2014 NDI 6WS – Fitzmier,
Lundberg, Abelkop
MIDTERMS DA
1NC
GOP Will Win but it will be close – Obamacare and increased
campaign strategies
AP, 7/6 – (“Senate Republicans Confident Obamacare Backlash Will Give Them Majority”,
News Max, 7/6/14, http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/midterms-obamacare-backlashgop/2014/07/06/id/580992/)//EX
North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan has her Republican opponent right where she wants
him geographically — and, therefore, politically. Thom Tillis is stuck at the state capitol trying to
resolve a budget quarrel as speaker of the North Carolina House. It's a spot that helps Hagan
emphasize Tillis' role leading a Republican-controlled state government that Democrats contend
has gone overboard with conservative zeal by restricting access to abortion and the voting booth
while cutting corporate taxes and slashing spending on schools. If Tillis is worried by Hagan's portrayal, he
doesn't show it. Drinking coffee this past week from a hand-grenade-shaped mug in his no-frills legislative office, he's got his own
message in his campaign to take Hagan's Senate seat. "Obamacare,"
he said, " continues to be a big
problem ." Similar themes are playing out in other crucial Senate races, as voters have four
months to decide which party will control the chamber in the final two years of Barack Obama's
presidency. For Republicans, it's all about tying Democrats to Obama — especially to a health
care law that remains unpopular with many Americans. And for Democrats, the election is about
just about anything else, especially if they can steer attention away from Washington and federal
matters. It's a political strategy that sometimes gives the campaigns an inside-out feel, with veteran senators running as if they
were first-timers without a Washington resume to defend or tout. Democrat Mark Pryor has represented Arkansas in the Senate for
two terms, yet one of his TV ads begins with a man saying, "I remember when Pryor was attorney general." A woman adds that he
pursued "scam artists that were ripping off seniors." Pryor was state attorney general more than a decade ago, and for just four
years, compared to his nearly dozen in the Senate. His harkening back to that time points to his desire to make the election a choice
between a famous name in Arkansas state politics and first-term Rep. Tom Cotton, a Republican whom many view as less personable
and engaging than Pryor. The GOP strategy, in return, is straightforward. One TV ad has a young girl
spelling Pryor's name as O-B-A-M-A. Traditionally emphasized by first-time campaigners,
personal biographies are central to several other Democrats' re-election
campaigns . Alaska Sen. Mark Begich has aired a TV ad with footage of him as a boy of about 10, when his father, Rep. Nick
Begich, died in a plane crash. "Mark is clearly his father's son," says the narrator, Begich's wife, Deborah Bonito. And after 18 years
in the Senate, Democrat Mary Landrieu is arguably the most accomplished member of her famous Louisiana political family. Still,
she has aired an ad in which her father — former New Orleans Mayor Moon Landrieu — says affectionately: "When you have nine
children, you're bound to have one who's hard-headed." Some Democrats might say the same about the GOP's strategy of bashing
"Obamacare" now that the Affordable Care Act is 4 years old. Not Tillis, who says Obama and Hagan exaggerated the extent to which
people could keep their doctors and insurance plans. He calls it "the greatest example of a promise not kept." He's getting help
with the message from Crossroads GPS, the political group run in part by Republican strategist
Karl Rove, which is spending more than $3.5 million on television ads in North Carolina this
summer. The group's latest ad attacking Hagan asks whether voters know she "cast the deciding
vote for Obamacare." "The idea that this will be anything less than a referendum on Obamacare
is wishful thinking," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. The amount spent on the Hagan-Tillis race — about $17 million and
climbing — is among the nation's highest. It comes in a state that few can rival for political change in recent years, as Republicans
ended a century of frustration by winning control of both legislative chambers and the governor's office in 2012. What came next is a
"conservative revolution" that Tillis said he's proud of leading. Hagan and her fellow Democrats argue the Republicans went too far
in a state so closely divided politically that Obama carried it in 2008 and lost it four years later. They believe a bump in teacher pay
that Tillis promises lawmakers will enact this summer won't erase North Carolinians' memories of the deep cuts to education that
Republicans passed last year. That approach, said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., is Hagan's best chance to focus November voters'
attention on something other than Obama. Her strategy "is exactly what she should do," Price said, because Tillis "has got that hung
right around his neck." Hagan, meanwhile, points to achievements close to home. They include her push to provide medical care to
military families exposed to tainted water for decades at Camp Lejeune, the giant Marine Corps base in eastern North Carolina. "Kay
Hagan," said veteran North Carolina GOP strategist Paul Shumaker, "is hoping the sins of Raleigh are much bigger than the sins of
Washington."
Ocean Policy is popular for coastal states – perceived as tackling
challenges
Cosgrove, 13 – B.A. in History and a B.S. in Environmental Science from Western
Washington University in Bellingham, Washington (Sean, “Congress Can Let New England
States Plan for Future Storms, or Not”, Conservation Law Foundation, 12/3/13,
http://www.clf.org/blog/tag/national-ocean-policy/)//EX
The significant challenges that coastal states face with increasingly large storms in the era of
climate change are clear. Luckily, we have excellent policy tools designed specifically to
help address the uncertainties of climate change in the National Ocean Policy, and ocean user
groups across our region support its use. The National Ocean Policy uses regional ocean
planning, improved science and data, requires better agency coordination and relies on deep
involvement by stakeholders – all of which are needed to tackle these types of
management challenges now . As one state official said, “We can either plan now or we can
let nature plan for us.” This is especially true when the anticipated future increase in the number
and severity of storms will make these challenges larger and more difficult. We have the tools of
the National Ocean Policy at hand, but if some in Congress get their way the New England states
could be barred from working with the federal agencies necessary to plan for coastal storm
impacts.
Coastal states are key to dems winning – coastal liberals and empirics
New Republic, 14 – (“How the Democrats Can Avoid Going Down This November”, New
Republic, 4/27/14, http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117520/how-democrats-can-avoidgoing-down-2014-midterm-election)//EX
A decade ago, Obama memorably rebutted the trope that the United States could be neatly
cleaved into a red and a blue America that pits coastal liberals against inland
traditionalists. But in one very measurable and consequential sense, there are two Americas.
There is the America that votes in presidential elections, which has helped Democrats win
the popular vote in five out of the last six cycles and supports the view that Hillary
Clinton can continue that streak should she run. Then there is the America that votes more
regularly, casting ballots in both presidential and midterm years, which led to the Republican
wave in 2010 and gives its party’s leaders reason to be so sanguine about their odds this time
around.
GOP Win means path to legal status will pass
The Hill, 7/2 – (“Republican: 'No problem' for path to legal status”, The Hill, 7/2/14,
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/211189-republican-no-problem-for-houseto-pass-path-to-legal-status)//EX
Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas) said Wednesday there would be “no problem” in getting the
House to pass legislation that would provide a pathway to legal status for immigrants in
the U.S. illegally , adding that a pathway to citizenship is "potentially doable." “I think there's
no problem getting through the House a pathway to legal status. A pathway to citizenship is
going to be tougher, but I think it is potentially doable, if we can show the American people that
the border is secure,” Farenthold said on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown.” “My constituents feel
betrayed by the promise that Reagan made, that if we grant amnesty, we'll then secure the
border. We obviously didn't do that.” Parents who brought their children to the United States
illegally are a “very sympathetic problem ” Farenthold added. “We've educated them in our
schools, and they become a burden on society if they can't get a job.” The Republican said the
border is “relatively secure” but “not secure enough,” given the roughly 52,000 unaccompanied
children from Central America who have crossed into the U.S. since October. Asked if the
current crisis hurts immigration reform prospects, Farenthold said, “I think, politically, it may,”
but he stressed it could be addressed without a comprehensive bill. “I don't think you'd
have any problem getting legislation through the House to have expedited deportation
procedures, getting more judges down to prosecute or hear these cases,” said Farenthold, who
said it could take years before the children get a hearing otherwise.
Path to legal status is key to the economy
Oakford and Kugler, 13 – Kugler is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress
and vice provost for faculty and full professor at the McCourt School of Public Policy at
Georgetown University, and Oakford is Policy Analyst in the Economic Policy department and
holds an M.Sc. in migration studies from the University of Oxford and a B.S. in industrial and
labor relations from Cornell University (Patrick and Adriana, “Immigration Helps American
Workers’ Wages and Job Opportunities”, Center for American Progress, 8/29/13,
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2013/08/29/73203/immigration
-helps-american-workers-wages-and-job-opportunities/)//EX
Immigrants’ impact on wages Research shows that immigration will positively affect U.S.
workers’ wages and employment. How can that be? While overly simplistic views of economic
theory might suggest that wages will decline in the short run as the supply of labor increases,
this is not the case with immigration for two reasons. First, immigrants generally do not have a
direct negative impact on the earnings of native-born workers, as native-born workers and
immigrant workers generally complement each other rather than compete for the same job.
Native-born workers and immigrants tend to have different skill sets and therefore seek
different types of jobs. Thus, immigrants are not increasing the labor market competition for
native-born workers and therefore do not negatively affect American workers’ earnings. To be
sure, there are some instances when immigrants and the native born are similarly skilled and
substitutable for similar jobs. Recent research has found, however, that firms respond to an
increase in the supply of labor by expanding their business. Thus, an increased supply of labor
as a result of immigration is easily absorbed into the labor market as a result of increased
demand for labor, without lowering the wages of native-born workers. Second, research finds
small but positive impacts on native-born workers because of the indirect effects that
immigrants have on the labor market and economy. As economists Michael Clemens and Robert
Lynch explain in The New Republic, “In some areas of the economy, lesser skilled immigrants
have kept entire industries alive.” This not only helps native-born workers within the industries
but also native-born workers whose jobs are associated or closely connected to those industries.
Research shows, for example, that as new immigrants come into the country, the number of jobs
offshored in the manufacturing sector decreases. By ensuring that more manufacturing jobs stay
in the United States, not only do native-born manufacturing workers benefit, but the demand
for services that the manufacturing industry relies upon—such as the transportation of
manufacture goods throughout the United States—also remains high. Thus the “upstream” jobs
held by native-born workers in industries associated with manufacturing are also better off as a
result of immigration. Moreover, when one considers how immigration affects different groups
of American workers who may be the most likely to compete with immigrants, the positive story
still holds true. Research finds that as immigrants enter the labor market, African Americans
respond to these changes in the workforce by moving up to higher-skilled—and presumably
higher-paying—jobs. In fact, African Americans are three times more likely to transition to
higher-skilled jobs as a result of immigration than non-African American workers. Recent
evidence similarly shows that an increase in immigration of the magnitude implied by S. 744
would increase the earnings of more educated Hispanic women and men by 1.1 percent and 2.25
percent, respectively. Combining the research on how new immigrants will affect the wages of
American workers with the future flow of immigrants expected under S.744 allows us to
estimate the Senate bill’s impact on American workers’ wages. A recent study finds that the rise
in immigration between 1990 and 2006, which increased labor-force participation by about 12.5
million, increased the earnings of U.S. workers by between 0.6 percent and 0.7 percent.
Applying these findings to the current and expected future flows of immigration under S. 744
means that the earnings of U.S. workers would rise between 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent as a
result of immigration. Legalized immigrants’ impact on wages In addition to providing
avenues for new immigrants to enter the U.S. labor market, S. 744’s legalization provisions
would greatly improve the lives and economic potential of the currently undocumented
immigrants living in the country. Allowing these immigrants to reach their greatest economic
potential will have positive economic effects on all American workers. Research from the Center
for American Progress shows that undocumented immigrants’ earnings will increase by 15
percent over five years when they receive legal status and by an additional 10 percent over five
years when they acquire citizenship. This is because, with legal status and citizenship,
immigrants are able to fully participate in the labor force, receive full protection under our
employment laws, and find jobs that best match their skills. In turn, immigrants will spend their
increased earnings throughout the economy on things such as homes, cars, and clothing. This
increase in consumption means that business will be better off and will lead to higher earnings
for American workers. In fact, research shows that within 10 years of providing legal status to
undocumented immigrants, the cumulative increase in income of all Americans would be $470
billion. Immigrants create jobs Research on how immigration impacts U.S. workers often
focuses on how immigration affects the wages of native-born workers. Equally important,
however, is how immigration affects employment opportunities for the native born. Research
shows that increased immigration does not displace U.S. workers for many of the same reasons
that there are not negative wage effects. Another reason that immigrants do not displace U.S.
workers from their jobs is that many immigrants create their jobs by starting their own business.
In fact, according to the 2011 Current Population Survey, 7.5 percent of the foreign-born
population is self-employed. Thus, we can expect that under S. 744, between 600,000 and
840,000 of the newly legalized immigrants would be self-employed. Not only are immigrants
unlikely to take jobs away from the native born, but they can also create new jobs for American
workers. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, there were 900,000 smallbusiness owners among current immigrants—close to 18 percent of all incorporated business
owners. Yet in the same year, immigrants accounted for just 16 percent of the workforce. The
entrepreneurial nature of immigrants, however, is not being fully realized, given that there are 8
million undocumented workers. To be sure, some of these undocumented workers currently run
their own business, but these businesses likely exist in the underground economy. Thus,
legalizing these undocumented entrepreneurs will formalize their businesses and bring their
employees above ground, leading to better job opportunities. The legalization provisions under
S. 744 could potentially bring between 336,000 and 470,000 entrepreneurs into the formal
economy.* Given that the average immigrant-owned business hires 11 employees, these
businesses would account for between 3.7 million and 5.2 million jobs in the formal economy,
which is equivalent to 45 percent of those who are currently unemployed in the United States.
Some of these 3.7 million to 5.2 million jobs may be new jobs as a result of immigrants starting
businesses and hiring workers for the first time. Others, however, may simply be jobs that are
formalized for the first time. Nonetheless, whether they are new jobs or recently formalized jobs,
the U.S. labor market and economy will be better off, as formal jobs often have higher pay and
generate greater tax revenues.
History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflict—
radical terrorist groups and tension over shared energy resources
could unintentionally result in a pre-emptive nuclear strike
Mathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council,
in 2009 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National
Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit
“Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is
likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each
with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,
history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not
likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include
the harmful effects on fledgling
democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability
of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that
this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the
ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly
volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the
report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle
East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the
diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly
emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the
absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The
most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence
would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries
about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements
with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own
nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for
most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity
conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and
broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of
potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning
of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning
and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption
rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is
a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to
take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts
if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for
maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will
have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups
and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus
focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be
military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and
counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea
lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage
changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states
in a more dog-eat-dog world.
UNIQUENESS
GOP
Win
GOP Will Win but it will be close – obamacare and increased
campaign strategies
AP, 7/6 – (“Senate Republicans Confident Obamacare Backlash Will Give Them Majority”,
News Max, 7/6/14, http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/midterms-obamacare-backlashgop/2014/07/06/id/580992/)//EX
North Carolina Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan has her Republican opponent right where she wants
him geographically — and, therefore, politically. Thom Tillis is stuck at the state capitol trying to
resolve a budget quarrel as speaker of the North Carolina House. It's a spot that helps Hagan
emphasize Tillis' role leading a Republican-controlled state government that Democrats contend
has gone overboard with conservative zeal by restricting access to abortion and the voting booth
while cutting corporate taxes and slashing spending on schools. If Tillis is worried by Hagan's
portrayal, he doesn't show it. Drinking coffee this past week from a hand-grenade-shaped mug
in his no-frills legislative office, he's got his own message in his campaign to take Hagan's Senate
seat. "Obamacare," he said, " continues to be a big problem ." Similar themes are playing
out in other crucial Senate races, as voters have four months to decide which party will control
the chamber in the final two years of Barack Obama's presidency. For Republicans, it's all about
tying Democrats to Obama — especially to a health care law that remains unpopular with many
Americans. And for Democrats, the election is about just about anything else, especially if they
can steer attention away from Washington and federal matters. It's a political strategy that
sometimes gives the campaigns an inside-out feel, with veteran senators running as if they were
first-timers without a Washington resume to defend or tout. Democrat Mark Pryor has
represented Arkansas in the Senate for two terms, yet one of his TV ads begins with a man
saying, "I remember when Pryor was attorney general." A woman adds that he pursued "scam
artists that were ripping off seniors." Pryor was state attorney general more than a decade ago,
and for just four years, compared to his nearly dozen in the Senate. His harkening back to that
time points to his desire to make the election a choice between a famous name in Arkansas state
politics and first-term Rep. Tom Cotton, a Republican whom many view as less personable and
engaging than Pryor. The GOP strategy, in return, is straightforward. One TV ad has a young girl
spelling Pryor's name as O-B-A-M-A. Traditionally emphasized by first-time campaigners,
personal biographies are central to several other Democrats' re-election
campaigns . Alaska Sen. Mark Begich has aired a TV ad with footage of him as a boy of about
10, when his father, Rep. Nick Begich, died in a plane crash. "Mark is clearly his father's son,"
says the narrator, Begich's wife, Deborah Bonito. And after 18 years in the Senate, Democrat
Mary Landrieu is arguably the most accomplished member of her famous Louisiana political
family. Still, she has aired an ad in which her father — former New Orleans Mayor Moon
Landrieu — says affectionately: "When you have nine children, you're bound to have one who's
hard-headed." Some Democrats might say the same about the GOP's strategy of bashing
"Obamacare" now that the Affordable Care Act is 4 years old. Not Tillis, who says Obama and
Hagan exaggerated the extent to which people could keep their doctors and insurance plans. He
calls it "the greatest example of a promise not kept." He's getting help with the message from
Crossroads GPS, the political group run in part by Republican strategist Karl Rove, which is
spending more than $3.5 million on television ads in North Carolina this summer. The group's
latest ad attacking Hagan asks whether voters know she "cast the deciding vote for Obamacare."
"The idea that this will be anything less than a referendum on Obamacare is wishful thinking,"
said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C. The amount spent on the Hagan-Tillis race — about $17
million and climbing — is among the nation's highest. It comes in a state that few can rival for
political change in recent years, as Republicans ended a century of frustration by winning
control of both legislative chambers and the governor's office in 2012. What came next is a
"conservative revolution" that Tillis said he's proud of leading. Hagan and her fellow Democrats
argue the Republicans went too far in a state so closely divided politically that Obama carried it
in 2008 and lost it four years later. They believe a bump in teacher pay that Tillis promises
lawmakers will enact this summer won't erase North Carolinians' memories of the deep cuts to
education that Republicans passed last year. That approach, said Rep. David Price, D-N.C., is
Hagan's best chance to focus November voters' attention on something other than Obama. Her
strategy "is exactly what she should do," Price said, because Tillis "has got that hung right
around his neck." Hagan, meanwhile, points to achievements close to home. They include her
push to provide medical care to military families exposed to tainted water for decades at Camp
Lejeune, the giant Marine Corps base in eastern North Carolina. "Kay Hagan," said veteran
North Carolina GOP strategist Paul Shumaker, "is hoping the sins of Raleigh are much bigger
than the sins of Washington."
GOP Will win but it will be close – Catholic turnout strategy
NCR, 7/8 – (“Meet the 'evangelical' Catholics remaking the GOP”, National Catholic
Reporter, 7/8/14, http://ncronline.org/news/politics/meet-evangelical-catholics-remakinggop)//EX
It does in today's Republican Party, where a number of factors have forged a new religious
identity that supersedes familiar old categories. These prominent Republicans are emblematic of
the new religious amalgam that, in many instances, has helped refashion denominational
differences that were once almost insurmountable. Look no further than the stunning Virginia
primary victory of Dave Brat, a Catholic with degrees from a Reformed Protestant college in
Michigan and Princeton Theological Seminary, who took down House Majority Leader Eric
Cantor June 10. Running in a conservative district in the Richmond suburbs, Brat is described
as both a Catholic and Calvinist, labels that would be considered incompatible in almost any
realm. He's a champion of a resurgent movement among Catholic intellectuals that
seeks to marry Catholic social teaching with economic libertarianism. Heading into the 2014
midterm elections, several of the Republican Party's emerging leaders are Catholic ,
including some who maintain evangelical backgrounds or tendencies. The challenge for Catholic
politicians might be finding the balancing act between a Catholic and an evangelical appeal, said
Amy E. Black, a political science professor at Wheaton College in Illinois. "While the Catholic
faith used to be a liability, it might even be an asset now," Black said. "Evangelicals are a solid
voting bloc in the Republican Party, whereas Catholics are likely to be swing voters .
Republican presidential candidates know they need to appeal to evangelical voters, and they
want to win over as many Catholic voters as they can." Evangelicals have been relatively
predictable in the past few elections, while Catholics have been less so. Although Catholic voters
have historically tended to be Democratic, recent elections have shown them to be the ultimate
swing vote. They backed Al Gore in 2000 (50 percent), George W. Bush in 2004 (52 percent),
Barack Obama in 2008 (54 percent) and again in 2012 (50 percent), according to the Pew
Research Center. Evangelicals, on the other hand, have been much more consistently
Republican -- 79 percent for Mitt Romney in 2012, 73 percent for John McCain in 2008 and
79 percent for Bush in 2004. The newfound Catholic appeal among the GOP can be seen in the
number of high-profile conversions to Rome. Jeb Bush, who comes from a classic blue-blood
Episcopal family dynasty, converted to Roman Catholicism years ago. Louisiana Gov. Bobby
Jindal was raised Hindu but converted to Catholicism. Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback converted
to Catholicism, but his wife and family still attend evangelical churches. And former House
Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was a Southern Baptist for most of his life, converted to his third
wife's Roman Catholicism in 2009. More than 50 years after John F. Kennedy's Catholicism
stirred fears that he would be more loyal to the pope than to the people, Catholicism isn't nearly
the political liability it once was. "Growing up, the fact that someone was Catholic would give
someone pause," said GOP strategist Ralph Reed, whose "Road to Majority" conference, held
June 19-21, featured a keynote address from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Catholic. "Now,
there are a lot of evangelicals who greatly admired Pope John Paul II and some would look to
Pope Francis for leadership." What changed? For one, leading Catholics and evangelicals
decided they could do more together than working against each other. Twenty years ago,
former Nixon aide Charles Colson and Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, founder of the ecumenical
magazine First Things, spearheaded the document "Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The
Christian Mission in the Third Millennium," and the cross-pollination the document promoted
is having practical effects. "The alliance forged in the trenches between evangelical Protestants
and faithful Catholics in the struggle to defend human life and marriage has blossomed into
much greater than a mere marriage of convenience," said Princeton University's Robert P.
George, the de facto leader of the Catholic intellectual political movement. "What has emerged is
a spiritual fellowship that I think was not anticipated at the beginning by anybody." The
challenge, George said, is for Catholic Republicans to speak in authentic ways to a largely
evangelical base. Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum, a Catholic, has figured it out, while
others, like 2012 vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan, struggled. "I'm so goofy with that stuff,"
Ryan told Buzzfeed after a service where he sang with extended hands. "It's just not my thing.
I'm Catholic!" "Ryan's Catholicism runs pretty deep," said Stephen Schneck, a longtime
Democratic activist and professor at The Catholic University of America. "I'm not sure how he
squares it with his libertarianism, but I don't think he really has the same evangelical style as
others." Like Brat's surprise win June 3 in Virginia, Ryan's rise within the GOP reflects the rise
of the tea party and a redirected focus among some conservatives from social issues to
economics. As the The Washington Post reported, Brat, an economist at Randolph-Macon
College in Ashland, Va., is part of a bigger movement in recent years of overtly religious
economists. The central challenge for Catholic Republicans, said Wheaton College's Black, is
twofold: not alienating fellow Catholics who say Brat-style economics is anathema to Catholic
social teaching, and appealing to the evangelical base in a way that's authentic. "Any successful
Republican presidential candidate needs to connect with evangelicals," Black said. "It doesn't
mean a successful candidate has to be an evangelical, but they have to be able to connect with
them. They need to be able to talk about their faith in a personal way."
GOP will win but it will be close – state majority opinions
White, 7/1 – Editor at Virginia Right! (Tom, “An Analysis of the US Senate Races – Who Will
Win Control in November?”, Before It’s News, 7/1/14, http://beforeitsnews.com/teaparty/2014/07/an-analysis-of-the-us-senate-races-who-will-win-control-in-november2531372.html?currentSplittedPage=1)//EX
Democrats Will Win the Following States: Hawaii: It’s Hawaii . They vote Democrat.
Democrats hold. Minnesota : Al Franken is leading by 10 points in this heavily Democrat state.
Unfortunately, Democrats will hold this seat. Oregon : A Left Coast Democrat stronghold.
Incumbent Merkley is up by 10. Virginia : A well funded Republican money man Ed Gillespie
is fighting a well funded and well liked Mark Warner. Some polls have Warner up by as much as
30 points. This race will see Gillespie set a record for the most money spent in a landslide loss.
Safe Democrat seat. Michigan: If the Republicans manage to get their generic polling
numbers up to 9 or 10 this could be a close race, but as it stands now it will be a Democrat
victory. New Hampshire: Former MA Senator Scott Brown has moved to New Hampshire in
hopes of winning a seat. Brown, you may recall, won the seat Ted Kennedy had occupied for so
many years. The world was shocked when a Republican won that seat. Brown ran as the 41st
vote against Obamacare, promising to vote to filibuster the bill. He never got the chance to cast
that vote because the Democrats used the bill that was passed before Brown arrived and never
sent it into a conference committee for changes. And the remainder of votes Brown cast were
mostly the same as Harry Reid after that until his defeat. Like Michigan, this race might be
competitive if Republicans could convince their base to vote for this guy, but his record is well
known. Folks in New Hampshire are also not too fond of outsiders that want to come in and run
for office. The Democrats will win this race. Toss Up States: Alaska : The primary in Alaska is
not until August 19th. This one has a good chance of going Republican, but we will have to see
what happens. Colorado : The voters will all be stoned, no doubt. Right now this one is very
close and will probably move to the Republican win category. Georgia: Georgia has a runoff
election later this month. so, like Alaska, we don’t have a candidate set yet. North Carolina :
For now, a toss up. This is one Republicans can take if they get their act together. Republicans
will Win the Following States: Arkansas : A Southern state that is leaning Republican.
Republicans should win this one. Iowa: Another close one but at this point it is leaning to the
Republicans. Kentucky : Some rank this a toss-up. McConnell is not going anywhere. He will
do whatever it takes to win. He’s friends with Thad Cochran after all. Louisiana : This one is
close. But I think the war on oil, coal and energy will doom Mary Landrieu. Montana: The
Republican Daines is up by 15 points. Kansas: Easy Republican hold. Mississippi: It is still not
100% certain that Thad Cochran will be the nominee. Most likely, but Democrats voted in the
primary runoff and it is likely going to court. But whichever Republican is on the ballot will win.
South Dakota : The Republican would win outright, but a former Democrat has decided to
run in this 3 way race which will split the Democrat votes. Republican win. West Virginia : A
Republican win here. The Tally Please! Republicans Win 9 Democrats win 6 Toss UPs –
4 So my first analysis shows that the Republicans will add 9 seats to their 41 safe seats
for a total of 50. Democrats will win 6 seats to add to their 40 safe seats for a total
of 46 seats. There are 4 seats that are going to be very important. Democrats will need to pick
up all 4 of the toss up seats and will have a lot of trouble doing so. They will likely end up
splitting the 4 toss ups with Republicans. So the likely scenario has the GOP with a
52-48 Senate majority . And the faster the Republicans come together and stop fighting
amongst themselves the better.
GOP Will win – democratic enthusiasm problem but “war on women”
makes it close
WP, 6/26 – (“Democrats have an enthusiasm problem. Big time.”, The Washington Post,
6/26/14, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/26/democrats-have-anenthusiasm-problem-big-time/?tid=hpModule_ba0d4c2a-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394)//EX
The history-making coalition that delivered the presidency to Barack Obama in 2008 and
reelected him in 2012 has a distinct attitude toward the 2014 election: Meh. A new poll from
Democratic pollster Democracy Corps finds that just 68 percent of African Americans, Latinos,
young people and unmarried women who voted in 2012 and are "likely" to vote in 2014 -- the
four key parts of Obama's coalition -- say they are "almost certain" to vote in the upcoming
midterm elections. That's up four points from April, when 64 percent said the same. But it's still
lagging far behind other voting groups, a combined 85 percent of whom say they are almost
certain to vote. The new 17-point gap is up from 15 in April and 11 in March of last year. For
comparison's sake, at the tail end of the Democrats' disastrous 2010 campaign, the gap was 22
points. Here's how the data for this election look: We wrote back in April how troubling this
news is for Democrats . That's because their 2008 and 2012 coalitions were notable in large
part because of these four groups, which don't generally turn out big but did so for Obama. And
the effect on the 2014 election is clear. While the less-enthusiastic "Rising American Electorate"
(the pollster's name for the Obama coalition) favors Democrats by 19 points, all of the other,
more-enthusiastic voter groups combine to favor Republicans by 18 points. And
these aren't the only polls to suggest midterm turnout is a looming problem for Democrats. An
April AP-GfK poll showed, among those who are strongly interested in politics -- i.e. most apt to
vote -- people favored a GOP-controlled Congress 51 percent to 37 percent. Democrats will
continue seeking motivation for their voters -- a big reason you've heard so much talk about
GOP obstruction, the "war on women," allegations of GOP racism and the Koch brothers. All of
these are geared at motivating the unmotivated , who are legion right now. Despite these
efforts, many of Democrats' most important voters are still very casual about the need to vote
in November.
GOP Will win – recent court case cracked Obamacare’s armor
Politico, 6/30 – (Democrats: Hobby Lobby ruling could boost 2014 hopes”, Politico,
6/30/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobby-decision-2014-democratschanges-108449.html)//EX
Monday’s decision “is a disappointment for Democrats, but it does put a big welcome spotlight
on Republicans’ support for ‘personhood’ [initiatives] and other measures that would go much
further than today’s decision to outlaw common forms of birth control,” said Matt Canter, the
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee deputy executive director. Republicans, however,
are framing the ruling as a victory for religious freedom, and — more germane to their 2014
strategy — another blow to the president and his signature health law. They argue that
Democrats can’t count on voters making contraception a priority come November at a time
when jobs, the economy and problems with the health law loom large. “ Individual news
cycles in general don’t shape the election ,” a senior GOP strategist said. “If anything ,
it’s another dent and crack in Obamacare’s armor . If the discussion is about
Obamacare, it helps Republicans more than Democrats. If it’s about birth control, then it
doesn’t.” The ruling allows for-profit employers with religious objections to opt out of the health
law’s contraception coverage mandate. It is relatively narrow and deals with just one small part
of the health law, but it is Obamacare opponents’ most important legal victory yet in their efforts
to unravel the law.
GOP will win – key states, obama’s low job ratings, IRS scandal,
hospital crisis, and Iraq policy
MDJ, 6/30 – (“GOP chances for Senate rise, but nominess must stay conservative”, The
Marietta Daily Journal, 6/30/14, http://mdjonline.com/bookmark/25365871-GOP-chances-forSenate-rise-but-nominess-must-stay-conservative)//EX
But time heals many wounds in politics and often more swiftly than in other walks of life. After
all, young politicians like McDaniel have future races to run. And Sen. Cochran has undoubtedly
run his last race for a GOP nomination. The big names, such as former Gov. Sarah Palin, who
took on the establishment in Mississippi by supporting McDaniel, will undoubtedly be pitching
for Cochran in defeating his Democratic opponent. Why? Because as of now, it looks like the
GOP might kick the door in and take control of the U.S. Senate. That would mean no more
listening to the whiny and arrogant whisperings of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And it
would mean that what now appear to be simply idle threats on policy coming from a
Republican-controlled House of Representatives would become serious business with a
Republican-controlled Senate. It would be a GOP-led body that could hoist Reid and his fellow
Democrats on their own petard of new Senate rules, which were designed to allow a simple
majority of members to rule the roost. But before such a fundamental shift in power can occur,
prior theories put forth by both Democrats and many in the media must be put to rest. Let’s
start with the makeup of the showdowns that will now take place in the states with competitive
U.S. Senate contests. The general notion and wishful thinking of the Democrats and their
supporters in media was that a collection of zany and unseasoned GOP nominees would create a
perfect storm: Democrats, otherwise put at a disadvantage because of an unpopular President
Barack Obama, would be able to appeal to moderately conservative independent voters who
might fear these “unknown” GOP nominees. But Republicans generally have a crop of
candidates in battleground states unlikely to scare away independent voters. A good example
can be found in what is still considered the swing state of Georgia. Several potentially strong
GOP candidates were eliminated in the state’s first round of primary voting. But so, too, were
the candidates who Democrats yearned to face. They hoped for flawed nominees with
compromising past statements or with a history of legislative votes that might negatively affect a
substantial number of independent voters. But after their late July runoff, Georgia Republicans
will have gained as their party’s senatorial nominee either Congressman Jack Kingston or
business leader David Perdue. Either will likely become the favorite to defeat Democrat Michelle
Nunn in November. Meanwhile, President Obama is becoming a heavier and heavier weight on
each of the Democrats in competitive states up for grabs. His job approval rating averages about
41 percent, and there’s plenty of reason to believe it will drop further. The IRS email scandal
won’t go away, nor will the crisis at VA hospitals. And the horrific ratings the president is
receiving from the public over his hands-off approach to Iraq, plus the obvious loss of U.S.
prestige abroad, are deepening into a polling disaster for all Democrats by November. Still, here
is a warning for the victorious GOP nominees who will be trying to take control of the Senate
this year: Don’t believe, because you won some tight primary contests, you can go back to
“business as usual.” Conservatives weren’t enthused by Mitt Romney, and many stayed home on
Election Day in 2012. Even if you don’t consider yourself to be one of the “tea party,” you darn
well better consider yourself a “patriot.” Run conservative, vote conservative, be conservative or
risk losing what appears to be within your grasp.
GOP will win – religious freedom after court ruling
The Hill, 6/30 (“Dems put court in their '14 crosshairs”, The Hill, 6/30/14,
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/senate-races/211009-dems-put-court-in-their-14crosshairs)//EX
Republicans also sought to use the ruling to rally their base , labeling it a major win for
religious freedom and a triumph over President Obama. “This reignites the base . It
chips away at ObamaCare, and if there exists the idea with Republicans that ObamaCare can be
repealed that will ignite the base, get them excited again,” said GOP pollster Chris Wilson,
who has polled on the issue for the conservative Family Research Council.
GOP will win – plans to appeal to women
Fiorina, 6/30 (“How GOP will win in 2014”, Fox News, 6/30/14,
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/06/30/path-to-gop-victory-in-2014-focus-on-womenand-strong-groundgame/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2F
opinion+(Internal+-+Opinion+-+Mixed))//EX
Our economy has taken a shellacking at the hands of their liberal policies. Entrepreneurship,
innovation, and opportunity have given way to Obama’s “new normal” of long-term
unemployment, underemployment, and of diminished expectations among hardworking
families. No one should be surprised that women consistently cite jobs and the economy
as their top concerns. Women are paying the price for this administration’s reckless economic
policies. When it comes to economic freedom and opportunity, our Party has the right message.
Women know our nation is moving in the wrong direction. They expect more than the status
quo under President Obama, and they are not getting it . Our challenge, however, is that too
many women still don’t trust the Republican Party to solve our problems, either. This must
change. It doesn’t have to be this way. Republicans can no longer wait to close the gender
gap. We must transform the way we run our campaigns. We must stand up for our policies,
which help women both in the workplace and at home. And we must invest in people, not media
consultants. To begin, Republicans should confront, head on, the ridiculous notion that we are
engaged in a “war on women.” During the 2012 election, Republicans allowed this notion to
remain uncontested. I say, no more. We need to name and to shame every Democratic candidate
or group that uses this dishonest, divisive rhetoric in the service of defending terrible policies
that leave women out of work, or underemployed. The Republican Party must reach women
using more relatable messengers and with fresh messaging , backed by our timeless
conservative principles. We must restore traditional modes of outreach and coalition building.
Reaching one hundred percent of voters with generic messaging has gotten us nowhere. It is the
quality of the conversation that matters. That means more personal engagement and less
electronic mass message broadcasting. It means listening instead of “controlling the debate,”
and demonstrating the tangible ways in which our conservative policies enhance the lives of
every American. This means the Republican Party must put more boots on the ground, not more
“Gross Rating Points” on the air. I’m suggesting nothing less than a real dialogue with a segment
of our nation that agrees with us on most issues, but too often votes the other way. Like-minded
Republican and independent women are the keys to leading this dialogue.
Republicans are close to winning the Senate- they are expected to pick
up seats in several states
Hohmann 7/7/14 (James Hohmann, reporter for Politico, “2014 Senate rankings: Map
favors GOP”, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/2014-senate-elections-republicans108584.html )
With four months until Election Day, Republicans are as close to winning the Senate as they’ve
been since losing it in 2006. Six months ago, the GOP path to the majority was narrower:
Republicans essentially had to sweep seven races in states Barack Obama lost in 2012 but where
Democrats currently hold seats. Unlikely, in other words. Now Republicans have more options.
They’ve landed top recruits to take on first-term senators in New Hampshire and Colorado,
nominated credible female candidates in open-seat contests in Michigan and Iowa, protected all
of their incumbents from tea party challenges and thwarted more conservative candidates that
could have hurt the GOP’s chances in states like North Carolina and Georgia. With the general
election field all but set, Republicans are looking to turn the midterms into a national
referendum on Obama. Democrats want the focus to be squarely on the candidates, and they’re
spending the typically quiet summer months trying to define Republican hopefuls as unlikeable
and extreme. Obama’s approval rating continues to hover around his all-time lows, especially in
the GOP-leaning states that will decide control of the upper chamber. Obamacare is not as toxic
now as during the disastrous HealthCare.gov rollout, but it undeniably remains a drag on
Democrats. The jury is still out on the economy: The Commerce Department announced a 2.9
percent decline in first-quarter gross domestic product late last month, but then the Labor
Department reported last week that the unemployment rate in June had dropped to 6.1 percent.
Republicans are expected to pick up seats in South Dakota, West Virginia and Montana, where
longtime Democratic incumbents are retiring or have already resigned. From there, they need to
net three more seats to take control of the chamber. Fifty-five senators currently caucus with
Democrats, 45 with Republicans.
Dems will win but it will be close – women
CNN, 6/30 – (“Do Democrats win by losing Obamacare decision?”, CNN Politics, 6/30/14,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/30/do-democrats-win-by-losing-obamacaredecision/)//EX
But some Democrats say there may be a silver lining in the ruling: It could motivate younger
women and unmarried women to show up at the polls come November. Exit polls indicate that
unmarried and younger women support Democrats over Republicans, but their numbers also
traditionally drop from presidential elections to midterm contests. "Young women have been a
key component of the Democratic coalition since the administration of George W. Bush, with
more than six in 10 of them voting Democratic in House races consistently since 2006," CNN
Polling Director Keating Holland said. "But they don't turn out for midterm elections. In 2012,
for example, young women represented 10% of all voters, but in 2010, only 5% of the electorate
were young women." Democrats have a 55-45 majority in the Senate - 53 Democrats and two
independents who caucus with the party. But the party is defending 21 of the 36 seats up for
grabs this year, with half of those Democratic-held seats in red or purple states. And Emily's
List, a powerful politically active outside group that supports female candidates and lawmakers
that favor abortion rights, quick highlighted after the opinion's announcement how important
the midterms are when it comes to women voters. "Today's Supreme Court decision is a stark
reminder of how important it is for Democrats to keep hold of the Senate. When the future of
our judiciary branch and women's access to health care is at stake we need every woman to get
out and vote in November," said EMILY's List President Stephanie Schriock. And Ilyse Hogue,
President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, said, "We will work tirelessly with our allies and
member activists to make sure that the people who would stand between a woman and her
doctor are held accountable ." The communications director for EMILY's List said the ruling
will motivate women to cast ballots come November. "Ninety-nine percent of women of women
aged 15-44 have used birth control - this should not be controversial," Jess McIntosh told CNN.
"But conservatives in every branch of government are determined to undermine our ability to
make our medical decisions on our own – just like men do. Women have decided every election
in recent memory. Women were watching today, and it will absolutely be a motivating factor
in November ." Some conservative women rejected the notion that the ruling will motive
female voters to support Democratic candidates come November. Concerned Women for
America, a socially conservative group, said that it preserved "religious liberty for everyone,
including the women represented by the other side." Alison Howard, the group's
communications director, said the ruling would motivate women in a different way: "This is so
affirming to those women who believe in freedom and that's bigger than those who believe that
taxpayers should fund abortion inducing drugs and contraceptives." And Alice Stewart, a GOP
consultant and radio talk show host in Arkansas who was a senior adviser the past two
presidential cycles to the Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann presidential
campaigns, said, "Here we go again, liberals using the faux war on women argument to distract
from the real issue; the real issue here is Obamacare's attempt to undermine our religious
liberties.” GOP strategist Ana Navarro sees a balance. "The political spin seems bigger than the
decision's bite. I think you can be a woman who uses birth control and still understand that
there needs to be a balance that protects religious freedom. I think with this narrowly tailored
decision, the court struck that balance," said Navarro, a CNN contributor.
The GOP will win, Obama is unpopular right now and Democrats
suffer from the Bergdhal scandal
Judis 6/12/14 ( John B. Judis, senior editor at The New Republic and a contributing editor to
The American Prospect, “Democrats, Don't Dance on Cantor's Grave Because you'll be digging
your own” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118108/senate-2014-why-democrats-willprobably-lose)
Obama’s climate initiative may help Democrats in 2016 and is popular in some states that the
president carried in 2012, but it will probably not be popular in some of the crucial swing states
this November. As the National Republican Senate Committee has noted, Arkansas, Colorado, West Virginia, Michigan, Iowa,
Kentucky and Montana—all except Kentucky with Democratic incumbents—depend on coal for more than half their energy needs.
Obama’s other initiatives are also not popular in some swing states. In Colorado, 56 percent of
voters now oppose the state’s strict gun control laws. In Michigan, a plurality opposed Obama’s
gun control proposals. Obama and the Democrats seem poised to suffer from the “six year itch”
that the president’s party has usually suffered during midterm elections of a second term. Ronald
Reagan’s Republicans lost the Senate in 1986, and George W. Bush’s Republicans lost it in 2006. The exception was Bill Clinton’s
Democrats in 1998, who broke even in the Senate and won five House seats. That was because Clinton remained very popular,
thanks to a booming economy. His job approval in the weeks before the election was in the low 60 percent range. The impeachment
inquiry, which Republicans had hoped would discredit the president and the Democrats, actually helped the Democrats. Southern
black voters, who enthusiastically backed Clinton and believed he was being unfairly targeted, turned out in large numbers. But the
Democrats’ situation this year is very different. The economy is still in the doldrums, Obama is unpopular,
and Republican scandal-mongering is unlikely to generate a backlash. In 1998, many Democrats took
offense at the Republican impeachment efforts because they were aimed not merely at censuring Clinton, but at unseating him. To
date, the Republicans have not used the Benghazi and Bergdahl scandals to call for Obama’s
removal. Instead, they have merely called for investigations. And as recent polls have shown,
many Democrats and Independents, as well as Republicans, favor an investigation into Benghazi
and are critical of the administration’s deal with the Taliban for Bergdahl’s release. That
probably means that the scandals will be a small, and probably temporary, net plus for the
Republicans. They will cast a pall over the White House and, with an assist from Fox News, fire
up the Republican base.
AT: Uniqueness overwhelms the link
Democrats are using strategies to distance themselves from the
national party- there’s a chance they’ll succeed
Judis 6/12/14 ( John B. Judis, senior editor at The New Republic and a contributing editor to The American Prospect, “Democrats,
Don't Dance on Cantor's Grave Because you'll be digging your own” http://www.newrepublic.com/article/118108/senate-2014-whydemocrats-will-probably-lose)
The Democrats have not developed a national theme—comparable, say, to the Reagan administration’s “staying the course” in the
1982 election—to rally voters to their cause. Many of the Democratic candidates are trumpeting the party’s
support for boosting the minimum wage and for women’s rights—two issues that are popular
with voters—but few of the embattled Democrats are running on the White House’s record. With
Obama and his programs so unpopular in the key election states, the Democrats in these states
are desperately trying to distance themselves from the national party. Congressman Travis
Childers, who is likely to face Tea Party favorite McDaniel in Mississippi’s senate race, actually
has a very small chance of winning only because he voted against the Affordable Care Act. In
Kentucky, Democrat Allison Grimes promised to “fiercely oppose” the president’s climate
change plan. While the Republicans are seeking to nationalize the campaign, Democrats like
Grimes or Mary Landrieu in Louisiana or Mark Pryor in Arkansas want to make the election all
about themselves and not about their party or the President. If these Democrats can pull this off,
they might able to hold off the Republican challenge in November. Certainly, polls suggest that
candidates like Landrieu, Pryor or Kay Hagan in North Carolina have a chance of winning. But at
this point, it seems likely that Obama will have to face a Republican House and Senate next year. That’s a recipe for two more years
of gridlock.
LINKS
Democratic Turnout
Plan serves as a rallying point for the Democratic base --- that flips
the election
Caldwell 6/3/14 – Leigh Ann Caldwell is a staff writer at CNN Politics, “2014 midterms:
What's at stake,” http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/15/politics/midterms-101/
Democrats looking for something to rally around : Democrats are working to do everything
to motivate their base . A March CBS News poll found that while 70% of Republicans
are excited to vote only 58% of Democrats are. The enthusiasm gap doesn't bode well for
Democrats who are well aware that Democratic voters are less likely to vote in non-presidential
election years. Even the head of the committee tasked with electing Democrats to the House admits it. Rep. Steve Israel says
possible
Democratic candidates have a tough time in midterms. "Well, look, there's a tough climate, no question about it," he said on CNN's
"State of the Union" in April.
Oceans Popular
Coastal States
Coastal communities have strong demand for ocean policies
Merwin, 14 – Ocean Conservancy’s Director of Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, based
in Washington DC (Anne, “Attack on National Ocean Policy Defeated; Lost Opportunity to
Create a National Endowment for the Ocean”, Ocean Conservancy, 5/16/14,
http://blog.oceanconservancy.org/2014/05/16/attack-on-national-ocean-policy-defeated-lostopportunity-to-create-a-national-endowment-for-the-ocean/)//EX
Unfortunately, the proposed new National Endowment for the Ocean was collateral damage in
the negotiations. It is frustrating and disappointing that despite strong public demand and
the recommendation of the bipartisan U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, partisan politics
derailed this opportunity to create a permanent, sustainable fund for our oceans’ future.
However, we appreciate the Administration and Senate’s full-throated defense of the National
Ocean Policy, and look forward to working with them to advance ocean planning priorities. We
are also pleased to see that the final bill does help prioritize the needs of coastal
communities by creating a new U.S. Army Corps of Engineers coastal resiliency program.
This program spotlights the need for increased resources for ocean and coastal resilience, and
takes a positive step toward enabling coastal communities to better respond to changing
ocean conditions such as sea level rise, and major disasters such as hurricanes and
superstorms.
Coastal states are key to the elections – demographic changes since
the New Deal
Schaller, 6 – professor of political science at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County
(Thomas, “Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South”, Reed Business
Information, 10/3/06, Ch. 1)//EX
Meanwhile, there are growing opportunities for Democrats to improve their electoral
fortunes in other parts of the country, where demographic changes and political
attitudes are more favorable to Democratic messages and messengers. Citizens in the
Midwest have been decimated by globalization and are looking for economic salvation. In the
Southwest where white and, most especially, Hispanic populations are booming, a strong
platform on immigration reform and enforcement could divide the Republicans and put the
region up for grabs. In parts of the Mountain West, Democrats can pair the lessons learned from
Ross Perot's fiscal reform campaigns with an emphasis on land and water conservation to
establish traction among disaffected libertarians and the millions of coastal transplants
who either moved westward or bounced back eastward from California in search of open spaces
and more affordable suburban lifestyles. If the Democrats can simultaneously expand and
solidify their existing margins of control in the Northeast and Pacific Coast states -specifically by targeting moderate Republicans for defeat, just as moderate Democrats in the
South have been systematically terminated by the GOP -- the Democrats can build a
national majority with no help from the South in presidential elections and little help from
southern votes elsewhere down the ballot.
The Coasts are key – Cochran’s win in Gulf Coasts prove
Pundit, 14 – Senior Editor at Hot Air (Allah, “Rand Paul on Thad Cochran’s Democratdriven win: “I’m for more people voting””, Hot Air, 6/25/14,
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/25/rand-paul-on-thad-cochrans-democrat-driven-winim-for-more-people-voting/)//EX
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a potential 2016 presidential contender, declined to support tea party
critics of Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran’s efforts to mobilize non-GOP voters to win the
Republican nomination. “I’m for more people voting, not less people voting,” Paul told reporters
Wednesday… Cochran’s vote total grew by almost 40,000 votes from the initial June 3
primary to Tuesday’s runoff against state Sen. Chris McDaniel (R). Much of that growth has
been credited to courting independent and Democratic voters on the state’s Gulf Coast,
where shipyard work has been supported by Cochran for decades, and also an aggressive effort
to turn out black voters. In Mississippi all voters can cast ballots in one party’s primary. Paul
noted that one of his sons spent time at summer camp working on a proposal that would open
up Kentucky’s closed primary system to independent voters.
Colorado
**Colorado is a toss-up state
Ocean policies are popular – Colorado Ocean Coalition is rapidly
building supporters
COCO, no date – organization to create, unite and empower a Colorado coalition with shared
values, goals and actions to promote healthy oceans through education and community
engagement (“Saving Oceans from a Mile High”, Colorado Ocean Coalition, no date,
http://coloradoocean.org/)//EX
The Colorado Ocean Coalition (COCO) was founded in 2010, with the goal “to inspire and
empower Colorado citizens to promote healthy oceans, through education and community
involvement.” We are sponsored by The Ocean Foundation in Washington, D.C. Though we are
a relatively new organization, we have already built a constituency of over 2160 supporters, held
three major regional conferences on ocean protection, conducted many iterations of an ongoing
monthly education and networking event series, completed a Strategic Plan, launched the Ocean
Ambassadors certification program and have had great coverage in regional, national and
international media. We have garnered recognition, involvement, and support from luminaries
in the ocean protection movement — people like Dr. Sylvia Earle, Marine Researcher InResidence at the National Geographic Society; Jean-Michel Cousteau, Founder of the Ocean
Futures Society; and Dan Basta, Director of the U. S. National Marine Sanctuary System. Until
now, there has never been a unified voice for ocean protection in the Mountain States. The
Colorado Ocean Coalition believes that you don’t have to be near the ocean to care about it. Our
complex global economy and the interconnectedness of ecological systems mean that the actions
we take in the mountains impact the health of the sea. These actions include eating seafood,
using plastics, driving cars and sharing environmental ethics with our family and friends. We
live on an ocean planet and the choices we make in the middle of the country have direct ties to
the seas.
Development
Increasing ocean development is popular with the public—the plan
highlights the interconnection between a “blue economy” and
wellbeing
Bugel 12
Jamie, Annual Plant Specialist at Merrifield Garden Center, "What is the Blue Economy?:
Healthy Oceans as an Economic Driver", June 29 2012,
publictrustproject.org/blog/environment/2012/what-is-the-blue-economy-healthy-oceans-asan-economic-driver/
The Center for American Progress (CAP) has introduced a new project, The Foundations of a Blue Economy, to promote strong and
sustainable ocean industries. Led by Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy, the project will focus on sustainable fisheries,
renewable energy, tourism and recreation, and coastal restoration. A blue economy, as conceived by CAP, centers on the
value that healthy oceans provide to the welfare of all Americans. This value is difficult to quantify,
because it encapsulates not only the financial impact of marine jobs, but also the biological,
cultural, and spiritual importance of oceans and coastal areas. “From an employment perspective we have
good salary data, but in other areas the results are more environmentally sensitive and harder to quantify. For example, what are our
fisheries capable of producing if they are rebuilt to sustainable levels?” Michael Conathan asked earlier this week at the project’s
launch event in Washington D.C. At the event, a panel of distinguished guests discussed the strengths and
challenges of building a blue economy. Panelists included Jane Lubchenco, Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans,
Miranda Ballentine, director of sustainability for Wal-Mart, and Jim Moriarty, CEO of Surfrider Foundation. The panel was
moderated by Eric Roston, sustainability editor at Bloomberg News. The panelists agreed that the intangible
impacts of the oceans are often hard for the public to understand. It can take a crisis like the
Deepwater Horizon oil disaster for people to realize how relevant the ocean is to their lives. “One
of the things that became strikingly obvious during Deepwater Horizon was just how dependent
communities were on the health of the Gulf. Those were striking lessons,” Dr. Lubchenco said. The
disaster drove home the “how interconnected coastal communities and their economies, and
psychological health and wellbeing are to a healthy ocean,” she continued. Those connections, she argued, are
critical when engaging people on the importance of healthy, sustainable marine environments. “People love the coast, people
love seafood,” she said. It’s the job of ocean advocates and communicators “to provide information that helps them make smart
decisions.” That information must be based on sound science, the panelists stressed. Miranda Ballentine told the audience that WalMart relies on sound science to instruct its buyers and make decisions about suppliers. But she added that sound science doesn’t
always exist, and that Wal-Mart is committed to working with scientists to develop better, clearer information that looks at the “life
cycle of the product.” Wal-Mart has a goal of 100 percent sustainably certified seafood; Ballentine says the company is now at 76
percent. A whopping 85 percent of all seafood consumed in the U.S. is imported. “There is not enough seafood caught or farmed in
the U.S. to supply all the demand,” Dr. Lubchenco noted. NOAA has a strong focus on developing sustainable aquaculture. “We have
strongly regulated fisheries, and that’s not true of many other parts of the world. We don’t always know the social or economic or
environmental conditions under which [foreign] fish were caught,” she added. Three billion people around the world
depend on seafood as their primary source of protein. In 2008, Americans consumed 16 pounds
of fish per person. Even more significant, more than half of all Americans now live in coastal
watershed counties. The complex impacts of the oceans on their lives are difficult to quantify. Jim
Moriarty, of the Surfrider Foundation, works with surfers and beach-combers who are impassioned by ocean issues. “Something in
their life shifts,” he says. “They go down to the beach and it’s different. They’ve noticed a slow motion decline. They realize
that there’s a problem here and they need to engage.” Personally, Moriarty said, “I’m sick of surfing in trash. The
farther you go away from the civilized world, the worse it is.” Perhaps it’s those passionate people, together with
sound science, that will change minds. As hard as it is to put a price tag on the oceans and their impacts, CAP’s Blue
Economy project aims to do just that. At the Public Trust Project, we’re eager to see what they come up with. It’s an innovative
approach: a focus on the value that healthy oceans provide to society, not just the combined worth of resources extracted from them.
Ocean development is popular—their evidence doesn’t assume new
efforts to increase ocean literacy and public participation
UNESCO 14
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNESCO and Nausicaá
deepen Partnership for the Ocean" June 10 2014, www.unesco.org/new/en/media-
services/singleview/news/unesco_and_nausicaa_deepen_partnership_for_the_ocean/back/9597/#.U65jafld
W5o
UNESCO and Nausicaá have been working closely since 1998, when the 1st global forum of ocean museums, science
centres and aquariums was organized under Nausicaá’s leadership with the support of the Intergovernmental Oceanographic
Commission of UNESCO (UNESCO-IOC). This 1st meeting led to the creation of the World Ocean Network, an alliance of over 250
organizations worldwide, aiming to educate the general public on ocean-related issues and to promote
the sustainable use of ocean resources. Together, UNESCO and Nausicaá have striven to mobilize decision
makers, stakeholders, and the general public on global issues related to the ocean through targeted
activities, notably during international fora, including the Global Ocean Forums, the 2012 United Nations Conference on
Sustainable Development (Rio+20), the United Nations Conferences on Climate Change and World Ocean Days. The newly
signed partnership will include joint efforts in education for sustainable development . Through its
Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission, UNESCO will support the extension of Nausicaá’s outreach programme, focusing
on climate change and on the High Seas. The promotion of ocean literacy will continue to be at the center of
these joint efforts, including activities to engage the public as ‘ocean citizens.’ “Sustainable development is
not possible on earth without sustainable development of the ocean,” said the Director-General. “Together, we have the power to
safeguard the ocean”. Nausicaá will play an active role in the Ocean and Climate Platform 2015, launched at UNESCO on the same
day. The Platform will bring together the research community and civil society organizations,
with the aim of placing the ocean at the heart of international debate on climate change. The ocean
regulates the climate, absorbs over one quarter of carbon emissions and is the main source of
oxygen in the world. As such, it must be part of the solution as States shape a new agenda for
sustainable development. “This platform is a crucial tool to highlight the ocean as a source of sustainable solutions to
climate change, to weigh in the public debate and to fuel negotiations,” declared the Director-General.
Environment
Environmental protection policies have majority support
Huffington Post, 14 – (“Obama Pushes Climate Rules Despite Dems' Midterm Election
Concerns”, Huffington Post Politics, 5/7/14,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/07/obama-democratsclimate_n_5283823.html)//EX
To be sure, Americans generally support cutting pollution . A Pew Research Center poll late
last year found 65 percent of Americans favor "setting stricter emission limits on power
plants in order to address climate change," while 30 percent were opposed. But Democrats are
fighting most of their toughest races this year in conservative-leaning states that rely heavily on
the energy industry, including Louisiana, Arkansas, Kentucky, West Virginia, Alaska and
Montana. Already, conservative groups have spent millions accusing Democrats in those states
of supporting energy policies that would impede local jobs and economic development.
Exploration
Ocean exploration is popular—federal spending on scientific research
has overwhelming public support
Bowen et al 13
Ray M., Chairman, President Emeritus, Texas A&M University and Visiting Distinguished
Professor, Rice University, along with Esin Gulari, Mark R. Abbott, Dan E. Arvizu, Bonnie
Bassler, Camilla P. Benbow, National Science Board, National Science Foundation, "Science and
Engineering Indicators 2012", last updated Feb 13 2013,
www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/seind12.pdf?utm_source=SSTI+Weekly+Digest&utm_cam
paign=67757af5a2-Week_of_January_18_20121_19_2012&utm_medium=email
Federal Funding of Scientific Research U.S. public opinion consistently and strongly
supports federal spending on basic research . Since 1985, NSF surveys have asked
Americans whether, "even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that
advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the federal
government." In 2010, 82% agreed or strongly agreed with this statement; 14% disagreed. Agreement with
this statement has ranged from a low of 76% in 1992 to a high of 87% in 2006 (figure 7-12; appendix
tables 7-24 and 7-25). The 2009 Pew Research Center Survey found that nearly three-quarters of Americans express
support for federal spending on S&E. Asked whether government investments "usually pay off in
the long run," or are "not worth it," 73% said spending on basic scientific research "usually pays
off in the long run"; 74% said the same about engineering and technology. Furthermore, six in ten Americans said
"government investment in research is essential for scientific progress," 29% said "private investment will
ensure that enough scientific progress is made, even without govern- ment investment," and the remainder gave no response.
Another indicator, the proportion of Americans who thought the government was
spending too little on scientific research, increased from 1981 to 2006, fluctuating between
29% and 34% in the 1980s, between 30% and 37% in the 1990s, and between 34% and 41% in the 2000s. In 2010, 36% of
respondents said government spending on scientific research was "too little," 47% said it was "about right," and 12% said it was "too
much" (figures 7-13 and 7-14; appendix table 7-26). Support for increased government spending is greater for a number of other
program areas, with the highest support for spending on education (74%). About six in ten Americans say
government should spend more on developing alternative energy sources (61%), assistance to the poor
(61%), health (58%), and environmental protection (57%). Support for increased spending in other areas is lower.
Support for increased spending on scientific research (36%) is roughly comparable to that for spending on improving mass
transportation (40%) and parks and recreation (32%). Still, based on the proportion of the U.S. population
favoring increased spending, scientific research garners more support than spending in national
defense (25%), space exploration (16%), and assistance to foreign countries (8%).31
Ocean exploration is popular—bipartisan support from American
voters shows that government investment that protects the ocean is a
unique issue due to its economic benefits
Weigel and Metz 13
Lori, Public Opinion Strategies, Dave, Fairank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates, "American
Voters View Conservation as a Smart Investment with Many Benefits; Reject Disproportionate
Cuts to Conservation Programs and Back Investments in LWCF", Sept 30 2013,
blog.nature.org/conservancy/files/2013/10/2013-National-Poll-final-09-30-13.pdf
A recent national survey of voters conducted by the bipartisan research team of Fairbank, Maslin,
Maullin, Metz & Associates (D) and Public Opinion Strategies (R) at the height of the latest budget debates in Congress indicates
that overwhelming majorities of American voters reject cutting funding to conservation, seeing
it instead as one area of the federal budget where they see a tangible return and get “their
money’s worth.” More than seven-in-ten (72 percent) of the national electorate says that even with federal budget
problems, funding for conservation should not be cut. American voters’ broad support for
conservation generally extends to specific policy decisions , such as funding the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. All of these views – including support for LWCF – extend across party lines, across the
nation, and with all key demographic sub-groups. Specifically, the survey found that: At the height of major
budget debates in Congress, more than seven-in-ten hold the view that even with budget problems for land, air and water should not
be cut. Fully 72 percent of the national electorate – including over two thirds of Republicans (68
percent), Independents (67 percent) and Democrats (79 percent) – agrees with the view that
“even with federal budget problems, funding to safeguard land, air, and water should not be
cut.” Eight-in-ten U.S. voters say that we get “our money’s worth” from investments in
conservation. Fully 83 percent agree that “the public receives its money’s worth when we invest
in protecting water, land, air and wildlife.” A majority (51 percent) strongly agrees with this view. This view is also
widely shared across party lines, as 79 percent of Republicans and Independents indicate agreement, along with 93 percent of
Democrats. Underlying some of this support is a sense that there are many benefits of conservation
– for the economy, health and quality of life. Voters overwhelmingly believe that conservation
programs are beneficial in these three areas:2 In fact, the overwhelming majority of American
voters reject the notion that protecting our environment is at odds with a strong economy. Voters
do not view strengthening the economy as being in conflict with conservation. As shown in the next graph, nearly three-quarters of
voters (73%) believe we can protect land and water and have a strong economy at the same time, while only 19 percent believe that
those concerns are even “sometimes” in conflict. This is consistent with the views of voters from the beginning of the country’s
economic recession (In 2009, voters held these same views by a 76% to 19% margin), and holds true among virtually all
demographic sub-groups. The view that conservation and a strong economy are compatible is also predominant among the middle of
the electorate which is undecided or not definitive in their vote decision for President, as 84 percent of these “swing” voters sides
with the idea that we should not have to choose the economy over the environment. Voters’ broad support for conservation generally
extends to specific policy decisions, such as funding the Land and Water Conservation Fund. More than four-in-five American voters
(85 percent) would prefer that the nation continues to invest in LWCF. Only nine percent of the electorate would prefer to have
those funds available for different purposes, as shown below. The desire to have continued federal investments in
the Land and Water Conservation Fund is evident across all major segments of the electorate,
At least 78% of voters in each region of the country.
Despite continued budget debates, voters remain steadfast in their support for LWCF funding. As
the following graph indicates, support on this question that we tracked from a previous national survey of voters remains statistically
the same over the last few years, with just as solid and intense support as ever for continued federal investments in LWCF: Nearly
all voters think their Member of Congress should honor the commitment to fund conservation
through LWCF. There is no equivocation in the message being sent by the electorate regarding this program: Overall, it is
clear during the continued federal budget debate that conservation is uniquely positioned as an
issue – it has strong bipartisan support; voters perceive a return on their investment
economically and in better public health and quality of life; and therefore they reject
disproportionately cutting these programs. Moreover, they continue to express strong support
for continued federal investments in the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Ocean exploration is popular—conservation
Goad et al 12
Jessica, Manager of Research and Outreach for the Center for American Progress’s Public Lands
Project, Michael Conathan, Director of Ocean Policy at the Center, Christy Goldfuss, Public
Lands Project Director at the Center, "7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public Lands and
Oceans Will Affect All Americans", Dec 6 2012,
americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47053/7-ways-that-looming-budgetcuts-to-public-lands-and-oceans-will-affect-all-americans/
In this issue brief, we examine seven key areas where federal land and ocean management
agencies, such as the Department of the Interior and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, make critical investments on which Americans have come to depend and what
cutting these agencies might mean, including: Less accurate weather forecasts Slower energy
development Fewer wildland firefighters Closures of national parks Fewer places to hunt Less
fish on our tables Diminished maritime safety and security Overall, the Office of Management
and Budget predicted in a recent report that sequestration will cut $2.603 billion in fiscal year
2013 alone from the agencies that manage the hundreds of millions of acres of lands and oceans
that belong to U.S. taxpayers. There is no doubt Americans will feel the impacts of such massive
cuts. In particular, we will see reductions in many services provided by land and ocean
management agencies such as weather satellites, firefighters, American-made energy, and
hunting and fishing opportunities. Additionally—and perhaps most obviously—the cuts will
likely cause some level of closure, if not complete closure, at many of our parks, seashores, and
other cherished places. Losing funding for these critical services and infrastructure also reduces
their tremendous value as job creators and economic drivers. Americans depend on our public
lands and ocean management agencies in three crucial areas: Providing safety and security
(weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, the Coast Guard, etc.) Enhancing economic
contributions (the Department of the Interior leveraged $385 billion in economic activity such
as oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation in 2011) Preserving America’s shared
history, heritage, and recreation opportunities (national parks, forests, seashores, and historic
landmarks) Voters recognize the value of these services and by nearly a 3-to-1 margin oppose
reducing conservation funds to balance the budget. A poll conducted by the Nature Conservancy
determined that 74 percent of voters say that, “even with federal budget problems, funding for
conservation should not be cut.” And in the 2012 election, voters across 21 states approved
ballot measures raising $767 million for new parks and conservation initiatives. As these
statistics clearly show, many citizens are willing to pay a little more in order to fund
conservation and related programs. In order to continue providing these necessary services to
the American people, congressional Republicans must put forward a realistic plan that embraces
both revenue increases and spending cuts. Such an approach would maintain as much funding
as possible for these critical and valued government programs. The cost to administer our lands
and ocean agencies is a sound investment for Americans due to the economic and societal
benefits they provide.
General
The National Ocean Policy translates into public support through
bottom-up coordination with the public
Moran 14
Dr. S. Bradley, Acting Director, National Ocean Council Office, Executive Office of the President,
"Strengthening America’s Ocean Economy: The National Ocean Policy", January 2014,
www.sea-technology.com/features/2014/0114/8_Moran.php
Last April, the National Ocean Council (NOC)—composed of representatives from those 27 federal agencies,
departments, and offices—issued its Implementation Plan, translating the National Ocean Policy into
on-the-ground actions . The Implementation Plan endorsed the concept of voluntary
regional marine planning, a transparent, bottom-up approach to coordinating activities that
can help regions grow their economies and support their coastal communities while protecting
and conserving their ocean and coastal ecosystems. Regions that want to do marine planning
establish regional planning bodies, jointly led by federal, state and tribal members. Stakeholder
engagement, public participation, and information from a wide variety of sources, including
scientists, technical experts, industry, government agencies and native communities, are vitally
important to the process to ensure marine planning is based on a full understanding of the range
of interests and activities in the region. The National Ocean Council recognizes that there is a wide variety of ocean
users, industries and interests, and that even within any particular group, perspectives may differ greatly. For that reason, when the
Council issued a marine planning handbook in August, it made clear that regional planning bodies should
operate in an open, science-based and cooperative environment—one in which all stakeholders
and the general public are guaranteed the opportunity to inform marine plans by sharing data,
information and perspectives.
Ocean policies are popular – economics
Spinrad, no date – B.A. in earth and planetary sciences from The Johns Hopkins
University and M.S. and Ph.D. both in oceanography from Oregon State University (Richard,
“The Future: Sustaining a National Ocean Policy, No Date,
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/roundtables/rt7_glimo/RT7_Summary.pdf)//EX
Increase Outreach, Education and Public Awareness Participants noted that increased public
education and awareness about ocean issues and about the damage caused by people are crucial
to changing public perception. After years of ocean mismanagement, fundamental changes in
human behaviors are necessary. Increasing public awareness about the impacts that human
activities have on the coastal and marine ecosystems will help people to better understand their
role in the interconnected-ness of land and ocean. Participants stated that NOS should try to
express this message in easy-to-understand terms that matter to society (e.g., jobs, history,
ports) and that focusing on the social and economic implications related to ocean
health might help increase public interest . Participants were supportive of NOAA’s
recent outreach efforts (e.g., the Smithsonian Folklife Festival, planning the Smithsonian Ocean
Hall) and suggested that the agency continue such innovative approaches to public outreach.
They also noted that NOAA should capitalize on exciting efforts such as ocean exploration and
coral habitat restoration to energize and engage the public , and that aquaria and
interactive educational forums could be better utilized to improve the agency’s visibility.
Ocean policies popular – jobs and economic output
The Ocean Project, 12 – organization that advances ocean conservation in partnership
with zoos, aquariums, and museums (ZAMs) around the world (“Achieving the Vision for our
National Ocean Policy”, The Ocean Project, 2/1/12,
http://theoceanproject.org/2012/02/achieving-the-vision-for-our-national-ocean-policy/)//EX
As part of that policy for stewardship of the ocean, on January 13, the White House released for
public comment the first-ever National Ocean Policy draft implementation plan. This draft Plan
identifies key actions that will move us beyond the more than 100 different laws and policies,
toward comprehensive ocean planning and fulfilling that audacious, but direly needed, national
vision. We have never had a comprehensive system for managing our ocean and protecting and
conserving the huge diversity of animals, plants, and habitats that constitute healthy oceans and
which contribute to tens of millions of jobs . Our EEZ (or Exclusive Economic Zone) covers
an ocean area nearly one and one-half the size of the landmass of the entire continental US; and
we have jurisdiction over more ocean territory than any other country. Isn’t it about time we
protect this resource that contributes more to our nation’s economic output than the entire
farm sector? Our children, and seven generations hence, deserve no less. As our ocean faces
increasing threats to its health and productivity, from ocean acidification to dangerous water
quality to habitat degradation, resultant environmental and social challenges are becoming
evident and we need to take action now. For most people , the ocean is out of sight and out of
mind. Public opinion research clearly shows that oceans are not top-of-mind — yet, US
citizens are willing and able to take conservation action to protect and conserve
the ocean and its diversity of animal life; they just need pointing in the right direction from
trusted messengers such as aquariums. Everyone has the ability to get involved in this
discussion about our ocean’s future, no matter what age. The oceans belong to no one person, no
corporation; they belong to all of us, and therefore it’s our obligation — and opportunity — to get
involved in shaping the future. The White House needs to hear from all stakeholders,
including interested citizens from sea to shining sea.
Polls prove that ocean conservation is popular with the public
Spruill 1997 (Vikki N. Spruill, president and CEO of council of foundations, “U.S. PUBLIC
ATTITUDES TOWARD MARINE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES”,
http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/10-3_spruill.pdf )
In general terms, respondents expressed a belief that the ocean is under threat from human
activity and are concerned about their condition now and in the future. Although the ocean did
not rank as a top environmental concern-- when asked to rate the most important
environmental problems, the largest num- ber (33%) cited toxic waste, followed by air pollution
(31%) and water pollution (26%), with "oceans being destroyed" coming further down the list
with 14% (Fig. 1)--82% of respondents agreed with the statement that "'oceans are being
destroyed." In contrast, 10% said they believed the oceans are so vast and plentiful that there is
little humans can do to destroy them. Although only 6% said the condition of the ocean has
improved over the past few years, the majority (58%) believes it has deteriorated. Over one-half
(52%) viewed the de- struction of the ocean as a very serious threat to the quality of life today,
whereas an even greater number (63%) saw it as a very serious threat 10 years from now. A
plurality of respondents (49%) said the condition of the ocean was very important to them
personally: among coastal communities, this figure rose to nearly two-thirds (64%).
Data from The Ocean Project shows that women are particularly
sympathetic towards the health of the ocean
Lilley 2010 (Jonathan Charles Lilley, doctor of philosophy in Marine Studies, “Navigating a
Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources”,
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf )
It is possible to draw out two recurring themes from the data collected by The Ocean Project. In a
number of questions, women were more conscious of issues affecting the ocean in their answers
than men – particularly with regard to questions that asked about the overall health of the
ocean, or the effect that humans have on the marine environment. Among other researchers, opinion varies
regarding the differences between male and female environmental attitudes. In a cross-national analysis of gender, scientific
knowledge, and attitudes toward the environment, Hayes reports little difference between the sexes (Hayes, 2001). However,
Caiazza and Barrett report that women are less likely to support cuts in environmental spending,
are less sympathetic to businesses regarding environmental regulation, and are more supportive
of environmental activists than men (Caiazza & Barrett, 2003). A finding which is more in line with The Ocean Project
data.
SeaWeb Survey shows overwhelming support for ocean conservation
Lilley 2010 (Jonathan Charles Lilley, doctor of philosophy in Marine Studies, “Navigating a
Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources”,
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf )
Regarding action that could be taken to protect the marine environment, 85% thought the
government needs to do more, with 72% stating that funding for ocean exploration should take
priority over space exploration (17%). In terms of individual action that a person can take, 49%
said they would be almost certain to recycle used motor oil and 42% said they would be almost
certain to pick up trash on the beach. Much smaller percentages said they would be pay higher water bills to fund
better sewage treatment (20%); lobby their politicians to support positive oceanrelated actions (18%); join an environmental group
(12%); or attend legislative meetings on ocean issues (10%). Regarding the perceived effectiveness of such actions, 70% thought that
recycling used motor oil would be very effective in protecting the marine environment and 63% thought that picking up trash on the
beach would very effective. The SeaWeb survey also found a high level of agreement for protecting the
ocean for the benefit of future generations. When asked whether people have a ‘responsibility to
protect the ocean for future generations,’ 84% strongly agreed. Similarly, 82% strongly agreed
that the ‘destruction of the ocean is a threat to the health of future generations.’ In short, the
SeaWeb study described the ocean as an “issue waiting to happen” and comments that while the
ocean is not seen as a top priority there exists “strong latent, if not manifest, concern for the fate
of the ocean” (Spruill, 1997, p. 149).
Methane Hydrates
Methane hydrates are popular with the public – public information
Consortium for Ocean Leadership, 14 – a Washington, DC-based nonprofit organization that
represents more than 100 of the leading public and private ocean research and education
institutions, aquaria and industry with the mission to advance research, education and sound
ocean policy (“Development of a Scientific Plan for a MethaneHydrate‐ Focused
MarineDrilling, Logging and Coring Program”, Department of Energy, February 2014,
http://www.netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Oil-Gas/methane%20hydrates/fe0010195final-report.pdf)//EX
Today, outreach refers to activities that target the general public through mostly social media or various news outlets. Educational
outreach is generally aimed at students in undergraduate and graduate school programs. IODP has had a long and very successful
history in both outreach and education. Recent history has also shown that branding is important to ensure ongoing public
recognition of the scientific discoveries and technological achievements of scientific ocean drilling. Successful public outreach in
support of funding agencies’ goals and objectives have also become a vital part of science. The DOE methane hydrate
research program has had similar outreach and education successes. Information outlets such at
the DOE‐ NETL websites on methane hydrates and Fire In the Ice newsletters are recognized
as important and highly successful sources of public information on methane
hydrates throughout the world. The DOE National Methane Hydrates Research and
Development Program – Graduate Fellowship Program is a good example of an integrated
outreach and educational program that has greatly contributed to the methane hydrate research
community and the public appreciation of the role of methane hydrates in nature. Outreach
will be needed to raise the profile of future scientific drilling in support of methane hydrate
research described in this Plan. Program managers and scientists engaged in methane hydrate research must effectively
communicate the goals and results of their scientific endeavors to other scientists and non‐scientists. It is imperative that we all
become “methane hydrate educators” to make our science accessible and defendable to the public. Participants at the
COL‐ led Methane Hydrate Community Workshop recognized the need to better coordinate
and manage the scientific accuracy of information released through social media and popular
news outlets. In recent years, we have seen a rapid growth of news stories on methane hydrates
in which some aspect of methane hydrates as a potential energy resource, geohazard, or agent of
climate change have been sensationalized, with eye‐ catching story titles that suggest
looming global disaster. In many cases, these stories have little to no scientific foundation or merit. During the workshop,
participants discussed several examples of media stories on methane hydrates where it appears that particular science issues were
possibly over‐dramatized. In each case, the journalists appeared to lack a critical understanding of the issues they were trying to
address. These situations show the need for the methane hydrate research community to make
available and widely circulate accurate information on methane hydrate science issues that can
be easily used and understood by the general public. It is also appropriate for informed
scientists to contribute to public debate on science issues that are not so well defined so the
limits of our understanding of a particular phenomenon are accurately portrayed.
Energy Popular
Colorado
Energy policies are popular in Dems – creates jobs, establishes energy leadership,
and grows economy
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
Colorado: Andrew Restuccia reported on the roles that fracking and Keystone XL are playing
in the race between Democratic Sen. Mark Udall and Republican challenger Cory Gardner.
“Much like President Barack Obama, Udall offers nuanced positions on some of the hottest
energy controversies: He insists he has no stance on the merits of Keystone. … He supports
fracking, if it’s done responsibly. And while he opposes letting voters change the state
constitution to limit fracking through ballot initiatives — something liberal Democratic Rep.
Jared Polis is pushing for in November — he’s open to a legislative compromise that could allow
more local control of drilling. Gardner’s positions, meanwhile, couldn’t be clearer: ProKeystone, pro-fracking and eager to paint his opponent as indecisive.” Don’t miss Andrew’s
story: http://politico.pro/RA02yw **November’s election gives voters a powerful choice on
energy. Smart energy policies can grow our economy , create jobs and establish America
as a global energy leader. America is now the world’s number-one natural gas producer and
is projected to become number one in oil by 2015. Get involved at http://ChooseEnergy.org**
Louisiana
Energy policies are more popular with dems – larger support from
privates
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
Louisiana : Mary Landrieu’s reelection fight is one of the most closely watched this year in
energy land, and for good reason. The new Energy and Natural Resources chairwoman heads a
committee of vital importance to Louisiana, but she faces a serious challenge from Republican
Bill Cassidy, and the GOP hopes her support for Obamacare and voters’ dislike of the
administration’s environmental policies will doom her in the increasingly deep-red state. Aside
from her chairmanship, Landrieu has also made her support for Keystone a centerpiece of her
campaign, but the Senate’s failure to vote on the pipeline may hamper that strategy. (She has
tried to place the blame on Republican leader Mitch McConnell: http://politico.pro/1uI2kej.)
Recent polling has shown Landrieu and Cassidy nearly neck and neck, but Landrieu has a
reputation in Washington as a deft underdog candidate with a tendency to survive. — Show us
the money: What’s more, Landrieu is winning the money race , both overall and among
donors who care most about energy policy . According to an extensive POLITICO review of
Federal Election Commission filings, she has pulled in $1.26 million from energy interests this
cycle, while Cassidy lags at $369,000. Cassidy has drawn contributions from a handful of PACs,
including those connected to Koch Industries, Murray Energy, Halliburton, Entergy,
ExxonMobil, Chevron, Valero, Chesapeake Energy and the National Ocean Industries
Association. His big-name donors include coal magnate Robert Murray and family members
connected to Edison Chouest Offshore, which provides services for offshore energy activities in
the Gulf. Almost half of Landrieu’s much larger energy-related haul has come from more than
100 PACs, ranging from AGL Resources to Xcel Energy. Her prominent contributors include
Chevron CEO John Watson, Anadarko Chairman Al Walker, Interstate Natural Gas Association
of America President Don Santa, ConEd CEO John McAvoy, PG&E CEO Anthony Earley,
Cheniere Energy President Charif Souki, NRG Energy CEO David Crane, NextEra CEO James
Robo and BP America spokesman Geoff Morrell. Landrieu has also received stacks of checks
from executives at ExxonMobil, PG&E, Marathon Oil, Pioneer Natural Resources, Sempra
Energy and Anadarko.
Iowa
Energy policies in are popular with dems – environmental groups
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
Iowa: Democrat Bruce Braley has the backing of environmental group s, thanks to his
vocal support for wind energy and biofuels, and was an early favorite to retain the retiring Tom
Harkin’s seat. However, the four-term congressman drew heat after he called Sen. Chuck
Grassley a “farmer from Iowa who never went to law school.” The field of GOP challengers is still
large, but energy observers are keeping their eyes on Mark Jacobs, a former CEO at Reliant
Energy. On the campaign trail, Jacobs touts his role in helping save the Houston-based Reliant
from bankruptcy when he joined the company in 2002. The other Republican polling well ahead
of the June 3 GOP primary is Joni Ernst, the state senator who nabbed national attention with
her ad about castrating hogs.
Montana
Energy policies are popular with dems – support of Keystone and
energy development
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
Montana: Max Baucus’ early retirement from the Senate gave a big boost to Democrat John
Walsh, who was already running to replace Baucus but then got appointed to the seat. Voters
won’t get much help differentiating Walsh from Republican challenger Steve Daines on energy
issues; both support Keystone and want expanded energy development in the state.
Walsh supports extending the wind production tax credit.
Drilling Popular
Alaska
Drilling policies make dems win – GOP splits
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
Alaska: Sen. Mark Begich is another top target for Republicans. Like Landrieu, Begich tends to
part with Democratic positions on issues like oil and gas drilling, but he turned heads earlier this
year when he broke with Republicans Lisa Murkowski and Don Young on Alaska’s Pebble Mine.
After the EPA released a report outlining a litany of potential pollution and habitat damage from
large-scale mining activity in the Bristol Bay region, Begich said it poses too many risks to
Alaska’s salmon fisheries. A top GOP challenger to Begich is Dan Sullivan, the former head of
Alaska’s Department of Natural Resources. If polling and money continue to split among the
GOP field ahead of the late-in-the-cycle Aug. 19 primary, Begich could benefit as the
Republicans spend more time sniping at each other rather than taking aim at him. Also in the
running are Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell and Joe Miller, the 2010 GOP nominee who lost to
Murkowski’s write-in campaign.
General
Offshore drilling is popular—the majority of polled voters across
party lines supported increasing development policy due to the
economic benefits—API has specifically been successful in public
campaigning
Boman 12
Karen, Senior Editor at Rigzone.com, "API: Poll Shows US Voters Link Energy Development,
Economic Recovery", Aug 14 2012,
www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/119997/API_Poll_Shows_US_Voters_Link_Energy_Develo
pment_Economic_Recovery
A recent poll by the American Petroleum Institute (API) found that U.S. voters favor increased access to domestic
oil and gas resources, and see oil and gas development as a way to create jobs. Seventy-one
percent of the 1,016 registered voters polled by Harris Interactive in telephone interviews throughout the United States from
August 9-12 said they supported opening more U.S. oil and natural gas resources for development .
Republican voters and voters aged 55 years and older favored opening more oil and gas resource development. Eighty-five
percent of Republican voters polled strongly or somewhat agreed with increasing access to U.S.
energy resources, while 73 percent of voters over the age of 55 strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access. The poll
also found that: 72 percent of independent voters either strongly or somewhat agreed with increased
access to oil and gas resources 60 percent of Democrats strongly or somewhat agreed with
increased access to oil and gas resources 72 percent of voters aged 35-54 strongly or somewhat agreed with increased
access 66 percent of votes aged 18-34 strongly or somewhat agreed with increased access Ninety percent of those voters
agreed that increased access to domestic resources could lead to more U.S.-based jobs. Ninety-five
percent of voters identifying as Republicans strongly or somewhat agreed that increased oil and gas activity could result in more job
creation. Ninety-three percent of voters aged 18-34 strongly or somewhat agreed that more oil and gas activity could lead to more
jobs, according to the poll results. According to the results: 91 percent of independents believed increased domestic oil and gas
access could lead to more jobs 85 percent of Democrats polled thought increased oil and gas access could result in job creation 90
percent of voters aged 55 and older believed more oil and gas development could lead to more jobs 89 percent of voters aged 35-54
agreed that greater access to hydrocarbon resources could lead to more U.S.-based jobs Seventy-three percent of voters
polled also support changing policies to allow more offshore development . More
Republicans favored offshore drilling, with 85 percent supporting changes in policies. Support
for increased offshore development by age groups was strongest among voters aged 18-34, with
78 percent voicing support. Seventy-five percent of voters polled support development of the Keystone XL Pipeline. More
Republican voters favored the pipeline project, while support was split fairly evenly among the three age groups polled at around 75
percent. The poll results showed that 87 percent of voters agreed that access to more domestic oil and natural gas could help lower
energy costs for consumers. Sixty-five percent of voters agreed that increases in energy taxes could drive up energy costs. The poll
also found that 63 percent of voters think Washington is on the wrong track regarding U.S. energy policy.POLL RESULTS THE
FRUIT OF API VOTE FOR ENERGY CAMPAIGN The poll results are the fruit borne of API's Vote for Energy
campaign, a multi-million dollar effort launched in January to encourage discussion of U.S.
energy policy and issues, said API President and CEO Jack Gerard in a conference call Tuesday. With 92 percent of
voters polled saying that energy security and domestic oil and gas production are important
issues for the November presidential election, API continues to lobby for a true all of the above
energy policy with action and vision, not just lip service from the administration, Gerard said during the call. The
results show that voters "clearly get " the issue of how oil and gas development can
impact the nation's economy , Gerard said, pointing to the expansions in U.S. industries such as steel that have
has taken its campaign to swing
states Colorado, Virginia, Florida, North Carolina and Ohio, where both President Obama and Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney have been campaigning, to encourage discussion about the United States'
energy future and the impact that oil and gas activity can have on the economy. API has also
recruited 3 million grassroots supporters to support API's efforts, and said API has been speaking
with candidates of both parties who are up for election this fall. "It's not about political parties,
been made possible by expanded exploration and production activity. Now, API
it's about good sound public policy," Gerard noted. "Having a pro-development business climate can have a positive
impact on the economy."
Offshore drilling is popular with the public, specifically
independents—approval is back to pre-Gulf spill levels, and
technology is perceived safe
Swanson 13
Emily, reporter for the Huffington Post, "Offshore Drilling Support High As Deepwater Horizon
Oil Spill Trial Opens", Feb 28 2013, www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/28/offshoredrilling_n_2783337.html
After the opening of a trial this week to assess BP's responsibility for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, a new
HuffPost/YouGov poll finds that support for offshore drilling has returned to high levels, and more
think that spills are isolated accidents rather than routine events.¶ According to the new survey, 58 percent of Americans
favor increased offshore drilling, and only 28 percent are opposed. Among Republicans, support for
drilling is near universal, with 86 percent saying that they support expanded drilling. Most
independents also said they support drilling, 58 percent to 26 percent. Democrats were divided on the issue, with 41
percent saying they favored and 40 percent saying they were opposed to increased drilling.¶ Support for increased drilling
has recovered nearly to where it was before the Gulf oil spill. A YouGov/Economist poll conducted the month
before the spill found that support for increased drilling outstripped opposition 62 percent to 24 percent. Support dropped as low as
44 percent in another YouGov/Economist poll taken after the spill, in June of 2010, with 40 percent saying they opposed expanded
drilling at that time.¶ By a 50 percent to 30 percent margin, respondents to the HuffPost/YouGov
survey were more likely to say that drilling technology is safe and that spills are rare accidents -rather than say that the technology is unreliable and routine spills inevitable.
Rasmussen Reports polls show high levels of support for offshore
drilling
Lilley 2010 (Jonathan Charles Lilley, doctor of philosophy in Marine Studies, “Navigating a
Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources”,
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf )
Less research has been undertaken into public attitudes toward offshore drilling and the work that has been done has generally
utilized poll data rather than more in-depth techniques. A series of polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports have
found consistently high levels of support for offshore drilling (although not quite as high as for wind
development). In June 2008, support levels were at 67% (Rasmussen Reports, 2008a). They increased
marginally to 68% in November of that year (Rasmussen Reports, 2008b) – around the time the ocean
attitudes survey herein was conducted – and remained at that level one year later (Rasmussen
Reports, 2009). Interestingly, support for drilling specifically offshore appears to be higher than
support for oil and gas expansion in general as shown by the above Gallup poll.
Broad support for offshore drilling has rebounded to pre-Gulf spill
levels
PRC 12
Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues,
attitudes and trends shaping America and the world. It conducts public opinion polling,
demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research, "As
Gas Prices Pinch, Support for Oil and Gas Production Grows", March 19 2012, www.peoplepress.org/2012/03/19/as-gas-prices-pinch-support-for-oil-and-gas-production-grows/
At a time of rising gas prices, the public’s energy priorities have changed. More Americans
continue to view the development of alternative energy sources as a higher priority than the
increased production of oil, coal and natural gas, but the gap has narrowed considerably over
the past year.¶ Moreover, support for allowing more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters,
which plummeted during the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill, has recovered to pre-spill levels.
Nearly two-thirds (65%) favor allowing increased offshore drilling, up from 57% a year ago and
44% in June 2010, during the Gulf spill.¶ The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center
for the People & the Press, conducted March 7-11, 2012 among 1,503 adults, finds that 52% say
the more important priority for addressing the nation’s energy supply is to develop alternative
sources, such as wind, solar and hydrogen technology, while 39% see expanding the exploration
and production of oil, coal and natural gas as the greater priority.¶ A year ago, the public viewed
the development of alternative energy sources as the more important priority by a much wider
margin (63% to 29%). Since then, support for expanding production of oil and other traditional
sources has increased among most demographic and political groups and the shift among
Republicans has been particularly pronounced.¶ In March 2011, Republicans were evenly divided
over how to address the energy supply: 47% said the more important priority was to develop
alternative sources, while 44% said it was to expand exploration and production of oil, coal and
natural gas. In the current survey, just a third of Republicans (33%) view development of
alternatives as more important, while 59% say the more important priority is to expand
exploration and production of oil and other traditional energy sources.¶ As in past Pew Research
Center surveys, there continues to be broad public support for an array of policies aimed at
addressing the nation’s energy supply: 78% favor requiring better fuel efficiency for cars, trucks
and SUVs; 69% favor more federal funding for research on wind, solar and hydrogen
technology; and 65% favor spending more on subway, rail and bus systems.¶ But while support
for each of these policies has been steady or down modestly in recent years, support for allowing
more offshore oil and gas drilling in U.S. waters has increased. Currently, more than twice as
many favor than oppose increased offshore drilling (65% vs. 31%). In June 2010, only 44%
favored more offshore drilling while 52% were opposed. The balance of opinion today is almost
identical to what it was in February 2010, two months before the Gulf oil disaster (63% favor,
31% oppose).
North Carolina
Offshore drilling for natural gas is overwhelmingly popular with
North Carolina voters
Trout 6/2/14
Katie, Operations Director at Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, and former
Managing Editor at John W. Pope Civitas Institute, "Over Half of NC Voters Support Offshore
Drilling", June 2 2014, civitasreview.com/polling/over-half-of-nc-voters-support-offshoredrilling/
A recent Civitas poll finds that 56 percent of North Carolina voters support drilling off the state’s coast
for oil and natural gas. Thirty-seven percent were opposed and 7 percent had no opinion. Support for oil
exploration off the coast has remained consistently strong in Civitas polling results. The May 2009 poll found
71 percent of voters in support of offshore oil exploration; though voters are clear that the oil rigs should be out
of sight from the shoreline. The numbers climb higher to 74 percent in support of drilling if voters find out
that the deposits are mainly cleaner, safer natural gas which does not cause the environmental or safety problems of oil
if there is a leak or spill. And despite the recent catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf, only 12 percent of
voters’ opinions changed in saying they supported it before the spill but now oppose it. Fiftyseven percent continue to support drilling for oil and natural gas even as the cleanup effort
continues. A new oil rig off the coast of North Carolina may still be a ways off, however, as state legislators are considering a bill
that would adjust the listed pros and cons of drilling submitted by a legislative committee in 2009. The group will meet with the
Governor on Thursday, June 3 to discuss offshore drilling and its effects on the state. North Carolina voters understand
the benefits that offshore drilling would have on the state’s economy which is currently
struggling with record unemployment.
North Carolina is the key state in determining the Senate majority
Kondik 14
Kyle, Managing Editor at Sabato's Crystal Ball, Communications Director at the University of
Virginia Center for Politics, "10 Maps That Explain the 2014 Midterms", May 5 2014,
www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/10-maps-that-explain-the-2014-midterms106347.html#.U6kMUvldW5o
Perhaps the key Senate race in the country is in North Carolina , a Republican-leaning
swing state that both sides suspect could decide the Senate majority. Adjust your eyes when looking at the
maps above, which feature, on the left, Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan’s victory over Republican Elizabeth Dole in 2008 and, on the
right, Republican Sen. Richard Burr’s victory over Democrat Elaine Marshall two years later. In this case, blue is for Republicans,
and red is for Democrats. (These maps are from Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, a first-rate resource for election
watchers.) Hagan took slightly more than 54 percent of the two-party vote against Dole in 2008, four points better than Obama
performed on the same ballot. Two years later, incumbent Burr performed a bit better than Hagan in his reelection bid, winning 56
percent of the two-party vote. In each of these elections, the winner of the state also won Raleigh’s Wake
County. Hagan took the county by 15 points in 2008; Burr won it by a point in 2010. Wake is North
Carolina’s second-biggest county, but it consistently casts more votes than the biggest —
Mecklenburg, home to Charlotte. Because Florida and Ohio, with their famous, key counties like
Hillsborough (Tampa) and Hamilton (Cincinnati), don’t feature Senate races this year, Wake
might very well be the key county this year. Hagan needs to win it again, and not just by a few
points, which will be a challenge given the significant turnout problems Democrats face in North
Carolina midterms.
Offshore drilling excites North Carolina voters because of the
economic benefits
Green 13
Mark, adjunct professor at George Mason University, reporter and editor for more than 30
years, "East Coast Voters Look Offshore for Energy", Oct 17 2013,
energytomorrow.org/blog/2013/october/east-coast-voters-look-offshore-for-energy
Three more polls, three more states where strong majorities support oil and natural gas drilling
off America’s coasts – for jobs, a stronger economy and a more-secure energy future. Harris
Interactive surveys conducted recently in Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina found support for
offshore drilling among registered voters ranged from 64 percent (Florida) to 77 percent (South
Carolina). As was true earlier this week in a poll of Virginia voters on offshore drilling, developing offshore energy
goes along with the belief that more access to U.S. energy reserves and more drilling will lead to
significant economic benefits and increased U.S. energy security. More polling results from the three states:
Agree that increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources could help strengthen America’s energy security: FL 88
percent; NC 89 percent; SC 87 percent. Agree that increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources could lead to more
jobs in the U.S.: FL 92 percent; NC 91 percent; SC 93 percent. Agree that producing more domestic oil and natural gas could help
lower energy costs for consumers: FL 83 percent; NC 80 percent; SC 87 percent. Agree that increased production of domestic oil and
natural gas resources could help stimulate the economy: FL 89 percent; NC 87 percent; SC 91 percent. Agree that producing more
domestic oil and natural gas could benefit federal and state budgets through lease payments, royalty fees and other sources of
revenue: FL 83 percent; NC 81 percent; SC 81 percent Support for increased production of domestic oil and natural gas resources
located here in the U.S.: FL 73 percent; NC 77 percent; SC 78 percent. These numbers are a great big clue for
policymakers in Washington as they consider allowing new seismic surveying off the coasts of
the four Mid-Atlantic states. Significant majorities of people living in those states – majorities
that cut across party lines – view America’s energy wealth as the catalyst for greater individual
and national prosperity. A game-changer . Dave Mica of the Florida Petroleum Council: “Floridians and
residents of other coastal states are in the same boat in support of offshore drilling. We can
create good-paying jobs and strengthen our local economy by allowing more oil and natural gas
production here in the Sunshine State. As Governor Scott just announced in Daytona Beach, an oil and gas technology
firm will add 100 jobs in our state to support exploration and production in other states. The multiplier effect for high tech and
engineering jobs will be tremendous if additional access to exploration is granted in Florida both onshore and offshore.” David
McGowan of the North Carolina Petroleum Council: “North Carolina voters continue to support energy production in this state. The
path from the earliest phase of planning an offshore lease sale to the first day of production can take more than 10 years. North
Carolina has the opportunity to produce energy off its coast and create jobs to fuel our economy
while also ensuring the protection of the environmental resources that make our state such a special place.” Kay Clamp of the South
Carolina Petroleum Council: “South Carolinians want every opportunity to create jobs and boost the state economy. The United
States is leading the world in energy development, and allowing South Carolina to produce offshore energy
could mean increased revenues to ease the pressure on government budgets.”
North Carolina key
Barnes 5/6/14
Fred, political commentator for the Weekly Standard, "Tillis Wins, Boosts GOP's 2014 Hopes",
May 6 2014, www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/tillis-wins-boosts-gops-2014-hopes_791090.html
The Tillis victory was important for two reasons. One, he is regarded, especially by Democrats,
as the only Republican capable of defeating Hagan. Not that Hagan is a strong incumbent—she
isn’t—but she will have millions to target against the Republican nominee, plus aid from
Democratic super PACs. Tillis alone is seen as equipped to withstand a withering negative
campaign. Second, North Carolina is the key state in the fall election. Without it, Republicans
are unlikely to gain the six Senate seats needed to take control of the Senate and oust Reid as
majority leader. With it, Republican prospects of seizing the Senate are far brighter. “North
Carolina now becomes ground zero in the fight for the Senate,” said Republican consultant Marc
Rotterman. “Hagan is on the wrong side of nearly every issue.” She is particularly vulnerable on
Obamacare, which she voted for. Like President Obama, Hagan promised that those who wished
to keep their current health insurance could do so. That turned out to be untrue. Hagan has
stumbled badly in trying to find a way to combat attacks on Obamacare. Her campaign presents
Hagan as a problem-solving senator eager to compromise with Republicans in Washington. Her
record in the Senate, however, is that of a party-line Democrat. Now she is playing down her
connection with the Democratic party. And when Obama visited the state recently, she declined
to appear with him. Tillis’s political strength comes from his instrumental part in the success of
Republicans in enacting a sweeping conservative agenda after they won the governorship and
both houses of the legislature in the 2012 election Republicans cut personal and business taxes,
curbed regulations, slashed spending, and changed election law to require voters to show ID.
AT: Environment
The economy outweighs environmental concerns with voters
Kromm 10
Chris, executive director at the Instiute for Southern Studies, "ALTERNATIVES, BABY,
ALTERNATIVES: How to win the offshore drilling debate", July 8 2010,
www.southernstudies.org/2010/07/alternatives-baby-alternatives-how-to-win-the-offshoredrilling-debate.html
One of the most striking things we learned meeting with community leaders in the Gulf Coast
recently is how deeply conflicted coastal residents are about offshore oil drilling. All of the people and groups Facing
South talked to -- from Dulac, Louisiana to Moss Point, Mississippi -- were suffering in some way from the BP spill.
But most, even bona-fide environmentalists, were at best ambivalent about calls to ban drilling
in ocean waters. This was especially true of fishermen, despite the fact that BP's disaster has closed a third of
Gulf waters and undermined their very livelihood. We quickly found out why: Many of the fishermen also worked on
oil rigs in the off-season. And even those who didn't work on rigs knew that thousands of Gulf
jobs depend on the energy industry; in the absence of alternatives, they're staying pro-drill. This
highlights what may be the most critical point in the national debate over offshore oil drilling: The public is increasingly
wary of drilling in our oceans in the wake of the BP disaster, but the only way environmentalists
are going to cinch the debate is if they can offer compelling economic and energy alternatives. The
polls clearly show a backlash against the "drill, baby, drill" mantra. The Pew Research Center has found a 19-point drop in support
for increased offshore drilling since the spill: In February, 63% supported more offshore drilling; as of late June, a majority (52%)
opposed it. A new Public Policy Polling survey in North Carolina, a state that was included in Obama's earlier plans to expand
offshore projects, finds that for the first time a plurality (46%) in NC now oppose offshore drilling. But those anti-drilling views
aren't shared in Gulf Coast states, even as BP's oil washes onto their shores. A Rasmussen poll in late June found 79% of likely
Louisiana voters support offshore drilling and another found 70% support in Texas. Rasmussen's surveys have always found higher
support for offshore drilling than their peers, but in this case their findings are in line with other polls. The overall message here:
Even after our worst oil spill ever, only small majorities nationally oppose offshore drilling. And
residents of states who rely on the oil economy still fiercely support it. In a simple pro/con
debate over offshore drilling, there isn't enough political momentum to end the exploration and
extraction of oil in the oceans.
IMPACTS
CIR
Legal Status Will Pass
There is already common ground on path to legal status
JS, 6/30 – (“In the Spotlight: Pass a consensus immigration bill before summer’s end”,
Journal Star, 6/30/14,
http://www.pjstar.com/article/20140630/OPINION/140629183/10950/OPINION)//EX
The two biggest disagreements remaining concern what the pathway to citizenship should look
like and the degree of border security. But common ground already exists on a path to
legal status . Can we not at least pass this summer the policies on which both parties
agree? One creative solution could yet bring action. There is a bipartisan group of House
lawmakers who support a reform to the House rules that would allow members to bypass
leadership and bring a measure to the floor by majority vote. If this rule change were proposed
and approved, House members could conceivably bring whatever immigration measure the
Judiciary Committee approves to the House floor for a vote. A rules change is doing things the
hard way, though it may be just the prescription needed for such a gridlocked Congress.
Alternatively, Illinois Republicans Adam Kingzinger and Aaron Schock both recently gave
impassioned presentations on their support for immigration reform at a Chicago rally in
April. If they, or other Illinois Republican House members, are prepared to lead an effort to pass
immigration reform yet this summer, please act now. August is coming.
GOP agrees on path to legal status
Fox, 14 – (“House GOP leaders back limited path to legal status for illegal immigrants”, Fox
News Politics, 1/30/14, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/30/house-gop-leadersback-limited-path-to-legal-status-for-illegal-immigrants/)//EX
House Republican leaders on Thursday endorsed a limited path to legal status for some illegal
immigrants, in a move Democrats said could open the door to a deal on comprehensive
immigration legislation. The position was included in a document released by party leaders
during their annual retreat in Maryland. The "standards for immigration reform" document
ruled out a special path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. Instead, it said immigrants living
here illegally could remain and live legally if they pass background checks, pay fines and back
taxes, learn to speak English and understand U.S. civics, and can support themselves without
access to welfare. But GOP leaders made clear that border security must be improved first.
"None of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented," the
document said. Nevertheless, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., a big advocate for immigration
legislation on the Senate side, said the announcement could smooth the way for a deal on
legislation. The Senate passed an immigration bill last year. "While these standards are certainly
not everything we would agree with, they leave a real possibility that Democrats and
Republicans, in both the House and Senate, can in some way come together and pass
immigration reform that both sides can accept. It is a long, hard road but the door is open," he
said. The House GOP document is sure to meet resistance from some rank-and-file members,
and skeptical Republicans on the Senate side.
Economy
Econ
Path to legal status is key to the economy
Beadle, 12 – B.A. in journalism and Spanish from the University of Alabama (Amanda, “Top
10 Reasons Why The U.S. Needs Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, Think Progress,
12/10/12, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/10/1307561/top-10-reasons-why-the-usneeds-comprehensive-immigration-reform-that-includes-a-path-to-citizenship/)//EX
8. Young undocumented immigrants would add billions to the economy if they gained legal
status. Passing the DREAM Act—legislation that proposes to create a roadmap to citizenship
for immigrants who came to the United States as children—would put 2.1 million young people
on a pathway to legal status, adding $329 billion to the American economy over the next
two decades. 9. And DREAMers would boost employment and wages. Legal status and the
pursuit of higher education would create an aggregate 19 percent increase in earnings for young
undocumented immigrants who would benefit from the DREAM Act by 2030. The ripple effects
of these increased wages would create $181 billion in induced economic impact, 1.4
million new jobs, and $10 billion in increased federal revenue. 10. Significant reform
of the high-skilled immigration system would benefit certain industries that require high-skilled
workers. Immigrants make up 23 percent of the labor force in high-tech manufacturing and
information technology industries, and immigrants more highly educated, on average, than the
native-born Americans working in these industries. For every immigrant who earns an advanced
degree in one of these fields at a U.S. university, 2.62 American jobs are created.
Agriculture
Ag---1NC
Path to legal status is key to agriculture – work force
Fatka, 7/4 – graduated from Iowa State University and staff editor at a sister publication,
Feedstuffs (Jacqui, “Immigration Impasse Impact Troublesome for Ag”, Farm Progress, 7/4/14,
http://farmfutures.com/blogs-immigration-impasse-impact-troublesome-ag-8696)//EX
Jim Mulhern, president and chief executive officer at the National Milk Producers Federation,
voiced frustration that partisan politics couldn’t be put aside to address the current
dysfunctional immigration system. “The irony is that virtually everyone on both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue admits the status quo is unacceptable; yet we seem destined to continue
suffering from it, because common-sense reforms remain beyond our reach,” he said. Conner
warned executive action will only freeze in place the current dysfunctional state of affairs.
“Farmers will continue to be unable to find the workers they need to pick crops or care for
livestock; more food production will go overseas; local economies across the country will suffer;
and the American consumer will ultimately pay more for the food they eat,” he said.
Agriculture needs a legal, skilled and dependable workforce , and the House’s inaction
fails to provide it. I’ve heard House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, say repeatedly that
Republicans need to help fix the problem. Even Obama conceded that he believes Boehner when
he said he wants to pass an immigration bill. Obama tried to say he wasn’t giving up on working
with House Republicans to deliver a more permanent solution. “If House Republicans are really
concerned about me taking too many executive actions, the best solution to that is passing bills.
Pass a bill; solve a problem. Don't just say no on something that everybody agrees needs to be
done,” Obama challenged. “Because if we pass a bill, that will supplant whatever I’ve done
administratively. We’ll have a structure there that works, and it will be permanent. And people
can make plans and businesses can make plans based on the law.” For agriculture, it’s a matter
of trying to continue to push for the right solution, or at least a feasible solution for the time
being. United Fresh president and CEO Tom Stenzel said if the House continues to disregard its
responsibility to address this issue, “the produce industry has no choice but to work with the
Administration on short-term administrative patches that will be appreciated, but are ultimately
unsatisfactory.” Mulhern said NMPF would look for solutions for finding year-round workers
under the current agricultural-visa system which applies now only to seasonal workers. The Wall
Street Journal reported that NMPF could try to alleviate farmers’ worries about government
raids and deportations by urging for administration actions. Question is, will that only fuel
further criticisms on the lack of deporting undocumented immigrants?
Increased farm labor Key to small farms
Gual 10
(Frank, Farm job, anyone?, Associated Content, p.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/5877166/farm_job_anyone.html 10/17/10)
Those calling for tougher immigration laws and the UFW claim that farmers have become accustomed to hiring undocumented workers who are willing
to work for little, and now make up half the farm labor force.
Legal immigrants make up a quarter of the farm labor.
Those Americans who do get hired to do farm work often disappear quickly. ¶ Farm work is often offered in remote locations
which city dwellers find difficult to get to, and one solution would be to provide transportation from central cities with high unemployment to outlying
farms. Another possibility would be to use prisoners incarcerated for minor offenses. ¶ A
shortage of farm labor will cause food
prices to rise at a time when many people are out of work and may be receiving government assistance. It will also increase our dependence on
imported food, which may not be up to FDA standards and could cause health problems, as has already happened. ¶ Another effect of the farm
labor shortage will be the continued disappearance of small family farms, which will either be
abandoned or bought by large conglomerates whose management is far removed from the local
community.
Prevents extinction
Altieri 8
[Professor of agroecology @ University of California, Berkeley. [Miguel Altieri (President,
Sociedad Cientifica LatinoAmericana de Agroecologia (SOCLA), “Small farms as a planetary
ecological asset: Five key reasons why we should support the revitalization of small farms in the
Global South,” Food First, Posted May 9th, 2008, pg. http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2115]
The Via Campesina has long argued that farmers need land to produce food for their own communities and for their country and for this reason
has advocated for genuine agrarian reforms to access and control land, water, agrobiodiversity, etc, which are of central importance for
communities to be able to meet growing food demands. The Via Campesina believes that in order to protect
livelihoods, jobs, people's food security and health, as well as the environment, food production has to
remain in the hands of small- scale sustainable farmers and cannot be left under the control of large
agribusiness companies or supermarket chains. Only by changing the export-led, free-trade based, industrial agriculture
model of large farms can the downward spiral of poverty, low wages, rural-urban migration, hunger and
environmental degradation be halted. Social rural movements embrace the concept of food sovereignty as an alternative to the
neo-liberal approach that puts its faith in inequitable international trade to solve the world’s food problem. Instead, food sovereignty
focuses on local autonomy, local markets, local production-consumption cycles, energy and technological sovereignty and farmer to
farmer networks.¶ This global movement, the Via Campesina, has recently brought their message to the North,
partly to gain the support of foundations and consumers, as political pressure from a wealthier public that increasingly
depends on unique food products from the South marketed via organic, fair trade, or slow food channels could marshal the sufficient political will to
curb the expansion of biofuels, transgenic crops and agro-exports, and put an end to subsidies to industrial farming and dumping practices that hurt
small farmers in the South. But can these arguments really captivate the attention and support of northern consumers and philanthropists? Or is there
a need for a different argument—one that emphasizes that the very quality of life and food security of the populations in the North depends not only
on the food products, but in the ecological services provided by small farms of the South. In fact, it is herein argued that the functions performed by
small farming systems still prevalent in Africa, Asia and Latin America—in the post-peak oil era that humanity is entering—comprise
an ecological asset for humankind and planetary survival. In fact, in an era of escalating fuel
and food costs, climate change, environmental degradation, GMO pollution and corporatedominated food systems, small, biodiverse, agroecologically managed farms in the Global South are the
only viable form of agriculture that will feed the world under the new ecological and economic
scenario.¶ There are at last five reasons why it is in the interest of Northern consumers to support the cause and struggle of small farmers in the
South:¶ 1. Small farmers are key for the world’s food security ¶ While 91% of the planet’s 1.5 billion hectares
of agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agro-export crops, biofuels and transgenic soybean to feed cars and cattle, millions of
small farmers in the Global South still produce the majority of staple crops needed to feed the planet’s rural and urban
populations. In Latin America, about 17 million peasant production units occupying close to 60.5 million hectares, or 34.5% of the total cultivated land
with average farm sizes of about 1.8 hectares, produce 51% of the maize, 77% of the beans, and 61% of the potatoes for domestic consumption. Africa
has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80 percent of all farms in the region. Despite the fact that Africa now imports huge amounts of
cereals, the majority of African farmers (many of them women) who are smallholders with farms below 2 hectares, produce a significant amount of
basic food crops with virtually no or little use of fertilizers and improved seed. In Asia, the majority of more than 200 million rice farmers, few farm
more than 2 hectares of rice make up the bulk of the rice produced by Asian small farmers. Small increases in yields on these small farms that produce
most of the world´s staple crops will have far more impact on food availability at the local and regional levels, than the doubtful increases predicted for
distant and corporate-controlled large monocultures managed with such high tech solutions as genetically modified seeds. ¶ 2. Small
farms
are more productive and resource conserving than large-scale monocultures ¶ Although
the conventional wisdom is that small family farms are backward and unproductive, research shows that small farms are much more
productive than large farms if total output is considered rather than yield from a single crop. Integrated farming systems in which the small-scale
farmer produces grains, fruits, vegetables, fodder, and animal products out-produce yield per unit of single crops such as corn (monocultures) on largescale farms. A large farm may produce more corn per hectare than a small farm in which the corn is grown as part of a polyculture that also includes
beans, squash, potato, and fodder. In polycultures developed by smallholders, productivity, in terms of harvestable products, per unit area is higher
than under sole cropping with the same level of management. Yield advantages range from 20 percent to 60 percent, because polycultures reduce losses
due to weeds, insects and diseases, and make more efficient use of the available resources of water, light and nutrients. In overall output, the diversified
farm produces much more food, even if measured in dollars. In the USA, data shows that the smallest two hectare farms produced $15,104 per hectare
and netted about $2,902 per acre. The largest farms, averaging 15,581 hectares, yielded $249 per hectare and netted about $52 per hectare. Not only do
small to medium sized farms exhibit higher yields than conventional farms, but do so with much lower negative impact on the environment. Small
farms are ‘multi-functional’– more productive, more efficient, and contribute more to economic development than do large farms. Communities
surrounded by many small farms have healthier economies than do communities surrounded by depopulated, large
mechanized farms. Small farmers also take better care of natural resources, including reducing soil
erosion and conserving biodiversity.¶ The inverse relationship between farm size and output can
be attributed to the more efficient use of land, water, biodiversity and other agricultural
resources by small farmers. So in terms of converting inputs into outputs, society would be better off with small-scale farmers. Building strong
rural economies in the Global South based on productive small-scale farming will allow the people of the South to remain with their families and will
help to stem the tide of migration. And as population continues to grow and the amount of farmland and water available to each person continues to
shrink, a small farm structure may become central to feeding the planet, especially when large- scale agriculture devotes itself to feeding car tanks.¶ 3.
Small traditional and biodiverse farms are models of sustainability ¶ Despite the onslaught of
industrial farming, the persistence of thousands of hectares under traditional agricultural management documents a successful indigenous agricultural
strategy of adaptability and resiliency. These microcosms of traditional agriculture that have stood the test of time, and that can still be found almost
untouched since 4 thousand years in the Andes, MesoAmerica, Southeast Asia and parts of Africa, offer promising models of sustainability as they
promote biodiversity, thrive without agrochemicals, and sustain year-round yields even under marginal environmental conditions. The
local
knowledge accumulated during millennia and the forms of agriculture and agrobiodiversity that this wisdom
has nurtured, comprise a Neolithic legacy embedded with ecological and cultural resources of
fundamental value for the future of humankind.¶ Recent research suggests that many small
farmers cope and even prepare for climate change, minimizing crop failure through increased use of drought
tolerant local varieties, water harvesting, mixed cropping, opportunistic weeding, agroforestry and a series of other traditional techniques. Surveys
conducted in hillsides after Hurricane Mitch in Central America showed that farmers using sustainable practices such as “mucuna” cover crops,
intercropping, and agroforestry suffered less “damage” than their conventional neighbors. The study spanning 360 communities and 24 departments in
Nicaragua, Honduras and Guatemala showed that diversified plots had 20% to 40% more topsoil, greater soil moisture, less erosion, and experienced
lower economic losses than their conventional neighbors.¶ This demonstrates that a re-evaluation of indigenous technology can serve as a key source of
information on adaptive capacity and resilient capabilities exhibited by small farms—features of strategic importance for world farmers to cope with
climatic change. In addition, indigenous technologies often reflect a worldview and an understanding of our relationship to the natural world that is
more realistic and more sustainable that those of our Western European heritage. ¶ 4. Small farms represent a sanctuary of GMO-free agrobiodiversity¶
In general, traditional small scale farmers grow a wide variety of cultivars . Many of these plants are landraces grown from seed passed down from
generation to generation, more genetically heterogeneous than modern cultivars, and thus offering greater defenses against vulnerability and
enhancing harvest security in the midst of diseases, pests, droughts and other stresses. In a worldwide survey of crop varietal diversity on farms
involving 27 crops, scientists found that considerable crop genetic diversity continues to be maintained on farms in the form of traditional crop
varieties, especially of major staple crops. In most cases, farmers maintain diversity as an insurance to meet future environmental change or social and
economic needs. Many researchers have concluded that this varietal richness enhances productivity and reduces yield variability. For example, studies
by plant pathologists provide evidence that mixing of crop species and or varieties can delay the onset of diseases by reducing the spread of disease
carrying spores, and by modifying environmental conditions so that they are less favorable to the spread of certain pathogens. Recent research in
China, where four different mixtures of rice varieties grown by farmers from fifteen different townships over 3000 hectares, suffered 44% less blast
incidence and exhibited 89% greater yield than homogeneous fields without the need to use chemicals. ¶ It is possible that traits important to
indigenous farmers (resistance to drought, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities
which may not be important to farmers (Jordan, 2001). Under this scenario, risk could increase and farmers would lose their ability to adapt to
changing biophysical environments and increase their success with relatively stable yields with a minimum of external inputs while supporting their
communities’ food security.¶ Although there is a high probability that the introduction of transgenic crops will enter centers of genetic diversity, it is
crucial to protect areas of peasant agriculture free of contamination from GMO crops, as traits important to indigenous farmers (resistance to drought,
food or fodder quality, maturity, competitive ability, performance on intercrops, storage quality, taste or cooking properties, compatibility with
household labor conditions, etc) could be traded for transgenic qualities (i.e. herbicide resistance) which are of no importance to farmers who don’t use
agrochemicals . Under this scenario risk will increase and farmers will lose their ability to produce relatively stable yields with a minimum of external
inputs under changing biophysical environments. The social impacts of local crop shortfalls, resulting from changes in the genetic integrity of local
varieties due to genetic pollution, can be considerable in the margins of the Global South. ¶ Maintaining pools of genetic diversity,
geographically isolated from any possibility of cross fertilization or genetic pollution from uniform transgenic crops will create “islands” of intact
germplasm which will act as extant safeguards against potential ecological failure derived from the second green
revolution increasingly being imposed with programs such as the Gates-Rockefeller AGRA in Africa. These genetic sanctuary islands will serve as the
only source of GMO-free seeds that will be needed to repopulate the organic farms in the North inevitably contaminated by the advance of transgenic
agriculture. The small farmers and indigenous communities of the Global South, with the help of scientists and NGOs, can continue to create and guard
Small farms cool the climate ¶
While industrial agriculture contributes directly to climate change through no less than one third of total
emissions of the major g reen h ouse g ase s — Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), small, biodiverse
organic farms have the opposite effect by sequestering more carbon in soils. Small farmers usually treat their
biological and genetic diversity that has enriched the food culture of the whole planet. ¶ 5.
soils with organic compost materials that absorb and sequester carbon better than soils that are farmed with conventional fertilizers. Researchers have
suggested that the conversion of 10,000 small- to medium-sized farms to organic production would store carbon in the soil equivalent to taking
1,174,400 cars off the road.¶ Further
climate amelioration contributions by small farms accrue from the
fact that most use significantly less fossil fuel in comparison to conventional agriculture mainly
due to a reduction of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use, relying instead on organic manures,
legume-based rotations, and diversity schemes to enhance beneficial insects. Farmers who live in rural communities near cities and towns and are
linked to local markets, avoid the energy wasted and the gas emissions associated with transporting food hundreds and even thousands of miles.¶
Conclusions¶ The great advantage of small farming systems is their high levels of agrobidoversity
arranged in the form of variety mixtures, polycultures, crop-livestock combinations and/or agroforestry patterns. Modeling new agroecosystems using
such diversified designs are extremely valuable to farmers whose systems are collapsing due to debt, pesticide use, transgenic treadmills, or climate
change. Such diverse systems buffer against natural or human-induced variations in production conditions. There is much to learn from indigenous
modes of production, as these systems have a strong ecological basis, maintain valuable genetic diversity, and lead to regeneration and preservation of
biodiversity and natural resources. Traditional
methods are particularly instructive because they provide a long-term
perspective on successful agricultural management under conditions of climatic variability.¶
Organized social rural movements in the Global South oppose industrial agriculture in all its manifestations, and increasingly their territories
constitute isolated areas rich in unique agrobiodiversity, including genetically diverse material, therefore acting as extant safeguards against the
potential ecological failure derived from inappropriate agricultural modernization schemes. It is precisely the ability to generate and maintain diverse
crop genetic resources that offer “unique” niche possibilities to small farmers that cannot be replicated by farmers in the North who are condemned to
uniform cultivars and to co-exist with GMOs. The “ cibo pulito, justo e buono” that Slow Food promotes, the Fair Trade coffee, bananas, and the organic
products so much in demand by northern consumers can only be produced in the agroecological islands of the South. This “difference” inherent to
traditional systems, can be strategically utilized to revitalize small farming communities by exploiting opportunities that exist for linking traditional
agrobiodiversity with local/national/international markets, as long as these activities are justly compensated by the North and all the segments of the
market remain under grassroots control.¶ Consumers
of the North can play a major role by supporting these more
equitable markets which do not perpetuate the colonial model of “agriculture of the poor for the rich,” but rather a
model that promotes
small biodiverse farms as the basis for strong rural economies in the Global South. Such
economies will not only provide sustainable production of healthy, agroecologically-produced,
accessible food for all, but will allow indigenous peoples and small farmers to continue their millennial work of
building and conserving the agricultural and natural biodiversity on which we all depend now
and even more so in the future.
Reform K2 Agriculture
Immigration key to agriculture
Antoine Abou-Diwan 1/28/13, “Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges
agriculture's needs”, Imperial Valley Press
Bipartisan immigration proposal acknowledges agriculture's needs¶The bipartisan proposal unveiled
Monday paves the way to legalization of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants with a program described as “tough but fair.”¶It also addresses the concerns of the
agricultural industry, whose labor pool by some estimates is composed of some 50 to 70 percent
unauthorized workers.¶“Agricultural workers who commit to the long-term stability of our nation’s
agricultural industries will be treated differently than the rest of the undocumented population because of the role they play inensuring
that Americans have safe and secure agricultural products to sell and consume,” states the proposal.¶Total
farmworkers in Imperial County fluctuated between 8,000 and 11,000 in 2012, according to data from the Employment Development Department.¶“There’s definitely recognition that agriculture will be taken
immigration reform.¶The proposalis based on four broad
principles: a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, reform of the
system to capitalize on characteristics that strengthen the economy, the creation of an effective employment verification system
and improving the immigration process forfuture workers.¶The principles are broad and many details need to be worked out.¶“The
principles acknowledge that the situation in agriculture is distinct and requires different
treatment,” said Craig Regelbrugge, chairman of the Agricultural Coalition for Immigration
Reform, a group that represents the landscape and nursery industry.¶Access to a legal and stable work force is vital, Regelbrugge said, as is a
workable program that eliminates or reduces hurdles for a future work force.¶“We would like to see the agriculture
care of,” said Steve Scaroni, a Heber farmer who has lobbied Washington extensively on
legalization program attractive so there are incentives for them to work in the sector,” Regelbrugge noted.¶The proposals also acknowledge that the United States immigration system is broken, and address
criticism that not enough is being done to enforce existing immigration laws. To that end, Monday’s proposals are contingent on secure borders.¶But, the acknowledgement of the agriculture sector’s needs allows
As long as the labor supply solutions are there, we can support the enforcement
solutions,” Regelbrugge said.
for some optimism.¶“
Guest worker visas are key to the ag industry labor pool
Rohrlich 10, 5/4/2010 (Justin - head writer for World in Review, Immigration reform a
thorn in agricultural industry’s side, Minyanville, p.
http://www.minyanville.com/businessmarkets/articles/immigration-arizona-agricultureindustry-foreign-labor/5/4/2010/id/28109)
A F B F
reported the lack of a viable guest worker program could cut annual
farm revenues by approximately $9 billion.¶
Of all major sectors of the US
economy, agriculture is the most dependent on a migrant labor force.” ¶
Agriculture would
face dire consequences if we were to lose our guest labor workforce
¶Farmers are dependent
A few years ago, the
merican
arm
ureau
ederation
that
Bob Stallman, president of the federation, wrote, “
He added, “
. Would you prefer to eat food produced on American soil by migrant workers, or
would you rather eat food produced on foreign soil by the same workers?”
on the migrant workforce. "We need them to milk cows or we'd barely be in business," Cochrane, Wisconsin dairy farmer
¶ Guest workers who enter the United States on H2 visas are allowed to remain in the country for up to 10 months and pick the tomatoes that are made into the Heinz (HNZ) ketchup we buy at
Walmart (WMT), process the milk used in McDonald’s (MCD) shakes, pick the lettuce with which Burger King (BKC) tops its Whoppers, and sort the strawberries the J.M. Smucker Co. (SJM) turns into jam. ¶ The Arizona law won’t impact workers who are in the US
Loren Wolfe told the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.
The H2
program
helps the industry
stabilizing the workforce and removes the risk of having your workforce disrupted at a critical
period in the growing season.You may have only a few days to work with a farmer can’t risk
having half his workforce being taken away
¶
legally under an H2 visa, but the farm industry is concerned that the increased scrutiny on immigration will impede their efforts to get the H2 program expanded. And the law could make it even more difficult to find labor.¶ “
achieves the goal of providing a sufficient workforce for growers,” Mike Gempler, executive director of the Wa shington Growers League, tells Minyanville. “It
as a whole,
,
, and
by Immigration just like that.”
The bureaucracy standing between growers and much-needed labor can be daunting. To help navigate the red
tape, companies have sprouted up to act as employment agents that have satellite offices in Mexico, where they help people obtain H2 visas, then help match employers with legal, H2-holding workers who are bused up to the States for a maximum period of ten
months.¶ Bob Wingfield, who is president of one such agency, Dallas-based Amigos Labor Solutions, tells Minyanville that Americans don’t want the jobs these guest workers have. “It’s a fallacy that guest workers are sucking the system dry,” he says. ¶ Far from
sucking the system dry,
there actually aren’t enough of them
hundreds of millions of dollars worth of crops
rotted
because there were simply too few hands available.
Texas, Michigan, and California
. In 2006,
in the fields
Now’s key --- immigration flows are net zero --- farmers cannot find
the employees necessary to sustain their sector
Boston Globe12, “Immigration reform is good for business,” 10-21-12,
http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2012/10/20/immigration-reform-good-forbusiness/1zjj2uQXy0cT80EKLwgilL/story.html
in
For hardliners who refuse to consider a guest worker program for illegal immigrants, a moment of truth may be approaching. If
undocumented workers are truly taking jobs that would otherwise go to Americans, then unskilled workers should be flocking to the
fields of states like Arizona and Alabama, which have instituted draconian crackdowns on illegal immigrants. ¶ Alas, it isn’t
happening. The American Farm Bureau Federation recently estimated that labor shortages from state
crackdowns on illegal immigration are costing the economy between $5 billion and $9 billion.In
some states, farms are heavily dependant on undocumented labor both to plant and harvest
crops. Now, they simply do not have the bodies to work the fields.¶Not all of these shortages are due to state
laws targeting illegal immigration; the weak US economy and improved opportunities in Mexico have also led to a dwindling of
undocumented workers. These factors, combined with tougher border enforcement, have squeezed the net flow of
Mexicans coming into the United States to zero.¶This is mostly good news. The border-control problem is getting
better. And employers who’ve taken advantage of cheap illegal labor have no grounds to claim injury now that they can’t find people
to pick their crops. But if employers literally cannot recruit enough documented workers to do these jobs,
after agreeing to pay the minimum wage, one argument against a guest-worker program has disappeared.
Immigration reform is key to food security
ACIR ‘7 (December 4, 2007 THE AGRICULTURE COALITION FOR IMMIGRATION
REFORM )
Dear Member of Congress: The Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform (ACIR) is deeply concerned with pending immigration
enforcement legislation known as the ‘Secure America Through Verification and Enforcement Act of 2007' or ‘SAVE Act’ (H.R.4088
and S.2368). While these bills seek to address the worthy goal of stricter immigration law enforcement, they fail to take a
comprehensive approach to solving the immigration problem. History shows that a one dimensional
approach to the nation’s immigration problem is doomed to fail. Enforcement alone, without
providing a viable means to obtain a legal workforce to sustain economic growth is a formula for
disaster. Agriculture best illustrates this point. Agricultural industries that need considerable
labor in order to function include the fruit and vegetable, dairy and livestock, nursery,
greenhouse, and Christmas tree sectors. Localized labor shortages have resulted in actual crop
loss in various parts of the country. More broadly, producers are making decisions to scale back
production, limit expansion, and leave many critical tasks unfulfilled.Continued labor shortages
could force more producers to shift production out of the U.S., thus stressing already taxed food
and import safety systems. Farm lenders are becoming increasingly concerned about the stability of affected industries.
This problem is aggravated by the nearly universal acknowledgement that the current H-2A agricultural guest worker program does
not work. Based on government statistics and other evidence, roughly 80 percent of the farm labor force in the United States is
foreign born, and a significant majority of that labor force is believed to be improperly authorized. The bills’ imposition of
mandatory electronic employment eligibility verification will screen out the farm labor force without providing access to legal
workers. Careful study of farm labor force demographics and trends indicates that there is not a replacement domestic workforce
available to fill these jobs. This feature alone will result in chaos unless combined with labor-stabilizing reforms. Continued
failure by Congress to act to address this situation in a comprehensive fashion is placing in
jeopardy U.S. food security and global competitiveness. Furthermore, congressional inaction
threatens the livelihoods of millions of Americans whose jobs exist because laborintensive
agricultural production is occurring in America. If production is forced to move, most of the upstream and
downstream jobs will disappear as well. The Coalition cannot defend of the broken status quo. We support well-managed borders
and a rational legal system. We have worked for years to develop popular bipartisan legislation that would stabilize the existing
experienced farm workforce and provide an orderly transition to wider reliance on a legal agricultural worker program that provides
a fair balance of employer and employee rights and protections. We respectfully urge you to oppose S.2368, H.R.4088, or any other
bills that would impose employment-based immigration enforcement in isolation from equally important reforms that would
provide for a stable and legal farm labor force.
Ag---Ag Industry
Agriculture industry’s collapsing now---immigration’s key to solve
Alfonso Serrano 12, Bitter Harvest: U.S. Farmers Blame Billion-Dollar Losses on
Immigration Laws, Time, 9-21-12, http://business.time.com/2012/09/21/bitter-harvest-u-sfarmers-blame-billion-dollar-losses-on-immigration-laws/
The Broetjes and an increasing number of farmers across the country say that a complex web of local and state anti-immigration laws account for acute
labor shortages. With the harvest season in full bloom, stringent
immigration laws have forced waves of
undocumented immigrants to flee certain states for more-hospitable areas. In their wake, thousands of acres of
crops have been left to rot in the fields, as farmers have struggled to compensate for labor shortages
with domestic help.¶ “The enforcement of immigration policy has devastated the skilled-labor source that we’ve
depended on for 20 or 30 years,” said Ralph Broetje during a recent teleconference organized by the National Immigration Forum, adding that
last year Washington farmers — part of an $8 billion agriculture industry — were forced to leave 10% of their crops rotting on vines and trees. “It’s
getting worse each year,” says Broetje, “and it’s going to end up putting some growers out of business if
Congress doesn’t step up and do immigration reform.”¶ (MORE: Why Undocumented Workers Are Good for the
Economy)¶Roughly 70% of the 1.2 million people employed by the agriculture industry are
undocumented. No U.S. industry is more dependent on undocumented
immigrants. But acute labor shortages brought on by anti-immigration measures threaten to heap record
losses on an industry emerging from years of stiff foreign competition. Nationwide, labor shortages will result in losses of
up to $9 billion, according to the American Farm Bureau Federation.
Extinction
Lugar 2kChairman of the Senator Foreign Relations Committee and Member/Former Chair
of the Senate Agriculture Committee (Richard, a US Senator from Indiana, is Chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and a member and former chairman of the Senate
Agriculture Committee. “calls for a new green revolution to combat global warming and reduce
world instability,” pg online @ http://www.unep.org/OurPlanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
In a world confronted by global terrorism, turmoil in the Middle East, burgeoning nuclear threats and other crises, it is easy to
lose sight of the long-range challenges. But we do so at our peril. One of the most daunting of them is
meeting the world’s need for food and energy in this century. At stake is not only preventing
starvation and saving the environment, but also world peace and security. History tells us that states may go
to war over access to resources, and that poverty and famine have oftenbred fanaticism and terrorism.
Working to feed the world will minimize factors that contribute to global instability and the proliferation of
[ WMDs ] weapons of mass destruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6
billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the demand for affordable food will increasewell
beyond currentinternational production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to improve their standard of living and caloric intake.
Inevitably, that means eating more meat. This will raise demand for feed grain at the same time that the growing world population will need vastly more basic food to eat. Complicating a solution to this problem is
developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing
As good land disappears, people destroy timber resources and even rainforests as they try
to create more arable land to feed themselves. The long-term environmental consequences could
be disastrous for the entire globe. Productivity revolution To meet the expected demand for food over the next
50 years, we in the United States will have to grow roughly three times more food on the land we
have. That’s a tall order. My farm in Marion County, Indiana, for example, yields on average 8.3 to 8.6 tonnes of corn per hectare – typical for a farm in central Indiana. To triple our production by 2050, we
will have to produce an annual average of 25 tonnes per hectare. Can we possibly boost output that much? Well, it’s been done
before. Advances in the use of fertilizer and water, improved machinery and better tilling
techniques combined to generate a threefold increase in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per
a dynamic that must be better understood in the West:
populations.
hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again. Given the urgency of expanding food production to meet world demand, we
must invest much more in scientific research and target that money toward projects that promise to have significant national and global impact. For the United States, that will mean a major shift in the way we
conduct and fund agricultural science. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world.
The United States can take a leading
position in a productivity revolution. And our success at increasing food production may play a
decisive humanitarian role in the survival of billions of people and the health of our planet.
Ag---Food Insecurity
Food insecurity’s the greatest proximate cause of war
Brown ’11
(from World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse, by Lester R.
Brown © 2011 Earth Policy Institute)
For the Mayans, it was deforestation and soil erosion. As more and more land was cleared for farming to support the expanding empire, soil erosion
undermined the productivity of their tropical soils. A team of scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has noted that the
extensive land clearing by the Mayans likely also altered the regional climate, reducing rainfall. In effect, the scientists suggest, it was the convergence
of several environmental trends, some reinforcing others, that led to the food
shortages that brought down the Mayan
civilization. 26 Although we live in a highly urbanized, technologically advanced society, we are
as dependent on the earth’s natural support systems as the Sumerians and Mayans were. If we continue with business as usual,
civilizational collapse is no longer a matter of whether but when. We now have an economy that is destroying its natural support systems, one that has
put us on a decline and collapse path. We
are dangerously close to the edge. Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller Foundation
death of our civilization is no longer a theory or an academic possibility; it is the
road we’re on.” 2 Judging by the archeological records of earlier civilizations, more often
than not food shortages appear to have precipitated their decline and collapse . Given
the advances of modern agriculture, I had long rejected the idea that food could be the weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today
I think not only that it could be the weak link but that it is the weak link.
president, puts it well: “The
Ag---Protectionism
US food shortages cause protectionism
Pollan ‘8 (BOOKS ARTICLESAPPEARANCESMEDIA PRESS KITNEWSRESOURCES
TODAY’S LINK Farmer in Chief By Michael Pollan The New York Times Magazine, October 12,
2008
The impact of the American food system on the rest of the world will have implications for your
foreign and trade policies as well. In the past several months more than 30 nations have
experienced food riots, and so far one government has fallen. Should high grain prices persist
and shortages develop, you can expect to see the pendulum shift decisively away from free trade,
at least in food. Nations that opened their markets to the global flood of cheap grain (under pressure from previous administrations as well as the
World Bank and the I.M.F.) lost so many farmers that they now find their ability to feed their own populations hinges on decisions made in Washington
(like your predecessor’s precipitous embrace of biofuels) and on Wall Street. They
will now rush to rebuild their own
agricultural sectors and then seek to protect them by erecting trade barriers. Expect to hear the phrases
“food sovereignty” and “food security” on the lips of every foreign leader you meet. Not only the Doha round, but the whole cause of free trade in
agriculture is probably dead, the casualty of a cheap food policy that a scant two years ago seemed like a boon for everyone. It is one of the larger
paradoxes of our time that the very same food policies that have contributed to overnutrition in the first world are now contributing to undernutrition
in the third. But it turns out that too much food can be nearly as big a problem as too little — a lesson we should keep in mind as we set about designing
a new approach to food policy.
Protectionism triggers nuclear war
Panzner 8—25-year veteran of the markets who has worked for for HSBC, Soros Funds, ABN
Amro, Dresdner Bank, and J.P. Morgan Chase. New York Institute of Finance faculty member
and a graduate of Columbia University. (Michael, Financial Armageddon, 136-8)
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth protectionist legislation like the
notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many
commentators believe helped turn a serious economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster. But if
history is any guide, those lessons will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public anger, restrictions on
trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify. Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and
outsiders alike, and lawmakers may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to other
countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless policies, they will introduce controls on foreign
exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a
rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global
payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer spending. In a world of lockouts and
lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread
from one country to the next by tourists and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and dangerous
confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as factors of production that must, out of
necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to
secure adequate supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of
such tensions will give rise to full scale
military encounters, often with minimal provocation. In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a convenient pretext for
the environment and natural resources will become more commonplace. Around the world,
conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences. Alternatively, nations may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and
terrorist groups will
likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of random
violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more
heated sense of urgency. China will likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while
populist sentiment toward other countries and cultures. Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing
number of conflicts. Some observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an “intense confrontation” between the
Growing cultural and
religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood. Longsimmering resentments could also degenerate quickly, spurring the basest of human instincts
and triggering genocidal acts. Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional
United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost wholly ideological.
forces using jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up confl icts between Muslims and Western societies
as
the beginnings of a new world war.
Biotech
Biotech---GM Foods 1NC
Path to legal citizenship is key to biotech
Schuster, 13 – PhD in biochemistry at the University of Arizona and a BS degree in
biochemistry from the University of California, Davis (Sheldon, “Immigration Reform Could
Lead to Great Things, Including Better Science and Better Science Education”,
These students and young researchers not only do amazing things while they're here but their
ideas and their drive enhances the quality of education for all of our students and the quality of
life for all of our citizens. There can be a multiplying effect to innovation when international
knowledge and ideas gain their own traction in homegrown academic institutions and
industries. German rocket scientists who came to work in the U.S. in the wake of World War II
were not solely responsible for landing Neil Armstrong on the moon. But they were the core
from which a great international community of scholars and engineers were able to take NASA
to astounding heights. The input of international students teaches all of our students how to
integrate ideas that may vary greatly from their own and how to approach problems from a
global perspective -- two skills that are required for success in the life science industry and that
we need if we are to continue to remain the world leader in the rapidly advancing
biotechnologies, such as individualized human genome sequencing. Reforming our
immigration system so that more young professionals like these have the option to
work in the United States not only boosts the national economy and strengthens the biotech
hubs here in Southern California, which are so important to my state's economy, it also
improves the quality of U.S. academic institutions, and, ultimately, is likely to hasten the pace of
scientific discovery and innovation. It will certainly go a long way toward keeping the U.S. and
its academic institutions at the center of such discovery and innovation.
Key to GM foods
Martino-Catt and Sachs ‘8
[Susan J. Martino-Catt, Monsanto Company Member of Plant Physiology Editorial Board, Eric
S. Sachs Monsanto Company Member of ASPB Education Foundation Board of Directors, “
Editor's Choice Series: The Next Generation of Biotech Crops,” Plant Physiology 147:3-5
(2008)]
Crop genetic modification using traditional methods has been essential for improving food quality and
abundance; however, farmers globally are steadily increasing the area planted to crops improved with
modern biotechnology. Breakthroughs in science and genetics have expanded the toolbox of
genes available for reducing biotic stressors, such as weeds, pests, and disease, which reduce agricultural productivity. Today, plant scientists
are leveraging traditional and modern approaches in tandem to increase crop yields, quality, and economic returns, while reducing the environmental
consequences associated with the consumption of natural resources, such as water, land, and fertilizer, for agriculture. ¶ The
current need to
accelerate agricultural productivity on a global scale has never been greater or more urgent. At the
same time, the need to implement more sustainable approaches to conserve natural resources and
preserve native habitats is also of paramount importance. The challenge for the agricultural sector is to: (1)
deliver twice as much food in 2050 as is produced today (Food and Agricultural Organization of the World Health
Organization, 2002Go); (2) reduce environmental impacts by producing more from each unit of land,
water, and energy invested in crop production (Raven, 2008Go); (3) adapt cropping systems to climate
changes that threaten crop productivity and food security on local and global levels; and (4) encourage
the development of new technologies that deliver economic returns for all farmers, small and large. These are important and
challenging goals, and are much more so when real or perceived risks lead to regulatory and
policy actions that may slow the adoption of new technology. Optimistically, the adoption of rational
approaches for introducing new agricultural and food technologies should lead to more
widespread use that in turn will help address the agricultural challenges and also increase the
acceptance of modern agricultural biotechnology (Raven, 2008Go).¶ In the 12 years since commercialization of the first
genetically modified (GM) crop in 1996, farmers have planted more than 690 million hectares (1.7 billion acres; James, 2007Go) without a single
confirmed incidence of health or environmental harm (Food and Agricultural Organization of the World Health Organization, 2004Go; National
Academy of Sciences, 2004Go). In the latest International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications report, planting of biotech crops in
2007 reached a new record of 114.3 million hectares (282.4 million acres) planted in 23 countries, representing a 12.3% increase in acreage from the
previous year (James, 2007Go). Farmer benefits associated with planting of GM crops include reduced use of pesticides and insecticides (Brookes and
Barfoot, 2007Go), increased safety for nontarget species (Marvier et al., 2007Go; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2007Go),
increased adoption of reduced/conservation tillage and soil conservation practices (Fawcett and Towry, 2002Go), reduced greenhouse gas emissions
from agricultural practices (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go), as well as increased yields (Brookes and Barfoot, 2007Go). ¶ The
first generation
of biotech crops focused primarily on the single gene traits of herbicide tolerance and insect
resistance. These traits were accomplished by the expression of a given bacterial gene in the crops. In the case of herbicide tolerance, expression
of a glyphosate-resistant form of the gene CP4 EPSPS resulted in plants being tolerant to glyphosate (Padgette et al., 1995Go). Similarly, expression of
an insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis in plants resulted in protection of the plants from damage due to insect feeding (Perlak et al.,
1991Go). Both of these early biotech products had well-defined mechanisms of action that led to the desired phenotypes. Additional products soon
came to market that coupled both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance in the same plants. As farmers adopt new products to maximize productivity
and profitability on the farm, they are increasingly planting crops with "stacked traits" for management of insects and weeds and "pyramided traits" for
management of insect resistance. The actual growth in combined trait products was 22% between 2006 and 2007, which is nearly twice the growth rate
of overall planting of GM crops (James, 2007Go).¶ The
next generation of biotech crops promises to include a
broad range of products that will provide benefits to both farmers and consumers, and continue
to meet the global agricultural challenges. These products will most likely involve regulation of key endogenous plant pathways
resulting in improved quantitative traits, such as yield, nitrogen use efficiency, and abiotic stress tolerance (e.g. drought, cold). These quantitative traits
are known to typically be multigenic in nature, adding a new level of complexity in describing the mechanisms of action that underlie these phenotypes.
In addition to these types of traits, the first traits aimed at consumer benefits, such as healthier
oils and enhanced nutritional content, will also be developed for commercialization.¶ As with the first
generation, successful delivery of the next generation of biotech crops to market will depend on establishing their food, feed, and environmental safety.
Scientific and regulatory authorities have acknowledged the potential risks associated with genetic modification of all kinds, including traditional crossbreeding, biotechnology, chemical mutagenesis, and seed radiation, yet have established a safety assessment framework only for biotechnology-derived
crops designed to identify any potential food, feed, and environmental safety risks prior to commercial use. Importantly, it has been concluded that
crops developed through modern biotechnology do not pose significant risks over and above
those associated with conventional plant breeding (National Academy of Sciences, 2004Go). The European Commission
(2001)Go acknowledged that the greater regulatory scrutiny given to biotech crops and foods probably
make them even safer than conventional plants and foods. The current comparative safety assessment process has
been repeatedly endorsed as providing assurance of safety and nutritional quality by identifying similarities and differences between the new food or
feed crop and a conventional counterpart with a history of safe use (Food and Drug Administration, 1992Go; Food and Agricultural Organization of the
World Health Organization, 2002Go; Codex Alimentarius, 2003Go; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2003Go; European
Food Safety Authority, 2004Go; International Life Sciences Institute, 2004Go). Any differences are subjected to an extensive evaluation to determine
whether there are any associated health or environmental risks, and, if so, whether the identified risks can be mitigated though preventative
management.¶ Biotech
crops undergo detailed phenotypic, agronomic, morphological, and compositional analyses to
identify potential harmful effects that could affect product safety. This process is a rigorous and robust assessment
that is applicable to the next generation of biotech crops that potentially could include genetic changes that modulate the expression of one gene,
several genes, or entire pathways. The safety assessment will characterize the nature of the inserted molecules, as well as their function and effect
within the plant and the overall safety of the resulting crop. This
well-established and proven process will provide
assurance of the safety of the next generation of biotech crops and help to reinforce rational
approaches that enable the development and commercial use of new products that are critical to
meeting agriculture's challenges.
Alternative’s extinction
Trewavas ‘2k
(Anthony, Institute of Cell and Molecular Biology – University of Edinburgh, “GM Is the Best
Option We Have”, AgBioWorld, 6-5, http://www.agbioworld.org/biotech-info/articles/biotechart/best_option.html)
There are some Western critics who oppose any solution to world problems involving technological progress. They denigrate this remarkable
achievement. These luddite individuals found in some Aid organisations instead attempt to impose their primitivist western views on those countries
where blindness and child death are common. This new form of Western cultural domination or neo-colonialism, because such it is, should be repelled
by all those of good will. Those who stand to benefit in the third world will then be enabled to make their own choice freely about what they want for
their own children. But these are foreign examples; global
warming is the problem that requires the UK to develop
GM technology. 1998 was the warmest year in the last one thousand years. Many think global warming will simply lead to a wetter climate and
be benign. I do not. Excess rainfall in northern seas has been predicted to halt the Gulf Stream. In this situation, average UK temperatures would fall by
5 degrees centigrade and give us Moscow-like winters. There
are already worrying signs of salinity changes in the
deep oceans. Agriculture would be seriously damaged and necessitate the rapid development of
new crop varieties to secure our food supply. We would not have much warning. Recent detailed analyses
of arctic ice cores has shown that the climate can switch between stable states in fractions of a decade. Even if the climate is only
wetter and warmer new crop pests and rampant disease will be the consequence. GM technology
can enable new crops to be constructed in months and to be in the fields within a few years. This
is the unique benefit GM offers. The UK populace needs to much more positive about GM or we may pay a very heavy price. In
535A.D. a volcano near the present Krakatoa exploded with the force of 200 million Hiroshima A
bombs. The dense cloud of dust so reduced the intensity of the sun that for at least two years
thereafter, summer turned to winter and crops here and elsewhere in the Northern hemisphere failed
completely. The population survived by hunting a rapidly vanishing population of edible
animals. The after-effects continued for a decade and human history was changed irreversibly. But the planet recovered. Such
examples of benign nature's wisdom, in full flood as it were, dwarf and make miniscule the tiny
modifications we make upon our environment. There are apparently 100 such volcanoes round the
world that could at any time unleash forces as great. And even smaller volcanic explosions change
our climate and can easily threaten the security of our food supply. Our hold on this planet is tenuous. In the
present day an equivalent 535A.D. explosion would destroy much of our civilisation. Only those with agricultural technology
sufficiently advanced would have a chance at survival. Colliding asteroids are another problem
that requires us to be forward-looking accepting that technological advance may be the only
buffer between us and annihilation. When people say to me they do not need GM, I am astonished at their prescience, their ability
to read a benign future in a crystal ball that I cannot. Now is the time to experiment; not when a holocaust is upon us and it is too late. GM is a
technology whose time has come and just in the nick of time. With each billion that mankind has
added to the planet have come technological advances to increase food supply. In the 18th century, the
start of agricultural mechanisation; in the 19th century knowledge of crop mineral requirements, the eventual Haber Bosch process for nitrogen
reduction. In the 20th century plant genetics and breeding, and later the green revolution. Each time population growth has been sustained without
enormous loss of life through starvation even though crisis often beckoned. For the 21st century, genetic
manipulation is our
primary hope to maintain developing and complex technological civilisations. When the climate
is changing in unpredictable ways, diversity in agricultural technology is a strength and a
necessity not a luxury. Diversity helps secure our food supply. We have heard much of the precautionary principle in recent years; my
version of it is "be prepared".
Biotech---Bioterror
Biotech necessary to develop countermeasures to bioterrorism
Goldberg et al 2004 (Joseph E., Dorsey, Harry, Bartone, Paul, Ortman, Bill, Ashcraft, Paul,
Burlingame, Stan, Carter, Anna L., Cofer, Robin D., Elwood, John, Guerts, Jim, Industry Studies
2004: Biotechnology, The Industrial College of the Armed Forces National Defense University)
Biotechnology has the potential to revolutionize all aspects of our daily of life over the next two decades, in much the same way information technology
did during the previous two decades. Biotechnology
is still an immature industry that has yet to reach its full
potential, but it is already an important driver for the U.S. economy overall. It presents the U.S.
with a tremendous opportunity to address many of the country’s most pressing defense, health,
and economic issues. It also holds promise for improvement in global health and welfare but only to the degree that other nations are
willing to utilize the technology and are successful in their respective biotechnology initiatives. Biotechnology is greatly affected by government
investment in basic science, government regulation, and the government product approval processes. These factors drive a unique business model. The
synergy between U.S. government policies and funding, academia, and the industrial base provides the U.S. with a unique competitive advantage and is
a primary reason the U.S. has been able to quickly become the global leader in biotechnology. While the recent recession temporarily cooled the rapid
growth of biotech industry, it did not stifle long-term growth in revenues or sales, nor prevent sustained long-term growth. Demographics and a
geometric expansion of biotech applications will fuel the biotech market well into the coming century. The
U.S. is the world leader in
the biotechnology industry in all aspects – the number of companies, size of the research base,
number of products and patents, and level of revenue. While the U.S. is the dominant player in
today’s biotechnology market, other countries in general, and Asia in particular, are actively
investing in government sponsored programs to increase their market share and reduce the US
dominance overall. The U.S.’ future lead in biotechnology is threatened by a potential shortage
of U.S. scientists and engineers, an increasing global demand for scientists, fewer U.S. college
graduates in math and science, and tighter U.S. visa restrictions on foreign students and
scientists. Unfortunately, biotechnology’s potential for improving the quality of life in the U.S. and the
rest of the world is tempered by the risk of enemy or terrorist use of bioagents and/or
bioweapons against the US or its allies. The potential dual use of biotechnology complicates the effort to craft effective nonproliferation policies and mitigate bio-weapons threats. As biotechnology continues to mature as a technology and
industrial sector, policy makers at the U.S. and global level must continue to refine global nonproliferation and counter-proliferation regimes to ensure biotechnology’s potential for mis-use
does not outweigh its ability to address the world’s most pressing needs.
A bioweapons attack threatens human survival
Carpenter and Bishop 2009 (P. A., P. C., July 10, Graduate Program in Studies of the
Future, School of Human Sciences and Humanities, University of Houston-Clear Lake, Houston,
TX, USA, Graduate Program in Futures Studies, College of Technology, University of Houston,
Houston, TX, USA. A review of previous mass extinctions and historic catastrophic events,
ScienceDirect)
The flu of 1890, 1918–1919 Spanish flu, 1957 Asian flu, 1968 Hong Kong flu, and 1977 Russian flu all led to mass deaths. Pandemics such as these
remain major threats to human health that could lead to extremely high death rates. The 1918 pandemic is believed to have killed 50 million people
[27]. AIDS (HIV) has killed an estimated 23 million people from 1978 to 2001 [15]. And
there have been numerous other
incidents of diseases such as cholera, dysentery, influenza, scurvy, smallpox, typhus, and plague
that have caused the deaths of many millions throughout history. Clearly, these biological
diseases are much greater threats to human survival than other natural or
environmental disasters. Because bacterium and viral strains experience antigenic shifts
(which are small changes in the virus that happen continually over time, eventually producing new virus strains that might not be recognized by the
body’s immune system), another
devastating pandemic could appear at any time. It should also be noted that the
threat from biological weapons is quite real. In fact, scientists from the former Soviet
Union’s bioweapons program claim to have developed an antibiotic-resistant strain of the
plague [26].
Biological terrorist attack would cause extinction
Kellman ‘08 [Barry, Director of the International Weapons Control Center at the DePaul University College of Law and
author of Bioviolence—Preventing Biological Terror and Crime; “Bioviolence: A Growing Threat,” The Futurist, May-June 2008,
http://www.wfs.org/March-April09/MJ2008_Kellman.pdf]
What Might Bioviolence Accomplish? Envision a series of attacks against capitals of
developing states that have close diplomatic linkages with the United States. The attacks would carry a
well-publicized yet simple warning: “If you are a friend of the United States, receive its officials, or support its policies, thousands of
your people will get sick.” How many attacks in how many cities would it take before international diplomacy, to say nothing of
international transit, comes to a crashing halt? In comparison to use of conventional or chemical weapons,
the potential death toll of a bioattack could be huge. Although the number of victims would
depend on where an attack takes place, the type of pathogen, and the sophistication of the
weapons maker, there is widespread consensus among experts that a heightened attack would
inflict casualties exceedable only by nuclear weapons. In comparison to nuclear weapons,
bioweapons are far easier and cheaper to make and transport, and they can be made in facilities
that are far more difficult to detect. The truly unique characteristic of certain bioweapons that
distinguishes them from every other type of weapon is contagion. No other type of weapon can
replicate itself and spread. Any other type of attack, no matter how severe, occurs at a certain
moment in time at an identifiable place. If you aren’t there, you are angry and upset but not physically injured by the
attack. An attack with a contagious agent can uniquely spread, potentially imperiling target
populations far from where the agents are released. A bio-offender could infect his minions with
a disease and send them across borders before symptoms are obvious. Carriers will then spread
it to other unsuspecting victims who would themselves become extended bioweapons, carrying
the disease indiscriminately. There are challenges in executing such an attack, but fanatical terrorist organizations seem
to have an endless supply of willing suicide attackers. All this leads to the most important characteristic of
bioviolence: It raises incomparable levels of panic. Contagious bioviolence means that planes fly empty or
perhaps don’t fly at all. People cancel vacation and travel plans and refuse to interact with each other for fear of unseen affliction.
Public entertainment events are canceled; even going to a movie becomes too dangerous. Ultimately, bioviolence is about hiding our
children as everyone becomes vulnerable to our most fundamental terror: the fear of disease. For people who seek to rattle the
pillars of modern civilization and perhaps cause it to collapse, effective use of disease would set in motion
political, economic, and health consequences so severe as to call into question the ability of
existing governments to maintain their citizens’ security. In an attack’s wake, no one would
know when it is over, and no government could credibly tell an anxious population where and
when it is safe to resume normal life. While it is difficult to specify when this danger will strike, there should be
no doubt that we are vulnerable to a rupture. Just as planes flying into the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001,
instantly became a historical marker dividing strategic perspectives before from after, the day that disease is effectively
used as an instrument of hate will profoundly change everything. If you want to stop modern
civilization in its tracks, bioviolence is the way to go. The notion that no one will ever commit catastrophic
bioviolence is simply untenable.
Clean Tech
Clean Tech Warming---1NC
Path to legal status is key to clean tech
Norris, 10 – Stanford University in 2011 with a B.A. in Public Policy (Teryn, "Racing for
Clean Tech Jobs: Why America Needs an Energy Education Strategy", Daily Kos, 3/18/10,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/18/847363/-Racing-for-Clean-Tech-Jobs:-WhyAmerica-Needs-an-Energy-Education-Strategy)//EX
A growing consensus suggests that clean tech will be one of our generation's largest growth
sectors. The global clean-tech market is expected to surpass $1 trillion in value within the next
few years, and a perfect storm of factors - from the inevitability of a carbon-constrained world,
to skyrocketing global energy demand, to long-term oil price hikes - will drive global demand for
clean-energy technologies. That is why the national debate about global clean-tech
competitiveness is so important, sparked by the rapid entry of China and other nations. My
colleagues and I recently contributed to the discussion with "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a
large report providing the first comprehensive analysis of competitive positions among the U.S.
and key Asian challengers. In order to compete, we found, "U.S. energy policy must include
large, direct and coordinated investments in clean-technology R&D, manufacturing,
deployment, and infrastructure." But even if the United States adopts a real industrial policy for
clean energy, there is little evidence that our workforce is skilled enough to compete.
Unfortunately, according to the Department of Energy, "The U.S. ranks behind other major
nations in making the transitions required to educate students for emerging energy trades,
research efforts and other professions to support the future energy technology mix." A
competitive energy workforce requires much more than technicians and building retrofitters.
Scientists, engineers, high-tech entrepreneurs, and advanced manufacturers will play a critical
role, just as they have in strategic sectors like infotech, aerospace, and biotech. The federal
government has started to address the need for green technician and efficiency retrofit training,
such as with the Green Jobs Act, but it has not implemented an education strategy to keep the
U.S. at the leading edge of energy science, technology, and entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, the
majority of our colleges and universities lack degree programs focused on energy, and the U.S.
power engineering education system is on the decline. Over the next five years, 45 percent of
electric utility engineers will be eligible for retirement, along with 40 percent of key power
engineering faculty at U.S. universities, according to a report by IEEE. "Engineering workforce
shortages are already occurring," the report concludes. "We need more electrical engineers to
solve industry challenges, and to build the 21st century electric power grid... Meeting these
needs requires long-term investment now." Meanwhile, other countries are producing a
substantially larger portion of scientists, engineers, and researchers that will benefit their cleantech industries. Science and engineering make up only about one-third of U.S. bachelor's
degrees, compared to 63 percent in Japan, 53 percent in China and 51 percent in Singapore, and
the number of Chinese researchers is now on par with the United States (though some have
pointed out that the quality of these graduates and researchers is not always comparable). "Over
time," stated a recent report by the National Science Board, "the United States has fallen from
one of the top countries in terms of its ratio of natural science and engineering degrees to the
college-age population to near the bottom of the 23 countries for which data are available." The
energy workforce deficit and STEM education gap will substantially limit the nation's ability to
lead the clean-tech industry and accelerate clean energy development. As Nobel Laureate Paul
Krugman put it, "If you had to explain America's economic success with one word, that word
would be 'education.'" In order to succeed in the clean-tech industry, the U.S. must develop an
energy education strategy to develop tens of thousands of advanced energy scientists, engineers,
and entrepreneurs, as well as technicians.
Clean tech Solves warming, the environment, and resource wars
Klarevas 9 –Louis Klarevas, Professor for Center for Global Affairs @ New York University, 12/15, “Securing American
Primacy While Tackling Climate Change: Toward a National Strategy of Greengemony,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/louisklarevas/securing-american-primacy_b_393223.html
As national leaders from around the world are gathering in Copenhagen, Denmark, to attend the United Nations Climate Change Conference, the
time is ripe to re-assess America's current energy policies - but within the larger framework of how
a new approach on the environment will stave off global warming and shore up American
primacy. By not addressing climate change more aggressively and creatively, the U nited S tates is squandering an
opportunity to secure its global primacy for the next few generations to come. To do this, though, the U.S.
must rely on innovation to help the world escape the coming environmental meltdown.
Developing the key technologies that will save the planet from global warming will allow the U.S.
to outmaneuver potential great power rivals seeking to replace it as the international system's hegemon. But the greening of
American strategy must occur soon. The U.S., however, seems to be stuck in time, unable to move beyond oil-centric geo-politics in
any meaningful way. Often, the gridlock is portrayed as a partisan difference, with Republicans resisting action and Democrats pleading for action.
This, though, is an unfair characterization as there are numerous proactive Republicans and quite a few reticent Democrats. The real divide is instead
one between realists and liberals. Students of realpolitik, which still heavily guides American foreign policy, largely discount environmental issues as
they are not seen as advancing national interests in a way that generates relative power advantages vis-à-vis the other major powers in the system:
Russia, China, Japan, India, and the European Union. Liberals, on the other hand, have recognized that global
warming might very
well become the greatest challenge ever faced by mankind. As such, their thinking often eschews narrowly defined
national interests for the greater global good. This, though, ruffles elected officials whose sworn obligation is, above all, to protect and promote
American national interests. What both sides need to understand is that by
becoming a lean, mean, green fighting
machine, the U.S. can actually bring together liberals and realists to advance a collective interest
which benefits every nation, while at the same time, securing America's global primacy well
into the future. To do so, the U.S. must re-invent itself as not just your traditional hegemon, but
as history's first ever green hegemon. Hegemons are countries that dominate the international system - bailing out other countries
in times of global crisis, establishing and maintaining the most important international institutions, and covering the costs that result from free-riding
and cheating global obligations. Since 1945, that role has been the purview of the United States. Immediately after World War II, Europe and Asia laid
in ruin, the global economy required resuscitation, the countries of the free world needed security guarantees, and the entire system longed for a
multilateral forum where global concerns could be addressed. The
U.S., emerging the least scathed by the systemic
crisis of fascism's rise, stepped up to the challenge and established the postwar (and current) liberal
order. But don't let the world "liberal" fool you. While many nations benefited from America's new-found hegemony, the U.S. was driven
largely by "realist" selfish national interests. The liberal order first and foremost benefited the U.S. With the U.S. becoming
bogged down in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, running a record national debt, and failing to shore up the dollar, the future of American hegemony
now seems to be facing a serious contest: potential rivals - acting like sharks smelling blood in the water - wish to challenge the U.S. on a variety of
fronts. This has led numerous commentators to forecast the U.S.'s imminent fall from grace. Not all hope is lost however. With
the
impending systemic crisis of global warming on the horizon, the U.S. again finds itself in a
position to address a transnational problem in a way that will benefit both the international
community collectively and the U.S. selfishly. The current problem is two-fold. First, the competition for oil is
fueling animosities between the major powers. The geopolitics of oil has already emboldened
Russia in its 'near abroad' and China in far-off places like Africa and Latin America. As oil is a limited
natural resource, a nasty zero-sum contest could be looming on the horizon for the U.S. and its major
power rivals - a contest which threatens American primacy and global stability. Second,
converting fossil fuels like oil to run national economies is producing irreversible harm in the form of carbon dioxide emissions. So long as the
global economy remains oil-dependent, greenhouse gases will continue to rise. Experts are
predicting as much as a 60% increase in carbon dioxide emissions in the next twenty-five years. That likely
means more devastating water shortages, droughts, forest fires, floods, and storms. In other words, if
global competition for access to energy resources does not undermine international security, global warming will. And in either case, oil will be a culprit
for the instability. Oil arguably has been the most precious energy resource of the last half-century. But "black gold" is so 20th century. The key
resource for this century will be green gold - clean, environmentally-friendly energy like wind, solar, and hydrogen power. Climate change leaves no
alternative. And the sooner we realize this, the better off we will be. What Washington must do in order to avoid the traps of petropolitics is to convert
the U.S. into the world's first-ever green hegemon. For starters, the
federal government must drastically increase
investment in energy and environmental research and development (E&E R&D). This will require a
serious sacrifice, committing upwards of $40 billion annually to E&E R&D - a far cry from the few billion
dollars currently being spent. By promoting a new national project, the U.S. could develop new technologies that will
assure it does not drown in a pool of oil. Some solutions are already well known, such as raising fuel standards for automobiles;
improving public transportation networks; and expanding nuclear and wind power sources. Others, however, have not progressed much beyond the
drawing board: batteries that can store massive amounts of solar (and possibly even wind) power; efficient and cost-effective photovoltaic cells, cropfuels, and hydrogen-based fuels; and even fusion. Such
innovations will not only provide alternatives to oil, they
will also give the U.S. an edge in the global competition for hegemony . If the U.S. is
able to produce technologies that allow modern, globalized societies to escape the oil trap, those
nations will eventually have no choice but to adopt such technologies. And this will give the U.S. a tremendous
economic boom, while simultaneously providing it with means of leverage that can be employed to keep potential foes in check. The bottomline is that the U.S. needs to become green energy dominant as opposed to black energy
independent - and the best approach for achieving this is to promote a national strategy of
greengemony.
Warming is real, anthropogenic, and will cause extinction
Terry Deibel, Professor of IR at National War College, 2007, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic
for American Statecraft” pg 387-389
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of
global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists
worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was
once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more
than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003
doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes
Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort
accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel
predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”;
climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine
Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in
Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several
days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a
significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded
from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a
close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths
and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to
Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world
is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the
Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding
of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million
(ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm,
about d’ouble pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so
there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for
significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As
the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree
warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species
extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati
and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice
sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North
Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the
middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic
thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude
would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United
States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming
could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse
warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is
both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with
only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even
though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced
with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the
natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and
humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York
University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then
everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of
nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet
Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global
warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and
considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism
and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity
to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet
Hegemony
Hegemony---1NC
Path to legal status is key to US Hegemony
Nye, 12 – former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the national intelligence
council and Professor at Harvard University (Joseph, “Immigration and American Power”,
Project Syndicate, 12/10/12, http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/obama-needsimmigration-reform-to-maintain-america-s-strength-by-joseph-s--nye)//EX
As a result, several prominent Republican politicians are now urging their party to reconsider its
anti-immigration policies, and plans for immigration reform will be on the agenda at the
beginning of Obama’s second term. Successful reform will be an important step in preventing
the decline of American power. ¶ Fears about the impact of immigration on national values
and on a coherent sense of American identity are not new. The nineteenth-century “Know
Nothing” movement was built on opposition to immigrants, particularly the Irish. Chinese were
singled out for exclusion from 1882 onward, and, with the more restrictive Immigration Act of
1924, immigration in general slowed for the next four decades.¶ During the twentieth century,
the US recorded its highest percentage of foreign-born residents, 14.7%, in 1910. A century later,
according to the 2010 census, 13% of the American population is foreign born. But, despite
being a nation of immigrants, more Americans are skeptical about immigration than are
sympathetic to it. Various opinion polls show either a plurality or a majority favoring less
immigration. The recession exacerbated such views: in 2009, one-half of the US public favored
allowing fewer immigrants, up from 39% in 2008.¶ Both the number of immigrants and their
origin have caused concerns about immigration’s effects on American culture. Demographers
portray a country in 2050 in which non-Hispanic whites will be only a slim majority. Hispanics
will comprise 25% of the population, with African- and Asian-Americans making up 14% and
8%, respectively.¶ But mass communications and market forces produce powerful incentives to
master the English language and accept a degree of assimilation. Modern media help new
immigrants to learn more about their new country beforehand than immigrants did a century
ago. Indeed, most of the evidence suggests that the latest immigrants are assimilating at least as
quickly as their predecessors.¶ While too rapid a rate of immigration can cause social problems,
over the long term, immigration strengthens US power. It is estimated that at least 83 countries
and territories currently have fertility rates that are below the level needed to keep their
population constant. Whereas most developed countries will experience a shortage of people as
the century progresses, America is one of the few that may avoid demographic decline and
maintain its share of world population.¶ For example, to maintain its current population size,
Japan would have to accept 350,000 newcomers annually for the next 50 years, which is
difficult for a culture that has historically been hostile to immigration. In contrast, the Census
Bureau projects that the US population will grow by 49% over the next four decades.¶ Today, the
US is the world’s third most populous country; 50 years from now it is still likely to be third
(after only China and India). This is highly relevant to economic power: whereas nearly all other
developed countries will face a growing burden of providing for the older generation,
immigration could help to attenuate the policy problem for the US.¶ In addition, though studies
suggest that the short-term economic benefits of immigration are relatively small, and that
unskilled workers may suffer from competition, skilled immigrants can be important to
particular sectors – and to long-term growth. There is a strong correlation between the number
of visas for skilled applicants and patents filed in the US. At the beginning of this century,
Chinese- and Indian-born engineers were running one-quarter of Silicon Valley’s technology
businesses, which accounted for $17.8 billion in sales; and, in 2005, immigrants had helped to
start one-quarter of all US technology start-ups during the previous decade. Immigrants
or children of immigrants founded roughly 40% of the 2010 Fortune 500 companies.¶ Equally
important are immigration’s benefits for America’s soft power . The fact that people want to
come to the US enhances its appeal, and immigrants’ upward mobility is attractive to people in
other countries. The US is a magnet, and many people can envisage themselves as Americans, in
part because so many successful Americans look like them. Moreover, connections between
immigrants and their families and friends back home help to convey accurate and positive
information about the US.¶ Likewise, because the presence of many cultures creates avenues of
connection with other countries, it helps to broaden Americans’ attitudes and views of the world
in an era of globalization. Rather than diluting hard and soft power, immigration enhances
both.¶ Singapore’s former leader, Lee Kwan Yew, an astute observer of both the US and China,
argues that China will not surpass the US as the leading power of the twenty-first century,
precisely because the US attracts the best and brightest from the rest of the world and melds
them into a diverse culture of creativity. China has a larger population to recruit from
domestically, but, in Lee’s view, its Sino-centric culture will make it less creative than the US.¶
That is a view that Americans should take to heart. If Obama succeeds in enacting immigration
reform in his second term, he will have gone a long way toward fulfilling his promise to maintain
the strength of the US.
US primacy prevents global conflict – diminishing power creates a
vacuum that causes transition wars in multiple places
Brooks et al 13 [Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth
College.G. John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International
Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of
Public and International Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee
University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of
Government at Dartmouth College. “Don't Come Home, America: The Case against
Retrenchment”, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 751,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107, GDI File]
A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far more dangerous global security
environment. For one thing, as noted above, the United States’ overseas presence gives it the leverage to
restrain partners from taking provocative action. Perhaps more important, its core alliance commitments also deter states
with aspirations to regional hegemony from contemplating expansion and make its partners more secure, reducing their incentive to adopt solutions to
their security problems that threaten others and thus stoke security dilemmas. The contention that engaged U.S. power dampens the baleful effects of
anarchy is consistent with influential variants of realist theory. Indeed, arguably the scariest portrayal of the war-prone world that would emerge absent
the “American Pacifier” is provided in the works of John Mearsheimer, who forecasts dangerous multipolar regions replete with security competition,
arms races, nuclear proliferation and associated preventive wartemptations, regional rivalries, and even runs at regional hegemony and full-scale great
power war. 72 How do retrenchment advocates, the bulk of whom are realists, discount this benefit? Their arguments are complicated, but two capture
most of the variation: (1) U.S. security guarantees are not necessary to prevent dangerous rivalries and conflict in Eurasia; or (2) prevention of rivalry
and conflict in Eurasia is not a U.S. interest. Each response is connected to a different theory or set of theories, which makes sense given that the whole
debate hinges on a complex future counterfactual (what would happen to Eurasia’s security setting if the United States truly disengaged?). Although a
certain answer is impossible, each of these responses is nonetheless a weaker argument for retrenchment than advocates acknowledge. The first
response flows from defensive realism as well as other international relations theories that discount the conflict-generating potential of anarchy under
contemporary conditions. 73 Defensive realists maintain that the high expected costs of territorial conquest, defense dominance, and an array of
policies and practices that can be used credibly to signal benign intent, mean that Eurasia’s major states could manage regional multipolarity peacefully
without theAmerican pacifier. Retrenchment would be a bet on this scholarship, particularly in regions where the kinds of stabilizers that nonrealist
theories point to—such as democratic governance or dense institutional linkages—are either absent or weakly present. There are three other major
bodies of scholarship, however, that might give decisionmakers pause before making this bet. First is regional expertise. Needless to say, there is no
consensus on the net security effects of U.S. withdrawal. Regarding each region, there are optimists and pessimists. Few experts expect a return of
intense great power competition in a post-American Europe, but many doubt European governments will pay the political costs of increased EU
defense cooperation and the budgetary costs of increasing military outlays. 74 The result might be a Europe
that is incapable of
securing itself from various threats that could be destabilizing within the region and beyond (e.g., a
regional conflict akin to the 1990s Balkan wars), lacks capacity for global security missions in which U.S. leaders might want European participation,
and is vulnerable to the influence of outside rising powers. What
about the other parts of Eurasia where the United
States has a substantial military presence? Regarding the Middle East, the balance begins
toswing toward pessimists concerned that states currently backed by Washington— notably Israel,
Egypt, and Saudi Arabia—might take actions upon U.S. retrenchment that would intensify
security dilemmas. And concerning East Asia, pessimismregarding the region’s prospects without the
American pacifier is pronounced. Arguably the principal concern expressed by area experts is that Japan and South
Korea are likely to obtain a nuclear capacity and increase their military commitments, which could stoke a
destabilizing reaction from China . It is notable that during the Cold War, both South Korea and Taiwan moved to obtain a
nuclear weapons capacity and were only constrained from doing so by astill-engaged United States. 75 The second body of scholarship casting doubt on
the bet on defensive realism’s sanguine portrayal is all of the research that undermines its conception of state preferences. Defensive realism’s
optimism about what would happen if the United States retrenched is very much dependent on itsparticular—and highly restrictive—assumption about
state preferences; once we relax this assumption, then much of its basis for optimism vanishes. Specifically, the prediction of post-American tranquility
throughout Eurasia rests on the assumption that security is the only relevant state preference, with security defined narrowly in terms of protection
from violent external attacks on the homeland. Under that assumption, the security problem is largely solved as soon as offense and defense are clearly
distinguishable, and offense is extremely expensive relative to defense. Burgeoning research
across the social and other
sciences, however,undermines that core assumption: states have preferences not only for security but also for
prestige, status, and other aims, and theyengage in trade-offs among the various objectives. 76 In addition, they define
security not just in terms of territorial protection but in view of many and varied milieu goals. It follows that even
states that are relatively secure may nevertheless engage in highly competitive behavior. Empirical studies
show that this is indeed sometimes the case. 77 In sum, a bet on a benign postretrenchment Eurasia is a bet that leaders of major
countries will never allow these nonsecurity preferences to influence their strategic choices. To the degree that these bodies of scholarly knowledge have
predictive leverage, U.S.
retrenchment would result in a significant deterioration in the security
environment in at least some of the world’s key regions. We have already mentioned the third, even more alarming body of
scholarship. Offensive realism predicts thatthe withdrawal of the American pacifier will yield either a competitive
regional multipolarity complete with associated insecurity, arms racing, crisis instability,
nuclear proliferation, and the like, or bids for regional hegemony, which may be beyond the capacity of local great
powers to contain (and which in any case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great
power war).
R&D
R&D---1NC
Path to legal status is key to advanced and high tech jobs and R&D
Fabian, 13 – BA in history from Cornell University (Fabian, “Rubio: Immigration Reform
Can Keep Tech Jobs in U.S.”, Fusion, 1/23/13, http://fusion.net/leadership/story/marco-rubioimmigration-reform-tech-jobs-us-12280)//EX
Rubio told a gathering of educators at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington, D.C.,
that high-tech companies estimate they cannot fill tens of thousands of jobs in the
U.S. in part because of an immigration system that does not provide enough visas for foreigners
who earn advanced degrees here and want to remain to work. As a result, those jobs are being
filled overseas, Rubio said. "In some instances, this is no joke, we are graduating kids with these
degrees and these skill sets. We are then forcing them to leave the country and the jobs are
following them over there," he said. "This is crazy." Rubio later added: "That obviously speaks to
the need for immigration reform." Lawmakers in both political parties have long agreed on the
need to expand the number of visas for those in the science, technology, engineering and
mathematics (STEM) fields. But Congress has been unable to agree on a means to do so. STEM
visas, however, are expected to be a part of a broader immigration reform effort in Congress this
year. Rubio, one of three Cuban-Americans in the Senate, has begun to float his own
immigration plan, which would increase the amount of visas available to highly skilled
graduates and professionals. That wouldn't necessarily come at the expense of reducing the
amount of visas in other areas, he recently told The Wall Street Journal. "I don't think there's a
lot of concern in this country that we'll somehow get overrun by Ph.D.s and entrepreneurs,"
Rubio said in an interview with the paper. The GOP-controlled House recently passed a bill that
would have granted 55,000 new STEM visas, but the effort was opposed by Democrats and did
not advance in the Senate because it took visas away from the so-called "diversity lottery" that
grants visas to people from countries underrepresented in the U.S. immigration system. Hightech visas are one of the least controversial elements of comprehensive immigration legislation,
but it's an area that has been critical in getting business groups on board with a reform push.
The U.S. Chamber, where Rubio spoke, has voiced support for legalizing undocumented
immigrants and expanding the number of visas for highly-skilled workers as part of
immigration reform. Lobbyists from the tech industry have joined business groups in calling for
expanding STEM visas. Rubio did not reference DREAMers, undocumented immigrants
brought to the U.S. at a young age who are seeking higher education, in his remarks. But his
immigration outline includes a way to naturalize them "in a more expedited manner than the
rest of the population," he told the Wall Street Journal. Rubio said that immigration reform is
only one way for the U.S. to staff up its high tech firms . The other problem, he said, is that
there isn't enough skilled laborers among the American population. To address that,
Rubio called on education reforms that include extending federal student aid to online courses
and other non-traditional educational institutions. "It speaks even more to the need to produce
those workers" in the United States, Rubio said. "That skills gap is a real threat to our
future."
That’s uniquely key in this instance – advanced R&D spills over to
effective manufacturing
Lind ’12 - Policy director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New America Foundation
(Michael, “Value Added: America’s Manufacturing Future,”
http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Lind,%20Michael%20and%20Freedman,%20Joshua%20%20NAF%20-%20Value%20Added%20America%27s%20Manufacturing%20Future.pdf )
Manufacturing, R&D and the U.S. Innovation Ecosystem Perhaps the greatest contribution of
manufacturing to the U.S. economy as a whole involves the disproportionate role of the
manufacturing sector in R&D. The expansion in the global market for high-value-added services has
allowed the U.S. to play to its strengths by expanding its trade surplus in services, many of them
linked to manufacturing, including R&D, engineering, software production and finance. Of these
services, by far the most important is R&D. The United States has long led the world in R&D. In
1981, U.S. gross domestic expenditure on R&D was more than three times as large as that of any
other country in the world. And the U.S. still leads: in 2009, the most recent year for which there is
available data, the United States spent more than 400 billion dollars. European countries spent just
under 300 billion dollars combined, while China spent about 150 billion dollars.14 In the United
States, private sector manufacturing is the largest source of R&D. The private sector itself accounts
for 71 percent of total R&D in the United States, and although U.S. manufacturing accounts for only
11.7 percent of GDP in 2012, the manufacturing sector accounts for 70 percent of all R&D spending
by the private sector in the U.S.15 And R&D and innovation are inextricably connected: a National
Science Foundation survey found that 22 percent of manufacturers had introduced product
innovations and the same percentage introduced process innovations in the period 2006-2008,
while only 8 percent of nonmanufacturers reported innovations of either kind.16 Even as the
manufacturing industry in the United States underwent major changes and suffered severe job
losses during the last decade, R&D spending continued to follow a general upward growth path. A
disproportionate share of workers involved in R&D are employed directly or indirectly by
manufacturing companies; for example, the US manufacturing sector employs more than a third of
U.S. engineers.17 This means that manufacturing provides much of the demand for the U.S.
innovation ecosystem, supporting large numbers of scientists and engineers who might not find
employment if R&D were offshored along with production. Why America Needs the Industrial
Commons Manufacturing creates an industrial commons, which spurs growth in multiple sectors of
the economy through linked industries. An “industrial commons” is a base of shared physical
facilities and intangible knowledge shared by a number of firms. The term “commons” comes from
communallyshared pastures or fields in premodern Britain. The industrial commons in particular in
the manufacturing sector includes not only large companies but also small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs), which employ 41 percent of the American manufacturing workforce and
account for 86 percent of all manufacturing establishments in the U.S. Suppliers of materials,
component parts, tools, and more are all interconnected; most of the time, Harvard Business
School professors Gary Pisano and Willy Shih point out, these linkages are geographic because of
the ease of interaction and knowledge transfer between firms.18 Examples of industrial commons
surrounding manufacturing are evident in the United States, including the I-85 corridor from
Alabama to Virginia and upstate New York.19 Modern economic scholarship emphasizes the
importance of geographic agglomeration effects and co-location synergies. 20 Manufacturers and
researchers alike have long noted the symbiotic relationship that occurs when manufacturing and
R&D are located near each other: the manufacturer benefits from the innovation, and the
researchers are better positioned to understand where innovation can be found and to test new
ideas. While some forms of knowledge can be easily recorded and transferred, much “know-how”
in industry is tacit knowledge. This valuable tacit knowledge base can be damaged or destroyed by
the erosion of geographic linkages, which in turn shrinks the pool of scientists and engineers in the
national innovation ecosystem. If an advanced manufacturing core is not retained, then the
economy stands to lose not only the manufacturing industry itself but also the geographic synergies
of the industrial commons, including R&D. Some have warned that this is already the case: a
growing share of R&D by U.S. multinational corporations is taking place outside of the United
States.21 In particular, a number of large U.S. manufacturers have opened up or expanded R&D
facilities in China over the last few years.22 Next Generation Manufacturing A dynamic
manufacturing sector in the U.S. is as important as ever. But thanks to advanced manufacturing
technology and technology-enabled integration of manufacturing and services, the very nature of
manufacturing is changing, often in radical ways. What will the next generation of manufacturing
look like? In 1942, the economist Joseph Schumpeter declared that “the process of creative
destruction is the essential fact about capitalism.” By creative destruction, Schumpeter did not
mean the rise and fall of firms competing in a technologically-static marketplace. He referred to a
“process of industrial mutation— if I may use that biological term—that incessantly revolutionizes
the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating the
new one.” He noted that “these revolutions are not strictly incessant; they occurred in discrete
rushes that are separated from each other by spaces of comparative quiet. The process as a whole
works incessantly, however, in the sense that there is always either revolution or absorption of the
results of revolution.”23 As Schumpeter and others have observed, technological innovation tends
to be clustered in bursts or waves, each dominated by one or a few transformative technologies
that are sometimes called “general purpose technologies.” Among the most world-transforming
general purpose technologies of recent centuries have been the steam engine, electricity, the
internal combustion engine, and information technology.24 As epochal as these earlier technologydriven innovations in manufacturing processes and business models proved to be, they are rapidly
being superseded by new technologydriven changes as part of the never-ending process of
Schumpeterian industrial mutation. The latest wave of innovation in industrial technology has been
termed “advanced manufacturing.” The National Science and Technology Council of the Executive
Office of the President defines advanced manufacturing as “a family of activities that (a) depend on
the use and coordination of information, automation, computation, software, sensing, and
networking, and/or (b) make use of cutting edge materials and emerging capabilities enabled by
the physical and biological sciences, for example, nanotechnology, chemistry, and biology. It
involves both new ways to manufacture existing products and the manufacture of new products
emerging from new advanced technologies.”25 Already computer-aided design (CAD) and
computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) programs, combined with computer numerical control
(CNC), allow precision manufacturing from complex designs, eliminating many wasteful trials and
steps in finishing. CNC is now ubiquitous in the manufacturing sector and much of the employment
growth occurring in the sector requires CNC skills or training. Information technology has allowed
for enterprise resource planning (ERP) and other forms of enterprise software to connect parts of
the production process (both between and within a firm), track systems, and limit waste when
dealing with limited resources. Other areas in which advanced manufacturing will play a role in
creating new products and sectors and changing current ones are: Supercomputing. America’s
global leadership in technology depends in part on whether the U.S. can compete with Europe and
Asia in the race to develop “exascale computing,” a massive augmentation of computer calculating
power that has the potential to revolutionize predictive sci ences from meteorology to economics.
According to the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee (ASCAC), “If the U.S. chooses
to be a follower rather than a leader in exascale computing, we must be willing to cede leadership”
in industries including aerospace, automobiles, energy, health care, novel material development,
and information technology.26 Robotics: The long-delayed promise of robotics is coming closer to
fulfillment. Google and other firms and research consortiums are testing robotic cars, and Nevada
recently amended its laws to permit autonomous automobiles.27 Amazon is experimenting with
the use of robots in its warehouses.28 Nanotechnology may permit manufacturing at extremely
small scales including the molecular and atomic levels.29 Nanotechnology is also a key research
component in the semiconductor indusmanutry, as government funding is sponsoring projects to
create a “new switch” capable of supplanting current semiconductor technology.30 Photonics or
optoelectronics, based on the conversion of information carried by electrons to photons and back,
has potential applications in sectors as diverse as telecommunications, data storage, lighting and
consumer electronics. Biomanufacturing is the use of biological processes or living organisms to
create inorganic structures, as well as food, drugs and fuel. Researchers at MIT have genetically
modified a virus that generates cobalt oxide nanowires for silicon chips.31 Innovative materials
include artificial “metamaterials” with novel properties. Carbon nanotubes, for example, have a
strength-to-weight ratio that no other material can match.32 Advanced manufacturing using these
and other cuttingedge technologies is not only creating new products and new methods of
production but is also transforming familiar products like automobiles. The rapid growth in
electronic and software content in automobiles, in forms like GPS-based guidance systems,
information and entertainment technology, anti-lock brakes and engine control systems, will
continue. According to Ford, around 30 percent of the value of one of its automobiles is comprised
by intellectual property, electronics and software. In the German automobile market, electronic
content as a share of production costs is expected to rise from 20-30 percent in 2007 to 50 percent
by 2020.33
Advanced manufacturing technology makes war obsolete – it’s the
ultimate deterrent
Paone ’09 -
66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs for the US Air Force (Chuck, 8-10-09, “Technology convergence could prevent
war, futurist says,” http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123162500)
The convergence of "exponentially advancing technologies" will form a "super-intelligence" so
formidable that it could avert war, according to one of the world's leading futurists. Dr. James
Canton, CEO and chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a San Francisco-based think tank, is
author of the book "The Extreme Future" and an adviser to leading companies, the military and
other government agencies. He is consistently listed among the world's leading speakers and has
presented to diverse audiences around the globe. He will address the Air Force Command and
Control Intelligence, Survelliance and Reconnaissance Symposium, which will be held Sept. 28
through 30 at the MGM Grand Hotel at Foxwoods in Ledyard, Conn., joining Air Force Chief of Staff
Gen. Norton Schwartz and a bevy of other government and industry speakers. He offered a sneak
preview of his symposium presentation and answered various questions about the future of
technology and warfare in early August. "The superiority of convergent technologies will prevent
war," Doctor Canton said, claiming their power would present an overwhelming deterrent to
potential adversaries. While saying that the U.S. will build these super systems faster and better
than other nations, he acknowledged that a new arms race is already under way. "It will be a new
MAD for the 21st century," he said, referring to the Cold War-era acronym for Mutually Assured
Destruction, the idea that a nuclear first strike would trigger an equally deadly response. It's
commonly held that this knowledge has essentially prevented any rational state from launching a
nuclear attack. Likewise, Doctor Canton said he believes rational nation states, considering this
imminent technology explosion, will see the futility of nation-on-nation warfare in the near future.
Plus there's the "socio-economic linking of the global market system." "The fundamental
macroeconomics on the planet favor peace, security, capitalism and prosperity," he said. Doctor
Canton projects that nations, including those not currently allied, will work together in using these
smart technologies to prevent non-state actors from engaging in disruptive and deadly acts. As a
futurist, Doctor Canton and his team study and predict many things, but their main area of
expertise -- and the one in which he's personally most interested -- is advanced and emerging
technology. "I see that as the key catalyst of strategic change on the planet, and it will be for the
next 100 years," he said. He focuses on six specific technology areas: "nano, bio, IT, neuro, quantum
and robotics;" those he expects to converge in so powerful a way. Within the information
technology arena, Doctor Canton said systems must create "meaningful data," which can be
validated and acted upon. "Knowledge engineering for the analyst and the warfighter is a critical
competency that we need to get our arms around," he said. "Having an avalanche of data is not
going to be helpful." Having the right data is. "There's no way for the human operator to look at an
infinite number of data streams and extract meaning," he said. "The question then is: How do we
augment the human user with advanced artificial intelligence, better software presentation and
better visual frameworks, to create a system that is situationally aware and can provide decision
options for the human operator, faster than the human being can?" He said he believes the
answers can often be found already in what he calls 'edge cultures.' "I would look outside of the
military. What are they doing in video games? What are they doing in healthcare? What about the
financial industry?" Doctor Canton said he believes that more sophisticated artificial intelligence
applications will transform business, warfare and life in general. Many of these are already
embedded in systems or products, he says, even if people don't know it.
Manufacturing and defense capabilities control conflict-escalation —
makes war obsolete.
O’Hanlon 12 — Michael O’Hanlon, is a senior fellow with the Center for 21st Century
Security and Intelligence and director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the
Brookings Institution, where he specializes in U.S. defense strategy, the use of military force,
and American foreign policy. He is a visiting lecturer at Princeton University, an adjunct
professor at Johns Hopkins University, and a member of the International Institute for Strategic
Studies. O’Hanlon is a member of the External Advisory Board at the Central Intelligence
Agency (Michael O’Hanlon, Brookings, January 2012, “The Arsenal of Democracy and How to
Preserve It: Key Issues in Defense Industrial Policy,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/1/26%20defense%20industri
al%20base/0126_defense_industrial_base_ohanlon, Accessed 09-18-2013)
The current wave of defense cuts is also different than past defense budget reductions in their likely
industrial impact, as the U.S. defense industrial base is in a much different place than it was in the past.
Defense industrial issues are too often viewed through the lens of jobs and pet projects to protect in
congressional districts. But the overall health of the firms that supply the technologies our armed forces
utilize does have national security resonance . Qualitative superiority in weaponry and other key
military technology has become an essential element of American military power in the modern era—
not only for winning wars but for deterring them . That requires world-class scientific and
manufacturing capabilities—which in turn can also generate civilian and military export opportunities
for the United States in a globalized marketplace.
Warming
Skilled workers solve warming
Herman and Smith, 10
(Richard T. Herman is the founder of Richard T. Herman & Associates, an immigration and business law firm in Cleveland, Ohio which serves a global clientele in over 10 languages. He is the
co-founder of a chapter of TiE, a global network of entrepreneurs started in 1992 in Silicon Valley. He has appeared on National Public Radio, FOX News, and various affiliates of NBC, CBS, and ABC. He has also been quoted in such publications as USA
Today,InformationWeek, PCWorld, ComputerWorld, CIO, Site Selection and National Lawyers Weekly, Robert L. Smith is a veteran journalist who covers international cultures and immigration issues for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, Ohio’s largest newspaper. Bob
grew up in Cleveland, where he lives with his wife, Cleveland Orchestra violinist Chul-In Park, and their two children, Jae, 5, and Sun-Hee, 3. He has written extensively about immigration issues and has interviewed people at all points of the immigrant experience,
from undocumented field workers to hugely successful entrepreneurs, Parts of this paper were excerpted from the book “Immigrant Inc.: Why Immigrant Entrepreneurs are Driving the New Economy (and how they will save the American worker)” (John Wiley &
Sons, 2009) by Richard T. Herman & Robert L. Smith. Available wherever books are sold, “Why Immigrants Can Drive the Green Economy,” Immigation Policy Center, http://immigrationpolicy.org/perspectives/why-immigrants-can-drive-green-economy)
Raymond Spencer, an Australian-born entrepreneur based in Chicago, has a window on the future—and a gusto for investing after founding a hightechnology consulting company that sold for more than $1 billion in 2006. “I have investments in maybe 10 start-ups, all of which fall within a broad
umbrella of a ‘green’ theme,” he said. “And it’s interesting, the vast majority are either led by immigrants or have key technical people who are
immigrants.” It should come as no surprise that immigrants
will help drive the green revolution. America’s young
scientists and engineers, especially the ones drawn to emerging industries like alternative
energy, tend to speak with an accent. The 2000 Census found that immigrants, while accounting
for 12 percent of the population, made up nearly half of the all scientists and engineers with
doctorate degrees. Their importance will only grow. Nearly 70 percent of the men and women
who entered the fields of science and engineering from 1995 to 2006 were immigrants. Yet, the
connection between immigration and the development and commercialization of alternative
energy technology is rarely discussed. Policymakers envision millions of new jobs as the nation
pursues renewable energy sources, like wind and solar power, and builds a smart grid to tap it.
But Dan Arvizu, the leading expert on solar power and the director of the National Renewable
Energy Laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy in Golden, Colorado, warns that much of
the clean-technology talent lies overseas, in nations that began pursuing alternative energy
sources decades ago. Expanding our own clean-tech industry will require working closely with
foreign nations and foreign-born scientists, he said. Immigration restrictions are making
collaboration difficult. His lab’s efforts to work with a Chinese energy lab, for example, were
stalled due to U.S. immigration barriers. “We can’t get researchers over here,” Arvizu, the son of a once-undocumented
immigrant from Mexico, said in an interview in March 2009, his voice tinged with dismay. “It makes no sense to me. We need a much more enlightened
approach.” Dr. Zhao Gang, the Vice Director of the Renewable Energy and New Energy International Cooperation Planning Office of the Ministry of
Science and Technology in China, says that America needs that enlightenment fast. “The Chinese government continues to impress upon the Obama
administration that immigration restrictions are creating major impediments to U.S.-China collaboration on clean energy development,” he said during
a recent speech in Cleveland. So what’s the problem? Some of it can be attributed to national security restrictions that impede international
collaboration on clean energy. But Arvizu places greater weight on immigration barriers, suggesting that national secrecy is less important in the fastpaced world of green-tech development. “We
are innovating so fast here, what we do today is often outdated
tomorrow. Finding solutions to alternative energy is a complex, global problem that requires
global teamwork,” he said. We need an immigration system that prioritizes the attraction and
retention of scarce, high-end talent needed to invent and commercialize alternative energy
technology and other emerging technologies. One idea we floated by Arvizu was a new
immigrant “Energy Scientist Visa,” providing fast-track green cards for Ph.D.s with the most
promising energy research, as reviewed by a panel of top U.S. scientists. Arvizu enthusiastically
responded, “Wow, that’s a brilliant idea.” As the recent submission of the Startup Visa Act bill
suggests, there’s really no shortage of good ideas of leveraging immigration to jumpstart the
economy. The challenge is getting the American people to understand that high-skill
immigration creates jobs, that the current system is broken, and that action is required now.
Suffering an Antiquated System ▲ While unlimited H1-B visas are available to foreign workers
at U.S. government and university research labs, the antiquated green-card system creates
a disincentive for immigrant researchers who seek a more permanent stay and status in
the U.S. Anyone coming to America from a foreign land experiences the U.S. immigration
system. They seldom forget the experience. This vast bureaucracy, with tentacles reaching into myriad federal agencies, wields
enormous power over the lives of people trying to follow its directives. Federal immigration authorities decide if a persecuted family can escape Congo,
if a prospective college student from Germany will start the school year on time in Cleveland, or if a Honduran family separated for years will be
reunited in Miami. U.S. immigration law dictates who can enter America and how long they can stay. Congress can enact new immigration policies as it
deems fit—and it did so in 1986 and in 1990. But the foundation of the system remains the Federal Immigration and Nationality Acts of 1965 and 1952.
The 1965 act diversified America by opening immigration to new parts of the world, but it also levied restrictions that soon become dated and
counterproductive. In a manufacturing era, the act made family reunification an overarching goal, while paying relatively little attention to the
migration of highly skilled workers. In fact, it imposed rigid nationality quotas on skilled immigrants. The result, critics say, is a dinosaur of a system
ill-equipped to deal with the demands of a fast-changing, global economy. [CONTINUED] “Our immigration laws discriminate pretty heavily against
highly talented scientists and engineers who want to come to this country and be part of our technological establishment,” Federal Reserve Chairman
Ben Bernanke told a Congressional panel in May 2009. Of particular concern to employers and economists are two sets of quotas: one that limits the
number of visas available to skilled workers, and another that limits the visas available to a nationality. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service
(USCIS) issues about 1 million green cards per year. Also known as immigrant visas, green cards bestow permanent residency, or the right to live and
work permanently in America. A green card puts one on the path to citizenship. In a typical year, the vast majority of green cards go to people
sponsored by a family member already here. There is no limit to the numbers of green cards that can be issued to the spouses, parents, and unmarried
children of naturalized U.S. citizens. America accepts far fewer people whose main reason for coming is to practice a profession, to pursue science, or to
start a company—even if that person possesses extraordinary ability. The government is restricted by law to issuing 140,000 employment or skill-based
green cards each year to applicants and their immediate family members. That’s about 15 percent of the immigrant visa pool. A chunk of green cards
are set aside for religious workers and wealthy investors, so the United States actually offers 120,000 employment-based green cards each year. Within
the employment visa categories, known as EB visas, are several subcategories that acknowledge skill levels. For example, 40,000 visas are designated
for persons of extraordinary ability—outstanding professors, researchers, and multinational executives. Another 40,000 visas are designated for
professionals with advanced academic degrees whose work will serve U.S. national interests. And another 10,000 visas are available for wealthy people
who commit to investing in a U.S. enterprise and creating jobs. So, out of 1 million green cards issued in an average year, 90,000, or about 9 percent,
are reserved for persons with advanced degrees, exceptional skills, or capital to create jobs. Put another way, about 9 percent of immigrant visas are
reserved for high-skill immigrants—the people driving the New Economy. It’s a scant amount in the context of a U.S. labor force of 154 million people.
Should those exceptional immigrants hail from a nation whose workers are in high demand—for example, India and China—they face delays imposed
by a nationality quota system. The 1965 immigration law sets per-country limits on employment visas. People from any one nation cannot use more
than 7 percent of the visas available that year. This means that workers from large sending countries are forced to wait, sometimes more than 8 years,
because their visa allotment has been “oversubscribed” by their fellow citizens. The 7 percent quota applies equally to every nation on Earth, regardless
of its size or the potential number of immigrants it sends to America. For example, Malawi, which has a population of 10.5 million people, is allocated
the same amount of employment visas as India, which has a population of over 1 billion. In any given year, only 5,600 green cards are reserved for
Indians with advanced academic degrees or extraordinary ability, the same number available to nationals of Malawi. Congress has sought to circumvent
the quotas and respond to industry demands—especially in high technology—with guest worker visas like the H1-B, a source of some controversy. The
H-1B is a temporary visa for a professional offered a job by a U.S. company that agrees to pay the prevailing market wage. Only 65,000 regular H-1B
visas are available each year, a quota set in the early 1990s and temporarily increased to 195,000 from 2001 to 2003. Many employers say the cap is set
too low to meet their needs, especially as they seek to staff engineering and software positions. Some lawmakers would like to help them with a higher
quota. These skilled immigrants often come to America as students, then go to work in growing industries. A 2008 study by the National Foundation
for American Policy found that for each worker hired on an H-1B visa, at least five new jobs were created. But many labor groups argue that the cap is
already set too high. Only a bachelor’s degree is required to qualify for this visa, and critics charge the H-1B visas crowd skilled Americans out of the
workplace, suppress wages, and make it easier for employers to outsource jobs to low-cost countries like India. Even immigrant advocates criticize the
H-1B as a second-class visa that produces an anxious life. Tied to their employers, the guest workers cannot switch jobs unless their new employer is
willing to sponsor their visa, and their spouses are not allowed to work. The three-year visa can be renewed once. But after six years, the visa holder
must go home unless he or she is able to get a green-card sponsor. The
national-origin quotas, coupled with a limit of
90,000 immigrant visas reserved for highly skilled professionals or investors, helps to explain
why so many talented immigrants—many of them H-1B visa holders—wait in vain for
permission to live and work in America. Many are now leaving the U.S., or simply not coming to
study or work on an H1B. After revealing the high-skill visa backlog in 2007, Vivek Wadhwa and his researchers at Duke University
began to examine the impact. With the support of the Kauffman Foundation, they surveyed about 1,200 Chinese and Indian professionals who had
studied or worked in America and returned home. The returnees were an impressive bunch, overwhelmingly young, smart, and ambitious, as described
in the March 2009 report, “America’s Loss is the World’s Gain.” Nearly 90 percent held master’s or doctorate degrees. Many said they expected to start
their own companies. Homesickness was common among the immigrants who went back, and many expressed frustration with the U.S. immigration
system. But even more said the home country suddenly offered good jobs and bright career prospects. That is the new reality that demands a response,
Wadhwa argues. Foreign-born mathematicians, engineers, and chemists can now find world-class companies in Bangalore, Beijing, Tel Aviv, Seoul, and
Singapore. With high-tech opportunities blossoming elsewhere, and anti-immigrant attitudes hardening in America, Wadhwa said his adopted
homeland faces a crisis. “The United States is no longer the only place where talented people can put their skills to work,” he writes. “It can no longer
expect them to endure the indignities and inefficiencies of an indifferent immigration system, and it must now actively compete to attract these people
with good jobs, security and other amenities.” The competition is heating up. In an earlier study, Wadhwa pointed out that most high-skilled
immigrants obtained their primary education before coming to America, meaning that the United States inherited the benefits of schooling that was
paid for elsewhere. Some countries are looking to recoup that investment and attract their diasporas back home. Alberta, Canada, sensing an
opportunity to snatch talent from America, is sending recruiting teams to U.S. cities to lure disgruntled foreign professional workers on temporary H1B visas. The province is offering expedited permanent-residency cards and quicker pathways to entrepreneurship. Many researchers believe these
immigrant-attraction strategies will show results. “The reality of the global economy is that employers and their capital will follow the talent—wherever
that talent is permitted to work and flourish,” Stuart Anderson, executive director of the National Foundation for American Policy, wrote in 2007.
“While members of Congress often talk about ‘protecting’ American jobs, those who persist in pursuing restriction on hiring skilled foreign nationals
unfortunately are inhibiting creation and innovation in the United States.” In 2007, Microsoft opened up a research and development facility in
Vancouver, Canada, just over the border from its Seattle headquarters. Microsoft defended its decision by citing U.S. immigration restrictions on highskilled talent. Perhaps no country understands better the role of foreign talent in creating jobs for its people than Singapore. In July 2008, Singapore’s
Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, declared that Singapore must be open to foreign talent to achieve a “critical mass” for innovation and
entrepreneurship. Even with the global recession in full swing, Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Wong Kan Seng announced that restricting the entry
of high-skill immigrants would be “short sighted” and “could ultimately lead to more job losses for Singaporeans.” America loses more than innovation
if newly minted graduates go elsewhere; it loses tax dollars. A 2009 report by the respected Technology Policy Institute found that immigration
restrictions cost billions in lost opportunity, taxes, and wages. The institute concluded that legislation considered by Congress to loosen green-card and
H-1B visa restrictions could reduce the federal deficit on the order of $100 billion across 10 years. In short, fantastic opportunities are being lost as
high-skill immigrants are steered elsewhere. We need to polish our welcome. For starters, Wadhwa argues, the United States could reduce the huge
backlog of visa requests simply by making more visas available to skilled immigrants and by accelerating the processing times. His is one voice in a
growing chorus that hopes to wrest the spotlight from illegal immigration and illuminate the larger wave, its potential, and the consequences of
inaction. But the academic studies, while critically important, do not seem to cut through the noise and connect with the American people. The
American people are not demanding high-skill immigration reform. They don’t see it as a job-creation opportunity. The word “immigrant” almost
automatically summons an angry response that immigrants “take jobs.” Something else is needed. Time for a New Narrative ▲ Stories connect us to
each other. Drawing from the same well of human aspiration, triumph and failure, our personal stories create an emotional bond that transforms
strangers into familiar faces. As America once again struggles with the question of whether and how to welcome the immigrant stranger, the telling of
new immigrant stories is needed to help heal the chasm between “us” and “them,” and between our personal immigrant past and our nation’s
immigrant present and future. During this Great Recession, with unemployment near 10%, the immigration narrative also needs to offer hope for
Americans—hope that tomorrow will be better. Hope today comes in the form of good old American jobs. We have been told that maybe 4 million blue
and white-collar jobs may be created by advances in alternative energy technology, and that wind, solar, thermal, and other sources of energy will move
us closer to energy independence, greater national security and a healthier planet. But so far, we haven’t been that interested in asking the question,
“who will create and commercialize this new green technology? Much
like the role that immigrants played, in
partnership with American-born colleagues, in the information technology revolution and the
elevation of Silicon Valley to almost mythical status, immigrants are now emerging as key
drivers of America’s quest for world-class clean energy technology. A glance at recent research
on the contributions of immigrants supports the expectation that immigrants are helping to lead
the green economy and other emerging industries: Immigrants are nearly twice as likely as
native-born Americans to start a business. Immigrants are filing patents at twice the rate of the
American-born. Immigrants founded more than half of the high-tech companies in Silicon
Valley. Immigrants are much more likely to earn an advanced degree than the native-born.
(Continued……. (Feel Free to ask for the deleted text) Throughout Michigan and the Midwest, civic and union leaders cheered the made-in-America
strategy. U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan told the national media that a company founded by immigrants was moving the country in the
right direction. “We need a twenty-first century manufacturing strategy in this country,” she said. “Companies like A1234 are not only creating quality,
good-paying jobs in Michigan, but are insuring that we do not move from a dependence on foreign oil to a dependence on foreign technology.” John
Dingell, a member of Congress from Michigan, called the A123-Chrysler partnership momentous on two levels. “The future of this country is dependent
upon addressing two vital challenges—stopping the spread of global warming, and creating the next generation of manufacturing jobs here in the
United States,” he said. “This project gets us closer to achieving both of those goals.”
Warming is real, anthropogenic, and will cause extinction
Terry Deibel, Professor of IR at National War College, 2007, “Foreign Affairs Strategy: Logic
for American Statecraft” pg 387-389
Finally, there is one major existential threat to American security (as well as prosperity) of a
nonviolent nature, which, though far in the future, demands urgent action. It is the threat of
global warming to the stability of the climate upon which all earthly life depends. Scientists
worldwide have been observing the gathering of this threat for three decades now, and what was
once a mere possibility has passed through probability to near certainty. Indeed not one of more
than 900 articles on climate change published in refereed scientific journals from 1993 to 2003
doubted that anthropogenic warming is occurring. “In legitimate scientific circles,” writes
Elizabeth Kolbert, “it is virtually impossible to find evidence of disagreement over the
fundamentals of global warming.” Evidence from a vast international scientific monitoring effort
accumulates almost weekly, as this sample of newspaper reports shows: an international panel
predicts “brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century”;
climate change could “literally alter ocean currents, wipe away huge portions of Alpine
Snowcaps and aid the spread of cholera and malaria”; “glaciers in the Antarctic and in
Greenland are melting much faster than expected, and…worldwide, plants are blooming several
days earlier than a decade ago”; “rising sea temperatures have been accompanied by a
significant global increase in the most destructive hurricanes”; “NASA scientists have concluded
from direct temperature measurements that 2005 was the hottest year on record, with 1998 a
close second”; “Earth’s warming climate is estimated to contribute to more than 150,000 deaths
and 5 million illnesses each year” as disease spreads; “widespread bleaching from Texas to
Trinidad…killed broad swaths of corals” due to a 2-degree rise in sea temperatures. “The world
is slowly disintegrating,” concluded Inuit hunter Noah Metuq, who lives 30 miles from the
Arctic Circle. “They call it climate change…but we just call it breaking up.” From the founding
of the first cities some 6,000 years ago until the beginning of the industrial revolution, carbon
dioxide levels in the atmosphere remained relatively constant at about 280 parts per million
(ppm). At present they are accelerating toward 400 ppm, and by 2050 they will reach 500 ppm,
about d’ouble pre-industrial levels. Unfortunately, atmospheric CO2 lasts about a century, so
there is no way immediately to reduce levels, only to slow their increase, we are thus in for
significant global warming; the only debate is how much and how serious the effects will be. As
the newspaper stories quoted above show, we are already experiencing the effects of 1-2 degree
warming in more violent storms, spread of disease, mass die offs of plants and animals, species
extinction, and threatened inundation of low-lying countries like the Pacific nation of Kiribati
and the Netherlands at a warming of 5 degrees or less the Greenland and West Antarctic ice
sheets could disintegrate, leading to a sea level of rise of 20 feet that would cover North
Carolina’s outer banks, swamp the southern third of Florida, and inundate Manhattan up to the
middle of Greenwich Village. Another catastrophic effect would be the collapse of the Atlantic
thermohaline circulation that keeps the winter weather in Europe far warmer than its latitude
would otherwise allow. Economist William Cline once estimated the damage to the United
States alone from moderate levels of warming at 1-6 percent of GDP annually; severe warming
could cost 13-26 percent of GDP. But the most frightening scenario is runaway greenhouse
warming, based on positive feedback from the buildup of water vapor in the atmosphere that is
both caused by and causes hotter surface temperatures. Past ice age transitions, associated with
only 5-10 degree changes in average global temperatures, took place in just decades, even
though no one was then pouring ever-increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere. Faced
with this specter, the best one can conclude is that “humankind’s continuing enhancement of the
natural greenhouse effect is akin to playing Russian roulette with the earth’s climate and
humanity’s life support system. At worst, says physics professor Marty Hoffert of New York
University, “we’re just going to burn everything up; we’re going to heat the atmosphere to the
temperature it was in the Cretaceous when there were crocodiles at the poles, and then
everything will collapse.” During the Cold War, astronomer Carl Sagan popularized a theory of
nuclear winter to describe how a thermonuclear war between the Untied States and the Soviet
Union would not only destroy both countries but possibly end life on this planet. Global
warming is the post-Cold War era’s equivalent of nuclear winter at least as serious and
considerably better supported scientifically. Over the long run it puts dangers form terrorism
and traditional military challenges to shame. It is a threat not only to the security and prosperity
to the United States, but potentially to the continued existence of life on this planet
Cyber
Cyber---1NC
Visas are key to cybersecurity preparedness
McLarty 9 (Thomas F. III, President – McLarty Associates and Former White House Chief of
Staff and Task Force Co-Chair, “U.S. Immigration Policy: Report of a CFR-Sponsored
Independent Task Force”, 7-8, http://www.cfr.org/
publication/19759/us_immigration_policy.html)
We have seen, when you look at the table of the top 20 firms that are H1-B visa requestors, at least 15 of those
are IT firms. And as we're seeing across industry, much of the hardware and software that's used in this country is not only
manufactured now overseas, but it's developed overseas by scientists and engineers who were educated here in the United States.¶
We're seeing a lot more activity around cyber-security , certainly noteworthy attacks here
very recently. It's becoming an increasingly dominant set of requirements across not only to the Department of Defense, but the
Department of Homeland Security and the critical infrastructure that's held in private hands. Was there any discussion or any
interest from DOD or DHS as you undertook this review on the security things about what can be done to try to generate a more
effective group of IT experts here in the United States, many of which are coming to the U.S. institutions, academic
institutions from
overseas and often returning back? This potentially puts us at a competitive
disadvantage going forward.¶ MCLARTY: Yes. And I think your question largely is the answer as well. I mean, clearly we
have less talented students here studying -- or put another way, more talented students studying in other countries that are
gifted, talented, really have a tremendous ability to develop these kind of tech nology and scientific advances, we're
going to be put at an increasingly disadvantage. Where if they come here -- and I kind of like Dr. Land's approach of the green
card being handed to them or carefully put in their billfold or purse as they graduate -- then, obviously, that's going
to strengthen , I think, our system, our security needs .
Cyber-vulnerability causes great power nuclear war
Fritz 9 Researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and
Disarmament [Jason, researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation
and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant, and has a master of international
relations at Bond University, “Hacking Nuclear Command and Control,” July,
http://www.icnnd.org/latest/research/Jason_Fritz_Hacking_NC2.pdf]
This paper will analyse the threat of cyber terrorism in regard to nuclear weapons. Specifically, this research will use open source knowledge to identify the structure of
nuclear command and control centres, how those structures might be compromised through computer network operations, and how doing so would fit within established cyber
If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could fake
or actually cause one nuclear-armed state to attack another, thus provoking a nuclear response from
another nuclear power. This may be an easier alternative for terrorist groups than building or
acquiring a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb themselves. This would also act as a force equaliser, and
provide terrorists with the asymmetric benefits of high speed, removal of geographical distance, and
a relatively low cost. Continuing difficulties in developing computer tracking technologies which
could trace the identity of intruders, and difficulties in establishing an internationally agreed upon legal framework to guide responses to computer
network operations, point towards an inherent weakness in using computer networks to manage nuclear
weaponry. This is particularly relevant to reducing the hair trigger posture of existing nuclear
arsenals. All computers which are connected to the internet are susceptible to infiltration and remote control. Computers which operate on a
closed network may also be compromised by various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation,
roaming notebooks, wireless access points, embedded exploits in software and hardware, and
maintenance entry points. For example, e-mail spoofing targeted at individuals who have access to a closed
network, could lead to the installation of a virus on an open network. This virus could then be carelessly transported on
removable data storage between the open and closed network. Information found on the internet may also reveal how to access
these closed networks directly. Efforts by militaries to place increasing reliance on computer
terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics.
networks, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems, and their desire to have
multiple launch options, such as nuclear triad capability, enables multiple entry points for terrorists.
For example, if a terrestrial command centre is impenetrable, perhaps isolating one nuclear armed submarine would prove an easier task. There is evidence to
suggest multiple attempts have been made by hackers to compromise the extremely low radio
frequency once used by the US Navy to send nuclear launch approval to submerged submarines.
Additionally, the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear
weapons if it was unable to establish communications with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a
retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership; however it
did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists blocking communications through computer
network operations in an attempt to engage the system. Should a warhead be launched, damage could be further enhanced through
additional computer network operations. By using proxies, multi-layered attacks could be engineered. Terrorists could
remotely commandeer computers in China and use them to launch a US nuclear attack against
Russia. Thus Russia would believe it was under attack from the US and the US would believe China
was responsible. Further, emergency response communications could be disrupted, transportation could
be shut down, and disinformation, such as misdirection, could be planted, thereby hindering the
disaster relief effort and maximizing destruction. Disruptions in communication and the use of
disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed responses. For example, a nuclear strike
between India and Pakistan could be coordinated with Distributed Denial of Service attacks against
key networks, so they would have further difficulty in identifying what happened and be forced to
respond quickly. Terrorists could also knock out communications between these states so they cannot discuss the situation. Alternatively, amidst the
confusion of a traditional large-scale terrorist attack, claims of responsibility and declarations of war
could be falsified in an attempt to instigate a hasty military response. These false claims could be posted directly on Presidential,
military, and government websites. E-mails could also be sent to the media and foreign governments using the IP addresses and e-mail accounts of government officials. A
sophisticated and all encompassing combination of traditional terrorism and cyber terrorism could
be enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own, without the need for compromising command and
control centres directly.
Reform K2 Cyber-D
Shortage of cyber workers in the US --- kills cyberdefense
HSNW 10, Homeland Security Newswire, “Shortage of cyber workers in the U.S.”, 7/22,
http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/shortage-cyber-workers-us
The United States is lacking an adequate number of individuals within the federal
government and private sector with the technical skills necessary to secure cyberspace; there
is an even greater shortage of cybersecurity experts that can design secure systems and networks,
write nonvulnerable computer code and create the tools needed to prevent, detect and mitigate damage due
to malicious acts The United States is lacking an adequate number of individuals within the federal government and private sector with
the technical skills necessary to secure cyberspace, concludes a report released last week by the Center for Strategic and International Studies
(CSIS). “There
is a significant skills gap issue, and we need to address it,” Karen Evans, partner at information technology
is a shortage of
individuals with the necessary security skills to operate and support systems that already are deployed,
advisory KE&T Partners and co-author of the report, told SCMagazineUS.com’s Angela Moscaritolo. There
according to the report, released by the Commission on Cybersecurity for the 44th Presidency, established in 2007 by the CSIS to provide findings
and make recommendations concerning cybersecurity. The report also found that there is an even greater shortage of cybersecurity experts that
can design secure systems and networks, write nonvulnerable computer code and create the tools needed to prevent, detect and mitigate damage
due to malicious acts. Jim Gosler, fellow at the Sandia National Laboratory and visiting scientist at the National Security Agency (NSA), said in the
report that there are only about 1,000 individuals in the United States with the specialized security skills to defend cyberspace. There needs to be
around 10,000 to 30,000, he said. Additionally, Lt. Gen. Charles Croom, commander of the Joint Task Force for global network operations in the
U.S. Air Force, stated that
the most critical problem in meeting the growing cyber challenge is finding
the technical security people to handle the task. “A critical element of a robust cybersecurity
strategy is having the right people at every level to identify, build and staff the defenses and
responses,” the report states. “And that is, by many accounts, the area where we are the weakest.”
Additionally, existing professional certification programs are “inadequate” and create a
“dangerously false sense of security” because these programs do not always improve an individual’s ability to address security
risks, the report states.
Cyber-Attack Now
Cyber-attack is coming---actors are probing weaknesses
Reed 12John, Reports on the frontiers of cyber war and the latest in military technology for Killer Apps at Foreign Policy, "U.S. energy
companies victims of potentially destructive cyber intrusions", 10/11,
killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/11/us_energy_companies_victims_of_potentially_destructive_cyber_attacks
Foreign actors are probing the networks of key American companies in an attempt to gain control of industrial
facilities and transportation systems, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed tonight.¶ "We know that foreign cyber actors are
probing America's critical infrastructure networks," said Panetta, disclosing previously classified information during a speech in
New York laying out the Pentagon's role in protecting the U.S. from cyber attacks. "They are targeting the computer control systems that
operate chemical, electricity and water plants, and those that guide transportation thorough the country."¶ He went on to say that the U.S. government
knows of "specific instances where intruders have gained access" to these systems -- frequently known as
Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (or SCADA) systems -- and that "they are seeking to create advanced tools to attack these
systems and cause panic, destruction and even the loss of life," according to an advance copy of his prepared remarks.¶ The secretary said
that a coordinated attack on enough critical infrastructure could be a "cyber Pearl
Harbor" that would "cause physical destruction and loss of life, paralyze and
shock the nation, and create a profound new sense of vulnerability."¶ While there have been reports of
criminals using 'spear phishing' email attacks aimed at stealing information about American utilties, Panetta's remarks seemed to suggest more
sophisticated, nation-state backed attempts to actually gain control of and damage powergenerating equipment. ¶Panetta's comments regarding the penetration of American utilities echo those of a private sector
cyber security expert Killer Apps spoke with last week who said that the networks of American electric
companies were penetrated, perhaps in preparation for a Stuxnet-style attack .¶Stuxnet is
the famous cyber weapon that infected Iran's uranium-enrichment centrifuges in 2009 and 2010. Stuxnet is believed to have caused some of the machines to spin erratically, thereby destroying them.¶
There is hard evidencethat there has been penetration of our power companies, and given
Stuxnet, that is a staging step before destruction" of electricity-generating equipment, the expert
told Killer Apps. Because uranium centrifuges and power turbines are both spinning machines, "the attack is identical -- the one to take
out the centrifuges and the one to take out our power systems is the same attack."¶ "If
a centrifuge running at the wrong speed can blow apart" so can a power generator, said the
expert. "If you do, in fact, spin them at the wrong speeds, you can blow up any rotating
device."¶Cyber security expert Eugene Kaspersky said two weeks ago that one of his greatest fears is
someone reverse-engineering a sophisticated cyber weapon like Stuxnet -- a relatively easy
task -- and he noted that Stuxnet itself passed through power plants on its way to Iran. "Stuxnet infected thousands of computer systems all around the globe, I know there were power plants infected by
"
Stuxnet very far away from Iran," Kaspersky said.
Cyberattacks will destroy the grid---status quo cyber defense fails
RT 13 – RT, January 11th, 2013, "United States ill-prepared for skyrocketing cyberattacks
against critical infrastructure " rt.com/usa/cert-dhs-cyber-monitor-814/
Compared to recent years, the cyberassaults waged during 2012 demonstrate an alarming
trend . While ICS-CERT identified 198 incidents last year, in 2009 that number
was only nine .¶ "I believe that people will not truly get this until they see the physical
implications of a cyberattack," former FBI cybercrime official Shawn Henry said last year, as quoted by CNN. "We
knew about Osama bin Laden in the early '90s. After 9/11, it was a worldwide name. I believe
that type of thing can and will happen in the cyber environment."¶Leading figures in Washington
have warned just as much, equating an eventual assault on the United States’ cybergrid as being on par with national tragedies of historic proportions. In October, Defense
Secretary Leon Panetta said the
country was at risk of facing a “Cyber Pearl Harbor.”
In December,
former National Security Agency Director Mike McConnel said a “Cyber 9/11” should be imminent .¶ "We have
had our 9/11 warning. Are we going to wait for the cyber equivalent of the collapse of the World Trade Centers?" McConnell told
Financial Times in an interview published last month.¶"All of a sudden, the power doesn't work, there's
no way you can get money, you can't get out of town, you can't get online, and
banking, as a function to make the world work, starts to not be reliable ," McConnell
said. "Now, that is a cyber-Pearl Harbor, and it is achievable."
EPA Regs
1NC
GOP Senate will make the EPA toothless
Hunt 4/1/14 – Albert Hunt is the host of Political Capital with Al Hunt and is a columnist for
Bloomberg, “Republican Senate could bypass Obama’s vetoes,”
http://www.delawareonline.com/story/opinion/contributors/2014/04/01/republican-senatebypass-obamas-vetoes/7165339/
If Republicans take control of the U.S. Senate in this year’s elections, it will be, as Vice President Joe Biden might put it more
graphically, a big deal.¶ Last week, elections handicapper Nate Silver gave a 60 percent probability that the Republicans would gain at least the half-dozen seats required
for a majority. This wasn’t news to top party strategists. But it produced a palpable panic among Democrats along Pennsylvania Avenue, from the
White House to Capitol Hill.¶ Rationalizations followed. Maybe the assumptions were flawed, or Republicans would overreach and set the stage for
Democrats to come back in 2016. In any case, President Barack Obama has the veto pen for the last two years of his term.
That glosses over the profound policy implications of a change that would affect many areas.¶ • The
Affordable Care Act: The president can stop repeal of Obamacare, but a determined congressional majority can wreak havoc by using the initial budget process, known as
reconciliation, which allows major changes to be made with only a majority Senate vote that isn’t subject to filibusters.¶ “The Republicans can use reconciliation to pass lots of
policies – even repealing parts of Obamacare,” says Lanhee Chen, formerly a top policy adviser to Mitt Romney and now a research fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover
Institution and a Bloomberg View columnist.¶ Republicans have struggled to come up with any palatable alternatives to the health care law. That means major components such
as the subsidies and tax credits, or the ban on discrimination against insuring those with preexisting conditions, wouldn’t be changed. But deep cuts in funding for running the
program and getting new enrollees would take a toll.¶ “There could be a big hit in day-to-day administration,” says Chris Jennings, a health care expert who has worked with the
Obama administration.¶ • Fiscal priorities: Despite the power of the presidential veto, all the compromises would move to the right. Congress would adopt measures closer to
those favored by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, cutting social spending for the poor and increasing defense spending.¶ Republicans would try to enact
conservative tax measures. Reform of the corporate code might be a starting point, though changes to individual income taxes would be unlikely for budgetary and political
• Regulation: A Republican Congress would hold the upper hand. Regulatory agencies the
party doesn’t like – a long list that includes the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and
Exchange Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency – could turn into toothless
reasons.¶
watchdogs with slashed budgets. ¶ There would be a big push for the [RENSA] Regulations
from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, which requires congressional approval for
all major regulations.
EPA regulations would collapse the economy
Inhofe 5/31/14
Jim, former chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, Sen. R-Okla, USA Today, "Inhofe: President plays politics with climate change",
www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/05/31/jim-inhofe-climate-change/9732121/
Cap-and-trade proposals have been explicitly rejected in Congress no fewer than four times over the last 15 years, but President
Obama and his administration will be announcing Monday his plans to charge full steam ahead, leaving the American majority
behind.¶ President Obama's announcement will likely rehash the normal fear-tactic talking points
about the theory of man-made climate change. Then he will shift his tone and use rosy words to
share about his aggressive new Environmental Protection Agency proposal that will force
existing power plants to regulate carbon emissions and will set the stage for states to create capand-trade systems in order to regulate these plants.¶ What's not so rosy are the numbers. Each past
cap-and-trade plan rejected by Congress was estimated to cost Americans roughly $400 billion a year in de facto tax hikes. Now the
president is once again looking to do through regulation what he couldn't accomplish through
legislation. But myself and others are sounding the real alarm of how the president's plan will be
dangerous for our economy and future job opportunities.¶ On May 27, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released
a report saying that climate change regulations for new and existing power plants would result in an
average loss of 224,000 American jobs each year and an increase in electricity costs of $289
billion while lowering overall household incomes by more than $500 billion.¶ These numbers are
just the tip of the iceberg. More EPA regulations like the one that will be proposed Monday threaten the
reliability and affordability of our power grid, will weaken our economy, and drive more people
into the unemployment lines. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on May 14, committee
witness, Marvin Fertel, president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, testified that EPA regulations
are "shutting down the backbone of our electricity system."¶ Other inexpensive domestic energy
producers, many of whom had to fill the gap in electricity demand during this year's polar vortex, have also warned that
these regulations will force them to close their operations in the next few years. What happens for
areas of our nation who face a long heat wave or cold snap in future years?¶ It is no wonder recent polls, such as Gallup's on March
12, show that the majority of Americans are least interested in climate change policy issues when
compared to other, more important issues like the economy, job creation and even available and
affordable energy.¶ That the president is willing to follow through on climate change policies,
despite the widespread unpopularity, underscores the real motivation behind his actions:
pleasing a donor base. Billionaire Tom Steyer joined the likes of Al Gore, Michael Moore and others, earlier this year when
he hosted high-profile Democrats at a fundraiser and promised a $100 million war chest if they keep climate change a priority. With
each speech, media interview, and EPA regulation, President Obama and others are making good on their promises.¶ The
Obama administration's proposal must be seen for what it is: a move motivated solely by politics
with little regard for the American consumer or the economy. The president will boast of the flexibility his
proposal will provide, but there is no way around the fact that it could amount to the largest tax increase in
American history. The big question is how the American people will respond and that decision
can only be made by them at the polls this November.
History proves that a volatile economic environment risks conflict—
radical terrorist groups and tension over shared energy resources
could unintentionally result in a pre-emptive nuclear strike
Mathew Harris and Jennifer Burrows, National Intelligence Council,
in 2009 [Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National
Intelligence Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit
“Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf]
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is
likely to be the result of a number of intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each
with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so,
history may be more instructive than ever. While we continue to believe that the Great Depression is not
likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period include
the harmful effects on fledgling
democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in 1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability
of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period). There is no reason to think that
this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the twentieth century. For that reason, the
ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to be even more apt in a constantly
volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In surveying those risks, the
report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues move up on the
international agenda. Terrorism’s appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the Middle
East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the
diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational
structures, command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly
emergent collections of the angry and disenfranchised that become self-radicalized, particularly in the
absence of economic outlets that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The
most dangerous casualty of any economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence
would almost certainly be the Middle East. Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries
about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the region to develop new security arrangements
with external powers, acquire additional weapons, and consider pursuing their own
nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that existed between the great powers for
most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low intensity
conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could lead to an unintended escalation and
broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of
potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian
missile systems also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning
of an impending nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning
and missile flight times, and uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption
rather than defense, potentially leading to escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to
experience, such as over resources, could reemerge,particularly if protectionism grows and there is
a resort to neo-mercantilist practices. Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to
take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts
if government leaders deem assured access to energy resources, for example, to be essential for
maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions short of war, however, will
have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval buildups
and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal stimulus
focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be
military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and
counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea
lanes. With water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage
changing water resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states
in a more dog-eat-dog world.
GOP Will Cut EPA
Republicans are trying to block EPA regulations
Wallbank 6/13/14 ( Derek Wallbank, reporter for Bloomberg News, “Republicans to Try to
Block Funds for EPA Emissions Rules”, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0613/republicans-to-try-to-block-funds-for-epa-emissions-rules.html”
Republicans will try to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed greenhouse-gas
rule by denying the funding to implement it, according to a senior member of a U.S. House
appropriations panel. The funding ban “will be in Interior,” Idaho Republican Mike Simpson
said, referring to the spending bill being drafted for the Department of Interior and EPA. Simpson,
head of the House’s Energy-Water Appropriations subcommittee, formerly chairman of the Interior and Environment
appropriations panel. “We’re going to take a serious look at it,” Representative Ken Calvert, a
California Republican and chairman of the Interior-Environment subcommittee, said in a
separate interview at the Capitol. “It wouldn’t surprise me” if a funding ban were included in the
money bill his panel is crafting, he said. “There’s great interest from a lot of members.” The EPA’s proposed carbon
rule, released earlier this month, would require state-by-state limitations on carbon dioxide emissions that would reduce the
national output by 17 percent from current levels by 2030. Because the spending bill must pass to keep the Interior Department and
the EPA running, it’s an attractive vehicle for bringing media and public attention to the emissions issue. Republicans would
embrace a pitched battle over a carbon rule they say will kill jobs in coal-rich parts of the
country.
Republicans think EPA regulations will kill the economy and will fight
them
Kasperowicz 6/10/14 (Pete Kasperowicz, reporter for The Hill’s Floor Action Blog, “GOP
bill would stop EPA from emitting dangerous, job-killing regulations”,
http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2014/06/10/gop-bill-would-stop-epa-from-emittingdangerous-job-killing-regulations/ )
Dozens of House members introduced legislation on Monday aimed at curbing regulatory
emissions from the Environmental Protection Agency, which many Republicans see as a source
of dangerous rules that threaten to harm economic growth and job creation. The bill is a reaction
to the EPA’s latest rule, which would require power plants to cut their carbon emissions by 30
percent in 25 years. ep. David McKinley (R-W.Va.) proposed the Protection and Accountability
Regulatory Act, along with 66 other House Republicans and one Democrat, Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.). The
bill would nullify the EPA’s new carbon emissions rule for existing power plants, as well as the
EPA’s January rule that applies to new plants. And it would stop the EPA from issuing similar
rules on power plants for five years. “America needs to wake-up to what these regulations mean
for our economy and our future,” McKinley said. “That is why we are raising the alarm and
continuing to fight this plan at every turn.” McKinley argued that China and other countries are the biggest problems
when it comes to carbon emissions caused by burning coal. Republicans say the EPA’s new rule would to reduce global carbon
emissions because of countries like China. Republicans said last week that the EPA’s new rule is a job-killer
at a time when millions of Americans are still looking for work, and raise electricity prices on
middle class families at a time of stagnant wages. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) called
the proposal “nuts.”
.
Key To Economy
EPA regs hurt the economy- kills jobs, raises energy costs and
imposes new burdens on businesses
Lambro 6/3/14 ( Donald Lambro, journalist and chief political correspondent of The
Washington Times, “New Epa Regulations Are Political Gift for Republicans”,
http://www.uexpress.com/donald-lambro/2014/6/3/new-epa-regulations-are-political-gift “
WASHINGTON -- Just when our economy is shrinking, President Obama wants to impose harsh
environmental rules that will kill jobs, raise energy costs and impose new burdens on business.
One week after the government said the U.S. economy contracted in the first quarter, for the first time since 2011,
Obama is calling for severe new coal emissions rules that many Democrats in Congress say will hurt
their states' economies. They will result in widespread job losses, with estimates of up to half a
million workers, and likely much more than that if the new rules are fully adopted. Those jobs
would come, first and foremost, from coal-mining states, but also from many industries that are heavily
dependent on coal for their energy needs. Nearly 20 states obtain more than half their electric
power from coal-fired plants, according to the Energy Information Administration. The Chamber of
Commerce says the Environmental Protection Agency's emission rules would cost businesses
more than $50 billion.
EPA regulations will crush the economy, the poor and middle class
will be particularly impacted
Rothbard and Ruckard 6/3/14 ( David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, CFACT's President
and Executive Director, “EPA’s Next Wave Of Job-Killing CO2 Regulations”,
http://www.cfact.org/2014/06/03/epas-next-wave-of-job-killing-co2-regulations/ )
Supported by nothing but assumptions, faulty computer models and outright falsifications of
what is actually happening on our planet, President Obama, his Environmental Protection
Agency and their allies have issued more economy-crushing rules that they say will prevent
dangerous manmade climate change. Under the latest EPA regulatory onslaught (645 pages of new
rules, released June 2), by 2030 states must slash carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired electricity
generating plants by 30% below 2005 levels. The new rules supposedly give states “flexibility” in
deciding how to meet the mandates. However, many will have little choice but to impose costly
cap-tax-and-trade regimes like the ones Congress has wisely and repeatedly refused to enact.
Others will be forced to close perfectly good, highly reliable coal-fueled power plants that
currently provide affordable electricity for millions of families, factories, hospitals, schools and
businesses. The adverse impacts will be enormous. The rules will further hobble a U.S. economy
that actually shrank by 1% during the first quarter of 2014, following a pathetic 1.9% total annual
growth in 2013. They are on top of $1.9 trillion per year (one-eighth of our total economy) that
businesses and families already pay to comply with federal rules. A U.S. Chamber of Commerce
study calculates that the new regulations will cost our economy another $51 billion annually,
result in 224,000 more lost jobs every year, and cost every American household $3,400 per year
in higher prices for energy, food and other necessities. Poor, middle class and minority families
– and those already dependent on unemployment and welfare – will be impacted worst. Those in a
dozen states that depend on coal to generate 30-95% of their electricity will be hit especially hard. Millions of Americans
will endure lower quality of life and be unable to heat or cool their homes properly, pay their
rent or mortgage, or save for college and retirement. They will suffer from greater stress, worse
sleep deprivation, higher incidences of depression and alcohol, drug, spousal and child abuse,
and more heart attacks and strokes. As Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) points out, “A lot of people
on the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum are going to die.” EPA ignores all of this.
The impacts of EPA regulations will hit the poor hardest and increase
the overall unemployment rate
Morgan 6/2/14 ( John Morgan, editorial contributor to Moneynews.com, “ Furchtgott-Roth:
Carbon Emission Regs Will Kill Jobs and Hurt Poor”,
http://www.moneynews.com/Economy/Furchtgott-Roth-EPA-emissioncarbon/2014/06/02/id/574557/ )
Solar power costs twice as much as natural gas and mandating its use will kill jobs, but the
Environmental Protection Agency wants to force it on Americans anyway, according to Diana FurchtgottRoth, former chief economist for the Department of Labor. President Obama is expected to announce new "capand-trade" environmental regulations on June 2, having decided to bypass Congress and go the
regulatory route since he was unable to persuade the House and Senate to pass "cap-and-trade"
legislation. "But these steps without legislation will reduce opportunities for the poorest
Americans. Those in the lowest fifth of the income distribution spend 24 percent of their income
on energy, compared with 4 percent for those in the top fifth," she wrote in a column for Real Clear Markets.
The mandated cuts in carbon emissions will raise the cost of energy, particularly electricity, and
hit the poor hardest, according to Furchtgott-Roth. Under the expected regulations, every state would
have to meet its required target by ensuring plants reduce emissions or by financing reductions
in other ways, such as investing in more costly renewable energy including wind and solar
power. "These impose real costs on the economy, such as fewer factories, trips, and jobs.
Electricity made from solar power costs twice as much as electricity made from natural gas,"
Furchtgott-Roth explained. "Everyone wants cleaner air, but most people also want the security of employment that comes from
industrial activity." She cited a 2010 Congressional Budget Office estimate on proposed regulations
to
slash greenhouse emissions that concluded "job losses in the industries that shrink would lower
employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby
raising the overall unemployment rate."
EPA regulations are terrible for the economy—lack of flexibility will
cause power plants to close, destroying business growth and job
opportunities
Barrasso and Heitkamp 6/2/14
John, junior senator from Wyoming, Heidi, a member of the North Dakota DemocraticNonpartisan League Party, is the junior senator from North Dakota., The Wall Street Journal,
"The New Anti-Coal Rules Will Cut Jobs and Hurt the Economy", June 2 2014,
online.wsj.com/articles/the-new-anti-coal-rules-will-cut-jobs-and-hurt-the-economy1401751493
On Monday, the Obama administration unveiled new regulations to restrict the amount of carbon dioxide
produced by existing power plants. While we agree that America needs to balance energy needs with environmental
concerns, the timing of this effort could hardly be worse for the struggling U.S. economy.¶ We learned just last
week that the economy is shrinking for the first time since 2011. America's labor-force participation
remains low. Millions of Americans continue to have difficulty finding good jobs. These excessive new regulations
will likely force power plants to close, putting Americans out of work.¶ The administration repeatedly
promised to deliver regulatory certainty and give states "flexibility" if they meet the tough new standards. The fact is that states
have to present their plans to the Environmental Protection Agency for final approval. If the
EPA doesn't approve the state plan, the agency could impose its requirements on the state.¶ The
645-page rule would give states a few options to reduce emissions. Those options are still very
restrictive and will take away good jobs, increase energy costs and hurt the economy.¶ EPA
Administrator Gina McCarthy said that the agency's regulations will decrease energy costs by 8% by 2030. We remain skeptical and
believe that consumers will see higher rates. Businesses, large and small, and manufacturers will
have to pay much more for their electricity; these increased prices will be absorbed or passed on
and will further hurt the economy.¶ In states that already require higher portions of renewable fuels, electricity costs are
on average 30% higher than in other states. Recent studies have estimated that this rule would lead to certain job losses, with one
study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimating that an
aggressive carbon policy would eliminate hundreds
of thousands of jobs by forcing coal-fired power plants to shut down. This does not even begin to
address capacity and reliability issues that the administration all too often brushes aside.¶ Coalfired power plants will be especially hard hit, disproportionately hurting coal-producing states like Wyoming, North Dakota,
Pennsylvania and Montana.¶ When excessive Washington red tape closes a power plant or a coal mine
in
a small community, those jobs aren't the only ones to go. The lost revenue base hurts public
schools, police and busing services for seniors who can't drive. Teachers, laborers and doctors
move away, looking for a better chance somewhere else. Small businesses don't have enough
customers, so they shut down—the town withers away. The pain is felt locally, but America's
environmental policies must reflect the fact that carbon dioxide is produced globally. The U.S. share of carbon-dioxide
emissions has been dropping for more than a decade. Meanwhile, emissions in developing
countries have soared. China's have increased by 173% from 1998 to 2011.¶ These new EPA policies
will produce minimal environmental benefits unless other countries also aggressively reduce
emissions, to the detriment of their economies. That is unlikely in the near term.¶
Regs bad for the economy
COC 14
The United States Chamber of Commerce, in collaboration with the Institute for 21st Century
Energy and IHS, which provided experts to analyze the impact of carbon regulations, "Assessing
the Impact of Potential New Carbon Regulations in the United States",
www.energyxxi.org/sites/default/files/filetool/Assessing_the_Impact_of_Potential_New_Carbon_Regulations_in_the_United_States.p
df
U.S. economy results and implications¶ The overarching objective of the economic impact ¶ analysis
conducted for this study was to quantify ¶ the impacts, both on U.S. national and regional ¶ economies,
of aiming for the Policy Case’s reduction ¶ in power sector CO2¶ emissions by 2030. These higher ¶
electricity prices will absorb more of the disposable ¶ income that households draw from to pay
essential ¶ expenses such as mortgages, food and utilities. In ¶ turn, this will lead to moderately less
discretionary ¶ spending and lower consumer savings rates.¶ More significant, however, are the
opportunity costs ¶ associated with approaching the emissions reduction target by 2030. The
$480 billion required to achieve ¶ compliance or replace prematurely one source of ¶ electricity generation with
another represents an ¶ unproductive use of capital, meaning that the Policy ¶ Case’s spending in
pursuit of regulatory compliance ¶ rather than economic expansion will lead to an
overall ¶ drop in U.S. economic output , relative to the Reference ¶ Case. The subsequent negative
impacts on GDP and ¶ employment will exert additional downward pressure on ¶ disposable
income and consumer spending.¶ In the Policy Case, GDP is expected to average ¶ about $51 billion lower than in the
Reference Case¶ to 2030 (Table ES-3), with a peak decline of nearly ¶ $104 billion in 2025. These substantial GDP losses ¶
will be accompanied by losses in employment. On ¶ average, from 2014 to 2030, the U.S. economy will
¶ have 224,000 fewer jobs (Table ES-3), with a peak ¶ decline in employment of 442,000 jobs in 2022
(Figure ¶ ES-1). These job losses represent lost opportunities ¶ and income for hundreds of thousands
of people that ¶ can never be recovered. Slower economic growth, ¶ job losses, and higher energy
costs mean that annual ¶ real disposable household income will decline on an ¶ average of more than
$200, with a peak loss of $367 ¶ in 2025. In fact, the typical household could lose a ¶ total of $3,400 in real disposable income during
the ¶ modeled 2014-30 timeframe.¶ The economic impact will vary significantly across ¶ the nine U.S.
Census Divisions examined. Because ¶ California’s cap and trade program and the Regional ¶ Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI) that includes nine ¶ Northeastern States are included in the Reference ¶ Case, these regions are not significantly affected by ¶
federal CO2¶ regulations. The cost of compliance for ¶ state-based regimes in these regions will already ¶
result in significant economic impacts, including high ¶ electricity prices, making the discussion about
federal ¶ regulations less relevant. Despite California’s lead in ¶ compliance, however, the remaining states will drag the ¶ Pacific
region down moderately in the early years. The ¶ Northeast, on the other hand, will see little additional ¶ impact on its already high
and increasing electricity ¶ rates from the imposition of a federal CO2¶ regime.¶ The need to replace large portions of the coal ¶
generation fleet in the midcontinent Census Divisions ¶ (East North Central, East South Central, West North ¶ Central, and West
South Central), however, means that ¶ these regions will experience the bulk of the economic ¶ distress in the early years, followed by
the South ¶ Atlantic4¶ in the latter years.¶ Overall, the South Atlantic will be hit the hardest in ¶ terms of GDP
and employment declines. Its GDP ¶ losses make up about one-fifth of total U.S. GDP ¶ losses, with an average annual loss
of $10.5 billion and ¶ a peak loss of nearly $22 billion in 2025. This region ¶ also will have an average of 60,000 fewer jobs over ¶ the
2014-30 forecast period, hitting a 171,000 job loss ¶ trough in 2022.¶ The West South Central5¶ region also takes a big hit, ¶ losing on
average $8.2 billion dollars in economic ¶ output each year and 36,000 jobs.
AT: Warming Impact Turn
EPA regulations can’t solve warming
-at best it would only decrease temperatures by .05 degrees by 2100
-sources are biased and receive money and tax exemptions from the green industry
That’s David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, president and executive
director of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 6/5/14
David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational
organization devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive
director, “EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014,
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564
It also ignores the fact that, based to the agency’s own data, shutting down every coal-fired
power plant in the USA would reduce the alleged increase in global temperatures by a mere 0.05
degrees F by 2100!¶ President Obama nevertheless says the costly regulations are needed to
reduce “carbon pollution” that he claims is making “extreme weather events” like Superstorm
Sandy “more common and more devastating.” The rules will also prevent up to 100,000 asthma
attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in their first year alone, while also curbing sea level rise, forest
fires and other supposed impacts from “climate disruption,” according to ridiculous talking
points provided by EPA boss Gina McCarthy.¶ As part of a nationwide White House campaign to
promote and justify the regulations, the American Lung Association echoed the health claims.
The Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules will “drive innovation and investment” in
green technology, creating “hundreds of thousands” of new jobs.¶ Bear in mind, the ALA received
over $20 million from the EPA between 2001 and 2010. NRDC spends nearly $100 million per
year (2012 IRS data) advancing its radical agenda. Both are part of a $13.4-billion-per-year U.S.
Big Green industry that includes the Sierra Club and Sierra Club Foundation ($145 million per
year), National Audubon Society ($96 million), Environmental Defense Fund ($112 million
annually), Greenpeace USA and Greenpeace Fund ($46 million), and numerous other special
interest groups dedicated to slashing fossil fuel use and reducing our living standards. All are
tax-exempt.¶ As to the claims themselves, they are as credible as the endlessly repeated
assertions that we will all be able to keep our doctor and insurance policies, Benghazi was a
spontaneous protest, and there is not a scintilla of corruption in the IRS denials of tax-exempt
status to conservative groups.
EPA regs don’t solve warming
That’s David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, president and executive
director of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, 6/5/14
David, president of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, a nonprofit educational
organization devoted to both people and the environment, Craig Rucker is CFACT’s executive
director, “EPA’s next wave of job-killing CO2 regulations", June 5 2014,
canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/63564
The very term “carbon pollution” is deliberately disingenuous. The rules do not target carbon (aka soot). They target
carbon dioxide. This is the gas that all humans and animals exhale. It makes life on Earth possible.
It makes crops and other plants grow faster and better. As thousands of scientists emphasize, at just 0.04% of our
atmosphere, CO2 plays only a minor role in climate change—especially compared to water vapor
and the incredibly powerful solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that have caused
warm periods, ice ages and little ice ages, and controlled climate and weather for countless
millennia.¶ The terrible disasters that the President and other climate alarmists attribute to fossil fuels,
carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases are creatures of computer models that have gotten virtually
no predictions correct. That should hardly be surprising. The models are based on faulty assumptions of
every size and description, and are fed a steady diet of junk science and distorted data. We
shouldn’t trust them any more than we would trust con artists who claim their computers can
predict stock markets or Super Bowl and World Series winners—even one year in advance, much less 50 or
100 years.¶ The models should absolutely not be trusted as the basis for regulations that will cripple our economy.¶ Contrary to
model predictions and White House assertions, average global temperatures have not risen in
almost 18 years. It’s now been over eight years since a category 3-5 hurricane hit the United
States—the longest such period in over a century. Tornadoes are at a multi-decade low. Droughts are
no more intense or frequent than since 1900. There were fewer than half as many forest fires last year as during the 1960s and
1970s. Sea levels rose just eight inches over the last 130 years and are currently rising at barely
seven inches per century. There’s still ice on Lake Superior—in June! Runaway global warming , indeed.¶
is not dangerous . It’s not because of humans. It does not justify what the White House is doing.¶ Asthma has been
increasing for years—while air pollution has been decreasing. The two are not related. In fact, as EPA data attest, between
1970 and 2010, real air pollution from coal-fired power plants has plummeted dramatically—
and will continue to do so because of existing rules and technologies.¶ For once the President is not
“leading from behind” on foreign policy. However, there is no truth to his claim that other countries will
follow our lead on closing coal-fired power plants and slashing carbon dioxide emissions. China,
India and dozens of other developing countries are rapidly building coal-fueled generators, so that
billions of people will finally enjoy the blessings of electricity and be lifted out of poverty. Even European countries are
burning more coal to generate electricity, because they finally realize they cannot keep
subsidizing wind and solar, while killing their energy-intensive industries.¶ Then what is really going on
here? Why is President Obama imposing some of the most pointless and destructive regulations in American history? He is
keeping his campaign promises to his far-left and hard-green ideological supporters, who detest
hydrocarbons and want to use climate change to justify their socio-economic-environmental
agenda.¶
This
TPP
1NC
A GOP midterm win is key to the Asia Pivot---Democrats would be
comparably worse.
Keck 4-22
Associate Editor at The Diplomat, Previously, he worked as Deputy Editor of e-International
Relations, the Center for a New American Security and in the U.S. Congress (Zachary, "The
Midterm Elections and the Asia Pivot," 2014, thediplomat.com/2014/04/the-midtermelections-and-the-asia-pivot/)
But it needn’t be all doom and gloom for U.S. foreign policy, including in the Asia-Pacific. In fact, the Republicans
wrestling control of the Senate from the Democrats this November could be a boon for the U.S.
Asia pivot. This is true for at least three reasons.¶ First, with little prospect of getting any of his domestic
agenda through Congress, President Barack Obama will naturally focus his attention on foreign
affairs. Presidents in general have a tendency to focus more attention on foreign policy during their second term, and this effect is
magnified if the other party controls the legislature. And for good reason: U.S. presidents have far more latitude to take unilateral
action in the realm of foreign affairs than in domestic policy. Additionally, the 2016 presidential election will consume much of the
country’s media’s attention on domestic matters. It’s only when acting on the world stage that the president will still be able to stand
taller in the media’s eyes than the candidates running to for legislative office.¶ Second, should the Democrats get
pummeled in the midterm elections this year, President Obama is likely to make some personnel
changes in the White House and cabinet. For instance, after the Republican Party incurred losses in
the 2006 midterms, then-President George W. Bush quickly moved to replace Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld with the less partisan (at least in that era) Robert Gates. Obama followed suit by making key
personnel changes after the Democrats “shellacking” in the 2010 midterm elections.¶ Should the Democrats face a similar fate in the
2014 midterm elections, Obama is also likely to make notable personnel changes. Other aides, particular former Clinton aides, are
likely to leave the administration early in order to start vying for spots on Hillary Clinton’s presumed presidential campaign. Many
of these changes are likely to be with domestic advisors given that domestic issues are certain to decide this year’s elections. Even so,
many nominally domestic positions—such as Treasury and Commerce Secretary—have important implications for U.S. policy in
Asia. Moreover, some of the post-election changes are likely be foreign policy and defense positions,
which bodes well for Asia given the appalling lack of Asia expertise among Obama’s current
senior advisors.¶ But the most important way a Republican victory in November will help the Asia Pivot is that the GOP in
Congress are actually more favorable to the pivot than are members of Obama’s own party. For
example, Congressional opposition to granting President Trade Promotional Authority — which is key to getting the
Trans-Pacific Partnership ratified — is largely from Democratic legislators. Similarly, it is the
Democrats who are largely in favor of the defense budget cuts that threaten to undermine
America’s military posture in Asia.¶ If Republicans do prevail in November, President Obama
will naturally want to find ways to bridge the very wide partisan gap between them. Asia offers
the perfect issue area to begin reaching across the aisle.¶ The Republicans would have every
incentive to reciprocate the President’s outreach. After all, by giving them control of the entire Legislative
Branch, American voters will be expecting some results from the GOP before they would be
ostensibly be ready to elect them to the White House in 2016. A Republican failure to achieve
anything between 2014 and 2016 would risk putting the GOP in the same dilemma they faced in
the 1996 and 2012 presidential elections. Working with the president to pass the TPP and
strengthen America’s military’s posture in Asia would be ideal ways for the GOP to deliver
results without violating their principles.
The pivot solves a US-China conflict---only US assurances can create
convergence and maintain stability.
Mendis 3-6
Senior Fellow and Affiliate Professor at the School of Public Policy, George Mason University
(Patrick, "How Washington’s Asia pivot and the TPP can benefit Sino–American relations,"
2013, www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/06/how-washingtons-asia-pivot-and-the-tpp-canbenefit-sino-american-relations/)
In November 2011, President Obama embarked on an unusually lengthy ten day tour of the Asia
Pacific during which he met with over 25 heads of state, reiterating America’s commitment to and presence in the Asia Pacific
and, most significantly, reaffirming the new Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).¶ The TPP aims to create a tariffeliminating, free trade zone through a network of expansive trade agreements with eligible Pacific Rim economies. Launched in
2006 as a free trade pact between Brunei Darussalam, Chile, New Zealand and Singapore, the TPP has expanded to include
negotiations with the Australia, Malaysia, Peru and Vietnam. It forms a key part of the Obama administration’s
new ‘Asia pivot’ policy, which calls for a shift of security priorities from the Middle East and
Europe to the Asia Pacific.¶ Yet China, the world’s second-largest economy and Asia’s dominant economic and trading
power, is noticeably absent from the TPP. China views the TPP, and other aspects of the Washington’s pivot strategy (including the
US Marine’s revived presence in Australia and strengthened ties to countries such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) as part of a new containment policy not unlike that employed against the former Soviet
Union. According to state-run Chinese Xinhua news, American intervention in South China Sea disputes is seen as part of a set of
ongoing ‘provocative moves’ under the guise of freedom of navigation. Overseas, Obama’s Asia pivot has also played out as a clear
attempt to comprehensively contain China and to counterbalance a perceived China threat.¶ But Washington’s pivot
strategy is better understood within a new framework of mutually assured prosperity (MAP) — a
twist on the Cold War containment practices backed by a doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD).¶ First, at present, strong
interdependent economic relations exist as importer–exporter, debtor–creditor and consumer–producer between the United States
and China. This already forces the two countries to caution and resort to trade diplomacy within the WTO framework, rather than
retaliatory competition or military threats to resolve differences.¶ Second, Sino–American trade and commercial history suggests
that convergence between the two largest economies — intensifying indirectly and multilaterally
through the TPP — may instead solidify this existing symbiotic economic relationship. Since
America’s founding, commerce has been the uniting factor among states and with foreign nations. To achieve Thomas Jefferson’s
vision of an ‘Empire of Liberty,’ Alexander Hamilton devised an ingenious strategy that entailed a strong manufacturing base, a
national banking system, the centralised federal government and an export-led economic and trade scheme protected by the US
Navy. Similarly, Deng Xiaoping’s export-led liberalisation of Chinese economic policy also implicitly recognised the role of trade and
commerce as a unifier of peoples.¶ There are three dimensions to the new MAP framework — geopolitics, geo-economics and geosecurity — intertwined to the extent that the lines of distinction between each are blurred. Geopolitically, Washington’s reengagement with the Asia Pacific after a decade of distraction is not so much a paradigm shift as the revival of a traditional and
historic role. Since the Cold War, the United States has underwritten the regional security architecture through bilateral ties with
allies such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. In recent years as South China Sea tensions have
intensified, Beijing’s perceived use of force in its own neighborhood causes weaker states to question the necessity of its current
status as a regional hegemon, and to look for a balancer. America’s return to the Asian region reassures
stakeholders that China will not overwhelm its neighbors.¶ Economically, through trade engagement
and transparency via the TPP, Washington affords smaller countries the opportunity to
collectively rebalance asymmetries in bilateral trade with China without undermining China as a
valued and vital trade partner. This simultaneously eliminates the need for naval competition,
reducing the likelihood of hostile engagement over South China Sea disputes of the socalled gunboat diplomacy sort — a term often applied to Washington’s historically preferred method of advancing foreign
trade policy objectives in Asia.¶ Meanwhile, from a security perspective, China will be able to continue to
prosper from regional stability. The expansion of Chinese military capabilities and the establishment of ports of call for
PLA Navy ships will seem less threatening if the US Navy is engaged in the region in a cooperative, multilateral fashion, avoiding
direct confrontation but implicitly projecting the show of force without war to restrain the adversarial behaviour. This may give
China the space to ease into its role as the dominant — but not domineering — regional power in a way that will best serve its own
economic growth and national security interests. It is also the finest insurance policy for China that holds over $1 trillion worth of
American treasury securities.¶ Ultimately, a regional TPP-led free trade zone is the best ‘pacifying’
security architecture for long-term stability between the two economic superpowers in the
Pacific Ocean. The TPP will deliver benefits for individual restraint between the two power
centres, and may advance regional development, encourage the integration of the Chinese
economy, and allow surrounding nations to hedge their bets on (and therefore contribute to)
China’s ‘Peaceful Rise.’ In the Asian century, alliances are complex, and multilateralism and flexibility are the new currency.
This era of Sino–American relations will require measured diplomacy.
This conflict would be catastrophic and involve nuclear weapons--East Asia is a particulary volatile hotspot
Doble 11
John, has an M.A. in International Affairs from American University and a B.A. in Political
Science and History from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. “Maritime Disputes a Likely
Source of Future Conflict” http://www.policymic.com/articles/2279/maritime-disputes-a-likely-source-of-future-conflict
December]//BM
Yesterday, the U.S. and China were involved in a nuclear exchange . The cause of this conflict was a war
brought about between China and the Philippines after the Philippines seized several of the Spratly Islands
to secure natural resources and the sea lanes traversing the South China seas, both of which it would use to advance itself in
the global economy. China refused to accept this action and attacked, and the U.S. was dragged in after the president
was pressured by Congress and American allies to honor America’s mutual-defense agreement with the Philippines. The result
was disastrous . While this is a hypothetical example, similar scenarios are becoming increasingly probable. Due
to increasing economic competition and climate change, a source of future conflict will be the contest for
control over the seas. The U.S. must adequately plan for future contingencies to avoid any surprises and to discern what it
needs to do to prevent the worst-case scenario from occurring. Economic competition on the seas can be seen most
clearly in terms of port construction. As it stands, over 90% of all goods measured by weight or volume are transported by cargo
ship, and port construction greatly increase a nation’s access to foreign markets and appeal as a manufacturing center. Conversely, a
nation’s investment in ports reduces the amount of goods traveling to other nations, thus damaging their economies. Unlike other
forms of infrastructure investment, maritime infrastructure implicitly affects international security. This competition has already
created conflict in the Middle East. Bilateral efforts to improve relations between Iraq and Kuwait were scuttled earlier this year
after Kuwait announced it was investing heavily in building a new port (the Mubarak Kabeer) only 20 kilometers away from a port
Iraq was building (the Grand al-Faw). Rapprochement swiftly ended over Iraqi fears of economic strangulation and calls for eternal
brotherhood were replaced by curses. Nowadays, rumors abound that Iraqi and Kuwaiti forces are infiltrating the border areas and
Iraqi militants have already launched rockets from Iraq into Kuwait and threatened to kidnap the contractors building the Mubarak
Kabeer port. While threatening, this conflict is unlikely to explode as Iraq is in no shape to wage war and labors under a history of
belligerence it is trying to expunge. But what if a similar sequence of events occurred in Southeast/East Asia, where GDP is growing
an average of 6%-7% a year(with China at 9.1%) and states can operate more freely? The U.S. is investing more resources in the
region at the exact moment when growing economic competition make conflict more likely. Secondly, climate change will soon have
a massive impact on the world’s coastal areas. Global sea levels are likely to rise between 80 to 200cm at the end of the century and
would submerge large tracts of land, displacing millions of people and wiping out urban and agricultural areas. Since they are built
on the coast, this would also damage or destroy many ports worldwide and jeopardize international commerce as we know it. These
losses would be difficult to replace given the increased environmental pressures Southeast/East Asian states would face as well as
the spillover problems that would arise as low-lying countries sink into the sea and collapse. Competition over the ports
that survive
will be fierce as whoever possesses them would likely dominate the sea lanes and international
commerce for some time, leading to regional dominance. Similarly, economic competition and climate change are going
to going to cause havoc on the military industrial base supporting naval power in the region. It is expensive to build a competitive
navy, and many states will be unable to afford it if they need to constantly adapt to economic and environmental pressure. China and
India are already building up their naval forces and will likely be naval powers into the foreseeable future, but the U.S. will gain a lot
of allies in the future struggling to get the U.S. involved in every security dispute they have. Like WWI, someone may gamble
incorrectly, and a conflict that starts as a minor incident may explode into something much greater. The U.S. consequently
needs to utilize all facets of American power, from military to diplomatic to foreign aid, to confront these complex
challenges and prevent them from escalating out of control . We need to promote broader acceptance of free
trade on the open seas as well as democratic governance to limit the appeal of coercive power and the ability to use that power
arbitrarily. We need a way to maintain the strength of our alliances without getting sucked into conflicts we don’t want, besides
selling more weapons that only make war increasingly likely. Regardless of the exact policies, policymakers need to start thinking
ahead on how it will deal with the implications economic competition and climate change are going to have on maritime power.
Intelligent observers of the Middle East knew for years that the authoritarian status quo was unsustainable, yet no plans were made
to respond to the collapse of those regimes and our response could have been better. Current trends indicate that the
current status quo in Southeast/East Asia is equally untenable. Do we have a plan in place?
Exts – TPP Solves China
TPP is key to contain Chinese aggression in the South China Sea
Gordon 2011 – BERNARD GORDON is Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of New Hampshire, and
the author, most recently, of America’s Trade Follies. (“The Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Rise of China”, Foreign Affairs,
November 7, 2011, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136647/bernard-k-gordon/the-trans-pacific-partnership-and-the-riseof-china?page=show)
The final factor is China’s new foreign policy assertiveness. An early sign was Beijing’s revival, in
2010, of claims to islands in the South China Sea, an issue that has roiled relations between China
and its neighbors since the mid-1990s. In 2002, China and its neighbors in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations agreed to resolve the
claims multilaterally, but China later insisted on dealing bilaterally with each neighbor . China’s foreign minister
argued at the time, “China is a big country and other countries are small countries, and that’s just a fact.” Japan bore the brunt of
Chinese belligerence in September 2010, when a Chinese fishing trawler rammed one of its coast
guard boats. When Japan arrested the trawler’s captain, Beijing demanded that Japan apologize
and release him, and it stopped exports to Japan of crucial rare-earth minerals. Maehara, then
foreign minister, called China’s reaction “hysterical”; now a central player in the Noda government, he is among Japan’s most popular politicians. In a
recent speech in Washington, reflecting Tokyo’s assessment, he expressed
worries about how China’s rise “alters the
power balance of the game in the region.” Such statements show that Japan has come a long way from where it was in 2009,
when former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama urged Japan to integrate more with Asia and to adopt a policy of “equidistance” between Beijing and
Washington. The Noda government has instead reinforced its already close ties with Washington, and many
Japanese now argue that
Japan must join in the booming transpacific trade to escape the economic doldrums of the past
two decades. “Japan should harness the energy of the Asia-Pacific region,” Noda said at a Democratic Party of Japan meeting in August, “and
use it for economic recovery.” The U.S. ambassador in Tokyo, John Roos, recently remarked that Japan’s inclusion in the TPP
would be a “game changer.” He is right. A transpacific trade agreement with Japan on board would
be a victory for the principle of an open international system. Moreover, as an adviser to Prime Minister Noda stated
earlier this month, Tokyo joining the TPP talks would help it “consolidate a strategic environment that
gives China the impression that Japan is a formidable country that can’t be intimidated.”
Nations of the region need not succumb to the inevitability of a Pacific dominated by China. A
Trans-Pacific Partnership composed of Japan, the United States, Australia, and the group’s smaller economies represents a
healthier alternative -- one that realists would recognize as a step toward a classic balance of
power.
The alliance prevents violent China rise and Chinese social unrest
Armitage and Nye 12
(Richard L. Armitage is president of Armitage International and a trustee of CSIS. From 2001 to¶ 2005, he
served as U.S. deputy secretary of state. In the course of his career, he has been engaged¶ in a range of worldwide business and public policy endeavors,
as well as frequent public speaking¶ and writing. From 1992 to 1993, Mr. Armitage (with the personal rank of ambassador) directed¶ U.S. assistance to
the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union. From 1989 to 1992,¶ he filled key diplomatic positions as presidential special negotiator for
the Philippines Military¶ Bases Agreement and special mediator for water in the Middle East. President George H.W. Bush¶ sent him as a special
emissary to Jordan’s King Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War. In the Pentagon¶ from 1983 to 1989, he served as assistant secretary of defense for
international security affairs. Mr.¶ Armitage graduated in 1967 from the U.S. Naval Academy, where he was commissioned an ensign¶ in the U.S. Navy.
He served on a destroyer stationed on the Vietnam gun line and subsequently¶ completed three combat tours in Vietnam. He has received numerous
U.S. military decorations, as¶ well as decorations from the governments of Thailand, the Republic of Korea, Bahrain, and Pakistan.¶ In 2010, Mr.
Armitage was appointed an honorary companion of the Order of Australia, and¶ in 2005, he became a Knight Commander of the Order of St. Michael
and St. George. Mr. Armitage¶ currently serves on the boards of ConocoPhillips, ManTech International Corporation, and¶ Transcu Group Ltd. He is
also a member of the American Academy of Diplomacy. He was most¶ recently awarded the Department of State Distinguished Service Award and has
received the Department¶ of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service four times, the Secretary of Defense¶ Medal for Outstanding Public
Service, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Award for Outstanding¶ Public Service, the Presidential Citizens Medal, and the Department of State
Distinguished Honor¶ Award.¶ Joseph S. Nye is dean emeritus of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and¶ a trustee of CSIS. He
joined the Harvard faculty in 1964 and has served as director of the Center¶ for International Affairs, Dillon Professor of International Affairs, and
associate dean of arts and¶ sciences. From 1977 to 1979, Dr. Nye served as deputy to the U.S. under secretary of state for¶ security assistance, science,
and technology and chaired the National Security Council Group on¶ Nonproliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In 1993 and 1994, he was chairman of the
National Intelligence¶ Council, which coordinates intelligence estimates for the president. In 1994 and 1995, he¶ served as assistant secretary of defense
for international security affairs. In all three agencies, he¶ received distinguished service awards. Dr. Nye is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts
and¶ Sciences and the American Academy of Diplomacy and a member of the Executive Committee of¶ the Trilateral Commission. Dr. Nye has also
served as a director of the Aspen Strategy Group, as¶ a director of the Institute for East-West Security Studies, as a director of the International
Institute¶ for Strategic Studies, as U.S. representative on the UN Advisory Committee on Disarmament¶ Affairs, and as a member of the Advisory
Committee of the Institute of International Economics. He received his bachelor’s degree summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1958. He did¶
postgraduate work at Oxford University on a Rhodes scholarship and earned a Ph.D. in political¶ science from Harvard University. Dr. Nye has also
taught for brief periods in Geneva, Ottawa,¶ and London and has lived for extended periods in Europe, East Africa, and Central America. He¶ is the
author of numerous books, including The Future of Power (PublicAffairs, 2011), The Powers¶ to Lead (Oxford University Press, 2008), and Soft Power:
The Means to Success in World Politics¶ (PublicAffairs, 2004), “The U.S.-Japan Alliance¶ anchoring stability in asia,” August 2012, Online, PDF)
GANGEEZY
China’s meteoric rise in economic heft, military muscle, and political clout over the past three¶
decades has not only dramatically revamped the world’s most populous nation, it has also decisively¶ shaped
East Asia’s post–Cold War geopolitical landscape. Far from being a constraint on¶ China’s re-rise, the strong
U.S.-Japan alliance has contributed to it by helping to provide a stable,¶ predictable, and secure
environment within which China has flourished. The alliance has a stake¶ in China’s success. However, the lack of
transparency and ambiguity as to how China intends to¶ use its newfound power—to reinforce existing international norms, to revise
them according to¶ Beijing’s national interests, or both—is an area of growing concern.¶ One area of particular unease is
China’s possibly expanding core interests. In addition to the¶ official three—Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan—there has
been reference to the South China Sea¶ and the Senkaku Islands as emerging interests. While the latter are unofficial and
undeclared, the¶ People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy’s increased presence in the South China Sea and East China ¶ Sea leads us to
deduce otherwise. The shared theme of sovereignty further raises questions about¶ Beijing’s
intentions in the Senkakus and the South China Sea. One thing is certain—China’s ambiguity¶ of
core interest claims further reduces its diplomatic credibility in the region.¶ The alliance’s
strategy toward China has been a blend of engagement and hedging, befitting¶ the uncertainties
about how China might choose to use its rapidly growing comprehensive national¶ power. But most
aspects of the allied hedge against China’s growing military power and political¶ assertiveness—the gradual expansion in the
geographic scope of alliance activities, joint work on¶ missile defense technologies, heightened attention to interoperability and to
missions related to¶ sustaining sea lines of communication, efforts to strengthen regional institutions such as the Association¶ of
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), renewed focus on freedom of navigation, and the¶ launch in December 2011 of a new trilateral
U.S.-Japan-India strategic dialogue—have been based¶ on the assumption that China will continue along a path of high economic
growth, making possible¶ comparable increases in defense spending and capabilities.¶ That assumption is no longer
assured. As China moves into its fourth decade since the launch¶ of “reform and opening up” by
Deng Xiao-ping in 1979, there are many indications that growth¶ is slowing. Questions exist about the
ability of China to move from an export-led to internalconsumption-¶ driven economy. In the years
ahead, China’s leaders will have to tackle at least six¶ demons: energy constraints, calamitous environmental degradation, daunting
demographic realities,¶ widening income inequality among people and provinces, restive ethnic minorities in Xinjiang¶ and Tibet,
and endemic official corruption. Economic success adds to this list the uncertainty¶ of coping with the
“middle income trap,” whereby a growing middle income cohort puts exceptional¶ pressure on
the Chinese political structure to meet rising expectations. Any one of these¶ challenges could
derail China’s economic growth path and threaten social stability. The Chinese¶ Communist Party (CCP) is
aware of these daunting challenges, which is one reason its leaders¶ boosted spending on internal security to more than $120 billion
for 2012, roughly comparable to¶ the defense budget. The PLA remains focused on developing the wherewithal to deal with external¶
threats, including deterring Taiwan from moves toward de jure independence. But, the CCP is¶ equally concerned about internal
threats.¶ A China that stumbles badly could present the alliance with challenges that are not
necessarily¶ smaller—just different. We all have much to gain from a peaceful and prosperous
China.¶ Alternatively, Chinese leaders confronting severe internal fissures could take refuge in
nationalism,¶ perhaps exploiting an external threat, real or imagined, to re-forge unity. To sustain
order, the¶ leadership could turn to ever more draconian measures, exacerbating existing human rights violations, ¶ alienating some
foreign partners, and undermining the political consensus that has driven¶ Western engagement with China since the Nixon opening
40 years ago.
TPP Impact: US-Japan Relations
TPP k2 US-Japan relations
Terada 12 – Takashi Terada is currently a Japan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, DC, within a
program funded by the Sasakawa Peace Foundation. In April 2012 he will become Professor of Political Science at Doshisha
University. Previously, he was a Professor of International Relations at the Organization for Asian Studies at Waseda University. He
received his Ph.D from Australian National University and has served as an Assistant Professor at National University of Singapore
(1999-2006) and Associate Professor at Waseda University (2006- 2008). (“Japan and the Trans-Pacific Partnership”, Sasakawa
Peace Foundation USA, February 2012, http://www.spfusa.org/files/Japanandtpp_terada.pdf)
On November 11, 2011, the day before the United States hosted the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Leaders’ Summit in
Honolulu, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced, “I have decided to enter into consultations toward participating in the TransPacific Partnership negotiations with the countries concerned.” While the Prime Minister’s announcement was less than a forceful
articulation of intent, with Japan’s economy twice the size of the eight countries currently
participating in TPP negotiations with the United States, Japan’s potential entry is important for
the pact’s emergence as the preeminent trade agreement in the Asia Pacific. TPP, moreover, has
developed into the most important issue on the U.S. trade agenda and is vitally linked to
Washington’s new “rebalancing” strategy toward the Asia Pacific. Japan’s potential entry into
the agreement has thus become a focal point of the U.S.- Japan relations with important
implications for the future of that relationship and the region’s broader economic architecture. Japan’s
decision on TPP likely will also be viewed as an indication of the direction the country chooses to
take as its population ages and decreases in size, its economy declines relative to that of China and much of the rest of East Asia,
and as the country seeks to rebuild in the aftermath of the Great East Japan Earthquake. To examine the economic, political and
strategic implications of Japan’s potential entry into TPP, the Sasakawa Peace Foundation USA, in cooperation with the Brookings
Institution, convened a half-day conference on December 2, 2011. Senior current and former government officials, representatives of
the business and academic communities from both countries, the first director general of the World Trade Organization and other
experts participated. The commentary below builds on the results of that conference. Prime Minister Noda’s predecessor, Naoto
Kan, asserted that the impact of joining TPP, along with progress on other smaller trade initiatives, would constitute “the third
opening of Japan.” In effect, he viewed Japan’s accession to TPP and the implementation of a final agreement as comparable to the
revolutionary changes the country undertook first in the Meiji era, and second, in the aftermath of World War II. While Kan’s
description exaggerates the impact of TPP on Japan, current member countries—Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New
Zealand, Brunei, Vietnam, Chile, Peru and the United States—are
seeking a highly ambitious trade and
investment accord addressing regulatory convergence, issues posed by stateowned enterprises,
supply chains, intellectual property and other so-called “21st century” issues that in some cases go
beyond current World Trade Organization rules. Participating countries are seeking to make TPP a model free trade agreement, one
that will be open to new members and will serve as a stepping stone to a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific (FTAAP) encompassing
the world’s most dynamic region and economies representing more than half of global economic output and trade. Within
Japan, support for the country’s accession to TPP is led by the business community. As Kiyoaki
Aburaki, the U.S Representative of Keidanren, the Japan Business Federation, noted at the SPFUSA/ Brookings conference, TPP
will provide Japan opportunities for global business and domestic reforms that will benefit
Japan’s economy, enhance U.S.-Japan economic integration and strengthen the overall transPacific trade architecture. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI), has asserted that if Japan fails to join
TPP, the country would lose ¥10.5 trillion yen in gross domestic product as of 2020 (about 2% of GDP), while the Cabinet Office has
estimated that participation in TPP would boost Japan’s real GDP by ¥2.5-3.2 by 2018.
The alliance solves multiple threats to escalate to global nuclear war
Gates 11 (Robert, U.S. Secretary of Defense, “U.S.-Japan Alliance a Cornerstone of Asian Security”, Speech to Keio University, 114, http://www.defense.gov/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1529)
Over the course of its history, the
U.S.-Japan alliance has succeeded at its original core purpose – to deter
military aggression and provide an umbrella of security under which Japan – and the region –
can prosper. Today, our alliance is growing deeper and broader as we address a range of security
challenges in Asia. Some, like North Korea, piracy or natural disasters, have been around for
decades, centuries, or since the beginning of time. Others, such as global terrorist networks,
cyber attacks, and nuclear proliferation are of a more recent vintage. What these issues have in
common is that they all require multiple nations working together – and they also almost always
require leadership and involvement by key regional players such as the U.S. and Japan. In turn, we
express our shared values by increasing our alliance’s capacity to provide humanitarian aid and disaster relief, take part in peace-keeping operations,
protect the global commons, and promote cooperation and build trust through strengthening regional institutions. Everyone gathered here knows the
crippling devastation that can be caused by natural disasters – and the U.S. and Japan, along with our partners in the region, recognize that responding
to these crises is a security imperative. In recent years, U.S. and Japanese forces delivered aid to remote earthquake-stricken regions on Indonesia, and
U.S. aircraft based in Japan helped deliver assistance to typhoon victims in Burma. We worked together in response to the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami,
earthquakes in Java, Sumatra, and Haiti, and most recently following the floods in Pakistan. These efforts have demonstrated the forward deployment
of U.S. forces in Japan is of real and life-saving value. They also provide new opportunities for the U.S. and Japanese forces to operate together by
conducting joint exercises and missions. Furthermore, U.S. and Japanese troops have been working on the global stage to confront the threat of failed
or failing states. Japanese peacekeepers have operated around the world, including the Golan Heights and East Timor and assisted with the
reconstruction of Iraq. In Afghanistan, Japan represents the second largest financial donor, making substantive contributions to the international effort
by funding the salaries of the Afghan National Police and helping the Afghan government integrate former insurgents. Japan and the United States also
continue to cooperate closely to ensure the maritime commons are safe and secure for commercial traffic. Our maritime forces work hand-in-glove in
the Western Pacific as well as in other sea passages such as the Strait of Malacca between Malaysia and Indonesia, where more than a third of the
world’s oil and trade shipments pass through every year. Around the Horn of Africa, Japan has deployed surface ships and patrol aircraft that operate
alongside those from all over the world drawn by the common goal to counter piracy in vital sea lanes. Participating in these activities thrusts Japan’s
military into a relatively new, and at times sensitive role, as an exporter of security. This is a far cry from the situation of even two decades ago when, as
I remember well as a senior national security official, Japan was criticized for so-called “checkbook diplomacy” – sending money but not troops – to
help the anti-Saddam coalition during the First Gulf War. By showing more willingness to send self-defense forces abroad under international auspices
– consistent with your constitution – Japan is taking its rightful place alongside the world’s other great democracies. That is part of the rationale for
Japan’s becoming a permanent member of a reformed United Nations Security Council. And since these challenges cannot be tackled through bilateral
action alone, we
must use the strong U.S.-Japanese partnership as a platform to do more to
strengthen multilateral institutions – regional arrangements that must be inclusive, transparent, and focused on results. Just a few
months ago, I attended the historic first meeting of the ASEAN Plus Eight Defense Ministers Meeting in Hanoi, and am encouraged by Japan’s decision
to co-chair the Military Medicine Working Group. And as a proud Pacific nation, the United States will take over the chairmanship of the Asia Pacific
Economic Cooperation Forum this year, following Japan’s successful tenure. Working through regional and international forums puts our alliance in
the best position to confront some of Asia’s toughest security challenges. As we have been reminded once again in recent weeks, none has proved to be
more vexing and enduring than North Korea. Despite the hopes and best efforts of the South Korean government, the U.S. and our allies, and the
international community, the character and priorities of the North Korean regime sadly have not changed. North Korea’s ability to launch another
conventional ground invasion is much degraded from even a decade or so ago, but in other respects it has grown more lethal and destabilizing. Today, it
North Korea’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and proliferation of nuclear know-how and ballistic
missile equipment that have focused our attention – developments that threaten not just the
peninsula, but the Pacific Rim and international stability as well. In response to a series of provocations – the most
is
recent being the sinking of the Cheonan and North Korea’s lethal shelling of a South Korean island – Japan has stood shoulder to shoulder with the
Republic of Korea and the United States. Our three countries continue to deepen our ties through the Defense Trilateral Talks – the kind of multilateral
engagement among America’s long-standing allies that the U.S. would like to see strengthened and expanded over time. When and if North Korea’s
behavior gives us any reasons to believe that negotiations can be conducted productively and in good faith, we will work with Japan, South Korea,
Russia, and China to resume engagement with North Korea through the six party talks. The first step in the process should be a North-South
engagement. But, to be clear, the North must also take concrete steps to honor its international obligations and comply with U.N. Security Council
Resolutions. Any progress towards diffusing the crisis on the Korean Peninsula must include the active support of the People’s Republic of China –
where, as you probably know, I just finished an official visit. China has been another important player whose economic growth has fueled the prosperity
of this part of the world, but questions about its intentions and opaque military modernization program have been a source of concern to its neighbors.
Questions about China’s growing role in the region manifest themselves in territorial disputes – most recently in the incident in September near the
Senkaku Islands, an incident that served as a reminder of the important of America’s and Japan’s treaty obligations to one another. The U.S. position
on maritime security remains clear: we have a national interest in freedom of navigation; in unimpeded economic development and commerce; and in
respect for international law. We also believe that customary international law, as reflected in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, provides clear
guidance on the appropriate use of the maritime domain, and rights of access to it. Nonetheless, I disagree with those who portray China as an
inevitable strategic adversary of the United States. We welcome a China that plays a constructive role on the world stage. In fact, the goal of my visit
was to improve our military-to-military relationship and outline areas of common interest. It is precisely because we have questions about China’s
military – just as they might have similar questions about the United States – that I believe a healthy dialogue is needed. Last fall, President Obama and
President Hu Jin Tao made a commitment to advance sustained and reliable defense ties, not a relationship repeatedly interrupted by and subject to
the vagaries of political weather. On a personal note, one of the things I learned from my experience dealing with the Soviet Union during my earlier
time in government was the importance of maintaining a strategic dialogue and open lines of communication. Even if specific agreements did not result
– on nuclear weapons or anything else – this dialogue helped us understand each other better and lessen the odds of misunderstanding and
miscalculation. The Cold War is mercifully long over and the circumstances with China today are vastly different – but the importance of maintaining
dialogue is as important today. For the last few minutes I’ve discussed some of the most pressing security challenges – along with the most fruitful
areas of regional cooperation – facing the U.S. and Japan in Asia. This environment – in terms of threats and opportunities – is markedly different than
the conditions that led to the forging of the U.S-Japan defense partnership in the context of a rivalry between two global superpowers. But on account
of the scope, complexity and lethality of these challenges, I would argue that our alliance is more necessary, more relevant, and more important than
ever. And maintaining the vitality and credibility of the alliance requires modern izing our force posture and other defense arrangements to better
reflect the threats and military requirements of this century. For example, North Korea’s ballistic missiles – along with the proliferation of these
weapons to other countries – require a more effective alliance missile defense capability. The U.S.-Japan partnership in missile defense is already one
of the most advanced of its kind in the world. It was American and Japanese AEGIS ships that together monitored the North Korean missile launches of
2006 and 2008. This partnership –which relies on mutual support, cutting edge technology, and information sharing – in many ways reflect our
alliance at its best. The U.S. and Japan have nearly completed the joint development of a new advanced interceptor, a system that represents a
qualitative improvement in our ability to thwart any North Korean missile attack. The co-location of our air- and missile-defense commands at Yokota
– and the associated opportunities for information sharing, joint training, and coordination in this area – provide enormous value to both countries. As
I alluded to earlier, advances by the Chinese military in cyber and anti-satellite warfare pose a potential challenge to the ability of our forces to operate
and communicate in this part of the Pacific. Cyber attacks can also come from any direction and from a variety of sources – state, non-state, or a
combination thereof – in ways that could inflict enormous damage to advanced, networked militaries and societies. Fortunately, the U.S. and Japan
maintain a qualitative edge in satellite and computer technology – an advantage we are putting to good use in developing ways to counter threats to the
cyber and space qdomains. Just last month, the Government of Japan took another step forward in the evolution of the alliance by releasing its
National Defense Program Guidelines – a document that lays out a vision for Japan’s defense posture. These guidelines envision: A more mobile and
deployable force structure; Enhanced Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance capabilities; and A shift in focus to Japan’s southwest islands.
These new guidelines provide an opportunity for even deeper cooperation between our two countries – and the emphasis on your southwestern islands
underscores the importance of our alliance’s force posture. And this is a key point. Because even as the alliance continues to evolve – in strategy,
posture, and military capabilities – to deal with this century’s security challenges, a critical component will remain the forward presence of U.S. military
forces in Japan. Without
such a presence: North Korea’s military provocations could be even more
outrageous -- or worse; China might behave more assertively towards its neighbors ; It would take longer
to evacuate civilians affected by conflict or natural disasters in the region; It would be more difficult and costly to conduct robust joint exercises – such
as the recent Keen Sword exercise – that hone the U.S. and Japanese militaries ability to operate and, if necessary, fight together; and Without the
forward presence of U.S. forces in Japan, there
would be less information sharing and coordination, and we
would know less about regional threats and the military capabilities of our potential
adversaries.
AFF ANSWERS
UNIQUENESS
UQ Overwhelms Link
2AC
Uniqueness overwhelms the link – GOP will overwhelmingly win –
laundry list
WP, 6/27 – (“In swing states, the deck is stacked in GOP’s favor”, The Washington Post,
6/27/14, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/06/27/in-swing-statesthe-deck-is-stacked-in-gops-favor/)//EX
If you think President Obama’s poll numbers nationally are bad off, consider what is happening
in 12 swing states (not including South Dakota). Respected GOP pollster Whit Ayres released his
poll results (obtained on behalf of NPR and Resurgent Republic) of likely voters. Among these
voters, 38 percent approve of Obama’s performance and 58 percent don’t. Only 25 percent buy
the line that the IRS, Benghazi, Veterans Affairs and other scandals are “phony,” as the
Democrats claim; 57 percent disagree. These swing-state voters oppose Obamacare by a margin
of 58 to 40 percent. On foreign policy, Obama has cratered, with only 34 percent thinking that
he is handling it well. When asked whether they want a Democratic Senate to help Obama or a
GOP Senate majority to act as a check, the Democrats get 34 percent while the GOP gets 54
percent. Most interesting perhaps is the message comparison. The likely voters were presented
with these two messages, the first drafted by a Republican pollster and the second by a
Democrat. The GOP message got 50 percent, the Democratic one only 40 percent: The
Republican candidate for U.S. Senate says it’s time for a new direction in Washington.
Democrats have controlled the Presidency and the Senate for six years, and their policies haven’t
worked. Our economy is still struggling, and too many middle-class Americans are unemployed
or underemployed. A Republican Senate will pass legislation to create jobs, stop spending
money we don’t have, lower the cost of energy, stop the Democratic cuts to Medicare Advantage,
and replace Obamacare with reforms that will lower health care costs. Democrats have had their
chance, and now it’s time to try something new. The Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate says I
fight for our state first and foremost and work with both Republicans and Democrats to do
what’s right. The billionaire Koch brothers are trying to buy this election with all these attack
ads so they can reduce taxes for oil companies and corporations that outsource our jobs. I will
honor seniors by protecting Medicare and Social Security from cuts and help our small
businesses and independent contractors by lifting regulations and helping with health care
costs. I support raising the minimum wage and oppose any trade agreements that threaten our
jobs. Even the Democratic take on “fairness” (“promote fairness by narrowing the gap between
rich and poor, making the rich pay their fair share, and reducing income inequality”) loses out to
the GOP definition (“promote opportunity by fostering job growth, encouraging small
businesses, and allowing hardworking people to keep more of what they earn”) by a margin of
38 to 55 percent. That is good news for reform conservatives who have been advancing just such
an agenda recently. It’s less positive for severe libertarians who simply want government to go
away. Republicans still have a gender gap. Ayres told me: “Overall, men prefer the Republican
by a 55 to 37 percent margin, while women prefer a Democrat by a 51 to 42 percent margin. But
controlling for race changes the picture significantly. White men prefer a Republican by a 60 to
32 percent margin. White women are not at strong, but do support a Republican by a 47 to 44
percent margin.” He added: “Going one step further, we looked at white women by marital
status. White women who are married prefer a Republican by a 50 to 40 percent margin, while
white unmarried women prefer a Democrat by a 50 to 42 percent margin.” As for the Obama
scandals, Ayres said during a media conference call on Thursday that they contribute “additional
doubt about the administration and [weigh] against the president’s approval.” It is important for
Republicans to understand how tipped in their favor this election may be (with Obama scandals,
an unpopular president, eight of 12 swing states having voted for the GOP presidential candidate
two years ago, etc.) but also recognize that in a presidential election (with many more women,
minorities and single people in a more diverse array of states) they will have to improve their
message and attract more voters. Fortunately, they now have some insight into what that
message should be.
Ext
GOP Will overwhelmingly win – obama’s approval rating and
economy
Morrissey, 6/26 – columnist, blogger, speaker, and talk show host (Ed, “Senate Dems
hitting the panic button after Tuesday on midterms?”, Hot Air,
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/06/26/senate-dems-hitting-the-panic-button-after-tuesdaymidterms/)//EX
Consider this from The Hill a measure of the rising desperation among Senate Democrats over
the upcoming midterm elections. The horizon looks so bleak that Democrats hoped that
Republicans would lose the race, since they saw no chance of winning it for themselves with
Barack Obama an albatross around their necks and the economy going nowhere except down:
This sober realization came to Democrats on Wednesday, as Tuesday night’s primary results
showed they cannot count on Tea Party candidates upsetting more-electable incumbents. And
Democrats are increasingly realizing that President Obama’s approval rating will probably
remain mired at 45 percent or lower until Election Day, giving Republicans ammo. As their
difficulties mounted, Senate Democrats met with the president at the White House on
Wednesday evening. … But it is clear Democrats are nervous. After Republicans flopped in the
last two Senate election cycles, the GOP establishment fought and frequently defeated the Tea
Party candidates that Democrats hoped to face.
Dems Win
AT: Turnout
Turnout won’t save Dems
Washington Post, 6/3 – (“Can turnout save the Democrats in 2014?”, The Washington
Post, 6/3/14, http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/03/canturnout-save-the-democrats-in-2014/)//EX
Among respondents who voted in 2012, 48 percent supported the Democratic House candidate
and 46 percent supported the Republican House candidate. That’s the Democratic advantage
that we might expect in a presidential election. What about respondents who voted in 2010?
This group does not include voters who turned out only in the presidential but not the midterm
election. Among 2010 voters, the generic ballot results were reversed: 46 percent supported the
Democratic House candidate and 48 percent supported the Republican candidate. In other
words, switching from the 2012 electorate to the 2010 electorate shifted the generic ballot from
a 2-point Democratic advantage to a 2-point Republican advantage. What would this have
meant in terms of House seats? In 2012, the Democrats had a 1.2-point edge in the national
House vote and ended up controlling 201 seats. If the electorate had resembled 2010 and
Republicans had had a 2-point advantage in the national House vote, there would have been 3point swing to the GOP overall. A simple votes-seats curve from 2012 suggests that a 3-point
swing in Republicans’ favor would have left the Democrats with 181 seats, or 20 fewer than they
controlled after the 2012 election. Twenty seats is not nothing, of course. But it suggests that
simply shifting from midterm to presidential electorates, or vice-versa, can’t explain all, or even
most, of the differences in outcomes between these two types of elections. Turnout is not going
to explain a 63-seat gain for Republicans in 2010. So here is where I come down in this debate.
No one disagrees that “turnout matters,” and of course Democrats should work hard at turning
out Democratic voters in 2014. This is what made Issenberg’s piece and Bonier’s analysis so
interesting. The question is how much turnout matters. My sense is that commentators
still put too much emphasis on it. That is, there is not enough grappling with what
changes in the electorate do not explain — such as, perhaps, the majority of Republican
seat gains in 2010. There is not enough grappling with how Democrats did so well in 2006
despite a midterm electorate, as political scientist Michael McDonald has noted. For more, see
Mark Mellman’s four excellent columns on this, and especially political scientist Seth Hill’s
research.
Women
Democrats will win- they’re changing tactics and focusing on single
women
Calmes 7/2/14 (Jackie Calmes, national correspondent for The New York Times, “As
Numbers Grow, Single Women Emerge as Political Powerhouse”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/03/us/single-women-midterm-elections.html?_r=0 )
RALEIGH, N.C. — The decline of marriage over the last generation has helped create an emerging
voting bloc of unmarried women who are profoundly reshaping the American electorate to the
advantage, recent elections suggest, of the Democratic Party. What is far from clear is whether Democrats will
benefit in the midterm contests this fall. Half of all adult women over the age of 18 are unmarried — 56
million, up from 45 million in 2000 — and now account for one in four people of voting age. (Adult Hispanics
eligible to vote, a group that gets more attention, number 25 million this year.) Single women have become
Democrats’ most reliable supporters, behind African-Americans: In 2012, two-thirds of single women who
voted supported President Obama. Among married women, a slim majority supported Mitt Romney. “You have a group
that’s growing in size, and becoming more politically concentrated in terms of the Democrats,”
said Tom W. Smith, director of the General Social Survey at the University of Chicago’s National
Opinion Research Center. The challenge for Democrats is that many single women do not vote,
especially in nonpresidential election years like this one. While voting declines across all groups in midterm
contests for Congress and lower offices, the drop-off is steepest for unmarried females and minorities. The result is a turnout that is
older, whiter and more conservative than in presidential years. In an attempt to alter that picture, and to try to
prevent Republicans from capturing a Senate majority in November, Democrats and allied
groups say they are wooing single women — young and old, highly educated and working class, never married and
divorced or widowed — with unmatched ardor. They have seized on this week’s ruling by the Supreme
Court’s conservative majority, five men, that family-owned corporations do not have to provide
birth control in their insurance coverage, to add to their arguments that the Democrats, not the
Republicans, represent the interests of women. Single women, Democrats say, will determine
whether they keep Senate seats in states including Alaska, Michigan, Colorado and Iowa — and
with them, their Senate majority — and seize governorships in Pennsylvania, Florida and
Wisconsin, among other states. The party is using advanced data-gathering techniques to
identify unmarried women, especially those who have voted in presidential elections but skipped
midterms. By mail, online, phone and personal contact, Democrats and their allies are spreading
the word about Republicans’ opposition in Washington — and state capitals like Raleigh — to
pay equity, minimum wage and college-affordability legislation, abortion and contraception
rights, Planned Parenthood and education spending. But nowhere is the courtship of unmarried
women as intense as in North Carolina, where Senator Kay Hagan, a Democrat struggling for a
second term, recently has shown gains, even in a Republican poll. Midway through a recent
Saturday of campaigning, she described her mobilization strategy: “Heels on the ground.”
Democrats will win- they are going on the offensive
Peoples and Thomas 7/1/14 ( Steve Peoples and Ken Thomas, reporters for the
Associated Press, “Democrats trying to use court decision to energize female supporters ahead of
fall election”,
http://www.newser.com/article/d391f0a9de0c4abc80e2c74fe8e02559/democrats-trying-touse-court-decision-to-energize-female-supporters-ahead-of-fall-election.html )
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that some companies can hold religious objections allowing them
to opt out of health law's birth control coverage requirement. While the ruling does not address
the heart of the Affordable Care Act, it's a setback for Democrats and amplifies a longstanding
argument from conservatives that the law they call "Obamacare" intrudes on religious liberties as part of a larger
government overreach. But
Democrats in competitive congressional races are going on the offensive.
They're using the ruling to shine a spotlight on their Republican opponents' record on
reproductive rights — a push that dovetails with a strategy already aimed at mobilizing female
voters on issues such as raising the minimum wage and supporting pay equity for women. In
North Carolina, incumbent Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan declared on Twitter that health care
should be decided between a woman and her doctor — "not her boss." She and her allies are
working to draw attention to her opponent, Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis, and
his efforts to restrict access to abortions. It's a similar story in New Hampshire, where
Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen released an online petition Tuesday highlighting her
Republican opponent, former Sen. Scott Brown, and his previous support for legislation that
would have allowed any employer with moral objections to opt out of the birth control coverage
requirement. In Colorado, Democratic Sen. Mark Udall's first TV ad noted Republican Rep. Cory
Gardner's past sponsorship of a bill to outlaw abortions in cases of rape and incest and support
for an effort to grant an embryo the same legal rights as a person, which could have outlawed
some types of birth control and all abortions. Gardner now says he opposes the "personhood" measure. In Iowa,
Democrats have signaled plans to highlight Republican Joni Ernst's support of a personhood
amendment to the state's constitution. And in Montana, Democratic Sen. John Walsh aired an
ad in May criticizing Republican Rep. Steve Daines' support of legislation to restrict access to
abortions and quickly pounced on the Supreme Court ruling, saying it would "infringe upon the
right to make private health choices."
Republicans are in trouble- Democrats are gaining support from
single women
Jones 7/2/14 (Sarah Jones, Senior White House and Congressional correspondent for
PoliticusUSA, “All The Single Ladies: Female Voting Power and The Looming Extinction of The
GOP” http://www.politicususa.com/2014/07/02/single-ladies-rise-power-female-voter.html )
Democrats are wooing single women — a rising power of a voting bloc, while Republicans spit in
their face. While Republicans at Fox insult single women by calling them “Beyoncé voters” who
depend on the government, Democrats embrace them. Specifically all the single ladies out there
— a growing and powerful new voting bloc, who tend to vote for Democrats. They’re even calling
their new get out the vote push ROSIE, as in Rosie the Riveter, Re-engaging our Sisters in
Elections. (Yes, Beyoncé has paid homage to Rosie.) DCCC Executive Director Kelly Ward explained ROSIE
to NPR’s Mara Liasson in May, “We can identify a voter by their marital status and then match
that to a turnout model that helps us identify those unmarried women who when they vote they
will vote for Democrats, but are not likely to vote this cycle. We want to go after those voters and
start a conversation with them about how this election has a stake in their lives and why they
should care about it.” And now, post Hobby Lobby, Democrats have quite the calling card.
Democrats still have hope
Hohmann 6/30/14 ( James Hohmann, reporter for Politico, “Democrats: Hobby Lobby
ruling could boost 2014 hopes”, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/hobby-lobbydecision-2014-democrats-changes-108449.html )
Democrats may be decrying the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby ruling, but the party’s campaign
strategists believe they can use it to their benefit in this year’s midterm elections. Despite the legal setback
for Obamacare, the strategists hope the ruling will boost Democrats’ efforts to keep the Senate by
persuading some Republican-leaning women to defect in states with competitive races while
galvanizing younger women who typically don’t vote in midterms. They argue the 5-4 decision
dovetails well with claims that the GOP is waging a “war on women,” a charge they have used
effectively in recent elections. Monday’s decision “is a disappointment for Democrats, but it does put a big welcome
spotlight on Republicans’ support for ‘personhood’ [initiatives] and other measures that would go much further than today’s
decision to outlaw common forms of birth control,” said Matt Canter, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee deputy
executive director.
African-Americans
Democrats will win using strategies that microtarget black voters
Miller 7/6/14 (Steven A. Miller, staff member for The Washington Times, “Democrats
microtarget blacks in South in effort to keep Senate”,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/6/democrats-microtarget-blacks-in-southin-effort-to/?page=2&utm_medium=RSS&utm_source=RSS_Feed )
Black voters across the South increasingly recognize that they have the electoral muscle to swing
statewide races, but that doesn’t guarantee they will show up at the polls this year to save white
Democrats struggling to hold on to their Senate seats. Democrats and their allies are painfully
aware that they can’t win without significant turnout among black voters in states such as
Arkansas, Louisiana and North Carolina, which are crucial battlegrounds in the party’s fight to
keep majority control of the U.S. Senate. They have engaged in a massive campaign to recapture
some of the Barack Obama enchantment that lured droves of Southern blacks to the polls and
even flipped North Carolina from red to blue in 2008. In Louisiana, where more than 30 percent
of the electorate is black, the state NAACP has launched the most aggressive and sophisticated
voter drive in the organization’s history. The effort includes microtargeting, using the same
Voter Activation Network database as President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign. “This is
more than we usually do. This is a true concerted effort,” said Louisiana NAACP State President
Earnest Johnson. “We think this year’s Senate election will be an excellent opportunity to
demonstrate whether or not our strategy will work.” The goal is 60 percent turnout among black
voters, he said, matching the surge for Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Johnson stressed that his group
is nonpartisan and promotes black voter participation regardless of political affiliation.
However, blacks have provided near-monolithic support for Democrats in recent decades. The
chief beneficiary of the NAACP’s Louisiana experiment would be Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, a threeterm Democrat who faces a strong challenge from Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy. Ms. Landrieu
trailed Mr. Cassidy by 6 percentage points in one of the two most recent Real Clear Politics
surveys and was tied in the other. In a similar effort, the North Carolina NAACP is deploying
about 50 organizers across the state for the next 10 weeks. “This is the first time we’ve done
something of this caliber,” said North Carolina NAACP President William J. Barber II. The
Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is helping persuade blacks to vote in key Southern
states through its Bannock Street Project, a scheme to spend $60 million and put 4,000 paid
staff in 10 states.
LINK TURNS
Alaska
**Alaska is a toss-up state
Ocean policies are unpopular – Alaskans perceive them as too much
oversight
Heartland Institute, 12 – one of the leading think-tanks in the US whose purpose is to
discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems (“Alaska
Officials Speak Out Against New National Ocean Policy”, Heartland Institute, 6/4/12,
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/06/04/alaska-officials-speak-out-againstnew-national-ocean-policy)//EX
‘Adds Uncertainty and Anxiety’ Rick Rogers, executive director of the Resources Development
Council for Alaska, summarized the Council’s concerns about too much federal involvement
stifling state decision-making and oversight . “The National Ocean Policy adds
uncertainty and anxiety to an already cumbersome and complex regime of state and federal
permitting and oversight,” Rogers told Environment & Climate News. “Increased bureaucracy
could hamper the already slow processes with no added benefit to the environment,” Rogers
explained. “In our view the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning/Regional Planning Body structure
is an unauthorized new regulatory program that suggests a federal-level ‘top down’ approach to
management resources with minimal local input.”
Ocean policy is unpopular in Alaska – empirics and National Ocean
Policy prove
Heartland Institute, 12 – one of the leading think-tanks in the US whose purpose is to
discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems (“Alaska
Officials Speak Out Against New National Ocean Policy”, Heartland Institute, 6/4/12,
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2012/06/04/alaska-officials-speak-out-againstnew-national-ocean-policy)//EX
Local Concerns Summarized U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-AK) opened the field hearing by
expressing concern the new National Ocean Policy will trample state and local oversight and
disproportionately harm states like Alaska. “[D]espite the administration's claims that it will be
the most transparent ever, this new federal environmental overlay is being developed and
implemented with no direct stakeholder involvement,” said Young. "Nowhere in the United
States will the effects of the National Ocean Policy be felt to the extent that it will in Alaska .
The reach of this ‘ocean’ policy will stretch throughout the entire state and affect almost any
activity that requires a federal permit,” Young explained. “As we will hear from our witnesses
today, the State’s economic vitality is a direct result of our ability to use our natural resources.
Any new federal initiative that affects our ability to use these natural resources will cost jobs.
"The administration claims that this whole National Ocean policy is nothing more than an
attempt to coordinate federal agencies and make better permitting decisions,” Young continued.
“Forgive me if I am a little suspicious when the federal government—through an Executive
Order—decides to create a new bureaucracy that will ‘help’ us plan where activities can or
cannot take place in our waters and inland. This effort to ‘zone’ a majority of the State of Alaska
using new criteria and new policy goals will not be helpful. The fact that this effort will take
place whether the State of Alaska wants it to or not makes me even more suspicious.”
General
Ocean conservation is unpopular- it conflicts with interests diverse as
farmers and shippers
Eilperin 2012(Juliet Eilperin, reporter for The Washington Post, October 28, 2012,
“National ocean policy sparks partisan fight”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/national-ocean-policy-sparkspartisan-fight/2012/10/28/af73e464-17a7-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html )
Partisan battles are engulfing the nation’s ocean policy, showing that polarization over environmental issues doesn’t stop at the
water’s edge. For years, ocean policy was the preserve of wonks. But President Obama created the
first national ocean policy, with a tiny White House staff, and with that set off some fierce
election-year fights. Conservative Republicans warn that the administration is determined to
expand its regulatory reach and curb the extraction of valuable energy resources, while many
Democrats, and their environmentalist allies, argue that the policy will keep the ocean healthy
and reduce conflicts over its use. The wrangling threatens to overshadow a fundamental issue —
the country’s patchwork approach to managing offshore waters. Twenty-seven federal agencies,
representing interests as diverse as farmers and shippers, have some role in governing the
oceans. Obama’s July 2010 executive order set up a National Ocean Council, based at the White
House, that is designed to reconcile the competing interests of different agencies and ocean
users.
Offshore drilling is unpopular amongst coastal areas
Lilley 2010 (Jonathan Charles Lilley, doctor of philosophy in Marine Studies, “Navigating a
Sea of Values: Understanding Public Attitudes Toward the Ocean and Ocean Energy Resources”,
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/windpower/resources/J_Lilley_8-03_FINAL.pdf )
Unlike wind development, support for offshore drilling is split along party lines, with Republicans more likely to favor oil and gas
drilling than Democrats in each of the three Rasmussen polls – in June 2008, 85% of Republicans supported the practice compared
to 57% of Democrats (Rasmussen Reports, 2008a). There are also pronounced differences in the perceived effects offshore drilling
will have on gasoline prices. In the same June 2008 poll, 78% of conservatives believed that expansion of U.S. offshore drilling is at
least somewhat likely to bring prices down, compared to just 57% of moderates and 50% of liberals. Although not tested, political
differences might also explain the lower levels of support for offshore drilling found among
residents of the Mid-Atlantic states. Among residents of coastal counties in New York, New
Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia, support for oil and gas drilling off the Mid-Atlantic
coast was at 46%. New York had the lowest levels of support at 37% and Maryland had the
highest at 65% – a figure more in line with the national average (Monmouth University, 2009). The authors of the
Monmouth study do note, however, that these support levels were higher in 2009 than in 2007,
when just 33% of Mid-Atlantic coastal residents supported drilling in the Atlantic.
Ocean conservation is unpopular with the fishing industry
Eilperin 7/2/14 (Juliet Eilperin, reporter for The Washington Post, “Fishing groups criticize
Obama’s Pacific plan”, http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20140702/NEWS03/140709875)
WASHINGTON – When President Barack Obama announced two weeks ago that he intended to
expand federal protections around seven islands and atolls in the central Pacific Ocean, many
environmentalists hailed the move as an important step for conservation. But the main group
overseeing fishing operators in Hawaii and three U.S. territories declared Monday that it
opposes the proposal, on the grounds that it would hurt the U.S. fishing industry. The Western
Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council - composed of fishing industry representatives as
well as some state and federal officials - helps establish fishing policy for both commercial and
recreational operators in Hawaii as well as the territories of American Samoa and Guam, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. In a statement Monday afternoon, members
of the quasi-governmental agency said they would oppose any additional limits on commercial
fishing in the area. President George W. Bush used his executive authority to establish the
Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, which now encompasses almost 87,000
square miles, in 2009. Obama is now contemplating widening those boundaries to cover nearly
782,000 square miles of federal waters, which would be off-limits to fishing, energy exploration
and other activities. The designation now extends 50 miles out from shore; it could be extended
as far out as 200 miles. The statement argues that the move would deprive fishing operators of
an important resource. “U.S. fishermen, including those in the Pacific, already abide by the
strictest fishing regulations in the world, and this plan further inhibits their economic survival,”
they wrote, adding it would yield “few, if any, ecological benefits from the restrictions.”
Energy Link Turns
West Virginia
Energy policies are unpopular in West Virginia – interests in coal
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
West Virginia : Capito has a solid lead over Tennant — but in either event, coal interests
win. Both have come out swinging in favor of coal and against the Obama administration’s
climate and energy agenda. They are running to replace the retiring Jay Rockefeller, who in
recent years has criticized the coal industry over safety issues and pollution. Bonus: Capito
picked up an endorsement Monday from the West Virginia Coal Association.
AT: New Hampshire
Energy is not a main focus to anyone
Politico, 14 – (“All Policy is Local, presented by Choose Energy: Welcome to Energy and the
Midterms — Primary day in West Virginia, Nebraska — Outside spending roundup — Top
Senate and House races”, Politico, 5/13/14, http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/all-policyis-local-presented-by-choose-energy-welcome-to-energy-and-the-midterms-primary-day-inwest-virginia-nebraska-106617.html)//EX
New Hampshire : Polls have shown Democrat Jeanne Shaheen maintaining a small lead
against Republican challenger Scott Brown. While energy isn’t likely to be a major focus
of the race, Shaheen could get a bump from her long-delayed energy efficiency bill with Sen. Rob
Portman (R-Ohio) — even though, at the moment, the bill seems dead in the water once
again. Even becalmed, the bill gives Shaheen a chance to tout her bipartisan credentials.
Off-shore Wind
Off-shore wind development unpopular – “place attachment”
Alexander, 10 – community engagement specialist for MLive Muskegon Chronicle (Dave,
“University of Delaware researcher says 'place attachment' prompts backlash against wind farm
development”, Michigan Live, 6/15/10,
http://www.mlive.com/news/muskegon/index.ssf/2010/07/university_of_delaware_researc.h
tml)//EX
Firestone also has a doctorate in public policy from the University of North Carolina at Chapel
Hill, earned after working in the Michigan Attorney General's Office on permitting of
hydroelectric plants. He has been teaching public policy courses on offshore wind developments
and researching public opinion on the subject since 2003 through the University of Delaware's
College of Earth, Ocean and Environment. Firestone and his research colleagues began
surveying public opinion on the Cape Wind project in 2004. He quickly learned that
opposition to offshore wind farms is not a classic "not in my backyard" reaction. Instead,
opposition mainly to the visual impact of turbines seen from land or from boats causes a
psychological reaction known as "place attachment ." Basically, it is an emotional
attachment to surroundings that are familiar. Any "disruption" of those surroundings that
people see as the essence of a specific location creates a negative backlash. Opponents who live
or play along the shorelines find wind farms threatening the very essence of themselves
and their communities, Firestone said. Place attachment is greater in protected bays like
Nantucket Sound than on the open ocean like off the coast of Delaware, the researcher said.
Firestone said he'd guess that the place attachment feelings for Lake Michigan would be
somewhere between a protected bay and the open ocean.
IMPACTS
AT: EPA Regs
GOP No Cut
The GOP can’t cut EPA regs --- Obama will veto, and they can’t use
appropriations bills either
Biber 6/19/14 – Eric Biber is a Professor of Law @ Berkeley Law, “The 2014 Midterm
Elections and the EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule,” LegalPlanet, Berkeley/UCLA Law, http://legalplanet.org/2014/06/19/the-2014-midterm-elections-and-the-epa-greenhouse-gas-rule/
The 2014 Midterm Elections and the EPA Greenhouse Gas Rule Why Republicans probably won't be
able to eliminate the EPA rules before 2016¶ I wrote earlier about why the 2016 Presidential election will be the election that matters (politically) for the longterm success of the new greenhouse gas rules proposed by EPA. (The status of legal challenges is a different question.) I want to elaborate a little more now about why the 2014 midterm
elections are pretty much irrelevant to the political future of those rules.¶ First, it is important to
remember that if Congress wants to amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit these rules, there are
two significant obstacles: First, the filibuster rule in the Senate requires 60 votes to move to a final vote on any
substantive legislation; and second, and more significantly, President Obama is sure to veto any efforts to eliminate these rules.
(It is hard to imagine Obama letting Congress eliminate his primary second-term policy
achievement.) Overriding a veto requires a two-thirds majority in both houses. It is highly unlikely that Republicans would attain a two-thirds majority in either house, even with alliances from
coal-state Democrats. For instance, in the House, Prof. Sabato at the University of Virginia (a leading election prognosticator) predicts that the Democrats will retain at least 190 seats in the House, with the
Republicans attaining at most 245. However, a veto-override in the House requires at least 290 votes (two-thirds of 435 House seats). The primary coal-producing states in America are: Montana, Wyoming,
Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, and Kentucky. (Helpful map here; see also this map for the how important coal is for energy production in various states.) In these states, there are currently 25
Democratic House members. Even if every single one voted to override (improbable, since, for instance, Democratic House members representing Chicago aren’t going to vote to override the President on this
issue), the Republicans would be 20 votes short of an override. And in the Senate, Prof. Sabato predicts a gain of up to 8 Republican Senators, increasing the Republicans from 45 to 53, still short of the 67 needed
to override, even with votes from coal-state Democratic senators (of whom there are only 8, but two of these are among those who would be those who would lose if the Republicans gain these states). Even if you
add in the three Democratic Senators from the other major fossil-fuel dependent states (Alaska, Louisiana, and North Dakota) Republicans still come up short (and again, two of these three are among those who
A substantive revision of the Clean Air Act seems highly unlikely.¶ A second
option that Republicans are mulling is forcing a showdown over the budget by inserting language prohibiting EPA from
spending any money on the regulations. This allows the Republicans to avoid the 60 vote filibuster requirement in the Senate, but it still requires
overcoming a Presidential veto (as above, highly unlikely). The main leverage here is that the budget has to pass – otherwise the government will shutdown.
But given what happened the last time the Republicans tried to use a government shutdown to
force Obama to give up a signature policy achievement, I think Republicans will also be unlikely
to succeed here. After all, when Republicans tried to use a shutdown to defund Obamacare, they were pummeled politically.¶ Indeed, the polling indicates
that the EPA regulations are more popular at the national level than Obamacare, so the national
politics are even less favorable to the Republicans here. Moreover, despite the unpopularity of these rules in particular parts of the country, the
are up for election this fall in any case).
national public support for the rules means that these rules are very unlikely to have a major impact on the political races at a national level. Republicans who are hoping that a “wave” election can be inspired by
these rules will probably be disappointed. Democratic Senate candidates in states like Iowa and Colorado are embracing the new rules. And in fact, Democrats have mostly already lost their prior position in “coal
country” – there just isn’t much more to lose, and therefore there isn’t much political price to be paid by Democrats for these rules. So I doubt there will be much national pressure on the party to back away from
the rules. (Interestingly, the White House apparently is taking its political cues in part from the failure of the 2010 ballot initiative in California to repeal the state’s greenhouse gas regulations, which I discussed in
my first post.)
Doesn’t Kill Econ
No impact to EPA regs—doesn’t impact economy
Jeff Spross, blogger for ThinkProgress, 6/3/14
Jeff, blogger for ThinkProgress, a liberal American political blog serving as an outlet of the
Center for American Progress, an independent nonpartisan educational, public policy research,
and advocacy organization, citing data from The Economic Policy Institute, "Why EPA's Carbon
Regulations Won't Ruin The Economy, In Three Simple Steps", June 3 2014,
thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/03/3444064/epa-explainer-economy/
On Monday, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new regulations to curb
carbon dioxide emissions from America’s existing power plants — the most significant step
taken by any U.S. president to address climate change.¶ In combination with the agency’s
previous carbon rules for new power plants, Monday’s regulations are the linchpin in the
President’s effort to meet the United States’ international commitment to cut its greenhouse gas
emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020.¶ Critics pounced rapidly, calling the regulations
job killers and a drag on the economy. House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) cited a pre-emptive
analysis from the Chamber of Commerce that the rules would leave hundreds of thousands of
people out of work each year, and put a drag on economic growth. Not to be outdone, Senate
Minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY)called the regulations “a dagger in the heart of the
American middle class,” and Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) dismissed them as “all pain, no gain.”¶
Here are three reasons why they’re wrong.¶ 1. The Regulations Are Designed To Be MarketFriendly¶ Boehner, McConnell and Vitter all fail to mention a crucial caveat: only electricity
that’s created by emitting a lot of carbon, such as power derived from coal, will get more
expensive. They then leap to claiming the cost of electricity will go up. That requires the
unspoken assumption that American firms and individuals won’t be able to move off highcarbon electricity effectively and cheaply. But markets work by pursuing low-cost solutions to
problems through decentralized experimentation among businesses. The better and cheaper the
solution, the more profits a firm will make, so they have an inherent incentive. And the new
regulations are designed to work with those market forces as much as possible.¶ Each state is
given a carbon emission rate to reach (how much carbon can be released per unit of electricity
generated), but then the state and its electricity providers can use a wealth of different methods
to hit their target. They can build new renewable energy capacity; they can build new natural gas
capacity; they can run less carbon-intensive plants more often; they can cut demand for highcarbon electricity through a smorgasbord of efficiency programs; they can install carbon capture
and sequestration (CCS) on their coal plants (a technological gamble, admittedly); or they could
go with other technological improvements to update and clean up the country’s aging fleet of
coal plants. They can even set up a state-level cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax. States can
even band together to create regional systems, like the Northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative.¶ And that’s just the options that immediately come to mind. Even better technologies
for scrubbing carbon dioxide from power plant emissions could be on the horizon.¶ The Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC) modeled a very similar proposal to the regulatory design
EPA ultimately hit on, and found it would actually cut Americans’ electricity bills, thanks largely
to improvements in energy efficiency. EPA’s own forecast of its regulations also found a drop in
electricity bills.¶ By contrast, the Chamber of Commerce arrived at its results by assuming a
much deeper emissions cut than EPA chose, by assuming demand for electricity would grow
much faster in the immediate future than it has since 2000, and by assuming EPA would require
CCS technology on natural gas plants. (It didn’t.)¶ 2. Critics Have Overestimated The Costs Of
Regulations For Decades¶ Since its creation in 1970, EPA has been issuing rules for everything
from coal furnaces to chlorofluorocarbons to urban air quality. The Economic Policy Institute
surveyed this history, and found that over and over, estimates made before the regulations went
into effect — often estimates made by the EPA itself — significantly overshot how much
compliance would actually cost American industry. In December 2011, EPA finalized new rules
to cut emissions of mercury, lead, and other toxins from coal plants. The Chamber of Commerce
predicted rolling blackouts, and former Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) warned the regulations would
“put tens of thousands of jobs in [Indiana] directly at risk.” There were no blackouts, and jobs in
Indiana rose from late-2011 to mid-2014, while the unemployment rate dropped.¶ In 1990,
Congress passed a law directing the EPA to install a national cap-and-trade system to cut down
on the sulfur dioxide emissions that cause acid rain. Industry, lobbying groups, and political
critics all predicted spikes in electricity rates and major hits to economic growth and jobs.
Instead, the trajectory of economic growth remained steady, as did employment in
manufacturing (usually the sector hardest hit by higher electricity rates), and the national cost of
electricity continued to decline through the late 1990s. Even more tellingly, the Center for
American Progress found that almost all of the 10 states most dependent on coal power saw
their inflation-adjusted electricity rates fall from 1990 to 2009 — despite industry predictions
they would jump.¶ The key thing to remember is there’s no inherent profitability in cutting
carbon until forces like EPA’s regulations step in to create that profitability. That means firms
and businesses generally haven’t tried that market experimentation yet, and don’t know what
they can really achieve. So they overestimate — again and again — how costly implementing
regulations will be. Brian McLean, the former director of EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division, told
ThinkProgress in an earlier interview that when power companies actually started installing the
technology to cut sulfur dioxide emissions after the 1990 law was passed, it regularly
outperformed industry predictions — sometimes significantly.¶ 3. There Are Positive Economic
Benefits To Regulations, Too¶ The general hit on regulations is that they create unforeseen ripple
effects throughout the economy, damaging jobs and growth. But this assumes all of the
unforeseen ripple effects are negative. They aren’t.¶ For one thing, EPA’s regulations will drive
demand away from carbon-heavy electricity and into other emerging sectors like renewable
electricity, energy efficiency, and new technological implementation. That will create new jobs in
those sectors to offset jobs lost in traditional coal power. NRDC’s analysis showed its proposal
would create 274,000 jobs in energy efficiency in 2020 — that alone would reduce the job loss
the Chamber projected for 2020 by almost two-thirds. We can also expect job creation in
renewable energy, as well as in pollution control technology and installation.¶ But arguably even
more important than growth in those sectors are the health benefits of cutting power plant
emissions. The sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter that get released when
power plants burn coal drive up rates of asthma attacks, respiratory disease, heart disease, and a
host of other ailments. This is a big reason why the 1990 sulfur dioxide laws and lots of other
regulations actually helped the economy: the economic benefits of lives saved, hospital visits
prevented, and an overall healthier workforce far outweighed the compliance costs to
businesses.¶ Now, carbon dioxide itself isn’t an immediate threat to human health — most of the
economic benefits of avoiding climate change are loaded into the future — but cutting carbon
emissions inevitably cuts those other pollutants as well. So when NRDC ran the numbers on its
proposal for the carbon rules, found the benefits of the emissions cuts, excluding the benefits of
avoiding climate change, would outpace the costs in 2020 by roughly $6 billion to $19 billion.¶
And when the EPA modeled the actual regulations, it found annual costs to the economy of $7.3
billion to $8.8 billion annually, versus benefits of $55 billion to $93 billion by 2030. The
benefits are primarily thanks to the health effects, which includeavoiding 2,700 to 6,600
premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks in children.¶ Those benefits will not
be far in the future, they will arrive much faster. And because poor and minority Americans are
disproportionately harmed by coal pollution, they’ll also enjoy the bulk of those benefits.¶ In
short, the unforeseen positive effects of EPA’s regulations will likely overwhelm the foreseen
negative effects.
AT: CIR
No Cyber Impact
No cyber impact
Healey 3/20 Jason, Director of the Cyber Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council, "No,
Cyberwarfare Isn't as Dangerous as Nuclear War", 2013,
www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/03/20/cyber-attacks-not-yet-anexistential-threat-to-the-us
America does not face an existential cyberthreat today, despite recent warnings . Our
cybervulnerabilities are undoubtedly grave and the threats we face are severe but far from comparable to
nuclear war. ¶ The most recent alarms come in a Defense Science Board report on how to make military cybersystems more
resilient against advanced threats (in short, Russia or China). It warned that the "cyber threat is serious, with potential consequences
similar in some ways to the nuclear threat of the Cold War." Such fears were also expressed by Adm. Mike Mullen, then chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in 2011. He called cyber "The single biggest existential threat that's out there" because "cyber actually more
than theoretically, can attack our infrastructure, our financial systems."¶ While it is true that cyber attacks might do
these things, it is also true they have not only never happened but are far more
difficult to accomplish than mainstream thinking believes . The consequences from cyber
threats may be similar in some ways to nuclear, as the Science Board concluded, but mostly, they are
incredibly dissimilar. ¶ Eighty years ago, the generals of the U.S. Army Air Corps were sure that their bombers would easily
topple other countries and cause their populations to panic, claims which did not stand up to reality. A study of the 25year history of cyber conflict, by the Atlantic Council and Cyber Conflict Studies Association, has shown a similar
dynamic where the impact of disruptive cyberattacks has been consistently
overestimated. ¶ Rather than theorizing about future cyberwars or extrapolating from today's concerns, the history of
cyberconflict that have actually been fought, shows that cyber incidents have so far tended to have effects that are either widespread
but fleeting or persistent but narrowly focused. No attacks, so far, have been both widespread and persistent.
There have been no authenticated cases of anyone dying from a cyber attack. Any
widespread disruptions, even the 2007 disruption against Estonia, have been short-lived causing no significant
GDP loss. ¶ Moreover, as with conflict in other domains, cyberattacks can take down many targets but keeping them down over time
in the face of determined defenses has so far been out of the range of all but the most dangerous adversaries such as Russia and
China. Of course, if the United States is in a conflict with those nations, cyber will be the least important of the existential threats
policymakers should be worrying about. Plutonium trumps bytes in a shooting war.¶ This is not all good news.
Policymakers have recognized the problems since at least 1998 with little significant progress. Worse, the threats and vulnerabilities
are getting steadily more worrying. Still,
experts have been warning of a cyber Pearl Harbor for
20 of the 70 years since the actual Pearl Harbor . ¶ The transfer of U.S. trade secrets through Chinese
cyber espionage could someday accumulate into an existential threat. But it doesn't seem so
seem just yet, with only handwaving estimates of annual losses of 0.1 to 0.5 percent to the total U.S. GDP of around $15 trillion.
That's bad, but it doesn't add up to an existential crisis or "economic cyberwar."
Their impacts are all hype
Walt 10 – Stephen M. Walt 10 is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of international
relations at Harvard University "Is the cyber threat overblown?" March 30
walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/03/30/is_the_cyber_threat_overblown
Am I the only person -- well, besides Glenn Greenwald and Kevin Poulson -- who thinks the "cyber-warfare" business may be overblown? It’s clear the U.S. national
security establishment is paying a lot more attention to the issue, and colleagues of mine -- including some pretty serious and level-headed people -- are increasingly worried by
the danger of some sort of "cyber-Katrina." I don't dismiss it entirely, but this sure
looks to me like a classic opportunity for threat-
inflation .¶ Mind you, I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of shenanigans going on in cyber-space, or that various forms of cyber-warfare don't have military
potential. So I'm not arguing for complete head-in-the-sand complacency. But here’s what makes me worry that the threat is being
overstated .¶ First, the whole issue is highly esoteric -- you really need to know a great deal about computer networks, software,
details about a number of the alleged incidents that are
being invoked to demonstrate the risk of a "cyber-Katrina," or a cyber-9/11, remain classified, which makes it
hard for us lay-persons to gauge just how serious the problem really was or is. Moreover, even when we hear
about computers being penetrated by hackers, or parts of the internet crashing, etc., it’s hard to know how much
valuable information was stolen or how much actual damage was done. And as with other specialized areas of
technology and/or military affairs, a lot of the experts have a clear vested interest in hyping the threat , so as
encryption, etc., to know how serious the danger might be. Unfortunately,
to create greater demand for their services. Plus, we already seem to have politicians leaping
on the issue as a way to grab some pork for their states.¶ Second, there are lots of different problems being
lumped under a single banner, whether the label is "cyber-terror" or "cyber-war." One issue is the use of various computer tools to degrade an enemy’s
military capabilities (e.g., by disrupting communications nets, spoofing sensors, etc.). A second issue is the alleged threat that bad guys would penetrate computer networks and
shut down power grids, air traffic control, traffic lights, and other important elements of infrastructure, the way that internet terrorists (led by a disgruntled computer expert)
did in the movie Live Free and Die Hard. A third problem is web-based criminal activity, including identity theft or simple fraud (e.g., those emails we all get from someone in
Nigeria announcing that they have millions to give us once we send them some account information). A fourth potential threat is “cyber-espionage”; i.e., clever foreign hackers
penetrate Pentagon or defense contractors’ computers and download valuable classified information. And then there are annoying activities like viruses, denial-of-service
This sounds like a rich
menu of potential trouble, and putting the phrase "cyber" in front of almost any noun makes it
sound trendy and a bit more frightening. But notice too that these are all somewhat different problems of quite different importance, and the
appropriate response to each is likely to be different too. Some issues -- such as the danger of cyber-espionage -- may not
require elaborate technical fixes but simply more rigorous security procedures to isolate classified material from
the web. Other problems may not require big federal programs to address, in part because both
individuals and the private sector have incentives to protect themselves (e.g., via firewalls or
attacks, and other things that affect the stability of web-based activities and disrupt commerce (and my ability to send posts into FP).¶
by backing up critical data). And as Greenwald warns, there may be real costs to civil liberties if concerns about vague cyber dangers lead us to grant the NSA or some other
Is the danger that
some malign hacker crashes a power grid greater than the likelihood that a blizzard would do
the same thing? Is the risk of cyber-espionage greater than the potential danger from more
traditional forms of spying? Without a comparative assessment of different risks and the costs of mitigating each one, we will allocate resources on the
government agency greater control over the Internet. ¶ Third, this is another issue that cries out for some comparative cost-benefit analysis.
basis of hype rather than analysis. In short, my fear is not that we won't take reasonable precautions against a potential set of dangers; my concern is that we will spend tens of
billions of dollars protecting ourselves against a set of threats that are not as dangerous as we are currently being told they are
AT: Econ
Doesn’t increase the economy – just displaces US jobs
FAIR, 13 – (“Illegal Aliens Taking U.S. Jobs (2013)”, Federation for American Immigration
Reform, 2013, http://www.fairus.org/issue/illegal-aliens-taking-u-s-jobs)//EX
How Many U.S. Jobs Are Taken by Illegal Aliens ? Just as the size of the illegal alien
population can only be estimated, the number of illegal aliens working in the United States is
also subject to estimation. A large share of the illegal alien population is generally accepted as
being in the workforce because that is what motivates most illegal immigration. However, there
are some family members, especially children of illegal aliens not in the labor force, while others
may be in prison. One recent estimate by researchers at the Pew Hispanic Center puts the
number of illegal aliens in the workforce at 8 million out of an overall population of
11.2 million illegal aliens, i.e., 71.4 percent.1 That estimate is generally accepted as reasonable.
FAIR's estimate of the illegal alien population in 2010 is slightly higher than that of the Pew
estimate, i.e., 11.9 million. FAIR's estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the workforce —
using the share estimate of the Pew study — is similarly slightly higher, i.e., about 8.5 million
jobs encumbered by illegal alien workers.
AT: Clean/Biotech
High-skilled labor doesn’t solve – lack of employee confidence
WP, 13 – (“Employers lack confidence, not skilled labor”, The Washington Post, 5/5/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/employers-lack-confidence-not-skilledlabor/2013/05/05/757340c8-b411-11e2-9a98-4be1688d7d84_story.html)//EX
Are we missing a couple million jobs? These would be jobs that exist but lack workers to fill
them. The notion that the recovery is being hobbled by too few skilled workers is seductive. It
might explain today’s stubbornly high unemployment and why aggressive government policies
to promote recovery have been so ineffective. Low interest rates and big budget deficits can’t
cure bottlenecks in the job market. They can’t make construction workers into computer
scientists. There’s only one problem with this story: It’s mostly fiction. Superficially, it seems
compelling. Consider the evidence. The Labor Department’s latest estimate (February) of job
vacancies was 3.9 million, up 80 percent from the latest low in July 2009. Just recently, the
Wall Street Journal reported a “shortage of help hits nursing homes.” Employer complaints of
scarcities abound, notes Darrell West of the Brookings Institution. Even in 2010, manufacturers
said they couldn’t fill 227,000 jobs. More than half (55 percent) of state governments report
difficulty hiring for IT openings. Microsoft says it struggles to fill thousands of computer science
slots. Then there’s the “Beveridge curve,” after English economist William Beveridge (18791963). He noted a relationship between unemployment and job vacancies. When unemployment
is high, vacancies are few, because workers quickly fill them. But when unemployment falls,
vacancies actually rise, as employers scramble to meet their needs. What’s puzzled economists is
that there are more vacancies now than were expected at today’s high unemployment rate. This
suggests job mismatches: workers lacking needed skills or living where the jobs aren’t. On closer
inspection, the logic unravels. For starters, most vacancies are routine. They’re just-posted job
openings or those reflecting workers retiring or switching employers. Some skill shortages
always exist in a sophisticated economy, says Brookings economist Gary Burtless. “Are they
serious enough to explain today’s high unemployment rate?” he asks. “The answer is an
emphatic no.” In April, the unemployed totaled 11.7 million; another 6.3 million people
wanted a job but weren’t looking. These figures dwarf the number of vacancies. If shortages
were widespread, Burtless and other economists argue, wages would be rising rapidly as
employers competed for scarce skilled workers. There’s scant evidence of this. From April 2012
to April 2013, average hourly manufacturing wages rose 1 percent, reports the Labor
Department. Over the same period, the gain for all private nonfarm workers was 1.9 percent.
Among computer programmers, inflation-adjusted wages have remained flat for a decade, says a
study by the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal think tank. Similarly, economist Paul Osterman
of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology surveyed 925 manufacturing establishments in
2012 about worker shortages. Three-quarters reported no shortages, defined as vacancies lasting
three months or more. Of the rest, most shortages were less than 10 percent of their workforces.
“Very few firms responded by reducing production,” says Osterman. “The most common
reaction was to outsource” domestically — to send business to other American firms. Labor
bottlenecks haven’t crimped recovery, he concludes. A study by economists Edward Lazear of
Stanford University and James Spletzer of the Census Bureau agrees. So, what explains more
vacancies at given unemployment levels (a.k.a the shifting Beveridge curve)? The answer almost
certainly involves employers, not workers. Businesses have become more risk-averse. They’re
more reluctant to hire. They’ve raised standards. For many reasons, they’ve become more
demanding and discriminating. These reasons could include (a) doubts about the recovery; (b)
government policies raising labor costs (example: the Affordable Care Act’s insurance
mandates); (c) unwillingness to pay for training; and (d) fear of squeezed profits. In practice,
motives mix. The chief victims of this shift in business behavior seem to be the long-term
unemployed (more than six months), as some fascinating research by economists William
Dickens and Rand Ghayad of Northeastern University suggests. By their estimates, virtually all
the reduction in hiring falls on this group, regardless of their other characteristics (age,
education, industry experience). Many firms seem to have concluded that the long-term jobless
are damaged goods. To test this, Ghayad e-mailed fake resumes to hundreds of firms in response
to job postings. All the fictional candidates were 2005 college graduates with identical skills;
they differed only in their length of unemployment (0-12 months) and experience in the hiring
industry. The long-term unemployed received few responses. In many cases, software filters
apparently eliminated their applications automatically. Similarly, six months of joblessness
erased the value of industry experience. Employers preferred candidates with less joblessness
over those who had worked in their industry. No doubt the economy’s future would be brighter
if workers had more skills. But we shouldn’t mistake a long-term goal for a short-term problem.
The idea of widespread labor shortages in an era of high unemployment seems absurd — and is.
Today’s crucial scarcity is not skills. It’s confidence.
AT: Ag
Immigrants won’t help agriculture
Kobe, 14 – Senior editor at CNBC (Mark, “The shortage of farm workers and your grocery
bill”, CNBC, 5/15/14, http://www.cnbc.com/id/101671861#.)//EX
Even as they plant this spring, many American farmers will face an ongoing problem at harvest
time—having enough workers to pick their crops. And a remedy to the shortage is unlikely
anytime soon—and not even immigration reform, currently stalled in Congress,
would do the trick, said one analyst. "There's a perception with farmers and others that
immigration reform will help legally bring in more farm workers," said J. Edward Taylor, a
professor of agriculture at the University of California, Davis, and an expert on immigration and
farm labor issues. "But it really won't solve the shortage in the long run, if they do pass a reform
bill, " he said. Taylor, who co-wrote a paper this month on farm labor challenges, noted that the
main provider of low-wage agricultural workers in the U.S., at nearly 70 percent, has been
Mexico. But Mexico is drying up as a source. That's because rural Mexicans are
getting a better education, courtesy of more government spending, and rejecting farm
work , even in their own country. "The nonfarm economy in Mexico is growing and it's creating
new jobs that require engineering and managerial skills and giving better wages ,"
said Taylor. "That's where young people are going." Taylor also said this switch in career goals is
adding to the worker shortage as older farm laborers in the U.S. are ready to stop working and
aren't going to be replaced. And any replacements that might be on their way have been stopped
by tougher border controls and increased deportations. However, it's not only Mexico's younger
generation that's rejecting the harder farm work, said Charles Trauger, territory manager at
market data firm GlobalView. "Americans themselves don't seem willing to take the harder
farming jobs," said Trauger, who has a farm in Nebraska. "Nobody's taking them. People want to
live in the city instead of the farm," he said. "Hispanics who usually do that work are going to
higher paying jobs in packing plants and other industrial areas." To entice more workers,
farmers have increased wages along with paying for meals and giving bonuses for those workers
who stay a whole season. Traditionally on the lower pay scale, real average hourly earnings of
nonsupervisory farm laborers has been between $10.50 and $10.80 since 2007 and stood at
$10.80 in 2012, according to the U.S Department of Agriculture. But the actual wages can vary
from farm to farm, and there are no benefits or guarantee of work, as weather conditions, such
as California's devastating drought, can leave fields fallow and no crop to harvest. An estimated
that 800,000 acres of the Golden State's farm land will be idle this year, creating some $2.7
billion in crop losses. Any increase in worker pay can be a financial burden on farmers, said
John Kempf, CEO of Advancing ECO-Agriculture, a crop nutrition consulting company. "As
farm income has increased, so have prices for fertilizer and machinery necessary for farming,"
said Kempf, who has his own farm in Ohio. "That really goes against the idea that farmers, and
especially smaller ones, are making enough money. They're keeping very little of what they
make." Experts say consumers may feel the pinch of higher prices from increased labor costs
and a lack of harvested crops, but they will keep buying what they need. Whatever lure there is
from better pay may not be enough to bring in more farm workers, said Tim Richards, professor
of agribusiness at Arizona State University. "It's back-breaking work for low pay," he said.
"When a lot of agriculture jobs were eliminated during the last recession, a lot of people moved
on to construction and other jobs that paid more and they're not coming back." Taylor said the
worker shortage might be eased if farmers used their workers more efficiently and cooperated in
how they use their labor. That could translate into more job security by having workers
contracted on several farms during harvest season instead of farms individually hiring workers
on their own, experts say. To help offset the labor shortage, many farms, especially larger ones,
have turned to technology. That includes using special picking machines and other robotics to
harvest crops like delicate fruits and vegetables. "New technology can help improve worker
productivity and cut down costs on the labor intensive crops," said Taylor. But he added that
high technology might not be useful for every crop, like labor intensive berries. 'Farmers need to
adjust' Over the last century, an estimated 3 million migrant and seasonal farm workers were in
the U.S. at any one time. But that has declined to around 1 million now, according to the latest
USDA numbers. Farmers are said to have up to a 30 percent shortage in farm workers. Of those
here, 72 percent are foreign born, including 68 percent born in Mexico. As the flow of workers
crossing the border slows , and with immigration reform not likely to pass anytime soon or
even solve the problem, American farmers have to adjust to a new way of doing business,
experts say. "Farmers may need to move to growing less labor-intensive crops or go even more
high tech," said Richards, who believes some sort of immigration reform would have a positive
effect on the labor shortage. "But something needs to be done. We can lose a lot of crops that
simply don't get picked."
Labor shortage is inevitable – reform is irrelevant
Washington Post, 13 – (“We’re Running out of Farm Workers. Immigration Reform
Won’t Help”, The Washington Post, 1/29/13,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/29/the-u-s-is-running-out-offarm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/)//EX
But looser immigration laws may not be able to keep our food cheap forever. A recent study
suggests that U.S. farms could well face a shortage of low-cost labor in the years ahead no matter
what Congress does on immigration. That’s because Mexico is getting richer and can no longer
supply as many rural farm workers to the United States. And it won’t be nearly as easy to import
low-wage agricultural workers from elsewhere. For decades, farms in the United States have
relied heavily on low-wage foreign workers — mainly from Mexico — to work their fields. In
2006, 77 percent of all agricultural workers in the United States were foreign-born. (And half of
those foreign workers were undocumented immigrants.) All that cheap labor has helped keep
down U.S. food prices, particularly for labor-intensive fruits and vegetables. But that labor pool
is now drying up. In recent years, we’ve seen a spate of headlines like this from CNBC:
“California Farm Labor Shortage ‘Worst It’s Been, Ever’.” Typically, these stories blame drugrelated violence on the Mexican border or tougher border enforcement for the decline. Hence
the call for new guest-worker programs. But a new paper from U.C. Davis offers up a simpler
explanation for the labor shortage. Mexico is getting richer. And, when a country gets richer, its
pool of rural agricultural labor shrinks. Not only are Mexican workers shifting into other sectors
like construction, but Mexico’s own farms are increasing wages. That means U.S. farms will have
to pay higher and higher wages to attract a dwindling pool of available Mexican farm workers.
Immigrants won’t come – low wages
Taylor and Charlton, 13 – (J. Edward and Diane, Taylor is a Professor of Agriculture
and Resource Economics and Director of the Center on Rural Economies of the Americans and
Pacific Rim at the University of California Davis, and Charlton is a PhD Student in Agriculture
and Resource Economics at UC Davis, “Why Are Mexicans Leaving Farm Work, And What Does
This Mean for US Farmers”, Oxford University Press, 3/8/13,
http://blog.oup.com/2013/03/mexicans-farm-work-united-states/)//EX
Agriculture in North America traditionally has had its comparative advantage in having access
to abundant low-skilled labor from Mexico. Around 70% of the United States hired farm
workforce is Mexico-born, according to the National Agricultural Worker Survey (NAWS). Fruit,
vegetable, and horticultural farms in the US have enjoyed an extended period of farm labor
abundance with stable or decreasing real wages. However, new panel data reveal a declining
long-term trend in the farm labor supply in rural Mexico. In coming years, US farmers will need
to offer higher wages to induce new workers to migrate northward to US farm jobs.
AT: Bioterror
No bioterror impact
Keller 3/7 -- Analyst at Stratfor, Post-Doctoral Fellow at University of Colorado at Boulder
(Rebecca, 2013, "Bioterrorism and the Pandemic Potential,"
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/bioterrorism-and-pandemic-potential)
It is important to remember that
the risk of biological attack is very low
and that, partly because viruses can mutate
easily, the potential for natural outbreaks is unpredictable. The key is having the right tools in case of an outbreak, epidemic or pandemic, and these
include a plan for containment, open channels of communication, scientific research and knowledge sharing. In most cases involving a potential
pathogen, the
news can appear far worse than the actual threat.
Infectious Disease Propagation Since the beginning of February there have been occurrences of
H5N1 (bird flu) in Cambodia, H1N1 (swine flu) in India and a new, or novel, coronavirus (a member of the same virus family as SARS) in the United Kingdom. In the past week, a man from Nepal traveled through several countries and eventually ended up in the
United States, where it was discovered he had a drug-resistant form of tuberculosis, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report stating that antibiotic-resistant infections in hospitals are on the rise. In addition, the United States is
experiencing a worse-than-normal flu season, bringing more attention to the influenza virus and other infectious diseases. The potential for a disease to spread is measured by its effective reproduction number, or R-value, a numerical score that indicates whether a
disease will propagate or die out. When the disease first occurs and no preventive measures are in place, the reproductive potential of the disease is referred to as R0, the basic reproduction rate. The numerical value is the number of cases a single case can cause on
average during its infectious period. An R0 above 1 means the disease will likely spread (many influenza viruses have an R0 between 2 and 3, while measles had an R0 value of between 12 and 18), while an R-value of less than 1 indicates a disease will likely die out.
Factors contributing to the spread of the disease include the length of time people are contagious, how mobile they are when they are contagious, how the disease spreads (through the air or bodily fluids) and how susceptible the population is. The initial R0, which
assumes no inherent immunity, can be decreased through control measures that bring the value either near or below 1, stopping the further spread of the disease. Both the coronavirus family and the influenza virus are RNA viruses, meaning they replicate using only
RNA (which can be thought of as a single-stranded version of DNA, the more commonly known double helix containing genetic makeup). The rapid RNA replication used by many viruses is very susceptible to mutations, which are simply errors in the replication
process. Some mutations can alter the behavior of a virus, including the severity of infection and how the virus is transmitted. The combination of two different strains of a virus, through a process known as antigenic shift, can result in what is essentially a new virus.
Influenza, because it infects multiple species, is the hallmark example of this kind of evolution. Mutations can make the virus unfamiliar to the body's immune system. The lack of established immunity within a population enables a disease to spread more rapidly
because the population is less equipped to battle the disease. The trajectory of a mutated virus (or any other infectious disease) can reach three basic levels of magnitude. An outbreak is a small, localized occurrence of a pathogen. An epidemic indicates a more
widespread infection that is still regional, while a pandemic indicates that the disease has spread to a global level. Virologists are able to track mutations by deciphering the genetic sequence of new infections. It is this technology that helped scientists to determine
last year that a smattering of respiratory infections discovered in the Middle East was actually a novel coronavirus. And it is possible that through a series of mutations a virus like H5N1 could change in such a way to become easily transmitted between humans.
Lessons Learned There have been several influenza pandemics throughout history. The 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic is often cited as a worst-case scenario, since it infected between 20 and 40 percent of the world's population, killing roughly 2 percent of those
infected. In more recent history, smaller incidents, including an epidemic of the SARS virus in 2003 and what was technically defined as a pandemic of the swine flu (H1N1) in 2009, caused fear of another pandemic like the 1918 occurrence. The spread of th ese two
diseases was contained before reaching catastrophic levels, although the economic impact from fear of the diseases reached beyond the infected areas. Previous pandemics have underscored the importance of preparation, which is essential to effective disease
management. The World Health Organization lays out a set of guidelines for pandemic prevention and containment. The general principles of preparedness include stockpiling vaccines, which is done by both the United States and the European Union (although the
possibility exists that the vaccines may not be effective against a new virus). In the event of an outbreak, the guidelines call for developed nations to share vaccines with developing nations. Containment strategies beyond vaccines include quarantine of exposed
individuals, limited travel and additional screenings at places where the virus could easily spread, such as airports. Further measures include the closing of businesses, schools and borders. Individual measures can also be taken to guard against infection. These
involve general hygienic measures -- avoiding mass gatherings, thoroughly washing hands and even wearing masks in specific, high-risk situations. However, airborne viruses such as influenza are still the most difficult to contain because of the method of
transmission. Diseases like noroviruses, HIV or cholera are more serious but have to be transmitted by blood, other bodily fluids or fecal matter. The threat of a rapid pandemic is thereby slowed because it is easier to identify potential contaminates and either avoid
or sterilize them. Research is another important aspect of overall preparedness. Knowledge gained from studying the viruses and the ready availability of information can be instrumental in tracking diseases. For example, the genomic sequence of the novel
coronavirus was made available, helping scientists and doctors in different countries to readily identify the infection in limited cases and implement quarantine procedures as necessary. There have been only 13 documented cases of the novel coronavirus, so much is
unknown regarding the disease. Recent cases in the United Kingdom indicate possible human-to-human transmission. Further sharing of information relating to the novel coronavirus can aid in both treatment and containmen t. Ongoing research into viruses can
also help make future vaccines more efficient against possible mutations, though this type of research is not without controversy. A case in point is research on the H5N1 virus. H5N1 first appeared in humans in 1997. Of the more than 600 cases that have appeared
since then, more than half have resulted in death. However, the virus is not easily transmitted because it must cross from bird to human. Human-to-human transmission of H5N1 is very rare, with only a few suspected incidents in the known history of the disease.
While there is an H5N1 vaccine, it is possible that a new variation of the vaccine would be needed were the virus to mutate into a form that was transmittable between humans. Vaccines can take months or even years to develop, but preliminary research on the virus,
before an outbreak, can help speed up development. In December 2011, two separate research labs, one in the United States and one in the Netherlands, sought to publish their research on the H5N1 virus. Over the course of their research, these labs had created
mutations in the virus that allowed for airborne transmission between ferrets. These mutations also caused other changes, including a decrease in the virus's lethality and robustness (the ability to survive outside the carrier). Publication of the research was delayed
due to concerns that the results could increase the risk of accidental release of the virus by encouraging further research, or that the information could be used by terrorist organizations to conduct a biological attack. Eventually, publication of papers by both labs was
allowed. However, the scientific community imposed a voluntary moratorium in order to allow the community and regulatory bodies to determine the best practices moving forward. This voluntary ban was lifted for much of the world on Jan. 24, 2013. On Feb. 21,
the National Institutes of Health in the United States issued proposed guidelines for federally funded labs working with H5N1. Once standards are set, decisions will likely be made on a case-by-case basis to allow research to continue. Fear of a pandemic resulting
from research on H5N1 continues even after the moratorium was lifted. Opponents of the research cite the possibility that the virus will be accidentally released or intentionally used as a bioweapon, since information in scientific publications would be considered
readily available. The Risk-Reward Equation The risk of an accidental release of H5N1 is similar to that of other infectious pathogens currently being studied. Proper safety standards are key, of course, and experts in the field have had a year to determine the best
way to proceed, balancing safety and research benefits. Previous work with the virus was conducted at biosafety level three out of four, which requires researchers wearing respirators and disposable gowns to work in pairs in a negative pressure envir onment. While
many of these labs are part of universities, access is controlled either through keyed entry or even palm scanners. There are roughly 40 labs that submitted to the voluntary ban. Those wishing to resume work after the ban was lifted must comply with guidelines
The
use of the pathogen as a biological weapon requires an assessment of whether a non-state actor
would have the capabilities to isolate the virulent strain, then weaponize and distribute it. Stratfor has
long held the position that while terrorist organizations may have rudimentary capabilities regarding biological
weapons, the likelihood of a successful attack is very low. Given that the laboratory version of H5N1 -- or any
requiring strict national oversight and close communication and collaboration with national authorities. The risk of release either through accident or theft cannot be completely eliminated, but given the established parameters the risk is minimal.
influenza virus, for that matter -- is a contagious pathogen, there would be two possible modes that a non-state actor would have to instigate an attack.
The virus could be refined and then aerosolized and released into a populated area, or an individual could be infected with the virus and sent to freely
circulate within a population. There
are severe constraints that make success using either of these methods
unlikely. The technology needed to refine and aerosolize a pathogen for a biological attack is
beyond the capability of most non-state actors. Even if they were able to develop a weapon, other factors such as wind
patterns and humidity can render an attack ineffective. Using a human carrier is a less expensive method,
but it requires that the biological agent be a contagion. Additionally, in order to infect the large number of people necessary
to start an outbreak, the infected carrier must be mobile while contagious, something that is doubtful with
a serious disease like small pox. The carrier also cannot be visibly ill because that would limit the necessary human contact.
As far as continued research is concerned, there is a risk-reward equation to consider. The threat of a terrorist attack using
biological weapons is very low. And while it is impossible to predict viral outbreaks, it is important to be able to recognize a new strain
of virus that could result in an epidemic or even a pandemic, enabling countries to respond more effectively. All of this hinges on the level of
preparedness of developed nations and their ability to rapidly exchange information, conduct research and promote individual awareness of the threat.
No impact – tons of examples vote neg
Dove, 12 – PhD in Microbiology, science journalist and former Adjunct Professor at New
York University (Alan, 1/24. “Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Bioterrorist?”
http://alandove.com/content/2012/01/whos-afraid-of-the-big-bad-bioterrorist/)
The second problem is much more serious. Eliminating the toxins, we’re left with a list of infectious
bacteria and viruses.
With a single exception, these organisms are probably near-useless as weapons, and history proves it.¶ There have
been at least three well-documented military-style deployments of infectious agents from the list, plus one deployment of an agent
that’s not on the list. I’m focusing entirely on the modern era, by the way. There are historical reports of armies catapulting plague-
ridden corpses over city walls and conquistadors trying to inoculate blankets with Variola (smallpox), but it’s not clear those
“attacks” were effective. Those diseases tended to spread like, well, plagues, so there’s no telling whether the targets really caught the
diseases from the bodies and blankets, or simply picked them up through casual contact with their enemies.¶ Of the four
modern biowarfare incidents, two have been fatal. The first was the 1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident,
which killed an estimated 100 people. In that case, a Soviet-built biological weapons lab accidentally released a large plume of
weaponized Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) over a major city. Soviet authorities tried to blame the resulting fatalities on “bad meat,” but
in the 1990s Western investigators were finally able to piece together the real story. The second fatal incident also
involved anthrax from a government-run lab: the 2001 “Amerithrax” attacks. That time, a rogue employee (or
perhaps employees) of the government’s main bioweapons lab sent weaponized, powdered anthrax through the US postal service.
Five people died.¶ That gives us a grand total of around 105 deaths, entirely from agents that were
grown and weaponized in officially-sanctioned and funded bioweapons research labs. Remember
that.¶ Terrorist groups have also deployed biological weapons twice, and these cases are very instructive. The
first was the 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack, in which members of a cult in Oregon inoculated restaurant
salad bars with Salmonella bacteria (an agent that’s not on the “select” list). 751 people got sick, but nobody
died. Public health authorities handled it as a conventional foodborne Salmonella outbreak,
identified the sources and contained them. Nobody even would have known it was a deliberate attack if a member of the cult hadn’t
come forward afterward with a confession. Lesson: our existing public health infrastructure was entirely
adequate to respond to a major bioterrorist attack.¶ The second genuine bioterrorist attack took
place in 1993. Members of the Aum Shinrikyo cult successfully isolated and grew a large stock of anthrax
bacteria, then sprayed it as an aerosol from the roof of a building in downtown Tokyo. The cult was
well-financed, and had many highly educated members, so this release over the world’s largest
city really represented a worst-case scenario.¶ Nobody got sick or died. From the cult’s perspective, it was a
complete and utter failure. Again, the only reason we even found out about it was a post-hoc confession. Aum members later
demonstrated their lab skills by producing Sarin nerve gas, with far deadlier results. Lesson: one of the top “select agents”
is extremely hard to grow and deploy even for relatively skilled non-state groups. It’s a really
crappy bioterrorist weapon.¶ Taken together, these events point to an uncomfortable but inevitable conclusion: our
biodefense industry is a far greater threat to us than any actual bioterrorists.