Mexican Renewables
Inherency / politics
1nc inherency
Their aff is the status quo – relations are high and renewable assistance is increasing
rapidly – voting neg solves the aff.
Jacobson 6/18 – Assistant Secretary Of State For Western Hemisphere Affairs (Roberta S, “State’s
Jacobson at Senate Hearing on U.S.-Mexico Partnership,” 6/18/13, U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations, Before Foreign Relations Committee Western Hemisphere Subcommittee,
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/06/20130618276661.html#axzz2XAL8c3nZ)//
SJF
When President Obama met with President Peña Nieto in Mexico on May 2, the two presidents spoke
again of their commitment to bilateral partnership and built on the positive personal relationship they
established at their first meeting in November 2012 in Washington. They agreed to take new steps to
strengthen our economic relationship, enhance shared competitiveness, and create new trade,
investment, and employment opportunities. The presidents reaffirmed their commitment to collaborate
on citizen security based on shared responsibility and mutual respect. They highlighted efforts to
increase the connections between our peoples that enrich the culture and prosperity of both societies.
The presidents also reviewed our cooperation on global and hemispheric issues. Their discussion
highlighted the extraordinary benefits we realize from our relationship that often do not make the daily
headlines, but are profoundly relevant to our daily lives and to our future.
ECONOMIC AND ENERGY ENGAGEMENT
The United States and Mexico share one of the world’s most vibrant and mutually beneficial economic
relationships. Our economic links are the linchpin of our overall relationship. We are partners in an
integrated enterprise whose success depends on us working together. Given the high degree of intraindustry trade, much of what we import consists of U.S. exports to Mexico processed further in Mexico.
U.S. companies have more than $91 billion invested in Mexico, while Mexican companies are increasing
their investment in the American economy, currently nearly $27.9 billion.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of our trade relationship with Mexico. In 2012, two-way
merchandise trade reached nearly $500 billion and services trade was $39 billion in 2011. Mexico is our
second largest export market and third largest overall trading partner. We sell more to Mexico than we
do to Brazil, Russia, India, and China combined. The United States is Mexico’s largest trading partner.
Together with Canada, Mexico and the United States comprise one of the most successful and
competitive economic platforms in the world today. We have taken steps to strengthen that trading
relationship. Last October, the United States and eight other countries welcomed Mexico (and Canada)
to join the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). TPP is a high-standard, 21st century
trade agreement that includes countries from one of the fastest-growing regions in the world.
To increase competitiveness, foster economic growth and innovation, and explore ways to partner for
global leadership, Presidents Obama and Peña Nieto announced on May 2 the establishment of a HighLevel Economic Dialogue (HLED). We plan to hold the first meeting later this year. We will organize the
dialogue around three broad themes: promoting competitiveness and connectivity; fostering economic
growth, productivity, and innovation; and partnering for regional and global leadership.
The HLED will increase cooperation in sectors that connect our economies, including transportation,
telecommunications, and energy, and promote greater two-way investment. The dialogue will stimulate
entrepreneurship and innovation, encourage the development of human capital, and examine regional
and international initiatives, including our engagement on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Asia
Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the G20.
Given the massive flow of goods and people across our shared border, modernizing border
infrastructure and border management is essential. At their May meeting, President Obama and
President Peña Nieto reaffirmed their commitment to our 21st Century Border Management Initiative.
At the April meeting of the initiative’s Executive Steering Committee, senior representatives of both
governments encouraged projects and initiatives that will improve infrastructure, facilitate the secure
flow of legitimate commerce and travel, and strengthen law enforcement along the border.
Our energy relationship with Mexico is a critical component of North American energy security. In 2012,
Mexico was our second largest supplier of imported crude oil, the largest export market for U.S. refined
petroleum products, and a growing market for U.S. natural gas exports. President Peña Nieto has made
energy reform a priority, and if it is successful, Mexico could attract international investment and
expertise to reverse the decline in its oil production.
We have negotiated and signed the U.S.-Mexico Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. By
establishing a cooperative framework and greater legal clarity for the development of reserves that
traverse the U.S.-Mexico maritime border, it would benefit both the United States and Mexico. In his
meeting with President Peña Nieto, President Obama committed to working with Congress to pass
legislation to implement the Transboundary Hydrocarbons Agreement. Senators Wyden and Murkowski
recently introduced S.812, legislation which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to implement the
Agreement. We look forward to working with the Senators to move this important legislation forward.
In Mexico, the Peña Nieto administration is pursuing a broad reform agenda with a focus on economic
development. In just six months, Mexico passed major reforms in labor, education, and
telecommunications. The Mexican government announced plans for further reforms of energy, fiscal,
and financial policy. Provided the implementing legislation accompanying these reforms leads to
meaningful policy change, as is likely, these changes have the potential to reshape our neighbor’s
economic landscape and expand our economic engagement with Mexico.
SECURITY COOPERATION
Since the Merida Initiative was announced in 2007, we have based our cooperation with Mexico on the
recognition that our countries share responsibility for combating transnational criminal networks and
for protecting our citizens from the crime, corruption, and violence they generate. Our unprecedented
cooperation reflects our mutual respect and our understanding of the tremendous benefits our two
countries can produce through collaboration. Our strong partnership improves citizen safety by fighting
drug trafficking, organized crime, corruption, illicit arms trafficking, money laundering, and demand for
drugs on both sides of the border.
Our Merida partnership is organized around four pillars:
• Disrupting the capacity of organized criminal groups;
• Institutionalizing reforms to sustain rule of law and respect for human rights;
• Creating a 21st century border; and
• Building strong and resilient communities.
We are strengthening institutions, especially police, justice, and civil society organizations; expanding
our border focus beyond interdiction of contraband to include facilitation of legitimate trade and travel;
and building strong communities resistant to the influence of organized crime.
Since the inception of the Merida Initiative, the U.S. government has delivered about $1.2 billion out of
$1.9 billion worth of training and equipment. The Merida Initiative has provided crucial support to the
Mexican government’s efforts to build the capacity of its rule of law institutions and reform the justice
sector, while enhancing the bilateral relationship and extent of cooperation between the U.S. and
Mexican governments. Our Mexican partners have invested at least 10 dollars for every dollar we have
contributed to our Merida goals in Mexico. The U.S. contribution is vitally important.
U.S.-Mexico bilateral engagement has been transformed over the last 10 years, and the Merida
partnership is an important component of this broader evolution in the relationship. President Peña
Nieto and his team have consistently made clear to us their interest in continuing our close collaboration
on security issues, most recently during President Obama’s visit. The Merida Initiative continues to
provide a comprehensive, flexible framework under which our partnership can move forward to the
benefit of both Americans and Mexicans.
PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE TIES
The people-to-people ties that bind Mexico to the United States are strong and deep, and they enrich
both countries. One in 10 Americans – more than 30 million people – is of Mexican heritage. A robust
Mexican-American community in the United States contributes to our culture, our values, our politics,
and our social structures. Some 20 million Americans travel to Mexico every year for tourism, business,
or study. The cities and towns along our common border are interconnected. Mexico is home to the
largest expatriate community of American citizens in the world –more than one million people. These
ties bring us together as families, neighbors, and friends, and contribute to our mutual understanding.
During President Obama’s visit to Mexico, we announced new initiatives to use people-to-people links to
build a stronger bilateral relationship. The Presidents announced the creation of a Bilateral Forum on
Higher Education, Innovation, and Research to promote mutual prosperity, expanded opportunity, job
creation, and the development of a 21st century workforce in both countries. The Forum, which will
begin meeting this year, will bring together government, academia, and civil society to develop a shared
vision on educational cooperation. Through President Obama's 100,000 Strong in the Americas initiative,
we encourage Mexican students to study in the United States, just as President Peña Nieto did. We also
want to facilitate American students to study abroad in the Hemisphere, including in Mexico, and
greater academic mobility between our two countries. These initiatives will strengthen educational
institutions in both countries, just as Mexico begins to implement its education reforms.
President Obama also spoke in Mexico of his administration’s vision for comprehensive immigration
reform that respects our tradition as a nation of immigrants, but also a nation of laws; reform that
recognizes the need to strengthen border security, but also to strengthen legal immigration. Although
comprehensive immigration reform would affect Mexico more than any other country, President Peña
Nieto publicly recognized that it is a U.S. domestic issue. Our border is more secure than it has ever been
and illegal immigration attempts into the United States are near their lowest level in decades. Mexico
announced its intention to improve border security along its own southern border, at least in part to
reduce the flow of migrants who seek to transit Mexico on their way to the United States.
NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR DRUG DEMAND REDUCTION IN MEXICO
We are working together on new opportunities for drug demand reduction in Mexico. The Peña Nieto
administration has made demand reduction one of the principal pillars of its crime and violence
prevention program, with the objective of modernizing and expanding its addiction diagnosis and
treatment capabilities.
The United States and Mexico will be able to apply this approach to three areas of demand reduction
policy—professionalizing addiction treatment counseling, improving Mexican capacity to research and
develop addiction prevention and treatment methods, and expanding the prevalence and use of drug
treatment courts.
GLOBAL ENGAGEMENT AND COOPERATION
We are increasing cooperation with Mexico on global and regional issues. Mexico is an important player
on the world stage – demonstrated by its hosting of the UN Climate Change Conference in 2010 and the
G20 Summit in 2012. Mexico joined the Wassenaar Arrangement, a multilateral export control regime,
and the Nuclear Suppliers Group non-proliferation regimes. Mexico has made great advances on its own
strategic trade controls – something we welcome from a major trading partner – and hosted the plenary
meeting of the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism in May. We engage closely with Mexico on
these issues.
Our common interest in the environment and clean energy is another area of growing cooperation.
Since the 2010 UN climate negotiations in Cancun, the United States and Mexico have maintained a high
level of engagement. Mexican leadership has been critical to successful outcomes on a range of
important environmental issues. We engage closely on the responsible and environmentally sound
development of unconventional gas resources, as well as wind energy development , energy efficiency,
cross-border electricity trade, a bilateral renewable energy market , and low-emissions development .
We cooperate closely under the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, for which Mexico will
host the next Ministerial in the fall. President Obama also discussed with President Peña Nieto in May
our interest in working with Mexico to engage with Central American partners in facilitating a robust
regional electricity market.
Voting issue – their aff is at best a tiny adjustment in policy with solvency evidence
that advocates continuing status quo trends. Vote against them to protect negative
ground – even if they can point to a slight difference in their solvency, it’s impossible
to quantify and no meaningful literature base exists – it makes finding unique disads
impossible
2nc – inherency
Vote for the status quo - Mexican renewable energy use is increasing rapidly
LeGesse, 13 – National Geographic News (David, “Change in the Air” 2/7,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/pictures/130208-mexico-wind-energy/)
Outsiders increasingly covet the power of those air currents as energy that can be captured by modern
turbines and transported to nearby factories and distant cities. Largely thanks to Oaxaca's unique
geography, Mexico's wind power capacity expanded to 1,350 megawatts in 2012, according to reports
from a national wind industry conference in Mexico City last month, marking nearly a 140 percent
expansion in capacity in a single year . Stands of the turbines now fill Oaxacan horizons, with more
planned as developers pour millions of dollars into wind farms. While bringing development to the
isolated area, the turbines have disrupted pastoral lifestyles and divided villages over leasing fees and
other benefits promised to local communities.
The projects have arisen with strong support from Mexico's central government. Before leaving office in
December, Calderón was seen as an active proponent of wind power. The projects also have the
participation of well-known Mexican companies, including cement maker Cemex and retailer Walmart
de Mexico. (See related blog post: "Ten (Short) Reasons to Be Excited About Wind Power.")
Mexico will quickly be a global renewable leader – the only hurdles are regulatory
Abbot, 13 – reporter for Renewable Energy World (Bryony, “The Vision for Renewable Energy in Mexico:
250MW of Solar PV and 750MW of Wind Power by 2015” Renewable Energy World, 4/19,
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/partner/green-power-conferences3234/news/article/2013/04/the-vision-for-renewable-energy-in-mexico-250mw-of-solar-pv-and750mw-of-wind-power-by-2015)
The expected 150 fold surge in solar PV installations was the hot topic, with the government’s climate
change mandate cited as a key driver in making solar PV attractive, especially to heavy industry users.
“Mexico has signed up to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires green house gas (GHG) reductions of 35%
by 2020, and 50% by 2050” said John Skibinski, Executive Director of Global Renewables Group. “This is
going to create a large surge in clean energy , and the Mexican congress is now developing penalties for
high GHG emitters”.
John went onto discuss the impact of these penalties on heavy industries such as steel mills, cement
companies and mines in driving the need to utilize renewables- “What we have found from working with
one steel mill in particular is that for every 3MW of natural gas consumed they need 1MW of solar to
get back to a zero emission footprint”.
The potential of the domestic market was highlighted as a growth area by Alejandro Velasco, Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer at Energia Renovable y Vias Terrestres (ERYVITSA)- “Home use is another
great opportunity for solar PV as there are more than 500,000 users who are potential consumers for
the implementation of PV systems due to high (and increasing) gas prices”.
Although the attractiveness of the commercial and residential markets are rapidly growing, barriers still
remain to renewables being able to reach full market momentum.
Whilst Mexico possesses robust grid infrastructure , interconnection approval is a growing barrier to
market. “Based on the conversations that I’ve had with the CRE and SENER, there is potential to put 100150MW on the ground this year- but this is depending on good interconnection approval” stated Brian
Schmidly, Chief Executive Officer of Rio Grande Solar.
Low utility rates are also likely to slow growth through 2013; however by 2014 things are set to pick
up , with John Skibinski stating “I would gather that we would see 250MW by 2015 of deployed solar
farms in Mexico, and 750MW of wind”.
The importance of working on the ground in Mexico, engaging with local companies and researching
company data was also highlighted, with Brian Schmidly commenting in relation to solar “You want to
be [in Mexico] seeding relationships and having conversations with potential customers because in the
next 2-3 years I think it’s going to turn on”.
The topic of finance was also discussed in depth. Ernesto Hanhausen, Managing Director of the
Emerging Energy and Cleantech Fund commented on the role of Mexico’s centralized energy system in
creating a stable investment environment- “The centralized characteristic of the Mexican energy
industry now appears to be in favor of the development of projects, as you only have one utility
handling the whole distribution system”.
The convenience of being able to bank renewable power in the system was also discussed as a great
advantage, removing the risk of intermittency and lack of dispatachbility of renewable energy for users.
Alejandro Velasco highlighted the support coming from national and international banks for the
development of projects “We have local financiers like NAFIN and Banobras, who have separate budgets
for infrastructure. SENER also have a fund for energy transition and then there is the budget from the
federal government for development projects to counter climate change and encourage renewable
energy and efficiency in municipalities”.
Alejandro went on to acknowledge the support of international and multilateral financiers “We have the
European Investment Bank, IFC, the World bank, IBV are currently investing in Mexico”.
Overall the vision for Mexican renewables is overwhelmingly positive , with rising energy prices, a
growing economy, stringent climate change targets and robust grid infrastructure creating the perfect
storm for renewable energy development.
Also, the aff response of “we should still do more” misrepresents the incredibly
limited scope of the plan – the COCEF evidence – which is just the Mexican name for
the BECC - describes the plan as providing technical assistance only – they have no
other evidence that suggests more than that is necessary
Technical assistance is just the provision of advice, expertise and exchange of
information
UNESCO, 5 – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (“What is Technical
Assistance?’ http://www.unesco.org/new/en/culture/themes/cultural-diversity/culturalexpressions/programmes/technical-assistance/what-is-technical-assistance/)
Technical assistance is non-financial assistance provided by local or international specialists. It can take
the form of sharing information and expertise, instruction, skills training, transmission of working
knowledge, and consulting services and may also involve the transfer of technical data.
The aim of technical assistance is to maximise the quality of project implementation and impact by
supporting administration, management, policy development, capacity building, etc.
This is happening now in recent meetings – it’s high level climate cooperation and
promotes the exchange of information and expertise for renewable energy. The aff is
indistinguishable from current trends
Targeted News Service, 7/26/13 (“Fourth Mexico - United States Meeting on Clean Energy and Climate
Change”, lexis)
The Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued the following news release:
Senior officials from Mexico and the United States met in the Secretariat of Foreign Relations for the
fourth meeting under the Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change.
The progress of the current initiatives and bilateral cooperation in clean energy and climate change
were discussed.
Senior officials from Mexico and the United States attended the fourth meeting under the Bilateral
Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change to review the policies of both countries on renewable
energy, technological innovation, energy efficiency and climate change. The meeting was agreed on last
May by Presidents Enrique Pena Nieto and Barack Obama during their meeting in Mexico City.
The delegations discussed recent developments and policy tools for promoting renewable energy and
technological innovation, highlighting the priority given today to the use of renewable energy in their
planning strategies.
In addition to sharing their experiences with the electricity sector, they also discussed new
developments in energy efficiency, such as the homologation of standards, high-efficiency equipment,
economic incentives and energy management in buildings and for large users.
They also evaluated the progress made on some of the initiatives proposed during the Clean Energy
Ministerial forum and the Energy and Climate Partnership of the Americas, and they remarked on the
importance of Mexico's participation in the 21st Century Power Partnership.
The delegations reviewed the programs put in place by the two countries to address climate change.
The Mexican delegation discussed the publication of the General Law on Climate Change and President
Enrique Pena Nieto's National Climate Change Strategy, which provide a long-term vision and reaffirm
Mexico's commitment to this issue. The U.S. delegation explained the Climate Action Plan recently
announced by President Barack Obama, highlighting its main features.
The two delegations exchanged information on the follow-up to the low emission development
strategies (LED) and the United Nations climate change negotiations, and reiterated their commitment
to strengthening the climate regime through the adoption of a global agreement in 2015.
Mexico and the United States are confident that the outcome of this meeting will complement and
reinforce the current bilateral work on clean energy and climate change.
The Mexican delegation was composed of senior officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Energy,
and Environment and Natural Resources; the Federal Commissions for Electricity (CFE), the Efficient Use
of Energy (CONUEE) and Energy Regulation (CRE), and the National Institutes of Ecology and Climate
Change (INECC) and Electrical Research (IIE).
The United States' delegation included senior officials from the Departments of State, Energy and
Commerce, and the Trade and Development Agency (USTDA), and International Development (USAID).
The Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change was established in 2009 by the Presidents
of Mexico and the United States to strengthen the dialogue and cooperation on clean energy and
climate change. The goal was to create a framework for the exchange of information and experiences to
facilitate the joint efforts to develop low-carbon economies based on clean energy.
And the only barrier to more development is regulatory bottlenecks – but these are
being addressed now through multiple US programs to facilitate energy connections
Fox, 13 - Energy and Natural Resources Officer, US Department of State (Eleanore, 60 Second Interview,
5/29,
http://www.greenpowerconferences.com/EF/?sSubSystem=Prospectus&sEventCode=MIREC2013&sSess
ionID=44072929246e44852ff0e95391d3a22f-15309314&sDocument=fox)
1) What is the role of the US Department of State in the Mexican renewable energy industry?
The U.S. Department of State and other U.S. agencies work with Mexico through a variety of programs,
including the Bilateral Framework on Clean Energy and Climate Change, the Energy and Climate
Partnership of the Americas, and USAID’s Low Energy Development Strategy, to exchange information
on energy and climate issues, and to work on regulations and programs to encourage energy
conservation and the use of renewables.
2) Do you feel that current policies offer adequate support to allow the industry to meet its potential?
While Mexico still has enormous untapped potential for renewable energy, the policy changes that the
government has made, particularly since 2008, s have clearly encouraged the major wind power and
smaller solar developments over the last few years.
3) How do you expect energy export opportunities to develop over the next 5 years?
The California market clearly represents a huge opportunity for renewable exports from Mexico to the
United States and there is significant interest in better interconnections in many areas along the border.
I think there is excellent potential for expansion of energy exports between Mexico and the United
States.
4) What challenges are currently facing a smooth expansion of the energy partnership between Mexico
and the US?
Currently, there are only a limited number of interconnections between the United States and Mexico,
which limits electricity trading. The regulatory processes for constructing infrastructure and connecting
to the grid are also quite different on each side of the border. The United States and Mexico have
committed to creating a Cross-border Electricity Task Force which would look at these issues and find
ways to encourage a more robust cross-border market in electricity.
These programs include the BECC and NADBank – which are currently addressing
regulatory bottlenecks for renewables – our evidence reflects new trends from recent
policy change
Wilson and Lee, 13 – *Associate at the Mexico Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars AND **Associate Director at the North American Center for Transborder Studies (NACTS) at
Arizona State University(Christopher and Erik, “The State of the Border Report”, May,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/mexico_state_of_border.pdf
The U.S.-Mexico border region has traditionally been seen as energy-poor, but developments in natural
gas and renewable energy are quickly changing the scenario . The region has petroleum and natural gas
reserves in east Texas, Tamaulipas, and parts of Nuevo León and Coahuila, with refineries dotting the
border. Some of these refineries send cleaner fuels back to Mexico after receiving crude petroleum from
Petróleos Mexicanos (PEMEx) and other sources. However, natural gas and clean energy consumption is
low in most states within the region, with liquefied petroleum gas and heavy oil providing the bulk of
energy to all of the Mexican states. Only California and Texas show a higher degree of natural gas
consumption (Figure 3), with very poor investment levels in renewable energy with the exception of
Baja California and California (wind energy).
According to the California Energy Commission, about 50% of natural gas consumption for the year 2006
went to electricity generation in the state. Residential use of this resource took up only about 22%, from
which almost 90% was used for space and water heating. California depends importantly on natural gas
because it accounts for about a third of its energy requirements, although only 13.5% of its natural gas
supply is in-state produced.13
By 2010, Texas consumed more than three trillion cubic feet of natural gas, of which just a little over 3%
goes to residential use. On the other hand, the industrial sector and the electricity producing sectors
were each using up to 40% of the total natural gas consumed in the state.
For cost-effective operation and development of clean, sustainable energy anywhere in the world, it is
necessary, or at least very helpful, to have the proper natural resources that can fuel such technologies.
This is the case of the US-Mexico border region, where most of the territory of the 10 border states is
rich in alternative energy potential. However, the region suffers poor transmission capacity and few
interconnections between the two nations.
As seen in figure 3, concentration of solar radiation in the Southwestern states of the US and in the
Northwestern Mexican states is the highest within the two countries, especially in Arizona, Baja
California, California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Sonora and New Mexico, giving the region a privileged
opportunity to produce energy from solar power technology.
Figures 4 and 5 show winds speed intensity in both countries at a height of 80 meters. The color scales
on both maps are different, but nevertheless, it helps us visualize areas that are noticeably apt for wind
power development. In the United States, the highest intensity area extends from the Dakotas in the
north, all the way south to Texas and New Mexico. In Mexico, there are three important areas with high
wind intensity, two of them in the northern border states. One of these areas covers most of the state of
Tamaulipas and parts of the states of Nuevo León and Coahuila. The other area comprises the
mountainous areas of Baja California, again giving the US-Mexico border region a strategic potential for
the development of yet another sustainable energy source.
To date, only the states of Baja California and Tamaulipas in Mexico have developed projects for wind
power generation, although the state of Nuevo León has already carried out a study to identify the
state’s areas with high wind power potential, as described in the document Wind Energy Potential in
Mexico´s Northern Border States. 14 Further benefits from the development of these types of energy
would be the possible creation of clusters for manufacturing wind and solar power technologies in the
region, creating jobs and using the region´s available human capital.
Differences between the U.S and Mexican regulatory systems for development and distribution of
electricity frustrate efforts by various policymakers to facilitate renewable energy development.
Recently the BECC and NADBank have become involved in such activities with promising results .
Investment in the U.S is encouraged by tax credits and production, but the highly centralized nature of
regulation in Mexico leaves few incentives for private developers.
We post-date and that matters – their only good solvency evidence, from COCEF – is
mis-cited – it’s from November 2011 – we’ll submit the report into evidence
COCEF (not from 2012) - La Comisión de Cooperación Ecológica Fronteriza
(“Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Transportation: Project Opportunities in the U.S. – Mexico
Border Region,”
http://www.cocef.org/Eng/VLibrary/Publications/SpecialReports/BECC%20WP%20%20Nov%202011%20
index.pdf)//BB
Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy and Transportation: Project Opportunities in the U.S. – Mexico
Border Region
Prepared for the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC)
November 2011
And those specific recommendations are being implemented now – cooperatively
with the BECC through the EPA’s Border 2020 program - this post-dates their solvency
recommendation by 10 months
EPA, September 2012 (Response to Comments: US-Mexico Border 2020 Program September 2012”,
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/08-2012-us-mexico-border2020-response-tocomments-border2020.pdf)
It's important to set baselines for each of the G & O of the program, as well as to define the follow
up/evaluation of progress procedure, in addition to the Indicators. Examples: Objective 3: By 2015,
support completion of, as appropriate, climate action plans in each of the six northern Mexican Border
States, as well as the building of necessary capacity for sustained implementation. BECC has developed
the first stage of the climate action plans for 4 of the 6 Mexican Border States and is working to do the
same with Chihuahua and Tamaulipas. The second phase of this plan is being considered under BECC’s
Climate Change Program/ Objective 1: By 2020, reduce greenhouse gas emissions/impacts through
energy efficiency and/or alternative/renewable energy projects. BECC is developing an Institutional
Program on Energy Issues which includes not only the certification of projects for NADB financing, but
also Technical Assistance for Energy Audits and Capacity Building activities that could foster the
achievement of this Objective.
− RESPONSE: We appreciate all the assistance that BECC provides for the border and look forward to
coordinating Goal 1 activities with BECC’s activities during the implementation of Border 2020. Baselines
will be developed on a case by case basis. Border 2020 Program progress will be addressed in the
indicators’ reports.
It’s at record levels
NADBank, 13 (“North American Development Bank ANNUAL REPORT 2012”, April,
http://www.nadbank.org/pdfs/publications/2012AnnualReport.pdf)
2012 was the North American Development Bank’s (NADB) biggest year for project loan closings
and disbursements. Led by ongoing expansion in the area of renewable energy , while still pursuing
its commitment toward the basic infrastructure sectors of water, wastewater and solid waste, NADB
contracted and disbursed record levels of financing for projects throughout the U.S.-Mexico border
region that are improving the environment and supporting sustainable development. Working with its
sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC ), as well as various partner
institutions, NADB also continued its commitment to providing technical assistance and training in order
to strengthen institutional capacities at the state and local level.
And project financing is increasing rapidly
NADBank, 13 (“North American Development Bank ANNUAL REPORT 2012”, April,
http://www.nadbank.org/pdfs/publications/2012AnnualReport.pdf)
The Bank’s lending operations are designed to ensure that loans are made to financially sound entities
and that funds are utilized as intended to implement technically and economically viable projects. To
that end, the Bank performs a thorough due-diligence analysis of the technical and financial viability of
each project considered for loan financing. In the case of certain borrowers and projects, this in-house
analysis is further supported by external advisors who underwrite and structure the loans from a legal,
technical, insurance and financial perspective. The Bank negotiates individual loan agreements based
on its policies and the needs of a particular borrower or project. Loan disbursements are made subject
to
the fulfillment of conditions set forth in each individual loan agreement.
Loans are generally offered at fixed or variable rates payable monthly, quarterly or semi-annually and
with maturities of up to 25 years. For U.S. borrowers, loans are available in U.S. dollars. For Mexican
borrowers, loans are available in Mexican pesos or in U.S. dollars if the project generates a U.S. dollar
cash flow. For loans made in Mexican pesos, the Bank’s exchange rate risk is fully hedged through
crosscurrency swaps. Loans are also generally secured by some form of credit support.
Loans may be made to public and private borrowers. In its early years of operation, the vast majority of
loans were made to states and local municipalities; however, in the past two years, private borrowers
have become more relevant since they tend to have a more prominent participation in some of the
newly addressed sectors, notably the renewable energy sector. In the future, the Bank also expects to
expand its financing activities to include projects with public-private partnerships, mainly in Mexico,
given current market conditions as government spending is tightened and more private funding is made
available for infrastructure financing. Consistent with NADB’s risk management philosophy, private
borrower lending is subject to an even more stringent analysis and credit enhancement requirements.
Conclusive evidence the squo solves – Mexico is already a leader, if anything it should
be giving the U.S. assistance
NAPS, 6/14/13 – North American Production Sharing, Inc. (“Mexico Renewable Energy Outlook
Promising” Today’s Energy Solutions, http://www.onlinetes.com/mexico-renewable-energy-solutions61413.aspx)
When it comes to renewable energy investments, Mexico is at the forefront for foreign investors who
are looking to manufacturing in Mexico while the country moves to more solar and wind projects. In
fact, the renewable energy movement in Mexican manufacturing is huge when it comes to how this
country is pursuing power sources other than fossil fuels. Also, there are recent U.S. and United Nations
studies that points to Mexico leading the way in developing more "green" energy programs.
Mexican Manufacturing Goes Green
At a time when manufacturing in Mexico is booming, there is an associated trend for the country to
spend more on natural energy projects to help boost the overall production and sales of clean-energy
technologies and processes.
Moreover, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) praised Mexico for its processes for creating more lowcarbon green energies that is designed to make the country more focused on green energy
manufacturing both today and in the future. The UNEP also stated in a news release how Mexico is
jumping on this global trend to go “green” with the development of more solar and wind manufacturing
and technology performance.
Mexico Surges in Green Energy Investment
The UNEP report on regional surges in green energy investment pointed to spending growing steadily in
Mexico as investments continue to pour in from the U.S. and other foreign countries that understand
the importance of emerging economies when it comes to cost-competitiveness for wind and solar
power manufacturing. In fact, a U.S. Department of Energy report notes how investments in
environmentally friendly energy sources are shifting to developing nations such as Mexico with its
energy grid construction that is also providing huge investment openings for U.S. and other foreign
company investment.
For instance, Mexico has an international reputation as an energy producer. However, the country is
moving away from just focusing foreign investments on its vast natural oil reserves. In turn, Mexico is
presenting investors with an opportunity to invest in its new energy grid construction projects that are
powered by wind and solar sources over previous methods that focused more on oil and other fossil
fuels.
Promoting Solar Resources in Mexico
Mexico’s government has been at the forefront in the trend to reduce carbon emissions by more than
30% during the current decade, states information from the country’s energy agency that is currently
promoting the development of wind and solar power sources to meet the country’s growing electricity
requirements.
Another aspect of Mexico’s planning for more natural energy investments and partnerships is linked to a
plan that will export surplus energy produced in Mexico to nearby partners in the U.S. In turn, this
Mexico – U.S. natural energy partnership is spawning new interest for overseas investors who view the
exporting of energy as a lucrative new green market for investment.
Overall, Mexico continues to be at the cutting-edge when it comes to the development of solar and
wind energy sources and other renewable resource programs.
--XT – Mexican renewables now
Private renewables investment already increased 273% and multiple factors
guarantee acceleration of that trend
Watson, 13 - Senior Research Analyst, Green power Conferences (Anna, “Mexican Renewable Energy
Market Set to Soar in 2013” 1/16, http://www.ecoseed.org/more/press-releases/15985-mexicanrenewable-energy-market-set-to-soar-in-2013)
Luckily the Mayans had it wrong and 2013 is upon us- a year in which Mexico is set to become an
increasingly important and prosperous renewable energy market.
Despite the recent change in government, the mood for the continued growth of the sector remains
optimistic. With no feed in tariffs liable to change there are many factors driving momentum beyond
political parameters:
Vast Untapped Resources - Mexico has an estimated 45GW solar potential and 71GW wind power
potential
Ambitious Targets -Mexico beat its own renewable energy target by generating 26% of electricity from
renewables in 2012, aiming for 35% by 2024
Growing Electricity Demand - Mexico will require an estimated 27GW of new capacity over the next 15
years to cover growing demand
Stable Investment Environment - Private clean energy investment in Mexico increased by 273% in 2010,
with Latin America attracting $63.1billion investment in 2011
An Emerging Manufacturing Superpower- With heavy industry relocating to Mexico opportunities for
commercial scale generation are huge
Committed to Sustainable Growth - Mexico has become only industrialising nation to put into national
legislation long-term climate targets
Expansion of wind power operations in particular has been hitting the news, with Enel Green Power
connecting a 70 MW farm to the gird in Oaxaca and Vestas recently receiving a 54MW turbine order
from an unnamed customer. With the governments optimism at reaching a wind energy target of 12GW
by 2020 and commitment to the market expressed by key players including Iberdrola and Suzlon, a key
challenge will now be expanding developments beyond the Oaxaca region.
MMomentum behind the solar industry is also growing with Sonora Energy Group de Hermosillo (SEGH)
working on a 39 MW photovoltaic plant and LG set to supply a 100MW solar park also in Sonora. The
State of Zacatecas recently unveiled a 200KW system at the international airport, and Chihuahua State
has enlisted Schneider to build a 250KW system to power a local hospital.
LLarge commercial companies are also looking to renewables to avoid increasing energy bills and to fulfil
ambitious CSR targets. For example the food processing company Palsgard now supply 85% of their
energy usage via solar energy, whilst Grupo Bimbo recently opened a 90MW wind farm to power 45 of
its facilities.
1nc politics
New renewables funding is horribly unpopular – the GOP wants cuts, not increases
Abrams 13 – Jim Abrams is a writer for Associated Press, (“Renewable Energy Budget Cut In
Half In House Republicans' Spending Bill”, 07/11/13,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/10/renewable-energy-budget_n_3575842.html)//
ACJS
WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are proposing to slash money for renewable energy
research and defy the Obama administration's decision to close the Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste repository in a bare-bones annual spending bill for energy and water programs. The
House could vote late Wednesday on the legislation. The bill has little support in the
Democratic-led Senate and faces a White House veto, but makes clear just how far apart the two
parties are on policy and budgetary matters. The bill would approve $30.4 billion for Energy
Department programs, including nuclear weapons maintenance, almost $3 billion below the
amount approved last year. It would cut spending for renewable energy programs by half.
AT: Inherency proves no politics link
Actually your plan’s redundancy and waste makes Congress look like jackasses – which
triggers a huge fight
Wolf 11 – Washington Correspondent for ABC News (Z. Byron, ABC News, “GAO: Duplication,
Waste Costs Taxpayers Billions Each Year, Coburn Says Report Makes Congress Look Like
‘Jackasses’,” 3/1/11, http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/03/gao-duplication-wastecosts-taxpayers-billions-each-year-coburn-says-report-makes-congress-look-like/)//ACJS
With Congress currently embroiled in a contentious spending fight, a Congressional watchdog has found
that a staggering level of duplication is plaguing the bloated federal budget – and chewing up
billions of dollars in funding every year. In a new report obtained by ABC News, the Government Accountability Office
determined that “reducing or eliminating duplication, overlap, or fragmentation could potentially save
billions of taxpayer dollars annually and help agencies provide more efficient and effective
services.” For instance, the GAO found, the Department of Defense could save up to $460 million every year by undertaking a
“broader restructuring” of its military health care system. The cost of such programs with duplicative and overlapping purposes is
eye-opening. The military came in for special scrutiny: over $10 billion on defense-wide business systems every year; $49 billion in
military and veterans health services; and at least $76 billion since 2005 in urgent processing systems for the military. But the
military is by no means alone. $58 billion at the Department of Transportation for over 100 separate surface transportation
programs. And almost $1 trillion in government-wide tax expenditures listed by the Treasury Department, some of which the GAO
found “may be ineffective at achieving their social or economic purposes.” “Considering the amount of program dollars involved in
the issues we have identified, even limited adjustments could result in significant savings,” the GAO said. The GAO was forced to
conduct the report on the behest of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK., who pushed a Senate vote in January 2010 to direct the GAO to assess
duplication in the budget. The report, Coburn told reporters at the Capitol Monday evening, will “make us all
look like jackasses.” According to the GAO, not only has Congress been busy spending money on
duplicative efforts, but the government has neglected to investigate numerous programs,
making the expenditure of some funds not only redundant but wasteful. For instance, only five of 47 job
training and employment programs surveyed by the GAO had been studied to evaluate whether outcomes were the result of the
program itself or another cause altogether. “Little is known about the effectiveness of most programs,” the watchdog observed. That
point also applies to domestic food assistance, where “little is known about the effectiveness of [11 of the 18 programs] because they
have not been well studied,” the GAO said. In fiscal year 2008, for example, the government spent $62.5 billion on those 18
programs. Ultimately, it all makes the $4 billion in cuts included in the latest two-week spending proposal seem paltry in
comparison. Update at 3:40pm ET, March 1: Republicans in Congress are pouncing all over this report
today as evidence that Democrats should not be fighting against spending cuts, but
supporting them. “None of us would run our families this way. None of us would run our
businesses this way,” said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-OK. “And there is tremendous potential for us to
still take care of those that require a safety net by eliminating duplication and the dollars that
we’re spending that we don’t get anything in return for.” The Senate’s top Republican Mitch
McConnell went even further, denouncing the report as a sign of “virtual incompetence” in
the federal government. Across the aisle, Senate Democrats were predictably more restrained in their comments. “I think
there are duplicative programs we’ve got around here that we can eliminate,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who
applauded Coburn for insisting on the GAO report. One interesting tidbit from the report: at a time when the national debt has
soared over the $14 trillion mark, the government has 20 different agencies – housing 56 different programs – all working on the
same thing… improving financial literacy.
Advantage CP
1nc Advantage CP
The United States federal government should:
--facilitate regulated pipeline transportation of captured carbon in the
United States
-- assist Mexico in a reformation of its judicial system
--pursue cooperation with Mexico in economic development
CCS solves warming comparatively better than renewables
Mack and Endemann 10 - *partner in the Houston office and global Chair of the
Environmental Transactional Support Practice, provides over 25 years of experience advising on
the transactional, environmental and regulatory issues associated with all sectors of the oil and
gas industry, power (including both fossil and renewable energy), mining and chemical
industries in the United States and abroad, in addition to the development, financing and
entitlements for telecommunications and other industrial and public infrastructure facilities in
the United States and offshore, **JD, Faculty @ USD Law, provides comprehensive
environmental counseling on energy and infrastructure projects, and represents clients in
related litigation
Joel and Buck, “Making carbon dioxide sequestration feasible: Toward federal regulation of CO2
sequestration pipelines,” Energy Policy,
http://lw.com/upload/pubContent/_pdf/pub3385_1.pdf
At present approximately 50% of the United States’ base load electrical energy requirements
are met by coal-fired resources (ASME, 2005). While substantial expansion of renewable
energy resources will eventually diminish reliance on coal resources, 1 coal-fired power plants
provide base load energy resources twenty-four hours per day, seven days a week, all year
long. Base load power plants provide energy even when the wind is not blowing or the sun is
not shining. While all power plants have the ability to generate a fixed amount of full output,
or ‘‘capacity,’’ expressed in megawatts, technologies vary as to the amount of their capacity
which can be delivered over time, such as over a calendar year; this is also known as their
‘‘capacity factor.’’ Base load plants, such as coal-fired, nuclear and many natural gas-fired
power plants, achieve very high capacity factors (nearly all of their capacity can be delivered
over time subject to normal maintenance, scheduled outages or equipment failures). Some
plants, such as certain natural gas-fired power plants, can be ‘‘cycled’’ (i.e., turned on or off,
or their output can be increased or decreased on short notice to match peaking loads), will
have lower capacity factors but can be matched more precisely to the demands of energy
consumers. Wind and solar plants, on the other hand, typically have much lower capacity
factors (even if they have the same overall total ‘‘capacity’’), because their output cannot be
load-matched and their energy output is dependent on environmental factors. As a result, a
utility serving a load must blend base load, peaking and renewable resources to meet load
requirements, and cannot meet its load requirements solely on the basis of current wind or
solar technologies. 2 In many regional markets, both energy (a plant’s actual, delivered
product) and capacity are tradeable commodities with an economic value, with the renewable
energy facilities providing less value in the capacity markets. Indeed, electric utilities are
generally required to maintain substantial capacity reserves to serve expected load, and
renewable resources do not generally qualify to meet these capacity requirements As a result,
and without regard to the relative merits of coal fired power versus other sources of base load
power (e.g., nuclear or natural gas-fired power plants), considering (1) the United States’
large native coal resources, (2) the lower cost of coal fuel against other base load
technologies, and (3) the substantial existing investment in coal-fired power plants, it is likely
that coal-fired power plants will for many decades continue to comprise a substantial part
of the United States’ energy generation portfolio. Indeed, the United States will have to make
policy choices regarding which base load resources to pursue, as oil, coal, nuclear and natural
gas fuels each have their own economic and environmental benefits and drawbacks. 3 Against
this backdrop, both the private and public sectors have begun to look closely at various
technologies to address the high carbon footprint of traditional coal combustion technologies.
In the United States, the average emission rate of CO2 from coal-fired power generation is
2.095 pounds per kilowatt hour, nearly double the 1.321 pounds per kilowatt hour for natural
gas (DOE, 2000). 4 Among the technologies receiving the most such attention to reduce
CO2’s impacts is CO2 sequestration. CO2 sequestration involves removing the CO2 from the
fuel, either before, during, or after combustion, and then doing something with it to avoid its
release to the atmosphere. While other greenhouse gases (e.g., methane) are more potent in
terms of global warming effects per unit of mass, the CO2 emissions of industrialized
economies are so great as to dwarf the contributions from other gases in terms of overall
impact on global warming. Hence the focus on CO2 sequestration technologies. The size and
impact of this challenge is daunting—while coal resources provide approximately half of the
energy generated annually in the United States, coal-fired power plants emit almost 80% (1.8
billion metric tons per year) of the total CO2 emissions from power plants in the United
States (DOE, 2000). The magnitude of this challenge cannot be underestimated. Using the
above production figures, coal-fired power plants in the United States emit approximately
900 billion cubic meters of CO2 annually. 5 The current CO2 pipeline system, though,
handles only 45 million metric tons of CO2 per year over 3500 miles of pipe (Nordhaus and
Pitlick, 2009). 6 Thus, to the extent that the United States has a policy goal of sequestering
and transporting any appreciable fraction of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, the
required infrastructure investment will require at least a 40-fold increase. 7 While such an
undertaking presents obvious practical and economic challenges, it demonstrates that a new
vision is required if the United States is going to develop a sequestration infrastructure to
meet this challenge on any time frame that is reasonably coincident with reducing nearto medium-term impacts from global climate change. 8
The CP solves warming - their evidence advocates rule of law reforms and
economic development
Their author Miller and DeLeon 9 - *Stephanie, consultant on U.S.-Latin America relations
and was formerly the Research Associate for the Americas Project on the National Security
Team. Born in Venezuela with family from Colombia, Miller earned her degree from Duke
University in International Comparative Studies with a focus on Latin America. She currently
lives in Bogotá, Colombia, **Rudy, Senior Vice President of National Security and International
Policy at American Progress (“Transcending the Rio Grande,”
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf)//BB
The U.S.-Mexico relationship is ready for renewed collaboration on a range of issues that bind
the United States and Mexico together. The global economic crisis and increasing violence along
the U.S.-Mexico border have raised the relationship to the forefront of U.S. national and
economic security concerns. Indeed, within 60 days in office President Obama laid out a new
border security strategy intended to target the ways in which the United States contributes to
the violence raging just south of its border. This is a good first step, but more needs to be
done and the United States needs to think about its relationship with Mexico beyond the Rio
Grande. The policy recommendations included in this report provide the Obama
administration with a blueprint for ways to expand and strengthen U.S.-Mexico relations
beyond the issue areas that have traditionally defined the relationship, as well as reinvigorate
the issue areas that have historically dominated bilateral relations. This report focused on
concrete policy recommendations in four areas: • Improving the rule of law and judicial
reform in Mexico. • Stopping the illegal flow of weapons and money from the
United States to Mexico. • Exploring enhanced cooperation in economic development.
• Promoting alternative energy cooperation and investment. By tackling these issues head
on and in a sustained manner, the Obama administration can begin to build on the important
first steps taken on March 24 to begin to repair and strengthen relations with one of the
United States’ most important and strategic allies in the hemisphere.
2nc – CCS solves warming better
Renewables alone fail without CCS
Future Timeline 12 – online news source (“A way to reverse global warming – study
finds room to store CO2 underground,” http://futuretimeline.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/away-to-reverse-global-warming-study-finds-room-to-store-co2-underground/ ) //JG
A new study by researchers at MIT shows that there is enough capacity in deep saline aquifers in
the USA to store at least a century’s worth of carbon dioxide emissions from the nation’s coalfired powerplants. Though questions remain about the economics of systems to capture and
store such gases, this study addresses a major issue that has overshadowed such proposals.
Coal-burning powerplants account for about 40 percent of global carbon emissions, so climate
change “will not be addressed unless we address CO2 emissions from coal plants,” says Ruben
Juanes, the ARCO Associate Professor in Energy Studies in the Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering. “We should do many different things” such as developing new and
cleaner alternatives, he says, “but one thing that’s not going away is coal,” because it’s such a
cheap and widely available source of power. Efforts to curb greenhouse gases have largely
focused on the search for practical, economical sources of clean energy, such as wind or solar
power. But human CO2 emissions are now so vast that many analysts think it’s unlikely that
these technologies alone can solve the problem . Some have proposed methods for
capturing fossil fuel emissions, then compressing and storing them in deep geological
formations. This approach is known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS. One of the most
promising places to store the gas is in deep saline aquifers: those more than half a mile
underground, far below the freshwater sources used for human consumption and agriculture.
But estimates of the capacity of such formations in the USA have ranged from enough to store
just a few years’ worth of emissions up to many thousands of years’ worth. The reason for this
huge disparity in estimates is two-fold. Firstly, because deep saline aquifers have no commercial
value, there has been little exploration to determine their extent. Secondly, the fluid dynamics of
how concentrated, liquefied carbon dioxide would spread through such formations is very
complex and hard to model. Most analyses have simply estimated the overall volume of the
formations, without considering the dynamics of how the CO2 would infiltrate them. The MIT
team modelled how the carbon dioxide would percolate through the rock – accounting not only
for the ultimate capacity of the formations, but the rate of injection that could be sustained over
time. “The key is capturing the essential physics of the problem,” says graduate student Michael
Szulczewski, “but simplifying it enough so it could be applied to the entire country.” That meant
looking at trapping mechanisms in the porous rock at a scale of microns, then applying that
knowledge to formations spanning hundreds of miles. When liquefied CO2 is dissolved in salty
water, the resulting fluid is denser than either of the constituents, so it naturally sinks. It’s a
slow process, but “once the carbon dioxide is dissolved, you’ve won the game,” Juanes says,
because the dense, heavy mixture would never escape back into the atmosphere. While this
study did not address the cost of CCS systems, many analysts have concluded that they could
add 15 to 30 percent to the cost of coal-generated electricity, and would not be viable unless a
carbon tax or a limit on carbon emissions was put in place. While uncertainties remain, “I really
think CCS has a role to play,” Juanes says. “It’s not an ultimate salvation – it’s a bridge – but it
may be essential because it can really address the emissions from coal and natural gas.”
CCS is feasible and renewables fail absent the CP
Van Engelen 9 – freelance writer with a BA in Journalism (Angelique, “Carbon Capture
And Storage: Solution or Boondoggle – The Pros And Cons.” July 16th 2009,
http://globalwarmingisreal.com/2009/07/16/carbon-capture-and-storage-the-pros-and-cons/
) //JG
Washington Times journalist Amanda DeBard recently wrote an alarming article warning that
the new US government is potentially wasting lots of money on projects to capture carbon from
coal fired power plants. The paper suggests there’s no proof that the new technology and the
changes to the fuel industry will make even the slightest difference in the time frame envisaged.
The author casts serious doubts on the viability of the US government’s $3.4 billion investment
in carbon capturing and storage (CCS) technology. Expensive, small-scale pilot projects are
under way [to] capture carbon dioxide before it is released into the air from coal-burning power
plants. But these prototypes have not been proved at levels that would make even a dent in the
U.S. appetite for fossil fuels, casting doubt on the viability of the president’s plans. Still, the
administration continues to promote policies that assume that these pilot programs will soon
become large-scale projects and is seeking funds to bring that day closer,” the newspaper
reports. Experts are quoted saying that true costs are involved that no one nows as yet and that
this is extremely risky. It’s promoting a vision that no one knows what the true cost will be and
[whether] these technologies will succeed on a large scale,” the newspaper quoted Bryan K.
Mignone as saying, who is a climate and energy analyst at the Brookings Institution. So what to
make of these allegations? Let’s focus on the carbon capturing and storage part. Is CCS a waste
of money that will never make it in time? DeBard apparently made little effort to find out exactly
what prototype plants are already out there and what the strengths and weaknesses of CCS
really boil down to. The article focuses on the political side of things and in my view is totally
disconnected with what’s going on on the ground. Before asserting that there might be negative
effects associated (the “true cost”) with carbon capturing technology, the writer might have done
best to seek out the factors determining these “true costs”. A few quick facts about CCS: The
International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that globally, over 200 power plants need CCS
technology in the next twenty years (by 2030), in order to prevent temperature rises of over 3°C.
As we previously reported, research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
suggests that carbon sequestering can reduce human generated CO2 to 80% of 1990 levels by
2050. Only four power plants and/or carbon storage projects utilize CCS as yet: Canada’s
Weyburn-Midale CO2 Project is currently the world’s largest geologic carbon storage project,
located in southeastern Saskatchewan and started in 2000. ExxonMobil/Statoil’s Sleipner plant
in Norway is the world’s oldest project. It stores carbon injects carbon 1,000 meters below the
seabed into a sandstone aquifer. It has been operational since 1995. The 30 megawatt pilot plant
at Schwarze Pumpe in Germany, opened last year. The trial plant is operated by Swedish utility
Vattenfall and burns its fuel at 42% efficiency with a target to increase that to as high as 50-55%.
Another Statoil project in the Snøhvit gas field, in the Barents Sea, stores 700,000 tonnes per
year, equivalent to 330,000 cars with average CO2 emissions of 160g/km and annual driving
distance of 15,000 kms. The main problem preventing large scale CCS adoption by power plants
is that the technology is very expensive and largely unproven. Lobbyists say that ultimately the
costs will as a matter of course decrease as we get experience, but the lack of precedent is again a
deterrent to true belief. All this leads to something of a “chicken or egg argument” in political
and policy circles. The costs of CCS arise mainly because the process of capturing the carbon and
compressing it requires a lot of extra power. Engineers estimate that power plants require up to
25% more power when they are fitted with CCS. They also need considerably more facility space.
Using the carbon dioxide rather than compressing it in energy intensive ways and burying it
underground makes a lot of environmental sense. It also circumvents the danger that the carbon
might leak and make its way back into the atmosphere. The International Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) estimates that risks are comparable to those associated with current
hydrocarbon activity. CO2 could be trapped for millions of years, the IPCC believes, with
retention rates of over 99% over 1000 years. Greenpeace objects, however, that if 1 percent of
the carbon leaks, the next 100 years would see the evaporation of 63% of the stored carbon
dioxide into the atmosphere. It also highlights the dangers of the carbon permeating the storage
shelter over time. The US is spending $3.4 billion on the technology. The California Public
Utilities Commission recently endorsed a feasibility study by South California Edison into
building a utility-scale base-load power plant. The plan is to power the plant with hydrogen
derived through gasification of petroleum coke, coal and possibly biomass. In the US, oil
companies could be a big part of the CCS solution. They tend to use carbon dioxide for oil and
gas exploration. For instance, Exxon Mobil’s La Barge, Wyoming facility is the world’s biggest
CCS operation. Rather than storing the carbon, it transports the carbon dioxide 3,600 miles
(5,800 kms) to gas and oil exploration sites. The world’s biggest CCS enabled power plant, the
Dakota Gasification Company plant in Beulah, North Dakota captures its CO2 for use in
advanced oil field recovery in Weyburn Canada. The company produces methane from coal and
has a track record of more than 30 years. Further plans are to use around 1.5 million tonnes of
CO2 from Weyburn every year for oil recovery. Duke Energy is currently constructing a plant in
Indiana based on coal-gasification that promises to reduce emissions by 75% compared to the
conventional coal plant it replaces. ”It’s an example of one of the clean coal technologies
favoured by the incoming Obama administration”, says Eugene Bukoveczky, a stock analyst at
Forbes Investopedia. However, the construction costs were almost double the original estimates,
at $2.35 billion. Bukoveczky believes that future federal carbon regulations are another major
deterrent for the time being for companies to execute similar plans. The European Union
government in Brussels ordered all its member countries last year to invent their own rules for
CCS within the next two years. Individual countries must select storage sites and come up with
standards for monitoring, safety and finance structures. At the moment, nine European
countries ( Norway, Germany, France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Hungary. Poland, Croatia
and Denmark) are investing €81 million (about $105 million US) in building fifteen research
laboratories for CO2 capture and storage. A major weak point for CCS globally is that Kyoto does
not recognize it. That means that poor countries wanting to submit CCS plans in order to
participate in the carbon trading scheme can not do so. However, some effort went underway
last April to change this. No matter what the risks are of future leakages and the costs involved
in CCS, I believe that so long as it is possible to capture carbon from power plants running on
coal, we should do this as best we can. Even if it means partial solutions are deployed. The only
way to end the world’s worst pollution drama right now is to try to end it with all means
available. There is no way that alternative energy such as wind or solar power is going to be
adopted to such an extent that ordinary power plants will be closing down in the near future.
Meanwhile, every day the smoke stacks emit carbon dioxide is one too many. The interim
measures at power plants themselves might be simply non-existent, but already smaller
inventors are producing a host of commercial applications for CO2 based products, ranging
from cement to algae, to plastics. Even if we capture the carbon for transport at a later date, that
justifies the start of CCS (with the storage part simply left out or turned into a
commercial/financing opportunity). The economic incentive for power plants to quit coal
altogether is only strong if the economy thrives. Before the first half of 2008, the price of coal
doubled due to massive international demand. Now that the economy is in the doldrums, there’s
less of a reason to quit coal in the minds of the energy barons. Prices have returned to “normal
levels” which reflect the “abundance of coal” myth. In the future, coal prices might not only
climb up again but analysts also expect coal to become more expensive as cap and trade laws or
a carbon tax are passed. So yes, the true cost of CCS is still an unknown variable. But one that is
pretty much dependent on something we’ve known for a while; continuing as usual is a risk we
certainly can’t afford. And there are alternatives whether you like it or not!
2nc – alt causes solve relations
Judicial reform and economic development are key to a sustainable
partnership
O’Neil 12 - Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Shannon, “Refocusing U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation,” Council on Foreign Relations,
December 2012, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/refocusing-us-mexico-securitycooperation/p29595 ) //JG
U.S.-Mexico security cooperation, led by the Merida Initiative, is vital and must continue. But
with Enrique Pena Nieto's inauguration, Mexico's political landscape is now changing, and the
United States must adjust its strategy and support accordingly. Building on the lessons of the
past five years, the United States should work with Mexico to implement the nonmilitary
programs envisioned in the current Merida framework, in particular supporting and prioritizing
Mexico's ongoing judicial reform, training police officers at the state and local levels,
modernizing the U.S.-Mexico border, and investing in local community and youth-oriented
programs.
Rule of law is key to relations
Seelke and Finkela 13 - Specialist in Latin American Affairs, and Analyst in Domestic
Security, respectively, for the Congressional Research Service (Clare and Kristin, “U.S.-Mexican
Security Cooperation: The Mérida Initiative and Beyond,” Congressional Research Service,
June 12 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41349.pdf ) //JG
The outcome of the aforementioned reform efforts could have implications for U.S. initiatives to
expand Mérida assistance to state and municipal police forces, particularly as the Mexican
government determines how to organize and channel that assistance. Mérida funding has
supported state-level academies in Chihuahua, Nuevo León, Puebla, and Sonora. Those
academies may be turned into regional training hubs, an idea that President Peña Nieto has
endorsed. U.S. funds could potentially help stand up intelligence task forces in several states, as
well as accredited state police units. Training courses offered to state and municipal police
might have a slightly different emphasis than those given to federal forces, but a focus on
building investigatory capacity is likely to be needed in order for all police to function in the new
accusatorial justice system. In order to complement these efforts, analysts have maintained that
it is important to provide assistance to civil society and human rights-related non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) in Mexico in order to strengthen their ability to monitor police conduct
and provide input on policing policies. Some maintain that citizen participation councils,
combined with internal control mechanisms and stringent punishments for police misconduct,
can have a positive impact on police performance and police-community relations. Others have
mentioned the importance of establishing citizen observatories to develop reliable indicators to
track police and criminal justice system performance, as has been done in some states.
Anti-drug efforts are the lynchpin of relations
Wilson Center 9 – The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Mexico
Institute (“The United States and Mexico: Towards a Strategic Partnership,” January 2009,
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20U.S.%20and%20Mexico.%20Towards
%20a%20Strategic%20Partnership.pdf ) //JG
Today is a time of great opportunity in our relationship with Mexico, but also a time of severe
challenges. While the two governments have taken important steps to limit the risk that
terrorists will use the shared border as a launching pad for attacks, drug trafficking
organizations have developed a lucrative and deadly cross-border trade that creates significant
vulnerabilities for both countries. Mexican drug trafficking organizations have become
increasingly violent in recent years, with over five thousand deaths tied to narcotics trafficking
in 2008 alone, and they have gradually penetrated the institutional framework of the Mexican
state, especially local law enforcement authorities. !ese organizations are fueled by persistent
demand in the United States: over twenty million Americans use illegal drugs each month and
roughly 15 to 25 billion dollars in profits from U.S. drug sales are pumped back into to the
Mexican economy each year in cash and weapons. Violence and corruption wrought by drug
trafficking organizations are felt particularly strongly in border communities, but the effects of
the trade run deep throughout cities and towns in both countries. Policymakers in the two
countries have a shared interest in working together to develop a comprehensive and bilateral
approach that limits the reach of organized crime.
2nc – solves narcoterror and econ
Increased judicial reform programs and economic development in
border regions boosts both the US and Mexican economies and is key
to combating the drug trade
O’Neil 12 - Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations
(Shannon, “Refocusing U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation,” Council on Foreign Relations,
December 2012, http://www.cfr.org/mexico/refocusing-us-mexico-securitycooperation/p29595 ) //JG
Though some will prefer to continue an eradication and interdiction–focused international drug
control regime, the tens of billions of dollars spent during the now over forty-year war on drugs
in Mexico and Latin America suggest the need for a revised policy approach. The outlined
initiatives have a greater chance of reducing violence (if not drug flows) in Mexico by
strengthening police forces, court systems, and communities . The border
improvements, moreover, will likely benefit both the U.S. and Mexican economies ,
which can have indirect positive effects by providing greater legal opportunities to young people.
In the end, Mexico's security will depend on the actions and decisions of Mexico. But there is
much the United States can do to help or hinder the process. A transition to a demilitarized
justice and a community-focused approach to U.S. security assistance will help Mexico establish
more effective and long-lasting tools for combating crime and violence.
2nc – at perm do both
Sequencing is vital – economic cooperation first spills over to every aspect of relations
Baker Institute 9 - the James a. Baker III Institute for Public Policy of Rice University (“Developing the
U.S.—Mexico Border Region for a Prosperous and Secure Relationship,” April 2009,
http://www.bakerinstitute.org/publications/LAI-pub-BorderSecPREnglish-041509.pdf ) //JG
This report on the U.S.–Mexico border aims to aid policymakers in forging stronger and sustainable
U.S.–Mexico bilateral relations with the use of more coordinated approaches to border issues.
Sponsored by the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Texas, this
study investigates the important role of border institutions, civil society, cross-border transnational
populations, and localized, small-scale problem-solving as a first defense against the deteriorating
conditions at the border—be they humanitarian, economic, or security-related. By better
understanding life along each side of the U.S.–Mexico border, we hope to demonstrate the great
potential of this vibrant region to play a positive role in both the U.S. and Mexican economies and
intertwined transnational communities. Rather than represent a zero-sum unilateral dilemma, the
border can be a stepping stone toward a lasting friendship between the United States and Mexico,
and positively influence citizens on both sides of the boundary. The border should be where one can
best see the benefits for the two countries of collaborating and cooperating on issues of major concern.
Instead, the border is increasingly becoming an area of tension, conflict, and unilateral policies and
actions that are more likely to hinder, rather than promote, common goals.
2nc – at energy first (Donnelly)
Energy must be met with economics – Donnelly concludes neg
Their author Donnelly 10 – program associate at the Wilson center (Robert, “U.S.-Mexico
Cooperation on Renewable Energy: Building a Green Agenda,” Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars, May 24 2010, http://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/us-mexico-cooperation-renewable-energybuilding-green-agenda ) //JG
Cooperation in renewable energy is a positive step in U.S.-Mexico relations, but more can be done to
maximize that cooperation, speakers said at the launch of the Woodrow Wilson Center report,
"Environment, Development and Growth: U.S.-Mexico Cooperation in Renewable Energies."
Cooperation can be advanced by better harnessing Mexico's renewable resources and by leveraging
the economic complementarities that exist among the border states, speakers said.
Even if they win that climate cooperation is good, their author concedes that the drug
trade is the most important issue for US/Mexico relations
Their author Miller and DeLeon 9 - *Stephanie, consultant on U.S.-Latin America relations and
was formerly the Research Associate for the Americas Project on the National Security Team. Born in
Venezuela with family from Colombia, Miller earned her degree from Duke University in International
Comparative Studies with a focus on Latin America. She currently lives in Bogotá, Colombia, **Rudy,
Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress (“Transcending
the Rio Grande,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf)//JG
Our core recommendation here is for the United States to provide more funding for drug demand
reduction programs in the United States, and in particular to strengthen the country’s addiction
treatment system. Compared to other policy options for reducing drug consumption, treatment has
shown itself to be especially cost-effective. In 1994, a landmark study by the RAND Corporation found
treatment for heavy cocaine users to be 23 times more effective than drug crop eradication and other
source-country programs, 11 times more effective than interdiction, and seven times more effective
than domestic enforcement at reducing cocaine consumption. Improving access to high-quality
treatment services would multiply the important benefits that treatment already delivers.
2nc – alt causes to relations
Alt causes to climate cooperation they don’t solve – Kyoto protocol
Their author Miller and DeLeon 9 - *Stephanie, consultant on U.S.-Latin America relations and
was formerly the Research Associate for the Americas Project on the National Security Team. Born in
Venezuela with family from Colombia, Miller earned her degree from Duke University in International
Comparative Studies with a focus on Latin America. She currently lives in Bogotá, Colombia, **Rudy,
Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress (“Transcending
the Rio Grande,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf)//JG
In addition, the United States must become a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol and any new international
climate change initiatives on the horizon. The United States should take advantage of substantial
financing opportunities in Mexico through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. The
Clean Development Mechanism allows emission reduction—or emission-removal—projects in
developing countries to earn certified emission-reduction credits, which can then be traded and sold
and used by industrialized 303030309 Center for American Progress | transcending the Rio Grande
countries to meet a part of their emission-reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. As of January
2008, Mexico accounted for 100 of the nearly 900 CDM projects registered worldwide, having been
awarded with 2.3 million carbon emission reduction credits, making Mexico the second-largest creator
of carbon credits in Latin America.
Even your solvency advocates thinks this aff is terrible – they don’t even advocate the plan
Their author Miller and DeLeon 9 - *Stephanie, consultant on U.S.-Latin America relations and
was formerly the Research Associate for the Americas Project on the National Security Team. Born in
Venezuela with family from Colombia, Miller earned her degree from Duke University in International
Comparative Studies with a focus on Latin America. She currently lives in Bogotá, Colombia, **Rudy,
Senior Vice President of National Security and International Policy at American Progress (“Transcending
the Rio Grande,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/04/pdf/mexico.pdf)//JG
To foster a cooperative and mutually beneficial exploration of wind and solar energy investments
between the United States and Mexico, the United States should:
• Explore ways to make investing in alternative energy projects in Mexico more economically viable and
profitable, including possible subsidies and tax breaks for companies looking to invest in alternative
energy both within the United States and abroad.
• Make use of The Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act
of 2008 (H.R. 2764). H.R. 2764 was passed in the 110th U.S. Congress and signed into law in 2007. It
encourages the Export-Import Bank of the United States to invest 10 percent of its financing capacity in
promoting the export of clean-energy products and services.
• Become a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol and any new international climate change initiatives on the
horizon. The United States should take advantage of substantial financing opportunities in Mexico
through the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism. The Clean Development Mechanism
allows emission-reduction (or emission removal) projects in developing countries to earn certified
emission reduction credits, which can then be traded and sold and used by industrialized countries to
meet a part of their emission reduction targets under the Kyoto Protocol. As of January 2008, Mexico
accounted for 100 of the nearly 900 CDM projects registered worldwide. It was awarded with 2,333,150
carbon emission reduction credits, making it the second largest creator of carbon credits in Latin
America.31
Tons of alt causes to relations – renewables didn't even make Obama’s list of things
that need to be addressed – only economic development solves
Obama 13 – President of the United States (Barack, “Obama in Costa Rica: Meets with business
leaders. Transcript,” http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2013/05/obama_in_costa_rica_meets_with.html
) //JG
Well, there's no doubt that we've made progress. More progress needs to be made in improving border
security and facilitating speed and efficiency when it comes to trade and commerce. And those two
things go hand in hand. Both in the United States and on the other side of the border in Mexico, as well
as our northern border with Canada, a lot of the press focus is on security and immigration. But one of
the arguments that we've made in pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform is that you can't
separate out the dangers or challenges or concerns of a border from the enormous opportunities that a
well-managed, well-regulated border represents. And so my administration's focus has been, number
one, let's make sure that we've got a sound system of immigration, customs and a regulatory
environment , in cooperation with Canada and Mexico, that as much as possible eases the flow of
goods and people and services that are legitimate. So, for example, in the North America Leadership
Summit that I have with the Mexican President and the Canadian President, a lot of our work centers
around how can we continue to find ways to synchronize existing regulations so that we can speed up
the movement of goods and services. Are there ways in which there are regular, frequent trading
practices that are going on between the countries where we essentially are able to put them on a fast
lane, as opposed to the more typical travel for tourists or sporadic visitors? And so that regulatory
coordination I think is number one. Number two is infrastructure. The fact of the matter is, is that we
have massive borders both to the south and to the north, and in order for us to make sure that we're
facilitating trade and commerce, we've got to have the best infrastructure, the best portals through
which people can go in a efficient, effective and systematic way that still allows for us to preserve our
security and screen out those problematic elements that might cross our borders. And one of the things
that I've been talking to President Piña Nieto about on our southern border is are there ways that we
can do more joint infrastructure investment at a time when all countries -- not just the United States
and Mexico, but I'm sure Costa Rica and Guatemala and Panama -- we're always trying to find money
somewhere. And when it comes to the border, they're shared. Are there ways in which we can share
some of the costs for continual infrastructure upgrades? But the bottom line is it's both the hardware,
the infrastructure, but also the software, the regulation that's going to make sure that you've got an
effective border system. Comprehensive immigration reform -- that I'm hopeful we can pass this year,
after 30 years -- can make an enormous difference in improving what is already a system that's better
than it was. But I want to echo what Arturo said about the Central American countries -- and this is not
unique, by the way, to Central America. You see this in other parts of the world like in Africa, for
example. Sometimes it's easier to transport goods from parts of Central America to the United States
than it is from one Central American country to another. The same is true in parts of Africa where it's
easier to ship something to Europe than it is to the country right next door. And to think about working
with the Inter-American Development Bank, with the United States, with other partners, how do we
build the kind of connectivity and emphasize internal integration and trade and markets -- that's going
to strengthen you. That will put you in a more effective position to compete in world markets, and it will
allow you, then, to interface with Mexico and the United States and Colombia, and other parts of the
hemisphere -- because what I said to the SICA leaders yesterday was the more integrated we are, the
more effective we're going to compete internationally. But that's going to require some investment. I
just want to emphasize it's not just building the road or the bridge or the port. It's also having the
regulatory structures that make those work.
2nc – econ development solves (this also answers the energy first
args)
Economic development should be the top priority – the CP solves relations better than
the aff
Farnsworth 12 - Vice President of the Council of the Americas (Eric, “What Should the Top Priority Be
for U.S.-Mexican Relations?,” Huffington Post, December 6 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ericfarnsworth/top-priority-us-mexico_b_2245025.html ) //JG
On Dec. 1, Enrique Peña Nieto was inaugurated as Mexico's president. With a new leader taking the
reins in Mexico and Barack Obama's reelection the United States, what should the two leaders focus on
in terms of bilateral ties? Americas Society/Council of the Americas asked nine prominent experts to
share what they consider top priorities. Responses ranged from expanding trade through the TransPacific Partnership to U.S. immigration reform. My response was as follows: "Should be" and "will be"
have frequently been two very different things in the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship. The coming year
offers the opportunity for a new approach. For their own domestic purposes and in the wake of their
respective elections, the United States should quickly tackle immigration reform while Mexico should
liberalize its energy sector. In terms of the bilateral relationship, however, both governments (including
their legislatures) should recognize the nature of economic integration that has occurred since NAFTA,
making our two economies virtually inseparable, along with Canada, as a joint production platform. This
new reality should both be celebrated and also enhanced. Joint approaches within the Trans-Pacific
Partnership negotiations can be a means to achieve NAFTA 2.0. If coupled with a North American
approach to potential trade negotiations with the EU, North American economic integration can
advance to a point unthinkable even a few short years ago. With continued economic and commercial
pressure from China, India, and elsewhere, this approach will support the long-term economic wellbeing of the United States and North America more broadly. A joint economic agenda is now more
achievable than before. The Hispanic community in the United States has found its voice politically,
manufacturing is returning to the United States due to lower prices for natural gas, and, despite ongoing
concerns about violence and the drugs trade, Mexico is doing well enough economically to entice
investors back from China. Now is perhaps the best opportunity in recent memory to intensify economic
collaboration. It should be the top bilateral priority.
Economic development is the lynchpin of the relationship
Wilson Center 12 – Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (“Policy Recommendations for
U.S.-Mexico Relations,” March 2012, http://sunnylands.org/files/pages/151/stronger_f.pdf ) //JG
One of the most important strategic drivers in the relationship today is the economic relationship.
While the other top issues on the bilateral agenda are primarily understood as problems to be solved,
the economic relation is strong and growing. A greater focus on business, investment, and trade has
the potential to reframe the entire U.S.-Mexico relationship , to create a discourse based as much on
opportunity and mutual benefit as it is on risk and shared responsibility. Both countries’ economies
depend on each other more than most citizens realize. Mexico is the United States second largest
export market, and the U.S. is Mexico’s largest. The two countries trade more than a billion dollars in
goods each day, but as important as the volume of the trade is its quality. With a process known as
production sharing, Mexico and the United States jointly manufacture goods, sending parts back and
forth across the border as a final product is built. This integration of our manufacturing sectors means
that to a large extent we will sink or swim together in today’s fiercely competitive global economic
environment.
Economic development is key to reversing anti-American sentiment
Wilson Center 12 – Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (“Policy Recommendations for
U.S.-Mexico Relations,” March 2012, http://sunnylands.org/files/pages/151/stronger_f.pdf ) //JG
The U.S.-Mexico relationship is among the most important and complex bilateral relationships in the
world. The plethora of issues, actors, and stakeholders add political challenges to what at times appear
to be common sense, win-win solutions. Such complexity should not lead to fatalism, but rather
creative and intensive joint problem solving. Within the broad array of voices that take interest in the
relationship, there exists the potential for alliances and coalitions powerful enough to overcome
opposition and to achieve significant advances. Right now, during the recovery from joint economic
crises, cooperation to create jobs and strengthen the competitiveness of regional manufacturers offers
a tremendous opportunity and should be at the center of the bilateral agenda . Prioritizing measures
to enhance trade and reactivating the alliance between the private sectors of the United States and
Mexico could change the tone and politics of the relationship .
Case answers
AT: Sequencing key
Economic cooperation changes the tone of relations – alt causes will be overcome
Heymann et al 12 - James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney
General (Phil, “A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations,” The Wilson
Center & The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands, March 2012,
http://sunnylands.org/files/pages/151/stronger_f.pdf)//AC
Conclusions and the Way Forward The U.S.-Mexico relationship is among the most important and
complex bilateral relationships in the world. The plethora of issues, actors, and stakeholders add
political challenges to what at times appear to be common sense, win-win solutions. Such complexity
should not lead to fatalism, but rather creative and intensive joint problem solving. Within the broad
array of voices that take interest in the relationship, there exists the potential for alliances and
coalitions powerful enough to overcome opposition and to achieve significant advances. Right now,
during the recovery from joint economic crises, cooperation to create jobs and strengthen the
competitiveness of regional manufacturers offers a tremendous opportunity and should be at the
center of the bilateral agenda. Prioritizing measures to enhance trade and reactivating the alliance
between the private sectors of the United States and Mexico could change the tone and politics of
the relationship. The security challenges faced by each country are real and unavoidable. They should
be prioritized, yet balanced with an agenda based on economic opportunity and shared prosperity.
The definition and implementation of new, more focused security strategies designed to reduce
violence and strengthen the rule of law, within a framework of shared responsibility, may bring new
energy and popular support to a difficult ongoing issue. Political spaces may be opening for each nation
to tackle what are in political terms primarily domestic issues, despite their significant regional
implications. The major decline in illegal immigration and corresponding improvement in border
security in the United States presents a new starting point for discussions of comprehensive
immigration reform. Along similar lines, a burgeoning pragmatism toward the development of
petroleum resources in Mexico could change the parameters of the debate on energy reform. Progress
in either Mexico or the United States on these seemingly intractable issues could breathe new energy
into the bilateral relationship, and each side should seek to capitalize on any potential developments.
Partisan politics generally loom large in election years, and 2012 is no different for the United States or
Mexico. The truth is that there will be real political limitations on what the winner of each election can
do, but if there is a lesson from the history of U.S.-Mexico relations, it is that an inclusive process of
strategic planning can generate sound ideas and strengthen the political will to seek real advances. This
is precisely why the Wilson Center and The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands came together: to
stimulate this process. The ideas presented in this document are based on the observation that
Mexico, the United States, and the global context have all undergone major transformations since the
last time the two countries had simultaneous election years in 2000. Examination and improvements
to our bilateral relationship can and should take place constantly, but the twelve-year dual-election
cycle represents a special opportunity to take the relationship to the next level. By calling on us to look
back twelve years, we are reminded just how much potential there is for change and progress. By
looking forward twelve years, we can imagine a significantly more sophisticated, mature, and strategic
relationship between two neighbors that could grow enormously in their partnership. When used to its
fullest, the twelve year cycle is a tremendous opportunity for reflection, for new ideas, and the
creation of a stronger partnership. The time is now for significant and mutually beneficial progress in
the U.S.-Mexico relationship.
A greater focus on economic relations overcomes alt causes – they’re seen as key to
our survival
Heymann et al 12 - James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, former Deputy Attorney
General (Phil, “A Stronger Future: Policy Recommendations for U.S.-Mexico Relations,” The Wilson
Center & The Annenberg Retreat at Sunnylands, March 2012,
http://sunnylands.org/files/pages/151/stronger_f.pdf)//AC
Economic Cooperation and Job Creation One of the most important strategic drivers in the
relationship today is the economic relationship. While the other top issues on the bilateral agenda are
primarily understood as problems to be solved, the economic relation is strong and growing . A
greater focus on business, investment, and trade has the potential to reframe the entire U.S.Mexico relationship , to create a discourse based as much on opportunity and mutual benefit as it is
on risk and shared responsibility. Both countries’ economies depend on each other more than most
citizens realize. Mexico is the United States second largest export market, and the U.S. is Mexico’s
largest. The two countries trade more than a billion dollars in goods each day, but as important as the
volume of the trade is its quality. With a process known as production sharing, Mexico and the United
States jointly manufacture goods, sending parts back and forth across the border as a final product is
built. This integration of our manufacturing sectors means that to a large extent we will sink or swim
together in today’s fiercely competitive global economic environment. The United States and Mexico
are among the most open economies in the world, with tariff-free access to a combined 53 countries,
including the European Union, Japan, and several other major trading nations. This presents a
tremendous opportunity for both countries to develop an export platform with global reach. To take
advantage of this, it is necessary to strengthen regional competitiveness. North America was forged as
an economic unit with the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, and
while this remains the central architecture of the economic relationship, the region has in many ways
grown stagnant, allowing several seemingly minor issues to chip away at its competitive advantage.
There appears to be little appetite for a major continental initiative to deepen economic integration,
but there is certainly political space for increased momentum on several important fronts.
Obama and Nieto are looking beyond immigration and security
Nelson and Nicholas 13 - *Washington, D.C.-based reporter for The Wall Street Journal AND
**White House Correspondent, LA Times/Tribune Washington Bureau (Colleen and Peter, “Mexico, U.S.
Leaders Try To Deepen Economic Ties,” Wall Street Journal, 5/2/13,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324766604578459190363300754.html)//AC
MEXICO CITY—President Barack Obama offered his support Thursday for Mexico's shifting security
strategy as he called for a greater focus on economic ties in a relationship between the two countries
that often has been dominated by issues of drugs and illegal immigration. Mr. Obama arrived for a twoday visit amid signs that Mexico is moving to reduce the violent tempo of its yearslong war against drug
traffickers. At the same time, President Enrique Peña Nieto is revamping his law enforcement
bureaucracy, a move that will affect coordination with U.S. agencies. Previously, U.S. law-enforcement
officials enjoyed widespread freedom of contact with individual Mexican agencies. The reorganization
will centralize those contacts within a beefed up Interior Ministry. Mr. Obama, appearing with Mr. Peña
Nieto at a joint news conference, said only Mexicans could decide their country's security policies. But
he added: "I agreed to continue our close cooperation on security, even as the nature of that
cooperation will evolve." Mr. Peña Nieto said Mexico remained committed to "fighting organized crime
in all its modalities." But he has signaled a shift from the country's militarized campaign against drug
cartels, which critics say has stoked violence, leading in the last six years to more than 60,000 deaths
and 20,000 disappearances, most of them victims of fighting between feuding crime organizations.
Mexican officials deny that these changes will lessen Mexico's coordination and cooperation with U.S.
law enforcement efforts. "Cooperation continues to be the same, it's just that it's in a more orderly
manner, using the channels that should be used everywhere" said one senior Mexican official. While the
issue of security looms large during Mr. Obama's trip to Mexico, his administration has tried to focus this
visit on broadening economic relations and spurring growth on both sides of the border. "Mexico and
the United States have one of the largest, most dynamic relationships of any two countries on Earth,"
Mr. Obama said in the Treasury Room of the National Palace, adding: "Too often, two issues get
attention: security or immigration." After a private meeting with Mr. Peña Nieto, Mr. Obama said at the
news conference that the two countries plan to deepen mutual ties to make both more competitive in
global trade. He said that Vice President Joe Biden would be part of a new "high-level dialogue" between
U.S. and Mexican officials. However, the two also exchanged views on immigration issues, which are
sensitive on both sides of the border. Mr. Obama traveled to Mexico as U.S. lawmakers continue work
on rewriting immigration laws—an effort that would affect the more than 11 million Mexicans who live
in the U.S. Mr. Obama predicted Congress would pass an immigration overhaul, despite pessimism
about its prospects from U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R., Fla.), one of the bill's architects. More Joint
Statement: U.S., Mexico Stress Greater Cooperation "I expressed to President Peña Nieto that I'm
optimistic about us getting this done because it's the right thing to do," Mr. Obama told reporters.
While the debate in the U.S. has focused on questions about border security and a path to citizenship,
Messrs. Obama and Peña Nieto were careful in addressing these topics in Mexico City, considering how
their comments would be received by people in both countries. Ted Piccone, senior fellow and deputy
director for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, said Mexicans now accept border security as the
political price that must be paid to ensure that other changes are made to immigration laws.
Administration officials have said they are confident Mexican officials will respect the fact that these are
issues for U.S. leaders to resolve. "We've emphasized on our side that this is a domestic political issue
primarily," said Ricardo Zuniga, special assistant to the U.S. president and senior director for Western
hemisphere affairs. Mr. Peña Nieto echoed that sentiment, praising the leadership of Mr. Obama and
Congress on the issue and wishing them well. Mexico understands that this is a domestic affair for the
U.S., he said. While immigration and security remain prominent in this week's talks, the
administration's goal for this trip, is to look beyond those issues . "There's been a view around for a
while now that the bilateral relationship, at least, with Mexico has been kind of dominated by drugs and
violence," said Joshua Meltzer, a global economy and development fellow at the Brookings Institution.
Solvency 1NC
Several barriers prevent sustainable development
Garrison 10 – Environment and Climate Change Consultant for the United States Agency for
International Development (John L, “Clean Energy & Climate Change Opportunities Assessment for
USAID/Mexico,” USAID, 4/30/10, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADS950.pdf)//SJF
3.1.2 Barriers to Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency in Mexico
a. Renewable Energy Barriers
Low Energy Rates Based on Short‐Term Marginal Costs. There is significant renewable energy and
energy efficiency potential in Mexico. Nevertheless, both sectors in Mexico have been slow to grow. By
far the greatest barrier to renewable energy in Mexico lies in the price of electricity paid by CFE to
electricity producers. At present, CFE is required to produce power at the lowest cost. The rate paid for
power from small producers or for surplus power from self‐supply projects is established by the short
term marginal cost of gas‐fired plants.28 As environmental externalities are not taken into account,
even with the rise in natural gas prices the rate remains too low to cover the costs of current renewable
energy technologies. CFE’s first concession attempt for the 101 MW La Venta III wind project, for
example, failed despite a grant from the World Bank to provide financial incentives.29
Electricity rates are based on generation, transmission and distribution costs provided by CFE. Rates are
set by the Secretary of Treasury and Public Credit(Secretaría deHacienda y Crédito Público – SHCP) with
input from CFE and SENER. At present, such rates do not take into account environmental externalities
of fossil fuels, which puts renewable energy at a disadvantage. Fortunately, the new renewable energy
law requires that SENER develops a methodology for determining environmental externalities for
electric power generation to be considered in setting the price of electricity. In addition, according to a
World Bank study, electricity subsidies in Mexico are among the highest in the world costing the country
approximately $9 billion, roughly equal to one‐third of electricity sector revenues in 2006.30 Two thirds
of the subsidies go to residential users. Agricultural electricity use receives the highest rate ofsubsidy.31
The residential and agricultural electricity use subsidies are a disincentive to improving efficiency. Tariffs
for the commercial sector and for public services, on the other hand are high, 32 and large users are
increasingly turning to independent power generation (in many cases from wind)through self‐supply
agreements to protect themselves against the potential rise in electricity costs.33 High prices in theory
make energy conservation and efficiency projects more attractive.
Other Barriers to Renewable Energy. While price is the main barrier to renewable energy development
in Mexico, the following is a list of additional renewable energy barriers identified by the Inter‐American
Development Bank’s “A Blueprint for Green Energy in the Americas” and the Bank’s “Mexico Public‐
Private Sector Renewable Energy Program” Clean Technology Fund (CTF) Proposal:
Regulatory Barriers: There is a lack of transparency and uncertainty in CFE’s independent power
producer tendering process including the definition of ceiling prices and the selection criteria. For auto‐
generation projects, there is a lack of legal clarity in terms of CFE’s purchase of excess electricity.34
Lack of Incentives: Even under the new regulatory framework, it remains to be seen whether new
measures to promote renewables will be sufficient to enable renewable energy to compete with
combined‐cycle natural gas fired plants. CFE renewable energy projects have also been hampered by the
expectation that such investments must obtain aminimum12% return.35
Transmission Access, Capacity and Fees: Many viable small scale hydro projects that take advantage of
existing irrigation channels are far from existing transmission lines. This is also true for wind energy
projects. Transmission capacity in areas with large renewable energy potential is also an issue. For
example, additional transmission capacity will be required to expand the cross‐border sale of renewable
energy to the State of California. In the state of Oaxaca, 13 private auto‐generation developers on the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec were required to build the interconnection infrastructure to bring the wind
generated power to the main transmission network at a cost of $200million.36 Furthermore, grid
interconnection charges are set on a case‐by‐case basis with no clear methodology for calculating the
charges.37
Permitting Time: Small hydro projects, in particular, require extensive permits including water‐use and
land‐use concessions, and project approval from the National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del
Agua ‐ CNA).38 CFE approval procedures for renewable energy projects lead to high up‐front and
transaction costs.39
Limited Access to Finance: Rural communities are often unable to pay the cost of off‐grid renewable
electricity without some form of outside assistance. Mexico’s national development banks have not
developed financial instruments that adequately address the renewable energy sector’s risks and
liquidity needs.40
Environmental Concerns: Apart from the environmental concerns associated with large hydroelectric
dams, potential geothermal sites are located near or in ecological reserves. Wind and large solar
projects also have potentially negative environmental and social impacts.
Class Seven Winds: High winds in the States of Oaxaca and Baja California limit the types of wind
turbines available for such high wind conditions.
2NC Fails
Too many obstacles to sustainable Mexican integration
Girolami 9 – J. Anthony Girolami is Counsel in the Mexico City office of Chadbourne & Parke. For the
past 15 years, he has represented U.S., Mexican, Brazilian and a host of Latin American clients in
transactions involving the development, construction and financing of large scale infrastructure projects
in Latin America, as well as lenders and borrowers in cross-border syndicated credit facilities. Fluent in
both Spanish and Portuguese, Anthony has represented financial institutions, infrastructure developers
and renewable energy companies with the formation of joint ventures, project financings, engineering,
procurement and construction contracts and restructurings in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru,
Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Paraguay and Guatemala (J Anthony, “Going Verde - Renewable Energy
in Mexico,” The California International Law Journal,” 17:2, Spring 2009, http://girolamilaw.com/GIRO_WhitePapers/Mexico-Goes-Verde.pdf)//SJF
III. DIFFICULTIES IMPLEMENTING RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS
Mexico has largely underperformed in the development and implementation of renewable power
projects due in part to the existing legal framework governing its electric power industry, technical
challenges related to the transmission system and the uncertainties regarding land ownership. The
Mexican electric power industry remains largely state controlled with limited participation from the
private sector. Under the Mexican Constitution, the provision of electricity is considered to be a “public
service” and is controlled by the state-owned electricity utility the Comisión Federal de Electricidad
(“CFE”)9 which is charged with the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity to Mexican
consumers. Private sector participation in electricity generation has been restricted to self-supply of
electricity, electricity sales to the CFE via a power purchaser agreement (“PPA”) under the independent
power production (“IPP”) scheme, cogeneration and the exportation of electricity10.
The existing Electricity Law and the regulations thereto have also had a negative effect on renewable
power development. For example, under Article 36- bis of the Electricity Law,11 the CFE is obligated to
obtain electricity at the lowest cost available. Clearly, the framers of the Electricity Law had Mexican
consumers in mind when they decided to obligate the CFE to obtain electricity at the lowest cost
available.
As an unanticipated consequence, the CFE has not been able to add renewable energy projects to its
generation portfolio since the cost of electricity from renewable sources has historically been much
higher than the cost of electricity obtained from large hydroelectric facilities conventional fossil fuel
power plants.
As a result of the restrictions placed on the CFE, private renewable energy developers have entered the
market and are currently developing renewable energy projects under the self-supply regime while
others are being developed to export power to offtakers outside Mexico as permitted by the Electricity
Law.
Under the self-supply regulations, a private company or group of companies is permitted to build, own
and operate a generation asset serving multiple clients who are also the owners. Each of the project
owners listed in the self-supply permit is entitled to consume the amount of electricity allotted to it in
the self supply permit. Self-supply projects must enter into interconnection agreement and transmission
agreements with the CFE.
Self-supply projects are typically driven by the cost savings enjoyed by the off takers since the cost of
electricity for industrial and commercial customers is very expensive as compared to the cost of
electricity derived from a renewable energy project. The current regulations also allow self suppliers to
“bank” surplus energy monthly allowing an amount equal to the surplus to be delivered to an off taker
during periods where electricity production is lower than actual consumption.12 Most of the wind
projects under development in Oaxaca are being developed self-supply projects serving large industrial
off takers.
Notwithstanding their favorable economics, self-supply projects have seen their fair share of obstacles.
The main technical difficulty is the lack of transmission capacity from remote areas where such projects
are located to urban load centers. To address this problem, the CFE has recently awarded a contract for
the construction of two 425 KM, 400 KV transmission lines and related substations in the states of
Oaxaca and Veracruz. It is anticipated that the new transmission lines will come into service by the end
of 2010.
The other main problem encountered by developers relates to the use of communal land known as
ejidos13 and the ongoing relationship with rural communities. Approximately 47% of all real property in
Mexico is owned or controlled by ejidos.
14 These collectively owned and administered parcels of land tend to be located in rural areas where
most renewable power projects (particularly wind projects) are being developed. Proving land
ownership can be a difficult and drawn out process due to the antiquated real property registration
system that exists in many rural areas of Mexico. It is not uncommon for project developers to go
through a lengthy due diligence process only to discover that the purported owner of the land did not
have legal title. To complicate matters further, title insurance is not widely available in Mexico.
Current Mexican law allows an ejido to lease its real property to third parties for up to thirty (30) years
provided that the lease agreement is approved by all of the members of the ejido.
15 Negotiating lease agreements with ejidos can be a complicated and time consuming process. The
ejido must comply with its internal bylaws when entering into contracts with third parties or its actions
will not be legally binding. Project developers should have a firm understanding of the regulations to
avoid entering into unenforceable lease agreements.
Assuming that the ejido and the project developer are able to execute a valid and enforceable lease
agreement, project developers are routinely faced with requests to increase the rent payable to the
ejido or to provide additional social services to the ejido that were not contemplated in the original
lease. Disagreements commonly result in protests by members of the ejido and the blocking of access to
project site until the dispute is resolved. Consequently, the lack of contractual certainty has played a
significant role in delaying the implementation of renewable energy projects.
AT: Warming advantage
The plan doesn't address consumption and produces – means they
can’t solve and turns case
Byrne et al 9 - Professor of Energy & Climate Policy at the University of Delaware (John,
“Relocating Energy in the Social Commons: Ideas for a Sustainable Energy Utility,” Sage, April
2009, http://bst.sagepub.com/content/29/2/81.full.pdf+html ) //JG
The threat of global warming has propelled renewable energy from policy Siberia to policy
priority. Its impressive rise to prominence has been swift and, also, puzzling. While renewables
lack the industrial heft of nuclear power, they nevertheless have left the engineering garage and
are now courted in the boardrooms of big industry and big finance. Their recent success has
been aptly described as a passage “from love-ins to logos” (Glover, 2006). Power and profit
projections once reserved solely for the globally integrated fossil fuel system now extend to
include renewable energy markets as well. Industry proponents and market analysts project
billions of dollars in growth in the renewable energy market over the next decade. Wave, wind,
solar, and hydropower are all considered essential technologies to address energy demand in a
carbon-constrained world. Reminiscent of the institutional alliances that led to the creation of
the industrial mega-energy systems that have dominated modernity, the call for public and
private investment in renewable energy has the political ring and economic ka-ching normally
reserved for the overlords of the modern energy scheme. The corporate renewable energy
movement has studied the tactics of its competitors and adapted them to their needs.
Appropriating the symbols of technology triumphalism of nuclear power (Byrne, Glover, &
Alroe, 2006, p. 16-17), corporate renewable energy has launched a campaign for, fittingly, a
“Manhattan Project” that can vault Big Wind and other renewables with extra-large size
ambitions to a new level (Wilson, 2008). The new order is visualized with imagery suggesting
the benign nature of giant wind turbines in pastoral settings. To secure the support of
technologically minded moderns, these same turbines are applauded for their complexity and
scale—far larger than the Statue of Liberty, built with the exotic chemistry of composites, and
aerodynamically designed with highly sophisticated computer models, the technology readily
earns hi-tech status (Parfit, 2005). Contesting the imagery is difficult. Big Wind resisters cite
noise, bird mortality, and the industrialization of heretofore largely untrammeled land and
seascapes in their arguments against Big Wind farms. But supporters counter with scientific
evidence offered by experts ranging from ornithologists to acoustics specialists and underscore
the larger threat of global warming in defense of these carbon-free alternatives. Importantly, the
green energy case pits one set of environmental values against another, and depends on the
priority of climate change to win out. But equally important, the environmental case for green
energy fails to challenge the affluence-based development path secured by earlier energy
systems. Rather than questioning the underlying premise of modern society to produce and
consume without constraint, contemporary green energy advocates warmly embrace creating
“bigger and more complex machines to spur and sate an endlessly increasing world energy
demand” (Byrne & Toly, 2006, p. 3) Marketing slogans originally justifying fossil energy-based
obesity can be revamped to suit the new green energy agenda: choosier mothers choose
renewables and better living through green energy will motivate the postclimate change
consumer to do the right thing. Yet the green energy agenda will not change the cause of the
global warming threat (and so many other environmental harms), namely, unlimited
consumption and production . In this sense, large renewable energy systems, touted as
saviors of the planet, actually appear mainly to save modernity. A final problem specific to an
extra-large green energy project is the distinctive environmental alienation it can produce. The
march of commodification is spurred by the green titans as they seek to enter historic commons
areas such as mountain passes, pasture lands, coastal areas, and the oceans, in order to collect
renewable energy. Although it is not possible to formally privatize the wind or solar radiation
(for example), the extensive technological lattices created to harvest renewable energy on a
grand scale functionally preempt commons management of these resources.10 Previous efforts
to harness the kinetic energy of flowing waters should have taught the designers of the megagreen energy program and their environmental allies that environmental and social effects will
be massive and will preempt commons-based, society-nature relations. Instead of learning this
lesson, the technophilic awe that inspired earlier energy obesity now emboldens efforts to tame
the winds, waters, and sunlight—the final frontiers of he society-nature commons—all to serve
the revised modern ideal of endless, but low- to no- carbon emitting, economic growth.
Renewables don’t offset fossil fuels – boomerang effect ensures it just
drives up consumption
Zehner 12 – visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley (Ozzie, “Solar Cells and Wind Turbines Don't
Offset Fossil Fuel Use, According to New Book, Green Illusions,” Wall Street Journal, June 12
2012, http://www.marketwatch.com/story/solar-cells-and-wind-turbines-dont-offset-fossilfuel-use-according-to-new-book-green-illusions-2012-06-12 ) //JG
Renewable energy technologies do not offset fossil fuel use in the United States
according to a new environmental book, Green Illusions (June 2012, University of Nebraska
Press), by University of California - Berkeley visiting scholar Ozzie Zehner. In fact, building
more solar cells and wind turbines could actually accelerate fossil fuel use unless nations take
other steps to avoid a rebound effect. Many renewable energy researchers assume that building
solar cells and wind farms will displace coal use and lower carbon dioxide levels. However,
Zehner explains that subsidizing renewable energy merely expands energy supplies, which
exerts a downward pressure on prices. Energy demand subsequently increases. "This brings us
right back to where we started: high demand and so-called insufficient supply," says Zehner.
"Historically, we've filled that added demand by building more coal-fired power plants, not
fewer." "We create an energy boomerang ," Zehner remarked during a recent PBS interview.
"The harder we throw energy into the grid, the harder demand comes back to hit us on the head.
More efficient solar cells, taller wind turbines, and advanced biofuels are all just ways of
throwing harder."
Renewables empirically fail in China
Holmes 11 – CEO of US Global Investors (Frank, “Coal Use Shine’s Light on China's
Economic Growth”, Market Oracle 5-3, http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article27899.html, 7-511)//JG
The Chinese government made it clear that it wants to wean the country’s power grid from coal.
That’s proven to be a difficult task. China’s 12th Five Year Plan calls for big improvements in
energy efficiency and the development of additional sources including natural gas. Massive
projects such as the Three Gorges Dam have sought to increase capacity of alternatives, but
hydroelectric, nuclear and other renewables combined make up only 10 percent of total power.
In addition, low water levels due to a drought in Southern China have reduced current
hydroelectric capacity. The ongoing disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan has
delayed but not squashed China’s nuclear ambitions. The country has plans to build more than
two dozen plants by 2020, accounting for 40 percent of new nuclear facilities around the globe.
Only time will tell if the effort will be successful. The EIA forecasts that China’s power
generation from coal will increase by 2035 but will only account for 62 percent of total power
generation at that time. However, the EIA says that absolute coal consumption will nearly
double as the economy continues to grow and electricity demand remains strong.
2nc Jevon’s paradox
Turns case – tech solutions ensure we never address the root cause
Zehner 12 – visiting Scholar at UC Berkeley (Ozzie, “Green Illusions,” Project Muse, 2012,
http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780803243361/ ) //JG
If we were gunslingers, we'd be in trouble. Several sinister energy challenges are staring us
down, but the productivists are asking us to choose our weapon from a rack of toy guns. The
alternative-energy project's fundamental weakness lies in its failure to engage with obvious
cultural factors such as consumerism, corporatism, and middle-class desires . Instead,
we allow pundits to frame energy challenges as technological problems requiring a technological
fix. Every day, media troupes relay news snippets touting the latest bio-eco-green energy
sources—all designed to jury-rig a mode of life that is not optimal, desirable, or even affordable
for most of the world's communities. The "energy crisis" is more cultural than technological in
nature and the failure to recognize this has led to policies that have brought us no closer to an
alternative-energy future today than we were in the 1960s when the notion was first envisaged.1
In fact, since the 1960s , humanity has become quite adept at intensifying large-scale risks
through a variety of productivist pursuits. We've built neighborhoods deep in forests that are
bound to catch on fire, we've built our cities right up to the banks of constricted rivers prone to
flooding, we've erected tall buildings atop triggered faults, and so it's really no surprise that
we've constructed an energy system pressed right up against the very limits of power
production.2 Attempting to push these limits back by creating more power through alternative
means is a futile endeavor, at least in the current sociopolitical environment of the United
States. A growing population insisting on greater affluence will quickly fill any vacancy such
maneuvers might pry open. This would not only expand overall energy risks but also increase
the number of souls in danger when energy supplies inevitably waver again. This is what I call
the boomerang effect. Energy Boomerang Effect A central project of this book is to interrogate
the assumption that alternative energy is a viable path to prosperity. I have not only outlined the
many side effects, drawbacks, risks, and limitations of alternative technologies but have also
indicated that we cannot assume that shifting to them will lower our fossil-fuel use. Alternativeenergy production expands energy supplies, placing downward pressure on prices, which spurs
demand, entrenches energy-intensive modes of living, and finally brings us right back to where
we started: high demand and so-called insufficient supply.3 In short, we create an energy
boomerang—the harder we throw, the harder it will come back to hit us on the head. More
efficient solar cells, taller wind turbines, and advanced biofuels are all just ways of throwing
harder. Humans have been subject to the flight pattern of this boomerang for quite some time
and there is no reason to suppose we have escaped its whirling trajectory today. In the existing
American context, increasing alternative-energy production will not displace fossil-fuel side
effects but will instead simply add more side effects to the mix (and as we have seen, there are
plenty of alternative-energy side effects to be wary of). So instead of a world with just the
dreadful side effects of fossil fuels, we will enter into a future world with the dreadful side effects
of fossil fuel plus the dreadful side effects of alternative-energy technologies—hardly a durable
formula for community or environmental prosperity. If we had different political, legal, and
economic structures and backstops to assure that alternative-energy production would directly
offset fossil-fuel use, these technologies might make more sense. But it will take years to
institute such vital changes. Focusing our efforts on alternative-energy production now only
serves to distract us from the real job that needs to be done. Worse yet, if fundamental
economic, social, and cultural upgrades are not instituted, the project of alternative energy is
bound to fail, which would likely lead to crippling levels of public cynicism toward future efforts
to produce cleaner forms of power. As it stands now, even if alternative-energy schemes were
free, they might still be too expensive given their extreme social costs and striking inability to
displace fossil-fuel use. But as it turns out, they aren't free at all—they're enormously expensive.
Grid DA
1NC
Grid expansion now – the plan speeds up renewable development – collapses
reliability
Garrison 10 – Environment and Climate Change Consultant for the United States Agency for
International Development (John L, “Clean Energy & Climate Change Opportunities Assessment for
USAID/Mexico,” USAID, 4/30/10, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADS950.pdf)//SJF
b. Barriers to a Cross‐Border California‐Baja California Renewable Energy Market
A key issue for renewable energy power development is access to electricity grid infrastructure. A
specific priority under the U.S.‐Mexico Bilateral Agreement is to promote the development of a regional
renewable energy market between California and Baja California and to help facilitate the construction
of new power lines in a sustainable manner.
In response to the adoption of California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS),the California Electricity
Commission launched the California Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) in the summer of
2007 to identify competitive renewable energy zones(CREZ) and possible transmission corridors and
siting options to serve those zones. A year later, in May of 2008,the Western Governors’ Association and
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) launched the Western Renewable Energy Zones (WREZ)initiative,
which includesrepresentativesfrom11 states, two Canadian provinces and areas in northern Mexico, to
develop a framework for consensus among states and provinces within the Western Interconnection on
how to best develop cost‐effective and environmentally sensitive renewable energy zones and
transmission plans.41 Under Phase 2 of its renewable energy resource assessment, RETI completed a
conceptual plan for expanding the California’s transmission grid to access the CREZ with the lowest costs
and impacts needed to reach 33% electric power from renewables. Using National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL) data, the RETI assessment identified approximately 9,000 MW of wind potential in La
Rumorosa resource area of which 2,400 MW was deemed to be highly competitive developable wind
potential.42 The USAID CP/RE program also conducted a study on the export potential for wind energy
to California and Texas.43
Existing cross‐border transmission is limited with only 800 MW of transmission capacity through two
230‐kV lines. At present, Sempra is seeking a permit from DOE to build a cross‐border transmission line
to carry electricity from its wind turbines at La Rumorosa to the Southwest Powerlink in Imperial County,
California with a potential for 1,250 MW. The California Independent System Operator(CAISO) has
reportedly submitted interconnection applications for both La Rumorosa and Santa Catarina.
Nevertheless, four additional transmission lines will be needed if Baja California’s wind potential is to be
fully met.
For future cross border renewable energy trade to grow, however, a number of barriers must be
overcome. For one, power exported from Mexico and sold to California under its RPS must show that it
meets California’s environmental quality standards and that it protects the environment to the same
extent as if it were located in California.44 The RPS environmental requirements are not clear and need
to be better defined. Also of concern is the potential impact that intermittent wind energy might have
on CFE’s and Imperial Irrigation District(IID) electrical grids even if not directly connected to them. Such
impacts must be identified and addressed to CFE’s satisfaction prior to its concurrence of the CRE’s
issuance of an energy export permit. The integration of 5,000 MW of wind from Baja California, for
example, may require CFE’s 230‐kV East‐West corridor to be significantly reinforced raising the question,
who will pay. CAISO is in contact with CFE and IID to study the impact that the region’s renewable
energy cluster might have on their respective systems. Nevertheless, remediation of potential impacts
will need to be addressed between the developer and CFE and/orIID.45
Another barrier to cross‐border renewable energy trade is the biennial re‐certification requirement. The
designation of Baja California border area as an Energy Resource Area under the RETI process will also
be important for future renewable energy development as will the expansion and strengthening of the
transmission grid on the California side to reach highly populated areas. Given the current economic
climate, the transmission expansion envisioned by RETI may not materialize.
Adding Mexico grid interconnections means increased renewable investment kills
spare capacity – causes overstretch and blackouts
The Economist 11 (“Difference Engine: Disaster waiting to happen,” Babbage, 9/16/11,
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/09/reliability-grid)//SJF
Yet, further down the coast, 6m citizens of southern California and south-west Arizona, along with their
cousins across the Mexican border, were just recovering from a man-made disaster that had plunged
their sweltering world into darkness—shutting down schools, hospitals, offices, factories, shops and
restaurants, as lighting, air-conditioning and other essential equipment ceased to function.
Beaches in San Diego had to be closed to the public because raw sewage had seeped into the sea.
Passengers on trains stuck between stations and trapped in lifts had to be rescued by the police. Flights
from San Diego International Airport were cancelled because security checkpoints were inoperable
during the power outage and passenger processing could not be carried out. (Emergency runway lights
meant that inbound flights could still land.) With traffic lights out of action and petrol stations unable to
pump, motorists abandoned their vehicles and added to the gridlock that ruled the roads. By great good
fortune, no-one died or was seriously injured. But normal life, for those so affected, ground to a
miserable and unnerving halt.
The difference between the two events could not have been more stark. One was all about
preparedness and professionalism. The other was a forceful reminder of the chaos wrought by personal
negligence and institutional neglect. “We don't need no lousy terrorists to cause mayhem,” San Diegans
must have reflected afterwards. “We can manage just fine by ourselves.”
The power outage that swept across a large swathe of the American south-west on September 8th was
the region's worst cascading blackout in 15 years. It started at the North Gila substation near Yuma,
Arizona, where a utility employee “was doing some work” on faulty equipment. Something happened
(still under investigation) to cause the substation to shut down, disconnecting a 500kV transmission line
connected to it and disrupting the electricity supply to Yuma's 90,000 residents.
The immediate power shortage at Yuma caused the current—which normally flows along the grid's key
Southwest Power Link from Arizona to California—suddenly to reverse its direction. The result was a
violent fluctuation in line voltage that fed back through the grid to trip switches at substations
throughout the San Diego area. Altogether, some 15 power stations in the region shut down
automatically to protect themselves from voltage swings—the biggest being the 2,200MW San Onofre
nuclear power plant up the coast near San Clemente.
With the San Onofre plant disconnected and the umbilical cord from Arizona effectively severed, the
delicately balanced grid serving San Diego and its adjacent counties quickly became unstable. Such
problems would normally be resolved by ratcheting up the output of surrounding power stations. But
with so little base-load capacity in the area, standby plants for meeting peak demand could not be spun
up fast enough to stabilise the voltage. The overloaded grid promptly crashed, causing blackouts to
spread across the region and into Mexico. The lights did not come back on until the following morning.
The wind was blowing at only 8mph and the sky was partially overcast. So, California's lauded sources of
renewable energy were of little help. If anything, they were part of the problem. Critics point out, with
some justification, that California's energy strategy of focusing on conservation and expanding
intermittent sources of renewable energy—while ignoring the urgent need for more base-load
generating capacity close to big cities—was the primary cause of the grid failure.
The wider issue is that the original voltage spike which triggered the monster outage should have been
isolated at the Yuma substation in Arizona. The two official bodies responsible for overseeing the
distribution and reliability of bulk power in the United States—the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission (FERC) and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC)—have launched an
inquiry to learn why that did not happen. Their report will no doubt apportion blame and recommend
changes in maintenance procedures. But few expect it to address the underlying problem. Both FERC
and NERC are only too aware of the structural reasons why the American grid has become so fragile.
They are equally aware of how intractable to solution those reasons are.
As elsewhere, the electrical-power industry in America has changed over recent decades from a
collection of heavily regulated regional monopolies to a complex, competitive, national, free-market
business. In the process, electricity has become a commodity, with futures and contracts traded by
participants just like any other commodity business. Independent power providers and transmission
companies construct their own facilities, often paid for with bonds backed by future revenue streams.
Retailers sign up customers, buy the electricity from wholesalers around the country, and bill users for
it.
Managing supply and demand, once the prerogative of the utilities' planners, has become a process
shaped largely by an energy company's appetite for risk. Meanwhile, independent system operators
who schedule the dispatches of electricity have become, effectively, asset managers—using marketclearing prices to equilibrate between bids by suppliers and those from retailers.
By and large, such changes have made energy markets more efficient. For consumers, the competition
created by deregulation has kept a lid on electricity prices. But it has had downsides, too. One of the
biggest is the way it has removed what little spare capacity the grid once had. In the power industry's
new competitive environment, transmission companies operate their lines at near full capacity, leaving
little room for those threatening fluctuations in voltage caused by accidental outages.
Compounding matters further is the way long-distance transmission lines connecting utilities around the
country are being used differently these days. Before deregulation, such links were employed largely for
emergencies—for when, say, a utility found its voltage dipping precipitously and a brownout imminent.
Today, long-haul power lines are frequently made to handle more power than they were designed to, as
wholesalers sell their electricity over longer and longer distances. The juice that comes out of a plug in
clean-energy California can easily have come from a dirty coal-fired plant in Wyoming or West Virginia.
As a result, the grid now suffers far greater fluctuations in electricity flow than ever before. The
continual cycling of power plants up and down to meet demand from elsewhere in the country causes
generating and transmission parts to heat up and cool down repeatedly. No surprise that they then wear
out faster. Meanwhile, the amount of money the American power industry spends on maintenance has
declined steadily, by 1% a year since 1992. With the grid's most critical components—the transformers
at substations—now typically 40 years old, there are serious consequences for the stability and
reliability of the grid as a whole.
Another downside of deregulation has been the decline in investment. As the independent power
providers, the electricity retailers and the utilities have no responsibility for the grid's main links, they
have little incentive to maintain them properly. And as long as it is possible to purchase electricity
elsewhere, there is little further incentive—as in the case of San Diego—to add more capacity locally.
More and more blackouts sweeping the country are therefore inevitable.
Will the so-called “smart grid” improve matters? It could do the opposite. All the smart grid does is add
a communications layer to the local electricity-distribution network—so consumers can see at a glance
how much electricity they are using at any time of the day, and how much it is costing them. Alerts sent
by the utility at peak periods will allow customers to cut back their consumption and save money—or
have it cut back for them to reap extra rewards. The real aim, of course, is to save the utility from having
to invest in additional capacity.
What is rarely mentioned in all the proselytising about the smart grid is that it adds a vast layer of
hackable points to the network—some 440m by 2015, according to Lockheed Martin's Energy and Cyber
Services. Every smart meter in the home will be a hackable device. The same goes for all the routers at
substations. As the saying goes, if you can communicate with it, you can hack it. Today, you can cut off
the power to someone's home by shinning up the nearest electricity pole and throwing a switch at the
top. Once smart meters become widespread, you will be able to do that remotely, from the far side of
the world.
But evil-doers from afar might not stop at that. Instead of switching off the power, they could run the
voltage up and down to wreck sensitive electronic equipment, such as computers and television sets.
And they could do that not just on single homes, but on whole communities and even to routers in
substations—in an attempt to take transformers offline, if not actually fry them. As we saw last week,
the failure of just one substation in Yuma was enough to bring a whole chunk of the American southwest to its knees. Unless the grid is made more robust and secure, the threat to the country—from
terrorist or technician—can only become more severe.
Blackouts risks nuclear meltdowns
Cappiello, 11 (3/29/2011, Dina, “AP IMPACT: Long blackouts pose risk to US reactors,”
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2011/mar/29/ap-impact-long-blackouts-pose-risk-to-us-reactors/)
WASHINGTON — It's a nightmarish scenario - a days-long blackout at a nuclear power plant leading to a
radioactive leak. Though the odds of that happening are extremely remote, an Associated Press
investigation has found that some U.S. plants are more vulnerable than others.
Long before the nuclear emergency in Japan, U.S. regulators knew that a power failure lasting for days
at an American nuclear plant, whatever the cause, could lead to a radioactive leak. Even so, they have
only required the nation's 104 nuclear reactors to develop plans for dealing with much shorter blackouts
on the assumption that power would be restored quickly.
In one simulation presented by the N uclear R egulatory C ommission in 2009, it would take less than a
day for radiation to escape from a reactor at a Pennsylvania nuclear power plant after an earthquake,
flood or fire knocked out all electrical power and there was no way to keep the reactors cool after
backup battery power ran out. That plant, the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station outside Lancaster,
has reactors of the same older make and model as those releasing radiation at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant, which is using other means to try to cool the reactors.
And like Fukushima Dai-ichi, the Peach Bottom plant has enough battery power on site to power
emergency cooling systems for eight hours. In Japan, that wasn't enough time for power to be restored.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Institute trade association,
three of the six reactors at the plant still can't get power to operate the emergency cooling systems.
Two were shut down at the time. In the sixth, the fuel was removed completely and put in the spent fuel
pool when it was shut down for maintenance at the time of the disaster. A week after the March 11
earthquake, diesel generators started supplying power to two other two reactors, Units 5 and 6, the
groups said.
The risk of a blackout leading to core damage, while extremely remote, exists at all U.S. nuclear power
plants , and some are more susceptible than others, according to an Associated Press investigation.
While regulators say they have confidence that measures adopted in the U.S. will prevent or significantly
delay a core from melting and threatening a radioactive release, the events in Japan raise questions
about whether U.S. power plants are as prepared as they could and should be.
As part of a review requested by President Barack Obama in the wake of the Japan crisis, a top Nuclear
Regulatory Commission official said Tuesday that the agency will investigate whether the nation's
nuclear reactors are capable of coping with station blackouts and whether regulatory requirements
need to be strengthened.
Bill Borchardt, the agency's executive director for operations, said an obvious question is whether
nuclear plants need enhanced battery supplies, or ones that can last longer.
"There is a robust capability that exists already, but given what happened in Japan there's obviously a
question that presents itself: Do we need to make it even more robust," he said at a hearing before the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
"We didn't address a tsunami and an earthquake, but clearly we have known for some time that one of
the weak links that makes accidents a little more likely is losing power," said Alan Kolaczkowski, a retired
nuclear engineer who worked on a federal risk analysis of Peach Bottom released in 1990 and is familiar
with the updated risk analysis.
Risk analyses conducted by the plants in 1991-94 and published by the commission in 2003 show that
the chances of such an event striking a U.S. power plant are remote, even at the plant where the risk is
the highest, the Beaver Valley Power Station in Pennsylvania.
These long odds are among the reasons why the U nited S tates since the late 1980s has only required
nuclear power plants to cope with blackouts for four or eight hours. That's about how much time
batteries would last. After that, it is assumed that power would be restored. And so far, that's been the
case.
Equipment put in place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks could buy more time. Otherwise, the
reactor's radioactive core could begin to melt unless alternative cooling methods were employed. In
Japan, the utility has tried using portable generators and dumping tons of seawater, among other things,
on the reactors in an attempt to keep them cool.
A 2003 federal analysis looking at how to estimate the risk of containment failure said that should
power be knocked out by an earthquake or tornado it "would be unlikely that power will be recovered in
the time frame to prevent core meltdown."
In Japan, it was a one-two punch: first the earthquake, then the tsunami.
Tokyo Electric Power Co., the operator of the crippled plant, found other ways to cool the reactor core
and, so far, avert a full-scale meltdown without electricity.
"Clearly the coping duration is an issue on the table now," said Biff Bradley, director of risk assessment
for the Nuclear Energy Institute. "The industry and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have to go
back in light of what we just observed and rethink station blackout duration."
David Lochbaum, a former plant engineer and nuclear safety director at the advocacy group Union of
Concerned Scientists, put it another way: "Japan shows what happens when you play beat-the-clock and
lose."
At Tuesday's Senate committee hearing, he said the government and the nuclear power industry have to
do more to cope with prolonged blackouts, such as having temporary generators on site - or at nearby
military bases - that can recharge batteries.
A complete loss of electrical power, generally speaking, poses a major problem for a nuclear power
plant because the reactor core must be kept cool, and back-up cooling systems - mostly pumps that
replenish the core with water- require massive amounts of power to work.
Without the electrical grid, or diesel generators, batteries can be used for a time, but they will not last
long with the power demands. And when the batteries die, the systems that control and monitor the
plant can also go dark, making it difficult to ascertain water levels and the condition of the core. Eleven
U.S. reactors are designed to cope with a station blackout lasting eight hours, while 93 are designed for
four-hour blackouts .
Impact is on par with nuclear warfare – fallout will be massive and global
Drell, 9 Professor emeritus of theoretical physics at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory at
Stanford University, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, and a member of the President's Foreign
Intelligence Advisory Board and Science Advisory Committee, 12 (THE NUCLEAR ENTERPRISE HighConsequence Accidents: How to Enhance Safety and Minimize Risks in Nuclear Weapons and Reactors,
pg. 1-3)
We live in dangerous times for many reasons. Prominent among them is the existence of a global nuclear
enterprise made up of weapons that can cause damage of unimaginable proportions and power plants at which accidents can have
severe , essentially unpredictable consequences for human life . For all of its utility and promise, the nuclear
enterprise is unique in the enormity of the vast quantities of destructive energy that can be released
through blast, heat, and radioactivity.
We addressed just this subject in a conference in October 2011 at Stanford University's Hoover
Institution. The complete set of papers prepared for the conference is reproduced in this book. The conference included experts on weapons, on power plants, on
regulatory experience, and on the development of public perceptions and the ways in which these perceptions influence policy7. The reassuring outcome of the
conference was a general sense that the U.S. nuclear enterprise currently meets very high standards in its commitment to safety and security. That has not always
been the case in all aspects of the nuclear enterprise. And the unsettling outcome of the conference was that it will not be the case globally unless governments,
international organizations, industry7, and media recognize and address the nuclear challenges and mounting risks posed by a rapidly changing world. The
acceptance of the nuclear enterprise is now being challenged by concerns about the questionable safety and security of programs primarily in countries relatively
new to the nuclear enterprise, and the potential loss of control to terrorist or criminal gangs of fissile material that exists in such abundance around the world. In a
number of countries, confidence in nuclear energy production was severely shaken in the spring of 2011 by the Fukushima nuclear reactor plant disaster. And in the
military sphere, the doctrine of deterrence that remains primarily dependent on nuclear weapons is seen in decline due to the importance of non-state actors such
When risks and
consequences are unknown, undervalued, or ignored, our nation and the world are dangerously
as al Qaeda and terrorist affiliates that seek destruction for destruction's sake. We have two nuclear tigers by the tail.
vulnerable . Nowhere is this risk-consequence equation more relevant than with respect to the nucleus
of the atom. The nuclear enterprise was introduced to the world by the shock of the devastation produced by two atomic bombs hitting Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Modern nuclear weapons are far more powerful than those early bombs, which presented their own hazards. Early research depended on a program of
atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. In the early years following World War II, the impact and the amount of radioactive fallout in the atmosphere generated by
above-ground nuclear explosions was notfully appreciated. During those years, the United States and also the Soviet Union conducted several hundred tests in the
atmosphere that created fallout. The recent Stanford conference focused on a regulatory weak point from that time that exists in many places today, as the
Fukushima disaster clearly indicates. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) was initially assigned conflicting responsibilities: to create an arsenal of nuclear
weapons for the United States to confront a growing nuclear-armed Soviet threat; and, at the same time, to ensure public safety from the effects of radioactive
fallout. The AEC was faced with the same conundrum with regard to civilian nuclear power generation. It was charged with promoting civilian nuclear power and
simultaneously protecting the public. Progress came in 1963 with the negotiation and signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) banning all nuclear explosive
testing in the atmosphere (initially by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom). With the successful safety7 record of the U.S. nuclear weapons
program, domestic anxiety about nuclear weapons receded somewhat. Meanwhile, public attitudes toward nuclear weapons reflected recognition of their key role
in establishing a more stable nuclear deterrent posture in the confrontation with the Soviet Union. The positive record on safety of the nuclear weapons enterprise
in the United States—there have been accidents involving nuclear weapons, but none that led to the release of nuclear energy—was the result of a strong effort
and continuing commitment to include safety as a primary criterion in new weapons designs, as well as careful production, handling, and deployment procedures.
The key to the health of today's nuclear weapons enterprise is confidence in the safety7 of its operations and in the protection of special nuclear materials against
theft. One can imagine how different the situation would be today if there had been a recognized theft of material sufficient for a bomb, or if one of the two fourmegaton bombs dropped from a disabled B-52 Strategic Air Command bomber overflying Goldsboro, North Carolina, in 1961 had detonated. In that event, just one
switch in the arming sequence of one of the bombs, by remaining in its "off position" while the aircraft was disintegrating, was all that prevented a full-yield nuclear
explosion. A close call indeed! In the twenty-six years since Chernobyl, the nuclear power industry has strengthened its safety practices. Over the past decade,
growing concerns about global warming and energy independence have actually strengthened support for nuclear energy in the United States and many nations
around the world. Yet despite these trends, the civil nuclear enterprise remains fragile. Following Fukushima, opinion polls gave stark
evidence of the public's deep fears of the invisible force of nuclear radiation, shown by public opposition to the construction of new nuclear po wer plants in close
proximity. It is not simply a matter of getting better information to the public but of actually educating the public about the true nature of nuclear radiation and its
risks. Of course, the immediate task of the nuclear power component of the enterprise is to strive for the best possible safety record with one overriding objective:
no more Fukushimas. Another issue that must be resolved involves the continued effectiveness of a policy of deterrence that remains primarily dependent upon
nuclear weapons, and the hazards these weapons pose due to the spread of nuclear technology and material. There is growing apprehension about the
determination of terrorists to get their hands on weapons or, for that matter, on the special nuclear material—plutonium and highly enriched uranium—that fuels
them in the most challenging step toward developing a weapon. The
global effects of a regional war between nuclear-armed
adversaries such as India and Pakistan would also wield an enormous impact, potentially involving radioactive
fallout at large distances caused by a limited number of nuclear explosions. This is true as well for
nuclear radiation from a reactor explosion —fallout at large distances would have a serious societal
impact on the nuclear enterprise. There is little understanding of the reality and potential danger of
consequences if such an event were to occur halfway around the world. An effort should be made to prepare the public by providing
information on how to respond to such an event.
2NC Turns the Aff
Lack of standardized interconnection points and legal issues prevent solvency
CEC 7 (Commission for Environmental Cooperation, “Fostering Renewable Electricity Markets in North
America,” February 2007, http://www.cec.org/Storage/59/5125_FREM_en.pdf)//SJF
The authors found that the major supply-side drivers for on-site generation are net-metering,
standardized interconnection rules and financial incentives. Most policies and programs to encourage
on-site distributed generation in Canada are at the provincial level. They include eliminating the sales
tax on small renewable energy equipment, net metering laws, and streamlined interconnection
standards. Likewise, in the United States, net-metering laws and federal efforts to develop universal
interconnection standards have been important to the growth of onsite distributed generation. In the
US, state funds have played a critical role in helping to bring down the costs of installed distributed
generation.
In Mexico, on-site or off-site self-supply is an important component of Mexico’s renewable portfolio.
Future large-scale grid-connected self-supply is expected to contribute 1,000 MW of new installed
capacity in coming years and is benefiting from a new interconnection agreement developed by the
Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE). Small-scale grid connected self-supply has good future potential in
Mexico, but more work needs to be done to enable interconnection with the grid.
2NC Turns Econ
Grid collapse will destroy the basis of the economy
Rifkin, 2 - the founder and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends, Fellow at the Wharton
School’s Executive Education Program (Jeremy, The Hydrogen Economy: The Creation of the WorldWide Energy Web and the Redistribution of Power on Earth, p.163-164 )//SM
It is understandable that we would be unmindful of the critical role that oil plays in feeding our families,
because the process of growing food is so removed in time and place from our urban lives. The same
holds true for the electricity that we have come to rely on to maintain our daily routines. The electrical
grid is the central nervous system that coordinates a densely populated urban existence. Without
electrical power, urban life would cease to exist, the information age would become a faded memory,
and industrial production would grind to a halt . The fastest way to ensure the collapse of the
modern era would be to pull the plug and turn off the flow of electricity. Light, heat, and power would
all stop. Civilization as we know it would come to an end .
2NC Link
Fossil-fuel electricity is essential to maintain grid stability
Greenwald and Gray 10 – *leads Davis Wright Tremaine’s Energy Practice Group, **partner in the
firm’s Energy Practice Group (Steven F, Jeffrey P, “Renewable Realities,” Power Magazine, February
2010, http://www.dwt.com/files/Publication/ac81016c-30c3-4a2a-a681db0aaf8efe6a/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/e6d5a05e-cac3-4efe-8978-e0e37f21212f/pubs_0210_GreenwaldGray_RenewableRealities.pdf)//SJF
“It’s anti-renewables” is becoming a familiar refrain voiced before public utility commissions, air quality
management districts, and other public agencies with jurisdiction over the siting and operation of new
fossil-fueled electric generation projects. The survival—and, in some cases, expansion—of legislatively
mandated renewable energy requirements, tax incentives, and outright subsidies through the recent
economic downturn has further encouraged opponents of new fossil-fueled generation to cloak
themselves in the environmental flag, irrespective of their underlying motives and goals.
The combination of legislative mandates, ambivalent regulators, and an emboldened opposition is
making the already daunting challenges of developing new fossil-fueled generation projects seem
insurmountable. Although increasing renewable generation is the right and necessary long-term energy
policy, abandoning new fossil-fueled generation both harms renewable development and, in the near
term, puts reliability at risk.
New Fossil-Fueled Generation Is Needed
Whether intended or not, renewables are increasingly being perceived as the “only game in town” for
developers of new generation projects. States are appropriately implementing measures designed to
streamline the permitting and approval process for new renewable generation projects. In contrast,
developers of fossil-fueled projects must navigate an increasingly complicated regulatory maze that can
readily cause substantial delays, increase costs, and put project viability at risk.
Against this backdrop, transmission grid operators must integrate new intermittent renewable resources
without compromising system and local reliability. New fossil-fueled generation resources with
improved efficiency, emission profiles, ramping times, and shaping capabilities should be critical tools in
this effort.
In California, the independent system operator has expressed the belief that all existing fossil-fueled
generation is needed to support the addition of the new renewables resources necessary to meet the
state’s climate change objectives. However, given the age, relative inefficiencies, operating constraints,
and environmental concerns associated with the state’s existing generation fleet, keeping the current
fleet afloat solely as a means to ensure reliability is counterproductive from environmental and other
standpoints. One obvious solution is to facilitate the development of new, highly efficient and loweremitting fossil-fueled units to replace older units, some of which date back to the decades following
World War II.
Renewables—Easier Said Than Done
An energy policy predicated on the notion that reliability can be maintained through the sheer number
of new renewable generation projects would be a mistake. Notwithstanding the steps taken to
encourage new renewable resources, developers are still finding it difficult to bring new projects online.
Though access to credit and capital markets should improve as the economy rebounds, the need for
new transmission infrastructure continues to pose a significant barrier to renewables. The California
Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) recently reported that “[s]ince March of 2009, the amount of
renewable capacity that is considered delayed has more than doubled.”
California regulators believe that seven new transmission lines at a cost of $12 billion are necessary to
connect the new renewable generation. These new lines, which will likely need to be sited through or
near state parks, deserts, or other wilderness areas, should be expected to engender significant
opposition. Four years after filing an application with the CPUC for approval of a new transmission line
to connect renewable energy–rich areas near the California-Mexico-Arizona borders with the San Diego
area, appeals filed by opponents of the line are still pending, creating uncertainty for developers. To
date, federal intervention has failed to break through the gridlock, inhibiting construction of the
transmission lines necessary to deliver renewable power.
AT: Localized
Renewable development now, but speeding border transmission causes bottlenecks –
kills transmission capabilities and triggers widespread vulnerability
RELA 10 (Renewable Energy Latin America, “Mexico – Wind: US outsourcing renewable generation to
the south?” 6/5/10, http://latamrenewables.com/2010/06/05/mexico-wind-us-outsourcing-renewablegeneration-to-the-south/)//SJF
The US-Mexico border is becoming a hot spot for solar and wind interests, particularly along Baja to the
south of California, all the more now that the US state has begun imposing aggressive emissions and
climate control policies. Project costs in California are much higher than other parts of the US, making
developments across the border economically attractive for accessing some of the most highly priced
power markets in the country. On the other hand, developers in Mexico miss out on US federal and
state subsidies for renewable generation.
Is renewable energy the next maquila industry?
San Diego renewable developer Cannon Power Group is putting together the Aubanel Wind Project
project, with up to 1,000 MW of installed capacity, 15 miles to the south of the border on the Baja
Peninsula. Cannon recently contracted Spanish Gamesa as the exclusive supplier under a 10-year
contract. The total project will be phased in over several years–the first installation includes only 70 to
100 MW by 2011–which could easily be modified if line capacity or tariff negotiations aren’t resolved in
the short-term. Cannon claims that it will off-take power to Mexican consumers initially, although it is
looking at marketing to the US market, as well.
A second ambitious project is being put together further to the south: Asociado Panamericanos(APA) is
developing a wind park in northern Baja with 1 to 1.5 GW and plans to deliver power to the California
market. According to Greentechmedia:
APA Wind has secured internal funding to maintain options on the windy land in and around the
indigenous Pai Pai Community of Mission Santa Catarina, and has come to terms on a joint venture with
the Mexican firms CISAe/INTAVAN, according to Michael Folloni, Energy and Business Manager at APA.
Ideally, the plant will be built in phases from 2013 to 2016.
Our friends over at Greentch put together a nice table showing the current wind pipeline in Baja:
Transmission Constraints
As is often the case with renewable generation, transmission capacity and placement remains another
challenge for cross-border developments. Some projects are considering constructing dedicated
transmission lines to the US to avoid the expensive and highly bureaucratic relations with Mexico’s
Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), which handles all domestic transmission.
The transmission issues do not stop at the border, however, and the California ISO has warned that
bottlenecks can occur because the major California electricity markets and load centers are not
configured for higher transmission levels from the south.
Local Projects
Domestically focused wind energy projects are also gaining traction in Mexico, although the economics
and logistics are obviously quite distinct from the US border developments. The CFE has publicly moved
to include more renewable generation as part of its portfolio, although Mexico does not currently have a
renewable electricity standard in place. Several recent domestically-focused projects include:
Iberdrola was granted a tender last week by Gesa Eólica México to build the 228 MW Piedra Larga wind
park in southern Mexico. The project will be built in two phases, with the first 90 MW coming online in
March 2011 and the remaining capacity streaming by March 2012. The Spanish firm has already built
two wind farms in Mexico (La Venta II and La Ventosa) and is currently developing a third (La Venta III).
Acciona also signed an agreement with the CFE in April to construct 3 wind parks in southern Mexico
totaling 306 MW. The parks–Oaxaca II, Oaxaca III y Oaxaca IV–located in the Istmo de Tehuantepec
region, will cost an approximate US$ 600 M. Acciona completed the 250 MW Eurus project in Oaxaca
last November.
Reform DA
1NC
Energy reform coming now – solves the Aff, but sequencing is vital – US investment
distorts jurisdiction
Snow 7/24 – OGJ Washington Editor (Nick, “Mexico reforms seen as key to North American energy
alliance,” Oil and Gas Journal, http://www.ogj.com/articles/2013/07/mexico-reforms-seen-as-key-tonorth-american-energy-alliance.html)//SJF
Efforts to reform Mexico’s oil and gas regime appear likely and could provide the necessary stimulus for
a North American energy alliance with Canada and the US, experts suggested at a discussion hosted by
Washington, DC, think tank NDN.
Mexico President Enrique Pena Nieto is politically smart, skilled, and delivering on his promises, former
US Sec. of Energy Bill Richardson said. The country’s two biggest political parties have similar oil and gas
reform proposals and control enough seats in Mexico’s congress to enact some major changes, he
indicated.
“It’s not going to involve privatization of [national oil company Petroleos Mexicanos], but it will involve
partnerships for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, natural gas development, and renewable and alternative
energy projects,” Richardson said.
Mexico’s reforms won’t happen immediately, but when they do, they could provide a foundation for a
geopolitical energy partnership with Canada and the US, he said. “Once Mexico makes its reforms, it will
be possible for the three countries to work more closely together,” said Richardson, who also is a former
US ambassador to the United Nations.
Duncan Wood, who directs the Mexico Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International
Scholars, said energy sector reforms that are being discussed in Mexico—combined with Canadian and
US technology—are the biggest driving force in formation of a North American energy alliance.
The conservative National Action Party (PAN) proposed offering oil and gas concessions, which gives
Pena and the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) room to maneuver and possibly get legislation
allowing some joint ventures, primarily involving tight oil and gas, he said.
Under pressure
But the country clearly is under pressure to make changes in its oil and gas regime, Wood continued.
“Unless there is serious energy reform, Mexico’s energy demand and production will cross in 2018-20,”
he said. “It will need to face the fact that US refineries, which now refine Mexican oil and send the
products back across the border, will soon refine more US and Canadian crude.”
Prospects for reform are good, Wood emphasized, adding, “Between now and Christmas, you’ll see
reforms in Mexico that will lay the foundation for a strong North American energy alliance.”
Rick Van Schoick, energy portfolio director at the North American Research Partnership in San Diego,
meanwhile, said, “We are at an energy crossroads, but many things stand in our way, starting with
100 jurisdictions in our three countries which are trying to maximize their individual gains from this
energy opportunity.
He said the US Department of Energy had a North American working group that was disbanded soon
after George W. Bush became president, and which energy secretaries for Bush’s successor, Barack
Obama, have not revived.
“We need to talk more intensively about energy with our three neighbors,” Van Schoick said, adding
that a summit of Canada, Mexico, and US leaders this fall in Mexico might be a good place to start.
BECC clean energy development returns electricity control to the CFE
Barber 11 – Editor, Energy Trend (D.A. “Mexico’s Emerging Solar Market,” 10/28/11, Energy Trend,
http://pv.energytrend.com/research/Mexico_Emerging_Solar_Market.html)//SJF
But entry into the Mexican solar industry market has specific hurdles. Mexican utilities are state-owned,
making it difficult for independent power providers (IPPs) to enter the market, which includes power
generation, transmission and distribution controlled by the government’s Federal Commission of
Electricity (CFE). This means any development of the solar industry requires government backing. But
the last few years has seen some progress: IPPs are now permitted to sell power to CFE for the industrial
use, and corporations can produce electricity up to 30 MW for their own use. Though any surplus power
can be sold to the state-owned national grid, the lucrative residential solar power market remains
totally under state control.
The U.S.-Mexico border region has the most solar potential and some U.S solar companies are well
positioned to take advantage of this emerging market and the opportunities to work with Mexican
companies in the development of utility-scale solar power plants. Mexico’s proximity for exporting
electricity to energy-starved states in the U.S. southwest holds out huge opportunity since utilities in
many of these states are mandated to increase the percentage of clean energy sources they use to
produce electricity.
In fact, the idea of building an “energy corridor” to produce solar (and wind) energy to export to
California and Arizona has been floated since 2009. The "U.S.-Mexico Bilateral Framework on Clean
Energy and Climate Change," agreed to by Mexican President Calderon and U.S. President Obama in
April 2009, promotes co-operation in the border region for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions and
strengthening the flow of cross-border electricity grids to enable border states to strengthen energy
trade. In addition, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) was created in 1993 as part
of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for enhancing the US-Mexico border region’s
ability to develop and finance self-sustaining projects.
For those companies that wish to build solar power installations in Mexico, BECC works closely with
federal, state, and local agencies, as well as the private-sector and the North American Development
Bank to develop and implement infrastructure projects on both sides of the US-Mexico border. BECC’s
jurisdiction stretches 100 kilometers north of the border into Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas,
as well as 300 kilometers south of the border in the six Mexican states of Baja California, Chihuahua,
Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, Sonora and Tamaulipas
CFE control over IPP development crushes CRE transition and successful reform
Frederick 7/26 – BN America Latin business expert (James, “Experts urge an end to CFE's power
monopoly in Mexico,” BN Americas, 7/26/13,
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/electricpower/experts-urge-an-end-to-cfes-power-monopoly-inmexico1)//SJF
The key to a comprehensive energy reform in Mexico is reconfiguring the power sector to end national
utility CFE's monopoly over the entire value chain, experts said at an energy reform debate hosted by
Mexican think tank Cidac.
"My proposal is a constitutional reform of [amendments] 25, 27 and 28, the same as oil, because I'm
convinced that the vertical monopoly that CFE has must be broken up," said Rogelio López-Velarde,
energy attorney at law firm López-Velarde, Heftye y Soria.
First, he says, is to make power generation a truly competitive sector, which it nearly is already. Since
1996, 78% of the growth in the power generation sector has come from privates through independent
power producer (IPP), self-supply and cogeneration schemes, he explained.
The second step is converting CFE into a company that can list shares on the Mexican bourse BMV and
can enter into JVs with privates.
"The third step is to remove power transmission authority from CFE and put it in the hands of the state
under a separate company, regulated by [power watchdog] CRE to avoid the conflict of interest we are
seeing now," López-Velarde said.
Additionally, management of dispatch and operation of the national power grid (SEN) should also be
transferred from CFE, currently under its department Cenace, to an independent public entity, also
falling under the regulation of CRE.
Finally, power distribution would continue to be a public service and would not be opened to private
sales, the expert suggests.
One of the clear themes of the expert's proposal is the strengthening of the CRE, which as José María
Lujambio from Cidac told BNamericas in an interview, is still unable to sanction or fine CFE for failing to
meet standards.
Gabriel Quadri, former presidential candidate and CEO of Sigea Carbón, a climate change and carbon
market firm, also endorsed private participation across the power sector during the Cidac event and said
power distribution should be managed by regional distributors, possibly privates.
"I believe this reform will have a widespread impact because everyone consumes electricity," he said. "It
has to be a reform with a long-term vision, which means energy security and sustainability in the
production and consumption of power."
It is time to end the "absurd monopoly" that is holding back the country, he said.
Vital to solve Mexican energy security and provide momentum for the rest of the
reform agenda
Martin, Rodriguez, and Marinho 7/17 – *reporter for Bloomberg News in Mexico City,
**reporter for Bloomberg News in Mexico City, ***editor for Bloomberg News in São Paulo (Eric, Carlos
Manuel, Helder, “Pena Nieto Plans End to 75-Year Pemex Monopoly in Crude Oil (1)” 6/20/13,
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-17/pena-nieto-plans-end-to-75-year-pemex-monopolyin-oil-production#p1)//SJF
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said he’s negotiating support to break the state monopoly over
oil and gas exploration and production this year to accelerate economic growth. The peso pared its loss.
In the model envisioned by Pena Nieto, state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos would develop certain fields,
with others being tapped by foreign and private companies. He declined to discuss details of the
proposal, or whether it would require a change in the constitution.
Seven decades after his party seized fields from the predecessors to Exxon Mobil Corp. and Royal Dutch
Shell Plc (RDSA), Pena Nieto is preparing for the return of international oil companies to arrest eight
years of decline in crude output. An opening would probably be broad, from offshore drilling to shale
fields similar to those that have revived the U.S. petroleum industry, Pena Nieto said.
“It’s obvious that Pemex doesn’t have the financial capacity to be in every single front of energy
generation,” the 46-year-old president said in an interview in London today, before traveling to
Northern Ireland for meetings with Group of Eight leaders. “Shale is one of the areas where there’s
room for private companies, but not the only one.”
Skeptical Investors
Pena Nieto said his administration will send the energy bill to congress by September, when regular
sessions resume, along with a tax proposal. He said he’s confident the so-called Pact for Mexico of the
country’s top three political parties will ensure the bill is approved by Congress before year end.
Mexico is seeking to attract capital for deep-water and shale deposits found in the past decade as
reserves dwindle in Cantarell, the 1976 oil discovery that ranked among the world’s largest.
Still, investors became more skeptical about the depth of the energy reform after it wasn’t included in
the schedule for special congressional sessions in July and August, saving it for the final four months of
the year along with a crowded agenda that includes the tax overhaul and next year’s budget.
Mexico’s peso fell 0.8 percent to 12.8196 per U.S. dollar at 3:22 p.m. in Mexico City after dropping as
much as 1.3 percent earlier today. Yields on peso-denominated government bonds due in 2024
increased 11 basis points, or 0.11 percentage point, to 5.31 percent. Yields on $2 billion Pemex bonds
due in 2022 were little changed at 3.98 percent.
‘Good Path’
Pena Nieto’s comments boosted confidence he’ll make good on his pledge to open the state-controlled
energy industry, said Ramon Cordova, a currency trader at Banco Base SA.
“What the market wants is the reforms to pass,” Cordova said by phone from San Pedro Garza Garcia,
Mexico. The comments “discuss that the energy reform is on a good path and it gives some more
information, because up until now it’s been very opaque as to what are the actual points that the
reform will encompass.”
Opening oil and gas exploration for private investment will help Mexico revive oil production that is
heading for its ninth year of decline. Crude output averaged 2.52 million barrels a day this month
through June 9, compared with 3.38 million barrels a day in 2004.
“We’re approaching key deadlines,” Pena Nieto said. “I’m optimistic that this political climate of
understanding and agreement will be maintained.”
‘Signature Issue’
Pena Nieto said there’s political momentum to pass more reforms after the approval of sweeping
education and telecommunications laws and the creation of the Pact for Mexico. His Institutional
Revolutionary Party dropped opposition to an oil-law overhaul in March.
Opening Pemex to more private investment would be the “signature issue” for judging his presidency,
Pena Nieto said during the campaign.
Pemex bondholders are losing confidence in his ability to achieve the needed changes after the Pact for
Mexico alliance he engineered between his own Institutional Revolutionary Party, the National Action
Party of predecessor Felipe Calderon and the Democratic Revolution Party showed signs of fraying.
“If the Pacto por Mexico dies, then what’s the plan?” Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico Institute at
the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, said in an interview on June 13.
“We don’t know what the plan is after that.”
Social Programs
Yields on $2 billion Pemex bonds due in 2022 jumped 72 basis points, or 0.72 percentage point, in the
past month through last week to 3.97 percent. Yields on Brazilian oil producer Petroleo Brasileiro SA’s
2021 notes rose 63 basis points over the same period.
There’s concern that delays in introducing an energy bill could threaten its depth and support, said
Jeremy Martin, an oil specialist at the Institute of the Americas in La Jolla, California.
“The longer things go, people start taking different directions, and then politicians, his team, start
finding reasons why they shouldn’t do something big,” Martin said in a telephone interview on June 14.
Pena Nieto’s energy and tax pledges, and his early legislative success, helped attract overseas asset
managers including Pacific Investment Management Co., the world’s biggest bond fund, and lift foreign
holdings of peso bonds to record levels. Yields on government peso debt due in 2024 dropped to a
record low and the currency climbed to the strongest level in almost two years against the dollar last
month. Yields have since climbed and the currency weakened on the prospect that the Federal Reserve
will scale back unprecedented stimulus.
Mexican energy insecurity causes widespread instability and global conflict
Clemente 8 – Jude Clemente is an international energy security analyst. He holds a B.A. in Political
Science from Penn State University and an M.S. in Homeland Security from SDSU. At the present is a
security and technical writer in the Homeland Security Department at San Diego State University and is a
member of the National Defense Transportation Association and energy advisor to B and S Corporation
and Penn State's Research Project on North American Energy Supply. Petroleumworld does not
necessarily share these views (Jude, “Energy Security In Mexico: Problems and Implications,” 10/18/8,
Petroleum World, http://www.petroleumworld.com/sati08101801.htm)//SJF
Mexico provides an important example of how threats to the energy security of a major oil producer not
only have broad ramifications for the nation itself, but for the United States and the rest of the world as
well.
Why Mexico's Energy Security is Important
Oil has rapidly become Mexico's most precious natural resource – accounting for about 27% of total
exports in 2006 compared to only 8% in 2000.
1.-Oil export revenues support the Mexican economy – state-owned Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex)
contributed $79 billion in taxes and royalties to the Mexican government. Oil revenues usually
constitute approximately 40% of the Federal budget.
2.-Petrodollars are being used to develop a middle class as well as lift millions out of poverty. Social
programs in Mexico have been dramatically expanded through billions of dollars in oil income.
3.- Problems in Mexico's oil sector would disrupt both the U.S. and world markets. Mexico has been a
consistent top-three supplier to the U.S. and supplies about 4% to the increasingly inelastic global supply
chain.
With the 2004 peaking of Cantarell, the second most productive oil field in the world and the source of
half of Mexico's oil, national production faces terminal decline. The ongoing decrease now confronting
Mexico has been widely documented in the energy industry and has become part of the U.S. Energy
Information Administration's (EIA) International Energy Outlook 2008 . Further, energy security is the
looming shadow over the scene. The rapid decline in Mexico's proven oil reserves, about 75% since
1997, is taking its toll and scheduled deliveries to several refineries in the U.S. were cancelled in July.
The literature, however, has been lacking in pieces detailing how Mexico's production problems are
exacerbated by the absence of a comprehensive national security strategy to safeguard the country's
energy infrastructure. Pemex energy facilities are soft targets for the domestic terrorist group that has
already attacked it as well as those international terrorist networks that have threatened it. The present
analysis focuses on four overarching dimensions to Mexico's increasingly worrisome energy security
situation: 1) the spectrum of expanding vulnerability 2) lack of security from institutional lag 3) external
threats and 4) internal threats.
1. The Spectrum of Increasing Vulnerability
As the relatively concentrated 70-square-mile Cantarell oil field falls into terminal decline, energy
systems more geographically dispersed and more susceptible to attack will be relied on to compensate,
namely the Chicontepec Basin. Figure 1 illustrates this onshore oil region, northeast of Mexico City, that
holds about 54% of Mexico's non-Cantarell known reserves. The area will be difficult to protect because
it stretches more than 2,400 square miles. Further, because of complex geology, production projects at
the Basin will need to be especially infrastructure intensive. Overall, the task of building and protecting
an entire network of pipelines and processing facilities appears overwhelming for a nation without a
coherent energy security plan.
Even now, Mexico faces a challenging pipeline security challenge of over 17,000 miles of oil and 8,235
miles of natural gas pipelines (see Figure 1). The country's energy infrastructure needs a desperate
upgrade. Over the past decade, Pemex has slashed its maintenance expenditures throughout the
country. In 1997, the company had a budget of $2.7 billion for maintenance; in 2007 the budget was
only $1 billion. Funding decreases have become the norm at Pemex because the Federal government
increasingly siphons off energy revenues to support social programs.
On other fronts of vulnerability: (a) it is likely that the same corruption that has prevented the country
from controlling the drug violence within its borders will continue to prevent it from effectively
protecting its energy infrastructure, (b) the financial crisis that Pemex currently faces (over $111 billion
in debt as of April 2008) will further degrade Mexico's ability to respond and protect and (c) state-owned
Pemex makes an attractive target for a wide range of dissatisfied Mexicans because damage to the state
monopoly directly affects the Federal government.
2. Lack of Security From Institutional Lag
Mexico has not followed the post-September 11th global path of state reform on national security. The
country has fallen behind other major oil producers (e.g. Saudi Arabia) in protecting its energy
installations. The political infighting that has been a constant the past eight years in Mexico remains a
major reason the country has been unable to articulate any cogent strategy aimed at protecting its
energy system. Mexico exists in a political and institutional vacuum far removed from its North
American allies.
Many of Mexico's security issues stem from the political differences that continue to divide the country.
In 2000, conservative Vicente Fox, of the National Action Party (PAN), became president, ending the
Institutional Revolutionary Party's (PRI) seven-decade uninterrupted rule. Under Mexico's Constitution it
is the responsibility of the President to conduct foreign policy, but Fox left it up to a member of his
cabinet who viewed the military as the driving force behind his national security plan. Military leaders
were reluctant to comply, and new institutional arrangements by the Fox administration created rifts
within the Federal government. Fox did not have a majority in either Mexico's Chamber of Deputies or
the Senate, and his administration and the opposition in Congress consistently battled over political
reforms. Protecting the country's energy infrastructure quickly became an afterthought.
The following quotes from a wide-ranging group of Mexican security and energy analysts illustrate that
the country has major security issues when it comes to protecting its energy infrastructure:
“Nobody's in charge of the pipeline system. Nobody is accountable for it” – George Baker, publisher of
the Houston newsletter Mexico Energy Intelligence
“The bottom line is that Mexico does not have an internal security strategy” – Abelardo Rodriquez
Sumano, national security expert at the Technological Institute of Monterrey
"To try and guard this extensive and complicated network of pipelines with police or soldiers is simply
impossible” – Sergio Sarmiento, energy columnist
“Pemex still needs to improve security intelligence in a big way” – Elena Azaola, national security expert
at the Center of Investigations and Social Anthropological Studies
"These stations are not protected at all” – Agustin Humman, Vice-President of the Mexican Natural Gas
Association, on Pemex leaving several visible, above ground energy stations unguarded
In 2006, former Energy Minister Felipe Calderón, also of the PAN, became the 65th President by
narrowly defeated former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the Party of the
Democratic Revolution (PRD). Two years later, this highly controversial election still divides the country.
Calderón's most recent push to allow more private involvement in Mexico's oil industry has been met
with great opposition from politicians and citizens alike – mostly from the PRI and PRD. Pemex has been
an important symbol of national sovereignty since its inception in 1938 as the outgrowth of Mexico's
decision to nationalize its oil resources.
3. External Threats
A. Terrorism
In February of 2007, Al-Qaeda called on jihadists to attack energy facilities that supply oil to the United
States. This direct order from Osama Bin Laden called for attacks against “interests that provide the
Crusaders with oil.” By name, these interests included Mexico because it is one of the United States'
most critical suppliers.
Bin Laden stated jihadists “must hit the oil interests in all of the regions that the United States benefits
from, not in the Middle East only.”
Immediately following this threat, Mexico announced that its navy was on alert and had stepped up
surveillance of offshore oil platforms and port facilities. A subsequent report by McClatchy Newspapers,
however, found that reporters could “approach Mexican oil installations virtually unchallenged.”
B. Open Borders
Mexico's southern border with Guatemala remains its most exploited surreptitious entrance point.
Dense jungles in the region make effective law enforcement all the more difficult. In an attempt to
obtain jobs vacated by Mexicans leaving for work in the United States, migrants from various Latin
American countries enter Mexico from the south. Crossing Mexico's southern border is as simple as
hopping a fence or rafting for only a few minutes.
“Mexico is incapable of establishing a security perimeter for North America in its southern border with
Guatemala in order to stop Central American aliens,” said Manuel Pérez Rocha, an associate fellow of
the Institute for Policy Studies.
In recent years, detentions and deportations have risen in Mexico, but officials admit corrupt law
enforcement officials often assist undocumented immigrant smugglers. Mexico's Foreign Minister
recently conceded that the country needed to review its own immigration laws in the hope of gaining
legitimacy when presenting its viewpoint on immigration to the United States. Mexico's undocumented
immigration problem is exacerbated by the fact that its officials rarely speak on the matter and hard
numbers are nearly impossible to obtain.
When Fox was elected in 2000, he promised his administration would crack down on undocumented
immigrants coming in from Mexico's southern border. This pledge was part of the negotiations made
with the United States regarding legal status for undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. As part of the
agreement, the U.S. offered two million dollars a year in technical assistance and training to increase
security along Mexico's southern border. In 2006, however, there were less than 450 agents patrolling
the more than 200 official and unofficial checkpoints along Mexico's border with Guatemala.
A lack of technology, inadequate human resources, and the corruption of some local officials have all
made it easier to enter Mexico. Developing security strategies to become more aware of who is entering
their country is now of the utmost importance for Mexican authorities, as they struggle to protect an
extensive energy infrastructure that has already been victimized by terrorists.
C. Air and Sea
Mexico is capable of monitoring less than one-half of its airspace. This security gap has helped allow
drug cartels to continue to thrive in the country. Aviation movements within Mexico often go unchecked
because of a lack of communication. This deficiency within Mexico's security structure is one U.S.
officials have complained about for years. When it comes to information sharing, such as passenger lists
and transits routes for airlines, Mexico remains isolated from the United States and Canada. Mexico is
not a member of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).
Victor “Gene” Renuart, Commander of NORAD has stated: “Energy security is a perfect example. [The
Mexicans] have offshore drilling areas. When [they], like many other nations, hear Al-Qaeda say, ‘We
will attack the energy resources of countries which are sympathetic to the West,' it makes people
nervous, because they've demonstrated at least an ability to have an impact there … [The Mexicans] are
looking at ways to modernize their naval components, their air and surface defense of key infrastructure
elements.”
Mexican ports remain exposed despite U.S. efforts to help. As the seventh anniversary of September
11th approaches, there is still no system in place to safeguard the country's ports. The security
equipment that Mexico does possess is usually donated by the United States. Additionally, only a small
percentage of cargo is examined abroad before being shipped to Mexico.
There is currently a massive project being developed to construct a mega-port at Punta Colonet, 125
miles south of Tijuana. This port is expected to be the combined size of the two largest ports in the
United States – Los Angeles and Long Beach. Many remain skeptical that Mexico will be able to meet
this huge jump in security demand because the country's current largest port, Manzanillo, annually
handles less than one-third of the amount of cargo Los Angeles' does alone.
4. Internal Threats
A. EPR
In July, 2007. The Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) bombed natural gas pipelines and shut down one of
Mexico's main industrial regions. The attacks crippled an important oil pipeline in an operation that
indicated extensive knowledge of Mexico's energy infrastructure. The group claimed “self-defense,” and
demanded the release of two imprisoned group members. Mexico's pipeline infrastructure is just too
extensive for its inadequate security forces to thoroughly protect (see Figure 1).
Pipeline attacks are especially devastating for natural gas transportation because this fuel cannot be
stored or shipped by truck. The explosives used in July were similar to ones attributed to the EPR in
attacks at three different locations in Mexico City the previous year. The July attacks blocked the flow of
natural gas and oil between Mexico City and Guadalajara. Production of U.S. automakers and other
major manufacturers in the affected area was halted. The National Security and Investigation Center
(CISEN) was apparently taken by surprise despite previous terrorist threats. CISEN is Mexico's agency in
charge of intelligence, risk alerts, and the prevention of acts that could harm national security.
The Mexican government was sent scrambling to increase security at strategic installations across the
country. It remains unclear exactly what measures were taken, but they were proven ineffective
because the EPR was able to penetrate them just two months later – showing the enormity of the
energy security task facing Mexico.
The EPR struck again in the oil-rich state of Veracruz in September, 2007 (see Figure 1). Explosions shut
down pipelines carrying oil and natural gas to and from surrounding states. A dozen pipelines were
crippled by the blasts and 20,000 people were evacuated in the EPR's “prolonged people's war” against
the “anti-people government.” There were hundreds of millions of dollars lost in Mexican energy
production alone.
B. Dissension
"Up until now, the people do not see any benefit from the [energy] resources that are generated,
because these are monopolized by the state, the national and transnational private sector, and by the
different groups holding power in the country," the EPR said in July, 2007.
Mexico's continuing social conflict – largely due to the historical gap between its rich and poor – could
do much more damage than merely prevent the needed legislative change in its oil sector. The rationale
behind the ongoing attacks on energy infrastructure in Nigeria and Iraq may drive similar ones in
Mexico. Despite the rise of social programs, profits from oil sales continue to be largely unrecognized by
the Mexican people, leading to a feeling of disenfranchisement within the citizenry. The common belief
that their government is stealing their birthright is one that unites many Mexicans. We are now seeing a
combination of domestic terrorists and powerful criminal organizations capitalize on these perceived
inequities.
C. Bunkering
In Nigeria, the largest oil producer in Africa, the chief source of revenue from oil attacks is the
ransoming of foreign contractors that work within the oil industry. In Mexico, we may see the same
problem emerge if outside companies are given an investment in the country's energy production. After
Colombia, Mexico has the highest kidnapping rate in the world. Pemex may see “illegal bunkering”
become a common occurrence. This term describes unhappy consumers stealing various hydrocarbons
directly from production pipelines. In fact, Pemex has already recently found illegal pipe-taps in Veracruz
for siphoning off gasoline.
The energy infrastructure intensive areas (see Figure 1) of Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Mexico City (Federal
District) have seen massive anti-Calderón protests and remain consistent in their PRI and PRD loyalties.
In a nonbonding referendum vote at the end of July, 80% of the people in Mexico City answered a
resounding “no” to Calderón's proposal to permit Pemex to expand partnerships with private firms.
Subsequent votes have had similar results.
Conclusion
Mexico's questionable energy security threatens to compound the country's problems with oil
production. This interaction will further erode the country's ability to reverse the downhill slide of the oil
sector. Mexico faces internal and external threats to energy infrastructure but has no effective plan to
counter such risks. In fact, securing infrastructure is becoming even less of a priority because Pemex's
whole focus has shifted entirely to finding more oil and increasing overall production.
Energy security is now precarious. The court of public opinion has spoken: no expanded partnerships
with private companies. Regardless of what lawmakers decide, millions of Mexicans will feel even more
disenfranchised. This sentiment could have dire consequences for a country struggling to protect an
industry vital to socioeconomic progress and the quality of life.
2NC Turns Econ
Reform is vital to sustainable Mexican development – prevents economic crisis
Luhnow and Iliff 2/13 – Mexico reporters, Wall Street Journal (David, Laurence, “Mexico Moves on
Energy in Economic Reset,” 2/13/13, Wall Street Journal,
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578302343638712694.html)//SJF
MEXICO CITY—For decades, Mexico's energy policy has largely boiled down to exporting oil for cash to
fund state spending. Now the new government is negotiating with rival political parties to curb that
practice and instead use state monopoly Petróleos Mexicanos to a different end: cheaper energy, said
Pemex CEO Emilio Lozoya.
In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, the 38-year-old chief said the administration of President
Enrique Peña Nieto was striving to overhaul tax and energy laws this year that Mr. Lozoya said would
result in cheaper energy for consumers and companies that could drive a more competitive economy.
Lozoya on Foreign Companies Drilling for Mexico's Shale Gas
Now, the Mexican government relies on Pemex, one of the world's biggest oil firms, for 35% of
government spending, leaving the company with little left over to invest in areas like natural gas. Private
companies, meanwhile, are largely barred from investing thanks to Mexico's nationalistic energy laws.
The result is an energy-rich country where companies often pay higher prices for energy than
elsewhere. Mexico has large reserves of natural gas, for instance. But since Pemex doesn't invest
enough in gas, the country imports gas from the U.S.—raising costs to Mexican firms as they try to
compete with global players like China.
"Energy ought to be looked at on a competitive basis and not as a foreign-exchange generator," Mr.
Lozoya said, pointing to a prospective investment boost in industries ranging from gas to petrochemicals
to fertilizers.
Complicating matters, Mexico's oil output has slipped to 2.55 million barrels a day from a peak of 3.4
million in 2004, as easy oil in the Gulf is replaced by more difficult reserves of deep-water oil and heavy
oil onshore. To boost production, the company will need more money, technology and know-how.
Changing Mexico's energy laws is widely seen as an important test for a country that captured the
imagination of investors for linking its economy in a free-trade deal with the U.S. in the mid-1990s, but
which saw its star dim to other emerging markets like China and Brazil in recent years.
For Mexico, beset by drug violence the past few years, such a move would send a powerful signal to
investors, likely driving billions in foreign investment, economists say.
"This is all about regaining the reform momentum, and you don't see that that often in emerging
markets today. Taking on those taboos, and those changes, it would re-establish the Mexican narrative
as a reformer and be very positive," said Gray Newman, chief economist for Latin America at Morgan
Stanley MS -0.54% .
Change won't be easy. The oil nationalization in 1938, by Mr. Peña Nieto's own Institutional
Revolutionary Party, is seen as a key event in Mexican identity. Some leftist lawmakers, Mexican
contractors and even some foreign oil-service firms that work with Pemex on a fee basis might see
change as a threat, analysts say.
The freshly appointed Mr. Lozoya, the youngest ever Pemex chief and who is seen as close to the
president, was careful not to discuss specifics about proposed changes to energy laws in the Tuesday
interview, saying it was up to Mexico's political parties. But he did point out that political parties here
from left to right had already come together in recent months on topics like education and labor reform.
"Obviously, our challenge is we need to deliver on the pending reforms and governing responsibly over
the next years, but I do see this as a very good opportunity for Mexico to retake a path of higher
productivity and higher economic growth," he said.
Mexico's conservative opposition, the National Action Party, largely favors a broader opening of the
energy business to private investment, while the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution has proposed
a more limited opening for areas like refining.
Mr. Newman believes Mr. Peña Nieto may well deliver a broad-ranging reform. "I don't think the
prospects for reform have been this strong in Mexico in over 20 years," Mr. Newman said.
The son of a former energy minister, Mr. Lozoya has had a tough start as head of Mexico's largest
company, which had 2011 sales of $111 billion. An explosion at a Pemex office building at the company's
Mexico City headquarters last month killed 37 workers. The company said the blast was caused by a
buildup of methane in the building's cellar, but doesn't yet know what caused the gas to accumulate.
The investigation, led by the country's attorney general's office, will take a few more weeks, Mr. Lozoya
said. "We are in mourning, but we're standing and looking forward, and working on our modernization
plans," said the executive, who is the grandson of a revolutionary general and politician.
He pointed to the shale-gas revolution in the U.S., along with deep-water and heavy oil, as examples of
how Mexico can benefit from new technologies that boost energy output, lower prices and create jobs.
Mexico may hold the world's fourth-biggest reserves of shale gas, according to the U.S. government. But
Pemex has drilled only a few wells and not produced any gas. "Mexico ought to be producing more of its
own gas, and eventually exporting it," Mr. Lozoya, a lawyer and economist who got his master's degree
in public policy at Harvard said. "Clearly the geology that you have in some parts of the U.S. extends into
Mexican territory. So it's a matter of just investing and getting it done."
Mr. Lozoya also envisions Pemex acting as a lever of development for the economy, spurring the
development of a stronger oil service sector and promote new industries like ethanol.
"It is important we support medium-size companies, together with programs from national
development banks, so they can access credit and be suppliers to Pemex, and make sure over the next
few years that we develop a strong oil-servicing industry in Mexico that can grow and be regionally
competitive," he said, speaking in English.
The government is considering slowly replacing additives like MTBE in gasoline with ethanol, he said.
Pemex would act as the buyer and gatekeeper to the industry, Mr. Lozoya said.
Last year, Pemex had to abandon its second tender for ethanol to be used as a gasoline additive because
the offers made were above the price the oil company was prepared to pay. Mr. Lozoya said Pemex
would be prepared to pay "above average prices" to firms.
"Pemex may end up paying a little bit more, but it would have a positive impact on the environment and
on jobs domestically, so it would be worth it," he said. "I foresee and I hope that in a couple of years
we'll have a much stronger energy sector with many more medium-size companies present in it; and
that Pemex becomes a much stronger development lever of the country."
2NC Reform Now
Vote next week – compromise in the middle now
Reuters 8/1 (“Mexico president to present energy reform next week,” 8/1/13,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/01/us-mexico-reforms-energyidUSBRE96U0UA20130801)//SJF
Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto said on Thursday his sweeping energy reform, which is expected
to include constitutional changes to lure private investment and boost output, will be presented to
Congress next week.
The energy reform is a key plank of a wider economic overhaul designed to boost growth in Latin
America's No. 2 economy to 6 percent a year, create jobs and lower energy costs.
"The government will be presenting my initiative, the initiative of the government, in the coming days, I
think next week," Pena Nieto told local radio from a hospital where is recovering from the surgical
removal of a benign nodule on his thyroid gland. He gave no details about the bill.
A top lawmaker from Pena Nieto's ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, said on Wednesday he
expected the reform to be presented on August 7.
Pena Nieto said he hoped the initiative would be debated by Congress during a special legislative period
set to begin in mid-August, setting up what is likely to be a heated debate over the future of Mexico's oil
riches.
Mexico's conservative National Action Party, or PAN, proposed its own aggressive energy reform on
Wednesday, which would dismantle the current ban on concessions and risk-sharing contracts in
addition to a broad opening of the electricity sector and the creation of a fund to administer Mexico's oil
wealth.
Mexico is the world's 10th biggest producer of crude oil, according to OPEC data, yet output has fallen
by a quarter since hitting peak production of 3.4 million barrels per day in 2004.
The country also is a top oil exporter to the United States but has to import nearly half of its gasoline
due to a lack of domestic refining capacity.
'SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE'
"I think the required consensus is in place for a meaningful reform to be passed because both the PAN
and PRI favor a market- friendly approach," said Gabriel Salinas, a lawyer with Mayer Brown's Latin
America energy group.
"But the PRI reform is not expected to be as revolutionary as the PAN's proposal. It will likely come
down somewhere in the middle," he said.
Pena Nieto will need PAN backing to secure the required two-thirds majority in Congress to pass the bill.
The PAN's proposal raises the likelihood the government will push through a deep reform.
The leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution has made clear it will not support constitutional changes,
which it argues are tantamount to privatization. Leftist opponents of any constitutional changes have
vowed massive street protests.
Top PRI lawmakers have signaled in recent weeks that the government's energy reform bill will include
controversial changes to the constitution.
The PAN's energy proposal seeks to reform Articles 25, 27 and 28 of the constitution, and also would
strengthen the country's energy regulatory bodies by making them autonomous.
The proposal would permit other operators to engage in the exploration and production of crude,
effectively breaking the monopoly enjoyed by state-run oil and gas company Pemex, Mexico's sole
operator under the existing legal framework.
All indicators point to reform next week
Garcia and Berrara 7/31 – Mexico political reporters at Reuters (David Alire, Adriana, “Mexico's
opposition party proposes sweeping energy reform,” 7/31/13, Reuters,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/us-mexico-reforms-energyidUSBRE96U0UA20130731)//SJF
Mexico's opposition conservative party proposed sweeping energy reform on Wednesday to change the
constitution to allow more private investment and promote competition, while the ruling party is
expected to present its own plans for an overhaul next week.
Both parties favor market-friendly policies in Latin America's No. 2 economy and are expected to join
forces to push through energy reform.
"Everything indicates that the (energy reform) initiative of President Pena Nieto will arrive next week,"
said Senator Emilio Gamboa, leader of the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, in the upper
chamber of Congress.
However, lawmakers from the center-right National Action Party, or PAN, were the first to come out
with a detailed bill that aims to provide the biggest private-sector opening of the state-run oil sector in
decades.
The party called for changes to the constitution to give oil companies incentives to boost the nation's
sliding energy output.
The leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution, or PRD, has made clear it will not support constitutional
changes, which it argues are tantamount to privatization.
"We have set the bar in line with the size of the challenge in Mexico and we urge lawmakers from the
PRI and PRD to approach what we can achieve with audacity," the PAN's national chairman Gustavo
Madero told reporters as the bill was unveiled in the Senate.
The PAN's bill marks the opening bid in what is expected to be a heated debate over the future of the
country's ample oil and gas reserves. Mexico is the world's 10th biggest producer of crude oil, according
to data from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC).
The conservative party's proposed legislation is broadly in line with the thinking of Pena Nieto's PRI,
which has also called for constitutional reforms.
The PRI will need the PAN's backing in Congress to achieve the two-thirds majority to push through
constitutional reform. That would bypass a political pact forged by the three main parties, which
achieved consensus on a batch of economic changes earlier this year, and could complicate future
reform efforts.
CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE
The PAN's proposal would end a prohibition on oil and gas concessions and risk-sharing contracts
enshrined in Article 27 of the constitution.
In place of the ban on concessions and contracts, the text of the PAN's proposed amendment says the
state "should guarantee the maximum benefit of oil profits for the nation from the work of the
operators who conduct exploration and production activities."
Mexico's current sole oil and gas operator is the state-run monopoly Pemex.
Overall, the PAN's proposal would reform Articles 25, 27 and 28 of the constitution. It would eliminate
public-sector exclusivity over the generation, transportation and distribution of electricity, and
strengthen the country's energy regulatory bodies by making them autonomous. Those details would be
dealt with in so-called secondary laws.
The bill would create a new national petroleum fund to administer the country's energy riches, but still
keep all oil and gas resources under public ownership.
PAN leaders emphasized that they were open to negotiating the fine print of how oil companies would
be compensated under a more open, competitive energy sector.
"At the end of the day, how you pay them, whether with money or oil, is practically the same," Salvador
Vega, a PAN senator, told Reuters.
"We are not closed to any kind of model. In fact, we are looking at all types of models. That is where the
most important part of the debate will be ... whether we move to a kind of royalty, taxes on products or
benefits."
The PAN's bill was filed with the Senate, which will formally kick off the debate on energy reform on
September 1 when the new congressional session begins.
PAN backing solves passage – will pass, but influence is key
Reuters 7/31 (“Mexico's conservative political party urges broad energy reform,” 7/31/13,
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/mexico-reforms-energy-idUKL1N0G10YW20130731)//SJF
Lawmakers from Mexico's conservative National Action Party (PAN) on Wednesday proposed opening
up the state-run oil sector to private interests for the first time since the industry was nationalized in
1938, calling for changes to the constitution to give oil companies incentives to boost the country's
sliding energy output.
Mexico's sole oil and gas operator is state-run monopoly Pemex.
The PAN's market-friendly bill marks the opening bid in what is expected to be a heated debate over the
future of Mexico's ample oil and gas reserves. Mexico is the world's 10th-biggest crude oil producer,
according to data from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries.
The conservative party's proposed legislation is broadly in line with the thinking of President Enrique
Pena Nieto's ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which has yet to detail its own proposal to
overhaul the sector.
The leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) has made clear it will not back constitutional
changes, which it argues are tantamount to privatization.
Mexico's government is set to present its proposal, which is expected to be similar to PAN's bill, later in
August, and needs the PAN's backing to push through a reform.
That would bypass a political pact forged by the three parties, which forged consensus on a batch of
economic reforms, and could complicate future reform efforts.
The PAN's proposal would end a prohibition on oil and gas concessions and risk-sharing contracts
enshrined in Article 27 of the constitution.
The text of the PAN's proposed constitutional amendment says the state "should guarantee the
maximum benefit of oil profits for the nation from the work of the operators who conduct exploration
and production activities."
The PAN's bill was filed with the Senate, which will formally kick off the energy reform debate on Sept. 1
when the new congressional session begins.
Debate coming – PAN pushing privatization now
Martin and Rodriguez 7/31 – reporters for Bloomberg News in Mexico City (Eric, “Mexico Largest
Opposition Party Seeks to Sell Pemex Shares,” Bloomberg, 7/31/13,
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-31/mexico-largest-opposition-party-seeks-to-sell-pemexshares-2-.html)//SJF
Mexico’s opposition National Action Party today sent Congress a bill to change the constitution and pave
the way for Petroleos Mexicanos to sell shares.
The changes would require additional legislation to enable a “small” share sale, said Salvador Vega, the
party’s top member on the Senate Energy Committee. The proposal would also break the monopoly on
electricity generation and distribution held by state power company Comision Federal de Electricidad, or
CFE, he said.
The PAN is proposing the most “audacious” changes in Mexico’s energy industry since 1938, when
Mexico expropriated assets from U.K. and U.S. companies and changed its constitution to assert control
over its energy resources, Vega said. The proposal may go beyond that of President Enrique Pena Nieto
who last month declined to say whether he’ll push to change the constitution and has promised to
“modernize, not privatize” Pemex.
“We’re looking for a way to democratize Pemex, including listing small amounts of shares,” Vega said
today in a telephone interview from Mexico City. “We’re also contemplating an opening for the electric
sector.”
The PAN’s announcement preempts the energy proposal expected from Pena Nieto’s Institutional
Revolutionary Party, or PRI. That plan will be presented within days, David Penchyna, the head of the
Senate Energy Committee and a member of the PRI, said in an interview today with Radio Formula.
The peso briefly pared its loss after Vega’s comments and erased it after the U.S. Federal Reserve said it
will maintain its $85 billion in monthly bond purchases. The peso was little changed at 12.7641 per U.S.
dollar at 1:55 p.m. in Mexico City.
Balancing Act
This isn’t the first time the PAN has thought about trying to give Pemex the ability to sell shares. In 2011,
then President Felipe Calderon decided against an energy bill that would have included selling shares of
Pemex after initially saying such a sale “could be an alternative.”
The PAN’s proposal could also face opposition from the Democratic Revolution Party, or PRD, the
nation’s third-biggest party. Jesus Zambrano, the PRD’s president, has promised that the party will
oppose any drive that it sees as privatization.
Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the party’s candidate who came in second to Pena Nieto in last year’s
presidential election, said he’ll call supporters to Mexico City’s Zocalo, or main square, in early
September to rally against the expected energy overhaul proposals.
Reform Agendas
“My sense is that the PAN does want to go further on energy reform, and by putting these types of
topics into the debate are ensuring that a number of options are considered,” Eric Farnsworth, head of
the Washington office of the Council of the Americas, said in a telephone interview. “Whether or not it’s
a bridge too far is something the Mexican people would obviously have to decide.”
When asked about the possibility of a share sale at a news conference today, PAN lawmaker Ruben
Camarillo said the proposal would call for annual Congressional approval of Pemex’s debt levels and
whether parts of its funding would come from a share offering.
Lawmakers will have an “extensive debate” to decide how much funding will come from debt, the
hybrid securities known as Citizen Bonds, or shares, Camarillo said. The amendments to articles 25, 27,
and 28 won’t address the details for those changes, and they will be attended to in secondary laws, he
said.
Camarillo said that his party also wants to remove the Pemex union from the company board, where
workers currently hold five of the 15 seats of the board.
2NC Overstretch Link
CFE control overstretches PEMEX – prevents sustainable transition
Mander 6/27 – FT's Venezuela and Caribbean correspondent, based in Caracas (Benedict, “Energy:
Focus on Pemex raises hopes of private investors,” 6/27/13, FT,
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6aeb8e5a-c79c-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz2b4RPGqGu)//SJF
Although some Mexicans celebrated the anniversary of the 1938 nationalisation of their oil and gas this
year, there are high hopes that the industry is on the brink of important constitutional reform.
If successful, the reforms will enable an influx of private investment in long-needed projects. This could
transform the industry and boost the country’s economic competitiveness after decades of meagre
investment contributed to the gradual decline of Pemex, the state oil monopoly that was once a source
of national pride.
“Pemex’s infrastructure is stretched to the limit,” says Marcelo Mereles, a partner at Mexico City-based
energy consultancy, EnergeA. “There is desperate need for investment,” he says, explaining that Pemex
has become increasingly inefficient, with debilitating losses and steep production declines.
With the election of Enrique Peña Nieto as president, winds of change have begun to blow. The
construction of a $2.4bn gas pipeline that will connect Mexico with the US is under way, representing
the country’s biggest energy infrastructure investment in 40 years. The Ramones project plan is for it
eventually to meet one-fifth of Mexico’s demand for natural gas.
With the threat of gas shortages looming, Mexico’s electricity commission announced in May that it was
importing 18 cargoes of liquefied natural gas from Trafigura, the international trading company, over
the next two years at about four times the price of US pipeline imports.
But the Ramones project will allow Mexico to tap cheap gas imports from Texas. This could help meet
growing demand in Mexico’s industrial heartland in the northeast, especially the booming automotive
and aerospace industries.
“We can’t have people fighting over gas ... A big part of our development and growth depends on it,”
Alejandro Martinez, the director of Pemex’s gas subsidiary, said shortly after announcing the start of the
bidding process for the construction of the second phase of the pipeline.
The Ramones project, which will stretch 750 miles, has already attracted interest from at least five
groups, including companies from the US, China, Russia, India, Brazil, Spain and Italy, according to Mr
Martinez.
In addition to funds going to Ramones, he said more than $3.5bn in private investment in pipelines was
needed.
“We are more than convinced that integration with the US gas system must be much greater,” said Mr
Martinez.
Pemex transports about half of its refined products by road with private trucks. This is about 12 times
more costly than transport by pipeline and also more dangerous, comments Mr Mereles, a former
adviser at Pemex.
Storage infrastructure is in dire need of expansion, he adds, as Pemex has the capacity to store only two
days’ worth of stocks of gasoline and diesel, which can fall to as little as a few hours’ worth at peak
times.
Considerable scope exists for investment in Mexican petrochemicals. That said, experts suggest that the
country’s refining capacity is unlikely to expand in the near future since there is ample to spare in the
US.
Perhaps the greatest opportunities are in exploration and production. There is huge promise in the deep
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, where more than 40 per cent of Mexico’s “possible” oil and gas reserves
lie. Also, the country’s reserves of shale gas are the fourth largest in the world. There is little to no
existing infrastructure in either area.
The development of these reserves is becoming increasingly urgent since Mexico’s oil production has
fallen from 3.4m barrels a day in 2004 to about 2.5m b/d, in large part because of over-dependence on
its massive Cantarell oilfield, which is running dry.
But the ability of foreign oil companies to help reverse this trend will depend on the success of
constitutional reform. Mr Peña Nieto has made this a priority, since foreign companies have been
prohibited from getting Mexican oil out of the ground since the 1938 nationalisation.
While many see this as Mexico’s best chance for energy reform in the past 75 years, it is far from being a
done deal. A reform package is expected to be submitted to Congress by September. It remains unclear
what it will contain.
“We don’t know if it’s going to change enough for it to be attractive to invest,” says an executive at an
international oil company.
Pemex’s capital investment in the past decade has quadrupled to almost $25bn, with most of it destined
for exploration and production.
That may be a huge amount for one company, but it is not nearly enough for the development of the oil
sector of a country the size of Mexico, comment analysts.
Just to start producing in deep waters would require investments of $10bn a year, according to Mr
Mereles.
“It’s just not possible for Pemex to do this alone. We are going to need hundreds of companies coming
in,” says one industry insider.
2NC Link
Renewable development through the CFE gives it competitive advantage – crushes
private investment push
Mayer Brown 8/2 – a global legal services organization for banking and finance advising many of the
world’s largest companies (“Sweeping Mexico Energy Reform Proposal,” 8/2/13,
http://www.mayerbrown.com/files/Publication/9eeecff5-e629-40ab-90ea24bdd938498d/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/d021ea0d-1171-40ca-847e3827cdf1b473/PAN_Energy_Reform_Proposal_0813_V4.pdf)//SJF
4. OPENING THE ELECTRICITY SECTOR TO FURTHER PRIVATE INVESTMENT ANDCOMPETITION
In 1992, the Public Service Law of Electric Energy (Ley del Servicio Público de Energía Eléctrica) and its
regulatory law were reformed to allow for different power generation schemes that were not
considered “public service,” including power generation for selfconsumption, co-generation or small
generation, and independent power generation to sell to CFE. These reforms ushered in new investment
in this sector which contributed to the improved efficiency of the Mexican electricity sector. Yet, the
Mexican electricity sector is still lacking sufficient capacity and investment to meet the country’s
growing industrial demand.
Proposed Article 27 would delete the following power generation ban in the Constitution:
It exclusively corresponds to the Nation, the generation, transmission, transformation, distribution and
supply of electric power that has as an objective the rendering of a public service. In this realm, no
concession shall be granted to individuals and the Nation shall take advantage of the goods and natural
resources required for this purpose.
Pursuant to the PAN reform proposal, this limitation would be removed. For full implementation, further
legislation would need to be passed regarding CFE’s structure and the participation of new operators in
the generation and marketing of electricity in Mexico.
Pursuant to the proposed reform, the Energy Regulatory Commission, in addition to regulating the
midstream and downstream sectors, will also regulate Mexico’s electricity sector. Proposed Article 28
establishes that the Energy Regulatory Commission shall regulate “the generation, operative control,
transmission, distribution and marketing, as well as the efficient supply and sale of electricity to be
carried out by the Nation or by individuals(emphasis added).” Furthermore, proposed transitional Article
11 establishes that the Energy Regulatory Commission shall “grant, authorize and revoke permits or
concessions … for the generation and distribution of electricity generated by individuals … (emphasis
added).” Thus, the generation, transmission, distribution and marketing of electricity would be opened
to private investment pursuant to the Constitution, although secondary laws would clearly need to be
enacted.
The reform also provides that CFE shall compete on equal footing with other operators. The proposed
transitional Article 4 establishes that the activities of electricity generation and marketing shall be
developed “in effective competitive conditions and strict legal and operational separation with the
transportation, storage and distribution activities that are in a natural monopoly condition.”
Of particular note, the proposed reform does not modify the current ban on the granting of concession
or permits regarding the use radioactive materials and nuclear power, which are activities exclusively
reserved to the country, thus excluding private investment in nuclear power in Mexico.
Killing “Pacto por Mexico” kills the bill – investing in CFE renewables wrecks reform
Martin, Rodriguez, and Marinho 7/20 – *reporter for Bloomberg News in Mexico City,
**reporter for Bloomberg News in Mexico City, ***editor for Bloomberg News in São Paulo (Eric, Carlos
Manuel, Helder, “Mexico's President Pushes Reforms for State Oil Company Pemex,” 7/20/13,
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-20/mexicos-president-pushes-reforms-for-state-oilcompany-pemex)//SJF
Petróleos Mexicanos, known as Pemex, has long been the third rail of Mexican politics. The state-owned
company, originally based on oil fields seized from foreign owners over 70 years ago, has produced
sizable government revenue and union jobs for hundreds of thousands of Mexicans. Foreign investment
has been largely restricted.
But now Pemex’s main asset, the giant Cantarell offshore field, is shrinking fast. The company says it
needs to boost annual investment by 46 percent, to $37 billion, to tap undeveloped shale-gas deposits
and deep-water reserves. Without some private capital and expertise from abroad, Mexico risks
becoming an importer in the next decade. Many of Mexico’s politicians and policymakers have known
this for years. Yet Mexican nationalism, resistance from the unions, and the sheer size of the task of
transforming Pemex have stood in the way.
The planets may be aligning for a solution: Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto says he’s negotiating
to get the political support he needs to break the state monopoly in oil and gas exploration and
production this year in a bid to accelerate Mexico’s economic growth. In the model envisioned by Peña
Nieto, Pemex would develop certain fields, while foreign and private companies would tap others. The
oil and gas reserves in the ground would still be the property of Mexico. Peña Nieto declines to discuss
many details of the proposal or whether it would include a change in the constitution, which limits how
private companies can profit from the nation’s energy resources.
He has, however, been sending signals to international oil companies that he needs their help to arrest
eight years of decline in Mexico’s crude output. “It’s obvious that Pemex doesn’t have the financial
capacity to be in every single front of energy generation,” the 46-year-old president said in an interview
in London on June 17, before he traveled to Northern Ireland for meetings with Group of Eight leaders.
“Shale is one of the areas where there’s room for private companies, but not the only one.”
Peña Nieto says his administration will send the energy bill to Congress by September, when regular
sessions resume. He’s relying on the Pact for Mexico, an alliance of the country’s top three political
parties, which have vowed to work together to achieve major reforms. Peña Nieto’s own party, the
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), doesn’t have enough votes on its own for a constitutional
amendment.
“We’re approaching key deadlines,” Peña Nieto says. “I’m optimistic that this political climate of
understanding and agreement will be maintained.” Yet investors have pushed down the price of Pemex
bonds in the last month. They’re losing confidence in the president’s ability to achieve the needed
changes amid signs that the Pact for Mexico is fraying. Corruption allegations against the PRI have
already almost derailed the alliance. In April, the National Action Party, a member of the pact, released
video and audio tapes allegedly showing officials from Peña Nieto’s party arranging to use government
social programs to win support before local elections. The accord may end if Peña Nieto doesn’t prevent
electoral irregularities in states where local contests will take place on July 7, said Jesús Zambrano, head
of the Party of the Democratic Revolution, another member of the pact in May.
“If the Pacto por México dies, then what’s the plan?” asks Duncan Wood, director of the Mexico
Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. “We don’t know what
the plan is after that.”
Peña Nieto has also waited a long time to make his push for a new oil law. Delays in introducing an
energy bill could threaten its depth and support, says Jeremy Martin, an oil specialist at the Institute of
the Americas in La Jolla, Calif. “The longer things go, people start taking different directions, and then
politicians, his team, start finding reasons why they shouldn’t do something big,” Martin says. In the fall
legislative session, an oil bill may also have to compete with the annual budget,a major distraction.
Peña Nieto, who’s been president for seven months, says there’s political momentum to pass more
reforms after the approval of new education and telecommunications laws that opened up both sectors
to more competition. The education bill created an independent institute to evaluate schools and foster
competition for jobs and promotions based on performance, a move that has sparked violent protests
from teachers. The government also arrested the powerful head of the teachers’ union, Elba Esther
Gordillo, on corruption charges, taking on a leader long considered to be untouchable. Her lawyers say
she is innocent. In mid-June, Peña Nieto signed a law aimed at spurring more competition in
telecommunications by threatening to break up companies that control a majority of the market. That’s
a potential headache for billionaire Carlos Slim’s América Móvil (AMX), which has 70 percent of Mexico’s
mobile phone subscribers, and Grupo Televisa (TV), which gets 70 percent of the nation’s broadcast
television audience.
Small transitions away from oil contracts kill support for reform
Barrera 7/11 – Political reporter on Mexico for Reuters (Adriana, “UPDATE 3-Failed Pemex oil field
auction ups pressure on Mexico to reform,” 7/11/13,
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/11/mexico-oil-idUSL1N0FH1OQ20130711)//SJF
Mexican state oil monopoly Pemex got a dismal response to an auction of contracts at one of its main oil
fields on Thursday, turning up pressure on the government to open up the industry to more private
capital with an imminent reform.
Most bidders in the Chicontepec basin auction signaled they wanted a higher fee per barrel than Pemex
would pay for the private contracting scheme to turn around part of the massive field, which has
consistently fallen short of expectations.
Pemex only successfully contracted half of the six blocks put out to tender, part of Mexico's efforts to
find more investment to boost flagging crude output.
The two biggest blocks, Pitepec and Amatitlan, did not even attract bidders, the company said.
The lack of interest led to immediate calls for President Enrique Pena Nieto to push for a reform that will
make Mexico's oil industry more attractive for private investors when the government presents its
planned overhaul by early September.
"The process in this round has been a failure," said Luis Miguel Labardini, a partner with Mexico Citybased energy consultancy Marcos and Associates.
"This shows the new administration that what is really required in Mexico is a deeper reform."
Pemex, meanwhile, hailed the tender as an success.
"We see the result very positively as we were able to assign three blocks at very, very attractive prices,"
said Carlos Morales, head of Pemex's exploration and production arm.
The three successful tenders obligate Pemex to pay each of the winning companies less than $1 per
barrel produced plus full reimbursement of production costs. Mexico's crude oil exports currently fetch
as much as $109 per barrel.
Pemex failed to attract any bids from multinational oil producers. While oil majors BP and Royal Dutch
Shell both purchased project specifications, neither ultimately sought to qualify for the auction.
"That shows you that the big oil companies are looking for commercial opportunities on the scale to
which they're accustomed, but they didn't find any," said George Baker, the publisher of Mexico Energy
Intelligence, an industry newsletter.
Among the auction's winners, U.S. oil services giant Halliburton won the contract to operate the
Humapa block, which contains 341 million barrels of oil equivalent (boe) in proven, probable and
possible (3P) reserves spread across 49 square miles (128 sq km).
And Mexico's Grupo Diavaz got the nod for the Miquetla block, which contains 248 million boe in
proven, probable and possible reserves spread across 43 square miles.
Pemex said it will launch a new auction for the three blocks that failed, Amatitlan, Pitepec and
Miahuapan, the company said. It did not provide further details.
REFORM PRESSURE
The Chicontepec auction marks the third round of the country's fee-per-barrel private contracting
scheme, fruit of a 2008 reform aimed at revitalizing aging oil fields and attracting long-term private
investment.
The six blocks constitute about 15 percent of the basin's total reserves, or about 3.2 billion barrels of
crude equivalent, and cover 368 square miles.
Sixteen companies, nearly all oilfield service companies, pre-qualified for the auction.
Pemex's Morales added that a fourth round of contracts, including up to five blocks, will be auctioned by
October in southern Mexico, but he did not offer further details.
The Chicontepec basin, discovered more than 80 years ago, is located in the east-central states of
Veracruz and Puebla and is home to about 40 percent of Mexico's certified hydrocarbon reserves, or
about 17 billion boe.
Last year, Chicontepec produced an average of 74,800 barrels per day (bpd). Despite heavy investment,
Pemex has failed to meet production targets at the geologically complicated basin, where millions of
barrels of oil are scattered across many small deposits, a feature that makes production costly and slow.
Boosting output is one of the chief aims of the government's energy reform, which will be a major
political challenge.
The Mexican constitution mandates that only the state can own and commercialize the country's oil and
gas resources, but Pena Nieto has promised a major overhaul of the industry to attract new investment
from private oil companies.
His Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) must break with years of tradition to go down that path, and
will need support from other parties in Congress, where it lacks a majority.
Pemex has been a symbol of Mexican self-sufficiency since the oil industry was nationalized by the PRI in
1938.
While details of the reform have yet to be revealed, a formal proposal is expected by Sept. 8.
Mexican crude oil production has fallen to just over 2.5 million bpd from a peak of 3.4 million bpd in
2004.
2NC Internal
Privatization key to offshore exploration
Offshore Mag 7/9 (“As exploration heats up, Latin American nations refine offshore regulations,”
7/9/13, 73:7, http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/print/volume-73/issue-7/latin-america-report/asexploration-heats-up-latin-american-nations-refine-offshore-regulations.html)//SJF
In Mexico, direct ownership of oil and hydrocarbons is held at all times exclusively by the Mexican state.
Furthermore, the activities related to exploration, exploitation, and production of petroleum and other
hydrocarbons are reserved exclusively to the Mexican state and no concessions or similar agreements
can be granted under any circumstance in favor of any individuals or private entities. Such activities are
carried out by the Mexican state through its state-owned company, Petroleos Mexicanos (Pemex) and
its subsidiaries, which is the only entity allowed to perform exploration and exploitation activities in
Mexico.
The current regulatory framework of Pemex enables it to contract exploration and production activities
with third parties with certain limitations such as that the Mexican state shall always maintain direct
ownership over hydrocarbons and the consideration to contractors must be paid only on a cash basis.
As a general rule, Pemex is required to procure its exploration and production activities through a public
tender process and only as an exception may it use restricted invitations to bid (invitation to at least
three persons) or direct award. Contracts may be granted byreas of activity such as exploration; oil field
development (production); and integrated exploration and production contracts.
The government of President Peña Nieto has announced that in August or September 2013, it will
present to the Congress an energy reform initiative to improve the operation of Pemex, provide a more
flexible fiscal regime for Pemex, and increase private investment in the oil and gas industry.
Energy reform key to PEMEX privatization – allows for Gulf exploration
Erquicia 8/1 – Spanish-American Business Journalist at Blouin News International relations in an
interconnected world (Alex, “What to expect from Mexico’s Pemex reform,” 8/1/13,
http://blogs.blouinnews.com/blouinbeatbusiness/2013/08/01/what-to-expect-from-mexicos-pemexreform/)//SJF
Mexico’s symbol of national pride, Petróleos Mexicanos (Pemex), is anticipating a drastic overhaul.
President Enrique Peña Nieto wants to to open up the state-owned oil monopoly to private investment
to boost oil exploration, production, and refining. No matter how controversial the country’s energy
reform may be – and there have been failed attempts to resuscitate Pemex in the past – the matter is
pressing.
Mexico relies heavily on Pemex’s oil revenues, which fund around a third of the federal budget. Yet, due
to a lack of domestic refining capacity, the company imports nearly half of its gasoline. It posted a
second-quarter loss of 49 billion pesos ($3.8 billion), up from the 33.6 billion pesos loss in the same
period a year earlier and its biggest loss since the third quarter of 2011. The numbers are a consequence
of its heavy tax burden, declining oil output (down by a quarter since peaking at 3.4 million barrels per
day in 2004) and outdated technology. Both the latter problems have deepened in the last lustrum.
Peña Nieto and his ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) are expected to present their energy
reform bill on August 7. It will be an important moment for Latin America’s No. 2 economy, yet little is
known about the reform plan beyond the intention to begin a liberalization process, though a stock
listing seems to be way down the line.
The reform will include “the constitutional changes to give private investors certainty,” the president
told the Financial Times. In a speech to the London-based think tank Chatham House in June, he said
that “Pemex will neither be sold nor privatized; Pemex will be transformed, and will be modernized.”
That most of the little Peña Nieto has uttered on the matter has been done abroad highlights how
sensitive the issue is domestically.
One thing is unquestionable — and contentious in Mexico’s Congress and public squares: if the initiative
is to be successful it will need a reform to the constitution. Article 27 of Mexico’s constitution bans the
government from granting private sector concessions for oil or gas. In that way the state is guaranteed
ownership of the country’s energy resources. If foreign oil companies are to get a piece of Pemex, the
constitution will have to be modified. Peña Nieto also needs to amend Articles 25 and 28 to end the
public-sector monoply over the generation, transportation and distribution of electricity, and to make
the energy regulators autonomous.
Passing these constitutional changes is a colossal challenge. A two-thirds majority in Congress is
required to modify the constitution. The PRI does not even have a simple majority in the lower house.
Peña Nieto has already shown a disposition to fight, and he can count on the support of the
conservative opposition party National Action Party (PAN), which has already presented its own energy
reform draft, which also includes changes in the constitution and the legal framework in the energy
sector. However the leftist Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) is opposed.
It, along with hundreds of thousands of Mexicans, holds that constitutional amendments would lead
eventually to the privatization of Pemex, which was nationalized in 1938 and under the protectionism of
a state monopoly has grown to be the world’s seventh-largest oil producer. Nationwide demonstrations
are threatened to keep the state’s exclusive control over the country’s petroleum.
Energy reform is the most important part of the Pact for Mexico, and its sternest test to date. A crossparty alliance formed by the PRI, PRD and the PAN has already set in motion other reforms. Though still
at an early stage, they are grabbing international investors’ attention. The political cooperation is fresh
air for a country known for its gridlock, even if the pact faces continuous setbacks, and is split on energy
reform.
Peña Nieto has in the past pointed to the success of Brazil’s state-controlled Petrobras — which trades
on several stock exchanges and has boosted efficiency — as a model for Pemex’s change. “Petrobras
success has undoubtedly become a great reference. I think there is a lot to learn from that experience,”
he said in April 2012 when he was presidential candidate. The Brazilian government has shifted from a
model of multinational oil companies operating on an equal footing with Petrobras to one of production
sharing agreements in which ownership of Brazil’s oil remains with the state.
Even if the president can steer energy reform through Congress, endemic corruption and labour unions
used to having a big say in running the company will have to be tackled. But if Pemex were to follow a
similar exploration and development path to Petrobras, it would ramp up deep-water exploration,
particularly in the Gulf of Mexico. There is potentially 29 billion barrels of untapped crude equivalent
there, or 58% of the country’s known reserves.
AT: U/Q O/W Link
Reform now, but international investment determines PAN support – key to
successful compromise
Starr 7/11 – analyst at Platts McGraw Hill Financial (Spencer, 7/11/13, “Oil and gas reform in Mexico,
once mere talk, appears at hand: legal expert,” 7/11/13, http://www.platts.com/latestnews/oil/houston/oil-and-gas-reform-in-mexico-once-mere-talk-appears-21268243)//SJF
Reform in Mexico has been talked about for many years, but substantial change that would likely involve
some degree of constitutional amendment seems finally at hand, a Mexican energy legal expert said
Thursday.
With production dwindling and the prospect of becoming a net oil importer inching closer, Mexico must
act soon, David Enriquez, a partner in oil and gas/maritime division at Mexico City law firm Goodrich
Riquelme Asociados, said during a Credit Suisse conference call on the potential for energy reform in
Mexico.
A middle-of-the-road approach is more likely than minimal or radical change, he said.
"This is the mother of all reforms [in Mexico]," Enriquez said. "The political capital of [President Enrique
Pena] will be invested in this one."Because declining production contains what Enriquez called a "public
finance element" -- state company Pemex's current revenues fund about one-third of the federal budget
-- reform agreements between Pena's ruling PRI party and the conservative PAN party, which was in
power during the previous two presidential administrations, are "more likely than not," he said.
The most feasible reform, Enriquez said, is not one of extremes but an "intermediate scenario that takes
into account political tensions, the technicalities of the industry and the role of [international]
supermajors and independents." That scenario "considers a full range of contractual possibilities" and
would involve creation of either a new national oil company or a similar entity alongside Pemex with the
power to enter into production-sharing agreements and concessions, he said.
Enriquez projected that some kind of constitutional amendment would be forged and signed by year
end; next year, various government agencies would develop and implement them.
"We expect later this year a constitutional amendment and then in 2014, a constitutional design and
legislation," he said. "Realistically ... in a year, a year-and-a-half from now, we'd expect to have full
implementation of the reform."
Oil and gas is currently property of the Mexican state, and while foreign upstream companies do
operate in the country, they do so under fee-for-service agreements and are not allowed to book
reserves. Most of the handful of operators in Mexico are small, privately held independents.
Mexico's oil production is now 2.6 million b/d, down from a peak of 3.4 million b/d less than 10 years
ago, Enriquez said. He said the level of capital spending by Pemex needed to raise production to even
3.1 million b/d is $30 billion/year.
However, about three-quarters of the country's estimated 115 billion barrels of estimated petroleum
reserves are figured to be unconventional -- in deepwater, tight oil and natural gas, and shale oil and gas
-- said Enriquez, and are more costly to extract than conventional reserves. Consequently, the amount of
funding needed to raise production from unconventional sources to 4 million b/d would likely be triple
that amount -- perhaps as high as $100 billion/year, he said.
Because of the urgency of production declines, Enriquez said he does not expect fierce political
obstacles as in the past. The PRI and PAN have historically been at odds, but given the need for reform
he expects them to form a supermajority in Congress to get the measure passed. The left-leaning PRD
party would oppose it, but could not muster enough support to block it.
A simple majority of states is needed to ratify an amendment, said Enriquez, which is "not a problem,"
since they are PRI-controlled. The PRI ruled Mexico for 70 years until the PAN took over from 20002012.
Amending the constitution is not uncommon in Mexico, Enriquez said.
"Compared to some other countries' constitutions, Mexico's is amended on a very frequent basis," he
said. "The last one was for the telecommunications industry, and it happened a couple of months ago."
2NC Determines Success
Reform now, but investment climate unstable – external investment risks corruption
Manatt Phelps & Phillips LLP 1/25 (“Mexico's upcoming energy reform: Opportunities,
limitations, and challenges,” 1/25/13, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=65b2a55c-4e6344d5-bfb5-c90113fdf287)//SJF
Mexico's hydrocarbons sector will not be overhauled under Mexico's new President Enrique Peña Nieto
to the point of the State losing ownership and control of the resource, but reforms that offer new
business opportunities are likely. The reform effort for the oil and gas sectors is scheduled to be
launched in the first year of the President's six-year term. While the major political parties in Mexico all
acknowledge the need for reform, they do not agree on the "what" and the "how."
Oil production has been in decline, and Pemex does not have the capital or technology to fully tap into
all the country's potential reserves of traditional fields or promising shale oil reserves. Reform is
complicated, as Pemex, the national symbol of the country's oil resources, is a political force as well as a
business. At least for the near term, Pemex will continue to be the cash cow for the Mexican
government, providing up to 40% of the government's budget and allowing for revenue transfers to
states.
Pemex's inability to fully invest in new technology and exploratory activities to more efficiently extract
from its aging oil fields is seen by declining oil production since 2008, when production peaked at 3.2
million barrels per day. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2020 Mexico will
become an oil importer if at least moderate reforms are not implemented. Furthermore, domestic
economic growth will significantly increase Mexico's energy demands.
The need for foreign investment in Mexico's energy sector is widely acknowledged, but political realities
have and will continue to limit the extent of reform. The Pacto Por Mexico, the new Administration's
legislative road map signed by the three major political parties—the PRI, PAN, and PRD—days after
Peña's inauguration, paves the way for increased private investment in petrochemicals, hydrocarbon
(pipeline) transportation, and refinery operations in Mexico, while reaffirming that Mexico's natural
resources are and will continue to be the property of the State.
Oil still property of the State
Without the option to own or partially own oil reserves, industry giants are less likely to be interested in
investing in crude production. This month's third round of incentive contracts for Chicontepec continues
prior practices. However, Pemex's need for more efficient extractive technologies will persist, and
Pemex and the government will be unable to fulfill the resource (investment and technology) gap.
Reforms enacted in 2008 have allowed Pemex to enter into contracts with private firms that set a base
level of production and incentivize any production above that base level. Mexico's oil and gas reserves
remain lucrative, but aging wells, deep water wells, and oil and natural gas from shale present
challenges Pemex has not been able to fully address, given the company's mandate of maximizing
returns. This presents an opportunity for firms that are efficient and successful in managing these types
of wells. However, current incentive-based contracts pass the investment and operating risks to private
firms, which incur losses whenever the baseline amount is not met.
Privatization of refinery operations, transportation of hydrocarbons, and petrochemicals
Some hoped that campaign rhetoric meant a change to Mexico's Constitution that would have more
fully opened up the energy sector to foreign investments and participation. However, the Pacto Por
Mexico explicitly identifies refinery operations, oil and gas transport, and petrochemicals as aspects of
Pemex's operation that could be opened up for privatization. The form and extent of these reforms is
yet undefined, but the current schedule is for Congress to consider them in the second semester of
2013, with implementation by the second semester of 2014. To date, the new Administration has taken
on issues that it believes it can win, so calculations about what types of reforms will be successful come
with an albeit early, but so far successful, track record.
The need for investments in these industries is clear. In 2009 the Calderon Administration announced
plans to build a refinery in Hidalgo, but regulatory and bureaucratic obstacles as well as technological,
planning, and budget restraints prevented the initiation of construction. Today Mexico imports nearly
half of its refined gasoline from the U.S. due to Pemex's insufficient refining infrastructure. Pemex
currently co-owns a refinery in the U.S. and has explored buying a U.S. refinery to meet domestic
demand.
Mexico's infrastructure capacity to transport natural gas is also lagging. Despite an abundance of cheap
natural gas available in the U.S., Pemex has had to limit its gas supply to Mexican customers because of
insufficient pipeline capacity. In the last quarter of 2012, CFE, the energy agency, awarded contracts for
new natural gas pipelines, but more are needed.
Mexican manufacturing has the potential to grow dramatically to meet increasing domestic demand and
to be more cost-efficient with access to cheap petrochemicals and plastics, but Pemex's "cracking"
capabilities (the process of extracting petrochemicals from crude oil and natural gas) requires significant
investment. With the proper infrastructure and with access to crude and natural gas (the raw materials
used to produce petrochemicals), Mexico is poised to become a large-scale producer and even exporter
of petrochemicals. However, the enormous infrastructural investments required for "cracking" facilities
are beyond what Pemex and the Mexican government are able to provide and will require private-public
partnerships with foreign companies. Technologically advanced companies, including many from the
U.S., should have an edge in new opportunities.
Risks and Challenges
Of course, there are and will continue to be risks associated with doing business in Mexico. Despite Peña
Nieto's reform-minded agenda, numerous competing civic and political factions in Mexico—labor
unions; local, state, and national politicians; environmental groups; etc.—can make doing business a
challenge, especially for extractive industries. When working with Pemex, contracts (with some
exceptions) are granted through a bid system rather than negotiations—a process that is not necessarily
difficult, but requires knowledge of the system. Security continues to be an issue, though threats are
declining and are by no means prohibitive to doing business in Mexico. Inflexibility in current labor laws
and union negotiations can increase the cost of doing business; however, labor reform was the final
legislative victory of the prior Calderon Administration. Yet more is needed, and further efforts as well as
implementation of the reform are on the current Administration's agenda. Overall, the risks and
challenges of doing business in Mexico are much lower than in most other countries in the region and
can be greatly minimized through smart, strategic market entry or expansion
AT: CRE Control Inevitable
The plan reverses CRE control in power generation and transition
Frederick 8/1 – BN America Latin business expert (James, “Mexico's PAN party presents reform to
break oil, power monopolies,” 8/1/13, BN Americas,
http://www.bnamericas.com/news/privatization/mexicos-pan-party-presents-reform-to-break-oilpower-monopolies)//SJF
Mexico's right-wing PAN party has presented its energy reform proposal that looks to break national oil
company Pemex's and national utility CFE's monopolies on oil and gas and electric power.
This is a "reform that without a doubt will change the economic life of our country and as such the lives
of Mexicans," senator Jorge Luis Preciado said during the party's announcement.
"We will leave behind the Pemex that finds itself technically on the verge of bankruptcy. We imagine a
strengthened state oil company," Preciado said. "And today, reality shows us that CFE is in a critical state
given the large shortages in the country due to a lack production or corruption."
By opening both oil and gas and electric power to private competition, the party says Mexico could see
an annual investment boost of US$30bn.
The PAN is the largest opposition party in the Mexican congress with 38 of 128 senate seats and 114 of
the 500 seats in the lower house.
While the proposal likely establishes the PAN as the most open party to private players in energy, the
definitive proposal for reform has yet to come from President Enrique Peña Nieto and his majority PRI
party.
BNamericas provides a roundup of the main points in the PAN energy reform:
- Maintains both Pemex and CFE as state-owned companies while removing them from the national
budget and granting both operational autonomy;
- Calls for a maximum 10-year plan to decrease the federal government's dependency on Pemex tax
revenues;
- Modifies article 27 of the constitution to remove prohibition of concessions or contracts for
hydrocarbon development by third parties;
- Grants hydrocarbons regulator CNH rights to conduct E&P concessions while giving Pemex priority to
receive concessions on regions already in development;
- Eliminates phrases in article 27 that grants the state exclusive rights to generate, transmit, transform,
distribute and supply power;
- Gives energy regulator CRE rights to grant concessions in power generation and distribution as well as
refining, processing, distribution, transportation and storage of hydrocarbons;
- Modifies article 28 to establish CNH as an autonomous constitutional body and establish energy
regulator CRE as the same;
- Modifies article 28 to create an autonomous Mexican oil fund (Fondo Mexicano del Petróleo) in the
image of Norway's SDFI that would manage oil tax revenues and royalties and, later, be able to invest in
E&P projects;
- Add the phrase "sustainable and with low greenhouse gas emissions" to the state's mandate for
national development in article 25.
Indigenous Violence DA
1NC
The plan coopts indigenous development in the border region
Vance 12 – reporter for the Christian Science Monitor (Erik, “Green energy boom blows trouble into
Mexico,” Alaska Dispatch, 1/26/12, http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/green-energy-boom-blowstrouble-mexico)//SJF
This isolated region of the state of Oaxaca is one of the world's most continuously windy spots. And
because wind is a valuable commodity in a world seeking alternative energy, a "wind rush" –
reminiscent of the gold and oil rushes of other eras – has swept into the isthmus.
Wind energy companies have swarmed to the area with big plans for wind farms to power the likes of
Coca-Cola plants and Wal-Marts and a push to acquire huge tracts of land to do so. The "rush" for land
farmed by locals since ancient times has divided the impoverished indigenous population over money,
land rights, and changing values. Villagers' distrust of outsiders has led to increasing unrest throughout
the Pacific edge of the isthmus for several years. Most recently, around the Laguna Superior, it has
included a paralyzing blockade of one village by another and, in October, a deadly shooting at a
demonstration.
"Oaxaca is the center of communal landownership. There is probably no worse place to make a land
deal in Mexico," says Ben Cokelet, founder of the Project on Organizing, Devel-op-ment, Education, and
Research.
And yet, with such an overwhelming wind resource, it was bound to attract development. The rush for
Tehuantapec's wind energy is a green-tinged twist in the age-old story of resource extraction: The quest
for "clean" energy isn't always so clean.
Farmers shocked at size of turbines
Mexico's potential wind energy capacity is enormous: 71 gigawatts, which is 40 percent more than the
nation's entire installed electricity-generating capacity, including coal, gas, and hydropower. That
potential was behind Mexican President Felipe Calderón's promise at the 2010 United Nations Climate
Change Convention in Cancún to double solar and wind energy production from 3.3 percent of the
nation's energy production to 7.6 percent in just two years (a goal Mex-ico is on track to hit later this
year).
"And," Mr. Calderón noted then, "the Isthmus of Tehuantapec is the area of greatest wind energy
potential in the world."
Wind developers have known this since the mid-1990s, when they first targeted land here for wind
farms. Today, the region's wind production is about 2,500 megawatts (enough to power, given the
nearly constant wind, about 870,000 US homes).
The first town to see turbines was La Venta (pop. 2,000), north of Laguna Superior. Today, rows of
turbines surround the town. The howl of the wind is now punctuated with the rhythmic sound of
windmills.
"Whenever I am working there is this never-ending sound – thrum, thrum, thrum," says Alejo Giron
Carraso, a La Venta farmer who works in the shadow of monstrous turbines.
For those without land, the development has been a boon.
"It's helped us a lot. Our parents are old and we didn't have much. For a lot of the people in this
community it's meant a lot of work," says a woman identifying herself as part of the Betanzos family
that runs a small La Venta restaurant.
For those with land, who have depended on farming, the economics are more complex: Most of the land
here is communal – analogous to native American reservations – held by Zapotecs, the dominant
indigenous group in southern Mexico. Decisions to lease land to devel-opers are made by local leaders,
but the prices paid for individual land parcels are a patchwork of values that have led many farmers to
feel cheated where turbines are already up and running.
Many locals who have given up land are illiterate and not savvy about the process. They recall meetings
with developers in which model windmills the size of dinner platters were shown, leading them to
believe they could continue farming around them. But they were shocked to see 15-to-20-story turbines
rise across acres of their land.
Some claim their land was permanently damaged by construction or that they are no longer allowed on
it. Others say they were pressured to sell land rights for a fraction of their worth and that community
leaders got better deals for their land.
"The first guy or two that bites gets [$8] per square meter. That's a hundred times better contract than
the other people," says Mr. Cokelet. "But the 98 percent of farmers who sign afterwards sign on for
rock-bottom prices. Those one or two people who bite – they don't bite because they're lucky. They bite
because they know someone. And their job ... is to sell it to all their neighbors."
While wind developers involved in the La Venta wind farms declined comment on specific contracts,
other wind developers in the region admitted in Monitor interviews that the only way to acquire land in
this communal setting is to deal with community leaders who may enjoy more benefit from signing first.
Indeed, some were flown by the developers to Spain to see working wind farms.
The isthmus has a difficult history with outside investors. In the late 1800s the United States eyed it as a
potential passage to Asia, and later as an alternative to the Panama Canal. In the 1990s, community
groups fought off a Japanese attempt to build a shrimp farm in the shallow lagoon. More recently the
state-run oil company Pemex has crisscrossed the region with pipelines that have leaked.
So the region's notoriously prickly view of outsiders has made the isthmus a difficult place to develop.
"People kept telling me, 'You know we've been experiencing globalization for a really long time,' " says
Wendy Call, who has written about the isthmus and notes that the Aztecs were invaded first. "But I think
there is a sense of fatigue, [that] 'all the other times this has happened it hasn't gone well for us.' "
Most of Tehuantapec's communal land cannot be sold, so companies lease. A standard contract lasts 30
years, with automatic renewal.
Wind farm developers in La Venta pay a third to a sixth of what energy developers do in, for example,
southeast Wyoming (the only comparably windy place in North America).
But comparisons are deceptive. Wind farms pay – either as profit sharing or flat fee – based on how the
land is used: for turbines, roads, or power lines. In Wyoming, a landowner may lease hundreds or
thousands of acres to a developer for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the isthmus,
most farmers control only two to 20 acres: If a turbine doesn't land on one's plot, payout may be as little
as $300 to $400 per year.
Profit sharing in developed countries falls close to 5 percent. But in Oaxaca the market rate was
determined to be 1 percent, says Jorge Me-gías Carrión, director general of Pre-neal, a Spanish company
developing a wind farm here. "So we negotiated with the people, and we saw that we could enlarge that
amount of money."
Preneal now pays landowners 1.4 percent of electricity profits. Ac-ciona, another Spanish wind company
working here, pays the equivalent of as little as 0.5 percent, according to landowners who signed
contracts.
In Wyoming, landowners maintain access to their land, but here locals can lose the ability to work their
small plots – either by being denied access or because turbine construction destroyed irrigation
channels.
Anti-wind power graffiti now mars the walls of La Venta, and even some people who got a fair deal say
their children are deserting the region because there is no future on the land.
Wind farm advocates say benefits go beyond just direct payments; wind farms bring much-needed jobs.
Certainly wind farms demand a great deal of labor to build, but once running they are maintained by a
few dozen highly skilled people, generally from the outside. However, many jobs are created to service
those workers.
Still, in recent months people have started taking to the street to express dissatisfaction with La Venta's
wind deals. In October, unrest turned deadly: A group of wind turbine contractors coming home from a
project ran into anti-wind power protesters blocking a highway. Arguments led to scuffles, and one
contractor was shot dead, say witnesses and relatives of the victim.
Wind companies say that a majority of locals support wind farms and suggest that unrest arises from old
rivalries and misinformation.
But one Oaxaca State official disagrees, blaming foul public sentiment on previous administrations being
too eager to encourage outside investment. "They didn't have experience in renewable energy. They
didn't have experience in wind power. Of course they would have many errors," says Alejandro E.
Velasco Hernandez, director of Renewable Energy for the state of Oaxaca, whose National Action Party
won state control in 2010 from the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which had held it for 80 years.
"But," he adds, "now we have many opportunities to improve."
Wind is sacred – and lucrative
South from La Venta the shores of Laguna Superior are dotted with fishing villages of the Huave people.
Here since ancient times, they've dwindled to a population of less than 20,000. The lifestyle in this area
is markedly different from that of the north: Pavement gives way to dirt roads; thatched buildings are
common, with high walls to counter the wind; women wear traditional clothing; and illiteracy is high.
And here, where the wind is embraced personally as a spiritual force, there is a distinct unfriendliness
toward outsiders. Local belief says the "male" wind shaped the land while the "female" wind brings
shrimp – the main livelihood.
In 2004, Preneal proposed a 300-megawatt wind farm on 4,000 acres in the town of San Dionisio. The
company had previously approached the Mexican government to set up offshore turbines in the lagoon,
but the government demanded 7 percent of the energy profits. So Preneal approached the town –
which is composed of two villages, Pueblo Nuevo (New Town) on the mainland and the smaller Pueblo
Viejo (Old Town) on an "island" attached to land by a thin sandspit. Pueblo Viejo is perfect for turbines,
offering offshore conditions in constant wind without having to build in water.
Preneal offered the town 1.4 percent of profits, plus $500,000 per year for the right to use Pueblo Viejo
land, says Mr. Megías.
The company played informational videos and assured the Huave governing assembly that turbines are
harmless, recall local leaders. But when the town appeared ready to vote it down, says one Pueblo
Nuevo community member close to the negotiation who asked not to be named, Preneal warned that
the crucial shrimping industry might be hurt if the company was forced back to plans to build in the
lagoon. Preneal's Megías denies that was intended as a threat.
The town assembly then unanimously voted to allow a wind farm on town land. Money began flowing to
the assembly, but none reached the people who will host the turbines, says Teodulo Gallegos Pablo, a
fisherman and Pueblo Viejo village authority who votes in the town assembly. "There have been no
payments [to the isolated community]."
Megías says Preneal paid the assembly but is not responsible for distribution of the money.
Mexican law requires "free and informed" consent for the land. But Mr. Gallegos contends that the
people of Pueblo Viejo still don't know what they agreed to. Preneal promised that the turbines would
only go on an isolated sandspit alongside fishing grounds – yet the contract clearly covers the whole
island, and locals report that the company has taken soil samples in their fishing grounds.
"At first the people did agree," Gallegos says of his constituents. But not long after the contract was
signed "some lawyers explained it to us and that's when the [Viejo] people stood up and said 'no.' "
The project is moving forward.
"The playing field is often very unequal," observes James Anaya, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
He likens land acquisitions in indigenous areas to colonial-era models of land grabs.
Looking at the Preneal deal in Pueblo Nuevo and Pueblo Viejo, he observes: "No Spanish or any other
company would go to the bargaining table on a technical issue without their [own] technicians. And [yet]
they expect indigenous people to."
Village vs. village
In other cases, the wind farms have exacerbated old rivalries.
Perhaps the most divisive and complex fallout from the wind farms is in Santa Maria and San Mateo del
Mar – two Huave towns sharing a Manhattan-size peninsula.
For generations, the towns have feuded over a strip of land that Santa Maria owns but that the more
traditional San Mateo con-siders sacred.
The village of San Mateo del Mar is renowned among archaeologists for the purest existing form of
Huave culture: Women still weave and wear bright huipil (blouses), and men fish from land with nets
connected to kites. Roman Catholic priests are expected to partner with the shamans, who worship
natural forces, such as the wind.
When Santa Maria sold the rights to the contested land to build devices that harness wind, San Mateo
snapped. Following a series of violent confrontations, San Mateo blockaded the only road to the
mainland.
"They said they were going to starve us to death," says one Santa Maria farmer. It's not starving, but
Santa Maria has certainly withered because getting in and out of the town now is only possible via a
fearsome skiff-trip across heavy swells. To visit San Mateo, five miles away, Santa Marians must travel
70 miles by boat, taxi, and bus around the lagoon.
Turns solvency
Oceransky 8 – founder and Director of Yansa CIC and The Yansa Foundation, and an Ashoka Fellow
(Sergio, “Wind Conflicts in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,” The Commoner, Issue 13, Winter 2008-2009,
http://www.commoner.org.uk/N13/The_Commoner_N-13.pdf)//SJF
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
The conflicts around the wind farm projects in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec are a direct consequence of
the unequal conditions in which the negotiations are taking place and the land lease contracts are being
signed. This inequality of conditions is caused by different factors:
a) The exclusion of the communities from planning and decision-making processes regarding wind
energy projects
b) The great difference in access to information (in particular about the value of the local wind resource
and the profitability of projects) of the two parties to the land lease contracts
c) The fact that in each community only one company operates, which indicates that the companies
have divided the region in areas of influence in order to avoid competing with each other and therefore
have a stronger position than the farmers in the negotiation of land lease contracts
d) The existence of social and political structures based on caciquismo, maintained by the important
deficits in access to education, and their apparent (conscious or unconscious) use by the institutions and
companies in order to obtain land lease contracts
Taking into account these factors, the growth of conflicts around these wind energy projects is not
surprising. The groups constituted in the affected communities conform the seed of a movement of
opposition that could even paralyse part of the approved projects. A more serious consequence of these
conflicts could be a negative change in the perception and evaluation of wind energy, both in the
communities affected and in society in general, which could delay the necessary transition to renewable
energy sources.
Causes economic conflict without benefit – wrecks indigenous farm development and
mitigates solvency
Oceransky 8 – founder and Director of Yansa CIC and The Yansa Foundation, and an Ashoka Fellow
(Sergio, “Wind Conflicts in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec,” The Commoner, Issue 13, Winter 2008-2009,
http://www.commoner.org.uk/N13/The_Commoner_N-13.pdf)//SJF
3.2 Economic conflicts
Opposing groups denounce that the annual rent offered to land owners is an arbitrary amount and is
insufficient to compensate the negative consequences that wind farms have on farmers and
communities. According to Grupo Solidario from La Venta, some people signed land lease contracts for
La Venta II for 1,500 Mexican pesos (around 150 USD) per hectare and year7. Due to the pressure
exerted by their group, later contracts paid 3,000 pesos per hectare and year. A new farm being built in
La Venta pays 6,000 pesos per hectare and year, and in other areas apparently 12,000 pesos are being
paid per hectar and year, an increase of 800% with respect to the first contracts, for areas with a similar
wind resource. Apparently some contracts have been signed with offer to the land leasers a payment in
relation to the power produced, but the details of these contracts have not been released. This variation
in the terms of the contracts has led many people to conclude that the companies offer as little as
possible for the land, and that those amounts have no relation with the value of the wind resource that
they receive in exchange.
There is the perception that many projects operate through intermediaries (called “coyotes” by the local
population) that keep an important part of the profits. Alejo Girón from the Grupo Solidario offers the
example of the private project being built in La Venta, which is making payments with cheques made by
hand and signed by a physical person rather than a company.
According to Pedro Matus, agrarian engineer from Unión Hidalgo, milk producers earn about 40,000
pesos per hectare and year in irrigated areas, and extra income from selling cows and calfs. Irrigated
land costs around 100,000 pesos per hectare, but there is no stability in the prices. Once a land lease
contract is signed, the land value is reduced to about 20,000 or 30,000 pesos per hectare. There is also
the fear that underground aquifers, which in this coastal region are very close to the surface, will be
affected by the foundations of WTGs.
In theory, farming activities can continue once the works have been finalised, but in the case of La Venta
II (the only operating wind farm) the roads and the lines of generators have been raised, affecting
irrigation channels and the natural water flows to discharge rainwater. Therefore, there are plots with
no access to irrigation and others that get flooded when it rains. This kind of planning of the works
shows that the interests and needs of farmers have been ignored in the framework of the project. In
addition, the contracts include an appendix with restrictions on the use of the land by the farmers,
banning them from planting anything that grows beyond 2 meters, erecting any kind of building,
opening wells, etc. In contrast, the contracts grant “usufructo” (unrestricted use rights) of the land to
the companies.
According to an estimation made by Bettina Cruz Velázquez from the Assembly in Defence of the Land
and Territory of Juchitán, the first private wind farm which is being built in La Venta is building
foundations of approximately 30 x 30 meters, leaving approximately 80 meters between foundations.
Therefore, a large percentage of the land sited in the line of generators will be rendered permanently
unfit for agriculture. It is still unknown how much distance there will be between the lines of generators,
since the company is still building the first line. Initially, the Spanish investors said that the lines would
be placed at a distance of 500 meters and that there would be a total of 180 WTGs in the farm, but
according to Alejo Girón, discussions between the company and trade unions have revealed that the
current plan is to install 300 WTGs in the farm. According to a report by the Mexican weekly Proceso,
the Spanish family Mouriño plays a key role in this private project in La Venta. The report denounces
that this family is making large profits in Mexico, especially in the energy sector, through contracts and
procedures that not always follow the existing regulations. Juan Camilo Mouriño, son of the owner of
the company GES that builds the private wind farm in La Venta, is Secretario de Gobernación (Federal
Government Secretary) in the Calderón administration.
All these reasons have led several environmental and human rights NGOs to express criticism towards
the wind energy projects in the Isthmus. Mass media recently published the position of Greenpeace;
Cecilia Navarro, communication officer of Greenpeace Mexico, declared: “We do not want corporations
to build wind farms that expel communities out of their land. This is not the development that the
country needs, we need to develop clean energies together with the communities that own the land, so
that they are part of the wind farms, that they make the decisions” 8.
Regional small farmers are key to food security
Altieri 8 (Miguel Altierei Professor of Agro ecology at the Department of Environmental Science, Policy
and Management at the University of California, Berkeley since 1981. He is a member of the Steering
Committee of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)’s Globally Important
Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) programmer, whose goal is to dynamically conserve the world’s
remaining traditional farming systems. He is also President of the Latin American Scientific Society of
Agro ecology (SOCLA) and Coordinator of the International Agro ecology Program of the Center for the
Study of the Americas in Berkeley. He periodically lectures at universities in the USA, Latin America and
Europe, and provides technical expertise to international organizations as well as farmers’ organizations
and nongovernmental organizations throughout the world. He is the author of 12 books, including Agro
ecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture and Biodiversity and Pest Management in Agro
ecosystems, as well as more than 250 scientific journal articles “Small Farms as a Planetary Ecological
Asset: Five Key Reasons Why We Should Support the Revitalisation of Small Farms in the Global South”
http://agroeco.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/smallfarmes-ecolasset.pdf)-RT
While 91% of the planet’s 1.5 billion hectares of agricultural land are increasingly being devoted to agroexport crops, biofuels and transgenic
soybean to feed cars and cattle, millions of
small farmers in the developing world produce the majority of staple
crops needed to feed the planet’s rural and urban populations. Of the 960 million hectares of land under
cultivation (arable and permanent crops) in Africa, Asia and Latin America, 10- 15% is managed by
traditional farmers. In Latin America, about 17 million peasant production units occupying close to 60.5
million hectares, or 34.5% of the total cultivated land with average farm sizes of about 1.8 hectares,
produce 51% of the maize, 77% of the beans, and 61% of the potatoes for domestic consumption. In Brazil
alone, there are about 4.8 million family farmers (about 85% of the total number of farmers) that occupy 30% of the total agricultural land of
the country. Such
family farms control about 33% of the area sown to maize, 61% of that under beans, and
64% of that planted to cassava, thus producing 84% of the total cassava and 67% of all beans (Altieri 1999)
Africa has approximately 33 million small farms, representing 80% of all farms in the region. Despite the fact that Africa now imports huge
amounts of cereals, the majority of African farmers (many of them women) who are smallholders with farms below 2 hectares, produce a
significant amount of basic food crops with virtually no or little use of fertilisers and improved seed (Benneh 1996). In Asia, the majority of more
than 200 million rice farmers, each cultivate around 2 hectares of rice making up the bulk of the rice produced by Asian small farmers. Farms
of less than 2 hectares constituted 78% of the total number of farms in India but contributed nonetheless
to 41% of the national grain production (Greenland 1997). Small increases in yields on these small farms that
produce most of the world’s staple crops will have far more impact on food availability at the local and
regional levels, than the doubtful increases predicted for distant and corporate-controlled large
monocultures managed with such high-tech solutions as genetically modified seeds.
Food insecurity causes war
Brown 11 (Lester R. Brown 2011 Writer for the Earth Policy Institute “World on the Edge: How to
prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse” http://www.earthpolicy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf)- RT
For the Mayans, it was deforestation and soil erosion. As more and more land was cleared for farming to
support the expanding empire, soil erosion undermined the productivity of their tropical soils. A team of
scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has noted that the extensive land clearing by the Mayans likely also altered
the regional climate, reducing rainfall. In effect, the scientists suggest, it was the convergence of several environmental trends, some
reinforcing others, that led to the food shortages that brought down the Mayan civilization. 26 Although
we live in a highly
urbanized, technologically advanced society, we are as dependent on the earth’s natural support
systems as the Sumerians and Mayans were. If we continue with business as usual, civilizational collapse
is no longer a matter of whether but when. We now have an economy that is destroying its natural
support systems, one that has put us on a decline and collapse path. We are dangerously close to the
edge. Peter Goldmark, former Rockefeller Foundation president, puts it well: “The death of our civilization is no longer a
theory or an academic possibility; it is the road we’re on.” 2 Judging by the archeological records of
earlier civilizations, more often than not food shortages appear to have precipitated their decline and
collapse. Given the advances of modern agriculture, I had long rejected the idea that food could be the
weak link in our twenty-first century civilization. Today I think not only that it could be the weak link but that it is the weak
link.
2NC Farms
Agricultural production on a regional scale protects global biodiversity
Goldstein 10 (2010 Rob Goldstein Writer for conservation maven- conservation research and news
“Small-scale, eco-friendly farms key to preserving tropical biodiversity”
http://conservationmaven.com/frontpage/small-scale-eco-friendly-farms-key-to-preserving-tropicalbi.html)-RT
The ongoing conflict between protecting biodiversity on the one-hand and feeding the world through
agriculture on the other, presents perhaps the biggest challenge for conservation. This tension has
caused some to champion agricultural intensification as a way to protect tropical forests. According to the
logic behind this approach, intensified farming increases the amount of food we can produce from a given
amount of land, which in turn will free up areas that we can restore and protect for biodiversity. This logic
has been used to argue for large-scale, industrial agriculture over small-scale, eco-friendly farming to best support tropical conservation.
However, a
new article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, presents a compelling
counterargument that demonstrates the misconceptions that underlie this logic. Instead, scientists
Ivette Perfecto and John Vandermeer propose an alternative model for conservation in the tropics
based on a matrix of small-scale, ecologically friendly farms producing food while providing habitat that
complements protected areas. A false premise of the agricultural intensification model is that it
assumes that increased productivity will lead to an abandonment of inefficient farms in the tropics,
migration from rural to urban areas, and the return of farms to forests. While there is historical precedence for this
occuring in North America and Europe, there is not certainty it will occur in tropical areas. In fact, numerous studies from the
Tropics show either "no effect or increased deforestation with either agricultural intensification or rural
population decline." The scientists also shoot down a commonly assumed misconception that largescale industrial agricultural is able to grow more food per acre than alternative approaches. Perfecto and
Vandermeer point to a meta-analysis of 300 studies comparing the yields of organic versus conventional
farming methods, which generally found no difference between the two approaches. Some proponents
of agricultural intensification likely confuse the productivity of land use with the profitability of
operations. Large-scale, industrial agriculture may be more profitable because it can grow more food
with less labor and other inputs. However the scientists point out that small agriculture may be able to
utilize more nuanced farming techniques based on the micro conditions of the property - a level of
precision that might not be worth the effort for large-scale operations. This idea is supported by a study
across 15 countries, which found that output per unit area decreased with farm size. Furthermore, the authors
argue that from a conservation perspective, a matrix of small-scale farms across the landscape with ecologicallyfriendly practices and integrated habitat features will lead to better outcomes for biodiversity than
individual large protected areas within a biological wasteland. The scientists cement their idea within a
new theoretical framework, which they term the Matrix Quality Model and present as an alternative to
the Agricultural Intensification concept. Their model is rooted in the idea that persistence of species
depends on maintaining metapopulations within a matrix of habitat patches across the landscape. The
authors write, "A new rurality based on the matrix quality approach is more likely to lead to situations in which biodiversity is conserved at the
same time that more food is available to those who need it the most."
2NC Environment
Magnifies local pollution and generates environmental strife
Aparicio 12 – Journalist and Research Professional for Renewable Energy Mexico (Selene, “The ‘dark
side’ of wind power in Mexico,” Renewable Energy Mexico, 5/4/12,
http://www.renewableenergymexico.com/?p=205)//SJF
Today, NoticiasNet.mx published an article written by Octavio Vélez Ascencio that refers to the
development of wind power projects throughout Oaxaca as the ‘new Spanish conquest’.
Vélez Ascencio writes:
“The creation of the wind corridor in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, developed mainly by Spanish firms,
has almost become the new conquest because the indigenous Zapoteco and Ikoot communities have
been basically evicted from 12 thousand hectares through unfair and disadvantageous contracts, in
order to generate electric energy with their wind and on their land, in the benefit of private initiative.”
With the development of renewable energy projects, comes the promise of a better future for the
Mexican nation, one with a stable and sustainable energy sector that does not depend on finite
resources.
However, to every good there is a bad and several protests throughout the country have taken place
where rural and indigenous communities complain to the government about unfair treatment amidst
the development of wind power complexes. They believe that transnational companies along with the
Mexican government have stripped them of their land through individual leasing contracts created at
the disadvantage of the land owners because these contracts lack transparency and are dishonest with
regard to the implications of the contracts themselves. In addition, the annual payments that land
owners receive per hectare is minimal compared to the earnings of the wind power companies.
Among the organizations and groups fighting for land owner rights are the Grupo Solidario La Venta, la
Ventosa Vive, Asamblea en Defensa de la Tierra y el Territorio de Juchitán, el Consejo de Ancianas y
Ancianos de Ranchu Gubiña, la Unión de Comunidades Indígenas de la Zona Norte del Istmo, and more.
However, despite their efforts to negotiate more favourable clauses in the contracts and find justice, the
government turns a blind eye and chooses to ignore their pleas in order to avoid greater conflict with
foreign companies investing in Mexico.
In addition to the social effects of wind farms, several environmentalists oppose wind projects because
of the environmental damages that come hand in hand with their development. For starters, the
installation of wind farms causes landscape and scenery alteration, generates sound pollution because
of the mechanical and electromagnetic sound produced by the wind turbines, disturbs avian wildlife
because the wind towers stand in the way of their migratory patterns, and pollutes the land with spills
from oil and fluids from the towers.
2NC Fish
Destroys regional mangroves with vital marine species
Stevenson 12 (Mark, “Mexico Wind Farms Pit Indigenous Against Corporations,” Huffington Post,
10/31/12, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/31/mexico-wind-farms_n_2049097.html)//SJF
MEXICO CITY -- Mexico is putting up wind power turbines at a breakneck pace and the expansion is
pitting energy companies against the Indians who live in one of the windiest spots in the world.
The country is posting one of the world's highest growth rates in wind energy, and almost all of it is
concentrated in the narrow waist of Mexico known as the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, where winds from
the Pacific meet winds from the Gulf of Mexico, spawning places so wind-blown that one town's formal
name is simply "Windy."
The largely indigenous residents of the Isthmus complain that the wind farms take control of their land,
affect fish and livestock with their vibrations, chop up birds and pit residents against each other for the
damage or royalty payments. They also claim they see few of the profits from such projects.
President Felipe Calderon has made the inauguration of wind parks one of the main focuses of his
administration's ambitious pledge to cut Mexico's carbon emissions by 30 percent by 2020, and on
Tuesday – as he has done before – he stopped by the state of Oaxaca to inaugurate a new clutch of wind
turbines, praising the extra income they provide for some farmers.
"Yes, you can fight poverty and protect the environment at the same time. This is a clear example,"
Calderon said at the opening ceremony.
But as in the past, he did so under tight security, as local protesters threatened to mar the inauguration.
The president's office normally publishes a detailed schedule of his planned activities, but didn't do so
with Tuesday's inauguration, keeping it under wraps until the event took place.
So far in 2012, Mexico has posted a startling 119 percent increase in installed wind-power capacity,
more than doubling the 519 megawatts it had last year, the highest annual growth rate listed in the
magazine Wind Power Monthly's "Windicator" index. Mexico had only 6 megawatts when Calderon took
office in 2006.
While Mexico, with a total of around 1.3 gigawatts of wind power, is still a tiny part of the world's
estimated 244 gigawatt capacity, it offers an insight into what happens when the industry focuses
overwhelmingly on large farms dominated by large companies that are concentrated in a small,
desirable area.
It has been mainly Spanish firms like Iberdrola, Union Fenosa and Gamesa, and U.S. firms like Sempra
Energy, that have built the huge wind towers that now crowd the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, leaving the
local population feeling invaded. Only 4 of Mexico's 17 wind farms are located outside the isthmus.
It raises the question of whether bigger is always better.
"We are asking these multinationals to please get out of these places," said Irma Ordonez, an activist
from the Zapotec Indian town of Ixtepec, Oaxaca. "They want to steal our land, and not pay us what
they should."
"When they come in they promise and promise things, that they're going to give us jobs, to our farmers
and our towns, but they don't give us anything," said Ordonez, who traveled to Mexico City in October
to protest outside the offices of a Mitsubishi Corp.
Industry sources say the distrust is unmerited, given the potential benefits to the poverty-stricken
farming and fishing towns on the isthmus.
The latest battle focuses on a huge, 396-megawatt off-shore wind farm planned for a narrow spit of land
in a lagoon near the village of San Dionisio del Mar, Oaxaca.
A source close to the project, who was not authorized to speak on the record, said the project had been
approved by village assemblies, would have little impact on fishing activities in the lagoon and would
contribute an amount equal to about half the township's annual budget in coming years in
compensation and royalties.
But opponents and supporters engaged in a tense standoff outside the town in October, when a group
of men blocked roads to prevent a planned demonstration against the wind farm.
Saul Celaya, a Huave Indian farmer and San Dionisio resident, said the lagoon project would damage
mangrove swamps where fish, shrimp and other sea life breeds, and scare off the fish that locals depend
on.
"Just when they were doing soil studies, there was a mass die-off of fish," Celaya said, adding that
projects opponents "are being intimidated, they're afraid to leave their houses, they're threatened."
The industry source denied the company was intimidating anyone, but acknowledged the project had
suffered some delays due to disputes within the community.
Others say it didn't have to be this way, big corporations pitting villagers against villagers. There are
proposals to have local towns start their own wind farms, so that they could decide where they would
be situated and where profits should go.
Rodrigo Penalosa, an activist who supports the town of Ixtepec's proposed 100-megwatt community
wind farm, noted that "the community has already approved it. The problem is that the (government)
Federal Electricity Commission won't allow the community project to get access to the network.... but it
does allow the multinationals access."
Sergio Oceransky, whose Yansa Group is trying to help kick-start the community wind project, said the
commission is asking for financial guarantees of millions of dollars "that no community in Mexico could
meet."
"These are requirements that are basically designed to ensure that only projects presented by
multinationals can compete," said Oceransky, who claims that such guarantees are not required by
federal law.
The commission did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
With a limited transmission capacity for the projects, and the last lots of line capacity being auctioned
off, the situation is becoming critical; what could be a sterling example of alternative energy production
is threatening to become a permanent political dispute in southern Mexico.
"This is the last chance," Oceransky says.
2NC Turns the Aff
Lack focus on dimensions of social change and localized lifestyle doom the project to
irrelevance
Global Envision 2/13 (Daniel Jensen, “RENEWABLE ENERGY GONE WRONG: A CAUTIONARY TALE
FOR IMPACT INVESTORS,” Global Envision, 2/13/13,
http://www.globalenvision.org/2013/02/13/renewable-energy-gone-wrong-cautionary-tale-impactinvestors)//SJF
Acción Energía’s controversial wind farm on Mexico’s Isthmus of Tehuantepec shows the dark side of
“positive social investments” that ignore their impact on the local community.
Reports of authorities and company workers sending death threats and commiting acts of violence
against locals have often marred the reputation of renewable energy projects in Mexico. Considerable
media hype and support from President Peña Nieto have done little to calm these suspicions or quell
local protests and sabatoge.
What went wrong? The prospect of socially productive profitability led to a land grab in which Spanish
companies put profits ahead of actual social benefit. Morgan Simon writes:
A foreign company developed a project without thinking through its community engagement strategy or
making any attempt to share financial returns fairly. … Investors in this type of circumstance were
[probably] told that they were going to be a major force in spreading renewable energy in Latin
America—a seemingly great impact story.
Latin American leaders highlighted the need for development projects to prioritize social and
environmental impact at a recent forum. However, even well-intentioned investors can be duped when
companies lift buzz phrases like “renewable energy” and “economic development” to whitewash
exploitive projects. Investors and NGOs need better ways make sure their investments are doing good
and not harm.
There are two ways Acción Energía could have avoided this disaster: they could have made community
engagement the center of their development strategy and more prominently featured an analysis of
their local impact in the cost-benefit analysis.
Community engagement
Yansa Group, which works in the same region, decided to make community engagement a top priority.
Yansa partners with indigenous communities to secure 20-year fixed contracts with the Federal
Electricity Commission, in which Mexico’s only utility company agrees to pay a set price for any
electricity produced for the duration of the contract. The village then uses that guaranteed income to
attract investors, and Yansa provides technology and management training so that the local
communities can do the work needed to make the project successful. Yansa then reinvests half of the
profits in a community trust fund to improve economic opportunities locally, while half is reinvested to
finance new projects and expand Yansa’s impact.
Bangladesh-based BRAC also gets to know their communities first, a strategy that recently earned them
recognition as number one in Global Journal’s list of 100 top NGOs. BRAC lets locals chime in on who
needs to be helped by ranking community members based on their economic needs.
Metrics that Measure Impact
Investors could have also asked Acción Energía for metrics that evaluated how the local community
would be impacted. Well-known philanthropists like Bill Gates and expert Hans Rosling have called for
better data analysis of social impact, and the Global Impact Investing Network has responded by setting
up standardized metrics, partnering with organizations like Acumen Fund and USAID.
Social scientists have complained that "standardized measurement tools risk omitting, or even worse,
misrepresenting, important dimensions of social change." Investors may be turned off by the complexity
of the metrics used, but without them, they simply can't objectively evaluate social investments.
Are metrics enough? Maybe not, but coupled with a good community engagement strategy like BRAC's
or Yansa's, they are a necessary tool to avoid investment disasters like the one in Oaxaca. If a firm fails
to include a firm and broad understanding of where they are investing in the cost-benefit analysis, the
whole impact investing concept falls apart, and “development projects” may cause more harm than
good.
2NC Link
Threatens negative social and environmental impacts
AIDA and CEMDA 12 (The Interamerican Association for Environmental Defense, The Mexican
Environmental Law Center, “The challenges of deploying wind energy in Mexico. The case of the Isthmus
of Tehuantepec,” 12/17/12, http://www.aida-americas.org/en/pubs/challenges-deploying-wind-energymexico-case-isthmus-tehuantepec)//SJF
To combat climate change, low-carbon projects such as wind farms must be promoted. But despite the
urgency for renewable energy, these projects must be carried out in a sustainable and equitable fashion.
This article is an open call to Mexico and the world to improve planning and development practices for
renewable energy projects, helping to guarantee the respect of the human rights of affected
communities.
The Mexican government has authorized the development of at least 14 wind power projects on the
Isthmus of Tehuantepec in Oaxaca, one of the poorest states in the country with a more than 34%
indigenous population. The projects are backed by international investors including the Inter-American
Development Bank and benefiting from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) of the Kyoto
Protocol. Even so, a number of projects have caused negative social and environmental impacts that
outweigh the benefits, threatening the human rights of local indigenous communities, including the
right to free, prior, and informed consent for projects affecting their lands and livelihoods. The reason
for this problem is that the Mexican government has not developed effective rules or mechanisms to
regulate these investments. Without them, private companies have had to negotiate directly with local
communities.
There are other factors aggravating the situation, too:
Locals lack information: Residents of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec say they have not received
comprehensive and timely information about the projects. Some residents said in recent public forums
that they were not told about the potential environmental impacts of the projects, such as those now
affecting the possibility to cultivate their lands.
Threats and violence against locals opposing the projects: For more than two years, the Jijot and
Zapoteca communities have raised complaints about their leaders receiving threats and attacks by
paramilitary groups and state officials seeking to silence any opposition to the development of wind
farms.
Lack of free, prior and informed consent: In the rush to grant permits and administrative permissions to
wind power developers, the Mexican government has not fulfilled its obligation to consult local
indigenous communities as guaranteed by international law.
Unreasonable terms of land leases: A number of wind developers have signed contracts with local
communities that offer paltry payments for the use of their land. Locals have complained about the lack
of a process for negotiating on fair and equal terms.
Absence of comprehensive and community-wide benefits: Some wind projects lack a comprehensive
environmental and social development plan, meaning that they only benefit a fraction of the
population: mostly investors and the companies that will buy the energy. While some locals have leased
their lands at reasonable prices, the payments haven’t brought the promised development.
Environmental impacts: Some projects have caused extensive environmental damage, yet studies to
identify, prevent, and alleviate these damages have never been carried out. Impacts include the burning
of large swaths of pastureland (a cause of greenhouse gas emissions), mangrove deforestation, and the
destruction of migratory bird habitats.
Private energy companies take advantage of local populations – destabilizes the
region
LaGesse 2/7 (David, “Mexico's Robust Wind Energy Prospects Ruffle Nearby Villages,” 2/7/13,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2013/02/pictures/130208-mexico-windenergy/)//SJF
Wind turbines tower over indigenous villagers who turned out to see then-Mexican President Felipe
Calderón inaugurate a $550 million wind project in the state of Oaxaca in 2009.
It was the start of new cleaner energy drive for an oil-reliant nation, but one that has upended lives in
the region's native farming and fishing villages.
The battle between new energy and traditional communities is being played out amid the steady gusts
that sweep across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, a narrow strip in southern Mexico that separates the
Pacific and Atlantic oceans and is one of the windiest places on Earth (map).
Outsiders increasingly covet the power of those air currents as energy that can be captured by modern
turbines and transported to nearby factories and distant cities. Largely thanks to Oaxaca's unique
geography, Mexico's wind power capacity expanded to 1,350 megawatts in 2012, according to reports
from a national wind industry conference in Mexico City last month, marking nearly a 140 percent
expansion in capacity in a single year. Stands of the turbines now fill Oaxacan horizons, with more
planned as developers pour millions of dollars into wind farms. While bringing development to the
isolated area, the turbines have disrupted pastoral lifestyles and divided villages over leasing fees and
other benefits promised to local communities.
The projects have arisen with strong support from Mexico's central government. Before leaving office in
December, Calderón was seen as an active proponent of wind power. The projects also have the
participation of well-known Mexican companies, including cement maker Cemex and retailer Walmart
de Mexico.
Local groups that oppose the developments say the companies have turned communities against each
other as they negotiated land leases. Some also complain the developers cheated villages by not paying
fair prices and abandoning promised development projects. The protests have given rise to project
blockades and occasional violence, including several injuries last weekend, when police confronted
protesters blocking company officials from reaching the site of a large project. Late last year, opponents
scored a major victory when a judge delayed construction of that wind farm, which would be the largest
in Mexico.
Wrecks local biodiversity and causes violent protest
AFP 4/7 (“Foreign wind farms cause uproar in Mexico,” News 24, 4/7/13,
http://www.news24.com/Green/News/Foreign-wind-farms-cause-uproar-in-Mexico-20130406)//SJF
Oaxaca - Foreign energy firms have flocked to a narrow region of southern Mexico, known as one of the
world's windiest places, to build towering wind turbines, but some projects have angered and torn
indigenous villages.
The construction of wind farms has soared across Mexico, with the gusty Isthmus of Tehuantepec in the
state of Oaxaca attracting investors from as far as Europe, Japan and Australia.
The projects are a key part of Mexico's efforts to combat climate change, one of the priorities of former
president Felipe Calderon that has been picked up by his successor, Enrique Pena Nieto, who took office
in December.
This renewable energy had a capacity of just two megawatts nationwide in 2006, according to Mexican
Wind Energy Association (Amdee). Today, it has grown to 1 400MW, with a goal of 12 000MW by 2020,
representing 15% of the nation's energy.
But some indigenous groups have blocked two projects in Oaxaca, including one that would become
Latin America's biggest wind farm, fearing that they would wreck fishing and farming while dividing
people over the rent payments.
"They have upended the life of the villagers in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec by interfering with their daily
work," Carlos Beas Torres, head of the Union of Northern Zone Isthmus Communities, told AFP.
"Women and men have been pitted against each other, because the Mexican and multinational
companies that have invested here have taken advantage of a lack of information among natives of the
area to lease their land for $82 an hectare per year," he said.
There are 18 wind farms in operation in Mexico, with another nine under construction and a dozen
more in development, according to Amdee president Adrian Escofet.
The great majority are in Oaxaca, with its isthmus, flanked by the Pacific Ocean and Gulf of Mexico,
providing powerful winds for the turbines to churn out energy.
Protests
But their presence has angered some of the Ikoots and Zapoetcos indigenous populations, with some
protests turning violent.
Last week, more than 20 people were injured when police clashed with a group of protesters who have
been blocking a road leading to the projects.
The blockade, which began on 25 February, has been opposed by shopkeepers on a beach that cars can
no longer reach, saying it has hurt their sales.
The shop owners back the wind farms, arguing it would benefit the community, including a 117-turbine,
wind farm funded by Spain's Gas Natural Fenosa.
In December, villagers in San Dionisio del Mar clashed with sticks and stones, leaving five injured, over a
mega-project by Marena Renovables, a consortium of Mexican, Australian and Japanese investors,
including Mitsubishi.
With 132 turbines producing 396MW of energy, it would become the biggest wind farm in Latin
America.
But its construction has been delayed by opponents concerned about the impact of giant turbines
popping up on a strip of beach between the Pacific and a lagoon full of fish.
A community assembly voted to back the project in February, but opponents believe the meeting "was
manipulated," Beas Torres said.
Mexican Nanotech Neg
Imperialism
1nc – imperialism K
US-Mexican S&T cooperation is militarized – nanotech cooperation occurs through
FUMEC – which operates on behalf of Sandia National Labs and wants cooperation for
weapons development. Commercial nanotech development in Mexico exists as a
testing ground for militarization
Foladori, 11 – 1ac author and Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (Guillermo, “U.S.
Military Involvement in Mexican Science and Technology” 11/5, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-smilitary-involvement-in-mexican-science-and-technology/27476) MEMS = Microelectrical Mechanical
Systems; NEMS=Nanoelectrical Mechanical Systems, SNL = Sandia National Labs
There exists a long history of scientific collaboration between Mexico and the USA. In the last decade,
there has been an increase in the participation of Mexican and Latin American scientists in research
projects shared with U.S. military laboratories and / or enterprises.
In April 2004, the US Marines and Air Force held a forum in Washington, D.C., entitled the Latin
America Science & Technology Forum, with the stated aim “to increase the U.S. leadership’s awareness
of the progress of S&T in Latin America” (ONRG, 2004). Top representatives of civilian S&T institutions
from Argentina, Chile and Mexico (including the Director of Scientific Research of CONACYT) presented
the “state of the art” of S&T in their respective countries. These collaborative contacts were reinforced
with official visits to Latin American countries. The US Armed Forces interests were explicit: to draw into
its sphere of influence researchers, institutions and businesses from Latin America and the rest of the
world.
The US Armed Forces have at least three branches which finance scientific research in public and
private universities and research centers of various countries; the Army, the Navy and the Air Force.
These three arms work together through International Technology Centers, organized as the ITCAtlantic, ITC-Pacific, and in 2004, the newly-formed ITC-Americas in Santiago de Chile, which covers all
of the Americas and the Caribbean, including Canada (U.S. Army ITC-Atlantic, n/d). The goal of the ITCAmericas is:
to foster cooperative relationships between the U.S. Army and private sector, university, and civilian
government research and development (R&D) entities that result in leading-edge scientific and
technological cooperation that benefit the civilian institutions and support the U.S. Army’s current
programs and future goals (ID U.S. ARD&EC, 2004).
The incorporation of Mexican researchers into U.S. military projects was facilitated through various
means:
· The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) facilitated the migration of Mexican scientists
to the USA with the creation of special temporary visas (TN1).
· The existence of specific projects of the U.S. army to acquire talent in high-technology areas. The
Navy, in cooperation with the Air Force, held three Latin American workshops in different countries on
one of the principal topics of interest of the U.S. Department of Defense: multifunctional materials
(NMAB, Chapter 3, 2003). The second of these workshops was held in Huatulco, Oaxaca, Mexico, in 2004
(Foladori, 2008).
· SPPNA (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America): an agreement signed between the
three governments partners in NAFTA to foster economic development within the framework of security
and military necessities. This agreement provided the cover, within the Merida Initiative, under which
the FBI, CIA, DEA and other U.S. intelligence agencies operate freely within Mexican territory under the
guise of fighting narcotrafficking.[2] Also, under the SPPNA agreements, bilateral scientific research
projects were established, such as the Bi-National Sustainability Laboratory (BNSL) under the auspices of
the Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), a military research facility located in New Mexico, whose
Mexican counterpart is CONACYT, the official S&T policy institution in México (SER, 2003: 13).
· Mexican S&T policy has undergone a substantial shift over the past decade, reorienting its
philosophy and financing toward the incorporation of private business in practically all investigative
financing. The need for business partners to launch projects and the value placed on obtaining research
projects linked to networks with international agreements has resulted in a desperate race by
researchers to obtain external support of any kind.
These factors favored the incorporation of CONACYT and some Mexican scientists and institutions into
U.S. military projects where there were neither precedents nor debate in Mexico.
There is no database listing the various research projects in which Mexicans are working
alongside American military institutions, although many of these can be found on the pages of the
CONACYT website; but neither would it be appropriate here to highlight individual examples. Rather, it
serves our purpose to consider institutional cases and themes, such as the most ambitious project
connected to the top Mexican S&T institution, CONACYT (equivalent of USA National Science
Foundation), and an American military institution – the Sandia National Laboratories via the Bi-National
Sustainability Laboratory (BNSL); and a theme of great importance: MEMS/NEMS technology, a hightechnology field and a paradigmatic example of dual-use technology; and, also, for the rapid
development that it has had in Mexico during the first decade of the 21st Century.
2. The Interests of the Sandia Laboratories in the Bi-National Economic Development of the MexicoUSA Border and in the Development of MEMS/NEMS
The American military’s Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) operate under the GOCO (governmentowned / contractor-operated) framework, based on state property with private administration. The first
GOCO was the Alamos National Laboratory, operated by the University of California and a part of the
Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bomb during the Second World War. The SNL has passed
from various administrations to its current operator, Lockheed-Martin. Lockheed-Martin is the world’s
largest arms producer, with more than 70% of its earnings coming from arms sales. The SNL has an
annual budget of around $2.5-billion, of which some 60% is supplied by the DoE (Department of Energy)
(SNL, n/d).
Beginning the nineties, the SNL began to intensively research MEMS / NEMS (micro / nano
electromechanical systems). They also initiated research lines related to national security, such as
mechanisms to counteract chemical agents, systems for the detection of epidemics, high-temperature
ceramics for space vehicles, Kevlar gloves made of carbon used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and
flash-bang grenade technology. The SNL have been the focus of intense criticism by social organizations
on the issue of nuclear testing in the state of New Mexico.[3]
In 1998, a high-ranking Reagan administration officer created and directed the Advanced Concept Group
(ACG) inside the SNL, with the goal of confronting problems of terrorism and internal security through
the socio-economic development of the Mexico-USA border through high-technology parks. This was far
from a new idea. From the signing of the NAFTA accords, various bi-national political agreements were
signed with the border states of the U.S. and Mexico to foster economic development in a coordinated
manner. The installation of the maquiladoras on the Mexican side of the border is part of these
agreements. The specificity of the SNL’s proposal was to support the creation and research in high
technology, something the maquiladoras do not provide. In order to achieve this purpose a Mexican
counterpart was needed. FUMEC (Mexico-United States Science Foundation), a bi-national non-profit
institution oriented to the development of S&T, served making the connections with the Mexican
government and supported the initiative to create the Bi-National Sustainability Laboratory (BNSL).
The BNSL began operations in 2003, although it was officially launched in 2005. It is “a bi-national
non-profit organization that creates and promotes technology-based businesses along the MexicoUnited States border, whether these are recently created, medium- or small-scale, or even large, wellestablished companies” (BNSL, n/d). At its inauguration, the SNL Vice-President said: “This will be a
wonderful opportunity for collaborative technical efforts to enhance border security … This is a perfect
opportunity to follow up on work with Canada and Mexico to foster a continental approach in dealing
with terrorism” (Eurekalert, 2005). Although named “Laboratory”, the BNSL is a commercialization of
technology bureau, linked with many S&T research centers in USA and México.
The agreement for the implementation of the BNSL was driven on the American side by the
Department of Commerce and the Agency of Economic Development, the Department of Economic
Development of the state of New Mexico, and by the SNL, which came up with the plan. The Mexican
counterpart is CONACYT, under the direction of then-President of Mexico, Vicente Fox. The negotiations
were managed by FUMEC (Eurekalert, 2005). Presently, the BNSL works in the area of MEMS / NEMS;
clean fuels and nanomaterials, and environmental technologies (BNSL, n/d).
One of the key themes of the BNSL is the development of MEMS / NEMS. This theme is a significant part
of the work done at the SNL and of great military interest to the U.S. government. MEMS / NEMS are
miniscule electronic machines built into semi conductive materials with multiple uses. The automobile
industry is one of the top clients, employing MEMS in everything from air bag sensors to tire pressure
sensors. They are also used in printers, computers and wireless networking systems, aero-navigation,
video games, health, energy and many other industries. In 2009 the world market in MEMS was
estimated at $7.6-billion.
The first commercial MEMS appeared in computers and ink-jet printers in the 1980s. From the beginning
of the 1990s, the U.S. government invested significant funds for MEMS research for military application.
The AFOSR (Air Force Office of Scientific Research) and DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency) financed projects in military laboratories in this field. The SNL are one of the first to receive
considerable funding for MEMS research, and by the end of the decade of the 1990s they had developed
technical processes to produce MEMS layers (“SUMMIT” technology). A DoD report estimated that in
1995, the government invested 35 millions of dollars for MEMS R&D, with 30 of those directed to
military institutions (ODDRE, 1995).
Their reduced size makes MEMS of strategic importance in military industries; especially for the
production of smart / precision weapons. In 2001, the Forbes website noted that the U.S. government
had invested some $200-million in MEMS annually, through two agencies: DARPA and SNL. The SNL
Director said: “anything that’s good for MEMS is good for national defense,” showing the strategic
military importance of MEMS (Forbes, 2001).
The boost that military industry gave to MEMS has been an important accelerant in diversifying the
technology for civilian use. One director linked to DARPA noted:
In 1992, there was little industry involvement and virtually no MEMS fabrication infrastructure
anywhere in the world. DARPA’s MEMS investments have generated that infrastructure (cited by Rhea,
2000).
MEMS are a dual-use technology, and although military purchases of the technology are less than
civilian, there are two factors of military industry that have a civil sector impact.
The first is in efficiency, since military industry is not guided by rate of profit but rather high
performance. The second is maturity, which in the civil sector implies stagnation or fall in profits, but in
the military sphere has no equivalent effect on research.
At the time, civilian industry was important for the military sector in relation to three factors. One is
extended testing across diverse sectors. The Director of the Microsystems Science, Technology, and
Components Center at the SNL said:
Before we can use MEMS and microsystems in critical weapons systems, it must be shown they are
manufacturable and reliable. The best way to demonstrate this is to commercialize them and use them
in everyday products (SNL, 2001).
Another factor is the elaboration of large-scale production infrastructure, although the ultimate
objective remained in the production of weaponry . This was highlighted by the administrator of the
SNL’s MEMS project:
Ultimately, Sandia wants to use MEMS in weapons systems. But Sandia can’t manufacture all the
necessary parts itself, so the lab is offering its own MEMS technology and fabrication services to the
industry, hoping to seed the MEMS market …. (Matsumoto, 1999).
n 1998, the Sandia Science & Technology Park was created, a facility associated with businesses involved
in the transference of technology. In 2001, an agreement was made with Arresta for the production and
sale of MEMS – with the SUMMiT technology developed at SNL (SNL, 2001). A permanent program of
courses and training in SUMMiT technology for commercial use was established, known as SAMPLES
(McBrayer, 2000); and the dialogue began with FUMEC to initiate the MEMS project in Mexico.
The third factor is the reduction of costs. In an article from a 2003 edition of the magazine
Military & Aerospace Electronics we note:
Military developers and contractors also are looking to reduce costs by offering some of the evolving
MEMS technology to commercial users, such as the automobile industry, essentially completing the
development circle, as some MEMS technology came from that sector originally. “We have make sure
the military application of the technology isn’t proliferated, of course, but in the auto industry the
accuracy they are looking for is nowhere near what the military requires,” Panhorst [manager for MEMS
programs at Picatinny Army facility] says of the MEMS IMU (Wilson, 2003).
With these synergies between civil and military industries, the SNL is driving the budding MEMS field via
the Bi-National Sustainability Laboratory.
2nc imperialism links
FUMEC has already been coopted by the military – expanding S&T cooperation
directly benefits Sandia National Labs
Foladori, 11 – 1ac author and Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (Guillermo, “U.S.
Military Involvement in Mexican Science and Technology” 11/5, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-smilitary-involvement-in-mexican-science-and-technology/27476) MEMS = Microelectrical Mechanical
Systems; NEMS=Nanoelectrical Mechanical Systems, SNL = Sandia National Labs
The Mexico-U.S. Science Foundation (FUMEC) was created in 1993 to promote and support S&T
collaboration between Mexico and the United States. It was designed by the congressional team of
American George E. Brown Jr., who headed the Science, Technology and Space Committee of the U.S.
House of Representatives.
Brown’s team understood that the end of the Cold War required a new relationship between the
United States and the developing world. A relationship built upon S&T collaboration, where developing
countries could set their own agendas; altering the history of technical support from the U.S. since the
Second World War that, they said, was not helping them to promote independent capacity-building in
those countries (Brown & Sarewitz, 1991: 70). Brown Jr., a pacifist, saw the end of the Cold War as an
opportunity to push scientific research beyond military interests (Brown, 1993: 8).
This proposal came into being in a context where the world recognized that those countries that
pursued sustainable investments in R&D could achieve significant gains, as was the case with Taiwan,
South Korea and Thailand; but one had to ensure, according to Brown and Sarewitz (1991), the
independence of the scientific research agenda of each country.
Applied to Latin America, which had just emerged from the “lost decade” of the 1980s, this idea
would require some creativity to attract financial support. The proposal suggested copying that which
had been applied in environmental campaigns. There already existed programs that changed Latin
American foreign debt at market prices and with the currency of the own countries for protection to the
environment. The idea was to apply the same policy of exchanging foreign debt, but in this case, for S&T
instead of environment. Mexico was the test case, and the U.S. National Science Foundation should
support it with a special fund. Although the funding source did not come out to be the exchange of debt
for science, but rather a collaboration agreement, FUMEC was created in 1992 as a non-governmental
body with a governing board made up of 10 members, 5 from each country.
Mexico chose representatives from the Academy of Sciences; Medicine; Engineering; CONACYT;
and the coordinator of the Sciences Consultation Board of the Presidency. The U.S. sent representatives
from the House of Representatives’ Committee on Space, Science and Technology; the Smithsonian
Institute; the National Academy of Sciences; the Institute of Medicine; and the National Engineering
Academy. Mexico and the United States shared equally the startup funding costs (FUMEC, 1997).[4]
Between 1993 and 2001, projects focusing on sustainability, public health and socioeconomic
problems were given priority. Investments were concurrently made in the training of policy specialists
and S&T strategies (FUMEC, 1999). The U.S. counterparts to these projects were for the most part
universities. In the 2001-2002 FUMEC Activity Report the various projects were grouped according to
programmatic areas: Health and Environment, Sustainable Industrial Development, and Development
and Human Resources in Science and Technology (FUMEC, 2002).
Since 2001, two years after the death of Brown, an important policy change occurred within
FUMEC. Technological innovation came to be a key phrase, and the industrial cluster with its geographic
center at the border area near the Paso del Norte Industry Cluster, where the SNL were headquartered,
was a strategic place. The role of U.S. partner in these projects fell to the SNL. Initially, its purpose was
the launching of the Bi-National Laboratory that the military laboratories had been developing. Later, it
began to integrate industries, academia and government across various themes, with MEMS / NEMS
being one of the principle areas. FUMEC’s Bi-annual Report 2002-2003 identified as its overall strategy
the following:
The Foundation focused its efforts during 2002 and 2003 in facilitating awareness and collaboration in
order to develop key actions that can facilitate the development of bi-national technology based
clusters, specifically in the Paso del Norte region (Advanced Manufacturing, MEMS – Micro
Electromechanical Systems). FUMEC has supported the efforts of Sandia National Laboratories,
CONACYT and Border States, especially in the Paso del Norte region, to create the Bi-National
Sustainability Laboratory (FUMEC, 2003a: 40).
The integration of the U.S. military laboratories in the action plans of FUMEC, and the drive toward
activities tied ever more closely to business-oriented research and commercialization of products owed
a great deal to the political context guided by Mexican President V. Fox (2000-2006) and the World
Trade Center attacks in New York in September, 2001, with the resulting consequences in security
matters.
US S&T cooperation with Mexico is used to bypass regulations – not cause them – it
fuels militarism
Foladori, 11 – 1ac author and Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (Guillermo, “U.S.
Military Involvement in Mexican Science and Technology” 11/5, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-smilitary-involvement-in-mexican-science-and-technology/27476) MEMS = Microelectrical Mechanical
Systems; NEMS=Nanoelectrical Mechanical Systems, SNL = Sandia National Labs
Scientific knowledge is controlled and regulated by the USA (Pedersen, 1989) – something that has no
equal in the countries of Latin America. As a result, Latin American scientists work in partnership with
American military institutions with little or no oversight by publicly-funded S&T institutions.
Regardless of the civilian application of the research – and this is not in all cases – the development of
military industry in the USA results in acts of war and in military products. Here we have revealed a
widespread example, that of the agreements between the Sandia National Laboratories, with which
CONACYT has a significant partnership, and various CONACYT research centers who have their own
specific accords; but there also exist less obvious agreements between universities or research centers
of CONACYT and other military centers in the USA such as the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, or
the Brookhaven National Laboratories in New York; and this is only in the narrow example of MEMS /
NEMS research initiatives.
The plan directly facilitates the manufacture of weapons and corporate exploitation of
the maquiladoras
Foladori, 11 – 1ac author and Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (Guillermo, “U.S.
Military Involvement in Mexican Science and Technology” 11/5, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-smilitary-involvement-in-mexican-science-and-technology/27476) MEMS = Microelectrical Mechanical
Systems; NEMS=Nanoelectrical Mechanical Systems, SNL = Sandia National Labs
When a scientist participates in research sponsored by or in association with military institutions, it is
quite probable that s/he does not question the ultimate purpose of the military institution in that
research. It is also unlikely that s/he asks him/herself if the knowledge obtained could be put to
different uses than those explicitly indicated. Quite possibly, neither is the relationship between the
research in question and international conventions questioned. In the case of MEMS / NEMS, for
example, they are vitally important in missiles and a variety of “intelligent” weapons. In the USA, the
majority of these weapons are manufactured with depleted uranium , and on this matter there is a
wide-ranging discussion due to the uncontrollable and massive health effects. Scientists in many cases
do not know all of these interconnections and many of them could not determine the broader context
even if they wanted to do so; it would be absurd to expect the researcher, occupied with the enormous
bureaucratic tasks of these projects, to expect that they would also give much thought to the broader
implications of the research if that had not been specifically assigned as one of their duties.
It is for this reason that here we do not offer individual examples, but rather an institutional case, where
the principal Mexican S&T agency (CONACYT) entered into an partnership agreement with a recognized
military laboratory in the USA (SNL). We have made use, also, of the example of one technology – MEMS
/ NEMS – that is of dual use (civilian and military) and which in Mexico is in wide and growing use in the
great majority of the information and communications industries as well as the automobile industry and
in a lesser degree many others. These are devices put to use by corporations – the great majority of
them assemblers and transnational maquiladoras that in 20 years have not demonstrated any
contribution to the improvement of the quality of life of society – despite this being one of the explicit
objectives of Mexico’s Science and Technology Programs.
US-Mexican S&T cooperation is heavily militarized and reinforces the security
dimension of relations
Foladori, 11 – 1ac author and Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (Guillermo, “U.S.
Military Involvement in Mexican Science and Technology” 11/5, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-smilitary-involvement-in-mexican-science-and-technology/27476) MEMS = Microelectrical Mechanical
Systems; NEMS=Nanoelectrical Mechanical Systems, SNL = Sandia National Labs
In this paper I wish to call attention to this concern: Should the establishment of collaborative research
projects with military institutions of other countries be the topic for an ethical debate? To analyze this
question in the context of Latin America, there is no better example than that of Mexico.
This is, first, because in Mexico the process of reorientation of S&T to incorporate the business sector
and to “follow the money” has been so explicit, resulting in part from an OECD recommendation to
pursue this path once Mexico was incorporated as a member in 1994.
Second, because of the neighborhood and of the fact that USA has a high S&T development, there are
several collaboration agreements between the countries; and in the USA it is a challenge to find any
publicly-funded R&D institution that does not receive military funding; in the USA that is “easy money.”
Third, because one cannot put aside the military history in the relationship between Mexico and the
USA, it is sufficient to remember that during the 19th century Mexico lost half of its territory to that
country.
Fourth, because more than twelve million Mexicans live in the USA: many of those persecuted and
assaulted by American migration authorities. Furthermore, some research centers in the USA are the
designers of the highly-sophisticated retention wall along the Mexican border (e.g., Sandia Military
Laboratories in New Mexico) and, at the same time, are partners in S&T collaboration agreements with
Mexican institutions. Also, because many Mexicans have lost their lives fighting in distant wars under
the United States flag, far removed from Mexican national interests.
Fifth, because the USA’s “easy-guns culture” protect the identity of the clients, and allows supplying the
narcotrafficking cartels that operate in Mexico who buy their munitions in Texas, Arizona or California,
while simultaneously supplying the Mexican army: having clients on both sides of the conflict.
Sixth, because the concept of “preventive actions” employed by the USA since the end of the 1990s to
attack countries (e.g., Iraq, Afghanistan), places at risk the internal security of its neighbor; take as an
example the speeches of the Undersecretary of the U.S. Army in early February 2011, warning that the
war against the narcos in Mexico could require U.S. military action on Mexican territory.
AT: What is MEMS
MEMS is nanotechnology
Foladori, 11 – 1ac author and Profesor de la Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas (Guillermo, “U.S.
Military Involvement in Mexican Science and Technology” 11/5, http://www.globalresearch.ca/u-smilitary-involvement-in-mexican-science-and-technology/27476) MEMS = Microelectrical Mechanical
Systems; SNL = Sandia National Labs
Since 2004, FUMEC has driven the productive gears of MEMS in Mexico and to that end established a
program in stages. The first would be the installation laboratories for the prototyping and design of
MEMS, an initial, least-expensive and virtual stage; later, laboratories capable of prototype construction;
and finally, packaging laboratories.
By the end of 2010, Mexico had come to see a number of laboratories created. The main ones
are: the laboratory at the National Astrophysics, Optics and Electronics Institute, with headquarters in
the State of Puebla and which contain “clean rooms” with the ability to mock-up prototypes; the
laboratory of the Physics Department at the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico City,
which also has clean room capacity for prototyping and which works with BIOMEMS; The Micro- and
Nanotechnology Research Center at Veracruz University in Boca del Río, Veracruz, also with prototyping
capability; and the MEMS Innovation Laboratory at the UACJ (Ciudad Juárez Autonomous University),
specializing in MEMS packaging in association with the SNL. Apart from these laboratories, a half-dozen
other universities have research centers for the design and modeling of MEMS.
Neolib
1NC
The utopian neoliberal discourse of nanotech glosses over the inherent risks of
nanotech - risks environmental catastrophe, intergenerational inequality, and
destroys democracy
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
This dissertation analyzes institutional and ideological changes occurring since the Environmental Era
supporting its thesis that neoliberalism's economic logic has transformed environmental law and eroded
its normative authority to protect humans and the environment from me risks of economic
development. Chapter 1 illustrates how institutions resting beneath the surface of environmental law
combined with political shifts toward neoliberalism to undercut legal protections for health and the
environment. The legal process school's "institutional competence" idea, born during the New Deal,
produced administrative standards of technical expertise and political independence that evolved to
undermine Environmental Era visions of a fundamental normative shift in the exercise of political
authority over public policy. Supreme Court decisions in Vermont Yankee and Baltimore Gas expanded
regulatory agencies' authority over the role of science in environmental law to the detriment of
normative concerns. The Court's Chadha and Chevron decisions insulated administrative rulemaking
from meaningful deliberative adjustment. Institutional competence themes of economic efficiency and
rational order combined with regulatory agencies' broad authority to support the gradual domination of
neoliberalism's economic logic over the environmental regulatory regime. Chapter 2 analyzes the
institutional evolution of nanotechnology policy in the United States between the late 1980s and 2003.
Nanotechnology is the manipulation of matter on an Id. at 703. 38 atomic or near-atomic scale to
produce new materials and devices. The policy's primary legal institutions are the National
Nanotechnology Initiative ("NNI") and the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development
Act200 ("NRDA"). Economic logic drove the genesis of nanotechnology policy, contributing subtly to
the erosion of environmental law's normative authority . Congress failed to ensure that
environmental law would adequately protect humans and the environment from the risks
nanotechnology posed to humans and the environment. Nanotechnology policy developed at odds with
sustainable development ideals of intergenerational equity, environmental protection, and deliberative
democratic governance. Chapter 3 takes a closer look at the discourse contained in government reports
that drove the genesis of nanotechnology policy. It shows how an insulated group of like-minded
individuals may produce a one-sided view of the risks or benefits of a new technology. The reports'
economic discourse helps explain Congress's failure to ensure that nanotechnology policy adequately
protected humans and the environment. The discourse reflects a system of beliefs about
nanotechnology that resist recognizing the potential for the technology to pose significant risks to
society and the environment. The reports' Utopian conception of nanotechnology lacked space for a
reasonable portrayal of its risks, subtly devaluing concerns about health and environmental protections.
The policy discourse also undercut the force of environmental laws designed to integrate the protection
of human health and the environment with the commercialization of new technologies. 39 Chapter 4
analyzes the institutional evolution of the Toxic Substance Control Act 901 ("TSCA") to integrate the first
chapter's overarching discussion of environmental law's transformation with subsequent chapters'
analysis of nanotechnology policy. It continues the third chapter's focus on power over information to
illuminate differences between neoliberalism and sustainable development. It describes TSCA's
transformation from a law intended to protect public health and the environment into a symbol of the
market's power over the implementation of environmental legislation. It compares the relative costs of
risk-related information among government, industry, and the public and concludes that industry's low
costs of information allow it to dominate administrative decision-making. This institutional arrangement
undercuts transparency and weakens the environmental regulatory regime, forcing the Environmental
Protection Agency's ("EPA") to adopt deregulatory or voluntary compliance policies. The chapter
concludes with a proposal to amend TSCA with regulatory penalty default rules that lower the EPA's
information and litigation costs, create incentives for industry to share riskrelated information, and
enhance the EPA's political accountability
Vote neg to accept an ethic of care and endorse a policy of sustainable development
that recognizes the value of public deliberation free from neoliberal assumptions
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
The "strong version"114 of sustainable development —referred to in this dissertation simply as
"sustainability" or "sustainable development"— differs sharply from the weak, neoliberal version . The
strong version requires that policymakers use law to protect and restore ecological systems to provide a
foundation for future economic and social sustainability.115 It also requires policymakers to specify "an
appropriate degree of risk aversion to adopt in response to scientific uncertainty."116 It embraces the
use of law to "channel"117 the development and commercialization of technology innovations to
protect and improve the environment and public health. This "precautionary" approach to the
development and implementation of economic policy requires legislative protection from the health and
environmental risks of new iliId (arguing that public law should be used to guide the actions of
government and private parties to achieve sustainability, but that it should not abandon all together
law's substantive authority to mandate sustainable development goals). technologies.119 Langdon
Winner suggested that Congress adopt such an approach for nanotechnology policy. He argued that
Congress should use law to guide nanotechnology's commercial applications and scientific experiments
"in a controlled, bounded way rather than simply releasing them into the world and then see what
happens." The strong version also includes establishing and enforcing principles of "good 191
governance" at odds with neoliberalism's economic logic. These principles provide the democratic nexus
essential to the promulgation of laws and policies that embrace sustainable 199 development's goals of
environmental protection and intergenerational equity. Sustainable development requires integrated
planning across economic, social, and environmental disciplines and democratic debate grounded in
public participation.123 It challenges neoliberalism's economic assumptions about the normative
value of efficiency, favoring instead "collective moral decision-making" that selects or rejects
particular technologies and values during the 1 94 policymaking process. Since collective decisionmaking encourages critical discussion about policy alternatives and goals, neoliberals "avoid the
prospect of collective decision-making (2007). The "precautionary principle" is an integral part of
international sustainable development law. Id. regarding appropriate types and volumes of
environmentally intensive activities for sustainability planning."125 Good governance requires the
creation of institutions that produce transparent information about the environmental impacts of
political decisions. A critical part of establishing policies that advance sustainability's intergenerational
equity and environmental protection norms rests on creating an equitable distribution of power over
government's production of information. Good governance institutions aim to eliminate corruption in
political decision-making that undercuts public participation, transparency, and environmental 1 1"7
protection. Collective decision-making processes cut from the deliberative democratic model help
ensure that policy makers "look through the eyes of all those affected. " They also require institutional
mechanisms to hold government officials accountable for their decisions and the 1 7Q knowledge claims
underlying policies. Accountability "occupies a key normative juncture in the relationship between
producers and users of knowledge."130 Thus sustainable development essentially requires that
deliberative democratic institutions govern economic development decisions. Such institutions rest on
the belief that the). 25 deliberative process aims to discover "substantively right answers" to settle
normative disputes.131 Classic republicans postulate that citizens achieve freedom by subordinating
"their private interests to the public good through political participation in an ongoing process of
collective self-determination." The deliberative process seeks tentative solutions to moral disagreements
caused by scarcity, incompatible values, and incomplete understanding.133 It overcomes the limitations
of an individual's capacity to identify and understand all information bearing on a particular issue, and it
enhances a person's understanding of others' ideas and values.134 1 ^S During the late-1980s, the
"deliberative turn" in democratic theory marked the reemergence of deliberation as the essence of
democratic governance. The "essential moment" of political decision-making in deliberative democracies
is the formation of the collective will through the deliberative process.136 Deliberative democracies
consider politics a "reflective form of substantial ethical life" in which members are aware of their
dependence on each other and they strive to shape their relations into an association of free and equal
participants in the. During "political deliberation, individuals acquire new perspectives not only with
respect to possible solutions, but also with respect to their own preferences." We must affirm, at the risk
of contradicting a long tradition, that the legitimate law is the result of general deliberation, and not the
expression of the [predetermined] general will." Id. at 352. 26 political process.137 Government's
institutional structure is amplified beyond neoliberalism's preference for self-regulating markets to
create space for "horizontal political will-formation" n o aimed at "solidarity" and concern for the public
good. Strong deliberative models locate the public sphere in civil society, encourage discussion about
postulated or assumed divisions between the public and private domains, support open discussion of
policy agendas, and aim to "bridge the gap" between constitution-making and normal politics by
elevating the political status of "ordinary people's everyday deliberations."139 Deliberative democracy
requires the justification of political decisions by citizens and their representatives in a political
atmosphere based upon conditions of reciprocity, publicity, and accountability. ° The provisional nature
of deliberative decisions recognizes that dialogue should continue to amend decisions in light of
changing conditions or to correct unjustified decisions. 41 The principle of reciprocity, or "reason-giving,"
regulates the terms of deliberation to achieve a fair, mutually justifiable and binding exchange of
reasons. Public discussion and debate provides citizens and their representatives the opportunity to
form and modify their ideas about political issues—preferences are not "prepolitical or static." 3
Participation in the process generates public information about relevant topics, and expands the
understanding of such topics and their relevance to policy selection and agenda formation. Government
officials who conceal the basis for their decisions or use scientific or economic uncertainty to avoid
evaluating the impact of new technologies on human health or the environment violate principles of
publicity and accountability.144 Thus, the strong version of sustainable development advocates a
democratic approach to the development of public policy that contradicts important neoliberal
assumptions . It supports a normative, institutional strategy for the integration of economic and
environmental policies that challenges neoliberalism's economic logic. It rejects the neoliberal notion
that economic efficiency should be the primary goal of public policy and shifts authority over public
policymaking from the market to deliberative democratic institutions. Sustainable development also
challenges the idea that technology innovations produced by the 'free' market, standing alone, will solve
resource scarcity problems. In contrast, it endorses an " ethic of care "145 that prioritizes the use of law
to protect the environment as the foundation of future economic and social stability. The idea that
current generations are at least partially responsible for the wellbeing of future generations supports
sustainable development's standard of intergenerational equity. In several important respects, then,
sustainable development and neoliberalism represent opposing forces vying for ideological control over
the direction of environmental policy.
2NC FW
Scholarship and Discourse first- interrogating the assumptions behind policies is key to
challenge the development discourse behind neoliberalism that threatens
environmental catastrophe and a political exclusion
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
This interdisciplinary dissertation's analysis of the neoliberal erosion of environmental law's normative
authority contributes research and ideas to an area that has received inadequate scholarly attention.
McCarthy and Prudham suggest that "relatively little has been said about the manifestations of
neoliberalism as environmental governance reform per se, nor have the various parallels and tensions
between neoliberalism and environmentalism as ideologies, discourses, and class projects been
sufficiently explored. Little scholarship has explicitly theorized connections between neoliberalism and
the environment in most industrialized nations."146 The dissertation complements work which has
analyzed neoliberalism's "concrete manifestations, either as institutional projects (such as the reform
programs associated with Thatcher and Reagan) or as a set of tangible external rules."147 It also
supports scholarship analyzing the use of political power to achieve neoliberal objectives.148 Political
actors may use power to construct institutions benefiting powerholders by privileging values, beliefs,
and discourses that subtly exclude or devalue alternative policies and ideas.149 This includes controlling
information to shape ideas and values and to legitimate dominant ideologies.150 Steven Lukes describes
this "third dimension of power" as the power "to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having
grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they accept their
role in the existing order of things."1 1 Scholarly methods and ideas from Legal Studies, Political Ecology,
and historical institutionalism, a sub-discipline of Political Science, guide the dissertation's analysis of the
relationship between neoliberalism and environmental law. Law and Society scholars argue that
environmental law consists of more than simply the laws and regulations that constitute the
environmental regulatory regime. Laurence Friedman suggests that the legal system should be thought
of as the "living law of society" and understood in terms of "what legal institutions do, and how they do
it." Thus, the "system" of environmental law includes the regulatory agencies charged with the
responsibility for implementing environmental legislation and the regime's broader ideological
underpinnings—its normative authority to protect humans and the environment from the risks of
economic development. Scholars may study the demands made upon environmental law, its responses,
and the impact of these responses on the persons making demands and on society as a whole.154 They
may also analyze the law's cultural components which include the values and attitudes that bind the
system together.155 "It is the legal culture, that is, the network of values and attitudes relating to law,
which determines when and why and where people turn to law or government, or turn away."1 Critical
Legal Studies scholars ("Crits") endorse a similar cultural understanding of law. In the 1980s, they
became particularly concerned with the power of law-and-economics to use neoliberal discourse to
dominate the design and understanding of legal systems. A discourse is "a shared means of making
sense of the world embedded in language [and]...grounded in assumptions, judgments, contentions,
dispositions and capabilities." Crits view law as a "plastic medium of discourse that subtly conditions
how we experience social life." They argue that legal systems may function as "discourses of power" that
classify and filter human experiences and justify the existing social order as "natural" or "necessary."160
They look closely at how deeply held assumptions about politics, economics, the proper role of
government, and other ideological views enmeshed in the legal system make it difficult to envision and
empower social life." A "discourse" also may be understood as a "specific ensemble of ideas, concepts,
and categorizations.. .through which meaning is given to physical and social realities." Discourses may
function as "classification systems" that support particular ideologies. A classification system is "a set of
boxes, metaphorical or not, into which things can be put in order to then do some kind of work...".
Classification systems create "standards" that may be used to designate information, for example, as
science or non-science, authoritative knowledge or speculation. Id. 159 Gordon (1988) at 535. 160 Id. at
535-36. 31 alternatives.161 Neoliberalism's "development discourse ," for instance, may constrain
public debate about sustainable, environmentally-friendly alternatives to dominant economic
policies .162 Political Ecologists have shown how nation-states deploy discourses to support economic
development policies that sacrifice protection for the environment. Relevant work focuses on nationstates' use of risk and cost-benefit analysis and technical models to authorize economic policies that
harm the environment.164 A crucial theme in Political Ecology is that these forms of economic analysis
generate knowledge claims justifying neoliberal ideas about the proper relationship between economic
and environmental policies. Nation-states and quasi-private entities (e.g., World Bank) have deployed
neoliberal discourses that "rearrange reality"or create ecological myths to support economic policies
at odds with environmental protection. Political ecologists have also shown that neoliberal discourse
converts the "logic" of ecology168 into an economic logic prioritizing the classification and
commodification of the environment.169 Political Ecologists' concern with the political use of power to
accomplish neoliberal goals leads them to focus on the relationship among knowledge, politics and
institutions—the politics of knowledge—and analyze "the institutional and regulatory spaces in which
knowledges and practices are encoded, negotiated and contested..." Political ecologists have illustrated
the neoliberal exercise of power when describing the "myth of desertification" in Namibia,171 the World
Bank's "development machine" in Lesotho,172 and India's construction of forests "as mental categories,
discursive tropes, and material realities—where none have existed 171 before." In Namibia, national and
international development organizations strengthened a discourse supporting a myth of
"desertification" by funding a national program—the Namibia Program to Combat Desertification
(NAPCOD)—and promoting changes in land use rules to eliminate the "overgrazing" erroneously blamed
for desertification.174 The organizations ignored lack of scientific evidence for their degradation theory
and dismissed local knowledge claims supporting an entirely different view of environmental causality: a
lack of rainfall produced sporadic patterns of landscape change creating an illusion of "desertification" or
"degradation."175 The international community's commitment to a neoliberal vision of development
precluded their reasonable consideration of this alternative explanation and its implications for
NAPCOD. The international organizations' solution for Namibia's "desertification" included privatizing
more land and pressuring semi-nomadic livestock herders to find a new line of work.176 These policies
fortified structural inequalities in the distribution of property rights, undermined participation in
government decision-making, and privileged dubitable science over local knowledge. 77 This dissertation
also relies on ideas and methods from "historical-institutionalism" to describe the institutional
transformation of environmental law into an instrument of economic logic. Historical-institutionalism
views institutions as "the legacy of concrete historical processes."178 Two assumptions about politics
rest at the core of historical-institutionalism's approach to the analysis of institutional change. First,
"institutions, both individually and collectively, juxtapose different logics of political order, each with
their own temporal into an instrument of economic logic. Historical-institutionalism views institutions as
"the legacy of concrete historical processes."178 Two assumptions about politics rest at the core of
historical-institutionalism's approach to the analysis of institutional change. First, "institutions, both
individually and collectively, juxtapose different logics of political order, each with their own temporal
underpinnings." Second, political change is caused by the interactions of overlapping institutional logics,
which create possibilities for change.1
2NC alt
The alt solves- analyzing the construction of neoliberal policies solves political change
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Kathleen Thelen argues that political change generally occurs incrementally, resulting from compromise
that "layers" institutional logics over one another. Institutional layering "involves the partial
renegotiation of some elements of a given set of institutions while leaving others in place."183
"[Constitutions often evolve through a layering process that preserves much of the core while adding
amendments through which rules and structures inherited from the past can be brought into sync with
changes in the normative, social, and political environments."184 Institutional "conversion" signals a
more dramatic political change.185 Thelen describes how "[t]he notion of institutional conversion . . .
provides an analytic starting point of departure for understanding how institutions created for one set of
purposes can come, in time, to be turned to new ends."186 She suggests that institutional conversion
may coincide with shifts in political power and ideology, while the layering process may often occur
beneath the same ideological umbrella.187 The analysis of law is central to understanding institutional
change and re-distributions of political authority.188 Paul Pierson notes that "[p]olicies, grounded in law
and backed by the coercive power of the state, signal to actors what has to be done, what cannot be
done, and establish many of the rewards and penalties associated with particular activities." Similarly,
Karen Orren and Stephen Skowronek suggest that legal institutions constrain and motivate particular
political action, constitute sources of political identity, and produce multiple layers of political
authority.19 The staggered, temporal nature of legislative enactments and administrative rulemaking
"means that institutions are frequently at loggerheads with one another."191 This suggests that laws are
"in a category by themselves, theoretically and descriptively in the processes of political change." Orren
and Skowronek argue that scholars should analyze the "historical construction of politics in the
simultaneous operation of older and newer institutions of governance, in controls asserted through
multiple orderings of authority whose coordination with one another cannot be assumed and whose
outward reach and impingements, including on one another, are inherently problematic." This produces
a description of the political universe, but it also reveals a "central part of the explanation for its
change."
2NC Links
Nanotech is the perfect example of how neoliberalism undermines sustainable
development
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Justice Douglas's protest against a legal system that privileges profits over people and the environment
did not fortify environmental law's normative authority against future attacks. Environmental law's
authority to protect humans and the environment from pollution and resource exploitation began to
deteriorate in the early 1980s. This dissertation is a modest attempt to answer the question, "What
caused the gradual erosion in environmental law's normative authority?" It argues that the emergence
of a neoliberal, market-centered ideology redefined the relationship between economic and
environmental policies, causing environmental law's transformation into an instrument of economic
discourse. This ethical transformation weakened environmental law's authority to protect humans and
the environment from risks posed by unbridled economic growth policies. It also sparked the rise of an
ideology to counter neoliberalism's power over environmental policy: sustainable development or
"sustainability." Sustainable development reaffirms environmental law's normative authority and relies
upon deliberative democratic principles similar to those that drove the enactment of environmental
legislation during the 1960s and 1970s. This dissertation analyzes environmental law's transformation
through two complementary case studies. First, it shows how the evolution of the New Deal's expert
model of administration has combined with cost-benefit analysis mandates to undermine the goals of
environmental law and limit democratic debate about environmental policy. Second, it analyzes the
genesis and development of nanotechnology policy in the United States to show how neoliberalism's
economic logic subtly erodes environmental law's normative authority. These case studies illuminate
pragmatic differences in substance and process between neoliberalism and sustainable development.
They also show that the relative balance of institutional authority over risk-related information
determines the effectiveness and durability of legislative mandates protecting the environment.
Neoliberal logic has dominated the evolution of nanotech policy- elite private sector
scientists influence Congress to ignore risks of nanotech
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Economic logic dominated the evolution of nanotechnology policy , producing legal institutions that
erode the authority of environmental law and conflict with principles of sustainability. This chapter
begins with an overview of nanotechnology's potential benefits and risks before describing the
neoliberal seeds of nanotechnology policy that first surfaced at the Executive level during the Bush Sr.
administration. Bush Sr. made lasting institutional changes to the Executive that significantly increased
industry's influence over technology policy. President Clinton's NNI proposal incorporated the principal
ideas of Bush Sr.'s technology policy, abandoning an attempt during Clinton's first term to integrate
economic policies with environmental protection strategies. The NNI advocated government support for
public-private research partnerships to lower industry's costs of developing the nanotechnology
innovations deemed critical to enhance the nation's economic competitiveness and social well-being.
Congressional approval and funding for the NNI signaled the rising political influence of public and
private sector scientists over technology policy and solidified the separation between economic and
environmental policies. Congressional decisions supporting the NRDA undercut further the normative
authority of environmental law. The NRDA sacrificed environmental law's norms of protection and
remediation to promote the commercialization of nanotechnology . The Act's language and its funding
structure reinforced the neoliberal path of nanotechnology policy and failed to protect public health
and the environment from the risks of nanomaterials. Congress also passed the Act without correcting
well-known deficiencies in the environmental regulatory regime that preclude the effective regulation
of nanomaterials and other toxic substances. Finally, Congress authorized a bureaucracy biased toward
the commercialization of nanotechnology to implement 95 the NRDA, strengthening an institutional
power structure that devalues the goals of environmental law.
Rapid commercialization of nanotech poses significant risks to human health and the
environment
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental Studies at the
University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of environmental law, 1980 –
2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009. 3399926,Portions of this dissertation are
modified from previous publications in and reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of
Environmental Law, Ecology Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy
Review. The preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Scientists and policymakers are most concerned by the potential impact of "free" nanoparticles
and carbon nanotubes as opposed to those that are "fixed" to a surface or within a
composite.455 Carbon nanotubes, which resemble sheets of rolled graphite with single or
multiple walls, represent a particular class of free nanoparticles that may provide social,
economic, and engineering benefits, while also posing significant risks to human health and the
environment.456 Recent acceleration in the manufacture and distribution of nanotubes has
made them widely available for commercial application in composites, polymers, sensors,
electronics, and display devices.457 The substances' rapid commercialization has overshadowed
scientific studies demonstratin g that carbon nanotubes may cause respiratory reactions
comparable to or stronger than asbestos. The inhalation of asbestos fiber causes asbestosis,
lung cancer, and malignant mesothelioma.459 Given nanotubes' structural similarity to
asbestos, one group of scientists noted "there would seem to be a high probability that [carbon
nanotubes] are also likely to have significant toxic effects on human health." Carbon nanotubes
also are associated with cardiovascular effects such as aortic DNA damage, platelet
aggregation, and blood-clotting. In addition to these threats to human health, the release of
significant quantities of carbon nanotubes into the environment during the manufacturing or
disposal of the substances may harm microorganisms, plants, and animals.4 2
Nanotech investments are based off of the concept of neoliberal commercializationtheir research is tainted by private sector scientists who stand to benefit from
nanotech- these people ignore any potential risk of nanotech
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Near the end of his second term, however, Clinton abandoned the goal of co-equal policy status for
environmental protection and economic growth to obtain congressional authorization for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative ("NNI"). His NNI proposal endorsed the neoliberal idea that government
support for the research, development, and commercialization of nanotechnology would produce
economic growth across all major industrial sectors. Government investment in nanotechnology
innovation would lower industry's costs and increase its profit margins. The NNFs institutional structure
also enhanced private sector influence over the direction of technology policy. The expansion of private
sector influence over policy and the lack of significant congressional funding for risk-related research
continued the erosion of environmental law's authority to influence technology policy. An ideological
shift and the politics of science caused the Republican-controlled Congress to authorize and fund the
NNI. Scientists and engineers organized into lobbies that helped convince free-market Republicans to
support the new nanotechnology policy. Research universities and private sector businesses stood to
benefit from government's economic and institutional support for the development of nanotechnology.
Lobbyists from these groups joined forces with science association lobbies to persuade Congress to fund
the NNI. Their persuasive impact materialized in congressional appropriations that funded the research
and development of nanotechnology, but did not support the study of nanotechnology's potential
risks to humans and the environment.
Nanotech initiatives based on claims of ‘economic competitiveness’ and ‘improving quality of
life’ are lies perpetrated by an elite group of private interest groups that ignore any potential
disadvantage to nanotech
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
The NNI's emphasis on funding for the research, development, and commercialization of
nanotechnology, and the absence of attention to nanotechnology's potential risks, is unsurprising given
the power the Clinton administration bestowed upon industry and academic scientists to formulate
nanotechnology policy. This continued the trend started during the Bush Sr. administration to enhance
industry's influence over the direction of national technology policy. In 1998, the National Science and
Technology Council ("NSTC") created the federal Interagency Working Group on Nanoscience,
Engineering and Technology ("IGWN") to develop a federal framework for nanoscale research and
development. Dr. Mihail Roco, the Director of the National Science Foundation and Chairman of the
IGWN, relied on scientists and engineers "almost equally" distributed among industry, government, and
academia to prepare IGWN and NSET publications that supported government investment in the
research and development of nanotechnology. Roco argued that nanotechnology innovations would
spark the "next industrial revolution," enhancing the nation's economic competitiveness and
improving citizens' quality of life.57 The government-sponsored publications provided the foundation
for President Clinton's NNI proposal.580 The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
("PCAST"),581 consisting of experts from academia and industry, reviewed the IGWN reports
advocating, government support for the NNI. PCAST's membership was drawn from the same interest
groups—public and private sector scientists and engineers—that provided information for the IGWN
reports, supported congressional authorization for the NNI, and stood to benefit considerably from
government funding for the NNI. PCAST strongly endorsed Clinton's proposal to create and fund the NNI
in Fiscal Year 2001, depicting nanotechnology as "the builder's new frontier," a shorthand phrase for the
view that control over matter at the atomic level marked the beginning of a revolutionary new age in
scientists' ability to manipulate COT materials/" The group emphasized that government resources
were necessary to support the research and development of nanotechnology because private
companies were unable to justify such long-term investments to their shareholders. They also noted
that "America's continued economic leadership and national security in the 21st century will require a
significant, sustained cor increase in nanotechnology R&D over the next 10 to 20 years." The Clinton
administration pushed these economic competitiveness arguments to garner congressional support for
the NNI.586 Dr. Roco, who led the administration's effort, claimed that knowledge developed at the
nanoscale would provide the foundation for redesigning all human- COT made objects to improve
economic efficiency. Government therefore had an "urgent responsibility"to accept the political and
financial risks associated with funding the research, development, and commercialization of
nanotechnology. The administration portrayed government as a financial and institutional force
essential for the successful commercialization of nanotechnology. Government support for the NNI
promised to lower the private sector's costs of developing nanotechnology applications and reduce its
financial risks for commercializing nano-based products.591 The administration also supported
deregulated markets to accelerate the commercialization of nanotechnology.
The aff’s attempt to develop nanotech illustrates another facet of a neoliberal processpolitical actors use the authority of science to justify neoliberal policies
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
The power of the science lobby to influence Congress illustrates another facet of a neoliberal
process—political actors use the authority of science to justify technology policies that favor the
private sector. The science lobby's influence over government policy fueled a purely economic
conception of nanotechnology that reduced space for ideas supporting the study of nanotechnology's
environmental, health, and safety risks. The science lobbies persuaded Congress that research and
development in the natural sciences provided the foundation for the nation's economic growth. This
benefited scientists and engineers conducting research in the physical sciences, such as physics,
chemistry, biology, and engineering, but not the social sciences, such as political science, political
ecology, sociology, and law.624 Social science research merited less relative support from Congress
because its economic value was lower (or at least less obvious). Moreover, as a practical matter,
research scientists are reluctant to apply for federal funds to study the potential risks of new
technologies.625
The use of “science” as a justification for nanotech is an economic tool to rush the
commercialization of nanotech- that undervalues the importance of developing information
about the risks of the tech
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Congressional appropriations for the NNI assured scientists of a significant funding source into the
foreseeable future. Consequently, lobbyists used "science" as an economic tool to support government
investment in public and private sector research and development. The lobbying community that
supported and benefited from the NNI consisted of scientific researchers, professional science and
engineering societies, and the CEOs of major corporations and universities. This community persuaded
the Republican-controlled Congress to support the NNI. The NNI's approval fortified an economic
conception of science and technology that prioritizes the research, development and commercialization
of nanotechnology and undervalues the importance of developing information about its risks to humans
and the environment.
2NC Impacts
Ethics
Neoliberal ethics undermine effective politics and ignores questions of morality and
justice
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
Scholars have turned to the notion of "neoliberalism" to explain the political ascension of a marketcentered approach to public policy that occurred during the last quarter of the 20th century. The Reagan
and Thatcher governments and neo-conservative think-tanks publicized and politicized neoliberal ideas
during the 1980s.40 The word "neoliberal" signifies a combination of liberal political theory's emphasis
on individual freedom and the privileged position of "free" markets in neoclassical economics. David
Driesen defines neoliberals as "market liberalism advocates."42 The central thrust of the neoliberal
ideology is to subsume all political and social relations into "free markets" grounded in principles of
individualism, economic competitiveness, private property protection, and efficiency in government.43
Neoliberals assume that technological innovation will solve resource depletion problems and they
support the use of market mechanisms to control environmental pollution and other "externalities."44
Legal Studies scholar Robert Gordon notes that one drawback to critiquing neoliberalism is that its
features may appear "normal" and "uncontroversial." Political Ecologist Jamie Peck echoes this notion,
arguing that some important aspects of neoliberalism appear to be "everywhere and nowhere at the
same time."45 Scholars identify neoliberalism's market-centered idolatry as the source of its conflict
with alternative approaches to the development and implementation of public policy. Nik Heynen,
James McCarthy, and other cultural geography scholars argue that neoliberalism "is a philosophy that
describes itself as 'hard realism' but is often wrapped in a cloak of remarkably Utopian promises, offering
a world liberated to 'unleash' the emancipatory power of markets and local decision-making."46 Legal
scholar Douglas Kysar describes it as a "political philosophy of limited government and strong property
rights, coupled with what one might call a cultural exaltation of the market, both as a primary locus for
individual growth and expression as a dominant template for policy design and implementation in those
few instances where public action is seen as necessary." Paul Treanor's summary of a neoliberal ethic
complements Kysar's description. Neoliberalism is a philosophy in which the existence and operation of a
market are valued in themselves, separately from any previous relationship with the production of goods
and services, and without any attempt to justify them in terms of their effect on the production of goods
and services; and where the operation of a market or market-like structure is seen as an ethic in itself,
capable of acting as a guide for all human action, and substituting for all previously existing ethical
beliefs.48 Thus, neoliberalism is driven by an economic logic that converts moral questions about
whether state action is right or wrong into "calculations of wealth and productivity."49 This economic
way of thinking about the relationship among government, social well-being, and the environment
stresses short-term costs over long-term benefits.50 It has exercised a subtle power over the structure
of policymaking.51 Policymakers compare the relative costs and benefits of regulatory alternatives by
reducing them to a common currency—usually dollars.52 Neoliberalism's economic valuation strategies
favor short-term economic development policies over concerns about environmental protection and the
well-being of future generations. Its economic logic produces a worldview in which "values like morality,
justice, fairness, empathy, nobility, and love are abandoned or redefined in market terms." Neoliberal
"ethics" also determine the structure and goals of the neoliberal state, producing a form of governance
at odds with environmental law's normative authority. Geographer David Harvey argues that the
neoliberal state aims "to create and preserve an institutional framework" that advances entrepreneurial
liberty, free markets, and free trade.54 The neoliberal state authorizes public-private partnerships that
privilege industry's influence over the political process and shift the investment risks of unproven
technologies to the public sector, boosting private sector profit margins.55 It shifts government
authority over environmental issues to the private sector by cutting funds for administrative agencies
and constructing voluntary regulatory programs grounded in non-binding standards.56 Thus,
neoliberalism may be understood both as an ideology and a political process that undermines the
environmental regulatory regime's capacity to protect humans and the environment from economic
development risks.57
Commodification
neoliberalism results in the worst forms of commodification
Rudd 2009, - Jeffery Rudd is a lawyer who is now a doctoral student in Environmental
Studies at the University of Wisconsin (“U.S. nanotechnology policy and the decay of
environmental law, 1980 – 2005”, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2009.
3399926,Portions of this dissertation are modified from previous publications in and
reprinted with the permission of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, Ecology
Law Quarterly, and the William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review. The
preparation and writing of this dissertation was supported in part by National Science
Foundation grant no. DMR0425880.)//RJ
James McCarthy and Scott Prudham suggest that neoliberalism evolved from the economic
liberalism Karl Polanyi criticized in The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic
Origins of Our Time5*.59 Polanyi argued that the economic liberalism supporting the Industrial
Revolution attempted to produce a "market economy."60 "A market economy is an economic
system controlled, regulated and directed by market prices; order in the production and
distribution of goods is entrusted to this self-regulating mechanism."61 A market economy
requires that government create "self-regulating" markets to commodify nature, labor and
money. "Nature," understood as land, water, air, etc., is not in and of itself a commodity. The
economic "logic of commodification," however, appropriates land and the things on it by
placing them within particular categories (e.g., agricultural produce) and converting them into
goods and services exchanged in markets governed by contract, property, and other laws.64
Polanyi argued that a market economy organizes social and political institutions to prevent any
arrangement or behavior" that might interfere with its efficiency.65 The Industrial Revolution's
proponents assumed that the market economy would satisfy the utilitarian goal of producing
"the greatest happiness for the greatest numberPolanyi argued that dangers of relying on
economic liberalism and self-regulating markets to dictate social policy centered on the social
and environmental damage caused by the "fictitious" commodification of humans and the
environment.67 The designation of land, labor, and money as commodities was "fictitious"
because they were not produced for sale. The commodification of land separated man from
nature and privileged man's economic use of nature over alternative uses and conceptions.
Polanyi argued that "to separate land from manand to organize society in such a way as to
satisfy the requirements of a real-estate market was a vital part of the Utopian concept of a
market economy."70 Economic liberalism devalued the role of natural resources in producing
individuals and families characterized by stability, physical safety, aesthetic enjoyment, and
experiences bound up with landscapes and seasons.71 The market economy's conversion of
labor power to a price also stripped humans of their status as moral, intellectual, and social
beings.
Other critiques
Heidegger Links
Nanotechnology allows for unprecedented exploitation of nature by changing what
nature is at the atomic turning nature into a standing reserve
Lee 99 [Keekok, Visiting Chair in Philosophy @ Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy @Lancaster University, “The Natural
and the Artefactual: The Implications of Deep Science and Deep Technology for Environmental Philosophy, p. 30-33//cc]
Hobbes was fundamentally interested in understanding and generating order in the world,
not by means of the theological or metaphysical mode of thought, but by the application of
scientific method to the study of both natural and social phenomena as well as moral and legal ones. The theological
Like all positivists,
mode did secure order in the world, or at least Europe, for a long time, by relying on supernatural entities, superstitious beliefs and practices. The metaphysical mode, usually in
conjunction with the former, was but another attempt to use unreason to procure order in human thought and behavior. The superiority of the positive mode over the other two
lies precisely in its use of reason and science to achieve order. In other words, positivism, while disagreeing with the earlier modes about the means to achieve order,
nevertheless, is in agreement with them on the end they all aim at attaining. That is why it may be distinguished from them by calling it the scientific philosophy of order. The
order which both the physical and social worlds exhibit is not God-decreed;53 rather, it is the outcome of an attempt by the human intellect to grapple with the complexities of
Order in the study of natural phenomena takes the form of
systematically structuring sense experience into a coherent interconnected body of knowledge so
that knowledge about one phenomenon could ultimately be understood by being derived from
knowledge about others within it.54 Not only does such an axiomatic structure allow explanation, prediction and theory testing to take place, as we
have seen, but it also enables us in the end to control nature (in the strong sense earlier identified). And this bears out the Baconian
dictum that "knowledge is power." In the light of the above, it would be fair to conclude that built into the new scientific method and its
accompanying philosophy from the seventeenth century onward is the aspiration to control and
manipulate (and in that way to dominate) nature. Bacon, Descartes and Hobbes all unhesitatingly declared it to be so. It does not look as if the ideal of knowledge for
physical and social life using the methodology of positivism, that is, of science.
its own sake, what Einstein called "the holy curiosity of inquiry," ever existed in its neat purity at the inception of modernity (or at any time, later, for that matter). The
While
humans had used and controlled nature in the past, modem science makes it possible for them,
more systematically than ever before, to control (to exploit) nature. This new opportunity for manipulating nature has prompted
philosophical as well as the ideological requirements of the new philosophy ensure that science as technology and science as theoretical knowledge go hand in hand.
several radically different responses. The majority holds that the exploitation of nature redounds to the good of all humans. Some argue that the possibility of exploiting nature
would displace the exploitation of men by fellow men only when capitalism has been superseded, and envisage, thereafter, a cornucopia for all humans. Others hold that the
exploitation of nature is yet another means to sustain the exploitation by some humans of others (whether capitalism is dislodged or not) and that the exploitation of nature and
of humans must together be overcome. Yet others recognize even the possibility of exploiting certain humans while emancipating nature from exploitation. Those who subscribe
to Adam Smith's "invisible hand" argument represent the first (which is the dominant) attitude. Marx stands for the second, utopian socialists for the third, and the so-called
The crucially built-in goal of controlling nature in modern science has taken on
another dimension in the last thirty years or so with the establishment of molecular genetics as a
theoretical discipline and its accompanying technology called biotechnology, a form of genetic engineering.
Apart from this significant actual development, promises of more spectacular ones are already
on offer, such as (molecular) nanotechnology. The next chapter will argue that this involves a deeper kind of
control of nature than the earlier types of scientific theories and their associatcd technologies
were capable of. This, surprisingly, in turn permits the dramatic reimposition of teleology upon the world, the restoration of formal and final causes, two of the four
eco-fascists for the fourth.
Aristotelian causes which modernity from the seventeenth century onward has cast into the outer darkness. But before the next chapter can go on to demonstrate this, one needs
first to clarify the notion of teleology, to distinguish between its different forms and, in turn, to relate these to the four causes. Furthermore, one needs to draw the distinction
between what may be called old teleology on the one hand and new teleology on the other; the former embodies pre-modernity and a more passive form of anthropocentrism
while the latter, modernity and a correspondingly more aggressive form of anthropocentrism. Teleology, Its Forms, and Their Fortunes The relegation of the formal and final
causes to the realm of the superstitious or the 'metaphysical' is often regarded as constituting the definitive break from the medieval worldview or the hallmark of modernity. As
already commented upon, the theological and metaphysical modes of explanation are considered to be redundant. But to say that the rejection of the formal and final causes is
synonymous with the rejection of the teleological worldview may be too simplistic and, hence, misleading. 55 To begin with, the rejection of the former was accompanied at the
same time with the establishment of strong anthropocentrism, the claims that only humans have intrinsic value, and nonhuman naturally-occurring beings, therefore, have only
instrumental value for humans. But this view is held to be remarkably similar to that of Aristotle (and Aristotelians). It is indeed true that for Aristotle, in his hierarchy of beings,
humans are higher than animals because they possess reason to a greater degree. Furthermore, he also believed that the purpose of beings further down the hierarchy of
rationality is to serve those higher up:
[W]e may infer that, after the birth of animals, plants exist for their sake, and that the other animals exist for the sake of man, the tame
for use and food, the wild, if not at all, at least the greater part of them, for food, and for the provision of clothing and various instruments. Now if nature makes nothing
incomplete, and nothing in vain, the inference must be that she has made all animals for the sake of man.56
Kant said something quite similar, that "so far as animals are
concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man. We can ask, 'Why do animals exist?' but to ask,
'Why does man exist?' is a meaningless question."57 So it is held that Aristotle as well as the moderns share the view that other nonhuman naturally-occurring beings are for the
benefit and use of man. This, however, amounts to a form of teleology. There might or might not be a God who created the world especially for humans, but it appears that an
unbroken dominant tradition runs through the history of Western thought from Aristotle via the Aristotelians to modernity, that the nonhuman natural world exists for the sake
of humans.58 And yet it is also commonly claimed that modernity broke with the medieval worldview precisely by its rejection of teleology. Perhaps what has led to the
confusion is the ambiguity within the notion of teleology itself. In the first instance, one may have to distinguish between two possible theses, external teleology on the one
hand and intrinsic/immanent teleology on the other.59 The latter is what may be involved with formal and final causes (which will be examined later). The former is about
perceived hierarchy in the world ordered in terms of certain criteria or attributes, with the superior beings at the top, and the related belief that those further down exist to
sustain and maintain those above them. Aristotle chose rationality as the appropriate attribute to order his hierarchy,60 Kant, self-consciousness, and Descartes, linguistic
capacity or soul. This set of related characteristics unsurprisingly, according to their critics-like Routley and Routley61-enthrones humans at the summit of the pyramid. From
this perspective, external teleology and anthropocentrism go hand in hand. This conjunct holds true in modernity no less than it did in the medieval cosmology. But while
modernity requires the rejection of intrinsic/immanent teleology, medieval cosmology did not. The
difference may be traced to the goal of controlling nature built into the methodology and
ideology of modem science. Its ontology of materialism and mechanism, pioneered by Galileo and philosophically
systematized by Hobbes, Descartes and others, which renders matter inert and dead, entails the rejection of
intrinsic/immanent teleology, at the same time extolling anthropocentrism. If matter were truly
inert, then clearly, humans need not be constrained by its telos and may, therefore, do what they please
with it entirely to suit human ends and purposes, including re-fashioning and re-modeling it.
While the predecessors of modernity simply held nature, as they found it, by and large, to be ordained for the
use of man, their successors in the modem era go one beyond, and consciously aspire through
their scientific method to control (dead) nature by molding it in accordance with their own ends.
For instance, as already observed, the scientific developments of the last twenty years, in
particular, molecular genetics and its accompanying genetic engineering,62 as well as nanotechnology on the horizon,
embody the ultimate truiumph of this aspiration. One may conclude that the conception of nature as dead matter is what constitutes the
definitive break between modernity and its medieval past in European thought.
The level of control permitted by nanotechnology allows for unprecedented control
over nature
Lee 99 [Keekok, Visiting Chair in Philosophy @ Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy @Lancaster University, “The Natural
and the Artefactual: The Implications of Deep Science and Deep Technology for Environmental Philosophy, p. 117-120//cc]
As Mill also points out 'the artificial' as 'the artefactual' means that "we (humans) move objects, and by doing this, bring some things into contact which were
separate, or separate others which were in contact: and by this simple change of place, natural forces previously dormant are called into action, and produce the
desired effect."12 Such moving about of objects, as we have seen, is accomplished by modern
science (beginning in Western Europe), its method,
its goal of controlling nature and eventually its technology. It has already been hinted that the deeper
the science and its accompanying technology, the greater the degree of artefacticity in the artefacts
produced. What has been said so far confirms that the philosophical transformation of the natural to become the artefactual has been put in place since the
seventeenth century when (a) Aristotle's thesis of intrinsic/immanent teleology was rejected to make room for extrinsic/imposed teleology involving an aggressive
anthropocentrism and instrumentalism, (b) modern
science with its methodology was used initially to displace the
formal and final causes from its study of nature while retaining the material and efficient causes only. But
ultimately its goal is to transform all four into humanly inspired, designed and executed ones. Such
ultimate transformation, as promised by molecular nanotechnology, constitutes the most recent
comprehensive, though not the final, expression of the aspiration to control nature. Modernity, in its boldest
aspiration, tries to transform the naturalfa, into the artefactual. Even Mars would, one day, become an
artefact, a human creation, In other words, naturefa could, in principle, be totally humanized. But as artefacts
are the deliberate products of human intelligence to serve human ends, having been engineered with
features and mechanisms which are not the outcome of the processes of natural evolution, they belong
to a distinctly different ontological level from that of naturally-occurring beings or things. Artefacts are (human)
intentional structures, while naturally-occurring objects ex hypothesi are not. (The ontological elimination of naturefa and naturenk will be examined in Chapters 4
and 5.)
Nanotechnology reduces nature to a standing reserve and destroys our relationship to
Being – we have a moral obligation to stop dominating the natural world
Lee 99 [Keekok, Visiting Chair in Philosophy @ Institute for Environment, Philosophy and Public Policy @Lancaster University, “The Natural
and the Artefactual: The Implications of Deep Science and Deep Technology for Environmental Philosophy, p. 117-120//cc]
In a nutshell, the answer is this-the
new serpent is the new technology itself as it represents the ontological
redundancy or supersession of naturenk. However, ontological redundancy of nature should not be interpreted to mean
something silly, namely, that nanotechnology would render the processes of production totally independent of nature. Of course, no technology could
perform that kind of miracle. As it has already been pointed out, nanotechnology is said to violate no known scientific laws and principles including the
laws of thermodynamics-it is not magic but science applied. Moreover, it is dependent on naturef-on the existence of naturally-occurring entities in the
form of atoms of matter/energy, which happen to be in abundance, unlike other naturally-occurring entities like trees, or golden eagles which are not.
The following quotation from two influential economists bear out the point, although at the time they were writing, their pronouncement amounted to
nothing more than a programmatic faith in modern science:
Advances in fundamental science have made it possible to take advantage of the
uniformity of energy matter--a uniformity that makes it feasible, without preassignable limit, to escape the quantitative constraints imposed by the
character of the earth's crust. A limit may exist, but it can be neither defined nor specified in economic terms. Flexibility, not rigidity, characterizes the
relationship of modern man to the physical universe in which he lives. Nature imposes particular scarcities not an inescapable general scarcity.21 Man
In other words, nanotechnology may be
seen as an instance of the long awaited fulfillment of the ultimate promise given by modern
science at its inception in the seventeenth century, but, which it has taken four centuries to make good. As we have seen,
according to the metaphysics of Scientific Naturalism, matter is uniformly dead or inert,
consisting of mere extension, and is itself devoid of form or telos. Such metaphysics is in
is therefore able, and free, to choose among an indefinitely large number of alternatives.22
keeping with the view that there is a general process of production which consists ultimately of
the rearrangement of the elements of such matter to serve solely human ends. Hence modern
science and its technology become the study of the manipulation of nature. Nanotechnology cannot, and
does not, dispense with elementary matter as atoms of the various elements which exist in nature, the analogue of what Aristotle called first or prime
matter. Instead, its implied claim amounts to being able only to dispense with second matter, that is to say, natural kinds, be these biotic like species of
plants and animals, or abiotic like diamond or granite. These are forms of low entropic structures which are scarce because humans may render extinct
or use biotic kinds far faster than they can replace themselves. In the case of certain abiotic kinds, they are simply nonrenewable, at least in the timespan which could be relevant to the sustainability of our industrial civilization. But in a nanotechnological world, such scarcity would not be worrying.
Nanotechnology appears to be able to bypass most, if not all, abiotic natural kinds, by rendering
them irrelevant to the process of production. In their place, it will be able to construct new forms
of second matter, new synthetic kinds. By this maneuver, not only is the scarcity of natural kinds
rendered irrelevant to the industrial processes of production but the artefactual kinds may be
said to supersede them. Such supersession, in turn, as we shall see, would lead to both the ontological
and the physical elimination of natural kinds. Natural kinds are entities which come into
existence and continue to exist independent of human volition and agency; artefactual kinds, in contrast, are
entities whose existence and maintenance are the intended outcome of human volition and agency. They come into, or go out of, existence entirely at
human bidding. Technological products are artefacts, and artefacts are the material embodiment of human intentional structures.
Nanotechnology, by allowing humans to assemble objects (or to disassemble them), atom by atom, with
absolute precision, embodies the perfect technique for the manipulation of nature. Such manipulation
amounts to near perfect, if not perfect, control and, therefore, near perfect or perfect mastery of nature. Whether such control and mastery are
considered as domination is immaterial. If the notion of domination conjures up physical conquest, such as disemboweling the earth as in current
mining, tearing out part of the earth as in quarrying, disfiguring the earth's landscape as in surface waste disposal, cutting down trees and destroying
habitats and whole ecosystems as in massive deforestation, then such images of laying waste the land through the equivalent of scorch-earth policies
are clearly irrelevant in the context of nanotechnology. But if domination is to be understood in terms of a relationship between two parties where one
party (the dominator) totally and successfully imposes its will on the second party (the dominated), then the notion could be said to be appropriate.
Humans in possession of nanotechnology are in a position systematically to replace natural abiotic by artefactual kinds if and when it suits their
purposes to do so-humans are in total charge, the master of their own destinies, whereas natural kinds are, powerless, at their mercies. Such
a
situation justifies the political image of domination with which modem science has been
associated. This image is reinforced by another matter, that of the ultimate humanization of
nature.23 Under extant technologies, the process of humanization is, relatively speaking, not as
profound as it could be when compared with nanotechnology. Up to now, natural kinds may
have been transformed by extant technologies, to some extent, into artefacts but their degree of
artefacticity is, relatively speaking, still not very deep, although biotechnology, in respect of biotic nature, is capable of"
increasing such depth by crossing the species boundaries, Nanotechnology claims to be able to construct de novo synthetic, abiotic kinds, from the
design board, using the right arrangement of atoms. In conjunction with biotechnology, it could also redesign existing biotic kinds, turning them into
The serpent which haunts the new Garden of Eden is not so much the serpent of
pollution. On the contrary, the more perfect the control and mastery over nature, the less likely is the technology to produce polluting effects. After
near total artefacts.
all, pollution has been referred to as the "naturally mediated unintended and unforeseen consequences of specific practices of activity upon nature."24
On this criterion of perfect mastery, the more perfect the technology, the less polluting it is-perfect precision and control mean that only whatever is
intended comes to be and all that is unintended, as far as possible, is eliminated.25 If the most fundamental environmental value is not to undermine
the functioning and integrity of the biosphere via polluting processes and pace of production, then nanotechnology must be considered to be
environmentally benign and, therefore, the ultimate green technology. It is possible, as we have just seen, for such a technology in combination with
another like biotechnology, to ensure that the biosphere carries out its public service functions, namely, to act as a sink to absorb waste, to continue the
great carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen cycles. But if
the most fundamental environmental value is not merely that, but the
preservation of natural kinds together with the processes at work in nature which ensure that
natural kinds continue to exist, to change and to evolve, to maintain themselves autonomously,
then nanotechnology (in conjunction with biotechnology) seems to pose a severe threat to the preservation of
the natural, as it possesses the potential to humanize the whole of nature. It is to be resisted
then on grounds that the natural (meaning natural kinds and the processes which generate and sustain them) could be made
redundant and replaced entirely by the artefactual (synthetic kinds, whether biotic or abiotic and the processes
manufacturing them). As we have seen, the natural and the artefactual belong to two very different
ontological categories, The natural constitutes 'the Otherness' for what is human. By rendering
the natural redundant in principle, nanotechnology is in danger of destroying 'the Other.' To put it
minimally, it is compatible with ontological impoverishment even if it does not entail either a
permission or a duty to eliminate the natural, both empirically and as an ontological category.
Ontological impoverishment is to be deplored not merely because in the end it amounts to
human impoverishment. It is that of course, but more importantly, it is to be deplored as yet
another expression of strong anthropocentrism and of a purely instrumental attitude to nature
on the part of humans. It amounts to the denial, in yet another context, of the claim that nature
can be a locus, if not also a source, of intrinsic value." I t is morally wrong of us humans to
eliminate nature (by rendering it redundant, making it over to our image to serve our purposes), not simply because it
diminishes ourselves as moral beings, but because the diminishment lies precisely in our moral
blindness to something other than ourselves which deserve moral consideration, or could be
said to be the bearer of intrinsic value. In other words, although moral blindness is clearly a human
failing, it is not merely to be deplored because it constitutes a human failing, but because
ontological elimination, loss or supersession is constitutive of that failing.
Social Ecology Links
Nanotechnology’s attempt to further progress dooms us to oblivion – they’ll inevitably
control our lives and collapse due to the system’s consumption of resources, causing
extinction
Lundberg 2003 [Jan Lundberg, “Resisting nanotech, violence and the corporate state: They’re coming for you”, Culture Change e-Letter
#42, no date listed but last date cited is 2003, http://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-they'recoming.html//cc]
Nanotechnology refers to nanoscience's "manipulation of living and non-living matter at the level of the
nanometer, one billionth of a meter. It is at this scale that quantum physics takes over from classical physics and the properties of elements
change character in novel and unpredictable ways." (- ETC Group) A major question is whether nanoscience theory for
technologies can get beyond mechanical kinds of applications in the human molecular environment, for
example. However, billions of dollars of research and armies of scientists are working to rapidly change
our world for the sake of profit — called progress."We will cross the threshold of the hardware capacity
of the human brain by 2020, and the computers we use then will be deeply embedded in our
environment. Computers per se will disappear; they will be in our bodies, in tables, chairs, and
everywhere. But we will routinely have enough power to replicate human intelligence in the 2020s." (Ray Kurzweil) In a new book, Virtual Human, the foreword concludes that It is the nature of machine intelligence
that its powers grow exponentially. Currently, machines are doubling their information processing
capabilities every year... As we get to the 2040s, even people of biological origin are likely to have the
vast majority of their thinking processes taking place in nonbiological substrates. We will all become
virtual humans. Maybe, maybe not. But it's up to us here and now. Whose world is it? Nanotechnology's precursor, micro- and biological-engineering,
already accomplished having insects used as spies, for example: cockroaches with tiny camera-transmitters that go under doors into meeting rooms. That is an
unintrusive application. compared to nanotech programs to be conducted on human bodies that will determine neural and physical behavior. The perceived limits
are being lifted. Picture weapons of such hidden power that old rules no longer apply. As a precursor to some of the biosoldier nanotech tools and creations being designed, we have already endured the unthinkable: depleted uranium weapons have been used in Kosovo, Afghanistan
and Iraq (1991 and 2003). This has been a kind of nuclear war fait accompli. What's ahead with nanotech compounds today's death technology and is dangerously
We're
told that nanotech is already on its way and don't worry — we'll love it. Quick fix solutions for our
problems; tax-funded research, megaprofits and unprecedented power for the nanotechnologists. This new science
threatens to create a sci-fi future ruled by a global super-elite with nanotechnology forced upon the
minds, bodies and surroundings of everyone else. Nanotech insider-literature clamors for just that. If
we take what they are pushing — we will be making a very big mistake. Nanotech is a field in which
industrial, medical and military scientists manipulate single molecules or atoms... (for) super-tiny super-computers and
a vastly enhanced ability to mesh living and non-living material. The US government predicts that nanotech will be a trillion
dollar industry within ten years. Nanopatriarch Richard Smalley calls it "the ultimate level of control." Mihail Roco, chairman of the
now $800 million National Initiative on Nanotechnology envisions using nanotech to ramp up the integration of humans and
machines to create a "global hive-consciousness" as the next step towards "conquest of nature." (National
dismissed as science fiction. The claimed benefits of nanotech are examined by a watchdog group monitoring research at the University of Oregon:
Science Foundation/US Dept. of Commerce Report) Such aims have raised concerns for people around the world who love freedom from control and unconquered
nature. (- Cascadia Media Collective)Overarching trends The process of losing our freedoms is out of control. People had the most freedom during pre-civilization,
not in 1865, for example, when the U.S. ended overt slavery and enhanced a much vaunted Constitution. Less and less freedom remains when populations grow:
violent crimes become more numerous and doors are increasingly locked in industrial countries that are growing in population (the U.S. and the U.K.). The final
result is the corporate police state coming after you to round you up into the work force, the military, or a concentration camp. That's the point in time when our
masters blatantly would desperately try to stuff death down our throats: toxic exposures, radiation, and state-of-the-art "pain compliance" (torture that
accompanies arrest and incarceration). Any nanotech applications will be welcomed by the security industries. Already, militarized police forces behave as
unfeeling phalanxes of individual automatons covered with technology, following orders without questioning them. However, if
rulers find
themselves accelerating the doing in of their exploited drones and slaves, which is counterproductive
and terminal, this is when the whole industrial system chokes and comes to a halt — that is, if the
current state of affairs to continue to that point. There could be a revolt prior to that or at that very point. But before a big revolt,
suddenly — from off to one side — breakdown will come about from a major system-component's failure: Prodigious industrial energy and
petroleum-derived materials are counted on for almost everything. The corporate state does not have
sustainability for massive energy consumption, and the outlook for licking this looks impossible from
where Sustainable Energy Institute sits. The economy is another source of unprecedented instability ahead. Events could derail particular
nightmares that technology and more laws can bring.
Nanotechnology is used as a tool for control – the world created by nanotech is not the ideal world
portrayed by the affirmative but is instead a dystopia and an excuse to prevent changing our
relationship to the world
Gould 2005 [Kenneth A., Prof. Soc. @ St. Lawrence U., “Small, Not Beautiful: Nanotechnology and the Treadmill of Production”, the
American Sociological Association, August, pg. 2-3,
http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/1/8/4/9/pages18495/p18495-3.//cc]
Nanotechnology Politics and the Environment The processes of scientific research and technological innovation have always been politically charged endeavors
(Noble 1977, Wright 1992). The
scientists and engineers engaged in nanotechnological innovation have specific
visions of a future society with major political implications. They also posses the skills to create the
technological means to implement their world view on a global scale. Nanotechnologists seek to
dramatically remake society, remake nature, and remake humanity. This is an intensely political agenda
which, by emerging from and moving through the societal science and technology infrastructure, can
largely make an end run around democratic politics to achieve broad realization. Nanotechnology has
similarly been politicized by dominant social institutions who see this set of technological innovations as
having great capacity to augment their narrow social goals of corporate profitability and state coercive
capacity. Finding that the world visions of scientists and engineers can be useful to their goals, these
institutions choose to support specific forms and directions of nanotechnological research and
development, and to shape and mutate the world vision of technologists into a political campaign to
gain widespread social acquiescence to this set of social changes. Part of the political campaign is to
market nanotechnology as utopian in meeting a multitude of preexisting and newly generated social
needs. All new technologies are sold by institutions to publics as utopian (Nye 1996), with particular emphasis on medical
benefits and attractive consumer goods. In line with this political strategy, nanotechnologists and their institutional
supporters have emphasized the social benefits of innovation while minimizing social costs. Despite the
potential for serious human health, livelihood, and ecological threats, social institutions have moved forward
aggressively in promoting a new world vision based on nanotechnology, and have used their power to
begin to impose this political vision on the global citizenry. In addition to the usual utopian benefits promoted by technologists,
nanotechnology promoters have emphasized a wide array of ecological benefits potentially stemming
from the new technology, capitalizing on broad public concern for the deteriorating state of the global
biosphere. Here the naïve and convenient notion that ecological problems are primarily technological in
nature, and thus amenable to engineering solutions, rather than social structural in nature, and thus
requiring political-economic solutions is reinforced. The failure of decades of technological fixes to
reverse or even to slow the pace of ecological destruction is ignored in favor of the view that the next
round of growth enhancing technological innovation emerging from institutions will resolve ecosystemsocial system discontinuities. Faith in “ecological modernization” (Mol 1995) is useful to states and
corporations seeking to avoid the difficult and threatening political and economic implications of the
necessity of bringing social systems in line with ecological limits. In effect, nanotechnology promoters
promise that social systems can escape ecological limits through technological innovation, in much the
same way that early industrialists promised, and in much the same way that nuclear technology
promoters promised, and in much the same way that genetically modified crop promoters continue to
promise. In doing so they ignore both the realities of nature, and the realities of the political economy.
Case defense
Squo solves
Nanotech is funded under the Fiscal Year 2013 budget
Roco, 12 – American Society of Mechanical Engineers (M.C., “National Nanotechnology Investment in
the FY 2013 Budget”, 8/19, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2013/13pch23.pdf)//VP
The FY 2013 President’s Request of $1.77 billion for federal investment in nanotechnology is 4.1 percent
over the FY 2012 budget estimate of $1.70 billion. Approximately 65 percent of the total NNI funding
supports academic research. About 25 percent of NNI funding supports R&D at government laboratories
and about 10 percent supports industry R&D, of which about 6 percent is for SBIR/STTR. NNI-sponsored
R&D is reported in eight program component areas (PCAs). While fundamental research (PCA 1) remains the largest single
NNI investment category, the research on nanodevices and systems (PCA 3) and in nanomanufacturing (PCA 5) would total
about the same as PCA 1 under the FY 2013 request. Environmental, health and safety (PCA 7) would have an investment
of about $105 million, representing about 6% of total NNI investment. The fastest growing PCAs since 2010 are in the areas of
nanomanufacturing (PCA 4) and EHS (PCA 7). The
requested nano-EHS (PCA 7) investment in 2013 is almost 20% above
2011 actual spending, without accounting for inflation. This increase is guided by the revised NNI EHS
Research Strategy that was released in October 2011 (posted on www.nano.gov). Cumulatively, the NNI agencies have
allocated over $650 million to EHS research since 2005, including the requested amounts in the 2013 budget. The PCAs and proposed FY
2013 funding levels across all NNI agencies are as follows: (1) fundamental nanoscale phenomena and
processes, $498 million; (2) nanomaterials, $368 million; (3) nanoscale devices and systems, $412
million; (4) instrumentation research, metrology, and standards for nanotechnology, $69.2 million; (5)
nanomanufacturing, $89 million; (6) major research facilities and instrumentation acquisition, $190
million; (7) environment, health, and safety (EHS), $105 million; and (8) education and societal
dimensions, $34 million. Nanotechnology is partially transitioning its R&D focus from nanoscale components to nanosystems, and
from basic research to innovations that support national priorities such as energy, manufacturing, healthcare, and environmental protection
(see “Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020” (M.C. Roco, C. Mirkin, M. Hersam, eds.), Springer, 2011; available on
http://www.wtec.org/nano2/).
Squo solves- NNI already have a nanotechnology initiative to solve the aff
Roco, 12 – American Society of Mechanical Engineers (M.C., “National Nanotechnology Investment in
the FY 2013 Budget”, 8/19, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers.http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/rdreport2013/13pch23.pdf)//VP
Three NNI Signature Initiatives4 (a) Sustainable Nanomanufacturing — $84 million with participation
from DOD, DOE, IC/DNI, NASA, NIOSH, NIST, NSF and USDA/FS. This initiative aims to establish
manufacturing technologies for economical and sustainable integration of nanoscale building blocks into
complex, large-scale systems, with two areas of focus: design of scalable and sustainable nanomaterials, components, devices, and processes;
and nanomanufacturing measurement technologies. are planned with
a total budget of $306 million: (b) Nanotechnology
for Solar Energy Collection and Conversion — $112 million with participation from DOD, DOE, IC/DNI, NASA, NIST, NSF, and
USDA/NIFA. The primary aim of this initiative is to use nanotechnology to improve photovoltaic solar electricity
generation, solar thermal energy generation and conversion, and solar-to-fuel conversions. (c) Nanoelectronics for 2020 and
Beyond — $110 million with participation from DOD, DOE, IC/DNI, NASA, NIST and NSF. The initiative aims to explore
new or alternative “state variables” for computing; merge nanophotonics with nanoelectronics; explore
carbonbased nanoelectronics; exploit nanoscale processes and phenomena for quantum information
science; and augment the national nanoelectronics research and manufacturing infrastructure network
(university-based infrastructure).
Status quo solves- investment in Latin America now
NATO, 05 – North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, “179 STCMT 05 E - THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
OF NANOTECHNOLOGY”, http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=677)//VP
8. A number of countries and private companies are investing heavily in NT research. According to the
assessment of Lux Research, a US nanotechnology consultancy, the total spending on nanotechnology
R&D worldwide exceeded $8.6 billion in 2004. US federal funding for nanotechnology R&D has increased sixfold from 1997 to
2004. The US government will spend almost $1 billion within the framework of its National Nanotechnology
Initiative (NNI) in 2005, making NT the largest American scientific programme funded from the federal budget-surpassing even the Human
Genome Project by a considerable sum. Japan is also investing approximately $1 billion. Developing countries such as India,
China, South Africa and Brazil have also joined the race. While government investment in NT has, so far,
exceeded that of private companies, Lux predicts that this proportion is likely to change in the future.
AT: Science diplomacy
Science diplomacy fails and is just as likely to undermine relations as help them –
politics matters more than science and the political context means it can be used for
militarization
Dickson, 10 – Director, SciDev.Net (David, “Science in diplomacy: “On tap but not on top”” 6/28,
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/category/science-diplomacy-conference-2010/)
There’s a general consensus in both the scientific and political worlds that the principle of science
diplomacy, at least in the somewhat restricted sense of the need to get more and better science into
international negotiations, is a desirable objective.
There is less agreement, however, on how far the concept can – or indeed should – be extended to
embrace broader goals and objectives, in particular attempts to use science to achieve political or
diplomatic goals at the international level.
Science, despite its international characteristics, is no substitute for effective diplomacy. Any more than
diplomatic initiatives necessarily lead to good science.
These seem to have been the broad conclusions to emerge from a three-day meeting at Wilton Park in
Sussex, UK, organised by the British Foreign Office and the Royal Society, and attended by scientists,
government officials and politicians from 17 countries around the world.
The definition of science diplomacy varied widely among participants. Some saw it as a subcategory of
“public diplomacy”, or what US diplomats have recently been promoting as “soft power” (“the carrot
rather than the stick approach”, as a participant described it).
Others preferred to see it as a core element of the broader concept of “innovation diplomacy”, covering
the politics of engagement in the familiar fields of international scientific exchange and technology
transfer, but raising these to a higher level as a diplomatic objective.
Whatever definition is used, three particular aspects of the debate became the focus of attention during
the Wilton Park meeting: how science can inform the diplomatic process; how diplomacy can assist
science in achieving its objectives; and, finally, how science can provide a channel for quasi-diplomatic
exchanges by forming an apparently neutral bridge between countries.
There was little disagreement on the first of these. Indeed for many, given the increasing number of
international issues with a scientific dimension that politicians have to deal with, this is essentially what
the core of science diplomacy should be about.
Chris Whitty, for example, chief scientist at the UK’s Department for International Development,
described how knowledge about the threat raised by the spread of the highly damaging plant disease
stem rust had been an important input by researchers into discussions by politicians and diplomats over
strategies for persuading Afghan farmers to shift from the production of opium to wheat.
Others pointed out that the scientific community had played a major role in drawing attention to issues
such as the links between chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and the growth of the ozone hole, or
between carbon dioxide emissions and climate change. Each has made essential contributions to policy
decisions.
Acknowledging this role for science has some important implications. No-one dissented when Rohinton
Medhora, from Canada’s International Development Research Centre, complained of the lack of
adequate scientific expertise in the embassies of many countries of the developed and developing world
alike.
Nor – perhaps predictably – was there any major disagreement that diplomatic initiatives can both help
and occasionally hinder the process of science. On the positive side, such diplomacy can play a
significant role in facilitating science exchange and the launch of international science projects, both
essential for the development of modern science.
Europe’s framework programme of research programmes was quoted as a successful advantage of the
first of these. Examples of the second range from the establishment of the European Organisation of
Nuclear Research (usually known as CERN) in Switzerland after the Second World War, to current efforts
to build a large new nuclear fusion facility (ITER).
Less positively, increasing restrictions on entry to certain countries, and in particular the United States
after the 9/11 attacks in New York and elsewhere, have significantly impeded scientific exchange
programmes. Here the challenge for diplomats was seen as helping to find ways to ease the burdens of
such restrictions.
The broadest gaps in understanding the potential of scientific diplomacy lay in the third category,
namely the use of science as a channel of international diplomacy, either as a way of helping to forge
consensus on contentious issues, or as a catalyst for peace in situations of conflict.
On the first of these, some pointed to recent climate change negotiations, and in particular the work of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, as a good example, of the way that the scientific
community can provide a strong rationale for joint international action.
But others referred to the failure of the Copenhagen climate summit last December to come up with a
meaningful agreement on action as a demonstration of the limitations of this way of thinking.
It was argued that this failure had been partly due to a misplaced belief that scientific consensus would
be sufficient to generate a commitment to collective action, without taking into account the political
impact that scientific ideas would have.
Another example that received considerable attention was the current construction of a synchrotron
facility SESAME in Jordan, a project that is already is bringing together researchers in a range of scientific
disciplines from various countries in the Middle East (including Israel, Egypt and Palestine, as well as
both Greece and Turkey).
The promoters of SESAME hope that – as with the building of CERN 60 years ago, and its operation as a
research centre involving, for example, physicists from both Russia and the United States – SESAME will
become a symbol of what regional collaboration can achieve. In that sense, it would become what one
participant described as a “beacon of hope” for the region.
But others cautioned that, however successful SESAME may turn out to be in purely scientific terms, its
potential impact on the Middle East peace process should not be exaggerated. Political conflicts have
deep roots that cannot easily be papered over, however open-minded scientists may be to professional
colleagues coming from other political contexts.
Indeed, there was even a warning that in the developing world, high profile scientific projects, particular
those with explicit political backing, could end up doing damage by inadvertently favouring one social
group over another. Scientists should be wary of having their prestige used in this way; those who did so
could come over as patronising, appearing unaware of political realities.
Similarly, those who hold science in esteem as a practice committed to promoting the causes of peace
and development were reminded of the need to take into account how advances in science – whether
nuclear physics or genetic technology – have also led to new types of weaponry. Nor did science
automatically lead to the reduction of global inequalities.
“Science for diplomacy” therefore ended up with a highly mixed review. The consensus seemed to be
that science can prepare the ground for diplomatic initiatives – and benefit from diplomatic agreements
– but cannot provide the solutions to either.
“On tap but not on top” seems as relevant in international settings as it does in purely national ones.
With all the caution that even this formulation still requires.
Zero empirical evidence supports their advantage and the plan is more likely to be
used for exploitation
Dickson, 9 - Director, SciDev.Net (David, “Science diplomacy: the case for caution”
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/science-diplomacy-the-case-for-caution/)
There has been much lively discussion on the value of international collaboration in achieving scientific
goals, on the need for researchers to work together on the scientific aspects of global challenges such as
climate change and food security, and on the importance of science capacity building in developing
countries in order to make this possible.
But there remained little evidence at the end of the meeting on how useful it was to lump all these
activities together under the umbrella term of “science diplomacy”.
More significantly, although numerous claims were made during the conference about the broader
social and political value of scientific collaboration – for example, in establishing a framework for
collaboration in other areas, and in particular reducing tensions between rival countries – little was
produced to demonstrate whether this hypothesis is true .
If it is not, then some of the arguments made on behalf of “science diplomacy”, and in particular its
value as a mechanism for exercising “soft power” in foreign policy, do not stand up to close scrutiny .
Indeed, a case can be made that where scientific projects have successfully involved substantial
international collaboration, such success is often heavily dependent on a prior political commitment to
cooperation, rather than a mechanism for securing cooperation where the political will is lacking.
Three messages appeared to emerge from the two days of discussion. Firstly, where the political will to
collaborate does exist, a joint scientific project can be a useful expression of that will. Furthermore, it
can be an enlightening experience for all those directly involved. But it is seldom a magic wand that can
secure broader cooperation where none existed before.
Secondly, “science diplomacy” will only become recognised as a useful activity if it is closely defined to
cover specific situations (such as the negotiation of major international scientific projects or
collaborative research enterprises). As an umbrella term embracing the many ways in which science
interacts with foreign policy, it loses much of its impact, and thus its value.
Finally, when it comes to promoting the use of science in developing countries, a terminology based
historically on maximising self-interest – the ultimate goal of the diplomat – and on practices through
which the rich have almost invariably ended up exploiting the poor, is likely to be counterproductive .
In other words, the discussion seemed to confirm that “science diplomacy” has a legitimate place in the
formulation and implementation of policies for science (just as there is a time and place for exercising
“soft power” in international relations).
But the dangers of going beyond this – including the danger of distorting the integrity of science itself,
and even alienating potential partners in collaborative projects, particularly in the developing world –
were also clearly exposed.
Science does nothing to advance diplomacy
Copeland, 11 - Research Associate at the Center for International Policy Studies (Daryl, “Science
Diplomacy: What’s It All About?” November, http://cips.uottawa.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2011/11/Copeland-Policy-Brief-Nov-11-5.pdf)
However, there exists an even more fundamental difficulty: S&T issues are largely alien to, and almost
invisible within, most international policy (IP) institutions. S&T and IP are effectively two solitudes,
existing in separate floating worlds that rarely intersect. When diplomats or politicians talk about IP, you
rarely hear anything about S&T. Similarly, when scientists get together to discuss their work, it is rarely
in the context of diplomacy or international policy. Indeed, scientists, besides being notoriously poor
communicators, tend to cherish their independence from politics and government. The skill sets, activity
time frames and orientations of the two groups differ markedly. It must be asked: How many diplomats
are scientists? How many scientists are diplomats? How often do scientists and diplomats mix? Foreign
ministries, development agencies, and indeed most multilateral organizations are without the scientific
expertise, technological savvy, cultural pre-disposition or R&D network access and crosscutting linkages
required to understand and manage S&T issues effectively.
AT: S&T innovation advantage
Federal science projects are directed for governmental needs – this fragments science
and collapses innovation, and the impact on leadership nullifies any military benefits
the plan generates
Coletta, 9 - Professor of Political Science at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado (Damon,
“Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence,” September,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA536133&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, though functionally tied to managing the nation‘s
space program, is atypical for its independent status within the executive bureaucracy. Most other
federal science sponsors are embedded in cabinet level departments; the Office of Science within the
Department of Energy; the National Institutes of Health within the Department of Health and Human
Services; the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration within the Department of Commerce; and the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency along with research offices of each of the services within the Department of Defense.
Individual science specialists within the government departments control billions of dollars, slices
comparable to the entire NSF budget.26 Although not even this much money protects agencies from
occasional funding crises, the capacity to maintain a science establishment that is both decentralized
and well-funded across the board speaks to the deep pockets and the unparalleled borrowing power of
the U.S. Government.
The key vulnerability in this sprawling enterprise is the sheer number of competing priorities that make
it hard for the government to keep its collective eye on the prize, in this case research leadership in
areas that are not immediately exploitable for economic or military gain. As successful as the United
States has been, performing basic science and applied research to be the pacesetter for other countries
during the Information Technology Revolution of the late-twentieth century, the U.S. tendency to
convert science into public works projects may delay its rendezvous with the next world shattering
technological breakthrough. Perhaps more urgently, a science establishment so thoroughly penetrated
by the daily needs of U.S. government operations may not be imaginative or neutral enough to win
worldwide respect for U.S. institutions and culture. Such a soft power failure could hollow out
American hegemony well before U.S. technological superiority collapses .
Federal science is politicized – it undermines innovation – they can’t solve hegemony
Coletta, 9 - Professor of Political Science at the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado (Damon,
“Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence,” September,
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA536133&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)
Based on how U.S. constitutional democracy is structured, we should observe a recurring tension
between society‘s desire to benefit from professional expertise and its demand for accountability. In the
U.S. case, scientific advice and scientific research sponsored by the state have been articulated across
mission-oriented agencies serving an urgent governmental function—defense, commerce, health,
agriculture. With few exceptions, even the National Science Foundation is not entirely immune, research
sponsors and laboratories within the U.S. Government feel enormous pressure. Operational branches of
the Executive agencies, massive in terms of budget and personnel compared to R&D, as well as
Congressional representatives on key authorizing committees, push U.S. Science to be technologically
relevant. In the language of the Defense Department‘s framework, there is a steep downhill slope
running from 6.1 (basic research) to 6.2 (applied research).
We have seen evidence of the tendency to slip away from pure science sponsorship in the budget
hearings of Congressional committees on Science and Technology and Armed Services, as well as the
evolution of the nation‘s first post-World War II science agency—the Office of Naval Research—away
from basic research. The question remains whether democratic pressure to harvest superior technology,
to the point of neglecting what one chair of the Projection Forces Subcommittee, House Armed Services
called the seed corn of innovation, levies costs on U.S. foreign policy serious enough to hamper the
superpower‘s bid for sustainable hegemony.
AT: US regulates nanotech
US regulation of nanotech is abysmal – nanotech released without governance will
wreak havoc – only precautionary principle solves
Soliman 12 [Adam, agricultural economist, attorney, and researcher focused on legal and economic issues in the Agriculture, Resource and
Food sectors, “The Need for Stronger Nanotechnology Regulation”, OCTOBER 16, 2012, http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/10/why-weshould-have-more-regulations-on-nanotechnology/#.Uf7v0JK1Fru//cc]
Concerns Surrounding Nanotechnology Studies
show that nanoparticles can easily penetrate DNA and the cells of the
lungs, skin and digestive system, thereby causing harm to living organisms (2). One example of a commonly used but potentially
harmful nanoparticle can be found in the beverage industry. Beverage companies have been using plastic bottles made with nano-composites, which minimize the
leakage of carbon dioxide out of the bottle. This increases the shelf life of carbonated beverages without using heavy glass bottles or more expensive aluminum
cans. Think of the numbrt of people who are unknowingly being exposed to untested nanocomposites. Nanoparticles
are also now being
engineered to be more resilient, thereby increasing the risk of causing irreversible damage to living
organisms. We simply do not have sufficient data or risk assessment laws in place to analyse whether
nanoparticles are safe for consumption. International Regulations Legislation governing the use of nanoparticles is
limited around the world, particularly in the U.S. In 2007, a report released by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration’s Nanotechnology Task Force 33 stated that despite the ‘special properties’ of nanomaterials, no further
regulation is needed (3). This report was opposed by environmental group Friends of the Earth and the International Center for Technology Assessment.
The organizations filed a petition with FDA urging it to take action to highlight the risks associated with nanotechnology (4). As a result, the federal Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act was passed in 2003. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was also developed to assess the risk posed by substances, and to
provide authority to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regulating them (5). The TSCA set out provisions to protect living systems against unknown risks
of new or engineered substances by regulating and testing new and existing chemicals. However, the EPA does not hold much sway in the American political sphere.
In fact, the U.S.
legislature does not even require pre-market approval of consumer goods; the FDA relies
solely on manufacturers to ensure product safety (6). Moreover, only evidence of a very specific harm
associated with a product can elicit legal restrictions, and nanoparticles have not yet been tested for
such specific risks.
The US is forgoing the precautionary principle in nanotech development – this will lead to disaster
Miller 9 [Georgia, “Who's afraid of the precautionary principle?”, http://nano.foe.org.au/node/186//cc]
The "precautionary principle" has become the proverbial giant elephant in the nano-living room. Leading advocates
for the "responsible development" of nanotechnology acknowledge that nanomaterials may present
serious health and environmental risks which remain poorly understood. Yet almost no-one is prepared to raise the question of whether a
precautionary approach to managing these risks is warranted, let alone to advocate that such an approach is necessary. In recent reports from The
United Nations Environment Program, the Australian Government's Nanotechnology Taskforce (now Nanotechnology Unit), the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, the influential US NGO Environmental Defense and their nano-risk framework partner DuPont, neither the
"precautionary principle", or a "precautionary approach", rates a single mention. The Australian "Options for a
National Nanotechnology Strategy" report, in an appendix at the end of the document, does list public support for a "precautionary approach" among feedback
received to its call for public submissions.
Precautionary principle is key – only way to ensure nanotech is effectively regulated
Heselhaus 9 [Sebastian, Professor of European Law, International Law, Public Law and Comparative Public Law, “Nanomaterials and the
Precautionary Principle in the EU”, 17 June 2009//cc]
The case of nanomaterials shows that the precautionary principle is an important legal tool to deal with
the specific tasks of risk societies. It is well established in EC environmental law and has been applied in
other sectors for the protection of human health. So, at last, it covers the most important part of consumer protection policies. The
principle should be followed in every stage of the process of risk evaluation. Giving the scientific
uncertainties, it is convincing to apply it to the first stage of risk assessment with its rather scientific
character. There is common acceptance that it clearly governs the second stage, the risk management. This is regarded as a
very political task. However, in governing the process leading to the decision on the measures to be applied to a certain case of nanomaterials the principle
of proportionality plays a decisive role. Especially in a highly competitive area such as nanomaterials it is
the main driver when choosing from the broad range of instruments offered by the precautionary
principle. In the case of nanomaterials the Commission’s strategy puts an emphasis on the aspects of competition,
thus following a rather reluctant approach of (non-)regulation, relying on a voluntary code of conduct addressing primarily the public sector. Although the
Commission adds a strong line of risk communication to its approach, its implementation is rather biased by the positive, optimistic reception of the possible effects
of nanomaterials in health care, etc. Although this view is not far-fetched, it is doubtful whether that perspective really leads to an “open” dialogue. A major task in
N & N is to fill the existing gap in knowledge. Inevitably, this raises the question of financing and who is to bear the burden. Although such issues are dealt with
under the polluter pays-principle in EC environmental law, it is a case for the precautionary principle as well. Any requirement of registration or authorisation—as
governed by the precautionary principle—has effects on the burden of financing. So it seems to be consistent to rely on that principle in cases of uncertainty, when
deciding on the burden of financing basic scientific research, e.g. for a nanomethodology. Here, the Commission calls upon the public sector to help in the area of
research. But one could think of more balanced views that still pay due respect to the competition faced by the European nano-industry. The setting up of hybrid
funds financed by both, industry and the public sector would be a more convincing application of both the principles of precaution and proportionality.
They do not get access to any of their impacts to nanotech if they do not regulate it –
lack of governance system means nanotech will wreck the environment
Dimitrijević 11 [Dejana, Department of Environmental Protection, Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia,
“Chapter 11 Nanotechnology: The Need for the Implementation of the Precautionary Approach beyond the EU”//cc]
The International Risk Governance Council (IRGC) has identified four generations of nanotechnology
products (IRGC 2007). Products already on the market are primarily passive (steady function) nanomaterials, as from 2000 what the IRGC refers to as first
generation, and they are related to applications in which the nanomaterials do not change form or function. Almost all the debate about nanotechnology has
focused on first-generation nanotechnology, but the second generation of the technology is now moving from science fiction to technological fact (Davies 2008).
The increasing speed of nanotechnology development and commercialization has apparently run ahead of
health, environmental and safety data (Maynard et al. 2006; Oberdörster et al. 2007). The main concerns relate to those
products that can lead to exposure to free nanomaterials (nanoparticles). The potential exposure is expected to
be much higher if the nanomaterial consists of nanoparticles to be released in the air (as aerosols) or present in a liquid form (in an emulsion or suspension). It is
broadly acknowledged that the benefits promised will fully materialize only if there is a governance system
which addresses the potential risks and concerns associated with their development. It is uncertain
whether the established governance systems are actually capable of adequately handling
nanotechnologies and the corresponding applications within their frameworks, and as a consequence it is feared that
nanomaterials may cause damage to health and the environment before appropriate strategies based
on quantitative risk assessment can be implemented (FramingNano 2009). This may be conceived as one of the main reasons why
many stakeholders call for the implementation of a precautionary approach in order to avoid such damage, and in order to prevent vivid examples of how adverse
public opinion can slow or even block the development and application of new technologies. The public backlash on nanotechnologies in general could lead to
reactions similar to those observed with stem cell research, genetically modified crops, and nuclear power in recent years. In this chapter, the overall research and
development of nanomaterials in the ten SEE countries has been addressed by studying two basic indicators, publications and patent applications. The chapter
provides some insight into the latest developments regarding the effects nanomaterials impose on the environment and on human health, as well as the capacity of
international governance to deal with complex regulatory demands.
The status quo is not enough and the plan does nothing to change that – lack of
regulation
Dimitrijević 11 [Dejana, Department of Environmental Protection, Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia,
“Chapter 11 Nanotechnology: The Need for the Implementation of the Precautionary Approach beyond the EU”//cc]
Currently, there
is a general consensus among regulators, scientists, policy experts and civil society
organizations that there are some significant weaknesses in the application of the existing regulation to
nanotechnology. According to Hansen (2010) regulatory challenges include: (1) whether to adapt existing legislation
or develop a new regulatory framework, (2) whether nanomaterials should be considered as different
from their bulk counterparts, (3) how to define nanotechnology and nanomaterials, and (4) how to deal
with the profound limitations of risk assessment when it comes to nanomaterials. On 12th November 2008, the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution (RCEP) published its report on Novel Materials in the Environment: The case of nanotechnology and concludes that
despite the capacity of existing regulations to address risks posed by nanomaterials, at present they are
poorly adapted to do so (Lee and Stokes 2009). The main problems of the existing legislative frameworks seem to
be that metrology tools are unavailable, that thresholds are not tailored to the nanoscale, but based on bulk
material, profound lack of (eco) toxicological data, and that no risk thresholds and occupational exposure limits cannot be
established with existing methodologies (Hansen 2009). The different views on how to regulate nanomaterials
vary considerably, ranging from the optimistic view that no regulatory attention to novel materials could be justified unless and until there were clear
indications that harm is being caused, to less optimistic ‘risk based’ and finally, to a total moratorium that stops development of nanotechnology research and
commercialization (RCEP 2008). As mentioned previously, current regulatory system, such as those for chemical substances under REACH, are based on mass
thresholds and annual production volumes. New models for risk governance have been sought as alternatives or complements to existing regulations to deal with
these uncertainties and provide means on how to find practical ways to come to commonly accepted decisions in risk governance and facilitate trust among
different current and potential stakeholders. Such approaches encompass voluntary measures (“soft” regulation) in nanotechnology risk governance such as codes
of conduct, risk management systems or data reporting programs. A
key element in self-regulating mechanisms, at least in Europe,
is the Code of Conduct for responsible nanoscience and nanotechnologies research that all Member
States have been recommended to use by the European Commission (CEC 2008b).
Mex Nano Bombed
Nanotech laboratories would be bombed by eco-anarchist groups, turns the case
The Verge, 12 – National News Report Service (“Eco-anarchists fight nanotechnology research with
bombs”, The Verge, 9/2/2012, http://www.theverge.com/2012/9/2/3285426/mexico-itsnanotechnology-eco-anarchists-bombs)//EX
Major advances in technology often stir opposition , and as Nature reports, nanotechnology is no
exception: an eco-anarchist group known as Individuals Tending Towards Savagery (ITS) has been
responsible for several bombings at prominent nanotechnology universities in Mexico over the past
two years. The group reportedly looks to prevent "nanocontamination" and agrees with author Derrik
Jensen's view that "industrial civilization is responsible for environmental destruction and must be
dismantled." Nanotechnology concerns are a global issue — in 2010 another group attempted to bomb
IBM's nanotechnology lab in Switzerland — but Nature explores why Mexico appears to be the
epicenter of the violence. Mexico began investing heavily in nanotechnology in 2002 in an attempt to
develop the country's economy, and Nature speculates that concern over the environmental and health
impacts of nanotechnology combined with growing violence and political upheaval in the country may
have lead to the inception of groups like the ITS. Nature says that while other environmental activist
groups like the Canada-based ETC condemn the violence, they're worried about even more elaborate
consequences, like a future in which "the merger of living and non-living matter will result in hybrid
organisms and products that are not easy to control." Regardless of whether the violence continues to
spread, universities have instituted new stringent security measures to combat the attacks, and
researchers told Nature that they will not be discouraged from their work.
Even if Mexico adopts nanotech, the laboratories would just get bombed, turns the
case
Beiser, 12 – graduated with highest honors, Summa Cum Laude, from the University of California at
Berkeley with a degree in Middle Eastern Studies (Vince, “Who is Bombing Mexico’s Nanotech Labs?”,
Pacific Standard, 8/30/12, http://www.psmag.com/uncategorized/who-is-bombing-mexicos-nanotechlabs-45901/)//EX
As if drug-war wracked Mexico didn’t already have enough problems: Nature reports that its
nanotechnology research laboratories have been hit with a wave of letter bombs that have injured
several people. “An eco-anarchist group calling itself Individuals Tending Towards Savagery” has
claimed responsibility for most of the attacks, writes Leigh Philips. Personally, I suspect this ‘group’ is a
lone nutcase; the tactic, the obscure and narrow range of targets, and the loquacious anti-technology
screeds that accompany the bombings all echo the modus operandi of Ted Kaczynski, aka the
Unabomber (who, quite hilariously, recently updated his status in the Harvard alumni magazine.)
Anyway, this is all terrible news for Mexico’s nascent nanotech industry. Seems the beleaguered
nation has been making a concerted push to get into this field as a way to help them get a firmer footing
in the world’s increasingly high tech-oriented economy. So tell me, righteous eco-radicals – would you
rather see Mexico stay dependent on oil?
Can’t Solve
Aff can’t solve nanotech – singular issues don’t spillover
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Uncontrolled availability of nanofactory technology can result from either insufficient or overzealous
regulation. Inadequate regulation would make it easy to obtain and use an unrestricted nanofactory.
Overzealous regulation would create a pent-up demand for nanotech products, which if it gets strong
enough, would fund espionage, cracking of restricted technology, or independent development, and
eventually create a black market beyond the control of central authorities (nanofactories are very
smugglable). Note that sufficiently abusive or restrictive regulation can motivate internal espionage; at
least one atomic spy in the US was idealistically motivated. Uncontrolled availability of molecular
manufacturing greatly increases many of the dangers cited above. Competing nanotech programs
increase the danger. The existence of multiple programs to develop molecular manufacturing greatly
increases some of the risks listed above. Each program provides a separate opportunity for the
technology to be stolen or otherwise released from restriction. Each nation with an independent
program is potentially a separate player in a nanotech arms race. The reduced opportunity for control
may make restrictions harder to enforce, but this may lead to greater efforts to impose harsher
restrictions. Reduced control also makes it less likely that a non-disruptive economic solution can
develop. Relinquishment is counterproductive. Facing all these risks, there will be a strong temptation
simply to outlaw the technology. However, we don't believe this can work. Many nations are already
spending millions on basic nanotechnology; within a decade, advanced nanotech will likely be within the
reach of large corporations. It can't be outlawed worldwide. And if the most risk-aware countries stop
working on it, then the less responsible countries are the ones that will be developing it and dealing with
it. Besides, legal regulation may not have much effect on covert military programs. Molecular
manufacturing may be delayed by strict regulation, but this would probably make things worse in the
long run. If MM development is delayed until it's relatively easy, it will then be a lot harder to keep track
of all the development programs. Also, with a more advanced technology base, the development of
nano-built products could happen even faster than we have described, leaving less time to adjust to the
societal disruptions. Solving these problems won't be easy. Some of these risks arise from too little
regulation, and others from too much regulation. Several different kinds of regulation will be necessary
in several different fields. An extreme or knee-jerk response to any of these risks will simply create
fertile ground for other risks. The risks are of several different types, so a single approach (commercial,
military, free-information) cannot prevent all of them. Some of the risks are sufficiently extreme that
society cannot adjust to the risk while testing various approaches to prevent it. A single grey goo
release, or unstable nanotech arms race, is intolerable. Threading a path between all these risks will
require careful advance planning.
Restrictions Can’t Solve
Turn – restrictions on nanotech lead to a vicious cycle
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
As implied above, the dangers of unrestricted molecular manufacturing may inspire forceful and
extreme restrictions, or even forceful preemptive actions to prevent MM proliferation. Extreme
responses pose their own dangers. If carried to its logical conclusion, a policy of preventing any possible
independent development would require worldwide restriction of technology to a pre-2000 level—
perhaps even a pre-1950 level. Intensive surveillance might also be used to prevent any development,
but the required degree of privacy intrusion (at least in the absence of near-AI levels of image
processing) would be a clear violation of human rights. Thus the possible responses to MM risks create
additional risks. Even in less extreme cases, attempts to preserve existing political or economic systems
unchanged may cause the benefits of MM to be denied to those who need them most. Any MM-related
disaster could increase the pressure for extreme restrictions. A technology leak, even without a disaster,
could require (or at least inspire) very oppressive restrictions to avoid problems. It is possible that a
vicious cycle could develop between oppressive restrictions and attempts to break those restrictions.
Criminals and terrorists are a small fraction of humanity with limited resources. But if MM technology is
restricted enough to create prices that are obviously highly inflated, mainstream consumers will
embrace any means to circumvent the restrictions (as they already do for entertainment). If the
technology is restricted to the point that people are dying for lack of it—which is quite possible, given
the number of potential lifesaving spinoffs—then even governments, humanitarians, and some of the
technology controllers will have strong motivation to break the restrictions. Such widespread pressure
to bypass the restrictions could inspire even tougher restrictions, costing more human lives and
suffering. The likeliest outcomes are either widespread, long-term oppression, or an uncontrolled
release of the technology. The idea that control can best be maintained by giving up some control is
counterintuitive at first, but it's simply a case of the well-known principle of diminishing returns. Any
parent knows what happens if they try to micro-manage a teenager, and economists have long been
aware that raising tax rates too high will result in lower total tax revenue. There is not enough space in a
single article to analyze all the interactions of all the solutions to all the risks, but the examples given
here are sufficient to show that in many cases, extreme solutions will backfire. Even if policy makers
were willing to accept the humanitarian and economic losses of overly restrictive MM policy, such policy
would be self defeating. However, this argument cannot justify a complete lack of restriction; the risks
introduced by such a policy appear insupportable, and dealing with the problems would create harsher
restrictions in the long run. Instead, policy must be sensitive to a wide variety of factors, including
political, economic, and social dynamics. It should be emphasized that, although this page seems
pessimistic, the larger picture is not so bleak. The very factors that make molecular manufacturing so
dangerous—the rapid prototyping and unlimited manufacturing, and the immense complexity and
power of the products—also provide unprecedented opportunities for positive outcomes. Even a small
fraction of the raw capability would be sufficient to satisfy the world's humanitarian needs for
generations to come. Another fraction could multiply the economy and enrich every owner of the
technology. And only a small fraction of MM products are unacceptably dangerous. What is required is
not blanket permissiveness or blanket restriction, but careful administration of each separate risk and
benefit. It will take time to design and implement such administration, and it will be important in the
nearer term to prepare for responsible administration by implementing responsible development.
Privates solve
Government involvement in nanotech is bad
Sargent 2012- Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(John F., “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations
Issues”, 5/22/12, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34401.pdf)//KW
Conversely, supporters of industry-driven market investments contend that extensive government
support for nanotechnology may supplant the judgment of the marketplace by picking “winners and
losers” in technological development. For example, the size and directions of the NNI investments may
encourage industry to follow the government’s lead rather than independently selecting R&D directions
itself or, alternatively, may result in the promotion of a less effective technology path over a more
effective one. These supporters also assert that federal government funding of scientific research is
often wasteful, driven by political considerations and not scientific merit.28
Some non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are critical of nanotechnology for its potential adverse
impacts on human health and safety and on the environment. They assert that the government is
pushing ahead too quickly in developing nanotechnology and encouraging its commercialization and
use without adequately investing in research focused on understanding and mitigating negative EHS
implications.29 They argue that the very characteristics that make nanotechnology promising also
present significant potential risks to human health and safety and the environment. Some of these
critics argue for application of the “precautionary principle,” which holds that regulatory action may be
required to control potentially hazardous substances even before a causal link has been established by
scientific evidence.30 At least one NGO has called for a moratorium on nanotechnology R&D and new
commercial products incorporating synthetic nanoparticles.
Spending is unpopular- Privates solve
Crews 2003- director of technology policy at the Cato Institute
(Clyde Wayne Jr., “Washington’s Big Little Pork Barrel: Nanotechnology”, 5/29/3,
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/washingtons-big-little-pork-barrelnanotechnology)//KW
Should the federal government fund scientific research with taxpayer dollars? Boondoggles like the
Superconducting Supercollider, the space station, energy research programs, the Supersonic Transport
plane, and numerous other examples of corporate and scientific pork argue for leaving such efforts to
free enterprise.
Eight years ago Congress seemed to agree. Upon the release of the “Contract With America” to reduce
the size of government in Washington, the first Republican Congress in 40 years proposed sweeping
reforms like privatizing national laboratories and government research programs. There was even
legislation to create a Corporate Subsidy Reform Commission, an attempt, modeled on the military base
closing commission, to curb billions in handouts to private companies, i.e., business welfare.
But now Republican advocacy of science pork is back. Exhibit A for 2003 is nanotechnology, the cuttingedge science of direct manipulation of matter at the molecular level. Government wants to get involved
in a big way, despite companies such as IBM, Hewlett Packard and Intel — and numerous venture
capitalists — already taking the lead. Promised applications include smaller and cheaper computer
chips, nano-scale “punch cards” to boost computer storage, stronger-than-steel carbon “nanotubes”
with myriad applications, and new materials and coatings including responsive clothing.
The field sports its share of hype: Surely, promised “nanobots” to attack cancers and other human
ailments-or even repair cellular damage and revive cryogenically frozen human beings-remain in the fardistant future. Similarly, the proposed “Starlight Express” carbon-nanotube elevator to outer space-from
a NASA-funded outfit called Highlift Systems-belongs to the realm of science fiction.
Perhaps more representative are today’s uses in cosmetics and sunscreens, and “NanoTitanium” fishing
rods that incorporate nano-particle titanium and carbon fiber.
Regardless, the little technology has clearly reached the big time. Michael Crichton’s best-selling novel
“Prey,” the story of destructive, out-of-control nanobots is surely only the latest in pop culture’s
speculations on the dark side of micro-engineering. Meanwhile, the ETC Group, while alarmed about the
potential hazards of unrestrained nanotechnology, points out that yearly scientific citations to “nano”
have grown nearly 40-fold, the number of nano-related patents is surging, and nine nanotechnologyrelated Nobel prizes have been awarded since 1990.
To many in Congress, what’s needed is not a free hand for technology entrepreneurs to explore this
blossoming field, but government money. President’ Bush’s proposed 2004 fiscal year budget for the
National Nanotechnology Initiative is $847 million, a 9.5 percent increase over 2003. The NNI was
created by the Bush administration in 2001. In addition, the House Science Committee authorized a $2.4
billion funding program for nanotechnology, and the full House approved it last week. That’s not huge
by Washington standards, but such programs only grow.
Politicians have no innate ability to pick among competing technologies, whether nano, macro or
otherwise. If they did, they’d be entrepreneurs themselves. And they’re particularly bad at the job when
using taxpayer money. Politicians can merely transfer wealth, which automatically invites wasteful porkbarreling to propel funds to one’s home state. Scientific merit need not carry the day. But even if it did,
taxpayers should get to decide for themselves which technologies to invest in.
Nanotechnology is plainly viable on its own, moving forward on fronts too numerous to catalog, all
seeking to make breakthroughs before others. Nanotech venture capitalist Josh Wolfe told Wired that
most business proposals he sees now have “nano” in the title. Venture capitalists have plowed in
hundreds of millions of dollars over the past five years. And according to the National Science
Foundation, the market in nanotech products could be $1 trillion a year by 2015. That’s nearly 10
percent the size of today’s gross domestic product.
The vigorous calls for government research seem in part a reaction to the technology market downturn.
But we ought not look for a technology savior in emergent biotech or nanotech spawned in government
labs. Forthcoming technologies should be products of capitalism and entrepreneurship, not central
planning, government R&D, and pork barrel. Tomorrow’s nanotechnology markets have too much
potential and are too important be creatures of government.
It’s still early enough in this particular pork game to stop it before it goes any further. My Cato Institute
colleague Tom Miller put it best when asked by technology reporter Declan McCullagh about federal
nanotechnology funding: “I suggest giving them nanodollars.”
Nanotech Fake
Nanotechnology is utopian
Schummer 2007- is Heisenberg-Fellow at the University of Darmstadt, Germany, and Adjunct
Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina
(Joachim, “IDENTIFYING ETHICAL ISSUES OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES”,
http://joachimschummer.net/papers/2007_Nanoethics_UNESCO.pdf, google scholar)//KW
The discussion of the ethical issues of nanotechnologies faces three difficulties: public hype, unclear
definition and the early state of nanotechnologies. First, nanotechnology is surrounded by a great deal
of hype, hailed as the revolutionary technology of the twenty-first century with the enormous potential
to radically change everything, from industrial production to the way we live and see ourselves as
human beings, and the power to be disastrous to humanity. These utopian and dystopian visions, which
all originate in science fiction, have been reinforced by various groups, including futurologists, software
engineers, investment consultants, religious sects and governmental agencies. Such visions have
created exaggerated public hopes and fears, as well as ethical concerns, with the consequence that
nanotechnology is discussed mainly in terms of the societal and ethical implications of these visions
(Schummer, 2004b; 2005). The proliferation of such ‘envisioned’ issues makes it particularly difficult to
identify and articulate issues from an ethical point of view. Second, the definition of nanotechnology is
anything but clear. So many definitions abound that the meaning greatly differs from country to
country, from discipline to discipline, and from public to public. In addition, with the launch of national
nanotechnology programmes and their huge budgets, almost any science and engineering discipline can
jump onto the bandwagon of nanotechnology and attach the ‘nano’ label to their research. The
fuzziness of nanotechnology makes it almost impossible to identify ethical issues with the desired
precision.
Nanotech Bad
AT Inevitable
Nanotechnology is not inevitable
Jones, 02 – senior associate at Foresight Nanotech Institute (Tanya,
“Foresight Update 49” Foresight Institute,
http://www.foresight.org/Updates/Update49/Update49.2.html)//VP
Neil Jacobstein spoke on combating anti-technology memes in the fresh light of his efforts to encourage discussion and critique of the
Foresight/IMM guidelines for the safe development of molecular nanotechnology. Through his efforts, our draft has not only been
discussed extensively online and at meetings across the country, but was presented to the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. Memetic
challenges exist in this attempt to develop policy for molecular nanotechnology. In
assessing the reactions to his presentations, Neil has found that we are still fighting the last war —
the one on technical feasibility — rather than the new ones on what solutions should we develop
and how we pro-actively mitigate the risks of these emerging, powerful technologies. Anti-technology
memes include statements that the risks of molecular nanotechnology outweigh any potential benefits that may accrue; and
nanotechnology is not inevitable, and we can decide not to do it. He also hears that nanotechnology should be
criminalized in a fashion similar to certain aspects of the biotech industry or that the risks of future terrorism are so high that development
should cease. Increased accountability, better intelligence and law enforcement, and greater transparency would help reduce these
risks."The
issue is the quality and accountability of interaction, not whether we are going to have
nanotechnology," he says, suggesting that the most important thing we could do is reduce the number of people in the world who
are mired in desperate circumstances. Neil presents specific recommendations for how these, and other, anti-technology memes might be
countered or diffused in reasoned debate.
Extinction
Nanotechnology is bad- extinction
Snyder, 10 – Stanford University School of Medicine Professor (Michael, “Mind Control? Scientists Have
Discovered How To Use Nanoparticles To Remotely Control Behavior!”, July 12, Inteldaily;
http://inteldaily.com/2010/07/mind-control-scientists-have-discovered-how-to-use-nanoparticles-toremotely-control-behavior/)//VP
Are we moving into a time when the extraordinary advances that have been made in the fields of nanotechnology, neurology,
psychology, computer science, telecommunications and artificial intelligence will be used by governmental authorities to
control the population? Already, governments around the world are using the threat of “terror” as an
excuse to watch us, track us, scan all of our electronic communications and force us to endure “security
measures” that are so extreme that even George Orwell could have never dreamed them up. So what is going to happen one day when
some crazed individual actually does set off a weapon of mass destruction in a major city? The temptation to use these emerging
technologies to control the public will become almost irresistible. At this point “mind control” is still a
dirty word to many, but after the next couple of “9/11 style events” the general population will be
crying out for something to be done to ensure their security. When society experiences a complete and
total meltdown in the years ahead, governments around the world will be tempted to do just about
anything, including using mind control, to restore order. That is why some of the most recent advances in the field on
nanotechnology are so chilling. In particular, what a team of researchers at the University at Buffalo have discovered is truly alarming. The
following is an excerpt from their recent news release…. Clusters
of heated, magnetic nanoparticles targeted to cell
membranes can remotely control ion channels, neurons and even animal behavior, according to a paper
published by University at Buffalo physicists in Nature Nanotechnology. Using nanoparticles to remotely control
animal behavior? It doesn’t take a doctorate to understand the implications of such a technology. What if “nanobots” that had the capacity to
control human minds were programmed to search out and attach themselves to key areas of the human brain? Such “nanobots”
would
be far too small to even be seen by the human eye, and people could become “infected” with these
creatures without even knowing it. Hordes of these nanobots could be released into the atmosphere or
in public areas and infect thousands (or even millions) and nobody might even realize it. If governments could find a way to use
nanobots to remotely control the minds of the general population, a mass mind control program could be implemented without the general
public even realizing what is going on. Yes, this is just how scary this technology is. But it gets even worse. You see, when
it comes to
nanotechnology we are dealing with something far more dangerous than we can even imagine. For
example, if something goes horribly wrong and we develop speed-breeding self-assembling nanobots that get out of
control, they could theoretically devour all life on Earth in fairly short order. Think of the scene at the end of the
recent Keanu Reeves movie entitled “The Day The Earth Stood Still” and multiply it by about a million. But even if such a scenario
never plays out, the mind control potential of nanotechnology is bad enough. Not that other mind control
technologies aren’t equally as dangerous. The truth is that all kinds of mind control technologies are being developed. Video game makers are
busy developing games that you control not with a joystick or a gamepad but rather with your brain waves. So could such a technology
someday be used in reverse? Of course most people by now have heard of MK-ULTRA and other mind control programs that were developed
by the CIA and other U.S. government agencies. The U.S. government insists that all such programs have been discontinued. But are they telling
the truth? And what are other governments around the world developing in secret? There are other mind control technologies out there that
are incredibly dangerous as well. In fact, there are many who suggest that electromagnetic waves could potentially be used to control thoughts
and influence behavior. Think
of what just one terrorist could do with such technology.
Grey Goo
Grey goo = extinction
Keiper 3 [Adam Keiper, managing editor of The New Atlantis, “The Nanotechnology Revolution” The New Atlantis July 1 2003//cc]
The health and environmental threats posed by mainstream nanotech are far less frightening than the hypothetical dangers of the Drexlerian
flavor of nanotech. In an infamous article in Wired magazine in 2000, technologist Bill Joy made the case for halting nano-research because of
the possibility that we might wipe out all life on Earth. Joy’s article stirred up a hornet’s nest of controversy, even though the idea had been
around for a long time: the apocalypse he described was based on a theory that had first been suggested more than a decade earlier in Engines
of Creation. For
molecular manufacturing to work, Drexler’s assemblers would have to replicate themselves,
just as tiny organisms make duplicates of themselves. But what if something went wrong—what if the
replication spiraled out of control? Speed-breeding assemblers could devour all life on Earth in short order.
According to Engines of Creation, “among the cognoscenti of nanotechnology”—presumably meaning the author and his friends—“this threat
has become known as the ‘gray goo problem’”: Though masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term “gray goo”
emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single species of crabgrass. They might be “superior” in an
evolutionary sense … The gray goo threat makes one thing perfectly clear: we cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with replicating
assemblers. Gray
goo would surely be a depressing ending to our human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice, and one that
could stem from a simple laboratory accident … We must not let a single replicating assembler of the wrong kind be loosed on
an unprepared world.
Grey Goo is worse than nuclear weapons
CRN, 08 – Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing, Results of Our
Ongoing Research, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#environmental)//VP
Although grey goo has essentially no military and no commercial value, and only limited terrorist value, it could be used as a tool
for blackmail. Cleaning up a single grey goo outbreak would be quite expensive and might require severe physical disruption of the area of
the outbreak (atmospheric and oceanic goos deserve special concern for this reason). Another possible source of grey goo release is
irresponsible hobbyists. The
challenge of creating and releasing a self-replicating entity apparently is irresistible
to a certain personality type, as shown by the large number of computer viruses and worms in existence. We probably cannot
tolerate a community of "script kiddies" releasing many modified versions of goo. Development and use of molecular manufacturing poses
absolutely no risk of creating grey goo by accident at any point. However, goo type systems do not appear to be ruled out by the laws of
physics, and we cannot ignore the possibility that the five stated requirements could be combined deliberately at some point, in a device small
enough that cleanup would be costly and difficult.
Drexler's 1986 statement can therefore be updated: We cannot
afford criminally irresponsible misuse of powerful technologies. Having lived with the threat of nuclear
weapons for half a century, we already know that. We wish we could take grey goo off CRN's list of
dangers, but we can't. It eventually may become a concern requiring special policy. Grey goo will be highly
difficult to build, however, and non-replicating nano-weaponry may be substantially more dangerous and more imminent.
Development of nanotech leads to an increase in grey good- turns the aff and causes extinction
NATO, 05 – North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, “179 STCMT 05 E - THE SECURITY IMPLICATIONS
OF NANOTECHNOLOGY”, http://www.nato-pa.int/default.asp?SHORTCUT=677)//VP
The potential impact on the environment raises exceptional concerns, as nanoparticles may constitute whole new classes of pollutants. As long
as nanoparticles are embedded in common materials (as most of them are in contemporary nanoindustry), they are unlikely to pose any
particular environmental threat. However, as
NT advances in the future, larger quantities of pure nanomaterials
could be produced. Risks involve the uncontrolled release of nanoparticles, whose potential effect on
ecosystems, the environment and the food chain remains largely unexplored and untested. The most drastic scenario of
possible adverse effects on the environment - the grey goo scenario - was introduced by Drexler, and it maintains
that molecular NT would one day become a reality, and most of manufacturing would be done by tiny
nanorobots. These robots would also have to be self-replicating, and Drexler warned that their replication may
get out of control. By consuming all organic material, these autonomous nanorobots could rapidly
convert the whole global natural environment into replicas of themselves, the "grey goo", consisting of
the "nanomass". Such a scenario is also termed the "global ecophagy". Many scientists are extremely
sceptical about the plausibility of such a scenario, attributing it to mere science fiction. As yet, science does not
know how to build a self-replicating robot. It is not clear, for example, how those robots would obtain the energy to survive. However, following
the precautionary principle, one should not disregard concerns regarding nanorobots as long as they have not been refuted for fundamental or
technical reasons.
Development of nanotech leads to the creation of self-replicating nanobots, which will replicate out of
control
Howard, 02 – British political scientist and editor of Disarmament Diplomacy (Sean, “Nanotechnology and
Mass Destruction: The Need for an Inner Space Treaty,” Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue 65)//VP
Processes of self-replication, self-repair and self-assembly are an important goal of mainstream nanotechnological
research. Either accidentally or by design, precisely such processes could act to rapidly and drastically alter environments, structures and living
beings from within. In extremis, such alteration could develop into a 'doomsday scenario', the nanotechnological equivalent of a nuclear chain-reaction
- an uncontrollable, exponential, self-replicating proliferation of 'nanodevices' chewing up the atmosphere, poisoning the oceans, etc. While accidental
mass-destruction, even global destruction, is generally regarded as unlikely -equivalent to fears that a nuclear explosion could ignite the atmosphere, a
prospect seriously investigated during the Manhattan Project - a deliberately malicious programming of nanosystems, with devastating results, seems
hard to rule out. As Ray Kurzweil points out, if the potential for atomic self-replication is a pipedream, so is nanotechnology, but if the potential is real,
so is the risk: "Without
self-replication, nanotechnology is neither practical nor economically feasible. And therein
lies the rub. What happens if a little software problem (inadvertent or otherwise) fails to halt the self-replication? We
may have more nanobots than we want. They could eat up everything in sight. ... I believe that it will be possible to engineer self-replicating nanobots in
such a way that an inadvertent, undesired population explosion would be unlikely. ... But the bigger danger is the intentional hostile use of
nanotechnology. Once
the basic technology is available, it would not be difficult to adapt it as an instrument of war or terrorism.
self-replicating nature of
nanotechnology makes it a far greater danger."15
... Nuclear weapons, for all their destructive potential, are at least relatively local in their effects. The
Econ
The development of nanotechnology will cause massive economic instability,
unemployment, and collapse.
CRN, 08 – Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, organization dedicated towards the
development and spread of nanotechnology (“Results of our Ongoing
Research" http://www.crnano.org/early.htm )//VP
The purchaser of a manufactured product today is paying for its design, raw materials, the labor and
capital of manufacturing, transportation, storage, and sales. Additional money—usually a fairly low percentage—goes to
the owners of all these businesses. If personal nanofactories can produce a wide variety of products when
and where they are wanted, most of this effort will become unnecessary. This raises several questions
about the nature of a post-nanotech economy. Will products become cheaper? Will capitalism disappear? Will most
people retire—or be unemployed? The flexibility of nanofactory manufacturing, and the radical
improvement of its products, imply that non-nanotech products will not be able to
compete in many areas. If nanofactory technology is exclusively owned or
controlled, will this create the world’s biggest monopoly, with extreme potential
for abusive anti-competitive practices? If it is not controlled, will the availability of cheap copies
mean that even the designers and brand marketers don’t get paid? Much further study is required, but it seems
clear that molecular manufacturing could severely disrupt the present economic structure,
greatly reducing the value of many material and human resources, including much of our
current infrastructure. Despite utopian post-capitalist hopes, it is unclear whether a workable
replacement system could appear in time to prevent the human consequences of
massive job displacement.
Nanotech will change the entire economic structure and what to spend money on
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Nanotechnology is a classic, general-purpose technology (GPT). Other GPTs, including steam engines,
electricity, and railroads, have been the basis for major economic revolutions. GPTs typically start as
fairly crude technologies, with limited uses, but then rapidly spread into new applications. All prior GPTs
have led directly to major upheavals in the economy— the process of creative destruction . And
nanotechnology may be larger than any of the other GPTs that preceded it. Creative destruction is the
process by which a new technology or product provides an entirely new and better solution, resulting
in the complete replacement of the original technology or product. Investors should expect that
creative destruction will not only continue, but will also likely accelerate, and nanotechnology will be at
the core. What does this mean from a practical standpoint? Because of the advent of nanotechnology,
we believe new companies will displace a high percentage of today's leading companies. The majority
of the companies in today's Dow Jones industrials Index are unlikely to be there 20 years from now .
(Excerpted with permission from "Big Money in Thinking Small", authored by Michael Mauboussin and
Kristen Bartholdson.) Along those same lines, Josh Wolfe of Lux Capital, editor of the Forbes/Wolfe
Nanotech Report, writes: "Quite simply, the world is about to be rebuilt (and improved) from the atom
up. That means tens of trillions of dollars to be spent on everything: clothing... food... cars... housing...
medicine...the devices we use to communicate and recreate...the quality of the air we breathe...and the
water we drink, are all about to undergo profound and fundamental change. And as a result, so will the
socio and economic structure of the world. Nanotechnology will shake up just about every business
on the planet."
Businesses would compete for nanotechnologies development – the winner would
crowd out the other businesses, kills the economy
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
By today's commercial standards, products built by nanofactories would be immensely valuable. A
monopoly would allow the owners of the technology to charge high rates for all products, and make
high profits. However, if carried to its logical conclusion, such a practice would deny cheap lifesaving
technologies (as simple as water filters or mosquito netting) to millions of people in desperate need.
Competition will eventually drive prices down, but an early monopoly is likely for several reasons. Due to
other risks listed on this page, it is unlikely that a completely unregulated commercial market will be
allowed to exist. In any case, the high cost of development will limit the number of competing projects.
Finally, a company that pulls ahead of the pack could use the resulting huge profits to stifle competition
by means such as broad enforcement of expansive patents and lobbying for special-interest industry
restrictions. The price of a product usually falls somewhere between its value to the purchaser and its
cost to the seller. Molecular manufacturing could result in products with a value orders of magnitude
higher than their cost. It is likely that the price will be set closer to the value than to the cost; in this
case, customers will be unable to gain most of the benefit of "the nanotech revolution". If pricing
products by their value is accepted, the poorest people may continue to die of poverty, in a world where
products costing literally a few cents would save a life. If (as seems likely) this situation is accepted more
by the rich than by the poor, social unrest could add its problems to untold unnecessary human
suffering. A recent example is the agreement the World Trade Organization was working on to provide
affordable medicines to poor countries—which the Bush administration partially prevented (following
heavy lobbying by American pharmaceutical companies) despite furious opposition from every other
WTO member.
Bio-Terrorism
Nanotechnology would facilitate bio-terrorism – weapons would be easier to conceal
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Criminals and terrorists with stronger, more powerful, and much more compact devices could do
serious damage to society. Defenses against these devices may not be installed immediately or
comprehensively. Chemical and biological weapons could become much more deadly and easier to
conceal. Many other types of terrifying devices are possible, including several varieties of remote
assassination weapons that would be difficult to detect or avoid. As a result of small integrated
computers, even tiny weapons could be aimed at targets remote in time and space from the attacker.
This will not only impair defense, but also will reduce post-attack detection and accountability.
Reduced accountability could reduce civility and security, and increase the attractiveness of some forms
of crime. If nanofactory-built weapons were available from a black market or a home factory, it would
be quite difficult to detect them before they were launched; a random search capable of spotting
them would almost certainly be intrusive enough to violate current human rights standards.
Nano-Terrorism
Nanotech would facilitate nano-terrorism – one suit case would cause extinction
Bloom, 10 – Legal Analyst (Lisa, “5 Ways Nanotechnology Could Kill Us All”, Naked Law, 9/02/10,
http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/environment/5-ways-nanotechnology-could-kill-us-all.html)//EX
A microscopic bit of certain substances (like botulism toxin) is all that’s required to kill a human.
Nanotech “insects” with tiny needles for injecting humans could also be made on a mass scale. Combine
the two and you have enough tiny bug assassins inside a suitcase to kill every person on Earth. And
unlike nuclear weapons, there wouldn’t need to be huge factories to accomplish this, nor would
smuggling nanotech weapons be difficult.
Human Rights
Nanotechnology could be used to facilitate surveillance of every individual, creating
human rights violations
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
There is a possibility that abusive restrictions and policies may be attempted, such as round-the-clock
surveillance of every citizen. Such surveillance might be possible with AI (artificial intelligence)
programs similar to one under development at MIT, which is able to analyze a video feed, learn familiar
patterns, and notice unfamiliar patterns. Molecular manufacturing will allow the creation of very
small, inexpensive supercomputers that conceivably could run a program of constant surveillance on
everyone. Surveillance devices would be easy to manufacture cheaply in quantity. Surveillance is only
one possible kind of abuse. With the ability to build billions of devices, each with millions of parts, for a
total cost of a few dollars, any automated technology that can be applied to one person can be applied
to everyone. Any scenario of physical or psychiatric control that explores the limits of nanotechnology
will sound science-fictional and implausible. The point is not the plausibility of any given scenario; it is
that the range of possibilities is limited mainly by the imagination and cruelty of those with power.
Greed and power are strong motivators for abusive levels of control; the fear of nanotech and other
advanced technologies in private hands adds an additional impetus for abusive rule.
Nanotech Arms Race
Nanotech severely destabilizes international security, increasing the severity and magnitude of global
wars - no risk of offense
Treder 2008 [Mike Treder, executive director of Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and BS in Biology from University of Washington,
and Chris Pheonix, Director of Research at CRN and studied nanotechnology for more than 15 years, MS in computer science from Stanford,
"Nanotechnology: Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing," Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, last updated 7 February 2008,
http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm//cc]
New products and lifestyles may cause significant social disruption. For example, medical devices could be
built into needles narrower than a bacterium, perhaps allowing easy brain modification or
stimulation, with effects similar to any of a variety of psychoactives. Most societies have found it
desirable to forbid certain products: guns in Britain, seedless watermelon in Iran, sex toys in Texas, various drugs in various
societies such as hashish in the United States and alcohol in Muslim societies. Although many of these restrictions are based
on moral principles not shared by the majority of the world's population, the fact that the restrictions
exist at all indicates the sensitivity of societies—or at least their rulers—to undesired products. The ability to
make banned products using personal factories could be expected to be at least somewhat disruptive
to society, and could provide an impetus for knee-jerk and overly broad restrictions on the
technology. New lifestyles enabled by new technology could also cause social disruption. Whereas demand
for banned products already exists, lifestyles develop over time, so the effects of lifestyle change are likely to be less acute. However, some
lifestyle possibilities (particularly in the areas of sex, drugs, entertainment, and body or genetic modification) are likely to be
sufficiently disturbing to onlookers that their very existence would cause disruption. Nanotech
weapons would be extremely powerful and could lead to a dangerously unstable arms race. Molecular
manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons. As an example, the smallest insect is about 200 microns;
this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking
and injecting toxin into unprotected humans. The human lethal dose of botulism toxin is about 100 nanograms,
or about 1/100 the volume of the weapon. As many as 50 billion toxin-carrying devices—theoretically
enough to kill every human on earth—could be packed into a single suitcase. Guns of all sizes would
be far more powerful, and their bullets could be self-guided. Aerospace hardware would be far lighter and higher
performance; built with minimal or no metal, it would be much harder to spot on radar. Embedded computers would allow remote activation
of any weapon, and more compact power handling would allow greatly improved robotics. These ideas barely scratch the surface of what's
possible. An important question is whether nanotech weapons would be stabilizing or destabilizing. Nuclear
weapons, for example,
perhaps can be credited with preventing major wars since their invention. However, nanotech weapons are not
very similar to nuclear weapons. Nuclear stability stems from at least four factors. The most obvious is the massive
destructiveness of all-out nuclear war. All-out nanotech war is probably equivalent in the short term,
but nuclear weapons also have a high long-term cost of use (fallout, contamination) that would be
much lower with nanotech weapons. Nuclear weapons cause indiscriminate destruction; nanotech
weapons could be targeted. Nuclear weapons require massive research effort and industrial
development, which can be tracked far more easily than nanotech weapons development; nanotech
weapons can be developed much more rapidly due to faster, cheaper prototyping. Finally, nuclear
weapons cannot easily be delivered in advance of being used; the opposite is true of nanotech.
Greater uncertainty of the capabilities of the adversary, less response time to an attack, and better
targeted destruction of an enemy's visible resources during an attack all make nanotech arms races
less stable. Also, unless nanotech is tightly controlled, the number of nanotech nations in the world
could be much higher than the number of nuclear nations, increasing the chance of a regional conflict
blowing up.
Admiral David E. Jeremiah, Vice-Chairman (ret.), U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, in an address at the 1995 Foresight Conference
on Molecular Nanotechnology said: "Military applications of molecular manufacturing have even greater
potential than nuclear weapons to radically change the balance of power."
An excellent essay by Tom
McCarthy (unaffiliated with CRN) explores these points in more detail. He discusses the ways that nanotechnology can destabilize international
relations: molecular
manufacturing will reduce economic influence and interdependence, encourage
targeting of people as opposed to factories and weapons, and reduce the ability of a nation to
monitor its potential enemies. It may also, by enabling many nations to be globally destructive,
eliminate the ability of powerful nations to "police" the international arena. By making small groups selfsufficient, it can encourage the breakup of existing nations.
Development of nanotechnology would cause arms races – makes miscalc easier than
a nuclear war and outweighs
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Molecular manufacturing raises the possibility of horrifically effective weapons. As an example, the
smallest insect is about 200 microns; this creates a plausible size estimate for a nanotech-built
antipersonnel weapon capable of seeking and injecting toxin into unprotected humans. The human
lethal dose of botulism toxin is about 100 nanograms, or about 1/100 the volume of the weapon. As
many as 50 billion toxin-carrying devices—theoretically enough to kill every human on earth—could be
packed into a single suitcase. Guns of all sizes would be far more powerful, and their bullets could be
self-guided. Aerospace hardware would be far lighter and higher performance; built with minimal or no
metal, it would be much harder to spot on radar. Embedded computers would allow remote activation
of any weapon, and more compact power handling would allow greatly improved robotics. These ideas
barely scratch the surface of what's possible. An important question is whether nanotech weapons
would be stabilizing or destabilizing. Nuclear weapons, for example, perhaps can be credited with
preventing major wars since their invention. However, nanotech weapons are not very similar to nuclear
weapons. Nuclear stability stems from at least four factors. The most obvious is the massive
destructiveness of all-out nuclear war. All-out nanotech war is probably equivalent in the short term, but
nuclear weapons also have a high long-term cost of use (fallout, contamination) that would be much
lower with nanotech weapons. Nuclear weapons cause indiscriminate destruction; nanotech weapons
could be targeted. Nuclear weapons require massive research effort and industrial development, which
can be tracked far more easily than nanotech weapons development; nanotech weapons can be
developed much more rapidly due to faster, cheaper prototyping. Finally, nuclear weapons cannot easily
be delivered in advance of being used; the opposite is true of nanotech. Greater uncertainty of the
capabilities of the adversary, less response time to an attack, and better targeted destruction of an
enemy's visible resources during an attack all make nanotech arms races less stable. Also, unless
nanotech is tightly controlled, the number of nanotech nations in the world could be much higher than
the number of nuclear nations, increasing the chance of a regional conflict blowing up.
Nanotech causes arms races
Bloom, 10 – Legal Analyst (Lisa, “5 Ways Nanotechnology Could Kill Us All”, Naked Law, 9/02/10,
http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/environment/5-ways-nanotechnology-could-kill-us-all.html)//EX
With nuclear weapons the possibility of nuclear winter and mutually assured destruction kept threats
high, but actual use of nuclear weapons low. With nanotech weapons, there won’t necessarily be
environmental fallout, and the weapons could be hyper targeted. With this kind of precision and low
collateral damage, governments could be more tempted to use nanotech weapons and preemptively
attack those who might attain them. This will make attaining nanotech weapons imperative for every
country wishing to defend itself. Even worse, through use of nanotech “bugs” and the like, it might be
possible to assassinate world leaders without leaving a trace.
Nanotech causes an arms race
Gubrud, 97 - Superconductivity Researcher (Mark Avrum, “Nanotechnology and International Security”
Foresight Nanotech Institute, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/)//VP
With the advent of nanotechnology, the qualitative advances in weapons technology will be
enormous and compelling; no country will want to maintain armies that are effectively impotent
against a potential threat. Molecular manufacturing based on self-replicating systems, and superautomation by artificial
intelligence, will also profoundly alter the issue of cost. A nation's military potential will depend first on its position
in the technology race. A second factor will be its natural resource base, but most nations have
access to sufficient natural resources to support an arsenal many times larger than any which has
ever existed on Earth. Currently the development of nanoelectronics and nanofabrication,
biotechnology, supramolecular chemistry, and other steps toward molecular nanotechnology is a
worldwide academic and industrial enterprise. No country can be said to have a lead in the race to
develop assemblers, because there isn't any race and no one is even close. But when and if it becomes clear
that something like molecular manufacturing based on self-replicating assemblers lies within reach of, say, a five-year effort, it is likely
that a race will begin. Industry will be heavily involved, but national efforts will be stimulated and
coordinated by government and military initiatives. The leading competitors will be those with the
greatest concentration of advanced technology: the United States, Japan and Europe. However,
the race will also be joined by countries such as Russia, China, India, Israel, and others that have a
strong technology base, a lot of resources, or both. A race to be the first to develop and apply assemblers could be
expensive. Such a project could probably absorb the efforts of as many teams of designers, experimenters and theorists as could be
mustered. Practical molecular manufacturing systems will be enormously complicated, compared with the modest accomplishments of
contemporary molecular engineering. Although there is good reason to believe that our capabilities are expanding rapidly enough to be
able to meet this task within a few decades, it would be foolish to think that the task is one that can be accomplished by a small team in
the near term. A serious, focused effort to develop molecular nanotechnology would be funded at the multi-billion dollar level, and would
expand to a major industry in the race to develop applications. The
cost of such an effort is probably a steep function
of its earliness; thus it would cost, say, the United States, quite a large amount to gain an
advantage of a few years over its closest rivals. If the potential significance of molecular
manufacturing were well understood, a very large budget for its development would perhaps be
warranted. But in the absence of a compelling threat, such as motivated the US atom-bomb project in its early stages,
it is likely that skepticism will rule the day, and so nanotechnology research will have to prove its worth by
providing immediate payoffs. The size of the research effort will be tied to the size of the industry it generates. That industry is
likely to grow up simultaneously in several countries of the world. Another corollary of the steep cost function is that even countries that
cannot afford a "Manhattan Project" may not be too far behind the leading powers in crossing the threshold of molecular manufacturing.
Thus if the United States, or another nation, decides to pull out all the stops and beat the rest of the world to advanced nanotechnology,
and is successful in that effort, it will have at most a few years to decide whether to use its advantage to impose a world order that
prevents the rise of a competitor, or to face the prospect of a nanotechnic confrontation. However, it
seems unlikely that any
nation will ever gain such a decisive lead. Nuclear weapons will remain a powerful deterrent until nanosystems have
reached a very refined state of development, and even then it is doubtful whether politicians would have the nerve to risk an attack on a
large nuclear arsenal. Even the thought of initiating a non-nuclear war with a nuclear-disarmed but large and resourceful power, in the
absence of any immediate provocation, would probably be anathema to decisionmakers in a democratic state. In the mean time, the
potential targets will be hurrying to catch up. It is most reasonable to expect the more or less simultaneous emergence of advanced
nanotechnology in a number of industrial and potential military competitors, and its more or less simultaneous application by several
states to military systems and to their manufacture.
Even if one nation gains an early lead, it seems very likely
that, under the assumption of peaceful armed coexistence, there would soon emerge a world in
which several sovereign states or blocs possessed a molecular manufacturing capability.
Plan causes world-wide technological revolution- kills heg and resulting in world war
Gubrud, 97 - Superconductivity Researcher (Mark Avrum, “Nanotechnology and International Security”
Foresight Nanotech Institute, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/)//VP
Recent U.S. planning and policy documents foretell "how wars will be fought in the future," and warn of new or re-emergent "global peer
competitors" in the 2005-2025 time frame. It is generally appreciated that this period will be characterized by rapid progress in many areas
of technology. However, assembler-based nanotechnology and artificial general intelligence have implications far beyond the Pentagon's
current vision of a "revolution in military affairs." Whereas the perfection of nuclear explosives established a strategic stalemate,
advanced molecular manufacturing based on self-replicating systems, or any military production
system fully automated by advanced artificial intelligence, would lead to instability in a
confrontation between rough equals. Rivals would feel pressured to preempt, if possible, in
initiating a full-scale military buildup, and certainly not to be caught behind. As the rearmament
reached high levels, close contact between forces at sea and in space would give an advantage to
the first to strike. The greatest danger coincides with the emergence of these powerful technologies: A quickening
succession of "revolutions" may spark a new arms race involving a number of potential
competitors. Older systems, including nuclear weapons, would become vulnerable to novel forms
of attack or neutralization. Rapidly evolving, untested, secret, and even "virtual" arsenals would
undermine confidence in the ability to retaliate or resist aggression. Warning and decision times would shrink.
Covert infiltration of intelligence and sabotage devices would blur the distinction between confrontation and war. Overt deployment of
ultramodern weapons, perhaps on a massive scale, would alarm technological laggards. Actual
and perceived power
balances would shift dramatically and abruptly. Accompanied by economic upheaval, general
uncertainty and disputes over the future of major resources and of humanity itself, such a runaway
crisis would likely erupt into large-scale rearmament and warfare well before another
technological plateau was reached. International regimes combining arms control, verification and transparency, collective
security and limited military capabilities, can be proposed in order to maintain stability. However, these would require unprecedented
levels of cooperation and restraint, and would be prone to collapse if nations persist in challenging each other with threats of force. If we
believe that assemblers are feasible, perhaps the most important implication is this: Ultimately, we will need an integrated international
security system. For the present, failure to consider alternatives to unilateral "peace
through strength" puts us on a
course toward the next world war.
Nanotech makes countries more likely to strike – they fear the huge amount of power nanotech
weapons possess- nuclear war
Gubrud, 97 - Superconductivity Researcher (Mark Avrum, “Nanotechnology and International Security”
Foresight Nanotech Institute, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/)//VP
First strike instability. Even if two sides are evenly matched, high levels of deployed armaments
may be militarily unstable, in that a surprise attack could perhaps decimate the opposing force
before it could respond. This is especially likely in co-occupied environments, i.e. space, the oceans, and along land lines of
confrontation. Forces based in protected areas may remain survivable, but serious competitors would not cede vast stretches of "no man's
land" to enemy control in advance of a fight, and whoever strikes first in the co-occupied environments may gain an irreversible advantage.
The greater the density of interpenetrating forces, the shorter the strike time. Thus a crisis
becomes progressively less stable as a buildup proceeds. A perfect balance of technical and
material resources is unrealistic in any case, which leads to a new type of strategic instability: Early
advantage instability. If one has an early lead in a replicator-based crisis arms buildup, the fact that a competitor may have
somewhat faster replicators or superior weaponry, or may have access to a larger primary resource
base, provides another strong stimulus to an early first strike. Moreover, it is unlikely that one actually knows the
performance of an enemy's weapons or production base, particularly after a long peace.
Prolif
Nanotech development increases nuclear proliferation – countries would want to defend themselves
from nanotechnic aggression
Gubrud, 97 - Superconductivity Researcher (Mark Avrum, “Nanotechnology and International Security”
Foresight Nanotech Institute, http://www.foresight.org/Conferences/MNT05/Papers/Gubrud/)//VP
An increase of nuclear arsenals, deployment in more secure, covert basing modes, and development of new delivery systems
designed to penetrate defenses, would prolong the reign of nuclear deterrence and postpone the day of possible
vulnerability to nanotechnic aggression. Thus a nuclear power or potential nuclear power, especially one that was
behind in the technology race, might want to retain its nuclear options or even expand its nuclear arsenal.
Advanced nanotechnology should also facilitate a possible nuclear rearmament to levels manyfold
higher than those of the Cold War. Thus it is possible that the result of a nanotechnic arms race will be
rampant nuclear proliferation and the expansion of major nuclear arsenals to warhead counts in the
hundred thousands or millions — A new "balance of terror," but note that a balance is not necessarily stable.
Nuclear proliferation results in extinction
Utgoff, 02 – Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense
Analysis (Victor A., “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American Ambitions”, pgs. 87-90)//VP
In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and
that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction
possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that
will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'sixshooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather
on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.
Environment
Nanotech leads to unrestricted damage on the environment and biosphere functioning
Treder 2008 [Mike Treder, executive director of Center for Responsible Nanotechnology and BS in Biology from University of Washington,
and Chris Pheonix, Director of Research at CRN and studied nanotechnology for more than 15 years, MS in computer science from Stanford,
"Nanotechnology: Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing," Center for Responsible Nanotechnology, last updated 7 February 2008,
http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm//cc]
Collective environmental damage is a natural consequence of cheap manufacturing, as are health risks. (MORE)
Molecular manufacturing allows the cheap creation of incredibly powerful devices and
products. How many of these products will we want? What environmental damage will they do? Stronger materials will allow
the creation of much larger machines, capable of excavating or otherwise destroying large areas of
the planet at a greatly accelerated pace. It is too early to tell whether there will be economic incentive to do this. However,
given the large number of activities and purposes that would damage the environment if taken to
extremes, and the ease of taking them to extremes with molecular manufacturing, it seems likely that
this problem is worth worrying about. Some forms of damage can result from an aggregate of
individual actions, each almost harmless by itself. Such damage is quite hard to prevent by
persuasion, and laws frequently don't work either; centralized restriction on the technology itself may
be a necessary part of the solution. Finally, the extreme compactness of nanomanufactured machinery will tempt the use of
very small products, which can easily turn into nano-litter that will be hard to clean up and may cause
health problems.
Nanotech kills the environment
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Molecular manufacturing allows the cheap creation of incredibly powerful devices and products. How
many of these products will we want? What environmental damage will they do? The range of possible
damage is vast, from personal low-flying supersonic aircraft injuring large numbers of animals to
collection of solar energy on a sufficiently large scale to modify the planet's albedo and directly affect
the environment. Stronger materials will allow the creation of much larger machines, capable of
excavating or otherwise destroying large areas of the planet at a greatly accelerated pace. It is too
early to tell whether there will be economic incentive to do this. However, given the large number of
activities and purposes that would damage the environment if taken to extremes, and the ease of taking
them to extremes with molecular manufacturing, it seems likely that this problem is worth worrying
about. Some forms of damage can result from an aggregate of individual actions, each almost
harmless by itself. Such damage is quite hard to prevent by persuasion, and laws frequently don't
work either; centralized restriction on the technology itself may be a necessary part of the solution.
Finally, the extreme compactness of nanomanufactured machinery will tempt the use of very small
products, which can easily turn into nano-litter that will be hard to clean up and may cause health
problems.
Nanotech facilitates Grey goo – kills the environment
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Uncontrolled availability of nanofactory technology can result from either insufficient or overzealous
regulation. Inadequate regulation would make it easy to obtain and use an unrestricted nanofactory.
Overzealous regulation would create a pent-up demand for nanotech products, which if it gets strong
enough, would fund espionage, cracking of restricted technology, or independent development, and
eventually create a black market beyond the control of central authorities (nanofactories are very
smugglable). Note that sufficiently abusive or restrictive regulation can motivate internal espionage; at
least one atomic spy in the US was idealistically motivated. Uncontrolled availability of molecular
manufacturing greatly increases many of the dangers cited above. Competing nanotech programs
increase the danger. The existence of multiple programs to develop molecular manufacturing greatly
increases some of the risks listed above. Each program provides a separate opportunity for the
technology to be stolen or otherwise released from restriction. Each nation with an independent
program is potentially a separate player in a nanotech arms race. The reduced opportunity for control
may make restrictions harder to enforce, but this may lead to greater efforts to impose harsher
restrictions. Reduced control also makes it less likely that a non-disruptive economic solution can
develop. Relinquishment is counterproductive. Facing all these risks, there will be a strong temptation
simply to outlaw the technology. However, we don't believe this can work. Many nations are already
spending millions on basic nanotechnology; within a decade, advanced nanotech will likely be within the
reach of large corporations. It can't be outlawed worldwide. And if the most risk-aware countries stop
working on it, then the less responsible countries are the ones that will be developing it and dealing with
it. Besides, legal regulation may not have much effect on covert military programs. Molecular
manufacturing may be delayed by strict regulation, but this would probably make things worse in the
long run. If MM development is delayed until it's relatively easy, it will then be a lot harder to keep track
of all the development programs. Also, with a more advanced technology base, the development of
nano-built products could happen even faster than we have described, leaving less time to adjust to the
societal disruptions. Solving these problems won't be easy. Some of these risks arise from too little
regulation, and others from too much regulation. Several different kinds of regulation will be necessary
in several different fields. An extreme or knee-jerk response to any of these risks will simply create
fertile ground for other risks. The risks are of several different types, so a single approach (commercial,
military, free-information) cannot prevent all of them. Some of the risks are sufficiently extreme that
society cannot adjust to the risk while testing various approaches to prevent it. A single grey goo
release, or unstable nanotech arms race, is intolerable. Threading a path between all these risks will
require careful advance planning. When nanotechnology-based manufacturing was first proposed, a
concern arose that tiny manufacturing systems might run amok and 'eat' the biosphere, reducing it to
copies of themselves. In 1986, Eric Drexler wrote, "We cannot afford certain kinds of accidents with
replicating assemblers." More recent designs by Drexler and others make it clear, though, that
replicating assemblers will not be used for manufacturing—nanofactories will be much more efficient at
building products, and a nanofactory is nothing like a 'grey goo' robot. Grey goo would entail five
capabilities integrated into one small package. These capabilities are: Mobility – the ability to travel
through the environment; Shell – a thin but effective barrier to keep out diverse chemicals and
ultraviolet light; Control – a complete set of blueprints and the computers to interpret them (even
working at the nanoscale, this will take significant space); Metabolism – breaking down random
chemicals into simple feedstock; and Fabrication – turning feedstock into nanosystems. A nanofactory
would use tiny fabricators, but these would be inert if removed or unplugged from the factory. The rest
of the listed requirements would require substantial engineering and integration. Although grey goo has
essentially no military and no commercial value, and only limited terrorist value, it could be used as a
tool for blackmail. Cleaning up a single grey goo outbreak would be quite expensive and might require
severe physical disruption of the area of the outbreak (atmospheric and oceanic goos deserve special
concern for this reason). Another possible source of grey goo release is irresponsible hobbyists. The
challenge of creating and releasing a self-replicating entity apparently is irresistible to a certain
personality type, as shown by the large number of computer viruses and worms in existence. We
probably cannot tolerate a community of "script kiddies" releasing many modified versions of goo.
Development and use of molecular manufacturing poses absolutely no risk of creating grey goo by
accident at any point. However, goo type systems do not appear to be ruled out by the laws of physics,
and we cannot ignore the possibility that the five stated requirements could be combined deliberately at
some point, in a device small enough that cleanup would be costly and difficult. Drexler's 1986
statement can therefore be updated: We cannot afford criminally irresponsible misuse of powerful
technologies. Having lived with the threat of nuclear weapons for half a century, we already know that.
We wish we could take grey goo off CRN's list of dangers, but we can't. It eventually may become a
concern requiring special policy. Grey goo will be highly difficult to build, however, and non-replicating
nano-weaponry may be substantially more dangerous and more imminent.
Nanotech facilitates grey goo that would kill the environment
Bloom, 10 – Legal Analyst (Lisa, “5 Ways Nanotechnology Could Kill Us All”, Naked Law, 9/02/10,
http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/environment/5-ways-nanotechnology-could-kill-us-all.html)//EX
The “gray goo” scenario is when self-replicating, organic-matter-eating nanobots replicate
uncontrollably consuming everything around them, leaving only gray goo and death in their wake.
Picture this – there’s a massive oil spill Gulf of Mexico just like the recent BP spill, except instead of using
booms and chemical dispersants to clean it up, crews pour nanobots into the water that self-replicate
and feed on oil . But something goes wrong. The nanobots start feeding on more than oil. They eat
everything. Soon they move to land and don’t stop replicating or eating until nothing is left on Earth but
a grey goo waste that the nanobots leave behind.
Nanotech kills aquatic organism biodiversity
Donato et al, 10 – Researchers for DePaul University (Maria, Jody Lempa, Tina Shaerban, Katherine
Tellez, and Jillian Wolande, “Nanotech Particles Pose Serious DNA Risks to Humans and the
Environment”, Project Censored, October 2, http://www.projectcensored.org/17-nanotech-particlespose-serious-dna-risks-to-humans-and-the-environment/)//VP
Three types of nanoparticles are of particular concern: nanosilver particles; carbon nanofibers; and
“buckyballs,” or microscopic, football-shaped cages of carbon. Nanosilver is known to be highly toxic to
aquatic life. While silver is safer for people than other toxics such as lead and chromium, for aquatic
organisms, the story is quite different. Silver is more toxic to many fresh- and salt-water organisms,
ranging from phytoplankton (at the bottom of the food chain) to marine invertebrates—such as oysters and
snails—to different types of fish, especially in their immature stages. Many species of fish and shellfish,
as well as their food, are susceptible; widespread exposure to silver impacts and disrupts ecosystem
health. Nanosilver is significantly more toxic than lumps of silver because the tiny particles’ huge surface area increases their ability to
interact with the environment. Nanosilver has been shown to break down and leach into water systems when, for
example, sports garments incorporating silver nanoparticles for odor control are agitated in washing machines. In one study of silver
nanoparticles used as antimicrobials in fabrics, of seven nanoparticle fabrics tested, four of them lost 20 percent to 35 percent of their silver in
the first wash, and one brand lost half of its silver content in just two washings—all of which drained directly into the environment. Many
waterways are just recovering from high levels of silver introduced by the photography industry during the twentieth century. New silver
nanoparticle products may result in highly toxic levels of silver being reintroduced into rivers and lakes through water treatment facilities.
Aquatic organism biodiversity decline causes extinction
Helfrich et al, 06 – Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences at Virginia Tech (Louis A., Richard J.
Neves, and James Parkhurst, “Sustaining America's Aquatic Biodiversity - Why Is Aquatic Biodiversity
Declining?”, May 1, http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/420/420-521/420-521.html)//VP
When a species goes extinct, all the genetic information carried by individuals of that species is lost
forever, never to be reproduced again. Extinction is a terrible waste of life and a loss of potential
solutions to future problems such as possible cures to disease and solutions for survival in a changing
world. Water animals and plants are our aquatic heritage, and sustaining their biodiversity must be our
legacy to future generations. Declining biodiversity worldwide is a major and ongoing environmental
dilemma. Although aquatic biodiversity has been declining continually, species extinction rates have gone from about
one species per year over the past 600 million years to hundreds of species per year in recent times. More
than 500 species in the United States are extinct and presumed gone forever, and about one-third of the animals and plants are at risk.
Aquatic fauna in the United States are more threatened than any other life forms. Freshwater species in
the United States are disappearing at a rate two to five times faster than native land animals, and at a
rate equal to those of the tropical rain forest fauna. At issue are about 800 species of fishes, 300 species of mussels, 300
species of crayfishes, 150 species of salamanders, 100 species of frogs and toads, and 500 species of snails that inhabit freshwater lakes and
streams in the United States.
Aquatic organisms serve as important indicators of water quality and ecosystem
health. For example, a fish kill or the disappearance of mussels or crayfish from a stream can alert citizens to a water pollution problem.
Unfortunately, many of these animals have declined sharply in numbers and distribution in the past 20 years. At present, nearly 20 percent of
our freshwater fishes, 45 percent of our mussels, 48 percent of our crayfishes, and 20 percent of our aquatic snails are imperiled, meaning they
are either extinct, endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Of the 230 species of amphibians (90 frogs and toads, and 140 salamanders)
that depend on aquatic habitats, 40 percent are disappearing and alarming numbers of individuals are missing limbs; such deformities have
been documented in 44 states. Biodiversity involves more than protecting endangered species. It requires
an understanding
that most species and their ecosystems are interconnected and form an interdependent web of life that
includes humans. The greater the biodiversity, the greater the stability of an environment, and vice versa. For example, large tracts of
undisturbed forest modify their own environments by stabilizing air temperatures, capturing rainfall, recycling water vapor, and preventing the
accumulation of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases. Habitat
fragmentation (isolation) and destruction are the leading
threats to aquatic biodiversity. Aquatic habitats are being drained, channeled, or polluted at increasing
rates. Freshwaters are the most threatened ecosystems and aquatic animals are at the greatest risk. The destruction of wetlands
is largely the result of human population increases and development pressure. For example, riversides are
premium development properties, attracting large numbers of people and houses that threaten erosion and water pollution. The impact
of development and human changes to our aquatic landscapes has caused massive reductions in our
aquatic species biodiversity. Certain fish, snails, mussels, crayfish, and other aquatic creatures have completely disappeared. Others
have been substantially and continually reduced in numbers over the years. Tragically, many species are lost before we even know that they
existed. Aquatic
habitats are the areas where water plants and animals live and obtain shelter, water,
nutrients, and food for survival. Loss of habitat is the major reason why aquatic biodiversity is declining.
Many of our native aquatic habitats were lost as early pioneers cleared the land, drained and filled
wetlands, and cleared streamside forests.
Nanobots spreads pollutants to organisms and ecosystems
RAE, 04 – Royal Academy of Engineering (Nanoscience and nantechnologies: opportunities and
uncertainties’ Chapter 5, 29 July 2004 http://www.nanotec.ork.uk.finalReport.htm)//VP
Perhaps the greatest potential source of concentrated environmental exposure in the near term comes
from the application of nanoparticles to soil or waters for remediation (and possibly for soil stabilization and to deliver
fertilisers), as outlined in section 3.2. In some cases the nanoparticles used for remediation are confined in a matrix but, in pilot studies, slurries
of iron nanoparticles have been pumped into contaminated groundwater in the USA (Zhang 2003). Given the many sites contaminated with
chemicals and heavy metals, the potential for nanotechnologies to contribute to effective remediation is large. But
this potential use
also implies a question about eco-toxicity: what impact might the high surface reactivity of nanoparticles
that are being exploited for remediation have on plants, animals, microorganisms and ecosystem
processes? It is of course possible that, in the concentrations used in remediation, any negative impacts on ecosystems will be outweighed
by the benefits of the clean up of contaminated land and waters, but this needs to be evaluated by appropriate research and further pilot
studies before deliberate release into the environment is allowed. In the UK, requests for use of nanoparticles in remediation of groundwater
and other contaminated media are likely to be made to the Environment Agency. We recommend that the use of free (that is, not fixed in a
matrix) manufactured nanoparticles in environmental applications such as remediation be prohibited until appropriate research has been
that
nanoparticles might be used to increase the bioavailablity of pollutants, allowing them to be broken
down by bacteria, or that they might be used to disperse and dilute pollutants. As with the example
above, the very properties that researchers hope to exploit could potentially lead to unintended
consequences for the environment, for example increased bioavailability of pollutants to plants and
animals, or the transport of pollutants to sensitive ecosystems. This is clearly another area where more
research is required alongside the development of these remediation systems.
undertaken and it can be demonstrated that the potential benefits outweigh the potential risks. 45 It has also been suggested to us that
Air Pollution
Nanoparticles make the air explosive and are extremely difficult to detect-the smaller the particles,
the more severe the explosion
RAE, 04 – Royal Academy of Engineering (Nanoscience and nantechnologies: opportunities and
uncertainties’ Chapter 5, 29 July 2004 http://www.nanotec.ork.uk.finalReport.htm)//VP
The explosion of dust clouds is a potential hazard in industries such as food production (sugar, flour, custard powder), animal
feed production and places handling sawdust, many organic chemicals, plastics, metal powders and coal. The increased production
of nanopowders such as metals has led to questions about whether there is a greater risk of explosion in
the clouds of these nanopowders that might form during their production, transport or storage. Any dry,
fine and combustible powder poses an explosion or fire risk, either through spontaneous combustion or
ignition. The increased surface area of nanoparticles might mean that they would be more likely to
become self-charged, and be more easily ignited. In addition, because of their small size, nanoparticles
may persist for longer in the air, may be harder to detect and may be invisible to the naked eye, making
crude detection difficult. 47 The UK Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) has recently reviewed research in this area and found that
although there is a body of literature about the explosion risk of micrometre-scale powders, no information exists on nanopowders (HSL 2004).
Research on micrometre-scale powders reveals that explosion severity tends to increase with decreasing
particle size, although for some substances this effect levels off. The report recognises that the changes in the physical and chemical
properties of particles below 100nm mean that results from tests at the micrometrescale cannot be extrapolated to the nanoscale, where the
risk of explosion could be either greater or smaller. The HSL has identified the need for research to determine the explosion characteristics of a
representative range of nanopowders; they believe that this research can be undertaken using standard apparatus and procedures already
employed for assessing dust explosion hazards.
Instability
Nanotech causes political instability
Bloom, 10 – Legal Analyst (Lisa, “5 Ways Nanotechnology Could Kill Us All”, Naked Law, 9/02/10,
http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/environment/5-ways-nanotechnology-could-kill-us-all.html)//EX
If nanotech factories come to pass, that means people could potentially manufacture anything cheaply
and easily in their own homes, including dangerous or illegal items. In turn, world governments’ ability
to regulate drugs and weapons could become weaker than it already is. Society could break down in
the face of governments’ complete inability to control the flow of contraband , or as a response to
perceived government infringement of liberty if authorities ham handedly try to assert their authority.
For highly religious societies , the proliferation of “immoral” items could prompt an anti-technology
revolution that divides the world more than it already is.
Disease
Nanotech increases diseases and ruins medical procedure capabilities
Donato et al, 10 – Researchers for DePaul University (Maria, Jody Lempa, Tina Shaerban, Katherine
Tellez, and Jillian Wolande, “Nanotech Particles Pose Serious DNA Risks to Humans and the
Environment”, Project Censored, October 2, http://www.projectcensored.org/17-nanotech-particlespose-serious-dna-risks-to-humans-and-the-environment/)//VP
Yet, nanomaterials are so poorly understood that scientists are unable to predict how they will behave
and are unsure of how to check their safety. Over one thousand consumer products made with nanoparticles, which can be
one hundred times smaller than a virus, are already on the market, despite an almost complete lack of knowledge of the dangers they pose to
scientists
and environmentalists are calling for more studies. Until now, few adverse effects have been found for this
virtually unregulated technology. Yet, that may simply be due to the relatively few studies that have been done in the rush to find
ever more and profitable nanotech applications. Nanotechnology, the science of the extremely tiny, is an important emerging industry with
a projected annual market of around one trillion dollars by 2015. It involves manipulating or building new materials from
atoms and molecules; silver and carbon are now the most important building blocks. The nanomaterials are far
human health and the environment. And while these atomic-sized particles may be beneficial in certain medical applications,
smaller than a human hair and can only be seen with powerful microscopes. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter, while a human hair is about
eighty thousand nanometers wide. An atom is roughly one-third of a nanometer across, and nanoparticles are groups of atoms that are
typically smaller than one hundred nanometers. The tiny-sized materials often have unique properties that differ from the properties of their
larger scaled versions. Nanoparticles lend their success to the extraordinary, and sometimes highly unusual, properties they have. For example,
tennis rackets made with carbon nanotubes are incredibly strong, while the larger pieces of graphite easily shear apart. The medical industry is
investing heavily in nanoparticles to create precision drugs that can target specific tissues, such as cancer cells. While
some of these
new materials may have beneficial applications in medical procedures, wound dressings, and pharmaceuticals,
concerns are growing that they may have toxic effects. In particular, nanoparticles have been linked to lung
and genetic damage. In a new British study, researchers discovered an unforeseen process, dubbed
“toxic gossip,” by which metal nanoparticles inflict genetic damage to DNA, even through walls of tissue
that were not physically breached. Researchers called the finding “a huge surprise,” particularly since
the billionth-of-a-meter-scale particles appear to have wreaked their havoc indirectly. Now, for the first time, a
scientific study has established a clear and causal relationship between human contact with
nanoparticles and serious health damage. According to an article published in the European Respiratory Journal by a group of
Chinese researchers headed by Yuguo Song, from the Department of Occupational Medicine and Clinical Toxicology at the Beijing Chaoyang
seven young female workers fell seriously ill after working in a paint factory that used
nanotechnology. The workers suffered severe and permanent lung damage, and face and arm eruptions.
Two of them died, while the other five have not improved after several years. Around five hundred
studies have shown nanotechnology toxicity in animal studies, in human cells, and in the environment.
Hospital,
Although Song’s article finds evidence of clinical toxicity in human beings for the first time, according to researcher Silvia Ribeiro, this finding
could be only the tip of the iceberg of an extremely risky industry. Nanoparticles
behave unlike lumps of the same
materials—stronger, more toxic, and with radically different properties. What makes them so useful also makes their
safety so uncertain. Immediate, further research into nanoparticle toxicities and its dissemination is needed. Effects on human health
and the environment result from nanoparticles reaching waterways through wastewater treatment and
disposal sites, affecting the organisms that live in the water and the people who drink and cook with
water.
Unregulated nanotech destroys the human immune system
Dimitrijević 11 [Dejana, Department of Environmental Protection, Faculty of Security Studies, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia,
“Chapter 11 Nanotechnology: The Need for the Implementation of the Precautionary Approach beyond the EU”//cc]
The rapid technological development of engineered nanomaterials is expected to hold enormous
potential for the development of new products and applications in a number of industrial and consumer sectors. Nevertheless,
the increasing use of engineered nanomaterials makes risk assessments for human health and the
environment essential. There are numerous scenarios through which humans could become exposed to
engineered nanomaterials including occupational settings, environmental and consumer exposure. There is concern that nanoscale particles being
exploited in certain applications might penetrate the skin and possibly even escape the immune system
to reach the brain. Research has shown that the properties of manufactured nanoparticles may be different from their larger forms. This is mainly due to
the larger surface area per unit mass and probable ability of nanoparticles to penetrate natural tissue barriers and cells more readily. At present, much of the
concern is focused on “free” engineered nanomaterials and their effects on the environment, health and safety (EHS) during their entire life cycle. According to the
Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (RS and RAE) report, free
manufactured nanoparticles and nanotubes (i.e. nanoparticles
likely to present the most immediate toxic hazard to living organisms
because they might interact with organisms in the wider environment (RS and RAE 2004). There is not the same level of
suspended in liquids or airborne nanoparticles) are
concern regarding fixed nanomaterials (i.e. those suspended into solid matrices or attached to surfaces), although there is clearly potential for them to become
detached and enter natural ecosystems, especially when products containing them erode during use or when they are disposed of as waste or are recycled (RCEP
2008). Kaegi et al. (2008) found that titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nanoTiO2 ) can be released into the water, as, was the case with paints from a house façade
exposed to the external ambient environment.
Epidemics will cause extinction – most probable scenario – action now is key
Gordon, 8 – BA in Engineering, MBA, CEO of Early Warning, Inc. (Neil, “Biohazards are the greatest
threat to humankind,” Early Warning, http://www.earlywarninginc.com/biohazards.php)//SY
Biohazard outbreaks from pathogens and infectious diseases occur every day in the U.S. and throughout the world
from Avian Influenza virus, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis viruses, Norovirus (Norwalk virus), Salmonella bacteria, Mycobacterim tuberculosis bacteria,
Vibrio cholerae bacteria (cholera), MRSA superbugs, Plasmodium parasites (malaria) and hundreds of other microorganisms.
Bacteria,
viruses and parasites are responsible for the bulk of the 18.4 million deaths worldwide from communicable
diseases in 2004 estimated by the World Health Organization plus additional deaths from non-communicable diseases and cancers.
Pathogens currently infects billions of people and trends indicate a rising number of pathogen deaths
and infections from population growth in developing countries, urbanization, poor sanitation, broken
water infrastructure, reduced food safety, globalization, international travel, extreme weather, and the
rising costs of new drugs, vaccines and antibiotics. Many of these deaths are premature and preventable.
The key to preventing major outbreaks is frequent and comprehensive testing for each suspected
pathogen, as most occurrences of pathogens are not detected until after people get sick or die. With advances in nanotechnology,
biotechnology, information technology and wireless technology, new generations of low cost biosensors and early warning systems will provide
a front line of defense against the transmission of deadly pathogens. It
is easy to recognize the biggest threat to
humankind. Just count the dead, the dying, environmental damage, and economic costs.
Can’t solve health risks
Schummer 2007- is Heisenberg-Fellow at the University of Darmstadt, Germany, and Adjunct
Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina
(Joachim, “IDENTIFYING ETHICAL ISSUES OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES”,
http://joachimschummer.net/papers/2007_Nanoethics_UNESCO.pdf, google scholar)//KW
At this point the most urgent ethical issues are the possible health and environmental risks of
nanoparticles due to a substantial gap in all national and transnational regulations. It has been known
for centuries that particles of exactly the same chemical composition have different properties
depending on their size and shape in the nanometre range. This includes mechanical, optical,
electromagnetic, thermodynamic, chemical, catalytic and biological properties, as well as of course the
way these particles can migrate in the environment and through biological membranes. In addition, the
phenomenon can in principle be explained, though hardly predicted in real cases, by quantum
mechanics, for surface atoms and bulk atoms have diff erent electronic structures, and the smaller the
particle, the higher number of atoms are on the surface. However, in stark contrast to scientific
knowledge, national regulations for chemicals, consumer products and work safety disregard the sizeand shape-dependence of properties and focus solely on chemical composition. This means that a
substance could, for instance, pass the required toxicity tests for new chemicals if the tests are
performed on large particles, even if small particles of the same substance are toxic.
Of course, nanoparticles are not new. There are natural sources, such as volcanic ash and aerosols, as
well as anthropogenic sources, such as combustion and abrasion, which have provided long-term
exposure to certain nanoparticles. However, R&D activities in the fields of nanoparticles and
nanostructured materials and composites are now systematically exploiting the size- and shapedependence of properties with the goal of large-scale industrial production of improved materials.
Much of the ubiquitous talk of ‘the next industrial revolution’ refers exactly to that. The results will not
only be new materials but also entirely new exposure to nanoparticles, both regarding quantity and
chemical composition, from production, distribution, consumption and abrasion processes. Both the
new industrial opportunities and the new health and environmental risks go hand in hand, so that it is
deeply irresponsible to celebrate the new opportunities and simultaneously disregard the risks.
Because some products based on nanoparticles or nanostructured composites are already on the
market and many more are in the pipeline, there is an urgent need to define new standards for testing
the safety of these products and their abrasion and to make these standards the basis for new
regulations. In addition, there is an urgent need for the much-too-long-neglected research in
nanoparticle toxicology, as well as in methods for making nanoparticles safe by surface treatment or
encapsulation.
Control issues of new devices From lithography to molecular electronics, many nanotechnologies aim to
make electronic computing devices smaller and faster. In addition, devices for signal detection and
emission, for solar energy collection and storage, and for mechanical, electrical and chemical
operations, are being miniaturized at the micrometre level. All these technologies together provide a
toolbox for various devices or systems of devices that can perform increasingly complex tasks with
increasing autonomy, such as radio frequency identifiers (RFIDs) and systems for ubiquitous computing.
Because many nanotechnologies are involved in extending the toolbox, they have been called ‘enabling
technologies’ and only as such are they subject to ethical issues about devices. Whereas the universal
‘nanorobot’ is science fiction, and will certainly remain so forever, multi-task devices are being scaled
down from the millimetre to the micrometre level with the help of various nanotechnologies.
Continuous technological processes, such as miniaturization, usually do not pose new ethical issues
unless they transcend thresholds defi ned by human capacities. For instance, beyond the threshold of
human sense perception, devices may cause changes, intrude on privacy or build up a surveillance
system without being detectable. At a certain level of complexity, devices may perform quasiautonomous decisions that we thus far confine to human beings with moral and legal responsibilities.
Or devices may interact with each other on a systems level such that their collective behaviour becomes
unpredictable and uncontrollable.
In all these cases, new ethical issues arise if the devices get out of control and harm human beings
without there being anyone who can be held responsible. To cope with the emerging issue of
responsibility, strict regulations are required that define the level of necessary human control and the
scope of allowed tasks by devices and assign clear responsibilities to the producers and users of devices.
In addition, the development of new devices needs to be accompanied by methods and instruments for
detecting and disabling these devices.
Ethics
Militarization of nanotechnology constructs fears and devalues civil society
Schummer 2007- is Heisenberg-Fellow at the University of Darmstadt, Germany, and Adjunct
Professor of Philosophy at the University of South Carolina
(Joachim, “IDENTIFYING ETHICAL ISSUES OF NANOTECHNOLOGIES”,
http://joachimschummer.net/papers/2007_Nanoethics_UNESCO.pdf, google scholar)//KW
Issues arising from military applications of nanotechnologies Since a large part of governmental R&D
budgets for nanotechnologies in at least some countries has been spent on military applications, it is
appropriate to deal with military aspects separately. Typical public concerns are about the development
of new nanotechnologies-based weapons, particularly biological and chemical weapons and the
miniaturization and automatization of fighting and control systems, which would not only pose new
threats and undermine international conventions but might also induce a new arms race. However,
since most of the military research is actually classified, many of the concerns are based on speculation,
for which again science fiction provides a rich source of inspiration. On the other hand, because it
undermines democratic technology governance and public trust, an important ethical issue is the fact
that under the label of ‘nanotechnology’ aspects of research are increasingly being classified and thus
kept apart from public control and are thereby becoming subjects of public fears. Moreover, military
interests in R&D have shaped the goals of nanotechnologies from the very beginning, which impacts on
human values in civil society. The targeted convergence of nanotechnologies with bio-, info- and
cognitive sciences and technologies for the ‘enhancement of human performance’ (Roco and
Bainbridge, 2002) is based on very specific ideas of what human improvement means. Enhanced
physical strength, bullet-proof cloths, enhanced sensual capacities in the infrared or other ranges,
enhanced mental capacities through brain-computer interfaces, and so on, all may well improve the
military performance of soldiers. However, although these goals might appeal to some individuals, civil
societies are built on different human values and diff erent human qualities than those needed for
military operations. Thus the intrusion of military values into civil society is a harmful distortion because
it devalues moral and social values and the corresponding human capacities on which every civil society
depends.
Ext.: Kills Food Chain
Nanotech kills crucial river bacteria, which is the base of the food chain.
San Francisco Chronicle, 2005, [Nanotechnology may hold risks, scientists warn,” http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/10/20/MNGREFB1S71.DTL//cc]
The U.S. government should spend more money investigating potential health and environmental hazards of nanotechnology, a leading
environmental group says. New
types of materials and chemicals that are invisibly small -- i.e., with diameters measured
many possible valuable uses in medicine, environmental cleanups,
water treatment, energy production, technology and other areas, representatives of the Washington-based group
in nanometers, or billionths of a meter -- have
Environmental Defense acknowledged at a news conference Wednesday. However, uncertainties linger over the possible harm of
nanomaterials and nanoparticles on human health and the environment, they cautioned. For example, nanoparticles
used as antitumor agents are so small that they might slip inside the human brain and perhaps damage it. Likewise, if
leaked from a factory, the particles might destroy river bacteria, which lie at the base of much of the
food chain. Because the toxic aspects of nanotechnology remain a frontier subject of research, "our
traditional ways of thinking about hazardous materials are going to have to broaden a bit," said Dr. John
Balbus, the organization's health program director. He and three colleagues wrote an article about the potential downsides of nanotechnology
for a recent issue of the journal Issues in Science and Technology, a joint publication of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the
University of Texas.
Personal Nanofactory CP
Text: The United States Federal Government should develop a personal nanofactory
for widespread use.
A Personal Nanofactory solves nanotech restrictions better
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
The Center for Responsible Nanotechnology has developed a tentative outline for the international
administration of molecular nanotechnology (MNT). Under this proposal, a self-contained, secure
molecular manufacturing system— a personal nanofactory —would be developed in a closely guarded
crash program. The personal nanofactory (PN) would be released for widespread use. A PN would
only be able to make approved products, or approved classes of products, and the approval process
could be quite flexible without giving up too much control. Very few products, even military products,
require a built-in molecular manufacturing capability. Families of products could be classified according
to increasing product safety and MNT containment. Only unusually dangerous products would require
any human approval. At the same time, the built-in restriction infrastructure would allow military,
commercial, and societal interests to be protected. Intellectual property could be protected without
discouraging innovation or preventing humanitarian aid.
Solvency
CP Solves competing programs which would cause technology leak and reduce
accountability
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
A key to our proposal is the use of a flexible, carefully controlled manufacturing system. As described in
our Technical Restrictions page, self-contained molecular manufacturing systems (personal
nanofactories) can have restrictions built in to prevent many kinds of misuse, by allowing only approved
products or classes of products to be built. This allows a fine degree of control over the whole
technology—as long as the restrictions are not broken, and as long as no competing development
programs exist. Competing programs are a bad idea for at least two reasons. First, they multiply the
chance of a technology leak. Second, they reduce accountability and trackability, which increases
uncertainty and decreases security.
CP Solves better – flexibility
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Foundational to this proposal is the idea that no special interest group can be allowed to restrict the
technology to the point that it is not useful to other groups. Nanofactories should be widely
available —one in every store, one in every village, possibly one in every home—to maximize the
benefits and profits. Many different groups can have input into the product approval process. The
security group must be able to veto any design that would allow a technology leak. Governmental
jurisdictions will want to prevent undesired products, and different governments will have different
ideas about what is undesirable. Support of intellectual property rights will require the forbidding of
designs that violate trademark, copyright, or patent. Conversely, in order to maximize the utility and
benefits of the technology, most designs must be approved quickly . There are at least four levels of
risk. The most severe is technology leaks leading to unrestricted nanofactories. Next is massively
destructive products. Next is dangerous products. Finally come products that are illegal but not
destructive. Whole classes of design can be approved as "probably safe". Products in these classes may
be illegal or even dangerous, but undesired designs can be dealt with even after a few copies are
produced. In more dangerous classes, designers and builders, and the products themselves, may need to
be licensed and tracked. A product that released microscopic diamond fragments, or that used a lot of
power, would probably need more careful review, just as many products today are UL listed or CE
certified. Still, the "probably safe" classes provide much scope for innovation. Most of the products used
by most people today, and most of the early humanitarian products, would be considered "probably
safe". A single, adaptable nanofactory with a flexible and efficient product approval/disapproval
process appears to satisfy the requirements for usability . A well-designed process can satisfy at least
five groups simultaneously: military, businesspeople, humanitarians, users, and innovators. Each of
these groups has very different goals, methods, and outputs. The next few paragraphs will consider
them individually.
Internal NB – Econ
CP solves the economy – people would buy nanotech
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Much of society today is shaped by economy. There are at least three reasons to avoid disruption of the
current economic model. First, a sudden change in economic activities would be quite destabilizing.
Second, economic interests are quite powerful today and can probably prevent any plan they don't like.
Third, capitalism is an excellent system for optimizing positive-sum problems, and the capitalist
infrastructure is too useful to throw away. Opinions vary on whether networked file sharing (copyright
violation) threatens the entertainment industry today, but the MPAA and RIAA are firmly convinced that
it does, and have taken legal action (including lobbying) that has sometimes led to unexpected and
unwarranted curtailment of freedoms. A distributed, low-cost manufacturing system could provoke a
similar uproar. Embedded Security Management (ESM) can provide a platform for protection of
intellectual property rights. In addition to security licensing, products could be restricted to be built
only for customers who had paid for them . Since most of ESM is automated, this would not require a
lot of resources. In addition, automatic scanning for designs that violate trademark, copyright, or patent
would be useful to prevent illegal development of protected designs. (Copyright and patent law are very
complex; sometimes separately-developed designs are OK, and sometimes they are not.) As explained
below, this automatic scanning can also facilitate innovation. Consumers will want to purchase
products and benefit from the major improvements that molecular manufacturing produces. Purchasing
of designs will be quite easy—the main trouble will be finding the designs they want among the flood of
new inventions. This implies that marketing and sales will still be necessary. Much of the economy in the
United States today is based on service industries, and this need not change. Taking advantage of the
nanofactory infrastructure, thousands of design companies may spring up, and may also develop from
existing companies. With strong intellectual property protection, the cycle of innovation and purchase
can continue, producing much profit for all involved and supporting a strong economy.
Internal NB – HR
CP Solves Humanitarian relief – 7 reasons
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
There are billions of people in the world today who have almost no way of earning money. Many of
these people are sick and even dying from malnutrition and disease, but may not be able to pay
licensing fees for cheaply manufactured MNT products that would keep them alive. Global security, as
well as humanitarian considerations, demand that their basic material needs be provided whether or
not they can pay. There are many arguments that the owners of nanofactory technology should allow
free use for humanitarian purposes . First, the profits to be made from selling water filters and
mosquito netting are miniscule compared with the profits from selling high-end luxury goods. Second, if
only one nanofactory design is allowed, this creates a monopoly, and monopolies can legitimately be
regulated. Third, if billions of people can rapidly be raised from abject poverty, the global market for
luxury goods will increase dramatically , which allows the owners to make more money (the "rising
tide" argument). Fourth, both governments and charities should be willing to compensate the
nanofactory owners handsomely for a blanket humanitarian license. Fifth, innovative products
generate more money for the nanofactory owners —and to spur innovation, basic technologies should
be free anyway. Sixth, if the future owners are not willing to agree to this at the time nanofactories are
developed, they may be locked out of the development project in favor of those who will allow free
humanitarian (and perhaps government) use . Seventh, lifesaving technology will be so cheap to
produce that to restrict its use would be obscene; few individual business owners or stockholders
would actually choose to prevent lifesaving use if they were directly confronted with the choice.
Internal NB – Grid
CP Solves Grid Collapse
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Nanofactories are incredibly useful as a way of deploying advanced nanotechnology. A nanofactory
would be self-contained, and would not rely on any 20th century infrastructure. Sunlight could be
used for power—a solar electric generator can be built using only a few grams of diamondoid
material per square meter. Feedstock material is currently unspecified, but lab-on-a-chip technology
would probably allow locally available organic material to be processed into feedstock. (There isn't
much carbon dioxide in the air; using that as a source of carbon would require processing huge volumes
of air.) There is no reason why literally every person on earth should not have access to a nanofactory
and its products. Humanitarian necessities could be free to all who needed them; luxuries could be far
more luxurious, and far more lucrative for the owners and inventors of the technology, than today's
crude products.
AT: Competition
There would be limited competition in the nanotech sector after the CP
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
Once the nanofactory is invented and deployed, and products are invented and made available, there
will be little legitimate need for a competing technology. Every group that is benefiting from the
nanofactory system stands to lose some or all of those benefits if a second system arises. (Consumers
might enjoy lower prices, but would also suffer from lower security.) The potential damage to personal,
national, and international security by a successful competing MNT program should inspire almost
universal agreement that such a thing should not be allowed . Legitimate commercial use would be
impossible, so no commercial entity would try it. Governments might want a covert nanofactory, but
would not want any other government to have one; this should be sufficient incentive to submit to
mutual inspections. Criminals would have many uses for powerful, untraceable products, and some
criminal organizations have sufficient resources to finance a nanofactory program, especially since the
difficulty will drop sharply once the first program is successful, and continue to decrease with time.
Rogue political entities may have similar motivations and resources. Some amount of control of
technology in general will be necessary to prevent the criminal development of independent
nanofactories . However, a decade from now, this would merely be an extension of controls already in
place to prevent terrorist development of weapons of mass destruction.
AT: Don’t Change Current Policies
CP lays a foundation for evolving administration policies
CRN, 08 – non-profit research and advocacy think tank concerned with the major societal and
environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology and a modern, networked, virtual organization
-- with no "brick and mortar" -- a collection of more than 100 volunteers, over 1000 interested followers,
and a small team of primary coordinators with no direct affiliation to any government, business, or
academic organization (“Dangers of Molecular Manufacturing”, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
2008, http://www.crnano.org/dangers.htm#terrorists)//EX
As MNT products and capabilities are better understood, and as defensive technologies (and possibly
surveillance and monitoring technologies) are developed and deployed, it will be clearer how much
control is necessary to prevent irresponsible use of molecular manufacturing. As discussed on our
Technical Restrictions page, miniaturized MNT products allow the creation of intensive, semi-automated
surveillance systems, which in theory can be implemented so as to preserve privacy. The degree to
which such technologies are necessary will be determined by a much improved understanding of the
destructive and defensive capabilities of nanotech products. Abusive use of such surveillance capabilities
is quite possible, and we must hope that democracy and accountability will be able to prevent this. MNT
will increase the ease of such surveillance but does not create the problem; even non-nanotech
computers and surveillance devices will be quite powerful and may be ubiquitous within a decade. CRN
cannot foresee what will be possible, or necessary, more than a few years after the invention of the
nanofactory—the technology will become extremely powerful too quickly to forecast its effects on
society, or society's effects on the direction of technology development. However, we believe that the
policies outlined here will provide a means of surviving the first few years, and a sufficiently flexible
foundation for whatever changes are needed in the subsequent years. Increased technological
capabilities could reduce economic, environmental, and possibly political pressure, switching the
emphasis of many of today's issues from allocating resources to maximizing wealth. In the same way,
increased monitoring capabilities will decrease the need for intrusive and abusive police actions—even
as they increase the possibility of extreme abuse. The kind of system we end up with will be the result of
our choices. Almost anything is possible, and the great power of the technology demands a high degree
of responsibility.
IAEA CP
IAEA CP 1nc
CP Text: The United States federal government should propose to the International Atomic Energy
Agency that international nanofactories be built as specified by the Center for Responsible
Nanotechnology. The International Atomic Energy Agency should build these nanofactories and
require mutual inspection of all nations’ nanofactories and nanotechnology. The United States federal
government should not create any nanotechnology without first consulting the International Atomic
Energy Agency.
CP solves all of the inevitability claims, BUT the plan destroys the CP. Competition and US hegemonic
pursuit of dominance assures a Nano-Race and turns the entire aff
Vandermolen, 06 – BS, Louisiana Tech University; MA, Naval War College (Thomas D., Maritime Science
and Technology Center, Yokosuka, Japan. He was previously assigned as a student at the Naval War
College, Newport Naval Station, Rhode
Island, http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj06/fal06/vandermolen.html)//VP
Two strategic approaches have relevance to international regulation of MNT: a hegemonic regulation
imposed on the rest of the world by the United States, or
a cooperative regulation overseen and enforced by an international organization.
In either case, regulation will succeed—if it does—only by removing the majority of reasons nations will
have to develop “uncontrolled” MNT. The basic premise in regulation should be to maximize public
access to the benefits of MNT while eliminating independent (i.e., unregulated) development by minimizing
access to, or interference with, the manufacturing technology itself. Ideally, freely providing the fruits of MNT to the world
population will decrease the urge to develop unregulated alternative R&D programs and may simultaneously reduce the impetus for civil
and/or resource-related conflicts by virtually eradicating the effects of poverty.35 The
Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,
proposed a
solution based around a nanofactory, a self-contained, highly secure MM system—in effect a highly advanced
NT version of Gershenfeld’s desktop fab-lab apparatus.36 In this strategy, a closely guarded crash development program
would be set up as soon as possible to develop the MM expertise required to build a nanofactory. It is
essential that the nanofactory be developed before any possible competing MNT R&D program can
come to fruition. Nanofactories would then be reproduced and distributed to nations and organizations
(at some point possibly even to individuals) around the world, with emphasis placed on the most poverty-stricken regions. This
“standard” nanofactory would be the only approved MNT manufacturing apparatus in the world and would
a nonprofit think tank “concerned with the major societal and environmental implications of advanced nanotechnology,” has
even have internal limitations as to what could be constructed (no replicating assemblers, for example, except under very carefully controlled
and monitored conditions). The
advantages of this strategy are that it would offer a very large carrot—with the
stick of regulation—in the form of the nanofactories. They could act as valid tools of humanitarian
assistance, as leverage to prevent balking governments from pursuing their own rogue MNT
development programs, or even as assurance that citizens’ needs are being met.37 The appeal of (and the
demand for) the nanofactories would likely be enormous, particularly if they are produced for personal use. As
Gershenfeld has noted about his conceptually similar fab-labs, “The killer app for personal fabrication is fulfilling individual desires rather than
merely meeting mass-market needs.”38 By restricting nanofabrication methods to the standard nanofactory alone, the threat of gray-goo
replicators would be minimized probably as much as is possible.39 Of course, there are disadvantages and risks in this strategy as well. Although
widespread availability of nanofactories may reduce the desire for independent MNT R&D programs, “noncomplying” groups will try to hide
their projects, thus making compliance even harder to verify. A significant risk is inherent in distributing the nanofactories; the units will require
extensive, built-in security to protect both their inner physical workings and their operating software. Every hacker in the world (not to mention
rogue organizations or governments) would be dying to crack nanofactory security. As a possible solution, the nanofactories must be
programmed to destroy themselves if any attempt to access the classified areas of the unit occurs. This will lead to many, many broken
nanofactories, but since they can be created relatively easily and cheaply, replacing them should not be an issue. In
order for this
strategy to have a decent chance of working, the United States should not attempt to assume a
hegemonist stance and become the sole governing body of this system. Such a strategy would require a
US‑ only nanofactory development program. Furthermore, US efforts to dominate nanofactory technology
will likely result in a “nanofactory race” that the United States could lose. Europe, Japan, Korea, China, and India are
all conducting research into nanotechnology.40 However poorly the US national image is perceived throughout the world today, it could grow
exponentially worse if the United States emerged as the sole MNT superpower. Therefore, for
both technical and diplomatic
reasons, the US primacy option is not the best solution. However, the United States should play a major
role in establishing an international control organization to formulate and carry out the regulation
strategy. Such an organization would have a better chance of actually developing a working nanofactory
before competing efforts do so (although maintaining security would be horrendously difficult) as well as encouraging
international legitimacy for the nanofactory plan, which in turn would likely result in greater buy-in by
the world community. There are already some rumblings of international support for an arms-control-like containment structure for
NT. For example, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s special report on emerging technologies notes that “the need for control of these
new technologies is more important now than in previous times of scientific development.”41
Unilateral nanotech like the plan causes and arms race and insures extinction – only CP can solveevery reason why nanotech is bad is a net benefit
Treder And Phoenix, 08 – Executive Director of CRN, BS Biology, University of Washington, Research
Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a consultant to the Millennium Project of
the American Council for the United Nations University AND CRN’s Director of Research, has studied
nanotechnology for more than 15 years. BS, Symbolic Systems, MS, Computer Science, Stanford
University (Mike and Chris. Center For Responsible Nanotechnology, “The Need for International
Control” http://www.crnano.org/int_control.htm)//VP
Overview: International administration appears to be necessary for several reasons. Some of the risks of molecular nanotechnology
(MNT) are potentially global in scope. At least one of the sources of risk, the possibility of a nanotech arms race, is
explicitly international. Even well-intentioned and well-policed nations cannot always prevent internal
terrorism, and companies with strong financial incentive do not always design secure products. Each
additional MNT program increases the risk that unrestricted molecular manufacturing will fall into the
wrong hands. For all these reasons, it seems best to have a single, trustworthy, international administration
imposing tight controls on the technology. However, unless the technology is made widely available for
a wide variety of applications and purposes, there will be strong incentive for independent MNT
programs. Any successful administration program must satisfy many competing interests. Nanotech problems and nanotech
solutions are international. Both nanotech problems and nanotech solutions are international. If MNT goes
wrong, some of its problems may be global in scope. Grey goo and military nanobots will not respect
national borders. Economic collapse of any large nation will shake all the rest. Likewise, MNT risk
prevention must also be global. Programs and policies for reducing poverty must be international. Administration to detect and
prevent rogue MNT programs must have global jurisdiction. An accretion of national programs may be able to mitigate some problems and
risks, but cannot address all of them. International policies, and international bodies, must be designed and created before molecular
Nanotech arms races can only be prevented internationally. Conflict between nations
killed millions in the last century. MNT-based conflict could be even worse. Nations attack when they
feel threatened by others, or to satisfy internal political pressures including desperate domestic conditions. As discussed on our
Dangers page, molecular manufacturing can easily lead to an unstable arms race—a very threatening situation. Even
nations that are ostensibly allies may be uneasy about each other's ultimate intentions, and there are
many combinations of powerful nations that maintain at best an uneasy truce. Unless nations can find
some basis for trusting that MNT won't be used against them in unexpected ways, they will have no
choice but to develop defensive, and probably offensive, nanotechnology. International MNT arms control, with strict and
manufacturing arrives.
trustworthy verification, appears
to be the best alternative. Internal politics may drive a nation to war even when this is not a wise course. A nation that
is starving may go to war out of desperation, or a single war-minded leader can drag a nation into a pattern of conflict and conquest. MNT can
help with one of these problems—the
technology can be deployed far faster than humans reproduce, and can
alleviate material shortages for at least a few generations. Bad leaders cannot be prevented by technology, but again, the
best way of dealing with such situations appears to be an international institution that protects each nation from each other. It will require
careful design to implement a system that nations can trust enough not to engage in ultimately suicidal arms races on a national level. But
without such a system, arms races and eventual conflict are far too likely. Preventing
rogue nanotech requires international
effort and cooperation. Unrestricted molecular manufacturing is far too risky, but useful restrictions will
require international cooperation. With millions of criminals and thousands of terrorists in the world, immense damage could be
done to people and to society. Hackers, even without intending harm, could create a self-replicating device that could do billions of dollars of
damage—as software worms and viruses have done. Unfortunately, creating and maintaining useful restrictions is a huge job. Companies with
strong incentive to protect their intellectual property have failed. The DVD standard, eBook format, audio watermarking, WAP, and at least one
cell phone encryption system have been cracked.
A multiplicity of security systems only multiplies the chance that
one of them will be broken, removing all restrictions on the technology. The safest course appears to be
a single security infrastructure, designed and implemented with a maximum of scrutiny from military,
commercial, and private experts, applied to all nanotechnology that could be used to create unrestricted
molecular manufacturing systems. A lot would be riding on this system: international arms control,
commercial intellectual property control, and the continued ability to innovate without creating
unacceptable risk. In the broader picture, independent or rogue nanotechnology programs would have
to be discovered and prevented. This requires a body with global jurisdiction, perhaps analogous to the
International Atomic Energy Agency.
2NC Solvency
CP solves- nanofactories built under CRN restrictions allows for safe distribution of nantechnology and
prevents global catastrophes
Treder And Phoenix, 08 – Executive Director of CRN, BS Biology, University of Washington, Research
Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a consultant to the Millennium Project of
the American Council for the United Nations University AND CRN’s Director of Research, has studied
nanotechnology for more than 15 years. BS, Symbolic Systems, MS, Computer Science, Stanford
University (Mike and Chris. Center For Responsible Nanotechnology, “The Need for International
Control” http://www.crnano.org/int_control.htm)//VP
The technology at the heart of this dilemma is molecular manufacturing. A machine capable of molecular
manufacturing—whether nanoscale or macroscale—has two possible functions: to create more manufacturing capacity by duplicating itself,
and to manufacture products. Most products created by molecular manufacturing will not possess any capacity for self-duplication, or indeed
for manufacturing of any kind; as a result, each product can be evaluated on its own merits, without worrying about special risks. A
nanotechnology-based manufacturing system, on the other hand, could build weapons, grey goo, or
anything else it was programmed to produce. The solution, then, is to regulate nanofactories; products
are far less dangerous. A nanotechnology-built car could no more turn into grey goo than a steel-andplastic car could. Some products, however, will be powerful enough to require restriction. Weapons built
by nanotechnology would be far more effective than today's versions. Very small products could get lost
and cause nano-litter, or be used to spy undetectably on people. And a product that included a general
molecular manufacturing capability would be, effectively, an unregulated nanofactory—horrifyingly
dangerous in the wrong hands. Any widespread use of nanotechnology manufacturing must include the
ability to restrict, somehow, the range of products that can be produced.
Nanofactories solve better- the safety procedures of the CP means that molecular manufacturing
production is doubled, cheapter, self-contained, and has more benefits
Treder And Phoenix, 08 – Executive Director of CRN, BS Biology, University of Washington, Research
Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a consultant to the Millennium Project of
the American Council for the United Nations University AND CRN’s Director of Research, has studied
nanotechnology for more than 15 years. BS, Symbolic Systems, MS, Computer Science, Stanford
University (Mike and Chris. Center For Responsible Nanotechnology, “The Need for International
Control” http://www.crnano.org/int_control.htm)//VP
If it can be done safely, widespread use of molecular manufacturing looks like a very good idea for the
following reasons:
The ability to produce duplicate manufacturing systems means that manufacturing capacity could be
doubled almost for free.
A single, self-contained, clean-running personal nanofactory could produce a vast range of strong,
efficient, carbon-based products as they are needed.
Emergency and humanitarian aid could be supplied quickly and cheaply.
Many of the environmental pressures caused by our current technology base could be mitigated or
removed entirely.
The rapid and flexible manufacturing cycle will allow many innovations to be developed rapidly.
Although a complete survey and explanation of the potential benefits of nanotechnology is beyond the scope of this paper, it seems clear that
the technology has a lot to offer. All
of these advantages should be delivered as far as is consistent with
minimizing risks. Humanitarian imperatives and opportunities for profit both demand extensive use of nanotechnology. In addition,
failure to use nanotechnology will create a pent-up demand for its advantages, which will virtually guarantee an uncontrollable black market.
Once molecular manufacturing has been developed, a second, independent development project would
be both far easier and far more dangerous than the original project. The first nanofactory must be made
available for widespread use to reduce the impetus for independent development.
Every reason why nanotechnology is bad in the status quo is a net benefit- the CP makes nanotech
sustainable
Treder And Phoenix, 08 – Executive Director of CRN, BS Biology, University of Washington, Research
Fellow with the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, a consultant to the Millennium Project of
the American Council for the United Nations University AND CRN’s Director of Research, has studied
nanotechnology for more than 15 years. BS, Symbolic Systems, MS, Computer Science, Stanford
University (Mike and Chris. Center For Responsible Nanotechnology, “The Need for International
Control” http://www.crnano.org/int_control.htm)//VP
Nanotechnology offers the ability to build large numbers of products that are incredibly powerful by
today's standards. This possibility creates both opportunity and risk. The problem of minimizing the risk is not simple;
excessive restriction creates black markets, which in this context implies unrestricted nanofabrication. Selecting the proper level of restriction is
likely to pose a difficult challenge. This
paper describes a system that allows the risk to be dealt with on two
separate fronts: control of the molecular manufacturing capacity, and control of the products. Such a
system has many advantages. A well-controlled manufacturing system can be widely deployed, allowing
distributed, cheap, high-volume manufacturing of useful products and even a degree of distributed
innovation. The range of possible nanotechnology-built products is almost infinite. Even if allowable products
were restricted to a small subset of possible designs, it would still allow an explosion of creativity and functionality.
Preventing a personal nanofactory from building unapproved products can be done using technologies
already in use today. It appears that the nanofactory control structure can be made virtually
unbreakable. Product approval, by contrast, depends to some extent on human institutions. With a block-based design system, many
products can be assessed for degree of danger without the need for human intervention; this reduces
subjectivity and delay, and allows people to focus on the few truly risky designs. In addition to
preventing the creation of unrestricted molecular manufacturing devices, further regulation will be
necessary to preserve the interests of existing commercial and military institutions. For example, the effects of
networked computers on intellectual property rights have created concern in several industries15, and the ability to fabricate anything will
surely increase the problem. National security will demand limits on the weapons that can be produced. Forthcoming papers will give
recommendations for a multi-purpose system of administration that preserves commercial rights and security imperatives, while still allowing
humanitarian and innovative use. This paper has outlined a scenario for the safe development and use of advanced nanotechnological
manufacturing. Unrestricted molecular manufacturing
creates several high-stakes risks. The use of a
restricted nanofactory design that is safe for widespread deployment can mitigate some of these risks,
and other risks can be dealt with piecemeal by making many low-stakes decisions about the factory's
products. Careful attention must be paid to security during the initial nanofactory development, and
wise administration must be implemented to prevent both undesired products and pressure for black
markets or independent development. With these caveats, however, the system presented here preserves almost all the
benefits of unrestricted nanotechnology while greatly reducing the associated risks.
AT Perms
Note – most of the critique links for imperialism double as perm answers here.
Perm fails- unilateral action on nanotechnology undermines global agreements and only international
regulation solves
Bostrum, 02 – Professor and Faculty of Philosophy at Oxford University (Nick, “Existential Risks:
Analyzing Human Extinction Scenarios and Related Hazards”, published in the Journal of Evolution and
Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1 (2002), http://www.nickbostrom.com/existential/risks.html)//VP
Creating a broad-based consensus among the world’s nation states is time-consuming, difficult, and in
many instances impossible. We must therefore recognize the possibility that cases may arise in which a
powerful nation or a coalition of states needs to act unilaterally for its own and the common interest.
Such unilateral action may infringe on the sovereignty of other nations and may need to be done
preemptively. Let us make this hypothetical more concrete. Suppose advanced nanotechnology has just been
developed in some leading lab. (By advanced nanotechnology I mean a fairly general assembler, a device that can build a large
range of three-dimensional structures – including rigid parts – to atomic precision given a detailed specification of the design and construction
process, some feedstock chemicals, and a supply of energy.) Suppose that at
this stage it is possible to predict that building
dangerous nanoreplicators will be much easier than building a reliable nanotechnological immune
system that could protect against all simple dangerous replicators. Maybe design-plans for the
dangerous replicators have already been produced by design-ahead efforts and are available on the
Internet. Suppose furthermore that because most of the research leading up to the construction of the
assembler, excluding only the last few stages, is available in the open literature; so that other
laboratories in other parts of the world are soon likely to develop their own assemblers. What should be
done? With this setup, one can confidently predict that the dangerous technology will soon fall into the
hands of “rogue nations”, hate groups, and perhaps eventually lone psychopaths. Sooner or later somebody
would then assemble and release a destructive nanobot and destroy the biosphere. The only option is to take
action to prevent the proliferation of the assembler technology until such a time as reliable
countermeasures to a nano-attack have been deployed. Hopefully, most nations would be responsible enough to willingly
subscribe to appropriate regulation of the assembler technology. The regulation would not need to be in the form of a ban
on assemblers but it would have to limit temporarily but effectively the uses of assemblers, and it would
have to be coupled to a thorough monitoring program. Some nations, however, may refuse to sign up. Such nations would
first be pressured to join the coalition. If all efforts at persuasion fail, force or the threat of force would have to be used to get them to sign on.
Unilateral action on nanotech causes an arms race
Gubrud, 01 – Superconductivity Researcher (Mark Avrum, “Merkle in Spectrum: preventing nanotech
abuse Commentary”, Foresight Institute, http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/?p=401)//VP
At first we were told the targets of such "defenses" would be terrorists and small nations, but here the
description is indistinguishable from a call to develop a powerful war-making potential that could as well
be directed against other major powers. Since the US will undoubtedly not have a monopoly on this
technology, unilateral pursuit of such a nanotechnic war machine will inevitably result in an arms race
and a nanotechnic confrontation which, as I have argued here, would be unstable and explosive. Ralph writes as if
he is pretending this issue does not exist, but it is hard to avoid the feeling that he is in fact calling for an aggressive unilateral
pursuit of nanotechnic military capability by the US: Such systems are best developed by continuing a vigorous R&D
program, which provides a clear understanding of the potential threats and countermeasures available.
Disease DA- unilateral action on nanotechnology without regulations fails and causes
disease
CIEL, 09 – Center for International Environmental Law (“ADDRESSING NANOMATERIALS AS AN ISSUE OF
GLOBAL CONCERN”, May, http://www.ciel.org/Publications/CIEL_NanoStudy_May09.pdf)//VP
A very large knowledge gap exists with regard to basic understanding of the interaction of
nanomaterials with environmental and biological systems such as the human body. Estimates suggest that less
than three percent of nanotechnology funding is devoted to investigating the health and environmental impacts of nanotechnology and
nanomaterials. Nevertheless, the
existence of serious adverse effects of some nanomaterials to both human
health and the environment, including the potential of some nanomaterials to bioaccumulate and persist in the environment, is
clearly established and recognized as such by major scientific institutions in the world. Moreover, as some nanomaterials may have the ability
to travel long distances through environmental media such as wind and water, as well as through international trade, there
is a distinct
possibility that they could contribute to transboundary harm, such that countries may not be able to
protect themselves unilaterally from the potential risks. These factors contribute to the conclusion
that nanotechnologies and nanomaterials may present an issue of global concern warranting
international action. In view of the specific issues raised by nanotechnologies, an effective framework
for undertaking international action will be needed. Such a framework should be global in coverage;
precautionary, participatory, and transparent; comprehensive in terms of the scope of risks addressed
throughout the life cycle of nanomaterials; and adaptive and flexibly designed so that it can respond to
new and unforeseen issues. No such framework now exists.
Disease spread causes extinction
Yu, 09 – Dartmouth Undergraduate Journal of Science (Victoria, "Human extinction: the uncertainty of
our fate", 5/22, http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/spring-2009/human-extinction-the-uncertainty-of-ourfate)//VP
A pandemic will kill off all humans. In the past, humans have indeed fallen victim to viruses. Perhaps the best-known
case was the bubonic plague that killed up to one third of the European population in the mid-14th century (7). While vaccines have been
developed for the plague and some other infectious diseases, new
viral strains are constantly emerging — a process that
maintains the possibility of a pandemic-facilitated human extinction. Some surveyed students mentioned AIDS as a
potential pandemic-causing virus. It is true that scientists have been unable thus far to find a sustainable cure for AIDS, mainly due to HIV’s
rapid and constant evolution. Specifically, two factors account for the virus’s abnormally high mutation rate: 1. HIV’s
use of reverse
transcriptase, which does not have a proof-reading mechanism, and 2. the lack of an error-correction
mechanism in HIV DNA polymerase (8). Luckily, though, there are certain characteristics of HIV that make it a poor candidate for a largescale global infection: HIV can lie dormant in the human body for years without manifesting itself, and AIDS itself does not kill directly,
but rather through the weakening of the immune system. However, for more easily transmitted viruses such as influenza,
the evolution of new strains could prove far more consequential. The simultaneous occurrence of antigenic drift (point
mutations that lead to new strains) and antigenic shift (the inter-species transfer of disease) in the influenza virus could produce a
new version of influenza for which scientists may not immediately find a cure. Since influenza can spread quickly, this lag time could
potentially lead to a “global influenza pandemic,” according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (9). The most recent
scare of this variety came in 1918 when bird flu managed to kill over 50 million people around the world in what is sometimes referred to as
the Spanish flu pandemic. Perhaps even more frightening is the fact that only 25 mutations were required to convert the
original viral strain — which could only infect birds — into a human-viable strain (10).
Unilateral action bad- lack of transparency means it fails
Hodge et al, 10 – Professor of Law and Regulatory Studies (Graeme A., Diana M. Iowman, Andrew D.
Maynard, “International Handbook on Regulating Nanotechnologies”, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited,
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Prh_lYNgSBQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA446&dq=unilateral+actio
n+on+nanotechnology+risks&ots=bd79P9nWmb&sig=b_FgvWBxotPNQTc1hQtB1e1rQk#v=snippet&q=unilateral&f=false)//VP
It has been argued that the development and implementation of civil regulation, such as codes of conduct, is
less resource intensive and are more time effective than traditional state-based regulation (Bowman and
Hodge, 2009). However, voluntary codes of conduct are also subject to criticism. One key argument concerns the unilateral
character of the commitment that is made through a code. Usually, this approach lacks both a mechanism to
independently evaluate its effectiveness and sanction poor compliance, and the public, to which the commitment of the code are often
in contrast to
management systems, as codes of conduct usually lack explicit standards, such
commitments deal with the concerning topic on a rather abstract level and it has therefore been argued
that codes of conduct are used by industry to delay or weaken rigorous regulation and forestall public
involvement; on the other hand, however, they may well be regarded as a clear statement that certain
issues are a priority topic in corresponding company. The overall value of such voluntary codes depends
on transparency of the process and of course, on the specific commitments and their implementation in
the individual case.
primarily addressed to, is left in the dark regarding compliance or noncompliance (Bowman and Hodge, 2009). Commonly,
(voluntary) risk
Perm fails- molecular manufacturing of nanotechnology is the only way to prevent
unilateral failure of nanotech like the aff- only the CP is feasible
CRN, 03 – Center for Responsible Nanotechnology (CRN, “Of Chemistry, Nanobots, and Policy”,
Dececmber, http://crnano.org/Debate.htm)//VP
Drexler replies that, as noted in his book Nanosystems, his proposal does assert that chemistry in dry surfaces and a vacuum (“machine-phase
chemistry”) can be quite flexible and efficient, since holding a molecule in one place can have a strong catalytic effect. He mentions chemical
vapor deposition systems as an example of “dry” chemistry, and points out that, “Further, positional control naturally avoids most side
reactions by preventing unwanted encounters between potential reactants”—in other words, it doesn't take a lot of subtlety to avoid making
the wrong product. Drexler
also spends significant space in his reply talking about other design issues of
molecular manufacturing systems, the need for an integrated and targeted research program, and the
policy implications of failing to act: “The resulting abilities will be so powerful that, in a competitive
world, failure to develop molecular manufacturing would be equivalent to unilateral disarmament. U.S.
progress in molecular manufacturing has been impeded by the dangerous illusion that it is infeasible.”
**DoD Nanotech CP**
1NC Shell
The Department of Defense should increase its funding for the development, regulation and use of
advanced nanotechnology.
The DoD will solve the case better – avoids politics
Shaffer 7 [Alan, Department of Defense Director of Defense Research and Engineering, April 26 2007,
“Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development”Program http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/nano2007.pdf.]
Nanotechnology research remains a major national initiative, and DoD remains at the forefront as a
major contributor, as it has even before the inception of this initiative. Considerable scientific
knowledge is yet to be learned, and DoD guidance is critical to assure both the optimum direction of
ongoing research efforts and the optimum leveraging of this knowledge to advance war fighter and
battle systems capabilities. The current DoD nanotechnology programs represent a balanced and
dynamic investment portfolio addressing both near-term national security needs and long-term
challenges. As a part of the reliance process, DoD will continue to coordinate its nanotechnology
programs amongst the services, DARPA, and other federal agencies to maximize leveraging and avoid
duplication and redundancy. As basic research efforts in nanotechnology continue to mature, it is
anticipated that the results will be transitioned to applied research efforts and advanced technology
development in both the military and industry sectors. Increasing emphasis is being put on communication and effective transitioning of research
to technology development for the services, which will require more effective coupling between the different funding categories, and between the basic research programs and SBIR/STTR and
Also, DoD is continuing to work with the NSTC Interagency Working Group to augment the
federal program in nanomanufacturing, since this area remains a significant barrier to the
commercialization of nanomaterials and nanotechnology-based products. Current research and
development programs in support of nanotechnology span a broad range of science and technology
areas that are of primary interest to DoD. Because these programs are inherently high risk with the
potential for extremely high payoff, major advances in the application of nanotechnology to the military
are often unpredictable (particularly when attempting to assess basic research and early applied research efforts). For this reason, it is critical to maintain a stable (relative
to the overall DoD research and development budget) and strategic (relative to the worldwide investment) nanotechnology research and development
investment portfolio in order to identify and capture the critical technological breakthroughs needed to
provide revolutionary advantages for war fighter and battle systems capabilities. It is essential that
breakthroughs in nanotechnology be exploited for these capabilities, but also that DoD’s support for
highly adaptive and innovative research and development (which helped conceive the current
international nanotechnology focus) not be restricted by a singular focus on nanotechnology (or any
other single area). 1. Fundamental Nanoscale Phenomena and Processes: Sustained support is
recommended to ensure the discovery of new phenomena and processes necessary for breakthrough
advantages in DoD systems, particularly in the areas of: chemical/biological sensing; electronic phenomena; and energetics. 2. Nanomaterials: Sustained support and
MANTECH programs.
increased attention is recommended to realize strategies for robust incorporation and design of nanoscale phenomena into advanced materials for a broad spectrum of revolutionary target
Significant barriers continue to persist between the discovery of promising nanoscale
phenomena and the realization of novel (particularly bulk) materials properties based on these
phenomena. 3. Nanoscale Devices and Systems: Sustained support is recommended to assure the
continual development of novel devices and systems to enhance DoD capabilities, particularly in the
areas of: chemical/biological defense; information technology; energy storage; multifunctional materials
and devices; and health monitoring and sensing. 4. Instrumentation Research, Metrology, and Standards
for Nanotechnology: Sustained support is recommended to ensure appropriate involvement, guidance,
and leveraging by DoD in this area to enhance research and development progress in all other
applications.
component areas. 5. Nanomanufacturing: Increased support is recommended by means of the SBIR/STTR and MANTECH programs in order to facilitate
transitioning and a sufficient supply of materials and devices for defense technologies. While the SBIR/STTR programs have demonstrated significant support for nanotechnology-based
products during the past few years, further increases in SBIR/STTR activities and significant MANTECH investments are strongly encouraged in order to achieve the greatest success. 6. Major
Sustained support is recommended to ensure continual development of
advanced instrumentation and opportunities for leveraging of unique capabilities in these areas by other
agencies. 7. Societal Dimensions: Sustained support is recommended to assure the health and safety of
war fighters utilizing future nanotechnology-based applications, particularly in terms of the newly
formed Nanomaterials Working Group under the Emerging Contaminant Governance Board, in order
address emerging international attention on the potential environmental health and safety effects of
nanotechnology. Additionally, this working group is expected to enhance DoD’s ability to collaborate with other agencies in this area, to leverage the investments and expertise of
Research Facilities and Instrumentation Acquisition:
major health agencies worldwide, to identify potential health risks, and to implement optimal and appropriate safety practices for both war fighters and defense product developers.
And, the DoD is funding Nanotech now but it is nowhere near the amount it needs to actually be an
asset.
Berger 2006 (Nanowerk LLC, “Military nanotechnology - how worried should we be?”,
http://www.nanowerk.com/spotlight/spotid=1015.php, Nanowerk spotlight)
All major powers are making efforts to research and develop nanotechnology- based materials and
systems for military use. Asian and European countries, with the exception of Sweden (Swedish Defence Nanotechnology
Programme), do not run dedicated programs for defense nanotechnology research. Rather, they integrate
several nanotechnology-related projects within their traditional defense-research structures, e.g., as
materials research, electronic devices research, or bio-chemical protection research. Not so the U.S.
military. Stressing continued technological superiority as its main strategic advantage, it is determined
to exploit nanotechnology for future military use and it certainly wants to be No. 1 in this area. The U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) is a major investor, spending well over 30% of all federal investment dollars in nanotechnology. Of the $352m spent on nanotech by
the DoD in 2005, $1m, or roughly 0.25%, went into research dealing with potential health and environmental risks. In 2006, estimated DoD nanotechnology
expenditures will be $436m – but the risk-related research stays at $1m. Proposed and actively pursued military nanotech programs cover a wide range of
applications to improve the performance of existing systems and materials and allow new ones. The main areas of research deal with explosives (their chemical
composition as well as their containment); bio and medicine (for both injury treatment and performance enhancement); biologic al and chemical sensors;
electronics for computing and information; power generation and storage; structural materials for ground, air and naval vehicles; coatings; filters; and fabrics.
Most of the DoD dollars spent to date have gone into basic research and engineering. Insofar as these
engineering and materials aspects of military nanotechnology incorporate engineered nanomaterials,
there are near-term issues that need to be discussed and resolved: the potential toxicity of such
materials (which applies to all engineered nanomaterials, not just those for military use), their impact on humans and the
environment, and if and how release of such nanomaterials into the environment through military use
could exceed release from non-military uses.
2NC Overview
DoD can solve for Nanotechnology – highly adaptive and multidisciplinary teams
Shaffer 7 [Alan, Department of Defense Director of Defense Research and Engineering, April 26 2007,
“Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development”Program
http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/nano2007.pdf.]
The DoD nanotechnology program is a direct result of sustained support for highly adaptive and
innovative research and development programs within the department of defense. These sustained
research and development programs (which include basic research, applied research, and advanced technology development
efforts) led to the establishment of nanotechnology as a major research thrust internationally. Furthermore, the DoD nanotechnology research
and development program is defined as the assembly of individual efforts within the overall DoD research and development program that are
categorized as nanotechnology (i.e.,
according to the objectives defined previously in this report).
Nanotechnology research and development efforts are carried out both within the DoD laboratories,
and in extramural research institutions. In both contexts, nanotechnology efforts may be directed by
single investigators, multidisciplinary teams, or research centers. Single investigator research represents
a critical component of the DoD research program and is critical to the continued inception and maturation of
high risk innovative scientific concepts that will lead to breakthroughs in science and engineering (including nanotechnology).
Multidisciplinary teams at the intersections of traditional disciplines provide an optimal means of
developing the necessary understanding of nanoscale phenomena and identifying promising
applications. Research centers provide sustained support and a broad range of expertise focused on key
opportunities emerging from nanotechnology research.
That is key to regulate nanotechnology
Karkkainen 11 , University of Minnesota professor,
Bradley C. Karkkainen, University of Minnesota faculty in January 2004 at the rank of Professor. He held
the Julius E. Davis Chair in Law in 2004, former Associate Professor at Columbia Law School, 1-11-11,
[“Does nanobiotechnology oversight present a uniquely complex challenge to interagency cooperation?,”
SPECIAL FOCUS: GOVERNANCE OF NANOBIOTECHNOLOGY,
www.springerlink.com/index/R6178257PJ106721.pdf] E. Li
Apart from the particular problems of the TSCA statutory scheme, however, the difficulty of regulating toxic or potentially toxic substances has
proven to be pervasive across the span of U.S. environmental law. The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, for example, have long included
provisions addressing toxic pollutants. Originally these statutes employed a health-based approach, instructing EPA to set regulatory standards
strictly on the basis of health effects. But the information demands of this approach proved insurmountable, as the agency was able to
assemble sufficiently detailed and comprehensive health effects information for only a small handful of toxic pollutants. In frustration, Congress
abandoned the health-based approach and ordered EPA to adopt technology-based regulations for toxic pollutants, something the agency had
proven more adept at doing (Farber 2000). While some have criticized what they perceive to be agency foot-dragging, the more fundamental
problem is that toxicological science is often incomplete and frustratingly slow to develop, leaving huge uncertainties. The authors
may be reasonably confident that a pollutant is toxic at some level of exposure, but the detailed data required to establish and defend a
regulatory standard at any particular level may take substantial investments of time and money to produce (Lyndon 1989). In short,
are quickly overwhelmed by the information production
burden they face. These problems are compounded by the fragmented nature of the present regulatory system.
uncertainties and data gaps abound, and regulatory agencies
The Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) bears primary responsibility for regulating toxic substances in the workplace; the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates potentially toxic food additives, drugs, and cosmetic products; the Consumer Product Safety
Commission (CPSC) regulates toxic substances in most other consumer products; and the EPA regulates toxic air and water pollutants,
hazardous waste disposal and clean-up, toxic spills, pesticides, and toxic contaminants of public water supplies. Even within EPA, however,
separate offices administer the various statutes addressing particular aspects of toxic substances, each office applying a unique set of statutory
is generally little coordination among these various programs within EPA, and
almost no coordination across the span of federal agencies responsible for parts of the toxic substances puzzle.
standards and definitions. There
Research compiled for purposes of setting discharge standards for a toxic water pollutant, for example, will probably have little or no relevance
for purposes of setting workplace exposure limits or product safety rules. The statutes use different definitions and require
agencies to consider different factors and to regulate, if at all, under different circumstances and in different ways. Thus, the
difficulty that any particular agency or program office faces in setting regulatory standards for toxic substances is compounded by
a vast redundancy of effort across the federal bureaucracy. Under these arrangements, relatively few toxic substances get regulated,
but those that do may be regulated six or eight times under six or eight unique regulatory programs, each designed with a narrow
purpose in mind, with no thought given to how the pieces interact so as to form a coherent whole. The regulatory system described
here is characterized by uncertainty, complexity, regulatory gaps, multiple regulatory authorities, and lack of interagency and
inter-program
coordination.
If those features sound strikingly similar to the situation described by commentators on nanobiotechnology
governance and oversight, it is no accident. Indeed, a case can be made that the problems of nano-bio governance and oversight are simply the
problems of toxic regulation writ small, but on a ‘‘nano’’ scale. Scale does add some unique features. Nanoparticles are more difficult to detect,
and releases of and exposures to nanoparticles are likely to be in extremely small volumes. Those complications aside, however, the
fundamental characteristics of uncertainty, complexity, regulatory gaps, and lack of interagency and inter-program coordination
apply with equal force to nano-scale as they do to largerscale toxic substances. If the thesis of this article—that regulation of
nanobiotechnology is essentially just the problem of regulating potentially toxic substances on a smaller scale—is correct, then we should
be able to apply some useful lessons from the last several decades of toxics regulation to nanobiotechnology regulation.
Unfortunately, however, the system of toxics regulation has been only modestly and sporadically successful. It is beyond the scope of this
article to offer a comprehensive assessment, but three important developments are worth noting briefly.
Investing in the Nanotech industry will keep us on the forefront of technological leadership both at
home and in the military.
National Defense University 2004
(Fort Nair Washington D.C, Final report of strategic materials, written by several qualified generals)
Although composite materials are a world wide industry, the U.S is generally regarded as a world leader.
The 5,350 processing facilities in the U.S produced $22 billion in output in 2002. Advanced composites
are already extremely important to the defense industry and will be even more critical in the future
because they offer the greatest strength and stiffness-to-weight ratio among all engineering materials.
Composites are expected to be a key enabler in the development of lighter and more mobile forces. They also offer the simplest route for
embedded sensors, actuators and other elements, thus providing much sought after muti-functionality. Revolutionary advances in composites
are expected to occur from the use of nanotechnology, wireless technology and self-healing technology mechanisms. Provided that the cost of
manufacturing composites continue to decline, composites could replace steel and aluminum as the primary materials in manufacturing,
transportation and construction. Nanotechnology is the ability to work at the molecular level, atom by atom, to create structures with a
The impact of nanotechnology on
products and manufacturing processes seems to be huge. Nanotechnology could represent a $1 trillion
market and generate over 2 million new jobs worldwide, including 800,000 to 900,00 jobs within the U.S
by 2015. The major industries affected will be materials, pharmaceuticals, chemical manufacturing, aerospace, tools, healthcare and
fundamentally new molecular structure and exploit novel properties exhibited at the nanoscale.
electronics. In electronics, carbon-based nanomaterial could replace silicon as the base building block for chips and circuit boards.
Nanotechnology will significantly enhance the militaries capabilities resulting in chemical-biological
warfare sensors with improved detection sensitivity and selectivity. Carbon nanotubes are 100 times
stronger then Kevlar. This will result in stronger and lighter-weight protective armor for the warrior and
reduced weight, greater strength and enhanced stealth for platforms and weapons. Lastly,
nanotechnology will lead to the miniaturization of platforms from unmanned vehicles to miniature
satellites capable of increased endurance and range.
2NC Politics
Republicans won’t fight over nanotech decision if there is cooperation with the military – normal
nanotech is spun as “environmentally helpful” which decreases republican interest
Political Center 12 [ Political Center Newsvine, Jan 26, 2012 “Nanotechnology and the 2012 Presidential
Election: Which Candidate is Better Prepared to Lead the World in Dealing with this Dangerous
Technology?” http://politicalcenter.newsvine.com/_news/2012/01/26/10239853-nanotechnology-andthe-2012-presidential-election-which-candidate-is-better-prepared-to-lead-the-world-in-dealing-withthis-dangerous-technology]
The Obama Administration is doing its part to further the goal of continual expansion of technology and
its uses. The United States remains a leader in this arena, with many areas on display. According to
President Obama's State of the Union speech two nights ago, science and technology are a centerpiece
of his Administration. Obama's shift from a military budget to one that reinvests in technology is a sign
that might signal more applications in other areas that will help the fight to save our planet. Yet, neither
Obama or his past, existing and proposed investments have done much about the dangers of
nanotechnology. Indeed, as seen below, his changes to the budget for nanotechnology investment may
show a predilection in the opposite direction at least for the dangers of this technology. The
environmental and other dangers of nanotechnology are well-documented. The most recent study on
this question, released yesterday by the National Nanotechnology Initiative started by George W. Bush,
indicates more study is still needed. This follows a 2008 report indicating the same thing. Why has
Obama not acted more aggressively regarding this potentially dangerous technology? More impor
No scrutiny – Congress defers military decisions to the DOD
Johnson-Freese 2004 (Joan Johnson-Freese, Chair, Department of National Security Decision Making, Naval War College. Former Chair, Department of
Transnational Studies, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, “Congress and Space Policy,” Space Regulations Library Series, 2004, Volume 2, Part Two, 79-103,
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k3g1u768352p2511/)
The point is that all civil space programs usually run this political gauntlet regardless of their merits.
Congress has shown willingness over time, as the space program has matured, to change its mind
repeatedly as other issues are placed on the public policy agenda. The result is a space program driven
by high anxiety about congressional reactions leading to concealment as a strategy for NASA to avoid
congressional interference in policy formulation and implementation. Unfortunately, when the
concealment is exposed, the situation becomes worse because no one in Congress then believes the
affected agency and the tendency for congressional oversight and micromanagement is strengthened.5
The overall lack of interest in civil space matters is countered by congressional reluctance to interfere
with the defense budget. As long as certain key members of Congress are satisfied, the defense space
area has been relatively immune to congressional involvement. Rather, the President normally makes
the defining decisions; congressional critics have an uphill battle and often require dissidence within the
Department of Defense (DOD) to be successful.
DoD shields funding – Makes up inflation figures for extra budget
Wheeler ’11, Winslow T. Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, 5-11, [“Navigating the Pentagon’s Inflation Labyrinth:
Growth and Provokes Excess Spending,” Center for Defense Information, http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/GreenbookInflationMay11.pdf] E. Liu
DOD’s Budget Bible Hides
The Pentagon uses a specially tailored measure of inflation that masks past budget growth and induces
Congress to appropriate excess funding for inflation that the most commonly accepted inflation index says will not occur. The Pentagon
budget analysts’ bible, the so-called Green Book, records several DOD- tailored measures of inflation, along with the widely
accepted GDP inflation index. While flawed, the GDP measure is used throughout government and the private sector and – for the purposes of this paper – is
analytically conservative. A comparative analysis of the data in the Green Book reveals that: • From 2000 to 2012 the Pentagon
received an
additional $164 billion in “real” growth that the GDP deflator does not justify. • Historically, the Pentagon has reaped
substantially more “real” budget increases than most public DOD budget analysts would recognize. For example, the
official Pentagon budget numbers assert that for fiscal year 2012 DOD will spend $124 billion more than we spent on average during the Cold War. The GDP index
reveals that we will actually spend from $224 billion to $342 billion more in 2012 than during the average Cold War year. After such huge amounts of additional
annual spending, we now have a military force structure that is smaller and older than during any point during the Cold War – even smaller and older than after
The Pentagon’s self-serving inflation index does not just distort budget history, it induces
Congress to appropriate money to the Pentagon for inflation that will not occur, according to the widely accepted GDP index.
the build-down after the Cold War. •
In the years 2013 to 2016, DOD seeks a minimum of $23 billion more than the GDP measure can justify. • The over-estimation of inflation grows much larger
when considering long term deficit reduction. Over the next 12 years, President Obama proposes to “save” $400 billion in “security” spending, including DOD. An
extrapolation of data available from DOD and OMB shows that $167 billion of the “savings,” or 62 percent of DOD’s share of the $400 billion, is for phantom
inflation.
tantly, why is this now being dramatically expanded in the face of these continuing dangers? There are
few guideposts on the other Presidential contenders positions on the environment. Republicans in
Congress and current Republican presidential candidates arguably have shown a stronger bias toward
corporate incentives and the military which can be presumed to include the expansion of technology.
But for this technology and most other environmental issues, none of the candidates or the president
pass muster. While many remember President George W. Bush's interactions with science that
Democrats regularly assailed, such as his position on human embryo research and uses and evolution,
few know that he followed President Bill Clinton's lead in promoting United States research and
incentives for the development of nanotechnology
They Say “Military Tech Bad”
1. Extend from the 1AC that “defensive military nanotech will solve for a nano race” – they agree that
the plan is a good idea
Military tech good:
a. solves bioweapon attacks
John Robert Marlow, freelance journalist, nanotech author, member of the Scientific Advisory Board,
April 04 (“Nanosecurity and the Future (if Any)” NanoNews Now Monthly Report,
http://www.johnrobertmarlow.com/sa__art--nanosecurity%20and%20the%20future%20if%20any.html)
Dan Ratner, co-author of Nanotechnology and Homeland Security, emphasizes important but more
prosaic defense-related uses for nanotech: "Airport security stations still have no ability to detect
chemical or biological weapons or even some exotic explosives. Detection systems usually consist of
metal detectors coupled with nitrogen sniffers and some basic chemical analysis via a swab test.
Nanotechnology techniques involving DNA-barcode sensors, metal square sensors, quantum size-effect
based sensors, and lab-on-a-chip technology will change that. Within just a few years it will be possible
to detect an entire library of chemical and biological threats affordably and in real-time. This technology
will protect airports, container ports, and subways and will also have dual-use applications in medical
diagnosis."
b. key to prevent nanowars and super-oppression
Brian Wang, degree in computer science and an MBA (from Canadian universities) and Senior Associate
at the Foresight Insititute, 5-8-06 (“Considering Military and Ethical Implications of Nanofactory Level
Nanotechnology” Nanotechnology Perceptions: A Review of Ultraprecision Engineering and
Nanotechnology, Vol. 2, No. 2, May 8, 2006
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0672.html?printable=1)
The powerful technologies that are being developed could rapidly shift military balances of power.
Nations cannot assume that their existing weapons inventory provides assured security. A lead in
current technology, even current nanotechnologies, does not guarantee a lead with molecular
manufacturing. The future balance of power will be determined by a nation's level of development with
advanced nanotechnology, as well as space capabilities and other new technologies that will be
augmented by nanofactory technology. Nations without a molecular manufacturing capability will be at
the mercy of opponents with the technology. Nanotechnology can shift the motivations and rational
calculation for war. For example, if nanotechnology makes a nation's economy grow at 24% per year,
then in three years that nation will have twice as much stuff; they would have less incentive to attack an
equal size opponent and try to take their stuff. Attacking an opponent brings in elements of risk and
costs. With such large gains in the near future, rational groups should not want or need to engage in
violent conflict for economic gain. Other differences between groups that lead to conflict need to be
addressed to prevent violent conflict. Genocide and super-oppression become technically easier with
nanotechnology. Therefore, it is more important than ever for all people to work together toward
peaceful resolution of differences and to keep those who would try to initiate atrocities in check. The
economic bounty and other benefitsxvi that nanotechnology could provide should be used by farsighted
nations to reduce the motivations for conflict.
c. While military nanotech might have some negative outcomes – there is no way to prevent the
development of nanotech – trying to reach the top first is the only option
John Robert Marlow, freelance journalist, nanotech author, member of the Scientific Advisory Board,
April 04 (“Nanosecurity and the Future (if Any)” NanoNews Now Monthly Report,
http://www.johnrobertmarlow.com/sa__art--nanosecurity%20and%20the%20future%20if%20any.html)
Bill Joy states a case for abandonment in Why The Future Doesn't Need Us and his follow-up piece Act
Now to Keep New Technologies Out of Destructive Hands. His conclusion: "These technologies are too
powerful to be shielded against in the time frame of interest; even if it were possible to implement
defensive shields, the side effects of their development would be at least as dangerous as the
technologies we are trying to protect against." He continues: "These [defense] possibilities are all thus
either undesirable or unachievable or both. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to limit
development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of certain kinds of
knowledge."
"Relinquishment," counters James Hughes in Relinquishment or Regulation: Dealing with Apocalyptic
Technological Threats, "is impossible because the benefits of the technology will create enormous
corporate, citizen and patient constituencies for their development. The Third World will never agree to
ban technologies which promise economic development. Attempts to ban beneficial research will
therefore drive research underground, making it more difficult to regulate." CRN's Chris Phoenix agrees.
"Many nations are already spending millions on basic nanotechnology;" he notes, "within a decade,
advanced nanotech will likely be within the reach of large corporations. It can't be outlawed worldwide.
And if the most risk-aware countries stop working on it, then the less responsible countries are the ones
that will be developing it and dealing with it. Besides, legal regulation may not have much effect on
covert military programs."
States CP
States CP 1nc
Text: The 50 United States and relevant U.S. territories should (insert plan mandates).
States can solve
Nordan, 05 – VP of Research at Lux Research, Inc., (Matthew M.,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm)//VP
As the NNAP report notes, the states are playing an increasing role in nanotechnology. In 2004, State funding for
nanotechnology-related projects was $400 million, or approximately 40 percent of the total federal
investment. To date, State funding for nanotechnology has been focused on infrastructure— particularly
the construction of new facilities—with some research support being provided in the form of matching
funds to public universities that receive federal research dollars. In addition to receiving State support, universities and
national laboratories also leverage federal investments through industry contributions of funds or in-kind donations of equipment and
The NNAP report lists 15 examples of nanotechnology infrastructure investments at the State
and local levels, and further details on non-federal initiatives can be found in the recent report on a
2003 NNI workshop on regional, State, and local nanotechnology activities.
expertise.
State action encourages nanotech development—current policies prove
FDI, 05 – Foreign Direct Investment (Premier Financial Times Group publication for the business of
globalization, “The Next Big Thing?”
http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/1364/The_next_big_thing_.html)//VP
The US is by far the world’s largest supporter of nanotechnology. Besides federal initiatives, today many
states are incorporating nanotechnology into their economic development efforts. In 2004, about $400m was
poured into research, facilities and business incubation programmes. York State is a big player in theindustry. Four years ago, New York
governor George E. Pataki included nanotechnology in the ‘Centers of Excellence’ effort to create a powerhouse of activity. Today,
corporations match these funds by two to three times. Small Times magazine recently cited the
University at Albany’s Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics as first in the nation in nanotechnology
facilities, as well as first in microtechnology and nanotechnology industry outreach. “Companies like
IBM, Micron, Hewlett-Packard and Motorola are anchor partners at the centre,” says Michael Fancher, director
of economic outreach at Albany NanoTech anda ssociate professor of nano economics at the College of Nanoscale Science and Engineering.
Other states that play a strong role in the sector include California, Massachusetts, Colorado, Virginia,
New Mexico, NewJersey, Michigan, Texas, Illinois, Maryland, North Carolina and Ohio. Much of the
activity in Virginia is government and defence related.
2NC
State governments can do nanotech research
Lente, 06 – B.S., Chemistry, Hope College (1980); Ph.D., Chemistry, University of Minnesota/Minneapolis
(1987); J.D. expected, Case Western Reserve University School of Law (Michael A. Van, Case Western
Law Review 200, p181)//VP
States and numerous companies are also investing in nanotechnologies. The fifty state governments
combined invested more than $ 400 million in nanotechnology research and development in 2004.
Statistics rate Massachusetts as the number one nanotechnology state "in terms of the per capita
number of nanotech companies, patents, research activity, commercial applications and other factors."
In California, a major nanotech research facility known as the California Nanosystems Institute is being built
on the UCLA campus. The State of New York will contribute $ 150 million to support a new semiconductor plant that IBM is building
along the Hudson River and related nanotechnology research. Other examples are numerous.
States can fund the plan- they provide infrastructure, facilities, and research support
SRCS, 05 – Subcommittee on Research Committee on Science, House of Representatives
(http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy21950.000/hsy21950_0f.htm, 6/29)//VP
As the NNAP report notes, the
states are playing an increasing role in nanotechnology. In 2004, State funding for
nanotechnology-related projects was $400 million, or approximately 40 percent of the total federal
investment. To date, State funding for nanotechnology has been focused on infrastructure—particularly the
construction of new facilities— with some research support being provided in the form of matching funds to
public universities that receive federal research dollars. In addition to receiving State support, universities and national
laboratories also leverage federal investments through industry contributions of funds or in-kind donations of equipment and expertise. The
NNAP report lists 15
examples of nanotechnology infrastructure investments at the State and local levels,
and further details on non-federal initiatives can be found in the recent report on a 2003 NNI workshop on regional, State, and local
nanotechnology activities.
NSPEC
Nspec 1NC
Interpretation- the affirmative must state what nanotechnology they use
This is best-
Specifying is key – multifaceted nature of nanotechnology uniquely overstretches the negative
research burden and destroys depth
Ramsden 09 – Professor of Nanotechnology Microsystems, Chair of Nanotechnology and Director of
Research for Bionanotechnology at Cranfield University (Jeremy, “Nanotechnology,”
http://www.ebookbyte.com/admin/upload/Electrical%20Engineering/Nano%20Technology%20(www.e
BookByte.com).pdf)//VP
One should not underestimate the multidisciplinary nature of nanotechnology. This forces researchers
to adopt a manner of working more familiar to scientists in the 19th century than in the 21st. Many active
fields in nanotechnology research demand an understanding of diverse areas of science. Sometime this
problem is solved by assembling teams of researches but members of the team still need to be able to effectively communicate with one
another. An
inevitable consequence of this multidisciplinarity is that the range of material that needs to be
covered is rather large. As a result, some topics have had to be dealt with rather sketchily in order to keep
the size of this book within reasonable bounds , but I hope I may be at least partly excused for this by the continuing rapid evolution
of nanotechnology, which in many cases would make additional details superfluous since their relevance is likely to be soon superseded.
Fundamental discoveries will doubtless continue to be made in the realm of a very small – and given the closeness of discoveries to technology
in this field, in many cases they will doubtless be rapidly developed into useful products.
Defining nanotechnology is a prerequisite to solvency- means they cant solve, vote
neg on presumption
Plan text is key – we can only see if the plan affirms the resolution if we know what
the plan does. It is impossible to disprove them meeting the resolution without a
coherent plan
2NC
Nanotechnology is a huge topic and vague- prefer our author, she specializes in nanotech law
Ludlow, 06 – Professor at Monash Law school (Karinne, “Nanoparticles: Regulating the Undefinable”
2006, http://regulation.upf.edu/bath-06/2_Ludlow.pdf)//VP
Even explaining what nanotechnology is, is fraught with difficulty. As Hodge and Bowman have pointed out there
exists many different definitions of ‘nanotechnology’ in the current literature. 3 Essentially nanotechnology can
be described as molecular engineering. That is, ‘the design, characterisation, production and application of structures, devices and systems by
controlling shape and size at the nanometre scale’. 4 One nanometre (nm) is one billionth of a meter (10 -9 ). 5 So, for example, a human hair is
about 80,000 nm wide and a sheet of paper about 100,000 nm thick. A
nanoparticle can be defined as a particle with one
or more dimensions of 100 nanometres or less. 6 This definition needs clarification though. Whilst
nanoparticles are all small – nanosized – they are not all the same. Nanoparticles are certainly not just
‘small dots’. They are intricately etched particles with complex spatial dimensions that instruments can
barely measure. 7 They can differ in actual size shape (for example, they can be spheres, flakes, fibres or hollow tubes),
composition, surface properties (including area, porosity, charge and surface modifications), solubility, agglomeration state and
biopersistance (that is, how long is exists in living tissue. Given that we can list their differences, it would seem we
should have no problem defining the subject matter that should be regulated if it is decided that
nanoparticles should indeed be regulated. But that is not the case.
Vagueness hurts solvency
ECPR-CRI, 06 – European Consortium for Political Research and Center for the study of Regulated
Industries (“Frontiers of Regulation” September, http://regulation.upf.edu/bath06/Conference_book_140906.pdf)//VP
Successful commercialisation of nanotechnology requires certainty regarding relevant regulation and
liability. Uncertainty as to the law is detrimental to both regulators and industry. Regulators can better
influence industry where the law is clear. For industry, uncertainty creates problems: it can be difficult to
obtain insurance and adequate capitalisation when potentially overwhelming liability is anticipated.
Finally, for regulators and industry, clarification of relevant law provides a better basis for deciding whether
existing or proposed regulatory schemes are appropriate.
Court definitions fail
Ludlow, 06 – Professor at Monash Law school (Karinne, “Nanoparticles: Regulating the Undefinable”
2006, http://regulation.upf.edu/bath-06/2_Ludlow.pdf)//VP
But who should be the one to define such things? Can we leave it to the courts? The first difficulty with
that is courts will only have the opportunity to consider a matter after a problem has arisen. In the case
of nanoparticles and OH&S concerns it is far better to prevent harm to workers than to use them as test cases
particularly if, like asbestos-related disease, there is a 30 to 40 year latency period before manifestation of disease. This lag period also
means that many claims cannot be brought to Australian courts because they are outside the relevant
time limit. A further difficulty for workers injured in such a way is that there are strict limits on the thresholds of injuries needed before
there is access to courts in Australia as well as on the amount of compensation available from both the courts and workers compensation
schemes. The
second difficulty with leaving definition to the courts, and perhaps more importantly for a
new technology such as nanotechnology, is that depending on the type of legal proceeding, broader
general public or community concerns are of only limited, if any, relevance to a court. Even if such concerns are
relevant the material provided to the court to enable it to make such determinations is questionable and in Australia, is ultimately decided by
the two private parties involved in the proceedings. Surely having a court balance individuals rights is not the best way to regulate in the
public’s, rather than private, interests and to ensure that the ethical and socioeconomic interests of the community regarding a new technology
are taken into account.
Policymaking should NOT require Cross Examination
Milne, 94 – Partner in Simpson Grierson's Wellington Local Government and Environment work group
(Phillip, "Validity of Rules in Regional Plans: A Seminar for Wellington Regional Council Officers"
http://www.qp.org.nzipubs/3665.pd)//VP
What can be said however is that in order to minimise the risk of a successful challenge,
it is important that rules be drafted
as objectively and clearly as practicable. One should always bear in mind the basic principle that
so far as is possible, a reader should be able to determine the effect of the rule from the rule
itself. In particular, the category within which the rule will place a particular activity should be
clear, along with the requirements of the rule (performance standards/conditions). 5.4 Do the principles relating to
certainty and reserving discretions apply equally to different types of activity? There is considerable authority for a consistent application of
these principles to rules concerning "permitted activities". (See Ruddlesden and Kapiti Borough (1986) 11 NZ 11)A 301). A permitted activity is
one permitted as of right without the need for a resource consent provided it complies with all relevant conditions in a plan. If a proposal meets
those conditions it may go ahead without consent. Clearly
it is desirable, if not essential, that the classification of
an activity as permitted and all conditions attached to those classifications be objectively
ascertainable and certain. Otherwise persons carrying out activities in the belief that they are permitted, may in fact be doing so
unlawfully.
Clarity of the plan is a constitutional liberty
WEAL, 08 – West’s Encyclopedia of American Law (2008, The Free Dictionary, “Void for Vagueness
Doctrine,” Edition 2, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Void+for+Vagueness+Doctrine)//VP
If a person of ordinary intelligence cannot determine what persons are regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be
imposed under a particular law, then the law will be deemed unconstitutionally vague. The
U.S. Supreme Court has said that
no one may be required at peril of life, liberty, or property to speculate as to the meaning of a
penal law. Everyone is entitled to know what the government commands or forbids.
Individual liberty comes first – that’s a decision rule
Petro, 74 – Professor of Law at NYU (Sylvester, Toledo Law Review, Spring, p. 480,
http://www.ndtceda.com/archives/200304/0783.html)//VP
However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David
Hume's observation: "It
is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thus, it is unacceptable to say
that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is of no importance because there have been
invasions of so many other aspects. That road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end
of all human aspiration. Ask Solzhenitsyn. Ask Milovan Dijas. In sum, if one believed in freedom as a supreme
value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to maximize spiritual and
material welfare, then every invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted
with undying spirit.
Not economic engagement
Nanotechnology is public engagement
Cormick, 11 – PhD and Manager of Public Awareness and Community Engagement within the National
Enabling Technologies Strategy in the Australian Department of Innovation (Craig, “A few Small Issues
about Public Engagement on Nanotechnology”, 2020 Science, November 25,
http://2020science.org/2011/11/25/a-few-small-issues-about-public-engagement-onnanotechnology/)//VP
Over the past decade there has been a significant growth in public engagement activities relating to
nanotechnology and when you look across all the data being generated you can learn a lot about how the public view the risks and
benefits of the technology. That’s probably not news for anybody who follows this blog. But what might be news is to look closely at who is
The majority of the public are still rather unengaged on
nanotechnology, and tend to think it’s all rather good (not including food). Media coverage is predominantly positive and
concern-stories don’t get much traction. And yet there is a lot of funding going into public engagement of
nanotechnology – so engagement has to happen. The premise behind most government funding of nanotechnology
driving these engagements. Is it the public? Generally no.
engagement world-wide is that we need to avoid a replication of what happened with Genetically Modified Foods, and so the errors of that
public debate need to be addressed early in the nanotechnology debate. But is that a valid premise? Nanotechnologies and Genetic
Modification (GM) technologies, while similar in some ways, are significantly different too. Most importantly GM technology was a “black hat
technology” (which was its starting position in the publics’ eyes, as a risky thing, and there was little impact that positive information and
engagement campaigns had on that) while nanotechnology is a “white hat technology” (and likewise negative information campaigns are
having little impact on changing its initial perception of being more beneficial than risky). So
now let’s look at the engagements
that are happening and who attends them. The majority of activities involve bringing a range of experts
and the public together in some manner, or bringing lay publics together, to discuss nanotechnology
issues, with research being conducted into what and how and why the public react to the engagement
activity. That’s all good, and activities are getting better and better at developing two-way learnings. But there are publics and there are
publics, and most engagement activities recruit people who self-select to attend, and as a result are more likely to represent those with some
interest in the technology or its impacts already. So
you could argue that a lot of activities are engaging with those
people who least need to be engaged with, as they are already engaged.
Economic engagement is NOT foreign aid.
Paul, 06 – US Representative (Ron, “An Embargo is Not a Peaceful Alternative”,
http://antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=8864)//VP
It is important to note that economic engagement is not the same thing as foreign aid. Foreign aid,
which should be abolished immediately, involves the U.S. government spending American tax dollars to prop up
other nations. Embargoes only hurt the innocent of a targeted country.
AFF
Nanotech popular
Nanotechnology is bipartisan- empirics
Sargent 2012- Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(John F., “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations
Issues”, 5/22/12, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34401.pdf)//KW
Nanotechnology—a term encompassing the science, engineering, and applications of submicron
materials—involves the harnessing of unique physical, chemical, and biological properties of nanoscale
substances in fundamentally new and useful ways. The economic and societal promise of
nanotechnology has led to substantial and sustained investments by governments and companies
around the world. In 2000, the United States launched the world’s first national nanotechnology
program. From FY2001 through FY2012, the federal government invested approximately $15.6 billion in
nanoscale science, engineering, and technology through the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative
(NNI). President Obama has requested $1.8 billion in NNI funding for FY2013. U.S. companies and state
governments have invested billions more. As a result of this focus and these investments, the United
States has, in the view of many experts, emerged as a global leader in nanotechnology. However, the
competition for global leadership in nanotechnology is intensifying as countries and companies around
the world increase their investments.
Nanotechnology’s complexity and intricacies, early stage of development (with commercial payoff
possibly years away for many potential applications), and broad scope of potential applications
engender a wide range of public policy issues. Maintaining U.S. technological and commercial leadership
in nanotechnology poses a variety of technical and policy challenges, including development of
technologies that will enable commercial scale manufacturing of nanotechnology materials and
products; environmental, health, and safety concerns; and maintenance of public confidence in its
safety.
Congress established programs, assigned responsibilities, and initiated research and development
related to these issues in the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act of 2003 (P.L.
108-153). Although many provisions of this act have no sunset provision, FY2008 was the last year of
agency authorizations included in the act. Legislation to amend and reauthorize the act was introduced
in the House (H.R. 5940, 110th Congress) and the Senate (S. 3274, 110th Congress) in the 110th
Congress. The House passed H.R. 5940 by a vote of 407-6; the Senate did not act on S. 3274. In January
2009, H.R. 554 (111th Congress), the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2009, was
introduced in the 111th Congress. The act contained essentially the same provisions as H.R. 5940. In
February 2009, the House passed the bill by voice vote under a suspension of the rules. The bill was
referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; no further action was
taken. On May 7, 2010, the House Committee on Science and Technology reported the America
COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R. 5116, 111th Congress) which included, as Title I, Subtitle
A, of the National Nanotechnology Initiative Amendments Act of 2010. This title was removed prior to
enactment. No comprehensive reauthorization bill has been introduced in the 112th Congress.
Funding for nanotech already part of FY budget
Sargent 2012- Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(John F., “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations
Issues”, 5/22/12, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34401.pdf)//KW
Each year the NSET Subcommittee publishes a supplement to the President’s annual budget
request. This report meets the annual reporting requirement of the 21st Century Nanotechnology
Research and Development Act (P.L. 108-153, 15 USC §7501) as well as DOD reporting
requirements under 10 USC §2358. The FY2013 NNI budget supplement provides a summary of
NNI activities in FY2011 and FY2012. It also provides a detailed view of NNI funding in the
President’s FY2013 budget request, including a breakout of FY2011, FY2012, and proposed
FY2013 funding for each program component area. The report describes proposed changes in
agency R&D budgets, as well as in the balance of investments by PCA. Of particular note:
• President Obama has proposed an overall NNI budget for FY2013 of $1.767
billion, a $70.1 million (4.1%) increase from the FY2012 funding level.
However, the requested level is $145.8 million (-7.6%) less than the NNI’s peak
funding of $1.913 billion in FY2010.
• Funding for EHS R&D in FY2013 would rise to $105.4 million, a $2.7 million
(2.6%) increase over FY2012.
• Funding for nanomanufacturing R&D in FY2013 would rise to $88.9 million, a
$15.4 million (21.0%) increase over FY2012.
• Funding for nanomaterials R&D in FY2013 would rise to $368.4 million, a $57.7
million (18.6%) increase over FY2012.
• Funding for fundamental phenomena and processes research in FY2013 would
fall to $498.2 million, a decrease of $11.9 million (-2.3%) from FY2012.
SQUO does not solve—increased investment key
Sargent 2012- Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
(John F., “The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations
Issues”, 5/22/12, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34401.pdf)//KW
Many expect nanotechnology to bring significant economic and societal returns. The United
States was the first government to launch a national-level nanotechnology program and has
invested more than any other nation. As a result of this focus and these sustained investments,
many experts believe that the United States enjoys a technological leadership position in
nanotechnology. Other nations are investing heavily and some industrialized and emerging
economies have formidable capabilities in nanotechnology. Assessments of the National
Nanotechnology Initiative have concluded that the effort is well-managed and has been successful
in achieving its objectives so far. However, these assessments have recognized that the NNI faces
a variety of challenges in ensuring that the full promise of nanotechnology is realized and that the
United States remains the global leader in nanoscale science, engineering, and technology.
Congress may choose to address some or many of the issues addressed in the body of this report
in the course of deliberation on the reauthorization of the 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act
of 2003 or, alternatively, in separate legislation.
The 21st Century Nanotechnology R&D Act’s funding authorizations extended through FY2008.
The 109th Congress, 110th Congress, and 111th Congress, considered legislation to reauthorize the
program. If the 112th Congress opts to consider reauthorization of the act, some of the issues it
may wish to consider include budget authorization levels for the covered agencies; R&D funding
levels, priorities, and balance across the program component areas; administration and
management of the NNI; translation of research results and early-stage technology into
commercially viable applications; environmental, health, and safety issues; ethical, legal, and
societal implications; education and training for the nanotechnology workforce; metrology,
standards, and nomenclature; public understanding; and international dimensions. Consideration
may also be given to the establishment of an independent review panel and to coordination of the
timing for the NNAP assessment, the NRC assessment, and the NSET Subcommittee’s strategic
plan for the NNI.
Bipartisan support for funding nanotech
Vickers 2011- Staff writer for Medill News Service
(Hannah, “U.S. may lose nanotechnology lead, Congress warned”, 7/14/11, Market Watch,
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-may-lose-nanotechnology-lead-congress-warned-2011-07-14)
//KW
While America has been at the forefront of nanotechnology for more than a decade, other countries are
rapidly catching up and the U.S economy could suffer if America’s front-runner status is not preserved, a
top nanotechnology expert told Congress on Thursday.
Testifying before a Senate science subcommittee, Chad Mirkin, director of the International Institute for
Nanotechnology at Northwestern University, said the United States is positioned to make “extraordinary
strides” in nanotechnology over the next decade, but cautioned that America is not alone.
The committee is considering a bill to reauthorize the National Nanotechnology Initiative, created in
2000. The NNI program coordinates more than a dozen federal agencies involved in nanotechnology
funding and research.
Countries all of the world, including China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and Germany, are building efforts to rival
NNI, Mirkin warned.
“If the United States does not act now and aggressively pursue the development of nanoscience and
nanotechnology, we will lose our position as the global leader in this transformative field,” he said.
“Moreover, we will lose the opportunities it can afford us to build our economy and new manufacturing
base.”
Sen. John Rockefeller, Democratic chairman of the Commerce Committee, said he believes
nanotechnology will play a key role in boosting the economy and creating jobs.
“There are significant economic and societal incentives to maintain our lead in this field,” Rockefeller
said. “The global market for nanotechnology-related products was more than $200 billion in 2009, and
projections suggesting that it will reach $1 trillion by 2015.”
“It has the potential to transform almost every aspect of our lives by providing rapid routes to
addressing some of the most pressing problems in health care, electronics, energy and the
environment,” Mirkin said.
Sen. Kay Hutchinson, the top Republican on the Senate Commerce Committee, said the U.S. led in
nanotech over the last decade thanks to research-and-development tax cuts. She said the tax cuts
should be made permanent to take away the uncertainty of biennial renewals and capitalize on existing
growth in the field.
“Every two years we have to reauthorize R&D tax cuts. One thing we should do out of this committee is
to make those cuts permanent,” Hutchison said.
Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), endorsed making research and development tax cuts permanent.
Diandra Leslie-Pelecky, director of the West Virginia Nano Initiative and professor of physics at West
Virginia University, testified that reauthorizing NNI is critical, but also complicated. She also stressed the
need for increased understanding of nanotechnology.
“Perhaps most importantly, we need to educate lawyers and businesspeople, elected officials,
regulatory officers and venture capitalists about the realities of nanotechnology, especially as they
pertain to specialized sectors of the economy like energy, health and the environment,” Pelecky
testified.
According to Thomas O’Neal, associate vice president for research and commercialization at the
University of Central Florida, nanotechnology needs more funding.
“We need angel investors to engage at higher levels so [the United States] can dominate,” O’Neal told
MarketWatch. “We also need to get patents more quickly.”
Sen. Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat who is chairman of the Science and Space Subcommittee, agreed
with O’Neal.
“Patent law helps commercialize nanotechnology research,” Nelson said. “We need to keep funding
innovation.”
Misc
AT: Multilateral advantages
Alt causes to multilat
UN 12 – United Nations Centre, (“24 September 2012 – A special meeting on how best to strengthen
the world’s multilateral system to better promote sustainable development kicked off at UN
Headquarters in New York today with a call for new thinking and greater policy coherence on the issue”,
September 24, 2012,
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=42977&Cr=ecosoc&Cr1#.Uf9kDZJvNAR))//sawyer
“The world faces many challenges, many of which are becoming increasingly plain to see,” said the
President of the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), Miloš Koterec, at the opening of an ECOSOC
Special Ministerial Meeting, held under the theme ‘Building the Future We Want.’ “A major systemic
rethink is thus in order, as is far greater policy coherence across the economic, social, and
environmental pillars,” he added. “The whole ECOSOC system needs to be geared towards sustainable
development. Agendas, working methods and engagement with other actors should be totally
redesigned.” Attended by Government ministers and other relevant actors from around the world, the
Special Ministerial Meeting is centred on an expert panel discussion and an interactive dialogue on
strengthening the multilateral system for sustainable development, and a better integration of related
economic, social and environmental dimensions. The gathering comes in the wake of the UN Conference
on Sustainable Development (Rio+20), held in Brazil in June, during which world leaders acknowledged
the importance of an inclusive, transparent, strengthened and effective multilateral system to better
address the urgent global challenges of sustainable development. At Rio+20, world leaders recognized
ECOSOC’s role in achieving a balanced integration of the three dimensions of sustainable development,
and adopted an outcome document, entitled ‘The Future We Want.’ It called for a wide range of actions,
including beginning the process to establish sustainable development goals, developing a strategy for
sustainable development financing, and adopting a framework for tackling sustainable consumption and
production. “Rio+20 has given us a solid platform to build on, and the tools to build with. Now is the
time to follow up, to get down to work, to get practical. There is no time to waste,” said SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon in his remarks to the meeting’s opening. In his remarks, Mr. Koterec noted how,
among other “disappointing developments” in 2012, the global economy expanded by just 2.8 per cent
in the year to the second quarter, its slowest pace since the end of 2009, and that the threat of social
unrest looms ever larger, with “good jobs” remaining scarce. “Income inequality has been increasing
dramatically in much of the rich world. Food prices have climbed by tens of percentage points in recent
years, after a century of steady decline,” he said. “For the world’s poorest, this can make the difference
between feeding a child or sending her to school. These are a few of the reasons why we’ve gathered
here today.” Secretary-General Ban said that a strengthened multilateral system must be able to
address immediate concerns as well as broad sustainable development challenges, from poverty, high
unemployment and food insecurity, to biodiversity loss and climate change. “That means being coherent
and coordinated,” he said. “And it means doing far more to integrate the economic, social and
environmental pillars of sustainable development into policy making at all levels.” The UN chief outlined
five challenges in which he said ECOSOC can make an important contribution. These are: a coordinated
solution to the global jobs crisis, and action to avoid a new global recession; the honouring of
commitments to the developing world by donor countries; placing food and nutrition security at the top
of the development agenda; making the most of the “diverse and many opportunities” presented by
Rio+20, especially for inclusive green growth; and, the revival of the so-called Doha Round of
negotiations on reducing international trade barriers. Addressing the Special Ministerial Meeting, the
UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs, Wu Hongbo, said that ECOSOC – through
its work to promote international dialogue on global trends and policymaking on a range of issues,
including population and development, as well as the environment – is well-placed to continue its
leadership position in the area of sustainable development. This includes through reviewing the
implementation of the global development agenda, including the anti-poverty targets known as the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs); integrating the economic, social and environmental pillars; and,
and contributing to the on-going preparations for a post-2015 development agenda. “Let’s be clear,
however – in order to accomplish this, the ECOSOC system itself needs a makeover,” Mr. Wu said. “In
specific terms, substantial changes are needed to its agenda setting and working methods. Yet, such
changes will require significant political engagement.” “The momentum for strengthening the Council is
already set in motion,” he added. “Your deliberations will provide further guidance and impetus to this
effort.” In his remarks to the meeting, the President of the General Assembly, Vuk Jeremic, said he
looked forward to the outcome of the deliberations. “I am confident that the General Assembly and this
Council will remain committed to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. At the same
time, we must focus more intensely on the post-2015 agenda,” Mr. Jeremic. “It is crucial for us to
remain on the same page throughout this process.” “The outcome of the Rio+20 conference highlighted,
once again, that more coherence and coordination is required if the diverse challenges we face today
are to be decisively and successfully addressed,” he added. “I will look to ECOSOC to play an enhanced
role in the post-Rio+20 discussions, in light of the guidelines it received from world leaders in June.”
Agreed on by world leaders at a UN summit in 2000, the eight MDGs set specific targets on poverty
alleviation, education, gender equality, child and maternal health, environmental stability, HIV/AIDS
reduction, and the creation of a 'Global Partnership for Development – all by a deadline of 2015. At a
2010 MDG Summit, UN Member States called for open, inclusive consultations – involving civil society,
the private sector, academia and research institutions from all regions, in addition to the UN system – to
advance the development agenda beyond 2015.
AT: Cuban ag disad
Modeling won’t occur in globally important markets as long as the US continues to
isolate Cuba
Cobb, 98 - professor emeritus of theology of the School of Theology at Claremont College and a director
of the Center for Process Studies (John, The Coming of Scarcity: Preventing Mass Death and Genocide in
the 21st Century, p. 35)
These circumstances are unique. The Cuban is the only revolution in Latin America that the United
States has allowed to continue for such a long time. Chile, Granada, Panama, and Nicaragua are more
typical examples of revolutionary efforts and their destruction. Through direct intervention or through
subversion, the United States may continue to prevent other nations from following the Cuban
model, even if it continues to succeed. Probably this policy will continue for some time to be true in
Latin America. But in Africa and in parts of Asia, where less is at stake for the United States and the
global market, countries unimportant to the global market may be allowed in time to follow Cuba's
examples.
Lifting the embargo is vital to spreading Cuban expertise
Rosset, 95 - executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy (Food First). He holds a
PhD in agricultural ecology from the University of Michigan (Peter, “The greening of Cuba: organic
farming offers hope” 2/8, Green Left Weekly, http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/9913)
Cubans produce numerous formulations of bacterial and fungal diseases of insect pests which are
applied to crops in lieu of chemical insecticides. A total of 218 artisan biotechnology centres located on
agricultural cooperatives produce these products of cutting-edge technology for local use. They are
typically produced by people in their 20s, born on the cooperative, who have received some universitylevel training. While industrial production of these biopesticides will soon be under way for use in larger
farming operations that produce for export, it remains most remarkable that the sons and daughters of
campesinos can make the products of biotechnology in remote rural areas.
Furthermore, Cuban use of biofertilisers in commercial agriculture is unrivalled in the world, including
not only standard Rhizobium inoculants for leguminous crops, but also free living bacteria that make
atmospheric nitrogen available for other crops. Perhaps of greatest importance for other developing
countries, Cubans are mass producing solubilising bacteria which make phosphorous, which in many
tropical areas is bound to soil particles, available for uptake by crop plants.
As agricultural scientists, environmentalists, and concerned citizens, we can say that the experiment in
agricultural alternatives currently under way in Cuba is unprecedented, with potentially enormous
implications for other countries suffering from the declining sustainability of conventional agricultural
production.
We call upon the international community to support the efforts of Cuban farmers, scientists and
planners to remake their agriculture in a more independent and sustainable fashion, and to pay close
attention to the lessons we may learn from both successes and failures in Cuba. One key element of
such support is to press strenuously for the lifting of the US trade embargo that is causing such suffering
among the Cuban people.
AT: Watson moral obligation
Watson’s argument is undiscriminating pointless moralism so divorced from the real
world that it’s entirely useless. Cost benefit assessment is morally superior for a
legislator
Fletcher, 91 – University of Virginia (Joseph, Population and Environment- “Chronic Famine and the
Immorality of Food Aid: A Bow to Garrett Hardin”, Volume 12, Number 3, http://dieoff.org/page91.htm)
It is indeed a fact that sometimes sharing threatens the survival of the generous, unless the givers
carefully calculate what they can afford to give. At what point does sharing become hurtful, yet
bearable? When does it become not only a loss to the giver but mortally dangerous' I can see no moral
objection to giving to others even when it hurts to do so, nor in some conceivable cases to giving even if
it entails a calculated risk of not surviving, but surely giving when it is clearly suicidal is not morally
required of those who would otherwise be willing to help.
It is the second of our two limiting principles on famine aid which is more significant ethically, namely,
that we should not give it when the foreseeable consequence would be to make things worse for the
recipients. For example, this second principle forbids giving food as famine relief when it can be
foreseen that the recipients will thereby live on to reproductive years and thus increase the number of
starving people, plus the predictable diseases that go with starvation, because their country has already
exceeded its carrying capacity. Here again we can look at Ethiopia.
In the uproar following Hardin's essay in Psychology Today there was one discussant, more simpleminded than thoughtful, who was prepared to give aid regardless of the consequences. A philosopher
actually declared, on the grounds of an absolutistic moralism, that we should share all food on the
global scale even if it means that all mankind would starve and the human species become extinct
(Watson, 1977). This is a sense of obligation so undiscriminating that it takes our breath away. It is
reminiscent of Cardinal Newman's grim opinion, in a religious controversy in 1870, that to prevent the
commission of even one petty little sin it would be better that the whole world and all the people in it
be incinerated.
In moral philosophy the issue at stake in this discussion is not merely the age-old one of absolutism
versus relativism, nor of the one (or a few) versus the many, but also whether we are able to make
rational and responsible value judgments without accurate measurement -- measuring not only the
factors involved and the options available, but the probable consequences of alternative courses of
action.
I have myself for a long time now insisted that not to measure, not to have the relevant numbers, is
ethically slipshod and disingenuous. Indeed, many years ago I coined the term ethimetrics. in a
conscious imitation of the way that classical economics has had to come to terms with the measurement
of material values and their exchange, in the newly christened discipline of econometrics" (Fletcher,
1976; 1979).
After all, values (and in some cases conflicting values) are the parameters we have to identify when we
make moral choices and decide our obligations. By such standards we also determine whether an act or
policy is right or wrong. In mathematical language we might say our values are the independent
variables we use in any set of ethical equations. My own training in moral philosophy was done within
the context of the humanities, and such was the case for most of my colleagues in the field. Our lack of
scientific and mathematical appreciation leaves us at some loss when we have to deal, as we do
increasingly in our mass society, with the measurement requirements of just distribution. We lack the
requisite quantifiers or any methodology of quantification.
Back in the seventeenth century such social analysts as Sir William Petty and Sir Dudley North were on
much sounder ground (although they were not yet able to perceive that it was so) when they thought of
themselves as engaged in political arithmetic.. In modern times legislators in democracies have as their
primary goal the framing of laws which aim at the greatest good of the greatest number, and how else
can they do it but by measuring the presumed consequences of their statutes on all the individuals and
groups affected? How else' can they determine a just allocation of society's limited resources?
Distributive justice is the core problem of politics, and politics in its turn is inseparable from ethics as
Aristotle made abundantly clear a long time ago.
China Econ Impacts
Chinese economic collapse causes nuclear war
Mead 98 – Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (Walter Russell, “Rule 1: Don’t
Panic. Rule 2: Panic first,” Oct 1998) //JG
Few Americans understand just how explosive the situation in China is. As the country
undergoes the biggest economic revolution in world history, it is also in for the wildest ride in
world history on the roller coaster of revolutionary capitalism. State-owned rust-bucket
industries from Maoist times are slowly collapsing, putting heavy demands on the national
treasury. Yet China's banks-which may have the worst balance sheets in the world would go
bankrupt if the state cut off subsidies to the indebted state industries. And if these industries lay
off workers faster than the private economy can find them jobs, China faces mass unrest in the
big cities. This is what the Chinese government fears most, and it has good reason. Already,
millions of Chinese, uprooted from the rural areas where they were born, are flooding into the
coastal cities, looking for work. Many of them are young men-the most volatile group in any
society. And in China today, they are especially volatile. Thanks to the government's one-child
policy, many Chinese families have aborted female fetuses to ensure that their one child is a
boy. This preference has led to no boys being born for every loo girls. Here's a Chinese
nightmare: millions of young, poorly educated men who have no jobs and no girlfriends. It's
almost unthinkable that China can escape a prolonged Asian slowdown. China has also based
its whole plan on exportled growth working far into the future; with the failure of that strategy
China's economy must slow dramatically. To survive, the Chinese government will have to play
the nationalist card, taking a tougher foreign-policy line on issues like Taiwan and whipping up
public support by talking about foreign (read: American) threats to China. Alternatively, China
could fall apart as it did earlier in the twentieth century, going through a period of civil war and
anarchy-in a country with nuclear weapons-before a new and probably very unpleasant
government establishes control.
China’s economy is on the brink now
Fisher 6/20 – Foreign Affairs writer at the Washington Post (Max, “China’s economy is
freezing up. How freaked out should we be?,” Washington Post, June 20 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/20/chinas-economy-isfreezing-up-how-freaked-out-should-we-be/ ) //JG
Thursday was a very bad day for China’s economy, the world’s second-largest and a crucial pillar
of the global economy, with credit markets freezing up in an unnerving parallel to the first
days of the U.S. financial collapse . The question of how bad depends on whom you talk to,
how much faith you have in Chinese leaders and, unfortunately, several factors that are largely
unknowable. But we do know two things. First, Chinese leaders appear to be causing this
problem deliberately, likely to try to avert a much worse problem. And, second, if this continues
and even it works, it could see China’s economy finally cool after years of breakneck growth,
with serious repercussions for the rest of us. Things got so bad that the Bank of China has been
fighting rumors all day that it defaulted on its loans; if true, this would risk bank runs and more
defaults, not unlike the first days of the U.S. financial collapse. There’s no indication that the
rumors are true, and no one is running on China’s banks. But the fact that the trouble has even
gotten to this point is a sign of how potentially serious this could be. Here’s what has happened:
China’s credit market has been in a bubble for years, with too much lending and borrowing,
similar to what happened in the United States during the financial crisis. All that lending helps
grow the economy until, one day, the bubble bursts, and it all comes crashing down, as
happened the United States. China’s economic growth has been slowing, making a similar a
crisis more likely. Chinese leaders seem to be trying to prevent a disaster by basically popping
the bubble, a kind of controlled mini-collapse meant to avoid The Big One.
Collapses the US and world economies
Karabell 13 - President of River Twice Research (Zachary, “The U.S. can’t afford a Chinese
economic collapse,” Reuters, March 7 2013, http://blogs.reuters.com/edgyoptimist/2013/03/07/the-u-s-cant-afford-a-chinese-economic-collapse/ ) //JG
The consequences of a Chinese collapse, however, would be severe for the United States and for
the world. There could be no major Chinese contraction without a concomitant contraction in
the United States. That would mean sharply curtailed Chinese purchases of U.S. Treasury bonds,
far less revenue for companies like General Motors, Nike, KFC and Apple that have robust
business in China (Apple made $6.83 billion in the fourth quarter of 2012, up from $4.08 billion
a year prior), and far fewer Chinese imports of high-end goods from American and Asian
companies. It would also mean a collapse of Chinese imports of materials such as copper, which
would in turn harm economic growth in emerging countries that continue to be a prime market
for American, Asian and European goods. China is now the world’s second-largest economy, and
property booms have been one aspect of its growth. Individual Chinese cannot invest outside of
the country, and the limited options of China’s stock exchanges and almost nonexistent bond
market mean that if you are middle class and want to do more than keep your money in cash or
low-yielding bank accounts, you buy either luxury goods or apartments. That has meant a series
of property bubbles over the past decade and a series of measures by state and local officials to
contain them. These recent measures are hardly the first, and they are not likely to be the last.
Nuke war
Harris and Burrows 9 (Mathew, PhD European History at Cambridge, counselor in the National Intelligence
Council (NIC) and Jennifer, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the
Financial Crisis” http://www.ciaonet.org/journals/twq/v32i2/f_0016178_13952.pdf, AM)
Increased Potential for Global Conflict
Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and indeed believes the future is likely to be the result of a number of
intersecting and interlocking forces. With so many possible permutations of outcomes, each with ample Revisiting the Future opportunity
for unintended consequences, there is a growing sense of insecurity. Even so, history
may be more instructive than ever.
Great Depression is not likely to be repeated, the lessons to be drawn from that period
include the harmful effects on fledgling democracies and multiethnic societies (think Central Europe in
1920s and 1930s) and on the sustainability of multilateral institutions (think League of Nations in the same period).
There is no reason to think that this would not be true in the twenty-first as much as in the
twentieth century. For that reason, the ways in which the potential for greater conflict could grow would seem to
be even more apt in a constantly volatile economic environment as they would be if change would be steadier. In
While we continue to believe that the
surveying those risks, the report stressed the likelihood that terrorism and nonproliferation will remain priorities even as resource issues
move up on the international agenda. Terrorism’s
appeal will decline if economic growth continues in the
Middle East and youth unemployment is reduced. For those terrorist groups that remain active in 2025, however, the
diffusion of technologies and scientific knowledge will place some of the world’s most dangerous capabilities within their reach.
Terrorist groups in 2025 will likely be a combination of descendants of long established groups_inheriting organizational structures,
command and control processes, and training procedures necessary to conduct sophisticated attacks_and newly emergent collections of
the angry and disenfranchised that become
self-radicalized, particularly in the absence of economic outlets
that would become narrower in an economic downturn. The most dangerous casualty of any
economically-induced drawdown of U.S. military presence would almost certainly be the Middle East.
Although Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons is not inevitable, worries about a nuclear-armed Iran could lead states in the
region to develop new security arrangements with external powers, acquire additional weapons,
and consider pursuing their own nuclear ambitions. It is not clear that the type of stable deterrent relationship that
existed between the great powers for most of the Cold War would emerge naturally in the Middle East with a nuclear Iran. Episodes of low
intensity conflict and terrorism taking place under a nuclear umbrella could
lead to an unintended escalation and
broader conflict if clear red lines between those states involved are not well established. The close proximity of
potential nuclear rivals combined with underdeveloped surveillance capabilities and mobile dual-capable Iranian missile systems
also will produce inherent difficulties in achieving reliable indications and warning of an impending
nuclear attack. The lack of strategic depth in neighboring states like Israel, short warning and missile flight times, and
uncertainty of Iranian intentions may place more focus on preemption rather than defense, potentially leading to
escalating crises. 36 Types of conflict that the world continues to experience, such as over resources, could
reemerge, particularly if protectionism grows and there is a resort to neo-mercantilist practices.
Perceptions of renewed energy scarcity will drive countries to take actions to assure their future access to energy supplies. In the
worst case, this could result in interstate conflicts if government leaders deem assured access to energy
resources, for example, to be essential for maintaining domestic stability and the survival of their regime. Even actions
short of war, however, will have important geopolitical implications. Maritime security concerns are providing a rationale for naval
buildups and modernization efforts, such as China’s and India’s development of blue water naval capabilities. If the fiscal
stimulus
focus for these countries indeed turns inward, one of the most obvious funding targets may be
military. Buildup of regional naval capabilities could lead to increased tensions, rivalries, and
counterbalancing moves, but it also will create opportunities for multinational cooperation in protecting critical sea lanes. With
water also becoming scarcer in Asia and the Middle East, cooperation to manage changing water
resources is likely to be increasingly difficult both within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog
world.
Threatens billions
Daily Bell 10 – (“What Happens When China Collapses?,” November 24 2010,
http://www.thedailybell.com/1549/What-Happens-When-China-Collapses.html ) //JG
There is no doubt that the Chinese "miracle" is going to end badly. We would venture to say that
India, anyway, is not far behind China in terms of being unable to control its inflation. The
question, we suppose is one of timing. When the Chinese economy crashes, or deflates,
especially if it does so in near term (and granted it could be a kind of slow motion crash) we will
see just what effects it will have on the world's economy and especially Europe and America. If
the event is coupled with rising food prices and a kind of artificially imposed trade war that
further freezes goods and services worldwide, then the results could be truly catastrophic for
millions, even billions . This is when we will begin to see whether the powers-that-be are truly
Machiavellian in terms of their strategies and goals. This is when we will begin to find out if
there is a workable plan to introduce a one-world financial system, and even one-world
government. China may be the trigger. The economic system that the elite imposed on the world
via central banking was bound to end in the kinds of implosions that we are seeing today – in
the US, in Europe and sooner or later in China, India, etc. The wild card, however, is the
Internet. We do not believe the power elite had any idea of the amount of antipathy that would
be generated by this new communication tool. We believe, in aggregate, it is still in shock. In
past decades, popular rage was always turned against imaginary private sector enemies. Wall
Street was blamed for economic disasters, or even the "bankers." But today's finger-pointing
includes a primary dominant social theme of the power elite – central banking. Additionally,
governments are coming in for their share of the blame.
US-Brazil relations impacts
US Brazilian relations solves food security
Sweig 11 - Julia E. Sweig is the Nelson and David Rockefeller senior fellow for Latin America
studies, director for Latin America studies, and direc- tor of the Global Brazil initiative at the
Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). She is the author of Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know
and Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century, as well as
of numerous publications on Latin America and American foreign policy. She has directed
several CFR reports on Latin America. Sweig’s Inside the Cuban Revolution: Fidel Castro and
the Urban Underground received the American Historical Association’s Herbert Feis Award for
best book of the year by an independent scholar, (“Global Brazil and U.S.-Brazil Relations”,
2011,
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC8QFjAA&ur
l=http%3A%2F%2Fi.cfr.org%2Fcontent%2Fpublications%2Fattachments%2FBrazil_TFR_66.p
df&ei=XMv_UebXEcf3qQGNi4CIBA&usg=AFQjCNEZQq43LOqVUaLpBvpdLrt1R87PJw&sig2=
j5KSUbRut9vl94zWq6s7sw&bvm=bv.50165853,d.aWM&cad=rja)//sawyer
Brazil uses its agricultural might and knowhow to ensure food security both at
home and overseas. Brazil is the fourth-largest exporter of food globally; a world leader in
staples like soy, sugarcane, coffee, and beef; and a major producer of a wide range of items
including tobacco, cotton, orange juice, and cashews. As a country just shy of 200 million
people, Brazil produces enough food to meet the minimum caloric require- ments of about 250
million. Though 10 million Brazilian citizens still lack food security, this figure is a 75 percent
reduction from a decade earlier and is due in large part to the success of the Fome Zero program
and strong economic growth. Much of the credit also goes to Brazilian advances in agricultural
technology. Brazilian agricultural innovations have made agriculture more efficient and have
expanded farming to parts of the country where crops could not grow roughly a decade ago,
converting Brazil into an agriculture powerhouse with industrial-scale farming. The Brazilian
Agricultural Research Corporation (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária, known as
Embrapa) has worked since its inception in 1973 to develop new farmland and has modified
varieties of seeds to grow in those environments.7 Agriculture now makes up a quarter of
Brazilian GDP and accounts for 40 percent of export revenue. Accord- ing to some estimates,
pastureland covers nearly 25 percent of the coun- try and 150 million acres of arable land
remain uncultivated. Within the framework of the BRICS countries, Brazil has become integral
to the international effort to mitigate problems of food produc- tion and hunger, which has
included a commitment to develop a joint strategy to ensure access to food for vulnerable
populations. Coopera- tion is strongest in Africa. Embrapa África, in conjunction with the Brazilian Agency for Cooperation (ABC), has personnel stationed in Ghana, Mozambique, Senegal,
and Mali to coordinate food security programs, which generates goodwill for Brazil
and an opportunity for cooperation with the United States. Initiatives under way from
Latin America to the Middle East to Oceania point to Brazil’s global ambitions. Conclusions and
recommendations The Task Force finds that Brazil’s technological innovation in agricul- ture
has allowed the country to capitalize on its natural resources and global economic conditions in
order to carve out a place for itself on the world stage. Moreover, with more than one billion
people under- nourished worldwide, Brazil’s growing contribution to global food stores makes it
a fundamental part of any international approach to food security. Brazil and the United
States are among the largest agricultural producers and exporters in the world.
Agricultural technologies developed by U.S. companies are already being used to improve land
productivity in Brazil, and barriers to further expansion (to the extent that any remain) are the
subject of bilateral government dis- cussions. The Task Force encourages the U.S. Department
of Agri- culture (USDA) to enhance capacity for cooperation on innovation and deployment of
new technologies and development of standards. The USDA should provide funds for U.S.
scientists to work with their counterparts in the Brazilian Embrapa. In addition, the Task Force
recommends that the USDA consult with Embrapa in the develop- ment of genetically modified
organisms (GMOs) to ensure that U.S. products meet Brazilian standards.
The security relation is key
Brown 12 -Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence T. Brown United States Army, (“Restoring the
“Unwritten Alliance” in Brazil—United States Relations”, 2012, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773)//sawyer
Strengthened military relations naturally flow from improved diplomatic ones. As regional
leaders, the United States and Brazil can focus their combined security efforts and resources
against common threats to the two nations—and to the entire Western Hemisphere. Intelligence
sharing during the upcoming World Cup and Olympic games, coordinated counterterrorism
measures in the Tri-Border Area, and disrupting narcotrafficking between South America and
Africa are among the more pressing security cooperation initiatives that can bring greater
security to both countries and to the hemisphere. Close security and defense cooperation in the
future, absent the historic shadow of U.S. imperialism, will help in re-establishing the
“Unwritten Alliance” dynamic between the United States and Brazil that flourished in the first
half of the 20th Century. When Brazil hosts the World Cup and Olympics in a couple of years, it
is in the U.S. national interest to assist Brazil’s efforts in countering terrorism,
curbing drug trafficking, and reducing international crime. This United States
provided similar support to South Africa during the World Cup in 2010 – assisting the
prevention of devastating terrorist attacks on that world stage. Averting another “Munich” is
certainly in the interest of the United States and indeed of all world sporting events. For the
2010 World Cup, South African security services benefited from security grants and extensive
training: “Specifically, Anti-Terrorism Assistance has provided Underwater
Explosive, Critical Incident, and Special Events Management, Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, Nuclear, and related equipment training.”42 Both the 2006 World Cup in
Germany and the following one in South Africa transpired successfully with low-key U.S.
security assistance. There were no terrorist attacks, despite ongoing large-scale operations
against terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan at the time. When President Obama visited Brazil in
2011, one of the agreements resulting from the trip was a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) between the U.S. and Brazil concerning world sporting events cooperation. Security was
one of the MOU’s six focus areas of cooperation. This MOU is foundational for the U.S.
Department of State and Defense to provide any future support desired by the Brazilian
government.43 One of the great strengths of the United States resides in its intelligence
databases, whose holdings and effectiveness have grown substantially since 9/11. For the 2014
World Cup and the 2016 Summer Olympics in Brazil, an intelligence sharing mechanism would
help deter terrorism threats. Successful physical or virtual sharing could continue afterwards to
address other regional security threats, such as drug trafficking or organized crime. Of course,
extending temporary intelligence sharing after the world sporting events may be problematic
due to Brazilian memory from its authoritarian past, when the military regime collected
intelligence to deter internal dissent.44 U.S. officials have the next four years to convince the
Brazilian government of its benign intentions. With less than two years before the opening kick
of 2014 World Cup, beta testing of this provisional intelligence sharing arrangement should
begin immediately to track terrorist threats likely to originate in the “Tri-Border Area” of South
America.
Solves terror
Brown 12 -Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence T. Brown United States Army, (“Restoring the
“Unwritten Alliance” in Brazil—United States Relations”, 2012, http://www.dtic.mil/cgibin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA560773)//sawyer
The United States has long worried about the “Tri-Border Area” (The TBA is the name given to
the area surrounding the border shared between Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay). In these
border towns, laws are minimally enforced, money is laundered, and weapons, drugs, and
people are trafficked. Organized crime and Islamic extremism have thrived there due to a lack of
effective law enforcement from the three border nations.45 Concerns increased after 9/11 that
Al-Qaeda could transit potentially porous borders, perhaps through Mexico, to attack U.S.
interests in North America.46 Today, as the specter of war with Iran rises because of its
purported pursuit of nuclear weapons, the concern has moved from devastating attacks from AlQaeda to devastating attacks from Hezbollah and its patron Iran. As recently as October 2011,
Iran was accused of authorizing and financing an assassination attempt against the Saudi
Arabian Ambassador to the United States and of contemplating further attacks in Argentina.47
Successful terrorist attacks against Argentina were carried out in 1992 and 1994 by a Hezbollah
militant organization supported by Iran. Terrorists exploited the TBA during each
operation.48 The most telling evidence of potential terrorist attacks out of the TBA surfaced
during a Hezbollah militiaman’s interview by the Spanish television station Telemundo. During
the interview, the Hezbollah militant stated emphatically that if the United States attacked Iran,
then Hezbollah would conduct retaliatory attacks inside the United States.49 One
counterterrorism expert, Edward Luttwak, described Hezbollah’s most important base outside
Lebanon as the TBA from which they have already supported terrorist attacks: “The northern
region of Argentina, the eastern region of Paraguay and even Brazil are large terrains, and they
have an organized training and recruitment camp for terrorists.”50 The historical evidence of
terrorist activity emanating from the TBA is chilling. If the current crisis with Iran is not
resolved by the time of the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics, then the Brazilian
government will need substantial help in preventing potential terrorist attacks to disrupt games
that will attract a global audience. Even now, Hezbollah terrorists may be inclined to strike at
Israeli or American targets in the Western Hemisphere in retaliation for a recent UNSC
resolution that placed additional sanctions on Iran. Hezbollah attacked its targets in Argentina
for lesser reasons in 1992 and 1994.51 This is why intelligence sharing with Brazil must start
now. The last time the United States held a 3+1 Group Meeting (Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina,
and the United States) on TBA security was in 2004.52 This Group should re-convene at the
earliest opportunity to assess the current terrorist threat within the TBA and to determine the
probabilities of Hezbollah becoming operational if Iran is attacked.53 Nevertheless,
collaborative intelligence initiatives must extend to the World Cup and Olympic timeframes if
Iran continues to violate UNSC resolutions concerning its nuclear program. It is in both
countries national interests to prevent attacks against their homeland. Certainly, Brazil does not
want its territory utilized as a springboard for attacks within the region. Full cooperation in this
security arena will assist in preventing the unthinkable until the Iran crisis over-dual use
nuclear material is resolved.
Relations with Brazil solves every single impact imaginable
Meyer 10 - Peter J. Meyer Analyst in Latin American Affairs, (“Brazil-US Relations”, March 5,
2010, http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA521243)//sawyer
Relations with the United States Currently, relations between the United States and Brazil may
be characterized as friendly. The United States has increasingly regarded Brazil as a significant
power, especially in its role as a stabilizing force in Latin America. U.S. officials assert that the
United States seeks to increase cooperation with moderate leftist governments in Latin America
(like Brazil) in order to ease mounting tensions among countries in South America, and to deal
with populist governments in the region. Brazil under President Lula has helped diffuse
potential political crises in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, and supported Colombia’s ongoing
struggle against terrorist organizations and drug traffickers. Brazil is also commanding the U.N.
stabilization force in Haiti. Brazil and the United States have worked closely on a wide range of
bilateral and regional issues, and Brazil-U.S. cooperation has increased in recent years, as
reflected in the continuing highlevel contacts between the two governments, particularly on
energy issues. Early in 2007, two high-level meetings between Presidents Bush and Lula
culminated in the March 2007 signing of a U.S.-Brazil Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
to promote bio-fuels development in the Western Hemisphere.59 The initiative was expanded
in November 2008 to include additional countries in Africa, Central America, and the
Caribbean (See “Ethanol and Other Biofuels” section below).60 Although Brazil and the United
States share common goals for regional stability, Brazil’s independent approach to foreign
policy has led to periodic disputes with the United States on trade and political issues, including
how (and whether) to create a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and Brazil’s vocal
opposition to the war in Iraq and the U.S. embargo of Cuba. Despite President Lula’s friendly
relationship with President Obama, a number of differences between Brazil and the United
States have emerged in recent months. In addition to ongoing disputes over the U.S. tariff on
Brazilian ethanol and the Doha Round of WTO negotiations, Brazil has criticized the United
States for failing to take a stronger stance on the political crisis in Honduras and has reacted
negatively to a recent agreement that will provide the United States with access to seven
Colombian military bases, which the Brazilian foreign minister described as “a strong military
presence whose aim and capability seems to go well beyond what might be needed inside
Colombia.”61 Brazil is considered a middle-income country and does not receive large amounts
of U.S. foreign assistance. Brazil received $21.5 million in U.S. aid in FY2009, will receive an
estimated $25 million in FY2010, and would receive $20.9 million under the Obama
Administration’s request for FY2011. U.S. assistance priorities in Brazil include supporting
environmental programs and the strengthening of local capacity to address threats to the
Amazon, promoting renewable energy and energy efficiency to mitigate climate change,
strengthening the professionalism and peacekeeping capabilities of the Brazilian military, and
reducing the transmission of communicable diseases.62 The Bush Administration came to view
Brazil as a strong partner whose cooperation should be sought in order to solve regional and
global problems, and the Obama Administration appears to view Brazil in a similar light.
Current issues of concern to both Brazil and the United States include counternarcotics and
counterterrorism efforts, energy security, trade, human rights, the fight against HIV/AIDS, and
the environment Counternarcotics Although Brazil is not a major drug-producing country, it
serves as a major transit country for illicit drugs from neighboring Andean countries destined
primarily for Europe. Urban gangs— such as São Paulo’s First Command of the Capital (PCC)
and Rio de Janeiro’s Red Command (CV)—have begun playing greater roles in narcotics and
weapons smuggling, establishing their presence in other countries in the region and forging ties
with Colombian and Mexican traffickers. Brazil has also become the second-largest consumer
(after the United States) of cocaine in the world. With U.S. support, Brazil has taken several
steps to improve its counternarcotics capabilities. In 2004, Brazil implemented an Air Bridge
Denial program, which authorizes lethal force for air interdiction, and in 2006, Brazil passed an
anti-drug law that prohibits and penalizes the cultivation and trafficking of illicit drugs. Brazil
has also worked with its neighbors to construct Joint Intelligence Centers at strategic points
along its borders and invested in a sensor and radar project called the Amazon Vigilance System
in an attempt to control illicit activity in its Amazon region. In 2009, Brazil’s federal police
captured 18.9 metric tons of cocaine, 1.4 metric tons of cocaine base, 513 kilograms of crack
cocaine, 150.6 metric tons of marijuana, 3.3 kilograms of heroin, and 183.3 tons of precursor
chemicals.63 Brazil received $992,000 in U.S. counternarcotics assistance in FY2008, was
expected to receive $1 million in FY2009, and an would receive an estimated $1 million in
FY2010 under the Obama Administration’s request.64 U.S. counternarcotics assistance includes
training for the Brazil’s federal police, support for interdiction programs at Brazil’s ports, and
expanding the capabilities of special investigations units. Counterterrorism and the TriBorder Area65 The Tri-Border Area (TBA) of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay has
long been used for arms smuggling, money laundering, and other illicit purposes.
According to the 2009 State Department Country Reports on Terrorism, the United States remains concerned that Hezbollah and Hamas are raising funds through illicit activities and from sympathizers in the sizable Middle Eastern communities in the region. Indeed, reports have indicated that Hezbollah earns over $10 million a year from criminal activities in the TBA.66 Although it has been reported that al Qaeda’s operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed lived in the Brazilian TBA city of Foz de Iguazu in 1995 and
Brazilian authorities arrested Ali al-Mahdi Ibrahim—who was wanted by Egypt for his alleged role in the 1997 massacre of tourists at Luxor—in the TBA in 2003, the State Department report states that there have been no corroborated reports that any Islamic groups have an operational presence in the area.67 The United States joined with the countries of the TBA in the “3+1 Group on Tri-Border Area Security” in 2002 and the group built a Joint Intelligence Center to combat trans-border criminal organizations in the TBA
in 2007. The United States has also worked bilaterally with Brazil to improve its counterterrorism capabilities. In addition to providing counterterrorism training, the United States has worked with Brazil to implement the Container Security Initiative (CSI) at the port of Santos. While the State Department Country Reports on Terrorism lauded the Brazilian government as a “cooperative partner in countering terrorism,” it also noted that Brazil’s failure to strengthen its legal counterterrorism framework by passing longdelayed anti-money laundering and counterterrorism bills “significantly undermined its overall commitment to combating terrorism.”68 Brazil, like many Latin American nations, has been reluctant to adopt specific antiterrorism legislation as a result of the difficulty of defining terrorism in a way that does not include the actions of social movements and other groups whose actions of political dissent were condemned as terrorism by repressive military regimes in the past.69 Nonetheless, some Brazilian officials continue to
push for antiterrorism legislation, asserting that the country will face new threats as a result of hosting the 2014 World Cup and the 2016 Olympics.70 In January 2009, the Western Hemisphere Counterterrorism and Nonproliferation Act of 2009 (H.R. 375, Ros-Lehtinen) was introduced in the House. Among other provisions, the bill calls on the U.S. Secretary of State to negotiate with Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay to establish a Regional Coordination Center (RCC) in the TBA to serve as a joint operational facility
dedicated to coordinating efforts, capacity, and intelligence to counter current and emerging threats and prevent the proliferation of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. A similar provision can be found in the Foreign Relations Authorization and Reform Act for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 (H.R. 2475, Ros-Lehtinen), which was introduced in the House in May 2009. Energy Security In the last few years, there has been significant congressional interest in issues related to Western Hemisphere energy security. Brazil is
widely regarded as a world leader in energy policy for successfully reducing its reliance on foreign oil through increased domestic production and the development of alternative energy resources. In addition to being the world’s second largest producer of ethanol, Brazil currently generates over 85% of its electricity through hydropower.71 At the same time, Brazil has attained the ability to produce large amounts of enriched uranium as part of its nuclear energy program. More recently, Brazil’s state-run oil company, Petrobras,
. On March 9, 2007, the United States and
Brazil, the world’s two largest ethanol-producing countries, signed a Memorandum of
Understanding to promote greater cooperation on ethanol and biofuels in the Western
Hemisphere. The agreement involves: (1) technology sharing between the United States and
Brazil; (2) feasibility studies and technical assistance to build domestic biofuels industries in
third countries; and, (3) multilateral efforts to advance the global development of biofuels. The
first countries to receive U.S.- Brazilian assistance were the Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Haiti, and St. Kitts and Nevis.74 Since March 2007, the United States and Brazil have moved
forward on all three facets of the agreement. U.S. and Brazilian consultants have carried out
feasibility studies that identified shortterm technical assistance opportunities in Haiti, the
Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. On November 20, 2008, the United States and Brazil
announced an agreement to expand their biofuels cooperation and form new partnerships with
Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, GuineaBissau, and Senegal.75 The United States and Brazil are
also working with other members of the International Biofuels Forum (IBF) to make biofuels
standards and codes more uniform. In March 2009, the Western Hemisphere Energy Compact
(S. 587, Lugar) was introduced. The legislation would provide $6 million in FY2010 to expand
U.S.-Brazil biofuels cooperation.76 Despite this progress, several potential obstacles to increased
U.S.-Brazil cooperation on biofuels exist, including current U.S. tariffs on most Brazilian
ethanol imports. The United States currently allows duty-free access on sugar-based ethanol
imports from many countries through the Caribbean Basin Initiative, Central American Free
Trade Agreement, and the Andean Trade Preferences Act, among others.77 Some Brazilian
ethanol is processed at plants in the Caribbean for duty-free entry into the United States, but
exports arriving directly from Brazil are currently subject to a 54-cent-per-gallon tax, plus a
2.5% tariff. Several bills were introduced in the 110th Congress that would have eliminated or
adjusted the ethanol tariff. Nuclear Energy Between the mid-1970s and the mid-1980s, Brazil
sought to develop nuclear weapons as it competed with Argentina for political and military
dominance of the Southern Cone. Brazil’s 1988 constitution limits nuclear activity to peaceful
purposes, however, and in 1991, Brazil and Argentina reached an agreement not to pursue
nuclear weapons. Although Brazil subsequently joined the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
(NPT) and a number of other multilateral nonproliferation regimes, some international
observers became concerned when Brazil commissioned a uranium enrichment plant in 2004
and refused to give International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors full access to the
centrifuge plant in 2005. The Brazilian government maintained that it needed to enrich
uranium in order to produce its own fuel, and it justified its refusal to give IAEA inspectors
access by citing security concerns over the proprietary aspects of the country’s nuclear
technology. Negotiations between Brazil and the IAEA ended in October 2005 when the Bush
Administration lent its support to Brazil by asserting that limited inspections should be enough
for Brazil to comply with its international obligations.78 President Lula has stated Brazil’s
intention to spend $540 million over the next eight years to build a third nuclear power plant
and a nuclear-powered submarine. In September 2008, the Brazilian Minister for Energy and
Mining announced that he would like Brazil to build 60 new nuclear energy plants over the next
50 years. He claimed this expansion of nuclear power is the only way that Brazil will be able to
meet the energy needs of its growing population while avoiding massive carbon emissions
through the burning of fossil fuels.79 Oil The recent discovery of substantial oil fields in the
Santos Basin, which extends 500 miles along the Brazilian coast, has the potential to turn Brazil
a leader in deep-water oil drilling, has discovered what may be the world’s largest oil field find in 25 years.72 Ethanol and Other Biofuels73 Brazil stands out as an example of a country that has become a net exporter of energy, partially by increasing its use and production of ethanol
into a major oil and gas producer and an important source of energy for the United States. The
Tupi field, discovered in November 2007, has confirmed oil reserves of between five and eight
billion barrels, and it is estimated that the entire Santos Basin could hold up to 50 billion
barrels of oil. President Lula asserts that the oil fields have the potential to transform Brazil and
improve living conditions for its people. He intends to implement a new regulatory framework,
which will increase the state’s role in the exploitation of the reserves while investing the profits
in a new social fund for education, infrastructure, science and technology, and poverty
reduction.80 Exploiting the new fields will be difficult and costly, however, as the oil is located
in the so-called “pre-salt” layer, beneath layers of rock and salt up to 7,000 meters below the
seabed. Brazil’s state-owned oil company, Petrobras, has announced that it will need $270
billion in investment over the next 10 years to develop the reserves.81 Some foreign investors
have questioned whether the company will be able to access sufficient finance should the
Brazilian government implement its proposed regulatory framework. 82 Nonetheless, Petrobras
has already received several financing commitments. In April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of
the United States approved a preliminary $2 billion loan commitment to Petrobras.83 Since
then, the U.S. government has reportedly indicated that it is prepared to go beyond the original
agreement to provide up to $10 billion in financing.84 In May 2009, Brazil and China signed an
agreement under which China will provide Petrobras with $10 billion in financing in exchange
for guaranteed oil deliveries of 150,000 barrels per day (bdp) in 2009 and 200,000 bpd for the
next decade.85 Brazil’s stateowned National Bank of Economic and Social Development
(BNDES) will provide Petrobras with an additional $12.5 billion over 20 years.86
Trade Issues Trade issues are central to the bilateral relationship between Brazil
and the United States, with both countries being heavily involved in subregional, regional, and global trade talks. Brazil has sought to strengthen Mercosur and to establish free trade agreements with most of the countries in South America, while also pursuing efforts to negotiate a Mercosur-European Union free trade agreement. The United States has been actively involved in the Doha negotiations and, until late 2005, pressed for action on the region-wide Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). Since negotiations
for the FTAA have been largely abandoned, the United States has continued to sign bilateral and subregional agreements with countries throughout Latin America. Bilateral trade between the United States and Brazil totaled $46.2 billion in 2009, a nearly 23% decline from 2008. U.S. exports to Brazil amounted to $26.2 billion while U.S. imports from Brazil amounted to $20.1 billion.87 Doha Round of the World Trade Organization Talks 88 Brazil has had a leading role in the Doha round of the World Trade Organization
(WTO) talks. In 2003, Brazil led the G-20 group of developing countries’ efforts to insist that developed countries agree to reduce and eventually eliminate agricultural subsidies as part of any settlement. In late July 2004, WTO members agreed on the framework for a possible Doha round agreement, but formal talks were suspended indefinitely in July 2006 after key negotiating groups failed to break a deadlock on the issue of agricultural tariffs and subsidies. In June 2007, negotiators from India and Brazil walked out of a
round of informal talks with representatives from the United States and the European Union (EU), refusing to open their markets further unless U.S. and EU subsidies were substantially reduced. In recent years, trade ministers have repeatedly failed to reach an agreement to conclude the Doha round and the U.S. negotiating position remains a source of contention with Brazil.89 World Trade Organization Dispute90 On December 21, 2009, Brazil announced that the WTO had authorized the country to impose trade
retaliation measures worth $829.3 million in 2010 as a result of a nearly decade long dispute over U.S. cotton subsidies. Although Brazil has not yet finalized its decision to impose retaliatory measures, it has indicated that it may levy duties of up to 100% on a preliminary list of 222 goods of U.S. origin valued at $561 million and implement cross-retaliation in sectors outside the trade in goods—such as U.S. copyrights and patents—for the remaining $268.3 million.91 Brazil initiated the dispute with the United States in 2002,
and a WTO dispute settlement panel ruled in Brazil’s favor in September 2004. The United States appealed the ruling but it was reaffirmed by the WTO appellate body in March 2005. Although the Bush Administration asked Congress to modify the cotton subsidy program in July 2005, a WTO dispute panel ruled in December 2007 that the United States was not moving quickly enough to comply with the 2004 ruling.92 Brazil and the United States then went to arbitration over the level of trade sanctions Brazil has the right
to impose against the United States, leading to an August 31, 2009 decision by a WTO arbitration panel, which largely favored Brazil’s retaliation request. Generalized System of Preferences 93 The Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) provides duty-free tariff treatment to certain products imported from developing countries. In the 109th Congress, renewal of the preference (as established by Title V of the Trade Act of 1974) was somewhat controversial, owing, in part, to concerns of some Members that a number of the
more advanced developing countries (such as Brazil and India) were contributing to the impasse in the Doha round of WTO talks. Compromise language worked out between the House and Senate extended GSP for two years for all countries, while asserting that the President “should” revoke “competitive need limitation (CNL)” waivers for products from certain countries, based on the criteria specified. In June 2007, the Bush Administration decided to revoke the CNL waivers on Brazilian brake parts and ferrozirconium.94
The 111th Congress extended GSP until December 31, 2010 with P.L. 111-124. On June 4, 2009, H.R. 2702 (C. Smith) was introduced in the House. The bill would suspend GSP for Brazil until the country meets its obligations under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Intellectual Property Rights In the last few years, Brazil has taken steps to improve its record on protecting intellectual property rights (IPR). The Brazilian government has created a national action plan to address piracy and
intellectual property crimes, which has included increased police actions. Brazil and the United States continue to work together to address intellectual property issues, primarily through the U.S.-Brazil Bilateral Consultative Mechanism and the U.S.-Brazil Commercial Dialogue. In recognition of this progress, the United States Trade Representative lowered Brazil from the Priority Watch List of countries with significant IPR violations to the Watch List in 2007. Brazil remained on the Watch List in 2008 and 2009. In order to
build on progress that has been made, USTR recommends that Brazil should consider strengthening its IPR enforcement legislation, more vigorously addressing book and internet piracy, and signing the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet Treaties.95 The U.S. government has also expressed concerns about Brazil’s periodic threats to issue compulsory licenses for patented pharmaceutical products. In May 2007, Brazil broke a patent on a drug used to treat HIV/AIDS that is produced by Merck & Co. in order to
import a cheaper version of that drug from India.96 In July 2009, President Lula suggested that developing countries should be allowed to lift patent rights to produce more vaccine to battle the A(H1N1) flu epidemic.97 Human Rights The U.S. State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights on Brazil covering 2008 states that while “the federal government generally respected the human rights of its citizens ... there continued to be numerous, serious abuses, and the records of several state governments were poor.”
Some human rights issues of particular concern include ongoing crime and human rights abuses by police, race and discrimination, and trafficking in persons. Violent Crime and Human Rights Abuses by Police Most observers agree that the related problems of urban crime, drugs, and violence, on the one hand, and corruption and brutality in law enforcement and prisons, on the other, are threatening citizens’ security in Brazil. Crime is most rampant in the urban shanty towns (favelas) in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo.
Violence has traditionally been linked to turf wars being waged between rival drug gangs for control of the drug industry or to clashes between drug gangs and police officials, who have been criticized for the brutal manner in which they have responded to the gang violence. The weaknesses in Brazil’s criminal justice system have became dramatically apparent in recent years as gangs have launched violent attacks that have destabilized the cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. In one such attack in May 2006, street combat
and rioting organized by a prisonbased gang network, the First Capital Command (PCC), paralyzed the city of São Paulo for several days.98 Officially, the violent gang attacks, which were followed by police reprisals, resulted in at least 186 deaths.99 More recently, in October 2009, gunmen of the Red Command (CV) launched a raid on the Morro dos Macacos favela to wrest control of the drug trade from the rival Friends of Friends gang. Over the course of several days, 31 people were killed, including three police
sharpshooters whose helicopter was shot down as they tried to control the situation.100 As police forces in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro have employed strong-arm tactics in hopes of curbing the rampant gang violence, some human rights groups have raised concerns over a rising number of extrajudicial killings. Upon completing a November 2007 visit to Brazil, a U.N. Special Rapporteur concluded that police in Brazil are allowed to “kill with impunity in the name of security.”101 Indeed, more than 11,000 people have been
killed by the two police forces since 2003. Although the officers involved have reported nearly all of the killings as legitimate acts of self defense, or “resistance killings,” a recent two year investigation by Human Rights Watch concluded that “a substantial portion of the alleged resistance killings reported...[were] in fact extrajudicial executions.” The Human Rights Watch report also indicates that those police officers responsible for extrajudicial killings enjoy near total impunity. For example, of the over 7,800 complaints
against police officers recorded by the Rio Police Ombudsman’s Office over the past decade, only 42 generated criminal charges by state prosecutors and just four led to convictions.102 Despite these criticisms, some have defended the strong-arm tactics. São Paulo’s public security secretariat maintains that Human Rights Watch failed to take note of the fact that annual state killings by police have declined by 50% since 2003 while the homicide rate has been reduced by 70% over the past decade.103 Many analysts have
asserted that Brazilian politicians at all levels of government have failed to devote the resources and political will necessary to confront the country’s serious public security problems, however, this may be changing. The state of Rio de Janeiro launched a new anticrime initiative in 2009 that considerably expands the number of personnel charged with maintaining security. Whereas previous police efforts generally centered around quick raids, the new initiative establishes Police Pacification Units (UPPs) that will maintain
permanent presences in the favelas. After the favelas are cleared of drug gangs, the UPPs are charged with maintaining security and other governmental institutions are brought in to provide basic social services. The new initiative has been rather successful in reducing crime and violence without extensive bloodshed. Rio de Janeiro’s government intends to expand the initiative from the seven pilot favelas targeted in 2009 to 40 additional favelas in 2010.104 Race and Discrimination 105 People of African descent in Brazil,
also known as Afro-Brazilians, represent 45% of the country’s population, but constitute 64% of the poor and 69% of the extreme poor.106 During the Cardoso Administration, the Brazilian government began to collect better official statistics on Afro-Brazilians. These statistics found significant education, health, and wage disparities between Afro-Brazilians and Brazil’s general population. Brazil now has the most extensive anti-discrimination legislation geared towards Afrodescendants of any country in Latin America. In
2001, Brazil became the first Latin American country to endorse quotas in order to increase minority representation in government service. Since 2002, several state universities in Brazil have enacted quotas setting aside admission slots for black students. Although most Brazilians favor government programs to combat social exclusion, they disagree as to whether the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs should be selected on the basis of race or income.107 In 2003, Brazil became the first country in the world to
establish a Special Secretariat with a ministerial rank to manage Racial Equity Promotion Policies. Afro-Brazilian activists, while acknowledging recent government efforts on behalf of Afro-descendants, have noted that most universities have preferred not to implement quota systems, and that the Special Secretariat lacks the funding, staff, and clout necessary to advance its initiatives.108 Despite these limitations, Brazil has taken a leadership role in advancing issues of race and discrimination within the Organization of
American States, where it is leading the drafting of an Inter-American Convention for the Prevention of Racism and All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance. In March 2008, Brazil and the Untied States signed an agreement known as the United States-Brazil Joint Action Plan Against Racial Discrimination to bilaterally promote racial equality in areas such as education, health, housing, and labor.109 On September 9, 2008, the House passed H.Res. 1254 (Engel), expressing congressional support for the U.S.-Brazil
antidiscrimination plan. Trafficking in Persons for Forced Labor 110 According to the U.S. State Department’s Trafficking in Persons report, Brazil does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking, but is making significant efforts to do so. As a result, it is listed as a Tier 2 country.111 Brazil is a source, transit, and destination country for people, especially women and children, trafficked for commercial sexual exploitation. Brazilian Federal Police estimate that between 250,000 and 400,000
children are exploited in domestic prostitution, especially in the country’s coastal resort areas where child sex tourism is prevalent. Brazil is also a source country for men trafficked internally for forced labor. More than 25,000 men have reportedly been recruited to labor in slave-like conditions, many in the country’s agribusiness industry. Roughly half of the more than 11,000 people freed from debt slavery in 2007 and 2008 were found working on sugarcane plantations.112 While the Brazilian government announced an
agreement with the sugar industry to provide decent working conditions for the country’s sugarcane cutters in June 2009, the accord does not establish minimum wages or formal obligations.113 Reports suggest that significant numbers of men working in cattle ranching, mining, and the production of charcoal for pig iron—a key ingredient of steel that is then purchased by major companies in the United States—are also subjected to slave labor.114 Over the past year, the Brazilian government has taken a number of actions to
address the problem of human trafficking. Anti-slave labor mobile units under the Ministry of Labor increased their operations, inspecting remote areas, freeing victims, and forcing those responsible to pay fines and restitution. Slave labor victims received some $3.6 million in compensation as a result of the 2008 operations. The Brazilian government also continued prosecuting traffickers, providing assistance to victims, and broadcasting its anti-trafficking public awareness campaign. Additionally, the Brazilian government
began implementing a national plan of action to prevent trafficking in persons. Despite these actions, Brazil has made only limited progress in bringing traffickers to justice and effectively penalizing those who exploit forced labor.115 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Over the past several years, a high-profile child custody case has focused attention on Brazil’s noncompliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.116 In June 2004, Sean Goldman was
taken to Brazil by his mother, Bruna Bianchi Carneiro Ribeiro Goldman, a Brazilian native. Ms. Bianchi then divorced her husband David Goldman—a U.S. citizen—and asserted full custody of Sean. In August 2004, the Superior Court of New Jersey ruled that Ms. Bianchi’s continued retention of Sean constituted parental kidnapping under U.S. law and awarded Mr. Goldman custody.117 In September 2004, Mr. Goldman filed an application for Sean’s return under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction, to which both the United States and Brazil are party and which entered into force between the countries on December 1, 2003. Under the Convention, a child removed from a country in violation of a parent’s custodial rights should be promptly returned to the place of his or her habitual residence. The courts of the country of the child’s residence can then resolve the custody dispute.118 In 2005, a Brazilian federal judge ruled that although Sean had been moved to Brazil wrongfully, he should
remain in Brazil because he had become settled in his new location.119 In August 2008, Ms. Bianchi died and a Brazilian state court judge granted temporary custody of Sean to the man Ms. Bianchi married following her move to Brazil, Joao Paulo Lins e Silva.120 The custody case then bounced between federal appeals courts and the Brazilian Supreme Court until December 22, 2009, when the Brazilian Supreme Court issued a definitive ruling that ordered that Sean be returned to his father. On December 24, 2009, Sean
was handed over to Mr. Goldman at the U.S. Consulate in Rio de Janeiro.121 The U.S. State Department’s Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction cites Brazil for patterns of noncompliance with the Convention. It faults Brazilian courts for treating Convention cases as custody decisions, demonstrating bias toward Brazilian citizens, and making the judicial process excessively lengthy. There are currently some 50 unresolved cases of children being retained in
Brazil after having been wrongly removed from the United States.122 On March 11, 2009, the House unanimously passed H.Res. 125 (C. Smith), calling on Brazil to meet its obligations under the Hague Convention to return Sean Goldman to his father in the United States. On March 24, 2009, the Senate approved S.Res. 37 (Lautenberg) by unanimous consent, calling on Brazil to comply with the requirements of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and to assist in the safe return of Sean
Goldman to his father in the United States. On June 4, 2009, H.R. 2702 (C. Smith) was introduced in the House. The bill would suspend the Generalized System of Preferences for Brazil until the country meets its obligations under the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. HIV/AIDS Internationally recognized as having one of the world’s most successful HIV/AIDS programs, Brazil has made the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS a national priority. Initially focused on disease prevention,
Brazil’s HIV/AIDS program expanded to providing antiretroviral therapy (ART) on a limited basis by 1991, and later guaranteeing universal access by 1996. Currently some 172,000 Brazilians have access to free generic versions of ART drugs, some of which are locally produced and financed by the Brazilian government. The incidence of HIV/AIDS in Brazil has stabilized since 1997, and universal free access to ART has increased average survival times from 18 months for those diagnosed in 1995, to 58 months for those
diagnosed in 1996.123 HIV prevalence has been stable at 0.5% for the general population in Brazil since 2000, so most government prevention efforts are now targeted at high-risk groups where prevalence rates are still above 5%. Brazil’s decision to develop generic ART drugs to treat HIV/AIDS under the compulsory licensing provision of its patent law led to a subsequent 80% drop in the cost of treatment. That decision brought Brazil into conflict with the United States and the international pharmaceutical industry. In May
2001, the United States submitted a complaint to the WTO, which was later withdrawn, that Brazil’s practices violated the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement and prevented companies from developing new products in Brazil. While the pharmaceutical industry argued that TRIPS was an essential tool to protect intellectual property rights, developing countries (like Brazil) countered that TRIPS inhibited their ability to fight public health emergencies in a cost-effective manner. In August
2003, a WTO decision temporarily waived part of the TRIPS rules to allow the export of generic drugs to countries confronting a grave public health challenge (such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, or malaria). That temporary waiver became permanent in late 2005.124 Brazil currently manufactures older ART drugs for domestic consumption and export to several African countries but has to import newer medicines. According to Brazil’s Ministry of Health, tough negotiations with pharmaceutical companies have resulted in $1.1
billion in savings for the country’s HIV/AIDS program. Amazon Conservation The Amazon basin spans the borders of eight countries and is the most biodiverse tract of tropical rainforest in the world. It holds 20% of the Earth’s fresh water and 10% of all known species. Approximately 60% of the Amazon falls within Brazilian borders, making Brazil home to 40% of the world’s remaining tropical forests.125 The Brazilian Amazon was largely undeveloped until the 1960s, when the military government began subsidizing the
settlement and development of the region as a matter of national security. Over the last 40 years, the human population has grown from 4 million to over 20 million, and the resulting settlements, roads, logging, cattle ranching, and subsistence and commercial agriculture have led to approximately 15% of the Brazilian Amazon being deforested.126 In the 1980s, some predicted that deforestation would decline if the Brazilian government stopped providing tax incentives and credit subsidies to settlers and agricultural
producers. Those predictions have not borne out, however, as the complex and often interrelated causes of deforestation have multiplied rather than decreased.127 Between 1990 and 2000, Brazil lost an area of rainforest twice the size of Portugal, however, deforestation rates have generally declined since the peak year of 2004.128 Domestic Efforts Recognizing that deforestation threatens the biodiversity of the Amazon region and is responsible for 70% of Brazil’s annual greenhouse-gas emissions, the Lula Administration
has expanded protected areas and implemented new environmental policies.129 During its first five years in office, the Lula Administration created 62 new natural reserves, bringing the total area of the Brazilian Amazon protected by law to nearly 110,000 square miles, the fourth-largest percentage of protected area in relation to territory in the world.130 President Lula has also signed a Public Forest Management Law that encourages sustainable development and placed a moratorium on soybean plantings and cattle
ranching in the Amazon. Moreover, Brazil intends to reduce the rate of Amazon deforestation by half—based on the 1996-2005 average—to 2,300 square miles per year—by 2017 and reduce Amazon deforestation by 80% by 2020. Brazil plans to meet these goals by increasing federal patrols of forested areas, replanting over 21,000 square miles of forest, and financing sustainable development projects in areas where the local economy depends on logging.131 The Lula Administration maintains that its efforts have been
successful, highlighting the fact that just 2,706 square miles of the Amazon were deforested between July 2008 and July 2009, the lowest annual level since the National Institute for Space Studies began monitoring deforestation in 1988.132 Although some conservation groups have praised President Lula for his Administration’s actions, a number of environmentalists—including former Environment Minister Marina Silva and current Environment Minister Carlos Minc—have questioned the Administration’s commitment to
sustainable development.133 Critics assert that the Administration favors agricultural interests over conservation. This claim was reinforced by President Lula’s June 2009 approval of an environmental law that grants nearly 260,000 square miles of the Amazon to illegal squatters, 72% of which will go to large land holders.134 Critics also maintain that Brazil’s occasional declines in deforestation rates are not the result of the Lula Administration’s initiatives, but correspond to declining global commodity prices that make it
less profitable to clear the forests. They point out that deforestation rates only began falling as commodity prices collapsed in late 2008.135 In order to combat further deforestation, some analysts maintain that the Brazilian government will have to greatly increase the number of people employed to work in protected areas and do more to confront agricultural producers operating within the Amazon.136 Carbon Offsets and Other International Initiatives The Amazon holds 10% of the carbon stores in the world’s ecosystem and
absorbs nearly two billion tons of carbon dioxide each year, making it a sink for global carbon emissions and an important asset in the prevention of climate change.137 The Kyoto Protocol—of which Brazil is a signatory—created a Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows emission reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified emission reduction credits (CERs) that can then be traded or sold to industrialized countries to meet their mandated emission reduction targets. Brazil has taken full advantage
of the CDM, and is host to over 9% of the worldwide emission reduction projects. These projects represent 33.5 million CERs, or a reduction of 33.5 million tons of carbon dioxide.138 The CDM allows for a wide variety of emission reduction projects, but in terms of forestry, CERs are only awarded for afforestation and reforestation projects, not forest conservation. As a result, forestry projects account for a very small percentage of the total CERs awarded. A number of industrialized countries that would like to achieve a
greater percentage of their mandated emission reductions through carbon offsets have teamed with developing countries with substantial tropical forests to propose widening the CDM to include forest conservation. Brazil has opposed such a plan, arguing it would absolve rich countries from cutting their own emissions.139 Brazil has supported the rise of voluntary offset markets, however, in which organizations and individuals not subject to mandatory emission reductions can buy carbon offsets to contribute to
conservation and clean energy projects. Brazil believes Amazon conservation should be done through public funding rather than a carbon market. Accordingly, it launched the “Amazon Fund” in August 2008. The fund is intended to attract donations from countries, companies, and non-governmental organizations to assist in Brazil’s Amazon conservation efforts. Brazil intends to raise $21 billion by 2021 to support forest conservation, scientific research, and sustainable development. Norway has pledged $1 billion to he
USAID environment programs
support Amazon conservation through the promotion of proper land-use and
encouragement of environmentally friendly income generation activities for the
rural poor. In FY2006, USAID initiated the Amazon Basin Conservation Initiative, which
supports community groups, governments, and public and private organizations working
throughout the Amazon Basin in their efforts to conserve the Amazon’s globally important
biodiversity. USAID provided $5.2 million for environmental programs in Brazil in FY2007,
$9.5 million in FY2008, and $10 million in FY2009. The Conference Report (H.Rept. 111-366)
to the FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) asserts that, of the funds
appropriated in the act for biodiversity programs, $25 million are to go to the Amazon Basin
Conservation Initiative, $10 million of which is directed to activities in Brazil.
fund through 2015 and Germany has pledged $26.8 million. The first projects funded by the Amazon Fund were announced in December 2009. They include projects to regenerate degraded land, monitor land registration titles, and pay rubber tappers and other forest dwellers to protect the forest.140