Advantage CPs – UMich GJPP
7wkjuniors
Aerospace
1NC R&D Tax Credit CP
Text: The United States federal government should permanently raise the
research and development tax credit rate to 20 percent.
R&D tax credit key to the aerospace industry and the US economy
AIA 2010 - Aerospace Industries Association, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT, http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/RandDpaper.pdf
The aerospace and civil aviation industries account for nearly 15 percent of the U.S.
Gross Domestic Product and support approximately 11 million domestic jobs. Consequently,
America’s economic growth and national security depend on this high technology workforce, which includes many segments of
applied research including air transportation, military operations, and space-based communications. Yet these U.S.
firms,
which produce the world’s most reliable aerospace systems and sub-systems, must
compete with a foreign marketplace in which government entities underwrite a
significant portion of the industry’s civil aeronautics research and development (R&D).
Since 1981, the U.S. R&D tax credit has spurred innovation, thereby strengthening U.S.
competitiveness and creating high-tech jobs domestically. On average, U.S. firms invest an additional
$94 in research and development for every $6 the federal government invests through the R&D tax credit.1 During this time of
global recession, preserving and creating
high-tech jobs in the United States is essential for our
domestic economy to thrive. The R&D tax credit will help to accomplish this goal. More
than 75 percent of the R&D tax credit dollars are earned on wages paid to individuals
directly involved in research conducted in the United States.2 Further, if Congress were
to enhance the R&D tax credit instead of simply extending it annually, we believe the
result would be an immediate and positive impact on U.S. innovation and high-tech job
creation. For example, one study suggests that raising the Alternative Simplified R&D
tax credit rate to 20 percent would create 162,000 jobs and have a positive spillover
effect on the overall economy.3 However, for the ongoing benefits to have real teeth, the R&D tax credit must
be made permanent.
2NC Solvency
Long-term R&D tax credit solves aerospace competitiveness and
boosts the economy
FAAC 10 (Department of Transportation’s recommendations via the Future of Aviation Advisory Committee to Congress, The
Aviation Advisory Committee provides information, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on ensuring
the competitiveness of the U.S. aviation industry and its capability to address the evolving transportation needs, challenges, and
opportunities of the global economy. 2010; http://www.dot.gov/faac/FAAC_Recommendations.pdf)
RECOMMENDATION # 2 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO AIRFRAME AND ENGINE TECHNOLOGIES
Accelerate aircraft technology development with more robust research and development by government and industry. Seek the
permanent extension of industry research and development tax credits. Seek significant increases in funding to programs such as the
FAA‘s Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) technology program, and continue to advocate close coordination
with National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) aeronautical research programs to develop aircraft technologies.
PROBLEM/CHALLENGE The industry goals of carbon neutral growth from 2020 and halving total carbon dioxide (CO2) footprint
of aviation by 2050 require a combination of actions. About 25% of the fuel burn and CO2 reduction contributions are expected from
improved airframe and engine technology. Historically, most of the reductions in the environmental impact of aviation have been
due to improvements in the technology on the aircraft, yet significant improvement opportunities are still in front of us.
Unfortunately, the timelines for the development of new technologies tend to be very long, with additional time involved for the
penetration of these technologies into the fleet. In order to realize benefits within a foreseeable timeframe, we need to achieve
successful maturation and deployment of new technologies within the next 3-8 years. A
concerted research and
development (R&D) effort is needed to accelerate the development of technologies and their introduction into the
fleet. RATIONALE Aviation-related research and development investments are vital for a high
technology economy and also the enablers of solutions that can decrease emissions,
create good jobs, increase U.S. competitiveness, and provide substantial enhancements to mobility benefiting the general public. Aerospace is a top exporter, so increased capability in this sector
also benefits the U.S. balance of payments and is key to achieving the President‘s stated export goals.
Leveraging industry‘s research and development investment is by far the largest lever to maximize benefits in the shortest time
frame.
Since 1981, the Research and Development Tax Credit has been a critical incentive
for businesses to invest in domestic research and development. Such credits are the
highest leverage use of federal dollars to stimulate research and development that is
most likely to lead to implementation in goods and services. The resulting innovation,
advanced technologies, and new developments have helped keep the U.S. at the
forefront of cutting edge technologies, created jobs, spurred economic growth, and
driven the U.S. competitive advantage. In the early 1980‘s, the U.S. had the most
generous R&D incentive. By 2009, the U.S. ranked 17th among the 21 OECD countries
offering R&D tax incentives. Since the R&D tax credit has currently expired, the U.S. ranks last. The U.S.
aerospace industry faces tough competitors, with new emerging competition in China,
Japan and Russia. We need to increase federal co-funding of R&D and provide longer
term stability of the R&D tax credit. The CLEEN program is an initiative between FAA and industry, on a 1:1
minimum cost share (so the government contribution is no more than 50%) to mature promising technologies and alternative fuels
to reduce aircraft environmental impacts and energy usage. This program has ambitious goals to achieve a quieter, cleaner fleet that
operates more efficiently with less energy and sustainable fuels. It leverages federal dollars with industry contributions. However, it
is underfunded at a federal investment of $125 million over 5 years. (By comparison, the noise setaside in the Airport Improvement
Program is funded at a minimum of $300 million per year.) If we believe that new technologies to make aviation more
environmentally progressive are important to develop domestically, we need to address and improve the primary incentive available
for businesses to innovate and create new products. The recommended actions will leverage job creation, enhance exports and
improve the country‘s leadership in clean technologies.
Tax credit key to aerospace industry and U.S. economy
AIA 08 - Aerospace Industries Association
(“AIA Letter Urges R&D Tax Credit Extension,” http://www.aiaaerospace.org/newsroom/aia_news/aia_letter_urges_rd_tax_credit_extension/, 2/5)
The research and development tax credit creates high-paying jobs and should be an important tool in efforts to stimulate the U.S.
economy, AIA President and CEO Marion Blakey said in a Jan. 29 letter to Senate leaders. The
tax credit is a proven
incentive that helps U.S. companies compete in the global economy by encouraging high
technology innovation. Blakey said the credit should be part of the economic stimulus package under consideration in
Congress or another tax package that would be considered later this fall. The letter urged Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max
Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) as well as Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to reinstate the tax credit this year, preferably in the stimulus package. "The tax credit is a huge
factor in fostering the technological advances that are the cornerstone of Americas success," Blakey said. "The
credit is
needed not only for the sake of the aerospace industry, but to boost the entire U.S.
economy." The credit, which expired at the end of 2007, dates back to 1981. Congress must extend the credit each year, but
lawmakers have allowed it to expire 13 times. In each case they have reinstated the credit retroactively. While the credit is important
to virtually all 269 members of AIA, it is especially vital to the small- and medium-sized companies that don't have the large budgets
of big corporations to fund independent R&D initiatives. The
credit is often their primary vehicle to make
technological progress, Blakey said. The aerospace and defense industry provides 642,000
high-paying jobs across the nation and accounted for a $57 billion positive foreign trade
balance last year, the highest of any U.S. manufacturing sector. AIA is a member of the R&D Credit
Coalition, which includes dozens of trade associations and more than 1,000 companies of all sizes. Among the coalition's goals are
strengthening the credit and making it permanent.
CP starts solving in a matter of weeks
Atkinson 10 - President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
(Robert D., “Create Jobs by Expanding the R&D Tax Credit,” Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
http://www.itif.org/files/2010-01-26-RandD.pdf, 1/26)
One issue to consider is that of timeliness of effects. There are no studies that we are aware of estimating the time impacts of these
effects. However, it is possible to roughly estimate when these benefits will occur. One major benefit of an increase to the
R&D credit, especially in comparison to direct government spending, is that the effect is felt much sooner.
Essentially, once an increase in the credit is enacted into law, companies should fairly quickly (within a matter
of weeks) adjust their investment behavior to respond, and begin to hire additional staff (or cancel planned layoffs).
This is in part because most companies that currently take the credit have a fairly large backlog of research
projects they are working on and challenges they are seeking to solve. The limiting factor for most
companies is a financial
one – which an expanded credit helps reduce – in terms of either being able to allocate
the financial resources or justifying them on an ROI basis. While the R&D and jobs impacts of a change in the credit could be
expected to occur fairly quickly, most of the productivity, innovation, and GDP impacts (and by extension, the tax revenue impacts)
will take longer to be realized. This is in part because research efforts take some time before they show results in the
form of new products (or processes). However, the fact that the overall process from research to
commercialization has generally gotten shorter over the last two decades , suggests that these macroeconomic
impacts would begin to be felt in a matter of a few years.
---Solves STEM
CP is a prereq to solving STEM – incentives are key to innovation
USCJEC 12 -U.S. Congress Joint Economic committee, STEM Education: Preparing for the Jobs of the Future,
http://www.jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=6aaa7e1f-9586-47be-82e7-326f47658320CW)
In order to reap the full gains to be had from technological innovation, the U.S. must employ a
multifaceted approach to fostering an environment where innovation can flourish. Ultimately,
improving STEM education and boosting the size and caliber of the STEM workforce in
the United States will not be sufficient if research and development budgets are slashed
or if proper incentives are not in place for businesses to invest in innovation. Thus, in
considering policies to reduce deficits and debt, policymakers should
take care to preserve funding for research and
development, and to continue to support programs authorized under the America COMPETES Act. Additional policy
actions could include making the research and development tax credit permanent, or
passing further legislation to incentivize R&D, such as the Life Sciences Jobs and Investment Act (S. 1410).
2NC Avoids Politics
CP avoids politics – R&D tax credit is not controversial
Haggard 13 -Sean Haggard, CPA, is a tax manager in Kaufman, Rossin’s Boca Raton office.
Kaufman, Rossin & Co. is one of
the top CPA firms in the country, January 14, 2013, Congress Extends Popular R&D Tax Credit,
http://www.kaufmanrossin.com/blog/?p=2897//RSoni
In a boon for entrepreneurs and the technology industry, Congress’ last-minute, “fiscal cliff”
compromise included an extension of the much-loved research and development tax credit
zto January 1, 2012. “We can’t keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and
still expect to succeed in a 21st-century economy,” President Obama said after Congress passed the
American Taxpayer Relief Act. You don’t need to have a lab and a team of scientists to claim the R&D tax credit, which was created
in 1981 to encourage companies to innovate, invest in research and hire workers to perform R&D. Small and medium-size businesses
developing new or improved products, or companies that outsource product testing are eligible, says Sean Haggard, CPA, a
tax
manager in Kaufman, Rossin’s Boca Raton office. The R&D tax credit has generally been
extended every year, and in recent years, it has become more attractive for smaller
companies. There are three main reasons for its increase in popularity: 1) the credit is simpler now; 2) it can be transferred in
an acquisition; and it can be taken retroactively. This tax credit presents a unique opportunity for startups because R&D costs
incurred in the early years of a business when the company has no income can be carried forward 20 years to offset taxes on future
profits, Haggard says. However, as he told Bloomberg Businessweek, 80% of R&D tax credits currently go to companies with $250
million or more in gross receipts mainly to the fact that smaller companies believe they do not qualify or believe the credit is too
complicated. The
retroactive extension of this tax credit to January 1, 2012 is a good sign
that there’s always room for more innovation and the government is willing to subsidize
it.
R&D tax credit has bipartisan support and both parties have proposed
making it permanent
Calmes 10 - Writer for the New York Times
(Jackie, “Obama to Pitch Permanent Research Tax Credit,” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/us/politics/05tax.html, 9/4)
The research credit, which has existed in some form since 1981, has strong bipartisan and business support. Yet the
prospects for Mr. Obama’s proposal are unclear. Congress returns from a break in mid-September but will be in session only a few
weeks before leaving for midterm election campaigning. Also, Republicans do not want to give Democrats boasting rights to
legislative victories, even for a proposal like this one, which Republicans have long espoused. And there is the issue of the
credit’s cost. It has always been passed as a temporary credit because of the revenue losses; Congress has extended it 13 times for
as little as six months, and the uncertainty has long vexed businesses. It lapsed after 2009, and a proposal to renew it for this year is
pending in the Senate. Making the credit permanent would cost an estimated $85 billion over 10 years, and
expanding it would cost $15 billion more, according to the administration. Doing so, however, would end one of
the longest-running budget gimmicks in town: Presidents and Congresses of both parties have called for a
permanent extension but ultimately kept it temporary to reduce deficit projections. Based on that history, the
Treasury would probably give up as much as $100 billion in the coming decade in any case. Under Democrats’ pay-as-you-go law,
however, the full 10-year cost would have to be offset by other savings. Mr. Obama will propose that Congress adopt some of the
provisions proposed in his annual budget to close corporate tax loopholes.
AT Empirics Disprove
Their evidence is in the context of a temporary tax credit – making it
permanent solves uncertainty and strengthens the investment incentive
DoT 11- Department of Transportation
(“INVESTING IN U.S. COMPETITIVENESS: The Benefits of Enhancing the Research and Experimentation (R&E) Tax Credit,” A
Report from the Office of Tax Policy, http://www.investinamericasfuture.org/PDFs/TreasuryRDReportMarch25.PDF, 3/25)
As noted above, while still effective, the ability of the current
credit to stimulate research may be diminished by
the fact that it has been perceived as temporary, which makes it difficult for businesses to factor in its
effect when planning research projects. The pattern of an off-and-on tax credit for research increases the uncertainty that firms
face about the ultimate after-tax costs they will pay for research activity. This uncertainty can have a negative effect on the
total amount and composition of research activity, which is by its nature a highly uncertain investment. The temporary nature of
the credit may especially reduce the incentive it provides for the kinds of projects that are long term and require
continuing expenditures over many years. For such projects, uncertainty about whether the credit will be
available increases the financial risk of the project and weakens the investment incentive. Moreover,
many projects have long planning stages, further complicating a company’s analysis.
AFF - Links to Politics
CP links to politics – sparks fights in Congress
Garver 14 – Rob, national correspondent for The Fiscal Times, May 8, House Republicans Propose Controversial Tax Vote,
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/05/08/House-Republicans-Propose-Controversial-Tax-Vote/Megan
House Democrats on Wednesday found themselves in the odd position of arguing against a tax credit that they generally support out
of fear¶ that its passage would endanger the success of other tax credit bills that they also favor.¶ House Republicans brought
a bill to the floor that would expand a tax credit for companies engaged in research and development. The ¶
proposal would also make the credit permanent, without fiscal offsets, adding an estimated $156 billion to
the federal deficit over the next¶ decade.¶ Related: The 10 Worst States for Your Tax Dollar¶ The R&D credit (also
known as the R&E credit, for Research and Experimentation) has for some years been one of several dozen measures¶
referred to as “tax extenders.” These are temporary tax credits that Congress has more or less routinely
extended. They are generally¶ considered en masse rather than individually, and they contain not just business-related measures
such as the R&D credit, but child credits,¶ improvements to the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other provisions favored by
Democrats.¶ Last week, though, Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, had his panel
consider six of the¶ extenders – all favored by business groups – individually. They were fast-tracked to a vote on the House floor,
with the R&D credit coming¶ up first. In total, the six provisions would cost $310 billion over 10 years.¶ Republican leaders pointed
out that the R&D credit has been in force since the early 1980s, and that making it permanent was more of a¶ formality than
anything else. “Enough of the silliness,” said House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH)¶ The tax extenders have not been paid
for in the past, either, but building in expiration dates at least guaranteed that Congress would have to ¶ act
affirmatively to keep them alive. Permanent tax cuts tend to be very hard to undo, particularly when
they have the support of the business¶ lobby.¶ The move angered Democrats, who saw the move not just as
a sop to big business, but as endangering the other extenders chances of ¶ passage.
Arctic Conflict
1NC
Text: The United States federal government should fully support the Navy’s
Arctic Roadmap for 2014-2030.
CP ensures a U.S. presence in the Arctic – facilitates better research,
ensures access to resources and promotes cooperation and security
Reuters 14 - “Faced with declining ice cover, U.S. Navy eyes greater presence in Arctic,” Reuters,
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/01/faced-with-declining-ice-cover-u-s-navy-eyes-greater-presence-in-arctic/,]//fw
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The
U.S. Navy is mapping out how to expand its presence in the Arctic beginning
about 2020, given signs that the region’s once permanent ice cover is melting faster than expected, which
is likely to trigger more traffic, fishing and resource mining. “The Arctic is all about operating forward and being
ready. We don’t think we’re going to have to do war-fighting up there, but we have to be ready,” said Rear
Admiral Jonathan White, the Navy’s top oceanographer and navigator, and director of the Navy’s climate
change task force. “We don’t want to have a demand for the Navy to operate up there, and have to say,
‘Sorry, we can’t go,’” he said. The Navy this week released an “aggressive” update to its 2009
Arctic plan after a detailed analysis of data from a variety of sources showed that
seasonal ice is disappearing faster than had been expected even three years ago. The
document said the Bering Strait was expected to see open water conditions about 160 days a year by 2020, with the deep ocean
routes of the Transpolar transit route forecast to be open for up to 45 days annually by 2025. The
document includes
dozens of specific tasks and deadlines for Navy offices, including calling for better
research on rising sea levels and the ability to predict sea ice thickness, assessment of
satellite communications and surveillance needs, and evaluation of existing ports,
airfields and hangars. It also puts a big focus on cooperation with other Arctic nations and
with the U.S. Coast Guard, which is grappling with the need to build a new $1 billion ice-breaking ship. The Navy is conducting a
submarine exercise in the Arctic next month, and plans to participate in a joint training exercise with the Norwegian and Russian
military this summer. White said the Navy’s new projection was aimed at answering “the billion dollar
question” of how much it would cost to prepare for an increased naval presence in the Arctic, and trying to
determine what investments were needed when. “We’re trying to use this road map to really be
able to answer that question,” White said, noting that early smaller-scale investments
could help avert bigger bills in the future. He said efforts were under way now in the Navy to identify specific
requirements for weather-hardened ships and other equipment, land-based infrastructure, and better bandwidth for satellite and
shore-based communications capabilities. The Office of Naval Research and the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency are already funding numerous Arctic-focused projects with industry, White said, predicting increased public-private projects
in recent years. He said
he realized U.S. military budgets are under pressure, but hoped the plan would
help undergird Arctic-related budget requests in coming years by showing lawmakers
that the Navy had carefully studied and evaluated its options. “As far as I’m concerned, the Navy and
Coast Guard’s area of responsibility is growing,” White said. “We’re growing a new ocean, so our budget should be growing in line
with that.” The
Navy’s plan does not alter any current funding, but calls for identification of
future ships and other weapons by the third quarter of fiscal 2014, which ends
September 30, in time to be considered for future budget deliberations. “Our challenge over the
coming decades is to balance the demands of current requirements with investment in the development of future capabilities,” Chief
of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert wrote in an introduction. “This
roadmap will ensure our
investments are informed, focused, and deliberate as the Navy approaches a new
maritime frontier.” The Navy has long operated submarines in the region, and flies surveillance and unmanned aircraft as
needed, but by 2020 it plans to boost the number of personnel trained for Arctic operations. By 2030, as the Arctic Ocean
becomes increasingly ice-free, the Navy said it would have the training and personnel to respond
to crises and national security emergencies. The Navy’s updated road map noted that
the Arctic has significant oil, gas and mineral resources, including some rare earth minerals now supplied mainly
by China, and estimated hydrocarbon resources of over $1 trillion. Those resources are attractive to big multinational corporations
and other countries, but they face big financial, technical and environmental risks due to the harshness of the environment, and the
unpredictable weather, White said. “If we do start to see a rush, and people try to get up there too fast, we run the risk of
catastrophes,” he said, urging a more gradual, measured move into the region by the private sector. “Search and rescue in the cold
ice-covered water of the Arctic is not somewhere we want to go.”
AT: Science Coop Solves
Solely science/research-based approaches fail – presence is key
Slayton and Rosen 14 -David M., research fellow @ Hoover Institution and Co-Chair of the Hoover Institution’s
Arctic Security Initiative, Mark E., international and national security lawyer, 3/14, “Another region where the Russian military
threatens to dominate the U.S.,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/opinion/slayton-rosen-russia-u-s-arctic/]//fw
Overwhelmingly, the U.S. Arctic policy debate echoes past concerns of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Consequently, many in
the policy community are pushing a heavy science and no-development agenda to preserve the
pristine character of the region. The recently issued Department of Defense Arctic Strategy is a case in point: It talks
extensively about the DOD scientific mission and uses the terms "sustainable development" and preservation of the unspoiled area
as important national goals. But just saying "no" ignores the fact that the precious
Arctic mineral and oil and gas
resources will help assure the United States is able, over time, to achieve and then
maintain its energy independence. Voices on the Ukraine/Crimea referendum King: 'I stand with the President'
Many average Russians support Putin Science is incredibly important, as
is safe and responsible development of
the Arctic, but our agencies and scientists need to approach these issues with a greater
sense of urgency. Arguably, the science needs to be a component of a detailed national
action, but that's only a fraction of good U.S. policy. U.S. Arctic policy should prioritize
four things: One: Demonstrate leadership in the Arctic and develop a strategy and policy to match. The U.S. has no
leadership in the high north and Russia does, which is a great concern for our allies. Two: Invest in infrastructure,
Navy and Coast Guard to support U.S. security and commercial interests in the Arctic. The key
here is to develop the policy that drives those requirements so we are not "late to need." Three: Demonstrate
leadership in the maritime domain worldwide -- and not retreat as we are doing by default in the Arctic. Four: Facilitate and
further develop offshore natural resources in the high north/Alaska and the national, international, maritime
and geopolitical governance structures that will underpin those enterprises.
AFF – CP Can’t Solve
The Navy’s Arctic Roadmap doesn’t go far enough – leadership won’t be
perceived
Slayton and Rosen 14 [David M., research fellow @ Hoover Institution and Co-Chair of the Hoover Institution’s
Arctic Security Initiative, Mark E., international and national security lawyer, 3/14, “Another region where the Russian military
threatens to dominate the U.S.,” CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/14/opinion/slayton-rosen-russia-u-s-arctic/]//fw
Washington, in less than two years, will assume a leadership role when it becomes Chair for the
Arctic Council. Unfortunately, the DOD policy and U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014 do not
articulate what the U.S. Arctic leadership agenda will entail. The reality is ignoring the
issues and choosing not to participate in the Arctic will not make the issues go away. Yes,
budgets are challenging, but the Arctic is no different from any other international frontier or global
common where the U.S. has interests. We need to protect it and demonstrate leadership in the
maritime domain -- not retreat. So, too, our policy makers need to be looking beyond our shores to
Moscow, Ottawa, Oslo, Copenhagen, the Arctic Council, international oil companies and Lloyds of London
for help in solving this governance challenge. The last thing that any of the Arctic states can afford is to
back into a Russian-generated crisis with no resources or a plan. The time is now for more U.S.
leadership to ensure the Arctic becomes a safe, secure and prosperous region in which to live and work.
AFF – Links to Politics
Military funding sparks fights — recent defense budget cuts prove
Shalal 14 [Andrea, Correspondent at Reuters, 3/11, “U.S. military braces for budget battles with
Congress,” Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/12/us-usa-fiscal-pentagonidUSBREA2B01V20140312]//fw
(Reuters) - Top
U.S. defense officials are bracing for a brutal season of budget
negotiations , warning U.S. lawmakers that the U.S. military will gradually become unable to respond to emerging crises if
Congress blocks the Pentagon's plans to cut military compensation, close bases and retire entire fleets of aircraft. Senior officials
have also begun mapping out in stark terms what additional weapons and capabilities will be sacrificed if Congress does not reverse
mandatory budget cuts that are due to resume in fiscal 2016 under a process known as sequestration. Air Force Undersecretary Eric
Fanning told reporters on Tuesday other programs would have to be cut if Congress blocked the service's plan to retire both its U-2
spy plane fleet and its fleet of A-10 Warthog planes for close air support. "In my view, we can't cut into readiness far enough to cover
keeping those two fleets. Something would have to give," he said. He said the Air Force faced big bills in coming years for its three
top priorities: Lockheed Martin Corp's F-35 fighter jet, a new long-range bomber, and Boeing Co's new tanker to refuel fighter jets in
mid-air. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jonathan Greenert told reporters late on Monday that the Navy would have no choice
but to curtail funding for a planned refueling of the nuclear-powered USS George Washington aircraft carrier if sharp cuts in
military spending remained in effect for 2016 and beyond. Such a decision, he said, would have a big impact on the shipbuilding
industrial base, noting that the refueling involved several hundred thousand man-days of work, and could affect the ability of carrier
building Huntington Ingalls Industries Inc to build the next aircraft carrier. Huntington Ingalls, General Dynamics Corp, Lockheed,
Boeing and other weapons makers are each lobbying to maintain or increase funding for their programs, warning that big cutbacks
will be especially hard on smaller suppliers. Greenert said the Navy had included money in the fiscal 2015 budget to get the carrier
ready for de-fueling beginning in September 2016, something that will have to happen regardless whether the ship is ultimately
retired or refueled. If Congress blocked those plans - which the Navy estimates would save $7 billion - the Navy would be forced to
reduce its orders of submarines and destroyers instead, he said, noting that it would be hard to find big enough cuts elsewhere.
Greenert said the Navy still had a requirement for 11 carriers, but had been forced to make tough choices in its fiscal 2015 budget as
it tried to balance competing priorities, including the need to start work on a replacement for the Ohio-class submarines that now
carry nuclear weapons. Greenert is due to testify before the House Armed Services Committee along with Navy Secretary Ray Mabus
Lawmakers are already resisting
specific proposals in the Pentagon's budget plan, often based on their interest in
preserving jobs in their home districts. But they have also said they don't expect
lawmakers to agree on other deficit reducing measure that could allow them to end
sequestration. Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, last week told lawmakers he knew the
and Marine Corps Commandant General James Amos on Wednesday.
proposed reforms were "unpleasant and unpopular" but the department urgently needed to cut its overhead to keep pace with
growing threats. He appealed to lawmakers to allow the Pentagon to cut infrastructure, slow the rate of growth in military pay and
retire older weapons so it could invest in new technologies. "We simply can't ignore the imbalances that ultimately make our force
less effective than what the nation needs," he told the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "Kicking the can down the road
will set up our successors for an almost impossible problem. We have to take the long view here." Byron Callan, analyst with Capital
Alpha Securities, said the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review made it clear that the biggest threat facing the U.S. military was
not China or some other military power, but dealing with the budget cuts. He said military
officials had thus far
failed to explain in clear terms what effect the budget cuts would have on the military's
ability to respond to military conflicts or disasters like the disappearance of a Malaysian airliner. "The
bottom line is that we won't be able to do some of the things that we're accustomed to doing," he said, noting that fewer military
assets would invariably lead to higher casualty rates and potentially longer military conflicts. Given continued uncertainty about
future budget levels, top Pentagon leaders have told the services to once again prepare two alternate budgets for fiscal 2016 - one
that reflects the mandatory budget cuts, and another that adds about $115 billion of funding as proposed under the five-year plan
through 2019.
Biodiversity
1NC CBD CP
Text: The United States Senate should ratify the Convention on Biological
Diversity.
U.S. ratification ensures CBD revival and effectiveness – solves global
biodiversity
Kormos 9 – Vice President for Policy for WILD, IUCN-WCPA Regional Vice-Chair for North America and the
Caribbean, worked for Conservation International for 6 years, JD from George Washington University, served on the
editorial boards of the LSE’s Millennium Journal of International Studies and GWU’s The Environmental Laywer
(Cyril, Aug. 27, The Wild Foundation, http://www.wild.org/blog/when-it-comes-to-the-convention-on-biologicaldiversity-the-us-stands-with%E2%80%A6somalia-and-andorra-maybe-it%E2%80%99s-time-we-join-the-192-othercountries/)
The Convention on Biological Diversity is the flagship international convention for protecting, wilderness
and the diversity of life on this planet. It’s the only international mechanism that addresses biodiversity
writ large (as opposed to treaties focusing on individual species, or individual biomes such as wetlands) and it’s also the only
treaty that focuses on establishing a comprehensive global network of protected areas, including wilderness
protected areas. The CBD is the key mechanism for promoting international cooperation on protecting
nature.¶ It’s also a treaty in desperate need of an injection of energy and enthusiasm. The global community is
about to miss the 2010 biodiversity reduction targets set under the CBD and the CBD’s work is badly overshadowed by climate
change negotiations. Despite the urgent need to prop up the CBD and make it a much more effective global
platform, the US has yet to ratify the treaty. To make matters worse, we are one of only three countries
that has failed to do so. How did this come about?¶ In the summer of 1992, the community of nations gathered in Rio de
Janeiro for the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED – often referred to as the “Earth Summit”).
The 1980s had seen an increase in concern over global environmental degradation – prompted in part by alarming coverage of the
burning Amazon forest in international media – and a consensus had emerged that something had to be done. UNCED was chosen
as the place and time where the global community would unite to craft a comprehensive global response to the planet’s
environmental ills.¶ Three United Nations conventions emerged from this landmark gathering: The Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD), the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the Convention to Combat Desertification
(UNCCD). These three conventions, usually referred to as the Rio Conventions, were a major breakthrough. They were clearly
imperfect documents – and unfinished because they required, and will continue to require supplementary protocols. Nevertheless,
the Rio Conventions provided a framework for an integrated response to global environmental decline.
They represent a remarkable political consensus.¶ The US ratified the UNFCCC and UNCCD, but did not
ratify the CBD. The US’ concerns were that CBD provisions calling for technology transfer to developing countries could threaten
US intellectual property interests, and that the obligations for financial aid under the CBD were vague. These concerns, however,
were not shared by other developed nations: the vast majority of countries signed and ratified the CBD. In fact, as of a few weeks
ago, only the US, Iraq, Somalia and Andorra had yet to sign on. With Iraq’s accession to the CBD in late July, the US, Somalia and
Andorra are now the only remaining holdouts. The graphic below illustrates this strange reality.¶ Fortunately, there are signs that
the Obama Administration is considering pushing for ratification of the CBD. That will of course require the cooperation of the US
Senate, and prospects for success are still unclear. With a little luck, however, the US may finally be able to join the CBD in the near
future. The US already makes major contributions to international conservation efforts, so acceding to the
CBD will not place a significant new burden on government resources. Instead, it will send a powerful
message that the US stands united with the global community to protect the diversity of life on earth and our planet’s
remaining wilderness resources. The US, Somalia and Andorra is an exclusive club – but membership in the CBD would be much,
much better.
2NC Solvency
U.S. ratification and leadership is necessary to the effectiveness of the CBD
Snape 10 (William J. Snape, fellow and practitioner-in-residence at American University, Washington College of
Law, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, “A Legal and Scientific Overview of Why the United
States Must Wake Up”, Online Publication,
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/SDLP_10Spring_Snape.pdf, hhs-nw)
Life on earth as we know it is under siege. Significant and probably irreversible changes
to the natural world are now occurring. It is an undisputed fact that we are losing wild species in
nature to extinction faster than in any geologic period since the dinosaur die-off roughly sixty
five million years ago. It is also undisputed that ecosystem services from land, water, and air are degraded
throughout the world and threatening food supplies, economic development, scientific
advancements and global security. The rapid advent of global warming makes the job of saving
native plants. Animals, and habitats even more difficult. Human beings need biological
diversity to survive and prosper, but our natural support system is failing. Enter the
Convention on Biological Diversity. Sometimes called the "CBD" for short. The United States has signed but not yet
ratified this international treaty, which has emerged as the best overarching tool to
protect species, habitats, and ecological processes important to human well-being. It has a
seventeen year track record building numerous success stories with its over 190 members; only Andorra, the Holy See (Vatican), and the
United States remain as non-members. Now more than ever, the engagement and
leadership of the United States is necessary to protect biological diversity and the natural services
enjoyed by Americans and others throughout the world. No country possesses an inventory, description, and
understanding of its wildlife, habitat networks, and ecological processes greater than the
United States. In addition, the U.S. possesses transparent laws, dispenses significant foreign
aid, and embodies a tradition of public engagement that leads to greater biodiversityrelated protection and enforcement than most countries. The U.S. has also been a good
international partner in other environmental agreements and treaties such as the
Convention on international Trade in Endangered Species ("CITES"), the Ramstar Convention on Wetlands,
and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone layer. The interests of the United States stand to
benefit greatly from such multilateral cooperation and continued ability to access
biological diversity from other countries across the globe. Significantly, no new federal or state laws are
necessary for the United States to ratify and join the CBD, and absolutely no loss of legal or natural resource
sovereignty is even possible under the express terms of the Convention. The United
States will, in fact, benefit under the treaty by better organizing its own biodiversityrelated programs, and by similarly helping non- U.S. geographic areas, many in strategically
important locations. The United States will also benefit by possessing a formal seat at the table
for important upcoming negotiations and discussions under the Convention. Particularly with
regard to the proposed protocol on Access and Benefit sharing ("ABS"), and by being connected to other Parties
through various biodiversity- related projects such as scientific research, climate offsets,
ocean protection, alien invasive species work, and enforcement coordination.
AFF – CP Can’t Solve
CP can’t solve - too vague, lacks uniformity and no enforcement
Snape 10 (William J. Snape, fellow and practitioner-in-residence at American University, Washington College of
Law, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, “A Legal and Scientific Overview of Why the United
States Must Wake Up”, Online Publication,
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/SDLP_10Spring_Snape.pdf, hhs-nw)
Perhaps the most fundamental point about the CBD is that its legal power is inherently
limited by design. The Convention's clear enunciation of national control over domestic biological resources is the starting point:
States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign
right to exploit their own natural resources pursuant to their own environmental
policies, and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or
control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or areas beyond the
limits of national jurisdiction.-"° As a matter of interpretation, the CBD authorizes much but
mandates little. Terms such as "as far as possible and as appropriate arc scattered throughout the treaty. However, the
convention's conservation provisions and programs prompt countries such as the U.S. to
focus on the "big picture" by connecting policies and funds in a manner that benefits all.
Consequently, the CBD is considered more of a "framework" convention because it, inter
alia, does not set many precise obligations." As one scholar puts it, "a framework convention sets the tone,
establishes certain principles and even enunciates certain commitments as a rule, it does not contain specific
obligations nor does it contain a detailed prescription of certain activities."32 Contrary to the
rhetoric of some extreme ideologues who seemingly oppose involvement in any multilateral cooperative endeavor, the CBD
creates a global structure that is implemented with wide latitude and discretion at the
national level, specifically allows for negotiation (or rejection) of annexes or protocols, does not mandate binding dispute
settlement and pro- vides connection with other accepted international agreements. This concept of "framework" in conjunction
with the precise language of the treaty is crucial in understanding the full sovereignty the United States retains when it becomes a
party to the Convention on Biological Diversity."
AFF- US Already Abides by CBD
The US already abides by the CBD – no practical benefit to CP
Snape 10 (William J. Snape, fellow and practitioner-in-residence at American University, Washington College of
Law, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, “A Legal and Scientific Overview of Why the United
States Must Wake Up”, Online Publication,
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/publications/papers/SDLP_10Spring_Snape.pdf, hhs-nw)
Much of the conservation agenda of the Convention is contained in Articles 6, 8, and I4." These
articles and others
cover the gamut of biodiversity conservation including tasks the CBD already does well:
fostering coordination in addressing harmful invasive species, implementing a global strategy for plant conservation; providing
support for vital scientific discipline of taxonomy; catalyzing large-scale protected area protection; and linking with important global
Every U.S. governmental analysis of the Convention's
conservation provisions has concluded that existing U.S. laws already meet
the commitments of the Convention . Article 6 of the CBD, General Measures for Conservation and
warming and climate change efforts."
Sustainable Use, requests that "Each Contracting Party shall, in accordance with its particular conditions and capabilities: a)
Develop national strategies, plans or programs" for the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity or adapt for this purpose existing strategies, plans or programs which shall reflect
[such] measures and b) Integrate as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
into relevant sectoral or crossectoral plans, programs and policies." Although
the U.S. currently does not
possess a "biodiversity plan" per se, its impressive array of conservation statutes and
programs to protect and use biological resources of all sorts certainly could be
considered to constitute one de facto." If anything, the CBD should help the U.S. coordinate and prioritize its
biodiversity agenda even better.
Fisheries
1NC ITQs CP
Text: The United States federal government should implement a system of
individual transferable fishing quotas in the United States.
Studies show an ITQ system would solve fishery collapse
Costello et al 8 - Christopher Costello, professor of Environmental and Research economics at UC Santa Barbara, Steven
Gaines, professor of Ecology, Fisheries, and Marine biology at UC Santa Barbara, and John Lynham, Assistant professor of
economics at the University of Hawaii, MA and PhD in economics from UC Santa Barbara; This paper was reviewed by Geoffrey
Heal and Wolfram Schlenker in Nature; chosen by the editors of Nature as their favourite Economics paper published in 2008.
Selected for Faculty of 1000 Biology, Published in Science Magazine, on the 19 of September 2008. http://gepv.univlille1.fr/downloads/enseignements/M1-S7/Dyn%20des%20pops/13-Costello%20et%20al.%202008%20Science_all.pdf)
Although the potentially harmful consequences of mismanaged fisheries were forecast over 50 years
ago, evidence of global declines have only been seen quite recently. Reports show increasing
human impacts and global collapses in large predatory fishes and other trophic levels in
all marine ecosystems. It is now widely believed that these collapses are primarily the result
of the mismanagement of fisheries. One explanation for the collapse of fish stocks lies in economics, perhaps it is
economically optimal to capture fish stocks now an incest the large windfall revenues in alternative assets, rather than capturing a
much smaller harvest on a regular basis. Although this remains a theoretical possibility for extremely slow-growing species, (7) it
remains rare in reality. A recent study reports that under reasonable economic parameter nation, extinction is suboptimal (even with
low growth rates) and that biomass under economically optimal harvest is larger than that under maximum sustainable yield (8) If
global fisheries contain large potential profits [perhaps a present value of SI trillion (9)]; yet the profits are only realized if the
fisheries are managed sustainably, why
are actively managed fisheries systematically overexploited?
The answer lies in the misalignment of incentives . Even when management sets
harvest quotas that could maximize profits the incentives of the individual harvester are typically
inconsistent with profit maximization for the fleet. Because individuals lack secure rights to part
of the quota, they have a perverse motivation to “race to fish” to outcompete others. This
race can lead to poor stewardship and lobbying for ever-larger harvest quotas creating a spiral of reduced stocks, excessive harvests,
and eventual collapse. Examining specific cases, Beddington et al. (II)), Ililborn et al (Il), Cirafton et al(12), and Griffith (13) argue
rights-based fisheries reforms offer promising solutions. Rather than only setting
industry-wide quotas fishermen are allocated individual rights. Referred to as catch
shares or dedicated access privileges, these rights can be manifest as individual (and
tradable) harvest quotas cooperatives, or exclusive spatial harvest tights: the idea is to
provide— fishermen, communities, or cooperatives—a secure asset, which confers
stewardship incentives. Most readily implemented within national jurisdictions (that is,
inside 200 miles), some international agreements attempt to serve a similar function in
international waters. Although both theory and empirical evidence suggest a robust link between shares and economic
that
performance of a fishery (14, ¡5), the link with ecological performance is more tenuous. Even so, Sanchirico and Wilen (16) argue
that it is widely believed and supported by anecdotal evidence that once fishers have a financial stake in the returns horn sensible
investment in sustainable practices they are more easily convinced to make sacrifices required to rebuild and sustain fisheries at
high levels of economic and biological productivity.” A recent report provides examples consistent with this widely held belief (17).
We tested the hypothetical causal link between the global assignment of catch shares and fisheries sustainability. Whereas individual
fishing rights have been implemented on small spatial scales in traditional cultures for millennia, the adoption rate in major
fisheries has accelerated since the late 1970s. To test the efficacy of catch shares, we assembled a global database of l1,135
commercial fisheries and determined which fisheries had instituted catch shares 1mm 1950 to 2003. We matched this institutional
database to the same harvest database (18) used to assess fisheries collapse by Worm et al. (6). Our objective is to answer the
question: Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? In their widely cited contribution, Worm et al (6) correlate the species
richness of LMEs with fisheries collapse. They define a fisheries collapsed year if the harvest in year is <10% of the maximum
recorded harvest up to year t. Using this definition. —27% of the world’s fisheries were collapsed in 2003. Extrapolating this trend
into the future, Worm et al (6) find that l00% of the world’s fisheries could be collapsed by 2048. Although this highly controversial
projection (19) captured most of the attention from this article, a larger focus of the work was the role of ecosystem biodiversity in
preventing collapse. Fisheries in more biodiverse regions were less likely to be collapsed at any given point in history. Unfortunately,
however, this greater resilience to human exploitation does not change the ultimate conclusion. Biodiversity does not prevent
collapse it merely delays it. In our analysis, we expanded beyond the characteristics of the ecosystem to consider the
characteristics of the regulating fisheries institutions simultaneously controlling for the eco system genus and other covariates. To
assemble our catch-share database, we searched the published literature and government reports, inter viewed experts on global
fisheries, and vetted our final database with a diverse array of researchers. In total, we identified 121 fisheries managed
using catch shares—defined as variations on individual transferable quotas (ITQs)—by 2003 (20). These
work by allocating a dedicated share of the scientifically determined total catch to
fishermen, communities or cooperatives. This provides a stewardship incentive-, as the
fishery is better managed, the value of the shares increases by analyzing the data at the
fishery level [rather than the aggregate level as in (6)1. We facilitate inclusion of fisheries institutions as independent variables
in our model specification. We adopt the Worm et al (6) definition of collapse. Although a better measure would be based on stock
(21), no systematic database of global fish biomass exists. This collapse metric may overestimate the frequency of collapsed fisheries
(22), which creates a conservative test for tie benefits of catch shares. Sensitivity analyses that consider alternative thresholds for
collapse and address other potential biases yield unchanged or stronger conclusions (23). By 2003 the fraction of ITQ-managed
fisheries that were collapsed (dotted line in Fig. lA) was about half that of non-ITQ fisheries (solid line ¡n Fig. lA). Accelerated
adoption of LTQs began in the late 1970s (dashed line and right w axis in Fig. IA). In the preadoption period would-be ITQ fisheries
were on trajectories toward collapse, similar to non-ITQ fisheries. In the adoption period, the two curves diverge as ITQs are
increasingly adopted (24). This disparity grows over time (23). Demonstrating statistically a causal linkage between rights-based
management and fisheries sustainability is complicated by three competing effects. First, the number of ITQ fisheries is grow mg.
and new ITQ-fisheries are drawn the global pool with an ever-increasing fraction of collapsed fisheries. Random selection from this
global pool could mask some benefits of rights-based management. Second, the conversion of fishers to ITQs may involve a biased
selection. For example, ITQS might be managed disproportionately in fisheries than ones that are already less collapsed, possibly
giving a misleading perception of benefits from tights- based management Finally, there may be temporal benefits of an ITQ (for
instance, the longer an ITQ is in place in a given fishery. the less likely that fishery is to collapse). All of these mechanisms would
lead to differences between ITQ and non-ITQ fisheries but only the last mechanism implies a benefit from the management change.
An initial regression of the data m Fig. I suggests that implementing an ITQ reduces the probability of collapse by 13.7 percentage
points (23). Because ITQs have been disproportionately implemented in a few global ecosystems such as Alaska, Iceland, New
Zealand, and Australia (25) regional or taxonomic biases could generate misleading results. To account for potential selection bias,
we used a variety of estimation strategies: (j) We restricted the sample to only those or taxa that have experienced ITQ management.
(ii) We used propensity score methods to match ITQ fisheries to appropriate control fisheries (26). (iii) We used fixed-effects
estimation to identify the benefit of ¡TQs within each fishery. The results are remarkably similar across all specifications and
estimation techniques (23). The propensity score results are summarized in Table 1. Consistent with Fig. I, ITQ fisheries perform far
better than non-ITQ fisheries. Switching
to an ITQ not only slows the decline toward widespread
collapse but it actually stops this decline. Each additional year of being in an ITQ (row 2 of Table I) offsets the
global trend (0.5% increase) of increasing collapse in non-ITQ fisheries (23). Other estimation techniques suggest
even larger benefits. For example, fishery fixed effects results suggest that ITQs not only
halt the trend in global collapse, but they may actually reverse it (23). Although bioeconomic theory
suggests that assigning secure rights to fishermen may align incentives and lead to significantly enhanced bio logical and economic
performance, Evidence to date has been only case- or region-specific. By examining 11.135 global fisheries, we
found a
strong link: By 2003, the fraction of ITQ-managed fisheries that were collapsed was
about half that of non-ITQ fisheries. This result probably underestimates the benefits, because most ITQ fisheries
are young. The results of this analysis suggest that well- designed catch shares may prevent fishery collapse across diverse taxa and
ecosystems. Although the global rate of catch-share adoption has increased since 1970, the fraction of fisheries managed with catch
shares is still small, We can estimate their potential impact if we project tights- based management onto ail of the world’s fisheries
since 1970 (Fig. 2). The percent collapsed is reduced to just 9% by 2003; this fraction remains steady thereafter. This figure is a
marked reversal of the previous projections. Despite the dramatic impact catch shares have had on fishery collapse, these results
should not be taken as a carte blanche endorsement. First, we have restricted attention to one class of catch shares (ITQs). Second,
only by appropriately matching institutional reform with ecological, economic, and social characteristics can maximal benefits be
achieved. Nevertheless,
these findings suggest that as catch shares are increasingly
implemented globally, fish stocks, and the profits and harvesting them,
have the potential to recover substantially.
2NC Solvency
CP solves overfishing best
Grafton 05 (RQ, Asia Pacific School of Economics and government at the Austrailian National University, Peer reviewed
perspective piece, “Incentive-based approach to Fisheries Management”
http://www.water.anu.edu.au/pdf/publications/CJFAS_06.pdf 7 April 2005)
The alarming trends in the world’s fisheries demand a fundamental change in
management and fishing practices. As managers grapple with these problems, many scientists
are arguing for a new paradigm and, in particular, an ecosystem approach to fisheries to
overcome the failures of single of target-species management. While the ecosystem approach
and existing strategies that promote sustainability are necessary, especially to account for
fishery—ecosystem interactions, they are insufficient by themselves to address the key
drivers of unsustainable outcomes. i.e. inappropriate incentives for fishers and the ineffective
governance that exists in commercial fisheries regulated exclusively by input controls and TACs.
Evidence from more than a dozen natural experiments of commercial, developed fisheries supports
our conclusion: incentive-based approaches that better specify individual and group
harvesting rights and (or) territorial rights, as well as price ecosystem services, promote
both economic and eco logical sustainability.
CP solves fishery collapse
Hilborn 06 (Ray, Professor at the School of Aquatic Fisheries and Science Complex at the University of Washington, Article
in Marine Policy, April 6, 2006)
The very broad
support being given to ecosystem management and widespread concern about nontarget species is indicative that societies have generally abandoned MSY as the sole biological objective. It has been shown that attempting to
maintain all stocks in a mixed stock fishery for groundfìsh on the Pacific Coast at or above the level that will produce MSY would likely lead to a loss of
90% of the potential yield in the fishery. yet the Pacific Fisheries Management Council is attempting to prevent overfishing of all stocks [39].
The second major development has been a wide and growing acceptance of economic
rationalization of fisheries through “dedicated access privileges.” including cooperatives,
CDQs and ITQs as instruments of policy designed to improve economic efficiency. New Zealand.
Iceland and Australia all adopted these approaches as national policy in the 1980s and 1990s. Even the US. which legislated against ITQs from
1998 to 2004. is now looking at ITQs for a range of fisheries, and the Commission on Ocean Policy has supported granting
Around most of the developed world there appears to be two themes or trends. First, the protectionist objectives are clearly winning out over the traditional MSY.
dedicated access privileges. While the dedicated access movement is not a full-fledged acceptance of pure MSY because it is often strongly tempered with elements of equity and concern about community impacts.
. While environmental protection and economic rationalization may
seem to come from greatly differing philosophical perspectives they have a great deal in
common, especially the desire to see high fish biomasses. stable catches and low fishing
effort [40.41]. The incentives that dedicated access provides for stock rebuilding are
particularly important because the shift to dedicated access moves the objectives of the
commercial fishing fleets from maximizing cash flow to a concentration on asset value,
high catch rates and catch stability [12]. Under these economic objectives there are
significant benefits to stock rebuilding. Certainly, not all fisheries with dedicated access have moved dramatically toward lower
exploitation rates and higher biomass. but it is a common result [38] and the incentives are
more likely to lead to lower exploitation rates than regulatory systems without dedicated access.
it is none-the-less a major change in US policy
2NC Avoids Politics
Doesn’t link to politics
Hilborn 06 (Ray, Professor at the School of Aquatic Fisheries and Science Complex at the University of Washington, Article
in Marine Policy, April 6, 2006)
As we look for successful fisheries to emulate we must recognize that one stakeholder’s success story may be a failure to another. The
history of heavy exploitation in most fisheries can be thought of as a successful compromise between maximization of yield and
employment. The change in societal objectives from maximization of yield to increased emphasis on
ecosystem protection has brought major conflict in the courts and in politics. While ongoing conflict does
seem inevitable, in a number of arenas there is a growing alignment between those
supporting more ecosystem protection and consumptive users looking for profitability
and stability. Proposed revisions to US legislation that are now working through Congress with broad
bi-partisan support promise to provide more dedicated access systems that should increase
this alignment. There is little hope in most countries of a national fisheries objective reached by consensus that provides
operational direction for fisheries managers. Rather, the hope is that by changing the underlying governance system to dedicated
access, and in particular eliminating open access and Olympic systems that provide incentives for high exploitation rates, the general
objectives of many stakeholders will work through the political process to arrive at mutually agreed solutions. Under these
conditions, we may move to an era of lower exploitation, more profitability, more intact ecosystems and a new consensus.
AFF – Links to Politics
Fishing quotas and bans are unpopular
Nasser 13 [Abdullah, neurobiology degree candidate @ Harvard University, “Overfishing: Economic Policies in Finite
Resource Biological Pools,” Undergraduate Economic Review: Vol. 9: Iss. 1, Article 9,
http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/uer/vol9/iss1/9, p. 11]//fw
More recent measures, including a 2010 moratorium on all lobster fishing from
Southern New England to North Carolina, are constantly debated. These measures
have proved to be extremely unpopular , but are essentially the only way to save an overfished region.
AFF – CP Can’t Solve
ITQs fail – they’re circumvented
Copes 06 (Percival, Dr., BA in economics from Cal Berkeley, Works in the department of Economics and Commerce at the
Centre for Canadian Studies, “A critical review of the Fisheries Quota Management” Feb 2006,
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/menzies/q_cope.pdf)
One of the arguments that is often used in promoting
individual quota management is that limited
entry licensing is inherently deficient as a management device because of the skill
fishermen show in circumventing the rules or defying the intent of entry limitation. The
capital stuffing process, whereby additional capacity enters the industry despite, or because of limited entry, is mentioned in
evidence. Certainly, the
externalities inherent in the common use of a pool resource drive
fishermen to act in accordance with their individual interests, where often this is
contrary to their collective interest. That they show great ingenuity in doing so is beyond doubt. As a result one
may well proclaim that fisheries are exceptionally vulnerable to Murphy’s Law: “If anything can go wrong with a new fisheries
Ironically, when it comes to promoting individual quota
management, its proponents often fail to apply the sharp insights gained in exposing the
deficiencies of limited entry licensing. There is no reason to assume that fishermen,
where confronted with the rules of individual quota management, will lose either their
ingenuity at circumvention or their incentive to promote individual interest at the
expense of collective interest. Recognizing such to be the case, this paper will explore a variety of problems that
management scheme . . . it will.”
should be anticipated with the introduction of individual quota management. Without claiming to be exhaustive, problems will be
identified in fourteen areas under the following headings: (I) Quota Busting, (2) Data Fouling, (3) Residual Catch Management. (4)
Unstable Stocks, (5) Short- Lived Species, (6) Flash Fisheries, (7) Real time Management (8) High-Grading. (9) Multi-Species
Fisheries, (10) Seasonal Variations, (11) Spatial Distribution of Effort, (12) TAC Setting, (13) Transitional Gains Trap, and (14)
Industry Acceptance.
Can’t enforce ITQ system
Copes 06 (Percival, Dr., BA in economics from Cal Berkeley, Works in the department of Economics and Commerce at the
Centre for Canadian Studies, “A critical review of the Fisheries Quota Management” Feb 2006,
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/menzies/q_cope.pdf)
enforcement is likely to be one of the most difficult problems with an individual
quota system
The extent of
compliance with quota limits will be influenced by such factors as individual conscience,
community culture and social sanctions, effectiveness of official monitoring and
enforcement efforts, severity of penalties on conviction for infractions, and extent of
gain from cheating on quotas
For many fisheries,
. Obviously, there is a material incentive for fishermen to engage in “quota busting,” i.e., catching a larger amount of fish than the individual quota al lows.
. Analysis of the trade-off between potential gains and losses from legal infractions may be found in the literature on the economics of crime (see e.g., Polensky and Shavell 1979).
In different fishing communities distinctly different attitudes towards enforcement of fisheries conservation and management regulations prevail. Thus in the South Australia rock lobster fishery there is strong pressure from fishermen for rigorous enforcement of
limits on the number of traps allowed to be fished, including severe penalties for infractions (Copes 1978). In contrast, in the lobster fisheries of the Canadian Maritime Provinces infringement of the regulations on size limits and permitted number of traps is known
Obviously,
enforcement of fisheries regulations is impeded if there is a noncooperative attitude
towards such enforcement by the community at large.
. Many of the factors underlying community
attitudes towards fisheries regulations are most competently analyzed by
anthropologists and sociologists. But one important factor should be mentioned here.
The attitude of fishermen is evidently influenced by the credibility of enforcement,
including particularly the likelihood of detection of infractions.
to be endemic. Attempts by fisheries officers to en force the regulations have provoked violent reactions (e.g., Anon. 1983a). In the face of community pressure the courts there have dealt leniently with violators.
Where, on the other hand, the community favors regulations, enforcement is enhanced and may be
reinforced by social sanctions ap plied against violators, such as ostracism or reporting to the authorities of observed infractions
The early experiments with individual boat quotas in the Bay of Fundy
herring fishery were abandoned under pressure of skippers who knew that colleagues were cheating on their quotas without being caught (Anon. 1983b). The Director-General of Fisheries for the re gion reported (Crouter 1983) that “attempts to enforce vessel quotas
experience was “that each and every fisherman will attempt to ‘cheat’
on his quota and processors promote that attempt through collusion in falsifying
proved to be largely un successful .“ He added that the
records.” The chance of detection of quota busting is enhanced where, in relation to the
size of the catch. the number of vessels and the number of points of landing is small.
Thus a small
number of inspectors can easily monitor the catches from the fleet of a few hundred large groundfish trawlers operating on Canada’s Atlantic coast. They must land their fish at one or another of a limited number of processing plants. It is difficult to hide a trawlerload of fish and penalties can easily be made prohibitive for large fishing companies with substantial investments at risk. The cost of a few in spectors can be met easily from the public revenues generated by a high volume fishing operation. In contrast, consider the
British Columbia salmon fishery with over 5,000, mostly small boats. They can potentially land their catches at hundreds of places along an indented coast line that measures thousands of miles. While most salmon fishermen now sell to a few large companies, there
. Monitoring and enforcing individual
quota limits under those circumstances would appear well-nigh impossible While the
individual boat quota has been proposed for the British Columbia salmon fishery, it is
no wonder that it has not been accepted and implemented. It is easy to conclude that the
individual quota will be very difficult to enforce in a fishery characterized by many small
vessels, numerous actual and potential marketing channels, and geographically widely
dispersed activity.
are substantial numbers of smaller fish handlers eager to take their catch and they can sell also directly to the public at numerous wharves
.
AFF – Perm Solves Best
A quotas only approach fails – perm solves best
Copes 06 (Percival, Dr., BA in economics from Cal Berkeley, Works in the department of Economics and Commerce at the
Centre for Canadian Studies, “A critical review of the Fisheries Quota Management” Feb 2006,
http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/menzies/q_cope.pdf)
The various problems that could arise with individual quotas, and their often serious
nature, suggest that great caution should be exercised when considering the
introduction of individual quota management in any fishery. But the same warning should be heeded
when contemplating any alternative management scheme. One might simply say that every fisheries resource manager should be
required to reflect carefully on Murphy’s Law before attempting any new move. Experience so far suggests that we
should be non-dogmatic in our choice of management technique and that we should
select from the array of available fisheries management devices, the combination
that is most beneficial and least deficient in any particular set of
circumstances. Above all, we must reconcile ourselves to the fact that the best possible solutions will still be flawed.
Port Security
1NC Code of Conduct CP
Text: The United States federal government should hold an international
conference consisting of willing governments and private entities to
propose the creation of an international Code of Conduct for the purpose of
improving shipping container security.
A conference gets other countries on board
Dahlman et al 5 - Specialist in nuclear-test-ban verification - He chaired the Group of Scientific Experts before and
during the negotiation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (Ola, “Container Security: A Proposal for a Comprehensive
Code of Conduct”, January 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA434718)/Megan
The most urgent next step is to explore and mobilize the political will to negotiate a Code of Conduct on
Container Security and identifying a proper forum for such negotiations. Consideration of container
security is taking place in individual states (in particular the United States), in international fora such as the EU and
OSCE, as well as organizations such as the IMO and WCO and among industries. The negotiations of a Code of Conduct
envisioned here would best be held among States in a worldwide forum with the participation of
international organizations and industry. As there is no natural entity that has the mandate to take such an initiative,
there is a need for an individual actor to initiate the process. Negotiations might be conducted within the framework
of the IMO or the WCO, for example, though neither has the full responsibility for the entire transport chain. Alternatively, one
country could take the initiative to call for an international conference to develop a Code of Conduct; the
creation of the Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines is an example of such a negotiation
among the willing. 26The EU or the OSCE might be able to agree on a regional Code of Conduct that could be expanded
globally. Another possibility would be that the G8 plus China initiate the development of a code during their summit meeting in
2005 by creating a negotiating process. The expanding economy of China and the importance of Hong Kong in
the
world container trade would be an incentive for China to join such a negotiation as a follow up to the G8 Summit
Agreement in Kananaskis of 2002, where the G8 agreed to develop pilot projects to model an integrated container security regime.
That solves container security better
Dahlman et al 5 Specialist in nuclear-test-ban verification - He chaired the Group of Scientific Experts before and during
the negotiation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (Ola, “Container Security: A Proposal for a Comprehensive Code of
Conduct”, January 2005, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA434718)/Megan
Container security is not just a national issue for a single country, but rather an international issue and it
should be implemented on a global scale for all modes of transport in order to work satisfactorily. The current
initiatives discussed above, while providing a good start at improving security arrangements for container transport, do not address
the end-to-end security problem. There is no over-arching framework to address the container security problem
that builds on the current bifurcated approaches of treating the customs and transportation elements
separately. A government-sanctioned, multilateral regime is needed to provide security accountability
standards for all elements of container operations. Such an approach could lead to a harmonization of
security requirements that can be applied to the container transportation operations from beginning to
end: importers/exporters, port authorities, and shipping industry. Within such a framework, it would be possible to formulate a
market-based set of incentives that would be driven by an enhanced security regulated environment. Realization of a Code of
Conduct requires a strong push from governments and the active participation of industry. A multilateral Code of Conduct
should make it possible to obtain the needed cooperation of all the stakeholders if the enhanced security is seen
as “leveling the playing field” and if there were strong economic incentives for industry. Strong continuing oversight of the security
regime is also required. It should be noted that there is currently no forum in which governments, industry and international
organizations can discuss the development of a more encompassing Code of Conduct. Identification of such a forum should be a
priority to develop the details of a Code of Conduct. In the light of its increased engagement in transport security, the WCO might be
the proper forum to bring all the transport stakeholders together and facilitate an international agreement on Container Security.
We have previously identified a number of factors that contribute to the risks in container transport, such as: • Almost 50
million containers capable of carrying large, heavy loads of materials, including high explosives and WMD
that could be used for terrorist activities, are routinely transported around the world and a single one could
pose a deadly threat; • Only two percent of all containers that pass through a harbor or any other transport hub are inspected; • The
basic transport document, the bill of lading, describing the content of the container is rarely verified; • The transport chain is
not fully transparent and it involves a number of actors, many of whom are business companies; • No
authority or industry is fully responsible for the security of the entire transport chain from sender to receiver,
although national customs services are fully involved; • Although the transport history of the container might be known to a large
shipping company, there are no established procedures or systems for sharing this information; 21• During the initial part of
transport many containers are for a long time in the custody of a single truck driver traveling large distances. Purpose of agreement
An agreement on container security should significantly reduce the security risks in container traffic while
facilitating fair and efficient global trade. As recognized by another study group that examined the
container security issue, “International agreements to coordinate standards and to develop protocols for
authoritative action will be essential. A suitable institution with membership that includes the majority of
trading states should follow the testing programs and prepare options for such agreements .” 15 An agreement
on container security could contain the following elements: • commit States and transport actors (shipping companies, harbor
authorities, etc.) to promote fair, efficient and secure global trade; • commit States and transport actors to prevent
containers from being used for illicit purposes; • commit States to put all international container traffic
under effective control; • include strong national implementation measures that provide incentives for the
transport industry to comply with the Code; • establish an international cooperative regime that will support the authorities and
industry in implementing the agreement. International Measures National authorities in States Parties to the
agreement would be responsible for establishing secure container transport in accordance with this new
agreement, with existing international commitments and with national legislation. Internationally established norms and
procedures and co-operative verification measures would be designed to support the national authorities and the commercial actors.
The international measures would: • Establish document standards and procedures for transmission and
checking the authenticity of such documents using modern technology; • Establish procedures for
verifying declarations at points of origin; 15 “Container Security Report,” Stanford Study Group, CISAC Report, Board of
Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, January 2003, 29. 22• Establish standards and procedures for
checking containers at harbors and at similar control posts for trains and trucks. Such standards and
procedures would apply to the use of radiation detectors, thermal or x-ray imaging, swipes, and air
samplers; • Establish procedures to monitor container movements in and out of harbors , including transport history,
and to make this information available to national authorities along any given transport chain; • Establish
standards for unique identification of containers; 16 • Establish standards for tamper-indicating seals and
a transponder system to be applied to containers; • Establish procedures for certifying seals, transponders
and equipment used for container screening and monitoring in harbors and other checkpoints; • Assist in
the national establishment of equipment and checking procedures in harbors and other checkpoints; •
Assist in the training of personnel in national authorities.
AFF – CP Can’t Solve
Perm do both
Perm do the plan and the hold an international conference consisting of
willing governments and private entities to propose the creation of an
international Code of Conduct for the purpose of improving shipping
container security.
Timeframe—port attacks are imminent—CP is slow
International Fiat
Still can’t solve salvaging—even with the codes they still need a robust
salvaging industry to enforce the codes
Obvi doesn’t solve FSIA
CP can’t solve – code of conduct standards won’t be consistently enforced
Port Strategy 14 – February 11, Cracking the Code, http://www.portstrategy.com/news101/port-operations/portperformance/cracking-the-code/Megan
Could such a concept be broadened out to create a regional, national or even international code of
conduct?¶ Robert Kimber, secretary of the General Stevedoring Council, thinks not. “While I could see ports coming
closer together if they are in the same geographical area, because they would have some things in
common, I can’t imagine the company stuffing containers on one side of the world having the same code
of conduct stretching all the way to the container’s final destination on the other .¶ “Also, I am not sure how
many companies have a code of conduct for their own operations with their customers – I think that would be a
starting point. If individual links in the chain haven’t got their own codes of conduct, how would they set
about trying to create one for the whole chain?Ӧ A basic code of conduct could be, he suggests, promising to handle
everything with due care – and, if there is a problem, rectifying that problem within a given time line. But bearing in mind the 80/20
rule, that 80% of your business probably comes from 20% of your customers, most companies would tend to prioritise the needs of
the customers with the most leverage.¶ Dean Davison, principal consultant at Ocean Shipping Consultants, says: “A code of conduct
is defined as an agreement or rules of behaviour for a group or the way in which an activity is managed. Isn’t that what
containerisation is in its entirety, in that it is a way of moving cargo that everyone does the same?”¶ ¶ Different strokes ¶ Broaden
the concept out, he says, and while it might guarantee a consistent level of service, which shipowner actually wants the same level of
service as everyone else?¶ “They want a good level of service where loading on to the ship is done in a safe manner and the goods get
to their destination. But if there was this ‘optimal’ way of working, how would a terminal differentiate itself
from the competition, and surely such a concept would diminish the entrepreneurial, thinking-on-your-feet approach which
logistics professionals pride themselves in? In fact – there would be no competition!¶ “I can understand working together in an
optimal way but surely that comes down to communication anyway. The whole industry and market is based on choice ,
but this would eat away at individuality. The
various terminal operators have different strategies and different
ways of standing out from the crowd.Ӧ A code of conduct at local level makes sense but at a European or
regional level would not be achievable, adds Patrick Verhoeven, secretary general of the European Community Shipowners’
Associations (ECSA) and formerly of the European Ship Ports Organisation (ESPO). He believes the concept put forward by Ron
Neale could encourage more cooperation and avoid waiting times and delays, for example.¶ “This has been an issue in inland
navigation, where there is sometimes not enough cooperation between ships’ sailing schedules and barges arriving randomly,” he
says. “I do think this is an area where a port authority could play a coordinating role, bring people within the shipping and maritime
community together and show added value by playing the role of match-maker and facilitator. However, even at local level this is a
big step and there would be challenges – people have to trust each other to cooperate.”
1NC Port Security Grant Program CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should streamline and expand
its port security grant program.
CP solves port security
GAO 11 -The Government Accountability Office is an independent agency which provides to the United States Congress audit,
evaluation, and investigative services, November 2o11, PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM Risk Model, Grant Management, and
Effectiveness Measures Could Be Strengthened, http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/587142.pdf//RSoni
In 2010 and 2011, PSGP
allocations were based largely on port risk and determined through a
combination of a risk analysis model and DHS implementation decisions. DHS uses a risk
analysis model to allocate PSGP funding to port areas that includes all three elements of risk—
threat, vulnerability, and consequence—and DHS made modifications to enhance the
model’s vulnerability element for fiscal year 2011. For example, DHS modified the vulnerability equation to
recognize that different ports can have different vulnerability levels. However, the vulnerability
equation is not responsive to changes in port security—such as the implementation of PSGP-funded security projects.
Additionally, the vulnerability equation does not utilize the most precise data available
in all cases. DHS addressed prior GAO recommendations for strengthening the vulnerability element of grant risk models, but
the PSGP model’s vulnerability measure could be further strengthened by incorporating
the results of past security investments and by refining other data inputs. FEMA has faced
several challenges in distributing PSGP grant funds, and FEMA has implemented specific steps to
overcome these challenges. Only about one-quarter of awarded grant funding has been
drawn down by grantees, and an additional one- quarter remains unavailable (see table below).
Funding is unavailable—meaning that grantees cannot begin using the funds to work on
projects—for two main reasons: federal requirements have not been met (such as environmental reviews), or the port area has
not yet identified projects to fund with the grant monies. Several challenges contributed to funds being
unavailable. For example, DHS was slow to review cost- share waiver requests—requests from grantees to forego
the cost-share requirement. Without a more expedited waiver review process, grant applicants that cannot
afford the cost-share may not apply for important security projects. Other challenges
included managing multiple open grant rounds, complying with program requirements, and
using an antiquated grants management system. FEMA has taken steps to address these challenges. For
example FEMA and DHS have, among other things, increased staffing levels, introduced project submission time frames,
implemented new procedures for environmental reviews, and implemented phase one of a new grants management system.
FEMA is
developing performance measures to assess its administration of the PSGP but it has not
implemented measures to assess PSGP grant effectiveness. Although FEMA has taken initial steps to
However, it is too soon to determine how successful these efforts will be in improving the distribution of grant funds.
develop measures to assess the effectiveness of its grant programs, it does not have a plan and related milestones for implementing
measures specifically for the PSGP. Without
such a plan, it may be difficult for FEMA to effectively
manage the process of implementing measures to assess whether the PSGP is achieving
its stated purpose of strengthening critical maritime infrastructure against risks
associated with potential terrorist attacks.
2NC Politics NB
Port security measures have bipartisan support
McCarter 12 -Mickey Communications manager at the Security Industry Association, 07/02/12, Customs & Immigration
Aviation, Port Security Bills Enjoy Bipartisan Support From House Lawmakers, http://www.hstoday.us/focused-topics/customsimmigration/single-article-page/aviation-port-security-bills-enjoy-bipartisan-support-from-houselawmakers/8774d00b80793d7b125324dc9dad3510.html//RSoni
Democrats applauded last week the passage by the House of several homeland security
bills designed to strengthen aviation and port security. The bills, including the Aviation Security Stakeholder
Participation Act (HR 1447), the Securing Maritime Activities through Risk–based Targeting (SMART) for Port Security Act (HR
4251) and the Gauging American Port Security (GAPS) Act (HR 4005) enjoyed bipartisan support. None of the bills
has companion legislation in the Senate but all three moved there for consideration. The Senate could take up the bills or they could
become included in a conference for the homeland security appropriations bill for fiscal year 2013. Rep. Bennie Thompson (DMiss.), ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, pointed out that Democrats on his committee sponsored to
two of the bills and had significant input on the third. Thompson himself introduced the Aviation Security Stakeholder Participation
Act, which would authorize the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC) to provide feedback on policies and procedures at the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The ASAC would be made up of travel industry stakeholders that are impacted by
TSA regulations. Under the bill, the administrator of TSA would appoint ASAC members and set up working groups for air cargo,
general aviation and perimeter security. The SMART Port
Security Act, introduced by Rep. Candice
Miller (R-Mich.), would improve coordination between US Customs and Border Protection and
the US Coast Guard, as previously reported by Homeland Security Today. The bill also would provide relief to port workers
who face the prospect of having to renew their Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) cards in October 2012.
Thompson pressed for that provision, given that the Coast Guard has not yet set up readers for the TWIC cards, which essentially
have been reduced to regular identification cards despite the promise of their biometric verification capabilities. The cost of a TWIC
card, $132.50, for another five-year period would be unreasonably burdensome on port workers who cannot take advantage of all of
its security features, Thompson argued. "Changes to the TWIC program could affect offsetting receipts and subsequent direct
spending; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply," the Congressional Budget Office said of Thompson's provision in a report on
the GAPS Act would require the Department of Homeland Security to
examine gaps in port security and report to Congress with a plan to address those gaps.
Rep. Janice Hahn (D-Calif.), who sponsored the bill, hailed its passage, 411-9, Thursday. In a statement, Hahn said,
June 11. Finally,
"The loopholes that continue to exist in port security keep me up at night. My first question as a member of the Homeland Security
Committee was to Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, on what Congress should be doing to protect our ports. Mr.
Hamilton's response that Congress wasn't focused enough on our ports meant we needed to act." US ports receive roughly 50,000
calls from ships annually, with 2 billion tons of freight and 134 million passengers, Hahn reported. The contribution of this cargo to
the US economy is staggeringly significant, but only 3 percent or less of cargo undergoes scanning. That low amount opens up
opportunities for terrorists to smuggle people or weapons into the United States, she argued. A terrorist attack on the Port of Los
Angeles/Long Beach would cost billions to the economy of California and displace thousands of port workers, Hahn warned.
Geraldine Knatz, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, praised the GAPS Act as an effort to prevent such a catastrophe. "It's
a tribute to both the importance of the issue and Representative Hahn's tenacity that Congress passed
her legislation a mere four months after she introduced the bill," Knatz said in a statement.
"Trade gateways, like the Port of Los Angeles, are critical pieces of our nation's
economic infrastructure. Keeping these gateways safe is a national priority." Thompson also
welcomed passage of all three bills Thursday. "As all of us have a stake in securing our nation, my Aviation Security Advisory
Committee bill will ensure that the stakeholders who are expected to comply with the policies and procedures developed by TSA
have a seat at the table. Then we can be confident that TSA policies are both effective from a security standpoint and address the
economic and commercial realities of our nation's airports," Thompson said in a statement. "The SMART Port Act is rooted in not
only the improvements to the TWIC program but also what it seeks to do to improve coordination and cooperation between DHS'
maritime components and strengthen procurement practices. This bill is the result of bipartisan efforts to strengthen the security of
America's ports and waterways and ensure the Department of Homeland Security's maritime security efforts are as effective and
efficient as practicable," Thompson added. "Enactment of the GAPS Act will help ensure that our limited security resources can be
targeted to those threats that put our ports at greatest risk. Our nation's ports are as diverse as the people they serve and the
importance of this infrastructure to the global supply chain cannot be overstated," he concluded.
AFF – Links to Politics
CP links to politics – sparks spending fights
De Rugy 5 -Veronique, senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, “Is Port Security Spending
Making Us
Safer?http://cip.management.dal.ca/publications/Is%20Port%20Security%20Spending%20Making%20Us%20Safer.pdf//RSoni
The total amount allocated to port security grants over four years is $706 million. In addition, the Transit
Grant Program for ferry security received an additional $5 million in FY2005. 44 Interestingly, the Port Security Grant Program
represents a small portion of port security money—les than a percent—and is only 0.3 percent of homeland
security spending government wide. Yet, each year, the House and the Senate fight over the amount
this program will receive. This year was no exception. In other words, the Port Security
Grant Programs is a very political program because it is a very visible program that
Congressmen like to use to show their commitment to homeland security and to their
constituents.
REMs
1NC LOST CP
Text: The United States Senate should ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Ratifying LOST results in domestic mining of REMs
Haigler 12 – Lauren, American Security Project The American Security Project (ASP) is a nonpartisan organization
created to educate the American public and the world about the changing nature of national security in the 21st Century., July 16,
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/the-us-needs-domestic-access-to-rare-earth-minerals/
The legislation passed in the House but it is seen as unlikely to be taken up by the Senate.¶ However, there is something more
important the Senate should do to make domestic mining a more attractive investment: ratify the Law of
the Sea Treaty.¶ The Law of the Sea Treaty would provide US companies the legal certainty they need to
invest in deep-seabed mining, where it is projected that vast deposits of rare earth minerals lie. Without
ratification of the treaty, companies are not willing to invest in the expensive venture because the US
would not have internationally recognized claims over the resources in the waters. ¶ Mining for rare earths in the
deep-seabed has economic and environmental advantages over land mining. Some research has suggested that deep-sea mining will
be cheaper than land mining and yield higher profits. Also, the seafloor deposits are much more concentrated than those on land
and would therefore take less processing to extract the minerals, which is the most environmentally destructive part of mining. New
technology has also reduced the environmental risk of deep-sea mining. More than one metal can be obtained at one deep-sea site.
Land mines leave a substantial footprint but deep-sea mines have no roads, surface ore-transport systems, or other infrastructures.
2NC Solvency
Must ratify LOST to secure access to REM
Kerry 12 – John, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, May 23, Kerry Statement on The Law of the Sea Convention:
The U.S. National Security and Strategic Imperatives for Ratification, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/chair/release/kerrystatement_on-the-law-of-the-sea-convention-the-us-national-security-and-strategic-imperatives-for-ratificationSome may ask why now, why consider a Treaty that's been untouched by the Senate for the last five years, and
been hanging around for more than 25. I think the real question is why we wouldn't have this discussion, now, when today,
we have the worst of all worlds. We’ve effectively lived by the terms of the Treaty for 30 years but, as a nonparty, we’re on the outside looking in. We live by the rules but we don’t shape the rules. ¶ It couldn’t be
more clear. Without joining the LOS, we are deprived of critical benefits and protections under the Treaty .
Let me give you a few quick examples:¶ Ratifying the Treaty will lock in the favorable navigational rights that our military and
shipping interests depend on every single day. It will strengthen our hand against China and others who stake out claims in the
Pacific, the Arctic, or elsewhere.¶ It will give our oil and gas companies the certainty that they need to make crucial investments to
secure our energy future. It will put our telecommunications companies on an equal footing with their foreign competitors. And, it
will help secure access to rare earth minerals, which we need for weapons systems, computers, cellphones, and the like.¶
It will also address issues of Military Effectiveness. As our national security focus shifts towards the Asia Pacific region, it’s more
important than ever that we’re part of this Treaty. China and other countries are staking out illegal claims in the South China Sea
and elsewhere.¶ Becoming a party to the treaty would give an immediate boost to U.S. credibility as we push
back against excessive maritime claims and illegal restrictions on our warships or commercial vessels. There is no doubt in my mind
that it would help resolve maritime issues to the benefit of the United States and our regional allies and partners. We will hear from
every single former Chief of Naval Operations, and Commandant of the Coast Guard, to that effect.¶ The treaty is also about Energy
Security. While we sit on the sidelines, Russia and other countries are carving up the Arctic and laying claim to the oil and gas riches
in that region. We, on the other hand, can’t even access the Treaty body that provides international legitimacy for these types of
Arctic claims. Instead of taking every possible step to ensure our stake in this resource rich area, we are watching others assert their
claims and doing nothing about it because we have no legal recourse.¶ This Treaty is also about Rare earth minerals. China
currently controls the production of rare earth minerals – 90 percent of the world’s supply we are dependent on from
China. There is no way that enhances American security. We need this for cellphones, computers, and weapons systems. U.S.
industry is poised to secure these minerals from the deep seabed, but they cannot do so through the
United States as it is because we’re not a party to the Treaty.
2NC Politics NB
CP popular – has the backing of multinational corporations
Cueto 12 – board certified international attorney (Santiago, July 5, US Corporations Push for Passage
of Law of the Sea Treaty,
http://www.internationalbusinesslawadvisor.com/2012/07/articles/internationalinvestments/international-business-rallies-for-passage-of-law-of-the-sea-treaty/)
Lobbyists for some of the world’s biggest multinational corporations met in Washington D.C. last week to
steer members of the Foreign Relations Committee to vote in their favor on the Law of the Sea Treaty.¶ The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as it is formally known, sets rules for the use of marine natural
resources.¶ It was signed in 1982 and came into force in 1994, but was never ratified by the United States. The United States is the
only industrialized power which has yet to ratify the treaty. According to the United Nations, 162 countries including the European
Community, China, Japan, Russia, Canada and India have signed the Treaty.¶ As Politico reports, the international treaty
affects everyone from shippers to telecom companies, has withered in the Senate for almost two decades.¶
Ratifying the treaty, according to the Foreign Policy article, would significantly increase the potential
scope of U.S. domestic energy production by expanding the definition of the outer continental shelf. ¶ It
would also give the U.S. greater access to undersea rare earth minerals , which are widely used in smart phones,
flat-screen TVs, medical equipment and US defense systems.
AFF – CP Can’t Solve
Legal certainty is not the main barrier to domestic REM mining – CP can’t
solve
Murray 14 – Iain, March 25, LOST at Sea, http://www.ncpa.org/pub/bg167
There are two main economic arguments advanced in favor of the United States joining LOST. The first is that uncertainty is
preventing the United States from developing natural resources, particularly in the Arctic. The second, newer argument is that LOST
would encourage the development of resources by instituting a sound property rights regime in the seabed of the high seas. Neither
of these arguments has merit.¶ Can Resources Be Developed without LOST? The first argument — that LOST will
advance the development of the seabed — is outlined in a letter from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, sent to the U.S.
Senate in July 2012:¶ “America’s extended continental shelf, which in some areas extends hundreds of miles beyond U.S. territorial
waters, contains abundant oil and natural gas reserves that can provide reliable, affordable energy to America’s homes and factories
for decades to come — but only if the Senate acts to approve Law of the Sea. Likewise, by joining the Convention, U.S. companies
would gain exclusive access to abundant rare earth mineral resources that are essential to high-tech manufacturing. China currently
controls 90 percent of the world supply of rare earth minerals. Law of the Sea represents America’s best opportunity to take control
of its own resource destiny. No U.S. company will make the multi-billion-dollar investments required to recover these resources
without the legal certainty the Convention provides.”30¶ This argument is demonstrably false. U.S. companies are already
successfully investing in an area of the extended continental shelf — the “western gap” in the Gulf of
Mexico.31 There are two areas of submerged continental shelf in the Gulf, outside the Exclusive Economic Zones of
both the United States and Mexico, known as the Western Gap and the Eastern Gap. The Eastern Gap shares a nautical
boundary with Cuba, and its precise boundaries have not been negotiated. The boundaries of the Western Gap, however,
were defined by a treaty signed with Mexico in June 2000.¶ This bilateral treaty has allowed both nations
to proceed with confidence in developing the extended continental shelf in the Western Gap. No
objections have been raised to the bilateral treaty and none are expected. As a result, the U.S. Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management has sold development rights in the Western Gap in several auctions since the
treaty was ratified in 2001.¶ Clearly, companies are willing to make multimillion dollar investments to
recover resources even “without the legal certainty the Convention provides,” as the U.S. Chamber put it.
Warming
1NC Cloud Seeding CP
Text: The United States federal government should seed marine
stratocumulus clouds with monodisperse sub-micrometre sea water
particles.
Solves warming
Latham et al 12 [John Latham, Emeritus Professor of Physics @ University of Manchester, UK, **Keith Bower, Tom
Choularton, Hugh Coe, Paul Connolly, Gary Cooper, Tim Craft, Jack Foster, Alan Gadian, Lee Galbraith, Hector Iacovides, David
Johnston, Brian Launder, Brian Leslie, John Meyer, Armand Neukermans, Bob Ormond, Ben Parkes, Phillip Rasch, John Rush,
Stephen Salter, Tom Stevenson, Hailong Wang, Qin Wang, and Rob Wood, 8/6, “Marine cloud brightening,” p. 4217-8]//fw
The idea behind the marine cloud-brightening (MCB) geoengineering technique is that seeding
marine stratocumulus
clouds with copious quantities of roughly monodisperse sub-micrometre sea water
particles might significantly enhance the cloud droplet number concentration, and
thereby the cloud albedo and possibly longevity. This would produce a cooling,
which general circulation model (GCM) computations suggest could—subject to satisfactory resolution of technical and
scientific problems identified herein—have the capacity to balance global warming up to the
carbon dioxide-doubling point. We describe herein an account of our recent research on a number of critical issues
associated with MCB. This involves (i) GCM studies, which are our primary tools for evaluating
globally the effectiveness of MCB, and assessing its climate impacts on rainfall amounts
and distribution, and also polar sea-ice cover and thickness; (ii) high-resolution
modelling of the effects of seeding on marine stratocumulus, which are required to understand the
complex array of interacting processes involved in cloud brightening; (iii) microphysical modelling sensitivity
studies, examining the influence of seeding amount, seed-particle salt-mass, air-mass
characteristics, updraught speed and other parameters on cloud–albedo change; (iv) sea
water spray-production techniques; (v) computational fluid dynamics studies of possible
large-scale periodicities in Flettner rotors; and (vi) the planning of a three-stage limitedarea field research experiment, with the primary objectives of technology testing and determining to what extent, if
any, cloud albedo might be enhanced by seeding marine stratocumulus clouds on a spatial scale of around 100×100 km. We stress
that there would be no justification for deployment of MCB unless it was clearly established that no significant adverse consequences
would result. There would also need to be an international agreement firmly in favour of such action.
2NC Geoengineering Key
Geoengineering solutions are the only way to solve for warming—only way
to make emissions net-zero
Wodskou 3/29 [Chris, *citing David Keith, long-time professor @ University of Calgary, Professor of
Public Policy @ Harvard Kennedy School and the Gordon McKay Professor of Engineering and Applied
Sciences @ Harvard University, CBC News, “Give geoengineering a chance to fix climate change: David
Keith,” http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/1.2586882]//fw
There may indeed be broad agreement among scientists that climate change is happening, humans are causing it and urgent action
is needed to prevent a global disaster. New reports from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only add to the weight of science’s verdict on the subject. Just
what to
do about climate change, however - and how quickly - is still a matter of intense political
and policy debate. And if you really want to see the sparks fly, try suggesting geoengineering as a
solution to global warming . As the term implies, geoengineering is engineering on a
planetary scale. Geoengineering is an attempt to arrest the course of climate change through a
number of different schemes, such as seeding the atmosphere with reflective particles. Or putting gigantic mirrors in
orbit around the Earth to reflect sunlight back to space. Or fertilizing the ocean with iron to stimulate the growth of carbonabsorbing plankton. For a lot of people, it sounds like mad science. And geoengineering has been a magnet for controversy and
criticism. Its opponents include some of the world’s most prominent environmentalists, including David Suzuki and Al Gore. Earlier
this year, in fact, the former U.S. Vice President said the very idea of geoengineering is “insane, utterly mad and delusional in the
extreme.” He added, “the fact that some scientists who should know better are actually engaged in serious discussion of those
alternatives is a mark of how desperate some of them are feeling due to the paralysis in the global political system." But Canadian
environmental engineer David Keith is taken seriously by policymakers and scientists when he speaks about the possibilities of
geoengineering. Keith was a long-time professor at the University of Calgary and is now a Professor of Public Policy at the Harvard
Kennedy School and the Gordon McKay Professor of Engineering and Applied Sciences at Harvard University. He’s particularly
interested in solar geoengineering, or solar radiation management, which would involve putting tiny sulphur particles into the
stratosphere, where they would reflect solar energy back to space. In his new book, A Case for Climate Engineering, Keith says
geoengineering is a “brutally ugly technical fix.” He cheerfully admits he has a lot of qualms about it as a
technology that could have dangerous and unintended consequences, and that it doesn’t address the root cause of
climate change: the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But, as Keith told The Sunday Edition’s Michael
Enright in an interview, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the fact that it could rapidly
lower the Earth’s temperature and counteract some of the effects of climate
change . It’s technically feasible and relatively inexpensive to do, he adds. And given how the
global community has dragged its heels on reducing emissions, he argues, a crude, quick fix for climate change
may become necessary in the decades ahead. “I think the important point is that it’s not hard to do, that all the
hard questions are about whether we should do it, who controls it, how well it works.” Keith also acknowledges the danger that if
geoengineering were to become seen as a proven solution to rising global temperatures, there would be a strong temptation to forego
costly emissions reductions and simply press ahead with geoengineering to counteract the results of rising levels of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere instead. “You
[need to] do geoengineering during the time that you slow down
emissions. In the long run, you have to bring emissions to zero," he says. According to Keith, if we
want a stable climate, we must eventually stop putting more carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere. "Carbon dioxide is like filling a bathtub. The climate risk comes from the
historical sum of all emissions . The only way to stop adding to that risk is to stop putting more
carbon dioxide in." “But let’s say you’re going to stop carbon dioxide emissions over 100
years. If you do this solar geoengineering, you could spread out the climate change over
200 years, slowing down the amount of climate change, and I would say most climate risks have to do with the rate of change.”
2NC Politics NB
Oil industry likes geoengineering
Thomas 10 [Jim, reporter, 6/28, “The link between BP, geoengineering and GM,” The Ecologist,
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/522729/the_link_
between_bp_geoengineering_and_gm.html]//fw
Just as the oil industry is eager to get on with the exploitation of hard-to-reach sources
of black gold, an increasingly vocal and well-organised lobby of geoengineers is anxious
to get on with testing a variety of climate intervention schemes. Underlying both is a thinly disguised
hubris that the Gulf catastrophe should vividly awake us to. Both oil and geoengineering have strong
connections in Washington, sometimes even in the same people. To state the obvious, big oil would certainly
benefit if the atmosphere could be engineered to withstand higher concentrations of
greenhouse gases.
The oil lobby controls legislation
Froomkin 11 [Dan, contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior Washington
correspondent for the Huffington Post, 4/6, “How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,”
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobbygreases_n_845720.html]//fw
Clout in Washington isn't about winning legislative battles -- it's about making sure that they never happen at all.
The oil
and gas industry has that kind of clout. Despite astronomical profits during what have been lean years
for most everyone else, the oil and gas industry continues to benefit from massive, multi-billion
dollar taxpayer subsidies. Opinion polling shows the American public overwhelmingly wants those subsidies eliminated.
Meanwhile, both parties are hunting feverishly for ways to reduce the deficit. But when President Obama called on
Congress to eliminate about $4 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil earlier this year, the
response on the Hill was little more than a knowing chuckle. Even Obama's closest congressional allies don't
think the president’s proposal has a shot. "I would be surprised if it got a great deal of traction," Senator Jeff
Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate energy committee, told reporters at the National Press Club a few days after Obama
first announced his plan. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-author of a House bill that closely resembles Obama's proposal,
nevertheless acknowledges that it has slim chances of passing. "It
will be a challenge to get anything through
the House that includes any tax increase for anyone under any circumstance," he told The
Huffington Post. The list goes on: "It's not on my radar," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani, a lobbying firm
with several oil and gas industry clients. "It's
old news and it's never going to happen in this Congress.
It couldn't even happen in the last Congress." Indeed, the oil and gas industry's
stranglehold on Congres is so firm that even when the Democrats controlled both
houses, repeal of the subsidies didn't stand a chance. Obama proposed cutting them in his previous two
budgets as well, but the Senate -- where Republicans and consistently pro-oil Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than
enough votes to block any legislation -- never even took a stab at it. Now that the House is controlled by the GOP, Obama's proposal
is deader than an oil-soaked pelican. Over
the last decade in particular, the Republican Party's antitax policies and pro-drilling campaign rhetoric have become nearly indistinguishable
from those of Big Oil. "Obama's been proposing to get rid of these subsidies since his first budget in February 2009," said
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. " The obstacle has
been the petroleum industry. The American Petroleum Institute has dug in their
heels and is fighting tooth and nail to retain these subsidies." The American Petroleum Institute (API)
is the industry's enormously powerful lobbying and trade association.
Geoengineering lobby is powerful
Vidal 11 [John, environment editor, 10/6, “Big names behind US push for geoengineering,” The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering]//fw
Over the Atlantic, though, the
geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days after the British got cold feet, the
Washington-based thinktank the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published a major
report calling for the United States and other likeminded countries to move towards
large-scale climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as "climate remediation", the
BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the nascent
technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding. So what is
the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not
bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies , and while it claims to "represent a consensus
among what have historically been divergent views," it appears to actually represent the most powerful US
academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and
corporate power and was described recently as a "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists who want to
make war on Iran". Their
specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the emerging
science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it
an air of political sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of
state, academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.
AFF - CP Can’t Solve
Too many problems with MCB
Latham et al 12 [John Latham, Emeritus Professor of Physics @ University of Manchester, UK,
**Keith Bower, Tom Choularton, Hugh Coe, Paul Connolly, Gary Cooper, Tim Craft, Jack Foster, Alan
Gadian, Lee Galbraith, Hector Iacovides, David Johnston, Brian Launder, Brian Leslie, John Meyer,
Armand Neukermans, Bob Ormond, Ben Parkes, Phillip Rasch, John Rush, Stephen Salter, Tom
Stevenson, Hailong Wang, Qin Wang, and Rob Wood, 8/6, “Marine cloud brightening,” p. 4218-9]//fw
Current
major problems regarding MCB , which may or may not be capable of resolution, are
— we do not yet have a spraying
system capable of producing sea water particles of the
size and in the copious quantities required;
— even if we succeeded in producing such a system, we
would still need to ensure that it would function
satisfactorily at sea for long periods (we envisage several months) in the face of problems such as bad
weather, possible orifice clogging, etc.;
— we
need to ascertain whether we could produce sea water cloud-condensation nuclei
(CCN) at a sufficient rate, over a wide enough area, for enough of them to enter the marine
stratocumulus clouds and be activated to produce cloud droplets, thereby enhancing the
CDNC N and the associated cloud albedo A sufficiently to produce the required degree
of cooling (the work of Korhonen et al. [9] and Wang et al. [16]—and others—illustrates how the cloud and sub-cloud
characteristics are much more complex than assumed in our GCM modelling); and
— if the earlier mentioned problems were satisfactorily resolved, and a limited-area field investigation of MCB demonstrated its
quantitative viability, there
would be no case for its deployment unless (i) comprehensive
examination demonstrated that there would be no unacceptable ramifications and (ii) a
not yet established international body, representing all countries, concluded—after major
investigation of all evidence available—that deployment was needed and safe.
AFF – Links to Politics
Geoengineering solutions are unpopular—potential consequences and
people favor cutting GHG emissions
Johnson 13 [Carolyn Y., physics and English major at Amherst College, master’s degree in science
writing from MIT, 3/14, “Harvard professor argues geoengineering needs oversight,” Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/03/14/geoengineering-solutions-globalwarming-need-oversight-harvard-professor-argues/sGtkpnGqOVXdcajdDBl70O/story.html]//fw
Large-scale projects that could temper or reverse the effects of climate change by
blocking some incoming sunlight or manipulating the atmosphere have long been
unpopular on two opposing fronts. On one side are those worried about the
unintended consequences and doomsday scenarios that could be set off by careless experiments. On the other
are those who believe such research is important, but to support it now will detract from the urgent
need to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global temperature rise.
No public support
Vance 10 [Erik, contributing editor, 2/24, “Geoengineering divides scientists,”
EnvironmentalResearchWeb, http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/41830]//fw
In the end, debates about the best form of climate manipulations may be moot because
geoengineering remains
publicly unpopular . Ortwin Renn, a sustainable technology expert at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, cited
recent small-scale studies that suggest the more people learn about geoengineering, the
less likely it is that they will endorse it. As if to confirm the public's continued confusion, protesters
gathered outside the meeting; several managed to attend and pepper the scientists with
questions about secret government climate-manipulation plots.
AFF – Turn
One of the advantages of climate engineering via clouds is that the effects are transient:
if it doesn’t go to plan, the process can be stopped and all will return to normal in a
matter of weeks. Mitchell and Finnegan suggested that one could seed cirrus clouds by
releasing particles from aircraft. They also suggested a good material for the seeds, the
somewhat exotic (but not excessively costly) compound bismuth tri-iodide, as it is
known to promote ice formation on its surface.
But will this work as planned? That’s what Storelvmo and colleagues have now studied
by using a climate model that incorporates a description of cirrus cloud formation. They
find that to get climate cooling, one has to use just the right concentration of seed
particles. Too few, and cirrus clouds form just as they do normally. But if there are too
many seeds, they generate more ice crystals than would have formed in their absence,
and the clouds are actually thicker, trapping even more heat.
If we get the seed concentration right, the effect is dramatic: the cooling is enough to
offset all global warming. But this “Goldilocks” window is quite narrow. What’s more, the
researchers say, finding the precise boundaries of the window requires more
information than we have at present, for example about the ability of bismuth tri-iodide
to seed ice formation, and the rates at which the ice crystals will settle through the
atmosphere. So attempting this sort of engineering prematurely could backfire – even if
the effect would be quite short-lived, we should hold fire until we know more.
1NC Solar Radiation Management
Text: The United States federal government should increase R&D for large
scale deployment of solar radiation management technologies and methods
including, but not limited to, meteorological reactors
Holds off warming
Ming et al 14 [Tingzhen, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering @ Huazhong University of
Science and Technology, *Renaud de_Richter, Wei Liu, Sylvain Callol, 1/22 “Fighting global warming by
climate engineering: Is the Earth radiation management and the solar radiation management any option
for fighting climate change?,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews Volume 31, March 2014, p.
828]//fw
perform SRM in order to reduce the effects of
anthropogenic global warming were summarized, and some of their limitations introduced and ethical
In this review the main GE methods proposed to
aspects reported. Before introducing the concept of ERM, a short review of the literature showing that anthropogenic waste heat
release by thermal power plants might be important at a local scale was given, as well as a short overview of some drawbacks of
several renewable energies, which makes them “not so green” or “not so neutral” for the climate change problem. Then this
review paper proposed several new concepts aimed to fight global warming by
enhancing outgoing longwave radiation, and able to transfer heat out to space, prevent
sea level rise and avoid future costs, for instance of hurricanes, or of CCS or CDR. In this purpose, powergenerating systems able to transfer heat from Earth to upper layers of the atmosphere
and then to the space are reviewed. The individual UREs presented in this paper were initially developed to become power plants for
decarbonized electricity production. The principal new concept proposed in this paper is that it
is possible to increase
the longwave radiation transfer from the Earth surface to the outer space by increasing
the direct energy transfer from the Earth to the space by the atmospheric window;
transferring surface hot air in altitude; transferring cold air to the surface; transferring
heat from the oceans in altitude; increase sea ice thickness. So these UREs can be named
meteorological reactors. This article shows that a large family of MR exist, ant that these MR are able to manage longwave radiation
in order to cool down the earth. SRM is not intended to solve the climate change problem. SRM
is intended to buy
time to let our descendants or heirs find the solution for us, address it latter and pay for it. The world population growth, growth
per capita, carbon intensity growth and the economic development require more energy. SRM does not provide more energy to
humanity. SRM does not stop the inadvertent climatic change due to fossil fuels combustion. The IPCC conclusions can be
summarized to the fact that all climate models demonstrate that the best way to stop climate change is to stop the introduction of
CO2 in the atmosphere. SRM allows more CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. SRM
is a voluntary and targeted
climate modification. On the contrary ERM consists in a voluntary reduction of the main cause of climate change as a
large scale deployment of MR decarbonizes the economy, is able to provide the humans
the energy they need and can help to cool the Earth surface and curb GW. Hansen [106]
performed computer simulations of the equilibrium responses in case forcings are introduced in the higher layers of the atmosphere:
the higher the heating is introduced, the larger is the fraction of the energy that is radiated directly to the outer space without
warming the surface. Simulations performed by Ban-Weiss [111] showed that for every 1 W m−2 that is transferred from sensible to
latent heating, on average, as part of the fast response involving low cloud cover, there is approximately a 0.5 W m−2 change in the
top-of-atmosphere energy balance (positive upward), driving a decrease in global mean surface air temperature. Other models [186]
assimilate the tropical cyclones to Carnot heat engines that absorb heat from a warmer reservoir (the ocean surface) and reject a
fraction of it to a colder reservoir (the highest atmospheric layers of the troposphere and thus the outer space) while doing work.
One of the ideas developed in this review is that GHGs
are too good insulators that prevent normal
interactions between the Earth atmosphere and the outer space and thus keep the Earth
too hot, so atmospheric thermal bridges have to be created. For this purpose, the rupture
technology concept of meteorological reactors is given: these are unusual power plants
able at the same time to produce renewable and clean energy, avoiding future CO2
emissions, reducing hurricane intensity, preventing heat waste release at the surface
level and cooling down the Earth by increased sensible heat transfer or latent heat
transfer out to space. A combination portfolio of techniques, an energy mix of a wide
large bunch of methods that are free of CO2 emissions will be necessary to fight global
warming. Meanwhile current power plants release heat at the surface, MR release it in altitude and can at least contribute to
cool down the Earth surface and help it to keep a neutral global energy budget. The accelerated technology scenarios explored by the
IEA [95] suggest that even a major global mitigation program, based on successful development and deployment of several new
technologies, will still allow substantial global warming by 2100. Availability
of key technologies will be
necessary but not sufficient to limit CO2 emissions. Mitigation of three trillion tons of
CO2 by 2100 is deemed a serious goal, thus a major increase in R&D resources is
needed. Given the monumental challenge and uncertainties associated with a major mitigation program, the authors would like
to advise to consider all available and emerging technologies. This suggests fundamental research on new MR energy technologies in
addition to those already known in order to become part of the global research portfolio, since breakthroughs on today's embryonic
technologies could yield tomorrow's alternatives. The authors hope that the
ideas exposed in this paper might
their capability to supply massive amounts of energy
carbon emission-free and for their prospective for large-scale implementation some
UREs described here will give a significant contribution to the overall solution to global
warming, although they still require more research, but first and foremost much more
investments to build the first industrial plants as the theoretical assessment is already
rich and almost complete.
help this purpose and that in the near future, by
2NC Politics NB
Oil industry likes geoengineering
Thomas 10 [Jim, reporter, 6/28, “The link between BP, geoengineering and GM,” The Ecologist,
http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/other_comments/522729/the_link_
between_bp_geoengineering_and_gm.html]//fw
Just as the oil industry is eager to get on with the exploitation of hard-to-reach sources
of black gold, an increasingly vocal and well-organised lobby of geoengineers is anxious
to get on with testing a variety of climate intervention schemes. Underlying both is a thinly disguised
hubris that the Gulf catastrophe should vividly awake us to. Both oil and geoengineering have strong
connections in Washington, sometimes even in the same people. To state the obvious, big oil would certainly
benefit if the atmosphere could be engineered to withstand higher concentrations of
greenhouse gases.
The oil lobby controls legislation
Froomkin 11 [Dan, contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior Washington
correspondent for the Huffington Post, 4/6, “How The Oil Lobby Greases Washington's Wheels,”
Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/06/how-the-oil-lobbygreases_n_845720.html]//fw
Clout in Washington isn't about winning legislative battles -- it's about making sure that they never happen at all.
The oil
and gas industry has that kind of clout. Despite astronomical profits during what have been lean years
for most everyone else, the oil and gas industry continues to benefit from massive, multi-billion
dollar taxpayer subsidies. Opinion polling shows the American public overwhelmingly wants those subsidies eliminated.
Meanwhile, both parties are hunting feverishly for ways to reduce the deficit. But when President Obama called on
Congress to eliminate about $4 billion a year in tax breaks for Big Oil earlier this year, the
response on the Hill was little more than a knowing chuckle. Even Obama's closest congressional allies don't
think the president’s proposal has a shot. "I would be surprised if it got a great deal of traction," Senator Jeff
Bingaman (D-N.M.), chairman of the Senate energy committee, told reporters at the National Press Club a few days after Obama
first announced his plan. Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-author of a House bill that closely resembles Obama's proposal,
nevertheless acknowledges that it has slim chances of passing. "It
will be a challenge to get anything through
the House that includes any tax increase for anyone under any circumstance," he told The
Huffington Post. The list goes on: "It's not on my radar," said Frank Maisano, a spokesman for Bracewell Giuliani, a lobbying firm
with several oil and gas industry clients. "It's
old news and it's never going to happen in this Congress.
It couldn't even happen in the last Congress." Indeed, the oil and gas industry's
stranglehold on Congres is so firm that even when the Democrats controlled both
houses, repeal of the subsidies didn't stand a chance. Obama proposed cutting them in his previous two
budgets as well, but the Senate -- where Republicans and consistently pro-oil Louisiana Democrat Mary Landrieu had more than
enough votes to block any legislation -- never even took a stab at it. Now that the House is controlled by the GOP, Obama's proposal
is deader than an oil-soaked pelican. Over
the last decade in particular, the Republican Party's antitax policies and pro-drilling campaign rhetoric have become nearly indistinguishable
from those of Big Oil. "Obama's been proposing to get rid of these subsidies since his first budget in February 2009," said
Tyson Slocum, director of the energy program for the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. " The obstacle has
been the petroleum industry. The American Petroleum Institute has dug in their
heels and is fighting tooth and nail to retain these subsidies." The American Petroleum Institute (API)
is the industry's enormously powerful lobbying and trade association.
Geoengineering lobby is powerful
Vidal 11 [John, environment editor, 10/6, “Big names behind US push for geoengineering,” The
Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/oct/06/us-push-geoengineering]//fw
Over the Atlantic, though, the
geoengineers are more gung-ho. Just days after the British got cold feet, the
Washington-based thinktank the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) published a major
report calling for the United States and other likeminded countries to move towards
large-scale climate change experimentation. Trying to rebrand geoengineering as "climate remediation", the
BPC report is full of precautionary rhetoric, but its bottom line is that there should be presidential leadership for the nascent
technologies, a "coalition of willing" countries to experiment together, large-scale testing and big government funding. So what is
the BPC and should we take this non-profit group seriously? For a start these guys - and they are indeed mostly men - are not
bipartisan in any sense that the British would understand. The operation is part-funded by big oil,
pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies , and while it claims to "represent a consensus
among what have historically been divergent views," it appears to actually represent the most powerful US
academic, military, scientific and corporate interests. It lobbies for free trade, US military supremacy and
corporate power and was described recently as a "collection of neo-conservatives, hawks, and neoliberal interventionists who want to
make war on Iran". Their
specially convened taskforce is, in fact, the cream of the emerging
science and military-led geoengineering lobby with a few neutrals chucked in to give it
an air of political sobriety. It includes former ambassadors, an assistant secretary of
state, academics, and a chief US climate negotiator.
AFF – CP Can’t Solve
**the dedev file has answers to geoengineering solutions
Too many risks with SRM and can’t solve warming—only perm works
McCusker et al 14 [Kelly E., postdoctoral fellow @ University of Victoria, Kley C. Armour, Cecilia
M. Bitz, David S. Battisti, 2/17, “Rapid and extensive warming following cessation of solar radiation
management,” http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/2/024005/pdf/1748-9326_9_2_024005.pdf, p.
7-8]//fw
Alternative climate change mitigation measures could arguably become necessary should climate change progress at a rate or to a
degree deemed dangerous to ecological or human systems. Such a scenario could arise if GHG emissions continue unabated, or if
climate sensitivity is higher than anticipated. While
it has been argued that SRM would be particularly
effective in curbing future climate change under high emissions or high climate sensitivity (Ricke et al 2012),
our results show that the warming following SRM cessation becomes most severe under these
same conditions. We are thus left with the disconcerting situation in which SRM is most
useful precisely when its associated risks are the greatest. Furthermore, SRM via
stratospheric aerosols may introduce a host of additional problems, among them changes in
atmospheric and oceanic circulations that act to destabilize the West Antarctic ice sheet
(McCusker et al 2012) and stratospheric ozone depletion (Tilmes et al 2008). It has been suggested that SRM
be combined with GHG emissions mitigation with the aim of simultaneously limiting global warming and ocean acidification
(Wigley 2006). Our results emphasize that should
SRM ever be implemented, aggressive emissions
mitigation must occur simultaneously due to the climatic risks involved with its abrupt
cessation.
AFF – Links to Politics
Geoengineering solutions are unpopular—potential consequences and
people favor cutting GHG emissions
Johnson 13 [Carolyn Y., physics and English major at Amherst College, master’s degree in science
writing from MIT, 3/14, “Harvard professor argues geoengineering needs oversight,” Boston Globe,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/03/14/geoengineering-solutions-globalwarming-need-oversight-harvard-professor-argues/sGtkpnGqOVXdcajdDBl70O/story.html]//fw
Large-scale projects that could temper or reverse the effects of climate change by
blocking some incoming sunlight or manipulating the atmosphere have long been
unpopular on two opposing fronts. On one side are those worried about the
unintended consequences and doomsday scenarios that could be set off by careless experiments. On the other
are those who believe such research is important, but to support it now will detract from the urgent
need to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are driving global temperature rise.
No public support
Vance 10 [Erik, contributing editor, 2/24, “Geoengineering divides scientists,”
EnvironmentalResearchWeb, http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/news/41830]//fw
In the end, debates about the best form of climate manipulations may be moot because
geoengineering remains
publicly unpopular . Ortwin Renn, a sustainable technology expert at the University of Stuttgart, Germany, cited
recent small-scale studies that suggest the more people learn about geoengineering, the
less likely it is that they will endorse it. As if to confirm the public's continued confusion, protesters
gathered outside the meeting; several managed to attend and pepper the scientists with
questions about secret government climate-manipulation plots.