Economy
Tax Reform
Explanation
Territorial tax system: a tax system that taxes domestic income but not foreign income.
The story: The current problem with the worldwide tax system is that businesses are taxed at the same
rate abroad as they are in the United States. This means that US-based companies are holding back on
paying foreign-earned taxes. The CP would create a territorial tax system which spurs more income
abroad for US-based companies, leading to economic growth of businesses within the US, spurring US
job creation and increases in wages.
Note: Although you can read no link to politics, this probably isn’t the best option because it’s very
unpopular with Democrats and Obama.
1NC
Plan text: The United States federal government should institute a territorial tax
system on future profits with anti-base erosion and profit-shifting policies and lower
corporate tax rates to an average of 25%
That spurs economic growth and prevents business inversions
Dubay 2014 (Curtis S. Dubay is a Research Fellow in Tax and Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, 9-4-2014, "Business
Inversions: Tax Reform Is the Only Way to Curb Them," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/businessinversions-tax-reform-is-the-only-way-to-curb-them)
The plans in Congress and potential actions by the Administration are too ad hoc and piecemeal to reduce the incentives for businesses to invert. They are also unwarranted economic
interventions for the most part. Even if they could curtail inversions, they would not be appropriate. Tax reform is the best venue to reduce those incentives significantly because it would
enable Congress to tackle the problems with the current business tax system that create both the short-term and long-term inducements to invert. Lower Tax Rate Necessary for Relief of
Congress can best address the short-term desire by businesses to reduce their effective tax
rates by lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate. At 39.1 percent when including the average of state rates
it is almost 15 percentage points higher than the 25 percent average of other developed countries in the
OECD. Lowering the rate so it is on par with that average would substantially reduce the benefits of
earnings stripping and the other factors that increase businesses’ effective tax rates. Territorial Taxation Needed to Limit
Inversions. A lower rate would reduce the tax on businesses’ future foreign income, but the worldwide
system would still remain a problem for businesses and therefore a reason to potentially invert. As long
as the U.S. taxes global income, U.S. businesses will remain at a competitive disadvantage when it
comes to investing in new foreign markets even if Congress lowers the rate significantly, because there
will still be several countries with lower rates than the U.S. rate. Foreign businesses from countries with
territorial systems will retain a comparative advantage in those places. As such, the U.S. needs to
institute a territorial system as well. Under a territorial system, U.S. businesses would pay tax on foreign
income only in the countries where they earn that income—just like their foreign competitors. They would no
longer owe extra tax to the U.S. on income earned outside its borders, so the hurdle rate on all new foreign investments would fall, making more of them viable. More foreign
investment, in addition to relieving pressure to invert, would be a boon to U.S. workers because it would
also raise domestic investment, which would raise incomes and create jobs.[8] Businesses would continue paying the same
Short-Term Pressures.
amount of tax on their U.S. income. It would only reduce taxes on their foreign income. Many claim that a move to a territorial system reduces U.S. tax, but that is only an issue if one believes
that it is right for the U.S. to tax the foreign income of its businesses. However, the economics of multinational taxation make clear that the U.S. should not tax income that American
businesses earn abroad.[9] A territorial system, or dividend-exemption method (essentially the same thing), requires strong anti–base-erosion and anti–profit-shifting policies. Without them,
businesses could shift income that should be U.S.-sourced income to lower-taxed jurisdictions and unjustifiably lower the U.S. tax that they owe. Chairman of the House Ways and Means
Committee Dave Camp (R–MI) recently released a tax reform proposal that would establish a dividend-exemption system for the U.S. He rightfully included such policies.[10]
A territorial tax system would allow US firms to become competitive internationally
and creates jobs
Dubay 2013 (Curtis S. Dubay is a Research Fellow in Tax and Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, 9-12-2013, "A Territorial Tax
System Would Create Jobs and Raise Wages for U.S. Workers," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/aterritorial-tax-system-would-create-jobs-and-raise-wages-for-us-workers)
Supporters of territorial taxation routinely argue that the U.S. needs such a reform to allow businesses to
repatriate their foreign earnings to invest domestically. They use the same justification to support a
repatriation holiday that would absolve U.S. businesses of paying tax that they previously accrued on
foreign-source income. While there is certainly nothing wrong with businesses bringing more income
back to the U.S., eliminating the lockout effect in which businesses keep foreign earning abroad to avoid
U.S. tax alone will not spur job creation and wage growth because it is backward-looking.[18] However,
changing to a territorial system on future profits will unlock investment at home and abroad that the
current worldwide system is holding back. That new investment will improve the efficiency and
competitiveness of U.S. firms and spur U.S. job creation and wage growth. The U.S. is far behind the rest
of the world in territorial taxation. Sticking with the antiquated and harmful worldwide system is hurting job creation and suppressing wages for U.S. workers.
The sooner the U.S. catches up, the sooner American workers and savers will reap the benefits of
updating to a 21st-century system of taxing businesses. To move the tax system into the modern world, Congress should
institute a territorial tax system on future profits with anti-base erosion and profit-shifting polices as a
replacement for the damaging worldwide system.
Doesn’t link to politics—bipartisan agreement and Obama supports
Barro 2015 (Josh Barro is a domestic correspondent for The New York Times, where he writes for The Upshot, a Times politics and policy
site. He writes mostly about economic issues, from fiscal policy and labor markets to rent control and ride-sharing, 2-4-2015, "Corporate Tax
Reform: Focusing on Where the Money Is, Not Where the Jobs Are," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/05/upshot/corporatetax-reform-focusing-on-where-the-money-is-not-where-the-jobs-are.html?_r=1&abt=0002&abg=1)
This would benefit companies that do business only in the United States. But it would also be favorable to a lot of American companies with real, bona fide foreign
operations employing foreign workers. Those firms would pay a 19 percent minimum tax, but they would get a tax credit equal to 85 percent of taxes paid to the
foreign jurisdictions where they earn money. And in contrast with today, they would owe no further tax once they bring the profits home. So, let’s say you do
business somewhere like the Netherlands, which has a 25 percent corporate tax rate. Under the current system, you’d most likely owe a little bit of tax to the
United States if you ever bring your Dutch profits home. Under
Mr. Obama’s proposed reforms, the credits for your Dutch
taxes would in most cases wipe out your minimum tax liability to the United States, and you could bring
your profits home without paying any American taxes. This is a big deal, because it means Republicans
and the president agree on something: If a company earns income abroad, and pays tax on that income abroad at a non-haven rate, it
shouldn’t owe any additional tax to the United States — even if the foreign country has a modestly lower tax rate than we do. There is now bipartisan
agreement in favor of territorial taxation, in which companies pay tax on their income only where they
earn it.
2NC Solvency
A territorial tax system leads to economic growth
Dubay 6-25 (Curtis S. Dubay is a Research Fellow in Tax and Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, 6-25-2015, "Congress Should
Only Make Changes to Repatriation Policy When Establishing a Territorial System," Heritage Foundation,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/06/congress-should-only-make-changes-to-repatriation-policy-when-establishing-a-territorialsystem)
Changes to repatriation policy have been spoken about often as a way to fill the hole in the Highway Trust Fund (HTF). Although the conversations have been frequent, details about what such
There are usually two
options discussed when it comes to using changes to repatriation policy as a way to fill the gap in the HTF. The first
would be Congress either granting a repatriation tax holiday on the untaxed overseas earnings of U.S. businesses at a lower rate than current law,
or deeming those earnings repatriated and taxing them at a rate lower than under current law. In this option, repatriation would be a stand-alone policy to
fund the HTF. The second option would be to establish a territorial system (or dividend-exemption system) in place of our
current worldwide one, and deem the foreign earnings repatriated to help pay for the transition to that better system. The first option would not be sound policy; the
second one would strongly boost economic growth. Changes to Repatriation Should Be Done Exclusively in Tax Reform The country
needs tax reform because the current tax code is holding the economy back from growing as strongly as it
should. The biggest factor holding back growth is the antiquated way the tax code treats businesses. In addition to
having the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, as defined by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD), the worldwide system that taxes U.S. businesses on their foreign earnings is the biggest reason the business tax
system is so outdated. It would be best if Congress passed fundamental tax reform, where it would reform both individual and business
taxes. However, since the need for business reform is so pressing, it makes sense to focus on business-only first if
that is what is achievable.[1] Business tax reform contains many pieces, such as lowering tax rates, moving to
expensing of capital purchases, and establishing a territorial system. It would be better to pass those
policies together since they are all necessary to fully alleviate the burden business taxes put on the economy, but passing them separately would still move the tax code in a progrowth direction. Under the current worldwide system, businesses retain earnings abroad because they do not pay U.S. tax until they bring the money back to the U.S.,
a policy known as deferral. Businesses delay paying U.S. tax on those earnings because paying the extra U.S. tax on them
would make them highly uncompetitive against their foreign competition. Regardless of how Congress proceeds on tax reform,
changes to repatriation policy should always be handled in conjunction with international reform that switches from the
worldwide system to a territorial, or dividend-exemption, system.[2] The worldwide system has caused businesses to compile those earnings abroad. It only
a policy would entail have been scant. By holding this hearing, the Committee is taking an important step to clear up any confusion that may exist.
makes sense that changes to how they are taxed be used to repair the harm it causes. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) is likely to score switching to territorial as a tax cut, at least
initially. A dynamic score, which it is now required to provide, should reduce the tax cut compared to a static score. Some have estimated that U.S. corporations have earned an estimated $2.1
As part of moving toward a territorial tax system, this income
should be deemed to be repatriated and taxed at a reasonable rate. The businesses that earned this foreign source income expected to
trillion overseas that has not been repatriated and subject to U.S. tax.[3]
pay tax on this money eventually and to exempt it from tax entirely would constitute an unwarranted windfall gain. However, because current law allows for deferral and because of the time
value of money, taxing this income under a deemed repatriation at the full corporate rate would be equally unfair. The new revenue from this deemed repatriation can make a substantial
contribution to funding other positive aspects of business tax reform. One of those ways would be to help offset the resulting tax cut from switching to a territorial system. For instance, in his
tax reform proposal, then-Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R–MI) incorporated deemed repatriation as a transition method to a territorial system in his 2014
revenue-neutral tax reform proposal.[4] It is acceptable to do this because it is part of broader tax reform—it is not a tax hike and it makes way for a badly needed, and long overdue, territorial
system. An additional use for the revenue raised from repatriation within international reform would be to compensate those businesses that are harmed by tax reform. Tax reform creates
A territorial system
would free U.S. businesses to invest more abroad by making investments profitable that are
unprofitable under the current worldwide system. The increase in foreign investment would increase
domestic investment by businesses in support of their foreign operations and their efficiency and
competitiveness as well. This would create jobs and raise wages for U.S. workers.[5] It would be a
tremendous benefit to the economy. A territorial system requires a robust set of policies to prevent
improper base erosion and profit shifting. Without such policies, U.S. businesses could shift income earned in the U.S. to countries with lower tax rates.
winners that experience windfall gains and losers that see the decline in deferred tax assets, such as foreign tax credits, loss carrybacks, and others.
Shifting income that should be taxable in the U.S. abroad would improperly narrow the tax base and force tax rates to be higher on domestic-only businesses and families. Higher tax rates hurt
growth and are therefore antithetical to the core purpose of engaging in tax reform.
Congress should craft its own set of base erosion and
profit-shifting policies. It should not be beholden to international efforts such as are ongoing currently
with the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting project.
Canada proves that a territorial tax system leads to job growth and stronger economic
performance
NCPA 2012 (National Center for Policy Analysis, 11-16-2012, "Canada's Experience with Territorial Taxation," NCPA,
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=22586)
Recently, there have been several debates over the merits of a territorial tax system. In essence, such a tax system allows a company to be exempt from any
domestic taxes for earnings made in another country. The United States currently adheres to a "worldwide" tax system in which earnings that are made abroad are
still subject to the U.S. tax code. Canada
provides a model for the United States to look at, as it has essentially
pivoted to a territorial tax system to much success, says the Tax Foundation. Canada's tax system is sometimes referred to as a "hybrid
system" because it does not adhere fully to a territorial tax system. Instead, Canada creates treaties with other countries and any Canadian company that makes
income in one of those countries is exempt from paying domestic taxes. But since
Canada has expanded this treaty network to
include 91 countries and all major trading partners, it is considered a territorial tax system. Theoretically,
however, Canada can still tax income earned in non-treaty countries. To keep its tax base from eroding, Canada treats all passive
income as Foreign Accrued Property Income (FAPI). This classifies interest, royalties, rent and other passive investment income and
income from unincorporated branches as taxable. This prevents companies from shifting to low-tax jurisdictions. Canada continues to make its
tax system highly competitive. Canada's corporate tax rate has been lowered from 42.9 percent to 26.1
percent. In 2007, the dividend exemption was applied to affiliates in countries with a bilateral Tax Information Exchange Agreement. Furthermore, Canada has
facilitated foreign investment by Canadian companies. As a result of these competitive tax changes, Canada has experienced
stronger economic performance. Canada's economy has grown at an average real rate of 2.61 percent
since 1995. This is 0.02 points stronger than the U.S. average. Moreover, more jobs have been added to
the Canadian economy. Finally, Canada is still able to yield consistently large tax revenues that have outcollected the United States.
A territorial tax system would lead to economic growth
Pomerleau 2015 (Kyle Pomerleau is an Economist for the Tax Foundation's Center for Federal Tax Policy, 5-4-2015, "Global tax
reform will lead to economic growth at home," Washington Examiner, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/global-tax-reform-will-lead-toeconomic-growth-at-home/article/2563877)
When it comes to promoting economic growth that will lead to increased employment and investment in this country, reform of
our international tax system is important. As Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, noted in his opening remarks at the
same hearing, "Reforming our international tax system is a critical step on the road toward comprehensive tax reform." Other industrialized
countries have realized that the global economy has slowly changed over the last few decades and
adapted their tax systems accordingly. Of the 34 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, the United
States is one of only six which taxes corporations in a worldwide system, whereas thirteen have moved to a territorial
system since 2000. Along with Japan, other nations have also implemented reforms to lower their corporate tax rates. With foreign companies
taxed under a territorial system — in which foreign profits are not taxed again when brought to the
home country — U.S. multinational corporations operate at an economic disadvantage in the global
marketplace. It is surprising that the administration and some in Congress want to double-down on our current system. They have proposed changes that
would place U.S. oil companies at an even greater disadvantage when they operate abroad by taking away their ability to utilize the foreign tax credit. These
changes would make the already onerous system under which American companies operate even more difficult and burdensome to navigate. Not to mention the
fact that according to IRS data, the petroleum industry (along with coal products manufacturing) already pays $42.7 billion in foreign taxes on $118.2 billion in
taxable income — more than any other sector. Imposing
double taxation will only further restrict U.S. energy companies
from growing and expanding in the global economy, costing American jobs and revenue. It's important to note
that it's not just large multinational corporations with foreign operations being affected by onerous international tax rules. U.S. small and medium-size businesses,
which make up 26 percent of multinational corporations according to the Commerce Department, must also try to stay competitive on the global stage under those
same rules. Rather than moving backwards, the
United States should look to reform its international tax code. Reducing
our corporate income tax rate and enacting a territorial tax system — one that exempts U.S.
multinationals' foreign income from domestic taxation — would bring our tax code more in line with the
rest of the world. This will help U.S. corporations be more competitive overseas, which means more money is available
to create more jobs and investment here in the United States. Our current international tax system must catch up to the global marketplace reality. Rather
than hinder American companies as they try to stay competitive globally, lawmakers need to sit down
together to figure out how we can help American businesses — large and small — succeed both here
and across the world.
Solves—creates jobs
Dubay 2013 (Curtis S. Dubay is a Research Fellow in Tax and Economic Policy at The Heritage Foundation, 9-12-2013, "A Territorial Tax
System Would Create Jobs and Raise Wages for U.S. Workers," Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/09/aterritorial-tax-system-would-create-jobs-and-raise-wages-for-us-workers)
Some argue that a territorial system would create an extra incentive for U.S. businesses to invest overseas, but this is incorrect. Instead,
a territorial system would
remove a disincentive created by the current worldwide system. A territorial system is neutral to investment decisions because, by taking
U.S. taxes mostly out of the equation, it provides neither incentives nor disincentives for businesses to determine where
to locate their resources. Eliminating a disincentive is not the same thing as creating a new incentive. A territorial system certainly creates
jobs overseas, but that is only half the story. During the 2012 presidential campaign, Vice President Joseph Biden, reflecting the Obama Administration’s
preference for harmful worldwide taxation,[9] famously quoted a misleading academic study that found that moving to a territorial
system would create 800,000 jobs in foreign countries.[10] The implication was that U.S. businesses
would create those jobs in foreign countries instead of in the United States. Whatever the true figure,[11] the analysis
ignores that these jobs would be created to meet new demand in foreign countries—an improvement in
efficiency that the worldwide system largely prevents today. Of course, as more authoritative academic research cited previously shows and
the example above makes clear, increased foreign investment would result in more investment in the U.S. That
investment would lead to more jobs and higher wages in the U.S. The study that Vice President Biden cited fails to mention that,
while investment by U.S. business creates jobs overseas, it also results in jobs at home. References to
lost U.S. jobs also fail to note that U.S. businesses would rarely create those jobs in the U.S. regardless of
the tax regime in place because they will seldom make the same investments in the U.S. as in foreign
markets. U.S. businesses would create new jobs abroad and at home to take advantage of new opportunities in growing foreign markets. The jobs that the U.S.
economy gains from increased investment because U.S. businesses expand abroad are all a net gain.
AT: Will Pass
Tax reform won’t pass now
Gleckman 6/8 (Howard Gleckman, editor of TaxVox and a resident fellow at The Urban Institute, internally citing Mitch McConnell, 68-2015, "Obama-Era Tax Reform: RIP," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/06/08/obama-era-tax-reform-rip/)
If you still thought there was any chance Congress would pass tax reform before the next election, you can
officially abandon hope. In an online interview published Sunday on Morning Consult, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) hammered the last nail in the coffin. Asked about his priorities for the rest of the year, McConnell replied, “ We’re certainly not
going to be able to be doing big, comprehensive tax reform with this president. The president is not interested in
revenue neutrality, and he’s not interested in treating all taxpayers the same, so I don’t think we’ll get there on
comprehensive.” Then there is Tax Analyst columnist Marty Sullivan (paywall), who this morning wrote what I believe is the first piece to dope out the tax
reform politics of 2017. If you are a tax geek, maybe it’s time to focus on what the presidential candidates have to say (so, far, quite a lot, at least among
Republicans). Other than that, you can take the next 18 months off. McConnell’s claim that the failure of reform is entirely President Obama’s fault is partisan spin.
Both sides shoulder plenty of blame. But his diagnosis of the problem is at least half right. As
long as Democrats and Republicans are
unable to agree on how much money the tax system ought to raise—and they cannot– arguments over
design are futile. But the challenges go deeper than that. Neither party wants to be the first to call for repealing, or
even trimming, popular tax breaks—the inevitable price of lower rates if reform is not going to add to the national debt. Former GOP House
Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp tried it, and he was hung out to dry by his own leaders.
Politics No Link
Bipartisan support
Drawbaugh 2015 (Kevin Drawbaugh, journalist for Reuters, internally citing Orrin Hatch, Republican chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, 1-23-2015, "U.S. Senate's Hatch sees support for tax reform," Reuters, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/23/us-usa-taxeshatch-idUSKBN0KW2EH20150123)
The U.S. Senate's top tax law writer sounded determined on Friday about pursuing comprehensive tax reform, though this is viewed as unlikely by most analysts.
"Though there are disagreements on the details, there
is bipartisan support for tax reform in Congress," said Orrin Hatch,
Republican chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, at a conference for tax lawyers, analysts and
economists. "Members of both parties have expressed their support for a tax overhaul. And, I believe
there is real momentum to get something done on tax reform this year, if we remain committed. And, believe me, I’m committed," he said. Hatch
took over leadership of the committee this month when Republicans gained control of the Senate. He has divided the panel into five working groups. He said he
expects to get recommendations from the groups "later this spring." The
groups are looking at the individual income tax, business
income tax, savings and investment, international tax and community development and infrastructure.
The U.S. tax code has not been overhauled thoroughly in 28 years. In that time it has become riddled with loopholes. As a result, tax avoidance is a
growing problem. The loopholes, together with deep tax cuts some years ago, means the government does not raise enough revenue to pay its bills. At
the same time, tax experts also generally agree that the system is so complex and often contradictory that compliance costs are excessive and economic
productivity is harmed. The
main obstacle to fixing the code is that special interest groups immediately leap to
the defense of their particular loopholes whenever lawmakers start talking reform. Finding a way to overcome the
gridlock that results is a task that has defied Congress and the White House since 1986. Hatch has laid out basic principles for reform. At
the conference, he said he has the impression that Democratic President Barack Obama might be willing to do a deal on business tax reform alone, setting aside
individual income tax issues. "We
need to lower corporate tax rates and transition toward a territorial tax system,"
Hatch said. A territorial system is one that would exempt all or most of the foreign profits of U.S. corporations from the corporate income tax.
A2: Tax Reform CP
Won’t Work
Territorial tax reform hurts the economy
Cohen 2013 (Philip G. Cohen, professor, Pace University's Lubin School of Business, New York City, 118-2013, "Congress must enact tax reform without territorial taxation,"
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/294863-loophole-expansion-and-taxreform)
Many U.S. based multinationals are concentrating their lobbying efforts to using tax reform to implement territorial taxation. Moving toward territorial taxation has a plethora of advocates.
Even the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the so-called Simpson-Bowles Commission, whose mission was deficit reduction supported territorial taxation and Erskine
One
argument for territorial taxation is that companies based outside the U.S. generally do not face
worldwide taxation on active income, putting companies incorporated in the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with their foreign-based rivals. The
second argument for territorial taxation is that it will eliminate the lockout effect of having hundreds of
billions of dollars of earnings trapped offshore.
What does loophole expansion have to do with either
tax reform or deficit reduction? There is an existing loophole for offshore earnings. The Internal Revenue Code today taxes
Bowles and Alan Simpson continue to do so. Chairman Camp of the House Ways and Means Committee is also a proponent of territorial taxation albeit with some limits.
income earned by a foreign subsidiary differently than if earned in the U.S. because taxation of the former is generally deferred. Hundreds of billions of dollars of profits are being shifted from
A territorial tax system would
serve to encourage the shifting of activities offshore, and, with it, taxable profits and jobs. Congress
attempted to address the lockout effect in 2004, with the enactment of Internal Revenue Code section
965 which permitted for a limited time, U.S. based multinationals to repatriate billions of dollars kept in
foreign subsidiaries at a tax rate of 5.25 percent compared to the general corporate tax rate of 35
percent. This provision, which was part of The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, was also heavily lobbied for by many of the same companies behind the push for territorial taxation.
the United States tax base, to abroad, where it’s deferred until if and when repatriated. It is difficult for the IRS to police this area.
It didn’t create many U.S. jobs if you don’t include K Street lobbyists. Charlie Wilson, who headed General Motors, and became secretary of Defense under President Eisenhower has been
misquoted as testifying that “what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.” There is no doubt that expanding the deferral loophole to full-blown adoption of territorial taxation
Congress and the administration
however have a fiduciary obligation to look beyond whether such tax reform would benefit these
companies and inquire how such a migration would impact jobs in the United States and the U.S. tax
base. Is widening the barnyard door even further good for America? I submit that under such criteria the case for expanding the deferral loophole is dubious.
would benefit many U.S. based multinationals. There are well-funded efforts to influence lawmakers of both parties in this effort.
A territorial tax system would devastate the economy—four reasons
Huang et al. 2013 (Chye-Ching Huang, Senior Tax Policy Analyst, Chuck Marr, Director of Federal Tax Policy at the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. From 1999 through 2004, he was Economic Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and Senior Advisor for
Budget Policy at the National Economic Council from 1997 through 1999 during the second term of President Clinton, and Joel Friedman, Joel
Friedman is Vice President for Federal Fiscal Policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, where he specializes in federal budget and tax
issues, 1-31-2013, "The Fiscal and Economic Risks of Territorial Taxation," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
http://www.cbpp.org/research/the-fiscal-and-economic-risks-of-territorial-taxation)
Many policymakers say they want to reform the U.S. system of taxing multinational corporations so that it better promotes growth and helps reduce budget deficits.
Unfortunately, one proposal that has received significant attention would take the tax code in an illadvised direction, creating serious economic and fiscal risks. The proposal -- to create a so-called
"territorial" tax system -- would create greater tax incentives for multinational corporations to invest and
move profits overseas rather than in the United States, which would risk hurting domestic businesses, boosting deficits
over the long run, and weakening the economy. Countries impose international tax systems that range between "worldwide" and "territorial." In a
worldwide system, a country taxes a corporation's total income, whether the corporation generated it in that country or not (and the country generally gives the corporation a tax credit for
the foreign taxes that it has already paid). In a territorial system, a country taxes only the income that the corporation generated in that country, leaving other countries to tax the income
generated elsewhere. The current U.S. tax system, which is often described as worldwide, actually has elements of both systems. That is, the U.S. system taxes U.S.-based multinational
corporations on a worldwide basis so that, for instance, General Electric owes U.S. tax on the income it generates at home as well what it generates as in Europe, Asia, and so on. The U.S.
system also gives U.S.-based multinationals a credit for the foreign taxes they pay on their foreign income so that multinational aren't taxed twice on the same income. But, in a major nod
toward a territorial system, the United States does not tax foreign profits at all until corporations "repatriate" them -- that is, bring them back to the United States. Corporations can keep
First, a
territorial system would create greater incentives for U.S.-based multinationals to invest and book
those profits overseas, deferring U.S. tax indefinitely, as many of them do. The proposal to move the U.S. system to a territorial one would create several major problems:
profits overseas rather than at home. Under a territorial system, U.S.-based multinationals would face a top tax rate
(currently 35 percent before they lower their taxes by using deductions and credits) on their domestic
income and a zero or very low tax rate on their foreign income. That would give U.S.-based multinationals a strong incentive to
shift their operations from the United States to low-tax countries or so-called "tax havens," or to artificially shift their profits by using
what are known as "earnings stripping" techniques (see the box on p. 13). Moreover, a territorial system would spread its tax benefits unevenly, favoring a relatively small number of U.S.based multinationals, in such industries as pharmaceuticals and software, that can more easily move their investments and profits overseas. (For more on this issue, see "Creating More
a territorial system would risk reducing wages at
home. If a lower U.S. tax rate on foreign profits encourages capital to move offshore, basic economic theory predicts that the returns to U.S. capital would rise but that the wages of U.S.
workers would fall. As Jane Gravelle, a leading tax economist at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), testified before
Congress, "[Moving to a territorial system] would make foreign investment more attractive. That would cause
investment to flow abroad, and that would reduce the capital which workers in the United States have,
so it should reduce wages. A capital flow reduces wages in the United States [and] increases the wages abroad."[1] (For more on this issue, see "The Risk of Hurting
Workers and the Economy," p. 8.) Third, a territorial tax system would risk higher budget deficits by draining revenues from the
corporate income tax. The more a territorial system encouraged U.S.-based multinationals to shift profits
overseas, the less the income of such multinationals would face any U.S. tax. That's because a territorial system would enable
Incentives to Invest Overseas, Not at Home," p. 4.) Second, by encouraging capital to flow overseas,
the United States to tax only the income that a U.S.-based multinational generated at home. The Treasury Department estimates that a simplified territorial system -- one that lacked rules to
mitigate these revenue losses -- could cost the federal government roughly $130 billion in lost revenue over ten years.[2] (For more on this issue, see "Effect on Federal Tax Revenues," p. 10.)
Fourth,
a territorial system would risk higher taxes on smaller businesses and domestic businesses. If policymakers
sought to offset the lost revenues from a territorial system (and any cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate), they would likely do so by broadening the business tax base. Business base broadening
would have to rely on reducing large tax breaks for domestic activity (since overseas activity would be largely or entirely free of U.S. tax), thereby reducing incentives for domestic investment.
even if policymakers cut the top statutory tax rate as they adopted a territorial system, smaller
domestic businesses could well face higher taxes. (For more on this issue, see "Pressure to Raise Taxes on Domestic Investment," p. 14.)
Thus,
Links to Politics
Tax reform is massively unpopular
Gleckman 6/8 (Howard Gleckman, editor of TaxVox and a resident fellow at The Urban Institute, internally citing Mitch McConnell, 68-2015, "Obama-Era Tax Reform: RIP," Forbes, http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2015/06/08/obama-era-tax-reform-rip/)
If you still thought there was any chance Congress would pass tax reform before the next election, you can
officially abandon hope. In an online interview published Sunday on Morning Consult, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-KY) hammered the last nail in the coffin. Asked about his priorities for the rest of the year, McConnell replied, “We’re certainly not
going to be able to be doing big, comprehensive tax reform with this president. The president is not interested in
revenue neutrality, and he’s not interested in treating all taxpayers the same, so I don’t think we’ll get there on
comprehensive.” Then there is Tax Analyst columnist Marty Sullivan (paywall), who this morning wrote what I believe is the first piece to dope out the tax
reform politics of 2017. If you are a tax geek, maybe it’s time to focus on what the presidential candidates have to say (so, far, quite a lot, at least among
Republicans). Other than that, you can take the next 18 months off. McConnell’s claim that the failure of reform is entirely President Obama’s fault is partisan spin.
Both sides shoulder plenty of blame. But his diagnosis of the problem is at least half right. As
long as Democrats and Republicans are
unable to agree on how much money the tax system ought to raise—and they cannot– arguments over
design are futile. But the challenges go deeper than that. Neither party wants to be the first to call for repealing, or
even trimming, popular tax breaks—the inevitable price of lower rates if reform is not going to add to the national debt. Former GOP House
Ways & Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp tried it, and he was hung out to dry by his own leaders.
Competiveness
Fund NASA CP
1NC
Plan text: The United States federal government should increase the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration’s budget to $35.4 billion
That solves tech competitiveness—it results in innovation, economic growth, and send
a global message
Chow 12
“Boosting NASA's Budget Will Help Fix Economy: Neil deGrasse Tyson” by Denise Chow, SPACE.com Staff Writer, Space. Com, April 17, 2012
www.space.com/15310-nasa-budget-future-space-exploration.html
Reinvigorating space exploration in the United States will require not only boosting NASA's budget but
also getting the public to understand how pushing the boundaries of the space frontier benefits the
country's innovation, culture and economy, said renowned astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Tyson, the director of the Hayden
Planetarium in New York and an outspoken space advocate, delivered the opening address this morning (April 17) here at the 28th National
Space Symposium. "Space is a $300 billion industry worldwide," Tyson said. "NASA is a tiny percent of that. [But] that little bit is what inspires
dreams." He spoke about how space has influenced culture — ranging from how the fins on early rockets inspired fins on automobiles in the
1950s, to how the Apollo 8 mission's iconic picture taken in 1968 of Earth rising above the horizon of the moon led to a greater appreciation for
our planet and the need to protect it. Yet, many people outside the space community see itas a special interest group, Tyson said.
"Innovation drives economy," he said. "It's especially been true since the Industrial Revolution." Tyson advocated doubling
NASA's budget — which President Barack Obama set at $17.7 billion in his 2013 federal budget request
— and then laid out a different approach to space exploration that he called somewhat "unorthodox." Rather than focusing on one destination
at a time, Tyson
promoted building a core fleet of launch vehicles that can be customized for a variety of
missions and for a range of purposes. [Future Visions of Human Spaceflight] "We're kind of doing that now, but let's do that as the
focus," Tyson said. "One configuration will get you to the moon. Another will get you to a Lagrangian point. Another will get you to Mars."
Having an available suite of launch vehicles will open up access to space for a wider range of purposes,
which will, in turn, benefit the country's economy and innovation. Tyson compared it with the country's system of
interstates, which helped connect cities across the country and made travel more efficient. "When Eisenhower came back from Europe after he
saw the [German] autobahn, and how it survived heavy climactic variation and troop maneuvers, he said, 'I want some of that in my country,'"
Tyson explained. "So he gets everyone to agree to build the interstate system. Did he say, 'you know, I just want to build it from New York to
L.A., because that's where you should go?' No. The interstate system connects everybody in whatever way you want. That's how you grow a
system." Furthermore, this
type of capability can be used for a myriad of purposes, including military
endeavors, science missions, commercial expeditions and space tourism. "Whatever the needs or urges — be they
geopolitical, military, economic — space becomes that frontier," Tyson said. "Not only do you innovate, these innovations
make headlines. Those headlines work their way down the educational pipeline. Everybody in school knows
about it. You don't have to set up a program to convince people that being an engineer is cool. They'll know it just by the cultural presence of
those activities. You do that, and it'll jump-start our dreams."
2NC Solvency
NASA is key to tech innovation and competitiveness
Zeller 12 (John Zeller, former member of Mozilla, OSU Mars Rover Team, Space Exploration Technologies, 2012, change.org, Double
NASA's Budget to 1% of the US Budget, https://www.change.org/p/double-nasa-s-budget-to-1-of-the-us-budget)
President Obama released his budget for NASA in February. NASA and all of its programs are of hugely
great importance to our national technological capabilities, economic capacities, and cutting edge
innovations. If you disagree, just take a look at the spinoffs document that NASA publishes each year (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/). The
technologies that NASA research has led to that we take for granted every day include, but are certainly not limited to: Lasik surgery scratch
resistant lenses, Cordless power tools, Water filters/purification, CAT scanners, Satellite television, Invisible braces, Adjustable smoke detectors,
the drive to miniaturize electronics… Currently,
NASA’s budget only represents about half of one penny of every
dollar spent by the United States government annually. We are calling to have NASA’s budget increased
to one penny on the dollar. That’s it, as crazy as that sounds, it is still only 1 penny of every dollar spent annually. As Dr. Neil
deGrasse Tyson says, “Right now, NASA's annual budget is half a penny on your tax dollar. For twice that—a penny on a dollar—
we can transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where
it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow.”
NASA discoveries are shared and help US technology grow
John Jones 2011 on http://www.space.com/15310-nasa-budget-future-space-exploration.html John Jones has a Ph.D., California Institute of Technology, 1981, M.S., California
Institute of Technology, 1978, B.G.S, University of Kentucky, 1974 and researches experimental trace element partitioning, metal-silicate equilibria, petrology of Fe-Ni-S-P-C systems of the
Earth and Moon, evolution of Mars' mantle, crust and atmosphere, origin of asteroidal basalts, core formation on the terrestrial planets, application of igneous petrology to geochronology. Cut
by EMazing
Thanks to the open source community, NASA software supporting scientific research is available to
anyone¶ Voyager 2 sailing beyond the far boundary of the solar system. The rover Opportunity churning across the red soil of Mars. CassiniHuygens imaging the moons of Saturn.¶ NASA robotic missions have probed the distant reaches of space, sending
back to Earth streams of data and images that are essential to developing an understanding of our
universe. These returns are ultimately housed in a massive archive of data that is distributed across the
Nation.¶ To help researchers draw the information they need from ever-growing data sets, Daniel
Crichton, program manager and principal computer scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
designed a unique software framework called the Object Oriented Data Technology (OODT) that
transformed NASA’s big data into an accessible virtual knowledge system.¶ OODT allows users to connect multiple,
distributed data sources and to search for and pull together information in varied data formats. Using the software, a researcher can build and
populate databases with the aggregated results.¶ “The idea of OODT was to be able to capture all the data, the history of the data, and be able
to tie and link all that together into an integrated but distributed system,” says Crichton.¶ From the Far Reaches of the Solar System¶ While
developing OODT, Crichton was already thinking about applications for the software beyond NASA’s missions. He was careful to separate the
software’s architecture from the data architecture, meaning that OODT functions as a general-use tool that can plug into existing systems and
be tailored for a variety of needs.¶ Crichton and his colleagues looked into ways of better engaging the open source software community to
transfer the benefits of NASA software innovations to the public. With this in mind, a colleague who worked with Crichton on OODT cultivated
connections at the Apache Software Foundation (ASF), based in Forest Hill, Maryland.¶ An all-volunteer, nonprofit organization supported by
major players like Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, ASF manages almost 150 open-source software projects, including the Apache HTTP Server—
a key technology in the development of the web and the world’s most widely used web server.¶ ASF placed OODT in its incubator program, a 1year process during which Apache mentors and committed collaborators from institutions as diverse as AOL, the University of Southern
California, and Children’s Hospital Los Angeles thoroughly reviewed the software for open source use.¶ Open, Shared Benefits¶ In November
2010, OODT graduated as an Apache Top-Level Project—the first NASA-developed software to gain the distinction—and now benefits from the
full resources of ASF, including an Apache Project Management Committee that guides day-to-day operations, product releases, and
community development for the technology.¶ Apache OODT version 0.4 is currently available for public use under the Apache Software License.
The software is generating significant worldwide interest and contributions while supporting a number of research networks outside of NASA.¶
Even before its initial release, OODT found users who have employed the NASA-developed software to forward medical research. The National
Cancer Institute uses OODT for its research network, unifying multiple laboratories to share data on the early detection of cancer biomarkers.
With the help of OODT, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is establishing a virtual infrastructure for joining
pediatric intensive care units across the country, allowing doctors to examine the outcomes of various
interventions and make better informed treatment decisions.¶ Sharing innovative technology with the
public is an impulse that is common to both NASA and ASF. “It’s a win-win for everyone, because from
the taxpayer money that was invested, we now have many groups that are able to use this technology,”
says Crichton. “The more we can share software, the more benefit we’re going to see in our scientific community.”
NASA creates easily storable and accessible information
Jeff Bertolucci 2013 in “How NASA manages Big Data” on http://www.informationweek.com/big-data/hardware-architectures/how-nasa-manages-big-data-/d/d-id/899791
Jeff Bertolucci is a technology journalist in Los Angeles who writes mostly for Kiplinger's Personal Finance, The Saturday Evening Post, and InformationWeek. Cut by EMazing
NASA has dozens of missions active at any given time: Robotic spacecraft beaming high-resolution
images and other data from great distances; Earth-based projects surveying polar ice or examining
global climate change. As you might imagine, the volume of data generated by these multiple efforts is
staggering.¶ For Chris Mattmann, a principal investigator for the big-data initiative at NASA Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., the term "terabytes of data" is hardly daunting.¶ "NASA
in total is probably managing several hundred petabytes, approaching an exabyte, especially if you look
across all of the domain sciences and disciplines, and planetary and space science," Mattmann told InformationWeek in a phone
interview. "It's certainly not out of the realm of the ordinary nowadays for missions, individual projects, to collect hundreds of terabytes of information."¶ Not surprisingly, massive volumes of data bring formidable challenges,
including the enduring big data question: What should we keep?¶ Not all bits need to be preserved for eternity, of course, and the trick is to determine which to save for the archives, and which to mine for insights but ultimately
At NASA, the goal of some big data projects is to archive information, which means "keeping the
bits around and doing data stewardship," says Mattmann.¶ Data from NASA's Earth Observing System
(EOS) satellites and field measurement programs, for instance, is stored in the agency's Distributed
Active Archive Center (DAAC) facilities, which process, archive, and distribute the information.¶ "Their
discard.¶
responsibility… is to be the stewards and preservers of the information. It's a fairly large project, and their job is to ensure the bits are preserved, that they hang around."¶ Some big data projects, however, hinge more on analysis
than stewardship. One radio astronomy example is the planned Square Kilometre Array (SKA), which will include thousands of telescopes in Australia and South Africa to explore early galaxy formation, the origins of the universe,
and other "cosmic dawn" mysteries.¶ "In that particular case, there are a lot of active analytics and analysis problems that [researchers] are more interested in than necessarily keeping the data around."¶ Another example is the
US National Climate Assessment, a federal climate-change research project that Mattmann participates in. Its primary role is "to produce better measurements of snow-covered areas, and measurements of snow in areas where
dust, black carbon, and other pollutants typically impact the way that satellites see snow," says Mattmann. ¶ "That's an example, on the Earth side, of where it's mainly a big data analytics problem and not a preservation
problem."¶ NASA must manage hundreds of petabytes of information generated by missions and analyses. ¶ JPL's big data operations use a lot of open-source software, most notably Hadoop, a development that suits Mattmann
and his team of 24 data scientists just fine.¶ Here's why: Since 2005, Mattmann has been a major contributor to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF)'s big-data efforts.¶ "I was one of the people who helped invent the Hadoop
technology," said Mattmann, who was on the project management committee for a large-scale search engine "that Hadoop kind of got spun out of."¶ Today, Mattmann sits on the ASF's board of directors. ¶ Open-source projects
NASA, he pointed out, also makes good use of Apache TIKA,
an open-source tool for detecting and extracting metadata and structured text from documents, to
decipher the 18,000 to 50,000 file formats available online.¶ "For us, file formats are where all the
scientific observations, metadata, and information about the data are stored," said Mattmann. "We
have to reach into files, crack them open, and pull this information out, because a lot of it feeds
algorithms, analytics, and visualizations."
are "really useful in the context of government, and in terms of us wanting to save money." ¶
NASA makes huge amounts of data available
Angela Bernardo 2014 in “Big Data: NASA’s new technological challenge” on http://blogthinkbig.com/big-data-nasas-new-technological-challenge/ Angela Bernardo has a
Masters Degree in Biotechnology and works in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. She specializes in science communication. Cut by EMazing
But how do you manage the mind-boggling quantity of space data?¶ NASA’s
challenge for the next decade will not only be
to design new initiatives related to space exploration. One of the biggest challenges will undoubtedly be
to develop suitable platforms to manage the Big Data produced in all of the NASA missions.¶ This is not the
first project aimed at exploring new ways to store and use the Big Data generated in a line of scientific research. However, the
challenge facing NASA is a fundamental one, because thanks to its projects, hundreds of terabytes of
data are stored per second, which would require the equivalent of tens of millions of trees to produce
the paper to record it.¶ Well aware of this need, a group of scientists at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory has started to study possible
strategies for storing and managing the data generated every day by the agency. This initiative is vitally important because it will make it
possible to continue to guarantee the success of weather forecasts, the search for far-flung galaxies or the study of the red planet in the
future.¶ Bringing science to the general public¶ Its work will focus on the development of specialised software, in addition to the use of cloud
computing or the adaptation of open-source platforms to cover all of the needs of the teams working at NASA. But its objectives don’t stop
there.¶ Due
to the considerable public interest generated by the information provided by NASA,
researchers are also studying ways to make this Big Data more accessible and versatile for society. This
is due to the fact that NASA doesn’t just accumulate “raw” data, but also develops and captures images,
videos and animations that are of immense interest for the spread of scientific knowledge.¶ This means that
the work of the scientists in Pasadena will not only be vital to ensuring the success of NASA’s upcoming space missions. The initiative will
also serve society, which will be able to see how science is within its grasp. A great initiative that once
again demonstrates the importance of Big Data in the technological research of the future.
NASA can work with private industry to create technologic advances
Steven Palazzo 2012 in “HEARING¶ BEFORE THE¶ SUBCOMMITTEE ON SPACE AND AERONAUTICS¶ COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY¶ HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES¶ ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS¶ SECOND SESSION” on http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg75391/html/CHRG-112hhrg75391.htm Representative Steven
M. Palazzo is the chair of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Committee on Science, ¶ Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives. Cut by EMazing
In the public media, discussions of NASA's general ¶ contributions to society are often distilled down to
Tang and ¶ Teflon. Yet NASA-derived technologies have paved the way for ¶ innovative advances in the
medical field, environmental ¶ stewardship and public safety. Today's hearing will only skim ¶ the surface in highlighting the direct economic and societal ¶
benefits investment in NASA has generated.¶ Since 1976, NASA has documented well over 1,700 successful ¶ examples of
technology transfer and commercialization. But ¶ despite decades of demonstrated success, NASA's
budget has ¶ remained essentially flat even as other R&D agencies are seeing ¶ increases. Investment in NASA's technology
transfer activities, ¶ however, has seen a drastic decline in recent years.¶ A recent NASA Inspector General audit on NASA's technology ¶ and commercialization efforts concluded that NASA has missed ¶ opportunities to transfer
technologies and that industry and ¶ the public have not fully benefited from the NASA-developed ¶ technologies. The IG found a general lack of awareness among ¶ NASA program managers about the technology transfer and ¶
commercialization process and that many personnel did not ¶ understand the range of technologies that could be considered ¶ as technological assets. Furthermore, the report found that the ¶ number of patent attorneys and
dedicated Innovative Partnership ¶ Office staff and related funding was insufficient given the ¶ technology transfer and commercialization potential. The IG ¶ recommended NASA implement a review of the policy process and ¶
implement new procedures and training requirements to ensure ¶ NASA personnel were fully aware of the process and their ¶ responsibilities. The IG also recommended that NASA reassess ¶ the allocation of resources for
technology transfer. This ¶ Committee will follow closely NASA's implementation of these ¶ recommendations.¶ The IG report took a look at formal NASA processes in ¶ place, but it begs the question: does technology transfer ¶
Exploring both
traditional and nontraditional means for ¶ technology transfer to the private sector is equally important ¶
if we hope to leverage space technology development as an ¶ engine for economic growth and U.S.
competitiveness.¶ Today's hearing will explore positive examples of ¶ partnerships between NASA and
the private sector yielding ¶ American-made technologies beneficial to both NASA's space ¶ exploration
mission and to society as a whole. We will also ¶ examine what strategies and programs NASA uses to disseminate ¶ technology into the private sector and identify the greatest ¶ challenges
happen in other, informal ways? And if so, how can NASA best ¶ marry entrepreneurs with the technologies it has already ¶ developed or those that it may still need for future missions? ¶
the private sector has in working with NASA to more ¶ quickly transition ideas into new products.
Though NASA does receive funding, it isn’t enough—we still rely on Russia
Sen. Peters [Friday, 6/12/15 Gary Peters (born December 1, 1958) is an American politician who is the junior United States Senator from Michigan. A member of the
Democratic Party, he was the U.S. Representative for Michigan's 14th congressional district from 2013 until his election to the Senate. The district includes the eastern half of Detroit, as well as
the Grosse Pointes, Hamtramck, Southfield and Pontiac. He previously represented Michigan's 9th congressional district from 2009 to 2013. Following the redrawing of congressional district
boundaries after the 2010 United States Census, Peters defeated fellow Congressman Hansen Clarke in the Democratic primary and won re-election in the newly redrawn 14th District. Prior to
his election to Congress, Peters served in the United States Navy Reserve, spent 22 years as an investment advisor, and worked briefly in academia. He was elected to the Rochester Hills City
Council in 1991, going on to represent the 14th District in the Michigan Senate from 1995 to 2002. He was the Democratic nominee for Michigan Attorney General in 2002, narrowly losing to
Republican Mike Cox. He was then appointed Commissioner of the Michigan Lottery by Governor Jennifer Granholm, serving from 2003 to 2008, when he resigned to run for
Congress.<http://www.peters.senate.gov/content/peters-applauds-funding-nasa-science-programs>]
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Gary Peters (MI), Ranking Member
of the Science, Space and Competitiveness
Subcommittee, today applauded the Senate Appropriations Committee’s approval of $5.3 billion for National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s science research programs for fiscal year (FY) 2016. Earlier this month, Peters sent a
letter to Senator Barbara Mikulski, Vice Chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, urging a strong allocation of funding for NASA’s science mission. “I
am pleased to see that Senate appropriators provided the $5.3 billion for NASA’s science missions that I
requested,” said Senator Peters. “Investing in NASA’s science programs leads to the research and development
of new technologies, which increases the competitiveness of our space program and helps shed more
light on ways we can protect our Earth.” However, Senator Peters also raised concerns about the poor funding
levels for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. The program was only funded at $900 million, which is $344 million
below President Obama’s request. Due to the lack of funding, NASA will have to continue relying on
Russia to shuttle American astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) beyond 2017. “For decades, the United States has been a
world leader in space exploration, and Congress must support the Commercial Crew Program to ensure
our nation continues pioneering space for generations to come,” added Senator Peters. “While I am pleased with the support
for NASA’s science mission, I am deeply concerned with NASA’s Commercial Crew program’s level of funding. I strongly urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle
to come together to increase
funding for NASA’s Commercial Crew program as this bill makes its way to the Senate floor, so we
can restore an American capability to get our astronauts to space and end our sole reliance on Russia.”
Russia is losing reliability—If we get cut off we could lose our spot in the ISS
Belfiore 14 [ Michael Belfiore is an author and journalist reporting on the innovations shaping our world. He has written about game-changing
technologies for the New York Times, Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Smithsonian, Air & Space, Financial Times, Foreign Policy, and many other outlets. He is
an International Aerospace Journalist of the Year Award finalist and a recipient of the Space Frontier Foundation’s NewSpace Award for outstanding journalism. In
addition to his reporting in print, Michael has appeared as a commentator on the Fox Business Network, Bloomberg Radio and TV, CNN, CTV’s Canada AM, NPR’s
Marketplace and Morning Edition, Showtime’s Penn & Teller: BS!, and C-SPAN. <http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a10184/what-happens-if-russiarefuses-to-fly-us-astronauts-16555991/>]
tensions escalating between Russia and Ukraine, the pressure is on President Obama to do more than issue stern warnings to the Russian
government. Economic sanctions are one possible action, but one that could put the squeeze not only on Russia
but also the U.S. manned space program. Since the space shuttle retired in 2011, NASA has had no native human
spaceflight capability. With no other options, NASA has relied on the Russian Federal Space Agency and its Soyuz
rockets and spacecraft to get astronauts to and from the International Space Station, at a cost of tens of
millions of dollars per seat. Any strong move by the U.S. in response to the Crimean crisis could spell the end of Americans flying on Russian spaceships, at least until
tensions ease. NASA and its commercial partners have some projects in the works that can fill the gap, should
Russia refuse to fly our astronauts. But these are at least two to three years from operational status.
Depending on how the Russian-Ukraine crisis develops, those could be two to three years with no
Americans in space. At the moment, most of NASA's human spaceflight resources are focused on the governmentowned Space Launch System, or SLS. This was conceived as a deep-space rocket and spacecraft designed to send humans beyond low Earth orbit for the first time since the last
astronauts left the moon in 1972. Although not specifically intended to send crews and supplies to the International Space Station, it could do so if necessary. Unfortunately, SLS,
which is consuming about $3 billion of NASA's annual budget, won't be ready to fly crew until 2021. And after
that, it will be able to fly missions only once every four years under the current development schedule . So
the multiple flights per year needed to maintain the International Space Station won't happen with SLS unless
With
things change. NASA's commercial crew program is a more promising alternative for flying Americans into space in American-built spacecraft. So far, NASA has split about $1.4 billion between
a number of private companies trying to develop new manned spaceships (not counting the money spent on the cargo program that was the crew program's precursor). The companies
receiving money under a program called Commercial Crew Integrated Capability, or CCiCap, are SpaceX, Boeing, and Sierra Nevada Corporation. SpaceX is the leader of the pack, having already
sent cargo to the ISS. SpaceX engineers designed the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon space capsule with crew in mind from the beginning, and the company is now working with NASA to add crew
accommodations and escape rockets to the Dragon. Boeing is at work on a crew capsule called the CST-100, while Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser is the most shuttle-like of the commercial
The current schedule has NASA choosing one or
two of these companies this summer to complete a working crew-carrying spacecraft by 2017. The big question is:
Could NASA accelerate this schedule if it had to? We asked Jeff Foust, an analyst with the Futron
Corporation and a long-time observer of the commercial spaceflight industry. "I don't think you would
be able accelerate it that much," he says, "maybe 2016, maybe 2015. That's getting into the timeframe when the
companies are anticipating their initial test flights... So if things got shut off now, there would still be an
extended period of time when you wouldn't be able to do flights to the ISS." Henry Hertzfeld, Professor of Space Policy and
vehicles in development—its lifting body shape makes it steerable as a glider when returning to Earth.
International Affairs at the George Washington University Space Policy Institute, expressed optimism that the situation won't come to that. "On the positive side," he says, "the ISS is an
international partnership of 14 nations that includes Russia. Between that agreement and other space agreements that stress cooperation and peaceful uses of space, we and Russia may put a
higher priority on that arrangement and access for all astronauts may be spared any direct impact from the political problems. I'm not making predictions, but at least we can hope that will
happen."
Uniqueness
NASA is declining right now
Space Foundation 7/7/15 in “Space Foundation Report Reveals Global Space Economy Climb to $330 Billion” on
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=46266 Founded in 1983, the Space Foundation is the foremost advocate for all sectors of space, and is a global, nonprofit leader in space
awareness activities, educational programs and major industry events, including the annual Space Symposium, in support of its mission "to advance space-related endeavors to inspire, enable
and propel humanity." Cut by EMazing
The number of people employed in the civilian U.S. space workforce continued to decline in 2013, the
latest full year for which data is available, with an estimated loss of nearly 6,000 employees. From 2006
to 2013, the U.S. space workforce declined about 14 percent, losing nearly 40,000 space specialists.
Preliminary data for 2014 does not indicate the decline has reversed yet.¶ Wages for those remaining in the U.S.
space industry remain high. The average annual salary was $108,000 for a U.S. civilian space employee in 2013. Employees working in the
guided missile and space vehicle manufacturing sector averaged the highest salary of nearly $120,000. The average age of an employee working
in the aerospace and defense industry continues to climb, reaching slightly over 46 years of age.¶ NASA
started fiscal year (FY)
2015 with 17,731 employees, losing slightly over 1,000 people since FY 2011. The retirement or cancellation of
several major programs during that period corresponds with the losses. In FY15, 17.6 percent of NASA’s workforce was eligible for retirement,
and 15 percent of NASA’s employees were under 35 years old.¶ Europe’s
space workforce continued to grow, having
added 7,600 employees since 2005. Six of Europe’s countries account for 90 percent of Europe’s space
workforce, with France, Germany and Spain experiencing growth, while others declined.
Anti-science politicians control NASA. NASA could be crippled in the SQ
Phil Plait 1/13/15 in “Yup, a Climate Change Denier Will Oversee NASA. What Could Go Wrong?” on
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2015/01/13/nasa_trouble_science_denier_ted_cruz_will_oversee_senate_committee_for_oversight.html Phil Plait writes Slate’s Bad Astronomy
blog and is an astronomer, public speaker, science evangelizer, and author of Death From the Skies! Cut by EMazing
So, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was just named to be the chairman of the Subcommittee on Space, Science,
and Competitiveness as Republicans take over the Senate. This subcommittee (which used to be just
Space and Science but was recently renamed) is in charge of oversight of, among other things, NASA.¶
This is not a good thing. Just how bad it is will be determined.¶ Before I rip into this, I want to be as fair as possible here: Poking around the
Web, I don’t see any statements from Cruz that I'd consider directly antithetical to NASA’s efforts specifically to explore space. For example, in
2013 he wanted to reduce NASA’s budget, but that was more so that it would comply with the caps set by the Budget Control Act. In fact, he
made a statement saying, “Proceeding with an authorization while pretending that the existing law is something other than what it is, is not the
most effective way to protect the priority that space exploration and manned exploration should have.” That’s at least superficially heartening.¶
But that’s not to say he doesn’t pose a clear danger: Cruz is a staunch denier of global warming. In 2014,
he said this in an CNN interview:¶ The last 15 years, there has been no recorded warming. Contrary to all the
theories that—that they are expounding, there should have been warming over the last 15 years. It hasn't happened. ¶ This is, to put it mildly,
what comes out of the south end of a north-facing bull. Yes, the Earth has warmed over the past 15 years, and the science is incredibly,
unequivocally clear about that. Anyone
making this claim either doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or is
trying to sell you something (or, to be more accurate, has been bought).¶ Cruz has even joked about it, the punch line
of which depends on one of the truly dumbest claims used to deny global warming: It’s cold outside. Yes, seriously.¶ This is very
worrisome. NASA is one of the key scientific agencies studying global warming and climate change. A good
fraction of NASA’s annual budget goes to Earth-observing satellites critical in looking at various factors of climate change (like the recently
launched OCO-2, which monitors CO2).
A2: Fund NASA CP
Status-Quo Solves
New 2015 NASA budget means more funding than NASA asked for—CP is non-unique
Amar Toon 14 in “NASA to receive more money than it requested for 2015” on http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/12/7381083/nasa-to-see-budget-increase-under-federalspending-bill Amar joined The Verge in April 2012. He previously worked as an editor for Engadget, and before that, as a writer for Switched. He has also worked as a consultant at the OECD in
Paris and at Miramax in Santa Monica. He's currently based in Paris. Cut by EMazing
NASA is poised to see an increased budget for 2015, after the House of Representatives passed a
bipartisan spending bill late Thursday. Under the so-called "Cromnibus" bill, the federal space agency's
overall budget will rise by 2 percent to $18 billion next year — an increase of $364 million from current
levels, and $500 million more than NASA requested in March. The $1.1 trillion spending bill, passed just
hours before a midnight deadline to avert a government shutdown, now moves on to the Senate, which
is expected to vote this weekend.¶ The budget for NASA's science mission will rise by 2 percent to $5.24
billion next year, with the $1.44 billion planetary sciences division receiving $160 million more than
what President Barack Obama requested earlier this year. The bill calls for the division to spend "no less
than $100 million" on a mission to the icy Jupiter moon of Europa, which had been a point of contention
between the White House and Congress. The increase notably comes without cuts to other space
science divisions, which scientists see as an encouraging sign.¶ "They added nearly $300 million to the
entire science mission directorate," Casey Dreier, advocacy director for the Planetary Society, tells the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "No one paid the price for restoration of
the cuts to planetary science. That’s a big deal."¶ The bill also allocates $2.9 billion to support NASA's
human spaceflight endeavors, including the Orion spacecraft, which completed its first test launch
earlier this month. The agency's astrophysics division receives $1.33 billion in funding under the bill, $70
million more than the White House requested. The money will be used to maintain the Stratospheric
Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a modified Boeing 747 with an infrared telescope.
Ted Cruz comes in clutch—status quo solves
Walker and Orwig 2015 (Hunter Walker is Business Insider's politics editor, Jessica Orwig is a science reporter at Business
Insider, “Ted Cruz's Plan For NASA Is Epic,” 1-14-15, Business Insider, http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-ted-cruzs-epic-plan-for-nasa2015-1)
Now that the Republicans have taken over Congress, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) will be chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Space, and Competitiveness, which oversees
Cruz issued a press release on Wednesday outlining his plans for the
space agency. In his statement, which was titled "Focus NASA on Its Core Mission: Exploring Space, and
More of It," Cruz said he wants to expand the US space program. "In 1962, President John F. Kennedy laid down a marker for space
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
exploration that inspired a generation of Americans to reach for the stars, recognizing that the race to the heavens was nothing less than a crucial front in the battle between freedom and
Cruz, who is widely seen as a potential 2016 presidential candidate, went on to argue that NASA's partnership with Russia
on the International Space Station has endangered American space exploration and innovation. "More than 50
years later, we have lost sight of that clarion call," Cruz's statement said. " Russia’s status as the current gatekeeper of the International
Space Station could threaten our capability to explore and learn, stunting our capacity to reach new
heights and share innovations with free people everywhere. The United States should work alongside our international partners, but not be
tyranny," Cruz said.
dependent on them. We should once again lead the way for the world in space exploration." Since NASA retired its shuttle program in 2011, US astronauts have been flying aboard Russian
Soyuz spacecrafts to reach the International Space Station. Last year, NASA renewed a contract with Russia to continue ferrying US astronauts to space that cost the agency $457.9 million for
six seats on a Soyuz spacecraft. Cruz's home state of Texas is home to one of NASA's major field centers, the Johnson Space Center. The facility has gained fame for its role as "mission control"
Due to his conservative positions on budgeting and climate change, some observers
speculated Cruz would attempt to cut funding to NASA in his new role. However, in his statement Cruz
repeatedly insisted he wants to expand America's space-exploration efforts. "Texas has a major stake in space exploration," he
said. "Our space program marks the frontier of future technologies for defense, communications,
transportation and more, and our mindset should be focused on NASA’s primary mission: exploring
on many manned space missions.
space and developing the wealth of new technologies that stem from its exploration. And commercial space exploration presents important new opportunities for us all." "We
must refocus our investment on the hard sciences, on getting men and women into space, on exploring low-Earth orbit and beyond, and not on
political distractions that are extraneous to NASA’s mandate," Cruz continued. "I am excited to raise these issues in our subcommittee and
look forward to producing legislation that confirms our shared commitment to this vital mission." Now that the space-shuttle program has ended, NASA has started to develop partnerships
with private companies in an effort to restore US independence when it comes to spaceflight. In addition to its contract with Russia, NASA also contracted with SpaceX and Boeing last year. In
a statement released last September, NASA said: "US astronauts once again will travel to and from the International Space Station from the United States on American spacecraft under
groundbreaking contracts NASA announced Tuesday. The agency unveiled its selection of Boeing and SpaceX to transport US crews to and from the space station using their CST-100 and Crew
Dragon spacecraft, respectively, with a goal of ending the nation’s sole reliance on Russia in 2017." Launching astronauts from US soil is the first step toward NASA's ultimate goal of renewing
long-distance spaceflight and taking back America's foothold in space by sending the first humans to an asteroid and then to Mars.
Waste of resources
NASA can’t fix the problem with money – useless construction projects and
overspending
Fahrenthold 14 (David A. Fahrenthold covers Congress for the Washington Post, 12/15/14, The Washington Post, “NASA’s $349
million monument to its drift,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/)
Work on the tower finally concluded this past summer. By then, the project had cost $349 million, which
was nearly three times the original NASA estimate. It had lasted almost seven years, which was 3 1 /2
years longer than first expected. But at last, the A-3 test stand was done. Or, mostly done. “A-3 could not be used for testing right
now, if we wanted to,” said Dumbacher, the NASA official, who left in July to become a professor at Purdue University. He said instruments still
needed to be installed, and the pressure vessel needed to be tested to see if it would hold a vacuum. How much work would it take to get it
ready? “Probably another two to three years, I would guess,” Dumbacher said. (A current NASA spokesman gave a slightly shorter time frame,
saying that “probably less than two years would be required.”) But, he said, Congress had assured NASA behind the scenes that this stage of
completion would be enough to satisfy them. So construction work ended on June 27, and workers began the job of mothballing the stand. The
dignitaries did not come back to see that. “There was no ceremony,” a NASA spokesman said. The revelation that the tower was going to be
mothballed was revealed in an inspector general’s report in January. For now, the stand does not seem likely to be needed anytime soon.
NASA says it has no rockets, even in development, that would require the kind of test this tower does.
So the tower stand has taken its place on NASA’s long list of living dead. Last year, the agency’s
inspector general found six other test stands that were either in “mothball” status, or about to be. Some
hadn’t been used since the 1990s. Together, those seven cost NASA more than $100,000 a year to
maintain. Forshee, the pipefitting foreman, had no idea. He had left the tower job years ago, had gone to work in Montana, and then had
come back to Mississippi to build a firehouse. But he had kept a jacket with the NASA logo, which he had been given on the tower project. He
savored the idea that his kids might one day see an American walk on Mars, and know their father helped make it possible. Then,
in July,
Forshee got an odd job offer. Could he come to Stennis Space Center to work on a new rocket test
stand? Forshee was confused. Didn’t he just build one of those? “They told me, “Hey, you know, they
mothballed A-3.’ I said, ‘What?’ ” he said, in an interview at the bar at a Hooters restaurant in this
industrial city of Gulfport. “And they said, ‘Yeah, they’re gonna do this one’ ” instead, he said. It turned
out that the engines required for the new Space Launch System needed a new test stand, with no
vacuum involved. So NASA is renovating another stand just a short distance away from the A-3, called
the B-2. That project is supposed to cost $134 million. Forshee is a tea party supporter, somebody who
hates for government money to be misspent. And here, he sees, it was misspent on him. After his
interview at Hooters, he called a reporter back to be sure he had it right. “They’re just saying they spent
$350 million for no reason?” he asked. Yes, he was told. “Well,” he said. “Nice.” (He took the job at the new test
stand anyway, to be sure the work stayed with his union local: “If we don’t do this work, then they’re going to give it to Local 60 out of New
Orleans.”) NASA
would not allow a reporter to visit the disused tower up close. The only way to see it at all
was to pay $10 at the visitor center and take the official Stennis Space Center bus tour. On the tour, the guide
drove by several test stands left over from the glory days of the 1960s, and recounted how exhaust billowed, and the earth shook. The bus
drove by the B-2 stand, now under construction. Then the bus passed a skeletal, white-painted tower, alone in the distance. “The
one to
the left there is called the A-3,” the guide said. So what does that one do? “It actually does not have a
customer,” the guide said. “So it’s just kind of hanging out right now.”
NASA is useless, wastes resources
Fahrenthold 14 (David A. Fahrenthold covers Congress for the Washington Post, 12/15/14, The Washington Post, “NASA’s $349
million monument to its drift,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2014/12/15/nasas-349-million-monument-to-its-drift/)
GULFPORT, Miss. — In
June, NASA finished work on a huge construction project here in Mississippi: a $349
million laboratory tower, designed to test a new rocket engine in a chamber that mimicked the vacuum
of space. Then, NASA did something odd. As soon as the work was done, it shut the tower down. The
project was officially “mothballed” — closed up and left empty — without ever being used. The A-3 test
stand, shown under construction at NASA’s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi, was built for a rocket program that was canceled. (NASA) “You
lock the door, so nobody gets in and hurts themselves,” said Daniel Dumbacher, a former NASA official who oversaw the project. The
reason for the shutdown: The new tower — called the A-3 test stand — was useless. Just as expected.
The rocket program it was designed for had been canceled in 2010. But, at first, cautious NASA
bureaucrats didn’t want to stop the construction on their own authority. And then Congress — at the urging of a
senator from Mississippi — swooped in and ordered the agency to finish the tower, no matter what. The result was that NASA spent
four more years building something it didn’t need. Now, the agency will spend about $700,000 a year to
maintain it in disuse. The empty tower in Mississippi is evidence of a breakdown at NASA, which used to
be a glorious symbol of what an American bureaucracy could achieve. In the Space Race days of the 1960s, the agency
was given a clear, galvanizing mission: reach the moon within the decade. In less than seven, NASA got it done. GRAPHIC: NASA's mothballed
test towers Now,
NASA has become a symbol of something else: what happens to a big bureaucracy after
its sense of mission starts to fade. In the past few years, presidents have repeatedly scrubbed and
rewritten NASA’s goals. The moon was in. The moon was out. Mars was in. Now, Mars looks like a
stretch. Today, the first goal is to visit an asteroid. Jerked from one mission to another, NASA lost its sense that any
mission was truly urgent. It began to absorb the vices of less-glamorous bureaucracies: Officials tended
to let projects run over time and budget. Its congressional overseers tended to view NASA first as a means to deliver pork back
home, and second as a means to deliver Americans into space. In Mississippi, NASA built a monument to its own institutional drift. The
useless tower was repeatedly approved by people who, in essence, argued that the American space
program had nothing better to do. “What the hell are they doing? I mean, that’s a lot of people’s hard-earned money,” said David
Forshee, who spent 18 months as the general foreman for the pipefitters who helped build the tower. Like other workmen, he had taken pride
in this massive, complicated project — only to learn that it was in mothballs. “It’s heartbreaking to know that, you know, you thought you’d
done something good,” Forshee said. “And all you’ve done is go around in a damn circle, like a dog chasing his tail.”
Space Launch System is useless, top officials know, can’t solve perception
Berger 14
“Lori Garver says NASA should not build the SLS: “Where is it going to go?”” Posted on January 2, 2014 |
By Eric Berger blog.chron.com/sciguy/2014/01/lori-garver-says-nasa-should-not-build-the-sls-where-isit-going-to-go/
Lori Garver, NASA’s powerful former deputy administrator who left the space agency in September, was
once an advocate for the Space Launch System, the big rocket NASA is building. In 2011, for example,
she said of NASA’s human exploration program: “We plan a very robust future for not only human
spaceflight, but for NASA generally.” But after leaving NASA Garver appears to either have changed her
mind or, more likely, she feels free to say what really is on her mind. Today, on the Diana Rehm Show,
Garver was asked what programs NASA should cancel in order to allow it to achieve more meaningful
things in space. Below I’ve transcribed the relevant section of the interview: Rehm: What programs do
you think should be cut? Garver: To me I think those particular programs that are built on previous
technology. Rehm: Like what? Garver: Right now we are building a huge rocket called the Space Launch
System that is really … Rehm: The SLS? Garver: The SLS. It was something that Congress dictated to
NASA, it had to do with the Orion spacecraft. It is a holdover from Constellation, which the Obama
administration tried to cancel, and it’s $3 billion a year of NASA’s $17 billion. Is that how you would be
investing in the space program? Where is it going to go? When will it even fly? Later Garver also says
NASA should scrap its Mars 2020 rover in favor of a robotic exploration of Europa, a moon of Jupiter
that may harbor life in its water oceans. The significance of Garver’s comments, in regard to the SLS, is
that they are consistent with those of most observers who do not work directly for NASA, and thus are
not beholden to the program of record as mandated by Congress and the White House. Garver asks the
right questions. Where is it going to go? After building such an expensive rocket — which critics have
labeled a “rocket to nowhere” — there’s just no money to actually build the stuff, like payloads and
habitation modules, that would allow NASA to actually use the SLS. When will SLS fly? NASA says it may
fly in 2017. Further reading: A recent interview I did with Chris Kraft, a retired flight director from NASA,
offers a scathing analysis of SLS. Another interview, with NASA’s Dan Dumbacher, offers a defense.
No amount of money could make the SLS feasible; private sector innovation is better
alternative
Berger 13
“Apollo legend on NASA: ‘It’s a tragedy. It really is.’”, Posted on September 3, 2013 | By Eric Berger,
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/09/apollo-legend-on-nasa-its-a-tragedy-it-really-is/
Chris Kraft did it all for NASA. He was the space agency’s first flight director, overseeing the nation’s first
human spaceflight, first human orbital flight and first spacewalk. He was a senior manager and planner
during the Apollo program. After the Apollo program he directed Johnson Space Center for a decade and
oversaw development of the space shuttle. Mission Control at Johnson Space Center is named after him.
In short, Kraft is a legend, and therefore not afraid to speak his mind. Last week I visited Kraft at his
home for a long talk about the state of NASA, the agency for which he has devoted his life. He’s deeply
troubled about NASA’s future. Among the topics we discuss: Expense and sustainability of the Space
Launch System The popularity of NASA’s proposed asteroid mission Whether astronauts like flying to the
International Space Station Where humans should go in the solar system I think it’s safe to say these are
viewpoints NASA officials aren’t sharing with President Obama’s administration nor the members of
Congress. But having spoken to a number of current NASA officials and even astronauts, many of them
will privately express these views as well. Here, then, is the interview: I know you don’t like NASA’s
approach with the Space Launch System. Why is this? The necessity of having a big rocket is not
justifiable. It’s not justifiable from a cost point of view, and it’s not justifiable from a mission plan point
of view. It just doesn’t make good sense. Let’s start with cost. I know it’s expensive. The problem with
the SLS is that it’s so big that makes it very expensive. It’s very expensive to design, it’s very expensive to
develop. When they actually start to develop it, the budget is going to go haywire. They’re going to have
all kinds of technical and development issues crop up, which will drive the development costs up. Then
there are the operating costs of that beast, which will eat NASA alive if they get there. They’re not going
to be able to fly it more than once a year, if that. Because they don’t have the budget to do it. So what
you’ve got is a beast of a rocket, that would give you all of this capability, which you can’t build because
you don’t have the money to build it in the first place, and you can’t operate it if you had it. What is the
alternative? In the private sector we’ve got an Atlas and a Delta rocket, and the Europeans have an
Ariane rocket. The Russians have lots of rockets which are very reliable, and they get reliable by using
them. And that’s something the SLS will never have. Never. Because you can’t afford to launch it that
many times.
Doesn’t solve
Long timeframe for SLS solvency+ must solve Orion rocket first
Kramer 14
NASA's New Space Launch System Mega Rocket Won't Fly Until 2018 by Miriam Kramer, Space.com Staff
Writer | December 10, 2014 05:19pm ET www.space.com/27973-nasa-space-launch-systemmegarocket-2018.html
NASA's new mega rocket will likely not make its first test launch until at least mid-2018, a top agency
official told a U.S. lawmakers today (Dec.10). The space agency's first test flight of the Space Launch System
(SLS) was originally targeted for December 2017, however, that test will likely be delayed until at least
mid-2018, according to Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations. Unexpected delays
have pushed back the rocket's first launch, but Gerstenmaier is still confident that SLS will make its first
flight before the end of 2018. "We were holding December of 2017; I would say that we have now moved off of that date,"
Gerstenmaier told members of the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Space during a hearing today. "We will be somewhere in the
2018 timeframe now with our current planning, and that's
just based on the reality of problems that have come along
in the program and some uncertainty in funding. he SLS test launch date is also dependent upon another
NASA project in development. The space agency's Orion space capsule — designed to carry four astronauts to deep-space
destinations like Mars eventually — will be placed atop the SLS for the uncrewed 2018 test flight, called Exploration Mission-1. Orion will
probably not be ready for the unmanned 2017 launch, either, Gerstenmaier said, but SLS will still likely be ready for launch before the space
capsule whenever that may be. However, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Bill GerstenmaierPin It Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate
administrator for human exploration and operations, testifies before Congress on Dec. 10, 2014 about the Space Launch System. Credit: U.S.
House of RepresentativesView full size image "I think it's perfectly fine to complete one of these programs [Orion or SLS) ahead of one of the
others," Gerstenmaier said. "They don't need to all synch up at exactly the same time … When you take a vehicle down to launch at the
Kennedy Space Center, typically, the rocket is ready to go well before the payload is, and the payload comes later. It's actually to our advantage
to have some difference in schedules between those." SLS and Orion are designed to take humans deeper into space than ever before. Orion is
built to be part of future missions that could bring astronauts to an asteroid and Mars for the first time. Orion launched to space atop a United
Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket for its first test flight on Dec. 5. The successful mission helped NASA officials test key systems (like the
capsule's parachutes and heat shield) before humans ever step foot onboard. The
SLS program is getting ready to start
manufacturing pieces of the rocket necessary for flight, Gerstenmaier said. NASA has a couple of other
test missions planned for Orion and SLS in the future. After the first test flight in 2018, Orion and SLS are expected to fly a crewed
mission for the first time in 2021. The change in the launch date for Exploration Mission-1 does not necessarily mean that any of the future
missions will slip, Gerstenmaier said. "We're not just building a single system that sprints to a destination," Gerstenmaier added. "We're
building an infrastructure that allows us to have sustained presence beyond low-Earth orbit."
NASA can complete SLS on their own—and soon
Davis 2/3/15 [Jason Davis is a digital editor for The Planetary Society. He covers the Society's LightSail mission. He also reports on human and
commercial spaceflight. Davis holds a master's degree in journalism from the University of Arizona, where he specialized in science writing and digital publications.
He was a NASA Space Grant graduate fellow, and produced a 35-minute documentary film called Desert Moon. The film is narrated by former astronaut Mark Kelly.
It examines planetary scientist Gerard Kuiper and the origins of the University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, as well as the lab's contributions to the
Apollo moon landings. <http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2015/20150203-budget-maiden-sls-flight.html>]
NASA will set the Space Launch System's inaugural flight date at the end of this year, according to the
agency's 2016 budget request, which was released on Monday. The 25-day mission, which will carry an uncrewed Orion
spacecraft to lunar orbit, is currently scheduled for no later than November 2018. That date, however, is subject to a series
of design reviews that will be conducted throughout 2015. The reviews are expected to wrap up in December, at which point NASA will set a date for the flight,
dubbed Exploration Mission 1
Hegemony
Science Diplomacy
1NC
United States Agency for International Development should implement the ‘Investing
in an Agile, Skilled Workforce provisions of the Office of the Science & Technology
Adviser’s Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review of 2015
CP guarantees our diplomatic and developmental primacy
OSTA 15 [Office of the Science & Technology Adviser; Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development
Review; http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/241430.pdf//Monikers]
INVESTING IN AN AGILE, SKILLED WORKFORCE In managing crises, promoting long-term stability, and
meeting other challenges, our most valuable resource is the dedicated workforce of the State
Department and USAID. To ensure that we maintain the world’s premier diplomatic and development
corps, and that our people are prepared not only for the world we currently face but also for emerging
trends, we have identified opportunities to improve the agility of our workforce, their opportunities
for continuous career learning, and their resiliency and capacity to serve. Increasing Agility. The
missions of the State Department and USAID require us to match the people with the right skills to the
right task, at the right time and place. We will: • Increase our ability to quickly fill positions. We will
improve our procedures for identifying staffing gaps, locating expertise or additional staff, and quickly
bringing in staff to fill positions left temporarily vacant, while ensuring that our existing staff is
appropriately placed to advance our priorities. We will also maximize our use of current hiring
mechanisms and identify new opportunities to accelerate the hiring process. • Make the most of our
talent and expertise. We will capitalize on the skills of all of our people. For example, we will reward
senior Civil Service employees, create new avenues for their career development, and fully tap the
potential of locally employed staff at our missions. Investing in a Skilled, Diverse Workforce Ready to
Lead. To ensure that the next generation of American diplomats and development experts is as strong as
the last, we will continue to recruit, develop, and retain a workforce of highly talented individuals with a
commitment to public service. We will: • Expand the core curriculum and invest in training. The
Department will develop a core curriculum to give Foreign Service employees deeper knowledge of
the fundamentals of diplomacy. Both the Department and USAID will increase investments in training
and will modernize and integrate that training into daily work. • Train and support effective,
accountable leaders. We will strengthen leadership and accountability at all levels. For example, we
will include enhanced training and coaching for managers, starting early in their careers, and develop
more effective feedback and assessment tools. • Increase and encourage long-term training and
excursion tours. We will provide additional opportunities for employees to take outside-the-agency
assignments and to receive long-term training that develops expertise and fresh perspectives. •
Increase the diversity of our workforce. We will build on efforts to recruit and retain a workforce that
represents the diversity of our nation. • Increase tours in State Department functional bureaus. The
Department will strengthen the integration of its regional and functional bureaus through steps such
as encouraging Foreign Service Officers to seek tours in functional bureaus.
OSTA recommendations key to science diplomacy and the war on terror
Fedoroff 8 (Dr. Nina V. Fedoroff, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, U.S.
Department of State; Administrator of USAID, April 2, 2008, "HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON
RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION,"
http://www.gpo.gov/f...10hhrg41470.htm nimo)
An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do
much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about
rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism
by providing ideas and opportunities that improve people's lives. We may use the recognition and the
goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental
goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of
the weapons of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed `brain drain.' Through cooperative
threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful,
collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts
focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best
scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create
sustainability. The Office of the Science and Technology Adviser (STAS) is actively involved in longterm strategic planning and dialogues about the importance of science, engineering, and technology
to the future security our nation. The STAS Global Dialogues on Emerging Science and Technology
have focused on emerging technology outside of the U.S. The most recent conference this March
focused on the development of geographic information systems for sustainable development in Africa
and will promote greater U.S.-African regional cooperation on this issue.
2NC Cards
Science diplomacy is the best form of hegemony
Coletta 9 [September 2009, Damon Coletta, Duke University , Ph.D. in Political Science, December 1999
Harvard University , Master in Public Policy, 1993 Stanford University , Master in Electrical Engineering,
1989 Stanford University , B.S.E.E., 1988, Science, Technology, and the Quest for International Influence,
http://www.dtic.mil/...c=GetTRDoc.pdf]
To discover sustainable hegemony in an increasingly multipolar world, American policy makers will need
more than the Kaysen list of advantages from basic science. Dr. Carl Kaysen served President John
Kennedy as deputy national security adviser and over his long career held distinguished professorships
in Political Economy at Harvard and MIT. During the 1960s, Kaysen laid out a framework with four
important reasons why a great power, the United States in particular, should take a strategic interest in
the basic sciences. 1. Scientific discoveries provided the input for applied research, which in turn
produced technologies crucial for wielding economic and military power. 2. Scientific activity educated a
cadre of operators for leadership in industries relevant to government such as health care and defense.
3. Science proficiency generated the raw elements for mounting focused, applied efforts such as the
Manhattan Project during World War II to build the first atomic bomb. 4. Scientific progress built a basic
research reserve that when necessary could move quickly to shore up national needs.1 These arguments
underscored sciences contribution to new products and services that provided market or military
advantages. The pursuit of physics, chemistry, and biology at the frontiers of knowledge could have
direct effects on national excellence. The following sections of this article extend Kaysen list for the
present multi-polar world. The United States’ largest military and economic shares in such a world do
not guarantee empire. Soft power from scientific achievement, however, may make up part of the
deficit, enough to augment Americas reputation and American leadership in the international order. The
U.S. science establishment is then described and evaluated for its capacity to integrate and leverage the
complete list of science benefits: Kaysen‘s nation-based items plus the civilization-based advantages
exposited here. Case studies of the Office of Naval Research and U.S. scientific outreach to Brazil
illustrate underlying strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. system for maintaining the lead in basic
science. Among the weaknesses, democratic regimes tend to suffocate professions, particularly in the
sciences, due to natural hostility between democracy and technocracy. The United States might yet find
the right balance by inculcating a politically sophisticated professionalism. In other areas of heavy
government responsibilityfinance, health care, foreign intelligence, and defenseofficials and the public
have over time placed considerable trust in expert agents. With greater scientific literacy at the mass
level and greater political literacy at the scientific level, Americas state and society may forge a
somewhat freer, healthier relationship with American science, accruing benefits for U.S. material power
in the long run and, in the short run, for persuasive influence in the international system. Science and
International Leadership In their book on Leading Sectors and World Powers (1996), George Modelski
and William Thompson extended their analysis of innovation back, beyond the birth of industrial
capitalism, to the Sung Dynasty in China at the turn of the First Millennium.
Science leadership is key to stable hegemony and international influence. None of
their turns apply
Coletta, 09 Duke University , Ph.D. in Political Science, December 1999 Harvard University , Master in
Public Policy, 1993 Stanford University , Master in Electrical Engineering, 1989 Stanford University ,
B.S.E.E., 1988 [September 2009, Damon Coletta, Science, Technology, and the Quest for International
Influence, http://www.dtic.mil/...c=GetTRDoc.pdf]
On the one hand, leaders of both political parties in the United States recognize the traditional links
between scientific progress and international leadership. The President has found broad support in an
era of tight budgets for research that can prompt technological development for ground units of the
Army or Marines scrambling to solve counterinsurgency problems or for U.S. carmakers urgently
redesigning their products in a volatile global market. With respect to its military crisis and its economic
crisis, the most powerful nation-state reserves space in its accounts for science to help innovate its way
out. Less appreciated is how scientific progress facilitates diplomatic strategy in the long run, how it
contributes to Joseph Nye’s soft power, which translates to staying power in the international arena.
One possible escape from the geopolitical forces depicted in Thucydides history for all time is for the
current hegemon to maintain its lead in science, conceived as a national program and as an enterprise
belonging to all mankind. Beyond the new technologies for projecting military or economic power, the
scientific ethos conditions the hegemon’s approach to social-political problems. It effects how the leader
organizes itself and other states to address well-springs of discontent material inequity, religious or
ethnic oppression, and environmental degradation. The scientific mantle attracts others’ admiration,
which softens or at least complicates other societies’ resentment of power disparity. Finally, for certain
global problems nuclear proliferation, climate change, and financial crisis the scientific lead ensures
robust representation in transnational epistemic communities that can shepherd intergovernmental
negotiations onto a conservative, or secular, path in terms of preserving international order. In today’s
order, U.S. hegemony is yet in doubt even though military and economic indicators confirm its status as
the world’s lone superpower. America possesses the material wherewithal to maintain its lead in the
sciences, but it also desires to bear the standard for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, patronage
of basic science does not automatically flourish with liberal democracy. The free market and the mass
public impose demands on science that tend to move research out of the basic and into applied realms.
Absent the lead in basic discovery, no country can hope to pioneer humanity’s quest to know Nature.
There is a real danger U.S. state and society could permanently confuse sponsorship of technology with
patronage of science, thereby delivering a self-inflicted blow to U.S. leadership among nations. Perhaps
all these observations reflect Thucydides cycle the rise and fall of great powers and nothing can be done.
Yet, such pessimism ignores the successful record of the United States in negotiating comparable
dilemmas, notably the contradiction between capitalism, an economic system that concentrates wealth,
and democracy, a political system that diffuses the vote. Fareed Zakaria, editor at Newsweek magazine
and author of rare books that travel across highbrow international relations theory and popular culture,
offered some room for maneuver when he characterized the current crisis in capitalism as a crisis in
professions for American democracy.
Science diplomacy solves your impacts of heg better, and the external impact of
extinction through climate change
Sackett 10 [August 10, 2010, Penny Sackett, former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program
Director at the NSF, PhD in theoretical physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU)
Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories
(2002 – 07), “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,” published in the Forum for
Australian-European Science and Technology cooperation magazine, http://www.chiefscie...forsolutions/]
Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken
together this huge number of people has managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very
systems that support them. We are now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have
detrimental impacts on our way of life and to natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible,
including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely two things are true.
A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated
problems. The message here is that the human-induced global problems that confront us cannot be
solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation. It will take a large collective effort to change the
course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several mammoth challenges: to its
atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, overpopulation, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide
collaboration to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer
solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be viable in the larger context of the global
economy, global unrest and global inequality. Common understandings and commitment to action are
required between individuals, within communities and across international networks. Science can play a
special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that transcends mother
tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on international scales
in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral
to science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective
international relation practices. Furthermore, given the long-established global trade of scientific
information and results, many important international links are already in place at a scientific level. These
links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues which, when
supported at a political level, can provide a soft politics route to other policy dialogues. That is, if nations
are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to
collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security.
International cooperation and diplomacy is key to stop combat terrorism
Peterson 2002 (Peter G. Peterson Peter G. Peterson is chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and
founder and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, He is chairman emeritus and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, a
private investment banking firm. He is also founding chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and
founding president of the Concord Coalition, Mr. Peterson was the co-chair of the Conference Board Commission on Public
Trust and Private Enterprise and was also chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2000 to 2004, President
Richard Nixon named Mr. Peterson assistant to the president for international economic affairs. He was named secretary of
commerce by President Nixon in 1972. “Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism” September/October 2002;
http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/public-diplomacy-war-terrorism/p4762)
A consensus is emerging, made urgent
by the war on terrorism, that U.S. public diplomacy requires a
commitment to new foreign policy thinking and new structures. They are needed to make clear why the United States is
fighting this war and why supporting it is in the interests of others, as well as of Americans. Because terrorism is now considered
the transcendent threat to America's national security, it is overwhelmingly in the national interest that the United
States formulate and manage its foreign policies in such a way that, in its war on terrorism, it receives
the indispensable cooperation of foreign nations. Thus, more than in the past, the United States will need to
modify not simply the implementation of its foreign policies but, in certain cases, the foreign policies
themselves. The purpose is not to increase U.S. popularity abroad for its own sake, but because it is in America's national
interest to do so. This requires a deeper understanding of foreign attitudes and more effective communication of U.S. policies. It also
means fully integrating public diplomacy needs into the very foundation of American foreign policies in
the first place. Particularly in a period when the United States is fighting a war on terrorism, the country must come to
understand and accept the basic notion that "image problems" and "foreign policy" are not things apart. They are both
part of an integrated whole. A new approach and enhanced resources are also needed to establish the centrality of public diplomacy in U.S.
foreign policy. To
achieve that objective requires significant reform that will bring strategic planning, focus,
resources, and badly needed coordination to the effort.
Scientific Diplomacy is key to international cooperation and public diplomacy
Peterson 2002 (Peter G. Peterson Peter G. Peterson is chairman emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and
founder and chairman of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, He is chairman emeritus and co-founder of the Blackstone Group, a
private investment banking firm. He is also founding chairman of the Peterson Institute for International Economics and
founding president of the Concord Coalition, Mr. Peterson was the co-chair of the Conference Board Commission on Public
Trust and Private Enterprise and was also chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2000 to 2004, President
Richard Nixon named Mr. Peterson assistant to the president for international economic affairs. He was named secretary of
commerce by President Nixon in 1972. “Public Diplomacy and the War on Terrorism” September/October 2002;
http://www.cfr.org/terrorism/public-diplomacy-war-terrorism/p4762)
By repeating lies about American economic, social, and cultural values, enemies in the war on terrorism have
been able to rally a tremendous amount of support. As former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke
has asked, "How can a man in a cave out-communicate the world's leading communications society?" Osama bin Laden has been
able to find common ground, consensus, and support with his constituencies. The United States needs to
match this with a "best-in-class" communications strategy. Recent opinion studies report that although many U.S. policies
are deplored, there is a mystique surrounding America's culture, values, and economy. Thus, to foster a better
understanding of U.S. policies, ways should be found to tie them more closely to American cultural values, including the
nation's democratic traditions and its capacity for self-criticism and self-correction. Values that should be highlighted include
strength of family, religious faith, expansive social safety nets, volunteerism, freedom of expression, the universal reach of
education and its practical consequences in economic prosperity, and America's achievements in science and medicine.
Science Diplomacy Uniquely solves best for Cooperation in combating nuclear
terrorism, proliferation, better than other forms of public relations
Lowenthal 2011 (Micah D. Lowenthal Micah D. Lowenthal is the director of the Nuclear Security and Nuclear Facility
Safety Program in the Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board at the National Research Council of the National Academies. Dr.
Lowenthal was a researcher and lecturer at the University of California at Berkeley. Dr. Lowenthal received an A.B. degree in
physics and a Ph.D. degree in nuclear engineering, both from the U.C. Berkeley.; “Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security”
October 2011; http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf)
The history of science diplomacy for nuclear security is rich and includes, for example, establishing confidence in the
verifiability of the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, paving the way to many nonproliferation efforts, and damping
potentially drastic responses to actions perceived by adversaries as provocative. The ingredients for success in
science diplomacy may be summarized in terms of seven factors: openness to new possibilities, vision and leadership, good
science, human connec- tions, communication, time, and self-interest. Experts from Russia and the United States have
identified topics that would benefit from or demand science diplomacy: nuclear energy and nonproliferation,
nuclear arms reductions, countering nuclear terrorism, cooperation on ballistic missile defense, and the Compre- hensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Differing perspectives on goals in these areas, however, provide new opportunities to work
together to promote security. A variety of policy measures and physical safeguards have been put in place to prevent nuclear
proliferation and nuclear terrorism. Because of the technical complexities of nearly every aspect of the nuclear
fuel cycle and its potential for exploitation and terrorism, science diplomacy can continue to make
substantial contributions on these topics. Verification of treaties, including nuclear arms reductions and test bans, is perhaps
the topic within arms control most susceptible to technical options. Joint exploration and develop- ment of technical options to enable
proposals for verification of treaties is a valuable topic in which science diplomacy has an essential role to play. Cooperation on ballistic missile
Such cooperation has technical and political
dimensions. So far, the political discussions have resurfaced underlying suspicions, suggesting that science diplomacy is the
stronger option for building confidence and identifying technical options that enable BMD cooperation.
Although the Cold War is over, the variety of nuclear and other threats has grown, and science diplomacy is
needed now more than ever to address those threats. Science diplomacy practitioners who are daunted by the
sensitivity of the topics of the day must remember the successes in science diplomacy between the United States
and the Soviet Union concerning nuclear weapons. The topics are important in part because they are so sensitive, and
today’s generations owe it to future generations to take on the challenge of science diplomacy to
address the new and vexing security challenges the world faces in the twenty-first century.
defense (BMD) is an area of tension between the United States and Russia today.
Indo-Pak War
Bilateral Talks
1NC
The United States federal government should encourage and facilitate bilateral trade
talks between India and Pakistan.
Indo-Pak trade key to improving relations and promoting regional stability which
stops indo pak war
Chowdhury 14(Jhinuk Chowdhury is a former journalist based in India and is currently working as an independent writer, Can trade be
the game changer in Indo-Pak relations?, RT, http://rt.com/op-edge/165324-india-pakistan-relations-trade//ghs-magicmomo)
The SAARC aspiration for greater economic cooperation has been suffering serious jolts due to the bilateral rivalry between two of its largest
nations – India and Pakistan.¶ Therefore Prime
Minister Narendra Modi’s invitation to Nawaz Sharif to his
inauguration ceremony, and his acceptance, along with other SAARC leaders coming can be seen as a
welcoming gesture for a possible step towards stability in the region.¶ Many believe the pro-business
approach of both Modi and Sharif can make a France-Germany or Brazil-Argentina – each of which share significant trade
relations despite a past of political hostilities – possibly by keeping economic ties independent of ‘other’ issues.¶ As former
President of the Karachi Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Pakistan, Majyd Aziz, who has been very emphatic of his views on liberalization
of trade and investment within SAARC and primarily between Pakistan and India, says, “I have been very vocal when it comes to trade and
investment between both the neighbors. Yes, I do agree that the process is not easy. My assertion has always been that trade and investment
should never remain a hostage to other contentious issues or even the usual accusations that emanate out of the hallowed halls of officialdom
in New Delhi and Islamabad.”¶ He adds, “Examples
galore among countries where trade and investment have been
shielded from getting overpowered by troublesome issues that are the domain of diplomats, military or
bureaucracy. China-India, China-Taiwan, China-Japan, China-USA, France-Germany, just to name a few.Ӧ
In fact China-India trade is expected to reach $100 billion by 2015, despite both countries being archrivals.¶ Most certainly then IndoPak trade which today stands at a mere $3 billion with a possibility of reaching $40 billion is a huge
potential that needs to be exploited.
2NC Solvency
Trade Based relations can help regional stability and help indo pak economy
Khan 10(Mohsin S. Khan, from Pakistan, is the Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department of the International Monetary Fund, ”Improving IndoPakistan relations through trade”, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/04/19/improving-india-pakistan-relations-through-trade//ghs-magicmomo)
While successive Indian and Pakistani governments have often repeated the desire for peaceful relations, reaching a comprehensive agreement
that settles outstanding disputes, such as Kashmir and the Indus waters agreement, still does not seem to be in the cards as yet. However,
developing stronger economic relations between the two countries could be a base on which to build
overall ties and trust. More specifically, despite the political issues that divide them, steps could be taken toward better economic
relations through expanding trade between the two countries.¶ The potential gains from increased economic integration between India and
Pakistan are large. Even though both countries are members of the South Asia Free Trade Area (SAFTA) established in January 2006, trade
between the two countries is unnaturally small and the scope for gains from increased trade
correspondingly large. Total trade (exports plus imports) between India and Pakistan in 2008 amounted to a little more than US$2
billion, up from a paltry US$500 million in 2000. But still Pakistan accounts for less than 0.5 per cent of India’s trade, and India accounts for a
little over 1 per cent of Pakistan’s trade compared with the very large trade shares following the independence of the two countries in 1947. In
1948-49, 70 per cent of Pakistan’s trading transactions were with India, while 63 percent of Indian exports went to Pakistan. Informal trade, via
third countries (such as Dubai), is estimated at some US$2-3 billion per year, and this trade could obviously be undertaken bilaterally at
significantly lower cost.¶ There have been a number of studies using gravity models to assess the effects of SAFTA on interregional trade. Based
on these studies, India-Pakistan trade could increase up to 50 times its current level. A more recent study, using the Peterson Institute for
International Economics (PIIE) gravity model, shows the potential of formal trade between India and Pakistan is roughly 20 times greater than
recorded trade. This means that at 2008 trade levels total trade (exports plus imports) between India and Pakistan could expand from its
current level of US$2.1 billion to as much US$42 billion if the ‘normal’ relations estimated by the PIIE gravity model for trading partners were to
hold for the two countries.¶ What then is holding trade back between the two countries? Constraints on economic integration include high
tariff and nontariff barriers, inadequate infrastructure, bureaucratic inertia, excessive red tape, and direct political opposition.¶ Pakistan has not
yet reciprocated most favoured nation (MFN) status for India and maintains a fairly narrow positive list (of about 1400 items) on goods that
India may export to Pakistan. At the same time, India’s tariff rates remain high, especially for goods of particular interest to Pakistan, such as
textiles, leather, and the mineral onyx, and nontariff barriers are substantial. Poor transportation linkages make trade costly, with railway and
road connections inadequate and sea shipments constrained by both limited port facilities and bureaucratic regulations and restrictions.
Moreover, constraints on visas and cumbersome payments and customs procedures further limit the scope for trade. Finally, although there
are no specific restrictions, there is virtually no trade in services or foreign direct investment (FDI) flows between the two countries. In both the
cases of services and FDI, prior government approval has to be obtained, and it is clear that such approvals have been granted very sparingly by
either country.¶ Before undertaking more long-term and wide-ranging fundamental trade reforms, both countries need to build public support
for trade liberalisation between them. Initial steps should focus on bilateral measures that can be accomplished relatively easily—by executive
order rather than via legislation and with minimal resource implications—and that would meaningfully increase trade while gaining support for
bigger and bolder steps down the line. Reducing these various and eventually achieving regional integration could involve two phases: shortterm (say one year) and medium-term (say 1-3 years).¶ The specific short-term measures, mainly related to trade facilitation, could include:
easing restrictions on visas; eliminating the requirement that ships between India and Pakistan touch a third country port before bringing in
imports; removing the requirement that rail wagons carrying goods across the border return empty; opening additional road border crossings
and bus routes; increasing air links between the two countries (particularly establishing flights between Islamabad and New Delhi); increasing
the number of customs posts; and allowing branches of Indian and Pakistani banks to operate in the other country.¶ The specific medium-term
measures towards greater economic integration between India and Pakistan could include: Pakistan granting MFN status to India, and in turn
India significantly lowering tariff rates for goods of particular interest to Pakistan (such as textiles and agricultural products); Pakistan allowing
transit trade from India, which is required by WTO rules; facilitating energy trade between the two countries through building gas pipelines and
eventually joint energy grids; allowing trade in information technology; harmonising customs procedures; and eliminating obstacles to foreign
direct investments by the other country.¶ With relatively new governments in both India and Pakistan, there is once again a window of
opportunity to improve economic ties. As shown by numerous empirical studies, the potential for trade between the two countries is huge,
perhaps twenty-fold or even higher than at present. There is no doubt that increasing trade would significantly raise GDP and household
incomes in both countries, and would particularly benefit Pakistan. While the measures for reducing trade barriers proposed here generally
have the support of businessmen on both sides of the border, broader constituencies in each country need to be built for greater bilateral trade
liberalisation. Trade
will of course not solve all the problems between the two countries, but it could be an
important catalyst in the lowering of tensions, which certainly has to be in the interest of both India and
Pakistan.
US increasing dialogue with Indian on political moderation, economic moderation, and
democratic transformation – key to Pakistani stability
Joshi et al 13 [Sunjoy, C. Raja Mohan, Vikram Sood, Rajeswari Pillai Rajagopalan, Ph.D., James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., Walter Lohman, Lisa Curtis and Derek Scissors, Ph.D., he is a visiting Associate at the
International Institute of Strategic Studies and 25 years in the Indian Administrative Service, “Beyond
the Plateau in U.S. – India Relations,” 4/26/13,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/04/beyond-the-plateau-in-us-india-relations, Accessed
7/7/15]
Pakistan. Whatever the initial Indian reservations about President Obama's understanding of the India–Pakistan dynamic, New Delhi today
acknowledges the President's willingness to take India's sensitivities into account. Obama's
decision to avoid injecting himself
into India–Pakistan disputes allowed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to initiate and sustain an
engagement with Islamabad, despite much domestic resistance at home after the attacks on Mumbai in
November 2008. This patient effort has produced some impressive results in the form of an agreed roadmap between
the two countries for normalizing trade relations and liberalizing the visa regime. President Obama has been
supportive of limited India–Pakistan rapprochement and more open than the previous Presidents in confronting the sources of international
terrorism in Pakistan. While President Obama's first term was productive, there are some potential dangers in the second term that need to be
flagged. Despite much disillusionment in the United States regarding Pakistan's support for stabilizing Afghanistan, the Obama Administration
appears to have no alternative but to engage the Pakistani army to facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan by 2014, promote
political reconciliation with the Taliban, and leave Afghanistan in reasonable shape. There is some concern in New Delhi that these imperatives
might result in a renewed temptation to appease the Pakistan Army through a variety of measures that might conflict with India's interests. This
concern is rooted in India's historic wariness about the U.S.–Pakistan relationship. While
Washington's policy of dehyphenation (developing separate policies toward India and Pakistan) has helped ease these concerns,
the time has come for New Delhi and Washington to construct a new approach. Despite their strong
interests in the stability of Pakistan, India and the United States have never engaged in a productive
dialogue on Pakistan itself. During the Cold War, the two sides argued endlessly about Pakistan, and in the last decade chose to put it
aside. There is now, however, an opportunity to begin a productive India–U.S. dialogue on Pakistan's future.
The current trends in Pakistan demand that India and the U.S. find ways to work together to promote
political moderation, economic modernization, and democratic transformation in Pakistan. There is no
divergence between New Delhi and Washington on these goals, and neither has the power to
unilaterally alter Pakistan's current trajectory. It is only by coordinating their respective approaches toward
Islamabad that New Delhi and Washington can help engineer a positive evolution of Pakistan.
Facilitating talks solves.
Naeem Ahmad Salik. Fmr Brigadier general in the Pakistan military. Thursday, 05 September 2013.
“India-Pakistan Relations: How Can They Be Improved?”
http://www.futuredirections.org.au/publications/indian-ocean/1301-india-pakistan-relations-how-canthey-be-improved.html#sthash.sXLho9JI.dpuf
The international community can continue to encourage and facilitate an uninterrupted peace dialogue
between India and Pakistan. India has always been scornful of foreign mediation between them and
prefers bilateral engagement, where it can bring its greater weight to bear. This continues despite the
fact that the US involvement during the Kargil crisis went entirely in India’s favour. Pakistan, which has
in the past sought external balancing and tried to invoke international mediation in its disputes with
India, may well be wary of outside intervention after its Kargil experience. Nevertheless, friendly
nudging by countries enjoying good relations with both India and Pakistan should be welcome.
US should play a role – has great influence on both countries
Imran Shamim, 12/03/2011. Universität Erfurt, Willy Brandt School of Public Policy, Graduate Student.
‘‘ Possible Solutions to Kashmir Conflict’’.
http://www.academia.edu/824927/Possible_Solutions_to_Kashmir_Conflict.
Besides the, international community in general and United States of America in particular should play
its role in order to resolve this protracted conflict. Being a big economic and military power United
States has great influence on both countries and it can help to foster the process, as President Obama
also committed to provide support in facilitating the peace process between India and Pakistan during
his election campaign of 2008. With the help of International community, a joint administration
including India, Pakistan and Kashmiris should be worked out. The borders should be made irrelevant
and trade and people movement should be allowed without any restrictions. As far as militancy is
concerned it could be tackled if both countries show real political will to resolve this issue, as stated by
Mirwaiz Omar Farooq, “ If the government of India shows that it is serious about the dialogue, the issue
of militancy could be addressed and those elements reigned in ” . 17 Pakistan too should curtail the
militant groups, which are operating from its territory
A2: Bilateral Talks CP
Multiple warrants why Indo/Pak bilateral relations fail



Indian Prime Minister Modi has zero tolerance for terrorism
Pakistani military argues that India is a threat to stay in power
Different agendas for peace talks
Berland and Kugelman 14 [Allison is a Ph.D. at the School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS)
South Asia Program, Michael Kugelman is the senior program associate for South Asia at the Woodrow
Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Is There Any Hope for India-Pakistan Relations?,” 9/2/14,
http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/09/02/is-there-any-hope-for-india-pakistan-relations/, Accessed 7/7/15]
And yet there are very good reasons to be skeptical as well, and in ways that go beyond the events of the past few weeks. First, given that
Modi has repeatedly advocated a position of zero tolerance against terrorism, it seems unlikely that he
would show the same degree of restraint as his predecessor, Manmohan Singh, if there is a future terrorist
strike committed in India and traced back to Pakistan (recall that Singh chose not to retaliate against Pakistan
after the 2008 Mumbai attacks). Indeed, the possibility of such attacks is likely to increase significantly next
year. With the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan, many anti-India militant groups who have been
operating in Afghanistan will be deprived of a target, creating incentives to redirect their attention to Kashmir and India on the
whole. Second, Pakistan’s military, which remains the country’s most powerful institution, continues to be uninterested in
moving closer to India through channels other than trade and economics. It also bears mentioning that Pakistan’s armed
forces derive much of their legitimacy — as well as their role in politics — from an India that remains estranged
from Pakistan. In effect, so long as there is no peace with India, Pakistan’s military can argue that India poses an
existential threat, thereby justifying the military’s need to be active across the Pakistani state. Third, there is a
disconnect at play with regard to each country’s desired agenda in future peace talks. Pakistan’s
government has viewed a formal trade relationship with India as a possible springboard for discussions on the
bigger issues, such as territorial disputes like Kashmir. By contrast, India’s government sees trade normalization as
an end in itself. This latter position is rooted in New Delhi’s view that Jammu and Kashmir are an inalienable and
irrevocable part of India. So is there any hope that Modi’s grand gesture to Sharif back in May can trigger
a new era in bilateral relations? In the short term, the answer is likely to be no. Historically, bilateral
relations have resembled a boomerang: Efforts toward reconciliation have proceeded in fits and starts,
with steps forward and hopes raised –followed by steps back and hopes dashed. Just when progress is
being made, disaster strikes. In the 1950s, India was Pakistan’s largest trade partner, but by 1965, the two countries were at war. In
the short term, it will be difficult for the two countries to extricate themselves from this fits-and-starts pattern, and to find new sustained
patterns of relating to one another.
No Solvency
Shouldn’t try to improve relations between india and Pakistan.
Teresita C. Schaffer. Brookings institute. September 2014. Ambassador Teresita C. Schaffer is an
expert on economic, political, security and risk management trends in India and Pakistan, as well as on
the region that extends from Afghanistan through Bangladesh. She also serves as a senior adviser to
McLarty Associates, a Washington-based international strategic advisory firm. “India, Pakistan and the
United States” http://www.brookings.edu/experts/schaffert.
The United States does not have, and should not seek, a direct role in improving India-Pakistan relations.
Strengthening U.S. business relations with both India and Pakistan, however, could open up possibilities
for integrated trade expansion that could benefit all three countries and perhaps add some momentum
to the proposed India-Pakistan trade opening. The circumstances of the U.S. exit from Afghanistan and
the magnitude of its role in Pakistan create another important vector for India-U.S. cooperation. Delhi
and Washington, perhaps surprisingly, share an interest in the peace and governability of Afghanistan
and Pakistan. This would be a good time to develop a serious India-U.S. policy dialogue about Pakistan,
including a candid discussion of some of the more difficult problems, like terrorism. This would
supplement the discussion on Afghanistan that is already taking place. Perhaps the successful India-U.S.
dialogue on China can provide some inspiration on how to proceed.
Internet Freedom
Global Online Freedom Act
1NC
The United States federal government should pass the Global Online Freedom Act
The Global Online Freedom Act is an important step towards transparency and
protecting human rights, researchers agree.
COHN AND YORK ’12 (Cindy and Jillian, Executive Director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. From
2000-2015 she served as EFF’s Legal Director as well as its General Counsel, Director for
International Freedom of Expression, BA in Sociology from Binghamton University, “Global Freedom
2012 is an important Step Forward”, https://www.eff.org/about/staff/jillian-york, April 18)
Over the past decade, and particularly in the past year, media and civil society have had success through naming and shaming companies acting
as “repression’s little helper”: U.S.
and E.U. companies who have helped authoritarian countries censor the
Internet and surveil their citizens with sophisticated technology. Today, EFF published a whitepaper
outlining our suggestions for how companies selling surveillance and filtering technologies can avoid
assisting repressive regimes. In that vein, the newly-amended Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA), just
passed by a House Sub-Committee, while far from perfect, is an important step toward protecting
human rights and free expression online. This is not the first time that GOFA has been proposed, nor is it even the first time
the bill has been approved by the House sub-committee; a 2007 version, which literally named the countries to which filtering
technology would be restricted (Belarus, Cuba, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, North Korea, the People’s Republic of China, Tunisia, and
Vietnam), was also approved by the House but never came to the floor for a vote. In the past, EFF has had extreme
reservations about GOFA in part because it sought to add more items to the U.S. export restrictions, which could easily mean that activists and
people seeking to secure their own networks would lose out more than repressive governments. But in many respects, GOFA has come a long
way, thanks in large part to the efforts of its authors in seeking feedback from the tech community and civil society. The
bill still needs
more definitions and clearer definitions of key terms, and we are not yet ready to support it, but we'll
be watching it closely. The current version of GOFA would: Require government assessments of “ freedom of expression with respect
to electronic information in each foreign country.” Require disclosure from companies about their human rights
practices, to be evaluated by an independent third party. Limit the export of technologies that “serve the primary
purpose of” facilitating government surveillance or censorship to governments in countries designated as “Internet-restricting.” But let’s take a
deeper look… Transparency
The bill contains a number of excellent measures that would ultimately
encourage more transparency amongst software and hardware companies, as well as online service
providers. The companies involved have been notoriously secretive and have often refused comment to reporters when their products have
been found in authoritarian regimes. Section 103 of the bill would require that the human rights reports already written for each country by the
State Department include assessments of country’s Internet freedom, including the availability of Internet access, and government attempts to
filter or censor nonviolent, political, or religious expression. Section
103 would also require assessments about the
extent to which authorities in a given country have sought information on an individual or group
relevant to their nonviolent activities, as well as the electronic surveillance practices of a given country. These assessments-undertaken by US diplomatic personnel--would also include the input of human rights organizations, technology
and Internet companies, and other “appropriate nongovernmental organizations.” The inclusion of
NGOs is an important addition, since we are concerned that the State Department process could be
vulnerable to politicization. Because of this, we'd like to see the role of non-governmental
organizations increase as the bill develops further. Additionally, since the most robust research on
Internet censorship and surveillance has come from the academic community and independent
researchers, these must be added too. Importantly, the bill should also be extended to require transparency from all companies
providing tools and services that can be used for surveillance and censorship, and not just companies providing Internet communications
services. Transparency from technology vendors and providers of other services is as important as transparency from Internet service providers.
In fact, the transparency sections also can and should reach a broader range of technologies and companies than the export restrictions, which
should remain narrow if they are to exist at all. As
restrictions.
a result, we recommend decoupling the transparency and export
2NC Solvency
Passing the CP will send a message that the US will push for internet freedom
Cheverie 12- (Joan is the Manager, Professional Development Programs for EDUCAUSE, holds a second
Master's degree from Georgetown University, “The Global Online Freedom Act,” EDUCAUSE, March 27,
2012, http://www.educause.edu/blogs/cheverij/global-online-freedom-act)//Kevjumba
Today, March 27, 2012, the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights recommended that the “ Global
Online
Freedom Act” (H.R. 3605) be sent for a vote of the full House Foreign Affairs Committee. Sponsor Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.), who is the chairman of the
subcommittee, has been advocating for the legislation for several years but the issue has gained more attention and urgency following recent reports of the sale of
U.S. censorship technology to regimes in Syria, Iran, China, and Egypt.¶ The
bill, which amends the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961,
would bar U.S. companies from exporting technologies to "Internet restricting countries" if the products
could be used to censor the web or spy on people's Internet activity. It would also require ISPs and search engines to disclose
their policies for cooperating with censorship requests from restrictive foreign regimes. Another provision in the bill establishes the Office of Global
Internet Freedom (OGIF) within the State Department, which gives it the authority to decide which
countries receive the designation of an "Internet restricting country.” U.S. businesses that collect or
obtain personally identifiable information through the Internet would be directed to notify the OGIF and
the Attorney General before responding to a disclosure request from an Internet-restricting country.
Finally, the bill requires U.S. businesses to report to the OGIF certain Internet censorship information
involving Internet-restricting countries, and it prohibits U.S. businesses that maintain Internet content
hosting services from jamming U.S.-supported websites or U.S.-supported content in Internet-restricting
countries.¶ Rep. Smith revealed at today’s markup that Google, Yahoo, Freedom House, and Amnesty International, and other human rights organizations have
all sent letters of support to the subcommittee. Brett Solomon, Executive Director, AccessNow.org wrote in support saying, “By moving to pass the
Global Online Freedom Act, the U.S. Congress can send a powerful message to governments around the
globe that it will not idly stand by while fundamental freedoms are eroded online. Rightly, it should also require the U.S.
government as a major customer of these technologies to push for greater vendor accountability and transparency.” It should be noted that Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA)
did express at the markup that she hopes the bill can be refined further to protect companies against any unintended consequences.
GOFA is key to keep Internet freedom
Gallagher 13- (Ryan is a journalist who reports on surveillance, security, and civil liberties,
“Congressman Crusades To Block Sales of Surveillance and Censorship Gear to Dictators,” The Slate,
2/8/13, http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/08/chris_smith_again_
proposes_legislation_to_block_sales_of_surveillance_censorship.html)//Kevjumba
Authoritarian regimes are willing to pay big bucks for the latest surveillance and censorship tools. But a
congressman from New Jersey is on a crusade to make sure tyrants can’t get their hands on American spy gear—no matter how high the price.¶
Earlier this week, Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., introduced the
Global Online Freedom Act of 2013, aimed at curtailing “the
growing use of the Internet as a tool of repression.” Smith has launched versions of the bill in previous years, but he says the
latest incarnation has been beefed up with new clauses targeting companies who may be involved in
selling dual-use technology that could be used for nefarious purposes if in the hands of a despot.¶ According
to a statement made by Smith at a congressional hearing Tuesday, GOFA would, among other things:¶ Prohibit the export of
hardware or software that can be used for potentially illicit activities such as surveillance, tracking, and
blocking to the governments of Internet-restricting countries.¶ Require the State Department to improve its reporting on
Internet freedom in the annual Country Report on Human Rights Practices, and to identify by name Internet-restricting countries.¶ Require
Internet companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission how they conduct their human rights
due diligence, including with regard to the collection and sharing of personally identifiable information with repressive countries, and the steps
they take to notify users when they remove content or block access to content.¶ If Smith’s bill were to be adopted into law, it would have major
ramifications for companies like California-based Blue Coat. As I reported last month, the Silicon Valley tech firm has been accused of having
provided countries like Bahrain, China, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, and the United Arab Emirates with network filtering equipment that can be used
for censorship and surveillance of Internet traffic.
GOFA may also impact the secretive, unregulated trade in zero-day
exploits, complex codes that can target vulnerabilities in software programs in order to infiltrate
computers.¶ The bill has been referred to three House committees—Foreign Affairs, Ways and Means, and Financial Services—that will now
consider whether to push it forward for review and amendment. Past versions of the bill have advanced through the committees but have stalled
in the final stages, perhaps because these issues are not seen by lawmakers as a high priority. Realistically, it’s unlikely that GOFA
2013 will
be any different—but that’s not to say it isn’t a valuable and necessary contribution. At the very least, it will keep Internet
freedom issues on lawmakers’ radar and put pressure on the government to update its outdated policies
when it comes to controlling the sale of sophisticated surveillance and censorship technologies.¶ Smith’s
continued efforts to press for Internet freedom-protecting laws were lauded last year by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which described an
earlier version of GOFA as “an important step toward protecting human rights and free expression online.”
However, EFF also expressed reservations about that bill, saying it was concerned that export restrictions might have a counter-productive effect
by stopping activists from obtaining tools that allow them to “monitor their own communications for security vulnerabilities and backdoors.”
The CP sends a message that the US will be credible
Yu 13-(Brian, University of California, Berkeley, Walter A. Haas School of Business MBA, “Speaking
against the Silence: An ethical analysis of Censorship practices within China today,” Global Ethics
Network, 4/23/13, http://www.globalethicsnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/speaking-against-the-silence-alook-inside-the-censorship)//Kevjumba
even though it is the Chinese people who are suffering from the government's crackdown on
censorship, it is important to remember that it is companies based in the United States who are
responsible for this technology. When such companies defy the Chinese government though, it sends a
symbolic message that American companies do not have to be silent on an issue that silences and oppresses
billions. On Jan 13, 2010 CNET news reported that Google had been the victim of a sophisticated attack by Chinese hackers who gained information and email addresses of human rights activists within China. Google was
understandably outraged, and announced that it would cease following Chinese government regulations and stop filtering its own search engine. The Chinese government, in essence,
had gone from passively disallowing citizens to access the internet to completely making an offensive
against human rights activists. Google then decided to move its Chinese headquarters to Hong Kong,
which carried special jurisdiction that allowed Google to allow unfiltered searches to everyone who
accessed the website without violating Chinese government rule. These days, it is the Chinese government that filters the search engines of its own
But
people. While Google's move to stop self censoring didn't end censorship in China, it was a move in the right direction; and served as a precedent reminding companies that they did have the power to give people a voice. ¶ V. The
Future of Censorship¶
The future of where Chinese censorship will go from here is uncertain. The fact remains that China is committing what
some would deem human rights violations by censoring the media and oppressing its people. It is also undeniable that by selling the technology that makes up the Great Firewall, the United States is also responsible for the oppression
Chris Smith of New Jersey attempted to pass a bill that would force US internet
companies follow American laws regarding censorship even in other countries, or else not operate.
Unfortunately, the Global Online Freedom Act failed to pass in Congress that year. But even if the United States stopped companies from operating within China,
of the Chinese people. In 2007, Rep.
China would still manage to find other ways to censor its citizens into silence, presumably by purchasing technology from other countries such as Japan and Germany.
The CP solves accessibility, surveillance, freedom of expression, and transparency in
the global internet
Brown ’13. Professor Ian Brown is Professor of Information Security and Privacy at the OII (Oxford Internet
Insitute). His research is focused on surveillance, privacy-enhancing technologies, and Internet regulation. “The
Global Online Freedom Act”, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 2013. Acc. 7-7-15.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269636//NicktheBrick
The Global Online Freedom Act is one of the most comprehensive legislative attempts to protect online
human rights. If passed, it would improve the understanding of foreign government attempts to censor
and persecute political opponents by requiring the State Department to publish annual reports on
Internet accessibility, surveillance, and freedom of expression in countries receiving economic and
security assistance. It would require transparency on human rights due diligence and policies from U.S.listed companies providing Internet communications services in designated “Internet-restricting”
countries, particularly search engines and content hosts. More controversially, it would impose controls
on the export to Internet-restricting governments of goods and technology that have the primary
purpose of assisting censorship or surveillance. Civil society groups have concerns that such controls
could block the availability of tools useful for human rights activists in affected countries.
CP standards solve international expression and privacy rights, gets companies on
board and sends a signal
MacKinnon ’12. Rebecca MacKinnon is a Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation,
a former CNN bureau chief in Tokyo and Beijing, co -founder of the citizen media network Global
Voices, and author of Consent of the Networked: The Worldwide Struggle for Internet
Freedom. “Internet Freedom Starts at Home”, Foreign Policy, 4 -3-14.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/03/internet -freedom-starts-at-home//NicktheBrick
American-made technology has turned up around the Middle East and North Africa over the past year —
from Syria to Bahrain to Saudi Arabia, from pre-revolutionary Tunisia to Egypt — in contexts that leave
no doubt that the software and hardware in question were being used to censor dissenting speech and
track activists. While much of this technology is considered "dual use" because it can be used to defend
computer networks against cyberattack as well as to censor and monitor political speech, some
members of Congress are seeking to prevent its use for political repression. To that end, the Global
Online Freedom Act (GOFA), which passed through the House of Representatives Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Health, and Human Rights last week, takes aim not only at U.S.-headquartered companies
but also overseas companies funded by U.S. capital markets. As GOFA’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith of
New Jersey, bluntly put it, repressive regimes in Iran, China, and Syria "are transforming the Internet
into a ‘weapon of mass surveillance.’" The bill has been kicking around Congress in various forms since
2006 after Yahoo handed over dissidents’ email account information to the Chinese authorities and
other companies including Cisco, Microsoft, and Google came under fire for aiding Chinese political
censorship to varying degrees. While its specifics have changed over the years, the current version
contains three main elements: 1. It requires the State Department to create a list of "Internet-restricting
countries." 2. It requires that all companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges disclose to the Securities and
Exchange Commission what procedures and practices they have put in place to protect the free
expression and privacy rights of users in "Internet-restricting" countries. 3. It revises U.S. export control
laws to forbid the export of censorship and surveillance technology to "Internet-restricting countries."
GOFA has received ringing endorsements from a number of human rights groups as well as from Yahoo
— which, after a few years of humiliation in Congress and the media over its mistakes in China, has
made a public commitment to human rights. The second part of the bill, focused on corporate
transparency, is modeled after sections 1502 and 1504 of the recently passed Dodd-Frank Act, which
requires conflict-minerals and extractive-revenue disclosure. It is based on the premise that at least
some investors care about the human rights responsibilities of U.S.-listed businesses. More broadly, the
idea is that just as companies are expected to commit to basic environmental, labor, and human rights
standards when it comes to their operations in the physical world, investors, consumers, and
government regulators should expect similar commitments to users’ and customers’ rights to digital free
expression and privacy when using the Internet and mobile devices. Companies that join the Global
Network Initiative (GNI), a multi-stakeholder organization through which Internet and
telecommunications companies work with human rights groups, socially responsible investors, and
academics to uphold core principles on free expression, privacy, and human rights, would receive "safe
harbor" from this requirement. So far only five companies have joined the GNI: Google, Microsoft,
Yahoo, Websense, and Evoca. (Full disclosure: I am on the GNI’s board of directors.) It is possible that
the bill will be an incentive for more companies to join the GNI even if it fails to pass.
GOFA solves sale of surveillance tech and promotes company transparency
Freedom House, ’11. Freedom House is an independent watchdog organization that supports
democratic change, monitors the status of freedom around the world, and advocates for democracy and
human rights. “Freedom House Endorses Global Online Freedom Act”, Freedom House, 12-8-11.
https://freedomhouse.org/article/freedom-house-endorses-global-online-freedomact#.VZx8g_lViko//NicktheBrick
Freedom House supports the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA) 2.0, which was introduced today in the
U.S. Congress as H.R. 3605. The bill, which would hinder the ability of U.S. companies to sell surveillance
and censorship technologies to repressive governments, is crucial to the promotion of global internet
freedom. “U.S. companies are reported to have sold technologies for monitoring digital communications
and censoring online content to repressive governments in the Middle East and elsewhere,” said Daniel
Calingaert, vice president for policy at Freedom House. “GOFA is the first serious legislative proposal to
stop sales of U.S. technology that is used to violate human rights.” The bill would prohibit exports of
surveillance and censorship technologies to countries that restrict the internet. It would also require
U.S. technology companies to disclose their policies for collecting and sharing personal data and for
blocking access to online content. “The explosive growth of social media and internet use generally is
being met by increasingly sophisticated forms of repression,” continued Calingaert. “More and more
governments are eavesdropping on the communications of human rights activists and restricting
internet users’ access to information, such as independent news websites and peaceful online political
discussions.”
GOFA is critical – sends strong international signal
Ganesan, ’12. Director, Business and Human Rights Division - Human Rights Watch. “Letter to
Representative Smith in support of H.R.3605, the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA)”, 3-13-12.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/03/13/letter-representative-smith-support-hr-3605-global-onlinefreedom-act-gofa//NicktheBrick
We have witnessed an increase in the arrests and detentions of bloggers, the blocking of websites,
online intimidation and surveillance of peaceful political activists, and aggressive denial of service
attacks against websites that promote the free flow of legitimate political and religious speech. As
witnessed during the Arab Spring, the internet has the ability to allow billions of people to exercise their
rights of speech, assembly, and association. But an open internet is not guaranteed. Governments,
companies, and civil society must be vigilant to ensure that the internet is a platform that people can
use to express their legitimate aspirations and to hold their governments accountable. People in every
country deserve to be able to take part in building a more peaceful, prosperous, and democratic society,
and H.R. 3605 will help promote a more open and free Internet. The Global Online Freedom Act would
require companies to demonstrate that they have put policies and procedures in place to protect human
rights online and to safeguard their users. Such mechanisms are particularly pertinent given the role of
the U.S. Internet firm Yahoo in turning over to the Chinese government user information which led to
the arrest, conviction and 10-year prison term of the journalist Shi Tao in 2005 on a charge of “divulging
state secrets abroad.” It would strengthen efforts by the US government to protect internet freedom by
giving the government new resources to keep the internet open and give it new authority to ensure that
certain technologies do not fall into the hands of repressive governments. Finally, it would level the
playing field for responsible businesses by ensuring that US trade negotiations protect freedom of
expression and thereby allowing innovative companies to fairly compete, especially in countries where
governments try to censor their products or services. These are modest, but critical steps needed to
help keep the internet open. By moving quickly to pass the Global Online Freedom Act, the U.S.
Congress can send a powerful message to dictators around the globe that we will not idly stand by while
fundamental freedoms are eroded online. Thank you for introducing this important legislation and we
look forward to supporting its passage.
A2: Links to Politics
CP doesn’t link to politics-Global online freedom Act is popular
Sagnip 12 (Jeff is a congressional staffer, “Smith Bill Promoting Online Freedom Is Passed by Key House
Subcommittee,” US congress, March 27, 2012,
http://chrissmith.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=287401)//Kevjumba
Promoting online freedom in repressive countries is at the core of the Global Online Freedom Act (GOFA)
passed today by the House panel that oversees international human rights and chaired by Congressman
Chris Smith (NJ-04).¶ At the markup of the House Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health and Human Rights, Chairman Smith described the
deteriorating state of freedom of political and religious speech online and the growing danger for dissidents who use the Internet.¶ “The
threat to human rights is very serious,” said Smith. “Reporters Without Borders just released its ‘Internet Enemies’ list that names
the countries that violate their citizen’s online freedoms. Their report tells us that China, Vietnam and Iran are the world’s biggest prisons for
netizens. But other countries are not lagging far behind. Sadly, it’s through the assistance of Western companies and technology – and this
includes American companies and technology – that governments like those of Iran, China, Syria, and many other countries are transforming the
Internet into a ‘weapon of mass surveillance.’” (Click here to read Chairman Smith’s opening statement.) ¶ By unanimous consent the
bill and replace it with new revised text that is expected to win full committee support. The
provisions added by Smith through an amendment in the nature of a substitute (Click here for the amended text of H.R. 3605) are designed
to significantly help democratic activists and human rights defenders by creating a new transparency
standard for Internet companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges and operating in countries that
substantially censor or control the Internet. As amended, H.R. 3605 now requires Internet companies
listed on U.S. stock exchanges to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) how they
conduct their human rights due diligence, including with regard to the collection and sharing of personally
identifiable information with repressive countries, in addition to the steps they take to notify users when they remove content
subcommittee agreed to amend Smith’s original
or block access to content.¶ In response to numerous reports of U.S. technology being used to filter political and religious speech, as well as track
down or conduct surveillance of activists through the Internet or mobile devices, the bill prohibits the export of hardware or software that can be
used for surveillance, tracking, blocking, etc. to governments in an Internet-restricting country.¶ The
Global Online Freedom Act has
been supported by Yahoo!, Freedom House, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Access, (Click here
to read Yahoo!’s letter of support; click here to read letters of support from human rights NGOs.)
freedom is on its way and is liked by the public.
SCHMIDT AND COHEN ’14 (Eric and Jared, executive chairman of google, writers for the New York
Times, the director of Google activities, “The New Digital Age: Transforming Nations, Businesses and Our
Lives”, The Future of Internet Freedom, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/12/opinion/the-future-ofinternet-freedom.html? , 3/11)
None of these challenges are new. What is new is the possibility to overcome them — if we make the
right public and private investments. For example, software using peer-to-peer algorithms
lets users route an Internet connection through another computer without having to go
through a V.P.N., helping to address the trust and scalability issues. These algorithms don’t
resolve the trust issue completely. How do you know you’re actually connecting to your
friend, not a government agent? Ten years ago, this challenge would have been a deal
breaker for many people. But today it’s possible to use networks like Facebook or Google
Hangouts to verify one another’s identities similarly to how we do offline. Obfuscation
techniques — when one thing is made to look like another — are also a path forward. A
digital tunnel from Iran to Norway can be disguised as an ordinary Skype call. Deep packet
inspection cannot distinguish such traffic from genuine traffic, and the collateral damage of
blocking all traffic is often too high for a government to stomach. Finally, advances in userexperience design practices are a big, if not obvious, boon. The Internet is becoming easier to
use, and the same goes for circumvention technologies — which means that activists will face
less of a challenge getting online securely. Much of the fight against censorship has been led
by the activists of the Internet freedom movement. We can join this open source community,
whether we are policy makers, corporations or individuals. Money, coding skills or
government grants can all make a difference. Given the energies and opportunities out there,
it’s possible to end repressive Internet censorship within a decade. If we want the next
generation of users to be free, we don’t see any other option.
A2: Global Online Freedom Act CP
GOFA export controls are evaded and hurt human rights activists
Brown ’13. Professor Ian Brown is Professor of Information Security and Privacy at the OII (Oxford Internet
Insitute). His research is focused on surveillance, privacy-enhancing technologies, and Internet regulation. “The
Global Online Freedom Act”, Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, 2013. Acc. 7-7-15.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2269636//NicktheBrick
Many states with weaker freedom of speech protections than the U.S. require ISPs to block access to
sites featuring illegal material such as child abuse images, material inciting religious and racial hatred,
and certain types of banned services such as online gambling. It is extremely difficult to ensure
surveillance and blocking tools are only used for these legitimate purposes, with appropriate levels of
transparency and accountability. Export controls must be carefully targeted to avoid rules that can easily
be bypassed by the production of controlled items outside the control regime. Communications
equipment is usually portable, and is less familiar to customs officials than weapons and other
equipment covered by controls. Software is especially difficult to control, given how easily it can be
transferred across borders via the Internet. A well-known example is the use in Syrian
telecommunications networks of web filtering and blocking devices from U.S. company Blue Coat, which
were illegally transferred to Syria by a distributor in the United Arab Emirates.19 Controls are only likely
to be effective against products and services that require significant expertise and investment to
reproduce outside the U.S. (and its partners in international control regimes, such as the Wassenaar
Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies). Another
serious problem is that technologies useful to human rights activists can be blocked by sanctions and
broader export controls. Syrian activist Delshad Othman told The Washington Post in August 2012 that
sanctions had made it much harder for activists to use anti-tracking software, meaning that “they are
filming and uploading pictures without protection, so the regime can easily arrest them or even kill
them.” Even though BROWN Law&Ethics Winter/Spring 2013 [159] the Obama administration has
created exemptions to allow the export of these kinds of tools, the complexity of controls and licensing
procedures, and harsh penalties for making a mistake, still discourage firms from risking exports that
should be allowed.20 The Electronic Frontier Foundation has praised the limiting of GOFA’s export
controls to government end users and suggested there should be an easy process to challenge any
controls imposed.21
Aff: Attacking countries with internet sanctions are not the way to transform themchina Proves
Smerconish 14 [Michael, , “The Pulse: Seeking cooperation, not conflict, with China”,
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20150419_The_Pulse__Seeking_cooperation__not_conflict__wit
h_China.html#HmgAJFTFIuIFXEVE.99]
Now, in writing Dealing With China: An Insider Unmasks the New Economic Superpower, he is very clear
that his interest in promoting a better understanding of China is rooted in his desire to do what is best
for America. Appearing at the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia on Wednesday, Paulson explained
the stakes while responding to a question from Craig Snyder, the council president, on whether the
United States and China might be headed for physical confrontation. "History shows that, more often
than not, if you have an established power and you have a rising power, they come to conflict. And I
don't think that's inevitable, and neither side wants this, and that would be a disaster for the world . . .
so we now have a more complex relationship," Paulson replied. "China is now a formidable competitor,
and there's also a large number of issues where we have very much of a shared interest. But they are
much more assertive on the global scene and, the way I describe it is, we can't let that competition
devolve into destructive, debilitating kinds of competition or conflict. "It is in our best interest to have
a constructive relationship with them, but it is really important now that we get difficult things done
together where there is a shared interest. A shared interest makes no difference if you don't build trust
and get difficult things done. The reason I set up the Strategic Economic Dialogue, which helped achieve
a fair number of things, is because it is a good way to prioritize the important economic issues, which
are so important to China. And if you get those right, a lot of other things are easier to get right."
Warming
Super Chimneys
1NC
Plan text: The United States federal government should fund and oversee the
construction of ten 5 kilometer tall Super-Chimneys
10 super chimneys solve global warming—new breakthroughs in technology make
them possible
Ming 2014 (Tingzhen Ming of the School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Renaud de
Richterb, supervisor of Chemistry at the Institut Charles Gerhardt Montpellier, Wei Liua, School of Energy and Power Engineering, Huazhong
University of Science and Technology, Sylvain Caillolb, supervisor of Chemistry at the Institut Charles Gerhardt Montpellier,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 31, March 2014, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113008460)
The super-chimney imagined by Pesochinsky [150] and [154] consists in a huge vertical open duct at both ends,
which works as a giant vacuum cleaner, transferring hot air from the sea level to the atmosphere 5 km
higher, where temperature is −30 °C. The principle consists in the chimney effect based on the fact that hot air rises by
buoyancy above cold air, because hot air is less dense and therefore lighter than cold air. But the process can be made more intense
preventing the mixing of warm and cool air, so a chimney prevents inside air from mixing with the outside air until the air exits. The chimney stack effect
needs a differential of temperature between the air inside and outside to run correctly. Moreover, the higher the chimney is, the more efficient it is. It
is a similar concept to previously described SCPP [148], except that there is no solar collector at the bottom of the tower, which usually couples the GH effect to the sucking effect of the
According to Pesochinsky the temperature difference between the bottom and the top of the
tower is sufficient. Another difference with conventional SCPPs concerns the size, 5–10 times bigger: up to 10 km high with a diameter of up to 1 km. Even if these
heights have never been reached by human buildings, some GE / CE projects reported in the initial part
of this review envisioned similar heights [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] and [65]. Furthermore, some authors reported, with such
a large duct and in certain atmospheric conditions, that a cold air inflow could occur at the top and as a
result a layer of cold air could get out at the bottom of the chimney, the hotter air surface being just
pushed up, with the creation of a thermal inversion. In terms of heat transfer the result is nearly the same: cold air down and hot air up. Indeed, on
some Pesochinsky's designs, the tower is alongside a mountain slope or drilled inside a mountain (which seems too expensive) and
chimney.
numerous air pipes are connected on the sides. Di Bella [155] suggested a similar concept by using giant open pit-mines and also recycling waste-heat from power plants. This heat input could
To illustrate the potential of these devices, according to
Pesochinsky's calculations [156] only 10 super chimneys 5 km high can offset the heat surplus in the Earth
atmosphere, which causes current global warming. This would mean that all the atmospheric circulation would be
completely reorganized from only 10 points on the Earth’s surface: the climate induced perturbations could be much worse than what we want to avoid.
Hopefully with smaller, cheaper and more numerous super chimneys, better distributed on the surface of the planet, this deleterious effect can be avoided. The calculations
done are rather simple, and were confirmed by Mudde [157] from Delft University of Technology. They are based on
be useful to prevent cold inflow entering these large diameter chimneys.
a difference of temperature of 50 °C and as the super-chimney will facilitate air convection by bringing masses of warm air up to 5 km, then when the heat from the air radiates out, as it will be
already at high altitude, less energy will be reabsorbed by the atmosphere, due to a thinner layer of atmosphere to go through. Therefore, more heat will be leaving the atmosphere, thus
reducing the global atmospheric temperature. The authors believe that more scientific studies are needed to prove the concept, and that the technology still fairly mature to build 5 km high
chimneys. Constructional generalities are given by Pesochinsky with no real details: tall skyscrapers already exist; unlike chimneys, buildings entail much heavier construction because there are
A chimney is just a
cylinder, thus is a much lighter structure and can be build a lot taller than any building with new “superstrong” materials, not even described by Pesochinsky.
floors, ceilings, several fluids and lifts going up and down, and all other elements within buildings which are necessary to make it useful for humans.
2NC Solvency Extension
Doesn’t cost that much—ends global warming
PRWeb 2013 (PRWeb, internally citing Michael Pesochinsky, engineer and inventor, 9-9-2015, "Super Chimney: A Practical Solution To
The Global Warming Problem Is Found," PRWeb, http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/9/prweb5154624.htm)
The global warming crisis is worsening, stronger than ever as hurricanes, floods, and droughts are
happening all over the planet. Governments are considering different options to fortify cities to make
them withstand weather abnormalities. None of these solutions are easy or cheap. But there is hope for
not only solving global warming crisis, but also actually making that solution profitable. Back in 2008, Michael
Pesochinsky developed the idea of utilizing Super Chimney technology as a unique way to avert a global
warming catastrophe and simultaneously generating clean energy and providing desert irrigation. While that idea had a warm reception, it
was never taken seriously as there was no practical or economical way to build the Super Chimney.
Finally, after 5 years of development there is a reason for optimism: the work over the Super Chimney solution for the global warming
has been brought to a new level. At this point it can be shown that not only can Super Chimney help to cool atmosphere, but also that is possible to build a Super
Chimney at a reasonable price. Here is an educational video released in August 2013: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfITeN76Thc. The video
explains how the Super Chimney works, how it cools atmosphere and how it can be build. As explained
in the video, it will take an investment of only 0.2% of the world's gross domestic product to solve the
global warming crisis. The return on this investment will be the creation of millions of acres of arable
land in tropical deserts and the generation of massive amounts of electricity. Combined benefits will be
multiplied by money saved by reducing natural disasters, which will decline globally as the global
temperature drops.
Solves global warming, generates electricity, produces fresh water, and traps CO2
The Free Library 2014 (The Free Library, internally citing Michael Pesochinsky, official badass and inventor of the super chimney,
11-11-2014, “Super Chimney: A Unique Way to Resolve Global Warming, Generate Clean Energy and Irrigate Deserts,”
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Super+Chimney%3A+A+Unique+Way+to+Resolve+Global+Warming,+Generate+Clean...-a0188772071)
former engineer Michael Pesochinsky has developed
the idea of utilizing super-chimney technology as a unique way to avert a global warming catastrophe at
the same time as lucratively generating clean energy and desert irrigation. There is no shortage of information on global warming
With the world's attention focusing more acutely on global warming and energy diversity,
scenarios where climate and ecological changes are depicted along with gloomy predictions for the future. Yet, there is hardly any information on how to deal with the problem. The only
even the most optimistic predictions agree that, for many years
to come, humankind will continue to use fossil fuels, which will continue to emit greenhouse gases that advance global warming. Moreover, we
are running out of time because at some point global warming will become irreversible. However, according to
Pesochinsky, "there is a feasible solution to the problem which, if implemented, will not only stop global
warming, but will also bring those involved substantial profits." The mysterious remedy is based on the utility of a structure called SuperChimney. "Upon proper explanation, many will be able to understand how this technology works," says Pesochinsky. "In fact, it's based on a relatively simple
scientific concept such that I suspect that some may wonder why nobody else previously suggested it." In this regard, the invention uses the natural property of hot air to rise
and suggests using extremely tall chimneys as facilitators of that upward air-movement. "Suppose we construct a super-chimney three miles tall,"
theorizes Pesochinsky, such a structure will yield the following positive results: -- produce as much energy as 15
super powerful nuclear stations; -- induce rain generation in surrounding areas and will produce millions
of tons of fresh water precipitation -- it will transform at least 300 square miles of desert into arable
land, will allow trap approximately 1,500,000 tons of CO2 per year in the newly created arable area.
viable solution being discussed now is to do away with fossil fuels. But
Super chimneys would end drought—produces water and precipitation
Pesochinsky 2013 (Michael, former engineer and inventor, “How the super-chimney will produce water,” 6-30-2013, Super
Chimney, http://www.superchimney.org/water.html)
Efficiency of the super-chimney will greatly depend on the climate at its location. Ideal
locations for super chimneys would be tropical
deserts, because they are warm all year. Another good reason for choosing a desert as a location is the inherent
ability of the super-chimney to induce water precipitation in the surrounding atmosphere. When warm air is
expelled from the super-chimney, it is cooled down by mixing with the surrounding air. Once cooled, the air becomes oversaturated
with water vapors, so water naturally precipitates, causing precipitation (clouds and rain) in the surrounding
area. High winds at high altitude will carry the newly formed clouds to long distances before pouring out as rain. This will allow covering large
areas with additional rain, which otherwise these areas will not receive. Given this fact, if we wish to use the
super-chimney to maximize the production of water for agriculture, we would seek to not only to use
the existing landscape, but also to amplify it with artificial features such as terraces and dikes. Given the
average wind speed and directions, we can estimate the area that will receive the precipitation during the year as well as amount of that precipitation depending on
the season. Depending on particular local conditions, we can vary the super-chimney's height to receive optimal water distribution. In addition, if there is an array of
super-chimneys, we can vary the amount of precipitation by turning different super-chimneys of different height on and off, as necessary. The resulting system will
provide controlled and sustainable water source in a desert. Depending on the local conditions, the rain will cover a radius of at least 16 kilometers, but probably a
whole lot more. Rain droplets come down at approximate speed of 18 km/h. Thus, each droplet will travel at least 15 minutes from the super-chimney exit to the
ground. Given that wind speed at and altitude of 5000 m is roughly 85 km/h, we will come up with 16 kilometers radius.
They promote agriculture and trap CO2
Pesochinsky 2013 (Michael, former engineer and inventor, “How the super-chimney will trap CO2 and promote agriculture,” 6-302013, Super Chimney, http://www.superchimney.org/co2.html)
the super-chimney will make at least 300 square miles in a desert land arable. Normally,
desert land is not a part of a CO2 exchange process because there are almost no plants in the desert.
Thus, ordinarily CO2 cannot be trapped. By the same token, a desert does not contribute any CO2 to atmosphere because there are no decaying plants or soil
to release CO2. Adding water into a desert will change that desert into carbon sink. The CO2 uptake capacity of arable land will be
As it has been explained,
determined by the type of vegetation grown on this land because some plants bind more CO2 than others. Trapped CO2 will be partially re-released back into atmosphere because people and
The impact of irrigation on agriculture will
greatly depend on local conditions and on the kinds of plants grown. However, existing irrigated desert
areas, such as those in Israel, demonstrate extremely high productivity. Moreover, tropical deserts can produce more than one crop per year. For
example, in Egypt, the land produces up to 3 crops a year. Therefore, the super-chimney will ensure sustainable and very profitable
agriculture in the surrounding areas. The super-chimney will be the most productive in areas where climate is hot all year around because that will guarantee
sustainable air draft. Economically, it makes sense to situate super-chimneys in tropical desert areas, because the
land there in present state is not used for agriculture, and is otherwise worthless. Building a super-chimney or network of
animals will consume the plants, but some amount of it will be retained for good forming soil on the ground.
the super-chimneys in such areas will provide the necessary rainfall to ensure prospering agriculture and will transform the desert land into oasis. The super-chimneys can be built in places like
the super-chimneys can be built in many places in the South and in the
West, such as Texas, Arizona, Nevada etc.
the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula and Australia. In USA,
A2: Super Chimneys
Solvency answers
Their own author says a super chimney is impossible – 5 kilometers high and no
technology
Pesochinsky, 08 (Michael, engineer. “How to build the Super Chimney?”
http://www.superchimney.org/build.html//DJRedneck
the idea of building the Super Chimney has never received a welcoming reception despite of all the
promised benefits. The biggest point of criticism has always been that it is impossible or impractical to build such
structures at the present stage of technology. Different types of natural support systems were
considered, such as building it inside a mountain, canyon, etc. None of those designs was easy or inexpensive to build.¶ However, that
Unfortunately,
concern is about to be dismissed with the new design, which suggests erecting a flexible chimney made out of fabric. The chimney will be equipped with "mushroom cap" at the upper end and
attached to the anchor base on the ground at the lower end. Given the velocity of air traveling through the chimney we can expect that pressure inside will be big enough to inflate the flexible
pipe, to hold it in upright position, and to be sturdy enough to resist side winds.(See figure1)¶ A chimney which is 5000 m tall and 10m in diameter , and which is equipped with a mushroom
cap, can expect upward force of 1473 kN and can support 147,3 tons of its own weight. That gives roughly 30kg/m of the construction. (See Attachment A: Calculations).
We need 25,000 to solve warming
Pesochinsky, 08 (Michael, engineer. Summary. http://www.superchimney.org/default.html//DJRedneck
The invention suggests employing a super tall chimney to facilitate heat exchange in the atmosphere as
a remedy to Global Warming. Calculations show that if we can construct a chimney 5 kilometers (3 mile) tall and 20 meters in diameter out of flexible fabric material.
Such Chimney will be sturdy enough to stand upright and withstand side winds. We will need as many 25,000 of such chimneys to stop
global warming.
CCS
1NC
The 50 United States should include Carbon Capture and Storage into their energy
portfolios
State incentives solve CCS development
CCES, 5-28. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, “Financial Incentives for CCS”, 5-28-15.
http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps/ccs-financial-incentives//DJRedneck
Many states have laws and regulations providing financial incentives for the deployment of carbon
capture and storage (CCS) technology. CCS uses a combination of technologies to capture carbon dioxide
(CO2), transport it to a suitable storage location, and store (or sequester) the CO2 (typically by injecting
it into deep underground rock formations). Sequestered CO2 does not enter the atmosphere and, thus,
does not contribute to climate change (more information about CCS technology can be found here).
Enhanced oil recovery with carbon dioxide (CO2-EOR), in which captured anthropogenic CO2 is
purchased from carbon capture projects and injected to oil wells to produce additional oil, helps cover
costs of CCS investment. State-level policies can support the deployment of CCS. The cost of CCS varies
widely by the type of facility where it is installed. CCS has been deployed in several industrial processes
and is expanding to other sectors, including coal and natural gas-fired electricity generation. Incentives
are important to overcome the risks and uncertainty of first-mover CCS projects. The policies shown on
this map include: Financial Support, such as grants or loans for CCS projects or CO2 pipelines Tax
Incentives, such as tax credits, exemptions, or abatements for income, property, or sales taxes Off-Take
Agreements, which provide a guaranteed buyer for the electricity or output from a CCS project Utility
Cost Recovery Mechanisms, which offer timely reimbursement of costs incurred during construction and
operation or favorable rates of return for regulated utilities' investments. Some states have explicitly
included CCS as an eligible technology for cost recovery mechanisms Eligibility of CCS in Electricity
Generation Portfolio Standards or Voluntary Goals. When CCS is included in these standards, utilities
can earn saleable compliance credits by generating electricity using CCS. Additionally, inclusion of CCS
in portfolio standards or goals could facilitate utility cost recovery approval of CCS power projects,
which is critical for financing. State Assumption of Long-Term Liability for Sequestered CO2, which
reduces the long-term costs of CO2 injection for private project developers. The policies highlighted
here contain only financial incentives for CCS or CO2-EOR. Other policies, such as performance
standards for CO2 emissions or incentives for projects that lower CO2 emissions, but do not capture and
sequester CO2, could indirectly promote CCS or CO2-EOR deployment, but they are not included in this
map. In addition, state-level policies may address regulatory barriers to CCS or CO2-EOR deployment
(state regulations related to liability and monitoring of sequestered CO2, establishing permitting
protocol for related projects) that may provide economic value, but they are also not included in this
map.
Carbon capture and storage is the only tech that solves warming and transitions to
more sustainable energy
Magill, ’14. [Bobby, a Senior Science Writer at Climate Central, focusing on energy and climate
change. “Carbon Capture and Storage faces hurdles of will, not technology”. Climate Central, 4-23-14.
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/carbon-capture-faces-hurdles-of-will-not-technology17321//DJRedneck]
If human-caused climate change is to be slowed enough to avert the worst consequences of global
warming, carbon dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants and other pollutants will have to be
captured and injected deep into the ground to prevent them from being released into the atmosphere.
Such is the scenario the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change paints in its recent report outlining ways climate change can be mitigated
as civilizations across the globe continue to burn fossil fuels with little sign they’ll stop anytime soon. But that scenario hinges on a huge
question: How realistic and feasible is it for carbon sequestration, also known as carbon capture and storage, or CCS, to be implemented
globally in the coming decades and on such a wide scale that it helps to vastly reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Scientists say that if
the
will and incentives exist, CCS can be one of the biggest of many solutions to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions in the atmosphere. And there's no mistaking how critical the IPCC thinks carbon capture is to saving mankind from the
ravages of climate change. In order to keep the global average temperature from warming no more than 2°C by
the year 2100 relative to the global temperature prior to 1900, the concentration of carbon dioxide must be capped at
450 parts per million. (Global CO2 concentrations hit 400 ppm for the first time last year.) To do that, global greenhouse gas emissions in 2050
must be between 40 and 70 percent lower than they were in in 2010. That would be a huge feat, and would require vast “decarbonization,”
according to the IPCC. That means a major rollout of renewable energy technology that emits no carbon at all, a global emphasis on energy
efficiency and, among other things, capturing emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and burying them deep underground or storing them
elsewhere — forever. In fact, all fossil fuel power generation without CCS would need to be totally phased out.
The total amount of carbon that would need to be diverted from being emitted into the atmosphere is stunning: Current global atmospheric
CO2 emissions total roughly 30 gigatons, or 30 billion metric tons per year. That's about the equivalent of 1 billion barrels of compressed CO2
per day, or more than 10 times the amount of oil transported around the globe on a daily basis, Ruben Juanes, associate professor in energy
studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an expert in CCS, said. "Of course, we don't expect to take our current emissions to
zero, or that one single technology will do it, but this does give a sense for the scale of the problem," he said.
A viable technology to
deal with such a large amount of CO2 should need to divert 1 gigaton of CO2 per year from the
atmosphere, and there's only one technology capable of doing that — CCS, he said. "If one wants to dismiss CCS
because of the scale at which it should be implemented, the same (or worse) can be said about all other mitigtation technologies," Juanes said.
"It is a curse of the scale of the problem." The IPCC
report says the technology needed to implement carbon capture
and storage operations exists today, but outside of fossil fuel extraction and refining, CCS has never
been applied on a wide scale, or at any major electric power plant burning fossil fuels. Carbon sequestration
works basically like this: CO2 is captured from a coal-fired power plant, compressed, and then injected into an air-tight rock formation
thousands of feet underground, isolated from the atmosphere forever. Five of these kinds of carbon storage operations exist today worldwide.
On a small scale, CCS technology is part of proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standards for emissions at new coal-fired power
plants in the U.S., but those standards are not yet finalized and are expected to be challenged in court. A coal-fired power plant in Mississippi is
expected to begin operations later this year with the ability to capture and store its carbon emissions. Though the technology exists, there are
still many questions about whether carbon dioxide can be stored underground permanently and safely. Carbon sequestration projects are
suspected to have caused earthquakes in some places, andthere is concern about whether the underground storage sites could leak CO2 into
the atmosphere, or be somehow breached with catastrophic consequences. Scientists have divergent views on how and when carbon
sequestration projects can do the job the IPCC suggests may be necessary for them to do in order to keep climate change in check. “Capture
technology is probably sufficient to provide CO2 for an increased number of large-scale pilot projects, but is many years from providing gigatons
of CO2, and thus having a significant impact on mitigating emissions,” Peter Kelemen, earth and environmental sciences professor at Columbia
University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., said. Carbon
sequestration technology is primed for
expansion, and pilot projects have shown that the technology works, but funding and permitting for the
projects move slowly, he said. “In the absence of carbon tax or caps — except for EPA limits on power plant emissions
that, practically speaking, have no impact except to discourage construction of any new coal-fired power plants in the U.S. — there is no
way that large-scale CCS will be commercially viable in the U.S.; at the same time, there is little or no political
momentum behind expansion of government funding for expanded CCS,” Kelemen said. Carbon capture should be seen as a
"bridge" technology, Juanes said. "A bridge between our current energy systems and some future, yet-tobe-determined, low-carbon energy system," he said. "So the question becomes, how long is that bridge?" The conclusion
Juanes came to by analyzing models of geologic formations in the U.S. is that CCS could contribute effectively to mitigating CO2 emissions in the
U.S. for the next 100 years or more. Worldwide,
there are ample underground rock formations in which carbon
dioxide emissions could be stored, Juanes said. The lack of progress on developing CCS projects so far
has more to do with politics than technology, said integrated modeling and energy engineer Jim Dooley of Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory. Dooley is CCS research lead for the Joint Global Change Research Institute and the Global Energy Technology Strategy
Project, and a lead author of the IPCC’s special report on carbon capture and storage. “I think the answer is less about the underlying
technology than it is a statement about mankind’s inability to decide if we’re really going to address climate change in a significant fashion,”
Dooley said. “CCS
can really only be used at a large scale for one thing, and that’s really to reduce
atmospheric concentrations of CO2. If we don’t have agreement on that, there’s really no economic driver to deploy it. “I can’t
give you a technological answer of when I expect to see large-scale commercial deployment,” he said. “Fundamentally, what we need is the
policy driver that would make it economic. No matter how advanced capture technologies are going to be, it’s always going to be cheaper to
vent the CO2 into the atmosphere rather than compressing it.” Very
few advancements need to be made in CCS
technology to prove it is safe, so long as carbon sequestration projects are built someplace offshore or in very remote onshore
locations where they pose a much lower safety and terrorism risk than near populated areas, Kelemen said.
Solves warming
CCS is necessary for mitigation
IPCC, ’05. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Heleen de Coninck, Manuela Loos, and Leo Meyer. “IPCC
special report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage”, 2005, Cambridge University Press,
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf//DJRedneck
Other mitigation options include energy efficiency improvements, the switch to less carbon-intensive
fuels, nuclear power, renewable energy sources, enhancement of biological sinks, and reduction of nonCO2 greenhouse gas emissions. CCS has the potential to reduce overall mitigation costs and increase
flexibility in achieving greenhouse gas emission reductions. The widespread application of CCS would
depend on technical maturity, costs, overall potential, diffusion and transfer of the technology to
developing countries and their capacity to apply the technology, regulatory aspects, environmental
issues and public perception (Sections 1.1.1, 1.3, 1.7, 8.3.3.4). 2. The Third Assessment Report (TAR)
indicates that no single technology option will provide all of the emission reductions needed to achieve
stabilization, but a portfolio of mitigation measures will be needed. Most scenarios project that the
supply of primary energy will continue to be dominated by fossil fuels until at least the middle of the
century. As discussed in the TAR, most models also indicate that known technological options1 could
achieve a broad range of atmospheric stabilization levels but that implementation would require socioeconomic and institutional changes. In this context, the availability of CCS in the portfolio of options
could facilitate achieving stabilization goals (Sections 1.1, 1.3).
CCS is economically feasible and solves a transition to renewables
Oladotun ’10. [The author is currently completing his LL.M in Petroleum Law and Policy at the Centre
for Energy, Petroleum, Mineral Law and Policy (CEPMLP), University of Dundee. He holds an LL.B (Hons)
Degree and was called to the Nigerian Bar in 2006. Prior to his study at the CEPMLP, he worked as an
Attorney in the law firm of G. Elias & Co. (Barristers & Solicitors) in Lagos specialising in corporate and
commercial law, litigation and dispute resolution. “CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION: CARBON CAPTURE
AND STORAGE (CCS) TO THE RESCUE; WHAT KEY ELEMENTS?” CAR Volume 14, 2009-2010.
http://www.dundee.ac.uk/cepmlp/gateway/index.php?news=31261//DJRedneck]
CCS has been an attractive CO2 emissions-mitigation option for a number of reasons. Underpinning the
potential of CCS is the heavy dependence on fossil fuels and the reality that this will continue for the
foreseeable future. According to OECD/IEA projections, fossil fuels would account for 80% of the world’s
primary energy mix in 2030 stressing that oil remains the dominant fuel, though the demand for coal
rises29 more than any other fuel in absolute clear terms.30 Therefore, CCS seems attractive to the
largest economies of the world because it would help contribute to security of energy supply since it
would allow for the continued use of fossil fuels especially the abundant and inexpensive coal, to remain
part of the energy mix in a carbon constrained world without releasing vast amount of CO2 to the
atmosphere as we move towards alternative energy systems and a low carbon economy. 31 The support
for CCS has also increased because of the challenges faced with the other strategies to lower CO2
emissions in a bid to mitigate climate change. The implementation and global commercialisation of
renewable energy sources has been slow and quite technologically challenging. For instance, replacing
fossil fuels with renewable energy sources like wind and solar is difficult because wind and solar are
intermittent power sources, which means that we can hardly get solar power when it is cloudy or at
night neither can we get wind power when it is not windy.32 The proliferation of nuclear power has also
been a major challenge affecting the growth of the nuclear energy. In adding to reducing the CO2
emissions, it is argued that the CCS technology is compatible with the current energy infrastructures and
has the potential to create high skilled employment and generate wealth.34 Current operations of
commercial scale CCS storage project are at Sleipner West, off the coast of Norway (operated since 1996
and is the oldest CCS project in the world), Weyburn, Saskatchewan, Canada and the Salah storage
project in Algeria.35
Solves coal
CCS solves coal emissions but more funding is needed
WNA, ’15. [World Nuclear Association, “’Clean Coal’ Technologies, Carbon Capture and
Sequestration”, February 2015. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Energy-and-Environment/-CleanCoal--Technologies//DJRedneck]
Coal is an extremely important fuel and will remain so. Some 23% of primary energy needs are met by
coal and 39% of electricity is generated from coal. About 70% of world steel production depends on coal
feedstock. Coal is the world's most abundant and widely distributed fossil fuel source. The International
Energy Agency (IEA) expects a 43% increase in its use from 2000 to 2020. However, burning coal
produces almost 14 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide each year which is released to the atmosphere,
most of this being from power generation. Development of new 'clean coal' technologies is addressing
this problem so that the world's enormous resources of coal can be utilised for future generations
without contributing to global warming. Much of the challenge is in commercialising the technology so
that coal use remains economically competitive despite the cost of achieving low, and eventually 'nearzero', emissions. As many coal-fired power stations approach retirement, their replacement gives much
scope for 'cleaner' electricity. Alongside nuclear power and harnessing renewable energy sources, one
hope for this is via 'clean coal' technologies, such as carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). However in
its 2014 Energy Technology Perspectives the IEA notes that “CCS is advancing slowly, due to high costs
and lack of political and financial commitment. Few major developments were seen in 2013, and policies
necessary to facilitate the transition from demonstration to deployment are still largely missing.” For its
low-carbon 2DS scenario, “the rate of capture and storage must increase by two orders of magnitude”
by 2025. Managing wastes from coal Burning coal, such as for power generation, gives rise to a variety
of wastes which must be controlled or at least accounted for. So-called 'clean coal' technologies are a
variety of evolving responses to late 20th century environmental concerns, including that of global
warming due to carbon dioxide releases to the atmosphere. However, many of the elements have in fact
been applied for many years, and they will be only briefly mentioned here
Incentives solve
State support for CCS solves
NEORI, ’12. National Enhanced Oil Recovery Initiative, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Great
Plains Insitute. “Carbon Dioxide enhanced oil recovery: a critical domestic energy, economic, and
environmental opportunity”, February 2012. http://www.neori.org/NEORI_Report.pdf//DJRedneck
Some states’ support for deployment of specific CO2 capture projects exceeds that of the federal
government in terms of dollar value over the life of a project. Indeed, commercial capture projects now
under construction or nearing construction are located in states that have significant incentive policies
in place to complement available federal grants, tax credits and other support. As with the new federal
tax credit recommended in this report, state anthropogenic CO2 -EOR incentives for commercial CO2
capture and pipeline projects have the potential be revenue positive at a time when most states face
profound fiscal challenges. These incentive policies can stimulate production and economic activity that
would not otherwise occur by making available new CO2 supplies to produce additional oil from already
developed fields that would otherwise not be produced using conventional technologies. While
implementation of a more robust federal tax credit is critical to reach much greater EOR deployment
levels, a number of states with EOR potential still lack adequate incentives to complement federal policy
and encourage commercial project development. They now have the opportunity to build on the
experience of states that have pioneered incentives and to spur CO2 -EOR expansion by adopting or
modifying those states’ existing policies to meet their specific needs. Toward that end, the Initiative has
identified and recommends the following state policies for consideration and adoption by other states,
based on their likely effectiveness in helping critical projects get across the commercial finish line:
CCS incentives must remain flexible
IEA, ’12. The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November
1974. Its primary mandate was – and is – two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its member
countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide authoritative
research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member
countries and beyond. “A policy strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage”, January 2012.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/policy_strategy_for_ccs.pdf//DJRedneck
Incentive policies for deployment of CCS initially aim to overcome technical and commercial barriers and
support technology learning. If CCS technology progresses as intended, the policy focus will gradually
move to support mass deployment through incentives to reduce emissions – where it is cost‐effective to
do so. Timing of this change in policy focus is difficult to predict, because it will depend on how CCS and
alternative technologies mature. However, a stable policy framework with clearly defined break points
or “gateways” can offer flexibility to government and some certainty to investors. Effective support for
CCS calls for a combination of policies, where each policy addresses a separate dimension of market
failure.
Incentives are needed to jumpstart CCS
IEA, ’12. The International Energy Agency (IEA), an autonomous agency, was established in November
1974. Its primary mandate was – and is – two-fold: to promote energy security amongst its member
countries through collective response to physical disruptions in oil supply, and provide authoritative
research and analysis on ways to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy for its 28 member
countries and beyond. “A policy strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage”, January 2012.
https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/policy_strategy_for_ccs.pdf//DJRedneck
The early stages of CCS will require support for both capital deployment and the operation of capture
units, networks and storage. Faced with a combination of technology risk, immature regulatory and
policy frameworks and low or absent market revenues, capital providers will be reluctant to commit
substantial sums. Investment support will be necessary, in the form of grants and/or provision of debt or
equity capital, as will operating support for CCS (i.e. incentive mechanisms to provide additional revenue
for each unit of output where a CCS unit is operational). Plants fitted with CCS will have higher operating
costs, but often no additional revenue. Without further policy support for operations, the asset will not
be used. 2 Over time, risks surrounding the technology will diminish and the regulatory and policy
framework will become better established and understood. As returns over the lifetime of the asset are
substantiated, investors will be more willing to commit funds without capital support. If expectations
are realised, capital support can decline and make way for a greater emphasis on operating support.
Solves modeling
China and US solve CCS tech and modeling, but a push is needed
Cooke, ’14. [Kieran, a former foreign correspondent for both the BBC and the Financial Times, and
continues to contribute to the BBC and a wide range of international newspapers and radio networks.
He has been based in Indonesia, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, Greece and Ireland, and has also served as
a press officer at the United Nations in New York. “China and US boost search for CCS solution”, Climate
News Network, 7-18-14. http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/china-and-us-boost-search-for-ccssolution//DJRedneck]
Capturing carbon emissions from polluting industries has long been touted as a key way of helping to
address climate change, but a new China-US agreement looks like giving much-needed stimulus to
development of the technology. LONDON, 18 July 2014 − For years, the energy companies have been telling us not to worry. Yes,
mounting carbon emissions threaten to heat up the world – but technology, particularly carbon capture
and storage (CCS), will come to the rescue. The trouble is that there’s been plenty of talk about CCS and
little action, with few projects being implemented on a large scale. That could be about to change as
China and the US, who have been leading the way on CCS research in recent years, this month signed a
raft of agreements on tackling climate change − with half of them focusing on CCS. The idea behind CCS is to
capture at source the carbon emissions from big polluters, such as power utilities and cement plants,
and either pipe the CO2 down into deep storage cavities below the Earth’s surface or to recycle the
emissions to be used in the production of biofuels. Despite various geopolitical rivalries and disputes over trade, China and
the US have shown increasing willingness to co-operate when it comes to climate change issues. Worsening impacts In February this year, the
two countries issued a joint statement that highlighted the urgent need for cutbacks in fossil fuel use “in light of the overwhelming scientific
consensus on climate change and its worsening impacts”.
The agreements signed in Beijing this month establish
collaborative research programmes between China’s state energy firms and US universities on a wide
range of CCS-related technologies, including CO2 storage techniques and the combining of captured emissions with algae to
produce energy. The implementation of CCS projects around the world has been plagued by various technical problems, high costs, arguments
between energy companies and governments about who pays for research and development, and by regulatory uncertainties in many
countries. The Global CCS Institute, an independent, not-for-profit organisation based in Australia, promotes the use of CCS technology. It says
that, at present, the 21 large-scale CCS projects either in construction or in operation around the world are capable of capturing in total up to
40 million tonnes of CO2 annually – the equivalent of taking eight million cars off the road each year. While
the use of CCS is
expanding, it’s still not being utilized on anything like the scale needed to result in cutbacks of global
greenhouse gas emissions. Most CCS projects are in the US, China and Canada, with Europe lagging very
much behind. Big push needed Brad Page, the head of the Global CCS Institute, says that if we are to meet the generallyagreed target of limiting warming to 2˚C over 1990 levels by mid-century, there has to be a big push into
CCS technology. “For this low-carbon technology to reach a scale needed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, more countries need to
match progress in places like the US, Canada and China, which are bringing CCS projects online at a robust pace,” he says. Page adds that CCS
must be supported by clear government policies − particularly in Europe, where more flexible funding and policy arrangements are urgently
needed. Earlier this month, the International Energy Agency (IEA) called for the implementation of more CCS projects. The IEA said such
projects are particularly important at a time when the use of coal – the most polluting of fuels − is increasing rapidly worldwide. – Climate News
Network
AT leaks
99% of carbon remains stored from CCS
IPCC, ’05. Bert Metz, Ogunlade Davidson, Heleen de Coninck, Manuela Loos, and Leo Meyer. “IPCC
special report on Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage”, 2005, Cambridge University Press,
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srccs/srccs_wholereport.pdf//DJRedneck
25. Observations from engineered and natural analogues as well as models suggest that the fraction
retained in appropriately selected and managed geological reservoirs is very likely to exceed 99% over
100 years and is likely to exceed 99% over 1,000 years. For well-selected, designed and managed
geological storage sites, the vast majority of the CO2 will gradually be immobilized by various trapping
mechanisms and, in that case, could be retained for up to millions of years. Because of these
mechanisms, storage could become more secure over longer timeframes (Sections 1.6.3, 5.2.2, 5.7.3.4,
Table 5.5). 26. Release of CO2 from ocean storage would be gradual over hundreds of years. Ocean
tracer data and model calculations indicate that, in the case of ocean storage, depending on the depth
of injection and the location, the fraction retained is 65–100% after 100 years and 30–85% after 500
years (a lower percentage for injection at a depth of 1,000 m, a higher percentage at 3,000 m) (Sections
1.6.3, 6.3.3, 6.3.4, Table 6.2)
A2: CCS CP
CCS doesn’t solve
CCS fails – too long timeframe and renewables are cheaper
Leber, ’15. [Rebecca, a staff writer for New Republic. “Clean coal is a pipe dream. There’s only one
way to stop global warming.” New Republic, 2-10-15.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121023/carbon-capture-and-storage-technology-wont-stopclimate-change//DJRedneck
But even if CCS science develops, it likely won’t reach the kind of scale—billions of tons of stored
carbon—that's necessary to fight climate change. The technology faces two major obstacles: Economic
cost and political indifference. It is extraordinarily expensive to capture and store carbon. It not only
requires power plants to install equipment for capturing and transporting the carbon, but also
necessitates huge water reserves. Coal companies have no incentive to invest in the technology on their
own, when it’s inexpensive to let carbon escape into the air. That’s why there are only a handful of large
projects around the world. The Times says CarbFix's method costs $17 per ton of carbon dioxide, which
is "about twice the cost of transporting and injecting the gas alone." Of course, regulation and the right
policies can compel companies to do this, too. For example, an aggressive tax on carbon—essentially
fining companies for polluting—would help to make CCS more appealing. The Obama administration’s
proposed regulations on power plants also require future plants to invest in CCS technology to capture
between 30 and 50 percent of their carbon emissions. But investing in renewables and energy efficiency
makes more sense than mandating an unproven technology that doesn't solve long-term warming.
According to a report Tuesday from the National Research Council and National Academy of Sciences,
"most carbon dioxide removal strategies have limited technical capacity, and absent some unforeseen
technological innovation, large-scale deployment would cost as much or more than replacing fossil fuels
with low carbon-emission energy sources." When it comes to mitigating climate change, the report said,
"There is no substitute for dramatic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions."
CCS faces high costs and raises electricity prices
Nelder, ’13. [Chris was a software engineer and technical writer for 17 years, working for
powerhouses like Microsoft. During that time he also founded and published an online magazine called
Better World in the mid '90s, as part of his lifelong interest in sustainability. “Why carbon capture and
storage will never pay off”, 3-6-13, ZDNet. http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-carbon-capture-andstorage-will-never-pay-off//DJRedneck]
For many years, we've been told that CCS systems and processes will allow us to reduce carbon
emissions and stop global warming while continuing to use fossil fuels. CCS has been a key assumption
of the "450 Scenario" in the International Energy Agency's annual energy outlook reports, in which the
world can meet its energy needs while keeping atmospheric carbon concentration below 450 parts per
million (ppm). If you read the news, you might even think CCS systems are well on their way to
becoming a commercial reality. But the fact is, they aren't. And current trends suggest they never will
be. The main reason is the cost. Finding good data on the cost of CCS is difficult, because it simply
doesn't exist. No commercial-sized power plants equipped with the technology have been built yet. All
of the cost data we have are estimates based on engineering designs, which are notorious for being
much lower than reality. Two things are clear: Since 2004, the cost of building a new power plant
equipped with CCS has been escalating rapidly along with the costs of all construction commodities (like
oil and steel). And those costs are now rising above the cost associated with power generation from
renewables. HIGH COSTS CCS is really a catch-all term for a variety of technologies and processes. The
first part, carbon capture, usually imagines that devices will be integrated into the exhaust end of coalor natural gas-fired power generation plants, removing some of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. The
second part, storage (aka sequestration), imagines that the captured CO2 will be compressed into a
liquid, then either buried permanently underground or sold for use in industrial processes. For example,
CO2 is used to make soft drinks fizzy, and to loosen up oil from old reservoirs as part of "enhanced oil
recovery" (EOR) operations. Various kinds of CCS have been imagined for capturing CO2 out of ambient
air, as a way to deal with widely dispersed emissions from things like vehicles, but those ideas really
belong in the category of "geo-engineering" and would be far more expensive and difficult than
capturing concentrated CO2 straight out of a power plant. CCS has also been eyed for emissions from
cement factories, blast furnaces for steel production, fertilizer factories, and other industrial facilities,
but the main focus is on power plants. If we can't make CCS work for power plants, we probably can't
make it work anywhere, so I am focusing on that here. Cost estimates for CCS vary widely, by whether
the capturing technology is to be added to an existing plant as a retrofit, or built into a new plant; by the
type of power plant (such as a "supercritical" or "ultra supercritical" coal plant, or an "integrated gas
combined cycle" plant); by the type of fuel (usually coal or natural gas); by when the carbon is captured
(post-combustion, pre-combustion, or "oxy-fuel," in which coal is burned in pure oxygen rather than air
to produce purer CO2 emissions); by the type of CO2 transport (pipeline or another method); and by the
type of storage (porous underground saltwater formations, EOR projects, depleted oil and gas
reservoirs, unmineable coal seams, and so on). Given all the variations, one 2011 study from the Global
CCS Institute, a group whose membership "covers more than 80 percent of the world's CO2 emissions
from energy and industrial sources," offered a cost range of $38 to $107 per tonne of captured CO2,
which isn't terribly helpful. Many CCS cost studies cite data from 2009 and earlier, so they don't reflect
current costs (after the commodity boom). The most recent cost data I was able to find was in a June
2012 paper from the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), "Federal Efforts to Reduce the Cost of
Capturing and Storing Carbon Dioxide," which analyzed five engineering studies on building a new coalfired power plant equipped with CCS. In addition to ruling out retrofits, which are generally deemed to
be cost-prohibitive, the CBO report focused exclusively on the post-combustion approach, "because that
technology is the only one that is compatible with the most commonly used designs for electricitygenerating plants." The summary results are shown in the following table. The right way to compare
different power generation technologies is on a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) basis, which gives the
average cost of producing electricity over the lifetime of a plant, including the costs of construction,
financing and operation. Adjusted for inflation, the CBO chart shows that the LCOE of a new coal plant
with CCS is about $90 to $150 per megawatt-hour (MWh) in 2013 dollars, or $0.09 to $0.15 per kilowatthour (kWh). The main reason CCS is expensive is that it takes a lot of equipment to capture, purify (if the
CO2 is to be sold), liquefy, transport and bury CO2. According to the CBO analysis, the average capital
cost of a CCS-equipped coal plant would be 76 percent higher than a conventional plant and the LCOE
for a CCS-equipped plant would average 76 percent more than for a conventional plant. All that
equipment consumes a lot of energy. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that the energy
requirements of post-combustion carbon capture reduce the plant's efficiency by 20 to 30 percent. A
2007 study from MIT found that a CCS retrofit of an existing subcritical pulverized coal plant would
reduce the plant's electrical output by more than 40 percent. Reduced energy output means higher
prices for the energy that's not consumed by the plant itself.
CCS will never be adopted – cheaper alternatives
Nelder, ’13. [Chris was a software engineer and technical writer for 17 years, working for
powerhouses like Microsoft. During that time he also founded and published an online magazine called
Better World in the mid '90s, as part of his lifelong interest in sustainability. “Why carbon capture and
storage will never pay off”, 3-6-13, ZDNet. http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-carbon-capture-andstorage-will-never-pay-off//DJRedneck]
CHEAPER ALTERNATIVES How does the $0.09 to $0.15/kWh cost of a CCS coal plant compare with
competing alternatives, such as conventional natural gas-fired power plants not equipped with CCS or
renewables? According to the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 from the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA), the cost of power from a conventional natural gas power plant without CCS is
$0.0686/kWh, making it the cheapest clean(-ish) way to generate power. This is one reason why natural
gas has been pushing coal off the grid, as I detailed last year in "Regulation and the decline of coal
power ." Now consider the cost of utility-scale solar power, which has been dropping like a stone in
recent years. That data can be hard to come by, since the price of power embedded in a power purchase
agreement (PPA) isn't usually disclosed, but we do have numbers from a few new PPAs. In the California
Public Utility Commission's Renewable Portfolio Standards report for the first and second quarters of
2012, the weighted average price of approved contracts for 140 MW of distributed solar PV was less
than $90/MWh ($0.09/kWh). On Jan. 8, 2013, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
reported, "Currently, the cost of solar energy through a power purchase agreement from a large solar
power plant over 200 MW [megawatts] is about $0.095/kWh." On Feb. 2, 2013, Greentech Media
reported that the PPA price for the 50 MW Macho Springs solar project in New Mexico was
$0.0579/kWh; after including the state production tax credit, the price was $0.0849/kWh. Recent plants
under contract in Michigan are coming in at about $0.091/kWh, according to Energy Fact Check.
Greentech Media solar analyst Scott Burger gave me a few final data points. The 23 MW SunEdison
project in Hemet, Calif., came in at around $0.08/kWh, he estimated. Generally, his organization is
seeing PPAs in the $0.07 to $0.09/kWh range. At that price, a new coal plant is already a non-starter.
Michigan's Public Service Commission estimates that a new coal plant would cost ratepayers around
$0.133/kWh, and Bloomberg says the average price of power from a new coal plant is $0.128/kWh.
Meanwhile, the cost of CCS keeps going up, and the cost of solar keeps going down.
Delays and cancellations kill solvency - Wind and solar also outcompete
Nelder, ’13. [Chris was a software engineer and technical writer for 17 years, working for
powerhouses like Microsoft. During that time he also founded and published an online magazine called
Better World in the mid '90s, as part of his lifelong interest in sustainability. “Why carbon capture and
storage will never pay off”, 3-6-13, ZDNet. http://www.zdnet.com/article/why-carbon-capture-andstorage-will-never-pay-off//DJRedneck]
CANCELLATIONS AND DELAYS A handful of demonstration-scale CCS projects are in progress, with most
of them hoping to become operational over the next several years. Aside from the Shell project, a
December 2012 update by Politifact lists six more that are well under way, including the roughly $200
million Illinois Industrial Carbon Capture and Storage project in Decatur, Ill.; the $2.88 billion Kemper
Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant in Kemper County, Miss.; the $2.5 billion Texas Clean
Energy Project in Penwell, Texas; the $2.8 billion Hydrogen Energy California Project in Bakersfield,
Calif.; and the $1.65 billion FutureGen 2.0 project in Meredosia, Ill., a revival of the original (and muchballyhooed) FutureGen plant that was scotched in 2011 over escalating costs. But the recent
cancellation of several large projects doesn't bode well. The $278 million Swan Hills Synfuels project and
the $1.4 billion TransAlta project, both in Canada, have been scrapped due to cost and cheap natural
gas. American Electric Power's $668 million Mountaineer Station in New Haven, West Va., which used
gasified coal, was recently cancelled due to the "current uncertainty of U.S. climate policy and the
continued weak economy." FutureGen 2.0 is reportedly months behind schedule. SourceWatch
listsmany other delayed or cancelled projects around the world. These may sound like big-ticket items,
and they are. One wonders if that money wouldn't be better spent on building already-cheaper
renewables, and it would. But the coal companies and tar sands operators are fighting for their lives,
and spending a few billion here or there on a saving grace like CCS probably seems like a relatively small
price to pay. I am doubtful that CCS will ever pay. The cost curves for renewable power suggest that
solar and wind will undercut the cost of CCS on new or retrofitted gas and coal plants before 2020, when
CCS proponents hope that it will become economically viable. One new analysis by UBS found that the
LCOE from unsubsidized new rooftop solar photovoltaic in the United States is $0.24/kWh, making it
cheaper than grid power in 11 European countries. And U.S. utility-scale solar power priced at less than
$0.09/kWh (and falling) is very tough to beat. Unless the world decides to price carbon aggressively
before those renewable cost curves fall much lower, CCS looks like a dead man walking.
The amount of CCS infrastructure needed for solvency is impossible
Wilson ’13 [Robert, a researcher at the University of Strathclyde modelling marine ecosystems.
Studying for a PhD in Mathematical Ecology at the University of Strathclyde. “Can we solve climate
change through Carbon Capture and Storage?” The Energy Collective, 5-28-13.
http://www.theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/229711/can-we-solve-climate-change-capturingcarbon//DJRedneck
In Sunday’s Mail climate scientist Myles Allen tells us that our current climate policies are not going to
solve the problem. All those wind farms, carbon taxes and cap and trade policies just won’t get the job
done. On this I am happy to agree with him, existing policies are an incoherent contradictory mess.
However his solution does not seem to offer much more hope than our existing and failing policies. In
essence he is arguing that we just capture and store most of the carbon dioxide we emit. He begins his
argument: There’s been a lot of talk about ‘unburnable carbon’ – the carbon we shouldn’t burn if we are
to keep global temperature rises below 2C. A catchy phrase, but can we really tell the citizens of India of
2080 not to touch their coal? And to those on the other side who think that solar and nuclear will
someday become so cheap we will choose to leave that coal alone, I’m afraid you have some basic
physics working against you. This claim about the “basic physics working against you” is probably just as
apt for Allen’s solution, but I’ll get to that later. Instead of relying on building nuclear power plants, solar
panels, or electric cars, Allen proposes that we largely just bury carbon: Fortunately, there is a solution.
It is perfectly possible to burn fossil carbon and not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere: you
have to filter it out of the flue gases, pressurise it, and re-inject, or ‘sequester’, it back underground. If
you’re using fossil carbon to drive a car or fly a plane, you just have to pay someone else to bury CO2 for
you. The only thing that actually matters for climate policy is whether, before we release too much, we
get to the point of burying carbon at the same rate that we dig it up. How much can we bury? Perhaps
as much as 50% by the 2040s, and this may not cost that much: Even on relatively pessimistic estimates,
if the sequestered fraction rises at one per cent per 10 billion tonnes, it would be getting on for 20 years
before the cost of carbon capture would exceed the £100 per year and rising that the average UK
household already pays in assorted windfarm subsidies. The impact on petrol prices is even less
dramatic: 50 per cent carbon capture, which we might reach by the 2040s, might add 10p to the cost of
a litre of petrol. That’s well under what we already pay in fuel taxes which, we are told, are supposed to
help stop climate change. 50% sounds quite good, and will get us most of the way to solving the climate
problem. But, what would capturing 50% of carbon emissions involve? In many respects it’s just the
reverse of the oil industry, but instead of pumping the stuff out of the ground and burning it, we take it
from the air, liquefy it and then pump it underground. This oil industry comparison has been made
brilliantly by Vaclav Smil and provides a serious reality check on any proposal to capture a significant
amount of CO2 emissions: Let us assume that we commit initially to sequestering just 20 percent of all
CO2 emitted from fossil fuel combustion in 2010, or about a third of all releases from large stationary
sources. After compressing the gas to a density similar to that of crude oil (800 kilograms per cubic
meter) it would occupy about 8 billion cubic meters—meanwhile, global crude oil extraction in 2010
amounted to about 4 billion tonnes or (with average density of 850 kilograms per cubic meter) roughly
4.7 billion cubic meters. This means that in order to sequester just a fifth of current CO2 emissions we
would have to create an entirely new worldwide absorption-gathering-compression-transportationstorage industry whose annual throughput would have to be about 70 percent larger than the annual
volume now handled by the global crude oil industry whose immense infrastructure of wells, pipelines,
compressor stations and storages took generations to build. Let’s rephrase this calculation. To capture
half of global CO2 emissions would involve shoving around, and pumping underground, volumes of
liquefied CO2 that are more than four times greater than that of the global oil industry. Allen proposes
that we can get this in place in about thirty years. This scaling up is truly mind boggling, just think about
the number of pipes we would need to build. Imagine also if we doubled CO2 emissions by the 2040s (a
not unrealistic proposition if we made CCS the cornerstone of climate policy). How a CCS industry this
big can be put in place by the 2090s, let alone the 2040s is pretty doubtful. And this ignores the
incredible legal issues around where to put these CO2 dumps (and I suspect they will be called dumps).
The difficulty getting communities to host underground radioactive waste depositories (or dumps) does
not exactly indicate that communities will be leaping over each other to accept CO2 dumps that may
start leaking and killing people (at least that’s how predictable scaremongering campaigns will phrase it.)
So no, the laws of physics and the numbers seem to be against Allen’s solution. This of course is not to
say carbon capture and storage does not have a role to play (think about the difficulties of making
billions of tonnes of steel without coal.) However, it’s clear the solution to climate change must
principally involve an energy transition away from fossil fuels, reduced deforestation and a more
rational use of energy.
CSS increases warming, released carbon back into the atmosphere, and locks in fossil
fuels
Biello, ’14. [David, an associate editor at Scientific American, where he covers energy and the
environment. He also hosts 60-Second Earth, a Scientific American podcast covering environmental
news. “Can Carbon Capture Technology Be Part of the Climate Solution”, 9-8-14, Yale Environment 360,
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/can_carbon_capture_technology_be_part_of_the_climate_solution/2800
//DJRedneck
The biggest challenge is one of scale, as the potential demand from aging oil fields for CO2 produced
from coal-fired power plants is enormous. Thompson estimates that enhanced oil recovery could
ultimately consume 33 billion metric tons of CO2 in total, or the equivalent of all the CO2 pollution from
all U.S. power plants for several decades. Thompson and other analysts view such large-scale enhanced
oil recovery as an important phase in the deployment of CCS technology while replacements for fossil
fuels are developed. "In the short term, in order to develop the technology, we probably will enable
more use of hydrocarbons, which makes environmentally conscious people uncomfortable,” says Chris
Jones, a chemical engineer working on CO2 capture at the Georgia Institute of Technology. “But it’s a
necessary thing we have to do to get the technology out there and learn how to make it more efficient."
At the same time, CO2 capture and storage is not as simple as locking away carbon deep underground.
As Jones notes, the process will perpetuate fossil fuel use and may prove a wash as far as keeping global
warming pollution out of the atmosphere. Then there are the risks of human-caused earthquakes as a
result of pumping high-pressure liquids underground or accidental releases as all that CO2 finds its way
back to the atmosphere. "Any solution that doesn't take carbon from the air is, in principle, not
sustainable," says physicist Peter Eisenberger of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia
University, who is working on methods to pull CO2 out of the sky rather than smokestacks. He notes
that merely avoiding CO2 pollution is not enough and will create political powerhouses—heirs to the
energy companies of today—that will entrench such unsustainable technologies "Why spend so much
time and energy and ingenuity coming up with solutions that are not really solutions?” he adds.
Yemen Instability
GCC CP
1NC
Counterplan: The USFG should partner with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in
establishing a center for public awareness in Yemen about AQAP, and a joint-fund to
stabilize the economy.
The counterplan solves long term stability and AQAP recruitment
Johnsen 11 Gregory; "Resetting US Policy Toward Yemen;" PhD in Near East Studies from Princeton University, Fulbright
Fellow in Yemen, former member of USAID's conflict assessment team for Yemen; www.cfr.org/yemen/resetting-us-policytoward-yemen/p26026; September 2011
Together with their Saudi and Yemeni colleagues, U.S.
policymakers should establish a joint center for public
awareness. The center would seek to deprive AQAP of one of its main assets: unchallenged public
assertions. At the moment, no entity in Yemen is speaking up in Arabic against AQAP, which means that
the organization is able to shape its public message uncontested. The joint center would work to make
al-Qaeda as synonymous with terrorism in Yemen as it is in the United States. The United States
should also partner with the GCC to establish a special fund to help stabilize Yemen's economy and
provide humanitarian assistance in the aftermath of Saleh's departure. The initial capital for the fund, which is
contingent on Saleh's leaving office, should come from the more than $2 billion GCC countries pledged at the
2006 London conference but have yet to deliver due to concerns about corruption. The fund should be chaired
by the director of the Arab Fund, with all donor countries and institutions represented on the board. This would do much to
eliminate donor competition and coordination failures, which have often hampered efforts in the
past. Once the economy is stabilized, the focus of the fund should shift to longer-term investment
designed to create jobs and technical training. None of these recommendations will miraculously turn Yemen into a model
democracy overnight, but together they will arrest the country's rapid downward descent and deny AQAP
and other militants the opportunity to exploit the turmoil in ways that threaten U.S. security and
interests in the region. However, as Yemen slips further into chaos, the opportunity to implement these measures is fast diminishing.
2NC Solvency
US wants to help Yemen and current humanitarian aid is not enough in Yemen
Aronson 4/8/15, (Geoffrey Aronson writes about Middle East affairs. He consults with a variety of public and private
institutions dealing with regional political, security, and development issues, US to GCC: We still have your back, Aljazeera,
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2015/04/gcc-150408050439060.html)
US Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken's current whistle-stop tour of Middle East capitals has one and
only one objective - to reaffirm continuing US security support for pro-US Arab Sunni regimes. This was the message
Blinken carried from Washington - first to Beirut and then to Riyadh on his first visit to the region since his appointment, and only days after the landmark agreement between Tehran and the P5+1. Blinken's visit was conveniently
scheduled to coincide with the diplomatic triumph in Lausanne orchestrated by Blinken's boss, Secretary of State John Kerry. His mission - he will also visit Abu Dhabi on Wednesday, Muscat on Thursday, and Tunis on Friday - is meant
as a counterpoint to Lausanne. And it is no less complicated. The newly minted US diplomat has to reassure sceptical Arab allies in the Gulf and Tunisia that the US "has their back" in a new, tumultuous Middle East framed by
Washington's evolving rapprochement with Iran and the unprecedented weakness of Arab states imperilled by the Arab Spring. The hotel rooms in Lausanne were hardly empty before Blinken headed east to sell the deal around the
Gulf. New rules of the game are being formulated - with the nuclear agreement with Tehran at the centre. But the news from Switzerland is not the only sign of the countless challenges ahead as the region seeks a new kind of
strategic equilibrium. The Saudi decision to intervene militarily with an unprecedented air campaign against a motley of militarily effective coalition that has forced the government of PresidentAbd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi into exile,
places Saudi Arabia at the centre of international attention. And it offers clear evidence that Saudi Arabia under its new leadership will not easily defer to antagonists or even erstwhile friends in the era now dawning.
King
Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud, like Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, has indeed learned from the failure a decade ago to pre-empt Washington's campaign against Saddam Hussein.
The Saudi war, still limited to an air campaign and naval shelling and blockade of Yemeni ports, in drastic
fashion has forced Washington to face the issue of Saudi national security, and challenged the Obama
administration to demonstrate its support for the unprecedented Saudi decision to intervene. In so doing,
it sets a defining marker for an uncertain future. It is not Blinken's job to make news. The secretary of state and the president, who has taken to the airwaves to defend his deal
with the mullahs, are doing more than their fair share already. But the Saudi campaign in Yemen presents a challenge and an opportunity that Washington can ill afford to ignore.Washington could hardly fail to back the Saudi effort at
a time when doubts of Washington's commitment to Arab interests among leaders in the Gulf and Egypt have never been greater. Second-guessing the Saudi strategy will surely come, but for the moment at least, the path of least
resistance is to stand and applaud. Blinken took advantage of his presence in the Saudi capital to reaffirm the value of the Washington-Riyadh security axis. Notwithstanding dire warnings from the Red Cross of a "catastrophic"
situation in Aden, where loyalist forces backed by shelling by Saudi-led warships are battling advancing rebels, Blinken announced that the United States is speeding up arms supplies to replenish arsenals reduced by the fighting, and
expanding intelligence sharing with the Saudi-led alliance. "Saudi Arabia is sending a strong message to the Houthis and their allies that they cannot overrun Yemen by force," he told reporters in Riyadh. Blinken was reaffirming
existing policies rather than announcing new ones. But it is clear that in the aftermath of Lausanne, and more broadly, in the wake of Washington's decade-long campaign against Sunni power in Iraq, a campaign which Saudi leaders
are not convinced has ended, Washington sees value in cheerleading Riyadh's effort. It is prepared to replenish stockpiles depleted by the war, to offer operational support
For years Washington's policy in
Yemen was defined by counterterror strikes against al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Only last
fall, Obama declared this campaign a grand success, along with a similar policy in Somalia. In recent days, however, this
effort has collapsed. AQAP cadre have taken advantage of the anarchy fomented in part by the Saudi-led
strikes to release imprisoned brothers, and to loot banks of millions. But as always, the most grievous cost is paid by innocents. The
spokeswoman for the International Committee of the Red Cross in Yemen, Marie Claire Feghali, said the
humanitarian situation across the country was "very difficult ... [with] naval, air and ground routes cut off". She described the
situation in Aden as "catastrophic to say the least". "The war in Aden is on every street, in every corner... Many
are unable to escape," she said.
(refueling) of the air campaign and intelligence, as well as to lend its diplomatic hand to UN inaction. There is a steep price to pay for such a strategy.
Yemen desperately needs humanitarian aid and the international community, US and
GCC support it
Lindborg 12, (6/5/12, Nancy Lindborg is the Assistant Administrator of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and
Humanitarian Assistance at the U.S. Agency for International Development, For Yemen’s Future, Global Humanitarian
Response is Vital, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy-lindborg/yemen-humanitarianaid_b_1568423.html)
Such costs have become perhaps the defining feature of the conflicts now raging from Tikrit to Sanaa. But in Cairo, where Washington has just resumed major
arms deliveries; Beirut, where Blinken trumpeted Washington's support for the Lebanese Armed Forces; as in Riyadh, a vibrant arms pipeline linking Washington
is at the heart of the new Middle East now being born. This weekend in Sana'a, I had dinner with a group of young men and women activists who are on the
forefront of Yemen's historic struggle for a better future. They turned out for change with great courage last year, and at dinner, with great eloquence they
outlined for me the many challenges facing Yemen
during this critical transition period: conflict in the north and
south, weak government institutions, cultural barriers to greater women's participation, an upended
economy, and one of the world's highest birthrates. And, as one man noted, it is difficult to engage the 70
percent of Yemeni people who live in rural areas in dialogue about the future when they are struggling just to
find the basics of life: food, health, water. His comment makes plain the rising, complex humanitarian
crisis facing Yemen. At a time of historic political transition, nearly half of Yemen's population is without enough to
eat, and nearly 1 million children under the age of 5 are malnourished, putting them at greater risk of
illness and disease. One in 10 Yemeni children do not live to the age of 5. One in 10. This is a staggering and often
untold part of the Yemen story: a story of chronic nationwide poverty that has deepened into crisis under the strain of continuing conflict and instability.
Unfortunately, in communities used to living on the edge, serious
malnutrition is often not even recognized in children until
they are so acutely ill that they need hospitalization. On Saturday I visited Al Sabeen Hospital, where I met Amina, a 2-year-old girl
who weighs a scant 11 pounds. She had enormous eyes and was silently perched on the side of the hospital bed, supported by her mother. The nurse caring for
her told me the government
of Yemen had just cut the hospital budget by 20 percent as it grapples with an
economic crisis, forcing them to lay off critical staff. While there, I announced an additional contribution of USAID humanitarian assistance, bringing the
U.S. contribution this year to nearly $80 million, which enables us to increase families' access to food, health, nutrition, and water sanitation programs. We have
provided previous support to the more than 550,000 displaced Yemenis, and we are rapidly expanding our assistance to reach those in need throughout the
country. This is a humanitarian crisis that requires collective global action, however. In the first delegation of this kind to visit the country, I came to Yemen
along with colleagues from the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), and the Arab League to
underscore the need for an urgent global response. Yemen has an historic opportunity to reshape itself, building on the vision and
courage of the young people who poured into Change Square last year, and on the excitement of millions of Yemenis who turned out for their first election in
February. At dinner, one young woman told me that she is not the same timid person she was before, that the revolution "pulled her out of her egg" and she is
transformed. Last year, she went to the square without telling her parents. When they saw her on the news, they reacted initially with horror. Now, they are
proud of her dedication to a new future for their country. But this
future depends on the ability of children to live past their
fifth year, and on families being able to support themselves and women surviving childbirth. As the United
States continues our support for a historic transition, we are also committed to providing urgent humanitarian assistance. And given the complexity and scope of
Only the
counterplan resolves threats to democracy and stability—military tactics have failed
BPC 11 Bipartisan Policy Center; "Bipartisan Policy Center Calls on US to Give Yemen Governance Assistance Not Just
the challenges at hand, it will take global partnership and resolve to help the people of Yemen realize the future they deserve.
Military Aid;" DC-based think tank focusing on bipartisan solutions to issues of national security, founded by former Senate
majority leaders; bipartisanpolicy.org/press-release/bipartisan-policy-center-calls-us-give-yemen-governance-assistancenot/; March 3, 2011
The Bipartisan Policy Center’s (BPC) National Security Project (NSP) this week released a new case study entitled, Fragility and Extremism in
Yemen, which argues that meaningful
security gains in Yemen need to be tied to genuine political and
economic reforms not just counter-terrorism efforts. To date, the U.S. has focused much of its efforts on
providing Yemen military assistance to combat the rise of al-Qaida on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP),
yet the country remains plagued by social and political divisions that could result in state failure. During
a timely panel discussion on March 2 at the BPC, leading policy experts discussed U.S. policy towards Yemen and the significance of recent
political unrest there. Both the forum and case study are part of the NSP’s Stabilizing Fragile States Initiative. NSP will release a final report this
spring. Former National Security Advisor and BPC Senior Fellow General (ret.) Jim Jones opened Tuesday’s discussion and stressed, “Yemen
becomes increasingly important to U.S. national security with every day that passes. The recent
developments in that country should galvanize our commitment to creating a U.S. policy that focuses
not simply on terrorism, but on the broader issues of democracy and stability for Yemen.” He warned,
“Yemen’s crisis could deepen the current vacuum of power in Yemen on which al-Qaida has thrived.”
Economic collapse is the biggest internal link to Yemen instability—only the CP solves
BBC 11 "Yemen revolt: Collpasing economy 'is major threat'" (author is correspondent in Sanaa who cannot be named for
safety reasons) www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-12976946; April 6, 2011
In the country that imports most of its food, importers are now struggling to get letters of credit, with
suppliers demanding upfront payments in full. According to the World Food Programme (WFP), the price of wheat flour has almost doubled in
the past month. And while food shortages are not an immediate danger, aid
agencies worry fewer people will be able to
afford basic food. "The situation is not good. If you take the global increase in food commodities, mix into it
weakening rial and add to that the overall political situation, we really don't have good news ," says Gian
Carlo Cirri, of the WFP. The increased spending by the government comes as revenues have dropped. Some
estimates indicate oil production has halved in the past two months, after oil companies pulled out their staff and tribesmen set ablaze an oil
pipeline connecting Marib's oil fields to the Red Sea last month. While Yemen's powerful neighbour Saudi Arabia has recently poured tens of
billions into Bahrain and Oman to help governments there, Riyad seems to be in no rush to come to Yemen's rescue. Many take this as a sign
the Saudis have given up on the Yemeni government. "In one of the Wikileaks, the Saudis complained that all
the money they send to Yemen ends up in Swiss accounts, so they don't see the benefit of
intervening, they are fed up with the current regime," says Sanaa-based analyst Abdel Ghani al-Iriyani. The cost of
Yemen's uprising and its collapsing economy, many believe, poses the greatest threat to the country's
stability. "The government is taking measures to keep rial stable," says economist Mohammad al-Maitami. "But if there is any
confrontation, rial will collapse and with it Yemen will collapse." "People will have no access to food
and water. People will fight," he adds.
The GCC wants a peaceful solution to the Yemen crisis
Ali Khan 3/10/15,(Ghazanfar Ali Khan is a Senior Journalist for the Arab News Middle East largest English Daily, GCC
agrees to hold Yemen talks in Riyadh, Arab News, http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/716286)
The Gulf Cooperation Council has agreed to hold peace talks between warring Yemeni factions in Riyadh,
the Saudi Royal Court announced in a statement on Monday. Saudi Arabia had asked the GCC, on behalf of Yemen President Abed Rabbo
Mansour Hadi, to host the talks in the capital. The GCC’s headquarters are in Riyadh. Hadi, who is now based in Aden since
escaping the Houthi-controlled capital last month, made the request after failing to reach a deal with the militants and their backers on the
choice of a venue inside Yemen. The UN-brokered reconciliation talks, which had been taking place in Sanaa, broke down after Hadi’s departure
to Aden. “The Saudi capital city for Yemen peace talks is a better choice,” said a GCC official, without giving details.
Officials of the Riyadh-based GCC general secretariat contacted by Arab News Monday were tightlipped. The Houthis and the General People’s
Congress have expressed reservations about holding the talks in Riyadh. The
GCC, particularly Saudi Arabia, have been
concerned over the deteriorating situation in Yemen. The Kingdom has been a major donor for that strife-torn nation. The
Kingdom has now put on hold SR2.6 billion that was earmarked as aid for the Yemeni military last year. Major Western donors have also backed
out from extending aid to Yemen, until peace negotiations resume. Saudi Arabia has accused the Houthis of carrying out a "coup." Meanwhile,
Al-Qaeda militants overran and held a city in southern Yemen for hours Monday before an army
counterattack pushed them out, officials said. The attacks come a day after Defense Minister Maj. Gen. Mahmoud Al-Subaihi
managed to escape Sanaa. Military officials said that Monday's fighting over the city of Mahfad in Yemen's Abyan province lasted eight hours.
Yemen wants the help of the GCC, believe it is the most effective way to solve
Sridharan 2015,- UK International Business Times, Vasudevan Sridharan( Journalist for geopolitics of
International Business Times UK) March 24, 2015 “Yemen seeks GCC intervention as Houthi rebels press
ahead after capturing Taiz” http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/yemen-seeks-gcc-intervention-houthi-rebelspress-ahead-after-capturing-taiz-1493227
The recognised Yemeni government has appealed for armed intervention by the Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) as Houthi rebels prepare to capture more cities in the southern region after seizing the strategically
important city of Taiz. The appeal came from Yemen's foreign minister Riad Yassin who is part of the effectively-exiled President Abdrabbuh
Mansour Hadi administration. Speaking to the al Hadath news outlet, the sister channel of al Arabiya, Yassin said the GCC was actively
considering Yemen's request. "Yemeni
authorities are working with the Gulf Cooperation Council and the [UN] Security
put an end to the Houthi expansion," he said, adding that the UN and the GCC should "intervene"
to uproot the Houthis. The GCC, a regional alliance, comprises Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE, Oman,
Kuwait and Bahrain and has a combined military strength of about 40,000 troops. The Houthi Shiite militias,
Council to
fighting against the Sunni-dominated Hadi government, have overrun many cities in Yemen and are pressing ahead. The latest situation has
raised fears that Yemen is gradually tipping over the edge just like Iraq, Syria and Libya due to the sectarian conflict. Shortly after Yassin's
appeal, Sunni-controlled Saudi Arabia pledged more help to the Yemeni government. Saudi
Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince
Saud al Faisal also criticised Iran's alleged support to the Houthi Shiite groups. "We are against Iran's intervention in Yemen ... it is
actually an act of aggression," he said. "We are keen on protecting Yemen's sovereignty, the legitimacy of Yemen
represented by President Hadi. We hope that the crisis can be resolved peacefully and we are ready to
respond to any demand that the president requests, whatever it is to support him." Both the Shiite-majority
Iran, Saudi Arabia's rival in the region, and the Houthis have dismissed the claims that they are working together. Meanwhile, the Houthis, who
are primarily from the northern parts of Yemen, are gearing up to capture more areas in the south. Mohammad Herbaj, a local official, said
anti-Houthi forces including the troops supporting Hadi are bracing for further aggression by the rebels. "Defending Aden and southern Yemen
is not just the responsibility of popular committee members, it involves all southerners and everyone is getting prepared," he said.
2NC AT Links to ptx
There is bipartisan ideological support for non-military foreign aid—its seen as a
national security priority
Lowey 11 Congresswoman Nita Lowey; "Against cutting foreign assistance;" Representative from New York since 1989,
member of House Appropriations Committee; www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/49079.html#ixzz1DTEmu7tz; 2/9/11
As the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs for 10 years, and chairwoman for the past four, I
know we can come together because we have. And our cooperation
must continue — even as major foreign assistance has
been put on the chopping block — because our national security demands it. Leaders of both parties,
including President George W. Bush, have affirmed that U.S. power is a three-legged stool of military might,
diplomatic skill and development. The foreign aid bill’s diplomatic and development objectives pay
dividends by helping avoid military deployments to protect U.S. interests, which are far more costly in
both life and treasure. Robust engagement is no less necessary to achieve strategic security imperatives in this belt-tightening atmosphere. The majority of
the foreign operations budget supports front-line states critical to defeating Al Qaeda, including Afghanistan,
Iraq, Pakistan and Israel. U.S. assistance helps resist insurgencies, shut down terrorist safe havens, confront
recruitment of the next generation of terrorists and train and equip militaries and police forces to
fight extremism. Foreign aid also helps to prevent the Mexican drug war from spilling across our border, arrest the proliferation of weapons-grade nuclear
material and support our armed forces with the complementary civilian efforts vital to their success. Investments in health, education,
humanitarian aid for refugees and disaster victims and micro-loans for entrepreneurs are critical to
fostering stability around the world — a key element of our overall anti-terror strategy. Our
connections with foreign governments and communities have also had a major effect on our strategic
relationships. Whether persuading an ally to support our efforts in Afghanistan or persuading a world leader to take a political risk to support our security
priorities, connections forged by U.S. diplomatic and development professionals are often the difference
between success and failure.
A2: GCC CP
Solvency Deficits
Oman just left the GCC, and they are key to peaceful relations. Also, the strategy the
GCC is taking will only lead to more violence and not solve the Yemen conflict.
Cafiero 15 (Giorgio Cafiero is a Washington, DC–based foreign affairs analyst and a regular contributor
to the Huffington Post. Educated at University of San Diego; “Oman breaks from GCC on Yemen
conflict”; May 7, 2015; Al-Monitor; http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/05/omanresponse-yemen-conflict.html# )
Saudi Arabia marshaled a seemingly impressive coalition for its air war on Yemen. In addition to its Sunni allies in
the Gulf, Riyadh roped in partners ranging from Sudan to Morocco, and even far-off Senegal. However, one ally of the kingdom is
sitting out the war: Oman. Indeed, Oman is the only Arab monarchy that declined to participate in the
Saudi-led Operation Decisive Storm in Yemen. By not deploying its military to strike Houthi targets in its southern
neighbor, Oman is further demonstrating that it is the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member most
independent from Riyadh’s sphere of geopolitical influence — and most committed to cooling regional sectarian tensions.
Since March 26, Saudi Arabia and its allies have been unsuccessfully attempting to defeat the Houthis and
restore Saudi-backed President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi to power in Sanaa. Yet, the Omani leadership views Riyadh’s
strategy in Yemen as misguided and dangerous for the entire region. Rather than dropping bombs, Muscat has opted
for pressuring the international community to pursue a diplomatic solution to the rapidly deteriorating conflict. Oman has also emphasized that
a negotiated settlement must come from the Yemeni people, not foreign governments. “Oman
is a nation of peace," said Omani
Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi. "We cannot work on peace efforts at the same time we would be part of a
military campaign.” This strategy of relative neutrality is consistent with Sultan Qaboos’ traditional foreign policy of maintaining
respectful relations with all relevant actors and offering Oman’s service as a third-party mediator. This same strategy brought American and
Iranian diplomats to talk in Muscat in 2012, which led to the historic framework deal that world powers and Iran reached in Lausanne last
month. Avoiding sides in sectarian conflicts Oman functions as a diplomatic bridge between Iran on the one hand and the Sunni Arab
monarchies of the Persian Gulf and their Western allies on the other. As the one GCC state that shares the Strait of Hormuz with Iran, Oman has
a vested interest in cooling the tensions between the Islamic Republic and the Persian Gulf’s Arab sheikhdoms. Muscat is also heavily invested
in finalizing a deal between the P5+1 and Tehran to decrease the risk of a military confrontation over Iran's nuclear enrichment program — a
conflict that would inevitably threaten Oman’s vital economic and security interests. From
Oman’s perspective, the escalation
of violence in Yemen could ignite a wider regional conflict that threatens both of these prerogatives.
GCC fails to solve Yemen instability- Houthis are stronger
AlJazeera ’15- 29 Apr 2015 AlJazeera “Yemen to request membership of Gulf Cooperation Council”
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/04/yemen-request-membership-gulf-cooperation-council150429150836488.html
Yemen's government is to request membership of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), the powerful
grouping of Sunni Arab Gulf monarchies, a spokesman for the country's president, has said. Rajeh Badi
told the Reuters news agency on Wednesday that the country would "present a plan in Saudi Arabia
next month that will prepare Yemen to be included in the GCC". The GCC comprises Saudi Arabia, the
United Arab Emirates (UAE), Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait and Qatar - countries that operate with close
political, economic and military ties. A coalition, which includes five out of six GCC countries, has been
bombing Houthi targets in Yemen for weeks, but has failed to reverse the group's dominance on
battlefronts across the country. Inside Story - Who are the Houthis? The Houthis, who belong to the
Zaydi sect of Shia Islam, continued their advance on the southern coastal city of Aden on Wednesday,
capturing parts of an upscale neighborhood. Sources told Al Jazeera that many residents fled after
dozens of homes and shops were shelled by Houthi tanks in the busy district of Khormaksar. At least 12
civilians were killed by Houthi tanks and sniper fire overnight, as the rebel group clashed with local
fighters. Several air strikes reportedly hit Houthi positions in Khormaksar, however the source said the
group's tanks, stationed in residential areas, remained intact. The source added that the Houthis were
trying to advance on the Al-Tawahi neighbourhood, in the west of the city, where the presidential
palace, security headquarters and TV stations are located. "The world, the coalition and the United
Nations need to step in urgently to save our neighbourhood, which has truly become a disaster area
after this indiscriminate shelling," Ali Mohammed Yahyam, a resident said. On Monday, the Houthis
stormed the Republican Hospital in Aden, firing heavily and forcing medical staff, including Red Cross
doctors, to flee while detaining some of the wounded receiving treatment there. Aden has seen fierce
fighting for weeks, as the Houthis and troops loyal to former President Ali Abdullah Saleh try to wrest
the city from local fighters and supporters of President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi who has fled to Saudi
Arabia. About 200km to the north, coalition aircraft dropped weapons for tribal fighters in the city of
Taiz, where they have been battling the Houthis with heavy artillery in city streets for days. Airstrikes
continued throughout the country on Wednesday, hitting targets in Aden, Hajja, Taiz, Ibb, al-Bayda and
the Houthis stronghold of Saada. Saudi-trained fighters Despite weeks of bombing, the Houthis have
retained their dominant position across much of Yemen, and no visible progress has been made towards
peace talks. Earlier this week, 300 tribal fighters were trained in Saudi Arabia before being deployed to
their home area in the Sirwah district of central Marib province to fight the Houthis, a Yemeni official
source told Reuters. The Houthis, who seized control of the capital Sanaa in September after demanding
a more inclusive government, have rattled Saudi Arabia and its allies, who fear what they see as
expanding Iranian influence in the region. Tehran denies supporting the Houthis. Since late March, at
least 1,080 people have been killed, according to the UN, with bodies often crushed under bombed
homes. According to the UN, 12 million people are "food insecure" or going hungry, a 13 percent
increase since the conflict started, as a blockade has choked off imports of food and medicines, while
combat has interrupted fuel supplies to the country's 25 million people.
GCC army is awful can’t solve taco
Iddon ’15 - 21 Apr 2015 News- hub “Egypt: The up-and-coming military muscle of the
Gulf Cooperation Council?” https://www.the-newshub.com/international/egypt-theup-and-coming-military-muscle-of-the-gcc
The GCC states have formidable security forces at best. Not competent standing armies with attritional
strength. The Saudi kingdom for instance could probably field approximately 75,000 soldiers, it claims to
have an equal amount in reserve so let's say, if need be, they could muster together around 150,000
men. Few of whom have any combat experience and would likely find it very hard to undertake
prolonged counter-insurgency operations in enemy territory. Egypt on the other hand has about
450,000 under arms and could probably field around a million reservists if the need arose. Egypt is also
presently engaged in a low intensity counter-terrorism military campaign against Islamists in its sparsely
populated Sinai region. It is clear from their behaviour that the GCC recognize their members military
shortcomings. They have tried to compensate in recent years by buying extraordinarily vast amounts of
technically advanced armaments, everything from advanced jets to helicopter gunships and armour. But
in and of themselves such armaments do not rectify other shortcomings pertaining to training,
organization and manpower. Today, as respective air forces of the GCC monarchies bomb the Shia
Houthi tribe in Yemen, it's clear the GCC needs a state with a standing army to make them a competent
force to be reckoned with. The Saudis had hoped that Pakistan would provide the necessary forces to
show their adversaries in Yemen that they are capable of fielding a force worthy of undertaking a
protected counter-insurgency campaign. The Pakistanis however did not agree to send their armed
forces to fight in Yemen as the Saudis seemingly expected them to. Now the GCC states may be counting
on President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi's Egypt to come and fulfill that role for them as it is doubtful they
consider their forces capable of doing much more than what they are presently doing, which is
launching jet fighter sorties against areas they think their guerrilla adversaries are. It is doubtful that this
will be enough to do anything more than hinder the Houthis progress. Unless Egypt comes to their aid
the GCC states can only, realistically, keep bombing or help, through supporting air strikes and perhaps
financial and military aid, the remnants of the Yemeni Army launch an offensive into that part of Yemen.
If this crisis prolongs we may even see something like another de-facto partition of war torn Yemen. Bar
any of those scenarios it is doubtful the GCC will deploy large numbers of their own ground forces in
order to combat the Houthis head on. Which again signals their need for another large Arab state to
fulfill that fundamentally important role for them. Sisi's background is in the army. He became president
in the months following the army coup against his Muslim Brotherhood predecessor. Most of the GCC
states fear the influence of the Brotherhood, especially the Saudis who have invested in Sisi's regime
and see him as a formidable bulwark against that organization. They may now be hoping that he also
fulfills their needs in Yemen too. Perhaps Cairo could be integrated more closely with the Gulf states,
both militarily and politically. The army is a very important institution in Egypt and is a very large and
well equipped force (which receives vast amounts of American aid annually) and may prove to be just
what the Saudis need in Yemen and what the GCC has never had but has, at times, wanted for at least
25 years now. * Oman's foreign policy, for example doesn't necessarily tow the GCC line on many issues.
It was neutral during the Iran Iraq War, has served as an effective diplomatic conduit between Tehran
and Washington since and isn't presently engaged against the Houthi's in Yemen. Qatar has also had a
very divergent foreign policy and was even reprimanded last year by other GCC states for its friendliness
towards the Muslim Brotherhood. Whereby military alliances are concerned Qatar is, interestingly,
establishing a military agreement with Turkey, something which will possibly see Turkish troops
Offense
GCC Bad. Disloyal, have their own agendas.
Ashford 15
Emma Ashford is a visiting research fellow at the Cato Institute with expertise in international
security, and the links between domestic politics and foreign policy, including democratization
and economic and political development.
This week, President Obama will play host to leaders from the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
states, first at the White House, and later at Camp David. The meetings are intended to soothe
Arab leaders worried about the ongoing U.S.-Iranian nuclear negotiations. But President Obama
must reject GCC demands for a formal or informal defense pact with the United States, which
would tie American security ever more closely to countries whose interests and values do not
align with our own. Though a successful nuclear deal with Iran should in theory reduce tensions
in the Middle East, the Gulf States are concerned about future Iranian growth. Nuclear-related
sanctions have indeed cost the country as much as $4 to $8 billion a month in lost oil revenues.
Regaining this income, in addition to other sanctions related benefits, will increase Iran’s power
and ability to act in the Middle East. As a result, GCC leaders are pushing the idea of a stronger
military alliance with the United States. And though it remains unclear what possible deals the
Obama administration is considering, the possible outcomes are wide-ranging, from minimal
increases in arms sales or intelligence sharing to a formal mutual defense treaty. Most likely is
the possibility that President Obama will offer a less formal, verbal commitment to safeguard the
security of the GCC states. Secretary of State John Kerry, speaking in Paris last week, noted that
“we are fleshing out a series of new commitments that will create, between the United States and
the GCC, a new security understanding, a new set of security initiatives that will take us beyond
anything that we have had before.” Yet whether formal or informal, a defense pact with the GCC
states would be a big mistake. For one thing, the interests of these states often don’t align with
those of the United States. In Syria, for example, GCC states continue to focus their efforts on
the overthrow of the Assad regime, not on ISIS. And in Yemen, the Saudi-led conflict has caused
massive humanitarian costs and allowed Al Qaeda to make gains, undercutting U.S.
counterterrorism goals. These are just two examples of an overall pattern: the United States has a
strong interest in stability in the Middle East, yet the Gulf States are themselves the frequent
cause of unrest in the region. The actions of states like Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates
(UAE) and Qatar since the Arab Spring, for example, have worsened conflicts in Syria, Yemen,
Libya and elsewhere. Nor do these states in any way reflect American values. All the GCC
countries are profoundly undemocratic and repressive. This includes countries like Bahrain,
whose Sunni-minority royal family has maintained its rule during the Arab Spring only thanks to
military action by Saudi National Guard troops. Saudi Arabia itself is deeply repressive, with
harsh punishments for dissidents and few rights for women or minorities. Though shared
democracy is itself a shaky rationale for mutual defense pacts, it is certainly inapplicable here.
As President Obama noted in a recent interview, domestic repression and lack of political reform
are actually among the most pernicious problems faced by the GCC countries. High youth
unemployment, domestic alienation, and radicalization make these states less stable. A defense
pact certainly wouldn’t obligate the United States to help these regimes against their own people,
but these obvious domestic weaknesses make regional unrest far more likely. Worse still, a
defense pact between the United States and the GCC countries could, counterintuitively, worsen
the regional security environment. Though Iran is certainly an unpleasant regional actor—it has
bolstered the regime of Bashar Assad in Syria and funds proxies throughout the region—
marginalizing that state is unlikely to yield anything but further conflict. The Obama
administration has had recent success in restoring minimal diplomacy with Iran, and success on a
nuclear deal could lead to engagement on other issues. Though there has been no coordinated
U.S.-Iranian military action in Iraq, Iranian militias and fighters have been useful in the fight
against ISIS there. Increased engagement with Iran will help to encourage liberalization, but
further marginalization of the country will only to embolden domestic hardliners. Crucially, it
also worth pointing out that the Gulf States tend to exaggerate the threat from Iran, and to view
all Shia groups in the region as Iranian backed. Whatever the merits of reinforcing our military
alliances with them, the decision should not be based on their exaggerated perceptions of the
danger posed by Iran, which, despite the rhetoric, has a largely defensive posture and lacks the
capacity for military power projection. Ultimately, the GCC states have previously proven to be
unreliable allies, pursuing their own goals even when they conflict with U.S. interests. Many of
their foreign policy actions are ill-thought out, from the funding of extremist rebels in Syria, to
the ongoing disastrous war in Yemen. A defense pact will only further embolden them to act
rashly and draw the United States into more Middle Eastern conflicts. This week, President
Obama must make the right choice and reject the GCC’s demands.
Links to PTX
The CP links to politics; McCain proves
Wong 1/19/15, (Kristina Wong is a Defense Reporter for The Hill, McCain Slams
Obama’s Success Story in Yemen, The Hill, http://thehill.com/author/kristina-wong)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) slammed President Obama's counterterrorism strategy in Yemen on
Monday, as Shiite rebels took over state media. "More problems in Pres Obama's anti-terror 'success
story,'" he tweeted Monday. "Houthi rebels seize #Yemen state media, battle soldiers." On
Monday, Shiite rebels known as the Houthis clashed in Sana'a, the Yemeni capital, with
government security forces, according to The Associated Press. "This is a step toward a coup and
it is targeting the state's legitimacy," Yemeni Information Minister Nadia Sakkaf told the AP.
The clashes are taking place days after the group abducted the president's chief of staff. The
rebels captured the capital in September, and have threatened Yemeni President Abed Rabbo
Mansour Hadi's grip since. The government's fall could risk the United States's ability to continue its
counterterrorism efforts against al Qaeda and the Arabian Peninsula, which is seen as al Qaeda's most
dangerous affiliate. Obama touted Yemen in September as an example of a counterterrorism success
story and a model for the U.S.-led war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. "This strategy of
taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we
have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years," the president said on Sept. 10.
However, since then, violence in the capital has worsened. Army Gen. Lloyd Austin, commander of
U.S. Central Command, warned in November at the Atlantic Council that the U.S. "is in danger
of losing a key partner in our counterterrorism fight." Public attention has refocused on Yemen,
after U.S. and Western authorities discovered that at least one of the terrorist attackers of Paris
newspaper Charlie Hebdo trained in Yemen with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The group
has claimed responsibility for orchestrating the attack, although some experts remain skeptical.
Violence in Yemen also complicates any potential return of the approximately 80 Yemeni
detainees remaining at the U.S.'s Guantánamo Bay detention facility in Cuba. About 50 of them
have been cleared for release, but if the Yemeni government is unable to monitor them, they
would have to go to a third country willing to accept them.