1NC
T
Interpretation – its shows possession
Using English 13 , http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/possessive-pronoun.html)
Mine, yours, his, hers, its, ours, theirs are the possessive pronouns used to substitute a noun and to
show possession or ownership. EG. This is your disk and that's mine. (Mine substitutes the word
disk and shows that it belongs to me.)
And, possessive pronouns are exclusive – legal definition
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 2013
[BENCH BILLBOARD COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF COVINGTON,
KENTUCKY, TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF NORTHERN KENTUCKY, Defendants-Appellees.
2013 FED App. 0940N (6th Cir, Lexis]
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 100.324(1) exempts public utilities from receiving prior approval for the location or relocation of any of their service
facilities. § 100.324(1). While the statute does not define "service facilities," the statute grants the exemption only to public utilities. The
statute's use of the possessive pronoun "their" clearly limits the exempted service facilities to those
possessed or owned by the utility itself and which the utility has located or relocated.
Violation – the affirmative increases exploration and development from another countrythat reduces national control
Weiss 5 Joseph Weiss Universidade de Brasilia 2005 Contradictions of International
Cooperation in the Amazon: Why is the nation-state left out?
http://www.ispn.org.br/arquivos/bb_.pdf
Sajar and VanDeveer (2005) make clear that while environmental capacity-building attracted
multilateral organization attention again in the late 1990s, it was defined, when applied, to
transfer ineffective North models to th e South to make success more likely for programs defined
by the North. By allowing for NGO participation, national governments are often left with
reduced control or power.
Reasons to Prefer
1. Limits – there are tons of potential countries and areas of cooperation – allowing all of
them to be topical makes it impossible for the negative to prepare.
2. Ground – there is a huge difference in the literature between federal government and
international actions – the aff makes international counterplans irrelevant, which is a core
check on small affs
3. Extra-Topicality – they add another countries’ exploration. That’s a voting issue – extraT is unpredictable because it lets affs decide the terms of the debate through extra
advantage ground
Eco-Marxism
We are at a crossroads – capitalism’s cumulative impact across
Earth’s biological realms has created a metabolic rift. Critical
interrogation of capitalist ocean policy is necessary for historical
materialist praxis
Clausen & Clark 2005 [Rebecca, doctoral student studying Environmental Sociology at
the University of Oregon; Brett, assistant professor of sociology and sustainability studies at the
University of Utah | "The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology An Analysis of the Ocean Crisis
Within Capitalist Production." Organization & Environment 18.4 (2005): 422-444]
The world’s oceans are experiencing a crisis of rapid biomass depletion. The UN Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO. 2002) report. The State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture, states that 75% of major fisheries are fully exploited.
overexploited, or depleted (p. 23). It is estimated “that the global ocean has lost more than 90% of large predatory fishes” (Meyers & Worm.
2003). The
depletion of ocean fish stock disrupts metabolic relations within the oceanic ecosystem at
multiple trophic and spatial scales. Current production trends are likely to have profound ecological effects with uncertain
consequences. In light of severe stock depletions, technological innovation and capital investment in marine
aquaculture are offered as the solution to increased demand for global food supplies. The Blue
Revolution, the moniker under which intensive aquaculture is extolled, has rapidly emerged on the global market
introducing new social and ecological issues for the ocean environment and marine management
policy. Aquaculture, commonly known as fish farming. is “the fastest-growing form of agriculture in the world” (Prakash. 2004).’
Multinational corporations have built a global network of salmon farms growing high value fish for year-round markets (Hites et ai.. 2004). The
ecological impacts of fish fanning on surrounding marine environments have garnered scientific and public attention due to waste accumulation
and the escape of nonnative. farmed species into wild salmon habi tat. Potential human health effects from consuming farmed salmon have
captured an even greater share of public attention as researchers discover high concentrations of organochlorine contaminants (PCBs) in
aquaculture.produced salmon (Hites et aL, 2004). Simultaneous with the rapid transformations in ocean fisheries, marine scientists and
oceanographers have made remarkable discoveries about the intricacies of marine food webs and the richness of oceanic biodiversity (Valida.
the centuries long
record of oceanic exploitation has reached critical thresholds due to marine ecosystem degradation
(Jackson et al.. 2001). We have reached a point where the cumulative and ongoing human effect on the oce
anic environment is threatening the biological integrity of marine ecosystems. In turn, the ability of marine
1995). Unfortunately the excitement for new gains in marine research is dampened by the growing awareness that
environments to provide livelihoods for those who depend on the sea is placed at risk. The body of scientific knowledge about oceanic systems
presents a sobering lesson on the coevolution of human society and the marine environment during the capitalist industrial era. The June 2003
Pew Oceans Commission report to the nation highlights this concern: Marine life and vital coastal habitats are straining under the increasing
pressure of our use. We
have reached a crossroads where the cumulative effect of what we take from, and
put into, the ocean substantially reduces the ability of marine ecosystems to produce the economic
and ecological goods and services that we desire and need. What we once considered inexhaustible and resilient is. in
fact, finite and fragile. (p. V) Both land and sea are confronting serious environmental stresses that threaten
their ability to regenerate. The particular problems experienced in each biological realm cannot be
viewed as isolated issues or aberrations, only to be corrected with further technological
development . Rather, these ecological conditions must be under stood as they relate to the
systematic exploitation of nature for profit. The negative human health and ecological consequences of capitalist fish
production must be analyzed in relation to an economic system based on the accumulation of capital. The capacity of humans to transform nature
in ways detrimental to societies has long been known. Only recently, however, have social interactions with nature, as well as ecological limits,
become major subjects for sociological inquiry (Buttel. 1987; Dunlap. 1997: Foster. 1994). As the scale of enVironmental problems esca lates,
the ecological sustainability of human societies is being called into question (Buell. 2003: Commoner. 1971; Ehrlich& Holdren. 1971; Foster.
2002: Vitousek. Mooney. Lubchenko, & Melilo. 1997). The
oceans serve as a critical realm where society interacts
with nature. A historical materialist approach illuminates how the human relationship with the
ocean has changed over time as specific social and economic conditions evolved. Although social science has
been slow to examine issues related to oceans, the range of social issues (sustenance, employment, trans portation. pollution. etc.) related to the
seas demands more attention.
The hegemonic struggle for resources in the arctic is a tool of
capitalism – cooperation is a ruse and capitalism ensures arctic war
Joachim Hagopian, 14 (Joachim Hagopian is a writer and investigative journalist for Global Research. “Global Militarization, the
East-West Divide and the March towards World War III.” June 9, 2014. http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-militarization-the-east-west-divideand-the-march-towards-world-war-iii/5386333)
Take a look at every corner of the globe today. Like never before seen on this planet, the
global chessboard is fast being
carved up with provocative red lines drawn in the sand resulting from rapid military armament and troop deployment
throughout this ever increasing bipolar world. Cold War Part Two was jump started with February’s US backed Ukraine coup and overnight the
old familiar East versus West scenario is once again threatening the start of World War III. Wherever untapped precious natural resources can
still be extracted from the sea and ground is where opposing military forces from each side are lining up and ready for the end-of-world war. If it
you hear the global ring announcer? “In the West’s corner,
the current and still only heavyweight champion of the superpower world, the greatest empire on
earth, the world bully of all bullies, the US-NATO forces! And in this East corner, the up and
coming wannabe challenger, once again making its re-appearance on the global stage, the original
axis-of-evil we all have all come to love to hate – the armies of Russia, China, Iran and North
Korea!” Beyond the border of the Western nations that are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel and Western Europe including
Asian allies Japan and South Korea and the Eastern nations of Russia and China, virtually everywhere else on earth the West is now
locked in a global power grab battling to plunder the earth’s remaining turf and resources before
and against the East gets to it first in a fight to the finish. Perhaps this colliding path to increasing conflict, death
and destruction can best be graphically understood in terms of geographic regional breakdowns of
the various East versus West confrontations. The champion bully so used to throwing its weight around the world
is clearly the American Empire’s high powered killing machine and its right hand killer puppet
NATO. But the bully has met its match with the emerging powerful Eastern bloc of a reaffirmed Russia-China
alliance threatening to tilt the power away from previously unchecked US global hegemony. Several
wasn’t so alarming, it would be absurdly laughable. Can
weeks ago Russia and China signed a $400 billion gas deal ensuring that Russia’s largest export will only grow regardless of what might happen
with supplying Europe. Since the US-induced Ukraine crisis, in self-defense to America’s global aggression and imperialism, Russia and China
have reestablished old ties. Recently discovered evidence exposes the US Empire’s extended Gladio operations into the twenty-first century
Europe using strong arm bullying and subversive aggressive tactics against various socialist and left leaning politicians within the European
Union who might oppose NATO, tactics that include possible assassination as well as “softer” character assassination techniques. This proves
just how much Europe, its EU and NATO are all completely dominated and controlled by any and all means necessary as puppets of the US
The US is pushing its “full spectrum dominance” to purposely escalate tensions with
encircling Russia and China by militarizing every nation on their border. In the meantime, through mainstream
Empire.
media’s state sponsored propaganda, the US government is attempting to demonize Russian President Putin and his nation as the vilified
aggressor when in fact US Empire has always been the warmongering state inciting war after war. Despite
the lies and saber
rattling propaganda, more Americans are finally seeing the true villain is in fact the hegemonic
Empire. And with the overthrow of another democratically elected sovereign government in Ukraine earlier this year, by perpetual US
aggression the next war could well be in Eastern Europe against nuclear armed Russia.
Only a shift from capitalism prevents inevitable extinction from
environmental collapse and nuclear war.
Voting negative rejects their mechanistic market approach to
ecology in favor of revolutionizing social relations for sustainable
socialist praxis
Foster ‘8 [John Bellamy, “Ecology and the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism”, professor
of sociology at the University of Oregon and co-editor of Monthly Review,
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2008/11/29/ecology-and-the-transition-from-capitalism-tosocialism/] *LANGUAGE MODIFIED
What made this new system work was the incessant
accumulation of capital in one cycle after another, with each new phase of
ever more divided, more alienated human beings, together
accumulation taking the last as its starting point. This meant
with a more globally destructive metabolism between humanity and nature. As Joseph Needham observed,
the “conquest of Nature” under capitalism turned into “the conquest of [hu]man[s]”; the “technological
instruments utilized in the dominance of Nature” produced “a qualitative transformation in the mechanisms of social domination.”[8] There
is no doubt that this dialectic of domination and destruction is now spiraling out of control on a
planetary scale . Economically, overall inequality between the center and periphery nations of the world system is
increasing together with the intensification of class inequality within each capitalist state. Ecologically, the world’s climate
and the life-support systems of the entire earth are being transformed by a process of runaway global
warming.[9] In addressing this planetary environmental problem it is useful to turn to Hannah Arendt’s concept of “world alienation,” introduced
fifty years ago in The Human Condition. “World alienation” for Arendt began with the “alienation from the earth” at the time of Columbus,
Galileo, and Luther. Galileo trained his telescope on the heavens, thereby converting human beings into creatures of the cosmos, no longer simply
earthly beings. Science seized on cosmic principles in order to obtain the “Archimedean point” with which to move the world, but at the cost of
immeasurable world alienation. Human beings no longer apprehended the world immediately through the direct evidence of their five senses. The
original unity of the human relation to the world exemplified by the Greek polis was lost. Arendt noted that Marx was acutely aware of this world
alienation from his earliest writings, pointing out that the world was “denatured” as all natural objects — the wood of the wood-user and the
wood-seller — were converted into private property and the universal commodity form. Original or primitive accumulation, the alienation of
human beings from the land, as Marx described it, became a crucial manifestation of world alienation. However, Marx, in Arendt’s view, chose to
stress human self-alienation rooted in labor rather than world alienation. In contrast, “world alienation, and not [primarily] self-alienation as Marx
thought,” she concluded, “has been the hallmark of the modern age.” “The
process of wealth accumulation, as we know it,”
on expanding world alienation. It “is possible only if the world and the very worldliness
of man are sacrificed.” This process of the accumulation of wealth in the modern age “enormously increased human
power of destruction” so “that we are able to destroy all organic life on earth and shall probably
Arendt went on to observe, depended
be able one day to destroy even the earth itself .” Indeed, “Under modern conditions,” she explained, “not
destruction but conservation spells ruin because the very durability of conserved objects is the
greatest impediment to the turnover process, whose constant gain in speed is the only constancy left wherever it has taken
hold.”[10] Arendt had no final answers to the dire problem she raised. Despite tying world alienation to a system of destruction rooted in wealth
accumulation, she identified it with the development of science, technology, and modernity rather than capitalism as such. World alienation in her
view was the triumph of homo faber and animal laborans. In this tragic conception, her readers were called upon to look back to the lost unity of
the Greek polis, rather than, as in Marx, toward a new society based on the restoration at a higher level of the human metabolism with nature. In
the end world alienation for Arendt was a Greek tragedy raised to the level of the planet. There is no doubt that the
concrete
manifestations of this world alienation are evident everywhere today. The latest scientific data indicate that global
emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels experienced a “sharp acceleration … in the early 2000s” with the growth rate reaching levels
“greater than for the most fossil-fuel intensive of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change emissions scenarios developed in the late
1990s.” Further, “the mean global atmospheric CO2 concentration” has been increasing “at a progressively faster rate each decade.” The most
rapid acceleration in emissions has been in a handful of emergent industrializing countries such as China, but “no region” in the world is currently
“decarbonizing its energy supply.” All
ecosystems on earth are in decline, water shortages are on the rise, and
energy resources are becoming more than ever the subject of global monopolies enforced by war.
The “man-made fingerprint of global warming” has been detected “on 10 different aspects of Earth’s environment: surface temperatures,
humidity, water vapor over the oceans, barometric pressure, total precipitation, wildfires, change in species of plants and animals, water run-off,
temperatures in the upper atmosphere, and heat content in the world’s oceans.” The
cost now descending on the world if it
doesn’t radically change course is a regression of civilization and life itself beyond comprehension:
an economy and ecology of destruction that will finally reach its limits.[11] Socialism and Sustainable Human
Development How are we to meet this challenge, arguably the greatest that human civilization has ever faced? A genuine answer to the
ecological question, transcending Arendt’s tragic understanding of world alienation, requires a revolutionary conception of sustainable human
development — one that addresses both human self-estrangement (the alienation of labor) and world alienation (the alienation of nature). It was
Ernesto “Che” Guevara who most famously argued in his “Man and Socialism in Cuba” that the crucial issue in the building of socialism was not
economic development but human development. This needs to be extended by recognizing, in line with Marx, that the real question is one of
sustainable human development, explicitly addressing the human metabolism with nature through human labor.[12] Too
often the
transition to socialism has been approached mechanistically as the mere expansion of the means of
production, rather than in terms of the development of human social relations and needs. In the
system that emerged in the Soviet Union the indispensable tool of planning was misdirected to production
for production’s sake, losing sight of genuine human needs, and eventually gave rise to a new class structure. The
detailed division of labor, introduced by capitalism, was retained under this system and extended in the interest of higher
productivity. In this type of society, as Che critically observed, “the period of the building of socialism…is characterized by the extinction of the
individual for the sake of the state.”[13] The revolutionary character of Latin American socialism today derives its strength from an acute
recognition of the negative (as well as some positive) lessons of the Soviet experience, partly through an understanding of the problem raised by
Che: the need to develop socialist humanity. Further, the Bolivarian vision proclaimed by Chávez has its own deep roots of inspiration drawing
on an older pre-Marxian socialism. Thus it was Simon Bolívar’s teacher Simón Rodríguez who wrote in 1847: “The division of labour in the
production of goods only serves to brutalize the workforce. If to produce cheap and excellent nail scissors, we have to reduce the workers to
machines, we would do better to cut our finger nails with our teeth.” Indeed, what we most admire today with regard to Bolívar’s own principles
is his uncompromising insistence that equality is “the law of laws.”[14] The same commitment
to the egalitarian, universal
development of humanity was fundamental to Marx. The evolution of the society of associated
producers was to be synonymous with the positive transcendence of human alienation. The goal was a
many-sided human development. Just as “all history is nothing but a continuous transformation of human nature,” so “the cultivation of the five
thus appears as the “complete emancipation of the senses,”
of human sensuous capacities, and their wide-ranging development. “Communism, as fully developed naturalism,”
Marx wrote, “equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism.”[15] The contrast between this
senses is the work of all previous history.” Socialism
revolutionary, humanistic-naturalistic vision and today’s dominant mechanical-exploitative reality
could not be starker . We find ourselves in a period of imperialist development that is potentially
the most dangerous in all of history.[16] There are two ways in which life on the planet as we know it
can be destroyed — either instantaneously through global nuclear holocaust [annihilation], or in a
matter of a few generations by climate change and other manifestations of environmental
destruction. Nuclear weapons continue to proliferate in an atmosphere of global insecurity
promoted by the world’s greatest power. War is currently being waged in the Middle East over
geopolitical control of the world’s oil at the same time that carbon emissions from fossil fuels and
other forms of industrial production are generating global warming. Biofuels offered up today as a major
alternative to pending world oil shortages are destined only to enlarge world hunger.[17] Water resources are being
monopolized by global corporations. Human needs are everywhere being denied: either in the
form of extreme deprivation for a majority of the population of the world, or, in the richer
countries, in the form of the most intensive self-estrangement conceivable, extending beyond production to a managed consumption,
enforcing life-long dependence on alienating wage labor. More and more life is debased in a welter of artificial wants
dissociated from genuine needs. All of this is altering the ways in which we think about the transition from capitalism to socialism. Socialism
has always been understood as a society aimed at reversing the relations of exploitation of capitalism and removing the manifold social evils to
which these relations have given rise. This requires the
abolition of private property in the means of production,
a high degree of equality in all things, replacement of the blind forces of the market by planning by the
associated producers in accordance with genuine social needs, and the elimination to whatever extent possible
of invidious distinctions associated with the division of town and country, mental and manual labor, race divisions, gender
divisions, etc. Yet, the root problem of socialism goes much deeper. The transition to socialism is possible only through
a revolutionizing practice that revolutionizes human beings themselve s.[18] The only way to
accomplish this is by altering our human metabolism with nature, along with our human-social relations,
transcending both the alienation of nature and of humanity. Marx, like Hegel, was fond of quoting Terence’s famous statement “Nothing human
is alien to me.” Now it is clear that we must deepen and extend this to: Nothing of this earth is alien to me.[19] Mainstream
environmentalists seek to solve ecological problems almost exclusively through three mechanical
strategies: technological bullets, extending the market to all aspects of nature, and creating what are
intended as mere islands of preservation in a world of almost universal exploitation and destruction
of natural habitats. In contrast , a minority of critical human ecologists have come to understand the need to change our
searching for concrete models of change , have
thus come to focus on those states (or regions) that are both ecological and socialistic (in the sense of
fundamental social relations. Some of the best, most concerned ecologists,
relying to a considerable extent on social planning rather than market forces) in orientation. Thus Cuba, Curitiba and Porto Alegre in Brazil, and
Kerala in India, are singled out as the leading lights of ecological transformation by some of the most committed environmentalists, such as Bill
McKibben, best known as the author of The End of Nature.[20] More recently Venezuela has been using its surplus from oil to transform its
society in the direction of sustainable human development, thereby laying the foundation for a greening of its production. Although there are
contradictions to what has been called Venezuelan “petro socialism,” the fact that an oil-generated surplus is being dedicated to genuine social
transformation rather than feeding into the proverbial “curse of oil” makes Venezuela unique.[21] Of course there
are powerful
environmental movements within the center of the system as well to which we might look for hope .
But severed from strong socialist movements and a revolutionary situation they have been
constrained much more by a perceived need to adapt to the dominant accumulation
system,
thereby
drastically undermining the ecological struggle . Hence, revolutionary strategies and movements with
regard to ecology and society are world-historical forces at present largely in the periphery, in the weak links and
breakaways from the capitalist system. I can only point to a few essential aspects of this radical process of ecological change as manifested in
areas of the global South.
In Cuba the goal of human development that Che advanced is taking on a new form
through what is widely regarded as “the greening of Cuba.” This is evident in the emergence of the
most revolutionary experiment in agroecology on earth, and the related changes in health, science,
and education. As McKibben states, “Cubans have created what may be the world’s largest working model of a semisustainable
agriculture, one that relies far less than the rest of the world does on oil, on chemicals, on shipping
vast quantities of food back and forth….Cuba has thousands of organopónicos — urban gardens — more than two hundred in
the Havana area alone.” Indeed, according to the World Wildlife Fund’s Living Planet Report, “Cuba alone” in the
entire world has achieved a high level of human development, with a human development index greater than 0.8,
while also having a per capita ecological footprint below the world’s average.[22] This ecological transformation is deeply rooted in the Cuban
revolution rather than, as frequently said, simply a forced response in the Special Period following the fall of the Soviet Union. Already in the
1970s Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, one of the founders of Cuban ecology, had introduced arguments for “integral development, laying the
groundwork” — as ecologist Richard Levins points out — for “harmonious development of the economy and social relations with nature.” This
was followed by the gradual flowering of ecological thought in Cuba in the 1980s. The Special Period, Levins explains, simply allowed the
“ecologists by conviction” who had emerged through the internal development of Cuban science and society to recruit the “ecologists by
necessity,” turning many of them too into ecologists by conviction.[23] Venezuela
under Chávez has not only advanced
revolutionary new social relations with the growth of Bolivarian circles, community councils, and
increased worker control of factories, but has introduced some crucial initiatives with regard to what István
Mészáros has called a new “socialist time accountancy” in the production and exchange of goods. In the new Bolivarian
Alternative for the Americas (ALBA), the emphasis is on communal exchange, the exchange of activities rather than exchange values.[24]
Instead of allowing the market to establish the priorities of the entire economy, planning is being introduced to redistribute resources and
capacities to those most in need and to the majority of the populace. The
goal here is to address the most pressing
individual and collective requirements of the society related in particular to physiological needs and hence raising directly
the question of the human relation to nature. This is the absolute precondition of the creation of a sustainable
society. In the countryside preliminary attempts have also been made to green Venezuelan agriculture.[25] In Bolivia the rise of a
socialist current (though embattled at present) embedded in the needs of indigenous peoples and the control
of basic resources such as water and hydrocarbons offers hope of another kind of development. The
cities of Curitiba and Porto Alegre in Brazil point to the possibility of more radical forms of
management of urban space and transportation. Curitiba, in McKibbens’s words, “is as much an example for the
sprawling, decaying cities of the first world as for the crowded, booming cities of the Third World.” Kerala in India has taught us
that a poor state or region, if animated by genuine socialist planning, can go a long way toward
unleashing human potentials in education, health care, and basic environmental conditions. In Kerala,
McKibben observes, “the Left has embarked on a series of ‘new democratic initiatives’ that come as close as anything on the planet to actually
these are mainly islands of hope at present. They constitute
fragile new experiments in social relations and in the human metabolism with nature. They are still
subject to the class and imperial war imposed from above by the larger system. The planet as a whole
incarnating ‘sustainable development.’”[26] To be sure,
remains firmly in the grip of capital and its world alienation. Everywhere we see manifestations of a metabolic rift, now extended to the
biospheric level. It follows that
there is little real prospect for the needed global ecological revolution unless
these attempts to revolutionize social relations in the struggle for a just and sustainable society,
now emerging in the periphery, are somehow mirrored in movements for ecological and social
revolution in the advanced capitalist world . It is only through fundamental change at the center of
the system, from which the pressure on the planet principally emanates, that there is any genuine
possibility of avoiding ultimate ecological destruction. For some this may seem to be an impossible
goal. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that there is now an ecology as well as a political
economy of revolutionary change . The emergence in our time of sustainable human development in
various revolutionary interstices within the global periphery could mark the beginning of a universal revolt
against both world alienation and human self-estrangement. Such a revolt if consistent could have
only one objective: the creation of a society of associated producers rationally regulating their
metabolic relation to nature, and doing so not only in accordance with their own needs but also
those of future generations and life as a whole. Today the transition to socialism and the transition
to an ecological society are one.
Shipping DA
Arctic Biodiversity is high—It’s key to global biodiversity
Naido 2013 [Jayeseelan, Chairman, GAIN “The Scramble for the Arctic and the Dangers of
Russia's Race for Oil” 11/6/13 The Huffington Post 13
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jayaseelan-naidoo/the-scramble-for-the-arctic_b_4223661.html)
The Arctic region covers more than 30 million square kilometers - one sixth of the planet's
landmass. It spans 24 time zones. It is one of Earth's last pristine ecosystems. It is critical to global
biodiversity with hundreds of unique plant and animal species. Scientists concur that the Arctic sea ice
serves as the air conditioner of the planet, regulating the global temperature.
Arctic shipping introduces invasive species, destroying biodiversity
Geiling 14 (Natasha, Arctic Shipping: Good For Invasive Species, Bad For the Rest of Nature,
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/global-warmings-unexpected-consequenceinvasive-species-180951573/)
Yes, shipping containers and bulk carriers do currently contribute to the spread of invasive species—it's
something that has been irking marine biologists for a long time. Bulk carriers (and ships generally) have things called ballast tanks, which are
compartments that hold water, in order to weigh a ship down and lower its center of gravity, providing stability. Ships
take in water
from one location and discharge it in another, contributing to concerns about invasive species. The zebra mussel, an
invasive species that has colonized the Great Lakes and caused billions of dollars of economic damage, is believed to have been
introduced from the ballast tank of ships coming from Western European ports . Shipping is already the primary way
that
invasive marine species become introduced—contributing to 69 percent of species introductions to
marine areas.¶ But Miller and Ruiz worry that Arctic shipping—both through the Arctic and from the Arctic—could make this statistic even
worse. ¶ "What’s happening now is that ships move between oceans by going through Panama or Suez, but that means ships from higher
latitudes have to divert south into tropical and subtropical waters, so if you are a cold water species, you’re not likely to do well in those
warm waters," Miller explains. "That could currently be working as a filter, minimizing the high latitude species that are moving from one
ocean to another."¶ Moreover, the Panama Canal is a freshwater canal, so organisms clinging to the hulls of ships passing through have to
undergo osmotic shock as saltwater becomes freshwater and back again. A lot of organisms, Miller explains, can't survive that.¶ These
new cold water routes don't have the advantage of temperature or salinity filters the way traditional shipping routes do. That means that
species adapted to live in cold waters in the Arctic could potentially survive in the cool waters in northern port cities in New York and
New Jersey, which facilitated the maritime transport of nearly $250 billion worth of goods in 2008. And because routes through the
Arctic are much shorter than traditional shipping routes, invasive animals like crabs, barnacles and mussels are more likely to survive
the short transit distance riding along inside the ballast tanks and clinging to the hulls.¶ ¶
Invasive species are always cause for apprehension—a Pandora's Box, because no one really knows how they'll impact a
particular ecosystem until it's too late. In an interview with Scientific American in March of 2013, climate scientist Jessica Hellmann, of the
University of Notre Dame, put it this way: "Invasive species are one of those things that once the genie is out of the bottle, it’s hard to put her
back in." There aren't many invasive species from the Arctic that are known, but one that is, the red king crab, has already wreaked
havoc on Norway's waters; a ferocious predator, the red king crab hasn't had much trouble asserting near total dominance over species
unfamiliar with it. "You never know when the next red king crab is going to be in your ballast tank," Miller warns. Invasive species pose
two dangers, one ecological, the other economic. From an ecological standpoint, invasive species threaten
to disrupt systems
that have evolved and adapted to live together over millions of years. "You could have a real
breakdown in terms of [the ecosystems] structure and their function, and in some cases, the diversity and abundance
of native species," Miller explains.
But invasive species do more than threaten the ecology of the Arctic—they can threaten the global economy. Many invasive species, like
mussels, can damage infrastructure, such as cooling and water pipes. Seaports are vital to both the United States and the global economy—
ports in the Western hemisphere handle 7.8 billion tons of cargo each year and generate nearly $8.6 trillion of total economic activity,
according to the American Association of Port Authorities. If an invasive species is allowed to gain a foothold in a port, it could completely
disrupt the economic output of that port. The green crab, an invasive species from Europe, for example, has been introduced to New England
coasts and feasts on native oysters and crabs, accounting for nearly $44 million a year in economic losses. If invasive species are able to disrupt
the infrastructure of an American port—from pipes to boats—it could mean damages for the American economy. In recent years, due to
fracking technology, the United States has gone from being an importer of fuel to an exporter, which means that American ports will be hosting
more foreign ships in the coming years—and that means more potential for invasive species to be dispersed. Invasive
species brought
into the Arctic could also disrupt ecosystems, especially because the Arctic has had low exposure to
invasions until now. Potential invasive species could threaten the Arctic's growing economic infrastructure as well, damaging
equipment set up to look for natural gas and other natural resources in the newly-exposed Arctic waters.
Biodiversity Loss Leads to Extinction
Buczynski ’10 gender modified* [Beth, writer and editor for important ecosystem sustainability, UN:
Loss Of Biodiversity Could Mean End Of Human Race, Care2, 18/10/10, http://www.care2.com/causes/unhumans-are-rapidly-destroying-the-biodiversity-ne.html]
UN officials gathered at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in Japan have issued a global warning that the rapid loss of
animal and plant species that has characterized the past century must end if humans are to survive. Delegates in
Nagoya plan to set a new target for 2020 for curbing species loss, and will discuss boosting medium-term financial help for poor countries to
help them protect their wildlife and habitats (Yahoo Green). “Business
as usual is no more an option for
[hu]mankind*,” CBD executive secretary Ahmed Djoghlaf said in his opening statements. “We need a new approach, we need to
reconnect with nature and live in harmony with nature into the future.” The CBD is an international legally-binding treaty with three main goals:
conservation of biodiversity; sustainable use of biodiversity; fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
Its overall objective is to encourage actions which will lead to a sustainable future. As Djoghlaf acknolwedged in his opening statements, facing
the fact that many countries have ignored their obligation to these goals is imperitive if progress is to be made in the future. “Let us have the
courage to look in the eyes of our children and admit that we have failed, individually and collectively, to fulfil the Johannesburg promise made
to them by the 110 Heads of State and Government to substantially reduce the loss of biodiversity by 2010,” Djoghlaf stated. “Let us look in the
eyes of our children and admit that we continue to lose biodiversity at an unprecedented rate, thus mortgaging their future.” Earlier this year, the
U.N. warned several
eco-systems including the Amazon rainforest, freshwater lakes and rivers and coral reefs are approaching
a “tipping point” which, if reached, may see them never recover. According to a study by UC Berkeley and Penn
State University researchers, between 15 and 42 percent of the mammals in North America disappeared after humans arrived. Compared
to extinction rates demonstrated in other periods of Earth’s history, this
means that North American species are already half
way to to a sixth mass extinction, similar to the one that eliminated the dinosaurs. The same is true in many
other parts of the world. The third edition of the Global Biodiversity Outlook demonstrates that, today, the rate of loss of biodiversity is up to
one thousand times higher than the background and historical rate of extinction. The Earth’s
6.8 billion humans are
effectively living 50 percent beyond the planet’s biocapacity in 2007, according to a new assessment by the World
Wildlife Fund that said by 2030 humans will effectively need the capacity of two Earths in order to survive.
Politics
Best polls show dems squeezing out a senate win now – GOP control
of both chambers would crush Obama’s agenda
Montanaro 5/23 [DOMENICO MONTANARO, Journalist for PBS “Why 2014 might not be a
done deal for Republicans,” http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/2014-might-done-dealrepublicans/ | prs]
The GOP’s narrow path to a majority: We wrote this week about how the pieces are falling into
place for Republicans to take back the Senate with how things have shaken out in North
Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and Oregon. But Thursday, the New York Times Upshot Senate
control model, based on public polling, showed Democrats with a 57 percent chance of actually
retaining control of the Senate. How can this be? Well, it’s largely because polls over the last
month and a half have consistently shown Democrat Mark Pryor ahead in Arkansas and even
Republicans say Democrat Mark Begich in Alaska is running a very good campaign. How key are
Arkansas and Alaska? Consider: With Republicans needing to net six seats to win control and
Democrats currently either slightly ahead or better in all of the competitive races in Obama-won
states — Colorado, Michigan, Iowa, New Hampshire and Oregon — that leaves Republicans with a
very narrow window. If the GOP holds Kentucky and Georgia, which became more likely after
this week’s primaries, and it wins South Dakota, Montana and West Virginia as expected, then
Republicans need three more pick-ups. That means they need to win three of four of the
remaining red-state races with Democratic incumbents — Louisiana, North Carolina, Arkansas
and Alaska. For argument’s sake, if you give Republicans North Carolina and Louisiana, but they
lose Arkansas and Alaska, they come up one short.¶ The case for a sense of urgency: Republicans
need to capitalize on 2014, because the 2016 map is far less favorable to them. First, it’s a
presidential year with a far more pro-Democratic electorate than in midterms, and second,
several Republican incumbents will be up for re-election on more Democratic-leaning turf,
unlike this year. Among the seats the GOP will have to defend: Florida (Marco Rubio), Illinois
(Mark Kirk), Iowa (Chuck Grassley), New Hampshire (Kelly Ayotte), North Carolina (Richard
Burr), Ohio (Rob Portman), Pennsylvania (Pat Toomey) and Wisconsin (Ron Johnson). President
Barack Obama won seven of those eight states in both of his campaigns — and earned a split in
North Carolina, taking the state in 2008 and losing it to Mitt Romney by just two points in 2012.
The only competitive seats Democrats will have to defend are in places Obama won and where
Latinos factor prominently — Nevada (Harry Reid) and Colorado (Michael Bennet). That puts
pressure on Republicans to not only win control this cycle, but to do so with a cushion to retain it
two years from now. What would a 51-to-49 split likely get Republicans? Control of the Senate for
the last two years of a Democratic presidency, and Obama would block any attempts to dismantle
the Affordable Care Act or other Republican-backed measures he finds objectionable. So, it’s
possible we could be looking at a lame-duck president AND a lame-duck Senate from the start of
the next Congress — unless everyone can work together. Don’t everyone inhale and hold your
breath all at once…
U.S. voters won’t tolerate weak Russian foreign policy
Battenfield and Harold, analysts and reportoers for GOPUSA, 6/18
(Joe and Boston, “Obama, Kerry Foreign Policy a Disaster for Democrats” http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2014/06/18/obamakerry-foreign-policy-a-disaster-for-democrats/)
And allowing the Russians to walk into the Crimean peninsula unchallenged. There are more, but you get
the picture. It's not pretty for Democrats, especially in a year when Republicans are already poised to
make gains in Congress. The unfolding horror in Iraq probably will have the most serious political repercussions. Obama was elected
on a promise to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq, and that's one promise Democratic lawmakers probably wish he hadn't fulfilled. The graphic
images of the slaughter of Iraqi troops and civilians isn't something that can be wiped away by another college tour where Obama talks about
student loans. Obama was caught sleeping, or at least golfing, and if jihadists march into Baghdad, the results could be catastrophic for U.S.
interests in the Middle East. The latest news is that the Obama administration is dispatching several hundred armed troops in and around Iraq, and
is considering deploying a special forces contingent as well, all while insisting the U.S. won't be drawn into another ground war. Kerry
and
Obama will likely be forced to rely on our new allies in Iran to help stop extremists from taking over a country that
thousands of U.S. troops died to liberate. That's a humiliating prospect -- and one that many U.S. voters will
find tough to swallow. It's likely that Democratic lawmakers will be quickly pivoting in the coming
months to distance themselves from the Obama-Kerry foreign policy team.
That mobilizes voters against the president – allows GOP to take the
Senate
Sullivan 1/27 [Sean, Reporter, The Washington Post, “Can Obama lift Democrats in the
midterms? Don’t count on it.”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/thefix/wp/2014/01/27/can-obama-lift-democrats-in-the-midterms-dont-count-on-it/]
President Obama will not appear on a single ballot this fall, but there's no doubt many voters will
make decisions with him in mind. As things are shaping up now, that's not good news for
Democrats.¶ Why? Because most Americans simply don't view their midterm votes as a means of
expressing support for Obama. And on balance, his presence in the campaign more closely
resembles George W. Bush's on the eve of the 2006 midterms than Bill Clinton's just before the
1998 elections, a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows.¶ Republicans lost their Senate
and House majorities in 2006. Democrats made slight gains in 1998. That's what should worry
Obama and his party.¶ About half of Americans (53 percent) say Obama is not a factor in their
vote for Congress this year. Among those who say it is, slightly more (24 percent) say their vote
will be to oppose Obama than say their vote will be a show of support (20 percent).¶ The
president's numbers fall in between Bush's and Clinton's right before their second midterms,
tilting toward the former, as the following chart shows.¶ That's not the side you want to see
Obama fall closer to if you are a congressional Democratic candidate.¶ Democrats swept to power
in 2006, picking up 31 House seats and six Senate seats on Election Day. That was enough to
seize the majority in both chambers and render Bush virtually powerless legislatively during his
final two years in office.¶ In general, second midterms tend to be unkind to presidents. Even
though Clinton's imprint on the 1998 election looked more favorable compared to Bush in 2006
and Obama now, it wasn't like he made huge gains: Democrats picked up a handful of seats in
the House and the Senate stayed the same.¶ As many have written, the GOP has a built-in turnout
advantage in midterm elections, which draw an older, whiter electorate. Older voters and white
voters tend to vote Republican.¶ Part of the demographic challenge Democrats face this fall is
underscored in the Post-ABC poll. Roughly half of African Americans and Hispanics (53 and 46
percent) say their vote will be to express support for Obama. But just 10 percent of whites say
they will vote in support of Obama, while 33 percent say they will vote in opposition to him.¶ Exit
polling shows African Americans and Hispanic voters accounted for 13 percent and 9 percent of
the electorate, respectively, in 2008. Both groups maintained that level in 2012. But in the 2010
midterms, African Americans’ share of the vote dipped to 11 percent, with Hispanics at 8
percent. Census Bureau turnout surveys show a slighter downshift, but also find whites making
up a greater share of midterm voters.¶ In short, the parts of the electorate that will be using their
vote as a show of support for the president's agenda were less apt to vote in the latest off-year
election. And if that's true again this year, it won't spell good news for Democrats.¶ In order to keep
their fragile Senate majority and have any hope of making gains in the House, Democrats need a
number of things to go right for them this fall. And this includes maximizing Obama's positive
influence mitigating his drag where possible. But as the election year kicks off, it's clear they
have their work cut out for them.¶ The Post-ABC poll was conducted Jan. 19 to 23 among a
random national sample of 1,003 adults reached on conventional and cellular phones. The overall
margin of error is 3.5 percentage points.
Senate win k2 immigration reform
CNN 5/23 [“Obama: Midterm elections will decide the fate of immigration reform,”
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/23/obama-midterm-elections-will-decide-the-fateof-immigration-reform/]
(CNN) – President Barack Obama said Thursday night before a hometown Chicago crowd that it
was up to Congress to move on immigration reform. He predicted that if Democrats don't win big
in the midterm elections, the overhaul won't get done.¶ Obama told supporters at a Democratic
Senatorial Campaign Committee fund-raiser, "You have a President who is fighting for you in
the White House."¶ "What you do not have right now is a Congress that can function."¶
Meanwhile, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Thursday it's up to Obama to pass
immigration reform.¶ "The President has responsibility here as well," Boehner said.¶ Many
conservatives in the GOP-led House of Representatives view any legislation that includes a pathway
toward citizenship tantamount to "amnesty." When the Democratic-controlled Senate approved a
bipartisan immigration bill last year that included an eventual path toward citizenship for most of
the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, the bill stalled in the House.¶
Complete coverage of the 2014 midterm elections¶ Obama's assertion came on the heels of
remarks Thursday by Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-New York, that the President will act on his own if
Republicans don't pass immigration reform soon.¶ Speaking alongside Schumer, Senate Majority
Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, said Congress should pass immigration reform now and let it take
effect in 2017.¶ "If Republicans don't trust President Obama, let's give them a chance to implement
the bill under President Rand Paul or President Theodore Cruz," Reid said, referring to two
possible GOP presidential contenders in 2016.¶ Schumer said Republicans had until the August
recess to pass an immigration reform bill. "If they don't pass immigration reform then, the
President will have no choice but to act on his own. We'd much rather pass legislation," he said.¶
CNN: Key races to watch in 2014¶ Speaking at his weekly press conference, Boehner said he has
talked immigration reform since the day after the 2012 election and has said repeatedly it's an issue
Congress needs to tackle.¶ "I made it clear we're not going to deal with the Senate bill, a 1,300-page
bill that no one has read. And we're not going to do it," he said.¶ Schumer said Republicans will
lose the presidency, the Senate and House if they don't move on immigration. And Obama on
Thursday night said that it would take Democrats winning Congress to move on immigration.¶ "If
we do not hang on to the Senate and make gains in the House," said Obama, speaking at a private
residence, "we may not get immigration reform done, which means we could have another three,
four years, in which we're being deprived of talent we're training here in the United States - they go
back home and start businesses someplace else."¶ With no support in the House for a
comprehensive immigration package, Boehner insisted Thursday upon a piecemeal approach to
legislation.¶ "I think that moving in a piece-by-piece fashion on this in a common-sense way is the
way to do this," he said.¶ Boehner attributed the failure to pass immigration legislation on the
President losing the American people's trust because of Obamacare.¶ "When he continues to ignore
Obamacare, his own law, 38 unilateral delays, he reduces the confidence of the American people in
his willingness to implement an immigration law the way we would pass it," he said.
Reform is key to competitiveness and solving the deficit
Kagan 13
(Robert Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, “Immigration reform can prove U.S. strength and security” June 14, 2013,
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-14/opinions/39977596_1_immigration-reform-bill-favor-marco-rubio, KB)
Proponents of reform, on the other hand, take an optimistic view of the U.S. capacity to absorb and benefit from immigration. On the Republican
side, they also happen to be the leading proponents of active U.S. involvement in the world, such as longtime internationalists John McCain and
Lindsey Graham. Like them, another of the immigration reform bill’s sponsors in the Senate, Marco Rubio, has been a strong advocate for U.S.
global leadership. His support
for immigration reform clearly stems from his basic confidence in the United
States and his desire to ensure that it can continue to compete and lead effectively.¶ One of the most
important parts of the Senate bill is that it begins to shift our immigration policy in a direction that
most strengthens U.S. competitiveness. Right now, the country’s immigration policies are heavily weighted in favor of family
unification. That’s not merely unification of the immediate, nuclear family — a worthy and necessary objective — but also extended family,
which has led to “chain migration.” The Senate legislation would eliminate certain categories of family preference in favor of a more “meritbased” system. In particular, the expansion of the H1-B visa program for highly skilled immigrants is the kind of measure that high-tech U.S.
corporations are clamoring for. As Rubio and others point out, thousands of foreign students receive excellent educations at U.S. universities,
learn invaluable high-level skills and are then sent back to their home countries, such as China and India, which then get the full benefit of this
American training. Why not keep those graduates here, where we all would benefit? ¶ And we do benefit. Economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a
former director of the Congressional Budget Office, has convincingly argued that the right kind of
immigration reform can “raise the pace of economic growth by nearly a percentage point over the
near term , raise GDP per capita by over $1,500 and reduce the cumulative federal debt by over
$2.5 trillion.” One of the reasons, he noted, is that “immigrants have traditionally displayed an entrepreneurial bent, with rates of small
business ownership above that of the native born population.” Those with strong educational backgrounds, in particular, are more likely to make
new discoveries and start businesses, which in turn create jobs. For those worried about immigrants taking away jobs, the bill has a provision
preventing visas from being issued for work in areas of high unemployment. ¶ After
much misguided hand-wringing about
“American decline,” Congress has a chance to do something to strengthen the United States at
home and abroad. Majorities of Americans in both parties favor immigration reform, a healthy sign of a return to optimism about the
nation’s future. It would be a healthy sign, too, if a bipartisan majority could come together and, along with the president, meet this serious
national challenge. Many people around the world, and many Americans, have doubts that we can address any of the big problems facing our
nation. Immigration reform is a good place to start proving them wrong.
Case – Russia
no arctic science – territorial claims inadvertent bureaucracy
Daniel Cressey is a reporter with Nature in London, 2011 [“Scientific challenges in the Arctic:
Open water”, Published online 12 October 2011 | Nature 478, 174-177 (2011) |
doi:10.1038/478174a, http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111012/full/478174a.html]/sbhag
6.30.2014
The territorial ambitions of different nations may also end up restricting scientific access. In
theory, the areas claimed under the UNCLOS apply only to the sea floor and do not give a
country rights over the water above. In practice, however, such claims could hinder scientific
work. "If a coastal state wanted to, it could, by declaring regions to be of special interest for
exploration, require that other states request permission to conduct research in the area of the
extended continental shelf," says Larry Mayer, a marine geologist at the University of New
Hampshire in Durham. This is more than just idle speculation, he says, because Russia has a
history of impeding access to scientists from other nations seeking to work in its waters. Some
researchers say that their attempts to put out or collect equipment from areas under Russian
control have been thwarted when applications for permits were either denied or went
unanswered. The Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, for example, could not obtain permission
to drill in Russian parts of the Bering Sea in 2009. Some scientists familiar with Russia say that
the permission problems stem more from the nation's massive bureaucracy than a deliberately
obstructionist policy. "Inertia here coming from the Soviet era is really huge," says Igor Polyakov,
a Russian Arctic researcher who now works at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. He says that
gaining permission for research in Russian waters is much easier now than in the past. Others
report just the opposite. Cheryl Rosa, deputy director of the US Arctic Research Commission in
Anchorage, Alaska, says that researchers are still experiencing problems with permits, visas,
taxations on funding, getting data out of Russia and other issues.
Ignore their cooperation defense—Russians are intentionally hiding
their belligerence to encourage complacency in the US
Huebert 10 (Rob, PhD and Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary,
“The Newly Emerging Arctic Security
Environment,” http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdf)
It should be clear that the
Russians have been according a growing importance to the Arctic region . They
continually issue statements affirming their commitment to peaceful cooperation in the Arctic,
which show up in the form of public statements by their leaders and in their primary documents.
These same leaders are also very quick to condemn the actions of the other Arctic states as being
aggressive and a threat to international peace and security in the region whenever they engage in
any form of military related activity. It is clear, however, that the Russians have embarked on a much more
assertive use of military force in the region by taking various action – the missile test launches near
the pole, the sudden and substantial resumption of the long-range bomber patrols, and the voyages
of their surface units into the disputed zones – which exceeds that of any of the other Arctic states.
Furthermore, the Russians’ proposed rearmament plans greatly exceed the plans of any other Arctic
state. Thus, the Russians have excelled at portraying themselves as cooperative while taking
increasingly assertive action. The question remains as to why? Are they merely reasserting themselves as a global power, or, does
this new action point to an increasingly assertive Russia? This is not known.
Zero chance of Arctic war---experts
Mahony 3/19 Honor, EU Observer, "Fear of Arctic conflict are 'overblown'", 2013,
euobserver.com/foreign/119479
The Arctic has become a new frontier in international relations, but fear of potential conflict in the
resource-rich
region is overblown, say experts . For long a mystery because of its general impenetrability, melting ice caps are revealing more and more of the
Arctic region to scientists, researchers and industry. Climate change experts can take a more precise look at a what global warming is doing to the planet, shipping trade routes once considered
unthinkable are now possible, and governments and businesses are in thrall to the potential exploitation of coal, iron, rare earths and oil. The interest is reflected in the growing list of those
wanting to have a foot in the Arctic council, a forum of eight countries with territory in the polar region. While the US, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Russia and Canada form the
The Arctic has become a new
meeting place for America, Europe and the Asia Pacific," says Damien Degeorges, founder of the Arctic Policy and Economic Forum. During
council, the EU commission, China, India, South Korea and Japan have all expressed an interest in having a permanent observer status. "
a recent conference on Arctic shipping routes in the European Parliament, Degeorges noted that "China has been the most active by far in the last years." He points to its red-carpet treatment of
politicians from Greenland, a territory that recently got full control over its wealth of natural resources. Bejing also cosied up to Iceland after the island's financial meltdown. The two undertook a
joint expedition to the North Pole and the Chinese have the largest foreign embassy in Reykjavik. Meanwhile, South Korea's president visited Greenland last year and shipping hubs like
Singapore are holding Arctic conferences. The interest is being spurred by melting icebergs. Last year saw a record low of multi-year ice - permanent ice - in the polar sea. This means greater
shipping and mineral exploitation potential. There were 37 transits of the North East Passage (NEP), running from the Atlantic to the Pacific along the top of Russia, in 2011. This rose to 47 in
2012. For a ship travelling from the Netherlands to China, the route around 40 percent shorter than using the traditional Suez Canal. A huge saving for China, where 50 percent of its GDP is
connected to shipping. Russia is also keen to exploit the route as the rise in temperatures is melting the permafrost in its northern territory, playing havoc with its roads and railways. According to
Jan Fritz Hansen, deputy director of the Danish shipowners’ association, the real breakthrough will come when there is a cross polar route. At the moment there are are two options - the North
East Passge for which Russia asks high fees for transiting ships - or the much-less developed North West Passage along Canada. His chief concern is that "trade up there is free. We don't want
protectionism. Everyone should be allowed to compete up there." And he believes the biggest story of the Arctic is not how it is traversed but what will be taken out of it. According to the US
Geological Survey (2009), the Arctic holds 13 percent of undiscovered oil and 30 percent of undiscovered gas supplies. Greenland is already at the centre of political tussle between the EU and
China over future exploitation of its rare earths - used in a range of technologies such as hybrid cars or smart phones. "The biggest adventure will be the Arctic destination. There is a lot of
This resource potential - although tempered by the fact that
much of it is not economically viable to exploit - has led to fears that the Arctic region is ripe for
conflict. But this is nonsense, says Nil Wang, a former Danish admiral and Arctic expert . Most resources have
an owner "There is a general public perception that the Arctic region holds great potential for conflict
because it is an ungoverned region where all these resources are waiting to be picked up by the one who gets there
first. That is completely false ," he said. He notes that it is an "extremely well-regulated region ," with
international rules saying that coastal states have territorial jurisdiction up to 12 nautical miles off
their coast. On top of that is a further 200 nautical miles of exclusive economic zone "where you own every
value in the water and under the seabed." "Up to 97 percent of energy resources is actually belong ing to
valuable goods that should be taken out of nature up there," he said.
someone already ," says Wang. He suggest the actors in the region all want to create a business environment,
which requires stable politics and security.
Case – Shipping
No closure and no impact even if closure happens
Dr. Frank Yu is Assistant Professor of Finance at CEIBS (China Europe International Business
School) since 2009, August 18, 2013 [“Egypt, Higher Oil Add to Stock Market Woes”, Epoch
Times, http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/251715-egypt-higher-oil-add-to-stock-marketwoes]/sbhag 7.2.2014
Egypt is hugely important to the oil industry. The Suez Canal and the Suez-Mediterranean Pipeline—both connect the Red Sea
to the Mediterranean—are controlled by the country. Nearly three million barrels of oil passes through the Suez Canal per day. Another 1.5
million barrels of oil are transferred via the pipeline. Closure, or threats of closure, will have a dramatic impact on supply, and therefore the price
of oil. In addition to the effects of the canal’s closure, it remains to be seen how unrest in Egypt will affect the political and social climate in other
nations in the region. The
Egyptian military knows this, and has made security at the canal a top priority.
Few analysts expect a closure of the Suez Canal to be imminent. Insurance agencies also don’t seem
to be worried. “We don’t consider it necessary that shippers tell us they are going there,” Neil Roberts,
an executive at insurer Lloyd’s of London, told UAE’s The National. “We are very conscious of Egyptian authorities to take the Suez as a high
Suez is not on Lloyd’s “watchlist,” a list of assets considered by
the insurance giant to be risky during insurance underwriting. Even if the Suez were to close, some experts say
that disruption shouldn’t be catastrophic. “There are still more than enough container ships to cope
with the extra distance of sailing between Asia and Europe around the Cape of Good Hope, with transit times remaining little
longer due to their reserves of speed,” according to a study by Drewry Maritime Research, an industry consultancy based
in the UK. Drewry argued that navigating around the Cape of Good Hope (at the southern tip of Africa) will
allow ships to travel at slightly faster overall speeds, while the additional cost of fuel is partially
offset by a recent 2 percent increase of tolls at the Suez Canal.
priority asset—to keep it running and open.” The
Arctic routes do not and will not offer an attractive alternative to
traditional maritime avenues – this evidence is the executioner:
complexity and economies of scale short circuit their reductionist
interpretation of shipping patterns
Stephen M. Carmel is senior vice president, Maritime Services, at Maersk Line, Limited
(MLL), responsible for all technical and operating activities. Steve began his career sailing as a
deck officer and master, primarily on tankers. He holds an MA in economics and an MBA from
Old Dominion University. Steve is currently a PhD candidate in international studies with an
emphasis in international political economy and second emphasis in conflict. He is a certified
management accountant and is certified in financial management. Steve’s research and
publishing interests are in maritime security, trade and conflict, and Arctic regional issues, 2013
[“The Cold, Hard Realities of Arctic Shipping”, Proceedings Magazine, July 2013, Vol.
139/7/1,325, http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2013-07/cold-hard-realities-arcticshipping]/sbhag 6.30.2014
pundits believe a shrinking ice cap translates to a frenzy of traffic as shippers rush to exploit
shorter sea routes. They’re wrong. On 16 September 2012 the Arctic reached the point at which ice stops receding and begins to form anew with the approach of
Maritime
winter. Last year that ice minimum set a record at 1.32 million square miles—300,000 square miles less than the previous record minimum. 1 With that news comes the predictable flood of
reports about the pending increase in Arctic shipping, how woefully unprepared the United States is to deal with that onslaught of traffic, and the need for large-scale investment in Arctic
capabilities. 2 Worries about the implications of a thawing Arctic have been around for some time. Conferences and seminars about the Arctic seem to have superseded even piracy as a source of
There is no doubt that the Arctic is in fact thawing, and there naturally will be
increased activity up there. But to formulate appropriate strategy and make intelligent investments it is important to get past
the hype and: • Understand what type of activity is likely to occur • Determine the time frame in which it is
likely to happen • Recognize that, at least for commercial interests, economics trumps all As the Russians found out with the failed Shtokman gas field—a €15 billion (roughly
$20 billion) Arctic investment killed due to cheap U.S. shale gas—the Arctic is not melting in isolation from events in the rest of the world. 3 It is the global system,
income for the conference-for-profit crowd.
changes across that system, including in the Arctic, interact in ways that can be
unpredictable at best. It is very unlikely, then, that the Northern Sea Route across the top of Russia
will become a major pathway for the global flow of commerce, and it is virtually certain the
Northwest Passage across the top of Canada will never be useful for international trade. There are
two types of shipping that must be considered when thinking about commercial traffic through the Arctic: destination shipping and transit shipping.
Destination shipping is that which occurs to support some activity in the Arctic—oil moving from the Barents Sea
across the Northern Sea Route to Asia, for example. That type of activity happens now and indeed will increase in volume . There
of which the Arctic is just one part, that matters;
are large amounts of natural resources in the Arctic, and while the economic viability of all of those discoveries is doubtful—as noted with Shtokman—many will be. Bulk shipping activity
necessary to exploit those resources will increase. In addition, the Northern Sea Route offers the Chinese at least a partial solution to their “Malacca Problem,” providing a source of oil and gas
from the Barents Sea that cannot be interdicted, unlike that obtained from the Persian Gulf. This type of destination shipping by definition means that such traffic will call at ports in at least one
of just five countries having an Arctic coast (the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark–via Greendland–and Norway). Using Port State Control (PSC), those littoral countries have
considerable leeway and authority outside the painfully slow International Maritime Organization (IMO) process to implement the regulatory regime necessary to protect the environment and
control shipping activity to an appreciable extent. Should all five of those states, perhaps through a sub-group of the Arctic Council, join to implement a coordinated PSC regime for access to
Such shipping by its nature is also amenable to some of the
challenges Arctic shipping presents. In particular those ships do not operate in networks, are not sensitive to
variation in schedule, and have less sensitivity to adverse economies of scale. They also do not represent the volume of shipping a global
pathway of commerce—a northern version of the Suez Canal, say—would represent. That sort of transit shipping, using the Arctic as a
shortcut between Rotterdam and Yokohama for example, is far more uncertain. In predicting increased traffic through the Arctic it is often noted that
routes across the top are up to 40 percent shorter than the more traditional routes between Asia and Europe (via the Suez Canal) or the East Coast
of the United States (via the Panama Canal). 4 The assumption is that shorter equals faster and cheaper. But in the Arctic,
the shortest distance is normally neither faster nor cheaper for the type of transit shipping usually
associated with global commerce, particularly that involving containerships. Container shipping is
considerably different from bulk shipping, making the economics of the Arctic as a transit route
unappealing. There are many things, such as construction standards, outfitting, and crew training for example, that make
Arctic-capable ships more expensive to build and operate. In addition, those more expensive construction
features are useful only during the short ice season but represent a cost the ship carries throughout
the year. Other issues also make the Arctic a much more expensive place to operate, such as the need for
icebreakers, lack of support infrastructure, and pending IMO requirements on fuel. 5 But to keep the discussion
at a manageable level it is important to focus on a few key issues. First, speed alone is no longer the major consideration, as fuel costs have made
slow-steaming the standard of operation. Where once 24 knots was routine for a containership, it is now 13 knots or less. What is far more
important than speed is reliability. Unlike the bulk shipping discussed earlier, schedule integrity is a key serviceattribute for containerships. The Arctic will always suffer from periods of poor visibility and the potential
for wind-driven ice, both of which can make routes with a comparatively low average transit time have a large variability around that average.
More than half of all container cargo is now component-level goods—materials destined for factories for use in production
processes operating on a just-in-time-type inventory-management system. That makes consistency, reliability, and schedule integrity of
paramount importance. The key goal of container shipping is 99 percent on-time delivery. If this is attainable at all, it will be extraordinarily expensive using Arctic transit
routes. Thus the variability in transit time that may be tolerable in bulk shipping is unacceptable for container shipping. Containerships operate in networks
with “strings” (routes) of many ports serviced by multiple ships on a steady schedule. For example, a U.S. East Coast to Southwest Asia route of 42 days round
Arctic ports, the bulk of commercial traffic there is de facto regulated.
trip serviced by six ships means regular weekly service out of the ports on that route. Routes frequently intersect at key transshipment ports such as Singapore or Algeciras, Spain.
Network economics are a considerable part of the overall cost-efficiency picture in a container
service. Transit across the Arctic, while shorter for certain port pairs, may not be shorter for a network that services a
number of ports on both sides or call at a major transshipment hub. A requirement to call at Singapore for example, means the
Northern Sea Route would not be shorter. Were the service to be restricted to just those ports where the distance is shorter, then all the economic advantages of network economics are lost. At
the very most, the Arctic is serviceable just three to four months a year, and no one is predicting an
ice-diminished Arctic in the winter. Developing routes that would increase the attractiveness of Arctic paths from a network perspective is not
economically feasible as long as they are useful only a third of the year or less. Perhaps the biggest issue
making Arctic shipping unacceptable from a container-shipping perspective is economies of scale.
While conventional wisdom would focus on total voyage cost, it is actually the cost per container
that matters. Because both the Northern Sea Route and the Northwest Passage are draft-constrained (41-foot and 33-foot controlling drafts, respectively) the largest
ship likely to be able to use the Northern Sea route would be one with a cargo capacity of just 2,500
TEU—and even smaller for the Northwest passage. TEU, or twenty-foot equivalent unit, is a measure of containership carrying capacity based on a standard 20-foot container length. A
40-foot container would be 2 TEU, for example. The Northern Sea Route also has a beam restriction of 30 meters, as transiting ships cannot be wider than the
icebreakers employed to support them. For the Asia-to-Europe trade on the other hand, containerships can be as large
as 15,000 TEU with a beam exceeding 164 feet; 6,000 to 8,000 TEU ships are common. As a back-of-the-envelope example, consider a voyage from Yokohama to Rotterdam, the
common benchmark. By the traditional route it is 11,300 nautical miles (nm) with a transit time of 36 days. The Northern Sea Route is 7,600 nm and takes 26 days (relying on the rather large
assumption that the voyage is unhindered by ice or visibility issues). The ship making the Arctic transit would reasonably be carrying 2,000 containers; the ship on the traditional route would be
carrying 6,500. Factoring in all expenses such as fuel and daily ship-operation, the cost of the traditional route would be $3.5 million, while the Arctic route would be $2.5 million. That is as far
as most analyses normally go, showing that the Arctic route is considerably cheaper. But as noted earlier, what matters is not total cost but cost-per-container—and when put in those terms it
breaks down to $538 for the traditional route, but $1,250 on the Arctic route. So in fact, the Arctic route is more than twice as expensive as the traditional route, and the Arctic route looks worse
when a comparison with larger ships on the traditional route is made. The Maersk Line, for example, will deploy Triple E–class ships with a nominal capacity of 18,000 TEU on the Asia-Europe
trade route in the near future. It should be noted as well that the Northern Sea Route is actually a series of seas—Barents, Kara, and Laptev—connected by narrow straits and it is claimed by the
Russians as an internal waterway. Fees to transit the Northern Sea Route are on par with the Suez Canal, and the Russians also impose a considerable and very formal administrative process in
order to transit the route. Lastly, it is important to remember, as noted at the outset, that changes in the Arctic are not occurring in isolation from the rest of the world—it is but part of a system,
When making ice projections out to 2040, then, it should be remembered that in a
similar time span (roughly three decades) the advent of the container and advances in information technology
completely revolutionized shipping—allowing the development of disaggregated supply chains that
are the hallmark of this age of globalization, and propelling China from a third-world backwater to
global economic powerhouse. Clearly, a great deal can happen in 30 or 40 years, so it is a mistake to try
to overlay a melting Arctic on today’s geo-economic situation. It is the state of the world at that future point interacting with a melted
Arctic that matters. Already, changes in the patterns of global trade have had significant implications for the
utility of Arctic routes. Increasingly expensive labor in China, for example, is pushing Chinese manufacturing to be outsourced to countries in Southeast Asia where costs are
lower but Arctic routes offer no advantage. A shift to near-shoring—moving manufacturing closer to markets—is increasing, too. Even advances such as additive
manufacturing—3-D printing, for example—have large implications as local on-demand manufacturing becomes a
reality. Advances in that type of disruptive technology could have a major impact on the
fundamental nature of trade within the time projections of changing ice conditions in the Arctic. There
is no question that the Arctic is becoming more ice-free. There will be an attendant increase in commercial presence in the Arctic that should not be ignored. But a proper
understanding of what type of activity there will be, and a realistic assessment of the volume of that
activity are necessary to ensure proper policy and investments are made. For commercial shipping,
and particularly the types that drive globalization today, Arctic routes do not now offer an
and the entire system is changing.
attractive alternative to the more traditional maritime avenues, and are highly unlikely to do so in
the future.
Case – Oil Spills
Oil companies won’t drill in arctic
Cockerman 1/30/14
Sean Cockerman. Sean Cockerham is a reporter for McClatchy Newspapers, based in Washington, D.C. He writes for the Anchorage Daily News
and the Idaho Statesman.
January 30th,2014. “Shell won't drill offshore in Alaska Arctic this year”. http://www.adn.com/2014/01/30/3298785/shell-abandons-plans-foralaska.html
Royal Dutch Shell is abandoning hopes of drilling in the Arctic waters off Alaska this
year, the latest blow to the company's effort to exploit huge potential in the petroleum-rich but
sensitive region. The decision came as Shell reported a steep drop in earnings and its new CEO announced plans to restructure operations to improve the company's cash flow. CEO
Ben van Beurden cited last week's court ruling that threw offshore Arctic oil leases into question. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed
with environmental and Alaska Native groups that the federal government had underestimated
how much oil drilling would happen when it sold the leases in 2008. Van Beurden told investors that
the ruling raised "substantial obstacles" for Shell's plans in Alaska waters. "This is a disappointing
outcome, but the lack of a clear path forward means that I am not prepared to commit further
resources for drilling in Alaska in 2014," he told the investors Thursday. "We will look to relevant agencies and the court to resolve their open legal issues as
WASHINGTON --
quickly as possible." Van Beurden told reporters in London that, in addition to not drilling the Arctic waters in 2014, "we are reviewing our options there." Shell and others had explored offshore
in the Alaska Arctic in the 1980s and early 1990s. But before Shell's recent push there had been little activity in the last two decades and none by Shell. A series of mishaps doomed its 2012
effort. Those included the grounding of a drilling rig, reports of safety and environmental violations, and fines for breaking air pollution limits. Ken Salazar, the interior secretary at the time, said
Shell "screwed up" the historic Arctic effort. The Coast Guard conducted a full marine casualty investigation into the circumstances of the grounding. But its report has not yet been released. The
Shell has spent almost $6
billion so far on its Arctic offshore effort, the company said Thursday. "We needed more certainty
and didn't get it, making it impossible to justify the commitment of resources needed to explore
safely in 2014," Pete Slaiby, Shell's vice president for Alaska, said in an email. It has yet to extract
oil or even drill a single, complete well. While Salazar allowed Shell to start wells in both the Chukchi and Beaufort seas in 2012, the company wasn't allowed
problems led Shell to drop plans to drill last year, but it had interest in resuming this year if the federal government agreed to issue permits.
to drill into oil-rich geologic zones because its novel oil-spill containment dome failed tests. The entire drilling season was shortened because of a series of equipment problems. Environmental
"Shell is finally recognizing what we've been saying all along, that
offshore drilling in the Arctic is risky, costly and simply not a good bet from a business
perspective," said Jacqueline Savitz, Oceana's vice president for U.S. oceans. Erik Grafe, the Earthjustice attorney who
groups hailed Shell's decision to suspend the effort.
led the lease challenge, called on the Obama administration to do a new environmental study. "The Department of the Interior now needs to take a hard look at whether the Chukchi Sea should be
open for oil drilling at all, beginning with a full and public environmental impact statement process that addresses the Ninth Circuit decision and does not minimize the risks of oil drilling in this
Greenpeace urged other companies that are considering offshore Arctic
drilling to learn from Shell's experience and "conclude that this region is too remote, too hostile
and too iconic to be worth exploring." "The decision by Shell's new CEO to suspend Arctic Ocean
drilling in 2014 was both sensible and inevitable," Lois Epstein, an engineer and Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, said in a
statement. "The Arctic Ocean has proven to be logistically challenging for drilling and mobilization, and
a bottomless pit for investment." Political leaders faulted the federal government and court rulings
and downplayed Shell's own difficulties. Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski said she was disappointed that Shell wouldn't be going ahead this year.
vibrant but vulnerable sea," Grafe said in a statement.
She said it was understandable given the uncertainty due to the federal court ruling on its leases. "Companies willing to invest billions of dollars to develop our country's resources must have
confidence that the federal agencies responsible for overseeing their efforts are competent and working in good faith. I'm not convinced that has been the case for Alaska," Murkowski said in a
statement. Alaska Democratic Sen. Mark Begich blamed "judicial overreach" for the situation. "I'll be talking with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell today, and expect her agency to move quickly to
address the court's questions and concerns and do everything possible to get this process back on track," Begich said in a statement. Gov. Sean Parnell said Shell's decision was understandable,
given the recent court ruling. "Multiple years of federal regulatory delay, litigation delay, and one year of operational issues have created barriers to Alaskans' near-term economic prospects,"
Parnell said in a statement. "Still, offshore energy development will play an enormous role in Alaska's economic future, and I remain committed to responsibly developing our vast offshore
resource basin." The decision came as the company told investors that its fourth-quarter profits had plummeted, in part because of expensive exploration projects around the world. Van Beurden
said project delays in several countries and Nigeria's worsening security situation had contributed to a changing outlook for the Dutch oil company. He said Shell would reduce its capital
spending this year by about $10 billion, increase sales of its assets and attempt to improve its operational performance. "We are making hard choices in our worldwide portfolio to improve Shell's
. Other oil companies also have reservations about developing in the harsh Arctic
environment. In April, ConocoPhillips announced it was abandoning its plans to drill this year in its Devil's Paw prospect about 80 miles off the Alaska coast because of uncertainty
capital efficiency," he said
over government requirements. Statoil, a Norweigian oil and gas company, announced in September 2012 that it was delaying exploration plans. Spanish oil company Repsol also holds leases
offshore. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management estimates there are 27 billion barrels of "undiscovered technically recoverable" oil offshore Alaska. Daily News reporter Lisa Demer
contributed to this story from Anchorage.
Multiple alt causes to species loss
EDF 7 (Environmental Defense Fund, The Importance of Wildlife and the Diversity of Life,
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=445, AG)
The major cause of species loss in the U.S. and worldwide is the loss and degradation of habitat. As forests, wetlands, prairies,
coastal estuaries and other habitats are converted to residential, commercial or agricultural use and other types of development,
wild plants and animals vanish. In addition, many areas known as "hotspots" for their unusually rich biodiversity, such as
Florida and Southern California, also have rapidly expanding human populations, which accelerates the loss
of biodiversity. In the U.S. non-native species are the second largest cause of species loss. Hundreds of
Hawaii's unique wildlife and plants are being driven to extinction by non-native plants and animals. Other factors are
pollution, disease, over-fishing and over-hunting.