George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
OCS Affirmative---Starter
OCS Affirmative---Starter........................................................................................................................................................................... 1
*** Manufacturing Advantage ................................................................................................................................................................. 3
1AC --- Manufacturing ............................................................................................................................................................................ 4
UQ: Gas Price Spikes ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12
UQ: Manufacturing = Brink .................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Internal Link: OCS K2 Manufacturing .................................................................................................................................................. 14
Internal Link: OCS K2 Chemical Industry ............................................................................................................................................ 17
Internal Link: OCS K2 Steel Industry ................................................................................................................................................... 18
Impacts: Manufacturing --- Agriculture ................................................................................................................................................. 19
Impacts: Manufacturing --- Economy .................................................................................................................................................... 20
Impacts: Manufacturing --- China ......................................................................................................................................................... 23
Impacts: Chemistry --- Aerospace (Cyberterror !) ................................................................................................................................. 24
Impacts: Chemistry --- Aerospace (Cruise Missile !) ............................................................................................................................ 26
Impacts: Chemistry --- Aerospace (Asia !) ............................................................................................................................................ 28
Impacts: Steel --- Heg ............................................................................................................................................................................ 29
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Readiness !) ................................................................................................................................................ 31
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Taiwan !) .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Korea !) ...................................................................................................................................................... 33
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Columbia !) ................................................................................................................................................ 34
*** Arctic Advantage .............................................................................................................................................................................. 35
1AC --- Arctic ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 36
Internal Link: Artic Leadership ............................................................................................................................................................. 41
Internal Link: Environment Leadership ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Internal Link: Manufacturing ................................................................................................................................................................. 44
A2: Arctic Drilling Difficult .................................................................................................................................................................. 45
*** Economy Advantage ......................................................................................................................................................................... 46
1AC --- Economy .................................................................................................................................................................................. 47
UQ: Economy = Brink ........................................................................................................................................................................... 56
Internal Link: OCS K2 Economy .......................................................................................................................................................... 57
Internal Link: OCS K2 Shipbuilding ..................................................................................................................................................... 58
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power ................................................................................................................................................. 59
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power (China EXT)............................................................................................................................ 60
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power (Piracy !) ................................................................................................................................. 61
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power (Economy !) ............................................................................................................................ 63
*** Solvency ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 64
Plan Text ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 65
No Access .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 66
Congress Key ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
OCS K2 Gas Production ........................................................................................................................................................................ 68
SQ Lease Fails ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 71
A2: No Demand ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 72
A2: Delay ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 73
A2: Workers Shortage ........................................................................................................................................................................... 74
*** T Answers .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 76
2AC T --- Exploration/Development ..................................................................................................................................................... 77
1AR T --- Exploration/Development --- We Meet ................................................................................................................................ 79
1AR T --- Exploration/Development --- C/I .......................................................................................................................................... 80
A2: OCS =/= Ocean ............................................................................................................................................................................... 81
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** Midterm/Politics Answers ................................................................................................................................................................ 83
Midterms --- UQ --- GOP Lose ............................................................................................................................................................. 84
Midterms --- UQ --- Dems Lose ............................................................................................................................................................ 87
Midterms --- Impact Defense --- Can’t Predict ...................................................................................................................................... 89
Midterms --- Link Defense --- Foreign Policy O/W .............................................................................................................................. 90
Midterms --- Link Defense --- Economy O/W ...................................................................................................................................... 91
Midterms --- Link Turns --- Dems ......................................................................................................................................................... 92
Midterms --- Link Turns --- Independents ............................................................................................................................................. 93
Midterms --- A2: DA Turns Case .......................................................................................................................................................... 94
Politics --- Link Turns --- GOP.............................................................................................................................................................. 95
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** Manufacturing Advantage
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
1AC --- Manufacturing
Contention __ : Manufacturing
Gas price spike is inevitable---devastates US manufacturing sector including steel and petrochemicals
Ted Griggs 14, the reporter @ the Advocate, “Unlimited gas exports threaten manufacturing renaissance,” 5-24-14,
http://theadvocate.com/news/business/9235992-123/unlimited-gas-exports-threaten-manufacturing, DOA: 6-16-14, y2k
Allowing unlimited exports of liquefied natural gas threatens a U.S. manufacturing rebirth that has just begun, halting tens of
billions of dollars in petrochemical projects in Louisiana and Texas, and forcing consumers nationwide to pay much higher utility bills, executives with
The Dow Chemical Co. said Wednesday. Although supporters say exports will benefit the U.S. economy, Dow and other members of America’s Energy Advantage
say the federal government should carefully consider the economic consequences before allowing “unfettered” LNG exports. “Energy exports won’t make Europe
or the Pacific more competitive,” said James R. Fitterling, executive vice president for Dow. “What they are going to do is take away energy competitiveness from
America that’s going to undercut the ability to create all these jobs and create all the economic growth.” Unlimited
exports could mean a spike in
electricity and utility bills like those seen last winter. Without any LNG exports, gas and propane supplies were so tight that prices jumped from about $4.50 to
more than $20 per thousand cubic feet in some parts of the country. In the Northeast, the prices rocketed to more than $100 per thousand cubic feet.
“When we caution about balance on the export side, what we’re saying is it’s all about energy costs,” Fitterling said. Nationally, more than 120 projects
valued at more than $100 billion in energy-intensive industries , including steel, glass, aluminum, fertilizer and methanol, have
been announced, with many of them in Louisiana and Texas. Roughly half of the investment is from foreign companies building in the
U.S. to take advantage of energy prices. In Louisiana, Dow has invested $1.6 billion since Christmas 2012, reopening an ethylene plant near Hahnville
and a $1 billion project in Plaquemine for two olefins plants and an expansion of ethylene production. Fitterling and Kevin Kolevar, vice president of government
affairs and public policy for Dow, are part of a Dow contingent making the rounds in Baton Rouge and New Orleans to talk with community and business leaders
about the need to limit LNG exports. Dow officials also are discussing industry’s need for additional investment in education and workforce training and
infrastructure, such as additional bridges across the Mississippi River to help improve commerce and aid plant workers. A 2012 report commissioned by
the U.S. Department of Energy says LNG exports would mean higher utility bills for businesses and consumers but estimates prices would rise between
22 cents and $1.11 per thousand cubic feet in five years. But America’s Energy Advantage members say the report vastly underestimates the impact
of LNG exports when combined with the natural gas demand from industrial projects , along with a shift of power
generation from coal and nuclear fuel and as home heating moves from fuel oil. The country now uses about 64 billion cubic feet of gas
per day, Fitterling said. Power generation, industrial demand and home heating are expected to increase domestic demand by about 30 billion cubic
feet per day by 2020. The Department of Energy already has given seven facilities, with a combined capacity of 9.3 billion cubic feet, permission to export to nonfree trade agreement countries. The non-FTA countries include those in Europe and Asia. Permits for 17 other LNG export facilities are in the works. A decade
ago, the cost for natural gas jumped to more than $10 per thousand cubic feet, and a number of LNG import facilities were permitted. Most weren’t built, and few
imported any gas. But having blind faith that the same thing will happen this time around with export facilities is “a little bit ludicrous,” Fitterling said. “ There’s
a tipping point here, and we’re rapidly reaching it ,” Fitterling said. Once that point is reached, America will lose its energy
competitiveness . The energy advantage is one of the country’s most important resources, next to people and innovation. But if
unlimited exports boost natural gas prices to $10 per thousand cubic feet, it will scare away all the investment , he said. Consumers, whose utility
bills dropped an average of $2,000 per year thanks to the shale gas revolution, will suffer, Fitterling said. But industry will leave as it did when
natural gas prices jumped a decade ago . Fitterling said the sweet spot for exports is around 10 billion cubic feet per day, an amount that would make
America the largest LNG exporter in the world. Kolevar said there’s a tremendous amount of gas available in the near and long term. “The concern we have is in
the midterm, the three- to five-year time frame, because that’s when all of this comes online. That’s when all of these LNG facilities propose to come online; that’s
when the better part of the industrial growth is scheduled to come online,” Kolevar said. It’s also when the coal-fired power plants are set to begin shutting down,
Even a short-term imbalance in the supply and demand would result in a price spike. The only flexible part of that
demand is from industry, and the only way that demand is balanced is by industry pulling back on projects .
he said.
Chemical industry solves extinction
Baum 99 – Baum, Founder of Chemical and Engineering News Washington, 12-6-99 (Rudy, “MILLENNIUM SPECIAL REPORT,”
C&EN Washington, Volume 77, Number 49, http://pubs.acs.org/cen/hotarticles/cenear/991206/7749spintro2.html)
Computers and the Internet are clearly one of the driving forces shaping all aspects of society at the turn of the millennium. But despite the stock market's
insistence that "tech stocks" equal "computer stocks," we here at C&EN believe that chemistry in all its permutations remains
a vital component of
high technology. Which brings me to this "Millennium Special Report: Chemistry In The Service Of Humanity." The pace of change in today's world is truly
incomprehensible. Science is advancing on all fronts, particularly chemistry and biology working together as they never have before to understand life in general
and human beings in particular at a breathtaking pace. Technology ranging from computers and the Internet to medical devices to genetic engineering to
nanotechnology is transforming our world and our existence in it. It is, in fact, a fool's mission to predict where science and technology will take us in the coming
decade, let alone the coming century. We can say with finality only this: We don't know. We do know, however, that we face enormous challenges, we 6
billion humans who now inhabit Earth. In its 1998 revision of world population estimates and projections, the United Nations anticipates a world population in
2050 of 7.3 billion to 10.7 billion, with a "medium-fertility projection," considered the most likely, indicating a world population of 8.9 billion people in 2050.
According to the UN, fertility now stands at 2.7 births per woman, down from 5 births per woman in the early 1950s. And fertility rates are declining in all regions
of the world. That's good news. But people are living a lot longer. That is certainly good news for the individuals who are living longer, but it also poses challenges
for health care and social services the world over. The 1998 UN report estimates for the first time the number of octogenarians, nonagenarians, and centenarians
living today and projected for 2050. The numbers are startling. In 1998, 66 million people were aged 80 or older, about one of every 100 persons. That number is
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
expected to increase sixfold by 2050 to reach 370 million people, or one in every 24 persons. By 2050, more than 2.2 million people will be 100 years old or older!
Here is the fundamental challenge we face: The world's growing and aging population must be fed and clothed and housed and transported in
ways that do not perpetuate the environmental devastation wrought by the first waves of industrialization of the 19th and 20th centuries. As we increase our output
of goods and services, as we increase our consumption of energy, as we meet the imperative of raising the standard of living for the poorest among us, we must
learn to carry out our economic activities sustainably. There are optimists out there, C&EN readers among them, who believe that the history of
civilization is a long string of technological triumphs of humans over the limits of nature. In this view, the idea of a "carrying capacity" for Earth—a limit to the
number of humans Earth's resources can support—is a fiction because technological advances will continuously obviate previously perceived limits. This view has
historical merit. Dire predictions made in the 1960s about the exhaustion of resources ranging from petroleum to chromium to fresh water by the end of the 1980s
or 1990s have proven utterly wrong. While I do not count myself as one of the technological pessimists who see technology as a mixed blessing at best and an
unmitigated evil at worst, I do not count myself among the technological optimists either. There
are environmental challenges of transcendent
may overcome us and our Earth before technological progress can come to our rescue. Global climate change, the
accelerating destruction of terrestrial and oceanic habitats, the catastrophic loss of species across the plant and animal kingdoms—these are problems that
are not obviously amenable to straightforward technological solutions. But I know this, too: Science and technology have brought us to where we are, and only
science and technology, coupled with innovative social and economic thinking, can take us to where we need to be in the coming millennium.
Chemists, chemistry, and the chemical industry—what we at C&EN call the chemical enterprise— will play central roles in addressing these
challenges. The first section of this Special Report is a series called "Millennial Musings" in which a wide variety of representatives from the chemical enterprise
complexity that I fear
share their thoughts about the future of our science and industry. The five essays that follow explore the contributions the chemical enterprise is making right now
to ensure that we will successfully meet the challenges of the 21st century. The essays do not attempt to predict the future. Taken as a whole, they do not pretend to
be a comprehensive examination of the efforts of our science and our industry to tackle the challenges I've outlined above. Rather, they paint, in broad brush
strokes, a portrait of scientists, engineers, and business managers struggling to make a vital contribution to humanity's future. The first essay, by Senior Editor
Marc S. Reisch, is a case study of the chemical industry's ongoing transformation to sustainable production. Although it is not well known to the general public,
the chemical industry is at the forefront of corporate efforts to reduce waste from production streams to zero. Industry giants DuPont
and Dow Chemical are taking major strides worldwide to manufacture chemicals while minimizing the environmental "footprint" of their facilities. This is an ethic
that starts at the top of corporate structure. Indeed, Reisch quotes Dow President and Chief Executive Officer William S. Stavropolous: "We must integrate
elements that historically have been seen as at odds with one another: the triple bottom line of sustainability—economic and social and environmental needs."
DuPont Chairman and CEO Charles (Chad) O. Holliday envisions a future in which "biological processes use renewable resources as feedstocks, use solar energy
to drive growth, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, use low-temperature and low-pressure processes, and produce waste that is less toxic." But
sustainability is more than just a philosophy at these two chemical companies. Reisch describes ongoing Dow and DuPont initiatives that are making sustainability
a reality at Dow facilities in Michigan and Germany and at DuPont's massive plant site near Richmond, Va. Another manifestation of the chemical industry's
evolution is its embrace of life sciences. Genetic engineering is a revolutionary technology. In the 1970s, research advances fundamentally shifted our perception of
DNA. While it had always been clear that deoxyribonucleic acid was a chemical, it was not a chemical that could be manipulated like other chemicals—clipped
precisely, altered, stitched back together again into a functioning molecule. Recombinant DNA techniques began the transformation of DNA into just such a
chemical, and the reverberations of that change are likely to be felt well into the next century. Genetic engineering has entered the fabric of modern science and
technology. It is one of the basic tools chemists and biologists use to understand life at the molecular level. It provides new avenues to pharmaceuticals
and new approaches to treat disease. It expands enormously agronomists' ability to introduce traits into crops, a capability seized on by
numerous chemical companies. There is no doubt that this powerful new tool will play a major role in feeding the world's population in
the coming century, but its adoption has hit some bumps in the road. In the second essay, Editor-at-Large Michael Heylin examines how the promise of
agricultural biotechnology has gotten tangled up in real public fear of genetic manipulation and corporate control over food. The third essay, by Senior Editor
Mairin B. Brennan, looks at chemists embarking on what is perhaps the greatest intellectual quest in the history of science—humans' attempt to understand the
detailed chemistry of the human brain, and with it, human consciousness. While this quest is, at one level, basic research at its most pure, it also has enormous
practical significance. Brennan focuses on one such practical aspect: the effort to understand neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's
disease that predominantly plague older humans and are likely to become increasingly difficult public health problems among an aging population. Science and
technology are always two-edged swords. They bestow the power to create and the power to destroy. In addition to its enormous potential for health and
agriculture, genetic engineering conceivably could be used to create horrific biological warfare agents. In the fourth essay of this Millennium Special Report,
Senior Correspondent Lois R. Ember examines the challenge of developing methods to counter the threat of such biological weapons. "Science and
technology will eventually produce sensors able to detect the presence or release of biological agents, or devices that aid in
forecasting, remediating, and ameliorating bioattacks," Ember writes. Finally, Contributing Editor Wil Lepkowski discusses the most mundane,
the most marvelous, and the most essential molecule on Earth, H2O. Providing clean water to Earth's population is already difficult—and tragically, not always
accomplished. Lepkowski looks in depth at the situation in Bangladesh—where a well-meaning UN program to deliver clean water from wells has poisoned
millions with arsenic. Chemists are working to develop better ways to detect arsenic in drinking water at meaningful concentrations and ways to remove it that will
work in a poor, developing country. And he explores the evolving water management philosophy, and the science that underpins it, that will be needed to provide
adequate water for all its vital uses. In the past two centuries, our science has transformed the world. Chemistry is a wondrous tool that has allowed us to
understand the structure of matter and gives us the ability to manipulate that structure to suit our own purposes. It allows us to dissect the molecules of life to see
what makes them, and us, tick. It is providing a glimpse into workings of what may be the most complex structure in the universe, the human brain, and with it
hints about what constitutes consciousness. In the coming decades, we will use chemistry to delve ever deeper into these mysteries and provide for
humanity's basic and not-so-basic needs.
Steel industry is key to aircraft carriers.
AISI 8—American Iron and Steel Institute, “U.S. Steel Industry Critical To Keeping Us Free,” pg online @
http://legacy.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=24325&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm //um-ef)
Sharkey said domestically-produced steel is important to “improve our military platforms , strengthen the nation’s industrial
base and harden our vital homeland security infrastructure .” Congressman Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN), Chairman of the Congressional Steel
Caucus, has noted that “to ensure that our national defense needs will be met, it is crucial that we have a robust and vibrant domestic
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
steel industry. It is poor policy to rely on foreign steel for our national security – instead, we need a long-term investment in
domestically-produced, high-quality and reliable steel that will serve and strengthen our national security interests.” Protecting the nation’s vast
infrastructure is essential to our homeland security. This became an issue in recent times when it was discovered that substandard steel
imported from China was being used by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to construct the border fence between the United
States and Mexico. Members of the Congressional Steel Caucus, including Congressman Visclosky (D-IN), have worked to introduce legislation that will help
strengthen the domestic steel industry in order to address issues of substandard steel imports. “AISI and its members greatly appreciate the Congressional Steel
Caucus’ support for the steel industry and their vigilance on behalf of America’s national security,” Sharkey said. In addition, thousands of skilled men and
women of the U.S. steel industry work to produce high quality, cost-competitive products that are used by the military in various
aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines to Patriot and Stinger missiles, Sharkey said. Land based vehicles, such as
the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank and the family of Light Armored Vehicles, also utilize significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle . The
applications ranging from
up-armored Humvee, in use by the U.S. Army, includes steel plating around the cab of the vehicle, offering improved protection against small arms fire and
shrapnel. In fact, the steel plating underneath the cab is designed to survive up to eight pounds of explosives beneath the engine to four pounds in the cargo area.
These critical applications require consistent, high quality domestic sources of supply. “We as a country need to make sure
that our national defense needs will be met, making it critical for the United States to have a robust and vibrant domestic steel
industry that will serve to strengthen our national security interests,” Sharkey noted. Historically, American-made steel and
specialty metals have been integral components of U.S. military strength and they continue in this role today . The Department
of Defense’s (DOD’s) primary use of steel in weapons systems is for shipbuilding, but steel is also an important component in ammunition, aircraft parts, and
aircraft engines. DOD’s steel requirements are satisfied by both integrated steel mills and EAF producer mills.
Key to prevent Pakistani nuclear launches
John Gordon 6 graduated from The Citadel in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in history. He also holds a masters in international
relations from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas, and a masters in business administration from Marymount University in
Arlington, Virginia. Currently, he is a candidate in George Mason University’s Public Policy Ph.D. program. Following graduation from
The Citadel, he entered the Army as a Field Artillery officer. His assignments included the 82d Airborne and 2d Infantry Divisions, the
Field Artillery School, and Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters. For the last 4 years of his Army career, he served at
Headquarters, Department of the Army where he was the Chief of the Doctrine Team in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans (DCSOPS). He was also the leader of the Army’s Deep Attack/Weapons Mix Study (DAWMS) team. While in
DCSOPS, Mr. Gordon was a member of the Army’s Roles and Missions Commission team and represented the Army at several
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) panels. He is the author of over 30 articles in various publications such as Army, Military Review,
Joint Force Quarterly, Naval Institute’s Proceedings, and Georgetown University’s National Security Studies Quarterly. He joined RAND
in May 1997. “LEVERAGING AMERICA'S AIRCRAFT CARRIER CAPABILITIES: Exploring New Combat and Noncombat
Roles and Missions for the U.S. Carrier Fleet,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf, 2006, Accessed date:
12-3-12 y2k
This vignette examined the possibility that a radical group within the Pakistani military attempts to overthrow the government in
Islamabad. Although the coup attempt fails , the rebels seize one or more nuclear weapons storage sites and a number of missile
launchers. The Pakistani government asks the United States for assistance in the form of intelligence , surveillance , and
reconnaissance (ISR), precision strike , and Special Operations Forces liaison personnel to assist in its attempts to quickly retake the
storage facilities and prevent the launch or removal of nuclear weapons . Strike and reconnaissance aircraft or unmanned aerial
vehicles (UAVs) from carriers operating in the Indian Ocean are a key U.S. capability that can assist the Pakistanis . The vignette highlights the
need for the United States to quickly establish liaison with both Pakistani and Indian authorities. In this situation, U.S. forces would provide detailed,
real-time, persistent, all-weather ISR support to Pakistani forces, as well as precision-strike assets that the Pakistani military would
lack. It should be pointed out that support by current and projected long-endurance UAVs or manned ISR aircraft cannot be provided unless those systems operate
below any cloud layers, which thus makes them subject to attack by man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) and other air defenses.
That causes Indo-Pak escalation---extinction
Suri 1/12 The nuclear nightmare, Manil Suri Jan 12, 2014, a professor of mathematics and affiliate professor of Asian studies at the
University of Maryland, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2014-01-12/deep-focus/46112370_1_indian-mujahideen-death-tolldirty-bomb
Can terrorists get their hands on an N-bomb in Pakistan? The Bhatkal scenario sounds fanciful but there is no denying that South Asia is a
risky flashpoint . Last week, the captured Indian Mujahideen leader Yasin Bhatkal revealed he had asked his Pakistani boss for a "small nuclear bomb" to
detonate in Surat. "Anything can be arranged in Pakistan ," his boss is reputed to have replied. What if such a terrorist nuclear device were, indeed, to go off in
Surat? Anything
acquired from the Pakistani arsenal would not be "small" but rather, comparable to the 15 kiloton Hiroshima
bomb. The death toll would be significantly higher due to Surat's greater population density, and because a ground detonation can lead to radioactive fallout. A
less catastrophic scenario might involve a homemade "dirty" bomb, using radioactive material appropriated from medical equipment. Although the physical
damage would now be quite localized , the resulting panic and outrage might again outstrip anything seen in previous terrorist
attacks. In either case, India would be faced with the same difficult question: how to react? So far, India's policy on terrorism has been
one of restraint: the response has never been a full-scale military attack, aimed at inflicting sufficiently costly losses to make Pakistan abandon its policy of
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
tolerating terrorist groups. The
reason is pragmatism: Pakistan, which has significantly weaker conventional military power, has set a low
threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in case it is overwhelmed by India in a conventional war. With enough nuclear warheads to wipe
each other out, India and Pakistan are in a classic configuration of mutually assured destruction. The danger of nuclear escalation has made the cost of starting even
a conventional war too high, no matter what the provocation. But what if the provocation itself was nuclear, like an atomic device exploding in Surat, or
even a dirty bomb? What government would be able to adhere to a policy of restraint in the face of the frenzied calls for revenge sure to
follow? If India retaliated in kind, with even the most limited nuclear action, the experience with NATO war games shows that the end result would
probably be a full scale nuclear exchange . With 100 detonations (about half the current combined arsenal), not only would several million Indians and
Pakistanis be instantly killed, but atmospheric soot would precipitate a worldwide nuclear famine , causing up to two billion additional
starvation deaths. Clearly, the only viable option is to never have to find out the Indian response . Could the terrorist acquisition of a nuclear
bomb indeed be "arranged" in Pakistan ? Over the years, the international community has repeatedly focused on the security of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, with
the US providing substantial aid to enhance protection. Pakistan insists its weapons are safe, a position the US State Department has endorsed. Even if terrorists
were able to lay their hands on one, detonating a nuclear device is a highly complex procedure, with several safety mechanisms in place to prevent unauthorized
activation. The only plausible situation where all security measures might be overcome would be if Pakistan were to degenerate into
a completely failed state . Dirty bombs present their own difficulties . Radioactive materials cannot be easily handled without specialized equipment, and there
are issues with transportability as well as dispersion mechanisms to cause sufficient contamination. Certainly, no dirty bomb has ever been successfully deployed.
Under current conditions, therefore, the Bhatkal scenario appears quite fanciful. And yet, it is a reminder of the issues at stake. South Asia is perhaps the
riskiest nuclear flashpoint in the world, an image that the region's population has not sufficiently assimilated . Given Pakistan's
strategic needs, it is unlikely to ever relinquish its nuclear arsenal. A more attainable goal would be to convince both sides to take weapons off high alert status, so
that cooler heads can prevail in terms of crisis. Restraint, rather than emotion, is needed to ensure the nuclear red line is never crossed.
Manufacturing is key to military readiness---de-escalates every conflict
Barry D. Watts 8 is Senior Fellow @ The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “The US Defense Industrial Base, Past,
Present and Future,” http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In/R.20081015._The_US_Defense_In.pdf, Accessed date: 12/3/12 y2k
Since the 1950s, the US defense industrial base has been a source of long-term strategic advantage for the United States, just as it was
during World War II. American defense companies provided the bombers and missiles on which nuclear deterrence rested and armed
the US military with world-class weapons , including low-observable aircraft, wide-area surveillance and targeting sensors, and reliable guided
munitions cheap enough to be employed in large numbers. They also contributed to the development of modern digital computers, successfully orbited the first
reconnaissance satellites, put a man on the moon in less than a decade, and played a pivotal role in developing the worldwide web. Critics have long
emphasized President Eisenhower’s warning in his farewell television address that the nation needed to “guard against the acquisition of undue
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Usually forgotten or ignored has been an earlier, equally important, passage in
Eisenhower’s January 1961 speech:
A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment . Our arms must be mighty,
ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction . Eisenhower’s warning about undue
influence, rather than the need to maintain American military strength, tends to dominate contemporary discussions of the US defense industrial base. While the
percentage of US gross domestic product going to national defense remains low compared to the 1950s and 1960s, there is a growing list of defense programs that
have experienced problems with cost, schedule, and, in a few cases, weapon performance. In fairness, the federal government, including the Department of Defense
and Congress, is at least as much to blame for many of these programmatic difficulties as US defense firms. Nevertheless, those critical of the defense industry tend
to concentrate on these acquisition shortcomings. The main focus of this report is on a larger question. How prepared is the US defense industrial base to meet the
needs of the US military Services in coming decades? The Cold War challenge of Soviet power has largely ebbed, but new challenges have emerged.
There is the immediate threat of the violence stemming from SalafiTakfiri and Khomeinist terrorist groups and their state sponsors,
that have consumed so much American blood and treasure in Iraq; the longer-term challenge of authoritarian capitalist regimes epitomized by the rise of China
and a resurgent Russia ; and, not least, the worsening problem of proliferation, particularly of nuclear weapons. In the face of these more complex
and varied challenges, it would surely be premature to begin dismantling the US defense industry . From a competitive
perspective, therefore, the vital question about the defense industrial base is whether it will be as much a source of long-term
advantage in the decades ahead as it has been since the 1950s.
Tech innovation solves great power war and sustains heg
Mark Taylor 4 is Professor of Political Science – Massachusetts Institute of Technology, “The Politics of Technological Change:
International Relations versus Domestic Institutions”, 4-1, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46554792/Taylor, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k.
Technological innovation is of central importance to the study of international relations (IR), affecting almost every aspect of the sub-field. 2 First and foremost, a
nation’s technological capability has a significant effect on its economic growth, industrial might, and military prowess; therefore
relative national technological capabilities necessarily influence the balance of power between states, and hence have a role in
calculations of war and alliance formation . Second, technology and innovative capacity also determine a nation’s trade profile,
affecting which products it will import and export, as well as where multinational corporations will base their production facilities. 3 Third, insofar as innovationdriven economic growth both attracts investment and produces surplus capital, a nation’s technological ability will also affect international financial flows and who
has power over them. 4 Thus, in broad theoretical terms, technological change is important to the study of IR because of its overall implications for both the
relative and absolute power of states. And if theory alone does not convince, then history also tells us that nations on the technological ascent
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
generally experience a corresponding and dramatic change in their global stature and influence, such as Britain during the first
industrial revolution, the United States and Germany during the second industrial revolution, and Japan during the twentieth
century. 5 Conversely, great powers which fail to maintain their place at the technological frontier generally drift and fade from
influence on international scene. 6 This is not to suggest that technological innovation alone determines international politics, but rather that shifts in
both relative and absolute technological capability have a major impact on international r elations, and therefore need to be better
understood by IR scholars. Indeed, the importance of technological innovation to international relations is seldom disputed by IR
theorists. Technology is rarely the sole or overriding causal variable in any given IR theory, but a broad overview of the major theoretical debates reveals the
ubiquity of technological causality. For example, from Waltz to Posen, almost all Realists have a place for technology in their explanations of international politics.
7 At the very least, they describe it as an essential part of the distribution of material capabilities across nations, or an indirect source of military doctrine. And for
some, like Gilpin quoted above, technology is
the very cornerstone of great power domination , and its transfer the main vehicle by
which war and change occur in world politics. 8 Jervis tells us that the balance of offensive and defensive military technology affects
the incentives for war. 9 Walt agrees, arguing that technological change can alter a state’s aggregate power, and thereby affect both
alliance formation and the international balance of threats. 10 Liberals are less directly concerned with technological change, but they must admit
that by raising or lowering the costs of using force, technological progress affects the rational attractiveness of international
cooperation and regimes. 11 Technology also lowers information & transactions costs and thus increases the applicability of
international institutions, a cornerstone of Liberal IR theory. 12 And in fostering flows of trade, finance, and information, technological
change can lead to Keohane’s interdependence 13 or Thomas Friedman et al’s globalization. 14 Meanwhile, over at the “third debate”, Constructivists
cover the causal spectrum on the issue, from Katzenstein’s “cultural norms” which shape security concerns and thereby affect technological innovation; 15 to
Wendt’s “stripped down technological determinism” in which technology inevitably drives nations to form a world state. 16 However most Constructivists seem to
favor Wendt, arguing that new technology changes people’s identities within society, and sometimes even creates new cross-national constituencies, thereby
affecting international politics. 17 Of course, Marxists tend to see technology as determining all social relations and the entire course of history, though they
describe mankind’s major fault lines as running between economic classes rather than nation-states. 18 Finally, Buzan & Little remind us that without advances in
the technologies of transportation, communication, production, and war, international systems would not exist in the first place
Hegemony prevents extinction
Bradley Thayer 13 PhD U Chicago, former research fellow at Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center, political science professor at
Baylor, “Humans, Not Angels: Reasons to Doubt the Decline of War Thesis”, International Studies Review Volume 15, Issue 3, pages
396–419, September 2013, DOA: 3-22-14, y2k
The decline of war thesis , recently advanced by scholars such as Mueller (1989), Gat (2006), Goldstein (2011), and Pinker (2011), pivots
on a centrally important empirical fact : There are fewer interstate wars of all types , small power versus small power, great power
versus small power, and great power versus great power, in international politics than there had been in the previous period before World War II. The cause, or
causes, of this fact is less obvious, although each major theory of international politics offers an explanation. Depending on the theoretical perspective, it may be
due to the structure of the international system, the power of the United States, nuclear deterrence, strong institutions like the European Union, economic
interdependence, or the triumph of good ideas. In this literature, Pinker's book stands out as particularly perceptive and audacious. I will therefore focus on this
work, although my argument applies to the “declinist” literature more generally. Pinker's answer is that historical processes and good ideas have brought out the
“better angels” of human nature. They have conquered the belligerent “inner demons” that have pushed or pulled humanity toward war, genocide, torture, and the
other unfortunate and lamentably still common occurrences in international politics. The proposed causes of the decline in violence are complex and multifold.
Pinker identifies six historical trends: the transition from hunting to agriculture; the decline in the homicide rate; the rise of increasingly organized movements to
stop socially sanctioned forms of violence; the end of wars between great powers after World War II, the Long Peace; “the New Peace” since the end of the Cold
War with a decline in all forms of organized conflicts; and finally the growing revulsion against aggression on smaller scales, including violence against women,
children, and animals. In addition to these trends, Pinker identifies the tension, a balance of power if you will, in humanity between “inner demons” and “better
angels.” The inner demons considered by Pinker are: predatory or instrumental violence; dominance; revenge; sadism; and ideology. The better angels are:
empathy; self-control; a moral sense; and reason. The final component of his argument is that five historical forces that promote peaceable motives have changed
the balance toward the better angels. These forces are the Leviathan, the growth of state power, particularly over the use of force; commerce, including exchange of
ideas as well as trade; feminization, or respecting the interests and values of women; cosmopolitanism, promoted by literacy, mobility, and mass media that allow
people to adopt other perspectives; and the escalator of reason, the application of knowledge and rationality to human affairs so that people recognize the futility of
cycles of violence and to recast violence as a problem to be solved rather than a struggle to be won. This is a significant argument backed by an impressive
scholarship. Pinker convincingly demonstrates that there has been a dramatic decline in violence, and he is persuasive about many of the causes of that decline. For
Pinker, the question is not whether you are better off today than you were 4 years ago, but rather 400 years ago, and the answer is a resounding: yes. Violence of all
types has declined since the Middle Ages. This work is an excellent example of a consilient approach (Wilson 1998), drawing many different disciplines in the life
and social sciences to make a compelling argument. To answer the question of why violence has declined, neither the life nor social sciences alone can fully
suffice. The declinist literature cuts against many of the orthodoxies of the age. For example, they argue that there is more peace now than ever before. Although
the twentieth century was a bad one for conflict, our perception of the century is colored by presentism—the twentieth century is considered the worst because it is
the most recent, and all of its horrors have been documented. Yet, when the violence of the twentieth century is considered within the context of the whole of
human history, the expanded context compels the recognition that mass slaughter is common and proportionately worse than the violence of the last 100 years.
Indeed, there never has been a Rousseauan “peaceful savage.” The chance of our ancient hunter–gatherer ancestors meeting a bloody end was far higher than the
likelihood of an American or European dying a violent death (Keeley 1996; Ghiglieri 1999; LeBlanc with Register 2003; Thayer 2004; Gat 2006). At the same
time, declinists are not modern Drs. Pangloss. While the ultimate conclusions concerning the decline of violence are positive, they recognize that the road can be,
and often is, a rocky one. For example, Pinker is sensitive to the fact that some of his reasons for the decline of violence such as democratization—especially the
process of democratization—may generate violence. Two Reasons to Doubt the Decline of War Thesis Although the declinist argument is strong, there
is ample fodder for criticism. This literature is far stronger on the causes of the decline of domestic violence than on international
violence. I would like to focus on international violence and make two major arguments here. First, the proposed revolution is partial; it has a fragile and
incomplete existence outside the West and can be problematic even in the West. Second, I argue that declinists in general, and Pinker in particular, fail to recognize
the importance of the international system, and so the role the distribution of power, especially the value of US power, plays in suppressing violence. The
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Incomplete and Uneven Distribution of the “Better Angels” No doubt we live in a time where the likelihood of personal violence is lower than it ever has been.
Equally, this progress is tentative, that is to say it contains the potential for reversal, and is incomplete. I perceive two major problems with the declinist hypothesis:
first, “the better angels” are unequally distributed in the world and certainly do not rule outside of the West; and second, they do not fully rule, even in the West.
Better Angels in the Rest of the World Any review of the human rights record reveals that in China, as well as within many of the countries of South Asia,
Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, one still encounters regular brutality, and all too often one does not share the freedom from violence that we in the
West do. Of course, Pinker recognizes this and centers his argument on the West. Yet, naturally we wonder how do the stable conditions of the West spread to the
rest? The central issue here is what is the transmission mechanism? Should the better angels spread through the export of democracy, as the Democratic Peace
school of thought would suggest, or are these societies on the path to the End of History? The problematic nature of both of these solutions is evident. That is not
Pinker's fault—political scientists and, more broadly, social scientists, know little about transmission mechanisms and their durability. How ideas spread, how they
change from being dismissed as “nonsense upon stilts,” to a possibility, to reality, is imperfectly explored, as are the spread of historical forces Pinker argues are
essential for the decline of violence. But, the unknown or imperfect nature of the transmission mechanisms does aid Pinker's argument that the better angels are
winning. … And In the West We do know that appeals to better angels have a hard time working in the face of egoism, selfishness, and threats. I contend the better
angels do not yet rule the West for two reasons. First, the consequences of human evolution in conditions of anarchy imply that the inner demons will never go
away and may return when conditions change. Second, I consider the issue of leaders and ponder whether it could be that inner demons are overrepresented among
leaders, including the ones in the West. Our starting point is the core recognition that humans are the product of evolution, and the inner demons, to the degree they
are the result of human evolution, may be suppressed but do not go away. The application of an evolutionary perspective is particularly useful here because it
predicts that behavior is contingent on the ecological context. Evolution designed behavioral strategies to be triggered in appropriate settings and to be different or
dormant in inappropriate settings. A strategy that was permanently fixed on or off regardless of the situation would be outcompeted by strategies that were flexible
and able to reap better payoffs in alternate settings. My point, shared with Pinker, is not that humans are naturally good or naturally bad at all times in all
circumstances, but rather that we have proximate mechanisms for the inner demons, including egoism, dominance, and a strong propensity to make in-group/outgroup distinctions that are activated in certain situations. As Dominic Johnson and I have argued, in our environments of evolutionary adaptation, where there is the
threat of predation and resource scarcity (as in the human past and today in many places in the world), egoism, dominance, and sharply defined in-group/out-group
distinctions are easily triggered (Johnson and Thayer 2012). Our inner demons are unfettered. Where these conditions are tempered, such as in the modern peaceful
democracies of Western Europe, cognitive mechanisms of egoism, dominance, and in-group/out-group distinctions are likely to be more subdued—the triumph of
our better angels. We
cooperate where we can (such as within alliances), but the anarchy of i nternational relations is a particularly hostile
environment that tends to trigger our egoism, dominance, and group bias instead. In short, our evolutionary legacy is one of
behavioral ecology—engaging the right behaviors for the right environment . This is important for international relations because it
suggests that we can create environments —at least in principle— that exacerbate or suppress our human nature , so we can turn it to our
advantage. Even Pinker's careful analysis underestimates this difficulty. To do so effectively, all actors—governments, civil society, religious authorities, popular
culture—must guard against backsliding and be sensitive to the fact that even if violence declines in the West, our evolutionary legacy ensures that the inner
demons never go away. Equally, they may be triggered in response to threats and actions outside of the West. In ensuring the decline of violence, there is no doubt
that leaders play a key role. Here, there is a problem for Pinker's argument. Leaders may differ from the average person in the population, much of this variation
stems from contextual differences—such that a given individual's behavior changes across circumstances. However, another important source of variation is
individual differences—such that different people exhibit these traits to greater or lesser degrees. This is important because there are reasons to believe that political
leaders may be more likely than the average person to be motivated by inner demons (Johnson 2004; Johnson and Thayer, unpub. data; Kurzban 2010; Van Vugt
and Ahuja 2011). A state's elites are more likely than average to show these traits in abundance for several reasons. First, ambitious leaders self-select themselves
into running for high-profile political roles. Second, more ambitious and confident leaders are selected into power over weak-willed or hesitant candidates. Third,
leaders rise to the top of their respective hierarchies through an intensively competitive process that compels them to be more attentive to self-interest and selfpreservation. Finally, the experience of power itself is well known to corrupt, precisely because being a leader elevates one's sense of worth and power. Taking
these phenomena together, even a skeptic may concede that the small subset of humans that become political leaders tend to have high levels of these traits and
their influence and actions will be overrepresented in state behavior (Johnson and Thayer, unpub. data). Pinker could counter that factors such as the existence of
international institutions, the democratic peace, or better angels, can mitigate these problems. However, an evolutionary perspective raises new doubts about their
significance. The very existence of these phenomena, not to mention the extreme efforts, expense, and commitment they continually require to be propped up, only
serve to prove the point: international politics needs very special and powerful arrangements to prevent people from acting in accord with their inner demons. That
is true in the West as well as among other states. Indeed, as Wilson (2012:56) argues, “the human condition is an endemic turmoil rooted in the evolution processes
that created us. The worst in our nature coexists with the best, and so it will ever be. To scrub it out, if such were possible, would make us less human.” Pinker
identifies real and important causes of reduced violence, but Wilson raises a significant point. From an evolutionary standpoint, neither the demon nor angel is
better; both were, and are, needed to aid our survival. One cannot cast aside the demon, nor should one want to do so. It may be that to control the inner demon, one
must use an inner demon—one needs a Machiavelli to confront a Machiavelli. That is, statesmen must use power, and all of the tools of statecraft, however
unpleasant or nefarious, against power to produce a balance, as realists have argued for centuries (Seabury 1965). Imperfect though they are, the balance of power
and deterrence, including nuclear deterrence, are better mechanisms for reducing interstate violence than positive historical developments, such as the spread of
liberal democracy. This is because those positive developments so well described by Pinker may be reversed when the balance of power changes, as is occurring
now with China's rise. After all, we are dealing with humans, not angels. The Importance of the System and the Distribution of Power Pinker adopts a unit level
approach to his study, and so the influence of the system is neglected in his approach. He does not recognize, first, the impact of the distribution of power and,
second and related, the value of US power. The impact of the system on violence is significant (Waltz 1979). Including changes in the distribution of power and
alliance problems that contributed to World Wars I and II, the bipolarity of the Cold War, and most importantly, the rise of China, Pinker largely misses the
influence of the system in promoting and, after World War II, suppressing violence. Accordingly, while Pinker is sensitive to the importance of power in a
domestic context—the Leviathan is good for safety and the decline of violence—he neglects the role of power in the international context, specifically he
neglects US power as a force for stability. So, if a liberal Leviathan is good for domestic politics, a liberal Leviathan should be as well for
international politics. The primacy of the United States provides the world with that liberal Leviathan and has four major positive
consequences for international politics (Thayer 2006). In addition to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies, American primacy within
the international system causes many positive outcomes for the world. The first has been a more peaceful world. During the Cold War, US
leadership reduced friction among many states that were historical antagonists, most notably France and West Germany. Today, American
primacy and the security blanket it provides reduce nuclear proliferation incentives and help keep a number of complicated
relationships stable such as between Greece and Turkey, Israel and Egypt, South Korea and Japan, India and Pakistan, Indonesia
and Australia. Wars still occur where Washington's interests are not seriously threatened, such as in Darfur, but a Pax Americana does
reduce war's likelihood —particularly the worst form— great power wars. Second, American power gives the United States the
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
ability to spread democracy and many of the other positive forces Pinker identifies. Doing so is a source of much good for the countries concerned as
well as the United States because liberal democracies are more likely to align with the United States and be sympathetic to the American
worldview. In addition, once states are governed democratically , the likelihood of any type of conflict is significantly reduced. This is not
because democracies do not have clashing interests. Rather, it is because they are more transparent, more likely to want to resolve things
amicably in concurrence with US leadership. Third, along with the growth of the number of democratic states around the world has been the growth of
the global economy. With its allies, the United States has labored to create an economically liberal worldwide network characterized by
free trade and commerce , respect for international property rights , mobility of capital , and labor markets . The economic stability
and prosperity that stems from this economic order is a global public good. Fourth, and finally, the United States has been willing to use its
power not only to advance its interests but to also promote the welfare of people all over the globe. The United States is the earth's leading source of positive
externalities for the world. The US military has participated in over 50 operations since the end of the Cold War—and most of those
missions have been humanitarian in nature. Indeed, the US military is the earth's “911 force”—it serves, de facto, as the world's
police , the global paramedic , and the planet's fire department. There is no other state, group of states, or international
organizations that can provide these global benefits. Without US power , the liberal order created by the United States will end just as
assuredly. But, the waning of US power, at least in relative terms, introduces additional problems for Pinker concerning the decline of violence in the international
realm. Given the importance of the distribution of power in international politics, and specifically US power for stability, there is reason to be concerned about the
future as the distribution of relative power changes and not to the benefit of the United States.
Decline causes transition war and lashout
Zbigniew Brzezinski 12 is a CSIS counselor and trustee and cochairs the CSIS Advisory Board. He is also a senior research professor
of international relations at the School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, in Washington, D.C. He is cochair
of the American Committee for Peace in the Caucasus and a member of the International Advisory Board of the Atlantic Council He was
a member of the Policy Planning Council of the Department of State from 1966 to 1968; chairman of the Humphrey Foreign Policy Task
Force in the 1968 presidential campaign; director of the Trilateral Commission from 1973 to 1976; and principal foreign policy adviser to
Jimmy Carter in the 1976 presidential campaign. From 1977 to 1981, Dr. Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy
Carter. “After America: How does the world look in an age of U.S. decline? Dangerously unstable.” 1-3-12,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/03/after_america?page=full, Accessed date: 12-30-12 y2k
Not so long ago, a high-ranking Chinese official, who obviously had concluded that America's decline and China's rise were both inevitable, noted in a burst of
candor to a senior U.S. official: "But, please, let America not decline too quickly." Although the inevitability of the Chinese leader's expectation is still far from
certain, he was right to be cautious when looking forward to America's demise. For if America falters, the world is unlikely to be dominated by a
single preeminent successor -- not even China . International uncertainty , increased tension among global competitors, and
even outright chaos would be far more likely outcomes. While a sudden, massive crisis of the American system -- for instance, another financial crisis -would produce a fast-moving chain reaction leading to global political and economic disorder, a steady drift by America into increasingly pervasive decay or
endlessly widening warfare with Islam would be unlikely to produce, even by 2025, an effective global successor . No single power will be ready by then to
exercise the role that the world, upon the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, expected the United States to play: the leader of a new, globally
cooperative world order. More probable would be a protracted phase of rather inconclusive realignments of both global and
regional power, with no grand winners and many more losers , in a setting of international uncertainty and even of potentially
fatal risks to global well-being. Rather than a world where dreams of democracy flourish, a Hobbesian world of enhanced national security
based on varying fusions of authoritarianism, nationalism, and religion could ensue. The leaders of the world's second-rank powers,
among them India, Japan, Russia, and some European countries, are already assessing the potential impact of U.S. decline on their
respective national interests. The Japanese, fearful of an assertive China dominating the Asian mainland, may be thinking of closer links with Europe. Leaders in
India and Japan may be considering closer political and even military cooperation in case America falters and China rises. Russia, while perhaps engaging in
wishful thinking (even schadenfreude) about America's uncertain prospects, will almost certainly have its eye on the independent states of the former Soviet Union.
Europe, not yet cohesive, would likely be pulled in several directions: Germany and Italy toward Russia because of commercial interests, France and insecure
Central Europe in favor of a politically tighter European Union, and Britain toward manipulating a balance within the EU while preserving its special relationship
with a declining United States. Others may move more rapidly to carve out their own regional spheres: Turkey in the area of the old Ottoman Empire, Brazil in
the Southern Hemisphere, and so forth. None of these countries, however, will have the requisite combination of economic, financial,
technological, and military power even to consider inheriting America's leading role. China, invariably mentioned as America's prospective
successor, has an impressive imperial lineage and a strategic tradition of carefully calibrated patience, both of which have been critical to its overwhelmingly
successful, several-thousand-year-long history. China thus prudently accepts the existing international system, even if it does not view the prevailing hierarchy as
permanent. It recognizes that success depends not on the system's dramatic collapse but on its evolution toward a gradual redistribution of power. Moreover, the
basic reality is that China is not yet ready to assume in full America's role in the world. Beijing's leaders themselves have repeatedly emphasized that on every
important measure of development, wealth, and power, China will still be a modernizing and developing state several decades from now, significantly behind not
only the United States but also Europe and Japan in the major per capita indices of modernity and national power. Accordingly, Chinese leaders have been
restrained in laying any overt claims to global leadership. At some stage, however, a more assertive Chinese nationalism could arise and damage
China's international interests. A swaggering, nationalistic Beijing would unintentionally mobilize a powerful regional coalition against
itself. None of China's key neighbors -- India, Japan, and Russia -- is ready to acknowledge China's entitlement to America's place
on the global totem pole. They might even seek support from a waning America to offset an overly assertive China. The resulting regional
scramble could become intense , especially given the similar nationalistic tendencies among China's neighbors. A phase of acute international
tension in Asia could ensue. Asia of the 21st century could then begin to resemble Europe of the 20th century -- violent and
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
bloodthirsty. At the same time, the security of a number of weaker states located geographically next to major regional powers also depends
on the international status quo reinforced by America's global preeminence -- and would be made significantly more vulnerable in proportion
to America's decline. The states in that exposed position -- including Georgia, Taiwan, South Korea, Belarus, Ukraine, Afghanistan,
Pakistan, Israel, and the greater Middle East -- are today's geopolitical equivalents of nature's most endangered species . Their
fates are closely tied to the nature of the international environment left behind by a waning America, be it ordered and restrained or, much more likely, self-serving
and expansionist. A faltering United States could also find its strategic partnership with Mexico in jeopardy. America's economic resilience and political stability
have so far mitigated many of the challenges posed by such sensitive neighborhood issues as economic dependence, immigration, and the narcotics trade. A
decline in American power, however, would likely undermine the health and good judgment of the U.S. economic and political
systems. A waning United States would likely be more nationalistic , more defensive about its national identity, more paranoid
about its homeland security , and less willing to sacrifice resources for the sake of others' development . The worsening of relations
between a declining America and an internally troubled Mexico could even give rise to a particularly ominous phenomenon: the emergence, as a major issue in
nationalistically aroused Mexican politics, of territorial claims justified by history and ignited by cross-border incidents. Another consequence of American
decline could be a corrosion of the generally cooperative management of the global commons -- shared interests such as sea
lanes , space , cyberspace , and the environment , whose protection is imperative to the long-term growth of the global economy
and the continuation of basic geopolitical stability . In almost every case, the potential absence of a constructive and influential U.S.
role would fatally undermine the essential communality of the global commons because the superiority and ubiquity of
American power creates order where there would normally be conflict . None of this will necessarily come to pass. Nor is the concern that
America's decline would generate global insecurity, endanger some vulnerable states, and produce a more troubled North American neighborhood an argument for
U.S. global supremacy. In fact, the strategic complexities of the world in the 21st century make such supremacy unattainable. But those dreaming today of
America's collapse would probably come to regret it. And as the world after America would be increasingly complicated and chaotic , it is
imperative that the United States pursue a new, timely strategic vision for its foreign policy -- or start bracing itself for a dangerous slide into
global turmoil.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
UQ: Gas Price Spikes
Natural gas price spike is inevitable
Jennifer A. Dlouhy 6/17, FuelFix Staff, “Manufacturers want more time on natural gas exports,”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/06/17/manufacturers-want-more-time-on-natural-gas-exports/ DOA: 6-16-14, y2k
A coalition of manufacturers and other industrial users of natural gas is asking the Obama administration for more time to review its
latest plan for vetting proposals to sell the fossil fuel overseas. The group, known as America’s Energy Advantage, asked the Energy Department to give
stakeholders a full four months to weigh in on the plan, which would effectively prioritize export projects that have already advanced through separate
environmental reviews. The coalition said the extra time was needed “given the rule’s scope, complexity and impact” as well as its potential “implications on the
domestic economy.” “The
changes contemplated by the rule would have huge implications for millions of American consumers and
businesses, the entire economy, and the energy and manufacturing sectors in particular,” the group said in a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.
The organization, formed a year ago by Dow Chemical Co., Dallas-based Celanese Corp., Alcoa Inc. and others to lobby against unfettered natural gas exports, said
it wants to look closely at how possible natural gas exports might mesh with newly proposed EPA carbon standards that could help drive up
electric sector demand for the fossil fuel. Natural gas advocates say they are capable of ramping up U.S. production to meet the growing domestic market
demand while still sending some overseas. But there is plenty of skepticism from some chemical companies and manufacturers that benefit from relatively lowpriced natural gas as both a source of electricity powering their factories and a feedstock they transform into other products. The proposed carbon regulations
have the potential to drive demand at least as much as any export scenario, they say. And with U.S. gas simultaneously being exported,
used to heat homes, and fueling more power plants and trucks, domestic prices are likely to climb . “The EPA’s new greenhouse gas
standards affecting 600 existing coal-fired power plants will cause massive and sustained increases in domestic natural gas
demand ,” the group said. In the meantime, AEA added, producers are still working to refill U.S. natural gas inventories depleted during the
unusually harsh winter.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
UQ: Manufacturing = Brink
Manufacturing is on the brink
WRAL 14 “Income gap widens as American factories shut down,” http://www.wral.com/income-gap-widens-as-american-factoriesshut-down/13735232/#HLsw5dwy7VcRG64v.99, DOA: 6-16-14, y2k
The downfall of manufacturing in the U.S. has done more than displace workers and leave communities searching for ways to
rebuild devastated economies. In Reading and other American factory towns, manufacturing's decline is a key factor in the
widening income gap between the rich and everyone else, as people like the Ludwigs have been forced into far lower-paying work.
It's not that there's a lack of jobs, but gains often come at either the highest end of the wage spectrum — or the lowest. "A loss of
manufacturing has contributed to the decline of the middle class," said Howard Wial, an economist with the Brookings Institution
and the University of Illinois at Chicago. "People who are displaced from high-paying manufacturing jobs spend a long time
unemployed, and when they take other jobs, those jobs generally pay substantially less."
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: OCS K2 Manufacturing
Low price is key to manufacturing
PWC 11—PwC's Industrial Products (IP) practice provides financial, operational, and strategic services to global organizations.
December 2011, "Shale Gas - A Renaissance in US Manufacturing?" www.pwc.com/en_US/us/industrial-products/assets/pwc-shale-gasus-manufacturing-renaissance.pdf, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
The economic environment remains difficult for many US manufacturers , with soft demand and margin pressures making it harder to grow
their domestic workforces . In this analysis, we present our point of view on how shale gas resources can help the sector address these challenges
and create more jobs in the United States.¶ Executive summary¶ Shale, savings, growth, and jobs¶ During the last couple of years, increased commercialization of
alternative energy has ushered in mounting debate on the impact – or lack of impact – that the deployment of new energy sources has on US job creation. Shale gas is one
such alternative energy source that has drawn momentous investment and discussion as the country pursues a cleaner and more sustainable energy mix.
Indeed, the shale gas industry has captured national attention, with even the names of reserves – Marcellus, Utica, Bakken, Barnett, and Eagle Ford – recognizable as
national assets by even the casual observer… And for good reason. The
amount of shale gas in these reserves and others potentially makes the U nited S tates one
of the top producers of shale gas in the world.¶ While there has been a sharp focus cast upon shale gas – both on its potential promise and possible drawbacks – as a
tenable energy source, there has been less focus on how shale gas impacts other industries. This led PsC to ask a simple but important question: “What could a growing
shale gas industry mean for manufacturing job creation in the United States going forward ?”¶ Potential opportunities ¶ A PwC analysis finds
that full-scale and robust shale gas development through 2025 would likely have a number of knock-on effects for other industries,
particularly the manufacturing and chemical sectors. Given a scenario calling for high recovery of shale gas and low prices of natural gas,
the US manufacturing sector and the broader US economy could stand to benefit in the following ways:¶ Energy affordability ¶ Lower
feedstock and energy costs could help US manufacturers reduce natural gas expenses by as much as $11.6 billion annually through 2025 .¶
Demand growth ¶ In 2011, 17 chemical, metal , and industrial manufacturers commented in SBC filings that shale gas developments drove
demand for their products, compared to none in 2008.¶ More jobs ¶ US manufacturing companies could employ approximately one million more
workers by 2025 due to benefits from affordable energy and demand for products used to extract the gas.¶ This report demonstrates how shale gas can lead to
each of these opportunities, based upon our analysis of trends in, and forecasts of, the domestic economy, manufacturing, and employment.¶ An increase in domestic
investment ¶ With shale gas resources more abundant than previously thought, US manufacturers can look forward to multiple new
opportunities and a significant uptick in employment in the sector. Chemicals and metals companies are expected to gain the greatest
benefit over the next several years. Chemicals companies can acquire affordable feedstock, meriting greater capital expenditures in the United
States. For metals companies and some industrial manufacturers, opportunities abound to sell the equipment required for more robust drilling
activity.¶ Many companies have already announced new investment plans geared to the development of shale gas. Our research on recent capex plans shows an increase in
domestic investment going to support incremental gas production, along with more explicit communication to investors about shale-related growth opportunities. An
underappreciated part of the shale gas story is the substantial cost benefit to manufacturers, based on estimates of future natural gas prices as more shale gas is recovered.,
Historically , there has been an indirect relationship between the level of energy prices, such as those for natural gas, and the level of domestic manufacturing
consume approximately one-third of all the energy produced in the United States. Consequentially, this
relatively abundant domestic energy source has the potential to drive an uptick in US manufacturing over the long term and create
employment, as manufacturers
new jobs in the sector.
Sustained low gas prices are key to long-term investments.
CCES 12 – Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, May 2012, "Natural Gas in the Industrial Sector,"
www.c2es.org/docUploads/natural-gas-industrial-sector.pdf
Increased availability and low prices of natural gas have significant implications for domestic manufacturing, which has historically been
concerned about supply availability and price volatility. Recently, abundant supply and low prices have led to an increase in domestic
manufacturing, creating new jobs and economic value. Numerous companies have cited natural gas supply and price in announcing
plans to open new facilities in the chemicals, plastics, steel, and other industries in the United States. 18 In the past few years, the number of firms
disclosing the positive impact of new gas resources for facility power generation and feedstock use to the Securities and Exchange Commission has increased
substantially.19 In 2010, exports of basic chemicals and plastics increased 28 percent from the previous year, yielding a trade surplus of
$16.4 billion.20 If the expectation that low prices will continue is correct, these economic benefits would be significant over the long term. A study by the American Chemistry
Council, for instance, estimates that a 25 percent increase in ethane supplies would yield a $32.8 billion increase in U.S. chemical production. 21 Industry,
however, needs more than just abundance and low prices to maintain use of natural gas. Price stability is necessary to encourage long-term investments in industry, and
increased natural gas supplies also have the potential to stabilize prices.22
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Low prices are key to the competitiveness of US industry globally
Institute for Energy Research 12 – Institute for Energy Research, April 19th, 2012, "Abundant Natural Gas Means Low Prices,
Increased Trade Potential," www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/04/19/abundant-natural-gas-means-low-prices-trade-potential/
Natural gas production in the United States is hitting unprecedented highs, storage tanks are filling, and prices are falling to levels not
seen in a decade. American consumers are benefiting from the glut while gas producers are looking toward oil to keep profits from plunging for their stockholders. This leap in natural gas
production is caused by American ingenuity applying hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technology to natural gas previously
locked in shale formations. Hydraulic fracturing uses water, sand and trace amounts of chemicals to break open shale rock and release natural gas and oil deposits that could not be produced economically with conventional drilling methods.
Private industry in the U.S. has, literally, drilled our way to lower natural gas prices, and these lower prices have ignited a new flurry of
new proposals for the use of abundant, affordable natural gas supplies. ¶ U.S. Natural Gas Production¶ The United States ranks number one in the world in
natural gas production, out-producing Russia, who ranks second. In 2011, U.S. natural gas production increased 8 percent to over 23 trillion cubic feet.[i] The increase in natural gas production occurred on private and state lands. In
contrast, production of natural gas on federal and Indian lands has been decreasing. Between fiscal years 2003 and 2011, it declined 31 percent .[ii]¶ States with the highest natural gas production levels in 2010 were: Texas ( 6,715 billion cubic feet), Wyoming (2,306 billion
cubic feet), Louisiana (2,110 billion cubic feet), Oklahoma (1,807 billion cubic feet), Colorado (1,578 billion cubic feet), New Mexico (1,292 billion cubic feet), Arkansas (927 billion cubic feet) and Pennsylvania (573 billion cubic feet).[iii] Pennsylvania’s entrance into the
top 10 natural gas producers in the United States is due to production from the Marcellus shale gas formation that extends from New York to Ohio.¶ U.S. Natural Gas Consumption¶ Natural gas consumption rose 2.5 percent in 2011 due to increased industrial and electric
power usage. Natural gas increased its share in the electric generation sector to 25 percent in 2011 from 21 percent in 2008, cutting into the coal generation market, whose share declined from 48 percent in 2008 to 42 percent in 2011.[iv] Natural gas consumption in the
Lower natural gas prices are bringing industry back into the United States for at least two reasons. First, lower
natural gas prices reduce energy costs for large industrial users and increase their competitiveness with the rest of the world. Second,
chemical companies use natural gas as a feedstock to make petrochemicals, compounds including plastics and fertilizer. Huntsman
Corporation, the world’s largest maker of textile dyes, plans to expand chemical production in the United States and may relocate
capacity from other countries to take advantage of the low domestic natural gas prices. Dow Chemical Company and Methanex
Corporation are also expanding U.S. production due to low natural gas prices. Dow plans to spend $4 billion to increase production of chemicals such as ethylene and propylene in Texas and
industrial sector also increased in 2011, by 9.5 percent since 2009.[v]¶
Louisiana and Methanex plans to move a Chilean methanol plant to Louisiana.[vi]¶ Natural Gas Prices¶ While many companies plan to use more natural gas in the future, consumption is lagging natural gas production. The production increases along with a mild winter has left
the United States with more natural gas than it can consume, filling up storage facilities. Natural gas supplies are 61 percent higher than the five-year average. At the end of winter, there is usually about 1.5 trillion cubic feet of gas in storage, but this year, there is 2.5 trillion
cubic feet in storage because less was withdrawn for heating due to the mild weather. Storage facilities (underground salt caverns and depleted oil and gas fields) are now at 57.8 percent of capacity with expectations that they will fill by the end of October. The peak storage
capacity level historically (98.7 percent) was hit for a short period of time in 2009 before winter usage drew down supplies.[vii]¶ The abundance of domestic natural gas supplies has pushed down the futures price of natural gas by 59 percent since it peaked last summer at
$4.85 per thousand cubic feet. Recently, the natural gas futures price dipped below $2 per thousand cubic feet. The last time it went below $2 was January 28, 2002, when it hit $1.91. [viii]¶ Source: Wall Street Journal, April 10, 2012, above.¶
Cheap natural gas is key to manufacturing revival.
Jim Motavalli 12 is Washington Post Staff. “Natural Gas Signals a ‘Manufacturing Renaissance’,”April 10, 2012,
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/11/business/energy-environment/wider-availability-expands-uses-for-naturalgas.html?_r=1andpagewanted=all, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
AS horizontal drilling and the controversial extraction technique known as fracking have made domestically produced natural gas more available and
sharply cheaper, that gas has been widely embraced by industry , electric utilities and trucking fleets. The rapid development of shale gas
technology has helped reduce energy imports and, in some cases, encouraged companies producing petrochemicals , steel, fertilizers and
other products to return to the U nited S tates after relocating overseas. Natural gas exports are growing and terminals built to hold imported
supplies are being repurposed for international sales. The American petrochemical industry, for example, uses natural gas as both its primary raw material, in
the form of liquid ethane, and as an energy fuel. And cheaper prices have led to a major expansion of capacity in the United States. The
hydrocarbon molecules in natural gas are split apart and then recombined as building blocks for many products, including bulk chemicals
and fertilizers. The chemical ethylene, which is largely derived from natural gas, is used to make things like pool liners, building insulation and food packaging.
According to Kevin Swift, chief economist at the American Chemistry Council, European producers mostly use oil-derived raw materials for making these same products.
“The U.S. has a competitive advantage when oil is seven times as expensive as natural gas, but now we have more like a 50-to-1 advantage,” he said. “The
‘shale gale’ is really driving this. A million B.T.U.’s of natural gas that might cost $11 in Europe and $14 in South Korea is $2.25 in the U.S. Partly because of that,
chemical producers have plans to expand ethylene capacity in the U.S. by more than 25 percent between now and 2017.” A 2011
PricewaterhouseCoopers study estimates that high rates of shale gas recovery could result in a million new manufacturing jobs by 2025. Robert
McCutcheon, United States industrial products leader at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said in a statement that the revived natural gas industry “has the potential to
spark a manufacturing renaissance in the U.S., including billions in cost savings, a significant number of new jobs and a greater investment in U.S. plants.”
The growing commitment to natural gas faces some headwinds because of continuing concern over the safety of fracking, which involves forcing pressurized fluids into
shale formations to fracture the rock and release the gas deposits. Some environmentalists say that fracking can cause drinking water to become contaminated with
chemicals and released methane, which is a powerful naturally occurring greenhouse gas and the primary ingredient in natural gas. Other complaints tie the disposal of
fracking wastewater to a series of small earthquakes. Some states and municipalities with questions about fracking have imposed temporary moratoriums on the extraction
technique. Despite these issues, natural gas is expanding its reach in manufacturing . The Nucor Corporation, which makes direct-reduced iron in a process
heavily reliant on natural gas, said in 2010 that it would build a $750 million facility in Louisiana. In 2004, the company dismantled a similar Louisiana plant and shipped it
to Trinidad.
Natural gas production is critical to manufacturing.
Michael Lind 12 is policy director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New America Foundation.
Joshua Freedman is a program associate in New America’s Economic Growth Program. “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, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
There is a growing bipartisan consensus on the importance of
retaining and
strengthening the manufacturing sector
in the U.S., a consensus reflected by pro-manufacturing policy
proposals by presidential candidates and other members of the major political parties. U.S. manufacturing remains an important, leading sector in both the American and global economies. If American manufacturing were a separate nation, it would have the eighth largest economy in the world. 1¶ Manu facturing has led the recovery from the
Great Recession in the U.S. The strongest two-year period of growth in manufacturing jobs since the late 1990s was the two-year period of 2010-2011, which added 342,000 jobs in manufacturing. 2¶ One sign of the revival of American manufacturing is the decision of some multinationals to engage in “insourcing,” or the return to or retention
of production in the U.S. Large manufacturing companies like Caterpillar and Ford as well as smaller firms like Master Lock in Milwaukee, Wisconsin have announced decisions to insource production to the United States. The revival of American manufacturing has a variety of causes. To begin with, the combination of increased labor costs in
China and elsewhere with U.S. manufacturing productivity growth, which compensates for higher American wages, has made it more cost competitive to invest in American manufacturing. ¶ Another factor in the revival of American manufacturing has been the increase in natural gas production by 24 percent between 2006 and the end of 2011.
The growth in natural gas production
has helped U.S. manufacturing both directly by creating demand for
domestically manufactured inputs to the energy industry, and indirectly, by lowering the cost of energy and chemical feedstocks
Abundant sources of domestic natural gas
could lead to a boom in manufacturing as domestic gas replaces imported oil
, resulting from advances in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) technology,
3
,
.¶
, particularly ethane,
natural
in the
production of polymers and petrochemicals. According to estimates from the American Chemistry Council, a 25 percent increase in eth- ane supply would lead to the direct creation of 17,000 jobs in the chemical industry and an additional 395,000 jobs in other industries. It would increase U.S. chemical production by $32.8 billion and lead to
increased economic output of $132.4 billion. 4¶ But manufacturing in the U.S. still faces serious challenges. Despite job growth in the last two years, manufacturing employment is still in a hole. Between 2000 and 2011, the U.S. economy lost 5.4 million jobs in manufacturing, which translates into an average of 1,276 manufacturing jobs and 17
manufacturing establishments lost per day. Economists have typically attributed this employment decline to increased productivity gains, but research by the Information Technology and Information Foundation (ITIF) finds that official data has overstated labor productivity growth by 122 percent. Instead of productivity leading to greater
output, manufacturing output in the last decade has decreased in 13 of the 19 manufacturing sectors. 5 Intelligent and sustained public policy will be needed in order for the American economy to realize the benefits of manufacturing. ¶ The Importance of Manufacturing to the U.S. Economy¶ Manufacturing dominates American exports.
Manufactured goods account for about 53 percent of total U.S. exports, compared to 29 percent for services. 6 With a 2011 trade deficit in goods and services of $560 billion, expanding manufactured exports will be crucial for more balanced economic growth. 7¶ In addition to being a leading sector in its own right,
manufacturing generates jobs in other sectors by means of the multiplier effect
every dollar of final demand for
manufactured products is comprised of $0.55 in the manufacturing sector and $0.45 in other sectors of the economy
also
. The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates that
. 8 Millions of indirect manufacturing-related jobs do
not show up in official statistics, which may understate the importance of manufacturing in the economy. This has led some to argue that service inputs to manufacturing should be counted as part of the manufacturing sector. 9¶ The government’s 2010 estimated multiplier effect of 1.34 for manufacturing means that every dollar in final sales of
a manufactured good is responsible for $1.34 in output from other economic sectors. In contrast, retail trade and wholesale trade generate only 55 cents and 58 cents, respect tively, of output in other sectors for every dollar of output. 10 In terms of employment, manufacturing generates jobs as well as economic output. The Manufacturing
that manufacturing creates nearly 7 million jobs in other industries
Institute estimates
. 11 This figure only includes indirect effects, not induced benefits—the jobs that are created through the consumption of goods and services by
those who benefit from new employment or economic activity from manufacturing—meaning the actual number is likely higher. A 2009 study estimated that Intel’s operations in the state of Oregon had an employment multiplier of 4.1, generating numerous jobs outside of manufacturing in the state in sectors such as utilities, wholesale and
retail, business, professional, management and employment services and manufactured materials.¶ In addition to providing customers for producer services, manufacturing also helps the service sector indirectly by producing innovations which are then adopted to increase productivity in a range of service industries. Much R&D in the service
sector depends on software and hardware developed in the manufacturing sector. 13
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: OCS K2 Chemical Industry
OCS is key to chemical manufacturing.
MarineLog 4—“Chemical industry seeks more offshore gas drilling,” Nov 17, 2004,
http://www.marinelog.com/DOCS/NEWSMMIV/MMIVNov17c.html, Accessed date: 11-29-12 y2k
The American Chemistry Council (ACC), representing the largest U.S. industrial consumers of natural gas called on the M M
S to make more areas of the O C
S available to natural gas exploration
historically high gas prices are destroying the competitiveness of chemical manufacturing Natural gas
prices have tripled
sending industry's gas bill up by $10 billion
Chemical manufacturing operations in other regions
of the world have not had to absorb these kinds of cost increases We have lost $50 billion in business to overseas manufacturers
, today
ervice
uter
ontinental
miles equidistant from the Alabama-Florida coast The Council said that
nearly
in recent years,
helf
inerals
anagement
and development. Included in the areas that the ACC wants opened up for natural gas drilling is the controversial Planning Area 181, which is 100
natural
U.S.
our
."
in two short years.
.
over the past
five years. More than 90,000 good-paying American jobs have disappeared in that time," the Council said in a written statement filed with MMS. ACC says that MMS will soon begin planning its next round of leases to offer to developers of natural gas operating in the Outer Continental Shelf. The next lease sale plan will govern how or
MMS has the ability and responsibility to put in motion new initiatives to address the crisis using the
still untapped domestic resources subject to its stewardship
The offshore federal lands present the best opportunity for major
increases in natural gas production."
whether MMS makes OCS properties available to development in the period 2007 to 2012. "
," ACC said. "
Low prices bring chemical innovation back to the US
Brady 12 – Jeff Brady, writer for NPR, February 13, 2012, "Natural Gas Boom Energizing The Chemical Industry"
www.npr.org/2012/02/13/146803953/natural-gas-boom-energizing-the-chemical-industry
Just outside of West Virginia's capital city, Charleston, on the banks of the Kanawha River, sits the Institute Industrial Park. Chemical plants have operated here
continuously since World War II, when the local factories cranked out synthetic rubber. Today there are industrial pipes, tanks and buildings stretching
in
just about every direction.¶ Soon, there could be more.¶ U.S. chemical companies are the latest beneficiaries of the nation's natural gas
drilling boom. Long focused on cheap gas sources elsewhere in the world, companies are now looking to expand here. A surplus of
natural gas has pushed down prices, making it more attractive for chemical companies that use lots of gas to reopen shuttered plants
and build new ones.¶ Sleepy rural communities across the country are turning into industrial zones — and that worries people who live nearby. But
the boom is good news for manufacturers that need cheap, plentiful supplies of natural gas.¶ The natural gas drilling boom near Charleston has local
business boosters lobbying for a huge new chemical plant, called an ethane cracker, which could bring jobs to the state. ¶ "It will take approximately 2,000 construction
workers two years just to build the facility," says Matthew Ballard, president and chief executive officer of the Charleston Area Alliance. "Once up and running, there will
be several hundred jobs at that cracking facility."¶ The plant would "crack" ethane — break it down at the molecular level — and turn it into ethylene. Kevin DiGregorio,
executive director of the Chemical Alliance Zone in Charleston, says ethylene is used to produce all sorts of things, from the cushions we sit on to the clothes we wear.¶
"Everything that's not wood, or maybe brick, is made with chemicals, certainly. But probably 40 to 60 percent of it is made from
ethylene," DiGregorio says. "It's very, very important to our daily lives."¶ States Compete For Plants, Jobs¶ The Marcellus Shale, from which nearby drillers are pulling
natural gas, is particularly ethane-rich. Most natural gas contains anywhere from 2 to 8 percent of ethane, DiGregorio says, but "Marcellus natural gas contains as much as
14 to 16 percent" of ethane.¶ Bayer CropScience, the company that operates the industrial park near Charleston, is talking with companies interested in building ethane
crackers in the region. No official announcement has been made, but business leaders here are keeping their fingers crossed. ¶ The same is true elsewhere around
northern Appalachia. Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia are competing to lure a new ethane cracker that the oil company Shell plans
to build. Firms in Canada also see opportunity in the Marcellus Shale. ¶ Economy¶ Project's Promise Of Jobs Has Appalachia Seeing Stars¶ "We
wouldn't have to go back very far — literally just seven or eight years — and the picture for the industry here in North America was
pretty uncertain," says Randy Woelfel, CEO of NOVA Chemicals in Calgary, Alberta.¶ He says high oil prices sent a lot of petrochemical manufacturing
overseas to the Middle East and Asia. But now, low natural gas prices and the ethane-rich Marcellus Shale have changed everything. ¶
"That means ... that we'll be back in the hiring business, rather than the consolidation and survival/cost-cutting mode that NOVA was
clearly in for much of the last decade," Woelfel says.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: OCS K2 Steel Industry
Low prices are key to the steel industry
IHS 11 (IHS Global Insight - leading economic analysis and forecasting firm, December 2011, "The Economic and Employment
Contributions of Shale Gas in the United States," anga.us/media/235626/shale-gas-economic-impact-dec-2011.pdf)
Energy from electricity or natural gas makes up a higher proportion of the value of iron ore processed¶ from taconite in the Great Lakes region. Given
that the price for iron ore is essentially a global price, domestic ¶ producers of iron ore pellets are benefitting from higher margins due to lower
electricity and natural gas prices. With these incrementally higher margins, domestic iron ore pellet production is likely¶ higher than it
would otherwise be.¶ The steel industry is expected to be reactivated with the improvement of auto manufacturing and an increase¶ in construction
activity. Moreover, the development of shale gas has given a considerable boost ¶ to the steel industry by increasing the demand for steel pipes. Used
for drilling, production, transportation,¶ and distribution, steel pipes are essential to the natural gas industry, and the large infrastructure¶ investments already announced
could have quite a significant impact on the steel industry.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Manufacturing --- Agriculture
Manufacturing is key to precision farming and advanced agriculture.
Michael Lind 12 is policy director of New America’s Economic Growth Program and a co-founder of the New America Foundation,
Joshua Freedman, program associate in New America’s Economic Growth Program, “Value Added: America’s Manufacturing Future,”
New America Foundation, April 2012,
http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/licydocs/Lind,%20Michael%20and%20Freedman,%20Joshua%20%20NAF%20-%20Value%20Added%20America%27s%20Manufacturing%20Future.pdf, Accessed date: 11-22-12 y2k
Advanced manufacturing is not limited to new, emerging sectors;
agriculture, has heavily incorporated
technology into its new products The need for accurate and efficient farming as well as the rise of “precision agriculture”—
has changed the agricultural manufacturing industry. Agricultural equipment manufacturers are now creating
products that are a far cry from the farm equipment of earlier generations
modern farm equipment
brochure looks like a consumer electronics guide
even manufacturing tied to one of the most “traditional” industries,
.
more
,
the utilization of
technology to accommodate variations within a field—
. Replete with LED alerts, touchscreen monitors, and GPS-enabled systems, a
. John Deere, the iconic American tractor and agricultural equipment manufacturer based in Moline, Illinois, has embraced the use of new technology in its products, as has one of its leading competitors, Case IH,
headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin. This advanced agricultural manufacturing does not necessarily require creating completely new technology but rather finding ways to adapt and utilize existing technology that has previously only been applied in other industries. GPS can tell farmers in real time exactly where they are in a field or the
specific location of a problem up to an accuracy of plus or minus 2 centimeters. GPS combined with geographic information systems (GIS) gives farmers the ability to map their fields and treat sections independently. Pesticides, water, or other treatments can be varied, depending on the needs of different segments of the field, which minimizes
As agricultural equipment manufacturing continues to advance, experts also see continued growth in farming telematics—
the integration and communication of all of this data.
Some harvesting can be done “handsfree” without the tractor operator needing to drive the machine
telematics software tracks all of the data and
incorporates it into a program that can be run on a personal computer
waste and improves productivity.
In a modern tractor, for example, a farmer controls much of the operations on one or more small touchscreen displays that take information from GPS inputs. Depending on the software installed, a farmer can vary
application rates of seeds, water, or nutrients; the tractor can guide itself, realigning its trajectory if it moves off of a specified path; the tractor can make its own turns at the end of a row of cr ops; and a farmer can see behind the tractor through video.
. Beyond operations in the cab of the tractor itself,
. These innovations come with names that befit their technology: at John Deere, names include iTecPro (hands-free turning), iGuide (off-track prevention), StarFire SF2
(GPS differential correction), and GreenStar 3 2630 (display). The shift to high-technology manufactured goods also means that these products will need to be serviced. As with other industries, evidence points to a decreasing distinction between the manufacturing of farm equipment and farm equipment services: John Deere’s telematics system,
JDLink, allows farmers to track machine productivity and schedule preventative maintenance from a computer, and Case IH recently introduced 24-hour availability for support services for its Advanced Farming Systems products.
Advanced agriculture solves extinction.
Richard G. Lugar 4 is former U.S. Senator – Indiana and Former Chair – Senate Foreign Relations Committee, “Plant Power”, Our
Planet, 14(3), http://www.unep.org/ourplanet/imgversn/143/lugar.html)
long-range challenges
One of the most daunting is meeting the
world’s need for food
At stake is
preventing starvation saving the environment
world peace and security
states go to war over
resources, and
famine have bred fanaticism terrorism. Working to feed the world will minimize
global instability and proliferation of w
m d
demand for
food will increase
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
and energy in this century.
may
access to
contribute to
. But we do so at our peril.
not only
and
that poverty and
the
often
eapons of
ass
of them
, but also
. History tells us that
and
factors that
estruction. With the world population expected to grow from 6 billion people today to 9 billion by mid-century, the
affordable
well beyond current international production levels. People in rapidly developing nations will have the means greatly to impr ove 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.
As land disappears, people destroy
rainforests
to feed themselves. The term environmental consequences could be disastrous for the globe
To meet
expected demand
the U S will have to grow
more food
?
Advances in
fertilizer
machinery and
tilling
generate a
increase
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 U S that will mean a major shift in the way we
conduct
agricultural science
The U S can take a leading position in a productivity
revolution our success at
food production may play a decisive
role in the survival of billions
and the health of our
planet
Complicating a solution to this problem is a dynamic that must be better understood in the West: developing countries often use limited arable land to expand cities to house their growing populations.
as they try to create more arable land
good
timber resources and even
long-
for food over the next 50 years, we in
nited
entire
tates
techniques combined to
threefold
. And
.
. Fundamental research will generate the innovations that will be necessary to feed the world.
increasing
the use of
and water, improved
in yields since 1935 – on our farm back then, my dad produced 2.8 to 3 tonnes per hectare. Much US agriculture has seen similar increases. But of course there is no guarantee that we can achieve those results again.
.
and fund
humanitarian
the
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
roughly three times
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.
better
. Productivity revolution
nited
nited
tates,
tates
of people
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Manufacturing --- Economy
Manufacturing is key to economy.
Dr. Robert Scott 8 joined the Economic Policy Institute as an international economist in 1996. Before that, he was an assistant professor
with the College of Business and Management of the University of Maryland at College Park. His areas of research include international
economics and trade agreements and their impacts on working people in the U.S. and other countries, the economic impacts of foreign
investment, and the macroeconomic effects of trade and capital flows. “The importance of manufacturing,” February 12, 2008,
http://www.epi.org/publication/webfeatures_snapshots_20080212/, Accessed date: 11-22-12 y2k
the manufacturing sector remains a vital part of the U.S. economy The manufacturing sector
supported 14 million jobs
or 10.1% of total employment Manufacturing industries are responsible for a significant share of U.S.
economic production generating
12.2% of total U.S. GDP
manufacturing firms use trillions of dollars worth of
commodities and services as inputs the sector is responsible for an even bigger share of total output. U.S. manufacturing
is the most important sector of the economy
Manufacturing plays a large part in the economy in
While U.S. manufacturing has been hit hard by a decade of rapid import growth and job loss,
in 2007,
,
.
about
.
$1.6 trillion in GDP in 2006 (
also
). Because
also
,
2005, and it
by far
had gross output1 of $4.5 trillion in
U.S.
in terms of total output (Bureau of Economic Analysis 20081).
individual states,
too, generating 28% of GDP in Indiana in 2006 ($70 billion), and more than 20% in Iowa (21%, $26 billion), Louisiana (21%, $41 billion), and Wisconsin (20.8%, $47 billion) (see Figure). California (9.8%, $169 billion) and Texas (13.1%, $140 billion) each generated more than $100 billion in manufacturing GDP in 2006. U.S.
manufacturing firms led the way on trade, exporting $923 billion in manufactured goods,
manufacturing provided one of the few bright spots for the economy in the otherwise bleak fourth-quarter GDP report
exports from the manufacturing sector should continue to add to growth
also
sector is likely to exert a drag on the economy for some time to come,
64% of all U.S. goods and services exported in 2006. Although export growth slowed in the fourth quarter,
(see EPI GDP Picture). While the U.S. housing
in the coming year. Reinvestment in U.S. manufacturing could stimulate growth in a wide
swath of states in the heartland that have been hardest hit by the manufacturing and housing crises.
Manufacturing is key to the economy and competitiveness – massive multiplier effects
Boushey 12 – Heather Boushey, Senior Economist, Center for American Progress Action Fund, July 19th, 2012, "Testimony before
the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Meanson Tax Reform and the U.S. Manufacturing Sector"
waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/boushey_testimony.pdf
Having a strong manufacturing industry in the United States should be at the top of our national economic agenda. Without a
vibrant and innovative manufacturing base, we will not be a global leader for long. Moreover, as more of our energy future will
rely on high-tech manufacturing, our economic competitiveness will be even more closely aligned with our ability to be an
innovator and producer of manufactured goods.¶ Further, this is an urgent national issue and one of those cases where success begets
success. Economists have begun to study and show that the “industrial commons” matters for innovation and the extent to which we allow
manufacturing processes to continue to go overseas, we only make it that much harder to regain our place as a global leader. 11 As my
colleagues Michael Ettlinger and Kate Gordon have put it, “the cross-fertilization and engagement of a community of experts in industry, academia, and government is vital
to our nation’s economic competitiveness.”12¶ Manufacturing is not only a key part of our economy, but moving forward it will remain critical
to our nation’s economic vitality¶ The U.S. manufacturing sector is still a force internationally and an important part of our
economy, despite employment losses and the relative rise in manufacturing in other countries over the past few decades.13 Last
year, manufacturing contributed over $1.8 trillion to U.S. gross domestic product, or about 12 percent of the economy.14 Two years
ago, manufacturing accounted for 60 percent of all U.S. exports.15 In 2008, the United States ranked first in the world in manufacturing value added, and it was the third
largest exporter of manufactured goods to the world, behind only China and Germany and ahead of Japan and France.16 Between 1979 and 2010 manufacturing output per
hour of labor in the United States increased by an average of 4 percent annually, and the United States has one of the world’s most productive workforces.17 Moreover,
in 2009 there were 11.8 million direct jobs in manufacturing and 6.8 million additional jobs in related sectors.18 Put another way, one in
six U.S. private-sector jobs is directly linked to manufacturing.19¶ Yet the industry suffered declines in the 2000s. The U.S. share of worldwide
manufacturing value added dropped from 26 percent in 1998 to less than 20 percent in 2007, and we have gone from being a net exporter of manufactured goods in the
1960s to a net importer.20 Manufacturing as a share of U.S. GDP has declined from more than 15 percent in 1998 to 11 percent in 2009.21 And jobs in U.S. manufacturing
declined from 17.6 million in January 1998 to 11.5 million in January 2010.22 And although the manufacturing sector has gained jobs in every month since then, for a total
of 504,000 jobs as of June 2012, its share of total employment is down from 16.8 percent in 1998 to 10.8 percent today.23 ¶ These trends matter because the United
States needs a strong manufacturing sector. Manufacturing provides good, middle-class jobs; propels U.S. leadership in technology
and innovation, which is critical to our economic growth and vitality; and is important to balancing the trade deficit, as well as
important for our nation’s long-term national security. The manufacturing sector has historically been a source of solid, middle-class
jobs and it continues to be so today. The average manufacturing worker earns a weekly wage that is 8.4 percent higher than nonmanufacturing workers, taking into account worker and job characteristics that influence wages, including unionization .24 Economist
Susan Helper and her colleagues conclude that the economic evidence points to the fact that “the main reason why manufacturing wages
and benefits are higher than those outside of manufacturing is that manufacturers need to pay higher wages to ensure that their workers
are appropriately skilled and motivated.” 25 U.S.-based manufacturing underpins a broad range of jobs in other industries, including
higher skill service jobs such as accountants, bankers, and lawyers, as well as a broad range of other jobs such as basic research and
technology development, product and process engineering and design, operations and maintenance, transportation, testing, and lab
work.26 Compared to jobs in other economic sectors, manufacturing jobs have the highest “multiplier effect,” that is, the largest effect on the
overall economy for each job created, relative to jobs in other industries. To put this in perspective, each job in motor vehicle manufacturing creates
8.6 indirect jobs, each job in computer manufacturing creates 5.6 indirect jobs, and each job in steel product manufacturing creates 10.3 indirect
jobs.27¶ Manufacturing is also important because it fuels the United States’ leadership in technology and innovation, which are critical to
maintain for our future economic competitiveness. 28 Manufacturing firms are more likely to innovate than firms in other industries:
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Research from the National Science Foundation finds that 22 percent of manufacturing companies are active innovators
compared to only 8 percent of nonmanufacturing companies. 29 This number is even higher for specific sectors within manufacturing.
For example, in computer and electronic products manufacturing, 45 percent of companies are product innovators and 33 percent are
process innovators.30 Manufacturing firms also perform the vast majority of private research and development: Despite comprising just
12 percent of the nation’s GDP in 2007, manufacturing companies contributed 70 percent of private research and development spending.31 ¶ In
addition to what manufacturers spend on innovation, there is increasingly strong empirical evidence showing a tight link between
innovation and manufacturing production. Economic research now shows that the United States will not likely be able to keep the highly
skilled technical jobs if the production jobs go overseas. Harvard Business School professors Gary Pisano and Willy Shih have written about the decline of
the “industrial commons” in the United States: the collective R&D, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities that mutually reinforce each other to sustain innovation.32
For many types of manufacturing, geographic proximity is key to having a strong “commons,” and they point to evidence showing
that there are few hightech industries where the feedback loop from the manufacturing process is not a factor in developing new
products.33 As they put it, “product and process innovation are intertwined.” Pisano and Shih point to the example of rechargeable batteries as a product
where innovation followed manufacturing. Rechargeable battery manufacturing left the United States many years ago, leading to the migration of
the batteries commons to Asia. Now new technology (batteries for hybrid and electric vehicles) are being designed in Asia where the
commons are located. I’d draw your attention to a January New York Times article on China’s increasing investment in research and development, which asked,
“Our global competitiveness is based on being the origin of the newest, best ideas. How will we fare if those ideas originate somewhere else?”34
Collapse causes multiple scenarios for nuclear war- collapses democracy, heg, and the international system
causes terrorism, Middle East war, resource war, and naval conflict- empirics prove
Burrows and Harris 9 Mathew J. Burrows is a counselor in the National Intelligence Council (NIC), the principal drafter of Global
Trends 2025: A Transformed World, Jennifer Harris is a member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit, “Revisiting the Future:
Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, The Washington Quarterly, April,
http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf
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 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.
Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groupsinheriting 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. 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. What Kind of World will 2025 Be? Perhaps more than lessons, history loves patterns. Despite widespread
changes in the world today, there is little to suggest that the future will not resemble the past in several respects. The report asserts that, under most scenarios, the trend toward greater
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
diffusion of authority and power that has been ongoing for a couple of decades is likely to accelerate because of the emergence of new
global players, the worsening institutional deficit, potential growth in regional blocs, and enhanced strength of non-state actors and networks. The multiplicity of
actors on the international scene could either strengthen the international system, by filling gaps left by aging post-World War II institutions, or could further fragment it and incapacitate
international cooperation. The diversity in both type and kind of actor raises the likelihood of fragmentation occurring over the next two decades, particularly given the wide array of transnational
challenges facing the international community. Because of their growing geopolitical and economic clout, the rising powers will enjoy a high degree of freedom to customize their political and
economic policies rather than fully adopting Western norms. They are also likely to cherish their policy freedom to maneuver, allowing others to carry the primary burden for dealing with terrorism,
climate change, proliferation, energy security, and other system maintenance issues. Existing multilateral institutions, designed for a different geopolitical order, appear too rigid and cumbersome to
undertake new missions, accommodate changing memberships, and augment their resources. Nongovernmental organizations and philanthropic foundations, concentrating on specific issues,
increasingly will populate the landscape but are unlikely to affect change in the absence of concerted efforts by multilateral institutions or governments. Efforts at greater inclusiveness, to reflect the
emergence of the newer powers, may make it harder for international organizations to tackle transnational challenges. Respect for the dissenting views of member nations will continue to shape the
agenda of organizations and limit the kinds of solutions that can be attempted. An
ongoing financial crisis and prolonged recession would tilt the scales even
further in the direction of a fragmented and dysfunctional international system with a heightened risk of conflict . The report
concluded that the rising BRIC powers (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) seem averse to challenging the international system, as Germany
and Japan did in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but this of course could change if their widespread hopes for greater prosperity
become frustrated and the current benefits they derive from a globalizing world turn negative.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Manufacturing --- China
Decline of US manufacturing triggers unchecked Chinese rise and South China Sea conflict
Mosher 6 Steven is the President of the Population Research Institute. “CHINESE INFLUENCE ON U.S. FOREIGN POLICY
THROUGH U.S. EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CORPORATE AMERICA:
HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,” Feb 14,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa26076.000/hfa26076_0f.htm
The ruthless mercantilism practiced by the CCP is thus a form of economic warfare. China's rulers seek to move as much of the world's
manufacturing base to their country as possible, thus increasing the PRC's ''comprehensive national strength'' at the same time that it
undermines U.S. national security by hollowing out America's industrial base in general and key defense-related sectors of the
economy in particular. China will not lightly abandon this policy, which strengthens China as it weakens the U.S., and is an integral part of
China's drive for Hegemony.¶ CHINA IS ACQUIRING THE MEANS TO PROJECT FORCE FAR BEYOND TAIWAN. ¶ Many of China's military
modernization efforts—supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, stealthy submarines, theater based missiles with terminal guidance systems—are aimed specifically
at U.S. forces and bases. By is acquiring weapons designed to exploit U.S. vulnerabilities, the PRC is clearly preparing for a contest with the United
States.¶ Beijing is interested in deterring, delaying, or complicating U.S. assistance to Taiwan in the event of an invasion, so as to force a quick
capitulation by the democratically elected Taiwan government. But while the near-term focus is Taiwan, many of China's new lethal capabilities are applicable to a wide
range of potential operations beyond the Taiwan Strait. As the 2005 Report to Congress of the USCC report notes, ''China is in the midst of an extensive force
modernization program aimed at increasing its force projection capabilities and confronting U.S. and allied forces in the region.''(see
footnote 20)¶ The rapid growth in China's military power not only threatens Taiwan—and by implication the U.S.—but U.S. allies
throughout the Asian Pacific region. China possesses regional, even global ambitions, and is building a first-rate military to realize those
ambitions. It is naive to view the PRC's military build-up as ''merely'' part of the preparations for an invasion of Taiwan in which American military assets in the AsianPacific will have to be neutralized.¶ China's construction of naval bases in the Indian Ocean, and its aggressive pursuit of territorial claims in the East and South
China Seas point to its wider ambitions.¶ Finally, even a cursory reading of China's 2004 Defense White Paper suggests that it views U.S. power and
military presence throughout the world with a jaundiced eye, and that it seeks to become, over the mid-term, the dominant power in Asia.
This goal necessarily brings it into potential conflict with the U.S. and its allies, chiefly Japan.¶ CHINA IS PURSUING TERRITORIAL CLAIMS
OTHER THAN TAIWAN.¶ Additional evidence that China's territorial ambitions go well beyond Taiwan comes from its aggressive pursuit of
territorial claims in the East China and South China sea s.(see footnote 21)¶ Since the early 1970s, Beijing has claimed the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands
(or Tiaoyutai in Chinese) and the continental shelf that extends into Japanese territorial waters. China's increasingly aggressive intrusions into Japanese airspace and
Japanese territorial waters has raise d eyebrows in Tokyo and Washington. In November 2004, for example, the Japanese navy chased a Han-class nuclear submarine away
from the waters off Okinawa.¶ China also orchestrated the removal of U.S. logistics forces from the Central Asian republics, demonstrating that its commitment to fighting
terrorism was less important that its desire to reduce U.S. influence and presence in the region.
Unchecked Chinese rise causes great power nuclear war
Walton 7 – C. Dale Walton, Lecturer in International Relations and Strategic Studies at the University of Reading, 2007, Geopolitics
and the Great Powers in the 21st Century, p. 49
Obviously, it
is of vital importance to the United States that the PRC does not become the hegemon of Eastern
Eurasia. As noted above, however, regardless of what Washington does, China's success in such an endeavor is not as easily attainable as pessimists
might assume. The PRC appears to be on track to be a very great power indeed, but geopolitical conditions are not favorable for any Chinese effort to
establish sole hegemony; a robust multipolar system should suffice to keep China in check, even with only minimal American intervention in local
squabbles. The more worrisome danger is that Beijing will cooperate with a great power partner, establishing a very
muscular axis. Such an entity would present a critical danger to the balance of power, thus both necessitating very
active American intervention in Eastern Eurasia and creating the underlying conditions for a massive,
and probably nuclear, great power war. Absent such a "super-threat," however, the demands on American leaders will be far more subtle:
creating the conditions for Washington's gentle decline from playing the role of unipolar quasi-hegemon to being "merely" the greatest of the world's
powers, while aiding in the creation of a healthy multipolar system that is not marked by close great power alliances.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Chemistry --- Aerospace (Cyberterror !)
Chemical Industry is key to aerospace.
David Delpy 10 is Professor, chief executive at Oxford Economics. Dr. Richard Pike, Ph.D. in chemical sciences, September 2010,
“The economic benefits of chemistry research to the UK,”
http://www.rsc.org/images/Economic_Benefits_of_Chemistry_Sep_2010_tcm18-191337.pdf
The modern aerospace industry depends on high-performance products that are lightweight, yet strong enough to take harsh
loading conditions, and it is indeed the fruits of chemistry research which have given rise to advanced materials such as the polymers and composite materials now used in
tails, fuselages and propellers. Chemistry research also impacts this industry through the development of coatings (e.g. to inhibit corrosion) and fuel additives to enhance
performance. The aerospace industry also relies on computational chemistry to better understand combustion and the impact of elevated temperatures on the stability of various components e.g. metal
oxide surface coatings and catalysts. Finally, key to the continued success of the aerospace industry are the advances that chemistry research has
provided in security in aviation. The devices which safeguard the security of passengers, workers and cargo in airports and during transit are heavily dependent upon chemistry research (i.e. metal detectors, x-ray systems, trace explosives
and narcotics screening devices, and, more recently, biometric passports). The future of aerospace is based upon the ability of researchers to provide solutions which lessen the
environmental impacts of aviation with examples including the continued development of lightweight materials. Such materials enable new wing designs aimed at
increasing efficiency and reducing drag and thereby fuel consumption, which would not be possible with traditional materials. In addition, the role that functional coatings can have in helping to improve
the performance maintainability of the aircraft should not be underestimated.
Aerospace -
Aerospace solves cyberterrorism and infrastructure collapse.
Deloitte 12—Deloitte is a consulting and financial advisory service, Report Commissioned by the Aerospace Industries Association, "
The Aerospace and Defense Industry in the U.S. A financial and economic impact study," March, http://www.aiaaerospace.org/assets/deloitte_study_2012.pdf)
our civilization and way of life can be put in jeopardy quickly The
Pearl Harbor and
9/11 have shown nation how vulnerable it can be. Technology innovations
developed in the aerospace
industry have
made nation safer,
the industry continues to innovate to produce the
necessary defenses used to increase our national security Recent advances to counter the next generation national security threats include
sophisticated software to trace
terrorists advanced listening sensors
and sophisticated sensors
the
UAV) has been
successful
the specter of a potential cyber-attack on
water, power , transportation or communications infrastructure is cause for alarm
industry continues to develop the next
generation technologies to address these and future threats.
The world continues to demonstrate how dangerous it is and how
attacks of
.
our
surprise attacks on
the tragic events surrounding the terrorist
and products
and defense
from sophisticated sensors that can “see” nefarious activities of our adversaries, to the bomb and metal detectors that have become ubiquitous at airports around the world,
our
.
example,
bank transactions of
airports, borders, and seaports. Of course,
unmanned aerial vehicle (
,
extraordinarily
to eavesdrop on communications of known terrorists,
for
to help discover threats at our
our nation’s
in helping to see, then attack if necessary, our adversaries. Lastly,
, and the
Cyber-terrorism causes nuclear war
Fritz ‘9 (researcher for International Commission on Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament, former Army officer and consultant,
and has a master of international relations at Bond University (Jason, “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
terrorists’ capabilities, strategies, and tactics.
another,
If access to command and control centres is obtained, terrorists could
fake or actually
cause one nuclear-armed state to attack
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
Computers which operate on a closed network
may also be compromised by
, roaming notebooks, wireless
points,
, and maintenance entry
point
increasing reliance on computer networks
, and
multiple launch options,
enables multiple entry points for terrorists
multiple attempts
have been made
to compromise
low radio frequency used by the Navy to send
launch approval to
submarines
the alleged Soviet system known as Perimetr was designed to automatically launch nuclear weapons if it was unable to establish
communications
however it did not account for the possibility of cyber terrorists
blocking communications
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.
various hacker methods, such as privilege escalation
access
embedded exploits in software and hardware
s. 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
, including experimental technology such as autonomous systems
triad capability,
their desire to have
such as nuclear
. 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
by hackers
the extremely
once
US
nuclear
submerged
.
Additionally,
with Soviet leadership. This was intended as a retaliatory response in the event that nuclear weapons had decapitated Soviet leadership;
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.
responses.
Disruptions in communication and
the use of
disinformation could also be used to provoke uninformed
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
enough to launch nuclear weapons on its own,
without the need for compromising command and control centres directly.
cyber terrorism could be
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Attacks on water supply cause extinction
Gleick ‘6 (‘Water and terrorism”, Peter H. Gleick, co-founder and president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
Environment, and Security, internationally recognized water expert and internationally recognized water expert and was named a
MacArthur Fellow in October 2003. In 2001, Gleick was dubbed a "visionary on the environment" by the British Broadcasting
Corporation. In 1999, Gleick was elected an Academician of the International Water Academy and in 2006, he was elected to the National
Academy of Sciences, Gleick received a B.S. from Yale University and an M.S. and Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley.
He serves on the boards of numerous journals and organizations, and is the author of many scientific papers and seven books, 31 July
2006, http://www.pacinst.org/reports/water_terrorism.pdf
Water is a fundamental resource for human and economic welfare and modern society depends on complex, interconnected water
infrastructure to provide reliable safe water supplies and to remove and treat wastewater. This infrastructure is vital for human welfare and
economic development and it is vulnerable to
, terrorism. There is a long history of using water as a
political or military target or tool, going back over 2,500 years
Water resources and systems are attractive targets because there is
no substitute for water
The chance that terrorists will strike at water systems is real
Water infrastructure can be targeted directly or water can be contaminated
Some important water facilities
are easily accessible to the public at
various points and there are new worries that computer control systems may be accessible to hacking
intentional disruption from war, intrastate violence and, of more recent concern
(Gleick, 2004).
. Whether its lack is due to natural scarcity, a physical supply interruption or contamination, a community of any size that lacks sufficient fresh water will suffer greatly. Furthermore, a community does not have to lack water to suffer. Too much water at the wrong time can also lead to
death and great damage.
but poorly understood by water managers and the public. This paper reviews the history of past attacks on water systems and t he most pressing vulnerabilities and risks
facing modern water systems. Suggestions for ways to reduce those risks are also presented.
agents. The damage is done by hurting people, rendering water unusable, or destroying purification and supply infrastructure.
through the intentional introduction of poison or disease-causing
, such as dams, reservoirs and pipelines,
. Many large dams are tourist attractions and offer tours to the public, while many reservoirs
are open to the public for recreational boating and swimming. Pipelines are often exposed for long distances. Water and wastewater treatment plants dot our urban and rural landscape. As an example of the economic and human chaos even moderate disruption or contamination might cause, an outbreak of Cryptosporidium in Milwaukee in 1993
killed over a hundred people, affected the health of over 400,000 more (MacKenzie et al., 1994; Smith, 1994) and cost millions in lost wages and productivity. That outbreak, completely unrelated to terrorism, gives some sense of the vulnerability of modern water systems to similar undetected, intentionally caused, contamination events. This
article will not offer any new information for those hoping to harm water systems and all information used here is derived fr om open sources and readily accessible materials. The purpose is to identify where productive and protective efforts to reduce risks would be most useful on the part of water managers and planners and to reduce
unnecessary fear and worry. Proper and appropriate safeguards can reduce the risks identified here significantly and reduce the consequences should an event occur. The worry The typical scenario for a terrorist attack on domestic water supplies involves putting a chemical or biological agent into local water supplies or using conventional
explosives to damage basic infrastructure such as pipelines, dams and treatment plants. This is not as straightforward as it sounds. The number of casualties that would result from such an attack depends on the system for water treatment already in place, the type and dosage of poison ingested, individual resistance, the timing of an attack and the
speed and scope of discovery and response by local authorities. Most biological pathogens cannot survive in water and most chemicals require very large volumes to contaminate a water system to any significant degree. Many pathogens and chemicals are vulnerable to the kinds of water treatment used to make it potable for human use. Indeed,
the whole purpose of municipal water systems is to destroy biological pathogens and reduce the concentration of harmful chemicals through chlorination, filtration, ultraviolet radiation, ozonation and many other common treatment approaches. Many contaminants are also broken down over time by sunlight and other natural processes. Most
infrastructure has built-in redundancy that reduces vulnerability to physical attacks. Because of these safeguards, one early commentator noted: “it is a myth that one can accomplish [mass destruction] by tossing a small quantity of a ‘super-toxin’ into the water supply. . .it would be virtually impossible to poison a large water supply: hydrolysis,
It is important to note, however, that terrorist attacks that fail to kill or injure large numbers of
people may still have important political repercussions by affecting public perception, reducing confidence in institutions and forcing
inappropriate political responses.
chlorination and the required quantity of the toxin are the inhibiting factors” (Kupperman & Trent, 1979).
Society reacts differently to natural and human-caused disasters: we often accept large casualties from natural disasters with a degree of sanguinity not matched by our response to intentional acts of violence (Wardlaw, 1989). Terrorism destroys our sense of
safety and normality and introduces new and often substantial stress and uncertainty in individuals and communities (Ursano et al., 2003).
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Chemistry --- Aerospace (Cruise Missile !)
Chemical Industry is key to aerospace.
David Delpy 10 is Professor, chief executive at Oxford Economics. Dr. Richard Pike, Ph.D. in chemical sciences, September 2010,
“The economic benefits of chemistry research to the UK,”
http://www.rsc.org/images/Economic_Benefits_of_Chemistry_Sep_2010_tcm18-191337.pdf
The modern aerospace industry depends on high-performance products that are lightweight, yet strong enough to take harsh
loading conditions, and it is indeed the fruits of chemistry research which have given rise to advanced materials such as the polymers and composite materials now used in
tails, fuselages and propellers. Chemistry research also impacts this industry through the development of coatings (e.g. to inhibit corrosion) and fuel additives to enhance
performance. The aerospace industry also relies on computational chemistry to better understand combustion and the impact of elevated temperatures on the stability of various components e.g. metal
oxide surface coatings and catalysts. Finally, key to the continued success of the aerospace industry are the advances that chemistry research has
provided in security in aviation. The devices which safeguard the security of passengers, workers and cargo in airports and during transit are heavily dependent upon chemistry research (i.e. metal detectors, x-ray systems, trace explosives
and narcotics screening devices, and, more recently, biometric passports). The future of aerospace is based upon the ability of researchers to provide solutions which lessen the
environmental impacts of aviation with examples including the continued development of lightweight materials. Such materials enable new wing designs aimed at
increasing efficiency and reducing drag and thereby fuel consumption, which would not be possible with traditional materials. In addition, the role that functional coatings can have in helping to improve
the performance maintainability of the aircraft should not be underestimated.
Aerospace -
Aerospace is key to solve cruise missile prolif
Gardner 99 (Lt Col Igor J.P., School of Advanced Airpower Studies, “THEATER LAND ATTACK CRUISE MISSILE DEFENSE:
GUARDING THE BACK DOOR”)
LACM = Land Attack Cruise Missile
LACM
threat could materialize in a relatively short period of time
While few likely regional adversaries currently possess an
capability, a serious
. LACMs provide
an adversary with several important advantages over alternative delivery means. Their small size could provide a greater survivability, both before and after launch, than either theater ballistic missiles or
means to achieve a highly accurate
LACM capability are rapidly becoming widely available, through the purchase or transfer of existing off-the-shelf technology and conversion of widely proliferated
manned aircraft. LACM flight characteristics make them well suited for WMD delivery, particularly for chemical and biological agents. The
ASCMs and UAVs. While some uncertainties exist about how future LACM threats will evolve (quantities, ranges, types of payloads, degrees of low observable technology incorporated), even relatively
low tech” LACMs could present serious challenges to today’s defenses
“
. WMD warheads, the 360-degree threat, combat identification and fratricide
avoidance are major challenges that must be solved to effectively counter LACM threats. Theater missile defense (against both ballistic and cruise missiles) is a key aspect of counter air strategy, and the
ability to effectively counter LACMs will be essential to achieving air superiority, much less air supremacy. As defense budgets continue to decline in search of the elusive peace dividend, the U.S. military
will continue to face the problem of doing more with less. These resource reductions, combined with the likelihood that future adversaries will learn form their predecessors and attempt to counter U.S.
strategy asymmetrically, make it all the more important that the services fight as an integrated and effective joint team. Currently, no single service has the resources required to defend a theater against a
serious LACM threat. This will require a balanced, joint force trained to operate under common doctrine, with fully integrated command and control, and overlapping sensor and shooter system coverage.
Defense against LACMs will require a mix of attack operations, active and passive defense, and C 4 I optimized for the particular theater. It will require a mix
of surface, air and space systems to gain command of the air rapidly by destroying enemy cruise missiles and their support
systems on the ground and in the air. Only through such concerted efforts will the joint force commander achieve freedom from attack in order to gain freedom to attack. To assure
integration, cruise missile defense doctrine and capabilities require the same level of effort currently focused on theater ballistic missile defense in the areas of common doctrine, system modernization and
integration, and joint training.
Global nuclear war
Telegraph 11
(Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Reinforced Point Of Contact (RPOC) Meeting, April 10, 2008, Wikileaks Transcript Classified by ISN/MTR Director Pam
Durham, February 2, 2011, pg online @ Telegraph)
many countries are pursuing cruise missile programs as alternatives or supplements to their ballistic missile capabilities. Like ballistic missiles,
cruise missiles can be a platform for WMD delivery and provide a more effective vehicle for biological and chemical weapons distribution than ballistic missiles. These
trends are especially evident in the key regions of tension, the Middle East and Persian Gulf, Northeast Asia, and South Asia. 22. (C)
21. (C) Additionally,
Ballistic and cruise missile programs in these regions are evolving in different ways. While nearly all ultimately seek to obtain indigenous production capabilities, some rely primarily on direct missile
purchases from countries such as North Korea, while others solicit extensive foreign assistance in missile design, development, and/or production. In other cases, more limited, specialized assistance is
sought from foreign sources to sustain domestic design efforts and overcome technological impediments that prevent self-sufficiency in a state's missile program. 23. (C) The procurement efforts required
to support missile development are global in scope, utilizing the territories and economies of a wide range of countries as sources of equipment and technology, as re-export/transit cutouts, and as
brokering and finance centers. Many of these countries, including MTCR Partner countries, are not aware that their entities are inadvertently assisting ballistic missile proliferation. 24. (C) In several cases,
missile programs constitute a threat to international peace and security
broad international consensus has been reached that certain national
. With respect
to Iran, UNSCRs including 1696, 1737, and 1747, and 1803, prohibit technological transfers and other assistance by all states to Iran's missile programs. UNSCRs 1695 and 1718 require similar actions
regarding ballistic missile programs in North Korea. These UNSCRs reflect the fact that ongoing nuclear tensions in the Persian Gulf and Northeast Asia threaten the viability of the global nonproliferation
tensions are aggravated
by
testing of ballistic missiles
and security system. These
and made more real and widespread
the open development and
capable of delivering
WMD. 25. (S/REL MTCR) For example, Iran has publicly revealed it had conducted some tests related to solid-propellant missile technology and implied that it was working on a design for a two-stage,
2,000 km-range system. Iran has also worked to improve the capabilities of its liquid propellant missile systems, claiming that a variant of the Shahab-3 missile has a 2,000 km-range and improved
missile-delivered WMD
have the potential to cripple the global economy
accuracy. Not only would
in Northeast Asia or the Middle East
, the development of
longer-range ballistic missiles carries with it the ability to deliver WMD to other regions. 26. (C) There are similar implications related to missile proliferation in South Asia, where a nuclear and
missile arms race has the direct potential to lead to nuclear war in the world's most densely populated area and a region of increasing
global economic significance. As we have already seen in South Asia in the nuclear area, the possession and development of missile technology there also carries with it the risk that this technology will
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
spread to other regions. 27. (C) In an increasingly interdependent world,
OCS Aff
missile programs for WMD delivery in regions of tension threaten stability --
not just in those regions, but globally. Moreover, the challenge posed by these programs is growing as they improve qualitatively and quantitatively, often by drawing on all of us
for various forms of facilitation.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Chemistry --- Aerospace (Asia !)
Chemical Industry is key to aerospace.
David Delpy 10 is Professor, chief executive at Oxford Economics. Dr. Richard Pike, Ph.D. in chemical sciences, September 2010,
“The economic benefits of chemistry research to the UK,”
http://www.rsc.org/images/Economic_Benefits_of_Chemistry_Sep_2010_tcm18-191337.pdf
The modern aerospace industry depends on high-performance products that are lightweight, yet strong enough to take harsh
loading conditions, and it is indeed the fruits of chemistry research which have given rise to advanced materials such as the polymers and composite materials now used in
tails, fuselages and propellers. Chemistry research also impacts this industry through the development of coatings (e.g. to inhibit corrosion) and fuel additives to enhance
performance. The aerospace industry also relies on computational chemistry to better understand combustion and the impact of elevated temperatures on the stability of various components e.g. metal
oxide surface coatings and catalysts. Finally, key to the continued success of the aerospace industry are the advances that chemistry research has
provided in security in aviation. The devices which safeguard the security of passengers, workers and cargo in airports and during transit are heavily dependent upon chemistry research (i.e. metal detectors, x-ray systems, trace explosives
and narcotics screening devices, and, more recently, biometric passports). The future of aerospace is based upon the ability of researchers to provide solutions which lessen the
environmental impacts of aviation with examples including the continued development of lightweight materials. Such materials enable new wing designs aimed at
increasing efficiency and reducing drag and thereby fuel consumption, which would not be possible with traditional materials. In addition, the role that functional coatings can have in helping to improve
the performance maintainability of the aircraft should not be underestimated.
Aerospace -
Aerospace is key to stability in Asia - the impact is nuclear and biological warfare
Khalilzad and Lesser 98 | Counselor @ CSIS, President of Khalilzad Associates, and Former US Ambassador to the UN AND PhD
Senior Transatlantic Fellow @ the German Marshall Fund (Zalmay and Ian, "Sources of Conflict in the 21st Century," p.164-165)
The first key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that American air and space power will continue to remain critical for
conventional and unconventional deterrence in Asia. This argument is justified by the fact that several sub-regions of the continent still
harbor the potential for full-scale conventional war. This potential is most conspicuously on the Korean peninsula and to a
lesser degree, in South Asia, the Persian Gulf, and the South China Sea. In some of these areas such as Korea and the Persian Gulf, the United States
has clear treaty obligations and therefore has pre-planned the use of air power should contingencies arise. U.S. Air Force
assets could also be called upon for operations in some of these other areas. In almost all these cases, US airpower would be at the
forefront of an American politico-military response because (a) of the vast distances on the Asian continent; (b) the
diverse range of operational platforms available to the U.S. Air Force, a capability unmatched by any other country or service, (c) the possible
unavailability of naval assets in close proximity, particularly in the context of surprise contingencies; and (d) the heavy payload that can be
carried by U.S. Air Force platforms. These platforms can exploit speed, reach, and high operating tempos to sustain continual operations until the political objectives are secured.
The entire range of warfighting capability—fighters, bombers, electronic warfare (EW), suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD), combat support platforms such as AWACS
and J-STARS and tankers—are relevant in the Asia-Pacific region, because many of the regional contingencies will involve large,
fairly modern, conventional forces, most of which are built around large land armies, as is the case in Korea, ChinaTaiwan, India-Pakistan and the Persian Gulf. In addition to conventional combat, the demands of unconventional deterrence will increasingly confront the U.S. Air Force in
Asia. The Korean peninsula, China, and the Indian subcontinent are already arenas of WMD proliferation. While emergent nuclear capabilities
continue to receive the most public attention, chemical and biological warfare threats will progressively become future problems. The delivery
systems in the region are increasing in range and diversity. China already targets the continental United States with ballistic missiles. North Korea can threaten northeast Asia
with existing Scud-class theater ballistic missiles. India will acquire the capability to produce ICBM-class delivery vehicles, and both China and India will acquire long-range cruise missiles during the time
air and space power will function as a vital rapid reaction
force in a breaking crisis. Current guidance tasks the Air Force to prepare for two major regional conflicts that could break out in the Persian Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In other
frames examined in this report. The second key implication derived from the analysis of trends in Asia suggests that
areas of Asia, however, such as the Indian subcontinent, the South China Sea, Southeast Asia, and Myanmar, the United States has no treaty obligations requiring it to commit the use of its military forces.
But as past experience has shown, American policymakers have regularly displayed the disconcerting habit of discovering strategic interests in parts of the world previously neglected after conflicts have
already broken out. Mindful of this trend, it would behoove U.S. Air Force planners to prudently plan for regional contingencies in nontraditional areas of interest, because naval and air power will of
necessity be the primary instruments constituting the American response.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Steel --- Heg
Steel industry is key to military---EVERY military platform depends on steel.
Kevin Nevers 7 is staff writer @ Chesterton Tribune. “Steel industry said vital to national security,” 1/27/07,
http://chestertontribune.com/Business/steel_industry_said_vital_to_nat.htm, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
the U.S. military’s aircraft carriers and submarines
require large quantities of high-strength heat-treated alloy, the
bulk of it produced in the plate mills of Mittal Steel USA Much less well-known
is the enormous variety of applications to
which the U.S. military puts other specialized forms and grades of ste
thrust nozzles of missiles
jet engine tail
feathers
the transmission gears of helicopters
submarine fasteners
they are all vital components of the national defense
a reliable
supply
is under threat
U.S. steelmakers are under threat
U.S.
policies are hostile to
domestic investment and U.S.-based manufacturing
It’s not news that
, tanks and personnel carriers,
—though hardly surprising—
.
el: titanium alloy for the
; chromium nickel steel for
overall domestic sales,” according to the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)—
strategic steel
; niobium alloy for
. While these niche products are hardly big sellers for U.S. steemakers—“comprising only a small portion of
; high-strength superalloy for
, like the horse shoe for want of which they kingdom was lost. Yet
: “market-distorting foreign competition”—think China, for instance—and “
, the AISI believes, because
economic
homegrown
of
that
”—high costs related to energy consumption, environmental regulations, and employee benefits—are exerting destabilizing pressure on this country’s manufacturing base. The worst-case scenario, as envisioned
by the AISI in a report released this month entitled “Steel and the National Defense”: “It could become impossible to produce (steel) here; the U.S. military would lose its principal source of strategic metals; and we a s a nation would become dangerously dependent upon unreliable foreign sources of supply.” In other words, not only would the
U.S. military lose its domestic source of steel for high-tech horse shoes. The country as a whole would lose its domestic source of steel for vital infrastructure of all kinds: bridges, pipelines, rail networks, airport runways, electric generators and transmission towers, commercial, industrial, and municipal construction. The result, the AISI
predicts: “sharply reduced security preparedness in the face of: •Highly variable, and certainly higher, costs; •Uncertain supply, impacted by unsettled foreign economies and politics; •Quality, design, and performance problems; •Inventory problems, long lead times, and extended construction schedules.” For U.S. Rep. Pete Visclosky, the new
chair of the Congressional Steel Caucus, the AISI report makes troubling reading. “To ensure that our national defense needs will be met, it is crucial that we have a robust and vibrant domestic steel industry,” he said in a statement released on Wednesday. “It is poor policy to rely on foreign steel for our national security—instead, we need a
long-term investment in domestically-produced, high-quality, and reliable steel that will serve and strengthen our national security interests.” Threats: China et al. In 2005, after its ravenous appetite for steel had driven the price of the stuff through the roof and generated record profits for U.S. steelmakers, China became a net exporter of steel,
the AISI says. And during the last half of 2006 China became “the leading foreign supplier of steel to the U.S. market.” It continues, moreover, to expand its production capacity in an effort to grab global market share, to which end it is helped by a currency devalued by as much as 40 percent and a cost structure simplified by a lack of
meaningful enforcement of environmental and health and safety regulations. The Chinese government also significantly subsidizes its steel industry, the AISI says, “in the form of favorable tax treatment, export credit support, (research and development) support, and direct funding of new projects.” China’s is not the only government, though,
which intervenes in its national steel industry, the AISI says. Much of the current global overcapacity is attributable “to government support and other types of aid,” which in turn prompt “excess production and market-distorting international competition.” And once the genie of overcapacity is out of the bottle, the AISI says, it is “virtually
A healthy domestic production capability
depends on a level-playing field which encourages “continued
investment in the United States in both manufacturing and technology.”
impossible” to squeeze it back in. Threats: Economic Policies
, the AISI says,
U.S. steelmakers’ cost structure, however—reflecting the expense of energy, environmental regulations, post-retirement benefits, and corporate income taxes—can
make the price of a finished product unattractively high. Meanwhile, many companies, including steel consumers, are looking overseas for greener investment pastures. Among the incentives to invest abroad cited by the AISI are “favorable tax treatment, lower operating costs due to government intervention, outright subsidies (including
The Chinese government’s support of its steel industry provides an
artificial advantage in international competition
this will result in the transfer of significant U.S. manufacturing capability to
China
A strong and
viable domestic steel industry
is critical to
national defense
Virtually every military platform is
dependent on U.S.-produced steels and specialty metals.”
currency manipulation), and inconsistent application of the principles of free and fair trade.” Conclusions The AISI concludes its report with a number of policy prescriptions: •“
. If left unchallenged,
support
.” •“The U.S. government must call upon other governments to exercise restraint and refrain from subsidizing the growth of capacity that will jeopardize our commercial markets.” •“The U.S. government must adopt policies that encourage continued investment in domestic manufacturing.” “
,” the AISI notes, “
America’s
, national economic security, and homeland security.
Steel is critical to EVERY LEVEL of our military – reliance on foreign steel collapses hegemony
AISI 28—American Iron and Steel Institute, “U.S. Steel Industry Critical To Keeping Us Free,” pg online @
http://legacy.steel.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=24325&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm //um-ef)
domestically-produced steel is important to “improve our military platforms strengthen the nation’s industrial base and harden
our vital homeland security infrastructure.”
to ensure that national defense needs will be met it is
crucial that we have a robust and vibrant domestic steel industry.
Protecting the nation’s vast infrastructure is essential to homeland security.
steel
imported from China was being used by the Department of Homeland Security to construct the border fence
Sharkey said
,
Congressman Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN), Chairman of the Congressional Steel Caucus, has noted that “
our
,
It is poor policy to rely on foreign steel for our national security – instead, we need a long-term investment in domestically-produced, high-quality and reliable steel that will
serve and strengthen our national security interests.”
our
U.S.
This became an issue in recent times when it was discovered that substandard
between the United States and Mexico. Members of the Congressional
Steel Caucus, including Congressman Visclosky (D-IN), have worked to introduce legislation that will help strengthen the domestic steel industry in order to address issues of substandard steel imports. “AISI and its member s greatly appreciate the Congressional Steel Caucus’ support for the steel industry and their vigilance on behalf of
thousands of skilled men and women of the U.S. steel industry work to produce high quality, cost-competitive
products that are used by the military in
aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines
Land based vehicles
utilize significant tonnage of steel plate per vehicle
These critical applications require consistent, high
quality domestic sources of supply. as a country need to make sure that our national defense needs will be met, making it critical for
the U S to have a robust and vibrant domestic steel industry that will serve to strengthen our national security interest
Historically, American-made steel and specialty metals have been integral components of U.S. military strength and they
continue in this role today
America’s national security,” Sharkey said. In addition,
various applications ranging from
as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank and the family of Light Armored Vehicles, also
to Patriot and Stinger missiles, Sharkey said.
, such
. The up-armored Humvee, in use by the U.S. Army, includes steel plating around the cab of the vehicle, offering improved
protection against small arms fire and shrapnel. In fact, the steel plating underneath the cab is designed to survive up to eight pounds of explosives beneath the engine to four pounds in the cargo area.
“We
nited
tates
s,” Sharkey noted.
. The Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) primary use of steel in weapons systems is for shipbuilding, but steel is also an important component in ammunition, aircraft parts, and aircraft engines. DOD’s steel requirements are satisfied by both integrated steel mills and EAF
producer mills.
That’s key to aircraft carriers and the navy
Gibson 11 – Thomas J. Gibson received his law degree from Georgetown University where he graduated magna cum laude. He holds a
Master of Marine Affairs degree from the University of Rhode Island and a B.S. in Naval Architecture from the United States Naval
Academy. Gibson served as Senior Vice President of Advocacy for the American Chemistry Council. Previously, Gibson served as the
Senior Vice President, Government Affairs for the Portland Cement Association. Prior to joining PCA in 2004, Gibson served as Chief of
Staff for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2011, "Profile of the American Iron and Steel Institute 20102011"www.steel.org/~/media/Files/AISI/About AISI/Profile Brochure F-singles_CX.pdf
Military uses for steel are extensive. Thousands of skilled men and women of the American steel industry work to produce high-quality, cost-competitive
products that are used by the military in various applications ranging from aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines to Patriot and Stinger
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
missiles, armor plate for tanks and field artillery pieces, as well as every major military aircraft in production today. Some examples of
steel use in defense applications are: � The USS New York was built with 24 tons of scrap steel reclaimed and recycled from the World Trade Center. � The USS
George H.W. Bush, an aircraft carrier named after the 41st President, contains 47,000 tons of structural steel and serves as home to 6,000 Navy personnel. � Steel is a
strategic material needed to strengthen existing U.S. infrastructure and installations. All segments of the domestic steel industry contribute directly or
indirectly to the defense industrial base. Whether it is missiles, jet aircraft, submarines, helicopters, Humvees® or munitions, American-made steels and
specialty metals are crucial components of U.S. military strength. Steel plate is used in the bodies and propulsion systems of the naval
fleet. The control cables on virtually all military aircraft, including fighter jets and military transport planes, are produced from steel wire
rope. In addition, land-based vehicles such as the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, Abrams Tank and mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles use significant amounts
of steel.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Readiness !)
Carriers are key to airpower, deterrence, and engagement with allies---sustains high-level of military
readiness.
Roland J. Yardley 8 is Senior Defense Research Analyst at the RAND Corporation. “Increasing Aircraft Carrier Forward Presence
Changing the Length of the Maintenance Cycle,” http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG706.pdf,
Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
The U.S. Navy
maintains a fleet of 11 aircraft carriers These ships which are among the most powerful
allow the
Navy to undertake a wide variety of tasks. These tasks include bringing airpower to bear against opponents deterring adversaries,
engaging friends and allies providing humanitarian assistance and other
missions the military is likely undertake in coming
years. Carriers
operate
to achieve readiness goals and sustaining high readiness levels for a period of time A
deployment to a forward theater of operations is part of the readiness sustainment cycle
Carriers are large, complex systems whose crew require extensive training and practice in the operations and safety of
the ship, the integration of the ship and the air wing, and the integration of all the ships in the carrier strike group
the ships
themselves require a great deal of maintenance
currently
.
,
and versatile elements of U.S. naval forces,
,
,
1
, like all U.S. Navy ships,
,
on a cycle that includes training
, evolving
then
.
. At the end of the training–readiness–deployment period, the ship enters a shipyard for depot-level repair and modernization
work; this period is called an “availability.”
(CSG). Because of their complexity,
. Hence, there is a tradeoff between the cycle length and the proportion of time a carrier is deployed or available to deploy. With just one deployment per cycle, longer cycles reduce the proportion of time a carrier is
deployed, but can increase the proportion of time the carrier is not in scheduled maintenance and is able to respond to contingencies and crises. he cycle for aircraft carriers has changed several times in the last two decades. he introduction of the Incremental Maintenance Program (IMP) for Nimitz-class carriers in 1994 set the cycle length at 24
months. he Fleet Response Plan (FRP) extended the cycle length to 27
months in 2003. In August 2006, the cycle length was extended to 32 months.
Readiness is critical to prevent rivals from lashing out and prevent war
Spencer, 2000 (Jack, Research Fellow at Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, “The Facts About Military Readiness”,
Heritage Foundation, September 15th, http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2000/09/BG1394-The-Facts-About-Military-Readiness)
America's national security requirements dictate that the armed forces must be prepared to defeat groups of adversaries in a given war.
America
has many enemies. Because attacking America or its interests alone would surely end in defeat for a single nation,
these enemies are likely to form alliances Therefore, basing readiness on American military superiority over any single nation has little
saliency
, as the sole remaining superpower,
.
. The evidence indicates that the U.S. armed forces are not ready to support America's national security requirements. Moreover, regarding the broader capability to defeat groups of enemies, military readiness has been declining. The National Security Strategy, the U.S. official statement of national security objectives,3
concludes that the United States "must have the capability to deter and, if deterrence fails, defeat large-scale, cross-border aggression in two distant theaters in overlapping time frames."4 According to some of the military's highest-ranking officials, however, the United States cannot achieve this goal. Commandant of the Marine Corps General
James Jones, former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Jay Johnson, and Air Force Chief of Staff General Michael Ryan have all expressed serious concerns about their respective services' ability to carry out a two major theater war strategy.5 Recently retired Generals Anthony Zinni of the U.S. Marine Corps and George Joulwan of the U.S.
Military readiness is vital because declines in America's military readiness signal to the
rest of the world that the United States is not prepared to defend its interests. Therefore, potentially hostile nations will be more likely to
lash out against American allies and interests, inevitably leading to U.S. involvement in combat. A high state of military readiness is
more likely to deter potentially hostile nations from acting aggressively in regions of vital national interest, thereby preserving peace.
Army have even questioned America's ability to conduct one major theater war the size of the 1991 Gulf War. 6
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Taiwan !)
Aircraft carriers solve China/Taiwan.
John Gordon 6 graduated from The Citadel in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in history. He also holds a masters in international
relations from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas, and a masters in business administration from Marymount University in
Arlington, Virginia. Currently, he is a candidate in George Mason University’s Public Policy Ph.D. program. Following graduation from
The Citadel, he entered the Army as a Field Artillery officer. His assignments included the 82d Airborne and 2d Infantry Divisions, the
Field Artillery School, and Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters. For the last 4 years of his Army career, he served at
Headquarters, Department of the Army where he was the Chief of the Doctrine Team in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans (DCSOPS). He was also the leader of the Army’s Deep Attack/Weapons Mix Study (DAWMS) team. While in
DCSOPS, Mr. Gordon was a member of the Army’s Roles and Missions Commission team and represented the Army at several
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) panels. He is the author of over 30 articles in various publications such as Army, Military Review,
Joint Force Quarterly, Naval Institute’s Proceedings, and Georgetown University’s National Security Studies Quarterly. He joined RAND
in May 1997. “LEVERAGING AMERICA'S AIRCRAFT CARRIER CAPABILITIES: Exploring New Combat and Noncombat
Roles and Missions for the U.S. Carrier Fleet,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf, 2006, Accessed date:
12-3-12 y2k
potential uses of aircraft carriers in future combat situations
a number of scenarios
include “high-end” crisis situations against powerful opponents and lower-intensity missions involving
U.S. forces such as noncombatant evacuations and counterinsurgency operations
several cases include the
use of nuclear
weapons either by terrorists
or by an enemy
a strategically dangerous trend: the
emergence of “middle-level” powers with nuclear weapons.
middle-level refers to nations
that are
major regional powers with considerable military capability North Korea Pakistan and India all admit to having a nuclear arsenal
Iran will gain a nuclear-weapons capability in the not-too-distant future.
the U.S. military must plan for
the possibility of engaging in combat with nations that have a modest nuclear capability.
the possibility of the U S coming to the assistance of
Taiwan when the
PRC) threatens it The U.S. response is overwhelmingly air and naval aircraft carriers are a key
component of the U.S. capabilities
This situation is truly the
worst-case future scenario for the U S
the Chinese
military has far more power than nearly any other potential opponent
This chapter examines
. It uses as the basis of its analysis
may choose to use aircraft carriers. RAND prepared these vignettes to
, or vignettes, of a wide variety of operations in which U.S. decisionmakers
both
,
. Importantly,
,
on a relatively small scale
of the
possible
in a more strategic context. Including nuclear-weapons scenarios was important because of
In this case,
still
that are far less powerful than such peer-level competitors as the former Soviet Union, but
.
,
,
now
would be prudent to assume that
. It
This changing situation means that
This chapter is organized in two parts. he first part provides a short overview of each of the combat vignettes
(the Appendix details all of these vignettes). he second part presents the insights that RAND derived from the Concept Options Group’s examination of the vignettes. Set in early 2009, this vignette examined
People’s Republic of China (
nited
.
tates
, and
rushed to the area.
high-end or
nited
tates, since
. The vignette postulates that the PRC has a reasonable amount of long-range reconnaissance and surveillance (including satellites) capability that could allow it to locate
maneuvering U.S. naval forces. Additionally, the PRC has a large number of surface ships, submarines, and strike aircraft that could be used to attack U.S. naval units. Its land-based air defense capability is also formidable. the vignette includes the possibility of the PRC employing highaltitude nuclear detonations (HANDs) to disrupt U.S.
command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. For example, it postulates that the PRC could use a HAND burst to disrupt the electronics of the ships in a Carrier Strike Group and then follow up the detonation with a large air strike to attack the ships while they are still recovering
from the effects of such an attack. Another aspect of this vignette involves the possibility that the PRC could threaten Japan, demanding that Japan prohibit any U.S. use of its bases
Extinction.
Straits Times 2k (Straits Times, June, 25, 2000, No one gains in war over Taiwan] (PDNSS2115)
a cross-strait war escalating into a full-scale war between the US and China.
Conflict on such a scale would embroil other countries
raise the possibility of a nuclear war.
Beijing
told
that it considers any country providing
support to any US forces attacking China as belligerent parties
open to its retaliation
If China were to retaliate, east Asia will be set on fire the
conflagration may not end there
With the US distracted Russia may seek to redefine Europe's political
landscape. The balance of power in the M E may be
upset
hostilities between India and Pakistan
could
enter a
dangerous phase:
?
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO -THE high-intensity scenario postulates
If Washington were to conclude that splitting China would better
serve its national interests, then a full-scale war becomes unavoidable.
has already
far and near and -horror of horrors -
the US and Japan privately
bases and logistics
. In the region, this means South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and, to a lesser extent, Singapore.
. And
as opportunistic powers elsewhere may try to overturn the existing world order.
iddle
new and
ast
similarly
,
by the likes of Iraq. In south Asia,
, each armed with its own nuclear arsenal,
Will a full-scale Sino-US war lead to a nuclear war According to General Matthew Ridgeway, commander of the US Eighth Army which fought against the Chinese in the Korean War, the US had at the time thought of using nuclear weapons against China to save the US
from military defeat. In his book The Korean War, a personal account of the military and political aspects of the conflict and its implications on future US foreign policy, Gen Ridgeway said that US was confronted with two choices in Korea -truce or a broadened war, which could have led to the use of nuclear weapons. If the US had to resort to
The US estimates that China possesses about 20 nuclear
warheads that can destroy major American cities Beijing also seems prepared to go for the nuclear option
nuclear weaponry to defeat China long before the latter acquired a similar capability, there is little hope of winning a war against China 50 years later, short of using nuclear weapons.
.
. A Chinese military officer disclosed recently that Beijing was
considering a review of its "non first use" principle regarding nuclear weapons. Major-General Pan Zhangqiang, president of the military-funded Institute for Strategic Studies, told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Wa shington that although the government still abided by that principle, there were strong
we would see the destruction of
civilization
a nuclear Annaggedon over Taiwan might seem inconceivable, it cannot be ruled out entirely
China puts sovereignty above everything else.
pressures from the military to drop it. He said military leaders considered the use of nuclear weapons mandatory if the country risked dismemberment as a result of foreign intervention. Gen Ridgeway said that should that come to pass,
. There would be no victors in such a war. While the prospect of
for
,
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Korea !)
Aircraft Carriers solve North Korean nuclear attacks---effective missile defense destroys launches.
John Gordon 6 graduated from The Citadel in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in history. He also holds a masters in international
relations from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas, and a masters in business administration from Marymount University in
Arlington, Virginia. Currently, he is a candidate in George Mason University’s Public Policy Ph.D. program. Following graduation from
The Citadel, he entered the Army as a Field Artillery officer. His assignments included the 82d Airborne and 2d Infantry Divisions, the
Field Artillery School, and Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters. For the last 4 years of his Army career, he served at
Headquarters, Department of the Army where he was the Chief of the Doctrine Team in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans (DCSOPS). He was also the leader of the Army’s Deep Attack/Weapons Mix Study (DAWMS) team. While in
DCSOPS, Mr. Gordon was a member of the Army’s Roles and Missions Commission team and represented the Army at several
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) panels. He is the author of over 30 articles in various publications such as Army, Military Review,
Joint Force Quarterly, Naval Institute’s Proceedings, and Georgetown University’s National Security Studies Quarterly. He joined RAND
in May 1997. “LEVERAGING AMERICA'S AIRCRAFT CARRIER CAPABILITIES: Exploring New Combat and Noncombat
Roles and Missions for the U.S. Carrier Fleet,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf, 2006, Accessed date:
12-3-12 y2k
North Korea might have a dozen or more nuclear weapons
the North
Koreans are being pressured
to give up nuclear capability Rather than submitting to
pressure the North
attempts to use
capability in a coercive manner to overturn the sanctions
the possibility that public
opinion in South Korea might be strongly against provoking the North.
when the situation reaches the crisis point, public pressure
might force the Seoul government to deny the U S the right to conduct offensive missions against the North
The
Navy’s surface combatants could be given important missile defense missions to help protect South Korea and Japan Such missions
could include the
boost-phase intercept of
missiles
The protection of surface combatants performing missile defense
would be an important mission for aircraft
carriers
This vignette, set later in this decade, when
, examined some of the issues associated with a confrontation with a nuclear-armed middle-level nation. In this vignette,
heavily
by nations in the region
their
.
its small nuclear
this economic and diplomatic
,
that are in force against them. An important element of this vignette is
Therefore,
nited
tates
, at least until the South has been directly attacked by the North.
Similar to the China-Taiwan case, Japan would be threatened by the possibility of North Korean nuclear strikes should U.S. forces be permitted to use Japanese bases for strikes against the North With the possibility of South Korean, and even Japanese, bases being closed to U.S. use, the role of aircraft carriers would be critical.
both
need for
North Korean
.
as they are launched. herefore, Navy surface combatants would have to be positioned off the North Korean coast, thus making them vulnerable to attack from the North’s aircraft and submarines.
, as well as traditional strike operations against targets ashore,
. An alternative is to have the carrier stand off and operate
high-altitude, long-endurance (HALE) aircraft equipped with air-to-air missiles adapted for boost-phase intercept.
A Korean War causes Extinction
Hayes and Green 10 - *Victoria University AND **Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute (Peter and Michael, “-“The Path Not
Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia”, 1/5,
http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/10001HayesHamalGreen.pdf)
The consequences of failing to address the proliferation threat posed by the North Korea developments, and related political and economic issues, are serious, not only for the Northeast Asian region but for
the whole international community. At worst, there is the possibility of nuclear attack1, whether by intention, miscalculation , or merely accident ,
leading to the resumption of Korean War hostilities. On the Korean Peninsula itself, key population centres are well within short or medium range missiles. The whole of Japan is likely to come within North Korean missile
range. Pyongyang has a population of over 2 million, Seoul (close to the North Korean border) 11 million, and Tokyo over 20 million. Even a limited nuclear exchange would result in a holocaust of
unprecedented proportions . But the catastrophe within the region would not be the only outcome. New research indicates that even a limited nuclear war in the region would rearrange our
global climate far more quickly than global warming. Westberg draws attention to new studies modelling the effects of even a limited nuclear exchange involving approximately 100 Hiroshima-sized 15 kt bombs2 (by comparison it should be noted
that the United States currently deploys warheads in the range 100 to 477 kt, that is, individual warheads equivalent in yield to a range of 6 to 32 Hiroshimas).The studies indicate that the soot from the fires produced would lead to a decrease in global temperature by 1.25
the nuclear darkness will cause a deeper drop in temperature than at any time during
the last 1000 years. The temperature over the continents would decrease substantially more than the global average. A decrease in rainfall over the continents would also follow...The period of nuclear darkness will cause much greater decrease in grain
production than 5% and it will continue for many years...hundreds of millions of people will die from hunger...To make matters even worse, such amounts of smoke injected into the stratosphere
would cause a huge reduction in the Earth’s protective ozone.4 These, of course, are not the only consequences. Reactors might also be targeted, causing further mayhem and
downwind radiation effects, superimposed on a smoking, radiating ruin left by nuclear next-use. Millions of refugees would flee the affected regions. The direct impacts, and the follow-on impacts on the
global economy via ecological and food insecurity, could make the present global financial crisis pale by comparison. How the great powers,
especially the nuclear weapons states respond to such a crisis, and in particular, whether nuclear weapons are used in response to nuclear first-use, could make or break the global non
proliferation and disarmament regimes. There could be many unanticipated impacts on regional and global security relationships5, with subsequent
nuclear breakout and geopolitical turbulence , including possible loss-of-control over fissile material or warheads in the chaos of nuclear war, and aftermath chain-reaction affects involving other potential proliferant states. The
degrees Celsius for a period of 6-8 years.3 In Westberg’s view: That is not global winter, but
Korean nuclear proliferation issue is not just a regional threat but a global one that warrants priority consideration from the international community.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Steel --- Carriers (Columbia !)
Aircraft carriers are key to low-risk COIN operations---solve Columbian destabilization.
John Gordon 6 graduated from The Citadel in 1977 with a bachelor’s degree in history. He also holds a masters in international
relations from St. Mary’s University in San Antonio, Texas, and a masters in business administration from Marymount University in
Arlington, Virginia. Currently, he is a candidate in George Mason University’s Public Policy Ph.D. program. Following graduation from
The Citadel, he entered the Army as a Field Artillery officer. His assignments included the 82d Airborne and 2d Infantry Divisions, the
Field Artillery School, and Training and Doctrine Command Headquarters. For the last 4 years of his Army career, he served at
Headquarters, Department of the Army where he was the Chief of the Doctrine Team in the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for
Operations and Plans (DCSOPS). He was also the leader of the Army’s Deep Attack/Weapons Mix Study (DAWMS) team. While in
DCSOPS, Mr. Gordon was a member of the Army’s Roles and Missions Commission team and represented the Army at several
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) panels. He is the author of over 30 articles in various publications such as Army, Military Review,
Joint Force Quarterly, Naval Institute’s Proceedings, and Georgetown University’s National Security Studies Quarterly. He joined RAND
in May 1997. “LEVERAGING AMERICA'S AIRCRAFT CARRIER CAPABILITIES: Exploring New Combat and Noncombat
Roles and Missions for the U.S. Carrier Fleet,” http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf, 2006, Accessed date:
12-3-12 y2k
Colombia’s two major guerrilla groups
FARC) and the
ELN), have obtained a variety of advanced infantry weapons and are starting to prevail against the country’s
forces The
Colombian government sends an urgent appeal for help to the U S requesting direct military assistance to help avert a collapse The
U S elects to send additional military supplies and equipment, Special Operations Forces (SOF) advisers, and air support Owing to
political sensitivities
the U S must minimize presence in Colombia.
carrier-based aviation will be the
primary means of providing reconnaissance, surveillance, and strike missions to support the Colombian forces
Set later in this decade, the Colombian vignette is, like the Nigerian one, a low-intensity situation. In this vignette,
leftist
, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia (
(
National Liberation Army
police and military
nited
nited
.
tates,
.
tates
.
in the United States and among Colombia’s neighbors,
nited
tates
its
Therefore,
. This vignette illuminates issues associated with a carrier
operating in a low-intensity, counterinsurgency situation, in which most of the supported ground force is from another nation. As in some of the other vignettes, many of the air operations would have to be long-range. There would be considerable need for surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities operating in a heavy-jungle environment.
Triggers Latin American instability
Angel Rabasa 1 is Senior Political Scientist at the RAND Corporation. Peter Chalnk is Senior Political Scientist at the RAND
Corporation. “Colombian Labyrinth: The Synergy of Drugs and Insurgency and Its Implications for Regional Stability,”
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1339.html, Accessed date: 12-10-12 y2k
Colombia’s crisis has developed into a serious security concern for its neighbors. Panamanians feel helpless to prevent the use of their territory by Colombian factions.
Ecuadoreans are conscious of the vulnerability of their country’s vital oil installations in the Oriente, within striking distance of the Colombian border, and fear that the Colombian drug-production problem could metastasize in Ecuador. All are
concerned about refugee flows from Colombia. A further deterioration of security in Colombia would pose a serious threat to the
security and stability of neighboring states and drive a greater regionalization of the conflict. So far the response of most of Colombia’s neighbors, as noted above, is to
try to insulate themselves from the consequences of the Colombian conflict. However, efforts to control the borders are unlikely to be successful, given the remoteness and inaccessibility and the lack of government infrastructure in much of the border area. The
widening of Colombia’s conflict would severely test the viability of the existing regional security architecture and of U.S. leadership
in hemispheric security institutions. The states most threatened by the spillover of the conflict would seek U.S. assistance and leadership. Others could try to work out an accommodation with the guerrillas. The United States would be
confronted by the choice of leading a coalition-building effort to stabilize the regional environment, letting events take their course, or deferring to initiatives led by other parties (for instance, Brazil) and accepting a commensurate loss of regional influence
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** Arctic Advantage
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
1AC --- Arctic
Contention __ : Arctic
Global Arctic drilling is inevitable---Offshore drilling is key to leadership
Margaret Kriz Hobson 12 is the energy and environmental correspondent for the National Journal and moderates an Expert Blog on
those issues at energy.nationaljournal.com. Kriz Hobson was a Nieman Foundation Journalism Fellow at Harvard. She writes a federal
column for the Environmental Law Institute's Environmental Forum magazine, and she's served on the boards of directors of the Society
of Environmental Journalists and Institute for Journalism and Natural Resources. “OFFSHORE DRILLING: Calls for Arctic policy
intensify as Shell nears final OK for exploration,” June 27, 2012, http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/06/27/1, Accessed date:
1-17-13 y2k
The prospect of oil exploration this summer in Alaska's northernmost waters is triggering calls for Washington to take a more comprehensive international
leadership role in managing a new era of economic, military and scientific development in the Arctic. With Royal Dutch Shell PLC expected to receive
final permits in the coming days to explore for oil and gas in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas, drilling supporters and critics say Washington
must finally make Arctic policy a top national priority . Alaska lawmakers and energy companies want streamlined ground rules
for development and more funding for infrastructure and national security. Environmentalists advocate more explicit protections for the region's sensitive
ecosystems and the Native communities' subsistence lifestyles. Yesterday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar answered some of those demands, announcing plans for
"targeted leasing" in the Alaska waters, while taking precautions to protect sensitive waters, wildlife and Alaskan subsistence hunters (Greenwire, June 26). "I can
tell you that President Obama and his administration take very seriously the complexities and unique conditions in the Arctic," Salazar said
in speech at an energy drilling conference in Trondheim, Norway. "It
is a frontier. It is a place where development can only safely expand if
we also expand our understanding through science and experience." Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) insists it's time for America to
become the world role model for international Arctic development. "As an Arctic nation, I think the U nited S tates needs to be more
aggressive," she said. "When we talk about an Arctic policy, it really needs to be more than just, 'How are we going to fund a new icebreaker?' I want us to
assume the role of a lead nation on the Arctic issues that are important to the United States and important to the Arctic region as a whole." Shell, which paid
$2.1 billion in 2008 for leasing rights in the U.S. Arctic waters, is the first of several multinational oil companies that have lined up to explore
for oil and gas in the region. ConocoPhillips and Statoil are also planning to move into the region during the next two years. Canada, Norway, Russia
and other Arctic nations are also encouraging oil and gas drilling off their northern shores. Norway, where interest in Arctic energy drilling is
booming, yesterday announced plans to award oil and gas exploration permits next year in 72 blocks in the Barents Sea. In Alaska, the sparsely populated northern
communities will be dramatically affected if Shell's exploration is successful, said Charles Ebinger, director of the Brookings Institution's Energy Security
Initiative. "If Shell finds the mother lode, you will see a stampede," he said. "And I'm not sure that's good." Yesterday, Salazar made it clear that change is coming
to the American Arctic. Speaking to reporters, Salazar said the government will soon release its five-year plan for oil and gas that will allow leasing in the Beaufort
Sea in 2017 and the Chukchi Sea in 2016. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Beaufort and Chukchi seas combined could hold
as much as 27 billion barrels of oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Oil development is only one facet of the changes coming to the Arctic,
noted Alaska Sen. Mark Begich (D). "It's not just energy," he said. "It's also transportation, the visitor industry, scientific research, military. Some are looking at the
mineral potential. When you put it all together, we see this a frontier that I think people underestimate." With global warming causing Arctic waters to remain icefree for longer stretches each summer, transportation companies plan to cut shipping costs by moving cargo through the Arctic Ocean. Tourist boats are popping up
in Barrow and other Native communities along Alaska's northern shores. Increased marine traffic is raising transportation safety and national security concerns,
forcing the U.S. Coast Guard and military to expand their operations in the region. Meanwhile, scientists are eager to study the impacts of warming ocean waters
and economic development on the remote Arctic ecosystems. Deputy Secretary of the Interior David Hayes, who heads a governmentwide task force on Arctic
energy use, said the administration will take an "integrated holistic" approach to energy development. He was less clear, however, on whether the task force will
extend oversight on shipping, tourism and other types of economic growth in the Arctic. "The Arctic's ice shelf and coastal, terrestrial and marine ecosystems are
changing too fast for sector-by-sector, project-by-project or issue-by-issue management," Hayes said in a speech at the Norway meeting. "Getting it right in the
Arctic calls for a fully integrated approach if we expect to protect natural resources and subsistence values while continuing commercial activities." Heather
Conley, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the time is ripe for a comprehensive Arctic policy. "We have to
decide how much do we want to develop," she said. "It's a balance between exploring it and exploiting it and protecting it."
Other Arctic nations are far ahead of the United States in developing road maps for their Arctic futures, said Fran Ulmer, chairman of the U.S. Arctic Research
Commission and former Alaska lieutenant governor. "Canada, Norway and Russia have developed strategies that define cohesive plans of
action to allocate funding and resources to pave the way for Arctic development," Ulmer said. "It's only recently that the U.S. has figured out
that the Arctic is both valuable and vulnerable and needs more careful thought. " Given how rapidly the private sector and the international
business community is moving forward in the Arctic, I think the time is now -- or maybe slightly past due -- for the U.S. to focus on
designing a way that we move forward." International campaign During the past year, Obama has sent clear signals of his goal of making the United States a key
player in international Arctic development. At the Norway meeting this week, Salazar met with energy ministers from Canada, Iceland, Norway and Russia to
discuss offshore oil and gas safety issues. In early June, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton also stopped in Norway for Arctic oil development talks with
top Norwegian leaders. Last year, both Cabinet members were in Greenland when the Arctic Council, a coalition of the world's eight Arctic nations, approved a
binding marine search and rescue agreement for the Arctic. The council is now hammering out an oil spill response accord for the region and is developing
guidelines for Arctic ecosystem-based management for Arctic development. Back home, the White House has increased pressure on the Senate to pass the U.N.
Convention on the Law of the Sea, which sets rules for freedom of navigation, fishing, oil and gas development, deep seabed mining, and environmental protection.
Obama recently sent several Cabinet members and top military commanders to Capitol Hill to argue for passage. The treaty has been approved by 160 nations,
including all other industrialized countries, since it was written in 1982. In the United States, however, the pact continues to be blocked by conservative
Republicans who argue that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty. Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently opposed the measure, warning that the
treaty would send a small portion of royalties from oil drilling on the extended continental shelf to be distributed by a U.N. body (E&E Daily, June 15). Despite
that opposition, Obama administration officials say the treaty could be approved later this year. Begich, however, said chances of ratification remain slim until after
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
the November presidential election. Moving toward an integrated Arctic plan Although the Obama
administration has been highlighting its
international Arctic policy, U.S. domestic policy remains splintered and underfunded. Federal oversight of Alaska's energy
projects has remained scattered among more than a dozen agencies -- from the State Department and the U.S. Coast Guard to Interior, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S. EPA. During the last days of George W. Bush's presidency, the State Department adopted a white paper laying
The lack of a U.S.
Arctic policy has been frustrating to Alaskans , who see their state at the brink of a major economic revolution. "Shortly after our [Bush
out the goals for a unified U.S. Arctic policy. But that policy statement contained no legal teeth, regulatory direction or funding priorities.
administration] Arctic policy paper came out, Canada came out with one," Murkowski recalled. "Ours was the skimpy little white paper. The Canadians have a
level of detail and an action plan to how it all rolls out," she said. "Canada is serious about the Arctic. Russia is not just sitting back and doing nothing. They're both
committed to a level of engagement and aren't afraid to say so." Last July, Obama created the interagency panel to streamline government oversight of Alaska's
onshore and offshore energy development. That panel, which helped shepherd Shell's permits through the tangled federal regulatory system, includes
representatives of more than six federal agencies and the Alaska state government. Now the White House appears to be signaling a wider role for the task force.
Yesterday's announcement by Salazar that the government will impose new controls on oil and gas development in the Arctic won cautious praise from some
environmentalists. "The interagency working group is really trying to move beyond just discussions of permitting for oil and gas
development, looking more broadly at the Arctic Ocean," said Eleanor Huffines, manager of the U.S. Arctic program for the Pew Environment Group. "They're
saying we have federal responsibilities, we have scientific responsibilities, we have responsibilities to the communities -- how are we approaching this
comprehensively? What does an integrated Arctic plan look like? How do you address multiple uses?" But other green groups objected to Salazar's suggestion that
he is likely to approve Shell's final oil permits. Natural Resources Defense Council President Frances Beinecke, who was a member of the president's commission
studying the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, charged that the decision "invites an environmental nightmare of unimaginable proportions." 'A whole new frontier'
As the eyes of the nation follow the progress of Shell's oil drilling, some suggest that a major oil discovery could change the
political equation in Washington for government policy changes and economic investment . Positive publicity , they reason, could
grease the skids for passage of the L aw o f the S ea t reaty and make it easier to get funding for new icebreakers and other federal
resources . Begich argued that a gusher in the U.S. waters could demonstrate to senators from other states why they should vote for the Law of the Sea
convention. "Let's say Shell gets a bigger find than they thought ," he said. "Do you think Russia is going to sit around there? No, they're going to
figure out how close they can get and do directional drilling" into American Arctic waters. " Once you start finding economic interest up there, that's
when you get the territorial disputes ," he said. "The Law of the Sea provides a dispute settlement process to handle that kind
of situation." Murkowski is hoping that if Shell's drilling armada is allowed to sail to the Arctic in the coming weeks, the American public will be inspired by
the adventure and excitement of new oil exploration in the nation's icy, northernmost waters. After all, Alaska's motto is "North to the Future." "When you think
about the opportunity to have a role in a new and developing frontier -- that's why kids in school get excited about space," Murkowski said. "Because it's something
that we really don't know that much about, and it's far away." She added: "Now we're looking at the Arctic. Wow, it's a whole new frontier. It's
just now developing. The potential is enormous. Why can't we capture the attention of a nation about the excitement of the Arctic?"
Unlike the citizens of Canada, Norway and Russia, most Americans do not view the U nited S tates as an Arctic nation. However, that could
change as drilling shines the spotlight on Alaska's Arctic. If Shell is able to channel Arctic oil to the lower 48 states and international shipping
companies begin to route their vessels through North Pole waters, new icebreakers might be considered a top national priority. "People that
are growing the wheat in North Dakota should care about how grain moves around the world and the opportunity the Arctic could
present if we have shipping lanes that are open through a good portion of the year," Murkowski said. " We need to make it real to
other people in the country in this tough budget climate."
Offshore drilling solves security investment.
Bert 12 Captain Melissa – USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard, “A Strategy to Advance the Arctic Economy”,
February, http://www.cfr.org/arctic/strategy-advance-arctic-economy/p27258
The U nited S tates needs to develop a comprehensive strategy for the Arctic. Melting sea ice is generating an emerging Arctic economy. Nations
bordering the Arctic are drilling for oil and gas, and mining, shipping, and cruising in the region. Russia, Canada, and Norway are growing their icebreaker
fleets and shore-based infrastructure to support these enterprises. For the U nited S tates, the economic potential from the energy and mineral
resources is in the trillions of dollars—based upon estimates that the Alaskan Arctic is the home to 30 billion barrels of oil, more than 220
trillion cubic feet of natural gas, rare earth minerals, and massive renewable wind, tidal, and geothermal energy. However, the U.S. government is
unprepared to harness the potential that the Arctic offers. The United States lacks the capacity to deal with potential regional conflicts and seaborne disasters, and it
has been on the sidelines when it comes to developing new governance mechanisms for the Arctic. To advance U.S. economic and security interests and avert
potential environmental and human disasters, the United States should ratify the UN Law of the Sea Convention (LOSC), take the lead in developing mandatory
international standards for operating in Arctic waters, and acquire icebreakers, aircraft, and infrastructure for Arctic operations. Regional Flashpoints Threaten
Security Like the United States, the Arctic nations of Russia, Canada, Norway, and Denmark have geographical claims to the Arctic. Unlike the United States,
however, they have each sought to exploit economic and strategic opportunities in the region by developing businesses, infrastructure, and cities in the Arctic. They
have also renewed military exercises of years past, and as each nation learns of the others' activities, suspicion and competition increase. When the Russians sailed
a submarine in 2007 to plant a titanium flag on the "north pole," they were seen as provocateurs, not explorers. The continental shelf is a particular point of
contention. Russia claims that deep underwater ridges on the sea floor, over two hundred miles from the Russian continent, are part of Russia and are legally
Russia's to exploit. Denmark and Canada also claim those ridges. Whichever state prevails in that debate will have exclusive extraction rights to the resources,
which, based on current continental shelf hydrocarbon lease sales, could be worth billions of dollars. Debates also continue regarding freedom of navigation and
sovereignty over waters in the region. Russia claims sovereignty over the Northern Sea Route (NSR), which winds over the top of Russia and Alaska and will be a
commercially viable route through the region within the next decade. The United States contends the NSR is an international waterway, free to any nation to transit.
The United States also has laid claim to portions of the Beaufort Sea that Canada says are Canadian, and the United States rejects Canada's claim that its Northwest
Passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific is its internal waters, as opposed to an international strait. Canada and Denmark also have a boundary dispute in Baffin
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Bay. Norway and Russia disagree about fishing rights in waters around the Spitsbergen/Svalbard Archipelago. U.S. Capacity in the Arctic Is Lacking Traffic and
commercial activity are increasing in the region. The NSR was not navigable for years because of heavy ice, but it now consists of water with floating ice during
the summer months. As the icebergs decrease in the coming years, it will become a commercially profitable route, because it reduces the maritime journey between
East Asia and Western Europe from about thirteen thousand miles through the Suez Canal to eight thousand miles, cutting transit time by ten to fifteen days.
Russian and German oil tankers are already beginning to ply those waters in the summer months. Approximately 150,000 tons of oil, 400,000 tons of gas
condensate, and 600,000 tons of iron ore were shipped via the NSR in 2011. Oil, gas, and mineral drilling, as well as fisheries and tourism, are becoming
more common in the high latitudes and are inherently dangerous, because icebergs and storms can shear apart even large tankers, offshore drilling units, fishing
vessels, and cruise ships. As a result, human and environmental disasters are extremely likely. Despite the dangerous conditions, the Arctic has no mandatory
requirements for those operating in or passing through the region. There are no designated shipping lanes, requirements for ice-strengthened hulls to withstand the
extreme environment, ice navigation training for ships' masters, or even production and carriage of updated navigation and ice charts. Keeping the Arctic safe with
the increased activity and lack of regulations presents a daunting task. The U.S. government is further hindered by the lack of ships, aircraft, and infrastructure to
enforce sovereignty and criminal laws, and to protect people and the marine environment from catastrophic incidents. In the lower forty-eight states, response time
to an oil spill or capsized vessel is measured in hours. In Alaska, it could take days or weeks to get the right people and resources on scene. The nearest major port
is in the Aleutian Islands, thirteen hundred miles from Point Barrow, and response aircraft are more than one thousand miles south in Kodiak, blocked by a
mountain range and hazardous flying conditions. The Arctic shores lack infrastructure to launch any type of disaster response, or to support
the growing commercial development in the region. U.S. Leadership in Arctic Governance Is Lacking Governance in the Arctic
requires leadership. The U nited S tates is uniquely positioned to provide such leadership, but it is hampered by its reliance on the eightnation Arctic Council. However, more than 160 countries view the LSOC as the critical instrument defining conduct at sea and maritime obligations. The
convention also addresses resource division, maritime traffic, and pollution regulation, and is relied upon for dispute resolution. The LOSC is particularly important
in the Arctic, because it stipulates that the region beyond each country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ) be divided between bordering nations that can prove their
underwater continental shelves extend directly from their land borders. Nations will have exclusive economic rights to the oil, gas, and mineral
resources extracted from those Outer Continental Shelves, making the convention's determinations substantial. According to geologists, the U.S.
portion is projected to be the world's largest underwater extension of land—over 3.3 million square miles—bigger than the lower fortyeight states combined. In addition to global credibility and protection of Arctic shelf claims , the convention is important because it sets
international pollution standards and requires signatories to protect the marine environment. Critics argue that the LOSC cedes American sovereignty to the United
Nations. But the failure to ratify it has the opposite effect: it leaves the United States less able to protect its interests in the Arctic and elsewhere. The diminished
influence is particularly evident at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the international body that "operationalizes" the LOSC through its international
port and shipping rules. By remaining a nonparty, the U nited S tates lacks the credibility to promote U.S. interests in the Arctic , such as by
transforming U.S. recommendations into binding international laws. A Comprehensive U.S. Strategy for the Arctic The United States needs a comprehensive
strategy for the Arctic. The current National/Homeland Security Presidential Directive (NSPD-66 / HSPD-25) is only a broad policy statement. An effective
Arctic strategy would address both governance and capacity questions . To generate effective governance in the Arctic the United States should
ratify LOSC and take the lead in advocating the adoption of Arctic shipping requirements. The IMO recently proposed a voluntary Polar Code, and the United
States should work to make it mandatory. The code sets structural classifications and standards for ships operating in the Arctic as well as specific navigation and
emergency training for those operating in or around ice-covered waters. The United States should also support Automated Identification System (AIS) carriage for
all ships transiting the Arctic. Because the Arctic is a vast region with no ability for those on land to see the ships offshore, electronic identification and tracking is
the only way to know what ships are operating in or transiting the region. An AIS transmitter (costing as little as $800) sends a signal that provides vessel identity
and location at all times to those in command centers around the world and is currently mandated for ships over sixteen hundred gross tons. The United States and
other Arctic nations track AIS ships and are able to respond to emergencies based on its signals. For this reason, mandating AIS for all vessels in the Arctic is
needed. The U.S. government also needs to work with Russia to impose a traffic separation scheme in the Bering Strait, where chances for a collision are high.
Finally, the United States should push for compulsory tandem sailing for all passenger vessels operating in the Arctic. Tandem sailing for cruise ships and smaller
excursion boats will avert another disaster like RMS Titanic. To enhance the Arctic's economic potential, the U nited S tates should also develop
its capacity to enable commercial entities to operate safely in the region. The U.S. government should invest in icebreakers,
aircraft, and shore-based infrastructure. A ten-year plan should include the building of at least two heavy icebreakers, at a cost of approximately $1
billion apiece, and an air station in Point Barrow, Alaska, with at least three helicopters. Such an air station would cost less than $20 million, with operating,
maintenance, and personnel costs comparable to other northern military facilities. Finally, developing a deepwater port with response presence and
infrastructure is critical. A base at Dutch Harbor in the Aleutian Islands, where ships and fishing vessels resupply and refuel, would only cost a few million
dollars per year to operate. Washington could finance the cost of its capacity-building efforts by using offshore lease proceeds and federal
taxes on the oil and gas extracted from the Arctic region. In 2008, the U nited S tates collected $2.6 billion from offshore lease sales in
the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas (off Alaska's north coast), and the offshore royalty tax rate in the region is 19 percent, which would
cover operation and maintenance of these facilities down the road. The United States needs an Arctic governance and acquisition
strategy to take full advantage of all the region has to offer and to protect the people operating in the region and the maritime environment.
Neglecting the Arctic reduces the U nited S tates' ability to reap tremendous economic benefits and could harm U.S. national
security interests.
Arctic militarization now---causes instability---diplomacy fails.
Terry Maccalister 12 is Guardian Staff, “Arctic military rivalry could herald a 21st-century cold war,” 6-5-12,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/05/arctic-military-rivalry-cold-war, Accessed Date: 2-18-13 y2k
A buildup of military forces around the Arctic amid growing excitement about its oil wealth has the ability to undermine stability
in the region, a research paper has warned. According to the report – called Climate Change and International Security: the Arctic as a
Bellwether – the military buildup is neither advisable nor a sensible peacekeeping measure , as it is increasingly designed for combat rather than policing.
The paper, published by the US not-for-profit organisation, the Centre for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), warns:
"Although the pursuit of co-operation is the stated priority , most of the Arctic states have begun to rebuild and modernise their
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
military capabilities in the region. The new military programs have been geared towards combat capabilities that exceed
mere constabulary capacity." It adds: "States such as Norway and Russia are building new naval units designed to engage in high-intensity conflicts.
While this capability may be understood as prudent, the ability of rivals to intimidate or subdue with sophisticated weapons systems could, if collegiality falters,
undermine diplomacy and stability in the region." The paper, authored by Rob Huebert from the University of Calgary and Heather Exner-Pirot of the University of Saskatchewan
among others, said one of the biggest worries about the far north area was the enormous uncertainty of everything from the speed of sea ice melting to the price
of commodities that could determine the pace of extraction. A recent IMF report on peak oil warned that the price of oil was likely to double from today's price of $110 a barrel by the end of the decade. The US Geological Survey has estimated that about a quarter of the world's oil and gas reserves
could lie under the ice cap – encouraging a race for resources. Shell has applied for drilling rights in the Arctic off Alaska this summer and is also planning to make boreholes on behalf of other oil companies off Greenland. Former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev told the Seattle Times in 2008 that "our first and main task
is to turn the Arctic into Russia's resource base of the 21st century." His successor, Vladimir Putin, has just unveiled plans to give tax breaks to encourage companies to exploit new oil and gas fields, such as the Shtockman field in the Barents Sea. Russia and N orway have recently signed a boundary agreement in the Barents
Sea and undertaken joint military exercises, but the C2ES research paper says Norway "continues to take seriously its preparations for the defence of the High North, as it calls it, hosting five Operation Cold Response exercises since 2006." The US has begun to increase the visibility of its submarines in the Arctic, while
Canada has unveiled plans for an Arctic training centre in Resolute Bay for its army. The authors of the Bellwether report argue that a first step towards easing the military pressure would be for states to talk about it. It suggests the Arctic Council, which currently has a prohibition on the discussion of security issues, is the place
to start.
Goes nuclear
Wallace and Staples 10 Michael Wallace and Steven Staples. *Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia and
President of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa “Ridding the Arctic of Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long
Overdue,”http://www.arcticsecurity.org/docs/arctic-nuclear-report-web.pdf
The fact is, the Arctic is becoming a zone of increased military competition . Russian President Medvedev has announced the creation of a
special military force to defend Arctic claims. Last year Russian General Vladimir Shamanov declared that Russian troops would step up training for
Arctic combat, and that Russia’s submarine fleet would increase its “operational radius.” 55 Recently, two Russian attack submarines
were spotted off the U.S. east coast for the first time in 15 years. 56 In January 2009, on the eve of Obama’s inauguration, President Bush issued
a National Security Presidential Directive on Arctic Regional Policy. It affirmed as a priority the preservation of U.S. military
vessel and aircraft mobility and transit throughout the Arctic, including the Northwest Passage, and foresaw greater capabilities to protect
U.S. borders in the Arctic. 57 The Bush administration’s disastrous eight years in office, particularly its decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty and
deploy missile defence interceptors and a radar station in Eastern Europe, have greatly contributed to the instability we are seeing today, even though the Obama
administration has scaled back the planned deployments. The Arctic has figured in this renewed interest in Cold War weapons systems, particularly the upgrading
of the Thule Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar in Northern Greenland for ballistic missile defence. The Canadian government, as well, has put forward
new military capabilities to protect Canadian sovereignty claims in the Arctic, including proposed ice-capable ships, a northern military training base and a deepwater port. Earlier this year Denmark released an all-party defence position paper that suggests the country should create a dedicated Arctic military contingent that
draws on army, navy and air force assets with shipbased helicopters able to drop troops anywhere. 58 Danish fighter planes would be tasked to patrol Greenlandic
airspace. Last year Norway chose to buy 48 Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets, partly because of their suitability for Arctic patrols. In March, that
country held a major Arctic military practice involving 7,000 soldiers from 13 countries in which a fictional country called Northland seized offshore oil
rigs. 59 The manoeuvres prompted a protest from Russia – which objected again in June after Sweden held its largest northern military
exercise since the end of the Second World War. About 12,000 troops, 50 aircraft and several warships were involved. 609 Ridding the Arctic of
Nuclear Weapons: A Task Long Overdue Jayantha Dhanapala, President of Pugwash and former UN under-secretary for disarmament affairs, summarized the
situation bluntly: “From those in the international peace and security sector, deep concerns are being expressed over the fact that two nuclear
weapon states – the U nited States and the Russian Federation, which together own 95 per cent of the nuclear weapons in the
world – converge on the Arctic and have competing claims. These claims, together with those of other allied NATO countries –
Canada, Denmark, Iceland, and Norway – could, if unresolved, lead to conflict escalating into the threat or use of nuclear
weapons.” 61 Many will no doubt argue that this is excessively alarmist, but no circumstance in which nuclear powers find themselves in
military confrontation can be taken lightly. The current geo-political threat level is nebulous and low – for now, according to Rob Huebert of the
University of Calgary, “[the] issue is the uncertainty as Arctic states and non-Arctic states begin to recognize the geo-political/economic significance of the Arctic
because of climate change.” 62
Solves environmental leadership---prevents ecosystem destruction
Sullivan 12 Dan – a former state attorney general, commissioner of Alaska's Department of Natural Resources, “It's time to develop
our Arctic resources, 7/20, http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/20/opinion/sullivan-arctic-drilling/index.html
(CNN) -- The United States is on the verge of an energy renaissance. We need to recognize and seize the opportunity. This renaissance
involves domestic production of natural resources ranging from clean renewables to hydrocarbons. In particular, domestic hydrocarbon production -- both oil and gas -- is increasing
dramatically, with some experts predicting that the U nited States could become the largest hydrocarbon producer in the word -- outstripping Saudi Arabia and Russia -- by
2020. Increased domestic production of hydrocarbons is driven by two trends. First, new technology is unlocking unconventional resources such as shale-derived oil and gas. And second, investors and policy makers are recognizing that the U.S.
still has an enormous resource base of conventional oil and gas, particularly in Alaska . Opinion: Why we should look to the Arctic Federal agencies estimate that Alaska's
North Slope and federal waters off Alaska's northern coast contain approximately 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and more than 200 trillion cubic feet of
conventional gas. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, this region contains more oil than any comparable region located in the Arctic, including northern Russia. However, the U nited States is lagging behind
its Arctic neighbors in developing these resources. This is unfortunate, because we have some of the highest environmental
standards in the world and we should be setting the bar for Arctic development. Developing our Arctic resources will promote
our nation's interests in many ways: securing a politically stable, long-term supply of domestic energy; boosting U.S. economic
growth and jobs; reducing the federal trade deficit; and strengthening our global leadership on energy issues. Leading academic researchers and
economists in Alaska have estimated that oil production from Alaska's outer continental shelf will bring federal revenues of approximately $167 billion over 50 years, and create 55,000 jobs throughout the
country. Developing U.S. resources in the Arctic has the added benefit of enhancing global environmental protection . One of the
arguments used by Arctic drilling opponents is that "we aren't ready," but it is obvious that no matter what preparations are made, they will argue that it isn't
enough. Shell, for example, has spent billions to prepare for drilling in the Arctic this summer, incorporating the lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, state-of-the-art equipment and extensive scientific research.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Obama administration has publically expressed its confidence in the company's drilling plans. The U.S. has created some of the
highest standards in the world for environmental protection. When we delay or disallow responsible resource development, the end
result is not to protect the environment, but to drive hydrocarbon investment and production to countries with much lower
environmental standards and enforcement capacity. Last year, it was reported that between 5 million and 20 million tons of oil leak in Russia per year. This is equivalent to a Deepwater Horizon blowout
about every two months. Russia had an estimated 18,000 oil pipeline ruptures in 2010 -- the figure for the U.S. that year was 341. If we do not pursue responsible development in the Arctic ,
countries such as Russia -- perhaps even China, which is interested in securing access to Arctic hydrocarbon resources -- will dominate energy production from the Arctic. Such a
scenario does not bode well for the global environment . By embracing the opportunities in the Arctic, the U nited S tates will show the
world that it can be a strong leader in responsible energy development.
Recently, the
Extinction
Ford 3 Violet, Vice President – Inuit Circumpolar Conference, “Global Environmental Change: An Inuit Reality”, 10-15,
http://www.mcgill.ca/files/cine/Ford.pdf
The Arctic ecosystem is a fundamental contributor to global processes and the balance of life on earth . Both the unique physical
and biological characteristics of the Arctic ecosystem play key roles in maintaining the integrity of the global environment. Massive ice sheets and ice cover
regulate the global temperatures by reflecting much of the solar radiation back into space, the Arctic ocean influences global ocean currents which are responsible for a variety of weather
conditions and events, to name but two. The Arctic is also the recipient of the by-products of southern-based industry and agricultural practices. In February 2003, UNEP’s Governing Council passed a resolution
effectively recognizes the Arctic as a “ barometer” or indicator region of the globe’s environmental health. This is important and is further reason why
Arctic indigenous peoples should work together at the international level. Late last year ICC and RAIPON participated in the Global Environment Facility (GEF) Council meeting in Beijing, China with the aim of sensitizing this organization to the Arctic
dimension of global environmental issues. I understand that the GEF is now willing to consider indigenous peoples and their organizations to be distinct and separate from environmental and other NGO’s.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: Artic Leadership
Alaskan drilling is Arctic leadership---brink now.
Sean Parnell No Date is Alaska’s 10th governor. “We’re an Arctic nation: It’s time we start acting like one,”
http://www.institutenorth.org/assets/images/uploads/articles/We%E2%80%99re_an_Arctic_nation_It%E2%80%99s_time_we_start_actin
g_like_one_By_Alaska_Governor_Sean_Parnell.pdf, Accessed Date: 2-15-13 y2k
Alaska is an Arctic state, not simply a state with an Arctic coastline. The Arctic is our home, our history, and our future. Alaska’s position as an
Arctic state permeates every policy initiative our administration pursues, whether related to growing our economy or strengthening Alaska families. Arctic
considerations dominate initiatives related to job creation, resource development, sustainable energy, infrastructure, education, and military support, to name a few.
Similarly, the United States is an Arctic nation, not simply a country with nearly 1,000 miles of Arctic coastline that is out-of-sight and out-of-mind for
the United States has a leadership imperative, and a responsibility to develop and
execute an active and adaptive Arctic policy, one that meets the demands of an increasingly competitive and complex world. If the U.S. does
not act as the world leader in the Arctic, other nations will fill the void. Alaska embraces its role as a lead voice in Arctic
development and cultural preservation. And yet, Alaska’s Arctic policymakers are rightfully concerned that other nations are moving forward with
infrastructure , seafloor claims, scientific and resource research, and an increasing military presence , while Washington, D.C. has in recent years
acted as though our rare Arctic status is but a nuisance. The time for a strong U.S. Arctic policy, with input from Alaska, is now. Stakes are
higher than ever: energy security and treasury revenue derived from oil and gas production; n ational security needed to guard our
borders; economic development generating thousands of good paying jobs; and oil filling our world-class asset, the Trans Alaska Pipeline
System. National neglect of our Arctic has diminished our geopolitical advantage . Now, America lags behind Russia, Norway
and Canada, as well as their commercial, non-Arctic partners that are taking an active interest in the North, including North and South Korea,
most Americans. As one of only eight Arctic nations,
Japan, and France. Even China is rushing in, with its recent application to become a permanent observer of the eight-member Arctic Council. Too little funding for
icebreakers, the National Research Council warned in 2007, puts the U.S. “at risk of being unable to support national interests in the north
and the south.” We can, and we must change course as a nation, and re-engage as an Arctic leader. Immediate actions
include construction of icebreakers that are essential to our nation’s interests, assets, and sovereignty. Yet, despite years of warnings and
advocacy by the U.S. Coast Guard, the federal government has not adequately funded this critical function. The growing disconnect in our nation’s readiness is
evidenced by the War Gaming Department of the U.S. Naval War College, which hosted Fleet Arctic Operations Games in 2011. In the final assessment of the
operations, the U.S. Navy failed, and was described as not having “the means needed to support sustained operations in the Arctic.” America needs to be
ready on a moment’s notice, and that requires heavy icebreakers, aircraft, helicopter hangars, as well as port and base
infrastructure. While the U.S. government stands on the sidelines and watches other nations advance their Arctic interests, the oil and gas industry has led with successful operations in Alaska’s Arctic for years, persevering against a recalcitrant
federal bureaucracy. On the North Slope, oil has been an economic boost to our nation, playing a significant role in America’s energy security and national opportunities for nearly four decades. Economic benefits already ripple outward from Alaska’s offshore
Alaska continues to
fulfill our constitutional mandate of resource development for the maximum benefit of her people. We are working to unlock Alaskans’ resources from
oil development. Just this year, for example, the Puget Sound area of Washington State enjoyed a $200-million infusion into its local economy as Shell Oil prepared exploratory rigs for late summer Arctic drilling.
the ground for Alaskans’ benefit by creating a climate for more investment and jobs. We are streamlining our permitting system to eliminate waste and redundancies, again to drive more investment to Alaska. And, we are working to provide better, sustained
access to Alaska lands. Our 2013 capital budget also supports Alaska’s constitutional mandate for the Arctic. Here are a few examples: ● $3.6 million for a digital mapping initiative of the Arctic coast. Digital elevation data helps prioritize Arctic initiatives:
resource extraction, transportation or national defense; ● $1.5 million to continue studying prospective Arctic port sites. A deepwater port means job growth, resource development support and a long-term emergency response asset; ● $155,00 for the Department
of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development to study Arctic shipping issues and opportunities in the future for Alaska; ● $500,000 for a Barrow airport master plan that could accommodate an aircraft and maintenance hangar, a facility that would
attract private investment. As we move forward with oil development on our Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska understands the great responsibility that comes with that development and safe passage in waters along our 927 miles of Arctic coastline.
Alaskans have for decades cleared significant Arctic hurdles, tapping the North Slope and building a world-class oil
pipeline. During this decade, we are removing hurdles so we can move to the next phase of Arctic resource development to unlock
Alaska’s natural gas resources for Alaskans’ benefit by building a largediameter gasline within Alaska to tidewater. It’s time for this
Arctic state to be joined by our Arctic nation. No more hurdles. Come grow opportunities with us. With strong leadership and solid investment
from the federal level , we can responsibly develop our Arctic resources and become an economic powerhouse once again, rather
than a mere warehouse of Arctic resources. Jobs and economic opportunities will follow, along with the restoration of our international Arctic standing.
US leadership is key to managing territorial disputes which results in armed escalation.
Scott G. Borgerson 10 is International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a former Lieutenant Commander in the
U.S. Coast Guard, April 2008, “Arctic Meltdown: The Economic and Security Implications of Global Warming”,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/20032581.pdf?acceptTC=true Accessed date: 1-15-13 y2k
While the other Arctic powers are racing to carve up the region, the U nited S tates has remained largely on the sidelines. The U.S.
Senate has not ratified the UN Convention on the L aw o f the S ea (UNCLOS), the leading international t reaty on maritime rights, even though President
George W. Bush, environmental nongovernmental organizations, the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard service chiefs, and leading voices in the private sector support
the convention. As a result, the
U nited S tates cannot formally assert any rights to the untold resources off Alaska's northern coast beyond
its exclusive economic zone-such zones extend for only aoo nautical miles from each Arctic state's shore-nor can it join the UN commission that
adjudicates such claims. Worse, Washington has forfeited its ability to assert sovereignty in the Arctic by allowing its icebreaker
fleet to atrophy . The United States today funds a navy as large as the next 17 in the world combined, yet it has just one seaworthy oceangoing icebreaker--a vessel
that was built more than a decade ago and that is not optimally configured for Arctic missions. Russia, by comparison, has a fleet of 18 icebreakers. And even
China operates one icebreaker, despite its lack of Arctic waters. Through its own neglect, the world's sole superpower-a country that borders the Bering Strait and
possesses over i,ooo miles of Arctic coastline has been left out in the cold. Washington cannot afford to stand idly by. The Arctic region is not
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
currently governed by any comprehensive multilateral norms and regulations because it was never expected to become a
navigable water way or a site for large-scale commercial development. Decisions made by Arctic powers in the coming years will therefore profoundly
shape the future of the region for decades. Without U.S. leadership to help develop diplomatic solutions to competing claims
and potential conflicts, the region could erupt in an armed mad dash for its resources.
The Arctic will be the next area of great power conflict- gas production spurs military investments that
prevent escalation
Talmadge 12 Eric – AP, Huffington Post, “Arctic Climate Change Opening Region To New Military Activity’, 4/16,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/16/arctic-climate-change-military-activity_n_1427565.html
To the world's military leaders, the debate over climate change is long over. They are preparing for a new kind of Cold War in the Arctic ,
anticipating that rising temperatures there will open up a treasure trove of resources, long-dreamed-of sea lanes and a slew of potential
conflicts. By Arctic standards, the region is already buzzing with military activity , and experts believe that will increase significantly
in the years ahead. Last month, Norway wrapped up one of the largest Arctic maneuvers ever — Exercise Cold Response — with 16,300 troops from 14 countries training on the
ice for everything from high intensity warfare to terror threats. Attesting to the harsh conditions, five Norwegian troops were killed when their C-130 Hercules aircraft crashed near the
summit of Kebnekaise, Sweden's highest mountain. The U.S., Canada and Denmark held major exercises two months ago, and in an unprecedented move, the military chiefs of the eight
main Arctic powers — Canada, the U.S., Russia, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland — gathered at a Canadian military base last week to specifically discuss regional
security issues. None of this means a shooting war is likely at the North Pole any time soon. But as
the number of workers and ships increases in the High North to
exploit oil and gas reserves, so will the need for policing, border patrols and — if push comes to shove — military muscle to enforce rival
claims. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 13 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and 30 percent of its untapped natural gas is in the Arctic .
Shipping lanes could be regularly open across the Arctic by 2030 as rising temperatures continue to melt the sea ice, according to a National Research Council analysis commissioned by
the U.S. Navy last year. What countries should do about climate change remains a heated political debate. But that has not stopped north-looking militaries from moving ahead with
strategies that assume current trends will continue. Russia, Canada and
the U nited S tates have the biggest stakes in the Arctic. With its military budget stretched
U nited S tates has been something of a reluctant northern power, though its nuclear-powered
submarine fleet, which can navigate for months underwater and below the ice cap, remains second to none. Russia — one-third of which lies within the Arctic Circle — has been
the most aggressive in establishing itself as the emerging region's superpower. Rob Huebert, an associate political science professor at the University of
thin by Iraq, Afghanistan and more pressing issues elsewhere, the
Calgary in Canada, said Russia has recovered enough from its economic troubles of the 1990s to significantly rebuild its Arctic military capabilities, which were a key to the overall Cold
War strategy of the Soviet Union, and has increased its bomber patrols and submarine activity. He said that has in turn led other Arctic countries — Norway, Denmark and Canada — to
resume regional military exercises that they had abandoned or cut back on after the Soviet collapse. Even non-Arctic nations such as France have expressed interest in deploying their
militaries to the Arctic. "We
have an entire ocean region that had previously been closed to the world now opening up," Huebert said. "There
are numerous factors now coming together that are mutually reinforcing themselves, causing a buildup of military capabilities in the region. This is only
going to increase as time goes on." Noting that the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe, the U.S. Navy in 2009 announced a
beefed-up Arctic Roadmap by its own task force on climate change that called for a three-stage strategy to increase readiness, build cooperative relations with Arctic nations and identify
areas of potential conflict. " We
want to maintain our edge up there ," said Cmdr. Ian Johnson, the captain of the USS Connecticut, which is one of the U.S.
Arctic has never really waned. It remains very
important." But the U.S. remains ill-equipped for large-scale Arctic missions, according to a simulation conducted by the U.S. Naval War College. A
summary released last month found the Navy is "inadequately prepared to conduct sustained maritime operations in the Arctic" because it
lacks ships able to operate in or near Arctic ice, support facilities and adequate communications. "The findings indicate the Navy is entering a
Navy's most Arctic-capable nuclear submarines and was deployed to the North Pole last year. "Our interest in the
new realm in the Arctic," said Walter Berbrick, a War College professor who participated in the simulation. "Instead of other nations relying on the U.S. Navy for capabilities and
resources, sustained operations in the Arctic region will require the Navy to rely on other nations for capabilities and resources." He added that although
the U.S. nuclear
submarine fleet is a major asset, the Navy has severe gaps elsewhere — it doesn't have any icebreakers, for example. The only one in
operation belongs to the Coast Guard. The U.S. is currently mulling whether to add more icebreakers .
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: Environment Leadership
Offshore drilling is key to global environmental protection.
Dan Sullivan 11 is Commissioner of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, “LEGISLATIVE HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES U.S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION,” June 3, 2011,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg66731/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg66731.pdf, Accessed Date: 2-15-13 y2k
Mr. Sullivan. Good morning Mr. Chairman and Representative Holt. My name is Dan Sullivan. I am the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources--DNR as we are known in Alaska. We manage one of the largest portfolios of oil, gas,
minerals, renewables, land and water in the world.
I am a former Attorney General of the State of Alaska and also a former Assistant Secretary of State that had responsibilities over global energy, economic and finance issues.
Mr. Chairman, our
country faces very serious energy security challenges and Alaska can and should be able to play a significant role in
partnership with the Federal Government in helping our citizens address these challenges. Unfortunately, right now that is not happening, and I
would like to explain that.
As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, Alaska is home to one of America's most vital components of energy infrastructure, TAPS, and Congress played the key role in the rapid construction and development of TAPS. Unfortunately, TAPS sits two-thirds empty from
its massive peak of 2.1 million barrels a day to about 620,000 barrels a day, and dropping. Working together, we are confident that we can fix this situation and further promote America's energy security.
First, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, the North Slope of Alaska, both on- and offshore State and Federal lands, remains a worldclass hydrocarbon basin by any measure with billions of conventional and unconventional oil and trillions of cubic feet of
natural gas.
Second, the State of Alaska is doing all it can to reverse the TAPS throughput decline with a comprehensive strategy that includes significant fiscal reform, permitting overall, new infrastructure projects and increased access to state lands, including state leases on
the borders of ANWR.
And third, Alaska
is one of the most environmentally stringent places on earth to explore and produce hydrocarbons and is
the world's leader in developing technologies that have dramatically reduced the footprint of exploration and development
activities. We are very proud of this record, Mr. Chairman and my written testimony focuses on this extensively.
But we are missing a critical partner in the development of Alaska's massive hydrocarbon resources and that partner is the Federal
Government. The Federal Government's policies in Alaska have shifted from helping us protect the environment, which we certainly support
because we care deeply about our environment, to proactively shutting down resource development . This is not just rhetoric. If you look at pages 9 through 11
of my testimony, I provide six specific examples in less than two years where the Federal Government has made decisions that will stall, kill, or delay resource
development on state and Federal lands in Alaska.
This anti-development posture is the cause of extreme frustration and anger with the vast majority of Alaskans. The state has done all it can, countless meetings,
letters, public comments, and yes, even suing our own Federal Government to dissuade the Obama Administration from pursuing and continuing such a course.
Why? Because locking up Alaska's resources not only hurts Alaskans, but it significantly undermines broader American interests.
Rarely has there been a Federal policy that fails on so many fronts . Jobs and economic growth, energy security, trade and Federal
budget deficits, national security are all undermined when Americans are prevented from producing energy from the largest
resource basin in our country. Ironically, this policy also undermines global environmental protection because it drives resource
development overseas to places like Brazil, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Chairman, I have been to all of those countries and I
can guarantee this Committee they don't have nearly the stringent environmental standards or ability to protect the environment that the State
of Alaska does. But my main purpose for traveling from Alaska today is not to complain, but to redouble our efforts to achieve the Federal partnership that we believe is so critical
to Alaska and America's energy security success.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: Manufacturing
Alaskan OCS is key to manufacturing and satellite fields.
David Lawrence 11 is Executive Vice President of Exploration and Commercial Department of Shell, “LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL
RESOURCES U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION,” June 3, 2011,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg66730/html/CHRG-112hhrg66730.htm, Accessed Date: 2-15-13 y2k
The world has long been aware of the Arctic's vast resources . In total, more than 500 exploratory, production, and disposal wells have
been drilled in the Arctic waters of Alaska, Canada, Norway and Russia. As a result of federal OCS lease sales in the 1980s and 1990s, more than 35
wells have been safely drilled in the U.S. Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Shell is proud of its offshore legacy in Alaska, having produced in the state waters of Cook Inlet in Alaska for more than 30 years beginning in 1964. In the late
1970s and mid 1980s, Shell drilled exploration wells offshore in the Gulf of Alaska, St. George Basin and the Bering Sea. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, Shell drilled several exploration wells in the Beaufort Sea and later drilled four of the five exploration
wells ever drilled in the Chukchi Sea. Although oil and gas were found, Shell chose not to proceed to development. We plugged and abandoned those exploratory wells for economic reasons--including the fact that, at that time, TAPS was already running near
capacity. Since 2005, the federal government has held several more OCS lease sales in Alaska. Shell participated in these lease sales and in fact, is now the majority leaseholder in the Alaska offshore. Shell has paid the federal treasury nearly $2.2 billion for tenyear leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Additionally, Shell has invested more than $1.5 billion and six years preparing for an exploration drilling program with unparalleled mitigation and safety measures. Shell's work includes multiple years of 3D seismic
data collection, first-of-its- kind baseline science, shallow hazard surveys, geotechnical programs, numerous social investment initiatives and hundreds of meetings with North Slope residents.
The Benefits of Developing the Alaska Offshore
The benefits of developing Alaska's offshore oil and gas resources are many--not only to Alaska, but also to the Lower 48.
Development would be an economic engine for decades to come. The jobs growth and economic benefits of Alaska OCS exploration and development
are well understood. A study conducted in 2010 by Northern Economics and the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER) at the University of Alaska details the
potential national benefits of developing the oil and gas resources of the Alaska OCS: An annual average of 54,700 new jobs would be created and
sustained through the year 2057, with 68,600 jobs created throughout decades of production and 91,500 at peak employment; A total of $145 billion in new payroll would be paid to
employees through the year 2057, including $63 billion to employees in Alaska and $82 billion to employees in the rest of the U.S.; and A total of $193 billion in government revenue
would be generated through the year 2057, with $167 billion to the federal government, $15 billion to the state of Alaska, $4 billion to local Alaska governments, and $6.5 billion to other
state governments. Several important implications for national policy and domestic supply are raised in the study including: Alaska
OCS development maximizes the
value of Alaska's and the nation's oil and gas resources by enhancing both value and volume . Using TAPS' existing infrastructure, which is currently
operating far below capacity, would enhance value by lowering transportation costs. Further, the new expanded infrastructure needed to connect to TAPS
would enable development of satellite fields such as the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA). Alaska OCS development
would extend the operating life of TAPS and increase the viability of an Alaska gas pipeline, due to greater certainty of the
available gas resource base to fill it . To elaborate, Alaska's OCS likely has at least one-third more oil than has been produced in Prudhoe Bay, moved through TAPS and used to fuel the U.S. for the past 30 years. It is twoand-a-half times what has been produced in the Gulf of Mexico since 1990. An independent assessment of industry-wide development of Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi Sea OCS concluded that an average of about 700,000 barrels of oil per day would be
produced for 40 years. This is equivalent to our 2010 oil imports from Iraq (506,000 bbl/day) and Russia (137,000 bbl/day) combined. This same study found that Alaska OCS production would peak at 1.45 million barrels of oil per day in 2030 (and 2.1 billion
cubic feet of gas per day in 2050). This is more than our 2010 oil imports from some of our major importing nations, e.g, Mexico (1.03 million bbl/day), Saudi Arabia (958,000 bbl/day), Nigeria (996,000 bbl/day), or Venezuela (827,000 bbl/day). Such
production numbers, which could potentially eliminate the need for imports from one of our largest foreign suppliers, is significant, and even--more so in a world of increasing geopolitical instability. Domestic energy production is critical for the security and
prosperity of the U.S. Money spent on domestic energy cycles in the U.S. economy, increases domestic economic activity and jobs. Alaska OCS activity will also help address our national debt, bringing in hundreds of billions in federal revenues in taxes and
A major benefit from Beaufort and Chukchi development would be the longterm viability of TAPS. Since 1977, Alaska has supplied the U.S. and its refineries with vast quantities of domestic oil via TAPS, totaling roughly 17 billion barrels through 2010. The construction and operation of the pipeline has also
royalties from oil and gas production and the economic activity that is stimulated as a result .
provided hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs in Alaska and the nation, helping to lift America out of one of its worst economic downturns. A generation of Americans worked to build TAPS; and it remains not only an economic engine, but a symbol of
American know-how and ingenuity. Unfortunately, without a reliable new resource base, TAPS' future is uncertain. Production in Prudhoe Bay has fallen significantly in recent decades. At its height, TAPS supplied the nation with 2.1 million barrels of oil per
day or about one-third of the nation's oil production. Today TAPS supplies only 600,000 barrels per day; about 11 percent of our domestic supply. If the throughput in the pipeline continues to decline and no new supplies are developed, TAPS will eventually be
shut down, cutting access to one of the largest sources of domestically produced oil in the country. Our already increasing dependence on imported oil will accelerate and the U.S. balance of payments and federal revenues will both get worse. A temporary
shutdown of TAPS earlier in 2011 had an immediate impact on crude prices, jeopardized the continuity of the U.S. West Coast refinery infrastructure, and resulted in a spike in U.S. reliance on Russian crude supplies. This could be a harbinger of things to come
unless we develop new resources in Alaska. Fortunately, the U.S. has an opportunity to prevent this scenario from reoccurring. According to Northern Economics and ISER at the University of Alaska, if OCS oil is transported through TAPS, the higher volume of
throughput would reduce the TAPS tariff and would extend the life of TAPS for decades. Doing so would require new pipelines that connect offshore fields in Camden Bay and the Chukchi Sea to TAPS. These projects would certainly rank among the largest
resource development, such as OCS oil and gas production, is the first step in wealth creation. It has
an enormous economic multiplier effect . Jobs and revenues created by oil and gas development reverberate throughout our economy,
producing long-term high paying jobs. It creates a need for domestic manufacturing capabilities, steel production,
transportation, infrastructure development, electronics and high-tech components. Alaska OCS development is a genuine long-term economic
stimulus plan. Finally, by exploring and developing our Alaska OCS resources, the U.S. has an opportunity to reaffirm its global role as an
Arctic nation. It is no secret that the Arctic is becoming a critical location from a geopolitical and strategic perspective . Arctic
private sector construction projects in U.S. history. It is clear that
nations are increasingly interested in international boundaries and opportunities for resources and economic development. Recently, Norway and Russia signed a maritime border
delimitation agreement that settled a long-standing seaward boundary dispute in the Barents Sea. The stimulus for the agreement was mutual cooperation that would allow the
development of offshore Arctic oil and gas resources. Elsewhere, Arctic nations are asserting their claims to continental shelf borders in accordance with the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. For instance, we've recently seen reports that Denmark will lay claim to the North Pole itself, as an extension of Greenland territorial
waters. Even nations outside the Arctic are positioning themselves for Arctic resource development. With
continuing U.S. inactivity, our country risks falling
even further behind the rest of the world in developing its Arctic resources. In Norway, Russia, Greenland and Canada, Arctic resources are highly valued
and new exploration is already underway. We have an opportunity to develop our own Arctic resources and the infrastructure
appropriate to facilitate our presence in this valuable region.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
A2: Arctic Drilling Difficult
Infrastructure development is empirically viable---TAPS prove.
Doc Hastings 11 is a Representative in Congress from Washington, “DOMESTIC OIL AND NATURAL GAS: ALASKAN
RESOURCES, ACCESS AND INFRASTRUCTURE,” June 2, 2011, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg66730/html/CHRG112hhrg66730.html, Accessed Date: 2-15-13 y2k
Mr. Hastings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your consideration. I apologize for coming in late, but we have another hearing in our other hearing room on the
manmade drought in California and that has taken a lot of interest and work in this Committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing today on the vast energy resources continued
America might not have a single state with more
abundant energy resources than the offshore and onshore lands of Alaska. The utilization of these resources is vital to moving America forward to a future less
dependent on foreign sources of energy, at the same time creating hundreds of thousands of American jobs. Certainly, in any form of energy production there are
challenges that must be overcome. However, some of the greatest challenges in Alaska seem to originate from our own government, not the
physical characteristics of the Arctic . In the 1970s, the TransAlaska Pipeline System was build to transport up to two million barrels of
oil a day from Prudhoe to Valdez. TAPS is now operating less than half that capacity, due to the Federal Government's refusal to explore for more oil resources to fill the pipeline in
places like the National Petroleum Reserve or the Beaufort or Chukchi Seas. Critical infrastructure is needed to ensure TAPS remains open. Yet, after years and years, the
Administration isn't issuing the necessary permits for the infrastructure to be installed. If capacity isn't increased, the pipeline could shut down,
in our northern most state and the unique access and infrastructure issues facing energy production in Alaska.
putting thousands of hard-working American workers out of work and eliminating the valuable irreplaceable American asset. The Obama Administration's effective moratorium on new
offshore drilling took the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas out of consideration for the 2012/2017 lease plan. Together these offshore
areas contain potentially over 20 billion barrels of
trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Now fortunately, this Committee has responded by passing H.R. 1231, not only out of this Committee, but out of the
House, and it would require them to move forward with these lease sales. As gasoline prices continue to put a strain on the pocketbooks of American families across the country, it
would be irresponsible for Congress to sit idly by and not act to harness the resources in Alaska, and for that matter elsewhere in
America, to make us more energy secure. Alaska's energy resources will play a vital role in America's ability to fuel our economy, create American jobs, and lessen our
oil and over a 100
dependence on unstable foreign energy. So thank you once again, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesy of allowing me to testify at this very important hearing regarding the vast resources that
we have in Alaska. And with that, I yield back my time.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** Economy Advantage
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
1AC --- Economy
Contention __ : Economy
It’s on the brink of collapse
Mac Slavo 5/23, SHTF Plan Writer, “The Recession is Coming: Economist Warns It’s Beyond Control: I Don’t See What Will Save It
At This Point,” http://www.infowars.com/the-recession-is-coming-economist-warns-its-beyond-control-i-dont-see-what-will-save-it-atthis-point/ DOA: 6-18-14, y2k
We are on the verge of another recession . So says Shadow Stats economist John Williams, who warns that by the end of July it will
become apparent to all Americans. That’s when the government will release its latest GDP economic figures and according to Williams those
numbers, combined with revisions for the first quarter of 2014, will show negative economic growth for a second quarter in a row, the official definition
for recession. In an interview with Greg Hunter’s USA Watchdog, Williams explains that it all boils down to one critical factor. Credit lending has tightened up
since the crash of 2008 and without it U.S. consumers don’t have enough money to continue fueling the economy through consumption, the single most important
element of economic growth. We’re turning down anew. The first quarter should revise into negative territory… and I believe the second quarter will
report negative as well. That will all happen by July 30 when you have the annual revisions to the GDP. In reality the economy is much weaker than that.
Economic growth is overstated with the GDP because they understate inflation, which is used in deflating the number… What we’re seeing now is just… we’ve
been barely stagnant and bottomed out… but we’re turning down again. The reason for this is that the consumer is strapped… doesn’t have the liquidity to
fuel the growth in consumption. Income… the median household income, net of inflation, is as low as it was in 1967. The average guy is not staying ahead of
inflation… This has been a problem now for decades… You were able to buy consumption from the future by borrowing more money, expanding your debt.
Greenspan saw the problem was income, so he encouraged debt expansion. That all blew apart in 2007/2008… the income problems have continued, but
now you don’t have the ability to borrow money the way you used to. Without that and the income problems remaining, there’s no way that
consumption can grow faster than inflation if income isn’t. As a result – personal consumption is more than two thirds of the economy – there’s no way you
can have positive sustainable growth in the U.S. economy without the consumer being healthy. It’s just not going to happen. With
nearly 50 million Americans on food stamps, a record of over 10 million receiving disability benefits, and millions more
depending on unemployment insurance to pay their bills it was only a matter of time before reality caught up with the fuzzy math
being used to justify a so-called recovery. The bottom line is that we, as consumers, have no more money left to throw into the economy. We’re using
most of it on food, rent, utilities, and now mandated health insurance taxes. And as Williams noted, incomes aren’t rising, so without additional credit being
pumped directly into the hands of the consumer there is no possible way to keep spending money. Where is all this headed? Williams warns that the
government’s failure to address the economy and our national deficits will lead to disastrous consequences. You are not seeing an annual
deficit of $400 or $500 billion dollars. You are really seeing something close to $6 trillion. That is beyond control, and it raises the question of long term solvency
is a big concern for the global markets . It’s really the reason why nobody outside the United States wants to hold the
dollar. Now, look at the U.S. economy, it is turning down. Economic strength is a big factor in the value of a currency. As the renewed
of the U.S. It
downturn gains wider acceptance or wider recognition, that will intensify the selling pressure. When someone starts selling, it’s going to be a race for the door, and
I am looking for a dollar selling panic to be the trigger for the onset of hyperinflation. What we are seeing in inflation now is a pickup in inflation, but it’s not a
hyperinflation. Massive dollar selling–that will be the trigger for the hyperinflation. … I don’t see what will save it at this point. . . . Now we are to the point that
the dollar has been ignored for years. The federal deficit has been ignored for years. . . . That’s what we are on the brink of disaster with, and that is what has to be
addressed now, and that’s not happening. … The way I see it, the dollar could go to zero in terms of its purchasing power. You don’t want to have your assets in
U.S. dollars. John Williams previously forecast that A Domestic Hyperinflationary Environment Should Evolve by 2014. Food prices, gas prices, electricity prices
and the cost of most other essential commodities are rising unabated. Currently, we are seeing an annual rate of inflation for food of over 7%, a level that will lead
to serious problems coming into Fall. Now, as Williams predicted earlier this year, a recession will be apparent once the government is forced to revise their
economic growth figures later this summer. He’s two-for-two so far and he says that what we’ll begin to see next is a loss of confidence in not just the U.S.
economy, but the status of the U.S. dollar as well. Given the rampant manipulation from government and global central banks, the timing of the end game is
elusive. But what we know is that nature always wins out, despite our efforts to control it. This time around, when nature finally shows its economic fury, it
could well go down as the largest collapse in the history of the world.
US is key to the global economy
David Caploe 9, CEO of the Singapore-incorporated American Centre for Applied Liberal Arts and Humanities in Asia., “Focus still on
America to lead global recovery”, April 7, The Strait Times, L/N, DOA: 6-18-14, y2k
IN THE aftermath of the G-20 summit, most observers seem to have missed perhaps the most crucial statement of the entire event, made by United States President
Barack Obama at his pre-conference meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown: 'The world has become accustomed to the US being a
voracious consumer market, the engine that drives a lot of economic growth worldwide ,' he said. 'If there is going to be renewed growth, it
just can't be the US as the engine.' While superficially sensible, this view is deeply problematic. To begin with, it ignores the fact that the global economy
has in fact been 'America-centred' for more than 60 years. Countries - China, Japan, Canada, Brazil, Korea, Mexico and so on - either sell to the US
or they sell to countries that sell to the US. This system has generally been advantageous for all concerned. America gained certain
historically unprecedented benefits, but the system also enabled participating countries - first in Western Europe and Japan, and later, many in the
Third World - to achieve undreamt-of prosperity. At the same time, this deep inter-connection between the US and the rest of the
world also explains how the collapse of a relatively small sector of the US economy - 'sub-prime' housing, logarithmically exponentialised
by Wall Street's ingenious chicanery - has cascaded into the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression. To put it simply, Mr
Obama doesn't seem to understand that there is no other engine for the world economy - and hasn't been for the last six decades. If the US does
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
not drive global economic growth, growth is not going to happen. Thus, US policies to deal with the current crisis are critical not just
domestically, but also to the entire world . Consequently, it is a matter of global concern that the Obama administration seems to be following Japan's 'model'
from the 1990s: allowing major banks to avoid declaring massive losses openly and transparently, and so perpetuating 'zombie' banks - technically alive but in
reality dead. As analysts like Nobel laureates Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman have pointed out, the administration's unwillingness to confront US banks is the
main reason why they are continuing their increasingly inexplicable credit freeze, thus ravaging the American and global economies. Team Obama seems reluctant
to acknowledge the extent to which its policies at home are failing not just there but around the world as well. Which raises the question: If the US can't or
won't or doesn't want to be the global economic engine, which country will? The obvious answer is China. But that is unrealistic for
three reasons. First, China's economic health is more tied to America's than practically any other country in the world. Indeed, the
reason China has so many dollars to invest everywhere - whether in US Treasury bonds or in Africa - is precisely that it has structured its
own economy to complement America's. The only way China can serve as the engine of the global economy is if the US starts pulling it first. Second,
the US-centred system began at a time when its domestic demand far outstripped that of the rest of the world. The fundamental source of its economic power is its
ability to act as the global consumer of last resort. China, however, is a poor country, with low per capita income, even though it will soon pass Japan as the
world's second largest economy. There are real possibilities for growth in China's domestic demand. But given its structure as an export-oriented economy, it is
doubtful if even a successful Chinese stimulus plan can pull the rest of the world along unless and until China can start selling again to the US on a massive scale.
Finally, the key 'system' issue for China - or for the European Union - in thinking about becoming the engine of the world economy - is monetary: What are the
implications of having your domestic currency become the global reserve currency? This is an extremely complex issue that the US has struggled with, not always
successfully, from 1959 to the present. Without going into detail, it can safely be said that though having the US dollar as the world's medium of exchange has
given the US some tremendous advantages, it has also created huge problems, both for America and the global economic system. The Chinese leadership is
certainly familiar with this history. It will try to avoid the yuan becoming an international medium of exchange until it feels much more confident in its ability to
handle the manifold currency problems that the US has grappled with for decades. Given all this, the US will remain the engine of global economic
recovery for the foreseeable future, even though other countries must certainly help. This crisis began in the US - and it is going
to have to be solved there too.
Collapse causes global nuclear war
Merlini 11 the chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Italian Institute of International Affairs, 2011, Cesare, “A Post-Secular
World?” Survival, vol. 53 no. 2 pp. 117–13 http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/articles/2011/04_international_relations_merlini/04_international_relations_merlini.pdf accessed date: 11-11-11 y2k
Two neatly opposed scenarios for the future of the world order illustrate the range of possibilities, albeit at the risk of oversimplification. The first scenario entails
the premature crumbling of the post-Westphalian system. One or more of the acute tensions
apparent today evolves into an open and traditional
conflict between states , perhaps even involving the use of nuclear weapons. The crisis might be triggered by a collapse of the
global economic and financial system, the vulnerability of which we have just experienced, and the prospect of a second Great
Depression, with consequences for peace and democracy similar to those of the first. Whatever the trigger, the unlimited exercise of
national sovereignty, exclusive self-interest and rejection of outside interference would likely be amplified, emptying, perhaps
entirely, the half-full glass of multilateralism , including the UN and the European Union. Many of the more likely conflicts,
such as between Israel and Iran or India and Pakistan, have potential religious dimensions. Short of war, tensions such as those related
to immigration might become unbearable. Familiar issues of creed and identity could be exacerbated. One way or another, the secular rational approach
would be sidestepped by a return to theocratic absolutes, competing or converging with secular absolutes such as unbridled nationalism. One symptom that
makes such a scenario plausible has become visible. Many commentators have identified anger or anxiety as a common driver of the
Tea Party movement in the United States and the rise of xenophobic parties in Europe, perhaps stemming from a self-perception of decline.
Anger (directed towards the neo-colonialist or pro-Israeli West or – especially recently – domestic authoritarian regimes) has also been
associated with grievances in the Middle East, following the failure of earlier reformist and secular movements. Despite relative popular optimism,
anger can also be detected in Asia, hand in hand with chauvinism and a sense of lack of appropriate recognition by others, stemming
from a self-perception of rising influence and power.
Robust studies prove
Royal 10 director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 2010¶ Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace:
Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215
Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of
attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic,
dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work
on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms
in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and
the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher
in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances , increasing the risk of
miscalculation (Fearon 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive
environment for conflicts as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996)
also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium
and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remains unknown.
Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggest that “ future expectation of trade” is a significant variable in
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from
trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult
to replace item such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain
access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it
triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and
external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and
external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity
are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict , which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the
presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg
and Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess and
Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions . Furthermore, crises generally
reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory” suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from
economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a “rally
around the flag” effect . Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995) and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence
showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and
Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states due
to the fact the democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support . De
DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the U nited S tates and thus weak Presidential
popularity are statically linked to an increase in the use of force . In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic
integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external
conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in
economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a
decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence
instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider
OCS drilling is key to economic growth---several multipliers---independently boosts shipbuilding industries
Mason 11 Joseph, Senior Fellow, The Wharton School, Louisiana State University Endowed Chair of Banking and nationallyrenowned economist, “House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Hearing; Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans
and Insular Affairs Legislative Hearing on H.R. 306, H.R. 588, S. 266 and H.R. 285”, 4/6, Lexis
Apart from national energy concerns, however, economic considerations also favor increased development of OCS energy resources. Specifically,
the boost provided to local onshore economies by offshore production would be particularly welcome in the present economic climate .
Similar to fiscal alternatives presently under consideration, OCS development would provide a long-run economic stimulus to the U.S.
economy because the incremental output, employment, and wages provided by OCS development would be spread over many years.
Unlike those policies, however, this stimulus would not require government expenditures to support that long-term growth. A. The Present State of
Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Production Despite its importance, U.S. oil and natural gas production in offshore areas is currently limited to only a few regions. At the
present time, oil and gas is only actively produced off the coast of six U.S. states: Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, California, and Alaska. The Energy
Information Administration (EIA) reports that Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas are the only coastal states that provide access to all or almost all of their
offshore energy resources. Only two additional states--Alaska and California--are producing any offshore energy supplies. All California OCS Planning Areas and
most Alaska OCS Planning Areas, however, were not open to any new facilities until the recent end of the Congressional and Presidential moratoria. The remaining
16 coastal states are not open to new production and are not presently extracting any offshore energy resources. Even without those remaining sixteen states, plus
California and Alaska, the OCS is already the most important source of U.S. energy supplies. According to the MMS, "the Federal OCS is a major supplier of oil
and natural gas for the domestic market, contributing more energy (oil and natural gas) for U.S. consumption than any single U.S. state or country in the world."
That is, OCS production presently meets more U.S. energy demand than any other single source, including Saudi Arabia. B. Offshore Oil Production
Stimulates Onshore Economies Offshore oil and gas production has
a significant effect on local onshore economies as well as the national economy.
There are broadly three "phases" of development that contribute to state economic growth: (1) the initial exploration and development of
offshore facilities; (2) the extraction of oil and gas reserves; and (3) refining crude oil into finished petroleum products. Industries supporting
those phases are most evident in the sections of the Gulf of Mexico that are currently open to offshore drilling. For example, the U.S.
shipbuilding industry - based largely in the Gulf region - benefits significantly from initial offshore oil exploration efforts. Exploration
and development also requires specialized exploration and drilling vessels, floating drilling rigs, and miles and miles of steel pipe,
as well as highly educated and specialized labor to staff the efforts. The onshore support does not end with production. A recent report prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy indicates that the Louisiana economy is "highly dependent on a wide variety of industries that depend on
offshore oil and gas production" and that offshore production supports onshore production in the chemicals, platform fabrication, drilling services,
transportation, and gas processing. Fleets of helicopters and U.S.-built vessels also supply offshore facilities with a wide range of industrial and consumer goods,
from industrial spare parts to groceries. As explained in Section IV.G, however, the distance between offshore facilities and onshore communities can affect the
relative intensity of the local economic effects. The economic effects in the refining phase are even more diffuse than the effects for the two preceding phases.
Although significant capacity is located in California, Illinois, New Jersey, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington, additional U.S. refining capacity is
spread widely around the country. As a result, refinery jobs, wages, and tax revenues are even more likely to "spill over" into other areas of the country, including
non-coastal states like Illinois, as those are home to many refining and chemical industries that ride the economic coattails of oil exploration and extraction. II.
OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS RESERVE ESTIMATES AND THE SOURCES OF THEIR ECONOMIC BENEFITS As described in my 2009 white paper, "The
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Economic Contribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies," available at
www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf, significant oil and gas reserves lie under the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the OCS (including Alaskan OCS Planning Areas) contains approximately 86 billion barrels of
recoverable oil and approximately 420 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. As noted by the White House, however, the OCS estimates are conservative. Of
the total OCS reserves, a significant portion was unavailable to exploration until recently. Specifically, Presidential and Congressional mandates banned production
from OCS Planning Areas covering approximately 18 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 77.61 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas. These bans covered
approximately 31 percent of the total recoverable OCS oil reserves and 25 percent of the total recoverable OCS natural gas reserves. Economic benefits of
utilizing OCS reserves accrue from three primary sources: (1) exploration/platform investments; (2) production; and (3) refining .
Sources (1) and (3) produce initial effects--that is, new industry expenditures--today; in contrast, source (2) produce economic effects only once production begins.
The analysis therefore considers "initial" economic effects as those that flow from exploration or investments in new refining capacity and long-term economic
effects as those that flow from production and ongoing refining. A. Exploration and Offshore Facility Development In contrast to other industries, the high fixed
investment costs associated with offshore oil and gas production produce large initial investments that reverberate throughout the
economy. Once oil or gas reserves are located, billions of additional dollars must be spent before the well produces even $1 of revenue. For
example, oil exploration costs can amount to between $200,000 and $759,000 per day per site. Additional production in the U.S. will also require a costly
expansion refining capacity as well. Taken together, the fixed expenditures that precede actual offshore oil and gas production can amount to billions of dollars. For
example, Chevron's "Tahiti" project in the Gulf of Mexico is representative of the large investments that firms must make before production is achieved. In 2002,
Chevron explored the Tahiti lease--which lies 100 miles off the U.S. coast at a depth of 4,000 feet--and found "an estimated 400 million to 500 million barrels of
recoverable resources." Chevron estimates that it will take seven years to build the necessary infrastructure required to begin production at Tahiti. The firm
estimates that its total development costs will amount to "$4.7 billion--before realizing $1 of return on our investment." As a typical U.S. offshore project,
the Tahiti project provides a wealth of information regarding the up-front investment costs, length of investment, and lifespan of future OCS
fields. As noted above, the Tahiti field is estimated to hold between 400 million and 500 million barrels of oil and oil equivalents (primarily natural gas) and is
expected to require an initial fixed investment of $4.7 billion. Using the mid-point reserve estimate of 450 million barrels of oil equivalent, up-front development
costs amount to approximately $10.44 per barrel of oil reserves or $1.86 per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas reserves. These costs will be spread over 7 years,
resulting in average up-front development expenditures equal to $1.49 per barrel of oil and $0.27 per 1,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Chevron also estimates that
the Tahiti project will produce for "up to 30 years". Although investment and production times vary widely, the analysis that follows uses the Tahiti project
numbers - an average initial investment period of seven years followed by an average production period of 30 years - as indicative of the "typical" offshore project.
I will thus assume an average initial investment period of seven years followed by an average production period of 30 years. The speed of OCS development also
factors into the analysis. Because most areas of the U.S. OCS have been closed to new exploration and production for almost forty years, it is unclear how quickly
firms would move to develop new offshore fields. Given its large potential reserves, however, the OCS is sure to attract significant investment.
Without the benefit of government data, a rough estimate suggests that annual total investment in OCS fields would be $9.09 billion per
year. Those annual expenditures are expected to last, on average, the full seven years of the development phase. Additional investment in states that already
support significant production - Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas - are limited. Some of the greatest benefits accrue to areas that are home to enormous but unavailable - total reserves: California and Florida. B. Production The likely value of state recoverable oil and gas reserves are estimated using the likely
lifetime revenue that could be generated by the project. In that case, average wholesale energy prices provide the information necessary to translate reserves into
revenues. Taking the simple average of the EIA's latest inflation-adjusted energy price forecasts through 2030 as provided by its Annual Energy Outlook 2009, the
average inflation-adjusted price of oil will be $110.64 per barrel and the average inflation-adjusted price of natural gas will be $6.83 per thousand cubic feet. At
these prices, the estimated OCS reserves are worth about $13 trillion. The value of each state's available reserves are calculated as the sum of (1) its share of
available OCS Planning Area oil reserves times $110.64 per barrel and (2) its share of available OCS Planning Area natural gas reserves times $6.83 per thousand
cubic feet. The same method applies to the valuation of total state OCS reserves. By those estimation methods, states such as California, facing a budget
crisis in the current recession, have an estimated $1.65 trillion in resources available in nearby OCS planning areas. Florida, while not facing
as dire a fiscal crisis, has about $0.55 trillion in resources available in nearby OCS planning areas. Hence, a permanent relaxation of all federal OCS production
moratoria would unlock more than $3.4 trillion in new production among all the coastal states. C. Investments in Incremental Refining Capacity Since U.S.
refineries are presently operating near maximum capacity increased offshore oil and gas production would also spur investment in
new refineries. The U.S. refining industry is presently operating at 97.9 percent of capacity and can no longer depend on excess foreign refining to meet
production shortfalls arising from seasonality or repairs. In response, many large refiners are already considering refinery expansions: ConocoPhillips announced
that it planned to spend $6.5 billion to $7 billion on capacity expansion at its U.S. facilities; Chevron has also considered a major refinery expansion; and while
Shell is completing a $7 billion expansion and its Port Arthur, Texas refinery they are considering further expansion elsewhere. Additional refinery investments are
likely to occur in the few U.S. states that already host significant U.S. refineries. This result is largely due to environmental restrictions that severely limit the
placement of new refining capacity. Current capacity is primarily concentrated in California, Louisiana, and Texas. The U.S. presently has an operating refining
capacity of approximately 6.287 billion barrels of crude oil per year. Conservative estimates of OCS production would add approximately 3.773 billion barrels per
year, or about sixty percent of current U.S. operating refinery capacity. Because some OCS refining production would most likely substitute for foreign production,
however, the analysis conservatively assumes that only one-quarter of this new OCS production necessitates additional U.S. refinery capacity. That is, I estimate
that U.S. refinery demand would increase by 943.25 million barrels per year, or 15 percent of current installed capacity. Even this modest capacity increase would
require substantial new investments. In response to existing capacity constraints, Shell is already increasing the capacity of its Port Arthur, Texas refinery. This
expansion will take approximately two and one-half years to complete and cost $7 billion. The facility will add 325,000 barrels per day (or 118.6 million barrels per
year) in new capacity, at a cost of approximately $59.02 per barrel of new annual capacity. As noted above, since tough environmental regulations effectively limit
new refinery capacity to a few states, refinery investments are likely to be limited to only a few states with large existing capacity. These states can be reasonably
assumed to be the same states the already have large installed refinery capacity. Hence, incremental refinery capacity will be added predominantly in states already
home to large refining capacity--those with a present capacity of more than 200 million barrels per year. There are seven such states: California, Illinois, Louisiana,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Washington. Expected increases in offshore oil production will induce approximately $22 billion in refining capacity
investments each year for two and one half years. California, Texas, and Louisiana will receive the bulk of this investment, but investments of more than $1 billion
annually can be expected in Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Washington. III. INCREASED INVESTMENTS IN OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
PRODUCTION WILL CAUSE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASES IN WAGES, EMPLOYMENT, AND TAXES, AND PROFOUND EFFECTS ON
COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THE NATION Onshore state and local economies benefit from the development of OCS reserves by
providing goods and services to offshore oil and gas extraction sites. Onshore communities provide all manner of goods and services required by
offshore oil and gas extraction. A variety of industries are involved in this effort : shipbuilders provide exploration vessels, permanent and movable
platforms, and resupply vessels; steelworkers fashion the drilling machinery and specialized pipes required for offshore resource extraction; accountants and
bankers provide financial services; and other onshore employees provide groceries, transportation, refining, and other duties. These onshore jobs, in turn, support
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
other jobs and other industries (such as retail and hospitality establishments). The statistical approach known as an "input-output" analysis measures the economic
effects associated with a particular project or economic development plan. This approach, which was pioneered by Nobel Prize winner Wassily Leontif, has been
refined by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The most recent version of the Commerce Department's analysis is known as the Regional Input-Output Modelling
System, or "RIMS II." The RIMS II model provides a variety of multipliers that measure how an economic development project--such as offshore drilling--would
"trickle down" through the economy providing new jobs, wages, and government revenues. This analysis can be broken down into two parts: (1) a "direct" analysis
measuring the benefits that arise from industries that directly supply offshore oil and gas exploration and (2) the "final" analysis that measures the direct and
indirect benefits associated with offshore exploration. The RIMS II model is the standard method governmental authorities use to evaluate the benefits associated
with an economic development project. According to the Commerce Department, the RIMS II model has been used to evaluate the economic effects of many
projects, including: opening or closing military bases, tourist expenditures, new energy facilities, opening or closing manufacturing plants, shopping malls, sports
stadiums, and new airport or port facilities. A. Opening OCS Planning Areas would Unleash More than $11 trillion in Economic Activity The broadest measure of
the incremental effect of increased OCS oil and natural gas extraction is the effect on total economic output. Until OCS production begins, onshore communities
will realize only the benefits associated with offshore investment. These benefits take two forms: (1) the development of the offshore facilities themselves and (2)
the expansion of onshore refining capacity. These two effects, taken together, provide a rough approximation of the additional output that would be created by
allowing greater access to offshore reserves. Of course, the investment expenditures and resulting output estimated above is only made to facilitate oil and gas
extraction. Once extraction begins, additional economic activity continues for the lifetime of the oil and natural gas reserves. Using the total U.S.
multipliers (2.2860 for refining and 2.3938 for extraction), the total increase in U.S. output from initial investment is estimated to be a total
of about $0.5 trillion, or approximately $73 billion per year for the first seven years the OCS is open. For comparative purposes, a $73 billion
stimulus amounts to approximately 0.5 percent of total U.S. output (GDP) per year. Increased OCS oil and gas extraction would
yield approximately $5.75 trillion in new coastal state output over the lifetime of the fields. Approximating the total increase in output
associated with increasing offshore resource production throughout the U.S. (including states in the interior), yields approximately
$2.45 trillion in additional output. The total increase in output in the United States is estimated to total approximately $8.2 trillion or about $273 billion per
year, which amounts to just over two percent of GDP. Because the OCS areas are currently unavailable, the entire amount--$8.2 trillion--is completely new
output created by a simple change in policy allowing resource extraction in additional OCS Planning Area s. B. Opening OCS Planning
Areas could Create Millions of New Jobs An economic expansion tied to increased OCS resource production would also create millions of new
jobs both in the extraction industry and in other sectors that serve as suppliers or their employees . The annual increase in coastal state
employment from initial investments in previously unavailable OCS planning areas and additional refining capacity is estimated to be 185,320 full-time jobs per
year. Again, this number does not consider the spill-over effects of investment in productive capacity and refining to other U.S. states. The total increase in U.S.
employment from the investment phase is approximately 271,570 full-time jobs per year. Applying the BEA multipliers to the estimated production value results in
approximately 870,000 coastal state jobs in addition to the jobs created during the initial investment phase. Again, the total increase in U.S. employment
in all states (including those in the interior) resulting from increased OCS production is 340,000 greater, for a total of
approximately 1,190,000 jobs be sustained for the entire OCS production period . Increased investment and production in previously
unavailable OCS oil and gas extraction and the ancillary industries that support the offshore industry would produce thousands of new jobs in stable and valuable
industries. Among the 271,572 jobs created in the investment phase and sustained during the first seven years of the investment cycle. The majority of new
positions (162,541 jobs, or 60 percent) would be created in high-skills fields, such as health care, real estate, professional services,
manufacturing, administration, finance, education, the arts, information, and management . Although the largest total increase in employment
in the production phase would occur (quite naturally) in the mining industry, significant numbers of jobs would be created in other industries. Again, many of these
new jobs would be created in high-skills fields, representing approximately 49 percent of all new jobs and approximately 61 percent of all new non-mining jobs. C.
Opening OCS Planning Areas can Release Trillions of Dollars of Wages to Workers Hit by Recession Those jobs pay wages. OCS development is estimated to
yield approximately $10.7 billion in new wages in coastal states each year. OCS production would yield approximately $1.406 trillion in additional wage income to
workers in coastal states over the lifetime of the fields (or $46 billion per year over 30 years). Across the U.S., the investment phase would generate
approximately $15.7 billion in additional annual wages per year for the first seven years and $70 billion per year for the next thirty
years, or approximately $2.1 trillion in additional wage income. BLS data suggest that all four broad industry classifications related to oil and gas
extraction pay higher wages and similar jobs in other industries. Jobs in: (1) Oil and Gas Extraction, (2) Pipeline Transportation of Crude Oil, (3) Petroleum and
Coal Products Manufacturing, and (4) Support Activities for Mining, typically pay higher wages than the average American job. Taking this broader measure, the
average job created by increased offshore oil and gas production pays approximately 28 percent more than the average U.S. job. D. Opening OCS Planning Areas
can Contribute Trillions of Dollars in Taxes and other Public Revenues to Local, State, and Federal Governments Greater output, more jobs, and higher wages
translate into higher tax collections and increases in other sources of public revenues. The MMS Report to Congress suggests that public revenues derived from
OCS extraction are significant--the U.S. federal government has collected more than $156 billion in lease and levy payments for OCS oil and natural gas
production. Note that this amount counts only lease and royalty payments and thus does not include any sales and income taxes paid by firms or workers supported
by OCS production. Conservative estimates suggest that seven years of initial annual exploration and refining investments would produce approximately $4.8
billion annually in coastal state and local tax revenue and $11.1 billion in U.S. federal tax income. Over thirty years of production, I estimate that the extraction
phase of OCS development would yield approximately $561 billion ($18.7 billion per year) in coastal state and local tax revenue
and approximately $1.64 trillion ($54.7 billion per year) in new U.S. federal tax income.
That’s key to US naval power and credibility
NLUS 12—Navy League of the US, “America’s Maritime Industry The foundation of American Seapower,” 2012,
http://www.navyleague.org/files/americas-maritime-industry.pdf, Date Verification – http://gsship.org/industry-links/, Accessed date: 121-12 y2k
Defense Industrial Base: Shipbuilding The American Maritime Industry also contributes to our national defense by sustaining the
shipbuilding and repair sector of our national defense industrial base upon which our standing as a seapower is based . History
has proven that without a strong maritime infrastructure —shipyards, suppliers, and seafarers— no country can hope to build
and support a Navy of sufficient size and capability to protect its interests on a global basis. Both our commercial and naval fleets
rely on U.S. shipyards and their numerous industrial vendors for building and repairs. The U.S. commercial shipbuilding and repair industry also
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
impacts our national economy by adding billions of dollars to U.S. economic output annually. In 2004, there were 89 shipyards in the major shipbuilding and repair
base of the United States, defined by the Maritime Administration as including those shipyards capable of building, repairing, or providing topside repairs for ships
122 meters (400 feet) in length and over. This includes six large shipyards that build large ships for the U.S. Navy. Based on U.S. Coast Guard vessel registration
data for 2008, in that year U.S. shipyards delivered 13 large deep-draft vessels including naval ships, merchant ships, and drilling rigs; 58 offshore service vessels;
142 tugs and towboats, 51 passenger vessels greater than 50 feet in length; 9 commercial fishing vessels; 240 other self- propelled vessels; 23 mega-yachts; 10
oceangoing barges; and 224 tank barges under 5,000 GT. Since the mid 1990’s, the industry has been experiencing a period of modernization and renewal that is
largely market-driven, backed by long-term customer commitments. Over the six-year period from 2000-05, a total of $2.336 billion was invested in the industry,
The state of the industrial base that
services this nation’s Sea Services is of great concern to the U.S. Navy . Even a modest increase in oceangoing commercial
shipbuilding would give a substantial boost to our shipyards and marine vendors. Shipyard facilities at the larger shipyards in the
United States are capable of constructing merchant ships as well as warships, but often cannot match the output of shipyards in Europe and Asia. On
the other hand, U.S. yards construct and equip the best warships, aircraft carriers and submarines in the world. They are
unmatched in capability, but must maintain that lead.
while in 2006, capital investments in the U.S. shipbuilding and repair industry amounted to $270 million.
Naval power solves nuclear conflicts
James Conway et al 7 is General, US Marine Corps, Commandant of the Marine Corps AND Gary Roughead – Admiral, U.S. navy,
Chief of Naval Operations AND Thad Allen – Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commandant of the Coast Guard, A Cooperative Strategy for
21st Century Seapower, p. http://www.navy.mil/maritime/MaritimeStrategy.pdf, Accessed date: 12-1-12 y2k
The world economy is tightly interconnected. Over the past four decades, total sea borne trade has more than quadrupled: 90% of world trade
and two-thirds of its petroleum are transported by sea. The sea-lanes and supporting shore infrastructure are the lifelines of the modern global
economy, visible and vulnerable symbols of the modern distribution system that relies on free transit through increasingly urbanized littoral regions.
Expansion of the global system has increased the prosperity of many nations . Yet their continued growth may create increasing
competition for resources and capital with other economic powers, transnational corporations and international organizations. Heightened popular
expectations and increased competition for resources , coupled with scarcity, may encourage nations to exert wider claims of
sovereignty over greater expanses of ocean, waterways, and natural resources—potentially resulting in conflict . Technology education is rapidly
expanding marine activities such as energy development, resource extraction, and other commercial activity in and under the oceans. Climate change is gradually
opening up the waters of the Arctic, not only to new resource development, but also to new shipping routes that may reshape the global transport system. While
these developments offer opportunities for growth, they are potential sources of competition and conflict for access and natural resources. Globalization is also
shaping human migration patterns, health, , culture, and the conduct of conflict. Conflicts are increasingly characterized by a hybrid blend of
traditional and irregular tactics, decentralized planning and execution, and non-state actors using both simple and sophisticated
technologies in innovative ways. Weak or corrupt governments, growing dissatisfaction among the disenfranchised, religious extremism, ethnic
nationalism, and changing demographics—often spurred on by the uneven and sometimes unwelcome advances of globalization—exacerbate tensions and are
contributors to conflict. Concurrently, a rising number of transnational actors and rogue states, emboldened and enabled with unprecedented access to the global
stage, can cause systemic disruptions in an effort to increase their power and influence. Their actions, often designed to purposely incite conflict between other
parties, will complicate attempts to defuse and allay regional conflict. Proliferation
of weapons technology and information has increased the
capacity of nation-states and transnational actors to challenge maritime access, evade accountability for attacks, and manipulate public
perception . Asymmetric use of technology will pose a range of threats to the United States and its partners. Even more worrisome, the
appetite for nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is growing among nations and non-state antagonists. At the same time, attacks
on legal, financial, and cyber systems can be equally, if not more, disruptive than kinetic weapons. The vast majority of the world’s population lives
within a few hundred miles of the oceans. Social instability in increasingly crowded cities, many of which exist in already unstable parts of the world, has
the potential to create significant disruptions. The effects of climate change may also amplify human suffering through catastrophic storms, loss of
arable lands, and coastal flooding, could lead to loss of life, involuntary migration, social instability, and regional crises. Mass communications will highlight the
Extremist ideologies will
become increasingly attractive to those in despair and bereft of opportunity. Criminal elements will also exploit this social instability.
These conditions combine to create an uncertain future and cause us to think anew about how we view seapower. No one
drama of human suffering, and disadvantaged populations will be ever more painfully aware and less tolerant of their conditions.
nation has the resources required to provide safety and security throughout the entire maritime domain. Increasingly, governments, non-governmental
organizations, international organizations, and the private sector will form partnerships of common interest to counter these emerging threats. Maritime
Strategic Concept This strategy reaffirms the use of seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and ashore. The
expeditionary character and versatility of maritime forces provide the U.S. the asymmetric advantage of enlarging or contracting
footprint in areas where access is denied or limited. Permanent or prolonged basing of our military forces overseas
often has unintended economic, social or political repercussions. The sea is a vast maneuver space , where the presence of
maritime forces can be adjusted as conditions dictate to enable flexible approaches to escalation, de-escalation and deterrence of
conflicts . The speed, flexibility , agility and scalability of maritime forces provide joint or combined force commanders a
range of options for responding to crises . Additionally, integrated maritime operations, either within formal alliance structures (such as the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization) or more informal arrangements (such as the Global Maritime Partnership initiative), send powerful messages to
would-be aggressors that we will act with others to ensure collective security and prosperity. United States seapower will be globally
postured to secure our homeland and citizens from direct attack and to advance our interests around the world. As our security and
its military
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
prosperity are inextricably linked with those of others, U.S. maritime forces will be deployed to protect and sustain the
peaceful global system comprised of interdependent networks of trade, finance, information, law, people and governance. We will employ the global reach,
persistent presence, and operational flexibility inherent in U.S. seapower to accomplish six key tasks, or strategic imperatives. Where tensions are high or where we
wish to demonstrate to our friends and allies our commitment to security and stability, U.S. maritime forces will be characterized by regionally
concentrated, forward-deployed
task forces with the combat power to limit regional conflict, deter major power war , and should
deterrence fail, win our Nation’s wars as part of a joint or combined campaign. In addition, persistent, mission-tailored maritime forces
will be globally distributed in order to contribute to homeland defense-in-depth, foster and sustain cooperative relationships with an
expanding set of international partners, and prevent or mitigate disruptions and crises .
Perception of declining naval power fuels South China Sea conflicts
Dr. Seth Cropsey 12 is Senior Fellow at Hudson Institute, Former Assistant to the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Undersecretary of
the Navy, “The U.S. Navy Shipbuilding Plan: Assumptions and Associated Risks to National Security,” Committee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations U.S. House of Representatives, April 18, 2012,
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/SethCropsey--USNavyShipbuildingPlan--Testimony041812.pdf, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
Knowledge of shipbuilding remains part of American manufacturing. But accelerating cost, an ageing workforce, reduced orders for
warships, and an uncertain future risk the nation’s ability to turn out sufficient numbers of vessels at affordable prices and profitably enough to keep shipbuilding
companies alive. The destabilization of the American shipbuilding industrial base is one reason that the cost of warships is outpacing
the rate of inflation. The Navy’s reduced procurement of ships over the past twenty years has caused the industry to contract, lay off workers, and in general
to become less reliable. This has driven up the cost of labor and the cost of construction materials. The fewer ships the Navy buys, the less lucrative the industry is
for skilled workers. As the cost of labor rises shipbuilders are increasingly pressed to attract and train qualified personnel. The negative trends reinforce each other.
As younger workers are dissuaded from seeking employment or remaining in the industry by the prospects of sporadic employment those who remain—the existing
workers—age. The cycle is self-defeating. Paying older workers increases overhead costs and makes it increasingly expensive to invest in the training and
education of a younger workforce. The destabilization of the industrial base also causes costs to rise since many of the materials and products that go into building
Navy ships are not useful for other purposes. Since the Navy is buying far fewer ships now than it did in the 1980s, many shipyards rely on a single source for
necessary materials. With a virtual monopoly on these products, the suppliers have in large part the ability to name their price. The inefficient manner in which the
shipyards acquire these materials drives up labor and overhead costs. The solution lies in stabilizing the American shipbuilding industry. This means that the Navy
must either increase its orders of ships and/or improve its business practices, for example disciplining the changes it requires of shipbuilders once orders have been
placed and vessels are under construction. Buying and stockpiling spare parts for ships that are already in service and whose need for regular maintenance and
repair is well known would also help provide stability for the American shipbuilding industry. In a study conducted on the subject in 2006, the RAND Corporation
concluded that the rising costs of building ships is the result of a combination of unsteady U.S. Government procurement rates and a “monopsony relationship”
between the government and the shipbuilders. In a monopsony a single purchaser is faced with a host of sellers. Because there is so little American shipbuilding
outside of what the Navy purchases, U.S. firms are at the commercial mercy of the 9 percent of the Navy budget devoted to buying ships. A 2005 Government
Accountability Office report attributed cost increases in shipbuilding to instability in the entire industry, the difficulty in recruiting and training qualified personnel,
high rates of skilled personnel turnover and the shipbuilders’ dependence on a rapidly shrinking supplier base. Finally there are the consequences if U.S.
seapower continues to decrease and proves unable to meet even the reduced goals it has set for itself. History is a good guide.
Nations in the middle like to side with the winner. During our Civil War British political leadership considered recognizing the Confederacy but
was eventually dissuaded by Union military success. In World War II Sweden declared neutrality but grew increasingly amenable to Allied requests as Germany’s
military position worsened. Romania initially sided with Germany in the same war but changed sides following U.S. attacks on their oil fields and a coup that
deposed the proGerman dictator, Antonescu. Bulgarians followed a similar path from siding with the Nazis to switching their allegiance to the Allies in 1944. Saudi
Prince Bandar, acknowledging China’s increasing international prominence and power visited Beijing last year and met with President Hu. American
weakness at sea, especially in the Indo-Pacific will change the current military, diplomatic, and commercial character of the
region. Whether the U.S. fleet shrinks because of too little funding or because unreformed procurement practices have raised the price of ships or because ships
have been called home to save on operational expense, the result is the same. While we were once present in strength, we would be no more. A nation burdened
with massive debt whose ability to shape world events has been limited in tandem with its capacity to invest in research and technology will have more and more
trouble finding markets. China’s potential
hegemony would not only force its neighbors’ to reconsider whether the U.S. is a reliable ally.
It would also become an increasingly powerful magnet for trade in the region—at the expense of U.S. commerce. Unlike the U.S.
whose seapower has protected global sea lanes that other states have used to their benefit China has a different set of values. It views with
suspicion a liberal trading system notwithstanding the benefits received from it. China’s friends include Iran and North Korea . Beijing
is a poor candidate to support the international order that has been the keel of U.S. foreign and security policy for a century.
Waning U.S. seapower is an invitation that China will regard as a complement to its rising military and navy in particular .
It foreshadows a coercive resolution of territorial disputes in the South China Sea, the likelihood of an increased regional arms
race , and the troubling international perception that the U.S. is—or has—abandoned its role as a great power. American
seapower is the strategic keel of our foreign and security policy . Reducing it would be an exercise of history-making
shortsightedness. Restoring it would be an act of statesmanship from which Americans and all who cherish political liberty would benefit for the remainder of
this century. Thank you.
SCS conflict is probable- recent trends heighten escalation
Chellaney 1/14 Which global conflicts will dominate in 2014? Jan 14, 2014, Brahma Chellaney, leading strategic thinker and an
analyst of international geostrategic trends, Professor of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Centre for Policy Research, an
independent think-tank; a member of the Board of Governors of the National Book Trust of India; and a nonresident affiliate with the
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
International Centre for the Study of Radicalization at King's College London. He has been a Fellow at the Norwegian Nobel Institute,
which through the Nobel Committee awards the Nobel Peace Prize annually. He was formerly a member of the Policy Advisory Group
headed by the External Affairs Minister of India, http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/economy/which-global-conflicts-will-dominate2014-_1024277.html
The three potential flashpoints for international conflict in 2014—East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa—are
distinguished by the involvement of autocratic forces in regional troubles. He is one of the top geopolitical and strate-gic affairs
analysts who played a key role in the evolution of India's nuclear doctrine . He was India's first strategic defence reviewer. The world is
becoming more interdependent and not just in trade and capital flows; the interdependencies extend to technological, public health, environmental and climate spheres. Several challenges,
extending from jihadist terrorism to climate change, are intrinsically international in character. But even regional
challenges, such as in the Middle East or East Asia, carry
important global implications . The interdependencies have not reduced conflict in the world. Many regions remain torn by conflict, even as the ongoing
economic and political shifts gradually alter power equations and maritime realities. There is no inter-country war raging currently, but the high number of internal wars—many fuelled by
external players—point to the larger dangers. Three factors will have a bearing on global conflicts in 2014. One is the rise of unconventional threats, which underscores the changing
nature of conflict. Two is the phenomenon of failing states, which continues to trouble international and regional security. This development is a direct consequence of the end of the Cold
War. While the Cold War raged, weak states were propped up by one bloc or the other. After the Soviet Union’s disintegration, the United States got out of that game. That is why
dysfunctional or failing states began to emerge from the 1990s in a significant way. The phenomenon of failing states has contributed to making such nations a threat to regional and
international security either because they are home to transnational pirates (Somalia) or transnational terrorists (the Afghanistan-Pakistan belt), or because of their defiance of global norms
(North Korea) or their internal conflicts (Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya). Compounding this phenomenon is the sanctity attached to existing borders, which has become a powerful norm in
world politics. Yet, paradoxically, this has allowed the emergence of weak states, whose internal wars spill over and create wider regional tensions and insecurities. This norm, however, is
likely to come under challenge in the Afghanistan-Pakistan belt, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, and elsewhere where the dangers of political fragmentation can no longer be dismissed. A
third factor is the growing power of autocrats. In a reflection of the changing balance of financial power, autocracies are increasingly funding democracies, with Western economies
dependent on capital inflows from the cash-laden Chinese and Persian Gulf economies. As a result, the foreign assets of the world’s undemocratic governments are on the rise while those
of the deeply rooted democracies are on the decline. In this light, is it any surprise that the leading financiers of foreign jihadist groups are oil-rich Saudi Arabia and gas-exporting Qatar,
two of the most oppressive states in the world? In fact, the three potential flashpoints for international conflict in 2014—East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa
(Mena)—are distinguished by the involvement of autocratic forces in regional troubles. Take East Asia: The
new geopolitical crisis there has been triggered by
China’s muscular move in declaring an Air Defence Identification Zone (Adiz) extending to territories it does not control. This is
just the latest example of China’s territorial creep in Asia. As China accumulates economic and military power, it has increasingly taken
to flexing its muscles, ratcheting up territorial disputes with multiple neighbours and seeking to alter the status quo through surprise actions. It is
nibbling at territories held by several neighbours, as highlighted by its growing military incursions across the long and disputed Himalayan border with India, its
success in outwitting the Philippines to gain effective control of the Scarborough Shoal and the Second Thomas Shoal, and its aggressive moves against Vietnam over their unsettled
maritime boundary. China’s
Adiz, while aimed at solidifying its claims to territories held by Japan and South Korea, increases regional
tensions and the risks of Sino-Japanese conflict . Japan has asked its carriers to ignore China’s demand for advance notification of
flights transiting the new zone, while South Korea has responded by expanding its own air-defence zone. The overlapping air-defence zones of China,
Japan, and South Korea increase the risk of armed conflict by accident or miscalculation. China—in the absence of any geopolitical blowback over its
creeping aggression—will continue to subvert the status quo in the East and South China seas, along its border with India, and even on the cross-border
flows of Asia’s major rivers, which originate in the Chinese-annexed Tibetan plateau. But as China escalates its campaign of attrition against a resolute Japan
over the Japanese-controlled Senkaku Islands, it increases the chance of armed conflict .
That escalates
Bonnie S. Glaser 12 is a senior fellow with the Freeman Chair in China Studies and a senior associate with the Pacific Forum, Center
for Strategic and International Studies. “Armed Clash in the South China Sea,” CFR, April, http://www.cfr.org/east-asia/armed-clashsouth-china-sea/p27883, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
The risk of conflict in the South China Sea is significant. China , Taiwan , Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, and the Philippines have
competing territorial and jurisdictional claims , particularly over rights to exploit the region's possibly extensive reserves of oil and
gas . Freedom of navigation in the region is also a contentious issue, especially between the United States and China over the right of U.S. military vessels to
operate in China's two-hundred-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). These tensions are shaping—and being shaped by—rising apprehensions about
the growth of China's military power and its regional intentions. China has embarked on a substantial modernization of its maritime
paramilitary forces as well as naval capabilities to enforce its sovereignty and jurisdiction claims by force if necessary. At the same time, it is developing
capabilities that would put U.S. forces in the region at risk in a conflict, thus potentially denying access to the U.S. Navy in the western Pacific.
Given the growing importance of the U.S.-China relationship, and the Asia-Pacific region more generally, to the global economy, the United States has a major
interest in preventing any one of the various disputes in the South China Sea from escalating militarily. Of the many conceivable contingencies involving an armed
clash in the South China Sea, three especially threaten U.S. interests and could potentially prompt the United States to use force. The most likely and dangerous
contingency is a clash stemming from U.S. military operations within China's EEZ that provokes an armed Chinese response. The United States holds that nothing
in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) or state practice negates the right of military forces of all nations to conduct military activities
in EEZs without coastal state notice or consent. China insists that reconnaissance activities undertaken without prior notification and without permission of the
coastal state violate Chinese domestic law and international law. China routinely intercepts U.S. reconnaissance flights conducted in its EEZ and periodically does
so in aggressive ways that increase the risk of an accident similar to the April 2001 collision of a U.S. EP-3 reconnaissance plane and a Chinese F-8 fighter jet near
Hainan Island. A comparable maritime incident could be triggered by Chinese vessels harassing a U.S. Navy surveillance ship operating in its EEZ, such as
occurred in the 2009 incidents involving the USNS Impeccable and the USNS Victorious. The large growth of Chinese submarines has also increased the danger of
an incident, such as when a Chinese submarine collided with a U.S. destroyer's towed sonar array in June 2009. Since neither U.S. reconnaissance aircraft nor
A
miscalculation or misunderstanding could then result in a deadly exchange of fire, leading to further military escalation and
ocean surveillance vessels are armed, the United States might respond to dangerous behavior by Chinese planes or ships by dispatching armed escorts.
precipitating a major political crisis. Rising U.S.-China mistrust and intensifying bilateral strategic competition would likely make managing such a crisis more
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Strategic warning signals that indicate heightened risk of conflict include political decisions and statements by senior
officials, official and unofficial media reports, and logistical changes and equipment modifications. In the contingencies described
difficult.
above, strategic warning indicators could include heightened rhetoric from all or some disputants regarding their territorial and strategic interests. For example,
China may explicitly refer to the South China Sea as a core interest; in 2010 Beijing hinted this was the case but subsequently backed away from the
assertion. Beijing might also warn that it cannot "stand idly by" as countries nibble away at Chinese territory, a formulation that in the
past has often signaled
willingness to use force . Commentaries and editorials in authoritative media outlets expressing China's bottom line and
issuing ultimatums could also be a warning indicator. Tough language could also be used by senior People's Liberation Army (PLA)
officers in meetings with their American counterparts. An increase in nationalistic rhetoric in nonauthoritative media and in Chinese blogs,
even if not representing official Chinese policy, would nevertheless signal pressure on the Chinese leadership to defend Chinese interests.
Similar warning indicators should be tracked in Vietnam and the Philippines that might signal a hardening of those countries' positions.
Draws in the US and goes nuclear
John Blaxland 13, Senior Fellow at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, the Australian National University, and Rikki Kersten,
Professor of modern Japanese political history in the School of International, Political and Strategic Studies at the College of Asia and the
Pacific, the Australian National University, 2/13/13, “Escalating territorial tension in East Asia echoes Europe’s descent into world war,”
http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/02/13/escalating-territorial-tension-in-east-asia-echoes-europes-descent-into-world-war/
The recent activation of Chinese weapons radars aimed at Japanese military platforms around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands is the latest
in a series of incidents in which China has asserted its power and authority at the expense of its neighbours. The radars cue supersonic missile systems and
give those on the receiving end only a split second to respond . With Japanese law empowering local military commanders with
increased discretion to respond (thanks to North Korea’s earlier provocations), such incidents could easily escalate . In an era of well-established UNrelated adjudication bodies like the International Court of Justice (ICJ), how has it come to this? These incidents disconcertingly echo past events. In the early
years of the 20th century, most pundits considered a major war between the great powers a remote possibility . Several incidents prior
to 1914 were handled locally or successfully defused by diplomats from countries with alliances that appeared to guarantee the peace. After all, never before had
the world been so interconnected — thanks to advanced communications technology and burgeoning trade. But alliance ties and perceived national
interests meant that once a major war was triggered there was little hope of avoiding the conflict . Germany’s dissatisfaction with the
constraints under which it operated arguably was a principal cause of war in 1914. Similarly, Japan’s dissatisfaction helped trigger massive conflict a generation
later. A century on, many of the same observations can be made in East Asia. China’s rise is coupled with a disturbing surge in jingoism across East
and Southeast Asia. China resents the territorial resolution of World War II, in which the United States handed responsibility for the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands to
Japan while large chunks of the South China Sea were claimed and occupied by countries that emerged in Southeast Asia’s post-colonial order. Oil and gas
reserves are attractive reasons for China to assert itself, but challenging the US place in East Asian waters is the main objective. China resents American ‘rebalancing ‘as an attempt at ‘containment’, even though US dependence on Chinese trade and finance makes that notion implausible. China is pushing the
boundaries of the accepted post-Second World War order championed by the United States and embodied by the UN. China’s rapid rise and long-held grievances
mean its powerbrokers are reluctant to use institutions like the ICJ. But China’s assertiveness is driving regional states closer into the arms of the
U nited S tates. Intimidation and assertive maritime acts have been carried out, ostensibly by elements not linked to China’s armed forces. China’s
white-painted Chinese Maritime Services and Fisheries Law Enforcement Command vessels operating in the South China Sea and around the Senkaku/Diaoyu
islands have evoked strong reactions. But Japan’s recent allegation that China used active radars is a significant escalation. Assuming it happened, this
could trigger a stronger reaction from Japan. China looks increasingly as if it is not prepared to abide by UN-related
conventions. International law has been established mostly by powers China sees as having exploited it during its ‘century of humiliation’. Yet arguably, it is in
the defence of these international institutions that the peaceful rise of China is most likely to be assured. China’s refusal to submit to such mechanisms as the
ICJ increases the prospect of conflict. For the moment, Japan’s conservative prime minister will need to exercise great skill and
restraint in managing domestic fear and resentment over China’s assertiveness and the military’s hair-trigger defence powers. A near-term escalation
cannot be ruled out . After all, Japan recognises that China is not yet ready to inflict a major military defeat on Japan without resorting
to nuclear weapons and without triggering a damaging response from the United States . And Japan does not want to enter into such a
latest move
conflict without strong US support, at least akin to the discreet support given to Britain in the Falklands War in 1982. Consequently, Japan may see an escalation
sooner rather than later as being in its interests, particularly if China appears the aggressor. China’s domestic environment has nurtured jingoism. The
Chinese state has built up the public’s appetite for vengeance against Japan by manipulating films and history textbooks. On the other hand, Chinese authorities
recognise that the peaceful rise advocated by Deng Xiaoping is not yet complete (militarily at least). In the meantime it
is prudent to exercise some
restraint to avoid an overwhelming and catastrophic response . If the 1914–18 war taught us anything, it is that the outcome of wars is
rarely as proponents conceived at the outset.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
UQ: Economy = Brink
US economy is declining
Larry Elliot 6/16, Economics Editor @ The Guardian, “US economy still struggling to recover,”
http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/jun/16/us-economy-struggling-recover, DOA: 6-18-14, y2k
Christine Lagarde, the French managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), is downbeat about the United States – and with
good reason. The problems of the eurozone have overshadowed America's difficulties, but the fact is that the world's biggest economy is still
struggling to recover from the downturn of 2008-09. Explaining the lack of vim is simple. The US entered the recession with a number of
structural weaknesses, and these have been aggravated rather than ameliorated by a long period of sub-par growth, according to the annual
health check by the fund. There was much comment earlier this month when the employment data showed that the number of people with jobs was back to prerecession levels. In truth, this was no great achievement since the population is steadily rising. The labour participation rate, which was on a declining trend
even before the financial crisis, is more than three percentage points lower than it was a decade ago. A shortage of jobs creates two further
problems. The slack in the labour market means it is hard for workers to secure pay rises. But the lack of a European-style welfare
state means that those without work fall into poverty. The official poverty measure shows the number living below the breadline has
increased by 50% to more than 45 million since the turn of the millennium. The IMF thinks the number in poverty could be closer to 50 million – around
America's trend rate of growth has fallen to 2%, this figure is likely to climb rather than
weak recovery by American standards is made all the more disappointing by the unprecedented amount of stimulus
provided by the Federal Reserve – through quantitative easing and low interest rates– and the boost provided by plentiful new supplies of cheap energy.
one in six of the population. With the fund estimating that
fall. This
Economy is shrinking
ToT 6/17 Trade Only Today, “IMF sees weakened growth for U.S. economy,” http://www.tradeonlytoday.com/2014/06/imf-seesweakened-growth-u-s-economy/ DOA: 6-18-14, y2k
The International Monetary Fund reduced its growth forecast for the United States, saying the economy won’t reach full employment
until 2017. Because of a weak first quarter, the IMF cut its 2014 forecast to 2 percent from the 2.8 percent it predicted in April, Reuters
reported on Monday. The IMF kept its 2015 forecast unchanged at 3 percent as job creation picks up after a harsh winter. “ Recent data … suggest a
meaningful rebound in activity is now under way and growth for the remainder of this year and 2015 should well exceed
potential,” the IMF said. Yet the country’s potential growth should only be about 2 percent going forward, below historical averages,
as the population ages and productivity growth slows, it added. The IMF said its forecasts show the economy will only return to full employment by
the end of 2017, with inflation remaining low. Separately, Brendan Nyhan, a Dartmouth College professor writing in the New York Times, said research shows that
consumers can be discouraged from spending by news stories that report the economy is slightly declining as opposed to slightly growing. He referred to research
by two political scientists who found that “consumer confidence and private consumption declined substantially in countries that
narrowly experienced two consecutive quarters of negative growth, relative to countries that just missed meeting the definition,”
Nyhan said. “These effects appear to be driven by media reporting portraying the country as being in recession, which causes consumers to downgrade their
estimates of the state of the economy and adjust their spending accordingly.” Real U.S. gross domestic product shrank by 1 percent during the first quarter after
an initial government estimate that the economy grew by 0.1 percent. “The key difference is the direction of change,” Nyhan said. “ A
far more
scary — and newsworthy — than a slow-growing one.”
shrinking economy is
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: OCS K2 Economy
OCS development leads to significant economic gains
Shafer & Gross 13 Sean Shafer is Manger of Consulting and Matt Gross is Consulting Market Analyst @ Quest Offshore, “The
Economic Benefits of Increasing U.S. Access to Offshore Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Atlantic,” December 2013,
http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Exploration/Offshore/Atlantic-OCS/Executive-Summary-Economic-Benefits-ofIncreasing-US-Access-to-Atlantic-Offshore-Resources.pdf, DOA: 6-18-14, y2k
Atlantic OCS oil and natural gas development is expected to lead to significant employment gains , both along the east coast and nationally.
Employment impacts are expected to grow throughout the forecast period, with total incremental U.S. employment reaching nearly 280
thousand jobs by 2035.4 Total Atlantic coast employment in 2035 is projected to reach over 215 thousand jobs with employment spread across the region. States
outside the region are projected to see employment gains of nearly 65 thousand jobs in 2035. The largest employment impact of Atlantic OCS oil and natural gas
activity is projected in the Mid-Atlantic states of North and South Carolina and Virginia. North Atlantic states such as Massachusetts, Maine, and New York are all
also projected to see employment increases of at least 10 thousand jobs by 2035. The share of incremental employment within the Atlantic coast region is
anticipated to steadily grow as the proportion of goods and services that are supplied locally increases. (Figure 3) The resulting impact of Atlantic OCS
development upon the economy will be widespread among industries. Industries which are directly involved in oil and natural gas
activities such as the mining sector (which includes oil and gas development), manufacturing, professional, scientific, and technical services (engineering), and
construction (installation) are expected to see the largest employment effects with a combined 125 thousand jobs in 2035. Of that total, employment
in the oil and gas sector is projected to be 45 thousand jobs. By 2035, the manufacturing sector which includes businesses that manufacture and fabricate oil and
gas equipment, platforms and otherwise produce the goods required to develop oil and natural gas fields is projected at around 30 thousand jobs, of which over 20
thousand of these jobs are expected in the Atlantic coast states. The professional, scientific, and technical service sector, which includes engineering employment,
is expected to see employment in excess of 32 thousand additional jobs. Employment in the construction sector which includes offshore installation employment is
projected to be around 19 thousand jobs in 2035. Page 9 Executive Summary Sectors not directly related to oil and gas development or the supply chain will also
see impacts, mainly due to a general increase of income in the economy. Retail sector employment is projected to increase by over 20 thousand jobs in 2035 due to
Atlantic OCS development. Health care and social assistance could increase by nearly 19 thousand jobs, administrative and waste management services by over 18
thousand jobs, food services and drinking places by over 13 thousand jobs, and finance and insurance, and real estate, rental, and leasing are both projected to see
the creation of over 11 thousand jobs in each sector by 2035. Contributions to the Economy and Government Revenues Spending by the oil and gas
industry, as well as the impact of increased revenues to state governments is expected to lead to a significant increase of the
nation’s GDP . Total contributions to the economy are projected to be nearly $23.5 billion per year in 2035 , with roughly 75 percent of
the total expected impact to occur in Atlantic coast states and 25 percent in the rest of the U.S. The largest contributions to states’ economies are expected to be
seen in the Mid-Atlantic states of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia as well as North Atlantic states such as Massachusetts, New York and Maine.
(Figure 4) Atlantic OCS oil and natural gas development has the potential to significantly increase government revenue from royalties,
bonus bids, and rents on leases, a cumulative $51 billion from 2017 to 2035. Total government revenues are projected to reach over $12 billion
dollars per year in 2035 and are projected to grow beyond the forecast. The majority of cumulative revenues are from royalties on produced oil and natural gas at
$40 billion, leasing bonus bids are projected to account for around $9 billion, while rental income from offshore blocks is expected to account for a cumulative
amount of $2 billion. This report assumes that associated government revenue is split 37.5 percent to the coastal states and 62.5 percent to the Federal government.
This is similar to the arrangement in the Gulf of Mexico without an associated cap on state government revenue. Actual revenue proportion going to state
governments, if any, would be determined by future legislation. Combined state revenues for the Atlantic coast states would reach approximately $4.5 billion per
year by 2035, given that assumption. (Figure 5)
Creates instant economic benefits
Hastings 11 Doc, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, "Forget 10 Years--Drilling ANWR Would Pay Off Right
Away", November 3, www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-it-time-to-drill-in-the-arctic-refuge/forget-10-years--drilling-anwr-would-pay-offright-away
Critics argue that we shouldn't drill in ANWR because it will take 10 years for the oil produced to become available. This fuzzy
logic has been used for the last 20 years by those who simultaneously argue that renewable energies like wind and solar need
decades to mature, along with billions in government subsidies. This inconsistent comparison is illogical and fails to provide equity in
America's need for an all-of-the-above energy policy. While oil from ANWR might take a couple of years to get online, the job creation and
effect on the economy would be almost instantaneous, as infrastructure and development activity could start immediately,
sending billions to the federal government and employing thousands of people.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Internal Link: OCS K2 Shipbuilding
OCS development is key to competitive commercial shipyard industry.
SCA 12—Shipbuilder Council of America, “Commercial Shipbuilding,” https://shipbuilders.org/jones-act-and-commercialshipbuilding, Accessed date: 12-1-12 y2k
The U S has a long tradition of producing some of the most modern and sophisticated vessels
U.S. shipyards
deliver a
wide variety of commercial vessels including
gas development support vessels
The U.S. commercial shipyard industry
is essential to maintaining the government shipbuilding and ship repair industrial
base
nited
tates
in the world. Today,
of all sizes
patrol boats, tugs, barges of all sizes, ferries, ocean going container and roll-on/roll-off (RORO) vessels, tankers, and oil and
others.
among many
, as well as its supplier base,
. In an effort to ensure robust and competitive U.S. commercial shipyard industry, SCA focuses advocacy on the following core issues: THE JONES ACT SCA strongly supports the Jones Act, the U.S. law that ensures a U.S. Merchant Marine and shipyard industrial base. The Jones Act is vital to America’s economic, national and
homeland security. Additionally, SCA strongly supports consistent enforcement of the Jones Act, which is critical to the stability of new vessel construction markets. The Jones Act requires that all vessels operating between United States ports must be owned by American citizens, built in United States Shipyards and operated by United States
citizen merchant mariners. The construction and operation of vessels for the domestic trades generates hundreds of thousands of employment opportunities for American workers and billions of dollars in economic output. Equally important, the Jones Act provides significant homela nd and national security benefits to the United States though
the operation of U.S.-built, owned and crewed vessels. It maintains and supports a critical domestic shipyard mobilization base, including ship construction and repair industries, and guarantees that American vessels and their U.S. citizen crews will be available to support the United States defense requirements, whenever and wherever needed.
For these reasons, all recent Presidents from both political parties, and the Navy have strongly and consistently supported the Jones Act. THE SMALL SHIPYARD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SSAP) SCA strongly supports the Small Shipyard Assistance Program, which is a competitive grant program that funds projects related to infrastructure
imporvements and modernizing equipment to increase the efficiency, competitive operations, and quality construction of vessels in U.S. shipyards. Additionally, the program supports important workforce development issues. Over the past five years, SSAP has created and retained thousands of American jobs. SCA was instrumental in securing
approximately $160 million in SSAP funding between 2007 and 2012. TITLE XI PROGRAM The Title XI program provides loan guarant ees for construction and reconstruction of agin U.S. merchant vessels in U.S. shipyards and for certain capital improvements to U.S. shipyards. Substantial and consistent funding is necessary so that
operators and shipyards can engage in projects with confidence. This confidence is crucial for creating and maintaining jobs within the maritime sector. The Title XI program has strong return for the government, as each Title XI dollar can leverage up to 20 dollars of private investment. Supporting a well-funded Title XI Program stimulates the
economy, creates American maritime jobs, and grows the domestic fleet. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARITIME SECURITY PROGRAM MAINTENANCE & REPAIR LANGUAGE Reauthorizing the Maritime Security Program (MSP) Mandatory U.S. Maintenance and Repair Program will ensure the mandatory maintenance and
repair of a limited amount of MSP vessels to be performed in U.S. shipyards. In addition to making the maintenance and repair program mandatory, the program covers 100% of the cost differential for MSP ships performing work in U.S. shipyards compared to the cost of the same work performed in subsidized foreign yards. CAPITAL
CONSTRUCTION FUND SCA supports the expansion of the Capital Construction Fund (CCF) for maintenance and repair. Enabling U.S.-flag vessel oweners and operators to establish CCF funds for maintenance and repair of any U.S.-flag vessel in U.S. shipyards will help sustain the shipyard infrastructure at little or no cost to the nation's
U.S. shipyards
have innovated for the offshore natural gas industry competitively delivering the most state of the art support vessels in the
world SCA continues to advocate for the development of
offshore energy resources.
taxpayers. A modest expansion of the CCF program will help U.S. shipyards compete on a more level playing field against subsidized foreign shipyards and will reslut in additional job creation at America's ship repair yards. OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT Over the past 40 years,
oil and
America’s
.
Offshore development helps shipbuilding industries---oil independence.
Virginia Energy Forum 12—“Virginia Oil & Natural Gas,” http://www.vaenergyforum.com/topics/-virginia-oil-and-natural-gas,
Accessed date: 12-1-12 y2k
The natural gas industry employs 143,000 in the state and adds $12 billion to the state’s gross product
The
industry is important to places such as
Norfolk, which houses a large military population and a shipbuilding industry
dependent on
oil Development of the natural gas resources off the coastline would result in more well-paying jobs, add
investments to the state, and
millions in state revenue
we must start now to develop
these rich offshore resources by removing barriers such as the current offshore moratorium
oil and
, more than 3 percent of Virginia’s overall wealth.
today
also
Hampton Roads and
energy and
.
oil and
potentially
. It would also help reduce our dependence on oil from nations who do not share our values or our interests. But
on development and create the jobs, revenues and energy security that Virginia and our nation so desperately
need.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power
Strong shipbuilding industry bolsters naval power projection---certainty is key.
Colonel Ronald P. Alberto 5 is Lieutenant in US Army, Colonel Michael G. Archuleta, U.S. Air Force, Lieutenant Colonel Steven H.
Bills, U.S. Air Force, Commander William A. Bransom, U.S. Navy, Mr. Kenneth Cohen, Department of State, Commander William A.
Ebbs, U.S. Navy, George Manjgaladze, Ministry of Defense, Republic of Georgia, Commander Elizabeth B. Myhre, U.S. Navy, Audrea
M. Nelson, DA, Robert L. Riddick, Department of Defense, Colonel Christopher M. Ross, U.S. Army, Julia N. Ruhnke, DA, Lieutenant
Colonel Gregory M. Ryan, U.S. Marine Corps, Colonel David D. Thompson, U.S. Air Force, Commander Hugh D. Wetherald, U.S.
Navy, Dr. Mark Montroll, faculty at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, Dr. Michael Farbman, USAID, faculty at the Industrial
College of the Armed Forces, Captain David B. Hill, U.S. Coast Guard, faculty at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces,
"SHIPBUILDING", The Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/programs/academic/industry/reports/2005/pdf/icaf-is-report-shipbuilding-2005.pdf, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
our study found that the tremendous advantage the US enjoys in naval power directly supports national security through global
power projection and maintaining freedom of the seas ability to build large, highly capable naval ships is a vital part
and is
inexorably linked to national security The US must maintain it lead in naval power by protecting its domestic shipbuilding
industry
the number one issue facing the
shipbuilder is the uncertainty in future orders for ship construction The
fluctuation in the projected order book adds uncertainty
The concept
of Seabasing must mature at least to the point where the major yards can invest in the infrastructure necessary to build the force
In conclusion,
our
. Our
therefore
our
.
. It is our conclusion that
year
of our naval superiority
American military
naval
today
.
year to
for the shipbuilder wanting to invest in capital and labor improvement, and adds cost to the vessels actually being delivered. This fluctuation is exacerbated when the US Navy cancels entire ship
classes or severely limits procurement of vessels that have been programs of record, programs which the shipbuilders have used to make labor and capital investment decisions. We feel it is imperative for the Navy to identify the force of the future and commit to a stable procur ement plan to implement that force.
. In this area, we also
conclude that the requirement for full funding of naval vessels in the year of authorization hampers the ability of the Navy and the industry to maintain a steady shipbuilding plan. It is apparent to us that the US Navy shipbuilding program is often used as a “bill payer” for other DoD priorities. In addition to the reality that the money is not
obligated in the year of funding, the temptation to use the US Navy shipbuilding account to pay current year expenses is greater if significant procurement dollars are available to pay the full cost of individual ships
Shipbuilding sustains a capable military force structure.
Michael G. Mullen 6 is a retired United States Navy admiral, who served as the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from
October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2011. “STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL MICHAEL G. MULLEN CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
BEFORE THE HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE,” 01 MARCH 2006,
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/mullen/testimony/mullen060301-posture.pdf, Accessed date: 12-1-12 y2k
A stable shipbuilding industry is essential to sustain optimum employment levels and retain critical skills to meet our requirements
for an affordable and capable force structure We must align the industrial base for long-term force development
We must have a robust enough industrial base to withstand natural disaster or catastrophic attack We must build ships more
efficiently
.
savings.
through advanced procurement and incentivized cost
.
, cost effectively, and quickly. To do this, we are committed to help provide stability in the shipbuilding plan and rigorously control requirements. Costs and production schedules must be kept within contractual limits. Industry must be viewed as a trusted partner while we provide a stable baseline upon which to plan.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power (China EXT)
Chinese naval dominance inevitable---strong US naval force key.
Dean Cheng 11 is Research Fellow in Chinese Political and Security Affairs in the Asian Studies Center at The Heritage Foundation.
“Sea Power and the Chinese State: China’s Maritime Ambitions,” July 11, 2011, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/seapower-and-the-chinese-state-chinas-maritime-ambitions, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
It is essential to recognize that
position
China will be a maritime power Given the importance of the oceans to sustaining China’s
development and its
the Chinese leadership undoubtedly views the seas as essential to survival and to
hold on power
world’s
.
economic
as the world’s second-largest economy,
both
national
their own
. Opposing Chinese
development in this regard would be futile and antagonistic. Therefore, the United States should accept China as a major sea power with significant maritime interests. In some cases, such as the anti-piracy efforts off Somalia or enforcement of fishing limits, those interests may even converge and offer opportunities for Sino–American
cooperation.
Recognizing Chinese interests
, however,
is not the same as acceding to Chinese demands
; there are many areas in which acquiescence to Chinese maritime policy would run contrary to America’s interests. For
instance, American and Chinese interests rapidly diverge over what China calls its “near seas.” China wants to dominate the waters within the first island chain, which it views as its own territory. It therefore seeks to coerce other states into limiting or abandoning their own claims (e.g., Vietnam and the Philippines) and activities (e.g., interfering
with U.S. air and naval operations in what China claims as its exclusive economic zone [EEZ]). In particular, Beijing has employed idiosyncratic interpretations of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea to argue that U.S. naval vessels and auxiliaries should restrict their operations when operating in China’s EEZ. It is not in America’s
national interest to surrender to such tactics. Any congressional consideration of the Law of the Sea Treaty should include a thorough discussion of these Chinese interpretations as well as efforts by China to employ legal warfare, or “lawfare,” to achieve through international law what it cannot achieve through overt pressure. In this regard, even
the U S must protect its maritime interests
America must sustain a strong set
of maritime forces The U S Navy and Marine Corps are the ultimate guarantors of maritime interests around the world
the U.S. must maintain robust and substantial naval forces in the
Asia–Pacific region
to be able to dissuade and deter
opponents
that reductions in the size of the
U.S. Navy
will have a disproportionate effect not only on actual abilities to operate in the region, but on
perceptions of American commitment and credibility .
as it recognizes China’s maritime interests,
nited
.
tates
also
nited
own
. Such protection will require action in several different areas of U.S. defense policy. First,
tates
U.S.
. Unlike the PLAN, U.S. naval
forces must operate far from their own shores, which increases wear and tear on ships while extending transit time from home ports to patr ol areas. Consequently,
, as well as the Indian Ocean, if it is
potential
and support national interests. This, in turn, means
and Marine Corps and their operational tempo
also
Far from reducing Navy and Marine resources, it may be that additional resources are necessary. The U.S. cannot afford to see its navy shrink further. At the same time, training must be strengthened
and, in some cases, revived. When the Cold War ended, certain missions—including anti-shipping strikes and open-ocean anti-submarine warfare—were seen as no longer important; certain capabilities, such as the ability to launch anti-ship cruise missiles from submarines, were also abandoned.[26] Those missions and capabilities are likely to
become important once again as the Chinese navy presents the first blue-water challenge since the late 1980s. Regaining proficiency will require not just shifts in priorities, but also increases in funds for training and for operations and maintenance. The rise of the Chinese navy also means that the U.S. Navy must reinvigorate its research and
development efforts. Currently, there are no new surface or subsurface combatants in the design phase—an unprecedented situation that could result in the Navy’s having to respond to a Chinese challenge with outdated combatants or, even worse, face a PLAN that has more advanced capabilities. To avoid such a scenario, Congress should
require the development of a comprehensive naval research and development plan that exploits advances in such technologies as unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned submersibles, and space systems.[27] The U.S. military operates jointly, so careful attention must also be paid to Air Force and Army operations throughout the Asia–Pacific
region. Given that both Chinese naval air capabilities and PLA Air Force systems are being modernized—including the proliferation of advanced SAM systems such as the S-400 and HQ-9—the U.S. Pacific Air Force cannot afford to fall behind in its own modernization program. Low observable aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs)
are especially important, as are electronic warfare capabilities. It is essential that the U.S. Air Force sustain funding for the F-35, especially in light of the shortsighted decision to end the F-22 program. Meanwhile, Congress should consider acquiring additional E/A-18 Growler electronic warfare aircraft and advanced UAV systems to facilitate
air operations within the Chinese air defense envelope. Similarly, special operations forces and space forces can play a role in effecting deterrence and presence. The United States should also seek to expand its already robust interactions in these areas with allied and selected other Asian militaries. All of these elements should be employed not
Unlike China, the U.S. has no outstanding territorial
disputes with regional states
the U.S. provides maritime security for sea lanes globally, which benefits local states
as much as the U.S. itself
the U S
can leverage its role in the region
Active participation
underscores American leadership and presence It strengthens America’s ties
A withdrawal of U.S. naval forces
would be seen
as a de facto concession of the western Pacific to Chinese dominance
only to maintain, but also to strengthen the network of American alliances and relationships throughout the western Pacific and Indian Ocean—a region where the United States is more welcome than the PRC.
—including, whether the PRC acknowledges it or
. Similarly,
. Asian states therefore look to the U.S. as a provider of key “public goods” as well as an essential balancing element against burgeoning Chinese power. By supporting regional states that are seeking to ensure their own sovereignty and rights,
not, China—
nited
tates
. For example, at last year’s ASEAN regional forum meeting in Hanoi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s offer to help mediate the South China Sea disputes was a useful way to assert an American diplomatic presence that is consistent with a constructive
and peaceful U.S. military presence.
in regional meetings and conferences
Specifically, free trade agreements with East Asian states and with ASEAN as a whole, as well as the Trans-Pacific Partnership program, would reinforce U.S. economic links across the Pacific.
likely
not as a cost-cutting measure or way to mitigate conflict, but
be a factor in any discussion of altering the U.S. basing structure on Okinawa.
.
also
to the region.
from the western Pacific to Guam, by contrast,
. The importance of maintaining regional presence should
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power (Piracy !)
Naval power is key to checking every global chokepoints and piracy---solves power projection and security
alliances---impact is global war.
Dr. Daniel Goure 11 is the Vice President of the Lexington Institute, a thinktank based in Arlington, Virginia, and an analyst on
national security and military issues for NBC. “THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE JONES ACT TO U.S. SECURITY,”
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/Contribution_of_the_Jones_Act.pdf, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
As the world’s largest economy and foremost military power the U S has a singular
interest in the maritime domain
Half of the
oil and natural gas produced
is transported by sea
Much of this vital flow must transit narrow chokepoints such as
the Straits of Hormuz, Straits of Malacca and the Suez Canal.
American economic and security interests are by no means limited to close-in waters or to its rivers and inland waterways.
,
nited
tates
-- that combination of oceans, seas, bays, estuaries, islands, coastal areas, littorals, and the airspace above them that carries more than 90 percent of the world’s trade and near which some 60 percent of the world’s population lives. 2
annually
all
or through pipelines that travel under water.
The United States maintains an extensive network of allies, partner nations and military installations around the world that can only be accessed by air or water. So important has
the use of the world’s oceans been that it has given rise to a specific corpus of customs law and international treaties that seek to secure and protect access to this domain. Central to international law as applied to the oceans is the concept of freedom on the seas. The heart of this concept is the right of free and unimpeded travel and use of the
oceans, to include the right of free passage through and overflight of international waters. Beginning first with a corpus of maritime law and practice, the international community developed a concept of the global commons. The global commons includes those domains beyond national borders that are not the territory of individual states but are
The U S has been centrally responsible for creating and maintaining the
global commons
stability of the global commons have been protected and sustained by U.S.
military dominance and
leadership The U.S. Navy
dissuaded naval aggression and fought piracy
ensuring
unprecedented freedom of the seas.”
The ability
of the U.S. military to operate in, from and through the global commons will be of increasing importance in the decades to come
The seas and oceans provide a sovereign base for military operations.
ability to
project power from the seas is vital to U.S. national security Sea lines of communications
will be the most critical means of
providing for the resupply of U.S. forward deployed forces and sustainment of allies overseas The crucial enabler
has been
complete control over the global commons,
U.S.
adversaries recognize the advantage conferred on the United States by its military preeminence on the seas and are working
assiduously to deny it access to that domain
without dominant U.S. capabilities to project power, the integrity of
U.S. alliances and security partnerships could be called into question, reducing U.S. security and influence and increasing
conflict.”
reserved for the use of all mankind. Included under the umbrella of the global commons are the world’s oceans, seabeds, outer space and cyber space.
nited
tates
. “Since the end of World War II, and especially since the end of the Cold War, the openness and
political
.
and Coast Guard have
around the world,
3 The significance of the global commons has increased as a globalized economic order has emerged. Consequently, it is increasingly important that the global commons be rendered secure against a wide range of threats.
. This is particularly the
case with respect to the oceans.
As demonstrated in recent military operations from Iraq and Afghanistan to Libya and Somalia, the
.
(SLOCs)
for America’s ability to project its military power for
.
the past six decades
particularly the world’s oceans. The ability of U.S. seapower to influence actions and activities at sea and on land has never been greater or more important. In fact,
its almost
. As the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review observed, “
the possibility of
Piracy causes extinction.
The Independent 99 (July 4th, “Pirates could snatch plutonium”, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/pirates-could-snatchplutonium-1104109.html)
BRITAIN is about to ship enough plutonium for more than 60 atomic bombs half way around the world in freighters vulnerable to
armed attack from "nuclear pirates". Military experts say there is a real possibility that the vessels could be targeted by
terrorist groups or rogue states intent on acquiring nuclear weapons.
the ships are inadequate to fend off a well
orchestrated attack by pirates with superior weapons
The shipment, which will take place in the next few months, is planned as the first of many
The prospect of such
shipments has long worried security experts
They say the guns mounted on
. Janes, the internationally renowned arms and naval authority, agrees. "It would not take much fire-power to knock them out," it said. The ships were "capable of repelling only a lightly
armed attack" and should be protected by "at least one well-armed frigate".
over the next year. The
number will increase sharply if ministers allow a new plutonium plant at Sellafield, the controversial Cumbrian complex, to start up. The plutonium, for power stations, is extracted from spent Japanese fuel which is reprocessed at Sellafield and at Cap la Hague, France.
. Eleven years ago the US defence department said they would be "accessible and vulnerable throughout the voyage, particularly when the vessel is passing through channels, straits, and other restricted waterways, or when
it is near the coast". The last plutonium shipment from Europe to Japan, in 1992, was accompanied by a specially built patrol boat operated by the Japanese Maritime Security Agency. The US, which provided the original nuclear fuel to Japan and, under a special agreement, has to approve security arrangements for shipments of
plutonium extracted from it, has repeatedly promised that all of them would be accompanied by "an armed escort vessel". But it is now clear that the new shipment will not be protected by a warship. Britain, France and Japan all refuse to give details of the route or the security arrangements and will only name the ships, describe
what they are carrying, and say when they are setting out, "only on one or two days before departure from Europe". US government documents show that the two freighters - the Pacific Teal and the Pacific Pintail - will each carry three 30mm guns and will be staffed by officers of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
maritime
hijackings were "becoming more frequent and violent"
"The attacks are generally made at night using
speedboats. This should give those responsible for the security of nuclear cargoes pause for thought."
a terrorist group,
let alone a rogue state, could get the plutonium from the fuel and make it into nuclear weapons.
armed with "assault rifles, shotguns and hand weapons". Paul Leventhal, director of Washington's Nuclear Control Institute, said: "Two freighters riding shotgun for each other will not repel a real-world attack." Dr Fr ank Barnaby, former director of Stockholm Peace Research Institute, said
- there were 66 in the first three months of this year - and added:
Many studies have shown that
The US has approved the scaled-down security because, critics say, it does
not want to antagonise France, Britain and Japan. It says the freighters count as armed escort vessels because the shipments are being carried out "on government service" by British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), a nationalised industry. Critics say security has been lessened partly to save money a nd partly as a public relations exercise
because using a warship escort would demonstrate vividly how dangerous the cargo is. Martin Foreward, campaign co-ordinator of Cumbrians Opposed to a Radioactive Environment, who has been monitoring the arming of the freighters at Barrow-in-Furness, said: "Once again BNFL is taking the cheap option, but
is putting
not just Cumbria but
this
time it
the whole world at risk."
Piracy causes oil spills---devastates marine life for decades
Middleton 8—Roger, consultant reseacher in the Africa Programme at the Chatham House, the Royal Institute of Economic Affairs,
"Piracy in Somalia", October, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/Africa/1008piracysomalia.pdf
Large oil tankers pass through the Gulf of Aden and the danger exists that a pirate attack could cause a major
oil spill in what is a very sensitive and important ecosystem. During the attack on the Takayama the ship’s fuel
tanks were penetrated and oil spilled into the sea. The consequences of a more sustained attack could be much
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
worse. As pirates become bolder and use ever more powerful weaponry a tanker could be set on fire, sunk or forced
ashore, any of which could result in an environmental catastrophe that would devastate marine and
bird life for years to come. The pirates’ aim is to extort ransom payments and to date that has been their main focus; however, the
possibility that they could destroy shipping is very real.
Ocean destruction causes extinction
Craig 3 (Robin, Professor of Law at Indiana, “Taking Steps,” 34 McGeorge Law Review. 155, Lexis)
Biodiversity and ecosystem function arguments for conserving marine ecosystems also exist, just as they do for terrestrial ecosystems, but these arguments have thus far rarely been raised in
political debates. For example, besides significant tourism values - the most economically valuable ecosystem service coral reefs provide, worldwide - coral reefs protect against storms and dampen
other environmental fluctuations, services worth more than ten times the reefs' value for food production. Waste treatment is another significant, non-extractive ecosystem function that intact coral
reef ecosystems provide. More generally, "ocean
ecosystems play a major role in the global geochemical cycling of all the elements that represent the
basic building blocks of living organisms, carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur, as well as other less abundant but
necessary elements." In a very real and direct sense, therefore, human degradation of marine ecosystems impairs the planet's ability to
support life. Maintaining biodiversity is often critical to maintaining the functions of marine ecosystems. Current evidence shows that, in general, an
ecosystem's ability to keep functioning in the face of disturbance is strongly dependent on its biodiversity, "indicating that more diverse
ecosystems are more stable." Coral reef ecosystems are particularly dependent on their biodiversity. Most ecologists agree that the complexity of interactions and degree of
interrelatedness among component species is higher on coral reefs than in any other marine environment. This implies that the ecosystem functioning that produces the most highly valued
maintaining and restoring the
biodiversity of marine ecosystems is critical to maintaining and restoring the ecosystem services that they provide. Non-use biodiversity values for
components is also complex and that many otherwise insignificant species have strong effects on sustaining the rest of the reef system. Thus,
marine ecosystems have been calculated in the wake of marine disasters, like the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Similar calculations could derive preservation values for marine wilderness.
However, economic value, or economic value equivalents, should not be "the sole or even primary justification for conservation of ocean ecosystems. Ethical arguments also have considerable force
and merit." At the forefront of such arguments should be a recognition of how little we know about the sea - and about the actual effect of human activities on marine ecosystems. The United States
has traditionally failed to protect marine ecosystems because it was difficult to detect anthropogenic harm to the oceans, but we now know that such harm is occurring - even though we are not
completely sure about causation or about how to fix every problem. Ecosystems like the NWHI coral reef ecosystem should inspire lawmakers and policymakers to admit that most of the time we
really do not know what we are doing to the sea and hence should be preserving marine wilderness whenever we can - especially when the
United States has within its territory
relatively pristine marine ecosystems that may be unique in the world. We may not know much about the sea, but we do know this much:
if we kill the ocean we kill ourselves, and we will take most of the biosphere with us. The Black Sea is almost dead, its once-complex and productive
ecosystem almost entirely replaced by a monoculture of comb jellies, "starving out fish and dolphins, emptying fishermen's nets, and converting the web of life into brainless, wraith-like blobs of
jelly." More importantly, the Black Sea is not necessarily unique. The Black Sea is a microcosm of what is happening to the ocean systems at large. The stresses piled up: overfishing, oil spills,
industrial discharges, nutrient pollution, wetlands destruction, the introduction of an alien species. The sea weakened, slowly at first, then collapsed with shocking suddenness. The lessons of this
tragedy should not be lost to the rest of us, because much of what happened here is being repeated all over the world. The ecological stresses imposed on the Black Sea were not unique to
Oxygen-starved "dead zones" appear with increasing frequency off the
coasts of major cities and major rivers, forcing marine animals to flee and killing all that cannot. Ethics as well as enlightened self-interest thus
suggest that the United States should protect fully-functioning marine ecosystems wherever possible - even if a few fishers go out of business as a result.
communism. Nor, sadly, was the failure of governments to respond to the emerging crisis.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Impacts: Shipbuilding --- Naval Power (Economy !)
Maritime commerce is a key component of US economy.
Dr. Daniel Goure 11 is the Vice President of the Lexington Institute, a thinktank based in Arlington, Virginia, and an analyst on
national security and military issues for NBC. “THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE JONES ACT TO U.S. SECURITY,”
http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/library/resources/documents/Defense/Contribution_of_the_Jones_Act.pdf, Accessed date: 12-3-12 y2k
The U S
has a unique relationship with water It is a nation founded from the sea by taking advantage of the continent’s many
natural harbors and access to inland waterways
America benefits from the protection offered by two great oceans
America . . . is dependent upon overseas markets to sell exports and maintain access to scarce
commodities and resources It is impossible to overestimate the economic value of sea-based commerce. Seaborne commerce drove
the
economy for two centuries
economy is dependent on the sea to carry
all the physical components of the
international trade generated annually Hundreds of billions is generated by
activity in U.S. waters
Millions of Americans make their livings from the seas and national waterways
nited
tates of America
.
such as the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River. Coastal areas are home to a wealth of natural and economic resources and are the most developed areas in the nation. These areas comprise 17
percent of the contiguous U.S. land area but serve as home to more than half of the nation’s population. As a nation that extends “from sea to shining sea,”
as well as the
opportunities to be the bridge between Asia and Europe. As the 2010 National Security Strategy observed, “
its
.”
American
; even today that
.
cargo movement and tourism.
virtually
more
$3.5 trillion in U.S.
economic
including mineral extraction (notably oil), fishing, inland and coastal
.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** Solvency
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Plan Text
PLAN: The United States federal government should substantially increase its development of federal lands
in the Outer Continental Shelf by reducing restrictions on conventional natural gas and crude oil extraction.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
No Access
OCS drilling restrictions now—prevents natural gas production.
IFR No Date—Institute for Energy Research, “The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS),”
http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/issues/ocs/, Accessed date: 11-6-12 y2k
What is the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)? The O uter C ontinental S helf (OCS) is the submerged area between a continent and the deep ocean .
America’s OCS encompasses 1.76 billion acres of submerged, taxpayer-owned lands. In 1953, Congress designated the Secretary of the Interior to administer mineral
exploration and development of the entire OCS through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The OCSLA was amended in 1978 directing the secretary to
develop oil and gas in a timely manner to help meet the energy needs of the nation. How Much Energy Does the OCS Contain? The
M inerals M anagement S ervice
that the o uter continental shelf contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. These estimates
are likely to be very conservative , as bans on offshore leasing have made it illegal to explore. Offshore Energy Bans American oil and gas
leasing has been prohibited on most of the OCS since the 1982. Today, 97 percent of America’s offshore OCS lands are not leased for energy
exploration or production . The U.S. is now the only developed nation in the World that restricts access to its offshore energy resources. There
(MMS) estimates
were two federal bans that kept the U.S. from producing its vast offshore energy resources: an executive ban and a legislative ban. On July 14, 2008 President George W.
Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore drilling, and the Congressional ban was allowed to expire on September 30, 2008, the end of the federal FY2008 fiscal year. Prior
to this year, the Congressional Moratorium had been renewed every year since 1981. The Executive Moratorium was instituted by the President in 1990. Ending the
moratorium will allow energy exploration and production to move forward, but there are many activities that need to occur for actual production to take
place.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Congress Key
Congressional action is key
Hagerty 2011 [Curry L. Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy “Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas
Development” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41132.pdf
Legislative Authority Congress sets policy for OCS activity and determines legislative incentives and restrictions for OCS development.
Congress enacted OCS moratoria provisions annually between 1982 and 2008 in Department of the Interior appropriations acts. Outside
of the annual appropriations process, Congress also enacts legislation and approves treaties that affect leasing, exploring for, developing,
or producing oil and gas in OCS areas. For example, Congress designates national marine sanctuaries and enacts other laws that may
restrict or encourage development in certain areas of the OCS. Annual Congressional OCS Moratoria Moratoria provisions were enacted
by Congress each year for 27 years to address specific interests and to cover specific areas. See Tab le 1 . Most aspects of OCS policy
recognize planning horizons of five or more years. 21 The Department of the Interior appropriations legislation between 1982 and 2008
addressed OCS programs one year at a time, and was generally considered inconsistent with longer OCS planning horizons. Thus, one
legacy of congressional moratoria is their impact on the cycle time of OCS development. 22 From a developer’s point of view, the cycle
time of each OCS development project is key to strategic business decisions. From a regulator’s point of view, cycle time is a critical
component to meeting regulatory requirements. From both points of view, predictability is key to meeting program timetables set by
Congress. Needless to say, the unpredictability of enacting an annual congressional moratorium (because it varied from year to year, and
from region to region, as reflected in Tab le 1 ) had a disruptive effect on the cycle times of many OCS projects.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
OCS K2 Gas Production
OCS drilling yields massive production increase- certainty key
Lisa Griles 3 is Deputy Secretary @ Department of the Interior, “Energy Production on Federal Lands,” Hearing before the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate,” 4-30-03, Accessed date: 10-30-12 y2k
America’s public lands have an abundant opportunity for exploration and development of
reserves contained on the D
o I
offshore Federal lands are very important to meeting
going to take to continue to supply
energy demand.
these lands contain
undiscovered natural gas resources
Mr. GRILES.
energy resources Energy
future estimates of what it is
74 percent of the
renewable and nonrenewable
epartment
nterior’s onshore and
f the
America’s
Estimates suggest that
our current and
.
approximately 68 percent of the undiscovered U.S. oil resources and
. President Bush has developed a national energy policy that laid out a comprehensive, long-term energy strategy for America’s future. That strategy recognizes we need to raise domestic production of energy, both renewable and nonrenewable, to
Now
there is a new and environmentally friendly technology
with mobile platforms, self-containing drilling units These will
allow producers to access large energy reserves with no footprint
Each day,
our ability to minimize effect on
the environment continues to improve to where it is nonexistent
The
production for ANWR would equal about 60 years of imports
meet our dependence for energy. For oil and gas, the United States uses about 7 billion barrels a year, of which about 4 billion are currently imported and 3 billion are domestically produced. The President proposed to open a small portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to environmentally responsible oil and gas exploration.
, similar to directional drilling,
almost
almost
.
on the tundra.
even since I have assumed this job,
things
our
in such areas as even in Alaska. According to the latest oil and gas assessment, ANWR is the largest untapped source of domestic production available to us.
from Iraq. The National Energy Policy also encourages development of cleaner, more diverse portfolios of domestic renewable energy sources. The renewable policy in areas cover
geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass. And it urges research on hydrogen as an alternate energy source. To advance the National Energy Policy, the Bureau of Land Management and the DOE’s National Renewable Energy Lab last week announced the release of a renewable energy report. It identifies and evaluates renewable energy resources
on public lands. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this for the record.* This report, which has just come out, assess the potential for renewable energy on public lands. It is a very good report that we hope will allow for the private sector, after working with the various other agencies, to where can we best use renewable resource, and how do
we take this assessment and put it into the land use planning that we are currently going, so that right-of-ways and understanding of what renewable resources can be done in the West can, in fact, have a better opportunity. The Department completed the first of an energy inventory this year. Now the EPCA report, which is laying here, also, Mr.
Chairman, is an estimate of the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas. Part one of that report covers five oil and gas basins. The second part of the report will be out later this year. Now this report, it is not—there are people who have different opinions of it. But the fact is we believe it will be a good guidance tool, as we look at where
the oil and gas potential is and where we need to do land use planning. And as we update these land use plannings and do our EISs, that will help guide further the private sector, the public sector, and all stakeholders on how we can better do land use planning and develop oil and gas in a sound fashion. A lso, I have laying here in front of me the
two EISs that have been done on the two major coal methane basins in the United States, San Juan Basis and the Powder River Basin. Completing these reports, which are in draft, will increase and offer the opportunity for production of natural gas with coal bed methane. Now these reports are in draft and, once completed, will authorize and
allow for additional exploration and development. It has taken 2 years to get these in place. It has taken 2 years to get some of these in place. This planning process that Congress has initiated under FLPMA and other statutes allows for a deliberative, conscious understanding of what the impacts are. We believe that when these are finalized, that
is in fact what will occur. One of the areas which we believe that the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Land Management is and is going to engage in is coordination with landowners. Mr. Chairman, the private sector in the oil and gas industry must be good neighbors with the ranchers in the West. The BLM is going to be addressing
the issues of bonding requirements that will assure that landowners have their surface rights and their values protected. BLM is working to make the consultation process with the landowners, with the States and local governments and other Federal agencies more efficient and meaningful. But we must assure that the surface owners are protected
and the values of their ranches are in fact assured. And by being good neighbors, we can do that. In the BLM land use planning process, we have priorities, ten current resource management planning areas that contain the major oil and gas reserves that are reported out in the EPCA study. Once this process is completed, then we can move
forward with consideration of development of the natural gas. We are also working with the Western Governors’ Association and the Western Utilities Group. The purpose is to identify and designate right-of-way corridors on public lands. We would like to do it now as to where right-of-way corridors make sense and put those in our land use
planning processes, so that when the need is truly identified, utilities, energy companies, and the public will know where they are Instead of taking two years to amend a land use plan, hopefully this will expedite and have future opportunity so that when the need is there, we can go ahead and make that investment through the private sector. It
should speed up the process of right-of-way permits for both pipelines and electric transmission. Now let me switch to the offshore, the Outer Continental Shelf. It is a huge contributor to our Nation’s energy and economic security. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, everything you have talked about so far is onshore. Mr. GRILES. That is
we are keeping on schedule the holding lease sales in the areas that are available for leasing
scheduled sales
were delayed, canceled, or put under moratoria
It undermined certainty It made investing
more risky .
We are acting to raise energy production
We need to encourage exploration These deep wells
are expected to access between 5 to 20 trillion
cubic feet of natural gas and can be developed quickly due to existing infrastructure and the shallow water
correct. The CHAIRMAN. You now will speak to offshore. Mr. GRILES. Yes, sir, I will. Now
in several areas
particularly in the Gulf,
61 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
. In the past year,
either
, even though they were in the 5-year plan.
.
,
We have approved a 5-year oil and gas leasing program in July 2002 that calls for 20 new lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico and several other areas of the offshore, specifically in Alaska by 2007. Now our estimates indicate that these areas contain resources up to 22 billion barrels of oil and
also
from these offshore areas by providing royalty relief on the OCS leases for new deep wells that are drilled in shallow water. These are at depths that heretofore were very and are very costly to
produce from and costly to drill to.
that
.
, which are greater than 15,000 feet in depth,
. We have also issued a final rule in July 2002 that allows
companies to apply for a lease extension, giving them more time to analyze complex geological data that underlies salt domes. That is, where geologically salt overlays the geologically clay. And you try to do seismic, and the seismic just gets distorted. So we have extended the lease terms, so that hopefully those companies can figure out where
Vast resources of natural gas lie
We are working to create a process of
reviewing and permitting
energy sources on the OCS lands. We have sent legislation to Congress that would give the M M
S of the Department of the Interior clear authority to lease parts of the OCS
We need this authority in order to be able to truly give the private sector what are the rules to play from and
buy, so they can have certainty about where to go.
and where to best drill.
oil and
, we hope, beneath these sheets of salt in the OCS in the Gulf of Mexico. But it is very difficult to get clear seismic images.
also
alternative
ervice
inerals
anagement
for renewable energy. The renewables could be wind, wave, or solar energy, and related projects that are auxiliary to oil and gas development,
such as offshore staging facilities and emergency medical facilities.
Plan kick starts new offshore development projects.
Paul Hillegeist 11 is President and COO at Quest Offshore Resources, Inc, Sean Shafer, Project Director, Andrew Jackson, Project
Manager, Leslie Cook , Senior Research Consultant, December 2011 “The State of the Offshore U.S. Oil and Gas Industry”
http://energytomorrow.org/images/uploads/Quest_2011_December_29_Final.pdf, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
If drilling permits going forward were to be issued at pre‐moratorium historical rates beginning in 2012 (Best Post Moratorium Case), the number of
projects delayed could be significantly reduced (85 to 37 for shallow water, 48 to 9 deepwater). In addition, the average delay for currently planned projects that are postponed would
be shorter. Project delays due to an inability to drill exploration, appraisal, and production wells will decrease the net present value of oil and naturals gas developments,
making the U.S. offshore a less competitive region for offshore oil and gas investment and encouraging the prioritization of foreign investment by operators. As projects are delayed, the slowdown
has and is expected to continue to affect annual investment in the offshore Gulf of Mexico. The effects of the deepwater drilling moratorium and subsequent permit slowdown have already reduced total capital and operating expenditures by a combined $18.3 billion for 2010
A return to a more
balanced regulatory regime that encourages growth (difference between Best Post‐Moratorium and Current Path) could increase investment in the offshore oil and gas industry by over $15 billion
dollars from 2012‐2015. It is estimated that this additional investment would increase average annual U.S. employment between 17,000 and 49,000 thousand jobs per year, with an average increase of 35,000 jobs annually from 2012 to 2015. (Table 4) Of course, this
and 2011 relative to pre‐moratorium plans (Table 3) As a result of decreases in investment due to the moratorium, total U.S. employment is estimated to have been reduced by 72,000 jobs in 2010 and approximately 91,000 jobs in 2011. 3
study is focused only upon the economic impacts of more optimal development of Gulf of Mexico oil and natural gas resources currently assessable under current law. Additional access to offshore and onshore areas currently off‐ limits would provide large gains to the nation
in terms of energy security, employment and government revenue. 4
OCS has rich deposits of natural gas.
Robert Murphy 12 an Austrian School economist @ Pacific Research Institute. “CBO grossly understates Potential Revenues from
Offshore Drilling,” 9-11-12, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/09/11/cbo-underestimates-potential/CBO grossly understates
Potential Revenues from, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
A Different Picture To respond to the CBO report, a very easy step is to consolidate the data presented in their figure. The visual trick in the CBO image involves spreading out the inaccessible resources across six different categories. Suppose instead that we consolidate
the CBO’s own numbers show that some 51
billion barrels of oil and gas resources on federal lands are currently inaccessible . That works out to 29 percent of the total, again using CBO’s own numbers. At
a time when motorists are struggling with prices at the pump, and the Obama Administration is releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, it is significant that the CBO
admits the federal government itself keeps almost 30 percent of expected US resources off-limits to development. To put these numbers in perspective, consider: In 2011, the U.S. imported a
everything—using their own numbers—into two categories, namely those resources on federal lands that are currently accessible, versus those that aren’t. The revised chart looks like this: Thus,
total of 1.7 billion barrels of crude oil and products from OPEC nations. Thus, the 51 billion barrels of oil and gas that the CBO admits are rendered inaccessible under current policies, works out to thirty times as much as the U.S. imported from OPEC last year. (Even if we
consider just the oil resources that CBO admits are off-limit—33 billion barrels—then the figure falls to “only” nineteen times the amount imported from OPEC last year.) These calculations are not to suggest that if the federal government removed all restrictions, then imports
the important point is
that people warning of America’s “dependence on foreign oil” often have no idea just how blessed the country is with rich
deposits . It only seems that the U.S. is starved for oil, because the federal government takes so much off the table.
from OPEC would fall to zero. Standard economic analysis shows that it makes a country’s people richer to import items from abroad if, on the margin, doing so is cheaper than producing everything domestically. Even so,
OCS contains 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
ICE 11—Institute for 21st Century Energy, “immediately-expand-domestic-oil-and-gas-exploration-and-production,”
http://www.energyxxi.org/immediately-expand-domestic-oil-and-gas-exploration-and-production, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
Our dependence on imported oil has risen from less than 40% in the 1970s to more than 60% today. Government policies have put the most promising domestic oil and gas
prospects off limits to exploration and production. High oil and gas prices, our growing reliance on imported oil, and price volatility clearly demonstrate the imperative to change course and expand domestic oil and gas production. The
O uter C ontinental S helf (OCS) is an area of some 1.76 billion acres submerged off the U nited S tates’ coasts controlled by the federal government. Approximately 97%
of the OCS is under federal moratoria preventing any exploration or production of oil and natural gas. The U.S. D epartment o f the I nterior (DOI) estimates that the OCS
contains 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas . Because exploration is prohibited on the vast majority of the OCS, these estimates are primarily
based on survey projections and are likely quite conservative. Additionally, about 83% of federal lands onshore containing some 28 billion barrels of oil and 207 trillion cubic feet of natural gas are under moratoria
or severely restricted. In the 26 years since the OCS moratoria were put into place, the technology utilized to extract oil and gas has evolved, significantly reducing the environmental impact of producing the resources. Advanced multidimensional seismic imaging allows a
much higher degree of accuracy in locating oil and gas deposits, which reduces the amount of drilling necessary while increasing the amount of resources recovered. Pressure gauges and safety valves incorporated into offshore production facilities diminish the possibility of
spills. These technologies have reduced the spillage rate to just 0.001%.
That guarantees 71 years of natural gas.
CEA 12—Consumer Energy Alliance, “OFFSHORE RESOURCES: OPPORTUNITIES,”
http://consumerenergyalliance.org/primary/education-research/reference-library/quick-facts-for-energy-consumers/offshore-resourcesnear-term-opportunity/, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
The 4.4 trillion cubic feet produced annually from Central and Western Gulf of Mexico waters is enough natural gas to meet more than 80 percent of the
electric industry’s consumption of natural gas. The Minerals Management Service (MMS) has called deepwater oil and natural gas development in the Gulf of Mexico “a workhorse for U.S. domestic oil and gas production.” According to MMS, offshore
deepwater oil production rose 535 percent between 1995 and 2002 and deepwater natural gas production rose 620 percent during those same years. Undeveloped resources in federal deep water is estimated at 420
trillion cubic feet of natural gas and almost 86 billion barrels of oil. For perspective, that is equivalent to three times the oil resources of Canada and Mexico
combined and almost six times the natural gas resources of these two countries. According to conservative estimates from MMS, there are about 288 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 59 billion
barrels of oil yet to be discovered on the OCS off the lower 48 states (NOT including Alaska). This is enough oil to maintain current oil production for 105 years and current natural gas production for 71
years . That is enough oil to produce gasoline for 132 million cars and heating oil for 54 million homes for 15 years. That is enough natural gas to heat 72 million homes for 60 years, OR to supply current industrial and commercial needs for 28 years OR to supply
current electricity generating needs for 53 years.
Current restrictions ensure capital flight—plan solves.
Pyle 7/10 (Thomas J., July 10, 2012, “Energy Department sneaks offshore moratorium past public; Jobs and oil-supply potential are
shut down,” The Washington Times, lexis)
the Interior Department was using the media
black hole to release a much-awaited five-year plan for offshore drilling. That plan reinstitutes a 30-year moratorium on offshore
energy exploration that will keep our most promising resources locked away until long after President Obama begins plans for his presidential library. Given the timing, it is clear that the selfWhile the Obama administration was taking a victory lap last week after the 5-4 Supreme Court decision to uphold the president’s signature legislative accomplishment, Obamacare,
described “all of the above” energy president didn’t want the American people to discover that he was denying access to nearly 98 percent of America’s vast energy potential on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) of 1953
provided the interior secretary with the authority to administer mineral exploration and development off our nation’s coastlines. At its most basic level, the act empowers the interior secretary - in this case, former U.S. Sen. Kenneth L. Salazar of Colorado - to provide oil and
gas leases to the highest-qualified bidder while establishing guidelines for implementing an oil and gas exploration-and-development program for the Outer Continental Shelf. In 1978, in the wake of the oil crisis and spiking gasoline prices, Congress amended the act to require
Obama and Mr. Salazar have worked to restrict access to our
offshore oil and gas resources by canceling lease sales, delaying others and creating an atmosphere of uncertainty about America’s future offshore
development that has left job creators looking for other countries’ waters to host their offshore rigs. More than 3 1/2 years into the Obama regime, nearly 86 billion barrels of undiscovered oil on the
Outer Continental Shelf remain off-limits to Americans. Alaska alone has about 24 billion barrels of oil in unleased federal waters. The Commonwealth of Virginia - where Mr. Obama has reversed policies that would have allowed offshore development - is
home to 130 million barrels of offshore oil and 1.14 trillion cubic feet of natural gas . But thanks to the president, Virginians will have to wait at least another five years before they can begin creating the jobs that will unlock
a series of five-year plans that provide a schedule for the sale of oil and gas leases to meet America’s national energy needs. But since taking office, Mr.
their offshore resources. Once you add those restrictions to the vast amount of shale oil that is being blocked, the administration has embargoed nearly 200 years of domestic oil supply. No wonder the administration wanted to slip its plan for the OCS under the radar when the
whole country was focused on the health care decision.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
OCS areas are key
Mason 9 (Joseph R. – Louisiana State University Endowed Chair of Banking and nationally-renowned economist , “The Economic
Contribution of Increased Offshore Oil Exploration and Production to Regional and National Economies”, February,
http://www.americanenergyalliance.org/images/aea_offshore_updated_final.pdf)
the OCS is already the most important source of U.S. energy supplies. According to the MMS, “the
Federal OCS is a major supplier of oil and natural gas for the domestic market, contributing more energy (oil and natural gas) for U.S.
consumption than any single U.S. state or country in the world.”8 That is,
Even without those remaining sixteen states, plus California and Alaska,
Offshore development keeps prices low
Pirog, 12 Robert Pirog Specialist in Energy Economics CRS, http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40645_20120210.pdf
Natural gas markets differ from the oil market in that they are not global, but regional. As shown¶ in Table 6, above, virtually all U.S. natural gas
consumption comes from U.S. or Canadian¶ sources. The only link between regional natural gas markets is through LNG, but the rapidly¶ growing market for LNG predicted
earlier in this decade has failed to materialize. LNG is still¶ largely characterized by long-term, two-party supply and purchase agreements. In the North¶ American market,
LNG plays the role of making up marginal short-falls in the demand and¶ supply balance. As production from domestic onshore shale gas deposits increases, the role
of¶ LNG in the U.S. market will likely be small.¶ In this regional market structure, the development of new, offshore U.S. supplies
could have a¶ significant impact on the domestic price of natural gas, as well as contributing to U.S. energy¶ independence of this fuel. Although the price of
natural gas has not shown the same degree of¶ volatility as oil, the United States has been among the highest-priced regions in the world. High¶ prices have caused
residential consumers to allocate a greater portion of their budgets to home ¶ heating expenses. Industrial users either lose sales to overseas competitors, or cease U.S.¶
production when domestic natural gas prices rise too much beyond those observed in other¶ regions of the world.¶ The development of offshore
natural gas resources is likely to further retard the development of a ¶ growing LNG system in the United States. Terminals for the re-gasification of LNG have proven¶ to be difficult to site and
permit, and expensive to build. If domestic natural gas resources, close ¶ to existing collection and distribution systems, at least in the Gulf of Mexico, could be developed, ¶ the LNG terminals might
prove to be redundant, depending on the volumes of natural gas that ¶ ultimately might be recovered. Offshore natural gas development, though commonly associated with offshore oil production,
will likely be less competitive in a market environment dominated ¶ by onshore shale gas development.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
SQ Lease Fails
Current lease fails—not enough.
Robin Millican 12 is the Institute for Energy Research's (IER) Director of Federal Affairs. “Rep. Markey’s Many Myths: Report Much
Ado About Nothing,” October 26, 2012, http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/10/26/rep-markeys-many-myths-democratsreport-much-ado-about-nothing/, Accessed date: 11-7-12 y2k
MYTH : We don’t need to open more areas for exploration, because companies already have enough leases. FACT: Just because a
lease is bought, doesn’t mean it will yield oil and gas. Companies often purchase leases for millions of dollars without knowing what their full resource
potential will be. It is usually only after seismic mapping and exploratory drilling that the company is able to determine whether a commercial
amount of oil and gas may be present. Even in these circumstances, past data shows that companies have drilled more wells that have no oil or gas than wells that do. As
such, odds favor purchasing larger quantities of leases that hopefully result in one discovery with a big payoff. The graph below illustrates this: FACT: The government leases less than 2.2 percent of federal
offshore areas [1] and less than 6 percent of federal onshore lands for oil and natural gas production.[2] FACT: Many of the most energy-rich lands the federal government owns are offlimits to domestic energy production . 85% of the Outer Continental Shelf, which is estimated to hold 86 billion barrels of oil, was placed off-limits under the Department of
MARKEY’s
Interior’s offshore drilling plan for 2012-2017.[3] Offshore Alaska has about 24 billion barrels of oil in unleased federal waters.[4] Under a 2011 Department of Interior directive, 75 percent of Western oil shale under federal lands was closed off to commercial energy
development. There is an estimated 1.4 trillion barrels of Western oil shale, almost 70 percent of which is under federal lands.[5]
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
A2: No Demand
Demand high offshore gas
PR Newswire 12 “Offshore Drilling Industry to 2016 - Rapidly Rising Demand for Hydrocarbons Expected to Boost Offshore
Drilling in Ultra-Deepwater and Harsh-weather Environments”, 2012,
http://www.bizjournals.com/prnewswire/press_releases/2012/02/23/SP58486
The production from offshore regions accounts for an increasing share of the total world oil and gas production. Offshore crude oil production accounts for
around 30% or more of the total global crude oil production. Also, offshore natural gas production accounts for about a quarter of the total world natural gas production. In the recent decade, the
offshore crude oil industry has witnessed consistent growth in production. The global crude oil production
from offshore resources is expected to increase in the near
future, mainly due to an increase in offshore production from major offshore regions worldwide, such as deepwater US Gulf of Mexico,
offshore Brazil, offshore Africa. offshore India, China and Australia, and also offshore regions in the European regions. In the past decade, offshore drilling activity has picked
up pace worldwide, as an increased effort to meet energy needs. The growth of the offshore drilling market is being driven by high demand and rising prices
of crude oil and natural gas. However, the global offshore drilling market experienced a temporary slowdown in 2009 as a result of relatively fewer investments by offshore exploration
companies in that year, due to the global financial crisis and the subsequent fall in demand. However, the period 2012-2016 for offshore drilling worldwide is expected to
be encouraging considering aggressive offshore E&P activity expected in regions worldwide. This is a result of ambitious plans by
international oil companies, national oil companies and governments worldwide to boost the search for fresh discoveries of hydrocarbons ; with the predicted
recovery of the industry from the financial slowdown meaning that drilling expenditure is expected to steadily rise until 2016.
Offshore drilling is attractive regardless of price-differential.
Travis Hoium 13 is Fool contributor Travis Hoium manages an account that owns shares of Seadrill, “Offshore vs. Onshore Drilling:
Which Is a Better Investment?” http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/01/29/offshore-vs-onshore-drilling-which-is-a-betterinv.aspx January 29, 2013, Accessed date: 2-3-13, y2k
Over the past few years, two improved drilling techniques have helped expand the amount of recoverable oil and natural gas around the
world. Improvements in fracking technology have opened up otherwise uneconomic drilling locations all over North America, and ultra-deepwater
drilling is expanding drilling in oceans worldwide. But one of these is a better investment for a variety of reasons. The nature of oil
drilling Companies drill for oil or natural gas for one reason -- profits . But drilling on land and drilling offshore provide two
different return-on-value calculations and time horizons. An onshore driller can turn on and off new drilling with the price of
oil or natural gas. Look at the correlation of price to the number of inland rigs in operation to show the difference. A few months of down prices, and the
number of rigs working inland drops. That's because it takes a matter of weeks to drill an inland well, not a long time horizon for
drillers. This has a boom-and-bust effect on companies such as Baker Hughes (NYSE: BHI ) and Haliburton (NYSE: HAL ) , which provide equipment to
drillers. If prices are high, then business is good, but if prices fall, business drops off in a heartbeat. Bentek Energy says that Eagle Ford shale well
drilling averages about 19 days for each well, so a month's notice may be all that's needed. In shallow water offshore, a similar boom and bust can take place, because contracts are
measured in months, not normally in years. But ultra- deepwater
drilling has changed that dynamic . Ultra-deepwater wells take months to drill, and
oil companies are locking up rigs with extremely long-term contracts . Last year, Transocean (NYSE: RIG ) signed 10-year contracts with Royal Dutch Shell for
four newly built rigs that won't even be complete until at least 2015. The contract pays Transocean as much as $520,000 per day, an incredible rate given the long duration of the contract.
Just to put the difference in perspective, can you imagine an onshore
rig contract that reached until 2025? The onshore market is simply too volatile to make that long-term bet. That's why offshore
drilling service companies, particularly those with ultra-deepwater exposure, are the best bet.
Competitor SeaDrill (NYSE: SDRL ) has half of its floater fleet contracted into 2017.
Companies say yes
Tennille Tracy 12 is WSJ Staff. “New Energy Industry Push For Drilling in the Atlantic,” November 19, 2012,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324595904578117273731775576.html, Accessed date: 1-16-13 y2k
One of the most significant energy issues facing President Barack Obama in his second term is whether to allow oil drilling off the coast of
the Atlantic, where production has been off-limits for decades.
The energy industry, eager to find out how much oil and natural gas exists under the Atlantic sea floor , already is pushing the
administration to allow seismic companies to survey the area. If granted approval, the companies could begin mapping the
ocean's resources as early as next year.
Depending on the extent of the resources, the U.S. could soon expand its production base and further cement its role as one of the world's
most dominant energy producers. The International Energy Agency last week said the U.S. is poised to overtake Saudi Arabia as the top global oil
producer by 2020.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
A2: Delay
Delay is caused by government restriction
Daniel Fisher 12 is Forbes Staff, “Did Obama Really Take Away Those Oil Leases?” 10/17/2012,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/10/17/did-obama-really-take-away-those-oil-leases/ Accessed date: 1-17-13 y2k
One of the most contentious exchanges in last night’s presidential debate came after President Obama defended his energy strategy against
Mitt Romney’s charge that the administration has discouraged drilling on federal lands.
As Romney and Obama parried over how much, exactly, oil and gas production has fallen on federal property (neither side had its facts
entirely right, according to the Houston Chronicle), Obama let loose with this statement that had me scratching my head.
Here’s what happened. You had a whole bunch of oil companies who had leases on public lands that they weren’t using. So what we
said was you can’t just sit on this for 10, 20, 30 years, decide when you want to drill, when you want to produce , when it’s most profitable
for you. These are public lands. So if you want to drill on public lands, you use it or you lose it. And so what we did was take away those leases. And
we are now reletting them so that we can actually make a profit.
Really? Did the government tear up leases that oil companies
had paid billions of dollars for and throw the property back on the
market?
The simple answer is no. I’m not sure what Obama was exactly referring to, but there’s no evidence his administration cancelled leases and handed them to
different drillers.
What his administration has done is repeatedly accuse oil companies of sitting on leases and failing to produce oil and gas from them.
It’s a charge that drives the oil industry nuts , since it makes little economic sense to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or even
purchase a lease and then sit on it for no reason. It takes years and a lot of expensive seismic work and exploratory drilling to
determine whether an oil deposit has economic value, and the oil industry isn’t in the business of drilling dry holes for the fun of it. If there are
delays, industry executives say, it’s because of governmental policy such as the offshore drilling ban Obama issued after the
millions to
Deepwater Horizon disaster.
“It’s like you rent an apartment for $20 million and the landlord refuses to give you the keys to it,” said Erik Milito, director of exploration
and production at the American Petroleum Institute. “Then he turns around and complains about it.”
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
A2: Workers Shortage
No skilled-workers shortage
Crego, Munoz, and Islam 12 Ed Crego is a management consultant who has led major consulting practices specializing in strategic
planning, customer focus, and organizational transformation. Ed has written several business books and spoken extensively in his areas of
expertise for organizations such as the American Management Association and the Conference Board, George Muñoz is currently chair of
the Munoz Investment Advisory Group. George was the Assistant Secretary and CFO of the United States Treasury and President and
CEO of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation during the Clinton administration. He serves on a number of corporate boards
including Marriott International, Altria Group and the National Geographic Society, and Frank Islam was the founder of the QSS Group
an information technology consulting firm which he sold to Perot Systems in 2007 for $250 M. Frank currently heads his own investment
group, hosts his own Washington D.C. talk show, "Washington in Review," and serves on the advisory committee for the Export Import
Bank and the Industry Trade Advisory Committee for the Department of Commerce. “The Skilled Worker Shortage Fallacy,” 07/19/2012,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-munoz-frank-islam-and-ed-crego/the-skilled-worker-shorta_b_1677881.html, Accessed Date: 326-13 y2k
America has a serious shortage of skilled workers and that is a primary cause of our lack of job creation. Right? Wrong ! We have been bemused for the past few years as
an ecumenical group of business leaders, academics and experts have put forward the argument that training and developing a more skilled
workforce would help drive job creation. It seems to us that this is a basic misunderstanding of cause and effect. We can have a philosophical debate about which came first -- the chicken or the
egg. But when it comes to job creation there should be no such argument. Organizations and individuals who create new organizations are the chicken -- they are the job creators. Employees and skilled workers are the eggs -- they are the job holders. That's not to
a wide variety of recent studies have demonstrated, the extent to which the skills of the
workforce influences business decisions is a modest one and the actual "skill deficiencies" of the current American workforce
may be significantly overstated . For example, in a March Harvard Business Review article, Michael Porter and Jan Rivkin reported that a survey that they had done revealed that by far the leading reason that a company would
say that we don't need skilled workers in the United States. But, as
move out of the U.S. was "lower wage rates in the destination country -70 percent." Thirty-one percent of the survey respondents cited "better access to skilled labor" as a "reason for leaving." But 29 percent cited "better access" as a "reason for not leaving." So,
After examining labor demand data from the Chicago Federal Reserve ,
O'Brien, associate editor of The Atlantic, in June wrote, "We should expect wages to be rising much faster in sectors where employers can't find enough
qualified workers. ... But that hasn't been the case." Instead, in the period from May of 2006 through May of 2011 there has been a "general shortfall of demand" for the "low, medium and high skill workers" that has
that makes "skilled labor" a "push" rather than a clear and compelling driver of job creation for the United States.
Matthew
moved "more or less in tandem." Professor Peter Cappelli of The Wharton School supports O'Brien's position in a June 12 article for Time Business titled, "The Skills Gap Myth: Why Companies Can't Find Good People." After analyzing a Manpower survey,
roughly half of the employers were reporting having trouble filling their vacancies ," Professor Capelli astutely notes, "roughly 10% of
employers admit
problem is that the candidates they want won't accept the position at the wage level being offered
which showed that "
the
that the
." He continues
to observe for those who indicate there is a skill shortage, "by far the most important shortfall they see in candidates is a lack of experience doing similar jobs." The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that there currently 3.4 million job openings in the United
States. Our careful review of the top 50 occupations with the most projected openings for 2010-2020, posted by the CareerOneStop of the Department of Labor on its careerinfonet, shows that the majority of the current and future job openings are "low skill"
requiring less than high school or high school degrees.
No workers shortage
Velda Addison 12 is staff reporter @ Hart Energy, “Oil, Gas Jobs Are Plentiful, But Worker Shortage Remains,” September 6, 2012,
http://www.epmag.com/Technology-Operations/Oil-Gas-Jobs-Plentiful-Worker-Shortage-Remains_106496, Accessed Date: 3-8-13 y2k
Americas : Upstream investment, fueled by healthy shale plays, continue to drive E&P activity, particularly in North America. Here,
survey results showed rates remain competitive and that has drawn talent to the region . Although the area is not immune to
skill shortages in its workforce, it is not as evident as in other parts of the world. The survey specifically noted Houston, calling it the
“ epicenter of talent for the oil and gas industry .” In South America, political and technical issues were listed as barriers to development. In Argentina, for
example, demands for as much as a 20% pay increase were made by the labor force; while, in Brazil, local content regulations were partly being blamed on difficulty finding offshore
personnel. In the Americas, shortage areas include drilling and completion personnel as well as geologists and geophysicists.
Higher wages solve
Rig Hand 12 is Oil and Gas blog operated by Jody Patzer, the president and CEO of RigHands.com who has 26 years of experience in
Albert oil patch, “LABOR SHORTAGE LEADS TO HIGHER WAGES,” 10-15-12, http://www.righandsblog.com/labor-shortage-leadsto-higher-wages/ Accessed Date: 3-8-13 y2k
As the global demand for energy increases more energy companies are exploring new frontiers for oil and gas . This has led to a
boom in offshore drilling and new areas such as the Arctic but also exposes a shortage in specialized labor . Finding oil rig managers and workers who not only have the
qualifications to fill these jobs but also have the fortitude to spend weeks at a time on remote oil platforms is proving to be difficult but the opportunity does have one major advantage: money. In a recent article on The
Province web site a story told of a rig manager names Johnathan Roberts who started working on rig at $5 an hour and today is the operations manager of Norway’s Standard Drilling and hauls in nearly $500,000 per
With the labor shortage threatening supplies of oil and gas energy
companies are doubling wages for oil workers with experience in engineering and chemicals . What many recruiters are finding is that there are
plenty of skilled workers capable of filling these positions but not many who are willing to relocate to remote locations and spend long hours on hazardous deepwater drill
rigs. However, those that do are reaping the benefits of great pay in jobs that can be found in places such as the Bay of Bengal, Brazil’s Santos basin and
year. Roberts isn’t the only one reaping huge rewards for the hard work and long hours he puts in.
the Arctic Ocean.
Recruitment solves
Simone Sebastian 12 is FuelFix Staff Reporter, “Labor shortage continues to plague expanding energy industry,”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/11/labor-shortage-continues-to-plague-expanding-oil-and-gas-industry/ Accessed Date: 3-8-13 y2k
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Oil and gas companies will expand their staffs in 2012 , but a shortage of skilled workers will create a critical talent gap for the industry, according to a report by
recruitment firm NES Global Talent. Demand for engineers will grow this year, as oil and gas exploration and production expands both on land and offshore,
the firm said. But NES Managing Director Simon Coton said a depletion of skilled workers in oil and gas fields in the United States, Great Britain and Australia will be a major challenge.
Coton said the
industry’s best chance for bridging the gap is to recruit workers from other fields, including shipbuilding and
infrastructure industries. Oil and gas companies also have set their sites on military workers, whose training in technical and highpressure environments is comparable to oil field work. “During the recession, lots of projects didn’t make it past the financial investment decision stage, but many were
sanctioned in 2011, and as a result of this, we can expect an increase in demand for construction and commissioning roles,” Coton said. Labor shortages have plagued the industry in
recent years as shale drilling has led to an oil and gas production boom on North American land. Deep-water offshore drilling also has expanded globally leading to greater demand for
workers in that field. NES forecasts an expanding market for health, safety and environment specialists in the Gulf of Mexico, for deep-water engineers in Brazil and
West Africa, and for liquefied natural gas specialists in Australia and Asia .
No Shortages- classes are developed and more and more workers are getting the needed safety and technical
requirements. This also includes the financial motivations for companies to do so
Boman 3/13/2014 Karen has more than 10 years of experience covering the upstream oil and gas sector. Competency Key for US
Gulf Electrical Work
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/131970/Competency_Key_for_US_Gulf_Electrical_Work/?all=HG2#sthash.4vb89c5D.dpuf
Working closely with JT Limited in the UK (the CompEx scheme owner), an industry working group developed the CompEx NEC 505
Hazardous Area Installation Competency Course and it is currently only available in the United States through ATEC. The NEC 505
course offers competency-based assessment for explosion principles, gas properties and hazards; standards, certification and marking;
protection concepts and installation techniques; wiring systems, enclosure entries, and cable gland selection and installation; sources of
ignition; and hands-on installation and inspection. Students in the CompEx Hazardous Area Course learn about explosion principles, gas
properties and hazards; standards, certification and marking; protection concepts and installation techniques; combined types of
protection; wiring systems, enclosure entries and cable gland selection and installation; inspection and maintenance of equipment to IEC
standards; ignition sources; and hands-on installation and inspection. In these courses, students are given an overview of CE marking
procedures and briefs on the most common Directives, and includes a practical knowledge of explosion principles, zoning practices,
equipment markings, and protection schemes for gas and dust environments, as well as a discussion on the relationship between different
electrical standards. Courses are also available in hazardous area design, cable glanding, and general electrical installation practices.
These courses offer hands-on training and assessment in a realistic environment. “At this point, the drive towards competency remains
largely optional and not industry mandated,” Duffy commented. He added that ATEC and OCS are trying to improve operational safety in
the industry with their focus on competency. Duffy noted that ATEC has also been asked by some oil and gas companies to assist in
designing training programs for electrical work through some universities in Texas. ATEC is developing an online pre-course for the IEC
CompEx and U.S. NEC CompEx courses to provide a basic understanding of electrical work principles in hazardous areas. Industry
feedback has been positive about the need and benefits of such a course. Getting companies to understand the need of ensuring the
competency of workers and equipment design and manufacturing can be a challenge, ATEC officials noted. While larger corporations
understand and are building such requirements into their documented processes that demonstrates competency of their workers, many
smaller companies have not adopted these principles largely because it hasn’t been communicated to them as a requirement. ATEC
officials note that they are starting to see students coming through courses to meet contractual requirements with large majors and service
companies. Smaller companies wanting to bid on contracts for larger companies are more likely to be selected if they have the
documentation showing their workers’ competency has been assessed, Duffy noted
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** T Answers
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
2AC T --- Exploration/Development
1. We meet --- plan is a development and an exploration of ocean
Boland 2013 [Greg Biological Oceanographer Minerals Management Service Oil and Gas Exploration
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/06mexico/background/oil/oil.html
This project, funded jointly by Minerals Management Service (MMS) and NOAA Ocean Explorer (OE), will focus on exploration , survey, and
experimental work on chemosynthetic communities and hardbottom habitats located deeper than 1,000 m (3,280 ft) on the lower continental slope of the
Gulf of Mexico. The MMS is funding this study for a total of $3,291,368. As a bureau within the Department of the Interior, the MMS is responsible for
the management of offshore energy and minerals on the 1.76-billion acres of the outer continental shelf (OCS), while protecting the
human, marine, and coastal environments. The MMS oversees production of about 23% of the natural gas and 30% of the oil produced in the United States, a
significant contribution to our nation's economic strength and national security. All but a small percentage of this production comes from the Gulf of Mexico. The
Gulf of Mexico OCS Region contains 43-million acres under lease. Since 1982, the MMS has managed OCS production of 9.6-trillion barrels of oil and more than
109-trillion cubic feet of natural gas for U.S. consumption. There is one major act or legal mandate that serves as the basis for the offshore program of MMS – the
Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). This Act of 1953 called for the federal government to manage the oil, gas, and other mineral resources of the OCS to
ensure national security, reduce dependence on foreign sources, protect the nation’s environmental health, and conserve the precious resources of the OCS. As a
part of the mandate for environmental protection from this act and others, the MMS environmental studies program was started in 1971. Beginning in 1978, the
program emphasis shifted focus from synthesis of existing information to research efforts directed to the specific resourcemanagement decisions associated with the OCS. Through FY 2003, over $750 million has been invested in OCS environmental
and socioeconomic studies. With the first discovery of the chemosynthetic communities in the Gulf of Mexico in the 1980s, the MMS recognized the special
value of these communities and worked to ensure oil and gas activities avoided impact to areas of known communities, or even areas that had the potential to have
chemosynthetic communities, unless visual evidence was otherwise provided by industry. Extensive deep-water coral communities in the Gulf have
only recently been studied after the discovery of the largest known deepwater coral community during a survey for the oil and gas
industry in 1990. Knowledge of these kinds of unique deep-water communities provides critical information to estimate the
potential effects of deepwater oil and gas exploration and production and allow refinement of protective measures. Current basic understanding of
chemosynthetic communities and deep-water coral habitats in the Gulf has been largely limited to depths shallower than 1,000 m. The oil and gas industry
has moved, and will continue to move, into deeper and deeper water in their continuing search for energy reserves. Existing
deepwater fields already contribute about 1 million of the 1.6-million barrels of oil a day produced in federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. There are
currently a total of 15 structures operating in water depths greater than 304 m (1,000 ft). The deepest discovery in 2004 was at a water depth of 2,934 m (9,627 ft).
2. Counter-interpretation --- “Development” is activity to utilize ocean resources and space
UNESCO 86 – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, “IOC-Unesco Regional Training Workshop on
Ocean Engineering and Its Interface with Ocean Sciences in the Indian Ocean Region”, 4-5,
http://www.jodc.go.jp/info/ioc_doc/Training/085239eo.pdf
The term "ocean development" has often been used to denote all activities, including ocean sciences, ocean engineering and related
marine technology, directed to resource exploration and exploitation and the use of ocean space . The underlying guiding principle in
all these activities has been that these be conducted in a manner that insure the preservation of the marine environment without detriment to its quality and the
resources with which it abounds. From the statements given by the participants, it became apparent that in some countries, such as China, Indonesia, India,
Malaysia, Philippines and Thailand, ocean development programmes and activities, over the years, have evolved from fisheries oriented needs towards mineral
resources exploitation. In some of these countries exploitation of these resources has brought about new adjustments to their priority needs which have
progressively involved the strengthening of their marine scientific and technological capability demanded by these new situations.
Prefer our interpretation:
A. Ground --- resource exploration and exploitation guarantees core links since there must be active human
interference in the oceans --- that’s key to generic DA’s like environment or politics.
B. Over-limit --- extraction is the CORE development aff --- also proves literature checks.
Hibbard et al 10 K. A. Hibbard, R. Costanza, C. Crumley, S. van der Leeuw, and S. Aulenbach, J. Dearing, J. Morais, W. Steffen, Y.
Yasuda --- International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme. 2010 Developing an Integrated History and Future of People on Earth
(IHOPE): Research Plan IGBP Report No. 59. http://www.igbp.net/download/18.1b8ae20512db692f2a680006394/report_59IHOPE.pdf, DOA: 6-26-14, y2k
A common characteristic of human-in-environment development is extraction and consumption of natural resources. A typical
response to the exhaustion of these resources has been to move to new regions where continued extraction and consumption is possible. These migrations have led to
colonisation of new areas, conflict and displacement of indigenous populations, introduction of new species, and so on. Only quite recently in human history has the
ability to occupy new lands become limited by geopolitical constraints. New frontiers are now associated with technological advances that are used to overcome local
constraints of resource availability.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
AND --- Predictable limit is impossible --- “Ocean development” is not a term of art --- you should reject
arbitrary definition of development that always excludes one more aff.
3. Reasonability before competing interpretations – any other stance causes a race to the bottom that hurts
topic-specific education.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
1AR T --- Exploration/Development --- We Meet
Ocean drilling matters in all areas of development
Bernhardt & Martinez 2003, Catalina NOAA OE Sarah Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary NOAA Green Canyon
Encounters: A Silver Fish, a Yellow Star, Two Pink Posers, and Three Orange Lobsters
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/03mex/logs/sept25/sept25.html
Recent advances in offshore drilling have increased the efficiency of locating and recovering petroleum (a collective term that includes
both oil and gas), and have decreased the environmental impacts of this process. Some of the most significant technological
breakthroughs follow. Three-dimensional imaging of rock layers under the sea floor is now possible because of new at-sea tools and
advances in supercomputer processing power. Designs of new drilling platforms, such as tension-leg platforms and spars, make it
affordable to drill in very deep water, too deep for building conventional platforms that stand on rigid towers. Directional drilling permits
wells to be advanced in any direction from a single hub platform, including significant horizontal offsets from the starting point following
oil-bearing layers. Underwater completions allow wells to be drilled from mobile platforms such as ships, and then transformed into oilproducing mode with structures built on the sea floor by underwater robots. These sub-sea completions are then connected to platforms
and shore by underwater pipelines. So next time you ride in a car, cook dinner, or use your computer, keep in mind that the energy you are
using might have come from plankton buried long ago, and pumped in the form of oil from deep beneath the ocean.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
1AR T --- Exploration/Development --- C/I
Development includes extraction of resources --- that limits down to 4 core areas
Dan Laffoley 13, Professor and Senior Advisor Marine Science and Conservation Global Marine and Polar Programme and Vice Chair
of the World Commission on Protected Areas, “A New Approach to Ocean Governance Practical ways to fast track the Green Economy,”
http://www.secretariat.thecommonwealth.org/files/254813/FileName/ Ocean_Governance_Discussion_Paper_14.pdf, DOA: 6-26-14, y2k
The ocean provides a variety of goods and services essential to economic growth and social development. These include resources
that can be extracted for commercial trade (such as oil, gas, seabed minerals and fish), services that provide for economic activity (tourism) or
recreation, as well as ecological services that can provide human protection (storm protection) and the recycling of nutrients or cleansing of pollution. The sustained supply of goods and
services from the oceans is central to our future wellbeing and prosperity.This supply depends not just on the presence, but also the quantity and quality of marine biodiversity. In addition to
the diversity of species, genes and ecosystems, it is the abundance of individual animals and plants, as well as the extent of ecosystems that are critical components of ‘natural capital’ and key
determinants of the scale and nature of the benefits derived.1
Ocean development is everything related to extraction of minerals
Lexis headnote 11 MARTIN L. C. FELDMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ET AL versus KENNETH LEE "KEN"
SALAZAR, ET AL CIVIL ACTION NO. 10-1941 SECTION "F" UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 786 F. Supp. 2d 1151; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37719; 73 ERC (BNA) 1855; 176 Oil & Gas Rep. 657; 41
ELR 20138
April 6, 2011, Decided lexis
Headnote 12 Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 43 U.S.C.S. § 1331 et seq., " development " is defined as those activities
which take place following discovery of minerals in paying quantities, including geophysical activity, drilling, platform
construction, and operation of all onshore support facilities, and which are for the purpose of ultimately producing the
minerals discovered. 43 U.S.C.S. § 1331(l). "Production" comprises those activities which take place after the successful completion of any means for the
removal of minerals, including such removal, field operations, transfer of minerals to shore, operation monitoring, maintenance, and workover drilling. § 1331(m).
From these definitions, it is obvious that at both the exploration phase and the development and production phase, OCSLA contemplates drilling. OCSLA provides that
at the exploration stage, a lessee submits, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement approves, an exploration plan. 43 U.S.C.S. §
1340. Exploration may not proceed until an exploration plan has been approved.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
A2: OCS =/= Ocean
Developing in the Outer Contiental Shelf is part of the ocean- it’s the part that is owned by the nations
themselves.
California Ocean Resources Management Program, 2010[program of the California Natural Resources Agency, Back to
HTML Index CHAPTER 3: OCEAN JURISDICTION AND MANAGEMENT http://resources.ca.gov/ocean/html/chapt_3.html
The waters off the California coast include a complex array of State, federal, and international jurisdictions, including State tidelands and
submerged lands (State Tidelands), the outer continental shelf, the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and
high seas. The jurisdictions are used to describe areas of offshore ownership, sovereignty, various forms of mineral, fishery, and national
security rights, or regulatory controls. State Tidelands are owned and regulated by California. However, the State's ability to control or
benefit from the resources or uses beyond State Tidelands are frequently unclear under existing law and practice. OCEAN
JURISDICTIONAL DESIGNATIONS Ocean jurisdictions include some offshore regions with clearly defined sovereignty and regulatory
regimes, while others have become less clear due to recent national and international developments (see Figure 3-1). Current ocean
jurisdictional designations offshore California are: State Tidelands and Submerged Lands (shoreline to 3 nautical miles offshore): the
federal Submerged Lands Act of 1953 (43 U.S.C. 1301 et seq.) granted ownership of lands and resources within this body of water to
coastal states such as California. Outer Continental Shelf (seaward of 3 nautical miles from shore): the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act
of 1953 (43 U.S.C.A. 1331 et seq.), passed in coordination with the Submerged Lands Act, confirmed federal jurisdiction over the
resources beyond three nautical miles from shore and created a legal process for developing those resources (such as oil and gas).
Territorial Sea (shoreline to 12 nautical miles offshore): pursuant to a 1988 proclamation by President Reagan (Proclamation No. 5928),
the United States now asserts sovereign rights over the lands and waters out to 12 nautical miles from shore (the previous territorial sea
designation was coextensive with State Tidelands in California -- shoreline to 3 nautical miles offshore). This proclamation does not
disturb the rights of states in the waters out to three nautical miles established under the SLA. However, the term "territorial sea" is
included in over 68 federal statutes and the new assertion of sovereignty creates ambiguity over the management of the area between 3
and 12 miles offshore. It has never been tested in the courts as to whether the President can unilaterally enlarge this jurisdiction to 12
miles for the purposes of these statutes. The term "marginal sea" is also used to describe the territorial sea. Contiguous Zone (12 to 24
nautical miles offshore): within this area, a nation can exercise control over customs, fiscal, immigration and sanitary matters. Neither the
Executive Branch nor Congress have taken the initiative to formally adopt a contiguous zone for the waters offshore the U.S.. Exclusive
Economic Zone (3 nautical miles to 200 miles offshore): pursuant to a 1983 proclamation by President Reagan (Proclamation No. 5030),
the United States now asserts jurisdiction over the living and non-living resources within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). While
coastal states have primary jurisdiction and control over the first three miles of the EEZ and the federal government has primary
jurisdiction over and controls the remaining 197 miles, the Coastal Zone Management Act provides coastal states with substantial
authority to influence federal actions beyond three nautical miles. The assertion of jurisdiction under the EEZ provides a basis for U.S.
economic exploration and exploitation, scientific research, and protection of the environment. High Seas (beyond 12 nautical miles from
shore): this designation includes all portions of the sea not included in the territorial sea of any nation. High seas are partially co-extensive
with the contiguous zone (not formally adopted in the U.S.) and the EEZ. The primary characteristic of high seas is a nation's right to
freely navigate its vessels (including war vessels) within this area.
The OCS is part of the Oceans
BOEM, no date [Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, BOEM promotes energy independence, environmental protection and
economic development through responsible, science-based management of offshore conventional and renewable energy and marine
mineral resources The Continental Shelf http://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program/Renewable-Energy-Guide/The-ContinentalShelf.aspx
The Continental Shelf is the gently sloping undersea plain between a continent and the deep ocean. The continental shelf is an extension
of the continent's landmass under the ocean. Much of the continental shelf was exposed dry land during glacial periods. During
interglacial periods, like today, the shelf is submerged under relatively shallow waters. The waters of the continental shelf are rarely more
than 500 feet deep, compared to the open ocean which can be miles deep. The continental shelf extends outward to the continental slope
and continental rise, where the deep ocean truly begins, ultimately leading to the abyssal plain. The figure below is a schematic diagram
of the continental shelf. The width of the continental shelf around the U.S. varies considerably, from approximately 12 to 250 miles,
depending on location. The U.S. Atlantic coastline generally has a wide and shallow shelf, whereas the Pacific coastline is characterized
by a more narrow shelf with rapidly increasing depth. The continental shelf regions are important economically, primarily because their
waters are the source of much seafood, and because of the energy these regions provide—both in the form of fossil fuels, such as oil and
gas, and renewable energy resources. The Outer Continental Shelf The Outer Continental Shelf consists of the submerged lands, subsoil,
and seabed in a specified zone up to 200 nautical miles or more from the U.S. coastline. The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) is regulated
by the U.S. Federal government through the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The OCS refers to 1.7 billion acres of Federal submerged
lands, subsoil, and seabed generally beginning 3 nautical miles off the coastline (for most States) and extending for at least 200 nautical
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
miles to the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone, or even farther if the continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles. The OCS
has been divided into four regions: Atlantic Region, Gulf of Mexico Region, Pacific Region, and Alaska Region.
It’s within the first 200 nautical miles away from the shoreline
Hagerty 2011 [Curry L. Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy “Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas
Development” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41132.pdf
The OCS is a federal offshore area from the edge of state waters, usually starting at 3 nautical miles from shore, seaward to a distance of
about 200 nautical miles. 7 Energy leasing on the OCS takes place in four regions: the Gulf of Mexico region, the Atlantic region, the
Pacific region, and the Alaska region.
Is development within the US borders within the oceans
Hagerty 2011 [Curry L. Specialist in Energy and Natural Resources Policy “Outer Continental Shelf Moratoria on Oil and Gas
Development” http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41132.pdf
Moratorium policies in the U.S. EEZ and beyond are determined pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) and other
federal statutes. With few exceptions, coastal nations exercise jurisdiction over marine areas within approximately 200 nautical miles of
their coasts. This area is recognized as a nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) under most domestic laws and is generally consistent
with international law. 39 The U.S. EEZ is a zone where the United States applies sovereign rights, and third party nations are allowed
limited rights of passage. From this perspective, sometimes international measures such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (UNCLOS) influence domestic moratorium policies as well.
OCS is deep-water drilling, that is in the ocean
Tankersley 2010, [Jim, Tribune Washington Bureau A closer look at deep-water drilling
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/nation/la-na-oil-spill-qa-20100610
What counts as "deep-water" drilling, and how much of it is there? For purposes of the moratorium, the federal government classifies any
drilling in depths beyond 500 feet as "deep." By that definition, there are about 600 deep-water wells in the Gulf of Mexico. They produce
about 80% of the oil and 45% of the natural gas coming from the gulf, according to the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Assn., an
industry group. As a share of total U.S. oil use, however, the deep wells' contribution is just a few drops in the bucket.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
*** Midterm/Politics Answers
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- UQ --- GOP Lose
Regardless of what the aff does, GOP won’t win- internal fights
Dovere & Brown 6/12/2014 [Edward-Isaac, senior White House reporter.ounding editor and lead writer of City Hall and The
Capitol, where his coverage of New York City and state politics was recognized by the New York Press Association, the New York Press
Club, the Daniel Pearl Award for investigative journalism. At POLITICO, he oversaw the day to day coverage of the Republican
presidential primary campaign before joining the White House team for the 2012 campaign coverage. Carrie Budoff aff writer at the
Hartford Courant and the Philadelphia Inquirer before arriving at POLITICO on the day it launched in 2007. Budoff Brown is now a
White House reporter who focuses on the intersection of policy and politics in the administration and on Capitol Hill. Giddy Dems’ new
strategy: Watch the GOP implode : http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/giddy-dems-new-strategy-watch-the-gop-implode107766.html#ixzz35DkXqkjJ
Democratic operatives were just as surprised as everyone else by Eric Cantor’s defeat — but now they’re trying to figure out how to make
the most of it. The early thinking: Stay out of the GOP’s way. Virginia’s 7th Congressional District probably isn’t going their way,
regardless of the Republican candidate switch. But operatives planning for the midterms believe they can turn Tuesday’s surprising tea
party resurgence into something much bigger. (Also on POLITICO: The downside of ambition) They see the attention to the defeat as
another cut at the House Republicans as extremists, a new way to highlight congressional dysfunction, a chance to pump more GOP
distrust into the Latino voters Democrats are hoping to turn out in force in November, an argument that Republicans are in much worse
shape than they’ve purported to be. Of course, Democrats have seemed to seize the momentum many times before, only to lose it —
though never worse than when the buoyancy of winning on the shutdown immediately disappeared into the Obamacare website launch.
But on this one, they feel like Republicans are doing the work for them. There wasn’t a Cantor-based strategy session Wednesday with
White House political director David Simas, and there isn’t one planned. Staffers at the various Democratic campaign committees spent
the day reveling in the results and chattering about it among themselves, but not in any formal way. Party operatives think they can count
on at least two weeks of Republicans languishing, until June 24. That’s when Chris McDaniel will be looking to bring down Sen. Thad
Cochran in the Mississippi GOP run-off, while in the Colorado gubernatorial primary, voters will pick between two former House
Republicans: Tom Tancredo, the anti-immigration reform leader who’s ahead in the polls and Bob Beauprez, whom Cantor endorsed.
And all the while, House Republicans will be twisting through their own internal fight ahead of the June 19 majority leader election. “At a
certain point, Republicans will need a hand” making problems for themselves, said one Democratic strategist working on the midterms.
“That moment is not now.” Neither Obama nor any House or Senate candidate is likely to say either Cantor’s name or Brat’s much
between now and November — the president on Wednesday referred only to “an interesting election” at a Democratic Senatorial
Campaign Committee fundraiser Wednesday night, launching into a defense of what he insisted were the still-alive chances of
immigration reform. “At a certain point issues are important enough to fight for. My argument about yesterday’s election is not that there
was too little politics — there was too little conviction about what was right,” Obama said. After all, strategists don’t expect most voters
knew there was a primary in Virginia this week — or will care what the results were by next month, let alone by the fall. But they do
think the conversation Cantor’s loss sparked in the coverage has helped feed a larger sense of Republican extremism and obstructionism.
“Dave Brat is not a brand. The Republican lurch to the right is a brand,” said Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman
Steve Israel (D-N.Y.). “The Brat win is Exhibit A in our argument, but there are lots of exhibits to our argument. It accelerates the GOP’s
move to the right.” “Cantor lost because he wasn’t extreme enough, and that’s the direction of the Republican Party,” said Stephanie
Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager in 2012. “These larger narratives of the party getting pulled to the right is something the
Republicans need to be worried about.” Until about 7:40 p.m. on Tuesday, the conventional wisdom had been that the Republican
establishment had gotten the tea party under control, and the focus was on Obama’s problems. The election had been cast as a referendum
on the president. Now, Democrats say they think they’ve got fodder to make the argument that November will be a referendum on
Washington: The president is still a big part of that — but Cantor’s loss should be a reminder that Republicans are, too. “From a party
perspective, it’s always nice to see infighting from the opposition,” said Colorado Democratic Chairman Rick Palacio, who’s got his eyes
on the Beauprez-Tancredo race, as well as Rep. Cory Gardner’s run against Sen. Mark Udall. “Colorado voters look to Washington and
they see dysfunction, and they see the Republican Party being obstructionist and then shutting things down when they don’t get what they
want.” And the renewed GOP infighting appears to just be beginning. “Tonight, liberal establishment politician Eric Cantor was crushed
in his Republican Primary because of his vote to fully fund Obamacare,” read an email from Long Island congressional candidate George
Demos, pointing out that Cantor was scheduled to head to the swing district Saturday to campaign for Lee Zeldin, not known for being
much of a moderate himself. “Lamar, You’re Next!” read a fundraising email from Tennessee Republican Joe Carr, who’s hoping to
knock out Lamar Alexander. “Make no mistake: this isn’t a fluke in Virginia. And it’s not a fluke in Mississippi.” That will be a major
part of the Democratic argument for the House races, and for Senate races too, with six GOP House members running in Montana, West
Virginia, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado and Georgia (where Rep. Jack Kingston is running strong in the run-off). Polls show voters
saying that a Washington Republican is the worst thing a candidate can be: their numbers are lower than they’ve ever been — and far
below Obama’s. Already, people familiar with internal Democratic polling say it shows that whenever Obama rails against “Congress,”
people tend to hear “Republicans.” “The narrative has changed,” said Democratic National Committee communications director Mo
Elleithee. “To the extent that this election is a referendum on who has broken Washington and left the middle class twisting in the wind,
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
the spotlight is focused squarely on House Republicans.” “From the Democratic perspective, it goes to the heart of the contrast between
Democrats and Republicans” on economic issues and which party will fight for the middle class, said Obama pollster Joel Benenson.
“That is something Democrats in tough districts and swing districts should be able to run on and capitalize on.” Benenson pointed to the
2012 presidential election, which he described as a contrast of visions and values — and which the Democrat won. “The fundamental
weakness in the Republican brand is their obstructionism, that they’re hellbent on blocking everything. There is a lot of
frustration with Washington and Washington politics,” he said. “That is why Republicans have the most tarnished brand.” That’s
exactly what Cantor tried to warn about Wednesday afternoon at the Capitol, in his first public comments since his concession speech.
“There’s a stack of bills sitting in the Senate that shows House Republicans do get things done. We get a lot done. And our priority is
building an America that works for the middle-class families who are struggling in this country,” he said, urging Republicans to “put
minor differences aside and help elect a Republican House and Senate.” But the most direct and lasting effects of the Cantor loss,
Democrats say, are likely to be on the mechanics behind the campaigns. Much of the money backing Republican candidates this year is
going to come from outside groups. Cantor was his conference’s biggest fundraiser on Wall Street and among the pro-Israel community
— and Democrats believe that money will dry up, both because Cantor’s gone, and because those donors will now be more wary of
believing that House Republicans aren’t beholden to the tea party. And for the insider game, Democratic operatives think the people
paying the most attention to the campaigns will remember what turned out to be a 44 percent margin of error in the Cantor-Brat
polling. And even if they don’t remember, operatives will make sure to remind them of it every time there’s a new GOP poll that shows
their candidate ahead, arguing that Republicans either don’t have the data or are lying about what it is. “The Republican apparatus,
which is designed to give people the impression that they are ahead, took a big hit,” said DSCC deputy executive director Matt
Canter. “It matters to the chattering class. It matters to the media. It matters to donors. And it matters to press back home, which means it
matters to voters.”
Not a set deal and foreign policy issues won’t matter- congress has caused enough anger for voters to still
push for the democrats- plan doesn’t give enough of a push to voters
Blumenthal & Edwards Levy 6/18/2014 [Mark, Ariel, Huffington Post, HUFFPOLLSTER: Voters Dislike Both Parties,
Remain Split On Midterms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/midterm-poll_n_5509242.html
Obama's foreign policy rating dips - HuffPollster: "President Barack Obama's foreign policy approval rating is down a net 5 points in two
months, according to an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll released Wednesday, with a record 57 percent of Americans now disapproving of
his performance. The survey predates both growing sectarian strife in Iraq and the capture of a suspect associated with the 2012 attack on
a U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi….While foreign policy once ranked among Obama's strongest issues, polls show disapproval of
his performance gradually climbing to a new high. HuffPost Pollster's average, which combines all publicly available polling, finds
disapproval of his policies up about 3 points since the beginning of the year, and nearly 11 points since the start of 2013." [HuffPost, via
NBC] But Obama's falling ratings don't translate into change on House ballot - HuffPost's Rachel Lienesch: "The results of the NBC/Wall
Street Journal poll out today indicate that Obama’s low approval ratings alone may not necessarily push Republicans to victory this
November. The new poll, like many other national surveys, finds that Obama’s approval rating remains low. Overall, 53 percent of adults
disapprove of Obama's job performance, compared to just 41 percent who approve. However, the poll also finds that the high disapproval
rating does not translate into a similarly high vote for the Republican Party. By a 45 percent to 43 percent margin, respondents said they
would prefer the outcome of this November’s elections to be a Congress controlled by Democrats. Those numbers are virtually unchanged
from two months ago when respondents were evenly split – 45 percent preferred a Republican-controlled Congress and 45 percent opted
for a Democrat-controlled Congress." One reason: the GOP isn't popular either - Harry Enten: "Republicans have a good chance to take
the Senate and are very likely to keep control of the House, but they’re not running away with the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats
remain even among likely voters on the generic congressional ballot, a key measure of the national political environment. How is that
possible? Well, Republicans control the House of Representatives, and Congress is super unpopular. On Monday, Gallup reported that
Congress’s approval rating is just 16 percent. That matches other polling data, and if that level of support holds through November, it
would be the lowest heading into any midterm on record. What we’re left with is two unpopular entities — Obama and Congress —
somewhat offsetting each other, leading to a national environment (as measured by the generic congressional ballot) in which neither
party has that great of an edge....[T]he effect of Congress’s approval rating seems very real. Republicans look like they could be hurt by
that low approval rating." [538]
Congressional approval ratings will hurt the GOP far more than the Democrats
Enten 6/18/2014 [Harry is a senior political writer and analyst for FiveThirtyEight. Congress’s Low Approval Rating Is Hurting
Republicans http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/congresss-low-approval-rating-is-hurting-republicans/
President Obama’s approval rating is stuck in the low 40s. That’s as low — if not lower — than it was four years ago, when Democrats
sustained massive midterm losses. Republicans have a good chance to take the Senate and are very likely to keep control of the House,
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
but they’re not running away with the 2014 midterm elections. Democrats remain even among likely voters on the generic congressional
ballot, a key measure of the national political environment.
How is that possible? Well, Republicans control the House of Representatives, and Congress is super unpopular.
On Monday, Gallup reported that Congress’s approval rating is just 16 percent. That matches other polling data, and if that level of
support holds through November, it would be the lowest heading into any midterm on record. What we’re left with is two unpopular
entities — Obama and Congress — somewhat offsetting each other, leading to a national environment (as measured by the generic
congressional ballot) in which neither party has that great of an edge.
To see this effect, I examined congressional and presidential approval ratings since 1974 (the first year Gallup asked about congressional
approval ratings). I only looked at those years in which the House was controlled by one party and the White House by another, as is the
case this year. I’ve also controlled for whether the election is taking place in a midterm year; past research by political scientists shows the
president’s party does worse in midterm elections than in the same national environment during a presidential year.
Given this data, here’s what the model indicates best explains prior elections based on average congressional approval and average
presidential approval in the second quarter (April, May and June) of an election year.Not surprisingly, the midterm penalty and
presidential approval rating variables are most important in predicting the swing in the House vote compared to the prior election. Both
are statistically significant (see the p-value (“P>t”), less than 0.05 is good) and substantively significant (see the coefficient for
“president” and “midterm”; further away from zero means there’s more of a relationship). The party in charge of the House does far better
in midterms than it would do in a presidential election. The party in charge of the House also does worse when the president’s approval
rating is higher.
Congressional approval ratings in the second quarter (see the variable “Congress”) are not statistically significant as defined above, but
they are substantively significant. The lack of statistical significance is partly caused by the small number of observations we have in our
data set, just 13 elections. Also, the president’s approval ratings effect is greater than that of Congress’s approval rating.
Still, a congressional approval rating that matched the average of our data set, 34.7 percentage points, would predict a Republican victory
of 6.1 points in the national House vote, which is 3 points higher than the actual prediction given a 16 percent congressional approval
rating. Note that both of these estimates are greater than the current Republican lead on the generic ballot. This matches my earlier finding
that the national environment tends to move against the president’s party as the midterm election year proceeds.
We can perform the same test on approval ratings just before the election. (For this set, I took an average of the final pre-election approval
ratings for Gerald Ford and Richard M. Nixon in 1974, because they probably both had an impact on the midterms). Here, the relationship
between congressional approval ratings and the election result is stronger. If Congress’s approval rating this year matched the average of
our data set, we’d expect Republicans to win the national popular vote by their 2010 margin (given Obama’s current approval rating). It
would be a horrible national environment for Democrats. A 16 percent congressional approval rating, on the other hand, yields a
prediction of a Republican win of just over 2 percentage points in the national House vote. That’s not good news for Democrats, but it’s
far better than 2010. It also matches generally what we are seeing on the generic congressional ballot. I wouldn’t, however, take any of
these exact estimates too literally; we’re only dealing with 13 data points.
Yet the effect of Congress’s approval rating seems very real. Republicans look like they could be hurt by that low approval rating. This
flies in the face of the idea that this or any election with split control is solely a referenda on the president.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- UQ --- Dems Lose
The GOP is far ahead in all indicators for the midterms
Breitman & Page 5/5/2014 [ Susan and Kendall, USA TODAY Poll: For the midterms, a tilt to the GOP
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/05/usa-today-pew-poll-midterm-landscape-tilts-to-gop/8520429/
WASHINGTON — Democrats hoping improvements in the economy's course and the Affordable Care Act's implementation would level
the playing field for November's elections should brace themselves. A nationwide USA TODAY/Pew Research Center Poll shows the
strongest tilt to Republican candidates at this point in a midterm year in at least two decades, including before partisan "waves" in 1994
and 2010 that swept the GOP into power. Though Election Day is six months away — a lifetime in politics — at the moment, Democrats
are saddled by angst over the economy, skepticism about the health care law and tepid approval of the president. "People should start
opening their eyes and seeing we're not on track," says Brenna Collins, 32, a small-business owner from Kasson, Minn., who was among
those surveyed. "Not exactly saying Republicans are right but that things need to change." By more than 2-1, 65%-30%, Americans say
they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones.
In the 2014 elections, registered voters are inclined to support the Republican candidate over the Democrat in their congressional district
by 47%-43%. That 4-percentage-point edge may seem small, but it's notable because Democrats traditionally fare better among registered
voters than they do among those who actually cast ballots, especially in low-turnout midterms. "It's huge," says former Virginia
congressman Tom Davis, who twice chaired the Republican congressional campaign committee. He says its potential impact is tempered
only because House Republicans already hold a 233-seat majority, including most swing seats. Even so, the friendly landscape, if it holds,
could help the GOP bolster its majority in the House and gain the six seats needed to claim control of the Senate. Their lead in the generic
congressional ballot is the biggest at this point for Republicans in the past 20 years. In 1994, when the GOP would gain control of the
House and Senate, Democrats held a 2-point advantage in the spring of the election year. In 2010, when Republicans would win back the
House, the two sides were even. The poll of 1,501 adults, including 1,162 registered voters, was taken April 23-27. It has a margin of
error of +/-3 percentage points. Other findings help explain the Democrats' woes. By more than 2-1, Americans are dissatisfied with the
direction of the country. They remain downbeat about the economy. They aren't persuaded that the Affordable Care Act is going to help
them and their families. Even the president's supporters worry he is a political liability for fellow Democrats. The president's job approval
rating remains anemic in the new survey, at 44% approve, 50% disapprove. "I still support Obama," Sandra McSwain, 70, a retired
teacher from Brownwood, Texas, said in a follow-up interview. (She identifies herself as "always been Democrat, no matter what.") But
she adds, "In Texas, it is suicide to even be seen with him," noting that Democratic gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis dodged a
chance to be photographed with the president. Of Republicans, McSwain grumbles, "You'd think these people are running against Obama,
the way he's mentioned in every advertisement."
Obama’s already damaging democrats races for elections
Breitman & Page 5/5/2014 [ Susan and Kendall, USA TODAY Poll: For the midterms, a tilt to the GOP
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/05/usa-today-pew-poll-midterm-landscape-tilts-to-gop/8520429/
'WE OUGHT TO CLEAN HOUSE' The disenchantment among some about the president and Democrats doesn't necessarily mean
Republicans have won them over. Only 23% approve of the job Republican congressional leaders are doing. Thirty-two percent approve
of Democratic congressional leaders — a better standing, if not exactly a good one. "We ought to clean house and get rid of 99% of
them," says Vicky Lovaas, 58, of Kenai, Alaska, an independent who leans to the GOP. "They go down to Washington and get their
parking spot and tell the rest of us to go take a flying leap." The desire to shake things up seems to hurt Democrats more than
Republicans, even though the GOP controls the House. By 53%-43%, those surveyed say the issue of which party controls Congress will
be a factor in their vote. Those who say they feel that way are more likely to support the Republican contender. What's more, 26% say
they think of their vote as a vote against Obama; 16% as a vote for him. The president looms as more of a drag on Democrats than he was
four years ago, when Democratic setbacks cost the party control of the House. Then, by 24%-20%, people saw their vote as a vote for
Obama. Even the president acknowledged the problem in a humorous speech at the White House Correspondents Association dinner
Saturday. "Of course, now that it's 2014, Washington is obsessed on the midterms," he said. "Folks are saying that with my sagging poll
numbers, my fellow Democrats don't really want me campaigning with them. And I don't think that's true — although I did notice the
other day that Sasha needed a speaker at career day, and she invited Bill Clinton." Democrats are significantly less motivated by their
support for Obama, a factor that could complicate the critical effort to turn out voters. In 2010, 47% cast a vote to show their support for
him; that's dropped to 31%. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders say the party will tap the sort of sophisticated on-the-ground efforts that
Obama pioneered to boost turnout. The president continues to be a strong motivating force for the other side: 46% of Republicans say
they will cast a vote to show their opposition to him. "I would definitely go against him because I haven't exactly agreed with the issues
he's focused on," says Shalise Gallaher, 22, an office worker from Lexington, Ky. Many voters, she predicts, "will just go for a change."
Views of the Affordable Care Act haven't brightened, even after problems with the website were fixed and 8 million people signed up for
insurance before the March 31 deadline. In the poll, 41% approve of the law, a record 55% disapprove of it. Some say they've seen the
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
law's positive impact. Quentin Howell, 37, of Milledgeville, Ga., says he was diagnosed with "a touch of diabetes" two years ago; under
the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies can't deny him coverage because of his pre-existing condition. "This is a big issue for me,"
he says. Opposition to the Affordable Care Act continues to be more intense than support for it. "Obamacare could be a breaking point for
who gets my vote," says Anthony Miniard, 50, of Lynchburg, Ohio. Once a reliable Republican, he became disenchanted with the party.
But his opposition to the health care law could push him back to the GOP. He labels the law "a screw-up from Day One" and says, "I don't
know if I would vote for a Democrat that keeps Obamacare going." All that said, some people aren't paying attention to midterm politics,
at least not yet. "I'm really not happy that so much focus gets put on elections when it's only April or May," says Skyler McKinley, 22, a
student from Lakewood, Colo., who was called in the poll. "It's not something I've really started thinking about." Ask him again in the
fall.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- Impact Defense --- Can’t Predict
Polls don’t prove anything, massive changes can occur over time- Cantor loss proves
Blumenthal & Edwards Levy 6/18/2014 [Mark, Ariel, Huffington Post, HUFFPOLLSTER: Voters Dislike Both Parties,
Remain Split On Midterms http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/18/midterm-poll_n_5509242.html
ANOTHER EXPLANATION OF WHY AN INTERNAL POLL MISSED ERIC CANTOR'S LOSS - Mark Mellman: "I'm going to
defend the indefensible and attempt to explain the inexplicable. I’m unwilling to throw up my hands and blame statistics or incompetence
for the failure of polls to foresee Rep. Eric Cantor’s primary defeat...Let’s entertain a possibility that seems improbable, but one I would
argue is more likely than any of those so far considered: The poll was more or less correct. Perhaps it was off by 4 or 8 points, but not 18.
Thirteen and 14 days before the election, when Cantor’s poll was taken, the majority leader had something like 62 percent of the vote. Six
days later, when another poll was taken by Vox Populi, Cantor’s support had shrunk by 10 points, to 52 percent. And then, in the eight
days between that poll and the time the votes were counted, Cantor slipped more, to his final 44.5. How plausible is this alternative based
on what we know about primaries? Fairly. Without the anchor of party identification, primary horse races can shift much further and
faster than those in general elections...If there is a clear lesson here, it is not to avoid a particular pollster, but rather to never assume a
lead will hold, especially in primaries. If you want to be accurate, keep polling." [The Hill]
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- Link Defense --- Foreign Policy O/W
Plan’s irrelevant- foreign policy will trigger voter backlash against Democrats in the midterms
Zelizer 6/9/2014 [Julian, CNN Contributor, Zelizer: Dems pay a price for Bergdahl deal? http://www.kesq.com/news/Zelizer-Demspay-a-price-for-Bergdahl-deal/26396640
CNN) - Critics of President Barack Obama's foreign policy are getting louder by the day, and that poses risks for Democrats this fall and
even in 2016. According to previews of Hillary Clinton's memoirs, "Hard Choices," the former secretary of state distances herself from
Obama on certain decisions, such as on the question of whether to arm Syrian rebels. She wanted to be more aggressive; he did not.
Democrats have grown more nervous about foreign policy as Obama has been working hard to respond to critics who say hasn't taken a
tough-enough line. The controversy over the deal to secure the release of Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl in exchange for five Taliban
prisoners has flared into an extraordinarily heated debate. Obama has watched as his approval rating for handling international affairs has
fallen to 41%. Last month, Obama had to stand by as Republicans launched another round of congressional investigations into the deaths
of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya. Russia's aggressive moves into the Ukraine stirred talk of a new Cold War and concern that the
President didn't really have a viable response to this kind of aggression. More recently, the controversies shifted to the President's broader
vision or lack thereof. Republicans found a lot to dislike in his address at West Point, where Obama indicated that the nation should step
back from using military power as freely as it has done in the past. Soon after came the news about the release of Bergdahl, in exchange
for the release of five notorious Taliban prisoners. Republicans were quick to accuse the President of negotiating with terrorists. They
have also accused him of violating the law by failing to inform Congress of the impending deal. Even though Democrats point to a
number of huge accomplishments during the Obama presidency -- the killing of Osama bin Laden, the drawdown of the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq and diplomatic initiatives to bring nuclear disarmament in Iran without bloodshed -- the critics have upped their
volume. All of the recent stories add up to the potential for foreign policy to emerge as a potent issue in the midterm campaigns this fall.
Congressional Democrats could suffer as a result of the unhappiness with the administration's policies. Even though midterm elections
generally focus on bread and butter questions about the health of the economy, as well as local concerns, there are times when foreign
policy can hurt the party of the president. In 1966, for instance, Republicans campaigned against Lyndon Johnson's policies in Vietnam.
GOP officials such as former Vice President Richard Nixon said that Johnson was not unleashing enough force against the North
Vietnamese Communists and leaving U.S. troops in a quagmire. In 1978, Republicans railed against President Jimmy Carter for his
alleged weakness in foreign policy, claiming that he gave away too much in the Panama Canal Treaties and that he was pursuing a
dangerous policy of détente with the Soviet Union. In 1982, Democrats, who were generally focused on the recession, also spoke in favor
of a nuclear freeze and warned that President Ronald Reagan's embrace of the military was bringing the nation close to war. More
recently, Republicans blasted Democrats in 2002 for being weak on defense after having not supported the administration's homeland
security bill. And in 2006, Democratic candidates returned the favor by criticizing the president's war in Iraq as a reckless, unnecessary
and extremely costly operation that had actually undermined the war on terrorism. While foreign policy carried different levels of weight
in these midterms, in some of these contests, such as 1966 and 2006, the administration's actions overseas dismayed voters. Will foreign
policy play a factor in the 2014 midterms? It is unlikely that it will be a major issue but there are ways it could have an indirect effect on
the ballot box and cause trouble for Democrats when Americans turn out to vote. At the most immediate level, the foreign policy
controversy has already distracted the news media from other kinds of stories upon which congressional Democrats were hoping to focus.
The foreign policy controversy intensified just as there was evidence that the economy was picking up steam and that the Obama's health
care program was gaining strength. Both signs of accomplishment were put on the back burner, overshadowed by the Bergdahl debate.
The stories also feed the perception of some voters who feel that Democrats have not done a good job managing government. This is a
White House that once prided itself on competence. Obama, a well-educated politician who surrounded himself with bright staff, vowed
to avoid the kind of mismanagement that had been on display with Hurricane Katrina during President George W. Bush's term. But that
reputation has slowly been undercut, especially after the botched health care website rollout and the VA scandal. Some of the coverage of
the foreign policy, including recent reports on how the deal with the Taliban was handled, have played into these kinds of criticism. The
New York Times published a lengthy piece about the diminishing returns that Obama was able to obtain over the past several years in
exchange for the release of the Taliban 5 and evidence of how his team had mishandled the process. The Berghdal deal is also becoming a
way to question the veracity of Democratic promises. Members of Congress, in both parties, have alleged that Obama violated the law by
ignoring a federal statute that says the president must inform Congress one month before such a deal is completed. They have said he is
acting exactly like Bush, whom he had accused of discounting legislative intent through sweeping notions of executive power. The
foreign policy debate puts into focus the argument that Obama, as well as the party he leads, lacks a bold vision. This is something that
has even frustrated many Democrats who feel that the President is too much of pragmatist and not enough of a visionary. The speech at
West Point fell flat for some Americans because it almost seemed focus on excusing what he couldn't do rather outlining what he wants to
do. During his visit to the Philippines, the President explained his outlook on foreign policy by saying, "You hit singles, you hit doubles;
every once in a while you may be able to hit a home run." The debate over foreign policy helps Republicans by riling up the party's base
at an opportune time, five months before the election, while at the same time dispiriting the Democrats. Yes, voters are thinking primarily
about how they're faring in today's economy, but on the margins, their perception of their local candidate's views on foreign policy could
be a factor in November.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- Link Defense --- Economy O/W
Econ is the largest issue for the midterms
Breitman & Page 5/5/2014 [ Susan and Kendall, USA TODAY Poll: For the midterms, a tilt to the GOP
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/05/usa-today-pew-poll-midterm-landscape-tilts-to-gop/8520429/
IT'S STILL THE ECONOMY
As usual, the economy matters most.
Voters say the most important issue affecting their vote for Congress this fall is the jobs situation, cited by 27% of those surveyed. Health
care is first for 21%, followed by the federal budget deficit, named by 19%. Only education and national security also break into double
digits.
Though economists report an economic recovery is underway, most people say they aren't feeling its benefits. By more than 2-1, 40%17%, they assess the nation's economic conditions as poor, not excellent or good. That's essentially unchanged from a year ago.
Nor is there evidence of increased optimism about the future. One in four predict economic conditions will be better a year from now, but
another one in four predict they will be worse. Half don't expect it to change.
"I think the economy is getting better, but slowly — too slowly," says Ronald Moore, 65, of San Francisco. "It's just at a standstill."
The survey was taken before Friday's report that the nation's unemployment rate had dropped to 6.3%. Still, only 27% say there are plenty
of jobs available in their community. That perception essentially hasn't changed over the past year even as the jobless rate has declined by
more than a percentage point.
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi disputes the analysis that Democratic prospects are in peril, saying the party's candidates will be
helped by a focus on pocketbook issues such as raising the minimum wage — and by antipathy to the GOP. "We have the Republicans,"
she says in discussing Democratic assets. For them, "the agenda is nothing, and the timetable is never."
Most of those surveyed say their own families aren't prospering: 39% rate their financial situation as "only fair" and 23% call it poor.
They do see a bit of hope on the horizon. Looking ahead, 59% say things are getting better for them, though most say only a little better.
One in four say things are getting worse.
"My situation has improved," says John Konicek, 41, an engineer from Estero, Fla. "I have a secure job, and my home (value) has
increased."
"Food out here is expensive; gas is going up; rent is going up; I don't get a raise," frets Edward Trivette, 55, of Forgan, Okla. He says he
often can't afford to buy the sort of meat he processes at the plant where he works. He doesn't see the federal government doing much to
help. "It's very, very frustrating when you try to make a living for your family and Congress and Washington is against you."
Perhaps the most disturbing sign for Democrats: By 43%-39%, Americans say following the economic policies of Republican
congressional leaders would do more to strengthen the economy over the next few years than following the policies of the Obama
administration.
"My local economy stinks, and the national economy is not much better," says Loree McOwen, 50, of Dryden, N.Y. She works as an
administrative assistant at Cornell; her husband has been unemployed for three years. Though she's voted a straight Democratic ticket in
the past, she says she won't do that this time.
"To be honest, I'm very disillusioned right now," she says. "I just want to vote for who is the best person for me now, and it may be a
Republican or a Democrat."
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- Link Turns --- Dems
Energy development gets momentum for the dems- the jobs and econ developments
Ford 5/29/2014 [Harold, Former U.S. Representative; Chairman, Democratic Leadership Council & NBC News Analyst This is the
only way Democrats can hold onto the Senate http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/05/29/this-is-the-only-waydemocrats-can-hold-onto-the-senate/
Halfway through President Obama’s first term, Democrats lost 63 seats in the House and six in the Senate, reaffirming the widely held
belief that a sitting president’s party almost always suffers losses in Congress during midterm elections. But Democrats have an
opportunity to defy history this time around. If there is a single issue that can help Democrats avoid the midterm curse and even gain
ground this election, it is the energy renaissance that the president has quietly helped engineer by supporting the most diverse energy
portfolio in history. As a result of these efforts, millions of new jobs have been created across the energy sector, a trend that allows
Democrats to play offense in the upcoming election instead of simply having to deflect Republican criticism over the state of the
economy. Yes, there are factions within our party that have long been wary of the energy industry. But Democrats would be wise to avoid
the all-or-nothing approach of ideologues. Instead, Democrats should take the lead in championing strategies that attempt to build upon
the energy sector’s successes, including long-overdue policies that would help transform America into a major global energy supplier.
Consider what is happening in the area of natural gas development. Since 2007, there has been a 50 percent increase in U.S. shale oil and
gas production. Prices have dropped and stockpiles have grown; and entire regions of the country have been revitalized. It has shored up
the U.S. economy at a critical moment, putting Americans back to work, powering industry and drawing manufacturing back to domestic
soil. Hundreds of American companies—including household names like Ford, GE, and Whirlpool—whose business was once considered
lost to more competitive markets have begun to re-shore their operations here at home. Now as we look to broaden the benefits of our
energy renaissance, exporting excess supplies of natural gas would help continue this streak of innovation and expansive job growth.
The energy dependent America as a rally cry will boost the Democrats in all areas that they otherwise are
struggling in the midterm polls
Ford 5/29/2014 [Harold, Former U.S. Representative; Chairman, Democratic Leadership Council & NBC News Analyst This is the
only way Democrats can hold onto the Senate http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/05/29/this-is-the-only-waydemocrats-can-hold-onto-the-senate/
Why hold back on this historic moment? The jobs that natural gas has already created—1.7 million, by some estimates—are reviving the
heart of small town America. States like Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are rapidly expanding production. Industries like steel and
shipbuilding, dormant only a few years ago, are growing again. Experts predict LNG exports will generate as much as $73 billion in GDP,
which, under the right policies, can be sustained for decades. Domestically, we are relying less and less on the whim of other nations for
energy. The United States was 87 percent self-sufficient for energy needs in the first half of 2013. President Obama said himself that
energy independence is within reach, thanks to natural gas. There is no lack of global demand. In the wake of the turmoil in Ukraine, for
example, many of our European allies have pleaded for increased energy support. We should not bottle up these resources at home when
we can use them as strong diplomatic leverage abroad, where Russia’s thinly veiled regional ambitions have put this issue center stage.
Democrats should take the lead in driving legislation that has already been introduced in Congress to expedite energy exports. This would
allow the party to achieve a notable accomplishment in advance of the elections: a sound strategy for job growth, energy development,
and foreign policy After all, many Democrats, primarily electorally vulnerable ones from energy-producing states, are under pressure to
demonstrate that they can deliver energy projects that produce jobs, particularly after the administration delayed its decision on the
Keystone XL Pipeline. America is now an energy power player. However, we have yet to fully realize the expansive benefits of this new
reality. But we can place ourselves on that path. We can start with energy exports—for the good of our party and, more important, our
country.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- Link Turns --- Independents
No link- Environmentalists and Big Oil both weren’t happy with the last extensions, BUT OCS allows for
swaying of independents, and Obama takes the blame
Clayton 2012 {Mark, Christian Science Monitor Staff Writer, Deep-water oil drilling: why Obama is OK with angering left and right
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0126/Deep-water-oil-drilling-why-Obama-is-OK-with-angering-left-and-right
President Obama Thursday followed up on his State of the Union promise to expand deep-ocean oil drilling and
exploration on the nation's outer continental shelf by unveiling a big oil lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico. The move marks yet another step toward full-scale
resumption of leasing following the abrupt halt that followed the 2010 Deepwater Horizon blowout that killed 11 men and spilled an estimated 4.9 million barrels (205 million
gallons) of oil into the Gulf. But it satisfied neither the oil industry nor environmentalists. The June lease sale is not "new" at all, but one devised by the
Bush administration and later put on hold, industry sources say. They call for the president to return to the offshore drilling plan he endorsed just months before the Gulf oil spill, which would open new waters off Virginia, North and
South Carolina, and Florida to drilling. Environmentalists criticize the administration for reopening deep-water drilling even though the technical problems that led to the Gulf oil spill have not been fixed. But as gasoline prices creep upward
this spring, the president's move could be intended to show independent voters he isn't under the thumb of environmentalists or
the oil industry. Following his rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline project, Thursday's move could deflect election-year criticism that he is harming
the nation's economy by not vigorously pursing oil development at home. "As in 2010, administration actions continue to defend the
president's left flank while demonstrating responsiveness to voters confronting high prices for transportation and heating fuels," writes Kevin Book, a
OK, baby – you can drill. Just be careful.
senior energy analyst with ClearView Partners, LLC, a Washington-based energy market research firm, in a recent analysis. "But this year the White House is being much more careful." The lease sale puts on the block 38 million acres across the central Gulf of Mexico, an
energy-rich region estimated to hold 31 billion barrels of oil and 134 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Much of it is in water up to 11,000 feet deep and 230 miles from shore. It is the first element of the president's plan, announced in his State of the Union address, to open 75
percent of the oil and gas resources on nation's continental shelf to drilling. In all, a dozen lease sales will run from 2012 to 2017 in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Alaskan coast in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas and in Cook Inlet, the administration announced today. "Right
now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years," the president said at a UPS facility in Las Vegas where he was highlighting energy efficiency. "Last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of last 16 years. That hasn’t gotten a lot of attention, but
that’s important. We’re moving in the right direction when it comes to oil and gas production." Administration officials say the move is responsible because of tougher regulatory oversight and safety regulations, as well as the testing and deployment of new capping technology
in the event of future deep-water blowouts. Moreover, the administration now conducts site-specific environmental assessments for every deep-water exploration and development plan, something not done previously, said Tommy Beaudreau, director of the federal Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management Director at a meeting of oil and gas executives in Louisiana Wednesday. But energy industry officials were disappointed that the president's plan does not allow drilling on the Atlantic seaboard or Florida's west coast – as the pre-Gulf oil spill plan
did. "Unfortunately, overall, there is nothing new here," said Erik Milito, an official with the American Petroleum Institute, the leading oil and gas industry group based in Washington, in a statement. "The administration's plans for offshore leasing will keep more than 85
percent of the offshore areas off limits." For their part, environmentalists say that equipment designed to prevent deep-water blowouts is fundamentally unchanged from what it was before the spill.
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Midterms --- A2: DA Turns Case
Empirically proven, either GOP wins and the aff happens, or Dems win, they still wouldn’t totally kill the
bill- 2006 midterm election proves
Krauss 2006 [Clifford, New York Times, Bill Allowing More Drilling Along Coasts Appears Dead
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/business/11drilling.html?pagewanted=print&_r=0
HOUSTON, Nov. 9 — Just a few months ago House Republicans and representatives of the energy industry were poised to rewrite a
quarter-century of national energy policy and open the seas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to oil and gas drilling, which
environmentalists had fervently resisted. But Tuesday’s Democratic victory in midterm elections has changed the legislative landscape,
obliterating the chances that anything close to the aggressive drilling bill passed by the House of Representatives will be enacted for years
to come. Now, with the Democrats’ mid-term election victory, the proponents of drilling off the nation’s beaches are reluctantly jockeying
to settle for a small patch of new offshore exploration allowed in a competing and more modest Senate drilling bill. “I don’t want to end
up having no progress,” said Representative John E. Peterson, a Pennsylvania Republican who is a leading proponent for expanded
offshore drilling. “Something is better than nothing.” He added, “With Nancy Pelosi as speaker it will be difficult to talk about producing
in the outer continental shelf.” Dave Parker, president of the American Gas Association, which represents utilities, said: “It’s a matter of
being pragmatic. The Republicans who had thought they would retain control basically now have one option, which is to accept the
Senate-passed version.” The Senate bill opens to bidding 8.3 million acres of federal waters in the Gulf of Mexico. The waters, south of
the Florida Panhandle and 235 miles west of Tampa, are thought to hold 5.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 1.3 billion barrels of
crude oil. Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and many independents are expected to make bids in the area, known as Lease Area
181, which is attractive because it is relatively shallow and close to pipelines and other infrastructure built previously. Many lawmakers
and energy industry officials had expressed little enthusiasm for the Senate bill before the election. They said it was too limited because it
would produce, at most, only the equivalent of two months of domestic demand for oil, along with enough gas to cool and heat six million
homes for 15 years. Unlike the House version, the Senate bill would prohibit drilling over a far greater area, in particular a section 125
miles off most of Florida’s west coast. The House bill, passed in June, would virtually eliminate a federal moratorium on drilling on most
of the outer continental shelf off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts that has been in place since 1982. In the summer, energy industry leaders
were in strong support of the House bill. Industry officials said drilling off the two coasts would add enormous amounts of oil and gas to
the national inventory over many years, though the exact amounts are not known. Brian J. Kennedy, deputy chief of staff for the House
Committee on Resources, conceded that there was now no chance of expanding offshore drilling at anything close to what the House had
hoped for, but he expressed hope that a law could be enacted in the lame-duck session. Speaking of Representative Richard W. Pombo of
California, chairman of the Resources Committee and chief backer of the House bill, Mr. Kennedy added, “The chairman wants a bill and
he’ll do everything he can to make sure we get a bill.” Mr. Pombo lost his re-election bid. Mr. Kennedy said Senate and House leaders
had already agreed to some compromises, a provision to recover up to $13 billion in lost revenue from energy companies and a set-aside
of some future energy production revenue for rural schools. Some Senate Republicans would like to amend the Senate bill to give
Virginia an option to opt out of the moratorium, according to Congressional sources. But it remains doubtful Senate Democratic leaders
would go along with such a version. Before the midterm election was tallied, lobbyists for energy and manufacturing companies switched
tack and began pressing Congressional leaders and the White House to enact the Senate bill passed in August and discard most if not all
of the far more ambitious House bill. Industry officials said the lobbying campaign began weeks ago when it became clear that Democrats
had a good chance of taking the House. “I would hope that the House could appreciate what is possible and try to help move forward for
the American people,” John Hofmeister, president of Shell Oil, said in an interview. “Let’s get a bill cleared that the president can sign.”
George Mason Debate Institute
2014-2015
OCS Aff
Politics --- Link Turns --- GOP
Republicans like offshore drilling- would support the plan
Cama, 6/20/2014 [Timothy, The Hill, GOP seeks to expand oil and gas offshore and on public land http://thehill.com/policy/energyenvironment/210096-gop-seeks-to-expand-oil-and-gas-offshore-and-on-public-land#ixzz35DmRyW4H
Thirteen House Republicans introduced a bill to expand oil and natural gas drilling offshore and on publicly owned land, moves they say
would lower gasoline and other energy prices in the United States. The bill would force the Obama administration to move toward
offshore drilling on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, conduct lease sales off Virginia’s coast, establish revenue sharing for offshore drilling,
reform the permitting process for federal land and other changes. “In order for America to prosper, we need access to reliable and
affordable energy,” Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a Thursday statement.
“The best way to create jobs and help address rising prices is to develop the American energy resources we have right here at home.” The
sponsors said the legislation aims to remove “roadblocks” to energy production. Those roadblocks from the Obama administration have
led to drops in oil and gas production both offshore and on federal land. Eighty-seven percent of offshore area is off limits to oil and gas
drilling, and Obama’s plans do not include opening more areas for production, they said.