Arctic Oil/Gas Neg
Methane DA
1NC
Major drilling expansion causes methane release- slow releases in the squo
will not trigger the impact
Morningstar 11 [Cory Morningstar, “Destination—Hell. Are we there yet?,” Huntington News,
Sunday, March 27, 2011—01:09, pg. http://www.huntingtonnews.net/2768
US Department of Energy meeting summary: "Alternatively, an undersea earthquake today, say off the
Blake Ridge or the coast of Japan or California might loosen and cause some of the sediment to slide
down the ridge or slump, exposing the hydrate layer to the warmer water. That in turn could cause a
chain reaction of events, leading to the release of massive quantities of methane. Another possibility
is drilling and other activities related to exploration and recovery of methane hydrates as an energy
resource. The hydrates tend to occur in the pores of sediment and help to bind it together.
Attempting to remove the hydrates may cause the sediment to collapse and release the hydrates. So,
it may not take thousands of years to warm the ocean and the sediments enough to cause massive
releases, only lots of drilling rigs . Returning to the 4 GtC release scenario, assume such a release occurs
over a one-year period sometime in the next 50 years as result of slope failure. According to the Report
of the Methane Hydrate Advisory Committee, “Catastrophic slope failure appears to be necessary to
release a sufficiently large quantity of methane rapidly enough to be transported to the atmosphere
without significant oxidation or dissolution.” In this event, methane will enter the atmosphere as
methane gas. It will have a residence time of several decades and a global warming potential of 62
times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. This would be the equivalent of 248 GtC as carbon
dioxide or 31 times the annual man-made GHG emissions of today. Put another way, this would have
the impact of nearly 30 years worth of GHG warming all at once. The result would almost certainly be
a rapid rise in the average air temperature, perhaps as much as 3°F immediately. This might be
tolerable if that’s as far as things go. But, just like 15,000 years ago, if the feedback mechanisms kick in,
we can expect rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctic ice and an overall temperature increase of
30°F ."
Extinction—Hydrate extraction is unavoidably dangerous.
Morningstar 11 [Cory Morningstar, “Destination—Hell. Are we there yet?,” Huntington News,
Sunday, March 27, 2011—01:09, pg. http://www.huntingtonnews.net/2768]
This is modeling madness. By doing this the scientists are exposing humanity to a huge risk of global
climate catastrophe. This madness is effectively preventing any possibility of an emergency climate
response. Modelling for future catastrophe, is effectively distracting us from the climate emergency we
face, dead on, today. Further madness has made its presence known. As methane hydrate melting and
venting accelerates—securing our path to extinction —scientists have now begun to do modelling on
the hydrates.
Recently, it appears that leading methane scientists, who have been instrumental in sounding the
methane alarm (based on their observations that the warming Arctic is driving the thaw and methane
venting due to anthropogenic climate change), are being pressured by other scientists to provide
"absolute proof" that the thaw and venting have not been occurring for reasons other than human-
made warming. If my daughter is pushed off the playground equipment, causing a broken arm—her arm
needs a cast. Urgently. It makes no difference who pushed her.
Given the unparalleled enormous risks, the precautionary principle should certainly take precedence.
The risk formula can be applied for such a colossal catastrophic impact, even when there is too little
data to calculate a reliable probability.
The grim reality coupled with common sense tells us unequivocally that the Arctic temperature is only
going one way—upward. Therefore, at some point it will hit the thaw point (if it has not done so
already) and no modeling is necessary to understand this simple fact.
"Catastrophic emissions cannot be ruled out." That is a main statement when pouring over
scientific papers on methane. It reads like a disclaimer along with the cautious language of possible,
could, and other select language that allows us to continue denying our reality. Today, the majority of
published climate science is all framed to allow the fossil fuel industry to not only survive, but continue
growing and globalizing.
When reviewing scientific papers, one cannot find any references that address the absolute necessity of
stopping fossil fuel combustion. The most important component of stabilizing our planet's climate
simply is not addressed. It is both revealing and ominous that proponents of the exploitation, which
includes scientists, are suggesting that we now have to extract the methane to make the hydrates
safe. Extracting the methane is unavoidably dangerous as this would depressurize the local
environment. The gas extracted from the methane hydrates will be burned to drive the fossil fuel world
economy—emitting huge amounts of CO2 in the process. All of the IPCC scenarios currently used, accept
that our world economies are dependent and locked into fossil fuels—thereby legitimizing the fossil fuel
industry.
2NC Impact Calc
OCS drilling demands a worst case analysis
Houck 10—Professor of Law @ Tulane University [Oliver A. Houck, “Worst Case and the Deepwater
Horizon Blowout: There Ought to Be a Law,” Environmental Law Reporter, v1, 2010]
On May 18, 2010, the CEQ announced a 30-day review of¶ NEPA policies regarding OCS drilling in the
Gulf.99 The¶ public comments were predictable, and, to some extent, a¶ replay of the l986 comments
many years earlier. Industry¶ claimed that the Deepwater Horizon blowout was an anomaly,¶ it had
the situation in hand, it was already burdened with¶ a plethora of regulations, the only problem was
implementation100;¶ environmental groups, of course, urged opposite conclusions.¶ 101 The outcome
of this inquiry is pending, but it is¶ also by its very nature quite limited. OCS drilling is the tip¶ of the
iceberg, a dangerous tip to be sure, but much the same¶ can be said for coal mining, oil shale, tar sands,
natural gas¶ fracturing, renewed nuclear energy development, and similar¶ ventures that ignore worst
cases at their (and our) peril.¶ Nor is the worst-case doctrine limited in any logical sense¶ to energy
development, with major decisions involving bioengineering,¶ genetically modified crops, endocrine
disruptors,¶ and ecosystem modifications ahead. OCS is currently¶ on the table, which is a good start.
Worst case belongs back on the table as well .
When it returns, two amendments seem desirable. The first is the removal of the “reasonably
foreseeable” threshold for events of catastrophic proportion, which has become an¶ escape valve of
choice for the federal family. Standard risk¶ analysis tells us that, the more severe the potential
consequences, the more precaution is required. The second is to¶ restore the phrase “worst-case
analysis” to its original place,¶ calling the inquiry what it is. Ever since the Supreme Court¶ picayunely
seized on its absence to trash a worst-case claim,¶ the federal judiciary has largely abandoned the field,
and any¶ rewrite will fare the same unless the labeling is unambiguous.¶ Words matter.
There is today, ever more acutely as we launch more risky ventures with even planetary impacts at
stake , a constructive¶ role for explicit worst-case analysis in the NEPA process. My¶ gifted academic
colleague Bill Rodgers has called it, in the¶ context of climate change, “the power of negative
thinking”102¶ It is the power of environmental groups with technical staffs,¶ academics, self-taught
experts, retirees from agencies and industry, international colleagues, and the whole panoply¶ of the
“loyal opposition” that keeps majority decisions at¶ least relatively honest, improves even marginal
projects, and¶ makes all of us and our surroundings a little more secure.¶ It comes, through NEPA and
administrative law, with the¶ concomitant power of enforcement, infusing this thinking,¶ like it or not,
into the decisionmaking process, ensuring that¶ activities this big are undertaken with eyes wide open
and all¶ due preparation. This is NEPA’s role. The OCS program is¶ not the only one that needs it. All
major federal decisions do. Pg. 1039-1040
Cost-Benefit Analysis is a political tool and insufficient—it cannot be used to
protect the environment.
Kornfeld 11—Faculty of Law @ The Hebrew University of Jerusalem [Itzchak E. Kornfeld, (Visiting
Professor @ Widener Law School) “LEARNING FROM DISASTER: LESSONS FOR THE FUTURE FROM THE
GULF OF MEXICO: SYMPOSIUM ARTICLE: OF DEAD PELICANS, TURTLES, AND MARSHES: NATURAL
RESOURCES DAMAGES IN THE WAKE OF THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON SPILL,” Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review, 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 317, 2011]
V. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS HAS FAILED
Cost-benefit analysis has been the primary means of "assess[ing] the costs and benefits of regulation"
for the past twenty years. n153
But its use has come under sharp criticism from those who point out that it has been used as a tool to
stymie health, safety and environmental regulation. That was never truer than during the [George W.]
Bush years, but in fact cost-benefit was a significant barrier to progress even during the more
regulation-friendly Clinton Administration.
The idea of quantifying costs and benefits, and then weighing them against each other sounds logical
in theory, but it works terribly in the realm of regulating health and environmental protections. n154
Indeed, a recent study found that the use of CBA would have resulted in the wrong outcome in three
environmental regulatory decisions: "the removal of lead from gasoline in the 1970s and 1980s, the
decision not to dam the Grand Canyon for hydroelectric power in the 1960s, and the strict regulation of
workplace exposure to vinyl chloride in 1974." n155 Thus, from an environmental policy-making
perspective, the purpose of an agency's data gathering and application of the scientific method is to
"support regulatory and management decisions . . . [which] must [*339] be insulated to the extent
feasible against the vagaries of the political world." n156 The CBA process--rooted in economics--is a
political tool, not a scientific one . n157
CBA is a methodology that looks solely at costs and benefits. n158 But for whose cost and for whose
benefit? Will it be used for the benefit of the wildlife that will need to remake its home in south
Louisiana? Will it be for the destroyed marshes or for the Cajun and native tribes of south Louisiana?
Alternatively, will the benefit be for that nebulous mass referred to by politicians as the "American
People"?
2NC Link Turns Case
Environmental disaster destroys demand
Aldhous, 12 -- New Scientist bureau chief and environmental correspondent
(Peter, "Drilling into the Unknown," New Scientist, 1-28-12, l/n, accessed 6-4-12, mss)
So far, evidence that fracking poses serious risks to human health or the environment –; beyond the
pollution associated with fossil fuel extraction –; is scant. But studies are few and hard to interpret, and
feelings are running high: neighbours of new fracking operations complain of problems like breathing
difficulties, nausea and headaches. "When the public is confused, the public is angry," says Bernard
Goldstein, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. These concerns
could even bring the shale gas bandwagon to a halt. "If action is not taken to reduce the environmental
impact there is a real risk of serious environmental consequences causing a loss of public confidence
that could delay or stop this activity," advisers to US energy secretary Steven Chu concluded late last
year.
2NC Link XTN
Opening the Arctic leads to Methane hydrate development—they risk seafloor
collapse and the release of large volumes of methane.
ORNL Review 2k [Oak Ridge National Laboratory Review, “Methane Hydrates: A Carbon
Management Challenge,” Issue 22 Number 2, 2000, pg.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/v33_2_00/methane.htm]
An enormous natural gas resource locked in ice lies untapped in ocean sediments and the Arctic
permafrost. If this resource could be harvested safely and economically by the United States, we could
possibly enjoy long-term energy security. Known as methane hydrates, this resource also may have
important implications for climate change. When released to the air, methane is a greenhouse gas
that traps 20 times more heat than carbon dioxide (another greenhouse gas). When burned, methane
releases up to 25% less carbon dioxide than the combustion of the same mass of coal and does not emit
the nitrogen and sulfur oxides known to damage the environment.
Methane hydrates contain methane in a highly concentrated form . Hydrates are a type of ice in which
water molecules form cages (clathrates) around properly sized guest molecules. Gas hydrates form
when water and gas (e.g., methane, ethane, and propane) come together at the right temperatures and
pressures.
Thanks to the recent passage of the authorization bill, The Methane Hydrate Research and
Development Act of 1999, the Department of Energy's Office of Fossil Energy is planning a national
research and development (R&D) program on methane hydrates. ORNL researchers are doing research
in this area using internal funding from the Laboratory Directed R&D (LDRD) Program and are proposing
projects for DOE funding.
"The driver of DOE's gas hydrates program is the need for a new, abundant source of relatively clean
energy, yet concerns about climate change are being addressed, considering that methane is a
greenhouse gas," says Lorie Langley, leader of ORNL's Natural Gas Infrastructure, Methane Hydrates,
and Carbon Dioxide Sequestration programs. "Methane can be used as an inexpensive source of
hydrogen, a carbon-free fuel that could help slow climate change, providing that methods are developed
to sequester the carbon dioxide that results from hydrogen production."
Among the questions the DOE program will address are these: How much natural gas actually is present
in the world's methane hydrates? (Estimates range as high as 700,000 trillion cubic feet, many times the
estimated total of worldwide conventional resources of natural gas and oil.) Are the hydrates stable
enough to sequester carbon dioxide injected into them? Which production methods could safely harvest
methane from the hydrates?
What are the risks of recovering methane from ocean hydrates? Could the release of methane make
the sediments unstable enough to cause the collapse of seafloor foundations for conventional oil and
gas drilling rigs? Could the melting, or dissociation, of methane hydrate ice lead to releases of large
volumes of methane to the atmosphere, raising greenhouse gas levels and exacerbating global
warming?
2NC Impact—Extinction
Extinction—History is on our side
Romm 8—[Joe Romm, “Methane Hydrates: What’s the worst — and best — that could happen?,”
Think Progress, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:23 am, pg. http://tinyurl.com/cakz7bn
The worst that could happen is a climate catastrophe if they were released suddenly, as some people
believed happened during the Permian-Triassic extinction event and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal
Maximum. The best that could happen is if they could be recovered at a large scale safely — then they
would be an enormous new source of natural gas, the lowest-carbon and most efficient-burning fossil
fuel.
A recent workshop was held — “Vulnerability and Opportunity of Methane Hydrates Workshop,” IIASA,
13-14 March 2008. You can find most of the presentations here. Science magazine (here, subs. req’d)
ran a summary of the meeting recently, which I will reprint below:
Weighing the Climate Risks of an Untapped Fossil Fuel
John Bohannon
As the energy industry hungrily eyes methane hydrates, scientists ponder the fuel’s impact on climate
VIENNA, AUSTRIA–A recent workshop on methane hydrates felt like a powwow of 19th century
California gold prospectors, looking ahead to both riches and peril. Sizing up the prize, Arthur Johnson, a
veteran geologist of the oil industry who is now an energy consultant based in Kenner, Louisiana,
predicted that “within a decade or two, hydrates will grow to 10% to 15% of natural gas production,”
becoming a more than $200 billion industry. And the peril? “The worst-case scenario is that global
warming triggers a decade-long release of hundreds of gigatons of methane, the equivalent of 10 times
the current amount of g reen h ouse g as in the atmosphere,” said David Archer, a climate modeler at
the University of Chicago in Illinois. Although no current model predicts such an event, said Archer,
“we’d be talking about mass extinction .”
AT: We can safely drill
2. Tech failure is inevitable—they will fracture in the Ocean floor.
Pravica 12—Professor of Physics and Astronomy @ University of Nevada, Las Vegas [Michael Pravica,
“Letters: Science, not profit, must lead deep water drilling,” USA Today, Updated 4/24/2012 8:43 PM ,
pg. http://tinyurl.com/9g8x28q
There are a few critical points not mentioned in the USA TODAY editorial on the BP oil spill that should
have been addressed ("Editorial: 2 years after BP spill, lower risks"). First of all, deep water drilling
represents a "brave new world" of oil exploration and novel technology as humans probe depths of
water, oil and rock that sustain thousands of atmospheres of pressure. At these levels, the technology
used to drill and extract oil can easily fail as we approach the yield strengths of many of the confining
materials subjected to extreme conditions. There is also a high chance of significant fracture of the
cean/sea floor in drilling and hole erosion from gushing, hot and high pressure oil (along with
particulates and other mineral-rich fluids) that could make repair nearly impossible and could
permanently poison our waters.
The greatest lesson from the BP oil spill is that politicians and businessmen cannot solve problems
created by our advanced technology. Only scientists and engineers can. We must listen to them and
adopt a more rational approach to drilling that places safety above profit.
3. They incentivize mindless all-out exploitation that makes disaster
inevitable.
Flournoy 11—Professor and Director of the Environmental and Land Use Law Program @ University of
Florida Levin College of Law [Alyson C. Flournoy, “ARTICLE: THREE META-LESSONS GOVERNMENT AND
INDUSTRY SHOULD LEARN FROM THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER AND WHY THEY WILL NOT,”
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2011, 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 281
C. How to Learn from the Context of the Disaster: United States' Energy Policy
A third meta-lesson from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster is that the drilling of that particular
offshore well is the result not just of private choice, but of a broader national policy on energy. MMS's
oil leasing and permitting decisions reflect executive branch decisions about the disposition of
publicly owned oil and gas resources. n115 BP's decisions about exploration in that area were not
made in a vacuum, but in the context of a set of laws and appropriations that create a variety of
incentives that affect industry's behavior . Thus, to understand why the disaster occurred, it would be
wise to look at the policy context that has produced the increasing rush to develop oil resources in
deepwater, and increasingly in ultra-deepwater--areas that increase the complexity, risks, and
uncertainty of drilling operations and potential accidents. n116 The most visible leadership on this issue
comes from statements of the Oil Spill Commission and its Co-Chair Bob Graham, who has repeatedly
noted that the lack of an energy policy is an important issue related to the work of the Oil Spill
Commission and one that must be addressed by the legislative and executive branches. n117
[*301] The current energy policy provides hefty subsidies for the highly profitable oil and gas industries
to continue with their unwavering focus on producing more oil and gas. n118 Although some say that
the United States lacks an energy policy, it is more accurate to say that our leaders don't clearly
articulate the operative energy policy. Perhaps this is because it is not a coherent one or because on
close inspection it is difficult to justify in light of other stated priorities.
A primary and often overlooked component of energy policy is the national policy on the privatization
of public natural resources. U.S. policy is to give away its natural resources at bargain prices
presumably to promote exploitation and development. n119 A 2008 report by the Government
Accountability Office compared U.S. royalty rates to those of 103 other jurisdictions, and only eleven
had royalty rates lower than those of the United States. n120 Moreover, the Government Accountability
Office has made repeated reports of problems with uncollected royalties and with MMS's royalty-in-kind
program that has led to underestimation of the royalties owed. n121
Another significant component of the national energy policy is tax policy that directly affects investment
in oil extraction. A 2005 Congressional Budget Office Report showed that many capital investments for
oil extraction are taxed at a rate of nine percent, which ranks among [*302] the lowest rates for any
industry. n122 Tax deductions and credits for the oil extraction industry amount to roughly $ 4 billion
per year. n123
Looked at as a whole, the current energy policy strongly encourages all-out exploitation of remaining
domestic fossil fuel resources, and deepwater oil reserves in particular. If the public and elected officials
believe that the risks that produced the Macondo Well blowout are unacceptable, an energy policy that
will move us towards a clean energy path is a logical response. This could include increased government
support for lower carbon, lower-risk energy paths.
Despite the clear political opportunity provided by the Deepwater Horizon disaster for the President
and Congress to focus attention on a broad clean energy policy, there have been few signs of any
significant movement in that direction. n124 The CLEAR Act included provisions that would eliminate
some of the royalty relief for deepwater drilling, eliminate the disastrous royalty-in-kind program, and
require BOEMRE to study global royalty payments to inform U.S. royalty policy. n125 These are very
positive steps that would reduce the mindless incentives for deepwater drilling and the unintended
windfalls to oil companies. However, that Act has languished in the Senate. Moreover, even those
proposed changes fail to address the broader question of whether policy should create incentives
towards a cleaner energy path. In the wake of the November 2010 election, it seems highly unlikely that
the Administration or Congress will have interest in this topic. n126
CONCLUSION
There is much that can be learned from the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster. Unfortunately, even
learning the most specific lessons has proved a contentious and uncertain process. This Article
suggests first that both industry and government must fundamentally rethink their approaches to
safety and develop a culture that encourages and facilitates learning from mistakes. Second, it identifies
the phenomenon of [*303] hollow government , characterized by government lacking the resources
and authority to protect the public interest and a policy process dominated by powerful economic
interests, as a root cause of the BP disaster and a contributing factor to other recent national
disasters, including the financial crisis. Hollow government also makes it unlikely that we will learn the
third meta-lesson and address the longstanding need for a coherent energy policy. These lessons
could help to avert future disasters and better enable government to protect public health, safety, and
the environment. However, absent changes to address the underlying obstacles to learning, there
seems little likelihood that the lessons will be learned .
2NC A2: DOI Regulation Link turn
Weak regulatory regime will encourage the industry to take unnecessary
risks.
Flournoy 11—Professor and Director of the Environmental and Land Use Law Program @ University of
Florida Levin College of Law [Alyson C. Flournoy, “ARTICLE: THREE META-LESSONS GOVERNMENT AND
INDUSTRY SHOULD LEARN FROM THE BP DEEPWATER HORIZON DISASTER AND WHY THEY WILL NOT,”
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, 2011, 38 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 281
Although this Article's primary focus is on law and policy lessons, it is important to note that these
highly visible and concrete failures will likely lead industry to respond voluntarily by adopting some
practices and procedures to avoid similar failures. n27 From a law and governance perspective,
however, simply allowing industry to learn voluntarily and police itself is widely viewed as inadequate
for several reasons. n28 Indeed, the regulatory environment that existed at the time of the blowout
relied [*286] heavily on industry self-regulation. n29 Investigation in the wake of the blowout has
revealed that the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA)--the law governing development of
federally owned oil and gas resources on the Outer Continental Shelf--included few standards to assure
protection of health, safety, and the environment. n30 Additionally, the Minerals Management
Service's (MMS) approach to regulation under the OCSLA relied heavily on standards developed by
and voluntarily agreed to by industry. n31 Of course, even with this weak regulatory regime, the threat
of tort liability should have provided industry with an incentive to take steps to avoid catastrophic risk.
n32 However, it seems clear from most accounts that BP and its contractors failed to accurately assess
the severity of the risks they faced. n33 Thus, relying on industry, market forces, and the tort liability
system to deter similar conduct seems unwarranted and an abdication of government's role in
protecting health, safety, and the environment.
Driling Causes Methane
Arctic drilling releases methane- causes rapid warming
Magill 5/1
Bobby Magill (writer for Climate Central), 5/1/2014, “Arctic Methane Emissions ‘Certain to Trigger Warming’”,
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arctic-methane-emissions-certain-to-trigger-warming-17374, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
As climate change melts Arctic permafrost and releases large amounts of methane into the
atmosphere, it is creating a feedback loop that is "certain to trigger additional warming," according to
the lead scientist of a new study investigating Arctic methane emissions. ¶ The study released this week examined
71 wetlands across the globe and found that melting permafrost is creating wetlands known as fens, which are
unexpectedly emitting large quantities of methane. Over a 100-year timeframe, methane is about 35
times as potent as a climate change-driving greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and over 20 years,
it's 84 times more potent.¶ Permafrost terraces in Alaska.¶ Credit: U.S. Fish and Wildife Service Alaska/flickr¶ Methane emissions
come from agriculture, fossil fuel production and microbes in wetland soils, among other sources. The study says scientists have
assumed that methane emissions from wetlands are high in the tropics, but not necessarily in the
Arctic because of the cold temperatures there. ¶ But a spike in global methane concentrations in the
atmosphere seen since 2007 can be partly traced back to the formation of fens in areas where
permafrost once existed, according to the study, led by University of Guelph (Ontario, Canada) biology professor Merritt Turetsky.¶
The methane emissions stemming from melting permafrost could be critical to determining how fast
the climate will change in the future.
Arctic drilling releases methane- 25 times more potent than CO2
Banerjee 13
Subhankar Banerjee (writer for Global Research), 6/30/2013, “Arctic Methane Release and Global Warming”,
http://www.globalresearch.ca/arctic-methane-release-and-global-warming/5344315, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
On July 25 the journal Nature published an article about the “Economic time bomb” that is slowly being detonated by Arctic warming. Gail
Whiteman of Erasmus University in the Netherlands, and Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge suggest—based on
economic modeling that the “release
of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea”
would come with an “average global price tag of $60 trillion.” The news should have sent a shock wave through the
media. But instead, predictably, the public were encouraged to celebrate—again and again, and again—the birth of the royal son.¶ My first
encounter with methane release in the Arctic was in early August 2006. It was a grey, cold day along the Beaufort Sea coast in Alaska. Iñupiaq
conservationist Robert Thompson and I were walking along the northwest corner of Barter Island when we came across a rather ghastly scene:
an exposed coffin with human bones scattered around it. The permafrost (frozen soil) had melted away and exposed the coffin. Robert
speculated that a grizzly bear broke open the coffin and scattered the human remains. What we didn’t see, however, is the methane that was
released from thawing of the permafrost.¶ Title¶ Permafrost melted away and exposed the coffin, Barter Island, Alaska. Photo by Subhankar
Banerjee, August 2006.¶ Methane
(CH4) is a greenhouse gas that causes global warming and is more than
twenty times more potent than CO2. Large amount of methane is stored in the Arctic—both
terrestrial and subsea. It is released in two ways: when permafrost on land thaws from warming, the
soil decomposes and gradually releases methane. In the seabed, methane is stored as a methane gas
or hydrate, and is released when the subsea permafrost thaws from warming. The methane release
from the seabed can be larger and more abrupt than through decomposition of the terrestrial
permafrost.¶ In 2007, the extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean hit a record low—30 percent below average. This event spurred a
study by scientists from the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSID) in Boulder,
Colorado. The team used climate models to understand if the “unusually low sea–ice extent and warm land temperatures were related.” In
2008 they published results from their study in Geophysical Research Letters. They found:¶ “The rate of climate warming over northern Alaska,
Canada, and Russia could more than triple during periods of rapid sea ice loss … The
findings raise concerns about the
thawing of permafrost … and the potential consequences for sensitive ecosystems, human
infrastructure, and the release of additional greenhouse gases [CO2 and CH4].Ӧ This was alarming news
because Arctic permafrost holds “30 percent or more of all the carbon stored in soils worldwide .” In reality,
the Arctic sea ice is continuing to retreat at a rapid pace. The August–September sea ice extent in the Arctic Ocean had set a new record low
last year: 18 per cent below the previous record of 2007.
Methane Causes Extinction
Methane causes extinction- empirics
Fordahl 13
Matthew Fordahl (writer for ABC News), 7/27/2014, “Methane Caused Extinctions”, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=120076,
#TheNextPKen
Huge reservoirs of methane trapped beneath the ocean floor rapidly escaped during prehistoric global
warming and depleted much of the sea’s oxygen, according to new research into why many forms of
life suddenly vanished 183 million years ago.¶ The findings, reported in today’s issue of the journal
Nature, shed new light not only on the disappearance of as many as 80 percent of some deep-sea
species, but also on a process suspected in other prehistoric mass extinctions.¶ The study also raised questions
about today’s sea floor reservoir of methane hydrate, which the federal government plans to study as a possible energy source.¶ Algae Fuel¶
“One
of the important questions that is debated a lot today is the stability of this methane hydrate
reservoir and how easy it is to release the methane that is there,” said Stephen Hesselbo, an Oxford University
researcher and the study’s lead author.¶ Methane hydrate is formed beneath the sea floor when algae from the surface dies and sinks.
Normally a gas, the methane is locked in an ice-like state but is susceptible to changes in pressure and temperature.¶ In the latest research, the
Oxford scientists studied fossil wood deposits and identified a signal that they say indicates an unusual level of light carbon in the Earth’s
atmosphere.¶ “It’s a question of trying to identify what the source of the light carbon would be,” Hesselbo said. “The best explanation in this
case is that it comes from methane — methane hydrate from ocean margin sediment.”¶ Oxygen Consumer¶ The researchers believe
massive volcanic eruptions during the Jurassic period initiated global warming by spewing carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Deep-sea currents also were affected.¶
Methane, freed from its suboceanic cage by warmer water, then used the oxygen in the water or
atmosphere to form carbon dioxide. In either case, it would have accelerated global warming.¶ “A
number of important fossil groups disappeared at exactly that time,” Hesselbo said. “The extinction and the
association with the lack of oxygen has been fairly well established, but the association with methane release is something that hasn’t been
realized before.Ӧ Hardest hit were bottom-feeding clam-like organisms known as bivalves: An estimated 80 percent of the species
disappeared. Others affected included ostracods, belemnites and some marine plants.¶ Explosive Release¶ The researchers believe the event
took place over a period of 5,000 years — a blink in geologic time. The
release was estimated to be 20 percent of the
present-day 14,000 billion tons of gas hydrate on the sea floor.¶ “It’s an interesting novel explanation, and it seems to
account for the geochemical data that they have,” said David Ottjer, a paleontologist and Earth sciences professor at the University of Southern
California.¶ “They have to wiggle a fair bit to get to where they want to go for their solution, but they may be right,” he said. “It’s not
necessarily that they’ve found the absolute smoking gun, but they’re probably on the right track.
Methane causes extinction
Dunham 3/31
Michael Dunham (writer for Scientific American), 3/31/2014, “Methane-spewing Microbe Blamed in Earth's Worst Mass Extinction”,
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-spewing-microbe-blamed-in-earths-worst-mass-extinction/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sometimes bad things come in small packages.¶ A microbe
that spewed humongous amounts of
methane into Earth's atmosphere triggered a global catastrophe 252 million years ago that wiped out
upwards of 90 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land vertebrates.¶ That's the hypothesis offered on
Monday by researchers aiming to solve one of science's enduring mysteries: what happened at the end of the Permian period to cause the
worst of the five mass extinctions in Earth's history.¶ The
scale of this calamity made the one that doomed the
dinosaurs 65 million years ago - a six-mile wide asteroid smacking the planet - seem like a picnic by
comparison.¶ The implicated microbe, Methanosarcina, is a member of a kingdom of single-celled
organisms distinct from bacteria called archaea that lack a nucleus and other usual cell structures.¶ "I
would say that the end-Permian extinction is the closest animal life has ever come to being totally wiped out, and it may have come pretty
close," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Greg Fournier, one of the researchers.¶ "Many, if not most, of the surviving groups
of organisms barely hung on, with only a few species making it through, many probably by chance," Fournier added.¶ Previous ideas proposed
for the Permian extinction include an asteroid and large-scale volcanism. But these researchers suggest a microscope would be needed to find
the actual culprit.¶ Methanosarcina grew in a frenzy in the seas, disgorging huge quantities of methane into Earth's atmosphere, they said.¶
This dramatically heated up the climate and fundamentally altered the chemistry of the oceans by driving up acid levels, causing unlivable
conditions for many species, they added.¶ The horseshoe crab-like trilobites and the sea scorpions - denizens of the seas for hundreds of
millions of years - simply vanished. Other marine groups barely avoided oblivion including common creatures called ammonites with tentacles
and a shell.¶ On land, most of the dominant mammal-like reptiles died, with the exception of a handful of lineages including the ones that were
the ancestors of modern mammals including people.¶ 'RADICALLY CHANGED'¶ "Land vertebrates took as long as 30 million years to reach the
same levels of biodiversity as before the extinction, and afterwards life in the oceans and on land was radically changed, dominated by very
different groups of animals," Fournier said.¶ The first dinosaurs appeared 20 million years after the Permian mass extinction.¶ "One important
point is that the natural environment is sensitive to the evolution of microbial life," said Daniel Rothman, an MIT geophysics professor who led
the study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.¶ The best example of that, Rothman said, was the advent
about 2.5 billion years ago of bacteria engaging in photosynthesis, which paved the way for the later appearance of animals by belching
fantastic amounts of oxygen into Earth's atmosphere.¶ Methanosarcina is still found today in places like oil wells, trash dumps and the guts of
animals like cows.¶ It already existed before the Permian crisis. But genetic evidence indicates it acquired a unique new quality at that time
through a process known as "gene transfer" from another microbe, the researchers said.¶ It suddenly became a major producer of methane
through the consumption of accumulated organic carbon in ocean sediments.¶ The microbe would have been unable to proliferate so wildly
without proper mineral nutrients. The researchers found that cataclysmic volcanic eruptions that occurred at that time in Siberia drove up
ocean concentrations of nickel, a metallic element that just happens to facilitate this microbe's growth.¶ Fournier
called volcanism a
catalyst instead of a cause of mass extinction - "the detonator rather than the bomb itself."¶ "As small
as an individual microorganism is, their sheer abundance and ubiquity make for a huge cumulative
impact. On a geochemical level, they really do run the planet," he said.¶ The Permian mass extinction unfolded during
tens of thousands of years and was not the sudden die-off that an asteroid impact might cause, the researchers said.¶ The most famous of
Earth's mass extinctions occurred 65 million years ago when an asteroid impact wiped out the dinosaurs that ruled the land and many marine
species. There also were huge die-offs 440 million years ago, 365 million years ago and 200 million years ago.
Russian Gas DA
1NC
US gas exports crush Russian econ and influence
Walter Russell Mead, April 25, 2012 (Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College, Henry
A. Kissinger senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), and Editor-atLarge of The American Interest magazine), , The American Interest, North American Shale Gas Gives
Russia Serious Headache, http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/04/25/north-americanshale-gas-gives-russia-serious-headache/
North America’s shale gas boom is chipping away at the market for gas producers like Russia. What’s
more, if the United States becomes a gas exporter, Russia’s customers (especially in Europe) could
decide to cancel expensive contracts with Gazprom in favor of cheaper American natural gas. “If the US
starts exporting LNG to Europe and Asia, it gives [customers there] an argument to renegotiate their
prices with Gazprom and Qatar, and they will do it,” says Jean Abiteboul, head of Cheniere supply &
marketing. Gazprom supplied 27 percent of Europe’s natural gas in 2011. While American gas is trading
below $2 per MMBTU (million British thermal units), Gazprom’s prices are tied to crude oil markets, and
its long-term contracts charge customers roughly $13 per MMBTU, says the FT. European customers
would love to reduce their dependence on Gazprom and start to import American gas. Already Gazprom
has had to make concessions to its three biggest customers, and others are increasingly dissatisfied with
their contracts. Worse, from Russia’s point of view: evidence that western and central Europe contain
substantial shale gas reserves of their own. Fracking is unpopular in thickly populated, eco-friendly
Europe, but so are high gas prices. All this ought to give Russia serious heartburn. Eroding Gazprom’s
dominance of the European energy market would be a major check on Russian economic growth and
political influence.
Russian econ collapse causes extinction
Filger 9 (Sheldon, Columnist and Founder – Global EconomicCrisis.com, “Russian Economy Faces Disasterous
Free Fall Contraction”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/russian-economy-faces-dis_b_201147.html)
In Russia, historically, economic health and political stability are intertwined to a degree that is rarely
encountered in other major industrialized economies. It was the economic stagnation of the former
Soviet Union that led to its political downfall. Similarly, Medvedev and Putin, both intimately acquainted
with their nation's history, are unquestionably alarmed at the prospect that Russia's economic crisis will
endanger the nation's political stability, achieved at great cost after years of chaos following the demise of
the Soviet Union. Already, strikes and protests are occurring among rank and file workers facing
unemployment or non-payment of their salaries. Recent polling demonstrates that the once supreme
popularity ratings of Putin and Medvedev are eroding rapidly. Beyond the political elites are the
financial oligarchs, who have been forced to deleverage, even unloading their yachts and executive jets
in a desperate attempt to raise cash. Should the Russian economy deteriorate to the point where economic
collapse is not out of the question, the impact will go far beyond the obvious accelerant such an outcome
would be for the Global Economic Crisis. There is a geopolitical dimension that is even more relevant
then the economic context. Despite its economic vulnerabilities and perceived decline from superpower
status, Russia remains one of only two nations on earth with a nuclear arsenal of sufficient scope and capability
to destroy the world as we know it. For that reason, it is not only President Medvedev and Prime Minister
Putin who will be lying awake at nights over the prospect that a national economic crisis can transform
itself into a virulent and destabilizing social and political upheaval. It just may be possible that U.S. President
Barack Obama's national security team has already briefed him about the consequences of a major
economic meltdown in Russia for the peace of the world. After all, the most recent national intelligence
estimates put out by the U.S. intelligence community have already concluded that the Global Economic
Crisis represents the greatest national security threat to the United States, due to its facilitating political
instability in the world. During the years Boris Yeltsin ruled Russia, security forces responsible for
guarding the nation's nuclear arsenal went without pay for months at a time, leading to fears that
desperate personnel would illicitly sell nuclear weapons to terrorist organizations. If the current
economic crisis in Russia were to deteriorate much further, how secure would the Russian nuclear arsenal
remain? It may be that the financial impact of the Global Economic Crisis is its least dangerous
consequence.
US Key to Russia
US market key to gazprom exports – europe is becoming too competitive
Global Insight Daily Analysis 2k8
Gazprom Targets Growth in U.S. Gas Market; Sakhalin-2 LNG Exports Delayed Until 2009,” 4/24/08
Global Insight Limited, Factiva
Alexander Medvedev, the head of Gazprom's export arm, Gazpromexport, told reporters yesterday that
the Russian gas giant is aiming to become a significant gas supplier to the United States. Medvedev—
the lesser-known of the two high-profile Medvedevs in senior positions at Gazprom (Dmitri, who is
unrelated to Alexander, is the chairman of Gazprom and also happens to the president-elect of Russia)—
said that Gazprom considers the United States, and the North American market in general, as "one of the
most promising in view of the growing demand for natural gas as well as the situation with local
production." In other words, the size of the U.S. gas market, together with the rising gap between U.S.
gas consumption and its domestic gas production, makes the United States a lucrative target on which
Gazprom is setting its sights for its gas exports. With European government officials becoming more
strident in their criticism of Gazprom, pursuing policies geared to diversify the continent's gas suppliers
and stem growing reliance on Russian gas, Gazprom itself is taking a long-term approach to its customer
base, looking to reduce its heavy dependence on Europe as a market for its gas. Even as European
companies themselves are slowly boosting co-operation with Gazprom, both sides are publicly looking
to diversify their gas trading partners, all the while seeking to improve reliability of Russian supplies and
guarantee long-term markets. Hence, Gazprom is talking up its potential to supply gas to North America
as well as Asia. Medvedev said yesterday that gas extracted from the massive Shtokman gas field in the
Barents Sea could be liquefied and sent to the United States as LNG, but he added that Gazprom could
realise its gas export potential to the United States "not only from Shtokman but from the Yamal
Peninsula and Sakhalin-2."
U.S. is a critical market for future Russian LNG exports – key to their economy
Moscow Times 5
Valeria Korchagina, “Russia Rising as Energy Superpower on U.S. Demand,” 10-26-2005,
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9279-27.cfm
The legendary sea-faring route from the United States across the Atlantic to Russia's northern city of Murmansk, through
which vital supplies went to the Soviet Union some 60 years ago to help the country fight in World War II, is looking to get a new breath of life.
This time, however, the traffic is going to be reversed, shipping liquefied natural gas, or LNG, from
Russia to energy-hungry North America. During the war, lend-lease proved to be a successful strategy for the Soviet Union, which desperately
needed both food to feed the Army and equipment to maintain military operations, as well as for its Western Allies, whose help ensured that Nazi Germany's armed
forces remained focused on the Eastern front. In a strange turn of fate, the plans to ship LNG from Russia via the famous route also look to be beneficial for both
sides -- Russian
gas will benefit from reaching new markets, while the United States will satisfy its need to
diversify its sources of hydrocarbons imports. The need for diversification became increasingly evident in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina's rampage across the U.S. Gulf Coast, which along with other problems brought the area's production and shipping activities to a halt. The hurricane
seems to have given new impetus to the energy dialogue between Washington and Moscow. It has also
given Russia a chance to flex its muscles in its pursuit of a role as an energy superpower -- even if Russia
is yet to produce its first LNG. "Russia wants to be the new Saudi Arabia in terms of global energy -- a global energy partner for consumer
countries," said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at Alfa Bank, who has advised the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Saudi Arabia has since the 1980s
reaped considerable political benefits from having an energy partnership with consumer countries. "But it seems that the model that Russia is pushing is a more
expensive version of that. Instead of just being a big global energy supplier shipping lots of oil ... Russia wants to be and is able to be a supplier of several types of
The development of the huge offshore Shtokman field -- which
to develop the
natural gas deposits located under the Barents Sea. As the production is launched in 2010, most of the gas
condensate will be shipped to the United States, which plans to boost its total LNG imports to 180 billion
cubic meters per year by 2025. Gazprom, which is to lead the $20 billion project, has yet to make the final selection of foreign partners from among
energy ... which gives it better political leverage," Weafer said.
contains 3.2 trillion cubic meters of gas and 31 million tons of gas condensate and is by far the largest LNG project in Russia -- aims
France's Total, Norway's Statoil and Hydro, and U.S giants ConocoPhillips and Chevron. A U.S. partner will be essential for Gazprom if it is to ensure access to the
North American market.
"The U.S. market has a great potential for growth. We can only reach it using LNG
technology. After all, you can't build a pipeline from Russia to the United States," said Sergei Kupriyanov, the spokesman for Gazprom. In addition to the
competition that Russia would have to face to sell oil to the United States -- mostly from the Gulf states, Mexico and Venezuela -- shipping oil across the Atlantic is
very expensive. But even more importantly, Russia simply does not produce enough oil to feed United States' energy needs. "All the oil Russia produces has
essentially already been sold," said Valery Nesterov, an oil and gas analyst at investment bank Troika Dialog. As a result, Russia accounted for only 1.9 percent of
The planned route for Shtokman gas from
Murmansk to the east coast of the United States will be significantly shorter than the distance the shipments
from the Middle East have to make to North America, giving it an advantage over the Gulf exporters of
LNG. And the money that Washington is ready to shell out for LNG is certainly not getting smaller -- the price for 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas rose threefold
in 2004 to reach $222. At the same time, European customers paid Gazprom only $136 for 1,000 cm of natural gas. But most importantly, gas is set to
grow in importance -- for Russia as well as for other hydrocarbon exporters -- because its global reserves are
U.S. oil imports in the first quarter of 2005. Gas, meanwhile, is an entirely different story for Russia.
estimated to be immeasurably larger than those of oil. According to BP, by the beginning of 2005 the world's proven extractable oil reserves were almost equal to
proven extractable natural gas reserves, both at around 162 billion tons. But it is widely believed that there is considerably more gas yet to be discovered -- for
example, since 1994, extractable proven reserves of oil grew by 10 percent, while the reserves of gas jumped by 25 percent. And Russia is well-placed to benefit from
analysts now forecast that the share of liquefied
gas on the world gas market is set to increase from the current 30 percent to around 50 percent by 2030.
"Some say that while the 20th century was the century of oil, the 21st century will be the century of gas," said Troika Dialog's Nesterov. The U.S. demand
for LNG -- the supercooled gas condensed to 1/600 of its natural volume -- is also poised to grow. While 14 billion cubic meters of gas condensate was
this -- it already holds 27 percent of the world's known natural gas reserves. As a result,
shipped to the U.S. in 2003, consumption of it is expected to shoot up to 180 billion by 2025.
Gas Key to Russian Econ
Gas exports key to Russian economy
EIA 7
Russian Economy: Background” no specific date, Energy Information Administration,”
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Russia/Background.html
In 2007, Russia’s real gross domestic product (GDP) grew by approximately 8.1 percent, surpassing
average growth rates in all other G8 countries, and marking the country’s seventh consecutive year of
economic expansion. Russia’s economic growth over the past seven years has been driven primarily by
energy exports, given the increase in Russian oil production and relatively high world oil prices during
the period. Internally, Russia gets over half of its domestic energy needs from natural gas, up from around
49 percent in 1992. Since then, the share of energy use from coal and nuclear has stayed constant, while
energy use from oil has decreased from 27 percent to around 19 percent. Russia’s economy is heavily
dependent on oil and natural gas exports. In order to manage windfall oil receipts, the government
established a stabilization fund in 2004. By the end of 2007, the fund was expected to be worth $158
billion, or about 12 percent of the country’s nominal GDP. According to calculations by Alfa Bank, the
fuel sector accounts for about 20.5 percent of GDP, down from around 22 percent in 2000. According to
IMF and World Bank estimates, the oil and gas sector generated more than 60 percent of Russia’s export
revenues (64% in 2007), and accounted for 30 percent of all foreign direct investment (FDI) in the
country.
Diversification Link
Diversifying energy supplies will directly reduce natural gas prices and
dependence
Wiser 5
Scientists and Policy Group at Lawrence, PhD, Ryan “Easing the Natural Gas Crisis: Reducing Natural
Gas Prices Through Electricity Supply Diversification Testimony Prepared for a Hearing on Power
Generation Resource Incentives & Diversity Standards” Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, 3-5-2005, http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/ems/reports/Senate-Testimony.pdf
With the recent run-up in natural gas prices, and the expected continuation of volatile and high prices for
at least the mid-term future, a growing number of voices are calling for increased diversification of
electricity supplies. Such diversification holds the prospect of directly reducing our dependence on a
fuel whose costs are highly uncertain, thereby hedging the risk of natural gas price volatility and
escalation. In addition, as I will describe in a moment, by reducing natural gas demand, increased
diversification away from gas-fired generation can indirectly suppress natural gas prices. Our report
highlights the impact of increased deployment of renewable energy and energy efficiency on natural gas
prices and consumer natural gas bills. A growing number of modeling studies conducted by government,
non-profit, and private sector entities are showing that renewable energy and energy efficiency could
significantly reduce natural gas prices and bills. Our report summarizes these recent modeling studies and
reviews the reasonableness of their findings in light of economic theory and other analyses. (Though our
report focuses on renewable energy and energy efficiency, other non-natural-gas resources would likely
have a similar effect). We find that, by displacing natural-gas-fired electricity generation, increased
levels of renewable energy and energy efficiency will reduce demand for natural gas and thus put
downward pressure on gas prices. These price reductions hold the prospect of providing consumers
with significant natural gas bill savings. In fact, although we did not analyze in detail the electricity price
impacts reported in the studies, the studies often show that any predicted increase in the price of
electricity caused by greater use of renewable energy or energy efficiency is largely or completely offset
by the predicted natural gas price savings. We conclude that policies to encourage fuel diversification
within the electricity sector should consider the potentially beneficial cross-sector impact of that
diversification on natural gas prices and bills.
US Demand Spills Over
natural gas is integrated – demand changes in one country will cause ripples
throughout the global market
Jaffe 6
Et al, Amy M. Jaffe, Mark H. Hayes and David G. Victor, Fellow for Energy Studies at Rice Universit.
Natural Gas and Geopolitics: From 1970 to 2040, “Conclusions,” pg. 469-470
This book has considered the implications of a major shift from a world of regionally isolated natural gas markets to a new more interdependent, increasingly global,
marketplace for gas. The driving forces for this shift to a global gas market include the increasing preference for gas as a fuel, technological advances that are reducing
the cost of producing and delivering gas to markets, and liberalization of gas markets. The rising importance of gas as a primary energy source brings with it concerns
about gas pricing and security of gas supply. Globalization of the natural gas trade will have significant ramifications for consumers and gas producers alike. Just as
policy-makers in large consuming countries have focused on the macroeconomic effects of variable oil prices, similar concerns are already evident about natural gas
prices as the fuel begins to play a larger role in world economies. Producing
countries will also have to worry about income
effects of global natural gas pricing trends. Results from the study's economic modeling suggest that the shift to a global
market will render each major consuming or producing area vulnerable to events in any region. The
timing of major gas export projects coming online, as well as discontinuities in supply or demand, will
ripple throughout a global market. For example, as shown in the scenario runs of the model presented in chapter 12, in a world of fully
integrated natural gas markets, gas users in Japan will have a vested interest in stability of South American gas
reaching the US West coast; those in the United States will have concern about natural gas policy in
Africa and Russia, and the European Union will be compelled to monitor the political situation in gasproducing regions as remote as the Russian Far East and Venezuela. Major consuming countries will
have to learn to adjust to the interdependencies of a global gas market. In the past, policy-makers in large gas-importing
countries have focused on key supply relationships such as the large pipelines from Algeria and the Soviet Union that fed Europe or the multitude of pipelines that
sent gas from Bolivia to Brazil and from Argentina to Chile (see chapters 3, 5, and 6, respectively). Sustained attention from governments will continue to be critical
to creating an attractive environment for these massive capital investments. However, a narrow focus on one-off trading relationships is unlikely to prove an effective
means to providing supply security in a future where a much more fungible global market will set prices in all major markets and determine the movement of gas
supplies.
Market volatile – single cuntry changes spillover
Sweetnam 4
Glen, vice president and principal with LukensEnergy Group Inc., an independent management
consulting firm in Houston, Natural Gas Electricity, “LNG Imports: Where and When Will They Arrive,”
May, vol. 20, no. 10, from Wiley InterScience
Somewhat paradoxically, increased LNG imports are also likely to increase gas price volatility. This
increase will occur for two reasons. First, the LNG supply chain is much longer and, therefore, more
vulnerable to disruptions, than North American gas production. Foreign strikes, industrial accidents,
shipping or docking problems due to weather, and port closures due to accidents or terrorist threats will
all disrupt LNG supplies and cause corresponding changes in gas prices. Second, world gas markets will
become increasingly liquid over the next decade, and changes in gas supply or demand conditions
anywhere in the world will increasingly affect gas prices in the United States. In much the same way that
the world oil market is integrated, gas markets will become increasingly global and more volatile.
**Link – Natural Gas
US natural gas production lowers the global price of oil and natural gas –
uniquely hurts Russia
Blackwill and O’Sullivan 14 *Robert, Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations **Meghan,
Jeane Kirkpatrick Professor of the Practice of International Affairs and Director of the Geopolitics of
Energy Project at Harvard
(March/April 2014, “America's Energy Edge: The Geopolitical Consequences of the Shale Revolution”
Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140750/robert-d-blackwill-and-meghan-losullivan/americas-energy-edge)
The American energy revolution does not just have commerc ial implications; it also has widereaching geopolitical c onsequences. Global energy trade maps are already being redrawn as
U.S. imports continue to decline an d exporters find new markets. Most West African oil, for ex
ample, now flows to Asia rather than to the United States. And as U.S. production continues to i
ncrease, it will put downward pressure on global oil and gas p rices, thereby diminishing the
geopolitical leverage that some energy suppliers have wie lded for decades. Most energyproducing states that lack di versified economies, such as Russia and the Gulf monarchies, will
lose out, whereas energy consumer s, such as China, India, and other Asian states, stand to gai n.
The biggest benefits, however, will accrue to the United Sta tes. Ever since 1971, when U.S. oil
production peaked, ener gy has been construed as a strategic liability for the country, with its
ever-growing thirst for reasonably priced fossil fuels sometimes necessitating in congruous
alliances and complex obligations abroad. But that logic has been upended, and the newly unlock
ed energy is set to boost the U.S. economy and grant Washingto n newfound leverage around the
world.
Russian Econ UQ
Russian economy growing but still fragile
Reuters 14 (Reuters News Service. Russia may revise 2014 GDP forecast upwards – Economy Minister.
Reuters News Service.)
STAVROPOL Russia (Reuters) - Russia's gross domestic product growth forecast of 0.5 percent for 2014
may be revised upwards in September due to the slowing pace of a decline in investment, Economy
Minister Alexei Ulyukayev said on Thursday.
"For now our official (forecast) for this year is 0.5 percent, but most likely we will revise it in
September, most likely upwards," Ulyukayev told journalists. Investment by Russian companies in
tangible goods such as plant infrastructure, a major contribution to the country's economic wellbeing,
had been falling since last year and plummeted after the West imposed sanctions on Moscow for
annexing Ukraine's Crimea region. There are no figures for investment for May yet, but Ulyukayev said
there were signs that the fall had eased. In April, investment was down 2.7 percent year-on-year. "There
are no concrete figures," Ulyukayev said. "But the dynamics of the decline have flattened. ... We are
still in negative territory. From now on (the numbers) should show a growing trend."
The US should adopt a comprehensive Arctic strategy
Bert 12 (Captain Melissa, A Strategy to Advance the Arctic Economy The Council on Foreign Relations
February 2012 http://www.cfr.org/arctic/strategy-advance-arctic-economy/p27258)
The United States 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 United States, 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 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
United States is uniquely positioned to provide such leadership, but it is
hampered by its reliance on the eight-nation 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 forty-eight 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 United States 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 United
States 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 United States 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 United States' ability to reap
tremendous economic benefits and could harm U.S. national security interests.
Russia=Spoiler
Us-Russian relations determine outcome of future Arctic co-op
Andersen and Perry 12
(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in
international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the
International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston
University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. IFPA. "Implications for National Security and International Cooperation." New Strategic
Dynamics in the Arctic Region. Institute for Foreign Policy Relations, n.d. Web. 25 July 2014.
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
future cooperation in the Arctic region will remain closely tied to the quality of overall
Russian- Western relations. Deeply entrenched mistrust of the United States and NATO, as well as a
penchant for the idea of expansion, which resonates strongly in Russian society, will not allow
relations to transform overnight. In the meantime, it should be kept in mind that Russian military presence in the Arctic is neither new nor likely to dramatically
increase in the future, in light of domestic constraints on military restructuring and investment. Furthermore, for a variety of reasons, most notably
the icy climate, economic and military activities in the Arctic will remain fairly limited in the near
term. As a result, there may now be an adequate transition period within which to begin
restructuring transarctic relations in a way that fosters cooperation rather than competition with
Moscow.
Ultimately,
2NC/1NR – Link Wall
They lower prices real bad
Dlouhy 12-17 (Jennifer, "Environmentalists to challenge offshore lease sales,"
www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Environmentalists-to-challenge-offshore-lease-4122479.php)
Talberth noted a current glut of natural gas from drilling on land. Gas recovered offshore would
compete with those supplies, possibly further suppressing the relatively low price for that fossil fuel.
OCS restrictions on drilling prevents lower prices
Lieberman 8 (Ben, Senior Policy Analyst, "Lifting the Offshore Drilling Ban: A Positive Step in the Fight
against High Energy Prices," Heritage Foundation,www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/liftingthe-offshore-drilling-ban-a-positive-step-in-the-fight-against-high-energy-prices)
Washington must do something about the increasing price of gasoline, now topping $4 per gallon. One
important step would be to tap our own supplies of oil. Yet for decades, overlapping congressional and
presidential restrictions on drilling for energy in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) have stood in the
way of lower prices for oil and natural gas.¶ The President took a positive step today by rescinding the
executive moratorium on exploration and production in American waters. However, Congress still needs
to act in order to make this oil available.¶ Congressional Restrictions on Drilling¶ Many of America's
offshore areas are off-limits to energy production. Beginning in 1982, Congress restricted more and
more offshore areas through annual Department of the Interior (DOI) appropriations. The DOI has
authority over the OCS, which includes most areas more than three miles offshore. Through this annual
process, Congress chose to deny DOI the funding necessary to conduct leasing of new offshore areas to
oil and natural gas companies.¶ These off-limits areas comprise 85 percent of the OCS-almost
everywhere except the central and western Gulf of Mexico-and the congressional moratoria have
become a standard feature of each year's DOI appropriations bill. Until recent years, these restrictions
were easily renewed with little controversy, but with the dramatic rise in oil and natural gas prices, as
well as the desire to reduce oil imports from unfriendly foreign countries, there have been several
legislative efforts to roll them back. Thus far, none of these efforts has been successful.¶ Most recently,
H.R. 6108, the Deep Ocean Energy Resources (DOER) Act, would allow each coastal state to decide
whether and where it wants drilling off its coast out to 100 miles. Beyond 100 miles from the coast,
states would not have veto power; thus, deepwater areas would be open to exploration and production.
The bill also has provisions for revenue sharing between the federal government and each state that
allows drilling, similar to provisions that allow drilling on federal lands. The bill is modeled after the 2006
DOER Act, which passed the House but was never considered in the Senate.¶ In addition, H.R. 2784, the
National Environment and Energy Development Act, would also open up much of America's waters to
energy production. Despite having 171 co-sponsors, it has yet to be allowed to come to a vote.¶ Lifting
the White House Opposition to Drilling¶ In 1990, President George H. W. Bush issued a presidential
directive restricting new offshore exploration and drilling. In 1998, President Bill Clinton extended these
restrictions through 2012. For his first seven years in office, the current President had not seen fit to lift
the moratorium, and he was unhelpful during debate over the 2006 DOER Act.¶ Now the President has
lifted the executive branch restrictions and said that he will support legislation opening the OCS. If
Congress is serious about addressing high energy costs, it should quickly send legislation to the President
that removes restrictions on these vital energy reserves.¶ Tremendous Potential with Little Risk¶ These
restrictions effectively banned new offshore energy production off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, parts
of offshore Alaska, and the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Recent DOI estimates put the amount of energy in
these off-limits areas at 19.1 billion barrels of oil and 83.9 trillion cubic feet of natural gasapproximately 30 years' worth of imports from Saudi Arabia and enough natural gas to power
America's homes for 17 years. It should also be noted that these initial estimates tend to be low. ¶ OCS
restrictions are a relic of the past. They were put in place at a time when energy was cheap, the need for
additional domestic supplies was not seen as dire, and the political path of least resistance was to give in
to environmentalists. All that has changed, with more than a quadrupling of oil and natural gas prices
since the restrictions were first imposed. Extra energy is badly needed, and the risk of producing it has
been reduced. All new drilling would be subject to strict safeguards and would require state-of-the-art
technology with a proven track record for limiting the risk of spills.
OCS drilling lowers prices
AGI 6 (American Geoscience Institute, "Summar of Hearings on Natural Gas," July 7,
www.agiweb.org/gap/legis109/naturalgas_hearings.html)
James Kendell, Director of the Natural Gas Division at the Energy Information Administration, discussed
recent data collected on natural gas prices. He stated that the price hike of last winter was caused by
supply problems from the hurricane season and increased consumption by the electric generation
utilities. However, that spike doesn't reflect a trend for the near future. "Natural gas prices are
projected to be lower for the rest of 2006…down $1.12 per thousand cubic feet from last year,"
projected Kendell. In addition, the prospect of increased drilling may help drive prices even lower.¶
The next witness described the potential of outer continental shelf (OCS) drilling to reduce natural gas
prices. "The OCS is a major supplier of natural gas, and supplies more gas than any state other than
Texas," described Walter Cruickshank, Deputy Director of the Minerals Management Service. "In recent
years, the strongest growth has been in the deep water OCS (over 1000ft)…This has been a major
success story, with 90 new wells being drilled," he said. He also described the effect major weather
events have on the ability to recover natural gas, and stated "Since the onset of Hurricane Katrina, 9% of
[recoverable Gulf of Mexico] gas has remained shut in." Future severe weather catastrophes may have a
similar impact on the ability to drill, and thus cause short term price spikes. He concluded his testimony
by reviewing the potential of the OCS to supply natural gas. "There are 420 trillion cubic feet of
undiscovered, recoverable gas," he said, "leaving great potential for expanded OCS drilling."¶ Tom
Lonnie, the Assistant Director for Minerals, Realty and Resource Protection Directorate at the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), briefly reviewed the role of the BLM in exploring for and recovering natural
gas. "BLM administers over 45,000 oil and gas leases, of which over 23,000 are producing… [BLM]
ensures production on public lands in an environmentally friendly way," he said. Lonnie also commented
that the demand for natural gas has long surpassed the domestic capacity to supply more, leaving the
price of natural gas open to volatility and fluctuation.¶ Witnesses from the private sector also discussed
their concern with high natural gas prices. Richard Goodstein, a Washington representative for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., described the critical role
of natural gas in producing hydrogen. "The country will need the building block of hydrogen, natural gas," he said. Hydrogen may possibly be the nation's primary transportation fuel in the
next 20 to 30 years, however, the hydrogen industry across the nation is in the early stages of development. Even so, in some regions of the country, the hydrogen industry has made
significant progress into the market place in recent years. "In some places in California, hydrogen is available as a cost competitive fuel…with appropriate government support, the U.S. can
have a competitive edge in the development of hydrogen," reflected Goodstein.¶ Jeff Uhlenburg, President of the Donovan Heat Treating Company, described how his business struggled to
operate during the last major increase in natural gas prices. Gas supply to his plant is cut off when supplies are low because electric utility demand is high. "Small business cannot compete with
the electric utilities for natural gas," he said. This has a large impact on the cost of running his plant because they have to switch to propane, which is significantly more expensive than
methane. Last year this resulted in major layoffs. Uhlenberg also encouraged members to allow continued development of natural gas. "Government should continue to give incentives for the
market to work…and allow fast track environmental permitting as long as they meet reasonable limits on emissions," he said. In his final comments, Uhlenburg also noted the importance of
energy efficiency. "Conservation and efficiency is something each and every one of us can do right. Each business should work to conserve as much as possible."¶ Paul Wilkinson, Vice
President of Policy Analysis at the American Gas Association, discussed the need for greater access to natural gas reserves. He commented on several congressional initiatives to expand
. "Drilling in the outer continental shelf is a step in the right direction," he said. "The three
major steps to reduce the price of natural gas are to unlock domestic sources of natural gas, expand
infrastructure like the Alaskan pipeline, and invest in liquefied natural gas receiving terminals at our
natural gas drilling
ports," he said. Before these steps are taken, "the winds of weather" will always have an effect on
prices.
Link – Offshore Drilling
Offshore drilling lowers prices
Cohen 4 (Bonner, "Continental Shelf's Energy Riches a Potential Bonanza for Cash-Strapped States,"
National States, www.nationalcenter.org/NPA507.html)
Their plan would end the federal ban on offshore drilling for oil and natural gas, while allowing coastal
states to decide whether they want energy development off their shores. America has abundant
reserves of oil and natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf. But most of the mineral-rich area is offlimits to energy exploration thanks to bans imposed by the federal government. The bans were first imposed by
Congress on an annual basis in 1982, and were extended for ten years by Presidents Bush in 1990 and Clinton in 1998. Currently, only the only areas open to oil and
gas exploration are in the central and western Gulf of Mexico and in some waters off Alaska.1¶ Fed by a growing population and by the proliferation of electricityhungry high-tech gadgetry, demand for energy has soared in recent years. Yet, at the start of this decade, the nation produces 14 percent less natural gas than it did
in 1973.2 Natural gas is used to heat 60 percent of America's homes and supplies electricity for 40 percent of U.S. businesses.3 Unless the widening gap between
supply and demand is closed - and closed quickly - our nascent economic recovery is in jeopardy.¶ This is where the State Enhanced Authority for Coastal and
Offshore Resources Act (SEACOR) comes in. Under the draft legislation, offshore state boundaries would be expanded seaward to nine nautical miles - from the
current three. States would be able to control all resource development within those nine miles. Existing drilling leases would be exempted, but states would
receive 27 percent of the royalties. The plan also gives states the right to veto all or part of oil and gas leasing up to 50 miles from shore proposed by the federal
Department of Interior.¶ Beyond 50 miles (in 25-mile increments up to 100 miles), states could reject oil and gas leasing proposals.4 As an inducement not to
exercise their veto rights, states would be offered revenues from the drilling they do allow. The more drilling allowed, the more money the states would receive.
According to estimates by the House Resources Committee staffers, the proposal would generate $108 to $175 billion in revenues to states between 2004 and
2067, depending on the level of energy extracted. What's more, all 50 states would share in some of the revenue, giving inland states such as Tennessee, Missouri,
Iowa and Colorado a stake in the Outer Continental Shelf.5 ¶ Dramatic advances in drilling technology have made offshore exploration environmentally safe.
Indeed, as Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) pointed out in a Houston Chronicle story, those concerned about the environmental impact of oil and gas drilling in the
Gulf of Mexico should really be worried about the risk of spills from oil tankers. If drilling in restricted in the waters off of the United States, needs would naturally
dictate the increased use of tankers to import oil from abroad.6 Canada has already taken advantage of new, safe drilling technologies in the waters off its maritime
provinces and is considering exploration and development of energy resources off its Pacific coast.7¶ By denying itself resources which are readily available to it,
the United States is undermining its own future.
In a recent letter to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), chairman of the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Representative Billy Tauzin (R-LA), then chairman
of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, 25 trade associations, including the National
Association of Manufacturers, American Farm Bureau Federation and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
pointed to soaring natural gas prices and their economic implications. "If there is no substantial
change in natural gas policy," they wrote, "we will continue to see lost manufacturing jobs, and
Americans will have an unlegislated tax of tens of billions of dollars imposed on them because of high
prices caused by government restrictions on access to our nation's natural gas resources."8
Link – Capacity
Increased supply leads to lower prices
DOI 11 (Department of Interior, "Proposed Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program,"
Bureau of Ocean Energy MAnagement,
www.boem.gov/uploadedFiles/Proposed_OCS_Oil_Gas_Lease_Program_2012-2017.pdf)
¶ Net pipeline imports of natural gas, primarily from Canada and Mexico, are projected to decline ¶ ¶
about 14 percent annually from 2.23 tcf in 2009 to about 0.04 tcf in 2035. This decline is due to ¶ ¶
reserve depletion and growing domestic demand in those countries, along with abundant supply ¶ and
accompanying lower prices in the United States. Net imports of liquefied natural gas are ¶ expected to
decrease from 0.41 tcf in 2009 to 0.14 tcf by 2035. Some have speculated that the ¶ United States could
even export liquefied natural gas during peak world demand periods, ¶ especially in light of the much
higher natural gas prices prevailing in other markets. ¶ Meeting Energy Needs ¶
Natural gas abundance lowers natural gas prices
IER 12 (Institute for Energy Research, "Abundant Natural Gas Means Low Prices, Increased Trade
Potential," www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2012/04/19/abundant-natural-gas-means-low-pricestrade-potential/)
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]
David Impact
Collapse leads to global nuclear war, spills over, and leads to loose nukes –
comparatively the largest impact
David 99
Steven R., professor of political science @ the john Hopkins U, Foreign Affairs, January/February, LN
AT NO TIME since the civil war of 1918 -- 20 has Russia been closer to bloody conflict than it is
today. The fledgling government confronts a vast array of problems without the power to take effective action. For 70 years, the Soviet Union operated a strong state apparatus, anchored by
the KGB and the Communist Party. Now its disintegration has created a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. Unable to rely on popular ideology or coercion to establish control, the
government must prove itself to the people and establish its authority on the basis of its performance. But the Yeltsin administration has abjectly failed to do so, and it cannot meet the most basic
needs of the Russian people. Russians know they can no longer look to the state for personal security, law enforcement, education, sanitation, health care, or even electrical power. In the place of
government authority, criminal groups -- the Russian Mafia -- increasingly hold sway. Expectations raised by the collapse of communism have been bitterly disappointed, and Moscow's inability
If internal war does strike Russia, economic deterioration will be a
prime cause. From 1989 to the present, the GDP has fallen by 50 percent. In a society where, ten years ago, unemployment scarcely existed, it reached 9.5 percent in 1997 with many
to govern coherently raises the specter of civil unrest.
economists declaring the true figure to be much higher. Twenty-two percent of Russians live below the official poverty line (earning less than $ 70 a month). Modern Russia can neither collect
taxes (it gathers only half the revenue it is due) nor significantly cut spending. Reformers tout privatization as the country's cure-all, but in a land without well-defined property rights or contract
law and where subsidies remain a way of life, the prospects for transition to an American-style capitalist economy look remote at best. As the massive devaluation of the ruble and the current
political crisis show, Russia's condition is even worse than most analysts feared. If conditions get worse, even the stoic Russian people will soon run out of patience. A future conflict would
quickly draw in Russia's military. In the Soviet days civilian rule kept the powerful armed forces in check. But with the Communist Party out of office, what little civilian control remains relies
on an exceedingly fragile foundation -- personal friendships between government leaders and military commanders. Meanwhile, the morale of Russian soldiers has fallen to a dangerous low.
Drastic cuts in spending mean inadequate pay, housing, and medical care. A new emphasis on domestic missions has created an ideological split between the old and new guard in the military
leadership, increasing the risk that disgruntled generals may enter the political fray and feeding the resentment of soldiers who dislike being used as a national police force. Newly enhanced ties
between military units and local authorities pose another danger. Soldiers grow ever more dependent on local governments for housing, food, and wages. Draftees serve closer to home, and new
laws have increased local control over the armed forces. Were a conflict to emerge between a regional power and Moscow, it is not at all clear which side the military would support. Divining the
military's allegiance is crucial, however, since the structure of the Russian Federation makes it virtually certain that regional conflicts will continue to erupt. Russia's 89 republics, krais, and
oblasts grow ever more independent in a system that does little to keep them together. As the central government finds itself unable to force its will beyond Moscow (if even that far), power
devolves to the periphery. With the economy collapsing, republics feel less and less incentive to pay taxes to Moscow when they receive so little in return. Three-quarters of them already have
their own constitutions, nearly all of which make some claim to sovereignty. Strong ethnic bonds promoted by shortsighted Soviet policies may motivate non-Russians to secede from the
Chechnya's successful revolt against Russian control inspired similar movements for
autonomy and independence throughout the country. If these rebellions spread and Moscow
responds with force, civil war is likely. Should Russia succumb to internal war, the consequences
for the United States and Europe will be severe. A major power like Russia -- even though in decline -- does
not suffer civil war quietly or alone. An embattled Russian Federation might provoke
opportunistic attacks from enemies such as China. Massive flows of refugees would pour into central and western Europe. Armed
struggles in Russia could easily spill into its neighbors. Damage from the fighting, particularly attacks on nuclear plants, would poison the
Federation.
environment of much of Europe and Asia. Within Russia, the consequences would be even worse. Just as the sheer brutality of the last Russian civil war laid the basis for the privations of Soviet
a second civil war might produce another horrific regime. Most alarming is the real
possibility that the violent disintegration of Russia could lead to loss of control over its nuclear
arsenal. No nuclear state has ever fallen victim to civil war, but even without a clear precedent the grim consequences can be foreseen. Russia retains some 20,000 nuclear weapons and
the raw material for tens of thousands more, in scores of sites scattered throughout the country. So far, the government has managed to prevent the loss of any weapons or much material. If
war erupts, however, Moscow's already weak grip on nuclear sites will slacken, making weapons and
supplies available to a wide range of anti-American groups and states. Such dispersal of nuclear
weapons represents the greatest physical threat America now faces. And it is hard to think of
anything that would increase this threat more than the chaos that would follow a Russian civil
war.
communism,
Loose Nukes Impact Extension
Secession leads to loose nukes – chechens will use them against moscow
Allison 4
Graham, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of
Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative, September/October. “Nuclear Terrorism: How Serious a
Threat to Russia?” Russia in Global Affairs,
http://www.belfercenter.org/publication/660/nuclear_terrorism.html.
A careful reader of the discussion in the Russian and American national security community could conclude that Americans are more concerned about the threat of a nuclear terrorist attack than
American experts have described more vividly potential nuclear terrorist attacks on
U.S. soil than have Russians, at least in the writings and conversations that are publicly accessible. Why this is the case is a puzzle. No one doubts that in Chechen
fighters Russia faces serious, capable, determined adversaries. Moreover, if Chechnya succeeded in capturing, stealing, or buying a
nuclear weapon (or material from which they could make a nuclear weapon), their first target
would surely be Moscow, not New York or Washington DC.
are Russians. Specifically,
Leads to global access to nuclear weapons – will undoubtedly be used on
russia
Allison 5
Graham, The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, Google Book
Chechen separatists have a long-standing interest in acquiring nuclear weapons and material to use in
their campaign against Russia. Aside from the submarine plot, Chechen militants made off with
radioactive materials from a Grozny nuclear waste plant in January 2000; stole radioactive metalspossibly including some plutonium- from the Volgodonskaya nuclear power station in the southern
region of Rostov between July 2001 and July 2002; and cased the railway system and special trains
designed for shipping nuclear weapons across Russia. Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist
organizations are among their largest sources of financial support. While the Chechens’ target of
choice for their first nuclear terrorist attack will surely be Moscow, that fact provides little comfort for
Americas. If the Chechens are successful in acquiring several nuclear bombs, their Al Qaeda brethren
could well find themselves the means to match their motivation.
Nuclear terrorism on Russia means extinction—Russia has a “dead hand”
device that will set off in response to a nuclear attack—this isn’t a myth and
the most qualified expert in the field says it exists
Rosenbaum 7
Ron Rosenbaum, award winning journalist and author, 8/31/2007. “The Return of the Doomsday
Machine?” Slate, http://www.slate.com/id/2173108/pagenum/all/
The nuclear doomsday machine
has long seemed obsolete
"
." It's a Cold War term that
. And even back then, the "doomsday machine"
was regarded as a scary conjectural fiction. Not impossible to create—the physics and mechanics of it were first spelled out by U.S. nuclear scientist Leo Szilard—but never actually created,
having a real existence only in such apocalyptic nightmares as Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove. In Strangelove, the doomsday machine was a Soviet system that automatically detonated some
even an accidental or (as
nuclear bomb could set off the doomsday machine bombs, releasing enough
deadly cobalt fallout to make the Earth uninhabitable for the human species for 93 years. No human
hand could stop the fully automated apocalypse. An extreme fantasy, yes. But according to a new book called Doomsday Men and several papers
on the subject by U.S. analysts, it may not have been merely a fantasy. According to these accounts, the Soviets built and activated a variation of a
doomsday machine in the mid-'80s. And there is no evidence Putin's Russia has deactivated the system.
50 cobalt-jacketed hydrogen bombs pre-positioned around the planet if the doomsday system's sensors detected a nuclear attack on Russian soil. Thus,
in Strangelove) an unauthorized U.S.
Instead, something was reactivated in Russia last week. I'm referring to the ominous announcement—given insufficient attention by most U.S. media (the Economist made it the opening of a lead
editorial on Putin's Russia)—by Vladimir Putin that Russia has resumed regular "strategic flights" of nuclear bombers. (They may or may not be carrying nuclear bombs, but you can practically
hear Putin's smirking tone as he says, "Our [nuclear bomber] pilots have been grounded for too long. They are happy to start a new life.") These twin developments raise a troubling question:
What are the United States' and Russia's current nuclear policies with regard to how and when they will respond to a perceived nuclear attack? In most accounts, once the president or Russian
premier receives radar warning of an attack, they have less than 15 minutes to decide whether the warning is valid. The pressure is on to "use it or lose it"—launch our missiles before they can be
Pressure that makes accidental nuclear war a real
possibility. Once you start to poke into this matter, you discover a disturbing level of uncertainty, which leads me to believe we should be
destroyed in their silos. Pressure that makes the wrong decision more likely.
demanding that the United States and Russia define and defend their nuclear postures. Bush and Putin should be compelled to tell us just what "failsafe" provisions are installed on their
respective nuclear bombers, missiles, and submarines—what the current provisions against warning malfunctions are and what kinds of controls there are over the ability of lone madman nuclear
bombers to bring on the unhappy end of history. As for the former Soviet Union, the possible existence of a version of a doomsday machine is both relevant and disturbing. In the Strangelove
film, the Soviet ambassador tells the president and generals in the U.S. war room that the device was designed to deter a surprise attack, the kind of attack that might otherwise prevent retaliation
by "decapitating" the Soviet command structure. The automated system would insure massive world-destroying retaliation even if the entire Soviet leadership were wiped out—or had second
thoughts. As a result, some referred to it as the "dead hand" doomsday device. It is Dr. Strangelove himself, the madman U.S. nuclear strategist played by Peter Sellers, who detects the flaw in
this plan. After being apprised of the system's existence by the Soviet ambassador, and the likelihood of its being triggered by a U.S. bomber on an unauthorized mission to nuke its Soviet target,
Dr. Strangelove exclaims:
Yes, but the ... whole point of the doomsday machine ... is lost ... if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, eh? In other words, a doomsday machine
kept secret is no good for deterrence, only for retaliation by extinction. Did the Soviets actually design a variation on a doomsday device and not tell us about it? And could an accidental or
terrorist nuclear attack on Putin's Russia (by Chechens, for instance) trigger an antiquated automated dead-hand system and launch missiles capable of killing tens, maybe hundreds, of millions at
unknown targets that might include the United States? Up until Aug. 10 of this year, I would have thought these questions were best consigned to the realm of apocalyptic film fantasy. But on
that day I came upon a startling essay in the London Times Literary Supplement. It was a review (titled "Deadly Devices") of a book recently published in the United Kingdom: Doomsday Men:
The
TLS reviewer, Christopher Coker (who is on the faculty of the London School of Economics),
asserted that the book demonstrates that "only after the Berlin Wall had been breached and ... the
Cold War began to thaw did military analysts realize the Russians had actually built a version of
the [doomsday] device. The details of this top-secret Soviet system were first revealed in 1993 by Bruce G. Blair, a former American ICBM launch control officer, now
The Real Dr. Strangelove and the Dream of the Superweapon by nuclear-age historian P.D. Smith of University College London. (It will be out in the United States in December.)
one of the country's foremost experts on Russian arms. Fearing that a sneak attack by American submarine-launched missiles might take Moscow out in 13 minutes, the Soviet leadership had
authorized the construction of an automated communication network, reinforced to withstand a nuclear strike. At its heart was a computer system similar to the one in Dr. Strangelove.
Its
code name was Perimetr. It went fully operational in January 1985. It is still in place."
Even if chechens won’t use nukes, russians will
Pandita 1
Dr. K.N., obtained his M.A. in Persian from the Panjab U and Ph.D. in Iranian from Teheran U, He
served as a long time as professor in the Persian Department and the Centre of Central Asian Studies @
the Jammu and Kashmir U, http://www.kashmir-information.com/KNPandita/article9.html
Tthis decision of the Taliban came on the heels of a significant development in Moscow. Only two days ago, Moscow announced that Russian Federation had formulated a new security doctrine
Russia would not
hesitate to use nuclear weapons if the insurgents and other destabilizing forces out to work towards disintegration
of Russia, threatened its integrity and sovereignty. Some political analysts think that this step has been taken in the background of
intensified fighting in Chechnya and the possibility of its escalation. But others think that for some time, Moscow has been
that was an improvement on the one announced in 1996. The Acting President, Vladimir Putin approved the 21-page doctrine. Among other things, it says that
uneasy with what it has called the steady encroachment of NATO in Russian sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. As a matter of fact, Russian disapproval of NATO’s role began with the
latter’s air attacks on Yugoslavia, once a strong East European ally of the erstwhile Soviet Union. That marked the determination of Russia not to allow the Western powers to sideline her in
European and global strategies as a power and make her irrelevant. In another development, the 41-member European community is sending its delegation to Moscow to discuss Chechnyan
situation. The British representative, John Russell, heading the delegation, has made no bones of what the delegation intends to convey to Moscow. He said that the European community might
consider expulsion of Russia from its membership if it does not halt what it calls violation of human rights in Chechnya by the Russian troops. Nobody doubts the double standards employed by
the European community and the US in regard to the violation of human rights. The imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq depriving millions of infants from milk and essential medicines are
not considered violation of human rights by them. Likewise, the heavy bombardment of Yugoslavia destroying the vital infrastructure in that country and crippling civilian administration with
disastrous consequences for the populace are not violation of human rights in their lexicon. Chechnyan affair is much more complicated than what may appear at the surface. If it were just a
separatist movement, perhaps its resolution could be envisioned in terms of negotiations. But
Chechnya is the hotbed of Islamic fundamentalist
activities aimed at disintegration of Russian Federation by fanning religious frenzy among the local Muslim population. The Wahhabi ideology emanating from Saudi Arabia with strong
and effective disseminating centres in Pakistan and Taliban Afghanistan, is entrenched in Chechnyan Muslim segment. Apart from ideological subversion, the Chechyn fighting men are
provided with an inventory of latest automatic and other lethal weapons forming part of the supplies made earlier by the Americans to the Afghan mujahideen during the war with Soviet Union.
Now the Chechyn separatist cadres receive enormous arms, ammunition and funding directly from a number of Islamic organizations world over, and indirectly from some of the theocratic
Islamic States with an agenda of boosting Wahhabi ideology in the Caucasus and Central Asian region. The role of Osama Bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi Islamic warlord responsible for the
bomb attacks on two American embassies in Africa in August 1998 resulting in the killing of several hundred innocent people, cannot be overlooked. Osma is reported to be hiding in
Afghanistan and is protected by the Taliban. Talks between Taliban and American authorities for the extradition of Osma have not yielded any result, The Taliban proudly say that Afghans don’t
betray a guest. But there is something more than that in the story. There are rumours that the 15-year old daughter of Osama Bin Laden is married to Mull Omar, the Taliban chief. Though some
Taliban official sources have tried to contradict this rumour, yet it is getting rounds again. As such, extradition of Osama, as demanded by the Americans, may never materialize. This must have
been one of the factors that made the Taliban decide to grant recognition to Chechyn Republic. The Afghan fighting force - Taliban - have, evidently, become the strong muscle for propagation
and dissemination of Wahhabi ideology. This means that the Taliban and their cohorts among known extremist organizations would be taking on Russia even if the Chechyn crisis is somehow
resoloved. This is the agenda of these organizations. Significantly, the Pakistani Jamaat-e-Islami chief has recently pronounced that they would not allow Pakistan’s military regime to sign CTBT
in the
context of Chechyn crisis, it is not only the separatists, but the entire Islamic ummah that is
pitted against the Russians. Pakistan (its extremist religious organizations or the regimes) would undoubtedly give a
befitting response to Russia if the latter decides to use nuclear weapons in Chechyn war. Do we
have the real nucler flash point in Kashmir or in the Caucasus?
under the US pressure because the nuclear bomb produced by Pakistan belonged not only to Pakistan but also to the entire Muslim ummah. In other words, it means that
AT: Europe Key
With gas production dropping in the U.S. Russia sees the US market as a key
focal point of natural gas exports in the future.
Millerj 8
Alexy, Chairman of Gazprom , Gazprom, invites you to tap Russia's natural gas 6/27/08, Commodity
Online http://www.commodityonline.com/news/globalview/Gazprom-invites-you-to-tap-Russias-naturalgas-9977-3.html
Global challenges require global efforts for their resolution. For this reason, the sphere of our interests in
not limited to the European continent. It is well known that gas production has been steadily dropping in
the United States in recent years (by more than 30 billion cubic meter between 2001 and 2006), while
Russia over the same period has been able to boost production by 70 billion cubic meters. Gazprom has
unique experience, know-how, and modern technologies, and is the world’s most advanced company in
the field of gas transmission via high-pressure gas pipelines. For this reason, for example, we are also
interested in taking part in such major projects as the construction of a gas pipeline from Alaska. We have
already made a related proposal to our partners –ConocoPhillips and BP. Gazprom hopes to serve the
North American market from 2014 with liquefied natural gas from its proposed Shtokman project off
Russia’s north coast. “We are currently assessing several options of accessing the North American
market,” he said, adding that Gazprom had received “many interesting proposals” from Canadian
companies. He also confirmed that Gazprom was interested in the proposed Alaska gas pipeline. In the
coming years Gazprom will be not just a major company in the world, but the most influential in the
energy business,” adding that its target was to reach a market capitalisation of $1,000bn.
US Key – Russia is too competitive to be lucrative for Russia
Fee 3
former executive with Chevron and Mobil, is managing director and chairman of F C Fee International,
Inc, an energy risk management consultancy based in London, Russian And Iranian Gas And Future US
Energy Security” IRAN/RUSSIA, VOL. XLVI No 37, 15-September-2003,
http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n37d01.htm
Russian Gas Exports To The US
The US, faced with declining domestic gas production and rising gas demand for gas-fired power plants,
will soon need to accelerate its importation of LNG. The US government, having recognized the need for
action to protect and ensure US energy security, has already signaled its interest in possible Russian gas
exports to both the US east and west coasts (Gulf of Mexico coast not being feasible for Russian exports).
The Russian government, likewise, has begun to recognize the US as a potentially lucrative new export
gas market. In 2003, the Russian government decided to enter for the first time the LNG export market,
and to refocus its export gas strategy towards the US as a high priority. Moscow now sees the US gas
market as highly lucrative as opposed to the European market which is mature and highly competitive, the
latter especially true as a result of recent EU gas market liberalization. Nevertheless, Europe will continue
to be of great importance for Moscow as proof of Russia maintaining its reputation as a reliable long-term
supplier of pipeline gas.
AT: Oil Outweighs
Natural gas is key to Russia’s economy – it’s more sustainable than oil
Hill 2
(Fiona, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, “Russia: The 21st Century's Energy Superpower?”,
Spring, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2002/spring_russia_hill.aspx
Last fall and winter, as tensions increased in the Middle East and as speculation grew that the Bush administration might extend the war on terrorism into Iraq, the
world's news media began trumpeting Russia as a new power in global energy markets. In the Washington Post in December, David Ignatius claimed that Moscow is
"on its way to becoming the next Houston—the global capital of energy." By January, Russia's President Putin had been hailed by a Canadian paper as "the world's
new oil Czar," and the Russian media were replete with commentary on Russia's role as the power broker in world energy markets. The heightened media attention
has raised the possibility that Russia could take on OPEC and help shift global oil supply away from the Middle East and Persian Gulf. Could Russia be poised to
become an energy superpower in the 21st century? The short answer is yes, but not in the near future—and not in oil. Russia may well break into some global energy
markets as an alternative supplier to unstable states in the Persian Gulf. But Russia's
energy future is in natural gas. As the next
decade unfolds, continued crises in the Middle East and growing concern about pollution and global
climate change will inevitably focus attention on Russia's vast reserves of cheaper, cleaner natural gas.
Russia's success in international gas markets, however, is not a given. It will depend on major increases in production, serious
investments—both foreign and domestic—in infrastructure, and the development of fully functioning gas markets in Asia. Petrodollars and the Russian
Economy Gas and oil have been the mainstay of the Soviet and now Russian economy for decades. Energy
accounts for about half of Russian export earnings. According to Brookings economist Clifford Gaddy, "Every dollar's increase in the
price of a barrel of petroleum translates into roughly $1.5-$2.0 billion of additional yearly export revenues." During 1999-2000, energy exports accounted for some 90
percent of Russia's growth in GDP. Thanks to high oil prices, at the end of 2001 the economy had enjoyed its best three-year performance since 1966-69. Russia's oil
industry slumped badly during the 1990s. As the economy contracted sharply from 1990 to 1995, domestic demand for oil fell more than 40 percent, causing a glut on
the domestic market. Capacity limits in the country's pipeline system kept lucrative oil exports down. Between 1988 and 1998, Russian oil production fell almost in
half—from 11 million to around 6 million barrels a day (mbd). Drilling fell off sharply, as did investment. International investors exploring the Russian oil industry
were scared away by the uncertain business climate. Russian oil seemed like a money-loser. Russia's August 1998 financial crisis, the devaluation of the ruble, and the
subsequent—although entirely unrelated—rise in oil prices revived the industry. The devaluation drastically lowered input costs for Russian energy producers, while
sharply higher oil prices boosted revenues even without new investments or production increases. In 2001, oil companies boosted production and expanded their
international reach. Russian companies are drilling for oil in Algeria, Sudan, and Libya. In 2000, LUKoil acquired a chain of gas stations along a stretch of the
American East Coast and planned to strengthen its position in the United States by refining crude oil. In Eastern Europe, LUKoil acquired refineries in Ukraine,
Romania, and Bulgaria; and YUKOS purchased a major stake in Transpetrol, a Slovak crude pipeline operator. New regulatory instruments and fixed tax rates
implemented by the Putin government in 2001 greatly improved the investment climate for international operators. In October 2001, Exxon Mobil announced a fiveyear $4 billion commitment—Russia's largest single foreign investment to date—to its projects in Sakhalin, Russia's energy-rich island in the North Pacific. By the
end of 2001, Russia was becoming a real international energy player. New stretches of export pipelines had been completed, and a new Russian oil terminal was
operating on the Gulf of Finland. Russia concluded an ambitious agreement with the European Union on long-term energy cooperation that would increase oil exports
to its neighbor. The European Union already buys more than half of Russia's total oil exports, accounting for some 16 percent of its oil consumption. Limits on
Russian Oil But for all its recent success,
Russia will never displace OPEC in world oil markets. Over the long term,
it cannot match OPEC's oil reserves. In oil production, Russia ranks third behind Saudi Arabia and the United States, at just over 7 mbd. In
exports, it ranks second, at about 4 mbd, behind Saudi Arabia with close to 7 mbd. But it ranks seventh in proven oil reserves, with only 5 percent—as against the
OPEC countries' collective 77
percent. Because of OPEC's huge reserve base the International Energy Agency
predicts that increases in world production during 2010-20 will primarily be from Middle East OPEC
countries. One sign of Russia's reserve limits is that its recent oil industry boom was caused by increases
in oil prices, not production. In fact, Russia has yet to restore production to the 11 mbd peak it reached before the collapse of the
USSR. And high production costs, together with its limited reserves, will keep Russia from increasing its production capacity far beyond that point. It costs Saudi
Arabia a little more than $5 to produce a barrel of oil; it costs Russia, on average, twice that. If global recession and depressed world demand send oil prices down
For Russia, oil is too volatile a commodity on which
to bet its entire future. Turning Up the Gas Will Russia fare any better with natural gas? Many in Russia's
energy complex think so, and many Russian oil companies are expanding their activities in the gas sector.
Russia's gas reserves far exceed those of any other country. Indeed, Russia is to natural gas what Saudi Arabia is to oil. With 32
again, Russian oil companies could easily slide back into the troubles of the 1990s.
percent of proven world reserves, Russia far outranks Iran (15 percent), Qatar (7 percent), Saudi Arabia and the UAE (4 percent), and the United States and Algeria (3
percent). Single-handedly, Gazprom, Russia's giant gas company, holds a quarter of all world gas reserves, controls 90 percent of Russian output, and is Russia's
largest earner of hard currency. Its tax payments account for around 25 percent of total federal government tax revenues. Although oil remains the dominant global
fuel source, natural
gas is increasing in importance. It now accounts for about 23 percent of world energy
consumption and will soon displace coal (at just over 24 percent) in world markets. Increased use of liquefied
natural gas and improvements in pipeline technology have transformed gas from a local commodity into
an international business.
Relations Mod
Gas exports key to relations
America.gov 5
Russia, United States Seek To Intensify Energy Cooperation,” 2/24/05
http://www.america.gov/st/washfileenglish/2005/February/20050224142819SAikceinawz0.4095423.html
Russia, United States Seek To Intensify Energy Cooperation Pipeline system, liquefied natural gas
viewed as areas of interest The United States and Russia have pledged to intensify their cooperation on
removing barriers to energy trade and investment and other issues through the existing energy dialogue.
President Bush and President Putin said in a joint statement issued after their February 24 meeting in
Bratislava, the Slovak Republic, that they want U.S. and Russian officials to develop recommendations
and specific proposals in areas of energy security, transparency, commercial energy partnerships and
energy-related environmental problems. The statement cited support for the expansion of the pipeline
system and liquefied natural gas capacity in Russia with a view that such enhancements, together with a
more transparent business and investment environment, will help increase Russian oil and gas exports to
the U.S. and other markets. At a news conference following the meeting Putin said: “In the years 2010,
2011, a large amount of liquefied natural gas can be supplied from Russia to the United States.” Several energy
projects should be initiated no later than 2008, the statement said. According to the U.S. Energy Department's Energy Information Administration, Russia has
the world's largest natural gas reserves and the eighth-largest reserve of proven crude oil. The original 2002
joint statement of the two leaders in which they launched the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue can be viewed at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020524-8.html. Following is the text of the 2005 joint statement: THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press
Secretary (Bratislava, Slovak Republic) February 24, 2005 Joint statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin U.S.-RUSSIAN ENERGY
COOPERATION Cooperation
on energy issues remains an area of great promise for U.S.-Russian
relations. We will work further to realize the vision for our energy cooperation in all aspects described in
our statement in May 2002, including through the mechanisms of the Commercial Energy Dialogue and the Energy Working Group. Accordingly,
we have instructed our ministers to continue their energy dialogue, concentrating on ways to enhance
energy security, diversify energy supplies, improve the transparency of the business and investment
environment, reduce obstacles to increased commercial energy partnerships, and develop resources in an environmentally
safe manner. We call upon our Ministers of Energy and Commerce to develop recommendations, which we can support at one of our upcoming meetings, on how to
further intensify and develop our energy dialogue. Those recommendations will focus on identifying barriers to energy trade and investment, promoting initiatives to
remove them on the basis of predictability, fairness and law, and suggesting specific proposals for cooperating in developing energy trade and investment. We
will promote the creation of transparent tax, legal, regulatory, and contractual conditions for our companies' cooperation, and support Russia's
pipeline system development, which will create the preconditions for increasing deliveries of oil and gas
export, including to the U.S. market. We are interested in increasing U.S. commercial investment in
Russia, so as to create additional capacity for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Russia, and also with the
aim of increasing LNG exports to U.S. markets. We would welcome increased Russian oil exports to
the world market and an increased presence of imports from Russia in the United States. We would also
welcome expanding mutual investments in the energy sectors of both countries.
Strong US- Russian relations are necessary to access pretty much ever major
impact imaginable
Nixon Center 3
Advancing American Interests and the U.S.-Russian Relationship: INTERIM REPORT,” SEPTEMBER
2K3 HTTP://WWW.NIXONCENTER.ORG/PUBLICATIONS/MONOGRAPHS/FR.HTM
The proper starting point in thinking about American national interests and Russia—or any other
country—is the candid question: why does Russia matter? How can Russia affect vital American
interests and how much should the United States care about Russia? Where does it rank in the hierarchy
of American national interests? As the Report of the Commission on American National Interests (2000)
concluded, Russia ranks among the few countries whose actions powerfully affect American vital
interests. Why? § First, Russia is a very large country linking several strategically important
regions. By virtue of its size and location, Russia is a key player in Europe as well as the Middle East
and Central, South and East Asia. Accordingly, Moscow can substantially contribute to, or detract
from, U.S. efforts to deal with such urgent challenges as North Korea and Iran, as well as important
longer term problems like Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition, Russia shares the world’s longest land
border with China, an emerging great power that can have a major impact on both U.S. and Russian
interests. The bottom line is that notwithstanding its significant loss of power after the end of the Cold
War, Moscow’s geopolitical weight still exceeds that of London or Paris. § Second, as a result of its
Soviet legacy, Russia has relationships with and information about countries that remain
comparatively inaccessible to the American government, in the Middle East, Central Asia and
elsewhere. Russian intelligence and/or leverage in these areas could significantly aid the United States
in its efforts to deal with current, emerging and still unforeseen strategic challenges, including in the
war on terrorism. § Third, today and for the foreseeable future Russia’s nuclear arsenal will be capable
of inflicting vast damage on the United States. Fortunately, the likelihood of such scenarios has
declined dramatically since the Cold War. But today and as far as any eye can see the U.S. will have an
enduring vital interest in these weapons not being used against America or our allies. § Fourth,
reliable Russian stewardship and control of the largest arsenal of nuclear warheads and stockpile of
nuclear materials from which nuclear weapons could be made is essential in combating the threat of
“loose nukes.” The United States has a vital interest in effective Russian programs to prevent weapons
being stolen by criminals, sold to terrorists and used to kill Americans. § Fifth, Russian stockpiles,
technologies and knowledge for creating biological and chemical weapons make cooperation with
Moscow very important to U.S. efforts to prevent proliferation of these weapons. Working with
Russia may similarly help to prevent states hostile to the United States from obtaining sophisticated
conventional weapons systems, such as missiles and submarines. § Sixth, as the world’s largest
producer and exporter of hydrocarbons (oil and gas), Russia offers America an opportunity to diversify
and increase supplies of non-OPEC, non-Mid-Eastern energy. § Seventh, as a veto-wielding permanent
member of the United Nations Security Council, Russia can substantially ease, or complicate, American
attempts to work through the UN and other international institutions to advance other vital and extremely
important U.S. interests. In a world in which many are already concerned about the use of U.S. power,
this can have a real impact on America’s success at providing global leadership. More broadly, a close
U.S.-Russian relationship can limit other states’ behavior by effectively eliminating Moscow as a
potential source of political support.
Gas Key to Relations
U.S.-Russian investment cooperation over natural gas and energy issues is
critical to boosting overall relations
Johnson 5
David, research director at the Center for Defense Information, "RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTER
COMMENTS ON ATTEMPTS TO RESTORE `ENEMY IMAGE" Jan 29 05
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9040-3.cfm
MOSCOW, January 29 (RIA Novosti) -Russia has been lately witnessing a lot of outside criticism which distorts the actual state of affairs in the country and aims to
set Russia at odds with the USA, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told the Russian-American Business Cooperation Council.
The highlights of the Minister's speech at the Council can be seen at the Russian Foreign Ministry's web site. "We have been lately hearing voices of those who urge
the US business community to refrain from investing in Russia, citing unfavorable investment climate and an alleged `clamp down on democracy` in our country",
Lavrov said. According to him, he has repeatedly pointed out that Russia is open for criticism in case the latter "stems from bona fide intentions and an honest interest
in developing fair partnership". "Unfortunately, such is not always the case. Every
now and then we face criticism that does not only
distort the actual state of affairs but also pursues an ill-concealed aim to damage the Russian-US relations
and restore, in one way or another, the `enemy image`. Apparently, this approach is totally inadmissible,"
the Russian Foreign Ministry said He pointed to a new trend in the Russian-US cooperation - a notable
growth of Russian investment in the US economy and illustrated his words with a number of recent transactions including acquisition by
Russia's Severstal of US fifth steel producer RJ Industries, and Lukoil's purchase of Conoco Philips' chain of gas stations in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. As a result,
"The overall volume of Russian investment in the USA
is currently about $1 billion and is commensurate with the level of American investment in Russia. In a
nutshell, our investment cooperation has been steadily becoming a two-way street," Sergei Lavrov pointed out. In his
opinion, "the Russian-US cooperation in the energy sector holds the most potential, and not only in terms of
bilateral relations." According to him, the Russian-US cooperation in this vital area can substantially
strengthen the world's energy security and stabilize supply of energy resources on a global scale, including an increased share of Russian energy
Lukoil now owns one of the biggest chains of gas stations in North America.
resources in the North American market (from 2 to 10 percent). "Among other things, the Russian side is interested in adjusting the terms of competition on the world
oil market, primarily those set by the Arab countries," the Russian Foreign Minister said. The
potential projects in the energy sector
include construction of a pipeline linking Western Siberia with the Barents Sea, expansion of the Russian facilities for liquefying
natural gas with the aim of boosting natural gas supplies to North America, and further R&D efforts in exploring new
sources of energy, such as hydrogen..
Econ/Low Oil Prices t/c
Low oil prices and underperforming economy drive away investment
Callow 12 Lin Callow, LTLC Consulting, “Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Activity Forecast:
Canadian Beaufort Sea 2012-2027” prepared for Beaufort Regional Enviornmental Assessment
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada April 2012 http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/Beaufort-Sea-OG-activity-forecast-2012-2017.pdf
Although, current oil prices appear to be moving towards historical highs, global economic instability
threatens to reverse this trend. This combined with high costs and industry uncertainty, as to how equivalency
to the NEB Same Season Relief Well Policy can be achieved, may result in shifts in corporate exploration and
development expenditures away from the Beaufort Sea . However, a sustained global economic recovery with
accompanying increases in oil prices would encourage exploration and development.
***Unilat DA
1NC Unilateral Action DA
Unilateral development of Artic resources sparks military conflict with Russia
and Canada- only a multilateral approach solves
Stoicof 8
Alexandra, SIT Geneva: International Studies, Organizations and Social Justice, The George Washington
University International Affairs and Geography, THE POLAR THAW: An Analysis Of The Impacts Of
Climate Change On The Environment And Geopolitics Of The Arctic Polar Region, Spring
The current pursuit to unclaimed Arctic waters has the potential to create unprecedented
conflict; environmentally, politically, and economically. Russia, Canada, and the United States
pose the greatest threat to the stability of the region if they continue to act unilaterally to
pursue resources. The scrabble to claim territory can lead into political conflict and have the
potential to involve military force . Oil companies that have interests in developing the
resources, such as Arctic Oil and Gas Corporation and British Petroleum, have no legal
mechanisms to determine the extraction rights of the region. Thus, the development of hostile
situations need to be avoided by realizing that every state in pursuit of the Arctic has similar
motives and intentions, and that these similarities can be funneled into a joint effort to develop
the region. A collective corporation representing various oil companies and national
governments would insure that each party would gain from the resources, without the
presence of numerous actors battling over the same area. Such a corporate agreement would
serve as the legal framework for an area currently without any jurisdiction.
This war goes nuclear
Huebert 7 – Professor of Political Science/Strategic Studies Program @ University of Calgary
Rob, “Canada and the Circumpolar World: Meeting the Challenges of Cooperation into the Twenty-First
Century: A Critique of Chapter 4 – ‘Post-Cold War Cooperation in the Arctic: From Interstate Conflict to
New Agendas for Security,’” http://www.carc.org/calgary/a4.htm
The potential for an accidental nuclear war remains as a threat to the Arctic regions. On
January 25, 1995 Boris Yeltsin activated his "nuclear briefcase" when Russian radar detected a
rocket launch from somewhere off the Norwegian coast. The rocket was first thought to be
headed towards Moscow, but eventually veered away from Russian territory. The rocket was in
fact an American scientific probe sent to examine the northern lights. The Norwegians had
informed the Russians of the launch, but mis-communications had resulted in the failure of the
message to reach the proper Russian officials. (4) This incident, while hopefully rare, indicates
that the potential for nuclear misunderstanding remains as real as ever. In addition to the
Russian Government's perception of a military threat posed by the United States, as evidenced
by the continuing weapons programme in Russia and the continued threat of accidental nuclear
war, some American policy-makers are perceiving an increased military threat from Russia. In
particular, they are questioning the assistance provided to the Russians for the purpose of
decommissioning their older nuclear submarines. (5) They are concerned that such programmes
are subsidizing the Russian modernization of their submarine fleets. However, the current
administration does not share this point of view. Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that
the American leadership is bound to be disturbed if, on the one hand, the Russians continue to
plead poverty when decommissioning their older submarines while, on the other hand, they
continue to build the Borei class.
Extinction
Corcoran 9 – PhD, Senior Fellow @ Global Security
Ed, Ph.D., serves as a Senior Fellow on national security issues at GlobalSecurity.org., Frmr. Strategic
Analyst at the US Army War College where he chaired studies for the Office of the Deputy Chief of
Operations and member of the National Advisory Board for the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues,
we win the qualification game, April 21, http://sitrep.globalsecurity.org/articles/090421301-strategicnuclear-targets.htm
That brings us to Russia, our former main adversary, now a competitive partner and still a
potential future adversary, particularly as relations have gradually soured in recent years. Russia is
the only other nation with a formidable arsenal of some three thousand strategic weapons. Our
opposing arsenals were built up in the period when Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) was the
underlying strategic concept -- each side deterred from striking the other by the prospect of
assured retaliatory destruction. The situation became even madder as both sides worked to
develop a capability to destroy the other's strike force with a crippling first strike. This resulted in
further large increases in the sizes of the arsenals, as well as early warning systems and hairtrigger launch-on-warning alert procedures. The final result was an overall system in which
each side could destroy the other in a matter of minutes. And it also raised another chilling
specter, Nuclear Winter , in which the atmospheric dust raised from a major nuclear exchange
would block sunlight for an extended period and essentially destroy human civilization
globally. The collapse of the Soviet Union collapsed this threat, but did not eliminate it. US and
Russian nuclear forces remained frozen in adversarial positions. The May 2002 Moscow Treaty
began to address this legacy and is leading to a reduction in strategic nuclear forces down to
levels of about two thousand on each side by 2012. These levels are still sufficient to destroy not
only both nations but also human civilization . It is hard to even construct scenarios where the
use of even a few strategic nuclear weapons does not risk a total escalation. Strikes on Russian
warning facilities or strike forces would almost certainly bring a wave of retaliatory strikes. Strikes
on hardened command centers would be of questionable effectiveness and also risk total
escalation . In addition, successful elimination of Russian leaders could greatly complicate any
efforts to stop escalation short of a total nuclear exchange .
2NC AT No War
Don’t trust their defense – Russians are intentionally hiding their belligerence
to encourage complacency in the US
Huebert 10 – PhD, Professor of Political Science @ U of Calgary
Rob, “The Newly Emerging Arctic Security Environment,”
http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/The%20Newly%20Emerging%20Arctic%20Security%20Environment.pdf
It should be clear that the Russians have been according a growing importance to the Arctic
region . They continually issue statements affirming their commitment to peaceful cooperation
in the Arctic, which show up in the form of public statements by their leaders and in their primary
documents. These same leaders are also very quick to condemn the actions of the other Arctic
states as being aggressive and a threat to international peace and security in the region
whenever they engage in any form of military related activity. It is clear, however, that the
Russians have embarked on a much more assertive use of military force in the region by taking
various action – the missile test launches near the pole, the sudden and substantial resumption
of the long-range bomber patrols, and the voyages of their surface units into the disputed zones
– which exceeds that of any of the other Arctic states. Furthermore, the Russians’ proposed
rearmament plans greatly exceed the plans of any other Arctic state. Thus, the Russians have
excelled at portraying themselves as cooperative while taking increasingly assertive action .
The question remains as to why? Are they merely reasserting themselves as a global power, or,
does this new action point to an increasingly assertive Russia? This is not known.
*** Energy Efficiency Trade Off
Energy Efficiency DA
Link – Natural gas trades off with energy efficiency and alternative fuels
Holmes 12
Jamie Nov 15, slate “The natural gas myth”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_efficient_planet/2012/11/cheap_natural_gas_d
oesn_t_mean_we_should_stop_investing_in_alternative_energy.html
There’s a pernicious argument being made against energy efficiency, and it goes like this. Last
winter was one of the warmest on record, so people had to spend less to heat their homes and
businesses. That, combined with a “drilling binge ” in shale gas and new production, made for
record low natural gas in prices in April, at less than $2 per million British thermal units (MMBtu).
This phenomenon has boosted the U.S. economy to the tune of more than$ 100 billion annually,
by one estimate. With such low prices, the thinking goes, investments in alternative energy and
energy efficiency don’t make sense. “All bets are off for the future of energy in the United States
and, indeed, the world, as the price of natural gas plummets to ever-lower values,” the
University of Virginia’s S. Fred Singer wrote in the American Thinker last spring. Singer even
speculated that “cheap gas will completely remove the need for electricity generated by solar
or wind.” In August, a Deloitte study found that current low prices were making many energy
efficiency projects less attractive , since it would take too long to show a return on investment.
Indeed, in a “fact sheet” shared recently with Ohio state legislators, the utility FirstEnergy argued
that the current energy efficiency mandates don’t make sense anymore. The landscape has
“ radically changed ,” and with the discovery of shale gas resources and low energy prices, “the
factors driving the mandates no longer exist.” In Nebraska, one of the worst states in the country
for energy efficiency standards, the CEO of the Loup River Public Power District offered the same
basic argument last month.
Solves the case better
Holmes 12
Jamie Nov 15, slate “The natural gas myth”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_efficient_planet/2012/11/cheap_natural_gas_d
oesn_t_mean_we_should_stop_investing_in_alternative_energy.html
More generally, natural gas prices tend to be very volatile. Since energy efficiency measures
help lower the demand for electricity, they can help protect companies against price volatility
while maintaining the reliability of the electrical grid. Specifically, these measures include
reducing electricity consumption, thereby reducing the amount of natural gas used to generate
electricity, as well as gas-targeted efficiency programs that directly reduce the end-use of gas
for consumers. “Energy efficiency is a 10-, 20-, 30-year investment,” ACEEE’s Neal Elliot, coauthor on the white paper, says. “Prices will go up, prices will do down.” He pointed to a
statement from James Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, on the importance of investing in a range of
energy options. “Ben Franklin said there are two certainties in life: death and taxes,“ Rogers said.
“To that, I would add the price volatility of natural gas.” Natural gas prices are far more volatile
than that of oil prices, making energy efficiency an especially useful bulwark against price
instability . And, of course, there are more obvious benefits: Efficiency lowers customers’
utility bills , it’s better for the environment , it creates jobs , and it encourages long-term
economic investment .
Solves the case – just expanding nat gas increases costs for development
Young 12
Rachel ACEEE in 2011. She conducts research for the Federal Policy Program on air regulations, natural
gas, and the water-energy nexus and assists the executive team. Prior to joining ACEEE, Rachel held a
Climate and Energy research fellowship position at The Breakthrough Institute in the summer of 2010
and an activist fellowship position with Avazz.org in the summer of 2009. Sept 18 “Energy Efficiency
Looks Beyond the Natural Gas Boom” http://theenergycollective.com/rachel-young/113776/energyefficiency-looks-beyond-natural-gas-boom
Natural gas has been a historically volatile fuel, vulnerable to storage and distribution
constraints, and accidents and production disruptions. New fracking regulations and an
anticipated increase in natural gas exports are adding to the risk factors. Deploying energy
efficiency measures lowers the demand for natural gas, which in turn reduces the threat of
future price volatility , helps prevent natural gas price spikes, and assists in maintaining
electrical grid reliability. Efficiency lessens a utility’s exposure to fuel price volatility by
diversifying energy resources across multiple small and moderate-sized projects. Efficiency also
reduces the need to deploy peaking generation resources, which prevents outages by lessening
the load and stress of the power distribution network. Energy efficiency can significantly cut
into the demand for natural gas in the power sector and lessen the need for construction of
new natural gas power plants. New natural gas power plants require a large upfront investment
and take time to come online; costs are transferred to ratepayers. Since energy efficiency is still
the most cost-effective resource compared to new combined-cycle natural gas plants, energy
efficiency should be deployed by states as the first measure to prevent costly construction of
new natural gas plants thereby saving ratepayers money. And while natural gas is a less dirty
fossil fuel with nearly half the emissions compared to coal, natural gas still emits pollutants.
Energy efficiency is a zero emission energy resource. Though the United States has made
progress advancing energy efficiency, there is still an abundance of untapped energy efficiency
resources available. States should make investments in energy efficiency measures first before
undertaking expensive fuel switching projects. Doing so will increase stability in the electricity
and natural gas sectors creates jobs, lower customer utility bills, reduce pollution, and extend
the available supply of natural gas.
AT: Energy Efficiency
Alt cause – regulations
Holmes 12
Jamie Nov 15, slate “The natural gas myth”
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_efficient_planet/2012/11/cheap_natural_gas_d
oesn_t_mean_we_should_stop_investing_in_alternative_energy.html
The real thorny issue with energy efficiency isn’t low natural gas prices , but the regulatory
barriers keeping utility companies from making investments that would lower what their
customers pay. Under traditional regulatory models of utility rates, a utility that spends money
to reduce energy use for its customers ends up … losing money. If you make more money by
producing more energy, why would you work to produce less energy and make less money?
***Generic Renewables DA***
1NC – Warming
Most recent economic analyses project growth in renewable energy
Bossong 12 – (7/5/12, citing Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy
Agency, and a recent report from the IEA, Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2012,
Kenneth, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research
and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as costeffective alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels, “IEA sees renewable energy growth accelerating
over next 5 years,”
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/july/name,28200,en.html)
Renewable power generation is expected to continue its rapid growth over the next five years,
according to a new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) that acknowledges the coming-ofage of the renewable energy sector. The report says that despite economic uncertainties in many
countries, global power generation from hydropower, solar, wind and other renewable sources is
projected to increase by more than 40% to almost 6 400 terawatt hours (TWh) – or roughly one-and-a-half times current
electricity production in the United States.
The study, released today, marks the first time the IEA has devoted a medium-term report to renewable
power sources, a recognition of the dynamic and increasing role of renewable energy in the global
power mix. The study examines in detail 15 key markets for renewable energy, which currently represent about 80% of renewable
generation, while identifying and characterising developments that may emerge in other important markets. It completes a series of IEA
Like the others, it presents a forecast of global
developments and detailed country projections over the next five years.
The new study, Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2012, says that renewable electricity generation
should expand by 1 840 TWh between 2011 and 2017, almost 60% above the 1 160 TWh growth registered between 2005 and
medium-term market reports also featuring oil, natural gas and coal.
2011. Renewable generation will increasingly shift from the OECD to new markets, with non-OECD countries accounting for two-thirds of this
growth. Of the 710 GW of new global renewable electricity capacity expected, China accounts for almost 40%. Significant
deployment
is also expected in the United States, India, Germany and Brazil, among others.
This growth is underpinned by the maturing of a portfolio of renewable energy technologies, in large part
due to supportive policy and market frameworks in OECD countries. However, rapidly increasing electricity demand and
energy security needs in recent years have been spurring deployment in many emerging markets – both
large and small. These new deployment opportunities are creating a virtuous cycle of improved global
competition and cost reductions.
“Renewable energy is expanding rapidly as technologies mature, with deployment transitioning from support-driven
markets to new and potentially more competitive segments in many countries,” IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven
said during today’s launch. “Given the emergence of a portfolio of renewable sources as a crucial pillar of the global energy mix,
market stakeholders need a clear understanding of the major drivers and barriers to renewable deployment. Based on these factors, this
report forecasts global renewable development and, in so doing, provides a key benchmark for both
public and private decision makers.”
Strong fossil fuel industry precludes investment and growth of clean tech
Schneider 12 – (3/4/12, Keith, senior editor of Circle of Blue, former national environmental
correspondent and regular contributor to the New York Times, “New American Energy Boom, A
Reprieve and a Reckoning,” http://modeshift.org/419/new-american-energy-boom-a-reprieve-and-areckoning/)
The risks of perpetuating America’s fossil fuel economy are equally momentous, producing a new era of
national reckoning. Ample natural gas supplies and low prices are dampening demand for wind, solar,
geothermal, and other non-polluting sources of energy. One result is that clean energy manufacturing
plants are closing in the Midwest, Rocky Mountain states, and California. Two solar producers in
Michigan, for instance, have shut their doors in the last year.
Public investment in non-fossil fuel innovation is uncertain. It’s not at all clear yet whether Congress will renew the tax
credits that expire later this year and that have spurred wind and solar use and manufacturing.
If the U.S. spends another generation in an oil and gas coma, choosing not to pursue alternatives with
the fierce commitment to success that propelled the Apollo program to land a man on the moon, it will end up even more
economically stretched and politically unstable than it is today.
That conclusion is easy to draw. Persistently high prices for oil, caused largely by rising demand in Asia, is strengthening the
energy industry and its ability to convince state governments and Washington to scrub interest in
developing cleaner energy alternatives. The urgency to avoid this scenario is keen for the millions of Americans who could work
in the alternative energy sector, and for the planet’s health.
Clean tech solves warming
Buczynski 12 – (6/14/12, citing a recent International Energy Agency report “Energy Technology
Perspectives 2012 Pathways to a Clean Energy System,” and Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of
the IEA, Beth, “CLEAN ENERGY’S CHANCE TO SLOW CLIMATE CHANGE FADING FAST,”
http://revmodo.com/2012/06/14/clean-energys-chance-to-slow-climate-change-fading-fast/)
A recent report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that there is indeed a solution that
would allow us to limit global average temperature increase to 2°C and thus prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the Earth’s climate system. But don’t celebrate just yet. Achieving this goal
requires a radical transformation of the global energy network and the end of centralized fossil fuel
generation.
Never has the phrase “easier said than done” been more appropriate.
In a 68-page document titled Energy Perspectives 2012, the
IEA examines the status of technology development, the
alternatives, the state of policy support and R&D, and various scenarios that could give the world the
best chance of avoiding dangerous climate change.
In order to meet the 2°C goal, the IEA says it’s absolutely essential to establish more flexible energy generation
and distribution systems, so that at least 50 percent of the world’s electricity is provided by
renewables by the middle of the century. In order for this to happen, global investments in what IEA sees as
critical technologies – carbon capture and storage, solar thermal, and offshore wind – must double by
2020.
Since all three of those technologies are already in use around the world, we know it’s possible to
achieve this ambitious goal . As the report points out, however, the issue holding everything back is money. Even
though the switch to decentralized, clean energy technologies would be costly, they’re merely a drop in
the bucket compared to what we’re destined to spend extracting, refining, burning, and cleaning up
after fossil fuels.
“An additional $36 trillion of investment would be required to overhaul the world’s current energy system by the middle of the century, but this
would be offset by $100 trillion in savings through reduced use of fossil fuels,” reads the report.
You would think that in a time of worldwide financial crisis, with the world’s major economies in trillions of dollars of debt, these types of
savings would be all that’s needed to put the wheels of progress in motion. But alas, that is not the case. Although government funding of clean
technology may seem more robust than ever, the report found that R&D for emerging technologies is less than it was in the 1980s.
“Now that we have identified the solution and the host of related benefits, and with the window of opportunity closing fast, when will
governments wake up to the dangers of complacency and adopt the bold policies that radically transform our energy system? To
do
anything less is to deny our societies the welfare they deserve,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven.
Warming causes extinction
Flournoy 11 – (Dec. 2011, citing Feng Hsu, PhD in Engingeering Science, NASA scientist at Goddard Space
Flight Center, former research fellow of Brookhaven National Laboratory in the fields of risk assessment,
risk-based decision making, safety & reliability and mission assurances for nuclear power, space launch,
energy infrastructure and other social and engineering systems, Don Flournoy, PhD, University of Texas,
Project Manager for University/Industry Experiments for the NASA ACTS Satellite, Professor of
Telecommunications, Scripps College of Communications, Ohio University, "Solar Power Satellites,"
January, Springer Briefs in Space Development, p. 10-1)
In the Online Journal of Space Communication , Dr. Feng Hsu, a NASA scientist at Goddard Space Flight Center, a research center in the forefront of science of space
and Earth, writes, “The
evidence of global warming is alarming,” noting the potential for a catastrophic planetary
climate change is real and troubling(Hsu 2010 ) . Hsu and his NASA colleagues were engaged in monitoring and analyzing climate
changes on a global scale, through which they received first-hand scientific information and data relating to global warming issues, including the dynamics of polar
ice cap melting. After discussing this research with colleagues who were world experts on the subject, he wrote: I now have no doubt
global
temperatures are rising, and that global warming is a serious problem confronting all of humanity. No matter whether these trends are due to human
interference or to the cosmic cycling of our solar system, there are two basic facts that are crystal clear: (a) there is overwhelming scientific
evidence showing positive correlations between the level of CO2 concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere with
respect to the historical fluctuations of global temperature changes; and (b) the overwhelming majority of the
world’s scientific community is in agreement about the risks of a potential catastrophic global climate
change. That is, if we humans continue to ignore this problem and do nothing, if we continue dumping huge quantities of
greenhouse gases into Earth’s biosphere, humanity will be at dire risk (Hsu 2010 ) . As a technology risk assessment expert,
Hsu says he can show with some confidence that the planet will face more risk doing nothing to curb its fossil-based energy addictions than it will in making a
fundamental shift in its energy supply. “This,” he writes, “is because the
risks of a catastrophic anthropogenic climate change can
be potentially the extinction of human species, a risk that is simply too high for us to take any chances”
(Hsu 2010 ) .
---Ext. Clean Tech Now
Yay clean tech
Rau 12 – (3/2/12, Alex, PhD in physics, founding partner of Climate Wedge Ltd, an independent firm
providing carbon finance and emissions trading related advisory and asset management services, and
pursuing principal investments and project development in the carbon markets, “Is America Losing Its
Edge in Clean-Energy Tech?” http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/03/is_america_losing_its_edge_in.html)
Amid all the concern over America's competitiveness, it's easy to overlook a sector where many U.S.
companies are outperforming their overseas counterparts: Clean-energy technologies. These are the
products and infrastructure elements such as solar panels and smart electricity grids that are reducing
our reliance on petroleum and coal. This healthy, innovative sector holds out vast promise, but missteps now could cost the
United States its lead.
The clean-energy field is evolving rapidly. In just the past few years, there has been a global boom in the wind
and solar industries, with wind power's generating capacity expanding dramatically and companies
competing to offer free solar panels to households. The United States has played an enormous role in
the expansion of these segments and is the world's largest generator of renewable energy outside of
conventional hydropower. That's been due to the country's unique combination of a large energy market,
advanced research universities, innovative private-sector laboratories, an abundance of entrepreneurs, large
pools of risk capital, and a historically supportive policy environment that has created incentives for innovation in —
and deployment of — clean-energy sources and technologies. The U.S. has underwritten much of the technological innovation behind clean
energy's progress.
The pace of innovation is one reason prices have dropped dramatically: Putting solar panels on American roofs
costs, on average, less than half of what it did just two years ago, in part because a Moore's Law-like
innovation cycle is unfolding in photovoltaic technology. The price collapse is great for consumers and
utility companies, and it raises the prospect that American energy costs might someday reverse course, a
turn of events that would do wonders for the nation's productivity. Declining energy prices would also help raise U.S. competitiveness in the
sense that they would boost consumers' standard of living while increasing companies' ability to succeed globally.
Renewable energy growth and investment increasing now – even more than fossil fuels
Morales 12 – (1/18/12, Alex, Bloomberg News, “Renewable-Energy Growth To Outpace Oil, Gas Through
2030, BP Says,” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-18/renewables-to-grow-more-than-8-ayear-through-2030-bp-says.html)
Wind power, solar electricity and biofuels consumption will grow at a faster pace than demand for
fossil fuels in the next 20 years as nations seek to meet rising energy needs without adding to carbon
emissions, BP Plc (BP/) said.
Global renewables consumption will rise 8.2 percent a year through 2030, outstripping the annual 2.1 percent gain
for natural gas, the fastest-growing fossil fuel, BP said today in its annual outlook. Total energy demand for power, transport
and heating is forecast to advance 1.6 percent a year.
“The growth of global energy consumption is increasingly being met by non-fossil fuels,” BP said.
“Renewables, nuclear and hydro together account for 34 percent of the growth; this aggregate non-fossil
contribution is, for the first time, larger than the contribution of any single fossil fuel.”
New investment in renewable energy rose to a record $260 billion last year from $243 billion in 2010, which
was the first year that fresh money flowing into wind and solar generation topped funds for new oil-,
coal- and gas-fired output, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Governments around the world have subsidized the
expansion of cleaner power production to satisfy energy demand while curtailing polluting emissions.
“It is in the power sector where the greatest changes in the fuel mix are
and hydroelectric should account for more than half the growth in power generation.”
expected,” BP said. “Renewables, nuclear
Eight technologies will experience exponential growth
Bossong 12 – (7/5/12, citing Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the International Energy
Agency, and a recent report from the IEA, Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report 2012,
Kenneth, Executive Director of the SUN DAY Campaign. The SUN DAY Campaign is a non-profit research
and educational organization founded in 1993 to promote sustainable energy technologies as costeffective alternatives to nuclear power and fossil fuels, “IEA sees renewable energy growth accelerating
over next 5 years,”
http://www.iea.org/newsroomandevents/pressreleases/2012/july/name,28200,en.html)
The report’s release comes amid profound changes and the uncertainties associated with a cautious
macroeconomic outlook. First, governments in several key markets are deliberating significant changes to renewable policies and
deeper electricity market reforms as renewable deployment scales up. Second, the cost and availability of financing will act as a key variable,
with a need for more investment sources and structures. Finally, some
parts of the renewable industry are going through
a period of dramatic upheaval, with supply chains restructuring and shifting geographically while
delivering cost reductions. Ultimately, such a consolidation should lead to a more mature and robust
renewable sector.
The report presents detailed forecasts for renewable energy generation and capacity for eight
technologies – hydropower, bioenergy for power, onshore wind, offshore wind, solar photovoltaics (PV),
concentrating solar power (CSP), geothermal and ocean power. This first edition focuses on renewable energy in the
electricity sector, though it also examines solar thermal heating.
Other key
findings of the report include:
Hydropower continues to account for the majority of renewable generation and it registers the largest absolute
growth (+730 TWh) of any single renewable technology over 2011-17, largely driven by non-OECD countries.
Non-hydropower renewable technologies continue to scale up quickly. Between 2011 and 2017, generation from
these technologies increases by over 1 100 TWh, with growth equally split between OECD and non-OECD countries.
Onshore wind, bioenergy and solar PV see the largest increases, respectively, in generation after hydropower. Offshore
wind and CSP grow quickly from low bases. Geothermal continues to develop in areas with good resources. Ocean technologies take
important steps towards commercialisation.
---Ext. Solves Warming
Clean energy is key to reduce emissions and solve warming
IEA 12 – (2012, International Energy Agency, “Energy Technology Perspectives 2012 Pathways to a Clean
Energy System,” http://www.iea.org/Textbase/npsum/ETP2012SUM.pdf)
Technologies can and must play an integral role in transforming the energy system. The 2012 edition of Energy
Technology Perspectives (ETP 2012) shows clearly that a technological transformation of the energy system is still
possible, despite current trends. The integrated use of key existing technologies would make it possible
to reduce dependency on imported fossil fuels or on limited domestic resources, decarbonise electricity,
enhance energy efficiency and reduce emissions in the industry, transport and buildings sectors. This would dampen
surging energy demand, reduce imports, strengthen domestic economies, and over time dramatically
reduce greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. The ETP 2012 2°C Scenario (2DS) explores the technology options
needed to realise a sustainable future based on greater energy efficiency and a more balanced energy
system, featuring renewable energy sources and lower emissions. Its emissions trajectory is consistent with the IEA
World Energy Outlook’s 450 scenario through 2035. The 2DS identifi es the technology options and policy pathways that ensure an 80% chance
of limiting long-term global temperature increase to 2°C - provided that non-energy related CO2 emissions, as well as other greenhouse gases,
are also reduced.
Investing in clean energy makes economic sense – every additional dollar invested can generate three
dollars in future fuel savings by 2050. Investments in clean energy need to double by 2020 (Chapter 4).
Achieving the 2DS would require USD 36 trillion (35%) more in investments from today to 2050 than under a scenario in which controlling
carbon emissions is not a priority. That is the equivalent of an extra USD 130 per person every year. However, investing
is not the
same as spending: by 2025, the fuel savings realised would outweigh the investments; by 2050, the fuel
savings amount to more than USD 100 trillion. Even if these potential future savings are discounted at
10%, there would be a USD 5 trillion net saving between now and 2050. If cautious assumptions of how lower
demand for fossil fuels can impact prices are applied, the projected fuel savings jump to USD 150 trillion.
Clean tech expansion overcomes all barriers to solving warming – even allows treaties
Popp 08 – (2008, David, PhD, Associate Professor of Public Administration and a Senior Research
Associate in the Center for Policy Research, the Center for Environmental Policy Administration, and the
Center for Technology and Information Policy, at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. He is also a
Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, “International Technology Transfer for
Climate Policy,” Center for Policy Research. Paper 4,
http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=cpr)
However, climate
policy is complicated by the fact that GHG emissions reductions are a public good—they
benefit everyone, not just the local citizenry. Given this, it is less likely that developing countries will move
as quickly to regulate CO2 emissions as they did in the cases of SO2 , NOX , and lead. Moreover, developing countries are
more likely to accept moderate emissions reductions that could be met by improved efficiency (such as
China’s climate strategy discussed in the introduction), as the adoption of energy efficiency technologies provides
secondary benefits to these countries.
Technological change can also help alleviate the problem of incomplete participation in climate
treaties. The standard presumption is that when only some countries commit to reducing carbon emissions, highcarbon industries will migrate to non-participating countries, resulting in carbon leakage, an increase in
CO2 emissions in the non-participating countries in reaction to the reduction in emissions by the more
strictly regulated countries. Golombek and Hoel (2004) noted that, in the countries committed to carbon reductions, induced
technological change will lower abatement costs, which may be sufficient to encourage nonparticipating countries to reduce their carbon emissions as well. Golombek and Hoel also found the level of
environmental R&D in the non-participating country to be important. If the non-participating country is already performing environmental
R&D, increases in environmental R&D in the participating country may crowd out R&D in the non-participating country, mitigating the benefits
of spillovers. However, if
the nonparticipating country was not doing environmental R&D, as is the case in
most developing countries, spillovers will lead to lower emissions. This work is theoretical in nature, and suggests
directions for future research. In particular, estimating the magnitude of each effect (technology transfer vs. leakage) would help policymakers
better understand the risks (or lack thereof) of incomplete participation.
Clean tech is integral to stabilizing the climate
Popp 08 – (2008, David, PhD, Associate Professor of Public Administration and a Senior Research
Associate in the Center for Policy Research, the Center for Environmental Policy Administration, and the
Center for Technology and Information Policy, at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. He is also a
Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, “International Technology Transfer for
Climate Policy,” Center for Policy Research. Paper 4,
http://surface.syr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=cpr)
As the economies of developing countries grow, greenhouse gas emissions from these countries will
continue to rise. Curtailing growth in these countries is not a viable alternative. The diffusion of clean
technologies will play a vital part in any climate stabilization strategy. This study reviews the literature on transfer
of environmentally-friendly technologies and discusses how the lessons from this research can inform climate policy. A key point is that
technology diffusion is gradual. The
process of diffusion of climate friendly technologies and policies in
developing countries is no different from what has already occurred with other environmental policies,
such as for sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions and leaded gasoline. Early adoption of policy by developed countries leads to
the development of new technologies that make it easier for developing countries to reduce pollution as
well. Some technologies, such as those that enhance energy efficiency, will diffuse to developing countries even
without the aid of policy prescriptions such as the CDM. This is important for assessing the potential emissions reductions
of proposed CDM projects. While often frowned upon by environmental advocates, globalization, that is, the
opening up of economies to international competition, plays an important role in moving clean
technologies to developing countries. Clean technologies are first developed in the world’s leading economies, and developing
countries gain access to them through international trade and foreign investments. These countries then adopt environmental
regulations more quickly than they otherwise would. Finally, the absorptive capacity of nations is important. The
technological skills of the local workforce enable a country to learn from, and build upon, technologies
brought in from abroad.
Impact – Resource Dependence
Solves resource dependence issues
Muro et al. 11 – (2011, Mark, senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings, Jonathan Rothwell, senior research associate and associate fellow at the Metropolitan Policy
Program, Brookings, Devashree Saha, senior policy analyst and associate fellow at the MPP, “SIZING THE
CLEAN ECONOMY A NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GREEN JOBS ASSESSMENT,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Series/resources/0713_clean_economy.pdf)
A sharpening need for resource security. The clean economy also matters for reasons of resource
security: It reflects new demands that this nation and others reduce their vulnerability to resource
supply shocks and related conflict.12
Currently, the United States consumes nearly 19 million barrels of oil per day—half of it imported—to power its
economy, move its people and products, and manufacture its goods. 13 That leaves the entire U.S. economy vulnerable to
geopolitical instability and supply disruptions abroad. 14 For example, the high and volatile energy prices of 2008 warned
of a new, tighter, and more uncertain reality on the world market for fossil fuels, particularly oil. 15 Today, economic recovery, the return of oil
prices to over $100 per barrel, and the Arab Awakening’s uncertain course in the Middle East and North Africa have only sharpened these
concerns. And rightly so: Such
uncertainty and price volatility has been shown to reduce investment across the
economy, increase business costs, disrupt household budgets, and so depress domestic growth. 16
However, the “green” and low-carbon goods, processes, and services being developed by the clean
economy represent an opportunity for the nation to insulate itself from price and supply shocks and
begin to disentangle itself from the messy geopolitics of oil through efficiency advances and a
diversification of the nation’s energy-source portfolio. 17
Resource wars cause extinction
Klare 6
Klare 06 Professor of peace and world security studies @ Hampshire College[Michael Klare, “The Coming
Resource Wars,” TomPaine.com, Date: March 11, 2006, pg.
http://www.waterconserve.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=53710&keybold=water%20land%2
0conflict.
"As famine, disease, and weather-related disasters strike due to abrupt climate change," the
Pentagon report notes, "many countries' needs will exceed their carrying capacity" -- that is,
their ability to provide the minimum requirements for human survival. This "will create a sense of
desperation, which is likely to lead to offensive aggression" against countries with a greater
stock of vital resources. "Imagine eastern European countries, struggling to feed their populations
with a falling supply of food, water, and energy, eyeing Russia, whose population is already in
decline, for access to its grain, minerals, and energy supply." Similar scenarios will be replicated
all across the planet, as those without the means to survival invade or migrate to those with
greater abundance -- producing endless struggles between resource "haves" and "have-nots." It
is this prospect, more than anything, that worries John Reid. In particular, he expressed concern
over the inadequate capacity of poor and unstable countries to cope with the effects of climate
change, and the resulting risk of state collapse, civil war and mass migration. "More than 300
million people in Africa currently lack access to safe water," he observed, and "climate change will
worsen this dire situation" -- provoking more wars like Darfur. And even if these social disasters
will occur primarily in the developing world, the wealthier countries will also be caught up in
them, whether by participating in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations, by fending off
unwanted migrants or by fighting for access to overseas supplies of food, oil, and
minerals. When reading of these nightmarish scenarios, it is easy to conjure up images of
desperate, starving people killing one another with knives, staves and clubs -- as was certainly
often the case in the past, and could easily prove to be so again. But these scenarios also envision
the use of more deadly weapons. "In this world of warring states," the 2003 Pentagon report
predicted, "nuclear arms proliferation is inevitable." As oil and natural gas disappears, more and
more countries will rely on nuclear power to meet their energy needs -- and this "will accelerate
nuclear proliferation as countries develop enrichment and reprocessing capabilities to ensure
their national security." Although speculative, these reports make one thing clear: when
thinking about the calamitous effects of global climate change, we must emphasize its social and
political consequences as much as its purely environmental effects. Drought, flooding and storms
can kill us, and surely will -- but so will wars among the survivors of these catastrophes over
what remains of food, water and shelter. As Reid's comments indicate, no society, however
affluent, will escape involvement in these forms of conflict.
Impact – Economy
Clean tech is a key driver of future economic growth globally
Muro et al. 11 – (2011, Mark, senior fellow and director of policy for the Metropolitan Policy Program at
Brookings, Jonathan Rothwell, senior research associate and associate fellow at the Metropolitan Policy
Program, Brookings, Devashree Saha, senior policy analyst and associate fellow at the MPP, “SIZING THE
CLEAN ECONOMY A NATIONAL AND REGIONAL GREEN JOBS ASSESSMENT,”
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Series/resources/0713_clean_economy.pdf)
*VC = Venture Capital
A world-wide aspiration toward economic transformation. Finally, there
remains a third increasingly ascendant factor
behind the clean economy’s significance: the prospect of industrial transformation. The clean economy
matters, in short, because it interacts with nearly every aspect of the rest of the economy and is emerging
as a site of rapid technological and process innovation world-wide.
Innovation, after all, remains a crucial driver of economic growth, and so clean economy innovation—
motivated by the unprecedented environmental and resource challenge outlined above—appears a
likely source of future economic development as firms of all kinds seek to invent new, environmentally friendly ways to
decrease the world’s carbon and resource intensity. 23
In fact, the likelihood of transformation is already attracting investment. Some $1 trillion in investment
capital globally flowed into clean energy segments alone between 2004 and 2010, as yearly investment
levels nearly quintupled from $52 billion to $243 billion. 24 Looking forward, a recent survey by Ernst & Young found that
threequarters of major global corporations plan to increase their “cleantech” budgets from 2012 to 2014 and
that 40 percent of that spending will flow into R&D. 25 Turning to water, the prospect of innovation is also attracting
increased investor attention. Most notably, venture capital (VC) fi rms poured nearly $1.25 billion into the historically staid sector between
2005 and 2010 through close to 250 separate deals. 26
In this regard, one
of the most important heralds of both present and future innovation potential and
economic transformation may be VC investment. VC backed firms are roughly three to four times more
innovative (as measured by their patent production) than their counterparts that receive other forms of private
investments and as it happens clean economy companies are increasingly in the sights of VCs. 27 Between
1995 and 2010, the share of U.S. VC dollars fl owing to clean economy concerns increased from 2 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2010. 28
Looking forward, analysts predict increasing shares of global and U.S. VC investment to fl ow into clean economy technologies. 29
Even now the pace of innovation has picked up in many clean economy sectors, and with it the
possibility that the clean economy will create future jobs as well as new climate-friendly goods,
services, and processes. On this front, patenting tells the story. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD), patent applications fi led at the European Patent Offi ce (EPO) related to the clean economy rose from 4.6 percent of all
patents in 1987 to 7.4 percent in 2007, such that by 2007, over 9,000 clean economy patent applications were being fi led annually, just at the
EPO. Some 17 percent of these patents originated with U.S. inventors. 30
In short, the
clean economy increasingly looks like a promising location for the emergence of significant
new technologies, processes, and industries that will shape the next economy and generate new jobs.
That dozens of the world’s nations ranging from Brazil and China to South Korea and Turkey are investing heavily in such development both
reinforces the emerging consensus and underscores that the “race to clean” has become an urgent competition among states for the resource
productivity, jobs, and exportoriented manufacturing that will come with it. 31
Link – Fossil Fuels
Strong fossil fuel industry precludes investment and growth of clean tech
Schneider 12 – (3/4/12, Keith, senior editor of Circle of Blue, former national environmental
correspondent and regular contributor to the New York Times, “New American Energy Boom, A
Reprieve and a Reckoning,” http://modeshift.org/419/new-american-energy-boom-a-reprieve-and-areckoning/)
The risks of perpetuating America’s fossil fuel economy are equally momentous, producing a new era of
national reckoning. Ample natural gas supplies and low prices are dampening demand for wind, solar,
geothermal, and other non-polluting sources of energy. One result is that clean energy manufacturing
plants are closing in the Midwest, Rocky Mountain states, and California. Two solar producers in
Michigan, for instance, have shut their doors in the last year.
Public investment in non-fossil fuel innovation is uncertain. It’s not at all clear yet whether Congress will renew the tax
credits that expire later this year and that have spurred wind and solar use and manufacturing.
If the U.S. spends another generation in an oil and gas coma, choosing not to pursue alternatives with
the fierce commitment to success that propelled the Apollo program to land a man on the moon, it will end up even more
economically stretched and politically unstable than it is today.
That conclusion is easy to draw. Persistently high prices for oil, caused largely by rising demand in Asia, is strengthening the
energy industry and its ability to convince state governments and Washington to scrub interest in
developing cleaner energy alternatives. The urgency to avoid this scenario is keen for the millions of Americans who could work
in the alternative energy sector, and for the planet’s health.
Disincentivizes renewables and makes warming inevitable
Schwartz 12 – (8/17/12, Peter, Wired Magazine, “Abundant Natural Gas and Oil Are Putting the Kabosh
on Clean Energy,” http://www.wired.com/business/2012/08/mf_naturalgas/)
Since the 1950s, the US has had a perverse approach to energy. In effect we have maximized demand by
building bigger, hungrier cars, homes, and lifestyles and minimized supply by limiting oil drilling, coal
mining, and nuclear development. And how do we make up the difference? We buy oil from the people who hate us most.
But this is changing. We’ve long been acutely aware of the geopolitical ramifications of relying on
Middle Eastern oil. And the threat of climate change—along with high fuel prices—has made us all
realize the need for greater energy efficiency. Thankfully, technology is coming to the rescue. New methods of extracting gas
and oil, combined with efficiency gains in nearly every industry, mean that we are now minimizing demand and maximizing supply. And that’s a
good thing, right? Not so fast.
Flipping the supply-demand relationship is having some unexpected consequences. Chief among them is
that, as fossil fuels become more abundant—and we consume less of them—the incentives to develop
clean, renewable energy drop dramatically. As a result, we may no longer be looking at an age of
increasing solar, wind, and nuclear power. Instead we are likely moving into a new hydrocarbon era. And
that’s very bad news for climate change.
Abundant and cheap fossil fuels kill clean tech prospects
Schneider 12 – (3/29/12, Keith, senior editor of Circle of Blue, former national environmental
correspondent and regular contributor to the New York Times, “U.S. Fossil Fuel Boom Dims Glow of
Clean Energy,” http://e360.yale.edu/feature/us_fossil_fuel_boom_dims_glow_of_clean_energy/2511/)
The story of American energy used to be that we consumed and imported too much, that fossil fuel reserves were finite, and
that a technical breakthrough in clean alternatives would save us.
How 20th century. The
new narrative of American energy is this: We’ve been using less. A national boom in oil and gas
production — spreading across 12 states, from California to Pennsylvania and North Dakota to Texas — is showing we have much
more than we thought. And the clean energy economy, tiny by comparison and roiled by uncertain
markets, is still decades away.
No state embodies these trends more clearly than Ohio, which for years has been a modest oil and gas producer, and not long ago was widely
viewed as a leader in passing legislation, promoting jobs, and installing manufacturing for a clean energy economy.
Over the last year, though, everything
in Ohio’s energy sector, like the nation’s, has changed. A surge in tapping
so-called unconventional gas and oil reserves locked in underground shale formations is helping drive a
national economic recovery, elevating fossil fuel production to a top economic priority, and dimming the glow
of clean energy in the U.S., especially in natural gas-rich states like Ohio.
At night, on both sides of the upper Ohio River valley south of Pittsburgh, floodlights illuminate the table-flat summits of steep Appalachian
ridges that now serve as production pads for natural gas wells and processing plants. Drilling rigs 18 stories tall are starting to tap huge reserves
beneath 17,000 Nearly $2 billion in new gas processing facilities have been announced for the Ohio River Valley. square miles of eastern and
central Ohio.
Early production results from Ohio’s Columbiana, Carroll, Harrison, and Belmont counties show the first completed wells
are capable of producing millions of cubic feet of gas and more than 1,000 barrels of oil a day. Families are
signing drilling leases that pay up to $5,800 an acre. Nearly $2 billion in new gas processing facilities have been announced for sites in the Ohio
River Valley. The economy of the 145 miles of river from Pittsburgh to Marietta, for two generations a laboratory of industrial ruin, is perking
up.
“It’s fantastic what this could do for this region,” said Sharon Davis, who owns a restaurant in Sardis, Ohio, and recently received up to $5,250
an acre for the 168 acres of minerals she and her family own in Monroe County.
Meanwhile, a
plan to build an offshore wind farm in Lake Erie, near Cleveland, has faltered. Another proposal to build
fought to a standstill by local residents, who filed a lawsuit that went all the
way to the state Supreme Court. In January, one of the state’s prominent solar manufacturing
companies laid off half its workforce, and the chairman and founder of a second solar company
resigned, leaving a skeletal staff and big debts. Cardinal Fastener, the Cleveland company that supplied bolts to wind turbine
a big wind farm in western Ohio was
manufacturers, and which was visited by President-elect Obama in January 2009, declared bankruptcy last June, laid off most of the staff, and
then was bought in November by a German manufacturer.
“The
energy picture has changed dramatically,” said Eric Burkland, president of the Ohio Manufacturers’ Association. “The
price of electrical power is low. The price of natural gas is low. It’s changed the thinking on all alternative
technologies. It’s affecting solar. You could say it’s taking the wind out of wind.”
It wasn’t very long ago — 2008 in fact — that clean energy production, and the development of a
manufacturing sector to support it, represented a cogent business plan for Ohio and other states interested
in creating jobs and reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama ran on a platform that responded
to rising gasoline prices and industrial obsolescence with a clean energy, good jobs message.
Now, President Obama talks about an “all of the above” energy strategy, as he did in January in the State of the
Union, when he hailed the fossil fuel sector for generating more natural gas than ever before and for relying
“less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years.” Weeks later the president dispatched Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to
Ohio to tour a manufacturing plant that is adding jobs to build the bulk tank trailers used to haul millions of gallons of water to drill sites to
hydro-fracture, or “frack,” the nation’s hydrocarbon-rich shales.
Link – Oil
Oil independence ends the necessary support for clean tech
LeVine 12 (Steven Levine, “If oil is making Americans independent, do they still need clean-tech?”
3/26/12)
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/26/if_oil_is_making_americans_independent_do_t
hey_still_need_clean_tech
Let's say that the new conventional wisdom is correct -- that we ought to dispense of worries of resource scarcity, and
embrace a dawning age of U.S. oil abundance and self-sufficiency. If we ask ourselves what that means, one
conclusion is the apparent elimination of a central rationale for the development of clean energy
technologies -- that the U.S. needs them to shed its reliance on unreliable oil imports from nefarious
Middle East nations. Clean-tech must be scrutinized through a political lens, because by and large, none of
the technologies stands on its own feet as yet in the marketplace. They require political support to
survive. Let's take a look at the calculus for clean-tech. Industry analysts and journalists assert almost weekly (like
Citigroup's Ed Morse and reporters at the New York Times) that U.S. shale oil and deepwater reservoirs, plus Canadian oil sands, are making the
U.S. virtually self-sufficient in oil. (I myself have urged caution in this exuberance.) In response, President Barack Obama said last week that
oil drilling is not the "be-all, end-all strategy" of being energy self-sufficient, but rather that the U.S.
requires "all of the above," meaning solar, wind and biofuels, too. He said this because he wants to retain
federal support for cleantech companies and research, but is being pummeled by opponents who call
such assistance a boondoggle, and accuse him of hostility to oil. The other reason he said this is that gasoline prices in much of the
country are well over $4 a gallon. Already, politics have knocked out another pillar of the clean-energy foundation -the push to hold down CO2 emissions. Since there is no longer apparent majority U.S. political will to
stave off global warming, clean-tech has seemed to lose that logic for public support. Now goes the argument
of energy security: If the forecasts of a U.S. bonanza are accurate, biofuels, advanced batteries and other
technologies will be unneeded for the purpose of energy freedom from the Middle East.
Domestic oil abundance changes the political environment against clean energy
Levi 12 (Michael Levi, David M. Rubenstein senior fellow for energy and environment at the Council on
Foreign Relation, “Does Oil Abundance Mean Climate Doom?” 6/6/12)
http://blogs.cfr.org/levi/2012/06/06/does-oil-abundance-mean-climate-doom/
What I’ve left out, though, is the political dimension. Abundant oil can influence emissions by changing
the political environment in which battles over what to do about our energy systems play out. This
might ultimately be more consequential for emissions than the economic and physical influences are.
The influence of oil abundance on climate policy could run either way. A sense of oil abundance could
reduce any urgency surrounding efforts to curb traditional consumption of fossil fuels. The popular
discourse often conflates the dangers posed by oil scarcity and climate change. If oil scarcity concerns
weaken, then, it wouldn’t be surprising to see climate ones fade too. Since serious leverage over
emissions will ultimately require concerted action from policymakers, the consequences of this dynamic
don’t look good.
More domestic oil kills clean energy, CCS, and environmental laws
LeVine 12 (Steven Levine, contributing editor at Foreign Policy, a Schwartz Fellow at the New America
Foundation, “Would becoming a petrostate change the American character,” 3/27/12)
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/27/will_becoming_a_petro_state_change_the_am
erican_character
Yesterday I
raised the potential for a U.S. political shakeout if the oil-abundant theorists are correct: If the U.S.
truly does become effectively self-sufficient in oil, political support for clean-energy would be seriously
undermined. Today, the Obama Administration imposed super-strict standards on the emissions from coalfired power plants, incentivizing the development of carbon-capture technology, as well as the use of natural gas. This
demonstrates that aggressive public policy can keep the goals of the clean-tech edifice alive; but it cannot be taken
as a template, since policy ebbs and flows, and any future Republican administration, for example, is unlikely to embrace the same
philosophy. What about the economic wrinkles of a shift to oil as a trigger of a new U.S. Industrial Revolution, as forecast by Citibank analyst Ed
Morse? Low-price energy provides a big advantage to U.S. makers of chemicals and plastics, since the feedstock -- natural gas -- is so cheap. Yet
would this edge flow up the line to high-end technologies, the foundation of the overall U.S. economic advantage? I exchanged emails with
Michael Klare, a professor at Hampshire College and the author of The Race for What's Left. Klare thinks that oil abundance could have a
fundamental impact on the character of the United States. He said: I see this as making the United States more like a Third World petro-state -we will see increased economic benefits in some quarters and among certain specialized labor sectors. But we
will become more like
a basic commodity producer that must lower its environmental standards in order to boost production,
and less like a modern high-tech country like Germany and Japan.
Link – Tar Sands
Tar Sand causing warming and oil dependence – massive emissions, derails transition to a clean
economy, locks in bad infrastructure
Lefkowitz 9 (Susan Casey-Lefkowitz, Director International Program of the National Resources Defense
Council, Washington, D.C., worked at IUCN's Environmental Law Center in Germany, “Tar Sands –
Dangerous Distraction or Just Plain Dangerous?” 5/29/9)
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/tar_sands_dangerous_distractio.html
Clean transportation solutions for the 21st century such as wind and solar to power electrified vehicles are endless. We
can lead the
technological development of these solutions and put American ingenuity to work. So why would this
new report emphasize the importance of Canada expanding its extraction of, and the United States
increasing its reliance on, high carbon and environmentally destructive tar sands oil? Our reliance on oil
has led us into dangerous places and oil is a limited resource, threatens our national security and
pollutes our atmosphere and damages our health. Even though the tar sands are located in a friendly
neighboring country, expansion of the tar sands means more of the same. This report endorses business as usual, in
a business that is underminig our ability to build a clean energy economy. What the report fails to acknowledge is that while oil will be
around for a while, we must now take steps toward a post-petroleum society. Postponing that day by
expanding ever more remote, dirty and dangerous sources of synthetic crude is not a strategy for energy
security. The report concludes that "For the near future, the economic and security value of oil sands expansion will likely outweigh the
climate damages that the oil sands create..." This perspective fails to account for the costs and risks from locking us
into an immensely expensive and complex tar sands infrastructure that does not make sense for a
sharply emissions-constrained future. The report sets out to analyze "complex tradeoffs" in expanding the Canadian tar sands. It
says that some argue that Canadian tar sands are an "energy security godsend" and others argue that they are a "climate disaster". It is
significant that the report concludes that tar sands are not critical to U.S. energy security. However, it then goes on to conclude that tar sands
are also not catastrophic for climate change. It makes policy recommendations that seem to have little basis in the need for a varied toolkit of
solutions and that would largely support expansion of tar sands oil development. But expansion of
tar sands oil development
cannot be reconciled with the imperative to reduce the deterioration of our atmosphere. The CFR report will
undoubtedly be used by those who want to justify expansion of tar sands oil. What the report neglects to acknowledge is that tar sands oil
exemplifies a big step down a path that is dangerous and destructive. If we do not address oil demand,
we will end up with dependence on ever harder to access, dirtier and more destructive forms of fuel
such as liquid coal, oil shale and others. This debate is not just about tar sands, but about which path we
wish to choose for our energy and transportation needs. Those of us looking forward to a new way of doing
business know that we can reduce our dependence on oil by implementing the policies that the President supports and is
already moving to put into place for cleaner energy and transportation solutions. It is by reducing our dependence on oil that we will
actually achieve energy and climate security. President Obama, speaking Wednesday at Nellis Air Force base, said that we
cannot bear the cost of our oil addiction any longer. He said that we are trying to build a firmer foundation for economic growth by harnessing
the power of clean, renewable energy. This vision does not pit energy security against climate change - that is a false dichotomy used in the CFR
report. Instead, it redefines energy security as including climate security. The
United States cannot afford to undermine its
efforts to move forward in building a clean energy economy by supporting expansion of tar sands oil.
Increasing our reliance on tar sands oil would take us backwards rather than forwards. The report raises the
question of whether the debate over tar sands is a "dangerous distraction." Far from it - this is a critical debate that needs to end in our
realization that tar sands oil production is just plain dangerous - to our health and to our future. Here's a more detailed look at some of the
points made in the report: The
report minimizes the long-term climate risk from tar sands by focusing mostly on
the high emissions from tar sands oil production as a percentage of global emissions and not on the
larger climate risk associated with burning the tar sands oil reserves over many years in our gas tanks. The
report also says that the climate change threat posed by tar sands is only something to worry about in the long-term. Fine - it is the long-term
that we are concerned about. Tar
sands projects, once built have a 25-50 year lifespan. We need to address
them now in order to address that long-term threat. We can't afford to sink billions into expensive new
tar sands infrastructure that will then effectively lock us into using this new oil source for decades to come.
Expanding a high carbon fuel at this time takes us backwards, not forwards in meeting our energy goals and the more reliant we get on high carbon fuels, the harder it will be to make the necessary move to
lower carbon transportation solutions. We need to invest scarce capital in developing and deploying
permanent solutions like clean electricity to power plug-ins and pure electric vehicles rather than locking into a 20th
century oil infrastructure.
Link – Keystone
Keystone causes fossil fuel lock in
Burwell 11 (David Burwell, director of the Energy and Climate Program at the Carnegie Endowment,
“Keystone XL: Danger Ahead,” 12/15/11) http://carnegieendowment.org/2011/12/15/keystone-xldanger-ahead/8aib
Keystone XL is more than a political bargaining chip. It is more than a $7 billion capital energy project. It is the Rubicon that
scientists, energy analysts, and environmentalists say we must not cross if we are to keep global
warming at or below 2 degrees Celsius from pre-industrial times. Build Keystone XL and we lock ourselves into
reliance on "dirty" energy sources that will put us over the 2 degrees tipping point. It is "game over."
This 2 degrees limit is not a random number. It is the limit beyond which settled science says we risk a
50-50 chance of severe planetary harm. Imagine a world with 35 percent of all species going extinct; a sea
level rise flooding natural and urban infrastructure alike; forced exodus of more than 500 million people
from coastal areas; and a deadly migration of tropical diseases toward populations that have not built up resistance. All
this within the lifetime of those we care about most deeply -- our children and grandchildren. Energy analysts are
increasingly alarmed at the rate that the world is getting "locked-in" to fossil fuels as its primary energy
source. The International Energy Agency, in its annual World Energy Outlook 2011, estimates that we have only until 2017 -- just five
years from now -- to fundamentally turn capital investments in energy assets away from fossil fuels if we are to
stay within this limit. If not, the best we may be able to achieve is a 3.5 degrees increase. If we delay this shift until 2035, we will be on
track for a 6 degrees increase, the consequences of which approach planetary suicide. If we continue to
mine tar sands -- the unconventional oils Keystone XL will transport at a rate of up to 800,000 barrels a day -- the
lock-in occurs even earlier. The 2 percent limit is also a legal limit. At the UN climate change summit in Cancun one year ago
conferees signed an accord to keep global temperature rise to below the 2 degrees threshold. This commitment was reconfirmed and
strengthened at Durban last week. Keystone XL requires a permit from the U.S. state department -- the same agency that negotiated the
Cancun and Durban agreements. Given the warnings that scientists, energy analysts, and even insurance company executives are now urgently
urging policymakers to heed, the state department has a duty to assess permit issuance against its commitments. With global consensus now
consolidating around the 2 degrees limit, you would think both public and private sector leaders would act -- fast. Yet, as noted recently by Lord
Nicholas Stern, former chief economist of the World Bank, major oil, gas, and coal companies proceed to extract these fossil fuels on a business
as usual basis. Shareholders seem oblivious to the fact that conversion of resources into proven reserves increasingly relies on risky or
destructive exploration in the Arctic, deep oceans, and sensitive ecosystems. Sir Nicholas' conclusion: "either the market has not thought hard
enough about the issue or thinks that governments will not do very much." Environmentalists, understanding that neither private markets nor
the political system is capable of responding to the challenge posed by climate change, are determined to stop this pipeline using whatever
legal tools are available. If
markets, international accords, and public policy won't respond by developing a plan to keep
fossil fuel emissions within safe limits, then these resources must simply stay in the ground until an
enforceable plan is adopted. Unconventional oils are at the frontline of the fight and Keystone XL is the
point of the bayonet. Environmentalists are preparing themselves for trench warfare.
Renewable Energy High
New renewable energy tech now
PR Newswire 6/25
PR Newswire, 6/25/2014, Digital Journal, “Strong Investments in Clean Energy Technologies to Drive the Global Solid Oxide Fuel Cells Market,
According to New Report by Global Industry Analysts, Inc.”, http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/2014352, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
A type
of fuel cell technology, Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC) generates energy by electrochemical
conversion. The technology therefore finds attractive application in the energy generation industry.
As a reliable, environment-friendly and low cost source of energy with long-term stability and
sustainability, SOFC is poised to witness robust growth in the coming years. With per-capita consumption of
electricity on the rise worldwide, the need to increase electricity production has become a top priority for governments across the globe. As
governments seek to balance energy self-sufficiency goals and commitment to climate change
agreements, SOFC is soaking up the spotlight as a clean technology of the future. By boosting electricity
generation capabilities of a nation, SOFCs help in attaining energy security goals. SOFCs score over traditional energy generation technologies
by virtue of their higher operating efficiency and limited reliance on imported fuels. Being a multi-fuel technology, SOFCs can operate on a wide
range of fuels including renewable energy, such as biogas, which makes the nation less dependent on imported fossil fuel for electricity
generation.
Renewable energy investment growing
Walsh 4/7
Bryan Walsh (writer for Time, covering energy and the environment), 4/7/2014, “Renewable Energy Investment Is Down—and That’s OK”,
http://time.com/51834/renewable-energy-investment/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
Funding for solar, wind and other forms of clean power fell 14% in 2013, largely because it's now
cheaper to adapt to the newer technologies, but that doesn't mean the shift to renewable energy has
fully stopped¶ Hurricane Sandy flooding effects¶ MORE¶ Climate Change Is a Game of Risk¶ Warming World Threatens Us All, Warns U.N.
Report¶ On the surface, the new numbers on the global renewable energy industry in 2013 do not look
good for the planet. Investment in renewable energy fell 14% in 2013 to $214.4 billion, according to a new
report from the Frankfurt School-UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate and Sustainable Energy Finance, the United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. And
that comes after a year when renewable energy
investment was already falling—it’s now down 23% from the record investment levels seen in 2011.
Given that recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) underscore the desperate need to increase the shift from
fossil fuel to low-carbon power sources like solar or nuclear, the two-year investment decline is not good news.¶ MORE¶ Years of Research
Reveal More About Iconic Orcas¶ 3 Ways to Exfoliate Without Using Microbeads¶ No Streams for You? What Supreme Court's Aereo Ruling
Means NBC News¶ Jessica N. Turner: Moms, Put on That Swimsuit Huffington Post¶ Know a Debbie Downer? Stop Trying to Cheer Her Up NBC
News¶ But looking at the numbers more closely tells a brighter story.
It’s true that investment in renewable energy has
been falling, but that’s chiefly due to the rapidly falling cost of solar photovoltaic systems , according to
Michael Liebreich of Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The average price of installing a solar panel has dropped by 60%
in the U.S., which means that less money can buy more solar power. Globally, renewable energy aside
from large hydro plants accounted for 43.6% of all new power capacity added last year—the same as
in 2012—which translated to 81 gigawatts. That raised renewable energy’s share of total power
generation from 7.8% to 8.5%.¶ On top of that, more clean energy companies can draw funding from public equity—a stock market
index of clean tech companies was up 54% in 2013. And the biggest drop was in a form of energy—biofuels—that’s looking less green every
year. Even
with investment down, the shift towards a world powered by low-carbon sources hasn’t
stopped. “The onward march of this sector is inevitable,” said Liebreich at a press conference Monday morning.¶ The
biggest change on the global stage was in Europe, where investment was down 44% from the year before (U.S. investment fell by 10%). Some
of that drop is due to the delayed effects of Europe’s economic slowdown, which led countries like
Spain and Bulgaria to make retroactive cuts to subsidies for existing renewable energy projects, which
killed off investment altogether. Renewable energy remains heavily subsidized in most of the world,
which makes it extremely vulnerable to policy uncertainty. “For the last few years there has been enormous policy
uncertainty, even in the heart of Europe,” says Leibreich. “We’re at a point where there will be a lot of regulatory cleanup.”¶ There are even
some caveats to the caveats. Those 81 GW of wind, solar and other renewables added to the global grid last year is in terms of power capacity,
not actual generation. Because wind and solar are intermittent—they generate power when the wind blows and the sun shines—they actually
generate far less energy in practice than their listed capacity. In the U.S., the capacity factor for renewables—excluding hydro—was 33.9%,
compared to 63.8% for coal and 90.3% for nuclear. Until we figure out how to balance out the renewable sources—either through cheap energy
storage or through more advanced power grids—clean energy will often need to be supported by dirtier power sources.¶ Still, renewable
energy is poised to become an ever bigger part of the global energy picture—though perhaps not as fast we need
if we’re to stave off the worst effects of climate change. We’ll need not just more investment in new wind and solar
plants, but also in the sort of research that will yield breakthrough technologies that can change the
rules of the energy industry (More nuclear, by far the biggest source of near zero-carbon power in the U.S., would help as well).
This is a power shift that is just beginning.
Renewable energy growing
Yenko 4/8
Athena Yenko (writer for International Business Times), 4/8/2014, “Renewable Energy Global Investment Drops 14%; Au Dropped at 4.7
Billion”, http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/547112/20140408/renewable-energy-first-solar-australia-investment.htm, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen¶
Global investment in renewable energy dropped 14 per cent to US$214.4 billion, a report from UNEP Collaborating Centre for Climate &
Sustainable Energy Finance, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance said.¶ The report titled
Global Trends in renewable Energy Investments 2014 said that the decline
in investments is due to the falling cost of solar
photovoltaic systems and uncertain policy in many countries.¶ "A long-term shift in investment over
the next few decades towards a cleaner energy portfolio is needed to avoid dangerous climate
change, with the energy sector accounting for around two thirds of total greenhouse gas emissions.
The fact that renewable energy is gaining a bigger share of overall generation globally is encouraging.
To support this further, we must re-evaluate investment priorities, shift incentives, build capacity and
improve governance structures," said Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of UNEP.¶ In Australia,
investments in renewable energy dropped at 4.7 billion.¶ Speaking with ABC, Clean Energy Council spokesman Kane Thornton said that the
decline can be attributed to the cost of renewable technology being more affordable today than
previous years.¶ However, he also noted that Australia is uncertain of its renewable energy policy hence the decline.¶ "The cost of
renewable technology has come down. That's a really exciting development and therefore the cost to
build a wind farm or a solar system has reduced. But secondly we've seen a lot of policy uncertainty in
Australia over the past year, and that has meant that there is a lower level of investment in 2013."¶
Australian Renewable Energy Agency will undergo a budget cut on May. In what could be an unusual behaviour, the agency already penned a
letter to its stakeholders saying that their budget was uncertain.¶ As a result to Australia's uncertain policy, Multinational solar panel maker
first solar is having a double take with its investment in the country. Jack Curtis, First Solar's vice-president of business development said that in
the span of eight months into the project, a lot has changed.¶ "Those projects ... reached financial close in a different political and business
environment which was almost a year ago now. That's obviously changed quite dramatically since the election. There's now a much greater
deal of uncertainty around future projects like this," Mr Curtis told ABC.
More investment in renewables
Burger 4/16
Andrew Burger (independent journalist), 4/16/2014, “Global Renewable Energy Investment Drops, But Installed Capacity Rises”,
http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/04/global-renewable-energy-investment-drops-installed-capacity-rises/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
Renewable energy investment fell year-over-year in 2013, down 14 percent, but the drop belies some
heartening news for market participants and clean energy supporters. In short: Renewable energy’s
share of overall power generation continues to grow, and more renewable energy generation capacity
is being brought online at much lower cost, solar energy generation capacity in particular.¶ According to
the latest global renewable energy annual report from the Frankfurt School-United Nations Environment Programme Collaborating Centre (FSUNEP) and Bloomberg New Energy Finance, global
renewable energy investment totaled $214 billion in 2013, a
second consecutive year of decline and 23 percent below a 2011 peak. Even so, renewable energy
accounted for 43.6 percent of new power capacity, while renewable energy’s share of worldwide
electricity generation rose to 8.5 percent from 7.8 percent in 2012.¶ There were several other reasons for optimism
regarding the outlook for renewable energy, according to FS-UNEP-BNEF’s, “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2014.” For one
thing, some
1.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions were avoided as a result of
renewable power generation last year. But that’s not all.
Renewable investment increasing now and the plan shifts attention away
Magill 4/7
Bobby Magill (senior science writer for Climate Central), 4/7/2014, “Cheap Solar Power Is Fueling Global Renewable Energy Growth: Report”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/07/solar-power-renewable-energy-growth_n_5107150.html, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
The share of total global electricity production generated by renewable energy is climbing, mainly
because solar photovoltaic systems are becoming less expensive, according to a report released Monday by the
United Nations Environment Programme and Bloomberg New Energy Finance.¶ Wind, solar and other renewables, excluding
hydropower, were 8.5 percent of total global electric power generation last year, up from 7.8 percent in 2012,
the report says.¶ That comes just after Bloomberg and Pew Charitable Trusts issued a report last week saying investments in renewables
worldwide has been declining since their peak in 2011, with the U.S. lagging behind China in overall investments in wind, solar and other
renewables.¶ The reports come about a week after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the second part to its fifth
assessment report, stating with certainty that humans are going to have to adapt to a world enduring climate change caused by greenhouse gas
emissions from people burning fossil fuels. Renewables
help reduce the climate-changing, energy-related carbon
dioxide emissions.¶ Monday’s report, “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2014,” released during Bloomberg’s “Future of
Energy Summit” this week in New York City, says that renewables, not including hydropower, accounted for 43.6 percent of total global new
electric generating capacity last year, preventing an estimated 1.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions from being released into the
atmosphere.¶ The report shows that there was a 14 percent drop in global investments in renewables partly for the same reason renewables’
market share is growing — the cost of solar panels is falling.¶ Solar
power generating capacity worldwide increased 26
percent in 2013 over the previous year, from 31 gigawatts in 2012 to 39 gigawatts in 2013 despite total investment in solar
falling 23 percent from $135.6 billion to about $104 billion, according to the report. ¶ Other reasons for the drop in investment include
uncertainty in renewables policy in many countries and a boost in investment in climate-changing fossil fuels.¶ The shale oil and gas boom hit
renewables investments hard in the U.S., the report says.¶ Though
the U.S. was the largest investor among developed
economies in renewables last year at $33.9 billion, it was down 10 percent from 2012 because low
natural gas prices helped bring about the shale gas boom, depressing clean energy development,
according to the report.¶ The shale gas boom also contributes to overall uncertanty about the United States' policy commitment to renewables,
the report says.¶ The global renewables picture is more positive, however.¶ “We’re
not seeing anything in any way, anything
we can characterize as a collapse in renewable energy investments,” Michael Liebreich, chairman of the advisory
board for Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said during a news conference Monday.¶ He said unsubsidized renewable electric power plants are
being built across the globe as they become more able to compete with fossil fuel power generation.¶ Clean energy stocks had seen a 78
percent decline over four and a half years, bottoming out in July 2012 followed by a 54 percent gain in 2013 as solar and wind manufacturers
regained profitability.¶ “Renewable energy is actually looking like it’s doing its part,” Liebreich said.¶ Report lead author Angus McCrone, chief
editor at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, said the report is not “dressing up” the bad news of declines in renewables investments worldwide.¶
“What we’re saying now is that there’s a bit of blue sky on the horizon even though the overall investment numbers are down,” McCrone said,
adding that trends in the cost-competitiveness of renewables, particularly wind and solar, are striking.¶ There are more and more places across
the globe where renewable energy is being installed without any subsidy, or the renewables are being installed because they’re cheaper than
the available fossil fuel technology, he said.
Renewable Energy Solves Warming
Renewable energy solves
Wasserman 4/17
Harvey Wasserman (writer for EcoWatch, MA from the University of Chicago and a BA from the University of Michigan, both in history, and has
authored or co-written a dozen books and countless articles, essays, op eds, etc.), 4/17/2014, “IPCC: Renewables, Not Nuclear Power, Can Solve
Climate Crisis”, http://ecowatch.com/2014/04/17/ipcc-renewables-not-nuclear-solve-climate/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
The authoritative Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has left zero doubt that we
humans are wrecking our climate.¶ It
also effectively says the problem can be solved, and that renewable energy is the way to do it, and
that nuclear power is not. The United Nations’ IPCC is the world’s most respected authority on climate. ¶ This IPCC report was four years in the
making. It embraces several hundred climate scientists and more than a thousand computerized
scenarios of what might be happening to global weather patterns.¶ Photo courtesy of Shutterstock¶ Photo courtesy of
Shutterstock¶ The panel’s work has definitively discredited the corporate contention that human-made carbon emissions are not affecting climate change. To avoid
total catastrophe, says the IPCC, we must reduce the industrial spew of global warming gasses by 40-70 percent of 2010 levels.¶ Though
the warning is
dire, the report offers three pieces of good news.¶ First, we have about 15 years to slash these
emissions.¶ Second, renewable technologies are available to do the job.¶ And third, the cost is
manageable.¶ Though 2030 might seem a tight deadline for a definitive transition to Solartopia, green power technologies have
become far simpler and quicker to install than their competitors, especially atomic reactors. They are
also far cheaper, and we have the capital to do it.¶ The fossil fuel industry has long scorned the idea that its emissions are disrupting
our Earth’s weather. The oil companies and atomic reactor backers have dismissed the ability of renewables to provide humankind’s energy needs.¶ But the IPCC
confirms that green technologies, including efficiency and conservation, can in fact handle the job—at a manageable price.¶ “It
doesn’t cost the
world to save the planet,” says Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, an economist who led the IPCC team.¶ The IPCC report cites nuclear power as a possible
means of lowering industrial carbon emissions. But it also underscores considerable barriers involving finance and public opposition. Joined with widespread
concerns about ecological impacts, length of implementation, production uncertainties and unsolved waste issues, the report’s positive emphasis on renewables
virtually guarantees nuclear’s irrelevance.¶ Some climate scientists have recently advocated atomic energy as a solution to global warming. But their most
prominent spokesman, Dr. James Hansen, also expresses serious doubts about the current generation of reactors, including Fukushima, which he calls “that old
technology.”¶ Instead Hansen advocates a new generation of reactors. ¶ But the designs are untested, with implementation schedules stretching out for decades.
Financing is a major obstacle as is waste disposal and widespread public opposition, now certain to escalate with the IPCC’s confirmation that renewables can
provide the power so much cheaper and faster.¶ With its 15-year deadline for massive carbon reductions, the IPCC has effectively timed out any chance a new
generation of reactors could help.¶ And with its clear endorsement of green power as a tangible, doable, affordable solution for the climate crisis, the pro-nuke case
has clearly suffered a multiple meltdown.¶ With
green power, says IPCC co-chair Jim Skea, a British professor, a renewable solution is at
hand. “It’s actually affordable to do it and people are not going to have to sacrifice their aspirations
about improved standards of living.”
Renewables now and solve warming
Wilson 7
Kelpie Wilson (freelance writer covering energy and environmental issues), 2/11/2007, “Renewables Can Turn the Tide on Global Warming”,
http://www.alternet.org/story/47654/renewables_can_turn_the_tide_on_global_warming, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
The American Solar Energy Association (ASES), with the backing of several U.S. representatives and a
senator, released its new nuts and bolts approach to reducing carbon emissions with a combination of
renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.¶ The report comes at an opportune time: the release of the United
Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) latest climate change report is expected to finally clear up any lingering
uncertainty about the role fossil fuel burning and other human activities have in changing the Earth's climate. As the deniers and obstructionists
lose all credibility, the debate now turns to solutions.¶ The ASES report, titled "Tackling Climate Change in the US -- Potential Carbon Emissions
Reductions From Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 2030," makes this extraordinary claim: "Energy
efficiency and
renewable energy technologies have the potential to provide most, if not all, of the US carbon
emissions reductions that will be needed to help limit the atmospheric concentration of carbon
dioxide to 450 to 500 ppm."¶ The ASES report was presented at a press briefing in the Capitol with the support of Senator Jeff
Bingaman, Chair of the Senate Energy and Resources Committee, Representative Henry Waxman, Representative Chris Shays, Sierra Club
president Carl Pope, and NASA's chief climate change scientist, Dr. James Hansen.¶ Hansen's backing is especially important because the
report is aimed at meeting a target for emissions reductions that he and other scientists agree is the
minimum necessary to preserve a habitable planet. The target is to keep the global average
temperature from rising by more than one degree Celsius, and to do that, it will be necessary to limit
atmospheric CO2 levels to 450 to 500 ppm. That means reducing U.S. emissions by 60 percent to 80
percent by mid-century.¶ Over the past several years, as the dimensions of the energy and climate crisis have
unfolded, the press, the public and politicians have embraced various "silver bullet" solutions one
after another according to the fad of the day: at one moment it's hydrogen, then ethanol, then
nuclear power, then wind. Today there is a growing recognition that no single energy technology can
replace fossil fuels, but there is still no recipe that tells us how to combine energy technologies into a
healthful brew that can save our planet and our civilization.¶ The ASES report takes a unique approach. Instead of
turning to the systems analysts who normally tackle such problems, ASES asked the experts in each technology to estimate how much carbonemitting energy their technologies could displace. Each technology is conceived of as a " wedge" in a stack of wedges that add up to a
replacement for fossil fuels. The report consists of separate papers on each technology, including energy efficiency, concentrating solar power,
photovoltaics, windpower, biofuels and geothermal.¶ Each paper was written by experts in the technology, presumably giving the most realistic
possible assessment of the capabilities of the technology. And each technology was evaluated in terms of its current capabilities without relying
on any major new technical breakthroughs, although some research and development to increase efficiency and reduce costs was assumed.
The papers took economic factors into account and real world constraints like the silicon supply shortage that has hampered photovoltaic
productions.¶ Despite its conservative assumptions, the ASES report concludes that renewables
and efficiency alone can meet
the goal of a 60 to 80 percent emissions reduction by mid-century while the economy continues to
grow. Energy efficiency accounts for 57 percent of the reductions, and the renewable energy
technologies provide the other 43 percent.¶ While the report does not estimate a total cost for the deployment of the
technologies, it does assume that some government support for R&D and production tax credits will be available. At the press briefing, James
Hansen also said that while much could be accomplished without a carbon tax, attaching some kind of economic cost to carbon emissions
would be essential to keep the effort on track.
Renewable energies solve warming- Stanfort project
Scott 3/8
Cameron Scott (Cameron received degrees in Comparative Literature from Princeton and Cornell universities. He has worked at Mother Jones,
SFGate and IDG News Service and been published in California Lawyer and SF Weekly. He lives, predictably, in SF.”, 3/8/2014, “100%
RENEWABLE ENERGY IS FEASIBLE AND AFFORDABLE, ACCORDING TO STANFORD PROPOSAL”, http://singularityhub.com/2014/03/08/100renewable-energy-is-feasible-and-affordable-stanford-proposal-says/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
One of the greatest promises of the high-tech future, whether made explicitly or implicitly through shiny clean concept
sketches, is that we will have efficient energy that doesn’t churn pollutants into the air and onto the
streets.¶ But here in the present, politicians and even many clean energy advocates maintain that a world run on hydrogen and wind, water
and solar power is not yet possible due to technical challenges like energy storage and cost.¶ Yet Stanford University researchers
led by civil engineer Mark Jacobson have developed detailed plans for each state in the union that to
move to 100 percent wind, water and solar power by 2050 using only technology that’s already
available. The plan, presented recently at the AAAS conference in Chicago, also forms the basis for The Solutions Project nonprofit.¶ “The
conclusion is that it’s technically and economically feasible,” Jacobson told Singularity Hub.¶ The plan doesn’t rely, like
many others, on dramatic energy efficiency regimes. Nor does it include biofuels or nuclear power, whose green credentials are the source of
much debate.¶ vehicles-WWSThe proposal is straightforward: eliminate combustion as a source of energy, because it’s dirty and inefficient. All
vehicles would be powered by electric batteries or by hydrogen, where the hydrogen is produced through electrolysis rather than natural gas.
High-temperature industrial processes would also use electricity or hydrogen combustion.¶ The rest would simply be a question of allowing
existing fossil-fuel plants to age out and using renewable sources to power any new plants that come online. The energy sources in the road
map include geothermal energy, concentrating solar power, off-shore and on-land wind turbines and some and tidal energy. All but tidal energy
collectors are already commercially available.¶ “The greatest barriers to a conversion are neither technical nor economic. They are social and
political,” the AAAS paper concludes.¶ Common political wisdom has it that, while clean energy is a nice idea, powering our economy with wind,
water and solar power would require an enormous amount of land allotted to production and would push energy prices up beyond the reach of
average consumers.¶ But according to Jacobson and his colleagues, the reverse is true. Less
than 2 percent of United States’
land mass would support all of the wind, solar and hydroelectric power generation required to meet
energy demand. That includes the space between concentrating solar arrays or wind turbines. ¶ Clean
energy would save an average American consumer $3,400 per year than the current fossil fuel regime
by 2050, the study lays out. That’s because the price of fossil fuel rises regularly, but with clean energy — where raw materials are
free — once the infrastructure is built, prices would fall.¶ off-shore-wind-turbinesFor example, in California, the researchers found that it’s
already possible to use wind, water and solar energy to meet demand 99.8 percent of the time. Similarly, in other states, it’s only the final
percentages or fractions of percentages that would require technologies that are not yet mass produced, such as, in Louisiana, wave “mills”
that turn the ocean’s power into electricity.¶ With the mercurial climate already causing major damage around the world, the plan claims it
would save the U.S. economy $730 billion a year in climate-related costs. It would also avert roughly 59,000 lives deaths from air pollution
every year and save $166 – 980 billion a year in health care costs.¶ Jacobson has previously mapped out a similar proposal for the global energy
market, including China. A related plan with a greater emphasis on efficiency was recently released by the World Wildlife Fund.¶ Both
domestically and internationally, transmission lines carrying energy between states or countries prove one of the greatest challenges. With
natural energy sources, electricity needs to be more mobile in order to make sure that even when there’s no sun or wind, a city or country can
import energy from somewhere were there is.¶ The biggest problem is who should pay to build and maintain the lines.¶ “I’m pretty sure the
proposal will be adopted,” Jacobson said. “I’m just not sure it’ll be adopted by 2050. It has to be adopted in the sense that fossil fuels are
limited and they’ll eventually run out, so what are the other options?”
Renewables Yes Tradeoff
Low oil prices prevent renewable energy development
Baker 8
David Baker (Chronicle Writer Staff), 10/27/2008, “Low oil prices take wind out of renewable fuels”, http://www.sfgate.com/green/article/Lowoil-prices-take-wind-out-of-renewable-fuels-3264286.php, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
Not everyone likes seeing oil prices plunge.¶ This
decade's historic high prices for oil and natural gas have stoked
the rise of renewable power and alternative fuels. As fossil fuel prices smashed record after record,
options like ethanol, hybrid electric cars, solar power and wind looked better and better.¶ Now oil costs less
than half what it did this summer. Ditto natural gas. If prices keep dropping and stay down, future fuels like cellulosic
ethanol and biodiesel will have a harder time competing. So will solar and wind power projects, which
compete against power plants that burn natural gas. Public interest in alternative energy may dwindle as well.¶ "The
excitement has subsided in the last few months," said Brian Youngberg, senior energy analyst with the Edward Jones investment company.
"When oil comes down, there's still interest, but it's not as passionate. That's a potential risk."¶ To
many in the alternative energy
world, it feels like a rerun of a movie they've already seen, one with an ugly ending.¶ American
interest in renewable power and alternative fuels swelled during the oil shocks of the 1970s, which
exposed the country's deep dependence on imported petroleum. But after the price of oil hit a record high in 1981, it
crashed and took the country's interest in alternatives with it.¶ Alternative-energy entrepreneurs hope this time will be different. No matter
how far oil drops, the fear of global warming won't go away, they say. That should keep both the public and the government interested in
tapping energy sources that don't add to climate change.¶ Demand in China, India¶ And most
people in the alterative-energy
world are convinced that fossil fuel prices won't stay down for long. Fuel demand in China, India and the rest of the
developing world is growing too fast for that, they say.¶
Lower prices kill renewable energy
Li 11
Hao Li (writer for International Business Times), 5/30/2011, “Why lower Saudi oil prices kill alternative energy”, http://www.ibtimes.com/whylower-saudi-oil-prices-kill-alternative-energy-287099, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
The biggest obstacle to alternative energy is money.¶ Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin Talal seems to understand this. In a CNN
interview, he admitted Saudi Arabia wants lower oil prices because it doesn’t “want the West to go and find
alternatives.”¶ Alternative energy hasn’t taken off in the US because its development largely depends
on the private sector. Currently, it’s simply cheaper buy oil from countries like Saudi Arabia, so not
many private companies bother to develop alternative sources.¶ For example, if Saudi oil average $80 per barrel in
the long-term, why bother extracting oil from oil sands and oil shale if doing so cost $85 per barrel? Why turn to electric cars if the
whole ordeal – the research, electric cars, and electric grid – cost more than filling up convention cars
with imported fossil fuel?¶ On the other hand, if oil skyrockets to $200 per barrel, it would make absolutely sense to develop oil
sands, oil shale, and electric cars.¶ Experts generally put the threshold at which alternative energy becomes viable at a long-term sustained
price of $80 per barrel.¶ A recent Federal Reserve research, for example, puts the figure for oil sands at $70 per barrel in 2005 terms, which
translates to $77.5 in 2010.¶ According to Al-Waleed, Saudi Arabia probably estimates the threshold to be $80 per barrel. ¶ The
cost of
many alternative energy sources is front-loaded. For example, once a solar farm is constructed and
the electric grid is built, the cost of harvesting additional electricity becomes extremely cheap.¶ The
danger for oil producers like Saudi Arabia is that once a sustained period of high oil prices induces the
Western private sector to invest the upfront costs of setting up alternative sources, the price of
energy will be lowered permanently.¶ The optimal strategy for Saudi Arabia, therefore, is to avoid a sustained period of high oil
prices.¶ For Western countries, the optimal strategy to bite the bullet, pay the upfront cost, and save money in the long-run with cheap
alternative energy sources.¶ Western capitalism, however, can be short-sighted and decentralized; if oil prices stay reasonablely low, not
enough players in the private sector will have the resolve to eat the enormous upfront costs of developing alternative energy sources.
Shale oil trades off with renewable investment
Nichols 13
Will Nichols (writer for The Guardian), 2/14/2013, “Shale oil surge poses threat to renewable energy, PwC warns”,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/shale-oil-threat-renewables-pwc, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
A worldwide expansion of relatively cheap shale oil could put investment in renewable energy and
global emissions targets under threat, as well as posing other environmental risks. ¶ The shale oil
industry is still in its infancy, but has the potential to reach up to 12 per cent of global production,
potentially pushing down oil prices by as much as $50 per barrel by 2035, according to a new report by
consultancy firm PwC.¶ Lower oil prices are more likely to extend production rather than simply increase it, but this could make
alternative low carbon technologies less attractive, Jonathan Grant, director of sustainability and climate change at PwC,
told BusinessGreen.¶ However, the report also notes that cheaper oil could displace production from higher cost and more environmentally
sensitive areas such as the Arctic and Canadian tar sands, while tax windfalls could provide finance for carbon capture and storage and other
low carbon technologies.¶ It adds that global GDP could receive a $2.7tr boost by 2035 with a 25 per cent to 40 per cent cut in global oil prices
resulting from shale oil production. Under this scenario, UK GDP would receive a 3.3 per cent boost in 2035, China would see a three per cent
GDP increase, US GDP would rise 4.7 per cent, and India's would climb by up to 7.3 per cent.¶ But Grant acknowledged any
related
reduction in renewable energy investments and an expected increase in mobility arising from the
availability of lower cost oil is likely to increase total carbon emissions in the long term and potentially
impair future economic growth.¶ "We're talking about a substantial increase in reserves ... that is likely to lead to a greater carbon
stock in the atmosphere in the long term," Grant said. "We might get an economic high over the next few decades, but it could well worsen the
lows."¶ In the US, shale oil production has risen from 111,000 barrels per day in 2004 to 553,000 barrels a day in 2011, equivalent to an annual
growth rate of around 26 per cent. In the rest of the world the industry remains in its early stages, although China, Australia, Mexico, Argentina,
Russia, and New Zealand are all exploring the potential for shale oil development.¶ A Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC)
spokesman said there is no estimate of potential reserves in the UK and to date there have been no explorations, adding the energy source is
"not on the horizon" for the country at the moment.¶ Even so, green campaigners have come out strongly against exploiting any potential shale
oil reserves.¶ Supporters of shale gas argue that the fuel source can deliver net carbon savings by replacing coal, but shale oil remains
significantly more carbon intensive raising concerns that the availablility of a new cheaper source of oil will only lead to higher overall
emissions.¶ "Digging
up and burning new reserves of fossil fuels can only exacerbate the huge negative
impact on the global economy of climate change," said Doug Parr, chief scientist at Greenpeace, in an emailed statement.¶
"Any short term price gains for consumers will ultimately be dwarfed by the impact of rising temperatures on every aspect of economic life."¶
Tony Bosworth, energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, similarly warned of the environmental problems increasing fracking could cause,
adding that governments should instead focus investment on green technologies. ¶ "We've already got more than
enough fossil fuels - more than we can afford to burn if we want to avoid catastrophic climate change," he toldBusinessGreen. "The UK has a
huge renewable resource and if we want [to meet climate targets] we should be investing in those."¶ However, Grant warned advocates of
leaving fossil fuel reserves in the ground were "not going to win that argument" given world leaders focus on economic growth.¶ "The use of
fracking is obviously controversial because of the environmental and community impact and this would have to be carefully regulated, which
may in turn have implications for the viability of extracting the resource," Grant said.¶ "[But] the experience with shale gas is that when we gain
access to more fossil fuel reserves we try to extract them."
AT: Jevons Paradox
Price increases and caps solve Jevons paradox
Green Sense 10
Green Sense, 11/2/2010, “CAN YOU BEAT JEVONS PARADOX?”, http://greensense.com.au/2010/11/02/can-you-beat-jevons-paradox/,
6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
Everyone knows efficiency is a good thing, right? By being more efficient we can get the same outcome with less resources: the same
illumination in our homes with less energy, the same production of widgets in our factory with less waste, the same recreation spaces with less
water.¶ Stanley Jevons isn’t so sure. He was a British economist who in 1865 pointed to the experience of the Scottish iron industry who had
significantly improved their efficiency, in terms of coal per tonne, but at the same time actually increased their consumption of coal. This
phenomenon has come to be known as Jevons paradox.¶ Earlier this year, a scientific article by Jeff Tsao looked at the effects of more efficient
lighting technology over the last 300 years. He found that introduction of more efficient lighting had actually increased the energy consumption
associated with lighting. Exactly as Jevons would have predicted.¶ As we are able to produce more light with less energy and less cost, we take
the opportunity to increase the amount of light we generate. More efficient lighting has enabled us to literally ‘light up the night’ and provided
us much more amenity and enabled 24 hour lifestyles. The conclusion of Tsao’s paper is that we should expect the transition to LED lighting to
increase, rather than decrease, energy consumption.¶ You
shouldn’t draw the conclusion that efficiency
improvements are bad. Producing more with less is what has enabled economic growth, and what is
helping to lift millions out of poverty. But, when one of our goals is to improve sustainability and
reduce resource use, we can’t expect an efficiency improvement alone to achieve that end.¶ What else do
you need to do? How can you beat Jevons paradox?¶ The answer is to restrict the use of the resource, while the
efficiency improvement allows you to still achieve the output you need. This restriction might be in
the form of a cap, like the cap on greenhouse gas emissions in an emissions trading scheme. It might
be a price increase that acts as a countervailing force to the efficiency improvement. Or, it might be a
monitoring and reporting/disclosure scheme like NABERS.¶ In practical terms, this means that when
you are making investments in improving efficiency, you should also give thought to how you will
monitor and restrict resource use. Our real-time resource monitoring solution, Greensense View, might be part of the solution.
Feel free to contact us and find out how.
***Gas Specific Stuff for Renewables DA***
1NC – Renewables DA
Unconventional gas will stop renewable energy in its tracks
Harvey 12 – (5/29/12, citing Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency, and Maria
van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, Fiona, environmental correspondent, The Guardian,
“'Golden age of gas' threatens renewable energy, IEA warns,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/29/gas-boom-renewables-agency-warns)
A "golden age of gas" spurred by a tripling of shale gas from fracking and other sources of
unconventional gas by 2035 will stop renewable energy in its tracks if governments don't take action, the
International Energy Agency has warned.
Gas is now relatively abundant in some regions, thanks to the massive expansion of hydraulic fracturing – fracking – for shale
gas, and in some areas the price of the fuel has fallen. The result is a threat to renewable energy, which is by
comparison more expensive, in part because the greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are still not
taken into account in the price of energy.
Fatih Birol, chief economist for the IEA, said the threat to renewables was plain: "Renewable energy may be the victim of
cheap gas prices if governments do not stick to their renewable support schemes."
Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, told a conference in London: "Policy measures by
governments for renewable energy have to be there for years to come, as it is not always as costeffective as it could be."
Shale gas fracking – by which dense shale rocks are blasted apart under high pressure jets of water, sand and chemicals in order to
release tiny bubbles of methane trapped inside them – was virtually unknown less than ten years ago, but has rapidly
become commonplace. In places like the US, the rising price of energy has made such practices
economically worthwhile.
On current trends, according to the IEA, the world is set for far more global warming than the 2C that scientists say
is the limit of safety, beyond which climate change is likely to become catastrophic and irreversible. "A
golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate," warned Birol.
The IEA report comes as the Guardian revealed that gas has been rebranded in secret documents as a form of green energy by the EU.
Gas produces only about half of the carbon emissions of coal when burnt, which has led some industry
lobbyists to attempt to rebrand it as a "clean" or "low-carbon" fuel. But its effect on the climate is less
clear-cut than the direct comparison with coal would suggest.
In the U.S., gas-fired power stations have taken over in some areas from coal-fired power, reducing the nominal carbon emissions from U.S.
power stations. But that
does not necessarily equate to a global cut in emissions.
Last year, the consumption of coal in Europe rose by 6 percent, according to Birol, which was a result of an excess of
cheap coal on the market because of less consumption in the US, while the price on carbon emissions under the EU's emissions trading scheme
– supposed to discourage coal – was too low to have any effect. That
rise in coal consumption will have increased
emissions in the EU, though the data has not yet been fully collected.
This example shows that gas can simply displace emissions rather than cut them altogether, according to
Birol. "Gas cannot solve climate change – we need renewable energy," he told the Guardian.
AT: No Tradeoff
Shale gas destroys renewables
Inman 12 – (1/17/12, citing a study by Henry D. Jacoby, PhD in economics, William F. Pounds Professor
of Management Emeritus Professor of Applied Economics Center for Energy and Environmental Policy
Research, Francis M. O’Sullivan, PhD in electrical engineering, Lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of
Management and the MIT Sloan Executive Education Program, Executive Director of the Energy
Sustainability Challenge Program at the MIT Energy Initiative, and Sergey Paltzev, PhD in economics,
Principal Research Scientist at MIT Energy Initiative and Assistant Director for Economic Research at the
MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, lead modeler in charge of the MIT
Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis (EPPA) model of the world economy, Mason, National
Geographic Online correspondent, “Shale Gas: A Boon That Could Stunt Alternatives, Study Says,”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/01/120117-shale-gas-boom-impact-onrenewables/)
Shale gas has transformed the U.S. energy landscape in the past several years—but it may crowd out
renewable energy and other ways of cutting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a new study warns.
A team of researchers at Massachusetts Institute of Technology used economic modeling to show that
new abundant natural gas is likely to have a far more complex impact on the energy scene than is
generally assumed. If climate policy continues to play out in the United States with a relatively weak set
of measures to control emissions, the new gas source will lead to lower gas and electricity prices, and
total energy use will be higher in 2050.
Absent the shale supply, the United States could have expected to see GHG emissions 2 percent below
2005 levels by 2050 under this relatively weak policy. But the lower gas prices under the current shale gas outlook
will stimulate economic growth, leading GHG emissions to increase by 13 percent over 2005. And the
shale gas will retard the growth of renewable energy's share of electricity, and push off the
development of carbon capture and storage technology, needed to meet more ambitious policy targets,
by as long as two decades.
"Shale gas is a great advantage to the U.S. in the short term, for the next few decades," said MIT economist Henry Jacoby, lead
author of the new study. "But it is so attractive that it threatens other energy sources we ultimately will need."
Investors will focus on gas not renewables – seen as favored by government policies.
Harvey 12 – (5/29/12, Fiona, citing Fatih Birol, chief economist for the International Energy Agency, and
Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the IEA, Fiona, environmental correspondent, The
Guardian, “Gas rebranded as green energy by EU,”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/may/29/gas-rebranded-green-energy-eu)
The resulting drop in gas prices though risks stopping the development of renewable energy in its
tracks, unless governments take action to support renewable technologies such as solar and wave power. " Renewable energy may be the
victim of cheap gas prices if governments do not stick to their renewable support schemes," said the IEA's chief
economist, Fatih Birol.
The insertion of gas energy as a low-carbon energy into an EU programme follows more 18 months of
intensive lobbying by the European gas industry, which is attempting to rebrand itself as a green
alternative to nuclear and coal, and as lower cost than renewable forms of power such as wind and sun.
But green groups warned that relying on gas would raise energy prices and fail to tackle climate change,
and could fatally stunt the growth of the renewables industry. Gas is a fossil fuel – but because it generates less carbon dioxide
when burned than coal, gas industry lobbyists have been touting the fuel as a lower-carbon alternative to coal.
The gains of switching from coal to gas are shortlived – any gas-fired power stations constructed today
would be expected to continue in operation for at least 25 years. That would mean decades of carbon
poured into the atmosphere – while scientists and industry experts warn that global emissions must peak by 2020 in order to avoid the worst
manifestations of climate change. "A golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate," warned Birol.
The document seen by the Guardian has been agreed by member states and sets out the framework for Horizon 2020, billed as a €80bn programme for research
and innovation for the years 2014 to 2020. Of the funds available, more than €30bn are supposed to flow to "address major concerns shared by all Europeans such
as climate change, developing sustainable transport and mobility, making renewable energy more affordable, ensuring food safety and security, or coping with the
challenge of an ageing population", according to the European Commission.
As part of this mission, Horizon2020 will dispense billions of euros in funds to research and development projects, and is intended to "support research and
innovation activities, strengthen the European scientific and technological base and foster benefits for society". Clean energy is a key part of this, according to the
document: "The specific objective is to make the transition to a reliable, sustainable and competitive energy system, in the face of increasingly scarce resources,
increasing energy needs and climate change."
But the original document has been altered by officials to include explicit references to funding for gas – despite gas being a fossil fuel and a mature technology.
The document refers to an EU roadmap published last year that showed emissions from the power sector would have to be cut by 90% by 2050, to meet the EU's
targets. To this has been added a new sentence: "The roadmap also shows that gas, in the short to medium term, can contribute to the transformation of the
energy system."
The document carries on to include gas as a low-carbon source of power: "To achieve these ambitious reductions, significant investments need to be made in
research, development, demonstration and market roll-out of efficient, safe and reliable low-carbon energy technologies, including gas, and services." The
reference to gas has been added. Though it is impossible to tell which member state asked for the amendment, Brussels insiders said it was likely to have needed
the support of several member states.
This reference shows that gas is now being considered in an official EU programme as a "low-carbon" form of energy, equivalent to renewables or nuclear power –
despite its status as a fossil fuel.
Finally, the last paragraph of the document shows that the R&D
funding programme originally intended only to support
renewables has been altered to explicitly include fossil fuels. It reads: "Activities [of the research and
development programme] shall focus on research, development and full scale demonstration - of
innovative renewables, efficient and flexible fossil power plants (including those using natural gas) and
carbon capture and storage technologies." The reference to fossil fuels has been inserted.
While the Horizon2020 project is likely to result in several billions of spending on R&D between 2014 and 2020, the significance of the changes goes much further,
according to Brussels experts. The changes show that the gas industry has succeeded in its aim of having gas considered a low-carbon fuel, at least in some parts of
the European Commission – and this
is likely to be disastrous for the renewables industry, as well as having
massive implications for greenhouse gas emissions and the fight against climate change.
Renewables compete with fossil fuels such as gas for investment, and if investors see that gas - which is
a mature technology with low risks and high returns on investment - is favoured, they are likely to prioritise gas
investment over renewables.
Abundant gas discourages investment in clean energy and perpetuates fossil fuel addiction.
Friedman 12 – (8/4/12, Thomas, degrees in economics and middle east studies, winner of three Pulitzer
prizes, foreign-affairs Op-Ed columnist for the New York times and former chief economic
correspondent, “Get it Right on Gas,” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/friedmanget-it-right-on-gas.html?_r=1&ref=thomaslfriedman)
That is the question — because natural
gas is still a fossil fuel. The good news: It emits only half as much greenhouse gas as coal
when combusted and, therefore, contributes only half as much to global warming. The better news: The recent glut has made it
inexpensive to deploy. But there is a hidden, long-term, cost: A sustained gas glut could undermine new
investments in wind, solar, nuclear and energy efficiency systems — which have zero emissions — and thus
keep us addicted to fossil fuels for decades.
That would be reckless. This year’s global extremes of droughts and floods are totally consistent with models
of disruptive, nonlinear climate change. After record warm temperatures in the first half of this year, it was no surprise to find
last week that the Department of Agriculture has now designated more than half of all U.S. counties — 1,584 in 32 states — as primary disaster
areas where crops and grazing areas have been ravaged by drought.
That is why on May 29 the British newspaper The Guardian quoted Fatih Birol, the chief economist for the International Energy Agency, as
saying that “a
golden age for gas is not necessarily a golden age for the climate” — if natural gas ends up
sinking renewables. Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the I.E.A., urged governments to keep in
place subsidies and regulations to encourage investments in wind, solar and other renewables “for years
to come” so they remain competitive.
Shale gas is the KEY factor preventing renewable growth – if gas fails to become cost competitive,
renewables will take its place.
Jacoby et al. 12 – (1/17/12, Henry, PhD in economics, William F. Pounds Professor of Management
Emeritus Professor of Applied Economics Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Francis
M. O’Sullivan, PhD in electrical engineering, Lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of Management and the
MIT Sloan Executive Education Program, Executive Director of the Energy Sustainability Challenge
Program at the MIT Energy Initiative, and Sergey Paltzev, PhD in economics, Principal Research Scientist
at MIT Energy Initiative and Assistant Director for Economic Research at the MIT Joint Program on the
Science and Policy of Global Change, lead modeler in charge of the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy
Analysis (EPPA) model of the world economy, “The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and
Environmental Policy,” http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/eeeparticle.aspx?id=7)
Note first that the shale
resource has a positive effect on economic growth and energy use. Total energy is 8%
higher in 2050 than with no shale, and sums to a 3% addition to energy use over 2010–2050. In the no-shale
scenario electricity prices under the regulatory scenario rise above those projected with no policy (Figure 6), yielding an 8% reduction in
demand by 2050. Without the shale
resource, the gas price would be projected to rise substantially, to a
2050 level some 20% higher than if there were no regulatory constraint.4 Even at its higher price, however, gas use
in electricity generation would increase, to replace the declining coal output. In addition, toward the end of the period
renewable generation would be driven above the mandated 25% level. Nuclear output would be at its limit, and
there is not much flexibility in the hydro source in any case.
The higher gas prices would then have substantial effects on non-electric sectors. By 2050 higher overall
energy costs would yield a 15% reduction in total energy use. Also, gas use would be gradually squeezed out of other
sectors (primarily from industry) as indicated by the fact that total gas use declines while gas fired generation increases.
The nation’s current gas outlook, with shale, produces a different picture. Gas in electric generation is
projected to increase by a factor of three over the simulation period, to meet the higher national energy
demand under these supply and price conditions. In addition, there are a number of other changes from the assumed
state with no shale: because of somewhat lower electricity prices (Figure 6) there is less reduction in use,
and renewable generation never rises above the regulatory 25% minimum. The benefits of the shale resource are
also reflected in total energy use. The lower gas prices lead to a lower reduction in use than would be the case under more stringent gas
supplies, and total gas use expands by 50% over the period.
Shale gas kills renewable investment now
Levine 12 (Steve LeVine, contributing editor at Foreign Policy, a Schwartz Fellow at the New America
Foundation, “The latest victim of shale gas -- clean energy technology,” 1/23/12)
http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/23/the_latest_victim_of_shale_gas_clean_energy_
technology
In the new issue of Wired, Julie Eilperin writes that clean-technology
investment is in the throes of going bust, at least in
U.S. presidential election year and the continuing Solyndra
bankruptcy scandal are combining to seriously undercut federal subsidies, she reports. As usual, China is
providing stiff competition (the New York Times' Charles Duhigg and Keith Bradsher produce a long, must-read dive into why China
and not the U.S. is likely to continue to dominate manufacturing). But the main culprit is cheap natural gas, Eilperin asserts. The
shale gas boom, allowing for electricity prices of 10 cents a kilowatt-hour, has eroded the chances of
solar and wind to compete. As discussed over the weekend, Citi Group analyst Edward Morse concludes that shale gas (pictured
the United States. That includes solar, wind and biofuels. A
above, part of a hydraulic fracturing operation in South Montrose, Pa.) could fuel a U.S. industrial renaissance, specifically in energy-intensive
products such as chemicals, plastics and housewares. But to the degree that Morse is right, it is
coming at a cost, which is a "clean
tech meltdown," according to Eilperin: Because natural gas has gotten so cheap, there is no longer a financial incentive to
go with renewables. Already, shale gas has seriously undermined Russia's petro-fueled influence in Europe. Now Eilperin suggests some
of the most highly promoted technology of recent years is under challenge. The confluence of reports of turbulence in the energy space is
striking. Eilperin's
account of a bursting clean-tech bubble coincides with a parade of reports of a fresh
surge in South and North American oil production, and animated forecasts of regional fossil fuel self-sufficiency in the coming
decade or so. How consequential is this tradeoff -- a clean-tech economy for a fossil fuel-based boom? First, the calculus may be false: If you
read the Duhigg-Bradsher piece from yesterday's NYT, you are likely to deduce that almost no one except China and a few other Asian states
are capable of manufacturing competitively at scale. Yet, for
those who are not as pessimistic about U.S. and western
economic prowess (this Associated Press piece suggests that manufacturing is picking up), there is a raw philosophical
divide on U.S. industrial policy. We hear full-throated voices arguing both that the U.S. ought to
abandon fossil fuels in favor of clean energy technology, and that it is exceedingly premature to rely on renewable energy,
so that oil and gas must be encouraged. That debate is likely to remain robust.
Increases in shale infrastructure cause high-carbon lock in
Broderick et al. 11 – (Nov. 2011, John, PhD, Research Fellow, Tyndall Study for Climate Change
Research, Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research;[1] holds a joint chair in Energy and Climate Change at the School of Mechanical, Aerospace
and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester and School of Environmental Sciences at University
of East Anglia; and is an honorary lecturer in Environmental Management at the Manchester Business
School, adviser to the British government on climate change, Ruth Wood, PhD, Tyndall Center, Paul
Gilbert, PhD, Tyndall Center, Maria Sharmina, Tyndall Center, Anthony Footitt, Independent Consultant,
Steven Glynn, PhD, Sustainable Change Co-operative, and Fiona Nicholls, Sustainable Change Cooperative, “Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts,”
http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/Fracking/Shale%20gas%20update%20-%20full%20report.pdf)
A substantial move to exploit shale gas reserves has the potential to impact upon investments in
renewable energy. In order to explore this, we estimated the capital costs of drilling shale gas wells to supply 10% of current UK gas
consumption and the equivalent Combined Cycle Gas Turbine (CCGT) power stations that would burn it. Given the need for low
carbon generation, the costs of gas CCGT with CCS was also considered. It is estimated that such a programme over the
next twenty years would cost between £19bn and £32bn.
If a straight substitution relationship is assumed between electricity from renewables and gas then,
considering the capital costs only, 8GW of CCGT plus gas well infrastructure could displace 12.5GW of wind capacity,
equivalent to over 4,000 large onshore turbines, at a commercial discount rate. With a 3.5% social discount rate, and the inclusion of CCS
technology, potential displacement increases to approximately 21GW of installed onshore wind capacity or 12GW offshore. Either
would
be expected to generate approximately equivalent quantities of electricity as the gas option even given
the lower load factor of wind turbines.
There is also a matter of timing of possible substitution between shale gas and coal. The Committee on
Climate Change has argued that transition to a very low carbon grid, of the order of 50gCO2/kWh, should take
place by 2030, on the way to a zero carbon grid soon after. Were a new round of stations to be
completed in the next ten years they would become “stranded assets” or require expensive retro fitting
of as yet untested CCS technology. As such it seems likely that shale gas would “lock in” high emissions
infrastructure in the medium term.
Gas shouldn’t be a bridge to alternative energy – can prevent a successful transition
Inman 12 – (1/17/12, citing James Bradbury, a policy analyst at the World Resources Institute AND a
study by Henry D. Jacoby, PhD in economics, William F. Pounds Professor of Management Emeritus
Professor of Applied Economics Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Francis M.
O’Sullivan, PhD in electrical engineering, Lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of Management and the MIT
Sloan Executive Education Program, Executive Director of the Energy Sustainability Challenge Program at
the MIT Energy Initiative, and Sergey Paltzev, PhD in economics, Principal Research Scientist at MIT
Energy Initiative and Assistant Director for Economic Research at the MIT Joint Program on the Science
and Policy of Global Change, lead modeler in charge of the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy Analysis
(EPPA) model of the world economy, Mason, National Geographic Online correspondent, “Shale Gas: A
Boon That Could Stunt Alternatives, Study Says,”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/01/120117-shale-gas-boom-impact-onrenewables/)
However, James Bradbury,
a policy analyst at the World Resources Institute, said energy policymakers face
new challenges due to shale gas.
"Given current U.S. policies, abundant and relatively cheap natural gas puts all other energy sources at a
competitive disadvantage," he said. "It is particularly important for decision-makers to . . . usher in more
renewable energy by creating incentives to help this industry thrive," including policies to increase innovation and
encourage investment in electric grids.
The infrastructure people build today—power plants fired by coal or natural gas, or solar panels or wind
turbines—will likely last for decades, Bradbury said.
"The longer it takes for the [United States] to pass climate policy," he added, "the more likely it is that we will see . . . gas-related
infrastructure become effectively locked in to our energy system for decades."
The MIT study noted that natural gas is often thought of as a "bridge" to a low-carbon future. But the study also
emphasizes that there is also a risk of "stunting" other technologies for reducing carbon emissions. "While
taking advantage of this gift in the short run, treating gas as a 'bridge' to a low-carbon future," the study said, "it is crucial not to allow the
greater ease of the near-term task to erode efforts to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge."
AT: Aff Solves
Reliance on unconventional oil causes warming and furthers dependence
Gordon and Anderson 12 (Deborah Gordon, senior associate, Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace and Steven M. Anderson, chief marketing officer, “Insecurity in Unconventional Oil,” 6/5/12)
http://carnegieendowment.org/2012/06/05/insecurity-in-unconventional-oil/b64w
The deeper we drill down, the more apparent it becomes that new domestic oil supplies cannot
guarantee U.S. geopolitical and economic security. What’s more, the heterogeneous assortment of oils, if pursued absent
cautious, deliberate guidelines, could cause collateral damage. New hydrocarbon resources that can be reached or
transformed into oil raise the specter of climate security risks. There is precious little public information
available about the vast pools of carbon contained in oil sands, oil shale, and other new oil supplies. At a
time when the world is struggling to limit carbon emissions, prying open new carbon sources before we
fully understand what they are and how to manage them could be a serious security miscalculation.
New oils are being produced from increasingly heavy, complex, isolated, and carbon-laden resources.
These stores are often locked up deep in the earth, in remote and harsh environments, tightly trapped
between or bound to sand, tar, and rock. They require increasingly capital-intensive infrastructure to
extract, involve more intensive processing and additives, and yield more high carbon byproducts. The
high carbon contents and unfavorable energy balances of many new oils impose high climate burdens.
Despite the political rhetoric in the United States about the science of climate change, it is a legitimate threat to U.S. national security.
Climate change is a threat multiplier that accelerates global conflict through droughts, desertification,
floods, famines, and crop failures. Empirical evidence suggests that climate change can cause domestic
and international disputes. Scientists have determined that long-term fluctuations of war frequently follow
cycles of temperature change. According to United Nations Environment Programme, climate change exacerbates
military conflict—instigating mass migration, armed insurrection, and a further destabilization of volatile
regions. Concerns of climate-driven conflict pose a real and present danger. As such, the higher the carbon burden of new oil,
the higher the cost in terms of global security. Policymakers have a responsibility to protect the public, bringing solutions to
bear. The more new sources of oil deviate from conventional crude, the more citizens will rely on policymakers and industry to demystify oil
resources and the risks they pose.
AT: Gas = Low Emissions
Costs outweigh the benefits – makes it impossible to solve climate change
Schrag 12 – (2012, Daniel, PhD, Sturgis Hooper Professor of Geology and Professor of Environmental
Science and Engineering at Harvard University, Director of the Center for the Environment, serves on
President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, “Is Shale Gas Good for Climate
Change?” http://schraglab.unix.fas.harvard.edu/publications/128_Schrag.pdf)
Another serious concern is the impact of low-priced natural gas on the electricity sector for technologies
beyond coal– specifically renewable technologies such as wind and solar–and for investment in R&D in
renewable and low-carbon energy systems. If the goal is to minimize cumulative emissions and reach
near-zero emissions as soon as possible, renewable energy technologies must play a much larger, perhaps
even a dominant role in the world energy system. And to do so, the cost of these technologies must compete with
fossil fuel systems. Driving down their price will likely come only through wider deployment and through development of new
technologies. Both of these actions have been adversely affected by the shale gas boom in the United
States, with natural gas prices currently hovering below $3 per thousand cubic feet. The negative impact
of low gas prices on renewable energy is not significant if we measure climate progress by looking only
at near-term emissions; renewable electricity makes up too small a fraction of the overall electricity sector. But if our goal is to
minimize cumulative global emissions over the next century, the delayed investment in renewable
technologies may set us back more than the climate benefits achieved from a marginal reduction in
U.S. coal consumption. Low gas prices have similarly inhibited investment in nuclear power and carbon
capture and storage, both of which are likely to be needed to achieve a near-zero carbon emissions
society.17 Of course, these technologies have faced challenges independent of the competition with low-priced natural gas for electricity
generation.
There are enormous benefits in having cheap, abundant natural gas for the United States in terms of the competitiveness of U.S. industry and
economic growth in general. But
from the climate perspective, the negative impacts on innovation in lowcarbon technologies appear to outweigh the benefits of a marginal reduction in emissions from reduced
coal consumption.
Displacement of low-carbon alternatives prevent gas from solving climate issues alone.
IEA 11 – (International Energy Agency, report designed and directed by Fatih Birol, PhD in energy
economics, Chief Economist and Director of Global Energy Economics at the International Energy
Agency, analysis was co-ordinated by John Corben, contributors were Maria Argiri, Marco Baroni, AnneSophie Corbeau, Laura Cozzi, Ian Cronshaw, Dan Dorner, Matthew Frank, Timur Gül, Paweł Olejarnik,
Timur Topalgoekceli, Peter Wood, David Wilkinson and Akira Yanagisawa, edited by Robert Priddle, “ARE
WE ENTERING A GOLDEN AGE OF GAS?”
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2011/WEO2011_GoldenAgeofGasReport.pdf)
An increased share of natural gas in the global energy mix is far from enough on its own to put us on a
carbon emissions path consistent with an average global temperature rise of no more than 2°C. Natural
gas displaces coal and to a lesser extent oil, driving down emissions, but it also displaces some nuclear power, pushing up
emissions. Global energy-related CO2 emissions in 2035 are only slightly lower than those in the New Policies Scenario, at around 35 Gt.
This puts emissions on a long-term trajectory consistent with stabilising the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at around
650 ppm, suggesting a long-term temperature rise of over 3.5°C.
To limit the increase in global temperature to 2°C
requires a greater shift to low-carbon energy sources, increased efficiency in energy usage and new
technologies, including carbon capture and storage. The GAS Scenario assumes that support for
renewables is maintained but, in a scenario in which gas is relatively cheap, there is a risk that
governments’ resolve in this respect might waiver, pushing gas demand even higher than projected
here.
AT: Transitional Fuel
Renewables are more important and the substitution effect doesn’t occur globally.
Broderick et al. 11 – (Nov. 2011, John, PhD, Research Fellow, Tyndall Study for Climate Change
Research, Professor Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research;[1] holds a joint chair in Energy and Climate Change at the School of Mechanical, Aerospace
and Civil Engineering at the University of Manchester and School of Environmental Sciences at University
of East Anglia; and is an honorary lecturer in Environmental Management at the Manchester Business
School, adviser to the British government on climate change, Ruth Wood, PhD, Tyndall Center, Paul
Gilbert, PhD, Tyndall Center, Maria Sharmina, Tyndall Center, Anthony Footitt, Independent Consultant,
Steven Glynn, PhD, Sustainable Change Co-operative, and Fiona Nicholls, Sustainable Change Cooperative, “Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts,”
http://www.co-operative.coop/Corporate/Fracking/Shale%20gas%20update%20-%20full%20report.pdf)
The argument that shale gas should be exploited as a transitional fuel in the move to a low carbon
economy seems tenuous at best. EIA projections for the US do not anticipate that shale gas will
substitute for coal in the medium term. Further, in the UK currently, a little under two thirds of coal consumption is imported
from the global coal market; accordingly any reduction in coal demand from the UK will, ceteris paribus, trigger reductions in global coal prices.
The supply-demand relationship of relatively liberalised markets makes clear that a reduction in the
price for coal will facilitate increased demand elsewhere. Consequently, whilst the UK may be able to reduce its national
emissions through indigenous shale gas consumption, this risks triggering a net increase in global emissions; with the atmosphere receiving
relatively unchanged emissions from coal and additional emissions from shale gas.
It is possible that some level of substitution may occur in other countries but, in the current world
where energy use is growing globally and expected to continue to do so, without a meaningful
constraint on carbon emissions, there is little price incentive to substitute for lower carbon fuels. It is
difficult to envisage any situation other than shale gas largely being used in addition to other fossil fuel
reserves and adding a further carbon burden. This could occupy over a quarter of the remaining carbon budget for keeping
below 2oC warming, and lead to an additional 16ppmv of CO2 over and above expected levels without shale gas – both figures that will rise as
and when the additional 50% of shale gas is exploited. It should be stressed the
extraction process does not necessarily result
in significant emissions itself compared to conventional extraction but there is the potential for
substantial fugitive emissions. However, given the urgent and challenging requirements facing us with
regards to carbon reductions, any additional fossil fuel resource just adds to the problem.
The idea that we need ‘transitional’ fossil fuels is itself open to question. For example, in the International
Energy Agency scenario that outlines a path to 50% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, fuel
switching coupled with power generation efficiency, only accounts for 5% of the required reductions (IEA,
2010). If globally we are to achieve the considerable reductions in carbon emissions that are required then it is energy efficiency,
carbon capture and storage, renewable energy etc that will make the difference.
AT: Just the US
US gas lock in spreads globally – kills efforts to solve warming
Inglesby et al. 12 – (Summer 2012, Tommy, Principal in McKinsey’s Houston office the leader of the
Firm’s North American Natural Gas practice and Global Unconventional Oil & Gas service line., worked
extensively in upstream oil & gas portfolio strategies and transactions, Rob Jenks, some dude at
McKinsey, Scott Nyquist, MBA from Harvard Business School, Director in McKinsey & Company’s
Houston Office and a leader in McKinsey’s Energy Practice, co-leads McKinsey’s Global Energy and
Materials Sector, Dickon Pinner, Partner in McKinsey's San Francisco office where he co-founded
McKinsey's Global Cleantech Practice, “Shale gas and tight oil: Framing the opportunities and risks,” pdf
available online)
However, the
potential benefits need to be considered alongside potential risks. Natural gas is still a
hydrocarbon that emits greenhouse gases, although in lower amounts than those of current coal
technologies. In addition, methane leakage can worsen the carbon footprint of natural gas. The process of
setting up and conducting hydraulic-fracturing operations required to free gas and oil from low-permeability rock
creates environmental risks, including water contamination, local air pollution, and land degradation—
some of which may be serious and some of which have yet to be fully understood.
Low-cost gas, held by some to represent a low-carbon bridge to a zero-emissions future, is resisted by others who believe it will slow
near-term deployment of renewables, and—longer term—create “lock in” of natural-gas usage
following large-scale deployment of the supporting natural-gas infrastructure.
Moreover, this is not just a US story . Much attention, and a great deal of money, is focused on the United
States because shale-gas and tightoil resources are more extensively characterized and commercially
mature there, but many countries are watching the United States to see how it develops and oversees
the use of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Countries with significant “unconventional”
resources include Abu Dhabi, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Canada, China, Colombia, Germany, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Oman, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
AT: Gas Low Now
Current volatility in gas forecasts is allowing renewable energy to compete – the aff introduces
stability into gas markets
Huber 12 – (8/1/12, Lisa, MBA from the Nichols School of the Environment, Duke University, intern at
the Rocky Mountain Institute, “Managing Natural Gas Volatility: The Answer is Blowin’ in the Wind,”
http://blog.rmi.org/blog_Managing_Natural_Gas_Volatility_The_Answer_is_Blowin_in_the_wind)
The recent shale gas boom has gained the reputation as our energy savior: clean, domestic, cheap, and plentiful. But, the
attractiveness
of today’s low natural gas price can cause us to overlook a serious risk: volatility.
Natural gas is one of the riskiest commodities around, historically bearing twice the volatility price risk of
oil. While this is common knowledge among industry professionals and commodity traders, the long-term risk often goes
ignored, despite previous attempts to put a price tag on volatility.
Why This Matters
According to RMI Chief Scientist Amory Lovins, “we
must not set our sights too low and end up with a 20-year plan
instead of a 21st century goal.” This logic on the importance of long-term strategy is the driving force behind RMI’s Reinventing Fire,
a vision and roadmap for a 150 percent bigger 2050 U.S. economy requiring no oil, coal, or nuclear energy, and one-third less natural gas.
Without accounting for the volatility risk of natural gas, wholesale power-producing renewables don’t
appear very competitive without the support of tax credits (expiring at the end of the year for wind) and renewable
portfolio standards, whose incentives are less substantial than in the recent past. Investing in gas over wind without
consideration of volatility would be like chasing yield without regard to risk—something a prudent investor would
never dream of.
As U.S. natural gas supply grows and liquefied natural gas export terminals come online, our economy
becomes more and more dependent on the success of shale; changes in natural gas prices could greatly
impact the broader market. Historically speaking, natural gas tends to move opposite the market (that’s a negative beta for the
finance geeks out there). As natural gas prices rise and the market falls (remember 2008?), consumers take a significant hit.
The long term risk of natural gas is preserving status quo investment in renewables like wind energy
Huber 12 – (July 2012, Lisa, MBA from the Nichols School of the Environment, Duke University, intern at
the Rocky Mountain Institute, “Utility-­‐Scale Wind and Natural Gas Volatility Uncovering the Hedge
Value of Wind For Utilities and Their Customers,” http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/201207_WindNaturalGasVolatility)
*PPA = Power Purchase Agreement; PUC = Public Utilities Commission; FCA = Fuel Cost Adjustments
Although natural gas prices are depressed, the volatility inherent in the commodity remains and
presents risks to consumers at all levels: utilities, industrial and commercial customers, as well as residential customers. Many
utilities are already paying to hedge against the risk of an unexpected upward swing in prices in the
near‐term, but remain exposed in the long run. PUCs in regulated states tend to disapprove of long‐term
natural gas contracts. It is conceivable, however, they could be convinced to deem wind PPA contracts
prudent as they provide a substantial hedge in the long‐term, particularly if the PUCs adopt more risk‐
weighted “lowest cost” review criteria for PPAs or new plant rate‐basing. Just as utilities can hedge with new wind project PPAs, large
customers can sign direct PPAs as a hedge, and residential customers can participate in green power programs that exempt them from FCAs.
These opportunities offer the chance for consumers of energy to both decrease their risk exposure to
fluctuating fuel prices, as well as encourage the future development of domestic wind.
AT: Gas Low Forever
Lower estimates now – informs policy decisions
Urbina 12 (Ian Urbina writes for the New York Times. “New Report by Agency Lowers Estimates Of
Natural Gas in U.S.” January 29 2012) http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/29/us/new-data-not-sosunny-on-us-natural-gas-supply.html?pagewanted=all
The agency estimated that there
are 482 trillion cubic feet of shale gas in the United States, down from the
2011 estimate of 827 trillion cubic feet — a drop of more than 40 percent. The report also said the Marcellus region, a
rock formation under parts of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, contained 141 trillion cubic feet of gas. That
represents a 66 percent drop from the 410 trillion cubic feet estimate offered in the agency’s last report.
The Energy Information Administration said the sharp downward revisions to its estimates were
informed by more data. “Drilling in the Marcellus accelerated rapidly in 2010 and 2011, so that there is far
more information available today than a year ago,” its report said. Jonathan Cogan, a spokesman for the agency, added that
Pennsylvania had made far more data available than in previous years. Under the agency’s new estimates, the Marcellus shale, which was
previously thought to hold enough gas to meet the entire nation’s demand for 17 years at current consumption rates, contains instead a sixyear supply. The report comes just five months after the United States Geological Survey released its own estimate of 84 trillion cubic feet for
the Marcellus shale. The
estimates are important because they underpin policy decisions on energy subsidies
and exports. Market analysts look to these estimates in making investment decisions. Historically, they have
varied widely based on assumptions about the future of technology, coming regulations on drilling and the long-term price of gas.
Production is peaking now – companies overestimated reserves
Magyar 12 (Robert Magyar reports on energy and the environment for Examiner. “With other U.S. shale
gas plays in decline, is the Marcellus next?” August 15 2012) http://www.examiner.com/article/withother-u-s-shale-gas-plays-decline-is-the-marcellus-next
This week the Energy Information Agency reported record gas production for 2011 for theMarcellus shale regions. The report is being cited by
Pennsylvania supporters of hydraulic fracking as yet more evidence of all things good news when it comes to U.S. shale gasdevelopment. At the
same time, the Texas
Barnett and Louisiana shale gas formations appear to be peaking in production,
seeing significant decreases in drilling activity while shale gas development companies such asChesapeake
Energy and BHP Billiton have been quietly writing off billions of dollars of claimed shale gas reserves in
those formations as they declare such reserves as no longer economically feasible to extract. Just a few
short years ago, those same companies were claiming those same reserves were solid evidence of future
decades of natural gas supply as part of the U.S. “Shale gas revolution”.
AT: Perm (Carbon Tax)
Shale gas + carbon tax = bad
No shale gas + carbon tax = good
Jacoby et al. 12 – (1/17/12, Henry, PhD in economics, William F. Pounds Professor of Management
Emeritus Professor of Applied Economics Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Francis
M. O’Sullivan, PhD in electrical engineering, Lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of Management and the
MIT Sloan Executive Education Program, Executive Director of the Energy Sustainability Challenge
Program at the MIT Energy Initiative, and Sergey Paltzev, PhD in economics, Principal Research Scientist
at MIT Energy Initiative and Assistant Director for Economic Research at the MIT Joint Program on the
Science and Policy of Global Change, lead modeler in charge of the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy
Analysis (EPPA) model of the world economy, “The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and
Environmental Policy,” http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/eeeparticle.aspx?id=7)
This policy scenario, which requires a 50% GHG reduction below 2005 by 2050, involves more
substantial changes in energy technology, and the imposition of a GHG price imposes a difference
between the price of gas to the producer and to the consumer. Again focusing first on the electric sector (Figure 7, top
left) if shale were uneconomic gas use in generation would be projected to grow slightly for a few
decades, but toward the end of the period it would be priced out of this use because of the combination of rising
producer price and the emissions penalty. Renewable generation would grow to 29% of total electric demand,
above level mandated in the regulatory case. Coal would maintain a substantial position in generation, though reduced, to
2025; and beginning at that point coal with capture and storage (CCS) would first become economic, growing to substantial scale by the end of
the period. Nuclear would be limited by the assumption of a maximum 25% growth above its 2010 level. The remainder of the required
reduction would be met by cuts in electricity use.
The effect of this 50% target on total energy use absent the shale gas (bottom left) is a reduction in demand,
driven by the higher consumer gas price (Figure 8), and the introduction of advanced biofuels. Gas use declines
over the period as the conventional gas, tight gas and coal-bed methane are depleted, but by a lesser fraction than in electricity generation
because at these prices the gas is relatively more valuable in industrial and other non-electric uses.
The current state of nature, shown on the right-hand side of Figure 7, creates a very different energy future. Gas is
substantially cheaper (Figure 8) and increasing gas generation drives conventional coal out of the system.
Toward the end of the period, moreover, the increasing gas price plus carbon charge begins to force
conventional gas use out of the electric generation, and in 2040 gas with CCS is first projected to
become economic. In 2045, coal with CCS also begins to become economic (producing less than 1TkWh, a level too small to show in the
figure)—lagging gas because of the still relatively-low gas price. Renewable supplies are lower than they would be
without the cheaper gas. The electricity price is similar between the two states of gas economics (Figure 8) but the reduction in
use is somewhat higher than without shale because, nuclear being constrained, the with-shale case does not
benefit soon enough from the low-emission base-load source provided by CCS technologies.
In the mix of total energy use gas is expected to grow over the simulation period. To meet the needs of the
transport sector, advanced biofuels take market share beginning in 2035. With current gas resources the reduction in total energy use under
this policy, relative to a no-policy scenario, is about 20% in 2010 and 45% in 2050.
The U.S. economy could adjust to either of these states of the world, and under this stringent reduction the growth-inducing effect of the larger
gas resource is slightly more potent than its role in smoothing the adjustment to lower emissions. Recognizing that the figures are not directly
comparable since they reflect different states of the world, we can again compare the difference in cost caused by the availability of the shale
gas. The cost of the policy under current expectation, calculated as above as the net present value of the reduction in welfare over the period
of 2010–2050, is about $3.3 trillion (a 3.1% reduction in 2050), whereas if the shale resource were not economic that cost would be $3.0 trillion
(a 2.8% reduction in 2050). The
slightly lower cost in the no-shale scenario is due to the lower emissions in the
therefore the lower effort required to meet the 50% target.
Note that the desired pace of technology development is strongly affected by the emergence of the shale
resource. The entrance of the shale supplies has the effect of driving coal out of electric generation, whereas without the shale coal
would be projected to begin to recover from a “valley of death” with the introduction of coal-CCS around 2035. With
corresponding no-policy reference, and
the shale source this resurrection is not projected until some 10–15 years later. Moreover, gas with CCS may
under these conditions be the technology likely to first see commercial viability. And, as would be expected, the cheaper gas
serves to reduce the rate of market penetration of renewable generation.
Shale gas delays renewables by 20 years even under the MOST STRINGENT carbon pricing measures.
Jacoby et al. 12 – (1/17/12, Henry, PhD in economics, William F. Pounds Professor of Management
Emeritus Professor of Applied Economics Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Francis
M. O’Sullivan, PhD in electrical engineering, Lecturer in the MIT Sloan School of Management and the
MIT Sloan Executive Education Program, Executive Director of the Energy Sustainability Challenge
Program at the MIT Energy Initiative, and Sergey Paltzev, PhD in economics, Principal Research Scientist
at MIT Energy Initiative and Assistant Director for Economic Research at the MIT Joint Program on the
Science and Policy of Global Change, lead modeler in charge of the MIT Emissions Prediction and Policy
Analysis (EPPA) model of the world economy, “The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and
Environmental Policy,” http://www.iaee.org/en/publications/eeeparticle.aspx?id=7)
Finally, the
gas “revolution” has important implications for the direction and intensity of national efforts to
develop and deploy low-emission technologies, like CCS for coal and gas. With nothing more than
regulatory policies of the type and stringency simulated here there is no market for these technologies,
and the shale gas reduces interest even further. Under more stringent GHG targets these technologies
are needed, but the shale gas delays their market role by up to two decades. Thus in the shale boom
there is the risk of stunting these programs altogether . While taking advantage of this gift in the short run, treating gas a
“bridge” to a low-carbon future, it is crucial not to allow the greater ease of the near-term task to erode efforts
to prepare a landing at the other end of the bridge.
**Warming Turn**
1NC Warming Turn
Drilling undermines initiates to solve climate change- produces substantial
amount of CO2 and harms the economy
Spiewak 9
Monika, Ph. D candidate, Leonard N. Stern School of Business at NYU, Theory and Evidence...Drilling for
Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: A Cost-Benefit Analysis, an honors thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science Undergraduate College, May
Scientists generally agree that our dependence on dirty fuel has polluted our air supply and
increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The longer we drill for oil, the more we
prolong our addiction to hydrocarbon energy. Extending North Slope production by 30 years
undermines government initiatives to explore green energy sources today. I encourage the
reader to apply his own cost of waiting to address climate change. Note, however, the negative
impact externalities have on net present value. Adding climate change cost further reduces the
profitability of ANWR drilling. In Table 4, I adjust my previous calculations by Fankhauser’s
Coefficient of carbon dioxide damage. He contends that every gigaton of carbon dioxide reduces
social welfare by $300 million42; some environmental scientists recommend multiplying
Fankhauser’s estimate by five to determine the true impacts of carbon dioxide stocks. Drilling in
ANWR will ultimately result in the burning of 10.4 billion barrels of oil. Each of those barrels of
oil will produce 363 kg of carbon dioxide when burned.43 As you can see in the Table, we should
drill only if crude oil costs more than $200 per barrel in real terms and externalities cost less
than $11.41 per person. Multiplying Fankhauser’s estimate by five may be reasonable since our
understanding of carbon dioxide damage has improved since he wrote his paper in 1995. Each
carbon unit remains in the atmosphere long after the oil serves its purposes. These incremental
pollutants pose substantial costs to our society and progeny; they too should reduce the value
added of oil.
Warming is an existential threat
Mazo 10 – PhD in Paleoclimatology from UCLA
Jeffrey Mazo, Managing Editor, Survival and Research Fellow for Environmental Security and Science
Policy at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, 3-2010, “Climate Conflict: How global
warming threatens security and what to do about it,” pg. 122
The best estimates for global warming to the end of the century range from 2.5-4.~C above preindustrial levels, depending on the scenario. Even in the best-case scenario, the low end of the
likely range is 1.goC, and in the worst 'business as usual' projections, which actual emissions have
been matching, the range of likely warming runs from 3.1--7.1°C. Even keeping emissions at
constant 2000 levels (which have already been exceeded), global temperature would still be
expected to reach 1.2°C (O'9""1.5°C)above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century."
Without early and severe reductions in emissions, the effects of climate change in the second
half of the twenty-first century are likely to be catastrophic for the stability and security of
countries in the developing world - not to mention the associated human tragedy. Climate change
could even undermine the strength and stability of emerging and advanced economies, beyond
the knock-on effects on security of widespread state failure and collapse in developing
countries.' And although they have been condemned as melodramatic and alarmist, many
informed observers believe that unmitigated climate change beyond the end of the century could
pose an existential threat to civilisation." What is certain is that there is no precedent in human
experience for such rapid change or such climatic conditions, and even in the best case
adaptation to these extremes would mean profound social, cultural and political changes.
2NC Warming Real
Warming is real and human induced – consensus is on our side – numerous
studies prove
Rahmstorf 8 – Professor of Physics of the Oceans
Richard, of Physics of the Oceans at Potsdam University, Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto, Edited
by Ernesto Zedillo, “Anthropogenic Climate Change?,” pg. 42-4
It is time to turn to statement B: human activities are altering the climate. This can be broken into
two parts. The first is as follows: global climate is warming. This is by now a generally undisputed
point (except by novelist Michael Crichton), so we deal with it only briefly. The two leading
compilations of data measured with thermometers are shown in figure 3-3, that of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and that of the British Hadley Centre for Climate
Change. Although they differ in the details, due to the inclusion of different data sets and use of
different spatial averaging and quality control procedures, they both show a consistent picture,
with a global mean warming of 0.8°C since the late nineteenth century. Temperatures over the
past ten years clearly were the warmest since measured records have been available. The year
1998 sticks out well above the longterm trend due to the occurrence of a major El Nino event that
year (the last El Nino so far and one of the strongest on record). These events are examples of the
largest natural climate variations on multiyear time scales and, by releasing heat from the ocean,
generally cause positive anomalies in global mean temperature. It is remarkable that the year
2005 rivaled the heat of 1998 even though no El Nino event occurred that year. (A bizarre
curiosity, perhaps worth mentioning, is that several prominent "climate skeptics" recently used
the extreme year 1998 to claim in the media that global warming had ended. In Lindzen's words,
"Indeed, the absence of any record breakers during the past seven years is statistical evidence
that temperatures are not increasing.")33 In addition to the surface measurements, the more
recent portion of the global warming trend (since 1979) is also documented by satellite data. It is
not straightforward to derive a reliable surface temperature trend from satellites, as they
measure radiation coming from throughout the atmosphere (not just near the surface), including
the stratosphere, which has strongly cooled, and the records are not homogeneous' due to the
short life span of individual satellites, the problem of orbital decay, observations at different
times of day, and drifts in instrument calibration.' Current analyses of these satellite data show
trends that are fully consistent with surface measurements and model simulations." If no reliable
temperature measurements existed, could we be sure that the climate is warming? The "canaries
in the coal mine" of climate change (as glaciologist Lonnie Thompson puts it) ~are mountain
glaciers. We know, both from old photographs and from the position of the terminal moraines
heaped up by the flowing ice, that mountain glaciers have been in retreat all over the world
during the past century. There are precious few exceptions, and they are associated with a strong
increase in precipitation or local cooling.36 I have inspected examples of shrinking glaciers myself
in field trips to Switzerland, Norway, and New Zealand. As glaciers respond sensitively to
temperature changes, data on the extent of glaciers have been used to reconstruct a history of
Northern Hemisphere temperature over the past four centuries (see figure 3-4). Cores drilled in
tropical glaciers show signs of recent melting that is unprecedented at least throughout the
Holocene-the past 10,000 years. Another powerful sign of warming, visible clearly from satellites,
is the shrinking Arctic sea ice cover (figure 3-5), which has declined 20 percent since satellite
observations began in 1979. While climate clearly became warmer in the twentieth century, much
discussion particularly in the popular media has focused on the question of how "unusual" this
warming is in a longer-term context. While this is an interesting question, it has often been mixed
incorrectly with the question of causation. Scientifically, how unusual recent warming is-say,
compared to the past millennium-in itself contains little information about its cause. Even a highly
unusual warming could have a natural cause (for example, an exceptional increase in solar
activity). And even a warming within the bounds of past natural variations could have a
predominantly anthropogenic cause. I come to the question of causation shortly, after briefly
visiting the evidence for past natural climate variations. Records from the time before systematic
temperature measurements were collected are based on "proxy data," coming from tree rings, ice
cores, corals, and other sources. These proxy data are generally linked to local temperatures in
some way, but they may be influenced by other parameters as well (for example, precipitation),
they may have a seasonal bias (for example, the growth season for tree rings), and high-quality
long records are difficult to obtain and therefore few in number and geographic coverage.
Therefore, there is still substantial uncertainty in the evolution of past global or hemispheric
temperatures. (Comparing only local or regional temperature; as in Europe, is of limited value for
our purposes,' as regional variations can be much larger than global ones and can have many
regional causes, unrelated to global-scale forcing and climate change.) The first quantitative
reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere temperature of the past millennium, including an
error estimation, was presented by Mann, Bradley, and Hughes and rightly highlighted in the 2001
IPCC report as one of the major new findings since its 1995 report; it is shown in figure 3_6.39 The
analysis suggests that, despite the large error bars, twentieth-century warming is indeed highly
unusual and probably was unprecedented during the past millennium. This result, presumably
because of its symbolic power, has attracted much criticism, to some extent in scientific journals,
but even more so in the popular media. The hockey stick-shaped curve became a symbol for the
IPCC, .and criticizing this particular data analysis became an avenue for some to question the
credibility of the IPCC. Three important things have been overlooked in much of the media
coverage. First, even if the scientific critics had been right, this would not have called into
question the very cautious conclusion drawn by the IPCC from the reconstruction by Mann,
Bradley, and Hughes: "New analyses of proxy data for the Northern Hemisphere indicate that the
increase in temperature in the twentieth century is likely to have been the largest of any century
during the past 1,000 years." This conclusion has since been supported further by every single one
of close to a dozen new reconstructions (two of which are shown in figure 3-6).Second, by far the
most serious scientific criticism raised against Mann, Hughes, and Bradley was simply based on a
mistake. 40 The prominent paper of von Storch and others, which claimed (based on a model test)
that the method of Mann, Bradley, and Hughes systematically underestimated variability, "was
[itself] based on incorrect implementation of the reconstruction procedure."41 With correct
implementation, climate field reconstruction procedures such as the one used by Mann, Bradley,
and Hughes have been shown to perform well in similar model tests. Third, whether their
reconstruction is accurate or not has no bearing on policy. If their analysis underestimated past
natural climate variability, this would certainly not argue for a smaller climate sensitivity and thus
a lesser concern about the consequences of our emissions. Some have argued that, in contrast, it
would point to a larger climate sensitivity. While this is a valid point in principle, it does not apply
in practice to the climate sensitivity estimates discussed herein or to the range given by IPCC,
since these did not use the reconstruction of Mann, Hughes, and Bradley or any other proxy
records of the past millennium. Media claims that "a pillar of the Kyoto Protocol" had been called
into question were therefore misinformed. As an aside, the protocol was agreed in 1997, before
the reconstruction in question even existed. The overheated public debate on this topic has, at
least, helped to attract more researchers and funding to this area of paleoclimatology; its
methodology has advanced significantly, and a number of new reconstructions have been
presented in recent years. While the science has moved forward, the first seminal reconstruction
by Mann, Hughes, and Bradley has held up remarkably well, with its main features reproduced by
more recent work. Further progress probably will require substantial amounts of new proxy data,
rather than further refinement of the statistical techniques pioneered by Mann, Hughes, and
Bradley. Developing these data sets will require time and substantial effort. It is time to address
the final statement: most of the observed warming over the past fifty years is anthropogenic. A
large number of studies exist that have taken different approaches to analyze this issue, which is
generally called the "attribution problem." I do not discuss the exact share of the anthropogenic
contribution (although this is an interesting question). By "most" I imply mean "more than 50
percent.”The first and crucial piece of evidence is, of course, that the magnitude of the warming is
what is expected from the anthropogenic perturbation of the radiation balance, so anthropogenic
forcing is able to explain all of the temperature rise. As discussed here, the rise in greenhouse
gases alone corresponds to 2.6 W/tn2 of forcing. This by itself, after subtraction of the observed
0'.6 W/m2 of ocean heat uptake, would Cause 1.6°C of warming since preindustrial times for
medium climate sensitivity (3"C). With a current "best guess'; aerosol forcing of 1 W/m2, the
expected warming is O.8°c. The point here is not that it is possible to obtain the 'exact observed
number-this is fortuitous because the amount of aerosol' forcing is still very' uncertain-but that
the expected magnitude is roughly right. There can be little doubt that the anthropogenic forcing
is large enough to explain most of the warming. Depending on aerosol forcing and climate
sensitivity, it could explain a large fraction of the warming, or all of it, or even more warming than
has been observed (leaving room for natural processes to counteract some of the warming). The
second important piece of evidence is clear: there is no viable alternative explanation. In the
scientific literature, no serious alternative hypothesis has been proposed to explain the observed
global warming. Other possible causes, such as solar activity, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, or
orbital cycles, are well observed, but they do not show trends capable of explaining the
observed warming . Since 1978, solar irradiance has been measured directly from satellites and
shows the well-known eleven-year solar cycle, but no trend. There are various estimates of solar
variability before this time, based on sunspot numbers, solar cycle length, the geomagnetic AA
index, neutron monitor data, and, carbon-14 data. These indicate that solar activity probably
increased somewhat up to 1940. While there is disagreement about the variation in previous
centuries, different authors agree that solar activity did not significantly increase during the last
sixty-five years. Therefore, this cannot explain the warming, and neither can any of the other
factors mentioned. Models driven by natural factors only, leaving the anthropogenic forcing aside,
show a cooling in the second half of the twentieth century (for an example, See figure 2-2, panel
a, in chapter 2 of this volume). The trend in the sum of natural forcings is downward.The only way
out would be either some as yet undiscovered unknown forcing or a warming trend that arises by
chance from an unforced internal variability in the climate system. The latter cannot be
completely ruled out, but has to be considered highly unlikely. No evidence in the observed
record, proxy data, or current models suggest that such internal variability could cause a
sustained trend of global warming of the observed magnitude. As discussed, twentieth century
warming is unprecedented over the past 1,000 years (or even 2,000 years, as the few longer
reconstructions available now suggest), which does not 'support the idea of large internal
fluctuations. Also, those past variations correlate well with past forcing (solar variability, volcanic
activity) and thus appear to be largely forced rather than due to unforced internal variability."
And indeed, it would be difficult for a large and sustained unforced variability to satisfy the
fundamental physical law of energy conservation. Natural internal variability generally shifts heat
around different parts of the climate system-for example, the large El Nino event of 1998, which
warmed, the atmosphere by releasing heat stored in the ocean. This mechanism implies that the
ocean heat content drops as the atmosphere warms. For past decades, as discussed, we observed
the atmosphere warming and the ocean heat content increasing, which rules out heat release
from the ocean as a cause of surface warming. The heat content of the whole climate system is
increasing, and there is no plausible source of this heat other than the heat trapped by
greenhouse gases. ' A completely different approach to attribution is to analyze the spatial
patterns of climate change. This is done in so-called fingerprint studies, which associate particular
patterns or "fingerprints" with different forcings. It is plausible that the pattern of a solar-forced
climate change differs from the pattern of a change caused by greenhouse gases. For example, a
characteristic of greenhouse gases is that heat is trapped closer to the Earth's surface and that,
unlike solar variability, greenhouse gases tend to warm more in winter, and at night. Such studies
have used different data sets and have been performed by different groups of researchers with
different statistical methods. They consistently conclude that the observed spatial pattern of
warming can only be explained by greenhouse gases.49 Overall, it has to be considered, highly
likely' that the observed warming is indeed predominantly due to the human-caused increase in
greenhouse gases. ' This paper discussed the evidence for the anthropogenic increase in
atmospheric CO2 concentration and the effect of CO2 on climate, finding that this anthropogenic
increase is proven beyond reasonable doubt and that a mass of evidence points to a CO2 effect
on climate of 3C ± 1.59C global-warming for a doubling of concentration. (This is, the classic IPCC
range; my personal assessment is that, in-the light of new studies since the IPCC Third Assessment
Report, the uncertainty range can now be narrowed somewhat to 3°C ± 1.0C) This is based on
consistent results from theory, models, and data analysis, and, even in the absence-of any
computer models, the same result would still hold based on physics and on data from climate
history alone. Considering the plethora of consistent evidence, the chance that these conclusions
are wrong has to be considered minute. If the preceding is accepted, then it follows logically and
incontrovertibly that a further increase in CO2 concentration will lead to further warming. The
magnitude of our emissions depends on human behavior, but the climatic response to various
emissions scenarios can be computed from the information presented here. The result is the
famous range of future global temperature scenarios shown in figure 3_6.50 Two additional steps
are involved in these computations: the consideration of anthropogenic forcings other than CO2
(for example, other greenhouse gases and aerosols) and the computation of concentrations from
the emissions. Other gases are not discussed here, although they are important to get
quantitatively accurate results. CO2 is the largest and most important forcing. Concerning
concentrations, the scenarios shown basically assume that ocean and biosphere take up a similar
share of our emitted CO2 as in the past. This could turn out to be an optimistic assumption; some
models indicate the possibility of a positive feedback, with the biosphere turning into a carbon
source rather than a sink under growing climatic stress. It is clear that even in the more optimistic
of the shown (non-mitigation) scenarios, global temperature would rise by 2-3°C above its
preindustrial level by the end of this century. Even for a paleoclimatologist like myself, this is an
extraordinarily high temperature, which is very likely unprecedented in at least the past 100,000
years. As far as the data show, we would have to go back about 3 million years, to the Pliocene,
for comparable temperatures. The rate of this warming (which is important for the ability of
ecosystems to cope) is also highly unusual and unprecedented probably for an even longer time.
The last major global warming trend occurred when the last great Ice Age ended between 15,000
and 10,000 years ago: this was a warming of about 5°C over 5,000 years, that is, a rate of only 0.1
°C per century. 52 The expected magnitude and rate of planetary warming is highly likely to come
with major risk and impacts in terms of sea level rise (Pliocene sea level was 25-35 meters higher
than now due to smaller Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets), extreme events (for example,
hurricane activity is expected to increase in a warmer climate), and ecosystem loss. The second
part of this paper examined the evidence for the current warming of the planet and discussed
what is known about its causes. This part showed that global warming is already a measured andwell-established fact, not a theory. Many different lines of evidence consistently show that most
of the observed warming of the past fifty years was caused by human activity. Above all, this
warming is exactly what would be expected given the anthropogenic rise in greenhouse gases,
and no viable alternative explanation for this warming has been proposed in the scientific
literature. Taken together., the very strong evidence accumulated from thousands of independent
studies, has over the past decades convinced virtually every climatologist around the world (many
of whom were initially quite skeptical, including myself) that anthropogenic global warming is a
reality with which we need to deal.
2NC Not Inevitable
Not inevitable – even if temporarily over the tipping point, can be brought
back down
Dyer 9 – PhD in ME History
Gwynne, MA in Military History and PhD in Middle Eastern History former @ Senior Lecturer in War
Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, Climate Wars
There is no need to despair. The slow-feedback effects take a long time to work their way
through the climate system, and if we could manage to get the carbon dioxide concentration
back down to a safe level before they have run their course, they might be stopped in their
tracks. As Hansen et al. put it in their paper: A point of no return can be avoided, even if the
tipping level [which puts us on course for an ice-free world] is temporarily exceeded. Ocean and
ice-sheet inertia permit overshoot, provided the [concentration of carbon dioxide] is returned
below the tipping level before initiating irreversible dynamic change .... However, if overshoot is
in place for centuries, the thermal perturbation will so penetrate the ocean that recovery without
dramatic effects, such as ice-sheet disintegration, becomes unlikely. The real, long-term target is
350 parts per million or lower, if we want the Holocene to last into the indefinite future, but for
the remainder of this book I am going to revert to the 450 parts per million ceiling that has
become common currency among most of those who are involved in climate change issues. If we
manage to stop the rise in the carbon dioxide concentration at or not far beyond that figure,
then we must immediately begin the equally urgent and arduous task of getting it back down to
a much lower level that is safe for the long term, but one step at a time will have to suffice. I
suspect that few now alive will see the day when we seriously start work on bringing the concentration back down to 350, so let us focus here on how to stop it rising past 450.
2NC AT Dimming
Warming outweighs dimming
Reynolds 10 – PhD in Atmospheric Sciences
Michael, PhD in Atmospheric Sciences, “Report from the On-board Scientist: Aerosols, Volcanoes and
Global Dimming,” http://www.aroundtheamericas.org/log/report-from-the-on-board-scientist-aerosolsvolcanoes-and-global-dimming/
On the other hand, aerosols can add heat to the atmosphere which partially offsets the cooling
effect. As the Earth heats up from the sun, it radiates heat back to space. Aerosols absorb some of
the heat radiation and reduce the amount of heat radiation escaping out to space. This is the
same heat-blocking effect attributed to greenhouse gasses, and in this way aerosols can have a
heating effect on global climate. Nevertheless, the net effect of aerosols is to reduce the rate of
global warming from greenhouse gasses. Does this mean we should all go build fires and drive
our cars? No, because the offset that aerosols make on all of all these activities is smaller than
the impact those activities make on global warming. Models and data now show that aerosols
reduce the increase in global temperature by a factor of approximately 50% (there is uncertainty
in the actual amount). So, they slow down the process but do not stop it. And they create
pollution and effect health at the same time
**Biodiversity Turns
2NC Yes Spillover
Species loss spillovers over to ecosystems and total biodiversity
Gitay et al in ‘1
Habiba Gitay et al., Climate Change 2001: Workin Group II: Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation, Chapter
5: Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services, www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/TARchap5.pdf, p.
277-278]
Other valuable services are provided by species that contribute to ecosystem health and
productivity. Reductions in or losses of species can lead to reduced local biodiversity and
changes in the structure and function of affected ecosystems (National Research Council, 1999).
The most well-known example of this kind of effect comes from marine systems, where the
presence or absence of a starfish species has been found to greatly influence the species
composition of intertidal habitats (Paine, 1974). Species in terrestrial systems also can have a
strong influence on the biodiversity of their ecosystems; in many cases these effects are related
to their functions as pollinators or seed dispersers.
2NC Each Species Key
Each species loss takes on more importance and causes total collapse.
Norton in ‘87
Bryan Norton, Center for Public Policy at the university of Maryland, “Why Preserve Natural Variety?”. p.
27
When the premise that diminutions in diversity create further such diminutions, is
supplemented by the premise that the downward diversity spiral is already accelerating at an
alarming rate, each species takes on an added value. Each species that is lost carries with it the
risk of a catastrophic ecosystem breakdown and increases the risk that the next loss will result
in such a breakdown
2NC AT Resilient
Err aff- policies should not risk species- redundancy is key to ensure
resiliency in the long run
Ehrlich 98
Paul Ehrlich, Professor, Population Studies at Stanford Univ. 1998. Bioscience, n. 5 v. 48, p. 387.
Academic Onefile
The rivet-popper hypothesis recognizes that there is likely to be redundancy in ecosystems
analogous to the redundancy in the number of rivets in an airplane's wing. This analogy is
sometimes interpreted to mean that "all species are equally vital strands in the web of life"
(Budiansky 1995) - a 180-degree misinterpretation because the original formulation explicitly
recognizes the existence of redundancy but emphasizes our ignorance of which species might be
redundant. The redundancy hypothesis points out that because ecosystems are composed of
functional groups of species, the deletion of a species would, in many cases, have no immediate
significant impact on ecosystem function. In addition, because some species are "drivers" and
others "passengers," extermination of a species would not necessarily produce observable
negative impacts on the delivery of ecosystem services. But the other side of this coin (and one
that is overlooked in misinterpretations of the hypothesis) is that the redundancy is likely to be
important in the long run , in the face of ecosystem stresses (such as global change). Moreover,
not all apparently redundant species are passengers. A "redundant" species in a functional group
that is exterminated today might well be the only species in that group that is able to adapt to
new environmental conditions imposed on the ecosystem. The redundancy hypothesis explicitly
made two particular points. First, species redundancy in ecosystems is an important property that
contributes to ecosystem resilience. Second, in efforts devoted to species conservation, it makes
sense to put the highest priority on those species that are the sole representatives of their
functional groups - that is, on groups in which there is no redundancy. But just because some
functional groups consist of single species that warrant special attention, it does not follow that
where there is significant redundancy in a functional group we can afford to lose some of the
species. Such a policy would lead to loss of resilience . The essential message of both the
redundancy and rivet-popper hypotheses is that we force species and populations (Hughes et al.
1997) to extinction at our own peril. Humanity is utterly dependent on services delivered by
ecosystems (Daily 1997). Considering the uncertainties and complexities in the relationships
between biodiversity and ecosystem services, policy decisions should have a large "insurance"
bias toward protection of biodiversity - and therefore especially toward functional groups in
which there is little or no redundancy. A policy of trying to increase or at least to maintain
"redundancy" in ecosystems will maximize the maintenance of ecosystem resilience.
Critique Links
Development/Indigenous Rights
OCS exploration leads to population and development of northern indigenous
areas resulting in a conflict between the interests of the people and the
corporation and government
Susskind and Wanucha 6/18/14 Lawrence Susskind, the Ford Professor of Urban and
Environmental Planning at MIT, director of the MIT Science Impact Collaborative, and vice chair of the
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, specializes in environmental policy and resolution of
water conflicts; interviewed by Genevieve Wanucha writer for Oceans at MIT, MIT News 6/18/14
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cold-hard-truth-about-arctic-policy JDI14 PBM
With the thinning and elimination of Arctic ice, there will be new efforts to make navigation options open to more countries, across the top of
Russia. There
will be more access to search for oil and gas, exploit it, and ship it. Once there is more
navigation and more focus on oil and gas exploration, there will be a push to populate more of those
areas for development purposes . When that happens, there will be a conflict with native cultures in
Canada, the United States, Russia, Finland, and Norway that have been there for a very long time.
There will be jurisdictional battles about whose rules apply to managing and protecting natural
resources, including fisheries and mammalian life. Who gets to decide what routes are open to whom,
where oil and gas exploration might be restricted, where base camps get built, and how the
sovereignty of indigenous peoples will be protected?
Arctic countries don’t think about and talk to the communities which are
endangered – protection will fall by the wayside
Susskind and Wanucha 6/18/14 Lawrence Susskind, the Ford Professor of Urban and
Environmental Planning at MIT, director of the MIT Science Impact Collaborative, and vice chair of the
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, specializes in environmental policy and resolution of
water conflicts; interviewed by Genevieve Wanucha writer for Oceans at MIT, MIT News 6/18/14
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cold-hard-truth-about-arctic-policy JDI14 PBM
A. There are hundreds of Inuit and other indigenous communities in the Arctic. Unfortunately, leaders of
the Arctic Council countries have not been talking to these communities about how they are thinking
of parceling out the Arctic . There are important agreements that are supposed to protect the rights of
indigenous peoples, guaranteeing them free, prior, informed consent, but these are not being honored
at the moment .¶ For example, the seal trade is very important to indigenous groups in Finland, Norway,
and Greenland. The World Trade Organization bans the commercial trade of seal products, although
the WTO does make an exception for seals caught by indigenous groups. What if an indigenous nation
contracts with someone to catch seals? How will WTO rules play out?
The prize-seeking attitude of the plan destroys indigenous populations
Schertow 11 (John Ahni Schertow - an internationally recognized editor and publisher, a self-taught
web developer and an award winning journalist of Kanienkehaka and mixed-European descent, “OIL
DRILLING THREATENS ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM; INDIGENOUS WAYS OF LIFE”, Intercontinental Cry Magazine,
8/19/2011)
The final frontier. Now that Shell and BP are mere steps away from drilling exploratory wells off the
Coast of Alaska and Russia, everyone’s playfully referring to the Arctic as the “final frontier” for
petroleum development. The notion of the Arctic being “undeveloped” or “undiscovered” probably
couldn’t be more insulting to the Inupiat, Saami and other Indigenous Peoples whose cultures and
subsistence ways of life evolved over centuries of living in the Arctic Circle. Few people seem to be
considering that fact, or even including Arctic Peoples in any debate over whether or not drilling
should be allowed to proceed. You can be sure that Shell and BP are glad of it, especially since their
actions may be setting the stage for the destruction of the Arctic way of life. In the case of Alaska, Shell
is hoping to get started in July 2012, with four exploratory wells in the Beaufort Sea. The company has
already spent more than $3.5 billion to acquire leases in both the Beaufort and Chukchi. It’s all worth it,
says Pete Slaiby, vice president of Shell Alaska. After all, “There is a prize over there.” According to the
Washington Post, that so-called “prize” is 26.6 billion barrels of oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural
gas in the Alaska outer continental shelf. The risks that come with the prize are even greater, despite
Shell’s “unprecedented spill response and cleanup plan for the Beaufort and Chukchi operations,
including having cleanup crew and gear close enough to the drilling site that it could all be deployed in
less than an hour,” as the Alaska Dispatch notes.
Arctic oil drilling risks destruction of indigenous cultures
Schertow 11 (John Ahni Schertow - an internationally recognized editor and publisher, a self-taught
web developer and an award winning journalist of Kanienkehaka and mixed-European descent, “OIL
DRILLING THREATENS ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM; INDIGENOUS WAYS OF LIFE”, Intercontinental Cry Magazine,
8/19/2011)
A new coalition made up of more than a dozen conservation groups say the plan just isn’t good enough.
As the coalition points out on their website,”A major oil spill in the Arctic Ocean would be impossible
to clean up and could have enormous consequences for the region’s communities and ecosystems.
During the winter months, the Arctic seas are covered with ice and are not navigable by oil spill
response ships. If a spill started as winter ice sets in, the oil could continue to gush into the sea and
under the ice for eight long months.” The coalition, which includes the Alaska Wilderness League, NRDC,
Greenpeace, Oceana, and Defenders of Wildlife adds, “[a] cleanup in the Arctic would be hampered by
sea ice, extreme cold, hurricane-strength storms and pervasive fog. The nearest Coast Guard facilities
are nearly 1,000 miles away, and there is no port in the Arctic capable of serving large response vessels.”
To demonstrate the first point–how a cleanup would be hampered by sea ice, last month, Oceana
released the video results of an oil spill response test from 2000. The results show what could occur if an
oil spill happened in the Arctic waters. The Coast Guard has issued its own warning against drilling,
saying it wouldn’t stand a chance of cleaning up a spill if Shell’s response plan should fail. “If this were to
happen off the North Slope of Alaska, we’d have nothing, ” Admiral Robert Papp, the Coast Guard’s top
official, told the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, earlier this year. The
Admiral went on to say, “We’re starting from ground zero today.” A zero point detonation isn’t so far
fetched. With climate change heating the Arctic at an ever-increasing rate, an oil spill could have a
drastic effect on the ecosystem as well as the Indigenous Peoples whose cultures and livelihoods are
intertwined with it. “REDOIL, Resisting Environmental Destruction on Indigenous Lands, is in opposition
to the exploration activities of Shell Oil which have been approved by BOEMRE [The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement], says Robert Thompson, an Inupiat resident of
Kaktovik and the Chairman of REDOIL. “The Inupiat culture has thrived for thousands of years. We have
a close relationship with the bowhead whales and marine life of our region. Climate change is
happening. The proposed activities, which lack a credible plan to deal with oil spills, if allowed, can
have a devastating effect on our already stressed ecosystem. Our ecosystem and culture should not be
put in jeopardy for the profit of a foreign oil giant.” The risks are just as great in the South Kara Sea, off
the coast of Arctic Russia. BP and the Russian state company Rosneft are jumping head over heals to
explore for oil and gas beneath the Kara Sea, an important fishing ground that’s normally frozen up to
ten months a year. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), another member of the NGO coalition,
the proposed joint effort violates the boundaries of two Russian national parks.
Our chase for oil causes the periphery to be compromised – environment and
indigenous populations
Schertow 11 (John Ahni Schertow - an internationally recognized editor and publisher, a self-taught
web developer and an award winning journalist of Kanienkehaka and mixed-European descent, “OIL
DRILLING THREATENS ARCTIC ECOSYSTEM; INDIGENOUS WAYS OF LIFE”, Intercontinental Cry Magazine,
8/19/2011)
“Surely we are not so desperate for oil that we will tear down the boundaries of protected areas to
get it,” Aleksey Knizhnikov of WWF-Russia said in a statement. “These protected areas are now in peril.
The natural values they were set up to protect — pristine ecosystems, the seabirds, the polar bears, the
marine mammals — are in jeopardy,” he added. To the Saami, the plan is bitter a reminder of a dark
colonial past. As NPR recently observed, “The northwest, around the port city of Murmansk, was
pummeled by Adolf Hitler’s forces during World War II. The Arctic was also one of Soviet dictator Josef
Stalin’s favorite places to send his perceived enemies, with gulags that dotted the snowy landscape…
The indigenous people of this region bore much of the brunt.” Even though they were forcibly
collectivized under Stalin’s reign, the Saami have lived in relative peace for several decades, continuing
their traditional way of life across Sápmi, a region that now encompasses northern Sweden, Norway,
Finland, and the Kola Peninsula of Russia’s northwest. But that’s all changing now, thanks to the
worldwide race for oil and gas (drilling is also being proposed in the nearby Barents Sea and the North
Sea off the coasts of Norway, Great Britain, Scandinavia, Belgium, and the Netherlands), not to mention
Climate Change, the rise in military tension and that problem with nuclear waste in the Kara sea, right
where Rosneft and BP want to drill. “The Arctic is just so fragile,” says Saami spiritual leader Nadezhda
Lyashenko. “This time, it’s a research boat going out there. It’s like the prick of a needle, and the land
will heal. But if they go with knives, with spears, they could break everything. And then what?”
Hopefully, we won’t have to find that out.
Neolib Links
Nuttall 98 (Mark Nuttall – Professor of Anthropology at the University of Alberta, “Protecting the
Arctic: Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Survival”, Taylor and Francis, 1998)
In recent years concern over global warming, atmospheric pollution, ozone depletion, overfishing and
uncontrolled resource extraction has focused international attention on the Arctic as a critical zone for
global environmental change. The global quest for natural resources, the expansion of capitalist
markets and the influence of transnational practices on the periphery has resulted in an
internationalization of the circumpolar north. The anthropogenic causes and consequences of
environmental change and degradation demonstrates how regional environmental change in the Arctic
cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be seen in relation to global change and global processes.
Development and the threat of irreversible environmental damage has precipitated intense debate
about the correct use of natural resources and proper ways forward for Arctic environmental protection.
Indigenous peoples’ organizations, environmentalists and, more recently, national governments, have
stressed the need to implement appropriate resource management policies and environmental
protection strategies. Yet science-based resource management systems designed to safeguard wildlife
and the Arctic environment have, for the most part, ignored indigenous perspectives.
Politics Links
OCS Drilling Links
Plan destroys political capital
Hobson 4/18 Margaret is a writer for E&E Publishing. “OFFSHORE DRILLING: Obama's development
plans gain little political traction in years since Gulf spill,” 2012,
http://www.eenews.net/public/energywire/2012/04/18/1
President Obama is embracing the offshore oil and gas development policies he proposed in early 2010 but were sidelined in the shadow of the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill.¶ Two years after the BP PLC oil rig exploded, killing 11 people and causing the worst oil spill in U.S. history, Obama's "all of the above" energy policy includes
offshore drilling provisions that are nearly identical to his aggressive March 2010 drilling plan.¶ Since the moratorium on offshore oil drilling ended in late 2010, the administration expanded
oil and gas development in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and announced plans for lease sales in the eastern Gulf. The White House appears poised to allow Royal Dutch Shell PLC to
begin exploring for oil this summer in Alaska's Beaufort and Chukchi seas and to open oil industry access to the Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. The administration is also paving the way for oil
and gas seismic studies along the mid- and south Atlantic coasts, the first such survey in 30 years.¶ While opening more offshore lands to oil and gas development, the Obama administration
has also taken steps to make offshore oil drilling safer, according to a report card issued yesterday by Oil Spill Commission Action, an oversight panel formed by seven members of President
Obama's oil spill commission.¶ That report criticized Congress for failing to adopt new oil spill safety laws but praised the Interior Department and industry for making progress in improving
offshore oil development safety, environmental protection and oil spill preparation.¶ An environmental group was less complimentary. A report yesterday by Oceana charged that the
measures adopted by government and industry are "woefully inadequate."¶ As the 2012 presidential campaign heats up and gasoline prices remain stuck near $4 per gallon,
Obama's
offshore oil development policies aren't winning him any political capital. The environmental
community hates the drilling proposals. The Republicans and oil industry officials complain that the
White House hasn't gone far enough. And independent voters are confused by the president's
rhetoric.
Expanded OCS leasing controversial
Humphries et al '12
Marc, Analyst in Energy Policy, Robert Pirog¶ Specialist in Energy Economics¶ Gene Whitney¶ Section
Research Manager, Congressional Research Service, "U.S. Offshore Oil and Gas Resources:¶ Prospects
and Processes," 2/10/12 ¶ http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R40645_20120210.pdfAD 8/18/12
Access to potential oil and gas resources under the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) continues¶
to be controversial. Moratoria on leasing and development in certain areas were largely¶
eliminated in 2008 and 2009, although a few areas remain legislatively off limits to leasing. The¶
112th Congress may be unlikely to reinstate broad leasing moratoria, but some Members have¶
expressed interest in protecting areas (e.g., the Georges Bank or Northern California) or¶
establishing protective coastal buffers. Pressure to expand oil and gas supplies and protect
coastal¶ environments and communities will likely lead Congress and the Administration to
consider¶ carefully which areas to keep open to leasing and which to protect from development.
Offshore drilling costs political capital
Broder et al ‘10
John M., Environmental Reporter for the New York Times, “Risk Is Clear In Drilling; Payoff Isn't.”, EBSCO
Host
WASHINGTON -- In proposing a major expansion of offshore oil and gas development, President
Obama set out to fashion a carefully balanced plan that would attract bipartisan support for
climate and energy legislation while increasing production of domestic oil.¶ It is not clear that the
plan announced Wednesday will do either.¶ While the oil industry, business groups and some
Republicans offered muted support for the proposal, most environmental groups denounced it.
And the senators whose support Mr. Obama is courting for highly contentious climate and energy
legislation to be introduced in the coming weeks gave decidedly mixed reactions: For every
senator who praised it as at least a partial answer to the nation's energy needs, another raised
alarms about befouled beaches and continued dependence on fossil fuels.¶ Even Mr. Obama
sounded somewhat torn in announcing a drilling plan that would open large tracts of the Atlantic
coast, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and Arctic waters off Alaska to oil exploration and eventual
drilling.¶ ''This is not a decision I've made lightly,'' he said as he stood at Andrews Air Force base in
Maryland on Wednesday near an Air Force fighter converted to burn renewable biofuels.¶ ''There
will be those who strongly disagree with this decision, including those who say we should not
open any new areas to drilling,'' Mr. Obama said. ''But what I want to emphasize is that this
announcement is part of a broader strategy that will move us from an economy that runs on fossil
fuels and foreign oil to one that relies more on homegrown fuels and clean energy.''¶ Mr. Obama's
plan, delicately pieced together by the Interior Department with White House input, carved out a
large coastal buffer zone in the eastern gulf to mollify Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, an
opponent of drilling there. It also included continued access to the oil fields off the North Slope of
Alaska to win the support of Alaska Senators Mark Begich, a Democrat, and Lisa Murkowski, a
Republican.¶ Most New England officials, including Maine's two Republican Senators, Olympia
Snowe and Susan Collins, are considered swing votes on energy legislation. They strongly oppose
offshore drilling, and the North Atlantic was exempted. And because there is almost no support
for drilling and there is little recoverable oil off the Pacific Coast, the whole area was declared off
limits, said Ken Salazar, the interior secretary.¶ But by opening the mid-Atlantic region, from
Delaware south to Central Florida, for oil exploration, Mr. Obama angered New Jersey's two
Democratic senators, Frank Lautenberg and Robert Menendez, who have been generally
supportive of Mr. Obama's push for climate legislation.¶ Mr. Menendez issued a strong statement
Wednesday, saying, ''I have let the administration know that if they do not protect New Jersey
from the effects of coastal drilling in the climate change bill, then my vote is in question.''¶ Mr.
Begich of Alaska is among those undecided on climate legislation, waiting to see what would be
done on offshore oil drilling, among other issues. He supports exploration in the Arctic under
appropriate safeguards. He said the Obama plan was helpful, but not enough to win his support.¶
''It's not a perfect deal, but it's better than nothing,'' Mr. Begich said, adding that there is no
provision for the states to share in the revenues from lease sales and royalties. ''It helps move us
down the path.''¶ If the political capital to be gained from the proposal seemed uncertain, so
did the potential for vast oil supplies to reduce dependence on foreign imports.
Opposition and concern over off shore drilling
Vanessa Vick 12
March 5, 2012 Vick is a writer/reporter for the New York Times Offshore Drilling and Exploration New
York Times
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/o/offshore_drilling_and_exploration/ind
ex.html
The loss of life and the looming ecological catastrophe from the BP disaster have piled political
complications onto the push for energy and climate change legislation. The bill’s sponsors rewrote
the section on offshore oil drilling to reflect mounting concern over the gulf oil spill, raising new
hurdles for any future drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts while allowing it to proceed off
Louisiana, Texas and Alaska. But the Senate plan still faces uncertain prospects. As political ripples
spread, six West Coast senators proposed a permanent ban on drilling in the Pacific and another
group tried to raise oil company liability in a spill to $10 billion from the current $75 million.
Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a strong proponent of offshore drilling, blocked their bill, saying
it would discourage all oil exploration. Ms. Murkowski is sponsoring a separate bill to raise oil
taxes by a penny a barrel to increase the federal spill response fund. Since 2001, there have been
858 fires and explosions, 1,349 injuries and 69 deaths in the Gulf of Mexico. The current leak
revived memories of the huge 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara that galvanized
opposition to offshore drilling.
Natural Gas Links
Bipartisan support for natural gas policy impossible—environmental lobby
key to support
Weinstein 12
Bernard L., Associate Director, Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University and George
W. Bush Institute Fellow, Bipartisanship Elusive Without Realism, August 13, 2012,
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2012/08/finding-the-sweet-spot-biparti.php
But though America is "energy rich," we behave as though we're "energy poor." The Obama
administration pays lip service to an "all of the above" energy strategy, but in practice it remains
hostage to the "anti-carbon, anti-nuclear" environmentalists who aren't swayed by the fact that
natural gas emits 50 percent less greenhouse gas than coal and that nuclear energy has a zero
carbon footprint. They remain convinced that if they can kill the Keystone XL pipeline they'll be
able to stymie development of the Alberta oil sands. These true believers continue to argue that
America can provide for all of its future energy needs through a combination of renewables,
efficiency, and conservation. This is sheer nonsense.¶ We will never have bipartisan support for a
sensible, comprehensive domestic energy policy until realism and fact can supersede ideology
and fiction. Unfortunately, that's not likely to happen in the foreseeable future.
Natural gas development controversial
Stewart ‘12
Frank, President and COO of the American Association of Blacks in Energy, The Huffington Post, “Natural
Gas’ Role in the 2012 Election Cycle”, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-stewart/natural-gas-rolein-2012-_b_1231499.html
Election year politics have a way of adulterating the more important issues facing the country,
even those issues that would seem to transcend the ideological divide. Take, for example, natural
gas development, an issue that genuinely deserves a serious discussion because of its enormous
potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to provide a viable alternative to imported oil, and
to invigorate our struggling economy. Abundant and cleaner burning natural gas emits nearly 30%
less carbon dioxide than oil, and almost 45% less carbon dioxide than coal. The development of
our domestic natural gas has the ability to create new high-paying jobs at a time when job
creation is America's top priority. What's clear is that natural gas could be transformative on
many fronts. So in 2012 can we expect the polarizing attitudes and hyperbolic rhetoric to be set
aside for pragmatic solutions when it comes to natural gas policy? Don't count on it. It appears
reason has already been taken hostage this election year, replaced with sound bites and scare
tactics from those who appear to prefer rhetoric over reason. A lot of this bombast and
misinformation has been aimed at hydraulic fracturing, commonly referred to as "fracking," the
technique used to extract natural gas. The process uses high pressure to inject water, sand, and a
small amount of additives deep below the Earth's surface allowing the gas to be released from
rock.
Oil Links
Domestic oil and gas are highly partisan and unpopular
Stricherz 6/24
Mark, Reporter, The Colorado Observer, “House Approves Gardner Energy Bill Despite Obama
Opposition”, http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/06/house-approves-gardner-energy-bill-despiteobama-opposition/
WASHINGTON – The House of Representatives approved legislation Thursday that seeks to boost
domestic oil production by cutting federal red tape, spurring a partisan-fueled debate as to
whether increasing the number of oil leases is more likely to create new jobs or harm the
environment. Rep. Cory Gardner (R-Yuma) cast the Strategic Energy Production Act of 2012 (H.R.
4480) as a common-sense effort to produce more oil and gas at home rather than abroad. “These
bipartisan pieces of legislation make sure that we move forward on oil and gas development in
the western United States and on federal lands, and that we take steps to ensure our nation relies
on American-made energy, provided by American jobs,” he said in a statement. When House
Republicans introduced parts of the bill this spring, they emphasized that their measures would
reduce gasoline prices, which had soared to more than $4.00 a gallon in many parts of the
country. Now proponents also emphasize the bill’s job-creating possibilities after gas prices
dipped and the nation’s jobless rate remained at more than 8 percent. “I think the stress is more
on jobs,” Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado Springs) said in an interview after the vote. “Gas prices
are more dependent on global market exchanges.” Each of Colorado’s four House Republicans
sponsored a measure that was included in the legislation. Gardner’s provision would link a
decrease in the nation’s emergency oil reserves to an increase in the number of oil leases
permitted on federal lands. Rep. Scott Tipton’s (R-Cortez) bill would require the Secretary of
Interior to set up goals for federal land energy production from all energy sources, while Rep.
Lamborn’s would streamline and reform the federal process for energy permits on federal lands
once a lease is in hand. Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Lone Tree)’s provision would direct the federal
government to make available at least one-quarter of the federal lands open for leasing for which
companies are interested in developing. The bill passed on a 248-to-163 vote. Its supporters and
opponents were divided mainly by partisan affiliation, but also by region. Two-hundred-twenty
nine House Republicans joined 19 House Democrats, most of who represent rural districts in red
states, in voting for the bill. One-hundred-fifty eight House Democrats joined five House
Republicans, most of who represent suburban and urban districts in blue states, in opposing it.
Each of Colorado’s three House Democrats voted against the bill. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Denver),
a member of the House Energy Committee, said in a statement that Republicans’ economic claims
about the legislation were overblown, citing figures from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and
environmental and scientific organizations. “I’m disappointed to see that, once again, my
colleagues across the aisle are more concerned about protecting the oil industry than they are
about creating jobs and keeping our families safe and healthy. Since 2008, fewer than 14,000 oil
and gas extraction jobs have been created despite the fact that production continues to climb,
while the same period has seen almost four times as many jobs created in the wind and solar
industries.” Gardner urged the U.S. Senate to approve the legislation, but the Democratcontrolled upper chamber is unlikely to do so. The Obama administration issued a statement
Tuesday in strong opposition to the bill, saying the measure would undermine domestic energy
production and clean-air safety. The statement added that President Obama would veto the bill.
Counterplans
Trilateral CP Solvency
Trilateral solves
Higgenbotham and Grosu May 14 John Higgenbotham, senior fellow at the Centre for
International Governance Innovation and Carleton University, and Martina Grosu master’s graduate in
international public policy of Wilfrid Laurier University’s School of International Policy and Governance
“The Northwest Territories and Arctic Maritime Development in the Beaufort Area” May 2014 CIGI
Policy Brief http://arcticjournal.com/sites/arcticjournal.com/files/cigi_pb_40.pdf JDI14 LabBKG
Special attention should be given to bilateral and trilateral cooperation with the United States and, as circumstances permit,
Russia. Canada, as well as the United States, could benefit from pragmatic cooperation with Russia ,
the Arctic maritime superpower. Russia is steadily developing her Arctic by carrying out major
infrastructure projects, building ports, acquiring icebreakers and other ice-capable vessels for military
and commercial purposes, as well as re-opening Soviet era military and search and rescue bases along its NSR. In addition to working
through multilateral fora, Russia is also interested in bilateral and regional cooperation, particularly
with Arctic countries that have similar views and interests. Attempts should be made to preserve
practical bilateral and multilateral Arctic cooperation with Russia and shelter it from political infection from other
parts of an increasingly difficult relationship. Attending, contributing to and supporting the Arctic Council and, in
particular, its working-level groups and taskforces that are doing useful joint work on important Arctic
climate, environment and sustainable development issues will be more important than ever. Closer
cooperation among Canadian, American, Russian and other coast guards, for example, will provide
Arctic countries with an innovative opportunity to undertake practical cooperation in key Arctic areas,
such as search and rescue, traffic management, and oil spill mitigation and response. This would
operationalize Arctic Council agreements in these fields
Alaska CP
Alaska able to export LNG, USFG not needed
Street 14 The author is the co-host of the Agenda 21 Radio Show and will be teaching microeconomics
at University of California, Irvine this spring, February 19, 2014, “All-Alaska Gas Pipeline Will Spike
America's Energy Boom”, http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/allalaska_gas_pipeline_will_spike_americas_energy_boom.html
America's energy boom is about to take another huge leap forward as the State of Alaska is on the verge of approving the
$50 billion All-Alaskan Gas Pipeline (AAGP). The massive project will transport "stranded" North Slope
natural gas south down the Kenai Peninsula to a new port built to export Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) to Asian
markets. The project expects to gain the State Legislature's approval in 60 days, finish planning and begin six years of construction in 2018.
Despite drilling on U.S. federal land shrinking every year since 2008, individual states are aggressively
partnering with the private sector to build intra-state energy projects that do not cross any foreign borders and are
thus exempt from the type of presidential approval requirements that stopped the Keystone XL Pipeline. AAGP will have spectacularly positive
economic impacts on Alaskan citizens and cut America's trade deficit by up to $24 billion a year.
Bond Exemption CP
1NC Oil Drilling
Counterplan Text: The United States federal government should exempt companies that
agree to post bond requirements four times the current limit from restrictions on oil
production on federal lands.
Current policy ensures risky action because of loopholes but bonding makes safety economically
salient and solves accidents better if they occur
Nath 11 (Ishan, consultant, MA economics for development at Oxford, “ECONOMISTS’ PERSPECTIVES
ON LIABILITY CAPS AND INSURANCE FOR THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY IN THE WAKE OF THE
MACONDO BLOWOUT” National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore
Drilling, 3/11)
Basic economic theory posits that holding firms liable only works when they actually have the assets to pay the
costs. If a firm goes bankrupt and is shielded from the full cost of damages, their liability is essentially
limited and prevents them from having the proper incentive to invest in safety. Furthermore, absent taxpayer
contribution, compensation will not be available for victims of an accident. While it appears BP will be big enough to bear the full costs of the
Deepwater Horizon accident after they waived the liability cap, that would not have been the case with a smaller firm. Thus, unlimited
liability actually creates a strong advantage for smaller firms who do not have to worry about
damages they cannot pay. This also creates, as Sweeney puts it, “incentive for corporations to spin-off separate
companies that will be doing the riskier things.” Greenstone describes the problem further and proposes a set of possible
solutions: There are a series of corporate reorganizations that firms could take to evade a higher cap. This
might include dividing themselves into smaller entities and making liberal use of bankruptcy statutes in the case of
a spill or the formation of limited partnerships. To prevent such practices, any increase in the cap should be accompanied by a
requirement for proof of liability insurance, a certificate of financial responsibility, or the posting of a bond to cover damages.43 A
financial responsibility requirement means firms must demonstrate the ability to pay for a certain amount of
potential damages, either through external or self insurance. The current requirement for offshore facilities is $150
million, which would have to be raised by orders of magnitude to ensure the ability to pay for an accident
resembling the Deepwater Horizon. 44 Mark Cohen, a Vanderbilt University law professor, does believe, however, that doing so would
effectively prevent the threat of firms creating small limited-liability entities to do drilling.45 A stronger
version of demonstrating financial liability would actually require drilling firms to post a bond before
drilling in offshore wells. Such a system would ensure the availability of funds to pay out damage claims in
the event of an accident, not only protecting potential spill victims from the risk of bankruptcy, but also serving to make safety far
more salient
to the company. As Wolak puts it: “That’s
quite salient to them. Instead of us trying to get money out of you, it’s
you trying to get money back from us.” In light of concerns that firms will not rationally account for the threat of low-probability, highconsequence events such as oil spills, this salience could be an important consequence of bonding. An additional benefit of bonding
requirements goes to victims who do not have to wait for court decisions to compel companies to pay for damages. Wolak says that “part of
putting this money in escrow is if you have [an accident], we
immediately have this money available to confiscate to do
whatever we want with.” Noll adds a description of further benefits So you can avoid the problem . . . [of] lots of people going out of
business – going into bankruptcy – who actually are probably eventually going to get paid, but the process is so slow they don’t get it [in time].
It would be a two-step process. It would not only be to create the fund, but have an advance plan of ‘how do I in two days get people down
there writing checks to avert short-term impacts that have arisen.’ I think that’s
a perfectly good way to reduce the human
cost of the disaster. The human cost referred to by Noll can be seen in victims of the Exxon Valdez disaster who waited nearly two
decades before receiving any compensation for that spill, clearly underscoring the importance of a bonding program.
Unsafe oil wrecks ecosystems – impact’s whales, oceans, groundwater withdrawal,
and soil erosion
NPC 11 – National Petroleum Council (“Operations and Environment,”
http://www.npc.org/reports/NARD/NARD_Ops-Environment.pdf)
Environmental Challenges Expanded potential of natural gas and oil resources has dramatically improved the North American energy supply
outlook. The increased use of natural gas is likely to reduce the overall carbon intensity of recoverable. Continuous attention to reducing risks is
essential to ensure pollution prevention, public and worker safety and health, and environmental protection. These are essential outcomes in
order to enjoy access to the resources for extraction and ultimate satisfaction of consumers’ energy demand. Due to the importance of these
issues, their influence on the study process has been significant.
Risk to the environment exists with natural gas and oil
development, as with any energy source. Local, state, and federal governments have developed a mix of prohibitions, regulations, and
scientific study to reduce potential environmental impacts of natural gas and oil development. Parties discussing energy policy can be missing a
common vocabulary and set of references to have a constructive conversation and make educated decisions. No form of energy comes without
impacts to the environment. An appropriate framework for discussing energy sources is necessary. Environmental challenges associated with
natural gas and oil development vary by location, such as onshore versus offshore, and by the methods employed to extract the resource.
Although each well involves drilling into the crust of the earth and constructing well casing using steel pipe and cement, differences arise from
the affected environment, resource type, regional and operating conditions, and proximity to environmental receptors. The public,
policymakers, and regulators have expressed the following environmental concerns about onshore operations: yyHydraulic Fracturing –
Consumption of freshwater (volumes and sources), treatment and disposal of produced water returned to the surface, seismic impacts,
chemical disclosure of fracture fluid additives, potential ground and surface water contamination, chemical and waste storage, and the volume
of truck traffic. yyWater Management – Produced water handling and disposal has created apprehension about existing water treatment
facilities and the ability to treat naturally occurring radioactive material, adjust salinity, and safely discharge effluent. yyLand Use Encroachment
– The encroachment into rural and urban areas results in perceived changes to quality of life, especially in newly developed or redeveloped
natural gas and oil areas. yyMethane Migration – Methane in domestic drinking water wells, either naturally occurring or from natural gas
development. yyAir Emissions – Emissions generated from combustion, leaks, or other fugitive emissions during the production and delivery of
natural gas and oil present challenges regarding climate change and human health impacts. Offshore
operations environmental
challenges are somewhat different than onshore due to the sensitivities of the marine environment , harsh
operating conditions, remote locations in the case of the Arctic, and advanced technologies employed. These challenges include: yyPrevention
of and Response to a Major Release – The pressures and temperatures associated with remote wellhead locations that are difficult to access on
the bottom of the ocean floor, and high flow rate of deepwater wells, make the containment of a subsea release challenging. yy Safety –
Offshore natural gas and oil drilling practices, called into question by the recent Deepwater Horizon incident, have resulted in a weakened
public perception of offshore process and worker safety. The limited operating space coupled with significant production volumes can create a
Seismic noise generated by offshore natural gas and oil exploration
activities is recognized as a concern for whale populations and other marine life, including fish. yyArctic Ice Environments –
higher-risk work environment. yyMarine Impacts –
Responding to an oil spill in seasonal subzero temperatures with the presence of broken sea ice and 24-hour darkness is difficult and presents
challenges not faced in other marine environments. The development of oil sands poses unique environmental challenges that differ from
those associated with other onshore oil resources, including: yyWater Consumption – Large volumes of water have generated public and
regulatory issues associated with water sourcing, groundwater withdrawals, and protecting water quality. yyLand Disturbances – Removal
of overburden for surface mining can fragment wildlife habitat and increase the risk of soil erosion
surface runoff events to nearby water systems, resulting
or
in impacts to water quality and aquatic species . yyGreenhouse Gas
(GHG) Emissions – Transportation fuels produced solely from oil sands result in well-to-wheels life-cycle GHG emissions 5% to 15% higher than
the average crude oil refined. The carbon intensity of oil sands can vary based on extraction, refining and transport method. And, in 2009, wellto-wheel emissions from oil sands processed in the United States were only 6% higher than the average crude oil consumed in the United
States. Over time, incremental efficiency improvements, as well as new technologies, such as the application of solvents to mobilize oil in situ
(as an alternative to heat) are expected to continue to reduce the GHG intensity of unconventional operations.
Collapse of ocean biodiversity extinguishes all life
Craig 3 – Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law (Robert Kundis, Winter, “Taking
Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection? Fishing and Coral Reef Marine Reserves in Florida and
Hawaii,” 34 McGeorge L. Rev. 155, Lexis)
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than [seventy
percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells,
aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and weather mechanics;
and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the
importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it
remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles that create
and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion
dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the
world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21
2NC Oceans Impact
Oil spills kill marine keystone species
Earth Gauge 10 – A national environmental education foundation program (Earth
Gauge, “Gulf Oil Spill Series: Effects on Invertebrates”, National Environmental
Education Foundation, 2010,
http://www.earthgauge.net/wpcontent/EG_Gulf_Invertebrates.pdf)//MM
A variety of factors affect the impact of oil on invertebrate populations, including the type of oil, how long the oil has been in the water,
concentration, type of habitat, microbial communities present, weather conditions and water quality. Latitude can also be a factor.
Hydrocarbons – organic compounds made up of carbon and hydrogen that are the building blocks of oil – linger longer in high latitude marine
environments. In addition, high latitude ecosystems have simple food webs and lower biodiversity; if
a keystone species’
population is reduced after an oil spill, there are few to no species that can take its place in the food
web. Because oil spills input a large amount of oil into the marine environment in a short amount of time, marine
bacteria that typically digest oil from natural sources cannot break it down fast enough to prevent impacts on other marine life. In addition, if
there is more sediment in the water, it mixes with oil, causing the oil to sink or travel farther outside of the spill area. Once it enters the ocean,
crude oil breaks down into three main components, which each affect invertebrates in a different way. Volatile
compounds
evaporate at the surface or dissolve in the water column, impacting animals such as plankton that live
close to the surface and take in a large amount of water relative to their body size. Another component of oil
forms a thick “mousse,” which coats mammals and birds, in addition to washing onshore and impacting tidal
communities. The third is a sinking component that impacts invertebrates, fish and mammals below
Species loss can trigger extinction
Alois and Cheng 7 – The Arlington Institute is a non-profit think tank specializing in
predictive modeling of future events (Paul and Victoria, “Keystone Species Extinction
Overview”, Arlington Institute, July 2007, http://www.arlingtoninstitute.org/wbp/speciesextinction/443)
The ecosystems that human beings depend on for their very survival have been radically undermined,
and today many of them appear to be on the verge of breaking down. The most recent paradigm in ecological sciences
posits that environmental change happens in a rapid, non-linear fashion. This paper will examine certain species of organisms that
have the potential, once their numbers are low enough, to trigger a sudden collapse in the cycles that
provide human beings with food.
1NC OCS Gas
Counterplan: The United States federal government should create an exemption to restrictions on
conventional offshore natural gas production in the United States for natural gas producers who
provide a minimum bond of $60,000 per lease. The United States federal government should issue a
moratorium on further federal restrictions on natural gas production in the United States.
Counterplan solves the aff, avoids politics and state fill-in, and resolves environmental concerns
Davis, 12 -- US Berkeley economic policy professor
(Lucas, Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Wisconsin, National Bureau of Economic Research
research fellow, Energy Institute at Haas faculty affiliate,
"Modernizing Bonding Requirements for Natural Gas Producers," June 2012,
www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/6/13%20bonds%20davis/06_bonds_davis.pdf,
accessed 8-17-12, mss)
The immense supply of natural gas made possible by hydraulic fracturing is an enormous boon to the United
States. Just when it seemed the United States would be crippled under mounting energy costs into the distant future, technological innovations
opened up the natural gas equivalent of Saudi Arabia right under our feet. The
challenge for policymakers is how to allow
development of these valuable resources while ensuring environmentally safe drilling.
The purpose of bonding requirements is to force producers to take potential environmental damages into
account when making decisions. Bonds provide a source of funds for cleanups when necessary, but, more
importantly, bonds provide an incentive for producers to avoid environmental damages altogether. This
approach makes a great deal of sense, but the legislation has not been updated in more than fifty years.
Minimum bond amounts are woefully inadequate, particularly given the risks associated with advanced
drilling techniques. This proposal outlines concrete steps to take to modernize bonding requirements. Minimum bond amounts would be
the continued
increased substantially for drilling on federal lands, and states would be encouraged to adopt similar minimum bond amounts for non-federal
lands. In addition, provisions that now allow companies to meet requirements with blanket bonds would be eliminated, preventing average bond
amounts per well from falling to unreasonably low levels. Much is at stake both for the environment and for the economy. For
natural gas
producers, this proposal represents a much preferred alternative to the drilling moratoria that have
been enacted, for example, in the state of New York. Supporting stronger bonding requirements would demonstrate the industry’s
commitment to environmental protection, and reduce the risk of more states taking steps to ban hydraulic fracturing altogether. Stronger
bonding requirements also could help broaden the market for natural gas. There has been much discussion, for example, about increasing the
use of natural gas in transportation, and about constructing liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals for exporting natural gas. Much of the
reticence among policymakers goes back to environmental risks, and these concerns can be reduced by committing to stronger bonding
requirements.
Expanded offshore gas production collapse critical ocean resources
SELC, 12
[Southern Environmental Law Center, "Offshore Drilling: Defending the Atlantic and Eastern Gulf," 620-12, www.southernenvironment.org/cases/drilling_in_the_atlantic_huge_risk_little_reward, accessed 131-13, mss]
For more than 25 years, the Atlantic coast has been off-limits to offshore oil and gas drilling. During that time,
SELC has protected our coastal resources from a variety of harms. Today, our beaches and marshlands
remain largely unspoiled, and our fisheries are among the most productive in the world. The Push to Drill In
2008, the freeze on offshore drilling in new areas of the U.S. was lifted, and two years later, President Obama announced plans to allow drilling
in the Atlantic, from Maryland to northern Florida, and in the eastern Gulf, near Alabama. Virginia, which had a potential lease sale in the works,
was suddenly in the crosshairs. Shortly after, the blowout of BP’s deepwater well in the Gulf of Mexico and the oil spill that lasted several
months brought into stark focus the threats posed by offshore drilling to coastal communities and ecosystems. SELC and our partners, including
Defenders of Wildlife, are taking legal action to stop the lax federal oversight that led to the Gulf disaster, and we continue leading the opposition
to plans to open more of the Southeast’s coast to oil and gas development. Coastal Riches for Wildlife and People The beautiful and
biologically rich coastal areas off Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama
feature some of the most productive estuaries in the country, including the Chesapeake Bay, the Pamlico Sound, the ACE Basin, and
Mobile Bay. Our
shores attract millions of tourists, anglers, and other visitors each year and provide important breeding and feeding
habitat for migratory birds, turtles, and whales, many of which are globally rare. Tourism and
fishing—both commercial and recreational—are the economic backbone of hundreds of towns and cities along our
coasts. In 2008 alone, our four Atlantic states yielded $262.8 million in commercial fish landings. Potential for Disaster The environmental impacts
of offshore drilling were well known even before Gulf disaster. Ocean rigs routinely spill and leak oil—and
sometimes blow out. Chemicals used to operate oil and gas wells also pollute the marine environment. Moreover, oil
spills and other contamination from onshore refineries, pipelines, and associated infrastructure would spoil
wetland and marsh ecosystems that provide untold benefits for Southern communities, including flood control, clean drinking
water, and essential habitat for fisheries that sustain their economies. Hurricanes occur frequently in the Atlantic and add
to the risk. In the Gulf, the devastation and loss of life caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita overshadowed the fact that roughly 8 million gallons of petroleum
products spilled from various sources. Too Little, Too Late The relatively low amounts of oil and gas in the Atlantic are not worth the tremendous risk to the South’s
exceptional coastal resources. According to only available government estimates, the Mid- and South Atlantic hold less than a two-month supply of oil (at current
rates of national consumption) and just a six-month supply of natural gas. The Virginia lease area holds just six days of oil and 18 days of natural gas. . (Read more
about the Virginia lease sale.) The
South has too much to lose and too little to gain by opening up the Mid- and South Atlantic
coast and eastern Gulf to offshore drilling. SELC strongly opposes any moves to do so.
Extinction
Craig, 3 -- Indiana University School of Law professor
[Robin, "Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection?" McGeorge Law Review, 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155, Winter 2003, l/n, accessed 2-2-13, mss]
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide
many services that humans consider valuable. "Occupy[ing] more than
[seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere," n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as
shells, aquarium fish, and pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration, nutrient cycling, and
weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to
overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's well-being: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet,
and it remains the axis of existence, the locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and
hydrological cycles that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem services have
been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition, many people assign heritage and existence value to
the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21
2NC Biod Impact
Offshore natural gas wrecks ecosystems – impact’s whales, oceans,
groundwater withdrawal, and soil erosion
NPC 11 – National Petroleum Council (“Operations and Environment,”
http://www.npc.org/reports/NARD/NARD_Ops-Environment.pdf)
Environmental Challenges Expanded potential of natural gas and oil resources has dramatically improved the North American energy supply
outlook. The increased use of natural gas is likely to reduce the overall carbon intensity of recoverable. Continuous attention to reducing risks is
essential to ensure pollution prevention, public and worker safety and health, and environmental protection. These are essential outcomes in
order to enjoy access to the resources for extraction and ultimate satisfaction of consumers’ energy demand. Due to the importance of these
issues, their influence on the study process has been significant.
Risk to the environment exists with natural gas and oil
development, as with any energy source. Local, state, and federal governments have developed a mix of prohibitions, regulations, and scientific
study to reduce potential environmental impacts of natural gas and oil development. Parties discussing energy policy can be missing a common
vocabulary and set of references to have a constructive conversation and make educated decisions. No form of energy comes without impacts
to the environment. An appropriate framework for discussing energy sources is necessary. Environmental challenges associated with natural
gas and oil development vary by location, such as onshore versus offshore, and by the methods employed to extract the resource. Although
each well involves drilling into the crust of the earth and constructing well casing using steel pipe and cement, differences arise from the
affected environment, resource type, regional and operating conditions, and proximity to environmental receptors. The public, policymakers,
and regulators have expressed the following environmental concerns about onshore operations: yyHydraulic Fracturing – Consumption of
freshwater (volumes and sources), treatment and disposal of produced water returned to the surface, seismic impacts, chemical disclosure of
fracture fluid additives, potential ground and surface water contamination, chemical and waste storage, and the volume of truck traffic.
yyWater Management – Produced water handling and disposal has created apprehension about existing water treatment facilities and the
ability to treat naturally occurring radioactive material, adjust salinity, and safely discharge effluent. yyLand Use Encroachment – The
encroachment into rural and urban areas results in perceived changes to quality of life, especially in newly developed or redeveloped natural
gas and oil areas. yyMethane Migration – Methane in domestic drinking water wells, either naturally occurring or from natural gas
development. yyAir Emissions – Emissions generated from combustion, leaks, or other fugitive emissions during the production and delivery of
natural gas and oil present challenges regarding climate change and human health impacts. Offshore
operations environmental
challenges are somewhat different than onshore due to the sensitivities of the marine environment , harsh
operating conditions, remote locations in the case of the Arctic, and advanced technologies employed. These challenges include: yyPrevention
of and Response to a Major Release – The pressures and temperatures associated with remote wellhead locations that are difficult to access on
the bottom of the ocean floor, and high flow rate of deepwater wells, make the containment of a subsea release challenging. yy Safety –
Offshore natural gas and oil drilling practices, called into question by the recent Deepwater Horizon incident, have resulted in a weakened
public perception of offshore process and worker safety. The limited operating space coupled with significant production volumes can create a
higher-risk work environment. yyMarine Impacts –
Seismic noise generated by offshore natural gas
and oil exploration
activities is recognized as a concern for whale populations and other marine life, including fish. yyArctic Ice Environments –
Responding to an oil spill in seasonal subzero temperatures with the presence of broken sea ice and 24-hour darkness is difficult and presents
challenges not faced in other marine environments. The development of oil sands poses unique environmental challenges that differ from
those associated with other onshore oil resources, including: yyWater Consumption – Large
public and regulatory issues
associated with water sourcing,
yyLand Disturbances – Removal
the risk of soil erosion
volumes of water have generated
groundwater withdrawals , and protecting water quality.
of overburden for surface mining can fragment wildlife habitat and increase
or surface runoff events to nearby water systems, resulting
in impacts to water quality and
aquatic species . yyGreenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions – Transportation fuels produced solely from oil sands result in well-to-wheels lifecycle GHG emissions 5% to 15% higher than the average crude oil refined. The carbon intensity of oil sands can vary based on extraction,
refining and transport method. And, in 2009, well-to-wheel emissions from oil sands processed in the United States were only 6% higher than
the average crude oil consumed in the United States. Over time, incremental efficiency improvements, as well as new technologies, such as the
application of solvents to mobilize oil in situ (as an alternative to heat) are expected to continue to reduce the GHG intensity of unconventional
operations.
2NC Watershed Impact
Key to avoid watershed destruction
Argetsinger, 11 -- J.D. Candidate, Certificate in Environmental Law, Pace Law School
(Beren, Pace Environmental Law Review, "The Marcellus Shale: Bridge to a Clean Energy Future or
Bridge to Nowhere?," 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 321, Fall 2011, l/n, accessed 5-24-12, mss)
As noted above, the EIA's long-term projections estimate that over forty-five percent of all natural gas produced in the United States by 2035 will come from shale
gas. Experience in shale gas-producing states reveals that hydraulic fracturing has significant impacts on water and air resources; with
nearly half the country's natural gas supply expected to come from shale, the long-term consequences must be considered and addressed now. Reports of shale gas
development in Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, and Pennsylvania highlight numerous water and air contamination problems that have arisen from shale gas production.
n53 Improper [*331] well
casing, lax on-site wastewater storage practices and perhaps even the hydraulic fracturing process
itself, can allow natural gas constituents to migrate into and permanently contaminate underground aquifers and
private wells. n54 The dumping of flowback waters into streams and onto roads contaminates surface waters and improperly treated fracking wastewater at sewage
treatment plants (often defined as publicly owned treatment works or "POTWs") damage streams and drinking water supplies, putting human and
ecological health at risk. n55 Air pollutants in the form of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxides (NOx), which are precursors to
ground level ozone, a respiratory hazard, arise from the concentrated operation of diesel pumps, truck traffic, and on-site generators. n56 Methane gas, a highly potent
greenhouse gas, and other pollution constituents are released through the drilling, fracturing, venting, flaring, condensation, and transportation processes of a well's
lifecycle. n57 A. Water Pollution The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC or DEC) estimates that the hydraulic fracturing process
requires anywhere from 2.9 million to 7.8 million gallons of injected water combined with chemicals and sand to fracture a single well, depending on the depth of the
well and geology of the area. n58 DEC estimates that over the next thirty years, "there could be up to 40,000 wells developed with the high volume hydraulic
fracturing technology." n59 Reports from hydraulic fractured wells in northern Pennsylvania indicate that between nine and thirty-five percent (or 216,000 to 2.8
million [*332] gallons) of the water-chemical solution used in fracking returns as "flowback" before a well begins to produce gas. n60 Handling and treating these
high volumes of flowback
water is a significant operational challenge of extracting shale gas and one that has not been met
environmental damage that
regulators in some areas have been slow to address. n61 Former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Commissioner
in some states. The treatment of flowback waters has proven a persistent challenge in Pennsylvania, causing
John Hanger said in a DEP press release in April 2010: The treating and disposing of gas drilling brine and fracturing wastewater is a significant challenge for the
drilling is growing rapidly and our
rules must be strengthened now to prevent our waterways from being seriously harmed in the future. n62 However, the
natural gas industry because of its exceptionally high total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations... . Marcellus
DEP has largely limited its regulatory oversight on the issue of wastewater disposal at POTWs to a request that shale gas producers "voluntarily" cease disposing of
flowback water at some POTWs. n63 The issue of improper treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater is compounded by specific exemptions for hydraulic
fracturing from certain federal environmental laws. For example, [*333] the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to largely
exempt gas drillers from the SDWA, from EPA regulation, and from disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. n64 While some states such
as New York would require drillers to meet higher standards, n65 industry has largely fought efforts to force public disclosure as well as federal efforts to study the
impacts of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. n66 Independent analysis of products used in some western states for the production of oil and
gas revealed more than 350 products containing hundreds of chemicals, the vast majority of which have known adverse effects on human health and the environment.
n67 However, industry feet dragging on public disclosure has contributed to incomplete knowledge of the chemical makeup and concentrations used in fracturing
fluids, and the full extent of the risk the chemicals pose to human and environmental health is unknown. n68 The NYS DEC advised in its Revised Draft Supplemental
Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Revised dSGEIS) that: There is little meaningful information one way or the other about the potential impact on human
health of chronic low level exposures to many of these chemicals, as could occur if an aquifer were to be contaminated as the result of a spill or release that is
undetected and/or unremediated. n69 Incomplete knowledge of the chemical constituents injected into wells during the fracturing process raise concerns about [*334]
understanding their effects on people and how to treat acute and chronic exposure. Further, as noted above, the fracturing fluids that return to the surface in flowback
wastewaters create particularly daunting treatment challenges. The fracking solution pumped into the wells dissolves large quantities of salts, heavy metals such as
barium and strontium, and radioactive materials. n70 When the water returns to the surface, it is stored for reuse, recycled, or treated and disposed. Currently,
Pennsylvania is the only state that allows for the primary method for disposal of drilling wastewaters at POTWs. n71 Many POTWs are incapable of treating fracking
wastewater and discharges of untreated fracking wastewater into surface waters create environmental and human health hazards. n72 The chemicals, radioactivity
levels, and high salt concentrations pose difficulties for managers because most POTWs are not equipped to test for or treat all of these substances. n73 John H.
Quigley, former Pennsylvania Secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, stated: we're
burning the furniture to heat the
house ... in shifting away from coal and toward natural gas, we're trying for cleaner air, but we're producing massive
amounts of toxic wastewater with salts and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and it's not clear we have a plan for properly handling this
waste. n74
Extinction
WWP, 10
(Western Watersheds Project, "Protecting Watersheds," 2010,
www.westernwatersheds.org/issues/protecting-watersheds, accessed 5-29-12, mss)
Protecting Watersheds A watershed is land that contributes water to a stream, river, lake, pond, wetland or other body of water. The boundary that separates one
watershed from another, causing falling rain or melting snow or spring water to flow downhill in one direction or the other, is known as a “watershed divide”. John
Wesley Powell put it well when he said that a watershed is: "that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by
their common water course" The defining watershed divide in the United States is the Continental Divide which generally follows the Rocky Mountains and
determines whether water flows to the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean. Our biggest watershed is that of the Mississippi River which starts in Minnesota and spreads across
40% of the lower 48 states, drawing its water from the Yellowstone, Missouri, Platte, Arkansas, Canadian, Red, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Tennessee Rivers---and
their drainages. While major watersheds are clearly visible on satellite photographs and maps, within each one is an intricate web of secondary drainages, each fed by
a myriad of streams and smaller creeks, many unnamed and so small a person can jump across them. In many parts of the country, particularly in the arid West, these
smaller drainages may cover thousands of acres, yet collect far less water than those in the East. For example, the Hudson River has a flow equivalent to that of the
Colorado, yet collects its water from a land area less than 1/20th the size required by the Colorado River which is 1,400 miles long. Because there is very little land
that is truly flat, watersheds and drainages are all around us, and just about everybody in the United States is within walking distance of one whether they live
in a city, on a farm, in a desert, or on an island. Some carry the names of well known rivers like the Columbia and the Rio Grande. Most, however, do not, and remain
anonymous, hidden in culverts or ditches or flowing only intermittently in high deserts, unrecognized and unheralded as vital,
contributing parts of
the complex system that supplies all of our fresh surface water. “Surface water” runs through watersheds and drainages, from
mountains or high ground to the sea. Underlying watersheds, or adjacent to most of them, however, is an even greater source of supply, “ground water”. Ground water
is formed when falling rain or melting snow percolates deep into the ground over time, sometimes centuries, to a level where it is stored in porous rock and sand and
accumulates there until tapped by drilled wells or comes to the surface of its own accord as a spring or artesian well. This stored ground water is commonly referred to
as an “aquifer” and its level is measured in terms of a “water table”. Like watersheds, water stored in aquifers generally seeps downhill, and many, like the Mississippi
River drainage, cover wide areas of the United States. The nation’s largest deposit of ground water is the Ogallala Aquifer System that underlies 8 states,
Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. Many smaller aquifers are found across the country and some remain
unnamed and uncharted. These two water
resources, surface and ground water, not only sustain all life but are the only practical
source of fresh water we have for industry, agriculture, and municipal use. And although they are often viewed as two separate entities, they are,
for the most part, inextricably linked. For example, in addition to rain and melting snow, ground water springs are vital to maintaining the flow of many
streams and rivers in a watershed. And a great deal of surface water, about 25% of it, percolates deep into the ground where it is stored in or helps recharge our
aquifers. The remaining surface water, after evaporation, which claims some 40%, becomes the complex system of streams and rivers that flow through watersheds
from the mountains or high ground to the sea. Along the way, however, some of that water is temporarily held back in ponds, wetlands and the land bordering creeks,
streams and rivers where water may not be visible but lies just below the surface. These areas are collectively referred to as riparian zones, and while they constitute
only a small percentage of the land in most watersheds, they
are the heart and soul of a delicately balanced natural system that,
healthy, functioning riparian zone is a virtual classroom in life sciences---botany, biology,
animal ecology, fisheries, entomology and ornithology---and contains a miraculous diversity of wildlife, fish, birds, bugs and
an array of vegetation ranging from trees and grasses to algae and other aquatic plants. Riparian zones and the biodiversity they
contain are interdependent. That is, the trees, plants, grasses, reeds, and algae provide food, shade, protection and habitat for wildlife, birds and fish.
Their root systems stabilize soil and prevent erosion and flooding in wet seasons; and in dry seasons, this vegetation retains water and
collectively, produces our fresh water. A
releases it slowly to maintain even stream flows. For their part, the variety of animals, fish, birds, and bugs living in these zones aerate the soil, spread pollen and
seeds and eventually, when they die and fungi and bacteria break down the dead organic matter, provide nourishment for a new generation of riparian vegetation. This
is an oversimplified description of a pristine riparian zone within a source watershed, that critical part of the system where water is gathered from a web of springs,
bogs and creeks and begins its long, twisting journey from the mountains to the sea. Such pristine conditions still exist in some isolated areas, but today no major river
arrives at its terminus in this condition, and some don’t make it at all. Along the way, watersheds are radically transformed by man. Rivers are dammed, channeled,
and otherwise diverted to serve a multitude of agricultural, industrial and municipal purposes. And while a good portion of the water is eventually released back into
the system, much of it is polluted and requires costly purification. Today, water
conservation is one of the most serious natural
resource issues facing this country, and nowhere is conservation more important than in the arid West which is literally running out of water.
Reg Neg
Reg neg critical to solve- prior consultation critical
Ebinger et al ‘14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas
Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic
The private sector should be better integrated into efforts to strengthen Arctic governance. Since hydrocarbon development in the Arctic will be un- dertaken by companies, they need to be involved in
the process of establishing standards . This does not mean that oil and gas operators dictate their final
form. Rather they should have a seat at the table of a collaborative process from the early stages of
any effort . There are a number of indus- try entities undertaking such efforts, as well as ef- forts
among consortia of companies researching oil spill response technology or providing mutual aid in
response capabilities. Collaboration is the key to leverage the expertise and resources—both financial
and in equipment and infrastructure while taking advantage of lessons learned and sharing best
practices.
Reg-negs allow the government to quickly stimulate effective industry
responses that are enforced and legitimate
Harter 97
Philip J., Visiting Associate Prof and Dir, Program on Consensus, Democracy, and Governance, Vermont
Law School, Duke Law Journal, April
The most well developed of these techniques, other than the public hearings and meetings that are
adjuncts of the APA itself, [*1400] is negotiated rulemaking (reg neg). 43 Fifteen years ago, when the
theory of negotiated rulemaking was just emerging, I predicted a number of major benefits from the
practice. 44 Among them was the fact that the parties would be able to participate directly and
immediately in the decision, thereby providing a legitimacy that is missing from hybrid rulemaking. In
addition, the costs of developing the rule may be lower since the parties would not have to engage in as
much adversarial research and positioning. The parties could focus on the issues that actually separate
them and on the issues of importance to them. "Rulemaking by negotiation can reduce the time and
cost of developing regulations by emphasizing practical and empirical concerns rather than theoretical
predictions." 45 The parties have the experience and ability to focus on the details necessary to make a
rule work day-to-day in the field. Interestingly, the lack of judicial review was not advocated as a prime
benefit. It would be a likely ancillary benefit of the parties' mutual acceptance of the rule and its ensuing
legitimacy, but was not an end in itself. Such were the predictions before any reg negs were actually
undertaken. Formal evaluations are extraordinarily expensive and face the difficulties inherent in
making counter-factual predictions (i.e., what would have happened if some other process were used to
develop the rule), or finding a suitably analogous rule with which to compare a given proceeding. 46 As
a result, few formal evaluations have been conducted, so that it is difficult to deter- [*1401] mine in a
rigorous way the extent to which the theory has been borne out. One major evaluation has been
undertaken to compare negotiated rules at the EPA with those developed by the traditional notice-andcomment process. The study is currently being conducted for the EPA by Cornelius M. Kerwin, Dean of
the School of Public Affairs at American University and Professor Laura I. Langbein. They have released a
draft report of their analysis of the reg neg portion of their study. 47 Their initial conclusions include:
Based on the data presented above, negotiated rulemaking is successful on several critical dimensions. It
is widely perceived by participants as an effective means for developing regulations on virtually all
important qualitative dimensions. The criteria established in literature and law for the selection of
candidates for reg neg appear to be relevant in the selection process used by EPA, although their
importance appears to vary from case to case and the discretion exercised by key Agency officials in the
use of techniques is obviously considerable. The opportunity to participate in the process appears to be
extended broadly, albeit not universally, and EPA or the facilitator it secured were frequently identified
as an initiator of participation. The process of negotiation itself emerges as a very powerful vehicle for
learning what the participants in the process value highly, and there are many types of information that
is exchanged. The interviews suggest further that what is learned has long-term value and is not
confined to a particular rulemaking... The negotiation process employs a number of devices to subdivide
issues, such as working groups and caucuses, that were viewed as effective by a substantial number of
respondents. And the use of non-committee observers serves as a device to expand participation
without inflating the negotiating groups past workable limits. Facilitators were generally viewed as
competent, unbiased and providing a number of services that promoted consensus. [*1402] Most
participants believe their participation had a substantial effect on the agreement that was produced and
report that the opportunity to have an impact on the outcome was one of the aspects of the process they
considered most valuable. 48
counterplan appeals to industry’s best alternative to the negotiated
agreement (batna) – they will comply because they perceive the plan as
threatening their industry
Perritt 86
Henry, Professor of Law, Negotiated Rulemaking Before Federal Agencies: Evaluation of
Recommendations by the Administrative Conference of the United States, 74 Geo. L.J. 1625, ln
Regulatory negotiation is but one mechanism to accomplish political accommodation. Negotiation will
succeed only when persons able to use other processes have an incentive to participate in negotiations
and to reach negotiated agreement. Incentives operate at several different levels: at the level of the
negotiation itself, and at lower levels, where negotiations within constituencies are necessary to
produce party positions. The best way to understand incentives to negotiate is first to consider the
viewpoint of a hypothetical, monolithic party. Having described the incentives for this hypothetical
party, one then can overlay complications that influence real world regulatory negotiations, especially
complications inherent in intragroup interest aggregation. A useful conceptual structure for
understanding incentives to negotiate is the one offered by Professors Fisher and Ury in their book on
the negotiation process. n53 [*1637] They explain that the participation of any party to a negotiation
will be guided by that party's "Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement" (BATNA). If a party's BATNA is
superior to what can be obtained in negotiation, the party will not participate. n54 For potential
participants in a regulatory negotiation, BATNAs are determined by perceptions of what the agency will
do in the absence of a negotiation. n55 A rational, monolithic party will participate in regulatory
negotiation only if it perceives the probable negotiation outcome to be superior to its BATNA, determined
by the party's estimate of probable unilateral agency action. Different parties are likely to have
different BATNAs because they predict the unilateral agency outcome differently, or because they have
different predictions of the cost impact and benefit of agency action. The BATNA determined
participation incentive is not invariant; it likely will change over time for each party, as the party gets
additional information about the agency's intentions. Even more important, other negotiators, neutral
mediators or convenors, and the agency itself can influence party BATNAs, and hence party incentives
to negotiate and to agree. The most appropriate analogy to a regulatory negotiationg is not a traditional
labor-management negotiation, where BATNAs are determined by each party's assessment of the
opponent's ability to inflict injury to or offer rewards. Instead, the appropriate analogy is to civil
litigation settlement negotiation in which party predictions of what a nonparty, the judge or jury, will do
determine BATNAs. In regulatory negotiations, as in settlement negotiations, the third party
decisionmaker can influence party perception of likely outcome in the absence of a negotiated settlement.
In other words, the agency or judge changes BATNAs by what she says about her intentions. This
model suggests that regulatory negotiations are most likely to be successful when the agency (or some
other credible source) persuades each potential participant that unilateral agency action has
undesirable consequences for that participant. Lower BATNAs mean greater incentives to negotiate a
solution.
finally, setting a specific end-time encourages quicker action – avoids footdragging associated with the plan
Harter 82
Philip, A.B. Kenyon College (1964); M.A. (Mathematics) Michigan (1966); J.D. Michigan (1969), 71 Geo.
L.J. 1
The parties will not expend the resources required for negotiation unless they are convinced that they will
benefit from negotiation. Parties frequently may benefit by delaying a decision, and it seems to be
human nature to procrastinate until action is required. Thus, negotiations are likely to work best if a
decision is inevitable, or even better, imminent. If the decision is inevitable or imminent, and the parties
in interest fail to reach an agreement by negotiation, someone else will make the decision. In the
regulatory context, this situation may occur if a statute, a court order, or an overriding political pressure
requires agency action within a particular time. This situation also could occur if the agency has
committed itself to a schedule in the regulatory agenda, n261 or has announced a schedule for action on
an ad hoc basis. In such cases, if the parties fail to reach agreement, the agency itself, or in some
situations, a court or Congress, makes the decision. n262 The most favorable climate for negotiation
occurs when all the parties believe that there is some urgency for reaching a decision. n263 The
inevitability of a decision creates that urgency [*48] to a degree. The parties then feel pressure to reach a
decision themselves before someone else makes the decision and deprives them of control. Despite the
attraction of delay, in some instances a prompt decision may serve the parties' interests. For example, a
company may wish to manufacture a new product or build a new plant and an agency plans to issue
regulations that will control aspects of the decision. The company may be afraid to proceed because it
fears that it may incur the substantial cost of modifying the product or plant in response to the new
regulation. The company then would prefer a prompt decision if the regulation appears to effectuate
that party's interest. In such a case, delay is not in the interest of either side. Even if delay is in a
particular party's interest, such as when the regulation will necessitate expensive retrofitting or large
capital expense, the issue still may be suitable for negotiation if the implementation date is among the
issues negotiated. Assuming that some decision is inevitable, if the implementation date is included in
the issues negotiated, the reluctant party may prefer the certainty of outcome. The party thus may be
willing to negotiate if it stands to gain time to implement the regulation.
Solvency – Compliance
only the counterplan is viewed as legitimate – cognitive dissonance, and
benevolence of the process
Freeman and Langbien 2k
Jody, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Laura, Professor, School of Public Affairs,
American University, 9 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 60
[*65] At first glance, one might assume that cognitive dissonance explains the higher satisfaction rates after all, participants devoted considerable time and resources to regulatory negotiation. But we think that
this possibility, even if plausible, is largely irrelevant. n20 First, these sophisticated parties did not
hesitate to criticize reg neg; despite their overall positive evaluations, fully 95% identified things they
disliked. n21 Second, and more important, however, we simply reiterate the facts: regardless of the
reason reported, participant satisfaction is higher for negotiated than for conventional rules (on which
participants also expended effort), and the legitimacy of the outcomes in their eyes is also greater.
Cognitive dissonance (or some other psychological mechanism) might help to explain how regulatory
negotiation works, but it does nothing to diminish the value of the process, unless the intervening
psychological mechanism responsible for the legitimacy benefit has some independent negative status.
n22 In other words, reports of satisfaction may be "biased," but it makes no difference to the legitimacy
benefit. n23
counteprlan increases likelihood of regulatory compliance
Freeman and Langbien 2k
Jody, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Laura, Professor, School of Public Affairs,
American University, 9 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 60
The compliance implications of consensus-based processes remain a matter of speculation. n360 No one
has yet produced empirical data on the relationship between negotiated rulemaking and compliance, let
alone data comparing the compliance implications of negotiated and conventional rules. n361 However,
the Phase II results introduce interesting new findings into the debate. The data shows reg-neg
participants to be significantly more likely than conventional rulemaking participants to report the
perception that others will be able to comply with the final rule. n362 Perceiving that others will comply
might induce more [*131] compliance among competitors, along the lines of game theoretic models, at
least until evidence of defection emerges. n363 Moreover, to the extent that compliance failures are at
least partly due to technical and information deficits - rather than to mere political resistance - it seems
plausible that reports of the learning effect and more horizontal sharing of information might help to
improve compliance in the long run. n364 The claim that reg-neg could improve compliance is consistent
with social psychology studies showing that in both legal and organizational settings, "fair procedures
lead to greater compliance with the rules and decisions with which they are associated." n365 Similarly,
negotiated rulemaking might facilitate compliance by bringing to the surface some of the contentious
issues earlier in the rulemaking process, where they might be solved collectively rather than dictated by
the agency. Although speculative, these hypotheses seem to fit better with Kerwin and Langbein's data
than do the rather negative expectations about compliance. Higher satisfaction could well translate into
better long-term compliance, even if litigation rates remained the same. Consistent [*132] with our
contention that process matters, we expect it to matter to compliance as well.
Politics Net-Benefit
counterplan is popular and discourages industry backlash
Freeman and Langbien 2k
Jody, Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles, Laura, Professor, School of Public Affairs,
American University, 9 N.Y.U. Envtl. L.J. 60
Consensus decision rules used in reg neg are thought to engender two different effects: while they raise
conflict and cost during the decision-making process itself, n256 they increase satisfaction once the
parties reach agreement. This view presupposes that conventional rulemaking involves no informal
consensual decision making, a presupposition contradicted by the study. In fact, conventional
rulemaking participants reported informal contact with both EPA and other parties. One-quarter of
conventional rule participants reported that they engaged in informal negotiations. n257 Despite this
evidence of informal contact, the data suggest that negotiated rulemaking achieved a higher level of
consensus among participants. When asked what constituted a consensus, 90% of reg neg participants
responded either "unanimity" or "what we could all live with," n258 both consistent with a consensual
process. By contrast, 45% of conventional participants responded "what EPA wanted"; no reg neg
respondents defined consensus in this manner. n259 "What EPA wanted" does not describe a
consensual process. When the more consensual reg neg process was used, respondents reported
greater satisfaction both with the process and with the net benefits of the final rule to their
organization. n260 Moreover, the standard deviation of judgments was smaller under reg neg. n261
These results support the theory that relatively more consensual decision rules lead to greater
satisfaction with outcomes, greater homogeneity in judgments about those outcomes, and less
conflict. [*113] In sum, more consensual processes yielded significantly higher net benefit ratings and
possibly more agreement. Kerwin and Langbein asked reg neg participants what constituted consensus in
their formal negotiation sessions, expecting that more consensual decision rules would be associated
with greater satisfaction, higher ratings of organizational net benefits, and less conflict (i.e., more
homogeneity) about those judgments. The results were consistent with these expectations: ratings of
the overall process were lowest and the standard deviations were usually highest when the decision rule
was "what EPA wanted." n262
Failure to Reg Neg causes a political backlash to the plan
Spain 96
David, Queensland University of Technology Law School, Environmental Legal Systems, November,
http://www.earthsharing.org.au/spaine.html
Legislation cohering consensus policies stipulate a process by which measures are regularly & ethically
negotiated (between bureaucrats & industry, perhaps with public input) on a case-by-case basis. In this vein may be mentioned
a variety of co-operative measures such as state intervention (eg liming of acidified lakes) and demand management (eg peak rate hikes). Co-operative mutual
restraint (which tends to become enshrined in custom) may be the only efficient method of environmental safeguard where the users are impoverished nomads (eg
grazing vulnerable rangelands) or where thinly-spread resources are exploited (eg extraction of timber), with complicated impacts (eg canopy & habitat damage
involved in cutting & snigging). The
comparative abundance of well-informed & active citizenry in a modern democracy
makes it dangerous for a government to impose any policy or strategic plan without exposing the draft
for public comment: failure to take this course and sincerely listen can be perceived as arrogant and excite
voter backlash. Even so, it is the developers & industrialists (unlike the unpaid, volunteer public) who have the most
time & money to devote to such "negotiation", and it is they who tend to have the ear of bureaucrats &
politicians. Thus, indigenous governmental intervention is quite likely not only to fail to address pollution but indeed to engender it: expensive high-stack
smoke dispersal may achieved glorious blue sky over urban areas, such that a myriad local voters happily return the incumbent politician, but in reality the problem
is merely displaced and engenders acid rainfall elsewhere…
counterplan avoids politics
Harter 82
Philip, A.B. Kenyon College (1964); M.A. (Mathematics) Michigan (1966); J.D. Michigan (1969), 71 Geo.
L.J. 1
If the subject of the regulation raises significant political issues, the negotiation group should keep
Congress and the White House abreast of negotiation developments. If a mediator participates, he
should touch base with relevant congressional committees and offices within the White House to permit
the negotiation group to consider their views during the negotiations and to avoid political surprises.
n548 The report of the consensus also should be furnished to Congress and to the White House to
enable them to communicate any substantial concerns to the agency. Providing such notification to the
political forces and permitting their concerns to be taken into account will help insulate the agency
from political attack. In addition, this procedure would be a political prod to the agency because it would
need a good reason to reject the consensus of competing forces. If the agency rejects the consensus
without good reason it might appear that the agency is changing the results of the negotiations
capriciously.
reg-negs overcome legislative gridlock and change political perceptions of
regs
Percival 97
Robert V., Professor of Law, Robert Stanton Scholar & Director, Environmental Law Program, University
of Maryland School of Law, University of Chicago Legal Forum
Those who make a serious effort to "rethink regulation" ultimately will recognize that far more
fundamental environmental progress could be accomplished by changing the nation's energy, agricultural,
and transportation policies to make them more responsive to environmental concerns. The nation's tax
system levies the vast majority of taxes on labor and capital rather than on waste and pollution. 215
However, fundamental reforms in tax [*197] or energy policy are quickly dismissed as politically
unrealistic. Much more effort should be devoted to considering why such policies are so unattractive
politically and what, if anything, can be done to change the political dynamics. The enactment of
consensus food safety and safe drinking water legislation in 1996 demonstrates continuing bipartisan
support for environmental protection. It also demonstrates that legislative gridlock can be overcome
when measures are perceived to provide some benefits to both industry and environmental interests that
traditionally have been antagonistic. The enactment of further environmental legislation may require the
use of consensus-building processes that foster compromises necessary to overcome legislative
gridlock.
giving industry input in implementation avoids political backlash to
regulation
Stach 97
Mark, JD, West Virginia College of Law, U Iowa Journal of Corporation Law, Spring
The cost of complying with command-and-control is great. 20 However, the cost of compliance does not alone account for the
condemnation that command-and-control regulation has received. 21 Most of the reproach stems from the fact that the cost of such regulations bears little
relationship to the benefits achieved. 22 Indeed, in some cases the goal is not achieved even in the face of costly technological controls. 23 One reason for such
inefficiency is that regulations,
crafted by bureaucrats, are substituted for the judgment and experience of those
within the industry who are intimately familiar with the business. One commentator has summarized this problem: To
its critics, command-and-control regulation puts government in the position of making the business and
operating decisions that the regulated industry should make. It displaces the judgment of people who should know their business
with that of regulators who may not. The critics assert that while government is better able to determine what society's goals should be and build the necessary
incentives and accountability mechanisms to get companies to achieve them, the private sector is in a better position to determine what mix of technologies,
process changes, or management practices would achieve the regulatory goals. The reliance on detailed specification emphasizes design, process, or technology
standards over more legitimate concern about performance. 24 Unfortunately, a
collateral consequence of this phenomenon may be a
loss of support from those who might otherwise support environmental goals. This loss of support
may manifest itself in anti-environmental stands by members of regulated industries 25 and a
presumption against any form of environmental regulation.
reg neg bipart
Liebman 96
William, Deputy Director of the FMCS, FNS, 6-27
Federal agencies possess the authority to engage in negotiated rulemaking under their enabling statutes
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, and a few agencies have used reg-neg for more than a decade. However, prior to
passage of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, 5 U.S.C. 561-570, many agencies were not using it, at least in part because
of their unfamiliarity with the mechanics of the process and uncertainty about their authority to use reg-neg. The
Negotiated Rulemaking Act received strong bi-partisan support in Congress which began to encourage
more and more agencies to experiment with the process.
public supports regulatory negotiations
Ganeles 2
Cheri, JD Albany Law School, Albany Law Journal of Science and Technology
As the population gains confidence and popularity in mediation, its use is expanding to include other
areas. One such area is that of environmental and social policy. 140 Another is that of "reg-negs,"
regulations that have been developed as a result of regulatory negotiations. 141 Policy dialogues and medical malpractice
claims have also been submitted to mediation. 142 Medical malpractice is not the only area in which mediation has permeated the medical field; other areas
include conflicts between doctors, administrators, and hospitals, HMOs, group practice, partnership disputes, medical staff, insurer denial of coverage or payment,
bioethical disputes, credentialing conflicts and labor-management relations. 143
AT: Delay
the plan takes forever
Mee 97
Siobhan, Executive Editor, BOSTON COLLEGE ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS LAW REVIEW, Boston College
Environmental Affairs Law Review, Fall
Another criticism of traditional rulemaking is that it is slow and cumbersome. 14 Major rules require an
average of three and one-half years for their creation and promulgation. 15 A subsequent court
challenge, which EPA estimates to be an eighty-five percent possibility for each of its regulations, may
delay the implementation of a rule even further.
reg negs comparatively faster –
A) Empiricism
Stewart 1
Richard B., Prof Law, NYU School of Law, Capital University Law Review
The benefits of negotiated rulemaking, where used appropriately, are several. First, the process can
shorten the length of time required from the beginning of the process until the issuance of the final rule.
Consensus on the part of the principal stakeholders greatly reduces or eliminates adverse comments on
a proposed role and the time and effort (which may include gathering new data and conducting new
studies and analyses) needed for the agency to respond. In a recent study, Kerwin and Furlong found that
EPA rules that were developed using the negotiation process took an average of 2.1 years from start to
finish, against an average of 3.0 years for the typical EPA rule. 284 Additionally, anecdotal evidence
indicates that in [*91] some cases, proposals for rules that had been languishing for as long as ten years
were resolved relatively quickly after going through the negotiated rulemaking process.
b) Litigation
Stach 97
Mark, JD West Virginia College of Law, U Iowa Journal of Corporation Law, Spring
1. Reg-Neg Versus
the Traditional Method of Developing Regulations Under the traditional method of
developing regulatory control, the government issues a notice describing the proposed regulation and
affords the affected parties an opportunity to comment. 61 This type of "top-down" regulatory scheme
has been the subject of the criticism discussed earlier. 62 By contrast, in a regulatory negotiation (regneg), the affected parties have the opportunity to participate in the formulation of the regulation. The
reg-negs are conducted under the aegis of the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990 63 and typically
proceed as follows: * Agency representatives, along with a mediator, meet with the potentially affected
groups prior to issuing draft regulations; * The parties on the proposed rule come to agreement after
negotiations; * The proposed rule is published along with a vecitation of issues that arose during the
negotiations. A successful reg-neg will result in regulations being issued much more quickly than they
would be in the traditional draft and comment scenario. The successful reg-neg may also avoid the
litigation that is often associated with the traditional method for issuing regulations. The reg-neg does not
always work. However, even a failed reg-neg can lead to improved regulations because the issuing agency is
aware of, and can consider, the affected parties' concerns.
c) avoids contentious disputes
Harter 97
Philip J., Visiting Associate Prof and Dir, Program on Consensus, Democracy, and Governance, Vermont
Law School, Duke Law Journal, April
Moreover, a careful review of the experience with negotiated rulemakings indicates that those
predictions have, indeed, been realized in diverse settings. 49 Negotiated rulemakings have been used by
agencies to develop rules they knew would be controversial but which were required by statute to be
issued in a very short period and for rules for which the customary notice-and-comment process simply had not worked. EPA's Clean Fuels reg neg
developed the basis for reformulated gasoline and its surrounding regulatory requirements in an astonishingly short period given the magnitude of the task and the
potential costs that the resulting rule would likely impose. 50 So, too, the Coast Guard turned to reg neg when it became clear that the controversies surrounding its
vessel response plans meant that the rule would probably not be issued in time to meet a critically important statutory deadline that had enormous financial
implications if the date were missed. The committee, an international set of representatives, was able to craft a notice of proposed rulemaking 51 that was
published just seven months after the notice of intent to form the committee appeared; 52 the rule went into effect in another seven months. 53 In some instances,
the reg neg committees have [*1403] been able to develop rules in a relatively expeditious time when
the issues have been languishing on the agency's dockets for years - precisely because the agency has
not been able to resolve the underlying controversies. 54 And, in one of the few instances in which a
negotiated rule was closely analogous to a rule developed by traditional means, the negotiated
rulemaking took b to draft the rule and cost only half as much. 55
deadline solves
Susskind and McMahon 85
Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Director, Public
Disputes Programs, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, Associate Director, Public Disputes
Programs, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, 3 Yale J. on Reg. 133
Seventh, the pressure of a deadline is necessary for successful negotiation. n44 Without a deadline,
parties may purposefully delay or fail to focus on reaching a settlement
CONTINUED
Harter and others have argued for the importance of deadlines as a tool for keeping the negotiations
moving and for avoiding dilatory tactics. n117 In most labor-management negotiations, the greatest
progress traditionally occurs close to the final deadline. In accordance with this view, EPA initially set
tight deadlines. In the first demonstration, the Agency actually shortened the deadline early in the
process, thereby angering participants. n118 Somewhat to their surprise, however, participants were
able to reach agreement even with the shortened schedule. Adverse effects became apparent when
participants felt they needed more time to check back with their constituents for reactions to the
proposed agreement.
AT Rollback
reg negs much less likely to be rolled back
Stewart 1
Richard B., Prof Law, NYU School of Law, Capital University Law Review
A second benefit of negotiated rulemaking is that the likelihood of subsequent court challenge is
substantially diminished because the consensus obtained should indicate a "signoff" by interested
parties. 286 This may explain in part why EPA has become such a strong supporter of negotiated
rulemaking; it has been widely reported that approximately 75% of the final rules promulgated by EPA
are challenged judicially.
AT: Who Is Involved
we only need to win one party would be involved – that encourages all other
related parties to join
Susskind and McMahon 85
Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Director, Public
Disputes Programs, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, Associate Director, Public Disputes
Programs, Program on Negotiation, Harvard Law School, 3 Yale J. on Reg. 133
In both demonstrations, each group's BATNA was diminished by the willingness of all the other parties
to participate in the demonstrations. Unless all the key groups refused to participate, any group that
decided to hold out and challenge the rule in court at a later time would face difficulty mustering allies for
such a challenge. Moreover, while the courts have not indicated whether they will set aside the "hard
look" doctrine in instances where a well-managed negotiated rulemaking effort has been completed, the
possibility of such a court response increases the uncertainty of a hold-out strategy and makes
cooperation by all interested parties almost inevitable. n104
AT Perm DB
the perm designates too much power with the federal government – industry
will only comply if they have the ability to change the outcome
Perritt 86
Henry, Professor of Law, Villanova University, 74 Geo. L.J. 1625, Lexis
The relative attractiveness of negotiations will be influenced by these aspects of power. n95 Harter
offered the following criteria to define situations where negotiation would be most effective. n96 He
stressed that he did not envision mechanical application of the criteria or satisfaction of every criterion.
n97 1. Countervailing Power n98 Each party must have power to affect the decisional outcome.
This can flow from the capacity to influence the legislature, the ability to run an effective public relations
campaign, substantial litigation resources, or any other way of obtaining an outcome favorable to the
party, or from inflicting costs on opponents, in another forum. Negotiation will be effective as a
decisional process only if no [*1644] one party has power sufficient to overwhelm the others. n99
Increased power on one side, however, strengthens incentives for opposing sides to seek a negotiated
solution.
perm fails – parties will only participate if they feel that they have influence
for compromise
Harter 82
Philip, A.B. Kenyon College (1964); M.A. (Mathematics) Michigan (1966); J.D. Michigan (1969), 71 Geo.
L.J. 1
Although the agency retains the ultimate power to issue a regulation, the purpose of a regulatory
negotiation is to draft a regulation, and not merely to lend advice and consultation to an agency. The
netotiation process is likely to attract talented experts to spend the time and resources in negotiating a
complex topic only if they have reasonable assurance that the agency will implement their proposal.
Indeed, there would be little incentive to strike the hard [*100] bargain if the whole process could be
easily overturned or "relitigated" before an agency issued the regulation. n547 Therefore, an essential
ingredient of the success of the regulatory negotiation process is an agreement by the agency to publish
the group's proposed regulation in a notice of proposed rulemaking, unless the agency has good cause for
not doing so.
lie doesn’t solve – industry feels they have been duped
Harter 82
Philip, A.B. Kenyon College (1964); M.A. (Mathematics) Michigan (1966); J.D. Michigan (1969), 71 Geo.
L.J. 1
Although agencies could carry out a form of regulatory negotiation under current law by empaneling an
advisory committee, the full benefits of the regulatory negotiation process could probably not be
achieved through such devices. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires open meetings that are
controlled by the agency; the parties should be able to close the meetings when appropriate.Moreover,
it is uncertain how a court would react to ex parte communications during the negotiation process, or
challenges to a negotiated rule by interests that sat out the process or by negotiation participants
that [*113] wished for more participation than they received in discussions. In addition, the agency
may fear a stringent form of judicial review of underlying facts akin to the review of hybrid rulemaking
because the negotiation process might not generate a record suitable for such a review. These doubts over
the court's reaction could inhibit the full use of the negotiation process.
the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the plan – the perm is impossible
Pirk 2
Sara, J.D., University of Oregon School of Law, Journal of Environmental Law and Litigation, Spring
Regulatory negotiation is an alternative to notice and comment participation and was developed to form dialogue among
regulators, regulated parties, and interested parties. 33 It is used in rule-making and is considered an efficient way to form rules with which everyone can live.
Regulatory negotiation is also considered a good method of public participation because it produces better results. Through negotiation over rules in a small forum,
the groups involved are more likely to cooperate and problem-solve rather than take sides and defend their positions .
Regulatory negotiation gives
parties involved in following and enacting rules, as well as interest groups, a chance to directly participate
in formulating rules that they will have to follow. This differs from notice and comment public
participation where only the enacting agency makes the rules and then announces them to other parties
who never had the chance to influence the decision making process when it counted. By having all the parties work together
on the rules, working relationships are formed that can be beneficial in the future. The parties, including agencies such as the EPA, are more satisfied because they have a direct role in rulemaking.
the perm cuts off negotiations mid-process which collapses compliance and
links harder to the da
Martin 91
Herbert J., partner in the law firm of Crowell & Moring, Public Utilities Fortnightly, 3-1
The act also includes highly detailed provisions governing the use of binding arbitration in agency
proceedings. The focus on arbitration and the level of detail devoted to it appears to be a function of the
binding nature of this form of dispute resolution. The act allows the head of an agency to terminate an
arbitration proceeding or vacate an arbitration award before it becomes final. If this power is exercised to vacate an award,
parties may recover their attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with the arbitration, unless the
agency head determines that such recovery would be unjust. These provisions were inserted to satisfy the concerns of the Department of Justice that arbitration
The expectation is that this summary power
will be exercised rarely; otherwise, parties will quickly lose faith in arbitrations involving the
government. In fact, despite the focus on binding arbitration in the act, other nonbinding forms of dispute resolution may find greater favor in agency
decisions binding the government would constitute an unlawful delegation of executive authority.
proceedings.
Canadian Relations Answers
1NC Coop Now
Us-Canada modeling Arctic co-op now
FATDC 12
(Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. "Canada Promotes Cooperation with United States on Arctic and
Environmental Issues." Canada Promotes Cooperation with United States on Arctic and Environmental Issues.
Canada Promotes Cooperation with United States on Arctic and Environmental Issues, 6 Feb. 2014. Web. 28 June
2014. <http://www.international.gc.ca/media/arctic-arctique/news-communiques/2014/02/06a.aspx>.)ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
The Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of the Environment, Minister of the Canadian Northern
Economic Development Agency and Minister for the Arctic Council, was in Washington, D.C., on
February 3 and 4, 2014, to promote the Arctic Council’s program during Canada’s chairmanship of
the Council and to discuss environmental priorities and achievements, including progress under the
United States-Canada Clean Energy Dialogue and the Commission for Environmental Cooperation.
Minister Aglukkaq conducted key bilateral meetings with Ernest Moniz, U.S. Secretary of Energy,
Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Kerri-Ann Jones, U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State, Alaska senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich, and congressmen Doc
Hastings and Don Young.Minister Aglukkaq held a business round table to discuss common areas of
interest between Canada and the United States and promoted Canada’s Arctic Council
chairmanship to members of the business community, non-governmental organizations, academia
and think tanks at events celebrating Arctic and pan-American cooperation. During her meetings,
Minister Aglukkaq highlighted Canada’s success in polar bear conservation and raised concerns over
the United States’ position on listing the polar bear under appendix I of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species, which would have negative economic and social impacts
on Inuit. Minister Aglukkaq indicated that in Canada, polar bears are protected through a
collaborative approach that is based on scientific data and Aboriginal traditional knowledge as well
as principles of sustainability. The integration of Aboriginal traditional knowledge into science is an
important priority for the Canadian chairmanship of the Arctic Council. Minister Aglukkaq was
pleased to engage with the United States on this important issue and looks forward to continued
work on this priority under future chairmanships.
Relations Resilient
Relations are resilient.
Koring ‘9
Paul Koring, Globe and Mail Update, “Canada Expects Better Border Relations”. 3/16/2009.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090316.wborder0316/BNStory/International
/home
Barack Obama's arrival in the White House, coupled with harsh economic realities, may herald a
new era in better Canada-U.S. co-operation on the border, security and the need for unhindered
trade flows, Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan said today. “I sense a real opportunity to
strengthen our relationship” with the arrival of the Obama administration, he said in an interview
at the start of the three-day visit to Washington that will include sessions with Homeland Security
Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric Holder. Although Canadian governments
co-operated closely with the former Bush administration and never publicly complained about the
imposition of tough new border crossing requirements in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks, ministers in Ottawa have seized on the change in Washington to try and revisit a host of
bilateral issues. For Mr. Van Loan, those are “largely issues of border security ... where we have
been unsuccessful for the past while,” although he declined to finger the Bush administration
specifically.
US/Canada relations resilient
Ek, 4/17/2012 (Carl-Coordinator for the Congressional Research Service, Canada-U.S. Relations,
Congressional Research Service, p. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf)
Relations between the United States and Canada, though generally close, have undergone changes in
tenor over the past three decades. During the 1980s, the two countries generally enjoyed very good
relations. The early 1990s brought new governments to Ottawa and Washington, and although Canada’s
Liberal Party emphasized its determination to act independently of the United States when necessary,
relations continued to be cordial. In early 2006, a minority Conservative government assumed power in
Ottawa. It was regarded as being more philosophically in tune with the George W. Bush Administration
than the Liberals had been; some observers believe that this compatibility helped facilitate bilateral
cooperation. This cooperation has continued with the election of President Obama in November 2008,
despite the differences in the two leaders’ governing philosophies. The two North American countries
continue to cooperate widely in international security and political issues, both bilaterally and through
numerous international organizations. Canada’s foreign and defense policies are usually in harmony
with those of the United States. Areas of contention have been relatively few, but sometimes sharp, as
was the case in policy toward Iraq. Since September 11, the United States and Canada have cooperated
extensively on efforts to strengthen border security and to combat terrorism, particularly in Afghanistan.
Both countries were also active participants in the U.N.-sanctioned NATO mission in Libya. The United
States and Canada maintain the world’s largest bilateral trading relationship, one that has been
strengthened over the past two decades by the approval of two major free trade agreements. Although
commercial disputes may not be quite as prominent now as they have been in the past, the two
countries in recent years have engaged in difficult negotiations over items in several trade sectors,
including natural resources, agricultural commodities, and intellectual property rights. The most recent
clash centered around the Buy America provision of the 2009 economic stimulus law. However, these
disputes affect but a small percentage of the total goods and services exchanged. In recent years, energy
has increasingly emerged as a key component of the trade relationship. In addition, the United States
and Canada work together closely on environmental matters, including monitoring air quality and solid
waste transfers, and protecting and maintaining the quality of border waterways.
1NC Relations High
US/Canada relations are fine despite Keystone
Suver 2-16-12 (Roman- Research Associate for the Council on Hemispheric Affairs)
http://www.coha.org/keystone-decision-what-%E2%80%9Cdowngrade%E2%80%9D%E2%80%93-canada-u-s-still-cozy/
While Jack Mintz presents a fairly coherent and almost convincing argument for his views on the
crumbling condition of Canada-USA relations, he fails to embrace a number of important, if
embarrassing truths in his analysis. If these were included, they would serve to give valuable insights
into the bilateral decision-making process and the various motivations of U.S. officials, including
President Obama. These additional factors, such as the realities of U.S. domestic politics, existing ties to
other oil-producing nations, uncertainty over domestic energy policy, and the pending presidential
election – offer a less-ominous and more practical explanation for the decision to reject the proposed
design of the Keystone XL pipeline. Furthermore, these same realities reinforce the notion that it is
simply untrue that any real decline in Canada-USA relations is being witnessed at all, but rather Dr.
Mintz’s assertions are more alarmist exaggerations than accurate assessments.
Mintz uses the White House’s decision to reject the current Keystone XL proposal as the launching pad
of his stance, in a “last straw” riposte to support the authenticity of his central notion: that this is
conclusive evidence of a “downgrade” in the relations between Canada and the U.S. In reality, as with the
other instances cited by Mintz, the action is more attributable to domestic American considerations
rather than a message to Ottawa.As for the two main benefits of Keystone XL cited by Mintz – energy
security and jobs – both are overstated in terms of their importance. With relation to the security of its
energy, the U.S. would surely prefer to produce domestically in order to extend full control over supply,
but nonetheless has secured long-term supply guarantees from various nations, including Saudi Arabia
and Iraq – the “undesired” sources of oil at the heart of the matter. Increasing the current share of
Canadian petroleum exports to the U.S. – even to the maximum capacity afforded by Keystone XL –
would not have much bearing on Washington’s reliance on Middle-East crude, due to the miniscule
increase in supply the pipeline would provide. Keystone XL would increase output by approximately
700,000 barrels of oil per day, which equates to a meagre one-thirtieth of current American daily
domestic demand.[2][3] As such, Mintz’s (and others’) assertions that the pipeline promises to reduce
dependence on Middle-East oil and heralds the arrival of energy security are not based on any realistic
facts. Likewise, as has been widely documented and reported by non-partisan sources, and analyzed by
independent firms free of TransCanada’s influence, the true economic impact of the pipeline has been
grossly overstated by the company, its affiliates, and self-serving Republican Party candidates.[4] Their
initial estimate of close to 120,000 jobs is more than 17 times higher than the U.S. State Department’s
most generous estimate of 5,000-7,000 jobs.[5] The company has since recently revised its official
estimate to 20,000 jobs, which is still about three times higher than the government findings indicate.[6]
Both of these arguments, therefore, become much weaker when considering the facts, and point to less
of a cause and incentive for American decision-makers to approve the project. While it is true that
appeasing environmental groups was a consideration in President Obama’s decision, the much more
important spectre of a potential environmental disaster that would accompany a contamination of
the Ogallala Aquifer, and the subsequent forced relocation of Americans, makes the matter a much
larger bona fide political issue. The more one examines the multifarious nature of the U.S. domestic
debate on the issue and the far-flung implications of approving the current route, the more it becomes
fully apparent that the decision was rooted firmly in consideration of American interests, with Canadian
corporate contentment as largely a secondary thought. Rather than being an indicator of U.S. affinity
towards the Great White North, the decision was merely a practical one for the U.S., and hardly
signals a “downgrade” or referendum on relations. After all, as Mintz stated, Canada is the U.S.’s
largest trading partner, and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
US and Canada Relations are Strong
Government of Canada, 3/22/11 (Canada and the United States: No two nations closer, The
Government of Canada, p. http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/can-am/Closer-etroites.aspx?view=d)
But thetrue strength and resilienceof the relationshipisperhaps bestillustrated when Canada and the
U.S. disagree. As sovereign nations, with at times divergent interests, the two countries are sometimes
confronted by difficult issues. Disagreements, such as those on softwood lumber and on beef
imports,have tested the relationship. Buton every occasion, because they are good neighborsand have
so much in common, solutions have been found.At its core,the Canada-U.S. relationship isso strong, so
mutually important, thatthe two nations realize the common interests that unite them are far greater
than the irritants that may momentarily divide them.
1NC No Afghanistan Impact
Afghanistan conflicts won’t spill-over – no one will be draw-in.
Fettweis ‘11
Christopher Fettweis, Professor of Political Science @ Tulane. “Dangerous Times: The Futurist Interviews
Christopher Fettweis”. World Future Society. 1/12/2011. http://www.wfs.org/content/dangeroustimes-futurist-interviews-christopher-fettweis
THE FUTURIST: In the next few years, the United States will end its military oversight of Afghanistan and
Iraq. We can hope that the two fledgling democracies’ civil governments will prove strong enough to
withstand their armed insurgent enemies, but it’s obvious that they might possibly not. In that case,
Afghanistan and/or Iraq could fall back into chaos. What can we do in that situation to make sure that a
new regional war does not come to pass as a result? CHRISTOPHER FETTWEIS: We can’t determine for
sure if Iraq will implode. But the odds of it drawing everybody else in seem low to me. People worry
about the Iranians coming into Iraq. But the Iranians are more hated in Iraq than the Americans are. In
the nineteenth century, power vacuums used to draw powers in. Nowadays they don't. Countries tend
to stay away from them. They don’t want to even send troops into peacekeeping missions. I don’t think
invading Iraq has made us safer or less safe. It's just been a mess. Afghanistan is the same thing. I don’t
think it matters much to U.S. security either way. They may well end up having their own civil war. But
will it spill over into other countries? Probably not.
2NC No Afghanistan Impact
Afghan instability doesn’t escalate- specific to the Pakistan scenario in their
evidence
Finel ‘9
Dr. Bernard I. Finel, an Atlantic Council contributing editor, is a senior fellow at the American Security Project, “Afghanistan is Irrelevant,” Apr
27 http://www.acus.org/new_atlanticist/afghanistan-irrelevant
Fourth, we are now told that defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan is imperative in order to help stabilize
Pakistan. But, most observers seem to think that Pakistan is in worse shape now — with the Taliban out of
power and American forces in Afghanistan — than it was when the Taliban was dominant in Afghanistan.
For five years from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and the Islamist threat to Pakistan then was
unquestionably lower. This is not surprising actually. Insurgencies are at their most dangerous — in terms of
threat of contagion — when they are fighting for power. The number of insurgencies that actually manage
to sponsor insurgencies elsewhere after taking power is surprising low. The domino theory is as dubious in
the case of Islamist movements as it was in the case of Communist expansion. There is a notion that
“everything changed on 9/11.” We are backing away as a nation from that concept in the case of torture.
Perhaps we should also come to realize that our pre-9/11 assessment of the strategic value and importance
of Afghanistan was closer to the mark that our current obsession with it. We clearly made some mistakes in
dealing with the Taliban regime. But addressing those mistakes through better intelligence, use of special
forces raids, and, yes, diplomacy is likely a better solution than trying to build and sustain a reliable, proWestern government in Kabul with control over the entire country .
1NC No Pakistani Coup
No Pakistani collapse
AP ‘10
“Pakistan's stability, leadership under spotlight after floods and double dealing accusations,” August 6th,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/pakistans-stability-leadership-spotlight-floods-doubledealing-accusations/
Not for the first time, Pakistan appears to be teetering on the edge with a government unable to
cope. Floods are ravaging a country at war with al-Qaida and the Taliban. Riots, slayings and arson
are gripping the largest city. Suggestions are flying that the intelligence agency is aiding Afghan
insurgents. The crises raise questions about a nation crucial to U.S. hopes of success in
Afghanistan and to the global campaign against Islamist militancy. Despite the recent headlines,
few here see Pakistan in danger of collapse or being overrun by militants — a fear that had been
expressed before the army fought back against insurgents advancing from their base in the Swat
Valley early last year. From its birth in 1947, Pakistan has been dogged by military coups, corrupt
and inefficient leaders, natural disasters, assassinations and civil unrest. Through it all, Pakistan
has not prospered — but it survives. “There is plenty to be worried about, but also indications
that when push comes to shove the state is able to respond," said Mosharraf Zaidi, an analyst
and writer who has advised foreign governments on aid missions to Pakistan. "The military has
many weaknesses, but it has done a reasonable job in relief efforts. There have been gaps in the
response. But this is a developing a country, right?" The recent flooding came at a sensitive time
for Pakistan, with Western doubts over its loyalty heightened by the leaking of U.S. military
documents that strengthened suspicions the security establishment was supporting Afghan
insurgents while receiving billions in Western aid. With few easy choices, the United States has
made it clear it intends to stick with Pakistan. Indeed, it has used the floods to demonstrate its
commitment to the country, rushing emergency assistance and dispatching helicopters to ferry
the goods. The Pakistani government's response to the floods has been sharply criticized at home,
especially since President Asif Ali Zardari departed for a European tour. With so many Pakistanis
suffering, the trip has left the already weak and unpopular leader even more vulnerable
politically. The flooding was triggered by what meteorologists said were "once-in-a-century" rains.
The worst affected area is the northwest, a stronghold for Islamist militants. Parts of the
northwest have seen army offensives over the last two years. Unless the people are helped
quickly and the region is rebuilt, anger at the government could translate into support for the
militants. At least one charity with suspected links to a militant outfit has established relief camps
there. The extremism threat was highlighted by a suicide bombing in the main northwestern town
of Peshawar on Wednesday. The bomber killed the head of the Frontier Constabulary, a
paramilitary force in the northwest at the forefront of the terror fight. With authorities
concentrating on flood relief, some officials have expressed concern that militants could regroup.
The city of Karachi has seen militant violence and is rumored to be a hiding place for top Taliban
and al-Qaida fighters. It has also been plagued by regular bouts of political and ethnic bloodletting
since the 1980s, though it has been calmer in recent years. The latest violence erupted after the
assassination of a leading member of the city's ruling party. More than 70 people have been killed
in revenge attacks since then, paralyzing parts of the city of 16 million people. While serious, the
unrest does not yet pose an immediate threat to the stability of the country. Although the U.S. is
unpopular, there is little public support for the hardline Islamist rule espoused by the Taliban
and their allies. Their small movement has been unable to control any Pakistani territory beyond
the northwest, home to only about 20 million of the country's 175 million people.
1NC No Pakistani Loose Nukes
No impact or risk from Pakistani loose nukes
Mueller ’10 – professor of political science at OSU
John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, Calming Our Nuclear Jitters, Issues
in Science & Technology, Winter 2010, Vol. 26, Issue 2
The terrorist group might also seek to steal or illicitly purchase a "loose nuke" somewhere.
However, it seems probable that none exist. All governments have an intense interest in
controlling any weapons on their territory because of fears that they might become the primary
target. Moreover, as technology has developed, finished bombs have been outfitted with
devices that trigger a non-nuclear explosion that destroys the bomb if it is tampered with. And
there are other security techniques: Bombs can be kept disassembled with the component parts
stored in separate high-security vaults, and a process can be set up in which two people and
multiple codes are required not only to use the bomb but to store, maintain, and deploy it. As
Younger points out, "only a few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an
unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon." There could be dangers in the chaos that would
emerge if a nuclear state were to utterly collapse; Pakistan is frequently cited in this context and
sometimes North Korea as well. However, even under such conditions, nuclear weapons would
probably remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb might be used in
their own territory. They would still have locks and, in the case of Pakistan, the weapons would be
disassembled.
1NC Terrorism
No risk of terrorism on US soil
-their evidence speaks to popular imaginsation
-9/11 upped the stakes to every attack has to be large
-no al-qaeda in the US
-can’t sneak into the US
Schneier ‘10
Bruce, internationally renowned security technologist and author. Described by The Economist as a
"security guru," May 5, Schneier on Security,
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/05/why_arent_there.html
Why Aren't There More Terrorist Attacks? As the details of the Times Square car bomb attempt
emerge in the wake of Faisal Shahzad's arrest Monday night, one thing has already been made
clear: Terrorism is fairly easy. All you need is a gun or a bomb, and a crowded target. Guns are
easy to buy. Bombs are easy to make. Crowded targets -- not only in New York, but all over the
country -- are easy to come by. If you're willing to die in the aftermath of your attack, you could
launch a pretty effective terrorist attack with a few days of planning, maybe less. But if it's so
easy, why aren't there more terrorist attacks like the failed car bomb in New York's Times
Square? Or the terrorist shootings in Mumbai? Or the Moscow subway bombings? After the
enormous horror and tragedy of 9/11, why have the past eight years been so safe in the U.S.?
There are actually several answers to this question. One, terrorist attacks are harder to pull off
than popular imagination -- and the movies -- lead everyone to believe. Two, there are far fewer
terrorists than the political rhetoric of the past eight years leads everyone to believe. And three,
random minor terrorist attacks don't serve Islamic terrorists' interests right now. Hard to Pull
Off Terrorism sounds easy, but the actual attack is the easiest part. Putting together the people,
the plot and the materials is hard. It's hard to sneak terrorists into the U.S. It's hard to grow your
own inside the U.S. It's hard to operate; the general population, even the Muslim population, is
against you. Movies and television make terrorist plots look easier than they are. It's hard to hold
conspiracies together. It's easy to make a mistake. Even 9/11, which was planned before the
climate of fear that event engendered, just barely succeeded. Today, it's much harder to pull
something like that off without slipping up and getting arrested. Few Terrorists But even more
important than the difficulty of executing a terrorist attack, there aren't a lot of terrorists out
there. Al-Qaida isn't a well-organized global organization with movie-plot-villain capabilities; it's a
loose collection of people using the same name. Despite the post-9/11 rhetoric, there isn't a
terrorist cell in every major city. If you think about the major terrorist plots we've foiled in the
U.S. -- the JFK bombers, the Fort Dix plotters -- they were mostly amateur terrorist wannabes with
no connection to any sort of al-Qaida central command, and mostly no ability to effectively carry
out the attacks they planned. The successful terrorist attacks -- the Fort Hood shooter, the guy
who flew his plane into the Austin IRS office, the anthrax mailer -- were largely nut cases
operating alone. Even the unsuccessful shoe bomber, and the equally unsuccessful Christmas Day
underwear bomber, had minimal organized help -- and that help originated outside the U.S.
Terrorism doesn't occur without terrorists, and they are far rarer than popular opinion would
have it. Small Attacks Aren't Enough Lastly, and perhaps most subtly, there's not a lot of value in
unspectacular terrorism anymore. If you think about it, terrorism is essentially a PR stunt. The
death of innocents and the destruction of property isn't the goal of terrorism; it's just the tactic
used. And acts of terrorism are intended for two audiences: for the victims, who are supposed to
be terrorized as a result, and for the allies and potential allies of the terrorists, who are supposed
to give them more funding and generally support their efforts. An act of terrorism that doesn't
instill terror in the target population is a failure, even if people die. And an act of terrorism that
doesn't impress the terrorists' allies is not very effective, either. Fortunately for us and
unfortunately for the terrorists, 9/11 upped the stakes. It's no longer enough to blow up
something like the Oklahoma City Federal Building. Terrorists need to blow up airplanes or the
Brooklyn Bridge or the Sears Tower or JFK airport -- something big to impress the folks back
home. Small no-name targets just don't cut it anymore. Note that this is very different than
terrorism by an occupied population: the IRA in Northern Ireland, Iraqis in Iraq, Palestinians in
Israel. Setting aside the actual politics, all of these terrorists believe they are repelling foreign
invaders. That's not the situation here in the U.S. So, to sum up: If you're just a loner wannabe
who wants to go out with a bang, terrorism is easy. You're more likely to get caught if you take
a long time to plan or involve a bunch of people, but you might succeed. If you're a
representative of al-Qaida trying to make a statement in the U.S., it's much harder. You just
don't have the people, and you're probably going to slip up and get caught.
Terrorism is not an existential threat – at most it will kill a few hundred
people a year – the fear of WMD terrorism is overblown.
Mueller ‘11
John Mueller is Professor of Political Science at Ohio State University. He is the author of Atomic
Obsession. “The truth about al Qaeda”. August 5, 2011. CNN’s Global Public Square.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/05/the-truth-about-al-qaeda/
Outside of war zones, the amount of killing carried out by al Qaeda and al Qaeda linkees,
maybes, and wannabes throughout the entire world since 9/11 stands at perhaps a few hundred
per year. That's a few hundred too many, of course, but it scarcely presents an existential, or
elephantine, threat. And the likelihood that an American will be killed by a terrorist of any ilk
stands at one in 3.5 million per year, even with 9/11 included. That probability will remain
unchanged unless terrorists are able to increase their capabilities massively - and obtaining
nuclear weapons would allow them to do so. Although al Qaeda may have dreamed from time
to time about getting such weapons, no other terrorist group has even gone so far as to indulge
in such dreams, with the exception of the Japanese cult Aum Shinrikyo, which leased the mineral
rights to an Australian sheep ranch that sat on uranium deposits, purchased some semi-relevant
equipment, and tried to buy a finished bomb from the Russians. That experience, however,
cannot be very encouraging to the would-be atomic terrorist. Even though it was flush with
funds and undistracted by drone attacks (or even by much surveillance), Aum Shinrikyo
abandoned its atomic efforts in frustration very early on. It then moved to biological weapons,
another complete failure that inspired its leader to suggest that fears expressed in the United
States of a biological attack were actually a ruse to tempt terrorist groups to pursue the weapons.
The group did finally manage to release some sarin gas in a Tokyo subway that killed 13 and led
to the group's terminal shutdown, as well as to 16 years (and counting) of pronouncements that
WMD terrorism is the wave of the future. No elephants there, either.
Claims of an existential risk from terrorism are irrational
Fettweis, Professor of Political Science, ‘10
Chris, Professor of Political Science @ Tulane,Threat and Anxiety in US Foreign Policy, Survival, 52:2
Conventional war, much less outright assault, is not the leading security challenge in the minds of
most Americans today. Instead, irregular or non- state actors, especially terrorists, top the list of
threats to the West since 11 September 2001. The primary guiding principle of US foreign
policymaking, for better or worse, is the continuing struggle against terrorism. President Bush
repeatedly used the term ‘Islamofascists’ to describe the enemy that he re-oriented the US
defence establishment to fight, transforming al-Qaeda from a ragtag band of lunatics into a threat
to the republic itself. It is not uncommon for even sober analysts to claim that Islamic terrorists
present an ‘existential threat’ to the United States, especially if they were ever to employ
nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. Perhaps it is Parkinson’s Law that inspires some
analysts to compare Islamic fundamentalists with the great enemies of the past, such as the
Nazis or the Communists, since no rational analysis of their destructive potential would allow
such a conclu- sion. Threat is a function of capabilities and intent; even if al-Qaeda has the intent
to threaten the existence of the United States, it does not possess the capability to do so.
Air Power 1NC
Alt cause – no new aircraft and asymmetrical conflict
***careful, aff may solve
Haffa 12
Robert P Haffa jr., Director of the Northrop Grumman Analysis Center. He is a graduate of the United
States Air Force Academy, holds an M.A. degree from Georgetown University and a Ph.D. in political
science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is an adjunct professor in the Government
program at Johns Hopkins University.
“Full-Spectrum Air Power: Building the Air Force America Needs” 10/12/12
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/10/full-spectrum-air-power-building-the-air-forceamerica-needs
A number of factors have led the U.S. Air Force into its current state—described by some as
“geriatric.” The size of the Air Force has declined in tandem with the perceived threat and as a
result of a decade-long concentration on land combat against irregular forces. Without new
aircraft to replace the existing fleet, the Air Force was required to keep its aging aircraft flying,
creating a “death spiral”—spending funds on maintenance, repair, and overhaul of obsolescent
airframes instead of acquiring new aircraft. Moreover, the Air Force has engaged in nearly
continuous combat operations since Saddam Hussein’s forces crossed the Kuwaiti border in 1990.
The “long hard slog” of counterinsurgency that occupied America’s armed forces over the past
decade emphasized a manpower-intensive doctrine that sought to find and fix an elusive,
asymmetric adversary in unconventional armed conflict at the expense of the core Air Force
missions of air superiority and long-range strike.
No air power – anti-access weapons and new fighters
Grant ‘9
Greg Grant, contributing editor for DOD Buzz, 9-15-2009, “U.S. Air Dominance Eroding,” DOD Buzz,
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/15/u-s-air-dominance-eroding/
Emphasizing the increasing capabilities of “anti- access weapons,” such as long range precision
missiles, Deptula said pilots in future wars will not operate in the “permissive” threat
environments of current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deptula, best known for crafting the
Desert Storm air campaign, said potential opponents have learned from U.S. operations and will
use precision arsenals to stop a buildup of U.S. airpower near their borders before a war even
begins. Without functioning ground bases, aircraft cannot operate; the Air Force is investing
heavily in shorter ranged tactical aircraft, such as the F- 22 and F- 35, along with a host of older F15 and F- 16. Overseas bases from which these aircraft operate are now threatened by
increasingly accurate ballistic missiles in Chinese, Russian, Iranian and North Korean arsenals,
Deptula said. The newest models are road mobile and exceedingly difficult to locate. Enemies will
use cyber attacks to target U.S. command and control networks and satellite relays, the smooth
functioning of which the military is now completely dependant. “Space is no longer a sanctuary and our satellites are at
risk… for five decades the U.S. has led the world in space,” he said, now, “the space domain is perhaps the most likely arena for threats to achieve leveraged effects,” against U.S.
operations. The Chinese are developing anti- satellite weapons, as are the Russians, and the number of countries that can launch sensor- loaded satellites into space is increasing.
Because of improvements in over the horizon and passive radars, U.S. aircraft will be detected long before they reach their targets. “The area that we operate in free from
detection is rapidly shrinking,” Deptula said, “our adversaries are going to have capabilities that we’ve never operated against.” The newest generation surface- to- air missiles,
such as the Russian SA- 21, have ranges exceeding 300 miles and the ability to target low flying aircraft, and will likely be exported. Speaking to the more traditional realm of air- toair combat, so dear to his audience’s heart, Deptula contends that the U.S. technological edge there is eroding. While “fourth generation” fighters are no match for the most
advanced U.S. fighters, Deptula reminded the audience of the Russian export success with the MIG- 21, some 12,000 of which were built, and operated by over 50 countries.
Russia and China are both developing “fifth generation” fighters that will be widely exported at
prices that will undercut the F- 35 price tag. Both nations will thus acquire “near F- 22
performance… while attempting to proliferate the [aircraft] to perhaps near F- 35 like quantities,”
he said. “We may be facing a fighter threat capability in quantities we’ve never experienced
before.”
Useless at fighting wars
Donnelly ‘9
Thomas. Resident scholar @ AEI. America's Air Supremacy Allowed to Evaporate. 9/8/9.
http://www.aei.org/article/100990.
Second of all, U.S. armed forces find themselves embroiled in wars that naturally dissipate the
effects of air power. Attacking irregular enemies from the air is inevitably a whack-a-mole
enterprise. Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants are hard to find and they don't sit still
for long. When we can find prime targets, such as Abu Musab al Zarqawi in Iraq or Baitullah Meshud just recently in Pakistan, they
prove to be of lesser and brief value; indeed, the air power concept of "leadership" or "high
value" targets needs rethinking. Even if we were lucky enough to at last kill bin Laden, it's getting harder to argue that this would produce anything like
a decisive effect in the so-called "long war."
Alt cause – oil dependence
Bender 7
Bryan. 5/1/7.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/01/pentagon_study_says_oil_relia
nce_strains_military/.
A new study ordered by the Pentagon warns that the rising cost and dwindling supply of oil -- the
lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks -- will make the US military's ability to respond to
hot spots around the world "unsustainable in the long term." The study, produced by a defense
consulting firm, concludes that all four branches of the military must "fundamentally transform"
their assumptions about energy, including taking immediate steps toward fielding weapons
systems and aircraft that run on alternative and renewable fuels. It is "imperative" that the
Department of Defense "apply new energy technologies that address alternative supply sources
and efficient consumption across all aspects of military operations," according to the report,
which was provided to the Globe.
Air Power 2NC—Anti Access Weapons
Area denial takes out the ability to have air power
Donnelly ‘9
Thomas. Resident scholar @ AEI. America's Air Supremacy Allowed to Evaporate. 9/8/9.
http://www.aei.org/article/100990.
So what's gone tyuwrong? To begin with, our enemies, current and potential, have taken note
and taken steps particularly to try to neutralize the effects of American air power. The closest
student has been the Chinese People's Liberation Army. Almost since the ink was dry on Cohen's
essay, the PLA has both been devising ways to limit the U.S. ability to use its air power in East
Asia. The Chinese have invested heavily in long range, land-based air defenses, but perhaps the
most challenging Chinese capabilities are those that attempt to restrict American access to air
bases in the region or to effectively employ carrier-based aviation. The prime mission for China's
growing arsenal of ballistic and cruise missiles is to target airfields around the region--especially
those in Japan--and, in concert with the Chinese navy's expanding submarine force, hold U.S.
carriers at risk.
1NC japan – resilient
Japan won’t abandon the alliance – shared vital interests and perceived common threats – makes
sustained cooperation inevitable
Sang-ho 9/7/2012 Song, “US-Japan alliance grows for Asia-Pacific security balance,” Korea Herald,
http://www.asianewsnet.net/home/news.php?id=33084&sec=1
On the surface, the alliance between the US and Japan appears to have worsened in recent years due to a
long-standing controversy over the relocation of the Futenma airbase in Okinawa.
But this would not undermine the core of the alliance between the two countries that share security
interests and values of democracy, and take initiatives against global terrorism and proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, experts pointed out.
“People should not misconstrue a long-running local dispute over how to close one Marine air base
with the durability and capability of that vital alliance,” said Patrick M. Cronin, senior director of the Asia
Programme at the Centre for a New American Security.
After the Democratic Party of Japan took power in 2009, ending a half-century of almost unbroken conservative rule, the alliance appeared
to have deteriorated with the Tokyo leadership pursuing a closer yet “equal” relationship.
But it has apparently re-prioritised
its relationship with Washington as it recognised growing security
challenges from China and North Korea.
Amid its strategic pivot toward Asia, the US is likely to escalate its calls for the Asian ally to contribute more to
maintaining stability in the region.
Japan also wanted to increase its military role in the region and beyond. But it has been fettered by the pacifist constitution.
The law prohibits Japan from going to war and having any potential war materials, and engaging in collective defence action, which makes it
difficult to help support its ally US even if it is attacked. Right-wingers have sought to rewrite the law or tried to alter the interpretation of it to
expand the role of the Self-Defence Forces.
The deepening of the military alliance is also crucial for Tokyo, which has been engaged in an
increasingly strident territorial disputes with Beijing over a set of islands in the East China Sea, which are called Senkaku in
Japanese and Diaoyu in Chinese.
Relations resilient
Green 11 – associate professor of international relations at Georgetown University and senior advisor and Japan chair at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies (Michael J., "The Democratic Party of Japan and the Future of the U.S.-Japan Alliance" The Journal of
Japanese Studies, Volume 27, Number 1, Winter 2011, Project MUSE)
Despite the travails and uncertainty now clouding the alliance, there are multiple reasons to expect
that Japan will continue to be closely aligned with the United States and influential in the
international system. First, there is historical precedent. As Kenneth Pyle has pointed out, Japan has always successfully
reordered its domestic institutions and instruments of national power in the face of new international
challenges even if institutions in Japan's conservative political culture have a sticky resistance to
change, as Carol Gluck has observed.10 Postwar history also demonstrates the resilience of U.S.-Japan security
relations. The fact is that the alliance has entered periods of drift and faced crises before, including the 1960 Anpo demonstrations, the
protests against the Vietnam War, the "Nixon shocks," the FS-X confrontation, and the 1995 Okinawa rape incident. In each case,
observers predicted the end of the alliance, yet in each case the security relationship emerged
significantly strengthened. Kent Calder has described a pattern in Japanese domestic politics in which the conservative LDP elite
would co-opt the opposition's policy initiatives in response to social or economic crises, thus reinforcing the social contract and legitimacy of
conservative rule.11 In similar ways, the
United States and Japan have repeatedly responded to bilateral political
crises by offering new reciprocal "compensation" in terms of expanded Japanese security
responsibilities and a reduction of the U.S. military footprint in Japan.12 This continual process of redefining and
reaffirming the 1960 security treaty is not always visible in the midst of a crisis, but it is one reason why support for the alliance has steadily
expanded in both the United States and Japan over its 50-year history. In addition to historical precedent, structural
factors will bind
if not ultimately define Japan's strategic options. The rise of Chinese power and North Korean nuclear
brinkmanship render a close alliance with the United States by far the best guarantor of Japanese
security, while growing economic [End Page 94] interdependence with China will ensure that Japanese governments (and U.S. governments,
for that matter) will resist crude strategies of containment against China. Japan's demographic and fiscal challenges are already limiting the
DPJ's original promises of largess (cutting highway fees, distributing child allowances, etc.) and forcing a consensus within the party that the
policy tool kit will have to include some combination of cutting corporate taxes, raising the consumption tax, and restricting spending. If these
seemed like uniquely difficult choices for Japan at one point, it is only necessary to observe the enormous changes Europe must now make in its
social contract in order to remain fiscally solvent – or to consider the massive demographic challenge looming in the decade ahead in China as a
result of the one child policy and a massively deficient social welfare net. Exaggerating the uniqueness and irreversibility of Japanese challenges
today makes no more sense than predicting Japan's certain global domination did 20 years ago.
xt resilient
Cooperation inevitable – disputes won’t manifest
Bader 10 Jeffrey 6/7, Senior fellow at Brookings- Director of the John L. Thornton China Center, 6/7/10 [Keynote Speech: US-Japan Alliance
at 50: Toward a Reenergized Partnership” http://stimson.org/japan/pdf/Transcript_Jeff_Bader.pdf]
The sinking of the South Korean naval vessel, Cheonan, by North Korea served as a dramatic reminder that
Northeast Asia is still “a dangerous neighborhood.” The Japanese Cabinet noticed. The Japanese government also
experienced some difficulties in its relationship with China, in which it had invested a considerable amount. The DPJ has come to
understand with increasing clarity that others in the region have been watching closely the U.S.-Japan alliance, and Japan could not
afford the impression of a rift to “gain traction.” It turns out that all politics is not 100 percent local, as it
had been seen in Japan for some months before then. The decision came against a series of other policy
decisions by the Japanese government that demonstrate that the alliance is about more than basing
issues. Japan has allocated $900 million in its current budget towards a multi-year, $5 billion, pledge to the Afghan
Army and police, including for rehabilitation and training of demobilized Taliban and important development projects. Japan, like the United
States, believes that peace and security in Afghanistan depend significantly on stability in Pakistan, and Tokyo has pledged $1 billion in
assistance to Pakistan and hosted a major pledging conference. Japan has strongly backed the Republic of Korea, in the face of aggression from
the North, in the wake of the Cheonan incident. Its solidarity with South Korea has been firm and public. Japan
has sought trilateral
cooperation with the U.S. and South Korea, and taken a leading role in fashioning a UN Security Council
response. As a member of the UN Security Council, this year, Japan is supporting the U.S.–led draft of a resolution on
Iran. Prime Minister Kan – Prime Minister to be Kan – indeed reiterated that support in his first conversation with
President Obama, this past week. Japan’s leadership has made clear recently that it favors U.S. participation in an eventual East
Asian Community, a change taken from the DPJ position last fall. Japan strongly supported President Obama’s initiatives in
the April Nuclear Security Summit and worked closely with the U.S. delegation at the NPT Review Conference in May. So, nine
months after the DPJ’s electoral victory, the scorecard, from the U.S. perspective, at last, is positive and improving. There has been lots
of attention to what a rough ride it has been, to the precipitous decline in Hatoyama’s polling numbers and, ultimately, his
demise, his political demise, to the difficulties of the DPJ government in “getting its feet under it.” And now the – as I said – the resignation. I’ll
leave to experts on Japan the analysis of these, but from the viewpoint of the U.S., the larger issue, in conclusion, is this: That Japan
has
gone through the single most dramatic political change in 50 years – after 50 years of stasis in party rule, and the U.S.Japan alliance has emerged in sound condition, having been scrutinized and ultimately validated by the
new political leadership. This is, in one sense, not surprising, since 80 percent of all Japanese, in polling, support the alliance.** That
is the indispensible foundation for the alliance.
Resilience overwhelms their internal link.
Bisley 08 (Nick, Associate Prof. IR @ La Trobe U., Contemporary Southeast Asia, “Securing the "anchor of regional stability"? The
transformation of the US-Japan alliance and East Asian security; Report”, 4-1, 30:1, L/N)
The US-Japan relationship stands on robust political foundations and has overcome many of the strategic and
operational problems which had bedevilled it in the 1990s and it is one of the key pieces of America's global strategy. It rests on a
number of pillars which include a shared set of interests, shared threat perceptions and policy responses, and is
underpinned by a set of common values that are overtly expressed as vital to the relationship. In the words of a senior Japanese policymaker, the US-Japan relationship is in a "mature phase". (41) The quality of the relationship was personified by the concord which existed
between President Bush and Prime Minister Koizumi. Koizumi's final trip to the United States included not only a summit putting the rhetorical
stamp on alliance transformation, it included an unprecedented presidential tour of Elvis Presley's home, Graceland. As a metaphor for the
alliance more generally, the visit could hardly be more fitting. Although the personal relationship between the two was very important to the
political and operational process of alliance enhancement, the strategic interests it advances and the extent of the consensus about these
among policy-makers is such that, providing alliance managers exercise due care, the basic tenor of the current relationship will last long after
these two political leaders have left the stage. (42)
The United States and Japan now have a genuine alliance, although one distinguished by an unusual and clearly
delineated division of labour, which is intended to be the foundation of Japanese defence and security, a mechanism to
stabilize a strategically complex region and a vital piece of America's global strategy. In both states there is a strong consensus
as to its long-term value. Although, the US-Japan alliance is still quite different from those which America has with other states, it is
testimony to the scope of changes wrought in the past five years or so that it is now not impossible to imagine that, over the longer term, Japan
could become an ally which carries a strategic weight similar to that born by the United Kingdom.
Basing dispute proves. We mangled the relocation issue yet cooperation increased
Hornung 12/10/2010 – PhD, Associate Professor Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, postdoctoral fellow at Ohio State University’s
Mershon Center for International Security Studies (Jeffrey, CSIS Pacific Forum, Number 61, “More than Futenma”,
http://csis.org/files/publication/pac1061.pdf)
Since former Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama’s bungling of the relocation of the Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, it has
become normal for Japanese and Western media outlets to report that the US-Japan alliance has weakened or is
adrift. It is neither. While US-Japan relations have suffered damage at the political level, including a loss of trust, the
fundamentals of the relationship remain strong. This strong foundation, in turn, enables continued
bilateral cooperation in a wide variety of areas.
Understanding the strength of current relations matters because US-Japan relations are about to enter Round Two of political mudslinging after
Sunday’s Okinawa gubernatorial election. The winner, incumbent Hirokazu Nakaima, opposes Prime Minister Naoto Kan’s
promise
to fulfill the May 28 agreement with the US to relocate Futenma from Ginowan to Nago City. Because Kan’s other
promise is to listen to local voices, it will be difficult to make progress on relocation. The expected
deadlock will lead to frustration in Washington and the rise of more ‘alliance adrift’ cries. While Futenma
relocation will require compromise by both sides to balance the desires of Okinawa residents with the security requirements for Japan and the
Asia-Pacific region, it should not define bilateral relations. The challenge for Tokyo and Washington is to keep Futenma in its proper
perspective. The US-Japan relationship is more than Futenma.
Sound Fundamentals
Consider first the fundamental purpose of the alliance. In exchange for the US defense of Japan, Japan allows the US to maintain bases in Japan.
The US receives a forward military presence in Asia while Japan enjoys defense at a lower cost than if it was responsible for its own. This
agreement remains solid and has been confirmed by recent events. After
the Chinese fishing trawler incident near the Senkaku
Islands (Daioyutai in Chinese), US officials have repeatedly expressed the applicability of Article 5 of the Japan-US
Security Treaty to the defense of the Senkaku Islands. The highest expression of support came from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
during her meeting with Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara in Honolulu last month.
The same is true of Japan’s responsibilities. Despite facing strong opposition in Okinawa, both by the people and the
gubernatorial candidates, Kan is committed to fulfilling the May agreement to relocate Futenma to Nago City. Additionally,
regarding the Japan-US Special Measures Agreement that outlines Japan’s financial contributions for host nation support of US forces (called
the sympathy budget in Japan), Kan agreed to sustain the current level of 188.1 billion yen. While it falls short of US requests for a budget
increase to cover eco-friendly facility improvements, sustaining
current spending is impressive given the previous
opposition of Kan’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) to the special agreement authorizing the budget. Indeed, the party had been
pushing Kan to reduce Japan’s financial burden.
Robust Ties and Potential for Growth
In addition to strong fundamentals, there is room not only for the continuation of robust security ties, but
even further growth. Consider first the reaction to recent naval activity by China in the East China Sea. The
Ministry of Defense (MOD) hosted the first meeting of senior officials of the Ground Self Defense Force (GSDF) and the
US Marine Corps (USMC) with an explicit aim of strengthening bilateral cooperation via the exchange of opinions on
opportunities for defense cooperation near Japan’s southwest islands. Their civilian counterparts also agreed to launch
senior-level consultations between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the State Department officials to exchange views on the
changing situation in East Asia. In January, the GSDF will join the US Army and USMC to conduct a joint command post exercise that, for the first
time, incorporates the defense of Japan’s southwestern islands. In addition to confining China’s navy to the East China Sea, the exercise
simulates troop deployment to outlying islands and re-capture operations.
Japan has also been making progress in cooperating with other US allies. Just as Japan stood side-by-side with the US
in support of South Korea after the Cheonan incident, it has denounced North Korea’s recent shelling of South Korea. Similarly, two Maritime
SDF (MSDF) destroyers have recently participated in naval training exercises hosted by South Korea under the Proliferation Security Initiative.
The MOD hopes to push for further confidence-building measures with its Korean counterpart. Such
moves are welcomed by the
US as it strengthens trilateral cooperation among its allies at a critical time for regional stability. This follows
a decision by both Japanese and US militaries to hold strategic security talks with Australia and South Korea concerning China’s military
modernization. For the US, stronger ties among its allies mean improved joint
sharing, warning and surveillance, and cooperation against future Chinese anti-access strategies.
action in disaster relief, information
While the Hatoyama administration terminated the MSDF refueling mission in the Indian Ocean, Japan
has not turned its back on
US-led efforts in Afghanistan. Although it does not pack the same symbolic punch as Japanese vessels refueling NATO vessels, and
revives images of checkbook diplomacy, Japan remains committed to Afghanistan reconstruction via $5 billion in aid. Kan is
seeking to build upon this by dispatching a contingent of some 10 SDF doctors and nurses to Afghanistan. While the small
medical team resembles Japan’s 17-member medical team dispatched during the Gulf War, it does demonstrate Japan’s ongoing commitment
to disaster relief and humanitarian operations. This includes dispatching helicopters to relief efforts in Pakistan and the extension of GSDF
missions in Haiti and Nepal. It also demonstrates Japan’s willingness to engage in SDF operations beyond the region. Further
evidence is
found in Kan’s extension of the MSDF antipiracy operation in the Gulf of Aden.
Diplomatically, Tokyo and Washington show ongoing commitment to each other’s interests. Despite having an economic interest in
maintaining a role in Iran’s Azadegan oil field project, Kan sided with the US by applying sanctions on Iran and
withdrawing from the project. For his part, President Barack Obama took advantage of the international spotlight created
by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to endorse Japan's bid for a permanent seat on the United Nations
Security Council, a goal Japan has been pursuing for nearly two decades.
Economic relations are strengthening too. First among these ties is Kan’s decision to begin consultations on the
Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to collect information for possible participation. While this decision is not a guarantee that Japan will join the
TPP, it is impressive. Not only does it signal a significant change in Japan’s trade policy and abandonment of the East Asian Summit as the
chosen framework for economic integration, it also pits Kan against members of his own party and the powerful agricultural lobby that oppose
Japanese participation. If Kan decides to join, Japan’s participation would be equivalent to a free trade agreement with the US, prioritizing US
economic relations over Japan’s agricultural sector.
Making less news are two other agreements. One, an open skies agreement involving Haneda and Narita
airports, enables carriers in both countries to set flight routes and the number of flights at their discretion. The
result will be Japanese carriers strengthening business ties with US counterparts and an increase in convenience for passengers travelling
between the two countries using Japanese or US carriers. The
other, a bilateral agreement to diversify rare earth
suppliers and possible joint development, was a response to China’s use of rare earth exports as a political tool. It looks like
agreement to act in concert with the US to minimize potential leverage China may seek via its dominance in
the rare earth trade.
Changes Ahead
There are other moves in the DPJ that could signal significant changes in Japan’s security policies if realized. Importantly, they are changes that
past Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) administrations could not (or would not) achieve and would lead to closer US-Japan relations.
The most significant is a proposal to revise Japan’s ban on exports of weapons and related technology. Because small-to
medium-sized Japanese defense subcontractors face increasing production costs, it is becoming more difficult for Japan to maintain a domestic
production base. The current ban includes exceptions that allow Japan to transfer arms technology to the US and jointly develop and produce a
ballistic missile defense system, but it does not allow Japan to participate in the development of other weapons, such as the F-35. The current
proposal is to revert to Prime Minister Eisaku Sato’s original three principles but add four standards. The net result would
enable Japan
to participate in joint development and production of weapons with the US and 18 other countries, including South
Korea, Australia, and Western European members of NATO. Passage of this proposal would strengthen alliance relations as it
would enable the US and Japan to pool resources and technologies for research and production of equipment at lower costs. It also averts
problems that will arise after the US begins exporting to third countries the SM-3 Block II interceptor that is part of the jointly developed
USJapan missile defense system. Another proposal under discussion is a permanent law on the overseas dispatch of the SDF. Previous LDP
administrations considered a similar law, but opposition halted any progress. Depending on the content, it could make dispatching the SDF
much easier in situations that do not fall under the Law for Cooperation on United Nations Peacekeeping Operations (PKO Law) and enable
Japan to react faster to international needs. This comes at the same time that the
DPJ is considering a review of the PKO Law
to expand the scope of Japan’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations, including the possibility of
relaxing weapons’ use standards for SDF personnel to defend foreign military personnel. Any revision would expand the range of
UN missions in which Japan can participate.
Political winds may disturb bilateral relations, but there is much more robust cooperation than is often
acknowledged. While the Futenma relocation has eroded trust in political relations, it should not overshadow
the positive areas of cooperation. Relations remain strong in the security, diplomatic, and economic realms. What is
more, the DPJ seems set to make significant changes in Japan’s policies that would further bolster our
partnership. Critical challenges lie ahead, including how to integrate the areas of cooperation under a new joint declaration next spring.
Okinawa’s gubernatorial election added a further layer of complexity. Yet, there is much more to USJapan relations than what is happening in Okinawa. As long as Futenma defines the health of bilateral relations, this point
will be lost.
japan – alt cause
Alt causes to the alliance
Cossa & Glosserman 09
[11/13, Ralph A., president of the Pacific Forum CSIS, Brad, executive director of the forum, “Future of Japan-US Alliance (1),”
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/11/137_55152.html]
The Okinawa base issue has grabbed the lion’s share of the headlines over what has been portrayed as
an “ultimatum” from Gates that “it is time to move on,” combined with his warning that pulling apart
the current (previously agreed upon) plan would be “immensely complicated and counterproductive.” But Gates
also pointed out that “we are very sympathetic to the desire of the new government in Japan to review the realignment road map,” further
noting that “we have not talked in terms of a time limit, but rather the need to progress as quickly as possible.” He further noted that “modest
change” on the Futenma Air base relocation issue was a matter between Tokyo and the Okinawan government and people (who have thrice
signaled acceptance of the plan). Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio clearly does not want to be rushed on this issue; efforts to publicly
push him are likely to be counterproductive. But he has also pledged to take local opinions into account and to make a final decision once his
administration’s review process is over. In discussing the issue, the prime minister also noted that “there are still numerous causes for concern
in the Asia-Pacific region. The deterrence capability of U.S. forces in Okinawa is also necessary for the security of our country.” With a bit of
patience, there could yet be a happy ending. The key for both sides is not to make this an issue of contention during President Obama’s visit.
This bit of cautious optimism aside, there
are a number of other sensitive issues that could just as easily put new
strains on the alliance if not properly handled. One centers around Prime Minister Hatoyama’s apparent
determination to unveil details of an alleged “secret pact” between Japan and the United States – one
that is said to allow U.S. vessels and aircraft carrying nuclear weapons to stop in Japan. This investigation
threatens a collision between Tokyo’s three nonnuclear principles and the U.S.-Japan alliance relationship that serves as the cornerstone of the
U.S. commitment to Japan’s defense. While we applaud transparency, the DPJ government needs to be fully aware of the potential
consequences of this investigation if followed through to its logical conclusion. In December 1967, then Prime Minister Sato Eisaku introduced
the “three nonnuclear principles,” which pledged that Japan would not possess, manufacture, or allow the introduction of nuclear weapons
into Japan. That policy – it was passed as a parliamentary resolution in 1971 and is not a law – reflected Japan’s deep-rooted aversion to
nuclear weapons and helped Sato win the Nobel Peace Prize in 1974. It has been a pillar of Japanese diplomacy and foreign policy ever since –
Hatoyama renewed Japan’s “firm commitment” to these principles in a speech to the United Nations Security Council just last month. That
pledge notwithstanding, for decades there have been rumors of a secret “don’t ask, don’t tell” arrangement between Japan and the U.S. that
allowed the U.S. to keep nuclear weapons on ships and aircraft that stopped in Japan or transited its waters. Previous Japanese governments
denied this deal existed, and it became moot in 1991 when then-President George H.W. Bush ordered the removal of all tactical nuclear
weapons from deployed U.S. ships and aircraft. Nonetheless – and here’s the rub – the U.S. still follows a strict “neither confirm nor deny”
policy in discussing the presence of U.S. nuclear weapons anywhere to avoid precedents that could limit its flexibility or threaten operational
security during periods of crisis or conflict or compromise nuclear storage facilities on U.S. territory. As part of its “transparent government
campaign,” the DPJ pledged that it would uncover the truth behind the allegations if it won the August parliamentary elections. After taking
office, Foreign Minister Okada Katsuya said his office would launch an inquiry and “We will reveal everything we find.” Fine; then what? Let’s
say that the Hatoyama government comes up with “proof” that such a deal existed. What happens next? Is the Hatoyama government then
prepared to announce “case closed” and move on or will it feel compelled to take measures to ensure that this could never happen again – a
move that would force Washington to choose between maintaining its “neither confirm nor deny” policy or maintaining the alliance? That
might seem like a simple choice to the Japanese, but it is not so easy for Washington, which has to always keep one eye on precedents and how
this would affect operations and alliances elsewhere. Facing a similar choice when an antinuclear government came to power in New Zealand in
1984, the U.S. chose to let go of its long-standing ANZUS alliance and continue bilaterally with Australia alone. Wellington further complicated
the issue by also banning nuclear-powered ships, but it was the "neither confirm nor deny" straw that broke that camel's back. New Zealand
remains outside of ANZUS to this day. Then there
is the "no first use" issue. Hatoyama, in praising Obama's global disarmament
initiative, went further by unilaterally suggesting that Washington also forswear the use of nuclear weapons
except in response to a nuclear attack from elsewhere. On the face of it, this "moral high road" stance would likely enjoy
the support of the majority of Japanese (and perhaps even American) citizens. But let's phrase it another way: "Should the U.S. assure North
Korea that, in the event of a chemical or biological attack against its Japanese ally, it would not respond using all available means?" Leaving a
potential enemy wondering about the level of response to an act of hostility is aimed at making him think more than twice about starting
trouble in the first place. Please note that refusing to adopt a "no first use" policy does not mean that the U.S. has a "first use" policy or intends
to use nuclear weapons pre-emptively or in response to chemical or biological attacks by North Korea or anyone else. But, for deterrence
reasons, it leaves open that possibility. Would Japanese (or American) citizens feel more or less secure if the U.S. limited its options in advance?
(Arguing for a "no first use of weapons of mass destruction" policy might make sense, however, but this is another issue and one that should be
discussed privately between allies before public pronouncements are made.) Secretary Gates, in discussing the "secret pact" issue with
Defense Minister Toshimi Kitazawa, warned that "We
hope that care is taken not to have a negative impact on
nuclear deterrence and the bilateral relationship." The same applies to "no first use." Gates' mention of the
extended deterrent provides context for this entire discussion. Extended deterrence is the cornerstone of the U.S-Japan security treaty, which is
in turn the foundation of the two countries' security strategies. It is remarkable to us that the new government in Tokyo would risk threatening
that core of the alliance at the very time when conversations in Tokyo reveal growing concern about the credibility of the U.S. commitment to
Japan's defense. Several
Japanese interlocutors have even suggested that Japan consider revising the three
principles by dropping the one forbidding the introduction of nuclear weapons as a cure for the lack of
confidence and to add an extra level of deterrence in the face of North Korea's demonstrated nuclear
weapons and ballistic missile capabilities. We are not suggesting that Japan needs to change its three principles – that is a
decision for the Japanese alone to make – but the DPJ's demand for transparency has the potential to poison
alliance discussions and raise even more doubts about the glue that binds the two alliance partners.
Before the Hatoyama government paints itself into a corner, it needs to think through where it plans to
go with its "secret pact" investigation and its support for a "no first use" policy and make clear to the Japanese
people and its U.S. allies what the desired end result will be. Is Tokyo really prepared to open this potential Pandora's Box? Or is the new
government in Tokyo playing a high-stakes game of chicken, assuming the U.S. will "blink" and continue to defend Japan despite clear
indications that U.S. security requires it to maintain opacity when it comes to transporting or using its nuclear weapons? Neither move makes
sense to us. Please note that we are not accusing the Hatoyama government of deliberately trying to undermine or diminish the alliance
relationship. The prime minister has made it clear that he sees the Japan-U.S. alliance as "the cornerstone of Japan's foreign policy" and that he
wants to "deepen the alliance in a multilayered way from medium and long-term perspectives." While he has received a lot of criticism about
his support for East Asia community- building efforts that do not necessarily involve the U.S., he has also made it clear that "priority must be
given to the Japan-U.S. alliance." But he
has also thrown Washington off guard by mentioning that he wants to
renegotiate the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) that currently protects U.S. forces serving in Japan. It
does not place them above the law, but puts limits on jurisdiction based on the offense and whether or not it was committed in the line of duty.
SOFA discussions are certainly not off limits; they seem to be perpetual (with South Korea as well as with Japan, with each watching for
precedents that the other may set). But vehicles exist for such deliberations. Publicly
adding SOFA, host-nation support and
other sensitive issues to the list of other contentious issues like the "secret pact" investigation, "no first
use" and Futenma relocation a few weeks before Obama's first visit to Japan seems aimed more at
trying to persuade him not to come than at laying the groundwork for a successful summit.
xt alt cause
Alliance collapse is inevitable
Tatsumi ’07 Tatsumi-Research Fellow with the East Asia Program at The Henry L. Stimson Center-2007(Yuki, The Henry L. Stimpson Center,
" US-Japan Alliance: Adrift Again?", July 13, 2007, http://www.stimson.org/about/?SN=EA200707131338)
Today, the
US-Japan alliance is again in danger of going adrift. At the end of its presidency and preoccupied with Iraq, the
Bush administration has very little time to spend on Asia, let alone Japan. With a parliamentary election coming up on July
29, Japan is also heading into a period in which its political leadership is preoccupied with its domestic
agenda. Depending on the result of the election, Japan may face a period of weak political leadership,
and may continue to be unable to focus on its foreign and security policy agenda. Furthermore, a mutual
sense of frustration has been rising between political circles in the two countries. The Japanese
leadership’s – particularly Abe’s – inability to take a disciplined position on the issues related to Japan’s
wartime conduct frustrates Washington where more and more people see Japan’s mismanagement of
these issues as a key impediment to the successful US pursuit of its interests in Asia.
japan – fails
And the alliance doesn’t work
Anthony DiFilippo, Prof. Sociology at Lincoln University, 2002, The Challenges of the U.S.-Japan Military Arrangement: Competing Security
Transitions in a Changing International Environment, pg. 13
One thing that has not changed about the U.S.-Japan security alliance in the fifty years that it has existed is that it is supposed to have
maintained regional stability. If stability is defined as a state where war or the high level threat of war does not exist, then the
alliance
has not been terribly effective. Although the Soviet Union never attacked Japan during the Cold War, other serious
destabilizing forces have appeared despite the continued existence of the bilateral alliance. The Korean War, which began
in June 1950, did not end after the signing of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty in 1951 nor after the accord went into effect in 1952. The
alliance did not prevent China from developing nuclear weapons-hardly a stabilizing event in the region. The U.S.Japan alliance did not prevent or end the Vietnam War. More recently, the U.S.-Japan security alliance did not
stop the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) from beginning a nuclear weapons program in the early
1990s, thwart Pyongyang's missile development efforts, or discourage it from launching a projectile over Japan
without prior notice in August 1998. With the bilateral alliance in effect for decades, China went ahead with nuclear testing in
1995 to assure that its nuclear arsenal was capable of neutralizing the threats it perceives from the other nuclear powers.
canada – resilient
Relations resilient but tensions are inevitable.
Nesnera 04 – (Andre, VOA News, December 11, 2004, The Epoch Times, “Some Trade Issues Divide US,
Canada,” http://english.epochtimes.com/news/4-12-11/24897.html)
President Bush recently visited Canada, his first trip abroad since his re-election. The two neighboring countries are strong allies and have deep
ties that bind them. But there are some issues, especially dealing
with trade, that still divide Ottawa and Washington.
Trade is the most important component of U.S.-Canada relations. Each country is the other’s biggest trading customer.
Eighty-four percent of Canada’s exports go the United States and Canada buys more than 70 percent of its imports from its neighbor. So it was
no surprise that when President Bush visited Canada, trade issues - and especially contentious trade issues - were high on the agenda in
discussions with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. Charles Doran is Director of Canadian
Studies at the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC. He says one major disagreement between the two
countries deals with Washington’s tariffs on the import of Canadian softwood lumber, such as pine. “There is a
huge amount of trade in lumber between Canada and the United States. Canadians sell a large amount, billions of dollars, and the argument
has been on the part of a small group of producers in the United States that Canada has subsidized this. Now the NAFTA (North American Free
Trade Agreement) and the World Trade Organization, in dispute resolution panels, have denied that there is unfair subsidy. But in fact, every
President for some time has been unable to unravel the legal challenges and so on, to get rid of that issue,” he says. Following the Bush-Martin
meeting, the softwood lumber
issue remains unresolved. Professor Doran says another problem stems from the US
action to ban beef imports from Canada because of mad cow disease. “There was one cow found in Alberta with this
disease, but the consequence of that has been enormous in the sense that trade for beef, for the United States and Canada has been affected
and third markets like Japan and Europe. They are trying to get around this problem. They are trying to establish common standards, but it’s
hard to believe, it’s almost hard to imagine how one cow could cause that much catastrophe to this industry in North America,” he says.
Canadian statistics indicate that the 18-month ban has cost the Canadian beef industry more than $4 billion in lost revenues. That
issue,
too, still remains to be solved following the Bush-Martin summit. Tied to those two trade issues, is the question of
security along the Canadian-American border - at nearly 9,000 kilometers the world’s longest undefended
frontier. Both countries have stepped up cooperation in the security field, especially after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Kim
Nossel, Director of Political Studies at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, says Americans and Canadians
are approaching the border security issue from different angles. “From the American perspective, there is
the concern about the porousness of that long, undefended border and the ease with which one could in fact get across the
border. From a Canadian perspective, the major concern is an absolute fear that there will be a terrorist incident in the United States that will
openly and manifestly have come from Canada, that will lead to, essentially, a closing of the border. And of course that border and the
openness of that border is absolutely crucial for Canadian wealth.” Experts say Ottawa and
Washington have to find a delicate
balance between the free flow of commerce and legitimate security concerns. Gill Troy is a U.S.-Canada
expert at McGill University in Montreal. He says despite various disagreements between the two countries, one
overriding issue must be kept in mind. “Even if there is an agreement to disagree, even if the United States says: ‘look, we can’t
do this because of internal constituency pressures or external trade pressures,’ the awareness that nevertheless, while we
might part on some issues, we are still fundamentally friends, we are still fundamentally linked in so
many ways - economically, ideologically, intellectually, culturally, socially - is important,” he says. Experts
agree that President Bush’s trip to Canada was an attempt to improve relations between the two countries relations that were strained in recent years, during the tenure of Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien. Analysts say based
on the recent Bush-Martin meeting, things are looking up.
Won’t collapse – geography and demographics.
Negroponte 08 – (John, research fellow and lecturer in international affairs at Yale University's Jackson
Institute for Global Affairs, former United States Deputy Secretary of State April 23, America.gov,
“Three-Nation Partnership Growing Strong, Says Negroponte” http://www.america.gov/st/democracyenglish/2008/April/20080423115446eaifas0.4505579.html)
Our nations' leaders have been discussing unprecedented levels of cooperation among our three
governments, at every level, that are making us all safer and more competitive in the world. And they also have been discussing the
dynamic force and power of a trilateral relationship that is driven by millions of decisions made by millions of
Americans, Mexicans and Canadians every single day -- people in each of our countries who decide it is
in their interests to travel, to purchase and to sell, to study, work, play and invest in their neighboring
countries. We are connected by social, family, educational, commercial and cultural ties that are
staggering in their size and continuous growth.
Econmic ties sustain relations
Negroponte 08 – (John, research fellow and lecturer in international affairs at Yale University's Jackson
Institute for Global Affairs, former United States Deputy Secretary of State April 23, America.gov,
“Three-Nation Partnership Growing Strong, Says Negroponte” http://www.america.gov/st/democracyenglish/2008/April/20080423115446eaifas0.4505579.html)
The big message here is that the North American relationship brings enormous benefits, like jobs, energy security
and lower prices, to the citizens of all three countries on an historic scale. And it does so peacefully,
legally and cooperatively. This enables North America's increasingly integrated manufacturing sectors to compete more effectively in a
quickly expanding global marketplace. Today, the North American relationship is undisputedly a dynamic platform
for our long-term success in the world, just as it is a critical platform for confronting -- better, quicker
and more cooperatively -- the big challenges of transnational crime and regional emergency
preparedness that threaten that success.
AT Canada Key to Afghanistan
Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan are done
Chase 14 (Steven, Globe and Mail, 5/18 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canadiantroops-come-home-after-12-year-afghan-mission/article17538898/) // SC 6/23/14
There were tears, smiles and warm embraces as loved ones greeted the final homecoming flight from
Kabul – the last soldiers to return from a costly military mission that spanned more than a decade and
claimed the lives of 162 Canadians. And now, three years after it ended combat operations in the
Afghanistan war, Canada is finally marking the end of its soldiering in the conflict-ridden central Asian
country. The Conservative government, which sent home combat troops in 2011, was unable to
declare the mission over then because its allies pressed Ottawa to tack three years of military training
operations onto the end of its deployment. That aid to the Afghan government just ended. On Tuesday,
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Governor-General David Johnston and senior military brass gathered at the Ottawa airport to greet returning Canadian Armed
Forces members, the remainder of more than 40,000 soldiers from this country who have served as part of the Afghanistan mission since 2002. Mr. Harper
announced May 9 would be designated by royal proclamation as a “national day of honour” to salute the end of Canada’s Afghan engagement. “This
morning, as you stepped onto Canadian soil, you brought to a close the longest active military
engagement in Canadian history,” the Prime Minister told the troops. “From Kabul to Kandahar, Canadians like you fought
to loosen the grip of terror and repression,” he said. “Canada has also made a tangible difference in Afghanistan to some of the world’s most vulnerable people.”
Defence Minister Robert Nicholson noted homecoming ceremonies have not always been a cause for celebration. “On too many occasions it brought grief. Today,
we can’t help but pause to think of those who lost their lives in Afghanistan. We pay tribute to the families who are the strength behind the men and women of the
Canadian Armed Forces.” A C-17 military transport carrying the soldiers landed in Ottawa at about 9:30 a.m. as CF-18 fighter jets conducted a flypast to salute the
occasion. Master Corporal Anthony Alliot swept up his girlfriend Sarah Tooth in a passionate embrace, kissing for the cameras. She surprised him by showing up in
Ottawa for the return. “It’s something I will remember for the rest of my life, and I’m glad I got to share it with a special lady,” he said. The Forces member said he’s
proud to have played a part in Afghanistan. “It’s been an honour to serve. It was a great experience; something I will remember for the rest of my life.” Asked what
he plans to do now that he’s back after months abroad, the Canadian soldier smiled and looked as his sweetheart. “I don’t know if I can say it on TV, what I’m going
to do,” MCpl. Alliot said. Canada has fielded soldiers in Afghanistan since 2002, shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Soldiers
returning Tuesday were part of a training mission based in Kabul that began in 2011. Canada ended more than half a decade of combat operations in Afghanistan
that same year. The conflict cost the lives of 158 Canadian soldiers, one diplomat, a journalist and two civilian contractors. In addition to blood, Canada expended
significant treasure in the Afghanistan mission. Canadian taxpayers’ bill for the conflict is expected to exceed $22-billion, according to independent defence analysts.
Major-General David Milner, the last Canadian commander of troops in Afghanistan, said he thinks the question of whether Canada’s sacrifice was worth it has been
settled. “That question is getting old,” he says. “The bottom line is, look at that country [today] and where it was in 2001.” He
said Afghanistan is
much better off than it was 12 years ago, when it was home to Taliban occupiers. “Were we just going
to sit back home and do nothing with terrorist havens throughout the south of Afghanistan, a country
that has been at war for 30 to 40 years?” Maj.-Gen. Milner says Afghanistan today is beginning to move
in the right direction. “It’s got a capable force: 350,000. They’re confident. They’re capable. They’re well
equipped.”
Oil Advantage Answers
A2: Oil Shocks
Oil policy ensures regional actors protect the Gulf
Jones, 11
(Prof-History-Rutgers, 6/10, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/06/time-todisband-the-bahrain-based-us-fifth-fleet/240243/1/)
Aside from enabling brutal behavior, the logic behind our heavy military presence in the Gulf may
be outdated. Ever since President Jimmy Carter outlined a strategic doctrine that stated the U.S.
would "use any means necessary, including military force" to protect its "vital interests" in the
Persian Gulf, the United States has seen its military commitments to the region intensify. Since
the mid-1980s, the U.S. has in a sense been engaged in one long war in the Gulf. It helped
intensify the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, led Desert Storm in 1990 and 1991, imposed no-fly zones
over Iraq in the 1990s, and invaded Iraq in 2003, all to some extent on the basis of the Carter
Doctrine. If security and stability are measured by the absence of conflict, the American military
approach to the Gulf has not been much of a success. But the Gulf, after all, is a tough
neighborhood, and the U.S. has maintained the oil access it's sought. Had the world not
intervened in 1990, Saddam Hussein could well have used his captured of Kuwaiti oil fields for
political leverage against his many enemies. Iran could try the same using its own vast energy
resources. But these anxieties are based on a fundamental miscalculation -- that oil is in tight
supply and that its distribution or flow must be protected. These fears are rooted in the oil crises
of the 1970s, when Arab oil embargoes and the Iranian revolution shook the world economy and
helped tip the U.S. into recession. The reality is that, today, there is not too little oil. There is too
much oil. There has been ever since the 1970s crises led oil producers to develop new energy
resources in deep-water wells, oil sands, shale, and heavy crude, all of which have drastically
expanded the global energy supply. But oil producers, following the example of oil companies in
the 20th century, have been committed, especially recently, to manufacturing scarcity. They do so
in order to drive up prices and revenues, a significant share of which they redistribute at home in
an effort to buy the favor and the quiescence of their subjects. This is especially true in Saudi
Arabia and Bahrain. Since the late 1960s, oil states have viewed the provision of cradle-to-grave
social services as a basic part of their ruling contract. But as they've expanded services and
wealth, they have eliminated opportunities for political participation. It is an expensive
arrangement, one that depends on sufficient revenues. As a result, the regimes are dependent on
their prize for survival. For all the geostrategic considerations that surround protecting oil, the
bottom line is that energy producers have to sell their product. They cannot drink it. Given this,
and given that fears of instability drive prices up even further, it is not necessary for outside
powers like the U.S. to protect them. In the long run, protecting the oil producers has only
entrenched a system in which "friendly" oil powers limit production and, rather than serve global
markets, work against them. It is unfavorable but predictable, an arrangement that Washington
has accepted for decades. Although successive presidents have come under pressure to end
American dependency on Middle Eastern oil, since the early 1970s, billions of petrodollars have
recycled through the U.S. economy.
Global spare capacity is huge – zero risk of serious shortages
Gholz and Press 8
(Eugene, Professor of Public Affairs – University of Texas at Austin, and Daryl G., Professor of
Government – Dartmouth College, “All the Oil We Need”, The New York Times, 8-21, Lexis)
WHILE oil prices have declined somewhat of late, the volatility of the market and the political and
religious unrest in major oil-producing countries has Americans worrying more than ever about
energy security. But they have little to fear -- contrary to common understanding, there are
robust stockpiles of oil around the globe that could see us through any foreseeable calamities on
the world market. True, trouble for the world's energy supplies could come from many directions.
Hurricanes and other natural disasters could suddenly disrupt oil production or transportation.
Iran loudly and regularly proclaims that it can block oil exports from the Persian Gulf. The antiAmerican rhetoric of President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela raises fears of an export cutoff there.
And ongoing civil unrest wreaks havoc with Nigeria's output. Even worse, this uncertainty comes
in the context of worrisome reports that oil producers have little spare capacity, meaning that
they could not quickly ramp up production to compensate for a disruption. But such fears rest on
a misunderstanding. The world actually has enormous spare oil capacity. It has simply moved. In
the past, major oil producers like Saudi Arabia controlled it. But for years the world's major
consumers have bought extra oil to fill their emergency petroleum reserves. Moreover, whereas
the world's reserve supply once sat in relatively inaccessible pools, much of it now sits in easily
accessible salt caverns and storage tanks. And consumers control the spigots. During a supply
disruption, Americans would no longer have to rely on the good will of foreign governments. The
United States alone has just more than 700 million barrels of crude oil in its Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. Government stockpiles in Europe add nearly another 200 million barrels of crude and
more than 200 million barrels of refined products. In Asia, American allies hold another 400
million barrels. And China is creating a reserve that should reach more than 100 million barrels by
2010. Those figures only count the government-controlled stocks. Private inventories fluctuate
with market conditions, but American commercial inventories alone include well over a billion
barrels. Adding up commercial and government stockpiles, the major consuming countries around
the world control more than four billion barrels. Some policy makers and analysts worry that
these emergency stocks are too small. For example, they sometimes compare the American
strategic reserve to total American consumption, so the reserves appear dangerously inadequate.
The United States consumes about 20 million barrels of oil every day, so the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve could only supply the country for 35 days. (Furthermore, the United States could not
draw oil out of the reserve at anything approaching a rate of 20 million barrels per day.) This is
why President Bush in his 2007 State of the Union address called for doubling the strategic
reserve. But this vulnerability is a mirage. The size of plausible disruptions, not total consumption,
determines the adequacy of global reserves. The worst oil disruptions in history deprived global
markets of five million to six million barrels per day. Specifically, the collapse of the Iranian oil
industry during the revolution in 1978 cut production by nearly five million barrels a day, and the
sanctions on Iraq after its conquest of Kuwait in 1990 eliminated 5.3 million barrels of supply. If a
future disruption were as bad as history's worst, American and allied governments' crude oil
stocks alone could replace every lost barrel for eight months.
Dispute Resolution Advantage Answers
1NC Dispute Rez Fails
No sufficient strictures in place to solve Arctic disputes; bilateral treaties have
failed
Hober 11 Hober, Kaj. "Territorial Disputes and Natural Resources: The Melting of the Ice and Arctic
Disputes." Oil and Gas Journal. Oil and Gas Journal, 2 Feb. 2011. Web. 28 June 2014.
<http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-6/exploration-development/territorial-disputesand-natural-resources.html>.
Bilateral agreements It is helpful and necessary to look at some of the existing, mostly bilateral, treaties concerning the Arctic Sea. Several
agreements have been entered into among the Arctic states. It should be noted, however, that there
is no agreement encompassing all Arctic states with respect to territorial disputes. In 1920, the Svalbard
Treaty gave Norway sovereignty over Svalbard but also provided "treaty parties equal rights to Svalbard resource exploration." This language
has caused an ongoing territorial dispute with Russia. Russia and Norway entered into an agreement known as the Royal
Norwegian Government and the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Agreement concerning the Sea Frontier between
Norway and the USSR in the Varangerfjord of 15 February 1957 (the "Varangerfjord Agreement"). The
Varangerfjord Agreement
nothing to settle borders in
the Barents Sea, where Norway and Russia have overlapping EEZs and claimable continental shelves."
determined relevant boundaries between the two nations in the Varangerfjord. With that said, "it did
In 2007, the agreement was extended and as discussed below, a provisional agreement was reached in April 2010 on the maritime boundary in
the Barents Sea. On Dec. 17, 1973, Denmark
and Canada entered into an agreement known as the Agreement between the
Government of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Government of Canada relating to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf
between Greenland and Canada, which defined the border of the two territories. Despite this agreement, a significant
dispute remains between Canada and Denmark over Hans Island. The half-square-mile rock is important because
surrounding areas may contain possible oil reserves. In 1980, Iceland and Norway entered into an agreement to resolve
a longstanding dispute "with regard to the claims by each for fishery zones and exclusive continental shelf rights." Despite this
agreement, a dispute still remained in relation to Iceland's claim to an area near the Jan Mayen Ridge until it was finally resolved
through a conciliation commission. Based on the recommendations of the conciliation commission, the governments of Iceland and Norway
entered into an agreement on Oct. 22, 1981, for the joint management of resources of the Jan Mayen continental shelf. Specifically, each
country is entitled to participate with a share of 25% in petroleum activities outlined in the agreement in each other's continental shelf.
Denmark, Iceland, and Norway have entered into agreements to delimit boundaries of their respective 200 nautical mile exclusive economic
zones in the northwest Atlantic. On
1 June 1990, the Agreement between the United States of America and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Maritime Boundary was entered into which, among other
things, "delimits the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles between the United States and the
Russian Federation." This agreement has yet to be ratified by the Russian parliament, but its provisions have
been applied through an exchange of diplomatic notes.
1NC Arctic Coop High
Military build-up does not mean conflict is likely --- Arctic countries still
pursuing cooperation.
Will Rogers, 4/5/2012. Bacevich Fellow at the Center for a New American Security. “New Study Highlights Military
Capabilities in the Arctic,” CNAS, http://www.cnas.org/blogs/naturalsecurity/2012/04/new-study-highlights-militarycapabilities-arctic.html.
A new report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) finds that the build-up of Arctic
military capabilities is limited, with few indications that conflict is looming. According to the study, all five
Arctic states – Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia and the United States – have increased their military capabilities in the Arctic
in recent years in response to growing accessibly to the region owed largely to climate change.¶ Some of the increased military
activity is likely a response to the changing geostrategic environment that will make military capabilities increasingly important
for power projection that states need to maintain in order to secure access to lucrative natural resources and other national
interests. According to the SIPRI study, for example, “Russia’s Arctic policy underlines the importance of the Arctic as a principal
source of natural resources by 2020,” and “Denmark’s defence policy underlines the changing geostrategic significance of the
Arctic.Ӧ Despite the increased deployment of military assets, Arctic states are continuing to pursue new
avenues of cooperation, mollifying concerns – at least for the time being – that tensions will worsen as the region
becomes more accessible. Last year, the Arctic Council – an intergovernmental forum for Arctic states to address challenges
in the High North – hosted a high-level forum that led to an agreement for countries in the region to increase
search-and-rescue cooperation given the growing concerns surrounding increased eco-tourism and commercial shipping
that could portend future law enforcement challenges. Some states’ newly deployed military assets are intended
for search-and-rescue purposes, according to the SIPRI study. Canada, for example, will replace older C-130s and other
aging aircraft with 17 new search-and-rescue aircraft in the next several years.
2NC Arctic Coop High
Military build-up has been limited to defense of territory --- cooperation is
still the norm.
Siemon Wezeman, 3/26/2012. Senior Fellow with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme. “Increased military capabilities
in the Arctic reflect border demarcations,” Stockholm International Peace Research Institute,
http://www.sipri.org/media/pressreleases/26-mar-increased-military-capabilities-in-the-arctic-region-reflect-territorialconsolidation.
The background paper, entitled Military Capabilities in the Arctic, is based on the findings of SIPRI Senior Researcher Siemon
Wezeman and shows that while governments of the five Arctic states have made protection of their Arctic territory a priority,
the military build-up is limited. ¶ The effects of climate change are making the Arctic more accessible to economic activity—
including exploitation of oil, gas and fish—and increased commercial traffic. Arctic governments have responded with increased
attention to the region in several fields, including the military. ¶ However, rather than projecting power over the
Arctic as a whole, the increased military capabilities described in the background paper are generally limited to
forces and equipment for policing and protection of recognized national territories and territorial waters.¶ Military
build-up occurring but cooperation remains the goal¶ Military interest in the region does exist. Canada, Denmark and Norway
are moving forces into their respective Arctic regions and acquiring weapons and equipment for specific Arctic use. Russia has
also started to expand its Arctic military capabilities, while the USA’s Arctic security concerns still play only a minor role in its
overall defence policy.¶ Although some tensions have emerged in the region, cooperation, not conflict, is
more visible in the Arctic. Norway and Russia have settled a 40-year border dispute in the Barents Sea
and Arctic states are enjoying stable and peaceful bilateral relations. Meanwhile, the Arctic Council is
coming into its own as an important sub-regional organization.¶ The so-called ‘scramble for the Arctic’, whereby
Arctic states compete for the region's resources, has not proven to be a military affair. Rather, the littoral states
remain committed to follow existing legal frameworks to settle border issues and claims on Arctic exclusive
economic zones (EEZs) and continental shelves.
Arctic coop is high – The risk of war is low
Grätz 12 - Researcher @ Center for Security Studies [Jonas Grätz, “The Arctic: Thaw With Conflict
Potential,” International Relations and Security Network, July 2012, Pg.
http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Articles/SpecialFeature/Detail/?lng=en&id=157901&contextid774=157901&contextid775=157922&tabid=1453469894
Prospects for cooperation
Against the background of the changes in the Arctic, this region is occasionally identified as a potential
area of future conflict. However, it is important first to point out that there is much scope for
cooperation. This is particularly apparent when considering “soft” security concerns such as
environmental pollution resulting from the extraction of raw materials. The threats that arise for
humans from the exceptional climatic situations are pushing actors towards cooperative approaches,
too. Many of these issues are taken on by the Arctic Council. Founded in 1996, the Council is a forum to
promote coordination among the eight Arctic countries. Representatives of indigenous peoples have a
consultative role. One concrete result of the Arctic Council is a binding agreement on maritime search
and rescue activities. For 2013, an agreement on standards for oil spill preparedness and response is
expected, which will reinforce the current non-binding offshore oil and gas guidelines.
Cooperation among the littoral states is also advancing in the sensitive area of national sovereign rights.
The 2010 border treaty between Russia and Norway indicates that bilateral agreements are possible –
even though the power asymmetry between the two countries is reflected in a deal advantageous to
Russia. International maritime law and the pressure of non-Arctic countries are also fostering
multilateral cooperation, at least in areas where all parties can still gain further sovereign rights. The
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) allows for the extension of the continental
shelf towards the North Pole, which would extend the mining privileges of the coastal states at the
expense of the interests of non-Arctic states. The water column and the animals living in it, by contrast,
would continue to enjoy international status. In the Ilulissat Declaration adopted in 2008, the coastal
states declared their intention to settle any territorial conflicts within the framework of UNCLOS. By
signing the declaration, the US – which has not ratified UNCLO S – has signalled its willingness to
observe it within the Arctic. What is more, the coastal states have been collaborating for a long time in
the exploration of the sea bed. Provided that there are no major conflicts among these countries, nonArctic players will hardly be able to assert themselves in this context. Potential for conflict The scope of
sovereign rights in the maritime area around the Svalbard archipelago, believed to be rich in oil and gas,
is a question that is not easy to resolve. On the one hand, the archipelago and the surrounding 200-mile
zone are an undisputed part of Norwegian territory. On the other hand, Norwegian sovereignty over the
archipelago is substantially limited by the Svalbard Treaty of 1920. All 40 signatory countries have the
right to exploit natural resources and to conduct research. The treaty also states that the archipelago
must not be used for offensive military purposes. Likewise, the right to levy taxes is limited to the
administrative requirements of Svalbard. It was only later under UNCLO S that the EEZ emerged as an
institution. Hence, it remains unclear whether the Svalbard Treaty also applies to this zone. Countries
such as Russia, Iceland, and the UK assume this to be the case. Norway takes the opposite view.
Nevertheless, Oslo has not declared a full EEZ in this area, but established a fisheries protection zone
instead. It concedes fishing privileges to Russia, Iceland, and other nations. This has never been explicitly
acknowledged by these countries, but is usually accepted in practice.
The modus vivendi has so far provided stability as it has served Russian interests too, with the fisheries
protection zone granting privileges to Russian fishing interests over other signatory states. Moreover,
Russia has sufficient oil and gas reserves at its disposal on its own territory. Norway, by contrast, has a
strong interest in opening up the area for oil and gas exploration. Such an opening, however, would
undermine the current fragile balance and encourage other signatory states to question openly the
scope of the Treaty. Even if Norway were to take no action, other nations could try to push for an
opening of the area for exploration with reference to the Treaty. Due to the variety of the players
concerned and the absence of international rules, the issue can ultimately only be resolved at a political
level.
Interests and positions diverge concerning the issue of sovereignty over the new sea routes as well.
Again, even the Arctic coastal states do not agree on the legal status: Russia and Canada regard the
routes as internal waterways in what is a very broad interpretation of UNCLO S. This implies that ships
flying foreign flags must request permission for transit. Other coastal nations, such as the US, and nonArctic players like the EU and presumably China, however, consider these to be international waterways
for which no authorisation for transit is necessary.
For the time being, no escalation of this conflict is to be expected, since the commercial navigation
routes are competing with non-Arctic sea routes and the use of these routes will correlate with the
extent of their opening and the stability of the agreed arrangements. In addition, Russia and Canada
depend on the cooperation of foreign non-state and state-owned players in order to attract investments
in their inadequate coastal infrastructures. Also, the International Maritime Organisation is working on a
binding Polar Code, which will establish clear rules for polar navigation. This will weaken the case for
additional national regulations and approval procedures.
Defensive and offensive military capabilities
Following the disarmament of the 1990s, new military capabilities are again being deployed in the
Arctic. In many instances, these capabilities are defensive in nature and linked to intensified activities
concerning either the extraction of raw materials or new “soft” security issues. Due to the weather
conditions, only military or coast guard assets tend to be able to safely operate under Arctic conditions.
In light of the new possibilities, there is also a growing awareness of the lack of surveillance capabilities
for the territory and the enforcement of sovereignty. Particularly for countries like Canada and
Denmark, building up policing and military capabilities serves to avoid the impression that the Arctic is
of little national interest.
However, offensive capabilities are also being built up in the Arctic, reflecting global ambitions rather
than changing regional dynamics. Since the Arctic Ocean provides Russia’s best access to the world’s
main oceans, two thirds of its navy are already stationed in the Arctic. Instead of upgrading border
protection capabilities, Moscow so far has focused on modernising its offensive capabilities for the
purpose of power projection. What is more, Russia has resumed patrol flights over the Arctic and
submarine patrols previously carried out during the Cold War, albeit at a lower frequency. This testifies
to the persistence of a rather traditional Russian threat perception.
Today, the Arctic is characterised by a mixture of cooperation, competition, and conflicts of interest.
There are indications that the growing presence of non-Arctic players prompts more cooperation among
the coastal states. Open conflicts are unlikely to break out in the foreseeable future: While existing
mechanisms for cooperation may be too weak to resolve some conflicts of interest, the costs of military
conflict will likely be considered too high in light of uncertain gains. If conflicts were to occur, they would
probably be limited in both time and space, aiming at the enforcement of interpretations of
international law. Having said that, as the involvement of all key political players increases, the Arctic is
also the scene of overarching geo-strategic competition and conflict. The extent to which the thawing of
the Arctic means conflict or rapprochement and cooperation will therefore also depend on the shape of
the future world order and the relationships between the different power centres.
Lack of a US military presence prevents a great power war. Drilling removes
that impediment
Wezeman 12 - Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme [Siemon T. Wezeman,
“MILITARY CAPABILITIES IN THE ARCTIC,” SIPRI Background Paper, March 2012
VI. The United States One of George W. Bush’s final acts as US President was the presentation in January
2009 of an Arctic Policy, replacing the previous policy from 1994. It lists security as the first of six policy
priorities.73 Later in 2009 the US Navy published an ‘Arctic roadmap’ as a guide for its policy, strategy
and investments in the Arctic.74 However, Arctic security concerns play only a minor role in overall US
defence policy. The US National Security Strategy, issued in 2010 by the administration of President
Barack Obama, and the US National Military Strategy, issued in 2011, define the goals of US security and
military policies but mention the Arctic only in passing.75 The Arctic is not mentioned at all in a January
2012 document outlining security priorities for the 21st century.76 Because of the increased
commercial activity in the Arctic, Admiral Robert Papp, commandant of the US Coast Guard since May
2010, has expressed the need to begin preparing, with partners, for operations in the Arctic, including
establishing bases. However, he also recognizes that US ‘strategic interests’ in the region are not yet
prominent enough to support anything but ‘outreach, planning, and small-scale summer
deployments’.77 The USA has not yet announced plans for a separate command to super- vise military
operations in the Arctic. Currently, the Northern Command (USNORTHCOM), the Pacific Command
(USPACOM) and the European Command (USEUCOM) all have responsibilities in the Arctic region.78
However, from 2011 USNORTHCOM has been assigned responsibility for Arctic planning and for
coordination with other US and foreign government agencies.79 US forces in Alaska fall under the
Alaskan Command (ALCOM), which is part of USPACOM.80 ALCOM consists of 16 000 regular personnel
and 3700 National Guard and reserve personnel. The USA also has a presence in Antarctica and
experiences from there, such as for example supply by air, are applicable in the Arctic region.81 pg. 11
US will militarize the Arctic to protect the drillers’ interest – They are on the
wrong side of the link debate
Backus 12 - Principal member of technical staff at Sandia National Laboratories and uses behavioral
and physical simulation methods to access security risks associated with climate change [George Backus
(Director of environmental and energy research at Cambridge Econometrics), “Arctic 2030: What are the
consequences of climate change? The US response,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists July/August 2012
vol. 68 no. 4 9-16
Because no entity, other than perhaps the Russian government, has the military bases and means to
accommodate area-wide protection and enforcement needs, the United States will necessarily have to
maintain strong cooperative arrangements with nations and corporations for the coordinated, safe, and
secure use of Arctic resources. Although the Arctic nations themselves may strive for cooperation,
entanglement with corporations and other foreign entities will assuredly produce tensions that are
outside the domain of the US Coast Guard.
Right now, the US military position in the Arctic is problematic. Both the Northern Command and the
European Command have responsibility for what, in a cooperative multinational environment, is a single
area (Carafano et al., 2011; Carmen et al., 2010). Some analysts argue that NATO should play the
coordinating role in the Arctic (Conley, 2012), but such a path would create new tensions among the
national players, and it does not resolve the specific position of the United States in the Arctic
(Wezeman, 2012).
The United States asserts that it has power projection and strategic deterrence capabilities in the Arctic
because of its submarine, missile, and airborne assets (Defense Department, 2011). But security events
in the Arctic may be largely associated with expensive commercial assets populated by civilians and
monitored or escorted by foreign government representatives. Fighter jets and torpedoes have no role
to play in such confrontations. A naval presence is required, with personnel who can board and secure
the facility, as necessary. In general, the US Defense Department lacks the naval resources to maintain
sea control for these situations. If non-Arctic countries set a precedent—even simply through
prospecting surveys or shipping activity—their case for limiting the unresolved sovereignty rights of the
Arctic nations is strengthened. Corporations necessarily engage in such activities, and it is natural for
commercial ventures to test the boundaries of their franchises. But in a more negative sense, there is
also the fear that access to a relatively unmonitored Arctic may offer an alternative location for
companies to dispose of toxic waste.
In assessing US security needs in the Arctic, the question to ask is not “What are the security risks when
the Arctic opens?” but rather “How will security risks evolve as the geopolitical and economic expansion
play out?” The physical speed with which the Arctic changes will determine the gap between reality and
expectations. For example, the more Russia, China, or South Korea experience significant benefit from
Arctic activities—to the point where they expect and depend on the growth from those activities—the
more likely that a period where the Arctic again becomes environmentally inhospitable, or that the rules
of sovereignty change to limit access , or that commercialization of the region will cause political
strains from lost revenue or prestige.
Abrupt changes in expectations and in a nation’s ability to cope with changing circumstances appear to
be factors that can trigger conflict (Agency for International Development, 2009). If the early
international relations dynamics in the Arctic move fairly slowly, all parties could co-evolve toward
balanced positions with relatively little conflict. Rapid dynamics could raise tensions. If all nations
sustain approximately equal positive or negative repercussions from changes in Arctic regulations or
climatic conditions, or they all believe they could limit the pace and extent of negative impacts through
negotiation, routine diplomatic processes could mollify tensions. Climate change will, however, produce
an ever-shifting playing field that heightens tensions among countries more concerned with relative
rather than absolute advantage in the area.
Will events in the Arctic require US military responses before 2030? The consideration of uncertainty is
part of climate and economic forecasting (Hendry and Ericsson, 2001; Meehl et al., 2007), and
uncertainty is a mainstay of military planning: The adversary seldom announces battle plans prior to
engagement. Military preparedness hinges not on best estimates, but on uncertainties that reflect risks
the nation wants managed. From the vantage point of the present, the best estimate is that the Arctic of
the near future will be free of military conflict. Risk, however, is the combination of probability
(uncertainty) and consequence. Lower-probability, high-consequence events generally contribute more
to risk than the best estimate. They are consequently much more relevant to national security planning
than high-probability, routine-consequence conditions.
Perceived economic accessibility to the Arctic and commercial success in the Arctic change the
conditional probabilities; they increase the odds that a sequence of events that leads to conflict will
materialize. It would be foolhardy to disregard the risks that low-probability, high-consequence events
imply. An unexpected confluence of vessels and aircraft being in the wrong place, when Arctic weather
conditions prevent adequate communications, could lead to tense situations, unless national security
forces have the ability to readily manage the situation.
No Arctic war- cooperation high now
Aruliah, 9-28 -- Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada Post-Graduate research fellow
(Charles, "The Cold Truth: Why the Arctic isn’t the same as Asia’s island disputes," iPolitics, 9-28-12,
www.ipolitics.ca/2012/09/28/charles-aruliah-the-cold-truth-why-the-arctic-isnt-the-same-as-asiasisland-disputes/, accessed 10-7-12, mss)
But if
one looks past such public displays, it becomes increasingly clear that, unlike territorial disputes in Asia, Arctic
relations remains primarily characterized by cooperation rather than conflict. And here’s why: First and foremost,
despite the fact that in August, the Arctic melted at an unprecedented 91,700 km2 per day, it remains one of the harshest
environments on the planet. While it’s true that sailing through the Arctic could potentially cut the distance for international shipping in half, it can
only be achieved during the late summer melt – less than one quarter of the entire year. Even then, ships must be wary of left-over multi-year ice, icebergs, and
floating growlers, some of which can be as hard as concrete. Ships hoping to traverse the passage will still require constant monitoring and icebreaker escorts, all of
which incur significant additional costs. This is why Arctic states are closely cooperating in areas such as Search and Rescue. Contrast this
with the significantly busier Malacca Straits located near the South China Seas, which draws about 50 percent of the world’s oil tanker traffic, and saw some 70,000
transits in 2007 (compared with the Northwest Passage’s 26 in 2010). The East China Sea too, remains a busy waterway and central hub located between some of
the world’s busiest ports. In general, the cost of controlling Arctic shipping just isn’t worth the risk of provoking conflict
through the exercise of such dominance. Secondly, unlike the Arctic, territorial disputes in East Asia remain intimately linked to historical grievances and
nationalistic passions from the region’s conflict-ridden past. South Korea attributes Japanese claims to the Dokdo/Takeshima islands to its imperial annexation of
the Korean peninsula in 1905. China too has argued that the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands were historically administered by China, until the territories were ‘unfairly’
redistributed to Japan by the post-war powers following Japan’s defeat in the Second World War. Throw in other long-standing disputes like China-Taiwan relations
and it’s no wonder why mobs of zealous citizens have taken to the streets in anger over supposed incursions of national territory. In
the Arctic, the
main sources of territorial aggravation exists between long-standing allies (United States and Canada in the Beaufort Sea),
and peace-minded Middle Powers (Canada and Denmark over Hans Island) whose idea of conflict involves marking
territory with a bottle of Schnapps or Canadian Club. Even the ‘Great Power’ of the region, Russia, has gone through great
lengths with Norway to settle a 40 year territorial dispute in the Barents Sea which has also laid the foundations for future joint
economic ventures in the area. On the contrary, nationalist rhetoric may actually be driving Arctic cooperation.
The encroachment of Arctic ‘outsiders’ such as the EU, China, Japan, South Korea and India, some of whom have argued that the
Arctic be declared as ‘a common heritage of mankind’ has led Arctic states, who fear losing territorial integrity, to adopt an ‘us vs.
them’ mindset. This has partly resulted in the denial of these countries’ applications for permanent observer status in the exclusive Arctic council, the
preeminent intergovernmental forum on the Arctic. Finally, the prominence of scientific/environmental issues and community sustainability in
Arctic discussions has mitigated potential nationalistic posturing. The Arctic Council remains geared towards Arctic
preservation and studying the effects of environmental change – issues where international scientific collaboration is the norm. Furthermore, the Arctic
Council’s endeavor to promote the well-being of indigenous communities, as evidenced by the inclusion of six indigenous organizations as permanent participants in
Council discussions, means that Arctic issues are dispersed amongst a variety of actors, and are not the sole realm of national governments.
Their impact is misleading
Young ’11 (Professor – Institutional and International Governance, Environmental Institutions @
UCSB, Arctic expert, PhD – Yale, ‘11 (Oran R, “The future of the Arctic: cauldron of conflict or zone of
peace?” International Affairs 87:1, p. 185-193)
Popular accounts of the Arctic’s jurisdictional issues are regularly couched in terms of provocative
phrases like the afore-mentioned ‘who owns the Arctic’ or ‘use it or lose it’. But these phrases turn out to
be highly misleading in this context. There are virtually no disputes in the Arctic regarding sovereignty over
northern lands; no one has expressed a desire to redraw the map of the Arctic with regard to the
terrestrial boundaries of the Arctic states. Most of the disagreements are to do with jurisdiction over
marine areas where the idea of ownership in the ordinary sense is irrelevant. While some of these
disagreements are of long standing and feature relatively entrenched positions, they are not about
establishing ownership, and they do not indicate that some level of ‘use’ is required to avoid the erosion
of sovereignty. There is little prospect that these disputes will spawn armed clashes. As both Michael Byers
and Shelagh Grant make clear in their excellent analyses of Arctic sovereignty, recent efforts to address
matters involving sovereignty in the Arctic are marked by a spirit of rule-based problem-solving, rather
than an escalating spiral of politically charged claims and counterclaims. The process of delineating
jurisdictional boundaries regarding the seabed beyond the limits of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) is
taking place in conformity with the rules and procedures set forth in Article 76 of UNCLOS. Norway and
Russia have signed an international treaty resolving their differences regarding jurisdictional boundaries
in the Barents Sea. There are signs that Canada and the United States are interested in a similar
approach with regard to the Beaufort Sea. The Russians, whose much ballyhooed 2007 initiative to plant
the Russian flag on the seabed at the North Pole is widely discussed in the books under review, have
acted in conformity with the relevant rules of international law in addressing jurisdictional matters and
repeatedly expressed their readiness to move forward in a cooperative manner in this realm. There are,
of course, significant sensitivities regarding the legal status of the Northern Sea Route and especially the
Northwest Passage. But given that commercial traffic on these routes is likely to be limited during the
near future, and that the use of these routes will require the active cooperation of the coastal states,
regardless of their formal legal status, opportunities arise for devising pragmatic arrangements governing
the use of these waterways. The progress now being made regarding the development of a mandatory
Polar Code covering Arctic shipping is good news. The fact that ‘hot spots’ in the search for oil and gas in
the Arctic are located, for the most part, in areas that are not subject to jurisdictional disputes is also
helpful. Overall, it seems fair to conclude that the Arctic states are living up to their promises to deal with
jurisdictional issues in the region in a peaceful manner.
It won’t escalate
Ackerman 11 (Spencer, National Security Reporter @ WIRED, " War For the Arctic: Never Mind," June
8th, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/war-for-the-arctic-never-mind/,
It wasn’t long ago that the press was running wild with hyperbolic claims of the U.S. losing out in an
impending Arctic conflict. After all, global warming is freeing up access to large deposits of oil, gas and
minerals right in the backyard of the Russians. But the press forgot to tell other polar nations to freak
out. Indeed, at a forum convened on Wednesday by the Center for Strategic and International Security,
ambassadors from four polar nations, including some traditionally menaced by Russia, were sanguine
about the future of polar exploration. “We actually think we handled these areas for decades during the
Cold War rather well,” said Wegger Strommen, Norway’s man in Washington. The U.S Geological Survey
assesses that the North Pole holds about 13 percent of the world’s untapped oil supplies. Companies
and nations are champing at the bit to expand exploration as the ice caps melt. The Russians have an
advantage: a fleet of six nuclear powered icebreakers on its northern shore. By contrast, the U.S. Coast
Guard has just one, the cutter Healy. But no one’s sweating it. Should there actually be an arctic sea
conflict, the U.S. submarine fleet is second to none, as my colleague David Axe has pointed out. And a
massive Arctic oil rush is “years off,” Strommen added, since the “climate is harsh, the conditions are
difficult and it’s incredibly expensive.” Beyond that, the Russians are warm in the Arctic. Russia finalized
a maritime border with Norway on Tuesday that took 30 years to negotiate. Strommen’s colleagues
from Greenland, Canada and Sweden gave high marks to a meeting last month of the Arctic Council, the
diplomatic contact group of arctic nations, in which Russia signed onto an accord for search and rescue
missions in the cold waters. Think of it as a diplomatic thaw.
All studies prove
IN ‘9 (Ice News – Iceland national news source, 11/29/’9 (“Military dispute over Arctic resources
unlikely,” http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2009/12/29/military-dispute-over-arctic-resourcesunlikely/)
The natural resources of the Arctic region are unlikely to lead to any military conflict in the region
according to new research by the Fridtjof Nansen Institute (FNI) of Norway. The study further found that
a diplomatic solution to any dispute resolution is far likelier and more rational than armed action. In a
statement posted on their website, FNI downplays the threat of lawlessness in the Arctic. “Contrary to
the general picture drawn by the media and some commentators over the last couple of years, the
Arctic region does not suffer under a state of virtual anarchy. The era when states could claim rights to
territory and resources by simply planting their flag is long gone,” the statement reads. International law
largely regulates any issues in the Arctic region that have been dubbed “security policy challenges” in
the past, SikuNews reports, while adding that the report claims that regional states prefer an
observation-based approach over any desire for military conflict. Those issues which arise that are not
clearly governed by international law in respect to resolution procedures are generally only minor, say
researchers. The focus of the majority of the case studies contained in the findings was on relations in
the Barents Sea, between Russia and Norway. These included the management of ocean resources, the
status of the continental shelf and waters around Svalbard and the delimitation of unresolved
boundaries. These case studies collectively found little or no threat of armed dispute likely and concluded
that the Arctic region has little rationale or legal space for military conflict resolution.
No US russia war - generals
Graham ‘7 (Thomas Graham, senior advisor on Russia in the US National Security Council staff 20022007, September 2007, "Russia in Global Affairs” July - September 2007, The Dialectics of Strength and
Weakness
An astute historian of Russia, Martin Malia, wrote several years ago that “Russia has at different
times been demonized or divinized by Western opinion less because of her real role in Europe than
because of the fears and frustrations, or hopes and aspirations, generated within European society
by its own domestic problems.” Such is the case today. To be sure, mounting Western concerns
about Russia are a consequence of Russian policies that appear to undermine Western interests, but
they are also a reflection of declining confidence in our own abilities and the efficacy of our own
policies. Ironically, this growing fear and distrust of Russia come at a time when Russia is arguably
less threatening to the West, and the United States in particular, than it has been at any time since
the end of the Second World War. Russia does not champion a totalitarian ideology intent on our
destruction, its military poses no threat to sweep across Europe, its economic growth depends on
constructive commercial relations with Europe, and its strategic arsenal – while still capable of
annihilating the United States – is under more reliable control than it has been in the past fifteen
years and the threat of a strategic strike approaches zero probability. Political gridlock in key
Western countries, however, precludes the creativity, risk-taking, and subtlety needed to advance
our interests on issues over which we are at odds with Russia while laying the basis for more
constructive lon-term relations with Russia.
No Russia war – blowback
Weitz 11 - senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a World Politics Review senior editor(Richard,
9/27/2011, “Global Insights: Putin not a Game-Changer for U.S.-Russia Ties,”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66579517/Global-Insights-Putin-not-a-Game-Changer-for-U-S-Russia-Ties)
Fifth, there will inevitably be areas of conflict between Russia and the United States regardless of who is in the Kremlin. Putin
and his entourage can never be happy with having NATO be Europe's most powerful security institution, since Moscow is not a member and cannot become one.
Similarly, the Russians will always object to NATO's missile defense efforts since they can neither match them nor join them
in any meaningful way. In the case of Iran, Russian officials genuinely perceive less of a threat from Tehran than do most Americans, and Russia has more to lose
from a cessation of economic ties with Iran -- as well as from an Iranian-Western reconciliation. On the other hand, these
conflicts can be
managed, since they will likely remain limited and compartmentalized . Russia and the West do not
have fundamentally conflicting vital interests of the kind countries would go to war over. And as the Cold War
weapons are a great pacifier under such conditions. Another novel development is that Russia
is much more integrated into the international economy and global society than the Soviet Union
was, and Putin's popularity depends heavily on his economic track record. Beyond that, there are objective criteria,
such as the smaller size of the Russian population and economy as well as the difficulty of controlling
modern means of social communication, that will constrain whoever is in charge of Russia.
demonstrated, nuclear
2NC—UQ
Set the bar high for arctic militarization – nuclear subs and coast guard ships – cites best study, indicts
the media.
Wezeman 12 - Senior Researcher with the SIPRI Arms Transfers Programme [Siemon T. Wezeman,
“MILITARY CAPABILITIES IN THE ARCTIC,” SIPRI Background Paper, March 2012
While some media, politicians and researchers have portrayed the changes in the capabilities of the
Arctic littoral states as significant military build- ups and potential threats to security, the overall picture
is one of limited modernization and increases or changes in equipment, force levels and force structure.
Some of these changes—for example, the strengthening of the Canadian Rangers, the move of the main
Norwegian land units to the north of Norway or the new Russian Arctic units—have little or nothing to
do with power projection into the areas of the Arctic with unclear ownership; rather they are for the
patrolling and protecting of recognized national territories that are becoming more accessible, including
for illegal activities. Others changes—such as new but unarmed navy or coastguard icebreakers—may
have more to do with civilian research in support of national claims to an ‘extended continental shelf’
under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).100 While aircraft and ships
play a much more important role for Arctic secur- ity than land forces, most of the extensive changes—
such as the acquisitions by Canada and Norway of new combat aircraft or large surface combat vessels—
have a much more general background than increasing worries about potential threats in the Arctic
region. Russia’s expansion of its fleet in the Arctic also appears more a matter of providing protection
for its SSBNs, as the Soviet Union did during the 1970s and 1980s, than a programme building up for a
military struggle over Arctic resources. Some of the large military acquisitions announced have little
prospect of being completely realized. It is unlikely that Russia will be able to fund the envisaged expansion of its navy and even the Canadian and Norwegian plans for the F-35 combat aircraft may be
curtailed for financial reasons. This review of current and projected military forces in the Arctic region
points to a process of modernization and the creation of new capacity to address challenges associated
with the environmental, economic and polit- ical changes anticipated in the region, rather than as a
response to major threat perceptions. Conventional military forces specially adapted to the harsh Arctic
environment are projected to remain small scale, especially given the size of the Arctic region, and will
remain in some cases considerably below cold war levels. This notwithstanding, an increase of military
forces in a region where several states claim maritime zones that are expected to contain extensive
natural resources does give some reasons for concern, including for unexpected incidents between
claimants. In order to help mitigate negative perceptions about security policies in the region as well as
the possibility of misunderstandings, the Arctic littoral states need to be clear about their military
policies, doctrines and operational rules and should include mili- tary confidence-building measures in
their bilateral or multilateral relations associated with the Arctic. 100 pg. 13-14
They are wrong about Russia
Eide 1/21/13 - Norway minister of foreign affairs [Espen Barth Eide, “Norway and Sweden to cooperate
with Russia in Arctic,” The voice of Russia, Jan 21, 2013 17:13 Moscow Time Pg.
http://english.ruvr.ru/2013_01_21/Norway-and-Sweden-to-cooperate-with-Russia-on-thedevelopment-of-the-Arctic-region/
Q: What ways of cooperation with Russia do you see in the Arctic?
A: “We’ve been working well with Russia for many years. We have several institutional frameworks. We
have originally the Barents cooperation which has just celebrated its first 20 years. We have the Arctic
Council which is circumpolar. And I think more important than any of it is the fact that Russia and
Norway both agree that UNCLOS applies, which means that if there are any disputes – they will be
solved as is stipulated in UNCLOS.
And again, as I said in the previous answer, the question is not whether countries agree on everything
because that never happens. I’m the Foreign Minister and I’m dealing with disagreements every day.
The point is – whether we have an agreement on how we find a solution. And I think we do have an
agreement on the way of how we find solutions in the Arctic.”
Are there any projects with Russia?
“Many, I mean we for decades had a fisheries commission between Russia and Norway that settled
quotas in quite advanced way. We for instance allow Russians to fish, fish which we see as Russian,
because it was born in Russia but to fish it in Norwegian areas because we know how they migrate, and
vice versa. So, that is ongoing. We have good cooperation between our coast guards. We have very
good cooperation with our border guards. And we have mutual, two way investments in each of these
projects. So, there is quite a lot of cooperation with Russia in the Arctic.”
No Arctic War
EU countries won’t get drawn in
Jakobsen June 25 2014
Peter Viggo Jakobsen- Associate professor at the Institute for Strategy of the Royal Danish Defense College. “Judy Asks: Should the EU worry
About the Arctic?” http://carnegieeurope.eu/strategiceurope/?fa=56002
The EU has more than enough to worry about as it is. It should not worry about the Arctic for two reasons.¶ The first is that the
five states
bordering the Arctic (Canada, Denmark, Norway, Russia, and the United States) will not permit the EU to play a formal
role in the region. Canada and Russia directly oppose the idea. Denmark, the only EU member of the five, officially
welcomes EU involvement in areas such as fisheries, energy, and climate change that are of interest to Denmark and its self-governing
territories, Greenland and the Faroe Islands; but at the same time, Copenhagen
prefers to keep the EU at arm’s length in
the Arctic.¶ The second reason for the EU not to worry about the Arctic is that the risk of military conflict in the region
approximates to zero. The confrontation between Russia and the West over Ukraine will not spill over
into the Arctic for the simple reason that the costs would be prohibitive for Moscow. Russia has accepted the
provisions of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea as the means to distribute the disputed territories in the Arctic
because it gives Russia the largest slice of the pie while keeping China out.
Arctic conflict with Russia inevitable
-nuclear icebreakers
-70,000 troops
-military base build up
-comptetition
-US-NATO response
Joachim
Hagopian 5/9/14
Writer and analyst for Global Research.citing metro news. “Global Militarization, the East-West Divide and the March towards World War III” http://www.globalresearch.ca/globalmilitarization-the-east-west-divide-and-the-march-towards-world-war-iii/5386333
One relatively new global region where the US-NATO
military is currently facing off against the Russian armed
forces is fighting over the disputed waters accounting for 30% of the world’s vast oil reserves sitting
underneath the Arctic Ocean floor. As the global warming rapidly melts the polar icecaps, the result makes the value of its mineral and
oil reserves both more assessable and coveted by all the nations that share Arctic territory. The melted ice also opens up new trade routes
never available before. Thus competition and potential conflict is
ratcheting up as Russia the nation with the most Arctic
been building a military presence in the region since 2007 and currently possesses ten military
bases along the northern sea route. Only in the last year has NATO recognized the need to match Russia’s
head start both militarily and economically.¶ Recently 16,000 soldiers from the US and NATO participated
in the largest Western joint military exercise north of the Arctic circle in a hurry up effort to try and catch
up to the 70,000 troop buildup of the Russian Army already stationed on the northern tundra. Russia has the
distinction of being the only nation in the world with a nuclear icebreaker fleet. ¶ Last month Norway’s defense
territory has
minister echoed the NATO party line seeing Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a direct threat to all NATO countries and called for an increased
focus on matching Russia’s Arctic circle growth. In April Russia successfully shipped its first oil from its Arctic drilling operations. Canada,
the US, Norway and Denmark through Greenland all have a vested NATO interest in the Arctic for its plentiful
deposits of oil, gas and minerals. And the Russian Federation has beaten NATO to the punch both in its resource
extraction as well as its military stronghold in the region.
There’s no rush to the arctic – no real disputes exist!❀
Andersen and Perry 12
(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in
international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the
International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston
University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. "The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis." New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region.
N.p., 1 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 June 2014. http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/ArcticAtlanticPerspectivesOct2012.pdf) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔ
っ♥eve
time, cost, and technology constraints appear to be working against any competitive “rush to
the Arctic,” fueled in part by the lure of an oil and gas bonanza be- yond compare, as some have suggested. Far more likely is
That said,
a slow and methodical push into the High North, not the least because there is so much yet to learn (or, in some cases, to relearn) about operating safely in the harsh Arctic landscape, so little
infrastructure already (or soon to be) in place to support such operations, and such limited capacity even among the Arctic Five to undertake and sustain Arctic operations of any kind, be they
commercial or military in nature. Moreover, while access to – if not control over – offshore Arctic resources remains a strategic goal shared by quite a few influential countries located both
the probability of serious interstate rivalry or, in the worst case, open conflict in
pursuit of this objective seems quite low, at least in the near- to mid-term future. In the first place, the vast majority of
hydrocarbon deposits locked in the Arctic seabed are concentrated within the sovereign terri- tory of
one or another of the Arctic Five, where ownership is clear and undisputed. Secondly, while there are
within and beyond the Arctic region,
disagreements over who owns various resource-rich areas where two or more e xclusive e conomic
z ones and potential ECS’s appear to overlap, the 2010 agreement between Norway and Russia over how best to divide a sector they both claimed in the Barents Sea, together
with a commitment by the Arctic Five in 2008 to abide by procedures set forth in the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for determining the dimensions of each country’s ECS,
Third, and finally, the sheer expense and technical challenges
involved in extracting oil, gas, and other strategic resources from the Arctic ocean floor argue for a
joint, collaborative effort among interested parties, Arctic and non-Arctic alike, as opposed to a “go it
alone,” unilateralist approach.
sug- gest that a peaceful settlement of any territorial dispute is more likely than not.
Even if arctic disputes arise, they won’t escalate
Andersen and Perry 12
(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in
international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the
International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston
University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. "The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis." New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region.
N.p., 1 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 June 2014.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/ArcticAtlanticPerspectivesOct2012.pdf)
As a result, it cannot be dismissed that localized episodes in the Arctic could still develop into armed
clashes despite the original intentions of the parties involved, especially given local asymmetries of
military strength (principally in Russia’s favor) which could potentially encourage the use of limited force
by one or another state actor in the region, based on the conviction that the other side(s) would avoid at
all costs escalating the conflict into a major confrontation. In addition, given their track record, it is
possible to imagine as well countries like China and Russia deciding at some future date to exploit the
natural resources found in pockets of “high seas” in the region, particularly those in the central Arctic
Ocean, without ac-knowledging their obligations under UNCLOS and rejecting the legal control of the
areas by the International Sea-Bed Authority (ISA).That said, it remains unlikely that any of the five
Arctic littoral states would risk a large-scale, inter-state military conflict, particularly to impose its
preferred solution to regional clashes of interest, since the resulting political and economic costs of
doing so would likely outweigh any conceivable gain. Their military forces are far more likely to be
used in the Arctic to support search and rescue, disaster relief, and other civil emergency/civil
support operations than for combat-related missions.
Countries drilling in the arctic will cooperate
Andersen and Perry 12
(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in
international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the
International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston
University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. "The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis." New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region.
N.p., 1 Nov. 2012. Web. 25 June 2014.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/ArcticAtlanticPerspectivesOct2012.pdf)
Indeed, whatever the source and level of regional tension at any particular time, the future of the
Arctic and its strategic importance will be determined first and foremost by decisions made and
actions taken by the five circumpolar states, each of which has a significant Arctic coastline, EEZ, and potentially resourcerich ECS to protect and over which to assert its sovereign rights. Each is also likely to witness a substantial increase in economic activity, along
with seaborne trade, in and through Arctic waters under its jurisdiction in the 2030 to 2040 timeframe. Within this context, clarifying who owns
what in those areas where that is still unclear, providing security (and protecting strategic interests) in resource-rich areas where ownership is
not disputed, and establishing international rules of the road for those who wish to transit Arctic waterways and/or help to tap the region’s
despite
Russia’s sometimes belligerent stance in the north, including provocative naval maneuvers and
increased incursions by Russian bombers into Arctic neighbors’ air space, Moscow will likely
choose, at least in the near term, to act with, not against, other Arctic countries such as Norway and
the United States, that can provide it with the necessary expertise for deep-water offshore drilling
in icy conditions that Russian firms sorely lack. Norway, for example, whose energy giant Statoil
operates the world’s only offshore gas-production facility above the Arctic Circle, continues its
successful exploration of Arctic waters, with plans to develop as much as 600 million barrels of
recoverable oil in the recently discovered Skrugard and Havis fields alone, while Russia’s
Shtokman gas project in the Barents Sea has been delayed indefinitely, following years of failed
Russian efforts.
mineral wealth and fisheries are certain to remain priority tasks for the five coastal states in the future of the Arctic. Significantly,
Russia handles arctic policy rather rationally—no escalation
Andersen and Perry 12
(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in
international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the
International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston
University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. IFPA. "Implications for National Security and International Cooperation." New Strategic
Dynamics in the Arctic Region. Institute for Foreign Policy Relations, n.d. Web. 25 July 2014.
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
While Russia engages in aggressive rhetoric, however, its policy actions in the Arctic are often far
more pragmatic. This can be seen in recent progress made on territorial dispute negotiations
(especially with Norway), environmental regulation, and search and rescue coordination, driven
in part by a growing recognition among Russian authorities of their need for foreign assistance
to develop Arctic resources and the NSR. The new U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty
(New START), signed by the two sides in April 2010, also has the potential to change the tenor of
Russian-U.S. and Russian-Western relations, as do oil production agreements. One such agreement
was reached in August 2011 by Exxon Mobil and Rosneft, Russia’s state oil company, in which
Exxon could gain access to as much as one hundred billion barrels of oil equivalent in the Kara
Sea, in exchange for which Rosneft would acquire stakes in Exxon’s advanced drilling
techniques and several of the company’s U.S. operations. Even so, Russia’s strategic outlook
cannot be expected to transform overnight. For the foreseeable future, then, Russia’s Arctic policy will
likely retain its strong militaristic element, which has been compounded by Moscow’s new tendency
to “securitize” issues viewed as strategically important to Russian national interests. This is especially
true of the Arctic, given its strategic importance to Russia economically, politically, and
militarily. As a result, although a major conflict in the Arctic seems unlikely today, it remains
uncertain whether the region will evolve into an area of competition or cooperation in the future.
BioD Advantage Answers
1NC A2: Russia Fill-in
EU solves the environment component of the advantage – It is already taking
the lead
Ralli 1/21/13 - Journalist @ New Europe [Elena Ralli, “EU to enhance contribution to Arctic
cooperation,” | New Europe, January 21, 2013 - 2:50pm Pg. http://www.neurope.eu/article/euenhance-contribution-arctic-cooperation
European Commissioner for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, Maria Damanaki spoke today at the Arctic
Frontiers Conference taking place between 20-25 January in Tromsø, Norway, addressing the issues of
protection and economic development of the Arctic.
As Commissioner Damanaki stated: “We cannot limit ourselves to listening and exchanging views: I think
it is time for us to take action. The Arctic is heating up, literally and figuratively. It is urgent that we
agree on an appropriate course of action together.”
In addition, she highlighted EU’s contribution to the Arctic region, which includes granting €20 million
per year for research. The results of these research projects are used by policymakers as to make
strategic choices on climate change adaptation . Also the EU has put over one billion euros into the
region's economic development since 2007.
Furthermore, she stated that the EU is planning to enhance its contribution to the Arctic cooperation .
In particular, it will promote knowledge sharing and scientific excellence by establishing closer links
with researchers from all over the world and setting up joint research stations in the region.
Commissioner Damanaki also added that the countries directly surrounding the Arctic and indigenous people should decide whether to exploit the region or not.
Moreover, she stressed that EU
is already working closely with mining companies and researchers to come up with safe practices
for the environment and that a regulatory framework
is necessary to guarantee the conservation and appropriate management of
fish stocks.
She also underlined that EU
wants to cooperate with its Arctic partners to address any challenges, such as environmental
protection, greener technologies, research cooperation and economic development. Finally, she concluded that EU is
discussing Arctic research cooperation with Canada, the US and the Arctic Council working groups and opening dialogue on
the matter with Norway and Iceland.
Russian environmental standards are high- their evidence is wrong
Nilsen ‘11
Thomas Nilsen, August 26, 2011, editor of BarentsObserver and leader of the Russia study group, Russia
is not ready for Arctic oil, http://barentsobserver.com/en/articles/russia-not-ready-arctic-oil
GazpromNeftShelf writes in a press-release that special attention was placed on environmental safety
issues during the construction of Prirazlomnoye. In particular, a zero discharge system of drilling and
production wastes was created onboard the platform. The platform is according to the company fully
adapted for operating in severe natural and climatic conditions and designed for the maximum
ice loads.
2NC Russian Standards High
Russia’s strongly committed to high environmental standards in the Arctic
Moscow Times ‘14
Moscow Times, Safety, Cost Meet Head On in Arctic Oil Race, 2014,
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/special/environment/eng/safety_-cost-meet-head-on-in-arctic-oilrace.html
The hub project fits with the high-level attention Arctic energy exploration gets from the Russian
government, and there is at least superficial attention to its environmental impact.
Speaking at a forum on Arctic exploration in September, then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin vowed that
all the plans for the region "will be enforced in line with the most rigorous ecological standards ."
"Intense business activity in the Arctic will be beneficial only if we ensure areasonable and proper
balance between the economy's interests and preserving thenature," he said.
There will be no oil spills and R&D will resolve issues
Moscow Times ‘14
Moscow Times, Safety, Cost Meet Head On in Arctic Oil Race, 2014,
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/special/environment/eng/safety_-cost-meet-head-on-in-arctic-oilrace.html
But "the unique design features of the Prirazlomnaya almost rule out oil leaks fromthe platform ,"
the company said, adding that it has enough capacity and equipment to localize oil spills at the field
within four hours after the accident — as required bycurrent regulations.
It also said it had created a plan to prevent and liquidate possible oil spills at the field and had bought
special equipment to deal with leaks.
"The working technology of the Prirazlomnaya platform rules out the disposal of industrial waste,
garbage, oils … and other hazardous substances into the sea," Gazprom Neft Shelf said, adding that
drilling and oil production waste would be shipped ashore in special containers for disposal.
Rosneft said it had established a research-and-development center to develop technologies for safe
extraction in the Arctic, but added that it's too early to discuss the financial assessment
of environmental risks in its offshore projects because it will be a long time before production starts.
All the projects will undergo public discussions and an environmental assessment by the authorities
in line with current legislation, the company said, adding that partnership with the world's oil and gas
majors guarantees access to high technologies and a responsible approach.
Bilat Mechs Solve
Bilateral oil spill mechanisms solve the advantage
Ebinger et al ‘14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas
Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic
There are a number of bilateral projects and legal instruments throughout the Arctic region that
address offshore oil and gas governance, especially pertaining to oil spill response . For example in
the U.S., the Canada-U.S. Joint Marine Pollution Contingency Plan and the Russia-U.S. Joint
Contingency Plan Against Pollution in the Bering and Chukchi Seas provide frameworks for the respective governments to cooperate in establishing measures and mechanisms to prepare for and respond to pollution incidents.
One effort often cited as an effective bilateral mechanism is the Barents 2020 research project.113
Barents 2020 began in 2007 as a cooperative endeavor between the Norwegian and Russian
governments. It was designed to leverage Russian expertise operating in cold climates with Norwegian
competence in offshore operations to develop common health, safety and environment (HSE) standards
for use in the Barents Sea. In March 2010, the project released a report recommending 130 standards,
of which 66 could be used directly, while 64 could “be applied provided special considerations are made
for low temperatures and/or ice loading.”114 A final phase of the project was completed in March 2012
in which further work was conducted on several key areas including ice loads, working environment,
escape evacuation and rescue, and operational emissions and discharges to air and water.115 In
addition, these recommendations were submitted to the International Organization for Standardization
Drilling Bad
Opening the new areas just turns the whole case
Manuel ‘13
Athan Manuel, Director, Lands Protection Program, Sierra Club, April 23, 2013,
http://docs.house.gov/meetings/II/II06/20130425/100755/HHRG-113-II06-Wstate-ManuelA20130425.pdf
Conversely, the Deepwater Horizon spill dramatically demonstrated how drilling can hurt coastal ¶
economies, cost rather than create jobs, AND reduce receipts to state and local governments and ¶
businesses. Pollution and spills from off shore drilling will damage booming and economically ¶ vital
coastal tourism economies. According to the World Tourism & Travel Council, tourism in ¶ America
employs over 14.7 million people, 10 percent of the American workforce, and accounts ¶ for 8.8 percent
of the national GDP, bringing in $1.3 trillion. This makes America’s coastal ¶ recreation and tourism
industry the second largest employer in the nation. Our coast serves over ¶ 180 million Americans who
make more than 2 billion trips to these areas every year. American ¶ tourism is a trillion dollar
industry, and of that coastal communities alone contribute over $700 ¶ billion annually to our
economy. Oil spills and pollution from rigs, whether they occur in the ¶ central and western Gulf, or in
the areas opened by the Transboundary Hydrocarbon Agreement, ¶ are not compatible with our
nation’s tourism and recreation economies, our oceans and waters, or ¶ our coastlines.
AND, drilling in the Atlantic will happen quickly—they risk irreversible
damage to the entire marine ecosystem.
NRDC 12 [Natural Resources Defense Council, “Deep Sea Treasures Protecting the Atlantic Coast's
Ancient Submarine Canyons and Seamounts,” March 2012
Out at Sea, But Not Out of¶ Harm’s Way
The Atlantic canyons and seamounts remain largely¶ unscathed by humans. Because of their depth
and¶ ruggedness, they have been out of reach to destructive¶ bottom trawling, a type of fishing using
heavily weighted¶ nets to target bottom-dwelling fish, crushing, ripping, and¶ ultimately destroying
fragile bottom habitats in the process.¶ So far the oil and gas industry has not been allowed to¶
commercially develop oil resources on the Eastern seaboard.
But that could quickly change. Elsewhere, so-called¶ “canyon buster” and “rock hopper” trawl gear are
opening up challenging seascapes to fishermen seeking out new populations or species to catch. These
bottom trawl nets¶ can remove in minutes what took nature centuries to build,¶ leaving barren, scarred
clay, mud, and rock where rich gardens of corals, sponges, and anemones once thrived.¶ With the
moratoria against oil and gas development in¶ the Atlantic now lifted, full-scale commercial drilling in
the canyons is possible. Proposals for oil and gas exploration are already under consideration ,
threatening the canyons’¶ sensitive resources. Seismic surveys are used to detect the¶ presence of oil
and gas and use high-decibel acoustic energy¶ pulses blasted from ships. Surveys can damage or kill
fish and fish larvae and have been implicated in whale beaching¶ and stranding incidents.10 The
auditory assault disrupts and displaces vital behaviors, leaving marine animals unable to locate prey
or mates or communicate with each other, and pushing animals out of critical migratory corridors and
their¶ nursery, foraging, and breeding habitat.11
After the Deepwater Horizon and Exxon Valdez disasters,¶ we now all know the widespread
ecological devastation that results from a well blow-out or a catastrophic spill. Even small oil spills can
kill marine organisms and disrupt marine ecosystems . Marine mammals like dolphins and whales can
also inhale oil when they surface to breathe, which causes¶ damage to mucous membranes and airways
and can be¶ fatal.12 Aside from posing a spill risk, each drilled well also generates drilling muds and
cuttings, and produces water that contains toxic metals , such as lead, chromium, mercury, and
carcinogens like toluene and benzene.13
The Atlantic’s Submarine Canyons¶ and Seamounts Need Our Protection
We have a unique opportunity now to protect the rich and¶ vulnerable resources of the Atlantic
canyons and seamounts before irreversible harm is done. To date, only four of these¶ canyons have
been protected from bottom trawling. None¶ of the canyons or seamounts are protected from oil and
gas¶ exploration activities. We need to fully protect these special¶ places for the future before it is too
late.
Unmitigated drilling destroys watersheds- shoddy construction and massive
toxic wastewater
Argetsinger, 11 -- J.D. Candidate, Certificate in Environmental Law, Pace Law School
(Beren, Pace Environmental Law Review, "The Marcellus Shale: Bridge to a Clean Energy Future or
Bridge to Nowhere?," 29 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 321, Fall 2011, l/n, accessed 5-24-12, mss)
As noted above, the EIA's long-term projections estimate that over forty-five percent of all natural gas produced in the United States by 2035 will come from shale
gas. Experience in shale gas-producing states reveals that hydraulic fracturing has significant impacts on water and air resources; with
nearly half the country's natural gas supply expected to come from shale, the long-term consequences must be considered and addressed now. Reports of shale gas
development in Colorado, Wyoming, Texas, and Pennsylvania highlight numerous water and air contamination problems that have arisen from shale gas
production. n53 Improper [*331] well
casing, lax on-site wastewater storage practices and perhaps even the hydraulic fracturing
process itself, can allow natural gas constituents to migrate into and permanently contaminate underground
aquifers and private wells. n54 The dumping of flowback waters into streams and onto roads contaminates surface waters and improperly treated fracking
wastewater at sewage treatment plants (often defined as publicly owned treatment works or "POTWs") damage streams and drinking water supplies, putting
human and ecological health at risk. n55 Air pollutants in the form of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrous oxides (NOx), which are
precursors to ground level ozone, a respiratory hazard, arise from the concentrated operation of diesel pumps, truck traffic, and on-site generators. n56 Methane
gas, a highly potent greenhouse gas, and other pollution constituents are released through the drilling, fracturing, venting, flaring, condensation, and transportation
processes of a well's lifecycle. n57 A. Water Pollution The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYS DEC or DEC) estimates that the hydraulic
fracturing process requires anywhere from 2.9 million to 7.8 million gallons of injected water combined with chemicals and sand to fracture a single well, depending
on the depth of the well and geology of the area. n58 DEC estimates that over the next thirty years, "there could be up to 40,000 wells developed with the high
volume hydraulic fracturing technology." n59 Reports from hydraulic fractured wells in northern Pennsylvania indicate that between nine and thirty-five percent (or
216,000 to 2.8 million [*332] gallons) of the water-chemical solution used in fracking returns as "flowback" before a well begins to produce gas. n60 Handling and
treating these high volumes of flowback
water is a significant operational challenge of extracting shale gas and one that has not
been met in some states. The treatment of flowback waters has proven a persistent challenge in Pennsylvania, causing environmental
damage that regulators in some areas have been slow to address. n61 Former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) Commissioner John Hanger said in a DEP press release in April 2010: The treating and disposing of gas drilling brine and fracturing wastewater is a significant
challenge for the natural gas industry because of its exceptionally high total dissolved solid (TDS) concentrations... . Marcellus drilling
is growing
rapidly and our rules must be strengthened now to prevent our waterways from being seriously harmed in
the future. n62 However, the DEP has largely limited its regulatory oversight on the issue of wastewater disposal at POTWs to a request that shale gas producers
"voluntarily" cease disposing of flowback water at some POTWs. n63 The issue of improper treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewater is compounded by specific
exemptions for hydraulic fracturing from certain federal environmental laws. For example, [*333] the Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) to largely exempt gas drillers from the SDWA, from EPA regulation, and from disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations. n64
While some states such as New York would require drillers to meet higher standards, n65 industry has largely fought efforts to force public disclosure as well as
federal efforts to study the impacts of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. n66 Independent analysis of products used in some western states
for the production of oil and gas revealed more than 350 products containing hundreds of chemicals, the vast majority of which have known adverse effects on
human health and the environment. n67 However, industry feet dragging on public disclosure has contributed to incomplete knowledge of the chemical makeup
and concentrations used in fracturing fluids, and the full extent of the risk the chemicals pose to human and environmental health is unknown. n68 The NYS DEC
advised in its Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (Revised dSGEIS) that: There is little meaningful information one way or the
other about the potential impact on human health of chronic low level exposures to many of these chemicals, as could occur if an aquifer were to be contaminated
as the result of a spill or release that is undetected and/or unremediated. n69 Incomplete knowledge of the chemical constituents injected into wells during the
fracturing process raise concerns about [*334] understanding their effects on people and how to treat acute and chronic exposure. Further, as noted above, the
fracturing fluids that return to the surface in flowback wastewaters create particularly daunting treatment challenges. The fracking solution pumped into the wells
dissolves large quantities of salts, heavy metals such as barium and strontium, and radioactive materials. n70 When the water returns to the surface, it is stored for
reuse, recycled, or treated and disposed. Currently, Pennsylvania is the only state that allows for the primary method for disposal of drilling wastewaters at POTWs.
n71 Many POTWs are incapable of treating fracking wastewater and discharges of untreated fracking wastewater into surface waters create environmental and
human health hazards. n72 The chemicals, radioactivity levels, and high salt concentrations pose difficulties for managers because most POTWs are not equipped to
test for or treat all of these substances. n73 John H. Quigley, former Pennsylvania Secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, stated:
we're burning the furniture to heat the house ... in shifting away from coal and toward natural gas, we're trying for
cleaner air, but we're producing massive amounts of toxic wastewater with salts and naturally occurring radioactive materials, and
it's not clear we have a plan for properly handling this waste. n74
Extinction
WWP, 10
(Western Watersheds Project, "Protecting Watersheds," 2010,
www.westernwatersheds.org/issues/protecting-watersheds, accessed 5-29-12, mss)
Protecting Watersheds A watershed is land that contributes water to a stream, river, lake, pond, wetland or other body of water. The boundary that separates one
watershed from another, causing falling rain or melting snow or spring water to flow downhill in one direction or the other, is known as a “watershed divide”. John
Wesley Powell put it well when he said that a watershed is: "that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by
their common water course" The defining watershed divide in the United States is the Continental Divide which generally follows the Rocky Mountains and
determines whether water flows to the Pacific or Atlantic Ocean. Our biggest watershed is that of the Mississippi River which starts in Minnesota and spreads across
40% of the lower 48 states, drawing its water from the Yellowstone, Missouri, Platte, Arkansas, Canadian, Red, Wisconsin, Illinois, Ohio and Tennessee Rivers---and
their drainages. While major watersheds are clearly visible on satellite photographs and maps, within each one is an intricate web of secondary drainages, each fed
by a myriad of streams and smaller creeks, many unnamed and so small a person can jump across them. In many parts of the country, particularly in the arid West,
these smaller drainages may cover thousands of acres, yet collect far less water than those in the East. For example, the Hudson River has a flow equivalent to that
of the Colorado, yet collects its water from a land area less than 1/20th the size required by the Colorado River which is 1,400 miles long. Because there is very little
land that is truly flat, watersheds and drainages are all around us, and just about everybody in the United States is within walking distance of one whether
they live in a city, on a farm, in a desert, or on an island. Some carry the names of well known rivers like the Columbia and the Rio Grande. Most, however, do not,
and remain anonymous, hidden in culverts or ditches or flowing only intermittently in high deserts, unrecognized and unheralded as vital,
contributing
parts of the complex system that supplies all of our fresh surface water. “Surface water” runs through watersheds and
drainages, from mountains or high ground to the sea. Underlying watersheds, or adjacent to most of them, however, is an even greater source of supply, “ground
water”. Ground water is formed when falling rain or melting snow percolates deep into the ground over time, sometimes centuries, to a level where it is stored in
porous rock and sand and accumulates there until tapped by drilled wells or comes to the surface of its own accord as a spring or artesian well. This stored ground
water is commonly referred to as an “aquifer” and its level is measured in terms of a “water table”. Like watersheds, water stored in aquifers generally seeps
downhill, and many, like the Mississippi River drainage, cover wide areas of the United States. The nation’s largest deposit of ground water is the Ogallala
Aquifer System that underlies 8 states, Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico. Many smaller aquifers are found
across the country and some remain unnamed and uncharted. These two water
resources, surface and ground water, not only sustain all life
but are the only practical source of fresh water we have for industry, agriculture, and municipal use. And although they are often
viewed as two separate entities, they are, for the most part, inextricably linked. For example, in addition to rain and melting snow, ground water
springs are vital to maintaining the flow of many streams and rivers in a watershed. And a great deal of surface water, about 25% of it, percolates deep into the
ground where it is stored in or helps recharge our aquifers. The remaining surface water, after evaporation, which claims some 40%, becomes the complex system
of streams and rivers that flow through watersheds from the mountains or high ground to the sea. Along the way, however, some of that water is temporarily held
back in ponds, wetlands and the land bordering creeks, streams and rivers where water may not be visible but lies just below the surface. These areas are
collectively referred to as riparian zones, and while they constitute only a small percentage of the land in most watersheds, they
are the heart and
soul of a delicately balanced natural system that, collectively, produces our fresh water. A healthy, functioning riparian zone
is a virtual classroom in life sciences---botany, biology, animal ecology, fisheries, entomology and ornithology---and contains a
miraculous diversity of wildlife, fish, birds, bugs and an array of vegetation ranging from trees and grasses to algae and other
aquatic plants. Riparian zones and the biodiversity they contain are interdependent. That is, the trees, plants, grasses, reeds,
and algae provide food, shade, protection and habitat for wildlife, birds and fish. Their root systems stabilize soil and prevent erosion
and flooding in wet seasons; and in dry seasons, this vegetation retains water and releases it slowly to maintain even stream flows. For their part, the variety of
animals, fish, birds, and bugs living in these zones aerate the soil, spread pollen and seeds and eventually, when they die and fungi and bacteria break down the
dead organic matter, provide nourishment for a new generation of riparian vegetation. This is an oversimplified description of a pristine riparian zone within a
source watershed, that critical part of the system where water is gathered from a web of springs, bogs and creeks and begins its long, twisting journey from the
mountains to the sea. Such pristine conditions still exist in some isolated areas, but today no major river arrives at its terminus in this condition, and some don’t
make it at all. Along the way, watersheds are radically transformed by man. Rivers are dammed, channeled, and otherwise diverted to serve a multitude of
agricultural, industrial and municipal purposes. And while a good portion of the water is eventually released back into the system, much of it is polluted and requires
costly purification. Today, water
conservation is one of the most serious natural resource issues facing this
country, and nowhere is conservation more important than in the arid West which is literally running out of water.
Polar Bears DA
The Beaufort and the Chukchi seas are some of the most fragile ecosystems on earth
supporting numerous keystone species
Jolling 1/3
Writer associated press Critics say grounding shows Arctic drilling danger 6:55a.m. EST January 3, 2013
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/02/arctic-drilling-danger/1805577/
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — The grounding of a petroleum drilling ship on a remote Alaska
island has refueled the debate over oil exploration in the U.S. Arctic Ocean, where critics for
years have said the conditions are too harsh and the stakes too high to allow dangerous
industrial development.¶ The drilling sites are 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) from Coast Guard
resources, and environmentalists argue offshore drilling in the Arctic's fragile ecosystem is too
risky. So when a Royal Dutch Shell PLC ship went aground on New Year's Eve on an uninhabited
island in the Gulf of Alaska, they pounced — saying the incident foreshadowed what will happen
north of the Bering Strait if drilling is allowed.¶ For oil giant Shell, which leads the way in drilling
in the frontier waters of the U.S Arctic, a spokesman said the grounding will be a learning
experience in the company's years long effort to draw oil from beneath the ocean floor, which it
maintains it can do safely. Though no wells exist there yet, Shell has invested billions of dollars
gearing up for drilling in the Beaufort and the Chukchi seas, off Alaska's north and northwest
coast.¶ The potential bounty is high: The U.S. Geological Survey estimates 26.6 billion barrels of
recoverable oil and 130 trillion cubic feet of natural gas exist below Arctic waters.¶
Environmentalists note the Beaufort and the Chukchi seas are some of the wildest and most
remote ecosystems on the planet. They also are among the most fragile, supporting polar bears,
the ice seals they feed on, walrus, endangered whales and other marine mammals that Alaska
Natives depend on for their subsistence culture.¶ "The Arctic is just far different than the Gulf
of Alaska or even other places on earth," said Marilyn Heiman, U.S. Arctic director for the Pew
Environment Group.
Polar bears are a keystone species
Baltimore Ecosystem Study 08
(2008 “Arctic Unit: Species Portfolio”
http://www.beslter.org/biocomplexity/m1u2/Arctic_Species_090208.pdf) HDG
Polar bears are the most prominent and charismatic victims of climate change. They are
portrayed as being on a rush toward extinction, with the ice from which they hunt seals melting
beneath their feet and their Arctic homeland on the verge of vanishing. Photos of the bear are
routinely used by news media whenever a story about climate change airs. This January, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will recommend whether to designate the two populations of
bears in Alaska a threatened species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. There’s a lot riding
on that decision. The bear is a keystone species ; if protected, the arctic ecosystem would be
protected. But there’s much more going on here.
The newest comprehensive studies show preserving biodiversity is key to
prevent extinction
ScienceDaily 11
9/14, Biodiversity Key to Earth's Life-Support Functions in a Changing World,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811084513.htm
In an international research group led by Prof. Dr. Michel Loreau from Canada, ecologists from
ten different universities and research institutes, including Prof. Dr. Michael Scherer-Lorenzen
from the University of Freiburg, compiled findings from numerous biodiversity experiments and
reanalyzed them. These experiments simulated the loss of plant species and attempted to
determine the consequences for the functioning of ecosystems, most of them coming to the
conclusion that a higher level of biodiversity is accompanied by an increase in ecosystem
processes. However, the findings were always only valid for a certain combination of
environmental conditions present at the locations at which the experiments were conducted and
for a limited range of ecosystem processes. In a study published in the current issue of the journal
Nature, the research group investigated the extent to which the positive effects of diversity still
apply under changing environmental conditions and when a multitude of processes are taken into
account. They found that 84 percent of the 147 plant species included in the experiments
promoted ecological processes in at least one case. The more years, locations, ecosystem
processes, and scenarios of global change -- such as global warming or land use intensity -- the
experiments took into account, the more plant species were necessary to guarantee the
functioning of the ecosystems. Moreover, other species were always necessary to keep the
ecosystem processes running under the different combinations of influencing factors. These
findings indicate that much more biodiversity is necessary to keep ecosystems functioning in a
world that is changing ever faster. The protection of diversity is thus a crucial factor in
maintaining Earth's life-support functions
2NC Yes Spillover
Species loss spillovers over to ecosystems and total biodiversity
Gitay et al in ‘1
Habiba Gitay et al., Climate Change 2001: Workin Group II: Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation, Chapter
5: Ecosystems and Their Goods and Services, www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/TARchap5.pdf, p.
277-278]
Other valuable services are provided by species that contribute to ecosystem health and
productivity. Reductions in or losses of species can lead to reduced local biodiversity and
changes in the structure and function of affected ecosystems (National Research Council, 1999).
The most well-known example of this kind of effect comes from marine systems, where the
presence or absence of a starfish species has been found to greatly influence the species
composition of intertidal habitats (Paine, 1974). Species in terrestrial systems also can have a
strong influence on the biodiversity of their ecosystems; in many cases these effects are related
to their functions as pollinators or seed dispersers.
2NC Each Species Key
Each species loss takes on more importance and causes total collapse.
Norton in ‘87
Bryan Norton, Center for Public Policy at the university of Maryland, “Why Preserve Natural Variety?”. p.
27
When the premise that diminutions in diversity create further such diminutions, is
supplemented by the premise that the downward diversity spiral is already accelerating at an
alarming rate, each species takes on an added value. Each species that is lost carries with it the
risk of a catastrophic ecosystem breakdown and increases the risk that the next loss will result
in such a breakdown
2NC AT Resilient
Err aff- policies should not risk species- redundancy is key to ensure
resiliency in the long run
Ehrlich 98
Paul Ehrlich, Professor, Population Studies at Stanford Univ. 1998. Bioscience, n. 5 v. 48, p. 387.
Academic Onefile
The rivet-popper hypothesis recognizes that there is likely to be redundancy in ecosystems
analogous to the redundancy in the number of rivets in an airplane's wing. This analogy is
sometimes interpreted to mean that "all species are equally vital strands in the web of life"
(Budiansky 1995) - a 180-degree misinterpretation because the original formulation explicitly
recognizes the existence of redundancy but emphasizes our ignorance of which species might be
redundant. The redundancy hypothesis points out that because ecosystems are composed of
functional groups of species, the deletion of a species would, in many cases, have no immediate
significant impact on ecosystem function. In addition, because some species are "drivers" and
others "passengers," extermination of a species would not necessarily produce observable
negative impacts on the delivery of ecosystem services. But the other side of this coin (and one
that is overlooked in misinterpretations of the hypothesis) is that the redundancy is likely to be
important in the long run , in the face of ecosystem stresses (such as global change). Moreover,
not all apparently redundant species are passengers. A "redundant" species in a functional group
that is exterminated today might well be the only species in that group that is able to adapt to
new environmental conditions imposed on the ecosystem. The redundancy hypothesis explicitly
made two particular points. First, species redundancy in ecosystems is an important property that
contributes to ecosystem resilience. Second, in efforts devoted to species conservation, it makes
sense to put the highest priority on those species that are the sole representatives of their
functional groups - that is, on groups in which there is no redundancy. But just because some
functional groups consist of single species that warrant special attention, it does not follow that
where there is significant redundancy in a functional group we can afford to lose some of the
species. Such a policy would lead to loss of resilience . The essential message of both the
redundancy and rivet-popper hypotheses is that we force species and populations (Hughes et al.
1997) to extinction at our own peril. Humanity is utterly dependent on services delivered by
ecosystems (Daily 1997). Considering the uncertainties and complexities in the relationships
between biodiversity and ecosystem services, policy decisions should have a large "insurance"
bias toward protection of biodiversity - and therefore especially toward functional groups in
which there is little or no redundancy. A policy of trying to increase or at least to maintain
"redundancy" in ecosystems will maximize the maintenance of ecosystem resilience.
Unrestricted Zoning Link/CP Solvency
Zoning some areas as off-limits is necessary to biodiversity- the aff’s approach
undermines it
Susskind and Wanucha 6/18/14 Lawrence Susskind, the Ford Professor of Urban and
Environmental Planning at MIT, director of the MIT Science Impact Collaborative, and vice chair of the
Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School, specializes in environmental policy and resolution of
water conflicts; interviewed by Genevieve Wanucha writer for Oceans at MIT, MIT News 6/18/14
https://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cold-hard-truth-about-arctic-policy JDI14 PBM
It will be necessary to create some set of agreements — maybe an entirely new Arctic treaty that
acknowledges and coordinates, but goes beyond, existing treaties. Zoning some areas [as] absolutely
off-limits to any development makes sense , because they are hugely important ecologically .
Identifying priority areas for oil, gas, and mineral exploration would probably be a good idea, if some way of
sharing a portion of the financial benefits could be worked out. Most treaty regimes create a superstructure,
including an executive committee, technical committees, scientific advisory groups and their reporting
structures. That doesn’t exist yet in the Arctic. There are pieces under different regimes, but all of it needs to be
pulled together.¶ I think we should designate certain ecologically critical areas as off-limits until we can
guarantee their safety, and other areas as priorities for explorations and exploitation of mineral
resources. To do this, countries and nongovernmental actors will need to work together . Some way must be
found to manage the Arctic in a sustainable way.
Warming Turns Arctic Disputes
Access to the arctic exists only while warming does – means we control the
link to their Arctic disputes advantage
Higgenbotham and Grosu May 14 John Higgenbotham, senior fellow at the Centre for
International Governance Innovation and Carleton University, and Martina Grosu master’s graduate in
international public policy of Wilfrid Laurier University’s School of International Policy and Governance
“The Northwest Territories and Arctic Maritime Development in the Beaufort Area” May 2014 CIGI
Policy Brief http://arcticjournal.com/sites/arcticjournal.com/files/cigi_pb_40.pdf JDI14 LabBKG
Recent plans by Transport Canada (TC), the CCG and Canadian Hydrographic Services (CHS) to develop the Northern Marine Transportation
Corridors Initiative could become an important opportunity for the Canadian Arctic territories, in particular the NWT. The NWT’s
strategic
access to the Beaufort Sea, an important part of a potential North American Arctic marine corridor, could provide the
territory with much-needed access to emerging maritime opportunities, including shipping, resource development, cruise
tourism and, eventually, fishing. It should be emphasized that regular unobstructed usage of Canadian Arctic marine
corridors for more than a few months per year is still many years into the future and is dependent on
continued oceanic warming , the availability of the necessary maritime infrastructure and new generations of ice-capable ships and
icebreakers.
Warming causes econ decline and takes out drilling solvency
Gillis 6/24/14
Justil Gillis- Climate journalist for the New York Times. “Bipartisan Report Tallies High Toll on Economy
From Global Warming” http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/24/science/report-tallies-toll-on-economyfrom-global-warming.html?_r=0
More than a million homes and businesses along the nation’s coasts could flood repeatedly before ultimately being
destroyed. Entire states in the Southeast and the Corn Belt may lose much of their agriculture as farming shifts northward in a
warming world. Heat and humidity will probably grow so intense that spending time outside will become physically
dangerous, throwing industries like construction and tourism into turmoil.¶ That is a picture of what may happen
to the United States economy in a world of unchecked global warming, according to a major new report released Tuesday by
a coalition of senior political and economic figures from the left, right and center, including three Treasury
secretaries stretching back to the Nixon administration.¶ A coal-fired power plant in Ghent, Ky.Justices Uphold Emission Limits on Big
IndustryJUNE 23, 2014¶ At a time when the issue of climate change has divided the American political landscape, pitting Republicans against
Democrats and even fellow party members against one another, the unusual bipartisan alliance of political veterans said that the country —
and business leaders in particular — must wake up to the enormous scale of the economic risk.¶ “The big ice sheets are melting; something’s
happening,” George P. Shultz, who was Treasury secretary under President Richard M. Nixon and secretary of state under President Ronald
Reagan, said in an interview. He noted that he had grown concerned enough about global warming to put solar panels on his own California
roof and to buy an electric car. “I say we should take out an insurance policy.”¶ The former Treasury secretaries — including Henry M. Paulson
Jr., a Republican who served under President George W. Bush, and Robert E. Rubin, a Democrat in the Clinton administration — promised to
help sound the alarm. All endorse putting a price on greenhouse gases, most likely by taxing emissions.¶ “I actually do believe that we’re at a
tipping point with the planet,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview at his home in Chicago. “A lot of things are going to happen that none of us are
going to like to see.Ӧ Speaking Tuesday morning at a news conference in New York, Mr. Rubin urged the Securities and Exchange Commission
to take a tougher stance in requiring that publicly held companies disclose the climate-related risks they may face. While many companies have
started issuing such warnings to investors, the disclosures are often vague and inadequate, he said.¶ “I have come to believe that climate
change is the existential issue of our age,” Mr. Rubin said. “I believe that investors should insist that companies disclose their risks, including the
value of assets that could be stranded.Ӧ He was referring to warnings that
assets worth trillions of dollars are at
risk of being stranded , or rendered obsolete, including vast coal and oil deposits that
will most likely have to be left in the ground if dangerous levels of global warming are to be
prevented.¶ The campaign behind the new report, called Risky Business, is funded largely by three wealthy financiers who are strong
advocates of action on global warming: Mr. Paulson, who with his wife, Wendy, has helped finance conservation efforts for decades; Thomas F.
Steyer, a billionaire former hedge fund executive and Democrat who is pushing to make global warming a central issue in political races around
the country; and Michael R. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York, who now urges cities to confront the threat of climate change.¶ They
commissioned an economic modeling firm that often does work for the oil and gas industry, the Rhodium Group, to assemble a team of experts
who carried out the risk analysis. Trevor Houser, a Rhodium partner who led the study, sought to insulate the findings from the political
opinions of the sponsors, in part by setting up a committee of leading climate scientists and environmental economists who reviewed the
work.¶ Mr. Houser called the analysis “the most detailed modeling ever done on the impact of climate change on specific sectors of the U.S.
economy.Ӧ Still, it is unclear whether the new report, or the voices of the former Treasury secretaries, will have an effect on companies or
investors, given that many decisions on Wall Street are driven by short-term considerations of profit and loss.¶ “The largest companies are
starting to realize climate change is a financial issue,” said Mindy S. Lubber, who runs a Boston advocacy group called Ceres that seeks to focus
investor attention on the economic risks. “Are they radically changing yet? No. But we’re making some progress, slowly.”¶ The report said the
economic effects would vary substantially by region. Some colder states may actually benefit from higher temperatures in significant ways,
including longer growing seasons.¶ Under the likeliest projections, Mr. Houser said, the American economy will keep growing throughout this
century despite the increasing economic drag from climate change. So people in the future will probably be wealthier than those of today.¶ But
the warming will nonetheless impose huge costs, the report said. Coastal counties, home to 40
percent of the nation’s
population, will take especially large hits from the rise of the sea, which could swallow more than $370 billion worth
of property in Florida and Louisiana alone by the end of the century.¶ If greenhouse gas emissions continue at a rapid pace, the report said, the
global sea level could increase roughly a foot by 2050, and double or triple that by century’s end.
Drilling Bad
Arctic drilling kills a slew of endangered animals
CBD 09
(Center for Biological Diversity. "IN THE SPOTLIGHT." The Arctic Meltdown. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 June 2014.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/climate_law_institute/the_arctic_meltdown/index.html ) ʕ
っ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
Our society’s fossil-fuel addiction is undermining the health of the far North in more ways than one.
Like beachgoers chasing receding ocean waves to gather seafood before a tsunami, oil companies are
rushing to drill in the Arctic, with the single goal of developing more of the fuel that drives global
warming in the first place. Making matters worse, the Arctic’s increasingly ice-free waters are plagued
with a proliferation of routes for ships — which contribute a significant 3 percent of the world’s carbon
dioxide emissions. Oil development and shipping are not only a threat to polar bears and ice seals, but
also to the highly endangered North Pacific right whale and bowhead whale that frequent the Arctic’s
icy waters. And introducing new black-carbon emissions from ships into the Arctic would accelerate
melting and take away our last chance to save this region. The Center has had some major success in
fighting oil development in the Arctic, and we’re also working to curb emissions from both ships and
planes. But significant worldwide reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from all sources are the only
way to save Arctic species’ habitat and ensure their survival. Trafficking (including for weapons
proliferation).
AT Safety
No proof of safety and accidents would be catastrophic
EY 2013 Ernst & Young Global Oil and Gas Center, consulting company for the energy sectors, “Arctic
Oil and Gas” 2013
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Arctic_oil_and_gas/$FILE/Arctic_oil_and_gas.pdf
There is huge potential as well as risks associated with operations in the Arctic and the industry must prove that the Arctic can
be drilled and developed safely. These operations are clearly on the outer limits of the both safety and
commercial viability for the industry and a spill or accident there would be catastrophic . The economics of Arctic
development are also looking forward to even higher oil prices which may or may not happen in the near term. There are two other factors that
will ultimately shape the quest to develop these resources: geopolitical and commercial.
Biod Turn- AT Tech Solves Spills
Aff hurts bioD- not enough tech to solve spills
WWF 13
World Wildlife Foundation, 3/14/2014, “Arctic Drilling Assessment Released”, https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/arctic-drilling-assessmentreleased, 6/23/2014, #BD
A new government assessment of offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic in 2012 falls short of
acknowledging that offshore drilling cannot currently be conducted safely in the Arctic and should not
be allowed.¶ The Department of the Interior’s (DOI) assessment comes less than three months after Royal Dutch Shell – the
only company that was permitted to do exploratory offshore drilling in the U.S. Arctic in 2012 –
experienced back to back accidents and challenges that prevented the company from drilling in the
Arctic. The company announced in February that it will forgo its plans to drill for oil and gas in Alaska’s Beaufort and Chukchi seas (located in
the Arctic) in 2013 so it can repair its equipment and get more prepared to drill in the future.¶ “If one of the largest multi-national
companies, with one of the biggest investments ($4.5 billion) in Arctic drilling, and self-proclaimed
highest industry standards was unable to have a safe and trouble-free drilling season in the Arctic,
nobody will be able to have one,” said Margaret Williams, managing director of the WWF-US Arctic Program.¶ The
assessment points out these and other flaws in Shell’s 2012 drilling season, such as failing to keep a
close watch over its contractors and not doing enough advance planning and preparation. However, at a
press conference today to release the report, DOI Secretary Ken Salazar said the Obama Administration is still willing to give a green light to
future drilling.¶ “Our
oceans are already stressed,” Williams said. “Polar bears, walrus, whales, seabirds
and other wildlife that thrive in the Arctic’s waters don’t need to be confronted with another major
threat.”¶ The Challenges of Drilling¶ A key problem related to Arctic drilling that concerns WWF is the
“response gap,” which is the inability to quickly respond to a spill, given the region’s extreme
weather, gale-force winds and extended periods of darkness.¶ Other challenges are the release of
harmful pollutants into the air; the discharge of dangerous chemicals into the water; and the impact
of oil-related noises on marine mammals that depend on sound to survive.¶ “A thorough, comprehensive,
science-based assessment of these challenges is needed, not a quick 60-day review like the one just completed by the Department of Interior,”
Williams said. “Anything shy of a comprehensive review is disrespectful to Arctic communities and wildlife,” Williams said.¶ WWF in the Arctic¶
Despite Shell’s announcement to slow down its plans for the Arctic, Conoco Phillips is continuing with its plan to drill one or two exploratory
wells in the Chukchi Sea in 2014.¶ WWF
opposes this move by Conoco Phillips – or any company – because we
believe it is not yet safe to allow offshore oil and gas development in the Arctic, as the right
technology for preventing or responding to an oil spill in such an icy, remote and dark area is not in
place and vulnerable areas have not yet been identified. The Obama Administration, therefore,
should jettison the idea of Arctic drilling. If the time ever comes when such technology exists and is proven to be effective,
WWF supports drilling but only under certain conditions that adequately address when, where and how to drill, as well as how to respond to an
oil spill.¶ WWF also advocates for our nation to move toward a clean, renewable energy future, rather than relying on offshore oil and gas, if it
wants to address climate change. U.S. oil production is higher than it has ever been in the last 20 years.
US fails at cleaning up spills in the arctic – poor infrastructure and ice traps
Dlouhy 4-23 Jennifer A Dlouhy, covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston
Chronicle in Washington, “Report: US ill prepared to tackle Arctic oil spills”, Fuel Fix, daily source for
news and analysis on oil and gas, April 23 2014, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/04/23/report-us-illprepared-to-tackle-arctic-oil-spills/ JDI14 LabBKG
WASHINGTON — The United States is ill prepared to tackle oil spills in the Arctic , whether from drilling or
vessels traveling through newly passable waterways once clogged with ice, according to a National Research Council report
released Wednesday. Extreme weather conditions and sparse infrastructure in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas —
more than 1,000 miles from the nearest deep-water port — would complicate any broad emergency
response. There, freezing ice can trap pockets of oil, locking it beyond the reach of traditional cleanup
equipment and preventing it from naturally breaking down over time. “The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be
a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill,” the scientists said in a 198-page report requested by the
American Petroleum Institute, the Coast Guard, the federal agency that oversees offshore drilling, and five other entities. “It
is unlikely
that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air access,
stronger supply chains and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies and personnel.”
More studies are needed before energy development to prevent spills
Dlouhy 4-23 Jennifer A Dlouhy, covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston
Chronicle in Washington, “Report: US ill prepared to tackle Arctic oil spills”, Fuel Fix, daily source for
news and analysis on oil and gas, April 23 2014, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/04/23/report-us-illprepared-to-tackle-arctic-oil-spills/ JDI14 LabBKG
The report offers a road map and 13 recommendations for what federal agencies, oil industry and other stakeholders need to do to boost their
ability to tackle a fuel or oil spill at the top of the globe, as
retreating sea ice spurs new energy development and ship
traffic in the remote region. A chief recommendation: More research across the board, from meteorological
studies to investigations of how oil spill cleanup methods would work in the Arctic. The NRC insisted
the United States needs “a comprehensive, collaborative, long-term Arctic oil spill research and
development program .” The council encouraged controlled releases of oil in the Arctic — a practice generally barred
under U.S. environmental laws – to evaluate new response strategies. Although the federal government and oil
industry are conducting lab studies that attempt to replicate Arctic conditions, the NRC suggests there is no substitute for the real thing and
said the studies could be done without measurable environmental harm.
Current tech can’t clean spills – environmental conditions
Dlouhy 4-23 Jennifer A Dlouhy, covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston
Chronicle in Washington, “Report: US ill prepared to tackle Arctic oil spills”, Fuel Fix, daily source for
news and analysis on oil and gas, April 23 2014, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/04/23/report-us-illprepared-to-tackle-arctic-oil-spills/ JDI14 LabBKG
Most information on responding to oil spills has been developed in temperate conditions, such as the Gulf
of Mexico, so it may not translate to the Arctic, where cold water and sea ice may limit the amount of oil
that naturallydisperses and evaporates. Because no response methods are completely effective or risk free, the industry
and government need a broad “oil spill response toolbox”, the NRC said. Pre-tested and prepositioned equipment — as well as plans for using it — would be critical to making sure they can be swiftly
applied in an oil spill, the group said. Spill drills: Shell recruits train for Arctic oil emergency Options include chemical dispersants
that can break down oil, either applied at the surface or near a wellhead, but the researchers said more work is needed to understand their
effectiveness and long-term effects in the Arctic. And while burning thick patches of floating oil is a viable spill response countermeasure in the
Arctic — potentially aided by ice that helps pool and collect the crude — even that is not perfect. When
ice is openly drifting, the
NRC warns, “oil spills can rapidly spread too thinly to ignite.” Using booms, vessels and skimmers to concentrate thin,
rapidly spreading oil slicks also may be difficult in the region, where there are few if any approved disposal sites for the contaminated
equipment, sparse port facilities for the vessels and limited airlift capabilities. The NRC says this
kind of mechanical recovery is
probably best for small, contained spills in pack ice, but it would probably be too inefficient for a large offshore spill in the
U.S. Arctic.
We’re woefully unprepared for a spill – changes required before drilling can
take place
Dlouhy 4-23 Jennifer A Dlouhy, covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston
Chronicle in Washington, “Report: US ill prepared to tackle Arctic oil spills”, Fuel Fix, daily source for
news and analysis on oil and gas, April 23 2014, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/04/23/report-us-illprepared-to-tackle-arctic-oil-spills/ JDI14 LabBKG
Chris Krenz, a Juneau-based senior scientist with the conservation group Oceana, said the report offers “a sobering look at our
lack of preparedness.” “Today’s report confirms that we are woefully unprepared for a disaster like the Exxon
Valdez or the Deepwater Horizon in the U.S. Arctic,” Krenz said, suggesting that the United States should
reconsider offshore drilling in the region. But oil industry representatives said the report rightly calls for more
research and resources to combat spills in the region. American Petroleum Institute spokesman Carlton Carroll said the
group was “encouraged by the report’s emphasis on the need for a full toolbox of spill response technologies.” The
report was the product of a 14-member committee of the National Research Council, organized by the National Academy of Sciences, with
representatives drawn from academia, the oil industry and Alaska.
US fails – Coast Guard and tech resources
Dlouhy 4-23 Jennifer A Dlouhy, covers energy policy, politics and other issues for The Houston
Chronicle in Washington, “Report: US ill prepared to tackle Arctic oil spills”, Fuel Fix, daily source for
news and analysis on oil and gas, April 23 2014, http://fuelfix.com/blog/2014/04/23/report-us-illprepared-to-tackle-arctic-oil-spills/ JDI14 LabBKG
The group also suggests the U.S. Coast Guard’s relatively small presence in the U.S. Arctic is not sufficient. The
NRC says the Coast Guard needs ice-breaking capability, more vessels for responding to emergency
situations, and eventually aircraft and helicopter support facilities that can work year-round. Other
resources also are needed, including: equipment to detect, monitor and model the flow of oil on and under
ice. real-time monitoring of vessel traffic in the U.S. Arctic in the Bering Strait. Their absence would
force the U.S. to rely on foreign and private receivers that have significant blind spots. One potentially tricky
political recommendation is for the Coast Guard to expand an existing bilateral agreement with Russia to allow joint Arctic spill exercises.
Polar Bears Keystone Species
Polar bears are keystone species
Sharp 13
Cassady Sharp (writer for Green Peace), 12/11/2013, “THE POLAR BEAR: MORE THAN A POSTER CHILD”,
http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2013/12/11/the-polar-bear-more-than-a-poster-child/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
It’s no mystery that polar bears are in trouble. Scientists and experts at a recent international meeting
claim that two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will be gone by 2050.¶ The furry predators have long been viewed
as the charismatic mammal of global warming. They are certainly close to the fire experiencing sea ice melt in the Arctic firsthand. Polar
bears need a solid ice platform to forage and hunt their main prey, seals. They’ve been experiencing
less and less of it every year, and are typically left with thinner ice more prone to melt. ¶ Not only does
global warming itself threaten polar bears and their habitat, the entire ecosystem now faces the risk
of disastrous oil spills from companies like Shell and Gazprom heading to the Arctic to drill for oil this
year.¶ Their expressive faces are not the only reason scientists and environmentalists dubbed polar bears the spokesanimals of global
warming. Read more about why polar bears important and why they’re worth saving (aside from the fact that they’re living creatures with the
right to exist, of course).¶ 1. As one of the largest land carnivores in the world along with grizzly bears, polar
bears are known as a
keystone species, the apex of the ecosystem. They keep biological populations in balance, a critical
component to a functioning ecosystem.¶ 2. They’re also a sign of health for the ecosystem. If the
keystone species is unhealthy, that’s a sign the entire ecosystem is in trouble. In the case of the Arctic, the
health of that ecosystem is a sign for what’s in store for the rest of the world.¶ 3. Polar bears eat almost exclusively seals, but
if they can’t hunt for that food source due to lack of a sturdy ice platform or pure exhaustion, they’ll
quickly move on to others. This could threaten the existence of other Arctic species, like the Arctic fox
or the walrus, as they compete for food resources.¶ 4. Scavengers like the Arctic fox and Arctic birds like the snowy owl
depend on big kills from polar bears as sources for food as well. If they’re not killing seals, they’re cutting out another food source for wildlife
Russian Env’t Standards>US
Russia solves the environment better than US
Bert 12
Melissa Bert (USCG, 2011-2012 Military Fellow, U.S.Coast Guard), February 2012, “A Strategy to Advance the Arctic Economy”,
http://www.cfr.org/arctic/strategy-advance-arctic-economy/p27258, 6/23/2013, #BhavDawg
The United States 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 United States, 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.
Oceans/Environment Defense
No impact to the environment
Boucher 98 (Doug, "Not with a Bang but a Whimper," Science and Society, Fall,
http://www.driftline.org/cgi-bin/archive/archive_msg.cgi?file=spoon-archives/marxisminternational.archive/marxism-international_1998/marxisminternational.9802&msgnum=379&start=32091&end=32412)
The political danger of catastrophism is matched by the weakness of its scientific foundation. Given the
prevalence of the idea that the entire biosphere will soon collapse, it is remarkable how few good
examples ecology can provide of this happening m even on the scale of an ecosystem, let alone a
continent or the whole planet. Hundreds of ecological transformations, due to introductions of alien
species, pollution, overexploitation, climate change and even collisions with asteroids, have been
documented. They often change the functioning of ecosystems, and the abundance and diversity of
their animals and plants, in dramatic ways. The effects on human society can be far-reaching, and often
extremely negative for the majority of the population. But one feature has been a constant, nearly
everywhere on earth: life goes on. Humans have been able to drive thousands of species to extinction,
severely impoverish the soil, alter weather patterns, dramatically lower the biodiversity of natural
communities, and incidentally cause great suffering for their posterity. They have not generally been
able to prevent nature from growing back. As ecosystems are transformed, species are eliminated -- but
opportunities are created for new ones. The natural world is changed, but never totally destroyed.
Levins and Lewontin put it well: "The warning not to destroy the environment is empty: environment,
like matter, cannot be created or destroyed. What we can do is replace environments we value by those
we do not like" (Levins and Lewontin, 1994). Indeed, from a human point of view the most impressive
feature of recorded history is that human societies have continued to grow and develop, despite all the
terrible things they have done to the earth. Examples of the collapse of civilizations due to their overexploitation of nature are few and far between. Most tend to be well in the past and poorly
documented, and further investigation often shows that the reasons for collapse were fundamentally
political.
Oceans resilient
Kennedy 2 (Victor, Coastal and Marine Ecosystems and Global Climate Change,
http://www.pewclimate.org/projects/marine.cfm)
There is evidence that marine organisms and ecosystems are resilient to environmental change. Steele
(1991) hypothesized that the biological components of marine systems are tightly coupled to physical
factors, allowing them to respond quickly to rapid environmental change and thus rendering them
ecologically adaptable. Some species also have wide genetic variability throughout their range, which may allow
for adaptation to climate change.
Alt causes doom solvency
Kunich 6 – Professor of Law, Appalachian School of Law (John, Killing Our Oceans, p 122-3, AG)
It is crucial, albeit perhaps counterintuitive, that we pay close attention to land-based activities even as
we focus on marine hotspots. There are enormous threats to marine biodiversity that originate, not in
the oceans, but on dry land in the coastal zones of the world. Part of the reason these threats are
prevalent is that an estimated 67 percent of the entire global human population lives either on the coast
or within 37 miles of the coast, and that percentage is increasing.14 These huge and growing
populations often cause overutilization of fishing and other resources in coastal areas, habitat
destruction and degradation, pollution (both organic and inorganic), eutrophication and related issues
such as pathogenic bacteria and algal toxins, introduction of invasive species, watershed alteration,
marine littering, and other harms to the nearby marine regions.15 Given that so many key marine centers
of biodiversity reside in the near-coast coral reefs and continental shelf areas, it is of tremendous
importance that our legal approach embrace appropriate controls over these land-based threats. Any
plan that shortsightedly and narrowly focuses too much on ocean-based activities will, paradoxically, miss the
boat.
A2: Reefs I/L
Three quarters of the world’s coral reefs are already in decline – ocean
acidification, warming, and local pollution and over-fishing.
Black ‘11
Richard Black, Environment correspondent, BBC News. “World's oceans in 'shocking' decline”. June 20,
2011. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13796479
"The rate of change is vastly exceeding what we were expecting even a couple of years ago," said
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, a coral specialist from the University of Queensland in Australia. "So if you
look at almost everything, whether it's fisheries in temperate zones or coral reefs or Arctic sea ice,
all of this is undergoing changes, but at a much faster rate than we had thought." But more
worrying than this, the team noted, are the ways in which different issues act synergistically to
increase threats to marine life. Some pollutants, for example, stick to the surfaces of tiny plastic
particles that are now found in the ocean bed. This increases the amounts of these pollutants that
are consumed by bottom-feeding fish. Plastic particles also assist the transport of algae from
place to place, increasing the occurrence of toxic algal blooms - which are also caused by the
influx of nutrient-rich pollution from agricultural land. In a wider sense, ocean acidification,
warming, local pollution and overfishing are acting together to increase the threat to coral reefs so much so that three-quarters of the world's reefs are at risk of severe decline.
No Russian Expansionism Impact
No Russia threat – rapprochement coming now
Laqueur ’10 – Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History
Waliter, Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History, in London, and Chair of the
International Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's
Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?, Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, Proquest
It seems gradually to have dawned on at least some Russian strategic thinkers that nato in its
present form does not really present a major threat to Russia or, perhaps, to anyone. (According
to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, nato is no longer a threat, only a "danger," which is
presumably less than a threat.) Nato member states have shelved the idea of offering admission
to Georgia and Ukraine. At the same time, Washington, following the European example, has
toned down its criticism of Russian violations of human rights and lessened its support for
domestic opposition groups in Russia and Westernleaning states such as Georgia, which Moscow
regards as hostile threats. From Moscow's perspective, the West has largely accepted Russia's
claims to a zone of privileged interests-whatever the fears of Russia's neighbors, there is little
Western countries can do to help. In short, the West's relative weight is declining, but so is
Russia's, making a policy of rapprochement appealing for all sides. For Moscow, this new,
conciliatory approach is largely focused on economic and, above all, technological
modernization. The emphasis of a position paper prepared by the Russian Foreign Ministry and
published by Russian Newsweek in May 2010 was almost entirely such modernization. It outlined
how Moscow should improve its relations with more than 60 countries, from Brunei to Mongolia,
using measures including state treaties and agreements between research institutes. The
document-and the new policy-appears to be based on a compromise between various elements
in the Russian leadership. President Dmitry Medvedev's faction, which seems to be behind this
statement, is clearly willing to take some more risks; it is also possible that Medvedev's
supporters are using the argument of modernization to sell a broader policy of détente to various
domestic constituencies. The moderate conservatives, such as Prime Minister Putin; his deputy
chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov; his deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin; and his foreign policy
adviser, Yuri Ushakov, understand that Russia's dependence on oil and gas exports must be
reduced and that modernization will inevitably involve a political price-but they are fearful that
the price could be too high. Meanwhile, both the right (Russia's ultranationalists) and the left (the
Communists) are not, in principle, against modernization but would like it to happen without any
political price at all. The new détente has shown itself in a number of cases: Russia's voting for
un sanctions against Iran, expressing remorse about the Katyn massacre, reaching an
agreement with the United States to reduce nuclear weapons, inviting nato soldiers to march
on Red Square on Victory Day, being offered warships from France, proposing a Russian-EU
crisis management agreement, and some others. But there are difficulties ahead-old suspicions
and new conflicts of interest will not easily be overcome, and may even derail the new course,
just as the détente of the 1970s came to a halt despite goodwill on both sides. In August, Putin
said that his anti-Western speech in Munich three years ago had been very useful in retrospect. If
so, then how far can the changes in Russia's foreign policy be expected to go?
No impact to regionally strong Russia
Grigoryan '12
Suren, political analyst who worked for the Ministry of Defense of Armenia for 10+ years, Masters
Degree in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science, "U.S.-Russia: My
Enemy, My Partner?" Foreign Policy Journal, 1/15/12 www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/01/15/u-srussia-my-enemy-my-partner/0/, AD 5/22/12
All this is in the past, official Washington says. As President Barack Obama put it in 2009 during his visit
to Moscow, America wants to see Russia strong, peaceful, prosperous, and self-confident, because the
United States needs exactly this kind of partner in the twenty-first century. The words of U.S.
Ambassador to Russia John R. Beyrle on the same subject are even more emotional: “We are not
interested in weak Russia. Weak Russia is the worst nightmare for the US. We understand perfectly what
challenges we are faced with…and we must cope with them in alliance with strong partners. Thanks to
its geostrategic position, immense resources and human capital, Russia may be exactly…such a
partner”.[15] Indeed, Russia has the historical experience, the human and material resources, and the
political will necessary for controlling and even managing regional processes. However, is Russia
comfortable with the role of “regional regulator” after being a global actor for 150 years? Most probably
it is. First, it has learned to assess its capabilities realistically, especially in the economic sphere, and it
understands perfectly its subordinate position compared to other rising powers of Eurasia, let alone the
United States. Secondly, it has not only offered to coordinate the situation in the post-Soviet space, but
also to become a rightful (in some cases even irreplaceable) mediator in solving the most acute
problems with neighboring regions (the Middle East, Central Asia) and states (Iran, North Korea, and
others), which contemporary Russian strategy considers extremely important in terms of the country’s
national security interests. Furthermore, under the circumstances, when Russian political thought
continues searching for a new geopolitical identity, even the role of regional regulator not only satisfies
Russia’s imperial ambitions but also facilitates the realization of the post-Soviet area integration project
within the Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC).[16] However, the question arises, why does the
United States need Russia to realize its imperial ambitions? The most obvious reasons are as follows:
First, Russia is capable and willing to assume the role of regional regulator. Throughout the last 20 years
(i.e., after the collapse of the Soviet Union), Moscow has de facto played the role of regional
coordinator, despite Russia’s economic chaos, political reorganization, weakness of its central
government, and demoralization of its armed forces in the 1990s. Russia continued holding the keys to
resolution or at least freezing of regional interethnic (the South Caucasus, Transdnistria) and civil
conflicts (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan) in the post-Soviet area. Moreover, the states that have had
acute conflicts with the West (e.g., Iran, North Korea) were always more willing to have contact with
Russia rather than other powers; even the most radical movements of the Arab East continue
maintaining contacts with her. Today, when Russia has overcome (although with tremendous material,
moral, and political losses) one of the most difficult periods of her history—when the power vertical has
been rebuilt, significant financial recourses have been accumulated allowing the country to proceed
with economic and technological modernization, and the armed forces are reviving—it is more
beneficial for the United States to have Russia as a partner rather than a rival in the extremely
complicated region of Eurasia. Americans have not forgotten the many unexpected problems they were
faced with after the demise of the USSR: the WMD proliferation threat, uncontrolled trade of
conventional weapons, separatism, illegal drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking on an immense
scale, and so forth. Most of these remain serious issues even today. Among all countries pretending to
regional leadership, only two have enough historical experience and appropriate capabilities for solving
these problems—namely, Russia and China. However, China still refrains from partaking in solving such
issues (perhaps except through mediation in negotiations with North Korea). Some experts insist that
this is because Beijing is still mainly focused on expanding its potential.[17] As for our judgment, perhaps
arguably enough, Chinese political culture is less predisposed to expansionism, whereas it still
dominates in Russia. This is exactly the reason the role of regional “gendarme” suits her mentality very
well, as it in essence remains imperial. Second, economically, Russia is much weaker than the European
Union or China. Given this fact, the United States’ desire to see Russia in a position of regional political
manager appears quite logical. Given its economic and technological weakness, Russia in the
foreseeable future will not be able to compete with the U.S. on a global scale. Meanwhile, Europe and
China can definitely do so. As for Russia’s nuclear potential, which is still comparable with America’s, it
is hardly a source of serious concern for the only world superpower. In contrast to the nervous
“dilettantes” that are present on the nuclear scene, Moscow has been a tested, predictable, and
responsible partner-adversary since Cold War times. For this reason, it is much more beneficial and also
easier for Washington (and acceptable for Moscow) to channel their military might—the world’s biggest
arsenals of nuclear arms—toward deterring such dilettantes instead of exerting pressure on each other.
If such consensus between Washington and Moscow is achieved, Russia, with its nuclear potential, may
acquire a new function: as a balancing force between Eastern and Western, and Northern and Southern
parts of the vast Eurasian continent.
Japanese Methane Advantage Answers
Japan Drilling Inevitable
Japan methane drilling is inevitable- too much investment
Reuters 11
Reuters, 8/3/2011, “Japan: Japan Drilling Company to drill methane hydrate wells offshore Japan”, http://www.energypedia.com/news/japan/japan-drilling-company-to-drill-methane-hydrate-wells-offshore-japan, 6/28/2014, BD
Japan Drilling Company (JDC) has signed a contract to drill wells in deep waters off the coast of
western Japan as part of a methane hydrate test production programme. Japan Petroleum Exploration (Japex)
awarded the 1 billion yen ($13 million) contract to JDC, in which Japex has a 30.75 percent stake.¶ Since 2001, resource-poor Japan
has invested several hundred million dollars in developing technology to tap methane hydrate,
believed to be plentiful under the seabed near the country, and it hopes to complete development of
technology for commercial production by 2018/19. JDC said it will drill three monitor wells and one test well from mid-January
to the end of February next year.¶ Japan's trade ministry is leading efforts to tap methane hydrates off the
coasts of the Wakayama and Mie prefectures, where there are estimated deposits of 40 trillion cubic
feet of gas, equivalent to 12 years of Japan's natural gas demand.¶ Methane hydrate, a frozen gas known as
'flammable ice', is formed from a mixture of methane and water at specific pressure and conditions.
Japan is already starting to commercialize hydrates
Ferro 13
Shaunacy Ferro (writer for Popular Science), 3/12/2013, “Japan Has Won The Race To Extract Gas From Offshore Methane Ice”,
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/japan-won-race-extract-gas-burning-ice, 6/28/2014, BD
Japanese officials report they've produced natural gas from underwater methane hydrate, a frozen
mix of water and methane known as "burning ice." Previous experiments have successfully extracted
gas from on-shore deposits, but this is the first time we've been able to do it with deep sea reserves .¶
Methane hydrates are made of gas molecules of methane that are trapped in a lattice of water ice. When the ice melts, because of change in
temperature or pressure, the gas is released and can ignite to create that fiery ice effect.¶ The U.S., South Korea and China have also been
working to harness the substance as fuel for years. It's one of the world's greatest untapped energy resources, found within the permafrost
near the Earth's poles and under much of the sea floor.¶ Finding
alternative fuel sources is especially vital for Japan, a
country has to import huge amounts of energy, especially after the Fukushima disaster curtailed the
Japanese nuclear program.¶ A team of Japanese drillers started extracting gas from methane hydrate
deposits about 1,000 feet below the seabed off the central coast of Japan on Tuesday, according to
The New York Times. They separated the ice and the methane by lowering the pressure in the
reserve.¶ (If you can read Japanese, you can see the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry's statement here.)¶ Trial extraction will
continue for about two weeks to determine how much gas can be produced. The drilling technology
will hopefully be commercially available in five years.
Japan won’t quit- new deposits
Nishio 6/20
Kuniaki Nishio (writer for The Asahi Shinbum), 6/20/2014, “Signs found of new methane hydrate deposits in Sea of Japan”,
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201406200048, 6/28/2014, BD
The industry ministry says it has found more promising signs of methane hydrate deposits in the Sea
of Japan.¶ It will begin test drilling in two areas from June 24 to collect sediment samples to see if
methane hydrate reserves do indeed exist there.¶ Known as "burning ice," methane hydrate is a natural fuel that lies
beneath the seafloor in the form of crystals made of methane and water molecules.¶ "Gas chimney structures" on the seafloor
are signs that methane hydrate is present.¶ Survey teams found examples of the structures off Akita and Yamagata prefectures
in an area over 400 meters in diameter and also around Shimane Prefecture's Oki Islands in an area some 750 meters in diameter.¶ Similar
geographical features were discovered last year off Joetsu, Niigata Prefecture, and Ishikawa Prefecture's Noto Peninsula.¶ Analysis of
the
terrains has led the industry ministry to conclude that the areas off Akita and Yamagata prefectures,
as well as Joetsu, are the most promising for methane hydrate deposits. The test drilling operations
are planned in these two locations, the first to be done in the Sea of Japan.¶ In March 2013, the world's first
successful test drilling of methane hydrate was conducted off Aichi Prefecture in deposits discovered along the country’s Pacific coast. The
government anticipates that deposits will be mined on a commercial basis there around 2023 at the
earliest.¶ Some experts believe that reservoirs of methane hydrate equivalent to 100 years’ worth of
natural gas consumption in Japan exist around the country.
Japan will drill- too many investments
Demetriou 2/18
Danielle Demetriou (writer for the Telegraph), 2/18/2014, “Is 'burning ice' the solution to Japan's energy crisis?”,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10646210/Japan-methane-hydrate.html, 6/28/2014, BD
A Japanese company is planning to extract methane hydrate from the seabed with the goal of creating
a new domestic energy source for resources-poor Japan.¶ Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding Co. (MES) hopes to
become a pioneer in the field of extracting methane hydrate, also known as “burning ice”, a compound believed to exist in abundance beneath
seas around Japan.¶ The
company, which has previously developed offshore oilfields, has set up a new
department devoted to tapping into the nation’s underwater energy extraction potential.¶ It has also
designed an underwater robot capable of diving to depths of nearly 23,000 ft to assist the test-mining
of mineral ores, with manufacturing discussions reportedly underway with an undisclosed North
European company.¶ Although a timescale has not yet been made public in relation to when they will start the extraction process,
Masatoshi Inui, a spokesman at MES, told the Telegraph: “It’s true that the company plans to explore and extract
seabed resources, including methane hydrate and rare metals.¶ “We have set up the Ocean Business Promotion
Department which plans to create a marine resources development field as a medium to long term core revenue business.Ӧ Methane
hydrate is fast emerging as a major potential energy source of the future, with vast quantities of gas trapped in ice
crystals buried deep beneath oceans and the Arctic permafrost.¶ A growing number of countries, including the US,
Canada and China, are starting to explore the possibility of tapping into methane hydrate production
as a natural gas source.¶ However, resources-poor Japan is particularly ambitious in this field, a
situation that is perhaps unsurprising in the light of the energy crisis triggered by the 2011
earthquake, tsunami and nuclear disaster.¶ It was almost three years ago exactly that the Fukushima nuclear crisis unfolded,
resulting in the closure of the nation’s nuclear power plants, a widespread anti-nuclear backlash and a costly national bill for expensive imports
of liquefied natural gas.¶ Japan last year became the first country to extract natural gas from frozen methane hydrate beneath the seabed, an
operation in which MES was involved having assisted in the creation of a deep-sea drilling vessel.¶ With studies estimating that as much as 39
trillion cubic ft of methane hydrate may exist in Japan’s offshore deposits, the government hopes to tap into such resources with production
technologies in place by 2018.¶ However, the biggest obstacles to date have related to the expense of the extraction procedure, a challenge
which MES is aiming to overcome with its creation of low-cost technologies.¶ Emphasising the potential of methane hydrate as a future energy
source, Shinichiro Takiguchi, a senior energy policy expert at the Japan Research Institute in Tokyo, told the Telegraph: “Its potential from the
seas around Japan is said to amount to 100 years of natural gas usage in Japan.”¶ He added: “The biggest challenges have related to cost. There
are two approaches for extraction. There is the surface layer extraction method used by Mitsui. The other approach is close to shale gas
extraction methods and is used by traditional oil exploration companies.¶ “Historically, the government has supported the latter method, but
this is said to be costly. The Mitsui way is relatively simple and cost-effective in extracting methane hydrate. Support for the Mitsui method may
be a better option in terms of using Japan’s resources.”
Japan has already successfully exploited methane hydrates. Also it’s inevitable
for other countries in the squo.
Reuters 13 "Japan Achieves First Gas Extraction from Offshore Methane Hydrate." Reuters. Thomson
Reuters, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/12/us-methanehydrates-japan-idUSBRE92B07620130312>.
TOKYO (Reuters) - A Japanese energy explorer said on Tuesday it extracted gas from offshore methane hydrate
deposits for the first time in the world, as part of an attempt to achieve commercial production within six years. Since 2001,
Japan, which imports nearly all of its energy needs, has invested several hundred million dollars in developing
technology to tap methane hydrate reserves off its coast that are estimated to be equal to about 11
years of gas consumption. State-run Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp (JOGMEC) said the gas was tapped from deposits of
methane hydrate, a frozen gas known as "flammable ice", near Japan's central coast. Japan is the world's top importer of liquefied natural gas
and the lure of domestic gas resources has become greater since the Fukushima nuclear crisis two years ago triggered a shake-up of the
country's energy sector. Japan's trade ministry said the production tests will continue for about two weeks, followed by analysis on how much
gas was produced. Methane
is a major component of natural gas and governments including Canada, the
United States, Norway and China are also looking at exploiting hydrate deposits as an alternative
source of energy. Japan used depressurization to turn methane hydrate to methane gas, a process thought by the government to be
more effective than using the hot water circulation method the country had tested successfully in 2002. In 2008, JOGMEC successfully
demonstrated for the first time a nearly six-day continuous period of production of methane gas from hydrate reserves held deep in permafrost
in Canada, using the depressurization method. Methane hydrate, is formed from a mixture of methane and water under certain pressure and
conditions. A Japanese study has estimated the existence of at least 40 trillion cubic feet (1.1 trillion cubic meters) of methane hydrates in the
eastern Nankai Trough off the country's Pacific coast, about 11 years of Japanese gas consumption. Japan's LNG imports hit a record 87.3
million metric tons last year after Japan shut down most of its nuclear power plants following the Fukushima nuclear disaster two years ago.
Technically Impossible
Extracting gas from methane is not viable
Knight 13 (Caroline Knight – “Extracting natural gas from methane hydrate”, Excelian, 4/26/2013)
In order to extract the gas, specialised equipment must be used to drill into and depressurise the
hydrate deposits in order to separate the methane from the ice. The gas is then collected and piped to the surface.
Clathrates are more stable at a higher temperature than LNG (-20o C vs. -162o C) and there has been discussion around converting natural gas
into clathrates rather than liquidation, saving on refrigeration and energy costs. However,
conversion factors currently mean
this is an economically unviable option. Extraction is an issue; in the majority of sites, deposits are
likely to be too dispersed for economic extraction. Despite their abundance, most hydrates are located either in colder
environments or deep underwater; where it is currently too difficult and too expensive to drill5. Other problems facing
commercial exploitation are detection of viable reserves and development of the technology for
extracting methane gas from the hydrate deposits. Methane is a greenhouse gas, and discharge of
large amounts of methane into the atmosphere would contribute to extreme climate change6. Explorers
must find a way to avoid releasing large quantities of methane from hydrates into the air and the ocean. Methane traps heat so effectively it is
about 10 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas7. Burning the natural gas on extraction would produce a massive amount
of CO2; researchers have considered the possibility of pumping the CO2 back into the undersea lattices after methane extraction to create a
carbon neutral process. This
was trialled by Conoco-Phillips in the North Slope of Alaska in 2012 and has been proven
technically possible but currently not a viable option8
Expert says that methane hydrate extraction isn’t even close to being commercially
viable
Kenji 13 (Ishikawa Kenji - Journalist, writer, and editor. Born in 1958. Earned a degree from the Tokyo University of Science, “Will Methane
Hydrates Become a Domestic Energy Resource?”, Nippon, 5/10/2013)
Ishii Yoshinori, University of Tokyo professor emeritus and the former director of the National Institute for Environmental
Studies, has opposed this string of development programs. In the early 1990s, Japan began research and development of
methane hydrates in earnest, with Ishii chairing a key research committee. This gave his later criticisms particular weight. Two decades ago, the
thinking was that geothermal heating resulted in free methane below the hydrated layers, and that this gas could be easily extracted. Ishii
later concluded
that the existence of gas was unlikely, making extraction cost prohibitive, and that
methane hydrates are fundamentally not a viable resource. Until recently, a large number of researchers also believed
similarly that extraction of methane gas was not economically feasible. However, not only has the pace of technological innovation exceeded
expectations, successful production from previously cost prohibitive reserves, such as shale gas and oil, oil sands, and deep marine gas and oil,
has placed methane hydrates in a more favorable light. Additionally, due to the 16-fold increase in crude oil price from 1999 to 2008, traditional
wisdom regarding cost effectiveness is no longer applicable, and there certainly is potential in methane hydrates, even if production costs
remain relatively high. However, major
technical hurdles remain. For example, while the recent marine trials successfully produced
of
methane was only confirmed to have occurred in a 20-meter radius around the drill pipe. Even if these
technical issues are overcome, commercial production will only be possible if market price is
competitive to that of shale gas and other competing reservoirs.
methane gas from hydrate, an unexpectedly large volume of sediment flow forced an early end to operations, and separation
The timeline and cost of methane hydrate extraction are prohibitive
Lefebvre 13 (Ben Lefebvre – staff writer for WSJ, “Scientists Envision Fracking in Arctic and on Ocean Floor”, The Wall Street Journal,
7/28/2013)
Commercial production of methane hydrate is expected to take at least a decade—if it comes at all.
Different technologies to harvest the gas are being tested, but so far no single approach has been perfected, and it
remains prohibitively expensive. But booming energy demand in Asia, which is spurring gigantic projects to liquefy natural gas in
Australia, Canada and Africa, is also giving momentum to efforts to mine the frozen clumps of methane hydrate mixed deep in seafloor
sediment. The biggest concern is that the sediment that contains methane hydrate is inherently unstable, meaning a drilling accident could set
off a landslide that sends massive amounts of methane—a potent greenhouse gas—bubbling up through the ocean and into the atmosphere.
Oil and gas companies establishing deep-water drilling rigs normally look at avoiding methane-hydrate clusters, said Richard Charter, senior
member of environmental group the Ocean Foundation, who has long studied methane hydrates. Nevertheless, the government of Japan—
where natural gas costs are currently $16 per million British thermal units, four times the level in the U.S.—has vowed to bring methane
hydrate into the mainstream by 2023 after a successful drilling test in March. In the government-sponsored test off of the southern coast of
Japan's main island, Honshu, a drilling rig bored nearly 2,000 feet below the seafloor. Special equipment reduced the pressure around the
methane hydrate crystals, dissolving them into gas and water, and then pumped about 4.2 million cubic feet of gas to the surface. While not a
huge haul, it was enough to convince Japanese researchers that more natural gas could be harvested. Not all observers think that the costs can
come down enough to make methane hydrate viable. But plenty of countries, particularly in Asia, are planning to try. China plans to host an
international conference on methane hydrate in 2014. India is contemplating a push to develop the vast quantities of methane hydrate
discovered off its coast in the Indian Ocean in 2006, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, a part of the U.S. Department of Interior that
conducts scientific research. In the U.S., scientists explored the northern Gulf of Mexico in May to map some of the 6.7 quadrillion cubic feet of
methane-hydrate clusters believed to be underwater there. The Consortium for Ocean Leadership, a nonprofit group of researchers, is now
trying to convince the Department of Energy to lend it a research drilling ship to do more tests. "There are a huge amount of people
internationally working in this area," said Carolyn Ruppel, head of the gas hydrates project at the USGS. "A lot of national governments have
gotten into the game." The most optimal places to harvest methane hydrate are near where the continental shelf transitions to the deep ocean,
areas difficult to access from sea level. Would-be producers also have to be careful when harvesting fragile clusters of methane hydrate to
ensure nearby crystals don't prematurely break and send greenhouse gases bubbling to the surface. The
cost of developing this
new source of energy remains high, with estimates ranging from $30 to $60 per million British thermal
units. In the U.S., natural gas currently trades for less than $4 per million BTUs, as the rise of fracking produced a gas
glut. But countries like Japan, Korea, India, and Taiwan import gas "at a high price and thus may find it economical to produce their own
resources," said George Hirasaki, a professor at Rice University in Houston who has done research on methane hydrates. Last year,
ConocoPhillips worked with the DOE on a test run producing natural gas from methane hydrate in Alaska's North Slope, home to about 85
trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable methane hydrate, according to DOE statistics. The company spent 13 days injecting carbon dioxide
and nitrogen into methane-hydrate clusters in the permafrost. The chemical cocktail fractures the permafrost, allowing the gas to escape
through the newly made fractures for collection. ConocoPhillips was able "to safely extract a steady flow of natural gas," a spokeswoman said.
ConocoPhillips declined to say how much it has invested in methane-hydrate production. The Houston-based company said that "at
present, the technology does not exist to produce natural gas economically from hydrates."
Prices Never High Enough
Hydrates not viable unless gas prices triple
Ruppel 11 (Carolyn Ruppel – US Geological Survey researcher – PhD from MIT in Solid Earth geophysics, “Methane Hydrates and the
Future of Natural Gas”, Gas Hydrates Project, 2011)
If there is no underlying free gas that can be produced during the life of the well, then the
gas price would have to reach $12
Canadian (2005 dollars) per Mcf for production from hydrates to become viable. To assess the production characteristics
and economics of marine gas hydrates, Walsh et al. (2009) used the TOUGH+HYDRATE reservoir simulation (Moridis et al., 2008b) results
published by Moridis and Reagan (2007) and Que$tor for cost analyses in comparing production from gas hydrates to that from a conventional
gas reservoir. The
costs estimates include a pipeline, production facility, and subsea development for both
hydrate production and the extra costs (e.g., additional wells, artificial lift to manage water production)
associated with gas production from hydrate. At the 50% confidence level, the additional cost associated with
production from deepwater gas hydrates vs. conventional gas deposits is $3.50 to $4.00 (U.S. dollars)
per Mcf. The economic evaluations discussed above incorporate some of the prospective costs associated with pipelines. It is important to
note that transportation issues probably pose an even greater economic challenge for gas hydrates than
for many conventional gas reservoirs or for some other forms of unconventional gas. The primary
reason is geographic: Many conventional and unconventional (e.g., shale, coalbed) deposits are closer to production and distribution
conventional and gas
infrastructure than the deepwater marine and permafrost areas. Where resource-grade gas hydrates are concentrated. This is one factor
motivating researchers to maintain that initial commercial scale production of gas from hydrate will probably occur on the Alaskan North Slope
near existing infrastructure that can immediately exploit the gas to run on-site operations.
Methane Good
Methane is cleaner than other fossil fuels
Arango 13
Santiago Arango (writer for CBC News), 5/7/2013, “Canada drops out of race to tap methane hydrates”,
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/canada-drops-out-of-race-to-tap-methane-hydrates-1.1358966, 6/28/2014, BD
Canada is abandoning a 15-year program that was researching ways to tap a potentially revolutionary energy source, just as Japan is starting to
use the results to exploit the new fossil-fuel frontier: methane hydrates.¶ Methane
hydrates are crystals full of methane
gas found both offshore and under the permafrost. Low temperatures and high pressure cause
methane and water to crystallize into ice-like deposits.¶ They represent an unexploited source of
energy estimated to be larger than all the world's known coal, oil and gas reserves combined. ¶ 300pxhydrates-seafloor¶ Offshore hydrates can be formed in large white clusters, but it is more common to find them mixed in sand on the ocean
floor. (Courtesy Scientific Party, RV Atlantis/Alvin Expedition)¶ Methane
is considered to be cleaner than other fossil
fuels, and if methane is used instead of oil and coal, significant reductions in greenhouse gas
emissions could be achieved.¶ Producing gas from hydrates could also avoid the water pollution issues
connected with the extraction of shale gas through "fracking" techniques. The environmental impact
of methane production has yet to be completely assessed, but researchers say they expect the issues
would be comparable to those of offshore conventional natural gas production.¶ Canada and Japan have been
partners in the quest to extract methane from hydrates. Since 2000, Natural Resources Canada has invested more than $16 million in the
venture. Japan spent around $60 million between 2002 and 2008 to finance production tests in the Canadian Arctic.¶ On March 18 this year the
Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. reached a milestone, successfully completing a test to produce methane gas from offshore hydrate
formations for the first time, using extraction techniques pioneered in Canada.¶ Despite the success, Canadian federal funding from Natural
Resources Canada for research into exploiting methane hydrates was cut as of March 31 — just a couple of weeks after the offshore production
tests in Japan. The ministry told CBC News the decision was made in 2012.
Methane Hydrates resolve need for LNG- solves the case
Gomez 14 Gomez, Michelle. "DW Monday: Could Methane Hydrates Challenge LNG in
Japan?" Douglas Westwood. Douglas Westwood, 17 Feb. 14. Web. 27 June 2014. <http://www.douglaswestwood.com/news/info.php?refnum=854#.U63LufldUYM>.
While shale gas has been transforming the energy industry, another natural gas source lies unexploited.
Methane hydrates, is the ‘dark horse’ of future energy. Commonly known as “burnable ice’, methane
hydrates are a potential major natural gas resource. They are most stable at low temperatures and high
pressure hence found below deep waters and in the arctic. Methane hydrates could, in theory,
revolutionize the energy industry, potentially providing significant upside to natural gas production.
However, to date, there haven’t been any commercial-scale developments. There has been talk about
development in the Gulf of Mexico and in Columbia, but most interesting is the possibility for
commercialization offshore Japan and how this may impact the country’s existing and growing energy
trade deficit. Japan is the largest LNG buyer, importing 70mtpa of LNG in 2012, that’s twice the levels of
the second largest LNG importer (South Korea). Should methane hydrates become a commercially
viable energy source, Japanese LNG imports could be impacted and possibly the wider LNG industry.
Whether methane hydrate projects off Japan can be commercialized at a competitive price is unknown
and there are significant technical issues to overcome, not least that the most viable accumulations are
located in difficult environments, posing technical and environmental challenges. Indeed, Canada is
abandoning its own 15-year $10 million program. With natural gas prices at four times US levels, Japan
has a greater incentive and has been drilling in its Nankai Trough since 1999. In March 2003, they
produced 120,000 cubic metres of methane gas from a depth of 1,000m. It is reported that if test
drilling continues to yield positive results and if technical issues can be resolved, commercial
production could begin during as early as 2018. But one constant of the energy industry is that most
projects take much longer than planned.
Extraction≠Warming
No risk of increasing warming from methane hydrate dissociation – extraction
doesn’t increase warming
Ruppel 11 (Carolyn Ruppel – US Geological Survey researcher – PhD from MIT in Solid Earth geophysics, “Methane Hydrates and
Contemporary Climate Change”, Nature, 2011)
Catastrophic, widespread dissociation of methane gas hydrates will not be triggered by continued
climate warming at contemporary rates (0.2ºC per decade; IPCC 2007) over timescales of a few hundred years. Most of Earth's
gas hydrates occur at low saturations and in sediments at such great depths below the seafloor or onshore permafrost that they will barely be
affected by warming over even 103 yr. Even
when CH4 is liberated from gas hydrates, oxidative and physical
processes may greatly reduce the amount that reaches the atmosphere as CH4. The CO2 produced by oxidation
of CH4 released from dissociating gas hydrates will likely have a greater impact on the Earth system (e.g., on ocean chemistry and atmospheric
CO2 concentrations; Archer et al. 2009) than will the CH4 that remains after passing through various sinks. Contemporary and future gas
hydrate degradation will occur primarily on the circum-Arctic Ocean continental shelves (Sector 2; Macdonald 1990, Lachenbruch et al. 1994,
Maslin 2010), where subsea permafrost thawing and methane hydrate dissociation have been triggered by warming and inundation since Late
Pleistocene time, and at the feather edge of the GHSZ on upper continental slopes (Sector 3), where the zone's full thickness can dissociate
rapidly due to modest warming of intermediate waters. More CH4 may be sequestered in upper continental slope gas hydrates than in those
associated with subsea permafrost; however, CH4 that reaches the seafloor from dissociating Arctic Ocean shelf gas hydrates is much more
likely to enter the atmosphere rapidly and as CH4, not CO2. Proof
is still lacking that gas hydrate dissociation currently
contributes to seepage from upper continental slopes or to elevated seawater CH4 concentrations on circum-Arctic Ocean
shelves. An even greater challenge for the future is determining the contribution of global gas hydrate dissociation to contemporary and future
atmospheric CH4 concentrations.
Leadership Advantage Answers
1NC Alt Causes
The plan only addresses one of the major issues necessary to Arctic
leadership- they can’t solve
Ebinger et al ‘14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas
Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic
The Arctic is changing and increasingly drawing the world's interest, with the potential for vast
reserves of offshore oil and gas constituting arguably the most attractive, yet challenging prospect in the
region:
As the U.S. prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this policy brief is designed
to inform the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government of the current state of oil and
gas governance in the Arctic, and to address the following questions:
How can the U.S. elevate the Arctic region as a priority national interest?
How can the U.S. lead in strengthening offshore oil and gas governance in the Arctic?
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Establish oil spill prevention, control, and response as the overarching theme for U.S. chairmanship of
the Arctic Council in 2015-2017.
Create the diplomatic post of “Arctic Ambassador.”
Establish a Regional Bureau for Polar Affairs in the U.S. Department of State.
Accelerate the ongoing development of Alaska-specific offshore oil and gas standards and discuss their
applicability in bilateral and multilateral forums for the broader Arctic region.
Strengthen bilateral regulatory arrangements for the Chukchi Sea with Russia, and the Beaufort Sea
with Canada.
Support the industry-led establishment of an Arctic-specific resource sharing organization for oil spill
response and safety.
Support and prioritize the strengthening of the Arctic Council through enhanced thematic coordination
of offshore oil and gas issues.
Support the establishment of a circumpolar Arctic Regulators Association for Oil and Gas.
2NC Alt Causes
Tons of other, way more important alt causes to Arctic leadership
Ebinger et al ‘14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas
Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic
Despite the developments summarized above, within the broader Arctic community the U.S. is often
criticized for not prioritizing the Arctic as an important policy area. Many of our regional counterparts
want to know: what are U.S. intentions not only as one of the eight Arctic countries, but also as a
superpower? Typical criticisms cite the inability of the U.S. to accede to UNCLOS , the U.S.’s hesitancy
to enhance the legal authority and mandate of the Arctic Council, and the slow pace of elevating the
Arctic as a key policy priority within the government, especially at the State Department.
There is also a rising chorus within the U.S. complaining that the government—and most Americans—
simply does not see itself as an Arctic nation, and that the U.S. does not have an effective,
comprehensive Arctic strategy . The chief obstacle in effecting a coherent Arctic strategy is a longstanding challenge in balancing Alaskan and broader pan-Arctic interests. One of the manifestations
of this is multiple government agencies with policy and oversight roles in the Arctic posing
coordination challenges. Issues relating to Alaska are in the hands of domestic agencies, most notably
the Department of the Interior, the Department of Homeland Security (Coast Guard), the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Department of Commerce (NOAA) as well as others. On the international
level, primary representation of the U.S. Government in international forums is the responsibility of the
Department of State, with the Coast Guard and Navy interacting on cross-border maritime issues with
Canada and Russia as well as with other Arctic states in a number of areas.
AT Arctic Leadership
Alt cause to lack of US leadership in the Arctic: no deepwater port
GAO 14 (United States Government Accountability Office, “MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE: Key Issues Related to
Commercial Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade”, Report to Congressional Requesters, March 2014)
Officials we spoke with from state and local government suggested that a U.S. Arctic deepwater port is
needed to support a potential increase in maritime activities in the Arctic. According to these
government officials, an Arctic deepwater port could potentially serve as a trans-shipment hub for
companies using Arctic routes or could host a permanent USCG presence in the Arctic, allowing the
USCG to better meet its missions for search and rescue, oil spill response, and maritime law
enforcement. While there was some agreement about the usefulness of a deepwater port to support
USCG efforts, industry representatives we spoke with had varying views about such a port’s potential for
commercial purposes. Shipping-industry representatives, for example, indicated that they would not use
a U.S. Arctic deepwater port for trans-Arctic shipping because of high fuel costs or the fact that such a
port would not be connected with existing port networks or any port connectors.
1NC No Solvency
Plan continues the US policy of focusing on technical, instead of strategic, use
of the Arctic- doesn’t solve leadership
Ebinger et al ‘14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas
Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic
The historic lack of focus on the importance of the Arctic is illustrated in another perspective expressed to us. This belief is that for far too long the government has treated the Arctic as something
that scientific experts deal with in obscure locations, having little relevance to larger geopolitical
issues. Institutionally, the U.S. Government has focused on the Arctic as a “technical” rather than a
“strategic” issue, hindering the elevation of the region as a priority in the policy hierarchy. As a result,
in this view, too much of Arctic policy is conducted at lower levels of the government rather than at
the highest levels of the Department of State or White House. This in turn constrains the
organizational, human, and financial resources dedicated to the Arctic. Several participants in our
research, including some former Arctic officials, were forceful in their contention, saying “We can no
longer pretend that we can deal with the challenges of the Arctic and not budget the resources to meet
them.” The overall result, according to a senior U.S. Government official based in Alaska, is that U.S.
Arctic policy “right now is very broad and not real defined.”
1NC No Arms Races
There is no “lawless Arctic” and no risk of resource races- almost all shelf oil
and gas is within EEZ’s and undisputed- nobody cares about the rest
Ebinger et al ‘14
Charles K. Ebinger, John P. Banks and Alisa Schackmann, Brookings Institute, Offshore Oil and Gas
Governance in the Arctic: A Leadership Role for the U.S., March 24, 2014,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2014/03/offshore-oil-gas-governance-arctic
The assumption that rising interest in oil and gas resources in the Arctic is outpacing the adequacy of
the existing governance framework was questioned by some in the course of our discussions. This view
was voiced most often by officials in, or working closely with, oil and gas companies. They argue that
while some analysts are eager to portray the Arctic as a lawless region with a race for resources, this
is not the case . Even the most authoritative source for oil and gas resource estimates in the Arctic—
the USGS survey—is rather speculative and indicates that most resources are located in the
continental shelf of the five littoral states. Thus, any exploration and commercial production of
offshore oil and gas are regulated as part of those nations’ EEZs, and thus under their respective
national laws. In addition, international treaties and conventions are also relevant to the EEZs, namely
UNCLOS. There is really only the “high Arctic” outside the jurisdiction of the littoral states, i.e. beyond
the 200 mile EEZs, which is not governed, and there is no activity and little interest to date in this
area.
1NC OSB Coming
Obama will pursue an OSB strategy- there is no alternative
Layne 12 – Professor and Chair in National Security @ Texas A&M
Chris, 12-27, "The (Almost) Triumph of Offshore Balancing," National Interest,
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/almost-triumph-offshore-balancing-6405
The DSG is a response to two drivers. First, the United States is in economic decline and will face
a serious fiscal crisis by the end of this decade. As President Obama said, the DSG reflects the
need to “put our fiscal house in order here at home and renew our long-term economic
strength.” The best indicators of U.S. decline are its GDP relative to potential competitors and
its share of world manufacturing output. China’s manufacturing output has now edged past that
of the United States and accounts for just over 18 or 19 percent of world manufacturing output.
With respect to GDP, virtually all leading economic forecasters agree that, measured by marketexchange rates, China’s aggregate GDP will exceed that of the United States by the end of the
current decade.Measured by purchasing-power parity, some leading economists believe China
already is the world’s number-one economy. Clearly, China is on the verge of overtaking the
United States economically. At the end of this decade, when the ratio of U.S. government debt
to GDP is likely to exceed the danger zone of 100 percent, the United States will face a severe
fiscal crisis. In a June 2011 report, the Congressional Budget Office warned that unless
Washington drastically slashes expenditures—including on entitlements and defense—and raises
taxes, it is headed for a fiscal train wreck. Moreover, concerns about future inflation and
America’s ability to repay its debts could imperil the U.S. dollar’s reserve-currency status. That
currency status allows the United States to avoid difficult “guns-or-butter” trade-offs and live well
beyond its means while enjoying entitlements at home and geopolitical preponderance abroad.
But that works only so long as foreigners are willing to lend the United States money. Speculation
is now commonplace about the dollar’s long-term hold on reserve-currency status. It would have
been unheard of just a few years ago.The second driver behind the new Pentagon strategy is the
shift in global wealth and power from the Euro-Atlantic world to Asia. As new great powers
such as China and, eventually, India emerge, important regional powers such as Russia, Japan,
Turkey, Korea, South Africa and Brazil will assume more prominent roles in international
politics. Thus, the post-Cold War “unipolar moment,” when the United States commanded the
global stage as the “sole remaining superpower,” will be replaced by a multipolar
international system. The Economist recently projected that China’s defense spending will equal
that of the United States by 2025. By the middle or end of the next decade, China will be
positioned to shape a new international order based on the rules and norms that it prefers—and,
perhaps, to provide the international economy with a new reserve currency. Two terms not found
in the DSG are “decline” and “imperial overstretch” (the latter coined by the historian Paul
Kennedy to describe the consequences when a great power’s economic resources can’t support
its external ambitions). But, although President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta may
not admit it, the DSG is the first move in what figures to be a dramatic strategic
retrenchment by the United States over the next two decades. This retrenchment will push to
the fore a new U.S. grand strategy—offshore balancing. In a 1997 article in International
Security, I argued that offshore balancing would displace America’s primacy strategy because it
would prove difficult to sustain U.S. primacy in the face of emerging new powers and the erosion
of U.S. economic dominance. Even in 1997, it was foreseeable that as U.S. advantages eroded,
there would be strong pressures for the United States to bring its commitments into line with its
shrinking economic base. This would require scaling back the U.S. military presence abroad;
setting clear strategic priorities; devolving the primary responsibility for maintaining security in
Europe and East Asia to regional actors; and significantly reducing the size of the U.S. military.
Subsequent to that article, offshore balancing has been embraced by other leading American
thinkers, including John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, Barry Posen, Christopher Preble
and Robert Pape.
1NC Decline Inevitable
Decline is inevitable—rise of the rest
Kupchan 2/6--professor of international affairs at Georgetown University
2k12, Charles, Sorry, Mitt: It Won't Be an American Century,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/06/it_won_t_be_an_american_century?page=0,0
Even if Romney's rhetoric were to get more domestic traction, it would still bear no resemblance
to the new global landscape that is fast emerging. The United States is indeed an exceptional
nation -- in its prized geographic location, commitment to freedom and democracy, and brand of
international leadership. But the country's exceptionalism should not be used as an excuse to
hide from global realities. China's GDP will catch up with America's over the course of the next
decade. The World Bank predicts that the dollar, euro, and China's renminbi will become coequals in a "multi-currency" monetary system by 2025. Goldman Sachs expects the collective
GDP of the top four developing countries -- Brazil, China, India, and Russia -- to match that of the
G-7 countries by 2032. The United States will no doubt exit the current slump and bounce back
economically in the years ahead. Nonetheless, a more level global playing field is inevitable.
Decline is inevitable and peaceful
Economist 12
2/2/12, The stakes of American hegemony,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/02/worldorder?fsrc=scn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fthestakesofamericanhegemony
Mr Kagan gives it his all arguing that the "rise of the rest" does not mean America's not still
undisputed king of the hill. But Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown law professor, is right that the
skyward trajectory of the BRICs does mean America's relative influence has waned, and that
that's a happy development: [A]s Reagan recognized, a decline in relative American power is a
good thing, not a bad thing — if we can turn rising states into solid allies. Remember "Gulliver's
Travels"? True, it wasn't much fun for Gulliver to be the little guy in the land of Brobdingnagian
giants, but it was even less fun to be a giant among the Lilliputians. Like Gulliver, America will
prosper most if we can surround ourselves with friendly peer and near-peer states. They give us
larger markets and improve burden-sharing; none of the global problems that bedevil us can be
solved by the United States alone. The global public goods Mr Kagan rightly prizes—peace,
stability, unimpeded trade routes—will be more, not less secure if the burden of their provision
is more broadly distributed. And America is more likely to remain worth emulating were it to
redirect some significant portion of the trillions spent maintaining its hegemony into more
productive uses.
1NC Peaceful Transition
Peaceful transition – in context of Obama
Quinn 11 – Professor of Political Science and Int’l Studies
Adam, “The art of declining politely: Obama’s prudent presidency and the waning of American power,”
International Affairs, Volume 87, Issue 4, Wiley Online
As noted in the opening passages of this article, the narratives of America’s decline and Obama’s
restraint are distinct but also crucially connected. Facing this incipient period of decline,
America’s leaders may walk one of two paths. Either the nation can come to terms with the
reality of the process that is under way and seek to finesse it in the smoothest way possible. Or
it can ‘rage against the dying of the light’, refusing to accept the waning of its primacy. President
Obama’s approach, defined by restraint and awareness of limits, makes him ideologically and
temperamentally well suited to the former course in a way that, to cite one example, his
predecessor was not. He is, in short, a good president to inaugurate an era of managed decline.
Those who vocally demand that the President act more boldly are not merely criticizing him; in
suggesting that he is ‘weak’ and that a ‘tougher’ policy is needed, they implicitly suppose that the
resources will be available to support such a course. In doing so they set their faces against the
reality of the coming American decline. 97 If the United States can embrace the spirit of
managed decline, then this will clear the way for a judicious retrenchment, trimming ambitions
in line with the fact that the nation can no longer act on the global stage with the wide latitude
once afforded by its superior power. As part of such a project, it can, as those who seek to
qualify the decline thesis have suggested, use the significant resources still at its disposal to
smooth the edges of its loss of relative power, preserving influence to the maximum extent
possible through whatever legacy of norms and institutions is bequeathed by its primacy. The
alternative course involves the initiation or escalation of conflictual scenarios for which the
United States increasingly lacks the resources to cater: provocation of a military conclusion to
the impasse with Iran; deliberate escalation of strategic rivalry with China in East Asia;
commitment to continuing the campaign in Afghanistan for another decade; a costly effort to
consistently apply principles of military interventionism, regime change and democracy
promotion in response to events in North Africa. President Obama does not by any means
represent a radical break with the traditions of American foreign policy in the modern era.
Examination of his major foreign policy pronouncements reveals that he remains within the
mainstream of the American discourse on foreign policy. In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance
speech in December 2009 he made it clear, not for the first time, that he is no pacifist, spelling out
his view that ‘the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace’, and that ‘the
United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with
the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms’. 98 In his Cairo speech in June the same
year, even as he sought distance from his predecessor with the proclamation that ‘no system of
government can or should be imposed by one nation on any other’, he also endorsed with only
slight qualification the liberal universalist view of civil liberties as transcendent human rights. ‘I …
have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things,’ he declared. ‘The ability to
speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the
equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people;
the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just American ideas.’ 99 His Westminster speech
repeated these sentiments. Evidently this is not a president who wishes to break signally with the
mainstream, either by advocating a radical shrinking of America’s military strength as a good in
itself or by disavowing liberal universalist global visions, as some genuine dissidents from the
prevailing foreign policy discourse would wish. 100 No doubt sensibly, given the likely political
reaction at home, it is inconceivable that he would explicitly declare his strategy to be one of
managed American decline. Nevertheless, this is a president who, within the confines of the
mainstream, embraces caution and restraint to the greatest extent that one could hope for
without an epochal paradigm shift in the intellectual framework of American foreign policymaking. 101 In contemplating the diminished and diminishing weight of the United States upon
the scales of global power, it is important not to conflate the question of what will be with that of
what we might prefer. It may well be, as critics of the decline thesis sometimes observe, that the
prospect of increased global power for a state such as China should not, on reflection, fill any
westerner with glee, whatever reservations one may have held regarding US primacy. It is also
important not to be unduly deterministic in projecting the consequences of American decline. It
may be a process that unfolds gradually and peacefully, resulting in a new order that functions
with peace and stability even in the absence of American primacy. Alternatively, it may result in
conflict, if the United States clashes with rising powers as it refuses to relinquish the prerogatives
of the hegemon, or continues to be drawn into wars with middle powers or on the periphery in
spite of its shrinking capacity to afford them. Which outcome occurs will depend on more than
the choices of America alone. But the likelihood that the United States can preserve its
prosperity and influence and see its hegemony leave a positive legacy rather than go down
thrashing its limbs about destructively will be greatly increased if it has political leaders
disposed to minimize conflict and consider American power a scarce resource—in short, leaders
who can master the art of declining politely. At present it seems it is fortunate enough to have a
president who fits the bill.
Decline will be peaceful and solves all their offense—only a risk of chain
ganging
MacDonald and Parent 11—Profs of Political Science @ Williams and Miami
Paul K. and Joseph M., Graceful Decline?, International Security, Spring 2k11, Volume 35, Number 4,
Muse
In short, the United States should be able to reduce its foreign policy commitments in East Asia
in the coming decades without inviting Chinese expansionism. Indeed, there is evidence that a
policy of retrenchment could reap potential benefits. The drawdown and repositioning of U.S.
troops in South Korea, for example, rather than fostering instability, has resulted in an
improvement in the occasionally strained relationship between Washington and Seoul.97 U.S.
moderation on Taiwan, rather than encouraging hard-liners in [End Page 42] Beijing, resulted in
an improvement in cross-strait relations and reassured U.S. allies that Washington would not
inadvertently drag them into a Sino-U.S. conflict.98 Moreover, Washington's support for the
development of multilateral security institutions, rather than harming bilateral alliances, could
work to enhance U.S. prestige while embedding China within a more transparent regional
order.99 A policy of gradual retrenchment need not undermine the credibility of U.S. alliance
commitments or unleash destabilizing regional security dilemmas. Indeed, even if Beijing
harbored revisionist intent, it is unclear that China will have the force projection capabilities
necessary to take and hold additional territory.100 By incrementally shifting burdens to regional
allies and multilateral institutions, the United States can strengthen the credibility of its core
commitments while accommodating the interests of a rising China. Not least among the
benefits of retrenchment is that it helps alleviate an unsustainable financial position. Immense
forward deployments will only exacerbate U.S. grand strategic problems and risk unnecessary
clashes .101
1NC Decline Solves War
Lack of a counterbalance leads to hegemonic wars—hegemony doesn’t deter—
decline would solve
Montiero 12/29-- Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University
2k11, Nuno, Why we (keep) fighting
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/12/29/why_we_keep_fighting
Because threats are not the problem. Backed by the mightiest military in history, U.S. threats are
eminently credible. In fact, the absence of another great power capable of deterring Washington
gives the U.S. a free hand abroad. As Saddam's foreign minister Tariq Aziz lamented after Iraq's
humiliating defeat in the Gulf War, "We don't have a patron anymore. If we still had the Soviets as
our patron,none of this would have happened." The problem lies elsewhere. During the Cold
War, mutually assured destruction kept the peace. The prospect of an unprovoked U.S. attack,
which would ultimately lead to the U.S.'s own destruction, was unthinkable. But now that the
Soviet Union is gone, America's enemies feel vulnerable even if they comply with Washington's
demands. They know that the United States has the wherewithal to take them down if it so
decides, so they are unlikely to accept any U.S. demands (to abandon a nuclear program, for
example) that would leave them in a position of even greater weakness. This is what explains
U.S. involvement in so many "hot" wars since the Cold War ended. As the world's sole
superpower, the United States is often seen as an aggressive behemoth. To make its threats
effective, we are told, it must restrain itself through a less aggressive military posture, a
commitment to multilateral action, or even a pledge to eschew regime change. But even if it does
all this, as long as U.S. power remains unmatched, Washington will continue to face difficulties
having its way without resorting to war. This should come as no surprise. It follows from the
unparalleled power of the United States.
1NC Heg Not Solve War
Doesn’t lead to peace—statistics show it actually leads to war
Montiero 12--Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University
Nuno, Unrest Assured, International Security, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Winter 2011/12),
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Unrest_Assured.pdf
How well, then, does the argument that unipolar systems are peaceful account for the first two
decades of unipolarity since the end of the Cold War? Table 1 presents a list of great powers
divided into three periods: 1816 to 1945, multipolarity; 1946 to 1989, bipolarity; and since 1990,
unipolarity. 46 Table 2 presents summary data about the incidence of war during each of these
periods. Unipolarity is the most conflict prone of all the systems, according to at least two
important criteria: the percentage of years that great powers spend at war and the incidence of
war involving great powers. In multipolarity, 18 percent of great power years were spent at war.
In bipolarity, the ratio is 16 percent. In unipolarity, however, a remarkable 59 percent of great
power years until now were spent at war. This is by far the highest percentage in all three
systems. Furthermore, during periods of multipolarity and bipolarity, the probability that war
involving a great power would break out in any given year was, respectively, 4.2 percent and
3.4 percent. Under unipolarity, it is 18.2 percent—or more than four times higher. 47 These
figures provide no evidence that unipolarity is peaceful .48
1NC China Mod
Attempts to preserve hegemony will cause great power conflict with China
Christopher Layne 2012 (is Robert M. Gates Chair in Intelligence and National Security at the George
Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University; ISQ* peer reviewed: ISI Journal
Citation Reports® Ranking: 2010: International Relations: 10 / 73; Political Science: 18 / 139 Impact
Factor: 1.523) “This Time It's Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana” International Studies
Quarterly, 1-11
Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions do not exist in vacuum. Rather, they
reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In international politics, who rules
makes the rules. The post-World War II international order is an American order that privileges
the United States' interests. Even the discourse of "liberal order" cannot conceal this fact. This is
why the notion that China can be constrained by integrating into the post-1945 international
order lacks credulity. For US scholars and policymakers alike, China's successful integration
hinges on Beijing's willingness to accept the Pax Americana's institutions, rules, and norms. In
other words, China must accept playing second fiddle to the United States. Revealingly,
Ikenberry makes clear this expectation when he says that the deal the United States should
propose to China is for Washington “to accommodate a rising China by offering it status and
position within the regional order in return for Beijing's acceptance and accommodation of
Washington's core interests, which include remaining a dominant security provider within East
Asia" (Ikenberry 2011:356). It is easy to see why the United States would want to cut such a deal
but it is hard to see what's in it for China. American hegemony is waning and China’s ascending,
and there is zero reason for China to accept this bargain because it aims to be the hegemon in
its own region. The unfolding Sino-American rivalry in East Asia can be seen as an example of
Dodge City syndrome (in American Western movies, one gunslinger says to the other: "This town
ain't big enough for both of us") or as a geopolitical example of Newtonian physics (two
hegemons cannot occupy the same region at the same time). From either perspective, the
dangers should be obvious: unless the United States is willing to accept China's ascendancy in
East (and Southeast) Asia, Washington and Beijing are on a collision course .
US-China war goes nuclear
Johnson 1
Chalmers, The Nation, May 14, Wilson OmniFile: Full Text Select
China is another matter. No sane figure in the Pentagon wants a war with China, and all serious
US militarists know that China's minuscule nuclear capacity is not offensive but a deterrent
against the overwhelming US power arrayed against it (twenty archaic Chinese warheads versus
more than 7,000 US warheads). Taiwan, whose status constitutes the still incomplete last act of
the Chinese civil war, remains the most dangerous place on earth. Much as the 1914
assassination of the Austrian crown prince in Sarajevo led to a war that no one wanted, a
misstep in Taiwan by any side could bring the United States and China into a conflict that
neither wants. Such a war would bankrupt the United States, deeply divide Japan and probably
end in a Chinese victory, given that China is the world's most populous country and would be
defending itself against a foreign aggressor. More seriously, it could easily escalate into a nuclear
holocaust. However, given the nationalistic challenge to China's sovereignty of any Taiwanese
attempt to declare its independence formally, forward-deployed US forces on China's borders
have virtually no deterrent effect.
1NC A2: Managed Transition
There is no way to guide the transition—other major powers will sense
American decline and hold out to reshape it to their own advantage and
declining power erases leadership for reform
Layne 9
Christopher, Professor of Political Science at Texas A&M, International Security, “The Waning of US
Hegemony—Myth or Reality?”, 2009, p. asp
Although a consensus exists that international institutions need to be overhauled, pressures for
reform are pushing in the opposite direction than the one prescribed by Brooks and Wohlforth,
because the impetus for change is coming from China and the other emerging powers. This
became evident during the lead-up to the April 2009 London meeting of the Group of 20, when
China and other rising powers argued that international institutions need to be revamped to
give them a greater voice, and also that the international privileges enjoyed by the United States and
Europe need to be rolled back. These developments highlight a weakness in the institutional “lock
in” and “twenty years’ opportunity” arguments: if they perceive that the United States is in
decline, rising powers such as China need to wait only a decade or two to reshape the
international system themselves. Moreover, because of the perception that the United States’
hard power is declining, and because of the hit its soft power has taken as a result of the meltdown,
there is a real question about whether the U.S. hegemon retains the credibility and legitimacy
to take the lead in institutional reform.
1NC/2NC Multipolarity>Unipolarity
Multipolarity is more peaceful than unipolarity
Goldstein 11-- professor emeritus of international relations at American University
Joshua, Sept/Oct 2011, Think Again: War,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=0,3
Nor do shifts in the global balance of power doom us to a future of perpetual war. While some
political scientists argue that an increasingly multipolar world is an increasingly volatile one -that peace is best assured by the predominance of a single hegemonic power, namely the United
States -- recent geopolitical history suggests otherwise. Relative U.S. power and worldwide
conflict have waned in tandem over the past decade. The exceptions to the trend, Iraq and
Afghanistan, have been lopsided wars waged by the hegemon, not challenges by up-and-coming
new powers. The best precedent for today's emerging world order may be the 19th-century
Concert of Europe, a collaboration of great powers that largely maintained the peace for a
century until its breakdown and the bloodbath of World War I.
1NC Alliance Entanglement
Hegemony leads to entangling alliances and leads to us getting drawn in—
decline solves
Preble 9— vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute
Christopher, The Power Problem, p. 8-9
There are other costs that are harder measure. Often, the existence—or even the perception—of
great military power encourages arrogance and overcon-fidence. Meanwhile, our capacity for
waging war in far-flung places, and disconnected from any consideration of U.S. national
interests, encourages individuals and groups to come to Washington to appeal for assistance.
The Reform Party and groups to come to Washington to appeal for assistance. The Reform Party
of Syria wants us to get rid of Syrian President Bashar Assad. The Georgians want to be members
of NATO, and in the meantime they have received U.S. military assistance. We came to the aid of
Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. Why not Muslims in Chechnya? We delivered food to starving
Somalis in 1993, and then intervened militarily to prevent our aid from being diverted to
warlords. Why, then, did we not stop a far greater humanitarian crisis in Rwanda? Or why has the
United States not sent military forces to the Darfur region of Sudan, where a genocide has
claimed an estimated 200,000 lives? Although we do not always intervene, our impulse to do so is
understandable. Our sense of obligation to come to the assistance of those in need is deeply
grounded in a number of religious traditions. Christian theologians point to a passage in the New
Testament, Luke 12:48, that translates over the ages to a simple affirmation: From those who
have been given much, much will be re- quired. Pop culture has adapted this timeless message in
the popular Spider- Man comic books and movies, where Peter Parker is haunted by the
admonition "with great power comes great responsibility." U.S. leaders from both major political
parties, representing views from across the ideological spectrum, regu- larly invoke the theme of
the country's great responsibilities to explain why we exert ourselves so often, and why we need
an enormous military to fulfill those presumed obligations. However, as our experience in Iraq has
shown, our desire to do good is not always matched by our capacity to do good. We do have
great power, but we are not omnipotent. No one is. You could say that is another lesson of the
Bible. Is there an alternative? Or are we doomed to spend vast sums of money on our military,
and then be forced-either out of a sense of honor or shame (or both?)-to use this power on
behalf of others? Must we sustain such a policy toward the use of force even if, in the process, we
destroy ourselves? I am an optimist. I believe we can recover from this state of affairs. I believe
that we can move beyond the United States being the sole superpower, expected to intervene
in all places, and at all times, to our more rightful role as a world leader. But the change should
come from within. It is unlikely to be forced upon us from the outside-or, if it is, we won't like the
way it plays out. We should begin reducing our power in conjunction with a concerted effort to
induce our friends and allies around the world to playa greater role.
1NC ME Mod
Hegemony only increases the risk and number of conflicts- causes instability
in the Middle East – decline solves.
Bandow 10—Senior Fellow @ CATO
9/22/2010, Doug, senior fellow @ CATO, Book Review: The Frugal Superpower,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12163&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&u
tm_campaign=Feed:+CatoRecentOpeds+(Cato+Recent+Op-eds)
However, Mr. Mandelbaum worries that U.S. retrenchment will lead to the return of "great
power politics." Yet Washington's current promiscuous tendency to intervene ensures that
almost any conflict involving other nations will end up involving the United States. Deterrence
often fails. Other nations understandably prefer to rely on Washington for their defense. The
latter is not in America's interest — which, after all, is what U.S. foreign policy should be about.
Mr. Mandlebaum says, "The national insistence on keeping gasoline cheap in the United States is
the single greatest failure of twenty-first-century American foreign policy." He wants to raise the
gas tax, a persistent liberal panacea. However, the real policy failure is intervening
promiscuously to protect Middle Eastern oil producers even though the energy market is global.
Since the end of the Cold War, and even before, Washington's interventions and threatened
interventions actually have destabilized the region. Mr. Mandelbaum sees great international
change coming. In his view, "One thing worse than an America that is too strong, the world will
learn, is an America that is too weak." But Americans currently forced to foot the bill so
Washington policymakers can sacrifice American soldiers like gambit pawns in a global chess
game might beg to differ. A more humble foreign policy, as George W. Bush once promised,
would be a far better deal for the vast majority of U.S. citizens, who suffer through whatever
Washington elites decide.
Middle East instability goes nuclear
Kam 7—Deputy Head @ Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies
Ephraim, A Nuclear Iran, Deputy Head @ Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies,
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/memoranda/memo88.pdf
The statements by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad about wiping Israel off the map are
not qualitatively new and resemble those by other Iranian leaders. Their reiteration at a time
when Iran is under pressure on the nuclear issue, however, suggests increasing extremism on the
part of the Iranian leadership towards Israel, as well as diminished sensitivity towards
international public opinion. Even if it is unlikely, the possibility that a fanatical group, whether
within the regime or a faction emerging from a split in the leadership, will gain control of
nuclear weapons and decide to use them against Israel cannot be categorically ruled out.
Moreover, the Middle East is a volatile region that has witnessed much violence and military
force. Ballistic missiles and chemical weapons have already been used on a large scale, including
in wars between Muslim countries. The risk that nuclear weapons will be used in the Middle East
is greater than in other regions and is greater than the risk between the superpowers during the
Cold War. Rules of behavior and channels for dialogue capable of reducing the risk do not yet
exist.
1NC Regional War
Regional dynamics will prevent a regional hegemon from emerging – the U.S.
should pursue off-shore balancing in the region.
Gause 12/21
F. Gregory Gause III is professor of political science at the University of Vermont. “Don't Just Do
Something, Stand There!”. December 21, 2011. Foreign Policy.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/12/21/america_arab_spring_do_nothing?page=0,0
If we back away from the domestic politics of Arab states (as well as those of Afghanistan, Iran,
and Pakistan) and look at the region in classic balance-of-power terms, we need not be so
concerned about American regional interests. This is a multipolar region where balancing
dynamics operate. Those balancing dynamics are complicated by the appeal of cross-border
identities and ideologies, a factor that can be exploited by ambitious regional powers (as with
Nasserist Arab nationalism in the 1950s and 1960s or Iran's ties with Islamist groups in the Arab
world today). But the modern history of the region indicates that no local power can achieve a
dominant position and thus put at risk American interests in oil access. If the United States, the
most powerful country in the history of the world, could not impose its hegemony on the
region, then it should not be too worried about Iran, even an Iran with a few nuclear weapons,
doing so. In this case, system dynamics work in America's favor. Those systemic dynamics are
strengthened by the fact that the most powerful state in the region militarily, Israel, and the
richest state in the region, Saudi Arabia, are opposed to regional hegemonic plays and are both
allied with the United States. Each is an uncomfortable ally in its own way: Saudi Arabia for the
obvious reasons and Israel, increasingly, because of its obstinacy regarding a two-state solution
with the Palestinians. But their power helps to serve American geopolitical interests in the
region during a period of enormous change and uncertainty. Turkey's re-entry as an active
player into regional politics also works in America's favor. While the AKP government will
occasionally cause headaches, particularly in its stance toward Israel, having another strong (both
domestically and internationally) state playing the regional game makes it even more unlikely
that Iran, or any other state, can achieve a position of regional hegemony. Thus, the United
States should approach regimes in the region, new and old, autocratic and democratic, with a
minimalist agenda based on state-to-state interests. New democratic regimes will be as
concerned about balancing dynamics as their old authoritarian predecessors. They will turn to
Washington for help in their own balance-of-power games (to some extent, this is already
happening on Syria). If one state chooses to adopt a hostile position toward the United States, its
neighbors will probably seek out U.S. help. America can afford to take a less involved, less
intense interest in the region and step in as needed to prevent the worst outcomes -- which can
be done without a large U.S. land-based military presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, or anywhere else.
The term of art in the international relations scholarship is "offshore balancing." That should be
the overriding guide to American Middle East policy, not intense involvement in the domestic
politics of regional states. I am not advocating a complete U.S. political or military disengagement
from the region. Maintaining U.S. bases in the small Gulf states is a relatively cost-effective way of
sustaining a military capability in an important area. (Bahrain is becoming more problematic on
this score; the United States has no interest in having bases in unstable countries and getting
caught up in their domestic politics.) Washington should engage with all regional governments,
even Iran, on a regular basis. It should encourage balancing dynamics, bolstering those
threatened by America's regional enemies. If circumstances are propitious (though I think this will
be rare in the immediate future), Washington should push for progress on the Arab-Israeli front.
But America should avoid plunging into the domestic affairs of Arab states, even when it thinks
it has influence there. Egypt is the perfect example. America's $1.3 billion in annual aid to the
Egyptian military certainly gives the United States some leverage over it. But America should not
use that to try to micromanage what will inevitably be a complex and drawn-out process of
negotiations among the Army, the newly empowered Islamists, other factions in the new
parliament, and the body selected to write a new constitution about just what the relationship
between the Army and new political order will be. The United States should simply make it clear
that continued aid to the Egyptian military depends on Egyptian foreign-policy decisions toward
America and on Egypt's peace treaty with Israel. Of course, the ground rules of U.S. foreign policy
have changed, even for an offshore balancer. The United States needs to communicate those
ground rules to allied Arab governments and their publics: Washington cannot provide aid to
militaries that brutally suppress nonviolent popular demonstrations as a matter of regular policy.
Washington will issue statements in support of democratic reform and human rights across the
board, affecting allies and adversaries equally. If allies do not like that, tough for them. But these
minimal guidelines are far different from the interventionist programs being put forward by both
neoconservatives and liberal internationalists in an effort to guide the politics of the Arab world.
The United States is well positioned to restrain itself in this period of flux in the Middle East. It
needs only to make the choice to do so. U.S. vital interests are not threatened. America's power
to prevent such threats is still significant. Regional balance-of-power dynamics work in
America's favor. The United States can afford to let developments play out, not getting too
exercised by the Islamist wave in the region but not encouraging it through active democracy
promotion either. America can husband its resources rather than waste them in the pursuit of
chimeras, like liberal democratic Arab states at peace with Israel and strongly allied with the
United States. It can take the moral high ground in a way that neoconservatives and liberal
interventionists do not appreciate, by not interfering in the domestic politics of Arab states.
America can confidently stand aside and wait for regional states, driven by regional dynamics, to
come to it for assistance and support. A decade of failed efforts to remake the politics of the
region should be enough. Washington needs to learn the wisdom of the White Rabbit and just
stand there in the Middle East.
Gas Advantage Answers
Yes Reserves
Fracking increased natural gas reserves dramatically and will increase more if
fracking continues
Yergin and Ineson 9
Daniel and Robert, author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, &
Power" and chairman of IHS CERA. Mr. Ineson is senior director of global gas for IHS CERA; “America's
Natural Gas Revolution”, 11/9,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574507440795971268.html#printMode
The biggest energy innovation of the decade is natural gas—more specifically what is called
"unconventional" natural gas. Some call it a revolution. Yet the natural gas revolution has
unfolded with no great fanfare, no grand opening ceremony, no ribbon cutting. It just crept up. In
1990, unconventional gas—from shales, coal-bed methane and so-called "tight" formations—was
about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40%, and growing fast, with shale gas by far
the biggest part. The potential of this "shale gale" only really became clear around 2007. In
Washington, D.C., the discovery has come later—only in the last few months. Yet it is already
changing the national energy dialogue and overall energy outlook in the U.S.—and could change
the global natural gas balance. From the time of the California energy crisis at the beginning of
this decade, it appeared that the U.S. was headed for an extended period of tight supplies, even
shortages, of natural gas. While gas has many favorable attributes—as a clean, relatively lowcarbon fuel—abundance did not appear to be one of them. Prices had gone up, but increased
drilling failed to bring forth additional supplies. The U.S., it seemed, was destined to become
much more integrated into the global gas market, with increasing imports of liquefied natural gas
(LNG). But a few companies were trying to solve a perennial problem: how to liberate shale
gas—the plentiful natural gas supplies locked away in the impermeable shale. The experimental
lab was a sprawling area called the Barnett Shale in the environs of Fort Worth, Texas. The
companies were experimenting with two technologies. One was horizontal drilling. Instead of
merely drilling straight down into the resource, horizontal wells go sideways after a certain depth,
opening up a much larger area of the resource-bearing formation. The other technology is known
as hydraulic fracturing, or "fraccing." Here, the producer injects a mixture of water and sand at
high pressure to create multiple fractures throughout the rock, liberating the trapped gas to flow
into the well. The critical but little-recognized breakthrough was early in this decade—finding a
way to meld together these two increasingly complex technologies to finally crack the shale rock,
and thus crack the code for a major new resource. It was not a single eureka moment, but rather
the result of incremental experimentation and technical skill. The success freed the gas to flow in
greater volumes and at a much lower unit cost than previously thought possible. In the last few
years, the revolution has spread into other shale plays, from Louisiana and Arkansas to
Pennsylvania and New York State, and British Columbia as well. The supply impact has been
dramatic. In the lower 48, states thought to be in decline as a natural gas source, production
surged an astonishing 15% from the beginning of 2007 to mid-2008. This increase is more than
most other countries produce in total. Equally dramatic is the effect on U.S. reserves. Proven
reserves have risen to 245 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in 2008 from 177 Tcf in 2000, despite having
produced nearly 165 Tcf during those years. The recent increase in estimated U.S. gas reserves
by the Potential Gas Committee, representing both academic and industry experts, is in itself
equivalent to more than half of the total proved reserves of Qatar, the new LNG powerhouse.
With more drilling experience, U.S. estimates are likely to rise dramatically in the next few
years. At current levels of demand, the U.S. has about 90 years of proven and potential
supply—a number that is bound to go up as more and more shale gas is found.
Fracking will increase the supply of natural gas by 60% and lower fuel prices
by 40%
Qineqt 12
Team of investment professionals including former hedge fund manager, trader and analyst at top tier
$10 billion hedge fund. Members include investment professionals who oversaw research and trading
organization of 50+, “How To Play A Rebound In Natural Gas Prices”, 5/27,
http://seekingalpha.com/article/687671-how-to-play-a-rebound-in-natural-gasprices?source=google_news
Excess Supply and its Impact on Natural Gas Prices Due to the introduction of hydraulic
fracturing and horizontal drilling, companies in the U.S. were able to extract gas from these
shale formations at lower costs, increasing their profitability as well as the supply of natural gas
available in the domestic market. Shale gas accounted for 27% of natural gas production in
2010, then reaching 34% last September. According to HIS projections, it is expected to grow to
43 percent by 2015 and 60 percent by 2035. The increased supply of natural gas in the domestic
market has decreased the fuel's price by more than 40% in the past one year.
No Exports
Fees and price adjustments deter investment in exports- long term expectations are key and
bleak
Denning, 12 -- Wall Street Journal staff
(Liam, "Gas export profits might leak away," 8-12-12, www.theaustralian.com.au/business/wall-streetjournal/gas-export-profits-might-leak-away/story-fnay3x58-1226449122081, accessed 8-16-12, mss)
THE latest free lunch being peddled involves exporting US natural gas. Don't be surprised if it
evaporates. Headline US gas futures bounce around $3 per million British thermal units. Meanwhile, Japan imports liquefied natural gas, or LNG, for about $17. That spread is why
companies such as Cheniere Energy are racing to build plants to export US gas. But if "$3 in, $17 out" sounds too good to be true, that is
because it is. While the economics of exports can make sense, they are no slam-dunk. First, the actual cost of delivering US gas overseas
would be much higher than $3. According to consultancy PFC Energy, a number of upward adjustments must be made. As the
contract that Spain's Gas Natural Fenosa signed last year with Cheniere indicates, the buyer typically pays a premium over the market price of gas. This amount, say 15 per cent, covers the cost
you need to add on the fee for liquefaction, roughly $2.50 to $3.
Shipping fees, meanwhile, range anywhere from about 85c to almost $2.80 depending on whether you're going to Europe or Asia and the route you take. Finally, in Europe the
main competition is pipeline gas from places like Russia. So to be truly comparable, you must add in the cost of converting the LNG back to gas, perhaps
to the facility operator of gas lost during liquefaction. That takes the price to $3.45. Then
another 40c. All in, therefore, at a $3 gas price, US LNG costs about $7.25 in Europe and $9.20 in Japan, using PFC's assumptions. Based on current prices, that still leaves a nice margin of about
The earliest the US is likely to start gas
exports is in 2015. Moreover, contracts for capacity at LNG plants typically span 20 years. Long-term expectations are
critical, therefore. US gas prices are expected to rise - in part because exports should help relieve the current supply glut. Futures for 2016 to 2020 average
$5 in Europe and almost $8 in Japan. If that still looks like a no-brainer, you are forgetting one thing: time.
about $5 and analysts and producers assume long-term prices of $6 or more. Meanwhile, European and Asian gas prices are linked to that of oil. As a rule of thumb, oil-linked gas in Europe
commands about 12 per cent of the quoted price of Brent crude; in Asia the ratio is about 15 per cent. Assuming $100 a barrel Brent crude long-term, this implies prices of $12 and $15
respectively. Suddenly, the margins drop to $1.30 and $2.34 for Europe and Japan, respectively. This is still positive, but much thinner. As Nikos Tsafos, gas specialist at PFC, puts it: "I don't
Push gas to $7 and Brent to $90 - more in line with historical price ratios - and both
margins go negative. Indeed, Deutsche Bank sees no arbitrage opportunity for US LNG targeting the UK after 2016
need to mess with the model so much to make it not work."
based on current futures prices. Shipping and processing costs could rise. Oil and gas prices bounce around. And political opposition to gas exports, on the premise that they raise domestic
This
limits the likely buyers of liquefaction capacity
energy prices, is a wild card.
won't prevent exports. But it
. Integrated global gas companies
seeking to capitalise on short-term arbitrage opportunities, such as BG, are one small set. Utilities in uncompetitive markets where costs can more easily be passed on to consumers, such as in
Less than a decade ago, the energy world was abuzz with plans to dot the US coastline with
gas import terminals in anticipation of steep declines in domestic output and rising prices. Today's excitable export enthusiasts would
do well to recall how that one turned out.
Asia, are another.
Exports are self-defeating- the first wave would collapse the price differential and make it
uneconomical
Levi, 12 -- CFR energy senior fellow
(Michael, PhD in war studies from the University of London, Council on Foreign Relations Energy and the
Environment senior fellow, Program on Energy Security and Climate Change director, "A Strategy for
U.S. Natural Gas Exports," June,
www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/6/13%20exports%20levi/06_exports_levi.pdf,
accessed 8-16-12, mss)
The first way that prices could converge is through U.S. LNG exports, which could ultimately bring the
various prices together, net of transport costs (including an indeterminate risk premium paid to
investors in risky LNG projects). Indeed initial natural gas exports themselves will tend to shrink
opportunities for subsequent exports. A recent DOE study projects that with moderate U.S. gas
resources and twelve billion cubic feet a day of exports, U.S. benchmark prices would rise to more than
$8 per thousand cubic feet by the middle of the next decade (EIA 2012c). When combined with the cost
of moving natural gas from the United States to overseas markets, there is a strong chance that some
exports would be unprofitable at that price. The same analysis found that if U.S. resources were lower
than anticipated, prices could reach $14 per thousand cubic feet by 2020, making exports undoubtedly
uneconomic at the margin. All that said, assuming U.S. LNG exports at the outset of this analysis would
make no sense, since their very existence depends on the particular export policy that is adopted.
Comprehensive study proves
Levi, 12 -- CFR energy senior fellow
(Michael, PhD in war studies from the University of London, Council on Foreign Relations Energy and the
Environment senior fellow, Program on Energy Security and Climate Change director, "A Strategy for
U.S. Natural Gas Exports," June,
www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/6/13%20exports%20levi/06_exports_levi.pdf,
accessed 8-16-12, mss)
It is far from clear that all or even most of this export volume would be used even if it were approved. A
recent MIT study looked at nine scenarios for U.S. and world natural gas markets; none of them led to
the emergence of significant U.S. natural gas exports, in large part because other lower cost producers
undercut prices offered by the United States in distant markets (MIT 2011). Other forces, discussed in
Chapter 2, could also lead global natural gas prices to converge even without U.S. exports, removing
opportunities for economically attractive U.S. LNG sales.
No Beaufort Gas Extraction
No link – Low natural gas prices make Beaufort gas uneconomic
Callow 12 Lin Callow, LTLC Consulting, “Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Activity Forecast:
Canadian Beaufort Sea 2012-2027” prepared for Beaufort Regional Enviornmental Assessment
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada April 2012 http://www.beaufortrea.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2012/04/Beaufort-Sea-OG-activity-forecast-2012-2017.pdf
Increases in North American shale gas production have caused natural gas unit prices to tumble from
more than US $8 per mcf in 2008 to about US $4 last year, with current spot prices even lower at between US $2 and $3.
Natural gas prices remaining at current levels would likely render Arctic gas production uneconomic .
Although, exploration in the deep shelf and slope areas of the Beaufort Sea is not dependent on the MGP, should MGP not proceed on the
proposed project schedule, industry
exploration and development activities in the Beaufort Sea are expected
to focus more on oil than natural gas .
No Switch
AND- Rebound effect cancels out benefits
Hickman, 12 – Guardian environmental correspondent and editor
(Leo, "How Green is Shale Gas?" Guardian, 5-29-12,
www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/may/29/shale-gas-fracking-green-carbon, accessed 6-212, mss)
However, those pesky caveats can't be suppressed for long. The principal danger is that a " dash
for gas" will suck investment and momentum away from
the "rebound effect" - people will likely just burn more
of the stuff, thereby quickly cancelling out any carbon savings. There also seems to be far too much confidence that carbon capture
the fledgling renewables sector. Cheap, abundant gas might also trigger
and storage will ride in to save the day, when the technology is still a very long way off from being proven.
A2: SCS Impact
1NC SCS/China Adv
Alt cause- shipping routes, fish, and oil
Deutsche Welle ’12 (9-5 ("Why is the South China Sea such a bone of contention?" 9-5-12, l/n,
accessed 10-6-12, mss)
Why is the South China Sea such a bone of contention?
The tension in the South China Sea has escalated since the start of the 21st century, as neighboring
states vie to protect their strategic and economic interests, but what are they really fighting for? Its
geopolitical location, an abundance of fish and huge gas and oil reserves make the South China Sea
particularly attractive to the 10 states that all lay claim to parts of it - China, Taiwan, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Cambodia. There are also hundreds of
islands and reefs in the South China Sea, which the Vietnamese call the East Sea. The Paracel Islands
(known as the Xisha in China and the Hoang Sa in Vietnam), the Spratly Islands (known as the Nansha
Qundao in China, the Truong Sa in Vietnam and the Kapuluan ng Kalayaan in the Philippines) are the
most important disputed island groups. The sea is also important to the rest of the world as it connects
Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia with East Asia and at least one third of global shipping
transits through its waters. Almost all of China's oil exports arrive via the South China Sea and nearly all
of China's exports to Europe and Africa go in the opposite direction. "In strategic and military terms, the
South China Sea is in a key position that enables control not only over South East Asia but over the wider
realm of South and East Asia too," Gerhard Will from the German Institute for International and Security
Affairs in Berlin told DW. Fish in abundance The South China Sea is also home to an abundance of fish.
According to the International Crisis Group, 10 percent of the annual global fish yield hails from this
huge body of water. However, the fisheries are at risk from over-fishing and pollution. More and more,
fishermen are being forced out into deeper waters to make a living but here they sometimes clash with
maritime patrol forces protecting their national interests. Fishermen have been arrested, their nets
damaged and their boats confiscated by the security forces of other countries. Such incidents have
increased in recent years. Not only is fish an important source of protein for the population, it is often
an important branch of the economy. In 2010, the fishing industry made up 7 percent of Vietnam's GDP.
In the Philippines, some 1.5 million people earn their living from fishing. Rich in gas and oil However, it is
the unknown riches of gas and oil that are creating most of the tension over the South China Sea,
especially as the energy needs of China and Southeast Asian nations grow as their economies boom.
"The deep waters have not yet been explored. Companies are reluctant because of the border disputes,"
Hans Georg Babies from the German Mineral Resources Agency told DW. Estimates for the amount of oil
range from four to 30 billion tons. The latter figure would be equivalent to all of Saudi Arabia's oil
reserves.
Resource irrelevant- it’s an entirely a sovereignty issue
Hogue ’12 (9-21 – Platts Asia news editor of energy (Thomas, "Five uninhabited islets and three barren
rocks: oil and the dispute over the two China seas," Platts, 9-21-12, blogs.platts.com/2012/09/21/japanchina/, accessed 10-6-12, mss)
In the East China Sea, China has estimated there may be as much as much 160 billion barrels of oil and
210 Tcf of gas, although other estimates run lower. None of the figures mentioned in a US Energy
Information Administration report in 2008, however, really jive with an interim report from state-owned
CNOOC that shows 300,000 barrels of crude oil and liquids and 6 Bcf of gas produced from East China
Sea licenses in the first six months of the year. That’s out of CNOOC’s total domestic output of 105
million barrels of crude oil and liquids and 118.1 Bcf of gas. In short, practically nothing. As well, other
oil companies don’t have much faith in the potential of the region. In 2004, Shell and the then Unocal
pulled out of contracts to explore for natural gas in the Xihu Trough to the northwest of the DiaoyuSenkaku islands in the East China Sea, saying that the resources weren’t commercial. The record of
futility in the area goes back further, with Taiwan and Japan not having made any significant finds
onshore or offshore after spending decades looking for oil and gas resources since the 1970s. The
closest significant oil and gas fields of any size lie further to the north and to the west in China’s Bohai
Bay. Not really what one would consider highly prospective territory then. What that means is that the
dispute over the barren rocky outcroppings in the East China Sea likely has nothing to do with oil and
gas, and thus there is no potential commercial gain that might eventually bring China and Japan
together in the interest of the mutual economic benefit of jointly exploiting much-needed hydrocarbon
resources. And what that means is that as long as each country is claiming that the Diaoyu-Senkaku
islands are an “integral part” of its territory, periodic eruptions of anti-Japan protests in China and
disruption to Japanese businesses there is what can be seen ahead.
SCS de-escalation now- China and regional economics
Jinping ’12 (, 9-21 -- AP staff (Xi, "China Sidesteps South China Sea Island Disputes," AP,
bigstory.ap.org/article/china-sidesteps-south-china-sea-island-disputes, accessed 10-6-12, ms)
China has sought to soothe neighbors it has feuded with over territory in the South China Sea, a stark
contrast to recent angry statements and violent street protests targeting Japan over a similar dispute.
Vice President Xi Jinping — China's presumed next leader — emphasized economic ties and civic
exchanges in remarks Friday to delegates from the 10 countries that make up the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. Xi played down South China Sea territorial disputes with the Philippines,
Vietnam and others that have flared up again this year. "I hope the situation would not reverse
backward and bilateral relations could come back to the track of normal development," Xi told the
Philippines' interior and local government secretary, Mar Roxas, according to China's official Xinhua
News Agency. In his address at the annual meeting with ASEAN members, held in the southern Chinese
city of Nanning, Xi said China was committed to "common development and steadily improving
cooperation mechanisms in various fields." With two-way trade growing 20 percent annually to $362.8
billion last year, China and its southern neighbors are increasingly intertwined, requiring even greater
cooperation across a range of fields, Xi said. The contrasting approaches to the territorial feuds highlight
Beijing's desire to keep the South China Sea disputes in check and avoid drawing in China's chief rival,
the United States, which maintains close security ties with many countries in the region. While eager to
assert its claims, Beijing needs a peaceful regional environment to achieve its development goals and
has a limited capacity to handle multiple diplomatic crises simultaneously.
China is still deterred in the SCS – their evidence is exaggerated
Kania 1/13 [Elsa Kania, The South China Sea: Flashpoints and the U.S. Pivot, 13 January 2013, 2013
Harvard Political Review, http://uwire.com/2013/01/13/the-south-china-sea-flashpoints-and-the-u-spivot/]
Equilibrium and Interdependence?¶ One paradox at the heart of the South China Sea
is the uneasy equilibrium that has largely been maintained . Despite the occasional
confrontation and frequent diplomatic squabbling, the situation has never escalated into full-blown
physical conflict. The main stabilizing factor has been that the countries involved have too much
to lose form turmoil, and so much to gain from tranquility. Andrew Ring—former Weatherhead
Center for International Affairs Fellow—emphasized that “With respect to the South China Sea, we all
have the same goals” in terms of regional stability and development. With regional trade flows and
interdependence critical to the region’s growing economies, conflict could be devastating. Even for
China —the actor with by far the most to gain from such a dispute—taking unilateral action
would irreparably tarnish its image in the eyes of the international community. With the
predominant narrative of a “rising” and “assertive China”—referred to as a potential adversary by
President Obama in the third presidential debate—China’s behavior in the S outh C hina S ea may be
sometimes exaggerated or sensationalized .
No escalation- China constrained
Dibb, 12 -- ANU strategic studies professor
(Paul, "Why I disagree with Hugh White on China's rise," The Australian, 8-13-12,
www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/why-i-disagree-with-hugh-white-on-chinas-rise/story-e6frg6zo1226448713852, accessed 10-5-12, mss)
Hugh White has raised serious questions about how to manage that relationship and, in particular, his view that the US should share power as an equal with
China (discussed comprehensively in The Weekend Australian on August 11-12 ). I disagree with much of his analysis and policy prescriptions for the following
reasons. First, he exaggerates
the dangers in tensions between these two powers and, especially, the risks of conflict leading
to nuclear war. He says competition between the US and China will inevitably lead to confrontation and military conflict. That did not happen in the more
dangerous Cold War confrontation between the USSR and the US. This was because it was clearly understood on both sides just how
destructive a nuclear exchange would be. And yet, White suggests a scenario in which a military incident in the
South China Sea could lead to China dropping a nuclear weapon on American military bases in Guam, and the US doing nothing
in retaliation. In other words, the US, with more than 5000 strategic nuclear weapons, has backed down and accepted nuclear devastation on its territory with all
the precedents that would set. Second, there
is little recognition of just how limited China's military capabilities are.
It is simply not good enough to accept the pumped-up claims of the US Naval War College that US aircraft carriers are vulnerable to
ballistic missile strikes by China. I've heard all these exaggerated views before out of the US. Of course, China is developing some serious modern capabilities but do
we actually believe that the US will sit on its hands and do nothing? Unlike America, China
has no experience of modern war and much of
its military technology is either reverse engineered from Western designs or bought from Russia, which has
made no technological breakthroughs for more than 20 years. Ballistic missile attacks on US aircraft carriers from China's mainland
would simply invite devastating blows on targets inside China. As for US power sharing and treating China as an equal, why should the US create what former prime
minister Paul Keating calls "strategic space" for it? What is being implied here: giving China all the South China Sea or a sphere of influence in Southeast Asia or a
free hand to threaten Japan? The fact is that the correlation of forces in our region leaves China with no real friends other than Pakistan and North Korea. Given
China's aggressive posture, practically every other major country in the region is moving closer to the US. When China's foreign minister threatens members of
ASEAN by stating that "China is a big country and other countries are small countries", he is acting like a bully. Little wonder that China's strategic space is limited.
Then there is the question of human rights and asserting, as do both Keating and White, some sort of moral equivalence between US values and those of China.
Both seem to imply that because the Communist Party of China has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty this somehow cancels out its gross human
rights abuses. Let's just remember that China's Communist Party was responsible in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution for more than 30 million
deaths of its own people. And, in recent memory, this was the party that rolled the tanks over students in Tiananmen Square. There is no way Washington will
concede moral equivalence to a communist regime. Finally, what about White's proposal for a Concert of Asia in which China and the US would share power? As he
acknowledges in passing, this would risk sacrificing the security of middle and small powers. It must be remembered that in the Concert of Europe in the 19th
century middle powers such as Poland either disappeared or were carved up. Just what is proposed here for countries such as Vietnam? Moreover, the Concert of
Europe worked because there was a common European culture, which does not exist today in Asia. The fact is that the
situation between China
and the US is nowhere near as perilous as suggested by Keating and White. Nuclear deterrence and increasing economic interdependence will
act as a brake on military adventurism by both sides. Moreover, as Australia's former ambassador to China, Geoff Raby, points out, China is utterly
dependent on foreign markets and is in reality a highly constrained power.
Oil triggers all their links
IBTN, 12
(International Business Times News, "South China Sea: Chinese, Philippine And Vietnamese Oil Tenders
Escalate Tensions," 8-2-12, l/n, accessed 10-6-12, mss)
South China Sea: Chinese, Philippine And Vietnamese Oil Tenders Escalate Tensions
China has given a go-ahead for its first major tender of oil and gas blocks in the South China Sea, close
on the heels of Beijing establishing a military garrison on a disputed island in the waters. China National
Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC), a state oil giant, invited foreign companies in late June to bid on nine oil
blocks in territories spread in 160,000 sq km of water, which are also claimed by Vietnam. Companies
could decide whether to bid on the blocks until next June, Reuters reported. China lays claim to almost
the entire South China Sea, including what is recognized by the U.N. as the exclusive economic zone of
other neighbors, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Brunei. On July 23, China approved a military
command to be based in Sansha City on Woody Island in the Paracels. The city was established June 21
in an area under the Chinese jurisdiction that is also claimed by Vietnam. The garrison was approved as
1,100 Chinese residents elected 45 legislators to the new city's congress. The troops would be
''responsible for managing the city's national defense mobilization, military reserves and carrying out
military operations,'' Xinhua news agency reported. Vietnam's state oil firm, Petrovietnam, has
condemned Beijing's oil exploration tender, calling it a "serious violation of international law" since the
blocks lie well within the country's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. Hanoi called on
energy firms to turn down the offer. It was reported July 20 that India's state-run Oil and Natural Gas
Corp (ONGC) would continue its oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea, off the Vietnam coast,
ignoring Chinese objection.
AND US has shifted to de-escalation instead of containment- peace settlements
will solve
Etzioni, 9-26 -- George Washingtin University internal relations professor
(Amitai, senior advisor to the Carter White House; taught at Columbia University, Harvard and the
University of California at Berkeley, "Cooler Heads in the South China Sea," National Interest, 9-26-12,
nationalinterest.org/commentary/cooler-heads-the-south-china-sea-7520?page=1, accessed 10-6-12,
mss)
The United States is realizing that the escalating tensions in the Far East, especially between China and Japan, should no longer be
viewed as an opportunity to contain China. Instead, our first priority should be to get everyone to calm
down. At issue are the territorial rights over some forty piles of rock, most uninhabited, some barely sticking out of the water. These conflicts already have led to
large nationalist anti-Japanese demonstrations in China and similar anti-Chinese demonstrations in Japan; saber-rattling activists planting their nation’s flag on some
of the islands; and clashes between vessels of several regional nations—all fueled by increasingly hot rhetoric by public leaders. These smaller clashes look
increasingly like the type of incidents that can spin out of control and lead to more serious conflagrations. The United States, which keeps veering between seeking
to engage China and moves to “contain” it, had at first—at least indirectly—urged the nations of the area to band together and push back against Chinese claims to
many of the islands at issue. However, most
recently Secretary Panetta called on China and Japan “to move forward
and not have this dispute get out of hand” and emphasized that all parties share a responsibility to resolve the conflicts peacefully. And—
the ever industrious U.S. think tanks have taken off their shelves a whole host of proposals that could
defuse the crisis. Disputes over maritime territorial rights fall under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and should be settled
in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). (The fact that the United States did not ratify the treaty involved seems immaterial because Washington typically operates
as if it were committed to UNCLOS.) But such settlements take years. In the short term, the think tankers are calling on China and Japan to establish a hotline so that
their leaders will be better able to nip in the bud any unintended confrontations. Moreover, both nations are urged to declare unequivocally that “military force is
not an option.” A more ambitious plan calls for a return to a derailed 2010 agreement for the joint development of gas fields in the South China Sea. The Economist
suggests that the nations involved should do the environment a favor and turn the islands and surrounding seas into marine protected areas to combat overfishing,
a problem that seriously threatens the economies and ecology of the region. Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out that to
combat overfishing, China, Vietnam and Taiwan have already “initiated fishing seasons, periodic bans, and limits on sizes of catches to support sustainable
harvesting, but these are not harmonized and often conflict.” Hence Paal calls “greater control of the fishing fleets, with effective sanctions on misbehavior under
rules agreed upon in common, [an] achievable and responsible goal.” One must acknowledge that islands are not fought over simply as real estate but because they
serve as markers for determining maritime rights. According to a widely followed reading of international law, a nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends two
hundred miles off its shores. Thus, if nations can populate and prove ownership over tiny islands in their near seas, they can expand their EEZ and gain access to the
surrounding natural resources—not only fish but also coveted fuels and minerals that lie beneath the seabed. Hence, for nations such as China and Japan, whose
economies are highly dependent on the secure access to and development of such resources, these islands are much more than “piles of rocks.” In Sharing the
Resources of the South China Sea, Mark Valencia, Jon Van Dyke and Noel Ludwig suggest establishing “regional sovereignty” over the islands in the South China Sea
among the six claimants, allowing them to collectively manage the islands, territorial seas and airspace. Of course, this would require an agreement among the
parties as how to share the spoils. Another option, put forward by Peter Dutton of the Naval War College, would emulate the resolution of the dispute over
Svalbard, an island located between Norway and Greenland. The Treaty of Spitsbergen, signed in 1920, awarded primary sovereignty over Svarlbard to Norway but
assigned resource-related rights to all signatories. Applying this model to the South and East China Seas likely would entail giving sovereignty to China while
permitting other countries to benefit from the resources. Though, at least in the near term, such a solution is unlikely to be accepted by the other claimants. Still
others have suggested declaring a moratorium on any exploration until the tensions are defused and conflicts are worked out. And a troika of foreign ministers in
the region, including nations not directly involved such as Indonesia and Australia, has been urged to help work out an evenhanded solution. Those
who
hold that all these suggestions are naive should note that such settlements do take place. One case will have to
stand for several others. In 2009, five years after the decades-old dispute was brought to court, the ICJ settled a dispute between Ukraine and Romania over the
Black Sea, whose seabed holds an estimated ten million tons of oil. One key issue was whether the Serpent Island would be considered a cliff or an island. The
Romanians claimed it was “a cliff” (hence irrelevant to territorial demarcation) while Ukraine held it was “an island” and thus that Ukraine’s maritime boundaries
extended beyond Serpent Island’s shores. The ICJ ruled it a cliff and delivered a judgment that granted Romania about 80 percent of the disputed area (though the
oil was more concentrated on the Ukrainian side). Both sides accepted the decision. If cooler heads prevail and Washington continues to throw its weight in support
of tensions reduction and conflict resolution by negotiation, some of these
proposals or others like them may carry the day. All sides
surely realize—given the fragile state of the global economy, the political transition in China, the rise of nationalism
that threatens to spin out of control—that this is a particularly poor time to escalate tensions.
Wont escalate—tensions are bluffs for negotiating leverage
Gupta ’11 (10/23 Rukmani Gupta, Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses,10/23/11, South China Sea Conflict? No Way, the-diplomat.com/2011/10/23/south-china-seaconflict-no-way/
Despite what opinion pieces in the Global Times may say, there’s reason to suspect that China doesn’t
want to escalate conflict in the region. Although commentary from the United States has suggested that
China considers the South China Sea a ‘core interest,’ no official Chinese writing can be found to
corroborate this. In addition, China’s caution can also be seen as a reflection on Chinese military
capabilities, which aren’t seen as strong enough to win a war over the South China Sea. In fact, the China
National Defence News, published by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s General Political
Department, has likened the use of force by China in the South China Sea to shooting one’s own foot.
Not only would the use of force bring ASEAN together on the issue, it could conceivably involve the
United States and Japan, derail China’s plans for continued economic growth and undo China’s
diplomacy. Chinese declarations on the South China Sea can therefore be seen as attempts to
exaggerate claims so as to secure a better negotiating stance.
1NC Manufacturing
Too many alt causes to manufacturing
Lewis 10/19/12 – Staffwriter (Lewis, Matt K. “ The incredible shrinking manufacturing sector.” 19
October 2012. http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/235089/the-incredible-shrinking-manufacturingsector)
During the second presidential debate, President Obama echoed those lyrics. Today, only 9 percent of
Americans work in manufacturing jobs. American industry has declined on Obama's watch —
something he readily admits to. During Tuesday night's debate, he channeled Springsteen, saying that
"some jobs are going, and won't be coming back." Part of this is unavoidable. It has to do with
globalized markets and outsourcing. The obvious benefits of high productivity and low wages
overseas is irresistible to many businesses. It has to do with immigration and technology. Meanwhile,
American industry is becoming more productive and efficient — a good thing, except that it means we
can create more stuff with fewer workers. The good news, the president tried to reassure us, is that the
void left by these disappearing manufacturing jobs will be filled by high-paying, high-skills occupations.
Whether that's true or not, there's an obvious point he did not state: Many Americans will be left
behind in the process. As the world changes, some people simply can't — or won't — adapt. And the
president's vision leaves those Americans behind. Manufacturing jobs were once the cornerstone of
American industry. You could graduate from high school (or not) and get a job in a factory that would
pay you enough money to support a middle-class family. However, during the Reagan era,
manufacturing declined significantly, setting in motion a trend that lasted through both Bush
administrations as well as the Clinton administration. This isn't a Republican or Democratic problem.
There's plenty of bipartisan blame to go around.
Manufacturing not key to the economy
Chapman, 12 -- Tribune editorial board member
(Steve, "Manufacturing an economic myth," Chicago Tribune, 3-18-12,
articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-03-18/news/ct-oped-0318-chapman-20120318_1_manufacturingsector-rick-santorum-products, accessed 10-3-12, mss)
Manufacturing accounts for a shrinking slice of the total economy mainly because as we grow wealthier,
we spend a smaller portion of our income on physical products, like carsand appliances, and a bigger
one on services, from health care to cellphone contracts to restaurant meals. That phenomenon holds
across the developed world. It's the result of the free market at work, endlessly shifting resources to
accommodate changes in consumer demand. Politicians don't think they should tell Americans to eat at
Burger King instead of Chipotle, or buy baseball bats instead of soccer balls. They didn't insist we keep
our typewriters when personal computers came along. For the most part, our leaders take it as normal
and sensible to defer to consumer demand, rather than try to dictate it. Given that, why do they think
they ought to rig the tax code to push consumption dollars from services, which Americans want, to
goods, which they don't want quite so much? Why should they divert investment from more popular
businesses to less popular ones? That's what the measures offered by Santorum and Obama would do.
The point is to ease the tax burden of manufacturers at the expense of other companies, on the
superstition that the former are more valuable than the latter. It's hard to see the fairness or the
economic logic. When the president unveiled his proposal, Jade West of the National Association of
Wholesaler-Distributors complained to The New York Times, "My guys are totally freaked out by
manufacturing getting a different tax rate than we do. They're not more important in the economy than
retail or distribution or anything else." In fact, manufacturing is bound to be a diminishing share of any
advanced economy. Obama and Santorum can fling money into the teeth of that trend. But any time
politicians want to resist powerful and beneficial economic forces, bet on the economic forces.
1NC Chemical Industry
Environmental regs biggest i/l to collapse the chem industry
Shannon 10
Mike, Global and US Sector Leader Chemicals and Performance Technologies, “The Outlook for the US
Chemical Industry” KMPG
http://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/us-chemical-industryoutlook.pdf
US chemical companies are also concerned with the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) implemented by the European Union (EU).
While this regulation has no effect on US soil, US producers exporting an additive or solvent or
other substances for use by an EU manufacturer may find their product within REACH
jurisdiction. 66 The European Commission has estimated that the direct costs of REACH to the
chemical industry will total US $2.8 billion over the first 11 years of the regulation. 67 In the US,
mechanisms to limit carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have the greatest
potential to influence the chemical industry. Existing US cap-and-trade programs include: •
Acid Rain Program (part of the 1990 Clean Air Act) • NOx Budget Trading Program (first
administered in 2003) • Clean Air Interstate Rule which uses a cap-and-trade system designed to
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides nationwide by 70 percent 66 Chemical News &
Intelligence: ‘Costs of EU chemical regulations reach US businesses,’ February 17, 2010 67
European Commission: ‘REACH in Brief,’ October 2007 • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a
market-based effort by ten northeast and mid-Atlantic states to limit GHG emissions •
Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Western Climate Initiative in which US
states and jurisdictions in Canada and Mexico are designing regional cap and-trade programs
EPA monitoring regs crush the chem industry
Shannon 10
Mike, Global and US Sector Leader Chemicals and Performance Technologies, “The Outlook for the US
Chemical Industry” KMPG
http://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/us-chemical-industryoutlook.pdf
New EPA regulations also carry a heavy price tag for compliance. On September 22, 2009, the
EPA finalized the Mandatory Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule, which includes reporting for a
wide range of public and industrial sources. 70 Many chemical companies will be required to
install some sort of monitoring devices, some of which will cost US$40,000 – 80,000 per
emissions point, according to some estimates. 71 The EPA estimates that compliance with the
new rule will cost the private sector US$115 million in 2010, and US$72 million per year
thereafter. 72 The ACC predicts that the compliance cost for companies will be much higher,
based on the costs of installing the monitors and the added costs of gathering data for reports
to the EPA. 73
Global warming regulations are weakening the chemical industry.
Lammey ‘8
Alan Lammy, Oil and Natural Gas Futures Analyst. May 5, 2008. Natural Gas Weekly. “Chemical BusinessCycle Downturn Could Be Bearish for Gas Market”. Lexis.
"There are more and more regulations forced upon the industry as a consequence of newly
developed climate-change policies," another industry director said. "And, of course, the industry
will have to live with high oil and natural gas prices for the foreseeable future. The profitability of
the chemical industry has always been held captive to the domestic and worldwide economies,
plus the cost of its feedstock oil and gas. We're already starting to see a slow down for our
products. So as we slow our production accordingly, it will undoubtedly put more natural gas
supply back on the market."
1NC Pakistan Impact
No Pakistani collapse
AP ‘10
“Pakistan's stability, leadership under spotlight after floods and double dealing accusations,” August 6th,
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/08/06/pakistans-stability-leadership-spotlight-floods-doubledealing-accusations/
Not for the first time, Pakistan appears to be teetering on the edge with a government unable to
cope. Floods are ravaging a country at war with al-Qaida and the Taliban. Riots, slayings and arson
are gripping the largest city. Suggestions are flying that the intelligence agency is aiding Afghan
insurgents. The crises raise questions about a nation crucial to U.S. hopes of success in
Afghanistan and to the global campaign against Islamist militancy. Despite the recent headlines,
few here see Pakistan in danger of collapse or being overrun by militants — a fear that had been
expressed before the army fought back against insurgents advancing from their base in the Swat
Valley early last year. From its birth in 1947, Pakistan has been dogged by military coups, corrupt
and inefficient leaders, natural disasters, assassinations and civil unrest. Through it all, Pakistan
has not prospered — but it survives. “There is plenty to be worried about, but also indications
that when push comes to shove the state is able to respond," said Mosharraf Zaidi, an analyst
and writer who has advised foreign governments on aid missions to Pakistan. "The military has
many weaknesses, but it has done a reasonable job in relief efforts. There have been gaps in the
response. But this is a developing a country, right?" The recent flooding came at a sensitive time
for Pakistan, with Western doubts over its loyalty heightened by the leaking of U.S. military
documents that strengthened suspicions the security establishment was supporting Afghan
insurgents while receiving billions in Western aid. With few easy choices, the United States has
made it clear it intends to stick with Pakistan. Indeed, it has used the floods to demonstrate its
commitment to the country, rushing emergency assistance and dispatching helicopters to ferry
the goods. The Pakistani government's response to the floods has been sharply criticized at home,
especially since President Asif Ali Zardari departed for a European tour. With so many Pakistanis
suffering, the trip has left the already weak and unpopular leader even more vulnerable
politically. The flooding was triggered by what meteorologists said were "once-in-a-century" rains.
The worst affected area is the northwest, a stronghold for Islamist militants. Parts of the
northwest have seen army offensives over the last two years. Unless the people are helped
quickly and the region is rebuilt, anger at the government could translate into support for the
militants. At least one charity with suspected links to a militant outfit has established relief camps
there. The extremism threat was highlighted by a suicide bombing in the main northwestern town
of Peshawar on Wednesday. The bomber killed the head of the Frontier Constabulary, a
paramilitary force in the northwest at the forefront of the terror fight. With authorities
concentrating on flood relief, some officials have expressed concern that militants could regroup.
The city of Karachi has seen militant violence and is rumored to be a hiding place for top Taliban
and al-Qaida fighters. It has also been plagued by regular bouts of political and ethnic bloodletting
since the 1980s, though it has been calmer in recent years. The latest violence erupted after the
assassination of a leading member of the city's ruling party. More than 70 people have been killed
in revenge attacks since then, paralyzing parts of the city of 16 million people. While serious, the
unrest does not yet pose an immediate threat to the stability of the country. Although the U.S. is
unpopular, there is little public support for the hardline Islamist rule espoused by the Taliban
and their allies. Their small movement has been unable to control any Pakistani territory beyond
the northwest, home to only about 20 million of the country's 175 million people.
The army will maintain control even during a coup.
Cheema ‘8
Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema, works for the Islambad Policy Research Institute. “Pakistan's nuclear assets”.
March 16, 2008. http://ipripak.org/articles/newspapers/paknucas.shtml
Turkish military chief’s statement appears to reflect the need to support and strengthen Pakistan
with a view to enable Pakistan to maintain tight control over its nuclear assets. A weak and
unstable Pakistan could create opportunities for undesirable elements to capitalise on the
situation in order to realise their aims and objectives. Alternative interpretation is that General
Buyukanit was highlighting the creeping dangers in the light of Western interpretation of the
situation. Given the incumbent situation, which is certainly not all that rosy, the Turkish general
stressed that if President Musharraf lost his grip on Pakistan, the country could fall into the hands
of the insurgent Taliban. What seems to be rather intriguing is the attention attached to the
abilities of the Taliban to gain control. To some of us it seems somewhat exaggerated. Besides,
such interpretations totally ignore the abilities of the Pakistan Army to protect its assets.
Admittedly, the Taliban has made gains during the last few months, which are primarily the
product of Isaf/Nato’s failure in Afghanistan, but this does not mean that with the resurfacing of
the Taliban the Pakistan Army has lost its abilities to handle them.
No impact or risk from Pakistani loose nukes
Mueller ’10 – professor of political science at OSU
John Mueller, professor of political science at Ohio State University, Calming Our Nuclear Jitters, Issues
in Science & Technology, Winter 2010, Vol. 26, Issue 2
The terrorist group might also seek to steal or illicitly purchase a "loose nuke" somewhere.
However, it seems probable that none exist. All governments have an intense interest in
controlling any weapons on their territory because of fears that they might become the primary
target. Moreover, as technology has developed, finished bombs have been outfitted with
devices that trigger a non-nuclear explosion that destroys the bomb if it is tampered with. And
there are other security techniques: Bombs can be kept disassembled with the component parts
stored in separate high-security vaults, and a process can be set up in which two people and
multiple codes are required not only to use the bomb but to store, maintain, and deploy it. As
Younger points out, "only a few people in the world have the knowledge to cause an
unauthorized detonation of a nuclear weapon." There could be dangers in the chaos that would
emerge if a nuclear state were to utterly collapse; Pakistan is frequently cited in this context and
sometimes North Korea as well. However, even under such conditions, nuclear weapons would
probably remain under heavy guard by people who know that a purloined bomb might be used in
their own territory. They would still have locks and, in the case of Pakistan, the weapons would be
disassembled.
1NC Geopolitics/Iran Power
Iran’s military power is exaggerated.
Aghsan and Jakobsen ‘10
Ali Rahigh-Aghsan is Assistant Professor at the Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde
University and Peter Viggo Jakobsen is Associate Professor at the Department of Political Science,
University of Copenhagen. “The Rise of Iran: How Durable, How Dangerous?”. The Middle East Journal,
Volume 64, Number 4, Autumn 2010, pp. 559-573. Project Muse.
Accounts of Iran’s growing military power generally fail to place it within a regional context,
ignore the poor quality of Iran’s equipment and manpower, and exaggerate its offensive and
political potential. If one merely looks at numbers, the Iranian military appears quite formidable,
enjoying advantages in both manpower and materiel. However, this picture changes once defense
spending and the quality of the armed forces are taken into account. Iran has been outspent
massively by the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC): Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman,
Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). These countries spent 7.5 times as much
on their defense as Iran in the ten-year period 1997–2007; with respect to procurement, the
difference is even more dramatic as the GCC spent 15.6 times as much on arms as Iran during the
period of 1988–2007. The armed forces of the GCC consequently have far better equipment than
Iran. The GCC has a total of 495 and 1,816 high-quality combat aircraft and tanks, respectively,
compared to Iran’s 55 high-quality combat aircraft and 730 tanks. Saudi Arabia alone has more
high-quality combat aircraft and tanks than Iran. The GCC also has more major naval combat ships
than Iran in all categories, except submarines (Iran has three, while the GCC possess none).11
Iran’s manpower advantage also disappears when quality is taken into account: 220,000 of its
545,000 active personnel are made up of 18-month conscripts that receive only three months of
military training. Moreover, GCC training cooperation with France, the UK, and the US helps to
further enhance their qualitative advantage vis-à-vis the Iranian armed forces, which do not
benefit from such cooperation with leading military powers. There is obviously more to military
power than quantity, and the GCC countries are incapable of using their capabilities jointly in an
effective manner to counter an Iranian attack. The key point to take away from the balance of
forces just presented, however, is that the GCC countries are strong enough to deny Iran a quick
and decisive victory, giving the US time to bring its superior air- and sea-power to bear against
Iranian attackers. This makes an overt Iranian conventional attack on the GCC countries next to
unthinkable and significantly reduces Iran’s ability to coerce the GCC militarily.12 The regime’s
best offensive cards are consequently the Navy’s ability to close the Strait of Hormuz13 and the
125,000-strong Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) potent capacity for asymmetric warfare
and terrorist activities.
No Russia threat – rapprochement coming now
Laqueur ’10 – Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History
Waliter, Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History, in London, and Chair of the
International Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's
Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?, Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, Proquest
It seems gradually to have dawned on at least some Russian strategic thinkers that nato in its
present form does not really present a major threat to Russia or, perhaps, to anyone. (According
to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, nato is no longer a threat, only a "danger," which is
presumably less than a threat.) Nato member states have shelved the idea of offering admission
to Georgia and Ukraine. At the same time, Washington, following the European example, has
toned down its criticism of Russian violations of human rights and lessened its support for
domestic opposition groups in Russia and Westernleaning states such as Georgia, which Moscow
regards as hostile threats. From Moscow's perspective, the West has largely accepted Russia's
claims to a zone of privileged interests-whatever the fears of Russia's neighbors, there is little
Western countries can do to help. In short, the West's relative weight is declining, but so is
Russia's, making a policy of rapprochement appealing for all sides. For Moscow, this new,
conciliatory approach is largely focused on economic and, above all, technological
modernization. The emphasis of a position paper prepared by the Russian Foreign Ministry and
published by Russian Newsweek in May 2010 was almost entirely such modernization. It outlined
how Moscow should improve its relations with more than 60 countries, from Brunei to Mongolia,
using measures including state treaties and agreements between research institutes. The
document-and the new policy-appears to be based on a compromise between various elements
in the Russian leadership. President Dmitry Medvedev's faction, which seems to be behind this
statement, is clearly willing to take some more risks; it is also possible that Medvedev's
supporters are using the argument of modernization to sell a broader policy of détente to various
domestic constituencies. The moderate conservatives, such as Prime Minister Putin; his deputy
chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov; his deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin; and his foreign policy
adviser, Yuri Ushakov, understand that Russia's dependence on oil and gas exports must be
reduced and that modernization will inevitably involve a political price-but they are fearful that
the price could be too high. Meanwhile, both the right (Russia's ultranationalists) and the left (the
Communists) are not, in principle, against modernization but would like it to happen without any
political price at all. The new détente has shown itself in a number of cases: Russia's voting for
un sanctions against Iran, expressing remorse about the Katyn massacre, reaching an
agreement with the United States to reduce nuclear weapons, inviting nato soldiers to march
on Red Square on Victory Day, being offered warships from France, proposing a Russian-EU
crisis management agreement, and some others. But there are difficulties ahead-old suspicions
and new conflicts of interest will not easily be overcome, and may even derail the new course,
just as the détente of the 1970s came to a halt despite goodwill on both sides. In August, Putin
said that his anti-Western speech in Munich three years ago had been very useful in retrospect. If
so, then how far can the changes in Russia's foreign policy be expected to go?
No impact to regionally strong Russia
Grigoryan '12
Suren, political analyst who worked for the Ministry of Defense of Armenia for 10+ years, Masters
Degree in Comparative Politics at the London School of Economics and Political Science, "U.S.-Russia: My
Enemy, My Partner?" Foreign Policy Journal, 1/15/12 www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/01/15/u-srussia-my-enemy-my-partner/0/, AD 5/22/12
All this is in the past, official Washington says. As President Barack Obama put it in 2009 during
his visit to Moscow, America wants to see Russia strong, peaceful, prosperous, and selfconfident, because the United States needs exactly this kind of partner in the twenty-first
century. The words of U.S. Ambassador to Russia John R. Beyrle on the same subject are even
more emotional: “We are not interested in weak Russia. Weak Russia is the worst nightmare for
the US. We understand perfectly what challenges we are faced with…and we must cope with
them in alliance with strong partners. Thanks to its geostrategic position, immense resources
and human capital, Russia may be exactly…such a partner”.[15] Indeed, Russia has the
historical experience, the human and material resources, and the political will necessary for
controlling and even managing regional processes. However, is Russia comfortable with the role
of “regional regulator” after being a global actor for 150 years? Most probably it is. First, it has
learned to assess its capabilities realistically, especially in the economic sphere, and it
understands perfectly its subordinate position compared to other rising powers of Eurasia, let
alone the United States. Secondly, it has not only offered to coordinate the situation in the
post-Soviet space, but also to become a rightful (in some cases even irreplaceable) mediator in
solving the most acute problems with neighboring regions (the Middle East, Central Asia) and
states (Iran, North Korea, and others), which contemporary Russian strategy considers
extremely important in terms of the country’s national security interests. Furthermore, under
the circumstances, when Russian political thought continues searching for a new geopolitical
identity, even the role of regional regulator not only satisfies Russia’s imperial ambitions but also
facilitates the realization of the post-Soviet area integration project within the Eurasian
Economic Community (EAEC).[16] However, the question arises, why does the United States
need Russia to realize its imperial ambitions? The most obvious reasons are as follows: First,
Russia is capable and willing to assume the role of regional regulator. Throughout the last 20
years (i.e., after the collapse of the Soviet Union), Moscow has de facto played the role of
regional coordinator, despite Russia’s economic chaos, political reorganization, weakness of its
central government, and demoralization of its armed forces in the 1990s. Russia continued
holding the keys to resolution or at least freezing of regional interethnic (the South Caucasus,
Transdnistria) and civil conflicts (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan) in the post-Soviet area.
Moreover, the states that have had acute conflicts with the West (e.g., Iran, North Korea) were
always more willing to have contact with Russia rather than other powers; even the most
radical movements of the Arab East continue maintaining contacts with her. Today, when
Russia has overcome (although with tremendous material, moral, and political losses) one of
the most difficult periods of her history—when the power vertical has been rebuilt, significant
financial recourses have been accumulated allowing the country to proceed with economic and
technological modernization, and the armed forces are reviving—it is more beneficial for the
United States to have Russia as a partner rather than a rival in the extremely complicated
region of Eurasia. Americans have not forgotten the many unexpected problems they were
faced with after the demise of the USSR: the WMD proliferation threat, uncontrolled trade of
conventional weapons, separatism, illegal drug trafficking, terrorism, human trafficking on an
immense scale, and so forth. Most of these remain serious issues even today. Among all
countries pretending to regional leadership, only two have enough historical experience and
appropriate capabilities for solving these problems—namely, Russia and China. However, China
still refrains from partaking in solving such issues (perhaps except through mediation in
negotiations with North Korea). Some experts insist that this is because Beijing is still mainly
focused on expanding its potential.[17] As for our judgment, perhaps arguably enough, Chinese
political culture is less predisposed to expansionism, whereas it still dominates in Russia. This is
exactly the reason the role of regional “gendarme” suits her mentality very well, as it in essence
remains imperial. Second, economically, Russia is much weaker than the European Union or
China. Given this fact, the United States’ desire to see Russia in a position of regional political
manager appears quite logical. Given its economic and technological weakness, Russia in the
foreseeable future will not be able to compete with the U.S. on a global scale. Meanwhile,
Europe and China can definitely do so. As for Russia’s nuclear potential, which is still
comparable with America’s, it is hardly a source of serious concern for the only world
superpower. In contrast to the nervous “dilettantes” that are present on the nuclear scene,
Moscow has been a tested, predictable, and responsible partner-adversary since Cold War
times. For this reason, it is much more beneficial and also easier for Washington (and
acceptable for Moscow) to channel their military might—the world’s biggest arsenals of nuclear
arms—toward deterring such dilettantes instead of exerting pressure on each other. If such
consensus between Washington and Moscow is achieved, Russia, with its nuclear potential,
may acquire a new function: as a balancing force between Eastern and Western, and Northern
and Southern parts of the vast Eurasian continent.
Korea Advantage Answers
North Korea War 1NC
Korean war won’t escalate.
Kang, prof of IR @ USC, ‘10
David, 12/31/2010. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/koreas-new-cold-war-4653
However, despite dueling artillery barrages and the sinking of a warship, pledges of “enormous
retaliation,” in-your-face joint military exercises and urgent calls for talks, the risk of all-out war on the
Korean peninsula is less than it has been at anytime in the past four decades. North Korea didn’t blink,
because it had no intention of actually starting a major war. Rather than signifying a new round of
escalating tension between North and South Korea, the events of the past year point to something
else—a new cold war between the two sides. In fact, one of my pet peeves is the analogies we use to
describe the situation between South and North Korea. We often call the situation a “powder keg” or
a “tinderbox,” implying a very unstable situation in which one small spark could lead to a huge
explosion. But the evidence actually leads to the opposite conclusion: we have gone sixty years
without a major war, despite numerous “sparks” such as the skirmishing and shows of force that
occurred over the past month. If one believes the situation is a tinderbox, the only explanation for six
decades without a major war is that we have been extraordinarily lucky. I prefer the opposite
explanation: deterrence is quite stable because both sides know the costs of a major war, and both
sides—rhetoric and muscle-flexing aside—keep smaller incidents in their proper perspective.
Any Skirmishes Won’t Escalate
Kang, prof of IR @ USC, ‘10
David, 12/31/2010. http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/koreas-new-cold-war-4653
Local skirmishing has stayed local for sixty years. The key issue is whether a local fight could escalate
into all-out war, such as North Korea shelling Seoul with artillery or missiles. Such a decision would
clearly have to be taken at the top of the North Korean leadership. Especially when tensions are high,
both militaries are on high alert and local commanders particularly careful with their actions. Without
a clear directive from the top, it is not likely that a commander one hundred kilometers away from the
military exercises would make a decision on his own to start shooting at Seoul. For their part, North
Korean leaders have not made such a decision in sixty years, knowing that any major attack on Seoul
would cause a massive response from the South Korean and U.S. forces and would carry the war into
Pyongyang and beyond. After the fighting, North Korea would cease to exist. Thus, while both North
and South Korean leaders talk in grim tones about war, both sides have kept the actual fighting to
localized areas, and I have seen no indication that this time the North Korean leadership plans to
expand the fighting into a general war.
No conflict or escalation- cooperation outweighs
--this answers the succession warrant most new cards talk about
Zhijiang 12 - Professor and Director of the Institute of South Korea Studies at the School of Asia-Pacific
Studies
Kim Jong-un’s regime: facing up to domestic challenges, China and the US
With regard to the role of outside powers, China and US share common strategic interests in
avoiding chaos and maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. After the death of
Kim Jong-il, ROK-US summit telephone talks declared that the US has no intention to interfere
in the succession process. This indicates that the US will not put pressure on North Korea to
promote its collapse and hopes to avoid conflict on the peninsula and to achieve peace and
stability. The US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell,
visited China recently in order to further exchange views with China concerning the situation in
the DPRK and to coordinate policies toward North Korea. China’s strategy has been to maintain
peace and stability on the peninsula, and to build a harmonious and stable strategic environment
in Northeast Asia conducive to national development. Kim’s death has not changed the basic
strategy of China toward the Korean Peninsula. The main basis of China’s Korean Peninsula
policy is to comprehensively strengthen and support Kim Jong-un’s new North Korean regime. The
main purpose of the US’ ‘return to Asia’ strategy is to strengthen its strategic influence in the Asia
Pacific region, including the Korean Peninsula. It also includes preventing military provocation or
possible war in the East Asia region through the strengthening of US-ROK, US-Japan and USAustralia military alliances, both bilaterally and multilaterally. Therefore, China and the US have
common strategic interests on the Korean Peninsula issue. They do not want chaos in the North
Korean situation, the collapse of the regime, or a large-scale military conflict between the North
and South. In resolving the North Korean nuclear crisis, the missile crisis and other issues, there
is a wide range of cooperative space that China and the US can utilise. The two parties should
strengthen their strategic coordination and communication with the DPRK in order to cope with
any future crises and deal with the current challenges concerning the Korean Peninsula, and act to
safeguard the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula.
North Korea War 2NC—No Aggression
No risk of aggressive action by North Korea – they are easily to deter and their
apocalyptic rhetoric is for domestic constituents.
Gelb December ‘10
Leslie, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. He was a senior official in the U.S.
Defense Department from 1967 to 1969 and in the State Department from 1977 to 1979,
November/December Foreign Affairs, Proquest
Regarding rogue states such as Iran and North Korea, conservatives generally contend that deterrence
and containment cannot work. Rogue leaders are crazy, they argue, and cannot be deterred by
expectations of retaliatory death and destruction. That was the contention during the Cold War, as
conservatives maintained that Soviet and Chinese leaders were ready to sacrifice half their people in
order to "win" a nuclear war. In time, however, Moscow and Beijing lost the Cold War without resorting
to nuclear weapons. Similarly, although the rhetoric of leaders in Tehran and Pyongyang is often
psychedelic, their actions are largely careful and fall short of provoking a military response. Their
apocalyptic rhetoric mostly targets their domestic constituents (a tactic not unfamiliar to Washington
politicians). Iran and North Korea are troublemakers that are dangerous but deterrable. They know that
they would risk putting U.S. nuclear missiles on hairtrigger alert if they fully activated a nuclear
capability. The regimes in Tehran and Pyongyang are governments that run countries, and they have
everything to lose if they attack the United States and its allies and invite devastating retaliation. As for
the serious problem of Iran's supplying arms to terrorists in Lebanon and elsewhere, even hawkish
U.S. experts do not advocate obliterating Tehran to stop such activity.
Recent North Korean aggression are just attempts to consolidate the power
base during transition – NK will not start a full-scale conflict and will move
towards peaceful measures.
Sun Ha ‘10
Young-Sun Ha received Ph.D. in international politics from University of Washington. He is currently a
professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University
and a chairman of Global Net 21 at East Asia Institute.“A Complex Strategy to Overcome the
Yeonpyeong Incident”. December 31, 2010. EAI Commentary No. 15.
http://www.eai.or.kr/type/panelView.asp?bytag=p&catcode=&code=eng_report&idx=9736&page=1
Firstly, it is important to understand the range of North Korea’s strategic options from aggressive
diplomacy to peaceful diplomacy. The Korean Peninsula went through the Korean War in 1950 and
following of the ceasefire, both Koreas were stuck between ‘hot war’ and ‘cold war.’ Since the
collapse of the Soviet Union, the world has passed the stage of ‘cold peace’ and moved towards a ‘hot
peace.’ In spite of this global shift, North Korea has been frequently using combinations of ‘cold war,’
‘hot war,’ ‘cold peace,’ and ‘hot peace’ on the international strategic chessboard. For example, during
the Cold War period North Korea provoked the South in a number of cases: Rangoon bombing (1983),
bombing of Korean Air Flight 858 (1987), attempted Blue House raid (1968), North Korean infiltration
in the Uljin and Samcheok areas (1968). Even in the post-Cold War period, nuclear tests, naval battles
in the Yellow Sea, the sinking of Cheonan naval ship and the shelling on Yeonpyeong Island ensued. At
the same time, Pyongyang has been aggressively demanding for a peace agreement to this day. The
possibility for limited warfare on the Korean Peninsula came dangerously close with the recent
Yeonpyeong shelling, more so than the last North Korean provocation, the sinking of the Cheonan. As
the pendulum of war and peace on the Korean Peninsula swung from the ‘cold war’ to ‘hot war,’
greater chaos arise. It is expected that the Kim Jong-il/Kim Jong-un regime will try to maximize the use
of this pendulum of peace and war in order to strengthen Kim Jong-un’s weak power base. In spite of
the dangers, merely worrying about the possibility of war is not going to help. Rather, we have to
understand precisely why the North has raised the bar of aggression from acts of terrorism to that of a
direct artillery attack on South Korean territory. It is likely that the North would pursue a ‘cold peace’
offensive to utilize the amplitude of the pendulum. A complex picture emerges when looking back on
the recent comments made by top officials from North Korea, the United States, and China. Seoul and
Washington have called for Pyongyang to engage in measures for active denuclearization and
reengagement in inter-Korean relations as preconditions for resuming the Six-Party Talks. North Korea
on the other hand has taken precisely the opposite measures. To read what the North Korean regime
has in mind we have to think of the situation not as a motionless snapshot but as a moving footage.
Furthermore, South Korea must do more than just respond to North Korea’s actions. Instead it should
focus on making strategically preemptive moves. For this, it is necessary to examine why the North
Korean regime expanded the pendulum’s amplitude and find measures to make the leadership pursue
a survival strategy that does not include huddling around nuclear weapons. As was demonstrated in
the Yeonpyeong Incident, Kim Jong-il is passing down exactly what he has learned from his father, Kim
Ilsung, to his son, Kim Jong-un. Following the pattern of brinkmanship, Kim Jong-il showed a strong
determination for ‘nuclearization’ instead of ‘denuclearization,’ ‘deterioration’ of relations, not
‘improvement.’ Obviously, the next step will be a ‘clinch’ strategy to buy time, such as allowing IAEA
inspections or resuming the Six-Party Talks thus the pendulum will swing towards peace. But these are
‘salami tactics’ to successfully establish the Kim Jongun regime. As of now, neither ‘full-scale war’ nor
‘reform with denuclearization’ is included in the range of North Korea’s strategic options.
Gazprom Advantage Answers
Gazprom Turn
Threats to Russian arctic resources would lead to military action
Andersen and Perry 12
(Perry, M. Charles. Dr. Perry holds an M.A. in international affairs, an M.A. in law and diplomacy Ph.D. in
international politics from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, officer in the USAR, member of the
International Institute of Strategic Studies IFPA. Andersen, Bobby, MA in international relations from Boston
University and a BA in political science from Whittier College, completed coursework at the University of
Copenhagen, Denmark. IFPA. "Implications for National Security and International Cooperation." New Strategic
Dynamics in the Arctic Region. Institute for Foreign Policy Relations, n.d. Web. 25 July 2014.
http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/StrategicDynamicsArcticRegion.pdf.) ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ♥eve
A surge in navigation and resource exploitation raises the probability of environmental and human security hazards, and it increases as well the vulnerability of Russia’s northern border, which
previously had the benefit of the Arctic ice’s natural protection, to illegal immigration and illicit traf- ficking. As a result, as suggested at the beginning of this section,
Russia will
require greater customs and border security in its northern territory, together with improved search and rescue capabilities and
better communications and surveillance/monitoring systems. Hence, while in the short term Russia may not be able to expect significant economic pay-offs from its development of the NSR
an issue of great near-term importance, particularly for neighboring Arctic states, is
the ongoing and anticipated increase in Russia’s military presence in the region. While a larger
military presence is not necessarily a negative for Arctic security, Russia’s increasingly assertive
foreign policy and continued criticisms of the United States and NATO are, in combination with this
militarization, a cause for some concern. Indeed, it is important not to underestimate Russia’s willingness
to use military force to defend its national interests, a truth well illustrated by the August 2008 Russian-Georgian war. At the same time, the
and Arctic natural resources,
potential for conventional conflict in the region remains low, particularly because climatic challenges will continue to constrain the mobility and viability of Arctic navies and other forces.
Additionally, it is in the interest of all the Arctic Five to keep the region peaceful and stable.
1NC No Sanctions Coming
No increased sanctions on Russia
RT 6/27
RT, 6/27/2014, “EU postpones economic sanctions on Russia”, http://rt.com/business/168864-no-sanctions-against-russia/, 6/28/2014, BD
Participants in the EU summit on Friday postponed imposing economic sanctions on Russia. The move
comes a day after an advertizing campaign by two top US business lobbies warned of the negative
impact on US companies.¶ “Preliminary consultations show that today almost no leaders of EU states
find it necessary to impose trade and economic sanctions on Russia,” a source in the delegation from a Western
European country said with confidence to ITAR-TASS.¶ However the European officials carried out preparatory work on possible sanctions to
implement against Russia if the situation in Ukraine demands so.¶ Sanctions will be most effective if the main trade partners from Europe take
part, the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said. The Obama Administration doesn't want to put US companies in unprofitable
conditions in terms of the competition should it introduce further sanctions against Russia, he added.¶ The
US needs the EU as a
partner in enforcing economic measures as the trade volume between Russia and Europe of $330 billion is almost ten times
Russia-America trade.¶ On Wednesday the main US newspapers published advertisements by leading business groups saying new sanctions
against Russia will first of all harm national companies.¶ Photo of The New York TimesPhoto of The New York Times¶ The advertisement titled
“America’s interests are at stake in Russia and Ukraine” and signed by Jay Timmons, President of the National Association of Manufacturers,
and Thomas J. Donohue, President of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, were placed in the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington
Post and other major newspapers.¶ “With escalating global tensions, some US policy makers are considering a course of sanctions that history
shows hurts American interests,” reads the advertisement. “We are concerned about actions that would harm American manufacturers and
cost American jobs.Ӧ Donohue draws parallels between the present threat of sanctions with ineffective grain embargo which US President
Jimmy Carter imposed against the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan and which was cancelled by President Ronald Reagan.¶ “US
workers and industries pay the cost of unilateral economic sanctions that have little hope of increasing the United States’ ability to achieve its
foreign policy goals is said in the statement,” the authors conclude.
No increase in sanctions on Russia
RIA 6/27
RIA NOVISTI, 6/27/2014, “EU Has No Wish to Tighten Sanctions Against Russia – Diplomat”, http://en.ria.ru/world/20140627/190727854/EUHas-No-Wish-to-Tighten-Sanctions-Against-Russia--Diplomat.html, 6/28/2014, BD
BRUSSELS, June 27 (RIA Novosti) - The
European Union has no intention and political will to expand sanctions
against Russia, Russia’s ambassador to the EU, Vladimir Chizhov, told RIA Novosti in an interview Friday.¶ "Of course, there is a theoretical
possibility. The question is whether there is a wish or political will. In my opinion, no, " Chizhov said answering a
question if the bloc may increase sanctions against Russia.¶ The discussion on expanding the EU sanctions against Russia at the bloc’s summit
on June 26-27 depends on how the EU leaders will assess the situation in Ukraine, a source close to the EU leadership said.¶ “The wish that the
EU introduced sanctions is not in Europe itself but in another place, we won’t specify where, this is in line with those political, and I emphasize,
economic interests. The
intention to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe didn’t just come into being
today and, unfortunately, it will not disappear tomorrow,” Chizhov said.¶ The EU has adopted and repeatedly expanded
the sanctions list against people who they believe played a role in “violating Ukraine's territorial integrity.” A total of 61 Russian and Ukrainian
nationals have been hit with EU travel bans and asset freezes over the crisis. Several Crimean enterprises have been targeted by the EU
sanctions.¶ Moscow
has repeatedly stated that the language of sanctions is "inappropriate and
counterproductive" and warned its Western partners about the "boomerang effect" that sanctions
would have.
No Impact to Sanctions
Sanctions won’t do anything
Banco 4/28
Erin Banco (writer for International Business Times), 4/28/2014, “New Russia Sanctions Will Have Little Impact, Experts Say”,
http://www.ibtimes.com/new-russia-sanctions-will-have-little-impact-experts-say-1577384, 6/28/2014, BD
By the official reckoning of the Obama administration, the latest sanctions it unleashed on Russia on Monday will add considerably to the
uncomfortable squeeze on its economy, ultimately forcing President Putin to reconsider his aggressive adventures in Ukraine.¶ “Russian
economic growth forecasts have dropped sharply, capital flight has accelerated, and higher borrowing costs reflect declining confidence in the
market outlook,” said U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew in a written statement. “We are resolved to continue to work with our international
partners and take the steps required, including action against individuals and entities in specific sectors, if Russia continues to press forward.Ӧ
But analysts are far less impressed, seeing minimal disruption to the Russian economy and little reason to assume the latest batch of sanctions
will change the equation.¶ The
new sanctions should have “almost no immediate impact on the economy,” said
latest sanctions were not as bad as had
been rumored or feared. The sanctions are focused on restricting individuals’ travel and economic
activities in the West and on a smaller number of banks and companies associated with those
individuals.Ӧ Broader sanctions of the sort that could alter Russian public opinion by inflicting real economic pain remain unlikely given
political realities: While Washington is keen to tighten the pressure on Russia, European nations are
resistant, given their dependence on Russian energy stocks and in light of commercial ties between
European and Russian firms.¶ “Russia is a big economy. It is the sixth-largest in the world," said Timothy Frye, a political scientist at
Columbia University in New York. "For sanctions to be effective, they really need to be coordinated and farreaching, and it is not clear what set of sanctions would be able to do that.Ӧ
Chris Weafer, an analyst with Macro Advisory, a consulting agency in Russia. “The
No Gazprom Monopoly Now
Rosneft is on the rise; Gazprom monopoly broken in the status quo
Reuters 14 "UPDATE 1-Rosneft Challenges Gazprom Monopoly to Export Russian Pipeline Gas." |
Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 07 Mar. 2014. Web. 28 June 2014.
<http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/03/07/russia-rosneft-gas-idUKL6N0M412120140307>.
MOSCOW, March 7 (Reuters) - Russia's top crude oil producer Rosneft wants to break the monopoly of another
state-owned energy champion, Gazprom, to export gas via pipelines, sources said on Friday, signalling a flare-up between
powerful clans. Igor Sechin, a long-standing ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, transformed Rosneft into the world's
top publicly traded oil producer through the $50 billion purchase of Anglo-Russian firm TNK-BP last year. In a sign of
Sechin's rising clout, Rosneft and Russia's largest non-state gas producer Novatek have already
secured rights to export seaborne liquefied natural gas, reversing a 2006 law that gave Gazprom a
monopoly on gas exports. Gazprom still holds the exclusive rights to ship Russian gas abroad via pipelines, which connect vast
Siberian gas fields with European clients. It meets 30 percent of gas demand in the European Union. Rosneft in particular wants access to
Gazprom's Sila Sibiri (Power of Siberia) pipeline designed to carry gas to China at a rate of 38 billion cubic metres a year, sources familiar with
the matter said. Gazprom has yet to sign a final deal with China on the pipeline and has delayed its launch to 2020 from 2018 expected earlier.
"It is unfair that the pipeline is designated only for one company," a source at Rosneft said. In its struggle against Gazprom, Rosneft in January
hired TV presenter Mikhail Leontiyev - who once called Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller a "shell-shocked maniac" for downplaying the importance of
U.S. shale gas - to head its public relations office. "We believe there
are some factors restricting the gas potential of
Russia, which, due to increasing competition from international majors, requires that laws be
modernised," Rosneft's spokesman said, without elaborating. Gazprom declined to comment. Rosneft has staked a lot on developing its
gas business. After Sechin took the helm in May 2011, it acquired independent gas firm Itera and gained rights to develop large deposits in
Russia. It plans to more than double gas output by the end of the decade to take advantage of a gradual liberalisation of the Russian gas
market. Thanks to new acquisitions, the company has seen its gas output trebling over the past year to 42 billion cubic metres - enough to meet
gas demand in a country the size of France. CHINA Gazprom has been in painstaking talks over the last 10 years about shipping gas to China and
has been unable to agree on pricing. The company now aims to reach the agreement in May during Putin's planned visit to China. Gazprom
head Miller is also a member of Putin's inner circle. Putin has urged domestic companies to forge close ties with energy-hungry China as
Europe, Russia's Cold War-era foe, tries to diversify away from Moscow. Sechin,
unlike Gazprom, has successfully clinched
deals to increase oil supplies to China, which may see Rosneft tripling its crude exports to Russia's
neighbour later this decade. The Rosneft source said the company is eying natural gas supplies to China and that around 1 trillion
cubic metres of gas is available for the company in East Siberia. A government source confirmed Rosneft has been actively
lobbying for permission to export pipeline gas to China. "They have sent different letters and appealed to the
government ... I think they will make a public statement (on gas exports) soon," the source said.
Putin Coop Inevitable
Putin will back down; values oil cooperation over increased aggression
Gvosdev 14 Gvosdev, Nikolas. "Russia's Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine." Russia's
Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine. World Politics Review, 27 June 2014. Web. 27 June
2014. <http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13886/russia-s-energy-ambitions-explain-putin-szigzags-on-ukraine>.
Everyone, it seems, wants a piece of the action—and recognizes that it can only come through
partnership with the Russian government, since only state-owned companies have the right, according to
Russian law, to exploit the country’s offshore zones. However, stronger sanctions, which might ban any
collaboration with Russian state firms or prevent technology transfers from occurring, would interrupt such plans. So the
Russian approach is to take the necessary steps to either prevent sanctions from being levied or to
divert proposed harsh sanctions into more symbolic actions. The CEO of state-owned oil giant Rosneft, Igor Sechin, was
certainly not pleased to have personal sanctions applied against him by the U.S. and the EU, barring him from travel to Europe and North
America, among other things. But he was relieved that Washington and Brussels so far have not banned Western firms from collaborating with
Rosneft or from meeting with him when he acts in an official corporate capacity. After conversations earlier this week, notably with French
President Francois Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Putin
seems to have gotten the message that
sanctions can be avoided if a cease-fire between the Ukrainian government and pro-Russian
separatists in the east were to hold; if Moscow was more open in its support for Ukrainian President
Petro Poroshenko’s peace process; and if noticeable efforts were taken to curtail the flow of weapons
and personnel across the Russia-Ukraine border. Whether the steps that have been taken are sufficient remains to be seen;
EU leaders are meeting tomorrow to consider what steps to take next. If Europe declines to push ahead with stronger
sanctions, American corporate lobbying of the White House has made it clear that Washington would
only damage U.S. economic interests by pursuing unilateral action. So the Russian strategy appears to
be consistent: to offer compromises on Ukraine that will keep sanctions at bay, while keeping Russia’s strategic options open
and pushing ahead on energy projects. If Putin is successful in his gamble, Russia will not be forced to trade its interests in
Ukraine for securing its energy future.
1NC No Russian Drilling Now
Sanctions take out Russian drilling- they rely on US-based companies
Gvosdev 14 Gvosdev, Nikolas. "Russia's Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine." Russia's
Energy Ambitions Explain Putin's Zigzags on Ukraine. World Politics Review, 27 June 2014. Web. 27 June
2014. <http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/13886/russia-s-energy-ambitions-explain-putin-szigzags-on-ukraine>.
Similarly, Russian plans to develop the energy reserves of the Arctic depend on the ability of Western firms to
operate in Russia and transfer technology. Proposed sanctions being discussed in Washington would not necessarily require
companies to exit existing projects but would prohibit any future endeavors. At present, Russian firms lack the
technical skills to successfully drill on their own in offshore Arctic conditions.
1NC No Expansionism Impact
No Russia threat – rapprochement coming now
Laqueur ’10 – Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History
Waliter, Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History, in London, and Chair of the
International Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's
Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?, Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, Proquest
It seems gradually to have dawned on at least some Russian strategic thinkers that nato in its
present form does not really present a major threat to Russia or, perhaps, to anyone. (According
to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, nato is no longer a threat, only a "danger," which is
presumably less than a threat.) Nato member states have shelved the idea of offering admission
to Georgia and Ukraine. At the same time, Washington, following the European example, has
toned down its criticism of Russian violations of human rights and lessened its support for
domestic opposition groups in Russia and Westernleaning states such as Georgia, which Moscow
regards as hostile threats. From Moscow's perspective, the West has largely accepted Russia's
claims to a zone of privileged interests-whatever the fears of Russia's neighbors, there is little
Western countries can do to help. In short, the West's relative weight is declining, but so is
Russia's, making a policy of rapprochement appealing for all sides. For Moscow, this new,
conciliatory approach is largely focused on economic and, above all, technological
modernization. The emphasis of a position paper prepared by the Russian Foreign Ministry and
published by Russian Newsweek in May 2010 was almost entirely such modernization. It outlined
how Moscow should improve its relations with more than 60 countries, from Brunei to Mongolia,
using measures including state treaties and agreements between research institutes. The
document-and the new policy-appears to be based on a compromise between various elements
in the Russian leadership. President Dmitry Medvedev's faction, which seems to be behind this
statement, is clearly willing to take some more risks; it is also possible that Medvedev's
supporters are using the argument of modernization to sell a broader policy of détente to various
domestic constituencies. The moderate conservatives, such as Prime Minister Putin; his deputy
chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov; his deputy prime minister, Igor Sechin; and his foreign policy
adviser, Yuri Ushakov, understand that Russia's dependence on oil and gas exports must be
reduced and that modernization will inevitably involve a political price-but they are fearful that
the price could be too high. Meanwhile, both the right (Russia's ultranationalists) and the left (the
Communists) are not, in principle, against modernization but would like it to happen without any
political price at all. The new détente has shown itself in a number of cases: Russia's voting for
un sanctions against Iran, expressing remorse about the Katyn massacre, reaching an
agreement with the United States to reduce nuclear weapons, inviting nato soldiers to march
on Red Square on Victory Day, being offered warships from France, proposing a Russian-EU
crisis management agreement, and some others. But there are difficulties ahead-old suspicions
and new conflicts of interest will not easily be overcome, and may even derail the new course,
just as the détente of the 1970s came to a halt despite goodwill on both sides. In August, Putin
said that his anti-Western speech in Munich three years ago had been very useful in retrospect. If
so, then how far can the changes in Russia's foreign policy be expected to go?
2NC No Expansionism
Russian expansion and aggression is unlikely.
Laqueur ’10 – Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History
Waliter, Director of the Wiener Library Institute of Contemporary History, in London, and Chair of the
International Research Council at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Moscow's
Modernization Dilemma: Is Russia Charting a New Foreign Policy?, Nov/Dec Foreign Affairs, Proquest
How far will the current foreign policy go, be it a "reset" or a "seismic shift"? Present indications suggest
more of the same: greater Sovietization seems unlikely, as does dramatic democratization. Internal
discontent may exist, but not to the extent that it will turn into a significant political factor in the near
future. Although the Kremlin wants to strengthen and perhaps expand its sphere of influence in the
former Soviet states and eastern Europe, any sort of physical reconquest seems very improbable. To
combine the various aims of the Kremlin will not be easy. On one hand, Moscow realizes that it has
certain common interests with the West. Russia prefers to deal with eu countries individually, rather
than with the European community as a whole. Russia is also likely to push to join the World Trade
Organization and to abolish visas for travel to Europe. For its part, the eu has suggested creating a joint
security committee to deal with crisis situations. But past experience with such commissions-namely,
the NATO-Russia Council-has not been encouraging. On the other hand, Russia wants to maintain
normal ties with the rest of the world and prevent a deterioration in relations with newfound
sympathizers such as Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Despite the oil and
gas windfall and its return as a great power, Russia remains a relatively weak country-to use a cricket
metaphor, it is batting on a sticky wicket. But Putin has shown supreme confidence, assuming that
Russia has little to fear given current global conditions: Europe is in decline, and the United States is
weakened by the financial crisis, preoccupied with domestic problems, and, as the Kremlin sees it, under
weak leadership. As far as the threats facing Russia are concerned, Putin (much like the Russian far right)
still seems too preoccupied with nato and largely oblivious to the lengthening shadow of China and the
growth of aggressive Islamism. Perhaps these ideas are changing. But, to repeat, it is precisely the
weakness of the West that makes détente with the United States and Europe more realistic and
attractive. Russia needs Western capital and Western technological know-how.
Your authors are wrong- Russia doesn’t want to attack the US
Belkovsky ‘9
Stanislav Belkovsky, founder and director of the National Strategy Institute, a Moscow-based NGO and
thinktank. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/03/russia-barack-obama-medvedevputin
How to handle Russia/July 3
US president Barack Obama arrives in Moscow on Monday 6 July. Here, in Russia, he is awaited
with some foreboding – he is, after all, the most powerful man on earth. The Kremlin hopes he
will announce a "reset" in US-Russian relations, and recognise today's Russia as a respected,
worthy ally. Russia's liberals, by contrast, want him to admonish the Kremlin for shortcomings in
its authoritarian regime. Many Russians see Obama as a kind of secret messiah, chosen to guide
the nation towards a new phase in its historical development. Surprisingly, among Russia's
ruling elite there is no real anti-American sentiment: both those in power and Russia's
opposition crave, more than anything else, America's love. If sometimes America aggrieves
them, and from time to time they criticise Washington, they do so only because they are afraid
of the US not returning their love. Contrary to the beliefs of many politicians, today's Russian
Federation has absolutely nothing in common with the late USSR. If anything, the Russian
Federation is the world's most anti-Soviet government. The USSR was based on socialism, state
ownership, collectivisation, the cult worship of Marxism-Leninism, the export of communism
and the need for military and political influence in satellite countries and regions. The Russian
Federation is based upon very different ideals: namely, capitalism, private ownership, total
individualism, the cult of money, the rejection of traditional state paternalism and widespread
corruption at all levels of power. Another important factor is the desire to secure the ruling elite's
business interests all over the world. Neither Vladimir Putin nor Dmitry Medvedev have real
power. Power belongs to big capital –which, in Russia, means those who benefited from the
massive privatisations of Soviet infrastructure. Resetting relations with the US is important for
the Kremlin since it is a way for Russia to gain entry to western markets and investment.
Therefore, this issue can and should be discussed with Medvedev – and only Medvedev. Putin
shouldn't even get a look-in. Today's Russian rulers don't hate democracy or freedom. Rather,
they simply don't believe such values exist, are necessary or of use. But they do believe in money
and technology. This must be taken into account when entering into any dialogue with them. The
Russian elite doesn't conceive of itself in political or geopolitical terms. So there isn't any point in
asking the leadership about any strategic game plan in its relations with Iran or the satellite
countries of the former USSR. They do not know themselves. There are no political positions that
they would not, in principle, be willing to abandon in exchange for proper compensation.
1NC No Russian Econ Impact
Claims of Russian economic decline and disintegration are all conspiratorial
and hype
Clover ‘9
Charles Clover, “Conspiracy theorists thrive on Russia anxiety”, 3/8/2009 Financial Times,
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9596ed4-0c14-11de-b87d0000779fd2ac.html?ftcamp=rss&nclick_check=1
“The transition of the [economic] crisis into the political arena has already begun happening,”
Gleb Pavlovsky wrote in the popular Moskovski Komsomolets tabloid. He warned of a “remake”
of the 1991 street protests that helped bring down the Soviet Union, and the 2004 Orange
Revolution in Ukraine. “The sources of social protest should be sought in the corridors of power,”
Mr Pavlovsky wrote. His and other gloomy predictions have left some analysts scratching their
heads. Alexei Levinson, at the Levada Centre, a research company, said: “Do I see the potential
for serious unrest? It is very dangerous to say no, because so many people are saying publicly
that this is happening . . . But I simply don’t see it.” However, it was “just as true that the
number of people saying they see this potential has shot up”, he added. “So that must be
significant. It shows that the relationship to the authorities is changing.” Speculation has
surrounded the relationship between president and prime minister since Mr Putin, head of state
since 2000, stepped aside for Mr Medvedev last year. It is widely believed that Mr Putin, who was
barred from a third consecutive presidential term by the constitution, plans to return to the
Kremlin. That the prime minister’s political future is openly speculated on is, for some politicians,
a watershed in Russia’s political life. “It is very conspiratorial,” said Vladimir Milov, former
deputy energy minister and a leader of the opposition group Solidarnost.
The Russian economy is resilient – even dips caused by oil prices will not
cause collapse.
Guriev ’10 - Professor of Economics @ the New Economic School in Moscow
Sergei Guriev, Morgan Stanley Professor of Economics and Rector of the New Economic School in
Moscow, “How to reform the Russian economy”. Centre For European Reform Policy Brief. July 2010.
www.cer.org.uk/pdf/pb_russian_economy_jul10.pdf
Today’s leadership in Russia has more economic expertise and more experience with crisis
management than the Soviet leaders had in the 1980s. The Russian economy is much more
liberalised, and hence more flexible and adjustable in times of strain. So it is unlikely that
Russia’s economy could implode like the Soviet one did. A more plausible scenario is slow
growth over the medium term, interrupted by bouts of macro-economic volatility caused by oil
price swings. Russia’s outlook is therefore similar to the experience of Latin America’s resourcedependent economies in the 20th century.
1NC No US-Russia War
Zero risk of arctic war- even oil shortages and ice melting won’t cause war
Dyer ‘12
Gwynne Dyer, Special to QMI Agency, August 2, 2012, “Wars unlikely over Arctic's resources,”
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/2012/08/02/20057811.html
Russian television contacted me recently, asking me to go on a program about the race for Arctic
resources. The ice is melting fast, and it was all the usual stuff about how there will be big
strategic conflicts over the seabed resources--especially oil and gas--that become accessible when
it's gone.¶ The media always love conflict, and now that the Cold War is long gone, there's no
other potential military confrontation between the great powers to worry about.¶ Governments
around the Arctic Ocean are beefing up their armed forces for the coming struggle, so where are
the flashpoints and what are the strategies? In the end I didn't do the interview because the
Skype didn't work, so I didn't get the chance to rain on their parade. But here's what I would have
said to the Russians.¶ There are three separate "resources" in the Arctic. On the surface, there are
the sea lanes that are opening up to commercial traffic along the northern coasts of Russia and
Canada. Under the seabed, there are potential oil and gas deposits that can be drilled once the ice
retreats. And in the water in between, there is the planet's last unfished ocean.¶ The sea lanes are
mainly a Canadian obsession, because the government believes the Northwest Passage that
weaves between Canada's Arctic islands will become a major commercial artery when the ice is
gone. Practically every summer Prime Minister Stephen Harper travels north to declare his
determination to defend Canada's Arctic sovereignty from--well, it's not clear from exactly whom,
but it's a great photo op.¶ Canada is getting new Arctic patrol vessels and building a deep-water
naval port and Arctic warfare training centre in the region, but it's much ado about nothing. The
Arctic Ocean will increasingly be used as a shortcut between the North Atlantic and North Pacific
oceans, but the shipping will not go through Canadian waters. Russia's "Northern Sea Route" will
get the traffic -- it's already open and much safer to navigate .¶ Then there's the hydrocarbon
deposits under the Arctic seabed, which the U.S. Geological Survey has forecast may contain
almost one-fourth of the world's remaining oil and gas resources. But from a military point of
view, there's only a problem if there is some disagreement about the seabed boundaries.¶ There
are only four areas where the boundaries are disputed. Two are between Canada and its
neighbours in Alaska and Greenland, but there is zero likelihood of a war between Canada and
the U.S. or Denmark (which is responsible for Greenland's defence).¶ In the Bering Strait, there is a
treaty defining the seabed boundary between the U.S. and Russia, but the Russian Duma has
refused to ratify it. However, the legal uncertainty caused by the dispute is likelier to deter
future investment in drilling there than lead to war.¶ And there was the seabed boundary dispute
between Norway and Russia in the Barents Sea, which led Norway to double the size of its navy
over the past decade. But last year the two countries signed a deal dividing the disputed area and
providing for joint exploitation of its resources. So no war between NATO and the Russia n
Federation.¶ Which leaves the fish, and it's hard to have a war over fish. If countries with Arctic
coastlines want to preserve this resource, they can only do so by creating an international body
to regulate fishing.¶ And they will have to let other countries fish there too, with agreed catch
limits.¶ So no war over the Arctic . All we have to worry about now is the ice is melting. But that's
a problem for another day.¶
2NC A2: Bostrom/Extinction
US-Russia war doesn’t cause extinction
Bostrom 7
[Nick, Future of Humanity Institute, Faculty of Philosophy & James Martin 21st Century School, Oxford
University, 2009 Gannon Award Recipient, The Future of Humanity, 2007,
www.nickbostrom.com/papers/future.pdf]
Extinction risks constitute an especially severe subset of what could go badly wrong for humanity.
There are many possible global catastrophes that would cause immense worldwide
damage, maybe even the collapse of modern civilization, yet fall short of terminating the
human species. An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States might be an
example of a global catastrophe that would be unlikely to result in extinction. A terrible
pandemic with high virulence and 100% mortality rate among infected individuals might be
another example: if some groups of humans could successfully quarantine themselves before
being exposed, human extinction could be avoided even if, say, 95% or more of the world’s
population succumbed. What distinguishes extinction and other existential catastrophes is
that a comeback is impossible. A non-existential disaster causing the breakdown of
global civilization is, from the perspective of humanity as a whole, a potentially recoverable
setback: a giant massacre for man, a small misstep for mankind.
2NC No Russia War
No war – weak arsenal
Perkovich ‘3 – Director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace
George. vice president for studies and director of the Nonproliferation Program at the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace. March/April 2003. Foreign Affairs.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=16207.
As for Russia, a full-scale war between it and the United States now seems inconceivable .
Given the desires for larger cuts in nuclear forces that Russia displayed in negotiating the 2002
Moscow Treaty, Russia hardly seems enough of a threat to justify the size and forward-leaning
posture of America's present arsenal.
No war – economics
Maisaia ‘8 – USAFA Defense Fellow
Vakhtang, PhD USAFA Defense Fellow, Military Expert, A War With Russia: Real Concern or Fabricated?,
3/3/8. Online
The Russian economy is in deep recession due to the global financial crisis and poor management
and could not bear the burden of an additional $5 million a day in war costs. The economic crisis
is additional reason why waging war is less probable as war against another sovereign state
could lead to social disorder, including in the Armed Forces.
No war – politics
Maisaia ‘8 – USAFA Defense Fellow
Vakhtang, PhD USAFA Defense Fellow, Military Expert, A War With Russia: Real Concern or Fabricated?,
3/3/8. Online
Moscow is seeking to communicate with the new US Administration and with the EU and
damaging the already weak international position of Russia does not serve the interests of the
incumbent authorities of the Russian Federation. The first Medvedev-Obama meeting, which will
probably take place on April 2, will be a most interesting and fascinating event which will
engender some corrections in the foreign policy formulation and strategic calculations of the
Russian Federation. Hence, Moscow will manipulate the Medvedev-Sarkozy peace plan to
present itself as a credible partner in international relations, mostly in terms of combating
international terrorism and the Afghanistan mission, which is the number 1 priority for Obama
Administration policy making.
1NC Sino-Japanese War
New Chinese leaders prevent conflict
Lam 13 – adjunct professor of history at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and senior fellow at the
Jamestown Foundation
Willy, 3-8-13, “Meet China’s New Foreign-Policy Team”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/03/08/meet_china_s_new_foreign_policy_team?page=0,2
At least in terms of symbolism and atmospherics, however, the new diplomatic trio could take a
more flexible approach to tackling the most worrying flashpoint in Asia: China and Japan's
ferocious wrangling over the sovereignty of a group of islets called the Diaoyu in China and the
Senkakus in Japan.¶ Given widespread perception within the party leadership that the
intensification of the U.S.-Japan defense alliance -- which applies to the Senkakus -- is a
centerpiece of Washington's pivot to Asia, the personnel changes in Beijing could also affect the
style, if not the substance, of how the party will pursue relations with the United States. ¶
Wang's return to the Foreign Ministry after five largely successful years as chief executor of
Beijing's Taiwan policy is highly significant. A fluent Japanese speaker, Wang helped break the
impasse in Sino-Japanese ties in 2001-2006, when Junichiro Koizumi was prime minister of
Japan.¶ Koizumi infuriated the Chinese with provocative actions including annual visits to the
Yasukuni Shrine, which honors soldiers killed in World War II, including 14 war criminals. After
Koizumi announced in June 2005 his plans to retire, Wang led the Chinese effort to mend fences
by conducting secret talks with then Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, the favorite to succeed
Koizumi.¶ This discreet diplomacy resulted in Abe's visiting Beijing in October 2006, less than two
weeks after he succeeded Koizumi as prime minister (Abe, after a five year break, was re-elected
prime minister in December 2012). The visit came despite the ideological affinity between
Koizumi and Abe, both of whom favored a more assertive foreign policy as well as the revision of
the Japanese Constitution, which would enable Japan to convert its self-defense forces into a
regular army.¶ The Chinese Foreign Ministry characterized Abe's 2006 trip as "ice-breaking." Abe
allegedly made a private pledge not to visit the shrine while in office, and Beijing offered to focus
on economic cooperation, while temporarily setting aside ideological and historical issues,
according to diplomatic sources in Tokyo and Beijing.¶ Wang has also successfully helped
negotiate the rapprochement over the past few years between the party and its former archenemy, the Kuomintang, the ruling party of Taiwan. Known for his charm and finesse, Wang
could complement Yang, who has the reputation of a cerebral strategist.¶ By promoting Yang to
the post of state councilor in charge of diplomacy, the party leadership may also be sending the
signal that it's contemplating a more nuanced posture toward Obama's pivot, which some in the
party leadership interpret as a move to contain China. Yang has much more experience with the
United States than the outgoing state councilor, Dai Bingguo, who spent most of his career on
Russian and East European affairs. Yang cut his diplomatic teeth by serving as interpreter for
former President George H.W. Bush, when the latter headed the United States' Beijing Liaison
Office (the precursor to the U.S. Embassy) in the mid-1970s. Altogether Yang, a graduate of the
London School of Economics, has served three tours in the Chinese Embassy in Washington.¶ Yang
enjoys cozy ties with American politicians and in particular, business leaders. He wants to
devote more resources to lobbying American multinationals, according to sources close to the
diplomatic establishment. These sources also say that Beijing hopes this will persuade the White
House to put business before ideology in its China policy. And Cui, who attended Johns Hopkins
University while serving in the Chinese delegation to the United Nations in the 1980s, could be a
suitable candidate for pursing this new-look, "people-to-people" diplomacy with the United
States.¶ It is important to note, however, that whatever changes in style and orientation the trio's
appointment may portend do not necessarily signal a de-escalation of Beijing's increasingly
ferocious saber rattling. The generals appear to overwhelmingly favor bellicosity -- they have
enthusiastically echoed Xi's repeated calls over the past two months for China's People's
Liberation Army (PLA) to "get ready to fight well and to win wars." Gen. Wei Fenghe, who is
commander of China's missile forces, said in February that the PLA must "improve its war-fighting
skills" and "it must fulfill the task of winning wars." And recent commentary in People's Liberation
Army Daily, a military newspaper, argued that the Chinese military must rid itself of "peacetime
inertia and other [bad] habits accumulated over a prolonged period of peace." Popular military
commentator Maj. Gen. Luo Yuan, who in April 2012 called for a limited war to "punish" the
Philippines for allegedly occupying Chinese territories in the South China Sea, even suggested in a
January 2013 interview with Chinese state media that China "must raise its guard against stealthy
[military] attacks launched by other countries." Even as diplomats such as Fu Ying, the vice foreign
minister in charge of Asia, have reiterated Beijing's commitment to "peaceful development" in
global affairs, China has increased the frequency of its "patrol" of the Diaoyu-Senkakus by marine
surveillance and other quasi-military vessels.¶ It is too early to say whether the promotion of
diplomats with decades of experience in pursuing mutually beneficiary relations with Japan and
the United States signals a fundamental change in the Xi administration's pugilistic stance on
power projection in the Pacific. Yet at the very least, these personnel changes could indicate that
top decision-making bodies are contemplating options other than relentlessly beating the
drums of war.
No China – Japan war – 7 reasons
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
China defeat
Economic interdependence
PLA operational effectiveness
Unsettled politics
U.S. intervention
China military policy
China’s socialization
Moss ‘13
Trefor Moss, independent journalist based in Hong Kong. He covers Asian politics, defence and security,
and was Asia-Pacific Editor at Jane’s Defence Weekly until 2009, 2-10-2013, “7 Reasons China and Japan
Won’t Go To War” The Diplomat, http://thediplomat.com/2013/02/10/7-reasons-china-and-japanwont-go-to-war/
Even as tensions between Beijing and Tokyo grow by the day, there are good reasons to believe
outright conflict can be avoided. The sequel seldom improves on the original. Yet Shinzo Abe,
Japan’s newly re-elected prime minister, has already displayed more conviction during his second
spell at the Kantei than in the entire year of his first, unhappy premiership.¶ Political energy is a
plus only when it’s wisely deployed however, and some fear that Abe is picking a fight he can’t
win when it comes to his hardline stance on China.¶ Rather than attempting to soothe the
tensions that built between Beijing and Tokyo in 2012, Abe has struck a combative tone,
especially concerning their dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands – a keystone for nationalists
in both countries. Each time fighter aircraft are scrambled or ships are sent to survey the likely
flashpoint, we hear more warnings about the approach of a war that China and Japan now
seem almost eager to wage. The Economist, for example,recently observed that, “China and
Japan are sliding towards war,” while Hugh White of the Australian National University warned his
readers: “Don't be too surprised if the U.S. and Japan go to war with China [in 2013].” News this
week of another reckless act of escalation – Chinese naval vessels twice training their radars on
their Japanese counterparts – will only have ratcheted up their concerns.¶ These doomful
predictions came as Abe set out his vision of a more hard-nosed Japan that will no longer be
pushed around when it comes to sovereignty issues. In his December op-ed on Project Syndicate
Abe accused Beijing of performing “daily exercises in coercion” and advocated a “democratic
security diamond” comprising Australia, India, Japan and the U.S. (rehashing a concept from the
2007 Quadrilateral Security Dialogue). He then proposed defense spending increases – Japan’s
first in a decade – and strengthened security relations with the Philippines and Vietnam, which
both share Tokyo’s misgivings about China’s intentions. An alliance-affirming trip to the U.S.is
expected soon, and there is talk of Japan stationing F-15s on Shimojijima, close to the disputed
Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.¶ However, Abe would argue that he is acting to strengthen Japan in
order to balance a rising China and prevent a conflict, rather than creating the conditions for
one. And he undoubtedly has a more sanguine view of the future of Sino-Japanese relations than
those who see war as an ever more likely outcome. Of course, there is a chance that Chinese and
Japanese ships or aircraft will clash as the dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands rumbles on;
and, if they do, there is a chance that a skirmish could snowball unpredictably into a wider
conflict.¶ But if Shinzo Abe is gambling with the region’s security, he is at least playing the odds.
He is calculating that Japan can pursue a more muscular foreign policy without triggering a
catastrophic backlash from China, based on the numerous constraints that shape Chinese actions,
as well as the interlocking structure of the globalized environment which the two countries coinhabit. Specifically, there are seven reasons to think that war is a very unlikely prospect, even
with a more hawkish prime minister running Japan:¶ 1. Beijing’s nightmare scenario. China
might well win a war against Japan, but defeat would also be a very real possibility. As China
closes the book on its “century of humiliation” and looks ahead to prouder times, the prospect of
a new, avoidable humiliation at the hands of its most bitter enemy is enough to persuade Beijing
to do everything it can to prevent that outcome (the surest way being not to have a war at all).
Certainly, China’s new leader, Xi Jinping, does not want to go down in history as the man who led
China into a disastrous conflict with the Japanese. In that scenario, Xi would be doomed
politically, and, as China’s angry nationalism turned inward, the Communist Party probably
wouldn’t survive either.¶ 2. Economic interdependence. Win or lose, a Sino-Japanese war would
be disastrous for both participants. The flagging economy that Abe is trying to breathe life into
with a $117 billion stimulus package would take a battering as the lucrative China market was
closed off to Japanese business. China would suffer, too, as Japanese companies pulled out of a
now-hostile market, depriving up to 5 million Chinese workers of their jobs, even as Xi Jinping
looks to double per capita income by 2020. Panic in the globalized economy would further
depress both economies, and potentially destroy the programs of both countries’ new leaders.¶ 3.
Question marks over the PLA’s operational effectiveness.The People’s Liberation Army is rapidly
modernizing, but there are concerns about how effective it would prove if pressed into combat
today – not least within China’s own military hierarchy. New Central Military Commission ViceChairman Xu Qiliang recently told the PLA Daily that too many PLA exercises are merely for show,
and that new elite units had to be formed if China wanted to protect its interests. CMC Chairman
Xi Jinping has also called on the PLA to improve its readiness for “real combat.” Other weaknesses
within the PLA, such as endemic corruption, would similarly undermine the leadership’s
confidence in committing it to a risky war with a peer adversary.¶ 4. Unsettled politics. China’s
civil and military leaderships remain in a state of flux, with the handover initiated in November
not yet complete. As the new leaders find their feet and jockey for position amongst themselves,
they will want to avoid big foreign-policy distractions – war with Japan and possibly the U.S.
being the biggest of them all.¶ 5. The unknown quantity of U.S. intervention. China has its
hawks, such as Dai Xu, who think that the U.S. would never intervene in an Asian conflict on
behalf of Japan or any other regional ally. But this view is far too casual. U.S. involvement is a real
enough possibility to give China pause, should the chances of conflict increase. ¶ 6. China’s policy
of avoiding military confrontation. China has always said that it favors peaceful solutions to
disputes, and its actions have tended to bear this out. In particular, it continues to usually
dispatch unarmed or only lightly armed law enforcement ships to maritime flashpoints, rather
than naval ships.There have been calls for a more aggressive policy in the nationalist media, and
from some military figures; but Beijing has not shown much sign of heeding them. The PLA Navy
made a more active intervention in the dispute this week when one of its frigates trained its radar
on a Japanese naval vessel. This was a dangerous and provocative act of escalation, but once
again the Chinese action was kept within bounds that made violence unlikely (albeit, needlessly,
more likely than before).¶ 7. China’s socialization. China has spent too long telling the world that
it poses no threat to peace to turn around and fulfill all the China-bashers’ prophecies. Already,
China’s reputation in Southeast Asia has taken a hit over its handling of territorial disputes
there. If it were cast as the guilty party in a conflict with Japan –which already has the sympathy
of many East Asian countries where tensions China are concerned – China would see regional
opinion harden against it further still. This is not what Beijing wants: It seeks to influence regional
affairs diplomatically from within, and to realize “win-win” opportunities with its international
partners.¶ In light of these constraints, Abe should be able to push back against China – so long as
he doesn’t go too far. He was of course dealt a rotten hand by his predecessor, Yoshihiko Noda,
whose bungled nationalization of the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands triggered last year’s plunge in
relations. Noda’s misjudgments raised the political temperature to the point where neither side
feels able to make concessions, at least for now, in an attempt to repair relations.¶ However, Abe
can make the toxic Noda legacy work in his favor. Domestically, he can play the role of the man
elected to untangle the wreckage, empowered by his democratic mandate to seek a new normal
in Sino-Japanese relations. Chinese assertiveness would be met with a newfound Japanese
assertiveness, restoring balance to the relationship. It is also timely for Japan to push back now,
while its military is still a match for China’s. Five or ten years down the line this may no longer be
the case, even if Abe finally grows the stagnant defense budget.¶ Meanwhile, Abe is also pursuing
diplomatic avenues. It was Abe who mended Japan’s ties with China after the Koizumi years, and
he is now trying to reprise his role as peacemaker, having dispatched his coalition partner, Natsuo
Yamaguchi, to Beijing reportedly to convey his desire for a new dialogue. It is hardly surprising,
given his daunting domestic laundry list, that Xi Jinping should have responded encouragingly to
the Japanese olive branch.¶ In the end, Abe and Xi are balancing the same equation: They will not
give ground on sovereignty issues, but they have no interest in a war – in fact, they must dread it.
Even if a small skirmish between Chinese and Japanese ships or aircraft occurs, the leaders will
not order additional forces to join the battle unless they are boxed in by a very specific set of
circumstances that makes escalation the only face-saving option. The escalatory spiral into all-out
war that some envisage once the first shot is fired is certainly not the likeliest outcome, as
recurrent skirmishes elsewhere – such as in Kashmir, or along the Thai-Cambodian border – have
demonstrated.
***Economy Advantage Answers**
1nc OCS Not Key
OCS econ predictions are wrong- bad models
MMS ‘2
Minerals Management Service, USDOI, Arctic Economic Impact Model for Petroleum Activities in Alaska,
December 2002, http://www.boem.gov/BOEM-Newsroom/Library/Publications/2002/2002-066.aspx
In the past, an assortment of models and methods were used to estimate economic impacts, and ¶
these typically varied by planning areas. As a result, regional comparisons were often difficult to ¶
make. Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, however, requires that Interior prepare a 5-year ¶ schedule of
lease sales that considers “an equitable sharing of developmental benefits and ¶ environmental risks
among the various regions.” For this reason, MMS decided to standardize ¶ the approach used to
estimate regional economic impacts and has settled on IMPLAN, an ¶ economic input-output model, for
that purpose. Using one model will help ensure consistency ¶ from region to region. IMPLAN is the most
widely used input-output model for estimating ¶ regional economic impacts. ¶ ¶ The existing models used
to develop direct OCS and secondary employment projections for ¶ Alaska are outdated and do not
produce results comparable to other regions such as the Gulf of ¶ Mexico. The analysis of lease sales
proposed in the OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for ¶ 2003-2007, will require data on the possible
impacts on coastal and offshore areas resulting from ¶ E&D activities in the Arctic Subregion of the
Alaska OCS.
It’s way too costly to produce any substantial environmental benefits
Conley ‘13
Heather A. Conley, CSIS, July 2013, Arctic Economics in the 21st Century¶ The Benefits and Costs of Cold
The estimates of potentially recoverable quantities of oil and gas in the Alaskan Arctic are large and
include areas like the Alaska North Slope, which have been in production for a number of years.
Nevertheless, the financial, technical, and environmental risks of operat- ing in the Arctic create
substantial challenges for future production in the region. After discovery, oil and gas production in
the Arctic faces a number of barriers such as high capital and operating costs. The costs of building
infrastructure also require companies to carefully consider whether production volumes will be
commercially feasible to make these investments worthwhile.¶ Every aspect of development in Arctic
areas is likely to be more expensive : distance from consumption centers increases transportation
times and costs; distance from manu- facturing centers requires that companies maintain equipment
redundancies and a large inventory of spare parts; harsh weather requires specially designed
equipment that can withstand the frigid temperatures; and higher wages are needed to bring on and
keep personnel in the remote areas. Additionally, poor soil conditions can require additional site¶
preparations for onshore facilities to prevent equipment from sinking; softening tundra from thawing
permafrost can limit exploration during warm months; offshore production facilities can be damaged
by ice flows and severe storms; and unpredictable weather can hinder shipments of equipment and
personnel.
TAPS degradation makes long-term benefits unlikely
Conley ‘13
Heather A. Conley, CSIS, July 2013, Arctic Economics in the 21st Century¶ The Benefits and Costs of Cold
In 1988 North Slope oil production peaked at nearly 2 million barrels per day, repre- senting 24 percent
of U.S. domestic crude oil production and 11 percent of total U.S. petro- leum consumption. Since 1988
oil production has declined significantly; average daily production in 2012 is about 500,000 barrels per
day, a near 75 percent drop from its peak in 1988.30
The resulting decline in flow rates in the trans-Alaska pipeline system (TAPS) raises serious concerns
about the longer-term viability of the pipeline. The lower limit of flow rates for the pipeline is
estimated to be in the 200,000 to 300,000 barrel-per-day range.31 As the flow rate declines, the
pipeline will start to encounter a growing number of technical problems that will threaten its
continued viability, including ice formation, water settle- ment, and increased wax settlement in the
pipeline.32 Without maintaining at least the lower limit of flow rate, TAPS is not economically viable
for continued use and faces the threat of closure. An investment that could exceed $30 billion dollars
would be needed to maintain the pipeline below the recommended levels.
AT Econ DeclineWar
Their Declinist approach to growth is based on the wrong side of history and
results in a doomed economic model
Andrew McKillop 6/1/14
Mckillop- Former chief policy analyst, Division A Policy, DG XVII Energy, European Commission. Andrew McKillop has more than 30 years
experience in the energy, economic and finance domains. Trained at London UK’s University College, he has had specially long experience of
energy policy, project administration and the development and financing of alternate energy. This included his role of in-house Expert on Policy
and Programming at the DG XVII-Energy of the European Commission, Director of Information of the OAPEC technology transfer subsidiary,
AREC and researcher for UN agencies including the ILO. The Market Oracle. “Decline And The Art Of No Economic Growth”
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article45858.html
The Oxymoron of Permanent Growth One of the starkest non-surprises is that economic growth declines as well as advances. Why this should be “extraordinary” and a shock to civilization is
hard to understand – for normal persons. Taking the case of Japan and the Asian Tigers, their miracle growth epochs or eras lasted about 30 – 40 years and then it was over. Taking the case of
In the case of the US and western European economies,
high growth was commonplace for about 25 years. All of them petered out and eventually slowed
down. Growth declined to a "normal rate” like early exuberance gives way to maturity but this brings in the value-word loaded term of
China and India, their period of extreme high annual growth lasted less than 20 years .
“normal”. On a multi-century basis before the 18th century, the “normal rate” of economic growth was possibly 0.25% a year, if that. During
Jean Fourastie's “Trente Glorieuse” of about 1948-1973 most European countries averaged 4% a year, Japan was nearer 6% a year, and the US
was not far behind. During the epic period of high growth for China and India of about 1995-2010 China often averaged 9% a year. This was
abnormal and today, these would be science-fiction rates of growth.¶ The real problem is that when economies contract, in “subzero growth”
(another oxymoron) this has rapid spillover collateral damage on politics and social behavior. ¶ Almost
everywhere in the West,
growth has steadily declined since 1980 making it easy to argue this process itself helped trigger
political change towards “free market principles”. The false solutions of neoliberalism , deindustrialisation,
financialization, mass unemployment, massive income and wealth inequality, state indebtedness, and so on, became New Normal. ¶
Declinists however argue that the 1980s political-economic ideology shift only reflected History in the making. It was inevitable
and had to happen. This was No Alternative, even if that was a mindless neoliberal political slogan of the 1980s. As we know, both the
extremes of Keynesianism (state borrowing, budget deficits) and the extremes of neo-liberalism (crony capitalism) are applied, in a pot pourri
attempt to “restore growth”. The opposite is certain.¶ Decline Paradigm 2014¶ By the end of the first quarter falling household spending, house
and car sales, manufacturing activity, business activity, investment and economic growth were the rule in nearly all major economies. In
the
US, even in late May, Goldman Sachs and other forecasters however still clung to the “bad weather” theme to explain
this “surprise decline” and to forecast a rebound, to the science fiction rate of 3.5% on an annualized
base. The long and cold winter had depressed the economy, but in Europe this excuse wasn't possible due to one of the warmest winters in
decades. The ECB chief Mario Draghi used the explanation of lower household energy spending as another reason why inflation was falling!¶
Cold winters are bad for the economy. Warm winters are bad for the economy.¶ Former IMF chief economist and the present head of India's
central bank, Raghuram Rajan earlier this year accused the G7 countries of simply using his country and other emerging economies as
“disposable adjustment mechanisms”. Once vaunted by political and business leaders in the developed countries as the Asian Locomotive of
global growth, the emerging economies were no longer of interest to them, as they wrestled with their own economic decline. It was a classic
example of “devil take the hindmost” as economic trends and the outlook for the rest of 2014 retreated to 2009 levels, at the depths of the
post-2008 crisis.¶ Decline also spreads in the political domain. “The
west”, meaning the US and several of its EU28 allies, faced off but
did not face down Russia's Vladimir Putin for the shaky prize of an economically ruined Ukraine needing massive
bailouts. The elephant in the closet, China's banking, finance, economic and real estate crisis continued to threaten global economic stability.
Japan's economic decline intensified and accelerated, like Europe's decline.¶ Decline Psychosis¶ Relatively soon, different strands of the decline
paradigm will be dusted off and reassembled. Normally concerning the USA or the West, the BRICS now also fit the “unexpected and surprising”
economic decline paradigm, with its linked political stress and social instability.¶ The theory has existed for a long time and one way or another
always sets the agonizing question – Are we on the wrong side of history? Is decline fatal?¶ We
can identify an almost-cyclic
recrudescence of declinism, but what was arguably a Western-only psychosis has certainly globalized.
The economy and its decline are the usual start point for the syndrome or paradigm of decline. One reason is because the economy seems
more quantifiable and measurable than other forms and types of this widespread syndrome but because the economy is “a numbers game”
however, it is also easier to trick out with fake statistics.¶ Decline psychosis underlaid the 10-year-long set of debates, discussions and diatribes
sparked by the 1992 book of Francis Fukuyama “The Death of History”. Fukuyama
had claimed that the neoliberal
economic reforms of the 1980s had “fundamentally changed the economy and society”, banishing any
possibility of decline. He was wrong and said so himself.¶ The enduring but mutating strands of “The War on
Terror” which started in 2001 is another example where the anguish of decline was transformed and mutated to national
security or its avatar of well-being and safety. Somewhat like esperanto is the avatar of sanskrit or cod's roe is caviar avatar. ¶ In Europe, the
tortured and mutating strands of “the European federal project” is another example where an ill-defined but diffuse fear – in Europe of another
war spanning the entire continent – is used to create an illusion of peace, brotherhood and tranquility in an always-growing economy. The
European elections of end-May 2014 dealt a serious blow to this shaky paradigm, as the
European countries accelerated into
decline.¶ Declinism will migrate from the economy to the cultural and psychological domains and
declinists will soon ask the stock question. If Western liberal democracy and its market economy are
not on the right side of history - are they at the wrong end of their own history? ¶ Heroic Remedies¶ Declinism
during the long depression of the 1930s was heavily influenced by Nihilism and “the heroic philosophies” - which ran from Christian redemption
to Soviet techno-philosophy The extreme mix and mingle invited declinist-genre material to be openly anti-democratic and pessimist, while
proposing Salvation Remedies also called Shock Therapy. ¶ In
the 1930s, western intellectuals rushed to find greatness
in Stalin, Hitler or Mussolini and their shock regimes. ¶ Today, we should not be surprised to hear the
vastly un-serious claim by some economists that the West “needs Chinese-type market communism”, or
various types of despotic centralism and authoritarian modernity, if only to get the economy back to life. Sacrificing “democratic
freedom” which arguably does not exist, for the illusion of economic recovery is the supposed big deal.¶ Interest rates on savings would be
sharply negative to force people to spend. Interest rates for businesses and investors would be rigorously set at zero. Cash would be eliminated
from the economy and banned “to prevent crime, fraud and tax evasion”, the economy would be controlled, and so on.¶ The sure to intensify
decline of the Chinese economy will remove any figleaf trappings of rationality for advocating “Chinese state capitalism” as the salvation model,
but continuing economic decline will certainly stoke the Culture War of declinism versus liberal
democracy. ¶ This liberal model,
as we know, is theoretically defined as having free markets, bottom up political power, the rule of law, checks
and balances on corporate power, freedom of information and speech, concern for the environment, gender and age equality, anti-racist
multiculturalism – and so on. ¶ When all of them become tainted with doubt, the logical alternatives include
despotism among other things. Using the example of declinism in the 1930s, the other things can include straight Nihilism and the
ideological retreat to claiming that “nothing exists”.¶ Ultimate Oxymorons¶ Declinism of the 1930s was surely and certainly linked with
internationalism - or what we call globalization today. In the 1930s, this internationalism especially included belief that the nation state was
doomed to extinction, at the time by Nazism, Fascism and Stalinism. Nation states would be swept away by either capitalist despotism or
communist despotism. We can call this globalist nihilism.¶ Agenda 21 and the Bilderberg Conspiracy could be called today's extremely-diluted,
muppet versions of the same globalist nihilism, but this in fact is the ultimate oxymoron. Tyranny and despotism need all and every trapping of
the national police state - but globalist nihilism declares that no nation states exist! The ultimate police state with no state is an oxymoron as
absurd as “State capitalism” which has never existed because it can't exist. ¶ One very simple proof that China is not state capitalist but is
something else – is its decline!¶ The liberal whine about “Chinese state capitalism”, which was going to save us all by playing Asian Locomotive,
only tells us that the spectacular rise and emerging fall of China, and the crisis of liberal democracies are interwoven. Never openly admitted by
any western politician or approved economist or intellectual, China's growth may have been one root cause of the west's economic decline,
outproducing the west's industries and driving up energy and commodity prices by its intensive growth - but now both China and the West are
in decline. What was previously a zero sum game for the west-only, is now a global zero sum game. Lose-lose went global.¶ Western
“nombrilism” or an obsession with studying its own belly button or warts ignores the Eastern paradigm of First In-First Out. Japan's economic,
social, political and cultural plight is hard to ignore and the newer, more recent Asian Tigers like Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Malaysia and
Singapore are also spinning slower and slower. They can quite easily be called “not-liberal democracies” – at least not Western type Lib Dems.
Their economic miracle stories can be called top-down capitalist, paternalist, or even Corporate Capitalist. But not State Capitalist - and the
important thing is they are all declining.¶ Japan was first in and is first out.¶ Japan can be called the Role Model for the West's economic decline.
That is general economic decline that endures so long it finally penetrates and breaks up society and politics. In Japan as well as the west, the
storyline of “Everybody says it can't go on like this” had its perfect counterpart of nobody doing anything about it – for decades. Declinism
thrives on apathy.¶ Level Down and Out¶ Since the early 1980s the West has had a 30-year-long process of decline. Entire nations declined, for
example the yearly shrinkage of the national populations of Germany and Japan. In the former communist countries, their political entirely
systems collapsed. The USSR disappeared.¶ Inverting the paradigm of Historic growth is totally logical, well known and well described. Countries
progress from agriculture and handcrafts to urban industrial manufacturing and then to a service sector and knowledge-based economy. The
historical process draws on previous seemingly-limitless reservoirs of cheap labor in country districts, but as fixed investment rises, its marginal
return declines. Each new unit of capital generates less output growth than the preceding one – as Marx gleefully pointed out, and Ricardo
before him balefully pointed out. ¶ Diminishing returns have their counterpart for the Declinists in the law of declining nations and states. ¶
Declinists use economic cycle theory for their big picture. Since at latest 2008, they claim, the world entered a long cycle of decline which
started with a leveling-down across the older industrialized economies, that in the Trente Glorieuse were leveling-up. The poster children for
this were Japan and West Germany. After World War II their economies climbed skyward, overshot, and then went into decline over a 30 or 40year timeframe. For Japan this is proven, but Germany's coming economic decline to zero growth in 2014 will (of course) be treated as a shock
and surprise. ¶ The Declinists go on to ask another question: Are wars and revolutions also cyclic?¶ China's Great Leap Forward under Mao was
a giant leap backwards for the economy. Just before his strange political-economic modernization plan that left at least 25 million dead, China
was growing at over 10% a year. Afterwards it was in decline at about 1% - 5% every year. Wars and revolutions add their own ravages to the
economic and business cycle but more interesting, the fear of war or revolution may be so hard-wired into politicians' minds that they sabotage
the economy, due to this fear. ¶ Their fear of domestic turmoil is so intense, they bring about their worst forebodings. China is an example.
After the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989, double-digit growth collapsed and for nearly 10 years Chinese authorities obsessively looked at
every civic disturbance through the Tiananmen slit window and tank turret, haunted by the fear that their days in power were numbered. After
that, they launched the capitalist modernization program of China generating massive growth of the economy “to head off another
Tiananmen”.¶ Guided Modernity¶ China is in no conceivable way a role model for the declining west but the Cult of the Tyrant, strong man,
providential leader, technocrat or whatever – why not a star footballer who “goes political” - is very strong in very weak societies. Since the
start of the 20th century, all Tyrants have promised economic rebirth and modernity. They preen themselves as hands-on engineers, specialists,
technocrats, agronomists and scientists - not intellectuals, dreamers and thinkers. They are “pro-active”!¶ When the Strongman (or Strong
woman like Hillary Clinton, (we can joke)) appears on the scene, the time to dump liberal democracy has arrived. Declinism
says the
liberal democratic system must toughen up its act – or go down the tube. Anyway, this is already happening. For
conspiracy theorists the all-seeing, all-hacking NSA or GCHQ “new civil liberties” neo-democracy model is at most a whisper away from the East
German Stasi police state – but they should add that exactly like East Germany, this model is born from economic failure. The
police state
has the totally unsurprising and exact same ally of low-or-no economic growth, malinvestment, corruption,
incompetence.¶ Fin de siecle, even if it is only the start of the 21st century.¶ Elite speak says that guiding the people, as
well as the economy will now be the only way forward. The economy has underperformed. Society
must not be allowed to also underperform.¶ The logical, historical and theoretical bases are dictatorial. The
coming and new storyline will be that power can breed and restore economic growth. If it falters, this will be due to cyclic reasons, bad
weather, bad luck, the Fates – or Vladimir Putin. While Russia arguably has its Providential Strongman, the “mature democracies” do not yet
have their strongmen or strongwomen. ¶ We only have laughable muppets who, basically, are jealous of Putin.. ¶ of declining expectations!¶
Guided modernity will be, and can only be a sure and certain failure. It sows the seeds of its own
demise. At least in the “western democracies” it can only be crony capitalist and crony corporatist
from Day 1, from the start. It empowers the same vested interests that took decades to emerge and seal themselves into power, and do
harm. Guided modernity is by definition on the wrong side of History.¶ What Happens to the Sorceror's Apprentice¶ Francis Fukuyama himself
used the example of the French revolution and what came before it as an explanation of what happens when democracies degenerate. In the
French ancien régime: "The
elites spent all of their time trying to capture public office in order to secure a
rent for themselves". They dispensed with having even a mock-democracy – and they deeply regretted the results!¶ In other words, the
previous game was converting public power into elite personal profit. China is not far away from that model, and other east
Asian political economies can be compared and found similar. Always flying the flag of national advantage, the state
favors selected industries and organized interests. These seek more power, as any Oligarch does . They
build monopolies, draw subsidies, evade taxes, and increase their "rents". They suck the lifeblood out of
the economy. Only for as long as there is economic growth can the party can stumble on. Not after.¶ The
larger the state, the bigger the rents. The more centralized the state, the more it can ignore the economic
performance of any activity, any enterprise. The Oligarchic state seals its own demise by and through dependence on the
rent-takers and -seekers who are inevitably corrupt. Finally the economic growth process implodes, and from
stagnation we morph into revolt. Modernity of the guided type cycles back into History. ¶ The merest hint of
another Tiananmen Square uprising would plunge China straight back into a Maoist police state – its
already declining economic growth would instantly collapse. The fear of the Flash Mob is only very recent for the
western Oligarchs and their glove puppet politicians, but China's official crystal ball has the 1989 Flash Mob uprising as an outlyer – and threat
to China's elites. ¶ History is negative for “guided” modernity or authoritarian modernization in the exact same way that democracy, just like
despotism, is in no way a guarantor and open sesame for economic growth. The time-processes of economy and society can also be very
different and unsynchronized. ¶ In the West today, the glove puppet “consumer democracy” act has long ceased amusing and fooling anybody
with two working neurones to rub together. It is clearly in decline – to use a key term. The threat that Western-type democracy will now be
"controlled and guided" is legitimately terrifying – but is above all laughable. How do you modernize a worn out sock or last year's Christmas
wrappings? ¶ What we do know is that State capitalism already exists in the West – we call it crony capitalism – and it does not work. Imagining
that the Right Stuff will pop out the woodwork with the right combination of Keynesian mumbo jumbo and QE, and deliver a Happy Ending can
only support the Declinist argument. As the Declinists say, when the elite become delirious and psychologically impaired, change is sure to
come!
Econ Decline Inev
Europe is an alt cause to econ decline- their recession isn’t over
Stefan Steinberg 5/25/14
Stefan is a writer for Global research who specializes in global economic analysis and the Eurozone. “Economic Stagnation in Europe. Towards a
Deflationary Spiral?” http://www.globalresearch.ca/economic-stagnation-in-europe-towards-a-deflationary-spiral/5388566
A number of new reports confirm that the
European economy continues to stagnate and is threatened with a
deflationary spiral.¶ The latest Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI), which measures the future purchasing plans of key companies in
the euro zone, registered a downturn in June for two of the continent’s key economies. The PMI index estimate for
June hit a six-month low of 52.8, with both services and manufacturing branches declining.¶ Europe’s second biggest economy, France,
registered a PMI of 48. Any figure under 50 represents a contraction. The June figure means that the French private sector has now contracted
for four of the last six months. The PMI figure for Germany, while above 50, was also down. A separate statistic for Germany, the Ifo business
climate index, also fell in June to its lowest level since December 2013.¶ Following years of economic decline in many countries throughout
Europe as a result of the harsh austerity policies dictated by the European Union, European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund,
the growth recorded in Europe’s biggest economy, Germany, was regarded as a positive exception to the
continental trend.¶ The latest figures, however, confirm that the economic crisis is increasingly shifting
from the periphery to the core of Europe.¶ France is Germany’s single biggest trading partner, and its
contraction has a negative affect on Germany’s leading export industries. Another factor cited by the business
press for the slowdown in Germany, however, is the continuing crisis in Ukraine, which threatens the country’s energy
supplies and its extensive interests in eastern Europe. Moreover, the crisis in Iraq has pushed up the price
of oil and increased costs for many industries.¶ The latest figures contradict a series of media reports and declarations by
economic institutions that the European economy was emerging from recession. In its April economic report, the OECD declared: “The euro
area economies, including those most heavily hit by the crisis, appear to be turning the corner after many years of low and uneven growth.Ӧ In
fact. the European Central Bank has already downgraded its modest estimate for growth in the euro zone in 2014 to just 1 percent. The
downgrade came after figures released at the start of this month revealed that inflation across the euro zone had fallen to 0.5 percent in May,
down from 0.7 percent in April. The figure for inflation considered by the ECB to be compatible with economic growth is 2 percent.¶ In a
separate report released on June 16, the
Center for Economic Policy Research declared that the “extremely weak
economic developments since early 2013” indicate that the euro zone recession was not over.¶ While
austerity cuts into spending throughout the continent, levels of private and public debt continue to soar. Unemployment
throughout Europe remains at the highest levels since figures have been collected. The extent of the social
devastation in Europe was most recently recorded in the June report from the International Labour Organisation.¶
AT Price Spikes
Squo solves oil price spikes
Brian Mahoney 4/29/14
Writer for Law360, legal focus news website. “White House Plugs Energy Strategy Ahead Of New Carbon Rules”
http://www.law360.com/articles/542714/white-house-plugs-energy-strategy-ahead-of-new-carbon-rules
(May 29, 2014, 3:57 PM ET) -- The Obama administration’s
energy strategy — bolstered by an increase in domestic
production of natural gas — has protected the U.S. economy from oil shocks and will help the country
transition to cleaner fuels, the White House said in a report on Thursday in advance of new rules on coal-fired power plants. ¶ The
report touts the administration’s “all of the above” energy strategy, saying the domestic energy economy has experienced “unforeseen”
changes in the past decade, brought on largely by rapid increases in natural gas and renewables production.¶ The
natural gas boom, in
particular, has reduced the impact of international oil shocks caused by reduced production of petroleum
from exporting countries, the report said.¶ “The energy sector has provided key support to the recovery from the Great Recession,
and the U.S. economy’s exposure to abrupt adverse changes in world oil markets should continue to
decline,” the report said.¶ The report comes in advance of anticipated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules that would add new
restrictions on coal-fired plant emissions. Its release is likely timed to rebut Republican critiques of the new regulations as harmful to the
economy.¶ The regulations, proposed in September, would limit emissions for new coal-fired plants to within 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide
per megawatt-hour. For new natural gas-fired plants, large and small plants would have slightly different requirements, with large ones
required to limit emissions to 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour and small ones required to limit emissions to 1,100 pounds of
carbon dioxide per megawatt-hour.¶ Thursday's report says that added regulations reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power
plants will contribute to making domestically produced natural gas a viable alternative to coal.¶ “Looking ahead, the
relatively low
price of natural gas will make it an economically attractive alternative fuel as regulation of CO2 and
other emissions under the Clean Air Act further reduces coal-fired electricity generation,” the report said.¶
The report said that the EPA’s light- and heavy-vehicle standards and the country's reduced petroleum demand could also bolster the country’s
energy economy.¶ It acknowledged environmental concerns arising from the natural gas boom, which has been facilitated by the controversial
extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing. The report classifies natural gas as a “transitional fuel.”¶ “Natural
gas is
comparatively cleaner than many other sources of energy,” the report said. “And while extraction of natural gas raises
some environmental concerns, including fugitive methane emissions, the administration is supporting safe and responsible development
including a strategy to address gaps in current data on methane emissions.Ӧ The White House also acknowledged that many of the
advances leading to the increased production of natural gas over the past decade have predated the
administration’s energy policies and were developed by companies in the private sector.¶ “Some of the
recent trends in the energy sector predate the administration and stem from technological advances and risk taking by American entrepreneurs
and businesses, as well as from government-supported research and other public policies,” the report said.
1NC AT Deficits
Terminal solvency deficit- current law mandates only 10% percent of royalty
profits go to the USFG- that’s 2.5 billion dollars
CBO 12
Congressional Budget Office, POTENTIAL BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF IMMEDIATELY OPENING MOST
FEDERAL LANDS TO OIL AND GAS LEASING requested by the Chairman of the House Committee on the
Budget August
CBO estimates that bonus payments from leasing in ANWR would increase gross federal
receipts by $5 billion over the 2013–2022 period.14 Under current law, 90 percent of that
money would be paid to the state of Alaska and 10 percent would be deposited in the U.S.
Treasury. Most legislative proposals related to ANWR that have been introduced over the past
two decades have called for 50 percent of bonus payments and royalties to go to the federal
government and 50 percent to the state.¶ If legislation was enacted in 2013 to open ANWR to
leasing, no production would be likely to occur for 10 years and production probably would not
peak before 2032. The federal government would receive no royalties from those leases until
production began. Forecasts of energy prices over 20 years are not very reliable, and they
usually encom- pass a wide range. Assuming that oil prices over the 2023–2035 period might
range from under $100 per barrel to over $150 per barrel (in 2010 dollars), and using data
published by EIA about the amount of oil that could be produced from ANWR, CBO estimates that
the government’s gross receipts from royalties might total between $25 billion and $50 billion (in
2010 dollars) over that period.15 The federal portion of the royalties could be as high as $25
billion (if 50 percent went to Alaska) or as low as $2.5 billion (if 90 percent went to Alaska).
2NC AT Deficits—Small Profit
Alaskan oil industry contributes less than 2% to total GDP
Spiewak 9
Monika, Ph. D candidate, Leonard N. Stern School of Business at NYU, Theory and Evidence...Drilling for
Oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge: A Cost-Benefit Analysis, an honors thesis submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science Undergraduate College, May
In 2007, the domestic oil industry, from drillers to pipeline operators, added over $241 billion to
the U.S. economy. The valued added by the entire domestic oil industry constitutes less than 2%
of annual gross domestic product. The Alaskan petroleum industry contributes even less to the
national economy. The value added as a portion of sales by this capital-intensive industry
increases as the price of oil increases. As firms compete for fewer oil resources, particularly in
periods of high oil prices, the amount of required labor and capital increases. According to the
American Petroleum Institute, oil field service costs have increased dramatically. The price of
drilling for an onshore well of 10,000 to 12,499 feet increased from $111 per foot drilled to $294
per foot drilled. Alaskan onshore drilling costs increased from $283 to $1,880 per foot drilled in
the same period.7 Equipment must be fortified to withstand harsh Alaskan conditions. The
remote location makes equipment transportation cost much greater than in the contiguous
states. While the API anticipates a moderation of drilling service costs, they do not expect prices
to return to 2000 levels.
Reducing deficits is a myth---not nearly enough revenue and the timeframe is
2 decades
Dinan 12
Stephan, More oil drilling brings limited cash to govt., 8/9/Ciera’s birthday,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/9/more-oil-drilling-brings-limitedcash-govt/
Opening up federal lands to more oil and gas exploration would boost the federal treasury
through new royalty payments, but would make almost no dent in the federal deficit, according
to figures released Thursday by the Congressional Budget Office. The nonpartisan budget office
said opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration — which is banned under
current law — would bring in about $5 billion over the next decade, and about $2 to $4 billion a
year in the decade after that. Meanwhile, pushing the Obama administration to open up other
areas such as the outer continental shelf, which are legal but which the administration has
opposed, would bring in about $2 billion over the next decade, the CBO said. The years beyond
that were too uncertain for CBO to make a prediction. The $7 billion total for the next decade —
the standard budget window — is less than one-tenth of a percent of the $6.4 trillion in
cumulative deficits President Obama is projecting over that same period. CBO analysts said one
issue for revenue is the long lead time it takes between when leases are sold and oil or natural
gas is actually extracted.
1NC SCS/China Adv
Alt cause- shipping routes, fish, and oil
Deutsche Welle ’12 (9-5 ("Why is the South China Sea such a bone of contention?" 9-5-12, l/n,
accessed 10-6-12, mss)
Why is the South China Sea such a bone of contention?
The tension in the South China Sea has escalated since the start of the 21st century, as neighboring
states vie to protect their strategic and economic interests, but what are they really fighting for? Its
geopolitical location, an abundance of fish and huge gas and oil reserves make the South China Sea
particularly attractive to the 10 states that all lay claim to parts of it - China, Taiwan, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand and Cambodia. There are also hundreds of
islands and reefs in the South China Sea, which the Vietnamese call the East Sea. The Paracel Islands
(known as the Xisha in China and the Hoang Sa in Vietnam), the Spratly Islands (known as the Nansha
Qundao in China, the Truong Sa in Vietnam and the Kapuluan ng Kalayaan in the Philippines) are the
most important disputed island groups. The sea is also important to the rest of the world as it connects
Europe, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia with East Asia and at least one third of global shipping
transits through its waters. Almost all of China's oil exports arrive via the South China Sea and nearly all
of China's exports to Europe and Africa go in the opposite direction. "In strategic and military terms, the
South China Sea is in a key position that enables control not only over South East Asia but over the wider
realm of South and East Asia too," Gerhard Will from the German Institute for International and Security
Affairs in Berlin told DW. Fish in abundance The South China Sea is also home to an abundance of fish.
According to the International Crisis Group, 10 percent of the annual global fish yield hails from this
huge body of water. However, the fisheries are at risk from over-fishing and pollution. More and more,
fishermen are being forced out into deeper waters to make a living but here they sometimes clash with
maritime patrol forces protecting their national interests. Fishermen have been arrested, their nets
damaged and their boats confiscated by the security forces of other countries. Such incidents have
increased in recent years. Not only is fish an important source of protein for the population, it is often
an important branch of the economy. In 2010, the fishing industry made up 7 percent of Vietnam's GDP.
In the Philippines, some 1.5 million people earn their living from fishing. Rich in gas and oil However, it is
the unknown riches of gas and oil that are creating most of the tension over the South China Sea,
especially as the energy needs of China and Southeast Asian nations grow as their economies boom.
"The deep waters have not yet been explored. Companies are reluctant because of the border disputes,"
Hans Georg Babies from the German Mineral Resources Agency told DW. Estimates for the amount of oil
range from four to 30 billion tons. The latter figure would be equivalent to all of Saudi Arabia's oil
reserves.
Resource irrelevant- it’s an entirely a sovereignty issue
Hogue ’12 (9-21 – Platts Asia news editor of energy (Thomas, "Five uninhabited islets and three barren
rocks: oil and the dispute over the two China seas," Platts, 9-21-12, blogs.platts.com/2012/09/21/japanchina/, accessed 10-6-12, mss)
In the East China Sea, China has estimated there may be as much as much 160 billion barrels of oil and
210 Tcf of gas, although other estimates run lower. None of the figures mentioned in a US Energy
Information Administration report in 2008, however, really jive with an interim report from state-owned
CNOOC that shows 300,000 barrels of crude oil and liquids and 6 Bcf of gas produced from East China
Sea licenses in the first six months of the year. That’s out of CNOOC’s total domestic output of 105
million barrels of crude oil and liquids and 118.1 Bcf of gas. In short, practically nothing. As well, other
oil companies don’t have much faith in the potential of the region. In 2004, Shell and the then Unocal
pulled out of contracts to explore for natural gas in the Xihu Trough to the northwest of the DiaoyuSenkaku islands in the East China Sea, saying that the resources weren’t commercial. The record of
futility in the area goes back further, with Taiwan and Japan not having made any significant finds
onshore or offshore after spending decades looking for oil and gas resources since the 1970s. The
closest significant oil and gas fields of any size lie further to the north and to the west in China’s Bohai
Bay. Not really what one would consider highly prospective territory then. What that means is that the
dispute over the barren rocky outcroppings in the East China Sea likely has nothing to do with oil and
gas, and thus there is no potential commercial gain that might eventually bring China and Japan
together in the interest of the mutual economic benefit of jointly exploiting much-needed hydrocarbon
resources. And what that means is that as long as each country is claiming that the Diaoyu-Senkaku
islands are an “integral part” of its territory, periodic eruptions of anti-Japan protests in China and
disruption to Japanese businesses there is what can be seen ahead.
SCS de-escalation now- China and regional economics
Jinping ’12 (, 9-21 -- AP staff (Xi, "China Sidesteps South China Sea Island Disputes," AP,
bigstory.ap.org/article/china-sidesteps-south-china-sea-island-disputes, accessed 10-6-12, ms)
China has sought to soothe neighbors it has feuded with over territory in the South China Sea, a stark
contrast to recent angry statements and violent street protests targeting Japan over a similar dispute.
Vice President Xi Jinping — China's presumed next leader — emphasized economic ties and civic
exchanges in remarks Friday to delegates from the 10 countries that make up the Association of
Southeast Asian Nations. Xi played down South China Sea territorial disputes with the Philippines,
Vietnam and others that have flared up again this year. "I hope the situation would not reverse
backward and bilateral relations could come back to the track of normal development," Xi told the
Philippines' interior and local government secretary, Mar Roxas, according to China's official Xinhua
News Agency. In his address at the annual meeting with ASEAN members, held in the southern Chinese
city of Nanning, Xi said China was committed to "common development and steadily improving
cooperation mechanisms in various fields." With two-way trade growing 20 percent annually to $362.8
billion last year, China and its southern neighbors are increasingly intertwined, requiring even greater
cooperation across a range of fields, Xi said. The contrasting approaches to the territorial feuds highlight
Beijing's desire to keep the South China Sea disputes in check and avoid drawing in China's chief rival,
the United States, which maintains close security ties with many countries in the region. While eager to
assert its claims, Beijing needs a peaceful regional environment to achieve its development goals and
has a limited capacity to handle multiple diplomatic crises simultaneously.
China is still deterred in the SCS – their evidence is exaggerated
Kania 1/13 [Elsa Kania, The South China Sea: Flashpoints and the U.S. Pivot, 13 January 2013, 2013
Harvard Political Review, http://uwire.com/2013/01/13/the-south-china-sea-flashpoints-and-the-u-spivot/]
Equilibrium and Interdependence?¶ One paradox at the heart of the South China Sea
is the uneasy equilibrium that has largely been maintained . Despite the occasional
confrontation and frequent diplomatic squabbling, the situation has never escalated into full-blown
physical conflict. The main stabilizing factor has been that the countries involved have too much
to lose form turmoil, and so much to gain from tranquility. Andrew Ring—former Weatherhead
Center for International Affairs Fellow—emphasized that “With respect to the South China Sea, we all
have the same goals” in terms of regional stability and development. With regional trade flows and
interdependence critical to the region’s growing economies, conflict could be devastating. Even for
China —the actor with by far the most to gain from such a dispute—taking unilateral action
would irreparably tarnish its image in the eyes of the international community. With the
predominant narrative of a “rising” and “assertive China”—referred to as a potential adversary by
President Obama in the third presidential debate—China’s behavior in the S outh C hina S ea may be
sometimes exaggerated or sensationalized .
No escalation- China constrained
Dibb, 12 -- ANU strategic studies professor
(Paul, "Why I disagree with Hugh White on China's rise," The Australian, 8-13-12,
www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/why-i-disagree-with-hugh-white-on-chinas-rise/story-e6frg6zo1226448713852, accessed 10-5-12, mss)
Hugh White has raised serious questions about how to manage that relationship and, in particular, his view that the US should share power as an equal with
China (discussed comprehensively in The Weekend Australian on August 11-12 ). I disagree with much of his analysis and policy prescriptions for the following
reasons. First, he exaggerates
the dangers in tensions between these two powers and, especially, the risks of conflict leading
to nuclear war. He says competition between the US and China will inevitably lead to confrontation and military conflict. That did not happen in the more
dangerous Cold War confrontation between the USSR and the US. This was because it was clearly understood on both sides just how
destructive a nuclear exchange would be. And yet, White suggests a scenario in which a military incident in the
South China Sea could lead to China dropping a nuclear weapon on American military bases in Guam, and the US doing nothing
in retaliation. In other words, the US, with more than 5000 strategic nuclear weapons, has backed down and accepted nuclear devastation on its territory with all
the precedents that would set. Second, there
is little recognition of just how limited China's military capabilities are.
It is simply not good enough to accept the pumped-up claims of the US Naval War College that US aircraft carriers are vulnerable to
ballistic missile strikes by China. I've heard all these exaggerated views before out of the US. Of course, China is developing some serious modern capabilities but do
we actually believe that the US will sit on its hands and do nothing? Unlike America, China
has no experience of modern war and much of
its military technology is either reverse engineered from Western designs or bought from Russia, which has
made no technological breakthroughs for more than 20 years. Ballistic missile attacks on US aircraft carriers from China's mainland
would simply invite devastating blows on targets inside China. As for US power sharing and treating China as an equal, why should the US create what former prime
minister Paul Keating calls "strategic space" for it? What is being implied here: giving China all the South China Sea or a sphere of influence in Southeast Asia or a
free hand to threaten Japan? The fact is that the correlation of forces in our region leaves China with no real friends other than Pakistan and North Korea. Given
China's aggressive posture, practically every other major country in the region is moving closer to the US. When China's foreign minister threatens members of
ASEAN by stating that "China is a big country and other countries are small countries", he is acting like a bully. Little wonder that China's strategic space is limited.
Then there is the question of human rights and asserting, as do both Keating and White, some sort of moral equivalence between US values and those of China.
Both seem to imply that because the Communist Party of China has taken hundreds of millions of people out of poverty this somehow cancels out its gross human
rights abuses. Let's just remember that China's Communist Party was responsible in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution for more than 30 million
deaths of its own people. And, in recent memory, this was the party that rolled the tanks over students in Tiananmen Square. There is no way Washington will
concede moral equivalence to a communist regime. Finally, what about White's proposal for a Concert of Asia in which China and the US would share power? As he
acknowledges in passing, this would risk sacrificing the security of middle and small powers. It must be remembered that in the Concert of Europe in the 19th
century middle powers such as Poland either disappeared or were carved up. Just what is proposed here for countries such as Vietnam? Moreover, the Concert of
Europe worked because there was a common European culture, which does not exist today in Asia. The fact is that the
situation between China
and the US is nowhere near as perilous as suggested by Keating and White. Nuclear deterrence and increasing economic interdependence will
act as a brake on military adventurism by both sides. Moreover, as Australia's former ambassador to China, Geoff Raby, points out, China is utterly
dependent on foreign markets and is in reality a highly constrained power.
Oil triggers all their links
IBTN, 12
(International Business Times News, "South China Sea: Chinese, Philippine And Vietnamese Oil Tenders
Escalate Tensions," 8-2-12, l/n, accessed 10-6-12, mss)
South China Sea: Chinese, Philippine And Vietnamese Oil Tenders Escalate Tensions
China has given a go-ahead for its first major tender of oil and gas blocks in the South China Sea, close
on the heels of Beijing establishing a military garrison on a disputed island in the waters. China National
Offshore Oil Corp (CNOOC), a state oil giant, invited foreign companies in late June to bid on nine oil
blocks in territories spread in 160,000 sq km of water, which are also claimed by Vietnam. Companies
could decide whether to bid on the blocks until next June, Reuters reported. China lays claim to almost
the entire South China Sea, including what is recognized by the U.N. as the exclusive economic zone of
other neighbors, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Brunei. On July 23, China approved a military
command to be based in Sansha City on Woody Island in the Paracels. The city was established June 21
in an area under the Chinese jurisdiction that is also claimed by Vietnam. The garrison was approved as
1,100 Chinese residents elected 45 legislators to the new city's congress. The troops would be
''responsible for managing the city's national defense mobilization, military reserves and carrying out
military operations,'' Xinhua news agency reported. Vietnam's state oil firm, Petrovietnam, has
condemned Beijing's oil exploration tender, calling it a "serious violation of international law" since the
blocks lie well within the country's exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. Hanoi called on
energy firms to turn down the offer. It was reported July 20 that India's state-run Oil and Natural Gas
Corp (ONGC) would continue its oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea, off the Vietnam coast,
ignoring Chinese objection.
AND US has shifted to de-escalation instead of containment- peace settlements
will solve
Etzioni, 9-26 -- George Washingtin University internal relations professor
(Amitai, senior advisor to the Carter White House; taught at Columbia University, Harvard and the
University of California at Berkeley, "Cooler Heads in the South China Sea," National Interest, 9-26-12,
nationalinterest.org/commentary/cooler-heads-the-south-china-sea-7520?page=1, accessed 10-6-12,
mss)
The United States is realizing that the escalating tensions in the Far East, especially between China and Japan, should no longer be
viewed as an opportunity to contain China. Instead, our first priority should be to get everyone to calm
down. At issue are the territorial rights over some forty piles of rock, most uninhabited, some barely sticking out of the water. These conflicts already have led to
large nationalist anti-Japanese demonstrations in China and similar anti-Chinese demonstrations in Japan; saber-rattling activists planting their nation’s flag on some
of the islands; and clashes between vessels of several regional nations—all fueled by increasingly hot rhetoric by public leaders. These smaller clashes look
increasingly like the type of incidents that can spin out of control and lead to more serious conflagrations. The United States, which keeps veering between seeking
to engage China and moves to “contain” it, had at first—at least indirectly—urged the nations of the area to band together and push back against Chinese claims to
many of the islands at issue. However, most
recently Secretary Panetta called on China and Japan “to move forward
and not have this dispute get out of hand” and emphasized that all parties share a responsibility to resolve the conflicts peacefully. And—
the ever industrious U.S. think tanks have taken off their shelves a whole host of proposals that could
defuse the crisis. Disputes over maritime territorial rights fall under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and should be settled
in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). (The fact that the United States did not ratify the treaty involved seems immaterial because Washington typically operates
as if it were committed to UNCLOS.) But such settlements take years. In the short term, the think tankers are calling on China and Japan to establish a hotline so that
their leaders will be better able to nip in the bud any unintended confrontations. Moreover, both nations are urged to declare unequivocally that “military force is
not an option.” A more ambitious plan calls for a return to a derailed 2010 agreement for the joint development of gas fields in the South China Sea. The Economist
suggests that the nations involved should do the environment a favor and turn the islands and surrounding seas into marine protected areas to combat overfishing,
a problem that seriously threatens the economies and ecology of the region. Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace points out that to
combat overfishing, China, Vietnam and Taiwan have already “initiated fishing seasons, periodic bans, and limits on sizes of catches to support sustainable
harvesting, but these are not harmonized and often conflict.” Hence Paal calls “greater control of the fishing fleets, with effective sanctions on misbehavior under
rules agreed upon in common, [an] achievable and responsible goal.” One must acknowledge that islands are not fought over simply as real estate but because they
serve as markers for determining maritime rights. According to a widely followed reading of international law, a nation’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) extends two
hundred miles off its shores. Thus, if nations can populate and prove ownership over tiny islands in their near seas, they can expand their EEZ and gain access to the
surrounding natural resources—not only fish but also coveted fuels and minerals that lie beneath the seabed. Hence, for nations such as China and Japan, whose
economies are highly dependent on the secure access to and development of such resources, these islands are much more than “piles of rocks.” In Sharing the
Resources of the South China Sea, Mark Valencia, Jon Van Dyke and Noel Ludwig suggest establishing “regional sovereignty” over the islands in the South China Sea
among the six claimants, allowing them to collectively manage the islands, territorial seas and airspace. Of course, this would require an agreement among the
parties as how to share the spoils. Another option, put forward by Peter Dutton of the Naval War College, would emulate the resolution of the dispute over
Svalbard, an island located between Norway and Greenland. The Treaty of Spitsbergen, signed in 1920, awarded primary sovereignty over Svarlbard to Norway but
assigned resource-related rights to all signatories. Applying this model to the South and East China Seas likely would entail giving sovereignty to China while
permitting other countries to benefit from the resources. Though, at least in the near term, such a solution is unlikely to be accepted by the other claimants. Still
others have suggested declaring a moratorium on any exploration until the tensions are defused and conflicts are worked out. And a troika of foreign ministers in
the region, including nations not directly involved such as Indonesia and Australia, has been urged to help work out an evenhanded solution. Those
who
hold that all these suggestions are naive should note that such settlements do take place. One case will have to
stand for several others. In 2009, five years after the decades-old dispute was brought to court, the ICJ settled a dispute between Ukraine and Romania over the
Black Sea, whose seabed holds an estimated ten million tons of oil. One key issue was whether the Serpent Island would be considered a cliff or an island. The
Romanians claimed it was “a cliff” (hence irrelevant to territorial demarcation) while Ukraine held it was “an island” and thus that Ukraine’s maritime boundaries
extended beyond Serpent Island’s shores. The ICJ ruled it a cliff and delivered a judgment that granted Romania about 80 percent of the disputed area (though the
oil was more concentrated on the Ukrainian side). Both sides accepted the decision. If cooler heads prevail and Washington continues to throw its weight in support
of tensions reduction and conflict resolution by negotiation, some of these
proposals or others like them may carry the day. All sides
surely realize—given the fragile state of the global economy, the political transition in China, the rise of nationalism
that threatens to spin out of control—that this is a particularly poor time to escalate tensions.
Wont escalate—tensions are bluffs for negotiating leverage
Gupta ’11 (10/23 Rukmani Gupta, Associate Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and
Analyses,10/23/11, South China Sea Conflict? No Way, the-diplomat.com/2011/10/23/south-china-seaconflict-no-way/
Despite what opinion pieces in the Global Times may say, there’s reason to suspect that China doesn’t
want to escalate conflict in the region. Although commentary from the United States has suggested that
China considers the South China Sea a ‘core interest,’ no official Chinese writing can be found to
corroborate this. In addition, China’s caution can also be seen as a reflection on Chinese military
capabilities, which aren’t seen as strong enough to win a war over the South China Sea. In fact, the China
National Defence News, published by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s General Political
Department, has likened the use of force by China in the South China Sea to shooting one’s own foot.
Not only would the use of force bring ASEAN together on the issue, it could conceivably involve the
United States and Japan, derail China’s plans for continued economic growth and undo China’s
diplomacy. Chinese declarations on the South China Sea can therefore be seen as attempts to
exaggerate claims so as to secure a better negotiating stance.
1NC Chemical Industry
Environmental regs biggest i/l to collapse the chem industry
Shannon 10
Mike, Global and US Sector Leader Chemicals and Performance Technologies, “The Outlook for the US
Chemical Industry” KMPG
http://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/us-chemical-industryoutlook.pdf
US chemical companies are also concerned with the Regulation on Registration, Evaluation,
Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) implemented by the European Union (EU).
While this regulation has no effect on US soil, US producers exporting an additive or solvent or
other substances for use by an EU manufacturer may find their product within REACH
jurisdiction. 66 The European Commission has estimated that the direct costs of REACH to the
chemical industry will total US $2.8 billion over the first 11 years of the regulation. 67 In the US,
mechanisms to limit carbon and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have the greatest
potential to influence the chemical industry. Existing US cap-and-trade programs include: •
Acid Rain Program (part of the 1990 Clean Air Act) • NOx Budget Trading Program (first
administered in 2003) • Clean Air Interstate Rule which uses a cap-and-trade system designed to
reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides nationwide by 70 percent 66 Chemical News &
Intelligence: ‘Costs of EU chemical regulations reach US businesses,’ February 17, 2010 67
European Commission: ‘REACH in Brief,’ October 2007 • Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a
market-based effort by ten northeast and mid-Atlantic states to limit GHG emissions •
Midwestern Greenhouse Gas Reduction Accord and the Western Climate Initiative in which US
states and jurisdictions in Canada and Mexico are designing regional cap and-trade programs
EPA monitoring regs crush the chem industry
Shannon 10
Mike, Global and US Sector Leader Chemicals and Performance Technologies, “The Outlook for the US
Chemical Industry” KMPG
http://www.kpmg.com/US/en/IssuesAndInsights/ArticlesPublications/Documents/us-chemical-industryoutlook.pdf
New EPA regulations also carry a heavy price tag for compliance. On September 22, 2009, the
EPA finalized the Mandatory Greenhouse Gases Reporting Rule, which includes reporting for a
wide range of public and industrial sources. 70 Many chemical companies will be required to
install some sort of monitoring devices, some of which will cost US$40,000 – 80,000 per
emissions point, according to some estimates. 71 The EPA estimates that compliance with the
new rule will cost the private sector US$115 million in 2010, and US$72 million per year
thereafter. 72 The ACC predicts that the compliance cost for companies will be much higher,
based on the costs of installing the monitors and the added costs of gathering data for reports
to the EPA. 73
Global warming regulations are weakening the chemical industry.
Lammey ‘8
Alan Lammy, Oil and Natural Gas Futures Analyst. May 5, 2008. Natural Gas Weekly. “Chemical BusinessCycle Downturn Could Be Bearish for Gas Market”. Lexis.
"There are more and more regulations forced upon the industry as a consequence of newly
developed climate-change policies," another industry director said. "And, of course, the industry
will have to live with high oil and natural gas prices for the foreseeable future. The profitability of
the chemical industry has always been held captive to the domestic and worldwide economies,
plus the cost of its feedstock oil and gas. We're already starting to see a slow down for our
products. So as we slow our production accordingly, it will undoubtedly put more natural gas
supply back on the market."
Naval Power 1NC
Our fleet can take anyone’s—no challengers
Work 12 - United States Under Secretary of the Navy and VP of Strategic Studies @ Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments
Robert O, "The Coming Naval Century," May, Proceedings Magazine - Vol. 138/5/1311, US Naval
Institute, www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-05/coming-naval-century
For those in the military concerned about the impact of such cuts, I would simply say four things:¶
• Any grand strategy starts with an assumption that all resources are scarce, requiring a balancing
of commitments and resources. As political commentator Walter Lippmann wrote: “The nation
must maintain its objectives and its power in equilibrium, its purposes within its means, and its
means equal to its purposes.”¶ • The upcoming defense drawdown will be less severe than past
post–World War II drawdowns. Accommodating cuts will be hard, but manageable.¶ • At the
end of the drawdown, the United States will still have the best and most capable armed forces
in the world. The President well appreciates the importance of a world-class military. “The United
States remains the only nation able to project and sustain large-scale military operations over
extended distances,” he said. “We maintain superior capabilities to deter and defeat adaptive
enemies and to ensure the credibility of security partnerships that are fundamental to regional
and global security. In this way our military continues to underpin our national security and global
leadership, and when we use it appropriately, our security and leadership is reinforced.”¶ • Most
important, as the nation prioritizes what is most essential and brings into better balance its
commitments and its elements of national power, we will see the beginning of a Naval Century—
a new golden age of American sea power.¶ The Navy Is More Than Ships¶ Those who judge U.S.
naval power solely by the number of vessels in the Navy’s battle force are not seeing the bigger
picture. Our battle force is just one component—albeit an essential one—of a powerful
National Fleet that includes the broad range of capabilities, capacities, and enablers resident in
the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. It encompasses our special-mission, prepositioning,
and surge-sealift fleets; the ready reserve force; naval aviation, including the maritime-patrol and
reconnaissance force; Navy and Marine special operations and cyber forces; and the U.S.
Merchant Marine. Moreover, it is crewed and operated by the finest sailors, Marines, Coast
Guardsmen, civilian mariners, and government civilians in our history, and supported by a
talented and innovative national industrial base.¶ If this were not enough, the heart of the
National Fleet is a Navy–Marine Corps team that is transforming itself from an organization
focused on platforms to a total-force battle network that interconnects sensors, manned and
unmanned platforms with modular payloads, combat systems, and network-enabled weapons,
as well as tech-savvy, combat-tested people into a cohesive fighting force. This Fleet and its
network would make short work of any past U.S. Fleet—and of any potential contemporary
naval adversary.
No deterrent effect
Daniel 2
Donald C.F. “The Future of American Naval Power: Propositions and Recommendations,” Globalization
and American Power. Chapter 27. Institute for National Strategic Studies National Defense University.
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Books/Books_2002/Globalization_and_Maritime_Power_Dec_02/01_toc.htm
In sum, there would seem to be a special role for the U.S. Navy in contingency response along
littorals, but, outside the context of a specific crisis, constant day-to-day presence does not do
much to deter unwanted behavior. Thus, it would seem a raising of false expectations to argue,
for example, that the “gapping of aircraft carriers in areas of potential crisis is an invitation to
disaster—and therefore represents culpable negligence on the part of America’s defense
decision-makers.”33 In the early 1960s, the United States maintained three aircraft carrier
battlegroups in the Mediterranean Sea but later gradually found that it needed to scale back.
Currently, a single battlegroup operates there for less than 9 months of the year on average. This
is a significant reduction, but no one can prove that the Mediterranean region became less stable.
Conversely, the Navy began to maintain a regular presence in the Arabian Gulf in 1979, but this
did not prevent Iran or Iraq from attacking ships during their war. In the 1980s, attacks
generally increased in number over the 8 years of the war. As for deterring the initiation of a
crisis in the first place, it is essentially impossible for an outsider to prove that such deterrence
was successful except in the rare case in which a deterred party admits that he was deterred and
states the reasons. Adam Siegel, John Arquilla, Paul Huth, Paul Davis, and a Rutgers Center for
Global Security and Democracy team led by Edward Rhodes have each attempted to study the
effects of forward presence and general deterrence. The deficiency of such study is always in
making the definitive link between them. The majority of these studies suggest that
“[h]istorically seapower has not done well as a deterrent” in preventing the outbreak of
conflicts,36 principally because land-based powers not dependent on overseas trade are
relatively “insensitive” to the operations of naval forces.
Naval power not key to hegemony
Goure 10
Daniel Goure. PhD in IR, BA in government, VP of the Lexington Institute, member of the Department of
Defense Transition Team, former director of Strategic Competitiveness for the Secretary of State, senior
analyst on national security and defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses. “Can the Case be
Made for Naval Power?” 2 July 2010. Lexington Institute. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/can-thecase-be-made-for-naval-power-?a=1&c=1171
More broadly, it appears that the nature of the security challenges confronting the U.S. has
changed dramatically over the past several decades. There are only a few places where even
large-scale conventional conflict can be considered possible. None of these would be primarily
maritime in character although U.S. naval forces could make a significant contribution by
employing its offensive and defensive capabilities over land. For example, the administration’s
current plan is to rely on sea-based Aegis missile defenses to protect regional allies and U.S.
forces until a land-based variant of that system can be developed and deployed. The sea ways,
sometimes called the global commons, are predominantly free of dangers. The exception to this
is the chronic but relatively low level of piracy in some parts of the world. So, the classic reasons
for which nations build navies, to protect its own shores and its commerce or to place the
shores and commerce of other states in jeopardy, seem relatively unimportant in today’s world.
China makes naval power obsolete—anti-access/area-denial capabilities
effectively shut out US ships
Krepinevich 9— president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Andrew, “The Pentagon’sWasting Assets: The Eroding Foundations of American Power” Foreign Affairs
Volume 88 • Number 4, July/August
In East Asia, an even more formidable challenge is emerging. China’s People’s Liberation Army is
aggressively developing capabilities and strategies to degrade the U.S. military’s ability to
project power into the region. The PLA’s buildup is being guided by the lessons drawn by the
Chinese military from the two Iraq wars and the 1999 war in the Balkans. The Chinese were
particularly impressed by the effectiveness of U.S. precision-strike capabilities and the role played
by space systems, which provided reliable navigation and communications, as well as weather,
targeting, and missile-warning data. The effort is also being driven by the Chinese experience
during the 1995–96 Taiwan Strait crisis, when a U.S. aircraft carrier, the U.S.S. Nimitz, entered the
Taiwan Strait to compel China to stand down from its threats to Taiwan. This display of U.S. naval
power bolstered China’s determination to curb the United States’ access to East Asia. Senior
Chinese political and military leaders decided it would be foolhardy to challenge the U.S. military
head-on. Instead, China is working to combine Western technology with Eastern stratagems,
aiming to be able to seize the initiative in the event of a conflict by exploiting the element of
surprise. The Chinese approach would entail destroying or disrupting the U.S. military’s
communications networks and launching preemptive attacks, to the point where such attacks,
or even the threat of such attacks, would raise the costs of U.S. action to prohibitive levels. The
Chinese call the military capabilities that support this strategy “assassin’s mace.” The underlying
mantra is that assassin’s mace weapons and techniques will enable “the inferior” (China) to
defeat “the superior” (the United States). Chinese efforts are focused on developing and fielding
what U.S. military analysts refer to as “anti-access/area-denial” (a2/ad) capabilities. Generally
speaking, Chinese anti-access forces seek to deny U.S. forces the ability to operate from forward
bases, such as Kadena Air Base, on Okinawa, and Andersen Air Force Base, on Guam. The Chinese
are, for example, fielding large numbers of conventionally armed ballistic missiles capable of
striking these bases with a high degree of accuracy. Although recent advances in directed-energy
technology—such as solid-state lasers—may enable the United States to field significantly more
effective missile defense systems in the next decade, present defenses against ballistic missile
attacks are limited. These defenses can be overwhelmed when confronted with missile
barrages. The intended message to the United States and its East Asian allies and partners is
clear: China has the means to put at risk the forward bases from which most U.S. strike aircraft
must operate. Area-denial capabilities are aimed at restricting the U.S. Navy’s freedom of action
from China’s coast out to “the second island chain”— a line of islands that extends roughly from
the southeastern edge of Japan to Guam. The PLA is constructing over-the-horizon radars,
fielding unmanned aerial vehicles, and deploying reconnaissance satellites to detect U.S.
surface warships at progressively greater distances. It is acquiring a large number of submarines
armed with advanced torpedoes and high-speed, sea-skimming ascms to stalk U.S. carriers and
their escorts. (In 2006, a Chinese submarine surfaced in the midst of a U.S. carrier strike group,
much to the U.S. Navy’s embarrassment.) And it is procuring aircraft equipped with high-speed
ascms and fielding antiship ballistic missiles that can strike U.S. carriers at extended ranges.
Advanced antiship mines may constrain U.S. naval operations even further in coastal areas. The
implications of these efforts are clear. East Asian waters are slowly but surely becoming
another potential no-go zone for U.S. ships, particularly for aircraft carriers, which carry shortrange strike aircraft that require them to operate well within the reach of the PLAs a2/ad systems
if they want remain operationally relevant. The large air bases in the region that host the U.S. Air
Force’s short-range strike aircraft and support aircraft are similarly under increased threat. All
thus risk becoming wasting assets. If the United States does not adapt to these emerging
challenges, the military balance in Asia will be fundamentally transformed in Beijing’s favor. This
would increase the danger that China might be encouraged to resolve outstanding regional
security issues through coercion, if not aggression.
Naval Power 2NC—UQ
Besides a 2-1 fleet displacement advantage over Russia and China combined
the US Navy is qualitatively superior
Work 9 - United States Under Secretary of the Navy and VP of Strategic Studies @ Center for Strategic
and Budgetary Assessments
Robert, VP of Strategic Studies @ Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, “Strategy for the
Long Haul: the US Navy Charting A Course for Tomorrow’s Fleet”,
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/PubLibrary/R.20090217.The_US_Navy_Charti/R.20090217.Th
e_US_Navy_Charti.pdf
What this means is that the United States currently faces only two plausible naval competitors
— Russia and China. The aggregate displacement of the combined fleets of these two countries
amounts to 1,186,715 tons. With a war fleet of 3,121,014 tons, the US Navy enjoys a 2.63-toone advantage in fleet displacement — and fleet capabilities — over the combined RussianChinese fleet. However, these figures assume that every Russian and Chinese ship is well
maintained — a questionable assumption. For example, a recent review of the Russian Navy
reveals that thirteen Russian ships, amounting to some 113,922 tons of shipping, are inoperable
due to poor maintenance.13 Despite some recent embarrassing maintenance inspections on US
Navy ships,14 in any comparison with these two potential naval adversaries, it seems likely that
the US Navy enjoys an even wider advantage in terms of both immediately available combatready warships and overall combat capabilities than a simple comparison of fleet displacements
suggests. When factoring in the 2,445,555 tons of warships operated by US friends and allies, the
US naval advantage over its potential naval competitors only widens.
US is not facing naval challengers—other aspects of heg outweigh
Goure 10
Daniel Goure. PhD in IR, BA in government, VP of the Lexington Institute, member of the Department of
Defense Transition Team, former director of Strategic Competitiveness for the Secretary of State, senior
analyst on national security and defense issues with the Center for Naval Analyses. “Can the Case be
Made for Naval Power?” 2 July 2010. Lexington Institute. http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/can-thecase-be-made-for-naval-power-?a=1&c=1171
This is no longer the case. The U.S. faces no great maritime challengers. While China appears to
be toying with the idea of building a serious Navy this is many years off. Right now it appears to
be designing a military to keep others, including the United States, away, out of the Western
Pacific and Asian littorals. But even if it were seeking to build a large Navy, many analysts argue
that other than Taiwan it is difficult to see a reason why Washington and Beijing would ever come
to blows. Our former adversary, Russia, would have a challenge fighting the U.S. Coast Guard,
much less the U.S. Navy. After that, there are no other navies of consequence. Yes, there are
some scenarios under which Iran might attempt to close the Persian Gulf to oil exports, but how
much naval power would really be required to reopen the waterway? Actually, the U.S. Navy
would probably need more mine countermeasures capabilities than it currently possesses.
Naval Power 2NC—Not Key to Heg
naval decline won’t collapse heg
Friedman 7
(George, Stratfor, April)
The issue for the United States is not whether it should abandon control of the seas -- that would
be irrational in the extreme. Rather, the question is whether it has to exert itself at all in order to
retain that control. Other powers either have abandoned attempts to challenge the United
States, have fallen short of challenging the United States or have confined their efforts to
building navies for extremely limited uses, or for uses aligned with the United States. No one has
a shipbuilding program under way that could challenge the United States for several generations.
One argument, then, is that the United States should cut its naval forces radically -- since they
have, in effect, done their job. Mothballing a good portion of the fleet would free up resources
for other military requirements without threatening U.S. ability to control the sea-lanes. Should
other powers attempt to build fleets to challenge the United States, the lead time involved in
naval construction is such that the United States would have plenty of opportunities for recommissioning ships or building new generations of vessels to thwart the potential challenge.
The counterargument normally given is that the U.S. Navy provides a critical service in what is
called littoral warfare. In other words, while the Navy might not be needed immediately to
control sea-lanes, it carries out critical functions in securing access to those lanes and projecting
rapid power into countries where the United States might want to intervene. Thus, U.S. aircraft
carriers can bring tactical airpower to bear relatively quickly in any intervention. Moreover, the
Navy's amphibious capabilities -- particularly those of deploying and supplying the U.S. Marines -make for a rapid deployment force that, when coupled with Naval airpower, can secure hostile
areas of interest for the United States. That argument is persuasive, but it poses this problem: The
Navy provides a powerful option for war initiation by the United States, but it cannot by itself
sustain the war. In any sustained conflict, the Army must be brought in to occupy territory -- or,
as in Iraq, the Marines must be diverted from the amphibious specialty to serve essentially as
Army units. Naval air by itself is a powerful opening move, but greater infusions of airpower are
needed for a longer conflict. Naval transport might well be critically important in the opening
stages, but commercial transport sustains the operation. If one accepts this argument, the case
for a Navy of the current size and shape is not proven. How many carrier battle groups are
needed and, given the threat to the carriers, is an entire battle group needed to protect them? If
we consider the Iraq war in isolation, for example, it is apparent that the Navy served a function
in the defeat of Iraq's conventional forces. It is not clear, however, that the Navy has served an
important role in the attempt to occupy and pacify Iraq. And, as we have seen in the case of Iran,
a blockade is such a complex politico-military matter that the option not to blockade tends to
emerge as the obvious choice.
Alliance Advantage Answers
Russia-China Relations High
China-Russian relations high
Denyer 5/20
Simon Denyer (writer for The Washington Post), 5/20/2014, “Russia and China unite around the memory of World War II”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/20/russia-and-china-unite-around-the-memory-of-world-war-ii/, 6/28/2014,
BD
Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping talked grandly of a new phase
of cooperation that beckoned between their two nations when they met on the sidelines of an Asian
security summit in Shanghai on Tuesday.¶ The two men have a few things in common: both are strong, authoritarian leaders,
fiercely nationalistic and keen to counter Washington’s influence in the region, albeit in different ways: but they also found
something else they shared this week, a desire to commemorate World War II.¶ Chinese President Xi
Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a statement on strategic cooperation on the first
of a two-day summit in Shanghai, Tuesday.¶ In their joint statement, the two men talked about
celebrating the 70th anniversary of the end of the war, an anniversary that does not even fall until
next year. A strange priority you might think, except that both men have been intent for some time on
making as much political capital as possible about their respective country’s roles in defeating fascism .
Relations high- security cooperation
ITAR-TASS 6/6
ITAR-TASS News Agency, 6/6/2014, “Russia-China security cooperation mechanism proves high level of relations”, http://en.itartass.com/world/735130, 6/28/2014, BD
BEIJING, June 06. /ITAR-TASS/. Russian-Chinese cooperation
mechanism on law enforcement and security,
created on China’s initiative, proves once again “a high level of confidence in the Russian-Chinese
relations”, Russia's Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev told journalists on Friday.¶ “We assume that our cooperation
in this format will make it possible to reveal in good time and to take away all stumbling blocks the
Russian-Chinese partnership faces on its development path,” Patrushev said after a meeting of the cooperation
mechanism in the Chinese capital.¶ In Beijing, Patrushev and Meng Jianzhu, the head of the Commission for Political and Legal Affairs of the
Communist Party of China (CPC) Central Committee, discussed ways to upgrade security cooperation.¶ In
the course of his visit to
China, Patrushev also attended a new round of strategic security consultations between Russia and a
Chinese delegation led by State Councillor Yang Jiechi.
Relations high- energy deal
Piet 6/17
Remi Piet (writer for Aljazeera, Assistant Professor of Public Policy, Diplomacy and International Political Economy at Qatar University),
6/17/2014, “Russia-China energy deal: Geopolitical tectonic shift”, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/06/russia-china-energyalliance-ge-201461765254926525.html, 6/28/2014, BD
Late last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, agreed on
an unprecedented 30-year energy agreement, estimated at $400bn. By signing this historic deal, the
Chinese state oil company CNPC and its subsidiary PetroChina - one of the world's ten largest
companies - both secured essential natural gas supplies to fuel future Chinese economic growth and
further increase Beijing's influence on the Russian economy.¶ In parallel, this agreement firmly
strengthens the strategic Russian-Chinese cooperation ties and guarantees a much needed source of
income for an ailing Russian economy currently experiencing the first signs of a recession worsened by
US and European sanctions to curb Russian policy towards Ukraine¶ Recent developments in Ukraine have triggered
the conclusion of this accord. The economic and geopolitical consequences of the conflict for Russia have been paramount in softening Russian
demands in a deal whose conflictive negotiations lasted for mo
AT: SCS/Senkaku
Non-unique and no impact – China is pulling back from Senkaku to preserve
relations – also no retal
Yōji 6-10-14 Kōda Yōji, retired vice admiral of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, “Maritime
Concerns and the Future of Sino-Japanese Relations”, Nippon.com, 6/10/14
http://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a03102/ JDI14 LabBKG
The Japanese Coast Guard has been dispatching patrol vessels on regular rounds in response to the presence of Chinese ships in waters around
the islands. While
the Japanese Coast Guard keeps an eye on the activities of Chinese vessels, it is a law
enforcement body and can only take action in civil incidents. Under the Japan Coast Guard Act, the role of the Coast
Guard is to “ensure maritime safety”; its mission does not extend to defending territorial waters. It is not authorized to use force
against foreign government vessels engaged in illegal activities and can only issue warnings or request
ships to leave the area. Coast Guard patrol vessels ensure maritime safety and security in the vicinity of the Senkakus and
minimally assert Japanese control of the islands by inhibiting incursions and limiting the duration Chinese
ships stay in surrounding waters. Japan and China’s dispute over the Senkaku Islands emerged suddenly in the latter half of the
1960s. After that, tensions increased slowly until 2008, when the situation rapidly deteriorated. Japan’s move to nationalize the islands further
strained relations and brought the dispute over the islands to a peak. But since
around the middle of 2013 the situation has
been holding more or less steady at the level of mutual eyeballing between the patrol vessels
dispatched by the two nations to the waters around the Senkakus. This may be seen as a sign that the
Japanese and Chinese governments have been taking steps to prevent the situation from
deteriorating further and thereby keep things quiet between them as a precondition for the
improvement of bilateral relations. Mutual efforts have been made to cool off public opinion, and
China in particular has taken actions to quell extreme nationalism and anti-Japanese sentiment. As
evidence of this posture, the Maritime SDF and the Chinese navy have not deployed vessels in the vicinity of
the islands but have limited themselves to providing of support for maritime surveillance and the like and
stationing ships on remote standby in readiness for unexpected situations. The measured nature of this response
may be seen as indicating that the Chinese have adopted a sensible, pragmatic mind-set: They are also
concerned about the current state of Sino-Japanese relations and, in line with hopes of seeking
improvement in the bilateral relationship, do not wish to see the situation regarding the Senkakus get
any worse. This is a welcome sign, but Japan still needs to keep its guard up and be ready for developments involving the use of both hard
and soft power.2
Alt cause – can’t resolve structural problems in Japan-China dispute
Yōji 6-10-14 Kōda Yōji, retired vice admiral of the Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force, “Maritime
Concerns and the Future of Sino-Japanese Relations”, Nippon.com, 6/10/14
http://www.nippon.com/en/in-depth/a03102/ JDI14 LabBKG
The front-line issues of the Senkakus and of the Ryūkyūs and the western Pacific involve fundamental
concerns of sovereignty and security for both China and Japan . This means it will be difficult to resolve
them over the short term . Building mutual trust is a key element in the process of finding solutions. But official
exchanges between Japan’s Self-Defense Forces and the Chinese military have been halted, and the only channels still open are the few
exchanges between retired officers from the two countries. I know from my own experience with such exchanges that they help make up for
the absence of official interactions, but they are quite roundabout. One impression I have formed from my contacts is that the Chinese, while
keeping up their hard line on the Senkakus, are starting to look for a way out of the confrontation, having come to sense that the
current
course leads to a dead end, that staying on this course will hurt China’s national interests and could
give rise to unexpected situations. As realistic steps to address these concerns, Japan and China urgently need to
take trust-building measures and establish a crisis management system . Japan and China should look to the 1972
US-Soviet Incidents at Sea Agreement, a pioneering pact that built trust between the main adversaries in the Cold War. The establishment by
Japan and Russia of the 1993 Agreement Concerning the Prevention of Incidents at Sea also served to improve bilateral relations and led to the
development of a crisis management system.(*4) Japan
and China need to forge a similar agreement. In order to achieve
key to
success in this endeavor will be to keep the trust-building process distinct from the emotionally
this, the two countries’ leaders will need show the same resolve as the US and Soviet leaders did during the Cold War. The
charged issues between the two countries . Both the leaders and the people of Japan and China must
display the courage and magnanimity to view the issue of the Senkakus Islands separately from other matters; only
in this way can we hope for a success story in the bilateral relationship.
Turn – US japan alliance strong now and causes conflict – china won’t initiate
CRI 6/1/14 CRI English, “Chinese Military Officer Lashes out at US-Japan Military Alliance” June 6, 2014
http://english.cri.cn/6909/2014/06/01/2821s829523.htm
A top Chinese military official has lashed out at the US and Japan, saying China opposes an assertive military alliance
emerging in the Asia-Pacific region. Wang Guanzhong, Deputy Chief of General Staff for the Chinese P eople's
L iberation A rmy, made the comments at an international security conference in Singapore. "We oppose the practice of
military alliances flexing muscles against third parties, resorting to threat or the use of force or seeking
so-called absolute security of one's own at the cost of the security of others." Wang's comments came a day
after a much-watched speech delivered by U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Shangri-La Dialogue. Hagel criticized China as being the
one taking unilateral actions on the South China Sea and said that the United States will maintain its leadership in the
Asia Pacific and defend the interests of its allies. He also expressed support for Japan in releasing its
so-called collective self-defense right, and reclaimed the U.S. position that the disputed Diaoyu Islands
are under the mutual defense treaty with Japan. Wang said he did not expect the language of "hegemonism"
and words of intimidation in Hagel's speech. The Chinese military officer underlines that no disputes or incidents
have been initiated by China on sovereign and maritime issues.
AT: Russia-China War
Their authors are wrong, misleading and fear-mongering – Russia doesn’t
truly fear China
Judah 13 Ben Judah, author of Fragile Empire: How Russia Fell In And Out of Love With Vladimir Putin
published by Yale University press, Open Democracy Russia, “Russia-China relations: fantasies and
reality” January 21st 2013 http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/ben-judah/russia-china-relationsfantasies-and-reality
Russia-China relations are the stuff of fantasies and paranoia, which reflect the deepest held views about world affairs
of those that expound them. They are what the West chooses to conjure up when they want to frighten
Russia . Here is an example: ‘Not all of them yet realize that, whatever quarrels they have with Warsaw or Washington, these will
soon pale beside the existential challenge they face along Russia's eastern and southern borders.’ These
are not the threats of an armchair general but the Polish foreign minister, Radek Sikorski, the great white hope of the EU, writing in The
Economist. Chinese
nightmares are also what the Russian foreign policy establishment stirs up to try and
frighten the Kremlin into modernizing and investing diplomatic capital into East Asian visits and
embassies. Listen to this terrified appeal from Sergey Karaganov, who has advised Yeltsin, Putin and Medvedev about the
wider world: ‘But, if current trends persist, Russia east of the Urals, and later the entire country, will become an appendage of China – a
warehouse of resources, and then an economic and political vassal. No “aggressive” or unfriendly effort by China will be needed; Russia will be
subdued by default.’ This
kind of fear-mongering is not restricted to politicians or the politically minded. A recent
New York Times special report announced that the borders of the Russian state are sooner or later,
likely to be redrawn by a demographic tidal wave: ‘Russia’s greatest geopolitical fear is fed by a very plausible scenario —
China, populous and resource-hungry, taking over large chunks of Siberia, part of Russia’s failing and emptying East. Hundreds of thousands of
Chinese have already crossed the border at the Amur River and set up trading settlements, intermarrying with Russians and Siberia’s native
nomadic minorities.’ Russia’s Chinese facts You could almost joke – ‘Tell me what you think about the future of the Sino-Russian relationship
and I will tell you what you think about the future of Russia.’ Is Moscow a successful, sovereign raw-material exporter to the world? Is it in
control of its dialogue with Beijing and has it secured its borders against corruption and migration? Is Russia a dystopian blend of Asiatic
settlement in the Far East, with neo-Tsarist propaganda and little better than Central Asian bureaucracy at the centre? Then Moscow
rules
an illusion of empire, which has ended up completely dependent on Beijing. This is why we have decided to begin
2013 with this special series on Russia-China Relations: Fantasies and Realities. Our first theme is the fantasies and facts behind Russian foreign
policy towards Beijing. Alexander Gabuyev, Moscow’s leading young writer on China, examines how Russian
sinology has been in
collapse and decay since the fall of the USSR, leading to a rise in ignorance, fear-mongering and bad policy choices by the
Kremlin. Our second theme is the reality of the Russian Far East. In the summer of 2012 I spent several weeks travelling through the remote
regions most settled by Chinese migrants, such as Birobidzhan, Khabarovsk and Primorye, for my forthcoming book ‘Fragile Empire: How Russia
Fell In And Out Of Love With Vladimir Putin’. I draw on this experience to argue Russia is not losing Siberia. To look at what the politics of
Putin’s Far East really are, Russia’s leading reportage writer Olesya Gerasimenko shows how surprisingly un-Asian, but shockingly hostile to
Moscow the region has become. Opening up each power’s world-view, we present the foreign policy dreams of leading Russian and Chinese
specialists. Pavel Salin, a frequent commentator in Russia’s leading journal Russia In Global Affairs, argues that Moscow has taken fright at an
impending Chinese world order and need to recalibrate its position in world affairs, especially towards the United States. The view from China is
presented by Liu Jun from the country’s hub of Russia studies at East China Normal University in Shanghai. He lays out what China’s new
leadership wants from Russia and why the
draw closer.
USA’s return to Asia means that Moscow and Beijing might have to
Biod Bad
Species Loss Good FL
Extinctions are good – human abuse is key to diversify ecosystems
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 170-171
The same trend of long-drawn-out survival of the final relicts has been further considered by Bob
May's group at Oxford, particularly Sean Nee. The Oxford group arc vociferous wailers of gloom
and doom: 'Extinction episodes, such as the anthropogenic one currently under way, result in a
pruned tree of life.' But they go on to argue that the vast majority of groups survive this pruning,
so that evolution goes on, albeit along a different path if the environment is changed. Indeed,
the fossil record has taught us to expect a vigorous evolutionary response when the ecosystem
changes significantly. This kind of research is more evidence to support the idea that evolution
thrives on culling. The planet did really well from the Big Five mass-extinction events. The
victims' demise enabled new environments to develop and more diversification took place in
other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In just this same way the planet
can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder the abuse, the greater the
change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward the extinctions of a whole
selection of vulnerable organisms.
The impact is the destruction of all life on Earth
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 182-184
The system of life on Earth behaves in a similar way for all its measurable variables, whether
they are communities or ecosystems. For sand grains, substitute species or genes. For
avalanches, substitute extinctions. Power laws tell us that large avalanches or large extinctions arc
much less common than small ones. The controlling factors for the sand piles arc weight and
angle of the sides of the pile; for mammals they arc space and food within the ecosystem. We can
kick the sand pile with our feet, and we can reduce the space and the food by changing the
environment. But what would happen to the life-Earth system without these external changes?
Could it be like a pile without avalanches, eventually collapsing into a mess of white noise? The
answer lies in our theory of exponential diversification within macro-evolution; the curve ever
rising towards the vertical when the Fossil Record 2 Family data are plotted (see figure 3,c). The
situation starts to become critical when numbers rise above a comfortable quantity, whether the
system is a pile of sand, cars on a motorway or large mammals in America. If there were no mass
extinctions, that exponential curve really could have risen to the truly vertical. It could have
happened long ago, and it could happen again if there were no extinctions holding it back from
the vertical. If that were so, all life on planet Earth would cease. It would need to start again
from scratch. But that would be impossible. For example, when a teacher cleans the blackboard
of the lesson's writing, specks of chalk dust are reflected in the rays of sunlight pouring through
the windows. There's no way the dust can be put back into the writing on the board, let alone
into the stick of chalk. Could this one-way process, entropy, be like evolution facing the
exponential? There is no going backwards, only forwards. To stay still is impossible. As with the
chalk dust and the universe leading towards higher entropy, it may be true to say that within the
history of life there is forever the unrelenting trend to less order and at the same time towards
greater complexity, until bits of the system reach a critical edge.
Only a risk of offense – every mass extinction event leads to mass
repopulation
Braun 10 – PhD, Curator, Dept. of Systematic Biology
Michael, “Evolution after extinction: New fossils force rethink,”
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2010/02/17/evolution_after_extinction/
Mass extinctions have devastated biodiversity many times over the past 540 million years,
according to scientists. After each cataclysmic event the species that survived diversified and
filled the planet with life again.¶ Until now the fossil record supported the theory that species
that survived extinction events–which ranged from meteorite impacts to an eruptions of super
volcanoes (and in our time the mass destruction of ecosystems by humans)–did so in much
smaller forms. This “Lilliput effect,” in which post-extinction life is downsized, was believed to
have persisted for millions of years.¶ But now a new fossil discovery in the U.S. by a team of
French, German, Swiss, and American scientists may change what we know about the evolution
of species after an extinction crisis.¶ Giant gastropods found in marine sediments in Utah dating
from only about 1 million years after the P-T mass extinction. The scale bar represents 1
centimeter (0.4 inch).¶ © A. Brayard/J. Thomas/CNRS¶ The team discovered “giant” gastropods,
mollusks that lived on the seabed and are related to present-day land snails. The gastropods,
found in Utah, date from only 1 million years after the greatest mass extinction of all time, the
Permian-Triassic extinction which wiped out about 90 percent of marine species about 250 million
years ago.¶ The newly discovered gastropods call into question the existence of a “Lilliput
effect,” the reduction in the size of organisms inhabiting postcrisis biota, normally spanning
several million years, said the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) in a news
release this week.¶ The finding, published in the February 2010 issue of the journal Geology, has
“drastically changed” paleontologists’ current thinking regarding evolutionary dynamics and the
way the biosphere functions in the aftermath of a mass extinction event, CNRS said.¶ “The history
of life on Earth has been punctuated by numerous mass extinctions, brief periods during which
biodiversity is considerably reduced, followed by phases of re-conquest of the biosphere,
corresponding to the diversification of those species that survived .
Extinction Good 2NC
Extend the Boutler 2 evidence – human intervention in the environment disrupts the natural
equilibrium which forces new advances in evolution. Nature can use the abuse to become stronger.
Our evidence says nature is like a slowly growing sand pile – everything continues linearly with large,
unpredictable collapses. These collapses are key to diversification – if the sand just kept
accumulating, the pile would get too large. If no species died out, all of the land and food would be
consumed and all life on earth would end. We couldn’t come back from this mass extinction because
of entropy, so smaller extinctions along the way are good.
The more we hurt the environment, the more diversity will result
Scully, 2002 Malcolm G., Editor at Large of the Chronicle, The Chronicle of Higher Education, July 5, “The
Natural World: In the Long Run, or Maybe Sooner, We're Extinct”
His analyses of earlier extinctions lead him to conclude that nature is a self-organized system
that, when disrupted, will correct itself. One way it does so, he writes, is through extinction.
Species vanish, but the system survives. Citing Per Bak, a physicist now at the Imperial College of
Science, Technology and Medicine in London, who first described self-organized systems in 1987,
Boulter says that the best way to understand such systems is to envision a sand pile to which a
steady stream of grains is added. The stream creates a cone that grows larger and steeper, and
at some point collapses in an avalanche. Then the process starts again. In such systems, there
are long periods of relative calm and infrequent large disruptions. "If biological evolution really is
a self-organized Earth-life system, there are some very important consequences," he says. "One is
that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks, because it is the system
that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example, the end of the dinosaurs
enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were to reach infinity, there
would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop. Extinctions are necessary to
retain life on this planet." His research provides "more evidence to support the idea that
evolution thrives on culling," he says. "The planet did really well from the Big Five massextinction events. The victims' demise enabled new environments to develop and more
diversification took place in other groups of animals and plants. Nature was the richer for it. In
just this same way the planet can take advantage from the abuse we are giving it. The harder
the abuse, the greater the change to the environment. But it also follows that it brings forward
the extinctions of a whole selection of vulnerable organisms."
Extinction Good – Total Extinction
Without extinctions, there would be no room for life
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 67
If biological evolution really is a self-organised. Earth-life system there are some very important
consequences. One is that life on this planet continues despite internal and external setbacks,
because it is the system that recovers at the expense of some of its former parts. For example,
the end of the dinosaurs enabled mammals to diversify. Otherwise if the exponential rise were
to reach infinity, there would not be space or food to sustain life. It would come to a stop.
Extinctions are necessary to retain life on this planet.
Mass extinctions are key to prevent total extinction
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 82-83
A well-known example of exponential change is found in accounts of rises in species
populations, where numbers within a species increase at ever-faster rates until the graph's line
reaches almost the upright vertical. The mathematics of logarithms won't allow that point to be
reached, but usually some disturbance to the system stops it going on up. So, in the case of the
Big Five mass extinctions (figure 2.4) and the exponential change in total diversity (see figure
3.0, extinctions caused by changes outside the system prevent the curve rising far to the
vertical. It is a characteristic of life evolving as a self-organised system, with avalanches like a
sand pile, some from within and others from outside forces. For example, changes inside may
be such as genetical recombinations and small structural improvements. From outside, climate
change and new competitors can upset the balance. All these can cause the loss of a species.
Life on Earth needs extinctions for it to change and diversify.
Extinction Good – Evolution
Catastrophes are key to complexity
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 62
Changing environments on a planet with water, atmosphere and carbon compounds can create
life and evolution. For these systems to survive, let alone develop, catastrophes become
essential features within the complex processes. They initiate progress on the planet from simplicity to complexity and are driven forward by the reactions from inside the system. They have
the ability to change the noise from the boring unstructured hiss of white noise to the beauty
and orderly complexity of a Bach concerto.
Empirically proven by the Jurassic and Cretaceous
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 26-2
In the tranquil times of the Jurassic and Cretaceous there were very few and undramatic
environmental changes. Temperature and CO2 concentrations steadily increased well above
today's values. The vicious battles between individuals and groups of Mesozoic monsters did
not encourage major evolutionary changes. New species took over from earlier ones, a few new
Families originated when there was a major altercation in battle with other animals or with any of
the rare environmental changes. A few species and even genera became extinct. There was peace
and relative quietness on Earth: evolution happened on a small scale, origins mainly at the species
level, a few genera and fewer Families. Without big environmental changes there are few, if any,
big evolutionary advances. Especially during the middle of the Jurassic there were only small
and subtle changes in the marine and terrestrial environments. Without catastrophe there were
only small evolutionary changes during the time, usually at the level of the species and genus.
Extinction Good – Pre-Adaptation
Species accumulate random adaptations that only become valuable in times of crisis – mass extinction
is key to evolution
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 46-47
Out of adversity there is usually opportunity, and there was a really creative aspect of the
catastrophe. Those organisms that did survive were able to find new opportunities to express
structural adaptations. They were able to evolve through the mixing of genes or their mutations
that had been taking place quietly through the millions of years before the cull and immediately
afterwards. Because the environment had changed very little before the catastrophe there had
been no opportunities for these molecular characteristics to express themselves. Evolution was
going on inside the cells, in the genes' DNA, and was not showing up in structural features like
the colour of a mammal's eyes or a flower's petals. It was as though a strong genetic metal spring
had been winding up, collecting energy for millions of years, and then at an instant was
released. It caused quick increases in the species diversity of those animal and plant groups that
had been inhibited in the wrong environment with its attendant dominant groups of competitors.
Something like this was recognised by Darwin himself, unaware as he was of genes and DNA. He
called it `preadaptation'. Stephen Jay Gould, usually very good with words, called it 'exaptation'.
The process is at the centre of the adaptive evolutionary mechanisms, and works within the limits
of the fitness landscapes, enabling biology to respond to environmental changes and evolve.
Could it be that just as the environment appears to have changed in sudden bursts, separated by
millions of years of quiet calm, so organisms respond with matching steps of structural change,
either extinction or radiation, and stasis? It appears that mass-extinction events happen at
different times for different reasons and with very different severity and effect. We know that
each event is different and none can he predicted; nevertheless they do have things in common.
The events are triggered by environmental changes, possibly from fire and flood, so reducing light
and oxygen to slow down photosynthesis and respiration on land and in the sea. The consequent
culls usually lead to vacant ecological riches which are eventually occupied by new forms that
have adapted to the fresh conditions.
Extinction Good – Boulter’s Meathod = Awesome
Boutler complied all of the relevant data and it fit his equation
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 20-21
Instead, our energies have taken us into the very different world of data analysis, the
mathematics of complex systems and to the edge of chaos theory. Our approach is to
standardise all the data into the same format, with separate Microsoft Excel columns for names,
ages, location, ecosystem and other variables. To make sense of the incredible amounts of such
data, we propose models against which to test those data. If we think biodiversity is changing in a
particular way, we describe that way with a mathematical equation and see if the data can fit it.
We test to discover if there are any broad trends showing up to conform to the model. To our
great surprise the patterns that are emerging from our analysis of records of extinct plants and
animals are clear and definite, and our scientific results confirm our right to be very worried
about what is happening to life on our planet. We have found consistent patterns in these
evolutionary changes, in groups of animals that are extinct, and in others that survive. The
changes follow a simple model that can be expressed as a mathematical equation, and we use
this to predict likely trends in evolutionary change. It's rather like how weather forecasters
accumulate data from earlier records of location, temperature, wind and pressure. The patterns
arc then used to calculate how the values will go forwards in time, and separate statistical
methods give a reasonable amount of certainty. We have been doing something very similar
working from our evolutionary patterns, and it's now very clear that there is sudden and
unexpected interference in the patterns: the environmental changes caused by man.
Computer modeling of biodiversity is consistent with the data
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 21-22
Darwin's mentor, Charles Lyell, was one of the first geologists and is best remembered today for
his maxim 'the present is the key to the past'. This principle urges geologists to interpret ancient
structures by observing the way things happen in the present. I fear this oversimplification has
misguided many innocent students of geology, as journalistic phrases often do. I will argue in this
book for another way to explain the urgent crisis for biodiversity. This is by inverting Lyell's
phrase to become the past is the key to the present. That's what our article was all about, the one
Dilshat's e-mail to Taiwan told me had been accepted for publication: computer modelling from
fossil data. This paper works more subjectively than most modern evolutionary theory. That is
one reason why the work is so controversial. In it we interpret evolutionary patterns in the fossil
record with the statistics and mathematics of complex systems and chaos theory. As I will
explain in chapter 3, we compare our results with those from three other well-worked sets of
data: one set derived from purely random processes, a second from artificial sources, and the
third from natural ones. Our results have the same pattern as those from the third system.
Nature, we argue, is in control of itself: biological evolution is controlled from within that system
of life on Earth.
Extinction Good – Power Law = Accurate
Power law systems describe all natural events
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 63-65
Bak's article marked the start of something very exciting at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico,
under the creative leadership of Stuart Kauffman, a medic turned multidisciplinarian complexity
scientist. They shared some. of the excitement from the early 199os in their popular books, How
Nature Works and At Home in the Universe, looking for laws of complexity and encouraging
specialists from different disciplines to give data, ideas and methods of analysis. They started to
dare previously outrageous thinking; if liquid water is at the critical point, 0°C, when it becomes
ice why should not life also have its own critical point when it hangs between order and chaos?
But some force is required to drive the change. That is a major feature of self-organised
criticality: being at the boundary between one state and another, and making large to small
changes suddenly and unexpectedly. The changes come from forces entirely within the system
itself, not from outside. They generate complexity to be absorbed by the whole, as when ice
becomes water above 0°C or when high pressure causes graphite to become diamond. Within the
closed system of a sand pile, free of interference from weather and kids playing on the beach,
the avalanches happen necessarily and randomly. Measuring their size and timing reveals lots of
little sand slides and a very few big ones. If you plot these results as in figure 3.2 you see a
straight line expressing the power law. This is a mathematical identity that shows up in the selforganised systems found by Kauffman and Bak. You get the same-shaped curves they found
from sand piles in big databases of the fluctuations in financial markets, traffic jams and the
notation in Bach's music. A small number of large-scale features arc at one end of the straight
line and a large number of small-scale features are at the other. In between, the proportion gives
a straight change in the inter-relationship. Not only do we find the same sequence in our humanmade world, but there are also natural ones like landscapes, earthquake occurrences and
weather patterns, which also show this same straight-line identity. It is as though all natural
systems behave like this from within.
Extinction Good – Turns Global Warming
Climate change is key to evolution – changes in climate open up new opportunities
Boutler, 2002 Michael, professor for paleobiology at the Natural History Museum and the University of
East London. Launched Fossil Record 2, editor Palaeontological Association, secretary International
Organisation of Palaeobotany and UK representative at the International Union of Biological Sciences,
"Extinction: Evolution and the End of Man" p. 94-95
Global environments were set on a course of very steady change for 25 million years after the
extinction of the dinosaurs, having recovered from the catastrophe. The overall trend was
dominated by an increase in global surface temperatures. The hand of the tropics around the
Equator slowly widened out towards the north and south, reaching a maximum extreme about
co°N, 4s million years ago. Now it is 15°. The cause of this slow and steady increase in gently
oscillating temperature is not too clear, and the position of the planet in relation to the sun and
other systems may have had some influence. With changing sea level, the larger landmasses
encouraged warmer summers and without ice at the poles, continental winters would have been
much warmer than now. One unusual heat source came from the release of huge quantities of
natural gas buried in continental shelves that caused sporadic explosions on the surface. These
blowouts burned for thousands of years and caused regular erratic disturbances in the
environment, possibly causing a peak of global warming at the end of the Paleocene. Within the
overall warming trend, there were more and more local ecological changes influenced by
alterations in the global environment. Ecology and the geographic distribution of animals and
plants were becoming more varied than ever before. The newly evolved mammal groups
diversified fast in these new ecosystems, able to take advantage of the new environments
without threat from the old predators. They lived in the newly established broadleaf forests that
provided good protection from their new enemies, mainly other mammal species, and whose
trees also provided leafy food from sunlit branches.
1nc War
Biodiversity collapse solves war
Deudney 91 - Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society at the Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies, Princeton
Daniel, “Environment and security: Muddled thinking,” Book
Even if environmental degradation were to destroy the basic social and economic fabric of a
country or region, the impact on international order may not be very great. Among the first
casualties in such a country would be the capacity to wage war . The poor and wretched of the
earth may be able to deny an outside aggressor an easy conquest, but they are themselves a
minimal threat to other states. Contemporary offensive military operations require complex
organizational skills. Specialized industrial products, and surplus wealth.
Outweighs nuclear war
Myers 86
Grover, Major in USAF, “Aerospace Power: The Case for Indivisible Application”, p. 37-38
In other words, a major nonnuclear war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact could conceivably be as
destructive and deadly (albeit probably longer) as many theater nuclear scenarios. The trigger
of war may seem easier to pull, given that the potential level of destruction may not appear as
great. But nearly total destruction is still possible . During World War 11, the firebomb raids on cities
like Dresden and Tokyo killed far more people than the nuclear strikes on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Europe lost a generation (somewhere around 15 million men) in the trenches of World War I.
War leads to disease spread
Singer 2
Peter. Senior Fellow @ Brookings. “AIDS and International Security” Survival, Vol 44 No 1. Spring
Besides more soldiers dying from war’s accessories, these forces typically leave a swath of
disease in their path. The original spread of infection in East Africa can actually be traced
back to the axes of advance used by individual units in the Tanzanian army.52 At the same
time, the presence of war hinders efforts at countering the disease’s spread, further
heightening the impact of both. In Sierra Leone and the DRC, for example, all efforts at AIDS
prevention were put on hold by the breakdown of order during the wars.53 The added
harm of war is that valuable windows of opportunity, in nipping diseases before they reach
critical stages, are lost.
Extinction
Ryan 97
Dr. Frank. Medical Doctor. Virus X, p. 366
How might the human race appear to such an aggressively emerging virus? That teeming,
globally intrusive species, with its transcontinental air travel, massively congested cities,
sexual promiscuity, and in the less affluent regions — where the virus is most likely to first
emerge — a vulnerable lack of hygiene with regard to food and water supplies and
hospitality to biting insects' The virus is best seen, in John Hollands excellent analogy, as a
swarm of competing mutations, with each individual strain subjected to furious forces of natural
selection for the strain, or strains, most likely to amplify and evolve in the new ecological
habitat.3 With such a promising new opportunity in the invaded species, natural selection must
eventually come to dominate viral behavior. In time the dynamics of infection will select for a
more resistant human population. Such a coevolution takes rather longer in "human" time
— too long, given the ease of spread within the global village. A rapidly lethal and quickly
spreading virus simply would not have time to switch from aggression to coevolution. And
there lies the danger. Joshua Lederbergs prediction can now be seen to be an altogether logical
one. Pandemics are inevitable. Our incredibly rapid human evolution, our overwhelming
global needs, the advances of our complex industrial society, all have moved the natural
goalposts. The advance of society, the very science of change, has greatly augmented the
potential for the emergence of a pandemic strain. It is hardly surprising that Avrion Mitchison,
scientific director of Deutsches Rheuma Forschungszentrum in Berlin, asks the question: "Will we
survive!” We have invaded every biome on earth and we continue to destroy other species so
very rapidly that one eminent scientist foresees the day when no life exists on earth apart
from the human monoculture and the small volume of species useful to it. An increasing
multitude of disturbed viral-host symbiotic cycles are provoked into self-protective
counterattacks. This is a dangerous situation. And we have seen in the previous chapter how illprepared the world is to cope with it. It begs the most frightening question of all: could such
a pandemic virus cause the extinction of the human species?
No turns – Environmental collapse doesn’t lead to war – causality runs
opposite direction
Kumari 12 – Masters in International Relations; educated at University of Nottingham and The
University of Birmingham (Parmila, Securitising The Environment: A Barrier To Combating Environment
Degradation Or A Solution In Itself?, www.e-ir.info/2012/01/29/securitising-the-environment-a-barrierto-combating-environment-degradation-or-a-solution-in-itself/) [table omitted]
Secondly, the assertion that environmental degradation is a primary reason of conflict is purely
speculative (Barnett 2003:10). Barnett suggests that the ‘evidence’ provided in support is a
collection of historical events chosen to support the conflict- scarcity storyline and reify the
realist assumption that eventually humans will resort to violence (Barnett 2001:66). This is as
opposed to acknowledging that humans are equally capable of adapting. Thirdly, research
shows that it is abundance of resources which drives competition, not scarcity (Barnet 2003:11).
This makes sense because any territorial conquest to obtain resources will be expensive. A poor
country suffering from resource scarcity would not be able to afford an offensive war (Deudney
1990: 309-11).
2nc War – AT: Leads to War
No turn – studies show environmental collapse doesn’t lead to war
Deudney 91 - Hewlett Fellow in Science, Technology, and Society at the Center for Energy and
Environmental Studies, Princeton
Daniel, “Environment and security: Muddled thinking,” Book
The case for asserting that environmental degradation will cause institutional violence is weak ,
largely because of factors having little to do with environmental matters. Of course, today there
are some 169 independent states and environmental problems are diverse; there¬fore any
generalization will purely have important exceptions. Although many analogies for such conflict
can be drawn from historical expe¬rience, they fail to take into account the ways in which the
current international system differs from earlier ones. Because military aggression is prohibitively
costly, even large shifts in the relative power of states are less likely to cause war. War is a poor
way to resolve many of the conflicts that might arise from environmental degradation. The vitality
of the international trading system and complex interdependence in general also militate against
violence The result is a world system with considerable resilience and "rattle room" to weather
significant envi-ronmental disruption without significant violent conflict.
1nc Water Peace
Conflict inevitable absent shared water shortages
Deudney 91
Dan Deudney, Center for Energy and Environment Studies at Princeton, April 1991, Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, p. 26
Water wars. The most frequently mentioned scenario is that disputes over water supplies will
become acute as rainfall and runoff patterns are altered by atmospheric warming. Many rivers
cross international boundaries, and water is already becoming scarce in several arid regions. But it
seems less likely that conflicts over water will lead to interstate war than that the development
of jointly owned water resources will reinforce peace. Exploitation of water resources typically
requires expensive – and vulnerable – civil engineering systems such as dams and pipelines.
Large dams, like nuclear power plants, are potential weapons in the hands of an enemy. This
creates a mutual hostage situation which greatly reduces the incentives for states to employ
violence to resolve conflicts. Furthermore, there is evidence that the development of water
resources by antagonistic neighbors creates a network of common interests .
Water shortages facilitate a cosmopolitan ethic – makes conflict impossible
Leslie 2k
Jacques Leslie, water writer, July 2000, Harper’s Magazine, “Running Dry,”
http://www.customenv.com/WaterScarcity.html
Yet such wars haven’t quite happened. Aaron Wolf, an Oregon State University specialist in
water conflicts, maintains that the last war over water was fought between the Mesopotamian
city states of Lagash and Umma 4,500 years ago. Wolf has found that during the twentieth
century only 7 minor skirmishes were fought over water while 145 water-related treaties were
signed. He argues that one reason is strategic: in a conflict involving river water, the aggressor
would have to be both downstream (since the upstream nation enjoys unhampered access to the
river) and militarily superior. As Wolf puts it, “An upstream riparian would have no cause to
launch an attack, and a weaker state would be foolhardy to do so.” And if a powerful
downstream nation retaliates against a water diversion by, say, destroying its weak upstream
neighbor’s dam, it still risks the consequences, in the form of flood or pollution or poison from
upstream. So, until now, water conflicts have simmered but rarely boiled, perhaps because of
the universality of the need for water. Almost two fifths of the world’s people live in the 214 river
basins shared by two or more countries; the Nile links ten countries, whose leaders are
profoundly aware of one another’s hydrologic behavior. Countries usually manage to cooperate
about Water, even in unlikely circumstances. In 1957, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, and South
Vietnam formed the Mekong Committee, which exchanged information throughout the Vietnam
War. Through the 1980s and into the 1990s, Israeli and Jordanian officials secretly met once or
twice a year at a picnic table on the banks of the Yarmuk River to allocate the river’s water supply;
these so-called picnic-table summits occurred while the two nations disavowed formal diplomatic
contact. Jerome Delli Priscoli, editor of a thoughtful trade journal called Water Policy and a social
scientist at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, believes the whole notion of water conflict is
overemphasized: “Water irrigation helped build early communities and bring those communities
together in larger functional arrangements. Such community networking was a primary impetus
to the growth of civilization. Indeed, water may actually be one of humanity’s great learning
grounds for building community .... The thirst for water may be more persuasive than the
impulse toward conflict. ”
AT: Water Wars
No risk of resource wars---historical evidence all concludes neg---cooperation
is way more likely and solves
Jeremy Allouche 11 is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. "The sustainability and resilience of global water and food
systems: Political analysis of the interplay between security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade" Food PolicyVolume 36, Supplement 1, January 2011, Pages S3-S8 Accessed
via: Science Direct Sciverse
Water/food resources, war and conflict¶ The question of resource scarcity has led to many
debates on whether scarcity (whether of food or water) will lead to conflict and war. The
underlining reasoning behind most of these discourses over food and water wars comes from the
Malthusian belief that there is an imbalance between the economic availability of natural
resources and population growth since while food production grows linearly, population increases
exponentially. Following this reasoning, neo-Malthusians claim that finite natural resources place
a strict limit on the growth of human population and aggregate consumption; if these limits are
exceeded, social breakdown, conflict and wars result. Nonetheless, it seems that most empirical
studies do not support any of these neo-Malthusian arguments. Technological change and greater
inputs of capital have dramatically increased labour productivity in agriculture. More generally,
the neo-Malthusian view has suffered because during the last two centuries humankind has
breached many resource barriers that seemed unchallengeable.¶ Lessons from history: alarmist
scenarios, resource wars and international relations¶ In a so-called age of uncertainty, a number
of alarmist scenarios have linked the increasing use of water resources and food insecurity with
wars. The idea of water wars (perhaps more than food wars) is a dominant discourse in the media
(see for example Smith, 2009), NGOs (International Alert, 2007) and within international
organizations (UNEP, 2007). In 2007, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared that ‘water
scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict’ (Lewis,
2007). Of course, this type of discourse has an instrumental purpose; security and conflict are
here used for raising water/food as key policy priorities at the international level.¶ In the Middle
East, presidents, prime ministers and foreign ministers have also used this bellicose rhetoric.
Boutrous Boutros-Gali said; ‘the next war in the Middle East will be over water, not politics’
(Boutros Boutros-Gali in Butts, 1997, p. 65). The question is not whether the sharing of
transboundary water sparks political tension and alarmist declaration, but rather to what extent
water has been a principal factor in international conflicts. The evidence seems quite weak.
Whether by president Sadat in Egypt or King Hussein in Jordan, none of these declarations have
been followed up by military action.¶ The governance of transboundary water has gained
increased attention these last decades. This has a direct impact on the global food system as
water allocation agreements determine the amount of water that can used for irrigated
agriculture. The likelihood of conflicts over water is an important parameter to consider in
assessing the stability, sustainability and resilience of global food systems.¶ None of the various
and extensive databases on the causes of war show water as a casus belli. Using the International
Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and supplementary data from the University of Alabama on water
conflicts, Hewitt, Wolf and Hammer found only seven disputes where water seems to have been
at least a partial cause for conflict (Wolf, 1998, p. 251). In fact, about 80% of the incidents relating
to water were limited purely to governmental rhetoric intended for the electorate (Otchet, 2001,
p. 18).¶ As shown in The Basins At Risk (BAR) water event database, more than two-thirds of over
1800 water-related ‘events’ fall on the ‘cooperative’ scale (Yoffe et al., 2003). Indeed, if one takes
into account a much longer period, the following figures clearly demonstrate this argument.
According to studies by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), organized
political bodies signed between the year 805 and 1984 more than 3600 water-related treaties,
and approximately 300 treaties dealing with water management or allocations in international
basins have been negotiated since 1945 ([FAO, 1978] and [FAO, 1984]).¶ The fear around water
wars have been driven by a Malthusian outlook which equates scarcity with violence, conflict and
war. There is however no direct correlation between water scarcity and transboundary conflict.
Most specialists now tend to agree that the major issue is not scarcity per se but rather the
allocation of water resources between the different riparian states (see for example [Allouche,
2005], [Allouche, 2007] and [Rouyer, 2000]). Water rich countries have been involved in a number
of disputes with other relatively water rich countries (see for example India/Pakistan or
Brazil/Argentina). The perception of each state’s estimated water needs really constitutes the
core issue in transboundary water relations. Indeed, whether this scarcity exists or not in reality,
perceptions of the amount of available water shapes people’s attitude towards the environment
(Ohlsson, 1999). In fact, some water experts have argued that scarcity drives the process of cooperation among riparians ([Dinar and Dinar, 2005] and [Brochmann and Gleditsch, 2006]).¶ In
terms of international relations, the threat of water wars due to increasing scarcity does not make
much sense in the light of the recent historical record. Overall, the water war rationale expects
conflict to occur over water, and appears to suggest that violence is a viable means of securing
national water supplies, an argument which is highly contestable.¶ The debates over the likely
impacts of climate change have again popularised the idea of water wars. The argument runs that
climate change will precipitate worsening ecological conditions contributing to resource scarcities,
social breakdown, institutional failure, mass migrations and in turn cause greater political
instability and conflict ([Brauch, 2002] and [Pervis and Busby, 2004]). In a report for the US
Department of Defense, Schwartz and Randall (2003) speculate about the consequences of a
worst-case climate change scenario arguing that water shortages will lead to aggressive wars
(Schwartz and Randall, 2003, p. 15). Despite growing concern that climate change will lead to
instability and violent conflict, the evidence base to substantiate the connections is thin ([Barnett
and Adger, 2007] and [Kevane and Gray, 2008]).
Water scarcity causes cooperation – not conflict
Vayrynen 1 - Professor of Government and International Studies at Notre Dame, former director of
the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies
Raimo, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 15 ND J.L. Ethics & Pub Pol’y 593, p. Lexis
On the other hand, while the scarcity of groundwater is becoming a major political issue,
predictions about “water wars” over shared rivers seem to be overblown. According to
Gleditsch and Hamner, more than 250 river systems are shared between two or more countries.
In an empirical study of these rivers, they find that water scarcity only has a limited tendency to
foster conflicts. Moreover, if scarcity is coupled with a shared river, the probability of
cooperation, rather than conflict, between countries increases significantly. A common resource
problem can also prompt closer cooperation . This is evidenced, for instance, by the move
towards cooperation in the utilization of the water resources of the Nile. The main change has
been the increasing willingness of Egypt to cooperate with Ethiopia and Sudan, which concluded
in an agreement on the use of Blue Nile waters in 1991. The new phase of cooperation is
managed by the Nile Basin Initiative (N.B.I.), which is a formal organization set up by the riparian
States, and with the support of the World Bank, to implement the 1996 Nile River Basin Action
plan on the preservation and distribution of the river water.
AT: Middle East Water Wars
Middle eastern water wars won’t lead to conflict- it would be too difficult to
secure all of the water
Podesta and Ogden 7 (John Podesta is president and CEO of the Center for American Progress (CAP)
in Washington, D.C., and was chief of staff for President Bill Clinton., Peter Ogden is a senior national
security analyst at CAP, The Washington Quarterly 31.1 (2007) 115-138)
Water scarcity also shapes the geopolitical order when states engage in direct competition with
neighbors over shrinking water supplies. Although this threat may evoke apocalyptic images of
armies amassing in deserts to go to war over water, the likelihood of such open conflict in this
scenario over the next 30 years is low. There are a very limited number of situations in which it
would make strategic sense for a country today to wage war in order to increase its water
supply. Water does not have the economic value of a globally traded strategic commodity such
as oil, and to reap significant benefit from a military operation would require capturing an
entire watershed, cutting supply to the population currently dependent on it, and then
protecting the watershed and infrastructure from sabotage.29 Thus, although we are not likely to
see "water wars" per se, countries will more aggressively pursue the kinds of technological and
political solutions that currently enable them to exist in regions that are stretched past their
water limits. This is likely to be the case in the Middle East, where water shortages will coincide
with a population boom. The enormously intricate water politics of the region have been aptly
described as a "hydropolitical security complex."30 The Jordan River physically links the water
interests of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, the Palestinian Authority, and Syria; the Tigris and Euphrates
Rivers physically link the interests of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. This hydrological environment is
further complicated by the fact that 75 percent of all the water in the Middle East is located in
Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.31 Such conditions would be cause for political tension even in a
region without a troubled history. [End Page 121]
1NC Dead Zones Good
Species can adapt to dead zones and survive – they can be good
Brown University, Oct. 16, 2008 Published in Science Daily, “Coastal Dead Zones May Benefit Some
Species, Scientist Finds”
Andrew Altieri, a post-doctoral researcher in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
at Brown University, studied dead zones in Narragansett Bay, one of the largest estuaries on the
U.S. East Coast. In a paper published this month in the journal Ecology, he found that quahog
clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) increased in number in hypoxic zones, defined as areas where
dissolved oxygen in the water has been depleted. The reasons appear to be twofold: The
quahogs’ natural ability to withstand oxygen-starved waters, coupled with their predators'
inability to survive in dead zones. The result: The quahog can not only survive, but in the
absence of predators, can actually thrive. A recent study shows that dead zones have been
expanding rapidly along the coastal United States and worldwide due to climate change and
human-caused pollution. Scientists have typically focused on documenting the death of species
and loss of fisheries in these oxygen-poor areas, but they haven’t looked at how certain, hardy
species such as quahogs can persist and thrive — until now. There may be other commercially
important species that persist — and perhaps benefit — from dead zones in other regions. The
research (listen to the podcast on the Ecological Society of America Web site here) also
underscores that some key species can be more adaptive and resilient than expected when
challenged environmentally, which could have important implications for conservation efforts.
Quahog clam proves that dead zones can increase populations of key species
Altieri, 2008 Andrew H., Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Brown University, “Dead
Zones Enhance Key Fisheries Species by Providing Predation Refuge” Ecology: Vol. 89, No. 10, pp. 28082818.
Natural stress gradients can reduce predation intensity and increase prey abundances. Whether
the harsh conditions of anthropogenic habitat degradation can similarly reduce predation
intensity and structure community dynamics remains largely unexplored. Oxygen depletion in
coastal waters (hypoxia) is a form of degradation that has recently emerged as one of the
greatest threats to coastal ecosystems worldwide due to increased rates of eutrophication and
climate change. I conducted field experiments and surveys to test whether relaxed predation
could explain the paradoxically high abundance of clams that have sustained a fishery in a
degraded estuary with chronic hypoxic conditions. Hypoxia reduced predation on all
experimental species but enhanced the long-term survivorship of only sufficiently hypoxiatolerant prey due to periodic extreme conditions. As a consequence, only the harvested quahog
clam (Mercenaria mercenaria) thrived in hypoxic areas that were otherwise rendered dead zones
with depauperate diversity and low abundances of other species. This suggests that enhanced
populations of some key species may be part of a predictable nonlinear community response
that sustains ecosystem services and masks overall downward trends of habitat degradation.
Solvency
1NC- Drilling fails
Arctic drilling is too unpredictable for companies- long history of empirics
proves the plan fails
Beinecke 1-23-13 [Frances, President, Natural Resources Defense Council, “A Pattern of Failure,”
http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/01/are-arctic-oildrillingchallen.php?comments=expandall#comments]
Shell’s repeated failures in the Arctic Ocean prove that neither the company nor offshore drilling belong
in these wild, remote, and rugged waters. The company’s drilling rig, for instance, ran aground when
four tug engines failed in a storm. Yet the North is region of mishaps – mechanical, human, and natural.
It is home to churning seas, punishing winds, frigid temperatures, unpredictable ice, and months of
prolonged darkness. Shell’s inability to prepare for and cope with these punishing conditions makes it
vividly clear: we have no business letting the oil industry drill in the Arctic Ocean.¶ The grounding of
Shell’s drilling rig is not an isolated incident. It is part of a larger pattern in which Shell has proven no
match for the elements.¶ Last July, another of the company’s drill rigs nearly ran aground in the Aleutian
Islands. Through August, Shell couldn’t move its spill response barge—a linchpin in its emergency plan—
out of Bellingham, WA because the Coast Guard wouldn’t certify it as seaworthy until the company dealt
with more than 400 issues, including wiring and other safety shortcomings. Then, when Shell started
preliminary drilling without the spill response barge in place, within 24 hours its rig had to turn tail and
flee from a 30-mile long iceberg that bore down on the drill site. And in September, Shell’s containment
dome—used to capture oil in the event of spill—was “crushed like a beer can” during pre-deployment
testing.¶ Shell has poured billions of dollars into offshore Arctic drilling, but no matter how much it
spends, it cannot make the effort anything but a terrifying gamble. And if Shell, the most profitable
company on Earth, can’t buy its way to safety in Alaska , nobody can .¶ That is why the administration
should halt all drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Neither the oil industry nor our government is prepared to
respond to a spill in a region where the closest Coast Guard base is 1,000 miles away from the leasing
sites, no proven technology exists to collect oil, and winter ice makes spill response impossible. Nor do
we even know all the damage a spill and clean-up efforts would do to Arctic ecosystems. Very little
research has been done yet in these waters and we have only a narrow body of research focusing on just
a few species. Until these gaps in emergency response and research are filled, federal agencies cannot
responsibly even weigh whether drilling in the Arctic Ocean could ever be safe.¶
Drilling is impossible- no proven tech, resources, or safety measures
Clark 1-22-13 [Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife, “What Shell Has
Proven,” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/01/are-arctic-oildrillingchallen.php?comments=expandall#comments]
The series of failures in both judgment and technology that resulted in Shell’s Kulluk drill rig crashing
into Alaska’s Sitkalidak Island on New Years Eve has put wildlife and human life at increasing and
unacceptable risk. Alarmingly only the latest in a series of problems with Shell’s drilling season, it should
also put an end to drilling in the Arctic.¶ The list of problems that Shell’s drilling program has had is well
documented and very disturbing—from losing control of the Noble Discovery drill ship, to the oil
containment dome that was “crushed like a can” by arctic ice, to violoations of air safety permits, and
now the grounding of the Kulluk. But, in this most recent incident alone, there are three things that
stand out as indicative of Shell’s problems and as reasons why the fate of the Arctic drilling program
should be sealed once and for all.¶ First, the Kulluk was hauled out to sea in dangerously unpredictable
weather putting human lives and wildlife at risk so Shell could avoid paying tax on the vessel to the state
of Alaska. Shell’s willingness to put profit above human safety and the environment is consistent with
the safety commission’s warnings that the poor safety culture at BP was really an industry–wide
problem, and not the outlier that Shell and others tried to suggest.¶ Second, it took 700 people and a
fleet of Coast Guard vessels to respond to the grounding of the Kulluk. But if this incident, let alone a
major oil spill or other catastrophe, had happened in the deep Arctic there would not be anywhere near
700 people to respond. It is clear that Shell was simply not equipped to respond when the Kulluk ran
aground. How can we expect them to be prepared if something happened in an even more remote
area?¶ Third, the grounding of the Kulluk demonstrated that despite all the promises to the contrary, the
industry just does not have the technology to function safely in the Arctic environment. The Aiviq tug is
a multimillion dollar ice crusher designed specifically to handle high seas and bad weather. It’s been
presented as a symbol of why we should feel safe about Shell’s drilling in the rugged and remote Arctic.
But in its first major storm, the Aiviq not only lost control of the Kulluk, it also lost power in all four of its
engines and was itself at the whim of the rough seas. According to reports, after the Aiviq restored its
connection to the Kulluk the Coast Guard had it drop its line and cut the Kulluk loose again, in order to
protect the lives of Aiviq crew because of the harsh weather conditions.¶ If the Obama administration
wants to be credible when it speaks about pursuing safe offshore drilling, then the grounding of the
Kulluk must be the last straw. The lack of a demonstrated culture of safety, the obvious lack of response
resources, and the lack of proven technology capable of avoiding or addressing a crisis should be a loud
and clear signal that the administration needs to end drilling in the Arctic.
Insufficient tech for the plan- their evidence is industry lies
Murray 1-21-13 [Susan Murray, Deputy Vice President of the Pacific at Oceana and 22-year resident of
Alaska, “Shell No!” http://energy.nationaljournal.com/2013/01/are-arctic-oildrillingchallen.php?comments=expandall]
The remote waters off Alaska can be harsh and unforgiving. Natural selection still plays a vivid role in
survival in our ocean waters, and there is little to no room for mistakes. There are countless stories of
mariners that have run afoul of the forces of nature and did not live to tell the tale. In that regard, Shell
got lucky – very lucky – in its latest “mishap” with the grounding of the Kulluk. Had the vessel not been
within reach of Kodiak, which is home to Alaska’s largest Coast Guard station, the story could have
ended very differently. Instead it ended with no loss of life and, so far, no environmental disaster. But
there is still a massive oil rig anchored in a remote and pristine bay off Kodiak Island with relatively little
information available to the public about the damage it suffered or plans for its fate. At the same time,
the Kulluk’s sister vessel, the drill ship Noble Discoverer is stranded in Seward after, apparently,
undergoing criminal investigation due to safety and discharge problems. According to Shell, the engines
on that vessel are not functioning properly, and it, too, will need to be towed to Seattle. So, taking stock,
both of the vessels on which Shell is depending to drill for oil in the Arctic are disabled in different places
in Alaska. That doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the company’s ability to conduct operations in one
of the harshest places on the planet.¶ The current vessel strandings, of course, are not the whole story;
they are just the latest chapter in a season of bad judgment and failed equipment. To name just a few
examples, in July, the Noble Discoverer dragged anchor in Dutch Harbor, nearly grounding; Shell
polluted the clean Arctic air by violating emissions permits that the company had already successfully
lobbied to be watered down from standards to which it had agreed earlier; Shell’s oil spill containment
dome failed miserably in tests in calm conditions in Puget Sound, “breaching like a whale,” and ending
up “crushed like a beer can,” according to correspondence from government officials; and at the end of
the drill season in the Beaufort Sea, the company could not remove workers from the Kulluk as
scheduled because they had no de-icing equipment for their shore side helicopters. And we are being
asked to take Shell’s promises seriously? Who would plan for work in the Arctic in November that
depends on air support and not be prepared to de-ice aircraft?¶ The Department of the Interior has
begun a 60-day review of the past year’s drilling season in the Arctic Ocean, and we applaud that step in
the right direction. Oceana has sought a full, fair, and transparent review of the standards and oversight
applied t to Arctic Ocean drilling. Such an investigation should include not only Department of the
Interior (DOI) and Coast Guard, but also NOAA and other agencies. Given that DOI granted many of the
permits that allowed Shell to operate in the Arctic, has defended those decisions publicly and in court,
and has restated its commitment to exploring for oil in Arctic waters in the future, we question the
agency’s ability to conduct such a searching investigation. Congress and the president could intercede
and require a truly independent review. Also, protecting lives and our ocean resources is more
important than completing a review in an expedited manner. The government should do this right, not
just quickly.¶ Shell’s miserable 2012 attempts to drill in the Arctic Ocean should serve as a cautionary
tale for the US and other Arctic nations—companies clearly are not prepared for the dangers and
unpredictability in the Arctic. We simply do not yet have the technology to safely conduct these
activities. What we do have is yet another attempt by an oil company to push the envelope in order to
cash in on its investment while making hollow promises that this time everything will be OK. We had
enough near misses this season to see that isn’t the case at all, and we should immediately cease and
desist from offshore Arctic drilling. The oil isn’t going anywhere. In the meantime, technology could
advance, and we could pursue options like conservation that might make it unnecessary ever to take the
risks posed by drilling in the Arctic Ocean.
Harsh Arctic conditions means oil companies can’t drill- most recent empirics
prove they’ll shut down
Unger 1-10-13 [David J., correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, “Arctic drilling mishaps
challenge promise of Alaskan oil,” http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/EnergyVoices/2013/0110/Arctic-drilling-mishaps-challenge-promise-of-Alaskan-oil]
Given the Arctic's notoriously harsh environs, however, opponents doubt the project's chances of safely
supplying fossil fuel energy.¶ “The implications of this very troubling incident are clear – the oil industry
is no match for Alaska’s weather and sea conditions either during drilling operations or during marine
transit,” said Lois Epstein, Arctic program director for The Wilderness Society, in a statement. ¶ Last
summer, Shell's other drill ship lost its mooring and nearly washed ashore. The company suffered
another setback when its oil containment vessel failed to meet required federal standards, thereby
limiting the extent of their Arctic operations. In September, equipment failures and and unanticipated
ice floes forced the company to halt drilling for oil.
1NC- No infrastructure
No transportation infrastructure for the plan- too dangerous
Kemp et al ’12 [Geoffrey Kemp and Tim Boersma are fellows at Real Clear World and Nicholas Siegel is
program officer at the Transatlantic Academy in Washington, DC., 1-5-12,
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2012/01/05/is_geopolitical_competition_over_the_arctic_exag
gerated_99828.html]
Slowly but surely, climate change is opening up the Arctic. Greenland's glaciers and ice fields are
melting, sea ice around the North Pole is decreasing each year, and the huge permafrost areas of Russia
and Canada are beginning to thaw. This has led to widespread speculation of a Great Game-style
scramble for the region's abundant resources. Many studies, including those by the private sector and
the U.S. Geological Survey, confirm that there are vast treasure-troves of oil, gas, and minerals in the
Arctic. Yet, with the exception of iron ore in Greenland, these resources have not yet been exploited. In
fact, despite rising temperatures, the impediments to extracting and transporting most resources from
the Arctic will remain formidable for the foreseeable future. One factor facing developers is that, despite
global warming, the Arctic remains largely inhospitable, and there are innumerable obstacles to cashing
in on its riches. Oil rigs require airstrips, roads, electricity generation, and pipelines; mining operations
require port facilities and technology to withstand the bitterest winters; and all resource extraction
requires a specialized labor force. For the private sector to develop any part of the Arctic, enormous
investments of capital and labor would be necessary. While there is a possibility that the Arctic seaways
-- running through Canada and along the northern Russian coast -- will become open to transportation
for most of the year, large container ships are unlikely to use these routes. The Arctic will remain a
dangerous trade route for commercial shipping, and neither Canadian nor Russian authorities can offer
much in the way of support and rescue facilities in the event of emergencies along their northern
borders. The dangers are further evidenced by recent investments in traditional sea routes and facilities,
such as the Panama Canal. By contrast, the port of Reykjavik in Iceland, which would be ideally
positioned to serve as a future hub for northern sea routes, has seen no such investment. In the long
run, permafrost thawing may prove to be the greatest obstacle to Arctic developers. It has made the
construction of roadways and airfields much more difficult, and in some cases has caused extractive
projects to be abandoned. This process has already caused enormous problems in Russia, where large
cities such as Yakutsk and several large river ports, pipelines, conventional hydro electricity plants, and
even a nuclear power station lie in permafrost areas. Yakutsk in particular has seen severe damage to its
infrastructure and the closure of a runway of its airport as a result of the land below melting.
Lack of porting sites kills solvency- too hard to build there
Cottrell ’13 [Paula, Alaska Business Monthly, “Arctic Infrastructure Needed for Resource Development
and Delivery,” January, http://www.akbizmag.com/Alaska-Business-Monthly/January-2013/ArcticInfrastructure-Needed-for-Resource-Development-and-Delivery/]
“Arctic development is going to require ports and infrastructure statewide,” says Sen. Mark Begich.
“Development on this scale will have substantial impacts on Arctic communities and the whole state.”¶
This infrastructure—airports, roads, ports, pipelines and facilities—presents some unique challenges in
the Arctic. “There is a lot of shallow water along the Arctic coastline,” says Henry Huntington, Arctic
science director of Pew Environment Group, a nonprofit organization that works to establish sciencebased policies. “This presents some serious limitations on what kind of vessels can be used.”¶ Deepwater
ports, while clearly a necessity, aren’t ideally suited for the soft shorelines in the Arctic, he says. “There
are no areas along the Arctic Coast that are suitable for a real harbor or port,” says Huntington.
“Everything is exposed and shallow.”
Arctic drilling is too expensive
Klare ‘12 [Michael T. Klare. Author and Professor of Peace and World-Security Studies, Hampshire
College. Why Twenty-First Century Oil Will Break the Bank -- and the Planet. 03/13/12.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-t-klare/obama-gas-prices_b_1342042.html?ref=green]
Arctic Oil The Arctic is expected to provide a significant share of the world’s future oil supply. Until
recently, production in the far north has been very limited. Other than in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska
and a number of fields in Siberia, the major companies have largely shunned the region. But now, seeing
few other options, they are preparing for major forays into a melting Arctic. From any perspective, the
Arctic is the last place you want to go to drill for oil. Storms are frequent, and winter temperatures
plunge far below freezing. Most ordinary equipment will not operate under these conditions. Specialized
(and costly) replacements are necessary. Working crews cannot live in the region for long. Most basic
supplies -- food, fuel, construction materials -- must be brought in from thousands of miles away at
phenomenal cost. But the Arctic has its attractions: billions of barrels of untapped oil, to be exact.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the area north of the Arctic Circle, with just 6 percent of
the planet’s surface, contains an estimated 13 percent of its remaining oil (and an even larger share of
its undeveloped natural gas) -- numbers no other region can match. With few other places left to go, the
major energy firms are now gearing up for an energy rush to exploit the Arctic’s riches. This summer,
Royal Dutch Shell is expected to begin test drilling in portions of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas adjacent
to northern Alaska. (The Obama administration must still award final operating permits for these
activities, but approval is expected.) At the same time, Statoil and other firms are planning extended
drilling in the Barents Sea, north of Norway. As with all such extreme energy scenarios, increased
production in the Arctic will significantly boost oil company operating costs. Shell, for example, has
already spent $4 billion alone on preparations for test drilling in offshore Alaska, without producing a
single barrel of oil. Full-scale development in this ecologically fragile region, fiercely opposed by
environmentalists and local Native peoples, will multiply this figure many times over.
We need an icebreaker now
National Research Council 14 (National Research Council – of the National Academies, “Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S.
Arctic Marine Environment”, National Academies Press, 2014)
Recommendation: As
oil and gas, shipping, and tourism activities increase, the USCG will need an enhanced
presence and performance capacity in the Arctic, including area-specific training, icebreaking capability,
improved availability of vessels for responding to oil spills or other emergency situations, and aircraft and
helicopter support facilities for the open water season and eventually year round. Furthermore, Arctic assignments for trained and
experienced personnel and tribal liaisons should be of longer duration, to take full advantage of their skills. Sustained funding will be
needed to increase the USCG presence in the Arctic and to strengthen and expand its ongoing Arctic
oil spill research programs.
Lack of infrastructure dooms oil spill response
National Research Council 14 (National Research Council – of the National Academies, “Responding to Oil Spills in the U.S.
Arctic Marine Environment”, National Academies Press, 2014)
The lack of infrastructure in the Arctic would be a significant liability in the event of a large oil spill .
Communities are dependent on air and seasonal marine transport for the movement of people, goods, and services, and there are few
equipment caches with boom, dispersants, and in situ burn materials available for the North Slope and Northwest Arctic Boroughs. It
is
unlikely that responders could quickly react to an oil spill unless there were improved port and air
access, stronger supply chains, and increased capacity to handle equipment, supplies, and personnel. Prepositioning a suite of response
equipment throughout the Arctic, including aerial in situ burn and dispersant capability, would provide immediate access to a number of rapid
response oil spill countermeasure options. Building
U.S. capabilities to support oil spill response will require
significant investment in physical infrastructure and human capabilities, from communications and personnel to
transportation systems and traffic monitoring. Human and organizational infrastructure improvements are also required to improve
international and tribal partnerships so as to leverage scientific and traditional knowledge and best practices. A
truly capable end-to-
end system for oil spill response would require integration of Arctic data in support of preparedness, response, and
restoration and rehabilitation. There is presently no funding mechanism to provide for development, deployment, and
maintenance of temporary and permanent infrastructure. One approach to provide a funding mechanism for
infrastructure development and oil spill response operations would be to enable a public-private-municipal partnership to receive a percentage
of lease sale revenues, rents, bonuses, or royalty payments that are currently deposited in the federal treasury.
Fossil Fuel Production Declining
Production declining
Bastasch 6/24
Michael Bastasch (writer for Daily Caller), 6/24/2014, “Three-Fourths of Fossil Fuel Production Loss On Federal Lands Under Obama”,
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/24/three-fourths-of-fossil-fuel-production-loss-on-federal-lands-under-obama/, 6/25/2014, #TheNextPKen
Since 2003, production of coal, gas and oil on federal lands has fallen by 21 percent, according to
government data. But nearly three-quarters of that declined occurred since 2009 — under the watch
of the Obama administration.¶ The Energy Information Administration reported last week that total fossil fuel energy
production on federal lands declined for the third year in a row, despite a slight uptick in onshore oil production last
year.¶ Federal lands fossil fuel production declined 21 percent from 2003 to 2013, reports EIA, mainly due to “a
steady decline in federal offshore natural gas production between FY 2003 and FY 2013 and the 9% drop in coal production from federal lands
in FY 2013 from FY 2012.Ӧ But 15.5 percent of the 21 percent decline has occurred since 2009, when President Obama took office. This means
that nearly three-quarters
of the decline in fossil fuel production on federal lands has occurred under
Obama’s watch.¶ Oil production on federal lands did actually increase slightly last year, but falling coal and natural gas production meant
that government-controlled lands saw a 7 percent decrease in fossil fuels production. This was also accompanied by a 7 percent decrease in the
sales of fossil fuels from federal and Indian lands.¶ Republicans have hammered the president for blocking off large areas of federal lands and
offshore areas to energy development such as oil and gas drilling. Reports of decreasing sales and production numbers on federal lands only
served to intensify Republican criticisms of the administration’s energy policy.¶ “American families cannot afford four-dollar gasoline prices, but
instead of increasing access to our own energy resources right here at home, President Obama is placing them off-limits,” Washington
Republican Rep. Doc Hastings said in a statement.¶ “The
Obama Administration is restricting American energy
production wherever and whenever possible and these new numbers from EIA are further proof of
that,” Hastings added. “President Obama has imposed a defacto drilling moratorium on new offshore drilling, canceled both
onshore and offshore lease sales, and imposed layer upon layer of red-tape to make it harder to
develop our energy resources.Ӧ But while federal lands have seen a decreasing share of fossil fuels production, state and private
lands have seen energy production boom — particularly the oil and gas industry.¶ Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and horizontal drilling have
allowed companies to access shale formations deep underground which has dramatically increased U.S. oil and gas production, making the U.S.
the world’s largest fossil fuels producer.¶ Production on federal lands, however, has not kept pace with that of state and private lands. One
reason is because of the favorable geography of states in terms of where shale formations are located.¶ Another reason is policy. It’s much
easier to get approval to drill on state and private lands versus federal lands. On federal lands, for example, getting a permit approved for
drilling took 194 days on average last year as opposed to five days in Texas and 25 days in North Dakota.
AT Drilling Inevitable
Drilling not inevitable- companies giving up and court decisions recall leases
Peresh 14
Peresh, Dave. "Judge Suspends Arctic Drilling, Orders New Environmental Report." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 24 Apr. 14.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-arctic-drilling-new-environmental-report-20140424-story.html
The decision
by U.S. District Judge Ralph Beistline stopped short of scrapping the $2.6 billion in leases,
appeals court decision in January that federal officials had arbitrarily decided
drilling companies could extract 1 billion barrels of oil from the shallow waters off the northwest coast of Alaska. That
figure led to a misguided environmental study, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said.¶ Now, the U.S. Department
of the Interior must redo the supplemental analysis using what’s expected to be a much higher estimate for the amount of
oil extractable. In the meantime, no drilling for oil or natural gas can take place.¶ U.S. Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska)
however. His ruling followed an
called the order “good news," saying it “should lead to resumption of oil and gas development in our state’s promising offshore” by next
summer.¶ Earth Justice attorney Erik Grafe, who opposes drilling and who helped bring the lawsuit, also hailed the decision. The opposing sides
had worked for the past two months to negotiate a deal, which the judge adopted almost completely.¶ Grafe told the Los Angeles Times the
redo was a “good outcome,” considering that the erroneous figure of 1 billion barrels “infected every part of the original analysis.”¶ He said the
new report would likely show that oil companies would bring far more boats, planes, drill rigs and pipelines. As a result, he expects the analysis
to show a much greater disturbance to the habitat of whales, walruses, polar bears and other animals. ¶ In light of the new analysis, the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will have to decide whether to move forward with or cancel the
agreed-upon leases with Royal Dutch Shell, ConocoPhillips and other companies.¶ “We’re hopeful the government will come to the conclusion
that it’s wrong to sell the leases,” Grafe said. “I’m not sure how long it will take for the new study, but the
government has a lot of
work ahead of itself. It’s a big opportunity for the government to choose a better path in the Arctic.”¶ The Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management declined to comment. The agency has maintained that the 1-billion-barrel estimate made economic sense because the oil
companies have said drilling in the area is a major technical challenge.¶ A week after the January
ruling