Opening Packet Aff – Cuban Oil – HoyaSpartan Scholars, Summer 2013
**1AC Starts Here
Oil Spill Advantage
Contention One is Oil Spills:
Cuban oil drilling inevitable. The embargo only locks-out US safety experts.
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse¶ reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a former president of Amoco Oil Latin America (now
part of BP) and an expert on Cuba's energy sector who is now a research fellow at the University of Texas at Austin.–
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oil-quest/
But an
energy-poor Cuba also has its risks. One of the chief concerns has been over the danger of an
accident as Cuba pursues its search for oil, so close to Florida's coastline, at times in the brisk currents of the straits, and
without U.S. industry expertise on safety . The worries led to a remarkable series of meetings among environmentalists,
Cuban officials, and even U.S government officials over several years. Conferences organized by groups like the nonprofit Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) and its counterparts in Cuba have taken place in the Bahamas, Mexico City, and elsewhere. The meetings included other
countries in the region to diminish political backlash, though observers say the primary goal was to bring together U.S. and Cuban officials.¶ EDF
led a delegation last year to Cuba, where it has worked for more than a decade with Cuban scientists on shared environmental concerns. The
visitors included former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator William Reilly, who co-chaired the national commission that
investigated BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster and spill of nearly 5 million barrels of crude into the Gulf of Mexico. (Related Quiz: "How
Much Do You Know About the Gulf Oil Spill?") They discussed Cuba's exploration plans and shared information on the risks.¶ "We've found
world-class science in all our interactions with the Cubans," said Douglas Rader, EDF's chief oceans scientist. He said, however, that the
embargo has left Cubans with insufficient resources and inexperience with high-tech gear.¶ Although the
United States and Cuba have no formal diplomatic relations, sources say government officials have made low-profile efforts to prepare for a
potential problem. But the two nations still lack an agreement on how to manage response to a drilling disaster, said Robert Muse, a
Washington attorney and expert on licensing under the embargo. That lessens
the chance of a coordinated response of the
sort that was crucial to containing damage from the Deepwater Horizon spill, he said.¶ "There's a need
to get over yesterday's politics," said Rader. "It's time to make sure we're all in a position to respond to
the next event, wherever it is."¶ In addition to the environmental risks of Cuba going it alone , there
are the political risks. Piñon, at the University of Texas, said success in deepwater could have helped Cuba spring free of Venezuela's
influence as the time nears for the Castro brothers to give up power. Raúl Castro, who took over in 2008 for ailing brother Fidel, now 86, is
himself 81 years old. At a potentially crucial time of transition, the influence of Venezuela's outspoken leftist president Hugo Chávez could
thwart moves by Cuba away from its state-dominated economy or toward warmer relations with the United States, said Piñon.¶ Chávez's
reelection to a six-year term last month keeps the Venezuelan oil flowing to Cuba for the foreseeable future. But it was clear in Havana that the
nation's energy lifeline hung for a time on the outcome of this year's Venezuelan election. (Chávez's opponent, Henrique Capriles Radonski,
complained the deal with Cuba was sapping Venezuela's economy, sending oil worth more than $4 billion a year to the island, while Venezuela
was receiving only $800 million per year in medical and social services in return.)¶ So
Cuba is determined to continue
exploring . Its latest partner, Russia's Zarubezhneft, is expected to begin drilling this month in perhaps 1,000 feet of water, about 200 miles
east of Havana. Piñon said the shallow
water holds less promise for a major find. But that doesn't mean Cuba
will give up trying.
Embargo fails and stops pro-active approach to spills.
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
In a few months Spanish oil company Repsol
will start drilling for oil off the coast of Cuba, in a spot just 70 miles south of
Key West. Soon Repsol–and its JV partners Norway’s Statoil and India’s ONGC–will be joined by rigs from Petro Vietnam ,
Malaysia ’s Petronas and Venezuela ’s PDVSA. But you won’t see any U.S. companies there. Inexplicably, the
U.S. maintains its economic embargo against the Castro regime.¶ This wrong-headed policy represents a
dangerous threat to the environment and a huge missed opportunity to the U.S. oil industry. The U.S. embargo will do
nothing to prevent oil drilling from taking place in Cuban waters. But it will prevent that work from
being done by the most experienced companies with the highest-quality equipment . Norway’s Statoil is a
proven operator with a long history in the North Sea and the Gulf. The rest of those companies are just getting started offshore.¶ A group of
U.S. lawmakers in September urged Repsol (ticker: REPYY.PK) to call off its Cuba plans or face the threat of U.S. lawsuits. Repsol wisely called
that bluff.¶ At least the Obama administration is doing something to ensure that Repsol’s drilling rig is up to snuff. According to an excellent
article from Bloomberg today, Repsol’s Chinese-built Scarabeo 9 rig will soon by boarded by four U.S. inspectors (two from the Coast Guard,
two from the Dept. of Interior) who will do what they can to check out the rig and watch some drills. But, according to the article, there will be
real limits to what the inspectors can inspect. They won’t get to check the rig’s all-important blowout preventor, or the well casing or drilling
fluids that are to be used. Though the U.S. inspectors will discuss any concerns they have with Repsol, they will have no enforcement
authority.¶ Although
the offshore industry’s best service companies and parts manufacturers are right
here on the U.S. Gulf coast, Repsol will have to train its people and scrounge for spare parts from the
rest of the world.
Absent pro-active steps, accidents are inevitable. US experts key.
Bolstad ‘12
Erika Bolstad is a reporter who covers Washington for the Anchorage Daily News, the Idaho Statesman and McClatchy
Newspapers. This evidence internally quotes Lee Hunt, the former president of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors. Hunt, in this instance, is arguably not biased in favor of drilling, as he is speaking to safety and clean-up regimes
and he is speaking before a liberal think-tank in favor of human rights – McClatchy Newspapers – May 10, 2012 –
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/05/10/148433/cuba-embargo-could-threaten-oil.html#.UaoUWpyADq0
The 50-year-old U.S. embargo of Cuba is getting in the way of safety when it comes to deepwater drilling in
Cuban waters, an expert on the communist country’s offshore drilling activity said Thursday. ¶ Lee Hunt, the former president of the International
Association of Drilling Contractors, warned that Cold War-era economic sanctions threaten not only Florida’s economy and
environment but that of Cuba, too, in the event of a major disaster on the scale of 2010’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The worst-case
scenario is "state-sponsored chaos at a disaster site," Hunt said during an event sponsored by the Center for International Policy, a
Washington think tank that advocates for a foreign policy based on human rights.¶ The U.S. Coast Guard has extensive response plans, as does the state of Florida.
But Hunt said he would
give prevention efforts an "F" grade. He likened the work to stocking body bags for
a plane crash – but not training pilots to fly safely or to maintain aircraft properly.¶ " We’re getting
ready for what will inevitably happen if we don’t take the right proactive steps ," Hunt said.¶ His warning and that
of other experts came as the Spanish oil company Repsol is about to tap an offshore reservoir beneath 5,600 feet of seawater and about
14,000 feet of rock. The company, the first of many set to drill for oil off Cuba’s coast, is working just 77 nautical miles from Key West.¶ Workers are about a week
from completing their drilling and are beginning the technically demanding phase of capping the well and preparing it for possible production, the panelists at the
event said.¶ Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief William Reilly, who along with former Florida Sen. Bob Graham co-chaired the presidential
commission that examined BP’s Deepwater Horizon spill, said that in his most recent visit to Cuba he was reassured that Repsol was moving slowly in Cuban waters
to avoid any surprises. Dan Whittle of the Environmental Defense Fund said that in his visits to Cuba, well-thumbed copies of the commission’s report looked as
though they were "read even more in Havana than here."¶ Reilly also noted that Cuban officials are regular readers of daily bulletins from U.S. agencies on U.S. oil
drilling regulations. He said he urged them to follow Mexican offshore guidelines – which he said are based on U.S. rules.¶ "Nobody is predicting a catastrophe in
association with anything that the Cubans are overseeing," Reilly said. "In every way, the Cuban approach to this is responsible, careful and attentive to the risks
should there be a need for a response . . . the United States government has
not interpreted its sanctions policy in a way that would clearly make available in advance the kind of
technologies that would be required," Reilly said.
that they know they’re undertaking."¶ "Nevertheless,
Independently, hurricanes cause spills. Quick reaction also needed.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The BP disaster highlights the needs for a timely response to spills , the¶ containment of damage, and clean-up.
There were approximately eight rigs¶ capable of drilling relief wells to the depth of Macondo that were available¶ in the Gulf. If the blowout occurred in Cuban territorial water, the embargo¶ would not allow rigs capable of drilling relief wells to be
contracted by the¶ operator (Repsol or CUPET, in the first instance).¶ Companies under the current rules cannot hire a U.S. firm to drill
a relief¶ well. In fact, legislation¶ 50¶ introduced in the U.S. Congress in 2010 would have¶ penalized such activities under The HelmsBurton Act.¶ 51¶ Of greater risk and concern, however, is that spills are often more likely¶ because of hurricane
activity prevalent in the Gulf, and are exacerbated by¶ the role hurricanes play in spreading oil after a
spill.¶ 52¶ In the event of a spill, were assistance from U.S. firms permitted, relief¶ would take 24–48 hours to
arrive on scene. Barring their participation, ¶ however, it would take 30–50 days for help to arrive from
Brazil, Northern¶ Europe, Africa, or S.E. Asia. In the case of the BP spill, as Lee Hunt said,¶ “Admiral Landry¶ 53¶ (8th Coast Guard District
Commander) had personnel¶ 24 hours x 7 days a week on phones to get booms; can Repsol or any¶ subsequent operator do that?”¶ 54¶ OFAC,
the Treasury Department office that administers and enforces trade¶ sanctions, has authority to issue licenses on an
emergency basis, but the BP¶ spill shows that the early, critical response needed would be made
slower by¶ the time required to procure licenses.¶ 55¶ The Obama administration argues that¶ some firms are pre-cleared to
respond. But experts say the current scheme¶ makes it impossible to pre-clear the correct technology, and that much more¶ needs to be
done—and can be done—under current law.
Aff boosts reaction time. US Experts solve best.
Zakaria ‘11
Fareed Rafiq Zakaria is a journalist and author. From 2000 to 2010, he was a columnist for Newsweek and editor of Newsweek International. In
2010 he became editor-at-large of Time. He is the host of CNN's Fareed Zakaria GPS, Global Public Square. He is also a frequent commentator
and author about issues related to international relations, trade, and American foreign policy – “Why our Cuba embargo could lead to another
Gulf oil disaster” – CNN: Global Public Square Blogs – 9-19-11 – http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/19/why-our-cuba-policycould-lead-to-another-gulf-oil-spill/
Can you remember what explosive crisis America and the world was fixated on last summer? It wasn't the deficit, jobs or Europe. It was an oil
disaster. Remember
the BP spill? Tons of crude gushing into the Gulf of Mexico? Well, in the weeks and months that followed, there
have a new
dangerous drilling zone right on our doorstep - Cuba. Estimates suggest that the island nation has reserves of anywhere from 5
was a lot of discussion about how to make sure it didn't happen again.¶ But what struck me this week is that we
billion to 20 billion barrels of oil. The high end of those estimates would put Cuba among the top dozen oil producers in the world.¶ Predictably,
there's a global scramble for Havana. A Chinese -constructed drilling rig is owned by an Italian oil company and is on its
way to Cuban waters. Spain 's Repsol, Norway's
Statoil and
India 's ONGC will use the 53,000 ton rig to explore for oil.
Brazil , Venezuela , Malaysia and Vietnam are also swooping in.¶ Of course, we can't
partake because we don't trade with Cuba. But what about at least making sure there are some safety
procedures that are followed that would protect the American coastline? You see at 5,500 feet below sea level, these oil rigs
off Cuba will go even deeper than the Deepwater Horizon rig that blew up on our coast last year, and the coast of
Florida, remember, is just 60 miles away from Cuban waters.¶ What happens if there's another oil spill? Will it be easy
and quick to clean up? No . You see, the nearest and best experts on safety procedures and dealing with
Petro giants from
oil spills are all American, but we are forbidden by our laws from being involved in any way with
Cuba. Our trade embargo on Cuba not only prevents us from doing business with our neighbor but it
also bars us from sending equipment and expertise to help even in a crisis. So, if there is an explosion, we will
watch while the waters of the Gulf Coast get polluted. Now, this is obviously a worst case hypothetical, but it's precisely the kind of danger we
should plan for and one we can easily protect against if we were allowed to have any dealings with Cuba.¶ This whole mess is an allegory for a
larger problem. We
imposed an embargo on Cuba at the height of the Cold War, 52 years ago, when we were worried
about Soviet expansion and the spread of communism. Well, there is no more Soviet Union, and I don't think there's a person in the world who
believes America could be infected by Cuban communism today. But the antique policies remain - antique and failed policies. They
were designed, you recall, to force regime change in Cuba. Well, the Castros have thrived for five decades, using American hostility as a badge
of Cuban nationalism. All
the embargo has done is to weaken the Cuban people, keep them impoverished
and cut them off from the world.
Spill spreads and kills ecosystems. That’s key to regional biodiversity.
Almeida ‘12
Rob Almeida is Partner/CMO at gCaptain. He graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5
years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. He worked for a year as a Roughneck/Rig Manager trainee on board the drillship Discoverer
Americas. May 18th – http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-embargo-badly/
In short however, Cuba’s
access to containment systems, offshore technology, and spill response equipment is
severely restricted by the US embargo , yet if a disaster occurs offshore, not only will Cuban
ecosystems be severely impacted, but those of the Florida Keys, and US East Coast.¶ If disaster strikes
offshore Cuba, US citizens will have nobody else to blame except the US Government because outdated
policies are impacting the ability to prepare sufficiently for real-life environmental threats. Considering
Cuba waters are home to the highest concentration of biodiversity in the region and is a spawning
ground for fish populations that migrate north into US waters, a Cuban oil spill could inflict unprecedented
environmental devastation if not planned for in advance.
Biodiversity in specific hotspots checks extinction. Key to ag, medicine, and
ecosystems
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He has conducted fieldwork for over 30
years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations. He is the President of Conservation International and he is
considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011. This
evidence also internally references Norman Myers, a very famous British environmentalist specialising in biodiversity. available at:
http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Extinction is the gravest consequence of the biodiversity crisis, since it is ¶ irreversible. Human
activities have elevated the rate of species extinctions to a¶ thousand or more times the natural
background
rate
(Pimm et al. 1995). What are the¶ consequences of this loss? Most obvious among them may be the lost opportunity¶ for
future resource use. Scientists have discovered a mere fraction of Earth’s species¶ (perhaps fewer than 10%, or even 1%) and understood the
biology of even fewer¶ (Novotny et al. 2002). As
species vanish, so too does the health security of every¶ human.
Earth’s species are a vast genetic storehouse that may harbor a cure for¶ cancer, malaria, or the next new pathogen –
cures waiting to be discovered.¶ Compounds initially derived from wild species account for more than half of all¶ commercial medicines – even
more in developing nations (Chivian and Bernstein¶ 2008). Natural forms, processes, and ecosystems provide blueprints and inspiration¶ for a
growing array of new materials, energy sources, hi-tech devices, and¶ other innovations (Benyus 2009). The current loss of species has been
compared¶ to burning down the world’s libraries without knowing the content of 90% or¶ more of the books. With
loss of species, we
lose the ultimate source of our crops¶ and the genes we use to improve agricultural resilience, the inspiration
for¶ manufactured products, and
life on Earth
the basis of the structure and function of the ecosystems¶ that support humans and all
(McNeely et al. 2009). Above and beyond¶ material welfare and livelihoods, biodiversity contributes to security, resiliency,¶
and freedom of choices and actions (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).¶ Less tangible, but no less important, are the cultural, spiritual,
and moral costs¶ inflicted by species extinctions. All societies value species for their own sake,¶ and wild plants and animals are integral to the
fabric of all the world’s cultures¶ (Wilson 1984). The road to extinction is made even more perilous to people by the loss of the broader
ecosystems that underpin our livelihoods, communities, and economies(McNeely et al.2009). The loss of coastal wetlands and mangrove
forests, for example, greatly exacerbates both human mortality and economic damage from tropical cyclones (Costanza et al.2008; Das and
Vincent2009), while disease outbreaks such as the 2003 emergence of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in East Asia have been directly
connected to trade in wildlife for human consumption(Guan et al.2003). Other consequences of biodiversity loss, more subtle but equally
damaging, include the deterioration of Earth’s natural capital. Loss of biodiversity on land in the past decade alone is estimated to be costing
the global economy $500 billion annually (TEEB2009). Reduced diversity may also reduce resilience of ecosystems and the human communities
that depend on them. For example, more diverse coral reef communities have been found to suffer less from the diseases that plague degraded
reefs elsewhere (Raymundo et al.2009). As Earth’s climate changes, the roles of species and ecosystems will only increase in their importance
to humanity (Turner et al.2009).¶ In many respects, conservation is local. People generally care more about the biodiversity in the place in
which they live. They also depend upon these ecosystems the most – and, broadly speaking, it is these areas over which they have the most
control. Furthermore, we believe that all biodiversity is important and that every nation, every region, and every community should do
everything possible to conserve their living resources. So, what is the importance of setting global priorities?
Extinction is a global
phenomenon, with impacts far beyond nearby administrative borders. More practically, biodiversity, the threats to
it, and the ability of countries to pay for its conservation vary around the world. The vast majority of the global conservation budget – perhaps
90% – originates in and is spent in economically wealthy countries (James et al.1999). It is thus critical that those globally flexible funds
available – in the hundreds of millions annually – be guided by systematic priorities if we are to move deliberately toward a global goal of
reducing biodiversity loss.¶ The establishment of priorities for biodiversity conservation is complex, but can be framed as a single question.
Given the choice, where
should action toward reducing the loss of biodiversity be implemented first ? The field of
conservation planning addresses this question and revolves around a framework of vulnerability and irreplaceability
(Margules and Pressey2000). Vulnerability measures the risk to the species present in a region – if the species and ecosystems that are highly
threatened are not protected now, we will not get another chance in the future. Irreplaceability measures the extent to which spatial
substitutes exist for securing biodiversity. The number of species alone is an inadequate indication of conserva-tion priority because several
areas can share the same species. In contrast, areas with high levels of endemism are irreplaceable. We must conserve these places because
the unique species they contain cannot be saved elsewhere. Put another way, biodiversity is not evenly distributed on our planet. It is heavily
concentrated in certain areas, these areas have exceptionally high concentrations of endemic species found nowhere else, and many (but not
all) of these areas are the areas at greatest risk of disappearing because of heavy human impact.¶ Myers’ seminal paper (Myers1988) was the
first application of the principles of irreplaceability and vulnerability to guide conservation planning on a global scale. Myers
described
ten tropical forest “hotspots” on the basis of extraordinary plant endemism and high levels of habitat loss, albeit
without quantitative criteria for the designation of “hotspot” status. A subsequent analysis added eight additional hotspots, including four from
Mediterranean-type ecosystems (Myers 1990).After adopting hotspots as an institutional blueprint in 1989, Conservation Interna-tional worked
with Myers in a first systematic update of the hotspots. It introduced two strict quantitative criteria: to qualify as a hotspot, a region had to
contain at least 1,500 vascular plants as endemics (¶ >¶ 0.5% of the world’s total), and it had to have 30% or less of its original vegetation
(extent of historical habitat cover)remaining. These efforts culminated in an
scientific publication (Myers et al.2000) that introduced
extensive global review (Mittermeier et al.1999) and
seven new hotspots on the basis of both the better-defined criteria
and new data. A second systematic update (Mittermeier et al.2004) did not change the criteria, but revisited the set of hotspots based on
new data on the distribution of species and threats, as well as genuine changes in the threat status of these regions. That update redefined
several hotspots, such as the Eastern Afromontane region, and added several others that were suspected hotspots but for which sufficient data
either did not exist or were not accessible to conservation scientists outside of those regions. Sadly, it uncovered another region – the East
Melanesian Islands – which rapid habitat destruction had in a short period of time transformed from a biodiverse region that failed to meet the
“less than 30% of original vegetation remaining” criterion to a genuine hotspot.
Caribbean is one such hotspot.
CEPF ‘10
(quoting Mittermeier -- the same author that establishes the “hotspot” thesis and writes our impact ev. , Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a
primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological Anthropology and serves as an Adjunct
Professor at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. CEPF is the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund – “Ecosystem Profile: THE
CARIBBEAN ISLANDS BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT” – Prepared by: BirdLife International¶ in collaboration with:¶ Durrell Wildlife Conservation¶
Trust / Bath University¶ The New York Botanical Garden¶ and with the technical support of:¶ Conservation International-Center¶ for Applied
Biodiversity Science; assistance for this report was offered by 100 international and non-profit organizations. Jan 15th –
http://www.cepf.net/Documents/Final_Caribbean_EP.pdf)
The Caribbean Islands Hotspot is one of the world’s greatest centers of biodiversity and¶ endemism, yet
its biodiversity and the natural¶ services it provides are highly threatened. Although¶ the islands have protected areas systems, most ar¶ e
inadequately managed and important areas lack¶ protection. This strategy will ensure that CEPF¶ funds are employed in the most effective
manner¶ and generate significant conservation results that¶ not only complement the actions of other¶ stakeholders but also enable significant
expansion¶ of strategic conservation for the benefit of all.¶
Everyone depends on Earth’s ecosystems and their life-
sustaining benefits , such as clean air,¶ fresh water and healthy soils. Founded in 2000,¶ the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund
(CEPF)¶ has become a global leader in en¶ abling civil society to participate in and benefit from conserving¶ some of the world’s most critical
ecosystems. C¶ EPF is a joint initiative of l'Agence Française de¶ Développement, Conservation International, the Gl¶ obal Environment Facility,
the Government of¶ Japan, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and the World Bank. As one of the¶ founding partners,
Conservation International ad¶ ministers the global program through a CEPF¶ Secretariat.¶ CEPF provides grants for nongovern¶ mental and
other private organizations to help protect¶ biodiversity hotspots, Earth’s most biologically¶ rich and threatened areas. The convergence of¶
critical areas for conservation with millions¶ of people who are impoverished and highly¶ dependent on healthy ecosystems is more ev¶ ident in
the hotspots than anywhere else.¶ CEPF is unique among funding mechanisms in th¶ at it focuses on biological areas rather than¶ political
boundaries and examines conservation th¶ reats on a landscape-scale basis. A fundamental¶ purpose of CEPF is to ensure that civil society is¶
engaged in efforts to conserve biodiversity in¶ the hotspots, and to this end, CEPF provides ci¶ vil society with an agile and flexible funding¶
mechanism complementing funding currently¶ available to government agencies.¶ CEPF promotes working alliances among commun¶ ity
groups, nongovernmental organizations¶ (NGOs), government, academic institutions and¶ the private sector, combining unique capacities¶ and
eliminating duplication of efforts for a¶ comprehensive approach to conservation. CEPF¶ targets trans-boundary cooperation for areas rich of¶
biological value that straddle national borders¶ or in areas where a regional approach may be more effective than a national approach.¶ A
recent, updated analysis reveals the existence of¶ 34 biodiversity hotspots, each holding at least¶ 1,500 endemic plant species, and having lost
at¶ least 70 percent of its original habitat extent¶ (Mittermeier¶
et al¶ . 2005). The Caribbean islands qualify as one
of these global biodiversity¶ hotspots by virtue of their high endemicity and high degree of threat.¶ The
Caribbean Islands Hotspot is exceptionally important for global biodiversity conservation.¶ The hotspot
includes important ecosystems, fro¶ m montane cloud forests to coral reefs, and¶ supports populations of unique species amounting to at least
2 percent of the world’s total¶ species.
Independently, another major spill would crush the US economy
National Commission ‘11
Commission is co-chaired by William K. Reilly. Reilly was Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President George H. W.
Bush. He has served as president of World Wildlife Fund, as a founder or advisor to several business ventures, and on many boards of directors.
In 2010, he was appointed by President Barack Obama co-chair of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore
Drilling to investigate the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Report to the President; National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and
Offshore Drilling – January 2011 ¶
http://www.oilspillcommission.gov/sites/default/files/documents/DEEPWATER_ReporttothePresident_FINAL.pdf
Chapters 4 through 7 lay out the
results of our investigation in detail, highlighting the¶ crucial issues we believe must inform policy going
forward: the specific engineering and¶ operating choices made in drilling the Macondo well, the attempts to contain and
respond¶ to the oil spill, and the impacts of the spill on the region’s natural resources, economy, and¶ people—in the
context of the progressive degradation of the Mississippi Delta environment. ¶ Chapters 8 through 10 present our recommendations for
reforms in business practices,¶ regulatory oversight, and broader policy concerns. We recognize that the improvements¶ we advocate all come
with costs and all will take time to implement. But inaction, as we¶ are deeply aware, runs
the risk of real costs, too: in more lost lives,
damage to¶ the regional economy and its long-term viability, and in further tens of billions of dollars¶ of
avoidable clean-up costs. Indeed, if the clear challenges are not addressed and another¶ disaster happens , the
in broad
entire offshore energy enterprise is threatened — and with it, the¶ nation’s economy
and security. We
suggest a better option: build from this tragedy in a¶ way that makes the Gulf more resilient, the country’s energy supplies more secure, our¶
workers safer, and our cherished natural resources better protected.
Avoiding US economic decline key to global economy.
BW ‘13
(internally quoting Dr. Venkatesh Bala, chief economist at The Cambridge Group, a part of Nielsen – Business Wire – February 5, 2013 – lexis)
"North America
is slowly but steadily heading in the right direction," said Dr. Bala. "Compared to a year ago, North
America showed progress toward recovery with a six-point year-on-year consumer confidence increase, driven mainly by a
three-point increase in a positive job outlook, up from 37 percent to 40 percent year-on-year. With continued weakness in
Europe and uneven growth in Asia, it may well be that with a brighter job market, the U nited S tates w ill serve as the
critical engine of improved global economic activity
in 2013."
Global economic decline causes nuclear war
Auslin ‘9
(Michael, Resident Scholar – American Enterprise Institute, and Desmond Lachman – Resident Fellow – American Enterprise Institute, “The
Global Economy Unravels”, Forbes, 3-6, http://www.aei.org/article/100187)
global chaos followed hard
on economic collapse. The mere fact that parliaments across the globe, from America to Japan, are unable to make responsible,
What do these trends mean in the short and medium term? The Great Depression showed how social and
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-Cuban Relations Advantage
Contention Two is US-Cuban Relations:
Scenario #1 is China
US-Cuban oil coop checks US-China resource war.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication –obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 9-11
Those involved in managing the security interests of the United States need to understand the geostrategic
implications of interstate relations in the region in terms of energy security, and the extent to which they affect cooperation
between the United States and Cuba. This includes an assessment of the medium to long-term evolution of energy
cooperation between Cuba and Venezuela; of the broader relations between states aligned with the Bolivarian Alternative for
the Americas (Alternativa Bolivariana para las Americas, or ALBA) and Petrocaribe consortiums; and of the growing influence of
China in the region. 14 Also discussed in this volume is the extent to which the diversification and dispersion of energy resources
in Cuba might be a buffer against disruptions in U.S. energy production and distribution that could result from
natural disasters or market disruptions. Before analyzing U.S. energy security in a geostrategic context, it is necessary to define “energy
security” and “strategic energy policy.” Energy security is the capacity to avoid disruptions caused by natural, accidental, or intentional events
affecting energy and utility supply and distribution systems. Energy security is said to prevail when fuel, power production and distribution
systems, and end-user devices possess the five so-called “S” characteristics, as outlined by Drexel Kleber, the director of the Strategic
Operations Power Surety Task Force, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense: 15 —Surety. Access to energy and fuel sources is assured. —
Survivability. Energy and fuel sources are resilient and durable in the face of potential damage. —Supply. There is an identified available source
of energy— traditional fossil fuels, alternative energy (nuclear, clean coal, biomass, landfill gas, municipal solid waste, hydrogen), or renewable
energy (hydropower, geothermal pressure, wind, tidal. and solar). —Sufficiency. There is an adequate quantity of power and fuel from a variety
of sources. —Sustainability. Operating practices can be perpetuated by limiting demand, reducing waste, and effectively exploiting alternative
energy and renewable resources to the fullest extent possible.¶ The five “S” energy security and conservation objectives, though initially
intended as a guide for the U.S. Department of Defense, have a much broader applicability; not least, they serve as value parameters for energy
policy decisionmaking. As Kleber has noted, “Expenditures on energy conservation measures are viewed as ‘investments’ with long-term
rewards and dividends which are paid in commodities beyond money— national security, soldiers’ lives, improved manpower utilization,
military to civilian transfers, and increased foreign policy options for elected officials, to name a few.” 16 What, then, would an ideal strategic
energy policy look like for the United States— or any other country, for that matter? Mahmoud Amin El-Gamal and Amy Myers Jaffe have set
out a detailed analysis of the objectives of a strategic energy policy, including the following: 1. To assure that markets operate efficiently so as
to develop the infrastructure necessary to meet growing energy demand 2. To ensure the well-being of the human habitat and ecosystem 3. To
ensure that mechanisms are in place for preventing and, if necessary, managing disruptions to energy supply. 17 Articulating these objectives
doesn’t mean that fulfilling them is simple for policymakers for the following reasons. First, there are no overnight solutions to the energy
supply and infrastructure bottlenecks facing the global markets. The trade-offs between energy-security considerations and national (nonenergy) goals across the board must be continuously reviewed. States must adopt an integrated energy policy balancing foreign policy, trade
policy, and national security imperatives. In this way, strategic energy policy has the ability to play a significant role in diplomatic discourse,
especially where bilateral relations with major oil producers are concerned. For El-Gamal and Jaffe this is a critical consideration, for three
principal reasons: 1. U.S. energy independence is not attainable. 2. The policy instruments available to deal with energy supply disruptions are
increasingly inadequate. 3.¶ The United States needs to articulate a new vision for optimal management of international energy
interdependence. 18 Thus, the questions and issues
surrounding energy security become existential in a manner that
has hardly been discussed heretofore, but clearly resonates in the face of ongoing changes in access to secure energy sources, persistent
energy dependency, and the seemingly
insatiable demand for petroleum products to fuel the American way of
life. These concerns immediately raise three important questions relevant to our discussion of possible engagement
with Cuba in the energy sphere: 1. How will the ongoing development and evolution of Unión Cubapetróleo S.A. (Cupet), Cuba’s state oil
company, limit or obstruct U.S. efforts to meet its strategic objectives? 2. What role can international oil companies play in the short and longterm development of energy resources and infrastructure in Cuba? 3. How
will the specter of competition with Brazil, Russia,
China, and India over scarce petroleum resources affect U.S. energy-security policy, especially in light of the recent
energy-development agreements between Brazil and Cuba, and Russia and Cuba, and the Chinese incursion into Latin American energy
markets? These questions deserve consideration, particularly in light of the growing presence of these external actors in Latin American energy
markets. How might they increase competition and cooperation over scarce energy resources? In assessing the development of Cupet and its
impact on U.S. geostrategic imperatives,
it is essential
to evaluate how the
global and regional energy market shaped and influenced by the
United States might promote its interest in a
activities of n ational o il c ompanies, especially their
influence on developments in Cuba. Including Mexico’s Petróleos Mexicanos S.A. (Pemex) and Venezuela’s state oil firm, Petróleos de
Venezuela S.A. (PDVSA)—both of them NOCs— in this evaluation is critically important for ensuring an acceptable strategic context to U.S.
interests. 19 The
objective of this highly path-dependent development is the transformation of Cupet into a stable NOC
that exhibits high technical competency culminating in upstream oilfield production and downstream refining and marketing
capabilities. It is path-dependent because the set of decisions undertaken to achieve the objective (energy self-sufficiency) is limited by the
decisions made in the past by Cuban policymakers, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant. Prior to 2005, the energy policy
objective was clearly centered on the revitalization of existing energy infrastructure and the expansion of domestic production, as limited as
that may have been. Now there is a big change in Cuba’s circumstances: the growing importance of tapping the offshore reserves. An NOC, to
be successful, must balance national social and political objectives with commercial objectives. Consequently, U.S. strategic policy¶ must
balance the promotion of broader U.S. interests with those of the NOC if there is to be cooperation. 20 In
light of the recent resurgence of
oil nationalism, future cooperation depends largely on the extent to which observers can identify and articulate the
common energy-policy interests of NOCs and the United States. In Venezuela, high oil prices have encouraged the Chávez
government to undertake bold social policy initiatives. 21 Some suggest these decisions have come at the expense of critical energy
infrastructure needs, thereby increasing the likelihood of energy supply disruptions in the future. Because the United States relies on Venezuela
for nearly 1 million barrels of oil daily, the policy decision to prioritize social spending over energy infrastructure revitalization by the Chávez
regime could have a significant impact in the United States, if it were to result in diminished capacity in Venezuela to produce and export oil to
the United States. 22 In Mexico, state control of the NOC Pemex has had the “stultifying impact” of prolonged bureaucratic stagnation,
resulting in a decline in production and insufficient funding for reinvestment in new exploration and production. This is highly problematic for
Mexico because the government derives 40 percent of its revenue from Pemex. 23 It also has raised concerns about the possibility of energy
supply disruptions for the United States. In fact, in the first quarter of 2010 Mexico’s oil exports to the United States fell by over 8 percent, as
compared to 2009. 24 Concerns over the ability of major oil-producing countries and their NOCs to meet future global demand is compounded
by insufficient levels of reinvestment and the looming specter of interstate instability. But it is becoming abundantly clear that Venezuela’s
growing investment in Cuba’s energy infrastructure creates the basis for a longer-term relationship that will enable Cuba to expand its
productive, storage, and refining capacity, as it simultaneously strengthens the Venezuelan position in the region as a supplier of both crude
and refined petroleum products for its Petrocaribe and ALBA partners.¶ There
is also growing consternation that NOCs may be
“used as instruments of state policy inimical to U.S. national interests.” 25 In particular, China’s
growing presence in Latin America is being interpreted as a sign of intensifying competition over
energy resources. Flynt Leverett and Jeffrey Bader suggest that this competition could easily be the cause of
international conflict in the coming years, as energy demands place a rising premium on the ability of China— already the
world’s third-largest crude oil importer, after the United States and Japan— to access oil and gas resources.
US-Sino war goes nuclear. Crisis management won’t check
Lowther ‘13
Note: when this card has a line that reads “it says”, it is referencing a 42-page report by the Washington DC-based
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Ask your lab leaders about the CSIS and the PONI (Project on
Nuclear Issues) – several of them have worked for that organization and will have unique insights. The study at
hand was prepared by the CSIS’ Project on Nuclear Issues. The Tapiei Time article was written by William Lowther,
who is the Washington DC staff writer for that organization and he is citing a report by the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, 3-16-2013, “Taiwan could spark nuclear war: report,” Taipei Times,
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/03/16/2003557211
“Although
Beijing and Washington have agreed to a range of crisis management mechanisms, such as the Military
bases for
miscommunication and misunderstanding remain and draw on deep historical reservoirs of suspicion,”
the report says. For example, it says, it is unclear whether either side understands what kinds of actions would
result in a military or even nuclear response by the other party. To make things worse, “neither side seems to
believe the other’s declared policies and intentions, suggesting that escalation management, already a very
Maritime Consultative Agreement and the establishment of a direct hotline between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defense, the
uncertain endeavor, could
be especially difficult in any conflict,” it says. Although conflict “mercifully” seems unlikely at this point, the report
both sides
possessing and looking set to retain formidable nuclear weapons arsenals, such a conflict would be tremendously
dangerous and quite possibly devastating.”
concludes that “it cannot be ruled out and may become increasingly likely if we are unwise or unlucky.” The report says: “ With
This specific type of resource war escalates – causing huge death tolls.
Lendman ‘7
(Stephen Lendman is a renowned author and Research Associate of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG). The Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG) is an independent research and media organization based in Montreal. The CRG is involved in book publishing, support to
humanitarian projects as well as educational outreach activities including the organization of public conferences and lectures. The Centre also
acts as a think tank on crucial economic and geopolitical issues. Stephen has written extensively on war and peace, social justice in America and
many other national and international issues. Stephen Lendman is a recipient of a 2008 Project Censored Award, University of California at
Sonoma – “Resource Wars – Can We Survive Them?” – Global Research, June 06, 2007 – http://www.globalresearch.ca/resource-wars-can-wesurvive-them/5892)
With the world’s energy supplies finite, the US heavily dependent on imports, and “peak oil” near or
approaching, “security” for America means assuring a sustainable supply of what we can’t do without. It includes
waging wars to get it, protect it, and defend the maritime trade routes over which it travels. That means energy’s partnered with predatory New
World Order globalization, militarism, wars, ecological recklessness, and now an extremist US administration willing to risk Armageddon for world dominance.
Central to its plan is first controlling essential resources everywhere, at any cost, starting with oil and where most of it is located in the Middle East and Central Asia.
The New “Great Game” and Perils From It The new “Great Game’s” begun, but this time the
stakes are greater than ever as explained above. The
time, it’s the US with help from Israel,
Britain, the West, and satellite states like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan challenging Russia and China with today’s weapons and technology
on both sides making earlier ones look like toys. At stake is more than oil. It’s planet earth with survival of all life on it
issue number one twice over. Resources and wars for them means militarism is increasing, peace declining, and the planet’s ability to sustain life front
and center, if anyone’s paying attention. They’d better be because beyond the point of no return, there’s no second chance the way
Einstein explained after the atom was split. His famous quote on future wars was : “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but
World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Under a worst case scenario, it’s more dire than that. There may be nothing left but
resilient beetles and bacteria in the wake of a nuclear holocaust meaning even a new stone age is way in the future, if at all. The
threat is real and once nearly happened during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October, 1962. We later learned a
miracle saved us at the 40th anniversary October, 2002 summit meeting in Havana attended by the US and Russia along with host country Cuba . For
the first time, we were told how close we came to nuclear Armageddon. Devastation was avoided
only because Soviet submarine captain Vasily Arkhipov countermanded his order to fire nucleartipped torpedos when Russian submarines were attacked by US destroyers near Kennedy’s
“quarantine” line. Had he done it, only our imagination can speculate what might have followed and whether planet earth, or at least a big part of it,
old one lasted nearly 100 years pitting the British empire against Tsarist Russia when the issue wasn’t oil. This
would have survived.
Plan sufficiently hedges US energy security.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 118-19
In chapter 1, I spotlighted five “S” characteristics of energy security and the related imperatives of strategic energy policy relevant to both the
Cuban case as well as that of the United States. The successful
development of Cuban energy resources will enhance
the energy security of the United States and its broader geostrategic imperatives in the Caribbean region.
Cuba can do this by potentially serving as an entrepôt for U.S. downstream activities (refining, marketing, storage, and transshipment). Cuba
has already embarked on an aggressive program of investment and development of its refining capacity, which could
potentially
support American energy needs by serving as a hedge against supply disruptions of refined petroleum
products or facilitating the redirection of oil shipments as needed owing to any number of circumstances.
Scenario # 2 is Latin American ties
US-Cuban oil coop key to check existing US-Latin American tensions.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 3-4
The development of Cuba as an energy partner will not solve America’s energy problems. But the potential for improving energy relations and
deepening collaborative modalities with other regional partners is enhanced by pursuing energy
cooperation with Cuba for two principal reasons. 1. Cuba’s increasing leadership role in the Caribbean region and
Central America might be used by the United States to promote collectively beneficial efforts to develop a broad range of
alternative energy technologies in the Americas. A Cuba-America partnership might also serve as a confidence
builder in assuaging the misgivings on the part of regional partners regarding American domination .
2. Cuba’s significant human capital resources in the scientific and technological arena have been grossly underused. Cuba possesses the highest
ratio of engineers and Ph.D.s to the general population of any country in Latin America, and this can been viewed as a key asset in the challenge
of maintaining energy infrastructure across the region. Both Mexico and Venezuela face significant costs in maintaining their sizable energy
production, refining, and storage capabilities. The integrity of these two national energy systems is of paramount interest to U.S. energy
security concerns because of the potential harm to the economy that would occur if either state were unable to deliver its exports to the
American market.¶ In this light, the impetus for normalization of relations writ large between the United States and Cuba is not oil per se, but
enhanced energy cooperation, which could pave the way for technical and commercial exchanges that, given the evolving nature of energy
resources and energy security, could provide an opening of collaborative efforts that could have mutually beneficial effects. What has the
failure to engage Cuba cost the United States in these geostrategic terms? Very little, one could argue. Strategically, Cuba has been a stable
entity in the region. Politically, too, it has been a mostly static environment: with the embargo in place, policymakers and elected officials have
been able to predict reactions to policy initiatives with relative certainty. U.S. business interests in Cuba since the early 1960s have been
negligible, with the exception of a recent increase in humanitarian agricultural and medical sales. But a more central issue is this: In light of
growing concerns regarding energy supplies in the United States and demands for domestic and regional exploration to meet American
consumption, what is the cost to the United States of maintaining a status quo relationship with Cuba? In economic terms, the cost of the
failure to engage Cuba has been considerable. In
its 2008 report, Rethinking U.S.-Latin American Relations, the
Partnership for the Americas Commission, convened by the Brookings Institution, suggested that the basis for effective
partnership between the United States and its Latin American and Caribbean partners is shared common
interests. The report states, “ Cuba has long been a subject of intense interest in U.S. foreign policy and a stumbling block
for U.S. relations with other countries in the hemisphere. ” 6 Specifically, the report pinpoints two key challenges facing
the region that are directly relevant to the subject of this book: securing sustainable energy supplies and expanding economic development
opportunities. The April 2009 report of the Brookings project on U.S. Policy Toward a Cuba in Transition identified both medium and
long-term initiatives related to
energy that directly fulfilled an element of the policy objectives recommended in
their report. 7 In order to specifically promote what the report termed “a constructive working relationship with the Cuban
government to build confidence and trust in order to resolve disputes, with the long term objective of fostering a better relationship
that serves U.S. interests and values,” it recommended a medium-term initiative that “allows licenses for U.S.
companies to participate in the development of Cuban offshore oil, gas, and renewable energy resources.” The
report also recommended that a long term initiative be undertaken to “provide general licenses for the exportation of additional categories of
goods and services that enhance the environment, conserve energy, and provide improved quality of life.”
Now a key time for US-Latin American ties. Permanent collapse coming.
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
If the United States and Latin America do not make the effort now , the chance may slip away . The most
likely scenario then would be marked by a continued drift in their relationship, further deterioration of hemisphere-wide
institutions, a
reduced ability and willingness to deal with a range of common problems, and a spate of
missed opportunities for more robust growth and greater social equity. The United States and Latin America would
go their separate ways, manage their affairs independently of one another, and forego the opportunities that could be
harvested by a more productive relationship. There are risks of simply maintaining the status quo.
Urgent problems will inevitably arise that require trust and effective collaboration to resolve. And there is a
chance that tensions between the United States and Latin America could become much worse,
adversely affecting everyone’s interests and wellbeing. It is time to seize the moment and overhaul
hemispheric relations.
Cuba is key to US-Latin American Relations. Specifically spills-over to global coop on
nuclear material transfers.
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The 50year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain
on US-Latin American relations. Although
the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax
restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints
on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective
US-Latin American engagement . At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in
the Americas. At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American
and Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An
end to the US policy of
isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an
important first step. Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions .
Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in
world forums addressing shared interests. Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent
years it has become far more active on global issues of concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues
as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as
in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and
provide security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in
various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition to economic and financial
matters, Brazil and other Latin American
nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political,
environmental, and security issues. Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could become
increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to
participate more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge on
non-proliferation questions, they align on some related goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are
found in developing and unstable parts of the world, as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to
terrorists. In that context, south-south connections are crucial. Brazil could play a pivotal role. Many countries in the
region give priority to climate change challenges. This may position them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of
the Amazon basin to worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special role to play. Mexico already has
assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global environmental
meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún in 2010. The
United States is handicapped by its inability to devise a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the presumption of shared
interests on a critical policy challenge. Latin Americans are taking more active leadership on drug policy in the hemisphere and could become
increasingly influential in global discussions of drug strategies. Although the United States and Latin America are often at odds on drug policy,
they have mutual interests and goals that should allow consultation and collaboration on a new, more effective approach to the problem.
Nuclear terrorism escalates to major nuclear war. Global coop on material transfers is
key.
Ayson’10
Robert – Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand at the Victoria University of Wellington –
“After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, obtained via
InformaWorld
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily
represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded
as belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a
massive nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst
terrorism that the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would
have wrought in the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even
thousands of nuclear weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated
entirely by state possessors themselves. 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 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,
FN 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, both
Russia 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? If Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be
crucial to the chances of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism
was especially heinous and demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing
for a non-state actor to have broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the
international system, to do so. If Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options
would lie open to them to dissuade the United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central
dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and
perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it
may be informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of
is subjected to an attack
thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the two most important trustees of the non-use taboo,
of nuclear
terrorism. In response, Moscow places its nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is
would Washington view such a
possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence?
considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of its state supporters. How
And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim
of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In
the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack, how would the attacked country respond to
pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind? The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do”
immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form of sympathy or support for the terrorists.
This might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. FN 40 . One way of reducing, but probably not
eliminating, such a prospect, is further international cooperation on the control of existing fissile
material holdings.
Possible Plan texts
(Chose a plan text from the menu below. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of each option with your
lab leaders).
-----------------------------------------Options #1 and #2 ---------------------------------------------------------
Text – Option # 1:
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift its restrictions
that preclude firms from exploring, extracting, refining, importing, or coordinating engineering and
safety protocols with the Republic of Cuba.
Text Option # 2 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift its restrictions
that preclude United States firms from exploring, extracting, refining, importing, or coordinating
engineering and safety protocols with the Republic of Cuba.
-----------------------------------------Options #3 and # 4 ---------------------------------------------------------
Text Option # 3 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs within the territorial waters of the Republic of Cuba, the United
States federal government should lift its restrictions that preclude firms from engaging in exploration,
extraction, refinement, importation, or coordinated engineering and safety protocols.
Text Option # 4 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs within the territorial waters of the Republic of Cuba, the United
States federal government should lift its restrictions that preclude United States firms from engaging in
exploration, extraction, refinement, importation, or coordinated engineering and safety protocols.
-----------------------------------------Options #5 and #6 ---------------------------------------------------------
Note: the italicized words in the next two plan texts are solely italicized to
foster lab discussions about those particular acts of Legislation.
Text Option # 5 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift the portions of
The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 that preclude firms from engaging in exploration, extraction,
refinement, importation, or coordinated engineering and safety protocols.
Text Option # 6 –
As they pertain to crude oil reservoirs, the United States federal government should lift the portions of
The Cuban Democracy Act of 1993 and The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 that
preclude firms from engaging in exploration, extraction, refinement, importation, or coordinated
engineering and safety protocols.
1AC solvency section
Contention Three is Solvency
First – Plan is effective, topical, and US firms would say “yes”.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 125-26
There are numerous areas in the energy sector in which the United States and Cuba can and should cooperate:
exploration , energy production , downstream operations , transportation, and auxiliary services. In addition, the
opportunity for U.S. firms to invest directly in the development of Cuban energy resources should be
created. Recent history shows that Cuba possesses the potential to be a strong regional trade partner in the area of energy and
infrastructure development. It might be premature for U.S. firms to begin opening branch offices along Avenida Quinta in the Miramar district
of Havana, but it is rational to consider the benefits that would be drawn from the expansion of trade and cooperation between Cuba and the
United States in energy development. There will be obvious limitations on such investment opportunities because of the empresa mixta jointventure model that the Cuban government employs, but as previously stated, international oil companies are not averse to adjusting their
investment models to specific market conditions, and in the case of Cuba it would be no different. In fact, there
has been no lack of
interest on the part of American international oil firms in developing a Cuban market. The prevailing Cuban
model of joint-venture investment and cooperation has proved to be attractive internationally, and there are numerous
opportunities in this area for American firms as soon as there are significant changes in the Cuban
embargo so that this type of engagement can occur.
Second – Cuba also says “yes”. This spills-into broader coop.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 120
Undoubtedly, after fifty years of enmity, there is a significant lack of trust and confidence between the United States and Cuba. This is plain
from the almost quaint maintenance of a sanctions regime that seeks to isolate Cuba economically and politically but hardly reflects the
dramatic changes that have occurred on the island since 1991, not to mention since 2008, when Fidel Castro officially stepped aside as Cuba’s
president. Now, the opportunity to advance relations in the energy arena appears to be ripe. Since 2004,
representatives from American companies, trade organizations, universities, and think tanks have had the opportunity to meet with Cuban
energy officials. The scope and objectives of Cuban energy development schemes have been disseminated, dissected, and discussed across a
number of settings where the interested parties are now familiar with and well versed in the agendas and opportunities that exist in this arena.
In public discussions, Cuban
energy authorities have made it clear that their preferred energy development
scenario includes working closely with the U.S. oil and gas industry and using state-of-the-art U.S. oil
technologies. The assessment from U.S. energy experts on the technical acumen and capability of Cuban energy officials has been
overwhelmingly positive. 9 Should the U.S. government and the Obama administration see fit to shift its policy so as to allow broader
participation of American academics and practitioners in the energy field to attend conferences and meet with Cuban energy officials, it may
pave the way to establishing much-needed familiarity and confidence across these communities.
**More Aff Adv Options Here
Warming
1AC Warming Scenario – Latin American Relations
(Note: the 1st Shifter ‘12 card in the module is simply a longer version of the Shifter ‘12 ev that
currently appears in the nuclear terrorism module. If a student wanted to read both the warming
and the nuclear terror module, that could be accomplished by highlighting the card below to
include both the internal link to warming and the internal link to solving nuclear terrorism)
Cuba is key to US-Latin American Relations-specifically spills-over to global coop on
warming- overcomes alt causes
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
Cuba, too, poses a significant challenge for relations between the United States and Latin America. The 50year-old US embargo against Cuba is rightly criticized throughout the hemisphere as a failed and punitive instrument. It has long been a strain
on US-Latin American relations. Although
the United States has recently moved in the right direction and taken steps to relax
restrictions on travel to Cuba, Washington needs to do far more to dismantle its severe, outdated constraints
on normalized relations with Cuba. Cuba is one of the residual issues that most obstructs more effective
US-Latin American engagement . At the same time, Cuba’s authoritarian regime should be of utmost concern to all countries in
the Americas. At present, it is the only country without free, multi-party elections, and its government fully controls the press. Latin American
and Caribbean nations could be instrumental in supporting Cuba’s eventual transition to democratic rule. An
end to the US policy of
isolating Cuba, without setting aside US concern about human rights violations, would be an
important first step. Many of the issues on the hemispheric agenda carry critical global dimensions .
Because of this, the United States should seek greater cooperation and consultation with Brazil, Mexico, and other countries of the region in
world forums addressing shared interests. Brazil has the broadest international presence and influence of any Latin American nation. In recent
years it has become far more active on global issues of concern to the United States. The United States and Brazil have clashed over such issues
as Iran’s nuclear program, non-proliferation, and the Middle East uprisings, but they have cooperated when their interests converged, such as
in the World Trade Organization and the G-20 (Mexico, Argentina, and Canada also participate in the G-20), and in efforts to rebuild and
provide security for Haiti. Washington has worked with Brazil and other Latin American countries to raise the profile of emerging economies in
various international financial agencies, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. In addition to economic and financial
matters, Brazil and other Latin American
nations are assuming enhanced roles on an array of global political,
environmental, and security issues. Several for which US and Latin American cooperation could become
increasingly important include: As the world’s lone nuclear-weapons-free region, Latin America has the opportunity to participate
more actively in non-proliferation efforts. Although US and Latin American interests do not always converge on non-proliferation questions,
they align on some related goals. For example, the main proliferation challenges today are found in developing and unstable parts of the world,
as well as in the leakage—or transfer of nuclear materials—to terrorists. In that context, south-south connections are crucial. Brazil could play a
pivotal role. Many
countries in the region give priority to climate change challenges . This may position
them as a voice in international debates on this topic. The importance of the Amazon basin to
worldwide climate concerns gives Brazil and five other South American nations a special role to play. Mexico
already has assumed a prominent position on climate change and is active in global policy debates. Brazil organized the first-ever global
environmental meeting in 1992 and, this year, will host Rio+20. Mexico hosted the second international meeting on climate change in Cancún
in 2010. The United States is handicapped by its inability to devise a climate change policy. Still, it should support coordination on the
presumption of shared interests on a critical policy challenge. Latin Americans are taking more active leadership on drug policy in the
hemisphere and could become increasingly influential in global discussions of drug strategies. Although
the United States and Latin
America are often at odds on drug policy, they have mutual interests and goals that should allow consultation and
collaboration on a new, more effective approach to the problem.
Improving the effectiveness of global coop key to solve warming
Slaughter‘11
(Anne-Marie, Bert G. Kerstetter '66 university professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University, “Problems Will Be Global -And Solutions Will Be, Too”, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct, Issue 188, Ebsco)
A more multilateral world is just the beginning Before considering the world in 2025,14 years from now, it is worth
remembering the world 14 years ago, in 1997. Back then, the United States was the sole superpower, its immensity and
dominance of the international system so evident as to trigger the resentful label of "hyperpower" from the French foreign minister. The
American economy was expanding fast enough to leave the country a healthy and growing surplus by the
end of Bill Clinton's presidency three years later. The European Union, then still only four years old, had just 15 members; the
euro did not exist. The wars dominating the headlines were in Europe: Bosnia, Croatia, and, soon, Kosovo. The
term BRICs -- the Goldman Sachs label attached to the fast-growing emerging markets of Brazil, Russia, India, and China -- had not yet
been invented. The Internet was booming, but social media did not exist. You get the point: A lot can change in 14 years, and
rarely in ways foreseen. In the spirit of proper humility, then, here's my take on what the landscape of global diplomacy will look like a
decade and a half from now: For starters, the world will be much more multilateral. By 2025 the U.N. Security
Council will have expanded from the present 15 members to between 25 and 30 and will include, either as
de jure or de facto permanent members, Brazil, India, Japan, South Africa, either Egypt or Nigeria, and either
Indonesia or Turkey. At the same time, regional organizations on every continent -- the African Union, the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations, some version of the Organization of American States -- will be much stronger. Each will follow its own version
of economic and political integration, inspired by the European Union, and many will include representation from smaller subregional
organizations. In the Middle East, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Syria, and Turkey could provide the core of a new Middle East free trade area;
alternatively the European Union could be interlocked with an emerging Mediterranean Union. Driving
this massive
multilateralization is the increasingly global and regional nature of our problems, combined with an expanding
number of countries splitting off from existing states. National governments will remain essential for many purposes,
but managing bilateral relations and engaging in successful global negotiations with nearly 200 states
will become increasingly unwieldy. So we'll negotiate territorial disputes in the South China Sea in a regional
framework and deal with crises in Ivory Coast or Guinea through the African Union or even smaller subregional forums. At the global
level, the speed and flexibility necessary to resolve crises require smaller groups like the G-20, while longterm legitimacy and durability still require the representation of all countries affected by a particular
issue through large standing organizations. As for individual countries, the states that will be the strongest in
2025 will be those that have figured out how to do more with less. They will be those governments that
have successfully embraced radical sustainability -- maintaining vibrant economies through largely
renewable energy and creative reuse of just about everything. The leader will be Japan, a great civilization that has for
centuries pioneered spectacularly beautiful ways of appreciating and coexisting with nature. As China's youth seek more of everything, Japan's
are prepared to embrace a far more sustainable path. Scandinavia, Germany, New Zealand, and possibly South Korea will also be strong; many
emerging or even less developed economies have real potential, if they can tap into their indigenous habits of conservation. Embracing
sustainable growth will challenge the United States; its national renewal will depend on connecting its traditions of innovation,
decentralization, and liberty with a narrative of protecting America's natural bounty. Think America the Beautiful more than the Star-Spangled
Banner. But the
most dramatic changes between 2011 and 2025 won't take place at the level of statecraft and
grand strategy; they are likely to happen as new technologies continue to transform businesses, civic
organizations of all kinds, universities, foundations, and churches -- now able to self-organize as never
before around issues they care about. The American social revolution that Alexis de Tocqueville observed in the early
19th century, of citizens joining groups of every conceivable kind, is about to go global, forever changing the
relationship between citizens and their governments, and governments with each other. The Arab revolutions are but the first taste of this
larger change. These predictions may appear rosy. In fact, the
enormous changes on the horizon will require major
crises, even cataclysm, before they can materialize. It took World War I to generate the political will and circumstances
necessary to create the League of Nations; it took World War II to create the United Nations; it took the worst economic crisis since the 1930s
to force the expansion of the G-8 into the G-20. Just imagine what it will take to break the decades-old logjam of Security Council reform. And
creating and changing multilateral organizations is child's play next to the profound changes in public and private behavior required to move
away from the more-is-better economic model to one which accepts that our resources are finite on a planetary scale. Yet
the sources of
potential crises and disasters of a magnitude sufficient to force systemic change are all around us:
Climate change is driving countries closer to the extremes of desert and jungle, droughts and floods,
while a global pandemic or a nuclear terrorist attack would have a similar impact. This is not Malthusian gloom,
however. As Robert Wright argues in Nonzero: The Logic of Human Destiny, catastrophe is terrible for individual human beings but beneficial
for humanity as a whole. As
the full consequences of genuinely global interconnectedness continue to make
themselves felt, the world of both states and the societies they represent will have no choice but to
adapt.
Warming is real and anthropogenic
EDF ‘9
[Environmental Defense Fund, a US-based nonprofit environmental advocacy group, “Global Warming Myths and Facts,” 1/13/2009,
http://mrgreenbiz.wordpress.com/2009/01/13/global-warming-myths-and-facts-2/]
There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming. The most respected
scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it
by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,
which in 2005 the White House called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other National
Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is
vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global
greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005) The only debate in the
science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a result of heat-trapping emissions.
Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement
solutions right now. MYTH Even if global warming is a problem, addressing it will hurt American industry and workers. FACT A well designed
trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
Claims that fighting global warming will cripple the economy and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs are unfounded. In fact, companies that are
already reducing their heat-trapping emissions have discovered that cutting pollution can save money. The cost of a comprehensive national
greenhouse gas reduction program will depend on the precise emissions targets, the timing for the reductions and the means of
implementation. An independent MIT study found that a modest cap-and-trade system would cost less than $20 per household annually and
have no negative impact on employment. Experience has shown that properly designed emissions trading programs can reduce compliance
costs significantly compared with other regulatory approaches. For example, the U.S. acid rain program reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by
more than 30 percent from 1990 levels and cost industry a fraction of what the government originally estimated, according to EPA.
Furthermore, a mandatory cap on emissions could spur technological innovation that could create jobs and wealth. Letting global warming
continue until we are forced to address it on an emergency basis could disrupt and severely damage our economy. It is far wiser and more costeffective to act now. MYTH Water vapor is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we’re going to control a greenhouse gas, why
don’t we control it instead of carbon dioxide (CO2)? FACT Although water vapor traps more heat than CO2, because of the relationships among
CO2, water vapor and climate, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2. Atmospheric levels of CO2 are determined by
how much coal, natural gas and oil we burn and how many trees we cut down, as well as by natural processes like plant growth. Atmospheric
levels of water vapor, on the other hand, cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer
the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the
air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of
satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed. The
best way to lower
temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions. MYTH Global warming and extra CO2
will actually be beneficial — they reduce cold-related deaths and stimulate crop growth. FACT Any beneficial effects will be far
outweighed by damage and disruption. Even a warming in just the middle range of scientific projections would have
devastating impacts on many sectors of the economy. Rising seas would inundate coastal communities, contaminate water supplies with salt
and increase the risk of flooding by storm surge, affecting tens of millions of people globally. Moreover, extreme weather events, including heat
waves, droughts and floods, are predicted to increase in frequency and intensity, causing loss of lives and property and throwing agriculture
into turmoil. Even though higher levels of CO2 can act as a plant fertilizer under some conditions, scientists now
think that the
"CO2 fertilization" effect on crops has been overstated; in natural ecosystems, the fertilization effect can diminish after a
few years as plants acclimate. Furthermore, increased CO2 may benefit undesirable, weedy species more than desirable species. Higher levels
of CO2 have already caused ocean acidification, and scientists are warning of potentially devastating effects on marine life and fisheries.
Moreover, higher levels of regional ozone (smog), a result of warmer temperatures, could worsen respiratory illnesses. Less developed
countries and natural ecosystems may not have the capacity to adapt. The notion that there will be regional “winners” and “losers” in global
warming is based on a world-view from the 1950’s. We live in a global community. Never mind the moral implications — when an
environmental catastrophe creates millions of refugees half-way around the world, Americans are affected. MYTH Global warming is just part of
a natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past. FACT The
global warming we are experiencing is not natural.
People are causing it. People are causing global warming by burning fossil fuels (like oil, coal and natural gas) and
cutting down forests. Scientists have shown that these activities are pumping far more CO2 into the
atmosphere than was ever released in hundreds of thousands of years. This buildup of CO2 is the
biggest cause of global warming . Since 1895, scientists have known that CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat and warm the
earth. As the warming has intensified over the past three decades, scientific scrutiny has increased along with it. Scientists have considered and
ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001) Though natural amounts of CO2 have
varied from 180 to 300 parts per million (ppm), today's CO2 levels are around 380 ppm. That's 25% more than the highest natural levels over
the past 650,000 years. Increased CO2 levels have contributed to periods of higher average temperatures throughout that long record. (Boden,
Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) As for previous Arctic warming, it is true that there were stretches of warm periods over the Arctic
earlier in the 20th century. The limited records available for that time period indicate that the warmth did not affect as many areas or persist
from year to year as much as the current warmth. But that episode, however warm it was, is not relevant to the issue at hand. Why? For one, a
brief regional trend does not discount a longer global phenomenon. We know that the planet has been warming over the past several decades
and Arctic ice has been melting persistently. And unlike the earlier periods of Arctic warmth, there is no expectation that the current upward
trend in Arctic temperatures will reverse; the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases will prevent that from happening. MYTH We can adapt
to climate change — civilization has survived droughts and temperature shifts before. FACT Although humans as a whole have survived the
vagaries of drought, stretches of warmth and cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts. The current warming
of our climate will bring major hardships and economic dislocations — untold human suffering, especially for our children and grandchildren.
We are already seeing significant costs from today's global warming which is caused by greenhouse gas pollution. Climate has changed in the
past and human societies have survived, but today six billion people depend on interconnected ecosystems and complex technological
infrastructure. What's more, unless
we limit the amount of heat-trapping gases we are putting into the
atmosphere, we will face a warming trend unseen since human civilization began 10,000 years ago. (IPCC
2001) The consequences of continued warming at current rates are likely to be dire. Many densely populated
areas, such as low-lying coastal regions, are highly vulnerable to climate shifts. A middle-of-the-range projection is that the homes of 13 to 88
million people around the world would be flooded by the sea each year in the 2080s. Poorer countries and small island nations will have the
hardest time adapting. (McLean et al. 2001) In what appears to be the first forced move resulting from climate change, 100 residents of Tegua
island in the Pacific Ocean were evacuated by the government because rising sea levels were flooding their island. Some 2,000 other islanders
plan a similar move to escape rising waters. In the United States, the village of Shishmaref in Alaska, which has been inhabited for 400 years, is
collapsing from melting permafrost. Relocation plans are in the works. <continues…> Scarcity of water and food could lead to major conflicts
with broad ripple effects throughout the globe. Even if people find a way to adapt, the wildlife and plants on which we depend may be unable
to adapt to rapid climate change. While the world itself will not end, the world as we know it may disappear. MYTH Recent cold winters and
cool summers don’t feel like global warming to me. FACT While different pockets of the country have experienced some cold winters here and
there, the overall trend is warmer winters. Measurements show that over the last century the Earth’s climate has warmed overall, in all
seasons, and in most regions. Climate skeptics mislead the public when they claim that the winter of 2003–2004 was the coldest ever in the
northeastern United States. That winter was only the 33rd coldest in the region since records began in 1896. Furthermore, a single year of cold
weather in one region of the globe is not an indication of a trend in the global climate, which refers to a long-term average over the entire
planet. MYTH Global warming can’t be happening because some glaciers and ice sheets are growing, not shrinking. FACT In most parts of the
world, the retreat of glaciers has been dramatic. The best available scientific data indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
Between 1961 and 1997, the world’s glaciers lost 890 cubic miles of ice. The consensus among scientists is that rising air temperatures are the
most important factor behind the retreat of glaciers on a global scale over long time periods. Some glaciers in western Norway, Iceland and
New Zealand have been expanding during the past few decades. That expansion is a result of regional increases in storm frequency and
snowfall rather than colder temperatures — not at all incompatible with a global warming trend. In Greenland, a NASA satellite that can
measure the ice mass over the whole continent has found that although there is variation from month to month, over the longer term, the ice
is disappearing. In fact, there are worrisome signs that melting is accelerating: glaciers are moving into the ocean twice as fast as a decade ago,
and, over time, more and more glaciers have started to accelerate. What is most alarming is the prediction, based on model calculations and
historical evidence, that an approximately 5.4 degree Fahrenheit increase in local Greenland temperatures will lead to irreversible meltdown
and a sea-level rise of over 20 feet. Since the Arctic is warming 2-3 times faster than the global average, this tipping point is not far away. The
only study that has shown increasing ice mass in Greenland only looked at the interior of the ice sheet, not at the edges where melting occurs.
This is actually in line with climate model predictions that global warming would lead to a short-term accumulation of ice in the cold interior
due to heavier snowfall. (Similarly, scientists have predicted that Antarctica overall will gain ice in the near future due to heavier snowfall.) The
scientists who published the study were careful to point out that their results should not be used to conclude that Greenland's ice mass as a
whole is growing. In addition, their data suggested that the accumulation of snow in the middle of the continent is likely to decrease over time
as global warming continues. MYTH Accurate weather predictions a few days in advance are hard to come by. Why on earth should we have
confidence in climate projections decades from now? FACT Climate prediction is fundamentally different from weather prediction, just as
climate is different from weather. It is often more difficult to make an accurate weather forecast than a climate prediction. The accuracy of
weather forecasting is critically dependent upon being able to exactly and comprehensively characterize the present state of the global
atmosphere. Climate prediction relies on other, longer ranging factors. For instance, we might not know if it will be below freezing on a specific
December day in New England, but we know from our understanding of the region's climate that the temperatures during the month will
generally be low. Similarly, climate tells us that Seattle and London tend to be rainy, Florida and southern California are usually warm, and the
Southwest is often dry and hot. Today’s climate models can now reproduce the observed global average climates over the past century and
beyond. Such findings have reinforced scientist’s confidence in the capacity of models to produce reliable projections of future climate. Current
climate assessments typically consider the results from a range of models and scenarios for future heat-trapping emissions in order to identify
the most likely range for future climatic change.
The impact is billions of deaths.
Cummins ‘10
(Ronnie, International Director – Organic Consumers Association and Will Allen, Advisor – Organic Consumers Association, “Climate
Catastrophe: Surviving the 21st Century”, 2-14, http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/02/14-6)
The hour is late. Leading climate scientists such as James Hansen are literally shouting at the top of their lungs that the world needs to
reduce emissions by 20-40% as soon as possible, and 80-90% by the year 2050, if we are to avoid climate chaos , crop
failures , endless wars , melting of the polar icecaps, and a disastrous rise in ocean levels. Either we radically
reduce CO2 and carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e, which includes all GHGs, not just CO2) pollutants (currently at 390 parts per million and
rising 2 ppm per year) to 350 ppm, including agriculture-derived methane and nitrous oxide pollution, or else
survival
for the present and
future generations is in jeopardy. As scientists warned at Copenhagen, business as usual and a corresponding 7-8.6 degree Fahrenheit rise in
global temperatures means that the carrying capacity of the Earth in 2100 will be reduced to one billion people. Under this hellish scenario,
billions will die of thirst, cold, heat, disease, war, and starvation. If the U.S. significantly reduces greenhouse gas
emissions, other countries will follow. One hopeful sign is the recent EPA announcement that it intends to regulate greenhouse gases
as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately we are going to have to put tremendous pressure on elected public officials to force the
EPA to crack down on GHG polluters (including industrial farms and food processors). Public pressure is especially critical since "just say no"
Congressmen-both Democrats and Republicans-along with agribusiness, real estate developers, the construction industry, and the fossil fuel
lobby appear determined to maintain "business as usual."
A-to “Too late – beyond the tipping point”
( ) Not too late – every reduction key
Nuccitelli 12
[Dana, is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor's Degree in
astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master's Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has
been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September,
2010, http://www.skepticalscience.com/realistically-what-might-future-climate-look-like.html]
We're not yet committed to surpassing 2°C global warming, but as Watson noted, we are quickly
running out of time to realistically give ourselves a chance to stay below that 'danger limit'. However,
2°C is not a do-or-die threshold. Every bit of CO2 emissions we can reduce means that much avoided
future warming, which means that much avoided climate change impacts. As Lonnie Thompson noted, the more global warming we
manage to mitigate, the less adaption and suffering we will be forced to cope with in the future. Realistically, based on the current political
climate (which we will explore in another post next week), limiting
global warming to 2°C is probably the best we can
do. However, there is a big difference between 2°C and 3°C, between 3°C and 4°C, and anything
greater than 4°C can probably accurately be described as catastrophic, since various tipping points are expected to
be triggered at this level. Right now, we are on track for the catastrophic consequences (widespread coral mortality, mass
extinctions, hundreds of millions of people adversely impacted by droughts, floods, heat waves, etc .).
But we're not stuck on that
track just yet, and we need to move ourselves as far off of it as possible by reducing our greenhouse
gas emissions as soon and as much as possible. There are of course many people who believe that the planet will not warm
as much, or that the impacts of the associated climate change will be as bad as the body of scientific evidence suggests. That is certainly a
possiblity, and we very much hope that their optimistic view is correct. However, what we
have presented here is the best
summary of scientific evidence available , and it paints a very bleak picture if we fail to rapidly reduce
our greenhouse gas emissions. If we continue forward on our current path, catastrophe is not just a possible
outcome, it is the most probable outcome . And an intelligent risk management approach would involve taking steps to prevent a
catastrophic scenario if it were a mere possibility, let alone the most probable outcome. This is especially true since the most important
component of the solution - carbon pricing - can be implemented at a relatively low cost, and a far lower cost than trying to adapt to the
climate change consequences we have discussed here (Figure 4).
Latin American Coop Solves Warming
( ) Cooperation key to solve warming- requires interconnected solutions
Garamone ‘9
(Jim Garamone reporter with American Forces Press Service. He has been covering the defense beat since 1976. Mr. Garamone served 13 years
in the U.S. Army and Army Reserve.¶ American Forces Press Service, 11-20 2009 “ Gates Urges More Western Hemisphere Cooperation”
http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=56806)
The United States and other Western Hemisphere nations must increase cooperation and collaboration for their continued security,
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here today.¶ Noting that the challenges facing Western Hemisphere nations have changed since
the end of the Cold War -- a period of tension that inspired the United States and Canada to establish the North American Aerospace Defense Command -- Gates said he wants the United
engagement and this partnership are so
necessary because the emerging security challenges we face are increasingly interconnected, and the
nontraditional threats require a collective approach,” Gates said.¶ And it requires more than simple defense cooperation, the secretary said.
States and Canada to build on this legacy of cooperation and interoperability to face the challenges of new threats.¶ “This
Threats such as drug trafficking, terrorism, smuggling and others require “an uncommon degree of coordination among the national-security, homeland-defense and criminal-justice agencies
of our governments,” the secretary said.¶ The nations are working together more closely. In 2006, Canada and the United States agreed to expand the NORAD mission to include maritime
warning. The two nations also signed a new emergency management cooperation agreement in December, and the U.S. military is prepared – at Canada’s request – to assist the nation as it
One area where cooperation is needed is
global warming
hosts the Winter Olympics early next year.¶
in the Arctic, as
has increased access to
the normally ice-bound region. While there are disagreements – Canada asserts that the Northwest Passage is in Canadian waters, and the United States and Western European nations say it
is an international waterway – there are areas of cooperation.¶ “We share an interest in developing more icebreaking ships for mobility and improving domain awareness to support searchand-rescue operations in light of increased tourism up north,” Gates said.¶ Russia, Canada, Norway, Demark and the United States have claims on parts of the Arctic. “Even as the U.S. ‘resets’
relations with Russia, we will work with Canada to ensure that increased Russian activity in the Arctic does not lead to miscalculation or unnecessary friction,” Gates said.¶ The nations of the
hemisphere have to band together to handle natural or man-made disasters, Gates said, noting recent examples of that cooperation. Canada and Mexico assisted New Orleans after Hurricane
Katrina hit in 2005. The United States assisted Haiti last year after Hurricane Ike hit the island nation, and helped El Salvador last month after rainstorms caused mudslides in that Latin
American nation.¶ Global warming could cause more frequent and intense storms, Gates said, and the Defense Department’s Quadrennial Defense Review will examine how the U.S. armed
forces can respond to such natural disasters. But man can be the biggest threat, he added, and the nexus of drug trafficking and terrorism poses a danger to both the United States and
Canada.¶ “The same means and routes used to transport drugs could also be used for dangerous weapons and materials,” Gates said. Smugglers have used semi-submersible vessels that can
carry tons of drugs and are difficult to detect, he said.¶ The terrorist group known as FARC has used ungoverned areas of Colombia to grow and refine drugs, and must be met with the force of
law, Gates said. “We cannot expect to make headway on narcotics without a multifaceted, multinational comprehensive approach to the problem,” he said. “We need to work together to
fortify judicial institutions and the rule of law.Ӧ Gates emphasized that this must be accomplished in ways respectful of human rights. Police in many countries often are outgunned by their
adversaries, and military forces have stepped in. Colombia and Mexico are working to instruct soldiers in how to defeat the enemy while respecting the rights of the people, the secretary
said.¶ Gates also stressed that the military should not be the lead agency in confronting many of the threats in the Western Hemisphere.¶ “It is important to keep front and center that the
military is in a supporting – not a lead – role in dealing with most of the problems,” he said, though he acknowledged that in some situations, only the military can provide the manpower,
Through increased cooperation and collaboration, the secretary said,
Western Hemisphere nations must address these issues before they find themselves working through
them at a disaster site.
logistics, transportation or expertise to handle crises or threats.¶
A-to “Warming Not Real”
( ) Global Warming is happening – most recent and best evidence concludes that it is
human induced
Muller ‘12
[Richard, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and a former MacArthur Foundation fellow, “The Conversion of a
Climate-Change Skeptic”, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all]
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very
existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive
research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that
global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans
are almost entirely the cause. My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average
temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase
of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results
from the human emission of greenhouse gases. These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [IPCC], the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the
I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C.
consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more
sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our
us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time.
We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics: biases from urban heating (we duplicated our results using rural data alone),
from data selection (prior groups selected fewer than 20 percent of the available temperature stations; we used virtually 100 percent),
from poor station quality (we separately analyzed good stations and poor ones) and from human intervention and data
adjustment (our work is completely automated and hands-off). In our papers we demonstrate that none of these potentially troublesome
recent warming could be natural. Our Berkeley Earth approach used
lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed
effects unduly biased our conclusions. The historic temperature pattern we observed has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known
explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight, make for beautiful sunsets and cool the earth’s surface for a
few years. There are small, rapid variations attributable to El Niño and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream; because of such
oscillations, the “flattening” of the recent temperature rise that some people claim is not, in our view, statistically significant. What has caused
the gradual but systematic rise of two and a half degrees? We
tried fitting the shape to simple math functions
to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best
match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar
(exponentials, polynomials),
ice.
( ) Neg args are empirically denied- positive feedback loops and biodiversity loss is
proven
Lyderson ‘9
(Kari, journalist, Washington Post, “Scientists: Pace of Climate Change Exceeds Estimates” 2/15 – online)
The pace of global warming is likely to be much faster than recent predictions, because industrial greenhouse
gas emissions have increased more quickly than expected and higher temperatures are triggering selfreinforcing feedback mechanisms in global ecosystems, scientists said Saturday. "We are basically looking now at a
future climate that's beyond anything we've considered seriously in climate model simulations," Christopher
Field, founding director of the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology at Stanford University,
said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Field, a member of the United Nations'
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said emissions from burning fossil fuels since 2000 have largely outpaced the
estimates used in the U.N. panel's 2007 reports. The higher emissions are largely the result of the increased burning of coal in
developing countries, he said. Unexpectedly large amounts of carbon dioxide are being released into the
atmosphere as the result of "feedback loops" that are speeding up natural processes. Prominent among
these, evidence indicates, is a cycle in which higher temperatures are beginning to melt the arctic permafrost, which
could release hundreds of billions of tons of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere, said several scientists
on a panel at the meeting. The permafrost holds 1 trillion tons of carbon, and as much as 10 percent of that could be
released this century, Field said. Along with carbon dioxide melting permafrost releases methane, which is 25 times more
potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. "It's a vicious cycle of feedback where warming causes the release
of carbon from permafrost, which causes more warming, which causes more release from
permafrost," Field said. Evidence is also accumulating that terrestrial and marine ecosystems cannot remove as
much carbon from the atmosphere as earlier estimates suggested, Field said. In the oceans, warmer weather is
driving stronger winds that are exposing deeper layers of water, which are already saturated with carbon
and not as able to absorb as much from the atmosphere. The carbon is making the oceans more acidic, which
also reduces their ability to absorb carbon. On land, rising carbon dioxide levels had been expected to boost plant growth and
result in greater sequestration of carbon dioxide. As plants undergo photosynthesis to draw energy from the sun, carbon is drawn out of the
atmosphere and trapped in the plant matter. But especially in northern latitudes, this effect may be offset significantly by the fact that
Earlier snowmelt,
the shrinking arctic ice cover and the northward spread of vegetation are causing the Northern
Hemisphere to absorb, rather than reflect, more of the sun's energy and reinforce the warming trend.
While it takes a relatively long time for plants to take carbon out of the atmosphere, that carbon can be released rapidly by
wildfires, which contribute about a third as much carbon to the atmosphere as burning fossil fuels,
according to a paper Field co-authored. Fires such as the recent deadly blazes in southern Australia have increased in recent
years, and that trend is expected to continue, Field said. Warmer weather, earlier snowmelt, drought and
beetle infestations facilitated by warmer climates are all contributing to the rising number of fires linked to
climate change. Across large swaths of the United States and Canada, bark beetles have killed many mature trees, making forests more
flammable. And tropical rain forests that were not susceptible to forest fires in the past are likely to become drier as
temperatures rise, growing more vulnerable. Preventing deforestation in the tropics is more important
than in northern latitudes, the panel agreed, since lush tropical forests sequester more carbon than sparser
northern forests. And deforestation in northern areas has benefits, since larger areas end up covered
in exposed, heat-reflecting snow. Many scientists and policymakers are advocating increased incentives for preserving tropical
vegetation-covered land absorbs much more of the sun's heat than snow-covered terrain, said scientists on the panel.
forests, especially in the face of demand for clearing forest to grow biofuel crops such as soy. Promoting biofuels without also creating forestpreservation incentives would be "like weatherizing your house and deliberately keeping your windows open," said Peter Frumhoff, chief of the
Union of Concerned Scientists' climate program. "It's just not a smart policy." Field said the U.N. panel's next assessment of Earth's climate
trends, scheduled for release in 2014, will for the first time incorporate policy proposals. It will also include complicated models of
interconnected ecosystem feedbacks.
( ) Consensus is on our side
EDF 9.
[ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, 1-13 “GLOBAL WARMING MYTHS AND FACTS” -- http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011]
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming. The most respected
scientific bodies have stated unequivocally that global warming is occurring, and people are causing it
by burning fossil fuels (like coal, oil and natural gas) and cutting down forests. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which in 2005 the White House
called "the gold standard of objective scientific assessment," issued a joint statement with 10 other
National Academies of Science saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify
nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and longterm reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions." (Joint Statement of Science Academies: Global Response to Climate Change [PDF], 2005) The only
debate in the science community about global warming is about how much and how fast warming will continue as a
result of heat-trapping emissions. Scientists have given a clear warning about global warming, and we
have more than enough facts — about causes and fixes — to implement solutions right now.
A-to “Warming = Not Anthropogenic”
( ) Scientific consensus proves warming is anthropogenic
Monbiot ‘7
[George, Prof @ Oxford Brookes U, Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning p 5]
But the link has also been established directly. A
study of ocean warming over the past forty years, for example, published in
a precise match between the distribution of heat and the intensity of
manmade carbon dioxide emissions. Its lead author described his findings thus: The evidence is so strong it should
put an end to any debate about whether humanity is causing global warming. This sounds like a strong
statement, but he is not alone. In 2004, another article in Science reported the results of a survey of scientific papers
containing the words ‘global climate change’. The author found 928 of them on the database she searched. None
of the papers, she discovered, disagreed with the consensus position… Politicians, economists, journalists and
others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that
impression is incorrect. In 2001 the Royal Society, the United Kingdom’s pre-eminent scientific institution, published the
following statement: Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global
climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by
global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. It was also signed by the equivalent
organizations in fifteen other countries. Similar statements have been published by the US National
Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
the journal Science in 2005, records
A-to “Aff = Biased Authors”
( ) Our climate models are the most accurate- studies of studies prove
Science Daily ‘8
(4/6, "Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change", http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm)
The accuracy of computer models that predict climate change over the coming decades has been the subject
of debate among politicians, environmentalists and even scientists. A new study by meteorologists at the University of
Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on
reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the
next 100 years. Scientific opinion on climate change In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler
and Junsu Kim from the Department of
how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To
this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply
this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past
two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea,
Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model
generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and
the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching
conventional atmospheric observations," said Reichler. "We can now place a much higher level of
confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past." The many hours of studying models
Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate
and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their
predictions. Given
the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study's results also
provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its
fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the
models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism.
( ) Neg authors are worse- they’re just special interest hacks
Hansen ‘6
(Jim. Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University’s
Earth Institute. “The Threat to the Planet” The New York Review of Books. Pages 11-12.
http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/pdf2html.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astro.columbia.edu%2F~roban%2Flab_2006_fall%2Fhansen.
pdf&images=yes )
Why are the same scientists and political forces that succeeded in controlling the threat to the ozone layer now failing miserably to deal with
the global warming crisis? Though we depend on fossil fuels far more than we ever did on CFCs, there is plenty of blame to go around. Scientists
present the facts about climate change clinically, failing to stress that business-as- usual will transform the planet. The
press and
television, despite an overwhelming scientific consensus concerning global warming, give equal time to
fringe "contrarians" supported by the fossil fuel industry. Special interest groups mount effective
disinformation campaigns to sow doubt about the reality of global warming. The government appears
to be strongly influenced by special interests, or otherwise confused and distracted, and it has failed to
provide leadership. The public is understandably confused or uninterested. I used to spread the blame uniformly until, when I was about
to appear on public television, the producer informed me that the program "must" also include a "contrarian" who would take issue with claims
of global warming. Presenting such a view, he told me, was a common practice in commercial television as well as radio and newspapers.
Supporters of public TV or advertisers, with their own special interests, require "balance" as a price for
their continued financial support. Gore's book reveals that while more than half of the recent newspaper
articles on climate change have given equal weight to such contrarian views, virtually none of the
scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals have questioned the consensus that emissions from
human activities cause global warming. As a result, even when the scientific evidence is clear, technical
nit-picking by contrarians leaves the public with the false impression that there is still great scientific
uncertainty about the reality and causes of climate change.
A-to “ Species Adapt”
( ) Species can’t adapt- rate of warming is too fast
Costello and Maslin ‘8
[Anthony, Professor of International Child Health and Director of the UCL Institute for Global Health. Mark, Professor UCL Environment
Institute. “Apocalypse Now?” – THE LANCET -- 7/12]
Climate change affects all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide will reach two to three times its mid-19th-century
level by 2100 leading to major changes in seasonal temperatures and rainfall patterns. Normally with this
sort of climate change animals and plants would simply migrate with their preferred climate. However,
the rate of human-induced climate change is so rapid that many plant species cannot migrate fast
enough and also in many places human beings already occupy the space into which the ecosystem would
migrate. Ecosystems most at risk are alpine meadows, cloud forests, arctic tundra, and coral reefs.
( ) Temperature spikes destroy resilience – must slow the rate.
EPA ‘7
[United States Environmental Protection Agency. “Climate Change-health and environmental effects: ecosystems and biodiversity.”
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/ecosystemsandbiodiversity.html -- 12/20]
Observations of ecosystem impacts are difficult to use in future projections because of the complexities involved in human/nature interactions
(e.g., land use change). Nevertheless, the
observed changes are compelling examples of how rising temperatures
can affect the natural world and raise questions of how vulnerable populations will adapt to direct and indirect effects associated
with climate change. The IPCC (IPCC, 2007) has noted, During the course of this century the resilience of many ecosystems
(their ability to adapt naturally) is likely to be exceeded by an unprecedented combination of change in
climate and in other global change drivers (especially land use change and overexploitation), if greenhouse gas emissions
and other changes continue at or above current rates. By 2100 ecosystems will be exposed to atmospheric
CO2 levels substantially higher than in the past 650,000 years, and global temperatures at least among the highest as those
experienced in the past 740,000 years. This will alter the structure, reduce biodiversity and perturb functioning of
most ecosystems, and compromise the services they currently provide.
A-to “Feedbacks Solve”
( ) Feedbacks are net positive
Homer-Dixon ‘7
[Thomas - Centre for International Governance Innovation Chair of Global Systems at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, Professor in
the Centre for Environment and Business in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo, PhD in IR from MIT -- 11/14, Address to
the conference for a Globally Integrated Climate Policy for Canada, "Positive Feedbacks, Dynamic Ice Sheets, and the Recarbonization of the
Global Fuel Supply: The New Sense of Urgency about Global Warming", http://www.homerdixon.com/articles/excerpt-new_urgencythomas_homer-dixon.pdf]
Let me now say a little bit more about some other feedbacks. This is one of the punch lines of my presentation today. I mentioned earlier that
there are two general kinds of feedback: those that operate more- or-less directly on temperature, such as the icealbedo feedback, and those that operate on Earth’s carbon cycle, where warming produces a change in the
amount of carbon in the atmosphere. We have a fairly good understanding of the former and not such
a good understanding of the latter. One carbon feedback that worries scientists involves the melting
of the permafrost in Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Canada. As the permafrost melts it releases large quantities of
methane – a very powerful greenhouse gas that, in turn, causes more warming. Scientists are also concerned about the
potential release of more carbon dioxide from forests: just yesterday researchers reported evidence that, as the
climate has warmed, the Canadian boreal forest has gone from being a carbon sink to a slight carbon
emitter. And then there’s the matter of pine bark beetles. As you likely know, we’ve lost wide swaths of pine forest in British Columbia and
Alaska – huge areas of trees – to bark-beetle infestation. As the climate warms, bark-beetle populations reproduce
through two generations during the summer, and beetle mortality is lower during the winter. Both these changes mean
that beetle populations become much larger overall. If these larger populations cross the Rockies and get
into the boreal forest that stretches from Alberta to Newfoundland, and if they kill that forest, the
forest will be susceptible to fire that could release astounding quantities of carbon dioxide. I asked Stephen
Schneider, a leading cli- mate scientist at Stanford, about the implications of such a develop- ment. He just shrugged and said, ‘well, we’re
talking about billions of tonnes of carbon.’ Other
potentially destabilizing carbon-cycle feedbacks include the
drying of the Amazon and the possibility that if it dries it will burn; the drying of peat bogs in Indonesia, which have
already been susceptible to wide-spread burning; and the saturation of ocean carbon sinks. The Southern Ocean
around Antarctica is no longer absorbing carbon diox- ide to the extent it did in the past. Warming has produced much
more vigorous winds closer to Antarctica. These winds have churned up the sea and brought to the surface deep carbon-rich water, which
absorbs less carbon from the atmosphere. Also, higher
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are acidifying the
oceans, a change could reduce populations of molluscs and phytoplankton that absorb carbon into the calcium carbonate of their shells.
Our climate has both positive and negative feedbacks. The positive ones are self-reinforcing, and the
negative ones equilibrate the climate and counteract the tendency towards self-reinforcing climate
change. The big question for climate scientists then is: What is the balance is between the positive and negative
feedbacks? A consensus has emerged over the last two years – a consensus again not reflected in the recent IPCC
reports – that
the positive feedbacks in the climate system are much stronger and more numerous
than the negative feedbacks. In a paper published last year in Geophysical Research Letters, Scheffer, Brovkin, and Cox
carried out a comprehensive assessment of the feed- back situation.7 They wrote, ‘[we] produce an
independent estimate of the potential implications of the positive feedback between global tem- peratures and
greenhouse gasses.’ In other words, these researchers focused specifically on carbon cycle feedbacks. They went on, ‘we sug- gest that
feedback of global temperature and atmosphere CO2 will promote warming by an extra 15% to 78% on
a century scale over and above the IPCC estimates.’ Let’s turn to the issue of dynamic ice sheets. The Greenland ice sheet is
the second largest mass of ice in the world, after that in Antarctica. If we melt Greenland entirely, we get seven metres of sea-level rise. If we
melt the West Antarctic ice sheet, we get another five metres. If we melt the rest of Antarctica, we get an additional fifty or so metres. The
Greenland ice sheet will probably be the first to melt, because it’s the most vulnerable. During the last interglacial period 125,000 years ago,
when temperatures were roughly what they’re going to be at the end of this century, much of Greenland melted, and sea levels were four to six
metres higher than they are right now.
**Solvency Backlines
FYI about the plan text wording
( ) Why say “crude oil” as the term in the plan text ?...
EIA ’12
(US Energy Information Administration – This entry was last updated: July 26, 2012
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=40&t=6)
What is the difference between crude oil, petroleum products , and petroleum?
Crude oil is a mixture of hydrocarbons that exists as a liquid in natural underground reservoirs and
remains liquid when brought to the surface. Petroleum products are produced from the processing of
crude oil at petroleum refineries and the extraction of liquid hydrocarbons at natural gas processing
plants. Petroleum is the broad category that includes both crude oil and petroleum products. The
terms "oil" and "petroleum" are sometimes used interchangeably.
Cuba and US Companies = “Say Yes”
( ) Cuba and US oil companies would both “say yes”.
Reuters ‘10
Jul 31, 2010 – http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/07/31/cuba-oil-idUKN3019123020100731
Due to the U.S. trade embargo, U.S. oil companies are not allowed to operate in Cuba. Later this month a
group from the Houston-based International Association of Drilling Contractors is scheduled to visit Cuba. The group
has said it wants to discuss offshore safety issues with Cuban officials and get an overview of deepwater prospects. Despite five
decades of hostile relations, Cuba has said it would welcome the involvement of U.S. companies in
developing its offshore fields. Oil expert Jorge Pinon at Florida International University in Miami said U.S. oil service
companies would like to enter the Cuban market because it is a new market close to home. "For the
U.S. offshore oil industry, Cuba is basically an extension of the Gulf of Mexico. It's not like Angola -- they can
provide service from Houston or Freeport or Mobile." (Editing by Todd Eastham)
( ) US companies and Cuban government would “say yes”
Franks ‘8
Jeff Franks – Havana correspondent for Reuter’s – New York Times – 6/12/2008¶
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/business/worldbusiness/12iht-cubaoil.4.13670441.html?_r=0
Representative Jeff Flake, an Arizona Republican who has
introduced bills in Congress to lift the embargo for oil
companies, said the environmental argument might be crucial because there was much concern in Florida about potential oil spills.¶ "If
there are going to be oil rigs off of Florida, I think most Americans would be more comfortable if they were U.S. oil rigs, rather than Chinese for
example," Flake said.¶ He said U.S. companies were definitely interested in Cuba, but have not publicly pushed for embargo
change. During interviews, industry executives emphasized they did not oppose the embargo because it was U.S. national policy and were
pushing instead for access to U.S. areas that were currently prohibited, like offshore western Florida.¶ "When U.S. companies are not even
allowed to drill in the eastern half of the Gulf of Mexico, we have a long way to go before we can think about international waters off the coast
of Cuba," said J.Larry Nichols, chairman of Devon Energy, an independent U.S. oil and natural gas producer.¶ Cuba
has said it would
welcome U.S. companies to its offshore field and showed its interest by sending Cubapetroleo
representatives to a 2006 conference in Mexico City that included companies like the U.S. oil giant Exxon
Mobil and the top independent U.S. refiner, Valero Energy.
( ) US oil companies will say “yes”
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 17
There has been no lack of interest on the part of American international oil firms in developing a Cuban
market for joint-venture projects and technology transfer and production-sharing agreements in the energy sector. The
prevailing Cuban model of joint-venture investment and cooperation has proved to be attractive internationally, and
Cuba offers American firms numerous opportunities of this type. There will have to be significant changes to the Cuban
embargo before this type of engagement can occur, but recent history shows that Cuba possesses the potential to be a
strong regional trade partner in the area of energy and infrastructure development. The numerous joint-venture projects presently under way
in energy development and infrastructure (oil refineries, pipelines, and port facilities) between Cuba and a growing list of foreign partners is a
positive indicator of that potential.
( ) Cuba would accept US oil investors
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Cuba would welcome U.S. investment.¶ At MINCEX, the staff discussed the impact of the embargo on Cuba’s access¶ to capital.
Ministry staff said the embargo is harmful to Cuba’s ability to¶ attract foreign investments, capital, and technology. Cuban officials
repeatedly emphasized that the country is open to any foreign investor, and that¶ Havana would welcome U.S.
investment, subject to the same conditions it¶ places on all foreign investors.¶ According to a senior official in Cuba’s diplomatic corps,
when Cuba¶ decided to drill off-shore in the Gulf of Mexico in the mid-1990s, the first¶ letters sent by Cuba’s
government to invite foreign concerns to participate¶ went¶ exclusively¶ to U.S. energy companies. They
declined interest, due to the¶ embargo, and Cuba looked for partners elsewhere.
US will Outcompete
( ) Not too late for US firms to secure Cuban oil contracts
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The U.S. industry is barred from exploring for oil with Cuba by operation¶ of the embargo. Legislation
introduced in the House by Rep. Jeff Flake¶ (AZ-6),¶ 89¶ and sponsored in the Senate by Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK)¶ and Mary Landrieu (LA)
during the 111th Congress,¶ 90¶ would have ended¶ that prohibition.¶ The bills would permit U.S. companies to engage in
transactions and¶ export equipment without license for the exploration of offshore oil in Cuban¶ waters, and require the Secretary of the
Treasury to provide general licenses¶ for individuals involved in these activities. The Flake bill also would make it¶ possible for such oil to be
exported into the U.S. market.¶ It
is not too late for U.S. firms to make a difference. As Dr. Philip Brenner¶ advised us,
has not yet locked in contracts for all of its oil reserves .¶ Opportunities still exist for U.S. energy
companies, especially because some¶ of Cuba’s alleged benefactors—such as China—have squeezed out
terms less¶ beneficial to Cuba than U.S. firms might demand.”¶ 9
“ Cuba
( ) US companies will outcompete other nations.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 116-17
The promotion of energy cooperation implies that there will be relatively open energy markets in Cuba for foreign direct investment that are
amenable and accessible to global energy market practices. The prevailing joint-venture (empresa mixta) model
of investment in
Cuba’s energy sector has been successful and has significant applicability, should international oil companies
based in the United States be offered the opportunity to enter the Cuban market. U.S. Involvement in the Cuban
Energy Sector The ability of U.S.-based actors to conduct business in Cuba is another critica l factor. The
presence of national and international oil companies from Spain, Venezuela, and Brazil, among others, does
not necessarily imply that U.S. firms will be relegated to the sidelines. In fact, most if not all of these firms rely
heavily on first-generation U.S. technology for their deepwater oil exploration, yet U.S. trade controls forbid the transfer of these
technologies to Cuba. Thus, it stands to reason that the relaxation of these U.S. trade regulations— permitting the transfer of
these technologies, and sales of oil and gas services— are an essential precondition for the creation and development of
the Cuban energy sector.
Plan does not need to lift the broader embargo
( ) Plan does not need to lift the broader embargo.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 122
U.S. cooperation with Cuba in energy just may create an opportunity for the United States to improve its relations
with Venezuela, if it can demonstrate that it can serve as a partner (or at a minimum, a supporter) of the Petrocaribe energy consortium. The
United States could provide much-needed additional investment capital in the development of upstream, downstream, and
logistical resources in Cuba that simultaneously addresses Petrocaribe objectives, diversifies regional refining capacity, and adds storage and
transit capabilities while enhancing regional cooperation and integration modalities. This does not mean that the United States
has to dismantle the nearly fifty-year-old embargo against Cuba, but the United States will have to make
special provisions that create commercial and trade openings for energy development that serve its broad
geostrategic and national security goals, as it has in the case of food and medicine sales to Cuba.
US solves Cuban Oil Sector
( ) US is pre-requisite for Cuban oil sector development
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 116-17
The promotion of energy cooperation implies that there will be relatively open energy markets in Cuba for foreign direct investment that are
amenable and accessible to global energy market practices. The prevailing joint-venture (empresa mixta) model
of investment in
Cuba’s energy sector has been successful and has significant applicability, should international oil companies
based in the United States be offered the opportunity to enter the Cuban market. U.S. Involvement in the Cuban
Energy Sector The ability of U.S.-based actors to conduct business in Cuba is another critica l factor. The
presence of national and international oil companies from Spain, Venezuela, and Brazil, among others, does
not necessarily imply that U.S. firms will be relegated to the sidelines. In fact, most if not all of these firms rely
heavily on first-generation U.S. technology for their deepwater oil exploration, yet U.S. trade controls forbid the transfer of these
technologies to Cuba. Thus, it stands to reason that the relaxation of these U.S. trade regulations— permitting the transfer of
these technologies, and sales of oil and gas services— are an essential precondition for the creation and development of
the Cuban energy sector.
US Technology is key
( ) US Tech’s key to Cuban Oil development
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 125
As mentioned often throughout this book, the potential of Cuba’s
offshore oil reserves may only be accessible when
Cuba and its partners are able to employ first-generation American deepwater exploration
technologies.
This is especially critical as many of the firms currently conducting exploration in Cuba’s offshore tracts— Repsol S.A.
(Spain), Norsk Hydro (Norway), and Petrobras (Brazil)—are also operating platforms under contract to U.S. firms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Simultaneously, however, these firms
are prohibited from employing first-generation technology from these platforms for
their operations in Cuba. The United States should take the steps necessary to ensure that U.S. firms and their
subsidiaries are able to employ the technology best suited for the extraction of oil and gas from these deepwater
resources. This increases the viability of the operations, avoids costly delays in the operation of these platforms, and enhances the
environmental integrity of these operations. 11 At present, U.S. export controls limit everyone’s access to this technology.
Under more favorable conditions, the United States should begin to roll back export control restrictions in this area as part of energy resource
development and production-sharing scenarios.
Plan Solves Venezuelan Dependency
( ) Aff solves Cuban dependency on Venezuela
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Finding oil
in commercially viable amounts would be transformative for¶ Cuba . Revenues from natural
resource wealth have the potential to provide¶ long-sought stability for Cuba’s economy and are likely to
significantly alter¶ its relations with Venezuela and the rest of Latin America, Asia and other¶ leading energy producing and
consuming nations. Discoveries of commercially viable resources would also have an enormous impact upon the Gulf¶ environment shared by
Cuba and the United States.
A-to “Cuba c/n refine Oil”
( ) Cuba can now refine domestically
Gonzalez ‘13
Ivet González has been the correspondent for IPS Cuba since 2011.“Cuba Diversifies – But Energy Focus Still on Oil” – Inter-Press Service News
Agency – ¶ http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/cuba-diversifies-but-energy-focus-still-on-oil/
Cuba continues to focus heavily on oil for its energy needs, through agreements with partners like Venezuela, with the
hope of discovering commercially exploitable wells in the Gulf of Mexico.¶ But it is also starting to take steps to diversify energy sources, as part
of the ongoing economic reform process.¶ Investments in the Camilo Cienfuegos refinery will upgrade the waste treatment plant
and create automated systems in the truck loading yard in order to cut losses in handling, the plant’s director, Humberto Padrón, told IPS. He
also said the refinery would be expanded, to double its processing capacity.¶ The old Soviet-built refinery, located on the bay
in the city of Cienfuegos, 230 km southeast of Havana, was revived in 2007, after years of neglect. It forms part of a petrochemical complex
located in one of the special development zones given a boost by the government of Raúl Castro as part of an attempt to bolster the lagging
economy.¶ The
reactivation of the refinery, made possible by an agreement between the Cubapetróleo (Cupet) and Petróleos de
Venezuela SA (PDVSA) state-run companies, cost some 180 million dollars.¶ The plant is currently operated by the CubanVenezuelan consortium Cuvenpetrol, and only processes crude purchased from Venezuela, with a daily output of 65,000 barrels.¶ Camilo
Cienfuegos is the biggest of the three refineries in Cuba. The other two are located in Havana and in Santiago de Cuba,
850 km southeast of the capital.
( ) Cuba can find non-US refiners
Padgett ‘8
Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami &
Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. He has chronicled Mexico’s democratization and
drug war as well as the rise of Latin leaders like Lula and Hugo Chavez, “How Cuba’s Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo”¶ Time Magazine –
Oct. 23, 2008 – internally quoting Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html#ixzz13Li5cosN
If Cuba really does have 20 billion bbl. to drill, however, it could more easily find other interested refinery
investors, like Brazil. The question is whether the U.S. will want to step off the sidelines and get a piece of the action too. Kirby Jones,
head of the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association and an embargo opponent, says Tenreyro's staff has been credible in the past, and he believes the new
estimate is probably accurate. "So for the U.S., this becomes an 800-lb. guerrilla knocking on everybody's door," says Jones. "With that much
oil, there would be the feeling that there's a real [U.S.] price to be paid for [maintaining] the embargo. It changes Cuba's economic situation
drastically and makes the U.S. less relevant."
**Oil Spills Backlines
Spills/Biodiversity Backlines
A-to “No Drilling now”
( ) Cancellations irrelevant. Russian Drilling coming. We post-date.
Tamayo ‘13
(Juan – Writer at The Miami Herald. Past Experience ¶ Andean Bureau Chief at Miami Herald¶ Caribbean Correspondent at Miami Herald¶
Foreign Editor at Miami Herald. Award-winning journalist with more than 25 years of experience as foreign correspondent and editor with The
Miami Herald, focusing on Latin America - especially Cuba - as well as the Middle East and Europe. Proven writer, editor and analyst, with
contacts around the world. Miami Herald – Friday, 05.31.13¶ http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/05/31/3424471/russian-oil-companysuspends.html#storylink=cpy)
A Russian state oil company drilling off Cuba’s northern shores has reportedly confirmed that it is
temporarily halting its exploration — the fourth disappointment for Cuba’s dreams of energy self-sufficiency in less than two
years.¶ The announcement by Zarubezhneft signaled an end to the only active exploration program on the island, which now relies on highly
subsidized oil from the beleaguered Venezuelan government of President Nicolas Maduro. ¶ Zarubezhneft confirmed this week that it was
halting work due to “geological” problems but added that
it will resume its exploration next year , the Reuters news agency
reported Thursday in a dispatch from Havana.¶ The Russians withdrawal had been expected because the Norwegian company that owns the
drilling platform they have been leasing, the Songa Mercur, already had announced that it would be leaving Cuban waters in July for another
contract.¶ Zarubezhneft’s confirmation, nevertheless, signals “another disappointment” for Cuba’s dreams of finding oil in its waters, said Jorge
Pinon, a Cuba energy expert at the University of Texas in Austin.¶ The U.S. Geological Survey has estimated that Cuba’s offshore waters have
“significant undiscovered conventional oil potential” — between 4.6 billion and 9.3 billion barrels. Cuban officials estimate the potential
reserves at 20 billion.¶ “This is the second geological area in Cuba that … seemed to be promising,” Pinon said of Zarubezhneft’s exploration
block. But finding the oil means “you have to go into your pocket to drill exploratory wells.”¶ Spain’s Repsol oil company spent $100 million in
the early part of 2012 unsuccessfully exploring with the Scarabeo 9 drilling platform, especially built in China to avoid the restrictions of the U.S.
embargo, in deep waters northwest of Havana.¶ Petronas of Malaysia, Russia’s Gazprom and Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PDVSA) later leased
the Scarabeo platform but also struck out, and the rig left Cuban waters at the end of last year.¶ Zarubezhneft then gave it a try, leasing the
Songa Mercur to explore waters not as deep and east of Havana starting late last year. Neighboring Bahamas also has expressed interest in that
area, but the Russians also drilled a dry hole.¶ The
Russians are considered likely to meet their promise to return
next year because President Vladimir Putin’s government has been pushing hard to warm up political and
commercial ties with Moscow’s one-time allies in Havana.¶ Cuba’s oil explorations have caused concern among U.S.
environmentalists and tourism officials that any spills would impact the entire Eastern Seaboard, from the Florida Keys to Cape Cod in
Massachusetts.¶ Supporters
of improving U.S. relations with Cuba argued that Washington should allow
American oil firms to get a piece of the potential profits. The U.S. embargo adds about 20 percent to
that island’s exploration costs, according to Cuban officials.
( ) Recent setbacks won’t stop drilling. Lifting embargo will minimize the risk.
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse¶ reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oilquest/
An unusual high-tech oil-drilling rig that's been at work off the coast of Cuba departed last week, headed for either
Africa or Brazil. With it went the island nation's best hope, at least in the short term, for reaping a share of the energy treasure beneath the sea
that separates it from its longtime ideological foe.¶ For many Floridians, especially in the Cuban-American community, it was welcome news
this month that Cuba had drilled its third unsuccessful well this year and was suspending deepwater oil exploration. (Related Pictures: "Four
Offshore Drilling Frontiers") While some feared an oil spill in the Straits of Florida, some 70 miles (113 kilometers) from the U.S. coast, others
were concerned that drilling success would extend the reviled reign of the Castros, long-time dictator Fidel and his brother and hand-picked
successor, Raúl.¶ "The regime's latest efforts to bolster their tyrannical rule through oil revenues was unsuccessful," said U.S. Representative
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a Florida Republican who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a written statement.¶ But
disappointing foray into deepwater doesn't end its quest for energy.
Cuba's
The nation produces domestically only about
half the oil it consumes. As with every aspect of its economy, its choices for making up the shortfall are sorely limited by the 50-year-old United
States trade embargo.¶ At what could be a time of transition for Cuba, experts agree that the failure of deepwater exploration increases the
Castro regime's dependence on the leftist government of Venezuela, which has been meeting fully half of Cuba's oil needs with steeply
subsidized fuel. (Related: "Cuba's New Now") And it means Cuba
will continue to seek out a wellspring of energy
independence without U.S. technology, greatly increasing both the challenges, and the risks.
( ) Cuba will drill solo – new zones outside Mariel are being explored. Their ev
assumes only the old rigs.
Gonzalez ‘13
Ivet González has been the correspondent for IPS Cuba since 2011.“Cuba Diversifies – But Energy Focus Still on Oil” – Inter-Press Service News
Agency – ¶ http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/03/cuba-diversifies-but-energy-focus-still-on-oil/
In January 2012, the
Scarabeo 9 drilling rig was brought to Cuba from Asia to sink an exploratory well into the seabed in the
estimates that there could be up to 20 billion barrels of oil reserves in a 112,000-square
kilometre area, although the United States projects a total of about five billion barrels. ¶ But in November, Cuba’s Ministry of Basic
Industry announced that the rig would be removed from Cuba, after three failed attempts to find a commercially viable well,
Gulf of Mexico. Cuba
financed by PDVSA, Spain’s Repsol, PC Gulf – a subsidiary of Malaysia’s Petronas – and Gazpromneft of Russia.¶ After this harsh blow, Cupet
reported that the Moscow-based firm Zarubezhneft would explore for oil off north-central Cuba using the Norwegian-owned Songa Mercur
drilling platform. The Russian state-run company is drilling a 6,500-metre well in an endeavour that is expected to take six months.¶ The
Cuban government has not lost hope that the country will manage to become self-sufficient in energy.
In another important development zone, around the port of El Mariel in the province of Artemisa, bordering Havana,
the plan is to create a support base for future oil industry activity. ¶ But the need to diversify the
energy supply is increasingly seen as a priority in Cuba’s current economic reform process.
( ) Cuba will inevitably drill
LaGesse ‘12
David LaGesse¶ reporter, with recent articles that have appeared in National Geographic, Money, and most frequently in U.S. News & World
Report – National Geographic News – November 19, 2012 – http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121119-cuba-oilquest/
Given its prospects, it's doubtful that Cuba will give up its hunt for oil . The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that
the waters north and west of Cuba contain 4.6 billion barrels of oil. State-owned Cubapetroleo says undiscovered offshore
reserves all around the island may be more than 20 billion barrels, which would be double the
reserves of Mexico.
( ) Drilling inevitable – more on the way.
Hatcher ‘10
Monica Hatcher, Energy Reporter for the Houston Chronicle, “Cuba Drilling Poses Spill Issue: Group Says Trade¶ Embargo Could Hinder a
Response by the U.S.”, Houston Chronicle; Sept. 6, 2010 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research
Institute of Florida International University – www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Group-warns-Cuba-trade-embargo-could-hurt-a-spill1695883.php
After years of stalled oil and gas development in Cuba, the country is preparing to drill seven wells
off
its northwestern coast. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there may be 4.6 billion barrels of oil in Gulf of Mexico waters off the island, as
well as nearly 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Cuban geologists with Cupet maintain its reserves are double that.¶ Already,
operators
from Spain, Norway , Vietnam , India , Venezuela, Brazil and Malaysia have signed leases for offshore
blocks in Cuban waters, Piñon said.¶ Spain's Repsol, which drilled an exploratory well in 2004, will drill the first of the new
wells with a new Chinese-built semisubmersible rig owned by Saipem, a unit of Italian oil company Eni.¶ Hunt said the Scarabeo 9 will begin
drilling the well, which Repsol christened Jagüey after a native tree, in mid-2011. Cuban officials said the Jagüey would be drilled
under 5,900 feet of water, almost 1,000 feet deeper than BP's Macondo, Piñon said.
Yes, vast reserves in Cuba
( ) Large untapped reserves in Cuba
Sadowski ‘11
Richard Sadowski is a Class of 2012 J.D. candidate, at Hofstra University¶ School of Law, NY. Mr. Sadowski is also the Managing Editor of
Production of¶ the Journal of International Business and Law Vol. XI. “Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and¶ Prevention within the
Framework of the United¶ States’ Embargo” – ¶ Sustainable Development Law & Policy¶ Volume 12; Issue 1 Fall 2011: Natural Resource
Conflicts Article 10 – http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp
A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba’s offshore¶ oil fields hold at least four and a half billion barrels
of recoverable¶ oil and ten trillion cubic feet of natural gas.29 Cupet, the¶ state-owned Cuban energy
company, insists that actual reserves¶ are double that of the U.S. estimate.30 One estimate indicates¶ that Cuba
could be producing 525,000 barrels of oil per day.31¶ Given this vast resource, Cuba has already leased offshore oil¶ exploration blocks to
operators from Spain, Norway, and India.32¶ Offshore oil discoveries in Cuba are placing increasing pressure¶ for the United States to end the
embargo. First, U.S. energy companies¶ are eager to compete for access to Cuban oil reserves.33¶ Secondly, fears of a Cuban oil spill are argued
to warrant U.S.¶ investment and technology.34 Finally, the concern over Cuban¶ offshore drilling renews cries that the embargo is largely a
failure¶ and harms human rights.
( ) Old studies wrong – large untapped reserves exist.
Schenk ‘10
Christopher J. Schenk is Project Chief of the U.S. National Oil and Gas Assessment – ¶ GEOLOGIC ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCOVERED OIL AND GAS
RESOURCES OF THE NORTH CUBA BASIN, CUBA – http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1029/pdf/OF10-1029.pdf
The potential
for undiscovered petroleum resources of the North Cuba Basin historically has focused on
the heavy oil fields of the onshore fold and thrust belt (Echevarria-Rodriguez and others, 1991; Pindell, 1991; Petzet, 2000; Oil
and Gas Journal, 1993, 2000, 2002,¶ 2005), but recent efforts have focused on the offshore potential (fig.7) (Vassalli
and others,¶ 2003; Moretti and others, 2003a,b; Magnier and others, 2004). This study indicates that the offshore of the
North Cuba Basin might have significant potential for undiscovered oil and gas resources (Schenk, 2008).
A-to “Embargo blocks Drilling”
( ) Embargo won’t work – Cuban drilling efforts are inevitable
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Would such legislation, if enacted, work? Daniel Whittle is skeptical, “Punitive¶ measures
designed to discourage foreign
oil companies from doing business¶ with Cuba will only work so long, if at all. Cuba will eventually
drill, if not with Spanish companies with Russians or with Chinese or others. The time to engage¶ is now
to make sure that drilling, if done, is done in the safest manner possible.
( ) US embargo doesn’t work in the context of oil – it’s functionally a unilateral
embargo.
Sotolongo ‘11
Kristie, Associate Editor, Downstream Newsletter Group, Hart Energy Publishing – ¶ Internally quoting Kirby Jones, founder of the Washingtonbased U.S.-Cuba Trade Association – http://www.epmag.com/Production/Cuban-Oil-Rush-Beckons-US-Embargo-Reform_86074
“If it really is 20 billion, then it’s a game changer,” Jonathon Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha, told
Time magazine in 2008. “It provides a lot more justification for changing elements of the embargo, just as we did when we allowed agricultural
and medical sales to Cuba” more than a decade ago.¶ Cuba
has indeed been successful at attracting foreign trade
despite the U.S. embargo , which most of the world renounced two years after the oil find was
reported . In 2006, 182 of 186 members of the United Nations voted on a resolution calling for the U.S. to
end its trade sanctions. It’s therefore no surprise that countries as diverse as China , Norway , India ,
Canada , Spain and Brazil are content drilling for oil in Cuban waters.
( ) Drilling inevitable – US embargo won’t stop it.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
In 2011, drilling will take place in Cuba at sites that lie approximately 50¶ miles from the Florida coast.
Action is needed to address the numerous¶ policy questions that we have identified right away.¶ As Steven Clemons of the New America
Foundation told us:¶ “It’s
time for U.S. foreign policy in Latin America to enter the 21st¶ Century. We have to dispense with the illusion that
believing that¶ U.S. sanctions
are going to¶ stop Cuba from developing its energy resources,¶ with or without U.S. help.¶ They won’t. It’s time
economic strangulation is going to happen and cause Cuba to surrender its socialist system, and stop
to¶ view Cuba’s oil assets as a¶ positive development, because oil will mean a more stable Cuba and¶ enable the U.S. to participate and better
protect Florida and the rest¶ of the Gulf Coast from the consequences of a spill.”¶ 82¶ The
administration and Congress should
move, promptly, to change U.S.¶ policy so that we can realize the advantages of Cuba’s energy
exploration¶ program and protect the United States against possible environmental damage¶ should a spill
occur.
( ) Embargo increases risk of spills
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The U.S. embargo against Cuba, a remnant of the Cold War, is an obstacle ¶ to realizing and protecting our interests in the
region. Not only does it prohibit¶ U.S. firms from joining Cuba in efforts to extract its offshore resources ,
thus¶ giving the competitive advantage to other foreign firms, but it also denies¶ Cuba access to U.S. equipment for drilling
and environmental protection—an¶ especially troubling outcome in the wake of the disastrous BP spill .
The ¶ embargo compels Cuba’s foreign partners to go through contortions—such¶ as ordering a state of the art drilling rig built in China and
sailing it roughly¶ 10,000 miles to Cuban waters—to avoid violating the content limitations¶ imposed by U.S. law.¶ Most important, due to the
failed policy of isolating Cuba, the
United¶ States cannot engage in meaningful environmental cooperation with
Cuba¶ while it develops its own energy resources. Our government cannot even¶ address the threat of
potential spills in advance from the frequent hurricane¶ activity in the Gulf or from technological failures, either of which
could put¶ precious and environmentally sensitive U.S. coastal assets—our waters, our¶ fisheries, our beaches—at great
peril.¶ The risks begin the moment the first drill bit pierces the seabed , and¶ increase from there . Yet,
our policy leaves the Obama administration with¶ limited options:¶ •¶ It could do nothing.¶ •¶ It could try to stop Cuba from developing its oil
and natural gas, an alterna¶ -¶ tive most likely to fail in an energy-hungry world, or¶ •¶ It could agree to dialogue and cooperation with Cuba to
ensure that drilling¶ in the Gulf protects our mutual interests.¶ Since the 1990s, Cuba has demonstrated a serious commitment to protecting¶
the environment, building an array of environmental policies, some based¶ on U.S. and Spanish law. But it has no experience responding to
major¶ marine-based spills and, like our country, Cuba has to balance economic¶ and environmental interests. In this contest, the
environmental side will¶ not always prevail.¶ Against
this backdrop, cooperation and engagement between Cuba and¶
the United States is the right approach, and there is already precedent for it.
( ) Drilling inevitable even with US embargo.
Sotolongo ‘11
Kristie, Associate Editor, Downstream Newsletter Group, Hart Energy Publishing – ¶ Internally quoting Kirby Jones, founder of the Washingtonbased U.S.-Cuba Trade Association – http://www.epmag.com/Production/Cuban-Oil-Rush-Beckons-US-Embargo-Reform_86074
“Cuba’s
oil will be explored ; there’s no question about that – it’s whether the U.S. will share it or
maintain the embargo and let it go to China , India Norway .”¶ Cuba’s oil rush began in earnest when
Spanish oil firm Repsol YPF S.A. – in partnership with Cuba’s state-owned Cubapetroleo (Cupet) – identified five prospects it
classified as “high-quality” in the deep water of the Florida Straits, 20 miles northeast of Havana, in July 2004.¶ Seven months later, a report by
the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed it: the North Cuba Basin held a substantial quantity of yet-to-be discovered oil – 4.6 billion to 9.3 billion
barrels of crude and 9.8 trillion to 21.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.¶ In October 2008, Cupet said the country may have more than 20 billion
barrels of oil in its offshore fields - more than double the previous estimate. That’s at least as big as Oman’s and perhaps comparable to those
of Brazil, some experts suggest.¶ And
the Caribbean island wasted no time in dividing the 112,000 square-kilometer
into 59 exploration blocks and welcoming foreign oil conglomerates with offers of
production-sharing agreements.¶ Ironically, with the U.S. embargo in place, Cuba’s drilling partners will be
working closer to Florida beaches than any American company ever could.
(43,243 square-mile) area
A-to “Sanctions won’t block US response”
( ) Squo clean-up policy is reactive. This incentivizes hazardous drilling in Cuba.
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
But here’s something that completely blows my mind.
The administration, again, according to the Bloomberg article, has granted
some U.S. companies the license to respond to an oil spill were it to occur in Cuban waters. The
government won’t say how many companies have that license or who they are, but there’s at least two of them: Wild Well Control and Helix
Energy Solutions Group. Helix plans to stage a subsea containment cap on the U.S. coast so it can quickly respond to any Cuban blowout.¶ Of
course it’s smart and safe for the U.S. government to put defensive measures in place in the event of a spill, but the
message to the
industry is clear: we refuse to give superior U.S. operators the license to drill for oil in Cuba, but we
want to make sure you’re ready to clean up any problems.¶ And the message to Cuba: we’re not
going to let you use our engineers , just our janitors . Knowing that a top-notch American clean-up
crew is on standby in case of a blowout is not a big incentive for Cuba to keep its own regulators on
top of things.
( ) licenses can’t solve – Aff is necessary.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Existing policy is inadequate and responses would come too late.¶ Administration officials have said that
they would provide piecemeal responses¶ to a spill under existing licensing authority. As the¶ Houston Chronicle¶
reported,¶ for example, “In July, the Obama administration signaled its intent to grant¶ licenses to specific companies providing services related
to ‘oil spill prevention¶ and containment support.’”¶ 65¶ In a written response to a question submitted by a reporter to the State¶ Department,
Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said,¶ “U.S. oil spill mitigation service companies can be licensed through the¶ Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to provide¶ oil spill prevention and containment support to companies operating in¶
Cuba. We will continue to pursue these and other initiatives within our¶ authority in order to minimize risk to U.S. waters and shores.”¶ 66¶
Later, the¶ New York Times¶ quoted Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State¶ Department spokesman, saying licenses allowing U.S. firms to respond
to¶ an oil spill would be granted on an “application-by-application basis,” but¶ said that he would not comment on the criteria.¶ 67¶ But, as an
industry insider told CDA, “Do
not let this statement fool you...¶ we need legislation and or an executive order
allowing all petroleum services and¶ equipment companies to do business in Cuba. How are we are
going to know at¶ the time of an accident in Cuban waters what piece of equipment is going to be¶
needed from what company? In case of an accident, we do not have the luxury to¶ apply for a license
for a specific product and or service from a specific company.
( ) Cuba can’t solve spills – they lack the equipment.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Despite Cuba’s best efforts, experts are also alarmed by its lack of equip¶ -¶ ment to respond to a spill.
As the International Herald Tribune and the¶ New¶ York Times¶ reported last year, “The nascent oil industry in Cuba is far less¶
prepared to handle a major spill than even the American industry was at the¶ time of the BP spill.
Cuba has neither the submarine robots needed to fix¶ deep water rig equipment nor the platforms available to
begin drilling relief¶ wells on short notice.”¶ 56
( ) Limited licenses not sufficient to solve.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
During the BP crisis, the U.S. shared information with Cuba about the¶ spill. The administration publicly
declared its willingness to provide limited¶ licenses for U.S. firms to respond to a catastrophe that
threatened Cuba. It also¶ provided visas for Cuban scientists and environmental officials to attend an¶ important
environmental conference in Florida. For its part, Cuba permitted¶ a vessel from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to look ¶
for damage in Cuban waters. But
these modest measures, however welcome,¶ are not sufficient , especially in light
of Cuba’s imminent plans to drill.
( ) Licenses are insufficient to solve
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
While licenses allowing otherwise prohibited U.S. participation in such¶ activities can be granted by OFAC to
address exigent circumstances on a¶ discretionary basis under the U.S. sanctions regulations, the embargo has forced
Cuba to seek access to¶ drilling equipment and support by convoluted means.¶ 49¶ U.S. policy also
subjects¶ the adjacent waters of the¶ Gulf of Mexico and the¶ Florida Straits to entirely¶ different regulatory schemes,¶ leaving
Florida with significantly less than adequate protection. Finally, the¶ policy limits the ability of the U.S. to plan for disasters
like the BP spill or to¶ cooperate with Cuba in anticipation of them.
( ) Case-by-case special exceptions won’t solve
Hatcher ‘10
Monica Hatcher, Energy Reporter for the Houston Chronicle, “Cuba Drilling Poses Spill Issue: Group Says Trade¶ Embargo Could Hinder a
Response by the U.S.”, Houston Chronicle; Sept. 6, 2010 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research
Institute of Florida International University – www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Group-warns-Cuba-trade-embargo-could-hurt-a-spill1695883.php
In July, the Obama administration signaled its intent to
grant licenses to specific companies providing services
related to "oil spill prevention and containment support," but the new concession also requires
companies to obtain separate export licenses, which some say could slow the process of mobilizing
quickly after a spill.¶ "The issue is when the company that holds the specific equipment or a part needed
ASAP to international oil companies operating in Cuba — the bureaucratic process could take weeks,"
said Jorge Piñon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research Institute of Florida International University and a former executive at Amoco
and BP. "Why not grant a general license - period?"
( ) In practice, case-by-case exemptions are too slow.
Hatcher ‘10
Monica Hatcher, Energy Reporter for the Houston Chronicle, “Cuba Drilling Poses Spill Issue: Group Says Trade¶ Embargo Could Hinder a
Response by the U.S.”, Houston Chronicle; Sept. 6, 2010 – internally quoting Jorge Piñon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban Research
Institute of Florida International University – www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Group-warns-Cuba-trade-embargo-could-hurt-a-spill1695883.php
I can't see these companies getting excited over half a dozen wells that are going to be drilled off the coast of Cuba when there are thousands
of wells off the coast of Louisiana and Mississippi. Why all of a sudden are they worried about this?" asked Jaime Suchlicki, director of the
Institute for Cuban and Cuban American Studies at the University of Miami.¶ He said the government already can issue licenses
at its discretion in the event of an emergency and that the industry is pushing to ease the embargo by playing on public fears after the BP Gulf
spill.¶ One
such licensee is Clean Caribbean & Americas, a nonprofit oil spill response corporation in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. A
company spokesman said it took months for the firm to get licenses to provide boom, pumps and skimmers to
Spain's
Repsol
and Brazil's Petrobras
in the event of an accident involving their Cuban operations.
A-to Cuba Solves Spill
( ) Cuba can’t solve on its own – no experience
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
According to the CITMA¶ staff, Cuba
has plans for¶ addressing spills, including¶ training plans that are peri¶ -¶ odically tested and
revised.¶ The government has assessed the risk to Cuba from hydrocarbon spills . In¶ the Cuban civil defense
culture, there is already a system of surveillance,¶ putting up barriers, and using bio-controllers to degrade the oil. Civil defense¶ works in Cuba
in the event of hurricanes and natural disasters. In fact, the¶ U.S. sends people from Galveston, New Orleans, and elsewhere on the Gulf¶ Coast
to learn from them.¶ 41¶ However,
Cuba has no significant experience with major marine-based spills.
( ) Strong Cuban laws mean nothing – they lack the resources to check oil spills
White ‘10
(Jonathan P. White; J.D. 2010, University of Colorado Law School. Mr. White thanks Daniel Whittle, Cuba Program Director, Environmental
Defense Fund; Dr. Orlando Rey Santos, Lawyer and Director of the Environmental Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology, and the
Environment (CITMA), Havana, Cuba; and Richard Charter, Senior Policy Advisor, Defenders of Wildlife, for their guidance and input in
preparation of this note. Summer, 2010 – Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy – 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y
557 – lexis)
Ultimately, the
most significant obstacle to sustainable development in Cuba remains the paucity of financial
resources to effect serious [*586] enforcement. n188 Cuba may have an educated populace and an interest in stewarding
its ecological resources, but whether the country has the financial means, or will, to enforce its lofty
environmental agenda remains to be seen. n189 Again, to fault Cuba entirely misses the deep financial impact of the U.S.
embargo. Whittle, Lindeman, and Tripp explain that "Cuba ... needs capital, and lots of it" to push forward with environmentally-friendly
technologies. n190 Beyond the festering nickel plants, perhaps most emblematic of the divide between the actual state of things and Cuba's
professed pro-environment political and legal agenda is that the capital city's main estuary, Havana Bay, is among the most putrid bodies of
water in the Caribbean. n191 The United Nations Environment Programme specifically cited Havana Bay's severe pollution problems in its 2004
Global International Waters Report for the Caribbean Islands. n192 The U.N. report noted that the bay suffers from industrial pollution, sewage
discharge, and run-off from urban development, and the report affirmed that laws addressing the bay's pollution "lack cohesion." n193 If
Cuba's abdication of oversight over the health of the capital's marine backyard illustrates its future
attitude towards remote offshore oil drilling operations, the consequences for the Florida Straits
could be "absolutely scary," to recall the comments of Juan Leon of the Florida Keys Wild Bird Center regarding the prospect of oil
drilling off Cuba. n194 Alternatively, Havana Bay and the Moa nickel mines represent environmental problems that have lingered for years; the
government's action in fettering the development of an international airport with conservation benchmarks suggests that regulation of new
development, as opposed to existing industry, may be more aggressive.
A-to “Current Drilling = Safe”
( ) Current drilling can’t be safe – embargo still blocks
Almeida ‘12
Rob Almeida is Partner/CMO at gCaptain. He graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1999 with a B.S in Naval Architecture and spent 6.5
years on active duty as a Surface Warfare Officer. He worked for a year as a Roughneck/Rig Manager trainee on board the drillship Discoverer
Americas. May 18th – http://gcaptain.com/drilling-cuba-embargo-badly/
But what
if a catastrophic blowout occurs?¶ This was the subject of last week’s panel discussion at the Carnegie Center for
International Policy in Washington, DC.¶ “There is no standing agreement with Cuba on what to do in case of a blowout,”
says Wayne Smith, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Cuba Project.¶ Nobody is predicting a catastrophe,
the panel reiterated, and reports indicate that Cuban drillers on board the Scarabeo 9 are being exceedingly cautious, but there’s no substitute
for being prepared in case disaster strikes.¶ Prior to commencing drilling operations,
Repsol contracted Helix Energy Solutions Group
to provide immediate well intervention and other subsea services in case of well issues.¶ It’s a great start, and Helix certainly
proved their capabilities during the 2010 Macondo well blowout and oil spill, however Cuba is under a full economic and diplomatic
embargo with massive implications.¶ This means:¶ 1) The Scarabeo 9’s blowout preventer, the most crucial piece
of well control equipment on board the rig was made by a US company. The trade embargo prohibits
OEM spare parts or repair items to be sold to Repsol. Also, technical expertise from the OEM cannot be
provided.¶ 2) The “capping stacks” which have been created by Helix ESG, BP, the MWCC and others, are not
authorized for use in Cuban waters. This means, if an uncontrolled blowout does occur, these essential piece of
equipment will not be available until authorization is given and a delivery method determined.¶ This is a significant issue
considering the BP “capping stack” weighs somewhere around a half million pounds. Reports indicate there are no cranes in Cuba capable of
lifting such a piece of gear that massive on to a ship.¶ 3) The deepwater
drilling experts in the US are not authorized to
provide assistance to Cuba in case of a disaster.¶ 4) All the training programs that have been developed post-Macondo are
not available for Cuban nationals. In fact, any training that will result in a professional license or certification is off limits to Cubans. ¶ 5) Tyvek
suits, the essential work-wear for HAZMAT cleanup, are not authorized to be brought into Cuba due to supposed military applications.¶ In
addition…¶ The Scarabeo 9 was classed by DNV on 19 August 2011 in Singapore, and she is due for her 1-year “checkup” on 19 August 2012,
with a 3 month window on either side of that date. As expected, DNV has told us that there will be no US-based employees involved.
A-to “Spill would be contained”
( ) Accident mirrors BP spill – embargo will block solvency.
Goodhue ‘10
David Goodhue, Editor at The Reporter, Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area, “Cuba Leases to Bring Deepwater Drilling Within 50 Miles of Key West”,
WorkBoat.com (Sept. 9, 2010), http://www.workboat.com/¶ newsdetail.aspx?id=4294998861
By next summer, a
huge semi-submersible oil rig is expected to be stationed about 40 to 50 miles from Key West for
deepwater drilling to explore for oil in the Straits of Florida.¶ The rig is part of a vast international business operation. The vessel was made
in China, it's owned by the Italian oil company Eni SpA, and it will be operated by Repsol, Spain's oil and natural gas firm, which is also leasing
the area known as the Jaguey from Cuba to look for oil.¶ The Scarabeo 9 rig, with a crew of about 220 people, will
be drilling about
Macondo Prospect well --
6,500 feet below the surface, more than a thousand feet deeper than the
more commonly known as the DeepWater Horizon, for the drilling rig stationed in the Gulf of Mexico before it exploded
and sank in April. Over the spring and summer, the Macondo well became the site of the largest oil spill in U.S.
history.¶ Great Britain, home of the company in charge of the Macondo well, British Petroleum, enjoys good diplomatic
relations with the United States. Cuba, in contrast, has had a 50-year trade embargo imposed by the United States.¶ In
the DeepWater Horizon disaster, bureaucratic red tape is at least partially to blame for the delay in
cleaning up the nearly 5 million barrels of crude oil that gushed from the well before it was capped in July.¶ The U.S. trade embargo
against Cuba would prevent U.S. companies, in most cases, from helping with cleanup efforts in the event of
an accident on the Scarabeo 9 rig. Even if exceptions were granted, there would at least be significant delays
in aide coming from the United States, according to Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a
Texas-based trade group. He said help would have to come from countries farther away.¶ U.S. parts banned¶ The trade embargo also prevents
Cuba from using technologies made in the United States, used here and in other countries, that are designed to stop or minimize blowouts like
the DeepWater Horizon disaster, Hunt said.¶ "If
there was a blowout in the Jagüey, there would be significant delays
in getting a rig shipped in here from Asia or Europe, under the current embargo situation," Hunt said. "One
impact of the embargo is it prevents companies from buying publicly available parts and supplies that are critical to the operation of equipment
like blowout preventers."¶ The Scarabeo 9 rig has some parts made in the United States, but because they make up less than 10 percent, the rig
can circumvent at least three pieces of federal legislation dealing with the embargo, said Jorge Pinon, a visiting research fellow at the Cuban
Research Institute at Florida International University.
A-to Sadowski
Sadowski is wrong — he underestimates the danger.
Lanier ‘13
C. Adam Lanier, J.D. Candidate at the University of North Carolina School of Law, holds a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 2013 (“In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial
Regulation (38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571), Winter, Lexis-Nexis
n102. But see Richard Sadowski, Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and Prevention within the Framework of the United States' Embargo,
Sustainable Dev. L. & Pol'y, Fall 2011, at 37 (arguing that the U.S. embargo against Cuba remains necessary). Sadowski argues that "fears of a
Cuban oil spill can be assuaged through less drastic measures such as an oil spill emergency response agreement with Cuba, similar to the one
that the United States has enacted with Mexico." Id. Sadowski
advocates maintaining restrictions on Cuba's access to
U.S. resources and technology - dismissing the environmental concerns as "overblown." Id. at 38. This
position, however, ignores the reality of the danger posed by deepwater drilling in the Straits of Florida,
the impediments to a U.S.-led spill response created by the embargo, and the actual ineffectiveness
of the current U.S. policy toward Cuba. See discussion infra Parts III.A-B.
Effective Oil Technology key
( ) Embargo jacks crucial equipment – Cuban drilling can’t be safe
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The U.S. embargo impinges on Cuba’s ability to provide maximal¶ environmental protection and is counterproductive to U.S. interests.¶ The embargo prevents Cuba from having adequate access to the range of ¶ tools
needed to drill safely or respond to emergencies should one develop.¶ The embargo restricts Cuba’s
access to knowledge and associations that would help it plan for or react to a spill. The embargo
prevents meaningful¶ participation by U.S. private sector firms in planning for reaction, containment, or
remediation efforts.¶ While licenses allowing otherwise prohibited U.S. participation in such¶ activities can be granted by OFAC to
address exigent circumstances on a¶ discretionary basis under the U.S. sanctions regulations, the embargo has forced Cuba to
seek access to¶ drilling equipment and support by convoluted means.¶ 49¶ U.S. policy also subjects¶ the
adjacent waters of the¶ Gulf of Mexico and the¶ Florida Straits to entirely¶ different regulatory schemes,¶ leaving Florida with
significantly less than adequate protection . Finally, the¶ policy limits the ability of the U.S. to plan for disasters like the BP
spill or to¶ cooperate with Cuba in anticipation of them.
( ) Oil spill would be bad and would spread. Only effective equipment solves.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The environmental risks posed by drilling in the Gulf of Mexico¶ are immediate.¶ An environmental problem could arise
as soon as the first drill bit penetrates¶ the sea bed and the risks increase from there.¶ As Lee Hunt of the International Association of Drilling
Contractors¶ (IADC) told us, “If they encounter an undetected pocket of natural gas, you¶ can end up with a rig on fire, and a limited oil spill.
Once the drilling takes¶ place at 5,000, 6,000, or 7,000 feet, and you’re finding a substantial quantity of¶ hydrocarbons, if
you cannot
control the pressure, then an oil spill of greater¶ proportions becomes a possibility. It can be managed
[ if the proper tools and¶ equipment are available ].”¶ 35¶ Some of the drilling of exploratory wells over
2011–2012 will take place¶ in waters deeper than BP’s Macondo well and within 50 miles of Florida’s¶ beaches.¶ 36¶ This
raises alarms among some in the scientific community.¶ As the¶ New York Times¶ reported, “Ocean scientists warn that a well blowout¶
similar to the BP disaster could send oil spewing onto Cuban beaches and¶ then the Florida Keys in as little as
three days. If the oil reached the Gulf¶ Stream, a powerful ocean current that passes through the region, oil
could¶ flow up the coast to Miami and beyond.”
Gulf of Mexico Important for Biodiversity
( ) Gulf of Mexico is a biodiversity hotspot
Brenner ‘8
Jorge Brenner, 3-14-2008, "Guarding the Gulf of Mexico's valuable resources," SciDev, www.scidev.net/en/opinions/guarding-the-gulf-ofmexico-s-valuable-resources.html
Rich in biodiversity and habitats¶ The
Gulf of Mexico is rich in biodiversity and unique habitats, and hosts the only
known nesting beach of Kemp's Ridley, the world's most endangered sea turtle.¶ The Gulf's circulation
pattern gives it biological and socioeconomic importance: water from the Caribbean enters from the south
through the Yucatan Channel between Cuba and Mexico and, after warming in the basin, leaves through
the northern Florida Strait between the United States and Cuba to form the Gulf Stream in the North
Atlantic that helps to regulate the climate of western Europe.
( ) Florida is a bio-d hotspot – spills kill it
Nerurkar and Sullivan ‘11
Neelesh Nerurkar, Specialist in Energy Policy, and Mark P. Sullivan, Specialist in Latin American Affairs, Congressional Research Service, 2011,
“Cuba’s Offshore Oil Development: Background and U.S. Policy Considerations,” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41522.pdf
The Florida Keys and adjacent areas comprise diverse and interrelated marine systems. The Florida
reef is the most extensive living coral reef in North American waters, stretching for 325 miles. Reefs, sea grass
beds and mangroves in the region provide habitats for many marine animals, including a number of
threatened and endangered species. These coral reefs and related coastal ecosystems are valuable because they
provide protection from erosion and flooding, especially from severe storms such as hurricanes. ¶ Depending on timing, size,
and location, an oil spill can cause significant harm to individual organisms and entire populations in
marine and coastal habitats.41 Spills can cause impacts over a range of time scales, from days to years, or even
decades for certain spills. Acute exposure to an oil spill can kill organisms or have non-lethal but debilitating affects on
organism development, feeding, reproduction, or disease immunity. Ecosystems in which they exist can also be harmed.42 Certain
habitats in the area—such as coral reefs, mangrove swamps, and salt marshes—are especially vulnerable.43 Long-term, chronic
exposure, as occurs from continuous oil releases such as leaking pipelines, offshore production discharges, and non-point sources (e.g.,
urban runoff) can see impacts spread from sea life to the survival and reproductive success of marine birds and
mammals.44
Species impacts – backlines
( ) Loss of hotspots causes extinction to all life.
Mittermeier ‘11
(et al, Dr. Russell Alan Mittermeier is a primatologist, herpetologist and biological anthropologist. He holds Ph.D. from Harvard in Biological
Anthropology and as conducted fieldwork for over 30 years on three continents and in more than 20 countries in mainly tropical locations and
he is considered an expert on biological diversity. Mittermeier has formally discovered several monkey species. From Chapter One of the book
Biodiversity Hotspots – F.E. Zachos and J.C. Habel (eds.), DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_1, # Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011 –
available at: http://www.academia.edu/1536096/Global_biodiversity_conservation_the_critical_role_of_hotspots)
Global changes, from habitat loss and invasive species to anthropogenic¶ climate change, have initiated the sixth great
mass extinction event
in Earth’s¶ history. As
species become threatened and vanish, so too do the broader
ecosystems¶ and myriad benefits to human well-being that depend upon biodiversity . Bringing¶ an end
to global biodiversity loss requires that limited available resources be guided¶ to those regions that need it most.
The biodiversity hotspots do this based on the¶ conservation planning principles of irreplaceability and
vulnerability. Here, we¶ review the development of the hotspots over the past two decades and present an¶ analysis of their biodiversity,
updated to the current set of 35 regions. We then¶ discuss past and future efforts needed to conserve them, sustaining their
fundamental¶ role both as the home of a substantial fraction of global biodiversity and as the¶ ultimate source
of many ecosystem services upon which humanity depends.
Econ Backlines
Econ not resilient
( ) Resiliency which won’t be true the next collapse
Isidore ‘11
(Chris, writer at CNNMoney, “Recession 2.0 would hurt worse,” 2011,
http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/10/news/economy/double_dip_recession_economy/index.htm)
The risk of double dip recession is rising. And while economists disagree on just how likely the U.S. economy is to fall into another downturn,
they generally agree on one thing --
a new recession would be worse than the last and very difficult to pull out of.
"Going back into recession now would be scary, because we don't have the resources or the will to
respond, and our initial starting point is such a point of weakness," said Mark Zandi, chief economist at
Moody's Analytics. "It won't feel like a new recession. It would likely feel like a depression." Zandi said the
recent sell-off in stocks have caused him to raise the odds of a new recession to 33% from 25% only 10 days ago. Other economists
surveyed by CNNMoney are also raising their recession risk estimates. The survey found an average chance of a new recession to
be about 25%, up from a 15% chance only three months ago. Of the 21 economists who responded to the survey, six have joined Zandi in
increasing their estimates in just the last few days. The main reason: the huge slide in stocks. Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit
rating is another concern. "The correction in equity markets raises the risk of recession due to the negative hit to wealth and confidence," said
Sal Guatieri, senior economist for BMO Capital Markets. Even with a 430-point rebound in the Dow Jones industrial average Tuesday following
the Federal Reserve meeting, major U.S. stock indexes have lost more than 11% of their value over the last 12 trading days. Recovery at risk A
plunge in stocks doesn't necessarily mean a new recession. The economy avoided a recession after the stock market crash of 1987. "Stock price
declines are often misleading indicators of future recessions," said David Berson, chief economist of BMI Group. But with the economy already
so fragile, the shock of another stock market drop and resulting loss of wealth could be the tipping point. "It really does matter where the
economy is when it gets hit by these shocks," said Zandi. "If we all pull back on spending, that's a prescription for a long, painful recession," he
said. Most economists say they aren't worried that S&P's downgrade makes recession more likely, although a few said any bad news at this
point increases the risk. "The downgrade has a psychological impact in terms of hurting consumer confidence," said Lawrence Yun, chief
economist with the National Association of Realtors. On shakier ground Another
recession could be even worse than the
last one for a few reasons. For starters, the economy is more vulnerable than it was in 2007 when the Great
Recession began. In fact, the economy would enter the new recession much weaker than the start of any
other downturn since the end of World War II. Unemployment currently stands at 9.1%. In November 2007, the month before
the start of the Great Recession, it was just 4.7%. And the large number of Americans who have stopped looking for
work in the last few years has left the percentage of the population with a job at a 28-year low. Various parts of the
economy also have yet to recover from the last recession and would be at serious risk of lasting damage in a new downturn. Home values
continue to lose ground and
are projected to continue their fall. While manufacturing has had a nice rebound in the last two
production is still 18% below pre-recession levels. There are nearly 900 banks on the FDIC's
list of troubled institutions, the highest number since 1993. Only 76 banks were at risk as the Great Recession took hold. But what
has economists particularly worried is that the tools generally used to try to jumpstart an economy
teetering on the edge of recession aren't available this time around. "The reason we didn't go into a
depression three years ago is the policy response by Congress and the Fed," said Dan Seiver, a finance
professor at San Diego State University. "We won't see that this time." Three times between 2008 and 2010,
years, industrial
Congress approved massive spending or temporary tax cuts to try to stimulate the economy. But fresh from the bruising debt ceiling battle and
credit rating downgrade, and with elections looming, the federal government has shown little inclination to move in that direction. So
new recession would likely have virtually no policy effort to counteract it.
this
U.S key to the global economy
( ) U.S key to the global economy
Caploe ‘9
(David Caploe is CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia., “Focus still on America to
lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times, lexis)
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by
United States President Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become
accustomed to the US being a voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide,' he said. 'If there is
going to be renewed growth, it just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it
ignores the fact that the
global economy has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US or they sell to countries that sell to the US.
This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also
enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At
the same time, this
deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the world also explains how the collapse of a
housing, logarithmically exponentialised by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr Obama
doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades.
If the US does not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal
with the current crisis are critical not just domestically, but also to the entire world. Consequently, it is a matter of global
relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime'
concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model' from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive
losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates
Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the main reason why they are
continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant to
acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If the
US can't or won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for
three reasons. First, China's
economic health is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world.
Indeed, the reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has
structured its own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of
the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second, the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic
demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its ability to act as the global consumer
of last resort. China, however, is a poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the world's second largest
economy. There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is
doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on
a massive scale. Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world
economy - is monetary: What are the implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely
complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said
that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge
problems, both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the
yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to handle the manifold currency problems
that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the
US will remain the engine of global economic recovery
for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis began in the US - and it is
going to have to be solved there too.
( ) Best data
Neu ‘11
(C. Richard Neu, PhD Economics – Harvard, senior economist – RAND – “Linkages in World Financial Markets,”
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/occasional_papers/2011/RAND_OP317.pdf)
Assessing the full consequences of the global financial crisis that began in the summer of 2007 will require years. It is
possible now,
however, to examine how short-term (i.e., day-to-day) linkages in different financial markets have changed since
the onset of the crisis. In particular, it might be interesting to ask whether there has been any diminution
in the traditional role of U.S. financial markets in leading movements in other financial markets.¶ We cannot
observe directly what events triggered short-term movements in U.S. or other financial markets. We can, however, observe when market
movements appear to have originated—that is, which markets tend to lead subsequent movements in other markets. In this short paper, we
examine daily movements in three major equity indexes—the U.S. S&P 500, the Japanese Nikkei 225, and the British FTSE 100. We
examine how daily changes in one market are correlated with the immediately subsequent changes in
the other two. We also examine the size of movements in each market—the “betas”—subsequent to a given change in the other markets
before and after the onset of the crisis.¶ We use two alternative dates for the onset of the crisis: August 1, 2007, when the first signs of trouble
with subprime mortgages began to emerge, and September 1, 2008, before the failure, forced sale, or government takeovers of high-profile
financial institutions in the United States and elsewhere.¶ Because UK markets are still open when U.S markets open, we restrict our data to
morning trading in the UK, “unpolluted” by news emerging in the couple of hours immediately before the markets open in New York.¶
Generally, we
find that the three national equity indices examined became more highly correlated after the
onset of the crisis. This result is robust with respect to the choice of starting date for the crisis and is consistent with the
findings of other studies of other financial crises. The returns on individual financial instruments and
broader market indices tend to become more correlated during times of crisis.¶ More novel is our finding that
the size of one market’s movements subsequent to movements in other markets—the beta of one market with
respect to another—also increased. The links between movements in the U.S. market and subsequent movements in
other markets do not strengthen as much as do links originating in the Japanese and the UK markets, but the links from U.S. markets
to other markets start at a much higher precrisis level (an
indication of the leading role that U.S. markets seem to
play in global financial affairs). In our analysis, U.S. influence on the other markets is the strongest influence
both before and after the onset of the crisis
period immediately following the onset of the crisis.
and does not appear to have diminished in absolute terms in the
Yes War – Diversionary Theory accurate
( ) Economic decline causes war – studies prove
Royal ‘10
(Jedediah, Director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010, Economic Integration, Economic Signaling and
the Problem of Economic Crises, in Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal and Political Perspectives, ed. Goldsmith and Brauer, p. 213215)
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political
science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defence behaviour of
interdependent stales. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow.
First, on the systemic level. Pollins (20081 advances Modclski and Thompson's (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody
transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises
could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin. 19SJ) that leads to uncertainty about power
balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fcaron. 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain
redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflict as a rising power may seek
to challenge a declining power (Werner. 1999). Separately. Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with
parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and
connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remain unknown. Second, on a dyadic level. Copeland's (1996. 2000)
theory of trade expectations suggests that 'future expectation of trade' is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and
security behaviour of states. He argues that interdependent states arc likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an
optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if
the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult
to replace items such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined
to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either
on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states.4 Third, others have considered the link between
economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Mom berg and Hess (2002) find a strong
correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic
downturn. They write. The linkage, between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and
mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict lends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favour.
Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external
conflicts self-reinforce each other (Hlomhen? & Hess. 2(102. p. X9> Economic decline has also been linked with an
increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blombcrg. Hess. & Wee ra pan a, 2004). which has the capacity to spill
across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting
government. "Diversionary theory" suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic
decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a
'rally around the flag' effect. Wang (1996), DcRoucn (1995), and Blombcrg. Hess, and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force arc at least indirecti) correlated. Gelpi (1997). Miller (1999). and Kisangani and Pickering (2009)
suggest that Ihe tendency towards diversionary tactics arc greater for democratic states than autocratic states, due to the fact that democratic
leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence
showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States, and thus weak Presidential popularity, are statistically linked lo an
increase in the use of force. In summary, rcccni economic scholarship
positively correlates economic integration with
an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic
decline with external conflict al systemic, dyadic and national levels.' This implied connection between integration, crises and armed
conflict has not featured prominently in the economic-security debate and deserves more attention.
Yes, Econ decline = war
( ) Economic decline risks global nuclear conflicts – studies confirm.
Ferguson ‘9
(Niall, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, “The Axis of Upheaval,” Foreign Policy, February 16th,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/02/16/the_axis_of_upheaval)
The Bush years have of course revealed the perils of drawing facile parallels between the challenges of the present day and the great catastrophes of the 20th
century. Nevertheless, there is reason to fear that the
biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression could have
comparable consequences for the international system. For more than a decade, I pondered the question of why the
20th century was characterized by so much brutal upheaval. I pored over primary and secondary literature. I wrote more than 800 pages
on the subject. And ultimately I concluded, in The War of the World, that three factors made the location and timing of lethal organized violence
more or less predictable in the last century. The first factor was ethnic disintegration: Violence was worst in areas of mounting ethnic tension. The second factor
was economic volatility: The greater the magnitude of economic shocks, the more likely conflict was. And the third
factor was empires in decline: When structures of imperial rule crumbled, battles for political power were most bloody. In at least one of the world’s regions—the
greater Middle East—two of these three factors have been present for some time: Ethnic conflict has been rife there for decades, and following the difficulties and
disappointments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States already seems likely to begin winding down its quasi-imperial presence in the region. It likely still will.
Now the third variable, economic volatility, has returned with a vengeance. U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke’s “Great Moderation”—the supposed
decline of economic volatility that he hailed in a 2004 lecture—has been obliterated by a financial chain reaction, beginning in the U.S. subprime mortgage market,
spreading through the banking system, reaching into the “shadow” system of credit based on securitization, and now triggering collapses in asset prices and
economic activity around the world. After nearly a decade of unprecedented growth, the global economy will almost certainly sputter along in 2009, though
probably not as much as it did in the early 1930s, because governments worldwide are frantically trying to repress this new depression. But no matter how low
interest rates go or how high deficits rise, there will be a substantial increase in unemployment in most economies this year and a painful decline in incomes. Such
economic pain nearly always has geopolitical consequences. Indeed, we can already see the first symptoms of the coming
upheaval. In the essays that follow, Jeffrey Gettleman describes Somalia’s endless anarchy, Arkady Ostrovsky analyzes Russia’s new
brand of aggression, and Sam Quinones explores Mexico’s drug-war-fueled misery. These, however, are just three case studies out
of a possible nine or more. In Gaza, Israel has engaged in a bloody effort to weaken Hamas. But whatever was achieved militarily
must be set against the damage Israel did to its international image by killing innocent civilians that Hamas fighters use as human shields. Perhaps more importantly,
social and economic conditions in Gaza, which were already bad enough, are now abysmal. This situation is hardly likely to strengthen the forces of moderation
among Palestinians. Worst of all, events
in Gaza have fanned the flames of Islamist radicalism throughout the region—not least
in Egypt. From Cairo to Riyadh, governments will now think twice before committing themselves to any new Middle East peace initiative. Iran, meanwhile,
continues to support both Hamas and its Shiite counterpart in Lebanon, Hezbollah, and to pursue an alleged nuclear weapons program that
Israelis legitimately see as a threat to their very existence. No one can say for sure what will happen next within Tehran’s complex political system, but it is likely
that the
radical faction around President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be strengthened by the Israeli onslaught
in Gaza. Economically, however, Iran is in a hole that will only deepen as oil prices fall further. Strategically, the country risks disaster by proceeding with its
nuclear program, because even a purely Israeli air offensive would be hugely disruptive. All this risk ought to point in the direction of conciliation, even
accommodation, with the United States. But with presidential elections in June, Ahmadinejad
has little incentive to be moderate. On
Iran’s eastern border, in Afghanistan, upheaval remains the disorder of the day. Fresh from the success of the “surge” in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, the new
head of U.S. Central Command, is now grappling with the much more difficult problem of pacifying Afghanistan. The task is
made especially difficult
by the anarchy that prevails in neighboring Pakistan. India, meanwhile, accuses some in Pakistan of having had a hand in the
Mumbai terrorist attacks of last November, spurring yet another South Asian war scare. Remember: The sabers they are rattling have
nuclear tips. The democratic governments in Kabul and Islamabad are two of the weakest anywhere. Among the biggest risks the world faces this year is that
one or both will break down amid escalating violence. Once again, the economic crisis is playing a crucial role. Pakistan’s small but politically powerful middle class
has been slammed by the collapse of the country’s stock market. Meanwhile, a rising proportion of the country’s huge population of young men are staring
unemployment in the face. It is not a recipe for political stability. This club is anything but exclusive. Candidate members include Indonesia,
Thailand,
and Turkey, where there are already signs that the economic crisis is exacerbating domestic political conflicts.
And let us not forget the plague of piracy in Somalia, the renewed civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the continuing violence in Sudan’s Darfur
region, and the heart of darkness that is Zimbabwe under President Robert Mugabe. The axis of upheaval has many members. And it’s a fairly safe bet that the
roster will grow even longer this year. The problem is that, as in the 1930s, most countries are looking inward, grappling with the domestic consequences of the
economic crisis and paying little attention to the wider world crisis. This is true even of the United States, which is now so preoccupied with its own economic
problems that countering global upheaval looks like an expensive luxury. With the U.S. rate of GDP growth set to contract between 2 and 3 percentage points this
year, and with the official unemployment rate likely to approach 10 percent, all attention in Washington will remain focused on a nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
Caution has been thrown to the wind by both the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. The projected deficit for 2009 is already soaring above the trillion-dollar mark,
more than 8 percent of GDP. Few commentators are asking what all this means for U.S. foreign policy. The answer is obvious: The resources available for policing
the world are certain to be reduced for the foreseeable future. That will be especially true if foreign investors start demanding higher yields on the bonds they buy
from the United States or simply begin dumping dollars in exchange for other currencies. Economic
volatility, plus ethnic disintegration,
plus an empire in decline: That combination is about the most lethal in geopolitics. We now have all
three. The age of upheaval starts now
( ) Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.
Merlini ‘11
[Cesare Merlini, nonresident senior fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe and chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian
Institute for International Affairs (IAI) in Rome. He served as IAI president from 1979 to 2001. Until 2009, he also occupied the position of
executive vice chairman of the Council for the United States and Italy, which he co-founded in 1983. His areas of expertise include transatlantic
relations, European integration and nuclear non-proliferation, with particular focus on nuclear science and technology. A Post-Secular World?
DOI: 10.1080/00396338.2011.571015 Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions Published in: journal Survival, Volume 53, Issue 2
April 2011 , pages 117 - 130 Publication Frequency: 6 issues per year Download PDF Download PDF (~357 KB) View Related Articles To cite
this Article: Merlini, Cesare 'A Post-Secular World?', Survival, 53:2, 117 – 130]
Two neatly opposed scenarios
for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of
or more of the acute tensions
apparent today evolves into an open and traditional conflict between states, perhaps even involving the use
oversimplification. The first scenario entails the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One
of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the global economic and financial
system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great Depression, with
consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of
national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying,
perhaps entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism, including the UN and the European Union. ¶ Many of the more likely conflicts, such as between Israel and Iran
or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of
creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or
converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism.
**US-Cuban Relations Advantage
US-Cuba Section
A-to Gradualism
( ) ***Embargo fails and will not end in the squo.
Chapman ‘13
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune. Reason Magazine – April 15th – “It's Time to End the U.S. Embargo of
Cuba” – ¶ http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/15/its-time-to-end-the-us-embargo-of-cuba
The communist regime in Cuba was just about to come tumbling down, ending decades of dictatorship and opening the way for freedom and
democracy. But before that could happen, Jay-Z and Beyonce took a trip to the island. So Cuba's despotism can expect to survive another 50
years.¶ Well, maybe I exaggerate. It's just possible that the musical couple's presence or absence was utterly irrelevant to Cuba's future.
Americans have somewhat less control over the island than we like to imagine.¶ The U.S. embargo of
Cuba has been in effect since 1962, with no end in sight . Fidel Castro's government has somehow
managed to outlast the Soviet Union, Montgomery Ward, rotary-dial telephones and 10 American presidents .¶ The
boycott adheres to the stubborn logic of governmental action. It was created to solve a problem: the existence of
a communist government 90 miles off our shores. It failed to solve that problem. But its failure is taken as proof of its
everlasting necessity.¶ If there is any lesson to be drawn from this dismal experience, though, it's that the economic
quarantine has been either 1) grossly ineffectual or 2) positively helpful to the regime.¶ The first would not be
surprising, if only because economic sanctions almost never work. Iraq under Saddam Hussein? Nope. Iran? Still waiting. North Korea? Don't
make me laugh.¶ What
makes this embargo even less promising is that we have so little help in trying to apply the squeeze.
Nearly 200 countries allow trade with Cuba . Tourists from Canada and Europe flock there in search of beaches, nightlife and
Havana cigars, bringing hard currency with them. So even if starving the country into submission could work, Cuba
hasn't starved and won't anytime soon.¶ Nor is it implausible to suspect that the boycott has been the
best thing that ever happened to the Castro brothers, providing them a scapegoat for the nation's many
economic ills. The implacable hostility of the Yankee imperialists also serves to align Cuban nationalism with Cuban
communism . Even Cubans who don't like Castro may not relish being told what to do by the
superpower next door.
( ) Gradualism doesn’t solve – Cuban leadership won’t end and embargo won’t fall
Sanchez ‘12
Alex is a Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs where he focuses on geopolitics and security issues. His analyses have appeared
in numerous refereed journals like Cuban Affairs. “Cuba ends 2012 looking for oil and with Castro brothers still in power” – VOXXI – December
26th – ¶ http://www.voxxi.com/cuba-2012-oil-castro-brothers-power/#ixzz2V59ocrSu
The structure of the Cuban government is unlikely to change in 2013 as the Castro brothers appear to
remain firmly in power and continue to search for oil.¶ Fidel Castro, the former president of Cuba who ruled the island for five
decades, has been nominated to run for a position in the Cuban Parliament in the upcoming February 2013 elections. The move is largely a
symbolic one, since Castro, despite no longer being head of state, still enjoys a great deal of influence within the Cuban government and is
regularly consulted on state affairs. In other words, Castro hardly needs an official government position to be influential in Cuba’s decisionmaking process.¶ Regardless of this, given Castro’s frail state, it is unclear if the man will be able to actually take his seat in the National
Assembly when elected (it is hard to imagine that he would not be). If he is not well enough to assume his parliamentary seat, there may be an
agreement allowing him to choose someone to replace him.¶ Meanwhile, Fidel’s brother, Raul Castro, continues as president of the island
nation, although that apparently has not prevented him from also being nominated as a municipal representative in the upcoming elections.
The structure of the Cuban government is unlikely to change in 2013 as the Castro brothers, in spite of their advanced age (both are in their
80s), appear to remain firmly in power. It will be interesting to see what developments the New Year brings to the island. Of particular interest
are economic and international affairs, particularly those regarding the U.S.¶ The nomination of the Castro brothers to the Cuban Parliament,
considering that they have jointly ruled the island since the 1950s, is slightly bizarre to say the least. Nevertheless, it is clear that the island,
under Raul Castro’s rule, has evolved from Fidel’s Cuba. This is particularly true when it comes to the economy. Under Raul, the island’s
Communist government has taken some steps to modernize its socialist economy, particularly by allowing the appearance of privately owned
businesses. The head of state has declared that “today, nearly 40 thousand Cubans have licenses to have autonomous work or small
businesses.Ӧ An interesting development that may further affect the Cuban economy is the plan announced by the Russian oil company
Zarubezhneft to utilize a Norwegian oil platform as means of continuing to search for deep-water oil deposits in the Cuban sea. For years there
have been diverse reports about exactly how much oil Cuba possesses, but so far the numerous explorations have yet to find wells that yield
commercially viable quantities of the liquid gold. If Cuba were ever able to actually find and produce massive quantities of oil (it claims to have
up to 20 billion barrels while other analyses give a more modest number) this would be a huge turning point for the Cuban economy. But until
this happens, the island will remain at the mercy of Venezuela, which, under Hugo Chavez’s rule, has essentially given thousands of barrels of
oil to the island as a gift.¶ This brings up another issue as President Chavez’ deteriorating health, exemplified by his recent trip to Cuba for a
new operation to deal with his cancer, should have put the Cuban government on alert as a non-Chavez government may not be so willing to
essentially give away oil. Fortunately for Havana, Chavez’s health seems to be improving, which means that Cuba will continue to enjoy more
essentially-free Venezuelan oil during the immediate future, at least until it discovers some of its own.¶ Relations with the US have yet to
improve¶ Even
though U.S. President Barack Obama has not fully lifted the embargo on the island during his first term in
office, many Cubans and Americans hope that he will do so during his second term. Such a development would go a long
way in improving U.S. diplomacy, and not only with Cuba but also with the rest of Latin America. During the Summit of the Americas held in
Cartagena, Colombia, several heads of states protested the fact that Cuba had not been invited to take part in the high-level meeting because
Washington opposed their participation. Despite
the positive benefits that the United States would garner from such
a move, it is still unlikely that President Obama will fully lift the embargo due to congressional political
barriers.
Delay Bad
( ) Delay crushes Cuban oil sector. US involvement key.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 121-22
The energy-security environment for the United States is at a critical juncture . The productive capacity of
two of the United States’ largest oil suppliers, Mexico and Venezuela, has declined, and the supporting energy infrastructure
in both countries is in need of significant revitalization. The vagaries of the politics in the region, the variability of weather patterns, and the
overall dismal state of the global economy create a setting of instability and uncertainty that requires close attention to the national security
interests of the United States vis-à-vis energy. Cuba’s
energy infrastructure, too, is in need of significant repair and
modernization (its many energy projects notwithstanding); the price tag is estimated to be in the billions of dollars. Delaying work on
many of these projects increases costs, because deterioration of the infrastructure continues and eventually pushes up the cost
of renovation and replacement. It also stands to reason that the lion’s share of the financial burden of
upgrading Cuba’s energy infrastructure will fall to the United States, directly and indirectly. Changes in U.S.
policy to allow investment and assistance in Cuba’s energy sector are a precondition for international
investments , yet this change implies a large American footprint. Trade and investment in the energy
sector in Cuba have been severely constrained by the conditions of the embargo placed on the Cuban regime. These constraints
entities to make significant
also affect foreign firms seeking to do business in Cuba because of the threat of penalties if any of these firms use technology containing more
than 10 percent of proscribed U.S. technologies needed for oil and gas exploration and production. American private investment and U.S.
government assistance will constitute a large portion of the needed investment capital to undertake this colossal effort. The
longer that
work is delayed , the higher the cost to all the investors, which will then potentially cut into the returns
from such undertakings.
( ) Cuba Window closing. US will lose out to other competitors – accesses our China
impact
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 123-4
There is a significant commercial opening for the United States in Cuba, should it choose to pursue it.
Cuban energy development will proceed with or without U.S. involvement, but U.S. involvement has
the potential of speeding up the pace of development and could create an opening for a broader
discussion of important geostrategic concerns for the both countries. To that end we make the following policy
recommendations aimed at facilitating the promotion of strategic commercial relations between the United
States and Cuba to develop energy resources.
Plan Solves U.S.-Cuba Relations
( ) The plan establishes a long-term framework for normalizing relations.
Lanier ‘13
C. Adam Lanier, J.D. Candidate at the University of North Carolina School of Law, holds a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 2013 (“In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial
Regulation (38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571), Winter, Lexis-Nexis
IV. Recommendations¶ The development of Cuba's offshore oil resources has sparked the interest of a number of academics, foreign policy
think tanks, and environmental activist groups. n148 This section of the note will explore several of the more effective options while keeping an
eye toward practicality. n149 Due
to the disagreement over the direction U.S. policy should take, as evidenced by
the various legislative proposals introduced over the past several years, it is unlikely that U.S. policy toward Cuba will
change overnight. n150 Nevertheless, making small changes that are in the best interest of both Cuba
and the United States, such as loosening restrictions on the ability of private companies to assist Cuba's
offshore drilling efforts, can help provide a long-term framework for the normalization of relations
on mutually acceptable terms. [*595]
( ) Plan solves in the long-term by promoting Cuban energy independence, economic
development, and reform.
Lanier ‘13
C. Adam Lanier, J.D. Candidate at the University of North Carolina School of Law, holds a B.A. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, 2013 (“In Deepwater: Cuba, Offshore Drilling, and Political Brinkmanship,” North Carolina Journal of International Law & Commercial
Regulation (38 N.C.J. Int'l L. & Com. Reg. 571), Winter, Lexis-Nexis
2. Long Term Policy Changes¶ Aside from the short-term benefits discussed in the previous section, getting
the private sector
involved with Cuba's energy development could provide several long-term benefits to both the United
States and Cuba. This initial engagement should be [*597] designed with a long-term view of encouraging U.S. investment in Cuba's energy
sector. The U.S. government should use this opportunity as a way to help Cuba diversify its energy resources, which will push Cuba toward
obtaining energy independence. n159 In doing so, the United States would help develop a new market in Cuba for U.S. products designed to
increase energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. n160¶ Many commentators have also suggested that one
of the best ways
to encourage economic reform in Cuba is to engage the country as a new market, which naturally
promotes economic development and subsequent reforms . n161 By encouraging economic growth and
development in Cuba during the current period of economic transformation on the island, n162 the
United States will directly benefit the Cuban people by empowering them and allowing them to select
their own form of government, rather than imposing American democracy. n163¶ Allowing the private
sector to engage Cuba will ultimately increase the people-to-people contacts in Cuba, n164 revealing
more of the interests shared by the two communities. This increased contact should ultimately lead
Washington to engage in full diplomatic communication . The United States should begin this process
sooner rather than later, so that it can help foster these goals of energy independence, economic development, and
reform .
Latin American Relations Section
Plan = key to Latin American Rels
( ) Now key time for US-Latin American ties. Collapse coming – plan’s vital.
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
Relations between the United States and Latin America are at a curious juncture. In the past decade, most
Latin American countries have made enormous progress in managing their economies and reducing inequality and, especially, poverty, within a
democratic framework. These critical changes have brought greater autonomy, expanded global links, and growing self-confidence. It is now
the United States that is in a sour mood, struggling with a still weak economic recovery, diminished international stature and influence, and
fractured politics at home. These recent
changes have profoundly affected Inter-American relations. While
relations are today cordial and largely free of the antagonisms of the past, they also seem without vigor and purpose.
Effective cooperation in the Americas, whether to deal with urgent problems or to take advantage of new opportunities, has
been disappointing. The Inter-American Dialogue’s report is a call to all nations of the hemisphere to take stock, to rebuild cooperation,
and to reshape relations in a new direction. All governments in the hemisphere should be more attentive to emerging opportunities for fruitful
collaboration on global and regional issues ranging across economic integration, energy security, protection of democracy, and climate change.
The United States must regain its credibility in the region by dealing seriously with an unfinished agenda
of problems—including immigration, drugs, and Cuba—that stands in the way of a real partnership. To do so, it needs the
help of Latin America and the Caribbean. If the current state of affairs continues, the strain between the United
States and Latin America could worsen, adversely affecting the interests and well-being of all in the
hemisphere. There is a great deal at stake. This report offers a realistic assessment of the relationship within a changing
regional and global context and sets out an agenda of old and new business that need urgent attention. A collaborative effort should begin
immediately at the sixth Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia.
( ) Cuba-issues spillover to broader US-Latin American ties. Hurts climate and prolif
coop.
Shifter ‘12
(Michael is an Adjunct Professor of Latin American Studies at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. He is a member of the Council
on Foreign Relations and writes for the Council's journal Foreign Affairs. He serves as the President of Inter-American Dialogue. “Remaking the
Relationship: The United States and Latin America,” April, IAD Policy Report,
http://www.thedialogue.org/PublicationFiles/IAD2012PolicyReportFINAL.pdf)
Similarly, Washington’s more than half-century embargo
on Cuba, as well as other elements of United States’ Cuba policy, is strongly
opposed by all other countries in the hemisphere . Indeed, the US position on these troublesome issues—immigration, drug policy,
and Cuba—has set Washington against the consensus view of the hemisphere’s other 34 governments. These issues stand as obstacles to
further cooperation in the Americas. The United States and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean
need to resolve them in order to build more productive partnerships. There are compelling reasons for
the United States and Latin America to pursue more robust ties. Every country in the Americas would benefit from
strengthened and expanded economic relations, with improved access to each other’s markets, investment capital, and energy resources. Even with its current
economic problems, the United States’ $16-trillion economy is a vital market and source of capital (including remittances) and technology for Latin America, and it
could contribute more to the region’s economic performance. For its part, Latin America’s rising economies will inevitably become more and more crucial to the
United States’ economic future. The
United States and many nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would also gain a
great deal by more cooperation on such global matters as climate change, nuclear non-proliferation, and
democracy and human rights. With a rapidly expanding US Hispanic population of more than 50 million, the cultural and demographic integration of the
United States and Latin America is proceeding at an accelerating pace, setting a firmer basis for hemispheric partnership. Despite the multiple opportunities and
potential benefits, relations
between the United States and Latin America remain disappointing. If new
opportunities are not seized, relations will likely continue to drift apart. The longer the current
situation persists, the harder it will be to reverse course and rebuild vigorous cooperation.
Hemispheric affairs require urgent attention—both from the United States and from Latin America and the Caribbean.
( ) Plan’s signal is key to boosting US-Latin American ties.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The embargo imposes real constraints on the government’s ability to¶ protect our nation against the
potentially grave consequences of an environmental disaster linked to drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico by
Cuba¶ and its foreign partners.¶ As one expert told us, “Cuba is a country with whom we have virtually¶ no
diplomatic or commercial relations. If a well gets out of control, we have¶ no genuinely effective recourse if we’re waiting for a
transition in Cuba’s¶ government to occur.”¶ If Cuba brings commercially viable amounts of oil out of the Gulf, the¶ embargo becomes even
more irrelevant than it is today. How should the U.S.¶ respond, especially now that drilling in 2011 is a¶ fait accompli¶ and will take¶ place
approximately 50 miles from our shores?¶ The U.S. should respond by changing the policy, in the ways we describe¶ here, so
the national interest of the United States can be realized and protected. The Center for Democracy in the Americas¶ 94¶ advocates the reform
of¶ U.S. policy toward Cuba. Our goal is to replace the existing policy of¶ economic sanctions and diplomatic isolation
with a policy that will permit¶ travel to Cuba for all Americans, promote diplomatic engagement, and look¶ forward to normalizing relations
between the United States and Cuba.¶ Changing
U.S. policy would have a beneficial and lasting impact
on both¶ U.S.
and Cuban citizens, and
send a powerful signal to Latin America that the¶ United States is ready to write a
new chapter in its relationship with the region.
( ) Increased US-Cuban Ties key to boost US influence in Latin America.
Benjamin-Alvadaro ‘6
Jonathan, PhD of Political Science at the University of Nebraska, “The Current Status and Future Prospects for Oil Exploration in Cuba: A
Special,” http://cri.fiu.edu/research/commissioned-reports/oil-cuba-alvarado.pdf
Given that there are no formal diplomatic of economic relations between the governments of the United
States and Cuba, the level of interest has grown significantly in the 3 years due primarily to three reasons in the following
interest areas: energy security interests; broader regional strategic; and purely economic interests. First, the energy security interests in the
potential of Cuban oil – although it really would not minimize the immediacy of an American energy crisis – is seen as possible if only partial
remedy to energy supply concerns. Second, as
Cuba, in part because of the increasing number of oil partnerships
furthers its diplomatic and economic ties to with countries like Venezuela, China, Brazil and members of the
European Union it may prove to provide Cuba for a sufficient buffer against U.S. opposition as it solidifies it
economic and diplomatic role in the region. This is important inasmuch as there is a de facto trend in the Americas that
clearly disavows and attempts to minimize the influence of the United States in the region, and with the growing
demands on the world economy by China, it stands to reason that Cuba may assume an increasing stature that
almost potentially lessens the presence of American influence in Cuban and hence regional affairs. Finally,
and as demonstrated by the presence of American oil interests in the February 2006 U.S.- Cuban Energy Summit in Mexico City, there may
be interest in cooperating in joint venture projects, and by extension assisting in the long-term
development in Cuba’s oil industry.
Now key time for US-Latin America Relations
( ) Now is key – Chavez death means there’s a window of opportunity to engage Cuba
Tisdall, ‘13
Simon Tisdall, writer for the Guardian, 3-5-2013, "Death of Hugo Chávez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America," Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dead-us-latin-america/print
Hugo Chávez's
departure furnishes Barack Obama with an opportunity to repair US ties with Venezuela,
but also with other Latin American states whose relations with Washington were adversely affected
by Chávez's politics of polarisation and the Bush administration's viscerally unintelligent reaction.¶ In
particular, the change of leadership in Caracas could unlock the deadlock over Cuba, if the White House can
summon the requisite political will.
( ) Now is key to US-Latin American relations – acting on Cuba is key
Tisdall, ‘13
Simon Tisdall, writer for the Guardian, 3-5-2013, "Death of Hugo Chávez brings chance of fresh start for US and Latin America," Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/05/hugo-chavez-dead-us-latin-america/print
Yet it
depends even more on Obama, whose first term, after a promising start, ended up perpetuating
Washington's historical neglect of Latin America. He now has a chance to do better.¶ The political climate
seems propitious. Economic and cultural ties are also strengthening dramatically. Trade between the US
and Latin America grew by 82% between 1998 and 2009. In 2011 alone, exports and imports rose by a massive 20% in
both directions.¶ "We do three times more business with Latin America than with China and twice as much business with Colombia [as] with
Russia," an Obama official told Julia Sweig of the US Council on Foreign Relations. Latinos now comprise 15% of the US population; the US is the
world's second largest Spanish-speaking country (after Mexico).¶ Despite this convergence, high-level US strategic thinking about the region has
continued to lag, Sweig argued.¶ "For the last two decades, US domestic politics have too often driven Washington's Latin America agenda –
whether on issues of trade, immigration, drugs, guns or that perennial political albatross, Cuba, long driven by the supposedly crucial 'Cuban
vote' in Florida," she said.¶ Obama
could change this dynamic if he tried and one way to do it would be to
unpick the Cuban problem , which continues to colour the way Latin Americans view Washington.¶
"Having won nearly half of the Cuban American vote in Florida in 2012, a gain of 15 percentage points
over 2008, Obama can move quickly on Cuba. If he were to do so, he would find a cautious but willing
partner in Raúl Castro, who needs rapprochement with Washington to advance his own reform agenda,"
Sweig said.
( ) Chavez’s death means now is key to boost Latin American relations
R.N.A. ‘13
Russian News Agency, interview with political analyst Adrian Salbuchi, 3-5-2013, “Latin America on brink of tough post-Chavez geopolitical
battle,” http://rt.com/op-edge/latin-america--post-chavez-geopolitical-battle-882/
Venezuela was the main country opposing US interventionism in Latin America, according to Adrian Salbuchi,
international consultant and author. He told RT that the US could now redouble efforts in its struggle for influence in
the region. RT: Hugo Chavez was a huge figure in South American politics - how will his death impact the continent?
Adrian Salbuchi: From a continental point of view of South America and the whole of Latin America, he was
a strong supporter of the sovereignty of the foreign policy of Latin America in general. And Venezuela gave a
very good example by putting a brake on US interventionism within the country and thereby the entire region and
maintaining very fluid relationships with countries that are against the American foreign policy in general
and that of its allies.
China Scenario
Solvency
( ) **Plan key to avoid China gaining Cuba as a sphere of influence
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” internally quoting Lisa Margonelli is the Director of the Energy Policy Initiative at the New
America Foundation – http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Oil in commercially viable amounts would change Cuba’s geo-¶ political equation.¶ As Jorge Piñon testified
before Congress, “If Cuba’s undiscovered reserves¶ are proven, it would take between three and five years for their development,¶ and
production volumes would have to reach a level of over 200,000 bar¶ -¶ rels per day to have the same economic benefit as that derived today
from¶ Venezuela’s oil subsidies.”¶ 33¶ Were this threshold met, Cuba would no longer be dependent on Venezuela to provide it with
subsidized shipments of oil. It would
be energy independent.¶ Lisa Margonelli takes note of the fears about
Venezuela and China¶ operating in the region and establishing spheres of influence near the U.S.¶ In
light of these fears, she says “We won’t be acting on our own interests if¶ we tighten the screws and
pursue a policy that drives out everyone except¶ Venezuela and China.”¶ 34
( ) US can out-compete Chinese firms for access to Cuban oil.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
The U.S. industry is barred from exploring for oil with Cuba by operation¶ of the embargo. Legislation
introduced in the House by Rep. Jeff Flake¶ (AZ-6),¶ 89¶ and sponsored in the Senate by Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK)¶ and Mary Landrieu (LA)
during the 111th Congress,¶ 90¶ would have ended¶ that prohibition.¶ The bills would permit U.S. companies to engage in
transactions and¶ export equipment without license for the exploration of offshore oil in Cuban¶ waters, and require the Secretary of the
Treasury to provide general licenses¶ for individuals involved in these activities. The Flake bill also would make it¶ possible for such oil to be
exported into the U.S. market.¶ It
is not too late for U.S. firms to make a difference. As Dr. Philip Brenner¶ advised us,
“ Cuba has not yet locked in contracts for all of its oil reserves .¶ Opportunities still exist for U.S. energy
companies, especially because some¶ of Cuba’s alleged benefactors—such as China—have squeezed out
terms less¶ beneficial to Cuba than U.S. firms might demand.”¶ 9
Plan hedges against energy insecurity
Plan hedges against energy insecurity.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 126
These recommendations establish the basis for developments that speak directly to the enhancement of two broader
geostrategic considerations for U.S. energy security: the diversification of regional energy resources and the
establishment of a Cuban energy entrepôt. The development of partnerships in refining, storage, and
engineering services will allow the regional partners to diversify their respective portfolios, in addition to dispersing resources across
the region to take advantage of location, and perhaps mitigate potential market disruptions owing to weather and other natural
disasters. A further long-term prospect for Cuba may be the development of energy related resources that are positioned strategically to serve
the region in terms of oil refining and storage, oil and gas production (exploration and infrastructure), and auxiliary services. These
developments would be a boon to Cuban, American, and regional economic development interests and are especially
relevant in the context of growing concerns over the energy infrastructure in the region, and in particular the oil and gas industries of Mexico
and Venezuela.
China war likely/Bad
( ) A war with china is likely in the short term. Causes massive death tolls.
Goldstein ‘13
[Avery Goldstein is the David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the Study of
Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania,
“First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations,” International Security, Vol. 37, no 4, Spring, 2013, pp 49-89]
Sino-American crises that could erupt in the near future, while China remains¶ militarily outclassed by
the United States, present distinctive dangers. The preceding¶ analysis offers some reassurance that the interaction of
conventional¶ and nuclear capabilities would limit the degree of instability. Because it is so¶ difficult to fully eliminate the adversary’s ability to
use military force to generate¶ a shared risk of catastrophe, the incentives that can make striking first so¶ tempting in a conventional world are
diminished. But because
instability in a¶ nuclear world could result in disaster, even a small chance that the
parties¶ would initiate the use of force is troubling. During a crisis, the desire to¶ achieve a favorable
outcome will provide incentives to manipulate risk and¶ may encourage the use of force if only to
signal resolve as each side seeks the¶ upper hand. This suggests that the most worrisome possibility is a
crisis in¶ which the United States and China fail to grasp each other’s view about the¶ importance of its
interests at stake. If one side believes that its stronger interests¶ ensure that it will be more resolute, it could be tempted to signal
resolve through the limited use of conventional force to manipulate risk. Because the¶ risk being manipulated is ultimately the genuine risk of
escalation to a nuclear¶ exchange, this should be sufªcient reason for scholars to provide policymakers¶ with a better understanding of the
current prospects for such dangerous instability¶ in U.S.-China crises.¶ Concerns raised by the possibility that China could one day grow strong¶
enough to become a true peer competitor facing the United States have received¶ much attention. Although clearly important, that is a
discussion about¶ the distant future. In the meantime, greater attention needs to be paid to the¶ immediate danger of instability in the kinds of
crises that could ensnare¶ the United States and China while China is still relatively weak. Ironically, perhaps,¶
whatever new
security challenges a much stronger China could one day¶ pose, the end of China’s currently profound
military weakness would at least¶ mitigate the key near-term problem identified here—the potential
for crisis instability¶ exacerbated by asymmetry in Sino-American power. But before any¶ such major
shift in power occurs, there is a real, if limited, possibility that a¶ mismanaged Sino-American crisis will
render all speculation about the long¶ term tragically moot.
( ) US-China conflict escalates to Nuclear catastrophe
Goldstein ‘13
[Avery Goldstein is the David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations, Director of the Center for the Study of
Contemporary China, and Associate Director of the Christopher H. Browne Center for International Politics at the University of Pennsylvania,
“First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S.-China Relations,” International Security, Vol. 37, no 4, Spring, 2013, pp 49-89]
In a crisis, the U.S. and Chinese interests at stake will be high, and either¶ side could decide that the
risk of escalation introduced by conventional, space,¶ or cyberattacks was worth running . Even though
no stake in a crisis would be¶ high enough for either the United States or China to choose an unrestrained ¶ nuclear exchange, some stakes
might be high enough for either one to choose¶ to initiate military actions that elevate the risk of
escalation to such a disastrous¶ outcome.88 As discussed above, both China and the United States have¶ important interests over
which they could find themselves locked in a warthreatening¶ crisis in the Western Paciªc. The recent pattern of pointed Chinese¶ and U.S.
statements about the handling of persistent disputes in the South¶ China Sea, for example, suggests that both sides attach a high and perhaps
increasing¶ value to their stakes in this region. Whether that value is high enough¶ to contribute to crisis instability is an empirical question that
cannot be answered¶ in advance. The
most worrisome source of instability, however, is¶ clear—the temptation to
use nonnuclear strikes as a way to gain bargaining¶ leverage, even if doing so generates an unknowable
risk of nuclear catastrophe¶ that both China and the United States will have incentives to manipulate.
( ) Recent cyber attacks indicate possibility of war is high
Feldman ‘13
[Noah Feldman, constitutional and international law professor at Harvard University, “The Coming Cool War With China,” Bloomberg,
6/02/2013, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-02/the-coming-cool-war-with-china.html]
Someone steals your most sensitive secrets. Then, planning a face-to-face meeting, he says he wants to develop “a new type” of relationship
with you. At what point, exactly, would you start thinking he was planning to drink your milkshake?¶ Ahead
of the first summit
meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and President Xi Jinping of China on June 7, the two
nations are on the brink of geopolitical conflict. As its officials acknowledge, China is a classic rising power,
poised to challenge U.S. dominance. In historical terms, the sole global superpower never gives up without a fight.¶ “China’s
peaceful rise” was a useful slogan, while it lasted, for China’s leaders. “America’s peaceful decline” will get no one elected, whether Democrat
or Republican. Geopolitics is almost always a zero-sum game. If China can copy or work around U.S. missile defenses, fighter jets and drones,
the U.S.’s global position will be eroded -- and the gains will go directly to China.¶ At the same time, trade between the two rivals remains
robust. Last week, Henan-based Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. agreed to buy the U.S. pork-processing giant Smithfield Foods Inc. (SFD)
for $4.7 billion. This could be the single-largest Chinese acquisition of a U.S. company, and it is reason for enthusiasm. Mutual ownership of
significant corporate assets across borders doesn’t miraculously guarantee peace, nor can it make conflict disappear overnight. But it gives both
sides the incentive to manage geopolitical conflict, and not let it overtake the tremendous mutual benefits created by trade.¶ Entwined
Economies¶ The
juxtaposition of rising tensions over cyber-attacks and the pork cooperation perfectly
captures the paradoxical state of Chinese-U.S. relations -- and explains why officials on both sides are
struggling to come up with a new conceptual framework to understand the change. Never before has a rising
power been so economically interdependent with the nation challenging it. The ties go beyond the U.S.’s 25 percent market share for Chinese
exports or China’s holdings of 8 percent of the outstanding U.S. national debt. They include about 200,000 Chinese studying in the U.S. and
perhaps 80,000 Americans living and working in China.¶ The
combination of geopolitical competition and economic
interdependence sets the terms for the struggle that won’t be a new Cold War so much as a Cool War.
If the Soviet Union and the U.S. avoided all-out conflict because of mutually assured nuclear destruction, the relations between China and the
U.S. today could be defined by the threat of mutually assured economic destruction. The economic costs of violent conflict would be
incalculably large.¶ As a practical matter, however, we
mustn’t assume that economic interdependence precludes
the possibility of old-fashioned violence. On the positive side, China is urging North Korea to re-engage with the six-party talks
and denuclearize the Korean Peninsula -- a sign that the government in Beijing realizes that its unruly ally could do significant damage to
regional stability. On the negative side, North Korea seems perfectly content to ignore its mentor’s directives. As we learned during the Cold
War, proxies don’t always behave the way their would-be masters want them to. It is far from clear that the Americans and the Soviets wanted
their allies in the Middle East to go to war in 1967, 1973 or 1981.
Resource Wars Section
Yes, Resource Wars are likely
( ) Most probable conflict
Cairns 4
John Cairns Jr, Distinguished Professor of Environmental Biology Emeritus, Department of Biology and Director Emeritus, University Center for
Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies @ Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University – “Eco-Ethics and Sustainability Ethics,”
Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics, http://ottokinne.de/esepbooks/EB2Pt2.pdf#page=66
The most probable cause of this curious position is humankind’s obsession with growth. On a finite planet with finite resources, continued
growth induces scarcity. Then, scarcity leads to resource wars, mass migration, political instability and, arguably most
importantly, competition for increasingly scarce resources (e.g. oil). Equitable and fair sharing of resources, including those needed to
maintain the planet’s ecological life-support system, will require both sharing and population control. Humankind is rapidly approaching
the time when it will be attempting to manage the entire planet for sustainability. Half the world’s human population is living marginally or
worse, and yet Renner (2003a) reports that military expenditures are on the rise. In 2001, a conservative estimate of world military
expenditures was US$839 billion, of which the United States spends 36% and those states considered hostile to the United States spend 3%
(Renner, 2003a). Even so, expenditures for the military are expected to continue rising (Stevenson and Bumiller, 2002; Dao, 2002). Even 25% of
these funds would provide a much needed programme to develop alternative energy sources, which would also diminish the perceived need
for resource wars. Renner and Sheehan (2003) state that approximately
25% of the 50 wars and armed conflicts of recent
years were triggered or exacerbated by resource exploitation. Hussein persisted as a political leader by using resource money (in
this case, oil) to maintain power by a variety of methods, including murder. The use of resource funds to maintain power is all too common (e.g.
Le Billon, 2001). Ending such misuse of power and the resultant conflicts has proven impossible because it is difficult to displace the power elite
(e.g. United Nations Security Council, 2002).
( ) Best studies prove
Heinberg ‘4
(Richard, journalist, teaches at the Core Faculty of New College of California, on the Board of Advisors of the Solar Living Institute and the Post
Carbon Institute “Power Down”, Published by New Society Publishers, pg. 55-58)
This is a persuasive line of reasoning on the face of it, but it ignores the realities of how markets really work. If
the global market were in fact able to prevent resource wars, the past half-century should have been a period of
near-perfect peace. But resource disputes have instead erupted repeatedly , and continue to do so. Just in the past
twenty years, resource disputes have erupted over oil in Nigeria, Algeria, Colombia, Yemen, Iraq/Kuwait, and
Sudan; over' timber and natural gas in Indonesia (Aceh); and over copper in Bougainville/Papua New Guinea -and
this is far from being an exhaustive list. In classical economic theory , all actors within a market system act
rationally in pursuit of their own interests, and no one buys or sells without an expectation of benefit. In the real
world , however, buyers and sellers enter the marketplace with unequal levels of power . Some economic players
have wealth and weapons, while others don't; as a result, some have figurative -if not literal -guns to their heads persuading them to act in
ways that are clearly not in their own interest. Lest we forget: the essence of the European colonial system was the maintenance of unequal
terms of trade through military duress. While nearly all of the old colonial governments were overthrown after World War II in favor of
indigenous regimes, much of the essential structure of colonialism remains in place. Indeed, some would argue that the new institutions of
global trade (the World Trade Organization, together with lending agencies like the World Bank) are just as effective as the old colonial
networks at transferring wealth from resource-rich poor nations to militarily powerful rich consuming nations, and that the failure of these
institutions to enable the fair distribution of resources will ultimately result in a greater likelihood of armed
conflict
within and between nations. The new post-colonial international system works to maintain and deepen inequalities of wealth
primarily through control (on the part of the wealthy, powerful nations) over the rules and terms of trade, and over the currencies of trade.
Will escalate
( ) Deterrence gets warped – energy conflicts rapidly escalate
Cabral ‘10
(Jim, Professor of International Relations and Political Science – Landmark College, “Book Review – Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet”, Z
Magazine, July, http://www.zcommunications.org/rising-powers-shrinking-planet-by-jim-cabral)
Not surprisingly, the accelerating
militarization of energy procurement increases the possibilities for armed
international conflict . With typical insight, Klare explains how nationalism provides momentum to this process: "The
risk of escalation is growing even more potent because major energy importers and exporters regularly
appeal to that most dangerous of emotions, nationalism, in making their claim over the management of energy
flows. Nationalistic appeals, once they have gripped a populace, almost invariably promote fierce emotion and
long-term
irrationality . Add to this the fact that the leaders of most countries involved in the great energy race have come to
view the struggle over hydrocarbon assets as a "zero-sum" contest—one in which a gain for one country almost
always represents a loss for others. A zero-sum mentality leads to a loss of flexibility in crisis situations , while the
lens of nationalism turns the pursuit of energy assets into a sacred obligation of senior government officials." The "competitive arms transfers"
that represent the militarization of energy procurement also have another disturbing upshot: strengthening and legitimizing repressive, corrupt
regimes. In the case of U.S. arms recipients, the list is long and growing. It includes long-time allies in the Persian Gulf region—Saudi Arabia
most notably—whose anachronistic social policies effectively reduce women to the status of second class citizens; corruptible African
governments in Nigeria, Chad, and Angola, where— along with off-shore drilling sites along the continent's west coast —U.S.-based oil
companies such as Exxon and Chevron currently operate; and more recent allies in the energy rich Caspian Sea region, including what Klare
refers to as the "autocratic regimes" of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. While the governments of the oil rich Persian Gulf have long
been wooed with deficit countries' military largess, the emergence of the Caspian Sea region's governments as coveted allies may come as a bit
of a surprise to some. Klare soberly sketches out a "three-way struggle for geopolitical advantage" in the Caspian Sea basin, as the
U.S.,
Russia (Caspian states having formerly been Soviet republics), and China funnel arms and other forms of military assistance into
the region in competition for influence there. Again stressing the dangers of an escalation of conflict, Klare notes that:
"This three-way struggle…is militarizing the Caspian basin , inundating the region with advanced
arms and an ever growing corps of military advisers, instructors, technicians, and combat-support personnel. [It will] heighten
traditional suspicions and rivalries that have long plagued the region. The Great Powers are not only
adding tinder to possible future fires, but also increasing the risk that they will be caught in any conflagration ."
( ) History proves resource wars escalate
Heinberg ‘4
(Richard, journalist, teaches at the Core Faculty of New College of California, on the Board of Advisors of the Solar Living Institute and the Post
Carbon Institute “Power Down”, Published by New Society Publishers, pg. 55-58)
How is the world most likely to respond to energy resource depletion in the decades ahead? One possible answer: with
increased competition for the remaining resources (especially oil and natural gas), leading, in the worst-case scenario, to the general
destruction of human civilization and most of the ecological life-support systems of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly
alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer not to contemplate it -except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The
notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded . This is generally true among
nonhuman animals, among which competition for diminishing resources typically leads to aggressive behavior. Animal combat seldom results in
fatalities; however, when resources become extremely scarce fatal encounters do occasionally occur, especially among carnivores. Fatal
competition for resources among humans is much more readily documented. Many scientists and philosophers have wondered why aggression
between members of the same non-human species over territory, food, dominance, and sexual rights rarely leads to death, while human
conflicts, epitomized by war, often do. The answer, apparently, has to do with social behavior and intelligence. Humans, using language,
cooperate to secure resources for their group -which is the unit of survival. We humans are also toolmakers, and many of our tools
are designed specifically to hurt or kill. In animal combat within a single species, non-life-threatening wounds usually (though not always)
discourage one of the fighters before death occurs; in human combat, however, weapons can quickly inflict fatal wounds: a fighter is often
killed before he can back down. In addition, human intelligence concerns itself with planning for the future. If a defeated
foe lives to retreat, he may return to fight another day; thus the human warrior may go out of his way to kill his enemy
in order to avoid having to confront him again later. In his authoritative study, Warless Societies and the Origin of War, anthropologist
Raymond C. Kelly notes that, in even the simplest human societies, 'wars are often fought over resources. 1 As an example, Kelly
summarizes ethnographer A. R. Radcliffe-Brown's 1930s description of two Aboriginal Australian tribes: "... when a party of collectors or
hunters of one tribe arrived at a shellfish bed, honey tree, or hunting ground to find a party of hunters or gatherers of the other tribe already in
place, a conflict ensued in which ... the larger group took possession of the contested resource by force of arms." In his book, Kelly documents
the evolution of organized combat from simple raids and revenge killings to state warfare involving thousands of fatalities. Motives for war
appear to remain fairly constant throughout social evolution, but the scale of the violence has steadily increased over the past several
millennia, in tandem with the size of the societies involved and with the levels of their technology. An article in the May/June 2003 issue of
Archaeology by Stephen LeBlanc of Harvard's Peabody Museum confirms that "human prehistory was dominated by wars usually over
critical resources such as hunting grounds, water, and good cropland. Too many people in one region meant all might starve, so each tribe
tried to drive others farther away . . .. [P]rehistoric wars often killed up to 25 percent of the males along with large numbers of noncombatant
females."2 The most deadly conflict on American soil, in terms of fatalities as a percentage of population, was probably King
Philip's War of 1675-1676, fought between Puritan colonists and the Wampanoag nation of Native Americans. The conflict resulted largely
from resource disputes: Europeans, in purchasing land from the Indians, assumed that all use rights were transferred; the Natives,
however, believed that they were merely permitting the colonists to live on the land, and still expected to retain resource rights (e.g., for
hunting and fishing) forever. As the Pilgrims built more fences, resources that the Natives required for survival became unavailable. The ensuing
war resulted in horrific casualties on both sides, and in the permanent devastation of the way of life of the native peoples of New England.
Since the 17th century, population densities in North America and elsewhere have increased dramatically, as has sophistication of weaponry.
Students of recent political and military history see competition for resources as a component in most of
the significant conflicts of the modern era, including both World Wars -in which rivalry over access to oil reserves played
no small part. While few modern wars have resulted in a percentage of casualties as high as that in King Philip's War (among the Wampanoags,
there were 150 deaths per 1,000 individuals, versus 20 per 1,000 among the US population in the American Civil War), deaths in absolute
numbers have been unprecedented (roughly 50,000,000 in the World War II -or about two percent of the global population -versus 3,800 in
King Philip's War). No conflict in the past century has exceeded World War II in scope. But if another general non-nuclear war were to occur,
casualty figures could well far surpass those of the most lethal 20th century wars. A nuclear war could conceivably result in the deaths of
billions.
Will cause US-Sino war
( ) Resource wars make US/China conflict inevitable
Gagan ‘10
(John, MASTER OF MILITARY ART AND SCIENCE Homeland Security; MAJ, U.S.ARMY B.S. Criminal Justice, East Carolina University “THE UNITED
STATES’ STRATEGIC INSECURITY-THE OIL NEXUS”, 11/06/10, http://www.dtic.mil.proxy.lib.umich.edu/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a531222.pdf)
To meet its demand for oil, China is engaged in an aggressive global hunt to secure its sources of energy.
In addition to receiving imports from the Middle East, China has oil agreements in place with, Iran, Sudan, Burma, Venezuela and most recently
Russia. Furthermore, China
is engaging energy producers that have traditionally, almost exclusively, supplied
oil to the U.S., specifically Canada. In 2005, China signed three agreements with Canada to gain access to Alberta’s oil sands and join a
pipeline project to transport oil to the Pacific coast for export to China (San Francisco Chronicle).China’s aggressive pursuit of oil has raised
energy security concerns in Asia. Smaller countries such as Singapore and Vietnam are worried that China’s
dominance in the
region could pose security issues for contested or disputed areas of oil discovery. Some analysts contend that the
U.S. and China are on a collision course over resource competition. As mentioned in chapter 1, the current resource competition
for oil can be likened to a West verses East effort to build coalitions and forge alliances in securing
access to oil supplies. This could create a friction point between the U.S. and China, especially since
China openly seeks trade relations with nations with whom the U.S. is at odds including Iran and Venezuela.
Another potential U.S.-China flashpoint is on the continent of Africa (Institute for the Analysis of Global Security). In 2004, approximately 29
percent of China’s oil imports were from Africa. Currently, China is vigorously pursuing energy initiatives in more than a dozen African countries
(Ghazvinian, 276).
Nuclear Terror Section
Impact Extensions, Risk high
( ) Even small acts of nuclear terrorism cause large death tolls.
Allison & Myers ‘4
Dr. Graham Allison – Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at
Harvard, as well as the Founding Dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Joanne Myers, Director of Merrill House Programs –
Carnegie Council Report – “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe” – November 16th –
https://www.carnegiecouncil.org/studio/multimedia/20041116/5049.html/_res/id=sa_File1/Nuclear_Terrorism.pdf
JOANNE MYERS: Good afternoon. I'm Joanne Myers, Director of Merrill House Programs, and on behalf of the Carnegie Council I'd like to
welcome our members and guests and thank you for joining us for the discussion with Dr. Graham Allison discussing nuclear terrorism. When
the Cold War ended, many believed that the dangers of an accelerating nuclear arms race would disappear. But this idea has proved short lived.
In fact, if anything, the
21st century seems to be even more dangerous and less predictable than the 20th century
ever was. Although there may be fewer nuclear weapons in the collective stockpile of America, Russia, Britain, France,
and China, the risk that someone, somewhere, might detonate a bomb in anger or with malice is arguably greater
than any time since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. The number of rogue states and terrorist groups seeking to
acquire nuclear weapons is increasing. Osama bin Laden has talked about acquiring nuclear weapons as a "religious duty," and
the confessions of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist, have shed light on a vast underground quietly spreading nuclear materials.
While everyone, including the two candidates of the recent presidential campaign, agrees in principle that the continuing spread of weapons of
mass destruction poses a chief threat to international security, in
practice there is little international accord on how to
deal with that threat. We can only hope that Professor Allison's book, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate
Preventable Catastrophe, widely acknowledged as the single best book addressing the single most
serious threat to American national security, will change this impasse. Our speaker is a leading expert
on nuclear weapons and national security, who in this writing presents an attainable blueprint for
eliminating the possibility of nuclear terrorist attacks. This volume is based on the knowledge he amassed over the past
three decades as one of our country's leading analysts of U.S. national security and defense policy. As Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy
and Planning in the first Clinton Administration, Dr. Allison received the Defense Department's highest civilian award for his work in reshaping
relations with Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan to reduce the former Soviet nuclear arsenal. His efforts resulted in the safe return of
more than 12,000 tactical nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics and the complete elimination of more than 4,000 strategic nuclear
warheads previously targeted at the United States and left in the Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and Belarus when the Soviet Union collapsed. As
Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs and the Douglas Dillon Professor of Government at Harvard, as well as the
Founding Dean of Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, his research and interest have always been focused on national security
issues. In addition to his recent publication, Nuclear Terrorism, I would like to call your attention to Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban
Missile Crisis, which since its initial publication in 1971 has been among the best-selling political science books of all time. At a time when the
gravest challenge to American lives and liberties is a threat of weapons of mass destruction, it is with great interest that we welcome Dr. Allison
to present his strategy for preventing an ultimate catastrophe. Please join me in giving a very warm welcome to Dr. Allison, who flew down
from Boston this afternoon to be with us. Thank you. GRAHAM ALLISON: Thank you very much, Joanne, for that very generous introduction.
Not all those things are true, but in any case they sounded very nice and I appreciate the generosity. It is now just six weeks since the first
presidential debate, though it's hard to believe. But if you remember, in that first debate, Jim Lehrer, the moderator, asked the two candidates,
"What
is the single most serious threat to the national security of the United States?" The two parties agreed
in answering nuclear terrorism. Here is what President Bush said, after Senator Kerry had gone first: "I agree with my opponent
that the biggest threat facing this country is weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist," and then he went on to talk about nuclear
weapons. This moment of agreement was so surprising to Lehrer that he went back at it again and said, "Wait a minute, excuse me. Do you two
agree about something?" And the answer was "Yes," which led a wag at the Philadelphia Inquirer to write the following: "The two most
disagreeable men in America, at least with each other, agreed on something terribly important when they met in their first debate. John Kerry
and President Bush both asserted that the single greatest danger facing the United States is nuclear terrorism. Their synchronized skating on
this issue excited even the unexcitable moderator, Jim Lehrer, so much that he even paused to confirm it." In the final month of the presidential
campaign which just concluded, Vice President Cheney picked up this theme as part of his stump speech. In various cities, including the small
city of Carroll, Ohio, to take an example, he proposed to the citizens gathered there that, as he said, "This is the ultimate threat. The biggest
threat we face now as a nation is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with nuclear weapons that could
threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans." And he went on to say, "For us to have a strategy that's capable of defeating that
threat you've got to get your mind around that concept." So that's the preamble to the discussion tonight. What I will try to do in about twentyfive minutes or so, so we have time for debate and discussion, is to help us get our mind around that concept—that is, the concept of a nuclear
bomb going off in an American city. That's the subject that I address in this book. I am going to organize my remarks under three headings: first,
a pair of stories from the introduction to the book; secondly, the argument of the book in a nutshell; and thirdly, just a final question that
actually picks up very closely Joanne's introduction. First, the two stories. One is under the label "Dragon Fire," and the other "Four Million."
One day to the month after the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, George Tenant, then the Director of CIA, walked into the Oval Office
and as part of the morning President's daily intelligence briefing informed President Bush that a CIA agent code-named Dragon Fire had
reported that al-Qaeda had acquired a small nuclear bomb from the former Soviet arsenal and currently had it in New York City. There was a
moment of catching breaths, after which there was a series of interrogatories, basically getting at the question "Could this be real?" "Did the
former Soviet arsenal include small nuclear weapons of the sort that Dragon Fire said was in New York City?"—Answer, "Yes." " Were all of
those weapons accounted for?"—Answer, "Uncertain." "Could al-Qaeda have acquired one of these small weapons?" —Answer, "Certainly."
"Could al-Qaeda have such a weapon in New York City in October of 2001, on that day, without CIA or anybody else in the U.S. government
knowing anything about it?"—Answer, "Yes." At the end of this series of questions, there was no basis in science or technology or logic for
dismissing Dragon Fire's report that there was a small nuclear bomb in New York City. That's the occasion when Vice President Cheney
evacuated Washington, and with him several hundred members of the U.S. government, who went to a secret alternative site where they
would constitute a government if a nuclear bomb happened to be in Washington rather than New York, and if it exploded and if the
consequence of that was to kill the current U.S. government. Vice President Cheney, as you remember, stayed in his cave for some period of
time thereafter. At the end of the week, NESS [Nuclear Explosive Safety Study] teams, the nuclear experts, were dispatched to New York City to
look for signs of radiation, to see if they could get any clues to confirm or deny this Dragon Fire report. They finally concluded that Dragon Fire's
report was probably not correct, but it could have been. The message relevant for us here is there was no basis for dismissing it as a real event
and it had to be taken as such. The second story I tell in the introduction is the story of "Four Million." What is four million? Four million is the
answer to the question "How many Americans does Osama bin Laden intend to kill?" This is kind of hard to believe, but I would say you should
read it and look at it carefully. About four months after the 9/11 attack, Osama bin Laden's press spokesman, a fellow named Abu Ghaith, put
up on the al-Qaeda web site al-Qaeda's objective to "kill four million Americans, including two million children." And he goes on to explain that
this is not picked out of thin air, but is the result of a gruesome calculus of what's required to "balance the scales of justice," as he sees it, for
the number of Muslims who have been killed by what he calls "the Jewish-Christian Crusaders," by which he means the Israelis and the
Americans. You can read this in my book, where I reproduce it. He goes through the various events: Shatila, Jenin, Somalia, sanctions against
Iraq—does a body count of how many Muslims he thinks were killed by this activity, and calculates it out, and it comes to four million. Now,
some people find it hard to believe that anybody would want to kill four million people, but I would remind ourselves—and I think this group is
old enough and knows enough history to recognize this—that there have been previous instances in which madmen made extraordinary claims
that were hard to believe. So I would say believe it. There's every reason to believe that this is a serious adversary, and that the adversary is
quite serious about balancing the scales of justice, as he sees it, and that that could lead to a desire to kill not just 3,000 Americans. Would
Osama bin Laden, as we saw him on the tape, have been happier if 300,000 people had died on 9/11? I believe for sure that he would have
been, if you listen to him in his own words. And four million is not too small a number. For those of you who watched the "60 Minutes" show
last Sunday, a fellow named Michael Scheuer, a CIA bin Laden watcher who has just recently resigned, told a little bit more about this. He said
that not only has Osama bin Laden stated this objective, but he has succeeded in getting a Saudi cleric to give him a fatwah which said that the
use of nuclear weapons to accomplish this objective would be legitimate in terms of Shari'ah law as interpreted by this particular Muslim cleric.
If you ask yourself: if you're trying to kill four million Americans, how many 9/11 attacks would that take? You can do the math; it is about
1,400. So you're not going to get there by hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings. You need to go upscale, and upscale might be
something like the small nuclear bomb that Dragon Fire warned about as potentially being in New York City. That bomb would have
made a 10-kiloton explosion. How big would the bomb be? Well, it would be about this big [indicating], and would fit very well in the back of a
SUV. If parked in Times Square on a workday, it could instantly kill 500,000 people, as everything from ground zero out
to a third of a mile would disappear instantly, consumed in a ball of fire that reaches 540,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and out to a mile buildings
would look rather like the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City. So that would take you, if it was in Times Square, to the UN building on one
side and the tunnel on the other.
( ) The likelihood of a nuclear terror attack is extremely high
Bunn ‘7
Matthew Bunn, senior research director @ Harvard, Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401154.html
terrorist use of a nuclear bomb is a very real danger.
During the 2004 presidential campaign,
President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) agreed that nuclear terrorism was
the single greatest threat to
Yes. Unfortunately,
U.S. national security . Published estimates of the chance that terrorists will detonate a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city over the
next ten years range from 1 percent to 50 percent. In a 2005 poll of international security experts taken by Senator Richard Lugar (R-
the median estimate of the chance of a nuclear attack in the next ten years was 29 percent -and a strong majority believed that it was more likely that terrorists would launch a nuclear
attack than that a state would. Given the horrifying consequences of such an attack, even a 1
percent chance would be enough to call for rapid action to reduce the risk. What materials could terrorists
Ind.),
use to make a nuclear bomb? To make a nuclear bomb requires either highly enriched uranium (HEU) or plutonium. Neither of these
materials occurs in nature, and producing either of them requires expensive facilities using complex technologies, almost certainly
beyond the capability of terrorist groups. Hence, if all of the world's stockpiles of nuclear weapons, HEU and plutonium can be effectively
protected and kept out of terrorist hands, nuclear terrorism can be prevented: no nuclear material, no bomb, no nuclear terrorism. How
Highly enriched uranium and
plutonium are hard to make, but may not be so hard to steal. These raw materials of nuclear terrorism are
housed in hundreds of facilities in dozens of countries -- some with excellent security, and some secured by
nothing more than an underpaid guard and a chain link fence. There are no binding global standards setting out
how well nuclear weapons and the materials needed to make them should be secured. Theft of the essential ingredients
of nuclear weapons is not just a hypothetical worry, it is an ongoing reality . The International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) has documented 15 cases of theft of HEU or plutonium confirmed by the countries
concerned (and there are additional well-documented cases that the countries involved have not yet been willing to confirm).
In many of these cases, the thieves and smugglers were attempting to sell the material to anyone who would
buy it -- and terrorist groups have been seeking to buy it. How much expertise is needed to make a nuclear
difficult would it be for terrorists to get the materials needed to make a nuclear bomb?
bomb? Would a large operation be required? Unfortunately, government studies have concluded that once a terrorist organization had
the needed nuclear material, a
handful of skilled individuals might be able to make a crude nuclear bomb
using commercially available tools and equipment, without any large fixed facilities that might
draw attention, and without access to classified nuclear weapons information. Getting nuclear material
and making a crude nuclear bomb would be the most complex operation terrorists have ever carried out but the risk that a
sophisticated group could pull it off is very real. Roughly 90 percent of the effort in the Manhattan Project was focused on
making nuclear bomb material; getting stolen nuclear material would allow terrorists to skip the hardest part of making a nuclear bomb.
The simplest type of nuclear bomb, known as a "gun-type" bomb, slams two pieces of nuclear material together at high speed. The bomb
that destroyed Hiroshima, for example, was a cannon that fired a shell of HEU into rings of HEU. Plutonium cannot be used to make a
gun-type bomb with a substantial explosive yield, because the neutrons that all plutonium emits cause the bomb to blow itself apart
before the nuclear reactions proceeds very far. To make a bomb from plutonium would require a more complex "implosion-type" bomb,
which would be more difficult for terrorists to build -- but government studies have repeatedly concluded that this possibility also cannot
be ruled out. How much nuclear material would terrorists need to make a bomb? The amount of nuclear material needed to make a
bomb depends on the material and the skill of the bomb-maker. A simple gun-type nuclear bomb would require approximately 50
kilograms of HEU -- an amount that would fit in a suitcase. Implosion-type bombs are more efficient, requiring less nuclear material.
bombs like the Nagasaki bomb can be made
with 6 kilograms of plutonium or 15 kilograms of HEU. With these relatively small amounts, a
terrorist group could potentially build a bomb with the power of thousands of tons of high explosive.
Unclassified estimates suggest that basic first-generation implosion-type
Sophisticated nuclear weapon states can potentially make nuclear bombs with smaller amounts of nuclear material. Rather than stealing
nuclear material and making a bomb, could terrorists steal and use an already assembled nuclear weapon? Possibly. Nuclear weapons
are generally better secured than some stocks of HEU and plutonium are. Nevertheless, the United States is spending hundreds of
millions of dollars beefing up security for its own nuclear weapons complex sites, and hundreds of millions more helping Russia improve
security for its warhead sites. A stolen nuclear weapon might be very difficult for a terrorist group to detonate. Many nuclear weapons
are equipped with electronic locks making it impossible to set off the weapon without putting in the appropriate code or figuring out a
way to bypass the lock. Unfortunately, on older Russian tactical nuclear weapons, such locks are thought to be absent in some cases and
relatively easily bypassed in others. U.S. strategic nuclear weapons also do not incorporate such locks, and some other countries'
weapons may also lack them. In addition, modern nuclear weapons are typically equipped with devices that prevent the weapon from
going off until it has passed through its expected flight sequence ¿ such as a period of rocket-powered flight followed by coasting
through space and reentering the atmosphere, in the case of a long-range ballistic missile. While designed more for safety than security,
these devices would also make it more difficult to detonate most stolen weapons. If terrorists could not figure out how to detonate a
stolen weapon, they might choose to cut it open and use the nuclear material inside to try to make a bomb of their own. Are there
"suitcase nukes" on the loose? Probably not. In the 1990s, Gen. Alexander Lebed, then the national security advisor to Russian President
Boris Yeltsin, said that more than 100 nuclear weapons designed to be carried by one person ¿ so-called "suitcase nukes" ¿ could not
be accounted for and might be missing. The Russian Ministry of Defense firmly denied that any weapons were missing, and Lebed
ultimately backed off from his initial statements. Ultimately enough information was released to make a reasonably convincing case that
none of these man-portable nuclear weapons were missing. It is clear, however, that both the United States and the Soviet Union did in
fact manufacture nuclear weapons designed to be carried and used by one or two people. In the United States, all such weapons have
been dismantled, and some Russian statements indicate that the same is now true in Russia. Once a nuclear bomb or nuclear material
The amounts of
HEU or plutonium needed for a bomb are small and easy to smuggle. These materials are not
radioactive enough to require any special equipment to carry them, or to make them easy to
detect. After they have left the site where they are supposed to be, they could be anywhere, and all the later lines of defense are
has been stolen, could we stop it from being smuggled? The chances would not be very good, unfortunately.
variations on searching for needles in haystacks. With hundreds of millions of people and vehicles crossing U.S. borders every year,
making sure no one gets in with a suitcase of potential bomb material is an immense challenge. Even if governments screened every
container coming across their borders with a radiation detector, terrorists would not be likely to send their nuclear bomb material
through one of the readily-observable radiation detectors, but would use one of the many other possible routes to avoid inspection.
Moreover, if HEU was shielded with lead, detectors now being deployed would not be able to detect the weak radiation it emits (unless
it was contaminated with the isotope U-232, and the detector was designed to look for the gamma rays from that decay chain). If the
United States cannot stop the flow of illegal drugs and illegal immigrants across its borders, it is unlikely that it will succeed in stopping
nuclear material. Even an assembled nuclear bomb might fit in the hold of a yacht, in a truck, or in a small plane. What would happen if
terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in a major city?
Terrorist use of a nuclear bomb would be an historic
catastrophe.
( ) Nuclear terrorist risk high – they have means, motive, and opportunity
Allison ‘2
(et al; Graham Allison – Founder of the Kennedy School of Government @ Harvard, “The New Containment: An Alliance Against Nuclear
Terrorism,” THE NATIONAL INTEREST, Fall 2002)
In sum: even
a conservative estimate must conclude that dozens of terrorist groups have sufficient
motive to use a nuclear weapon, several could potentially obtain nuclear means, and hundreds of
opportunities exist for a group with means and motive to make the United States or Russia a victim of
nuclear terrorism. The mystery before us is not how a nuclear terrorist attack could possibly occur, but
rather why no terrorist group has yet combined motive, means and opportunity to commit a nuclear
attack. We have been lucky so far, but who among us trusts luck to protect us in the future?
( ) nuclear terror risk high – Intent, Capability, Rogue Sharing.
Ellis ‘3
Jason D. Ellis, Senior Research Professor, Center for Counterproliferation Research, National Defense University, “The Best Defense:
Counterproliferation and U.S. National Strategy,” WASHINGTON QUARTERLY, Spring 2003, pp. 115-133
Nor is the threat of WMD attack confined to state actors. Although states should remain a principal focus, terrorists and other nonstate actors
have never before ranked as high among U.S. national se curity concerns. If Aum Shinrikyo did not sound the clarion call, then Al Qaeda
certainly has. According to Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet, intelligence collected in Afghanistan revealed that Al
Qaeda was
“working to acquire some of the most dangerous chemical agents and toxins, … pursuing a sophisticated
biological weapons research program, … seeking to acquire or develop a nuclear device, …and may be pursuing a
radioactive dispersal device.”12 The continuing diffusion of technology, the ongoing risk of diversion of weaponsrelated expertise, and the clear potential for particular actors—whether at the national or subnational level—to
contemplate mass destruction collectively foreshadow an ominous future. WMD-equipped states may
also share their capacities with terrorist or other subnational organizations that seek to inflict mass
casualties. The product: a distinctly dangerous intersection of threats to U.S. security.
A-to “Tech barriers”
( ) Terrorists can easily obtain nuclear weapons
NTA ‘10
(Internally quoting Graham Allison – Founder of the Kennedy School of Government @ Harvard, “National Terror Alert, April 18, 2010,
http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2010/04/18/threat-of-terrorists-obtaining-nuclear-weapons-a-reality/, “Threat of Terrorists
Obtaining Nuclear Materials is a Reality,” National Terror Alert, DA: 7/14/10)
The United States again reasserted itself as the world’s police last week, leading the way to secure thousands of pounds of fissile materials that
could be used to build nuclear weapons such as dirty bombs. Countries around the world have agreed to identify, secure and covert this
material before it falls into the hands of criminal gangs that would gladly sell to the highest bidder. Point #1 – Do
not underestimate
the sophistication of a terrorist group. We’ve routinely done that as a nation, and the consequences were
deadly on 9/11. Al Qaeda could certainly have the right people on the “payroll” – scientists, engineers, technical
experts – infused with the radical Islamist ideology and ready to help the cause. Point #2 – Do not underestimate the
finances of terrorist groups. Many are engaged narcotrafficking, where millions of dollars trade hands
daily. Point #3 - Despite the best detection efforts at airports and in major cities, highly enriched uranium could easily be
transported and smuggled. Expert Graham Allison (author of “Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe)
says it takes only about 35 pounds (roughly the size of a grapefruit) of highly enriched uranium to make a
nuclear bomb. This amount of material is easily transportable and could be smuggled along established
trafficking routes by highly paid “mules”. Point #4 - On the subject of dirty bombs – the materials needed, like medical
isotopes might be pretty easily obtained, and it is true they alone would not yield much radiation. The main issue with a dirty bomb
would be the blast itself…unless the some relatively high-grade uranium was employed. Then a dirty bomb would not only have
immediate, but long lasting radiation effects at the point of detonation.
A-to “Terrorist won’t use b/c it counters their goals“
( ) Sympathy args are wrong – terrorists seeking a more extreme image.
Wirth & Russell ‘3
James J. Wirth, Professor and Chair, Department of National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School & James A. Russell, Fellow, Naval
Postgraduate School, “U.S. Policy on Preventive War & Preemption,” THE NONPROLIFERATION REVIEW, Spring 2003, pp. 113-123.
Second, deterrence generally
does not work against terrorists. Stateless and usually spread
over wide regions or even among continents, Terrorists do not present a viable target for
retaliation. The death and destruction that can be visited upon a terrorist organization in a retaliatory attack is greatly
exceeded by the damage even small terrorist cells can inflict on civilian society. Terrorists often seek a
disproportionate response from the governments they attack in the hope of provoking a
sympathetic response from some target audience. Thus, savage reprisals in kind can
actually play into the hands of terrorists.
Goals changing
( ) Increasing risk of WMD terrorism success - versus old terrorists increasing &
changing goals
Alexander ‘2K
Yonah Alexander, Professor and Director, Inter-University Center for Terrorism, “Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century: Threats and
Responses,” DEPAUL BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Fall 1999/Spring -2K, p. 79-80.
The advances of science and technology are slowly turning modern society into potential
victims of terrorism. As such, there is no immunity for the noncombatant segment or for nations with any direct
connection to political violence motivated by particular conflicts. Super-terrorism, then, is likely to have an
unprecedented serious impact on the future quality of life and on orderly, civilized existence. Indeed,
enhanced terrorism in 1999 and the early months of 2000 may be the price for the vision of a better and more secure New
World Order in the twenty-first century. Two
factors suggest the likely development of more
destructive forms of terrorism in the future. First, ironically, bringing terrorism under substantial
control in the foreseeable future through national and international legislation, increased
security and enforcement measures as well as preemptive and punitive military strikes might, in fact,
hasten the advent of more daring types of terrorism. For instance, after the U.S. military retaliation against
the Sudan and Afghanistan, there have been threats to American embassies in Egypt, Malaysia, Uganda, and Yemen, to mention
a few. n93 Similarly, there are renewed warnings that the network of Osama bin Laden may be preparing other strikes against
targets in the United States itself. n94 [*80] A
second distinct consideration that might encourage
escalated terrorism is the fact that ideological and political violence is usually a means to an
end; it progresses in proportion to the aims envisioned. If the goals are higher, then the
level of terrorism must necessarily be higher. Again, bin Laden and his allied groups exemplify this
commitment. In February 1998, they issued a "fatwa" (theological decree) that it was a religious duty for all Muslims to wage
war on U.S. citizens, including civilians, wherever they can be found. n95 The
network are of particular concern. n96
mass destruction ambitions of this
A-to “Terrorists won’t use WMD”
( ) new-wave of terrorists willing to use wmd
Lippman ‘3
Matthew Lippman, Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Illinois-Chicago, “The New Terrorism and
International Law,” TULSA JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE AND INTERNATIONAL LAW v. 10, 2003, p. 302-304.
The contemporary era has ushered in a "new terrorism." n44 Terrorist groups, in the past, generally possessed coherent
ideological platforms and aspirations and selected targets which advanced and symbolized these goals. n45 They were sensitive
to the need to maintain political legitimacy and avoided intentionally targeting innocents. n46 The
"new terrorists,"
driven by an apocalyptic and millenarian religiously-based worldview
which posits that the world must be destroyed in order to cleanse the globe of paganism
and impurity. n47 This predisposes contemporary terrorists to develop and to deploy nuclear,
biological and chemical weapons (NBC) of mass destruction (WMD), n48 which are increasingly available in
the global marketplace. n49 The trend is towards increasingly lethal terrorist incidents and an escalating number of
fatalities. n50 This is encouraged by the enhanced technological sophistication of terrorists n51
who increasingly are drawn from the ranks of amateur attackers who lack the capacity to
carefully calibrate and to control the consequences of their violent conduct. n52 The spectacular
incident also has become the currency of the contemporary terrorists who are caught in a spiral of ever-more
dramatic acts of violence to attract media and public attention and to draw the young and
impressionable to their ranks. n53 The tightly organized, hierarchical terrorist organization has been
replaced by fluid, decentralized and specialized cells which temporarily cooperate and coalesce
in [*303] contrast, are
around particular projects. n54 The individuals involved often lack clear organizational identities and increasingly fail to claim
credit or to offer an explanation for the attack. n55 Terrorists also increasingly transcend national boundaries and rely on
technology to coordinate and cooperate in their [*304] operations and to carry out operations across the globe. n56 Terrorist
groups also rely on a far-flung, sophisticated and difficult to penetrate international financial networks which involve
cooperation with drug cartels and petty criminals and other illegitimate enterprises as well as with legitimate charitable
organizations, mining interests, currency traders and businesses. n57 This
new terrorism also is associated with the
the "super-terrorist," n58 individuals characterized by a megalomaniacal desire to
leave a historically unprecedented mark of mass devastation and death. n59 These pernicious
advent of
personalities are distinguished by a fascination with technological innovation and implementation rather than by a strong
commitment to a political cause. n60 Destruction
rather than doctrine is the animating aspect of their
activity. n61 The sadistic "super-terrorist" thus belies the conventional conception of terrorists as reasonable and rationale
individuals who have adopted violent tactics in order to achieve limited political objectives. n62
( ) WMD aversion is a myth
Romano ‘99
John Alex Romano, JD Candidate, Georgetown University, Combating Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Reviving the
Doctrine of a State Necessity,” GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL v. 87, April 1999, p. 1026-1028.
Defined as the "threat or use of violence in order to create extreme fear and anxiety in a target group so as to coerce them to
meet the political objectives of the perpetrators," n22 terrorism has
assumed even greater destructive
overtones with the close of the twentieth century. The threat that terrorists will turn to more lethal
instruments such as WMDs to accomplish their goals proceeds from their willingness to inflict
greater destruction, as well as from the greater accessibility of WMDs in the modern age and
continued state sponsorship of terrorism. There are mounting indications that terrorists will increase the
lethalness of their attacks in the future. Traditionally, terrorists shied away from WMDs [*1027] because a host of factors
constrained the amount of force that they used, including a reluctance to alienate perceived support for their cause, incite
massive retaliation, or "imperil [the] group's cohesion." n23 Nevertheless, most
analysts have detected a
weakening of these constraints. n24 First, the public has arguably become "desensitized" to
terrorist acts because they are relatively commonplace in society; n25 in order to fulfill the
primary objective of terrorism -- inciting fear to achieve quasi-political, ethnic or religious goals -- groups
may find it necessary to inflict greater destruction on their targets. n26 Second, if a
particular group is losing its "struggle" and faces extinction, it may disregard the traditional
constraints and make "a last desperate attempt to defeat the hated enemy by arms not tried
before." n27 Finally, the traditional constraints apply less in the context of groups fueled by
ethnic hatreds or religious fanaticism because "ethnic hatreds lend themselves to genocidal
strategies," and strong, religious factions that believe they are acting for God have a ready
justification for killing scores of people. n28 By some accounts, such groups are replacing politically motivated terrorists. n29 In
sum, the weakening
of the traditional constraints on terrorists may compel them to inflict
greater destruction on society. WMDs supply the perfect tool to the terrorist group seeking
to "shock" the public because they are lethal on a large scale and not necessarily difficult
to deploy. A crude nuclear device could have destroyed much of lower Manhattan if the World Trade Center bombers had
included one in their arsenal of explosives. n30 Chemical and biological weapons, for their part, are extremely toxic; the
dispersal of certain biological agents would approximate the lethality of a nuclear explosion, and chemical nerve agents such as
sarin could claim significant casualties. n31 Furthermore, the dispersal method of certain biological and chemical agents
increases their attractiveness, enhancing the terrorists' ability to escape because there is often an interval between the release
of the agent and its apparent effects on human beings. n32 In effect, a cruise missile or [*1028] singular, tremendous explosion
is not the only means of deploying a WMD n33 capable of devastating entire segments of a population or city.
( ) 9/11 proves terrorists will want to use WMD—it’s a race to beat the past death toll
Schaper ‘1
Annette Schaper, Senior Research Associate, Peace Research Institute, Frankfurt, “Nuclear Terrorism: Risk Analysis After 11
September 2001,” DISARMAMENT FORUM n. 2, 2003, pp. 7-16.
The smoke over Manhattan did not quite reach the size of a mushroom cloud. Nevertheless, the number of casualties was of the
order that would be caused by a minor nuclear explosion. The idea that terrorists have access to weapons of mass destruction is
a nightmare that governments and international organizations take seriously. The
events of 11 September have
finally made it clear that mass murder can be a terrorist’s objective—but the extent to which they
have the technical ability to accomplish this is another question. The 11 September terrorists aimed to
maximize the death toll they inflicted. Future attacks will always be compared to this one,
therefore the ambition of successive assassins might be to beat this death toll. Nuclear weapons
are particularly suited to maximizing the number of casualties and are more attractive to terrorists than biological and chemical
weapons. 2 A nuclear explosion might therefore be the next step in the escalation of terror. The
aim of this paper is to assess the possibilities terrorists have for nuclear terrorism and to illustrate potential threats. The paper
does not cover suggestions of how to cope with this threat, as this is the topic of other contributions in this issue
( ) increased tech capacity and changing goals undermines WMD aversion
Alexander ‘2K
Yonah Alexander, Professor and Director, Inter-University Center for Terrorism, “Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century: Threats
and Responses,” DEPAUL BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL v. 12, Fall 1999/Spring -2K, p. 72-73.
These "super"
weapons are slowly emerging upon the terrorist scene. That is, as technological
developments offer new capabilities for terrorist groups, the modus operandi of terrorist
groups may subsequently alter. According to various intelligence reports, at least a dozen terrorist
groups, in addition to the bin Laden network, have shown an interest in acquiring or actively
attempting to obtain biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons. n59 Indeed, the Aum Shinrikyo Japanese terrorist
doomsday cult, mounting the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995, which killed 12 people and injured over five
thousand, was seeking more lethal weapons when its leaders were arrested. n60 And yet, having considerable tactical success
during the past three decades, terrorists sometimes find it politically expedient to restrain the level of political violence. n61 It
is important to understand that these self-imposed restraints will not persist indefinitely,
and future incidents may continue to be costly in terms [*73] of human lives and property. n62
Furthermore, certain conditions, such as religious extremism or perceptions that the "cause" is
lost, could provide terrorists with an incentive to escalate their attacks dramatically. n63
A-to “Can’t Get Materials”
( ) The barriers are easily overcome
Speice ‘6
Patrick F. Speice, JD Candidate @ College of William and Mary – William & Mary Law Review, 46 Wm and Mary L. Rev. 1427
Accordingly, there is a significant and ever-present risk that terrorists could acquire a nuclear device
or fissile material from Russia as a result of the confluence of Russian economic decline and the end of stringent Soviet-era nuclear
security measures. 39 Terrorist groups could acquire a nuclear weapon by a number of methods, including "steal[ing] one intact from the
stockpile of a country possessing such weapons, or ... [being] sold or given one by [*1438] such a country, or [buying or stealing] one
from another subnational group that had obtained it in one of these ways." 40 Equally threatening, however, is the risk that terrorists
Very little material is necessary to
construct a highly destructive nuclear weapon. 41 Although nuclear devices are extraordinarily complex, the
technical barriers to constructing a workable weapon are not significant. 42 Moreover, the sheer
number of methods that could be used to deliver a nuclear device into the United States makes it
incredibly likely that terrorists could successfully employ a nuclear weapon once it was built. 43
will steal or purchase fissile material and construct a nuclear device on their own.
Accordingly, supply-side controls that are aimed at preventing terrorists from acquiring nuclear material in the first place are the most
effective means of countering the risk of nuclear terrorism. 44
( ) Black market makes nukes easily available – they can fit in a shoebox
Business Recorder ‘10
("Viewpoint Nuclear Weapons In A Changing World", 8-12-10 – @Nexis)
there is a real danger of nuclear technology falling into the hands of
organisations/individuals, who claim they have scores to settle with certain states. Acquisition of nuclear
technology and fissile materials may be difficult but not outside the realm of possibility. These, in
fact, are available on the black market. Our own Dr A Q Khan is said to have acquired nuclear
technology from Western sources through clandenstine means. The collapse of the Soviet Union
set a lot of materials and scientists on the loose. An International Atomic Energy Agency report says there have
been at least 25 cases where nuclear explosive materials have either been lost or stolen . A former
CIA officer, Valerie Plame Wilson, who spent years trying to smash the nuclear black-market, argues that
it is possible for terrorist to smuggle undetected highly enriched uranium - a hundred points of
which could fit in a shoebox - into a targeted city and detonate it on site. This is a pretty scary scenario.
Thirdly,
( ) Global Initiative Assembly increases the risk of terrorist acquisition of nukes
NTI ‘10
(Global Security Newswire, "WMD Terrorism Remains Grave Threat, U.S. Says", Aug 6th –
http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20100806_6521.php)
The State Department noted that al-Qaeda
and other extremist groups have expressed interest in acquiring
nuclear weapons. "The diffusion of scientific and technical information regarding the a Global Initiative
to Combat Nuclear Terrorism Assembly of nuclear weapons, some of which is now available on the Internet,
has increased the risk that a terrorist organization in possession of sufficient fissile material could
develop its own crude nuclear weapon," the report says. "The complete production of a nuclear weapon strongly
depends on the terrorist group’s access to special nuclear materials as well as engineering and scientific expertise." Due to the
proliferation efforts of "irresponsible countries" like North Korea, "the number of potential sources of
an unsecured nuclear weapon or materials is challenging worldwide efforts to control and account
for nuclear material," according to the State Department. Extremists could also look to underground
smuggling networks and international criminal organizations for aid in acquiring or developing a
nuclear devices, the report says. While the terrorist detonation of a radiological "dirty bomb" would not be as calamitous as a
terrorist nuclear attack, the prevalence of radioactive substances "in nearly every country" means it is
much easier to acquire the materials to construct such a weapon, the report says.
( ) fissile material easily obtained.
Allison ‘2
(et al; Graham Allison – Founder of the Kennedy School of Government @ Harvard, “The New Containment: An Alliance Against Nuclear
Terrorism,” THE NATIONAL INTEREST, Fall 2002)
Alternatively, terrorists
could try to build a weapon. The only component that is especially
difficult to obtain is the nuclear fissile material--HEU or plutonium. Although the largest stockpiles of
weapons-grade material are predominantly found in the nuclear weapons programs of the United States and Russia, fissile
material in sufficient quantifies to make a crude nuclear weapon can also be found in many
civilian settings around the globe. Some 345 research reactors in 58 states together contain
twenty metric tons of HEU, many in quantities sufficient to build a bomb.(n3) Other civilian
reactors produce enough weapons-grade nuclear material to pose a proliferation threat; several European stares, Japan, Russia
and India reprocess spent fuel to separate out plutonium for use as new fuel. The United States has actually facilitated the
spread of fissile material in the past--over three decades of the Atoms for Peace program, the United States exported 749 kg of
plutonium and 26.6 metric tons of HEU to 39 countries.(n4) Terrorist
groups could obtain these materials by
theft, illicit purchase or voluntary transfer from state control. There is ample evidence that
attempts to steal or sell nuclear weapons or weapons-usable material are not hypothetical,
but a recurring fact.(n5) Just last fall, the chief of the directorate of the Russian Defense Ministry responsible for nuclear
weapons reported two recent incidents in which terrorist groups attempted to perform reconnaissance at Russian nuclear
storage sites. The past decade has seen repeated incidents in which individuals and groups have successfully stolen weapons
material from sites in Russia and sought to export them--but were caught trying to do so. In one highly publicized case, a group
of insiders at a Russian nuclear weapons facility in Chelyabinsk plotted to steal 18.5 kg (40.7 lbs.) of HEU, which would have
been enough to construct a bomb, but were thwarted by Russian Federal Security Service agents. In the mid-1990s, material
sufficient to allow terrorists to build more than twenty nuclear weapons--more than 1,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium-sat unprotected in Kazakhstan. Iranian and possibly Al-Qaeda operatives with nuclear ambitions were widely reported to be in
Kazakhstan. Recognizing the danger, the American government itself purchased the material and removed it to Oak Ridge,
Tennessee. In February 2002, the U.S. National Intelligence Council reported to Congress that "undetected smuggling [of
weapons-usable nuclear materials from Russia] has occurred, although we do not know the extent of such thefts." Each
assertion invariably provokes blanket denials from Russian officials. Russian Atomic Energy Minister Aleksandr Rumyantsev has
claimed categorically: "Fissile materials have not disappeared." President Putin has stated that he is "absolutely confident" that
terrorists in Afghanistan do not have weapons of mass destruction of Soviet or Russian origin. For perspective on claims of the
inviolable security of nuclear weapons or material, it is worth considering the issue of "lost nukes." Is it possible that the United
States or Soviet Union lost assembled nuclear weapons? At least on the American side the evidence is clear. In 1981, the U.S.
Department of Defense published a list of 32 accidents involving nuclear weapons, many of which resulted in lost bombs.(n6)
One involved a submarine that sank along with two nuclear torpedoes. In other cases, nuclear bombs were lost from aircraft.
Though on the Soviet/Russian side there is no official information, we do know that four Soviet submarines carrying nuclear
weapons have sunk since 1968, resulting in an estimated 43 lost nuclear warheads.(n7) These
accidents suggest the
complexity of controlling and accounting for vast nuclear arsenals and stockpiles. Nuclear
materials have also been stolen from stockpiles housed at research reactors. In 1999, Italian
police seized a bar of enriched uranium from an organized crime group trying to sell it to an agent posing as a Middle Eastern
businessman with presumed ties to terrorists. On investigation, the Italians found that the uranium originated from a U.S.supplied research reactor in the former Zaire, where it presumably had been stolen or purchased sub rosa. Finally, as
President Bush has stressed,
terrorists could obtain nuclear weapons or material from states
hostile to the United States. In his now-infamous phrase, Bush called hostile regimes developing WMD and their
terrorist allies an "axis of evil." He argued that states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea, if allowed to realize their nuclear
ambitions, "could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred." The fear that a hostile regime
might transfer a nuclear weapon to terrorists has contributed to the Bush Administration's development of a new doctrine of
pre-emption against such regimes, with Iraq as the likeliest test case. It also adds to American concerns about Russian transfer
of nuclear technologies to Iran. While Washington and Moscow continue to disagree over whether any safeguarded civilian
nuclear cooperation with Iran is justified, both agree on the dangers a nuclear-armed Iran would pose. Russia is more than
willing to agree that there should be no transfers of technology that could help Iran make nuclear weapons.
( ) enough loose plutonium for terrorists to make and detonate 1000 bombs
Caldwell ‘3
Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, The End of the World, and the New World Order, update of an article published 10/26/00, March
6, 2003, www.foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm.
As everyone now knows, the major potential source of global nuclear war is no longer from ballistic missiles or airplanes – it is
With all of the sources of plutonium becoming available, terrorist
organizations or “rogue states” will soon be able to produce several thousand suitcase
bombs containing nuclear weapons. With today’s high levels of immigration and
transportation and porous borders, it would be a relatively easy matter for a committed
group to place 1,000 nuclear bombs in the world’s largest cities – certainly far easier than building
from nuclear “suitcase bombs.”
airplanes or submarines or missiles to deliver them! The point being made here is that global nuclear war involving a few
thousand weapons is not an unreasonable attack size to consider.
A-to “Terrorists Can’t Build Bombs”
( ) terrorists can readily build nuclear weapons
Maerl 2K
Morten Bremer Maerli, Science Program Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University,
“Relearing the ABCs: Terrorists and ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction;.” THE NONPROLIFERATION REVIEW, Summer -2K, pp. p. 111112.
A striking parallel can be seen in the discussion surrounding crude nuclear weapons production and whether sub-national
groups will succeed in producing them. Unsuccessful state nuclear programs (e.g., the Iraqi’s are often cited as evidence of the
difficulties of establishing reliable nuclear weapons programs. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning may lead to underestimating
It is important to recognize the technical opportunities available
and the limited skills required for the successful production of a crude nuclear explosive
device. In fact, there is a good deal of misunderstanding about the ease with which a sub-national group could fabricate a
nuclear explosive. As with biological weapons, no basic research is required to construct a nuclear
weapon. Luis W. Alvarez, a prominent nuclear weapons scientist in the Manhattan Project, has argued that it is not
difficult to set off explosive using highly enriched uranium (HEU). With modern weapons-grade
the threat from nuclear terrorists.
uranium, the background neutron rate is so low that terrorists, if they have such materials, would have a good chance of setting
off a high-yield explosion simply by dropping one half of the material onto the other half. Most people seem unaware that if
separated HEU is at hand it’s a trivial job to set off a nuclear explosion… [and] even a high
school kid could make a bomb in short order. Not all weapons scientists would go so far as to argue that a
high school student could make a bomb, but the technical capabilities to set off an explosion using
nuclear materials should certainly be considered as within reach for some terrorists. Moreover,
terrorists may also be attracted to a crude nuclear weapons option due to the low radiation levels associated with HEU. In
contrast to biological materials for weapons, fresh (unirradiated) uranium
material can be handled
unshielded without protective measures.
HEU thus provides a convenient material for weapons production for
groups with limited resources and no access to advanced laboratories. Uranium was indeed the material of choice for both the
Hiroshima bomb and the South African nuclear weapons program. “Little Boy,” the HEU bomb the United States dropped on
Hiroshima in 1945, was triggered by a simple “gun” mechanism. A small, slug shaped piece of uranium was fired down a barrel
into a larger, cup-shaped piece of heu. This elementary design generated a destructive force of about 15 kilotons (kt)—the
equivalent of 15,000 tons of TNT. South Africa produced six nuclear devices based on the simple uranium gun-type principle
while under the constraints of an international embargo, and thus having to rely on its own resources. The
nuclear
weapons produced more than 50 years ago represented sophisticated technology and science at that time. Today
these weapons are not only old, they are primitive. Their designs are well known form the
scientific literature. Even lectures that were given to the physicists of the Manhattan Project at its commencement have now
been published. Likewise, within
the information swamp of the internet, potential nuclear
weapons producers can find some useful sites. The detailed weapons descriptions remain classified;
however, Frank Barnaby has argued that a competent group of physicists and engineers, given adequate resources
and acesss to literature, would have little difficulty in designing a fission weapons from scratch.
They would not need to access any classified information. Indeed, to reveal the potential of
clandestine nuclear bomb production, nuclear scientists have presented technical outlines
of crude gun-type weapons based on readily available commercial equipment and
explosives. For example, one design that is about one-meter long and weighs no more than 300 kilograms would lead to a
nuclear explosive. Such a crude uranium weapon is likely to explode with a yield equivalent to
that of several hundred to a few thousand tons of TNT. Such a weapon would probably be
good enough by terrorist standards. Although covert attackers desire predictable results from weapons, less
precision is required than for military purposes. Terrorists would not have to meet the extremely tight specifications and
tolerance standards for weapons production. Military weapons must, to a much larget extend than terrorist weapons, be both
safe and reliable. That is, when the weapons are used, they must produce optimal yields with a minimal impact from possible
detonation effects due to aging or heat. And during long-term storage, military weapons must remain safe and secure,
protected from either unintended an/or unauthorized detonation. The differences are outlined in Figure 1, which shows the
respective spheres of activity of military and terrorist weapons designers. Because terrorist can operate with lower technical
constraints, they can potentially produce a lower, but still “significant” yield.; p 111-112
( ) know-how to build nuclear weapons widley available
Schaper ‘2
Annette Schaper, Senior Research Associate, Peace Research Institute, Frankfurt, “Nuclear Terrorism,” INESAP INFORMATION
BULLETIN n. 20, August 2002, pp. 73-76.
During the Manhattan project in World War II, thousands of the best scientists and workers participated in building the first
crude nuclear explosive devices. It took them several years and tremendous efforts. Should this not make it clear that a similar
effort would be beyond the rearch for a terrorist group, even a dedicated and rich one like Bin Laden's al Qaeda? However,
there is a big difference: the
Manhattan physicists did not even know whether a nuclear explosion
was possible at all. They had to do all fundamental research and all basic inventions from
scratch. Today, in contrast, not only the basics of the functioning of nuclear weapons are
public knowledge, but also the details of the underlying theories, non the least because of
fifty years experience with civilian nuclear energy. Much information can be found in
student textbooks and even on the Internet.[1] Much knowledge contained in these publications is based on
declassified information.[2] In contrast to a nuclear reactor, the physics of a simple nuclear explosive device
is easy and can be understood by an ordinary physics student after a few years of study.
( ) nuclear terror bombs easy to build and readily attainable
Maerl 2K
Morten Bremer Maerli, Science Program Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University,
“Relearing the ABCs: Terrorists and ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction;.” THE NONPROLIFERATION REVIEW, Summer -2K, pp. 108119.
Today, due
to their inherent features and demonstration effects, crude nuclear weapons may
prove to be a more reliable tempting, and prestigious option than crude biological weapons
for aspiring large-scale terrorists. Crude uranium weapons can be easily built and fielded
without any type of test, and their possessors can be confident in their performance. The
difficulties is therefore the most daunting obstacle to the production of crude nuclear weapons. But, the enormous
existing volume of materials and persistent incidents of illicit nuclear trafficking make
successful diversion of significant amounts of high-quality fissile materials probable.
A-to “Can’t Transport/Smuggle In”
( ) impossible to prevent a bomb from being smuggled into the U.S.
Crowley ‘2
Michael Crowley, journalist, “Old Guard,” THE NEW REPUBLIC, September 9-16, 2002
It was a deft exercise in p.r. but a highly misleading one. Even
after September 11, Customs only inspects
between 2 percent and 10 percent of the 40-foot-long shipping containers that arrive in the
United States every day by the thousands. A nuclear device, moreover, could be shielded with
lead from detection by most sensors. And a terrorist could make a mockery of Bonner's
boast by detonating his cargo, remotely or by timer, before it is ever unloaded and subject
to scanning--when, for example, the ship carrying it first enters the harbor. When I asked Stephen Flynn,
a National Security Council (NSC) official in the Clinton administration and a well-known border-security expert, what he
thought of Customs' public reassurances, he laughed. The only semi-reliable way to stave off such a disaster, Flynn says, is to
create a high-tech system of shipping security that includes inspection of cargo headed to the United States before it leaves
foreign ports. But Rotterdam is the only one of the 20 "megaports" through which cargo passes where inspections have begun.
Negotiations with other foreign governments are moving slowly. What's more, Bush's recent pocket veto of $5.1 billion in
congressional emergency spending will prevent $39 million budgeted for this new Container Security Initiative from being spent.
But even if a comprehensive system for detecting nuclear devices in foreign ports were in
place--and adequately funded-- it wouldn't be enough . Terrorists might still be able to hide the
bomb in lead or otherwise circumvent detection; and even if they were caught, the
disclosure that they had come so close to a successful nuclear attack on the United States
would have unpredictable effects on society and the economy. A true anti-nuclear homeland security
strategy needs to start before terrorists get nuclear materials--by clamping down on such materials at sources such as the Vinca
Institute and similar sites in places like Belarus, Ukraine, and even the Republic of Congo. But rather than give preemption
efforts the kind of high-level attention one would expect for a top-priority threat, Bush's homeland security strategy leaves
them to midlevel bureaucracies in the State and Defense Departments--the same places where they have languished,
underfunded and largely ignored, for years.
( ) borders are porous, can’t detect bombs
Keller ‘2
Bill Keller, journalist, “Nuclear Nightmares,” THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE, May 26, 2002, p. 22.
To build a nuclear explosive you need material capable of explosive nuclear fission, you need expertise, you need some
equipment, and you need a way to deliver it.
Delivering it to the target is, by most reckoning, the simplest part. People in the field generally
scoff at the mythologized suitcase bomb; instead they talk of a "conex bomb," using the name of those shacksize steel containers that bring most cargo into the United States. Two thousand containers enter America
every hour, on trucks and trains and especially on ships sailing into more than 300 American ports.
Fewer than 2 percent are cracked open for inspection, and the great majority never pass
through an X-ray machine. Containers delivered to upriver ports like St. Louis or Chicago pass many miles of potential
targets before they even reach customs. "How do you protect against that?" mused Habiger, the former chief of
our nuclear arsenal. "You can't. That's scary. That's very, very scary . You set one of those off in Philadelphia,
in New York City, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and you're going to kill tens of thousands of people, if not more." Habiger's view is
"It's not a matter of if; it's a matter of when" -- which may explain why he now lives in San Antonio. The Homeland Security
office has installed a plan to refocus inspections, making sure the 2 percent of containers that get inspected are those without a
clear, verified itinerary. Detectors will be put into place at ports and other checkpoints. This is good, but it hardly represents an
ironclad defense. The
detection devices are a long way from being reliable. (Inconveniently, the
most feared bomb component, uranium, is one of the hardest radioactive substances to
detect because it does not emit a lot of radiation prior to fission.) The best way to stop nuclear terror,
therefore, is to keep the weapons out of terrorist hands in the first place.
US will retaliate and escalate
( ) Terrorism causes the U.S. to lash out, precipitating global war
Schwartz-Morgan ‘1
Nicole, Assistant Professor of Politics and Economics at Royal Military College of Canada, 10/10/2001, “Wild Globalization and Terrorism,”
http://www.wfs.org/mmmorgan.htm
The terrorist act can reactivate atavistic defense mechanisms which drive us to gather around clan chieftans.
Nationalistic sentiment re-awakens, setting up an implacable frontier which divides "us" from "them," each
group solidifying its cohesion in a rising hate/fear of the other group. (Remember Yugoslavia?) To be sure, the allies are trying for the
moment to avoid the language of polarization, insisting that "this is not a war," that it is "not against
Islam," "civilians will not be targeted." But the word "war" was pronounced, a word heavy with significance which forces the
issue of partisanship. And it must be understood that the sentiment of partisanship, of belonging to the group, is one of the strongest of human
emotions. Because
the enemy has been named in the media (Islam), the situation has become
emotionally volatile. Another spectacular attack, coming on top of an economic recession could easily
radicalize the latent attitudes of the United States, and also of Europe, where racial prejudices are especially close
to the surface and ask no more than a pretext to burst out. This is the Sarajevo syndrome: an isolated act of madness
becomes the pretext for a war that is just as mad, made of ancestral rancor, measureless ambitions,
and armies in search of a war. We should not be fooled by our expressions of good will and charity toward
the innocent victims of this or other distant wars. It is our own comfortable circumstances which permit us these
benevolent sentiments. If conditions change so that poverty and famine put the fear of starvation in our guts, the human beast will
reappear. And if epidemic becomes a clear and present danger, fear will unleash hatred in the land of the free,
flinging missiles indiscriminately toward any supposed havens of the unseen enemy . And on the other
side, no matter how profoundly complex and differentiated Islamic nations and tribes may be, they will
be forced to behave as one clan by those who see advantage in radicalizing the conflict, whether they be
themselves merchants or terrorists.
( ) U.S. lashout will kill hundreds of millions
Easterbrook ‘1
(Greg, Fellow at the Brookings Institute, CNN, “America's New War: Nuclear Threats,” 11-1-2001,
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0111/01/gal.00.html)
EASTERBROOK: Well, what held through the Cold War, when the United States and Russia had thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each
other, what held each side back was the fact that fundamentally they were rational. They knew that if they struck, they would be struck in turn.
Terrorists may not be held by this, especially suicidal terrorists, of the kind that al Qaeda is attempting to cultivate. But I think, if I could leave
you with one message, it would be this: that the search for terrorist atomic weapons would be of great benefit to the Muslim peoples of the
world in addition to members, to people of the United States and Western Europe, because if
an atomic warhead goes off in
Washington, say, in the current environment or anything like it, in the 24 hours that followed, a hundred million
Muslims would die as U.S. nuclear bombs rained down on every conceivable military target in a dozen
Muslim countries. And that -- it is very much in the interest the Muslim peoples of the world that atomic weapons be kept out of the
hands of Islamic terrorists, in addition to being in our interests.
Accidental War likely and bad
( ) Accidental war likely – safeguards won’t check
Rosenberg ‘6
Eric Rosenberg, National Correspondent and former National Editor, Hearst Newspapers – San Francisco Gate – Friday, October 6, 2006 –
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Experts-warn-of-an-accidental-atomic-war-2550308.php
Accidental nuclear war is not so far-fetched. In 1995, Russia initially interpreted the launch of a
Norwegian scientific rocket as the onset of a U.S. nuclear attack. Then-President Boris Yeltsin activated his
"nuclear briefcase" in the first stages of preparation to launch a retaliatory strike before the mistake was
discovered. The United States and Russia have acknowledged the possibility that Russia's equipment
might mistakenly conclude the United States was attacking with nuclear missiles. In 1998, the two countries
agreed to set up a joint radar center in Moscow operated by U.S. and Russian forces to supplement Russia's aging equipment and reduce the
threat of accidental war. But the center has yet to open. A
major technical problem exacerbates the risk of using the D5 as a
conventional weapon: the decaying state of Russia's nuclear forces. Russia's nuclear missiles are tethered to
early warning radars that have been in decline since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. And Russia, unlike
the United States, lacks sufficient satellites to supplement the radars and confirm whether missile launches
are truly under way or are false alarms.
( ) Their Accidental War defense is wrong. It’s likely and bad.
Phillips ‘3
Dr. Alan Phillips, Ph. D. with honours in physics at Cambridge University, former Radar operator for the British Army, An Introduction to No
Launch on Warning, http://www.web.net/~cnanw/nolowinterview.htm
Launch on Warning has kept the world exposed, for at least 30 years, to the danger of a nuclear war caused by
nothing but a coincidence of radar, sensor, or computer glitches, and a temporary failure of human
alertness to appreciate that an unexpected message of attack from the warning system is false, the enemy having done nothing. There is at
most 20 minutes for the human operators and commanders to call and conduct a "threat conference", while the chief of Strategic Command is
accidental
nuclear war has not happened yet, in spite of a large number of false warnings of which at least a few have had
very dangerous features. This is a credit to the care and alertness of the military in both Russia and the US. It should not be taken as
reassurance. A single instance of launch of nuclear weapons on a false warning would result in nuclear war, and the end of
civilization, just as surely as a nuclear war started by an actual attack. There would be no chance to
review the system to make it safer after one failure of that kind. The threat conferences require, and so far have
put in touch with the President to advise him, and the President decides whether to order retaliation. The disaster of an
achieved, the extraordinary standard of perfect accuracy. They have not been rare events. Probably most of them have been routine and it was
easy to exclude a real attack; others have been serious enough that the silo lids were rolled back. To get an idea of how the laws of chance
apply to the situation, suppose
we make a very conservative assumption: that just one conference a year had a risk of error
1% risk of disaster per year
for 30 years results in a 26% probability of one actual disaster in that period. On that assumption, then, we had
as high as 1% (and that the rest had a much lower risk). It is a simple calculation to show that taking one
approximately 3 to 1 odds in favour of surviving the period 1970 - 2000, and we did survive. But that means, from the risk of accidental war
alone, we had (on that assumption) a one in four chance of not surviving. A single trial of Russian roulette is safer: it gives a one in six chance of
death, or 5 to 1 odds in favour of surviving.14 During the Cold War, many
mishaps within the nuclear retaliation system
on the US side are known to have occurred, including false warnings. There must have also been many similar
incidents on the Russian side. One has been reported in which a Russian officer decided on his own initiative not to report an
apparently grave warning on his computer screen, on the correct belief that it was a false warning. He may have saved the world, but was
disgraced for failing to follow his orders; his career was ruined, and he suffered a mental breakdown.15 In a study of rival theories of accident
probabilities, Scott Sagan described a large number of errors and accidents within the US nuclear deterrence system. He concluded that the risk
of nuclear war from accidents had not been excessive.16 I came to the opposite conclusion from his data. I have collected 20 instances of
mishaps, from that source and others, which with less alertness among military officers, or accompanied by chance by some coincidental
problem, might have started a nuclear war.17 One example of a situation which was difficult to assess correctly at the Command Center, was
this: On the night of 24 November, 1961, all communication links between SAC HQ and NORAD went dead, and so cut SAC HQ off from the
three Ballistic Missile Early Warning Sites, at Thule (Greenland), Clear (Alaska), and Fylingdales (England).18 For General Power at SAC HQ, there
were two possible explanations: either enemy action, or the coincidental failure of all the communication systems, which had multiple
ostensibly independent routes including commercial telephone circuits. The SAC bases in the US were therefore alerted by a code message
instructing B-52 nuclear bomber crews to prepare to take off, and start their engines, but not to take off without further orders. In the hope of
clarifying the situation, radio contact was made with an orbiting B-52 on airborne alert which was near Thule (5,000 kilometers away) at the
time. Its crew contacted the Thule base and could report that no attack had taken place, so the alert was cancelled. The reason for the
"coincidental" failure was that the "independent" routes for telephone and telegraph between NORAD and SAC HQ all ran through one relay
station in Colorado. At that relay station a small fire had interrupted all the lines.19 There was a coincidental mishap during this event, which
could have been disastrous. It seems there was an error in transmitting the alert code to 380th Bomb Wing at Plattsburg, New York. A former
aircraft maintenance technician who was serving at that B-52 bomber base, recently told the author his vivid recollection of the incident. The
code order first received by the bomber crews was "alpha", instructing them to take off and proceed directly to their
pre-assigned targets, and bomb. They had never received that code before. Before any bomber had taken off the code was corrected to
"cocoa", meaning "wait with engines running". If the corrected code had not been received in time it could have
been very difficult to stop the bombers. The episode just described took place before L-o-W was instituted
for the ICBMs that were in service. By 1979 the policy of L-o-W was in effect and in that year, on the morning of 9 November, a war games tape
was running on a reserve computer when failure of the operational computer automatically switched in the reserve to take its place. The Threat
Conference saw the picture of a massive attack in a realistic trajectory from Russian launch sites. On that occasion, preparation to retaliate got
as far as launch of the president's National Emergency Airborne Command Post (though without the president), before the error was
discovered.
OFFCASE ANSWERS START HERE
**Cplan Answers start here
Waiver cplan won’t solve relations
( ) **Waiver cplan won’t solve US-Cuban relations – signal still matters.
White ‘10
(Jonathan P. White; J.D. 2010, University of Colorado Law School. Mr. White thanks Daniel Whittle, Cuba Program Director, Environmental
Defense Fund; Dr. Orlando Rey Santos, Lawyer and Director of the Environmental Directorate, Ministry of Science, Technology, and the
Environment (CITMA), Havana, Cuba; and Richard Charter, Senior Policy Advisor, Defenders of Wildlife, for their guidance and input in
preparation of this note. Summer, 2010 – Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy – 21 COLO. J. INT'L ENVTL. L. & POL'Y
557 – lexis)
Drilling off the coast of Cuba necessarily raises political issues surrounding the tumultuous relationship
between the communist nation and its neighbor across the Straits. The United States has maintained its trade embargo on
Cuba since the 1960s. n195 A travel ban parallels the [*587] trade embargo. n196 The 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic
Solidarity Act, commonly known as the Helms-Burton Act, formally placed Cuban economic and travel restrictions
into the U.S. Code. n197 This law urged the U.S. president to impose sanctions on nations that provide
assistance to Cuba. n198 Though this provision, one that chafed U.S. allies, has gone unenforced , the
law sets the tone for the acrid relationship between the nations. n199 To this day, the complicated
relationship between Cuba and the United States languishes. n200
A-to MEXUS Prong of CPLan
( ) **MEXUS can’t solve and only the perm can. Perception of the oil embargo
undermines coop.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
¶
U.S. policy stops short of meaningful cooperation with Cuba.¶
As Rear Admiral Baumgartner said in an interview with the ¶ Miami Herald¶ editorial
board “There is not a bilateral U.S.-Cuba agreement on oil spills¶ right now.’’¶ 68¶ This is in contrast with an arrangement that the U.S. has had in place ¶ with Mexico since 1980 in the event of a crisis. ¶ 69¶
The so-called
MEXUS¶ plan provides for on-scene coordinators, a joint response team, response¶ coordination centers, rapid notification protocols, customs and
immigration¶ procedures, and communications. Exercises to test the plan were conducted¶ at least as recently as in the mid-1990s.¶ ¶ “We have longstanding
agreements with Mexico about how we would¶ manage incidents and the MEXUS plan is routinely monitored,” Baumgartner¶ said. But, he
“acknowledged the United States—which has enforced a trade¶ embargo against Cuba for five decades—has no emergency
response agreement with Cuba for oil spills.” ¶ ¶ As Daniel Whittle told us,¶ “Current U.S. policy creates¶ an atmosphere
of paralysis¶ which prevents any serious¶ level of engagement between companies, and groups that could do the
research¶ and work on the ground to understand what is at stake, understand where¶ drilling should occur, and how to prepare for the
worst. It makes all of that¶ extremely difficult to do.”¶ 70
( ) MEXUS arrangements can’t solve – embargo blocks info sharing
Hatcher ‘10
Monica Hatcher, Energy Reporter for the Houston Chronicle, “Cuba Drilling Poses Spill Issue: Group Says Trade¶ Embargo Could Hinder a
Response by the U.S.”, Houston Chronicle; Sept. 6, 2010 – www.chron.com/business/energy/article/Group-warns-Cuba-trade-embargo-couldhurt-a-spill-1695883.php
The trade embargo against Cuba could undermine efforts to prevent or respond to an oil spill threatening
the U.S. coast after Cuba launches a drilling program in the Straits of Florida next year, a Houston-based industry group is
warning.¶ Representatives of the International Association of Drilling Contractors late last month made the first visit of a U.S. oil delegation to
the communist island nation in nearly 50 years. The group from Houston met with Cuban officials to discuss safety protocols and to learn more
about the country's plan to drill seven exploratory wells in the Gulf of Mexico, some within 50 miles of Key West, Fla.¶ In U.S. waters, drilling is
prohibited within 100 miles of Florida's Gulf Coast.¶ Lee Hunt, the group's chief executive, said Cubans
are eager to work with U.S.
to ensure safer drilling. But the embargo forbids sharing certain information and material that
would be needed to respond quickly to an accident, such as relief well technology or nearby U.S.made or U.S.-owned equipment.
industry
A-to Revised Licenses Prong
( ) Reactive clean-up policy fails. It incentivizes hazardous drilling outside Cuba.
Helman ‘11
Christopher Helman – Forbes Staff: Southwest Bureau covering Houston, the US energy capital – Forbes – “U.S. Should Drop Cuba Embargo For
Oil Exploration” – December 12th – http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2011/12/12/u-s-should-drop-cuba-embargo-for-oilexploration/
But here’s something that completely blows my mind.
The administration, again, according to the Bloomberg article, has granted
some U.S. companies the license to respond to an oil spill were it to occur in Cuban waters. The
government won’t say how many companies have that license or who they are, but there’s at least two of them: Wild Well Control and Helix
Energy Solutions Group. Helix plans to stage a subsea containment cap on the U.S. coast so it can quickly respond to any Cuban blowout.¶ Of
course it’s smart and safe for the U.S. government to put defensive measures in place in the event of a spill, but the
message to the
industry is clear: we refuse to give superior U.S. operators the license to drill for oil in Cuba, but we
want to make sure you’re ready to clean up any problems.¶ And the message to Cuba: we’re not
going to let you use our engineers , just our janitors . Knowing that a top-notch American clean-up
crew is on standby in case of a blowout is not a big incentive for Cuba to keep its own regulators on
top of things.
( ) Even revised licenses can’t solve – Aff is necessary.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
Existing policy is inadequate and responses would come too late.¶ Administration officials have said that
they would provide piecemeal responses¶ to a spill under existing licensing authority. As the¶ Houston Chronicle¶
reported,¶ for example, “In July, the Obama administration signaled its intent to grant¶ licenses to specific companies providing services related
to ‘oil spill prevention¶ and containment support.’”¶ 65¶ In a written response to a question submitted by a reporter to the State¶ Department,
Philip J. Crowley, Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, said,¶ “U.S. oil spill mitigation service companies can be licensed through the¶ Treasury
Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) to provide¶ oil spill prevention and containment support to companies operating in¶
Cuba. We will continue to pursue these and other initiatives within our¶ authority in order to minimize risk to U.S. waters and shores.”¶ 66¶
Later, the¶ New York Times¶ quoted Charles Luoma-Overstreet, a State¶ Department spokesman, saying licenses allowing U.S. firms to respond
to¶ an oil spill would be granted on an “application-by-application basis,” but¶ said that he would not comment on the criteria.¶ 67¶ But, as an
industry insider told CDA, “Do
not let this statement fool you...¶ we need legislation and or an executive order
allowing all petroleum services and¶ equipment companies to do business in Cuba. How are we are
going to know at¶ the time of an accident in Cuban waters what piece of equipment is going to be¶
needed from what company? In case of an accident, we do not have the luxury to¶ apply for a license
for a specific product and or service from a specific company.
A-to Drilling Prong of the Cplan
( ) Domestic Drilling insufficient to solve China advantages. Plan is key.
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 121
The United States possesses few options when it comes to balancing the various risks to U.S. energy security
and satisfying energy demand, because U.S. energy independence is not attainable , the policy tools available to deal
with energy supply disruptions are increasingly inadequate, and the United States needs to articulate a new vision of how best
to manage international energy interdependence. In particular , even if the U nited S tates were to choose to exploit all of
its domestic energy resources, it would remain dependent on oil imports to meet its existing and future demand.
The critical need to improve the integrity of the U.S. energy supply requires a much broader, more flexible view on the
quest for resources— a view that does not shun a source from a potential strategic partner for purely political reasons. U.S.
decisionmakers must look dispassionately at potential energy partners in terms of the role they might play in meeting political, economic, and
geostrategic objectives of U.S. energy security. The Obama administration has signaled that it wants to reinvigorate inter-American cooperation
and integration; a
movement toward energy cooperation and development with Cuba is consistent with, and may
be central to, that objective.
Drilling doesn’t solve
( ) Shale boom doesn’t trigger the link – overstated supply and tied to heavy crude
prices
Husain ‘13
[Syed Rashid Husain, Energy Columnist at Saudi Gazette, CEO at Husain's Associates, Toronto, CANADA, Vice President at Al-Azzaz Est;
Education: Institute of Business Administration, 6/2/13, , 6/2/13, “Breaking down US energy independence hype,” Dawn,
http://beta.dawn.com/news/1015486/breaking-down-us-energy-independence-hype]
Last week, Dr
Bassam Fattouh, the Director of the Oil and Middle East Programme at the Oxford Institute
of Energy Studies, Research Fellow at St Antony’s College, Oxford University and professor at the School of Oriental and
African Studies was in Dhahran, talking about the ongoing revolution in the energy world, the challenges it
presents and, ‘the disconnect’ between the hype that Washington is soon to be free of dependence on
the oil rich Middle East and the reality.¶ Can Washington really be on a solo flight? Would the geopolitics of the
oil rich Middle East about to change on account of the shale revolution? Isn’t all this for domestic political
consumption?¶ Fattouh kept countering and discarding the arguments of the hype mongers — one after the
other. He underlined in very clear terms, that no shale revolution would have taken place without the sustained high
crude market prices. The prices, he said, has been one of the major ‘enablers’ of this revolution.¶ While
many in the industry continue to argue that crude markets are about to turn soft — rather considerably —
due to the weakening market fundamentals, yet Fattouh says the possibility of a price meltdown is not too
high.¶ Even today producers are hedging their output in mid 90s, indicating that the prices may continue to be around the current price level.
And then the ongoing shale revolution owes its origin to cheap capitals — made available by the governments all around.¶ He argued that
looking at the incremental supplies from the US; one might get an impression of abundance. But that
is not the case — he countered.¶ “Despite the sloppy global demand, why are the oil prices not going down?” he questioned. An
interesting counter argument indeed.¶ The US developments alone could not transform the global markets, he emphasised. Other factors, such
as continued dwindling demand in the US and the rest of the world, non-Opec production scenario, squeeze on Opec and lack of cohesion
within the producers’ group, could lead to that. And with situation about the above issues not very clear, the current ongoing hype is only
adding to uncertainty in the markets.¶ Fattouh
also raised questions about the sustainability of the US output,
underlining that 90 per cent of the output from Bakken and Eagle Ford are coming from 5/6 counties
while the decline rates in the wells are considerable. Consequently, to ensure steady growth, the numbers of wells being
drilled are on rise.¶ Turning to the evolving market, he pointed out that US domestic production has led to
lack of demand of light and medium crude. However, demand for the heavy crude, produced by the Saudi Arabia is there.¶
And in the meantime, due to price discount the Canadian producers need to provide to their customers, the
growth in Canadian output is slowing down, resulting in continued US imports from the Middle East, the director at the
Oxford Institute for Energy Research underlined.
( ) Shale is too short term to bridge energy independence
Business Insider ‘13
[Arthur Berman, (quoted in article) Oil Analyst, Labyrinth Consulting Services, 1/20/2013, “Oil Guru Destroys All Of The Hype About America's
Energy Boom,” Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/arthur-berman-shale-is-magical-thinking-2013-1?op=1#ixzz2WKIYV4kB]
Not everyone believes the U.S. is capable of becoming energy independent thanks to its shale oil and
gas reserves, as the International Energy Association suggested recently.¶ The math just doesn't work out, they say — America consumes
too much. ¶ But some are even more skeptical than that.¶ Arthur Berman, an oil analyst with Labyrinth Consulting
Services, says the promise of America's shale reserves have been vastly overstated.¶ His main argument:
Shale is too expensive to drill, and shale wells usually don't last longer than a couple of years.¶ Last year,
he laid out his case at a gathering of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas in Austin Texas.¶ With his permission, we've reproduced
it here.¶ Berman argues the promise
of America's shale revolution is "magical thinking." Shale drilling is too expensive
tends to be a huge gap between the estimated amount
recoverable and what actually ends up getting recovered.¶ Shale is the most expensive and most complicated source of
energy.¶ The amount of product shale has contributed to overall consumption has been relatively minuscule.¶ The gap between
production and consumption is 9 million barrels of oil a day. "It is unlikely that the U.S. will become
energy independent," Berman argues.¶ Berman focuses on the Bakken oil play in North Dakota. As of last summer it had 236 rigs,
second highest in the nation.¶ He says Bakken oil production has increased to 573,000 barrels per day from 4874
producing wells. The average well is 118 barrels of oil per day, and each well costs $11.5 million.¶ But the Bakken has a 38
percent decline rate, according to Berman — meaning if you stopped drilling now, you'd lose 38% of your
production after a year.¶ He says there was no improvement in well efficiency between 2010 and 2011. In
some cases it's taking increasing numbers of wells to get the same amount of product. Berman says the costs are "astronomical."¶ The
Bakken is already going at a breakneck rate — there's now very little production coming from wells older than a few years.¶
We can see the same phenomenon occurring in other shale plays like the Eagle Ford in Texas.¶ The
number of currently viable wells in the Bakken has dwindled.¶ In conclusion: America's gains from shale will be shortlived, and certainly won't be our bridge to independence.
and too ephemeral to make a lasting impact.¶ There
( ) Fracking won’t unlock an oil renaissance
Owen ‘13
[Jane Owen, resident and founder of Citizens League for Environmental Action Now (CLEAN), “Long-Term Costs Of Fracking Are Staggering,”
Climate Progress, 3/19/2013, http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/19/1742171/long-term-costs-of-fracking-are-staggering/?mobile=nc]
All the hype by the fossil fuel industry about energy independence from fracking (hydraulic fracturing) in tight
gas reservoirs like the Barnett Shale has left out the costs in energy, water and other essential natural
resources.¶ Furthermore, a recent report from the Post Carbon Institute finds that projections for an energy boom from
non-conventional fossil fuel sources is not all it’s cracked up to be.¶ The report cites a study by David Hughes,
Canadian geologist, who says the low quality of hydrocarbons from bitumen – shale oil and shale gas – do not
provide the same energy returns as conventional hydrocarbons due to the energy needed to extract
or upgrade them. Hughes also notes that the “new age of energy abundance” forecast by the industry will soon run dry because shale
gas and shale oil wells deplete quickly. In fact, the “best fields have already been tapped.”¶ “Unconventional fossil
fuels all share a host of cruel and limiting traits,” says Hughes. “They offer dramatically fewer energy
returns; they consume extreme and endless flows of capital; they provide difficult or volatile rates of
supply over time and have large environmental impacts in their extraction
( ) Can’t reach energy independence
Platts ‘13
[“US shale 'boom' boosts manufacturing, not energy independence: FitchRatings,” January 10,
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/NaturalGas/6012765]
The ongoing shale "boom" brings with it a huge boost to manufacturing, but energy independence
isn't among them, according to a FitchRatings report released Thursday.¶ "The primary impact of shale gas will be
lower costs for US industry and consumers and expanded capacity and profits for petrochemical
companies and energy-intensive material producers [like] steel and other metals, cement, pulp and fertilizer," according
to "Shale Boom: A Boost to Manufacturing but not to Energy Independence," produced by five FitchRatings analysts.¶ "Net oil imports
have decreased and will continue to decrease, but the US will not achieve energy independence [defined
as zero net imports] over the near to medium term," FitchRatings said. Net oil imports fell to 8.5 million b/d in 2011, from 12.5 million b/d in
2005, FitchRatings said.¶ The
FitchRatings report said that if shale gas and oil production is allowed to
expand, the volumes will add to other comparative advantages for the US economy, including labor costs,
demographics, supply chain security and transportation costs.
( ) Counterplan is too costly to solve
Eaves ‘13
[Lucas Eaves, “The U.S. Will Remain Dependent on Foreign Oil,” 5/7/2013, http://ivn.us/infographics/2013/05/07/the-us-will-remaindependent-on-foreign-oil/]
The United States uses more oil than any other country in the world, consuming more than 18.5
million barrels a day. Despite important resources in its soil, the U.S. remains dependent on foreign
oil.¶ In 2011, 45 percent of the crude oil and petroleum products consumed in the United States were imported. The main oil exporters to the
United States are Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria.¶ However, with the exploitation of huge shale gas formations in North
Dakota, Texas, and potentially California, U.S. domestic production is expected to rise sharply in the coming years. By 2014, the U.S.
dependence on foreign oil could be reduced to 33 percent.¶ The
exploitation of this unconventional oil is extremely
costly and is only profitable as long as the price of oil remains really high. Moreover, the techniques
used to extract unconventional oil are more contested because of their strong impact on the
environment.
( ) US only has small percentage of world oil – domestic drilling can’t solve
Climate Progress ‘8
[Brad Johnson, “Right-Wing Front Group Lies: ‘Cuba Is Drilling Off Our Coasts’” Climate Progress, Jul 24,
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2008/07/24/174097/udall-cuba-drilling/]
The U.S. Has 2 Percent Of The World’s Oil, Saudi Arabia Has 20 Percent. The best estimates of the
world’s proved oil reserves are that the United States has 22 to 30 billion barrels of oil, out of 1.2 to
1.3 trillion barrels worldwide — 1.6 to 2.5 percent of total reserves. Saudi Arabia has by far the greatest supply of oil, with 20 to 22
percent of total reserves. [Energy Information Administration, 2007]¶ 75 Percent of U.S. Offshore Reserves Are Available For Drilling. “Most
of the country’s estimated offshore reserves – about 75 percent – lie in areas that have been drilled
for years or are being opened for exploration. Roughly 48 percent of the nation’s estimated reserves, or 41 billion barrels, lie
beneath the western and central Gulf of Mexico, where oil companies armed with new drilling technology are pushing into ever deeper water.
Another 27 percent of the estimated reserves, or 23.6 billion barrels, are believed to lie off the north coast of Alaska, where the federal
government sold oil exploration leases this spring, despite fears that the work would hurt the polar bear population.” [San Francisco Chronicle,
7/22/2008]
Drilling too slow
( ) Takes at least five years to begin and has no impact on prices
C.F.A.P. ‘8
[Center for American Progress, “Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling,” September 15,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/]
6. Production
would be expensive, would not start for a long time, and would have no short-term
effect on oil prices. The average oil field size in the OCS is smaller than the average in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is already being developed. As a result, much of the oil in the OCS would be expensive to
extract, and is only becoming attractive now as a result of high oil prices. According the Energy Information
Administration, it would take at least five years for oil production to begin . EIA predicted that there would be
no significant effect on oil production or price until nearly 20 years after leasing begins.
( ) No equipment
C.F.A.P. ‘8
[Center for American Progress, “Ten Reasons Not to Expand Offshore Drilling,” September 15,
www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/news/2008/09/15/4894/ten-reasons-not-to-expand-offshore-drilling/]
7. There
isn’t enough drilling equipment. Due to the high price of oil, existing drilling ships are
“booked solid for the next five years,” and demand for deepwater rigs has driven up the price of such
ships. Oil companies just don’t have the resources to explore oil fields in the OCS.
( ) Technical barriers
C.B.O. 12
[Congressional Budget Office, August 2012, "Potential Budgetary Effects of Immediately Opening Most Federal Lands to Oil and Gas Leasing",
www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/08-09-12_Oil-and-Gas_Leasing.pdf]
Offshore Leasing For this analysis, CBO used EIA’s estimates of the potential for new areas to produce oil or gas after 2022. EIA expects that
any initial production from newly opened areas in the Atlantic, Pacific, and eastern Gulf of Mexico
would be far less than is produced by current operations in the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 2). In its Annual
Energy Outlook 2011, EIA estimated that if leasing commenced in those OCS regions by 2023, production through
2035 would amount to around 0.35 billion BOE—or about 3 percent of the 13.5 billion BOE that the agency
projected would be produced from federal leases in the Gulf of Mexico over that 13-year period.17 EIA’s estimates
reflect its assumption that “local infrastructure issues and other potential nonfederal impediments are resolved.”18 In CBO’s view,
such factors probably would slow or limit production, as they sometimes have in the past. The federal government has
spent about $1.5 billion to compensate firms for leases that were canceled or relinquished because of state or local concerns about oil and gas
development off the coasts of California, North Carolina, and Florida and in Bristol Bay in Alaska.19 According to DOI, 24 localities in California
have “enacted ordinances that either bar the construction of onshore support facilities for offshore oil and gas development or subject the
approval of such facilities to a vote by local citizens.”20 Any development in the Atlantic OCS would involve siting and building new pipelines
and related onshore facilities, which would require approval by state and local authorities. Other
technical complications and
economic factors add to the uncertainty surrounding forecasts of production in new areas of the OCS.
DOI’s resource assessments suggest that much of the undiscovered oil in the eastern Gulf of Mexico is located in
ultradeep water—water that is more than 2,400 meters (about 7,900 feet) deep—where few leases can be brought into
production in any year because of the cost and complexity of their development. 21 Other factors
could slow production in new areas, including the need for exploratory drilling and the expectation
that most of the fields will be relatively small.22 Historically, production facilities have been installed at a slower pace in
the California OCS than in the Gulf of Mexico.23
Oil Safety prong of Cplan links to Politics
( ) Even safety discussions are political lightning rods
Stephens and Colvin ‘11
[Sarah Stephens, Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas. Jake Colvin, Vice President for Global Trade Issues at the
National Foreign Trade Council, US-Cuba policy, and the race for oil drilling,” The Hill, 9/29, http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreignpolicy/184661-us-cuba-policy-and-the-race-for-oil-drilling#ixzz2WRpvXMfx]
One welcomed development came earlier this month, when William Reilly, a former head of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and co-chair of the Commission that investigated the Deepwater Horizon disaster, led a group of
experts to Cuba to take a look at their plans. While the administration has done well giving permission
to Mr. Reilly, as well as to other experts, to discuss the problem with Cuban counterparts, it should move more aggressively to work with
the Cuban government to cooperate on plans for safe drilling and responding to a possible crisis. ¶ ¶ Rather than moving forward, some in the
U.S. Congress would make the problem worse. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL-R), who criticized Mr. Reilly’s
visit to Cuba as “giving credibility to the regime’s dangerous oil-drilling scheme,” has offered
legislation to try and stop Repsol from drilling. Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-R) would deny Repsol the right to
drill in U.S. waters if it helped Cuba drill in its waters. Thirty-four members of both parties have
written Repsol directly, threatening the company if it drills with Cuba.
Drilling Prong of Cplan links to Politics
( ) Oil drilling gets tied to Obama – causes partisan backlash
Daly ‘12
Matthew Daly 12, AP, “GOP Energy Bill Passes House, Calls For More Domestic Oil Production, Slashing EPA Regulations”, June 21,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/gop-energy-bill-house_n_1616609.html
The House approved a bill Thursday aimed at expanding domestic oil drilling and reining in
what Republicans call excessive
regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency. It's the second energy or environment-related measure
approved this week by the GOP-controlled House. Both bills are expected to die in the Democratic-controlled
Senate. The bill approved Thursday would require analysis of regulations that critics say could drive up gas prices and would
block the release of oil from a strategic reserve unless it's matched by a boost in domestic oil production. The measure passed on a
248-163 vote. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill, saying it would "undermine the nation's energy
security," roll back policies that support responsible energy production and impede progress on important clean-air rules.
( ) Expanding drilling causes political fights
Janofsky ‘6
Michael Janofsky, Correspondent, "Offshore Drilling Plan Widens Rifts Over Energy Policy", NYT, 4/9,
www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/washington/09drill.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON, April 8 — A Bush administration proposal to open an energy-rich tract of the Gulf of Mexico to oil and gas
drilling has touched off a tough fight in Congress, the latest demonstration of the political barriers to providing
new energy supplies even at a time of high demand and record prices. Drilling Plans The two-million-acre area, in deep waters 100 miles
south of Pensacola, Fla., is estimated to contain nearly half a billion barrels of oil and three trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough to run
roughly a million vehicles and heat more than half a million homes for about 15 years. The site, Area 181, is the only major offshore
leasing zone that the administration is offering for development. But lawmakers are divided over competing proposals to
expand or to limit the drilling. The Senate Energy Committee and its chairman, Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, are
pushing for a wider drilling zone, while the two Florida senators and many from the state's delegation in the House are arguing for a smaller
tract. Other lawmakers oppose any new drilling at all. The debate could go a long way toward defining how the nation satisfies its
need for new energy and whether longstanding prohibitions against drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf, the deep waters well beyond
state coastlines, will end. The fight, meanwhile, threatens to hold up the confirmation of President Bush's choice to lead the Interior
Department, Gov. Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho. Mr. Kempthorne was nominated last month to replace Gale A. Norton, a proponent of the
plan, who stepped down March 31. Like Ms. Norton, Mr. Kempthorne, a former senator, is a determined advocate of developing new supplies
of energy through drilling.
*** T Answers Start here
2AC v. “Economic can’t be single item”
( ) We meet or No Neg bright line – plan deals with oil exploration, oil extraction and
oil spills – each are distinct sectors. It’s contrived to claims they’re “all under the
umbrella of oil”. Contrived interpretations bad – Affs could never win because Neg’s
will always invent a means to exclude.
( ) Counter-interp: “Economic” includes bans on single products
Askari 3 – Hossein, et al, Professor of International Business at George Washington University, Case
Studies of U.S. Economic Sanctions: The Chinese, Cuban, and Iranian Experience, p. 1
Sanctions are policy tools used by governments to influence other governments and/or firms and citizens in other nations. An
economic
sanction is a restriction on commercial relations between citizens and firms of at least two countries: those in the
sender (the nation imposing the sanction) and those in the target (the nation upon which the sanction is imposed). Economic sanctions may
restrict commercial relations of third countries or third parties as well. Sanctions
can include (1) trade embargoes that
prohibit all merchandise and/or service trade between the sender and target, (2) more limited trade
bans on certain goods or services , (3) restrictions on investment and other financial flows, (4)
limitations on travel , and (5) limits on the transfer of nonfinancial assets between nations (as in the case
of technology transfer regulations).
( ) No intent to define – their ev assumes “economic sanctions”, which differs from
“economic engagement”. We meet the latter.
Resnick 1 – Dr. Evan Resnick, Ph.D. in Political Science from Columbia University, Assistant Professor of
Political Science at Yeshiva University, “Defining Engagement”, Journal of International Affairs, Spring,
54(2), Ebsco
Scholars have limited the concept of engagement in a third way by unnecessarily restricting the scope of the policy. In their
evaluation of post-Cold War US engagement of China, Paul Papayoanou and Scott Kastner define engagement as the
attempt to integrate a target country into the international order through promoting "increased trade and
financial transactions." (n21) However, limiting engagement policy to the increasing of economic
interdependence leaves out many other issue areas that were an integral part of the Clinton administration's China policy,
including those in the diplomatic , military and cultural arenas. Similarly, the US engagement of North Korea, as
epitomized by the 1994 Agreed Framework pact, promises eventual normalization of economic relations and the gradual normalization of
diplomatic relations.(n22) Equating engagement with economic contacts alone risks neglecting the importance and potential effectiveness of
contacts in noneconomic issue areas.
( ) Prefer our interpretation – we reasonably limit-out non-economic Affs and we
more precisely define words in the topic, which is vital for education.
( ) Aff doesn’t set bad precedent – we’re a far cry from a cigar Aff. The Oil Aff gives
tons of ground and we don’t “no link” disads defending the embargo.
( ) Unbeatable PIC’s – Neg interp forces the Aff to defend overly-broad plans. This
inverts their limit claim – as we’d have to beat counter-plans that retained the
embargo for all products except cigars. Better to house the ground with the Aff than
with tiny PIC’s – as the Neg could still win on other strategies.
( ) Reasonability before competing interpretations – any other stance causes a race to
the bottom that hurts topic-specific education.
2AC v. “toward”
( ) we meet – plan ALSO allows action with Cuban firms, making their argument ExtraTopicality, at best. They’ve not impacted Extra-T and it’s not a voter because all plans
include procedural steps that are arguably “extra-topical”.
( ) Counter-interp: “Toward” does not require engagement “in” or “on” the target
country
Holcomb 95 – Charles R. Holcomb, Judge on the Texas Court of Appeals, “Gary Carlton Camp,
Appellant v. The State of Texas, Appellee”, 925 S.W.2d 26; 1995 Tex. App. LEXIS 2769, 10-30, Lexis
Because the indictment alleged that the appellant pointed a weapon "towards" the officer, but the testimony stated that the weapon was not
pointed "at" the officer, an analysis of the meanings of these prepositions is required. Basically,
"at" and "towards" are
interchangeable prepositions. "At" is a "term of considerable elasticity of meaning, and somewhat indefinite." Black's Law
Dictionary 114 (5th ed. 1979). Further, "at" often expresses simply nearness and proximity. Accordingly, "at's" indication of nearness and
proximity equates with "towards" direction.
HN2
Of particular note is the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "at": Of motion directed towards; In the direction of,
towards, so as to get at; often with hostile intent, "against"; in to run, rush, go, have, throw, shoot, let drive, aim, etc. at. Oxford English
Dictionary, Volume I, page 739 (emphasis in original). Correspondingly,
"toward" indicates direction toward
something aimed at. Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 18, page 314.
HN3
Texas case law has provided very general and sweeping interpretations of otherwise specific words. A series of old cases, but
adopted and quoted by the Court of Criminal Appeals as late as 1992, have defined "at" in terms of bond forfeitures as used in the phrase "at
the courthouse door." Calling
the name of the defendant some twelve feet away from the courthouse steps, rather than
"at" the courthouse door, satisfied the statutes. The court quoted "Webster" as defining "at:" Primarily this word
expresses the relation of presence, nearness in time or place or direction towards. It is less definite than "in" or
"on" ; "at" the house may be "in" or "near" the house.
HN4
Texas courts interpret "at" as indicating a general area, rather than specific point where an
action occurs and is equivalent to "toward."
( ) We meet our interpretation – in all instances we act near-Cuba, even if it’s with
some foreign firms.
( ) Prefer our interpretation – it’s more precise, which is key to topic education. It also
teaches us more about multilateral relations – which is a valuable component of the
embargo debate.
( ) there’s no bright line – the Aff could always be spun as “acting toward oil
companies” or acting toward “oil spills”. Neg interp is contrived and contrived
interpretations are bad. Affs could never win because Neg’s will always invent a
means to exclude.
( ) No unique abuse – we certainly did not run an advantage about US-Spanish
relations. We ran one about US-Cuba ties.
( ) Reasonability before competing interpretations – any other stance causes a race to
the bottom that hurts topic-specific education.
**Disad Answers Start here
A-to Saudi Prolif Disad
Aff Frontline vs. Saudi Disad
( ) Non-unique. Iran prolif coming – makes Saudi prolif inevitable.
Samay Live ‘13
(Samay Live a leading Hindi news portal – this report is internally quoting The Institute for Science and International Security – This same article
is released on Agence France Presse and is basically an international wire release. January 15, 2013 – lexis)
Iran is on track to produce material for at least one nuclear bomb by mid-2014 as sanctions hit its economy
but fail to stop the atomic program, said a US think tank, further adding that Islamic republic could reach
'critical capability' within this time frame without detection by the West.¶ The Institute for Science and
International Security, a private group opposed to nuclear proliferation, called for tougher US economic sanctions against Iran and pressure on
major trading partners to isolate Tehran yesterday.¶ The group looked at Iran's "critical capability,"defined as the point at which the clerical
regime will be able to produce enough weapons-grade uranium or separated plutonium to build one or more bombs before foreign detection.¶
"Based on the current trajectory of Iran's nuclear program, we estimate that Iran could reach this critical capability in mid-2014," the think tank
said in a report.¶ The think tank based its assessment on the growth in Iran's stockpile of enriched uranium and number of centrifuges and what
it described as an uncooperative stance by Tehran toward the UN atomic agency.¶ The
institute said it was "deeply skeptical"
of the potential for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and painted a dire picture of the
consequences if the regime developed the bomb.¶ The think tank said that a nuclear weapon would "embolden Iranian
aggression and subversion" and questioned whether Iran's leadership, with its "apocalyptic messianism and exaltation of martyrdom," could be
deterred from using a bomb.¶ The report also said that an
Iranian nuclear arsenal could motivate Saudi Arabia to
develop a nuclear program ,fueling proliferation in a region where Israel is the sole,albeit undeclared, state with nuclear weapons.
The United States has championed sanctions aimed at crippling the Iranian economy by cutting off its oil exports,while Israel has not ruled out
the possibility of a military strike on Iran.
( ) No link and No Aff double-bind. Cuban oil can be sufficient to avoid extreme US
energy insecurities without making the Saudis think they’ve lost the US market. The
US consumes a lot of oil.
( ) No link – Saudis not concerned about North American oil boom.
AFP ‘13
[Agence France Presse – “US energy independence idea ‘naive’: Nuaimi,” 05.01.2013, http://thepeninsulaqatar.com/gcc-business/235108-usenergy-independence-idea-%E2%80%98naive%E2%80%99-nuaimi.html]
WASHINGTON: Saudi
Oil Minister Ali bin Ibrahim Al Nuaimi yesterday called the US push for energy
independence “naive,” saying the country will continue to need Middle Eastern oil long into the future.¶
Ali bin Ibrahim said he welcomed the surge in US domestic energy production from shale oil and gas fields,
which he said will add depth and stability to global oil markets.¶ “Newly commercial reserves of shale or tight oil are transforming the energy
industry in America — and that’s great news,” he told an audience of policy makers and academics at the Center for Strategic & International
Studies in Washington. “It
is helping to sustain the US economy and create jobs at a difficult time. I welcome
these new supplies into the global oil market.” he added.¶ On the other hand, he said, it was not realistic to
believe this would help the United States eliminate imports of oil, a goal of some Americans who argue energy
independence is crucial for the country’s security.¶ Despite the domestic production gains, US imports of Middle East
oil in the second half of 2012 were higher than any time since the 1990s, Ali bin Ibrahim said. The United States
“will continue to meet domestic demand by utilising a range of different sources, including from the Middle East. This is simply sound
economics. I believe this talk of ending reliance is a naive, rather simplistic view.” ¶ Ali bin Ibrahim, meanwhile, emphasised
that Saudi Arabia remains able to sustain its reserves at the current 266 billion barrels and said that
could increase, especially if technology for extracting “tight” shale oil and gas improves.¶ But he contradicted comments by another top
Saudi official, former intelligence chief Prince Turki Al Faisal, on Saudi oil development plans.¶ In a speech on Monday at Harvard
University, Turki said Saudi Arabia would increase production capacity to 15 million barrels a day from
the current 12.5m b/d. “Saudi Arabia’s national production management scheme is set to increase total capacity to 15 million barrels
per day and have an export potential of 10 barrels per day by 2020,” Turki said.¶ Ali bin Ibrahim suggested Turki misspoke. “We have no plans”
for that, Naimi said. “We don’t really see a need to build a capacity beyond what we have today.”¶ Experts
say Asia and Iran are
the keys to maintaining a strong - but evolving - US-Saudi Arabia energy relationship. As the United
States produces oil at the highest levels in 20 years thanks to the shale boom, Saudi Arabia’s
confidence in Asian markets could help keep relations between the two countries on track.¶ “The
Saudis don’t see the North American oil boom as a threat , not in the context of the global oil
market,” said a Washington-based energy consultant to governments and businesses. Ali bin Ibrahim said in a speech early
this month in Doha that nobody should fear new oil supplies when global demand is rising, adding
that Asia’s population growth should be a driver for future oil demand. ¶ Saudi Arabia, the main source of global
spare oil production capacity, will be one of the few places with the ability to supply China and other Asian countries. In contrast, extra barrels
from North Dakota and Texas will be consumed in the United States, at least until laws are changed to allow the country’s producers to export
substantial amounts of crude. ¶ The
relationship between Riyadh and Washington may be changing but the two
countries still share important goals on balancing oil markets going forward. One is to keep oil prices from going
too high in order to keep Iran from in check.¶ The United States is trying to choke funds to Tehran’s disputed
nuclear programme through the application of sanctions on its oil sales. High global crude prices could
hurt that effort. Saudi Arabia also does not want Iran to get nuclear weapons and is expected to keep
oil prices stable.¶ “We are still partners but less intimate partners than we once were,” said Chas Freeman, who served as US ambassador
to Saudi Arabia under former president George H W Bush.¶ For decades Saudi Arabia and the United States had a special relationship: the
kingdom provided the United States oil, and the United States provided Saudi Arabia protection against enemies. As Saudi Arabia becomes less
of an important supplier to the United States, the world’s biggest oil consumer, some see that special relationship declining.¶ Even
as
Saudi looks to other markets, it still is the second largest oil exporter to the United States after
Canada, with shipments averaging 1.4 million barrels per day in the first 10 months of last year.
( ) If there is a link, then growing US domestic production should also cause it.
Fox News ‘13
[Fox News, 3/8/13, “¶ 'Secret energy revolution' could hasten end to dependence on foreign oil,”
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/03/08/secret-energy-revolution-could-hasten-end-to-dependence-on-foreign-oil/#ixzz2W406KHfi]
A wealth of new technologies -- from underwater robots to 3-D scanners to nano-engineered
lubricants -- are transforming the energy exploration industry in ways that will hasten the end of
America’s reliance on Middle East oil. ¶ ¶ That’s the take on America’s “secret energy revolution,” according to a report in the
Washington Guardian. And the proof is in the balance sheets: According to the International Institute for
Strategic Studies, monthly imports of oil peaked in Sept. 2006 at 12.7 million barrels per day and has declined 40
percent since then, to 7.6 million barrels in Nov. 2012.¶ ¶ That’s partly due to falling demand, as the U.S. economy contracted and drivers with
smaller wallets balked at the high price of gas. Cars became more fuel efficient as well, often powered by batteries rather than gas. But it’s also
largely due to the increased production of oil on U.S. shores, the IISS said.¶ ¶ “Rising
production of liquid fuels in the United
States accounts for 60 percent of the fall in U.S. oil imports since 2006 and nearly 100 percent since
2010,” the group reported. If the trend continues, the U.S. could become oil independent in the coming
years, they added.¶ ¶ What’s led to such a surge? An assortment of new technologies and innovative
means to tap the oil trapped in shale rock formations, helping sip every last drop from deep wells
beneath U.S. soil. ¶ ¶ “Nanoengineered materials, underwater robots, side-scanning 3-D sonar, specially engineered lubricants, and
myriad other advances are opening up titanic new supplies of fossil fuels, many of them in unexpected places … perhaps most significantly,
North America,” wrote Vince Beiser in Pacific Standard.¶ ¶ The
problem for domestic oil has never been a lack of
supply, surprisingly. It’s been the inability to tap into that oil, Beiser noted. Fracking is the most high-profile
means of doing so, a method for pumping pressurized, specially treated mud into the dense shale formations that trap oil and gas. Fracking has
brought with it real environmental concerns, however, including charges that it increases the risk of earthquakes and pollutes ground water.¶ ¶
But there’s no doubt the process succeeds in getting fuel out of the ground. “Fracking is about as popular
with the general public as puppy kicking, but it’s very big business,” Beiser wrote. American shale gas production totaled 320 billion cubic feet
in 2000; in 2011, the number was 7.8 trillion.¶ ¶ That’s by no means the only innovation.¶ ¶ To
hit some of the deepest ocean
wells, Houston’s FMC Technologies wants to move oil production to the bottom of the ocean, with
special undersea robots built to survive the incredible pressure at those depths.¶ ¶ “We are not far from this vision. Maybe 15 years,”
Paulo Couto, a vice president of technology for FMC, told Pacific Standard. Other companies are using chemistry to tweak the mud shot down
pipes into the ground to lubricate the path for drills, and using new means to detect the pockets of oil that do lie nearby. ¶ ¶ “The
dynamics
of abundant fuel supplies will be a catalyst for major geo-political shifts, ” the Washington Guardian wrote.
( ) Cuban reserves too small to displace Mid-East Oil
Benjamin-Alvarado ‘10
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, PhD of Political Science, University of Nebraska, 2010, “Cuba’s Energy Future: Strategic Approaches to
Cooperation,” a Brookings Publication – obtained as an ebook through MSU Electronic Resources – page 2
At present Cuba
possesses an estimated 4.6 million barrels of oil and 9.3 TFC (total final consumption) of natural gas in
North Cuba Basin. 4 This is approximately half of the estimated 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable crude oil in the
Alaska Natural Wildlife Reserve. If viewed in strictly instrumental terms— namely, increasing the pool of potential
imports to the U.S. market by accessing Cuban oil and ethanol holdings— Cuba’s oil represents little in the way of
absolute material gain to the U.S. energy supply. But the possibility of energy cooperation between the United States and Cuba
offers significant relative gains connected to the potential for developing production-sharing agreements, promoting the transfer of state-oftheart technology and foreign direct investment, and increasing opportunities for the development of joint-venture partnerships, and scientifictechnical exchanges.
( ) US-Saudi ties unbreakable – oil not key.
Smith ‘13
James B. Smith is the United States Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Prior to his appointment, Ambassador Smith had served in a
variety of executive positions with Raytheon Company involving corporate strategic planning, aircraft manufacturing, and international business
development. Smith was a distinguished graduate of the United States Air Force Academy’s Class of 1974 and received the Richard I. Bong
award as the Outstanding Cadet in Military History. He received his Masters in History from Indiana University in 1975, and is also a
distinguished graduate from the Naval War College, the Air Command and Staff College and the National War College. Smith spent a 28 year
career in the United States Air Force – “US-Saudi relations: Eighty years as partners” – Arab News – 20 March 2013 –
http://www.arabnews.com/news/445436
FOR over 80 years the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have enjoyed a strong relationship
based on mutual respect and common interests. Diplomatic relations were established in 1933. That same year Standard Oil of
California signed an oil concession agreement with Saudi Arabia. That initial partnership, of course, developed into the largest oil company in
the world in terms of crude oil production and exports; Saudi Aramco.¶ As Secretary Kerry’s recent visit shows, our close relationship continues
to today. The United States and Saudi Arabia share a common concern for regional security and stabilizing the global oil markets. We also share
a charitable impulse to aid the less fortunate, as our foreign assistance efforts, both public and private, demonstrate. Two key pillars of our
relationship are economics and commerce. Trade, investment, education, and tourism all help deepen the relationship between our two
countries, because they are not just about government to government relationships, but about people to people relationships. ¶ The US-Saudi
trade relationship has grown considerably over the past few years with our total two-way trade last year reaching almost $ 74 billion. In
President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, he set an ambitious goal of doubling US exports from their level in 2009. We are well on
our way toward achieving that goal with Saudi Arabia, with the value of US non-defense exports to Saudi Arabia increasing by almost 68
percent. From Saudi Arabia’s perspective, Saudi exports to the United States have more than doubled during the same period. Our services
trade also continues to expand. In 2010, the most recent year for which statistics are available, the US exported over $ 5 billion in education,
business, and professional consulting services to Saudi Arabia.¶ As might be expected, oil remains an important part of our bilateral economic
relationship. With Saudi Arabia exporting between a million and a million and a half barrels per day to the United States, it is by far Saudi’s
largest export to our country; just as our largest non-defense export to Saudi Arabia remains motor vehicles. However, our
has developed far beyond oil
chemicals, machinery,
and automobiles. Saudi
relationship
Arabia is an important market for US aircraft,
ag riculture, and computer products . In addition to oil, some of our largest imports from
Saudi Arabia include chemicals, metals and textiles.
Another measure of how much our bilateral trade relationship is
growing is the number of new US exporters to Saudi Arabia. Last year over 150 companies entered the Saudi market for the first time.
( ) Saudi Arabia will never prolif.
Lippman ‘8
[Thomas W. Lippman is a former Middle East correspondent and a diplomatic and national security reporter for The Washington Post (19661999, 2003). He covered the war in Iraq for The Washington Post’s online edition in 2003. He appears frequently on radio and television as a
commentator on Middle Eastern affairs. He is the author of several books about the Middle East and American foreign policy, including Inside
the Mirage: America’s Fragile Partnership with Saudi Arabia (2004), Madeleine Albright and the New American Diplomacy (2000), Egypt After
Nasser (1989) and Understanding Islam (1995). He has also written on these subjects for several magazines, including The Middle East Journal,
SAIS Review and US News and World Report. His latest book on the history of US engagement in Saudi Arabia and US-Saudi relations will be
published in January 2008. Lippman is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, “Nuclear Weapons and Saudi Strategy” The Middle
East Institute, http://www.mei.edu/Portals/0/Publications/nuclear-weapons-saudi-strategy.pdf]
It is widely believed among policymakers and strategic analysts in Washington and in many Middle Eastern capitals that if Iran acquires nuclear
weapons, Saudi Arabia will feel compelled to do the same. In some ways this belief makes sense because Saudi Arabia is as vulnerable as it is
rich, and it has long felt threatened by the revolutionary ascendancy of its Shi‘ite rival across the Gulf. Moreover, some senior Saudi officials
have said privately that their country’s hand would be forced if it became known beyond doubt that Iran had become nuclear weapons capable.
The publication in late 2007 of portions of a US National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had abandoned a program to weaponize
nuclear devices in 2003 did not put an end to the speculation about a Saudi Arabian response; the NIE made clear that Iran was continuing its
effort to master the uranium enrichment process, and could resume a weapons program on short notice. It is far from certain,
however, that Saudi Arabia would wish to acquire its own nuclear arsenal or that it is capable of
doing so. There are compelling reasons why Saudi Arabia would not undertake an effort to develop or
acquire nuclear weapons, even in the unlikely event that Iran achieves a stockpile and uses this arsenal to threaten
the Kingdom. Money is not an issue — if destitute North Korea can develop nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia surely has the resources to
pursue such a program. In the fall of 2007, the Saudis reported a budget surplus of $77 billion, and with oil prices above $90 a barrel, Riyadh is
flush with cash. But the acquisition or development of nuclear weapons would be provocative,
destabilizing, controversial and extremely difficult for Saudi Arabia, and ultimately would likely
weaken the kingdom rather than strengthen it. Such a course would be directly contrary to the
Kingdom’s longstanding stated goal of making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons free
zone. According to Sultan bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, the Defense Minister and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, nuclear weapons by their nature
contravene the tenets of Islam. Pursuing nuclear weapons would be a flagrant violation of Saudi
Arabia’s commitments under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), and would surely cause a serious
breach with the United States. Saudi Arabia lacks the industrial and technological base to develop
such weapons on its own. An attempt to acquire nuclear weapons by purchasing them, perhaps from
Pakistan, would launch Saudi Arabia on a dangerously inflammatory trajectory that could destabilize
the entire region, which Saudi Arabia’s leaders know would not be in their country’s best interests. The
Saudis always prefer stability to turmoil.
( ) Mid-East war especially unlikely
Fettweis ‘7
(Christopher Fettweis, Asst Prof Poli Sci – Tulane, Asst Prof National Security Affairs – US Naval War College, “On the Consequences of Failure in
Iraq,” Survival, Vol. 49, Iss. 4, December, p. 83 – 98)
Without the US presence, a second argument goes, nothing would prevent Sunni-Shia violence from sweeping into every country where the
religious divide exists. A
Sunni bloc with centres in Riyadh and Cairo might face a Shia bloc headquartered in Tehran, both of which
would face enormous pressure from their own people to fight proxy wars across the region. In addition to intra-Muslim
civil war, cross-border warfare could not be ruled out. Jordan might be the first to send troops into Iraq to secure its own
border; once the dam breaks, Iran, Turkey, Syria and Saudi Arabia might follow suit. The Middle East has no shortage of
rivalries, any of which might descend into direct conflict after a destabilising US withdrawal. In the worst case, Iran might emerge as the
regional hegemon, able to bully and blackmail its neighbours with its new nuclear arsenal. Saudi Arabia and Egypt would soon demand suitable
deterrents of their own, and a
nuclear arms race would envelop the region. Once again, however, none of these
outcomes is particularly likely.¶ Wider war¶ No matter what the outcome in Iraq, the region is not likely to
devolve into chaos. Although it might seem counter-intuitive, by most traditional measures the Middle East is
very stable. Continuous, uninterrupted governance is the norm, not the exception; most Middle East regimes
have been in power for decades. Its monarchies, from Morocco to Jordan to every Gulf state, have generally been in
power since these countries gained independence. In Egypt Hosni Mubarak has ruled for almost three decades, and
Muammar Gadhafi in Libya for almost four. The region's autocrats have been more likely to die quiet, natural deaths
than meet the hangman or post-coup firing squads. Saddam's rather unpredictable regime, which attacked its neighbours
twice, was one of the few exceptions to this pattern of stability, and he met an end unusual for the modern Middle East. Its
regimes have survived potentially destabilising shocks before, and they would be likely to do so again.¶
The region actually experiences very little cross-border warfare, and even less since the end of the Cold War. Saddam again
provided an exception, as did the Israelis, with their adventures in Lebanon. Israel fought four wars with neighbouring states in the
first 25 years of its existence, but none in the 34 years since. Vicious civil wars that once engulfed Lebanon and
Algeria have gone quiet, and its ethnic conflicts do not make the region particularly unique.¶ The biggest risk of an American
withdrawal is intensified civil war in Iraq rather than regional conflagration. Iraq's neighbours will likely not prove eager to
fight each other to determine who gets to be the next country to spend itself into penury propping up an unpopular puppet regime next
door. As
much as the Saudis and Iranians may threaten to intervene on behalf of their co-religionists, they have
shown no eagerness to replace the counter-insurgency role that American troops play today. If the United States, with
its remarkable military and unlimited resources, could not bring about its desired solutions in Iraq, why would any other country think it could
do so?17¶ Common
interest, not the presence of the US military, provides the ultimate foundation for stability. All
ruling regimes in the Middle East share a common (and understandable) fear of instability. It is the interest of
every actor - the Iraqis, their neighbours and the rest of the world - to see a stable, functioning government emerge in Iraq. If
the United States were to withdraw, increased regional cooperation to address that common interest is far more likely
than outright warfare.
Extensions – Iran Prolif makes Saudi prolif inevitable
( ) Iran will get the bomb. Prefer CIA operatives.
Turnage ‘13
(James Turnage. managing editor at Guardian Express – internally quoting Reza Kahlili, former CIA spy in Iran – The Guardian Express – May 21st
– The parenthetical in the body of the evidence is from the original article – http://guardianlv.com/2013/05/iranian-nuclear-program-may-beinevitable/)
(According
to a report by Reza Kahlili, former CIA spy in Iran, published in WND.)¶ Is the United States government
hiding the reality of Iran’s nuclear program? Is it inevitable that they will have the ability to build and
launch these weapons of mass destruction in the very near future?¶ The answer , according to one of America’s
foremost experts on nuclear weapons
is yes. He based his opinion after examining aerial views of Iran’s nuclear
facility called “Quds”.¶ In an exclusive March 20 report with updates on March 24, March 25 and April 10, WND revealed the vast
“Quds” site. Iranian scientists are trying to perfect nuclear warheads at this underground facility previously
unknown to the West.¶ WND has a source inside Iran’s Ministry of Defense. He says that the facility is approximately 14 miles long and
7.5 miles wide. Inside the compound are two facilities built deep inside the mountain. Inside these hardened tunnels are 380 missile
silos/garages. The facilities are surrounded by barbed wire, 45 security towers and several security posts.¶ The most frightening part of his story
is that Iran
has already succeeded in increasing uranium stockpiles into “weapons grade”. ¶ Their source said
them in the final stages of completing more sophisticated weapons than
United States DOD experts previously believed.¶ An unnamed source, who worked as an expert for the U.S. Nuclear Agency, told
that this weapons grade metal places
WND that the facilities appear similar to what he inspected in Russia. These hardened tunnels are used to house missiles which can be quickly
deployed, and are defensible from aerial attack.¶ “I understand exactly what Iran has at the site … (including) a very important part of the
structures … the apparent hardened underground stub tunnels for secure storage of mobile systems which can be quickly moved to launching
sites.Ӧ The source said that Iran is working in close collaboration with North Korea, and certain members involved in the Chinese programs to
develop weapons. He said that soon he will be able to reveal the context of their association. He said he will also be able to pass along
information as to the plans and timing of Iran and North Korea’s efforts to arm missiles with nuclear warheads.¶ Fritz Ermarth, who served in
the CIA and as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, reviewed the satellite photos and said, “This imagery strongly suggests that Iran is
working on what we used to call an ‘objective force’, a deployed force of nuclear weapons on mobile missiles, normally based in deep
underground sites for survivability against even nuclear attack, capable of rapid deployment.”¶ “This open-source analysis by itself illustrates
that Iran is very serious about building survivable facilities for its nuclear enterprise,” said Dr. Peter Vincent Pry, the executive director of the
Task Force on National and Homeland Security, a congressional advisory board. Pry, who has served with the House Armed Services Committee
and in the CIA, also reviewed the imagery and added, “The location of the site amid an Iranian missile armory, protected by a vast array of
defensive and offensive missiles, is consistent with the intelligence reporting that the site is for the final stages of nuclear weapons
development. The complex appears to be the most heavily protected site in Iran.”¶ “Reza Kahlili (who revealed the Quds site) has provided the
West with one of the most critical pieces of evidence of the Iranian government’s drive to break out its nuclear development into a fully
operational capability,” said Maj. Gen. Thomas G. McInerney (Ret.). “All
Israel and the West, a
the red lines have been crossed. Beware America,
nuclear Iran is here!”
( ) If Iran gets the bomb, Saudis will be forced to do the same.
Al-Tamimi ‘13
Dr. Naser M. Al-Tamimi is a Middle East analyst with particular research interests in energy politics and the political economy of Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf and Middle East-Asia relations. He has carried out extensive research on various aspects of GCC-Asia relations. In addition, he is also a
UK-based independent political consultant and journalist. He has written and edited several articles and books, in Arabic and English, on the
most pertinent political and economic issues affecting the Middle East. Naser Al-Tamimi holds a PhD degree in Government and International
Relations from Durham University, UK. Al Arabiya.net – April 1st 2013 –
“Saudi-U.S. relations: changing dynamics” – http://english.alarabiya.net/en/views/2013/04/01/Saudi-U-S-relations-changing-dynamics.html
Secondly, in
the event of a nuclear breakout by Iran, Saudi Arabia would feel compelled to build or acquire
its own nuclear arsenal. Riyadh’s view that the Iranian threat is serious and immediate was recently expressed by diplomatic
cables obtained by WikiLeaks and published recently by the Guardian newspaper that revealed Saudi King Abdullah had privately
warned Washington about Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Indeed, last summer in an interview with Haaretz newspaper, the former senior U.S.
diplomat Dennis Ross confirmed for the first time that Saudi Arabia’s King
Abdullah has explicitly warned the U.S. that if Iran
obtains nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will seek to do so as well. Ross’ direct quote of the Saudi king
appears to be the first public confirmation of the Saudi position and the threat of a Middle East nuclear arms race if
Tehran acquires a nuclear bomb. At present there is no solid evidence that Riyadh has taken firm steps to go down this route, nor is there any
evidence of Saudi acquisition of weapons of mass destruction.
Extensions – US Production boom triggers the disad
( ) US fracking boom now. This should non-unique Saudi perception.
Hudson ‘13
Alexandra Hudson – Correspondent with Reuters Berlin – Reuters – Feb 3, 2013 – http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/03/us-europeshale-idUSBRE91204Z20130203
The United States is enjoying an energy bonanza thanks to shale gas, making it a magnet for industry, reducing
import dependence
and challenging Europe as it battles to dig itself out of recession, energy officials say.¶ Panelists at a weekend
security conference in Munich warned Europe must develop a strategy on how to tap its own resources in order to keep energy costs
competitive, or risk seeing power-intensive industries locate elsewhere.¶ "The
shale gas and oil boom is already underway. As
Europe continues to debate it, North America is reaping the advantages," said Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell
(RDSa.L).¶ Just a week ago Shell signed a $10 billion shale gas deal with Ukraine - the biggest contract yet in Europe - which could help Ukraine
ease its reliance on Russian gas imports.¶ Ukraine is said to have Europe's third-largest shale gas reserves at 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion
cubic meters), according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.¶ Its reserves are dwarfed by those of France however, estimated to be
Europe's largest at 180 trillion cubic feet.¶ France has banned the procedure, known as fracking which is used to extract shale gas and which
involves pumping vast quantities of water and chemicals at high pressure through drill holes to prop open shale rocks.¶ Environmentalists fear
it could increase seismic risks and pollute drinking water. U.S. officials question this and say that thanks to the higher proportion of gas use the
United States has had its lowest carbon dioxide emissions in 20 years.¶ "Observing this from across the Atlantic it is really quite remarkable that
there should be a ban or a go-slow on this development in Europe, really without any facts," said Daniel Yergin, Vice-Chairman of IHS
Cambridge Energy Research.¶ Fracking is used to produce a third of U.S. natural gas he said, showing the environmental
impact can be managed.¶ SHALE SCRAMBLE¶ World energy market flows already reflect North America's scramble to exploit shale oil and gas
and highlight the potential prize Europe is ignoring.¶ "The
U.S. internal energy revolution and the radical increases in
production of oil and gas have boosted gas production by 25 percent and seen oil import dependence drop from 60
percent to 40 percent, and expected to decline further to 30 percent," said Carlos Pascual, the U.S. special envoy for
energy affairs.¶ While Europe retains deep environmental concerns it also acknowledges that with the price of gas in the United States just a
third of that in Germany, its industry is already suffering the effects.¶ German Economy Minister Philipp Roesler said: "Many German firms have
opted for (relocation to) the United States, saying energy prices were the decisive factor...We are already seeing that we are suffering with our
higher energy prices…it affects our own competiveness."¶ Addressing the panel in Munich European Union Commissioner Guenther Oettinger
said Europe should be in a position to produce enough shale gas to replace its depleting conventional gas reserves, so as not to become more
dependent on imports.¶ RUSSIA UNAFRAID¶ A greater abundance of gas could threaten the dominance of Russia's gas exports and pressure
prices. The United States seized Russia's spot as the world's largest gas producer in 2012, and is due to produce significantly more from 2015.¶
"I believe that the shale revolution is something positive, a chance for all of us to launch technologies, intensify competitiveness, make our
countries more energy secure, and reduce costs," said Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak.¶ Russia is focusing on boosting exports to
energy-hungry Asia and developing infrastructure to transport gas eastwards.¶ A recent confidential study by the German intelligence agency
(BND) suggested the
United States could turn from being the world's greatest energy importer into an oil and
gas exporter by 2020, reducing its dependence on the Middle East and thereby giving it much more
freedom in policy making .
Extensions – Cuban reserves too small to displace Mid-East
( ) Quantity of Cuban reserves is exaggerated.
Padgett ‘8
Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami &
Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. He has chronicled Mexico’s democratization and
drug war as well as the rise of Latin leaders like Lula and Hugo Chavez, “How Cuba’s Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo”¶ Time Magazine –
Oct. 23, 2008 – internally quoting Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html#ixzz13Li5cosN
But is
the Cuban calculation really on the level? Skeptics ask if the 20-billion-bbl. estimate is just a ploy to
rekindle investor interest, at a time when falling oil prices could make the maritime find less attractive to the potential international
partners Cuba needs to extract the oil. The effort is all the more urgent, they add, because reduced oil revenues could also make friends like
left-wing Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez less able to aid Cuba with cut-rate crude shipments and capital to improve the island's aged
refineries. "The
Cuba numbers from my point of view are not valid," says Jorge Pinon, an energy fellow at the University of Miami
and an expert on Cuba's oil business. "I think they're feeling a lot of pressure right now to accelerate the
development of their own oil resources." Benjamin-Alvarado gives Cuba's geologists more benefit of the doubt; but he calls
the 20-billion-bbl. estimate "off the charts." "I trust them as oil people, and their seismic readings might be right," he says, "but
until we see secondary, outside analysis, this is going to be suspect."
Extensions – Ties resilient/Oil not key
( ) Oil no longer key to US-Saudi ties.
ALI IBRAHIM ‘13
Saudi OIL MINISTER ALI IBRAHIM AL-NAIMI – Federal News Service – April 30, 2013 – lexis
Lastly, the
rhetoric on reliance fails to properly recognize the importance of the partnership between
the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. We have a shared history and close bonds which began with oil, but they
go far deeper than a simple consumer-producer relationship . We are allies in more than just oil.
U.S.
companies helped, and I'm happy that some of them are here -- U.S. companies helped form the basis of what is today Saudi Aramco, one of
the world's finest oil companies.¶ Many thousands of U.S. citizens continue to work in Saudi Arabia. U.S.
and Saudi firms are
partners in a range of industries, and U.S. universities continue to help educate some of our young
people. Ladies and gentlemen, this brings me to the second part of my talk here today: The current energy and economic outlook in Saudi
Arabia.
( ) Saudi ties resilient – if they withstood fluctuations like 9-11, they’ll withstand the
plan.
Coleman ‘13
(internally quoting Prince Turki Al-Faisal, chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies – Michael Coleman is a
contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat. The Washington Diplomat – Uploaded on January 31, 2013 –
http://www.washdiplomat.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=8818:us-saudi-relationship-weathers-arabspring&catid=1496&Itemid=428)
Prince Turki Al-Faisal,
chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, has spoken at the NCUSAR
conference for the last several years about the ups and downs in U.S.-Saudi relations — the low point being
9/11, when 15 of the 19 attackers turned out to be Saudi citizens — though he insists the relationship
remains on solid footing, for the most part.¶ "Are we content in our relationship with this country? Yes and
no. We are entrusting more than 70,000 of our youngsters to your universities to show our confidence in your
educational system," Al-Faisal said, referring to the number of Saudis studying in the United States this year. ¶ "We also differ with you
on Palestine and wish that you would adopt the Abdullah Peace Initiative and that you are more evenhanded in promoting what is a
declared policy of your government: a viable and contiguous Palestinian state," he added, citing the dormant peace initiative first proposed by
the then Saudi crown prince in 2002 that offers Israel a complete normalization of relations with the Arab world in return for its withdrawal
from Palestinian lands.
( ) US-Saudi relations resilient; oil not key.
LA Times ‘11
(June 19, "U.S., Saudis in Mideast tug of war; Quest for greater influence intensifies as uprisings in the region further drive a wedge between
the longtime allies." LEXIS)
A senior State Department official insisted that on security and energy issues, the alliance remains
"rock solid." The two countries also continue to cooperate closely on counter-terrorism , and have
collaborated on the political crisis enveloping Yemen that has raised the specter of a resurgent Al Qaeda, officials note. The
United States is selling the Saudis $60 billion in arms and other military hardware in a multiyear deal, the largest
U.S. weapons transaction ever.
Extensions – Saudis won’t ever prolif
( ) Saudis can’t and won’t prolif – prefer qualified experts.
Scoblete ‘13
Greg – Editor at Real Clear World – internally quoting a Center for a New American Security report, whose lead author, CNAS senior fellow Colin
Kahl, served as deputy assistant Defense secretary for the Middle East from 2009 to 2011. Colin Kahl is also an associate professor in the
Security Studies Program in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University – “Why a Nuclear Iran Won't Trigger a
Regional Arms Race” – Real Clear World – February 20, 2013 –
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2013/02/why_a_nuclear_iran_wont_trigger_a_middle_east_arms_race.html
The Center for a New American Security is out with a report this week (PDF) arguing that if Iran does manage to build a nuclear weapon, it
won't catalyze a wave of nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East. The report centers specifically on Saudi Arabia,
arguing that the conventional wisdom surrounding the country's incentives to seek nukes is
" probably wrong," as " significant disincentives would weigh against a mad rush by Riyadh to develop
nuclear weapons."¶ The report's authors argue that there are considerable technological, legal and political
hurdles that stand between Saudi Arabia and a bomb. Instead, Riyadh would run to Washington for help deterring Iran,
relying on the U.S. nuclear umbrella and additional assurances (such as the basing of additional "trip wire" forces in the region) instead.¶ The
authors also pour cold water over the idea that Pakistan would simply sell nuclear weapons to Saudi
Arabia, writing that Pakistan views its nuclear arsenal solely through the lens of deterring India. PanIslamic solidarity isn't a big enough motivator to run the risks involved in selling those weapons to
another state, they write. There is some small possibility that Pakistan would extend a "nuclear umbrella" to Saudi Arabia, but even that
prospect was deemed highly unlikely by CNAS given the costs and difficulties it would entail.¶ Earlier this week, Peter Jones, a professor at the
University of Ottawa and visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, made a similar argument, claiming that expectations of
rapid
nuclear proliferation in the Middle East are belied by the actual history of how states behave in the
nuclear age. Granted, the nuclear age isn't all that long and taking an overly deterministic view of how the Middle East would react could be
equally blinkered. But it's still worth noting that most of the potential candidates for acquiring a nuclear weapon are either close U.S. allies
(Jordan, Saudi Arabia) or too dysfunctional (Egypt) to manage.
A-to Pink Tide/Appeasement
2AC
( ) Too unique – Pink Tide can’t be revived. Chile, Honduras, and Chavez’s death have
all crushed the movement.
Paul ‘13
(not Jonathan Paul – but SUDEEP PAUL, who is an assistant editor with the Opinion Pages of The Indian Express – “Chavez and the oil curse” –
Indian Express – March 9th, 2013,
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/chavez-and-the-oil-curse/1085285/#sthash.LquL047o.dpuf)
By 2008, the Pink Tide had overwhelmed nearly half of the 20-odd Latin American countries, excluding
permanently red Cuba. El Salvador and Peru were conquered subsequently, in 2009 and 2011 respectively. But by 2010, Chile
and Honduras had already left the fold and Brazil's Lula da Silva had made way for his protégé Dilma Rousseff.
It was believed by all, except perhaps the starry-eyed hosts of late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez in Kolkata and
Delhi's JNU,
that the Pink Tide was ebbing. One look at the suicidal path taken by Christina Fernandez de Kirchner in
Argentina, and you can rest assured that the Bolivarian revolution will end with Chavez.
( ) Turn – pink tide at the crossroads. Softening embargo to Cuba boosts the US cause
in the region.
Tisdall ‘13
Simon Tisdall is assistant editor and foreign affairs columnist of the Guardian. He was previously foreign editor of the Guardian and the
Observer and served as White House correspondent and U.S. editor in Washington D.C. – “Time for U.S. and Cuba to kiss and make up” – CNN –
April 8th – http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/08/opinion/opinion-simon-tisdall-cuba
There are other reasons for believing the time is right for Obama to end the Cuba stalemate. The recent
death of Hugo Chavez, Venezuela's influential president, has robbed Havana of a strong supporter, both political and financial.¶ Chavez was not
interested in a rapprochement with the U.S., either by Cuba or Venezuela. His revolutionary beliefs did not allow for an accommodation with
the American "imperialists." His successors may not take so militant a line, especially given that Venezuela continues to trade heavily with the
U.S., a privilege not allowed Cuba.¶ The so-called "pink
tide" that has brought several left-wing leaders to power in
Latin America in the past decade is not exactly on the ebb, but the hostility countries such as Brazil, Ecuador and
Bolivia felt towards the Bush administration has abated. In fact, according to Sweig's article, U.S. business with Latin America as a
whole is booming, up 20% in 2011. The U.S. imports more crude oil from Venezuela and Mexico than from the Persian Gulf, including Saudi
Arabia. The U.S. does three times more business with Latin America than with China.¶
to advancing U.S. interests
and business
The stand-off over Cuba is an obstacle
in Latin American countries, and vice versa. The continuation of
the embargo has left the U.S. almost totally isolated
at the United Nations, and at sharp odds with its major allies,
including Britain and the EU.
( ) No link to appeasement — plan is narrowly tailored and Cuban oil profits are
inevitable.
Bert and Clayton ‘12
Melissa Bert, Military Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Chief of the Maritime and International Law Division at the U.S. Coast Guard,
former Adjunct Professor at George Washington University and Florida International University, holds a Command and Staff degree in strategic
studies from the Naval War College and degrees from the Coast Guard Academy and the George Washington University Law School, graduate
of the Coast Guard Academy and George Washington University Law, and Blake Clayton, Fellow for Energy and National Security at the Council
on Foreign Relations, former lecturer in finance and economics at the Oxford University Programme for Undergraduate Studies and researcher
at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, holds a doctorate in business economics and strategy from Oxford University, 2012 (“Addressing the
Risk of a Cuban Oil Spill,” Brookings Institution Policy Innovation Memorandum No. 15, March 7th, Available Online at
http://www.cfr.org/cuba/addressing-risk-cuban-oil-spill/p27515
Efforts to rewrite current law and policy toward Cuba, and encouraging cooperation with its government, could antagonize groups opposed to
improved relations with the Castro regime. They might protest any decision allowing U.S. federal agencies to assist Cuba or letting U.S.
companies operate in Cuban territory.¶ However, taking
sensible steps to prepare for a potential accident at an oil
well in Cuban waters would not break new ground or materially alter broader U.S. policy toward
Cuba. For years, Washington has worked with Havana on issues of mutual concern. The United States
routinely coordinates with Cuba on search and rescue operations in the Straits of Florida as well as to
combat illicit drug trafficking and migrant smuggling. During the hurricane season, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provides Cuba with information on Caribbean storms.¶ The
recommendations proposed here are narrowly tailored to the specific challenges that a Cuban oil spill
poses to the United States. They would not help the Cuban economy or military. What they would do is
protect U.S. territory and property from a potential danger emanating from Cuba.¶ Cuba will drill for
oil in its territorial waters with or without the blessing of the United States. Defending against a potential
oil spill requires a modicum of advance coordination and preparation with the Cuban government,
which need not go beyond spill-related matters. Without taking these precautions, the United States
risks a second Deepwater Horizon, this time from Cuba.
( ) Embargo fails – means Castros already will get oil profit.
Stephens ‘11
et al, Sarah Stephens – Executive Director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas – “As Cuba plans to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, U.S.
policy poses needless risks to our national interest,” http://democracyinamericas.org/pdfs/Cuba_Drilling_and_US_Policy.pdf
In 2011, drilling will take place in Cuba at sites that lie approximately 50¶ miles from the Florida coast.
Action is needed to address the numerous¶ policy questions that we have identified right away.¶ As Steven Clemons of the New America
Foundation told us:¶ “It’s
time for U.S. foreign policy in Latin America to enter the 21st¶ Century. We have to dispense with the illusion that
economic strangulation is going to happen and cause Cuba to surrender its socialist system, and stop believing that¶ U.S. sanctions
are going to¶ stop Cuba from developing its energy resources,¶ with or without U.S. help.¶ They won’t. It’s time
to¶ view Cuba’s oil assets as a¶ positive development, because oil will mean a more stable Cuba and¶ enable the U.S. to participate and better
protect Florida and the rest¶ of the Gulf Coast from the consequences of a spill.”¶ 82¶ The
administration and Congress should
move, promptly, to change U.S.¶ policy so that we can realize the advantages of Cuba’s energy
exploration¶ program and protect the United States against possible environmental damage¶ should a spill
occur.
( ) Russian-Latin American ties won’t cause US-Russia conflict – Russian intentions
aren’t hostile.
Ramirez ‘10
(Dr. Paul Telman Sanchez Ramirez – Professor and researcher at the Department of Global Studies, ITESM, Mexico City Campus – Latin
American Policy; Volume 1, Issue 2, Article first published online: 14 OCT 2010 – appears in the December edition – obtained via WileyBlackwell Full Collection)
Russia is demonstrating to the White House its position of establishing a¶ global strategic equilibrium and its capability of defending its own
national¶ interests. There
counterpart like
is no ideological conflict between the government of the United¶ States and its Russian
there was during the Cold War because¶ the latter shares the values of democracy and a market economy.
Russia’s strat-¶ egy in Latin America does not consist of establishing a political regional alli-¶ ance to
face the hegemonic power of Washington, but it does send a message to¶ the White House.¶ The Kremlin is moving
closer to Latin America with the objective to establish¶ not an ideological or military competition with
the United States, but a compe-¶ tition guided by considerations that will prioritize pragmatism and mutual¶
advantage. Russia is attempting to increase its presence in Latin America and will¶ accomplish this through the signing of commercial, energy,
and military agree-¶ ments with some left-wing countries of the region such as Venezuela, Nicaragua,¶ Argentina, Ecuador, Brazil, Bolivia, and
Cuba. There is also the possibility of¶ signing energy and military agreements with left-wing countries such as Peru,¶ Colombia, and Mexico.
( ) Russia impact is wrong – not a threat and miscalc risk’s exaggerated.
Graham ‘7
(Thomas, a retired U.S. diplomat and Clinton-era arms-control ambassador, Russia in Global Affairs, "The dialectics of strength and weakness",
http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/numbers/20/1129.html)
An astute historian of Russia, Martin Malia, wrote several years ago that “Russia
has at different times been demonized or divinized
by Western opinion less because of her real role in Europe than because of the fears and frustrations, or hopes and aspirations,
generated within European society by its own domestic problems.” Such is the case today. To be sure, mounting Western concerns about
Russia are a consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but they are also a reflection of declining confidence
in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia come at a time when Russia is
arguably less
threatening to the West, and the United States in particular, than it has been at any time since the
end of the Second World War. Russia does not champion a totalitarian ideology intent on our destruction,
its military poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth depends on constructive commercial relations with Europe,
and its strategic arsenal – while still capable of annihilating the United States – is under more reliable
control than it has been in the past fifteen yea rs and the threat of a strategic strike approaches zero
probability. Political gridlock in key Western countries, however, precludes the creativity, risk-taking, and subtlety needed to advance our
interests on issues over which we are at odds with Russia while laying the basis for more constructive long-term relations with Russia.
( ) Cuban financial support not key to pink tide – Elites will crush Left-movements
unless they’re more extreme.
Robinson ‘11
William I. Robinson a professor of sociology and global studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. “Latin America's left at the
crossroads” – 14 Sep 2011 – Aljazeera – http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011913141540508756.html
The US and the right wing in Latin America have launched a counteroffensive to reverse the turn to
the left. The Venezuelan revolution has earned the wrath of Latin American and transnational elites, but
Bolivia and Ecuador, and more generally, the region's social movements and leftist political forces are as much
targets of this counteroffensive as is Venezuela. In Chile, a right-wing neo-liberal defeated the socialists in last year's
elections; in Honduras, the army deposed the progressive government of Manuel Zelaya in a 2009 coup d'etat with the tacit support of
Washington; and the US has expanded its military presence throughout the continent, including the installation of new military bases in
Colombia, Panama, and Honduras.¶
The Pink Tide governments will not be able to stave off this
counteroffensive without mass support . And it may be that the only way to assure that support is by
advancing a more fundamentally transformative project.
Extensions – Too Unique, Pink Tide is shot
( ) Pink Tide completely shot. Post-Chavez, there’s no leadership and Cuba can’t revive
it.
Paul ‘13
(not Jonathan Paul – but SUDEEP PAUL, who is an assistant editor with the Opinion Pages of The Indian Express – “Chavez and the oil curse” –
Indian Express – March 9th, 2013,
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/chavez-and-the-oil-curse/1085285/#sthash.LquL047o.dpuf)
Post-Chavez, Bolivia's Evo Morales and Ecuador's Rafael Correa are safely ruled out to take the helm of the
Latin American left, given their tiny economies. Cashless Kirchner's¶ statist populism, the Argentine model, is discredited.
Now, Latin America's left faces a Hobson's choice — junk Chavismo for Brazil, where Lula conducted a much more successful and sustainable
social engineering and also exercised fiscal discipline. Marxist
Lula's Brazil only made standard "anti-imperialist"
noises, paying lip service to the Bolivarian revolution. It was never interested in leading it , and Lula's
successor has to grapple with a stagnating economy. More importantly, the rest of Latin America cannot hold a candle to
Brazil. After Chavez, nobody will march with Fidel .
Extensions – Plan builds relations, reverses Leftist movement
( ) Plan’s a concrete step to build US-Latin American ties. This disempowers Leftist
movements.
Oppenheimer ‘9
(ANDRES OPPENHEIMER is a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist and the Latin American editor for The Miami Herald. He is a regular political
analyst with CNN en Espanol – Miami Herald – Jan 25th -- http://www.miamiherald.com/news/columnists/andresoppenheimer/story/871210.html)
''The
hemisphere is looking for a change in tone, but is also looking for specific actions, '' says Eric
Farnsworth, vice president of the New York-based Americas Society, who co-authored a new report on Building the Hemispheric Growth
Agenda that includes some of these ideas. ``Obama should use the opportunity provided by the Summit of the Americas to build
a
positive atmosphere early on.” My opinion: I agree. If he does it, Obama will further disarm Chávez, Castro and
other narcissist-Leninist captains of the microphone.
Extensions – Russia impact wrong
( ) No risk of Russian expansionism
Kaplan & Kaplan ‘11
Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Stephen S. Kaplan, former vice chairman of the National
Intelligence Council, March/April 2011, “America Primed,” National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/america-primed-4892
But this last scenario, among the worst anyone can come up with, is not at all dismal. Consider this: had power in Russia at a particularly fragile
moment in 1917 not been wrested by the Bolsheviks, it is entirely possible—likely even—that (over the course of the twentieth century) Russia
would have evolved into a poorer, slightly more corrupt and unstable version of France and Germany, anchored to Europe, where most of
Russia’s population is in any case located. The seventy-year Bolshevik interregnum which created a non-European empire is now past, the
strongly European configuration of Russian demography remains unchanged, and now–Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s fitfully modernizing
national-security
state has no ideology to impose outside its borders, nor troops available to permanently
it did during the Cold War. In short, Russia is demographically tied to the
Continent but finds it hard to dominate it. Meanwhile, Germany, as its economy and power amplify, may be forced to become
a normal regional actor able to balance against Russia; in the process it might lose its quasi pacifism. Moreover, Moscow, as a fading
European power, presents the United States with options because of Russia’s own manifold insecurities .
occupy Eastern Europe like
( ) No miscalc impact – US-Russian safety systems check conflict.
Morrison ‘7
(James Morrison, formerly served as an assistant foreign editor for the Washington Times. Mr. Morrison returned to the Foreign Desk in 1993
to launch the Embassy Row column, a diplomatic news column primarily focusing on foreign ambassadors in the United States and U.S.
ambassadors abroad. The column is the only one of its kind in U.S. journalism. The Washington Times, September 25, 2007, Sentinels on Guard,
lexis)
Despite growing foreign-policy disputes, Moscow and Washington have prevented an accidental nuclear
disaster with extensive communication links through Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers (NRRCs), Russian
Ambassador Yuri Ushakov said in a review of 20 years of the program established under President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. "The NRRCs
have proved their efficiency as an instrument of transparency and confidence-building," he said in a speech last
week at the State Department. "Moreover, they have become a reliable mechanism designed to diminish and eliminate
the very potential threat of an accidental nuclear disaster."
( ) Even if Russia does expand, it’s not threatening
Kaplan & Kaplan ‘11
Robert D. Kaplan, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, and Stephen S. Kaplan, former vice chairman of the National
Intelligence Council, March/April 2011, “America Primed,” National Interest, http://nationalinterest.org/print/article/america-primed-4892
Any new Russian empire will be a weak reincarnation of previous ones, limited not only by Chinese influence in
the Russian Far East but by Chinese political and economic influence in Muslim Central Asia as well. Newly vibrant states like China,
India, Turkey, Poland and Kazakhstan are already containing Russia after a fashion. America’s goal must
be to support Russia’s consolidation of its own Far East, so that China will feel less secure on land and
consequently be unable to so completely devote its energies to sea power. Balancing against Russia in Europe and yet helping it
abroad is the kind of subtle strategy
that would help guard against any one nation achieving the level of
dominance elsewhere that America already enjoys in the Western Hemisphere.
The Nazemroaya ev – for a group discussion of Contextualization
( ) Pink tide thesis is too sweeping. Neg impact claims essentialize and are inaccurate.
Nazemroaya ‘13
An award-winning author and geopolitical analyst, Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Sociologist and Research Associate at the
Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), a contributor at the Strategic Culture Foundation (SCF), Moscow, and a member of
the Scientific Committee of Geopolitica, Italy. “The Pink Tide in Latin America: an Alliance between Local Capital and Socialism
?” – May 03, 2013 – http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_globalelite_la15.htm
Many questions have arisen about what direction Latin America and the so-called “pink tide” will take
since Hugo Chavez’s death and his successor Nicolas Maduro’s victory in the Venezuelan presidential elections against Henrique
Capriles Radonski on April 14, 2013. These questions broadly focus on the rest of Latin America and the region’s leftist
governments and movements. Several important questions are being asked. Will the US gain ground or lose even more influence in
Latin America?¶ Will Latin America continue to move leftwards or will the status quo ante prevail?¶ When looking at this question caution
against oversimplification and romanticization is needed.¶ A case in point about this oversimplification
and romanticization is that Paraguay’s President Fernando Luga was praised as a steward by the
leftists, even though he had to politically work as a centrist. Linked to this, there is also an important question about
what right-wing and left-wing really mean.¶ Do governments, groups, and movements that call or consider themselves right-wing or left-wing
really fit into such categories?¶ In this context, the terms “left” and “right” need to be operationalized before any discussion can move forward.
For purposes of discussion, the “left” would best be operationalized or defined as a political position that advocates reform or, in its radical
form, revolution.¶ Its proponents describe it as a position aimed at reducing or ending social inequality whereas its critics view it as either
utopian or destabilizing.¶ On the other hand, the “right” would best be operationalized or defined as a conservative and reactionary political
position. Its proponents describe it as traditional and a safeguard of stability whereas its critics and opponents say that it supports social
hierarchies that maintain societal inequality.¶ Socio-politically, the terms “left” and “right” originate in the upheavals of the French Revolution.¶
The French Estates-General of the Bourbon monarchy and its revolutionary predecessor, the French National Assembly, became divided
between those groups that supported the Bourbon monarchy, clergy, and “old regime” and those groups that opposed them in favor of
revolution and republicanism.¶ The supporters of the “old regime” would sit to the right of the legislative president or speaker in the legislative
chamber whereas those groups that supported change and a “new regime” would sit to the left.¶ It is also important to note that the “right”
emerged as a reaction to the formation of the calls for change from the “left.”¶ A Plethora of “Lefts” in Latin America¶ It should be pointed out
that contrary to the highly simplistic dualism portrayed by the US government and most leftists about the
categorization of Latin America into “left” or “right” is overly simplistic.¶ Things are actually not clear-cut. This means that the above
operationalized definitions of “right” and “left” are essentially ideal-types.¶ The leftist
governments and movements of Latin
America are an eclectic bunch. Thinking of them all in terms of one-size-fits-all is naive and ignores the
history and local circumstances/variables that have constructed and influenced each one. In short, each one
has its own identity. At least at the grassroots level, they want local agency, relatively more inclusive societies, and a reduction of the
influential role of Latin America’s comprador elite oligarchs.¶ Latin America’s comprador elites are the local representatives of the foreign
corporations, governments, and interests that have exploited Latin America for centuries. ¶ These comprador elites can frankly be described as
either the “House Negros” or racist upper class that have historically ruled Latin America and managed its wealth and resources for the
changing centers of power in other parts of the world that have controlled the area.¶ Today, the regional comprador elites are mostly aligned
with the United States and prefer Miami or New York City to Caracas or Quito.¶ Latin American left-wing governments do not strictly operate to
There is even a debate over whether the Cuban socialist project is
genuinely reforming or if it will eventually follow the paths of capitalist
restoration like China and Vietnam. The typology of Latin America described by the sociologist James Petras will
the “left.”¶
help frame this as the most workable way to conceptualize the “left” in Latin America.
Brazil wont prolif
( ) Brazil won’t proliferate - Regional integration and lack of motivation
Lavoy & Walker ‘6
Dr. Peter Lavoy, Director and Senior Lecturer in National Security Affairs at the Center for Contemporary Conflict, and Robin Walker, Research
Associate in National Security Affairs at the CCC, 7-29-2006,
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/events/recent/NuclearWeaponsProliferation2016Jul06_rpt.asp
Both Argentina and Brazil have taken nuclear weapons production options off the table, and while both
maintain civilian nuclear programs, they are about technology and modernity, not military power. Historically, Brazil sees itself as a potential
power, and it uses this quest for greatness as a rationale for many of its actions. Despite that, Latin
America is an isolated
security environment and historically militaries in the region have been more of a threat to their own
countries than to foreign powers. The regional integration of South America, both economically and in
security cooperation, further decreased the likelihood of international conflict. However, Argentina and Brazil
maintain their nuclear expertise and capabilities. The governing left-center coalitions have nationalistic tendencies and view nuclear power as a
way to demonstrate power, modernity and technology. Through its nuclear program, Brazil has achieved energy autonomy. The possibility also
remains for either Argentina or Brazil to export technology in order to earn reciprocity in other matters.
( ) No Brazil prolif
Lavoy & Walker ‘6
Dr. Peter Lavoy, Director and Senior Lecturer in National Security Affairs at the Center for Contemporary Conflict, and Robin Walker, Research
Associate in National Security Affairs at the CCC, 7-29-2006,
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/events/recent/NuclearWeaponsProliferation2016Jul06_rpt.asp
Several factors were crucial in Brazil’s reversal. Brazil
faced no serious threats to its national security. The personal
denial, diplomatic pressure, and
Brazil’s economic problems all slowed technical progress, buying time for political changes to occur
and for confidence-building to work without being overtaken by the early attainment of dangerous capabilities.
leadership shown by the presidents of Brazil and Argentina also was key. Finally, technology
( ) Brazil doesn’t have the money for military modernization
Schulz ‘2K
Donald Schulz, Chairman of the Political Science Department at Cleveland State University, March 2000, “The United States and Latin America:
Shaping an Elusive Future,” DTIC, http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA375197&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
How serious a threat might Brazil potentially be? It has been estimated that if the nuclear plant at Angra dos Reis (Angra I) were only producing
at 30 percent capacity, it could produce five 20-kiloton weapons a year. If production from other plants were included, Brazil would have a
capability three times greater than India or Pakistan. Furthermore, its defense industry already has a substantial missile producing capability.
On the other hand, the country has
a very limited capacity to project its military power via air and sealift or to
sustain its forces over long distances. And though a 1983 law authorizes significant military manpower increases (which could
place Brazil at a numerical level slightly higher than France, Iran and Pakistan), such growth will be restricted by a lack of
economic resources. Indeed, the development of all these military potentials has been, and will
continue to be, severely constrained by a lack of money. (Which is one reason Brazil decided to
engage in arms control with Argentina in the first place.)
**Politics – Plan Popular
** also see the Politics file for Aff answers
Plan popular with Oil Lobbies – 2AC
( ) Plan popular with energy lobbies. This affects Congressional votes.
Sadowski ‘11
Richard Sadowski is a Class of 2012 J.D. candidate, at Hofstra University¶ School of Law, NY. Mr. Sadowski is also the Managing Editor of
Production of¶ the Journal of International Business and Law Vol. XI. “Cuban Offshore Drilling: Preparation and¶ Prevention within the
Framework of the United¶ States’ Embargo” – ¶ Sustainable Development Law & Policy¶ Volume 12; Issue 1 Fall 2011: Natural Resource
Conflicts Article 10 – http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&context=sdlp
Increased Pressure to End the Embargo¶ A U.S. Geological Survey estimates that Cuba’s offshore¶ oil fields hold at least four and a half billion
barrels of recoverable¶ oil and ten trillion cubic feet of natural gas.29 Cupet, the¶ state-owned Cuban energy company, insists that actual
reserves¶ are double that of the U.S. estimate.30 One estimate indicates¶ that Cuba could be producing 525,000 barrels of oil per day.31¶
Given this vast resource, Cuba has already leased offshore oil¶ exploration blocks to operators from Spain, Norway, and India.32¶ Offshore oil
discoveries in Cuba are placing increasing pressure¶ for the United States to end the embargo. First, U.S.
energy companies¶ are
eager to compete for access to Cuban oil reserves.33¶ Secondly, fears of a Cuban oil spill are argued to warrant U.S.¶
investment and technology.34 Finally, the concern over Cuban¶ offshore drilling renews cries that the embargo is largely a failure¶ and harms
human rights.¶ Economics: U.S. Companies Want In¶ For
U.S. companies, the embargo creates concern that they¶ will
lose out on an opportunity to develop a nearby resource.35¶ Oil companies have a long history of
utilizing political pressure¶ for self-serving purposes.36 American politicians, ever fearful of¶ high energy costs,
are especially susceptible to oil-lobby pressures .¶ 37 This dynamic was exemplified in 2008, when then-Vice¶ President
Dick Cheney told the board of directors of the U.S.¶ Chamber of Commerce that “oil is being drilled right now sixty¶ miles off the coast of
Florida. But we’re not doing it, the Chinese¶ are, in cooperation with the Cuban government. Even the communists¶ have figured out that a
good answer to high prices is¶ more supply.”38¶ This
pressure for U.S. investment in oil is exacerbated by¶ America’s
expected increase in consumption rates.39 Oil company¶ stocks are valued in large part on access to
reserves.40 Thus,¶ more leases, including those in Cuban waters, equal higher stock¶ valuation.41 “The
last thing that American energy companies¶ want is to be trapped on the sidelines by sanctions while
European,¶ Canadian and Latin American rivals are free to develop¶ new oil resources on the doorstep of the
United States.”42
Plan Popular – Oil Lobby – 1AR
( ) Big oil likes the plan
Krauss ‘10
Clifford Krauss, 9-30-2010, “Drilling Plans Off Cuba Stir Fears of Impact on Gulf,” New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/world/americas/30cuba.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0
The prospect of an accident is emboldening American drilling companies, backed by some critics of
the embargo, to seek permission from the United States government to participate in Cuba’s nascent
industry, even if only to protect against an accident.¶ “This isn’t about ideology. It’s about oil spills,” said Lee Hunt, president of the
International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group that is trying to broaden bilateral contacts to promote drilling safety. “Political
attitudes have to change in order to protect the gulf.Ӧ Any
opening could provide a convenient wedge for big
American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and
natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended
an energy conference on Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials.
( ) Plan popular with US oil lobbies
Genaw ‘10
Jillian L. Genaw – J.D. Candidate, Indiana Univ. School of Law-Indianapolis – Indiana International & Comparative Law Review; Indiana
Internationsl & Comparative Law Review – 20 Ind. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 47 – lexis, lawrev section
While the environmental laws in the United States prohibit drilling within at least 100 miles of its coasts, there is little the United States can do
to control how Cuba utilizes its portion of the water rights acquired by the 1977 treaty. Currently Cuba does not have the economic capacity to
exploit the oil and gas fields in these waters. However, Cuba plans to sell rights to its fifty-nine offshore leasing blocs to various international
partners who will then extract the oil and gas and give Cuba a share in the profits. n27 In fact, Cuba has already [*50] sold the rights to
approximately one-third of its offshore leasing blocs to foreign nations that have agreed to cover their own fossil fuel exploration costs and to
share the profits of any production with Cuba. n28 Foreign nations, including India and China, hope to develop the 9. 3 billion barrels of crude
oil and 21. 8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that were recently found in the North Cuban Basin by a U. S. Geological Survey. n29 Given that the
United States has historically been very dependent on foreign oil, U.S. Chief Executive Officers ("CEOs"), oil companies, and much of the
American public alike have begun to urge Congress to lift the OCS Moratorium and allow the United States to become more self- sufficient. n30
In the alternative, U.
S. oil companies have urged Congress to end the economic embargo against Cuba so
that they can at least compete with other foreign nations for rights to Cuba's offshore leasing blocs . n31
Although economic arguments in favor of lifting the OCS Moratorium in the United States play some role, environmental arguments
remain central to the debate over offshore drilling near the coasts. The coastal waters surrounding Florida are
especially at issue because the expansion of Cuba's oil program so close to the Florida coast would yield the
same environmental detriments that would result if the United States were doing the drilling itself. n32
Thus, if the United States is going to suffer negative environmental effects anyway, it might as well take
advantage of the economic gains associated with expanded offshore oil drilling.
( ) Oil lobby key to the agenda
Skukowski ‘10
Ryan Skukowski, 4-23-2010, “Oil Lobby Presses Drilling, Sunshine State Showdowns and More in Capital Eye Opener: April 23,”
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/04/oil-lobby-presses-drilling-sunshine.html
Among them is petroleum extraction specialist Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, who recently
contracted with BP to explore drilling possibilities in the Gulf of Mexico. Also mentioned in the article are Statoil and
Royal Dutch Shell, both of whom command not only a dominant presence in the global drilling market,
but also a formidable lobbying operation in Washington , D.C.¶ The perseverance of the oil companies is
no surprise, really -- the Gulf of Mexico is rife with extractable petroleum potential. And with energy reform looming on the
legislative agenda, industry lobbyists will likely continue a trend of influence on energy-related policy
floating through Congress.
Plan Popular in Congress
( ) Link Turn outweighs the link – inevitable Cuban drilling softens the green message.
Goodhue ‘10
David Goodhue, Editor at The Reporter, Miami/Fort Lauderdale Area, “Cuba Leases to Bring Deepwater Drilling Within 50 Miles of Key West”,
WorkBoat.com (Sept. 9, 2010), http://www.workboat.com/¶ newsdetail.aspx?id=4294998861
In the United States, drilling off the coasts has been a contentious issue for decades, and it became even more hairier
politically since the DeepWater Horizon disaster.¶ The Obama administration placed a moratorium on all
deepwater drilling in U.S. waters in the spill's aftermath. Some want the ban to continue, while others,
including the oil industry and several Gulf state politicians , are urging President Obama to lift the
suspension, saying it's hurting employment in their states.¶ But Hunt and Pinon said much of the debate over whether the
United States should open more of its coastline for oil and natural-gas exploration will change once drilling
operations begin in nearby Cuba, especially if those explorations bear significant finds. ¶ "Cuba is a sovereign
country whether we like it or not, and can conduct oil exploration within its exclusive economic zone," Pinon said.
( ) Republicans in Congress support plan – they were willing to buck Bush over it.
Padgett ‘8
Tim Padgett joined TIME in 1996 as Mexico City bureau chief covering Latin America. In 1999 he moved to Florida to become TIME’s Miami &
Latin America bureau chief, reporting on the hemisphere from Tallahassee to Tierra del Fuego. He has chronicled Mexico’s democratization and
drug war as well as the rise of Latin leaders like Lula and Hugo Chavez, “How Cuba’s Oil Find Could Change the US Embargo”¶ Time Magazine –
Oct. 23, 2008 – http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,¶ 1853252,00.html#ixzz13Li5cosN
Washington's own Cuba time warp got a jolt as well. The oil discovery has renewed debate over whether a
crude-thirsty U.S. should loosen its 46-year-old trade embargo against Cuba and let yanqui firms join the drilling, which is taking
place fewer than 100 miles off U.S. shores. Despite the Bush Administration's hard line on Cuba, Republicans in
Congress have proposed legislation to exempt Big Oil from the embargo.
That clamor is sure to rise — especially if
Barack Obama, who is more open to dialogue with Havana, becomes the next President — now that Cuba's state oil company, Cubapetroleo, or Cupet, has
announced a stunning new estimate of more than 20 billion bbl. bubbling off its shores. "This is not a game," Cupet's exploration manager, Rafael Tenreyro, assured
reporters in Havana last week.¶ If true, those potential
reserves could make Cuba a major petro player in the
hemisphere. (The U.S. has reserves of 29 billion bbl.) And it could render the embargo an even more ineffective
means of dislodging the aging Castro brothers, Fidel and current President Raúl. "If it really is 20 billion, then it's a game changer," says
Jonathan Benjamin-Alvarado, a Cuba oil analyst at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. "It provides a lot more justification for changing
elements of the embargo, just as we did when we allowed agricultural and medical sales to Cuba" a decade ago.
( ) Dems support the plan as well
O’Grady ‘13
Mary O'Grady is a member of the editorial board at The Wall Street Journal – WSJ – April 24, 2013 –
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324474004578442511561458392.html
The loss to the regime is not just about the foreign exchange that oil implied. The threat
of spills, as well as lost opportunity
for American companies, were ways for Cuba to engage the U.S. and perhaps even get the embargo
lifted without having to make any human-rights concessions. Some Democrats, whose party is more often found in
opposition to oil exploration, tried to help. At a House subcommittee hearing in November 2011 on the matter, Rep. Ed
Markey (D., Mass.) argued that "companies like Exxon Mobil, XOM -1.76% Chevron CVX -1.89% and the ConocoPhillips COP 1.51% " should be doing the "first drilling" in Cuban waters. "I would hope that the Majority's opposition to
lifting the embargo against Fidel does not outweigh their fidelity to creating more jobs for American
businesses and American workers in our own country."
( ) Their link ev doesn’t assume the BP spill – that’s caused attitude-shift on this issue.
Chittum ‘10
[Ryan Chittum, deputy editor, “The Times Channels the Oil Lobby on Cuba,” Columbia Journalism Review, October,
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_times_channels_the_oil_lob.php]
The top story in The New York Times yesterday carried a bit of water for the oil and gas lobby .¶ It’s
about how Cuba is thinking about opening up its waters for oil drilling and how that could affect the
U.S. if there were a spill. That’s a legit story, although it’s an old one. The Wall Street Journal wrote it three months ago and even
then thought it worthy of just A5.¶ The Journal back then reported that “U.S. companies won’t participate because of a longstanding trade
embargo against Cuba.” But Big Oil smells Havana crude. And that’s the twist on the Times’s story. ¶ The paper somewhat credulously channels
oil interests in reporting why U.S. drillers are worried about Cuban drilling:¶ The
prospect of an accident is emboldening
American drilling companies, backed by some critics of the embargo, to seek permission from the United States
government to participate in Cuba’s nascent industry , even if only to protect against an accident .¶ “This
isn’t about ideology. It’s about oil spills,” said Lee Hunt, president of the International Association of Drilling Contractors, a trade group that is
trying to broaden bilateral contacts to promote drilling safety. “ Political
attitudes have to change in order to protect the
gulf .” ¶ Sure!¶ Fortunately, we do get this acknowledgment:¶ Any opening could provide a convenient wedge for big
American oil companies that have quietly lobbied Congress for years to allow them to bid for oil and
natural gas deposits in waters off Cuba. Representatives of Exxon Mobil and Valero Energy attended an energy conference on
Cuba in Mexico City in 2006, where they met Cuban oil officials. ¶ Basically its unclear why global oil corporations already going into Cuba won’t
have equipment as good as the Americans say they need. The spill angle is a bit of a red herring.¶ A
better angle for this story
might have been something like: American oil and gas companies, which currently can’t start any new
wells in the Gulf, are trying to scare people into letting them start new wells in the Gulf—for Cuba.¶ The
folly of the whole Cold War-relic embargo itself is another story.
( ) Plan popular – BP oil spiil changed the calculation.
Englund ‘10
William A. Englund is a Pulitzer=prize winning investigative reporter and a foreign affairs correspondent. The National Journal – June 12, 2010 –
lexis
There's no question that U.S. oil companies would like to get a taste of Cuban petroleum , and the
Deepwater Horizon leak may help bring that closer to reality. After the accident, a delegation of American
drilling contractors won Washington's permission to travel to Cuba for consultations . Sens. Lisa
Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Mary Landrieu, D-La., had previously introduced a bill that would exempt U.S. oil
companies from the provisions of the Cuban embargo; it may get new impetus in the reverberations
of the BP catastrophe.
Plan popular with the public
( ) Plan popular with the public
Franks ‘8
Jeff Franks – Havana correspondent for Reuter’s – New York Times – 6/12/2008¶
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/business/worldbusiness/12iht-cubaoil.4.13670441.html?_r=0
But Kirby Jones, a consultant on Cuban business and founder of the U.S.-Cuba Trade Association in Washington, and who is against the
embargo, said a big Cuba oil find would change the political equation.¶ "This is the first time that maintaining the
embargo actually costs the United States something," he said. "And we need oil. We need it from wherever we can get it, and in this case it's 50
miles off our coast."¶ An
odd fact is that Cuba will be drilling 50 miles from the Florida Keys , or more than
twice as close as U.S. companies can get because of regulations protecting Florida's coast.¶ Representative Jeff Flake, an
Arizona Republican who has introduced bills in Congress to lift the embargo for oil companies, said the
environmental argument might be crucial because there was much concern in Florida about potential
oil spills.¶ "If there are going to be oil rigs off of Florida, I think most Americans would be more
comfortable if they were U.S. oil rigs, rather than Chinese for example," Flake said.
Plan popular in Florida
( ) Plan popular in Florida
Englund ‘10
William A. Englund is a Pulitzer=prize winning investigative reporter and a foreign affairs correspondent. The National Journal – June 12, 2010 –
lexis
Are Cuba and the United States separated by the Gulf of Mexico -- or joined by it? The
Deepwater Horizon oil leak is likely to
clarify the way the two countries regard each other. Nothing quite like it has ever happened before, and
it could fundamentally change their relationship. But at the moment, no one is quite sure what the consequences will be if
BP's waterborne petroleum begins to wash up on Cuba's northwest coast.¶ The environmental ramifications are not certain -- and neither are
the political or legal ones. Under U.S. law, American companies (including BP's American subsidiary) are prohibited from making any payments
to Cuba. But President Obama
has wide discretionary powers to issue licenses under the law, and experts on CubanAmerican relations say it's almost certain that he would do so if necessary to get oil cleanup assistance to the Communist
nation. Stiffing Havana, they say, would be extraordinarily shortsighted, given that Cuba plans to begin its own offshore drilling later this year
-- and any spills stemming fromthatendeavor would inevitably flow toward Florida.¶ "But it could get very political, very quickly," says
Dan Whittle, director of the Environmental Defense Fund's Cuba program, which has had a license to operate in Cuba since 2000.
Uppermost in any White House calculation, says Robert L. Muse, a legal expert on Cuba sanctions, will be how helping
Cuba would play in Florida, which is likely to remain an important swing state in 2012.¶ The assistance might actually
play very well , he says, because most of the fish that sustain Florida's sport and commercial fisheries spawn in
Cuban waters.
( ) Plan popular with Florida delegation
Englund ‘10
William A. Englund is a Pulitzer=prize winning investigative reporter and a foreign affairs correspondent. Internally quoting Jorge Pinon, a
former Amoco executive who is now an energy consultant and research fellow at the Cuban Research Institute at Florida International
University – The National Journal – June 12, 2010 – lexis
Seeing Cuba and Venezuela loosen their tight embrace wouldn't be so bad from Washington's perspective, Pinon says. Because
the
drilling will happen anyway, he argues, the U.S. would be foolish not to relax its restrictions and allow the
unfettered transfer of even highly sophisticated equipment to Cuba -- so that when there is a problem, someone can get
Houston on the phone and get a key component onto a helicopter in a matter of hours, rather than having to go through Spain. "This is so
we can protect our shores," Pinon says.¶ How many Florida politicians, Muse asks, would want to hew to the
anti-Cuba crusade if it risks putting oil on their constituents' beaches?