? The characteristics of many vibrant emerging markets such as China,
Indonesia, Brazil, and India, are occurring right next door. Why go East when we can venture South? Or perhaps, approach both
simultaneously. According to a Nomura Equity Research report, Mexico in the next decade will surpass Brazil in being Latin America’s
largest economy. When comparing Mexico on a GDP per capita basis, Mexico happens to be less developed than Argentina, Chile, and
Brazil. This might sound negative, but in actuality it should be music to investors’ ears: more catching up for Mexico, meaning more
investment and business activity.¶ Moreover, Mexico’s economy is highly interconnected with the U.S. economy. Currently, Mexico
sends almost 80 percent of its exports to the U.S., and roughly 50 percent of its imports are from the U.S. Manufacturing costs in
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
67
Mexico are once again competitive compared to China. Ten years ago, China’s labor costs were four times cheaper than Mexico, but
with labor wages in China inflating, Mexico now has a comparative advantage because its proximity to the U.S. Shipping cargo across
the Pacific can be more expensive and arduous, versus trucking cargo from northern Mexico and delivering to Wisconsin in a matter of
days.¶ However if the U.S. administration continues to close the borders, the exchange of commerce between Mexico and the
U.S. will suffer due to setbacks of just getting goods to cross the border. Luckily, NAFTA is already in place, but both parties (and
Canada) can do more to cut red tape and streamline the movement of trade and commerce.
The leaders of the US and Mexico must rebuild the relationship between the two countries in
order to capitalize on the relationship’s economic potential
Montealegre, Diplomatic Courier Contributor, 2013
(Oscar, Jan 24, Diplomatic Courier, “U.S.-Mexico Relations: Love Thy Neighbor,”
http://www.diplomaticourier.com/news/regions/latin-america/1331, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
The interconnectedness between both countries strongly conveys why the dialogue should revolve around bilateral trade and
commerce agendas. For Mexico, 30 percent of GDP is dependent on exports, and 80 percent of exports are tagged to the U.S. Most
importantly, one of ten Mexicans lives in the U.S., accounting for nearly 12 million Mexicans that consider the U.S. their current
residence. Add in their descendants, and approximately 33 million Mexicans and Mexican-Americans reside in the U.S. Let’s put this
figure in perspective: Venezuela has a population of 29 million; Greece, 11 million; and Canada, 34 million. Essentially we have a
‘country’ within a country—the beauty of America—but it must be embraced instead of shunned or ignored. Economically, it is a plus for
Mexico, because there is a market for Mexican products; it is also a plus for the U.S. in many areas, including soft power, diversity,
direct linkages to Mexico and Latin America. A cadre of American-born and educated human capital are able to cross cultures into
Mexico and Latin America to conduct business and politics.¶ The presidential election emphasized that Latinos in the U.S. are now a
vital demographic when concerning local, Congressional, and Presidential elections. It makes practical sense for the U.S. (regardless of
political party) to consider Mexico the front door to Central and South America. The most recent U.S. Census discovered that the Latino
population in the United States: 1) now tops 50 million; 2) has accounted for more than half of America’s 23.7 million population
increase in the last decade; 3) grew by 43 percent in the last decade; and 4) now accounts for about 1 out of 6 Americans. Latinos are
now the largest minority group in the United States. These are extraordinary figures that should be leveraged into something positive.¶
President Obama cannot respond by merely paying lip service to the Latino community. Latino voters have overwhelmingly backed
President Obama for two elections now, but no favor is done with complete altruism. Surprisingly, during President Obama’s first term,
there were 30 percent more deportations than during George W. Bush’s second term. Yet there is hope that President Obama will fix
the broken system with a more humane approach, contrary to laws that are being pushed and backed by the Republican Party in
Arizona, Georgia, and Alabama. Some may ask—what does this have to do with Mexico, or even Latin America? It is all about
messages, and in the next four years the President must use the available tools to solidify relationships with its partners,
paving the road for more trade and commerce, which ultimately will further strengthen the U.S. economy . What happens in the
U.S. means a lot to many countries, and immigration is perhaps one of the most important matters in Mexico, Central, and South
America.¶ The U.S. must first focus on re-branding its relationship with Mexico. President Obama and Mexican President Peña
Nieto need to formulate a new agenda between the two countries—one that resonates with the 21st century, linking the two
countries economically; where the U.S. can envision Mexico as a vibrant emerging market in its own backyard. Obstacles do exist,
like the current Mexican drug war and political corruption. But don’t India and China have corruption problems as well? ¶ A page
will be turned in the next four years. The question remains if progress, commonalities, and cooperation will be spearheaded in
unison by both countries’ leaders.
Relations between the US and Mexico are in a time of transition – it is essential for the two
countries to cooperate on key issues to boost relations
Seelke, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, 2013
(Clare, Jan 16, Congressional Research Service, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42917.pdf, accessed
7/6/13, CBC)
Answers to some of these questions will depend largely upon the actions of President Peña Nieto himself, others will depend
upon external factors, while still others will be decided by a mix of domestic and external factors. For example, Mexico would
benefit immensely if certain immigration reforms were enacted in the United States, but there is little that the Peña Nieto
government can do to support their enactment beyond pledging to reduce illegal emigration and bolster border security. In
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
68
contrast, Enrique Peña Nieto’s domestic policies can have a significant impact on security and economic conditions in Mexico,
as well as bilateral efforts in those key areas.
Mexico and U.S.-Mexican relations are experiencing a time of transition. This transition may bring about advances in some
areas of the bilateral relationship, while setbacks may occur in others. Throughout this process, the 113th Congress is likely to
closely monitor conditions in
Mexico, as well as U.S.-Mexican cooperation on key issues as part of its legislative and oversight capacities.
Obama has a chance to reconstruct the dwindling relations between the US and Mexico – now is
key
Reyes, member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, 2013
(Raul, April 29, NBC Latino, “Opinion: President Obama has the chance to improve US/Mexico relations,”
http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-president-obama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexicorelations/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
The U.S. and Mexico are as tightly bound as siblings, and often just as dysfunctional. While both
governments are concerned with immigration and drug violence, President Obama must forge a more positive,
productive partnership. Mexico is enjoying remarkable economic growth, and Obama neglects our southern neighbor at his
own peril.
Obama will arrive in Mexico with good and bad news. On the positive side, he can highlight the progress
his administration has made towards overhauling our immigration system. The border is more secure
than ever, and the Senate has unveiled a proposal that creates new pathways for legal immigration. On
the negative side, Obama bears responsibility for his failure to reform U.S. gun laws. ThinkProgress
reports that the expiration of the assault weapons ban has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans
in cartel violence. Even worse, America’s demand for illegal drugs fuels the growth of these cartels.
However, Obama would be wise to recognize that relations with Mexico should not center on these issues
alone. As president-elect, Peña Nieto wrote in The Washington Post that, “It is a mistake to limit our bilateral
relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be
restricted in this short-sighted way.” He wants a deeper relationship, one that is defined by shared economic goals.
That’s the smart way forward. Since 2008, Mexico has seen steady economic growth, which has been a net benefit to
the U.S. The U.S. exports more to Mexico than to China and Japan combined, and U.S./Mexico trade hit
almost $500 billion in 2012. Obama should build on these ties to create greater economic integration. If he and Peña
Nieto were to collaborate on ways of matching Mexico’s young labor force with American technology and training, it would be
a recipe for a regional economic boom. Greater U.S. investment in Mexico will make the country safer, as the cartels generally
leave multinational operations alone.
Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged
with Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not
recognized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on
April 19. So Mexico is not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps with more attention
from the Obama administration, Peña Nieto could be persuaded to be more supportive of U.S. policies for the region.
True, there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico
has historically been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared
spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence
on the U.S. side of the border have proved largely unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging more
communication and cooperation with Mexico. Already, Peña Nieto favors opening Mexico’s energy sector to private
investment, and he may even allow foreign investment in its state oil company.
President Obama has the chance to turn a page in U.S./Mexico relations, and he should not miss it. It’s time for a foreign
policy with Mexico based on its potential, not on its problems.
69
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
UQ – AE Coopt Down Now
The US and Mexico both recognize there is a need for building cooperation on alternative energy
and smart grid tech
Castellanos, Renewable Energy Mexico correspondent, 2013
(Edwin, May 3, Renewable Energy Mexico, “USA and Mexico’s cooperation in green energy,”
http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=794, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
In terms of renewable energy, the U.S. president pledged to secure an energy future including the need to develop clean
energy to fight against climate change. The responsible use of natural resources that each country possess is a must, he said,
in order to secure the sustainable development of any country and population. Climate change has impacted various
ecosystems, climate patterns, and represents a challenge that humans will have to eventually face. By promoting investment to
reduce carbon emissions through clean and renewable energy, natural resources will be preserved and climate change can be
significantly slowed.
The United States, being one of the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses in the world has made historic
commitments to promote the use of renewable energy. Similarly, Mexico is a leader in cutting carbon
emission and encourages other developed countries to follow these actions. “Together, let’s keep building new
clean energy partnerships by harnessing wind and solar and the good jobs that come with them. Let’s keep investing in green
buildings and smart grid technologies so we’re making our planet cleaner and safer for future generations,” said Obama.
The US and Mexico recognize the importance of renewable energy – but an increase in
cooperation and interconnection in alternative energy is needed
Smart Energy Universe, a company devoted to smart grid and smart energy news, 2012
(Smart Energy Universe, “US Mexico Energy Cooperation,” http://smartenergyuniverse.com/regulatoryupdate/7765-us-mexico-energy-cooperation, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
In both Mexico and the United States, investments in renewable energy have increased dramatically. Mexico has gone
from two megawatts of wind capacity in 2005 to 1000 megawatts as of early this year, and has issued
permits for additional capacity, allowing Mexico to be considered one of the top 25 countries producing
wind energy.
At the end of 2011, the United States had 50 gigawatts of installed wind capacity, with an additional eight
gigawatts currently under construction in 31 states plus Puerto Rico. The U.S. wind industry has added
over 35% of all new generating capacity over the past four years, second only to natural gas, and more
than nuclear and coal combined. Today, U.S. wind power capacity represents more than 20% of the
world's installed wind power.
Secretary Clinton also emphasized last week that interconnection will help us get the most out of our region’s resources. It
seems simple, but if one country has excess power, it can sell it to a neighbor. Plus, by expanding the size of
power markets, the Secretary highlighted that we can create economies of scale, attract more private investment, lower capital
costs, and ultimately lower the costs for the consumer.
Along our border there are 11 transmission size lines between the Mexican and U.S. grids, according to
the Department of Energy. Mexico’s public utility, CFE, is supplying geothermal energy to San Diego; the
Texas Electricity Reliability Council (ERCOT) and CFE are working on expanded electricity exchanges and
cross-border connections; and, given its own power demands and those from California, the Baja region
is a logical source for renewable energy generation capacity. .
In closing, increasing the generation, transmission and consumption of renewable energy will require a coordinated effort
by governments, industry, non-governmental organizations and the public. Nevertheless, the number of
people gathered here to discuss this important topic is an encouraging sign that there is an increasing will to
work together to promote renewables, cross-border interconnections, and energy efficiency for the good of producers,
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
70
consumers, and the environment. I congratulate the hosts and sponsors for promoting these discussions
among our two nations, for their efforts to reach out to other parties on ways to increase energy
efficiency, and I look forward to the success of this and future events.
Climate change is forcing a divide between the two nations – it is essential for the US and Mexico
to collaborate on the growing issue of climate change
Barry, senior policy analyst at the Center for International Policy, 2013
(Tom, May 7, Truthout, “Changing Perspectives on US-Mexico Relations,” http://truthout.org/news/item/16221-changing-perspectives-on-us-mexico-relations, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
If Obama and Peña Nieto were to talk about common concerns while on the border instead of in sitting
rooms of the White House and Los Pinos, they would see a common future in the river that divides the
two nations. Climate change-aggravated drought has reduced the Río Bravo to a viscous, milky green trickle.
Groundwater reserves in the greater borderlands are being quickly depleted, and farmers, ranchers, and
city planners on both sides of the border are battling over rapidly diminishing supplies in the first
skirmishes of the water wars that will surely soon overshadow the drug wars as the main threat to regional stability.
A common commitment by Obama and Peña Nieto for each government to do its part to mitigate and mutually adjust to
climate change—which doesn’t respect border lines or border security fortifications—would be a sign that
binational relations can move beyond being merely economic partners and fighting on the same side of the drug war. The sad
plight of the once glorious Río Bravo should not further divide the two nations, but bring the communities to the north and
those to the south together as neighbors and part of the larger North American community with shared interests and
responsibilities.
Obama needs to take the lead in encouraging energy cooperation with Mexico
Reyes, member of the USA Today Board of Contributors, 2013
(Raul, April 29, NBC Latino, “Opinion: President Obama has the chance to improve US/Mexico relations,”
http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/29/opinion-president-obama-has-the-chance-to-improve-usmexicorelations/, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
The U.S. and Mexico are as tightly bound as siblings, and often just as dysfunctional. While both
governments are concerned with immigration and drug violence, President Obama must forge a more positive,
productive partnership. Mexico is enjoying remarkable economic growth, and Obama neglects our southern neighbor at his
own peril.
Obama will arrive in Mexico with good and bad news. On the positive side, he can highlight the progress
his administration has made towards overhauling our immigration system. The border is more secure
than ever, and the Senate has unveiled a proposal that creates new pathways for legal immigration. On
the negative side, Obama bears responsibility for his failure to reform U.S. gun laws. ThinkProgress
reports that the expiration of the assault weapons ban has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Mexicans
in cartel violence. Even worse, America’s demand for illegal drugs fuels the growth of these cartels.
However, Obama would be wise to recognize that relations with Mexico should not center on these issues
alone. As president-elect, Peña Nieto wrote in The Washington Post that, “It is a mistake to limit our bilateral
relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests are too vast and complex to be
restricted in this short-sighted way.” He wants a deeper relationship, one that is defined by shared economic goals.
That’s the smart way forward. Since 2008, Mexico has seen steady economic growth, which has been a net benefit to
the U.S. The U.S. exports more to Mexico than to China and Japan combined, and U.S./Mexico trade hit
almost $500 billion in 2012. Obama should build on these ties to create greater economic integration. If he and Peña
Nieto were to collaborate on ways of matching Mexico’s young labor force with American technology and training, it would be
a recipe for a regional economic boom. Greater U.S. investment in Mexico will make the country safer, as the cartels generally
leave multinational operations alone.
71
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Politically, Obama cannot afford to take Mexico for granted. Consider that Mexico has been fully engaged
with Cuba since the revolution in 1959 (which was launched from Mexico). And although the U.S. has not
recognized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro as successor to Hugo Chavez, Mexico recognized his election on
April 19. So Mexico is not an ally that automatically falls in lockstep with American interests. Perhaps
with more attention from the Obama administration, Peña Nieto could be persuaded to be more
supportive of U.S. policies for the region.
True, there are legitimate reasons why Mexico has been viewed warily by past administrations. Mexico
has historically been the largest source of our undocumented population. Border towns have long feared
spillover violence from the drug cartels. But illegal immigration is at net zero, and the fears of violence
on the U.S. side of the border have proved largely unfounded. Obama should take the lead in encouraging more
communication and cooperation with Mexico. Already, Peña Nieto favors opening Mexico’s energy sector to private
investment, and he may even allow foreign investment in its state oil company.
President Obama has the chance to turn a page in U.S./Mexico relations, and he should not miss it. It’s time for a foreign
policy with Mexico based on its potential, not on its problems.
The time is now for alternative energy cooperation
Rosenblum, correspondent for Inside Tucson Business, 2012
(Keith, Oct 26, Inside Tucson Business, “U.S. Ambassador: Cross-border, renewable cheaper energy is at
hand,” http://www.insidetucsonbusiness.com/news/u-s-ambassador-cross-border-renewable-cheaperenergy-is-at/article_87448a6a-1edd-11e2-a142-001a4bcf887a.html, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
HERMOSILLO, Sonora — A who’s who in renewable and traditional energy generation along the U.S.Mexico border were told Tuesday that an unprecedented era of innovation, investment and less-expensive energy is in
the making and the time for information sharing is now.
The man behind that assessment, Earl Anthony Wayne, U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, traveled the 1,200 miles
from Mexico City to pass that message on to 250 private sector, government and non-governmental
organization attendees at Border Energy Forum XIX.
In an address delivered in both English and Spanish, the ambassador said “the time has come” for
interconnections to be built from nation in North, Central and South America to the next and for renewable
energies to carry across those borders. The ambassador lauded Mexico for taking the initiative to bring gas
to its northern region from Arizona, a strategy that would make energy costs less for northern Mexican
households and clean up the atmosphere by replacing generating plants now using bunker oil.
Renewable energy cooperation could greatly benefit the US and Mexico
Nieto, the president of Mexico, 2012
(Enrique, Nov 23, The Washington Post, “U.S., Mexico should build on their economic ties,”
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-11-23/opinions/35511831_1_energy-independencerenewable-energy-energy-resources, accessed 7/6/13, CBC)
Both Mexico and the United States held presidential races this year, and the results offer an opportunity to redirect our
countries’ bilateral relationship. The U.S. election demonstrated the growing demographic bonds that connect our countries’
futures. The election in Mexico heralded a new era of change and reform, as much as a new style of governing, based on
pragmatism and results.
To build a more prosperous future for our two countries, we must continue strengthening and expanding our deep economic,
social and cultural ties. It is a mistake to limit our bilateral relationship to drugs and security concerns. Our mutual interests
are too vast and complex to be restricted in this short-sighted way. When I meet with President Obama on Tuesday — just
days before my inauguration — I want to discuss the best way to rearrange our common priorities. After all, our agenda affects
millions of citizens in both countries.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
72
Perhaps the most important issue is finding new ways to bolster our economic and trade relationship to attain common
prosperity in our nations. The United States is already Mexico’s largest trading partner. As a result of the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), our economic ties have grown to an unprecedented degree. NAFTA links 441 million people
producing trillions of dollars in goods and services annually, making it the largest trading bloc in the world. Consequently, in
NAFTA we have a solid foundation to further integrate our economies through greater investments in finance, infrastructure,
manufacturing and energy. Together, we must build a more competitive and productive region.
Another relevant bilateral issue relates to Mexico’s status as an increasingly desirable and dependable manufacturing location.
My country is the second-largest supplier of electronic goods to the United States. Coca-Cola, DuPont, GM, Nissan, Honda,
Mazda, Audi and many others are seizing the opportunity to manufacture within our borders. We seek to continue offering U.S.
consumers better products and better prices.
Energy production is another emerging area that can enhance our nations’ potential. I plan to open Mexico’s energy sector to
national and foreign private investment. Mexico holds the fifth-largest shale gas reserve in the world, in addition to large deepwater oil reserves and a tremendous potential in renewable energy. We will not surrender Mexico’s ownership over its energy
resources, and we will not privatize our state-run oil company, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex). We will, however, welcome new
technologies, new partnerships and new investments. Together with the United States and Canada, this may well contribute to
guaranteeing North American energy independence — something from which we would all greatly benefit.
73
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Internals – Energy
Oil cooperation is unsustainable – must shift toward renewables to avert relations collapse
Donnelly, Program Associate, Mexico Institute, ‘10
(Robert, 5/24/10, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/us-mexico-cooperation-renewable-energybuilding-green-agenda, “U.S.-Mexico Cooperation on Renewable Energy: Building a Green Agenda”, js)
Wood cited recent developments that have encouraged renewable energy investment in Mexico. Mexico's oil fields are in
long-term and, in some cases, precipitous decline, and the country is plotting a "future as a green nation," shifting the
policy focus toward alternative energy development. Additionally, a U.S.-Mexico taskforce on renewables was recently
formed—its announcement timed with President Felipe Calderon's May 2010 state visit to Washington—
and there has been high-level engagement on the issue by both administrations. Mexico also will host the next U.N.
Climate Change Conference, to be held in Cancún in fall 2010. Further encouraging investment in renewables,
there are not the blanket prohibitions on private ventures that exist in the hydrocarbons sector, and regulatory
adjustments over the past few administrations have enabled a more robust private stake in electricity
generation and transmission. Collaboration between Mexico and U.S. government agencies, such as the Department of
Energy and the U.S. Agency for International Development, through the framework of the Mexico
Renewable Energy Program, have enabled the richer development of Mexico's renewable resources while at the same
time promoting the electrification and greater general economic development of parts of rural Mexico, Wood said.
Impulses to develop Mexico's renewables sector further align with regional efforts to make North America energy
interdependent. Discussant Joe Dukert pointed out that U.S.-Mexico cooperation on renewables is a little-acknowledged
area of binational cooperation, and he stressed the economic complementarities that exist between the two countries on
the issue. For example, he noted that Mexico was well-positioned to help furnish the power from renewable sources
that must account for up to a third of all electricity used in California by 2020, as dictated by the state's
renewable power standard (RPS). "Mexico can help them reach these (renewable energy) targets," he
said. Yet at the same time, Dukert said that Mexico needs to do more to enhance its profile as a
renewable-energy supplier, and specifically suggested that energy attaches be assigned to the embassy
and consulates
Energy cooperation directly increases US-Mexico relations
Taylor, State Department correspondent. for the Washington Times, ‘13
(Guy, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/28/energy-links-seen-boosting-us-tiesmexico/, 2/28/13, “Energy links seen boosting U.S. ties to Mexico”, js)
A senior Obama administration official voiced optimism about the growing economic relationship between the U.S. and
Mexico, stressing that energy sector ties between the two nations have “enormous potential for progress.” Assistant
Secretary of State Roberta S. Jacobson told a congressional hearing Thursday that Washington’s overall
approach to Latin American ties “is as much about seizing opportunities as it is about countering threats.” Her
remarks during a hearing of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs dovetailed with comments this
week from a top Mexican official, who expressed optimism that the nation’s state-run oil monopoly, long
managed as a closely held national asset, is on the verge of opening up to billions of dollars in foreign investment.
Emilio Lozoya, the newly tapped chief of the monopoly — known as Pemex — told the Financial Times
that he expects Mexican lawmakers to sign off as early as this summer on landmark changes to the sector
proposed by recently elected Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto. Pemex is already ranked seventh on
the list of the world’s most productive oil producers, with sales of more than $100 billion a year. The
proposed reforms could pave the way for U.S. oil companies to begin tapping that market and helping it
grow. According to Mr. Lozoya, the changes would allow the monopoly to begin working for the first time
in more than 50 years with the world’s largest oil companies. Several such companies are based in Texas,
just north of the border. The potential for foreign firms to become more deeply involved in Mexico’s economic future
could signal a significant shift in the narrative of crime and illegal immigration that has dominated relations between
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
74
the U.S. and its southern neighbor — particularly since nearly 60,000 people were killed in drug-related
violence in Mexico during recent years.
2009 U.S.-Mexican framework proves- alt energy has boosted relations
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ‘10
[Duncan, May 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.p
df, accessed 7-1-2013, js]
This study examines one of the most important and potentially lucrative dimensions of the growth of the renewable
energy sector in Mexico, namely bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States. The 2009 bilateral
framework should be seen in the context of an emerging trend in Mexico towards renewable energy, and as recognition of
the need for the United States to take advantage of this if it is to meet its own carbon emissions reduction goals.
The long border shared by the two countries, so often seen as a point of conflict due to the thorny issues of
migration, drugs and security, holds the potential to benefit both states through the trade in renewable energy from
wind, geothermal, biomass and solar sources. But the promise of collaboration in the sector goes far beyond the border. The
US has been engaged with Mexico in RE issues for over 15 years now on multiple levels, and this has brought tangible results
that have had a significant impact on both Mexico and on bilateral relations.
U.S.-Mexican cooperation in alt energy is a vital dimension to bilateral relations
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, ‘10
[Duncan, May 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Environment, Development and
Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://www.statealliancepartnership.org/resources_files/USMexico_Cooperation_Renewable_Energies.p
df, accessed 7-1-2013, js]
The need for integration of North American renewable energy markets is real and immediate. Although the region
has extensive renewable energy resources, their geographic distribution, and their nature (intermittent and of
variable strength), mean that it makes sense to integrate both supply and distribution across national borders. This has
long been the case with energy; electricity grids have seen extensive integration across the US northern border, and
pipelines have brought Canadian natural gas and oil to the United States for a long time. As US demand for
renewable energy increases, satisfying that demand will require importing energy from its neighbors, and Mexico offers a
reliable and relatively low‐cost supply from its wind energy farms in the north. The history of cooperation between
Mexico and the United States in renewable energy is surprisingly long and multi‐faceted and it has been a vital, albeit
unheralded, dimension to bilateral relations and a significant boost to rural and later national development for
over 18 years. Cooperation in some areas goes back even further than that, with geothermal energy collaboration
extending back to the 1970s. Although it is now seen as crucial in the context of efforts to mitigate climate change,
renewable energy in Mexico has and always has been seen as a development tool, helping to bring energy and
employment to marginalized areas that are not connected to the national electricity grid .
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
75
Impacts – Latin American Relations – Laundry List
US – Latin American relations solve for multiple scenarios for extinction
The Brookings Institution, an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. devoted to independent
research and innovative policy solutions, 2008
(Nov. 2008, The Brookings Institution, “Rethinking U.S. – Latin American Relations,” p. 3,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20par
tnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
Developments in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) have a very significant impact on the daily lives of those who ¶
live in the United States. Yet because of a lack of trust, an inability to undertake stable commitments by some countries, and
different U.S. priorities, the United States and Latin America have rarely developed a genuine and sustained partnership to
address regional—let alone global—challenges. If a hemispheric partnership remains elusive, the costs to the United States
and its neighbors will be high, in terms of both growing risks and missed opportunities. Without a partnership, the risk that
criminal networks pose to the region’s people and institutions will continue to grow. Peaceful nuclear technology may be
adopted more widely, but without proper regional safeguards, the risks of nuclear proliferation will increase. Adaptation to
climate change will take place through isolated, improvised measures by individual countries, rather than through more
effective efforts based on mutual learning and coordination. Illegal immigration to the United States will continue unabated
and unregulated, adding to an ever-larger underclass that lives and works at the margins of the law. Finally, the countries
around the hemisphere, including the United States, will lose valuable opportunities to tap new markets, make new
investments, and access valuable resources. Today, several changes in the region have made a hemispheric ¶
partnership both possible and necessary. The key challenges faced by the United States and the hemisphere’s other
countries—such ¶ as securing sustainable energy supplies, combating and adapting ¶ to climate change, and combating
organized crime and drug ¶ trafficking—have become so complex and deeply transnational ¶ that they cannot be managed or
overcome by any single country. ¶ At the same time, the LAC countries are diversifying their ¶ international
economic and political relations, making them ¶ less reliant on the United States. Finally, the LAC countries
are ¶ better positioned than before to act as reliable partners.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
76
Impacts – Latin American Relations – Warming
US – Latin American relations key to solving climate change
The Brookings Institution, an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. devoted to independent
research and innovative policy solutions, 2008
(Nov. 2008, The Brookings Institution, “Rethinking U.S. – Latin American Relations,” p. 7,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20par
tnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
Today, four changes in the region have made a hemispheric partnership both possible and necessary. First, the key
challenges faced by the United States and the hemisphere’s other countries— such as securing sustainable energy supplies,
combating and adapting to climate change, and combating organized crime ¶ and drug trafficking—have become so
complex and deeply transnational that they cannot be managed or overcome by any single country. Washington needs
partners in the LAC region with a shared sense of responsibility and a common stake in the future. For example, drug
trafficking and its associated criminal networks ¶ have now spread so widely across the hemisphere that
they ¶ can no longer be regarded as a “U.S. problem,” a “Colombian ¶ problem,” or a “Mexican problem.”
The threat posed by these ¶ networks can only be countered through coordinated efforts ¶ across
producing, consuming, and transshipment countries, ¶ all of which have a shared interest in controlling
the flow of ¶ arms, money, vehicles, and drugs. The process of combating and adapting to climate change also
exemplifies the need for a hemispheric partnership. All carbon-emitting societies contribute to the problem to different
degrees, and all will experience its consequences. The solutions—ranging from developing alternative fuels to adapting to
ecological shocks—all require sustained cooperation among the hemisphere’s countries.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
77
Impacts – Latin American Relations – Prolif
US – Latin American relations key to prevent nuclear proliferation
The Brookings Institution, an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. devoted to independent
research and innovative policy solutions, 2008
(Nov. 2008, The Brookings Institution, “Rethinking U.S. – Latin American Relations,” p. 15,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20par
tnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
Growing demand for nuclear energy will raise proliferation risks and require greater international oversight of uranium
enrichment and the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The United States, in cooperation with the other countries in the
hemisphere, including Brazil and Canada, should help establish a framework and dialogue to ensure that non-nuclearweapons states have access to civilian nuclear power while abiding by appropriate safeguards to prevent the diversion of
nuclear technology and materials for military purposes. Key issues where a hemispheric consensus is needed
¶
include agreement on an international nuclear fuel bank, international supervision of the fuel cycle and
the reprocessing of spent fuel, universal acceptance of the additional protocol on inspections, and the
effective management of nuclear waste. The United States should advance this common position as part of the
negotiations leading to the Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in May 2010. Integrating electric grids will increase
efficiency and facilitate the distribution of electricity generated with clean, renewable fuels. The potential is greatest in Central
America, where distances ¶ are relatively small. Integration between South and Central ¶ America can begin with the
construction of a 200-kilometer ¶ power grid between Colombia and Panama, which will allow ¶ Central America to benefit
from lower-cost energy sources. ¶ To do so, U.S. public investment agencies (e.g., the Overseas ¶ Private Investment
Corporation) should designate a window ¶ for guaranteeing energy infrastructure investments. The United ¶ States should help
mobilize financing from the Inter-American ¶ Development Bank as well.
US – Latin American relations key to prevent nuclear proliferation
The Brookings Institution, an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. devoted to independent
research and innovative policy solutions, 2008
(Nov. 2008, The Brookings Institution, “Rethinking U.S. – Latin American Relations,” p. 6,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20par
tnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
Most observers believe that the countries of the LAC region are ¶ better prepared to weather the current global financial crisis
than ¶ past episodes of financial turmoil. The region’s current account ¶ deficit is small, inflation is under control in most
economies, and ¶ fiscal conditions have generally improved. The region has also ¶ benefited from high commodity prices and
large capital inflows. ¶ Several countries have amassed sizable international reserves. ¶ But the region is not immune from the
crisis. Its countries could ¶ suffer from a sharp decline in commodity prices, as well as from ¶ a reduction in capital flows from
advanced economies. Also, ¶ leading international banks—which have a strong presence in ¶ the region and are key players in
financial intermediation—could ¶ act as transmission lines for external shocks. As the crisis unfolds, Latin America remains
important to the United States in at least two respects. If the LAC region grows at rates of more than 3 percent a year—as the
International Monetary Fund currently projects—even in a weak global economy, its countries will play a valuable role as
buyers of U.S. goods and services, helping the U.S. economy export its way out of the crisis. Conversely, if the region’s economy
deteriorates further, the problems associated with poverty, crime, inequality, and migration may worsen and could potentially
spill across borders. For the United States, coping with the hemispheric impact of the financial crisis will be a major policy
challenge with economic as well as political and security implications.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
78
Impacts – Latin American Relations – Econ
US – Latin American relations key to prevent economic collapse
The Brookings Institution, an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. devoted to independent
research and innovative policy solutions, 2008
(Nov. 2008, The Brookings Institution, “Rethinking U.S. – Latin American Relations,” p. 6,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2008/11/24%20latin%20america%20par
tnership/1124_latin_america_partnership.pdf, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
Most observers believe that the countries of the LAC region are ¶ better prepared to weather the current global financial crisis
than ¶ past episodes of financial turmoil. The region’s current account ¶ deficit is small, inflation is under control in most
economies, and ¶ fiscal conditions have generally improved. The region has also ¶ benefited from high commodity prices and large capital
inflows. ¶ Several countries have amassed sizable international reserves. ¶ But the region is not immune from the crisis. Its countries could ¶ suffer
from a sharp decline in commodity prices, as well as from ¶ a reduction in capital flows from advanced economies. Also, ¶ leading international
banks—which have a strong presence in ¶ the region and are key players in financial intermediation—could ¶ act as
transmission lines for external shocks. As the crisis unfolds, Latin America remains important to the United States in at least two
respects. If the LAC region grows at rates of more than 3 percent a year—as the International Monetary Fund currently
projects—even in a weak global economy, its countries will play a valuable role as buyers of U.S. goods and services, helping
the U.S. economy export its way out of the crisis. Conversely, if the region’s economy deteriorates further, the problems associated with poverty,
crime, inequality, and migration may worsen and could potentially spill across borders. For the United States, coping with the hemispheric impact of the
financial crisis will be a major policy challenge with economic as well as political and security implications.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
79
Impacts – Latin American Relations – Heg
US –Mexico relations key to the United States’ national security and preventing conflict with its
rivals
Pastor, former US national security advisor, 2012
(Robert, July/August 2012, The American Interest, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” http://www.theamerican-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
From the perspective of U.S. national security, too, recall for a moment that Mexico and Canada made an historic
gamble in signing NAFTA. Already dependent on the behemoth next door and wary of the imbalance of
power, both countries feared that NAFTA could make them more vulnerable. Still, they hoped that the United
States would be obligated to treat them on an equal and reciprocal basis and that they would prosper from the agreement.
Canadians and Mexicans have begun to question whether they made the right choice. ¶ There are, of course, a wealth
of ways to measure the direct and indirect impact of NAFTA, but political attention, not without
justification, tends to focus on violations of the agreement. The U.S. government violated NAFTA by denying
Mexican trucks the right to enter the United States for 16 years, relenting in the most timid way, and only after
Mexico was permitted by the World Trade Organization to retaliate in October 2011. And for more than a
decade, Washington failed to comply with decisions made by a dispute-settlement mechanism regarding
imports of soft-wood lumber from Canada. More recently, the United States decided to build a huge wall to keep out
Mexicans, and after a three-year process of reviewing the environmental impact of the Keystone XL
pipeline from western Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, this past December 2011 President Obama decided
to postpone the decision for another year. This is the sort of treatment likely to drive both Canada and Mexico to
conclude that depending on the United States was the wrong decision. Imagine for a moment what might happen if Canada
and Mexico came to such a conclusion. Canada might divert its energy exports to China, especially if China
guaranteed a long-term relationship at a good price. Mexico would diversify with South America and China and
might be less inclined to keep America’s rivals, like Iran, at arm’s length. Is there anyone who thinks these developments
would not set off national security alarms? A very old truth would quickly reassert itself: The United States can
project its power into Asia, Europe and the Middle East in part because it need not worry about its
neighbors. A new corollary of that truth would not be far behind: Canada and Mexico are far more important to
the national security of the United States than Iraq and Afghanistan. ¶ Beyond the economy and national security, our two
neighbors have societal ties to the United States that make all other ethnic connections seem lean in comparison. By 2015,
there will be about 35 million people in the United States who were either born in Mexico or whose parents were born in
Mexico; that number exceeds the total population of Canada. Canadians in the United States don’t stand out
as much as do Mexicans, but nearly a million Canadians live in the United States. And more Americans
live in Mexico than in any other foreign country. ¶ In sum, the economy, national security and society of the United
States, Mexico and Canada are far more intertwined than most U.S., Canadian and Mexican citizens realize. Most Americans
haven’t worried about Mexico in strategic terms since the days of Pancho Villa, or about Canada since the 1814
Battle of Plattsburgh. That’s unwise. Bad relations with either country, let alone both, would be disastrous. On the other
hand, deeper relations could be vastly beneficial. We don’t seem ready to recognize that truth either. ¶
80
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Impacts – Cartels – Hezbollah
Middle Eastern terror networks and governments use Mexican drug cartels to fund regionally
destabilizing actions which will lead to nuclear war
ROTELLA ‘12
Sebastian Rotella, March 23, 2012, “Cocaine Funneled Through Mexican Cartel Funding Hezbollah,”
http://reportergary.com/2011/12/cocaine-funneled-through-mexican-cartel-funding-hezbollah/
Hezbollah, the Lebanese militant group, finances itself through a vast drugsmuggling network that links a Lebanese bank, a violent Mexican cartel and U.S. cocaine users. Federal prosecutors Tuesday charged
Ayman Joumaa, an accused Lebanese drug kingpin and Hezbollah financier, of smuggling tons of U.S.-bound cocaine and laundering
hundreds of millions of dollars with the Zetas cartel of Mexico. “Ayman Joumaa is one of top guys in the world at what he does: international
drug trafficking and money laundering,” a U.S. anti-drug official said. “He has interaction with Hezbollah. There’s no indication that it’s ideological.
It’s business.” The indictment in Virginia results from a continuing investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration targeting
Hezbollah, which has a bloody history of terror attacks against the United States and Israel. Now a powerful partner in Lebanon’s
government, Hezbollah presents itself as a legitimate political party and rejects allegations of terrorism. But Tuesday’s case reflects
increasing concern that Hezbollah and its ally, Iran’s intelligence service, are expanding their presence in Latin America as conflict with
the West intensifies over Iran’s nuclear program. Hezbollah allegedly uses the cocaine trade to develop revenue and build foreign
networks, according to U.S., European and Israeli officials. In October, the Justice Department charged an Iranian-American resident of
Texas and two Iranian intelligence officers with plotting to hire Mexican cartel gunmen to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in
Washington.
U.S. authorities are building a politically explosive case that
81
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
AT: Relations Alt Causes
Cooperation on Energy is the largest factor between U.S. Mexico Relations
Meacham, Director for the Center for Strategic and International Studies Americas Program, 2013 (Carl, May 9th, CSIS, “Presdient
Obama’s Trip to Mexico and Costa Rica: What was the Outcome?, accessed 7/9/2013, J.Y.)
In many ways, President Obama’s three-day trip to Mexico and Costa Rica last week was an effort to redefine the U.S. relationship with
the region, particularly with the countries that the United States has the closest ties. ¶ In the run-up to the trip, the president and his staff made no secret
that the visit was part of an effort to build on the “traditional agenda” that focuses on security and transnational crime; it remains important but
does not define relationships with these countries today.¶ President Obama and President Calderon today announced plans
to strengthen and deepen bilateral cooperation by establishing the US-Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and
Climate Change. During their first conversation in January 2009, then President-elect Obama and President Calderon discussed the need for
joint efforts to reach our common goal of achieving a low carbon future and a clean energy economy . This framework builds
on that discussion.¶ During their discussions in Mexico City today, the two leaders agreed on the importance of promoting clean energy
and combating climate change and the value of joint and practical collaboration in achieving these goals. The Bilateral
Framework establishes a mechanism for political and technical cooperation and information exchange, and to facilitate common
efforts to develop clean energy economies. It will also complement and reinforce existing work between the two countries. ¶ The
Bilateral Framework will focus on: renewable energy, energy efficiency, adaptation, market mechanisms, forestry and land
use, green jobs, low carbon energy technology development and capacity building. The framework will also build upon cooperation in
the border region promoting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to adapt to the local impacts of climate change in the region,, as well as to strengthen
the reliability and flow of cross border electricity grids and by facilitating the ability of neighboring border states to work together to strengthen energy
trade.¶ Senior officials from both countries will be working over the coming weeks to further elaborate the framework. Specific areas of joint cooperation
under the Bilateral Framework may include:¶ · Collaborating on training/workshops and information exchanges for government officials to explore possible
cooperation on greenhouse gas inventories, various greenhouse gas reduction strategies, and market mechanisms; ¶ · Through our collaboration in the Border
2012 program, working with our respective border states to provide opportunities for information exchange and joint work on renewable energy, such as
wind and solar, that could include technical and economic project feasibility studies, project development, and capacity building in the border region. Other
border work could include a bilateral border crossing planning group to develop strategies to reduce emissions from idling vehicles, among other initiatives
that may be deemed appropriate;¶ · Expanding our extensive bilateral collaboration on clean energy technologies to facilitate renewable power generation
including by addressing transmission and distribution obstacles between our countries; fostering Energy Service Company market development; and
highlighting existing and proposed areas for cooperation on clean energy and energy efficiency under the North American Energy Working Group; ¶ ·
Promoting academic and scientific exchanges on renewable energy; ¶ · Pursuing projects on adapting to climate change, including coastal or disaster risk
reduction activities as well as adaptation in key sectors; and¶ · Working jointly with other countries to take advantage of growing Mexican expertise on
greenhouse gas inventories, adaptation and project planning. This work could also possibly include a shared US/Mexican initiative to
help developing countries in the Americas create low carbon development strategies plans for adaptation to climate change, and
monitoring and accounting for the results.¶ Both countries stressed that a financial architecture to mobilize investment in
climate-friendly technologies is crucial to a successful agreed outcome in Copenhagen. Several countries have made specific proposals
on financial mechanisms, including Mexico. Recognizing Mexico’s leadership on climate change, the United States announced its support for Mexico to host the
Sixteenth United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 16) in 2010. The United States was also pleased that Mexico will host a meeting of the Major
Economies Forum on Energy and Climate (MEF) in preparation for a Leaders meeting to take place in July after the G-8 meeting in Italy.
82
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Mexico Relations
83
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Conflict/National Security
US –Mexico relations key to the United States’ national security and preventing conflict with its
rivals
Pastor, former US national security advisor, 2012
(Robert, July/August 2012, The American Interest, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” http://www.theamerican-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
From the perspective of U.S. national security, too, recall for a moment that Mexico and Canada made an historic
gamble in signing NAFTA. Already dependent on the behemoth next door and wary of the imbalance of
power, both countries feared that NAFTA could make them more vulnerable. Still, they hoped that the United
States would be obligated to treat them on an equal and reciprocal basis and that they would prosper from the agreement.
Canadians and Mexicans have begun to question whether they made the right choice. ¶ There are, of course, a wealth
of ways to measure the direct and indirect impact of NAFTA, but political attention, not without
justification, tends to focus on violations of the agreement. The U.S. government violated NAFTA by denying
Mexican trucks the right to enter the United States for 16 years, relenting in the most timid way, and only after
Mexico was permitted by the World Trade Organization to retaliate in October 2011. And for more than a
decade, Washington failed to comply with decisions made by a dispute-settlement mechanism regarding
imports of soft-wood lumber from Canada. More recently, the United States decided to build a huge wall to keep out
Mexicans, and after a three-year process of reviewing the environmental impact of the Keystone XL
pipeline from western Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, this past December 2011 President Obama decided
to postpone the decision for another year. This is the sort of treatment likely to drive both Canada and Mexico to
conclude that depending on the United States was the wrong decision. Imagine for a moment what might happen if Canada
and Mexico came to such a conclusion. Canada might divert its energy exports to China, especially if China
guaranteed a long-term relationship at a good price. Mexico would diversify with South America and China and
might be less inclined to keep America’s rivals, like Iran, at arm’s length. Is there anyone who thinks these developments
would not set off national security alarms? A very old truth would quickly reassert itself: The United States can
project its power into Asia, Europe and the Middle East in part because it need not worry about its
neighbors. A new corollary of that truth would not be far behind: Canada and Mexico are far more important to
the national security of the United States than Iraq and Afghanistan. ¶ Beyond the economy and national security, our two
neighbors have societal ties to the United States that make all other ethnic connections seem lean in comparison. By 2015,
there will be about 35 million people in the United States who were either born in Mexico or whose parents were born in
Mexico; that number exceeds the total population of Canada. Canadians in the United States don’t stand out
as much as do Mexicans, but nearly a million Canadians live in the United States. And more Americans
live in Mexico than in any other foreign country. ¶ In sum, the economy, national security and society of the United
States, Mexico and Canada are far more intertwined than most U.S., Canadian and Mexican citizens realize. Most Americans
haven’t worried about Mexico in strategic terms since the days of Pancho Villa, or about Canada since the 1814
Battle of Plattsburgh. That’s unwise. Bad relations with either country, let alone both, would be disastrous. On the other
hand, deeper relations could be vastly beneficial. We don’t seem ready to recognize that truth either. ¶
Major conflict involving the US leads to nuclear war – the US has a low threshold for the use of
nukes, nuclear war would cause extinction
Ross, founder of the NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association, 2003
(Larry, Dec 10, NZ Nuclear-Free Peacemaking Association, “RACING TOWARD EXTINCTION,”
http://nuclearfreenz.lynx.co.nz/racing.htm, accessed 7/10/13, CBC)
We have greatly changed our environment with our new destructive tools - nuclear weapons. They have given us a quantum
leap in our ability to destroy ourselves and world. ¶ Given present trends, we will not adapt, but will continue on the present
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
84
path to nuclear extinction.¶ However, our brains provide the vital difference between extinct species and us. They can tell us
what we have created, and the probable results if we keep repeating our historically destructive behaviour - the thousands of
wars in our history. Our unique insight allows us to change our behaviour so we don't repeat our traditional pattern of
destruction with our new earth-destroying tools. We have even recognised the extreme risks to ourselves, by creating treaties
committing us to vigorously pursue disarmament steps to abolish nuclear weapons before they abolish us. Unfortunately, we
have not observed these treaties.¶ The essential question is: Will we use our brains constructively to solve this problem in time
to save ourselves?¶ It seems unlikely. We are using our brains to deny the terrifying reality, pretend there is no risk, or that it is
insignificant. Many believe that nuclear weapons have been proven over 50 years to give us security. We tend to venerate our
leaders, believe and obey them. Like the Germans did with Adolph Hitler, or Italians with Mussolini. Leaders are respected as
rational, sensible, honest, moral Christians who could never do anything crazy. ¶ However President Bush - the world's most
powerful man, and his allies and staff, have lowered the barriers against using nuclear weapons. They have developed new
doctrines that allow them to use nuclear weapons in many more war situations and against non-nuclear states - not just in
retaliation for a massive attack. The U.S. Congress and mass media have skirted this issue, so you may not know about this
'seismic' change in U.S. policy and its implications. People have forgot, or never learned, how nuclear weapons can destroy our
world. ¶ Here is a chart with 6,000 dots divided into 100 squares. The one dot in the centre represents all the explosive power
of allied bombs dropped in WWII - equal to 3,000,000 tons of TNT or 3 megatons. Millions were killed. We have enough for
about 6,000 WWII's. The dots in just one of the 100 squares represent the firepower to kill all life on earth. We have made
enough weapons to kill everyone on earth many times over.¶ That is our dire situation today. We are not adapting to change
our behaviour, but reinforcing old behaviour that leads to war? ¶ The nuclear arms race, accelerated by the vested interests of
the military-industrial-political complex, and the phantom threats we invent to sustain it, is the major occupation of many top
brains and huge resources today. It has huge momentum and power. It is embedded in U.S. society and some others. It is an
accepted part of the culture.¶ This weapons culture and the new doctrines mean that nuclear weapons are no longer treated as
a last resort. They can be used in addition to conventional weapons to achieve military goals. .¶ The culture has programmed
itself for self-destruction and now has the ideology to continue until they precipitate a nuclear holocaust which kills all life.¶
The quantum leap in destructive power has now been matched by this new will, or self-permission, to use these weapons.
Laws, fears and reservations have been swept aside. Humanity seems to have accepted the new doctrines. Few seem
concerned that any usage can kill millions, and quickly expand beyond any countries control, leading to a global nuclear war
which ends humanity.¶ We have radically altered our environment in so many other ways as well, that also threaten our
existence in the longer term. Population growth and our economic growth ideology augment the trends of climate change global warming - pollution - dwindling natural resources - deforestation etc.¶ To emphasise again, the biggest change we have
made in our environment is the quantum leap in our ability to destroy ourselves. Our psychological and social climate makes it
more probable. Most people are not aware of this huge change in our environment. Others just accept it.¶ We have learned to
live with and treat nuclear weapons as a normal part of the environment. Many feel that to question or oppose this situation is
silly, disloyal or threatens the security we think nuclear weapons give us. ¶ Nine countries are dedicated to constantly
developing their nuclear arsenals. That makes accidental or intentional usage more likely. That the U.S. has said the nuclear
barriers are down adds to the likelihood of nuclear weapons use by some other state. A probable escalation would follow.¶
85
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Drug War
US bilateral co-op and economic co-op is key to combat the drug war
O’Neal Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 2011 (Shannon
K. March 29 2011. Center on Foreign Relations “U.S. and Mexico Must Increase Cooperation to Confront
Drug War, Argues CFR Report” http://www.cfr.org/mexico/us-mexico-must-increase-cooperationconfront-drug-war-argues-cfr-report/p24514 NMS)
“Mexico is in the midst of a worsening security crisis,” warns David A. Shirk, director of the Trans-Border Institute
at the University of San Diego in a new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Special Report. “Explosive clashes
and territorial disputes among powerful drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) have killed more than thirty-five thousand
people since President Felipe Calderón took office in December 2006.” Estimates place the profits from the drug
industry at $30 billion per year—about 3 to 4 percent of Mexico's GDP.¶ Shirk stresses that the United
States is not immune from the effects of this drug trade. “The February 2011 killing of a U.S. immigration and customs agent
signals that U.S. law enforcement officials are now in the crosshairs. ” Tensions between Washington and Mexico City
flared up in the wake of the recent Wikileaks scandals. Cables criticizing Mexico's handling of the drug
cartels resulted in Carlos Pascual, U.S. ambassador, resigning. However, “the United States remains the world's
largest consumer of illegal drugs. It is also the world's largest supplier of weapons, which fuel the drug war in a more direct
way.”¶ Shirk notes that “despite the most dismal assessments, the Mexican state has not failed, nor has it
confronted a growing insurgent movement.” In addition, “Mexico has made impressive efforts to improve
the transparency and credibility of elections, protect the rights of indigenous people, strengthen judicial
independence, and even investigate past government abuses.Ӧ In The Drug War in Mexico: Confronting a
Shared Threat, Shirk points out that the United States has “much to gain by helping strengthen its southern neighbor
and even more to lose if it does not” for the following reasons.¶ - The weaker the Mexican state, the greater difficulty the
United States will have in controlling the nearly two-thousand-mile border. As the dominant wholesale distributors of
illegal drugs to U.S. consumers, Mexican traffickers are also the single greatest domestic organized crime threat within
the United States.¶ - Economically, Mexico is an important ally for the United States. It is the third-largest trade
partner, the third-largest source of U.S. imports, and the second-largest exporter of U.S. goods and
services. Trade with Mexico benefits the U.S. economy, and “the market collapse that would likely accompany a
deteriorated security situation could hamper U.S. economic recovery. Ӧ - Mexican stability serves as an anchor for the region.
“Given the fragility of some Central American and Caribbean states, expansion of DTO operations and
violence into the region would have a gravely destabilizing effect.Ӧ - If the security conditions in Mexico
were to worsen, “a humanitarian emergency might lead to an unmanageable flow of people into the
United States. It would also adversely affect the many U.S. citizens living in Mexico.Ӧ Shirk recommends
a three-pronged approach for U.S. policy that can help Mexico overcome its security crisis.¶ - Enhance and consolidate
the mechanisms for bilateral and multilateral security cooperation in Mexico and Central America.¶ - Focus on U.S.
drug demand, firearms, and money laundering at home, and direct greater assistance for institutional and
economic development, such as educational and judicial reform.
Drug war spills over from Mexico and Central America to West Africa, causing instability and a
substantial increase in organized crime
The Globe and Mail 2012 (The Globe and Mail, Sept 16, 2012, “The drug war spreads instability”
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-drug-war-spreadsinstability/article4104311/?service=mobile NMS)
The war on drugs doesn’t just cause human misery. It contributes to the political instability of many parts of the world,
including Mexico, Central America and now West Africa .¶ The transnational criminal groups in control of the drug trade have
successfully destabilized transit countries that stand between production and the market in Europe and North
America. This underscores the unintended consequences of prohibition: the growth of a huge criminal
black market financed by the profits of supplying demand for illegal drugs, and the “balloon” effect,
86
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
whereby drug production and transit corridors shift location to avoid law enforcement. The war on drugs
is inherently unwinnable, as the recent report from the Global Commission on Drug Policy concludes.¶
Central America has emerged as the new epicentre in the illicit trade, as Mexican cartels are increasingly squeezed by
President Felipe Calderon’s military initiative against them. There has been an extraordinary surge in crime in El Salvador,
Guatemala and Honduras, including kidnapping, drug trafficking and migrant smuggling . The drug economy in Guatemala is
equal to twice the country’s officially recognized GDP. No wonder Central American leaders are demanding
reforms to global drug policy.¶ Drug money is also perverting weak economies in West Africa, which has become a
major transit repackaging hub for South American cocaine destined for Europe. There are fears it could next become a transit
zone for cannabis.¶ Decriminalizing marijuana would substantially reduce the drug cartels’ power and
wealth; cannabis accounts for 25 per cent to 40 per cent of cartels’ revenues. The resources of law
enforcement should be reserved to battle the organized criminals who control the trade, and not wasted
on individual drug users who cause harm only to themselves.¶ Countries such as Mali, Guinea Bissau and Liberia
are ill-equipped to confront drug traffickers, and the judiciary and police are vulnerable to corruption. Cocaine seizures are
worth more than some countries’ entire security budgets. “Narco-traffic threatens to metastasize into broader policy and
security challenges,” notes the commission’s report.¶ Why should fragile states continue to bear the brunt of
a futile anti-narcotics crusade? Instead, the world should strengthen the defences of states under attack, and help them
build alternatives to the drug trade. Consumer countries should focus on reducing demand. Prohibition is far
from being an adequate answer.
The spill-over from the drug war fans the flame of instability throughout West Africa which has
been ravaged by corruption, weak governments and poverty
UNODC, 2008 (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Drug Trafficking As a ¶ Security Threat in West
Africa,” November, http://www.unodc.org/documents/dataand-analysis/Studies/Drug-TraffickingWestAfrica-English.pdf)
While most countries in the region have become more stable since the conflict-ridden 1990s, some ¶ have
not. Of course, it is highly unlikely a foreign cocaine cartel would directly attempt to topple ¶ a ¶ government, but local
dissidents, empowered with drug wealth, could. Less ambitiously, ¶ but more ¶ likely, standing rebel/criminal forces
could render ungovernable territory of ¶ strategic importance ¶ to their interests, or co-opt key officials in the security forces
and ¶ local government. The bottom ¶ line is that cocaine trafficking adds spark to an already highly ¶
inflammable tinder, and the security ¶ implications are real . ¶ The region’s vulnerability to both ¶ violent
changes of government and drug trafficking are rooted ¶ in a common cause: weak rule ¶ of law. There are at least two
aspects to this deficiency. One is a ¶ genuine lack of capacity in warravaged countries where the tax base
is miniscule and life ¶ expectancy in the mid-40s. The second is ¶ corruption, which flourishes in an
environment where ¶ incentives for obeying the law are sparse and¶ the likelihood of detection minimal. ¶
The lack of state capacity is rooted in the poverty of the region. ¶ Today, West Africa is arguably ¶ the
poorest region in the world. All but three of the 15 members of ¶ ECOWAS are on the United ¶ Nations list
of the “least developed countries”,31 including the five ¶ countries with the lowest levels ¶ of human
development in the world: Mali, Niger, Guinea-Bissau, ¶ Burkina Faso, and Sierra ¶ Leone.32 Warshattered Liberia is not included in the UNDP rankings, due ¶ to lack of data, but in ¶ terms of per capita
income, it is even poorer than the others.
Americans are well aware of Mexico's drug war and the horrific violence that takes place a stone's throw
away from the United States.
The drug war causes massive amounts of violence, homicide, and murder in every country it
touches, Central America is a predictive example
Koss, Executive Producer at CNN, ABC, and PBS 2012 (Mitchell, January 19, 2012. CNN “Central America's
bloody drug problem” http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/19/world/americas/narco-wars-guatemalahonduras NMS)
87
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Police patrol the streets of Tegucigalpa, the capital of Honduras, a country with the world's highest
murder rate.¶ But narco-trafficking and violence aren't just confined to Mexico.¶ In fact, Honduras, El Salvador, Belize,
Guatemala and Panama all had higher per-capita murder rates than Mexico in 2010.¶ CNN's "Narco Wars" focuses on
Honduras and Guatemala because these two countries have become the key corridor for cocaine coming to the
United States from South America. This has coincided with a dramatic spike in homicide rates, according to the United
Nations. In Honduras, homicides have more than doubled between 2005 and 2010 , the United Nations reports. As a
result, the U.S. Peace Corps last weekend pulled more than 150 of its volunteers out of Honduras while it reviews the
security situation there.¶ Almost every murder in these Central American countries goes unsolved. The impunity rate -the rate of serious crimes that go unsolved -- is extremely high, estimated by the United Nations to be 98% in Guatemala.¶
Here, the odds are overwhelming that someone can literally get away with murder.¶ True, there are other
places where the impunity rate is high, such as parts of Mexico where its drug war rages. But in Mexico, the casualties are the
result of a drug war that began with known, organized cartels fighting each other .¶ In Central America, officials estimate
that drug dealing is a factor in 60% of the killings, but it's not always clear who's killing whom and why.
Perhaps a murder is related to a big shipment of cocaine. Or maybe it's over a $50 drug sale on the
sidewalk.
Tense US- Mexico Relations may cost both countries the Drug War
ARCHIBOLD, the New York Times bureau chief for Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean, CAVE,
foreign correspondent for The New York Times, based in Mexico City, THOMPSON, journalist for the New
York Times, 13.
(RANDAL, CAVE and GINGER, April 30, 2013, New York Times, “Mexico’s Curbs on U.S. Role in Drug Fight
Spark Friction”, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/americas/friction-between-us-andmexico-threatens-efforts-on-drugs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0, accessed 7/5/13, JA)
In their joint fight against drug traffickers, the United States and Mexico have forged a n unusually close relationship in
recent years, with the Americans regularly conducting polygraph tests on elite Mexican security officials
to root out anyone who had been corrupted. But shortly after Mexico’s new president, Enrique Peña Nieto,
took office in December, American agents got a clear message that the dynamics, with Washington holding the clear upper
hand, were about to change.¶ “So do we get to polygraph you?” one incoming Mexican official asked his
American counterparts, alarming United States security officials who consider the vetting of the Mexicans
central to tracking down drug kingpins. The Mexican government briefly stopped its vetted officials from
cooperating in sensitive investigations. The Americans are waiting to see if Mexico allows polygraphs
when assigning new members to units, a senior Obama administration official said.¶ In another clash,
American security officials were recently asked to leave an important intelligence center in Monterrey,
where they had worked side by side with an array of Mexican military and police commanders collecting
and analyzing tips and intelligence on drug gangs. The Mexicans, scoffing at the notion of Americans’
having so much contact with different agencies, questioned the value of the center and made clear that they
would put tighter reins on the sharing of drug intelligence with the US.¶ There have long been political sensitivities in Mexico
over allowing too much American involvement. But the recent policy changes have rattled American officials
used to far fewer restrictions than they have faced in years.¶ Asked about security cooperation with Mexico at a
news conference on Tuesday, President Obama said: “We’ve made great strides in the coordination and
cooperation between our two governments over the last several years. But my suspicion is, is that things
can be improved.”¶ Mr. Obama suggested that many of Mexico’s changes “had to do with refinements and
improvements in terms of how Mexican authorities work with each other, how they coordinate more
effectively, and it has less to do with how they’re dealing with us, per se.” He added, “So I’m not going to
yet judge how this will alter the relationship between the United States and Mexico until I’ve heard
directly from them to see what exactly are they trying to accomplish.Ӧ Mr. Obama is scheduled to visit
Mexico on Thursday and Friday on a mission publicly intended to broaden economic ties.¶ But behind the
88
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
scenes, the Americans are coming to grips with a scaling back of the level of coordination that existed during the presidency
of Felipe Calderón, which included American drones flying deep into Mexican territory and American spy
technology helping to track high-level suspects.¶ In an interview, Mexico’s interior minister, Miguel Ángel
Osorio Chong, made no apologies. He defended the moves, including the creation of a “one-stop window”
in his department to screen and handle all intelligence, in the name of efficiency and “a new phase” in
fighting crime.¶ In a country worn down by tens of thousands of people killed in a drug war, he said
Mexico needed to emphasize smart intelligence over the militarized “combating violence with more
violence” approach of the Calderón years.¶ But American officials here see the changes as a way to
minimize American involvement and manage the image of the violence, rather than confronting it with
clear strategies.¶ The lack of certainty over Mexico’s plans and commitment has jeopardized new security assistance from
the United States. Plans to release $246 million, the latest installment of a $1.9 billion anticrime package
known as the Merida initiative, have been held up by Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont. His
office has been waiting for months for more details from the State Department and the Mexican
government on how the money would be spent and what it might accomplish.¶ A senior administration
official, speaking on the condition of anonymity to provide a more candid assessment, said a recent visit
by Mr. Osorio Chong to Washington helped calm some fears. A delegation of Mexican officials is also
expected to visit in the coming weeks to explain the country’s plans to members of Congress.¶ But there is
growing anxiety that the violence has not diminished, with daily killings hovering around 50 since last
fall. Some American officials say they are increasingly worried by public and private signs suggesting that
Mr. Peña Nieto, the young face of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which ran Mexico for 71 years, is
putting the government’s crime-fighting image above its actions.¶ “The cosmetics — that’s what they care about,”
one American official said, insisting on anonymity so as not to worsen already tense relations
Losing the Drug War ensures loss of democracy and instability in Mexico
Weeks, Claremont McKenna College Journalist, 11
(Katrina M., 2011, Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont, “The Drug War in Mexico: Consequences
for Mexico's Nascent Democracy”,
http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1161&context=cmc_theses, accessed
7/5/13, JA)
The previous chapters demonstrate that the drug war undermines the ¶ consolidation of democracy in Mexico. It is
clear that, in one way or another, drug ¶ trafficking organizations and counter-drug efforts significantly weaken
the strength of ¶ civilian control over the military, the administration of justice, and press freedom. Since ¶ these three
components are crucial for democracy, their erosion as a result of Mexico’s ¶ current drug situation signifies that the
process of democratic consolidation will not be ¶ upheld in Mexico. Or, at a minimum, it indicates that while the
government tries to ¶ control drug trafficking organizations, there will clearly be a period of restricted ¶
democratic progress in Mexico. Ultimately, what does this mean for the future of ¶ Mexico’s nascent
democracy? Will democracy in Mexico survive these impediments ¶ from the drug war in Mexico? ¶ While
the consolidation of democracy has clearly been damaged by drug ¶ trafficking organizations and counterdrug efforts, this may not completely doom¶ democracy in Mexico to failure. Even though the drug trade
seriously threatens ¶ democratic progress, ultimately the fate of Mexico’s fledging democracy will rest on
the ¶ Mexican public’s perception and belief in the democratic political authority’s ability to ¶ successfully
meet the needs of its citizenry. Since the last decade has been Mexico’s first ¶ experience with democracy,
the performance of the current democratic regime in ¶ addressing the issue of drug violence and crime will undoubtedly shape
Mexican citizens’ ¶ faith in a democratic political system. Thus, if the current government fails to establish ¶ public security in
the face of challenges from drug trafficking organizations, it will be ¶ unlikely that the Mexican public will view a democracy
positively or support it over 80¶ another form of government. Especially with the upcoming presidential
elections in 2012, ¶ the perceived success of the current government in combating the drug war will¶
determine the political parties and political systems that citizens will support or elect. ¶ Interestingly,
89
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
recent public opinion polls have not indicated that the Mexican public has¶ confidence in the current
democratic regime’s approach to the drug trafficking issue. ¶ According to a survey in March 2010, 59
percent of Mexicans believe that drug ¶ trafficking organizations, not the government, are winning the
drug war.152 This negative ¶ view of the democratic government’s ability to combat drug trafficking
reveals that the ¶ Mexican people do not have significant faith in the current democratic political regime. ¶ How this will
play out in the 2012 elections remains to be seen, however it is clear that ¶ public support for the current
political regime is not improving. ¶ Therefore, overall it appears unlikely that a robust democracy will
prevail in ¶ Mexico as a result of the drug war and its impact on all segments of Mexican society. ¶ This
conclusion demonstrates that illegal drug activities and official counter-drug ¶ strategies can have
significant consequences beyond the traditional problems associated ¶ with illegal drug activity alone.
Indeed, it becomes apparent that even though drug ¶ trafficking organizations do not have outright
political ambitions, their presence can ¶ nevertheless have a significant and pivotal influence on a political
system. Only if there is ¶ a greater awareness of the threat that the drug war poses to a democratic system
and the ¶ collateral damage it can have on the consolidation of democracy in Mexico, can there be ¶ real
solutions to addressing these consequences. Acknowledging these challenges to ¶ democracy is an
important first step towards the consolidation of democracy in Mexico. ¶ Nevertheless, it remains uncertain
whether the Mexican government has the strength, ¶ organization, and capability to take the remaining necessary steps
against drug trafficking ¶ organizations in order to protect the consolidation of Mexican democracy. Therefore, one ¶
thing is clear: Mexico is at an important crossroads where the future of its nascent ¶ democracy is
precarious. How the drug war develops in the next few years will determine ¶ the state of Mexican
democracy for years to come. In this crucial moment for democracy ¶ in Mexico, ultimately time will only
tell whether the democratic consolidation within the ¶ country will continue.
Mexican collapse threatens US security
HADDICK, Editor of the small Arms Journal, MBA, former Director of Research at the Fremont Group,
former Marine Corps Officer, his articles have been previously published in prestigious publications such
as the New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, 8
[Robert, December 21st 2008, Westhawk Blog Spot, “Now that would change everything”,
http://westhawk.blogspot.com/2008/12/now-that-would-change-everything.html, accessed 7/5/13, JA]
There is one dynamic in the literature of weak and failing states that has received relatively little attention, namely the
phenomenon of “rapid collapse.” For the most part, weak and failing states represent chronic, long-term
problems that allow for management over sustained periods. The collapse of a state usually comes as a
surprise, has a rapid onset, and poses acute problems. The collapse of Yugoslavia into a chaotic tangle of warring
nationalities in 1990 suggests how suddenly and catastrophically state collapse can happen - in this case, a state which
had hosted the 1984 Winter Olympics at Sarajevo, and which then quickly became the epicenter of the
ensuing civil war. In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force and indeed the world, two large
and important states bear consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and Mexico. Some
forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody civil and
sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent extremists, and the question of what would happen to its
nuclear weapons. That “perfect storm” of uncertainty alone might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces into a
situation of immense complexity and danger with no guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with the real
possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used. The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the government,
its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs and drug
cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over the next several years will have a major impact on the stability of the Mexican
state. Any descent by the Mexico into chaos would demand an American response based on the serious implications for
homeland security alone. Yes, the “rapid collapse” of Mexico would change everything with respect to the global
security environment. Such a collapse would have enormous humanitarian, constitutional, economic, cultural, and
security implications for the U.S. It would seem the U.S. federal government, indeed American society at large,
would have little ability to focus serious attention on much else in the world. The hypothetical collapse of
90
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Pakistan is a scenario that has already been well discussed. In the worst case, the U.S. would be able to
isolate itself from most effects emanating from south Asia. However, there would be no running from a Mexican
collapse.
91
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Organized Crime
US Mexico Relations key to solving bi-national crime
Dear, Professor of City and Regional Planning in the College of Environmental Design, University of
California, Berkeley, 13
(Michael, 05/15/2013, The Huffington Post, “Building Connections (Not More Walls) Along the U.S.Mexico Border”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dear/building-connections-not-morewalls_b_3275005.html, accessed 7/9/13, JA)
As the immigration debate heats up in Washington, D.C., and around the country, various interest groups are lining up
to make sure they get what they want from reform, whether it's more fences, protections for American workers, visas for
qualified high-tech workers, or increased immigration quotas for specific nations.¶ One important group has so far been
overlooked during current debates on immigration reform -- the people who actually live along the U.S.-Mexico boundary line.
For them, the border is a connecting tissue, not a divide. The mayors of San Diego and Tijuana understand this,
which is why they are working together to realize a shared destiny for their 'twin cities.'¶ A centuries-old
cross-border mentality unites twin cities along the entire length of borderline, including El Paso/Ciudad
Juárez, and Brownsville/Matamoros. Such bi-national collaborations not only benefit localities, they also make vital
contributions to international stability and prosperity.¶ Cross-border connections are often informal and spontaneous . For
instance, the Mexican village of Boquillas del Carmen (in the state of Chihuahua) was devastated by the
loss of tourist income that followed the closing of the border after 9/11. However, it was not long before
folks in Terlingua (Texas) began collecting fabric for Boquillas neighbors to sew into quilts for sale back
in Terlingua. The money earned from these sales was turned over to the residents of Boquillas to help
them weather the economic downturn.¶ More formal cross-border institutions also consolidate bi-national ties,
including local business alliances as well as international agreements on trade and environment . In El Paso, the
International Boundary and Water Commission and its Mexican counterpart, Comisión Internacional de
Límites y Aguas, for more than a century have shared responsibility for maintaining the international
boundary line and supporting joint development projects. Their efforts have cleaned up the river-borne
pollution that crosses over from the city of Tijuana into San Diego County, protected environmentallysensitive desert regions between Texas and Chihuahua, and forged important water-sharing agreements
pertaining to the Colorado River.¶ Every single day, trans-border unity is further bolstered by the
synergies of twin-city economies. Border states are among the fastest-growing regions in both countries.
Ciudad Juárez, once a city of 1.5 million, lost about a quarter-million inhabitants who fled from drug cartel-related violence.
Yet Juárez's industrial sector continues to add jobs, and trade between the city and Texas rose almost 50
percent in 2010. In El Paso, the arrival of 30,000 sanctuary-seekers from Juárez created a boom in local
real estate and restaurant businesses.¶ In McAllen, Texas, 80 percent of businesses were Mexican-owned
by the mid-2000s, a reversal of the proportion from a decade earlier. McAllen draws a greater share of
Mexican spending than any other US city, affecting everything from retail sales to home purchases and
vacation destinations. Most of the money comes from the major industrial metropolis of Monterrey in
Nuevo Léon, only two hours away by toll road. So common is the trip from Monterrey to McAllen that a
new Spanish verb was coined: macalenear, literally 'to do McAllen.'¶ The troubles in Ciudad Juárez remind us that
cross-border connectivity is not solely about positive connections. Drug smuggling and human trafficking across the line are
never welcomed, but they nevertheless constitute another kind of cross-border linkage. In turn, they have spawned new forms
of collaboration among law enforcement agencies on both sides.¶ Today, U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Texan Big
Bend region worry because Mexico's plans for infrastructure improvement (to transport goods more
expeditiously into the US) could expose the remote region to an influx of criminal activity. But the US has
not yet moved to upgrade regional transportation infrastructure north of the border.¶ Oblivious to the
needs of trans-border communities, reform-minded lawmakers in distant Washington, D.C. persist in
demanding yet more barricades between our two countries. Instead, we should be listening to the voices
of border residents on both sides, following the lead of twin-city mayors, and working harder to
strengthen cross-border ties. Mexico is already ahead of us in developing the border-zone infrastructure
92
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
needed for bi-national trade and prosperity. Why aren't we matching these efforts?¶ Paradoxically, our
national obsessions regarding security, immigration, and drugs may best be served by encouraging cross-border connections
instead of building more fortifications that interrupt transborder lives, jeopardize economic prosperity, and downgrade
environmental and community well-being along the line.
US- Mexico cooperation is key to combat organized crime
O’Neil, Senior fellow for Latin America studies, CFR; Author, 'Two Nations Indivisible: Mexico, the United
States, and the Road Ahead', 12
(Shannon, 12/10/12, The Huffington Post, “Refocusing U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shannon-k-oneil/refocusing-usmexico-secur_b_2270796.html, accessed
7/9/13, JA)
The Merida Initiative -- the cornerstone of U.S.-Mexico security cooperation -- completed its fifth year in 2012.¶ Launched
under the George W. Bush administration, Merida promised $1.4 billion over three years to "support Mexico's law
enforcement in the fight against organized crime." The Obama administration revised and expanded Merida's
mission, moving from a heavy emphasis on military equipment to a more comprehensive bilateral
strategy that seeks to reduce the role and influence of organized crime. The initiative now encompasses
four priorities (called pillars): disrupting the operational capacity of organized crime, institutionalizing
the rule of law, creating a twenty-first-century border to speed the flow of legal commerce and stop that
of illegal goods, and building strong and resilient communities that can stand up to criminal intrusions. ¶
The main problem today is not Merida's design but its uneven implementation, with the gains in some
areas offset by minimal progress in others.¶ U.S.-Mexico security cooperation is vital and must continue . But
with Enrique Peña Nieto's inauguration, Mexico's political landscape is now changing, and the United States must adjust its
strategy and support accordingly.¶ Building on the lessons of the past five years, the United States should work with
Mexico to implement the nonmilitary programs envisioned in the current Merida framework, in particular supporting and
prioritizing Mexico's ongoing judicial reform, training police officers at the state and local levels, modernizing the U.S.-Mexico
border, and investing in local community and youth-oriented programs.
93
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Heg
US –Mexico relations key to heg
Pastor, former US national security advisor, 2012
(Robert, July/August 2012, The American Interest, “Beyond the Continental Divide,” http://www.theamerican-interest.com/article.cfm?piece=1269, accessed 7/10/13, CBC)
The best strategy to compete against China, double our exports and invigorate our economy is to deepen economic integration
with our neighbors and to do it together rather than apart. Unfortunately, the latter approach has prevailed since
NAFTA. The three leaders mostly meet one-on-one in separate bilateral forums. The three North
American leaders met as a group in Guadalajara in August 2009 and pledged to meet annually, but they
missed the next two years. On April 2, 2012, Obama hosted Harper and Calderon in Washington. Their
“Joint Statement” emphasized “deep economic, historical, cultural, environmental, and societal ties”, but
their initiatives remained packaged in two separate bilateral compartments.¶ The Presidents of the United
States and Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada should seek to construct a North American Community that would
invigorate their economies and improve the region’s competitiveness with Asia and Europe, enhance continental and public
security, address more effectively the new transnational agenda, and design lean but effective trinational institutions for the
21st century. ¶ Such a Community would advance the principal goals of each country. For Mexico, it would narrow the
development gap and lift its people to First-World status. For Canada, it would create institutions that would bind
the three nations to agreed standards. For the United States, it would create a new style of leadership more aligned
with long-term goals than with short-term special interests. For all three countries, it would allow a more cooperative and
effective approach to transnational issues like transportation, infrastructure, immigration, anti-narcotics policies and the
environment.
Relations critical to check china’s attempts at becoming a global great power
Malik, professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, 2006 Mohan, 6-12-06, Power and Interest News Report,
“China's Growing Involvement in Latin America”, http://mexidata.info/id929.html, 7-6-13 KB
China's forays into Latin America are part of its grand strategy to acquire "comprehensive national power" to become a "global
great power that is second to none." Aiming to secure access to the continent's vast natural resources and
markets, China is forging deep economic, political and military ties with most of the Latin American and Caribbean
countries. There is more to China's Latin American activism than just fuel for an economic juggernaut.
China now provides a major source of leverage against the United States for some Latin American and Caribbean
countries. As in many other parts of the developing world, China is redrawing geopolitical alliances in ways that
help propel China's rise as a global superpower. Beijing's courtship of Latin American countries to support its plan to
subdue Taiwan and enlist them to join a countervailing coalition against U.S. global power under the rubric of
strengthening economic interdependence and globalization has begun to attract attention in Washington.
Nonetheless, Beijing's relations with the region are neither too cozy nor frictionless. For Latin America and
the Caribbean countries, China is an enviable competitor and rival, potential investor, customer, economic partner, a
great power friend and counterweight to the United States, and, above all, a global power, much like the United States,
that needs to be handled with care. As in Asia and Africa, China is rapidly expanding its economic and diplomatic
presence in Latin America -- a region the United States has long considered inside its sphere of influence.
China's interest in Latin America is driven by its desire to secure reliable sources of energy and raw materials for its continued
economic expansion, compete with Taiwan for diplomatic recognition, pursue defense and intelligence opportunities to define
limits to U.S. power in its own backyard, and to showcase China's emergence as a truly global great power at par with the
United States. In Latin America, China is viewed differently in different countries. Some Latin American
countries see China's staggering economic development as a panacea or bonanza (Argentina, Peru, and
Chile view China as an insatiable buyer of commodities and an engine of their economic growth); others see it as a threat
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
94
(Mexico, Brazil, and the Central American republics fear losing jobs and investment ); and a third group of countries
consider China their ideological ally (Bolivia, Cuba, and Venezuela).
US hegemony key to solving global human rights issues
Kiracofe, Former Senior Professional Staff Member of US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 12
(Clifford, June 13, Global Times, “Syria targeted by US advocates of unipolar global order,”
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/714749.shtml, accessed 7/9/13, CBC)
During the Kosovo crisis in 1999, however, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a significant
attack on international law and state sovereignty in a speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. Blair said
that military intervention should be used to solve human rights issues.
Blair's doctrine of military interventionism with state sovereignty as an anachronism was well received by
human rights and democracy activists in the US.
Indeed, the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have all been in step with the Blair doctrine. In recent years, this policy
concept has emerged as the "Responsibility to Protect (R2P)" doctrine.
In support of the R2P doctrine, the Obama administration recently made a significant bureaucratic change to promote
interventionism as a tool of US foreign policy. The White House established an Atrocities Prevention Board which
reports to the president.
Irish-born Samantha Power, a close Obama confidante and human rights activist, is director of the new
board which will advise on when, where, and how to intervene in support of human rights.
Predictably, killings in Syria, including the Houla massacre, are being cited as the atrocity which should
trigger military intervention. Some US officials, such as Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN and an
ally of Power on human rights issues, call for countries to go outside the UN process and independently
intervene with military force in Syria.
Such an extremist position reflects the increasing influence of US policy circles who wish to undermine
international law and launch military interventions in support of their unipolar world project. Human
rights and democracy promotion provide convenient cover for the main strategic objective of hegemony.
95
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
US Econ
Cooperation with Mexico is key to US economy
Ryssdal, the host and senior editor of Marketplace, public radio’s program on business and the economy,
4/25/13
(Kai, 4/25/13, Marketplace.org, “Why Mexico is key to American prosperity”,
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/world/big-book/why-mexico-key-american-prosperity, accessed
7/10/13, JA)
President Obama travels to Mexico next week. Among the items he'll discuss with new President Enrique Peña
Nieto: immigration, drug cartels, and the boom and bust of the Mexican economy.¶ And sure, those are persistent
issues, but Shannon O'Neil of the Council of Foreign Relations says a big chunk of American prosperity depends on what
happens south of the border.¶ "From the food on our tables, to the parts in our cars, to the consumers for our products, to the
drugs on our streets, Mexico... affects our everyday lives here in the U nited States."¶ In her new book, "Two Nations
Indivisible," she argues that the bilateral relationship has changed significantly, but the thinking in
Washington has not kept pace. ¶ "We've seen the economy transform, we've seen politics open up -- it's
now a democracy. We've seen the rise of a middle class there," O'Neil says, adding, "Often good things
don't attract the attention of policymakers."¶ Take the Mexican economy for one. Known for booms and busts
in the 1980s, it's increasingly stable. The middle class has grown to nearly 50 percent of the population, in a country
known for Carlos Slim's billions and millions of poor people. And NAFTA has boosted all both countries,
and Canada, according to O'Neil. ¶ "Trade between Mexico and the United States is over half a trillion dollars worth of
goods, [it's] one of our most vital partners," O'Neil says. "Mexico is a far better partner than [China, Brazil, or the EU]
for us, because we really make things together."¶ Going forward, O'Neil believes Mexico is positioned to become a
top 10 global economy, further boosting the United States. But, it could also succumb to its challenges, including
widespread corruption and economic monopolies. ¶ Her advice for President Obama? "We need to think
about how to work in partnership... so that Mexico isn't -- but also so that we don't perceive Mexico as -such a problem."
96
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Renewable Energy Cooperation
There are barriers now, but increased US-Mexico relations solve renewable energy cooperation
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2010
Duncan, December 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars, “Environment,
Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf, 7/9/13
The explosive growth in renewable energy ¶ at the global, regional, and national levels ¶ seen in recent years is likely
to be only the ¶ beginning of a prolonged surge in the development of green energy capacity. Thanks in ¶ part to sustained
interest by various United ¶ States’ government agencies in Mexican RE ¶ potential, Mexico has built up an impressive
renewable energy portfolio in recent ¶ years, and will make further advances in ¶ both capacity and
technology in the future. ¶ Mexico is ideally placed to export this energy ¶ to the United States thanks to
geography, its ¶ free-trade agreement with the United States, ¶ and growing demand in a number of U.S. ¶
states for clean energy.¶ The remaining obstacles to growth in the ¶ RE sector are numerous, but they are far from ¶
insurmountable. With continued technical ¶ assistance from the United States and other ¶ foreign governments, and
with burgeoning ¶ interest from the private sector, Mexico’s ¶ federal and state governments are well-placed ¶ to
develop innovative ways to overcome ¶ current barriers. The rewards for their efforts ¶ will be increased levels of green
energy, new ¶ jobs that are sustainable in the long term, and ¶ much needed income from energy exports.
Mexico energy production is in a prime location to benefit both the US and themselves
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2010
Duncan, December 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars, “Environment,
Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf, 7/9/13
All of this, however, should be seen only as ¶ a prelude to what is coming in the near future. ¶ With rising
demand for renewable energy in ¶ the United States and a limited capacity to ¶ generate it from national sources,
Mexico’s ¶ geographical proximity and its free- trade relationship with the United States make it an ¶ ideal source for green
electricity and biofuels. ¶ If it can build up its renewable energy capacity, ¶ Mexico stands to benefit enormously from ¶ this
opportunity in the form of employment, ¶ investment, and the sustainable development ¶ of
underdeveloped regions.
US- Mexico relations do fantastic things with energy
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2010
Duncan, December 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars, “Environment,
Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf, 7/9/13
Over the past 15 years, contributions by U.S. ¶ government agencies to the development of renewable energy resources in
Mexico have left a ¶ significant impact. Most obviously in the wind ¶ and solar sectors, Mexico has benefited from ¶
technical assistance, resource identification, ¶ and regulatory guidance. The work of USAID, ¶ DOE, Sandia Laboratories, and
the National ¶ Renewable Energy Laboratories has helped to ¶ promote awareness of renewable energies and ¶ has built up
human capital in Mexico.
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
US-Mexico cooperation in alt energy combats climate change
97
Wood, Director of the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, 2010
Duncan, December 2010, Woodrow Wilson International Center for scholars, “Environment,
Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies”,
http://wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/Renewable%20Energy%20report.pdf, 7/9/13
The history of cooperation between Mexico ¶ and the United States in renewable energy is ¶ surprisingly long and multifaceted and it has ¶ been a vital, albeit unheralded, dimension to ¶ bilateral relations and a significant boost to ¶ rural
and later national development for over ¶ 18 years. Cooperation in some areas goes back ¶ even further than that,
with geothermal energy ¶ collaboration extending back to the 1970s. ¶ Although it is now seen as crucial in the
context of efforts to mitigate climate change, renewable energy in Mexico is and always has ¶ been seen as a
development tool, helping to ¶ bring energy and employment to marginalized ¶ areas that are not
connected to the national ¶ electricity grid.
The impact to climate change is extinction – shifting interactions between organisms makes
climate change a real threat to survival
Stony Brook University, public research university, 2012
(Oct. 17, Science Daily, “Extinction from Global Warming: Changing Interactions Between Species May Be
More Dangerous Than High Temperatures Alone,”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121016203350.htm, accessed 7/10/13, CBC)
The article, entitled "How does climate change cause extinction?" describes research led by John J. Wiens,
an Associate Professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at Stony Brook University and by PhD
students Abigail E. Cahill and Matthew E. Aiello-Lammens.¶ According to the authors, extinctions of plant and
animal populations from human-related climate change are already widespread, but the causes of these extinctions are very
poorly understood.¶ Contrary to expectations given global warming, the results of the study show that very
few populations have gone extinct simply because temperatures got too hot for the plants and animals to
survive.¶ "Instead," said Dr. Wiens, "climate change more often leads to local extinctions and declines by influencing
interactions between species, such as reducing prey populations for predators. These shifting interactions may make even
small climatic changes dangerous for the survival of plant and animal species. So, for example, many animals may starve to
death because of climate change long before the climate gets hot enough for them to die from overheating. "
98
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Blackouts Add On
99
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Solvency
Blackouts are inevitable and U.S. Mexico grid cooperation solves
Power Engineering International, 2008 (01/04, “Achieving Versatile power sharing between the USA and Mexico
http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/print/volume-16/issue-3/features/network-interconnection/achievingversatile-power-sharing-between-the-usa-and-mexico.html, accessed 7/10, J.Y.)
With strengthened grid reliability a priority for the customer, Sharyland Utilities, ABB designed an HVDC solution that
includes a unique ‘black start’ emergency assistance capability that provides a safe supply of power during a
blackout in either AC grid. This is an important reliability-enhancing feature in which normal operations can be
suspended and a safe flow of power provided to help restore affected areas. This is the world’s first application
using a conventional back-to-back HVDC interconnection and an AC bypass arrangement to provide black start capability.
The bypass arrangement facilitated extremely smooth conduction of commissioning tests in power circulation mode with
only the ERCOT grid.¶ The Sharyland HVDC solution also acts as a ‘firewall’ that isolates disturbances and prevents them
spreading from one grid to the other. Major blackouts in recent years have shown how relatively minor
malfunctions in interconnected grids can have repercussions over wide areas. As one link overloads it is tripped,
increasing the strain on neighboring links which in turn disconnect, cascading black-outs over vast areas and causing huge
productivity losses for the economy.¶ The solution is a firewall permitting the interchange of power, but preventing the
spread of disturbances. This is readily accomplished using an HVDC link because it can fully control transmission but does
not overload or propagate fault currents.¶ When a temporary fault occurs in the AC system connected to the rectifier (AC
to DC), the HVDC transmission may suffer a power loss. Even in the case of close single-phase faults, the link may transmit
up to 30 per cent of the pre-fault power. As soon as the fault is cleared, power is restored to the pre-fault value. When
a temporary fault occurs in the AC system connected to the inverter (DC to AC), a commutation failure can occur
interrupting power flow. Power is restored as soon as the fault is cleared. A distant fault with little effect on the converter
station voltage (less than around 10 per cent) does not normally lead to a commutation failure. A capacitor commutated
converter (CCC) HVDC converter can tolerate about twice this voltage drop before there is a risk of commutation failure.¶
Another advantage of HVDC transmission is that it does not contribute to the fault current – the impact on the fault-free
side of the DC transmission is smaller, and on the side with the fault, the fault current is lower than it would be with an AC
link. The fault-free network experiences an interruption of power flow in the DC transmission but no fault current.¶
Transmission adaptability and controlability¶ The main reason why a fault condition spreads to a wide area is often that
AC transmission links become overloaded. This leads to their disconnection which in turn overloads other lines and so
on.¶ The Sharyland HVDC transmission tie is engineered to take specific remedial actions in case of a disturbance.
Furthermore, such actions are often smooth and continuous, which is in contrast to the hard switching of AC links. The
most important feature of HVDC is that it can never become overloaded.¶ If there is a sudden outage of generation in
the ERCOT or CFE networks, leading to an abnormal frequency and/or voltage, the Sharyland tie can automatically adapt
its power flow to support the troubled grid. The power flow is limited so as not to jeopardize the integrity of the sending
network.¶ A major advantage of HVDC transmission is its controllability. The basic power control is achieved through a
system where one of the converters controls its DC voltage and the other converter controls the current through the DC
circuit. The control system acts through firing angle adjustments of the thyristor valves and through tap changer
adjustments on the converter transformers. Each pole in a bipolar ABB HVDC link has its own control system and each
control system is duplicated.¶ The Sharyland tie is equipped with ABB’s MACH 2 fully digital control and protection
system, which is designed specifically for converters in power applications. MACH 2 is the highest performance and most
used control and protection system for HVDC and flexible AC transmission systems (FACTS) on the market, with more
than 400 installations in operation worldwide.¶ Integrated with the MACH 2 control and protection equipment is the
station control and monitoring (SCM) system. Work stations (PCs) are interconnected by a local area network. The
distributed system for remote I/O, for control, as well as for process interfacing with the SCM system, is built up by a field
bus network.¶ The most important part of the control system, the converter firing control, is built around a host 1.3 GHz
Pentium III dual-processor system and six high performance digital signal processors (SHARC). This gives an
unequalled calculation capacity that is used to fine-tune the performance of the converter firing control system
during various system disturbances.
100
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Economy Impact
The immediate impact is millions of deaths within days and a collapse of the economy
Brooks, English scientist and author, Ph.D. in Quantum Physics, 2009 (Michael, “Space storm alert: 90 seconds from
catastrophe,” New Scientist, March 23, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90seconds-from-catastrophe.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news accessed 7/10/13 J.Y.)
With no power for heating, cooling or refrigeration systems, people could begin to die within days. There is
immediate danger for those who rely on medication. Lose power to New Jersey, for instance, and you have lost a major
center of production of pharmaceuticals for the entire US. Perishable medications such as insulin will soon be in short
supply. "In the US alone there are a million people with diabetes," Kappenman says. "Shut down production,
distribution and storage and you put all those lives at risk in very short order." ¶ Help is not coming any time soon, either. If
it is dark from the eastern seaboard to Chicago, some affected areas are hundreds, maybe thousands of miles away from
anyone who might help. And those willing to help are likely to be ill-equipped to deal with the sheer scale of the disaster.
"If a Carrington event happened now, it would be like a hurricane Katrina, but 10 times worse," says Paul Kintner, a
plasma physicist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York.¶ In reality, it would be much worse than that. Hurricane
Katrina's societal and economic impact has been measured at $81 billion to $125 billion. According to the NAS report, the
impact of what it terms a "severe geomagnetic storm scenario" could be as high as $2 trillion. And that's just the
first year after the storm. The NAS puts the recovery time at four to 10 years. It is questionable whether the US would
ever bounce back.¶ "I don't think the NAS report is scaremongering," says Mike Hapgood, who chairs the European
Space Agency's space weather team. Green agrees. "Scientists are conservative by nature and this group is really
thoughtful," he says. "This is a fair and balanced report."
Blackouts collapse the global financial system
Marusek, nuclear physicist and engineer, 2007 (James A., “Solar Storm Threat Analysis,” Impact,
http://www.breadandbutterscience.com/SSTA.pdf accessed 7/10/13, JY)
A major electrical blackout can produce a loss of access to funds. Credit card processing, bank transactions, ATM
withdrawals, check validation, payroll disbursement and even cash registers are dependent on the availability of
electrical power. This problem can be compounded by the loss of key satellites that form part of the conduit for
transmitting financial data.
101
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Nuclear Reactors Impact
Additionally, blackouts lead to meltdowns at nuclear reactors
Earth Issues, 2011 (“Experts: Move to protect nuke plants from solar flare damage,” March 5, http://www.earthissues.com/2011/03/experts-move-to-protect-nuke-plants-from-solar-flare-damage/)
Nuclear power plants are not themselves self-powered and require a tie-in to the electric power grid to operate.
They are also required to have back-up alternatives, such as diesel generators, and the ability to operate their safety
systems off the grid for at least 30 days. “The agency is well aware of a lot of scenarios that can cause what we call a loss of
offsite power — in other words, the grid goes down and you don’t have any more electricity coming into the plant,”
Burnell said. “Even if you lose power at the plant, you still have an extended period of time before you even get to the
point that you’re losing enough water from the pool to be concerned.” Popik’s petition says that extended period is not
long enough. Replacing the 350 high-voltage transformers that could fail and bring down the grid east of the
Mississippi and in the Pacific Northwest, as envisioned by a recent report by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
could take two years. He proposes regulations requiring back-up safety procedures so that spent fuel pools could
operate unattended until grid power is restored. The Oak Ridge Lab report, released last October, said, “should a storm of
this (Carrington) magnitude strike today, it could interrupt power to as many as 130 million people in the United
states alone, requiring several years to recover.” Right now, the kind of high-voltage transformers that might fail with
a solar pulse aren’t manufactured in the U.S. That will change in April 2013 when a Mitsubishi Electric plant begins
operations in Memphis. Its general manager, Kenneth Badaracco, said the plant will turn out “something less than 100″
transformers a year costing between $3 million and $5 million each.
102
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Reactors Outweighs Nuclear War
This causes dozens of meltdowns – there will be 30 Chernobyls in the US alone
Popular Science, June 30, 2011 (Damon Tabor, “Are We Prepared for a Catastrophic Solar Storm?,”
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-05/are-we-prepared-catastrophic-solar-storm)
S One of the biggest disasters we face would begin about 18 hours after the sun spit out a 10-billion-ton ball of plasma-something it has done before and is sure to do again. When the ball, a charged cloud of particles called a coronal mass ej
Yection (CME), struck the Earth, electrical currents would spike through the power grid. Transformers would be
destroyed. Lights would go out. Food would spoil and--since the entire transportation system would also be shut down-go unrestocked.¶ Within weeks, backup generators at nuclear power plants would have run down, and the electric
pumps that supply water to cooling ponds, where radioactive spent fuel rods are stored, would shut off. Multiple
meltdowns would ensue. “Imagine 30 Chernobyls across the U.S.,” says electrical engineer John Kappenman, an
expert on the grid’s vulnerability to space weather. A CME big enough to take out a chunk of the grid is what scientists
and insurers call a high-consequence, low-frequency event. Many space-weather scientists say the Earth is due for one
soon. Although CMEs can strike anytime, they are closely correlated to highs in the 11-year sunspot cycle. The current
cycle will peak in July 2013.¶ The most powerful CME in recorded history occurred during a solar cycle with a peak similar
to the one scientists are predicting in 2013. During the so-called Carrington Event in 1859, electrical discharges in the U.S.
shocked telegraph operators and set their machines on fire. A CME in 1921 disrupted radio across the East Coast and
telephone operations in most of Europe. In a 2008 National Academy of Sciences report, scientists estimated that a 1921level storm could knock out 350 transformers on the American grid, leaving 130 million people without electricity.
Replacing broken transformers would take a long time because most require up to two years to manufacture. ¶ Once
outside power is lost, nuclear plants have diesel generators that can pump water to spent-fuel cooling pools for up to 30
days. The extent of the meltdown threat is well-documented. A month before the Fukushima plant in Japan went offline in
March, the Foundation for Resilient Societies, a committee of engineers, filed a petition with the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission recommending the augmentation of nuclear plants’ emergency backup systems. The petition
claims that a severe solar storm would be far worse than a 9.0-magnitude quake and could leave about two thirds
of the country’s nuclear plants without power for one to two years.
The impact is hundreds of millions of deaths globally – this outweighs nuclear war
Lendman, Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization, 2011 (Stephen, “Nuclear Meltdown in Japan,”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Nuclear-Meltdown-in-Japan-by-Stephen-Lendman-110313-843.html)
Fukushima Daiichi "nuclear power plant in Okuma, Japan, appears to have caused a reactor meltdown." Stratfor
downplayed its seriousness, adding that such an event "does not necessarily mean a nuclear disaster," that already may
have happened - the ultimate nightmare short of nuclear winter. According to Stratfor, "(A)s long as the reactor core,
which is specifically designed to contain high levels of heat, pressure and radiation, remains intact, the melted fuel can be
dealt with. If the (core's) breached but the containment facility built around (it) remains intact, the melted fuel can
be....entombed within specialized concrete" as at Chernobyl in 1986. In fact, that disaster killed nearly one million
people worldwide from nuclear radiation exposure. In their book titled, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe
for People and the Environment," Alexey Yablokov, Vassily Nesterenko and Alexey Nesterenko said: "For the past 23 years,
it has been clear that there is a danger greater than nuclear weapons concealed within nuclear power. Emissions
from this one reactor exceeded a hundred-fold the radioactive contamination of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima
and Nagasaki." "No citizen of any country can be assured that he or she can be protected from radioactive contamination.
One nuclear reactor can pollute half the globe. Chernobyl fallout covers the entire Northern Hemisphere." Stratfor
explained that if Fukushima's floor cracked, "it is highly likely that the melting fuel will burn through (its)
containment system and enter the ground. This has never happened before," at least not reported. If now occurring,
"containment goes from being merely dangerous, time consuming and expensive to nearly impossible," making the
quake, aftershocks, and tsunamis seem mild by comparison. Potentially, millions of lives will be jeopardized.
103
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
Spillover
Even limited blackouts will spillover due to interdependency
National Research Council, 2008 (“Severe Space Weather Events—Understanding Societal and Economic Impacts,”
Committee on the Societal and Economic Impacts of Severe Space Weather Events: A Workshop)
Caverly discussed how a space weather event could have an impact on delivery of electric power. For example, following a
power outage, electrified transportation ceases for the duration of the outage. When there is a short- term power outage
with rapid restoration, the impacts may be minimal. However, with a long-term outage (say, several days, or perhaps,
because of severe equipment damage, even considerably longer), then the loss of power after backup power supplies
are exhausted could affect water, communication, banking and finance, and just about every critical
infrastructure including government services. Loss of these systems for a significant period of time in even one region
of the country could affect the entire nation and have international impacts. For example, financial institutions could
be shut down, freight transportation stopped, and communications interrupted, as suggested in Figure 3.1. The concept of
interdependency is evident (for example) in the unavailability of water due to long-term outage of electric power and the
inability to restart an electric generator without water on-site, supplies of which have been exhausted.
In the discussion following Caverly’s presentation, a focus was electric power because of the dependencies of virtually
all other infrastructures and services on it and the fact that electric power can be seriously affected by space weather
events. Electricity is not storable in form; conversion from other energy sources (e.g., hydro, fossil fuel, nuclear) is
required, and the production of electrical energy must be instantaneously matched to the current demand. It is
transported via the electric power grids of the United States and Canada, requiring constant attention to many details to
assure safe, reliable, secure operations.
As the nation’s infrastructures and services increase in complexity and interdependence over time, a major
outage of any one infrastructure will have an increasingly widespread impact. For example, the dependence of
nearly all critical services on information technology is ever increasing, and the flow of information is itself dependent on
communications infrastructure and a reliable supply of electric power. Backup power supplies do exist, but in most cases
only for limited periods. Service reliability includes provisioning of backup facilities, which must be sufficiently isolated
from each other that a single and perhaps even multiple events would not simultaneously shut down both locations.
104
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
No Quick Recovery
No quick recovery – transformers take years to be rebuilt
Brooks, English scientist and author, Ph.D. in Quantum Physics, 2009 (Michael, “Space storm alert: 90 seconds from
catastrophe,” New Scientist, March 23, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20127001.300-space-storm-alert-90seconds-from-catastrophe.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news)
Back-up generators would run at pivotal sites - but only until their fuel ran out. For hospitals, that would mean about
72 hours of running a bare-bones, essential care only, service. After that, no more modern healthcare. ¶ The truly shocking
finding is that this whole situation would not improve for months, maybe years: melted transformer hubs cannot be
repaired, only replaced. "From the surveys I've done, you might have a few spare transformers around, but installing a
new one takes a well-trained crew a week or more," says Kappenman. "A major electrical utility might have one suitably
trained crew, maybe two."¶ Within a month, then, the handful of spare transformers would be used up. The rest will have
to be built to order, something that can take up to 12 months.¶ Even when some systems are capable of receiving
power again, there is no guarantee there will be any to deliver. Almost all natural gas and fuel pipelines require
electricity to operate. Coal-fired power stations usually keep reserves to last 30 days, but with no transport systems
running to bring more fuel, there will be no electricity in the second month. ¶ Nuclear power stations wouldn't fare much
better. They are programmed to shut down in the event of serious grid problems and are not allowed to restart until
the power grid is up and running.
105
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
AT: Alt Cause
Solar cycle 24 will be weak
Choudhuri, et al, 2007 (Arnab Rai Choudhuri, Department of Physics at the Indian Institute of Science, Piyali Chatterjee and
Jie Jiang, National Astronomical Observatories of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, “Predicting solar cycle 24 with a solar
dynamo model,” January 18)
Fig. 3 now presents our results for cycles 21–24 generated by our method- ology. The top panel superposes the sunspot
number generated from our model on the observational data. The middle panel gives the Br at a latitude of 70◦ obtained
from the dynamo model, showing the jumps at the solar minima when we change the poloidal field in accordance with the
observed value of DM. The bottom panel shows the butterfly diagram produced by our model. We see in the top panel that
the theoretical plot is in quite good agreement with the observational data for cycles 21–23. whereas cycle 24 comes out
as the weakest cycle in a long time. Since the value of DM during the minima at the ends of cycles 22 and 23 are lower
than the values of DM in the two preceding minima, the weakness of cycle 24 appears like a very robust result, which
does not change with small changes in the parameters of the problem such as the chosen value of DM. We may point
out that the absolute value of the theoretical sunspot number from our numerical code does not have any particular
significance, since this value changes on changing such things as the grid spacing. To generate Fig. 3a, we scaled the
theoretical sunspot number suitably to make it fit the observational plot.
Other satellites already provide early warning
Quick, 2011 (Darren, “The Sun: now available in 3D,” February 6, http://www.gizmag.com/stereo-probes-provide-first-3dimages-of-entire-sun/17798/)
On October 26, 2006, NASA launched two STEREO (Solar Terrestrial Relations Observatory) spacecraft. Using the
Moon’s gravity for a gravitational slingshot, the two nearly identical spacecraft, STEREO-A and STEREO-B, split up with
one pulling ahead of the Earth and the other gradually falling behind. It’s taken over four years but on February 6, 2011,
the two spacecraft finally moved into position on opposite sides of the Sun, each looking down on a different hemisphere.
The probes are now sending back images of the star, front and back, allowing scientists for the first time to view the entire
Sun in 3D.¶ Each of the probes captures images of half of the Sun and beams them back to Earth where researchers
combine the two opposing views to create a sphere. To track key aspects of solar activity such as flares, tsunamis and
magnetic filaments, STEREO’s telescopes are tuned to four wavelengths of extreme ultraviolet radiation. ¶ The resultant
3D images will allow researchers to improve space weather forecasts to provide earlier and more accurate
warnings for potentially damaging coronal mass ejections (CMEs) that can impact aircraft navigation systems,
power grids and satellites. Previously, an active sunspot could emerge on the far side of the Sun before the Sun’s
rotation turned that region toward Earth, spitting flares and clouds of plasma with little warning.¶ "Not anymore," says
Bill Murtagh, a senior forecaster at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Space Weather
Prediction Center in Boulder, Colorado. "Farside active regions can no longer take us by surprise. Thanks to STEREO,
we know they're coming."¶ As part of NASA’s ‘Solar Shield’ project, the NOAA is already using 3D STEREO models of
CME’s to improve space weather forecasts, but the full Sun view should improve these forecasts even more. And
the forecasting benefits aren’t just limited to Earth. The global 3D model of the Sun also allows researchers to track solar
storms heading for other planets, which is important for NASA missions to Mercury, Mars and even asteroids.
106
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
***2AC – Offcase
107
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – T – Economic Engagement
Economic engagement includes energy cooperation.
Hormats 12. [Robert, Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment, "US Economic Engagement with the Asia Pacific" US
Department of State -- December 7 -- www.state.gov/e/rls/rmk/2012/201746.htm]
During the U.S.-ASEAN Summit last month, President Obama and ASEAN leaders also launched what we called the “U.S.-ASEAN Expanded Economic
Engagement” Initiative to promote economic cooperation between the United States and ASEAN. This initiative, which we called the “E3,” will
focus on enhancing ASEAN members’ capacity for advancing cooperation in many areas that we think will further enhance trade. ¶ In addition, an exciting
new area for our outreach is in the energy sector. At the East Asian Summit, President Obama and his counterparts from Brunei and Indonesia
announced the U.S.-Asia Pacific Comprehensive Energy Partnership. The Partnership will offer a framework for expanding energy and
environmental cooperation to advance efforts to ensure affordable, secure, and cleaner energy throughout the region. We will
foster active private sector involvement in the partnership, which will focus on the four key areas of renewable and clean energy, markets and
interconnectivity, the emerging role of natural gas, and sustainable development.
108
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – CIR DA – Case Solves
Economic integration and increased relations solve CIR – border security and immigration
Dear, Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of Berkeley, 5-15
(Michael, 5-15-13, Huffington Post, “Building Connections (Not More Walls) Along the U.S.-Mexico
Border,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dear/building-connections-not-morewalls_b_3275005.html, accessed 7-9-13, EB)
More formal cross-border institutions also consolidate bi-national ties, including local business alliances as well as international agreements on
trade and environment. In El Paso, the International Boundary and Water Commission and its Mexican counterpart, Comisión Internacional de Límites y
Aguas, for more than a century have shared responsibility for maintaining the international boundary line and supporting joint development projects. Their
efforts have cleaned up the river-borne pollution that crosses over from the city of Tijuana into San Diego County, protected environmentally-sensitive desert
regions between Texas and Chihuahua, and forged important water-sharing agreements pertaining to the Colorado River. Every single day, trans-border
unity is further bolstered by the synergies of twin-city economies. Border states are among the fastest-growing regions in both countries. Ciudad
Juárez, once a city of 1.5 million, lost about a quarter-million inhabitants who fled from drug cartel-related violence. Yet Juárez's industrial sector continues to
add jobs, and trade between the city and Texas rose almost 50 percent in 2010. In El Paso, the arrival of 30,000 sanctuary-seekers from Juárez created a boom
in local real estate and restaurant businesses. In McAllen, Texas, 80 percent of businesses were Mexican-owned by the mid-2000s, a reversal of the proportion
from a decade earlier. McAllen draws a greater share of Mexican spending than any other US city, affecting everything from retail sales to home purchases and
vacation destinations. Most of the money comes from the major industrial metropolis of Monterrey in Nuevo Léon, only two hours away by toll road. So
common is the trip from Monterrey to McAllen that a new Spanish verb was coined: macalenear, literally 'to do McAllen.' The troubles in Ciudad Juárez remind
us that cross-border connectivity is not solely about positive connections. Drug smuggling and human trafficking across the line are never welcomed, but they
nevertheless constitute another kind of cross-border linkage. In turn, they have spawned new forms of collaboration among law
enforcement agencies on both sides. Today, U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Texan Big Bend region worry because Mexico's plans for infrastructure
improvement (to transport goods more expeditiously into the US) could expose the remote region to an influx of criminal activity. But the US has not yet
moved to upgrade regional transportation infrastructure north of the border. Oblivious to the needs of trans-border communities, reform-minded
lawmakers in distant Washington, D.C. persist in demanding yet more barricades between our two countries. Instead, we should be listening to
the voices of border residents on both sides, following the lead of twin-city mayors, and working harder to strengthen cross-border ties. Mexico is
already ahead of us in developing the border-zone infrastructure needed for bi-national trade and prosperity. Why aren't we matching these efforts?
Paradoxically, our national obsessions regarding security, immigration, and drugs may best be served by encouraging cross-border
connections instead of building more fortifications that interrupt transborder lives, jeopardize economic prosperity, and downgrade environmental and
community well-being along the line.
109
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – CIR DA – Hoeven Link Turn
The plan is a victory for Sen. Hoeven’s renewables agenda
ESU, 2012
(Environmental Sustainability Updates, 3-7-12, “Why Congress Must Extend the PTC for Wind Power,”
http://environmental-sustainability.soup.io/tag/wind, accessed 7-9-13, EB)
The federal renewable electricity PTC is a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources and sold by the taxpayer
to an unrelated person during the taxable year. Originally enacted in 1992, the PTC has been renewed and expanded numerous times. The federal
tax credit gives wind power generators 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy produced, but it is slated to expire at the end of 2012 unless
lawmakers approve a renewal. The PTC has fueled the proliferation of wind power installations across the U.S. Since 2005, the PTC has helped to
generate 47,000 megawatts of new capacity. A total of 35 percent of the new electrical generation capacity has been developed due to the PTC over the past
five years. This activity is worth $60 billion in private investment. The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and
nuclear generators. In terms of cost efficiency, rising fuel prices mean that wind power could achieve parity by 2016, but this won’t happen without the PTC.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2012, wind is one of the dominant players behind increasing U.S.
renewable energy generation. Wind power now generates 3 percent of America’s electricity. Forecasts predict that wind generation will almost double
between 2010 and 2035, but the growth would slow substantially if the PTC were allowed to expire. “If Congress chooses not to renew, there is no hope for
the wind industry next year,” John Graham, a BP executive, said of the tax credit. “Without it, U.S. wind projects aren’t viable.” Failure to extend the PTC would
result in the loss of an estimated 40,000 jobs in the wind industry. Members of the industry supply chain are already being affected due to the uncertainty. The
current PTC uncertainty has begun to cause layoffs and in the absence of an extension, further job losses and even plant closings will keep accelerating.
Despite economic headwinds, the PTC has helped the US wind market grow stronger. In 2011 the wind market improved upon the 5 GW posted in 2010. More
than 7 GW of wind capacity is expected to be installed in the US in 2012 as developers of wind energy rush to complete projects before the expiration of the
PTC at the end of this year. Although the wind market will experience an acceleration of installations, especially during Q1 and Q2 of 2012, if the PTC is not
extended, a major stoppage throughout the entire US wind industry can be anticipated in the second half of 2012. Although bipartisan contingents in
both the House and Senate are calling for action, the fight over the extension of the PTC continues on Capitol Hill. U.S. Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.),
Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and 10 colleagues from both parties wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
urging swift action on extension of the wind energy production tax credit (PTC). In addition to Udall and Moran, the Senate letter was
signed by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John Hoeven (RN.D.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), John Thune (R-S.D.), and Jon Tester (D-Mont.). As the Senators explain in their letter, “An extension of
the wind production tax credit should provide for some long-term stability while setting forth a path for how the wind industry can move
towards a market-based system. While it is clear that the wind industry currently requires tax incentives like the production tax credit to compete, Congress
needs to provide the wind industry with the stability and predictability to plan for the future.”
Hoeven’s influence is critical to passing CIR
Dumain and Shiner, 7-9
(Emma and Meredith, 7-9-13, Roll Call, “Immigration Thicket Awaits House GOP,”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/immigration-thicket-awaits-house-gop/, accessed 7-9-13, EB)
Of course, Senate Republicans have tried to reach out to influential House conservatives. Several House and Senate Republicans met
Monday night. The guest list included former vice presidential nominee and current House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan. The Wisconsin Republican also
met Tuesday with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., to discuss immigration, according to the senator. Hoeven, along with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., wrote
the “border surge” amendment that was instrumental to securing GOP votes for — and therefore passage of — the Senate bill. Though
Boehner has insisted on tough border security measures first, Corker said he believes such demands reveal that House Republicans
don’t understand what the Senate bill does. “I think once they realize what this bill says, the border security issue goes away. And I think what the
speaker has brought up is the sequencing,” Corker said. “If the House passes any kind of border bill, or security bill, or any other element, it still gives an
opportunity for a conference to occur. And I think if a conference occurs, we still have a chance at getting a more comprehensive piece of
legislation, and I hope we will.”
110
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – CIR DA – Reid Likes the Plan
Harry Reid supports grid integration
Stone, 2009
(Andy, 3-9-9, Forbes, “Feds To Take Control Of Electric Superhighway,”
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/09/energy-harry-reid-business-energy-superhighway.html, accessed
7-9-13, EB)
Chalk up one for the federalists. Last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., introduced a bill that would give the federal
government authority to grant permits for new electric transmission lines , trumping states’ jurisdiction on the matter. Reid’s bill, the
Clean Renewable Energy and Economic Development Act, provides a regulatory framework for the development of a national electric
superhighway, a network of high-voltage power lines that would transmit electricity from remotely located wind and solar farms to
energy-hungry urban areas. The transmission lines would play a key part in President Obama’s push to produce 25% of the country’s electricity from
renewable sources by the year 2025.
111
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – Politics
The plan is a victory for Sen. Hoeven’s renewables agenda
ESU, 2012
(Environmental Sustainability Updates, 3-7-12, “Why Congress Must Extend the PTC for Wind Power,”
http://environmental-sustainability.soup.io/tag/wind, accessed 7-9-13, EB)
The federal renewable electricity PTC is a per-kilowatt-hour tax credit for electricity generated by qualified energy resources and sold by the taxpayer
to an unrelated person during the taxable year. Originally enacted in 1992, the PTC has been renewed and expanded numerous times. The federal
tax credit gives wind power generators 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour of energy produced, but it is slated to expire at the end of 2012 unless
lawmakers approve a renewal. The PTC has fueled the proliferation of wind power installations across the U.S. Since 2005, the PTC has helped to
generate 47,000 megawatts of new capacity. A total of 35 percent of the new electrical generation capacity has been developed due to the PTC over the past
five years. This activity is worth $60 billion in private investment. The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and
nuclear generators. In terms of cost efficiency, rising fuel prices mean that wind power could achieve parity by 2016, but this won’t happen without the PTC.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2012, wind is one of the dominant players behind increasing U.S.
renewable energy generation. Wind power now generates 3 percent of America’s electricity. Forecasts predict that wind generation will almost double
between 2010 and 2035, but the growth would slow substantially if the PTC were allowed to expire. “If Congress chooses not to renew, there is no hope for
the wind industry next year,” John Graham, a BP executive, said of the tax credit. “Without it, U.S. wind projects aren’t viable.” Failure to extend the PTC would
result in the loss of an estimated 40,000 jobs in the wind industry. Members of the industry supply chain are already being affected due to the uncertainty. The
current PTC uncertainty has begun to cause layoffs and in the absence of an extension, further job losses and even plant closings will keep accelerating.
Despite economic headwinds, the PTC has helped the US wind market grow stronger. In 2011 the wind market improved upon the 5 GW posted in 2010. More
than 7 GW of wind capacity is expected to be installed in the US in 2012 as developers of wind energy rush to complete projects before the expiration of the
PTC at the end of this year. Although the wind market will experience an acceleration of installations, especially during Q1 and Q2 of 2012, if the PTC is not
extended, a major stoppage throughout the entire US wind industry can be anticipated in the second half of 2012. Although bipartisan contingents in
both the House and Senate are calling for action, the fight over the extension of the PTC continues on Capitol Hill. U.S. Sens. Mark Udall (D-Colo.),
Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and 10 colleagues from both parties wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)
urging swift action on extension of the wind energy production tax credit (PTC). In addition to Udall and Moran, the Senate letter was
signed by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), John Hoeven (RN.D.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), John Thune (R-S.D.), and Jon Tester (D-Mont.). As the Senators explain in their letter, “An extension of
the wind production tax credit should provide for some long-term stability while setting forth a path for how the wind industry can move
towards a market-based system. While it is clear that the wind industry currently requires tax incentives like the production tax credit to compete, Congress
needs to provide the wind industry with the stability and predictability to plan for the future.”
Hoeven’s influence is critical to passing CIR
Dumain and Shiner, 7-9
(Emma and Meredith, 7-9-13, Roll Call, “Immigration Thicket Awaits House GOP,”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/immigration-thicket-awaits-house-gop/, accessed 7-9-13, EB)
Of course, Senate Republicans have tried to reach out to influential House conservatives. Several House and Senate Republicans met
Monday night. The guest list included former vice presidential nominee and current House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan. The Wisconsin Republican also
met Tuesday with Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., to discuss immigration, according to the senator. Hoeven, along with Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., wrote
the “border surge” amendment that was instrumental to securing GOP votes for — and therefore passage of — the Senate bill. Though
Boehner has insisted on tough border security measures first, Corker said he believes such demands reveal that House Republicans
don’t understand what the Senate bill does. “I think once they realize what this bill says, the border security issue goes away. And I think what the
speaker has brought up is the sequencing,” Corker said. “If the House passes any kind of border bill, or security bill, or any other element, it still gives an
opportunity for a conference to occur. And I think if a conference occurs, we still have a chance at getting a more comprehensive piece of
legislation, and I hope we will.”
Economic integration and increased relations solve CIR – border security and immigration
Dear, Professor of City and Regional Planning, University of Berkeley, 5-15
(Michael, 5-15-13, Huffington Post, “Building Connections (Not More Walls) Along the U.S.-Mexico
Border,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-dear/building-connections-not-morewalls_b_3275005.html, accessed 7-9-13, EB)
More formal cross-border institutions also consolidate bi-national ties, including local business alliances as well as international agreements on
trade and environment. In El Paso, the International Boundary and Water Commission and its Mexican counterpart, Comisión Internacional de Límites y
Aguas, for more than a century have shared responsibility for maintaining the international boundary line and supporting joint development projects. Their
efforts have cleaned up the river-borne pollution that crosses over from the city of Tijuana into San Diego County, protected environmentally-sensitive desert
regions between Texas and Chihuahua, and forged important water-sharing agreements pertaining to the Colorado River. Every single day, trans-border
unity is further bolstered by the synergies of twin-city economies. Border states are among the fastest-growing regions in both countries. Ciudad
Juárez, once a city of 1.5 million, lost about a quarter-million inhabitants who fled from drug cartel-related violence. Yet Juárez's industrial sector continues to
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
112
add jobs, and trade between the city and Texas rose almost 50 percent in 2010. In El Paso, the arrival of 30,000 sanctuary-seekers from Juárez created a boom
in local real estate and restaurant businesses. In McAllen, Texas, 80 percent of businesses were Mexican-owned by the mid-2000s, a reversal of the proportion
from a decade earlier. McAllen draws a greater share of Mexican spending than any other US city, affecting everything from retail sales to home purchases and
vacation destinations. Most of the money comes from the major industrial metropolis of Monterrey in Nuevo Léon, only two hours away by toll road. So
common is the trip from Monterrey to McAllen that a new Spanish verb was coined: macalenear, literally 'to do McAllen.' The troubles in Ciudad Juárez remind
us that cross-border connectivity is not solely about positive connections. Drug smuggling and human trafficking across the line are never welcomed, but they
nevertheless constitute another kind of cross-border linkage. In turn, they have spawned new forms of collaboration among law
enforcement agencies on both sides. Today, U.S. Border Patrol agents in the Texan Big Bend region worry because Mexico's plans for infrastructure
improvement (to transport goods more expeditiously into the US) could expose the remote region to an influx of criminal activity. But the US has not yet
moved to upgrade regional transportation infrastructure north of the border. Oblivious to the needs of trans-border communities, reform-minded
lawmakers in distant Washington, D.C. persist in demanding yet more barricades between our two countries. Instead, we should be listening to
the voices of border residents on both sides, following the lead of twin-city mayors, and working harder to strengthen cross-border ties. Mexico is
already ahead of us in developing the border-zone infrastructure needed for bi-national trade and prosperity. Why aren't we matching these efforts?
Paradoxically, our national obsessions regarding security, immigration, and drugs may best be served by encouraging cross-border
connections instead of building more fortifications that interrupt transborder lives, jeopardize economic prosperity, and downgrade environmental and
community well-being along the line.
113
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – Oil DA
Mexico production down and won’t go back up – oil reserves exhausted
APSO-USA 13 2/28 http://peak-oil.org/2013/04/reasons-mexicos-oil-production-has-stagnated/
Reasons Mexico’s Oil Production Has Stagnated association for the study of peak oil and gas
ForecastMEX Mexico´s crude production peaked at 3.455 Mbopd in 2004 and has already declined to 2.568 Mbopd, (Feb 28,
2013). I believe it will not be possible to return to former production levels, nor even to the present official forecast of 3
million barrels per day, because of the following reasons:¶ The giant and supergiant oil reservoirs, like Cantarell,
discovered more than 30 years ago,were produced¶ irrationally at accelerated rates and are now in an advanced stage of
decline or are practically exhausted.¶ Other major oil fields, like Ku-Maloob-Zaap, are expected to start declining in the next
few years.¶ The oil fields that will be discovered in the future will be smaller,more difficult and costly to produce.¶ To date
the potential production of shale oil is not known with any certainty . Rigorous evaluation with sound¶ scientific,
technical and economic basis will be needed before starting such development and production.¶ The rate
of increased production from new oil discoveries will be slower than the rate of decline of existing
mature¶ oil fields because of delays and inefficiencies in development.¶ Because of these considerations, I
believe that neither opening up exploration and production of mature fields to private investment nor
applying new technologies to development of unconventional resources (shale oil and tight oil sands) will
be able to add significantly to oil production.All that can be hoped for is that the decline will abate and
production will remain well above domestic refining capacity of about 1.5million barrels per day in order
to avoid having to import feedstock.
Mexico oil production declining
Reuters 6/5 Insight - Clouds gather over Mexico's proclamation of new oil dawn
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/06/05/uk-mexico-oil-insight-idUKBRE95411A20130605
Mexico's average annual crude production has been edging down for years. At the outset of 2013, average first-quarter oil
output sank to 2.54 million bpd, its lowest level since 1990.¶ The data and the forecasts highlight a disconnect between
Pemex's optimism and the reality at fields like Ku Maloob Zaap.¶ Two-thirds of fields are already in decline, and Lozoya's
latest forecast for a 20 percent rise in output to 3 million bpd over the next five years is premised on
production from some that have yet to be developed, analysts say.¶ For many, it sounds all too familiar.
Just a few years ago the giant Cantarell field was thought to be a stalwart; output has now plunged to one-tenth of 2004 levels,
a shockingly abrupt decline that caught world oil markets off guard.¶ "Production is going to fall and there's nothing obvious
that will replace it," said Dave Pursell, an oil analyst with Houston-based energy development bank Tudor
Pickering Holt, who worked on reservoir studies in Mexico in the 1990s.¶ "If a public company in the U.S.
told me that, the stock would be a short," he added. "You'd sell it."¶ The Mexican government hopes a
landmark energy reform aimed at luring private oil major investment will help boost output.¶ Next month,
Pemex will auction six blocks in Mexico's Chicontepec basin, home to the country's largest hydrocarbon
reserve, in a more immediate push for additional capital.
Oil production will continue a decline
Agfax 5/9
http://agfax.com/2013/05/09/mexico-deals-with-declining-crude-oil-production/ Mexico Deals with
Declining Crude Oil Production
Since reaching a peak of nearly 3.4 million barrels per day in 2004, Mexico’s crude oil production has declined each year
(Figure 1), although at a slower rate since 2010. Much of the production declines are the natural result of aging fields,
particularly Cantarell and other large offshore fields. Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex), the state-owned oil company,
is the sole oil operator in the country, and the Mexican constitution prohibits foreign ownership and
investment in the exploration, production, refining, and marketing of the nation’s hydrocarbon resources.
Earnings from the oil industry, including taxes and direct payments from Pemex, accounted for 34
percent of total government revenue in 2011.¶ In an effort to reverse the declining production, the Mexican
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
114
government passed the 2008 Energy Reform to create incentive-based service contracts with foreign oil companies. Under
the new arrangement, Pemex retains ownership of the crude oil produced and provides a fee-per-barrel
rate to encourage technological innovation that would increase production. Since passing the 2008
Energy Reform, Pemex has entered into a handful of partnerships, but has yet to attract major
international oil companies. The projects so far have been concentrated in lower-risk production areas,
where a relatively high recovery rate is likely.¶ Falling crude oil production in Mexico has contributed to lower crude
oil exports both to the United States and the rest of the world (Figure 2). From 2003 to 2012, the United States received
roughly 80 percent of Mexico’s crude exports. Despite the declining export volumes, this ratio has stayed fairly constant.
Increasing production in the United States has offset some of the demand for light sweet crude oil imports from countries
other than Mexico, but has not yet affected the U.S. demand for Mexican crude, which is primarily heavy .
Increased renewables won’t affect oil prices – transportation and politics are more important
Rodriguez, 2012
(Elysia, 4-2-12, WWLP, “MA Senate to focus on renewable energy,”
http://www.wwlp.com/dpp/news/local/hampden/state-senate-to-focus-on-renewable-energy,
accessed 7-12-13, EB)
SPRINGFIELD, Mass. (WWLP) - From the electricity costs to the prices at the pumps, energy costs can take a big chunk out any business or household budget.
Massachusetts has the seventh highest electricity costs in the country. It's a problem the State Senate has taken on; they're debating a bill requiring
utilities purchase at least 7% of their total energy supplies from renewable sources. While Massachusetts is actually just above the national
average for renewable energy but many say that average is way to low and we have a long way to go.Karl Petrick, an economics professor at Western New
England University told 22News, “Right now in the United States we have 2% of our electricity generation coming from renewable sources, so Massachusetts
is ahead of the game with 3%, Germany this year 20%.” John Morris of Springfield said, “You know I never used to think about turning things off when I wasn't
using them the computer and these days you almost have to think about that with the amount of money I spend every year on energy I mean it's going higher
and higher never mind gas prices." Renewable energy sources will cut electricity costs, it may do little to affect oil prices. Petrick said, “The
price of oil and so the price of gas really has nothing to do with domestic supply and demand, our demand is down and the price of
gas has gone up." Oil and gas prices vary state by state based on state taxes and distance from refineries. Many say politics also plays a
role.
U.S. renewables is a drop in the bucket for prices – China and India drive demand
Gattuso, senior fellow at The National Center for Public Policy Research, 2006
Dana Joel, 8-6, The National Center for Public Policy Research, “Oil Addiction Fiction: Bush's ‘Addiction’
May Be Rational Choice,” http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA549OilAddiction.html, accessed 7-12-13,
EB)
The desire of most Americans to continue feeding our fossil fuel "addiction" should come as no surprise. Even with energy prices moving upward
and Chicken Little-like speculations that we're tapping out supplies, oil is still abundant and relatively inexpensive compared to alternative
sources of energy like ethanol, solar & wind and hydrogen technology. Take corn-based ethanol. In the U.S., the industry currently produces 3.4 billion
gallons, used mostly as an octane-boost additive in gasoline.2 Billions of dollars in annual federal subsidies doesn't change the fact we don't and - due to
limitations on the amount of land, can't - grow nearly enough corn to meet our food and energy needs.3 Some experts question whether the production of
ethanol even nets a positive amount of energy. Scientists David Pimentel of Cornell University and Tad Patzek of University of California Berkley found after
considering energy inputs to separate, ferment, distill and extrude the corn, that ethanol uses 29 percent more fossil fuel in its making than it yields for energy
use.4 If the findings are true, it makes absolutely no sense for the government to spend billions of tax dollars subsidizing an entity that uses more energy than
it gives off. There might be more potential in "cellulosic biofuels" - fuel converted from plant fibers and waste material such as switchgrass and wood chips which President Bush referred to in his State of the Union. Compared to corn- and sugar-based ethanol, the process of breaking down non-starch plant
material requires much less energy. But these biofuels are prohibitively costly to produce, require massive amounts of land, and are still experimental.5 With
conversion technology still in its infancy - including the promising but controversial genetic engineering approach to increase production per acre6 - how
much more are we willing to spend in costly subsidies? Already, President Bush is earmarking $150 million in 2007 for biomass, almost twice the funding two
years ago.7 Wind and solar power have been the energy source of "the future" for over 40 years. Unlike cellulose, technology for these renewables is well and
fully developed.8 Yet in spite of years of generous federal and state subsidies and tax incentives, wind and solar have failed to make a dent in overall energy
use. As a recent report by Resources for the Future concludes, "renewables failed to meet prior expectations regarding trends in the volume of future
generation."9 Wind power accounts for less than one percent of total electric power capacity. Solar power generation, which can cost three
to four times as much as natural gas, accounts for even less - one-tenth of one percent of all electric capacity.10 Yet, to cure us of our nasty oil habit, President
Bush's budget for FY 2007 would increase solar energy R&D by 78 percent.11 Middle East instability and rising world oil prices may seem inextricably linked.
But that's only a small part of the picture. Higher oil prices are due largely to increased world demand, mainly from industrial giants China
and India, and inadequate investment in infrastructure to meet rising demand. 12 Even if we did rein in our consumption of oil,
it would do little to affect global demand and oil prices.
115
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – Ice Age DA
No impact – Enough resources to survive an ice age
Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological
Protection in Warsaw, 2004
(Zbigniew, winter 2004, “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate,” 21st Century Science and
Technology, p. 64, http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter20034/global_warming.pdf, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
Will mankind be able to protect the biosphere against the¶ next returning Ice Age? It depends on how
much time we still¶ have. I do not think that in the next 50 years we would acquire¶ the knowledge and
resources sufficient for governing climate¶ on a global scale. Surely we shall not stop climate cooling by¶ increasing
industrial CO2¶ emissions. Even with the doubling of¶ CO2¶ atmospheric levels, the increase in global surface
air temperature would be trifling. However, it is unlikely that permanent doubling of the atmospheric
CO2¶ , even using all our carbon resources, is attainable by human activities.29 (See also¶ Kondratyev,
Reference 59.)¶ Also, it does not seem possible that we will ever gain influence over the Sun’s activity. However, I think
that in the next¶ centuries we shall learn to control sea currents and clouds, and¶ this could be sufficient to
govern the climate of our planet.¶ The following “thought experiment” illustrates how valuable¶ our
civilization, and the very existence of man’s intellect, is for¶ the terrestrial biosphere. Mikhail Budyko, the
leading Russian¶ climatologist (now deceased), predicted in 1982 a future drastic¶ CO2¶ deficit in the
atmosphere, and claimed that one of the next¶ Ice Age periods could result in a freezing of the entire
surface of¶ the Earth, including the oceans. The only niches of life, he said,¶ would survive on the active
volcano edges.60¶ Budyko’s hypothesis is still controversial, but 10 years later¶ it was discovered that 700
million years ago, the Earth already¶ underwent such a disaster, changing into “Snowball Earth,”¶ covered in white from
Pole to Pole, with an average temperature of minus 40°C.15¶ However let’s assume that Budyko has been right and that¶
everything, to the very ocean bottom, will be frozen. Will¶ mankind survive this? I think yes, it would. The present
technology of nuclear power, based on the nuclear fission of uranium and thorium, would secure heat and electricity supplies¶
for 5 billion people for about 10,000 years. At the same time,¶ the stock of hydrogen in the ocean for future fusion-based¶
reactors would suffice for 6 billion years. Our cities, industrial¶ plants, food-producing greenhouses, our livestock, and also¶
zoos and botanical gardens turned into greenhouses, could be¶ heated virtually forever, and we could survive, together with¶
many other organisms, on a planet that had turned into a¶ gigantic glacier. I think, however, that such a “passive”
solution would not fit the genius of our future descendants, and¶ they would learn how to restore a warm climate for
ourselves¶ and for everything that lives on Earth.
No extinction from ice age—technology solves
Croatian Times, 2010
(Oct. 10, Croatian Times, “Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years,”
http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2010-0210/8836/Croat_scientist_warns_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years, accessed 7/12/13, CBC) *quoting
Vladimir Paar—physicist at Croatia’s Zagreb University. **This card has been gender modified
The Zagreb based scientist says it will still be possible for humans to survive in the ice age, but the spending on energy will be
enormous. "Food production also might be a problem. It would need to be produced in greenhouses with a lot of energy spent
to heat it", commented the professor, who remains optimistic despite his predictions. He said: "The nuclear energy we know
today will not last longer than 100 years as we simply do not have enough uranium in the world to match the needs in an ice
age. But I'm still optimistic. There is the process of nuclear fusion happening on the Sun. The fuel for that process is hydrogen
and such a power plant is already worked on in France as a consortium involving firms from Marseille and the European
Union, the US, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea. The head of the project is a Japanese expert, and former Japanese
ambassador in Croatia", Vladimir Paar revealed. He said the building of the new technology power plant will take at least
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
116
another 10 years. "In 40 years we'll know how it functions. That would be a solution that could last for thousands of years. We
have a lot of hydrogen and the method is an ecological one", the professor concluded.
The most recent scientific consensus is that an ice age will not occur for at least 70,000 years
Berger, professor at Universite Catholique de Louvain and MF Loutre, 2002
(Andre, Aug. 23, Science, “An exceptionally long interglacial ahead?,” EBSCO, Vol. 297, accessed 7/12/13,
CBC)
When paleoclimatologists gathred in 1972 to discuss how and when the present warm period would end ( 1), a slide into the
next glacial seemed imminent. But more recent studies point toward a different future: a long interglacial that may last
another 50,000 years.¶ An interglacial is an uninterrupted warm interval during which global climate reaches at least the
preindustrial level of warmth. Based on geological records available in 1972, the last two interglacials including the Eemian,
∼125,000 years ago) were believed to have lasted about 10,000 years. This is about the length of the current warm interval—
the Holocene—to date. Assuming a similar duration for all interglacials, the scientists concluded that “it is likely that the
present-day warm epoch will terminate relatively soon if man does not intervene” ( 1,p. 267). ¶ Some assumptions made 30
years ago have since been questioned. Past interglacials may have been longer than originally assumed ( 2). Some, including
marine isotope stage 11 (MIS-11, 400,000 years ago), may have been warmer than at present ( 3). We are also increasingly
aware of the intensification of the greenhouse effect by human activities ( 4). But even without human perturbation, future
climate may not develop as in past interglacials ( 5) because the forcings and mechanisms that produced these earlier warm
periods may have been quite different from today's.¶ Most early attempts to predict future climate at the geological time scale
( 6, 7) prolonged the cooling that started at the peak of the Holocene some 6000 years ago, predicting a cold interval in about
25,000 years and a glaciation in about 55,000 years. These projections were based on statistical rules or simple models that
did not include any CO2 forcing. They thus implicitly assumed a value equal to the average of the last glacial-interglacial cycles
[∼225 parts per million by volume (ppmv) ( 8)].¶ But some studies disagreed with these projections. With a simple ice-sheet
model, Oerlemans and Van der Veen ( 9) predicted a long interglacial lasting another 50,000 years, followed by a first glacial
maximum in about 65,000 years. Ledley also stated that an ice age is unlikely to begin in the next 70,000 years ( 10), based on
the relation between the observed rate of change of ice volume and the summer solstice radiation.
Their predictions about cooling are based on short term logic—default to long term trends which
show warming is coming
Revkin, weather and climate writer for the NY Times, 2008
(Andrew, March 2, The New York Times, “Skeptics on Human Climate Impact seize on cold spell,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html, accessed 7/12/13, CBC)
The world has seen some extraordinary winter conditions in both hemispheres over the past year: snow in Johannesburg last
June and in Baghdad in January, Arctic sea ice returning with a vengeance after a record retreat last summer, paralyzing
blizzards in China, and a sharp drop in the globe’s average temperature. ¶ It is no wonder that some scientists, opinion writers,
political operatives and other people who challenge warnings about dangerous human-caused global warming have jumped
on this as a teachable moment.¶ “Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way,” read a blog post and news
release on Wednesday from Marc Morano, the communications director for the Republican minority on the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee.¶ So what is happening?¶ According to a host of climate experts, including some who
question the extent and risks of global warming, it is mostly good old-fashioned weather, along with a cold kick from the
tropical Pacific Ocean, which is in its La Niña phase for a few more months, a year after it was in the opposite warm El Niño
pattern.¶ If anything else is afoot — like some cooling related to sunspot cycles or slow shifts in ocean and atmospheric
patterns that can influence temperatures — an array of scientists who have staked out differing positions on the overall threat
from global warming agree that there is no way to pinpoint whether such a new force is at work. ¶ Many scientists also say that
the cool spell in no way undermines the enormous body of evidence pointing to a warming world with disrupted weather
patterns, less ice and rising seas should heat-trapping greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels and forests continue to
accumulate in the air.¶ “The current downturn is not very unusual,” said Carl Mears, a scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a
private research group in Santa Rosa, Calif., that has been using satellite data to track global temperature and whose findings
have been held out as reliable by a variety of climate experts. He pointed to similar drops in 1988, 1991-92, and 1998, but with
a long-term warming trend clear nonetheless.¶ “Temperatures are very likely to recover after the La Niña event is over,” he
said.¶ Mr. Morano, in an e-mail message, was undaunted, saying turnabout is fair play: “Fair is fair. Noting (not hyping) an
unusually harsh global winter is merely pointing out the obvious. Dissenters of a man-made ‘climate crisis’ are using the
reality of this record-breaking winter to expose the silly warming alarmism that the news media and some scientists have
been ceaselessly promoting for decades.Ӧ More clucking about the cold is likely over the next several days. The Heartland
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
117
Institute, a public policy research group in Chicago opposed to regulatory approaches to environmental problems, is holding a
conference in Times Square on Monday and Tuesday aimed at exploring questions about the cause and dangers of climate
change.¶ The event will convene an array of scientists, economists, statisticians and libertarian commentators holding a
dizzying range of views on the changing climate — from those who see a human influence but think it is not dangerous, to
others who say global warming is a hoax, the sun’s fault or beneficial. Many attendees say it is the dawn of a new paradigm.
But many climate scientists and environmental campaigners say it is the skeptics’ last stand. ¶ Michael E. Schlesinger, an
atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, said that any focus on the last few months or years as
evidence undermining the established theory that accumulating greenhouse gases are making the world warmer was, at best,
a waste of time and, at worst, a harmful distraction.¶ Discerning a human influence on climate, he said, “involves finding a
signal in a noisy background.” He added, “The only way to do this within our noisy climate system is to average over a
sufficient number of years that the noise is greatly diminished, thereby revealing the signal. This means that one cannot look at
any single year and know whether what one is seeing is the signal or the noise or both the signal and the noise.” ¶ The shifts in
the extent and thickness of sea ice in the Arctic (where ice has retreated significantly in recent summers) and Antarctic (where
the area of floating sea ice has grown lately) are similarly hard to attribute to particular influences. ¶ Interviews and e-mail
exchanges with half a dozen polar climate and ice experts last week produced a rough consensus: Even with the extensive
refreezing of Arctic waters in the deep chill of the sunless boreal winter, the fresh-formed ice remains far thinner than the
yards-thick, years-old ice that dominated the region until the 1990s.¶ That means the odds of having vast stretches of open
water next summer remain high, many Arctic experts said.¶ “Climate skeptics typically take a few small pieces of the puzzle to
debunk global warming, and ignore the whole picture that the larger science community sees by looking at all the pieces,” said
Ignatius G. Rigor, a climate scientist at the Polar Science Center of the University of Washington in Seattle. ¶ He said the
argument for a growing human influence on climate laid out in last year’s reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, or I.P.C.C., was supported by evidence from many fields. ¶ “I will admit that we do not have all the pieces,” Dr.
Rigor said, “but as the I.P.C.C. reports, the preponderance of evidence suggests that global warming is real.” As for the Arctic,
he said, “Yes, this year’s winter ice extent is higher than last year’s, but it is still lower than the long-term mean.”¶ Dr. Rigor said
next summer’s ice retreat, despite the regrowth of thin fresh-formed ice now, could still surpass last year’s, when nearly all of
the Arctic Ocean between Alaska and Siberia was open water. ¶ Some scientists who strongly disagree with each other on the
extent of warming coming in this century, and on what to do about it, agreed that it was important not to be tempted to
overinterpret short-term swings in climate, either hot or cold.¶ Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist and commentator with the
libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, has long chided environmentalists and the media for overstating connections
between extreme weather and human-caused warming. (He is on the program at the skeptics’ conference.)¶ But Dr. Michaels
said that those now trumpeting global cooling should beware of doing the same thing, saying that the “predictable distortion”
of extreme weather “goes in both directions.”¶ Gavin A. Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies
in Manhattan who has spoken out about the need to reduce greenhouse gases, disagrees with Dr. Michaels on many issues, but
concurred on this point.¶ “When I get called by CNN to comment on a big summer storm or a drought or something, I give the
same answer I give a guy who asks about a blizzard,” Dr. Schmidt said. “It’s all in the long-term trends. Weather isn’t going to
go away because of climate change. There is this desire to explain everything that we see in terms of something you think you
understand, whether that’s the next ice age coming or global warming.”
The plan doesn’t cause an ice age—and even if it does, its 50,000 years away
Stager, an ecologist, paleoclimatologist, and science journalist with a Ph.D. in biology and geology from
Duke University, 11.
(Curt, “Deep Future”, p 17-19, CBC)
But maybe there's a middle route. If we do manage to follow a moderate-emissions path, then we'll probably be leaving most
of our coal reserves where they lie and running our future civilizations on other energy sources. Environmental damage
during the next several centuries will be held to a minimum, some societies might benefit from a partial and temporary
opening of the Arctic Ocean, and the next ice age of 50,000 ad will be held at bay. This could also produce a longer-term
benefit, as well, by leaving lots of coal already sequestered in the ground for later. By saving most of our fossil carbon in a
safe, solid, reasonably accessible form, we would bequeath it to later generations for possible use, not necessarily as a fuel but
rather as a simple, cost-effective tool for climate control.
118
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – XO CP
Obama is more willing to use XOs in his second term
Lerer, 2013
(Lisa, 2-10-13, Bloomberg, “Obama State of Union Means Executive Power for Defiant Congress,”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-11/obama-poised-to-skirt-congress-to-seal-legacy-in-newterm-agenda.html, accessed 7-10-13, EB)
When President Barack Obama delivers his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, the biggest
question he’ll face will be how to get an ambitious second-term agenda through a divided Congress. The answer: Go
around it. On climate change, gun control, gay rights, and even immigration, the White House has signaled a
willingness to circumvent lawmakers through the use of presidential power. Already, plans are being laid to unleash new
executive orders, regulations, signing statements and memorandums designed to push Obama’s programs forward and
cement his legacy, according to administration aides and allies. “The big things that we need to get done, we
can’t wait on,” said White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer. “If we can take action, we will take action.”
Specifically, Obama’s recent XO set a precedent for new climate change policy
Gillis, 6-25
(Justin, 6-25-13, New York Times, “Obama Puts Legacy at Stake With Clean-Air Act,”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/science/earth/clean-air-act-reinterpreted-would-focus-onflexibility-and-state-level-efforts.html?pagewanted=all, accessed 7-10-13, EB)
With no chance of Congressional support, President Obama is staking part of his legacy on a big risk: that
he can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions by stretching the intent of a law decades old and not written with
climate change in mind. His plan, unveiled Tuesday at Georgetown University in Washington, will set off legal and
political battles that will last years. But experts say that if all goes well for the president, the plan could
potentially meet his stated goal of an overall emissions reduction of 17 percent by 2020, compared with
the level in 2005. “If the question is, ‘Will this solve our emissions problem?’ the answer is no,” said Michael A.
Levi, an energy analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. “If the question is, ‘Could this
move us along the path we want to be on?’ the answer is yes, it could.” In his speech, Mr. Obama said he
would use executive powers to limit the carbon dioxide that power plants could emit. He also called for
government spending to promote the development of energy alternatives, and committed to helping cities
and states protect themselves from rising seas and other effects of climate change. But formally, the main
thing he did on Tuesday was order the Environmental Protection Agency to devise an emissions
control plan, with the first draft due in a year. Experts say he will be lucky to get a final plan in place by
the time he leaves office in early 2017. Mr. Obama is trying to ensure continuation of a trend already under
way: emissions in the United States have been falling for several years. But at the global scale, they are
rising fast, and as the president acknowledged, it will take much stronger international action to turn that
around and head off the worst effects of climate change.
119
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – China CP
China’s grid technology lags behind the U.S. in efficient and reliable transmission – this wrecks
solvency
Liu, 2009
(Kexin, 8-9, Woodrow Wilson Center, “Wising Up: Smart Grid as New Opening for U.S. China Energy
Cooperation,” http://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/wising-smart-grid-new-opening-for-us-chinaenergy-cooperation, accessed 7-12-13, EB)
China's grid has not been able to keep up with the country's growth and it faces particular challenges in times of extreme weather, such as
during the Chinese New Year holidays in early 2008, when more than a dozen provinces in southeast and central China were hit by the most severe
snowstorm in the last 50 years.[3] The power grid throughout the region was severely disrupted, both by downed lines and delayed coal deliveries. According
to the Ministry of Civil Affairs, more than 30 million people were affected by the snow-triggered power shortage.[4] This outage highlighted the low selfrecovery and regional coordination capacity of China's outdated power grid. However, large-scale power outages are not simply products of extreme weather
or natural disasters in China. In recent years brownouts and blackouts are regular occurrences in China's developed east coast cities,
especially during peak hours in the summer. The reason for this situation is threefold; low generation capacity, shortages of coal, and the incapability
of the transmission grid to deliver electricity to meet demand.[5] In the first half of 2004 alone, 24 out of China's 31 provinces and
municipalities suffered from blackouts due to insufficient power supply. The economic cost of these blackouts equaled nearly 1 percent of China's annual GDP
growth that year.[6] The overall situation has not improved significantly since then.[7] According to a joint publication by the International Energy Agency
(IEA) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), China's power sector is struggling with issues of reliability and its
electric power supply regularly fluctuates between periods of highly disruptive supply shortage and inefficient over-capacity.[8] An
increasingly typical blackout occurred in a summer evening in 2006, when a number of major cities in Henan Province experienced the most severe
and wide-spread electric outage in the province's history. The cost was enormous: all traffic hubs experienced chaos with passengers at railway and
bus stations and panic also spread among people in shopping malls, restaurants, and movie theaters that were hit by a total
blackout. Manufacturers in affected areas reported huge losses as the power outage forced them to cease operation and they subsequently had to
pay millions in penalties for delay in product delivery to customers overseas. The provincial government attributed cause to be the low capacity of the power
grid, which failed to deliver electricity from western China into Henan.[9] Powered By a Dirty King Coal is king in China, supplying nearly 80% of the country's
electricity.[10] Thus, inefficiencies in power generation, transmission, and consumption not only waste energy and create
economic losses, but also increase in pollution from coal-fired power plants.[11] Air pollution is already one of the leading causes of death in
China—the World Bank estimates 750,000 Chinese die from respiratory illnesses each year from air and water pollution.[12] To address the pollution
problems associated with coal-burning, the Chinese government has pushed policies that encourage energy conservation and cleaner energy production in
China's industrial and municipal sectors. Moreover, power plants are facing stricter emission regulations and older plants are closed as ultra-modern ones are
being built. Reforms and targets to "green" China's ever-expanding power grid sector are still considerable, ranging from more R&D and investment into ultrafast and more efficient power lines and renewable energy technologies, to building stronger monitoring institutions and better integrating wind, solar, and
hydro sources of energy into the main grids.[13] OVERCOMING GRIDLOCK IN CHINA The obsolescence and lack of regional interconnectivity and
coordination.[14] of China's existing power grid system represent major obstacles for the country's targeted urbanization and industrialization, as
well as growing priorities to address the serious urban air pollution. Exacerbating the pollution is the fact that much electricity is lost during power
transmission and consumption, as well as losses due to inefficient and badly coordinated distribution. One of the key weaknesses of China's existing power
grid is the low energy efficiency associated with poor control of generation, distribution and transmission, along with a lack of effective demand management
measures. The loss of electricity through transmission and distribution alone in China reaches 8 percent of total generation,
which is almost 6 percent higher than the level in developed countries , according to Chu Ching-wu, a leading electric power expert from
Hong Kong.[15] This wastage in transmission and distribution is exacerbated by a set of poorly monitored consumption behaviors by industries and
consumers such as the use of low-efficiency lighting and machinery products. At present, China's overall energy intensity is four times that of the
United States and nine times of Japan.[16] To make up the lost energy, Chinese power plants must burn even more coal-burning that further worsens the
country's already unacceptable air quality.
120
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – Neolib K
Capitalism’s improving the environment
Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, 2011 (Bjorn,
“A Roadmap for the Planet,” Newsweek, June 12, http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/06/12/bjorn-lomborgexplains-how-to-save-the-planet.html)
Climate alarmists and campaigning environmentalists argue that the industrialized countries of the world have made
sizable withdrawals on nature’s fixed allowance, and unless we change our ways, and soon, we are doomed to an abrupt
end. Take the recent proclamation from the United Nations Environment Program, which argued that governments should
dramatically cut back on the use of resources. The mantra has become commonplace: our current way of living is selfish
and unsustainable. We are wrecking the world. We are gobbling up the last resources. We are cutting down the rainforest.
We are polluting the water. We are polluting the air. We are killing plants and animals, destroying the ozone layer, burning
the world through our addiction to fossil fuels, and leaving a devastated planet for future generations. In other words,
humanity is doomed. It is a compelling story, no doubt. It is also fundamentally wrong, and the consequences are
severe. Tragically, exaggerated environmental worries—and the willingness of so many to believe them—could ultimately
prevent us from finding smarter ways to actually help our planet and ensure the health of the environment for future
generations. Because, our fears notwithstanding, we actually get smarter. Although Westerners were once reliant on
whale oil for lighting, we never actually ran out of whales. Why? High demand and rising prices for whale oil spurred a
search for and investment in the 19th-century version of alternative energy. First, kerosene from petroleum replaced
whale oil. We didn’t run out of kerosene, either: electricity supplanted it because it was a superior way to light our planet.
For generations, we have consistently underestimated our capacity for innovation. There was a time when we
worried that all of London would be covered with horse manure because of the increasing use of horse-drawn carriages.
Thanks to the invention of the car, London has 7 million inhabitants today. Dung disaster averted. In fact, would-be
catastrophes have regularly been pushed aside throughout human history, and so often because of innovation and
technological development. We never just continue to do the same old thing. We innovate and avoid the anticipated
problems. Think of the whales, and then think of the debate over cutting emissions today. Instead of singlemindedly
trying to force people to do without carbon-emitting fuels, we must recognize that we won’t make any real progress in
cutting CO2 emissions until we can create affordable, efficient alternatives. We are far from that point today: much-hyped
technologies such as wind and solar energy remain very expensive and inefficient compared with cheap fossil fuels.
Globally, wind provides just 0.3 percent of our energy, and solar a minuscule 0.1 percent. Current technology is so
inefficient that, to take just one example, if we were serious about wind power, we would have to blanket most countries
with wind turbines to generate enough energy for everybody, and we would still have the massive problem of storage. We
don’t know what to do when the wind doesn’t blow. Making the necessary breakthroughs will require mass
improvements across many technologies. The sustainable response to global warming, then, is one that sees us get much
more serious about investment into alternative-energy research and development. This has a much greater likelihood of
leaving future generations at least the same opportunities as we have today. Because what, exactly, is sustainability?
Fourteen years ago, the United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development report “Our Common
Future,” chaired by Gro Harlem Brundtland, provided the most-quoted definition. Sustainable development “meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The measure of
success, then, is whether or not we give future generations the same opportunities that we have had. This prompts the
question: have we lived unsustainably in the past? In fact, by almost any measure, humans have left a legacy of
increased opportunity for their descendants. And this is true not just for the rich world but also for developing
countries. In the last couple of hundred years we have become much richer than in all previous history. Available
production per capita—the amount that an average individual can consume—increased eightfold between 1800 and 2000.
In the past six decades, poverty has fallen more than in the previous 500 years. This decade alone, China will by itself lift
200 million individuals out of poverty. While one in every two people in the developing world was poor just 25 years ago,
today it is one in four. Although much remains to be done, developing countries have become much more affluent, with a
fivefold increase in real per capita income between 1950 and today. But it’s not just about money. The world has
generally become a much better educated place, too. Illiteracy in the developing world has fallen from about 75 percent
for the people born in the early part of the 1900s to about 12 percent among the young of today. More and more people
have gained access to clean water and sanitation, improving health and income. And according to the U.N. Food and
Agriculture Organization, the percentage of undernourished people in the developing world has dropped from more than
50 percent in 1950 to 16 percent today. As humans have become richer and more educated, we have been able to enjoy
more leisure time. In most developed countries, where there are available data, yearly working hours have fallen
drastically since the end of the 19th century: today we work only about half as much as we did then. Over the last 30 years
or so, total free time for men and women has increased, thanks to reductions in workload and housework. Globally, life
expectancy today is 69. Compare this with an average life span of 52 in 1960, or of about 30 in 1900. Advances in public
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
121
health and technological innovation have dramatically lengthened our lives. We have consistently achieved these
remarkable developments by focusing on technological innovation and investment designed to create a richer future. And
while major challenges remain, the future appears to hold great promise, too. The U.N. estimates that over this century,
the planet’s human inhabitants will become 14 times richer and the average person in the developing world a
whopping 24 times richer. By the end of the century, the U.N. estimates we will live to be 85 on average, and virtually
everyone will read, write, and have access to food, water, and sanitation. That’s not too shabby. Rather than celebrating
this amazing progress, many find it distasteful. Instead of acknowledging and learning from it, we bathe ourselves in guilt,
fretting about our supposed unsustainable lives. Certainly many argue that while the past may have improved, surely it
doesn’t matter for the future, because we are destroying the environment! But not so fast. In recent decades, air quality in
wealthy countries has vastly improved. In virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the
water is more drinkable than they were in 1970. London, renowned for centuries for its infamous smog and severe
pollution, today has the cleanest air that it has had since the Middle Ages. Today, some of the most polluted places in the
world are the megacities of the developing world, such as Beijing, New Delhi, and Mexico City. But remember what
happened in developed countries. Over a period of several hundred years, increasing incomes were matched by increasing
pollution. In the 1930s and 1940s, London was more polluted than Beijing, New Delhi, or Mexico City are today.
Eventually, with increased affluence, developed countries gradually were better able to afford a cleaner
environment. That is happening already today in some of the richest developing countries: air-pollution levels in
Mexico City have been dropping precisely because of better technology and more wealth. Though air pollution is by far
the most menacing for humans, water quality has similarly been getting better. Forests, too, are regrowing in rich
countries, though still being lost in poor places where slash-and-burn is preferable to starvation.
No root cause Human behavior is complex and it’s not rooted within economic structures
Prothero, Dublin City University and Connolly, University College Dublin, ‘8 (John, , and Andrea, “Green Consumption: Lifepolitics, risk and contradictions”; Journal of Consumer Culture, 2008; 8; 117, JD)¶
Giddens (1991) argues that lifestyle choices, within the settings of local–global interrelations, raise moral issues that
cannot simply be pushed to one side. However, as we see from the data, attempts to deal with moral issues that arise
within the context of attempting to live a green lifestyle are problematic. The idea that green consumption, as a
politics of choice that can form part of a strategy for environmental reform as suggested by Micheletti (2003), does
not adequately address the fundamental dilemmas that people face in attempting to make the ‘right’ choice.
Clearly, the sense of personal responsibility for ecological reform evident within our study appears to embody a normative
political ideology, which positions each individual as responsible for ecological damage and reform. However, we are not
suggesting that this has somehow been imposed on people by some superstructure that seeks to use the
environment to drive people to purchase green goods, as is suggested by the different green variants of critical
theory. For instance, Smith (1998: 107) writes: ‘Consumers are lulled into complacency by the mistaken belief that they
are actually doing something . . . people see the solution to the environmental crisis as personal action, thus deflecting
them from targeting large power elites and structural issues.’ We would argue that these feelings and thoughts (of
individual responsibility) are real for people, they are not, as is suggested either overtly or covertly by some proenvironmental writers, the result of some external force such as the market or the planned result of latter day
captains of consciousness acting in their own interests. What is evident, and is demonstrated in this study, is how
people now feel, think and, in a sense, act in a particular individualized way, and how as a result they have
attempted to green particular practices within their own and often their families’ lives. We would argue that theories of
reflexive modernization provide a means to understand that green consumption is tied into broader social and cultural
changes and that by understanding these processes we get a greater sense of the role that green consumption plays in
people’s lives and how they identify with environmental concerns.
Capitalism not the root cause and rejecting it doesn’t solve
Shearman Emeritus professor of medicine at Adelaide University Secretary of Doctors for the Environment Australia, and an
Independent Assessor on the IPCC and Smith lawyer and philosopher with a research interest in environmentalism, 2007
(David, and Joseph Wayne, , The Climate Change Challenge and the Failure of Democracy, pg. 4)
There is also another important point that will recur in our argument, but which requires emphasis now to avoid
unnecessary confusion. In a book about democracy it is prima facie reasonable to expect a definition of “democracy”:
“democracy is X.” Defenders of democracy have a problem in saying what “X” actually is. There are a multitude of
definitions of democracy and to attempt to taxonomize now would be distracting from this overview. Further, we contend
that democracy is conceptually incoherent, in some of its versions at least. Thus one of the problems of democracy is
that there is no universally accepted definition that can be worked into an introductory chapter without immediately
raising philosophical issues of contention. As we wish to develop an ecological critique of democracy in all its forms
and a philosophical rejection of democracy per se, we are not disturbed by not being able to offer the reader an initial,
simple definition. There are in our opinion no such satisfactory definitions, for all such definitions (e.g., government of the
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
122
people, by the people, for the people) are even vaguer and less informative than the concept of democracy, as we show in
chapter 5. For the moment we invite the reader to operate with her or his own intuitive understanding of democracy, and
in chapter 5 we will criticize the standard accounts. In chapter 7 we will also reject liberalism as a philosophical position.
For the purposes of developing an ecological critique of democracy it is first necessary to understand the basis of the
environmental crisis facing humanity. Almost all environmental writers blame the crisis on liberal capitalism. We
argue that even if liberal capitalism ceased to exist there would still be the potential for an environmental crisis
because of the destructive tendencies within the heart of democracy itself.
123
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
2AC – Apoc Rhetoric
Apocalyptic rhetoric motivates environmental change.
Salvador, an Associate Professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University and
Norton, an Assistant Professor in the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University 11
(Michael and Norton, “The Flood Myth in the Age of Global Climate Change,” 2/18/11,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2010.544749) Gangeezy
For Killingsworth and Palmer (1996), use of apocalyptic rhetoric has shifted in response to the changing relationship
between the prevailing paradigm of human domination over nature*limitless American progress through technology
and economic development*and the oppositional environmental paradigm of humans as subject to nature and in
need of ecologically sustainable practices. When this prevailing paradigm was at its zenith, stronger apocalyptic visions
were advanced, as in Rachel Carson’s (1962) Silent Spring. As environmental activism took hold in the public
consciousness, less threatening visions of the Earth’s future were offered, as in Barry Commoner’s (1971) The Closing
Circle. Thus, apocalyptic rhetoric served as a malleable framework for discussing environmental problems, allowing
those concerned to transform growing awareness of environmental problems ‘‘into acceptance of action toward a
solution by prefacing the solution with a future scenario of what could happen if action is not taken, if the problem goes
untreated’’ (Killingsworth & Palmer, 1996, p. 22).
Our strategy is key to address and respond to climate change
Mazo, 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security
and Science Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, (Jeffrey, “Climate Conflict: How global
warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 12-13
The expected consequences of climate change include rising sea levels and population displacement, increasing severity of
typhoons and hurricanes, droughts, floods, disruption of water resources, extinctions and other ecological disruptions,
wild- fires, severe disease outbreaks, and declining crop yields and food stocks. Combining the historical precedents with
current thinking on state stability, internal conflict and state failure suggests that adaptive capacity is the most important
factor in avoiding climate-related instability. Specific global and regional climate projections for the next three decades, in
light of other drivers of instability and state failure, help identify regions and countries which will see an increased risk
from climate change. They are not necessarily the most fragile states, nor those which face the greatest physical effects of
climate change. The global security threat posebd by fragile and failing states is well known. It is in the interest of the
world’s more affluent countries to take measures both to reduce the degree of global warming and climate change and to
cushion the impact in those parts of the world where climate change will increase that threat. Neither course of action will
be cheap, but inaction will be costlier. Efficient targeting of the right kind of assistance where it is most needed is one way
of reducing the cost, and understanding how and why different societies respond to climate change is one way of making
that possible.
Extinction scenarios are key to bringing change
Tonn, Department of Political Science at the University of Tennessee, and Tonn, Department of the History of Science at
Harvard University, 2009 (Bruce and Jenna, “A Literary Human Extinction Scenario,” Futures, Vol. 41, Issue 10, December, pg.
760-765)
This discussion has largely been focused on the historical precedents for a secular tradition of writing about human
extinction. Although literary studies may seem outside of the scope of futures studies, authors like Mary Wollstonecraft
Shelley, H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, and Margaret Atwood present compelling visions of the future and generate
discussions about the imagination of human extinction and the art of writing its scenarios. Furthermore a literary
analysis of the apocalyptic mode of writing offers new insights into the reasons why the narrative of human
extinction is so powerful and provides background texts that might help shape and inspire future extinction
scenarios. D.H. Lawrence once asked: ‘‘What does the Apocalypse matter, unless in so far as it gives us imaginative release
into another vital world? After all, what meaning has the Apocalypse? For the ordinary reader, not much’’ [28]. The goal
of this edition is to address D.H. Lawrence’s questions and to prove to the ordinary reader that thinking about human
extinction an integral step toward changing the present state of the world.
Invoking crises produce effective change
Chait, Senior Editor at The New Republic, 2008 (Jonathan, Dead Left, July 30,
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books/dead-left)
Klein repeatedly implies that there is something immoral about using crises to advance the right-wing agenda without
explaining why this is so. After all, Friedman wanted to overhaul the New Orleans public education system because he
believed, rightly or wrongly, that vouchers would work better. If you thought your house was horribly designed, and a
tornado flattened it, would you rebuild it exactly as before?¶ The notion that crises create fertile terrain for political
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
124
change, far from being a ghoulish doctrine unique to free-market radicals, is a banal and ideologically universal fact.
(Indeed, it began its dubious modern career in the orbit of Marxism, where it was known as “sharpening the
contradictions.”) Entrenched interests and public opinion tend to run against sweeping reform, good or bad, during
times of peace and prosperity. Liberals could not have enacted the New Deal without the Great Depression.
Communist revolutions have generally come about in the wake of wars. The liberal economist Victor R. Fuchs once
wrote that “national health insurance will probably come to the United States in the wake of a major change in the political
climate, the kind of change that often accompanies a war, a depression, or large-scale civil unrest.Ӧ Fuchs did not mean
that the public would never accept universal health insurance unless they had been brutalized into doing so. Nor was his
observation evidence that he longed for disaster to befall the United States. Most American liberals today would admit that
the sorry state of the American economy, foreign policy, and political life has created a golden opportunity for
progressive reform. There is nothing odious about this. Yet Klein takes analogous observations from conservatives as
proof that the right “prays for crisis the way drought-stricken farmers pray for rain.”
Discussing the risk of catastrophic warming is crucial—it’s the only way to motivate response
Romm a Fellow at American Progress and is the editor of Climate Progress, which New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called
"the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named one of the 25 “Best Blogs of 2010.″ In 2009, Rolling Stone put Romm #88 on its
list of 100 “people who are reinventing America.” Time named him a “Hero of the Environment″ and “The Web’s most influential
climate-change blogger.” Romm was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy in 1997, where
he oversaw $1 billion in R&D, demonstration, and deployment of low-carbon technology. He is a Senior Fellow at American Progress
and holds a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. ‘2012 (Joe, 2/26 “Apocalypse Not: The Oscars, The Media And The Myth of ‘Constant
Repetition of Doomsday Messages’ on Climate”,http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/02/26/432546/apocalypse-not-oscars-mediamyth-of-repetition-of-doomsday-messages-on-climate/#more-432546)
The two greatest myths about global warming communications are 1) constant repetition of doomsday messages has been a
major, ongoing strategy and 2) that strategy doesn’t work and indeed is actually counterproductive! These myths are so deeply
ingrained in the environmental and progressive political community that when we finally had a serious shot at a climate bill,
the powers that be decided not to focus on the threat posed by climate change in any serious fashion in their $200 million
communications effort (see my 6/10 post “Can you solve global warming without talking about global warming?“). These myths
are so deeply ingrained in the mainstream media that such messaging, when it is tried, is routinely attacked and denounced —
and the flimsiest studies are interpreted exactly backwards to drive the erroneous message home (see “Dire straits: Media
blows the story of UC Berkeley study on climate messaging“) The only time anything approximating this kind of messaging —
not “doomsday” but what I’d call blunt, science-based messaging that also makes clear the problem is solvable — was in 2006
and 2007 with the release of An Inconvenient Truth (and the 4 assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change and media coverage like the April 2006 cover of Time). The data suggest that strategy measurably moved the public to
become more concerned about the threat posed by global warming (see recent study here). You’d think it would be pretty
obvious that the public is not going to be concerned about an issue unless one explains why they should be concerned about
an issue. And the social science literature, including the vast literature on advertising and marketing, could not be clearer that
only repeated messages have any chance of sinking in and moving the needle. Because I doubt any serious movement of
public opinion or mobilization of political action could possibly occur until these myths are shattered, I’ll do a multipart series
on this subject, featuring public opinion analysis, quotes by leading experts, and the latest social science research. Since this is
Oscar night, though, it seems appropriate to start by looking at what messages the public are exposed to in popular culture and
the media. It ain’t doomsday. Quite the reverse, climate change has been mostly an invisible issue for several years and the
message of conspicuous consumption and business-as-usual reigns supreme. The motivation for this post actually came up
because I received an e-mail from a journalist commenting that the “constant repetition of doomsday messages” doesn’t work
as a messaging strategy. I had to demur, for the reasons noted above. But it did get me thinking about what messages the public
are exposed to, especially as I’ve been rushing to see the movies nominated for Best Picture this year. I am a huge movie buff,
but as parents of 5-year-olds know, it isn’t easy to stay up with the latest movies. That said, good luck finding a popular movie in
recent years that even touches on climate change, let alone one a popular one that would pass for doomsday messaging. Best
Picture nominee The Tree of Life has been billed as an environmental movie — and even shown at environmental film festivals
— but while it is certainly depressing, climate-related it ain’t. In fact, if that is truly someone’s idea of environmental movie,
count me out. The closest to a genuine popular climate movie was the dreadfully unscientific The Day After Tomorrow, which is
from 2004 (and arguably set back the messaging effort by putting the absurd “global cooling” notion in people’s heads! Even
Avatar, the most successful movie of all time and “the most epic piece of environmental advocacy ever captured on celluloid,”
as one producer put it, omits the climate doomsday message. One of my favorite eco-movies, “Wall-E, is an eco-dystopian gem
and an anti-consumption movie,” but it isn’t a climate movie. I will be interested to see The Hunger Games, but I’ve read all 3 of
the bestselling post-apocalyptic young adult novels — hey, that’s my job! — and they don’t qualify as climate change doomsday
messaging (more on that later). So, no, the movies certainly don’t expose the public to constant doomsday messages on
Gonzaga Debate Institute
Mexico Renewables Aff
125
climate. Here are the key points about what repeated messages the American public is exposed to: The broad American public
is exposed to virtually no doomsday messages, let alone constant ones, on climate change in popular culture (TV and the
movies and even online). There is not one single TV show on any network devoted to this subject, which is, arguably, more
consequential than any other preventable issue we face. The same goes for the news media, whose coverage of climate change
has collapsed (see “Network News Coverage of Climate Change Collapsed in 2011“). When the media do cover climate change in
recent years, the overwhelming majority of coverage is devoid of any doomsday messages — and many outlets still feature
hard-core deniers. Just imagine what the public’s view of climate would be if it got the same coverage as, say, unemployment,
the housing crisis or even the deficit? When was the last time you saw an “employment denier” quoted on TV or in a
newspaper? The public is exposed to constant messages promoting business as usual and indeed idolizing conspicuous
consumption. See, for instance, “Breaking: The earth is breaking … but how about that Royal Wedding? Our political elite and
intelligentsia, including MSM pundits and the supposedly “liberal media” like, say, MSNBC, hardly even talk about climate
change and when they do, it isn’t doomsday. Indeed, there isn’t even a single national columnist for a major media outlet who
writes primarily on climate. Most “liberal” columnists rarely mention it. At least a quarter of the public chooses media that
devote a vast amount of time to the notion that global warming is a hoax and that environmentalists are extremists and that
clean energy is a joke. In the MSM, conservative pundits routinely trash climate science and mock clean energy. Just listen to,
say, Joe Scarborough on MSNBC’s Morning Joe mock clean energy sometime. The major energy companies bombard the
airwaves with millions and millions of dollars of repetitious pro-fossil-fuel ads. The environmentalists spend far, far less money.
As noted above, the one time they did run a major campaign to push a climate bill, they and their political allies including the
president explicitly did NOT talk much about climate change, particularly doomsday messaging Environmentalists when they
do appear in popular culture, especially TV, are routinely mocked. There is very little mass communication of doomsday
messages online. Check out the most popular websites. General silence on the subject, and again, what coverage there is ain’t
doomsday messaging. Go to the front page of the (moderately trafficked) environmental websites. Where is the doomsday? If
you want to find anything approximating even modest, blunt, science-based messaging built around the scientific literature,
interviews with actual climate scientists and a clear statement that we can solve this problem — well, you’ve all found it, of
course, but the only people who see it are those who go looking for it. Of course, this blog is not even aimed at the general
public. Probably 99% of Americans haven’t even seen one of my headlines and 99.7% haven’t read one of my climate science
posts. And Climate Progress is probably the most widely read, quoted, and reposted climate science blog in the world. Anyone
dropping into America from another country or another planet who started following popular culture and the news the way the
overwhelming majority of Americans do would get the distinct impression that nobody who matters is terribly worried about
climate change. And, of course, they’d be right — see “The failed presidency of Barack Obama, Part 2.” It is total BS that
somehow the American public has been scared and overwhelmed by repeated doomsday messaging into some sort of
climate fatigue. If the public’s concern has dropped — and public opinion analysis suggests it has dropped several percent
(though is bouncing back a tad) — that is primarily due to the conservative media’s disinformation campaign impact on Tea
Party conservatives and to the treatment of this as a nonissue by most of the rest of the media, intelligentsia and popular
culture.¶